Filling the Gap -H to H scenario

[Panta_slith]

I just completed my first FPC scenario, meant for H to H playing. It hasn't been tested yet, but it faces an Armored Cavalry Squadron against a reinforced MRR and that should work. The US has to fill a gap in the NATO lines to prevent WP from seizing the bridges over the Rollbach River and I made a graphic to explain the situation.
All comments and suggestions are welcome.

[Mad Russian]

I'll take a look at it later this afternoon.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Panta_slith]

Just made a few, albeit important adjustments to the scenario, and now is version 1.1

[Mad Russian]

Am in the middle of a playtest. As soon as I get finished with this I'll take a look at your scenario.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

I would put blown bridges over the rivers where you don't want bridges.

Why would the objective values get smaller as the Soviets advance to the west? The goal would be to move ever further west. That should mean the VL's get larger.

Since this is for H2H play you can note in the players briefings that the map is restricted and that there are mine belts on the sides. You can note the villages where the belts start to let them know not to go out of bounds. I would also put the mines between the roads and not just on the road. Each mine costs the gamer 30 minutes to clear. So, 5 mines would be 2 1/2 hours I wouldn't put more than that. You won't be able to win of you lose that much time going out of bounds.

For a being of the war scenario I would think the level of training for the troops involved would be high. Not 6 and 7's. That's just me.

Hope these recommendations help. This is not what I think you should necessarily do or not do. These recommendations are changes I would make if the scenario were mine. You should only make changes to your work if the changes make sense to you.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Panta_slith]

Thank you MR. Actually I made the VPs higher in the middle of the map to lure the AI to go through the gap, in an attempt to make the scenario also playable against the AI. With the further bridges getting the highest VPs the AI tends to go the shortest way, through the woods and so gets stuck in the minefields.
Another consideration would be the hardware. In mid 80s most Russian MBTs were T-72s without thermals, which gives a relative advantage to the heavily outnumbered NATO forces. At least in the TacOps hardware lists and in Steel Beasts Pro they have no thermals, though perhaps night scopes (in the Yom Kippur war nobody had thermals, but the Syrians had night scopes, at least according to Rabinovich's book).
How high would you tell NATOs training would be? One of my coworkers, longtime ago, told me that he had been Chieftan tank commander and that the training level of his unit was pretty high, but that in terms to make the odds even, each NATO tank should dstroy 8 WPs, or at least they ad been told so in their briefings.

[Panta_slith]

Here is a new version with some minor problems I was pointed to solved, v.1.2