GHQ Models Forums

I'm working on tweaking my convention game for Historicon this year and was wondering your thoughts on balance.

The game is setup for 6 players on a 4x4 table using GHQ Microarmour rules. It's the Soviet counterattack in the North during Kursk.

The Russian mission is to breakthrough the German lines and get about 20% of their forces off the opposing table edge (15 stands). The terrain is fairly open with rolling hills and small areas of trees and towns. There are scattared rivers across the board.

Here are the forces:

Soviet Players:
Cohesion 14
Total Points: 2842
Total Stands: 26
( 1) T-34/76 GHQ
( 2) T-34/76 HQ
( 5) KV-1
(18 ) T-34/76

German Players:
Cohesion 16
Total Points: 1595
Total Stands: 9
( 1) Panzer IV H GHQ
( 1) Panzer IV H HQ
( 3) Panzer IV H
( 1) Panther
( 1) Tiger I
( 1) Nashorn
( 1) Elephant

Thoughts?
I was debating reserves for the Germans, one company (3 stands) of StuG III F.

I am not familiar with the GHQ rules, so I could well be wrong in any predictions of whether or not the game might play-out as balanced.

However, looking at the information you have provided I might offer these observations:

1 ) Balance: The points stack up as: 2842 (R) vs. 1595 (G).
Given that the Russians are attacking, and are seeking to get 20% of their force, intact, off of the opposite side of the board, my first impression is that the game is over-balanced in favor of the Germans.

The old addage about needing a 3X advantage to attack is not necessarily true. In this case I presume the Germans have no defensive works (minefields, tank traps, etc.), which multiply their combat effectiveness. However, the Germans have the advantage of the defense -- they can sit and wait, it is the Russians who must "do something" -- which will mean Russians moving, and Germans standing and shooting.

You say the terrain is fairly open, which means long-range engagements may be likely. This is essential for the Germans, as they have a small number of units, and will need to cover with fire areas they can't cover with units. Given the advantage in German gunnery which I hope the rules reflect, and the long-range killing power of several of the unit types you have given the Germans, I would predict the game will basically play out as a shooting gallery -- can the Germans kill the Russians fast enough to keep them from crossing the board. The combat will be wholly one-sided, and you could just as easily put the Russians in GAZ trucks, or better yet in jeeps. All the Russians can really do if they want to win is try to drive faster than they die.

At least that's how it would play out under most rules that I have used.

I expect the Russians need somewhere between a 2X or 2.5X advantage for the game to be balanced.

I would expect this level of ratio of forces (less than 2X) to be balanced only if: a ) The ground scale is such that the Germans can't cover the width of the board with fire, and/or b ) The terrain is more closed-in, with several woods, gullies, and/or villages. In these cases the Germans would need to maneuver to screen and counter rather than just standing and shooting, and so would loose some of their defensive advantage. And the Russians might try to engage the Germans with their KVs to prevent / delay just such a counter-move.


2 ) Historical Accuracy
I don't know how accurate you are trying to be in your selection of units, so you are free to disregard my comments if you choose. But a couple of items come to mind.

a ) KV-1: I believe the only model of the KV-1 that was used at Kursk was the KV-1S, and that none of the KV-1m1942s (the really heavily armored beasts) were present in frontline formations in the Kursk area by this time. I know this to be true for several specific engagements of the Kursk campaigns, but I'm not quite as sure if it is true overall, so if anyone has better specifics I'd be glad to learn.

b ) T-34/76: Of course this is the right choice for the bulk of the Russian force. But up to 1/3(!) of all tanks in Russian units at Kursk were light tanks -- mostly T-70s, with Valentines and Stuarts, and maybe even a few T-60s. They didn't fare too well, and were withdrawn from tank and mech formations after Kursk.

c ) Panther: There were no Panthers on the northern shoulder of the Kursk salient. All of the Panthers available at the time of Kursk were concentrated on the southern shoulder. All Elephants were on the north, all Panthers on the south.

d ) PzIVH: Certainly an appropriate choice. However during the battles at Kursk the Germans had about as many Pz IIIs in service as Pz IVs. The most common models were the L and M. Most Tiger formations at this time also had PzIIINs in the unit as escorts. The PzIIIs didn't fare too well, and were withdrawn from frontline service after Kursk. I could easily see balancing the scenario a bit by cutting the Panther and substituting a few PzIIIs for PzIVHs.

e ) StuGs: Also certainly an appropriate choice. However you might also consider some Marders, which were at their peak of numbers around this time.

Hope this helps.

Now that meets the definition of constructive criticism!!

I'll get back to you once I look it over. There are some good thoughts there.

Troops
Ok, so first I took out the Panther and replaced it with 2 Panzer III Ls. The catch with III Ns would be that each stand is a platoon so I would end up with a platoon of them. I might toss those into reserves.

I wanted to stick with the T-34s just to give it that real Russian feel (I know all you WWII Soviet players love your T-34 hordes). I hadn’t heard that about the KV-1C and will research it some more. The majority of the pictures from Kursk I have seen appear to be KV-1C rather than KV-1A or KV-1s. In then end I will probably leave the C in for game balance.

Oh, and I don’t have Marders in my collection yet, it’s why they aren’t there

Terrain
My apologies, it’s actually rolling hills with scattered villages and trees. There are quite a few blocked lines of sight and if the Germans want the best ones they have to sit on top of open hills………. I have a map sketch pdf and have put it here http://wargamehub.com/forum/index.php?t ... sg46#msg46


The Germans do not have anything dug in; they were hastily moved there from further south to stop the breakthrough.

Range on the weapons would be:
German:
88s: 25â€￾
75s: 20â€￾
50s: 15â€￾

Russian:
76s: 16â€￾

Russian tanks can move at a max rate of 12â€￾ (T34) or 10â€￾ (KV1).

Mission
How about inflicting 10 stands of casualties on the Germans while also getting 12 stands (roughly 15%) off the board? German mission, don’t die while stopping the Russians from breaking through.

Game length, 15 turns (30 minutes of real time). Size of the board is 4x4 so that would be the equivalent to 4,800 yards. The Germans could setup on half the board so an area of 4,800 yards by 2,400 yards in depth. This makes it thinly defended by the equivalent of 10 companies. The Russian attack is 76 stands (76 platoons).

I’m also considering a blind setup so neither side can see where the other put there troops.

I thought I would give an AAR of the game at Historicon. For those of you that were wandering around it was the Friday 1-5 game at table 25.


Setup
First I had cut the forces down to four Soviet players each with 10 T-34/76 stands and 3 KV-1 stands. Basically a company of KV and a battalion of T-34.

The two German players each had 6 Panzer IV, 3 Tiger I, and 2 Panzer III L.

The table was a 4x4 with rolling hills and done to game scale (1" = 100 yrds) using the GHQ WWII Microarmour rules. Two of the players had tried the rule set many years ago and the other four were new. The game was set at 8 turns and the victory conditions were for the Soviets to take out 3 Tigers and 3 of anything else while getting 13 stands off the German board edge. German conditions were to stop the Russians.

Play
The Soviets only won initiative once the whole game and were constantly moving first. Early in the game the Soviet forces had 3 commands race toward the center while one went up the south flank. German shooting at long range was very poor and there was only the occasional suppression or disorganization.

As the range closed the Soviets seemed to change their mind on their tactics just as the German repositioned themselves. The hesitancy to close would later cost the Russian players the game. When they finally moved on it was too late. German guns had found their range and started killing stands while the Russians only succeeded in killing a Pz IV and Pz III stand. At 5:00 we had just reached the end of the turn 6 and the chance of Russian success was almost impossible so it was called as a minor German victory (If the game 9 turns the Soviets would have made it).

Comments
Like always players seem to pick up the GHQ rules well and by turn 3 I was only needed for rulings one way or another. I really appreciate the support of GHQ and them stopping by during the game (and I hope our young watcher will get to play a GHQ game soon).

I will try to get some pictures up on my site this week.

I played in this game. I was the Soviet player on the far left flank. If I could play the game over, (and maybe I will here at home) I would have the Soviet far left and right flanks move first to try to force the Germans to use their oppportunity fire and then let the two center groups race to the far side. This was the first time I have played Microarmour, but it will not be the last time. My thanks to the gamemaster and hope to see you next year.

Hi David,

That's what I have noticed each time that has been played. The Soviet tactic needs to be a mad rush on the German line and then swarm them. If they do that the Soviets should be able to win. But if they try to take potshots on Tiger front armor it will stall them too long.

I'm thinking about using the same 2x2 boards next year but breaking them up into 4 games running at the same time. That would make for eight players in four 1 on 1 games. Only this time would be using a combined arms force for each side. That would allow each game to go at it's own pace. Thoughts?

Maybe the way to try this would be to lay out the battle boards as one long rectangle (2' x 8'). Give each team a 2' x 2' area. As I understand 1 battalion per foot is the recommed ratio of forces to table space. This would give each player 2 battalions. Each battle could be seperate from the other, or all could be considered part of the same battle. At a convention in Texas, my father was in a Seven Year's War game that was laid in a similar way. Except the table was MUCH longer than eight feet!

David

That would work. I'm going to run small one on one games in the Boston area on the 28th of August (info to be posted shortly) and I will let you know how they work out.

I guess my primary question would be where are the troops?

Even in big armored fights like Kursk, infantry units, anti-tank guns, and artillery would outnumber AFVs.

This year was a test to make sure it would work. Going forward the ratio will change to historically accurate forces. Right now I'm working on assembling complete battalions to use.