Matrix Games Forums

Unlimited Pz divisions?

In 1942, the German player have some tactics very destructive, using these “may be bugs” (I think really are not bugs, but unrealistic):

First: Break the russian front with crack Pz division, and send deeply in the russian rearguard a lot of “fool” Pz division (with only a “allied” infantry division or a single Pzjg battalion...). This weak Pz divison will conquer crossroads, sourround soviet units and shatter soviet HQ. They will be anihilated, but the soviet damage will be important. And when they are destroyed, next turn will be another weak Pz divisions. Can be composed by one single Pzjg, Stug batallion, a weak allied division... even a flak unit!

Second: Send deeply in four-five points strong Pz division. The russian player can´t rail transport forces to destroy all, even if they are without supplies.

I´ve sufered these two combined tactics against Josan, who employs as a master the german movility. In august-september, it was: a heavy Pzdivision... in Batumi!! (along the coast), destroyed. Another heavy Pz trying to reach the rearguard of Stalingrad from the nortwest, destroyed. Another heavy Pz division who reach the crossroad bewten Demiansk-Kalinin-Leningrad, shattered... A German disaster? No! At this moment, the Russian has employed all reserves and now the Pz divisions can rule the entire map: Two heavy Pzdiv conquer Grodzny; in south Stalingrad, two weak Pzdiv encircles a strong Tank army and cut the railroad of Caspian border, three heavy Pzdiv sourround Saratov, a Pzdiv attacks the rearguard of Stalingrad from south (stoped in Volga), two heavy Pzdiv and others weak Pzdiv, sourround Tula and Voronezh (a lot of soviet units forced to surrender)... I surrended too.
To be more realistic, in the game could be factories of trucks and halftracks. This way, the destroyed Pz division can´t be so easily reemplaced. But I supouse this will need a total change of program, so we propose:
1.- The Pz divisions (german) and Tank armies (soviet) need some time to be refited, if destroyed. How much time? 3 months?
2.- In the Pz divisions an Tank armies must be only tanks, motoriced infrantry, cavaliry, and artillery or flak. If there are non-motoriced infantry units, they can move only two hexes. (When combat, the HQ must send to them infantry units only if there is not another unit in HQ). The begin position of the campaings must be modified accordly.
3.- The “empty” terrain, in real world, is no so empty. There are small garrisons, civil defense... And can be a little early defensive reaction. To advance deeply in enemy terrain, a Pz division or Tank army must count, mininum... How much?
4.- Before initiate a long range movement, a Pz korps needs cumulate a lot of supply. This can be simulated this way: to move 5 hexes, a Pz division or Tank army must be placed in a hex with a level supply of "2" or more, and have minimun 50% of readiness. If not, it move 2 hexes as normal infantry unit.
What are your opinions?

Yes I had my thought on this to. A classic is to disguise weak infantry-corps by changing it to a panzer-corps to eep the opponent on his toes.

i have been almost wiped out by the mighty josan playing russian in the 1942 scenario.
i lost 100 division at lenningrad when a panzer unit cut off the supply ( arrghh).

The one thing I usually try to get opponents to agree to is that panzer korps must contain at least one or two panzer divisions. I am not sure if this would completely help in the situation you are raising. Limiting plots to 2 at SL1 could help, but is not fair if the divisions are still high readiness, so a combination of readiness and supply might make more sense?

Originally posted by RickyB:
The one thing I usually try to get opponents to agree to is that panzer korps must contain at least one or two panzer divisions. I am not sure if this would completely help in the situation you are raising. Limiting plots to 2 at SL1 could help, but is not fair if the divisions are still high readiness, so a combination of readiness and supply might make more sense?

Rick,

Wouldn't limiting the movement of all units at zero supply to 1 hex of plotted movement reduce the advantage of this tactic?

Svar

Originally posted by Svar:


Rick,

Wouldn't limiting the movement of all units at zero supply to 1 hex of plotted movement reduce the advantage of this tactic?

Svar

No, this tactic consist in launch, against very separate points, and repeteatly, pz divisions, without worry if they surrender. The soviet player simply can go to all points, after some turns.
The advance without supply is another "not realistic" tactic, discused in forum in "Caucasus estrategy in 1942"

i have been almost wiped out by the mighty josan playing russian in the 1942 scenario.
i lost 100 division at lenningrad when a panzer unit cut off the supply ( arrghh).

Actually Loveman I noticed the other day I attacked a PZ Korps of yours which contained one division with NO tanks and it was moving behind my defensive line. It was in the south.

I think Ric is right. All panzer korps must contain at least one panzer to get the five point movement.
Otherwise the game, and particualrly the 1942 scenario, is unplayable against repeated phantom panzer attacks.
To destroy five panzer raids and then get wiped out by the 7th and 8th is unrealistic.
Also, as I mentioned in my Caucasus post I believe the russian player in the 1942 scenario needs 54 tank divisions and not 29 as at the outset. With only 29 it is impossible to defend.

Originally posted by Matthew Buttsworth:
I think Ric is right. All panzer korps must contain at least one panzer to get the five point movement. Otherwise the game, and particualrly the 1942 scenario, is unplayable against repeated phantom panzer attacks.

That is something close to what I said too, but some folks think these exploits are not as important as fixing other obvious bugs. I'm tired of this too. Its back on the buglist.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:


That is something close to what I said too, but some folks think these exploits are not as important as fixing other obvious bugs. I'm tired of this too. Its back on the buglist.

the reality is that single batalion "korps" can't take controll of all passed hexes. It definitely should be fixed in somw way. For example korps/army with CV less than 20 can't plot. come on move them. but don't use them to surround enemy. I've seen such things in other wargames where small squads of skirmishers could surround and help to surrender even cavalry regiment(napoleonic wars of Talonsoft). it is definitely exploit of game engine.

Originally posted by Lorenzo from Spain:
Unlimited Pz divisions?
What are your opinions?

In my opinon:
As this is manipulating the game mechanics in that the Panzer Korps are not actually "panzer" at all, this is an exploit.

Originally posted by Mist:


the reality is that single batalion "korps" can't take controll of all passed hexes. It definitely should be fixed in somw way. For example korps/army with CV less than 20 can't plot. come on move them. but don't use them to surround enemy. I've seen such things in other wargames where small squads of skirmishers could surround and help to surrender even cavalry regiment(napoleonic wars of Talonsoft). it is definitely exploit of game engine.

I dont agree Mist. For example rumanian korps hardly ever have a high combat value(10-15) altough consisting of several divisions. The whole idea of blitzkrieg and surounding the enemy is to create a state of confusion that weights up the lack of troops around the encircled opponent. Thats essential and such a radical step as you propose would lead to very unhistorical situations.

Altough I think there should be some restrictions on what elements that should make up a korps. A single flak-unit shouldnt be allowed to make offensive manuveours.

Originally posted by Kuniworth:


<SNIP>

Altough I think there should be some restrictions on what elements that should make up a korps. A single flak-unit shouldnt be allowed to make offensive manuveours.

I agree.

Perhaps a korps/army should have at least one "combat" division (infantry, motor, tank etc., not flak, at or artillery), or at least two separate regiments/battalions. If it doesn't, it wouldn't be allowed to plot.

The reason for this is that having a korps organization for just one regiment is just too expensive to have been realistic, except of course during the time when the korps is being formed.

I thought that this issue had been fixed? We had decided that a panzer or tank army had to have at least one tank division in it, to prevent this from happening. Also if a player changes the unit from infantry to panzer/tank it was not supposed to be able to plot that turn. It was fixed in the test releases, did it somehow fall out of the public release?

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:


That is something close to what I said too, but some folks think these exploits are not as important as fixing other obvious bugs. I'm tired of this too. Its back on the buglist.

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

I dont agree Mist. For example rumanian korps hardly ever have a high combat value(10-15) altough consisting of several divisions. The whole idea of blitzkrieg and surounding the enemy is to create a state of confusion that weights up the lack of troops around the encircled opponent. Thats essential and such a radical step as you propose would lead to very unhistorical situations.
Altough I think there should be some restrictions on what elements that should make up a korps. A single flak-unit shouldnt be allowed to make offensive manuveours.

I also feel my proposition to be to forbiding. What you think about restriction being made only for panzer/tank korpses/armies having CV less than 35? For infantry korpses/armies it can be CV 5 as lower limit permiting plot.

Originally posted by Don Shafer:
I thought that this issue had been fixed? We had decided that a panzer or tank army had to have at least one tank division in it, to prevent this from happening.

Nope, you can still plot 5 squares with just an infantry division in a panzer korps.

Also if a player changes the unit from infantry to panzer/tank it was not supposed to be able to plot that turn.

This is now true.
.
.
.
.
.
.
There are two different issues being discussed simultaneously here.

• 1) armor corps with no armor in them plotting 5 moves.
• 2) armor corps with a single battalion able to convert squares to its control just like it was at full strength (3+ divisions) corps.

About 1: As I said somewhere yesterday, there should be a check by the program at the time of movement to see if a non-motorized unit is in the corps. The division types are 26,27,29,30,31. If found in an armor corps, the game should truncate the corps's plot to just 2 moves.

About 2: This is not as clear-cut. The real problem with this isn't how strong the corps is, but rather how much manpower is in the corps. A single battalion of anything can't stretch itself out to cover the width of a normal full-size corps's frontage while advancing, and I can't believe a corps sized Soviet unit can remain adjacent to a German "corps" unit for a turn and not realize the German unit holds only an artillery battalion. There could be a corps with a couple of weak Hun or Rum infantry divisions whose combat strength is very poor, but they have a decent complement of men for a corps unit.

I think a reasonable test could be a requirement of at least one division in a corps, but I have a rather draconian suggestion as to what the penalty should be: any corps without at least one division CANNOT PLOT MOVEMENT AND CANNOT ENTRENCH. (strategic movement via Alt-V is OK). This also points out the other exploit. How many of us, playing the Soviets, put a single battalion in a corps in the area around Leningrad to get a well entrenched corps by the time the Soviet front falls back to the Leningrad area and retreating or new forces enter the nearly empty corps, once all those artillery men from that single artillery battalion have built fortifications for a full size corps?

[ July 31, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

Ed, I partialy agree with your "draconian" suggestion. The only thing that I can not agree is disability to entrench for weak armies. There were workers and civilians building fortifications around Leningrad and Moscow and other cities. The same can be said about German fortifications because at least part of them was built not by soldiers.
So, there may be either slower rate of entrenchment or lesser cap of fortification value(eg max ent 4).

I have a suggestion about the fast rebuilding of destroyed Pzformations:
Would it be possible to create a new infantry-type, called Grenadiers or so and add them to the PzDivisions? You should be able to built this forces in a factory in the historic rate of SPWs. After that you would have a pool of mobile infantry out of which the PzDivs would have to fill up again after destuction. You could give them some other combat values than normal infantry, too.

Originally posted by Frank:
I have a suggestion about the fast rebuilding of destroyed Pzformations:
Would it be possible to create a new infantry-type, called Grenadiers or so and add them to the PzDivisions? You should be able to built this forces in a factory in the historic rate of SPWs. After that you would have a pool of mobile infantry out of which the PzDivs would have to fill up again after destuction. You could give them some other combat values than normal infantry, too.

Why go to all that trouble? Armor corps are almost always more active than infantry corps, so there will be a steady demand for this "mobile infantry replacements" you speak of. In other words, armored units won't build quickly because there will be a steady demand for "mobile infantry replacements" just as there is a steady demand for normal infantry replacements now. This also introduces a brand new "equipment" type, and that would require a huge amount of work for Arnaud.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Well, something seems strange to me, since when Rick and I were running our test in human vs. human, you couldn't create a panzer/tank army without having at least one armored division in it. Plus creating empty shells was verboten also. Also and this has been in the game since the beginning, any infantry units in a panzer/tank shell suffered more readiness losses do to the increased plot range.

• 1) armor corps with no armor in them plotting 5 moves.
• 2) armor corps with a single battalion able to convert squares to its control just like it was at full strength (3+ divisions) corps.

About 1: As I said somewhere yesterday, there should be a check by the program at the time of movement to see if a non-motorized unit is in the corps. The division types are 26,27,29,30,31. If found in an armor corps, the game should truncate the corps's plot to just 2 moves.

About 2: This is not as clear-cut. The real problem with this isn't how strong the corps is, but rather how much manpower is in the corps. A single battalion of anything can't stretch itself out to cover the width of a normal full-size corps's frontage while advancing, and I can't believe a corps sized Soviet unit can remain adjacent to a German "corps" unit for a turn and not realize the German unit holds only an artillery battalion. There could be a corps with a couple of weak Hun or Rum infantry divisions whose combat strength is very poor, but they have a decent complement of men for a corps unit.

I think a reasonable test could be a requirement of at least one division in a corps, but I have a rather draconian suggestion as to what the penalty should be: any corps without at least one division CANNOT PLOT MOVEMENT AND CANNOT ENTRENCH. (strategic movement via Alt-V is OK). This also points out the other exploit. How many of us, playing the Soviets, put a single battalion in a corps in the area around Leningrad to get a well entrenched corps by the time the Soviet front falls back to the Leningrad area and retreating or new forces enter the nearly empty corps, once all those artillery men from that single artillery battalion have built fortifications for a full size corps?

[ July 31, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

I need to go back and test this, since we had eliminated the possibility of these things happenning. I would go even farther in a draconian measure, go back to not being able to create empty shells at all. I've never tried that single battalion in Leningrad trick before, I may have to add that to my arsenal. Thanks for the tip, Ed.