Slitherine

I do not think making AT guns give a small bonus is the way to go. They need to be radically changed in my opinion in fact.

Anti tank units in panzer corps right now basically work like tanks with crap stats depending on whether they attack or defend. In a divion AT guns are NOT fighting units. That's only infantry and armor. Anti tank guns are in the support section of the unit. They are not a fighting units, they are support. Just like the artillery, the recon and the anti air. making them seek active combat to be effective is completely off. They should work a lot more like AA and Arty because that's exactly what they are. they are exactly the same type of support unit that is supposed to COMPLEMENT and SUPPORT the actual fighting units, not be one of them.

The Elefant TD is actually the best example for this. In Kursk two units got the thing. A former Panzerjäger 1 unit that was used to having no armor and a former StuG unit. The panzerjäger ones thought they were now invulnerable and drove the thing around like a tank actively seeking combat. They lost all their vehicles and this led to thje urban legend that the TD was bad because of lack of machine guns or some crap.

The Sturmgeschütz guys knew exactly how to use a TD like this. THey lay in ambush and they did fantastically and scored a ton of kills.

Right now TD units are used like the first guys did it in Panzer Corps. If you wait to ambush people that will almost never happen. You can't easily stay hidden, you cannot easily ambush so you suppress the enemy and then attack. That's not how this should work. TDs are suddenly a fighting unit and Arty is supporting them. That's not how it worked. TDs were issues to the Infantry divisions actually for the most part to help the infantry out and give them heavy support fire. They were not entended to work side by side with the Panzer Units. (don't ask Guderian how they should be used, he was full of crap.)

I think the TDs and AT guns are fundamentally flawed right now which is I think why players don't really use them. The only way to use them effectively is basically use them as tanks. And they're just worse than regular tanks in that role (as they should be) so people rather use tanks. The StuG III should be incredibly good in the defensive role and score kill after kill. It doesn't. Because the AI sees it and simply doesn't attach. And if the AI moved adjacent you have to attack to score a hit and that gives the StuG bad rolls. It just doesn't work the way it was supposed to. Anti tank units need to be a fully fledged support weapon, not a crappy version of tanks. It already didn't work in Panzer General and it didn't work again in Panzer Corps. If people didn't KNOW these cool units from history, nobody would use them at all because they're crap compared to regular tanks. They need to have completely different mechanics from tanks and they need to be effective using those mechanics.

I also think in tank vs tank combat they need to replace artillery. Right now in tank vs tank combat it works like this: bring in artillery, supress the enemy tank, then attack it with your own tanks.
And on the defensive, put close support artillery behind your tanks so if enemy tanks afttack you you get support.

Historically that's complete bullshit. The Germans didn't use a Tank+StuG mix to attack enemy tanks, they mixed tanks with AT guns. THAT was the effective mix. And StuG artillery was never intended to support the tanks. They were created to give INFANTRY the firepower to attack fortifications and bunkers. They should be bunker busters and defeat entrenchment, they should NOT be used to defend tanks. That's not what they did until they were transformed into some kind of tank destroyer whch the infantry hated since they no longer had the support guns and a movement was started to mount those guns on halftracks and recon cars and even the Panzer III later models so they got their support howitzers back.

The StuG type guns including the Ameerican Tank destroyers that had good HE shells need to be bunker busters and entrenchment killers. Thats what they did. And the Anti tank Guns and proper TDs need to provide Tanks and also infantry with support fire against armored targets. That's how those were used. They were not meant to be used like tanks and tanks certainly didn't wait for artillery to supress enemy tanks (I don't even know how that is supposed to work unless you're shooting really high shell volume barrages) before attacking.

I feel those are the main game mechanic issues that need to be adresses regarding unit type mechanics.

Going back to my original suggestions:

hs1611 wrote:1 – on Unit Classes

1.1 – Anti-Tank
(...)
1.2 – Anti-Air
(...)
1.3 – Artillery
(...)

It's good to know that these classes are being rethought. At the moment I have no further suggestions to make on this.

hs1611 wrote:2 - Mass Attack / Defense
(...)

Yes, Mass Defense would probably be too overpowered, so disregard my suggestion.

hs1611 wrote:3 - Battlegroups

For role playing purposes I always assign my units to specific groups (divisions, corps, etc... Let’s just call them battlegroups so map scale has no effect on it) and deploy them together. But then I always have to scroll around the unit list to find the specific units that belong to the specific battlegroup.
Why not give me the ability to assign units to battlegroups ingame, and show them all together in the deployment screen?

It could be as simple as this:

- The player chooses names for the battlegroups, could be simply I for 1st battlegroup, II for 2nd battlegroup, etc…
- The player assigns any unit he wants to any battlegroup he wants, only during the deployment phase.
- The unit list on the deployment phase would show units grouped by battle groups, instead of by unit types as it does now.
- Unassigned units would be shown on the bottom of the list.
- Unit icons, both on the deployment screen and on the map, should show battlegroup designator. Maybe a little square on one of the corners of the icon with the battlegroup name.

If you prefer you can create images to use as battlegroup identifiers instead of names.
Personally I prefer the simplicity of I, II, III, IV, etc…

Rudankort wrote:(...)
- I'll give some thought to battlegroup idea, it can have potential both as a convenience feature and something affecting gameplay. It could also be tied to AI.
(...)

KeldorKatarn wrote:(...)

Rudankort wrote:(...)
- I'll give some thought to battlegroup idea, it can have potential both as a convenience feature and something affecting gameplay. It could also be tied to AI.

This probably only makes sense if it also effects AI scripting so these are actually meaningful. Maybe even scenario goals could be linked to them. Like Battlegroup A needs to reach that point, Battlegroup B needs to reach there, and if you do it the opposite way around you lose because you didn't follow orders. Maybe a stupid example but you get the idea.
(...)

Just so we're clear on this, that IS NOT what I was suggesting at all.
My suggestion DID NOT affect gameplay at all. And it WAS NOT tied to the AI al all.

Although I realize the usefullness of some kind of Battlegroup feature for scenario design, that WAS NOT what I meant at all.
I cannot stress this too much.

My suggestion is PURELY from the players perspective. From a, let's say, ROLEPLAY perspective.
For example, let's say my 1st Panzer Division is made of the 1st Panzer Regiment, which is composed of 2 Panzer Battalions (2 tanks), 1st Infantry Regiment, with 3 Battalions (or 3 Inf units), and the 1st Artillery Regiment, let's say another 3 Art units. I always want to deploy these units together.
On the Deployment phase of the scenario, when looking at the unit/reserve list I want to see them all together. Right now I have to check all Inf units to see which ones belong to the 1st Infantry Regiment. Then I have to check all Tank units to see which ones belong to the 1st Panzer Regiment, then the same with the Artillery units.
Then, I do it all over again for the 2nd Panzer Division.
This is TEDIOUS.

So, I want to see them all together on the unit list.

But, I DO NOT want to be forced to ALWAYS deploy ALL OF THEM. I may want to deploy 2 Tanks, 1 Inf and 2 Art and leave the rest in reserve, for example.

Not to say that, in some specific scenarios, a forced deployment of all those units would not make sense. But that IS NOT what I am requesting.

KeldorKatarn wrote:...
I also think in tank vs tank combat they need to replace artillery. Right now in tank vs tank combat it works like this: bring in artillery, supress the enemy tank, then attack it with your own tanks.
And on the defensive, put close support artillery behind your tanks so if enemy tanks afttack you you get support.

Historically that's complete bullshit. ...

Well, artillery was a prime way of defeating armoured attacks. Indirect artillery in sufficient quantities can and did repulse even heavy armor formations - most notably, it was crucial in defeating the Mortain attack, but also innumerable other instances. And not talking direct fire here, but rather indirect bombardment by massed artillery. Such bombardment didn't kill many tanks (though a direct hit on thin top armor was often fatal). Instead, heavy bombardment forced tanks to button up, made a mess of the exterior, pitted the ground, stripped off supporting infantry, made a hell of a racket, and generally made life awful. Even panthers were not usually game to attack dug-in enemy positions after their supporting infantry had run away and they were buttoned up. In PC game turns, artillery should indeed be able to suppress attacking armor (not so much defending armor).

In France, many accounts of infantry whose first reaction when getting attacked by panzers was to call in artillery. Not AT or air support...

hs1611 wrote: Just so we're clear on this, that IS NOT what I was suggesting at all.
My suggestion DID NOT affect gameplay at all. And it WAS NOT tied to the AI al all.

Not to worry, I think I understand what you mean. It's just that, as game designer, I'm supposed to see "the big picture", so I always try to "generalize" suggestions and try to understand how they can be integrated and connected to other aspects of the game, and made even more useful than in one specific use case.

Good to know.

I have nothing against other people's ideas, just wanted to make sure that mine were understood.

Sourdust wrote:Well, artillery was a prime way of defeating armoured attacks. Indirect artillery in sufficient quantities can and did repulse even heavy armor formations - most notably, it was crucial in defeating the Mortain attack, but also innumerable other instances. And not talking direct fire here, but rather indirect bombardment by massed artillery. Such bombardment didn't kill many tanks (though a direct hit on thin top armor was often fatal). Instead, heavy bombardment forced tanks to button up, made a mess of the exterior, pitted the ground, stripped off supporting infantry, made a hell of a racket, and generally made life awful. Even panthers were not usually game to attack dug-in enemy positions after their supporting infantry had run away and they were buttoned up. In PC game turns, artillery should indeed be able to suppress attacking armor (not so much defending armor).

In France, many accounts of infantry whose first reaction when getting attacked by panzers was to call in artillery. Not AT or air support...

That's not what I mean. As I said large scale barrages can indeed supress or at least drive off tanks. However as you stated yourself here, this stuff was usually used when no friendly taks were around to help. INFANTRY calls in arty if they need to stop tanks.

I was talking about the current importance of artillery in tank vs tank combat. I do not really see how this would have worked historically. I don't really know of any tank vs tank engagements where one side first shelled the enemy tanks before sending in their own. Usually it was pure tank vs tank supported by anti tank guns.

The supression is too important in the game currently for tank vs tank combat. for example when players encounter the T34s and especially KV1s, they don't mass attack them to simulate what the Germans did, outmaneuver and flank, instead they usually either bomb them with stukas (that part is fine) or they shell them into supression and then attack with their tanks. I don't see what good that would do in real life. Even if you shell them so much they lose a track or just have to button up, how would that help friendly tanks to penetrate their armor? And on top of that, trying to support the attack with anti tank guns just doesn't do anything. Quite the opposite, anti tank guns are even LESS effective unless the enemy is fully supressed since they take massive damage in return.

So I think somehow mass attack needs to become more important in tank vs tank, artillery needs to be less important in tank vs tank and anti tank guns need to be able to support an armored attack AND defense.

I feel in general that artillery may be a bit too important in the game at the moment. Especially on higher difficulties most players including me don't attack ANYTHING unless it's supressed or a really weak target. I feel artillery should mainly be used to supress fortified positions, bunkers, dug in troops, anti tank guns and anti aricraft batteries. It shouldn't be used to supress units that are on the move so much. It's not exactly easy to supress a mechanized force with artillery while it is moving at high speeds and engaging you. You'd risk shelling your own guys, artillery is not exactly that accurate. You shelled the enemy and THEN attacked them, You didn'T shell them while they were attacking you. If you saw them coming you tried to block their path with a barrage. if you're already engaged it's too later. The only thing you can try then is to disengage and barrage the enemy to prevent them to follow.

I feel arty should be MORE important to defeat stationary and fortified enemies and less important for open terrain maneuvers. There initiative and mass attack should be the deciding factor. At least that's how I feel. Artillery was massively important of course but I feel in the game currently you almost can't do anything without it. That's a little too far on the other side I think. Mass attack initiative bonuses are already pretty good but I think they should be pushed a tiny bit more so you can do more stuff without artillery, especially in tank vs tank.

And as said numerous times, AT guns really need to become a proper support weapon and actually make other units more effective, not just sit there and wait to be attacked, whcih the AI never does.

KeldorKatarn wrote: I was talking about the current importance of artillery in tank vs tank combat. I do not really see how this would have worked historically. I don't really know of any tank vs tank engagements where one side first shelled the enemy tanks before sending in their own. Usually it was pure tank vs tank supported by anti tank guns.

"Pure" tanks vs tanks attacks was rare in historical way. Most of mass tank attack start with artillery preparation before battle (Kursk for example).
And Soviet tanks counter-attack (Prohorovka) was failed becouse poor art support for attacking T-34.

KeldorKatarn wrote: I feel in general that artillery may be a bit too important in the game at the moment.

"Artillery — the god of modern war"
Stalin has so told, defining value of artillery in modern war and emphasizing power of gun-fire.

Maybe we need another level of suppression caused by ranged units. The one that incapacitates attacking capability but does nothing like lasting or temporary suppression. Useful purely in defensive role. This would allow wider range of artillery balancing and while its defensive role could be maintained offensive role could be safely toned down.

I believe artillery is not overrated in the current game and should not be nerfed in PzC II. If you look especially at the final battles of WWII, airpower and massive artillery presence blew the Wehrmacht to pieces ( see the artillery at the Battle of the Seelow Heights). There are for sure small changes you could suggest as ammunition types, modifiers reducing efficency when expanding range or a rate of fire change to represent change of firing position (if firing each round)...but this is where I would leave it.