PB Kursk '43 South impressions/discussion - Printable Version

PB Kursk '43 South impressions/discussion - Printable Version

+- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards)
+-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Panzer Battles (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=280)
+--- Thread: PB Kursk '43 South impressions/discussion (/showthread.php?tid=65906)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

RE: PB Kursk '43 South impressions/discussion - Strela - 03-12-2014

(03-12-2014, 01:41 AM)Outlaw Josey Wales Wrote: There were times when HQs didn't retreat. How many times have we read where they put clerks, cooks etc in the line? It has happened and not all were just clerks and cooks. Some turned out pretty good.

That's one of the reasons why they were given the low defence value. It didn't make sense that they would be auto overran. Players though should not have them in the line. With a value of one they have little If any staying power.

David

RE: PB Kursk '43 South impressions/discussion - ComradeP - 03-12-2014

Quote:There were times when HQs didn't retreat. How many times have we read where they put clerks, cooks etc in the line? It has happened and not all were just clerks and cooks. Some turned out pretty good.

Yes, but in game terms they can be almost a company in a single unit or at the least a couple platoons worth of units in a scenario, and there is no penalty to losing them late in the game, so the defender is indirectly encouraged to use them to hold vital objectives as it's the most efficient way to use them.

The attacker needs to disrupt (and assault afterwards) or kill every unit before he can occupy the objective after all.

Some scenarios have a very tight point balance, some have a point balance heavily favouring the Soviets because the on-map points are not even enough for a victory.

-

Either my version of Teterevino North is corrupted or there's something wrong with the objectives, as they're given to the wrong side.

[Image: z6kMATC.jpg]

RE: PB Kursk '43 South impressions/discussion - Strela - 03-12-2014

(03-12-2014, 04:41 AM)ComradeP Wrote:
Quote:There were times when HQs didn't retreat. How many times have we read where they put clerks, cooks etc in the line? It has happened and not all were just clerks and cooks. Some turned out pretty good.

Yes, but in game terms they can be almost a company in a single unit or at the least a couple platoons worth of units in a scenario, and there is no penalty to losing them late in the game, so the defender is indirectly encouraged to use them to hold vital objectives as it's the most efficient way to use them.

The attacker needs to disrupt (and assault afterwards) or kill every unit before he can occupy the objective after all.

Some scenarios have a very tight point balance, some have a point balance heavily favouring the Soviets because the on-map points are not even enough for a victory.

-

Either my version of Teterevino North is corrupted or there's something wrong with the objectives, as they're given to the wrong side.

Those point balances are correct.

David

RE: PB Kursk '43 South impressions/discussion - ComradeP - 03-12-2014

But if the Soviets just hit end turn, they win a major victory? They're supposed to be attacking.

RE: PB Kursk '43 South impressions/discussion - Outlaw Josey Wales - 03-13-2014

One thing about HQs, in order to slow down the use of them, like in some games, it seems you almost can't kill them, is make them more valuable in points than your fighting men to try and discourage that kind of use. Just like the difference between cavalry and infantry in the ACW games.

RE: PB Kursk '43 South impressions/discussion - Strela - 03-13-2014