Arracourt is released.

[bru888]

I do not know if it was intended, but the number of air Exit Points is too small in relation to the number of squadrons
I'm sorry Bru but I also found 2 crossroads on the rivers

I didn't anticipate the player flying out more than three planes at a time. I fixed that now. Also, good eye finding those faulty bridges; those are fixed, too. The one above Moyenvic may have been a factor because that's a bridge that one column of the 11th Panzer Division would have taken on the way to the battlefield.

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

Arracourt new version 2.3 uploaded:

- Three German artillery units were not assigned to an AI team when 2.2 was first uploaded; this was fixed a little later and is definitely good in 2.3.
- Provided more redeploy exit hexes for P47d Thunderbolts and moved their spawning hexes off those exit hexes in case they are not moved and thus exit immediately.
- Fixed two more river crossings in which bridges did not form because the road did not intersect the river cleanly; i.e., two road segments and a river in the same hex.

[kondi754]

I will play with real pleasure again, but I can't promise that I will do it today.

[bru888]

I will play with real pleasure again, but I can't promise that I will do it today.

Heh, no real need to in your case because 2.3 is not that much different from 2.2 except for the couple of glitches that you pointed out. You've done your duty! Thanks for your interest and help.

[Erik2]

Testing 2.3 medium difficulty

Why core units since you can't repurchase lost units?
You could simply use aux units, unless you want the 'freed' combat points to indicate US losses?

The US forces created strong road blocks behind bridges and waited for the Germans.
Then it was just a matter of taking out the poor panzers moving across the bridges.
Lost of interesting combat though since the German hardware is mostly strong.
But about turn 8-10 the Germans were spent. The air reinforcements were not needed.

The US then spread out capturing objectives.
I think each objective should have a static garrison unit as the US could race into towns without punity.
Manteuffel were destroyed on turn-12.

So this scenario felt a bit too easy. But fun.
The major victory picture is cute, but also somewhat disturbing...

[kondi754]

@Erik
Play at level 5, it's really cool.

[bru888]

Thanks, guys.

Erik, regarding the core units, you said in the Bru's Scenarios thread: "Any reason you don't use core units for the US? This means the player can't repurchase any lost units (if there were resources available...). I also find the the available command points after losing units is a good indicator of how your troops are holding up." That's why I made them core units and while you cannot purchase NEW units (which is what I intended), you can bring back lost units by clicking Force instead of Purchase, going to the dead units list, and then redeeming them for a cost of resource points. The good thing about this is that 30% of their experience is preserved in this manner. You can only do that, of course, with core units. (But I think you know all this already.)

Screenshot 2.jpg (146.15 KiB) Viewed 3893 times

Good point about this: "I think each objective should have a static garrison unit as the US could race into towns without punity," but here is my thinking. If I had to judge my own work, I would criticize my scenarios (especially my early ones) thusly:
1) The maps are too large.
2) There are too many units in the game.
3) Too much time is spent moving units around.
4) Everything feels like it's scripted. No flexibility.
5) You (meaning me), talk too much. Too much reading.

Arracourt started out to be an attempt to break out of that mold. Smaller map, less units, more action, less script. Unfortunately, as these things always seem to do for me, it took on a life of its own and grew regardless. But I figure 64 units on each side is quite enough as it is and to put more units in the map in each of those villages would only drag things out. The "Take control of 20 secondary victory points" is just a mechanism for ending the scenario when the battle is over because the other primary objective of "Do not allow the Germans to take Arracourt" is negative in nature and I did not want the player to need to unnecessarily wait all of 33 turns to win.

As stated in the scenario summary, Arracourt is about "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." The Americans defeated the Germans in this battle despite having inferior armor because they were more experienced and that is what I tried to replicate in the scenario (while still making it a challenge, of course). It's a defensive battle and once it has been won or lost, then I intended for the 20 secondary VP's to be quick work.

Heh, it's a bit of a trick that I pulled, though, in that if the player takes too many secondary VP's while chasing Herr von Manteuffel, he may in fact deny himself the pleasure of bagging von Manteuffel and thus miss a Major Victory.

Why is the major victory picture disturbing? It represents the saving of those children from the hazards of war as represented by the wrecked tank. I forget where I found it but it goes along with the picture of the village of Arracourt in the briefing in which there are also children depicted. That one is definitely from Arracourt, although perhaps before the war, and this one is, if I remember correctly, also from Arracourt or if not, from after the Battle of the Bulge.

[Erik2]

It just that small children linked to military hardware may cause mixed feelings.
But I understand the context you've put the picture in.

[kondi754]

I played again and I believe that nothing should be changed.
I forgot to write that the game should end earlier when all the primary tasks were completed but I see it was fixed in the last release.
My rating: 8/10

[bru888]

My rating: 8/10

Heh, on your scale, that's pretty darned good. Well, it should be since you helped me design it!

[MarechalJoffre]

All that remains is for you to make a whole US Western Front campaign now, Bru! Excellent work, thanks.

[bru888]

All that remains is for you to make a whole US Western Front campaign now, Bru! Excellent work, thanks.

Thank you. That means a lot to me.

Actually, though, I am 1,535km southeast of Arracourt right now. Oddly enough, the bearing is the same as normal body temperature in Farenheit: 98.6 degrees.

[jeff00t]

thxs ! good work !

[Horst]

If I had to judge my own work, I would criticize my scenarios (especially my early ones) thusly:
1) The maps are too large.
2) There are too many units in the game.
3) Too much time is spent moving units around.
4) Everything feels like it's scripted. No flexibility.
5) You (meaning me), talk too much. Too much reading.

1) This map is still okay, although most parts behind the river lines isn't that necessary to race around without discoverying something important like the enemy General. If he's randomly placed, I think it's fine that it takes a while to discover him.
2) The amount is still fine here, while the AI processing-time was fast enough to watch and enjoy units getting blasted from both sides by attacks and AT-defenses. That's war!
3) The North-South height is still important to separate the divisons far enough, so it takes a while until one can help the other. Also see 1) about this
4) Difficult to judge here as there was so much blasting units. There have been occasions where I had a gap in my line that could have been abused by the AI to race to Arracourt. Instead, the AI was rather eager to destroy my low-strength units.
5) It's all about brainstorming. The ideas must get out, so others help polishing them to a diamond!

The scenario gameplay was a bit short on medium diff with only 14-15 turns, making the P-47s rather useless, otherwise it was fun to battle some late-war German units for a change.
Cheers!

[bru888]

Thanks, jeff, Horst. If I were to move up the P-47's, do you think it would swing the balance to far in favor of the U.S.? Right now, what I have in there is historical but the battle itself lasted longer than the scenario simulation does at this point.

[Horst]

Maybe the AI is too aggressive to delay all the mayhem. A single M18 Hellcat in the middle of a crowd of rather weak Shermans can cause plenty damage. AT-support is a quite mean mechanic in OoB.
No idea either if it helps to further increase the German RP pool/income, so the whole battle lasts longer.
What could still be added though are German recon vehicles. They are annoying to kill, rather a waste of Sherman attacks what is good, and can help preventing AI-tanks running into ambushes. The more units the AI has, the better it can flank and cause higher casualties on the player. The AI isn't that bad using recon vehicles effectively.

[bru888]

I agree. I am thinking of doing the following:

1. Increase German experience from 4 to 5.
2. Dial AI aggressiveness from 99 back to 50.
3. Give the Germans recon units.
4. Move the P47 appearance up a few turns.

This ought to increase the challenge and extend the battle if people think it's too easy and ends too early. What say you all?

[Horst]

Lowering the aggressiveness can already cause a much different gameplay. The German plan must be to conquer Arracourt and not destroy the Americans in the first place. If the Germans can somehow surround and cut off the Americans without even attacking, they could also become successful. They need a diversion to bind the US units, so other units can breakthrough with delay. A little randomness for unit-group spawning could help for difference experience everytime you play it.

Edit: I've checked again in the editor. I've thought the German experience was higher during playing, but 4 against 10 (2 vs 5 stars) is indeed quite a difference. I also think at least 5 (2.5 stars) is definitely needed for a more exciting match. Experience can vastely increase high base values like attack and defense, as it is a proportional bonus.

[kondi754]

I agree. I am thinking of doing the following:

1. Increase German experience from 4 to 5.
2. Dial AI aggressiveness from 99 back to 50.
3. Give the Germans recon units.
4. Move the P47 appearance up a few turns.

This ought to increase the challenge and extend the battle if people think it's too easy and ends too early. What say you all?

Scenario seemed really good at the highest level of difficulty. (I don't think changes are necessary )
Anyway I hope that after the improvements proposed by Horst it will be an outstanding product.

[bru888]

Arracourt new version 2.4 uploaded.

The consensus seems to be that 2.3 was a bit too easy and ended too early after a frenzied battle royal. So I went ahead and did the following:

- Increased German experience from 4 to 5. This alone should make the challenge more difficult.
- Dialed AI aggressiveness from 99 back to 50. This will make the Germans hang back a bit, plan the battle better, and take more advantage of their resource income.
- Gave the Germans recon units. I did not give them free rein, however, because they just charge into battle and get slaughtered. Instead they are guarding key points.
- Moved the P47s appearance up a few turns. Three to be exact, the equivalent of one day in the scenario (three turns per day).
- As compensation, gave the Germans two more SdKfz 7/1 anti-aircraft guns.
- Included several contemporaneous historical events.

This is now the scenario order of battle:

UNITED STATES

84th Fighter Wing

365th/405th Fighter Groups, each with three squadrons (386th/387th/388th / 509th/510th/511th), each with:
1 P-47D Thunderbolt (6 total)

4th Armored Division

35th/37th Tank Battalions, each with three companies (A/B/C), each with:
3 Sherman M4A2 (18 total)
1 Sherman M4A3 76(W) (6 total)
1 Sherman M4A3E2 Jumbo (6 total)
1 M5A1 Stuart (6 total)

10th/53rd Armored Infantry Battalions, each with three companies (A/B/C), each with:
1 Heavy Infantry '44 (6 total)
1 M3A1 Halftrack (transport)

704th Tank Destroyer Battalion with three companies (A/B/C), each with:
2 M18 Hellcat (6 total)

66th/94th Armored Artillery Battalions, each with:
3 M7 Priest (6 total)

191st Field Artillery Battalion with:
3 155mm M1 Long Tom (3 total)
3 Studebaker Truck (transport)

2nd Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron with:
6 M20 Scout Car (6 total)

Willys MB .50 Cal (1 total)
Major General John S. Wood (assigned)

GERMANY

5th Panzer Army

11th Panzer Division with six battalions (I/II/III/IV/V/VI), each with:
1 PzKw V Panther G (6 total)
1 PzKw IV H (6 total)
1 StuG III G (6 total)
1 Nashorn (6 total)
1 Hummel (6 total)
1 SdKfz 7/1 (6 total)

25th Panzergrenadier Division with six battalions (I/II/III/IV/V/VI), each with:
1 Heavy Infantry '44 (6 total)
1 SdKfz 251 (transport)

111th/113th Panzer Brigades, each with three battalions (I/II/III), each with:
1 PzKw V Panther G (6 total)
1 PzKw IV H (6 total)
1 StuG III G (6 total)
1 SdKfz 7/1 (per brigade) (2 total)

638th Heavy Artillery Battalion with:
3 15cm sFH18 (3 total)
3 SdKfz 7 (transport)

5th Panzer Reconnaissance Squadron with:
8 Panzerspähwagen P204 (8 total)

SdKfz 222 (1 total)
Gen. Hasso von Manteuffel (assigned)