BrucErik CSD Studio

Moderators: Order of Battle Moderators, The Artistocrats

Post Reply
bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: BrucErik CSD Studio

Post by bru888 » Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:20 pm

Zekedia222 wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:15 pm
I would imagine thats why it is COY in reality. I just always thought it made more sense. Army’s always trying to abbreviate.
Yes, they really are quite coy in that regard. Get it? Ha, ha, ha! I am a card, even if only I say so. :lol:
- Bru

Zekedia222
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:30 pm
Location: Somewhere between Chattanooga and Anchorage

Re: BrucErik CSD Studio

Post by Zekedia222 » Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:23 pm

I do get it. I’ll get back to invading the Philippines now...
Klinger, you're dumber than you look, and THAT boggles the MIND.
- Charles Emerson Winchester III

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: BrucErik CSD Studio

Post by bru888 » Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Zekedia222 wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:23 pm
I do get it. I’ll get back to invading the Philippines now...
Definitely more entertaining than my humor, it seems. :(
- Bru

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: BrucErik CSD Studio

Post by bru888 » Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:29 am

Operation Totalize - Phase One

Comment: This is the most land command points for the human player's side that I can recall ever seeing. A combined 537 land CPs which, divided by the arbitrary average of 3.5 CP's per unit, yields approximately 153 units to be addressed each turn. Land supply shows an existing surplus of +491 but remarkably, that will not be enough. To remedy this, I placed 150 on a third major road from the north while conforming the other two supply hexes to the same amount; net surplus now +581. (You have an additional 24 CPs coming with Canadian spawns and there are the specialisation CPs to consider.)

Edit: I added a primary objective and rearranged them so that the goal is to establish an arc to the south which is not too narrow. I added and rearranged secondary objectives in support of this: "Possessing these key towns and intersections will secure our flanks and keep open our supply lines." Of course, I linked the hexes properly to all of them.

Suggestion: You may want to quickly scan your units and tasks to see if they still correleate with this revised array of objectives or if they need a bit of tweaking.

Edit: A couple of the primary objectives that I chose were undefended so I took the liberty of moving two bunkers closer to Cintheaux and relocating a bunker from in front of Cauvicourt to Renèmesnil.

Edit: The "All 9 objs" secondary objective trigger was linked to the wrong objective. I fixed.

Edit: I don't like spicy food but I do like spicy scenarios. So for flavoring, I added two secondary objectives: "Destroy at least 50 bunkers" and "Capture the Aèrodrome in 10 turns or less."

The bunkers objective is innocuous; the prize is "Fulfill this objective and enjoy the congeniality of Lieutenant General Harry Crerar. Fail this objective and incur his wrath.":

Screenshot 1.jpg
Screenshot 1.jpg (319.93 KiB) Viewed 873 times

I did figure, though, that the player should not be allowed to bypass so many bunkers in order to get at the objectives. A few, maybe, but this many would not be tactically sound. This objective is mentioned in the briefing so if you delete the mission and trigger, delete the last briefing as well.

The Aèrodrome objective does generate a non-core bomber, but it won't last long with all of those enemy flak units:

Screenshot 5.jpg
Screenshot 5.jpg (319 KiB) Viewed 873 times

That was a rigged test of the Event Popup which is why the airfield is still owned by the Germans. If you feel the bomber is inappropriate or upsets the balance, just delete the objective and the trigger. It is not mentioned in the briefing. (By the way, there are two puns in that screenshot, one obvious and one not so obvious :))

Edit: This Nebelwerfer was an orphan. The Wurfrahman 40, next on the list, was also "II/83 Werfer" and in AI Team #1 "I/1056 Gren" so I threw it in there:

Screenshot 2.jpg
Screenshot 2.jpg (269.34 KiB) Viewed 873 times

Edit: Same thinking for this 75mm PaK 40 labeled as "1/189 Pz Jäger"; another unit of the same type is "2/189 Pz Jäger" and it's in AI Team #1, so there it went:

Screenshot 3.jpg
Screenshot 3.jpg (278.32 KiB) Viewed 873 times

Edit: This Flak unit went into . . . Flak! (AI Team #10) I thought long and hard on this, really:

Screenshot 4.jpg
Screenshot 4.jpg (293.2 KiB) Viewed 873 times

Edit: This 75mm PaK 40 seemed to belong to AI Team #3 "I/982 Gren":

Screenshot 6.jpg
Screenshot 6.jpg (271.38 KiB) Viewed 873 times

This Flak unit went into Flak (AI Team #10 - I wish all of these orphans had been Flak):

Screenshot 7.jpg
Screenshot 7.jpg (273 KiB) Viewed 873 times

Edit: Here are your outcome images:

outcome_2_1.png
outcome_2_1.png (228.7 KiB) Viewed 873 times
outcome_2_0.png
outcome_2_0.png (183.48 KiB) Viewed 873 times

I'm finished with Operation Totalize - Phase One and the updated version is in the "Back to Erik" folder. Remember, only "Edits" are changes that I have actually done to the scenario. They are for you to review and approve. "Comments," "Questions," and "Suggestions" are things for you to consider and act upon as necessary.
- Bru

Erik2
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 7543
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:59 pm
Location: Norway

Re: BrucErik CSD Studio

Post by Erik2 » Thu Dec 19, 2019 8:59 am

Totalize is a prime candidate for lowering the total number of units :roll:
That is why I've kept those original scenario versions with all the historical units.
Maybe keep this one as is until we get some feedback later.

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: BrucErik CSD Studio

Post by bru888 » Thu Dec 19, 2019 2:32 pm

Erik2 wrote:
Thu Dec 19, 2019 8:59 am
Totalize is a prime candidate for lowering the total number of units :roll:
That is why I've kept those original scenario versions with all the historical units.
Maybe keep this one as is until we get some feedback later.
Okay, that's up to you, of course. If you reduce the number of bunkers, though, please give some thought to the bunkers objective. The total number is 90, of which about 18 are beyond the line of primary objectives, leaving 72 as "reachable." I estimated 50 out of 72 would be a decent challenge. Scale that goal back accordingly in proportion (don't forget the briefing, too).
- Bru

Zekedia222
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:30 pm
Location: Somewhere between Chattanooga and Anchorage

Re: BrucErik CSD Studio

Post by Zekedia222 » Thu Dec 19, 2019 8:55 pm

Wait a minute here, hold up, 90 bunkers!?!
Klinger, you're dumber than you look, and THAT boggles the MIND.
- Charles Emerson Winchester III

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: BrucErik CSD Studio

Post by bru888 » Thu Dec 19, 2019 9:38 pm

Zekedia222 wrote:
Thu Dec 19, 2019 8:55 pm
Wait a minute here, hold up, 90 bunkers!?!
Yep. While I am tempted to think that Erik's mouse button became jammed when he was placing one bunker ( :wink: ), he is the world-class authority on historical orders of battle in this partnership. It's probably not out of whack when you consider the overall amount of units in this scenario but as you saw, he is thinking of dialing things back so we'll wait and see. Personally, I hope he keeps enough bunkers in the scenario to justify having the bunker-busting objective, albeit scaled down accordingly.
- Bru

Erik2
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 7543
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:59 pm
Location: Norway

Re: BrucErik CSD Studio

Post by Erik2 » Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:53 am

Scaling up Totalize will probably mean going from companies to battalions (or something similar).
This means a unit number reduction by maybe factor 3 and would leave about 30 bunkers. Sounds more manageable..

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: BrucErik CSD Studio

Post by bru888 » Sat Dec 21, 2019 4:09 am

Gaumesnil - Wittmann's Last Ride?

Comment: Ah, Herr Wittmann. We meet again, at last. If this was an arcade video game, you would be a Boss.

Edit: Note the addition of a "?" to the end of the Scenario Name to add suspense.

Edit: I beefed up the Scenario Description. See what you think:

On 08-08-1944, Anglo-Canadian forces launched Operation Totalize. Under the cover of darkness, British and Canadian tanks and soldiers seized the tactically important high ground near the town of Saint Aignan de Cramesnil. Here they paused, awaiting an aerial bombardment that would signal the next phase of the attack. Unaware of why the Allied forces had halted, Brigadeführer Kurt Meyer, commander of the Hitlerjugend Division, is amazed that the British have stopped their attack in Operation Totalize only six hours after it commenced. Line after line of Allied vehicles had halted after cleanly breaking through the 89th Infanterie Division.

There and then, Meyer decides that he has to counterattack, if nothing else to allow his compatriots to man the second line of defences. Pulling together his local reserves, he orders his remaining armour, bolstered by a few Tigers led by Hauptsturmführer Michael Wittmann, to disrupt the British formations. Waiting for them are Sherman tanks of the 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry and the Sherbrooke Fusilier Regiment.


Edit: Here is the briefing, using that conversational style again:

Screenshot 1.jpg
Screenshot 1.jpg (48.22 KiB) Viewed 755 times
Screenshot 2.jpg
Screenshot 2.jpg (45.93 KiB) Viewed 755 times
Screenshot 3.jpg
Screenshot 3.jpg (61.4 KiB) Viewed 755 times
Screenshot 4.jpg
Screenshot 4.jpg (48.34 KiB) Viewed 755 times
Screenshot 5.jpg
Screenshot 5.jpg (66.61 KiB) Viewed 755 times

As you probably know, the reference is to Joe Ekins, the man who for years was credited for firing the shot that destroyed Wittman's tank. You may also be aware that at least one historian has disputed this but I felt that I would include Ekins to give a human face to the briefing (too bad, by the way, that there are no British soldiers in the game - I think that's a pilot here? - I thought of using one of the Americans but just couldn't bring myself to do so). In any event, I do not mention Ekins any further, particularly here, thus avoiding the controversy:

Screenshot 6.jpg
Screenshot 6.jpg (302.41 KiB) Viewed 755 times

Suggestion: From what I have read, there were Sherman Firefly tanks there. I see that you have provided them. However, they are only from the Sherbrooke Fusilier Regiment. The 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry's A Squadron, Ekins' outfit, was also there and that is what I based the briefing on. Can you add some Yeomanry Sherman Firefly tanks as well? Perhaps you could lower the land command points to compensate.

Comment: You marked those tanks as core. I imagine that they (and quite a few others earlier in the campaign) may end up as auxiliary units when you do your Allied units restocking, depending on whether you want the player to keep such units for the rest of the campaign.

These were my sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Ekins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northamptonshire_Yeomanry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbrooke_Hussars
- Bru

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: BrucErik CSD Studio

Post by bru888 » Sat Dec 21, 2019 4:10 am

Gaumesnil - Wittmann's Last Ride? (continued)

Edit: I had Wittmann in "2/2/101 SS Pz" previously - this is accurate according to Wikipedia - so here I labeled his unit accordingly and renamed the other as "1/2/101 SS Pz."

Edit: Changed the primary objective to "Hold both objectives at all times."

Edit: Single-digit turn limits make me nervous. I bumped Turn Limit and Turns per Day up to 12.

Edit: I took the "Core" requirement off the "Allied Killed/Survives" trigger conditions. My reasoning is, the objective does not say "Do not lose any Allied [core] units" and thus would include any aux units that you may subsequently place. If you never do so, no harm done anyway. I did define them as "Category: Land."

Edit: Deleted the second "Wittmann" trigger in the "Ger" folder. Triggers named the same also make me nervous and this one is superfluous anyway. The scenario is over as soon as either primary VP falls to the Germans, so sending them on Seek & Destroy after the first one falls is moot. Same with the "Germans" trigger. You have set the primary objective as "Hold both objectives at all times" and the "Ger 1 obj" trigger will fail it if either falls. If you want to change this, we can work these triggers back in, of course.

Edit: Here are your outcome images:

outcome_2_1.png
outcome_2_1.png (198.2 KiB) Viewed 754 times
outcome_2_0.png
outcome_2_0.png (175.26 KiB) Viewed 754 times

I'm finished with Gaumesnil - Wittmann's Last Ride? and the updated version is in the "Back to Erik" folder. Remember, only "Edits" are changes that I have actually done to the scenario. They are for you to review and approve. "Comments," "Questions," and "Suggestions" are things for you to consider and act upon as necessary.
- Bru

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: BrucErik CSD Studio

Post by bru888 » Sat Dec 21, 2019 10:09 pm

Worthington Force - Sacrifice on Point 140

Edit: Here is the revised Scenario Description:

Operation Totalize had gotten off to a good start. The Allies were poised to move against Cintheaux, 3.2 km south of their furthest penetration but Lieutenant General Guy Simonds ordered a halt to allow field artillery and the 4th Canadian and 1st Polish armoured divisions to move into position for the second phase of the operation. This invited a counterattack by the 12th SS Panzer Division, the infamous 'Hitlerjugend' commanded by Kurt Meyer. The attack was turned back and the Allies resumed their advance. To restore the momentum of the attack, Simonds has ordered a column from the 4th Canadian Armoured Division to seize Hill 195, just to the west of the main road, halfway between Cintheaux and Falaise.

This column consists of the 28th Armoured (British Columbia) Regiment supported by three infantry companies from the Algonquin Regiment. It is dubbed 'Worthington Force" after the commander of the 28th, Lieutenant-Colonel D.G. Worthington. The column moves out under cover of darkness which turns out to be unfortunate when they become disoriented. As dawn breaks on 9 August, Worthington Force is 7.2 km to the east of Hill 195 at Hill 140. They are virtually surrounded by the 12th SS who are equipped with 88 mm flak guns and Tiger tanks, among other heavy weapons. Worthington Force faces annihilation.


Comment: I keep seeing reference to the 1st Polish Armoured Division but I don't see them in these scenarios.

Edit: The supply at Point 140 was calibrated to be exactly equal to land CP's; 86. I bumped it up to 90 to allow for additional CP's from specialisations.

Edit: All of the Canadian spawns were assigned to the neutral faction. I fixed. (There was this note with the original Scenario Description: "Note that the reinforcing Canadains use an aux British faction in order to provide correct resource incomes." However, the only Allied faction in this scenario was Canada, so that may be a hint of how this happened. I included the Great Britain faction and assigned all spawned units to it. I left its initial income at 0 because with each spawn, you "Change Income" to compensate.)

Comment: IRL, the British Columbia Regiment was virtually destroyed. I like the challenge in this scenario, however - a bit of the artistic license that I mentioned earlier - in that it doesn't just portray the remnants of the regiment escaping to the north. But it seems to me that establishing the supply line would have been an essential part of any rescue operation, and therefore a primary requirement. Therefore, the following edits.

Edit: I moved "Open a supply route to the defenders" to primary objectives and linked the mission to the hexes. I also created what I think is an appropriate secondary objective to "Save most of the Worthington Force":

Screenshot 7.jpg
Screenshot 7.jpg (174.76 KiB) Viewed 713 times

Suggestion: For the secondary objective, I took the 86 land CPs, divided that by the arbitrary average of 3.5 CP's per unit, yielding about 24 units. I chose 50% as a reasonable survival goal, which equates to 12 units. Please see if you agree.

Edit: Since there is a new primary objective for the human player, I created a matching one for the AI.

Edit: I adjusted all of the "Supply, etc." triggers to link to the human primary objective. I also linked them to the matching AI objective.

Edit: The way I did so obviated the need for the "Scenario end" trigger, so I deleted it.

Edit: Re-worded this Event Popup message (the reinforcements have not arrived yet) and pointed it at the proper hex:

Screenshot 8.jpg
Screenshot 8.jpg (219.37 KiB) Viewed 713 times

Also, there was no image in the folder. Fortunately, I had this on hand:

can.png
can.png (89.33 KiB) Viewed 713 times

Edit: The "Supply open" trigger was set to "Open" the objective (confusing, I grant you). I set it to be "Completed." I also added an Effect to turn itself off.

Edit: The "Supply broken" trigger was not linked to the hexes. I did so. I also added an Effect to turn itself off.

Suggestion: Please check the following. First, the "Change Income" effect in the "Supply broken" trigger was set for "Amount + -17" which should work mathematically but I have my doubts. I changed it to "Amount - 17." Second, and very important: I gather the idea is that the Canadian faction gets no resources until the supply connection is established. That makes more sense than supply doubling the 17 income that they already have at start. My assumption is that this should be zero; I made it so:

Screenshot 9.jpg
Screenshot 9.jpg (186.87 KiB) Viewed 713 times

This is how I wrote the secondary objective trigger (the objective is marked as completed in the beginning):

Screenshot 11.jpg
Screenshot 11.jpg (207.52 KiB) Viewed 713 times

Edit: Here are your outcome images:

outcome_2_1.png
outcome_2_1.png (179.15 KiB) Viewed 709 times
outcome_2_0.png
outcome_2_0.png (376.28 KiB) Viewed 709 times

I'm finished with Worthington Force - Sacrifice on Point 140 and the updated version is in the "Back to Erik" folder. Remember, only "Edits" are changes that I have actually done to the scenario. They are for you to review and approve. "Comments," "Questions," and "Suggestions" are things for you to consider and act upon as necessary.
- Bru

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: BrucErik CSD Studio

Post by bru888 » Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:55 pm

My friend, we are almost done with this phase; only Falaise remains, the end of the line for this campaign. Anticipating this, I peeked into the campaign folder and was chagrined to see this as your Victory image:

victory.png
victory.png (491.2 KiB) Viewed 703 times

I must protest! V-E Day is off in the future and hardly a fitting end to the UK Normandy 1944 campaign. Knowing your penchant for color photography on the campaign level, may I offer you these instead?

victory 1.png
victory 1.png (501.1 KiB) Viewed 703 times
victory 2.png
victory 2.png (571.25 KiB) Viewed 703 times
victory 3.png
victory 3.png (451.78 KiB) Viewed 703 times
victory 4.png
victory 4.png (462.19 KiB) Viewed 703 times
victory 5.png
victory 5.png (455.33 KiB) Viewed 703 times
victory 6.png
victory 6.png (456.9 KiB) Viewed 703 times

Remember to remove the space and number from the file name if you do choose to use one of them.
- Bru

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: BrucErik CSD Studio

Post by bru888 » Sun Dec 22, 2019 12:06 am

An interesting side note: As I was searching for those photographs, I ran across this Facebook page:

WW2 Colourised Photos

If you have access to Facebook, you may find some useful images therein. The images are posted for the taking; all you do is left-click, then right-click, and "Save image as..."

The interesting part is, as I was scrolling through the page, this face suddenly leaps out:

Image0134.jpg
Image0134.jpg (433.97 KiB) Viewed 701 times

It turns out that the fellow that we know in the game as "Henry Sanders":

Screenshot 1.jpg
Screenshot 1.jpg (62.44 KiB) Viewed 701 times

was actually Major David Vivian Currie, VC of the South Alberta Regiment, 4th Canadian Infantry Division.

But then, of course, you know all this already. ;) (Actually, kondi had nailed him in the True Japanese & US commanders thread.)

Well, I'm certainly glad that I used him so often in this campaign, even though I had it reversed: I thought he was British. He did fine as both.
Attachments
Major David Vivian Currie, VC.jpg
Major David Vivian Currie, VC.jpg (165.01 KiB) Viewed 701 times
- Bru

Erik2
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 7543
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:59 pm
Location: Norway

Re: BrucErik CSD Studio

Post by Erik2 » Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:59 am

Great work, only one more to go.
I think the Falaise scenario is a suitable ending with 5 factions meeting on the battlefield.

Maybe we could get this campaign ready for a Christmas play-test...?

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: BrucErik CSD Studio

Post by bru888 » Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:33 pm

Erik2 wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:59 am
Maybe we could get this campaign ready for a Christmas play-test...?
That's what I was thinking . . .
- Bru

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: BrucErik CSD Studio

Post by bru888 » Sun Dec 22, 2019 5:28 pm

Falaise - The Battle of Five Armies

Comment: This is an extravaganza worthy of the ultimate scenario of this campaign!

Comment: I see the Poles have finally made their appearance. I also see that they have managed to get themselves surrounded! :roll:

Comment: At first, I was taken aback by the weak condition of the German army initially placed on the map. I was worried about gameplay balance. However, I see that strong units are repeatedly spawned for several turns.

Comment: One of the interesting things about this process is becoming oriented as to what the scenario map encompasses. In this one, I gather that we are actually looking at only the eastern wall of the pocket, not the entire pocket:

800px-Falaise_Pocket_map.png
800px-Falaise_Pocket_map.png (219.3 KiB) Viewed 655 times

That explains why, although this is the story of Falaise, the town itself is not even on the map! :)

Comment: Another aspect for which I needed orientation: Where was the mechanism that impels the Germans to escape the pocket? I found it. Now I can get started.
- Bru

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: BrucErik CSD Studio

Post by bru888 » Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:37 pm

Falaise - The Battle of Five Armies (continued)

Edit: Here is the revised Scenario Description:

Operation Lüttich was a failure. It had been a counterattack ordered by the Führer against U.S. positions near Mortain, east of Avranches. Now American units are pouring through the gap in the German lines and fanning out through France. Combined with pressure from the north applied by Canadians and Poles in Operation Tractable, an opportunity has arisen to surround the entire German Force in Normandy. The Allies are pushing to close what has come to be called the 'Falaise Pocket' around the exhausted German Seventh Army and Fifth Panzer Army and deprive them of any chance to escape.

On 19 August, the Canadians seized Saint Lambert sur Dives and its critical bridges across the Dives River. Further east, the Poles had caught a long column of escaping Germans on the heights near Mont-Ormel and turned the road into carnage. But in so doing, they used most of their remaining ammunition and they were cut off from resupply. They have established two strong positions on heights, one near Coudehard and the other just east of Chambois. Both of these positions are astride the German escape routes. Further south, the GIs of the 90th Infantry Division have pushed north and met up with the Poles near Chambois. The pocket is almost sealed, but there are large gaps between the Allied positions and many German units in the pocket can still fight. 20 August 1944 will be the critical day in determining the outcome of the Falaise Pocket.


Edit: Here is the briefing:

Screenshot 3.jpg
Screenshot 3.jpg (63.28 KiB) Viewed 633 times
Screenshot 4.jpg
Screenshot 4.jpg (68.03 KiB) Viewed 633 times
Screenshot 5.jpg
Screenshot 5.jpg (69.07 KiB) Viewed 633 times
Screenshot 6.jpg
Screenshot 6.jpg (59.1 KiB) Viewed 633 times
Screenshot 7.jpg
Screenshot 7.jpg (63.05 KiB) Viewed 633 times
- Bru

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: BrucErik CSD Studio

Post by bru888 » Mon Dec 23, 2019 12:23 am

Falaise - The Battle of Five Armies (continued)

Comment: Canadian deployment is possible only around friendly towns. I assume that is intentional.

Screenshot 1.jpg
Screenshot 1.jpg (472.72 KiB) Viewed 617 times

Edit: Canadian planes could not be placed however, because "Off-map Air Supply Source" had not been turned on of the Allies. I fixed.

Edit: You gave me clearance to rearrange objectives if I saw a chance for improvement. I have done so here. Five of the eight primary objectives were clustered around the Polish position. Two of them were wood hexes flanking Hill 262N and another was an orchard outside Boisjos. That didn't seem right. I removed those three, and left Boisjois and Hill 262N as objectives.

L'Eglise, Moissy, and Chambois are obvious strategic points that should be held. But what would constitute "sealing the gaps" of the pocket, other than the German exit hexes themselves which would be silly?

So I did the following:
- Moved the flag for Le Bas de Neauphe two hexes to the left (and away from the oil depot) and made it a primary objective, a key crossroad.
- Made the flag at St.Lambert-sur-Dives a primary objective.
- Converted Le Haut Fel, Fougy, and Le Bourg-St.Lèonard to primary objectives.
- Converted Boisjois and Hill 262N to secondary objectives.

Now the eight primary objectives are a somewhat jagged line from north to south, the possession of which would provide a solid eastern wall of the pocket.

Edit: What then would be the points east of this line to hold in order to prevent stragglers and infiltrators already there from escaping? These are the secondary objectives that I picked:
- Boisjois and Hill 262N (which, by the way, I made into a hill with trees instead of forest).
- 'Maczuga' (Single quotes; I avoid double quotes in this game. Plus, I included a semi-humorous anecdote about this based on research.)

Screenshot 2.jpg
Screenshot 2.jpg (369.01 KiB) Viewed 617 times

- Mont Ormel
- Hill 262S (which is not on a road but is a highpoint for surveillance of the countryside).
- Two crossroads guarding a couple of German exits (I named them Crossroad A and B because I could not find a village in that area but I did rename your Crossroad as "L'Enclos d'en Haut" and took away its secondary objective flag along with Bourgogne).
- Avenelles

Edit: Notice that now, the Allies do not start the scenario in possession of all primary or secondary objectives. This means the secondary objective could not be marked as completed in the beginning, only to fail. I edited triggers and mission accordingly and inserted descriptions:

Screenshot 3.jpg
Screenshot 3.jpg (288.8 KiB) Viewed 617 times
Screenshot 4.jpg
Screenshot 4.jpg (190.19 KiB) Viewed 617 times
Screenshot 5.jpg
Screenshot 5.jpg (191.31 KiB) Viewed 617 times
- Bru

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: BrucErik CSD Studio

Post by bru888 » Mon Dec 23, 2019 3:38 am

Falaise - The Battle of Five Armies (continued)

Edit: The "Germans exit" trigger lacked an effect to award the AI their matching objective when the human player failed. Conversely, if the human player's objective stays completed until the end, there was no provision for failing the AI objective (which I don't know is absolutely necessary, but I like to be sure). Therefore, I edited these triggers accordingly:

Screenshot 1.jpg
Screenshot 1.jpg (212.45 KiB) Viewed 607 times
Screenshot 2.jpg
Screenshot 2.jpg (225.41 KiB) Viewed 607 times

Edit: The description for the "Destroy German cargo trucks" trigger is "Each truck destroyed will reduce German resource income by 5 points." For that reason, the trigger must be repeatable and marked with "-1" frequency. I fixed.

Edit: There was no "waffen" image in the folder for the "0530" Event Popup message. I inserted this one:

waffen.png
waffen.png (154.7 KiB) Viewed 607 times

and edited the message a bit, as follows:

Screenshot 3.jpg
Screenshot 3.jpg (303.94 KiB) Viewed 607 times

Edit: In light of the changes that I made to primary objectives, I made so bold as to change the following AI tasks:
- AI Team 15 "3 Pz" to Le Bas de Neauphe instead of L'Eglise
- AI Team 16 "2 Pz Gren" to St.Lambert-sur-Dives instead of L'Eglise
- AI Team 17 "304 Pz Gren" to stay focused on L'Eglise
- AI Team 18 "1 SS Pz" to Fougy instead of Moissy (which they own at the start)

For each of these teams, I build a trigger that changes them to Seek & Destroy upon reaching their hex rather than leaving them idle.

Edit: Similarly, while I left AI Team 19 "2 SS Pz" assigned to Boisjos, I moved AI Team 20 to Crossroad A to spread things out a bit. And for both of these teams, I build a trigger that changes them to Seek & Destroy upon reaching their hex rather than leaving them idle.

So now there are two subfolders in the "Ger" folder: "Activations" and "Spawns." You remain editor-in-chief, especially in this area, so feel free to exercise your editorial powers.

Edit: As long as I am out on a limb, I might as well go out even further. IMO, the "Can/1500" trigger is strange and unrealistic. It "clears the way" by checking if several hexes near St.Lambert-sur-Dives are still in Allied control, then "poof," three QF 17 pounders appear in the middle of the map as if by magic. So instead, I have three mutually exclusive alternatives for them to enter at the top of the map (they have trucks, so they will be able to get to the battlefield quickly) in a cascading series of options from west to east based on whether the Allies own hexes to the south. Whichever trigger is first enabled will shut off the other two.

Screenshot 4.jpg
Screenshot 4.jpg (230.14 KiB) Viewed 607 times

Edit: Here are your outcome images:

outcome_2_1.png
outcome_2_1.png (199.82 KiB) Viewed 607 times
outcome_2_0.png
outcome_2_0.png (413.6 KiB) Viewed 607 times

I'm finished with Falaise - The Battle of Five Armies and the updated version is in the "Back to Erik" folder. Remember, only "Edits" are changes that I have actually done to the scenario. They are for you to review and approve. "Comments," "Questions," and "Suggestions" are things for you to consider and act upon as necessary.

This scenario is the crown jewel of the campaign.

And so we come to the end of this stage of development of UK Normandy 1944. I suggest that you open a beta thread in the main forum when you are ready.
- Bru

Post Reply

Return to “Order of Battle : World War II - Scenario Design”