Slitherine

What about using the hard attack values when on defense only? Surely they didn't go charging on horseback against a batalion of tanks! I would think they used their mobility to find good terrain and ambush/defend rather than attack. I am not saying I am right, just throwing out ideas.

They do use their (weak) hard attack value already. The "problem" is that's it's against the (abysmal) early tanks close defense values (not ground defense).

kjeld111 wrote:They do use their (weak) hard attack value already. The "problem" is that's it's against the (abysmal) early tanks close defense values (not ground defense).

I could be wrong, but I am speaking of something like the AA defense stat.

Polish Cavaly has only 3 GD. Initiative 1. 4/5 SA depending on nation, 1 HA.
But superior movement and spotting.

Let's analyze why they kill tanks: They have the movement to reach them and usually it's 2 if not even 3 cavalry units that attacked a weakend tank in RESTRICTED TERRAIN.

Then it's 1 HA vs 2 CD of the tank.
-> that's what causes the losses.

Okay Kerensky mentioned all that already.

Turning them into RECON would make them VERY vulnerable to Infantry. They would turn into a rather crappy unit.
What's next is what Rudankort and lordzimoa mentioned, people will complain that 90% of the citizens of Belgium and the Netherlands are apparently Infantrymen and attack in waves expected on the East Front.




On a meta-level, I think Panzer Corps does very well in showing people that losing a core unit isn't THAT much of a big deal. We are just not used to losing ANYTHING from Panzer General.

This very much reminds me of the RECON unit debate. Yeah, I don't like it either when my recon units get shot to pieces. But having one with 3 stars, infiltrating, taking cities, taking out artillery or even infantry in a city with the help of 2 Stukas -> priceless, just exciting. Then you lose it. This makes us sad, but it is also a very emotional moment (sorry, this just sounds wrong <g>) in a way and keeps us on our toes and excited.

I remember how hard it was in the default Panzer Corps campaign to lose units in the USA scenarios. I just wasn't used to that.

-> Panzer Corps really has to educate the players to losses. What will they do in 1942,1943,1944 and 1945 otherwise?
Even if Kerensky will make it that people get a chance and maybe focuses on counter-offensives like the Ardennes and local scenarios where the odds are more even, in that time players will have to adjust to a defensive campaign style.

Yeah, I really want a "The Longest Day" scenario where I stare out of my bunker like this German officer in the movie of the same name and is totally and utterly shocked when he sees all the ships, planes and landing crafts.
I don't want a scenario where the entire invasion force is easily crushed and one wonders how the Allies ever managed to get off the beach.

Longasc wrote:Yeah, I really want a "The Longest Day" scenario where I stare out of my bunker like this German officer in the movie of the same name and is totally and utterly shocked when he sees all the ships, planes and landing crafts.

I was shocked in GC39. The "destroy-trains-in-forest" scenario, when my northern group finds the Modlin fort and its garrison.
Its one of those "seen-a-Deatthstar-for-the-first-time->Run!" moment.

Once I recovered from the shock, still managed to use an auxiliary cavalry unit to take the city and airfield past the Modlin Fort, though.

Cavalry is fine, just dont engage it with tanks in forests!

krugec wrote:Cavalry is fine, just dont engage it with tanks in forests!

Maybe simply "Do not engage Infantry in the forests" and "Do not engage low-initiative units in areas that limit the initiative of your own, high-initiative units"

"Motorcycle infantry in the Recon class would be a good addition."

I like this idea because wehmachtsoldiers on motorcycles with sidecars are in the movies like in Indiana Jones Maybe make it rather a "guarded convoy troop tranport" alternative to the undefended opel blitz, rather than a whole new recon unit? Just an idea...

And consequently, this class [edit: RECON] also has some special rules associated with it, like a bonus against AT units and low entrenchment rate.

Can someone explain where to find infos about this? This is completely new to me.

AFAIK Krad-Schützen (motorcycle troops) were quite common in the beginning of the war and they were used pretty much like cavalry. But that's the thing - we already have cavalry so this unit would be pretty redundant
Putting them in recon would make as much sense as putting cavalry in recon I think, and Rudankort explained on the first page why that wouldn't fit.

Kerensky wrote:Is that these units are TOO deadly against early war tanks, especially in close terrain. Why? Because they have a hard attack of 1 against the close defense on early war tanks of 2. 1 attack against 2 defense is quite deadly, something like 40% or 50% kill.

I share this observation.
On top, I prefer to see horses more in the role of towing artillery and stuff.
Most people think WWII was a war of tanks, however horses were used to tow equipment until the end of the war, and less than 10% of the Units were Panzerdivisionen.

Ritterkreuz wrote:I share this observation.
On top, I prefer to see horses more in the role of towing artillery and stuff.

There may be solution: introducing "Horse" transport. And then create "Infantry" units that mount, travel great distances, dismount, attack the enemy.

Ritterkreuz wrote: Most people think WWII was a war of tanks, however horses were used to tow equipment until the end of the war, and less than 10% of the Units were Panzerdivisionen.

I agree.

Blame History Channel, Wikipedia and other reliable source of misinformation for all this mess.
When people think about II WW, they think "Tiger vs T-34/85 at Kursk" or "Tiger vs Sherman in Normandie". Tank duels everywhere, dammit .

On a more realistic note, tanks were not the most common German armored vehicles .

On a more realistic note, tanks were not the most common German armored vehicles.

Are you sure? Honestly, I'm curious now

Kerensky:
"Is that these units are TOO deadly against early war tanks, especially in close terrain. Why? Because they have a hard attack of 1 against the close defense on early war tanks of 2. 1 attack against 2 defense is quite deadly, something like 40% or 50% kill. "

I agree - though since PzC I have generally the impression that in many scenarios the tanks are quite useless overall. There is just "close Terrain" around everywhere. Hills, light forests, everything is "close terrain".

I DO agree though that tanks have a disadvantage in really "close combat" and that is why this is simulated in PzC by using the infantrys GD vs tanks CD values.

I think though that this is "overused".

Why an attacking infantry on a "open" hilly terrain gets GD vs CD ? Why not restrict this only to "defensive" actions where the infantry is "dugged" in and can let the tanks come in close.

I mean close combat we are talking about took place on distance between 0-100m at most ! On a open hilly terrain tank fighting distance is several hundreds of meters. No chance an infanterist could use a claymore mine or a molotov on the tank !

So I would propose to think about this generic combat rule of GD vs CD and perhaps restrict it to "close combat units" DEFENDING vs. Tanks.

This would also enhance the relative value of cheap tanks compared to the high-end ones which have a very high CD value. So players actually might think about buying more Pz IVs instead of just Panthers/Tigers.

Iscaran wrote: Why an attacking infantry on a "open" hilly terrain gets GD vs CD ? Why not restrict this only to "defensive" actions where the infantry is "dugged" in and can let the tanks come in close.

I mean close combat we are talking about took place on distance between 0-100m at most ! On a open hilly terrain tank fighting distance is several hundreds of meters. No chance an infanterist could use a claymore mine or a molotov on the tank !

In hilly terrain initiative cap is much higher than in really close terrain like cities (5 vs. 1), so in hilly terrain the tanks do use the advantage of their longer range and fire first at the attacking infantry. But the tank cannot kill all men in a short time, some will have time to close in and attack the weak spots of a tank (represented by its close defense rating).

alex0809 wrote:

On a more realistic note, tanks were not the most common German armored vehicles.

Are you sure? Honestly, I'm curious now

At the mid to end of the war StuGs were more common.

Hello I painted some motorcycle troops with sidecar in Photoshop.



In the german army they were called "Krad" as abbreviation for "Kraftrad", and were the fastest quick response unit in the army, with light weapons and often equipped with a MG34 on the sidecar, using suprise and speed as their main advantage.
The soviet army used similar units.

I thought it could be used as an upgrade for cavalry units, with a little different stats, since they played similar roles in the war. what do you think about the idea to allow upgrades for cavalry?

krad example image

Casaubon wrote:Hello I painted some motorcycle troops with sidecar in Photoshop.

Wow that is really cool. Ive love to see that in game.

Casaubon wrote:I thought it could be used as an upgrade for cavalry units, with a little different stats, since they played similar roles in the war. what do you think about the idea to allow upgrades for cavalry?

Maybe with less of a spotting value than the cavalry?

I can´t remember really, it is some time since I finished the vanilla campaigns, but was cavalry still available to buy when the 43 versions of infantry became available? Maybe motorcycles could play that 43 improved version role for cavalry as I doubt that cavalry was still in use much in the later war? On the other hand, Krads were very common in the early war maybe they could be available form the start on...

Casaubon wrote:I can´t remember really, it is some time since I finished the vanilla campaigns, but was cavalry still available to buy when the 43 versions of infantry became available? Maybe motorcycles could play that 43 improved version role for cavalry as I doubt that cavalry was still in use much in the later war? On the other hand, Krads were very common in the early war maybe they could be available form the start on...

There likly were more cavalry units in action mid to late war vs earlier in the war. ( although not necasarily more cavalry on a man to man basis)
Most infantry divisions had a troop of cavalry for recon, plus there were several formations of Waffen SS cavalry, horse mounted, that fought in the East, Yugoslavia and Hungary etc. I believe the Germans also had 2 "Cossack" divisions as well...

Somewhere I read that every German infantry division(not the motorised or armoured ones) had something like 5-6000 horses in it , the numbers actually Inreasing toward the end of the war. Obvioulsy for tranport but still, quite a bit of animals!