Panzer Battles - Kursk Version 1.01 released

[Xaver]

The Hard fire modifier maybe could be controled in a optional rule, i refer when you start a scen you can set the bonus % for HF, you have a box with 0 as standar (the PDT value) but you can write the bonus you want... 10/25/50 or -10/-25/-50 etc etc this is much better than edit the PDT every time you want play a battle, the point is "touch" the value before start a scen and in save it "remembers" the bonus or penalty to apply in the modifier.

Well, the problem for me in PzB and armor is the low impact of quality over quantity... and we talk about about maps with not heavy cover, in a west title could be a little more problematic but lets see.

PD: 18 months... the point is when you start counting them hehehe.

[ComradeP]

After playing a couple of turns, I'm getting used to the new graphics. I decided to use all of the new graphics, as they will presumably be used in future titles as well.

The terrain looks more like the boards of those digitally enhanced tabletop boardgames now, which is nice. It's closer to the early mock-ups as shown on page 25 of the designer notes.

By the way, why did the attack at Gresnoye fail, did the SS turn back when the Soviets attacked their flank? Judging by the maps in the designer notes, the frontline barely moved at all from the 8th to the 9th, whilst even a small gain would have significantly improved XXXXVIII Panzerkorps starting situation on the 9th.

[Wodin]

Quick question..I was wanting to use the snow terrain fro SB First World War but it ends up messing with the graphics and looks a mess...just wondering why I can't just swap it out.

[-72-]

Quick question..I was wanting to use the snow terrain fro SB First World War but it ends up messing with the graphics and looks a mess...just wondering why I can't just swap it out.

Interesting question, Wodin - I just swapped out the hexes for the 100 size and it was not what I would have expected (hex dimensions being different). Any chance that you can post a screenshot of what you have?

Edited to add: If I had to guess you probably used the wrong sized file when you swapped it around. That can get a little bit kaleidoscopic.

[Strela]

Quick question..I was wanting to use the snow terrain fro SB First World War but it ends up messing with the graphics and looks a mess...just wondering why I can't just swap it out.

I just tried it - replacing the snow 100 in FWW with the snow 100 from PzB.

I got this which looked correct. Note the Snow as released in the latest patch was my most recent attempt. It's not quite there yet, I think...

David

[Strela]

Quick question..I was wanting to use the snow terrain fro SB First World War but it ends up messing with the graphics and looks a mess...just wondering why I can't just swap it out.

And I just realised that the question was using FWW snow in PzB's. It also works, but in my opinion is a tad ugly...

David

[Strela]

And for comparison with the patch snow;

[Strela]

By the way, why did the attack at Gresnoye fail, did the SS turn back when the Soviets attacked their flank? Judging by the maps in the designer notes, the frontline barely moved at all from the 8th to the 9th, whilst even a small gain would have significantly improved XXXXVIII Panzerkorps starting situation on the 9th.

I need to re read that particular day, but the SS made good progress, but the idea was to assist XXXXVIII Pz Korp by pressuring the rear of the troops that was holding that Korp up. The idea was that a Gross Deutschland et al would break through the Soviets and meet the SS pocketing the Soviets between them. XXXXVIII Pz Korp, went nowhere and left the SS out on a limb - subsequently requiring them to pull back. Ultimately this disaster continued for days as the Soviets had salients around the German penetration.

The Soviet flank attack was obviously an issue, but that went in a few hours after the SS
Panzers attacked. Hausser (II SS Pz Korp) decided to continue the operation and hoped his PzGr supported by Totenkopfs Panzers would be enough....

David

[ComradeP]

It's a curious battle, Prokhorovka isn't the most interesting part of it in my opinion. Most of us seem to play pre-Prokhorovka scenarios as well and I'm very happy the game covers the majority of the interesting action (Gresnoye fills one of the largest remaining gaps) from the start of the offensive to the stalemate at Prokhorovka.

Aside from XXXXVIII Panzerkorps' poor performance, it remains strange that the Germans attacked across the Donets, which from a military perspective didn't serve much of a purpose.

Not only is the Panzerkorps attacking into terrain very unsuitable for mobile warfare with their backs to a major river, but it's also attacking away from the target of the penetration. Even if it had succeeded, even a small redeployment of Soviet forces from the greater Izyum area to the north would've made the flank of the Panzerkorps untenable. If the Panzerkorps would've attacked 3 abreast, possibly with a Panzer division in reserve with the Donets at their flank, that would have made German progress to the north much more likely.

It's all hindsight, but on paper I'm never sure how the Germans envisioned this operation would succeed with such a high chance that one or more of the Panzerkorps would quickly find itself unsupported with open flanks. It's a very different plan than most people would try in a wargame. The attack across the Donets was imaginative to a certain extent and might have caused confusion if the Soviets had not expected it, but considering all the delays in when the operation would be launched, it was pretty much guaranteed that it wouldn't go anywhere fast enough to help the SS in a way that couldn't be accomplished otherwise.

[Strela]

It's a curious battle, Prokhorovka isn't the most interesting part of it in my opinion. Most of us seem to play pre-Prokhorovka scenarios as well and I'm very happy the game covers the majority of the interesting action (Gresnoye fills one of the largest remaining gaps) from the start of the offensive to the stalemate at Prokhorovka.

Aside from XXXXVIII Panzerkorps' poor performance, it remains strange that the Germans attacked across the Donets, which from a military perspective didn't serve much of a purpose.

Not only is the Panzerkorps attacking into terrain very unsuitable for mobile warfare with their backs to a major river, but it's also attacking away from the target of the penetration. Even if it had succeeded, even a small redeployment of Soviet forces from the greater Izyum area to the north would've made the flank of the Panzerkorps untenable. If the Panzerkorps would've attacked 3 abreast, possibly with a Panzer division in reserve with the Donets at their flank, that would have made German progress to the north much more likely.

It's all hindsight, but on paper I'm never sure how the Germans envisioned this operation would succeed with such a high chance that one or more of the Panzerkorps would quickly find itself unsupported with open flanks. It's a very different plan than most people would try in a wargame. The attack across the Donets was imaginative to a certain extent and might have caused confusion if the Soviets had not expected it, but considering all the delays in when the operation would be launched, it was pretty much guaranteed that it wouldn't go anywhere fast enough to help the SS in a way that couldn't be accomplished otherwise.

ComradeP,

I couldn't agree more with your analysis - it was strange to go across the Donets instead of using that to protect the right flank. I do believe that the road net to Kursk played a part in the decisions that were made ie. major roads and railways were near or adjacent to the river and would be easily disrupted by shelling if there wasn't some buffer zone on the East bank.

That said, there was room on the left flank to extend and a line abreast push would have made more sense.

There were a couple of other considerations; German Infantry Divisions were non-existent. Panzer Divisions were having to do what the Infantry should do, clearing fortifications and holding flanks. By it's nature the most powerful mechanized divisions had to be employed this way as the SS and Gross Deutschland had 6 PzGr battalions vs the more normal 4 of the Heer Panzer Divisions. This dispelled their strength quicker than almost anything and continued to put stress on manpower levels.

Secondly, with Barbarossa, Case Blau and Manstein's Backhand Blow the German's had confidence that they would quickly breakthrough the Soviet lines and shatter the defense. Many of these prior operations involved deep penetrations with little consideration for flanks and until Kursk the German's had been able to breach the toughest Soviet defenses and prevail. The distance of advance and the forces at their disposal was enough to convince the German's that they would be successful based on prior experience.

The German's wanted to initiate a strategic clash that would destroy the bulk of the Soviet's reserves - every indication was that Kursk was going to provide that. The main difference between the protagonists is that the German's though their attack was the main action, where as the Soviets viewed this as just act one in a bigger strategy. Painfully, Germany realised that they could not underestimate their opponent after Operation Citadel...

David