4.05 - Wireless intercepts....

[MisterMark]

Regarding the wireless intercepts of HQ's... If they are fully revealed are they going to be considered 'fully spotted' in the manner that they will bear the full brunt of an artillery or airstrike? If so, that might be questionable...

Is it rational to believe that picked up radio transmissions of an enemy HQ is going to give away it's position with pinpoint accuracy to be able to lob artillery right on their heads when there is no spotter within several hexes to adjust rounds? In the case of an air strike I suppose you can make the case that on occasion, low flying aircraft *might* be able to accurately locate an enemy HQ in a suspected area which would allow the air units to issue a punishing pin point attack... However, it would be a stretch to assume every airstrike is going to positively locate it's target within a full hex (or square mile).

I like the idea that the wireless intercepts have a chance of partially or fully revealing details of the HQ. And yes of course if an HQ isn't fully revealed, a reduction of the attack values is in order if you decide to hit it with artillery or an airstrike. But I would argue even in the case of a full reveal, the attack values should be cut down by some sort of percentage... maybe not as much for a partial reveal but still some sort of reduction that is in between the full effect and the partial reveal effect.

On the other hand, even in the small chance an HQ can be fully revealed and subsequently be hit with the full force from artillery or airstrike, I'm gonna speculate that overall it won't have that much impact on the game, especially in the longer scenarios... As it stands prior to this patch, even when I've fully spotted an enemy HQ (whether it be a few hexes out or right up on the line) I find myself more often than not opting to use attacks, ordinance and airstrikes on the subordinate combat units that are more of a threat or in my way. Sure, if you can degrade a spotted enemy HQ to the point where it becomes disrupted, that will give you a small window of opportunity to gain some advantage over it's subordinate units, but I find that window small as an enemy HQ can easily pull out and get out of sight. And with the new patch it will have the same ability. If one of your HQ's starts taking fire, simply move it somewhere else on the next turn to rest up and recover if it's been disrupted or took heavy fatigue. Most scenarios only allow two airstrikes per hex anyway and even with additional artillery attacks, it's going to take repeated attacks over a few turns to increase it's fatigue level to a critical level and/or degrade it's moral state. Most of the time, HQ units are the most rested and full strength units on the map already. A strike on fully revealed HQ's is probably going to prove to be more like harassing fire and just be a nuisance to have to move a targeted HQ out of harms way.

To me the holy grail of punishing an HQ for maximum effect is to get it isolated, and then annihilate it only after all it's subordinate units have been eliminated. That way it's not ever coming back... but as we all know, under most circumstances this is very difficult to do, especially against an human opponent. With the new patch, if an opponent wants to waste it's artillery and air assets on my fully revealed HQ's, then I'll just be glad it's not hitting my actual combat units where real damage can be done.

[Strela]

Regarding the wireless intercepts of HQ's... If they are fully revealed are they going to be considered 'fully spotted' in the manner that they will bear the full brunt of an artillery or airstrike? If so, that might be questionable...

Is it rational to believe that picked up radio transmissions of an enemy HQ is going to give away it's position with pinpoint accuracy to be able to lob artillery right on their heads when there is no spotter within several hexes to adjust rounds? In the case of an air strike I suppose you can make the case that on occasion, low flying aircraft *might* be able to accurately locate an enemy HQ in a suspected area which would allow the air units to issue a punishing pin point attack... However, it would be a stretch to assume every airstrike is going to positively locate it's target within a full hex (or square mile).

I like the idea that the wireless intercepts have a chance of partially or fully revealing details of the HQ. And yes of course if an HQ isn't fully revealed, a reduction of the attack values is in order if you decide to hit it with artillery or an airstrike. But I would argue even in the case of a full reveal, the attack values should be cut down by some sort of percentage... maybe not as much for a partial reveal but still some sort of reduction that is in between the full effect and the partial reveal effect.

On the other hand, even in the small chance an HQ can be fully revealed and subsequently be hit with the full force from artillery or airstrike, I'm gonna speculate that overall it won't have that much impact on the game, especially in the longer scenarios... As it stands prior to this patch, even when I've fully spotted an enemy HQ (whether it be a few hexes out or right up on the line) I find myself more often than not opting to use attacks, ordinance and airstrikes on the subordinate combat units that are more of a threat or in my way. Sure, if you can degrade a spotted enemy HQ to the point where it becomes disrupted, that will give you a small window of opportunity to gain some advantage over it's subordinate units, but I find that window small as an enemy HQ can easily pull out and get out of sight. And with the new patch it will have the same ability. If one of your HQ's starts taking fire, simply move it somewhere else on the next turn to rest up and recover if it's been disrupted or took heavy fatigue. Most scenarios only allow two airstrikes per hex anyway and even with additional artillery attacks, it's going to take repeated attacks over a few turns to increase it's fatigue level to a critical level and/or degrade it's moral state. Most of the time, HQ units are the most rested and full strength units on the map already. A strike on fully revealed HQ's is probably going to prove to be more like harassing fire and just be a nuisance to have to move a targeted HQ out of harms way.

To me the holy grail of punishing an HQ for maximum effect is to get it isolated, and then annihilate it only after all it's subordinate units have been eliminated. That way it's not ever coming back... but as we all know, under most circumstances this is very difficult to do, especially against an human opponent. With the new patch, if an opponent wants to waste it's artillery and air assets on my fully revealed HQ's, then I'll just be glad it's not hitting my actual combat units where real damage can be done.

HQs are not classed as fully spotted if attacked - see the below image.

They do come up as 'Spotted' in the Hex Info box, but any strikes have the penalties of an unspotted attack. The 'spotted' in this case is because additional details have been shown. So all 'intercepted' HQs are treated as unspotted hexes for attacks on them.

Post 20240812_01.png (48.98 KiB) Viewed 554 times

Also of note, it took me 5 turns for each side in the largest scenario in Smolensk '43 to actually get a HQ that was in range of any artillery. Most attacks on 'revealed' HQs are going to be by air and neither side has a lot of that .

One final comment, all levels of HQ can be found (including less than division), but their shorter ranges make it more difficult to detect them.

Like all things if we think we have this wrong we will adjust in a future patch, but to date we like the results we are seeing and it is more an intelligence thing than an opportunity to attack.

[MisterMark]

Strela, ah good to know and thank you for clarifying. Seems like you all have it dialed in correctly! Looking forward to the patch.

Since we are on the topic of spotting and intel, I've had a thought about how it could be implemented to subordinate units too... something to consider for a future patch possibly. Yeah I know... you guys get flooded with your fair share of requests and 'great ideas' from the forum community, but hear me out...

Basically, if you are playing with FOW on, it could be interesting to be able to get additional intel on individual units aside from the generic X, XX, XXX and ? markers on the counters. It would be reasonable to think that the longer two units were engaged or adjacent to each other, the more likely more information would be revealed about it's size and morale/fatigue state... Imagine if you will that after say 3 turns of being engaged you had the option of using some of your movement points (or all) to try and gather more intel with the unit you have been trading blows with. Maybe using the difference between the base quality of both units, some random percentage could be used to have a shot of revealing one or all three metrics when you opt use your movement points to run a local intel mission. Sorta like recon spotting but this would be available to any unit that has been engaged over a certain amount of time with an enemy unit.

To keep an air of mystery to it all, keep the chance of reveling further intel randomized and if you do get some sort of reveal, it's still not 100% accurate... meaning if you get a reveal on the amount of men, it wouldn't be the actual number of men left (just a randomized approximation) and furthermore it would be randomly rounded up or down to the nearest 10 or even 50. And with Morale you don't get a fully accurate reveal as well... maybe something like B/C or D/E. And then with fatigue you get the word Fatigue in green, yellow or orange. But once again, these details by design would be inaccurate based on certain factors like the quality of each of the units and additional random factors... and of course that information would go away after the current turn. Bottom line, you would have the possibility to get further intel on a unit but it couldn't ever be 100% reliable but would still give you a better idea of the size, quality and combat effectiveness of the unit you are dealing with.

I've thought of actually programming a 3rd party app that would do this for my solo games since some of the information is in the game files already, but it would take self discipline to enact my own rules on when intel could be run. Would be great if it was built into the game as an optional rule and had some control over it's function and availability with values in the PDT for maximum flexibility.

Thoughts?

-Mark

[Strela]

Strela, ah good to know and thank you for clarifying. Seems like you all have it dialed in correctly! Looking forward to the patch.

Since we are on the topic of spotting and intel, I've had a thought about how it could be implemented to subordinate units too... something to consider for a future patch possibly. Yeah I know... you guys get flooded with your fair share of requests and 'great ideas' from the forum community, but hear me out...

Basically, if you are playing with FOW on, it could be interesting to be able to get additional intel on individual units aside from the generic X, XX, XXX and ? markers on the counters. It would be reasonable to think that the longer two units were engaged or adjacent to each other, the more likely more information would be revealed about it's size and morale/fatigue state... Imagine if you will that after say 3 turns of being engaged you had the option of using some of your movement points (or all) to try and gather more intel with the unit you have been trading blows with. Maybe using the difference between the base quality of both units, some random percentage could be used to have a shot of revealing one or all three metrics when you opt use your movement points to run a local intel mission. Sorta like recon spotting but this would be available to any unit that has been engaged over a certain amount of time with an enemy unit.

To keep an air of mystery to it all, keep the chance of reveling further intel randomized and if you do get some sort of reveal, it's still not 100% accurate... meaning if you get a reveal on the amount of men, it wouldn't be the actual number of men left (just a randomized approximation) and furthermore it would be randomly rounded up or down to the nearest 10 or even 50. And with Morale you don't get a fully accurate reveal as well... maybe something like B/C or D/E. And then with fatigue you get the word Fatigue in green, yellow or orange. But once again, these details by design would be inaccurate based on certain factors like the quality of each of the units and additional random factors... and of course that information would go away after the current turn. Bottom line, you would have the possibility to get further intel on a unit but it couldn't ever be 100% reliable but would still give you a better idea of the size, quality and combat effectiveness of the unit you are dealing with.

I've thought of actually programming a 3rd party app that would do this for my solo games since some of the information is in the game files already, but it would take self discipline to enact my own rules on when intel could be run. Would be great if it was built into the game as an optional rule and had some control over it's function and availability with values in the PDT for maximum flexibility.

Thoughts?

-Mark

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the suggestion.

I have mixed emotions on this one. In Panzer Battles (PzB), we give more info on the size of a unit if it is in a clear hex. For example you might see 1XX men or 1X vehicles for example. The justification here is a clear 250 metre hex allows you to get a pretty general idea of how big a unit is.

In Panzer Campaigns the hexes are much bigger at 1km. That is a big area and units can be forward or back and it is much harder to get a feel of the size of a unit let alone its state. The time frame is also an issue at only 2 hours. It would take more than three turns to glean much information on any unit.

Where I think more information might be appropriate is looking at the potential results due to patrolling. Patrolling is the act of sending small units out to determine what enemy units are in the area. We have just moved the previously hardcoded two hex range to the PDT file so it can be tweaked by designers. Part of patrolling is that it is assumed that the enemy is observed (and prisoners captured) to get additional information. Whether this is a mechnism to get further info requires some discussion. I honestly don't think fatigue levels should be revealed and would probably only give size information the same way PzB does.

Things like disruption are shown, so beyond strength there is little missing as I don't think fatigue would be easily determined.

Its something we can think about. I expect we will have another look at patrolling in the future. The new optional rule preventing low ammo units firing is being implemented particularly for static situations such as First World War trench lines or city fights (like Stalingrad) where assaults will be the primary way to take ground. Patrolling (essentially trench raids) should have variable benefits in these situations.

[CheerfullyInsane]

Where I think more information might be appropriate is looking at the potential results due to patrolling. Patrolling is the act of sending small units out to determine what enemy units are in the area. We have just moved the previously hardcoded two hex range to the PDT file so it can be tweaked by designers. Part of patrolling is that it is assumed that the enemy is observed (and prisoners captured) to get additional information. Whether this is a mechnism to get further info requires some discussion. I honestly don't think fatigue levels should be revealed and would probably only give size information the same way PzB does.

That one I really like. Always thought it was a little odd that you had NO information on enemy strength, aside from judging return fire.
OTOH, I can see the argument that finding solid info on an enemy that presumably doesn't want to be found would be a challenge.
This way, you have a chance of at least some info, plus it makes Patrolling more of a viable choice.
As it stands right now, I can't remember ever using Patrolling.
One option would be to treat it like e.g. Entrenchments; every turn you're in patrolling range of an enemy unit, you have X% chance of gaining strength information on it. Maybe making it dependent on the size of the friendly unit, since larger units would presumably have more patrol activity.

And I fully realize this is something for the future, if it's even feasible.
I'm just spitballing here.

[ComradeP]

HQs are not classed as fully spotted if attacked - see the below image.


Post 20240812_01.jpg


They do come up as 'Spotted' in the Hex Info box, but any strikes have the penalties of an unspotted attack. The 'spotted' in this case is because additional details have been shown. So all 'intercepted' HQs are treated as unspotted hexes for attacks on them.


Post 20240812_01.png


Also of note, it took me 5 turns for each side in the largest scenario in Smolensk '43 to actually get a HQ that was in range of any artillery. Most attacks on 'revealed' HQs are going to be by air and neither side has a lot of that .

One final comment, all levels of HQ can be found (including less than division), but their shorter ranges make it more difficult to detect them.

Like all things if we think we have this wrong we will adjust in a future patch, but to date we like the results we are seeing and it is more an intelligence thing than an opportunity to attack.

Do the attacks against the HQ target the stack (if any), like other attacks against unspotted/Unknown hexes, or the HQ?

Regarding the number of HQ's located through Wireless Intercepts: unless the OOB structure for Smolensk '43 is different from Orel '43 and Rumyantsev '43, testing Wireless Intercepts in Smolensk '43 might not give representative results.

The divisions as used by Daniel Asensio in his other titles have a single HQ, without regimental/brigade HQ's being present. The exception being Soviet Motorized/Mechanized Brigades.

In most titles, German/Allied divisions have 4 HQ's (1 divisional, 3 regimental) and German mobile formations might have more (divisional, 1x Panzer regiment, 2x PzG regiment, 1x Aufklaerungsabteilung).

As the vast majority of the HQ's in other titles are regimental HQ's, they will be within artillery range for most of the game when the formation is at the front.

[Strela]

Do the attacks against the HQ target the stack (if any), like other attacks against unspotted/Unknown hexes, or the HQ?

Regarding the number of HQ's located through Wireless Intercepts: unless the OOB structure for Smolensk '43 is different from Orel '43 and Rumyantsev '43, testing Wireless Intercepts in Smolensk '43 might not give representative results.

The divisions as used by Daniel Asensio in his other titles have a single HQ, without regimental/brigade HQ's being present. The exception being Soviet Motorized/Mechanized Brigades.

In most titles, German/Allied divisions have 4 HQ's (1 divisional, 3 regimental) and German mobile formations might have more (divisional, 1x Panzer regiment, 2x PzG regiment, 1x Aufklaerungsabteilung).

As the vast majority of the HQ's in other titles are regimental HQ's, they will be within artillery range for most of the game when the formation is at the front.

In my latest trial it appears the stack is attacked as I was surprised an artillery unit took damage and not an HQ.

I am currently working through all titles for Wireless Intercepts and currently nothing untoward is jumping out at me. These are titles with a range of different HQs including regimental ones.

I am taking note of the concerns and will see whether they are warranted or not as I proceed. I am running multiple turns in each title to look at the frequency of intercepts and whether the values feel right or not.

Also for reference, when firing at HQs with artillery I am normally getting 3 to 5 losses for a 100 man unit. Not significant unless there is a lot of artillery or rockets within range. For air, it is really hit and miss on the total, but HQs are not taken any significant casualties. Regiments maybe closer to the front, but if a player wants to disrupt a regimental HQ, they will still need a lot of guns for not a particularly large impact. I would rarely expect any rockets to be in range of an HQ and I have been struggling to get many artillery pieces in range as well...

[MisterMark]

Strela, ah good to know and thank you for clarifying. Seems like you all have it dialed in correctly! Looking forward to the patch.

Since we are on the topic of spotting and intel, I've had a thought about how it could be implemented to subordinate units too... something to consider for a future patch possibly. Yeah I know... you guys get flooded with your fair share of requests and 'great ideas' from the forum community, but hear me out...

Basically, if you are playing with FOW on, it could be interesting to be able to get additional intel on individual units aside from the generic X, XX, XXX and ? markers on the counters. It would be reasonable to think that the longer two units were engaged or adjacent to each other, the more likely more information would be revealed about it's size and morale/fatigue state... Imagine if you will that after say 3 turns of being engaged you had the option of using some of your movement points (or all) to try and gather more intel with the unit you have been trading blows with. Maybe using the difference between the base quality of both units, some random percentage could be used to have a shot of revealing one or all three metrics when you opt use your movement points to run a local intel mission. Sorta like recon spotting but this would be available to any unit that has been engaged over a certain amount of time with an enemy unit.

To keep an air of mystery to it all, keep the chance of reveling further intel randomized and if you do get some sort of reveal, it's still not 100% accurate... meaning if you get a reveal on the amount of men, it wouldn't be the actual number of men left (just a randomized approximation) and furthermore it would be randomly rounded up or down to the nearest 10 or even 50. And with Morale you don't get a fully accurate reveal as well... maybe something like B/C or D/E. And then with fatigue you get the word Fatigue in green, yellow or orange. But once again, these details by design would be inaccurate based on certain factors like the quality of each of the units and additional random factors... and of course that information would go away after the current turn. Bottom line, you would have the possibility to get further intel on a unit but it couldn't ever be 100% reliable but would still give you a better idea of the size, quality and combat effectiveness of the unit you are dealing with.

I've thought of actually programming a 3rd party app that would do this for my solo games since some of the information is in the game files already, but it would take self discipline to enact my own rules on when intel could be run. Would be great if it was built into the game as an optional rule and had some control over it's function and availability with values in the PDT for maximum flexibility.

Thoughts?

-Mark

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the suggestion.

I have mixed emotions on this one. In Panzer Battles (PzB), we give more info on the size of a unit if it is in a clear hex. For example you might see 1XX men or 1X vehicles for example. The justification here is a clear 250 metre hex allows you to get a pretty general idea of how big a unit is.

In Panzer Campaigns the hexes are much bigger at 1km. That is a big area and units can be forward or back and it is much harder to get a feel of the size of a unit let alone its state. The time frame is also an issue at only 2 hours. It would take more than three turns to glean much information on any unit.

Where I think more information might be appropriate is looking at the potential results due to patrolling. Patrolling is the act of sending small units out to determine what enemy units are in the area. We have just moved the previously hardcoded two hex range to the PDT file so it can be tweaked by designers. Part of patrolling is that it is assumed that the enemy is observed (and prisoners captured) to get additional information. Whether this is a mechnism to get further info requires some discussion. I honestly don't think fatigue levels should be revealed and would probably only give size information the same way PzB does.

Things like disruption are shown, so beyond strength there is little missing as I don't think fatigue would be easily determined.

Its something we can think about. I expect we will have another look at patrolling in the future. The new optional rule preventing low ammo units firing is being implemented particularly for static situations such as First World War trench lines or city fights (like Stalingrad) where assaults will be the primary way to take ground. Patrolling (essentially trench raids) should have variable benefits in these situations.

Appreciate the consideration and reading through my proposal... And yes, I agree the patrolling option would probably be a better avenue for implementing a more detailed intel gathering feature.

I would still argue that some period of time being engaged or in the patrolling radius would be required to be able to gather the more detailed intel... I suggested an arbitrary 3 turns but sure that can be adjusted... maybe another PDT value? Or better yet, the percentage chance you get any intel at all is more linear in relation to the time spent in contact. Meaning, if a unit is set to patrolling it's chance of gathering any additional details on an enemy unit is zero on the first turn an enemy unit is discovered. But the longer that enemy unit stays put, the bigger the chance more will be revealed by the patrolling unit and maybe the more accurate that information becomes. This could lead to some interesting situations as it would create some sort of reasonable consequence for a player who has decided to park units in dug in positions along the front.

In regards to exactly what further information could be revealed, I agree that maybe knowing fatigue levels might be over reaching. But for sure general unit size should be considered. And I would still make a case for base unit quality, not necessarily morale. It would be reasonable to think that after squaring off for several hours against an enemy, you are going to get a feel if you are up against some bad asses or some conscripts.

Finally, if a more detailed intel gathering feature is added to the series at some point, I would assume there would be some randomness and inaccuracy built into the algorithms and calculations so that you never knew for sure how accurate the intel really is. I like the 1XX idea for revealing men... maybe with more time patrolling, you would get the 10's revealed so say 15X for instance. And for base quality I think the A/B or C/D would work well.

Anyway, I know your team has a lot on it's plate and there are other priorities in supporting these games, but I couldn't help myself from putting out the suggestion after reading up on the wireless intercepts : )

-Mark

[Plain Ian]

Also for reference, when firing at HQs with artillery I am normally getting 3 to 5 losses for a 100 man unit. Not significant unless there is a lot of artillery or rockets within range. For air, it is really hit and miss on the total, but HQs are not taken any significant casualties. Regiments maybe closer to the front, but if a player wants to disrupt a regimental HQ, they will still need a lot of guns for not a particularly large impact. I would rarely expect any rockets to be in range of an HQ and I have been struggling to get many artillery pieces in range as well...

Is air classed as an Indirect Fire unit? HQ's are supposed to be slightly more easily Disrupted from Indirect Fire according to the Special Disruption Rules on Page 63.

"The Disruption Effect is twice of Normal"

Of course if the chance of Disruption is low then doubling it might not increase chances by much.