Volcano Alt System

[Marquo]

Eons ago I wanted to make a few new units for a simulation of Von Manstein's Backhand Blow using the Kharkov system. I used the tables with the East Front Series and A Century of Warfare to assign values to PFIVs, Tigers, Soviet AT and AA units and German Air Units. I have been reading about VM's prolific work in redoing entire OOBs using the EFS (?) table, and have tried a few short scenarios :bow:. It seems terrific, and wonder what others are doing in terms of playing?

What are the upsides?

What are the downsides? Do the ranged units have different SA/HA values given different ranges like in EF?

What must I know before I get engaged in a long, bitter campaign?

Are there those who have simply abandonded the stock scenarios for the ALT experience?

Thanks,

Marquo

[jack1986]

I find the ALT scenarios more interesting. However, I am a rookie, with limited playing experience

Re von Manstein's backhand blow: years ago John Schettler designed an operational simulation titled "The Last Victory." It covered Operation Star (the Soviet attempt to take Kharkov) and Operation Gallop (the Soviet attempts to cut off Army Group Don and Army Group A). Schettler's Winter Storm system was always my favorite WW2 operational level system. It offered it's players an intricate combat system with a strong tactical orientation. And, it worked.

I for one would welcome a PzC treatment of this battle!:)

[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

[Volcano Man]

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 .

In this regard, I think you might be putting too much thought into it. The simple fact is that by 1944 and 1945, the PzKw IV was pretty much obsolete. Regardless of what modifications and add on armor was done to it, it did not change the fact that it was a weak tank by late war standards. The PzKw IVj only made things worse too since they lowered the side add on armor because of lack of material by that stage in the war.

If you play Tobruk '41 or any of the 1942 titles then you will see that the PzKw is king. The PzKw IVe and f is my favorite tank in the desert, second to none (in _Alt) against infantry and soft targets. However, by Kursk '43 the PzKw IV was on the decline, only being moderately useful at this point. By 1944 and 1945 the PzKw should be selectively committed. I think this is realistic in the sense that, by this time, the PzKw IV was only really useful when the defender selected the terrain and they were dug in. No amount of training in my book would boost their defense level, this is done by the player when he chooses where and when to fight.

[Dog Soldier]

Well said VM!

Dog Soldier

[keif149]

Don't forget the art work is awesome!
:)

[Epoletov [SPR].]

By end WW2 in Red Army there was a shortage of people (the soldier and commanders) and them began to protect, more often using military technics (it is more than shellings, there is more than shooting on a distant distance from combat material).

For example, read memoirs of fights in Prussia where Russian all over again long shot strong points from various guns (Art., Vechicles) and then in attack there was an infantry.

[cavalry corps]

Fair comment . For certian massive bombardments became more and more the norm for 44 onwards

M

[cavalry corps]

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 .

In this regard, I think you might be putting too much thought into it. The simple fact is that by 1944 and 1945, the PzKw IV was pretty much obsolete. Regardless of what modifications and add on armor was done to it, it did not change the fact that it was a weak tank by late war standards. The PzKw IVj only made things worse too since they lowered the side add on armor because of lack of material by that stage in the war.

If you play Tobruk '41 or any of the 1942 titles then you will see that the PzKw is king. The PzKw IVe and f is my favorite tank in the desert, second to none (in _Alt) against infantry and soft targets. However, by Kursk '43 the PzKw IV was on the decline, only being moderately useful at this point. By 1944 and 1945 the PzKw should be selectively committed. I think this is realistic in the sense that, by this time, the PzKw IV was only really useful when the defender selected the terrain and they were dug in. No amount of training in my book would boost their defense level, this is done by the player when he chooses where and when to fight.

Yes cannot disagree with yourlogic and in fact you are right in that in the game you have to be selective as to when you commit these units and with your general improvemnt to defensive terrain and entrenchments these units are more viable than in stock .
All I was saying is that you can use values in the game to generate abstract effects - like say if Whitman was in a unit . Morale effects attack values but not defence although with the new rules the fatigue recovery is in fact higher.

Michael