From: "C. HENDRIX" Subject: KURSK on Consim WARNING! LONG POST! FURTHER WARNING! CONTAINS ACTUAL CONSIM CONTENT! Friends- As promised, my next game project, THE UPPER HAND, will be openly discussed right here out in the open in front of God and everybody. My Kursk game will be loosely based on the STORM OVER ARNHEM system with some fun changes, including command and control. I have just sent out the second update to the playtesters and decided it was time to start sharing with you folks. The design is not yet set in stone (for reasons you will read below), and the playtesters do not yet have their kits. My financial situation continues to be iffy (I am *REALLY* getting tired of this!), and is directly affecting my ability to get the show on the road. But such as there is I promised to share and donıt want to keep everybody behind the 8 Ball, so I am offering up the first two updates now. Enjoy. ******** This is your UPPER HAND update- where does the design stand right now? I have to do a little cleanup on the map after all, and my machine just doesn't want to let me work on the Freehand program it was done in. I have discovered a cool place on campus that has machines that fly through this program (for a mere $10/hour) so that is my next project. Once I get that done, they can then actually PRINT the maps in color full size! Cool, but the first one costs $35- extras drop to about $3-$4 so it will run me about $75 to produce all the maps for everybody. After I package and mail all the other stuff, I expect to spend about $120 getting this stuff out to you all. When you're broke that's a serious chunk of change, so bear with me. Right now Iım looking at February (AAAAAARGH!!). I've also got to give my researcher some extra time to go through my proto OOB/OOA (he is using the Naszfinger (?) collection and is doing incredible work- he has already had to contact the publisher with three inconsistencies already!) so a little patience there also. He has been experiencing personal problems himself, but promises to back on track soon. (no hurry, dude) Received the following from Tom Jones earlier this week, he raises some excellent points that will allow me to define better for all of you where TUH is heading. >>Hi Chester, I'm just checking in to see if you have a new estimate for when your Kursk impulse game will be shipping to playtesters? I thought it was the end of Oct or around there, and I've been anxiously awaiting its appearance in my mailbox.<< >>If the game is not developed yet, I understand. In fact, this would almost be better because I have some strong opinions on what I like and don't like about the 'AH impulse system'. I've played Storm Over Arnhem, Turning Point: Stalingrad, and Breakout: Normandy. (If you name your game, The Last Straw: Kursk, or something, we can call this the "colon system!"<< **haha!** >>There are many advances to the system going from SOA --> TP:S --> B:N, almost all for the better. Here are the two most critical:<< >>1) Number of impulses per turn are limited.<< >>The real strong point of the last two games in the series. It differentiates game play from nearly all wargames ever made, and creates a tension that is probably closer to reality than is found in most games. You just never have the time and resources to do everything you want. This strikes me as a vital element to convey in a wargame. You _must_ prioritize.<< This aspect has not escaped me. TUH will show this prioritization by allowing each player to ACTIVATE an HQ unit during his impulse. He will then have to move/fire all units belonging to that HQ. Some HQs have lots of units under them, some only a few. You may still pass, but if your opponent does the same, you could be in deep doo-doo real quick! There will be some higher HQs with capabilities of activating units down the chain of command that didn't move/fire when their direct HQ was activated- sort of a reserve function (can you say- surprise?!). Since the Soviets have about twice as many HQs as the Germans, this will move the game along in a nice historical flow- forcing the German players to act and allowing the Red Army to react. >>2) Fresh and Spent units are treated as one 'group'.<< >>Changed in Breakout:Normandy. Until this game, I was tremendously bothered by the fact that spent and fresh units were treated as seperate groups. It makes no sense, and leads to goofy and gamey actions and decisions. If I weren't such a lurker on the virtual wargamers site (and consim-L for 5 years before that) I'd write a little essay on Don Greenwood's rationalization for the original rule -- found in the General issue focussing on TP:S. In short, he says separating fresh and spent units into two groups reprents seperate _locations_ within the rather large areas. Without presenting my argument, I'll just say that he's looney. The only case you can make is that the two groups represent _temporal_ differences. If you like, I can expand upon my reasoning.<< >>Having said that, I think you could create a very interesting mechanic where there were seperate locations within some areas. At first, you'd say, why not just subdivide the area? I think that you can have an additional variable describing a particular area. In SOA, all areas were totally equal. By B:N, you have really three variables: defensive strength, bocage status, and the presense of rivers/canals around the perimeter. Bocage of course is a special case.<< >>My idea is that besides the defensive value given by the terrain in an area, you state the number of groups that can defend the area. For example, a very open area may only allow one group to defend, thus it would be difficult to make an extended stand there. A forested or rough area may allow two groups, similar to the old fresh/spent dichotomy. This allows even two units, in separate groups, to possibly hold off the enemy for two impulses (barring overruns I suppose). I can see some weak points in this idea, in regards to who chooses what group is defending. If the defender chooses, then it's like the teleporting mobile defense. If the attacker chooses, it's identical to the old system. In reality, the attacker has more of an ability to choose the specific point in a line that he wants to hit, presumably the weak point. However, it still has a little gamey flavor to it. Finally, one could argue that you might as well divide an area in two if you're going to allow two groups to defend. It would create a difference in MP expenditures, but it's something to think about.<< >>The original idea that I had, was to allow strongpoints within areas. You can create a different feel for the defensive utility of things like towns, nice hills, and the like by making them a holding box within an area. This allows you to give some 'depth' to an area -- two groups to remove vs. just one. The area would be centered around the strongpoint. Thus, attackers would fight the non-strongpoint defenders first. These defenders could retreat into the strongpoint or not. This would be a design decision based on the nature of the strongpoint. Defenders within the strongpoint could not prevent attackers who otherwise own the rest of the area from moving out. However, for all other purposes, the defenders in the stronpoint still give control of the area to the defender. Thus, the attack could bypass the strongpoint, but he couldn't trace a supply line through it. Reinforcements moving through the area would have to pay to the MP cost for an enemy held area, even if they didn't have to attack.<< >>Actually, I think you could craft a really neat and fairly elegant system for recreating German hedgehog tactics on the east front with a modification of this idea. Germans could voluntairily form hedgehogs within an area that would have effects simliar to what I've described for strongpoints. I don't know enough about the history and the details of warfare, so I don't know if hedgehogs required days or weeks or simply hours to prepare. It would also add another excruciating decision to the German player. Units placed in hedgehog may never become mobile again, but they could sure be a thorn in the Soviet's side. (hedgehogs would get some defensive boost of course).>> My plan was to go one further on the issue of spent/unspent groups within an area. I plan to treat all units within an area as a single group whether they are spent or not. This might seem simplistic, but I tend to think of it as an elegant solution. I want to streamline play to keep the pace up (and the pressure on). In light of all the defensive lines both sides created prior to the battle, I think this is an optimal solution. One area of design I have not put into concrete yet (it's making me crazy) is whether to give all combat units an attack strength. I am vasillating between the standard Attack Strength, giving each unit an Attack Strength that will be represented by the number and/or type of dice it will attack with, or both. Right now I am leaning toward both. For example, I'm thinking of giving soviet rifle divisions a generic Attack Strength of '1' and letting them roll a D4. Panzer divisions would have an Attack Strength of '6' and would roll 2D6, and so on. I could just eliminate the written Attack Strength on the counter and replace it with die symbols, but I feel the need to give each unit a 'base' Attack Strength at least. What do you fellows think?] KURSK update #2 I just finished my last final yesterday and received some wonderful news. It appears that financial aid canıt let me have the rest of my student loan until I am signed up for classes next semester. Since I wonıt know until the 20th of January what classes I can take (the Teacher credentialling program), Iım in financial limbo for another month. Frustration does not begin to describe my mental state. AARRRGGGHH! But, enough personal- Tom Jones wrote back to clarify his comments on including anti-tank factors and he raises some good points which I respond to in brackets [ ]. Eric Pass has also weighed in with some comments of his own that I will also reply to. To start with, Tom quotes me (>me) and then elucidates. >From Tom Jones- Chester said: > But in regards to your suggestion on adding in > armor/anti'tank factors and interaction- no thanks. I despise those sorts > of mechanics. I don't need that level of complexity. For those who do- more > power to them. But I want my games to FLOW! The less there is to inhibit > flow of the game, the better. The mechanic I mentioned is incredibly simple. That is what I like about it. It differentiates tank vs. tank combat from all other types. It does this in a wonderfully elegant fashion. I'm somewhat surprised by your strong language. Let me summarize it as I'm not sure my description was very good: - all tanks have an additional anti-tank (AT) value (between 0-5, for example). - before regular combat, all tanks square off. - each tank rolls one d6. If it rolls <= it's number, it inflicts a hit. - resolve these casualties in (whatever fashion you seem best) - resolve normal combat. Tell me that rolling a d6 vs. each tank's number is more complex than adding up your regimental integrity, counting additional units, adding bonuses for airpower/night, subtracting for different parent organizations, rolling 2d6 for each side, and doing the addition and subtraction to obtain the final casualty number. Granted, I have a hard time making the AH-impulse combat system sound complex. But I think a d6 vs. AT rating is as simple as it gets (which comes from MiH's Ring of Fire, if I forgot to mention). With this very _simple_ mechanic, what do you get? 1) tank battles feel different [ adds interest ] 2) tank battles marked by attrition on both sides, unlike the TP:S/B:N system where only one side suffers any casualty points [ adds realism ] 3) the attacker cannot precisely predict his combat value of his main assault, if the enemy has tanks. Recall how much tension rubble created in Turning Point: Stalingrad when you had to attack with several mechanized units, especially if your big lead unit was mechanized. [ adds tension ] 4) allows further differentiation in the 'feel' of different armor units. Recall those strangely powerful armored car units in TP:S and SOA? These ratings may have reflected armored car battalions vs Pz IV companies, I'm not sure. With the AT system, you can have: -Armored Car Bttn (attack = 7, AT = 1) -Pz IV Company (attack = 4, AT = 4) This presents the attacker with the AC Bttn with an interesting dilemma, if he faces the Pz IV Coy on defense. [ for me, this adds another layer of interesting choices and tradeoffs, with little added mechanical complexity. ] In my book, this is great stuff. I don't mean to sound smug or self-righteous, although it may read that way. I just think it's a cool and simple idea and am a little surprised that you thought it sounded too complex and thus unwanted. I guess I feel compelled to finish with my thoughts on the age old "playability vs realism" debate. Briefly, I think that high/low playability vs high/low realism are really separate issues, or not strongly linked in any case. My Holy Grail of wargaming is something that has high playability, high realism, and is fun. In this light, I really like complexity of _decision making_, rather than _complexity of mechanics_. I have been playing a lot of very good multi-player games in the last 3 years -- most of them German/European. Many of these games pack very interesting play decisions into amazingly simple and elegant mechanisms. It has caused me to be much more aware and critical of mechanics in a lot of the wargames that I play (as well as the inferior social games, US or European). I see that many game designs have clunky, tortuous, or just complex mechanics while the payoff is quite low. By payoff, I mean -- does this add an interesting decision, a difficult tradeoff? For a wargame or any historical game, does the mechanic add enough historical color/realism to offset the weight of this mechanic? This is what I think is so potentially interesting in the AT mechanic I've described above. It may not be appropriate for your Kursk game, however. -Tom Jones [As you have presented it, I would not be too bothered by such a game mechanic utilizing the SOA game system. Mild shock on my part I assure you! However, such a game mechanic just doesnıt FEEL right at the scale of my Kursk game. Maybe if it was at a battalion level (or lower) Iıd go for it, but Iım going to be using divisions and brigades for the Soviets and either divisions (almost certainly) or regiments (bare possibility) for the Germans. At that scale I donıt think this type of mechanic would work very well.] >>From Eric Pass- Tom's made some good points, glad he's aboard, I have PBEMed with him in the past and he's a good fellow. Content-wise, I wanted to comment on the point you made of giving different attack strengths different dice to roll. Your example was a Soviet rifle unit having an AS of 1 and rolling a d4 whereas a Panzer unit might have a AS of 4 and use 2d6. One thing to keep in mind that you'll probably have to provide all the dice types you use in the game. I would suggest that if you want to go this way, you only use a d6 and 2d6 and dispense with the other die types. [Since I havenıt decided whether or not to go this way, Eric raises a good point; do all of you fellows have percentile dice? D4,6,8,10,12,20? Let me know, and let me know what you think of the idea of using different dice for different units.] On the fresh/spent unit thing, the way Courtney Allen described it in the SoA Designer's Notes was that fresh/uncommitted units have higher defense strengths because you don't know exactly where in the area the units are located. Spent/committed units have moved or fired and their location is better known. i.e. this sort of represents spotting the enemy in an elegant manner. Knowing this, you can determine if combining them into a single group is suitable. As a suggestion perhaps if you do this then unspent units take double CP or alternatively halve the CP for unspent units (minimum 1).. [Having unspent units take double CP was how I planned to do it. But with my system utilizing Command and Control from HQ units, I HAVENıT decided exactly how I will handle reserves. Iım toying with the idea of allowing unspent HQs to send in extra unspent units to soak up CP. Comments?] An example perhaps. There are two Soviet spent units and two unspent units in an area. Presumably the spent units have a lower DV. Let's say 4CP are taken. The defender could allocate 2CP to retreat a unspent unit or an unspent unit could absorb 6CP before being eliminated. Spent units would take the usual 1CP to retreat and 3Cp to eliminate. [Not sure I understand the math here, but I get the idea, and this is the plan at the moment] Best regards, Eric Hope you are all enjoying the back and forth, and if any of you feel like jumping in with opinions of your own, feel free! As always, please send me an acknowledging e-mail so I know Iım still getting out to you. Your Buddy, Chester