If Air Defense unit cannot capture cities...

[Xerkis]

Not that I’ve done the research, but I would venture to guess that you could count on one hand the number of times an artillery unit in all of WWII, from any country, that captured a city on its own. So if it doesn’t happen, then why would we make the rules to allow it? )

We should take that premise in the same way as we accept that a player can choose is core army and depart from the historical accuracy. This is no different.

Excellent point.

Surely commanders in any war didn’t have the luxury of picking what units will make up their army. Like some sort of café, “I’ll have a Panzer with a side of recons please.”


But they could determine 1st Battalion will attack here and 2nd will be in reserve. I have always that that picking your core units (sort of) should reflect that.

[TheGrayMouser]

I think trying to argue realism into such an abstract game as PC/PG is not going to get anywhere, any changes need to be considered for game balance and enjoyment alone. I say leave it as is but there is no reason why the developers couldnt add these atributes into the data files so players who want to change it can do so.( and while they are at it , add in parameters that can adjust the effectiveness of entrenchments/close terrain)

[Xerkis]

I think trying to argue realism into such an abstract game as PC/PG is not going to get anywhere, any changes need to be considered for game balance and enjoyment alone. I say leave it as is but there is no reason why the developers couldnt add these atributes into the data files so players who want to change it can do so.( and while they are at it , add in parameters that can adjust the effectiveness of entrenchments/close terrain)

Wonderful compromise.

I guess my stand is there seems to always be this need to have the game made easier for the newer player. And certainly you need to have that entry level or you will frustrate them and loss those players. No argument there. But at the same time – let’s not bend so far to that side so as to frustrate those that want something that gives that good hard challenge – if it’s too easy, it's no fun either. I might as well save my money as say “yeah I beat that game” because that’s all there is to the challenge.

[impar]

For the defenders of the tradition:
Why should Recon and AT units conquer cities?

[Xerkis]

For the defenders of the tradition:
Why should Recon and AT units conquer cities?

I don't know - why should they?


AT - hmm, maybe.
Recon - No, I can't see it (no pun intended)

Good point impar. IMO - only units that did actually capture cities, should be allowed to do so.

[TheGrayMouser]

September 1944, Cpt Graebner of the 9 SS Recon Battalion attempted to storm over the Arnhem Bridge and overrun the Brits Paras occupying the city of Nmijen. Likley many other examples of recon, recon in force etc seizing and holding objectives was quite common.

Also in the Gulf War, for a modern example, was not the battle of 70 Easting ( which was a small hamlet crossroads and thus an objective) taken by 3 squadrons of Armoured Cavalry vs a an Iraqi tank Brigade?

[Xerkis]

September 1944, Cpt Graebner of the 9 SS Recon Battalion attempted to storm over the Arnhem Bridge and overrun the Brits Paras occupying the city of Nmijen. Likley many other examples of recon, recon in force etc seizing and holding objectives was quite common.

......... But did Cpt Graebner and his recon unit make it? The word you have is "attempted" - that implies “tried but failed”.

Recon and Recon in Force are very different as well. The job of a recon unit is not to fire unless fired upon and “to observe and report on enemy activity and other information of military significance.”

Have Recon units ever taken an objective - I have no doudt that they have from time to time. Is that their job - by no means.

[TheGrayMouser]

Well, no Graebner was killed and his battlion decimated in the attempt., yet success/failure to do these things shouldnt be the decider in what the game engine allows. If recon was simply to observe and thats it, why the increasingly "heavy" better armed and armoured vehicles assigned? Why do recon forces include artillery , engineers etc? Observe , yes but observe in force and hold/take ground if necesary.
Anyhow didnt somebody post that discussing realism in PC was pointless.. Oh yeah, that was I

Anyways no doudt recon doctrine was different in many nations bag o tricks and likly changed and was reevaluated thru out the war. In game terms, if recon cant take objectives , then they will have even less in game value..

[Xerkis]

Hmm – yet another very good point.

He failed in his attempt because he was faced with a defending force. If the city was void of any defending units, he would have succeeded. I think that brings new light to the subject.

In PzC if a recon attempts to take a city with a defending unit in it, I would think – and hope – the recon unit would meet the same fate as Graebner. If the city is empty of an enemy unit, then why wouldn’t the recon be able to waltz right in and take it over?
Thinking about it now; that does bring in historical realism.

Likewise with your statement about different doctrine in different nations. My personal doctrine for recon units is that they are most indispensable in the way I plan my attacks. Maybe not so much on the smaller maps, but certainly on the larger ones. And I use them heavily and only as “recon” – to observe enemy units and let me know what’s out in front of me.

And getting back to the artillery unit. I suppose after an unbelievable amount of time one arty – on its own – could beat a unit entrenched in a city in to submission and finally extinction. But that kind of singular bombardment takes quite a bit of time and supplies. And here again, I think the game reflects that type of realism in having it take awhile to bring down a city defended by using only arty in your attack. The question then is should that arty be able to entry the city to take it over once it is empty? I’m not totally convinced yet – but being swayed. The real question is – why in the world would you dedicate an artillery to do such a task when he is needed on the front lines?

[El_Condoro]

real question is – why in the world would you dedicate an artillery to do such a task when he is needed on the front lines?

That's what I use to argue that perhaps all units should be able to take flags - the player chooses and takes the consequences.
From the game perspective, and artillery unit can *only* take a flag when it is empty of enemies anyway.

[AgentX]

And getting back to the artillery unit. I suppose after an unbelievable amount of time one arty – on its own – could beat a unit entrenched in a city in to submission and finally extinction. But that kind of singular bombardment takes quite a bit of time and supplies. And here again, I think the game reflects that type of realism in having it take awhile to bring down a city defended by using only arty in your attack. The question then is should that arty be able to entry the city to take it over once it is empty? I’m not totally convinced yet – but being swayed. The real question is – why in the world would you dedicate an artillery to do such a task when he is needed on the front lines?

I really don't see why AA and artillery can't take cities that are clear of enemies. They are both manned by soldiers and transported by soldiers. I'm sure they are also armed in some way with a minimum of pistols and probably a few rifles. Why couldn't they get out of their vehicles and take over a cleared out city? Why are towed AT units treated differently then?

[Xerkis]

real question is – why in the world would you dedicate an artillery to do such a task when he is needed on the front lines?

That's what I use to argue that perhaps all units should be able to take flags - the player chooses and takes the consequences.
From the game perspective, and artillery unit can *only* take a flag when it is empty of enemies anyway.

No matter what the game rules are, I definitely agree with let the player receive the consequences of his choices – otherwise, what’s the point of playing.

But couldn’t then this ability to take cities with Arty units – and the attitude we have of player beware – also frustrate the new player even more than not?
If he is using units that are better suited for a different job, the chance of making your objectives in a scenario will decrease; thus frustrating the player. But sticking to the no artillery taking cities rule – I think it will become apparent faster how to better utilize that unit to your benefit.

Because I really think that the underlining issue with all these requests and polls for game changes are to make things more inviting (easier) for newer players. And that is a concern that does need to be addressed. Perhaps all of these issues would take care of themselves if the tutorial was maybe enhanced instead of rule changes. At least that is how it seems to me.

[soldier]

For the defenders of the tradition:
Why should Recon and AT units conquer cities?

Recon are specialist troops trained to infiltrate enemy lines. Occupying positions in the rear is right up their alley.
I don't particularly like that multipurpose and 88's can occupy cities. Never really supported it, was never asked.
As for AT guns i guess they can hold frontline positions and come in armoured format so it seems fair enough ( i won't argue either way).

To those saying we should be able to play how we like.
Sure you can drive your tanks into a forest full of engineers if you like but you will suffer for it, because the game penalizes tactics that didn't work well (or at least used to). Units work well in there proper roles, but suffer when asked to do things outside of their scope.
Artillery's job is to provide fire support and break up enemy entrenchments. Sure you can put them in a halftrack and drive them to the otherside of the country if you like. The Penalty (or consequence) is, that they can't occupy enemy positions without close support. Its not their job and doesn't fit well with the operational side of the game.

The rule makes perfect sense to me. Remove it and you might as well call it Panzer Arcade.

[Ryben]

In Panzer Corps a battleship could bombard enemy units 50km (5 hexes) inland. Planes could fly for days without refuelling and a 88 flak gun could take them down from 30km away.

Are we still discussing about "realism" here?

PG is a very good "beer&pretzlers" wargame...it tries to be as realistic as it could but a certain degree of abstraction is needed.

[El_Condoro]

To those saying we should be able to play how we like.
Sure you can drive your tanks into a forest full of engineers if you like but you will suffer for it, because the game penalizes tactics that didn't work well (or at least used to). Units work well in there proper roles, but suffer when asked to do things outside of their scope.
Artillery's job is to provide fire support and break up enemy entrenchments. Sure you can put them in a halftrack and drive them to the otherside of the country if you like. The Penalty (or consequence) is, that they can't occupy enemy positions without close support. Its not their job and doesn't fit well with the operational side of the game.

Absolutely, and that's why I won't care if the rule is changed - there is no way my artillery is going to take a flag where the possibility of a close defense counter attack exists - I will continue to use the units that are best equipped to do the task. But I agree with the idea to allow the *option*. Like free speech - I might disagree with your opinion but I will die to allow you to state it (something like that). Perhaps too dramatic but you get my point.

[soldier]

In Panzer Corps a battleship could bombard enemy units 50km (5 hexes) inland. Planes could fly for days without refuelling and a 88 flak gun could take them down from 30km away.

.

True, range (wether it be ballistic or operational) is a very abstracted concept in Panzer Corps. The "planes flying all day" feature was discussed prior to release but i think the developers wanted to keep it simple (dunno what happened in beta).
and for the record i did ask for battleship range to be reduced in another thread. I think 5 hexes is too far.

[impar]

Recon are specialist troops trained to infiltrate enemy lines. Occupying positions in the rear is right up their alley.

Positions, not entire cities.

As for AT guns i guess they can hold frontline positions and come in armoured format so it seems fair enough...

StuG IIIF can, StuG IIIB cant.

This arcaic rule was solved in later versions of PG. The same versions that allowed for the recon-movement, switch modes, tactical bombers attacking air targets, move and then shoot artillery, etc. All of those implemented on PzC (still miss Overrun).

[Sharkyzero]

It's odd.

Everybody seems to be getting wrapped up in a web that can simply be sidestepped; hypothetically, if a unit of artillery (or any other unit not able to take over a city in PG) just happened to roll into a city that is completely unoccupied, it would be taken over. That's that. It doesn't matter if it never happened before, it doesn't matter if the odds aren't in favor of such an occurence even transpiring because if it DID, the result would be the occupation of the target.

This was always one of the most irritating aspects of PG/AG. Tradition does not (and should not) dictate best practices.

"Hey look, my mobile artillery is in a city UNOPPOSED and...wait...well, I guess nothing happens."

[Dalinski]

Heck, why not make it that only infantry can take cities!?

[_Flin_]

Not being able to take the city makes no sense to me. In the main campaign I was often a bit angry about that, esp. in Barbarossa, when my tanks flanked a city, Infantry took it, and artillery moved in for protection of the tanks. Or in France, when my deep advance had only a few units that had to move fast, but I had to waste precious tank/infantry movement to occupy a city that was empty anyway.

So considering that an empty city has no military personnel at all, no infantry, no partisans, no nothing... there is no reason why 500 armed soldiers shouldn't be able to occupy it, even if they aren't trained in armed man to man combat more than necessary.

EDIT: It makes the games easier, however, since you can move a lot fast this way. Question is how to balance it.