Operation Crusader

Got an interesting idea about a new scenario design? ...or maybe you just need some help with the Scenario Editor; this is the place!

Moderators: AlexS, Run5 Staff, SSG Staff

Postby Stromb » Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:09 am

Hi

i think that we shall soon began a new game as Zanekin miss his start (a way to not say that i played brillantly this one, pff, :P )

After that, on the Axis side, italians andtroops assimilated to being doomed to defensive stance at best, i don't think it's that much a problem as long as there is no bug concerning panzers ;-) And it seems there isn't.

Bye
Stromb
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 10:21 pm
Location: France

Postby Brubaker » Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:57 pm

Well its up to you Stromb. The changes I have made include about 6 units including the arty reg as discussed and some of the Italian tanks, all not allotted to an HQ properly.

I have also changed some of the terrain types on the northeastern position of Tobruk to more correctly represent the real terrain there; specifically, to stop armour and mechanised infantry exploiting the gap in the anti-tank barrier nearest the coast. This in actuall fact is cvery rough terrain hence the small level of defenders. I have now changed osme of it to escarpment instead of rough.
User avatar
Brubaker
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:57 am

Postby zanekin » Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:55 pm

Have you finished the patch ? We haven't (re)start the game yet...
It's just bullshit !
zanekin
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:38 pm
Location: Near Lille (France)

Postby flintlock » Tue Jul 03, 2007 11:33 pm

Brubaker wrote:My question is this: Would you rather play on as you are or would you rather me post a patch that fixes these errors?

My vote goes firmly to the latter. Either way, many thanks for your continued support on this fine scenario, Bru!
User avatar
flintlock
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:15 am

Postby Brubaker » Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:54 am

Hi guys

I am at work at present but will zip it up and post it here tonight. Then I will go and watch Jeepers Creepers 2. The TV guide says it is a realistic portrayal of farm life in rural America so I have invited my Grand Parents over to watch it with me.
User avatar
Brubaker
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:57 am

Postby timmeh » Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:25 am

Brubaker wrote:Hi guys

I am at work at present but will zip it up and post it here tonight. Then I will go and watch Jeepers Creepers 2. The TV guide says it is a realistic portrayal of farm life in rural America so I have invited my Grand Parents over to watch it with me.


2 popcorn, some M&m's ...a couple sodas. and yeah, the defibrillator. that oughtta do it !
timmeh
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:21 am

Postby Strax » Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:28 pm

timmeh wrote:
2 popcorn, some M&m's ...a couple sodas. and yeah, the defibrillator. that oughtta do it !




:lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Strax
Major
Major
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:37 am
Location: Sussex, England

Postby Brubaker » Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:31 pm

Her eis the zip file that will be the 1.2 files. They need to be unzipped over the existing 1.1 files. The readme enclosed is reprinted here:

Changes for Operation Crusader Patch 1.2



1. All units now correctly assigned to higher HQ's. This fixes the problem of stray units appearing correct but not being able to draw supply from any HQ's.

2. Units located far from their parent (such as 7th Armoured Reconnaisance Company in Tobruk) are now correctly attached to nearby HQ's for administration purposes though still display their graphically correct parentage.

2. British Infantry and Tank Brigades involved in Tobruk breakout now have a greater unit cohesiveness to simulate their preparedness for their breakout attempt.

3. Some terrain around the northeastern sector of the Tobruk perimeter changed from rough to escarpment to better represent the difficulty of movement through this area close to the ocean, particulalry to armour.

4. Australian Infantry Battalion and nearby anti-tank unit in Tobruk moved slightly closer to perimeter to deter early German attack.


I will prepare the patch for the scenario page and general release over the next couple of days. Enjoy Gentlemen.

Brubaker
Attachments
Crusader_1.2.zip
(52.07 KiB) Downloaded 793 times
User avatar
Brubaker
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:57 am

Postby zanekin » Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:25 pm

Why B squadron of the King's Dragoon Guards is an purely independent unit (loosing the integrity) ?

Idem for the 3 recon units of the so-called "reg 4" ?
Last edited by zanekin on Fri Jul 06, 2007 12:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
It's just bullshit !
zanekin
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:38 pm
Location: Near Lille (France)

Postby flintlock » Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:55 pm

Many thanks for the update, Bru!

It's very much appreciated. :D
User avatar
flintlock
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:15 am

What to do at Bir el Gubi ?

Postby Stromb » Fri Jul 06, 2007 5:07 am

Aah a new patch ! Great ! (yep i'm more and more addicted to games patchs : the best invention for computer since Internet and after computer themselves)

That said, let's discuss a bit about the battle. What do you think of the italian fortified position at Bir El Gubi. Zanekin keeps saying me that defending it is fruitless (the vp cost of italian units is higher than vp gains by preventing Axis to capture the town and collateral damages during the attack)

And i keep saying that it allow Axis to slow Allies avance, thus easing assault on Tobrouk, and do some annoying damage if things goes well for defenders (and with luck on artillery support).

What do you do in your games with this town ? Do you retreat in sand desert marshes just north west ? Of course, it depends a bit of the Allies moves ... But UK have interest in seizing the town as it unlocks new troops reinforcments, no ?
Stromb
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 10:21 pm
Location: France

Postby zanekin » Fri Jul 06, 2007 5:56 am

"The truth is elsewhere"
It's just bullshit !
zanekin
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:38 pm
Location: Near Lille (France)

Postby Brubaker » Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:41 pm

zanekin wrote:Why B squadron of the King's Dragoon Guards is an purely independent unit (loosing the integrity) ?

Idem for the 3 recon units of the so-called "reg 4" ?


I am at work Zanekin so only guessing on the unit here but - If that unit is the one inside the Tobruk Perimeter there are a couple of reasons why I changed the way its integrity was handled. In my opinion, because this company has been detached from its parent unit (with 7th armoured) for so long I thought it unrealistic for it to benefit from suddenly getting into radio range with them again. I think it would have learned to operate without that group and not benefit from rejoing until after it had a chance to reattach properly. Having said that, it should probably be included in the integrity loop with one of the regiments within the perimeter as its Command and Control would be organised from there; most likely one of the armoured battalions.

This unit is not the only one to sit in the "4th regiment" category in this way. To mind I think I made the German 104th Motorised Infantry in this category as well, as well as a few others that have been detached for some period.

What you will find now is that although these type of units cannot improve their strength through regimental integrity, they have a much better chance of drawing supply because of their attachment to local units.

The reason I left their icons as per their orignial attachments was purely for historical reasons.



Stromb the situation around Bir El Gubi is an interesting one. Historically it is at the junction of the some main access roads from the east. Therefore it is located on the most likely flank route for forces circumventing Tobruk. This then was the task of the Italian Amroured forces; to protect the Axis southern Flank. Had in fact the Trieste Division been fully formed and fit for battle, it could have paired with the Ariete and attacked toward the Frontier.

The Ariete is in a strong defensive postion. The sand desert on the north western flank and the gullies to the direct west give it some good defensive terrain with which to work. In addition, it has some good artillery support (with the mobile naval guns) and a lot of it. Plus close access to armoured and infantry reserves. I have always tended to try and hold the line there to block as long as possible, if for no other reason than to then force the Allies to put their head in the "noose" at El Adem and Sidi Rezegh. I think you can cause quite a bit of damage with your artillery as well, causing the Allied player to rethink his strategy as well.

I think the trick in defence here, as with other areas on the map, is instead of trying to hold a static position for long, be prepared to give ground and then counterattack if possible.

Brubaker
User avatar
Brubaker
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:57 am

Postby Joe » Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:57 pm

Brubaker wrote:instead of trying to hold a static position for long, be prepared to give ground and then counterattack if possible.



The best type of scenarioo! Am currently up to turn 8 in a PBEM game in version 1 of the scenario.

-
Joe
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:32 pm

Postby Stromb » Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:21 am

For the Bir el Gubi area =>
I don't see how a counter attack is possible with italians. I've tried in our first game and even considering i was making some mistakes since i'm still discovering this or that in each game, it was not doable, and even suicide attack were hardly possible ...

That said, the mobile naval guns are great (and fun) units :) Too bad there's only two.

I understand that the goal with italian is not to stop an Allies offensive bit i don't see clearly how to play them (apart from big objectives)

In Sidi Omar area for instance, if you retreat north, you open the way for Allies to east and thus backstabbing your fortifications, if you retreat east, well, i'm not sure of the result, but it don't seems very interesting. At best you'll have an italian pocket on the coast, at worst, you'll die in the desert. So i usually try standing in the trenches, but supply is very easily cut ...
Stromb
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 10:21 pm
Location: France

PreviousNext

Return to Battlefront Scenario Design

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron