Anti-Tank units in the game

[Kerensky]

Rugged defense DOES invoke the attacker's close defense. This is one of the reasons the battle prediction can be very different from the end result.

World of difference between the 16 ground defense of a tank suddenly being switched to it's close defense of 2 or 3.

However infantry rugged defense is the only unit to invoke attack's close defense. A sherman getting an ambush or rugged defense on a Tiger II still fires at the Tiger II's ground defense rating, not its close defense rating.

[soldier]

I'd like to see the towed AT guns get a slight reduction in price. There pretty expensive for a weapon that was really just a stop gap measure to slow or stop enemy tanks when you had none of your own, and i think a reduction in price would reflect this better. They were a fairly limited style of weapon in the WW2 battlefield so i'm not sure that compensating them with some special ability is the answer.

[Molve]

Rugged defense DOES invoke the attacker's close defense. This is one of the reasons the battle prediction can be very different from the end result.

World of difference between the 16 ground defense of a tank suddenly being switched to it's close defense of 2 or 3.

However infantry rugged defense is the only unit to invoke attack's close defense. A sherman getting an ambush or rugged defense on a Tiger II still fires at the Tiger II's ground defense rating, not its close defense rating.

This is a change from the Panzer General series, right?

(At least my memory is that a unit that gets ambushed took a severe beating regardless of what it ran into. In Panzer Corps, a Tiger II tank couldn't care less if it gets ambushed by a Sherman. Or perhaps there are other variables at play here too? In other words: what changes in an ambush, apart from infantry getting to attack the ambushed unit's close defense?)

If this was switched in Panzer Corps, what is the reason?

And more to the point, why doesn't AT rugged defense attack the close defense? At least towed AT is a soft target and has much in common with infantry units.

[impar]

I'd like to see the towed AT guns get a slight reduction in price.

That wouldnt change the usefulness of the towed AT units.
Would just create a spam of AT. Cheap infantry makes more sense as spam, from an historical pov.

[El_Condoro]

In Panzer Corps, a Tiger II tank couldn't care less if it gets ambushed by a Sherman. Or perhaps there are other variables at play here too? In other words: what changes in an ambush, apart from infantry getting to attack the ambushed unit's close defense?)

Yes, ambushes are often a great way for strong units to do some effective recon - they can run into anything and often do more damage than the ambusher. It's also a way to get 2 attacks in a turn - if you attack and force a unit into the FoW you can run headlong into the unseen hex and attack the unit again with an ambush. In PG2, at least, an ambush was a terrible thing for you no matter what you did it with.

I, too, wonder what an ambush attack is in terms of combat odds.

[Molve]

Yes, ambushes are often a great way for strong units to do some effective recon - they can run into anything and often do more damage than the ambusher. It's also a way to get 2 attacks in a turn - if you attack and force a unit into the FoW you can run headlong into the unseen hex and attack the unit again with an ambush. In PG2, at least, an ambush was a terrible thing for you no matter what you did it with.

I suspect we are in agreement, but just to be clear: I consider this to be a bug. Being ambushed is supposed to be very bad, something you want to avoid at all costs. I far prefer the PG way ambushes were implemented.

In fact, and now I'm speaking to nobody in particular, I consider this yet another aspect of what I could call the "immaturity" of the Panzer Corps combat engine. In theory it's nice to a have a simple combat procedure, but I strongly suspect the Panzer General series cooked the results in many ways, to make them conform to expectations more.

Making sure ambushes are things to avoid, regardless of what equipment runs into which kind of defenders. Making sure all wildly successful defenses are labeled "rugged defense" (and giving the player information at his fingertips telling him the risks of this happening). That sort of thing. You might call it "cheating" - I call it "smoothing" the rough edges: fully acceptable and in fact desirable; leading to a better GAME experience.

[El_Condoro]

Perhaps semantics, but I don't call it a bug because it works as designed but I might, therefore, call it a design flaw.

[Molve]

Perhaps semantics, but I don't call it a bug because it works as designed but I might, therefore, call it a design flaw.

[TheGrayMouser]

If I am not mistaken, the reason why ambushes, rugged defence and entrenchments dont do any good in this game ( and thus indirectly reduce the value of defensive minded units: AT guns and Infantry) is because there are no attack boosts whatsover for the the defender . All you get is a ground defence bonus, maybe an initiative boost but that is it, plus if the unit attacking is a later tank with really high values in the ist place, the effects are very minor. The defender/ambusher is still usually the one that gets clobbered!
There should definately be a large boost to the soft/ hard attack value of a defender that is entrenched, gets a rugged defence and especially when it ambushes an enemy unit. There is no doudt in my mind tha the original PG ( as well as PG Forver) significantly penalized you when attacking entrenched troops or were ambushed, not only reducing the attackers own stats but increasing the defenders. You could actually lose an entire unit very easily if you wernt careful. , You needed to use artillery to reduce an enemy AT or Inf to at minmum 2-3 before even thinking about attacking.

Ambushes, entrenchement etc are not simply "shields " that stop bullets, but kill zones, enfilading fire, mines etc etc designed to channel the attacker and lead to massive casualties. I think this was reveresed in PC to maybe speed up gameplay so players wouldnt have to worry about difficult assaults etc, having their cre force mauled.

[Xerkis]

If I am not mistaken, the reason why ambushes, rugged defence and entrenchments dont do any good in this game ( and thus indirectly reduce the value of defensive minded units: AT guns and Infantry) is because there are no attack boosts whatsover for the the defender . All you get is a ground defence bonus, maybe an initiative boost but that is it, plus if the unit attacking is a later tank with really high values in the ist place, the effects are very minor. The defender/ambusher is still usually the one that gets clobbered!
There should definately be a large boost to the soft/ hard attack value of a defender that is entrenched, gets a rugged defence and especially when it ambushes an enemy unit. There is no doudt in my mind tha the original PG ( as well as PG Forver) significantly penalized you when attacking entrenched troops or were ambushed, not only reducing the attackers own stats but increasing the defenders. You could actually lose an entire unit very easily if you wernt careful. , You needed to use artillery to reduce an enemy AT or Inf to at minmum 2-3 before even thinking about attacking.

Ambushes, entrenchement etc are not simply "shields " that stop bullets, but kill zones, enfilading fire, mines etc etc designed to channel the attacker and lead to massive casualties. I think this was reveresed in PC to maybe speed up gameplay so players wouldnt have to worry about difficult assaults etc, having their cre force mauled.

I do believe you are correct. And also think I would prefer it to be the way you describe. Seems to make more sense that way and adds value to certain elements in the game.

I know when I was in infantry training (many years ago) when it came to “entrenchment” there were two main points.
1) A good defense (sandbags, barbwire, etc.)
2) field of fire – make sure you can mow down the advancing enemy with ease.

It’s also my opinion that both of those factors are missing in PzC.

[flakfernrohr]

[quote="Xerkis
1) A good defense (sandbags, barbwire, etc.)
2) field of fire – make sure you can mow down the advancing enemy with ease.

It’s also my opinion that both of those factors are missing in PzC.[/quote]

It is indeed satisfying watching a PAK 75mm or 88mm (especially the PAK 43) do damage to Armor and soft skinned vehicles.

I do agree in PzC there is much less value put on entrenched troops or weapons. How is the low visibility factored into an AT gun like a PAK in PzC anyway?

Seems like most everything I put on the field of battle is "naked and in the open".

[Some1]

Rugged defense DOES invoke the attacker's close defense. This is one of the reasons the battle prediction can be very different from the end result.

World of difference between the 16 ground defense of a tank suddenly being switched to it's close defense of 2 or 3.

However infantry rugged defense is the only unit to invoke attack's close defense. A sherman getting an ambush or rugged defense on a Tiger II still fires at the Tiger II's ground defense rating, not its close defense rating.

In PG (which is not PC) it was described as follows (cited from the manual):

Movement: Movement ends prematurely if a moving unit moves adjacent to or is ambushed by (moves into) a previously hidden unit. An ambush is treated as an attack with the defender receiving an automatic rugged defense.

Rugged defense: A rugged Defense can occur in two ways: (1) if a unit’s movement takes it into the hex of a hidden enemy an ambush occurs (for air and naval units this misfortune is called “out of the sun” and “surprise contact”), which is automatically treated as a rugged defense, and (2) if an entrenched unit is attacked in a non-ranged attack by an infantry unit other than a pioniere or engineer, there is a risk of a rugged defense based on the relative experience and entrenchment rates of the two units and the defender’s entrenchment level. If the entrenchment level is 0, there is no risk of a rugged defense.

Close Defense: Units use their close defense value in “close assaults.” When any unit attacks infantry which puts up a rugged defense, the attacking unit uses its close defense value. Units fighting infantry who are attacking into or defending a forest or city hex also use their close defense values. Since close defense values are usually less than ground defense values, this makes infantry more dangerous in non-clear terrain hexes.

Initiative: If an ambush or rugged defense occurs, the attacker’s initiative is 0.

How is it actually implemented in PC?

• Does an Ambush cause a Rugged Defense or is it handled differently?
  In case it is not an ambush, can only defending infantry cause a rugged defense?
  In which cases is the close defense intead of the ground or air defense being used?
  Do ships (surprise contact) and aircrafts (out of the sun) handle ambushes the same way as ground units ?

To my understanding a tank vs tank ambush might model an attack against the side or the back of the surprised tank, while a rugged defense might model infantry attacking open top vehicles with grenades or tanks with Hafthohlladungen (magnetic hollow-charge anti-tank grenades). So i agree that an ambush by a non-infantry unit should be modelled using initiative and not close defense.

But to blunder into the fog of war instead of correctly using unit spotting and recon units needs to be strongly penalized, which is not case with just using initiative modifiers.
We could use the approach that most of the tanks had less armor on the sides and back (often half of the front armor), which would than be exploited in case of an ambush.

=> I propose that a ground unit ambushed by a non-infantry ground unit uses a defense value which is halve its ground defense or equal to its close defense, whatever is greater (in addition to the already implemented initiative modifiers).

[Molve]

One important point:

Today you can get a devastating outcome as a normal result. That is too wild for this game, in my opinion. All results where the estimation said 2-7 but where you actually got 6-1 should be confined to rugged defense outcomes only. And rugged defense should be heavily dependent on experience and entrenchment (i.e. the player should be able to easily tell when and where he's running a risk of getting a rugged defense).

In other words, if the quick estimator says 2-7, and there is no risk of rugged defense, you should never get 6-1.

[Molve]

As for using your close defense when ambushed, I'm fine with that.

In fact, if we are to connect ambushes to close defense, I wish a unit always used its close defense when ambushed, since that would mean ambushes are always extremely dangerous, as they should be.

This isn't mainly a realism issue. This is more importantly a game fun issue.

But other solutions work too. I'm not primarily interested in using close defense. Any solution that results in ambushes being actually dangerous (regardless of whether you ambush infantry or armor) is okay with me.

[TheGrayMouser]

As for using your close defense when ambushed, I'm fine with that.

In fact, if we are to connect ambushes to close defense, I wish a unit always used its close defense when ambushed, since that would mean ambushes are always extremely dangerous, as they should be.

This isn't mainly a realism issue. This is more importantly a game fun issue.

But other solutions work too. I'm not primarily interested in using close defense. Any solution that results in ambushes being actually dangerous (regardless of whether you ambush infantry or armor) is okay with me.

The solution I think is to increase the hard and soft ATTACKS of the unit that gets the rugged defence/ambushes the attacking unit, in addition to the other underwhelming benefits

For Ambush it could be a simple thing like a 50% increase
(after all, ambushes very easily can swing against the ambusher)

For rugged defence ( or any entrenchemnt level) it might simply be a +1 for every level of entrenchment plus something as a bonus for the rugged defence.

(ahh, maybe too strong but what if rugged defence means all the defenders shots go thru PRIOR to the attacker shooting back automatically , now that i think of it , that is maybe how PG/PG Forever did it)