A Swap move?

[El_Condoro]

... and not be able to attack that turn.

Why?
The Swap would affect mobility not attack. The basic rule of one movement (Swap) and one attack per unit per turn would apply.

In that case I would see it as a big change and think it would be too much of an advantage for a player over the AI. To my mind the player faces a choice with a swap: extract the lame unit but lose attacks or let the lame unit die and attack, not both.

[Longasc]

I don't think it would fit well into Panzer Corps. I have to second TheGrayMouser there.

It rather takes away. This extra option would remove the tactical element of planning ahead for cases where the frontline has to be evacuated and replaced by a stronger unit.
It would also render tactical decisions that exploit weakened units blocking stronger units from attacking invalid.


I don't see the overall benefit in the long run it would rather make Panzer Corps a worse game.

[gamer78]

Definitely agree. Swapping units will take away the surprise element and decrease FOW concept effectiveness IMHO. Maps are not so big so player should live with the tactical placing not changing back and forth units. Besides I imagine AI can not cope well with this change.

[impar]

This extra option would remove the tactical element of planning ahead for cases where the frontline has to be evacuated and replaced by a stronger unit.

Would you evacuate a damaged unit to the second line, leaving it in spot range of the enmy and vulnerable to ART and/or TAC, or would you move it to a rear position?

It would also render tactical decisions that exploit weakened units blocking stronger units from attacking invalid.

What prevents the weak unit to withdraw and leave space for the strong unit?

Much of the discussion has been about moving one unit back and other unit front, I dont see that as the best use of this move (can work too). The occasions where I thought a swap move would be useful was more on side moves.
Recall having a INF at the left and a 8.8 at the right. The INF was facing a Somua to the left and the 8.8 was facing a towed AT to the right, it just made sense to swap INF and 8.8.

[impar]

An example:

Swap A with B to hit C.

[Teleblaster18]

I've given this some carefully considered thought, and I too think it would detract from the overall gameplay.

[El_Condoro]

That example is not what I would see a swap being used for. All that needs to be done there is fire the art and move it, move the AD and attack the plane. A swap is not necessary.

Since Rudankort asked about this, it would be useful to have him define what "swap" is to him - an offensive option or a purely defensive one. If the former, I am not for it; if the latter, I can see it as a good *option* to have even if the AI is unable to use it effectively.

[impar]

That example is not what I would see a swap being used for.

Ah! But that is what I see swap being used for.
I find the "retreat-damaged-unit, advance-replenished-unit" too risky.

All that needs to be done there is fire the art and move it, move the AD and attack the plane.

Artillery has already fired. Where would you move ART to in a way that it would keep giving fire support?

[El_Condoro]

That example is not what I would see a swap being used for.

Ah! But that is what I see swap being used for.
I find the "retreat-damaged-unit, advance-replenished-unit" too risky.

All that needs to be done there is fire the art and move it, move the AD and attack the plane.

Artillery has already fired. Where would you move ART to in a way that it would keep giving fire support?

I would move the StuG and the 15cm (?) 1 hex north and then the AD 1 hex, but that's a specific example; what we need is a clear indication of what 'swap' would/should be used for.

[billmv44]

I think this would be at best a nice to have. There are a few times that I've thought it would be nice to be able to swap units. But not frequently enough that I think of it as a "must have". If implemented as a defensive move with the swapping units unable to fire, then I don't think it would imbalance game play that much.

[impar]

I think this would be at best a nice to have.

So, not a game changer?

[impar]

A<->B, to consolidate position.

A<->B to strike C and D.

[dragos]

This idea defeats the fundamentals of Panzer General. What about stacking two or more units in the same hex? (see Age of Rifles)

As for impar last example, no need for swap move. Example 1: move AT SE and artillery North, example 2: move inf NE and the 88 NW.

[soldier]

I don't like the idea of swapping and attacking. It would make it too easy for formations too strengthen up a weak area without ever breaking up. Reforming against a new threat is one thing but reforming and neutralizing it is something else. It would defeat the strategy involved in approaching a weak flank in the first place, unless the attacker used some bluff swap of their own, (eg front up with infantry but swap with a line of King tigers behind them and destroy the defense). So I think swapping and attacking is too easy to exploit.

[doc99]

............not a good idea and it makes little real effect

[Pomurnik]

What about having both units supressed (about -5) after swap move? Could be more or less than 5. You are still able to attack, but not as much effectively.

[impar]

What about stacking two or more units in the same hex?

Dont understand why this gets mentioned here.

As for impar last example, no need for swap move. Example 1: move AT SE and artillery North, ...

That puts the AT too far to help against armour.

As for impar last example, no need for swap move. ... example 2: move inf NE and the 88 NW.

How would the Infantry (B) shoot the polish cavalry (D)?

... I think swapping and attacking is too easy to exploit.

... not a good idea and it makes little real effect

So, which one is it, too easy or little real effect?

What about having both units supressed (about -5) after swap move? Could be more or less than 5. You are still able to attack, but not as much effectively.

Doesnt make sense. Its like saying that if you move 1 hex (via swap) you lose half your efectiveness, yet if you move 1-8 hexes (via normal movement) you are 100% effective.

[dragos]

What about stacking two or more units in the same hex?

Dont understand why this gets mentioned here.

As I have said, I am against swap move, but if two units can move through the same location simultaneously, having more than one unit in the same hex comes to mind. Age of Rifles had this system, with maximum two units in the same hex and with reduced effectiveness if crowded. Not that I imply I would like that in PzC.

That puts the AT too far to help against armour.

You are correct, not identical results, but best way to solve the situations. The tank doesn't look in a position to immediately come near the artillery position, it needs an additional turn to cross the river, and in that turn you can move the AT in the arty position. As for the second, the 1 strength cavalry can be dealt with in more ways than the tank. The swap move do make things easier, possibly game breaker in some other situations.

[Sleezly]

Does'nt sound like a bad idea to me! I've wanted to do it a few times!

[Pomurnik]

What about having both units supressed (about -5) after swap move? Could be more or less than 5. You are still able to attack, but not as much effectively.

Doesnt make sense. Its like saying that if you move 1 hex (via swap) you lose half your efectiveness, yet if you move 1-8 hexes (via normal movement) you are 100% effective.

Maybe. But a unit unable to swap place with firendly unit does make any sense? Is it realistic? The discussion started to find a good solution without destroying the game mechanics.

Some one wrote about providing covering fire, during swap maneuveur. Maybe that's the explanation. Of course swapping units would have no penalties if none of them is adjacent to enemy unit.

Following this idea maybe units retreating from combat by normal movement (leaving 'zone of control' of enemy unit) should also have some penalties? Like supression or extra attack by the enemy.