11-24-2007, 01:52 AM
11-24-2007, 05:38 AM
Oh great... this is going to destroy Tobruk 41's playability and balance. Specifically the recon car units (all platoon sized), ability to screen, and bring the title back to where it was to begin with: units passing through each other and no front lines. :(
There MUST be an exception for platoon units of type [Recon], especially since their primary role consists of delaying and screening.
There MUST be an exception for platoon units of type [Recon], especially since their primary role consists of delaying and screening.
11-24-2007, 06:14 AM
VM,
As a former platoon leader in a cavalry regiment stationed in the desert at Ft. Bliss, TX, I can tell you that there is no way that a three to nine vehicle platoon could even consider having a zone of control that would halt the movement of an enemy force normally represented in the game (a battalion). And, this is not even taking into effect that WWII had much shorter engagement ranges.
The ability to screen would still be present; however, it would mean that either a company sized force would be necessary or the platoons would have to be deployed adjacent to each other. Just because a one-to-nine vehicle unit could be given a screen mission doesn't mean that it could be successful. The proper amount of force needs to be assigned to the mission.
So, I think that this is a good change.
Regards,
CptCav
As a former platoon leader in a cavalry regiment stationed in the desert at Ft. Bliss, TX, I can tell you that there is no way that a three to nine vehicle platoon could even consider having a zone of control that would halt the movement of an enemy force normally represented in the game (a battalion). And, this is not even taking into effect that WWII had much shorter engagement ranges.
The ability to screen would still be present; however, it would mean that either a company sized force would be necessary or the platoons would have to be deployed adjacent to each other. Just because a one-to-nine vehicle unit could be given a screen mission doesn't mean that it could be successful. The proper amount of force needs to be assigned to the mission.
So, I think that this is a good change.
Regards,
CptCav
11-24-2007, 06:57 AM
The rule summary is "- Change so that platoon units that are not combined with other platoons do not exert a Zone-of-Control." I wonder what the justification for this to apply only to platoon-sized units. There have been many discussions about why a decimated battalion with only one tank left can still exert a zone of control (arguments like, the one-tank battalion represents more than just the single tank, fields of fire, fog of war, the unit is actually deployed in multiple hexes comprising the ZOC, etc.). So perhaps if one is going to have this platoon rule, one must have a "minimum size to assert a ZOC rule".
I think of Brian Jennings "wacht am Rhein" B'44 scenario where one can play it without ZOCs. Perhaps ZOCs are not appropriate for this game system (heresy!) :eek1:.
I see VMs point in terms of T'41 play balance. However, I am not sure if the way that armoured cars can be used in the game to form screening lines is accurate, even though the screening lines are porous. Some accounts I have read of the Desert war indicate that the armoured cars usually hung back, and warily watched as enemy forces passed by, or shadowed the enemy forces as they moved. But on the other hand, what can one do with the game system which is just an approximate simulation.
I think of Brian Jennings "wacht am Rhein" B'44 scenario where one can play it without ZOCs. Perhaps ZOCs are not appropriate for this game system (heresy!) :eek1:.
I see VMs point in terms of T'41 play balance. However, I am not sure if the way that armoured cars can be used in the game to form screening lines is accurate, even though the screening lines are porous. Some accounts I have read of the Desert war indicate that the armoured cars usually hung back, and warily watched as enemy forces passed by, or shadowed the enemy forces as they moved. But on the other hand, what can one do with the game system which is just an approximate simulation.
11-24-2007, 08:07 AM
It's not that armored cars can prevent enemy units from advancing. It's that a game played in turns can't handle realistic falling back of recon units. Without a crutch like zoc, the armored cars sit like statues while enemy tanks drive up to their noses and blast them into oblivion. 
11-24-2007, 09:01 AM
I think the real point to the new K44 rule was to prevent entire Russian divisions from being surrounded and isolated by those small German HT and flak units present in K44. The tactic allowed German players to place such small units a hex away from the front line and paralyze much larger Russian units from assaulting and breaking out. As a Russian player you had to hope artillery or air strikes (when available) would blast the small enemy unit out of the hex and restore some mobility to your front line troops. Problem was that you might kill two out of three German vehicles and the ZOC still held your battalions in place for destruction the next turn.
Holding back the Russian tanks to deal with this threat in the mid game turns of the CG could counter the threat. It seemed to me a waste of the armored corps to do this duty. There are just too few mobile Russian units in the K44 CG.J ust the threat of a German panzer division counter attacking could stop the Russian player as he would have to deploy in depth and lose concentration of force or risk this type of tactic with the small, fast German vehicle units.
Dog Soldier
Holding back the Russian tanks to deal with this threat in the mid game turns of the CG could counter the threat. It seemed to me a waste of the armored corps to do this duty. There are just too few mobile Russian units in the K44 CG.J ust the threat of a German panzer division counter attacking could stop the Russian player as he would have to deploy in depth and lose concentration of force or risk this type of tactic with the small, fast German vehicle units.
Dog Soldier
11-24-2007, 10:25 AM
Cpt Cav,
I am familiar with how cavalry and reconnaissance works. As you should know, the US Army states:
Minimum mission planning ratio / economy of force:
Attack (deliberate) 3:1
Attack (hasty) 2.5:1
Defend (deliberate) 1:3
Defend (hasty) 1:2.5
*Delay 1:6*
In this situation (recon platoon), this means that a platoon could very well be expected to delay two companies. But this is not the point. The point is as Dirk Gross says, this is a game of turns and abstractions and we cant proper model what would happen; the recon platoon would fall back and conduct delaying action in the face of the enemy. The only way to model this is with ZOC. The way it is now it cannot occur, the enemy just simply drives around it. This is true even if the enemy is a single company!
With platoon recon units one of two things WILL happen (in game): the ZOC stops the enemy and if the small recon unit does not move away then it easily overrun on the following turn, or the recon platoon falls back far enough that the advancing enemy does not have enough MPs to assault it in the next turn. Either way, ground is gained by the attack and the recon units must perpetually fall back. Sounds like a delay to me.
The other aspect is, and the most important of all, is that NO CHANGE is good if it breaks another game in the PzC series. Now I know very well that some people do not care for Tobruk 41, but with this change as it is then it takes it right back to the way it originally was as an uplayable mess. From what you are telling me in your original post tells me that you have not played Tobruk 41. The game has very small units and you cannot combine your units because you need to cover vast stretches of open desert. Also, enemy units in Tobruk 41 consist of mostly company sized units so it would make no sense to prevent a platoon recon unit from delaying a force of only 3:1 ratio in size.
I also don't see what the problem is. There is probably very few PzC titles that even have platoon sized recon units anyway (Normandy 44 and Tobruk 41 are probably the only ones actually). And it is not like these platoon sized units are good for anything else other than for screening. In other words, it is not like the platoon size recon units cannot be easily delt with if the enemy decides to hold ground with them.
I am familiar with how cavalry and reconnaissance works. As you should know, the US Army states:
Minimum mission planning ratio / economy of force:
Attack (deliberate) 3:1
Attack (hasty) 2.5:1
Defend (deliberate) 1:3
Defend (hasty) 1:2.5
*Delay 1:6*
In this situation (recon platoon), this means that a platoon could very well be expected to delay two companies. But this is not the point. The point is as Dirk Gross says, this is a game of turns and abstractions and we cant proper model what would happen; the recon platoon would fall back and conduct delaying action in the face of the enemy. The only way to model this is with ZOC. The way it is now it cannot occur, the enemy just simply drives around it. This is true even if the enemy is a single company!
With platoon recon units one of two things WILL happen (in game): the ZOC stops the enemy and if the small recon unit does not move away then it easily overrun on the following turn, or the recon platoon falls back far enough that the advancing enemy does not have enough MPs to assault it in the next turn. Either way, ground is gained by the attack and the recon units must perpetually fall back. Sounds like a delay to me.
The other aspect is, and the most important of all, is that NO CHANGE is good if it breaks another game in the PzC series. Now I know very well that some people do not care for Tobruk 41, but with this change as it is then it takes it right back to the way it originally was as an uplayable mess. From what you are telling me in your original post tells me that you have not played Tobruk 41. The game has very small units and you cannot combine your units because you need to cover vast stretches of open desert. Also, enemy units in Tobruk 41 consist of mostly company sized units so it would make no sense to prevent a platoon recon unit from delaying a force of only 3:1 ratio in size.
I also don't see what the problem is. There is probably very few PzC titles that even have platoon sized recon units anyway (Normandy 44 and Tobruk 41 are probably the only ones actually). And it is not like these platoon sized units are good for anything else other than for screening. In other words, it is not like the platoon size recon units cannot be easily delt with if the enemy decides to hold ground with them.
11-24-2007, 10:41 AM
If it were an optional rule, then it could be applied or rejected for specific games and scenarios.
11-24-2007, 10:51 AM
I would be fine with that. It is not like I don't like the rule. I think that I would use it for every title but Tobruk 41.
11-24-2007, 11:28 AM
VM said "With platoon recon units one of two things WILL happen (in game): the ZOC stops the enemy and if the small recon unit does not move away then it easily overrun on the following turn, or the recon platoon falls back far enough that the advancing enemy does not have enough MPs to assault it in the next turn. Either way, ground is gained by the attack and the recon units must perpetually fall back. Sounds like a delay to me."
VM point is valid. If one looks at the progression over several turns, there is a "delay effect".
I think this should be an optional rule. If it is to be automatically included in the next T'41 update, issues with scenarios will occur.
I submit that if this rule is to be included, there should be a "minimum strength to be able to exert a ZOC rule". If a platoon can not have a ZOC, why should a one-tank (or one man) battalion have a ZOC?
P.S. I really like the T'41 game. It is underrated.
VM point is valid. If one looks at the progression over several turns, there is a "delay effect".
I think this should be an optional rule. If it is to be automatically included in the next T'41 update, issues with scenarios will occur.
I submit that if this rule is to be included, there should be a "minimum strength to be able to exert a ZOC rule". If a platoon can not have a ZOC, why should a one-tank (or one man) battalion have a ZOC?
P.S. I really like the T'41 game. It is underrated.