Enemy minefields in the jump map

[Dog Soldier]

I would disagree that mines are "legion". For balance reasons, I believe, they're all level 1 and minefields tend to more or less stick to the same density in terms of hexes covered all along the line with the exception of bunkers.

Yes, you could think of the way with the fewest minefields as being the most likely avenue of approach, but in most cases the player will pick a path that will also be the shortest to begin with. Turn limits are currently quite tight, and advancing through areas of the map where minefields are poorly defended (like map edges) will just mean you lose as the Axis. In fact, in most maps there are numerous "safer" approaches where you as the Soviets can simply calculate that the Axis are unlikely to get enough VP's to win from objectives.

The reason the minefields were set at density one was because during testing there was clear agreement from the play testers nothing was gained from using the original two and three times densities. It was taking Axis players too long to get through such dense minefields. Increasing the number of turns to accommodate the longer number of turns to get through such denser minefields added nothing to the fun of playing the game. It instead reduced the game to a grind. Not much fun to play.
I say the mine fields are legion in the game because it is common for player to realize early on there are never enough engineers (on either side) to deal with all the duties they want from their engineers, including clearing minefields.

BTW, I was only saying that if a defensive player is seeing a behavior to clearly avoid mines, then the defense can adjust to this behavior in the attacker. I was not limiting my comments to the advocating a specific rigid response. Sorry ComradeP missed my meaning.

Soviet air recon is poor, and in big scenarios sending your reserves as the Soviets (if they're not Fixed) to a certain part of the map too early will just favour the Axis as their recon capabilities are battle. The terrain and turn limits are such that just from looking at the map, you know where the fighting is likely to happen. You don't have strategic freedom, it's an operational level game and you often only have 1 or 2 approaches to take.

Soviet air recon works well enough to what one would expect from this period of the war in an air space that was hotly contested by nearly equal air forces. It is not 100% effective. Neither is the Axis air recon. Recon spotting by ground recon assets is more effective for both sides.

Again I am not advocating a tit for tat response by the defense. As the situation becomes clear, one sends their defensive reserves to where these reserves will be most able to defeat, deflect, or delay the attacker. It is rare a defending player will stop a well executed Axis or Soviet attack in PzB Kursk cold. Deflecting or delaying the attack from meeting the timetable of the attacker can be all that is required of the defender in PzB Kursk to win a defensive battle.

I would say that in 60% of the scenarios which are all 15 turns or more there are more than one or two ways to approach them and gain victory. The game is not as limited as ComradeP claims. At least not when playing a human opponent.

As the Soviets, you often don't have many non-Fixed units, if any. Moving the forces forwards early as the Soviets is in my opinion a losing strategy. You're essentially gambling.

Again I think ComradeP is thinking a bit to narrow. I did not say move the reserves forward. I said "Reserves can go to a predictable place." Where this location is, is completely at the discretion of the defending player. That such a move is not always forward should be clear. Timing is important. Timing is at the discretion of the defensive player. Distance affects timing. Every player, both attacker and defensive should try to move in a manner to force the main engagement of the scenario on ground of their choosing. Not follow a rigid formula. I never advocate such rigidity.

FWIW, 'reserves' can be as large a corps and as small as a single platoon. The game provides players with both situations.

Moving your forces to where you think the Axis will attack is quite different from moving to meet an actual threat. You know little about Axis strength, don't know when the bulk of their forces will arrive at your lines or their preferred point of attack. Keeping your reserves somewhat behind the frontline is often good enough.

Only if you assess the situation incorrectly. That can happen to any player. Just as well a player can assess the situation correctly on very little data. Such a broad assumption that players cannot figure things out seems contrary to my gaming experience here with blitz members. A single tactic to hold units behind the front lines may cause these units to arrive too late at the crisis point. Too early is just as bad. Getting the timing right against a human opponent who is different every time you play a scenario is what makes this game exciting an fun.

Most scenarios have a phased release of fixed troops. Only the small scenarios do not. The reason is there are not enough troops involved.

Axis individual units are so superior to yours that simply sending men into the meatgrinder like you would on the strategic scale will quickly burn through your reserves for no real gain unless you can pile them into bunkers. The average SS battalion moves through a D quality Rifle battalion at such a rate and with such force that the Rifle battalion might as well not be there. With your units at such a disadvantage, keeping reserves at a point where they can't be immediately targeted and where you decided when to commit them is essential. Responding to the enemy on the enemy's terms is likely to lose you the game.

Good advice to avoid getting shot before you can hit back is always applicable.

I would not presume any player of the Soviets sends an unsupported 'D' quality battalion to oppose a full strength 'A' quality SS battalion. Combined arms is key. Most players know this. Soviet 'support' can take take significant chunks each turn out any Axis formation. To typify the game as a hopeless Soviet cause like this is disingenuous IMHO.

For me, the minefields and obstacles are just speedbumps no matter what. They're not strong enough to truly slow down the Germans and your units are often not good enough to make good use of the situation. German A quality pioniere are also very unlikely to be disrupted even at platoon level unless targeted by a massive amount of fire.

It takes some getting used to, but even at Kursk the usual Soviet strategic scale tactic of drawing the Axis in and slowly attriting them before attacking them with a larger force still applies, but it can be difficult to do.

"...Speed bumps no matter what."
No minefield will stop an attacking player (Axis or Soviet) cold. It exists to slow the attacker's pace. This allows for more defensive shots, bombardments, and time for adjustments in deployments for the defense. How much it costs the attacker to get through the minefields is what matters. Not if the attacker will breach the minefields. German pioneers can disrupt. As soon as any 'A' quality unit reaches 50 fatigue points it can be disrupted. Pioneers need to work many times as platoons. Platoons acquire fatigue quicker than larger formations. They can be disrupted, even broken, and more often outright destroyed.

The number of Soviet victories recorded here at the blitz contradicts the assertion "your units are often not good enough to make good use of the situation."

Dog Soldier

[ComradeP]

I would say that in 60% of the scenarios which are all 15 turns or more there are more than one or two ways to approach them and gain victory. The game is not as limited as ComradeP claims. At least not when playing a human opponent.

I guess we're interpreting the points made by the other too literally.

I'm not saying there are one or two approaches in the sense that there are areas of a couple of hexes where the attack is likely to happen, I mean parts of the map.

In the shorter scenarios, a lot will depend on initial dispositions, which is also where you can predict the Axis attack with a good chance of getting it right if you can always see where the Germans are going or at least know what units attacked your initial lines.

In the corps-sized (nearly) full day scenarios, where the bulk of the German units often either start further to the rear or at locations where the Soviets can't determine where they're going, that changes. However, the Germans have to move through bunker lines there so you do get some advance warning of where the attacking is likely to come from when the Germans move on to the second line.

Such a broad assumption that players cannot figure things out seems contrary to my gaming experience here with blitz members.

Again, it depends on how many units you have that can see the Germans coming, or if there are tripwire units that tell you where the Germans will attack. Knowing, roughly, where the Germans will strike isn't enough as in order to prevent a breakthrough, you have to put your men in the right bunkers and you often have just a handful of platoons (or if you're lucky companies) to spare as bunker lines tend to be Fixed before the Germans reach them.

I would not presume any player of the Soviets sends an unsupported 'D' quality battalion to oppose a full strength 'A' quality SS battalion. Combined arms is key. Most players know this. Soviet 'support' can take take significant chunks each turn out any Axis formation. To typify the game as a hopeless Soviet cause like this is disingenuous IMHO.

I'm not saying the game is hopeless for the Soviets, in fact in other posts I said quite the contrary and the results thus far certainly seem to favour my comments on game balance. Rather, I'm saying (or trying to say) that in situations where the Soviets are not in bunkers, their infantry units tend to fold quickly. Example: State Farm. The only reason I won my game was because visibility was minimal so my opponent couldn't see my units on the final hill before it was too late, as well as me being able to fire at the Nebelwerfers when my opponent moved them to the front and me bombing their positions when they were spotted through counterbattery fire or air recon.

The D quality units initially in front of the Germans melt away upon contact due to the high direct fire casualties caused by the Germans, and their numerous artillery units.

The platoons tend to be become incapable of offensive action in a single turn if they're discovered.

The number of Soviet victories recorded here at the blitz contradicts the assertion "your units are often not good enough to make good use of the situation."

What I meant was that in most scenarios where there are numerous minefields, you either have a lacking mobile reserve because the majority of your units are Fixed (if you even have tanks in that sector to begin with), or you have too few units to hold the 1st line bunkers to good effect. Rather, you might do that at the second bunker line when more units are available. In my games thus far, both for the ladder and the non-ladder games, the majority of the casualties the Soviets caused came from artillery in terms of casualties per turn.

Your units have low soft attack values so they will kill 1-2-3 men. That will still cause attrition over time, which is a problem for the Germans as their units can get bled white in a hurry as well, but it will not by itself stop a German attack. The Katyusha's, guns and mortars do most of the killing. Ivan in a bunker is mostly there to buy time so the Germans can be bled white. The direct casualty causing potential of Soviet units is significantly lower than that of German units, so the balance of how they cause their casualties shifts to indirect fire weapons (and tanks, if they're there).

The issues there are with how unpredictable capturing bunkers is don't come from minefields or casualties caused by the Soviets, but from the likeliness of causing Soviet units to disrupt and move out of their hex.

I'm talking about situations as seen in a vacuum of sorts, so just an SS battalion attacking a D quality unit, or just a few battalions attacking a fortified line, not about the outcome of the actual scenario that happens in (which tends to be: the Soviets win). You're interpreting my comments about the "isolated" instances as criticism about the entire game, which isn't intended.

[Dog Soldier]

1. PzB Kursk is not a game where the defensive player is going to stop an Axis or Soviet attack from 'breaking through'. Dealing with a break in initial lines and still winning is entirely possible. There is no perfect strategy which will ensure 'stuffing' the opponent at the initial front line.

2. In every scenario there are ways to slow the attacking player to allow for time to release a reserve or to gather one from other sources. How the defender does this varies depending on the condition of the front line and the toll available in each scenario. Things never happen the same way twice.

3. Fixed units do not stay fixed forever. Many have the (T) variable in the release where if one unit is spotted, the formation is free to move. Even is the few static defense scenarios, there are always units being released due to the much longer LOS in PZB 12- 16 hexes during full daylight. Many times averaging around 8-1 hexes in my experience.

4. 'D' quality units can survive several turns in the open if used properly. I have done it. Retreating through the open at Kursk historically was a hazardous thing. Try not to do it for long. Or at least extract something from the pursuit. Time, casualties, etc. PzB Kursk has no dominant super units in it. Every unit knows, (and players are discovering) that all units need friends to watch their backs to survive.

5. Artillery is the big killer at Kursk. No surprise there to anyone who has read the stated sources used to build this game listed in the Campaign Notes. I see nothing wrong with that.

6. Try the scenario #0712_03 Hill 235_3 - Northernmost Advance or other scenario featuring entrenchments in urban terrain like at Mikhaylovka and Prelestnoye. The Soviet 18th Tank Corps can be very stubborn if handled well.
Even in #0710_03 State Farm - The Deadly Fields the starting Soviet 'D' quality units can take quite a bit of time to clear from the Axis path of advance. Assuming it is the defender's intention to not retreat to join up with the AB troops and continue the fight.
Who would expect 'D' quality units to survive in the open anyways? That is just not reasonable. They can be made to last long enough to do the job they are intended to do. Stopping the Axis attack cold is not their mission.

7. Will the Soviets lose a lot of troops in scenarios of PzB Kursk? Will Soviet players still be able to win the games? Did the Soviets win the battle? Yes to all the above.

8. Finally, the discovered minefield/jump box dialog bug, which is what the thread was about is no deal breaker giving the attacking player any real advantage. The defender can compensate for it. I think it will be fixed anyways as it is not what was intended in the game design.

Dog Soldier