Is Korsun pocket too gamey

[Pawlock]

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

Unfortunatly, this would lead to more gamey tactics and anonolies than what the original system employs now.

First off, you would have clear advantage of having greater def str in hex, in fact if this was free, you could have unlimited ATs present.

Then you have the retreat to consder, as it is now one tactic is to deny a retreat path by making sure the hexes he can retreat to have 4 units in. Under the free stacking an AT could never be subject to this.

[Joel Rauber]

My comment was off the cuff, and not thought through, however, I naturally meant and should've said, one AT unit stacking free.

I've seen several board games that employ this mechanic of allowing one, "small", unit to stack free over and above the normal counter stacking limit. I.e. allow one to stack one battalion size unit to stack free in a game that is basically a regimental unit game. I think Pawlock makes a good point regarding being careful of the law of unintended consequences and what that would do to overall defence strength of a hex. If one implemented this, one probably should lower their defence factor rating or at least decide if it is a problem or not.

Actually I might argue that that rating is a little high anyway, though reducing those units to one step helped to address that issue significantly and was a very good move on V1.10's part as I recall, naturally all IMHO

[j campbell]

I also favor step stacking to unit stacking as it represents a manpower/territory ratio more than anything else. i like the way the gamers operationl games use "regimental equivilants" but that is just me-to each his own. i love KP and all its other siblings AtD and soon BiN so keep them coming and i will keep playing.

In response to madmickeys question regarding the 3 shifts of german units over their 1941 soviet counterparts it can easily be summed up as tactical superiority.

the soviets entered the war with around 18000,-20000 tanks of all forms -mostly T-26 i believe but nonetheless armor (numbers differ based on sources cited). the germans had just over 3000. By the opening of operation typhoon the germans still had about 70% of their total tank force and an operational number of about 1500 tanks or so-they actually outnumbered the soviets in armor in the moscow theatre (according to Glantz "Clash of titans").

thereofre it would be easy to surmise that german anti-tank skills where quite adept at overcoming large numbers of opposing armor.

[madmickey]

On the defense fire
If you sitting on defense and see someone building up their force, you cannot use your artillery. Also mobile short-range artillery is difficult to use in defense as it can easily be overrun because of length of the turns. No shoot and scoot
In addition you cannot control where to use defense fire, the first attack will use up the artillery so a smart play will always use this gambit of attacking an unimportant target first. Artillery fire only last a short time and the amount of shell they have is the critical issue. Units that have being constantly using their supplies should not have the same capability of units sitting still hoarding their ammo.
Talking about supplies the longer the supply line the less effective a unit is going to be. Korsun Pocket solution is either in supply, slightlu out of supply or out.

[madmickey]

to J campbell terrible Soviet generalship had a lot to due with Russian tank losses.
I assumed it was Panzer faust/ Panzerchek for superiority of German units but they had better metallurgy as well.

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: madmickey

On the defense fire
If you sitting on defense and see someone building up their force, you cannot use your artillery. Also mobile short-range artillery is difficult to use in defense as it can easily be overrun because of length of the turns. No shoot and scoot
In addition you cannot control where to use defense fire, the first attack will use up the artillery so a smart play will always use this gambit of attacking an unimportant target first. Artillery fire only last a short time and the amount of shell they have is the critical issue. Units that have being constantly using their supplies should not have the same capability of units sitting still hoarding their ammo.
Talking about supplies the longer the supply line the less effective a unit is going to be. Korsun Pocket solution is either in supply or out.

When armies attack, they don't just move everybody up to the front line, where an alert opponent, such as yourself, can just clobber them. Most of the attacking forces form up in relatively safe areas, and only move right up at the last possible moment, and often at night.

They are naturally vulnerable while close to the front line and during the attack itself, and that's why any defending artillery unit in range can contribute a shift. Defending artillery can contribute a shift to all combats within range, not just a single combat, precisely to avoid the gamey tactic you describe.

Short range artillery is always going to vulnerable to attack, that's in part just what the attackers are aiming to do. Shooting and scooting is all very well, but you won't scoot if nobody has told you there's a problem, and confusion and disorganisation in the defenders are part of any really successful attack. Also, artillery units who scoot too soon often experience rapid changes in their command structure, so some of them are just likely to be swallowed up.

Gregor

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: 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???

Stacking units for 'free' is fine in a boardgame, where you've made the player do all the bookkeeping anyway, so one more rule is neither here nor there. However, in a computer game it's a little different. You will notice that the unit display area on the right has room for four units. Where do we display the fifth?

Sure we might be able to redesign the whole game to display a fifth unit, to accommodate this fairly minor point, but where would we put all the other info that's currently there?

As I mentioned before, making new rules is easy. Displaying information about them in the limited context of a computer screen is the area that easily causes the most dissension in the design team.

In any case, I believe the changes in the 1.10 patch of KP have ensured that this isn't a real problem. Anyone who stacks four AT units in a hex is committing suicide. In Battles in Normandy, the Brits get a small number of highly effective 17 pdr AT units. I'm not going to use these doing strange gamey things. They go straight to front line, where I'll use them to hold off those SS Panzer divisions trying to hurl me back into the sea!

Gregor

[Joel Rauber]

Stacking units for 'free' is fine in a boardgame, where you've made the player do all the bookkeeping anyway, so one more rule is neither here nor there. However, in a computer game it's a little different.

From a players viewpoint I don't understand the above. One of the joys of computer gaming over board game playing is that the computer takes care of enforcing the rules so its easier for the player and is just fine in the computer game to add the rule. Its less fine in a board game where now, I as the player, must keep track of the extra rule and the special case.

Of course, the opposite is the case for the coders.

You will notice that the unit display area on the right has room for four units. Where do we display the fifth?

Sure we might be able to redesign the whole game to display a fifth unit, to accommodate this fairly minor point, but where would we put all the other info that's currently there?

This is a very good point. The coders of the computer game have to make a "is it worth it" judgement on every rule that is going to be added. And this is an excellent example of that cost/benefit judgement that must be made. Every coder and designer at SSG might agree that allowing one AT unit to stack free is an excellent idea, more realistic and taken by itself would be better for the game.

However, if the cost is a lousier unit display, a forced redesign of the display that likely would make info harder to intuit for the user, etc etc, then it may not simply be worth the cost of adding such a feature that wouldn't effect game play, or the realism, all that much. And particularly so, if the change is questionable, even on its on merits.

I'm sure that won't prevent people, including me from making suggestions[:)], though its good for us to hear sometimes where even a good suggestion may suffer from the law of unintended consequences.

Incidently, I'm in some awe at the cleverness and thought that went into the interface for KP, having tried some coding of these things I have some appreciation of what's involved. I consider the KP interface to be one of the best I've seen for this style of a wargame.[&o]

As I mentioned before, making new rules is easy. Displaying information about them in the limited context of a computer screen is the area that easily causes the most dissension in the design team.

I can appreciate that!

In any case, I believe the changes in the 1.10 patch of KP have ensured that this isn't a real problem. Anyone who stacks four AT units in a hex is committing suicide.

I liked those changes and believe they improved things significantly, good show!

[HercMighty]

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

You will notice that the unit display area on the right has room for four units. Where do we display the fifth?

Sure we might be able to redesign the whole game to display a fifth unit, to accommodate this fairly minor point, but where would we put all the other info that's currently there?

Gregor

If you upped the resolution, should be fairly easy. Most systems out there will handle 1600x1200 with no problem and look a lot nicer and allow for more room to display information. I was really amazed this game didn't allow for higher resolutions.

[raydude]

Um, count me among one of those who likes 1024 X 760. Anything higher would result in smaller text and strained eyeballs [;)]

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: HercMighty

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

You will notice that the unit display area on the right has room for four units. Where do we display the fifth?

Sure we might be able to redesign the whole game to display a fifth unit, to accommodate this fairly minor point, but where would we put all the other info that's currently there?

Gregor

If you upped the resolution, should be fairly easy. Most systems out there will handle 1600x1200 with no problem and look a lot nicer and allow for more room to display information. I was really amazed this game didn't allow for higher resolutions.

That would work, but just making it a window that scrolls is a better solution. John Tiller did it that way from the start of the Panzer Campaigns series a couple of years ago.

However it's pretty clear the designers are happy with the stacking rules so don't expect to see this happening.

[HercMighty]

I am not for or against rule changes. But I am for a better "looking" game with Battles of Normandy. On my Dell laptop Korsun "looks" bad because I can not run it in the LCD native resolution. HTTR let's me do this and the game looks so much more "crisper".

[BrubakerII]

ORIGINAL: madmickey

Korsun pocket is a great game but I find that it is a not a very good simulation of combat maneuver.

Hi MM

Korsun is obviously a very different beast to HttR and others of that type. But that doesn't have to be a bad thing. What attracted me to this game engine a few years back was the simplicity of it, and therefore the way I could get absorbed in a scenario with very little knowledge of the battle, and come away having a lot of fun. How many games do you know of this nature where you can have 4 or 5 email games going at any one time?

I don't think Decisive Battles has ever tried to be a hardcore simulation of warfare - there are enough of those around already, and they are very good at what they do.

I think the DB system superbly holds the middle ground in a way that the Panzer General series did for quite some time, and by doing so makes the game(s) accessible to a whole new cadre of people that would otherwise never even attempt a hex based wargame. Personally I am thrilled every time I read a post that says something like "...this is my first wargame and I have to say..." etc

So to wrap, whilst your points are undoubtably valid, they are also probably too clinical for a game of this nature. Lets enjoy the game for what it is and not try and change it into a clone of some of the others.

respectfully

[Rob Gjessing]

I differ a bit Brubaker.. I do think the DBWWII system is a hardcore simulation of warfare.. it just does it a bit differently to other games.. infact I think it is quite ground breaking in the way that it does it.. and it may be paving the way for others to follow.

Dont read into that that this or any other system is perfect.. its not.. and really thats not possible.. the real world is a very complex beast as is the art of war and I dont think any computer war game is able to mimic it perfectly in all instances. But I dont think KP is gamey.. lets not confuse 'user friendly' with gamey folks.