Matrix Games Forums

In early February 1942, the Soviet 29th Army was encircled and cut off. An airborne landing was planned to reinforce the beleagured 29th Army and to assist with the planned breakout.

One parachute company entered the town of Monchalovo and another entered Everzovo. Soon, the German forces initiated repeated attacks with panzers and infantry against these two towns held by the Soviet parachutists.

This scenario begins with most Soviet Airborne on the ground and moving to the villages. The Soviet command element will jump at turn 2 and join the fray.

Bing: You may find this interesting. A chance to destroy AI controlled armor and half-tracks.

Many thanks to Fradar for testing this scenario.

Redleg

Gotcha and will be played this afternoon and duly reported, Comrade Redleg - is good name for Red Army man, REDleg.

Bing

Not expected, nevertheless got a Decisive in 12 turns. I think the reason for this is that regardless of what the VH's count for, it is the tank and other armored vehicle count that really matter in determining the level of victory or defeat. Since the Soviets have no armor or vehicles of any kind in the battle, they could not lose them.

The equatin is therefore simplified: If the Sov does not stop the German armored advance, it is so long Oo-long, how long you gonna be gone? You will rack up a score of 24 AFV and a dozen or so HT's, or become tread grease.

While the Soviet airborne Shishkabob troops were fun, they were not critical. Could have done about the same without them, still it is very satisfying to be able to answer the German Flammenpanzer with a fry daddy of your own.

Basically, I set up the Russians in buildings and waited for the German armor to advance, then picked them off. Pretty bloody and was touch and go in Northtown for a time - Southtown was not a problem, really.

AT rifles were useful for once: due to the building to building nature of the fight the ATR's could hide in a building, with a one hex limit on their range, have the infantry across the street draw fire, then plug the steel beast at point blank range. Am sure I got several of the StuG and Mark IV tanks with the AT rifles - HT's didn't stand a chance against them. The close quarter fighting made rifle grenades and grenade bundles useful, too.

Great fight, highly recommended to fans of knock down, drag'em out street battles. A human opponent could make this one really hot for the Russian player by supporting the tanks with infantry, which the AI does very poorly and often not at all.

Now please make one bigger, for the REAL street fighting fans.

Bing

Larger scenarios will have to come from someone else - I limit size to a battalion or so whenever possible.

Thats OK, there are a number of reasons for limiting the size of the battle, all of them good reasons.

Volunteers to make a bigger street fight?

(Brent has an updated Stalingrad series forthcoming and that will be something to look forward to. )

Bing

I am working on a Bridgehead fight in June 1941 that seems to be working out pretty well.

It should be ready before too long - that is, if too many adjustments aren't necessary.

29 June 1941, 6th Panzer Regiment and 394th Infantry Regiment cross the Berezina River. They are met by elements of the Soviet 8th Airborne Brigade, 4th Airborne Corps.

Don't make it too long - I can't stand at attention much longer.

Bing

Bing: This is a bit larger - Battalion + size. This time the human is attacking the Soviet Airborne who are on the ground.

Than I will just have to turn it around and have the Soviets attack the "Human", won't I?

Most likely will resort to playing both sides via Hotseat. Can't expect all that much form the AI.

Bing

Bing: You said the AI doesn't support tanks with infantry. OK, thats true, but you CAN make a scenario when this happens to - althought it is not an easy job to do, indeed. I'm speaking from my own experiences in scenario editing. It can be achieved with these words of advice:

1) In the beginning of the scenario, infantry must be nearer the object than tanks. Or reversible: The speed of the tanks must be edited so that the tanks cannot drive by the infantry. Remember: computer moves his troops at half speed.

2) Infantry must be controlled by waypoints; this is to prevent them for example running in the middle of an opening (pavement, roads) like clowns. Ofcourse there are situations where they are forced to do this. Infantry can be adjusted to advance through particular buildings and in street fighting support the tanks by advancing on the both sides of the street with the tank on the middle of it.

3) Tanks must be controlled by waypoints to secure their advance from many directions (streets) at the same time. Without this function the result is human player forming an impassable route which is full of burning equipment of the AI player in the same hex while a human player doesn't have many units at the other directions at all.

4) Reinforcement hexes can be used for advantage by setting them in the expected fighting area or near it. This is a trick of the scenario editor and needs testing throughout before is used: Let the AI infantry appear on Rf Hexes in the area which is expected to be controlled by the AI in a particular turn. This area could have been in human players hands in the beginning of the scenario, but is expectably lost in few or more turns. Test playing must be done to prevent enemy infantry suddenly appearing behind the human players' units or even in the same hex - although in the real life it is possible to sneak through the lines, isn't it?
So using this function it should be much easier a job to do for the editor to use waypoints. You know where your AI units are in a particular turn. If you don't like to set your units appear on Rf Hexes, you should test your scenario well before you add too many units and make too many expectations.

5) Buy only sections, if you want your (AI) forces to advance using very well defined routes. One waypoint controls one formation. You can make one unit formations too by buying a sniper and changing it to an unit you want. Bigger formation (4-5 units) will move units following another. If you want to not make units moving in the same hex (on the streets this is impossible) just change their speeds. So, the AI cannot move his units with the same speed on the same hex.

6) Test, test and let your friends test.

Not more time to write now, so I finish. :rolleyes:

Sorry, I was busy earlier in the day.

1) Computer moves his VEHICLES at half speed.


A scenario where the AI spends his vehicles by driving straight into an ambush again and again might be interesting for those who like to blow everything up and get self-confidence. Realistically thinking, there's no such a stupid enemy. Personally I don't like this kind of scenarios.

7) One must use reaction turns to get the forces advance in waves. Using reaction turns interesting surprises can be achieved.

8)Waypoints don't work in a campaign.

9) How can you edit halftracks to drop infantry in the designed hex? Well, this is a question where I cannot answer properly. When does the AI usually unload infantry? Before the vehicle is hit first time or after that happens? This is a question I have to study. And what's the behaviour when there are waypoints assigned for loaded infantry.

Another that requires my attention to play.

Redleg, I don't mean your scenario was bad - these are just my suggestions for your scenario. I played your scenario and it seemed OK, HT's were attacking from various directions. And what's the best, there were waypoints!

HJ

There are many "types" of scenarios. The so-called historical ones.
The fun ones. Some are made for grognards and some are made for beginners, and so on.

The type of scenario I like, you may not like and vice-versa. But fortunately, there are many, many to choose from.

The question of helping the AI conduct a sensible attack is a tough one. Especially with armor and half-tracks. The AI seeks the most efficient path to its "target". That is, it will deliberately avoid the safest route. Then it will attempt to over-run whatever it encounters. This usually results in losses.

Players come to know this and wait for the AI to sacrifice itself.

Some things other than way-points and delays that will sometimes help the AI is to edit the speed of its vehicles making it far less likely that the armor will outrun its infantry support. It isn't a total fix because infantry may get suppress or pinned and even slow moving armor will pass it by. But it does help.

When a city or town is involved, the problem magnifies. In a lot of cases, the AI will drive through buildings, etc. The human player will often sit tight and wait for the AI to drive forward and fight from the street instead of from a building.

The AI will normally physically occupy a hex rather than try to defend from somewhere nearby. This is a problem also. A v-hex in a building invites the AI to drive into the building.

In some circumstances, the AI will NOT follow the way-points or even wait for delays that it is assigned. That also complicates things.

Trying to sort out the many ways that the AI will react has occupied a lot of my time and thought. Still working on it.

And even too, it is a problem when you assign waypoints to ALL AI units and then a human player just kills the ones who were designed to take their building or hill victory flags. So it would be good to let some units in AI's own hands for these situations.

Have you thought about a scenario where a human player commands just a pair of platoons while the rest of the units must be set under scenario designers' adjusted waypoint contol?

That just came in my mind now.

HJ

Mostly, I see waypoints ignored by the AI, or having the effect of making AI unit movement even slower than usual. Once in contact with the enemy, the AI does what it wants to do.

Guys, I think we have pushed the game engine in WAW about as far as it will go - in some respects beyond native capability to handle what we think it will do. Seems to me AI gets information overload pretty easily.

This doesn't mean WAW is a poor game, it is still the best around for tactical ground warfare that I have found. It does mean that beginning with Jamie Woods and whatever myself and those who have assisted in their attempt to get WAW to simulate modern battlefield conditions - we are going to have to wait for CL.

From what Paul V. has been posting, CL will be a whole new game - it will for instance have a weapon category for missiles which attack the top of an AFV, something we have no way of making WAW do.

I am hoping the improvements in CL extend to the AI. But we still can't expect all that much. WAW is a far different game played PBEM or Hotseat and I am betting CL will be the same regardless of improvements.

Bing

what I'm meaning - I will release a scenario which tries to get the most out from SP:Waw game engine. Althought this kind of an attempt will not be easy (and has not yet been) I will go it through. Since I began making my scenario the game has crashed numerous of times in test play. Every new improvement (editing new icons is the biggest problem) requires much to readjust and test. BUT don't be worry about your computers if you decide to test my scenario; it doesn't try to broke them down. The final version of my scenario should work properly in all cases.

It is just hard to find out what the game engine accepts, what not. For example icon slots have their own restrictions. Let's see how much time it takes to get this scenario ready.

HJ

Originally posted by Redleg
I am working on a Bridgehead fight in June 1941 that seems to be working out pretty well.

It should be ready before too long - that is, if too many adjustments aren't necessary.

29 June 1941, 6th Panzer Regiment and 394th Infantry Regiment cross the Berezina River. They are met by elements of the Soviet 8th Airborne Brigade, 4th Airborne Corps.

Did I miss something? Was this finished and posted? If not, I hope it will soon be available. Can't wait to whack the Germans.

Am doing revision of the First Battle of the Elbe from Bill's "Victors" - call it Victors 2 Over Easy, which a short order cook in the old days would instantly understand.

Bing