courage and fortitude - School of Hard Knocks...

[Erwin]

I definitely recall more than two platoons of Shermans. There was a formation of the 105mm versions as well IIRC plus HQ tanks etc etc. Life is too short to replay games (unless for training purposes). Once you've played once the surprises are mostly gone. However, I thought others would really enjoy this final scenario of the campaign, as it sounds like many may not have gotten to the end.

[womble]

I think you might have played a different version to me. I don't think I finished so fast the 105 Shermans didn't have time to get on board, in fact I think it went into "overtime" while I was trying to clear the town objectives, so all reinforcements should have arrived... I might have a ferret about in my "archive", see if I have an early turn from that scenario.

Edit: a look at the setup phase tells me I should be getting a single company of shermans and some recon... Loading turn 99 now...

Edit: a few minutes squinting at the map of a turn right near the end suggests I received: 2 short (3-tank) platoons of Shermans, the 2-tank Coy HQ element and a 3-tank (75mm Shermans) "assault gun" platoon from the armoured battalion's "Headquarters Company". Plus a platoon of M8s. It's possible I lost all of 3Pltn and 2 each of 1 and 2Pltn in previous scenarios, but I don't recall such complete destruction of a tank platoon. I remember reading that there are several versions of the final battle that depend on what has gone before; there's 2 different potential approach battles that determine whether your main column is approaching from the SW or NW, though I'd be a bit surprised if that meant the supporting Tank Bttn got its Assault Guns upgraded to 105mm Shermans , but if there's a couple of variations on each of those that depend on prior victory levels, it could explain the difference. Or it could be as simple as you remembering 4 short platoons as "more than a company", which it is, potentially...

[mjkerner]

I think the scenario organiser that some clever fellow wrote (was it GaJ?) would let you unpack it for that purpose. You'd have "pristine" units, rather than formations that had suffered the attrition of the previous rounds of the campaign, but otherwise, I think it'd serve.

That was Mad Mike. He just updated it for CMGL. It's a great tool for guys like me that don't want to grind through a real long campaign.

[sfhand]

That was Mad Mike. He just updated it for CMGL. It's a great tool for guys like me that don't want to grind through a real long campaign.

I'm looking for the updated version and found, via the search function, two links in the repository, both from 2011. Where should I be looking for the GL version?

[mjkerner]

It's at CMMODS:

http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods/4916/details

[sfhand]

Many thanks for the link

[Chazz Ulric]

This was a Hair pulling scenario for me. I will not say how long I spent trying to win it ;(.

What got me past it was an pure attitude change carried out in the form of how I advanced layed down covering fire. I took on a pure F.U and all your gene and genna approach and threw everything at them including empty pistols and a kitchen sink I found in a Farm house.

[Bulletpoint]

Sorry for picking up this subject again, but I just had my first try at this one and wanted to chip in with some feedback. I don't like this mission, not because it is hard (I like a good challenge) but because it seems very "gamey".

I don't get the impression I'm fighting anything like a real battle, rather something set up by a designer to ensure that I don't have any sensible options for the attack at all.

It's like eating hazelnuts in their shells without a nutcracker, a hammer, or anything else that might work to open them. Yes, I could try to chew them open and lose most of my teeth, but while this might be realistic if I were shipwrecked on a desert island, it's not what I would call a decent pastime.

Now, if I went back to this map after learning the positions of all the enemy guns etc., I would have a chance, for example by ordering artillery on the positions in advance. But to me this is cheating - I like maps that might be hard but are theoretically winnable in the first go by using sensible tactics, scouting in advance etc.

The map is so ugly too. Doesn't seem like a natural place to me, rather as a video game level.

Another problem is the nighttime - in real life, it's possible to estimate visibility, because you can just use your eyes to see how dark it is. But in a game like this, there's no way I can know how exposed my troops will be once I click start, as the whole map seems to be in twilight rather than darkness. As a previous poster also said, some people don't even realise it's dark, because it's not clear from the light level of the screen.

And then the mission briefing: It doesn't tell us the plan is to clear the wire under the cover of darkness, it doesn't even tell me the mission will start before dawn. Rather, it says the plan is to use superior firepower and smoke. As for firepower, one Pak40 is a match for 4 Shermans even if they attack at the same time, and on this map we are facing 2x Pak40 and one 50mm gun. As for smoke, we only have 2x5 smoke shells from the mortars, and later a few more from the cannons, but since smoke disappears so quickly, this is hardly usable.

So, all in all, not enjoyable. I tried skipping it by cease fire to try the next one. Funny how the US player gets points for destroying the enemy forces, even though not a shot was fired?

[Bulletpoint]

By the way, another poster said it is possible to win this mission by using the tanks alone and leave the infantry behind. He said the tanks will do the spotting adequately.

I tried that, and no luck. The tanks spot really poorly, and even after clearing the AT-guns, the other shore is teeming with hidden Panzerschreks. If your tanks spotted those, maybe they had more carrots than mine, because their eyesight sure is better

[womble]

By the way, another poster said it is possible to win this mission by using the tanks alone and leave the infantry behind. He said the tanks will do the spotting adequately.

I tried that, and no luck. The tanks spot really poorly, and even after clearing the AT-guns, the other shore is teeming with hidden Panzerschreks. If your tanks spotted those, maybe they had more carrots than mine, because their eyesight sure is better

That was probably me, and probably an oversimplification/lack of clarity.

You still have to use infantry eyes: FOs and HQs from what cover there is that can see the enemy positions as the gloom lifts.

Shrecks don't have that many places to hide, and slow advances saturating those positions with MG fire salted with occasional 75 rounds, without ever coming within shreck range of them should flush them for no harm to your armour.

The ATGs open up at ranges that I found ineffective at penetrating the Shermans' armour (perhaps I was repeatedly fortunate, though I wasn't attempting this approach); it's up to the aforementioned infantry eyes to spot them and drop mortar and 105 fire on their heads (if they haven't already spotted the sandbag walls...)

I do 100% agree with you about the essential nature of the battle, plus the unlooked-for darkness in the early turns. It's aspects like that (the darkness) which you learn as you go along, and can make the campaigns very difficult for newbies. Some additional clarity about the victory conditions would go a long way to changing the perceptions of this scenario: you need to make surprisingly little progress to come away with a victory (IIRC, getting control of the bridge and hitting ceasefire gives you a tactical victory if you plaster the far ridge with 105 to get some kills on the board).

[Bulletpoint]

The ATGs open up at ranges that I found ineffective at penetrating the Shermans' armour (perhaps I was repeatedly fortunate, though I wasn't attempting this approach); it's up to the aforementioned infantry eyes to spot them and drop mortar and 105 fire on their heads (if they haven't already spotted the sandbag walls...)

I found that nothing is spotted until the AT-guns open up. At a bit more than 1000m range, the Pak40 caused serious damage to the shermans across the river, crippling one, knocking out another before I took out the Pak. This was with 5 shermans concentrating their fire at the same time. Maybe I was just unlucky.

(IIRC, getting control of the bridge and hitting ceasefire gives you a tactical victory if you plaster the far ridge with 105 to get some kills on the board).

I get almost no kills using 105 against the hill. The trenches seem really good protection. I use anti-personel munitions, maybe I should use "general"?

(In "University of hard knocks" I decided to use all three 105-batteries with all ammo against the hill, firing three line missions. When I finally reached the objective, I found that there were still several squads alive, though they had retreated a bit to the far side of the hill.)

[womble]

I found that nothing is spotted until the AT-guns open up. At a bit more than 1000m range, the Pak40 caused serious damage to the shermans across the river, crippling one, knocking out another before I took out the Pak. This was with 5 shermans concentrating their fire at the same time. Maybe I was just unlucky.

[shrug]

I dunno. It might also be that I played the scenario (and the advice on armoured advance was developed) in a version where some sort of bug hadn't been fixed.

I get almost no kills using 105 against the hill. The trenches seem really good protection.

There was a patch that improved the protection of trenches. That might be a difference. But still, I find that even 81mm makes a mess of entrenched troops, dropped at heavy, for a "Unit of Fire's" worth.

I use anti-personel munitions, maybe I should use "general"?

My gut feeling is that AP (which try and burst early) should give better results, but it may be that the earth moving qualities of more general fuse settings do better against trenches.

(In "University of hard knocks" I decided to use all three 105-batteries with all ammo against the hill, firing three line missions. When I finally reached the objective, I found that there were still several squads alive, though they had retreated a bit to the far side of the hill.)

When I tried something along those lines, the hill was a moonscape with naught but a handful of cowering, broken Landser left huddled in the craters. 'Twas a couple of years ago, I guess, now, so there have been patches that might have changed that potential result.

[Broken]

No, not the only winning move, but possibly the next most optimal one, if you don't realise your tanks can take the ground without leg support once you've realised that the infantry are just targets for the mortars.

I lost 120 casualties attacking with infantry, but got a total victory anyway. I sent two platoons plus 2 Eng sections along the far river bank to the right map edge and then up that map edge to attack the German fortified ridge from the flank (with some 105mm tenderizing).

Most of the casualties were from mortar fire on my support MGs and mortars, and from one platoon which made an abortive attempt to drive across the bridge and up the middle. I did succeed in getting three semi-functional Shermans across the bridge, which greatly aided the flanking infantry attack.

[Vinnart]

I didn't particularly like the mission. I felt it was over done against the player with way too much artillery, and MG’s for the defender. Spotting was the worst I have ever encountered too. Even my best eyes were seen first, with sneaking, and tiny arcs, everything. I like a challenge, but this seemed to stack too many odds for acceptable casualties most of which came from artillery that lasted pretty much most of the mission. Perhaps the way to really win it is the way I went about it.

I captured the bridge, and pushed a few approaches up the road, and through the swamp after softening, and finally knocking out the ATG guns to bring the 3 tanks I had left up. I kept trying to sweep the other side of mines, but that road is covered with I don’t know how many MGs (lots) but, without more smoke they started getting ate up. Nothing seemed that is was going to be worth trying to capture the hill in the back , so I settled for the bridge, and said F the hill since it was a long campaign to go. Also I played this as my first CMBN campaign, and did not know what to expect with replacements.

At the start of the next mission “University of Hard Knocks” I felt I made the right decision to not risk losing the entire force to get the hill/ridge as the briefing didn’t expect it to be taken. “University” is a much better mission. Challenging, but not impossible. I felt a little cheated, as I just needed a few more minutes to capture the last objective in the rear.

[Holien]

So after finishing the RtN campaign by Paper Tiger I noticed that this campaign was getting some good notes and I have just finished School, of Hard Knocks

School Tough Knocks End by msj_1, on Flickr

This is a bloody difficult scenario and I do agree with past posters about the look and feel...

However, I did manage to just pull off a victory on the last turn with my men taking the road exit and getting onto the hill. Really did not think I could make it with all the German arty!!

I only used the 1st Company and engineers as the force. The HMG's and mortars were of course used.

All the rest of the infantry were hidden in their arrival positions.

You can win this, but you do need to spread your men and work hard at keeping them effective.

When I first started I disliked the scenario but it slowly grew on me and I think while the map does not feel like a real place it does encompass a lot of elements that one might have had to deal with in an attack.

My approach was to win by keeping my deaths down, and taking just the bridge and killing Germans, as the game progressed I realised I could just push it a bit further.

The 50mm AT gun would just not die and was well placed. It disabled a Sherman on the exit point of the bridge, but my last Sherman was just able to pass through.

Now having a look at Jon's short Cross Roads scenario...

Hmmm I wonder what evil surprises he has lined up for me..

Interesting to see how this campaign plays compared to the ones done by Paper Tiger. Nice to see collaborative approach with different designers for the various scenarios.

So thanks for those involved and that scenario is one of the hardest to play especially if you are new to the engine and what is possible...

A quick question about AI and German Arty does it need HQ's with LOS to call in? Does Ai play by same rules?

[womble]

A quick question about AI and German Arty does it need HQ's with LOS to call in? Does Ai play by same rules?

It plays by the same rules as we do, with a couple of extra restrictions:

If it's firing at a TRP, a calling unit has to have LOS to that TRP. It won't fire at "assumed" enemy on the out-of-sight position, as a human player can and will.

I think there are restrictions on where the AI will fire its arty built into the AI plans. I'm not sure quite how this works... I'm thinking of painted "Support Target" areas.

[JonS]

the map does not feel like a real place

Actually, that map is based on a real place:

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.344228,-1.5295403,2830m/data=!3m1

The battle is (loosely) based on a real battle too.

No surprises in Crossroads - that should be pretty straightforward

[Holien]

Well that will teach me...

Let me try and qualify without digging any further...

What I felt was contrived was the funnel created by the map which creates a cauldron of death for the German arty.

Looking at the link it would seem that perhaps the map should have more scrub than marsh terrain which would make it feel more realistic to me. (Again my language my be imprecise)

Thanks for the link JonS and it just seemed there should be more advance options to give the attacker some options.

Was the battle at that location?

I do think the defence layout exceptionally good and it was like an onion I kept on peeling back more and more foxholes with more nasties in them.

I take my hat off to the designer for making it so difficult with the defenders. I was cursing and complaining out loud at times at the accuracy.

I had a German HMG team take out a jeep at very long range. It was only until I looked at map at end I saw the jeep was sat on TRP so that would explain the accuracy.

I thought the Germans were uber troops as it took ages to dislodge (compared to Paper Tigers Germans) but alas I was wrong on that too, just the normal mix...

The use of TRP's and mines and wire was just very well done to really stretch me.

@Womble thanks re the Arty explanation, it just seemed to be coming in very quickly and often and I guess I will have to open the editor up to see how many batteries were at play with what ammo load out.

If that German arty can be neutralised then it does make the Allied life a lot easier...

All in all for me a good scenario and well worth getting to grips with. Again for Newbie players if you can get the hang of these you will be in a good place to play PBEM or H2H games.

[womble]

@Womble thanks re the Arty explanation, it just seemed to be coming in very quickly and often and I guess I will have to open the editor up to see how many batteries were at play with what ammo load out.

Can't answer for ammo depth, but the fire is at TRPs and so comes in really quickly. You have about 3 minutes to get out from under its footprint, which you can, just, in the marshes. Do. Not. Stop. And use the river bank defilade to avoid being stopped by enemy direct fire.

[Holien]

No surprises in Crossroads - that should be pretty straightforward

What a little gem of a scenario.

Not really a great challenge for me, but I left it to last few minutes to exit forces off the Cross Country Route.

The scenario reminded me of my 1st Table Top (Well Actually Floor) scenario with my old Airfix figures. Some fond memories triggered of getting my 1st WW2 gaming as a youngster...

Nice map, good little challenge and one perhaps for new players to do as a stand alone.

Some questions...

What would happen if I exited forces off both exit zones?

I presume I am now on a different route of scenarios so will have to come back to this point to try the main road approach?

The next scenario map looks great and I am really looking forward to playing that one...

[JonS]

What would happen if I exited forces off both exit zones?

You'd 'win' the scenario, and go down which ever route 'winning' here means. I forget which is which.

I presume I am now on a different route of scenarios so will have to come back to this point to try the main road approach?

Yes, the campaign branches at this point, so there are scenarios that you will not see unless you replay Crossroads and exit out the other route.

[JonS]

Was the battle at that location?

I think so. IIRC there were two battles (in two locations) that served as the background for SoHK. One was a bloody fiasco which cost the US about a bn for no gain. The other was a bloody fiasco which cost the US about a bn although in the end they got the hill at the other side of the swamp (Hill 70? Hill 90? Something like that, but not the hill just on the west side of the Merderet.)