06-27-2011, 07:06 AM
Per the manual units on patrol only affect partisans. In Danube 85 patrols have no affect on deception units which are NOT partisan (commandos, etc). Is that right?
06-27-2011, 07:06 AM
06-28-2011, 11:32 AM
Bump... this is a big one for me too. Clear as mud to me.
Taffy
Taffy
06-28-2011, 05:33 PM
Yes. Patrolling has no effect on deployed Deception units (the "?" sign) whatsoever.
06-30-2011, 03:08 AM
patrolling is one important feature in this game...just imagine your opponent getting his stuff into assembly areas during the night/dusk/dawn turns-that two hex sweet spot-or building a bridge over that river 2 hexes from your guys, out of LOS.
Patrolling will cross unbridged rivers, let you see units that are blocked by terrain, and it will identify those units attempting to get the jump on you with 1 hex visibility. You cant spot arty with it but you will identify units that are out of los.
My friends and I use it in every game we play-as do most of our opponents
Patrolling will cross unbridged rivers, let you see units that are blocked by terrain, and it will identify those units attempting to get the jump on you with 1 hex visibility. You cant spot arty with it but you will identify units that are out of los.
My friends and I use it in every game we play-as do most of our opponents
06-30-2011, 04:57 AM
I also use the patrol feature for its other functions, but I'm trying to grasp how patrolling might impact deception units in MC, whether the deception units are classed as "infantry", "special forces" or "partisans".
The "Patrolling" rules in MC read:
"While Patrolling, the unit will negate the ability of any Partisan unit within Deception range of having any Deception effects."
I have been spectacularly unsuccessful in using NATO rear-area security units in a patrolling state to combat Warsaw Pact deception units in both Volcano's ALT West Germany camp (where Spetznaz are classified as "infantry" with deception ability), Aaron's Bolt camp (where he re-classified Spetznaz to "partisan") and finally Zemke's World War III campaign (where some of the Spetnaz are classed "infantry" and some are classed "special forces"). Patrolling seems to have no noticible effect in any of these DF85 cases.
Now, in ALL of these camps I have been using FOW and playing the NATO side so I can only remark on what I THINK I am seeing, not what the game engine is actually doing.
The reason this is important to me is that after two years of work, re-work, research, more re-work etc, I have finally completed an exhaustive 1985-era OOB for an upcoming DF85 campaign I am now starting to build the scenario on the map, learning as I go. It is solidly based on Aaron's Bolt 4.7, steals Zemke's concept of operational MP's being based on national army and doctrine rather than equipment, borrows ideas from Ed, mixes parts of the PDT from all three and finally is set in June 1985 just as the original (as to me this was the most likely time for a NATO-WP war in Europe based on all the Cold War stuff that happened in the early '80's).
One of the OOB changes/additions I have included is an acurate rear area security structure which includes FRG Feldjager units and also correctly places other NATO Comm-Z security units where they would actually deploy , ie real life 1985-era GDP positions. I am hoping to find the way in which NATO and WP deception capable units can actually be countered by patrolling so I can design it into the campaign as I go. Having a solid place to start in regards to MC Patrolling vs Deception will save me a lot of work later in re-design and play testing. As it stands, this area is an enigma in MC for me.
Regards,
Taffy
The "Patrolling" rules in MC read:
"While Patrolling, the unit will negate the ability of any Partisan unit within Deception range of having any Deception effects."
I have been spectacularly unsuccessful in using NATO rear-area security units in a patrolling state to combat Warsaw Pact deception units in both Volcano's ALT West Germany camp (where Spetznaz are classified as "infantry" with deception ability), Aaron's Bolt camp (where he re-classified Spetznaz to "partisan") and finally Zemke's World War III campaign (where some of the Spetnaz are classed "infantry" and some are classed "special forces"). Patrolling seems to have no noticible effect in any of these DF85 cases.
Now, in ALL of these camps I have been using FOW and playing the NATO side so I can only remark on what I THINK I am seeing, not what the game engine is actually doing.
The reason this is important to me is that after two years of work, re-work, research, more re-work etc, I have finally completed an exhaustive 1985-era OOB for an upcoming DF85 campaign I am now starting to build the scenario on the map, learning as I go. It is solidly based on Aaron's Bolt 4.7, steals Zemke's concept of operational MP's being based on national army and doctrine rather than equipment, borrows ideas from Ed, mixes parts of the PDT from all three and finally is set in June 1985 just as the original (as to me this was the most likely time for a NATO-WP war in Europe based on all the Cold War stuff that happened in the early '80's).
One of the OOB changes/additions I have included is an acurate rear area security structure which includes FRG Feldjager units and also correctly places other NATO Comm-Z security units where they would actually deploy , ie real life 1985-era GDP positions. I am hoping to find the way in which NATO and WP deception capable units can actually be countered by patrolling so I can design it into the campaign as I go. Having a solid place to start in regards to MC Patrolling vs Deception will save me a lot of work later in re-design and play testing. As it stands, this area is an enigma in MC for me.
Regards,
Taffy
06-30-2011, 05:14 AM
I believe that once any deception capable unit is deployed as a deception unit rather than on map, patrolling has no further impact. At that point, their impact and loss are controlled by the PDT. However, partisan units have deception impacts while deployed on map as a unit still. It has been awhile since I worked with that side of things, in Minsk, but patrolling prevents the on map partisans from impacting movement.
I believe (purely speculation on my part) the idea here is that deployed off map deception units can be found and permanently removed based on the PDT settings, but when partisans were given the ability to have deception effects while deployed as units on map, there needed to be a way to counter this ability or they would be too strong, so patrolling was given the ability to disrupt the partisan counter deception ability.
Hope that helps, I am not 100% sure of all this but I think it is correct.
I believe (purely speculation on my part) the idea here is that deployed off map deception units can be found and permanently removed based on the PDT settings, but when partisans were given the ability to have deception effects while deployed as units on map, there needed to be a way to counter this ability or they would be too strong, so patrolling was given the ability to disrupt the partisan counter deception ability.
Hope that helps, I am not 100% sure of all this but I think it is correct.
06-30-2011, 06:46 AM
Icky B is eminently correct. The only way you can increase the chance of finding a deployed Deception unit, is to raise the % chance of this happening in the .PDT and/or increase the DECEPTION range, which is a double edged sword, since it will both increase the area a DECEPTION unit affects and the area within which it might be detected.
06-30-2011, 08:39 AM
Thank you gentlemen, that explains it!