WIP New Map and Scenario

[Chief Rudiger]

Sorted,

Something must've been wrong with my objectives because deleting them all and starting entirely from scratch fixed the problem. Phew.

Here's the link to the updated scenario, map and estab.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=YRQARS5Z

Place the .cos file in the scenarios folder
Place the .coe and .xml file in the estabs folder, and copy and rename "BFTBEstab_Images" to "COTAtestestab_Images"
Place the .cop and .cop.cache in the maps folder

Then play.

This version has slimmed down objectives and beefed up French Arty, so it should be a grind for the Allies. Historically, the campaign in cost the Australians more lives than the siege of Tobruk ( i think... ).

I'm now researching an OOB for either the German 5th Mountain Div or 22nd (Air Mobile) Infantry Division, to form a battle group to replace/augment the French counter attack Bde.

---------------

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

I think that the game AI wants to know more about what's out there in order to react intelligently.

If you want things to start moving to particular locations, you can create false intel reports near objectives and the game should react.

Likewise, you can use AI-only objectives set to a higher-level and that should also prod them into action.

Thats what i did to try get the AI moving. I'm pretty sure something was wrong with my objectives. Maybe they overlapped, i think the manual said to avoid that. A stickied "how-to" post on what to look out for would be great, eventually.

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Question for you:

I' growing curious about the apparent vulnerability of the Axis R35 AFV. It seems like its taking hits when no effective Allied AArm is nearby. I mentioned above that I thought that it was the Allied ATR that are getting all the kills. Did you build your own Boys ATR and/or other AArm weapons?

I based it on the German ATR but with a pen value set less than the R35's frontal armour, but more than its flank and rear. I want the R35's to roll over infantry and only be stopped by the ATk Bty (not included in the scenario, tehehe) or over open 25pdr sights! The Vicker Lt Tks's .50 cal has a pen value greater than the R35's frontal armout, at 100m range.

The French also used a lighter tank in addition to the many "home made" Armd Cars. They called the tanks "11-ton" and "X-ton" in intelligence reports but unless stated its hard to tell what the composition of the RCA Sqdns were. I based my OOB on a POW's report!

[Chief Rudiger]

Bugs Spotted: There are no VP assigned to the allies for exiting troops off the North table edge.
2/2 Pnr Bn comes with a Fld Arty Bty under command. This should have been removed.
The Lebanese garrison of Ft Merdjayoun should have a Hvy Weapons inf icon not a standard inf.

I'm not sure whether giving the Allies an exit objective is a good idea anyway. I want them to take all the secure objectives as a primary mission and amn't sure if activating an exit objective so near the end f the scenario will force the attacking AI to replan and bodge its assault on Col's Ridge.

I've played the scenario through from both time and it seems the Allied AI has trouble breaking into Khirbe/Qleaa at the start but when playing as the Allies it seems, like Hofen Ho-Down, that if you can get your men in close then the defenders can't call in Arty. Once in contact, as long as the Mortars and 25pdrs are stonking the defenders it seems to go okay.

The Ft at Khiam seems to work well as a torn in the side of the attacking troops. I imagine thats why it was built where it was. I've given the defenders a 75mm Fld Gun an an 81mm Mortar, for bombarding, which really seems to give them an ability to disrupt attacks. I'm still concerned about the overall lethality of arty. It shouldn't inflict so many casualties on its own, only supress attacks. The 2/2 Pnrs were repulsed and lost some men as prisoners attacking Khiam when french tanks and infantyr counter attacked. An unsupressed force shouldn't have been too vulnerable to this kind of thing - officers and NCO would have organised an ATk defense, IMHO. in game, Arty stonked infantry shouldn't surrender as often as they do. I like that they do in some situations, it really forces you to withdrawn wavering troops, but in other situations it just knackers whole Bns.

Now that the scenario works as a simple battle up and down the MSR i'm going to add in an initial objective on Khiam, for one Bn, and then an objective will activate on Ibeles Saki, later in D1. This will threaten the French resupply route into Merdjayoun and give a good jumping off point to Col's Ridge for either the 2/2 Pnr or Kings Own follow on tps.

[bromstarzan]

Great stuff Chief Rudiger!

I haven't been around the forum (or Command Ops) for some time (workload reasons ) but this sure looks beautiful! I hope to be able to spend some time on map-making in late october/november.

Keep up the good work!

/Broms

[ulisin]

Great stuff Chief Rudiger!

I haven't been around the forum (or Command Ops) for some time (workload reasons ) but this sure looks beautiful! I hope to be able to spend some time on map-making in late october/november.

Keep up the good work!
 
ulisin

[Chief Rudiger]

Would anyone be willing to help with a few more Syria - Lebanon scenarios? The battles at the river Damour, around Jezzine & Mezze are all nice Bde sized actions - not too complex map/objective/force sized.

I love making the maps and Estabs and doing the research but get bogged down with trying to get the scenario VL/VPs balanced enough to make the scenario playable - is this anyone else's strong point?!


Ryan

[Fred98]

To balance a scenario:
 
The victory points in a game against the AI should be different from the victory points for a game against a human.
 
Make 2 scenarios which are the same except for the names. One will include "Human opponent" and the other "AI opponent" in their names.
 
Get 3 players to play the AI from both sides and then report the results of all 6 games.  Then tweak victory points.
 
Get 3 players to play each other from both sides:
A v B
A v C
B v C
 
Report the results of all 6 games and then tweak victory points.
 
Thats how you balance a scenario!
-
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[Lieste]

Just played this one through - had a frustrating start, and lost one company to surrender early on. After I cracked the first position though it was fairly simple to just keep pushing - but dealing with the second and third artillery positions took some time and cost some extra casualties (static Frontier Guard and Fortress - the mobile battery had gone during the assault on Merdjayoun).

I missed the arrival of all the reinforcements except for the light armour, so they each sat about for several hours till I spotted them in the jump map. Nothing terribly bad happened, but taking Windy Corner would have been a little easier with a second battalion on hand, plus the one garrisoning Merdjayoun/killing stragglers).

I dealt with the R35s using one battery of the 25 pdr in direct fire mode. Seemed simpler than messing around with infantry close assaults or my own armour. The guns were protected by suppressing fire from the other 3 batteries, and fires from infantry and light armour. I lost one gun, but that was later during a close combat within Merdjayoun with the Garrison HQ and a few other units, when the battery was supporting the 1/33rd. My armour losses amounted to 2 destroyed vehicles.

The garrison was reduced to one heavy company, plus part of a mortar platoon and light company in his mobile force, four companies of garrison troops, all light companies.

Allied troops secured Kirbe/Qleaa, Merdjayoun, Col's Ridge and the Eastern Exit (though no troops exited - due to missing exit requirements?). Garrisons of Beaufort, Merdjayoun Fort, Khiam Fort, Debbine were cleared, and all armour, artillery and supply troops eliminated.

Great fun - takes me back to BNA series and "Drive on Damascus".

[Lieste]

Hmm, just a few notes on the Estab.

The units frequently have more assigned equipment than troops - while this might be the case sometimes (most troops will have a rifle, carbine or SMG for example, and those that don't will have a side-arm), It might cause too much firepower to be generated from a unit. Only minor amounts most of the time, but some seem a bit higher than average. Noted below the apparent differences, and major cause noted.

Aus BDE HQ, PersQ = Weapons
Infantry Bn HQ, PersQ = Weapons
Infantry Coy, PersQ is 8 lower than Weapons
Infantry Mortar, PersQ is 24 lower than Weapons (crewed Mortars 2@4)
Sqn Light Armour, PersQ is 73 lower than Weapons (vehicle crews 22@3 each - plus L/E for each)
Half Sqn, PersQ is 36 lower than Weapons (ditto)
25 Pdr Battery, PersQ is 56 lower than Weapons (Gun crews 8@6, 8 Quad drivers - plus L/E for each)
Bde Base, PersQ is 26 lower than Weapons (60 drivers with L/E? Some specialists not armed?)

French Bde HQ, PersQ = Weapons
75mm Arty, PersQ is 56 lower than Weapons (crewed guns 8@6, 8 Drivers)
Bn HQ, PersQ = Weapons
Light Company, PersQ is 4 lower than Weapons (crewed light mortars 4@2)
Heavy Company, PersQ is 36 lower than Weapons (crewed HMG 16@3 - some residual difference)
Mortar Platoon, PersQ is 10 lower than Weapons (crewed 81mm Mortar 2@4, plus 2 'extras' (2 more rifles than PersQ))
AT Platoon, PersQ is 8 lower than Weapons (crewed 25mm AT gun 2@4)
Ft Medejayoun Garr, PersQ is 36 lower than Weapons (crewed HMG 4@3, Light Mor 4@2, Heavy Mor @4, Fd Gun @6. Total of just LMG and Rifle exceed PersQ)
Banias Senegalese Garr, PersQ is 4 higher than Weapons (4 men unarmed)
Chateau de Beaufort, PersQ is 2 lower than Weapons (crewed light mor @2)
Rachaya/Ibeles Saki/Khiam Garr, PersQ is 10 lower than Weapons (crewed light mor 4@2, plus 2 'extras' Total of LMG and Rifle exceed PersQ)
Fort Khiam, PersQ is 28 lower than Weapons (crewed HMG 4@3, AT@4, Mor@4, Fd Gun @6, plus 2 extras - Total of LMG and Rifle exceed PersQ)
Half Sqn, PersQ is 34 less than Weapons (crewed R35 5@2, A/C 6@4, plus 34 Rifles)
Base, PersQ is 26 less than Weapons (same as Australian)

[Chief Rudiger]

@ Arjuna

What's required to make a scratch estab, such as this, work best with the new patch?

[Arjuna]

Chief,

If you use the estab editor that comes with the new patch then any estab it creates will work with the new patch. I recommend you make a copy of the existing estab file, rename it and then modify it. It's pretty simple to create a new force estab. I recommend you read the Estab Editor manual. It's not that long and you should be able to work something up pretty quickly.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Chief,

If you use the estab editor that comes with the new patch then any estab it creates will work with the new patch.

That's a pretty big deal, Dave.

Can you elaborate as to how the editors may have been improved?

[Chief Rudiger]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Chief,

If you use the estab editor that comes with the new patch then any estab it creates will work with the new patch. I recommend you make a copy of the existing estab file, rename it and then modify it. It's pretty simple to create a new force estab. I recommend you read the Estab Editor manual. It's not that long and you should be able to work something up pretty quickly.

Sorry, wasn't very clear with my original post. (I know how to create a scratch estab) what I should have said was...

I built my Vichy French scratch estab following the same general values as the stock estabs for comparable things, with regards to unit (frontages, unit force/sub-force/combat-class etc) and weapon (performance values), so that a Vichy French inf coy/rifle isn't significantly different to the stock Allied/Axis ones.

One of the first thing listed in your change log is: "revised the force estabs to correct some factual and systemic data anomalies". What are these changes? For example, Panzerfausts have been made more effective, have they not? Was this the result of changes to the weapons data or does the .exe just handle the same data differently now? A lot of the changes in the log seem to be such .exe changes. If, OTOH, the panzerfaust data, for example, has been significantly changed to achieve the result then I should make changes to my French version.

Also, one of the changes listed is: "Adjusted Formation frontage and depth values in BFTB Estabs. Of particular note, increased depth of road column from 3 to 4m per man. This had a significant effect on combat losses by reducing unit density of forces in road column. This one factor alone virtually halved combat losses." If these changes are limited then it'll be fairly simple to change the values in my scratch estab formation tab but otherwise (unless there's a way to overwrite/update automatically this section of the estab) it sounds like I'll have to recreate my whole estab. Might it not be possible, as I suggested a while ago, to allow parts of estabs to be imported/exported?

The only other change in the log that have the word estab in it is: "Revised Estabs - including reductions to size of bases and arty Bns and mods to RPG ammo." What values were these, and why?

Finally, US AT Platoons have been merged into the Coys - will independent AT Platoons not work properly anymore?

[Arjuna]

As Richard made virtually all of the data changes that affect estabs, I'll let him respond to this.

[JeffroK]

Really good mod.

I feel the game engine relly shines with these smaller sized scenarios, Allies start with 2 Bns plus and "grows" to 4 Bns plus over the 4 days.

It also covers a really unknown area of WW2

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

As Richard made virtually all of the data changes that affect estabs, I'll let him respond to this.

Richard, you out there fella? [&:]

[Phoenix100]

Chief. Will this scenario work with patch 2 yet? And where can I get the LATEST version of it, please?

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

As Richard made virtually all of the data changes that affect estabs, I'll let him respond to this.

ok...

One of the first thing listed in your change log is: "revised the force estabs to correct some factual and systemic data anomalies". What are these changes? For example, Panzerfausts have been made more effective, have they not? Was this the result of changes to the weapons data or does the .exe just handle the same data differently now? A lot of the changes in the log seem to be such .exe changes. If, OTOH, the panzerfaust data, for example, has been significantly changed to achieve the result then I should make changes to my French version.

Also, one of the changes listed is: "Adjusted Formation frontage and depth values in BFTB Estabs. Of particular note, increased depth of road column from 3 to 4m per man. This had a significant effect on combat losses by reducing unit density of forces in road column. This one factor alone virtually halved combat losses." If these changes are limited then it'll be fairly simple to change the values in my scratch estab formation tab but otherwise (unless there's a way to overwrite/update automatically this section of the estab) it sounds like I'll have to recreate my whole estab. Might it not be possible, as I suggested a while ago, to allow parts of estabs to be imported/exported?

The RPG and formation changes, which these refer to, were done by Dave either "under the hood" or in the estab editor. Sorry to throw the ball into back that court... All you need to do is open the estab editor and compare the formation types in your estab with those in the BFTB estab to see if there is any differences. I think any differences should just be limited to "road column" and "in-situ" formations.

The only other change in the log that have the word estab in it is: "Revised Estabs - including reductions to size of bases and arty Bns and mods to RPG ammo." What values were these, and why?

Any changes to ammo were only changes in weight to better simulate ammo supply delivery. It has minimal effect on the game IMO but I was requested to do it.

We reduced the number of personnel and some vehicles in some Arty Bn's because they footprint was too big. Again, I'm not totally sure why we did this, but I was asked to do it. There were some other tweaks to bases to facilitate supply handling but mainly for air-landed airborne bases (not land-based airborne.)

Finally, US AT Platoons have been merged into the Coys - will independent AT Platoons not work properly anymore?

This is really the only estab change that I sanctioned. Independant AT platoons wtill work if you want to use them. Just remember that US rifle Coys have the 57mm AT guns from the AT platoon inherent so don't duplicate.

[Whoover]

Can someone send me these files? Link is/was Megaupload, so no longer available...[:(]

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Really good mod.

I feel the game engine relly shines with these smaller sized scenarios, Allies start with 2 Bns plus and "grows" to 4 Bns plus over the 4 days.

It also covers a really unknown area of WW2

Couldn't agree more...give me loads of small scale, big map, several day scenarios everytime.

Say two or three battalions each side, but lasting longer than one or two days, say three or four.

They make the most immersive scenarios and you also see the engine working in all it's glory, as with the big scenarios you just see a mass of counters.

[dordo59]

No one link in this forum is right.[:(]
Do you know where download or have you the files ?[&o]

Many thanks and happy new year.