POOL / Motorized infantry combat

[goodwoodrw]

Ivanov, I don't think that is the right question. The question should be can infantry dismount at the end of their move if chosen to do so. If he stumbles across a hiding enemy and an ambush is set, the answer should be no, if there are further attacks following, the answer should be yes or maybe yes. At the end of a move a player should be able to choose whether he wants to dismount or stay mounted if he hasn't expended all his movement points. A rule should state how many movement points can be expended before a unit can dismount, as does take time to dismount. To be able to dismount a unit shouldn't be allowed travel any further than 3/4 of the allowed movement points. Or something like that. my explanation is probably as clear as mud.

[ivanov]

I need clarification as to what "motorized infantry" actually is before i vote. I thought any troop division in a transport was motorized but when i mentioned the assault in the Ardennes in the other thread (where a panther division destroyed a column of US infantry in trucks) someone said they probably weren't a motorized division ?

In the game's terms it would be any unit belonging to the category infantry ( exept for cavalry ) with an additional transport. For example Whermach inf, Grenadiere, Fallschirmjäger, Gebirgsjager, Sturmpionier and Bruckenpioneer on the German side.

[ivanov]

Ivanov, I don't think that is the right question. The question should be can infantry dismount at the end of their move if chosen to do so. If he stumbles across a hiding enemy and an ambush is set, the answer should be no, if there are further attacks following, the answer should be yes or maybe yes. At the end of a move a player should be able to choose whether he wants to dismount or stay mounted if he hasn't expended all his movement points. A rule should state how many movement points can be expended before a unit can dismount, as does take time to dismount. To be able to dismount a unit shouldn't be allowed travel any further than 3/4 of the allowed movement points. Or something like that. my explanation is probably as clear as mud.

Hi Goodwood. My intention was to set a simple, two question pool and get the general feedback from the board, if implementing of some dismounting mechanism is needed. We had more detailed discussion on this matter in the previous thread.

As to your proposal:

"At the end of a move a player should be able to choose whether he wants to dismount or stay mounted if he hasn't expended all his movement points".

If that was the case, why would the player decide then to stay mounted at the end of his turn, if that would always put him in a disadvantaged position in case of the enemy's counterattack?

[soldier]

I've voted no
I don't think units that are in trucks can suddenly be deployed during your opponents turn because his moves are deemed to be happening in the same period of time in a turn based game. They can only be ready during your next turn (not your opponents) and while they are in transit they are more vulnerable to enemy action. They cannot be combat ready at the same time as they are in a truck only if they remained on foot.
Of course you could argue that a Panzer division was equally vulnerable during transit but since they would already be in the vehicle that they would be fighting from the penalty would not be so great. Tank divisions running into each other is something for the random generator to sort out.

As for troops being expelled from their vehicles after the first hit. That already happens... on your next turn (providing they are still alive )

If you want to be protected during transit you go mechanized but with GD of 2 and attack of 1, its currently no protection at all and hardly better than a truck if attacked (possibly even worse as its a hard target).

[Anfield]

This got me thinking, what next? Should troops in a railcar get out and fight? How about transport navel ship, if next to land should they get out and fight? What about a plane with Paras, should they be dropped to the ground then and there to fight? Im guessing in all 3 cases almost all of us would say clearly NO, thats the price you pay for being caught in that situation.

Dont see this topic any different but for the fact some of yah seem to be getting caught speeding around in HT's and trucks

[ivanov]

I've voted no
I don't think units that are in trucks can suddenly be deployed during your opponents turn because his moves are deemed to be happening in the same period of time in a turn based game. They can only be ready during your next turn (not your opponents) and while they are in transit they are more vulnerable to enemy action. They cannot be combat ready at the same time as they are in a truck only if they remained on foot.
Of course you could argue that a Panzer division was equally vulnerable during transit but since they would already be in the vehicle that they would be fighting from the penalty would not be so great. Tank divisions running into each other is something for the random generator to sort out.

As for troops being expelled from their vehicles after the first hit. That already happens... on your next turn (providing they are still alive )

If you want to be protected during transit you go mechanized but with GD of 2 and attack of 1, its currently no protection at all and hardly better than a truck if attacked (possibly even worse as its a hard target).

Allow me to bring in the example of the famous ( or infamous ) 2SS Das Reich Division. During the initial stages of the Operation Barbarossa, it was a three regiment strong motorized division. During this period it didn't possess any tanks in it's structure and the troops were carried into the battle by the trucks, not APC's. Despite that, the division was usually in the spearhead of the German assault towards Moscow. The encounters with the enemy tanks were frequent and it's motorized units were often fighting in order to overcome well prepared defensive positions, for example during the Battle of Borodino.

Given the way in which currently the motorized infantry is represented in the game, it would be impossible to simulate the assault of the Das Reich Division in the game, because it's mounted batalions would be defenseles againts the enemy counterattacks, and the whole division would be wiped out during the first two or three turns.

Now a little theory, taken from the:

Provisional Instructions for the Employment and Tactics of the Motorized Infantry Regiment and Battalion
March 1, 1941

http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/motor ... index.html

- "Motorized infantry units form the offensive infantry element in the armored division. Their strength lies in their speed and cross-country performance, together with the possession of numerous automatic weapons and protective armor".

-"The possession of armored personnel carriers enables motorized infantry units to overcome comparatively weak opposition without dismounting. They can follow up tank attacks on the field of battle without dismounting"

-"The chief task of motorized infantry is close cooperation with tanks. By following up closely they can quickly exploit the tanks' success"

-"Motorized infantry is characterized by ability to alternate rapidly between fighting from carriers and fighting on foot, and also to combine these two methods of combat".

-"Their greater speed compared with tanks enables them at an early stage to take possession of important points and sectors, to carry out wide and deep enveloping movements, or to pursue the enemy rapidly"

-"A motorized infantry regiment is equipped with the same kind of light and heavy infantry weapons as an infantry regiment. Some of these weapons can be fired from the personnel carrier"


Section VIII. DEPLOYMENT AND DETRUCKING

http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/motor ... yment.html

If a formation of motorized infantry is surprised by the enemy, or forced off the road by enemy aircraft or artillery, it will deploy on the order of its commander or of the local commanders. The deployment will usually be carried out on the move.

...

As we see, the motorized infantry was considered an offensive asset on it's own and the dismounting in case of an enemy contact was extensively elaborated in the theory and well rehearsed in the practice.




-

[boredatwork]

Allow me to bring in the example of the famous ( or infamous ) 2SS Das Reich Division...

Given the way in which currently the motorized infantry is represented in the game, it would be impossible to simulate the assault of the Das Reich Division in the game, because it's mounted batalions would be defenseles againts the enemy counterattacks, and the whole division would be wiped out during the first two or three turns.
...
As we see, the motorized infantry was considered an offensive asset on it's own and the dismounting in case of an enemy contact was extensively elaborated in the theory and well rehearsed in the practice.
-

I think that such a casualty rate in case of the regimental size unit is too high.

IMO you're overlooking the fact that this is an abstracted game, not a simulation. It's impossible to simulate many historical events in Panzer Corps because it lacks mechanisms to simulate command and control, imperfect intelligence, supply lines, etc.

This level of abstraction extends to the units, whose characteristics are a blend of operational level and tactical level features. Certainly at operational level (Battalion or greater) the odds of a motorised infantry being completely wiped out before it can deploy are minimal. However you can't really argue that PzC units are supposed to represent operational level units because if they were they would be mixed teams, not homogeneous collections of equipment. (how many battalions or regiments of 3.7cm Pak or Heavy Weapons infantry or JadgTigers *fought* as such? Much of PzC equipment would be parcelled out in platoon or company sized formations across the front.) At the tactical level an individual vehicle, or platoon, or company might be surprised and overwealmed before it had a chance to deploy. However again PzC does not fit neatly into the tactical level as individual direct fire range is only abstractly simulated by "initiative".

Instead PzC is what it is - a game - where units which represent a mix of abstracted tactical and operational characteristics fight over an notionally operational scale map. As such, within the spirit of the game I think that dismounting after the first attack makes the most sense - if you don't have the forces to screen your infantry then advance them cautiously.

As to your point about armor not being similarly penalised for road movement - again IMO in the abstracted game world it makes sense: An Infantry squad out of it's halftrack is a much harder target than one in it's half track. A tank on the otherhand is still a tank on road or off. What made tanks vulnerable was advancing in a column, which in game terms is perfectly simulated by multiple units advancing in a column, particularly through rough terrain, being vulnerable to having the enemy being able to concentrate on the lead units before the trailing ones have a chance to intervene.

[ivanov]

This level of abstraction extends to the units, whose characteristics are a blend of operational level and tactical level features. Certainly at operational level (Battalion or greater) the odds of a motorised infantry being completely wiped out before it can deploy are minimal. However you can't really argue that PzC units are supposed to represent operational level units because if they were they would be mixed teams, not homogeneous collections of equipment. (how many battalions or regiments of 3.7cm Pak or Heavy Weapons infantry or JadgTigers *fought* as such? Much of PzC equipment would be parcelled out in platoon or company sized formations across the front.) At the tactical level an individual vehicle, or platoon, or company might be surprised and overwealmed before it had a chance to deploy. However again PzC does not fit neatly into the tactical level as individual direct fire range is only abstractly simulated by "initiative".

Instead PzC is what it is - a game - where units which represent a mix of abstracted tactical and operational characteristics fight over an notionally operational scale map. As such, within the spirit of the game I think that dismounting after the first attack makes the most sense - if you don't have the forces to screen your infantry then advance them cautiously.

Basically I agree with you all the way but due to the generalization of the game mentioned by you, I would prefer the infantry to dismout inmediatelly when attacked. However I would also accept if that happened after the first attack. I just don't like the fact, that right now the infantry units get annihilated so easily and due to that their role on the battlefield is diminished.

[boredatwork]

Basically I agree with you all the way but due to the generalization of the game mentioned by you, I would prefer the infantry to dismout inmediatelly when attacked. However I would also accept if that happened after the first attack. I just don't like the fact, that right now the infantry units get annihilated so easily and due to that their role on the battlefield is diminished.

Basically I agree with your basically agreeing with me - that at the moment the role of Infantry seems diminished. Given however the effectiveness of infantry in forests and cities however I would speculate that the fault lies not entirely with transported infantry, but rather with, IMO, the excessive casualties of the game as a whole, at least compared to PG. Infantry in the open are easily annihilated and tanks in cities and forests are equally decimated in a single turn which cuts the player out of being able to react to influence their fate. IMO that is to the detriment of the RPG aspect of the game as core units are easily killed off regardless of how cautious a player is.

Personally I would preffer a more Fantasy General type system where most of the current casulties are replaced by permanent supression (requiring doing nothing for a turn to remove). One benefit would be infantry caught while mounted would be vulnerable to being rendered combat inneffective and would require a turn to re-organise, without actually being in immediate danger of destruction.

[deducter]

Basically I agree with your basically agreeing with me - that at the moment the role of Infantry seems diminished. Given however the effectiveness of infantry in forests and cities however I would speculate that the fault lies not entirely with transported infantry, but rather with, IMO, the excessive casualties of the game as a whole, at least compared to PG. Infantry in the open are easily annihilated and tanks in cities and forests are equally decimated in a single turn which cuts the player out of being able to react to influence their fate. IMO that is to the detriment of the RPG aspect of the game as core units are easily killed off regardless of how cautious a player is.

Personally I would preffer a more Fantasy General type system where most of the current casulties are replaced by permanent supression (requiring doing nothing for a turn to remove). One benefit would be infantry caught while mounted would be vulnerable to being rendered combat inneffective and would require a turn to re-organise, without actually being in immediate danger of destruction.

In the DLCs, I find myself losing almost nothing unless I play on Manstein, and even then I barely lose units except for recon. I think there are too few units lost in single player, and have been generally vocal about this during the DLC beta testing.

[Akaoz]

I think there are too few units lost in single player, and have been generally vocal about this during the DLC beta testing.

Yes, yes you have But then again you are probably the best player in the room.

That said, I kind of agree that the unit should dismount after the first attack, or at least have a larger chance to withdraw if engaged.

Personally I use my armor to go around the hex I want my mechinf to go to in order to cover it. Or I get arty to move up and cover them until they can dismount.

[ivanov]

I don't think of the destroyed units as a permament casualties. I like to imagine, that they were withdrawn after taking heavy loses and then when I buy them back, they return to the front full of green replacements. Maybe it's just a psychological mechanism, that allows me suffer less after losing some dear to my heart unit...

[deducter]

I don't think of the destroyed units as a permament casualties. I like to imagine, that they were withdrawn after taking heavy loses and then when I buy them back, they return to the front full of green replacements. Maybe it's just a psychological mechanism, that allows me suffer less after losing some dear to my heart unit...

I do agree that some ability to reconstitute a destroyed unit should be a feature in an expansion. It would be green, but it'd have the list of accomplishments in in the unit history file. After many years of fighting, read a unit's history can be pretty epic.

[Anfield]

Let me get this right, now its we arent losing enough units in a game, in the topic that some are upset taking to big a hit on units in the game. You gotta see the irony there right??



(pls see the humor in this post)

[deducter]

To be fair my opinion is in the extreme minority. While I may clamor for harder content, I realize that the DLCs must be made for a broad audience, and I realize that no scenario can gut the player's core as a principle of design.

[boredatwork]

To be fair my opinion is in the extreme minority. While I may clamor for harder content, I realize that the DLCs must be made for a broad audience, and I realize that no scenario can gut the player's core as a principle of design.

*shrug* Difficulty and losing units are 2 seperate concepts that don't necessarily have to be linked. You can have challenging games that involve no loss. And you can have easy games that involve hundreds or thousands of units turned over (zerg I'm looking at you).

The advantage of a long term suppression system is that difficulty can be ajusted to increase the amount of suppression done to make units combat ineffective quicker, and decrease the rate from which it is recovered, thus reducing the resources available to achieve the goals of the scenario within a set time without actually increasing the danger of core unit loss, which given the main reason the majority of people play PzC is probably the development of their core forces, is IMO a positive improvement.

However as that would involve a substantial reworking of the code and rebalancing of the scenarios I would be completely in favour of being able to "reform" destroyed units with green recruits as an acceptable compromise.

[freakinjstu]

A change like this would mean completely rebalancing the game. Possible, sure, but ill advised imho.

As previously stated, motorized transport offers a tradeoff between movement and vulnerabiliy. If you remove that tradeoff then infantry becomes much, much more powerful. Every other unit would have to be rebalanced to reflect that power shift.

[ivanov]

A change like this would mean completely rebalancing the game. Possible, sure, but ill advised imho.

We are aware of that but do not fear the changes - eventually something good will come out from the chaos of creation

[Kerensky]

It's a pretty interesting topic, but it's clear from the poll that there is no clear consensus on this matter.
Still, when our lead developer comes back from his much needed vacation, it might be something worth discussing internally.
For the immediate future, however, our focus has to be on implementing key features that have been unanimously asked for.

[ivanov]

It's a pretty interesting topic, but it's clear from the poll that there is no clear consensus on this matter.
Still, when our lead developer comes back from his much needed vacation, it might be something worth discussing internally.
For the immediate future, however, our focus has to be on implementing key features that have been unanimously asked for.

Hi Kerensky!

Thanks for looking into that! Just in keep in mind, that the apparent balance between the two factions, is due to the way in which the pool question was formulated. I represent the "hardcore", revolutionary left wing and due to that, have been promoting the concept of the motorized infantry being automatically dismounted before the first combat. However my understanding is, that many of those who voted "no" would say "yes" for the infantry being dismounted after the first attack.

In my opinion, the pools results clearly indicate that there is some significant need for the change and further discussion. And I'm not trying to be manipulative here...

Thanks again