Matrix Games Forums

The AARs of Onkel Larry made me finalising, with a touch of finesse, my Kharkov '43 scenario, a modified version of Joao's original. So, volunteers for beta-testing, please?

Klink, Oberst

Edit: New version attached. Bug-fixed

Count me in

There's no documentation, but here's an overview about the 'design philosophy', e.g. the modified .EQP file and some house-rules:

OK Gentleman, attached the latest version with specific equipment, mostly Rifle Squads and some other localized equipment.

I made some tweaks with in the range of existing combat values, so don't expect some 'Wunderwaffen' on either side.

I based the tweaks on the following facts and Norm's design and intention:

The AP (Anti-Personal) values are, as per Norm:

A 10 men Rfl Sqd has a AP of 19. This is represented in the game as Light Rifle Squad - 1 x Sqd Ldr + 9 x Rfl Men. Each soldier contributes an AP value of 2, except the Sqd Ldr who's foremost task is to lead. He is represented with half
the AP value. So 1(1) + 9(2) = 19

One LMG has an AP value of 6, as we know a regular Rifle Squad in the game got a value of 25. This is represented in my .EQP as e.g. Rfl Sqd + le.MG34/42 for the Germans. Other Rifle Squads with non-specific LMGs
are simply represented with adding a (+). Hence, a Hungarian Rifle Squad WITH an LMG is called: Rifle Squad FEG 35M(+).

Now, a Heavy Rifle Squad, and I refer to Bob Cross' analysis, is NOT equipped with one HMG BUT 2 x LMG. It's reflected and shown in the AP value. Remember, Norm's HRS has an AP value of 31

19 + 6 + 6 = 31!

Talking about the HMG. Norm's AP values reflect a 12.7mm or .50 calibre weapon such as the US M2 HMG or the Soviet DShK-38 12.7mm HMG. Those calibres naturally got some AT value, in this case 2.
NOW, how did I come up with the German MG42 s.MG (HMG) value of 24? Easy. I am aware it has not the punch of the M2 HMG, but the accuracy and the rate of fire while mounted on a tripod.
I simply used the standard value for the 2 x MMG (AP=12) and voilà - here's the 24. For one MG34/42 (a mix of them) is used the value 18. 1 x LMG (6) + 1 x MMG (12) = 18.

Some weapons or teams are represented with the amount of the specific weapons in parentheses. Most notably the MG34/42(1) m.MG team

I used the same philosophy for the German Motorized Rifle and Panzergrenadier, as well as Pioneer Squads, especially the AT and HEAT/Kinetic values.

An early Panzerfaust or PIAT got an AT value of 5
Late war PzF and the US Bazooka an AT value of 8
The Panzerschreck and post-WW2 Bazookas an AT value of 15.

We can assume that an AT team with an AP value of 16 got a mix of SMG and Rfl men, probably 4-6. But that's nicely represented as well.

Attrition Divider (AD) = 14 (seehttp://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=304 ... r&#3045873)
Maximum Rounds Per Battle (MRPB) = 3
AAA Lethality Level = 100 (no change so far, even with the AAA-bug fix, the Lw/VVS didn't play a major role, interdiction works as designed anyway)
Engineering Building Rate = 100 (Construction engineers still have a chance to assist units to dig in; however I also created 'pure' combat engineers who just fight, not dig e.g. Sapper, Utaz, Pinoneer, etc.)
Hex Conversion Rate = 75 (Adjusted because of the poxy weather, lack of reece, etc.)
Entrenchment Rate = 33 (It was bloody cold, frozen ground and no side had the time or much gusto to start digging in; remember, 1 day turns...)
Combat Density Penalty = 125 (try to avoid 'over-stacking' at all costs, unless you want to lose your men!)
Supply Movement Cost = 100
Readiness Movement Cost = 100

Klink, Oberst

Oberst, have you done some tests on how a greater AP value for the rifle squads affects their losses? Ideally that should increase tank losses too...

Also:

Engineering Building Rate = 100 (Construction engineers still have a chance to assist units to dig in; however I also created 'pure' combat engineers who just fight, not dig e.g. Sapper, Utaz, Pioneer, etc.)

Very useful. Although I have realized through tests that squads with engineering capabilities only help their parent unit, not their stack...

ORIGINAL: governato

Oberst, have you done some tests on how a greater AP value for the rifle squads affects their losses? Ideally that should increase tank losses too...

Also:

Engineering Building Rate = 100 (Construction engineers still have a chance to assist units to dig in; however I also created 'pure' combat engineers who just fight, not dig e.g. Sapper, Utaz, Pioneer, etc.)

Very useful. Although I have realized through tests that squads with engineering capabilities only help their parent unit, not their stack...

The trick is to play a bit with the HEAT/Kinetic values I gave the Pioneers, Sappers, etc. an AT of 3, to reflect the use of AT-mines and satchel charges In all my 10+ Elemer vs. Elmer re-runs the tank losses seem to be OK. I realized that replacements can be further scaled down; the system places damaged units into the pool anyway and both sides didn't have the time, logistics, rest period to refresh their units anyway. Have to adjust some of the equipment replacements, too, e.g. tanks, guns... far too many IMHO. But the 1st tests and feedbacks will show.

Klink, Oberst

Don't underestimate Elmer... I thought 3rd TC is having a nice drive to Pavlograd... now, here's the unit at turn 15...

Klink, Oberst

A classic example how observed RR and occupied or cut RR can disturb the enemy's supply lines. Note the supply level at the intact RR and off the railhead that was cut by a leftover of 3TC. This is the key for both forces in the actual scenario. Bold thrusts and cut the enemy off its bullets, food and munitions.

Klink, Oberst

Nobody interested at ALL to have a go at Kharkov '43? I am nearly done but I NEED beta-testers!

Klink, Oberst

hello
Oberst, i just download it now, I will test and if I find any problems, I'll tell you.
I start to play as German vs computer

ORIGINAL: josant

hello
Oberst, i just download it now, I will test and if I find any problems, I'll tell you.
I start to play as German vs computer

Thanks! Elmer in general is doing a good job. Just no bridge destruction - house rule Documentation will follow at some stage after the beta testing.

Klaus

Hi, these are the scenarios that I like, is of an average size and Handy, I have no patience to play monster scenarios, and the size of this scenario and number of units is perfect.

Well, after 14 turns, the situation is as follows

In A, near Kharkov after a mass attack of the soviet finally i got back the enemy and i have taken the initiative.
In B after hard combats the situation is stabilized and again i take the initiative.
In C the situation is bad for me, the enemy is giving me hard, so i send some units (E) to reinforce my troops.
In D also the situation is bad for me, also is not as bad as in C.
In F I eliminate the enemy forces and move those units to D.

My plans are destroy enemy forces in A and B and then move those forces to reinforce in C and D, long as the Soviets did not receive massive reinforcements in the next turn and i must change my strategy.

Also I must say that i am using the AA patch by kmitahj (Is working very well)

So far I have not found any bug

The situation map is:

One thing.
In turn 25 the computer retires a big part of his army, why?, is this a bug?. I check the news report and does not appear any news explaining it. See this image of turn 24 and turn 25

I already updated the scenario; there was an event that withdrew the whole Voroneszh Front. Updated the link in the post with the attachment.

Gracias!

Klink, Oberst

Just downloaded the new version. Who would like to give it a go with me?

I just downloaded Kahrkov '43, playing vs Marshall Elmer. Turn 5 or so. I think this scale does what TOAW does best-I am familiar with the Kharkov 1943 situation, but not in detail. I am faced with a decision to bolster my sagging defenses, or use the reinforcements to snip off the advancing Soviet Armies?
A fine melding of game vs history...nice job, Herr Oberst!
Wish me luck!
cheers

hello
I just finished the scenario (Driving the Germans)and i say that with the latest beta I have not found any bug. Good Job, Oberst, and excellent job making the database. So waiting for what others beta tester say, for me the scenario is valid.

Note: the scenario ends in a victory for me[:)]

ORIGINAL: Bill Earley

Just downloaded the new version. Who would like to give it a go with me?

Let's have a PBEM, what side? I just need to see how it works up until tunr 8-18 or so.

Klink, Oberst

oberst.w.klink@gmail.com

Thanks to all of you giving it a try! Once the beta-testing is over I am going to produce some smashing documentation and more tweaks for the scenario. Highly recommended to play it with the AAA2Opart 3.exe (AAA-bug fix).

Klink, Oberst

Great scenario! I hope to be in shape to PBEM in a few days....I am still working my way through the General Staff training, trying to make sure I get the nuts & bolts right. TAOW can really punish you if you don't dot the "i's" and cross the "t's". [:)]

ORIGINAL: PRUSSIAN TOM

Great scenario! I hope to be in shape to PBEM in a few days....I am still working my way through the General Staff training, trying to make sure I get the nuts & bolts right. TAOW can really punish you if you don't dot the "i's" and cross the "t's". [:)]

This version is currently being revised, using Telumar's ingenious research. I suggest to play this version as Soviets vs. Elmer, far more challenging. There are still units on the field that shouldn't be there and the TO&E is still a bit iffy.

Klink, Oberst