almost little things punches me hard in the stomache

[brettz123]

Though to be fair strong points probably should be able to be easily destroyed with units armed with high velocity 75mm and higher guns as they are pretty much just armed with machine guns.

Ehm, I don't think that the main tool of the pioneeres agains the fortifications were their machine guns... They used a wide aray of weapons including flamethrowers, explosives or recoilless guns. In many case the tanks would be simply useles in the attack against the fortified positions due to the presence of the anti-tank obstacles. Most of all, the German commanders would simply choose to sprare their precious vehicles and send them to perform more important tasks than reducing the strong points. But admittedly I don't expect the game to model this in any way...

I meant the main armament of the strong point is just a machine gun. Even if it was a 12.7mm it is only going to bounce off heavier tanks.

[deducter]

I agree that the tank shouldn't do as well as it does in the frontal attack like this, but to me 2 strength points and the potential loss of more from those artillery is unacceptable enough. Your losses are bound to be lower if you flank. I don't think the game encourages a crude slugfest at all if you play at a higher difficulty. The developers have stated that they wanted to make Colonel very easy. I surely sound arrogant, but I sometimes impress even myself in my video AARs with my clever tactics when I used Panzer Is and IIs in France with -75% prestige.

I also don't agree with your prestige analysis, as I often still use opel blitz with my infantry as opposed to half tracks precisely because the reinforcement costs are higher.

Nevertheless, I do agree tanks should do worse in a frontal attack like that. This can be modded yet again by increasing the HA on strongpoints.

[ivanov]

Nevertheless, I do agree tanks should do worse in a frontal attack like that. .

I am pleased that we came to understanding on that

[ivanov]

Though to be fair strong points probably should be able to be easily destroyed with units armed with high velocity 75mm and higher guns as they are pretty much just armed with machine guns.

Ehm, I don't think that the main tool of the pioneeres agains the fortifications were their machine guns... They used a wide aray of weapons including flamethrowers, explosives or recoilless guns. In many case the tanks would be simply useles in the attack against the fortified positions due to the presence of the anti-tank obstacles. Most of all, the German commanders would simply choose to sprare their precious vehicles and send them to perform more important tasks than reducing the strong points. But admittedly I don't expect the game to model this in any way...

I meant the main armament of the strong point is just a machine gun. Even if it was a 12.7mm it is only going to bounce off heavier tanks.

I actually think that the WWII fortifications were full of anti-tank weapons ( AT guns, AT rifles ). Even in 1939 the Poles were able to repel with heavy loses the armoured assault of the Kempf Division ( the predecessor of the infamous DAS REICH ) during the attack against the strong points in the battle of Mlawa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_M%C5%82awa

[brettz123]

I actually think that the WWII fortifications were full of anti-tank weapons ( AT guns, AT rifles ). Even in 1939 the Poles were able to repel with heavy loses the armoured assault of the Kempf Division ( the predecessor of the infamous DAS REICH ) during the attack against the strong points in the battle of Mlawa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_M%C5%82awa

No doubt there were fortifications with anti-tank guns but there certainly would have been many without too. My point is that the ones in the game seem to represent ones that do not have a significant anti-tank capability.

[ivanov]

I actually think that the WWII fortifications were full of anti-tank weapons ( AT guns, AT rifles ). Even in 1939 the Poles were able to repel with heavy loses the armoured assault of the Kempf Division ( the predecessor of the infamous DAS REICH ) during the attack against the strong points in the battle of Mlawa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_M%C5%82awa

No doubt there were fortifications with anti-tank guns but there certainly would have been many without too. My point is that the ones in the game seem to represent ones that do not have a significant anti-tank capability.

You mean that they are simple pillboxes? Well, they would certainly serve as mere machine gun emplacements during the WWI but under the WWII conditions ( especially during the Kursk battle ), I think that the poliferation of the AT weapons would be quite significant. If the PC is an operational scale game, then IMO a strong point hex symbolizes a significant complex of mutually supporting bonkers and pillboxes, equipped with a variety of weapons ( AT, mortars, machine guns, AA, etc ).

[brettz123]

I actually think that the WWII fortifications were full of anti-tank weapons ( AT guns, AT rifles ). Even in 1939 the Poles were able to repel with heavy loses the armoured assault of the Kempf Division ( the predecessor of the infamous DAS REICH ) during the attack against the strong points in the battle of Mlawa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_M%C5%82awa

No doubt there were fortifications with anti-tank guns but there certainly would have been many without too. My point is that the ones in the game seem to represent ones that do not have a significant anti-tank capability.

You mean that they are simple pillboxes? Well, they would certainly serve as mere machine gun emplacements during the WWI but under the WWII conditions ( especially during the Kursk battle ), I think that the poliferation of the AT weapons would be quite significant. If the PC is an operational scale game, then IMO a strong point hex symbolizes a significant complex of mutually supporting bonkers and pillboxes, equipped with a variety of weapons ( AT, mortars, machine guns, AA, etc ).

Yes, you have a good point but I think what might be needed is a new type of pillbox with an at gun sticking out the front. I think what you are saying should be the way it is in the game but what I am saying is I don't think it is the way in the game currently.

[Zhivago]

I like the idea of different kinds of strong-points. Remember the Brest-Litovsk fortress in the original campaign/scenario Barbarossa? That fortress needs to be blasted into submission for a few turns before it falls. Even point blank attacks with over-strength 88s do not do the trick. I still would like to see barbed-wire and minefields as obstacles that tanks would have to work around in PC. In the real battle of Kursk, the Russians had tens of thousands of mines planted everywhere and the Germans had to blast paths through the minefields to attack Russian strong-points. It would seem to make sense that pionere units should have the ability to 1.) clear minefields; 2.) clear barbed-wire; 3.) lay minefields (especially in the upcoming DLC 44 and 45), 5.) lay barbed wire; and 6.) blow bridges. I think it would be cool to be able to use some prestige points to buy/build fortifications or minefields for defensive scenarios.

[ivanov]

I like the idea of different kinds of strong-points. Remember the Brest-Litovsk fortress in the original campaign/scenario Barbarossa? That fortress needs to be blasted into submission for a few turns before it falls. Even point blank attacks with over-strength 88s do not do the trick. I still would like to see barbed-wire and minefields as obstacles that tanks would have to work around in PC. In the real battle of Kursk, the Russians had tens of thousands of mines planted everywhere and the Germans had to blast paths through the minefields to attack Russian strong-points. It would seem to make sense that pionere units should have the ability to 1.) clear minefields; 2.) clear barbed-wire; 3.) lay minefields (especially in the upcoming DLC 44 and 45), 5.) lay barbed wire; and 6.) blow bridges. I think it would be cool to be able to use some prestige points to buy/build fortifications or minefields for defensive scenarios.

All of it was present in PG 2:



Note also the minefield blocking the bridge.

[JackWulff]

Best way to think of it is like this:
a) Tanks beat infantry. (This is actually not true in close terrain either)

thats the real problem. Tanks do a too good job at attacking infantry in close combat. It would be better if at this attack the Tiger will lose 6, the infantry only 3. That would make sense for me.
To defend a city, is very easy for infantry troops, but difficult for tanks to attack. Thats not effective honored in the combat results. Also the same in woods and on hills.

[Zhivago]

I like the idea of different kinds of strong-points. Remember the Brest-Litovsk fortress in the original campaign/scenario Barbarossa? That fortress needs to be blasted into submission for a few turns before it falls. Even point blank attacks with over-strength 88s do not do the trick. I still would like to see barbed-wire and minefields as obstacles that tanks would have to work around in PC. In the real battle of Kursk, the Russians had tens of thousands of mines planted everywhere and the Germans had to blast paths through the minefields to attack Russian strong-points. It would seem to make sense that pionere units should have the ability to 1.) clear minefields; 2.) clear barbed-wire; 3.) lay minefields (especially in the upcoming DLC 44 and 45), 5.) lay barbed wire; and 6.) blow bridges. I think it would be cool to be able to use some prestige points to buy/build fortifications or minefields for defensive scenarios.

All of it was present in PG 2:



Note also the minefield blocking the bridge.

geez...I had forgotten how bad the graphics were in PG 2!

[dragos]

Those are custom units, the original equipment didn't have those types of bunkers and other field works. On the other hand, at the scale of PG2 and PzC, a bunker should not be a single pillbox, but a complex of pillboxes armed with complementary armament and protecting each other. Some with MGs, other with AT guns. A fort could be a single large structure, which should be also armed with various armament ranging from machineguns to fortress artillery.

[Kerensky]

Best way to think of it is like this:
a) Tanks beat infantry. (This is actually not true in close terrain either)

thats the real problem. Tanks do a too good job at attacking infantry in close combat. It would be better if at this attack the Tiger will lose 6, the infantry only 3. That would make sense for me.
To defend a city, is very easy for infantry troops, but difficult for tanks to attack. Thats not effective honored in the combat results. Also the same in woods and on hills.

That maps looks like Lake Balaton, if I am not mistaken. (I recognize the city name, plus the fact that map is from initial release because they are basic Soviet Guards)
A fair example, but also quite out of date. (Old map + old infantry)

You're using out of date Infantry against an almost top tier Panzer.

With Guards 1943, a new infantry unit from 1.05 that also has been appearing in the DLC campaigns, it looks pretty much exactly like you think it should look.


This is one of the big reasons we have DLC content. Not just simply to make 'more' content, but also to create improved content that is based very much on the constructive feedback of what our players want. There's more than a few around these parts who have been really excited about a full length Eastern Front Grand campaign, myself included.

[ivanov]

geez...I had forgotten how bad the graphics were in PG 2!

It looks bad now in comparison the PC, but I was quite pleased at the time. Let's just say that the PG graphics left some things to the imagination...

[JackWulff]

With Guards 1943, a new infantry unit from 1.05 that also has been appearing in the DLC campaigns, it looks pretty much exactly like you think it should look.

thats rly strange, because i am already using 1.05.

So there is the problem properly in an other way in the DLCs: too much useless enemy infantry.
Better Infantry will maybe solve this, i hope so. But it will not, if my artillery will do the same supression like now.

Useless infantry brings me to the next point: useless enemy tanks. I dont know, why the enemy brings 42 and especially 43 so much crap on the battlefield. I do instant kill on instant kill, i hate that, because its boring.
I am playing on General, Field Marshal is not an option, that unrealistic fiction is a facepalm for me.

based on your facts, i change my thesis, that let me open this thread to:
-changing infantry to much better inf, quicker higer entrenches lvl. Also ok, if only the close combat strenghts would be better. On free fields, the tanks stay the kings.
-less crap tanks, more good enemy stuff
-lowering artillery power for supressing to max. 1-2
-lowering possible spawn of tanks at a city per turn to 1
-AI improvents, that the enemy dont park his crap besides my units and artillery havte to fire first of a turn, not last
-a variety for enemy pockets, when they will attack

F*ck, i like this game. But there are alrdy things that lower my gameplay experience, where Panzer General did a great work.

[soldier]

Useless infantry brings me to the next point: useless enemy tanks. I dont know, why the enemy brings 42 and especially 43 so much crap on the battlefield. I do instant kill on instant kill, i hate that, because its boring.
I am playing on General, Field Marshal is not an option, that unrealistic fiction is a facepalm for me.

Well i think the "crap tanks" you mentioned are probably an effort from the scenario designers to make the battles a little more historical. The soviets had a massive selection of various armoured vehicles and they continued to throw older and obselete vehicles into the fire until they were used up. Besides its adds a bit of variety.
As for field marshal being unrealistic fiction, I'd say its closer to fact than fiction and if your achieving instant kills after instant kill perhaps you need to try the harder difficulties.

[Zhivago]

geez...I had forgotten how bad the graphics were in PG 2!

It looks bad now in comparison the PC, but I was quite pleased at the time. Let's just say that the PG graphics left some things to the imagination...

Agreed...we had nothing to compare PG2 at the time to know better!

[shawkhan]

Having finished Campaign'43 through Kiev'43 on Field Marshal, about the only thing from the above criticism I agree with is that the AI should fire its artillery first. Playing the game on an easy level and then complaining it is too easy seems illogical to me. So far as 'crap' tanks the Russians had thousands of all kinds. Personally, if I never have to fight another IS 1 it would be alright with me. My prestige is at rock bottom after exchanging fire with those Russian behemoths. Even air took losses attacking them.DLC '44 should see the total depletion of my core quality. I expect to be reduced as in history to sending infantry with panzerfausts/panzerschrecks up against endless hordes of Russian 'crap' tanks. IS IIs should be quite interesting to encounter in the not so distant future.

[ivanov]

-changing infantry to much better inf, quicker higer entrenches lvl. Also ok, if only the close combat strenghts would be better. On free fields, the tanks stay the kings.
-less crap tanks, more good enemy stuff
-lowering artillery power for supressing to max. 1-2
-lowering possible spawn of tanks at a city per turn to 1
-AI improvents, that the enemy dont park his crap besides my units and artillery havte to fire first of a turn, not last
-a variety for enemy pockets, when they will attack

I actually like the abundance of enemy "crap" units, because it allows the players to field "crap" units themselves, encouraging the unit diversity in the game.

I think that almost all the posters have agreed already, that something needs to be done in order to improve the defensive aspects of the gameplay. It could be achieved for example by boosting the entrenchments and defensive bonus of some terrain types or by lowering the artillery suppression.

I also don't like the excessive unit spaming by the AI.

[deducter]

The AI's unit composition was something discussed at length during the beta testing. The philosophy is for the AI to have a historical core, which is plenty challenging for the player who wants to use a German historical core, although much easier for someone with only the best equipment. I think this works well, because if you give the AI nothing but KV-85s and JS-1s, then the player will have no choice but to use all Tigers/Panthers. The current setup allows the player to enjoy a fairly easy victory with the best equipment, but also allows those who want to challenge themselves more with a historical core to fight a tough battle too.