New Campaign Game for Rzhev '42 Gold

[Strela]

Hi everyone,

I'm excited to provide some additional free content for the Rzhev '42 Gold title.

César Librán Moreno (“Indragnir”  here at The Blitz) has been building additional content for Panzer Campaigns for many years. We included his work in a number of the Gold releases with examples in Kharkov '42, Korsun '44  and Salerno '43.

César has now completed his work on a new campaign for Rzhev '42. This includes a lot of new information that has come out over the years as well as further learnings from the release of subsequent PzC games.

The new scenario is an all new campaign scenario called #1125_01_Variant1_Op_Mars_Campaign.

You can read the campaign design notes here; Design Notes

And get the full package including artwork from here; Rzhev '42 Variant 1 Campaign

For installation, just unzip the files into your current Rzhev '42 Gold directory.

I have also spoken to Jison of Mapmod fame and he will provide an update of his Rzhev '42 package to include the 20 new images that were required for this mod.

Please feel free to provide any feedback in this thread.

David & César

[Mr Grumpy]

Great work guys!! 

[Indragnir]

Great work guys!! 

Thank you!

Next stop Budapest 45!

Edit: Don't forget downloading the latest update from post #26

[Green]

Amazing job! So many changes and innovations that it will be like a whole new game. Cannot wait to try it out and see how it plays. Expect some feedback in due course :)

At this stage my only question relates to the German infantry having a 'HA range 0 but high value'. This seems like a great idea to me but wouldn't you need to use the Alternative Assault Resolution rule for this to work? It is not in your list of optional rules.   

Also it is really good to hear you are going to work on Budapest '45. If you are redoing the OOB, can I ask if you will be adding the names of the Soviet Division and Corps commanders? I could try to create a list of these if that would be of any help. I know it is an unimportant detail but it has always bugged me that they are missing.

[Indragnir]

Amazing job! So many changes and innovations that it will be like a whole new game. Cannot wait to try it out and see how it plays. Expect some feedback in due course :)

At this stage my only question relates to the German infantry having a 'HA range 0 but high value'. This seems like a great idea to me but wouldn't you need to use the Alternative Assault Resolution rule for this to work? It is not in your list of optional rules.   

Also it is really good to hear you are going to work on Budapest '45. If you are redoing the OOB, can I ask if you will be adding the names of the Soviet Division and Corps commanders? I could try to create a list of these if that would be of any help. I know it is an unimportant detail but it has always bugged me that they are missing.

Thank you!

You're right. I had a crash in the middle of researching that forced to me to redo almost from the start all scenario working (notes were safe but uncompleted), so I somewhat thought AAR was stated as recommended, my bad. This should be played with AAR on.  I will correct the notes. Any more inconsistencies you find please let me know.

Regarding Budapest, of course I plan to put names there (and I'm updating the OoB), if you have a list I would gladly accept it.

PS: if you like it you can check my other Grand Campaign Variants (Kharkov 42, Korsun 44, Alamein 42, Anzio 44):
Alamein for example has 280 changes to GC. Korsun has so many I decided not to log them all but just group them.

Bests.

[All_American]

I wish the never completed encirclement campaign for Budapest' 45 was somehow completed.

Thanks Indragnir anyway, absolutely love your scenarios.

[Mr Grumpy]

I am currently adding these scenarios to the DB so they can be reported just like any other scenario. 

[Green]

Regarding Budapest, of course I plan to put names there (and I'm updating the OoB), if you have a list I would gladly accept it.

PS: if you like it you can check my other Grand Campaign Variants (Kharkov 42, Korsun 44, Alamein 42, Anzio 44):
Alamein for example has 280 changes to GC. Korsun has so many I decided not to log them all but just group them.

Bests.

I will put a list together in the next couple of days and send it to you. Regarding your other variants, I have actually been spending some time looking at Kharkov '42. 

One problem (not specific to your variant) is the inherent 'hindsight' problem associated with simulating this campaign. There is little incentive for a Soviet player to recreate the initial historical offensive. He knows the ultimate fate that awaits and he also knows that taking and holding Kharkov is unrealistic. Variable Victory point objectives like those used in Panzer Battles would go a long way to solving this but in their absence I did come up with a house rule to try to recreate this effect. I set up a spreadsheet to record additional 'bonus' Soviet VP's for captured objectives associated with their historical offensive. The longer they held these the more points they accumulated. These points were not lost once a objective was lost. Gives the Soviets a reason to hold them as long as possible and a reason for the Axis to try to prevent this. But I am trying to come up with a more elegant solution as keeping track of these points is a nuisance. Perhaps someone has already come up with something better?  

With your variant, I think the use of the Alternative Direct/Indirect Fire rules also tends to discourage the Soviet player from aggressive action. These rules make it desirable for the Soviets to avoid creating high density stacks. They should be charging forward en masse and assaulting but with these rules they need to advance carefully and wait for their artillery to do enough damage before daring to combine into larger stacks and assault. And even then they need to be cautious due to the Delayed Disruption Reporting rule. While I definitely think this rule should stay, it seems a little too much when combined with the Alternative Fire rules. I wonder if the Alternative Air Strike Resolution rule may be enough, without the  Alternative Direct/Indirect Fire rules, to provide an incentive for the Soviets to stay dispersed where possible. An advantage of this approach would be that it  encourages widespread attacks across the entire front, rather than discouraging it, since there will not be enough air power to deal with every Soviet attack. Of course, for most of the scenario the Soviets are defending, not attacking but the requirement for being dispersed still hurts them more than it does the Germans. Or so it seems to me. It may be simply a reflection on my style of play, so it would be interesting to hear how you see it.  

That is the only feedback I have, apart from saying that I think you have done a really excellent job!

[Indragnir]

One problem (not specific to your variant) is the inherent 'hindsight' problem associated with simulating this campaign. There is little incentive for a Soviet player to recreate the initial historical offensive. He knows the ultimate fate that awaits and he also knows that taking and holding Kharkov is unrealistic. Variable Victory point objectives like those used in Panzer Battles would go a long way to solving this but in their absence I did come up with a house rule to try to recreate this effect. I set up a spreadsheet to record additional 'bonus' Soviet VP's for captured objectives associated with their historical offensive. The longer they held these the more points they accumulated. These points were not lost once a objective was lost. Gives the Soviets a reason to hold them as long as possible and a reason for the Axis to try to prevent this. But I am trying to come up with a more elegant solution as keeping track of these points is a nuisance. Perhaps someone has already come up with something better?  

With your variant, I think the use of the Alternative Direct/Indirect Fire rules also tends to discourage the Soviet player from aggressive action. These rules make it desirable for the Soviets to avoid creating high density stacks. They should be charging forward en masse and assaulting but with these rules they need to advance carefully and wait for their artillery to do enough damage before daring to combine into larger stacks and assault. And even then they need to be cautious due to the Delayed Disruption Reporting rule. While I definitely think this rule should stay, it seems a little too much when combined with the Alternative Fire rules. I wonder if the Alternative Air Strike Resolution rule may be enough, without the  Alternative Direct/Indirect Fire rules, to provide an incentive for the Soviets to stay dispersed where possible. An advantage of this approach would be that it  encourages widespread attacks across the entire front, rather than discouraging it, since there will not be enough air power to deal with every Soviet attack. Of course, for most of the scenario the Soviets are defending, not attacking but the requirement for being dispersed still hurts them more than it does the Germans. Or so it seems to me. It may be simply a reflection on my style of play, so it would be interesting to hear how you see it.  

That is the only feedback I have, apart from saying that I think you have done a really excellent job!

Thank you! I will wait for your list.

This an interesting topic. I really changed my mind about Alternate Fire rules like a dozen times, because I agree with your thougths, however if those rules are not checked in, the germans at Kharkov area would need really higher defense values, higher fatigue recovery (that affects both sides), a lot more of firepower and good replacement rating to try to hold the red tide like they did historicaly.

They did hold the russian attack despite being in severe armor, infantry and artillery inferiority and eventualy managed to trap and destroy a lot of russian formations... with only 1 and a half Panzer Division and with small arriving infantry KG. If you allow massing, the germans cannot withstand the attrition war at Kharkov. Do not think about even using companies to defend locations, in the real battle that was the german did and that was allowed the creation of reserves first then the counterattacks that saved the situation for them.
If you check casualties here you will find the amazing number of casualties the germans did inflict to the russians at Kharkov and above area.

It's not a perfect solution for sure. In the other hand those rules will help the russian at the South, since those gemran 900 men strong btls are going to suffer.

Also in real battles some parts of formations were in reserve, the players usualy employ all forces all turns, so those rules are also aiming for a more realistic force commitment.

However all my scenarios are open for revision as new sources could appear or some rule or value seems wrong. Obviously I have my own ideas and those are in the scenarios.

PS: Variable Victory points sounds well however I don't know very well their working... yet (I need to read about them.)
Also I was considering keeping track with just a last day Strategy option as notification that reward VP to russians if they captured Kharkov even if they lost it.

[Strela]

Of interest, no we don't have variable VP's in Panzer Campaigns currently. One thing though that was bought in with France '40 Gold (and everything subsequently) was 'terminating' VP locations.

Essentially, these must be taken by the first player by the turn stipulated for the points to count. If not captured by that time then they aren't include in the victory total.

These are perfect for getting an attacker to go somewhere that hindsight suggests they shouldn't and is a way to force them to go out in harms way.

This will be especially useful in a game like Kharkov '43 where you want the Russians to try and go towards the Dnepr River, yet there is absolutely no motivation as they know they will get creamed.

These terminating VP's can possibly be gamed (rush a fast unit out and then back) but that can be countered and both sides will have some idea what is going on.

The variable VP's in Panzer Battles is the ultimate solution, due to flexibility, but I don't expect that any time soon.

David