Matrix Games Forums

I was a bit critical when the DLC campaigns were first released, consider me a convert now. [:)] I have just completed the second campaign and can't wait for the "41" campaign to be released. These campaigns make you think a little harder than original game, I don't have a lot issues with the game play now, consider the battle results the fortunes of war, things never go as planned, however the thing I would like to see in the very near future is a revision of the suppression rules. In my opinion what needs to be change is the way suppression regained. As it stands you can suppress a unit with arty or air attacks, you then can attack it with a ground unit and the unit regains suppression the next ground attack, the formerly depressed unit often fairs better in second attack than it did in the first, totally unrealistic, suppression must stay for the whole turn or at least be determined by a dice roll. If a unit is suppressed and takes a bashing, it shouldn't magically become battle fit. I would be interested in a comment from the devs as why the rules play this way.
Ron

Second about suppression.

I have commented on suppression rules many times. Suppression lasting all turn would become OP. Unlike direct attacks, you can cause suppression from many hexes away with many many units, and without any risk whatsoever, so it is very easy to accumulate 100% suppression even on a Maus tank. If that remains for a whole turn, killing even the most powerful unit would become trivial. This is not realistic either, and this destroys game balance. It was ok in PG where only level bombers caused lasting suppression, and very limited amount of it too. PzC has different rules, and so this will not work here.

As for realism, this is a very evasive topic. PzC is a high level game with rather abstract rules. So we should judge game rules by their results, not by how similar they seem to be to reality. In real life artillery could not paralyze entire unit for a whole day, the results of bombardment were more temporary, you had to exploit them fast. This is represented in the game. You can argue that in reality all ground assaults would happen simultaneously, but then again, a single artillery unit could only bombard a limited sector, not a whole hex 20x20 km large, and so would only support one of the attacks. In game rules it is all averaged out, but the end result works the way it should.

In most cases you don't need to use all artillery units before the first attack. It is better to use bombardment-assault-bombardmet-assault approach. So each artillery unit will support a different assault, just like it would likely happen in real life. And you won't get situations when "the formerly depressed unit often fairs better in second attack than it did in the first".

I agree with Rudankort suppression lasting all turn would be OP.
Keep it the way it is.

Your game, but I have to strongly disagree. Abstraction fair enough, but how long is a turn, unimportant when it comes to combat and the features of combat, it's all a snap shot whether its measured in the hours, days or weeks per turn. The basic principles of combined arms can't ignored. To assault a defended line you use all indirect resources you can afford to use, then assault with armour and infantry. Yes the defender shouldn't be suppressed all day all the time, but if your arty and bombers have done a good job the suppressed units shouldn't bounce back if they haven't ever been in battle at all, constant attacks degrade their ammo stocks, an item that already evident in the game, a unit that is bombed assaulted and assaulted again may not stay suppressed all day, but grow battle weary as the day continued, so as it stands units lose ammo points and may strength points, but never become weary, don't lose morale over the course of the day, this makes for a little inconsistency in the abstractions. Hey at the end of the day it aint gunna stop me from buying the next campaign, but it would make for a better game in my opinion if there a serious review.

OK so the key change here is many units cause suppression now. Thanks that helps understand better.

It still feels a bit odd to see units recover suppression, but your explanation has helped me adjust my tactics so it isn't as frustrating. What I do now is ONLY suppress till I see the unit go red. Then I hit it expecting it will regain "vigour" after it's retreat. Then I have another unit prepared to suppress it again. Then I hit it again. So I cycle suppress and attack rather then "bombard, bombard, bombard, attack" as in the old PG.
Kind of a running assault..

Depending on the initiave of your attacking unit and the defending unit you don't always need to fully surpress the enemy unit.
Quoting from this post (again [:D])

For every initiative point more the first firers have then 20% of the suppressed/killed dont get to shoot back.

Example:
You have initiative 4 your opponent 3 so you shoot 1st and kill/surpress 10 strength points. As you have only 1 initiative higher only 20% dont get to shoot back so you still take 8 return shots.

Example 2:
You have initiative 10 and your opponent 5 so you shoot first and kill/surpress 10 strength points. As you have 5 higher initiative none of those points get to shoot back (5*20=100%)

So for every initiave point your attacking unit has more you need to surpress 20% less of the enemy unit so they cannot shoot back.
Of course when you do fully surpress a unit the changes of that unit retreating is much higher.