NEW: Prokhorovka 5: The Historical Battle

[Von Earlmann]

Oh yes, the mobile group Trufanov, it did not participate in the battle and maybe then it should not be there at all, nor the exit hexes as Soviet victory point sources. Alan's design notes mention this though, they are fixed in place should the German forces enter the area, in which case they could play a role. But given the Soviet formations in play, maybe they would not be required at all. Difficult decisions from scenario design point of view.

Thanks for sitting it out though, a monster of a scenario for sure, historically immaculate, it is just the final play balance that we need to put in place, still 

I may be wrong but, my sources indicate that Group Trufanov was sent to reinforce the Russian units fighting the III Panzer Korps. My guess is it should not be included here.

VE

[zap]

My own view on this Historical Scenario is:  I'm not interested to play this one again.  Playing the German side in this scenario demands your full attention as you have to move your forces back and forth between fronts. Its not easy taking 2 hrs on a turn. All that effort Only to know you are destined to lose the game particularly if the original plan of the germans had to be followed. The Russian counter attack is crushing/suffocating and there is no enjoyment playing the german if you know you can't at least gain a draw..

[Crossroads]

Oh yes, the mobile group Trufanov, it did not participate in the battle and maybe then it should not be there at all, nor the exit hexes as Soviet victory point sources. Alan's design notes mention this though, they are fixed in place should the German forces enter the area, in which case they could play a role. But given the Soviet formations in play, maybe they would not be required at all. Difficult decisions from scenario design point of view.

Thanks for sitting it out though, a monster of a scenario for sure, historically immaculate, it is just the final play balance that we need to put in place, still 

I may be wrong but, my sources indicate that Group Trufanov was sent to reinforce the Russian units fighting the III Panzer Korps. My guess is it should not be included here.

VE

Yes, that's what Alan's design notes mention as well.

[Crossroads]

My own view on this Historical Scenario is:  I'm not interested to play this one again.  Playing the German side in this scenario demands your full attention as you have to move your forces back and forth between fronts. Its not easy taking 2 hrs on a turn. All that effort Only to know you are destined to lose the game particularly if the original plan of the germans had to be followed. The Russian counter attack is crushing/suffocating and there is no enjoyment playing the german if you know you can't at least gain a draw..

Well that's why the feedback is so important. This is a beast of a scenario. Some scenarios are always harder to balance than others, and given the scale and complexity of this one, it is a challenge. 

I for one tried to create a team game of the previous German-vs-AI game, but it did not achieve play balance despite my first efforts. 

I will hope to meet this scenario again with East Front III once it gets to 1943. So much historical depth in this one, just need to figure out how to make it easier to access and easier to play as both sides with a chance for a result. With the new game engine, we've got Adaptive AI to tweak various game parameters to fit this particular battle, also there's now the Event Engine to change things depending the ebb and flow of the battle, both something not available with JTCS when designing this scenario.

Yet, even now, at the bare minimum, this scenario gives the players a unique opportunity to appreciate this battle in detail, to see the forces and formations there, to get a feel of the landscape. Alan's now reworked this to its third iteration, and I hope to see more players, either in H2H or vs-AI, to give this a go and to share their experiences.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

If I want to appreciate the battle I can/should read a book. This scenario does not (from a CS perspective) lead me to appreciate the battle.

This scenario has many flaws. Mostly ones of a lack of understanding of how points should be used to obtain balance, while still keeping it fun for both sides.
Secondly, knowing what effects half strength units suffer in the way of morale and shooting.
Platoons of two strength, or one strength, armor moving forward into hidden enemy units and suffering surprise opt fire is not my favorite either. Even a two strength fire against hard targets under those conditions disrupt or kill.

I, too, do not want to play a scenario (especially a large one) that is fated to be played the same way each time to be able to win. My opponents in a recent team game were surprised that the exit hexes behind the Soviet lines were exit hexes for the Soviets. Couple that with full strength units counterattacking against already damaged German units. Formula for disaster and frustration.

And, for me, who does not like to play larger scenarios, this team game was a one to two hour torture. Especially knowing the results will not change and then thinking about enduring the Soviet avalanche that was upcoming.

What this scenario does is take away any fun that the game intrinsically has. And, scale has nothing to do with my dislike. I find most of the CS scenarios translated from Panzer L/B  have the same flaws as are exposed by this scenario. Design flaws and lack of balance or fun.



HSL

[Cole]

My final input after the team game participants also decided to call it early.

1: I do hope this scenario can be improved in the future.

2: Artillery is becoming a dislike for me. All these years I really didn't mind but I remember seeing a negative review of CS and the reviewer showed the replay in the background while giving his review. I hope EF III revamps they way artillery is handled in the game. In this scenario it takes about 20 minutes to assign all artillery fires, and about 20 minutes to view the enemy's artillery in replay on top of the enemy's move, then another 20 minutes to watch one's own artillery at the beginning of the next turn. Revamp artillery and save an hour.

3: Prior post mentioned the length of the game. Forgot the original Talonsoft documentation for how long each turn was but think it was 6 minutes!! No more than 15. Here's the deal. Hexes are 250m across. Russian infantry can move up to two hexes in the open and still fire. Maybe some of the infantry dudes can correct me but there is no way you will get a platoon to move 500 meters/yards then deliver accurate fire (defined here and now as a unit has enough action points left to shoot) in 6 or even 15 minutes. Some may argue that a platoon charging can cover a lot of ground in 15 minutes then fire and I agree but they will rapidly tire and could not keep that up for turn after turn.

I always get around this by thinking that each turn could be an hour or even two, especially for the larger scenarios. There is probably room to increase the time each turn represents.

4: While I think this scenario can benefit by less turns I'm not 100% with Earlman that this game should eliminate some of the smaller units such as HQ's below regiment, 81mm mortars, etc. I think Earl's scenarios are immensely enjoyable (just starting up an Earlmann monster game now) but support the designer in trying to come up with the most historical OOB. The end result would not be a really enjoyable game like Earl's Kursk series but as historically accurate as possible under the limitations of the game engine.

5: Campaign Series was just not designed to simulate Corps level engagements. A lot of the faults with this scenario reside in the game engine.

6: Already mentioned but VP points are way out of whack.

7: No doubt the Germans are predestined to lose but in game turns but suggest they could, for example, get a victory for doing better than they did historically.

Anyway, great work by the designer but with a project of this size there's more to do.

[Crossroads]

Thanks for the feedback! 

Playing Corps sized battles at platoon scale, we are all mad here aren't we 

But, yes, this is pushing the game engine in many fronts, I fully agree. 

While further play testing can remove some issues from the scenario itself, game engine must take some lessons learnt as well, and not only from this one, but from many other larger scenarios as well. 

Artillery for one is way out of whack for CS scale, as you observe. It must change. At the moment putting in the historical Artillery units to map is not possible. I'll make a post of this in some later date to hear you guys out too. 

But as for Prokhorovka 5, it is monsters like this that really try the limits that also provide some valuable clues for us. I for one remain a fan of this monster battle, and hope to see further revisions. 

But likely, those will be done with EF III engine, where we have tools I mentioned like Adaptive AI parameters for various settings, Event Engine, and game engine changes too like the Artillery discussed. 

Again, thanks for testing this out

[zap]

Monster scenarios that seem to work better for CS are post war 1946, 1947, 1948hypotheticals where the designer can design it in a way to balance the sides so its fun to play while getting (for those who like larger) their fix. Talking about hypotheticals, Hope the players who are now playing TankerTony 1940 France give there impressions of the scenario in the comments when they finish their game.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I do hope that the team will adhere to scale over their fad of supporting monster scenarios.
You'll end up creating a butterfly effect.



HSL

[Von Earlmann]

I do hope that the team will adhere to scale over their fad of supporting monster scenarios.
You'll end up creating a butterfly effect.



HSL

The monster scenarios are made playable by the designer mostly thru the OOB. I like things to be as historically accurate as possible also but,       a lot of the small arty and most battalion hqs can and should be eliminated. There should be no artillery HQ units as they don't do anything. Battalion HQs are mainly for smaller scenarios and they work fine there. During large battles they simply have to get too close to the front to provide supply and are very vulnerable in scenarios with long visibility. The players basically spend most of their time trying to get all the HQs lined up for supply only to have the battalion hq get eliminated. Then the lower units under that HQ will  never have supply. Get your companies under a regimental hq and they will supply just fine with a better range. It is simply a matter of working with the editors and game engine to make the best of the situation.

Anyway ,don't pay me no mind I'm just an old man :-)

VE