Kingtiger said:

In self-cooked scenarios, we are free to do whatever we want, sure. But the designers of official scenarios for a specific expansion are limited to what is in the base game and in the expansion. That leads to strange omissions in some cases.

OK, so I'd indeed like to see a new designer series volume in which all the existing expansions can be used (perhaps that explains why panthers are used in a particular scenario from FoTB rather than panzer IIIs...).

I agree that arther strange ommissions and/or substitutions occur as a result of not mixing expansions. What I'd do is state on the box that certain scenarios require the base game as well and others require additional expansions.

interresting stuff Latro and food for thought. i'd love to tell you how play testing went but that was over 1 year ago and no notes seemed to have survived

BJaffe01

BJaffe01 said:

Playtesting: Soviets try to rush the minefields (alternative scenario set-up and rules, see previous posts)

Germans deploy 2 MG and 2 more squads in the trenches, 1 squad on the hill to claim the CP's, 2 squads + PAK in the rear entrenchments and the elite AT-squad in the balka. Soviets start off-board.

Round 1:

- Soviet Heavy Mortar Support fails to supress PAK crew.

- T-34's rush forward to clear the razor wire, PAK's wait for better targets.

- KV-1's and SU-122's move and fire, fail to supress the MG positions. (PAK's ignore KV-1's and the SU-122 stay at long range.)

- Soviet Half-Tracks rush forward. PAK's destroy one with squad inside and heavy damage a second.

- Soviet Engineers dismount the Half-Tracks and move into the minefields, MG's kill all except for one squad at half strength.

- German AT-squad move from the balka but fails to damage a T-34.

- Soviets pay CP to negate the no-move penalty next round.

- Germans win initiative.

Round 2:

- AT-squad fails to kill Soviet Engineers and ducks back into the balka, MG does a better job and kills all.

- PAK's destroy T-34.

- T-34 destroys PAK, SU-122 kill all but one of the crew, second SU-122 kills second PAK crew.

- T-34 move to tank obstacle.

- MG and a regular squad evacuate trenches and move into balka.

- Soviet vehicles fail to kill remaining German squads.

- German squad mans abandoned PAK.

- Germans play Supply Priority and Specialist Supplies (AT of course).

- Soviets pay CP to negate penalty again and win initiative.

Round 3:

- SU-122 kills fresh PAK crew, second SU-122 goes into op-fire mode.

- Two T-34's move into tank obstacle hex, two KV-1's move into position to go next.

- German squad guarding the tank obstacle lightly damages a T-34.

- Two German AT-squads move into position to lock down tank-routes with op-fire next round.

- Remaining crew of the destroyed PAK moves to the abandoned PAK.

- Next Strategy Cards for the Germans are 2x Munitions Resupply and another Specialist Supplies.

I stopped testing here, full games take to long and I want to try a more slow Soviet advance as well. The Soviets failed to breach the minefields and had to move slowly through the tank obstacles which were still guarded by 2 (soon 3) German AT-squads hiding in the balka. The PAK were overpowered by the rush of Soviet tanks, but destroyed 1 T-34, 1 Half-Track + squad and damaged a second. They can't stand up to the SU-122, but will play a big role in the first two rounds. Even with just 2 of them, the SU-122's are still king of the battlefield. Their superiour range and firepower dominates everything once they are in position ... and in op-fire they create a very effective no-go area against squads.

Playtesting: Slow methodical Soviet advance (alternative scenario set-up and rules, see previous posts)

Round 1:

- T-34's rush the razor wire again to clear it, PAK's wait for better targets.

- KV-1's move forward into range of the PAK ... who don't respond.

- SU-122's do their long-range shooting again, but fail to supress the PAK positions (officers and elites present!)

- Half-Tracks hang back at long-range ... PAK decide not to shoot. MG's in op-fire do respond, but score no lucky hits.

- Tired of waiting, the PAK's open up on the T-34's, lightly damaging two of them.

- AT-squad pops up out of the balka and fails to hit anything (again).

- Soviet saves all CP's (tanks are in good firing positions).

- Germans win initiative.

Round 2:

- PAK's shoot again at the damaged T-34's, destroying both ... AT-squad fails (again) and dives back into the balka.

- KV-1's start shooting at the PAK's, but only damage one of them.

- SU-122's and T-34's supress all German squads in the trenches.

- Half-Tracks move forward, Engineers dismount and move into the minefields.

- With no CP's spent yet, the Soviets will win initiative if they really want ... and they want to.

Round 3:

- SU-122's destroy one PAK crew and pin the other.

- Two minefields are cleared by Engineers.

- Nearby Germans squads open fire on the Engineers and shoot them back to 1 and 2 figures remaining.

- The pinned PAK shoot at half-strength on a T-34 ... no luck.

- More minefields are cleared and an abandoned PAK is destroyed by the KV-1's.

- More Engineers are killed, but the line has been breached!

At that point, the SU-122 had the PAK-threat firmly under control. The two remaining T-34's and two KV-1's were ready to exploit the breach with just one (unlucky) AT-squad to stop them ... on the open flank. The Soviet infantry were all dead or dying, but the Half-Tracks were all intact and ready to pick up reïnforcements and rush forward.

During both tests the Soviets needed 3 rounds before they could start moving units through the first defensive line of the Germans. It would take them at least two more rounds to rush an attack at the next line, or three rounds for a stronger attack. This gives them another two to three rounds to clear the victory objective. Infantry casualties were heavy in the first few turns, vehicle losses still not very heavy. All in all I'd say that the Soviets now have to fight for it to make it to the objective in time.

Note: I only used the Supply Deck for the Germans, the other are simply not very useful for them. Perhaps the Command or Morale Deck would be a better choice.

Latro good stuff thanks for that playing this out.

BJaffe01

Latro, I see that you didn't use the "no fire and move (house)rule" for non-turreted vehicles such as the SU122. Adding still that might make things really a challenge for the soveiets, perhaps...

This is all great that this scenario is fixed. However there is a problem when atleast 3 out of the 8 scenarios are unplayable due to balances isues. Please FFG, support the community so that we can support the game.

Kingtiger said:

In the actual test games it would not have made any difference because the SU-122's didn't score any hits one their move and fire attacks. Using that house-rule would prevent any lucky first-turn hits on the PAK's though ... which would basicly be a first turn Soviet win in that case. So yes, I think it would be a very good house-rule! (That and making sure never to put too many of them into a scenario ... they're brutal!)

(PS: I'm also seriously considering trying a few other house-rules for this game, one of them would be to introduce a very simple form of "facing". This would of course also have a big impact on non-turreted vehicles like the SU-122.)

Yes it is strange that the SU-122 and other non-turreted tanks dont have some kind of special rule.

I have a few question regarding the SU-122...

1) Range versus vehicles is 6 while range versus infanteri is 10. Shouldn't the SU-122 have similar long range versus vehicles???

In the scenario "tank figth at ..." they differentiate between T34 and SU-122, which seems odd to me, cuz if the enemy has no infanteri, th T34 and SU-122 is identical.

2) Why do the mortar have area attack but not the SU-122? (I know an area attack would have been crazy, but its kind of strange)

We have allready mentioned that indirect fire rule, minimum distance (bill suggested 3 hexes) and no fire and movement would fitt the SU-122.

Grand Stone said:

Just a bit of guessing:

1) Range in this game is not just the actual distance a gun can shoot, but also the distance it can reliably hit and damage the target. Soviet tanks and mechanized guns were not that good at long-range hits, especially if the targets moved. The big advantage of using a huge gun against infantry is that the target tends to be immobile (or moves very slowly) and that a near-mis is still very effective ... while missing a vehicle by just an inch is almost always still a totall failure.

2) The mortar area-attacks are probably the airburst effect combined with the very rapid rate of fire. Mortars can very quickly saturate an area with shrapnell while the SU-122 would during that same time just deliver one friggin' very big blast ... very bad news for the actual target, less so for the guys further down the road.

Grand Stone, Latro has it right the SU-122's at range is much shorter than the he's round.

BJaffe01

I'm just curriuos

Grand Stone said:

Me too, so when I run into something new/interesting/weird, I want to know more about it! What is it? How was it made? What was it supposed to do? Did it actually do it? Could it be done better? How did others do that? etc etc etc.

Just incurably curious I guess ...

(PS: My current interest is The Battle of Kursk and all operations connected to it. Just couldn't stand the controverse about who would/could/should have won and not knowing for myself what actually happened back then. So I bought a few very good books about it, plowed the internet for research articles about it and overall I can say that I'm happy with what I learned.)

Latro did you get the Kursk book written by the Russian who works the battlefield. I plan to get it shortly as it's supposed to myth bust a lot.

BJaffe01

BJaffe01 said:

I don't think so, do you have a title I can look up?

The book I found most interesting to read so far was "The Battle for Kursk 1943: The Soviet General Staff Study", translated by Glantz and Orenstein. Not so much for the exact figures (which are at times not very exact at all), but because it offers a brilliant insight into the learning proces of the Red Army. It's basicly an After Action Report written just after the battle with conclusions about their performance, all classified and never meant to go public ... which makes it even more interesting.

Well it's not released in English yet but the title is Demolishing the Myth: the Tank Battle at Porokhorovka,Kursk 1943 by Valeri Nickolaevich zamulin.

2 other you should check into are 3rd Panzer Corps at Kursk by Dider Lodieu, has great info and pictures. Kursk 1943 by Niklas Zetterling a great numbers book including the Soviet test on a capture Tiger 1 to see which gun could beat it's frontal armor.

BJaffe01

BJaffe01 said:

I was already keeping an eye on the release of Demolishing the Myth, but I'm waiting until I can find a few reader reviews. A lot of Kursk myths have already been demolished in other books and I want to know what I get before I give away my hard-earned cash! On the bright side, the book does seem to deliver a lot of pages for a very reasonable price ... always a good sign!

The book about the 3rd Panzer Corps by Dider Lodieu is new to me, but now on my list of books to check out. Reviews are good and it does deal with a part of the whole Kursk operation that usually a side-show in most books while it actually played a very important role.

I'm considering buying two books by George Nipe Jr:

- Decision in the Ukraine (which deals mainly with the operations of the SS-Panzer Corps directly after Kursk)

- Last Victory in Russia (Manstein's Kharkov offensive leading up to Kursk)

... perhaps followed by his Blood, Steel, Myth (SS at Prokhorovka) which is due to be released soon ... and if reviews are good of course.

I can also recommend a few online research articles I found on this subject (for free!):

- "Mine and Countermine operations in the battle of Kursk" by A. Remson and D. Anderson (very good article on the effect of soviet minefields)

- "Soviet Defensive Tactics at Kursk" by David M. Glantz (a detailed look at the Soviet defenses)

It seems obvious that the Germans should be able to start in the entrenchment since:

a) The Command Point marker is there. It would be odd if they chose not to defend an 'important' location (and you don't get the Command Points otherwise).

b) Seven trenches plus one entrenchment equals eight squads. i suspect that the "any of the hexes on map 35B" is another typo.

beresford said:

It dose seem obvious, but there are errors like this throughout the scenarios (that need the be cleared up) , i think it took a day or 2 of FotB being released (and even before, when the rules were posted online) and people alrady started picking up on all the errors and grey areas, so how did FFG not pick these up unless they didint proof read things before releasing.

Is there yet ANOTHER typo in that the Russian central CP marker is not in a deployment zone? It seems odd that a Russian unit should have to start the game by going backwards in order to pick up the 2 CPs.