New Kharkov '43 Campaign

[Green]

Cesar,

Thanks for your patience. I will not continue to hassle you about this much longer but I feel it is an extremely important issue that is worth discussing.

What bothers me is that I am following a chain of logic which leads to a contradiction. The starting assumption is that Ed Williams understood the database and correctly interpreted that AAR was a requirement for it to be sensibly used. To the best of my knowledge, he did not feel there was a fundamental problem with the data or his mods. Perhaps he was wrong but it seems a reasonable starting assumption. If this starting assumption is correct, then it does not seem reasonable that the same data, without any modification, can be used in a very different way and by an amazing coincidence still produce a historically reasonable outcome. 

However, since you are saying that you are trying to avoid using AAR as the default, presumably you do not agree with this. Or you do agree with the concept but feel that the database values are so poor in relation to this aspect, that you are forced to adopt another approach. In either case you are saying that generally speaking, AAR does not work with the data. Your arguments are that infantry AT effectiveness is under-valued, that infantry effectiveness against bunkers is also under-valued but not for engineers designated as Demolition. Basically, you are saying that just looking at the AT weapons possessed by a unit does not tell the full story in terms of ability to deal with armor/bunkers. When you say "A point based upon what happened" I am not sure if you are referring specifically to Kharkov '43 or mean more generally but either way you are saying AAR does not necessarily provide an accurate simulation for some other reasons. On the other hand you are saying AAR is needed if one side has a large advantage.

Is this an accurate, if somewhat over-simplified, summary of your views? If so, then a long term solution for the PzC series sounds like a revision upwards of the zero range hard attack values. This would allow for improved AT effectiveness but still taking into account to some degree, the actual AT weapons possessed by the unit rather than just using the general assault value. This would also improve effectiveness against bunkers and cater for situations that are one-sided. There would still be problems but this would seem to solve many.

As I said before, I am not trying to say that I know the solution. All I know is that there is a problem. And the first step to solving it is to identify its exact nature. This is why your insights are valuable. My argument is that if the data does not work, then it should be changed. Constantly trying to make adjustments to work around the problem seems very inefficient and adds complexity from both design and player perspectives. For example, it is great that you are going to make adjustments to the AT Rifle Bn's for your Kharkov '43 mod but this does not help someone using the corresponding units in Moscow '42 where they are completely pointless. And I just do not accept that the solution is simply to use AAR in some situations and not in others. This seems like an very unsophisticated fudge to me, when what is really needed is single coherent workable model. The two existing models are just too different to both be reasonable interpretations of the same thing. But flipping between these two extremes form one game/mod to another is effectively saying they are both valid. The result is player confusion and frustration (at least for this player).

None of this is intended to be critical of your mod. I am simply trying to point out that a review of this issue is needed, particularly since new games/mods continue to take differing stances on the AAR issue, with no resolution in sight or seemingly even on the agenda.

John