Arracourt is released.

[bru888]

Arracourt is released.

Arracourt was the largest tank battle involving U.S. forces on the Western Front until the Battle of the Bulge. It has been used as an example of how tactical situations and crew quality can be far more important factors in determining the outcome of a tank battle than the technical merits of the tanks themselves.

preview.png (474.69 KiB) Viewed 5935 times

Definitely in beta; definitely going to be tweaked over the next few days.

[kondi754]

+
- Map
- Description before the battle (sensational)
- The idea - there are not many scenarios from the end of the war
- The western front
- The US Army, Patton, Lorraine

-
- An armored division is not just tanks (I only peeked for the first two rounds, so if the infantry and artillery appear later on the battlefield, please forgive Bru for my hasty criticism )
There were 3 battalions of US armoured field artillery at Arracourt, if I remember correctly
- If ONLY tanks are on the battlefield the ONLY reasonable tactic against powerful German panzerwaffe is high mobility (Stuart, Hellcat) and encircling the groups of enemy tanks (so the scenario may be a bit too one-dimensional)
- There is no Sherman diversification - here you have the same tank with 76mm gun, in the American armored divisions of this period: only 1 tank per 1 platoon had 76mm gun, the remaining 4 had 75.
There are no Shermans Jumbo (M4A3E2), which were used from August 1944 as well as Shermans with 105 mm howitzer

[kondi754]

One more thing, you write in the description of the mission that the American units passed through the France, and they are tired. Dont you think US units should have incomplete personel and equipment status at the beginning of the battle (i.e. 7-9 HP)?

[bru888]

kondi, thanks for these comments. I am considering them and going to make some changes accordingly today. Here are two considerations, however:

1. With this scenario, I tried to keep things simple for a change. Hence nothing but armor. HOWEVER, I feel the same historical accuracy urge that you do concerning the composition of an armored division. I am thinking about making some changes.
2. OOB tends to be quite literal in unit vs. unit matchups. Basically, the Shermans were not a good matchup going up against Panthers and Panzer IVs. What I tried to do to compensate was to give the Shermans more experience to balance their lesser firepower; that is, in fact, what happened in the real battle which the Americans won. If I introduce artillery, I feel the need to take away some Shermans and I think what is going to happen is that the Germans will win in a walkover. I have to take a look.

Heh, and please don't bother me about the lack of U.S. air power, will you? I know that is missing compared to actual history. If I bring that in, it's going to swing things way around the other way so they're grounded due to weather. This is about a tank battle!

That's the thing about OOB: If you design a scenario that is 100% accurate as to unit types, strengths, and numbers according to history, it will tend to produce the same historical results. That can be boring, knowing that the U.S. won this battle in real life and then just go through the motions in the scenario to reproduce the same results. In my mind, playing OOB and winning a scenario should be somewhat challenging and I try to make it so.

Look for another update later today, and thanks again.

[kondi754]

It's just my opinion and the decision is yours.
You may add self-propelled artillery and motorized infantry and at the same time change part of the Shermans to a weaker version.
I started the game and it seems to be very hard to win on the 5th level, so I wouldn't reduce the number of American tanks.

Sory Bru, but I'm an enthusiast of Patton and the 3rd Army, and the US army in general, so I will follow your actions...

[bru888]

. . . it seems to be very hard to win on the 5th level, so I wouldn't reduce the number of American tanks . . .

Among your other comments, this is the kind of information nugget that I look for to gauge gameplay balance.

[bru888]

Arracourt new version 1.1 uploaded:

- Added artillery for both sides (U.S.: M7 Priest, 155mm Long Tom / Germany: Hummel).
- Reduced StuG III's and added German BA-10 armored cars and Nashorn and Elefant tank destroyers.
- Changed secondary objective from destroying just StuG III to "self-propelled guns" (artillery and tank destroyers).
- Clarified some of the wording in the briefings.

[conboy]

Kondi,
If you whip this thang will you please save it and let me see how you did it? Iss kikken my butt, bro.

als je blieft,

conboy

[bru888]

Wow, this is way too hard now. Working on it.

[GabeKnight]

Played the v1.0 version.
Quite hard, but in a good way. Lost many tanks, but wiped the Germans out almost completely - as I was a bit hasty on capturing secondaries. And Kondi was right, the most successful tactic was to let them overstretch the supply lines and then cut them off with the fast Stuarts, as there were no enemy reserves in the rear. Could've save a lot of lives if I didn't always insist on holding my ground - meaning if I'd retreated way more and consolidated my forces. Everything else seemed to work okay (triggers, popups and such), but you'll have to recheck many bridge/road connections on river towns.
Cool, thanks. Nice battle.

Screenshot 200.jpg (453.57 KiB) Viewed 5830 times

[bru888]

Gabe, the 1.1 version got to be too hard because I ratcheted up the German artillery and tank destroyers but I am trying not to use resource points in this one. So, in 1.2, I compensated by dialing back the German unit experience from 5 to 4. I also introduced a commander, more to make use of the jeep than anything else, but I did select a guy who is good with artillery so maybe keep him close to the Long Toms. Also, don't forget the improvised armor feature on the Sherman tanks. Anyway, see how this is now, if you want.

Arracourt new version 1.2 uploaded:

- Added a U.S. commander, Major General John S. Wood.
- Reduced experience level of all German units from 5 to 4.

[conboy]

Gabe, the 1.1 version got to be too hard because I ratcheted up the German artillery and tank destroyers but I am trying not to use resource points in this one. So, in 1.2, I compensated by dialing back the German unit experience from 5 to 4. I also introduced a commander, more to make use of the jeep than anything else, but I did select a guy who is good with artillery so maybe keep him close to the Long Toms. Also, don't forget the improvised armor feature on the Sherman tanks. Anyway, see how this is now, if you want.

Arracourt new version 1.2 uploaded:

- Added a U.S. commander, Major General John S. Wood.
- Reduced experience level of all German units from 5 to 4.

I played 1.1 on level IV and had it whipped but a little tired-butt german tank at 2 strength creeped in somehow to Arracourt before I could get any armor to stop him.
grrr
was a good scenario up till then. 1.0 was not playable for me - couldn't withdraw fast enough and there was no indirect fire which is half the fun of the game. 1.1 is much more fun.
conboy

[kondi754]

Wow, a lot has happened in the night
Conboy, Bru I'll check new release asap

[bru888]

Thanks to input here and in the Bru's Scenarios thread, look for another version soon. I fiddled around with a "motor pool repair" thing but maybe I just bring back resources and let you guys do some repairs. It's boring to have tanks limping around at 1 or 2 strength, doing nothing. But that means the Germans get ratcheted up again a notch in experience! The Elefants come out, I think - too strong - unless I can match them with a comparable U.S. tank - Erik suggested the Pershing? But I don't want to get too far away from the actual OOB on both sides. Include historical unit names like I usually do, maybe use core units, add an interesting mission, some other tweaks.....Guys, I'm sorry, but I cannot make a simple bare-bones scenario! You'll just have to take me as I am.

[GabeKnight]

Thanks to input here and in the Bru's Scenarios thread, look for another version soon. I fiddled around with a "motor pool repair" thing but maybe I just bring back resources and let you guys do some repairs. It's boring to have tanks limping around at 1 or 2 strength, doing nothing. But that means the Germans get ratcheted up again a notch in experience! The Elefants come out, I think - too strong - unless I can match them with a comparable U.S. tank - Erik suggested the Pershing? But I don't want to get too far away from the actual OOB on both sides. Include historical unit names like I usually do, maybe use core units, add an interesting mission, some other tweaks.....Guys, I'm sorry, but I cannot make a simple bare-bones scenario! You'll just have to take me as I am.

You could take the "Sturer Emil" instead: this unit's incredibly good as AT-support but it's lacking an appropriate hit defense if attacked directly.
And you know what they say about first steps...
...but either way, I always liked your "niche" scenarios anyways!

[kondi754]

Thanks to input here and in the Bru's Scenarios thread, look for another version soon. I fiddled around with a "motor pool repair" thing but maybe I just bring back resources and let you guys do some repairs. It's boring to have tanks limping around at 1 or 2 strength, doing nothing. But that means the Germans get ratcheted up again a notch in experience! The Elefants come out, I think - too strong - unless I can match them with a comparable U.S. tank - Erik suggested the Pershing? But I don't want to get too far away from the actual OOB on both sides. Include historical unit names like I usually do, maybe use core units, add an interesting mission, some other tweaks.....Guys, I'm sorry, but I cannot make a simple bare-bones scenario! You'll just have to take me as I am.

Erik is probably not serious, I forbid the use of Pershings!
M26 Pershing appeared in Europe in February / March 1945.
A total of 20 tanks were used throughout the ETO.

If you will create a scenario about capturing the Ludendorf bridge at Remagen by Grimball's "beasts", please use Pershings, but not now and not here!

[bru888]

Thanks to input here and in the Bru's Scenarios thread, look for another version soon. I fiddled around with a "motor pool repair" thing but maybe I just bring back resources and let you guys do some repairs. It's boring to have tanks limping around at 1 or 2 strength, doing nothing. But that means the Germans get ratcheted up again a notch in experience! The Elefants come out, I think - too strong - unless I can match them with a comparable U.S. tank - Erik suggested the Pershing? But I don't want to get too far away from the actual OOB on both sides. Include historical unit names like I usually do, maybe use core units, add an interesting mission, some other tweaks.....Guys, I'm sorry, but I cannot make a simple bare-bones scenario! You'll just have to take me as I am.

Erik is probably not serious, I forbid the use of Pershings!
M26 Pershing appeared in Europe in February / March 1945.
A total of 20 tanks were used throughout the ETW.

If you will create a scenario about capturing the Ludendorf bridge at Remagen by Grimball's "beasts", please use Pershings, but not now and not here!

I'm with you, Kondi. The Elefants are also out - let them join the circus!

[bru888]

kondi, you know your stuff. You're right; the OOB for the CCA that I included in the Information folder clearly shows that at least 2/3rds of the Shermans were the short-barreled variety (75). Here's one of the battalions:

Capture728.jpg (166.9 KiB) Viewed 5711 times

The reason why I went with all long-barreled Shermans (76), other than ignorance, is because the M4A2 Sherman tank was not available at the time of Arracourt according to units.csv. I picked the 76 because it was showing after I filtered for date-available. (I didn't want to use the M4A3 "with 105mm howitzer used for infantry support rather than anti-armour" for obvious reasons and the M4A3E2 Jumbo seemed inappropriate*).

But that's no problem. I feel the same way as you in that the Shermans in the battle need to be portrayed as they were and most of them were the short-barrels so I am going to make that change regardless of what units.csv says. Most Shermans will be short-barreled M4A2's.

What is a problem, though, is that I will be weakening U.S. forces even further now, as the comparison below shows (never mind the experience; concentrate on the armor attack factors). This scenario was already tough with all long-barreled Shermans. I am going to need to compensate by lowering German experience and/or providing the U.S. with resource points for repairs.

Screenshot 2.jpg (107.2 KiB) Viewed 5711 times

*EDIT: The Jumbo is tempting - it would offset some of the German armored advantage - but I don't think the Jumbo was at Arracourt from what I can tell. Here's a writeup:

Capture729.jpg (420.34 KiB) Viewed 5711 times

I guess much depends on what "fall of 1944" means. Arracourt ran from 18 Sept to 29 Sept 1944. Do you think some Jumbo's were there after all? ** I would like to use them, of course, but now that I am on an historical accuracy roll, I want to be sure.

**EDIT: Nah. According to this impressively authoritative source, "The first 128 Jumbos arrived in France via Cherbourg on the 22nd September 1944." That's after Arracourt was underway and those tanks would have had to haul muffler to get from Cherbourg to Arracourt (about 750km) in under a week just to make it for the end of the battle. (No, I am not going to include some dumb "A fleet of Sherman Jumbo's arrive at the very end to save the day!" nonsense. )

[kondi754]

I know that all Shermans Jumbo were produced until May 1944, then the tests took place.
From Tanks-Encyclopedia.com: (which you rightly use )
"The first vehicles arrived in the New York port on the 14th of August 1944. On the 29th, the 12th Army Group was informed by the War Dept that 250 M4A3E2 Assault tanks had been released and would be in the ETO in September. On the 1st September, the 3rd Armored Division put in a request for 150 M4A3E2s from 12th Army Group. The first 128 Jumbos arrived in France via Cherbourg on the 22nd September 1944."
The famous "Cobra King" (first in Bastogne) was issued to 37th Tank Battalion of the 4th Armoured Division on the 24th or 25th of October 1944, so you're right.

But I think you should consider using Sherman Jumbo in your scenario.
It could be a reward for successful completion of a secondary task, preferably at the very beginning of the scenario.
For example: destroy 5 German vehicles in the first 5 turns.

[kondi754]

Bru wrotes:
What is a problem, though, is that I will be weakening U.S. forces even further now, as the comparison below shows (never mind the experience; concentrate on the armor attack factors). This scenario was already tough with all long-barreled Shermans. I am going to need to compensate by lowering German experience and/or providing the U.S. with resource points for repairs.

Or maybe you should add a certain number of P-47, they do not have outstanding statistics when it comes to ground targets' attack, so I think you may tweak it a little bit (let's say, to 10 against tanks) or not to change the statistics but to increase their number.
In this way, you can balance the difficulty of the scenario.

Patton's troops in Lorraine supported the XIX TAC especially assigned to the 3rd Army.
Mostly equipped with P-47 Thunderbolt fighter-bomber aircrafts, only one squadron possessed P-51 Mustangs.