Matrix Games Forums

Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

WIP New Map and Scenario

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> Mods and Scenarios >> WIP New Map and Scenario Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
WIP New Map and Scenario - 9/26/2010 4:15:52 PM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Here's a look at a map i'm making of the battle of Merdjayoun, during the Syria-Lebanon campaign against the Vichy French in 1941. The French hold the towns with static low quality garrisons to begin with but are strong in artillery and are well dug in. Early reinforcements should prevent the weak Australian attackers from exiting North off the map and later reinforcements, including a Bn of Foriegn Legion will retake lost ground.

The scenario ends immediately if the Australians exit two Bns to the North East within the first days but if thwarted, as was the case, he can exit another force to the NW and score points. This will not terminate the scenario and will in fact weaken his force to the point that he cannot resist the French counter attack. Reinforcements will arrive piecemeal to prevent any advance into Palestine, to the South, and to maintain communications with the force to the NW.

Other battles i hope to recreate are the swinging battle of Jezzine, to the NW of this map, and the set piece attack on the River Damour, on the coast. Smaller scenarios might include the French counter attack on Kunietra, where the French wiped out a British Bn, or Mezze, near Damascus, where an Indian Bde was left unsupported and overrun, and afterwards reduced to one composite Bn!

I will post a WiP scenario later this week and hopefully get some advice on tweaking the AI objectives.

UPDATED - Here is the link to the WiP scenario: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UGZOEB70

VERSION 2 - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=YRQARS5Z




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Chief Rudiger -- 10/9/2010 2:17:32 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 9/26/2010 7:03:44 PM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2449
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
Certainly looks and sounds interesting.

When you're wrapping things up, don't forget to include a narrative for your scenarios.

It'll help players understand how it all came to pass.



_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 2
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 9/26/2010 8:13:09 PM   
tyrspawn

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 5/30/2010
Status: offline
ooo French Foreign Legion!

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 3
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 9/26/2010 9:37:17 PM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Don't get excited, all the Legion units are are standard French infantry but with higher stats!

(in reply to tyrspawn)
Post #: 4
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 9/29/2010 4:03:26 PM   
simovitch


Posts: 4182
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline
You guys are doing a fantastic job with these scenarios. Just so you know, Unless something comes up there are no changes to the BFTBestab file from what was released in Patch #1.

Keep up the good work.

_____________________________

simovitch


(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 5
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 10/1/2010 10:19:27 PM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
This scenario is still a WiP and should probably be split over two scenarios. One, where the allies spend several days bringing up sufficient strength to take Merdjayoun and try to press North towards the exit objective, and a second where a single Battalion of dispersed infantry and some divisional troops are left to guard the LOC and try to check a French counterattack from driving South into Palestine. There should then follow a long battle to retake Merdjayoun, now held by Legionnaire as well, with troops recalled from the NW and with Pioneers and a British Battalion from the South.

This is condensed into a 4 days battle as a proof of concept piece with the French counter attack Bde arriving on D2, at the same time but closer to the action than the Australian Divisional troops.

The French R35 should be superior to the Australian and British Vickers Lt tks, but the Australians infantry are armed with Boys ATk Rifle while the French only have AT Platoons attached to their Bns, their infantry are therefore perhaps more vulnerable to tank attacks.

I'm unsure about the values for tank armour and weapon penetration. The Boyes ATk rifle shouldn't be able to penetrate the front armour of an R35 but I'm not sure about the Vickers Lt Tank's .5 cal MG. I'm not sure how the engine handles these fights at short range where damage to tracks and vision blocks should probably cause mobility and mission kills, and whether killer flanking shots can happen when units are virtually on top of each other. I plan to tinker with the map terrain values so tanks travel by the roads and tracks, which really represent donkey paths, forcing them to present their flanks and restricting their effectiveness to routing shaken troops and other head on shock actions along the main road.

The initial French forces are well fortified, but have limited Arty ammunition until D2 and their guns are immobile (more to prevent them wandering and so increase thier initial lethality to infnatry in soft hats in the open). The Australians on the other hand have 25pdr support. These are attached to Bns at the start to encourage their immediate use by the Bn AI on D1 but should probably be move to Bde command for this condensed scenario so the AI can handle them better. I am still researching the scale of artillery on each side. The australians should certainly not be able to pass Col's ridge without getting a stonking. I've emblaced more stationary 75's out of range of most of the early fighting so that the Aussies can't just march off the map.

I split the ammo for each weapon up so a .303 SMLE uses different ammo to a Bren or Vickers gun. This means a unit whose been shooting at enemies at long range might run out of Vicker ammo but not be defensless should it be rushed. No two French weapons share the same ammo calibres so this is not a problem for them.

I know there's a lot of rough edges but comments would be appreciated, especially on AI objectives, and vehicle and weapon estabs. Some known bugs are that the mobile troops guarding Qleaa/Khirbe want to move to Khiam. I thought about adding some fortress terrain in Qleaa/Khirbe to make it more appealing but thought it looked a bit odd.

Also, the Vichy static artillery doesn't engage the enemu until they are very close. If the work as they were supposed to then they should prevent the Australians easily carrying both Khiam or Khirbe/Qleaa at the start.

The AI also doesn't want to counter attack on D2 enough i feel. Maybe it doesn't think it is strong enough, i don't know.

Also, the Australian mortar platoons don't move up within range of the attack location often enough.

Link to Zipped Game Files: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UGZOEB70

Please note: You will need to create an images file in your Estabs folder called "COTAtestestab_Images"



< Message edited by Chief Rudiger -- 10/1/2010 10:39:41 PM >

(in reply to simovitch)
Post #: 6
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 10/2/2010 6:45:17 PM   
Franklin Nimitz

 

Posts: 541
Joined: 6/23/2007
From: The House of the Mouse
Status: offline
The megaupload link says "file temporarily unavailable". Making revisions?

(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 7
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 10/3/2010 10:56:22 AM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Nope, works for me. If it still doesn't work for you I can email the files.

(in reply to Franklin Nimitz)
Post #: 8
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 10/3/2010 3:45:55 PM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2449
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

The megaupload link says "file temporarily unavailable".


For the uninitiated, "Megaupload" just does this sometimes. So, it may not be the perfect place to store your files for download by others. Then again, it's REALLY easy to use, and the price is right.


_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Franklin Nimitz)
Post #: 9
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 10/4/2010 7:07:51 PM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
10 downloads, no comments? Even bad ones?

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 10
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 10/4/2010 11:47:16 PM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17788
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Chief,

Would you like me to ask Matrix if they would host it? If so, please email a copy to me ( dave[at]panthergames[dot]com ).

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 11
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 10/5/2010 12:31:53 AM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2449
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief Rudiger

10 downloads, no comments? Even bad ones?


Hiya Chief Rudiger,

Don't be concerned. It takes a sitting or two to form an intelligent opinion regarding these scenarios.

Initial observations....

-Super concept
-Nicely researched and executed map and OOB
-The victory conditions seem somewhat askew; more on this in a moment.
-There's a problem with your values for "minor road" movement. For motorized units, it's only 3. This can be amended in the mapmaker utility.
-A very, very minor item...you've assigned an armoured cavalry icon to some Allied carrier units. Those should probably be armoured infantry, oui?

About the victory conditions...

In both games, I decided to bypass the forward VP and go straight for the exits under cover of darkness. This actually worked quite well, although I had to flog my diggers to keep them moving. However, just before dawn, the game ended in a draw when two or three friendlies exited the center-most exit point. This will need some massaging.

Now let me contradict myself...

It may take more than a sitting or two to form an intelligent opinion of these scenarios!

Edit: For posterity's sake, the default "minor road" values are wrong (as they were in the CotA MM/editor).


< Message edited by Prince of Eckmühl -- 10/5/2010 1:01:15 AM >


_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 12
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 10/5/2010 8:37:28 AM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
@Arjuna

Maybe when i'm happier the scenario, thanks!

@PoE

Thanks for your comments

I forgot about that value, you're right. I've changed all the road movement values and downgraded some of the minor roads to tracks to funnel the attackers into Khirbe/Khiam.

Re Carriers: Do you means the Aus Div Cav Sqdns or the Inf Bn Carrier platoons in unused in the estab? I gave the Cav Sqdns the same icon as they had in COTA. and decided not to represent the carrier platoons as discrete units as they would impede the movement of the whole formation over rough terrian (i.e. the map!).

Re Victory Conditions: I think i've tried to cram too much into one scenario and by taking out the exit objectives the attacking AI doesn't simply try to bypass the French to get to the exit. The Exit NE to win or NW if you fail sounded nice on paper but i don't think it translates into a workable game.

I suppose i could set up a string if "secure" objectives on the main road as well as the exit objectives to make the AI cover its LOC to the exitted troops?

Are the initial objectives too easy for the Aus player? He should be tied up "in the wire" at Khirbe/Khiam for long enough for a meeting engagement to take place at Col's Ridge with the French reinforcements. As a measure of the positions strength the actuall set piece attack on Khirbe was supported by two Field Arty Regt, so double what a Brigade should have. Also, in my OOB i gave each Bn a Tp of 25pdrs, as per the Bde's original Op Istruction. This was upped to a Bty each nearer D-Day, and the troops told to wear their tin hats from the beginning - so perhaps it wasn't expected to be a walkover at all levels!

Another intesting observation is that it is repeatadly stated in the War Diaries that "Germans HAVE landed at Rayaak. Expect Motorised Counter Attack". I will research some kind of Luftlande'd force for a "Favour Axis" reinforcement schedule "what-if"?


Gameplay: How do you find the French artillery? As the French my 75's do a hit or miss job of halting the Australians at Khiam/Khirbe but as the Australians I don't notice them as much, I wonder if the AI is doing funny things with them. By downgrading roads i think i've slowed each unit, and canalised them onto certain routes, so maybe this is why i think Arty is more effective.

How does the AI handle the map/objectives? I set the VP level for defending Col's Ridge pretty high, for the French, but gave some points for resecuring Merdjayoun. This was to encourage them to hold the Ridge as a primary objective but to make it worth counter attacking if able. I'm not sure if the VP levels encourage this.

AArm/Armour Values: Do these work right? I've never seem a tank or Armd car knocked out in any plays!

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 13
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 10/6/2010 1:41:33 AM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2449
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief Rudiger

Re Carriers: Do you means the Aus Div Cav Sqdns or the Inf Bn Carrier platoons in unused in the estab? I gave the Cav Sqdns the same icon as they had in COTA. and decided not to represent the carrier platoons as discrete units as they would impede the movement of the whole formation over rough terrian (i.e. the map!).


Because they're two units that aren't used in the scenario, it probably doesn't matter. However, I thought that you included the carrier platoons because you might use them in another scenario. The three Mk VI squadrons are labeled correctly (as armoured cavalry/light tanks).

quote:

Re Victory Conditions: I think i've tried to cram too much into one scenario and by taking out the exit objectives the attacking AI doesn't simply try to bypass the French to get to the exit. The Exit NE to win or NW if you fail sounded nice on paper but i don't think it translates into a workable game.

I suppose i could set up a string if "secure" objectives on the main road as well as the exit objectives to make the AI cover its LOC to the exitted troops?


What you might want to consider is turning things off/on. You can dictate a meeting action by setting the secure and/or defend AP objectives in the middle of the map which can still be deactivated when you want the fighting to transition to another part of the map. Likewise, the exit AP can be turned on well after the game begins.

quote:

Are the initial objectives too easy for the Aus player? He should be tied up "in the wire" at Khirbe/Khiam for long enough for a meeting engagement to take place at Col's Ridge with the French reinforcements. As a measure of the positions strength the actuall set piece attack on Khirbe was supported by two Field Arty Regt, so double what a Brigade should have. Also, in my OOB i gave each Bn a Tp of 25pdrs, as per the Bde's original Op Istruction. This was upped to a Bty each nearer D-Day, and the troops told to wear their tin hats from the beginning - so perhaps it wasn't expected to be a walkover at all levels!


I have to admit that I've, thus far, only played as the Allies. And as I've stated, I've infiltrated the Axis positions under cover of darkness. What's obvious is that the Vichy position is greatly weakened because its forces are so dispersed.

quote:

Another intesting observation is that it is repeatadly stated in the War Diaries that "Germans HAVE landed at Rayaak. Expect Motorised Counter Attack". I will research some kind of Luftlande'd force for a "Favour Axis" reinforcement schedule "what-if"?


The Luftwaffe intervention sounds like fun. In that same vane, you might consider including a squadron of cruiser tanks as a variant for the Allies.


quote:

Gameplay: How do you find the French artillery? As the French my 75's do a hit or miss job of halting the Australians at Khiam/Khirbe but as the Australians I don't notice them as much, I wonder if the AI is doing funny things with them. By downgrading roads i think i've slowed each unit, and canalised them onto certain routes, so maybe this is why i think Arty is more effective.

How does the AI handle the map/objectives? I set the VP level for defending Col's Ridge pretty high, for the French, but gave some points for resecuring Merdjayoun. This was to encourage them to hold the Ridge as a primary objective but to make it worth counter attacking if able. I'm not sure if the VP levels encourage this.

AArm/Armour Values: Do these work right? I've never seem a tank or Armd car knocked out in any plays!


Those are too tough for me to determine as yet.

The Vichy artillery is in a spot because they end up suppressed by counter-battery and mortar fire, while being assaulted by the infantry. This, again, is exacerbated by the extent to which they are dispersed. If they are going to be more effective, then they will have to be supported by other arms.

At this point in my career, I lean very heavily on the discreet game values that the developer has assigned to weapons/vehicles/units. I deviate from their values only when something seems obviously wrong, or I have to cut an item out of whole cloth, create it from scratch. The items in the estab editor aren't perfect, but they are certainly where I want to start. Put another way, when in doubt, I'm going to adopt the values that Panther Games suggests that I use.

Oh, and I do believe that I've seen the Allied light tanks take casualties. They certainly do retreat a lot when under fire.


< Message edited by Prince of Eckmühl -- 10/6/2010 2:58:43 AM >


_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 14
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 10/7/2010 7:31:18 PM   
gabeeg


Posts: 243
Joined: 11/18/2009
Status: offline
...newb question...can someone post directions on which files go where please?  (i.e. xxx.cop and xxx.cop.cached go in Maps folder, xxx.coe goes in estabs....etc.).  Thanks!

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 15
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 10/7/2010 8:05:24 PM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Thats it. There's a scenario file that should go in the scenario folder too. Just look for the matching file extensions.

I'll be uploading a revised version this weekend. I'm going to play around with multiple AI defend objectives for the French, and multiple Secure objectives for the Allies, to centre the fighting on the MSR on the Metulla/Merdjayoun Rd. I'm thinking a line of Secure objective on the MSR for the Allies, getting worth Less as they go North, and a line of Defend objectives for the French which get worth more as they go North, towards Col's Ridge. I hope this will encourage the Allied AI secure the MSR as it goes, realistically, and encourage the French AI to give up ground. I will set the scenario start time closer to dawn and position the Allied attackers closer to their objectives, like in the Hofen Ho-Down scenario to encourage the AI to use the troops on the spot to attack the obvious objectives.

I'm also going to change alot of the roads to tracks, visibly, and add some blown bridges, to confine movement to the vicinity of the MSR. I'm going to beef up the static garrisons, especially the front line ones, to include ATk, HMG and Mortars, as was historically the case, so that the Allies can't bypass them so easily. I have moved Ft Khiam so that it has a better FOV over the ground between it and Khirbe/Qleaa, to stop the Allies flanking that position to go straight to Merdjayoun. The arrival of the second Arty Regt will be more significant now.

Has anyone else noticed both the French AI and Australian AI massing troops at Khiam? I think i've set the VP points too high for it in the version i uploaded, but even when i think i've sorted it I still find both AI's sticking troops there like its the most important place on Earth! Is this just me?

@Arjuna,

Is there a devmode/cheat that allows you full intel all the time? So i can see what the AI is doing.

< Message edited by Chief Rudiger -- 10/8/2010 6:51:01 PM >

(in reply to gabeeg)
Post #: 16
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 10/7/2010 8:28:44 PM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Because they're two units that aren't used in the scenario, it probably doesn't matter. However, I thought that you included the carrier platoons because you might use them in another scenario. The three Mk VI squadrons are labeled correctly (as armoured cavalry/light tanks).


---------I took them out thinking the vehicles would stop the infantry Bn as a whole from accessing some areas/taking some routes. They mainly seem to have been used as Arty OP taxi's/cook house guards anyway. Some captured French tks were used as armoured OPs.

What you might want to consider is turning things off/on. You can dictate a meeting action by setting the secure and/or defend AP objectives in the middle of the map which can still be deactivated when you want the fighting to transition to another part of the map. Likewise, the exit AP can be turned on well after the game begins.

-------------Its the balancing of VPs that gets me. I am also scared of changing the goal posts too many times for the AI to deal with. I remember playing the COTA tutorial and watchin the German AI redeploy EVERYTHING when i built a new bridge and then again, an hour later, when i built another one, abandonning his prepared positions!

I have to admit that I've, thus far, only played as the Allies. And as I've stated, I've infiltrated the Axis positions under cover of darkness. What's obvious is that the Vichy position is greatly weakened because its forces are so dispersed.

------------------I'll change the scenario start time so that you'll have to wait to night D1 before putting in a concentrated attack. I am worried that the AI will leave everything in the shop window, so to speak, and have his units too fatigued and attrited (is that a word?) to do anything with after the first abortive days work.

The Luftwaffe intervention sounds like fun. In that same vane, you might consider including a squadron of cruiser tanks as a variant for the Allies.

-----------------The ME was so short of tanks i think at the time that one of the Australian Div Cav Regt had to equip itself with Ex-Egyptian Vickers Lt Tks if its CO wanted it to get in on the action, very much like Col H Jones pushing to get HIS Para Bn sent to the Falklands!

At this point in my career, I lean very heavily on the discreet game values that the developer has assigned to weapons/vehicles/units. I deviate from their values only when something seems obviously wrong, or I have to cut an item out of whole cloth, create it from scratch. The items in the estab editor aren't perfect, but they are certainly where I want to start. Put another way, when in doubt, I'm going to adopt the values that Panther Games suggests that I use.

----------------------I think you may be right. People might laugh but i'd like to see the "dice"rolls that go on for each event, to really know whats going on!

Oh, and I do believe that I've seen the Allied light tanks take casualties. They certainly do retreat a lot when under fire.

-----------------------But have you ever seen one KO'd? All i've seen is casualties from rout/surrendering!




< Message edited by Chief Rudiger -- 10/7/2010 8:32:55 PM >

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 17
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 10/8/2010 10:50:33 PM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2449
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief Rudiger

Its the balancing of VPs that gets me. I am also scared of changing the goal posts too many times for the AI to deal with. I remember playing the COTA tutorial and watchin the German AI redeploy EVERYTHING when i built a new bridge and then again, an hour later, when i built another one, abandonning his prepared positions!


Establishing appropriate point values for the AP is still the hardest job that I face when I work a scenario up. I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit it, but I pretty much resort to trial and error. I start out with some values that are little more than "guestimation," and then adjust them up or down based on playing the scenario. I don't know what kind of calculus that the developer uses to establish their AP values, and I AS YET HAVE NO IDEA OF HOW TO PROPERLY FIGURE IN LOSSES as a component of who wins and loses.

quote:

I'll change the scenario start time so that you'll have to wait to night D1 before putting in a concentrated attack. I am worried that the AI will leave everything in the shop window, so to speak, and have his units too fatigued and attrited (is that a word?) to do anything with after the first abortive days work.


I've played the Axis four times since my last post. On the whole, I found it more interesting than playing the Allies. I tried several different strategies, all of which involved concentrating the Axis mobile force at different locations between the Allies and the exit points. Too far forward, the Axis gets whacked. Too far back, and the secure/defend locations are occupied too quickly by the Allies. In only one case did the Allies go for the exits (the way that I did when playing that side). And in that instance, they headed for the Western-most exit that is activated AFTER those to the east.

One thing that I found intriguing was the difficulty that the Allies had with the Axis garrison/fortress companies on the map. They can be quite a headache to the Allied advance, particularly if the French deploy their initial group of mobile forces to defend the 75mm units in the middle of the map (which in turn support the garrison units). I believe that you've expressed concern about the ability of those garrison units to delay the Allies. It may be, however, that the AI-Allies will be delayed "if they have a mind to," which is to say that a human or AI-player may bypass the Axis positions as a matter of choice. But, if Allies do pause to assault the garrisons, their advance will face significant delay.


quote:

People might laugh but i'd like to see the "dice"rolls that go on for each event, to really know whats going on!


Me too. But, I'd settle for a (much) more thorough AAR and battle stats. I can't think of a more desirable feature for future releases.


quote:

But have you ever seen one KO'd? All i've seen is casualties from rout/surrendering!


I've definitely seen friendly units take tank losses from enemy anti-tank fire, although I suspect that most of that experienced by Axis forces is from anti-tank rifles. That said, I don't recall with any certaintly having seen an armoured unit "die." IIRC, they tend to surrender, instead.

BTW, regardless of what appears to go on in the scenario, the result is nearly always a draw, the once exception being my last play as the Axis. In that one, I thought that I had thoroughly whupped the Allies, but I got a marginal defeat. Ah, the evil-genius of Chief Rudiger!


_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 18
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 10/9/2010 12:22:38 AM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
I've updated many aspects of the scenario but a bug has cropped up. Whichever side you play the AI just groups his moveable forces into a big formation at their respective "table edge" as if its going to launch a Bde size attack, but just doesn't move them. Launching a suicide spoiling attack seems to "unlock" them so i thought "maybe the AI doesn't know i'm here" and so increased the starting intel level for each side.

The Allied AI knows the French hold all the VL's so should move North and the French AI should move its reinforcements to secure the Col'd Ridge posn, that starts off undefended. The French AI only seems secure Col's Ridge with the one company of Algerians that are unlocked at the beginning. After this nadda.

I can't figure out whats causing this behaviour. I thought it might be my changes to terrain values, making certain vehicles bog down the whole formation, so i set them all back to defaults and no joy.

I'm stumped. Arjuna?

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 19
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 10/9/2010 12:39:00 AM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2449
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief Rudiger

I've updated many aspects of the scenario but a bug has cropped up. Whichever side you play the AI just groups his moveable forces into a big formation at their respective "table edge" as if its going to launch a Bde size attack, but just doesn't move them. Launching a suicide spoiling attack seems to "unlock" them so i thought "maybe the AI doesn't know i'm here" and so increased the starting intel level for each side.

The Allied AI knows the French hold all the VL's so should move North and the French AI should move its reinforcements to secure the Col'd Ridge posn, that starts off undefended. The French AI only seems secure Col's Ridge with the one company of Algerians that are unlocked at the beginning. After this nadda.

I can't figure out whats causing this behaviour. I thought it might be my changes to terrain values, making certain vehicles bog down the whole formation, so i set them all back to defaults and no joy.

I'm stumped. Arjuna?


I think that the game AI wants to know more about what's out there in order to react intelligently.

If you want things to start moving to particular locations, you can create false intel reports near objectives and the game should react.

Likewise, you can use AI-only objectives set to a higher-level and that should also prod them into action.

Question for you:

I' growing curious about the apparent vulnerability of the Axis R35 AFV. It seems like its taking hits when no effective Allied AArm is nearby. I mentioned above that I thought that it was the Allied ATR that are getting all the kills. Did you build your own Boys ATR and/or other AArm weapons?


_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 20
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 10/9/2010 2:16:59 AM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Sorted,

Something must've been wrong with my objectives because deleting them all and starting entirely from scratch fixed the problem. Phew.

Here's the link to the updated scenario, map and estab.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=YRQARS5Z

Place the .cos file in the scenarios folder
Place the .coe and .xml file in the estabs folder, and copy and rename "BFTBEstab_Images" to "COTAtestestab_Images"
Place the .cop and .cop.cache in the maps folder

Then play.

This version has slimmed down objectives and beefed up French Arty, so it should be a grind for the Allies. Historically, the campaign in cost the Australians more lives than the siege of Tobruk ( i think... ).

I'm now researching an OOB for either the German 5th Mountain Div or 22nd (Air Mobile) Infantry Division, to form a battle group to replace/augment the French counter attack Bde.

---------------

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

I think that the game AI wants to know more about what's out there in order to react intelligently.

If you want things to start moving to particular locations, you can create false intel reports near objectives and the game should react.

Likewise, you can use AI-only objectives set to a higher-level and that should also prod them into action.



Thats what i did to try get the AI moving. I'm pretty sure something was wrong with my objectives. Maybe they overlapped, i think the manual said to avoid that. A stickied "how-to" post on what to look out for would be great, eventually.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Question for you:

I' growing curious about the apparent vulnerability of the Axis R35 AFV. It seems like its taking hits when no effective Allied AArm is nearby. I mentioned above that I thought that it was the Allied ATR that are getting all the kills. Did you build your own Boys ATR and/or other AArm weapons?



I based it on the German ATR but with a pen value set less than the R35's frontal armour, but more than its flank and rear. I want the R35's to roll over infantry and only be stopped by the ATk Bty (not included in the scenario, tehehe) or over open 25pdr sights! The Vicker Lt Tks's .50 cal has a pen value greater than the R35's frontal armout, at 100m range.

The French also used a lighter tank in addition to the many "home made" Armd Cars. They called the tanks "11-ton" and "X-ton" in intelligence reports but unless stated its hard to tell what the composition of the RCA Sqdns were. I based my OOB on a POW's report!

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 21
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 10/9/2010 4:58:04 PM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Bugs Spotted: There are no VP assigned to the allies for exiting troops off the North table edge.
2/2 Pnr Bn comes with a Fld Arty Bty under command. This should have been removed.
The Lebanese garrison of Ft Merdjayoun should have a Hvy Weapons inf icon not a standard inf.

I'm not sure whether giving the Allies an exit objective is a good idea anyway. I want them to take all the secure objectives as a primary mission and amn't sure if activating an exit objective so near the end f the scenario will force the attacking AI to replan and bodge its assault on Col's Ridge.

I've played the scenario through from both time and it seems the Allied AI has trouble breaking into Khirbe/Qleaa at the start but when playing as the Allies it seems, like Hofen Ho-Down, that if you can get your men in close then the defenders can't call in Arty. Once in contact, as long as the Mortars and 25pdrs are stonking the defenders it seems to go okay.

The Ft at Khiam seems to work well as a torn in the side of the attacking troops. I imagine thats why it was built where it was. I've given the defenders a 75mm Fld Gun an an 81mm Mortar, for bombarding, which really seems to give them an ability to disrupt attacks. I'm still concerned about the overall lethality of arty. It shouldn't inflict so many casualties on its own, only supress attacks. The 2/2 Pnrs were repulsed and lost some men as prisoners attacking Khiam when french tanks and infantyr counter attacked. An unsupressed force shouldn't have been too vulnerable to this kind of thing - officers and NCO would have organised an ATk defense, IMHO. in game, Arty stonked infantry shouldn't surrender as often as they do. I like that they do in some situations, it really forces you to withdrawn wavering troops, but in other situations it just knackers whole Bns.

Now that the scenario works as a simple battle up and down the MSR i'm going to add in an initial objective on Khiam, for one Bn, and then an objective will activate on Ibeles Saki, later in D1. This will threaten the French resupply route into Merdjayoun and give a good jumping off point to Col's Ridge for either the 2/2 Pnr or Kings Own follow on tps.

(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 22
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 10/18/2010 1:22:24 AM   
bromstarzan

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 9/3/2010
Status: offline
Great stuff Chief Rudiger!

I haven't been around the forum (or Command Ops) for some time (workload reasons ;)) but this sure looks beautiful! I hope to be able to spend some time on map-making in late october/november.

Keep up the good work!

/Broms







(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 23
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 10/25/2010 12:57:56 PM   
ulisin

 

Posts: 76
Joined: 1/27/2010
Status: offline
Great stuff Chief Rudiger!

I haven't been around the forum (or Command Ops) for some time (workload reasons ;)) but this sure looks beautiful! I hope to be able to spend some time on map-making in late october/november.

Keep up the good work!

ulisin

(in reply to bromstarzan)
Post #: 24
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 4/28/2011 8:25:35 PM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Would anyone be willing to help with a few more Syria - Lebanon scenarios? The battles at the river Damour, around Jezzine & Mezze are all nice Bde sized actions - not too complex map/objective/force sized.

I love making the maps and Estabs and doing the research but get bogged down with trying to get the scenario VL/VPs balanced enough to make the scenario playable - is this anyone else's strong point?!


Ryan


(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 25
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 4/28/2011 11:49:39 PM   
Joe 98


Posts: 4032
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline
To balance a scenario:

The victory points in a game against the AI should be different from the victory points for a game against a human.

Make 2 scenarios which are the same except for the names. One will include "Human opponent" and the other "AI opponent" in their names.

Get 3 players to play the AI from both sides and then report the results of all 6 games.  Then tweak victory points.

Get 3 players to play each other from both sides:
A v B
A v C
B v C

Report the results of all 6 games and then tweak victory points.

Thats how you balance a scenario!
-







(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 26
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 4/29/2011 3:55:13 AM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1815
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
Just played this one through - had a frustrating start, and lost one company to surrender early on. After I cracked the first position though it was fairly simple to just keep pushing - but dealing with the second and third artillery positions took some time and cost some extra casualties (static Frontier Guard and Fortress - the mobile battery had gone during the assault on Merdjayoun).

I missed the arrival of all the reinforcements except for the light armour, so they each sat about for several hours till I spotted them in the jump map. Nothing terribly bad happened, but taking Windy Corner would have been a little easier with a second battalion on hand, plus the one garrisoning Merdjayoun/killing stragglers).

I dealt with the R35s using one battery of the 25 pdr in direct fire mode. Seemed simpler than messing around with infantry close assaults or my own armour. The guns were protected by suppressing fire from the other 3 batteries, and fires from infantry and light armour. I lost one gun, but that was later during a close combat within Merdjayoun with the Garrison HQ and a few other units, when the battery was supporting the 1/33rd. My armour losses amounted to 2 destroyed vehicles.

The garrison was reduced to one heavy company, plus part of a mortar platoon and light company in his mobile force, four companies of garrison troops, all light companies.

Allied troops secured Kirbe/Qleaa, Merdjayoun, Col's Ridge and the Eastern Exit (though no troops exited - due to missing exit requirements?). Garrisons of Beaufort, Merdjayoun Fort, Khiam Fort, Debbine were cleared, and all armour, artillery and supply troops eliminated.

Great fun - takes me back to BNA series and "Drive on Damascus".





(in reply to Joe 98)
Post #: 27
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 4/30/2011 4:18:52 PM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1815
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
Hmm, just a few notes on the Estab.

The units frequently have more assigned equipment than troops - while this might be the case sometimes (most troops will have a rifle, carbine or SMG for example, and those that don't will have a side-arm), It might cause too much firepower to be generated from a unit. Only minor amounts most of the time, but some seem a bit higher than average. Noted below the apparent differences, and major cause noted.

Aus BDE HQ, PersQ = Weapons
Infantry Bn HQ, PersQ = Weapons
Infantry Coy, PersQ is 8 lower than Weapons
Infantry Mortar, PersQ is 24 lower than Weapons (crewed Mortars 2@4)
Sqn Light Armour, PersQ is 73 lower than Weapons (vehicle crews 22@3 each - plus L/E for each)
Half Sqn, PersQ is 36 lower than Weapons (ditto)
25 Pdr Battery, PersQ is 56 lower than Weapons (Gun crews 8@6, 8 Quad drivers - plus L/E for each)
Bde Base, PersQ is 26 lower than Weapons (60 drivers with L/E? Some specialists not armed?)

French Bde HQ, PersQ = Weapons
75mm Arty, PersQ is 56 lower than Weapons (crewed guns 8@6, 8 Drivers)
Bn HQ, PersQ = Weapons
Light Company, PersQ is 4 lower than Weapons (crewed light mortars 4@2)
Heavy Company, PersQ is 36 lower than Weapons (crewed HMG 16@3 - some residual difference)
Mortar Platoon, PersQ is 10 lower than Weapons (crewed 81mm Mortar 2@4, plus 2 'extras' (2 more rifles than PersQ))
AT Platoon, PersQ is 8 lower than Weapons (crewed 25mm AT gun 2@4)
Ft Medejayoun Garr, PersQ is 36 lower than Weapons (crewed HMG 4@3, Light Mor 4@2, Heavy Mor @4, Fd Gun @6. Total of just LMG and Rifle exceed PersQ)
Banias Senegalese Garr, PersQ is 4 higher than Weapons (4 men unarmed)
Chateau de Beaufort, PersQ is 2 lower than Weapons (crewed light mor @2)
Rachaya/Ibeles Saki/Khiam Garr, PersQ is 10 lower than Weapons (crewed light mor 4@2, plus 2 'extras' Total of LMG and Rifle exceed PersQ)
Fort Khiam, PersQ is 28 lower than Weapons (crewed HMG 4@3, AT@4, Mor@4, Fd Gun @6, plus 2 extras - Total of LMG and Rifle exceed PersQ)
Half Sqn, PersQ is 34 less than Weapons (crewed R35 5@2, A/C 6@4, plus 34 Rifles)
Base, PersQ is 26 less than Weapons (same as Australian)





(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 28
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 12/2/2011 1:02:12 AM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
@ Arjuna

What's required to make a scratch estab, such as this, work best with the new patch?

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 29
RE: WIP New Map and Scenario - 12/2/2011 2:00:41 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17788
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Chief,

If you use the estab editor that comes with the new patch then any estab it creates will work with the new patch. I recommend you make a copy of the existing estab file, rename it and then modify it. It's pretty simple to create a new force estab. I recommend you read the Estab Editor manual. It's not that long and you should be able to work something up pretty quickly.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> Mods and Scenarios >> WIP New Map and Scenario Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.111