Jason brings up a good point that is central to debates among wargamers, and that is the tension between history and game. The Cherkassy battles (Korsun Pocket being one name for the central struggle in that series of fights) are a bitter defensive stand by German forces that ultimately cannot “win” in the sense of defeating the Soviets. There’s really no way the correlation of forces allows the Soviets to lose, unless they simply march in the other direction.
Making a game of this then means you have to set victory at something other than battlefield success. You have to reward the German player for doing better than his historical counterpart, and penalize the Soviet player for doing worse. This works in a game sense, but it can’t get rid of the nagging feeling you have in any of these situations that no matter what you do, it just won’t really matter.
It is not a fatal flaw IMO. Bulge games have it–no competent Allied player is going to “lose” in the sense of letting the Germans get to Antwerp, or even Liege probably. And Germany is still going to lose the war. Normandy too. The Allies are getting ashore. No question about it. All the defenders can do is kill more of the invaders than they did historically. And Germany still loses the war. Truth is there are very very few naturally balanced battles in history because generals don’t fight them. They fight unbalanced battles, Moving higher up the scale, or lower, improves game-ability. A game on the invasion of the USSR in 1941 gives you the options to change history by making all sorts of decisions that could conceivably changed how things went. A game on a firefight around a farmhouse can be completely balanced in 1939 or 1945, depending. But battalion/regiment level “operational” games are damn hard to balance in both a game and a history sense, because historically most of them simply were not balanced.
I’ve played a few games, board games like Korsun Pocket and computer games like HPS’ Korsun '44, covering the Cherkassy battles. They’ve all been fun, because the forces arrayed there are inherently interesting. You get Soviet Guards, all sorts of T-34s and other Red tanks, ooodles of artillery and mortars, snow and clear weather, SS units, Panthers and Tigers, a plethora of Axis units and types, mobile delaying actions and trench warfare, lightning armored strikes and massive infantry battles, desperate defenses and blood-curdling assaults. Yeah, you know how it’s going to end, but as the player, it doesn’t generally matter that much.
The only real difference between a situation like this and say the Bulge is that in the Bulge the Germans can at least fail while launching a large-scale offensive, which is more fun than failing while conducting the losing side of an encirclement battle, I admit. But in the end, Adolf gets his crying towel and the Landser get shallow graves.