New Kharkov '43 Campaign

[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