Slitherine

1 – on Unit Classes

1.1 – Anti-Tank

This class could be split in two, let’s call them “Anti-Tank” and “Tank Destroyer”.

"Anti-Tank" would be the towed guns. They could have Move 2 (maybe except the 8.8 cm Pak).
Also supporting defensive fire, like artillery, could be added to this class, making it more useful.
At least the 3.7 cm Pak, and maybe also the 5 cm Pak, could have air droppable versions (like paratroopers, with less ammo than the regular version) and mountain versions (more movement points and alpine movement but less ammo than the regular version).

“Tank Destroyer” would be the Self Propelled guns. I don’t think any changes are necessary for this class.

EDIT: Supporting defensive fire- units should be switchable between normal AT (attacks and defends as it does now) or support mode (it does not attack, but only defends or provides supporting suppressive fire)


1.2 – Anti-Air

Towed guns, with the possible exception of the 8.8 cm FlaK and 12.8 cm FlaK, could have Move 2 and they should be switchable to ground attack. 8.8 cm and 12.8 cm would be better against hard targets, the lighter weapons would be better against soft targets.
I’m not sure about SP guns. Could they be depressed low enough to engage ground targets? If so, they could also be good against soft targets.
At least the 2 cm FlaK, and maybe also the 3.7 cm Flak, could have air droppable versions (like paratroopers, with less ammo than the regular version) and mountain versions (more movement points and alpine movement but less ammo than the regular version).


1.3 – Artillery

The only suggestions I have is to give the 7.5 cm gun, and maybe the 10.5 cm, air droppable versions (like paratroopers, with less ammo than the regular version) and mountain versions (more movement points and alpine movement but less ammo than the regular version).
Or, as an alternative, make some air droppable and mountain mortar units.


That’s it for now.
Comments?

2 - Mass Attack / Defense

My suggestion here is quite simple, Mass Defense should have the same rules/effects as Mass Attack, with one difference which I’ll explain below.

2.1 - Firstly I suggest that instead of an Initiative penalty the supporting units (attack or defense) provide suppressing fire.

2.2 - Attacking supporting units have to be adjacent to defending unit, as it works now.

2.3 - Defending supporting units have to be adjacent to the defending unit, with no more than 1 hex between them and the attacking unit. That hex has to be unoccupied, so units behind the defender do not provide support (except artillery of course).
If supporting units are adjacent to both the defender and the attacker, some of their suppressive fire can be converted to regular fire.

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…

1.1 Light AT should be more effective against high-maneuverable armored units, and Heavy AT should be less effective against high-maneuverable armored units.
So, armored units need a additional parameter (maneuverability).

1.2 Light AA should be more effective against low-altitude airplanes, and Heavy AA should be more effective against high-altitude airplanes.
So, airplanes need a additional parameter (altitude).

Switchiing Ability for Heavy AA/AT and extended Moving for light AA/AT should be Nation specific (Every Nation have List of specific abilities).

1.3 Large calliber Artillery (15 cm and more) should be limited in movement (move = 0), but have ability make support fire in range .

Giving towed AT guns support fire doesn't actually make them more useful, it most likely will have the opposite effect. The only reason towed AT seems bad is because it's always a bad idea for a tank to voluntarily attack into it, which is why no one, especially the AI, never does it. Extending the coverage of towed AT guns just makes tanks also not voluntarily attack units protected by towed AT guns. Still doesn't actually make towed AT guns more useful though because it will most likely cause towed AT guns to fire even less often. They are further pigeon holed into being a roadblock unit (not only will you not attack me voluntarily, now you will also not attack units adjacent to me voluntarily!) instead of a damage inflicting unit.

There was some discussion being kicked around regarding towed AT units. We'll see how it actually turns out when implemented, but there were definitely some ideas exchanged to change them from a passive, engagement preventing unit into a more proactive, damage inflicting threat.

Well, you could always have the support fire suppress only, and not destroy.

You could also make them more difficult to spot, thus giving more opportunity for ambush. Spotting in general is a good candidate for significant rethinking of game mechanics.

Kerensky

Kerensky wrote:Giving towed AT guns support fire doesn't actually make them more useful, it most likely will have the opposite effect. (...)

I edited my first post to add that this supporting trait should be switchable; unit is either on a supporting mode or in AT mode. Plus supporting fire would be only suppressive fire.

Kerensky wrote:There was some discussion being kicked around regarding towed AT units. We'll see how it actually turns out when implemented, but there were definitely some ideas exchanged to change them from a passive, engagement preventing unit into a more proactive, damage inflicting threat.

Looking forward to any changes that make this class usable.

Yrfin

Yrfin wrote:1.1 Light AT should be more effective against high-maneuverable armored units, and Heavy AT should be less effective against high-maneuverable armored units.
So, armored units need a additional parameter (maneuverability).

1.2 Light AA should be more effective against low-altitude airplanes, and Heavy AA should be more effective against high-altitude airplanes.
So, airplanes need a additional parameter (altitude).

In theory I agree with you, but I don’t really want to see more specifications added to units. In my opinion that just complicates thing.

Yrfin wrote:Switchiing Ability for Heavy AA/AT and extended Moving for light AA/AT should be Nation specific (Every Nation have List of specific abilities).

Don’t agree with Nation specific abilities, that is already modeled in that not all similar units are the same. For example German infantry does not have the same stats as British infantry.
But I could live with that.

Yrfin wrote:1.3 Large calliber Artillery (15 cm and more) should be limited in movement (move = 0), but have ability make support fire in range .

If by that you mean like in PG2, where artillery did not need to be adjacent to the units it was supporting, I agree.

hs1611 wrote:3 - Battlegroups

- Battlegroup can be also created by scenario designers.
In this case, Battlegroup can't be dismissed by player and must be deployed "all together".
- Units in Battlegroup can be arranged by drag&drop.

I agree.

Battlegroup would make life easier for modders - on this trigger, deploy all 1st Army; when this happens, 1st Army changes to Hold, fire, etc. Saves a lot of zone-dependent commands and allows for some neat events (eg destroy the recon units of a battlegroup and it stops attacking because it can't see).

All my suggestions were from a player's POV, not a modder.
I always assign my core units to specific battlegroups, and would like to see them together on the unit list on the deployment turn, instead of all Infantry units first, then all tanks, then all AT, etc...

But it does sound like a good idea from a modders perspective...

I usually use battlegroups/divisions when playing and agree it would be useful.

Great suggestions, thanks. Some quick comments.

- I can see how air droppable versions of light guns could benefit the gameplay, but how historical is this?

- AT in supporting role could be useful. I don't think it needs to be switched in order to support, this sounds like unnecessary micromanagement, and it's not easy to indicate clearly on the map in which mode the gun is in. But we can just use more suppression if the gun if providing support fire.

- I like the idea to implement "mass defense" in addition to mass attack, creates some nice symmetry. But I'm not sure more units should be firing at attacker to provide support. If such attacks are efficient, this could be too powerful for defender. If they are not efficient, this will be an unnecessary fireworks of shooting effects on the screen. Also, I think that mechanics like empty hex between attacker and support unit imply lower scale of the map than Panzer Corps had.

- 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.

- The reason why artillery support fire does not work as in PG2 is, there is too much support fire rounds with this mechanic. It creates similar problems which I mentioned in connection to mass defense.

- We experimented with zero movement guns in the past. While this might be "realistic", it tends to slow down the game too much to my taste. Movement range of 1 for guns is not huge, but often it allows to adjust gun position without wasting an entire turn.

- We can already configure switching ability, movement range etc. on unit by unit basis, so it does not look like any new "nation abilities" are required to implement such differences.

- Low/high altitude aircraft could be a good way to add more variety to air combat, because in Panzer Corps it feels a bit shallow. While this is an additional complication, in this particular case it might be worth doing.

Rudankort wrote: - The reason why artillery support fire does not work as in PG2 is, there is too much support fire rounds with this mechanic. It creates similar problems which I mentioned in connection to mass defense.

- We experimented with zero movement guns in the past. While this might be "realistic", it tends to slow down the game too much to my taste. Movement range of 1 for guns is not huge, but often it allows to adjust gun position without wasting an entire turn.

Move 0 for Heavy Art must be compensate by support fire in range (like PG2) ONLY for Heavy Art.
At least it can be done for 17 cm and more cannons.
I cannot imagine 17 cm gun (17500 kg), moving with crew at field same like 7.5 cm cannon (440 kg)

Rudankort wrote:Great suggestions, thanks. Some quick comments.
- I can see how air droppable versions of light guns could benefit the gameplay, but how historical is this?

Well since there were even glider landed light tanks like the Locust or Tetrarch I'm sure they tried to airdrop at least a few infantry guns or stuff... one would have to check the various airdrop missions on whether they ever got any heavy equipment. If not then maybe the paratroopers should be somewhat reworked. It's not easy making a unit that's strong enough behind the lines while at the same time not being so powerful it's better to replace all regular infantry with paratroopers..

Rudankort wrote: - AT in supporting role could be useful. I don't think it needs to be switched in order to support, this sounds like unnecessary micromanagement, and it's not easy to indicate clearly on the map in which mode the gun is in. But we can just use more suppression if the gun if providing support fire.

AT in general should be rethought. ONe of the main reasons why the British troops cried out for a dual purpose tank that could shoot HE and finally got it with the M3 was after all that the Germans used a combination of Tanks and anti tank guns very well. that combination doesn't REALLY work in Panzer Corps right now. Also the StuGIII was so inredibly successful because it was good at ambushing tanks, something that rarely happens in PzC. Maybe there should be something like opportunity fire? If a unit gets stopped by zone of control of certain units with that trait, their turn is interrupted and the unit gets a chance to fire with extremely high initiative or something like that? Not sure. Ambushing units should be made easier for TDs and Anti Tank guns. That's most of what they did after all. Or they should really be camoflaged like I tried in my Epic Let's play of the GC39 video series. There I modded all towed guns to be camoflaged, i.e. only spottable from 1 tile away. that would make TDs and anti tank guns a lot more dangerous. and make scouting even more important.

Rudankort wrote: - I like the idea to implement "mass defense" in addition to mass attack, creates some nice symmetry. But I'm not sure more units should be firing at attacker to provide support. If such attacks are efficient, this could be too powerful for defender. If they are not efficient, this will be an unnecessary fireworks of shooting effects on the screen. Also, I think that mechanics like empty hex between attacker and support unit imply lower scale of the map than Panzer Corps had.

I don't think either of those really work. Mass Defense... yeah I sounds like it slows the turns down with unnecessary animations and organized defenses are already hard enough to break in PzC especially if around cities and fortification hexes. I don't think that should be changed.

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.

Rudankort wrote: - The reason why artillery support fire does not work as in PG2 is, there is too much support fire rounds with this mechanic. It creates similar problems which I mentioned in connection to mass defense.

I think artillery was pretty good in PzC. However I'd maybe look into separating field artillery from infantry support guns a bit. It's kind of silly that a 105mm howitzer field artillery can provide close support defense just like a StuG. the things couldn't be more different. One shoots over giant distances, the other is right next to the infantry, which is why it has the armor. I don't know. Maybe field artillery shouldn't be able to provide defensive fire but cause more depression, making these unit types somewhat distinct, making it worthwile to have each of them around.
And it would also then make sense to give other unit types the option to provide support fire. Like the early Panzer IVs which were basically just meant to fuction like the later StuG IIIs, except in the panzer divisions, or the American Tank Destroyers which tanks to the doctrine rarely working, often got used as close support guns firing HE at fortifications and bunkers.
To me it was always a bit weird to mix field artillery with close support. Historically those are very distinct jobs and I think it could be worthwile to make those distinct in the game as well. maybe not a new unit type that would overcomplicate things but maybe some traits that one can give support and another can't. Maybe making the support fire thing in general more trait based rather than type based. Since as I meantioned the PzIV was not really meant to be a battle tank, it was supposed to be a support tank, supporting the PzIIIs against anti tank positions and infantry. And the American TDs which ended up ebing used like StuGs (the artillery StuGs, not the later tank destroyers)

- We experimented with zero movement guns in the past. While this might be "realistic", it tends to slow down the game too much to my taste. Movement range of 1 for guns is not huge, but often it allows to adjust gun position without wasting an entire turn.

Agreed. I'd rather improve the movement for small caliber stuff to 2. Like 3.7cm paks and light nebelwerfers and stuff like that. After all the infantry bataillions have some of that equipment integrated into them also, so there's no reason why a separate pak unit should move any slower than heavy infantry having the same equipment just in smaller numbers.

- We can already configure switching ability, movement range etc. on unit by unit basis, so it does not look like any new "nation abilities" are required to implement such differences.

Agreed. Nation abilities also sound a lot like urban legend to me. I don't think any nations had any abilities the others didn't have. They had maybe different training, tables of organization and tactics but that shouldn't be represented on a per-unit level, that makes no real sense. THe unit stats are already representing those differences.

- Low/high altitude aircraft could be a good way to add more variety to air combat, because in Panzer Corps it feels a bit shallow. While this is an additional complication, in this particular case it might be worth doing.

Well in a way we already had that. After all level bombers cannot be shot at by units with air defensive fire, i.e. some heavy infantry or tanks with anti aircraft MGs. (Btw I'd remove the latter completely. I don't think a lot of tankers actually ever used that MG to attack aircraft. The Sherman crews usually dismounted the crap since it was only in the way and using it while under air attack was suicide. I think that stat should only be there if there's a really strong potential for anti aircraft fire, not just some crap like an MG on the turret)

KeldorKatarn wrote: If not then maybe the paratroopers should be somewhat reworked. It's not easy making a unit that's strong enough behind the lines while at the same time not being so powerful it's better to replace all regular infantry with paratroopers..

Perhaps, if paratroopers landed unspotted in fog of war, their first attack after landing could get a big bonus because of utter surprise. This way, perhaps by concentrating a few such units, you can grab an airfield behind the lines, and then air-transport other units their, like light guns. This tactics already works in Panzer Corps, so it would just be a small refinement.

KeldorKatarn wrote:Maybe there should be something like opportunity fire? If a unit gets stopped by zone of control of certain units with that trait, their turn is interrupted and the unit gets a chance to fire with extremely high initiative or something like that? Not sure.

We've discussed this idea with Kerensky not long ago, he is also very much in favor of some sort of "overwatch"/"opportunity fire" for AT guns. We can just try it and see how well it works in practice.

KeldorKatarn wrote:Ambushing units should be made easier for TDs and Anti Tank guns. That's most of what they did after all.

I was thinking about giving them good entrenchment rate, similar to infantry. In that case, at least rugged defense (which is a variation of ambush) can be much more likely. To further simulate ambush situation, they could even access close defense of a tank. However, net result of all these changes would be that tanks will attack defending ATGs even more reluctantly. Which means even fewer situation where a tank is ambushed. That's why some kind of overwatch mechanic might be a better way to simulate what those guns were actually doing.

KeldorKatarn wrote: Mass Defense... yeah I sounds like it slows the turns down with unnecessary animations and organized defenses are already hard enough to break in PzC especially if around cities and fortification hexes. I don't think that should be changed.

I tend to agree that around cities and fortifications mass defense would be happening kinda automatically, because of typical unit concentrations, and so it's not like some tactical option you need to think carefully how to use. Which makes it much less interesting.

KeldorKatarn wrote:I think artillery was pretty good in PzC. However I'd maybe look into separating field artillery from infantry support guns a bit. It's kind of silly that a 105mm howitzer field artillery can provide close support defense just like a StuG.

Yes, I'm thinking along the same lines. Reserve support fire to lighter guns, while big guns can have other bonuses (longer range, major damage to entrenchment, more suppression etc.). This could promote more variety in artillery class. I'm not sure about tanks giving support fire though. Players who are not so much into history of ww2 equipment could be really confused by this. Of course, if we have a trait, this can be changed in custom equipment files for more historical "realism".

KeldorKatarn wrote:I'd rather improve the movement for small caliber stuff to 2.

Yes, the more I think about this idea, the more I like it. Movement of 2 is like heavy infantry, this would make these guns much easier to use offensively, and more flexible on defense.

KeldorKatarn wrote:Btw I'd remove the latter completely. I don't think a lot of tankers actually ever used that MG to attack aircraft. The Sherman crews usually dismounted the crap since it was only in the way and using it while under air attack was suicide. I think that stat should only be there if there's a really strong potential for anti aircraft fire, not just some crap like an MG on the turret

I did not particularly like how it worked in Panzer Corps, because even [1] air attack was too effective. Also, from gameplay perspective this looks more like annoyance than anything else. It also erodes the roles of classes, when tanks are carrying AA with them.

Rudankort wrote:

KeldorKatarn wrote:Btw I'd remove the latter completely. I don't think a lot of tankers actually ever used that MG to attack aircraft. The Sherman crews usually dismounted the crap since it was only in the way and using it while under air attack was suicide. I think that stat should only be there if there's a really strong potential for anti aircraft fire, not just some crap like an MG on the turret

I did not particularly like how it worked in Panzer Corps, because even [1] air attack was too effective. Also, from gameplay perspective this looks more like annoyance than anything else. It also erodes the roles of classes, when tanks are carrying AA with them.

Regarding passive anti air again... there's a video series called "Operation Think Tank", a panel of tank historians organized by wargaming, the world of tanks guys.

They talked about this stuff. And their main conclusion of historical reports was that most of this stuff just didn't really work BUT that it caused virtual attrition because all the tracers flying around scared off the pilots. We already talked about making small Anti Aircraft guns do supression instead of damage and nobody was a real fan of this since it would weaken the unit type even more (I'm still not sure about that, since artillery and level bombers as preparation weapons certainly have their place in the game so it might work but in any case... maybe this could work for passive anti air defense? Maybe instead of doing damage to the attacking planes it reduces their chance to cause damage by supressing them before they attack? So instead of a stupid [-1] tank shooting down 5 of my 10 strength fighters in a lucky roll, they'd instead supress 5 of them so I can do less damage? Might that work? I'd still only give that to units that really had anti air defense, like maybe ships and certain types of infantry that really had the stuff. Not so much tanks because of the stupid MG on top that nobody used anyway. But if it makes sense for a unit, then maybe it should work like that. It would be less of a nuisance, bad rolls wouldn't cause reloads (seriously who doesn't reload on Rommel when you just lost 5 ffighter hit points due to attacking a pioneer unit that got a lucky roll), you just would cause less damage. Much less annoying.

In the Total Realism mod, I have Light AT's move 2 and camouflage. It works great. It would even be better if they had Defense fire. I like the idea of Opportunity fire trait. That would be great for the light AT's to automatically have the Opportunity Fire trait buit into unit. then when you upgrade it you would loose that ability

Also, we need to fix the upgrade path so some Pz 38's and PzII's can later be upgrade to Marders. Then Marders upgrade to StuG's. I know they are not on the same chassis but at least we would have a reason to buy Light AT's, upgrade to Med AT's or Marders then StuG's.

Fixing the upgrade path and adding the increased movement with camo trait has helped the usability allot in the TRL Mod.

Rudankort wrote:I was thinking about giving them good entrenchment rate, similar to infantry.

For towed guns this would be a big help and would reflect their intended role (at least as Guderian described it in Achtung Panzer!) and can be justified for all sized guns. Move 2 allows AT guns to get into combat and stay in combat but while some of the 47mms were relatively mobile, move 2 probably isn't realistic for guns bigger than about 50mm. Proper supporting fire like artillery provides would probably make them too powerful, but maybe a passive benefit might work OK (like radar adds +1 initiative to air units within 4 or 5 hexes, maybe something like +2 defence vs tank class within 1 hex). You could possibly keep the passive benefit for SPAT but drop the faster entrenchment. This would allow make the towed AT a little more useful relative to SPAT but without overpowering them.