Matrix Games Forums

..are all the same for all terrain types. I would assume that defenders should have better odds in forests or towns. The only difference are anti tank shifts. In an infantry vs. infantry battle the defender gets no terrain dependent bonus. Is that just laziness of the scenario writer or is there a reason for that? I thought it was different in the old SSG games.

The difference you left out was the Indirect Fire modifier, which makes a huge difference. It certainly wasn't laziness but a considered design decision. The ultimate test is how the scenario plays, and although people did comment on the CRT question when Kharkov first came out, as far as I know they all ceased to worry once they got to grips with the scenario itself.

Gregor

Thanks, Gregor, for explaining that. If I understand you right artillery is less harmful to units in towns or forests.

I am just playing the game (actually restarted playing it after a long break) and was wondering why the terrain would not give extra protection to my infantry against direct attacks. Still think that terrain should have more effect and that CRT's should be dependent on the terrain. It is a minor grognard issue, because the game is great fun. Actually it is kind of addicting

Hi Haudrauf 1962,

I remember the earlier question you had on this last year. Hopefully this information may still be of help:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080289

The CRT is very subtle; combat shifts are cumulative, accrue quickly, and even a +1 DRM can have a significant impact on results.

SSG has done an excellent job with this iteration of their system. The CRT in Kharkov requires careful study, but rewards appropriate use of terrain & shock modifiers. These effects are not always apparent at first glance; this is definitely an in-depth, thinking-man's game, fully the equal of any one of Gary Grigsby's designs.