Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

PanzerBlitz» Forums » Variants

Subject: Cutting range & movement allowance by half. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
David Cheng
Hong Kong
Ma On Shan
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Given that the average combat range between tanks are within 500 - 800 meters in WW2, I highly suspected the realism of the range used in PB & most other tactical games.

Yes an AP shell from a panther tank can wreck a T-34 over 2000 meters, but the chance to hit a target in 2KM is very slim, not to mention targets in cover. You may fire at least two, three or more shots before you can actually hit the target at that range. Since ammo are limited, most gunners will hold their fire until target is within tactical range - the range you can hit the target with high accuracy & kill it in one shot.

The tactical range of most WW2 tank is 500 meters. That is two hexes in PB. The tactical range of infantry platoon is even shorter, around 200 meters. Soldiers were trained to shoot at tactical range even their weapons can shoot 2x or 3x farther than that range.

Assume most direct fire happens within 1000 meters, I will set the range of most tank units to 3-6 hexes. Any range over 1500 meters is highly unrealistic to me.

Another reason to cut the firing range to half is that it makes a more fun & functional tactical game. While there is unlimited range in squad unit games like ASL, how many times you can shoot over 10 hexes? You can rarely get a clear LOS over 10 hexes in ASL. Same to PB. If we keep the firing range to 3-6 hexes, there is almost no need to measure LOS. The shorten range also forces the attacking player to move their units more cautiously. A unit can no longer hide in the woods to shoot from 8 hexes away. Now you have to move closer which means higher chance to be fired on in open terrain.

By cutting the firing range & movement allowance by half, it will make a more fun & realistic tactical game.
6 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Gordon
United Kingdom
Brampton
Cumbria
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Mysterons - my kind of club...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
An interesting proposal - have you playtested this yet?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Lloyd
United States
Longmont
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This seems similar to the the notion of MP x 0.6 suggestion that was floated back with the release of AIW. It does create a more reasonable movement rate for most vehicles. My experience is that, with the CRT being so bloody, you often do not have enough survivors left for maneuver. I never tried it without opportunity fire, so it might work.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert McConnell
United States
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Armored Combat: It's all about position and getting the first shot.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
David, your range limits make a great deal of sense, especially in Armies that are very limited in tactical ability (e.g. the Russians). I think all opportunity fire should be limited to half range with the exception of specialized anti-tank units (88mm Flak 36 or Nashorn as optics are their strength). Again, doctrine and ammunition conservation would all make this a rational choice (not only making game play "better"/streamlined). Units would be very reluctant to shoot at long range if they were already covered/concealed as this would reveal them to indirect fire without any tactical benefit of killing enemy vehicles or units.

Bob
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Cheng
Hong Kong
Ma On Shan
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If I want to make a new set of counters, I'd set the ranges as below:

1 hex range for Engineer/SMG/VG units
2 hexes range for Rifle/Guard/SS units
3 hexes range for MG units, tanks & guns with 37mm or smaller caliber
4 hexes range for all tanks & guns of 40mm - 85mm
6 hexes for mortar & artillery for indirect fire
6 hexes for Panther, JgdPzIV, Firefly, Challenger, 17pdr & guns of 88mm or larger
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brice Yokem

San Marcos
Texas
msg tools

If you look in the Campaign Analysis, the concept of limited ammunition is taken into account.

With regard to the ranges - a game turn in PZB is 6 minutes. How many shots can be fired in that time?

Although a PZV can destroy a T34, that is not guaranteed as it is a 3-1 at half range. 50% chance in the open, less in cover.

You will note in PL the range of the infantry platoons have been shortened.

Shortening ranges will alter the game balance of most scenarios.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
dan escobar
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
I agree with u 110%.

My only problem with it from a philosophical perspective is, the point of shooting is to destroy the functioning "unit", not kill every single tank or person in a platoon. Do u understand what i mean? In other words, though, i agree that most combat happened at the ranges you're talking about I wonder if the longer ranges didn't work also simply because they would hit close enough that the unit would disintegrate anyway, maybe just one tank would get hit or even just panic & leave or freeze, making the unit ineffective. In the end, you're ultimately right, the ranges are ridiculous. Nobody can hit anything a mile away, that's silly.

From another perspective, u gotta admit, the PanzerBlitz "Game" is very different from PanzerBlitz the realistic portrayal of reality. PanzerBlitz is the first in the series & i would argue almost everyone agrees it's the funnest. Panzer Leader & AIW are progressively more "realistic" but less playable. The issue is the play-ability of the game. PanzerBlitz works AS A GAME, realism, not so much perhaps. The other two are more realistic but aren't as good as games.

What do u think of the ranges & movement in AIW?

What i do, perhaps u do the same, is when i play other people, i stick to the old, unrealistic but very balanced & fun rules. When i play fantasy scenarios with myself i do all the "realistic" things i can. U can't play the scenarios against other people with "realistic" rules, it changes them too much.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ned JSP
Australia
flag msg tools
mbmb
Good idea in principle I think.

Like many though, I think for simplicities sake it doesn't add a lot. The ranges the designers used were technical ranges on paper, that is the theoretical maximum effective. The idea is to use covered approaches when moving to avoid enemy being able to use full range of weapon systems. If you flaunt your T34s in the open against the 88s, even at 5km range (from memory, is the 88s range 20 and a hex 250m?) then you deserve to get needled. As was pointed out, it's a 6 min turn, the 88 counter also represents a battery of 4 guns. So in 6 mins, 4 pieces would be basically bracketing the area that the 10 T34s were moving through (again as represented by the T34 counter) with multiple rounds.
Admittedly that would require a few decent hits to 'destroy' the company of tanks fighting power, but could easily destroy/damage enough for them to find cover to reorganise, or stop them doing what they wanted i.e result dispersed.

Reducing the movement factor is realistic, as they would rarely be at theoretical top speed. However again this could be fixed by opportunity fire.

Interesting fact you raised on the average engagement range in WW2. I wonder what the average range in PB is? Probably 4-5 hexes I reckon, so a bit higher at around 1000m than in the real thing.

None the less good idea! I always enjoy these discussions and I hope I don't come across as shooting down peoples ideas, this is certainly a decent one, but for me would be happy with current RF/MF.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ned JSP
Australia
flag msg tools
mbmb
On a totally unrelated aside that may add nothing to the discussion, I thought of PB when reading W.S Churchill's account of the Soudan campaign a few days ago.

Gunboats were engaging and destroying the Mahdist guns emplaced in forts at ranges of 3000yds. That is 2700+ metres. I take it these were with naval pieces, and I am not exactly sure of the gun laying 'computers' of 1896, I know by WW1 they were pretty good. But I would wager that the optics and range finding were not as good as German gun laying sights in tanks and AA/AT guns in WW2. So pretty impressive results at 10 hex range in 1896!

This of course was in the desert, clear hexes!!



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edwin Raith
United States
Cromwell
Connecticut
flag msg tools
As to the range problem for AF we have used this, used: (does not apply to H (H) M
Attack Factor .5 Half-range or more
Attack Factor Full Half-range to quarter range
2 X Attack Factor Quarter range or less.
Easy to do 1/2 the full range, then 1/2 the 1\2 to get 1/4.

For Units with short ranges, a simple chart would end arguments.
Use the rounding up for better armies, and rounded down lesser trained armies. It could also be a scenario specific if needed.

The problem with this is that the movement rates are really to fast. We have had trouble using F,1/2,1/4 method at the current mv rate. They are just to fast. Will try doubling mv costs as a quick fix. Any one else have this issue.

I do like the shorter ranges. But with so many variant counters out there any solution to the range problem should not add to the standard PzB counters. Just my opinion on that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Moberg
msg tools
mb
IN the Design notes of PB it sates Dunnigan used:


http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bike/speed_distance_ti...

The math word problems we receive in middle school They are accurate move rates. The time scale of 6 minute's is ridiculously long and makes it appear that everything is racing around.

I found that a much easier solution is to use a clearer version of the Experimental phases rules. Plays allot better
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.