Slitherine

Dragoon24 wrote:I think you are making a lot of assumptions. First of all they already stated that the units were in shifting scales so the distance is as well, additionally a turn is never defined is it a day, an hour a week?

The scale of one hex may be shifted to 200m,1000km or anything but the fire and movement ranges of units dont shift along.
I would love to have that feature.Dynamic eFile range value's or efile switches inbetween scenarios of a campaign.


Yes i was wrong.Its possible to set many turns per day in the scenario editor so we can have hours,forgive my ignorance.

Dragoon24 wrote:And Combat strength is not the same as actual strength the "Strength" of a unit is almost certainly a more abstract value involving the morale of the unit, it's ammunition, it's tiredness, it's cohesiveness it's not like it means the unit has an exact number of active personal.

All true in reality but in game percentage/odds is what matters since we don't have factors like moral,tiredness,up,etc available for the calculations .
A unit which has only 20% of their manpower versus one which may be 100% or even more when overstrenghted.
It doesent realy matter if a unit in the game stands for a division,battalion or even army with or without nonfighting personel,its still 20% versus say 100% when an overrun event would happen in the game.
Ok i assume that no one will create an efile where a tank unit in the game stands for a batallion and an infantry stands for an army....

Unfortunatly in game we can't simulate partial surrender/flee or splitting up of units.
I would realy love to have factors like morale,tiredness and others (the more the better) in the game ,in general not just the overrun situation,
but since they are not there...

Dragoon24 wrote: there is no way all the companies will surrender at the same time with no problems there will always be a remnant that must be dealt with and that takes time.

Fully agree.
Exactly this time and effort it takes should be reflected in the game not by getting and easy overrun for same attacking tankunit but by having to spend an additional attack by another friendly unit.

Imho the only reason an overrun feature makes sense in gameplay is that i find it kinda unrealistic that a 20% unit can stop a 100% breakthrou force from moving beyond them,or bypassing them (zone of control).I'm aware that in reality it may be possible though under
some conditions.

So if they would just lose their ability to provide zoc that would be perfect imo to solve that "problem".
No surrendering you still would have to deal with them and also no easy kill by the same tank force they have just fought.

The only way I would want to see overrun in this game is IF the tank completely kills what ever unit it is facing in NORMAL combat then it may use any movement REMAINING.

If I move a Panther 3 hexes into combat with a 5 str infantry and kill it over the course of normal combat the I would allow that tank to move another 3 hexes, subject to usual movement restrictions.

No FULL second move.

No auto-win untouchable combat bonus

No multiple attacks per turn.

Well, as a Hardcore PG-series gamer I must say the overrun abilty was indeed a nice feature, at least in PGII and as well in People's General and IF memory serves me right it was already available in the original PG ?

But I agree that limiting it to ONE additional attack might be OK.

Or make it really only available via leader trait, would be OK for me to.

I would also not allow the unit to get its full movement points back after overrun. It should just be able to use what ever movement points it has left.

I think it should be allowed an "Advance After Combat" of one hex, in any direction, if it had no movement left. This movement was the natural result of an attack, as most attacks are conducted to gain ground. Real attackers don't just stand around after combat, they advance. Normally they would move into the defenders hex, or a city hex that is unoccupied.

I also thought this feature added a lot to PG2 and would like to see it here. After elimination of opposing unit armor should retain remaining movement; limiting to one additional attack would be ok

As someone who has played a lot of PG2, mostly PBEM, the overrun is one of the most fun elements of the game. PG (and PzC) is not 'realistic' - it is a fun representation of (quite horrible) reality. Overruns in PG2 are affected by the entrenchment of the defender, supporting artillery fire, experience of attacker and defender and the terrain. Tanks can not move willy-nilly around the battlefield and overrun everything in sight - all arms are usually involved to set one up (air to soften artillery and entrenchment, recons to soften, infantry to root out entrenched units and other attacks before the tank trundles in and wipes out (hopefully) the remnants of the shell-shocked defenders. That's the theory.

Of course, the scale of PzC is different but the principle remains the same IMO - a full strength or powerful tank force should be able to 'roll over' (around?) a severely weakened enemy unit. Each unit on the PG or PzC map is a composite - a Panther is actually a panzer division with a significant number of Panthers in it, but it also has mobile infantry, anti-aircraft and tank etc etc. They do the mopping up as the battle tanks rumble on.

So, all this is a bit of a long-winded way to say I like the idea of overruns in PzC.

I also like the idea of the ZOC of severely weakened (definition, perhaps 1-2 points) not having a ZOC for tanks. The taking the combat hex after a battle is a good one, too. A leader would reduce the incidence of overruns but all tank units are trained to fight in that way (overruns, rapid movement, disrupt supply etc) so a leader seems counter to that. Anyway, for what it's worth, I like overruns.

Cheers

If you play enough games, especially MP, then you will see how overun is a bad feature.

It will destroy the game due to supply mechanics.

Even with the new supply theme, over run will kill the game.

El_Condoro wrote: Each unit on the PG or PzC map is a composite - a Panther is actually a panzer division with a significant number of Panthers in it, but it also has mobile infantry, anti-aircraft and tank etc etc. They do the mopping up as the battle tanks rumble on.

I disagree. What does a Wespe represent? Or a Whirbelwind? Or a JagdTiger? And artillery division with a significant number of wespes? An AA Bde composed largely of FlakPanzers? A Jagdpanzer Bde with 100 JagdTigers?

Trying to think in terms of the units being representative of actual TOE formations is counter the philosophy of PG/PzC.

They are operational playing pieces with tactical statistics and as such don't correspond to anything in reality. Therefore assigning a panzer playing piece the attributes of a panzer division is IMO the wrong way to look at it. Combined arms in the 5star series of games always meant using the different strengths of various types of units to their best effect - not simply giving 1 class bonuses to make it all powerfull.

If you mass a collection of panzer playing pieces, along with infantry in transport, and motorized or mechanized artillery and Flak then the collection of playing pieces together should have the abilities of a panzer division, albeit usually somewhat out of scale for the size of the map.

not simply giving 1 class bonuses to make it all powerfull.

I tried to explain in my post, but obviously failed, that this is *not* what happens - all arms are needed to make overruns possible. Without the support of the other arms, overruns normally fail in PG2 except between the strongest tank and weakest infantry (in the open).

The reason I brought up the TOE issue is that many posts in this thread are arguing a 'realism' theme. Now you are saying PG2/PzC are totally unrealistic in this sense, to which I agree, but don't want overruns due to realism? Overruns require careful planning, all arms and they're fun. That's the extent of my argument.

It will destroy the game due to supply mechanics

I do not understand this - one of the key advantages of blitzkreig, as I understand it, was exactly to disrupt the supply and communications of the enemy in his rear eschalons. I do not understand how this translates into the game to 'destroy' it though.

I think it should be allowed an "Advance After Combat" of one hex, in any direction, if it had no movement left. This movement was the natural result of an attack, as most attacks are conducted to gain ground. Real attackers don't just stand around after combat, they advance. Normally they would move into the defenders hex, or a city hex that is unoccupied.

I second this. It is strange and silly if a unit doesn't take ground after defeating the enemy, it's mostly the sole purpose of an attack in the first place. It's not like they destroyed the enemy and then ignore the relative safety of the city or their goal to capture it. I think if a unit has movement points left it should be allowed to advance in a city hex or hex where an enemy was defeated. I'm not sure but I do not see how gameplay will be affected in a negative way.

I would agree to being able to advance after combat as well if the defender was completely eliminated. I thought about the abiltity to just occupy the hex vacated but upon thinking more, allowing an armour unit to advance half of its remaining movement points, if available, would be a nice way to allow for exploitation.

pickle wrote:I would agree to being able to advance after combat as well if the defender was completely eliminated. I thought about the abiltity to just occupy the hex vacated but upon thinking more, allowing an armour unit to advance half of its remaining movement points, if available, would be a nice way to allow for exploitation.

I've been giving the Advance After Combat some thought and here is what I came up with: After combat your armor unit may advance any movement points it has -1 for the tactical manuvering that would naturally take place during that combat. If all movement was expended, the armor unit may advance into the hex occupied by the defender, since that is where the "combat" was taking place.

I believe this would solve the 'realisim' theme we are expecting in a game of this scale?

El_Condoro wrote:and they're fun.

Then "I didn't find them particularly enjoyable" will be the extent of my counter argument.

boredatwork wrote:

El_Condoro wrote:and they're fun.

Then "I didn't find them particularly enjoyable" will be the extent of my counter argument.

Aye, they're not so fun when they happen to you, but I do like inflicting them on my opponent. . .

I'm enjoying the passion with which both sides are setting forth their case. No, I don't have a lot of posts but certainly have played a ton of the General series. To me , a limited overrun makes sense- limited in the sense that a highly mobile unit eg tank which has substantial movement left after combat should be capable of some "exploit" move. At the very least ,entering the hex in which the combat took place. Perhaps as a middle ground, the overrun movement can be limited to something less than the entire remaining movement allowance (eg 50%). To make the overrun even less routine, it can also be limited to units with a specified threshold of prestige so that only more experienced units would have that ability. No second attack. Such a limited overrun would,imho, add a nice element to the game and would hardly ruin it.

I was in favor of the overrun attack until I read some of the other posts. Very good points. PG2 was not as balanced as they are trying to make PzC. So, I'd say leave it out. Pz2 was in many ways inferior to Pz1. I found it much easier to play and win. PzC is brutal at the higher difficulty levels.

Funny i have ask in the Start of Beta will there be an Overrun Funktion for Tanks, only answer "No" and know maybe !? Hope there be a decision for implement it. BTW. there is a difference for PG 2 and 3D, - 3D is not Western assault or Barbarossa but not PG2 too.