"First Contact" - NATO vs. AI

[kool_kat]

Gents: [8D]

Here's my first FPC-RS scenario! [:)]

In summer 1989, the balloon went up. Warsaw Pac forces hit NATO hard along a broad front.
Over several days, NATO was hammered and the thin defensive line cracked. Near Scheebel,
the "egg" was split wide open. Enemy mech units surged through and raced to secure crossings
on the Rehrbach and Wumme rivers and the vital crossroads that led east. NATO rushed forward
what formations were available in an attempt to stem the red tide. There was not much available.
NATO scraped together elements of the 2nd Armored Cav to form a hasty defense on the east banks
of the Rehrbach and Wumme rivers. Orders were to "hold and await reinforcements." In the pre-dawn
darkness of July 23, 1989, "first contact" was made between the American cav troops and the
12th Guards Tank Regiment. [NATO vs AI only]

Recommended Optional Rules: C, D, and E. Limited Orders should be "checked." (In other words, NO Limited Orders).

I've played it over a dozen times. Short and brutal 4 hour scenario. Very challenging for NATO!

Appreciate any player feedback on my scenario! Thanks! [:)]

Note - Scenario file has been revised (April 5, 2015.) Bridges added and corrected. Enjoy!

[CapnDarwin]

Mike, thanks for posting! [&o]

[Mad Russian]

Great!!

My computer is currently down for the count. I have very limited access to a computer until sometime next week. When I get mine back I'll try to play this out as well.

Good Hunting.

MR

[kool_kat]

Gents: [8D]

I enjoyed developing the "First Contact" scenario!

[&o] The Devs need to be commended for making the scenario design interface and menus intuitive!

Hopefully more players will try their hand at scenario design? [&:]

I know I will! [;)]

[Mad Russian]

+1

Good Hunting.

MR

[Tazak]

Mike, quick question - should there be more than 2 bridges?

Interesting scenario though

[kool_kat]

Gents: [8D]

Here's the final battlefield view showing a NATO marginal victory!

NATO's river defensive lines have been shattered. Soviet tank forces making a desperate drive towards the vital road intersections.

Concentrated fire from the Abrams, cavalry scouts, and "the Hammer" (SPA) made the difference!

Note all the "red crosses" along routes L131 and K219 !! [;)]

Hard fought and brutal battle that came down to the last turns! Good stuff! [:D]

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: Tazak

Mike, quick question - should there be more than 2 bridges?

Interesting scenario though

Hey Bryan: [8D]

There are a total of four bridge objectives (250 points each) in my scenario - two in the north and two in the south.

Warsaw Pac forces need to secure all the bridges and at least one of the two road intersections for
a good chance at a victory.

[Tazak]

That's the question, the objectives don't have bridges, there is a map graphic that looks like a bridge but its not to the game engine. It look a bit strange you put 2 bridges near a map graphic as well as set several 'blown' bridges but no actual bridge near the objectives

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: Tazak

That's the question, the objectives don't have bridges, there is a map graphic that looks like a bridge but its not to the game engine.

Well, the map graphic depicts a road section that crosses a river (close enough to a "bridge" in my book!) and the AI aggressively attacks these objectives.
Also, I did not want NATO to have the capability to 'blow' the bridge objectives... so it is working as intended.

ORIGINAL: Tazak
It look a bit strange you put 2 bridges near a map graphic...

Each test round I played (and I did dozens)... the AI stopped and erected two bridges near the map graphic. I did not want Soviet forces to spend 30 minutes erecting bridges there, especially in a short four hour scenario.
So, I like to think of these bridges as engineered bridge spans that the Soviets erected, just prior to their assault, to facilitate their advance.

ORIGINAL: Tazak
...as well as set several 'blown' bridges but no actual bridge near the objectives

I did not want the AI choosing these different paths... but again, in actual game play, the several 'blown' bridges'
don't come into play, so no big deal? I can always remove them in a future revision.

BTW... have you played my scenario? What are your thoughts? [&:]

[Mad Russian]

Currently you have to physically put a bridge on the map. The reason for that is so that you can determine at the time you create the scenario if that bridge is good or destroyed. If you don't physically put a bridge on the river there isn't one.

Hope that helps.

Good Hunting.

MR

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: mwest
BTW... have you played my scenario? What are your thoughts?

I played a little bit last night. It is indeed short and brutal, with shots fired a few minutes into it, but a little bit more time for recon/counter-recon to develop the situation would be nice?

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Currently you have to physically put a bridge on the map. The reason for that is so that you can determine at the time you create the scenario if that bridge is good or destroyed. If you don't physically put a bridge on the river there isn't one.

Hope that helps.

Good Hunting.

MR

Thank you for the explanation!

I plan to leave my scenario "as is" for now... as the delay imposed on the Soviet forces (units need time to erect bridges), helps balance this encounter!

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: mwest
BTW... have you played my scenario? What are your thoughts?

I played a little bit last night. It is indeed short and brutal, with shots fired a few minutes into it, but a little bit more time for recon/counter-recon to develop the situation would be nice?

Thank you for the feedback! [:)]

That's an idea, but my concern would be the need to incorporate additional recon elements into the OOB,
the initial short scenario time length (4 hours) and the need for several additional rounds of play testing.

BTW... I'm already thinking about my next scenario! Thinking a larger scale meeting engagement with ample recon,
and AFV assets + helos! [X(]

Lots of possibilities here! [;)]

[cbelva]

To help with the immersion factor you can place blown bridges at that location. Williams when he made the maps decided to place bridge symbols. However, the game treats them as no bridge because it requires a bridge being placed in the scenario editor. Players who are not familiar with this may be confused with seeing "Williams bridge symbol" thinking that there is a bridge there when in reality there's not. Just something to think about.

BTW--I have been out of town and just returned so I have not had a chance to even download your scenario. I am looking forward to it. We need more players to create scenarios. The editor is one of the easiest I have found to use. We have yet to create a map editor (is on list of to do) but we shipped the game with quite maps so players should be able to use one and create almost any situation.

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: cbelva

BTW--I have been out of town and just returned so I have not had a chance to even download your scenario. I am looking forward to it. We need more players to create scenarios. The editor is one of the easiest I have found to use. We have yet to create a map editor (is on list of to do) but we shipped the game with quite maps so players should be able to use one and create almost any situation.

Many thanks for providing a lot of ready-made maps! [&o]

I've created numerous scenarios with another game system... and have found map building to be a tedious and time-consuming process!

I'm much more interested in tweaking OOB's and thinking about the overall tactical situation I'm trying to depict in my scenario development work.

Again, thanks for the extensive map library and intuitive scenario creation interfaces and menus! [:)]

[Mad Russian]

We tried to give a wide variety of terrain with the maps so that you would be able to find a terrain that would work for creating new scenarios.

BUT we haven't stopped there. As we create new scenarios going forward there will be more maps created for them. There may even be maps that are different sizes from the ones you are used to seeing in the series so far.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Tazak]

BTW... have you played my scenario? What are your thoughts?

As I said its an interesting scenario, the reason I brought up bridges was in the south you have a large deployment area that is cut off through lack of bridges, its nothing major to bridge one at the start but just appeared to be out of character with overall feeling of a mobile defence scenario

[kool_kat]

Gents: [8D]

Please note that I have revised my scenario (April 5, 2015)

Reference my first post in this thread to down load the revised scenario file.

Bridges have been added and corrected. Enjoy! [:)]

[kool_kat]

Gents: [8D]

Another close game... and tactical NATO victory!