New Kharkov '43 Campaign

[Indragnir]

Different values OK, in that case I'm unsure if to report this.
Notes list StuG.Abt.228 as:
-StuG.Abt.228 had 17 StuG, 9 StuG IIIg and 8 StuG IIIe
Now that explains the different graphics but why are the values similar? When graphics & notes describe a long & a short barrel version one usually expects different values, especially that the short barrel version has a lot less hard attack value.
Afaik StuG IIIe should use 7.5-cm-StuK 37 L/24 while StuG IIIg 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/48.

Good catch! It's a mistake. I will add to the list.

PS: Following the steps of hungarian Marders for Budapest I stumbled upon some info on Hungarian 1st ArmD giving away their vehicles to the germans... and found out 2 Marders were also included. They will be added also.

[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

[BigDuke66]

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.

Surely not only you.

[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

[Green]

Cesar,

Thanks for the detailed response. There are a few things I would like to comment on.

The comparison I gave of the AT Rifle Bn vs the Sapper Bn was simply an example. I could have made the point with other units but these provided a good way to illustrate the problem. For instance, if you just take a standard Rifle Bn, it has its AT ability increased by 4.5 times when not using AAR so almost any units you look at are dramatically transformed. My point is that flipping the AAR switch one way or the other has a huge impact and creates a fundamental inconsistency between titles depending on whether or not it is used. I am not trying to argue for or against AAR but I am arguing against not having one default approach across games. Nor am I trying to suggest that I have a solution that I want others to adopt but what I am saying is that there must be a solution. Perhaps not a perfect one but I do not accept that the current situation is beyond fixing.

If I understand you correctly you are saying that you are not using AAR in this campaign primarily as it would under-value the AT ability of infantry units. If so, what is different in this title versus any other? It seems you are saying that the McNamara Database is mostly correct but then choose not using AAR to achieve more realistic results. As I said in my post, the database values can only be a good fit for one of these rules, not both. I do not care which but if there is one that makes sense, then the other cannot. As I understand it, you use AAR in you other mods (correct me if I have this wrong) including Normandy which has the Omaha problem. So what is so different about Kharkov '43?

You are right that unsupported tanks are more vulnerable to infantry if AAR is not used but this is simply due to the increased AT value of the infantry. If AAR is used then unsupported tanks are still more vulnerable but are simply less vulnerable generally to infantry. The example I gave above of the increases to AT effectiveness of a Rifle Bn illustrates why this is. So once again, either the Database underestimates the AT ability of units and needs changing or not using AAR overstates this ability. I do not care which but surely it has to be one or the other.

You raise some interesting ideas. I do not recall ever seeing engineers designated as Demolition so I cannot comment on how it would work but it sounds like an idea with potential. Increasing the HA value to range 1 is something that has occurred to me and could be part of a solution if AAR was not used. But the idea introducing new game features into PzC may be a bit more difficult. If it was easy to change the software, many problems could be fixed.

Regardless, I firmly believe the basic problem can be solved. I do not really expect that it will be but I just think it should be. You mention that you understand the value of having a standardized set of values but my point is that this is dubious when the particular game you are playing defaults to using that data in one of two very different ways. Of course none of this is your responsibility. Your mod has simply touched a nerve in relation to a topic that annoys the hell out me.   

Thanks again for sharing your insights.

John

[Indragnir]

John,

As I said above having AAR as default in a scenario with quite some BUNKERS and neither side with a big big advantage in numbers, you need Demolition units and better HA for the infantry for assaults and direct fire even as per campaign year.

Green: If I understand you correctly you are saying that you are not using AAR in this campaign primarily as it would under-value the AT ability of infantry units.

   
Not only but that's another point. A point based upon what happened.

Green: If so, what is different in this title versus any other? It seems you are saying that the McNamara Database is mostly correct but then choose not using AAR to achieve more realistic results.

It happens I'm trying to avoid AAR in any mod in which there is no defense line thinnly manned that must held for a time, like some of my earlier mods needed. Also my views are evolving after reading a lot on after action reports and specific books on the matter across the whole war, in that regard Infantry was consistently destroying far more tanks than HA 1/0 is doing with AAR. You will see Budapest notes soon, PzGrenadiers from 8th PzD destroyed 58 tanks and SU from 6th GTA in just 2 days [that time is no propaganda, Soviet sources confirmed the losses], that was the infantry not division tanks. Hungarian paras did almost the same. It's not only on the Axis side, Soviet were capable of causing damage also.

Green: As I understand it, you use AAR in you other mods (correct me if I have this wrong) including Normandy which has the Omaha problem. So what is so different about Kharkov '43?

See above. Normandy has more than 10 years, I've learnt a lot from those days. New Normandy likely will have AAR but Demolition engineers and higher HA for infantry.

Green: So once again, either the Database underestimates the AT ability of units and needs changing or not using AAR overstates this ability. I do not care which but surely it has to be one or the other.

Regarding that point IMO it understimates AT ability of infantry as it understimates some other weapons not related to AT.

Just my 2 cents.

Bests
César

[Bioman]

I notice that the variant has Stug IIIg and IIIe versions represented in the game. I find it interesting that they have the hard attack strength since the E version had the short barreled 75mm gun as used on the PZIVd. This gun was an infantry support gun and not an anti tank gun. I think that the E version should have its hard attack strength lowered.

[Indragnir]

I notice that the variant has Stug IIIg and IIIe versions represented in the game. I find it interesting that they have the hard attack strength since the E version had the short barreled 75mm gun as used on the PZIVd. This gun was an infantry support gun and not an anti tank gun. I think that the E version should have its hard attack strength lowered.

Yes. It was noted by BigDuke66.

It was an infantry support gun primary but when Hollow Charge B round (Gr.38 HL/B) went available (it was by the winter of 1942) they could defeat the frontal armor of a T-34 from 1000 meters since it's penetration power was 100mm at 30º angle (T-34 effecitve armor was about 75mm at 30º angle for vehicles up to October of 1943, Gr.38 HL/A round penetrated 70mm with even lower accuracy than B type)... provided StuG would hit, since accuracy over 1000 meters was about 40% despite excellent Sturmartillerie bracket targeting system.
However since average combat distance in the eastern front was about 600-700 meters, the StuG IIIe could hit and destroy an enemy tank with some solvence, that they did at Rzhev, Stalingrad and the Winter Battles from 1942 up to Kharkov 1943 where that very StuG IIIe unit was credit with the destruction of a good number of enemy tanks.
Anyway in the final files they HA value will be lower than the long gun version, since the later had a excellent 97% accuracy at 1000 meters (immobile target) and even more armor penetration.

PS: That's another of my discrepancies regarding McNamara.

[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

[Indragnir]

Green:
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.

Mainly the second one (agree but...). As I said AAR to me will be used only on scenarios having an attacking side enjoying a big advantage AND IF the defender must hold for a certain time.

Green:
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.

Totally. Same for tanks, they are much more than a gun caliber.

Green:
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.

In general. At Kharkov' 43 even more regarding SS-PzGrs.

 Green:
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?

Yes (the attacker side, if defender has the advantage AAR would make it almost impossible for attacker currently.)

Green:
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.

I agree.

That's just my opinion. Other players/modders/designers could have other opinions as well.

Bests
César