Forums

One of the weak points of both game series is the urban combat, both in budapest and danube front it's too easy to take Budapest or Berlin.
I'm also sure that in another games of the series the same happens, it's possible to have for example a good battle at Jerusalem in Middle East '67? I don't have that game, but i'm almost sure that the answer is negative.

So mi suggestions are:
-Create an impassable type of urban hexagon for the tanks and other heavy vehicles
-Boost the infantry/anti tank guns hard attack when attacking a tank unit situated in an urban hexagon
-Boost the infantry defence values when they're in an urban hexagon making them hard to hit by the artillery
-Complement the creation of the impassable urban hexagon with another kind of hexagon suitable for those vehicles representing areas where the streets are wide enough or there are a lot of avenues.
-Penalze tanks units trapped in an urban hexagon with obstacles in it with some penalty in their defence making them more vulnerable to shooting infantry/AT Guns

I think that those suggestions would do the thing, it would obviously require a modification of the engine, but it would be for good because the cities would turn into a nightmare for the tanks.

The only reason why it is easy to take Berlin in DF85 is because NATO has what amounts to a reinforced division worth of manpower with almost no artillery with which to hold the city. If NATO could just stuff more troops into the city it should be plenty tough to take if the troops are dug in to at least "Trench" level (in the stock DF85 Berlin scenrio there is also several hexes w. "Bunker" fortitifications). City terrain means 40% reduction in incoming firepower, while a "Trench" adds another 40 for a whopping 80% reduction in enemy attack strenght.

Yes, ok, but Berlin is not the only city in the game, i'm talking about more generical urban combat where there are areas where a tank can't enter because it's too big for that street for example.

Works just fine. I find that city terrain tends to "Rubble" quickly when fought over. And hey Presto! Suddenly those tanks can´t move forward without expending 90-100% of their available movement points.

-Create an impassable type of urban hexagon for the tanks and other heavy vehicles
Answered already by JDR Dragoon. No urban hex would be impassible. Routes through such hexes may be very limited. RUBBLE does the trick, IMO also.

-Boost the infantry/anti tank guns hard attack when attacking a tank unit situated in an urban hexagon
I think I see what you are saying. The assumption is that armor has no adequate infantry support to deal with AT defenders and that armor is taking routes through the hex that are along the streets where the defensive AT are sighted. There is already a rule in the game engine for armor in congested terrain without adequate infantry support reducing the armor effectiveness and making armor vulnerable to assault. The latter assumption is beyond the scope of the game. Suffice to say that the direct fire results min and max values account for armor moving into enemy bore sites or along undefended routes in the hex.

-Boost the infantry defence values when they're in an urban hexagon making them hard to hit by the artillery
Dig in with IP or TRENCHES. Designers can add BUNKERS or PILLBOXES. Just being in a building without added military fortifications does not help much more than the already high defense percent that lowers incoming fire by 30% -50% in most game titles. Troops can still be taken out by collapsing ot setting the biulding on fire if not dug in adequately.

-Complement the creation of the impassable urban hexagon with another kind of hexagon suitable for those vehicles representing areas where the streets are wide enough or there are a lot of avenues.
Not necessary, IMO. See number one above.

-Penalze tanks units trapped in an urban hexagon with obstacles in it with some penalty in their defence making them more vulnerable to shooting infantry/AT Guns
Not necessary, IMO. This would be overkill. See number one above.


Hexes in urban areas are nasty for armor, especially with the _Alt scenario series if properly defended. Nice ideas, but too tactical to fit the scale of the operational PzC/ MC.

Dog Soldier

JDR Dragoon Wrote:Works just fine. I find that city terrain tends to "Rubble" quickly when fought over. And hey Presto! Suddenly those tanks can´t move forward without expending 90-100% of their available movement points.

Well, that's precissely the point, i know that in a lot of German cities the historical center is medieval and it's simply phisically impossible to put tanks there unless you burn the place into ashes, then yes, the tanks could enter expending 90-100% of their movement points.

Dog Soldier Wrote:-Create an impassable type of urban hexagon for the tanks and other heavy vehicles
Answered already by JDR Dragoon. No urban hex would be impassible. Routes through such hexes may be very limited. RUBBLE does the trick, IMO also.

See what i answered to JDR, if the hexagon is still city, then it would be impassable, but if it's turned into rubble then they could pass expending 90-100% of their movement points.

Dog Soldier Wrote:-Boost the infantry/anti tank guns hard attack when attacking a tank unit situated in an urban hexagon
I think I see what you are saying. The assumption is that armor has no adequate infantry support to deal with AT defenders and that armor is taking routes through the hex that are along the streets where the defensive AT are sighted. There is already a rule in the game engine for armor in congested terrain without adequate infantry support reducing the armor effectiveness and making armor vulnerable to assault. The latter assumption is beyond the scope of the game. Suffice to say that the direct fire results min and max values account for armor moving into enemy bore sites or along undefended routes in the hex.

Is there a rule to represent that? I didn't know, how it's called?

Dog Soldier Wrote:-Boost the infantry defence values when they're in an urban hexagon making them hard to hit by the artillery
Dig in with IP or TRENCHES. Designers can add BUNKERS or PILLBOXES. Just being in a building without added military fortifications does not help much more than the already high defense percent that lowers incoming fire by 30% -50% in most game titles. Troops can still be taken out by collapsing ot setting the biulding on fire if not dug in adequately.

Yes the pillboxes and bunkers can do the tricks, but, AFAIK you can't build them ingame, making the cities easy to take and it's impossible to create long lasting sieges, hell i could take Budapest in just 3 days with the Russians when in the reality the siege of that city lasted 46 days!

And about Berlin in DF85... i think that, versus another human player it's almost impossible to hold the city against the WAPA, i think that they could hold pretty well against the WAPA and would long more than two days, the average time needed to take the city in the games that i played vs my brother.
And for example i concentrate a lot of forces in a city... Hannover for example, which is surrounded by rivers in three sides, north, east and west, with the intention of turning the city into a fortress, but it's impossible to hold it more than a pair of days because the WAPA always end taking it from the south just because that part of the city (with trench level fortifications) has not a river to stablish a decent defend line and there are neither bunkers or obstacles (which brings me the idea that the engineers should be able to build at least obstacles...).
And that happens in the whole campaigns of DB, which it's almost impossible to hold long periods of time any city unless there's a river surrounding it.

Dog Soldier Wrote:-Complement the creation of the impassable urban hexagon with another kind of hexagon suitable for those vehicles representing areas where the streets are wide enough or there are a lot of avenues.
Not necessary, IMO. See number one above.

Well, see my previous or first point.

Dog Soldier Wrote:-Penalze tanks units trapped in an urban hexagon with obstacles in it with some penalty in their defence making them more vulnerable to shooting infantry/AT Guns
Not necessary, IMO. This would be overkill. See number one above.

Well, i just made this thread because i read in the scenario notes for Budapest the following (scenario #450103_01)

HPS design notes Wrote:The scale of the Panzer Campaign series was never designed to model street-fighting such as this

So i just wanted to give ideas on how to better represent street fighting to that scale.

BTW, take your time to answer because i'm not going to stay in home during this weekend, i'll be with the most wonderful woman ever

Budapest too easy to take??? That depends a great deal on who you are playing :)

P.Ako Wrote:Yes the pillboxes and bunkers can do the tricks, but, AFAIK you can't build them ingame, making the cities easy to take

Heh. "Industrial" is -50%. "City" is -40%. Coupled w. a "Trench" it means a reduction of incoming fire between 80-90(!)%. 90% reduction of incoming fire, what more do you want?. If such a hex is easy to take it is because your opponent is either incompetent or unable to hold it in sufficient strenght. If you put a good quality battalion split into seperate companies (3-4 counters) in to such a hex it will hold out for quite a long time unless you have the luxury of concentrating inordinate amounts of firepower on this hex alone (say expending a reinforced divisions worth of artillery fire followed up by a multibrigade/regiments worth of direct fire capped off by an assault)

Quote:And about Berlin in DF85... i think that, versus another human player it's almost impossible to hold the city against the WAPA

Not impossible. I have done it, and almost have had it done against me (The stock "Berlin" scenario in the DF85 is a nice little thing btw. It playes fast, has an interesting mix of units and is a good introduction to playing w. "Explicit Supply" in effect).

Quote:And for example i concentrate a lot of forces in a city...

How much is a "lot" ;).

Quote:(which brings me the idea that the engineers should be able to build at least obstacles...).

Engineers can lay mines. They function pretty well as obstacles.

Quote:And that happens in the whole campaigns of DB, which it's almost impossible to hold long periods of time any city unless there's a river surrounding it.

Is it now? I guess we shall soon find out ;)

I really think PzC models urban fighting very accurately in its scale.
I had my share of violent street fighting in places like Caen, Cherbourg, Liège and specially Arnhem.
In all cases the fight was very violent, the cities were rubbled fast, the attackers were exhausted due to the nature of the fight (even winning) and both the feel and the fight's outcome and duration seemed very credible to me.
You need to build your defenses to get the 40% bonus, which in turn will get you either an 80% or 90% modifier, depending on the game. Then garrison the city hexes adequately. You can't expect a battalion to defend against a division with success.

I think JDR and Aetius have hit the heart of the matter. Urban terrain with fortifications, whether set by scenario design or built in game like TRENCHES, can make incoming direct fire nearly ineffective. There will be the lucky disruption from artillery. This is why multiple units must defend the hexes of the city. Reduction by assault on undisrupted defenders takes time, fatigue and losses on the attackers. If the defense has supply and some artillery, the job is much harder for th attacker.

If you have a multi hex urban area, either RUBBLE the approach avenues with your artillery when the enemy arrives or defend the outskirts forcing the enemy to forgo artillery to disrupt you or risk RUBBLE in the edge of city while you simply retreat next turn into fortifications and make the attacker climb over the RUBBLE to get at you. As attackers become exhausted and need to be replaced, a few turns can be bought due to the difficulty of moving over that RUBBLE.

Urban defenses can be murderous for the attackers in PzC/MC. With proper preparation, the attackers best asset, his mobility to threaten multiple hexes can be severely reduced allowing the defense to concentrate along interior lines. One may not always "win" as the defender in an urban battle. But causing the enemy boatloads of casualties, tying down attacking forces five times the defenders size can lead to local superiority elsewhere for overall scenario success as the defender.

Dog Soldier