N'44:Scenario #20: Proving them Wrong-Error?

[HirooOnoda]

Wittman's Tiger platoon has a hard attack rating of 34/2, while the other platoon of Tigers has a hard-attack rating of 52/2. (Using the latest December '05 patch).

Is this safe to assume it should have been reversed?

Hiroo

[Engelbrekt]

I think the intent is for both platoons to have the upper value, 52/2.

[Volcano Man]

Yes, the stock should both be at 52/2. I think they may have overlooked that unit in an update.

If you play the N44 ALT scenario you will find that Wittman has significantly higher hard attack ratings. ;)

[JonS1]

[Volcano Man]

Silly? Sure it is if you have no idea how the system calculates losses and if you think that the rating of a four vehicle unit has any relevance on a standard company or battalion sized unit especially since he cannot be combined with any other unit in his battalion. The result is you have a weak Tiger platoon that is basically worthless.

First off all, you must consider how the system calculates loses and then see that a four vehicle platoon is already at a severe disadvantage when trying to replicate any historical result that Wittman accomplished in that scenario (because of how the combined hard attack and defense strengths are compared). As a matter of fact, I challenge you to repeat it with the standard hard attack rating and get anywhere close to the historical result.

The high rating given to Wittman was a calculation from experimentation on reproducing historical results. This is something in which small units and an individual's exceptional skill cannot be represented properly in the series unless it is done. I did not choose to put Wittman in there as a unit. It was already in the OOB therefore I took action to make it historical.

The only way around it if Wittman had some kind of extended scale quality rating "A+++" or something like what is in the Napoleonic series. But since "A" is the highest then you must boost his ratings by several factors to get any effect. And this is even more complicated since Wittman will naturally loose one or two tanks from his platoon from breakdown and lucky combat results.

Anyway, in the ALT scenario I am happy with the result. Wittman will historically show up make a lot of trouble and then be knocked out of action when the allies concentrate on him. Any other result would warrant Wittman just being part of the rest of his battalion and not a specific platoon. But that is not how the designer made it.

[JonS1]

Silly is as silly does.

Wittman didn't have a magic gun. He didn't have silver bullets. He didn't have an uber-Tiger.

Giving him uber-powers just perpetuates silly mythology, which is a shame given the effort you presumably put into the McNamara database in the first place.

You've changed many if not most other values, despite The Designers original decisions. Just because the original designer decided to make this particular unit uber is no excuse for replicating the folly.

"A" morale combined with judicious use of the unit is all that is required to replicate Wittman's antics, in net effect if not in the number of smoking wrecks.

[Jazman]

[Volcano Man]

[JonS1]

Change the values back to whatever you want.

I do, thanks. Actually, I didn't change them 'back' to anything. I've done my own research, made my own assumptions, and come up with my own values. As part of that, though, I've declined to give fantasy values to any units that I happen to think are 'cool'.

VM,
Look, I realise what you're trying to do, I just don't think the way you've gone about it is valid.

Looking at your alt scn #20 I see it uses your standard Normandy McNamara OoB. Which all of your alt scenarios use, including the longer campaigns. So, basically, what you are saying - through your work - is that because of a single engagement in mid-June you think that Wittman's platoon should be 10 times as strong as any other Tiger platoon. For the entire campaign.

Well, ok. I mean, he did do a good job on the 13th. But, using exactly the same reasoning, did you give Radley-Walters' squadron a higher HA value? Did you give Winters' company a higher assault value? Etc, etc. On what basis did you choose to throw away the fruits of the McN DB and just come up with fantasy values that fit your pre-conceived ideas of how a particular short battle should play out? Did you apply that basis consistently?

Regards
JonS

[Volcano Man]

Ok, I can see your point about the entire battle. It would not be difficult for me to make a seperate OOB for Villers-Bocage that has the super Wittman and then make Wittman a regular unit in the campaign. How is that?