Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

If you've been playing the new Kursk campaign let me know what you think of it. I'd love some feedback, good or bad. I might even be persuaded to give a tip or two.

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

Played it and liked it. The scenarios were rather big (as they should when it's about Kursk), in the upper limit of my taste, but the moderate number of scenarios made up for it. Everything went better than I expected, except for having most of my infantry and light vehicles massacred and having to "sell" the rest to maintain the far more important Tigers. Most of my casualties were caused by dug-in units and artillery. Mid-way I only had two pioneer squads for infantry but somehow that was enough. In a twisted way, not having to micro-manage loads of infantry made it easier for me to focus on the overall tactical progress.

The tank heavy enemy counter-attacks were not a big problem. SU-76s caused more damage and even casualties than did the T-34s, due to their slightly more powerful guns. Some of my Tigers got well over hundred kills during the campaign. Personally I'd plan the counter-attacks a bit more cunningly while making the dug-in enemies slightly easier to overcome. Just a matter of taste, wouldn't do it at the expense of historical accuracy.

As for historical accuracy, I've read that the SU-85 didn't make it in time for the battle of Kursk*. If that's confirmed, I'd replace them with some other tanks or assault guns. Luckily I didn't lose any tanks to those SU-85s, which theoretically had the most potential to damage. I've also had the impression that it was mostly if not solely the lightened KV-1S models used in Kursk, not the heavier KV-1 models. If so, I'd put in more KV-1S tanks.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SU-85

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

SU-85 seems to have been issued to troops in August 1943. The production start date has been given as "mid-1943". The game has the availability date set to June 1943 which is perhaps too early.

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

The SU-85 has been available in the Russian OOB in June 1943 for AT LEAST a decade. One day I'll dig up all the old copies of the game I have on CD so I can check back further but up to now I've always had better things to do so I can say that as of Nov 2002 it has been set to a 6/43 introduction and that up until now it's not been challenged

I will be happy to change that if solid info can be found that is NOT based on a wiki quote.

Don

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

After digging around my library and the 'net it would appear September 1943 would be a more appropriate introduction date but as always, sources do not agree. Profile Publications #21 Su-85 / SU-100 says that there were 100 in service by the end of 1943 on the Dneiper and Ukrainian fronts. "Soviet tank units" only says " late 1943 " . Various online source suggest the first tanks reached their units in August but were not in combat until September giving the crews a month to learn how to use the vehicle so I have changed the start date for Russian Unit 33 to 9/43 from 6/43 and as a result, to keep the formation from breaking up, unit 318 has to stay in service a month longer than it does now.

Nothing is ever "simple"


Don

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

Sure, wiki quotes don't prove anything, but shouldn't the burden of proof be more on positive claims, such a "X type of tank WAS used in Kursk"? Also, OOB availability and campaign design are not the same thing. I have no problem with SU-85 being available in the game by the earliest theoretically possible date, just wouldn't use it for Kursk without further confirmation. In other words, even if it's correct that the SU-85 was available and not just produced by June 1943, it doesn't implicate that it fought the Germans in Kursk.

The question of SU-85's appearance in Kursk is, or at least has been, a controversial issue. The assumption of SU-85's participation is present in several older sources predating the internet, which of course doesn't make the assumption wrong. That is not the case with the vast majority of armoured vehicles appearing in the game campaign under discussion. Tigers, Stugs, Hummels, T-34s, SU-76s etc. being there isn't disputed by anyone.

But as I understood this game campaign wasn't even meant to be an exact as possible simulation of the historical campaign, it doesn't matter so much IMO. It doesn't promise anything it doesn't provide. I took it more as an adaptation of one interpretation of history, as seen in the tank simulation Panzer Elite. Taken as such, I found it well-designed and entertaining.

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

Jaakko and Doug,
Thanks for your replies. I was aware that the SU-85 was likely not present at Kursk. I used it anyway in the hope might provide more parity against the all powerful Tigers. I was not aware of the lack of KV-1c's in favour of KV-1s. It is interesting but would not have factored into my design. Jaakko it was my intention to make the dug in positions tough to crack forcing the player to use a combined arms approach and holding back a reserve to deal with the heavy counter-attacks. The game (and reality) highly favour the defensive posture and I find it's use in scenario design a very effective method of making the AI harder to beat. It sounds like your experience with the campaign was what I expected from an experienced player. I am very glad you enjoyed it!:up::)

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

Just out of curiosity is it the "Panzer Elite" ww2 tank simulator game from 1999 or the 2006 "Panzer Elite Action" FPS shoot'em up?

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

Completely forgot about the newer one, which I haven't tried and don't intend to due to the frankly repulsive ads I saw. So I've only played the old one, years ago. The original game had no Eastern Front action, but fan mods had some. Not sure if they had Kursk, but I can imagine some of the scenarios being "converted" to SPWW2.

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

They surely would've caused me some tank losses, had I not chosen them my primary targets the moment they appeared. Therefore I took more damage from the "next best gun" carried by the SU-76. Could SU-152 have had the same effect, perhaps with some added experience value?

This is again one thing I just strongly remember reading from various sources, but before making any changes I'd rely on actual sources or people like Don who check them more systematically.

Yes, and honestly you couldn't have made the counter-attacks any bigger without making it ridiculous. While it's possible for a human player to use T-34s effectively against Tigers, the AI just can't do that on a relatively open terrain. Perhaps you could fiddle a bit with the timing and way-points of the counter-attacks, some well-placed smoke-screens, but I can't think of a single simple solution.

As much as I like the game, IMO it should have more campaigns of approximately this scale. Takes enough effort to make decent separate scenarios, haven't even bothered to try making a small campaign yet...

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

I used the 1999 "Panzer Elite" as the basis of the campaign. The Beresov, Yakovlevo and Teterevino maps were based on maps from the game. Also the scenario progression from Beresov on. However it is only a platoon level game so I increased the scale to brigade-. I also designed the Prokhorovka map from other map sources. The battle of Prokhorovka is quite close to historical accuracy.

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

And you used the Ostpak-MOD of the game right?

The base game does not feature anything on the Eastern front.


I'm still playing the game from time to time and it's still the best WW2-tank-simulation I know of.

It's available at GOG:
http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/panzer_elite_se/

Together with the "Panzer Elite Three"-MOD (includes Ostpak and a lot of graphical improvements) it's still great and has an acceptable graphic for such an old game.

MODs I use:
http://pedg.yuku.com/topic/1719/Panz...k#.T6DAKcWzskQ

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

Yes, I used the ostpak mod. However I have not actually played the game in quite some time and had no idea that there were such recent upgrades. Thx for the link. I will be downloading it post-haste.

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

Wouldn't call them "recent upgrades" and I don't think there is much further development ongoing...

But still the game is more than 10 years old and it's still fun and very challenging... :o

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

I have just started to play this Campaign, but upon deployment I realized that formation hierarchy is quite messed up.

The Heavy Panzer Company HQ (D Formation) doesn't command any platoons under it. Its "supposed" subordinates, the 12 or so Tigers spread accross 3 platoons, are under the command of an obscure SdkFz formation (K Formation). And then, this K Formation, which is supposed to be a company HQ, is under the command of O Formation (instead of directly under the A Formation! I don't even know such a thing could be accomplished in the game, subordinating a Company HQ under a Company HQ!). This O Formation commands the Panzer Grenadier company, while another Company HQ (I forget which formation) which is supposed to be a PzGren Kp HQ doesn't command anything under it!

The hierarchy is just so messed up that I dared not play the actual battles.

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

I'll look into it as time allows

EDIT

Interesting................

The start up scenario for that campaign shows the correct command structure but assembled into the campaign it does not and that will require further digging.

ALL I can suggest at this time is you cross attach the formations manually before you start. I have tried rebuilding it with a copy of the first scenario that has the correct command structure but once plugged into the campaign it reverts to the command structure you reported but if you manually change it and continue on I *think* it will be OK. I need to consult with Andy about this

Don

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

Wow.. never thought there would be a possible deeper problem to it.
Yes, I have tried cross attachment, but it was already so confusing to begin with, that I immediately started another campaign rather... hehe

Thank you for digging into this, let's hope it's something simple. You guys are amazing developers, really listening to user feedback!

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

The short, sweet answer is it's a mess that just deleting and rebuying some units didn't fix the problem and we don't know why when the first scenario is extracted and looked at as a standalone the command structure is OK but added to the campaign it's borked.

As much as I want to fix this to ensure it plays correctly I am at or beyond my work limit right now. Once I get the things for both games that absolutely need to be done I will take another look at this but as it stands now we could look at this as an "learning opportunity" to set the command Heirarchy of the German Force yourself during the initial deployment phase....

Start with reassigning Tigers to their proper HQ ( formation D ) then fix the PzGren..you want the Pz Gren's commanded by formation J..............Once you sort out the tigers and the pzgen ( which doesn't take long ) you are pretty much done and YES, I KNOW this isn't the solution you were hoping for but consider it's been in the game for about three years and you're the first one to see the problem this is the best I can do ATM and I KNOW the solution is not idea but cross attaching a few formations takes maybe 10 minute tops once you understand there is one Main HQ ( A0 ) and three main subordinates ( D0 for the Tigers ) ( L0 for the pzgen ) and ( R0 ..panzer arty ) and of those three subordinates the D0 and the L0 are the ones of main importance

Don

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

Played it and thoroughly enjoyed it. Didn't notice any messed up hierarchy, didn't seem to make a difference to gameplay.

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

Well that's good news..........did you play it recently ?

Fixing this "correctly" involves rebuilding the entire first scenario at least....we belive the problem is the Soviet HQ.... and YES.......it doesn't seem to make any sense why the Soviet HQ would affect the command structure of the German player but it APPEARS the way units were bought, deleted, repurchased etc has left the Soviet HQ like a bolder in a stream that interrupts the German command flow and we only know that because Andy started strategically deleting units to see when things would start working again and it didn't with every Russian unit deleted except the HQ ( which cannot be deleted )

I'll just quote Andy , it's simpler

So......if you played it without adjusting the command structure and it played well that saves us time better spent until we have the time to consider rebuilding it but the tools for a player to adjust the command structure are there and it doesn't take long to "fix" it .......but as you noted it plays fine without being fixed

Thanks for that info

Don

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

The messed up hierarchy doesn't make any real difference to game play, since someone's acting as the company HQs, and they'll increase in experience along the way. It's just an annoyance for those who expect the "proper" commanders.

It's just a recurrence (or related) of the original SSI buglet whereby if you deleted and re-bought formations like crazy then you could end up with A0 a few formations down the roster, with B0 and/or C0 coming above it, and since they came first - they were designated as the battalion command. That one, I fixed back in the DOS days.

All of that comes from the way that the original SP1 was set out so that you only could delete the last formation, so the lists in the array had no "holes". In SP2, IIRC, deleting from the middle of the list was allowed, which could then lead to "holes" in the array which then got used up by new buys. That could include the other player's forces in scenarios. When that gets too badly "scrambled" by sufficient formation replacement operations , some of the internal routines to determine HQ Id's get tripped up, resulting in such weird hierarchies, since all the original code is written on the basis of a sequential list in the single shared arrays of units, leaders etcetera.

However, in this case, if annoyed at the mess it has made - then simply cross-attaching errant platoons to the appropriate company HQ will sort things out for the remaining games in your campaign.

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

In reply to Don, I played it virtually as soon as it came out, so some years ago now.

Re: Has anyone been playing the new Kursk Campaign?
 

I like to tinker with the game scenarios and I noticed the same thing.
If you delete all the AI forces except the HQ, once you buy new formations you sometimes end up with unit B0 commanding and A0 following.