PEB14

@George MC The post title was nearly a direct call at you, George... In fact I'm right now fighting my way through your SPW and Tank lessons scenarios, trying to learn how to best use these damn PzGr squads.... Blood and tears and even more blood... You mean that you also recommend to scout using a full PzGr 4-men PzGr team, supported by the other team and the SPW itself? (I know the vid, I've watched all your vids carefully! ) I think I miss your point. During WW2 the smallest tactical unit both in CW, US and German armies were squads, not platoons. (What you refer to is more in line with the Soviet doctrine.) So squads shall be able to manoeuver (fire/support) on their own. By mid 1944, the German units are even more flexible from that point of view, as all teams are equipped with their own LMG and may thus assume alternatively the fire support role. IMHO the issue is that, in CM, the scout team count as a whole team, while in RL it probably didn't (the two-teams structure of the PzGr squad was probably retained, 3-men LMG teams each, while the scouts were away). Well, I'm talking about offensive use of the PzGr, not defensive. So precisely the way they're supposed to be used.

Thank you gentlemen. So no scout team for the Panzergrenadiere, only half-squads and SPW support. Up to now I hadn't much luck playing this way (true, I didn't really use the SPW as a base of fire squad), though… Oh please @Bulletpoint ! I used to use my destroyed Panzer crews for scouting, but out of shame I don't do it anymore…

I get your point, but I think you're slightly "off-doctrine" here. IIRC the halftrack is not supposed to be a weapon but only a transport mean (providing the mobility you're rightfully claiming). Nothing forbids to use the SPW as a third MG support team, but that's not what it's designed for. And I still don't know how I'm supposed to scout with those damn Panzergrenadiere…

Thanks, @Brille. Given the choice I obviously won't use PzGr to clear forest or rural areas. But I must do with the tools I get… and more than once I have to do that kind of stuff with PzGren... But even aginst the US or the Brits, the problem is the same: using scouts ruins the potential of a PzGr squad once they're gone… I've not played German tanks campaigns in the Bulge or in Normandy, but given the heavily forested/hedged terrain I know I'll have to face this kind of situationsthat I've yet been unable to solve satisfactorily in individual scenarios…

I know there are many fans of the aforementioned PanzerGrenadier, hence the topic title is deliberately provocative… …but not untrue. In fact, I don't like playing PzGr. Let me explain why, and please provide me with some advice… IMHO, the problem lies in their binary structure. Two LMG, two groups: nothing to complain about. The problem is: what are you supposed to do with that kind of squad when facing close terrain like forest or buldings? With the Brits, the US, plain German infantry or even the Soviet, no problem: you split a two-man scout team and overwatch it with your remaining two teams. Fine. But what about the two-groups PzGr squad? If you do split a 2-man scout team, the remaining 6 men get stuck into one huge, unwieldy group of 6 men, crammed together in an action tile, ripe for a lost shell or a Soviet sMG burst. And if your scout team gets killed, you're stuck with that "big blob team" FOREVER. No more fire and support. Only fire OR support. Great!!! So what's the alternative? Using a full 4-man group as a scout team. You're 99% sure to bear more losses than with a dedicated, 2-man scout team, but at least your squad is not worthless anymore: the survivors still can manoeuver. I've experimented both alternatives. I hate both. Whatever option I do chose, PzGr squads manpower gets consumed a lot faster than any other squads in the game, while it's supposed to be a top-notch offensive unit… (I completely understand that the issue is a consequence of the CM game engine limitations. In RL, sending a 2-man scout teams did not reduce the remaining squad to a single group, the 2-groups structure was obviously kept as long as there were 4 remaining men in the squad to serve both LMGs; similarly, in the US and British squads, the 3-groups structure wasn't altered by scouting…) I'm curious to learn what are the advice of the PzGr fans on the forum…

That's not completely true: the "not one step back" was Hitler's motto from the beginning of WW2 'til the end, with first practical application in December 1941 (and with positive results in this particular occasion as, according to many historians, the "not one step back" order saved the Wehrmacht from another Napoleon-like Berezina disaster). So it's more like the Stavka did LEARN during WW2, while the OKW didn't.

News from Vire: A Panther roams at th end of the street… Fierce fighting have also occured in the cemetary: Even the surrounding countryside is not spared…

Indirect fire with on map assets is really a mess. The only reliable way I ever managed to use it is to have the observer at voice distance of the guns (generally mortars). I've played several times with German, on-map 81 mm mortars, and I've never been able to use them in indirect fire mode. They usually come with a battery HQ (or whatever is is called) with no radio; keeping it close to the mortars is not enough to call their fire from any other HQ. I've also tried to keep the next HQ (in rank), with a radio, close to the gun (an the battery HQ), but I've not been able to call these mortars with another radio equipped HQ either. While using off board artillery is very simple, I don't understand why on-board artillery is so difficult to activate.

Yes, sorry, that's basically what I meant: firing during the set up turn shall never be considered gamey for the attacker. On another hand, it always should be for a defender...

I think it depends on which jeeps we are talking about... The cal.50 jeeps of US recon units are obvioulsy dedicated for the task, but the ones included in the British infantry companies are not...

It sounds 100% realistic to me as long as it it "preparatory fire", that is before starting to move your forces...

You're right, of course. But neitehr does the game offer the possibility to reproduce the way troops behaved to reduce this lack of situational awareness. By example, the one-man scout crewman I mentioned is not getting out of my imagination, it was a widespread tactic (according to the books dedicated to the French 2nd Armored Division I've recently read - and as I doubt the French invented the concept in 1944, it was probaly widespread at least among Western Allies). There is another reason why I'm reluctant to add lots of restrictive house rules. 1) IMHO in CM the attacker is at a disadvantage. Lethality being unrealistically high, and TacAI being quite poor at using terrain features, as an attacker you really need some help… (Obviously this is not relevant for Meeting Engagements.) This is even more relevant for scenarios designed to be played against a defending AI, in which the defending side is buffed up to provide some challenge when playing against the AI. 2) Scenarios are designed with the rules as they are, not for house rules… All house rules aiming at more realism will fatally result in slower attacking paces. And because of the clock limit, it puts the attacker at yet another disadvantage. But in fact I completelt understand @Artkin position. It is certainly not pleasant to play against players who use completely gamey tactics. But I feel that adding tons of houserules kill the game more than it adds pleasure to it (at least for me). Hence the key is more to find players whose playing style fits yours. I'm glad I did and I sincerely thank the guys I'm presently playing against for that! Just to add one cent in the machine: IMHO for added realism one should consider a houserule banning the use of offboard artillery for the attacking side in WW2 games, except for: - mortars; - preplanned (1st turn) bombardments. As a matter of fact, considering the very limited time frame of most CM games (less than two hours), calling regimental or divisional artillery to fire accurately on targets 50 or 100 meters in front of moving infantrymen… I'm still looking for such references in the literature!

And the less home rules, the less risk of cheating - even unwillingly: "oops, I think I think I just broke rule #12.5..."

I 100% agree with you there; but that's also where my post is relevant: by forbidding this (compleately unrealistic) behaviour, you also forbid more relevant ones, the kind of which I mentioned in my post. That's where I'm starting to lose you. What's "completely destroyed optics", CM wise? Practically, I'm not able to target vehicles anymore, but area fire should remain possible even without periscopes and lenses... With a loss of precision, of course...

I can take a very long time... Apparently, they will disappear from map (white flag) only if 1) there are enemy troops very close, AND 2) if there is no friendly troops (which are not surrendering themselves) nearby. The latter condition can take ages in close terrains like dense forest (recent experience of mine...).

Aren't they broken by the time they un-surrender?

My post below refers to WW2 games only (I don't play modern titles). Well, I understand the interest to add house rules for balance and fair play, but as far as realism is concerned, I really feel most are pointless in a CM game context... I mean, however realistic CM is, it still lacks some very basic mechanisms or components which would make all those "realistic house rules" necessary or even relevant. The C2 chain by example : you lack field phones, which remained an important C2 component until the end of the war. Radios are always OK, while they were particularly unreliable (I don't think I've ever read a WW2 book not mentioning radio troubles). And CM misses one of the most important C2 component during WW2: the runner! Considering all these missing components, why put a house rule forbidding to area fire on a position where the player knows there is an enemy? In RL, the firing tank or squad would get the information, because some runner from a nearby squad would relay it, especially to a tank! In CM I shall move an entire team to reliably convey the information to a nearby tank, while only ONE runner would do the job. I personally don't and just shoot. Is it THAT unrealistic? I don't think so. Regarding armor fighting in closed terrain (basically: all CMFI and CMBN scenarios), CM definitively lacks the one-man scout: the tank leader getting out of his tank to scout on the ridge or at the street's edge; the tank leader or foot soldier, hidden 10-50 meters in front of the tank, who directs its fire, hidden behind the crest, on a soft target that the gunner barely sees (or doesn't see). And so on, so forth. In conclusion, I generally only one house rule: no artillery fire on round 1, except for the attacker on a set-up position. And I've started to apply another one: surviving AFV crews shall move only towards the closest cover, and thereafter only towards the friendly edge. No more suicide tank scout-crews!

Mr Vacillator, I'm very disappointed. Quoting Wikipedia: Last occurence: March 16, 2024. France 33-31 England. Everything's said!

Well, it's the first major campaign I played so it's difficult for me to compare it with other ones, but I was able to play it and win it without going back to save files. And I'm no crack player, I play only since a little more than one year... You can afford to lose missions and still soldier on, which is pretty cool (I suffered two Major Defeats out of 15 missions). But a frustrating campaign, sure it is! British are frustrating anyway (except when they lose the Crunch, obvisouly... ). I mean, playing WW2 British in CM is frustrating, of course...

I've definitively never seen infantry firing at tanks with weapons uable to hurt them! As @Brillepoints out, they're certainly targeting an exposed tank commander!

I understand @AdamPraha ordered movement from point A on the road to point B on another part of the road usi, with some road turns in between, using only one movement order. Definitively doesnt work in CM... But that's only my guess...

I sure agree with you, but my point was, to quote myself: In other words, I would find these scenarios a lot more enjoyable and immersive if you really could see what your units actually see !

I don't get the point, the last module mentions (on the dedicated page of the BFC website): So if there is another module it shouldn't move the timeframe further...

Thanks Fred. Makes perfect sense to focus on new projects, as a designer I think it's always more exciting than revamping old stuff !

I know that very well. But I find it most disturbing when at ground level I can see things that I shouldn't.