I have done four posts on the game maps for the upcoming Advanced Squad Leader (ASL) module Prokhorovka!. I have not been involved in the developing the game, but found the effort worthwhile and interesting. What I was hoping to get back from those posts were comments on the game maps themselves, what was done right and well, and more importantly, what was not done right or needed to be corrected. So far, I have not gotten any comments on the game maps. I have provided some of my own to the designers, and in the case of the Storozhevoye map, it was re-worked before I posted it.Â
So anyhow, for the sake of our game designers, could we get some comments please.
Previous posts:
Andreyevka Map for the game Prokhorovka! | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)
Stalinskii Map for the game Prokhorovka! | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)
Oktyabrskii Map for the game Prokhorovka! | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)
Storozhevoye Map for the game Prokhorovka! | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)
Other references:
PROKHOROVKA! (advancingfire.com)
My only comment is the general mantra: “form should follow function.”
If the game map facilitates applying the game rules then it is good to go!
We cannot make any statements on the game, without having touched the board game itself. From my experience most games usually fail to translate the laws of war into their mechanics and rulesets or are guilty of drawing their information from a pool that is often based on wrong conclusions. That is, weighting the different arms of a fighting force incorrectly and not understanding combat power (or their effects). Not even armoured warfare is portrayed correctly, which most games seem to have a strong emphasize on.
If the game is merely constrained to this tight view of WW2, then it cannot be a good WW2 game in the first place. These are snapshots from typical engagements and the significance of these armoured clashes is notoriously overstated, without portraying how the war was actually conducted. Territorial gains occured by fighting the “sods” in the foxholes, accompanied by armour in a supplemetary role (i.e. their function was often that of armoured buses feeding new troops into the assault). Airfields were captured and thus air forces deprived of organizational space. Many people who show interest in WW2 often think that success must have been a consequence of “knightly” tank clashes or air vs air duels, but here the picture was quite one dimensional. Factoring in resources and institutions, the product of these engagements is hardly surprising, from Prokhorovka to the Valley of tears.
Evaluating maps is usually the least of the concerns, and I do not know in what way this game deals with “what ifs” or of its actual scale.