Matrix Games Forums

More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the FamilyTablet Version of Qvadriga gets new patchNew Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge UpdateCommand gets a huge update!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

A Kursk PAK front every time???

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront >> A Kursk PAK front every time??? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 7/30/2012 11:07:48 AM   
tony luke

 

Posts: 206
Joined: 8/31/2001
Status: offline
Evening all,

I am playing my own German campaign (97 battles) based on a core force of 14 tanks, 9 x squads and 4 x A/Cars. Three questions for those who may know:

1. I seem to find in every scenario yet played (half way through my 8th one now) that when attacking (7 out of 8 so far) I face an incredible hoard of AT guns, it would seem to rival the soviet PAK fronts at Kursk! The average is between 14 and twenty AT guns; plus Inf/tanks and off-board arty (60% 0f the time). To add to the pain 40 -50% of these guns are 76mm which can generally see and engage from one end of the map to the other (terrain pending, but sometimes they seem to have amazing line of sight!). Do others find an incrediblely high amount of AT guns?

2. As noted above I am playing a long campaign of some 97 battles. I am in my 8th battle now but only up to the 29/7/41. So nearly 10% of the allowed battles but I have only covered some six weeks ........ Is this normal?

3. I assume that when you mod an existing campaign with your own core force that the map does not increase in size to match an increase in core size?

In thanks for any comments or thoughts.

regards,

AKL
Post #: 1
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 7/30/2012 1:54:38 PM   
junk2drive


Posts: 12893
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline
1 short answer, it depends on the percentage of points allowed and the cost of the guns.

2 it tends to be historical. Depending on the Division, you might skip a year if that Div was pulled to France or somewhere for a while.

3 the game originally was designed with only 1k maps. The map is picked at random, not based on the forces.

If you open up the files for your campaign, you will see the date range of each segment and how many battles +/- in that segment. You can also see the percentage for each category that the enemy will get. The originals seemed a bit heavy on OBA and guns. I guess to give the AI a better chance. Also Soviet use of artillery was supposedly high in RL.

I suggest that you play as long as you can stand just to get the experience, then mod a campaign better suited to your likes.

(in reply to tony luke)
Post #: 2
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 7/30/2012 6:51:07 PM   
Rick

 

Posts: 12042
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline

I think junk2drive has already answered, but to chime in, I think the amount of Artillery and Guns the Russian AI recieves in that campaign is controlled by the files called "Presets". These files can be found in the Data/Presets folder and start with "Soviet vs 1st Panzer". I think there are 3 of them for the campaign you are playing.

These files have have the percentages of points that the AI allocates to the various unit types. These files get used in conjunction with the "Battle" files to determine the breakdown of the opposing forces. You can edit these (save the originals) and adjust these breakdowns. This has to be done before you create your campaign though, so it won't have any affect on your existing campaign. They can be edited with any text editor.

If you wanted to get more involved, you could also create new ones, but then you would also need to edit the corresponding Battle files to make sure the ones you add get used at the correct time period.

If there is enough interest, we could put together a short thread here on how to modify or even create your own custom random campaigns.

Thanks
Rick

(in reply to junk2drive)
Post #: 3
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/3/2012 8:14:04 AM   
Andy Brown

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 2/20/2001
Status: offline
Wrt the Sov AT guns. I've noticed that, when I opt for 100% Sov infantry, the RBG give me a lot of man-portable (small calibre) AT guns. Quite often, they will comprise 50% of the force, which is quite frustrating when I'm trying to set up infantry-only battles.

Can this be fixed? I suspect it has something to do with making the AT guns man-portable. The system seems to consider them as infantry when, strictly speaking, they're not.

Thanks,

Andy Brown

(in reply to Rick)
Post #: 4
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/3/2012 1:14:26 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 12372
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: online
How are your infantry only battles working out? Besides the ATG aspect of them.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to Andy Brown)
Post #: 5
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/3/2012 1:34:06 PM   
junk2drive


Posts: 12893
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline
Andy, the problem we faced was how Koios coded the original game. All guns were category artillery except one infantry gun on each side that were category infantry. Those infantry guns could move. Everyone complained including us that guns could not be transported or move. We created the mobile ATGs as category infantry in order to give some type of mobile gun. Unfortunately the generator cannot separate these from troops when it makes its choices. Points wise Russian troops are cheap so you end up facing hoards of them and ATGs.

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 6
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/3/2012 5:24:13 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 8988
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: junk2drive
Everyone complained including us that guns could not be transported or move. We created the mobile ATGs as category infantry in order to give some type of mobile gun. Unfortunately the generator cannot separate these from troops when it makes its choices. Points wise Russian troops are cheap so you end up facing hoards of them and ATGs.

Ooh, law of unintended consequences.

(in reply to junk2drive)
Post #: 7
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/3/2012 11:13:00 PM   
Andy Brown

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 2/20/2001
Status: offline
Junk,

Understood. So far, the way I've got around it is to set the Unit Selection Pool to 5.0 to ensure there are enough non-ATG units to choose from. Half the force pool is ATGs but there are usually enough other inf units to make up a balanced force.

The other option I've tried is to edit out most of the ATGs with the scenario editor, which is OK but which does reduce the FoW for the player generating the battle.

MR,

It's really only early days yet as far as my PC: O experience goes but my initial reaction towards infantry combat is favourable. Unlike some other posters, I currently find the inf suppression routines to be appropriate and don't believe any adjustment is needed. I appreciate that many players dislike losing control of their troops but my opinion is that PC: O suitably reflects the nature of infantry combat. Lacking any means of breaking LoS, the only other option that should be available to a player whose troops are suppressed or pinned is to introduce additonal assets (indirectly or directly) to pin the pinners. I ran Boot Camp 1 a couple of times without an initial smoke mission to see what would happen and was reasonably satisified with the results. Troops advancing in the open against superior firepower should be in trouble and Boot Camp 1 seemed to adequately reflect that.

My one suggestion at this stage would be that troops, once they start retreating, don't stop until they either reach cover or are out of effective small arms range of any known enemy. If you wanted some absolute distance, to also allow for retreats/routs initiated by indirect fire, perhaps 300m would do. The stop/start routs that I saw playing Boot Camp 1 struck me as a little artificial.

I realise that PC: O is its own game and that features should not included just because similar games have them but has any thought been given to modelling platoon and company HQ units? They wouldn't impact very much on the game's mechanics but they sure would add to its atmosphere.

Cheers,

Andy

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 8
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/3/2012 11:40:18 PM   
Stridor


Posts: 5077
Joined: 9/8/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown

Wrt the Sov AT guns. I've noticed that, when I opt for 100% Sov infantry, the RBG give me a lot of man-portable (small calibre) AT guns. Quite often, they will comprise 50% of the force, which is quite frustrating when I'm trying to set up infantry-only battles.

Can this be fixed? I suspect it has something to do with making the AT guns man-portable. The system seems to consider them as infantry when, strictly speaking, they're not.

Thanks,

Andy Brown


One way it can be fixed is by either by making your own presets or by adjusting the prevalence data at the unit xml level.

Cheers

S

(in reply to Andy Brown)
Post #: 9
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/4/2012 5:40:35 AM   
Rick

 

Posts: 12042
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown

Junk,

Understood. So far, the way I've got around it is to set the Unit Selection Pool to 5.0 to ensure there are enough non-ATG units to choose from. Half the force pool is ATGs but there are usually enough other inf units to make up a balanced force.
......

My one suggestion at this stage would be that troops, once they start retreating, don't stop until they either reach cover or are out of effective small arms range of any known enemy. If you wanted some absolute distance, to also allow for retreats/routs initiated by indirect fire, perhaps 300m would do. The stop/start routs that I saw playing Boot Camp 1 struck me as a little artificial.

I realise that PC: O is its own game and that features should not included just because similar games have them but has any thought been given to modelling platoon and company HQ units? They wouldn't impact very much on the game's mechanics but they sure would add to its atmosphere.

Cheers,

Andy


Andy,

I took another quick look, and tried a couple of things that I thought might help, but they didn't seem to. I'll look at a couple of more thngs this week. As Stridor said, creating your own preset that removes the ATGs would also be an option.

As far as HQ units, we have talked about that. Though we haven't come to any decision. There are both pros and cons of having distinct HQ units on the map.

Thanks!
Rick

(in reply to Andy Brown)
Post #: 10
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/4/2012 7:03:10 AM   
Ratzki

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 8/18/2008
From: Chilliwack, British Columbia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rick


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown

Junk,

Understood. So far, the way I've got around it is to set the Unit Selection Pool to 5.0 to ensure there are enough non-ATG units to choose from. Half the force pool is ATGs but there are usually enough other inf units to make up a balanced force.
......

My one suggestion at this stage would be that troops, once they start retreating, don't stop until they either reach cover or are out of effective small arms range of any known enemy. If you wanted some absolute distance, to also allow for retreats/routs initiated by indirect fire, perhaps 300m would do. The stop/start routs that I saw playing Boot Camp 1 struck me as a little artificial.

I realise that PC: O is its own game and that features should not included just because similar games have them but has any thought been given to modelling platoon and company HQ units? They wouldn't impact very much on the game's mechanics but they sure would add to its atmosphere.

Cheers,

Andy


Andy,

I took another quick look, and tried a couple of things that I thought might help, but they didn't seem to. I'll look at a couple of more thngs this week. As Stridor said, creating your own preset that removes the ATGs would also be an option.

As far as HQ units, we have talked about that. Though we haven't come to any decision. There are both pros and cons of having distinct HQ units on the map.

Thanks!
Rick

What are some of the cons to having HQ units on the map?

(in reply to Rick)
Post #: 11
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/4/2012 9:07:46 AM   
Rick

 

Posts: 12042
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

What are some of the cons to having HQ units on the map?


One issue that would need to be addressed is how to maintain realistic fog of war if your HQ units were on the map.

Thanks
Rick

(in reply to Ratzki)
Post #: 12
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/4/2012 12:45:29 PM   
Andy Brown

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 2/20/2001
Status: offline

quote:

One issue that would need to be addressed is how to maintain realistic fog of war if your HQ units were on the map.


I don't understand you here. Are you saying that it would be too easy for an opponent to recognise an HQ element and draw unreasonable conclusions about your force composition? Or are you suggesting that the HQ units would be too easy to recognise and target unfairly?

Neither of these poses any kind of unrealistic FoW issue to me. At the moment, I'm more concerned with the fact that my platoons are often a squad down because the 1st squad is hanging back looking for good OP positions.

Andy

(in reply to Rick)
Post #: 13
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/4/2012 3:47:32 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 8988
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown
Or are you suggesting that the HQ units would be too easy to recognise and target unfairly?
That's been the argument against it. Since you can count the little pixel troopen and even check them out if modeled correctly you can decapitate the command structure.

But there are two more things impeding this: 1) Currently we can’t make mixed platoons, so all units in the platoon have to be the same item. 2) The order system would have to be changed if you want to give the sub-units orders but not change the state of your HQ to allow your HQ/OP unit to hang back, as you say.

(in reply to Andy Brown)
Post #: 14
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/5/2012 12:18:44 AM   
Andy Brown

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 2/20/2001
Status: offline
Mobius,

Decapitating the command structure is one way to win a battle. So is protecting it. These are legitimate acts-of-war. The challenge of commanders at all levels doing their job without drawing hostile attention to themselves has been a feature of battle since time immemorial. In a wargame, it's a player problem. It doesn't seem to be an issue in other games that feature command units and nothing I've seen so far suggests it would be in PC: O.

The inability to model platoons of more than one unit type, however, is serious. I realise that PC: O's focus is tactical armoured combat but, to be honest, I find the representation of dismounted elements as a gaggle of platoons to be extremely discouraging. It looks incomplete and it certainly doesn't encourage proper tactical thought.

Initially, I don't think you need do more than find some way of combining different unit types into platoons. No need to change the order system at this stage as we're already used to working round quirks like Rushing a platoon without Rushing its leader. Later on perhaps, you could consider introducing command and leadership factors into the game mechanics based on HQ survival and proximity but there's no urgency for this. Company command units and platoons would also add to the flavour of the game but once again, the first step really doesn't need to involve anything other than just being able to represent them.

Easy to say, of course

Andy

< Message edited by Andy Brown -- 8/5/2012 12:20:16 AM >

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 15
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/5/2012 12:33:24 AM   
Rick

 

Posts: 12042
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline

We haven't really made any decision on how to handle Command Units. But I think there are some issues on targetting HQ units, when in reality the enemy would not necessarily be able to distinquish those units from other units that might be in the same terrain. This may well be the way we go, but it will take some thought. The classic AH Squad Leader was one of my early favorites, so I would certainly agree that it would add some flavor to the Panzer Command series.

Thanks
rick

(in reply to Andy Brown)
Post #: 16
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/5/2012 2:16:42 AM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 12372
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown

Mobius,

Decapitating the command structure is one way to win a battle. So is protecting it. These are legitimate acts-of-war. The challenge of commanders at all levels doing their job without drawing hostile attention to themselves has been a feature of battle since time immemorial. In a wargame, it's a player problem. It doesn't seem to be an issue in other games that feature command units and nothing I've seen so far suggests it would be in PC: O.

The inability to model platoons of more than one unit type, however, is serious. I realise that PC: O's focus is tactical armoured combat but, to be honest, I find the representation of dismounted elements as a gaggle of platoons to be extremely discouraging. It looks incomplete and it certainly doesn't encourage proper tactical thought.

Initially, I don't think you need do more than find some way of combining different unit types into platoons. No need to change the order system at this stage as we're already used to working round quirks like Rushing a platoon without Rushing its leader. Later on perhaps, you could consider introducing command and leadership factors into the game mechanics based on HQ survival and proximity but there's no urgency for this. Company command units and platoons would also add to the flavour of the game but once again, the first step really doesn't need to involve anything other than just being able to represent them.

Easy to say, of course

Andy



Well, there you have it. You have just joined those of us that think the infantry system needs to be considerably tweaked. There are a lot of things PCO does really well. IMO, infantry combat isn't one of those just yet.

IF we get a chance to make changes to the current system then hopefully that will change.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to Andy Brown)
Post #: 17
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/5/2012 2:18:09 AM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 12372
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rick


We haven't really made any decision on how to handle Command Units. But I think there are some issues on targetting HQ units, when in reality the enemy would not necessarily be able to distinquish those units from other units that might be in the same terrain. This may well be the way we go, but it will take some thought. The classic AH Squad Leader was one of my early favorites, so I would certainly agree that it would add some flavor to the Panzer Command series.

Thanks
rick



Small unit leaders in tactical units routinely take the highest casualties. Due to numerous causes. Not the least of which is they are specifically targeted by enemy units.

Having leaders that perform anywhere near their historical abilities is a challenge. SL leaders were little more than cheerleaders. Running around the maps cheering on any unit that they stacked with. There was no chain of command whatsoever. Something I would really like to see the PC series model closer to actual events of WWII.


Moved the infantry discussion to:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3157345&mpage=1&key=�


Good Hunting.

MR


< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 8/5/2012 3:12:09 PM >


_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to Rick)
Post #: 18
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/5/2012 4:15:07 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 8988
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown
It doesn't seem to be an issue in other games that feature command units and nothing
That's because they fail in some way. Like MR says they are either cheerleaders that can't be individually targeted when they stack with other units or are just mini-me weak squads with little use but as a range stake for measuring command distance. To be successful as an HQ unit they must function as one not just appear on the OOB as one.


(in reply to Andy Brown)
Post #: 19
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/5/2012 6:01:30 AM   
Andy Brown

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 2/20/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Well, there you have it. You have just joined those of us that think the infantry system needs to be considerably tweaked.


MR,

I don't think the system needs to be considerably tweaked. As I said earlier in the thread, I'm actually quite impressed with the way suppression appears to be handled and I believe suppression to be the heart of any realistic infantry combat model. Having just used area fire to kill a Sov SMG squad cowering in its foxholes however (Boot Camp 5), I am tending to think that casualties might be awarded a little too readily. With two MG-42s hosing it down, I'd expect such a squad to be well and truly pinned to the bottom of its scrapes but it seems a bit of an ask for even German machine-guns to reach out and touch someone through several metres of earth. Unless of course the Sovs broke and took the hits as they stood up to run away.

IMO, PC: O's infantry model doesn't need a lot of tweaking although, yes, it does need some and doubtless everybody has their own views on what that should be. As an old grunt, I tend to look at command and control and soft effects before considering other stuff as these, again IMO, are tactical wargame aspects most often overlooked or incorrectly modelled.

And it's really hard to model command and control if you don't model commanders and controllers

On that note, I've almost finished the Boot Camp campaign and I can't help thinking it's been misconceived. Sure, it's achieved its aim in that I'm now familiar with the techniques I'll need to use infantry properly in PC: O. However, PC: O is clearly a platoon level simulation, by which I mean that the game's basic unit of manoeuvre is the platoon. PC: O is meant to be played by platoons. By using only one core platoon, Boot Camp encourages players to think at the squad level, which I'm not sure the system is optimised for. I'm wondering if a multi-platoon Boot Camp would make more sense.

Cheers,

Andy

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 20
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/5/2012 7:21:32 AM   
Rick

 

Posts: 12042
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown


.....
On that note, I've almost finished the Boot Camp campaign and I can't help thinking it's been misconceived. Sure, it's achieved its aim in that I'm now familiar with the techniques I'll need to use infantry properly in PC: O. However, PC: O is clearly a platoon level simulation, by which I mean that the game's basic unit of manoeuvre is the platoon. PC: O is meant to be played by platoons. By using only one core platoon, Boot Camp encourages players to think at the squad level, which I'm not sure the system is optimised for. I'm wondering if a multi-platoon Boot Camp would make more sense.

Cheers,

Andy



You make a good point, PCO is meant to be played more at the platoon level than the squad level.

But I think the Boot Camp really did accomplish it's aim showing players the tactics needed for using Infantry successfully in PCO. Perhaps a followup set of Boot Camp showing how to successfully manuever a company of Infantry would be useful.

Thanks
Rick

(in reply to Andy Brown)
Post #: 21
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/5/2012 12:58:03 PM   
tony luke

 

Posts: 206
Joined: 8/31/2001
Status: offline
Evening all,

Back to one of my early points about scenario spread; I am at game 16 in a 97 game campaign and am only at 09 Oct 41! This is roughly 20% of the battles and I have only covered 3 and half months of the war??? Is this WAD? Was hoping for a better spread across time, especially the later period when there is so many more interesting items. For comment and consideration.

Regards,

Tony

(in reply to Rick)
Post #: 22
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/5/2012 2:02:41 PM   
junk2drive


Posts: 12893
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline
Assuming you generated a random campaign, I looked in Data\Random Campaigns and opened the xml for 7th Panzer Division 1941-44 Long
If you look at the entry rptbattle that is how many times you will repeat that battle. Add that for a year.

<campaign id="7th Panzer Div 1941-44 Long" name="7th Panzer Div., Jun.22,1941 - Aug.1,1944" epilogueXMLFile="7th Panzer Div 1941-44 Long Epilogue.xml" currentScenarioId="German Summer 41 (First) - 7th Pzr Div" desc="7th Panzer Division - Germany [cr] LONG Campaign for 1941-1944 [cr] [cr] Difficulty: Very High (at Historical level) [cr] [cr] === OVERVIEW === [cr] [cr] Runs from June 22, 1941 through August 1, 1944. Follows the fortunes of the 7th Panzer Division in the Soviet Union from the initial days of Operation Barbarossa through the Soviet Summer Offensive of 1944. [cr] [cr] === CORE UNITS === [cr] [cr] 7 x Panzer 38t Medium Tank [cr] 5 x Panzer IIB Light Tank [cr] 3 x PanzerGrenadier Squad [cr] 3 x Opel Blitz Truck [cr] 2 x SdKfz 222 Armored Car [cr] [cr] === SUPPORT UNITS === [cr] [cr] Chance of support units in each battle, ranging from artillery and air to additional infantry, armor, anti-tank and reconnaissance forces. [cr] [cr] === DIVISION HISTORY === [cr] [cr] (From 'Hitler's Legions') [cr] [cr] Formed at Gera in 1938 as the 2nd Light Division, the 7th Panzer turned out to be an outstanding combat unit. It initially included the 66th Panzer Batttalion and the 6th and 7th Mechanized Cavalry Regiments, as well as a reconnaissance regiment. It took part in the invasion of Poland, was converted to a Panzer Division in the winter of 1939-40, and placed under the command of Major General Erwin Rommel, who would become the 'Desert Fox'. [cr] [cr] Equipped mainly with captured and inferior Czech tanks, the 7th Panzer smashed its way through Belgium and France, repulsed the major Allied counterattack of the campaign at Arras, and cut off the escape of major French and British forces at Cherbourg. It was engaged in occupation duties in the Bordeaux region until being sent east in the Spring of 1941. [cr] [cr] It crossed into Russia in June and fought in the battles of the Minsk Pocket, the Dnieper crossings, Smolensk and Moscow. It suffered such heavy losses in the winter fighting that it was sent back to France in May 1942 to rest and refit. In November of that year, it took part in the occupation of Vichy France. [cr] [cr] Sent to the southern sector of the Russian Front after the fall of Stalingrad, the 7th Panzer defended against heavy Soviet attacks aimed at Rostov in early 1943. Later if fought in the 3rd Battle of Kharkov. After being repulsed in the Kursk offensive, the 7th Panzer fought in the battles around Kiev and Zhitomir, where it was twice cited for distinguished conduct. In November, the division took heavy casualties in the Kiev withdrawal. [cr] [cr] The 7th Panzer fought in the Tarnopol area until March 1944, when it was overrun and the 1st Panzer Army encircled. The remnants of the division broke out, but not a single tank survived the operation. [cr] [cr] Down to battle group size, the 7th nevertheless fought on and was reinforced to oppose the Russian Summer offensive of 1944 as part of Army Group Center. Escaping disaster, it was again officially cited for distinguished conduct in August 1944 for its action in the Battle of Raseiniai in Lithuania. [cr] [cr] Beyond the scope of this campaign, it was heavily engaged when the Russian Winter Offensive of 1944-45 hit the Vistula and was trapped in Danzig as part of Army Group North in early 1945. Evacuated by sea, but without any vehucles or tanks, the 7th Panzer took part in the Battle of Berlin in April 1945. Some of its men managed to escape to allied lines and surrender to the Anglo-Americans. [cr] [cr] === CAMPAIGN NOTES === [cr] [cr] You start this campaign in command of a mixed Kampfgruppe, equivalent to a bit more than half a battalion in strength. Your soldiers are experienced veterans of prior campaigns. They will prove themselves to you in many more battles to come, but you must take care of them as they will not be easily replaced. [cr] [cr] Your equipment, unfortunately, is not as good as your soldiers. Throughout this campaign, you must make do with the Czech-produced Panzer 38ts and the light Panzer IIBs, which are both inadequate for facing the heavier Soviet tanks. Careful and clever tactics, combining use of cover, smoke and ambush will be required to survive and succeed in your missions. [cr] [cr] There are a minimum of 39 battles in this campaign and a maximum of 97. More battles will generally make the campaign more difficult, fewer battles will make it more survivable. [cr] [cr] You may wish to play this campaign on 'Easy' difficulty the first time through. It's difficult to recover from even one defeat, so strive to win each battle as decisively as possible and with as few losses as possible. Be aware that there are possible reinforcements in each battle, there is no guarantee they will arrive, but sometimes patience can be a virtue. [cr] [cr] As in history, you can expect to receive virtually no replacements from your first battle through your last. Your goal is simply to survive as the easier summer battles change to desperate contests of strength in the fall and near hopeless situations in the winter. Many units in the 7th Panzer Division were effectively destroyed by the end of 1941. Your goal is to be one of the few that survived the winter and was withdrawn to France for refit. [cr] [cr] By simply completing this campaign and winning all the battles, even if by the slightest margin, you will have survived what many of your historical counterparts could not. Good luck and watch out for those T-34s! [cr] [cr] === UPGRADE NOTES === [cr] [cr] You will receive very few replacements in 1941 and 1942. You will receive no upgrades in 1941 or 1942. Use your forces carefully during the Summer and Fall as you will need as many as possible in order to survive the Winter of 1941 and the subsequent Spring. [cr] [cr] There is no question that your initial equipment of Panzer 38ts and Panzer IIBs is inadequate for some of the forces you will face, but by 1943 things will start to improve. [cr] [cr] In May of 1942 you will be withdrawn for rest and refit and will receive replacements and upgrades in the form of new Panzer IIILs. In January of 1943 you will return and they will have to carry you through to the difficult Spring of 1944, after which your entire force will receive new Panzer IVs and finally be a match tank-wise for your foes. [cr] [cr] During the Summer of 1944, your infantry will receive Panzerfausts. [cr] [cr] The most important lesson is to plan for the long-term and use good tactics to preserve the strength of your forces. The instances where your replacements will be able to restore you to anywhere near your full strength will be few and far between.">
<scenarios>
<scenario id="German Summer 41 (First) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="1" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS0"/>
<scenario id="German Summer 41 (Att) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="3" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS1"/>
<scenario id="German Summer 41 (Att) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="4" keybattle="false" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS2"/>
<scenario id="German Summer 41 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="2" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS3"/>
<scenario id="German Summer 41 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="2" keybattle="false" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS4"/>
<scenario id="German Fall 41 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="3" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS5"/>
<scenario id="German Fall 41 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="3" keybattle="false" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS6"/>
<scenario id="German Winter 41 (Attack) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="1" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS7"/>
<scenario id="German Winter 41 (Attack) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="1" keybattle="false" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS8"/>
<scenario id="German Winter 41 (Defend) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="2" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS9"/>
<scenario id="German Winter 41 (Defend) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="2" keybattle="false" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS10"/>
<scenario id="German Winter 42 (Defend) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="4" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS11"/>
<scenario id="German Winter 42 (Defend) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="4" keybattle="false" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS12"/>
<scenario id="German Spring 42 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="4" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS13"/>
<scenario id="German Spring 42 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="4" keybattle="false" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS14"/>
<scenario id="German Winter 43 (Upgrade) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="1" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS15"/>
<scenario id="German Winter 43 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="1" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS16"/>
<scenario id="German Winter 43 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="4" keybattle="false" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS17"/>
<scenario id="German Spring 43 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="3" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS18"/>
<scenario id="German Spring 43 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="6" keybattle="false" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS19"/>
<scenario id="German Early Summer 43 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="1" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS20"/>
<scenario id="German Early Summer 43 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="2" keybattle="false" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS21"/>
<scenario id="German Summer 43 (Kursk) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="1" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS22"/>
<scenario id="German Summer 43 (Kursk) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="2" keybattle="false" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS23"/>
<scenario id="German Late Summer 43 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="1" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS24"/>
<scenario id="German Late Summer 43 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="2" keybattle="false" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS25"/>
<scenario id="German Fall 43 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="3" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS26"/>
<scenario id="German Fall 43 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="6" keybattle="false" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS27"/>
<scenario id="German Winter Late 43 (Defend) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="1" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS28"/>
<scenario id="German Winter Late 43 (Defend) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="2" keybattle="false" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS29"/>
<scenario id="German Winter 44 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="2" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS30"/>
<scenario id="German Winter 44 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="4" keybattle="false" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS31"/>
<scenario id="German Early Spring 44 (Kessel) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="1" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS32"/>
<scenario id="German Early Spring 44 (Kessel) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="2" keybattle="false" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS33"/>
<scenario id="German Spring 44 (Upgrade) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="1" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS34"/>
<scenario id="German Spring 44 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="1" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS35"/>
<scenario id="German Spring 44 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="4" keybattle="false" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS36"/>
<scenario id="German Summer 44 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="2" keybattle="true" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS37"/>
<scenario id="German Summer 44 (Mix) - 7th Pzr Div" rptbattle="4" keybattle="false" player="German" mediaFile="00.png" textFileDesc="SS38"/>

(in reply to tony luke)
Post #: 23
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/5/2012 2:59:03 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 12372
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: online
Moved the infantry discussion to:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3157345&mpage=1&key=�

Good Hunting.

MR


< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 8/5/2012 3:11:14 PM >


_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to Andy Brown)
Post #: 24
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/5/2012 5:57:39 PM   
Rick

 

Posts: 12042
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tony luke

Evening all,

Back to one of my early points about scenario spread; I am at game 16 in a 97 game campaign and am only at 09 Oct 41! This is roughly 20% of the battles and I have only covered 3 and half months of the war??? Is this WAD? Was hoping for a better spread across time, especially the later period when there is so many more interesting items. For comment and consideration.

Regards,

Tony


Tony,

I think junk2drive pasted the file that controls how the battles are distributed through the period. Keep in mind that if you don't care for the distribution, you can edit this file, or create your own with the kind of distribution you want.

The Random Campaign system is really very flexible. It does take some time, but for random Campaigns, once you spend the time making it just the way you want it, it can be used over and over and still be Random, just "randomized" the way you want.

Thanks
rick

(in reply to tony luke)
Post #: 25
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/6/2012 12:02:03 PM   
tony luke

 

Posts: 206
Joined: 8/31/2001
Status: offline
Junk2drive/Rick,

Gentlemen, noted and appreciated. Now I understand the way that file reads! Again, many thanks.

Courage,

Tony

(in reply to Rick)
Post #: 26
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/14/2012 7:37:53 PM   
Rick

 

Posts: 12042
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tony luke

Evening all,

I am playing my own German campaign (97 battles) based on a core force of 14 tanks, 9 x squads and 4 x A/Cars. Three questions for those who may know:

1. I seem to find in every scenario yet played (half way through my 8th one now) that when attacking (7 out of 8 so far) I face an incredible hoard of AT guns, it would seem to rival the soviet PAK fronts at Kursk! The average is between 14 and twenty AT guns; plus Inf/tanks and off-board arty (60% 0f the time). To add to the pain 40 -50% of these guns are 76mm which can generally see and engage from one end of the map to the other (terrain pending, but sometimes they seem to have amazing line of sight!). Do others find an incrediblely high amount of AT guns?

2. As noted above I am playing a long campaign of some 97 battles. I am in my 8th battle now but only up to the 29/7/41. So nearly 10% of the allowed battles but I have only covered some six weeks ........ Is this normal?

3. I assume that when you mod an existing campaign with your own core force that the map does not increase in size to match an increase in core size?

In thanks for any comments or thoughts.

regards,

AKL


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown
Wrt the Sov AT guns. I've noticed that, when I opt for 100% Sov infantry, the RBG give me a lot of man-portable (small calibre) AT guns. Quite often, they will comprise 50% of the force, which is quite frustrating when I'm trying to set up infantry-only battles.

Can this be fixed? I suspect it has something to do with making the AT guns man-portable. The system seems to consider them as infantry when, strictly speaking, they're not.

Thanks,

Andy Brown



Tony and Andy,

I think I have this issue fixed. I've posted the modified files in the Mod section in this thread:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3163545

Let me know if this helps.

Thanks for your input!

Rick

(in reply to tony luke)
Post #: 27
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 8/15/2012 4:00:50 AM   
Andy Brown

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 2/20/2001
Status: offline
Thanks, Rick.

Won't be checking it out right away but will provide feedback when I do get round to it.

Andy

(in reply to Rick)
Post #: 28
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 9/12/2012 6:21:16 AM   
Andy Brown

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 2/20/2001
Status: offline
Rick,

Finally got round to using this and it seems to be working fine. Thanks for fixing it.

Andy

(in reply to Andy Brown)
Post #: 29
RE: A Kursk PAK front every time??? - 9/12/2012 4:29:38 PM   
Rick

 

Posts: 12042
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown

Rick,

Finally got round to using this and it seems to be working fine. Thanks for fixing it.

Andy


Thanks for checking it out. I'll add this to thngs for the next patch.

Thanks
Rick

(in reply to Andy Brown)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront >> A Kursk PAK front every time??? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.115