Hi everybody I want to share some opnions or insights about PAnzer with you. Feel free to answer!
One of the few things I miss in Panzer is that there is no option of a “side hit”. What I mean is this: Vehicles offer a different silhouette depending on the viewers/firers perspective. The difference between a frontal and a side silhouette can be up to several meters depending on the type of vehicle. So it should be easier to hit a vehicle that presents the complete side (and so a larger silhouette) instead of the front/back or even front/side to the firer. The problem is: Due to the facing concept used in Panzer this is only possible in every other hex. Take the example on page 14, Rulebook: : the SU 76-M presents its full side to hexes Q4 und U4, but not to T4 and R4. Since the firer has a facing too, it is actually not possible to achieve a side hit. Or can at least leg units do so? Would it make sense to give them a 1- AP To Hit modifier in that case? What do you think?
Having no side-hit is only a matter of the Basic Game (for simplifying purposes). In the Advanced Game the side aspect is considered. Go to the Hit Angles diagram of page 40 of the rulebook:
The Pz IVH can be side-hit from hexes S4, S5, Q4 and Q5. The fact that from these hexes there is also a front or rear hit chance is based on real-life hit probabilites. It was verified that most of the hits tended to land on the front aspect of a tank (that's why the front armor is thicker) when fired at from a front or front-side aspect (the same qualifies for rear shots). But side hits and side armor is considered and modelled in the game.
In Panzer the problem of the bigger front-hit probability is solved by adding the front-side and rear-side aspects and giving them different aspect hit probabilities. In other games, like ASL or ATS, the problem is solved by making vehicles face a hexspine instead of a hexside. This way they offer a wider front aspect than the side aspect. Both approaches accomplish with their aim: giving the front side a bigger hit probability. But both approaches consider the side aspect.
Here's how ATS approaches the front-side problem:
The differences between ASL/ATS and Panzer is that when a shot hits a side aspect in ASL/ATS, it hits the side aspect. Note that the front aspect is wider than the side aspect. In Panzer, when you hit a front-side or rear-side aspect, you have to roll afterwards to check where the shot actually lands. But there is a side aspect.
Fernado, very good analysis, I am impressed. You are right, of course here is a side aspect in Panzer. But maybe I wasn't precise enough with what I intended to say. Do you remeber the ATS Hit Probability Table? The version I still have lists a modifier called "Non H-D vehicle presents Flank facing to firing unit -1" to the to hit die roll. I don't remeber if there is anything comparable in ASL btw. do you? I think the idea is that it makes it easier to hit the target because of the larger silhoutte, that's before you check the outcoming result on the AVF Card. That is what I meant by missing a detail. And why I thought of a similar die roll modifier here. Btw., isn't it interseting how different desginers come up with different ideas how to model a certain problem? And how different the games are, though both, ASL/ATS and Panzer are tactical level games.
I remember that rule. And I liked it. I don't know if something similar exists in ASL, but I'm sure in ASLSK it doesn't (I am more familiar with the latter).
When designing a game there's a point when the designer has to decide whether to add more rules and details to the game or to keep it simpler. It's a matter of fun/ease of play vs detail/lag of play. I personally like how combat is resolved in Panzer, but given the Basic/Advanced/Optional rules approach, I think something could be done to accommodate a similar rule in the Optional Rules.
There is one point, however, that I don't like very much in the Panzer ruleset: how turret facing works.
Given the time scale of Panzer, I think that turret turn factors are way too slow and turret facing too restricted. If I had to make a change, I would: -Allow a free turret hexside change for every MP expended (just like other games). -Allow turret turning (only) as part of the movement phase (it could trigger OW fire). -Allow free turret turning when OW firing and use turret turn factors only as an OW modifier: the slower the turn factor, the worse the modifier.
There was a time where I would have added such a House Rule, but now I concentrate on playing games as they are. I can live with the turret model of Panzer.
I know what you mean about the problem with house rules. But I just asked over there in the consimworld folder and as you can see, there will be a rules change. I feel Jim is open-minded enough to discuss things with with him and putting it to the optional rules is what I was hoping for, because then it is an official rule. The same goes for the flank hit thing I am thinking about. It would be cool to have a rule for it because it would make sense. But again, I always go for official rules.
I considered the hex angle facing model when I designed the new GMT Panzer boardgame, but found it to be too restrictive. As far as I understand, in ASL you only have 2 hit locations, front and side/rear, with differentiations for turret and hull armor. I've never seen ATS, but looking at the example above, I can see that it allows for three hit locations, front, side and rear. I don't know if the game differentiates between turret and hull armor.
In Panzer, you have four hit angles, Front, Front/Side, rear/side, and rear, resulting in 11 different hit locations (including side hits). That much more granular as far as I see it.
Last Edit: Jun 24, 2015 19:27:53 GMT 1 by mongoose27
I like a lot the hit location system of Panzer. I think it's very detailed but easily handled. The ATS system is very similar, with front, side and rear facings and turret, upper hull and lower hull locations, but it follows the hexspine/hexangle approach. I haven't calculated the hit location probabilities of each model to see the different outcomes they give, but in the end this doesn't matter. What matters is the detail sensation a games gives and how to handle this detail sensation to give a good, deep and easy playing experience. In this sense, Panzer fulfills my tastes completely.
Panzer has a lot of details to offer. Even ATS or ASL have no deck hits or falling/rising shot categories. In other hit locations, ATS and ASL are very similar. The only other significant difference is what I mentioned earlier: it is easier in ATS to hit a vehicle that presents the whole flank to the firer and that's why there is a -1 To-Hit modifier for that case. And in ATS and ASL there is no variable AP Penetration. It's a great idea incorperating that.
Each modifier step in the AP Hit table is plus or minus 10%. I think that may be too much of an adjustment for the whole flank. In any event, with Panzer's hit angles what constitutes a whole flank shot?