I've always felt that it becomes increasingly difficult to quantify the specific abilities and limitations of various types of units, especially armor, as game scale increases, if for no other reason that larger units will generally present themselves as more homogeneous and of a less specialized nature. It's easy enough to measure capabilities with an array of factors like range, rate of fire, type of projectile, vehicle speed, defensive protection, and so forth on tactical unit displays, but harder with just combat factor and movement factor on larger units. As the single AFV's and platoons of tactical games expand to the regiments and divisions of operational games, new techniques must be found to simulate the unique characteristics of armored formations.

Speed and strength are easily upfactored, and were increased over infantry levels right from the start in Tactics II. Beyond these basic steps, improved representation of armor's abilities and limitations was slow but steady as wargames developed. Some terrain became impassable to tanks, some terrain slowed and some increased tank speed; armored units were allowed greater flexibility in penetrating ZOC's and in disengaging from combat; and most importantly, the exploitation or mechanized movement phase was invented. This last development did much to unleash the potential of blitzkrieg operations in wargames.

The next major step forward in simulation of armor capabilities came with Drang Nach Osten!, and brings us to the specific subject of this discussion: Armored Effects in Combat. Frank Chadwick is credited with developing the Europa system for measuring the performance of armored and antitank units in attack and defense against various targets.

Basically, this system works by comparing the percentage of armor in an attack to the percentage of armor or anti-tank units in the defending hex. Each unit is assigned a value of full, one-half, or zero for Armored Effects in Attack (AECA), Armored Effects in Defense (AECD), and AntiTank Effects in Combat (ATEC). The percentage of units with these "effects" as compared to all the units in the attack is calculated on the basis of stacking points. These percentages are then compared to the AEC table, which converts them to combat die roll modifications of 0, +1, +2, +3, or +4. Of course, one player's modification may offset some or all of his opponent's modification, depending on the forces engaged.

In case you hadn't guessed, armored units are basically full AECA, half AECD (the maximum), and full ATEC, thus capable of making some very potent modifications to the die roll.

When I unwrapped DNO and began studying the rules, I was impressed by Chadwick's masterly stroke. Never mind that it took me two or three readings to comprehend the text, or that it took several testings before I was able to handle the necessary calculations intuitively. AEC was a fine system, one that I liked to think of as playable (once you got the hang of it), and realistic (at least to my prejudices). I only regret that the day I visited the GDW offices, I forgot to congratulate Frank.

Well, folks, this whole thing ties in with my greater love/hate relationship with the Europa project. As I played DNO/UNT more and more, my admiration for the scope of the project and the genius of the designers grew apace with my skepticism as to the viability of the system as a whole. Along with that, I began to notice a few quirks in the AEC rationale.

Quirks

Firstly, motorized infantry divisions put a restraint on armored divisions. Adding their half AECA value into tankspearheaded battles diluted the full AECA of the tanks and reduced the prized +4 die modifications. Along with the fact that motorized units moved at eight movement points and tanks at ten, this began to have a segregating effect on operations.

The vaunted panzers separated from the less valuable motorized infantry which in turn separated from the lowly foot sloggers. Somehow it didn't seem to square with the accounts I had read of tanks and lorried troops racing forward together, ahead of the infantry. However, I was willing to accept this discrepancy for the integrity of the AEC system as a whole.

Then I began to notice something else. With the +4 addition, 2-1 attacks could be devastating against defensive positions. This meant attacking with pure armor attacks. But, if an extra combat factor or two was needed, it couldn't be a non-armor unit . . . not an artillery regiment, not even a machine gun battalion, or it would reduce the 100% AECA rating, even though there were just as many tanks in the attack. Now this was a bit much. So I sent a question to GDW, one of many that I periodically bother them with. They offered no solace. A mere half stacking point of non-full AECA, added to an attack, devaluated the massed power of up to some sixty stacking points of attacking units with full AECA, reducing the modification from +4 to +2.

Thus, supporting the tanks actually weakened their effectiveness. I also discovered the same effect applied in reverse. A couple of defending anti-tank battalions could muster a -4 modification on their own, but if some infantry support was added to the hex, the integrity of the position was actually reduced against a tank attack. It wasn't unusual for two Soviet AT regiments to put up a better resistance than the same two regiments supported by an infantry division. It became a juggling act to hit upon the perfect combination of combat factors and AEC proportion in a hex, despite the common sense theory that additional troops should enhance the defender's effectiveness.

I made up some personal rules to avoid the reduction in such marginal instances, muttering to myself and temporarily glad I had so few DNO opponenst that the situation would probably never arise. Still, my confidence in AEC was shaken.

The Europa game released after DNO/UNT was Narvik, which had no AEC rules in the separate campaign game. After that came "Their Finest Hour", and some AEC revisions. The proportion of AECA in a hex for a given die roll modification was changed. In addition to this change, GDW made an improvement by adding a new class of units: Armor Neutral. This allowed motorized and artillery units to enter battles without changing the percentage of "effects" in an attack. So far, so good. Now armor, motorized, and artillery units could perform as combined arms teams without sacrificing AEC ... as long as no infantry, or non-motorized engineers, or machinegun formations, etc. entered the fray.

Then there was Case White, unveiled at Origins '77. The relationship of AEC percentage to die roll modification changed again, but still gave the benefit to full ATEC over full AECA. The rules about armor neutral units were retained and expanded, allowing motorized units to operate as either armor neutral or at half AEC. A nice touch.

However, I found a quirk right away. (I was beginning to look for them.) If a single panzer battalion (full AECA) should join six or so armor-neutral infantry divisions in an attack, the proportional modification is based entirely on the single panzer battalion, and amounts to full AECA, adding three to the die roll.

Hmm. I searched the rules. Maybe I missed something, but I found nothing to prevent a player from building powerful attacks around the +3 modification of a single battalion of panzers. Finally, I referred back to TFH and found a rule which requires at least one regimental equivalent (two battalions) to join the motorized divisions in order to obtain the full benefit. Still, it's a very advantageous situation for the attacker.

I also began to recognize some intrinsic bonuses in lessening attack effects in certain situations. For example, in TFH, when a stack with full AECA (+3) attacks a stack with full ATEC (4), the net result is unfavorable to the attacker. But, if the attacker dilutes slightly to achieve anything less than full AEC, his roll is increased by two, and the defender must shift from ATEC to AECD, allowing only a -2 modification for an identical concentration of defensive units with the same number of tanks for targets. Thus, the net modification becomes zero, which is better for the attacker.

It could be argued that this is accurate and realistic, but somehow the whole thing is getting out of hand. Can full AECA units purposely and selectively conduct battles with less than full AECA? Must each attack be a time-consuming, dual mathematical equation of factor vs. factor and proportion of AEC vs. proportion of AEC?

It's the percentages that are the undoing of AEC. They discriminate against truly combined arms attacks (I know, I know: one can argue that pure armored divisions are intrinsically the best combined arms teams), they incite vaguely shady "proportion finagling" as I have shown above, and they virtually prohibit adding handy infantry factors to otherwise all-tank assaults.

While the concept is innovative and realistic, implementing proportional AEC can be unrealistic and boring. I think that the Workshop is aware of this. The shifting AEC values, along with the expanding armor neutral rules, seem to indicate that they are trying to correct the system. But I still say that dealing with fractions and percentages, which are more difficult to compute, is the root of the problem. The system as a whole is viable once that is recoginzed and corrected.

Suggestion

And here's my suggestion. Instead of assigning units a "percentage of effectiveness", why not give each armor and AT unit a flat numerical modifier of its own? Perhaps +1 or +1/2 for panzer divisions, something compatible for smaller formations and different types of units, maybe I/ for anti- tank battalions. This could be printed right on the counter, much like the anti-partisan factor. Additionally, certain terrain features could have an intrinsic AT value/modifier against tank attacks.

Then a player would simply total the benefits of his modifiers in each battle, rounding off the fractions and arriving at a truer expression of the relative effectiveness of the units (and terrain) involved. This way, a player is not penalized for making combined arms attacks by using infantry divisions to assist an armored division.

I've playtested this idea a bit, and I think it's simple and effective. Maybe I've overlooked something along the line in arriving at this conclusion, but I think it's an idea that should be considered.

More DNO/UNT Armor Effects

Armor Effects in DNO/UNT
My Turn: Designer Rebuttal
The Last Word: Rebuttal's Rebuttal