Kiev ´43 - First Impressions

[Fhil]

So I have downloaded Kiev finally and went through the Design Notes and checking the scenarios. First of all, it´s an excelent reading as always!

Somehow, it looks like there is some strange quiet about the title here as of now.

So here are a few remarks and maybe some questions for the design team:

1.- The Maps

   Hats down to you for the included maps!!! This is what PzC previous titles were lacking! It is one thing to read the notes or the scenario descriptions about the given battle just as a text but completely something else when having such well crafted and easy to read maps! (Just the same as with books). I am really happy to see this approach included into your work. I only had to get through it carefully once and I have a nice picture about the whole Kiev operation in my head now :) Now you have a wider picture in the backround when opening or playing any of the smaller scenarios for example.
Also, you can see what the plans for particular units were, what maneuvers and countermaneuvers were taken by both sides, and also what was the end of the battle. These informations are really lacking in the previous titles, you just can´t tell while playing if you´re doing great, just fine or really bad compared to the real outcome in the lesser known campaigns or smaller battles as the scenario descriptions usually provide only the "set up" informations. Once again, thank you for the decision to provide these maps with the title in the first place, and also thanks to the person that created them as they look really great! 

2.- Default Rules - Delayed Disruption Reporting

   I was surprised to see this rule not being included in the Default Rules (or the recommended) list. Is there some idea behind it? In the end, I´ll play with this rule ON but I´m asking if this is some playtesting-feedback outcome or something like that?

3.- No bunkers

   Hitler´s decision for not-allowing any bunkers to be created is mentioned several times in the Design Notes. I think one passage states it´ll be explained later but there is no additional information found. So this is just a question out of curiosity as this battle was more or less unknown to me until now - why he forbade any bunkers for the Dnepr line, or the Panther-Wottan line? I thought that they were trying to create as best defense as possible and that they just didn´t have the time to get it into a real proper line, so it remained more of just an idea on paper and map than a real thing.

Thanks in advance for your answers and to the whole  team for giving us another great title!

[wildb]

Lost Victories by Erich von Manstein
1982 edition

page 472 - Discusses the lack of fortifications along the Dnepr river. Hitler did not approve the building of fortifications because he wanted those resources to be used on building the Atlantic wall. The author states that in some places civilians were used to build light fortifications.

Retributions by Pritt Buttar
Kindle edition

page 257 - Discusses the plant to build a fortified line along the Dnepr river. Hitler forbade it because it would have negative effect on Axis allies and the existence of a strong line would encourage the troops to retreat.

[jonnymacbrown]

[quote pid="444923" dateline="1622191441"]

2.- Default Rules - Delayed Disruption Reporting

   I was surprised to see this rule not being included in the Default Rules (or the recommended) list. Is there some idea behind it? In the end, I´ll play with this rule ON but I´m asking if this is some playtesting-feedback outcome or something like that?


[/quote]
Obviously playing with this rule ON means the attack isn't going anywhere. If that happens who wants to play the game? Sincerely, jonny

[Green]

Fhil,

Thanks for the feedback. I was not part of the design team but David is currently taking a break so I will try to answer your question on Delayed Disruption Reporting.

Basically, I do not believe that this optional rule is likely to be the standard default rule choice in the future. I suspect in will be restricted to those titles where the fighting was less fluid. Scheldt is a good example of this.

Some players love this rule and some hate it. Or at least that is the impression I have. I have not come across many players that are indifferent. Some will say it is more realistic and others will say it makes assaults too unpredictable. Some will say it makes for a more interesting game and others will say it adds unneeded frustration.

So, I am not entirely sure that a consensus could be achieved on whether or not it should be used. Consequently, for most titles, it is simply there as an additional option that players can choose if they wish.

John

[Strela]

Hi All,

Yes Green is correct, this rule will only be in the default list in particular circumstances. As outlined in the Scheldt Players Notes, it was included there.

It is being reviewed in other titles where it has been used as a default (both Japan titles) for fit.

The design teams philosophy is that this rule is only used in agreement by players as desired, particularly to help the defender.

David

[typhoon]

I’m playing a Minsk 43 with delayed disruption being used (I’m playing Soviet) I feel it helps the balance in that title
  On Kiev in the very early stages of two campaigns one as each side. The lack of bunkers makes for a fun start the mines make the engineers very important. And the early release of some panzers make things very interesting good start so far got it’s own unique feel to it already. It’s not the Soviet Army of Kharkov 42 43 nor has it yet become the beast that is the Soviet Army of Minsk 44

[Plain Ian]

I’m playing a Minsk 43 with delayed disruption being used (I’m playing Soviet) I feel it helps the balance in that title
  On Kiev in the very early stages of two campaigns one as each side. The lack of bunkers makes for a fun start the mines make the engineers very important. And the early release of some panzers make things very interesting good start so far got it’s own unique feel to it already. It’s not the Soviet Army of Kharkov 42 43 nor has it yet become the beast that is the Soviet Army of Minsk 44

I'll be interested on hearing how the game actually plays. Especially from people who have maybe played the Kharkov 43 game. 

Superficially both campaigns appear to be similar but the Germans possibly are better prepared in Kiev 43. And of course B rated security units behind the line will help? However that might apply equally to the Russians in Kiev 43 as well?

I prefer Delayed Disruption. I now find it tedious and too predictive to play games where a player uses artillery or Direct Fire to Disrupt then makes his assault.