Game: Panzer Grenadier Airborne Introductory Edition

Thread: Re: Scenario 3: How About some one-on-one?

thepackrat — 2008-10-04T14:43:21+00:00

I guess this is why Airborne has been discontinued, no? People expect more from an introductory game than it being cheap thanks to the great progress made by the ASL SKs.

B>

Thread: Re: Scenario 3: How About some one-on-one?

ted_k27 — 2008-10-04T14:34:20+00:00

Anyone who wants to try PG should just get the free download from the Avalanche Press site and try that. The included scenarios are from Eastern Front and are entertaining.
Here is the link-

http://www.avalanchepress.com/PlayPG.php

Thread: Re: Scenario 3: How About some one-on-one?

madDdog67 — 2008-10-04T03:45:43+00:00

I agree with you about the map...not only does it rival Sandra Bernhardt on the Ugly-0-meter, but I don't really equate bocage and introductory as going hand in hand either.

Thread: Scenario 3: How About some one-on-one?

GeneSteeler — 2008-10-04T02:19:28+00:00

Scenario 3: How About some one-on-one?

Introduction

Now Panzer Grenadier Airborne Introductory Edition is a strange beast. It is supposed to be introductory, but there really is nothing introductory about it. In fact, the ‘extra’ rules and terrain features actually make it more ‘complex’ than Panzer Grenadier: Eastern Front!!

I think they call it “introductory” because the 20 scenarios are all on one (butt-ugly) map with relatively low counter density.

Well, Scenario 3 takes first prize in low counter density. The Germans begin with:

1 Grenadier (GREN) platoon
1 Lt.
2 Strongpoint (which have a 50% chance of being unoccupied)

The Americans have:

1 Paratrooper (PARA) platoon.
1/2 HMG Platoon.
1 Col.
1 Cpt.

That’s it. The Germans do have the possibility of getting two more platoons of GREN as reinforcements, but we’ll get to that a bit later.

The Skirmish

8:30am – D-Day
US PARA troops land behind the enemy lines at Utah Beach. Their mission is to secure the exit (causeway) near Pouppeville. Scattered in their landing and low on numbers, the paratroopers advance on the suspected German bunkers to the west…

The Germans, seeing the billowing chutes have a decision to make.
1. Protect the west end of the causeway
2. Protect the east end of the causeway

The Americans are coming from the east. If the east end of the causeway is taken, the reinforcements will not “arrive”. There are strongpoints at both ends, but unbeknownst to the Americans, the east end strongpoint is unoccupied.

Consequently, the GREN decides to advance to the east end of the causeway and take up position in the houses nearby.

8:45am
The GREN fires at the advancing Americans to no effect.

9:00am
PARA (led by Captain) begin circling around to the north, while the HMG (led by Col) go south.
The HMG passes a morale check and the Americans discover the east strongpoint is unoccupied.

9:15am
PARA enters the marsh to the north of the east end, out of sight of the GREN.

HMG comes under fire again, but pass their morale check as they begin to head back around to the north to take the east end.

9:30am
PARA advances through the wet ground onto the middle of the causeway.

HMG are disrupted by GREN fire.

9:45am
PARA advances toward the objective (west end) and hit the ground when the occupied strongpoint opens fire.

HMG rallies.

10:00am
PARA advances into close assault against the strongpoint (no effect)

HMG advances towards the causeway.

10:15am
The assault continues to no effect (5 vs 3 strength)

HMG continues to advance towards the reinforcement point under fire.

10:30am
PARA disrupts the defenders in the strongpoint, but the successfully rally.

HMG advances to the east end and comes under heavy close fire from the GREN. But they stay strong.

10:45
German reinforcements are denied by the presence of the HMG.

No change at the objective.

GREN assaults the HMG (to stop them aiding the PARA against the objective). The HMG is disrupted but rallies.

11:00
PARA is demoralized assaulting the strongpoint!
(The troops in the strongpoint probably should have counter-attacked at this point, instead they kept their heads down)

At the east end, the assault in the open ground was brutal. The HMG was eliminated and the US Col fled into the marsh. Although being successful, substantial casualties to the GREN demoralized them.

It would be a race to see who rallies first! The PARA or the GREN?

11:15am
The PARA fails to rally and flees into the marsh. The strongpoint defenders shoot ineffectively at their fleeing enemy.

The GREN rallies to a disrupted state.

Things are looking up for the Germans.

11:30am
PARA rallies (to disrupted state). Strongpoint misses.

GREN fails to regroup.

The Tension begins to mound.

11:45am
Strongpoint misses!

PARA rallies!

GREN rallies!

12:00pm
PARA re-assault the Strongpoint (no effect) as the GREN advances to aid in its defence.

12:15pm
GREN joins in the assault, but the GREN is demoralized and the Strongpoint is disrupted!
The PARA tries to “finish” them off but can’t

12:30pm
The whistle blows and both sides shake hands. The skirmish is a draw.

Aftermath
Another bizarre scenario in the Panzer Grenadier Airborne Introductory Edition pack. But, it was actually amusing nonetheless. As can be expected, the scenario played extremely quick, and my notes took more time than the actual play!

I still don’t really like Airborne, mostly because of the incredibly restrictive map. Masses of hedgerows and a river banked by marsh don’t scream out “introductory” to me! I prefer more maneuverability, and would therefore recommend one of the Eastern Front or Mediterranean Front boxes for anyone wanting to get started with PG. I can imagine Airborne turning prospective buyers away from Panzer Grenadier instead of wetting their appetite. A very stupid choice for an “introductory” edition.

Thread: The Great Bloodless Battle at Holdy

GeneSteeler — 2008-09-20T01:35:36+00:00

The Great Bloodless Battle at Holdy

10:00am

Elements of US Airborne Divisions land near Holdy, SW of Utah Beach. There is a German 105mm Battery nearby.

Southeast of the battery are two small towns, codenamed north-town and south-town.

The US Airborne begin to advance on the battery, but are spotted! The battery begins to fire on their position and one platoon is disrupted.

The whistle of 81mm mortars also begin to fill the air. The US Platoons retreat behind hedgerows and begin to encircle the battery to the north and south.

11:00am

Two more Paratroop platoons arrive, and head SE towards south-town.

12:00pm

Another Paratroop platoon arrives in the west and begins to advance on the battery from the north.

The earlier platoons are now in position to strike as they spot the 81mm. They are dug-in just NE of South-Town.

Three platoons begin laying down fire against the German HMG Section deeply entrenched in South-town.

The northern platoon, which has now completely encircled the Germans advances toward the 81mm Mortars from the northeast with the goal to eliminate them in close combat.

12:30pm

The battle to advance toward south-town is against heavy resistance from German HMG and Artillery Bombardments. One platoon is completely demoralized and begins to flee as the other two platoons enter the town to assault the German HMGs.

1:30pm

Two US infantry platoons arrive supported by a HMG platoon and some M4 tanks. The M4s begin shelling North-town supported by the HMG while the infantry moves towards the entrenched 81mm mortars.

2:00pm

Large assaults are taking place in South-town and the 81mm Mortar position, but no ground is gained. One US Airborne platoon takes heavy casualties and one section is lost.

Meanwhile a US airborne platoon closes in for close assault on the 105mm Battery supported by German Grenadiers.

2:15pm

Fighting in South-town is fierce, as the entrenched German HMG cuts down another section of Airborne.

2:30pm

There are now assaults at all objectives, but none are successful. High command calls the US troops to retreat and regroup for another assault another day.

German Victory.

Aftermath

Sigh. What a bloodless battle. Not a single German casualty and only two step losses to the US. I really find the hedgerow map restrictive and the low counter density of these Introductory Scenarios to be dull.

Afterwards, I cracked open my copy of Panzer Grenadier: Eastern Front and was delighted. The first scenario has about 15 German tank platoons on a map covering three boards of mostly open terrain. Yummy tank action! Panzer Grenadier Airborne Introductory Edition has done its duty introducing me to the system, but is now on the shelf while I explore some much more exciting battles.

Hope you didn’t fall asleep!

Thread: Re: I'm puzzled by the hedgerow rules

Sigrdrifa — 2008-09-08T23:01:51+00:00

McGlu wrote:
That makes me believe that in your example only the unit adjacent to the hedgerow can see out, and a unit in the second hex from the hedge hexside would not be able to see the unit directly on the other side.

That's how I read the rule when I played the game.

And it "seems" to be consistent with real life, take for instance the well-documented case of Easy company against the 88's section where they spiked the guns. Part of the company laid a base of fire from the hedgerow to pin the germans all the way across the open part of the field and the other part maneuvered into the trench system to eliminate the germans. The whole company was able to sneak up on the germans because they were behind the hedgerow opposite. Had Easy Co. approached behind the hedgerow directly near the germans, perhaps some sound or something would have given them away.

Anyway, this advice and another $3.75 will get you a cup'a Joe these days, so...

Thread: Re: Hills, LOS, and Hedgerows

McGlu — 2008-09-08T22:49:22+00:00

Great explanation. Your expanded answer should be in the FAQ.

Thanks again.

Thread: Re: Hills, LOS, and Hedgerows

Wulf Corbett — 2008-09-08T22:43:59+00:00

McGlu wrote:
Can someone elaborate?
Basically, any built-up hex (town) or anything made of trees (woods, light woods, hedges & hedgerows - and jungle, I assume, I don't have the Pacfic games) is assumed to be an arbitrary 20m high. If the feature is based on a 0m-elevation hex, you have to be on something 40m high to see over it. That could be a 40m high hill, or a 20m high hill with a town on it. Of course, woods on a 20m hill will reach up to 40m, etc. To see over any such town or woody thing to the ground beyond it, you have to be 20m higher - either on a hill 20m higher than the top of the town or wood, or in a town on a hill at the same level as the top.

You can sight from the top elevation of a town (20m above the ground) because that only takes a couple of men on a roof or in a church tower, but you can't shoot from that elevation, because you can't get entire units up there!

However, hedgerows, although thick & dense, are still only linear features - they don't take up whole hexes, only hex sides. Therefore, they can be seen though, if you're adjacent, or fired through (since you can't fire on an unseen target except with artillery, you'd have to be adjacent to do so). If you fire through a hedgerow from an adjacent hex, you're giving away your position, and anyone can see you as though the hedgerow wasn't there - although it still gives some defence if you're fired on.

Thread: Re: Hills, LOS, and Hedgerows

McGlu — 2008-09-08T22:31:24+00:00

Thanks for the quick reply. Your answers really cleared this up.

The 8.42 rule was initially confusing because I first interpreted it to mean the the base of the town was at 20m. The FAQs cleared that up.

Wulf Corbett wrote:
You just quoted the official answers...

Yeah, I guess I should have worded that a little different.

How about?...

Can someone elaborate?

Thread: Re: Hills, LOS, and Hedgerows

Wulf Corbett — 2008-09-08T22:16:12+00:00

McGlu wrote:
Which is one of the more confusing rules in Airborne for me when it comes to hedgerows. Does this mean that units in a town can see "over" hedgerows for spotting purposes? Can they then fire on the spotted units?
No, because of the next two bits...
Q: 8.42 says that town hexes are considered 20m higher than their base hex elevation for spotting and LOS purposes. Does this mean that units can spot, achieve LOS and fire as if they were 20m higher?
A: Yes, Yes, and no. In other words you can’t fire from the higher elevation, only spot/achieve LOS. Thanks to Paul Aceto.
Ok, that's an answer, but WHY can't they fire? Does that mean the fire comes from 0m and the spotting from 20m?
It's hard to get an entire platoon up a church tower, let alone a sherman tank. So, yes, fire comes from the base elevation of the hex.
As per the EFD special rules, and 8.42, all town and all woods hexes (including every type of woods/light woods, etc., and hedges and hedgerows) extend upward from the base height to 20m. Essentially all town/woods then are a 20m obstruction, which means you’ll need to be 20m higher than their base height to see over them to lower terrain.
So, does that mean a unit would need to be at 40m to see over a hedgerow?
To anything below the hedgerow level, yes.
Spotting Range is 1 hex (in other words, you must be adjacent to see the other side of the hedgerow, unless the unit fires and gets marked as spotted…then normal daylight or night spotting ranges apply).
So, does this completely override all that was quoted above about elevation a spotting, even from a town hex?
If adjacent, yes. Normal range only applies to units firing through the hedgerow - but given that, yes.
Anyone have the official answer on this?
You just quoted the official answers...

Thread: Re: I'm puzzled by the hedgerow rules

McGlu — 2008-09-08T22:05:28+00:00

The FAQs on ComsimWorld state that only the unit next to the hedgerow can see beyond...

Spotting Range is 1 hex (in other words, you must be adjacent to see the other side of the hedgerow, unless the unit fires and gets marked as spotted…then normal daylight or night spotting ranges apply).

That makes me believe that in your example only the unit adjacent to the hedgerow can see out, and a unit in the second hex from the hedge hexside would not be able to see the unit directly on the other side.

Thread: Hills, LOS, and Hedgerows

McGlu — 2008-09-08T21:56:16+00:00

Towns are considered at 20m elevation for spotting and LOS purposes:

8.42 Town Hexes.

When spotting from a town hex or tracing LOS through it, treat the town hex as being 20 meters higher than the terrain it sits on. So, if a town is located in a hex on a 20 meter elevation line, then treat it as 40 meters in elevation for purposes of LOS and spotting range. A town at zero elevation counts as 20 meters in elevation.

Which is one of the more confusing rules in Airborne for me when it comes to hedgerows. Does this mean that units in a town can see "over" hedgerows for spotting purposes? Can they then fire on the spotted units?

The FAQ at Consimworld confuses me even more...

Q: 8.42 says that town hexes are considered 20m higher than their base hex elevation for spotting and LOS purposes. Does this mean that units can spot, achieve LOS and fire as if they were 20m higher?
A: Yes, Yes, and no. In other words you can’t fire from the higher elevation, only spot/achieve LOS. Thanks to Paul Aceto.

Ok, that's an answer, but WHY can't they fire? Does that mean the fire comes from 0m and the spotting from 20m?

And, in another entry under the Terrain section...

Elevation and Town/Woods

As per the EFD special rules, and 8.42, all town and all woods hexes (including every type of woods/light woods, etc., and hedges and hedgerows) extend upward from the base height to 20m. Essentially all town/woods then are a 20m obstruction, which means you’ll need to be 20m higher than their base height to see over them to lower terrain. Example: A unit on a 40m hill can see over (and down to 0m) a town based on 0m terrain (even to the hex just behind the town), but could not see over and down to 0m a town based on a 20m hill. Example: A unit on a 20m hill could see over a town on 0m to another 20m hill.

So, does that mean a unit would need to be at 40m to see over a hedgerow?

Although, the FAQ does say this under the Airborne 2nd edition section...

Spotting Range is 1 hex (in other words, you must be adjacent to see the other side of the hedgerow, unless the unit fires and gets marked as spotted…then normal daylight or night spotting ranges apply).

So, does this completely override all that was quoted above about elevation a spotting, even from a town hex?

More questions than answers for me on this one.

Anyone have the official answer on this?

Thread: Re: hills, where are they?

McGlu — 2008-09-08T21:53:44+00:00

Although, towns are considered at 20m elevation for spotting and LOS purposes:

8.42 Town Hexes.

When spotting from a town hex or tracing LOS through it, treat the town hex as being 20 meters higher than the terrain it sits on. So, if a town is located in a hex on a 20 meter elevation line, then treat it as 40 meters in elevation for purposes of LOS and spotting range. A town at zero elevation counts as 20 meters in elevation.

Thread: Re: Wanna play?

cratex — 2008-05-29T00:56:46+00:00

There is a vassal mod and cyberboard gamebox for the airborne set only -- in general Avalanche Press is against the idea of allowing electronic versions of their games.

I can't seem to find a link for where they are available right now, however.

Thread: Re: Wanna play?

caroper — 2008-05-28T22:53:55+00:00

I would be Interested in trying it myself, but as I live in Africa it would have to be via vassal or simmiler. I recently got back into wargames as a result of M'44, considerd pulling the old SL boxes off the shelf, and it brought back some plesent memorys, a quick scan of the rules reminded me of why I found it hard to get other players though, so I decided to see what has happend in the tactical genre since the 80's. This system looks like a good match for my needs, more meat than M'44 but not as complex as SL or ASL.

Are any of the PG sets availible on Vassal though? I have downloded the free intro set and read the rules but don't have an opponent.

Thread: Wanna play?

BarryRoy — 2008-05-28T16:54:19+00:00

Just picked this game up and am looking for my first play. Would be willing to play either by e-mail (vassal) or face to face, if you are in the Montclair, New Jersey area.

Thanks,

Thread: Re: Airborne I.E. Scenario Recap: #1 - Orange Hero

dingo262 — 2008-04-29T19:01:53+00:00

Yup, I actually do play with Chris. That's why there are some strange things happening on the German side, like the ENGR and the HMG platoons not racing for the strongpoint at La Fiere, and the mortar platoon wandering aimlessly around until turn 7.

I guess the best way to describe how I taught him was a "long term" approach. Chris tends to lean toward the strategy style games, so he wasn't too hard to convince to try out "rule intensive" wargames. I didn't try to go for the whole shebang all at once. I started him on simple 1st and 2nd generation games (AH's Richthofen's War, War at Sea, and PanzerBlitz). Once he was somewhat proficient at those, I let him watch me play more advanced games (ASL and Panzer Grenadier). Of course, the chrome started getting to him and he wanted to play. Once in the game, I allowed him to make the decisions (good for helping him want to play) while teaching mechanics as the situations came along. This caused a problem for our first couple of games, as he made some tactical errors that left his side totally crippled. I now compensate by looking for unbalanced scenarios and taking the weaker side. It definitely makes for more exciting gameplay with him. Once Chris starts consistently beating me using tactics rather than luck, I'll select more balanced games to even the playbalance scales out.

Thread: Re: Airborne I.E. Scenario Recap: #1 - Orange Hero

gregd — 2008-04-29T03:10:29+00:00

Nice narrative-

do you actually play with your son- and if so, how difficult was it to teach him?

Thanks (from another dad of a 10 y.o.)

Thread: Re: D-Day, the Day Nothing Happened...

keethrax — 2008-04-29T02:19:36+00:00

It's probably just a matter of troop density at that point.

Either because you didn't have enough troops to get the better rolls. Or because any game with a small # of rolls is going to be more prone to odd results.

Without knowing more details of the scenario itself, and the specific situations you found yourself in, I really can't say.

Thread: Re: D-Day, the Day Nothing Happened...

GeneSteeler — 2008-04-29T00:10:23+00:00

keethrax wrote:
But the fire CRT is pretty bloodless. In infantry vs. infantry, you need to close in and assault. With the ground scale being as large as it is, this makes a certain amount of sense.

I found that as well. But it still took the men over an hour in close assault, so that felt bloodless as well. 15 minutes, make one roll.... no effect or a morale check (passed). Wait for another 15 minutes to make another roll... (The defender was not activating/attacking, which led to only 1 roll per 15 minutes/turn. In a 10 turn scenario, that's not much time...

Thread: Airborne I.E. Scenario Recap: #1 - Orange Hero

dingo262 — 2008-04-28T21:07:59+00:00

After having received Airborne I.E. in the mail from a fellow gamer, my son Christian (9 years old) and I decided to take a walk through the scenarios. The first one is "Orange Hero":

On June 6, 1944, the Americans 505th and 507th PIR attacked the La Fiere Manoir to hold the bridge across the Meredet River. The Americans' goal is to seize La Fiere Manoir or to eliminate 2 1/2 German steps (strongpoints not included).

Turn 1:

The Americans moved out under the cover of darkness. Captain Schwarzwalder led his 2 American platoons as fast as he could to take the La Fiere manor house and have a decided position over the bridge. Lt. Marr takes the rest of the men and move toward the northern farm village, where there was a reported German bunker. After doing some quick scouting, Marr found that no Germans were actually there. The German Captain, sensing something wrong, ordered a fearful Lieutenant (morale of 6!) and a grenadier platoon to come with him to check out the bridge and make sure defenses were OK. Finding no one except the bridge guard in the La Fiere Manoir, they decide to stay and have breakfast with their friends.

Turn 2:

Due to some missed communication with as to what the attack plan was, Capt. Schwarzwalder and his two platoons arrive in a field across a hedgerow from the Manoir. Upon reconnaissance of the bridge area, they find a fortified strongpoint at one end of the bridge. Unfortunately, the Germans in the dining hall see them and quickly take up defensive positions. Gunfire from the Manoir ranges out to the paratroopers, but misses its mark in the darkness. Schwarzwalder realizes he is running out of time and needs to take the bridge now.

Turn 3:

Schwarzwalder gives the command to advance and attack, and all 75 paratroopers climb and stumble through the maze of shrubbery and trees in the hedgerow. The Germans try to pick them off, but the American Airborne are not to be denied. The paratroopers storm the Manoir, but the Germans tenaciously keep them at bay. Meanwhile, Lt. Marr is waiting behind to give words of encouragement (or shame) to any men that decide the Germans are too tough.

Turn 4:

The Germans, alarmed at seeing so many Americans, call for reinforcements. The Engineering platoon in Cauquigny races down the causeway while the mortar platoon starts searching for a more optimal position to rain down harassing fire. The American's attack coalesces and manages to blow up the bridge’s covering strongpoint. The loss of the defensive position stuns the German commander.

Turn 5:

As dawn breaks, the sound of gunfire draws a lone platoon from the countryside to the fray along the river. Lt Marr sees the men and moves in their direction. The engineer platoon finally arrives, reinforcing the Germans at the Manoir. Their close assault training starts to make an immediate impact as they take down a half a platoon of Americans and sends the other half packing for cover.

Turn 6:

Lt. Marr meets up with the newly arrived paratroopers and leads them to assist Capt. Schwarzwalder at the La Fiere Bridge. He hopes to arrive in time to be of help. Meanwhile, Schwarzwalder does not like how the battle is progressing. The Americans are hard pressed but they hold on.

Turn 7:

Another fifteen minutes of battle and the American are beginning to suffer at the German firepower. Another half platoon is gunned down as a flanking attack is conducted. As Capt. Schwarzwalder's forces are whittled away, there is less chance of the Americans actually kicking the Germans out of the Manoir house. The Germans, hoping to end off the contest, decides that they need yet more firepower. The last Lieutenant sends the HMG platoon toward the bridge in hopes of breaking the stalemate at the Manoir. He also sends the mortar company into the swamp area, as they would be able to target into the hedgerow country just north of the bridge. Lt. Marr sends the squad toward the Manoir, hoping against hope that these reinforcements are in time to bolster the American attack.

Turn 8:

With the newly arrived German HMG platoon, the German defense gels and the German counterattack begins. The presence of so much firepower has immediate and dire consequences on the Americans as the reinforcing platoon of paratroopers are gunned down unmercilessly. The last of the paratroopers, seeing their comrades fall to the Germans, become totally demoralized. Capt. Schwarzwalder manages to talk them back into a somewhat cohesive fighting force, but they are still shaken. Back at the tracks, another platoon of paratroopers show up and Lt. Marr moves toward to order them up to the front line.

Turn 9:

The Germans, sensing final victory over the American invaders, launch another assault. Again, the fighting spirit of the last platoon is broken. Even Capt. Schwarzwalder can’t get them to stop running for the hedgerows. Fortunately, the German marksmanship doesn't hit as they leave the Manoir, but the battle is already lost for the Americans.

END RESULT: German victory, which was expected, from what other people have posted here.

Overall, the scenario seems to deteriorate to a single assault. Both Christian and I noted that the whole scenario seemed balanced until the engineering squad came in and started hammering on the Americans in the assault hex. Time for a breather, then we start “Scenario 2: Battery Position At Holdy”.

Thread: Re: D-Day, the Day Nothing Happened...

keethrax — 2008-04-28T15:47:31+00:00

TrotskyTrotsky wrote:
Airborne - does have a VASSAL module.

Check out the extra sceanrio from http://www.avalanchepress.com/Behind_the_Beaches.php

True. I was referring to the series as a whole. Good catch though.

Thread: Re: D-Day, the Day Nothing Happened...

TrotskyTrotsky — 2008-04-28T15:45:22+00:00

Airborne - does have a VASSAL module.

Check out the extra sceanrio from http://www.avalanchepress.com/Behind_the_Beaches.php

I like the PG series but am a little lukewarm towards Airborne, for an introduction you can't beat the free download kit for the publisher's website - that is supported too through Cyberboard.

Although there is some support through VASSAL and Cyberboard I agree wider support would be great.

Thread: Re: D-Day, the Day Nothing Happened...

keethrax — 2008-04-28T14:05:46+00:00

GeneSteeler wrote:

I think this scenario(#1) sucks. Too few units to make it interesting. Mostly just roll dice, and periodically make a redraw check. There isn't enough firepower to do any real damage on either side.

The system seems like it could work, but I found the rulebook repetitive and unfriendly, not what I expected from an "Introductory" set!

I think the larger battles with armour will prove much more interesting. But in this scenario, nothing really happens...

I can't speak about the particular scenario, as I don't have this specific game. But the fire CRT is pretty bloodless. In infantry vs. infantry, you need to close in and assault. With the ground scale being as large as it is, this makes a certain amount of sense.

The rulebook is very repetitive.

I still find the turn scale to come out a bit wonky, especially with vehicles, but it's not a bad game. I'd probably have a bunch of them if they allowed VASSAL modules.

Thread: Re: D-Day, the Day Nothing Happened...

GeorgeHa — 2008-04-28T11:13:04+00:00

Scenario 1 is just to learn the rules. The one featuring the battery position is more fun, as is the one where paratroopers start out disrupted and half strength and build strength back up.

Thread: D-Day, the Day Nothing Happened...

GeneSteeler — 2008-04-28T04:39:37+00:00

D-Day, the Day Nothing Happened

June 6, 1944.

Objective, secure town on east end of river crossing.

6:15am. Elements of our paratroop division (two and a half platoons)fell amongst the hedgerows just north of our objective.

The whistle of mortars cried out, demoralising our half platoon. Lt. Slaughter took his platoon towards the enemy strongpoint. Was it empty or full? The sound of a light MG answered that question.

Lt. Slaughter moved in for close assault. Grenades, small arms fire and other battle noises filled the air. But no screaming. This exchange went on for about an our, while the mortar kept our demoralised squad suppressed and Cpt. Binky exchanged fire with the German Rifle and HMG platoons. Cpt. Binky eventually joined in the assault and we finally forced the Germans out of the strongpoint at 8:00am.

At 8:15am we advanced to the second strongpoint hex to find the bunkers abandoned. Return fire from the German HMG took out two squads of our platoon. Seeing no way to capture the second (primary) objective, Cpt. Binky and Lt. Slaughter retreated behind the hedgerows.

At 8:30am, the two German platoons made a small counter-attack to inflict one more casualty on us. Unfortunately, they don't know how to advance and fire on the same move, so they order their 81mm mortar which misses.

The battle ends in a draw.

3:15pm - Our final paratroop platoon finally lands.

Aftermath
I think this scenario(#1) sucks. Too few units to make it interesting. Mostly just roll dice, and periodically make a redraw check. There isn't enough firepower to do any real damage on either side.

The system seems like it could work, but I found the rulebook repetitive and unfriendly, not what I expected from an "Introductory" set!

I think the larger battles with armour will prove much more interesting. But in this scenario, nothing really happens...

Image

tac_ope_tokyo — 2008-04-26T15:06:53+00:00

Image

tac_ope_tokyo — 2008-04-26T15:05:53+00:00

Image

History_War_Gamer — 2008-04-08T18:28:40+00:00

Mount Your Panzer Grenadier Airborne Map - Its Easy

Thread: Re: Strongpoints

El Hidalgo — 2008-03-25T23:31:33+00:00

That makes it all coherent. Thanks for the walk thru! This will be pulled out again this weekend as we go through this and other scenarios.

Thread: Re: Strongpoints

XanderF — 2008-03-25T23:26:15+00:00

El Hidalgo wrote:
Thanks...that clarifies a lot. Now what if there are other units stacked in the same hex as the strongpoint? If demoralized it is eliminated but does the strongpoint have an opportunity to recover from a disruption?

I would treat it as regular troops for purposes of recovering from disruption. Treat it almost exactly like an AA/AT gun, actually.

Thread: Re: Panzer Grenadier: Airborne Introductory Edition

El Hidalgo — 2008-03-25T21:55:25+00:00

Having just played this I would have to make a couple of points.

Okay the map is too dark

Agreed...the rule book needs better editing & less obscure referencing

HOWEVER

I have to say that the game mechanics make for credible combat outcomes.

While I have yet to play with masses of counters, sometimes engagements were small and I find this to be a great way to hook new players.

For $20 it is a decent production value for Tactical Infantry Combat. The "Airborne" in the title suggests quick small scale, infantry encounters. For an Introductory edition I find it credible and not misleading at all. Some armor would have been nice, but I can live without it for now as I take on a new system. Especially one that fills the either ASL or Strategic Level Niche.

I see that the OP is an ATS fan...that is another system I would like to try sometime. However I must say that the PG mechanics and use of Leaders was pretty novel and refreshing for me. Maybe by Scenario 20 I might get a little tired of "Introductory" play and want tanks and artillery. For now I am content with what I have purchased...and the price I paid to get a taste of PG.

Thread: Re: Strongpoints

El Hidalgo — 2008-03-25T18:28:25+00:00

Thanks...that clarifies a lot. Now what if there are other units stacked in the same hex as the strongpoint? If demoralized it is eliminated but does the strongpoint have an opportunity to recover from a disruption?

Thread: Re: Syracuse Hero to Zero

El Hidalgo — 2008-03-25T18:06:06+00:00

Xanderf!!!

Thanks for having such a great image to use!

When assaulting the strongpoint hex I kept the town between my units and the 81mm. That did not last for long when Dogzard realized he got a +1 modifier for spotting the targets himself. He moved his 81mm into a more advantageous position and angle.

I was about to stack...but realized that any modifiers would also apply if I did not...and thus kept my units separate. And, in any case, if you have a US leader with a +1 combat modifier (which many have), you can combine fire with units in his hex and one adjacent hex ANYWAY (6.41, second paragraph), so much of the advantage of stacking your units is still retained.

You are sooo right about using the assault tactic. In hindsight that was one mechanic I under-utilized.

It took me awhile to get used to these tables, lack of defense numbers for infantry, and mechanics. You said this eloquently so I am just restating how I too was able to wrap my head around it...While this did kick me in the shin first time, too (trying to wrap my mind around it), in retrospect...it actually makes sense, really. I mean, any group of 50-60 people are going to be exactly the same 'crunchiness'. So if the defense factor is the same for every group of humans everywhere...what's the point in including it? Just 'build it into' the assault/direct fire/etc charts.

In comparison, 'Armor' in the game DOES have defense factors. Which makes sense, of course, as the amount of armor on vehicles definitely DID vary from vehicle to vehicle.

I still have trouble with the fact that there are no inbetween combat values for the Direct Fire tables. One column jumps from 7 to 11 and so on. I could see every other value such as 7 to 9 to 11 but was wondering on the thinking of the value jumps as relative to combat...especially if one squad could tip a battle in a tactical scenario. If this is platoon level, then a step losed platoon (2 squads) could well be considered a tipping point.

Even with the questions and wonderings I find PG Mechanics to be a winner. I really did learn a lot from the first scenario and am ready to replay it. Artillery and Armor are coming, but PG already has me hooked.

Now if you could just help me with the question on Strongpoints that I posted.

Thread: Re: Syracuse Hero to Zero

XanderF — 2008-03-25T06:41:06+00:00

El Hidalgo wrote:
I split my units (just as in the image), being unacquainted with gameplay of disruption and demoralization I thought it best to disperse effects. With such a low density of troops to start off with, massing my forces at a maximum distance from his troops might have bought me more breaks on action segments and the direct fire table. In hindsight a better strategy would have been to bypass one strongpoint and only deal with the one closest to the bridge, maximizing my distance from the one furthest from the causeway.
This isn't my first play through the scenario, and I tend to find myself splitting the units up as shown fairly regularly. The German mortar fire can be HELL on the advancing troops, as you can't really do anything but sit there and take it. Not only does putting all your units in one stack a risk because you 'put all your eggs in one basket', but 3 combat units in a hex provides the Germans a +1 bombardment bonus. Worse, there is nothing blocking LOS between the mortar in that setup and the US forces when approaching the town...with the mortar also spotting the target, it gets another +1 column shift.

Trust me when I say - you won't do that twice.

And, in any case, if you have a US leader with a +1 combat modifier (which many have), you can combine fire with units in his hex and one adjacent hex ANYWAY (6.41, second paragraph), so much of the advantage of stacking your units is still retained.

El Hidalgo wrote:
With the two strongpoints located in town hexes and thus getting a minus two column modifier for defense, it is hard to break this backbone of the causeway. The strongpont at the end of the causeway is the Victory objective for the US.

Agreed, the strongpoints can be a real pain to attack with direct fire. My advice? Plow into an assault. Most of the strongpoints don't really have enough kick to kill your troops outright, and morale in US Airborne soldiers is high enough that you can usually recover what is lost without much hassle.

The plus side to an assault is that instead of him always having the '-2' for defending, and you never having it...you now have to trade back and forth as each person takes turns being the assaulting side. It's also only a -1 shift to attack that way (-2 for enemy defending in a town, true, but +1 for your side having an undemoralized infantry leader...which isn't a bonus when using 'direct fire'). And you'll note the assault results are BRUTAL compared to sniping fire back and forth from behind distant cover...so you burn through forces quicker. Which he has less of to spare in the local engagement.

El Hidalgo wrote:
I liked the historical foundation of this scenario. No AFVs, Tanks, Artillery, and no major pitched battles of major forces. Just small units on that given day doing the best they could with what they had. I have read that some found the scenario boring...being steeped in its history is a real plus to playing this one out. Mental images of the fight for the causeway kept screening through my head.

Agreed. Background on the scenarios makes them compelling, and the 'up close and personal' infantry actions are very interesting.

However! Don't discount armored actions in the series. The sweeping battles of maneuver in the Russian steppes in 'Eastern Front' are really VERY exciting. Compared to the constant grinding battle of attrition that infantry combat in good cover can be...tanks pop pretty regularly (at least, when you can arrange a good crossfire).

And even in this title - with very little armor - some of the actions still 'put you there' like the "Band of Brothers" series or the PC/video games "Brothers in Arms". Having a single M4 platoon advancing slowly (!SLOWLY!) down a road while your troops march alongside to help prevent against enemy infantry assaults...

Some very tense moments!

El Hidalgo wrote:
Run Away!!! The system itself allows for Disruption, Demorilization, and Step Losses that would result in unit elimination. While combat was not bloodless in WWII, it was certainly not a bloodbath, and I believe that this system makes a credible attempt at integrating other outcomes of combat besides immediate and certain death. Disrupted/Demoralized units run away a lot! It is so heavy on Disruption and Demorilization that it forced a paradigm shift on me.

Just WAIT until you try an 'Eastern Front' scenario. While Airborne and Grenadier units can become disrupted, they don't usually get demoralized in this game (in my experience), and with the high morale boost of many of the officers (and high base morale), recovery isn't that hard.

Played an 'Eastern Front' game this weekend with a Soviet counterattack on Romanian forces. My (Soviet) morale was 7/6! When doing morale recovery attempts you have to BEAT your morale requirement (only have to equal it when checking for morale failure in combat - to improve morale, have to beat it). So my infantry, when having a step loss, had to roll 5 or less on 2d6 to improve morale. When these guys got demoralized, they made it almost all the way off the map before I could get their attention again!

No wonder the USSR felt the need for 'political officers' to 'help' with loyalty.

El Hidalgo wrote:
No Defense Factors!!! Getting used to the Combat Effects table and how to adapt my organization of attack and maneuver to the possible outcomes was qwirky. It is different for me, and not having unique "Defense" factors for my units made me feel tactically naked and took some getting used to.

While this did kick me in the shin first time, too (trying to wrap my mind around it), in retrospect...it actually makes sense, really. I mean, any group of 50-60 people are going to be exactly the same 'crunchiness'. So if the defense factor is the same for every group of humans everywhere...what's the point in including it? Just 'build it into' the assault/direct fire/etc charts.

In comparison, 'Armor' in the game DOES have defense factors. Which makes sense, of course, as the amount of armor on vehicles definitely DID vary from vehicle to vehicle.

Thread: Re: Strongpoints

XanderF — 2008-03-25T06:12:33+00:00

El Hidalgo wrote:
What would the rationale be for determining a combat result requiring a strongpoint to flee? Would that be that the troops occupying the unit simply abandon it? Thus in the next action segment the attackers could assault and occupy/overun, neutralizing the bunker.

That was the reading of the rule we had. There is no 'enemy occupying the bunker', though. In the game system, a 'strongpoint' is described as little more than a guard post or weak pillbox. The FAQ adds to this:

Avalanche Press wrote:
Strongpoints receive no intrinsic defensive benefits and are eliminated if forced to retreat.

As you say, it represents troops (basic guard types, not regular infantry) abandoning their fixed position. As they are not regular units, they are not then represented on the battlefield afterwards.

Thread: Strongpoints

El Hidalgo — 2008-03-25T03:58:33+00:00

When determining rolls against strongpoints, and encountering Morale Checks, are these treated the same as with regular units? For lack of reference in the rules we treated strongpoints as any other unit. However, they cannot flee as a disrupted or demoralized unit.

What would the rationale be for determining a combat result requiring a strongpoint to flee? Would that be that the troops occupying the unit simply abandon it? Thus in the next action segment the attackers could assault and occupy/overun, neutralizing the bunker.

The ongoing question would be what if there are other enemy units stacked with the strongpoint? Would the strongpoint have an opportunity to recover even if they did not flee especially in Scenario One where the strongpoints are in a town (safe hex) anyways? What would a justifiable result be?

Any insights on this one???

Thread: Re: how do railroads affect non train movement?

El Hidalgo — 2008-03-25T03:48:48+00:00

When in doubt...keep it real.

Railroad tracks would be like clear terrain. It is not a road, and units are not mounted. They would have a fairly easy time traversing down the tracks but would, like clear terrain, be more mindful of their steps than if they were on a road. You know, uneven tiles, spikes, gravel, etc. So your call of a 1 for 1 would be right on target.

Thread: Syracuse Hero to Zero

El Hidalgo — 2008-03-24T08:36:34+00:00

Scenario One of the Introductory PG Series is based on Capt Ben Schwartzwalder;s (future Head Coach of Syracuse University's Orangemen Football team) assault on the La Fiere causeway in one of the first inland engagements of the Normandy Landings.

The number of units involved in this scenario is low, as was the historical case of the assault. To represent the same German 81mm mortar, engineer, infantry, and heavy machine gun platoons will defend the causeway, but are located several hexes away from the initial assault points. Additionally, two German Strongpoints defend the approaches to the causeway. US Airborne start off with two full strength and one reduced strength airborne platoons.

Historically, the battle pitched back and forth, and as the day progressed, scattered airborne units found their way to the engagement and eventually helped tip the outcome in favor of the US Airborne troops. This is represented in reinforcements arriving on a roll of six, throughout the ten game turns.

Dogzard and I faced off on this one. He played the Germans, and I the US Airborne.

]]>
(Image by Xanderf but reflects a pretty standard setup for Scenario 1)

I split my units (just as in the image), being unacquainted with gameplay of disruption and demoralization I thought it best to disperse effects. With such a low density of troops to start off with, massing my forces at a maximum distance from his troops might have bought me more breaks on action segments and the direct fire table. In hindsight a better strategy would have been to bypass one strongpoint and only deal with the one closest to the bridge, maximizing my distance from the one furthest from the causeway.

With the two strongpoints located in town hexes and thus getting a minus two column modifier for defense, it is hard to break this backbone of the causeway. The strongpont at the end of the causeway is the Victory objective for the US.

The historical parallel to this engagement followed into the middle and later part of the battle. It was touch and go...but by turn six, the Germans had the upper hand as up to that point NO reinforcements arrived on the American side at all. The CPT. had to deal with disrupted troops, and a two step loss to one unit under the command of the LT. but Airborne are tough and they never demoralized.

Even when the US units disrupted and demoralized German units, with three German leaders, they were able to recover and regroup quickly. Dogzard kept hammering away from a distance with his 81mm mortars. And massed his force at the causeway strongpoint. I managed to score a reinforcement on turn 8 and another on turn 9...but it was too little too late.

Unlike the original battle this one was won by Dogzard and the Germans. It just served to remind me how tough Cpt. Schwartzwalder had it.

REFLECTIONS
As far as being a scenario to learn the basic functions of the PG system I believe this served its purpose well. The use of the Leadership Mechanic for Activation of Units is unique and this system allows the wargamer a chance to learn to use this feature to full effect.

I liked the historical foundation of this scenario. No AFVs, Tanks, Artillery, and no major pitched battles of major forces. Just small units on that given day doing the best they could with what they had. I have read that some found the scenario boring...being steeped in its history is a real plus to playing this one out. Mental images of the fight for the causeway kept screening through my head.

Statistically, I received about as many reinforcements as I would have in the historical recounting. While I was frustrated with the lack of reinforements until the very end...I know I would have benefited from those same reinforcements arriving earlier in the scenario. Such goes the capriciousness of airdrops. Statistically, the number of reinforcements played out pretty much as they should have...but as far as timing went...it did not help me to achieve my objective that they came in the last turns of the scenario.

THINGS THAT MADE ME GO HHHHHMMMMMM!!!
Two for One!!!??? The Combat Effects Tables are new and strange to me. Being that the Leadership Mechanic is an intergral part of the PG Series, I can see that there does need to be a distinction between Morale Effects and Combat Effects relative to Leadership. Combining them on one table is, well, new and strange to me.

Run Away!!! The system itself allows for Disruption, Demorilization, and Step Losses that would result in unit elimination. While combat was not bloodless in WWII, it was certainly not a bloodbath, and I believe that this system makes a credible attempt at integrating other outcomes of combat besides immediate and certain death. Disrupted/Demoralized units run away a lot! It is so heavy on Disruption and Demorilization that it forced a paradigm shift on me. While I welcomed this shift I still feel that increased combat factor odds would have higher casualties results in an engagement. I would not change much here, but I would shift a minor step higher on mortality rates.

No Defense Factors!!! Getting used to the Combat Effects table and how to adapt my organization of attack and maneuver to the possible outcomes was qwirky. It is different for me, and not having unique "Defense" factors for my units made me feel tactically naked and took some getting used to.

This game has a lot of new and different features that go with it that bear looking into. I bought this game because the Leadership mechanic intrigued me. How Avalanche Press has incorporated this into combat maneouver and tactics will take more play...so far it is indeed a credible paradigm shift.

In all fairness, it has invaded my comfort zone...in a good way !!!

I would really like to write a review but do not feel I have played this enough. I will play this scenario and a couple of others and then come back to a substantive review. Meanwhile...this is a unique system to me and I enjoyed playing it out. I cannot wait to try this Scenario again...I have one historical...and one a-historical tactical idea to try.

Image

XanderF — 2008-03-19T02:28:09+00:00

Initial setup for scenario 2 - Germans start dug in to defend their gun covering the D-Day landings while Allied paratroopers attempt to disable it.

Image

XanderF — 2008-03-15T00:29:56+00:00

US forces having a hard time with the initial strongpoint gives the Nazis time to advance

Image

XanderF — 2008-03-14T02:09:33+00:00

US Airborne forces advance on German strongpoint in Scenario 1, while German troops reinforce their defences

Image

XanderF — 2008-03-13T06:52:31+00:00

Initial setup of scenario 1

Thread: Re: I'm puzzled by the hedgerow rules

nickp — 2008-03-07T09:27:53+00:00

Thanks Will - |I can get on with the game now. (next episode: Hedgerows in Beyond Normandy.)

Thread: Re: I'm puzzled by the hedgerow rules

tyvek — 2008-03-06T18:31:56+00:00

nickp wrote:
Thanks for your prompt response - I only posted this an hour ago.

It's pretty much as I thought, though the phrasing of the rule in the rule book is a little unclear. But, what about if the second unit is not in Hex E, but in Hex F: does that mean the unit behind the hedge can see to F but not vice versa?

The distance away from the hedge is immaterial. The issue is whether the hedge is adjacent to any unit or not. If there is a unit adjacent to the hedge then that unit can see others, (unless some other LOS obstacle interferes), and those other units can also see that unit, (unless there is some other LOS obstacle that interferes).

This company is known for leading with 'misleading rules'...i.e. not always clear.

So the hedge will always block LOS if there is no unit adjacent to the hedge. If there is a unit 'behind the hedge,' hence adjacent to the hedge then that unit can "see out away from the hedge" and other units can 'spot the unit that is adjacent to the hedge.'

Thread: Re: I'm puzzled by the hedgerow rules

nickp — 2008-03-06T16:25:44+00:00

Thanks for your prompt response - I only posted this an hour ago.

It's pretty much as I thought, though the phrasing of the rule in the rule book is a little unclear. But, what about if the second unit is not in Hex E, but in Hex F: does that mean the unit behind the hedge can see to F but not vice versa?

Thread: Re: I'm puzzled by the hedgerow rules

tyvek — 2008-03-06T16:11:21+00:00

As I understand the rules; let's say that there are hexes A, B, C, D, and E, all in a row. There is a hedgerow between hexes B and C. If there is a unit at A, and an enemy unit at E, the hedgerow between hexes B and C would block the LOS for each of the above units.

If a unit were in hex B, and an enemy unit were at E, the hedgerow between hexes B and C would be adjacent to the unit in hex B. Because of this 'adjacent status' the LOS would NOT be blocked.

If the German unit can see the American unit, the reverse is true as well.

I hope this helps.

Thread: I'm puzzled by the hedgerow rules

nickp — 2008-03-06T13:52:51+00:00

I'm puzzled by the hedgerow rules. Forgive me if I get the phrasing wrong, as I don't have the rules here with me but they are something like:

'Hedgerows block line of sight. A unit can only be seen if it is adjacent to a hedgerow.'

This seems counter-intuitive to me. Surely a unit next to a hedge (or closer to one than other units in the area - I mean in the hex which is actually lined by the hedge) could see through the hedge to a unit 2 or 3 hexes way. A unit 2 or 3 hexes away might not see a unit adjacent to a hedge because the latter is hidden by the hedge and the former is..well...2 or 3 hexes away.

Come on lads, bring it on! I can handle it. Am I failing to understand the rules here? Or am I merely unable to think accurately about the effect of landscapes in the real world? I'd like the answer because I like this game a lot, but that ruling puts me off. Set my mind at ease please.

Thread: Re: Breaking in a newbie

petermc — 2008-02-14T19:27:22+00:00

That just confirms that I don't know what is going on here, other than a desire, for reasons having nothing to do with wanting greater control (apparently), to be able to move and shoot all at once, rather than just moving and shooting consecutively, while the other guy interrupts with his action.

Edit: Maybe in this case it isn't true, but I've been wargaming for two decades and I can tell you with absolute certainty that there are some players who hate any attempt to limit their total control over their units.

Thread: Re: Breaking in a newbie

keethrax — 2008-02-14T17:34:05+00:00

petermc wrote:

The lesson is players often don't like limits that force them into tough choices, I think.

I doubt this is it at all. I don't think you'll did a whole lot of wargamers who don't like tough choices. That' a pretty key component of any good wargame.

Thread: Re: Breaking in a newbie

petermc — 2008-02-14T16:56:12+00:00

I confess I don't follow what the argument is. All game scales are abstractions. You could move and shoot 10 times a turn or once a turn in any game...it is up to the designer. At some point all the units will be dead so you stretch it out to model historical results over an appropriate time frame.

Scale (200m/hex or 100m/hex or whatever) isn't the real issue. The real question in any game is how much can you do, how much and you fire, and how far can you move, before the other guy gets a chance to react. The move/fire limitation sets things very closely in the game then...most units can fire once or move 3 hexes before the other guy can react with his own movement or non-reactive firing. (of course you can opportunity fire if you have guys in position). Vehicles move usually from 4 to 18 hexes max.

With the Fog of War random turn ending possibility, coupled with consecutive activations due to initiative, there is always a chance that one stack or group will get to move twice in a row.

But generally the units are moving and firing in concert with each other, by design. This "move or shoot" issue comes up over and over again, not just for this game but I've seen in for many others, even Mechwarrior.

The lesson is players often don't like limits that force them into tough choices, I think.

Thread: Re: Breaking in a newbie

keethrax — 2008-02-14T05:17:15+00:00

I've seen all these before, and they don't hold water.

XanderF wrote:

Remember that hexes 200m across are pretty darn big. Only 5 hexes covers a full kilometer! And that 15 minutes IS an awful long time - as a result, rolling one die for an attack by a unit does not represent a single firing of the weapon. Rather, it represents 15 minutes of firing on the enemy.

If you think people who have issues with the scale don't grasp this, you're not giving them near enough credit. And basing your argument off of expanding on this theme (as if only the people who don't see issues with the scale are the ones somehow smart enough to get that one roll != one shot) just compounds that attitude.

In turns where you 'fire instead of move'...your units are still moving. Maneuvering for best firing position, advancing or falling back, etc - just more-or-less within a 200m square area.

Again, that's why the abstraction makes more sense in what would be denser terrain. I already covered that. On flatter/more open terrain that abstraction gets more and more strained.

In turns where you 'move instead of fire'...the unit may still be taking suppression shots at the enemy. Attempting to get the range down, etc. Just that, against a platoon-sized (or multiple platoon-sized) target(s), over 15 minutes, this fire effectively does nothing material.

BS. The "it involves some firing but that firing is *never* effective" is a smokescreen to cover an admission of the scale being off in places.
Again, this makes a certain level of sense in some terrain. But makes less and less sense the more open the terrain gets. That suppressive fire vs troops or vehicles in, say, the desert's gonna have some effect.

As far as the game scale goes, though, you are more looking at the primary action of the turn. Over this 15 minutes, this unit is mostly only moving to a better position, or that unit is mostly just holding ground concentrating on firing at the enemy.

That abstraction works better with larger units that involve more and more coordination to exert full effect. Platoons simply aren't (generally) large/complicated enough for that abstraction to be teribly justified.

As you say, it's all been said before, if you can't come up with something a lot better than that you might as well not bother.

You're "reasons" work out relatively well in denser terrain, as I've already admitted. But they become harder and harder to swallow the flatter and more open the terrain gets.

I have no desire to continue derailing this thread with this discussion though. I'm not trying to convince anyone, he asked and I answered. You're response clearly indicates you plain don't even see what those who disagree with you are getting at, and this isn't the time or place for an attempt to change that.

I would however like to reiterate that I do like PG. Nobody else does a *better* job at this scale. Vehicles and infantry are just plain tough to get working well together in smaller scales, especially if you want relatively streamlined rules. Concessions have to be made. And they did. By and large, I agree with the concessions. But what I don't do, is pretend they're not there.

Thread: Re: Breaking in a newbie

XanderF — 2008-02-13T22:58:45+00:00

keethrax wrote:
Let's start with time. 15 minutes is an awful long time to be forced to move/or shoot.

As noted in other threads, though, this IS actually an okay abstraction.

Remember that hexes 200m across are pretty darn big. Only 5 hexes covers a full kilometer! And that 15 minutes IS an awful long time - as a result, rolling one die for an attack by a unit does not represent a single firing of the weapon. Rather, it represents 15 minutes of firing on the enemy.

So, from that, we can deduce that while it looks like a "unit frozen in place, firing once", there is actually more happening:

In turns where you 'fire instead of move'...your units are still moving. Maneuvering for best firing position, advancing or falling back, etc - just more-or-less within a 200m square area.

In turns where you 'move instead of fire'...the unit may still be taking suppression shots at the enemy. Attempting to get the range down, etc. Just that, against a platoon-sized (or multiple platoon-sized) target(s), over 15 minutes, this fire effectively does nothing material.

As far as the game scale goes, though, you are more looking at the primary action of the turn. Over this 15 minutes, this unit is mostly only moving to a better position, or that unit is mostly just holding ground concentrating on firing at the enemy.

Thread: Re: Breaking in a newbie

TrotskyTrotsky — 2008-02-13T20:35:37+00:00

Don't forget there is a Vassal module for this gmae at: http://www.uninvited.de/pzg/

Thread: Re: Breaking in a newbie

gdcope — 2008-02-13T17:38:01+00:00

Thanks Ryan. I understand what you mean now.

Gary

Thread: Re: Breaking in a newbie

keethrax — 2008-02-13T04:27:52+00:00

gdcope wrote:
Ryan:

I am curious about what you feel is wrong with the scale. I am not starting a flame war just interested in your point of view about the system.

Regards

Gary

It's largely a function of vehicles and infantry having trouble coexisting at this small a scale. This problem exits in more games than just this one, but PG seems to multiply some of the wonkiness in an attempt to remain relatively streamlined in play. A goal which I find admirable in actually playign the game.

Let's start with time. 15 minutes is an awful long time to be forced to move/or shoot.

But you can't really fix it by just adjusting scale without breaking everything else.

You could say "fine, let's have 5 minute turns" (or some other value). Let's say that value is the "right" one. But now our movement rates are all broken. Cutting them to a third doesn't work as now infantry moves one. Not terribly exciting.

So then you say "fine lets change the hex scale..."

Suddenly you're zoomed in enough that maybe platoons aren't the answer anymore...

etc. etc. etc.

PG chose good values for a fun to play game and so I'm not knocking it as a game, but the scale choices do lead to some pretty odd feeling situations.

I don't want it to sound like I'm picking on PG here. This difficulty of vehicles + infantry exists in pretty much every game I've ever seen at this scale and smaller. For some reason PG gets compared to ASL on occasion. I'm not sure why, the scale is different enough and the target audience different enough that the comparison is largely pointless, but it seems to come up fairly often anyhow. But since it happens, I'll use it. ASL suffers form a similar issue, check out how far an armored car can scoot down a road in ASL if you don't do something about it. It's not that the numbers are wrong, it's just that "reality" (for what that's worth in a game in the first place) doesn't bend itself into strict turns terribly well at small scale. ASL partially makes up for this by having more options for interrupting the movement of said vehicle (like other vehicles that moved being able to fire), but this is at the (obvious) expense of a lot more rules. And further ASL is a IGO-UGO type system which itself lends itself to other wonkiness (though the ASL turns are interactive enough to counteract much of the issues created by moving a whole side at once, again at a price in complexity.)

Possibly a removal of the move/fire system would do it, but even that complicates things, possibly to a point beyond that which the designer(s) considered their target level of complexity. You end up with stuff like "how does movement affect firing?, what if I fire first, can I move?" etc. etc.

In terrain dense maps the slower movement rates (for the most part) and more limited lines of sight help mitigate the wonkiness.

In wide open maps like the desert the wonkiness is magnified instead.

As I'm currently playing through Afrika Korps scenarios in chronological order, this magnification of wonkiness is much on my mind right now.

Thread: Re: Breaking in a newbie

gdcope — 2008-02-13T03:21:40+00:00

Ryan:

I am curious about what you feel is wrong with the scale. I am not starting a flame war just interested in your point of view about the system.

Regards

Gary

Image

Enrique Eknes — 2008-01-27T12:16:08+00:00

German set up (sc. 16)

Image

duckweed — 2007-11-14T18:50:21+00:00

Scenario 16 "Georgia on My Mind" circa turn 5 of 11. After this turn, the Germans surrendered. The U.S. artillery was simply too much to bear. Map enlarged 170%.

Image

duckweed — 2007-11-11T18:01:07+00:00

Setup for the 11 turn "Georgia On My Mind" scenario (scenario sixteen) featuring homemade oversized Airborne map.