Blue and Gray

[Crushingleeek]

Crushingleek,

Since your Omaha map seems so popular and is working so well for players, can you post some insights and tips about how to make a good historical beach map? I mean the technical aspects like getting the beach, water, and terrain to look and play right, etc., types of tiles for specific types of ground, how you made the defensive positions, etc.

to be honest, it was just a matter of diggin up some old photos, combined with watching some youtube videos to see the seawall and some reading and a lot of trial and error.

for example in this sector, the bluffs are reported to be about 120 ft high, and the beach about 400-500 yards from the seawall at low-tide.

starting from the top: water, shallow ford is probably what everyone uses. not much to that.

beach: sand, with gentle incline generously littered with obstacles

seawall: i don't remember, but some kind of pavement. (this was news to me.)

elevations: pretty key. a good tip to remember is that the steepest angle the pixeltruppen can traverse is an increase of 4 meters per action spot (unless you use the pointe du hoc secret!). just some trial n error.

the defensive positions were chosen based on the picture posted earlier in this thread. some modifications were made to adjust the attrition level to be more realistic for an intermediate-advanced player. one struggle I had was getting mg42's to open up big-time with the same efficacy as their historic counterparts at the range of 400-600 yards. In CMBN they are a bit more shy about it, which is fine; this type of killing zone wasn't too common. Tweaked the AI behavior to be as active as possible, and setting their ambush range to 1500m helped a little bit.

[Crushingleeek]

While true the getting slaughtered from the start part is no fun the tactical challenge lies in figuring out how to get over the sea wall and up the hill towards the objectives with the men that make it across the beach.

Normally we know what our resources are and can create a plan. Here we have to roll the dice to see who will make it to the sea wall and then we have to see what we have and figure out how to make something happen with the men that survived.

In my game A company and the engineers are the ones that were chewed to bits and the Rangers are my units in the best shape. Heck first platoon of the Rangers even has their Lt with them and the Company 2IC is there too.

I had a blast with the trench fights myself. so much so that, i made the mop-up scenario, which depicts more trenches of stubborn resistance along the bluffs. which weren't major skirmishes, but a pain for some tired and stressed 29ers anyhow.

[c3k]

Did you give the AI TRP's along the high tide line? This battle is on my "must play" list, but I've been too swamped to get to it.

Ken

[Crushingleeek]

do you want to know before you've played it?

[A Canadian Cat]

<snip>

elevations: pretty key. a good tip to remember is that the steepest angle the pixeltruppen can traverse is an increase of 4 meters per action spot (unless you use the pointe du hoc secret!). just some trial n error.

<snip>

What a great seg-way into a question I have. What about tanks driving up the bluff? I have one operational tank left and I did manage to get if off the beach. There are spots on the wall they cannot traverse and others where they can. The tank is on the right side of the map above the sea wall on the flat dirt and rocky area below the green bluff. The Rangers have made it to the top and have setup a screen for the tank to safely make the climb.

But I cannot get the tank to go up the bluff. I have plotted a course that looks good to me and the game let me plot the way points (I put several up the slope to be sure it was possible to get up there). I was also careful to make sure there are no "no go" spots between the way points - all good. The tank has not moved. I do not get it. Am I doing something wrong? Should the game be giving me feedback that the tank cannot make the grade?

The tank is not immobilized either.

[womble]

Am I doing something wrong? Should the game be giving me feedback that the tank cannot make the grade?

I can't say whether you're doing anything wrong, but if the tank's not moving, IME it means it can't get to the very first waypoint you've got plotted for some reason.

[A Canadian Cat]

That is the conclusion I am coming to as well. So the question then becomes how can I tell what slope the tank can go up? How can I tell it cannot make grade. The game is not giving me feedback to indicate it cannot climb.

Tonight I'll re-plot my way points perhaps just one or two close to the tank and see what happens but does anyone have any suggestions for how to determine if a tank can traverse a slope or not in game?

[Broadsword56]

If anyone wants to kick this beach landing excitment up another notch, there's a good cardboard game called Bradley's D-Day that would let you plan the US Omaha and Utah landings and then determine how each beach sector battle sets up (depending on tides, obstacle effects, etc.)

It's a good scale for use with CMBN (battalion and company, two-hour turns) and it's a John Prados design, updating the popular system he used on "Monty's D-Day" (covering Gold Juno and Sword) in the old SPI days:

https://atomagazine.readyhosting.com....cfm?ProdID=89

You get a campaign covering the first 48 hours of D-Day, so there's a lot of inland action too from the beach exits into the coastal towns, etc.

Also: On the issue of tanks being able to climb inclines -- I'm not sure how CMBN handles this, or whether climbing ability is realistically limited in the game. If not, mapmakers might want to try some tricks (like heavy forest tor swamp tiles) to block vehicles on some slops they wouldn't have been able to climb in real life.

Some analyses say a major reason for the failure of the Dieppe raid in 1942 was the steeply inclined pebbly beach, which caused great difficulty for the Canadian tanks (although some managed to climb over the seawall onto the promenade).

From a quick look online, I'm seeing that Churchills could actually climb slopes up to 30 degrees. But in some tests the Germans ran on the Dieppe beach, their tanks could climb 15-20 degree slopes OK but failed when the slope got to 30-40 degrees.

Math isn't my strong suit, but what meter height difference vs. action square distance (8meters) makes a 30 degree slope?

[YankeeDog]

Math isn't my strong suit, but what meter height difference vs. action square distance (8meters) makes a 30 degree slope?

That one's easy. 3-4-5 right triangle. If long leg (horizontal distance) is 8, short leg (vertical rise) is 6.

[Crushingleeek]

That is the conclusion I am coming to as well. So the question then becomes how can I tell what slope the tank can go up? How can I tell it cannot make grade. The game is not giving me feedback to indicate it cannot climb.

Tonight I'll re-plot my way points perhaps just one or two close to the tank and see what happens but does anyone have any suggestions for how to determine if a tank can traverse a slope or not in game?

I'm glad you are having trouble. you're not supposed to drive your tank up the bluff:D:D

that's why you need the draw

[womble]

That one's easy. 3-4-5 right triangle. If long leg (horizontal distance) is 8, short leg (vertical rise) is 6.

A 3-4-5 triangle doesn't have 30deg angles anywhere...

sin alpha=3/5

therefore sin alpha=0.6

therefore alpha= ~37deg

sin beta=4/5

therefore sin beta=0.8

therefore beta= ~53deg

I did it both ways to check myself, rather than taking the first off 90.

A 30deg slope over 8m:

AB=8

BC=x

CA=hypotenuse

alpha=30

beta=90

gamma=60

tan alpha=x/AB=x/8

therefore 8 * tan alpha = x = 8 * tan 30 8*577= 4.6

You get a 4.6m rise.

I think. It's a long time since I did any trig.

[YankeeDog]

You are so right. Spoke off the top of my head, which was obviously a mistake and now I deservedly have egg on my face.

What was the acronym my geometry teacher taught us for this? Ah, yes -- OHSAHCOAT.

[A Canadian Cat]

I'm glad you are having trouble. you're not supposed to drive your tank up the bluff:D:D

that's why you need the draw

LOL fair enough. I have to say though since the game does not give me feedback that the bluff is un-scalable by a Sherman I like @Broadsword56's idea of putting enough heavy forest on the slope that a player can tell their is no way up.

This is going to suck for the Rangers. The engineers already know they are on their own but the Rangers thought they had tank support:)

IMHO the game should be telling me I cannot have a vehicle drive up that slope. A tank commander should be able to look at a slope and say "There is no way" or "Yep no problem" - for the most part. I realize there would be some ground close to the max traversable slope where the TC could make the wrong choice but hey the game already tells me if I can and cannot go over marsh or heavy forest. Having said that I rather doubt that this would rank high on the "fix list" since it does not come up very often.

[mjkerner]

Tanks? What tanks??? My 3 got blasted the first turn before I was even able to target anything/anyone! A company's a gonner, most of the Engineers too, the Colonel's dead and the gatlin's jammed---ooops, sorry, wrong war. I'm on about turn 8 or 9 and haven't gone back to it for about a week. I recall that I'm waiting for the Destroyer's salvoes to start raining down in about 3-5 minutes. My tanks were nailed all on the first turn, before I or they knew what hit them, but I do have most of the Rangers about a 1/4 of the way toward the sea wall. Those damn A/T guns were starting to make their life miserable on the last turn.

[A Canadian Cat]

Oh yeah I am amazed that I still have an operational tank. Given the pounding one has taken and the fact that another was taken out by AT guns pretty much right away. Didn't we start with four tanks? My memory kinda sucks but I though there were four.

[Rake]

You get a 4.6m rise.

I think. It's a long time since I did any trig.

Most excellent, womble... then again, an old surveyor has to do it with a bit more precision

tan α = opp./adj.

tan α (adj.) = opp.

tan 30° (8) = 4.6188

[Crushingleeek]

don't tell him!

[Rake]

You are so right. Spoke off the top of my head, which was obviously a mistake and now I deservedly have egg on my face.

What was the acronym my geometry teacher taught us for this? Ah, yes -- OHSAHCOAT.

My teacher was a bit more, ummm... crude?

Sine, Cosine, Tangent = Oscar/Has, A/Hairy, Old/@$$ :eek:

[sburke]

Most excellent, womble... then again, an old surveyor has to do it with a bit more precision

tan α = opp./adj.

tan α (adj.) = opp.

tan 30° (8) = 4.6188

It was that .0188 that stopped the tank....

[Crushingleeek]

i think it's pretty awesome what I learned empirically through trial n error turns out to match what you guys provided about the historical limitations to tank angle of incline.

[Crushingleeek]

LOL fair enough. I have to say though since the game does not give me feedback that the bluff is un-scalable by a Sherman I like @Broadsword56's idea of putting enough heavy forest on the slope that a player can tell their is no way up.

This is going to suck for the Rangers. The engineers already know they are on their own but the Rangers thought they had tank support:)

IMHO the game should be telling me I cannot have a vehicle drive up that slope. A tank commander should be able to look at a slope and say "There is no way" or "Yep no problem" - for the most part. I realize there would be some ground close to the max traversable slope where the TC could make the wrong choice but hey the game already tells me if I can and cannot go over marsh or heavy forest. Having said that I rather doubt that this would rank high on the "fix list" since it does not come up very often.

yea, I definitely thought about exactly that. I contemplated putting trees on the slope for the very purpose of axing any ideas about rolling armor up the slope. the problem I conjured up was that it gives the troops a form of LOS cover from fire that they didn't really have.

[Broadsword56]

yea, I definitely thought about exactly that. I contemplated putting trees on the slope for the very purpose of axing any ideas about rolling armor up the slope. the problem I conjured up was that it gives the troops a form of LOS cover from fire that they didn't really have.

No!! Not trees -- just the heavy forest terrain tiles with no foliage on them. Or, for variety use the swamp tiles with no foliage on them for the same effect and a greener, grassier look. When you use them that way, they look very close to normal terrain (only slightly gnarlier and browner) but block vehicle movement and slow troops down just as if they had trees on them. Yes, they confer a defensive benefit, but that's actually good since the real ground would have had little undulations and dead spots to shelter defenders -- plus you aren't able to give defenders the Tobruks and other fortifications that they actually had on those beaches. They wouldn't block LOS though, as we've seen in battles where toops can pretty easily shoot into and out of forests (unless the mapper adds some LOS-blocking elements to the edges of the forest like hedge, low bocage, lots of bushes and brush, etc.)

[Crushingleeek]

No!! Not trees -- just the heavy forest terrain tiles with no foliage on them. Or, for variety use the swamp tiles with no foliage on them for the same effect and a greener, grassier look. When you use them that way, they look very close to normal terrain (only slightly gnarlier and browner) but block vehicle movement and slow troops down just as if they had trees on them. Yes, they confer a defensive benefit, but that's actually good since the real ground would have had little undulations and dead spots to shelter defenders -- plus you aren't able to give defenders the Tobruks and other fortifications that they actually had on those beaches. They wouldn't block LOS though, as we've seen in battles where toops can pretty easily shoot into and out of forests (unless the mapper adds some LOS-blocking elements to the edges of the forest like hedge, low bocage, lots of bushes and brush, etc.)

interesting, i thought forest terrain did shorten LOS; i don't remember if I had hedges at its border though.

[womble]

No!! Not trees -- just the heavy forest terrain tiles with no foliage on them. Or, for variety use the swamp tiles with no foliage on them for the same effect and a greener, grassier look. When you use them that way, they look very close to normal terrain (only slightly gnarlier and browner) but block vehicle movement and slow troops down just as if they had trees on them. Yes, they confer a defensive benefit, but that's actually good since the real ground would have had little undulations and dead spots to shelter defenders -- plus you aren't able to give defenders the Tobruks and other fortifications that they actually had on those beaches. They wouldn't block LOS though, as we've seen in battles where toops can pretty easily shoot into and out of forests (unless the mapper adds some LOS-blocking elements to the edges of the forest like hedge, low bocage, lots of bushes and brush, etc.)

I think marsh would be the best choice. That definitely doesn't have any LOS effects on the volume above it.

[Crushingleeek]

I think marsh would be the best choice. That definitely doesn't have any LOS effects on the volume above it.

maybe. in certain areas, that could be devastating to a potential infantry exploitation where getting up the bluff fast means life or death.

this in the briefing: "Vierville Draw was surrounded by steep bluffs impassable to vehicles; thus, the narrow lane that split the bluffs was an immediate objective beacuse it was a passage way for vehicles coming off the beach." C'mon! follow directions!

if someone really wanted, they could move their limited tanks to the bottom of the bluffs and try to go up them, provided no ATs, mines or artillery crush them first. still, as ian pointed out, it may not work!