Is Korsun pocket too gamey

[madmickey]

Korsun pocket is a great game but I find that it is a not a very good simulation of combat maneuver. HTTR is a very good simulation of combat and I expect later games in the panther series to deal with some of the current holes in the game. Back to what I find gamey about Korsun pocket is the moving of unit all over the place to get certain combat odds and then units that were in the last attack (if it was an overrun) move a far to distance to join in a another attack. The stacking limits should be based on steps or troops and vehicles and I prefer to drop exacts odds and results table. Also I prefer computer games using the actual inventory of a combat unit rather than steps.

[Tomus]

The level in KP is different to that of HTTR there you are dealing with realtime versus turn based and also the level of troops which is company-battalion versus regimental-divisional.

Also the turn base is a long time so a turn in KP for ATD represents 12hrs. In 12hrs you can do alot and for a regimental scale I don't think that pushing troops up or down a road to increase the odds of attack is that unfeasible. In fact it happened. In 12hrs a lot can change on a battle field.

I found that coming from an RTS world mainly getting my mond around the different time scales in turn based is hard and takes time. KP is not a 60second turn a la combat mission but 8hours so you need to try and imagine what these units could do given 8hrs.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: madmickey

... The stacking limits should be based on steps ...

Agreed. The current method makes no sense to me either.

[Joel Rauber]

There is more to how many folks can be in one location at one time than merely counting bodies and vehicles of the combat arms of divisions. I believe the practical limits have more to do with the number of organizations that in the location than the number of folks; particularly at this scale of a game.

[madmickey]

"Also the turn base is a long time so a turn in KP for ATD represents 12hrs. In 12hrs you can do alot and for a regimental scale I don't think that pushing troops up or down a road to increase the odds of attack is that unfeasible. In fact it happened. In 12hrs a lot can change on a battle field. "

The problem I have is the leap frogging where a unit (A) that is sitting still is involved in combat with a unit (B) that moved 10 spaces then unit A moves 10 spaces to join in on an attack with unit C which then moves 10 spaces to join an attack with unit D.

You have battle where you surround a stack of enemy and you keep on pulling in and out units so you can have extra attack to overcome stacking limits and the maximum odds allowed. The units (A) surrounding a stack attack they then switch position with unit on front line (B), then unit B attack the surrounded stack.

For reply 4 you can use a combination of troops and organization but organization seem too arbitrary.

[raydude]

Hi MadMickey,

I'm a big fan of HTTR as well, but I do agree with the other poster that the time scale and units scale lends itself well to the turn-based mode of Korsun Pocket.

As for your example, well I find it a little confusing. I thought units only get 1 action per turn, and only overruns would result in a unit not using up its action?

if unit A is in combat with unit B then that is its one action. It could move near to or into the hex with unit C but it cannot participate in the attack unless it overran unit B. And if it did overrun unit B then that's what overruns let the attack do. The overrun is supposed to be a quick and sudden shock attack that overwhelms the defenses and allows the attacker to continue its advance. It's the whole idea behind the blitzkrieg.

So yeah, theoretically your chain of attacks would work if all the attacks were successful overruns. But that's what happens when you have a large shock force conducting a blitzkrieg attack.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Hello all,
Am I wrong if I think that HTTR is also actually turn-based? In every simulation the program calculates one discrete event per time (i.e. it doesn't calculate two or more things at the same time) keeping all the other variables (enemy positions, terrain, etc) constant. This means that eventually there is a turn duration, which is the amount of time the discrete event takes. This span of time can be extremely short (HTTR) or 12 hrs (KP: AtD). IMHO, simulation results became meaningful if you look at them after 4 or 6 turns, whatever they last. Based on this, it makes sense to analyze what happened in a 2 day span of KP (this division moved from here to there and destroyed this or that units) but not for shorter periods. What I mean that a lot of things that happen in shorter periods may not make sense and we should refrain from wondering if they make sense or not. Is like disassembling a radio hoping to find the reason why the comentator said it is going to snow tonight. We should analyze and scrutinize the results that come out of KP after certain period of time and not to worry too much about the intimate mechanisms that generate them. We shouldn't be worried if they make sense, that's what I mean.
Just my humble opinion.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Ooops!
We obviously have to worry if the results obtained after two or three days in KP make sense. I think they do.

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: madmickey

... The stacking limits should be based on steps ...

Agreed. The current method makes no sense to me either.

Steps don't just represent the crude number of men in a unit, they also express its resilience. A two step unit is obviously more brittle than a four step unit. We could base stacking on steps, but the need to assemble optimal stacks would not go away, it would just take an awful lot longer to achieve roughly the same result.

Basing combat power strictly on the number of men in a division assumes that there is a 1:1 relationship between number of casulaties and loss of combat power, which we don't find to be true.

Gregor

[madmickey]

Another gamey part is that you can only use artillery in a direct attack. No defense artillery fire breaking up attacks, no softening up of an objective, no counter-battery fire. Also the stacking limit works against Russian, as all their non-mechanized combat units except for Guard infantry unit have no anti-tank capability. Also why if you place a unit next to your opponent reinforcement hex, this enemy units never shows up. But if you place a unit on that reinforcement hex the enemy unit shows up at another enemy reinforcement hex.

[Pawlock]

ORIGINAL: madmickey

Another gamey part is that you can only use artillery in a direct attack. No defense artillery fire breaking up attacks, no softening up of an objective, no counter-battery fire. Also the stacking limit works against Russian, as all their non-mechanized combat units except for Guard infantry unit have no anti-tank capability. Also why if you place a unit next to your opponent reinforcement hex, this enemy units never shows up. But if you place a unit on that reinforcement hex the enemy unit shows up at another enemy reinforcement hex.

The Kp game enhine is all about simplicity, while allowing strategy and tactics to a fair depth.

Arty fire is an example, Offensivly the arty is modelled to imply the softening up etc is all intergrated. Defensive arty counterbattery is also represented by defensive shifts allowed for defending arty.

Russians have a lot of indepedant anti-aircraft/anti tank guns that can be stacked with other units.

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: madmickey

Another gamey part is that you can only use artillery in a direct attack. No defense artillery fire breaking up attacks, no softening up of an objective, no counter-battery fire. Also the stacking limit works against Russian, as all their non-mechanized combat units except for Guard infantry unit have no anti-tank capability. Also why if you place a unit next to your opponent reinforcement hex, this enemy units never shows up. But if you place a unit on that reinforcement hex the enemy unit shows up at another enemy reinforcement hex.

As Pawlock points out, defensive artillery is modelled. As far as softening up an objective is concerned, I think that the opening Russian attacks in Korsun Pocket, where the minimum artillery effect is +5 shifts counts as softening up!

Russian infantry have no inherent anti-tank defense because that's how the Russians organised their army. The fact that this makes Russian infantry less flexible and less capable of independent operations that German infantry is entirely as it should be.

Gregor

[madmickey]

I do not have a problem with Russian division having no AT units; I have a problem that a separate AT/AA unit counts against stacking limits. Also a Russian AT regiment has 1 AT shift whereas a German infantry regiment has 3 AT shifts. Does panzerfaust explain the big difference?
As far as softening up with artillery you have periods where you have artillery in range of enemy, but you do not have enough ground troop to put in a reasonable attack, so your artillery does noting for one or more turns. When defending (no counter attack reasonable) your artillery units are useless.

[JSS]

madmickey wrote:

Also I prefer computer games using the actual inventory of a combat unit rather than steps.

madmickey,

The beauty of DBWWII is that it uses indirect methods to model combat operations. It does this better than any other game or simulation I've seen. As you look for actual inventories you miss the model. Each step is far more than just x number of soldiers, machine guns, etc... a step loss does not even represent pure kills.. it also models loss of combat power due to disorganization.

Artillery losses would normally only effect companies (far below model scale) rather than regiments. The softening up effect described by Gregor above is truly effective!

There are certain conditions where I would like to see the direct artillery barrages you mention... specifically if your opponent puts enough steps into a hex that you are in the double dice combat range I'd like to see massed artillery cause steps losses using the same algorithm as the double dice combat... that is 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% chance of CRT result and then roll a die for actual step losses and/or a retreat result. It could also leave an interdiction marker to model delayed movement!

JSS

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

Steps don't just represent the crude number of men in a unit, they also express its resilience. A two step unit is obviously more brittle than a four step unit. We could base stacking on steps, but the need to assemble optimal stacks would not go away, it would just take an awful lot longer to achieve roughly the same result.

Basing combat power strictly on the number of men in a division assumes that there is a 1:1 relationship between number of casulaties and loss of combat power, which we don't find to be true.

Gregor

I have no problem with using steps rather than counting men and tanks and agree it can be used effectively to take combat power into account. What makes no sense to me is the 4 unit rule on stacking. You won't ever convince me that 4 AT companies take up as much space, or effectively cover the same ground, as 4 infantry regiments. You also won't convince me that 4 one step regiments should be equivalent for stacking to 4 four step regiments even if steps don't equate 1:1 with men/tanks. Of course you don't have to convince me since it's your game. [;)] I just think a step limit rather than a unit limit would be more realistic without adding any complexity to the rules.

[Rob Gjessing]

Considering I cant convince you Elmo I wont try.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Rob Gjessing

Considering I cant convince you Elmo I wont try.

I'd be happy to hear your thoughts even if my mind is made up already. Who knows, I might change your mind.

[Joel Rauber]

I suppose one can simply ask which model is more accurate, the step stacking model, or the organization stacking model; they both will have their accuracies and inaccuracies.

My opinion is a think the current method is the lesser of two evils[:)]

One might make a point for allowing the AT unit stack for free???

[Pawlock]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

Steps don't just represent the crude number of men in a unit, they also express its resilience. A two step unit is obviously more brittle than a four step unit. We could base stacking on steps, but the need to assemble optimal stacks would not go away, it would just take an awful lot longer to achieve roughly the same result.

Basing combat power strictly on the number of men in a division assumes that there is a 1:1 relationship between number of casulaties and loss of combat power, which we don't find to be true.

Gregor

I have no problem with using steps rather than counting men and tanks and agree it can be used effectively to take combat power into account. What makes no sense to me is the 4 unit rule on stacking. You won't ever convince me that 4 AT companies take up as much space, or effectively cover the same ground, as 4 infantry regiments. You also won't convince me that 4 one step regiments should be equivalent for stacking to 4 four step regiments even if steps don't equate 1:1 with men/tanks. Of course you don't have to convince me since it's your game. [;)] I just think a step limit rather than a unit limit would be more realistic without adding any complexity to the rules.

While you look at the negative issues here, there is a very positive one which is often overlooked but has big effects.

Double dice chances, AT units even the Russian ones have reasonable defence strenghts, perhaps even equivelant of a similar 2 or 3 step unit.
So say to stack 2 AT units with a couple of 2 step inf units in a clear hex, which would equal 6 steps. Under most cicumstances chances of 2 dice rolled would be nought.

Now lets look at 4 inf units, 3 with 2 steps, 1 with 3 steps, probably be equal in def str of previous example. But now you have 9 steps which would equate normally to a 75 percent chance of 2 dice. Being that most results in this example are gonna favour the attacker, whose the loser now? The At unit stack or the pure inf stack?

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Joel Rauber

...One might make a point for allowing the AT unit stack for free???

Now that is a good idea!