McNamara db question for Volcano Man

[Shoopzee]

Howdy Ed,

Have the McNamara database changes been included in most of you updates to date, or is Stalingrad the first?

I read your explanation for the changes, and they are very sound. I was just wondering, as like some here, I often download you updates for the art quality, and forget to review the readme for scn adjustments and changes. Thanks Ted.

[Volcano Man]

Actually, Kursk 43 ALT scenarios contained the first implementation of PM. It required several initial updates to work through some issues but it should be good now as I am moving on to other titles in the next art updates. Any requests? :)

[Shoopzee]

Well my current interest is for F40, which I think some players shy away from. I know David G is working on playtesting a new oob, and making some changes, which I'm sure will be great stuff. I'm not sure to what extent they are changing any of the unit values. I know that most people are saying they feel the German units are too strong. As you indicated though some of the McNamara changes apply more to later war periods especially in AFV and AT assets.

I think what David is covering will improve the game, especially with a new Belgian oob, well researched.

My interest in F40 is more what if. What if Girards army group was not moved to the coastal flank for use in the Dyle plan, but left in the Rheims area as a mobile reserve, which it initially was. Also, what about a premature winter attack, which almost took place.

My question to you would be, while playtesting F40, did you ever feel that a some changes could have been made to the unit parameters, a la the McNamara DB treatment? I think its a great game that is getting ingnored by some, but not all. As always, thanks Ed. Cheers Ted.

[Volcano Man]

Well, F40 is an interesting case. I will first have to incorporate the changes in Tobruk '41 and Compass '40 since they are also early war PzCs with light tanks (to work out any issues first). One thing to note, I doubt any changes on my part will make any of these three "early war" titles not require the use of the alternative resolution rules. Those requirements are based more on the fact that the rule resolutions must be altered in this way since the tanks are lighter and smaller (otherwise they generally take too many casualties and suffer too much fatigue).

I do plan on giving F40 a shot though. The problem is, if David G is updating the campaign then I wouldnt want to do some work only to have it potentially be outdated by the time he updates the campaign. I guess I will wait and see his update first.

As far as being a tester at the time, what I thought about F40's values: well, it is a touchy subject. {my post mortem:} I think that rightfully the German's real opponent should be time and not so much the allied army because they were totally outclassed doctrinally. I think making PM changes would give the allies a qualitive edge but their morale / quality would have to remain the same. I dont think there was any problem there in that regard. The reason is, with the unit ratings being a constant, the quality shifts were necissary to model this outclass of doctrine in many cases. This was definately the reason behind giving German panzer formations quality A ratings and allied armor formations getting lower quality ratings. I mean, if you do not then how exactly do you model the fact that although the French had superior tanks they had no radios and communicated with flags? That is just one example but hopefully some insight on how quality ratings were chosen on the German side. (you will see that, on the other hand, the German infantry is largely C quality for the raw formations with no experience so there is some method to the madness there).

I was happy with the stock OOB values after we made some optional rule requirements (alternative resolution rules) and some PDT changes to the combat / fire / melee high & low variables. Before this was done the Germans were running into a stone wall that was the French horde and it seemed more like we were against the Russians at Kursk. Part of this had to do with the fact that David G gave values to French infantry that were too high (IMO) and certainly PM db certainly backs me up there. But unfortunately no matter how much I brough it up he could not be convinced at the time, but there is nothing wrong with that since hindsight is always 20/20. So the result is that the German attack strengths (infantry especially) was raised to match and exceed the French.

So I think that instituting PM db into F40 would definately be a good thing because it should put everything into a more historical relationship with each other. Perhaps I would be wrong and it might eliminate the need for the alternative resolution rules (I dont know yet, thus the experiment on T41 and C40 first). One thing I know will happen though, the French should indeed have more of a chance against the Germans so whether or not this is a good thing is open to discussion. But all I do is implement the ALT changes and let the scenarios do their own thing. :)

Now the question is, if David G is making modifications to F40 in the intent to tailor it to giving the allied player more of a chance then the PM db will probably not work well with his revision. But if he is just making some historical OOB revisions and adding in some S|Os then it should work fine. But if the revisions is tailored to giving French units better quality ratings etc then PM db will probably only work with the stock scenarios. But we shall see.

[Shoopzee]

Thanks Ed..... I think David's revised scn's will be released hopefully by the fall (thats the last I have heard).

As for the semi historical what if variants, I may have some questions down the road. I may design something after David releases his new version. Cheers Ted.