Crisis at Tempe

[MarkShot]

Personally, I wouldn't put much faith in bridge building for a 48 hour scenario.

Dave lost both his bridges by 12 hours into the scenario. He now has a Regt out of the action for the next 24 hours with the one that made it across having to seize numerous objectives and clear the road for Pz 3 Regt heading to Larissa. It's very easy for Pz 3 Regt to get bogged down if they run into any opposition along the way.

Also, night has fallen which I think favors the Allies more than the Germans in this scenario.

I say making it across and the sooner the better is the only way to get a decisive victory.

In this thread, by 10 hours, I had 70% of a Regt across at Tempe while owning one of the bridges. Not shown (because it was not the point of this test), I already had another Regt across further South ready to receive new orders.

[Arjuna]

Mark,

Re why I committed the 143rd to cross the river in the SW rather than at Tempe - I knew that 3rd Pz Regt would take some time crossing the river in the east and that it was unlikely to reach Tempe for some time. So I opted for a coordinated envelopment with the aim of trapping and destroying the Allied forces and then hopefully making an end run to the South after that. Moving the 143rd to the south allows it to choke off the Allied escape route and bag the lot of them. Maybe I was too ambitious, but I've grown cocky in my old age.[;)]

BTW had there been a pontoon bridge available in that Bridging Column I reckon I would have given it a good shake.[:)]

[TheJoat]

OK. I'm sold. Actually, I was sold before this latest round of AAR. Can I send my money now? [:D]

Good gosh, guys! Take pity on us poor folks without the game. Now I can't go back to HTTR because I want all the stuff you have added. And more, of course. Where's that multiplayer cooperative?????[8D]

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: TheJoat

OK. I'm sold. Actually, I was sold before this latest round of AAR. Can I send my money now? [:D]

Good gosh, guys! Take pity on us poor folks without the game. Now I can't go back to HTTR because I want all the stuff you have added. And more, of course. Where's that multiplayer cooperative?????[8D]

Ditto! I can't wait for this release. I tried getting back into HTTR, but I want all the new gadgets and toys. Any chance a patch will bring HTTR up to speed some day?

I like the engagement ranges seen here, definitely looks to be more intense with the new support weapon changes. Question is, does it feel more intense, do units stand up to enemy fire longer now? I'm also curious if the overall end game casualties are higher now with more rifles firing than before at these closer ranges?

One final question; is it possible to vary unit placement in game setups? Markshot mentions his self discipline in not firing on the engineer unit because it wasn't actually detected, but many players will no doubt lack such self discipline. It would be nice if units were randomly displaced 100 meters or so at game start to prevent these kinds of bombardments into known unit locations before they are actually detected.

That or perhaps simply quartering the effect of artillery bombardments on non-detected units?

Jim

[MarkShot]

Jim,

In response to your questions:

(1) I cannot say whether it feels more intense after Dave's tweaks. From my testing, I have seen dug-in units under barrage stay put. They go into retreat recovery in place mode. In the past, they would have simply retreated and displaced. However, when a line unit approaches, it seems that's all it takes and they retreat.

(2) In general, the game play is pretty intense. I played a battle the other day where I clung unto a hill by a very thin thread. I almost felt guilty for the punishment my troops were taking up there. But that hill over looking a German held airfield on the German flank kept them, the Germans, from suceeding with their intended attack to force open a coastal road. It was very intense.

(3) Random starting locations, I recall, was available in HTTR for para drops and glider drops. I don't know if that can be done for scenarios with ground forces. Off hand, I suspect not.

(4) Normally for small HTTR scenarios, you got starting intel on enemy units at bridge locations. It was always prudent to note those locations at the start and if the bridge is primed, then hit those positions with arty as you made your approach. If you have the arty resources and there was plenty in some of the HTTR scenarios, no reason not to barrage a bridge area even without intel. Better to waste some shells, then lose a crossing which you need.

(5) I, personally, wouldn't support reducing fire effects on unspotted units. However, Bil, another tester has requested that the player not be able to simply know if a bridge is primed or not. Bil is very big on realism issues.

(6) I think if time hadn't been so tight and with the Allies moving in to reinforce that it would not have been that hard to expose that engineering unit. I would think of perhaps using a very weak probe (AGGRO=MIN, LOSSES=LOW) to preceed the main attack. Such a weak probe should draw fire, but not spook the defenders into wanting to blow the bridge. Once you got the defenders spotted (you don't really need to know what the actual unit type is), then call in fire from the big guns to supress them while the assault force goes in.

---

Nice chatting with you and glad that your looking forward to the game.

[Arjuna]

Jim/Mark,

In the ScenMaker ( SM ) you can have units arrive as reinforcements at game start. Those doing so are treated as on-map at the start of the game. You can have multiple reinforcement schedules, each with the same units ( just Duplicate the entire schedule ) but by dragging them to a different location on the map they will appear in a different spot. If there are schedules of the same type ( eg Standard, Favour Them or Favour Us then ) then one is chosen at random. in this way you can vary the at start locations.

Similarly with atStart Intel. You can drop down any enemy units on the map, set their intel level and then move or remove them from the map and the original intel report remains at the original location. So in this way the scenario designer can provide misleading reports - tricky hey?[;)]

[loyalcitizen]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Due to overall fatigue levels and the destruction of the bridges I order the 141st Regt to Rest with the elements of the 2nd Bn to Defend on the other side. I am also forced to rest the 143rd as it too ran out of puff.

You started the 143rd attack from over 4km away from the objective. Would you say that is a typical attack distance in the game? Have I been trying to form up too close to the enemy all these years? I try to limit my attacks to 2km or less.

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
I aslo re-issue attack orders to the 143rd Regt to strangle the Allied withdrawal route.

Did you actually have to re-issue the orders, or did the 143rd just recover from the first 2km of the attack and continue with the previous orders?

[MarkShot]

Dave,

I think some randomness in small scenarios would be a good thing. (In larger scenario, the time scale does it for you, in part.)

However, making most of the force into reinforcements at the start seems kind of a bit of a gimmick and would prevent the player from using the existing OOB tool to formulate a plan prior to game start.

So, can I get a TT ticket for an enhancement request to support some form of randomness in SM without the use of reinforcement schedules.

Second, it would be cool if SM someday would provide for some form objective randomization too. Another TT ticket please.

Thanks.

[Tommi]

MarkShot's comments about shelling the bridge defenders got me thinking. If you bombard the bridge area with heavy artillery, shouldn't there be a chance of accidentally destroying the bridge yourself? It would seem that in Real Life (tm), such a danger could exist. Or am I way off?

[Real and Simulated Wars]

With all the goodies shown everyday, it's getting harder and harder to wait.

[MarkShot]

Yes, but everyday you wait we polish it just a little bit more.

By the time Dave releases it, it will have a blindingly, brilliant luster!

Systems Requirements: DirectX, dark sun glasses or gogles, ...

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Dave,

I think some randomness in small scenarios would be a good thing. (In larger scenario, the time scale does it for you, in part.)

However, making most of the force into reinforcements at the start seems kind of a bit of a gimmick and would prevent the player from using the existing OOB tool to formulate a plan prior to game start.

So, can I get a TT ticket for an enhancement request to support some form of randomness in SM without the use of reinforcement schedules.

Second, it would be cool if SM someday would provide for some form objective randomization too. Another TT ticket please.

Thanks.

Some guys just love instant gratification. Here you go Mark.

TT2573 - SM - Explore Options for Random/Variable deployments of at-start forces
TT2574 - SM - Add linked Objectives List to each Reinf Schedule ( a la linked Supply Schedules )

Objective randomisation is best handled by associating them with Reinforcement Schedules.

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: Tommi

MarkShot's comments about shelling the bridge defenders got me thinking. If you bombard the bridge area with heavy artillery, shouldn't there be a chance of accidentally destroying the bridge yourself? It would seem that in Real Life (tm), such a danger could exist. Or am I way off?

It would depend on the strength of the bridge and the calibre of shells. Maybe Mdm ( 150mm ) and Hvy shells ( 203mm ) could destroy a light bridge. The odds would be very very small IMO, but that is something best answered by an engineer.

[John21b]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

ORIGINAL: Tommi

MarkShot's comments about shelling the bridge defenders got me thinking. If you bombard the bridge area with heavy artillery, shouldn't there be a chance of accidentally destroying the bridge yourself? It would seem that in Real Life (tm), such a danger could exist. Or am I way off?

It would depend on the strength of the bridge and the calibre of shells. Maybe Mdm ( 150mm ) and Hvy shells ( 203mm ) could destroy a light bridge. The odds would be very very small IMO, but that is something best answered by an engineer.

Chance would be so small that I would not waste time on it. It's not easy to blow up a bridge with deliberately placed explosives, let alone a random arty round. The road surface or decking, which makes up most of what people consider to be the bridge, provides no structural support and would be the most likely part of the bridge hit by the round. This is based on 21 years of Combatengineering experience.

[Arjuna]

Good to hear. Thanks.[:)]

[loyalcitizen]

Repost as it was lost in the other discussion. Question for Arjuna:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Due to overall fatigue levels and the destruction of the bridges I order the 141st Regt to Rest with the elements of the 2nd Bn to Defend on the other side. I am also forced to rest the 143rd as it too ran out of puff.

You started the 143rd attack from over 4km away from the objective. Would you say that is a typical attack distance in the game? Have I been trying to form up too close to the enemy all these years? I try to limit my attacks to 2km or less.

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
I aslo re-issue attack orders to the 143rd Regt to strangle the Allied withdrawal route.

Did you actually have to re-issue the orders, or did the 143rd just recover from the first 2km of the attack and continue with the previous orders?

[Arjuna]

I was probably being a little slack in setting an FUP so far back, but when you're testing for a result you don't always play an optimum game. Hey that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.[;)]

Yes I did reissue orders.

[MarkShot]

Hey, Dave,

You got your pontoon bridge in the latest build. So, go back and lose two bridges by midnight, and then, let's see if you can pull a decisive victory with that strategy. How about it?

And before you ask ... no, I don't have time to test that case for you today --- busy day today.

---

My very first post on FUPs on the BTS RDOA forum. After that Dave must have figured it would be safer for myself and the rest of the community if he could keep a closer eye on me by having me join the testers.

Why must the AI plotted routes from the FUP to the assault point always be straight?

For example, I selected a FUP point with a small wooded area between my various tank units and the objective. I did this because, the woods blocks LOS to the objective and correspondingly from the objective to my tanks. All they need to do is make a left and come around the corner of the woods through nice open ground (tank country). Instead their move orders has them tanking through the woods which would not seem like a bright idea.

Now, of course, if I had had a hill between me and the objective, then I would have FUPed on the near side of the hill. But all I had was a small wooded area.

So, why cannot my commanders plan an assault with a curve around the woods?

Thanks!

Well, I am not sure how this is going to turn out, but I just countermanded their orders.

I gave them explicit move orders to go around the woods in a V with a tight frontage and proceed to the objective.

Sometimes a commander just has to do the driving!

I gave them move orders, but my commanders plotted to go the long way around when they came under fire at the first waypoint. Don't they know I want an attack!

So, I changed orders again and ordered an assault!

Now, they are reorging under enemy fire!

Everything is certainly all FUPed up at this point!

[Arjuna]

Mark,

You have way too much idle time at the moment.[;)]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Great stuff Dave!


Leo "Apollo11"