From The Wargamer

Designer's Response
by Jack Radey

I must say that it is one of the satisfactions of doing the work to
produce such a game as Duel For Kharkov to have someone appreciate it!
(It sure ain't for the money, honey!) Brother Alsen's review, and the
mail that I have received to date have certainly been gratifying.
Indeed, as John correctly points out, Duel For Kharkov is precisely the
synthesis of seven years of People's War Games development, starting
with Korsun Pocket and proceeding through Kanev and Black Sea through
3W's Kirovograd and our own Wolf's Lair. 

On the way I have freely borrowed from the work of Dunnigan, Balkoski,
Prados, Chadwick, Goldberg, Berg, Bolt, Helmer and Astell, as well as
others. In addition, 1 have added a few wrinkles of my own. In the
process 1 like to think that I have gained some insights into the nature
of operational level warfare in the USSR in the 1943-44 period and I
think that Kharkov is as close as I have come so far to making both a
good game and a good simulation of it. 

Let me deal with a few of the questions that John has raised and then
add a few comments. The German motorized units lacking the tank
silouhette on the back are the SS Panzer Corps HG, the HG of the AH SS
Panzer Division, it's panzer regiment, and its motorized and panzer
grenadier regiments; nothing important! While some have described this
as a printer's error, it is, of course, mine. However it is easily
solved in the home. You will need a single edged razor blade or exacto
knife and a glue stick or some other glue. Simply slice off the backs of
the counters (do the SS boys first for practice) and then the tanks off
the backs of the SS formation markers where they are unneeded and
carefully glue them on the bare backsides of the SS units. Presto,
should take you about five minutes. Sorry about that. 

The problem of formation subordination is more serious, but here the
decision was made consciously, if not necessarily correctly. My
rationale in not, for example, putting "Popov" on top of the HQ units of
the III, IV Gds, X and XVIII Tank Corps was to allow the Soviet player
the flexibility to transfer corps from one army or front to another. 

For further clarity, Southwest Front includes 6th and 1st Guards Armies
and Mobile Group Popov, 6th Army includes IV Gd and XV Gd Rifle Corps, 1
Gd, 11 and XXV Tank Corps, and 1 Gd Cavalry Corps, as well as a lot of
other stuff With the Army clearly indicated on the top. 1st Guards Army
includes VI Gds Rifle Corps, and Mobile Group Popov includes the four
tank. corps listed above plus other stuff. Voronezh Front contains the
40th, 69th, 64th, and 3rd Tank Army. The latter contains the X11 and XV
Tank Corps and the VI Gd Cav Corps, while 40th Army has the V Cd Tank
Corps and 69th Army has the II Gd Tank Corps. 

The rationale in leaving this information off of the counters was that
these formations, even to a greater extent than the infantry divisions,
got shifted around during the course of the battle. For the Germans it
was far worse, with corps boundaries and attachments often changing
every few days. If I had given higher headquarter designations on the
counters, they would have been correct for only a small part of the
battle, and probably inhibited some players from exercising realistic
flexibility in their conduct of the battle. 

John is correct, bridges without roads or railroads crossing them negate
the movement effects of the rivers they cross but not the combat
effects. 

Friendly German Board edges/entry areas include everything A through E
and P through S (i.e. the southern, eastern, and a bit of the northern
board edges), while the Soviet areas are H through L, and after the
February 5th turn, G through L (i.e. the area on the northern and
eastern board edges east of the Donets River). 

That also brings up the question of what is west (east) of the Donets
River. Actually, the Donets on the southern map runs predominantly
Northeast to Southwest. The river flows southward towards the Sea of
Azov and I could have said the right bank (face down stream to determine
which is the right bank). However, I figured that most people would
understand. While no Soviet units except partisans start the game west
of the Donets, many German units start there and with competent play
they will all be there shortly. When measuring to see if a unit or
formation is 15 hexes west of the Donets, count from the unit to the
nearest Donets hexside to the unit. I cannot imagine a way to do this
with hex coordinates. 

When movement is halved, fractions are retained, and they are rounded
neither up nor down. 

When a unit is attached to a new formation, it can be either noted on
scratch paper or kept in the player's head. If you really have a problem
with it, you can always get a blank marker and indicate on it the new
subordination and put it under the unit. 

Further errata: Alexeyevskoye on the northern map should be in Hex 3133,
the name is there but no village. 

In the second paragraph on disruption, p.14 column 2, the words "…the
unit would…" should be followed by "…, if disrupted again in the second
enemy combat round, …" 

This is the biggest rules glitch, it went back and forth in playtesting
but was finally deemed to be far too unbalancing and not terribly
realistic, namely, no matter what the air rules and examples say, commit
bombers, stukas or shturmaviks defensively. 

Another item that I was sure was in the rules concerns the question of
losses. If both sides in a combat have strengths in excess of 20
strength points, then the losses of both sides in the battle are
doubled. This only appears under the examples of "Knock knock, who's
there'?". 

On the Orders Chart, the combat modifiers were stated backwards in some
cases, namely that's D -1, not +1 on Defense, D +1 not -1 on Pursuit and
D +2 not -2 on Travel. Those pluses and minuses are shifts on the CRT. 

On the Terrain Effects Chart there should be a -3 modifier for cities,
while on the Combat Results Table it should read at the bottom that odds
of less than 1-3 are read as 1-3. 

Although it says so, I will repeat that no regiment has a ZOC. 

When I set out to design Kirovograd for 3W, I had a few ideas in mind.
Perhaps a few more than Keith had bargained for, as rather than a
simple game system which had complexity layered onto it, the complexity
lay at the heart of the game dynamic, and could not be easily
simplified. In Kharkov, I think that I improved the Kirovograd system
considerably, so that it is possible that Kharkov, with 800 counters
and two maps, may have a lighter counter density and faster playing time
per turn than Kirovograd with one map and 300 counters. 

Finally, I would like to end with a quote from a gamer who recently
played this game, having never, I believe, played a People's War Game
before, I had more fun losing this game than winning most other games I
have played." Think of how much fun this may be to win! 

NB submitted by John Kula (kula@telus.net)
on behalf of the Strategy Gaming Society
(http://www.boardgamegeek.com/~sgs), 
originally collected by Andrew Webber 
(gbm@wwwebbers.com)