OC PG

[Poor Yorek]

Thought I'd share my "obsessive compulsive" PG set-up for  KBT #33.  Mea culpa for the light reflections.

LHS (Stalinists)
Red Dis/Dem markers
Red M/F markers
Red dice
OBA factors

RHS (Heer)
Blue/purple Dis/DEM markers
Blue M/F markers
Green dice
OBA factors
Plane counters (w/ d8 for random draw)
11th Pz. Div. reinforcements awaiting entry at top (EAST) board edge

Nice scenario for using several constituencies.  The Stalinites have both RKKA and Guards.  For the Heer, one can use the GD'43 counters; regular KBT for leaders and 11th Panzer units; and I used the slimmer Pz V counters from RtB for the 10th Pz. Brigade's break-down prone, and hence road-bound, panthers.  

[enrique]

Thought I'd share my "obsessive compulsive" PG set-up for  KBT #33.  Mea culpa for the light reflections.

LHS (Stalinists)
Red Dis/Dem markers
Red M/F markers
Red dice
OBA factors

RHS (Heer)
Blue/purple Dis/DEM markers
Blue M/F markers
Green dice
OBA factors
Plane counters (w/ d8 for random draw)
11th Pz. Div. reinforcements awaiting entry at top (EAST) board edge

Nice scenario for using several constituencies.  The Stalinites have both RKKA and Guards.  For the Heer, one can use the GD'43 counters; regular KBT for leaders and 11th Panzer units; and I used the slimmer Pz V counters from RtB for the 10th Pz. Brigade's break-down prone, and hence road-bound, panthers.  

Thank you very much for the picture. The details are quite clearly visible. Your set-up is interesting.

I think there is a mistake in the Soviet set-up: There is an Entrenchment marker in Cherkasskoye (town on the map 40) in hex 810. But the scenario says: "Place Entrenchment markers in any non-town hexes."

Victory conditions (German objectives) are:

1) Control all town hexes at the end of play.

2) No Soviet unit occupies a road hex at the end of play.

3) Exit at least 25 German steps off the north edge.

The Soviet player wins if the Germans do not achieve any objectives or just one. I think the Soviet player should focus on preventing the Germans achieve  objectives 1 and 2. Moreover  control of the road is essential for the Soviet player, because of heavy mud and  Panther tanks shortcomings (Special Rules 4 and 5) .

Therefore I would place six minefield markers along the road and six in semicircle south of Cherkasskoye.

Entrenchments: I would place half Entrenchment markers on the road (at least 3 north of Cherkasskoye) and the other half in a semicircle south of the town behind the shield of  minefields.

It is true that the Germans could freely leave the north edge of the map, but not serve them at all.

This is, in my opinion, the best Soviet set-up.

I just played scenario 10 (KBT).  In a set-up similar to this one,  the Soviets won a victory at first sight unlikely.

Do you play with 3rd edition rules? Markers belong to this edition.

Best wishes,

[Poor Yorek]

Thank you very much for the picture. The details are quite clearly visible. Your set-up is interesting.

I think there is a mistake in the Soviet set-up: There is an Entrenchment marker in Cherkasskoye (town on the map 40) in hex 810. But the scenario says: "Place Entrenchment markers in any non-town hexes."

Victory conditions (German objectives) are:

1) Control all town hexes at the end of play.

2) No Soviet unit occupies a road hex at the end of play.

3) Exit at least 25 German steps off the north edge.

The Soviet player wins if the Germans do not achieve any objectives or just one. I think the Soviet player should focus on preventing the Germans achieve  objectives 1 and 2. Moreover  control of the road is essential for the Soviet player, because of heavy mud and  Panther tanks shortcomings (Special Rules 4 and 5) .

Therefore I would place six minefield markers along the road and six in semicircle south of Cherkasskoye.

Entrenchments: I would place half Entrenchment markers on the road (at least 3 north of Cherkasskoye) and the other half in a semicircle south of the town behind the shield of  minefields.

It is true that the Germans could freely leave the north edge of the map, but not serve them at all.

This is, in my opinion, the best Soviet set-up.

I just played scenario 10 (KBT).  In a set-up similar to this one,  the Soviets won a victory at first sight unlikely.

Do you play with 3rd edition rules? Markers belong to this edition.

Best wishes,

Enrique:

Yes, my only excuse for the ENT in the town is that most likely I tinkered with the set-up after initial placement.  That is, I am fairly certain that I originally had the ENT outside the town (in conformity with the scenario instructions), but then came back and tinkered a bit and probably just wasn't thinking about the restriction.  Generally, I like to set the defense, let it simmer for a bit, then make adjustments (fortunately, a luxury of solo play).  But, yeah, oops in this case.

I don't want to get into a debate about "best" set-up, but one of the aspects of solo play that I like is the ability to try things out with no need to worry about ego or face and "winning."  Also, it is interesting to see whether PG really simulates combat at this scale.  So, for example, one frequently reads about defense in depth; reverse slope defense; allowing armor to penetrate, then sealing the avenue of approach etc.  Yet, my limited experience usually suggests that a "fixed defense" or the "make the attack come to you" approach often works well with PG's system.  On the other hand, here the Germans have a massive DF contingency with their large number of tanks, who really have little AT role as the Soviets armor is very limited.  Thus, I thought allowing the Germans to set up a wall of 22-DF (or larger) stacks was not particularly opportune.

So, with this scenario, I purposely placed the Stalinist defense in an array of "strong points" spread out in order to (so went the plan) force the Germans to divide up (like streams around rocks) so as to maximize the AT flank possibilities.  Also the Soviets hoped to re-invest the road and/or Cherkasskoye (emerging from their holes) during the last turns.  

Such issues are certainly one reason why having PG-HQ is such a useful resource as one can read up on what has gone before.  Looks like you are playing your way through KBT, so I'll be eager to see how your own play shall have proceeded and turned out.  

As for your question about rule set, I am generally playing 4th Ed. now (not that I have been playing much), though I prefer the 3rd Ed. Assault Table (although I have my "issues" with the lower cols even with the 3rd).  I have a very different opinion in that regard from, say, Matt and Daniel who, I think - if I may put words in their mouths based on recollection of previous posts - prefer the newer version.   

As for the markers, yes, I MUCH prefer the older ones.  Actually, my purpose in posting the photo was to illustrate the usefulness of the red-vs-blue system of markers (not so much the scenario play itself).  I am more than willing to trade a 4th edition set of markers for the "cold" or blue/purple set from BotB.  I wrote once to Benninghof suggesting the superior utility of the plain colors (in my not so humble opinion!) and the friend/foe dimorphic markers, but I suppose that got file 13'd!     

[Hugmenot]

Generally, I like to set the defense, let it simmer for a bit, then make adjustments (fortunately, a luxury of solo play).

I am the same way.

I don't want to get into a debate about "best" set-up, but one of the aspects of solo play that I like is the ability to try things out with no need to worry about ego or face and "winning."

Same here; I have replayed some scenarios up to 5 times to experience the effects of various setups. And I still struggle playing the defending side.

I once posted pictures of my setup and wrote whether they were effective. No time to continue this practice unfortunately.

As for your question about rule set, I am generally playing 4th Ed. now (not that I have been playing much), though I prefer the 3rd Ed. Assault Table (although I have my "issues" with the lower cols even with the 3rd).  I have a very different opinion in that regard from, say, Matt and Daniel who, I think - if I may put words in their mouths based on recollection of previous posts - prefer the newer version.

I do indeed much prefer the 4th edition Assault Table. Definitely harder to plan the perfect attacking stacks due to the increased variability at low odds.

[vince hughes]

The blue and red M/F markers also provide an excellent and immediately recognisable battle line/situation at a glance as the turn is wearing on. Wayne and I swore by them and it would have seemed most strange playing with the same colour M/F markers for each side. We/I even used the same as you. Blue for Axis and Red for Allies.

Nice to see one of your set-ups PY.

[Poor Yorek]

 We/I even used the same as you. Blue for Axis and Red for Allies.

Oddly enough, when I have US or UK vs. Germany, I switch so the blue/purple goes with the Allies (::cough::  ) and the red with the Germans.  With Germany vs. USSR, it is as I have here.  With Italy vs. USSR in Fronte Russo, Italy takes the blue; likewise (of course) with AFD, so do the Finns.  

PG version of a Rorschach test?

[waynebaumber]

 We/I even used the same as you. Blue for Axis and Red for Allies.

Oddly enough, when I have US or UK vs. Germany, I switch so the blue/purple goes with the Allies (::cough::  ) and the red with the Germans.  With Germany vs. USSR, it is as I have here.  With Italy vs. USSR in Fronte Russo, Italy takes the blue; likewise (of course) with AFD, so do the Finns.  

PG version of a Rorschach test?

Though if we played via Skype I would swap the colours around in an attempt to change my losing record V Herr Hughes, this tactic too failed to work