 |
|
HPS PzC II - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: HPS PzC II (/showthread.php?tid=67066) |
RE: HPS PzC II - Dog Soldier - 11-03-2014 (11-03-2014, 12:43 AM)dgk196 Wrote: Infrastructure as Targets This would be such things as bridges, rail-lines, towns, crossroads. Artillery and Aerial attacks could be used to 'attack' such targets. How would attacks using direct and indirect fire be resolved? Would direct fire attacks on the infrastructure not affect any enemy units moving through or residing in the targeted hex? I do not think I ever read about a fire attack on the actual rail line (without a train on it at the time) being effective in making a operational difference in the outcome of any of the battle currently in the PzC series. Bridge attacks from the air would have to have a wide range of results. In Normandy 1944 the bridges across the Seine River were attacked before the start of the invasion to limit the movement of German reinforcements to Normandy. That is out of scope for the N44 title, but illustrates the strategic and not operational use of air power to deny movement to the enemy. However, I do not remember, with all their vast aerial resources, the Allies intentionally trying to destroy bridges in Normandy that the Germans were retreating over. The Allies would want to seize those bridges intact to continue their advance. How gamey would it be for the German player in N44 to target every bridge he could not get engineers next to with this type of attack? It certainly would have a strange effect on play of this title as the retreating Germans destroy bridges up to 10 km behind Allied lines to isolate all Allied units which crossed the river. Same for Minsk 1944. Very weird situations could result from deep air strikes on bridges. In France 1940, the Allies never blew up any bridges from the air the Germans seized in their blitz, though they tried very hard at Sedan with disastrous results to the RAF and French bomber wings. How would this loss of air power in the PzC game be handled with the new rule? In Bulge 1944, could the Americans have just blown every bridge the Germans hold with air strikes at the beginning of their big counter attack in the campaign game? Could they then isolate most of the German units on the board before the December/January Allied attack begins? I am not sure any of these issues were addressed fully in the discussion of this innovative thread. Even more could crop up after the new rules patch was released for PzC II as proposed in this thread. The ideas have merit on the surface. A lot more needs to be done to make them work I think. Dog Soldier RE: HPS PzC II - BigDuke66 - 11-03-2014 As another way to do interdiction is maybe to add real air force units that the player can place on map and shift the schwerpunkt, I think that limits itself because such a schwerpunkt means that other areas would be with support. RE: HPS PzC II - dgk196 - 11-03-2014 Hello... Not that I'm the expert here... but, maybe there is some precedence for 'infrastructure' damage already in the game series. I believe there are situations when a town / village is attacked and results in 'rubble' this blocks movement in such a hex!? So some form of a determination as to such a result exists. I guess more information about how that is resolved / determined is needed. As for bridges I guess they would have a 'defense factor' used as if it where any other target being attacked. The 'defense factor' might be based on the class of bridge, heavy, medium, light, pontoon and so on. It probably should be a difficult proposition to take a bridge out in such a manner in order to keep it from becoming to 'gamey', eh? Certainly the construction and destruction of bridges is a factor in such games. Like say during the Kursk battle. AG Kempf had its bridges fired on by Russian artillery and attacked by bombers, causing delay of some types of equipment being able to cross the river. As to if its such a good idea to take out bridges you may need, well that's one of the gambles you have to take. Weigh the odds, make the determination and act accordingly, all part of the 'game', eh? Cutting rail lines was pretty common at times. It happened so frequently on the Russian front that they stockpiled 'sleepers' (railroad ties), rails and other materials along side rail lines at regular intervals so that 'cut lines' could be rapidly repaired. When it was particularly muddy, rail lines (and their bridges) became particularly important for moving the massive amount of supplies needed. And their destruction would become important, since 'supply' is a factor taken account of in the game series, it would figure in as to the status of the supplies. All of this is may be hard to imagine as to how it would work in the game. But, if its addressed methodically and enough detail is included I think it could be worked out. Any ideas? Dennis 
RE: HPS PzC II - Dog Soldier - 11-06-2014 Bridges do have a defense value of sorts. IIRC, it is in the parameter data section under the help menu. This defense value is only for demolition attacks made by engineers in game titles where wired bridges are not being used. Dog Soldier RE: HPS PzC II - dgk196 - 11-06-2014 Hello... Interesting.. I didn't know about that, thanks for the tip. So, maybe having a 'defense factor' assigned to a bridge would be possible, without to many changes to the 'engine'!? Bridging Engineers Classification of Bridging Engineers as to type (foot or vehicular) and capacity, if vehicular (Light, Medium and Heavy), as to which type the unit is capable of constructing. Additionally, add the ability of Bridging Engineers to convert Rail Bridges to Vehicular traffic bridges. Dennis
RE: HPS PzC II - Dog Soldier - 11-07-2014 (11-06-2014, 11:45 PM)dgk196 Wrote: Additionally, add the ability of Bridging Engineers to convert Rail Bridges to Vehicular traffic bridges. Vehicles can already cross rivers using RR bridges. The movement cost is a bit more than using a road bridge. No special engineering needed. Dog Soldier RE: HPS PzC II - dgk196 - 11-29-2014 Hello... Sorry about not getting back sooner. I should have been more specific. I'd like to see the 'conversion' of rail-bridges to road-bridges require some sort of process. Depending on the type of engineer, it should take some time.. based on some probability of successful completion of the conversion. If not 'converted' then the bridge could be used for foot traffic, immediately, but not any other type of unit (cavalry, mechanized, motorized...). You could 'assign' a probability, whatever the percentage, that the bridge is converted.. the percentage of each 'unsuccessful' turn adding together until 100% is reached. Then the bridge would be opened to all traffic types. Dennis
RE: HPS PzC II - dgk196 - 12-06-2014 Hello.... Like the 'Smoke' suggestion... after all wasn't it used by Engineers to mask their bridging activities!? Or in river-crossings... like the Rhine crossing? Next item for me on the 'Wish list' Separate 'AI Selection Dialogs' for each 'side'. This would allow the "Rules" section to be detailed for each 'side' in the game, and the Advantage if need be. To take it even further, there could be a separate 'AI Selection Dialog' for each of the 'Organizations' making up the OOB and if need be down to individual units. This level of detail, could be 'saved' as a setup or scenario, retaining the details of the 'AI Selection Dialog' as specified by the user. Such levels of detail would give a computer opponent a variable capability since individual organizations could have their advantage and rules set to meet 'historical interpretations' of a situation or to suite the needs of the player. Dennis
RE: HPS PzC II - Buccaneer - 12-07-2014 Smoke? In an operational level game? I think you are getting your scale a bit mixed. I'm a little confused on the necessity to meet historical interpretations as that sort of defeats the purpose of the game doesn't it? I'm all for making the AI more intelligent, but forcing it into a historical script seems a step back. As for the needs of the player ... I can see where a certain amount of automation or setting of a doctrine could be helpful. But again, this is an operational game and I think what you are asking for is more tactical in nature. Almost a larger version of Panzer Battles rather than Panzer Campaigns? RE: HPS PzC II - dgk196 - 12-08-2014 (12-07-2014, 02:13 AM)Buccaneer Wrote: Smoke? In an operational level game? I think you are getting your scale a bit mixed. Sorry, I'm not familiar with 'Panzer Battles'. Great feedback, always good to see someone willing to express their opinions! Dennis
|
){kind=link}