Forums

When you play a campaign game, or a lengthy scenario, you tend to come into contact with the extreme edges (good and bad) of the features within a system.

There is no limit to the number of artillery strikes on a hex in the game. There's a limit for air strikes, direct fire from a hex (but not into a hex as far as I know) and the number of men that can be involved in an assault, but there's no limit for artillery fire.

In Fall Kreml, the Germans only have trenches in their initial line instead of bunkers. Many hexes are in clear terrain.

The game doesn't have a modifier for the effectiveness of artillery fire when firing at certain terrain types or the various states of entrenchment/fortification, but has a modifier for the amount of damage a unit takes. You could argue that it's the same thing, but in my opinion it isn't as in the real world the effectiveness of artillery decreases dramatically as units become more dug-in, whilst in the game that doesn't apply as damage tends to be reduced only slightly.

The unfortunate result of this is that the Germans are very vulnerable to Soviet artillery even on parts of the front that should be quiet/static. I ran a few tests, and the 24 vehicle recently "upgraded" 132 Katyusha's cause about 15 casualties per hit on average for 30 hits against a German unit in trenches in clear terrain. Multiply that by 2 for an average of 30 or so for the turns when it can fire, which is about every 3 out of 4 turns at about 70 supply.

Add other artillery regiments and an air strike into the mix and you're causing 100 or more casualties in a single turn with relative ease. Note: this is still against an entrenched unit, the attacking units in the open will naturally suffer more.

There's no penalty for massing lots of units in a certain area, nor a penalty for assigning a large number of units to a single army or Front HQ as far as I'm aware. This means the Soviet player can create large artillery concentrations, concentrations that would come down to several artillery/rocket divisions. The Germans can obviously do the same thing, this isn't a uniquely Soviet problem, but the Soviets tend to have more artillery and they usually have bunkers in their initial defensive positions.

The first question is why the Germans don't have bunkers in their initial line, the front has been fairly stable for several months after all and when you play a scenario or campaign, trenches take at most a day or so (often half or even 2 turns with engineer support) to dig.

In my opinion, this is a possible issue that can be proven with math (just like the German replacement rate in the winter scenario) and not a "you need to play a full campaign first" thing. Also note that the larger units of the upgraded Katyusha's have not actually been tested in a full campaign game as far as I'm aware.

The second question is: what is the intended strategy the German player should stick to?

Keeping the unit in place? Suicidal.
Moving it away? Possible, but there are no reserves along most of the line so you'll have to pull back the line. Shortening the line also means the Soviets can do the same thing, and thus concentrate even more artillery on single targets.
Houserule for maximum number of artillery strikes against a hex? A bit much perhaps, the issue is mostly the total number of casualties and not that you can hit a hex often.

Casualties per artillery barrage are reasonable, although I feel the casualties from the good Katyusha's/werfers are too high against entrenched defenders or defenders in difficult terrain. The issue is that they add up, causing ahistorically high casualties. 50 casualties per battalion per day was very high in WWII for units that were not completely overrun, but in the game units can take that many in single turns with relative ease.

As an aside: would it be possible to add the men to vehicle comparison ratio for the stacking limit (1=10 per default) to the parameter data so it could be modified? Doubling it to 1=20, for example, would allow a battalion/Soviet brigade to move into a hex but would significantly reduce the super tank stack problem that can be encountered in some scenarios.

I guess it's perfectly natural to try to gain an advantage by using the features of the game to your advantage, but in the case of huge tank stacks, really strong defensive stacks in general when the attacker is of an inferior quality or large artillery concentrations, things can quickly become very difficult if not impossible for the opponent facing such tactics.

So, to repeat the operational problem to solve: some of your units take heavy casualties from artillery each turns. You don't have reserves to take their place (which also wouldn't remove the problem) and the units would regain only a small part of their losses if they would refit. What is your way of dealing with that strategy?

Nice to hear from you ComradeP.

There will always be anomalies in a system like Panzer Campaigns that is setup to handle conflicts ranging from the desert to the dead of winter, airborne landings etc.

These as you point out become more pronounced when you play some of the larger scenarios that have 'quiet' & 'active' sectors.

Now that said, a lot of what need to be taken into consideration is what is both sides trying to achieve?

I am in the middle of playing the Fall Kreml - Full effort Northern campaign against a number of others here at the blitz. I'm on the Soviet team and I can tell you the last thing I am thinking of doing is plinking away at Germans in quiet sectors


Have a look at this jump map. It's on turn 23 and there are four major breakthroughs on the front line and the Germans are attempting to nip off the Rzhev bulge to free up further forces to go to Moscow as well. You'll also note they have pulled out of visual range in many parts of the front and that has not only reduced their casualties but also caused significant fog of war issues for the Soviets.



The Soviets have limited rocket and heavy mortar units and if they're able to move them need them somewhere closer to these breakthrough zones. If they leave the volume of artillery you're talking about somewhere inconsequential then the Axis player can be more confident that he will crack the Soviet lines elsewhere wide open.

In answer to your other comment. The design teams have discussed limiting artillery into a hex, but found we were running into issues on defining upper limits etc. You have to be careful or Divisional or Corp guns can't support the appropriate entities. What I can say is there is a limit in the more tactical Panzer Battles.

So in summary, if the Soviet player has the spare guns to shoot you up as the German in Fall Kreml ensure you make him pay with your first breakthrough as he will be found wanting very quickly in that active sector. The Soviet really can not afford to be lackadaisical with his artillery units as they are the only units other then their T-34/KV-1's that can truly hurt the German.

David

An unexpectedly quick reply, thanks.

I agree that moving artillery to the active parts of the front is a wise strategy because they'd be able to hurt the important enemy units more, but for some sectors moving artillery might not be the most economical solution, as it would take the artillery a long time to get somewhere and in my opinion, being able to fire away at a few German battalions could be worth it provided you endanger the German frontline in some way.

Sure, in Fall Kreml, launching your own epic offensive as the Soviets is not likely due to reinforcements being needed where the Germans break through and units that are not near the part of the front where the Germans attack in that variant being fixed, but I can imagine that some local counterattacks could at the least destroy some battalions or make sure the Germans won't be able to capture any Soviet objectives in that sector.

It's mostly something I noticed for the South variant, as there is a substantial number of Soviet units west of Moscow that is some distance away from the initial breakthrough areas. Moving them to the nearest major road/rail line could take time, maybe too much time for it to be worth it relative to assisting the defenders in its original sector in launching spoiling attacks. In other variants, it's mostly a theoretical problem like you imply as the Soviet player would be inclined to focus his artillery assets on the German breakthroughs nearby.

When you do concentrate the artillery in an area that the Germans can't overrun easily (a forest, swamp or somewhere behind a major river), there's the catch that the German losses would also mount rapidly and you might be evaporating battalions in several turns as well. If the Soviets are in a position where they can fire a couple of artillery/rocket divisions worth of shells/rockets at a limited number of men, the Germans will soon be in trouble. That's a situation that seems even more difficult to counter than the one I mentioned in my first post.

As the game develops, concentrations of artillery might also become a bigger problem for the Soviets than for the Germans depending on whether the Germans can mass their heavy-hitting artillery whilst the Soviets can't. I haven't tried it yet, but I expect D quality units to Disrupt rather quickly when hit by those Wurfrahmen and schwere werfer units.

Good luck with the team game!

The best part about your question does not require a rule change. It is a tactical problem we created on purpose for the German player to solve.

Keep in mind, that the attraction of the Fall Kreml CG scenarios is that they allow for both sides to become very creative. A Soviet offensive spoiling attack on the southern Moscow sector while the panzer divisions are 100 Km away banging away at a hard double bunker line? Well I say that is GREAT! Too many eastern front games have the Soviets set up as pinata to take body blows all game from the German player and wait for the game clock to run out.

Not so for M42 Fall Kreml.

Neither side is OP (over powered) enough to ignore the possibility that you will be in trouble in some previously 'quiet' sector of the front. These CGs have a very large front.
If the defending Soviet player can seize the initiative in a sector with a spoiling attack rather than just passively sit in their bunkers and wait until a German breakthrough which requires a general withdrawal to the second line of defense, then I think that makes the game so much more fun!

Hint: recon really becomes an important element in M42 Fall Kreml for both sides. Waste those recon assets and you are blind. It is a big map! Soviet cavalry really become a threat and not just a piece of chrome in M42 Fall Kreml.

Having German units, which are in starting positions, that while dug in, are vulnerable to local Soviet artillery wearing them down, is a tactical problem for the German commander to solve. No need IMHO to take away this flexibility for the Soviet player by mandating a rule change for artillery.

As Strela points out in his post on this tread, the Soviet player has this flexibility, at a price. Can / should a Soviet player try a limited offensive on a quiet sector? Will the German player react by diverting some of his main attack force? Is the Soviet player only sticking his head in a noose? Can the Germans afford to lose an infantry division that will be needed later when the front moves back from the starting positions to the second line in a Soviet strategic retreat?

Are you a very conservative general or do you like to take a chance now and then? I have met both types of players here at the blitz. Both styles of play have merits and detraction.

Removing these possibilities would make the game less interesting. Each side in the M42 Fall Kremel has the capability to really surprise the other side. The players have to think out-of-the-box. Being a fictional 'What-if" situation frees the players from the usual well known historical outcomes. The Fall Kreml scenarios were based on actual historical situation plans drawn up by both sides during the war, just in case. What you, the player do with this situation is not constrained at all by our design.

That is on purpose. Trust me. It can be a lot of fun. (Except for the AI who was not programed for fun. It is the ultimate pinata player!)

Dog Soldier

I understand the idea behind allowing the Soviets to counterattack, I just comment on the casualties they can cause with even a limited number of artillery units when used properly.

With the current combat system, changing the trenches to bunkers would indeed make counterattacks more difficult to impossible for the Soviets, which isn't good either. It seems a middle ground isn't really available between high casualties from artillery with trenches and very few casualties from both assaults and artillery with bunkers.