Minsk oob values ...some comments

[cavalry corps]

Some issues and observations with Minsk OOB



I started looking over in some detail the OOB for these games . Looking at Minsk I would like to comment on the following main points that struck me quite fast .



There seem to be almost 100% T34/85 on the Soviets side , that seems incredible but I am not any expert on that . Nice to see a few JS2 , they should have also been in the K44 game as well .



The T34/85 defence is 21 normal T34 18 ( in fact 18 may be a bit low but is this abstracted to show poorer command and control ) . I never thought the armour on the 85 was much different if at all than the 76 in any event ?

The gun rating looks about right but two hex range looks excessive esp.. considering the PZ1VG is 1 It was a fact the Germans were far better at ranged combat and had the higher velocity guns , consider and imagine a Battalion of PZ1V deployed over a wider area than 1 km ( because they have radios and better command and control in any event ) , that means by giving them the two hex range you are suggesting this advantage but instead you suggest the Russians have that advantage ... Thats wrong .



The Tiger is the same defence as the Panther . If the Panther is 22 I estimated looking at the average of armour it should be about 25 , its frontal armour is much thicker than the Panther ? In this game and others the Tiger is really rather inferior to the Panther in yet it was the weapon of choice for the Army Tank Battalions ( the gun is slightly better but I am not sure how that will turn into kills ) .



I suppose you can argue that speed has something to do with defence as so could quality , a higher quality unit could demand a better defence because its crews are less likely to expose a flank or rear . Also SP guns could have lower fire values because they are not turreted and cannot react as fast . I just wondered what the rational was in these games for the defence value .



The Nashorn 88 is the the really nasty PAK43 is it not but its rated 50/2 where as the lower grade 88 on the Tiger and 88 AA is 52/2 ...why ?

Also the Nashorn is lower morale this means the unit is far less effective in killing tanks than the Tiger or 88 ? This and other games the higher the rating of the guns the lower morale gets , I can never get my head round that .



Again I suppose I wanted to ask are the defence and offence values based on simple facts or facts blended with doctrine or are they just abstract .



Regards

Michael

[Glenn Saunders]

Michael:

There are T-34-76c's in the game - roughly 40 to 45 units with 20 to 35 AFVs per unit. I gave up counting in the 40's. So look again and I think you'll find them.

On the values - what can I say except if you don't like my values, pick your own. I've long since discovered that it is impossible to please everyone with OOB values and in an operational game there are other factors that figure in other than thinkness of armour and size of the shell. So what worked perfectly for a Tactical game may not fit with operation results. Just look at the unit speeds for that> example - everybodys knows a single T-34 can go fster than 13 km\hour - and a truck carrying mot inf can travel faster than 10 km per hour.

On possible errors in values and "God only knows" those happen from time to time and when they do I will fix them if required. So if you think you have a logic flaw and you want them looked at for the official version of the game then please send a BTL file to me or to HPS Support ([email protected]) referencing the HEX ID of the unit(s) in question, and we'll be happy to look into them and correct them if they are errors or things that slipped through.

But I can't and won't try and discuss or justify all the values and how they were arrived at. It would serve no purpose to do so anyway.

If you want to discuss them here on the forums among yourselves for the purposes of your own changes and mods, feel free to do that too of course as you can do what you like with the game to build it or re-configure it to your own specifications.

Hope you understand.

Thanks

Glenn

[Sgt Fury]

I think most of what you write seems correct. Let me add a few comments though:

- T34/85 appears to have an upgraded turret (3 man?) and as I recall had a better armor rating in ASL :-) There is probably a radio in every one of these vehicles too.

- T34/85 probably should have a 1 hex range due to optics mostly.

- Panther is faster than tiger so that is probably the reason for equal defense. Seems ok to me.

- Nashorn 88 difference is probably due to the mount. Having the 360 traverse can lead to a much higher ROF.

Are any vehicles rated as "unreliable" in this game?

Fury

[Ricky B]

Hey Sgt Fury,

On the unreliable marker, I looked and did not see any. I could have missed one, but I checked every talk/SP gun type that I could find.

Rick

[rzhev42]

[JonS1]

the [Tiger] gun is slightly better [than the Panther gun]

It shouldn't be. The 88L56 had markedly inferior peneration to the 75L70.

[Krak]

Just on the Tiger v Panther. The Panthers frontal armour was superior to the Tigers, due to the slope. However the Tigers side and rear armour was superior to the Panthers. In a tactical game like ASL these differences can be modelled. In an operational game like PZC the ratings seem reasonable enuf. On the main gun. The Panthers 75 was better at killing tanks, but the Tigers 88 was better for busting everything else i.e buildings, INF, ATG's etc.

[Dog Soldier]

There has to be some factoring into attack and defense ratings for the unit, not the bare metrics of the machine.

The KV and T34 tanks first encountered by the Germans in the summer of 1941 were better tanks, but poorly handled by the Russians. Thus in a game like PzC they would have inferior ratings.

The Germans, by the time of Minsk, I suspect had tank crews that were far less efficient and co-ordinated than those earlier in the war. They had less training as a unit. Instead they were more like the German air squadrons of the late war. Some aces and veteran existed, and they performed well against increasing numbers of the enemy.
But the replacements died like flies.

Dog Soldier

[cavalry corps]

All fair comenst from you all , they were observations and it seems most people have the view that in fact the ratings are an abstract for the simulation rather than pure facts

regards
Michael

[Glenn Saunders]

... most people have the view that in fact the ratings are an abstract for the simulation rather than pure facts

For Pure Fact to work you would have no YOU GO - I-GO turn sequnece - real time not 2 hour turns and movement in meters, not km hexes. And you couldn't play with one person controling one side in an operational game. So we begin to accept abstractions which on a whole work well to depict the situation that is attempted to be displayed.

Glenn