Battleaxe/Brevity Scenario

[Prince of Eckmühl]

I'm exploring the scenario editor and trying to figure out how to organize the following OOB:

Allies (William Gott):

Coast Group
- 2nd battalion The Rifle Brigade (minus one company)
- Mortar support, 3rd battalion Coldstream Guards
- 5th Australian Anti-tank Battery, 2/2nd Australian Anti-Tank Regiment (2 Pounder Anti Tank guns)
- 8th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery (25 Pounder Field guns)

22nd Guards Brigade group
- 1st battalion Durham Light Infantry
- 2nd battalion Scots Guards
- 3rd battalion Coldstream Guards
- 4th Royal Tank Regiment (24 Matilda Mk II Infantry tanks)
- One troop, 12th Anti-Tank Battery, 2/3rd Australian Anti-tank Regiment (2 Pounder Anti Tank guns)

7th Armoured Brigade group
- A Company, 2nd battalion The Rifle Brigade
- 2nd Royal Tank Regiment (29 Cruiser tanks)
- 6th Australian Division Cavalry (~28 Light Tank Mk VIB)
- 7th Support Group (elements)
- 11th Hussars (Harmon-Herrington Armoured Cars)
- One troop, 12th Anti-Tank Battery, 2/3rd Australian Anti-tank Regiment (2 Pounder Anti Tank guns)

Axis (Erwin Rommel):

Kampfgruppe von Herff
- Reconnaissance Battalion 3
- 2nd Battalion, Panzer Regiment 5
- Motorcycle Battalion 15
- Reconnaissance Battalion 33
- One Motorised Infantry Battalion, 102nd Motorized Division Trento
- One AA Battery (88mm Anti aircraft guns)
- Two AA Platoons (20mm Anti aircraft guns)
- Two 105mm leFH Howitzer

Kampfguppe Crammer
- 1st Battalion, Panzer Regiment 8
- One Flak battery

Kampfgruppe von Esebeck
- Schuetzen Regiment 200 (one battalion)
- 1st Battalion, Panzer Regiment 5 (medium tank Company, minus one platoon)
- One Panzerjäger Company
- artillery battalion (minus one battery)

Halfaya Pass Garrison (Trento Division)
- Two Companies, 5th Motorised Infantry Battalion
- One Mountain Gun Battery (Cannone da 75/27)
- One AT Battery (Cannone da 47/32 M35)
- Group Two, 24th artillery regiment
- One Field Gun Battery (12 Cannone da 105/28)

Questions:

Although lacking proper/formal organization, the two forces above look like somewhat understrength divisions.

With that in mind, should I select Corps level for Supreme Force structure?

Questions #2:

The Estabs data doesn't include an entry for a Kampfgruppe.

To my mind the only estab that seems to fit is that for a panzer division, but the units at hand represent a small fraction of such a force. I just can't see what other estab in the game can handle the diversity of unit types that are available.

In the absence of that kind of ad hoc structure, what would you recommend?

Question #3:

The 22nd Guards Brigade Group above represent a similar problem. It would apparently operate as a motorized infantry brigade (that's easy enough), but it's got the better part of an armoured regiment attached.

What sort of Allied estabs model should be employed with kind of (dis)organization?

I know that you're trying to get a game out the door, btw, so I really do appreciate your help with this.

[Arjuna]

From the above list I would say you have approximately a division on each side and I would recommend you use a Div HQ as your supreme force for each. Remember that a Bde Gp ( as used by the Allies ) was a reinforced Bde - typically four or five Bns. The German term Kampfgruppe ( KG ) means a battle group of no specific size. The Germans used the term to denote a hastily formed group - ie one not necessarily based on an organic or established structure. They used it to refer to everything from a company to an Army sized force. So do not try and read into it any denotion of size.
 
They often named the KG after its leader, hence Kampfguppe Crammer would be led by an officer named Crammer. In all liklihood he would be a Major or LtCol equivalent, given that he is commanding a Bn. Kampfgruppe von Esebeck on the other hand was a much larger group equivalent to a Regiment.
 
As to which estabs to use, well both sides are a bit of a hodge-podge and so you need to use estabs from different organisational structures. Eg. KG von Herff would reuire estabs from a German Pz Bn, an Italian Mot Inf Bn ( Trento Div ). Just start with the boss and add a unit at a time, dragging the appropriate estab onto it and assigning it a name etc. Don't worry if you end up mixing estabs from different structures. All you are doing is recreating what they did in practice.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

As always, thanks for your very helpful reply.

I'm developing my scenario OOB by importing the force list from the Sidi Rezegh scenario, and then modifying it to reflect the state of the formations six months earlier.

I'm pursuing this course because I found myself getting frustrated with trying to organize the estabs into a whole. In particular, I was struggling with assigning the proper subordinate units to the various HQ.

Question:

When a particular HQ estab is assigned to a force, why isn't the user given the option to include all that headquarters' sub-units, as well, as is done when he exports units from a force list?

I'm sure that there's a rock-solid explaination for this, but force creation for a scenario would appear to be much easier proposition were that an option.

Thanks again for your help.

[Arjuna]

Estabs are not organised in any structure per se. The structure comes from the force list you create. The reason for this is that the same estab can be used by a number of different force structures. Take a flak bty for instance.  It can be part of a Mot Inf Regt, a Pz Regt, a Div asset for quite a range of types ( Pz, PG, VG etc ), a Korps asset, an Army asset etc. It's the old many to many relationship issue ( "old" if you have done any database development that is ). So we get around this by maintaining the estabs in a non-hierarchical list. The actual force structure is encapsulated in our ForceGroup data class. This is a tree list of units, so it knows what units belongs to what. It doesn't care what estabs they have. So you can freely mix and match. That way we can support ad hoc forceGroups. This approach provides great flexibility.
 
The force lists are a means of creating a structure and importing/exporting them. After you have imported them, simply delete those that you don't need and drag the forces around re-subordinating them as required. It's pretty easy to use that way. However, for the OB you want you are going to have import several force lists eg. For the Germans you need to create a force list for the German Pz Div and another for the Trento Mot Inf Div. Import them. Then drag and cull so that you end up with just one composite Division.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

The force lists are a means of creating a structure and importing/exporting them. After you have imported them, simply delete those that you don't need and drag the forces around re-subordinating them as required. It's pretty easy to use that way. However, for the OB you want you are going to have import several force lists eg. For the Germans you need to create a force list for the German Pz Div and another for the Trento Mot Inf Div. Import them. Then drag and cull so that you end up with just one composite Division.

My concern is that the system will fall short if/when I (or anyone else) goes to generate a scenario with some odd, stepchild sort of OOB structure like that of the German 5th or 90th light divisions.

Admittedly, I may be blowing this ought of proportion, but it could be that scenario developers might well prefer more options for setting OOB up at the lower echelons, up, rather than the current arrangement.

Don't take my comments as a condemnation of the CotA design utilities in this regard. I sincerely appreciate your willingness to engage and answer my questions.

Dragging and culling underway, sir! [&o]

[Arjuna]

Well keep in mind that you can open any existing scenario in the ScenMaker; select whatever forceGroup you like from its force list and export it. You can even reorganise them ( by dragging and resubordnating ) before the export. That way you can leverage off the design work already done. IIRC one of the Malta or Crete scenarios has the German 5th Mtn Div in it. As for the 90th Light Div. Well yes it was a funny and someone would have to create its forceGroup by cobbling together Mot Inf Bns, Recon Bn, Arty and Flak Btys, predominantly from the existing COTA German force lists. All the estabs are there and in most cases it would be a case of cloning the parts from existing scenario force lists.
 
Anyway it's pleasing to see you have a go. I'm looking forward to seeing the final results. Thanks you for your efforts.

[JeffroK]

Prince,
In case you think you and Arjuna are the only ones here.

Keep up the EXCELLENT WORK.

I love the COTA game mostly because it covers the fringe battles, I'm sick of the Bulge (except for the new BFTB game[8D]) and Normandy & Russia.

Keep going.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Keep going.

Oh, I am. I spent a couple of hours last night reconciling my OOB with my sources.

For instance, the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment had but twenty-nine cruiser tanks, but they were three different types (A9, A10 and A13). I don't believe that the editor allows for such a combination, intra-squadron, so I split them up into three squadrons, A, B and C.

Herff took two 105mm howitzers off to battle with him. I ended up just naming them "Battery Herff," although I think that they may have been from 1/1/75th.

All in all, the parent formations appear to be a hodge-podge of scratch forces thrown together in an effort to get a job done in a time when the theatre was something of a backwater, somewhat starved for resources (on both sides).

This is actually a lot of fun. But, I find that once I start, I can't stop. Even with a small battle like Brevity, there's plenty of minutiae to get distracted by. While I'm not 100% satisfied with my OOB, I'm gonna start placing things tonight. Hopefully, I'll have something to play with by this time next week.

Afterwards, I'll do the Battleaxe scenario, which despite its larger size, ought to be less of a challenge from the research and ESTAB standpoint.

Thanks for the encouragement!

[Prince of Eckmühl]

So, I laid them down to rest:



What you see above represents my best estimate of what things looked like, pre-dawn, as Gott set his attack in motion.

This scenario is difficult to do in large part because I can find no continuity between sources as to who did what, with which, and when they did it. Over the past week, I've gotten pretty comfortable with a couple of recounts of the fighting, complete with OOB, only to have further research undermine my previous findings. Most recently, I came across a work by George Nafziger that simply obliterated everything else that I had come to assume about the British forces, whereupon, I decided to throw caution to the wind and simply move forward!

[Arjuna]

Given this is your first real scenario design, it's more important to get something up and running - sooner the better. You can always go back and fine tune things.
 
Another point to keep in mind about sources. There are usually many different sources. Some are good, some not so, and some plain bad. Go for the primary ones, if you can. Sometimes you can get one to corroborate another, sometimes not. In the end you have to make the call as the designer. Don't get too hung about it. It's good to be accurate but if you cannot find evidence of things one way or another go with what you think feels right. Remember that in the end this is a game and as they say "never let a fact get in the way of a good story". [;)]

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Given this is your first real scenario design, it's more important to get something up and running - sooner the better. You can always go back and fine tune things.

I could have finished this evening, but I mistakenly had the Axis selected when I was doing the victory condition details for the Allies! Here's the latest map of my Brevity scenario:



Almost there, Dave!

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Drat!

[Arjuna]

Sounds like you createde some intel enemy reports and then changed the estabs for those units from which they were generated. The best way to fix this is in the SM select the Intel Mode button, lassoo all intel reports, hit the delete key and then regenerate your intel reports.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Sounds like you createde some intel enemy reports and then changed the estabs for those units from which they were generated. The best way to fix this is in the SM select the Intel Mode button, lassoo all intel reports, hit the delete key and then regenerate your intel reports.

I got it working. There were two problems with my OOB structure, in that I tried to attach regiments to regiments. Took care of that, and regenerated the reports as you suggested.

The scenario is running nicely, and the Western Desert Force AI is doing what I wanted it to do. It attacked Halfaya Pass from both sides, and has additional columns heading for Sollum, Fort Capuzzo and swinging way out toward Hafid Ridge/Sidi Azeiz.

The Bersaglieri at Halfaya Pass has fought magnificently, but they can't hold out much longer: [8D]

[Arjuna]

[8D] 
 
OK so when can the rest of us have a go, I mean playtest it for you? [;)]

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

[8D] 

OK so when can the rest of us have a go, I mean playtest it for you? [;)]

I'd like to tidy it up a bit, check on the unit designations and so on. I'd also like to research stuff like the dawn/dusk parameters.

Shouldn't be long, my OCD credentials, notwithstanding.

Don't worry, though, I've still got work for YOU to do. [;)]

You see, I've got an odd situation that's arisen with the German reinforcements.

Try as I may, one of the units insists on displaying MAXIMUM INTEL when it's ghosted placement icon appears on the map.

It has a sibling in the reinforcement queue that does not display the same pathology.

I've tried everything that I can think of to get it to take the MINIMUM and/or NO INTEL setting, but the states simply won't stick.

Thoughts?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Dave,

If you want to take a look at this, please PM me with some upload instructions.

The AI for the Germans is kinda porked. Forward units that I want to fall back on Fort Capuzzo/Hafid Ridge/Sidi Azeiz are going to the relief of Halfaya Pass instead!!! I don't want to turn the points off for the pass altogether, because I'm afraid the 5th Bersaglieri will simply abandon the place. It may be possible to remedy this with 0-point, AI objectives, but I'm not sure.

As I mentioned in one of my posts above, Gott's AI looks a lot more sound!

[Arjuna]

re Intel. I'm confused. Are you saying that you have a unit that is party of a scheduled reinforcement and yet its intel icon is on the map at start?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

re Intel. I'm confused. Are you saying that you have a unit that is party of a scheduled reinforcement and yet its intel icon is on the map at start?

Nah, when I click on the replacement unit in the replacement schedule it appears on the map, ghosted, in the location where I originally placed it. In the intel window, its indicated as being at the maximum intel level. I only asked about it because I don't want it to wreck some aspect of the scenario. Keep in mind that I'm still really green on the use of MM/SM, and I'm not completely sure of what the pitfalls are.

[RedMike]

PoE,

I posted a report on my preliminary play-testing of your excellent Op Brevity scenario in the map thread by mistake. Anyway, I just wanted to say that play-testing is ongoing. I'm currently playing as CW vs the Axis A/I. I will report that game here soon as I complete it.

My hat's off to you, you're putting out some great stuff !

RedMike...out