Hi,
I am seriously considering buying Korsun Pocket. I am a big fan of serious wargames. Played Combat Mission, Close Combat , TacOps (liked them) and now I am looking for a game of a scale in which I can apply Lynd's theorys about maneuver warfare.
Before I buy I would like to know the answer to these 2 questions:
1) How battles are resolved? Is it true that dice are thrown to solve the battles?
2) Is there a fog of war?
Thank you in advance guys, your help is apreciated.
Two basic questions from prospective buyer
-
Real and Simulated Wars
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 9:11 pm
- Contact:
I don't have the game but can answer your first question based on one of the screenshots here:
http://www.korsunpocket.com/screenshots.asp
Yes, dice are used along with what looks like a combat results table.
http://www.korsunpocket.com/screenshots.asp
Yes, dice are used along with what looks like a combat results table.
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw
WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
-
Wilhammer
- Posts: 401
- Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
- Contact:
Classic wargaming CRT with 6 sided dice.
Usually, it is just one die, but if the defender has piles of units in a hex, the chance it will be a pair of dice rolled rises relative to unit density.
In that case, the result of each die role is applied to that combat.
The thing to realize is that this system is NOT cutting edge computer wargaming, but a super duper board gaming system applied to the PC.
Unit values are abstracted, not equipment detailed like TOAW.
Conceptually, this game is no more complex than say GDW's Operation Crusader or Suez '73, or SPI's Central Front games. But it does maximise the use of the PC for management.
What is really nice about the design is the battlefield management interface - instead of having to click on each stack, you can highlight problems using the interface.
The supply rules seem pretty good; I look forward to testing them.
Well. heading home soon, and going to start my first scenario tonight vs the AI.
Usually, it is just one die, but if the defender has piles of units in a hex, the chance it will be a pair of dice rolled rises relative to unit density.
In that case, the result of each die role is applied to that combat.
The thing to realize is that this system is NOT cutting edge computer wargaming, but a super duper board gaming system applied to the PC.
Unit values are abstracted, not equipment detailed like TOAW.
Conceptually, this game is no more complex than say GDW's Operation Crusader or Suez '73, or SPI's Central Front games. But it does maximise the use of the PC for management.
What is really nice about the design is the battlefield management interface - instead of having to click on each stack, you can highlight problems using the interface.
The supply rules seem pretty good; I look forward to testing them.
Well. heading home soon, and going to start my first scenario tonight vs the AI.
-
Adam Parker
- Posts: 1848
- Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2002 8:05 am
- Location: Melbourne Australia
"Dice" - whether D6 or D100 etc., in effect are used in every probabilities based resolution system. It's just that in this design the dice actually show on screen. Wouldn't it be funny to actually be able to roll some physical dice and input the results to the program!
Chelco you're likely actually after some more detailed info on combat resolution. From memory based on the Ardennes Offensive a series of factors go into setting the odds ratio for each side: Combat and defense strengths, divisional integrity, number of regiments per division brought to bear, terrain, artillery and command... I'm really dusting off the memeory cobwebs here.
I'd expect a lot of fine-tuning and addendum to this procss with the new game.
FOW definitely exists as it should, being LOS and visibility based. As with all operational wargames it's a fine thing to finally identify a unit's organization.
I'll be looking forward to getting this one and will need to reserve any specific thoughts til then.
As for a battle of "maneuver", if Korsun has an option to play historically, a German pocket must form per OKH orders. It's then a question of break-in and break-out for the Germans firefighting along numerous flanks leading to the pocket and of concentric offense both inwards and outwards on the part of the Russians. A very complex campaign indeed.
There are a couple of things that I'm very much looking forward to exploring: The roaming combat calculator, the supply and airdrop system, temporary strongpoints affecting enemy movement and the system of variable objective values.
I do hope people start posting some in-game observations soon too. Get to it guys!
Adam.
Chelco you're likely actually after some more detailed info on combat resolution. From memory based on the Ardennes Offensive a series of factors go into setting the odds ratio for each side: Combat and defense strengths, divisional integrity, number of regiments per division brought to bear, terrain, artillery and command... I'm really dusting off the memeory cobwebs here.
I'd expect a lot of fine-tuning and addendum to this procss with the new game.
FOW definitely exists as it should, being LOS and visibility based. As with all operational wargames it's a fine thing to finally identify a unit's organization.
I'll be looking forward to getting this one and will need to reserve any specific thoughts til then.
As for a battle of "maneuver", if Korsun has an option to play historically, a German pocket must form per OKH orders. It's then a question of break-in and break-out for the Germans firefighting along numerous flanks leading to the pocket and of concentric offense both inwards and outwards on the part of the Russians. A very complex campaign indeed.
There are a couple of things that I'm very much looking forward to exploring: The roaming combat calculator, the supply and airdrop system, temporary strongpoints affecting enemy movement and the system of variable objective values.
I do hope people start posting some in-game observations soon too. Get to it guys!
Adam.
-
e_barkmann
- Posts: 1292
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Adelaide, Australia
Apart from BrubakerII's fine recount above, Rob and I have been bashing each other in slow motion online for the last few months, in a couple of web based AAR's. Effectively we started these email games as "newbies" ourselves (although had played the older TAO a fair bit), so you may find comments useful.
Go to wacht am rhien and click on "Replays"
Cheers Chris
Go to wacht am rhien and click on "Replays"
Cheers Chris
-
sol_invictus
- Posts: 1959
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Kentucky
I have only played the Ardennes Offensive scenario as the allies so far and I am enjoying the game very much. I will agree; the system is very much like an old time board wargame brought to the computer. This is fine though because it is a very good effort. I can't really comment on the AI because I haven't played enough. I can say that while I handily won my first game against the AI; as I expected to do playing the Allies at the Bulge; I was pleasantly surprised to see the AI shift its effort if it is making no progress. I was expecting the AI to choose an avenue of advance and just try to bull it's way through, but on many occasions, it shifted it's focus and force allocation to try a new approach if it was making no progress or I made a new force allocation. It will certainly react and take advantage of any adjustment you make. I tried to pull a fast one on the AI a couple of times and it immediately shifted forces and attacked me at a point that I had weakened. I like what I have seen so far and am starting a game as the Germans in the Ardennes tonight. I am really looking forward to going East in a couple of days. I will say that the interface is pristine.
"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero
-
Gregor_SSG
- Posts: 681
- Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:22 am
- Contact:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer
[
The thing to realize is that this system is NOT cutting edge computer wargaming, but a super duper board gaming system applied to the PC.
]
I'm afraid that I have to disagree with comment about Korsun Pocket being a super duper board game system. I'm writing a design article at the moment that adresses this point, but in summary, here is a list of the Korsun Pocket game systems that would be impossible or impractical for combat in a board game:
Movement
Supply
Combat
We do use a six sided dice and a series of CRTs, because that's all you need for a game at this scale and because it makes matters so much easier for the human player.
Similarly, unit strengths are abstracted because this is right thing to do for a game on this scale. Unsurprisingly, boardgame designers generally came to the same conclusion.
Here at SSG, we believe that all the elements of a game need to work together in a harmonious fashion so that the gamer has all the info he needs to make consistent decisions and to see the effects of those decisions.
Adding superfluous and irrelevant information is the easiest way to destroy that harmony and introduce confusion and extra work for no reward.
Gregor
[
The thing to realize is that this system is NOT cutting edge computer wargaming, but a super duper board gaming system applied to the PC.
]
I'm afraid that I have to disagree with comment about Korsun Pocket being a super duper board game system. I'm writing a design article at the moment that adresses this point, but in summary, here is a list of the Korsun Pocket game systems that would be impossible or impractical for combat in a board game:
Movement
Supply
Combat
We do use a six sided dice and a series of CRTs, because that's all you need for a game at this scale and because it makes matters so much easier for the human player.
Similarly, unit strengths are abstracted because this is right thing to do for a game on this scale. Unsurprisingly, boardgame designers generally came to the same conclusion.
Here at SSG, we believe that all the elements of a game need to work together in a harmonious fashion so that the gamer has all the info he needs to make consistent decisions and to see the effects of those decisions.
Adding superfluous and irrelevant information is the easiest way to destroy that harmony and introduce confusion and extra work for no reward.
Gregor
Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
See http://www.ssg.com.au and http://www.ssg.com.au/forums/
for info and free scenarios.
See http://www.ssg.com.au and http://www.ssg.com.au/forums/
for info and free scenarios.
-
Belisarius
- Posts: 3099
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
-
e_barkmann
- Posts: 1292
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Adelaide, Australia
So the unit strenghts are abstractive, and the combat is decided by dice. Can anyone give a brief explanation how e.g. a combat turn of armor vs. infantry is resolved?
It's not brief, but it's thorough
Forming the attack by Rob Gjessing
Resolution is a combination of all the variables:
The attacking strength of the attacker
The defense strength of the defender
The terrain
The amount of artillery each side can bring to bear
How many hex sides is the attacker attacking out of? A minimum of 2 but the more the better
The quality of both units Elite, Average or Poor
Is the defender in supply?
Are the attacking units adjacent to other enemy units not involved in this action?
Shifts, on one side the other or both, for general ship, air support and barrage support.
Shifts to one side, the other or both, if all the units in the division are within 5 hexes of each other (divisional integrity)
Is the defender dug in?
There are probably others I have forgotten.
Like any good PC game you are not forced to memorise all this stuff. But it makes you a better player.
The attacking strength of the attacker
The defense strength of the defender
The terrain
The amount of artillery each side can bring to bear
How many hex sides is the attacker attacking out of? A minimum of 2 but the more the better
The quality of both units Elite, Average or Poor
Is the defender in supply?
Are the attacking units adjacent to other enemy units not involved in this action?
Shifts, on one side the other or both, for general ship, air support and barrage support.
Shifts to one side, the other or both, if all the units in the division are within 5 hexes of each other (divisional integrity)
Is the defender dug in?
There are probably others I have forgotten.
Like any good PC game you are not forced to memorise all this stuff. But it makes you a better player.
-
Rob Gjessing
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 5:09 am
- Location: Sydney Australia
- Contact:
Yep you forgot Shock and Anti Shock allowances - which is a new feature for KP.
I think this really comes into play with INF v ARM. (ie: ARM have a shock value - INF dont - and the shock values are taken into account when resolving combat).
Note that an Anti tank unit has anti shock, which balances out the ARMs shock values, etc.
Thats a summary. I think some other factors come into play also with shock and anti shock, like the type of terrain, the actual values (some units have a value of 1 whilst other have 2 etc).
There really are many things which go into resolving combat.. tactical shifts, depending upon which direction you are attacking from, the number of units attacking from each direction, if its across a river.. etc.
So whilst the combat is resolved via a 6 sided Die, and people are describing this game as a 'board' game.. I dont actually agree with that point of view. Its a whole lot more complex then people realise.. the beauty is that the grunt of the PC takes care of all of that stuff.. although the data is available for you to see, so that you can see exactly what is being considered and what is not, and how it has effected the results of combat.
I think this really comes into play with INF v ARM. (ie: ARM have a shock value - INF dont - and the shock values are taken into account when resolving combat).
Note that an Anti tank unit has anti shock, which balances out the ARMs shock values, etc.
Thats a summary. I think some other factors come into play also with shock and anti shock, like the type of terrain, the actual values (some units have a value of 1 whilst other have 2 etc).
There really are many things which go into resolving combat.. tactical shifts, depending upon which direction you are attacking from, the number of units attacking from each direction, if its across a river.. etc.
So whilst the combat is resolved via a 6 sided Die, and people are describing this game as a 'board' game.. I dont actually agree with that point of view. Its a whole lot more complex then people realise.. the beauty is that the grunt of the PC takes care of all of that stuff.. although the data is available for you to see, so that you can see exactly what is being considered and what is not, and how it has effected the results of combat.
Isn't that bizarre?
-
Belisarius
- Posts: 3099
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
Thanx!
Excellent guide, Rob!!
That answered most of my questions! I'm getting more and more interested in this game. Follow-up q: Is it possible to have incorrect intelligence on the enemy units (due to clever camouflage, diverting manouvers etc), and thus that the odds are not correct?
It would add to realism, IMO. How many times didn't companies/batallions go into action finding themselves against resistance complely different to the expected?
That answered most of my questions! I'm getting more and more interested in this game. Follow-up q: Is it possible to have incorrect intelligence on the enemy units (due to clever camouflage, diverting manouvers etc), and thus that the odds are not correct?
It would add to realism, IMO. How many times didn't companies/batallions go into action finding themselves against resistance complely different to the expected?
Got StuG?
-
Rob Gjessing
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 5:09 am
- Location: Sydney Australia
- Contact:
Well yes it is! Sort of!
Whilst the intelligence that you see isnt misleading or incorrect (although read below inrelation to hidden units and the fog of war),
The reason I say this is because, there is always a chance that your best attack will fail, or will not go as well as you had planned.
Whilst it is not stated as boldly as such - this sort of thing has has been taken into account in the fact that your best assault can always result in you 'rolling a 1' on the die (I hate referring to it like that.. ), which will not get you a good result.
If you have been following the AAR between Chris and myself on Wacht am Rhein, you may have noticed that when I write my turns up I tend to say that my assault failed (when I rolled a 1) due to poor intelligence on my troops or spotters part, or because of the heroic actions of the enemy.
Because that is probably what happened.
In the game, it wont come up and say your assault was not succesful because of this, but thats what you can put it down to.
There is always an element of chance - the fortunes of war - involved, and the die (and as stated earlier - every PC based war game uses the random factor - they just dont tell you about it) is used for this purpose.
I think its effective.
Just quickly - aware this is now turning into a long post - when you are playing with the hidden units setting, the first contact with enemy units - where you are not adjacent to them, will give you a silhouette of the units you have exposed, but the fog of war will not allow you to see what sort of unit it is.. is it strong ARM, INF, or an ENG unit. You can use this quite effectively to feint attacks..
[Whoosh!]
Whilst the intelligence that you see isnt misleading or incorrect (although read below inrelation to hidden units and the fog of war),
The reason I say this is because, there is always a chance that your best attack will fail, or will not go as well as you had planned.
Whilst it is not stated as boldly as such - this sort of thing has has been taken into account in the fact that your best assault can always result in you 'rolling a 1' on the die (I hate referring to it like that.. ), which will not get you a good result.
If you have been following the AAR between Chris and myself on Wacht am Rhein, you may have noticed that when I write my turns up I tend to say that my assault failed (when I rolled a 1) due to poor intelligence on my troops or spotters part, or because of the heroic actions of the enemy.
Because that is probably what happened.
In the game, it wont come up and say your assault was not succesful because of this, but thats what you can put it down to.
There is always an element of chance - the fortunes of war - involved, and the die (and as stated earlier - every PC based war game uses the random factor - they just dont tell you about it) is used for this purpose.
I think its effective.
Just quickly - aware this is now turning into a long post - when you are playing with the hidden units setting, the first contact with enemy units - where you are not adjacent to them, will give you a silhouette of the units you have exposed, but the fog of war will not allow you to see what sort of unit it is.. is it strong ARM, INF, or an ENG unit. You can use this quite effectively to feint attacks..
[Whoosh!]
Isn't that bizarre?
-
Belisarius
- Posts: 3099
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
-
Real and Simulated Wars
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 9:11 pm
- Contact: