Air Defense in old Panzer General

[proline]

if you see it at a larger scale and tend to include the soft and vulnerable support trucks as well then the attack planes could indeed cause massive damage which could in effect immobilize and neutralize a whole armoured division. This would explain the seemingly controversial but well documented situation in which German high command denied its panzer divisions to move during daytime at and after Normandy due to the air threat

This is the way PzC is designed and it is the correct way to visualize it when discussing the game.

yadda yadda yadda, you didnt read what i wrote...

Actually I did read it, the first 10 times you posted it. You're stuck on that material like a dog on a bone. What can be said incontrovertibly at this point is that you've ignored what most others have explained over and over- a tank modeled in game is not actually just some tanks. It's the entire support system as well. That's why they can hit air- the designers aren't actually saying that the tanks shoot up, rather that what's represented by a tank is a group of tanks, some minimal amount of AA, some small amount of infantry, some fuel trucks, maintenance vehicles, etc.

[JaM2013]

Actually I did read it, the first 10 times you posted it. You're stuck on that material like a dog on a bone. What can be said incontrovertibly at this point is that you've ignored what most others have explained over and over- a tank modeled in game is not actually just some tanks. It's the entire support system as well. That's why they can hit air- the designers aren't actually saying that the tanks shoot up, rather that what's represented by a tank is a group of tanks, some minimal amount of AA, some small amount of infantry, some fuel trucks, maintenance vehicles, etc.

If that was the case, then stats would have to show that minimal amount of AA, minimal amount of infantry fuel trucks etc... but instead, stats are based SOLELY on what they found those tanks had... so range/fuel is ONLY based on tank amount of range, AA is based on fact if TANK had AAMG, CD is based on TANK armor....


Destroying fuel trucks should reduce units fuel.. destroying units ammo trucks should reduce unit ammo... destroying repair trucks should suppress the unit for a turn or more.. not KILL tanks. all those things would make this game better experience... what you are saying means all those AAA units shouldnt even be in game...

[McGuba]

Right, but if the support trucks are not included in the tank unit, then where are they? Do the tanks get fuel, ammo and repair by invisible and invulnerable fairies? And it does not matter what the developers say about it, or what is written or not in the game manual. It is just common sense, and from a player's perspective one can come up with a plausible explanation for certain game mechanics, or just reject the game as a whole for being unrealistic. Whats we know for sure is that the developers never claimed that it is a serious wargame like TOAW, in fact it is simply a remake of a 1994 wargame mainly aimed at casual players, with copy-pasted unit stats for many units and some element of historical accuracy here and there. And thus it might be a mistake to take it too seriously, but if we try, we may or may not be able to explain some seemingly strange mechanics.

In my interpretation, for example if an armoured column has 100 tanks and 200 trucks and most of the trucks and a few of the tanks are destroyed in an air attack, then most of the surviving tanks have to be abandoned and destroyed by their own crews soon, unless the unit get replacement trucks. It is also well documented that especially in 1944/45 a large porition, if not the majority of the German tank losses were were suffered in such a way, as a result of the Allied air superiority. Many of those invincible heavy tanks and tank hunters just broke down or ran out of fuel and had to be abandoned and destroyed both in the east and in the west. If we can see it like this than a tactical bomber attack can indeed reduce the overall strength of a tank unit as it is depicted in the game. And then it does not matter if a tank was lost directly or indirectly as a result of the air attack.

So let's look at the possible options as a modder. One is to follow your logic and place all tactical bombers in the strategic bomber class and then "Destroying fuel trucks should reduce units fuel.. destroying units ammo trucks should reduce unit ammo... destroying repair trucks should suppress the unit for a turn or more.. " would perfectly fit, as it exactly happens when a strategic bomber attacks a ground unit. It may seem plausible form a historical point of view, but than it would mean that Stukas and Liberators would behave in the same way in the game and it would negate the obvious difference between tactical and strategic bombers.

So I think it makes more sense to stay with the current system and accept that trucks are part of a tank unit and maybe adjust the tank stats, especially the air defense values a bit so that tank units would have more similar air defense as the trucks used by a 1939 panzer division were just as vulnerable from the air as the ones used by a 1944 heavy tank battalion.

[JaM2013]

again - If supporting units are integral part of the unit, then IT NEEDS to have stats coresponding it... THEREFORE it needs to get AA values corresponding to integral AAA guns, it has to have more ammo and fuel than what is extrapolated from actual tank ammo load and fuel capacity/ combat range... YET, because these things are not part of unit stats, you cannot expect them to be INCLUDED...

besides, those "repair trucks" are present in form of prestige cost for fixing damaged unit... If you lose prestige you cannot repair... and guess what Panzer General had for Strategy Bombers??? YES, they could reduce amount of prestige by bombarding cities... so again, why didnt they add it there for all air attacks??? would make more sense than some artificial destruction of tanks, WHICH IS PROVEN TO BE NOTHING BUT A MYTH.


and btw, how exactly then you wanna model a fact that for every killed tank, there were 10 Sturmoviks shot down??? or that Tactical Air lost over 9000 tactical bombers over Normandy?

[proline]

again - If supporting units are integral part of the unit, then IT NEEDS to have stats coresponding it... THEREFORE it needs to get AA values corresponding to integral AAA guns, it has to have more ammo and fuel than what is extrapolated from actual tank ammo load and fuel capacity/ combat range... YET, because these things are not part of unit stats, you cannot expect them to be INCLUDED...

I grow tired of explaining how the game works over and over. As I said before, a tank in PzC includes some basic amount of AA. That's why tanks sometimes damage your aircraft (They have air attack of 0, not -1000 as would be needed for them to be unable to touch air). That doesn't mean a tank unit will have the same AA attack as a full AA unit- there are, believe it or not, situations where you must give your tanks additional AA coverage and the game models this well.

And of course, for the millionth time, as many people have tried to tell you, if a tank loses its fuel supply or breaks down near the front, it is dead. The crews scuttle it and it is DEAD. Bringing it fuel does not magically fix it- by that point the crews have run away or been captured and the tank is beyond repair. This is how many if not most of the German heavy tanks (Elefants, Tigers, Panthers, Jagd Tigers, and Jagd Panthers) were destroyed and tac air was a huge part of that.

Losing your fuel, maintenance vehicles, spare parts, crews, key commanders, etc. while near the front lines, which is what tac air attacking a tank models, is not the same as having very little fuel or ammo, which is modeled by the fuel and ammo stats being zero. In the latter case you don't need to surrender or destroy your tank but you do have to minimize your movements and fighting which is appropriately modeled by not being able to attack if your ammo is zero (which in the real world corresponds to a small, non-zero amount) and having a defense penalty if your fuel is 0 (which in the real world corresponds to a small, non-zero amount).

Right, but if the support trucks are not included in the tank unit, then where are they? Do the tanks get fuel, ammo and repair by invisible and invulnerable fairies?

You make a good point, thanks for trying to explain this.

[McGuba]

again - If supporting units are integral part of the unit, then IT NEEDS to have stats coresponding it... THEREFORE it needs to get AA values corresponding to integral AAA guns, it has to have more ammo and fuel than what is extrapolated from actual tank ammo load and fuel capacity/ combat range... YET, because these things are not part of unit stats, you cannot expect them to be INCLUDED...

Actually these things can be easily modded by modifying the AA or max fuel values of each tank unit. But when it comes to max fuel I prefer to use it as a tool to help to simulate reliability, which is not included in the game as per se. So for example units equipped with tanks like early production Tigers or Panthers (which were known to have teething problems and frequent break downs), have fairly low max fuel so that they have to stop for "refuel" (repair) more often then other, more reliable tank units. And some time later, after the early problems are fixed, these can be upgraded to basically the same unit, but with more max fuel (= higher reliability).

As for ammo I do not see a problem: a self-propelled gun like the ISU-152, which could only carry like 20 rounds, had to be very careful not to get into protracted battles as it could use up its ammunition very quickly and then it had to retreat to meet with its supply trucks to replenish its ammunition. Obviously it takes time and a vehicle like this has to do it more often than others. This disadvantage is nicely simulated in the game by the low max ammo count and the frequent need to replenish ammo. With other words, it does not matter that the supply column has a lot more ammunition, the vehicle itself cannot take it into the battle due to the lack of storage space, and once it runs out of ammo, it has to disengage and retreat to the nearby supply trucks, which for obvious reasons cannot follow it too close to the site of the ground battle. And while doing so it cannot participate in the battle = it misses a turn in the game's terms.

As for AA guns, I do note necessarily think that they need to be seen as part of a tank unit as there are AA units in the game (as opposed to support trucks), and players can decide if the want to provide additional air defense to a tank unit or not.

besides, those "repair trucks" are present in form of prestige cost for fixing damaged unit... If you lose prestige you cannot repair...

Repair trucks are not only needed to repair actual battle damage, which should indeed require some resources or "prestige", but also for regular maintenance as ww2 tanks had a tendency to break down quite often due to mechanical problems. And if the soft and vulnerable repair trucks are destroyed in an air attack and cannot be replaced fairly quickly the armoured unit will lose its actual strength as the tanks which break down for mechanical reasons cannot be fixed. If it happens in the face of an advancing enemy, then the tank crews have no other choice but to blow up their tanks otherwise they would be captured by the enemy intact.

and guess what Panzer General had for Strategy Bombers??? YES, they could reduce amount of prestige by bombarding cities...

Actually strategic bombers in Panzer Corps can do the same, but it does not happen always, and the prestige penalty is so smal, usually no more than 10-12 points, that most players do not even notice it. Additionally, the AI much less often attacks empty cities than in Panzer General, so it is hard to spot this phenomenon.

so again, why didnt they add it there for all air attacks???

I do not know, maybe you should ask the developers. But my guess is that they just wanted to replicate the rule system of Panzer General and they did not really give much thought to possibly improve it.

would make more sense than some artificial destruction of tanks, WHICH IS PROVEN TO BE NOTHING BUT A MYTH.

I also believe that the large numbers of tanks destroyed by aircraft is a myth, there is no argument here. The argument is that I (we) also believe that although aircraft could not destroy the well armoured tanks in large numbers, they could in fact destroy the supporting trucks without which the tank unit cannot remain active for long. Therefore the overall strength of the tank unit is being reduced which can lead to the destruction of tanks by their own crews, as it often happened in the war.

and btw, how exactly then you wanna model a fact that for every killed tank, there were 10 Sturmoviks shot down???

That 10 shot down Sturmoviks might have destroyed just one tank, but also let's say 30 trucks before being shot down. Those 30 trucks might have supplied 10 tanks with ammo, fuel, spare parts and maintenance. After the destruction of those trucks 10 tanks had to be abandoned and blown up during a retreat by their crews due to the lack of fuel and/or spare parts after they broke down.

or that Tactical Air lost over 9000 tactical bombers over Normandy?

I do not really know where this figure comes from. Now I checked a few sources and it looks like all the combined Allied losses in June 1944 was about 1200 aircraft. And this figure includes British and American heavy bombers and fighters as well, not only tactical bombers. Maybe it refers to a longer period?

http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/normandy3.htm
https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=171233

[JaM2013]

and i keep explaining that those stats don't cover any supporting units.. plus, from reality perspective, those supporting units were part of DIVISION, not battalion, not company structure... so, If single unit is supposed to represent a Division, then entire design is wrong - German tank divisions contained multiple tank types, not just single type, there were no tank divisions with just pzI or PzII....

So, the only possible scale that would fit the units in Panzer Corps (and Panzer General too) is with units being Battalion size.. therefore you can forget about supporting units (flaks, infantry, artillery) being part of battalion.. they were not, they were separate entities.. SO YOUR NICE THEORY FALLS SHORT. Of course at times certain platoons were cross-assigned as needed, but as organizational entity they were separate units within division.



So, back at the same thing - Tactical bombers in this game are UNREALISTICALLY EFFECTIVE AGAINST TANKS.

[proline]

and i keep explaining that those stats don't cover any supporting units

Yes, they do. Obviously. Try reading what others have written to you rather than just complaining about other people not reading your lengthy cut & paste posts.

plus, from reality perspective, those supporting units were part of DIVISION, not battalion, not company structure... yadda, yadda

It's pretty well known that the scale in PzC is not battalion or division or anything else, it is what the particular scenario you are playing needs it to be. Move along now.

So, back at the same thing - Tactical bombers in this game are UNREALISTICALLY EFFECTIVE AGAINST TANKS.

You've got this weird obsession you just can't shake with whether or not the bombers could physically blow up the tanks. Please try to get it through your head that WW2 tanks were as often as not lost due to breakdowns or destroyed by their own crews, both of which were greatly facilitated by tac air.

[JaM2013]

So, when i destroyed your argument about "hidden" supporting units within single unit you come back with this????

Battalion size units are only scale that somewhat makes sense with style of gameplay of this game.. NOTHING ELSE would fit anyhow.. yet, its not that important.. IMPORTANT is, that your THEORY ONLY FITS FOR DIVISION SIZE UNITS.... NOTHING ELSE!!! and if unit is a division, then there should not be any artillery units, or air defense or recon, because they did not compose entire divisions....

breakdowns or abandoned tanks cannot be strictly added to "tactical Air" kills, and it was never assigned to them by either Allies or Nazis during WW2.. those vehicles were always described as OPERATIONAL LOSSES... they were never counted as "DESTROYED BY AIRCRAFT" Plus, if designers would think "outside of box" of old Panzer General, they could easily give Tactical Air same type of attack as strategic bombers, which would make those tank units run out of fuel and ammo, and be easily wiped out without resistance same way as any unit would that was out of supply..

out of 456 destroyed german tanks that were found in operational area for Operation Goodwood only 10 were showing marks of being hit by rockets... yet pilots of Typhoons reported 222 kills... Mind you, Allied team inspected 300 of those tanks and only 2-5% could be accounted for Air attacks (not necessarily destroyed by them ,but immobilized abandoned tanks with holes in engine compartment for example... everything else was result of gun fire, artillery or infantry weapons....

All you are trying to do is to somehow justify what is wrong stat design choice based on flawed historical research they are based on... which is btw main reason why such units like "Rudel" are in the game, which are based purely on fantasy and Nazi propaganda, but have nothing to do with actual reality of WW2...

[McGuba]

So, the only possible scale that would fit the units in Panzer Corps (and Panzer General too) is with units being Battalion size.. therefore you can forget about supporting units (flaks, infantry, artillery) being part of battalion.. they were not, they were separate entities.. SO YOUR NICE THEORY FALLS SHORT. Of course at times certain platoons were cross-assigned as needed, but as organizational entity they were separate units within division.

As proline pointed out, the actual unit size in this game and in PG was never specified, and for a good reason: the scale of the combat varies from scenario to scenario. In one scenario you might be besieging a single city which covers most of the map, and in the next one you might be invading half of North Africa. Personally, I do not like it a bit, and in my mods I always tried to keep the same scale between scenarios, but it is how it is. The other reason for that is probably both games are aimed at the masses, and the majority of people out there cannot tell the difference between a battalion and a division (especially since national service had been abandoned in most western countries by now) so there is not much point in bombarding them with "complex" military terminology.

Also, if we accept that units in the game can only be battalion sized, than even a tank battalion needs a few dozen trucks to keep it supplied and maintained, and I find the idea slightly weird that although trucks are present in the game as land transports for other units, supply trucks are not. Which makes them practically invulnerable to enemy attacks, when in fact they were very much vulnerable, especially to air attacks. Although they were usually kept physically away from the site of the ground battle, it did not help them much when the planes came from the air. Thus I believe the only solution is to see them part of the actual unit strength of a tank unit, which can be reduced by air attacks.

breakdowns or abandoned tanks cannot be strictly added to "tactical Air" kills, and it was never assigned to them by either Allies or Nazis during WW2.. those vehicles were always described as OPERATIONAL LOSSES... they were never counted as "DESTROYED BY AIRCRAFT"

I never claimed that all abandoned tanks were the indirect result of air attacks. But some of them, must have been. As the following quote explains, it is truly impossible to tell how much of them were lost to air attacks indirectly, it varied from place to place depending on the situation. But it is just as bold to say that a tank kill only counts when it was destroyed by a direct hit, and if a tank was abandoned due to lack of repair of fuel because the supply trucks were destroyed in an air attack than it cannot be seen as a result of air attacks.

The single most common cause for German tank losses in France 1944 was abandonment of vehicles not damaged by combat. Possibly as many as half the losses were simply abandoned. A British study of 176 Panthers found on the battlefields in France (thus representing about one quarter of all Panthers sent to Normandy) half were just abandoned or destroyed by their own crews. By comparison 6 % had been hit by aircraft weapons. The remainder had mostly been hit by ground weapons. To what extent the abandoned/destroyed by crew had been lost (directly or indirectly) to air action is impossible to tell with certainty. Probably air interdiction of supply routes played a role here, but also the combat situation on the ground could cause such losses.

Niklas Zetterling

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum ... 00010.html

Plus, if designers would think "outside of box" of old Panzer General, they could easily give Tactical Air same type of attack as strategic bombers, which would make those tank units run out of fuel and ammo, and be easily wiped out without resistance same way as any unit would that was out of supply..

I tend agree with that, tactical bombers could damage ammo, fuel and cause long lasting suppression as well, but it cannot be modded and thus we have to accept the present situation in which they cause direct damage to unit strength (which is an abstract idea anyway and can be interpreted as the overall effectiveness of a tank unit which includes the supply truck column as well). No doubt that the latter requires some level of imagination and compromise, but it is still better than rejecting the whole game because of this issue.

[JaM2013]

I know well that unit size is not just battalion size, but battalion size is the maximum size that makes sense with this game design... Division size is just no go because of all different unit types present in division, which are separate in the game... So, to keep the game design intact, minimum size unit has to be big enough to contain specific unit type - artillery, Air Defense, infantry or tanks, which means minimum size would be something like 2 companies together, definitely not a single company.

Battalion size is making most sense, but it of course doesnt fit to everything, as for example Panzer battalions in 1939-43 used mixed tank types, battalions were not uniform.. yet this is easy to extrapolated with 4 tank units simulating same thing and 1xPzIV,1xPzIII and 2xPZII. After 1943, German panzer battalions were either composed of PzIV or Panthers, so it gets easier. Plus, Heavy Panzer battalions were actually separate independent units, therefore it makes sense to have Tiger units independent and not part of division...

Anyway, from Game Design perspective, this game as it is, battalion size unit is best fit, where for example another engine wise similar - Warhammer Armageddon game is platoon size game. it would just make no sense at all with units being of higher organizational size than battalion. (therefore, definitely no repair trucks, ammo trucks etc as a part of battalion, because there were none assigned. besides, game recognizes "soft target" and "hard target" there is no way for a truck being classified as hard target for one unit, and as soft target for another... there are just so many inconsistencies, that this "included units" theory just dont work)

[JaM2013]

I tend agree with that, tactical bombers could damage ammo, fuel and cause long lasting suppression as well, but it cannot be modded and thus we have to accept the present situation in which they cause direct damage to unit strength (which is an abstract idea anyway and can be interpreted as the overall effectiveness of a tank unit which includes the supply truck column as well). No doubt that the latter requires some level of imagination and compromise, but it is still better than rejecting the whole game because of this issue.

what about changing all tactical bombers to be type 9 "strategic bombers"? wouldnt it mean they would do exactly that type of damage? type 8 unit type could be then only used for "recon planes" so it wont be completely empty..

[JaM2013]

there is one elegant solution for tactical bomber situation even now - instead of changing their type to 9, they could be switchable units with clone being 9... so player could decide if he wants to use his tactical bombers to attack the unit directly, or switch to "strategic role" and instead reduce supply/ammo and cause suppression... no code changes necessary...

strategy bombers could be switchable to direct attack as well, as surprisingly - when used against combat units, they causes a lot more damage than tactical bombers ever did... for example large majority of Tiger tanks present in normandy were destroyed during massive carpet bombing of their position by Allied strategic bombers... because to kill a tank, you need to score direct hit... and strategic bombers carried a lot of bombs therefore their chance at hitting something was better.

[proline]

I never claimed that all abandoned tanks were the indirect result of air attacks. But some of them, must have been. As the following quote explains, it is truly impossible to tell how much of them were lost to air attacks indirectly, it varied from place to place depending on the situation. But it is just as bold to say that a tank kill only counts when it was destroyed by a direct hit, and if a tank was abandoned due to lack of repair of fuel because the supply trucks were destroyed in an air attack than it cannot be seen as a result of air attacks.

The single most common cause for German tank losses in France 1944 was abandonment of vehicles not damaged by combat. Possibly as many as half the losses were simply abandoned. A British study of 176 Panthers found on the battlefields in France (thus representing about one quarter of all Panthers sent to Normandy) half were just abandoned or destroyed by their own crews. By comparison 6 % had been hit by aircraft weapons. The remainder had mostly been hit by ground weapons. To what extent the abandoned/destroyed by crew had been lost (directly or indirectly) to air action is impossible to tell with certainty. Probably air interdiction of supply routes played a role here, but also the combat situation on the ground could cause such losses.

Niklas Zetterling

Again very well said, and well researched. Thanks

[McGuba]

what about changing all tactical bombers to be type 9 "strategic bombers"? wouldnt it mean they would do exactly that type of damage? type 8 unit type could be then only used for "recon planes" so it wont be completely empty..

It might work to simulate the ineffectiveness of tactical bombers against tanks, given that you reject the idea of support trucks being part of motorized units, but then these strategic-tactical bombers will be just as ineffective against soft tartgets, too, which might be just as weird, if not even more. Historical data suggests that ground attack planes (and even fighters bombers) were extremely effective against trucks and other soft targets to the point that in 1944 all German daytime movements were forbidden by the high command.

there is one elegant solution for tactical bomber situation even now - instead of changing their type to 9, they could be switchable units with clone being 9... so player could decide if he wants to use his tactical bombers to attack the unit directly, or switch to "strategic role" and instead reduce supply/ammo and cause suppression... no code changes necessary...

At a first glance it looks like a sound idea, however, when I make such changes I always try to make sure that the AI will benefit from it as well. And unfortunately the AI is not very good at using mulitpurpose units. My bet is that it would only use the tactical bomber version as it could cause more direct damage and that is what the AI is mainly interested in.

[JaM2013]

trucks were easier to be destroyed from strafing, but were still small target to rockets with their minuscule chance to hit. they had to rely on "splash" damage..large bombs were effective due to fragmentation to relatively large area, anyway bomb effectivity was not high in ww2.. CEP in those times was around 100-200m at best, to kill a tank you had to drop it almost on target (10m radius max).. modern fire control systems on planes are capable delivering unguided bomb with CEP 20-40m (vietnam era bombers), while GPS guided bombs have CEP 5-10m

same data - at Operation Goodwood, out of 90 destroyed halftracks, only 9 were destroyed by tactical air...