Goose Green Map and Scenario

[Chief Rudiger]

I recently created a Darwin/Goose Green map and scenario to experiment with AI objective, terrain types and small, detailed OOBs. In my scenario I have simulated the Paras with LayForce Commandos and the Argies with Italians. While i think the scenario plays quite well, at least as the Paras, I am having trouble with a few things. Most of these are probably a result of trying to model minor tactics in an operational level game but hey... big maps take ages!

1) I want to compel the Argy AI to deploy his forces around a wide perimeter, and for him to keep them there until the Paras bounce the first (very low quality) enemy company off the 'Ring Contour 50' feature in the night. This will allow the Paras to close up to GG by the morning against piecemeal opposition. I do not seem to be able to induce the Argy AI to keep his companies scattered and I always seem to run into them all on the ridge. How are VL/VPs best arranged to encourage the desired behaviour? I would like to repeat this in other scenarios where I feel the AI should hold back more troops than it does.

On the flip side how is the attacking Para AI to be encouraged to split his forces best, to emulate the right hook performed by the Bn in real life? In the game the Para Bn seems to stay in one mass.

2) I want the Argies to defend the ridge line to the North of GG, if they can keep the Paras off it. Fundamentally however, their objective must be to hold on to GG. If GG is captured by the Paras then the scenario should end. I have set the Para's sudden death secure objective quite large so that they must control the ridge as well as the town to win.

What i see in-game though is the Argies counterattacking the ridge on D2 if GG is still in their hands. I don't want them to throw themselves at the ridge if its lost, they didn't have the wherewithal to organise this kind of counterattack, at least not in Bn scale. The Scenmaker manual says not to stack objectives, how can i otherwise encourage a bunkering behaviour?

3) I want several Argy Base, AA and Arty units to be static. I have tried making these Mot units w/ zero fuel but they seem to find fuel from somewhere and dance about. Is there any other way to lock units, without putting them on 'islands'?

4) I want the ground to give excellent cover from indirect fire, given the peaty soil, so that Arty suppresses and fatigues but does not necessarily cause significant casualties to stationary units. I also want to terrain to hamper the Argies much more than it does the Paras. By setting the overall stats of the Paras higher i think i have achieved this. Is there anything else i can do?

I have hosted the files on Megaupload and any comments would be appreciated.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=T7G0VT49
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=H4N3G4AQ
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=NY4A5U4Z

I have used the Narvik scenarios map graphics in the attached screenshot. Thanks to the creator.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Chief Rudiger

I recently created a Darwin/Goose Green map and scenario to experiment with AI objective, terrain types and small, detailed OOBs. In my scenario I have simulated the Paras with LayForce Commandos and the Argies with Italians. While i think the scenario plays quite well, at least as the Paras, I am having trouble with a few things. Most of these are probably a result of trying to model minor tactics in an operational level game but hey... big maps take ages!

This looks very cool. Hopefully, I can play it sometime this weekend. Thanks for posting it before the Bulge game comes out and sucks the wind out of everything else! [;)]

I do not seem to be able to induce the Argy AI to keep his companies scattered and I always seem to run into them all on the ridge.

Have you tried assigning AI objectives on the map? If you set the objectives to HIGH, the AI ought to maintain a presence to secure/defend them. If you want the AI units to fall back after a while, simply turn them off at a given hour/min and have another set of objectives activate at the same time.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Chief Rudiger

I have used the Narvik scenarios map graphics in the attached screenshot. Thanks to the creator.

Hi Chief,

When I load the scenario, the default "Crete" graphics display.

Did you know that you can leave the "default" map graphics folder, as is, and have all the custom graphic folders that you want (without swapping them in and out of the default folder?

fb.asp?m=2470092

[Chief Rudiger]

Let me know how you get on with the scenario. I used Mark Adkin's "Goose Green" for its OOB and scanned his maps. Like in RL I find it hard to clear Stanley before sunset without getting gamey. The AA guns on the runway can really chew up the companies on the forward slope but surrender really easily. I don't like positioning the MG's on the far side of Camilla creek as they soon loose LOS as the battle passes over the ridge, and their fatigue gets maxed out redeploying, but thats the way it was done. The ring contour company is really pesky in that it will rout as soon as its touched, as it was, but will stay a nuisance to following units if not mopped up.

I would like the ridge of be a better defensive position, seeing as it was prepared as such until the TF was orderred to expand it's perimeter, but when i added a defensive/rough terrain layer it just got impossible to clear. I'm doubtful whether their position should actually be sound, in COTA terms, as the battle to clear the ridge wasn't all that much to write about in comparrison to WW2.

I added the 4 man SAS 'platoon'/OP as a way of seeing beyond the ridge but i'm not sure whether they acted as such in RL (a map on Wikipedia showed them and i thought it would be a nice touch, or at least another colour!).

I've been playing about with different priority objectives, on very simple maps, but amn't entirely sure i'm giving them the right priority/VPs to get the AI to do what i want it to do. Is there a simple scenario that best demonstrates (and is visibly demonstrated) how AI objectives and VP objective influnce the AI? In particular, how is the AI best fed intel at the start of the game and how can it be best convinced to detach individual units for particular jobs?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Chief Rudiger

I've been playing about with different priority objectives, on very simple maps, but amn't entirely sure i'm giving them the right priority/VPs to get the AI to do what i want it to do. Is there a simple scenario that best demonstrates (and is visibly demonstrated) how AI objectives and VP objective influnce the AI? In particular, how is the AI best fed intel at the start of the game and how can it be best convinced to detach individual units for particular jobs?

In playing your scenario, units defended the objectives. However, there's a problem with the OBJ on "Hill B" because it remains active for the whole scenario. Because of that, the AI may (and did) dispatch units to defend it even after it's been bypassed. A unit that ends up there really can't augment the defense to the south. The same MAY be true of the OBJ on Darwin Hill, but its proximity to Goose Green MAY make it somewhat more useful to defending the Southern-most AP marker.

If you place a high-priority/secure objective on the map, the AI will probably commit (a) unit(s) to it. BTW, you don't need to assign points to an AI OBJ. Placing HIGH on an OBJ is the magnet. Clearly, the OBJ NW of "The Dairy" is the big one, so that's where the points should probably go.

I played the scenario twice. I got one minor defeat, and one draw. I encountered two obstacles to victory, time and fatigue. Some of my units simply couldn't make it into the assault in the vicinity of Goose Green. And that was another problem of sorts, in that the AI decided to defend the town in both games. I'm not sure that my carpet-bombing of the settlement would have gone over particularly well with PM Thatcher. Nonetheless, it was fun and challenging.

One thing that you might consider in terms of OOB is firepower, which is to say how to provide the UK with more of it. I don't know if that's really possible with the estabs as they currently exist, however.

To get where you want to go with this, you might also consider modifying the terrain values for movement in the MM utility. Simply speeding things up on a road or track, twenty-percent or so, might do the trick.

Good work! [8D]