Matrix Games Forums

Buzz Aldrins Space Program Manager is now available!Space Program Manager gets mini-site and Twitch SessionBuzz Aldrin: Ask Me Anything (AMA) on redditDeal of the week Fantasy Kommander: Eukarion WarsSpace Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Afwaterings Canal Mini 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 >> Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/22/2011 2:01:33 AM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
I'm looking for info on the German forces on "The Island" between the Afwaterings Canal and R. Mass, facing the 51st Highland Division during "Operation Guy Fawkes" in early November '44, to create a resonably accurate OOB for a hypothetical scenario i'm making (see link below for v1 of scenario).

The source i have; "Battalion [5th Seaforths]; A British Infantry Unit's Actions from Alamein to the Elbe" gives the enemy strength as 6 Bn's but not from what formations. I'm assuming they are from the 1st Parachute Army whose components, on 5th Nov, are given on this website: (http://diedeutschewehrmacht.de/1%20fall%20jg%20armee.htm). Can anyone point me to better information or advise on best way to research this type of thing?

Since the Germans withdrew from this sector of the island pretty sharpish the scenario isn't historical, really, but the map in the book looked interesting so i thought i'd recreate it in BFTB to see what it'd be like if they held their ground.

I'll scan the 2 or 3 pages from the book tommorrow, so people can see what the back story is.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QI66ZDPQ






Attachment (1)
Post #: 1
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/22/2011 6:41:42 PM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1819
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
Grabbed this one last night, will give it a go and comment once my daughter is in bed this evening.

(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 2
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/22/2011 7:15:40 PM   
Chief Rudiger

 

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

It seems to only be playable as the Allies as the AI doesn't seem to cross the canal in force. This is possible because i set the two RE Fld Coys as immobile (to stop the player using them as Infantry) and purposefully reducing the two ferries to be foot traffic only (to deprive the leading Bns of their Armd support until morning of D2, when the enginneers finish the bridges).

I think the combination of having the engineers immoble and the tanks organic to the infantry bn's means the AI can't build the bridges so doesn't see a way of moving its forces accross the canal.

Overall, I think it plays okay as the Allies, with the Germans mortars "stonking" the canal/dyke crossing points with their heavy mortars and counter attacking anything that breaks into the Drunen/Groenwoud position.

PS. I ommitted all field artillery on purpose as no mention is made of its direct involvement during any of the Seaforth's battles.

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 3
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/22/2011 11:45:43 PM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1819
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
Hmm. I couldn't open the Afwaterings canal "cos" file - it requires an estab that isn't present. The included SeaforthEstab will only compile if some changes are made first:

Vehicle - Humber MkIV (id 641) is 'using' image 3391 which doesn't exist. I set the check-box to 'no image'.
Weapon - 50 cal M2HB (id 563) is using image 3392 which doesn't exist. I set the image to 3225 (an M2HB although not on a ground mount).

With these changes the estab compiles, and the scenario can be opened.

(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 4
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 12:03:21 AM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1819
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
OOB: Putting all the German infantry under a single Bn HQ forces it to be rather heavily loaded (large command delays likely).
Putting the Stug 'under' the FSL coy seems odd too, and will restrict the freedom of the Stugs (their organic HQ is thus a line foot company, and has long delays, compared to a normal HQ unit, or even better a mot/gp/pzjg HQ).

Current:
Rgt HQ
Bn HQ
1 Coy
2 Coy
3 Coy
4 Coy
8cm Mor Bty
7.5cm Pak Plt
7.5cm Pak Plt
12cm Mor Bty
 FSL Coy
Stug Plt
Regt Base

'Normal' OOB:
Regt HQ
Regt Base
12cm Mor Bty
7.5cm Pak Plt
*Attached Stug
*Attached FSL Coy
~Detached 4 Coy from II Bn
I Bn HQ
1 Coy
2 Coy
3 Coy
8cm Mor Plt
7.5cm IG37 Plt

Note the * and ~ units are cross attached from higher or 'other organic' units resp. It is possible that there would be a scratch KG HQ made from rear svcs elements - if so I'd add a second Bn HQ to hold these elements. Pushing so much into a single Bn HQ is IMO hampering the low level command that the Germans were noted for being good at, even when their troops were tired and 'poor' (which is of course a relative term, and also noted of surrendering/captured troops - which is not regarded as a unit's highest point in it's career in any army ;) )

I wasn't sure about the Second platoon of 7.5cm guns - they could be Pak40 ATG, or 'just' IG37, which still have a useful AT capability... depends on whether the unit was likely to be a VGD or Grenadier formation... and on whether the guns are organic to the Bn, or attached. I translated them as VGD and organic, but your mileage may vary... BTW, as far as I could tell, the IG37 is very different from the IG18 as a weapon... it lacks the high angle capability, and I haven't seen reference to reduced charge shells (the IG18 seems to have had multi-charge capability, making it a direct fire capable mortar, rather than a pure 'gun'). OTOH, the IG37 definitely had a Hl 39A shell available to it in 'quantity' and was higher velocity and more accurate in point fire, making it more useful against light armour.


< Message edited by Lieste -- 5/23/2011 12:12:07 AM >

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 5
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 12:27:50 AM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1819
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
You might also want to consider tinkering with the soft factors - the German leadership values should probably be 'better' while (some) of the unit values could be lower - possibly training and fitness for the infantry - experience is probably less hard hit - the few veterans will reduce the mistakes of 'inexperience' a lot.
Morale could be high if they 'should hold' or are planning a fighting withdrawl, lower if they expect to be expelled and don't want to go...
Stubborness - probably fairly high for the German support weapons and HQ, but not too high for the infantry.

Very good factors for the Stug unit - probably... at least in the early war these were elite troops, and did exceptionally well throughout the war. Not spectacular vehicles, so the crews must have had a lot to do with it. Late war? A mix of exceptional and average crews. So take your pick depending on unit reports if possible. Small numbers did useful work though.

Similarly, play with the factors for the Seaforths et al... I assume reasonable fitness and morale etc, but are there any comments that suggest a small adjustment up or down for any of the aggressiveness/morale/fitness/leadership/determination etc factors?

At 50% across the board there is a reliance on numbers/weapons rather than 'elan' and doggedness - although a nightmare to plan and balance, this does make a scenario more interesting...

I personally would aim foot unit traits low-middle and leadership spread over the board, but perhaps others have different ideas? Armour might benefit from mid-high unit traits, esp training and experience - it helps balance the constant retreat all-the-time behaviour of tanks - with better soft factors they only take notice of real threats.

You have the references for this engagement, and some comments might not apply... but I've found that there are definite differences between 'average' and tuned performances from the 'same' units.

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 6
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 12:51:31 AM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1819
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
Victory Schedule:
The Allies require an advance of 3-5km to obtain any of their occupation points... they also require 100% of the available points in order to obtain a full victory, and almost all their objectives are secure (10x defending strength).

The Axis begins 'on their' objectives, and is only required to sit 'on' the objectives to score. Strength is immaterial, so long as a presence is maintained. Still a 100% completion required to give full success.

I think that there should be some adjustment to these conditions, but until I play it through what this is won't be clear.
Although the UK infantry Bn didn't have organic armour they did co-operate with 'fixed' units which has a similar effect... so treating it as organic seems ok. However, have you considered bringing it in immediately after the initial planning is done to allow the AI to 'cross' without worrying about vehicles?
The Camerons could start with their sqn attached, but it might give the AI more flexibility if the armour all arrives 'late'.
If the armour is needed to start 'on-map' at start and is hampering the crossing, be aware that the AI is quite keen on cross-attachments, and will make them whenever possible, so you may get the results you want by reforming the armour into a single Rgt under it's own HQ for the purposes of the scn.


< Message edited by Lieste -- 5/23/2011 12:52:39 AM >

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 7
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 12:53:01 AM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Thanks for the feedback.

So the scenario files aren't playable, out of the box? I know the compiler came up with some errors but doesn't it always? Coincidently i didn't change either the Humber or the .50 cal so i don't know where that's come from!

What're your thoughts on the scenario once you got it working?

Re: OOB

Yes, the German side is mince as i've no info on the actual units involved. I chose to give the OPFOR Bn 4 Inf Coy so that each of the 4 OBJ could be occupied. I also gave the Bn two AT Pl so that both Drunen and Greonwoud had some longer range AT capability. My inspiration is really the COTA tuturial, Bridge to Lamia - the Germans had this kind of reinforced Inf Bn set up to start with.

The reasoning behind the Fusilier Coy being in charge of the StuG's was to encourage the AI to use it as a seperate force from the Inf Bn, for counterattacking. The inspiration here is the Seaforth's Operation Order, which warns the enemy may have the "Odd Tank" kicking about. I thought a bicycle company + Assualt gun platoon make an ironic "Fire Brigade".

Anyway, i thought subordinating the StuG pl to the Bicycle Coy would encourage cooperation. Do you see this in game? I had also thought about the command load and bumped the Fsl Coy CO up to a Major and gave him 200% Staff Capability, but probably changing the Estab Staff Capacity to 2 would have been a better bet. Pushing the entry time for these units to daylight might also encourage the AI to counter attack with them - right now they tend to become committed to the battle on the night of D1/2 so are kind of ground down.

In reality, the Germans withdrew from both the Drunesche Dyke and Drunen-Groenwoud line without much of a fight, it appears, and the objectives were secured before midnight of D1 - which is approcimately when the Seaforths and Camerons reach the Drunen-Groenwoud line in game if given attack orders from their deployment zone! Also, the Op Order estimates the bridges will be complete around 0800 hrs, which is only a little sooner than possible in game!



All,

I've scanned in the 4-5 pages on the source i've used so you can see what its all about.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=G804Y0S2

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 8
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 12:53:36 AM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Wow, two more posts in the time it took for me to do one!

I'll have a play around tommorrow evening after going to the National Library to look at some 51st HD books - might find something concrete on the Germans.

< Message edited by Chief Rudiger -- 5/23/2011 1:03:31 AM >

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 9
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 1:01:29 AM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1819
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
The Estab doesn't compile if it throws errors. I suspect you renamed your .coe file and then created the scn and edited and 'recompiled' the .xml with errors (which should mean that your version is still playing with stock units?)
The stock .xml has these two errors in it I think, so long ago that I started changing things throughout my version(s) that I can't recall now though.

I haven't actually run the scn yet, just opened the map in mapmaker, and the estab and scn in their editors. The Scn wouldn't open without fixing the Estab, in order to allow it to compile - I don't think it would have run already though without a compiled Estab to use.


(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 10
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 1:05:23 AM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Hmmm, the could explain a few things.... am certainly not playing with stock estab.

Another thing to look into:

TT01 - Fix Loadsa Stuff

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 11
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 1:11:24 AM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1819
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
I note that you use "Highway" supply type, but be aware this cannot be cut to the top level Base (even if "sat on" by an entire armoured division ;) )
I routinely (and currently - it may have been fixed already?) use/replace these with a 'higher echelon HQ/Base' and an Airlanding SEP - which is a dump/arrival point requiring collection. This means that poor routeing or good manoeuvre from your opponent can cut you completely from off map supply. *You might want to nudge the SEP from the map-edge to an objective where the forces are smallish and limited, and the defender can overrun the edges to preserve the SEP..., or you could leave it so the supply can be cut, or use a road type where this doesn't apply at all...

I'd be tempted to give the Germans a 'formal' (if scratch) HQ for their counter-attack/support units, giving them a total of 2 Bn level HQs. It will give the AI more flexibility in planning, and will still allow a 'decent' coordinated defence and a local counter-attack.

With only a single 'forward HQ' it might tend to favour one or the other... penny packeting the other forces.

On the subject of supply: I also have added (for the Germans), a set of Bn Bases - which allow a bit more flexibility in deployment of a single regiment over a wide area - without it the AI feeds supply through the middle (enemy bit) of a bulge you are pinching out, leading to no supply and killed supply runs... with it, each Bn grouping can support a different flank of the same bulge (eg Pz supporting PzGren or vice versa) and still receive supplies from their 'rear' because of the attached Bn Supply column.

Doesn't so often apply to the Allies, as they have more of most stuff, and sometimes can commit a whole Rgt/Bde where the Germans would be delighted to see an entire Bn.


< Message edited by Lieste -- 5/23/2011 1:26:49 AM >

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 12
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 2:07:52 AM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1819
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
Fairly simple as the Axis. Even with a 'major D1 attack' obtained by pushing the armour to arrive a bit later from the scn editor, the defenders had no trouble routing the attacks as they came. Losses at D3:

Axis 15/0/0, Allies 1071/0/14, with 0/8/1 units lost to fire/surrender/disbandment.

The Allies hadn't in fact attempted to build any bridges at all - all their armour was on the south bank. This might be better if the engineers and armour arrive a bit later, but together, alternatively, give bridges at start on D1, but delay the arrival of tanks till the bridge should be complete.

This might work a bit better already with the changes made but not released - the continuous routing was noticeable due to limited cover, and the retreat direction was frequently 'towards the guns'. Both of which make the attacker excessively vulnerable here.

Will try as attacker tomorrow, bit late here now to start over.

< Message edited by Lieste -- 5/23/2011 2:08:49 AM >

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 13
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 10:17:47 AM   
Merv0728


Posts: 122
Joined: 6/7/2007
Status: offline
Have a look at www.kiltsrock.com/forum,there is a write up of the op there.
Also have you seen the book The Spirit of Angus by John McGregor.

Alan

(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 14
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 1:48:11 PM   
simovitch


Posts: 4183
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline
Chief Rudiger,

Looking at your maps on the 1st post I see some problems that you may want to check out. I assume it is a recompiled HTTR map. However, things have changed since HTTR with mixed-mode movement and the rivers and water elements will wipe out your road movement rates if the two elements are close together. You will either have to pull the roads away from the rivers (minor and major) and/or put some crossings in. You can check by using the pathing tools.

Reworking and checking and rechecking the HTTR maps for the BFTB expansion was a major time-consuming effort to get this accomplished.

_____________________________

simovitch


(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 15
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 8:19:12 PM   
Chief Rudiger

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

I note that you use "Highway" supply type, but be aware this cannot be cut to the top level Base (even if "sat on" by an entire armoured division ;) )
I routinely (and currently - it may have been fixed already?) use/replace these with a 'higher echelon HQ/Base' and an Airlanding SEP - which is a dump/arrival point requiring collection. This means that poor routeing or good manoeuvre from your opponent can cut you completely from off map supply. *You might want to nudge the SEP from the map-edge to an objective where the forces are smallish and limited, and the defender can overrun the edges to preserve the SEP..., or you could leave it so the supply can be cut, or use a road type where this doesn't apply at all...

I'd be tempted to give the Germans a 'formal' (if scratch) HQ for their counter-attack/support units, giving them a total of 2 Bn level HQs. It will give the AI more flexibility in planning, and will still allow a 'decent' coordinated defence and a local counter-attack.

With only a single 'forward HQ' it might tend to favour one or the other... penny packeting the other forces.

On the subject of supply: I also have added (for the Germans), a set of Bn Bases - which allow a bit more flexibility in deployment of a single regiment over a wide area - without it the AI feeds supply through the middle (enemy bit) of a bulge you are pinching out, leading to no supply and killed supply runs... with it, each Bn grouping can support a different flank of the same bulge (eg Pz supporting PzGren or vice versa) and still receive supplies from their 'rear' because of the attached Bn Supply column.

Doesn't so often apply to the Allies, as they have more of most stuff, and sometimes can commit a whole Rgt/Bde where the Germans would be delighted to see an entire Bn.




Thanks for all the feedback.

Re: SEP - so the "Highway" trucks are invinsible from the SEP to the top level base? I used the airdrop/landing type on my Merdjayoun Scenario, i think, as i was going to introduce the intermediate Bn base (yet abother link/bottleneck in the chain) with manpack/mule transport (i.e. trucks with very small transport capability) to stress the logistic aspects of fighting a campaign on a shoe string in a mountain range! This is one of the things i liked most about the third party Narvik scenarios - you had a limited number of troops to begin with and a big task at hand. In perpetual daylight attacks were something not to be undertaken lighty!

Still, in this scenario, considering its short length, i didn't pay any attention to the supply aspect. Also, the Axis aren't supposed to come south of the Canal and the Allies should be pushed to get anywhere near the North table edge in time to bother about starving the Germans out.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Fairly simple as the Axis. Even with a 'major D1 attack' obtained by pushing the armour to arrive a bit later from the scn editor, the defenders had no trouble routing the attacks as they came. Losses at D3:

Axis 15/0/0, Allies 1071/0/14, with 0/8/1 units lost to fire/surrender/disbandment.

The Allies hadn't in fact attempted to build any bridges at all - all their armour was on the south bank. This might be better if the engineers and armour arrive a bit later, but together, alternatively, give bridges at start on D1, but delay the arrival of tanks till the bridge should be complete.

This might work a bit better already with the changes made but not released - the continuous routing was noticeable due to limited cover, and the retreat direction was frequently 'towards the guns'. Both of which make the attacker excessively vulnerable here.

Will try as attacker tomorrow, bit late here now to start over.



Have you ever actually seen the AI build a bridge.... i don't think i have...!

I will play about with the stats as you say.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Merv0728

Have a look at www.kiltsrock.com/forum,there is a write up of the op there.
Also have you seen the book The Spirit of Angus by John McGregor.

Alan



Will have a look at both - thanks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch

Chief Rudiger,

Looking at your maps on the 1st post I see some problems that you may want to check out. I assume it is a recompiled HTTR map. However, things have changed since HTTR with mixed-mode movement and the rivers and water elements will wipe out your road movement rates if the two elements are close together. You will either have to pull the roads away from the rivers (minor and major) and/or put some crossings in. You can check by using the pathing tools.

Reworking and checking and rechecking the HTTR maps for the BFTB expansion was a major time-consuming effort to get this accomplished.



This is a scratch built map, using the map series you gave me a link to recently. Didn't realise HTTR maps could be played in BFTB. I don't have that title - is this operation coverred?

Re: overlap - hadn't though about this but i supposed i'm asking for it with all the detail i've tried to cram into the map.

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 16
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 8:19:17 PM   
Chief Rudiger

 

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

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 17
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 8:32:29 PM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1819
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
Fiddled about a bit with this - looking at it from the German side...

Pushed the entire 5th Camerons and 2nd Seaforths across the Canal, deployed with low cohesion immediately in front of the canal.
The 5th Seaforths are in reserve at scenario start with the two ferries (or building bridges) allowing some access to the north.

The three armour Sdn are set as reinforcements 3 minutes later - this is to allow the AI to plan an infantry only assault, with the tanks dropping into reserve/support by fire. Some trouble with getting them committed later, so to improve this, I might give them their organic HQ, or attach them all to 5th Seaforth or the 152nd Brigade HQ? - This might also be due to the high-effort secure bridge tasks needed to kick-start the engineers - if I expire these early on D2 then the tanks should be freed. This would cause trouble with the last version, as the engineers were temporarily set to 'normal', but I'll see if the AI can use the static ones - they kept switching on/off on the first run through without the high/max effort secure bridges.

I've staggered the start times of the objectives so the AI pushes forward against the 'next' ones, but it seems to think there is not sufficient force to initially hit both villages together... instead concentrating on one at a time - although that could be because of fire/casualties caused by the defenders disrupting his actual plans.

I've added two low priority objectives on the dyke as well, which expire in the morning of D2, as the tanks should be almost ready to cross.

Starting locations for the Germans include some troops (two Coy of Grenadiers) pushed forward to the dyke where the roads cross it. This because the report states the canal and dyke were held, but not the villages. The AI or player can of course abandon these positions and pull back to the rear, but at the risk of being hit in the open while doing so, and with fatigue/less entrenchment.

I'd be tempted to remove the 12cm mortars from at start troops, adding them in response to the attack a few hours later... YMMV.

As far as terrain goes, the whole is far too open - there is no real obscuration of any of the terrain - the dykes that completely block sight in the report do nothing within the scenario, and the 'high ground' to the rear is not significant as the terrain is open/flat.

I would cut the terrain interval from 10m to much less - 2-4m? and explicitly include terrain height in the area of the canal/dyke at least to provide robust cover. The author indicates that 'an entire division' could have been deployed in the lee of the canal feature and the forces south of the canal wouldn't be any the wiser. Hyperbole perhaps, but still different from the totally 'flat' terrain depicted. (Yes, the dykes are present, and have elevation, but they seem not to block LOS in this version yet.)



(in reply to simovitch)
Post #: 18
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 8:55:21 PM   
Chief Rudiger

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Fiddled about a bit with this - looking at it from the German side...

Pushed the entire 5th Camerons and 2nd Seaforths across the Canal, deployed with low cohesion immediately in front of the canal.
The 5th Seaforths are in reserve at scenario start with the two ferries (or building bridges) allowing some access to the north.

The three armour Sdn are set as reinforcements 3 minutes later - this is to allow the AI to plan an infantry only assault, with the tanks dropping into reserve/support by fire. Some trouble with getting them committed later, so to improve this, I might give them their organic HQ, or attach them all to 5th Seaforth or the 152nd Brigade HQ? - This might also be due to the high-effort secure bridge tasks needed to kick-start the engineers - if I expire these early on D2 then the tanks should be freed. This would cause trouble with the last version, as the engineers were temporarily set to 'normal', but I'll see if the AI can use the static ones - they kept switching on/off on the first run through without the high/max effort secure bridges.

I've staggered the start times of the objectives so the AI pushes forward against the 'next' ones, but it seems to think there is not sufficient force to initially hit both villages together... instead concentrating on one at a time - although that could be because of fire/casualties caused by the defenders disrupting his actual plans.

I've added two low priority objectives on the dyke as well, which expire in the morning of D2, as the tanks should be almost ready to cross.

Starting locations for the Germans include some troops (two Coy of Grenadiers) pushed forward to the dyke where the roads cross it. This because the report states the canal and dyke were held, but not the villages. The AI or player can of course abandon these positions and pull back to the rear, but at the risk of being hit in the open while doing so, and with fatigue/less entrenchment.

I'd be tempted to remove the 12cm mortars from at start troops, adding them in response to the attack a few hours later... YMMV.



Seeing as this scenario is based on the notion that the Germans did contest the ground i didn't feel obliged to reproduce their deployment. It seems to me the village line is the better of the two lines as once turned the dyke sounds like a death trap.

Point taken about the 12cm mortar.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

As far as terrain goes, the whole is far too open - there is no real obscuration of any of the terrain - the dykes that completely block sight in the report do nothing within the scenario, and the 'high ground' to the rear is not significant as the terrain is open/flat.

I would cut the terrain interval from 10m to much less - 2-4m? and explicitly include terrain height in the area of the canal/dyke at least to provide robust cover. The author indicates that 'an entire division' could have been deployed in the lee of the canal feature and the forces south of the canal wouldn't be any the wiser. Hyperbole perhaps, but still different from the totally 'flat' terrain depicted. (Yes, the dykes are present, and have elevation, but they seem not to block LOS in this version yet.)






Hmm,

the dyke lines overlay 10m ridges that i painstaikingly drew on (Give me AutoCAD!) and in my version they do reduce LOS. Maybe i've zipped the wrong file.

Can you send me your changes to the objectives - this the design part i hate.

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 19
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 10:01:00 PM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1819
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
Still tweaking. I think the static engineers are why you aren't seeing bridges - possibly the AI is wanting to swap them over, and they never get 'there'. I saw similar problems (ie a long delay before starting), when both engineers were 'live' but the initial fuel level was low enough to prevent movement. Both then built the same crossing, so the finish time was normal-ish.

Well, yep, I see the 10m height on the dykes.. problem is the ground 'nearby' is 9m, rather than ~2-4m so the dyke has no LOS effect. You'd need to have 'enough' contours to fix the low ground 'low' and still have prominence for these 'major' terrain features. This means at least 3. 1 'low' 1 'mid' and 1 'high' - to get the full prominence might even need 2 'mid' layers, but might be uneccesary

Anyways. The last AI attack kicked me out of the villages (more-or-less) and had cut supply to most of my forces, so it is definitely heading in the right direction. Losses are still rather one-sided ~700/60 and objectives are giving ~87/0 but an improved AI attack certainly :)
I could hold him where I had forces, but not prevent him slipping through/by, and the reserves were committed and used up just stemming the tide. Another 5-6 hours and I would have been in severe trouble. Without the 12cm tubes at the start, he would have probably reached the village line at dawn, rather than dusk of D2, but I would have probably formed a better defensive line in the village, rather than holding at the tip of the Drunen outskirts and Sempke.

< Message edited by Lieste -- 5/23/2011 10:11:58 PM >

(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 20
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 10:01:18 PM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Yes, wrong map packaged with Zip file. Will upload itended one later tonight.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Chief Rudiger -- 5/23/2011 10:03:28 PM >

(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 21
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 10:11:55 PM   
simovitch


Posts: 4183
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline
Yeah, try some "quickest motorized" pathing along the south side of that canal. I'll guarantee that trail is wiped out. Same with your roads over the minor rivers.

I doubt that dikes will block LOS regardless of height. Neither will embankments. This is on the wishlist.

_____________________________

simovitch


(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 22
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 10:32:20 PM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1819
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
He is using hills as dykes, but with only 2 contours (0,10) there isn't enough 'step' between the high and low areas. (2,6,10) for example would explicitly give *at least* 4m prominence to the narrow 'hills'.


I've attached the 'current working' version of my fiddlings so far. Not changed any Estab/terrain values at all, just moved some units, tinkered with the 'assault' set-up and replaced the not-working as designed static engineers. Note that I've explicitly chained each engineer to the local crossing by spawning the crossing task and engineer at the same time and place. With both on map at start the AI was mucking about, and not getting on with building efficiently.

The German objectives seem reasonable*, but I would consider making at least some tasks 'secure' rather than defend. The Allies need some work on the objectives, as I've yet to see the AI secure a single point. What he does seems reasonable, he just gets no credit for it.
The best way to check the scoring is to make the AI follow a reasonable plan/schedule ~ which is near ATM, and then ensure that 'normal' play by both sides gives a draw/minor victory - excellent or atrocious play should be needed to obtain major victories, or auto-end victories.

This scn is being worked on right now, with the assumption that the AI is attacking/Allied, as the original scenario had no working Allied attack and needed most adjustment.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lieste -- 5/23/2011 10:34:27 PM >

(in reply to simovitch)
Post #: 23
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 10:39:25 PM   
Chief Rudiger

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch

Yeah, try some "quickest motorized" pathing along the south side of that canal. I'll guarantee that trail is wiped out. Same with your roads over the minor rivers.

I doubt that dikes will block LOS regardless of height. Neither will embankments. This is on the wishlist.


A lot of the detail is just eye candy - there's no significance to it.

The "dykes" themselves do not block LOS, as i learnt from Huib's Woensdrecht Isthmus scenario thread, thats why i drew a 10m high hill under each. As you can see in the above screenshot it does block LOS although because of the interpolation between the contours the differences are not that big - it still does work though. As Leiste points out, adding more layers to the hand drawn dyke ridge should even this out but is a bit labout intensive.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Still tweaking. I think the static engineers are why you aren't seeing bridges - possibly the AI is wanting to swap them over, and they never get 'there'. I saw similar problems (ie a long delay before starting), when both engineers were 'live' but the initial fuel level was low enough to prevent movement. Both then built the same crossing, so the finish time was normal-ish.

Well, yep, I see the 10m height on the dykes.. problem is the ground 'nearby' is 9m, rather than ~2-4m so the dyke has no LOS effect. You'd need to have 'enough' contours to fix the low ground 'low' and still have prominence for these 'major' terrain features. This means at least 3. 1 'low' 1 'mid' and 1 'high' - to get the full prominence might even need 2 'mid' layers, but might be uneccesary

Anyways. The last AI attack kicked me out of the villages (more-or-less) and had cut supply to most of my forces, so it is definitely heading in the right direction. Losses are still rather one-sided ~700/60 and objectives are giving ~87/0 but an improved AI attack certainly :)
I could hold him where I had forces, but not prevent him slipping through/by, and the reserves were committed and used up just stemming the tide. Another 5-6 hours and I would have been in severe trouble. Without the 12cm tubes at the start, he would have probably reached the village line at dawn, rather than dusk of D2, but I would have probably formed a better defensive line in the village, rather than holding at the tip of the Drunen outskirts and Sempke.


I fiddled with the engineers too and they built the Western bridge on schedule. The allies probed Groenwoud in the evening of D1 with Inf and then assaulted during the night, gaining a toehold on the highway between there and Drunen. The Fire Brigade kicked them out but then the second Bn assaulted Drunen in the morning of D2. While these attacks were holding me down the 3rd Bn flanked to the West and over ran the Base and nearly the Regt HQ but I redeployed a single coy from Groenwoud to hold Elshout cross roads while a Coy from Drunen followed up the 3rd Bn and disturbed that Bn's HQ and Mortars - which made them abort their attack as the sun went down.

Had a presence on all 4 VLs at 0000 D3 so didn't loose, to put it one way.

Was impressed with the AI, especially its obvious find, fix, flank pattern!


(in reply to simovitch)
Post #: 24
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 11:21:15 PM   
Chief Rudiger

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

He is using hills as dykes, but with only 2 contours (0,10) there isn't enough 'step' between the high and low areas. (2,6,10) for example would explicitly give *at least* 4m prominence to the narrow 'hills'.




Have just redrawn a section of Dyke with 2,4 & 10 metre contours and it does make quite a difference (flat farmland either side). If one were conscious of this when drawing the dyke in the first place it would be relatively easy to draw linear sections and then duplicate and offset them and then cut and paste more duplicates to higher layers.

I'll spend a bit of time redrawing the "dykes".

If anyone can help me out with details of the German OOB for this area i'd appreciate it - will be searching in "Monty's Highlanders" by Patrick Delaforce and "None Bolder" by Richard Doherty tommorrow evening.

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 25
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/23/2011 11:28:23 PM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1819
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
FWIW, you might not even have to offset, - as the slopes and heights are low, (+8 m in 100 is going to cause no problems), you could just copy the 10 m contour into a lower/intermediate layer.
Obviously, if you have lower prominences that cross this contour, then you can add these too.
Be aware that 2,6,10 is equal steps of 4 m from a base of 2m. 2,4,10m is unequal, so you will also have 6,8m intermediate contours to 'deal with' as well.

(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 26
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/26/2011 1:07:58 AM   
Chief Rudiger

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

He is using hills as dykes, but with only 2 contours (0,10) there isn't enough 'step' between the high and low areas. (2,6,10) for example would explicitly give *at least* 4m prominence to the narrow 'hills'.




I was looking at the new Edinburgh Tram dyke/embankment near the airport today and suddenly realised that 10m is way too high for a dyke (the Tram looks more like 3-4m). The source said 9 feet but I think I just drew it on the first layer to hand and have never thought any more about until now!

Anyway, going on a dyke height of 6m (since I like arbitrariness) I've been testing this idea out to see whether stacking multiple layers one on top of another actually helps confine the ridge to a smaller footprint, i.e. reduces its cross section. So, in the style of a scientific report I would ask you to consider the following


Null Hypothesis: Adding Multiple Layers does not change the cross section of a dyke

Test 1 -

Method: I made multiple flat test maps and drew an EW dyke using a 2,4 & 6m layers, stacked directly onto of one another, then another map with only 2 & 6m layers and finally a third map using a single 6m layer. I generate a cache for each map.

Result: See "test example.jpeg"

Analysis: All three have the same cross section when viewed using the scenmaker LOS tool.

Test 2 -

Method: I did the same thing with my afwatering map by duplicating, cutting and pasting the same altitude polygon from the 2m layer onto the 4 and 6m layers in one map and made another map with just a 6m layer on top of the base layer, like my original.

Result: See "2 4 and 6m layers.jpg" & "one 6m layer.jpg"

Analysis: You can see that the LOS tool shows no difference in the cross sections of 3 identical dykes between the two different maps.



Conclusion: Results show that constructing a dyke of more than one layer does not change its cross section therefore the Null hypothesis, "Adding Multiple Layers does not change the cross section of a dyke" cannot be disproven... or something like that...


...so yeah, unfortunately I don't think it works. However, the 6m dykes, however drawn, don't seem to cause great interpolation anomalies in the lower lying areas between them.



Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 27
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/26/2011 2:19:42 AM   
Lieste

 

Posts: 1819
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline
Uggh. It does work but you need extra prominence, as the Mapmaker smears the heights excessively in a defile - the 'minimum' height between your 4m contour isn't nearly 2m, but 3.9999m. As the maximum height on the map is +13.x m you could use 1m contours to get enough separation, or cheat by using a deeper 'channel'

Sometimes the height map generated has very little to do with the drawn contours :(


Oh, and did you remember to recalculate your terrain tables, and recalculate the cache before making your tests?

< Message edited by Lieste -- 5/26/2011 2:36:44 AM >

(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 28
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/26/2011 8:31:08 PM   
Chief Rudiger

 

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

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Oh, and did you remember to recalculate your terrain tables, and recalculate the cache before making your tests?


Yup, did this.

Attached is the map with a two layer dyke, 1 layer at 1m and the other at 6m. I've done the same but with the top layers at 5 and 4m and am still not seeing any difference with the LOS tool. Am i doing this right? If not, can you have a fiddle and send it back!


Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lieste)
Post #: 29
RE: Afwaterings Canal Mini Scenario - 5/26/2011 9:07:05 PM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Have been to the Library to look at a good range of Highland Division books and Patrick Delaforce's "Monty's Highlanders" says "The German High Command orderred the bulk of their forces back accross the Maas but the Fuehrer personnally orderred the 59th Division to stay South of the river behind the Afwaterings Canal plus one Regiment of the 256 [Volksgrenadier] Division to make a stand at Keizersveer Bridge [outwith map extents @ bridge over R. Maas @ Raamsdonksveer?]." (p182)

From what i remember of the map in Tom Renouf's "Blackwatch" (scanned in waterstones) the 59 ID were shown on the island with the 256VGD downstream, which corresponds to the above text.



Details of 59. Infanterie-Division (or 59th Infantry Division to the frustrated googler):

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1453


Part of LXXXVIII Corp (88th) of 15th Army:

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1951
http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=2084


The following website gives massive amounts of info on the Corp, including the 59th Division.

http://maddog.gionpeters.com/welcome.html

And this spreasheet in particular gives strength details:

http://maddog.gionpeters.com/linked%20files/strength%20reports.xls

You can see the losses suffered on the Night of 4/5 November.

http://maddog.gionpeters.com/linked%20files/MS-B-343%20(LXXXVIII%20corps%20Jun-Dec%201944).pdf

Looks like a translation of the Corp war diary / campaign summary.

Jack-pot!


I think i'll buy the best books and expand the scenario to include the 153 Bde pushing from s'Hertogenbosch (the Duke's Wood - what can't learn in libraries?) based on "The Fuehrer" demanding more of the division stay "concealed" behind the dykes, on the island.

< Message edited by Chief Rudiger -- 5/26/2011 9:11:36 PM >

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