New Kharkov '43 Campaign

[Green]

Cesar,

I have not had time to study your new version of the campaign so I only have a couple of comments. The first being very trivial. I noticed that the Aufk Kp (Arm) units are not designated as Recon units. Presumably they should be.

More importantly, I see that your suggested optional rules do not include the Alternative Assault Resolution (AAR) rule, which is otherwise a default rule for Kharkov '43. Was this intentional? If not, I would be interested to know why, given the non-trivial consequences of that choice. For example, the effect of the rule on the following Soviet units;



The AT Rifle Bn becomes half as effective against Hard targets when not using AAR and the Sapper Bn becomes 16 times more effective against such targets. Comparing the two units means that when using AAR the AT Rifle Bn is 6 times better than the Sapper Bn against Hard targets whereas it is over 5 times WORSE when not using AAR. And even a standard Rifle Bn (Assault Value 9) is 3 times more effective against armor than the AT Rifle Bn, if AAR is not used. These are not subtle (or apparently logical) changes so I am hoping this is not what you intended.       

Regardless, this is not just an issue in terms of your Mod but a more general dilemma across PzC titles. In my view the move towards a consistent use of the McNamara database is a good idea but the inconsistent use of the AAR rule undermines this approach. Presumably the database values are based on certain assumptions that are a better fit depending on whether you use AAR or not. Given the contradictory effects indicated in the examples above, they cannot BOTH be a good fit. Perhaps neither is a good fit, in which case the database itself should be altered. I appreciate that the inherent limitations of PzC means that not all situations can be modeled ideally (mainly due to Bunkers/Pillboxes and Armor lumped together as hard targets) but I still think there is an optimal compromise solution. It makes no sense to me to say that the solution is simply to decide to use AAR or not depending on the particular requirements of each title. The radical difference between the two options requires that different database values are needed to make each work sensibly. 

When Ed Williams introduced the use of these values he strongly recommended AAR. In his notes he stated that;

"The reason is that with the McNamara based db, it was decided that the Alternative Assault Resolution rule was necessary because of the use of many infantry units that now have range 0 hard attack values. This makes the rule vital so that these units can be historically weaker or stronger (depending on their rating) in assaults against armor, pillboxes and bunkers."

But some PzC titles using this database use AAR as the default and some do not. Personally I would have thought it would be better if PzC titles all operated in the same 'world' (whether an AAR or non-AAR world). I believe this approach of providing a standard model was one of the goals of the Volcano Man Alt scenarios but sadly, at least to my way of thinking, this concept has not been adopted officially.

Some would argue that it is a non-issue as players are free to choose either option regardless of which is the default. But when playing HtH both players would have to agree to deviate from the default rule. Such agreement is not always possible even after wasting considerable time debating the issue. And even if players do agree, they will be altering the balance of the scenario since, as illustrated above, the affect is not trivial. Maybe it is just me but I see this sort of inconsistent simulation approach across PzC titles (of which the AAR issue is just one example of many) as an unnecessary distraction from playing and enjoying these games. I would be interested to hear if you have thoughts on this.

John