Can the Soviets win in Kursk?

[dto]

The campaign game seems unbalanced against the Soviets. The Germans just breathe on the Soviets and they disrupt. I was interested in a PBEM, but it seems like a long game for the Soviets to get beat up.

[Krak]

Whatever you do don't play any of the 'Welcome to the Facists' games. They are very biased to the Germans. I have made a modified version that is way more even called 'Army Group South'. Have a look at it.

I can't speak for the whole campaign as I haven't played it, but on the face of it it seems fairly pro German.

Many of the moded games focus on more accurate OB's and unit ratings etc, not necessarily play balance, some even make the balance worse. So be wary of some of the mods. In anything I do my focus is always to try and get the balance right. Nothing is more frustrating than getting stuck in a long unbalanced game, unless ofcourse your on the winning side

[Volcano Man]

Try K43_Alt. It may not be perfectly balanced but what is? It is a never ending work in progress though.

[Mr Grumpy]

Try K43_Alt. It may not be perfectly balanced but what is? It is a never ending work in progress though.

Indeed, i know from our time working at the H2H area that even if you do achieve the Holy Grail of a perfectly balanced scenario the result can still be skewed by a unbalance in players playing abilities!

[von Nev]

My opinion here, but the stock campaign is unbalanced and the German player if they want to can take advantage of the known Russian fixed positions.

My recommendation would be to play Michael Smith's revised K43 campaign that is found on Glenn's website.

http://members.shaw.ca/gcsaunders/downloads3.html

Scroll down about 1/2 way down the page. It is under the Kursk scenarios.

Marty

[Krak]

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:

[Marquo]

1. The only perfectly balanced game would be for the 2 sides to have parity in terms of a mathematical computation which weighs every factor (moral, relative number of men, vehicles, etc.).
2. Then weather, terrain, etc has to be factored in.
3. The the VPs have to be set up to equal the situation with each side having an equal chance of attaining each level of victory.
4.Then the 2 players have to be handicapped appropriately relative to their individual abilities.
5. Then, the only thing that would be a true variable is the roll of the dice - and how boring would that be.

As I have said before, history is replete with stupid campaigns which make great games.

Marquo :)

[James Ward]

I've only play it solitaire but it does seem that the Germans have a big advantage in the CG. I'm not sure how it can be balanced. Maybe removing or moving some of the VP hexes farther back would help. In the North sector the German doesn't have to advance far to get every VP hex so the Russian can't give ground. The rear defense belts are more of a movement hinderance to the Russian than the German!

[dto]

I've played the alternate Kursk scenario as the German and Soviets in PBEM. In both cases, the Germans were able to crunch almost all of the Soviet fortified lines - north and south - on the first day.

I don't think player skill was the issue, because there wasn't much opportunity for the Soviet player to use his skills. The majority of German units north and south are Morale A; the majority of the Soviets are Morale D. If the Germans so much as breathe on a Soviet unit, it disrupts. A disrupted Morale D unit can barely fight or move, so it sits there and dies. Those long summer days give the Germans plenty of time to gobble up disrupted Soviets and slice through the salient. If the Red Army can't even delay the Wehrmacht with a triple minefield/ditch/bunker/trench line, they're not going to stop them in the open field once the Germans break through.

This is a German fantasy scenario. It feels more like Barbarossa 1941 than Kursk 1943. Some historians say that Germany lost Kursk because Hitler lost his nerve. But the improved performance of the Red Army and Air Force also something to with it. Maybe more of the Soviet infantry should be Morale C, at least while they're in their fortifications?

Perfect play balance isn't possible, but this feels like an exercise in masochism for the Soviets.

[Elxaime]

Of all the PzC HPS games I have played, the Kursk 43 stock campaign is the poorest in terms of a simulation of historical factors. I would not recommend it to anyone. You are better off trying one of the mods.