Hi Wodin,
Thanks for the questions (all of them!). I'm certain other players are going to have similar requests so I'll try and answer as best as I can.
(02-28-2014, 07:36 PM)Wodin Wrote: 1. The game is platoon scale but we are able to combine the units into coys. Which then makes it Coy scale. This part of the game I find confusing and complex. Whats the difference between three separate platoons in a hex or the platoons combined into a Coy? Should I be playing the game with mainly Coys breaking down only for ZOC reasons or should I only be combining in set situations and if so what are these situations? Also are certain units best kept in Coys compare dto others say MG units? Not sure why but for ease of mind sake I'd rather not been able to combine units cos then I wouldn't need to worry about it;)
The game is from Panzer Campaigns (PzC) lineage and uses some of the same concepts. In PzC's, battalions can break down to companies. In Panzer Battles (PzB) companies can break down to platoons. Calling the game a 'platoon scale' game is accurate but really the game is grand tactical rather than being wedded to a scale (platoon or company). What is more important to understand is that each unit size has advantages and disadvantages. A company sized unit will be the most flexible and toughest unit a player can deploy, but particularly on the defence they are tying up a lot of units in one location. There is also a penalty if units are equal to or higher than 50% of the hex stacking limit. In Kursk the stacking limit is 250 men (or equivalents). If more than 125 men are in a hex, then additional casualties are taken due to the higher 'density'. This penalty increases the closer to the stacking limit you are.
A platoon size unit will not have this issue of being close to the stacking limit but losses due to its small size are amplified. Each man lost in a platoon sized unit has a higher fatigue impact than if they are in a company sized unit. The impact of the loss of one man out of thirty is much higher than the loss of one in ninety. The impact on fatigue and by relationship, morale is magnified.
So it's a fine line. My suggestion to players is to use companies whenever they can. There are usually more benefits than negatives. Usually when attacking it is best to stay in company stacks as the larger combat impact usually outweighs the risk of extra casualties. Usually on the defence a player doesn't have the luxury of using companies and particularly if you want a defence in depth then platoons are preferable. Back that defence in depth with reserves though because any breach becomes difficult to contain with platoons only.
If you stack three platoons together and DON'T combine them then you're getting the worst of all worlds. You have a density penalty against you and individual platoons are taking the losses rather than the combined company. Never not combine if you have the opportunity to. Talking about combining, a big difference to PzC's is that when you combine units with different fatigue levels the
average value for fatigue is calculated for the combined unit, rather than the PzC way of using the highest fatigue value. We are pushing to get this retrofitted in PzC's by the way....
As far as units that should or shouldn't combine its best to think about their role. In the main the larger the unit, the more effective they normally are. That said if you're facing a fortified line, breaking your engineers up into platoons will help you to clear more minefield hexes than using a combined company. It may be the same issue with recons where you want to get as many individual units searching (slightly less effectively) than having one shot at search. On the other hand I would always try to combine mortars or infantry guns for example. They are much more effective firing as a single unit than a whole lot of peashooter 'no effects'.
Finally, breaking down units gives you flexibility. Military formations usually are given tasks. Deciding whether this is a platoon or company 'task' is a first decision. The second decision is what support units are required? Should AT guns be attached, should mortars be in support, do further ranged fire (i.e. MG) units be included? That's why there is the flexibility to tailor your forces to what your trying to achieve.
It may feel complex but once you understand the interplay you'll be using your units to much greater effect.
(02-28-2014, 07:36 PM)Wodin Wrote: 2. On Foot. I find this abit confusing aswell. Say you have a motorized platoon you can have three different stances..travel mode, Normal mode and On Foot, whats the difference between normal mode and on foot? When should I be using On Foot? Are you more vulnerable in travel mode? It says when On Foot you leave your vehicles behind..but if you move on foot loads of hexes and you've left your transport behind surely you shouldn't be able to go straight back into Travel mode as your vehicles could be miles away. Plus if you left your APC's behind then you'd have lost out on their firepower so does your hard and soft attacks get modified?
'On foot' is not quite as 'difficult as it sounds.
Essentially there are four states a unit that normally has organic vehicles can be in;
1) Riding in the vehicles, usually to take advantage of road movement costs (called in column or travel mode**)
2) Deployed on foot but with the vehicles in close proximity (called normal mode)
3) Deployed on foot but with vehicles not in close proximity (called on foot)
4) In column (also called in column or travel mode***) to take advantage of road movement costs but 'on foot' because the vehicles are not in close proximity.
The 'on foot' status refers to the latter two where the vehicles have been left behind because of a need to utilise foot movement. Two good examples of this is moving in marsh or swamp or crossing a road or rail embankment. Going on foot allows a motorised infantry unit to ditch their transport and move like a normal foot unit. There is a time penalty to recover the organic vehicles as a unit has to start stacked with its next highest HQ to recover its motorisation. If the units don't go on foot then moving in those terrain types are forbidden.
In travel mode you are definitely more vulnerable and it should be used with extreme care when near the enemy. That said the improvement in distances that can be moved is substantial and should be used whenever possible in rear areas or even as a tactic to surprise the enemy through rapid redeployment.
As far as the change in values due to leaving APC's behind - no one has ever bought that up!!! Currently no it doesn't change. The only (lame) justification I can give is that the extra MG's that are on these vehicles are bought along when the unit goes on foot. Not my most convincing argument!!!
Please fire off any further questions.
David
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
