New Kharkov '43 Campaign

[Indragnir]

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

Hi,

Thank you John for posting up. Noted the issue on Aufk Kp not being recon.

AAR. That rule. It's going to be a bit long.

First regarding your question about Destroyer Brigades and Engineers. Engineers are intended, Destroyer brigade PTRD anti-tank rifles are not, it's an overlook, they should be a _v unit (a unit diverging from McNanamara values.) If you check the notes there some _v units in my mod.

Since the monster campaign has not only a single scenario but a whole pack, Strela told me trying to change as few values from units as I could. It's known I've some discrepancies in some values from McNanamara db (don't get me wrong I appreciate what it means and I think it's mostly right. Hence the changes I always do on my mods, not only on this game but in the whole series. Since the question is not about my thinking of the McNanamara db (as I said it's IMO about 90-95% right.) I won't continue with my discrepancies in this reply just those related to the topic.

AAR has some serious troubles:
Lumping together fortifactions and Armor put some units in a weird spot.
Bunkers are really really hard to take under AAR by infantry (even more if Delayed Disruption Report is checked), so if you want to somewhat guard armor vs infantry, infantry get seriously handicapped.
Partly this happens because “Combat” Engineer units are not tagged as Demolition units (can you believe I just realized after reading your post? That's a easy fix.) In WW2 the engineers were very effective destroying armor in assault ranges, so to me either you uncheck AAR or seriously bump their HA, for example in Anzio their HA is about HA12/0.

I found out if you uncheck AAR players need to stack their armor together with the infantry to be more safe from assaults which sounds about right to me.

Another weird spot is the ability of infantry of taking down tanks outside of assaults (mines, molotov cocktails, hand grenades). For example germans have the panzerschreck had a effective range of 180 meters, Raketenwerfer 43 averaged more than 450 meters of effective range, that's hardly assault range, even more if you compare the average combat range in Europe between tanks (650 meters.)
If I put them a low HA value with range 1, they're weak in assaults under AAR, if I put them in high HA with range 0, they loss their ability to take down tanks from a distance.

This example can be extended to russian anti-tanks rifles which were so dangerous to german tanks that forced the side-skirts, since they were always hit the weaker sides of the tanks, maybe they were not destroying them but were damaging and even causing immobilization or lack of battlefield awareness.
Russian were using their 45mm AT gun by 1945 in Rifle Divisions (I've read reports where Commanders of the divisions rejecting heavier guns) despite having more penetrating calibers because that gun was so light and small that could be moved by the infantry alone, with no horse or mover, and they used to ambush-enfilade german armor because of their low profile (and the expertise of troops in camuflage)

It's even worse since the game engine doesn't have a ambush/enfilade/kill zone feature and that's truly a critical issue: more than 2/3 of hits were located into the sides/rear of the vehicles after research done by all sides.
Frontal armor is nice but in WW2 they knew the sides were weaker, for example from 1941 to 1942 german army accounted 36.000 tanks destroyed (this is from russian sources not nazi propaganda), From the russian research they found out that only 16% of penetrating hits were on the front, 68% on the sides.

Under that light you would understand the game engine/values are not representing well the ability of infantry and their weapons to take down tanks not only by assault but from Direct Fire. Even a humble 37mm AT gun on Half-Track vehicle could knock out a tank, that's why they put them into their Panzer divisions by 1944!

I can alter this of course but the more I do the more I diverge from McNanamara and I truly understand the benefits the database and standarization bring for the players.

In some scenarios where very few defenders held a line a long time vs superior forces AAR is a must and must be paired with lower values on the attacker or higher defense values on the defender.

In the end, to me, the solution to check in AAR always is:
1-Flagging combat engineers as Demolition.
2-Increasing infantry HA with range 1 (simulating infantry AT weapons and guns at batallion and regimental level hitting the weaker spots without making obsolete proper AT guns)
and
3-Implementing a new game feature simulating the ambush/enfilade/kill zone for higher calibre weapons (tanks and AT guns, I've some ideas but I've not pestered David yet...)

Without that, is quite complicated AAR wouldn't unbalance some scenarios (see Japan, Omaha...)

Sorry I rambled too much about values and McNamara, it's not my intention to hijack the intention fo your post, to me the issues of AAR is bound to McNamara values (and lack of Demolition on combat engineers)

Bests
César