Discussion of Sparkr's beginner observations and questions

[Shad]

Sparkr put forth some good observations and questions about the PG system in his introductory post. Rather than clog that thread with the discussion that is sure to follow, let's have it here where it will be more likely to be found by future visitors.

The leader game mechanics is something new to me, although I am used to "command" elements in most of the miniature games I have.  The way this is interwoven with activation has taken me a little time to get used to.  A single activation, if properly done, could bring into effect a large number of forces (if I'm playing this correctly).  This rather, it seems, defeats the purpose of a game that requires players to take back and forth actions.  If I'm activating nearly my entire front line I could essentially be done (especially with a small number of units) with my turn before the other player starts there's.


The other thing I have noticed is that it's seems really hard to inflict serious casualties unless I have a number of units combining their firepower together.  A single infantry unit is going to have a hard time creating any serious injury to an opponent based upon the charts used to create morale checks, and step losses.  But, again, I could be missing something.

[richvalle]

Re Command: Yes but only at first. What starts off as a nice line with an organized chain of command quickly falls appart under either Off Board Artillery (OBA), on board artillery or direct fire. Units break, become demoralized and you end up with little groups that you are trying to figure out the best order to activate them in and worried about Fog of War hitting (you ARE playing with FOW right?).

Re Casualties: Yes but with the number of turns you usually have (as the attacker) you have time to soften up defenders. And you need to. Hit them with as much OBA as you can and form Fire Groups with + combat leaders to direct fire at them for a few turns before moving in to assault. It's much more about breaking the units vs getting a lot of casualties. Though you get those too as the battle goes on.

[retiredgrunt17]

Re Command: Yes but only at first. What starts off as a nice line with an organized chain of command quickly falls appart under either Off Board Artillery (OBA), on board artillery or direct fire. Units break, become demoralized and you end up with little groups that you are trying to figure out the best order to activate them in and worried about Fog of War hitting (you ARE playing with FOW right?).

Re Casualties: Yes but with the number of turns you usually have (as the attacker) you have time to soften up defenders. And you need to. Hit them with as much OBA as you can and form Fire Groups with + combat leaders to direct fire at them for a few turns before moving in to assault. It's much more about breaking the units vs getting a lot of casualties. Though you get those too as the battle goes on.

I agree. It’s the realism of PG as it applies to real world combat. You need to have sufficient firepower and numbers. Doctrine calls for at least a 2 to 1 advantage and 3 to 1 is preferable, when fighting a force of equal ability and assets.

[Schoenwulf]

Re Command: Yes but only at first. What starts off as a nice line with an organized chain of command quickly falls appart under either Off Board Artillery (OBA), on board artillery or direct fire.

 Or in the case of Alaska's War , the journey across the muskeg.

[plloyd1010]

Hi Steve, it is a pretty good operation here.

1. Command: You are sort of correct in that there are not many restrictions or issues, so long as you are not being shot at. When you are moving a column or trying to set up a firebase in front of an opponent, who is being uncooperative, you will find every captain and lieutenant can be very important (and you won't have enough of them). Combine with the problem of keeping combat and morale modifiers spread around, you will the command and control issues emerge very quickly.
   
2. Alternating action segments: Back and forth actions can take up a lot of time. Not so bad early in the game, but as command breaks down and the battle becomes dis organized, it can drag on a bit. Time scale wise, I feel that is a weakness in the game. That said, there is still enough going on to hold one's interest. Games like Squad Leader had the same problem.
   
3. Casualties: PG isn't as bloody as some other games. On the other hand, the body-count usually isn't out of line with historical accounts. Once operational cohesion breaks down, casualties are usually going to mount quickly.
   

Here are some videos:
PanzerGrenadier - Introduction
Panzer Grenadier - Airborne
Panzer Grenadier Pusan Perimeter Unboxing and Commentary
Panzer Grenadier: Conquest of Ethiopia, Scenario 4
Panzer Grenadier - Afrika Korps

That should get you started.

[Matt W]

In addition to the points raised earlier concerning the inevitable friction of action causing breakdowns in the neatly organized leader chains one can develop there is also the possibility that you would like to keep a force available to counter your opponent's move. This can cause a series of small activations as each player tries to keep enough force available to react to potential bold moves by their opponent.

As to casualties, they happen often enough. Remember that a demoralized unit that is required by a combat result to take a second morale check will lose a step if they fail the second check by 3 or more. Adding to that possibility is that the scenario morale levels for a demoralized unit are reduced by one (e.g. a 7/6 becomes a 6/5). Even with these losses a PG scenario can seem pretty bloodless at times. That can be deceiving however. I have had several occurrences when I had large forces on board but due to demoralization or disruption I did not have an effective force when I needed it. All those morale checks can add up!

[Shad]

I have had several occurrences when I had large forces on board but due to demoralization or disruption I did not have an effective force when I needed it.  All those morale checks can add up!

See every scenario of Eastern Front Deluxe as the Soviet Union, for example

[Sparkr]

Re Command: Yes but only at first. What starts off as a nice line with an organized chain of command quickly falls appart under either Off Board Artillery (OBA), on board artillery or direct fire. Units break, become demoralized and you end up with little groups that you are trying to figure out the best order to activate them in and worried about Fog of War hitting (you ARE playing with FOW right?).

Re Casualties: Yes but with the number of turns you usually have (as the attacker) you have time to soften up defenders. And you need to. Hit them with as much OBA as you can and form Fire Groups with + combat leaders to direct fire at them for a few turns before moving in to assault.   It's much more about breaking the units vs getting a lot of casualties. Though you get those too as the battle goes on.

Thank you for these insights.  One other question, why in so many scenarios order of battle do there seem to be as many, if not more, officers then units?  Again, Thanks!

[Sparkr]

Hi Steve, it is a pretty good operation here.

1. Command: You are sort of correct in that there are not many restrictions or issues, so long as you are not being shot at. When you are moving a column or trying to set up a firebase in front of an opponent, who is being uncooperative, you will find every captain and lieutenant can be very important (and you won't have enough of them). Combine with the problem of keeping combat and morale modifiers spread around, you will the command and control issues emerge very quickly.
   
2. Alternating action segments: Back and forth actions can take up a lot of time. Not so bad early in the game, but as command breaks down and the battle becomes dis organized, it can drag on a bit. Time scale wise, I feel that is a weakness in the game. That said, there is still enough going on to hold one's interest. Games like Squad Leader had the same problem.
   
3. Casualties: PG isn't as bloody as some other games. On the other hand, the body-count usually isn't out of line with historical accounts. Once operational cohesion breaks down, casualties are usually going to mount quickly.
   

Here are some videos:
PanzerGrenadier - Introduction
Panzer Grenadier - Airborne
Panzer Grenadier Pusan Perimeter Unboxing and Commentary
Panzer Grenadier: Conquest of Ethiopia, Scenario 4
Panzer Grenadier - Afrika Korps

That should get you started.

Thank you.  I guess I meant to say a game in action where I could see how folks were deploying and/or activating.  But I do appreciate you sending these and I'll go back through them.

[Shad]

Thank you for these insights.  One other question, why in so many scenarios order of battle do there seem to be as many, if not more, officers then units?  Again, Thanks!

There's almost always more units. I think you're referring to our scenario summary pages in the PG-HQ Library. We are not allowed to list the actual number of each type of unit present in the scenario, per our agreement with Avalanche Press to reproduce their content here. So the OOBs on this site are really OOBs of the types of units in action, not the actual amount. For that, you must have the scenario book in your hands (in other words, own the game).

That being said, we do provide a hint of scenario scope in the form of a Counters value that's in the left-hand side infobox for each scenario page denoting the number of pieces (units) in play.