Jump to content

The Scottish Corridor Thread


Recommended Posts

Campaign Update:  Just finished "No Hiding Place" last night with a total victory...but wow, there were some really intense moments!  There are some fantastic battles in this series so far.  I only have two minor complaints and both regard spawning.

 

1.  In one of the night battles (battle #8 or 9???) my company commander, FOO and sniper team spawned well in front of my troops right next to the enemy. And of course they died quickly.  Is this spawning supposed to happen?  It just seemed out of place

 

2.  "No Hiding Place" - after doing a defensive appreciation, I determined that my best line of defence was the line starting at the most forward objective (Obj "Foot"? It's on the far right and most forward) through the higher ground in the center where the first buildings forward of the setup area are, to the farm on the left, enclosed by walls (it has an enclosed fountain surrounded by walls).  I rushed my forces forward and fought the battle from there.  In a bizarre spawning, about halfway through the battle, Germans miraculously appeared in the same building I was defending (Obj Foot?) as well as along a bocage line I was defending.  A German AFV spawned there as well, which immediately brewed up a company commander in a bren carrier.  This was not fair at all, since I was defending those locations and they spawned right on top of me...I had no chance and I paid for it.

 

Anyhow, I am on to #12 against the chateau with Typhoon support...that should be interesting!  I think I am getting close to the end of the campaign....it really has been a treat.  Thanks PT

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I get a bit concerned when I see campaigns that resupply 100% or close between missions. Ammo conservation should be a critical element, and I think there is a tendency to create campaigns using the

+1    Having to learn the "trick" to winning is the worst. The only reasons to replay a scenario is 1) if you are playtesting it, or 2) If it's a learning opportunity to hone one's skills. S

I was playing a scenario in a notoriously difficult campaign recently and going left got cover, going right meant moving a great distance in the open. So obviously I went left. But me being

  • 2 weeks later...

Update:  just finished "Crescendo of Doom" and the the supposedly last battle, the subsequent night attack, both with total victories. The second battle was a close run thing due to the Germans being given an additional 10 minutes. But I held on.

 

However, I was then given a bonus battle, which I assume is the very last one as it takes place...a month later?  Anyway, it's a large, 1.5 hour duration battle that should be fun!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Done!  Wow that last bonus battle (the town that begins with an "M") was tough. On veteran level even tougher.  The array of well sited, large German weaponry gave me no respite and I suffered greatly. I managed to pull off a draw (no thanks to the Typhoons - I am sure the pilots were drunk) but it was a close run thing.  Overall my campaign score was minor victory on veteran level, so I am very happy about that!

 

Well done Paper Tiger: a campaign for the ages.  There were a few glitches most likely attributable to a version clash, but overall I was truly fascinated by the effort and challenge put into this campaign. Thanks for the fun!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • 3 years later...

The problem with the first mission is that your tanks can't go off road due to the mud and there's mines at the crossroad. That's the only place the tanks can get into the town. So you're bound to lose at least one tank. In my case I also lost the second to a Panzerschreck round trying to get round the first.

I then compounded that by realising taking the second objective was now impossible so committed far too many troops to trying to get the last two resistors out of the first in a house surrounded by a high wall with one way in. Never got them out and lost a load of men trying.

So second mission was without armour and with highly depleted numbers.

One of those cases where you'd be better placed not going after either objective, just get a toehold to deny the enemy getting them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 8/25/2020 at 5:03 PM, slippy said:

wondering if there is a master map for this campaign available please? Failing that are there any other master maps covering this area?

 

cheers all

slippy

Master maps weren't 'a thing' back with the Commonwealth Module was released. Also the Scottish Corridor campaign takes place over a very large area so perhaps not Master Map material.

You can use one of the campaign extraction tools to draw out all the individual scenarios, delete all the units and AI plans and you'll have a blank map to play with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2012 at 11:50 PM, benpark said:

Any tips on surviving the 13th mission? Slight spoiler below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is that Nowhere to Hide?

Finally got thrown out after that one. Very strange scenario. A draw and at the end 90% of the casualties on both sides (that were pretty high) were caused by the artillery spotters (including most of the tank kills).

The incoming is so heavy that the Brits get chewed up too badly to do much but if you get your FOs performing, you can demolish most of the German attack with your own artillery.

Hardly a shot was fired by anyone on the map.

Interesting enough but not sure I want to be playing many like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
On 8/25/2020 at 3:47 PM, John1966 said:

One of those cases where you'd be better placed not going after either objective, just get a toehold to deny the enemy getting them.

Alas, you cannot play  get Paper Tiger missions like that. They're scored strictly. If you've got two objectives, you'd better bloody get two objectives. I know this because I tried that first mission about four times. I've repeated more missions in this campaign than any other, because there's always something stacked against you, either the clock, miserly artillery support, trick map set up, or no armoured support. 

The recent changes to defensive behaviour make some missions extraordinarily tough. Fighting high morale SS troops in defensive positions with under strength infantry is not fun. It doesn't happen that often though.

All said and done, I'm almost through the campaign, and I have on balance enjoyed it. I'm not a fan of scenario designers pitting themselves against the player and I think PT is guilty of this, but the quality of the campaign does speak for itself and I am looking forward to trying his other work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sulman said:

If you've got two objectives, you'd better bloody get two objectives. I know this because I tried that first mission about four times.

And there's the rub. I absolutely fail to understand the enjoyment to be had from playing the same scenario repeatedly. I'll never grasp why some of us equate that with "fun".

The second I play a scenario a second time, I already think I'm cheating. I know stuff I shouldn't know. If it can't be won on the first attempt; if that's not a realistic possibility; I wish it said so right at the start so we could make our mind up whether to bother.

Harsh and apologies to those who put the work in on these things. Just explaining what I like. 🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, John1966 said:

And there's the rub. I absolutely fail to understand the enjoyment to be had from playing the same scenario repeatedly. I'll never grasp why some of us equate that with "fun".

The second I play a scenario a second time, I already think I'm cheating. I know stuff I shouldn't know. If it can't be won on the first attempt; if that's not a realistic possibility; I wish it said so right at the start so we could make our mind up whether to bother.

Harsh and apologies to those who put the work in on these things. Just explaining what I like. 🙂

On a well designed scenario I really don't mind. There's also a good chance there's things I didn't try or get to see. In the case of that first mission there's a variety of AI plans and the defensive lines did differ quite a bit, to the extent that I could not assume I knew the disposition of the other side's forces.

Where I don't like it is on those maps where the criteria are so tight that you really have to 'learn the trick' as it were, as in you must take this route and the objectives in that order and so forth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sulman said:

On a well designed scenario I really don't mind. There's also a good chance there's things I didn't try or get to see. In the case of that first mission there's a variety of AI plans and the defensive lines did differ quite a bit, to the extent that I could not assume I knew the disposition of the other side's forces.

Where I don't like it is on those maps where the criteria are so tight that you really have to 'learn the trick' as it were, as in you must take this route and the objectives in that order and so forth.

For me, the purpose of wargaming is to come up with a model which works in a scenario. I have two people I know who play HOT Seat with me which is a real challenge. Scenario in the Edge of Darkness. The standing or listening patrols of the enemy are in easily recognizable pillboxes. Up to you how to knock them out. The AI is an incompetent opponent therefore scenarios are a teaching tool. I don't knock the editors the AI has obvious limitations. I just set the parameters higher zero casualties. Dealing with dug-in T55's another spoiler it just makes a game a shooting gallery in British Mettle. The maps are beautiful to reveal the probable location of the ATGM's is the spoiler. I agree with you. Cheating is a word I am careful with. We buy the games to have fun. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, John1966 said:

The second I play a scenario a second time, I already think I'm cheating. I know stuff I shouldn't know. If it can't be won on the first attempt; if that's not a realistic possibility; I wish it said so right at the start so we could make our mind up whether to bother.

+1    Having to learn the "trick" to winning is the worst.

The only reasons to replay a scenario is 1) if you are playtesting it, or 2) If it's a learning opportunity to hone one's skills.

Some of the missions in CMBN's "Courage and Fortitude" were ridiculously hard.  But, it was worth replaying till one advanced as it taught a lot.  Plus the final mission was one of the best scenarios I ever recall playing in a WW2 CM game.  So, at least there was a sort of reward.

Edited by Erwin
Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently tried "Courage and Fortitude" again for the first time since 2014. My men got stuck in the hedgerows somewhere between 40 and 50 times during the last battle. I ended up losing count. Not a fun experience. It does make me wonder if the same thing will happen if I join the Jocks on their day out to Epsom.

Edited by Warts 'n' all
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:

I recently tried "Courage and Fortitude" again for the first time since 2014. My men got stuck in the hedgerows somewhere between 40 and 50 times during the last battle. I ended up losing count. Not a fun experience.

I spent most of that scenario figuring out a route the infantry could use. I eventually chose the field where the marshy river bed is. Annoyingly you get no engineers at the start, so you have to do it the long way. I never did get the company on the left into the fight, I just used what I had plus the reinforcements.

But once that scenario opens up it's pretty decent. I found that campaign hard and frustrating and yet cannot say I didn't enjoy it. I learnt a lot.  Respect to anyone that keeps at it past 'School' as the first time I played that one put me off for about five years. It was only reading the forum that I learnt the philosophy of it.

 

Edit: Courage and Fortitude is a textbook example of a campaign where you need to replay some of it. Few people are going to get through School of Hard Knocks and Razorback Ridge without some do-overs. They're less scenarios and more tactical problems.

Edited by Sulman
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Erwin said:

Having to learn the "trick" to winning is the worst.

I was playing a scenario in a notoriously difficult campaign recently and going left got cover, going right meant moving a great distance in the open.

So obviously I went left.

But me being me, I scouted the right despite there not being enough time for that kind of recon (it was a short scenario).

Turned out going left was bloody murder. But all that was covering the right was a single MG42.

So I worked out that if I supressed it with the MMG and mortar, I could get everyone up to the railway embankment, cross it, then hack left and take the Germans from behind for a very easy victory.

OK. Cool trick. All it took was going the completely unintuitive way or guessing that the Germans had left a flank barely defended.

Needless to say, I had to play it twice.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I reached 'Crescendo of Doom' after a (personally) very disappointed performance in Granville Chateau. Paper Tiger giveth, and Paper Tiger taketh away, and 'Chateau is very much the latter. An under-strength company attack on a defended position, which has cover from an orchard about 300m away. You're given strict instructions not to bother with the Orchard force, but not doing so means you are limited to the worst possible approach to the Chateau. It did not go well. Support? Battalion 80mm Mortars, about 80 rounds total. Just about hopeless dealing with buildings and foxholes. You do get a fighter bomber but it's a bit hit&miss. Usually miss. I really felt a bit short changed by this scenario. There seem to be a few like it.

As for crescendo, I feared the absolute worst. A battalion of infantry supported by tanks - briefing said PZIV, which was at least a silver lining.

Now, this went a lot better than I expected. My AT guns held up the attack enough for me to wiggle my Churchills into okay firing positions, and the tank attack was stopped dead. The infantry were a formality after that. One troublesome PZIV got three of my tanks and I never got a spot on it. The AT gun had actually immobilised the culprit but the tanks never saw it.  Another PZIV also got into my lines and sneaked around, but a Churchill whacked it.

To my surprise I got a surrender. I was glad the tanks weren't Panthers, I think it would have been a very different story. The artillery in this mission was much less severe than mission 13 (Nowhere to run). AI Infantry are hopeless at assault (no surprise. Hardest thing in the game...) and you can mow them down pretty easily when they lose their armour support.

It does bug me that the other side in this campaign seems to have abundant arty, whereas for the CW forces you'd think PT was paying for it out of his own pocket. One of the big positives of Courage & Fortitude was you usually had stacks of artillery support which offered some flexibility with the tougher missions.

Edited by Sulman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...