(01-24-2022, 09:23 AM)goosebrown Wrote: (01-24-2022, 09:01 AM)plloyd1010 Wrote: I still don't have a consensus on that point. Should it be T-34/85 as which the tanks are representative of, or T-34/76s which were available in the games of the time?
I think that they should be corrected to T34/85s. In cases where there are "hacks" due to one thing or another, the primary source of truth should be the intention of the scenario/game not to reproduce the hack literally. But, that is just me.
Limiting my opinion narrowly to circumstances addressed here where the module rules (Bush Artillery), or scenario rules (Arctic T34s) specifically say X is Y, and we now have Y, I tend to agree.
More broadly, I think the Library's ultimate goal should be to reflect the scenario as it is published, and not redesign it. When the rules tell me X is Y, that's part of the scenario and is fine. We are just more accurately translating that data into the library.
My opinion changes if we were, for example, swapping out PzG Original units to more historically accurate ones that were not included in the counter mix (PzIIIfs becoming Pz38ts in some cases as was done with EFD). In that case we would not be translating the scenario as published, we would be redesigning it.
I'm certainly not trying to open up the can of worms to the latter which I am opposed to, just trying to illustrate where I draw the line.
At the end of the day though, consistency makes me happy.
