Mark Diehl, wrote this article for Wargames Digest in 1977. I think it really sums up one of the biggest problems of Panzer games system.

Quote:

A basic error often made by both designer and the wargamers themselves is game mechanics inconsistent with game scope and scale. For example, tank games are often played on the platoon level using concepts only appropriate for tank-to-tank battle. A die roll indicates if and where a hit on the target is obtained; amour penetration vs. armor thickness assessment indicates round effect, etc. The result is entire tank platoons either destroyed in the space of a minute or two, or the platoon remaining entirely unscathed. This is hardly the routine combat event on the platoon level. Aggregate unit combat resolution cannot rationally be handled as individual weapons systems battles. Battle with aggregate units requires the game designer to analyze and interpret data, yielding a means to step down the unit firepower as it sustains losses.

That is indeed the crux of the issues with combat.

I strongly agree.

I am still not convinced of the necessity of step reduction. I think the right approach could work with step-reduction suppression and casualties and - trading between detail and speed - whole-unit suppression and elimination.

Facing is pretty much essential. We need facing for fortifications, for armored units, and for old-style infantry units. I don't like having the counters bump into each other; I suggest switching to 1/2" counters (as in Combat Command, Panzer '44, Mechwar '77, etc.)

All-around facing, armor in towns, etc. all impose special complications too.

I have the impression that Mark Diehl was talking about miniture wargame rules and not board games. And that was a problem when playing minitures unless you played very tactical games. But if you wanted a not too complex, or massive, all arms game you really had no choice but to have one tank represent an entire platoon, one gun a battery etc..

Panzerblitz system aliviated some of the problems with the "D" results. But I'm finding more and more that the Panzer Greadier system from Avalance Press answers a lot of these problems and is still a playable game withoput too many complex rules.

Finding the balance between game playability and realism has always been a great challenge for game designers.

There si no differnce betwen mminatures and baord. A hex or an inch on a Minatures board. There are interchangeable. The concept can never work. Its not abotu complexity. Pepple go on ad nauesmem about tsimplcity playblity blah blah. The only complicatred thing is trying to get your head around how the stats for one gun translates into a 4-5 tanik fire fight. Noe of thiese games were ever complicatred. But this one qutie convulted as many others are because of the wrong mechanics with the wrong scale of unit.

As Arvolds history of the devolpment of PB shows it was an attempt to bring miniatures to a board. Whats astonishing to me is thats not at all hard. Why is conciderd some feat of magic? Especialy when done so wrong in this case.

Rrpresenting the cumlative firepower of a unit would be easy and make much more sense.

I agree about the scale it makes no difference. As far as complexity goes, and at the risk of making anyone nauseous, the less charts you have to go through to find out if you blew up the other guy the better. There are reasons why a 75mm from a Panther will bounce off a Sherman, but not many, and more reasons the 75 from a Sherman will bounce off a Panther. I just don't need 6 charts with die rolls to figure it out. An average will be fine with me.

Doesn't PanzerBlitz units already represent cumulative firepower?

Of course Panzer Blitz is magic!!! It was first. We're still talking about it 40 years after release even though it's long out of print. Also, nobody has come up with a better overall system, just improvements. (unless you count computers games) You can't really compare an F-15 with the Wright Brothers Flier, however, one's an improvement the other magic!

I recomend going to a PC if the charts an issue. Theres really no way to have game with out ground rules and stats. The complaints about complexity and having to read rules are always peppered with vast exaggerations. Get Sttel Panthers, I think the exagotry natue of the complaints indicates players would be much more happy just clicking a mouse. If your PC is less then 2 years old though. You no longer will be able to run Steel Panthers. But Talonsofts Campaign Series a much more direct representation of Panzer Blitz and Leader on PC still works fine on my modern computer.

I think the majority of todays wargamers should switch to PC. It would make life alot easier for those wanting to avoid PC gaming. Discussions would not always revert to teh same old tired rants about simplicity in games that were very far from complicated to being with.

Platoon level for this game was just a really poor choice. I think that choice was based more on economics then game design. Individual counters would raise the game price too much and keeping unit actions small would make scenario design very hard especially for the East Front.

Cumulative fire power of the platoon IE one counter. Not the even more messy joint attacks in the original game. basing combat between 8-10 tanks on the skewed represetnaion of ones guns ballistics just doesn't work.

The reason PB is still being talked about is people started wanting change in the rules right off the bat. Articles to clarify, re-write, add on to, and modify the rules were in publications for years. I see that as indication of how lacking in clarity and good design the original rules are.

40 years later people still need clarification on the rules. They were just poorly written and unclear.

And it was surely not the first and definitely not the best. The miniatures systems that PB was created to emualte all to a vastly better job and are odler.

Well SG, do you have the skaes when you type?

Charts, well PB as at least 4, and PL at least 5. So they jsut under the cut off then huh?

What game recquires 6 charts to do anything? Never sen one. I have seen what SG is proposing. Combat would recquire too. One for Armor on the tank one for penetration of the gun.

This is like the silly page thing from before. That guy gunny came up with good ideas and people trashed cause of nuber of pages?!?!? Yeah I agree time to go to a PC, but the Steel Panthers Manual has about 20 pages. Next people will count the words.

Glass houses on the speeclcheck again there speedy.


Yeah, I think this simplicty stuff has gone to the point of ludicris. None of this stuff was ever that complicated.

... Especially if we compare Panzerblitz to Advanced Squad Leader. Honestly, complexity isn't the problem; rules that don't mesh quite right, rules that get too fiddly, and rules that lose sight of the forest for the trees can be problems.

I think that the original Panzerblitz suffers from some problems with rules that don't mesh. I would point to the design of the combat results table, which encourages high-odds attacks, and the handling of the Russian infantry units, where the difference between 15 factors and 16 factors can be important, and the difference between 60 factors and 64 can be devastating. I would add that the anti-tank combat model isn't that great either. I think that it avoids some of the fiddliness of some of its rivals.

...

It's hard to know where to begin to improve the game. The infantry system has its problems. The artillery ratings have their problems. And the tank/anti-tank system has its problems. In addition we need to figure out how to handle command/control, limited intelligence, logistics, and myriad other concerns.

...

If one things seems clear to me, it's that soft targets and hard targets are qualitatively different. Fire at soft targets can probably use the same odds-ratio mechanics with improved combat results tables. In direct fire, the targets' defense could reflect dispersal ÷ visibility. I think Dunnigan may have used height to estimate visibility; trucks being more than 2-3 meters, most of the 2-factor guns being about 1-1 1/2 meters, and most of the 3-factor guns being less than 1 meter high. The biggest complication is for certain infantry units where the dispersal relative to the front was much more than the dispersal relative to enfilading fire. Also stacking. In indirect fire, visibility and dispersal are not as important. Hex defense strengths may be the best approach for indirect fire, and for direct fire against massed targets. Fire at hard targets will require other rules.

Much detial is recquired...BUT...BUT BUT that DOES NOT mean the player will be forced into great complexity. One thing that makes me nuts is having to burn through the knee jerk reactions to the word detail.

My 1:1 minitures rules factor in the metalergy of the Armor in the tank, yet all the player has to know is if the penetration in mm is higher then that of thickness of the armor. It is literaly comaring two numbers and knowing which one is higher. yet talk about how those numbers were arrived at and income the simplicity rants.

s far as charts well, we use them in everyday life without a thought. I menu at a restraunt is a chart. A list of entress in column and a the price in the next. Gas stations have them. Really what is daunting about them?

As far as anti tank, it can be kept at 500 meters and be totaly out of whack. And we can continue with teh 4 decades worth of debate and tweaking. Or we can shed the aversion to the written word a bit and get a much more rewarding game. Sure there is a level of taste. Some jsut dont care about these changes and like the orginal game. NO PROBLEM. Great, enjoy. Honestly this is not a campaign to force people into things. I and some others want to change thought. So heres the only problem I have. So many people on alots of wargame forums will not leave it at, jsut stating they arent intrested. They will persistanly dog rule cahnges and campign to others not to try them. I have been in so many arguments about this complexity thing, not cause people dont agree with me. But because they show themselves hell bent on discrediting and smeering an attempt at doing something they dont like..WHY?

I just mean in general above. Its a frustrating common thing in wargaming discussions on line. Its not spcefic to anybody here.

I am going to test to AF one for soft and one for hard targets

Supergrover6868 wrote:

I just mean in general above. Its a frustrating common thing in wargaming discussions on line. Its not spcefic to anybody here. I am going to test to AF one for soft and one for hard targets

You've obviously been on more wargame discusion sites than me. I didn't mean to rub salt into an old wound.

Using different AFs for hard and soft targets is a good idea. German PZKW 1's in PL are practicly uesless because because of their AF but work just fine when playing Squad Leader or Panzer Grenadier, as long as no French tanks are around.

[quote="sabotdave"][quote="Supergrover6868"]I just mean in general above. Its a frustrating common thing in wargaming discussions on line. Its not spcefic to anybody here. I am going to test to AF one for soft and one for hard targets[/quote] You've obviously been on more wargame discusion sites than me. I didn't mean to rub salt into an old wound. Using different AFs for hard and soft targets is a good idea. German PZKW 1's in PL are practicly uesless because because of their AF but work just fine when playing Squad Leader or Panzer Grenadier, as long as no French tanks are around.[/quote] Ohh yeah, it gets awful. This place is tame compared to most wargame forums. It really is a bummer. Forums in general suffer from overly ramatic flame wars. People say anything they want because they are safe behind the computer. Anyway. Yeah the two facotrs may work. By its own admission Anti personel combat was almost an afterthought in this game.

Well SG I had a couple of belts, whats your excuse? Though I should re double my proofreading effort. You should quadruple it.

So some are happy with the original game, cool. The more I read this stuff the more I notice how flawed I feel it is.

I have no problem with any chart reading so I say make em. They aren't so hard to deal with.

As far as step reduction I feel it very necessary. I see only two ways to do it. New counters is one way. It would require ALLOT of new counters though. So the only other way I see is markers. Which aren't so bad, but some complain of clutter. But as SG has said in the past, no matter what you do people will complain. So don't worry about the complaints and do what ya wanna do.