Can the Soviets win in Kursk?

[Krak]

The ideal of a balanced game is simple. Its simply that if two players of equal skill were to play each other they would both have an equal chance of winning. That is the base case. Then apart from luck or 'cheating' the player who performs markedly better will acheive victory. That does not mean he has necessarily won the battle. But that under the circumstances of the scenario he has bettered his opponent.

Balance does not mean that every game should result in a draw.

The point I am trying to make is that some guys with the very best of intentions spend hour after hour trying to make perfect OB's and ratings but neglect play balance. I would have at a guess that for a great number of players that playing a one sided scenario is not much fun, no matter how great an OB is.....unless I am reading some of the posts on this board wrong :conf:

[Turner]

Hmm, I believe the difference between historical outcome and in the campaigns here is because the game does not simulate the conditions of this battle very well, or at all. Like how the russians dug in all their tanks in the north sector to form a static AT defense, after a disastrous mobile counterattack. Historically I believe Ponyri was as far as the germans came in the northern sector. Also a not so insignificant number of artillery pieces were knocked out on the morning before the offensive began as the soviets had mapped out the locations of german arty batteries. Another factor not simulated in the game is that soviet troops dug holes and tunnels underground (they are still to be found in the countryside to this day) to emerge once the front line units had passed through, this way they attacked rear units and many times spearhead units had to be recalled to fend off or neutralize soviet troops that appeared out of nowhere.

These are just a few examples, there were a lot of factors that stacked up against the Germans as the battle went on.

[Volcano Man]

Granted no game can be perfectly balanced. But balance should at least be a factor in any revamped design. I place much more weight on balance than a perfect OB. Just my opinion. And what OB is perfect anyhow? These are games after all, are they not? A game should be a fair contest. I guess others would probably differ on that. You need to decide whether you want to play a reasonably balanced game or.....something else :chin:

Well, "balance", particularly PBEM balance, *is* the sole purpose of the _Alt project. I am not sure what else to say. Is the _Alt campaign perfectly balanced? No, but nothing is as far as I am concerned. All you can do is try to get the thing as balanced as possible to allow a win for both sides for the majority of the results, other than that, it is 50% scenario "balance" and 50% player ability.

Actually there is something in the works to better balance the campaign, think more historical weather conditions. The Kursk '43 campaign was certainly not a dry, fair weather / sunny battle as it currently is made out to be -- the Germans were extremely slowed on many days by rain, bad visibility, and deteriorating ground conditions (particularly on July 5th, and from the 10th through the 13th (save the 12th for the most part)). This alone was probably the single most important factor in slowing the German advance.

(note: do NOT read too much into what I just said. Just know that the weather situation is being reevaluated. And I could be referring to visibility and ground condition settings in _Alt scenarios only, you just do not know.)

[Krak]

Agreed Ed. Thats a good philosophy to have.

[dto]

The Alt campaign is not balanced for PBEM, Volcano Man. A good test for balance is whether you can look at a game you lost and say, "If I had done this instead of that, I would have won."

In the regular campaign, the Germans can penetrate all the fortified lines on the first day. In the Alt campaign, they penetrate the lines and then either storm the gaps in the anti-tank ditches (easy to disrupt and assault the Morale D Soviet defenders), or they use their plentiful engineers to breach the ditches. Either way, I don't see what the Soviets can do. If they don't retreat from their trenches, they did. If they fight in the open, they die.

If you know someone who thinks they can win as the Soviets, let me know. I'm happy to play them in a PBEM and see if I'm wrong.

[Volcano Man]

The Alt campaign is not balanced for PBEM, Volcano Man. A good test for balance is whether you can look at a game you lost and say, "If I had done this instead of that, I would have won."

In the regular campaign, the Germans can penetrate all the fortified lines on the first day. In the Alt campaign, they penetrate the lines and then either storm the gaps in the anti-tank ditches (easy to disrupt and assault the Morale D Soviet defenders), or they use their plentiful engineers to breach the ditches. Either way, I don't see what the Soviets can do. If they don't retreat from their trenches, they did. If they fight in the open, they die.

Well thanks for the definitive condemnation towards PBEM play balance.

If you know someone who thinks they can win as the Soviets, let me know. I'm happy to play them in a PBEM and see if I'm wrong.

Yes, sure, you can play me. But it has to be a team game because I don't have the time to play the whole thing by myself at the moment.

The question is, when did you *start* the campaign? It has been changed many times over. You could have started and played a year ago, but it must have definitely been at least a month ago unless you are in the habit of playing full campaigns in a matter of weeks.

As an example, you could have played the campaign before changes to all AT gun unit defense, which particularly help the Russians, or you could have played it before the terrain protection levels and movement levels were altered. You could have also played it before the recovery rates were adjusted or the most recent change where ALL German Panzer Divisions (except for 11th) and PzG Divisions (except for GD) were lowered in quality from A to B. As a matter of fact, unless you started the campaign a couple of weeks ago then you most likely did play it before these changes.

The point is, it is a work in progress (it is on its 18th version to be exact) and because of this, it is constantly changing so one observation as to play balance is not necessarily completely valid as an end all, definitive verdict.

That said, yes, I can probably gather up a team of willing Russian players to go against you in the latest version and see what happens. You could of course get a team for the Germans as well if you like. Just let me know. It certainly would not have a stellar turn rate though...

[dto]

Sorry, Volcano Man. I didn't realize there were continual updates. The version I was using is a few months old (the panzer divisions were Morale A).

[Volcano Man]

No problem, I was only saying that because incremental changes are made for balance with each version so as not to "go too far". Most recently the evaluations have been with weather and the state of the front line defensive positions in the areas in which the German's main axis of advance passed through. In other words, there has a been a recent strengthening of soviet defenses in these areas to better match the other areas in the bulge (some BUNKERS on the front line, basically, to match everywhere else sine the Germans obviously do not need a "helping hand" to get through these positions, which is what the lack of bunkers was representing). If you would like to give it a play then let me know.

[Krak]

The K43 stock weather dat file is a good representation of the weather I think. With a good variation in visibility and ground conditions. Ed I think your weather is way to clear. Unless it has changed recently. I have been an unintentional victim of it once before. Too much 5 hex visibility makes it too hard for the Russians to deploy their short range mortars and rockets, and conduct a fighting retreat. With constant 4 or 5 hex visibilty the Germans get to see too far into the Russian defences and are able pry it apart with ease. Also the occasional day or two of soft conditions curtails the German tactic of assaulting thru multiple defence lines and isolating many Russian units. So weather that is a little worse than clear and some Germans reduced from A quality to B quality would probably make it a much more difficult scenario for the Germans.

[Volcano Man]

Well no, the current weather (ground conditions) is certainly not a good representation of the historical weather on the days I mentioned. To determine that, one only has to look at the war diaries of the various German Panzer Corps. The idea is that, on the days in which were historically bad weather then the probability of such should at least be > 50% chance of occuring, not 30% or 40% -- otherwise, even the weather itself is pro German. The idea is that a ground condition which was not historical should be < 50% probability so that "luck" would have to play a factor in order for the weather to be different than was historically the case.

Anyway, the point is, the ground conditions (not just visibility) was more of a factor than it currently seems. But I am in no way talking about high probability Mud Conditions no, that is fine as it is, just on the days in which the ground conditions were historically poor (on both north and south of the salient) then there is simply a higher probability of Soft Conditions. So there isn't a big change there, just less "pro German" chance involved with the weather. It is simply one aspect that is overlooked, and is probably the single most important "balancing" aspect to a campaign.