+- PG-HQ Forums (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms)
+-- Forum: Panzer Grenadier (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: The City Fight (/showthread.php?tid=155)
RE: The City Fight - Blackcloud6 - 10-15-2012
Playing with RaW, you can get just over two battalions of infantry per side in the factory complex. So, before deciding to allow more, look into these two questions:
1. Did the whole regiment assault the complex at once, or did they go in in echelon and id the Regt. Commander maintain a company or so in reserve? (the reserve would have been doctrine)
2. How depleted were they? So what was the size of the regiment?
I suspect that they assaulted with a company sized (or PG units) into each hex although it may appear to be more than one company but each was really depleted to be much less than a full strength one.
In game terms, what concerns me is that the more units allow into a hex, the more turns it may take to reduce one side or the other. Also, the longer it takes, the more you can feed in. It is possible that the scenario could bog down into unresolvable assaults.
BTW, I am very interested in this as I think it can be done and be quite playable. Your efforts are appreciated.
RE: The City Fight - dxdavieau - 10-15-2012
I very much appreciate your thoughts, Rerathbun & Blackcloud6. Thanks.
I'm going to take your suggestion and try playing it with standard PzG rules. I am going to allow the Russians to entrench 2 hexes (fortified buildings) though, even in the city.....I'll post the results
Your points 1 & 2 are exactly the things i'm considering. The problem is the 3 CU stacking limit, even in assault. It doesn't allow for concentrated attacks by any more than a single company. The specific example I'm looking at is the attack by 577 IR (305 ID) on the north section of the RB factory (a 3 hex area @ 200m), That assumes a Battalion per hex if all 3 are on-line. So PzG works (sort of) assuming either a 1 co up/2 co back attack (not the norm in Stalingrad) or assuming they're +/- 50% depleted (they were not in good shape at this point but not 50% either). The defense is going to be pretty tough. (1.5 Sov Rifle Regiments defended that area)
I believe Town (-2 col) won't adequately represent serious city terrain. -3 seems a minimum to me. Also, the Russian's knack for fortifying these areas needs to be addressed. That'll make a russian hex a nightmare to assault with just 3 CU......Especially if fortifications allow them to shoot first....
Perhaps the stacking can be increased w/i the assault hex? (That's how RB plays) Then at the end of the fight, the overstack can be corrected by the units with the worst morale condition falling back?.
Another difficulty is fixing the time limit for a scenario. ASL's +/- 8 turns for a RB CG day represents only 1 (maybe 2) PzG turn. On the other hand, these men did not fight all day....Any thoughts?
RE: The City Fight - vince hughes - 10-15-2012
Hi DX,
Very interesting discussion on a subject I would like to see tackled and have scenarios designed for the various many city battles..
Have you tried fighting this as per the NORMAL rules and ONLY THEN consider potential changes ? You may have already and if so, I apologise as I don't recall the full details.
I was thinking that if a battalion attacks on a 200m frontage, it would not be in a massive lump moving forward, and therefore, there is only so much that can be attacked at any one time, despite numbers. so I would not overly fret on stacking numbers here.
Also, using ASL as a campaign format is going to be well out for any historical reality when it comes to 'times'. ASL sometimes assumes to represent just two minutes per turn and so much happens in ASL games in that time. I think you should work with PG's 15 minute turn assumption as I think this can be the framework for timings re exhaustion etc.
Also, rather than add entrenchments to the mix, have you considered basic 'Special Rules' for designated hexes. The obvious one being that certain hexes could be shown as 'No Retreat' hexes as per entrenchments and you could also consider specific terrain modifiers for designated hexes. As an example, hex X could be a -4 or -5 DF AND -3 IDF. Even with the adjacent bonus of +2, that would still end up with a modifier of -2 as per the max..
On the question of continual fighting, I think one should consider the PG framework for battles anyway. If I may give an example. In Iron Line South (FoF), my opponent and I had no less than 17 assaults in progress in the city (Gembloux). Despite that, during assaults, many of these hexes had little or no action on many turns. Not so much due to Fog of War, but instead due to units recovering from DIS & DEM or indeed, simply not wishing to instigate an assault but instead tie down enemy troops there. In such a battle as Stalingrad, units would certainly experience having to occupy same hexes during 'quiet' periods. This would be due to local commanders not pulling troops out of 'captured' or 'held' territory, therefore enforcing a dual-occupancy hex (different floor levels, different rooms, different buildings within the hex)
For some of the taller buildings, perhaps stacking would need to be raised, but just like ASL, you would probably have to go into the sphere of designating what levels these troops are at. I guess its going to get messy from there ?
It would be interesting to continue hearing of progress made, but my thoughts on this subject when carrying out my own 'cogitations' is, like the Cassino box-set, to have special rules for various hexes, therefore eliminating a massive divergence from the main rule book.
Whatever happens, I think extensive play-testing (for once) is required to find the effects over sustained use of any rule and scenario design. So good luck to you.
RE: The City Fight - dxdavieau - 10-16-2012
Hi Vince, Thanks for weighing in. It’s been a real boon getting feedback from of all you guys who are more experienced PzGers than me.
I’m in the process now of trying the attack using standard PzG. But there are still major concerns. An attack on a 200m frontage can still only be 1 company forward regardless of the size, condition, or doctrine of the attacking unit. In WW2 city fighting, 200-250m was the normal battalion attack frontage & we still can only ram in one company at a time, less if we want armor support. I’m convinced more than ever that the stacking limit needs to be up’ed for urban combat. Let the players decide when the increasing penalty for overstacking becomes too much. I’m figuring +1 for 3 CU, +2 for 6, just like Infantry Attacks.
I’m certainly not using ASL as a reality check, only as a comparison of a game depicting this same fight. ASL is quite far from reality, that’s what got me into PzG in the first place. I’m mostly pulling data & accounts from Glantz’s book. (Glantz, incidentally, puts 305 ID at nearly full strength during the opening of the RB attack).
Time & scenario length; I’m thinking if the players lose morale/steps lost, It might be all they need to decide when the boys have had enough. Allowing morale to recover during lull’s in the fighting might be a good way to structure a campaign…..
As for certain hexes being ‘no retreats’; I like it from a historical POV, but allowing the Russian to allocate/decide where to fortify will give them some decisions to make and add flexibility to their defense.
As I’ve mentioned; I’m considering -3 for urban, -4 industrial & -1 more if fortified. In testing it works well. 2 adjacent stacks of germans can generate A lot of DF & I’m seeing many demoralized Russians after the first Preparation fire.
I like ending the scenario with units still in assault. I think that’s very “Stalingrad”.
I really don’t want to get into levels in the city. One of the joys of PzG (over ASL) is getting away from the zoomed in level of detail. I like how in PzG I can have cavalry & motorcycles & skis & not have to worry about when/how these guys get on & off of them. I like backing off & abstracting a little. I think a higher terrain height & increased spotting range will do nicely.
It seems most of you fellows don’t like the idea of increased stacking but I find it’s not so onerous. Infantry Attacks handles it well. The assaults are bigger but as the results apply to everyone it doesn’t bog. At least that’s not been my experience.
I’m looking forward to trying this out on other city fights like Manila, Ortona, Arnhem, Nuremburg, Kharkov, Budapest, Warsaw, ChangSha & Aachen…..etc. If we can nail this down (& perhaps get AP interested) it opens up so many possibilities……
RE: The City Fight - JayTownsend - 10-16-2012
I remember a few years ago when a gamer over on CSW posted some home-made PG Stalingrad maps! They very pretty cool and I printed a copy but I don't have the link anymore, as that was my old computer.
RE: The City Fight - warstudent - 10-28-2012
(10-16-2012, 07:54 AM)JayTownsend Wrote: I remember a few years ago when a gamer over on CSW posted some home-made PG Stalingrad maps! They very pretty cool and I printed a copy but I don't have the link anymore, as that was my old computer.
This guy has All of Stalingrad at 250meters Panzer Leader size
Close up of the center.
Also I haven't played it yet but Into a Bear Trap by ATO is about the city fight between Russians and Chechnians in 1990s hex size 300-450 feet
RE: The City Fight - Matt W - 10-28-2012
Seeing the Panzer Leader style map makes me think that a true PG urban battle could be developed wtihout a substantial amount of fussing with the rules.
RE: The City Fight - Shad - 10-29-2012
(10-28-2012, 08:18 PM)warstudent Wrote: Also I haven't played it yet but Into a Bear Trap by ATO is about the city fight between Russians and Chechnians in 1990s hex size 300-450 feet
I have this but haven't played it since late 2006. Are you sure about those hex sizes? As I recall AFVs were individual counters and facing mattered, so that's much more granular than PG scale.
Under-respected game, though, I really enjoyed it.
RE: The City Fight - warstudent - 10-29-2012
(10-29-2012, 12:31 AM)Shad Wrote:(10-28-2012, 08:18 PM)warstudent Wrote: Also I haven't played it yet but Into a Bear Trap by ATO is about the city fight between Russians and Chechnians in 1990s hex size 300-450 feet
I have this but haven't played it since late 2006. Are you sure about those hex sizes? As I recall AFVs were individual counters and facing mattered, so that's much more granular than PG scale.
Under-respected game, though, I really enjoyed it.
Yes, here's the official description
The map scale is about 100-150 yards per hex. Each combat unit represents a platoon (25 to 30 men), one leader, 2 tanks or 6 armored personnel carriers. A game turn represents 2 hours of time.
RE: The City Fight - Shad - 10-29-2012
(10-29-2012, 05:08 AM)warstudent Wrote: Yes, here's the official description
The map scale is about 100-150 yards per hex. Each combat unit represents a platoon (25 to 30 men), one leader, 2 tanks or 6 armored personnel carriers. A game turn represents 2 hours of time.
Ok, cool, so a little smaller than PG in some places (AFVs) and even in others (men).
Yeah that's a good game. The only downside is that it plays long - around 3 hours for me - given the subject matter.
Welcome aboard, btw.
