Volcano Alt System

[cavalry corps]

Comments on Alt system and my general comments added in as I got rambling



Positives

probably slows down attacking a bit as has higher defensive values for terrain and also for entrenchments . In fact I was already doing this in my earlier mods such as Decision in Russia - In PZC its too easy to attack without problems associated in RL . Higher terrain values addresses this in some way .



Lower fire values - At least in eastern front games Rusky value are much lower - its a simple fact that certain traits effect certain nations for instance



My comments on bog infantry units some of this is addresses in alt world



British and US .

Units not so good at close assault but should be higher fire values , allied units shot enemy units to bits ( mainly with artillery and planes ) then move in and take a few prisoners ( very elite units such as Para's and Commandos excluded ) and say it was a tough run thing in the movies ( N44 ) . Fire without assault works well if terrain is open but In N44 and Italy thats not the case. In the weaker willed Western democracies we cannot accept casualties and the state understands every individual expects to survive . That undermines the quality in attack as seen by the mad amount of time spent in Normandy and Italy. So higher fire values lower assault values . Morale of all types possible . Earlier war green troops low morale D and lower assault say 12/8/D

example average 12/10/C ( fire / assault/ morale )

Para 10/18/B or A ( Untried B late war A )



Russian -

Tough soldiers but generally poorly trained and lead ( though well commanded at Army level and above not reflected in PZC values remember ) , however should be good at assault values as they have more short ranged weapons which work well regardless of training. They are governed by the acceptance that they will die for the state and the state has no interest in their individual survival . So low fire values , low morale values but high assault values

Example 6/16/D 41 = D/E

Guards 43 onwards 7/16/C one or two units at B

Cavalry 6/14/D later C ( These were slightly better trained and self reliant units )



German - Now thats the question that has more debate than all the others put together . Looking at it mid war here .



In my mind you have a two state system that is those soldiers of political ideology and or elite units who are willingly promoting the ideology of the state over their own interests ( or just tough soldiers like allied Para's ) Then the regulars. None of these types fall broadly into the bands above . Western democracies can never understand units like SS . In war gaming nothing causes more discussion .They after all come from a central civilized part of Europe and despite their good fighting qualities committed a number of serious atrocities which will forever tarnish them . The fact the the Russians were every bit as bad has nothing to do with it because in our minds in a dark corner - we all know thats just expected of them. No Russians were tried for any war crimes that I have heard of , just as my own countries bomber command killed many many too many civilians - but thats the way it goes - we won after they started it and they lost.



Back to values



SS and other elites -

Depending on the exact units high fire values and high assault values . Volunteer units ( almost all were volunteers ) of high morale and very well lead - willing to die for the state and also enjoy a unique comradeship for units within their own organisation - resulting in some distrust with the regulars ( not reflected in PZC ) These like it or not are the best combat troops of WW2

Example 12/18 + /A odd late war ad hoc units at B

SS units cannot surrender in reality to Russian units ( not reflected in PZC ) so they should not become broken in Eastern front games after 42



Regular -

High fire values than Russians - remembering the MG42 ( and other ranged fire ) was one of the deciding factors in France for example it disrupted and suppressed a much larger army in the field allowing assaults pretty easily . I would say slightly lower fire power than allied troops but higher morale on average and higher assault values ( due to very good NCOs ) . some tendency toward survival of the individual but less than the western democracies .

Example 10/14/B Early war B/A , late War mainly C





AT guns Alt version has some better fire values ( but not enough for small units ) BUT I would have like to have seen better concealment getting even better defence values



Artillery - Made too weak against armour now put back a bit .



Armour - Changed quite a lot but I cannot remember that clearly - seems to me that quality not just armour should be included in defensive values ( handling and training ) not sure if thats the case .



You have to use some abstract values to create some abstract effect like Higher Def values for ( small ) AT guns etc . For instance PZ1V I know had lighter armour but had a very good gun - seems to die in droves . It should have a better defence simulating ranged fire ( it fires earlier ) , training and tactics .



All in all I think you see a better game with alt as the defender seems to have a better chance of not becoming disrupted so easily



Regards

Michael