PG2 features

rayduhz · Post by **rayduhz** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:07 pm

What, if any, features of PG2 will be included in Panzer Corp?

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 1:29 am

Leaders would be fantastic, but other then that, what did Pg2 really bring to the table (that was good)? Nothing comes to mind.

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 11:32 am

I would not mind seeing HQ units, perhaps this could be integrated to prevent people from complaining about the un-realism of wondering units behind lines at no penalty.

But development may be too far along by now to incorporate these...

Rudankort · Post by **Rudankort** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 12:09 pm

But development may be too far along by now to incorporate these...

Well Panzer Corps 1.0 is not the end of the world, there will be patches, add-ons, sequels, you name it, and so we are always on the look out for good suggestions. I don't post on this forum often, but I read very carefully everything which is said here.

So guys please have no doubts about this: we are listening, and all opinions are important.

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 12:58 pm

Well now, while we are at it, what about infiltration & withdraw in regards to EZoCs?

Rudankort · Post by **Rudankort** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 1:48 pm

Obsolete wrote:Well now, while we are at it, what about infiltration & withdraw in regards to EZoCs?

Can you explain in a few words how it works?

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:20 pm

I guess you are not a TOAW fan

Alright, when in an EZoC, there should be some sort of penalty for trying to get out of it. Normally it is not so easy to do. Furthermore, if one wishes to move from within EZoC, and tries to move to another hex that is also in EZoC, this should be one of the hardest maneuvers possible to execute.

A lot of wargames allow the enemy to get free shots off at these points, though you could DAMPEN them down to prevent them from being too harsh a penalty.

I guess the closest thing I've seen to this in the PG series was the Over-Watch.

boredatwork · Post by **boredatwork** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:51 pm

New to the forum but keen on the upcomming PzC.

Without knowing how closely or otherwise PzC follows the original PG it would be hard to say which improvements PG2 made on the later would be in anyway applicable to the former.

However 2 things that I thought were big improvements with PG2 are:

1) Anti-tank units only loosing the initiative to tanks if they moved *before* firing.

2) a) Air units not revealing their entire flight path and b) Recon Units being able to break down their move into phases.

Both these changes made 2 previously broken classes which had little utility other than as broken tanks usefull in the way they were intended.

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:08 pm

The one thing PG-III did that actually was an improvement, is that it made sense (at least for axis) to get an AA gun. That 88 was always one of my top priorities and highly promoted units.

I don't even touch that class in PG2... and pray I am never awarded one of them for a proto-type.

Rudankort · Post by **Rudankort** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:32 pm

Obsolete wrote:The one thing PG-III did that actually was an improvement, is that it made sense (at least for axis) to get an AA gun. That 88 was always one of my top priorities and highly promoted units.

What do you think was the reason for this?

Rudankort · Post by **Rudankort** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:33 pm

boredatwork wrote: 1) Anti-tank units only loosing the initiative to tanks if they moved *before* firing.

2) a) Air units not revealing their entire flight path and b) Recon Units being able to break down their move into phases.

Both very good points.

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:11 pm

What do you think was the reason for this?

If your leader was promoted high enough, you were entitled to a ONE-shot at a ground unit with it... that's one big reason right there.

And it was one of those top Euro-engineered weapons of perfection. So combining the two.... there's a decent use. I think I had one AA kill 3 or 4 fighters outright once on defense when they tried to dive-bomb against me. So.... things of this nature make it quite hard to resist getting an AA gun for a change.

boredatwork · Post by **boredatwork** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:11 am

1 shoting anything, especially fighters with an 88, would not be the way I would improve AD units IMO.

For one thing it overstates large caliber AA's effectiveness at dealing with low flying, fast moving FBs and tactical bombers. None of them possessed the handiness to track, or the rate of fire to hit lower flying targets, hence the existence of the 20mm, 3.7cm, and (at least in theory) 5cm weapons.

IMO the real fix for AD units to make them viable as core units is to change their mechanics from air killer units (which they will always be at a disadvantage compared to fighters due to the later's mobility) to air shield units (a unique role at which they could be uniquely effective):

- Rather than assume all the guns are at the location of the unit itself instead assume the unit represents the location of the AD headquarters (battalion or Brigade)
- Rather than assume the range is the actual physical range of the gun instead increase it to 4(?) to 6(?) and have it represent the C&C/supply range for all the abstracted sub units (platoons & batteries) attached to Friendly units within that range.
- Divide AD into 2 categories: heavy and light.
- **Reduce the kill probability for all AA guns**
- Do not treat AD units mechanically as artillery that fires at aerial targets but instead:

Key concepts:
Heavy AD HQs: any enemy aircraft that *overflies* ANY hex within the ZOC of ANY friendly ground unit within a HEAVY AD HQ's range is brought under fire for a small chance of taking casualties but a large chance of having suppression inflicted **for the remainder of the turn**. Note by overfly it doesn't actually have to stop within the radius, the AA merely takes opportunity fire as it flies by.

Light AD HQs: any enemy fighter or tac bomber that attacks any friendly ground unit within the LIGHT AD HQ's range is brought under defensive fire with a slighly higher chance of inflicting casualties and a large chance of having suppression inflicted for that specific combat.

In otherwords AD units would sacrifice their ability to cause heavy damage to aircraft in a tiny radius (relative to A/C movement speeds) for the ability to prevent heavy damage to friendly units in a bigger radius through suppression as opposed to kills.

IMO reducing the frequency with which IL-2s gut my mounted units by providing them an AD umbrella would be worth sacrificing a few other core units for.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:47 am

boredatwork wrote: Without knowing how closely or otherwise PzC follows the original PG it would be hard to say which improvements PG2 made on the later would be in anyway applicable to the former.

QFT, and emphasis.

Rudankort · Post by **Rudankort** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:31 am

boredatwork wrote: IMO the real fix for AD units to make them viable as core units is to change their mechanics from air killer units (which they will always be at a disadvantage compared to fighters due to the later's mobility) to air shield units (a unique role at which they could be uniquely effective):

Indeed, in PG fighters are often a more attractive alternative for core, but fighters are more vulnerable, more expensive and less effective in defending other units. They are also difficult to replace (you can't do it on the spot - need to return to airfield, losing a few turns in the process). For these reasons in defensive scenarios ADs played quite a big and important role. Perhaps the main problem with ADs as core units was that they had hard times keeping up with the rest of the core. No matter what useful properties you give to an AD unit, they will not work if it stays in truck most of the time. How do you propose to address this problem?

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:38 pm

Allow units to be dismounted in the same turn it moves, just give it small penalty then if it has to be moved in a truck. Otherwise... you have the same problem as in the rest of the PG series, and Operation Barbarossa, etc, where everyone ignores towed units because they basically become useless every turn they have to be moved.

Rudankort · Post by **Rudankort** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:47 pm

Obsolete wrote:Allow units to be dismounted in the same turn it moves, just give it small penalty then if it has to be moved in a truck. Otherwise... you have the same problem as in the rest of the PG series, and Operation Barbarossa, etc, where everyone ignores towed units because they basically become useless every turn they have to be moved.

The whole point of leaving the units in trucks during the opponent's turn if to give him a chance to catch them on the move. Without it you can hardly model differences in protection of various transports and things like that in a simple, intuitive way. And for normal offense units, like infantry and towed artillery, it works very nicely, because on your own turn you unmount and act. ADs are special because their primary purpose is protection during the opponent's turn.

(people also rarely bother with towed ATs, but that is because they are often plain useless in offensive - if they were important attacking units, like infy, people would move them around in trucks just fine).

boredatwork · Post by **boredatwork** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 5:14 pm

Rudankort wrote:Indeed, in PG fighters are often a more attractive alternative for core, but fighters are more vulnerable, more expensive and less effective in defending other units. They are also difficult to replace (you can't do it on the spot - need to return to airfield, losing a few turns in the process). For these reasons in defensive scenarios ADs played quite a big and important role. Perhaps the main problem with ADs as core units was that they had hard times keeping up with the rest of the core. No matter what useful properties you give to an AD unit, they will not work if it stays in truck most of the time. How do you propose to address this problem?

IMO the problem is not so much AD has trouble keeping up with the core - it's no worse in that regard to trucked artillery - but rather their passive nature combined with a lack of range vs the size of the battlefield and the speed of the threat they are intended to defend against.

In the short term (Aux units in a scenario) AD units were viable because they *could* be more cost effective than an expensive fighter. In the long term (core units) fighters were always the better choice because they had infinitely more opportunity to actually engage in battle and gain the experience required to make them effective.

In the same way that AT units failed in their role because under normal circumstances they were only a threat to tanks IF tanks attacked them, AD units are generally a failure because they're only a threat to Aircraft IF the Aircraft fly within range. Most of the time the aircraft simply choose to attack one of the many units out of range .

Now at first glance such a limitation seems to make sense: if I have a 37mm gun in Minsk it's only effective at defending from aircraft that are attacking Minsk. I can't pick it up and move it 200 miles away in response to aircraft attacking somewhere else in Belarus.

However in reality, outside of protecting strategic targets like cities, AD weapons were not concentrated in large groups but rather spread out to cover all of the units and sub units and important bridges in an area. Each PzBn or Infantry regiment had it's own light flak platoons, divisions scattered their Flak Bns to cover supply dumps, headquarters, important crossings in their area, Corps deployed their assets accross the countryside to protect lines of communication, important bridges, etc.

My proposed system would abstractly represent that without adding complexity to the PG system. Because Flak units no longer have to be ajacent to a unit to protect them and could fire defensively over a much greater radius they would have to be moved less frequently and would provide better defense to a much more usefull sector of the front. In extremely mobile operations, like Moscow after the breakthrough, yes towed flak units will have difficulty providing effective protection to fast moving armored spearheads but this is still realistic and encourages the upgrading to mobile flak halftracks and flakpanzers.

Because the guns are not concentrated aircraft casualties should be reduced hence aircraft will not be afraid of attacking the now protected targets, hence AD units will see more action and gain more XP.

However while not causing as many casualties AD units will still supress attacking aircraft by discouraging pilots from pressing home their attack in the interests of self preservation thereby reducing friendly ground casualties, which is more typical of what real life flak units did anyways.

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 5:25 pm

Well, i really hope that the decision is made to NOT allow units to mount move and then fight dismounted if attacked.... Getting your motor corp in march formation attcked should be a pretty big penalty:)

Rudankort · Post by **Rudankort** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 5:29 pm

Indeed, if AD range is increased significantly, they might be more useful in all but the most fast offensives. But then, their range will cover huge portions of enemy controlled territory, which cannot be explained by their distributed nature.

Also, I'm afraid that in PG gaming model buying a fighter will still be much more attractive than buying an AD, because your goal in most missions is to grab air superiority and bomb the heck out of the enemy, not protect your own units. And by the time allied air force becomes overwhelming it is already too late to invest into AD branch.