Paddy's Bridge Scenario

[blackcloud6]

Attached is a scenario with a UK battlegroup going against Soviet forces to seize some bridges. I wanted to play with Challenger I tanks so I made up this scenario. Yes, I understand that the brits were in NORTHAG and we yet no northern maps. So, with some creative writing, I wrote them into a scenario.

6-24-2024 revision: changed Soviet Battle Planning SOP for "Relocate When" to "never." Revised file is attached to this post.

[CapnDarwin]

Thanks for posting!

[CharlesV]

Hi,
Being a Brit I was excited to see this. Unfortunately it fails to load, reporting the scenario was made with a later version of the game 420 vs 413 and then a fatal error loading the scenario data file. I'm using 2.1.3.7735 which is awaiting some bug fixes for the campaign games.
Charles

[CharlesV]

Hi,
Being a Brit I was excited to see this. Unfortunately it fails to load, reporting the scenario was made with a later version of the game 420 vs 413 and then a fatal error loading the scenario data file. I'm using 2.1.3.7735 which is awaiting some bug fixes for the campaign games.
Charles

[blackcloud6]

Hi,
Being a Brit I was excited to see this. Unfortunately it fails to load, reporting the scenario was made with a later version of the game 420 vs 413 and then a fatal error loading the scenario data file. I'm using 2.1.3.7735 which is awaiting some bug fixes for the campaign games.
Charles

I'm using the Public Beta v2.1.4.8064. Try upgrading to that and the scenario should run. It is available in the main forum.

[Tcao]

The soviets AI seems to be a very pessimistic. I guess that is because all the BTR Co.'s default SOP is "Relocating after taking any loss"

[blackcloud6]

The soviets AI seems to be a very pessimistic. I guess that is because all the BTR Co.'s default SOP is "Relocating after taking any loss"

Thanks, possibly an oversight on my account. I'll take a look at it.

[blackcloud6]

6-24-2024 revision: changed Soviet Battle Planning SOP for "Relocate When" to "never." Revised file is attached to the first post in this thread.

[Zumwalt_446]

A very enjoyable scenario to play through (played as the British and secured a Tactical Win combined with enemy sudden death). One of the most noticeable differences from the rest of the NATO forces is the lack of organic AT capability for the regular infantry units; even the minimal armament (Carl Gustaf/Panzerfaust/etc.) seen for Canadian and FRG troops is missing here. This just makes coordination with the dedicated AT teams all the more crucial.

Another welcome surprise was the capability of the British armor (Challenger 1s) versus average Soviet equipment (T-64s and BTRs) rather than the T-80s and BMPs of the first-echelon Soviet troops. It's quite the experience to watch a single tank platoon eliminate multiple tank companies from a prepared position while taking only a single friendly casualty in return; in some ways, this is the opposite of the Canadian campaign which pits older equipment (Leopard 1s) against the aforementioned T-80s and BMPs.

[blackcloud6]

A very enjoyable scenario to play through (played as the British and secured a Tactical Win combined with enemy sudden death).

Thank you for the good comments. I'm glad you enjoyed the scenario.

[Tcao]

A very enjoyable scenario to play through (played as the British and secured a Tactical Win combined with enemy sudden death). One of the most noticeable differences from the rest of the NATO forces is the lack of organic AT capability for the regular infantry units; even the minimal armament (Carl Gustaf/Panzerfaust/etc.) seen for Canadian and FRG troops is missing here. This just makes coordination with the dedicated AT teams all the more crucial.

They have LAW-80, an equivalence of Carl Gustaf.

Sorry to hijack this thread. I also notice the same thing in French OOB. The Milan ATGM launchers were concentrated in a sperate AT company, the French ATGM plt has 8 x Milan launchers (if my memory is correct). While they have tremendous AT firepower during an ambush, using the ATGM Plt in the game is very inflexible . During the war time, isn't this AT company going to be breakup and reinforce each Mech infantry plt?

[Zumwalt_446]

Good point regarding the LAW-80; I somehow forgot them when writing the previous post. But I would say my point still stands in that the LAW-80 has only a 500 meter range versus the 50-1000 meter range of the Carl Gustaf (the Panzerfaust has only 300m of range in the DB). So the regular infantry platoons are very much dependent on the ATGM platoon to provide support against enemy vehicles at longer ranges.

[Zumwalt_446]

Back with another comment:

I'm playing from the WP side now and realized that the BTR has amphibious capability (thus should be able to cross the Neckar at the north of the map with some prep time). However, I can't seem to get the pathing to directly cross the river even after deselecting both "Concealment" and "Roads" in the SOP. If I can get this to work, it would be an interesting alternative COA to the standard ones (which have the WP advance restricted by the river barrier).

Will update on any results.

[Zumwalt_446]

It's me again with a WP AAR (WP tactical win with enemy sudden death):

The NATO COAs seem to emphasize physically securing the objectives (especially the southern one) over indirectly securing them. This results in the Challenger units taking high casualties due to advancing in the open while my tank battalion already holds the heights to the east. It might be worth adding a few battle plans which place the armor in cover but still commanding the objective.

Additionally, the Striker AT units did not make an appearance at all; upon ending the scenario, I observed that they are stacked between Marbach and Kirchdorf. This may be due to the battle plan or other factors, but it results in a significant portion of the NATO AT capability being removed from the equation.

[Tcao]

6-24-2024 revision: changed Soviet Battle Planning SOP for "Relocate When" to "never." Revised file is attached to the first post in this thread.

Hi blackcould6, I am playing the updated scenario , BTRs are fine but I noticed the Tanks from tank battalion have some weird behavior. They relocate as soon as they were caught in an ambush. But after relocate they will behavior more aggressive . I guess it is caused by AI plan

AI Plan.jpg (138.42 KiB) Viewed 859 times

AI Plan for 2TB:
standoff = 8
Hold fire until fire upon
Relocate when enemy spotted.

After relocate they will switch to the unit SOP, never relocate, stand off =0


The Mot Rifle Bn's AI Plan has a stand off hex at 1, it might not be a big issue when approaching, but it can stop the BTR Co. to storm the British Mech Infantry.

AI Plan MRB.jpg (135.01 KiB) Viewed 859 times

[ChesterNimitz]

I played this last night and was impressed. The only change I would suggest is to move the northernmost VP spot further north. Right now all three VP spots are too close together which results in both sides concentrating their their units in one small area.

One possible spot to move the VP spot to is the big city in the middle of the map. Schweninngen. Or possibly highway B523?