From: "C. HENDRIX" Subject: Kursk #3 **WARNING! LONG POST! ACTUAL CONSIM CONTENT!** ** YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!! ** KURSK UPDATE #3 As promised, I will be designing my next title- THE UPPER HAND - right here on CONSIM in front of the whole world. The time has come for the next update (Iım sure the playtesters are all anxious for the latest!). The playtest map has finally been finished. I had to get some extra memory for my Mac before I could effectively use the program it was created on. In between my Teaching Credential Internship (which leaves very little spare time) and dealing with four teenagers in the home at the same time, it has been extremely slow going. I must take the heat for that and ask the faithful to hang in there with me. I was not able to afford putting the maps on nice full sized papers like I wanted to, but I did figure out how to print the puppies out on my little printer- they just come out sort of like a jigsaw puzzle thingie. But they are done! 2/3rds of the OOB OOA work is done, and the counter work will be the next big project. I had planned to do them in color, but itıs looking like that may not work out. The following is some comments I received from Consimmers since the last update, and I will use those quotes in three arrow format >>> comment <<< followed by my comments. As always, feel free to toss in comments of your own. LIMITED TIME AND RESOURCES >>>Number of impulses per turn are limited. ... 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. Let me amplify on this point. IMHO, the other important point was that the impulses are not only limited but unpredictable. Thus, you could gamble somewhat with an escalating chance of turn end. The other thing was that not only time but resources are limited. Units were not automatically restored next turn to Fresh status. In TPS, you are careful to have sufficient advantage (and must therefore husband forces carefully) in attacks because you could be out of action for more than one turn (being exhausted). In BKN, the supply system forces you to choose who to refit.<<< Chester replies: I have no intention of using the TP:S systetm for exhausted troops. Not because I donıt think think itıs a valid design mechanic, but because I think it slows the game down. As far as the other points go, I plan to add a new wrinkle to the IMPULSE turn systtem. In TUH there will be an initiative marker. This marker gives the phasing player a +1 on all attacks as long as he has it. This should prove a great incentive NOT to pass, but to actualy DO something every turn. Not only that, but passing will now cost you a victory point. There will come a point where you will HAVE to do something or lose the game. HEADQUARTERS AND COMMAND TUH will show this prioritization by allowing each player to ACTIVATE an HQ unit during his impulse. >>>This will be quite different from the traditional (at least for this series) activation by area. I guess this means you will be allowing multiple groups of forces under the same HQ to activate. (This allows what would be a "double" impulse in BKN.) If you go this way, let me encourage you to add in the unpredictable turn end and some sort of refit system. My own thought here would be to have an unpredictable turn end (like the sunset dieroll) and give HQs a command/supply rating. The rating would be used for both activating units in areas under their command and for refitting (some number of units per command point). Why refit it in a separate phase? Thus, forces heavily mauled would spend most of their command rating to refit rather than continue offensive operations. HQs themselves would get a new allotment of command points back each turn.<<< Chester replies: TUH will be complex enough with each player controlling Soviet and German forces alternatively, without attempting to decide which units are fresh, spent and/or being reactivated. Iıll skip this one. As far as unpredictable turn ends, I think my idea for making a Œpassı cost you victory points will add plenty of heads-up anxiety in play without it. More specifically, the rule will be- Activate an HQ and that will be your only chance to move/fire the combat units beneath it. This should result in a little more careful planning regarding the committment of forces. RESERVES With my system utilizing Command and Control from HQ units, I HAVEN'T decided exactly how I will handle reserves. I'm toying with the idea of allowing unspent HQs to send in extra unspent units to soak up CP. >>>An additional twist would have HQs not necessarily using all their command at once. (You will need to put little number/colored counters on them to record how much is left.) Remaining command could be used if the HQ is activated again (but remember the uncertain turn end) or perhaps for reaction (simulating reserves). If an HQ is in or adjacent to an attacked area with units it commands, it could before the combat dice are rolled move 1 unit per command point expended into or out of the area being attacked. Since reaction moves units rather than whole groups, you will only do this with high value guys.<<< Chester replies: No. I want TUH to flow, not get caught up in any more bookeeping activities than necessary (there will be plenty of that in keeping track of Victory Points.). HIGHER HQs >>>Higher level HQs could be used to activate/refit troops, but also to move an HQ without activating it. But once you move or activate an HQ it's spent and thus frozen in position until next turn.<<< Chester replies: Activate yes. Refit no. Although the idea of using Higher HQs for RESERVE units is something I have been considering. CASUALTY POINTS >>>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.Yes, I agree because it leads to anomalies, such adding manpower often reduces defense strength (despite the rationalizations given in the Design Notes). Having said that, I think you could create a very interesting mechanic where there were seperate locations within some areas. I would be inclined to stay simple here and just go with BKN's innovation here. The defender can choose the unit to use for the defense strength calculation. (Instead of the mandating weakest or strongest unit.) That way you can defend with your strongest first or throw the hordes out in front to soak up casualties.<<< Chester replies: I still havenıt decided which way to go on the casualties debate, but I am definitely leaning towards allowing the defender to choose which units defend, allowing the attacker only to attack an area rather than individual units. ARTILLERY >>>Also, Chester I hope you will be using a bombardment system like BKN. I think it's treatment of artillery is much better than earlier games. Here, I guess we are talking hordes of Katyushas.<<< Chester replies: I plan to integrate artillery and air units into a linked subsystem that is dependent on HQ status. Sty tuned for details.. OVERRUNS >>>By B:N, you have really three variables: defensive strength, bocage status, and the presense of rivers/canals around the perimeter. I think the bocage/rubble type rules (i.e. no overruns) would be a good way to represent the effect of mines/trenches/other-barriers in slowing things down. I think the river/canal thing has more to do with terrain accessibility (and its channeling effect). Of course, somehow the defensibility has to come in here, probably as TEM.<<< Chester replies: I plan no overrun rules in TUH. There will be multiple terrain modifiers, including some areas where the attacker can be crossing a river into an area that has fortification lines, forest, city, and mountain terrain all inside the area. Thatıs enough without having to worry about overrun also- wouldnıt you agree? COMBAT MECHANICS AND DICE I have decided not to use a multiple dice combat system. Six siders will rule the steppes. TANK BATTLES >>>The [tank battle] mechanic I mentioned is incredibly simple. ... comes from MiH's Ring of Fire, if I forgot to mention). This I like! Call me a "tread-head", but I do think it does increase the "tank" feel and excitement. I mean isn't half the interest in Kursk derived from the vast armor battles it contains. Couple this with the reaction move mechanic and you can see how throwing in those "heavies" into a critical battle can tip the balance. Regardless of whether this chrome is adopted, I think the inhibiting effect of armor on movement (used in all the games in the series) should be preserved in some fashion. Recall those strangely powerful armored car units in TP:S and SOA? Just a technical point here. I think some of the big AC numbers come from the relatively good recon troops and (in SOA) the occasional AC with 75mm gun. I like the idea of an AT component to the unit info. However, I feel that you should then have an inherent armor defense number for a unit as well. Otherwsie, a t-34 vs an Elefant would generate some ahistorical results. unless the combat was at extreme close range where the T-34 could get around the side of the PzJg tiger! A PzIV is a good example of a unit with a decent AT kill number but only medium armor. The PzIIIN's which were prevelant on the battlefield would have rather weak AT capability with only a 75mm short gun, but would fare terribly against the excellent armor of a T-34. Since all we're looking at is some basic addition and subtraction, why not make the formula as such: Attackers AT factor plus a dr subtract defenders Armor factor. Simple and allows all elements of a tankto be factored in...weapon system, armor and speed. If you want to get fancy, there can even be some sort of modifiers for ranged combat (i.e adjacent area vs area fire) or same area combat, which would be more favorable to the faster units and less favorable to assault guns and slow units. This could represent the swirling tank melees that occured at Kursk.<<< Chester replies: As you can see, the possibilities alone boggle the brain. As a result, my original position of avoiding special tank vs tank rules and/or modifiers is still the plan. Thatıs not to say this chapter is written in stone. I planned to have some sort of mechanic differentiating armor vs infantry vs antitank vs entrenched vs other armor vs....you see how fast this becomes complicated? This will NOT become anything so elaborate, I assure you! Stay tuned to this channel for upcoming reports aboout the soon to be Worldıs Finest Kursk Game- THE UPPER HAND! Your Buddy, Chester