#0202_08s_Kharkov '43 Grand Campaign_Variant_1 CLOSED

[burroughs]

Alright, my turn then:

I organized this particular scenario as a four-man team game back in mid 2013; there were two people per side since the very beginning until the demise of the game after three years; we had to replace one team member, he lost the will to carry on and for some time just tried to muddle through, doing a horrible job as his team mate stated afterwards. There was another team member on the opposite side who had dropped the game without a word at some point, was replaced then got back and asked to be accepted again, but the request was rejected. The operation reached some 100 odd turns and then was dissolved and reported as a draw at the request of two participants, unfortunately including me as I found myself unable to replace yet another German team member who wanted to step down - or I just jumped at the opportunity and didn't try too hard - and I don't think I am faint of heart when it comes to wargaming. I think people drop out more often than it was several years ago or I just started to make a poor opponent.

Anyway, the scenario is great, to me Kharkov '43 is the swan song of the PzC series what unfortunately cannot be said about Moscow '42, but that is my personal and humble opinion. Being the Soviet team leader as the only member active since the very beginning I decided at the onset of the game to go with the maximum effort for the Russians and we checked all of the strategic options - the first check of the three around already mentioned Feb 19th '43 revealed an utter soviet defeat at that stage with most of the objectives still out of the grasp, Voronezh Front muddling through Kharkov from NE and in a tedious process of bypassing and reducing Belgorod, South Western Front being mostly in the process of defeat in detail wit a German counter-offensive in the south NE of Slavyansk and Kramatorsk - I even took over in there for some time with a fellow commander unable to carry on for some time, but there was not much I could do - the inertia effect of all of the previous mistakes, blunders and historic circumstances. it was the longest team game that reached that far of its overall length for me and the second longest PBEM commitment apart form my TOAW III game of Kharkov '43 which lasted since 2011 to 2015 I think ( not to mention it was much more manageable with counters of regimental size for the Russians mainly ).

Finally, the game stalled after about three years and we all decided to move on, capitalizing on the effect of the first scenario victory level check point reached as best as we could. Over the last nine to ten years I played campaign scenarios HTH or as a team game - WWI, PzCs and MCs - neither reach any further than this. The attrition from having to cooperate with people and long commitments are always very destructive for the gameplay and they start to tell pretty quickly as either you try to keep a decent pace or face never ending queues and periods of inaction both in and out of the game. In the long run it's not fun as a matter of fact - nowadays I only stick to HTH and scenarios at least under 200 turns and manageable in terms of the size and the number of counters to deal with .

Having said that - good luck with that, it's always extremely exciting at the very beginning.

[fabiominatti]

Wow folk!
I did not think it raises a courtly debate! Also the legendary Strela has intervened: I'm very honored!
As rightly said Strela, the Campaign is divided into various phases; you see where you can get....
Having played 50 rounds, I can say that the size is also manageable by one person on each side, all you need is a little patience...
In the game that I played, my German opponent, in my opinion, underestimated the difficulty of its initial position:
rather than retire promptly, he tried to defend the objective points advanced, not maintaining the cohesion of the front:
so after 50 shifts its main units found themselves surrounded.....
Also strategic retreat is a difficult art...
Finally, I hope that this is not the swan song of Panzer Campaigns,
but in the future there may be other Grand Campaigns beautiful like these!
Regards

[Gunther Sheepdog]

Hi Fabio, if you want to play 2 x 2, can I play this game?

[Strela]

Anyway, the scenario is great, to me Kharkov '43 is the swan song of the PzC series what unfortunately cannot be said about Moscow '42, but that is my personal and humble opinion.

Burroughs,

Thanks for posting. I agree with you that these 'super campaigns' are great in concept but require a serious investment of time and unforeseen issues in balance and other issues can derail them. It's almost impossible for us as designers to deeply test these big scenarios as we don't have 3 plus years to do that and still get games released.

I would like to get your feedback on what issue you're seeing with Moscow '42. In the last patch we changed many of the exploits that were causing issues in the campaign. For example, German infantry now have a maximum size of 400 men in the winter scenarios vs the original 900. That definitely removes the exploit of building super units in the quiet sectors. I would consider all input as there will probably be another patch for Moscow '42 (and Kharkov '43).

Also, I was particularly interested that you tried the campaign game for Kharkov '43. I'm guessing that wasn't the Variant 1 release (see attached) that came out 18 months after the original game. The intent of Variant 1 was to fix up the problems of the Germans being too strong in the initial phase and doing exactly what you saw, being too strong from day 1.

Variant 1 is definitely the version to play for any new campaign being kicked off.

David

[fabiominatti]

Sorry for dealay, I have already started the new game with Jeff
and for the moment I am not interested in a team game.
Perhaps I'm too megalomaniac!!! :)
Regards

[burroughs]

Well, actually I answered to this post here as it refers to variant 1 of the Kharkov '43 full campaign and to my best knowledge that was exactly the version we used in 2013 to set up the team game.

The fact that the Voronezh Front was crawling at a snail's pace is understandable due to weather conditions, operational and logistic burden, the terrain and determined German effort to delay the advance and put up a determined defence where possible. If my memory doesn't fail it took me quite some time to capture Korocha far to the NE direction of Kharkov - perhaps the Germans were too strong indeed at that point as it was quite early in the campaign before their build-up and long before Manstein's counteroffensive. In the south the SW Front didn't reach anywhere further than Slavyansk without mentioning Kramatorsk before their started to get minced completely yet before turn 100 - the point that jerries even crossed Severny Donets back and threatened seriously the MSR in there. At some point I decided to extend our reach there further west in hope of finding their flank and turning that or just persuade them to redeploy back further SW, but in vain and Popov's Mobile Group was almost completely surrounded and defeated in detail close to western outskirts of Slavyansk and then jerry pushed north and NE from there. Even the attempt to stop them and defend on the river line was futile. Since the potential destruction of SW Front endangered the whole concept of thrust to Kharkov from NE by the Voronezh Front, it pushed grimly for some time, but I was actually focused much more on coming up with the idea how to secure my left wing in the south than on crossing the river in the centre on our way to Kharkov - I commanded the Voronezh Front.

So were the Germans too strong very early in the game? Or were there other issues? Hard to say for sure; I mentioned that we might have had at least one lousy player on the Soviet side in the south for some time who could have contributed a lot to their early defeat in there, but the fact is that from the strategic options chosen at the very beginning ( wrote you already that it had to  be Variant 1 then) apparently neither objective location was quite captured and I cannot admit that we weren't committed on the soviet side so the question if we could have performed better is that we possibly could not. Perhaps our German opponents were doing a great job indeed? The fact is also that I have just found out myself becoming  worse and worse at my wargaming with at least two wake-up slaps in the face from my opponents in EP '14 and at TOAW III Stalingrad and Caucasus.

Regarding Moscow '42 - I think I just don't feel it and that's all; the fact is that I was quite obsessed with the Kharkov battles and the 3rd one in patricular makes a difference.  But I also participated in another team game of Moscow '42 - The Klin-Solnechnogorsk Offensive namely and we the Soviets there literally could not make the Germans budge any way so I was the second guy unfortunately -after our third Soviet commander who simply vanished at some point - who asked to be relieved. It was such a hopeless grind. However unlike in the case of the 3rd battle of Kharkov I didn't read much about Typhoon and the Moscow struggle so cannot say if the scenario unfolded unrealistically or offered ahistorical gameplay.

Thank you for the interest in our effort - the fact is that it made me shy away from Kharkov '43 for some time with my whole admiration for the game and the TOC system in general and only lately I started to consider getting back --to SW Front in fact and operation Gallop if only just to see if that it is really doomed to an early disaster. Obviously, having read a lot about the K '43 fight I was prepared for the Soviet struggle and quite a serious chance of an utter catastrophe. Should you have more feedback I am available any time you want. But somehow the campaign looked already bleak and FUBAR yet before the fourth part of its intended length was reached. Or I just knew better then than the historical commander did? Really?