Ways to simulate history at the Chir

[Grognerd]

Running test plays I've found that using higher or lower rate of fire per minute on the Main Gun in the weapons section of the Establishment works best for simulating the tank kills that fit history (as best I can anyway!)

Hopefully I can start a discussion and other ways or general feed back on the method I'm using.

The Soviet 76mm gun is reduced in it's fire rate
Slow .36
Normal .5
Rapid 1.0
The German 75mm L43 & The German 50mm L60 gun are:
Slow 1.0
Normal 2.0
Rapid 4.0
Anti Personnel are somewhat lower, closer to the normal entry.

Trying to simulate the early soviet tanks and their poor visibility (front only) & poor training. The soviet 76mm gun and optics were quite good, but crews had issues with target acquisition and training.

I'm still playing with the numbers (seeing if 4.0 is too high). But this method does seem to give the Germans a big enough edge to start and replicate history.

I'm thinking this might be a decent way to show the increase in Soviet proficiency and the addition of the commanders cupola in later model T-34's (1942).
Believe me, when a T-34 hits a German tank it's usually a kill.
Funny the fields on each others units for leadership, morale , training, cohesion etc. don't seem to make a very big change in play. The rates of fire sure do!

I think in 1941 the Germans would have the edge - In 1942 it gets close to even - In 1943 it is even and in 1944 it's back to the original numbers.
At least this is my thinking right now.

 

[jimcarravallah]

Running test plays I've found that using higher or lower rate of fire per minute on the Main Gun in the weapons section of the Establishment works best for simulating the tank kills that fit history (as best I can anyway!)

Hopefully I can start a discussion and other ways or general feed back on the method I'm using.

The Soviet 76mm gun is reduced in it's fire rate
Slow .36
Normal .5
Rapid 1.0
The German 75mm L43 & The German 50mm L60 gun are:
Slow 1.0
Normal 2.0
Rapid 4.0
Anti Personnel are somewhat lower, closer to the normal entry.

Trying to simulate the early soviet tanks and their poor visibility (front only) & poor training. The soviet 76mm gun and optics were quite good, but crews had issues with target acquisition and training.

I'm still playing with the numbers (seeing if 4.0 is too high). But this method does seem to give the Germans a big enough edge to start and replicate history.

I'm thinking this might be a decent way to show the increase in Soviet proficiency and the addition of the commanders cupola in later model T-34's (1942).
Believe me, when a T-34 hits a German tank it's usually a kill.
Funny the fields on each others units for leadership, morale , training, cohesion etc. don't seem to make a very big change in play. The rates of fire sure do!

I think in 1941 the Germans would have the edge - In 1942 it gets close to even - In 1943 it is even and in 1944 it's back to the original numbers.
At least this is my thinking right now.

Keep in mind, the ratings are and not absolute. If I want forces from one side to be noticeably more proficient at a task than their opponent, I set their ratings high and lower the opponent's like ratings.
In speculating about the initial Eastern Front combat, German command, morale, training, experience cohesion, aggressiveness etc. would be significantly higher than their Soviet counterparts. Each difference incrementally affects the hard performance measures on combat, movement. defense etc. cumulatively. The difficulty is balancing the proficiency vs. the opponent, and, if such a situation exists, delineating the "elite" units in a friendly force from less proficient units within that force. For example, Nazi SS units are more proficient than Nazi Wermacht units and Soviet Gusrd units would be more proficient than Soviet conscripts yet overall the Soviets would still be at a disadvantage if a Guard unit were confronting an SS unit but a little closer to even if confronting a Wermacht unit.

 

[Grognerd]

You are correct, I've adjusted that because I have multiple tank units i.e. T-34-1941, T34-1942. T34-1942-Guards. Makes for more entries in the Establishment file but not too bad. (It's actually the 76mm gun that's adjusted but in order for me to keep track I make a new vehicle also).
I'm still in testing the scenario's, so things could change.

 

[jimcarravallah]

You are correct, I've adjusted that because I have multiple tank units i.e. T-34-1941, T34-1942. T34-1942-Guards. Makes for more entries in the Establishment file but not too bad. (It's actually the 76mm gun that's adjusted but in order for me to keep track I make a new vehicle also).
I'm still in testing the scenario's, so things could change.

It's down in the weeds, but as a new gun is fitted to a original chassis the engineering configuration documents manage it by creating a "new" vehicle.

If you're familiar with the US M1 Main Battle Tank, there are three major variants, M1 (now retired as I recall) M1A1 and M1A2. While outwardly each chassis would appear to be common design, the weaponry, armor protection and situational awareness gear and software differs from one variant to another.

Watching the engineering of how the variant is produced is interesting because the envelope for installations remains the same, constrained by the originally-designed space for crew, turret, engine and transmission, but space on the inside is repurposed or rearranged to accommodate the upgrades.

 

[Zovs]

I see in the scenario section there is a CO1 East Front scenario, but since this is CO2 is this scenario compatible with CO2?

 

[jimcarravallah]

I see in the scenario section there is a CO1 East Front scenario, but since this is CO2 is this scenario compatible with CO2?

No.

 

[Zovs]

Thanks Jim.

No.

Thanks Jim.