Page 1 of 2
'A Bridge Too Far' updated for TOAW-3
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:41 am
by Erik2
This was previously available with a special 1km.exe under ACOW.
The 1km is now handled by the equipment-file.
Note the folder-hierarchy included in the zip-file.
The only other changes to the scenario is a revision/simplification of the use of icon colours.
The briefing is in a separate word-doc (only).
The scenario should be available at Rugged Defence in a few days or you can mail me at
erik.nygaard@nrk.no and I'll send you a copy.
For those unfamiliar with the scenario-name, this is a very detailed scenario covering Operation Market Garden,
Montogomery's plan to seize key objectives in Holland by dropping two American and one British para-divisions.
These should then be relieved by a British armored Corps creating a small corridor from Belgium to Arnhem, the road was aptly named Hell's Highway.
Date: September 17th 1944
Location: Holland/Belgium/Germany
Ground Scale: 1 km
Time Scale: 6 hour turns
Unit Scale: Company/Air-Squadron
Length: 40 turns
RE: 'A Bridge Too Far' updated for TOAW-3
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:31 am
by Silvanski
Great! I managed to run the original with the EXE converted to an EQP, but this update will undoubtedly be better.
RE: 'A Bridge Too Far' updated for TOAW-3
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:07 am
by Telumar
Great. Played the COW version as the allies already. Have you set a MRPB, Erik?
Any takers? (I'd like to play as the germans)
EDIT: Opponent found.
RE: 'A Bridge Too Far' updated for TOAW-3
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:28 pm
by Maxx_slith
How do you go about changing the scale to 1 Km.? I'm working on scenarios based on Wellington's Penninsular campaign battles and a smaller scale would be preferable. I've modified the .eqp file but don't see where the scale can be set in ACOW Editor.
RE: 'A Bridge Too Far' updated for TOAW-3
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:41 pm
by JAMiAM
ORIGINAL: Maxx
How do you go about changing the scale to 1 Km.?
He probably adjusted the range of weapons that are used in the scenario, by an appropriate multiple, then bumped the force movement biases.
RE: 'A Bridge Too Far' updated for TOAW-3
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:03 am
by Erik2
ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
ORIGINAL: Maxx
How do you go about changing the scale to 1 Km.?
He probably adjusted the range of weapons that are used in the scenario, by an appropriate multiple, then bumped the force movement biases.
That's correct, multiplied ranges by 2.5
The movement bias can only be bumped by 150% so movement points are a bit on the low side in a 1km scenario.
But this is not too bad in this scenario due to the difficult Dutch terrain and the need to force the players to use road movement.
RE: 'A Bridge Too Far' updated for TOAW-3
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:27 pm
by Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard
ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
ORIGINAL: Maxx
How do you go about changing the scale to 1 Km.?
He probably adjusted the range of weapons that are used in the scenario, by an appropriate multiple, then bumped the force movement biases.
That's correct, multiplied ranges by 2.5
The movement bias can only be bumped by 150% so movement points are a bit on the low side in a 1km scenario.
But this is not too bad in this scenario due to the difficult Dutch terrain and the need to force the players to use road movement.
Also, density penalties will be too light.
RE: 'A Bridge Too Far' updated for TOAW-3
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:57 pm
by Central Blue
I am wondering why the 101st and 82nd disappear on turn 5 leaving Gen Browning all by himself at 45,36? There is no news event saying why. In fact, I can't find anything in the events that causes these units to disappear.
RE: 'A Bridge Too Far' updated for TOAW-3
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:24 pm
by sPzAbt653
ORIGINAL: Central Blue
I am wondering why the 101st and 82nd disappear on turn 5 leaving Gen Browning all by himself at 45,36? There is no news event saying why. In fact, I can't find anything in the events that causes these units to disappear.
That bugger would be event 117. I don't know why the designers did that, but I would suggest to change that event from a 'withdraw army' to a 'withdraw unit'. If the original intention was to withdraw the entire '303 bomb group', then go to the end of the events and add three more 'withdraw unit' events for the 358 sqd, 360 sqd and 427 sqd.

RE: 'A Bridge Too Far' updated for TOAW-3
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:43 pm
by Telumar
ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
ORIGINAL: Central Blue
I am wondering why the 101st and 82nd disappear on turn 5 leaving Gen Browning all by himself at 45,36? There is no news event saying why. In fact, I can't find anything in the events that causes these units to disappear.
That bugger would be event 117. I don't know why the designers did that, but I would suggest to change that event from a 'withdraw army' to a 'withdraw unit'. If the original intention was to withdraw the entire '303 bomb group', then go to the end of the events and add three more 'withdraw unit' events for the 358 sqd, 360 sqd and 427 sqd.
I know why the designer "did" that. He changed the unit colours from the TOAW:COW version, so that the air squadrons now have the same colour as the 82nd and the 101st (in the earlier version they had a dark green/olive background).
RE: 'A Bridge Too Far' updated for TOAW-3
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:50 pm
by Veers
So it is just an over-sight?
RE: 'A Bridge Too Far' updated for TOAW-3
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:54 pm
by Telumar
ORIGINAL: Veers
So it is just an over-sight?
I think so.
RE: 'A Bridge Too Far' updated for TOAW-3
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:06 am
by Central Blue
Thank you Telumar. I did see that one, but I didn't know that the color scheme was more important than the actual formation. Time for the private patch.
RE: 'A Bridge Too Far' updated for TOAW-3
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:30 am
by JAMiAM
ORIGINAL: Central Blue
Thank you Telumar. I did see that one, but I didn't know that the color scheme was more important than the actual formation. Time for the private patch.
Erik is pretty good at keeping track of and updating problems with his scenarios. I'm sure that he'll have an "official" update before too long.
RE: 'A Bridge Too Far' updated for TOAW-3
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:21 am
by Erik2
He will...
I also discovered a few other minor irritants (formation objectives, reinforcement arrivals) wich I fixed yesterday.
This means Elmer will hopefully play a better game.
I'll post on the various fora when the events are fixed and a new version posted.
Sorry about any inconvenience.
Erik
RE: 'A Bridge Too Far' updated for TOAW-3
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:43 am
by Erik2
I've fixed the event bug and added a few minor changes re formation objectives and objective values.
Will post the update on Rugged Defence and Gamesquad soon or you can get in touch at
erik.nygaard@nrk.no
Erik
RE: 'A Bridge Too Far' updated for TOAW-3
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:04 am
by Silvanski
Thanks for the speedy fix Erik. The 1 KM/Hex simulation makes it a very unique scenario.
RE: 'A Bridge Too Far' updated for TOAW-3
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:42 pm
by Telumar
ORIGINAL: Silvanski
Thanks for the speedy fix Erik. The 1 KM/Hex simulation makes it a very unique scenario.
Have played it already under COW against Nemo. Really great. Working on an own 1km/hex scenario, but this can take months until a first release.
RE: 'A Bridge Too Far' updated for TOAW-3
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:00 am
by Dr. Foo
Has the Allied air support been toned down in this one. I played it once as Germans on ACOW and I found the Allied air support was overwhelming giving the Allied troops a huge advantage in combat. Not sure but I think that para's did not have air support. [&:]
RE: 'A Bridge Too Far' updated for TOAW-3
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:54 am
by Erik2
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard
ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
He probably adjusted the range of weapons that are used in the scenario, by an appropriate multiple, then bumped the force movement biases.
That's correct, multiplied ranges by 2.5
The movement bias can only be bumped by 150% so movement points are a bit on the low side in a 1km scenario.
But this is not too bad in this scenario due to the difficult Dutch terrain and the need to force the players to use road movement.
Also, density penalties will be too light.
The density penalty still kicks in,but since you can only have maximum 9 companies in a hex it is not that important as long as you don't have larger units than companies.