DESIGNER'S NOTES

Kursk is a game project with a long and varied history. Since work began on Kursk, the original designer left SP! before  he  was  able  to  complete his end, the research in use was discovered to be erroneous, and a new  game  system  was  substituted for the PGG (Panzergruppe Guderian) system. A chronicle of the progress and regress of Kursk may be found in issues of Strategy and Tactics and MOVES magazines published in 1979.

Game System: When the game was initially feed­ backed in S&T, the proposal described an operational-level treatment of the battle using the PGG system. There are, however, certain requirements for a battle if the PGG system is to be used. Kursk was not a typical World War II battle, and testing determined that the PGG system was inappropriate. Further experimentation proved that a PGG game could be done on the southern pincer, but considerable tinkering would be re­ quired (the major problem was that the German player would have eleven mobile units to cover forty-three hexrows - the Germans could not do what they did historically, let alone achieve their objective). Perhaps someone will do a PGG system game on-an aspect of the battle of Kursk, but the current game assumes that the people who ap­ proved the game wanted an overview of the battle, rather than an isolated portion. With that assumption, a different system was required for the game.

Research: The original research was taken off the Lage Ost maps, which were captured at the end of the war. These provide an excellent source for a German Order of Battle, but are weak on terrain analysis and very weak on Soviet Order of Battle (at this juncture in time, the Germans would place Soviet armies on the map if they discovered more than  one refugee in a  particular area). I was lucky

-enough to be offered considerable assistance by a National Archivist who could read Russian  and had already made a study of the battle.  Much of the credit for the accuracy of the map and order of battle go to Richard Gould, whose  patience with me and familiarity with the appropriate sources were equal to the• task. He provided me with so much information  that I was forced  to delete some pertinent material.

Movement: The basic movement rules are familiar to any veteran player of wargames . .The rail movement rules limit the number of units the players can transport from any one given area at a time. Historically, the Soviets were not able to rail the entire Southwest Front to the salient – this situation is reproduced in the game. When units were pulled out of the front line, they were either attrited away to uselessness or fatigued, requiring a period of rest to become combat effective once 9again. The disengagement rules prevent players from using units ahistorically. The infiltration rules reflect the German capabilities at the time. The playtesters prefer to believe that those rules simulate the German armored unit which disguised itself as a Soviet unit.

Combat: The Kursk battle differs in many respects from its contemporaries. The mobility of armored and mechanized units and the fluidity of the front line were severely curtailed by conditions unique to Kursk. First, the defensive positions were generally situated in excellent protective ter­ rain. Second, the entrenchments dug for the battle were far more extensive than any such network since the days of the Great War (World War I). The Soviet Siberian reinforcements managed an incredible amount of spadework between May and July; just take a look at the map. This combination of events reduced the tactical options available to division and brigade commanders considerably. The Kursk combat system encourages the massing of powerful formations and rates units defensively  by their staying  power. The Combat  Results  Table  is  attritional  in  nature; players cannot escape casualties except at the ex­ treme ranges. The system may be unsubtle, but it portrays combat as it occurred at Kursk.  The results obtained in combat are generally similar to those found in other games of the era, but their ap­ plication is different, because of the Step and retreat limitations mechanisms.

Modes: The modes force the players to make strategic decisions before movement and combat, rather than at the instant of either. Kursk was won and lost on such decisions; there is no reason the players should escape from the responsibilities which faced the historical commanders. The head­ quarters, anti-tank and artillery units are exempt­  ed from mode considerations because their use was fairly straightforward.

Supply, Communication and Subordination: When individual units are organized into cohesive formations, players of a simulation of that event should be encouraged to use those units together. Though subordination rules are never popular with those who play the games purely for entertainment value, the rules here are not overly draconian, and so will not impede the flow of play. The smooth functioning of combat units was more dependent on sufficient fuel and munitions reaching the units than staying in radio contact with their headquarters, which is why supply is more critical than communication in play.

Artillery and Anti-tank: The extensive use of artillery and anti-tank guns is identified with the battle of Kursk. The Soviet anti-tank guns blunted many a German armored offensive throughout the two weeks of battle, and artillery on both sides played extremely important roles at various times. The Soviet numerical superiority in guns wiped out any German qualitative edge.

Scenarios: A game on Kursk must include the historical scenario. An attack in May has been hypothesized by many armchair generals conversant with the battle, and should be of interest to almost any Eastern Front fan. At first, I was not in favour of including the August scenario, but when I devised the current system, only a few changes were required to include the Soviet counteroffensive. I find the August scenario to be most important, (or it is the first time the Soviets employed the strategies (massed formations plus rolling artillery barrages) which took them to Berlin.

In retrospect, the most important decision made during the length of the project was to junk the original PGG-derivative system and the faulty research. The Kursk situation deserved the fresh approach herein presented. Some aspects of the game will be maddeningly familiar to the Eastern Front gamer, such as the German individual unit superiority (one can always tell the Soviet units - they have the lowest strength values), but even here subtle changes have been instituted. A fair number of good things in the game are due to an unusually skilled and dedicated group of play­ testers; they can blame me for the bad things.

The simulation of the battle of Kursk required an effort almost as massive as the battle itself. I have put a large amount of sweat and blood into this most ambitious undertaking of my professional career. I trust the reader will be able to appreciate it.

Eric Goldberg