Jump to content

Comin' at Ya

Recommended Posts

Okay, off my butt and on my feet, well, in a manner of speaking. I don't do scenario design standing up :D

I've been busy over the last two months working on the tourney sceanarios for rumblings of war (which will be released to all of you once the Tourney is completed)

Two more new ones coming to you in the next week or so.

Armored Ambush

Title: Armored Ambush

Type: UK attack vs German Defend

Date: July 18, 1944

Location: Emeiville, Normandy

Weather: Clear

Terrain: Dry

Turns: 25

Author: Wild Bill Wilder

Wild Bill's Raiders


The Scenario:

This scenario depicts the hard fighting to take the ground southwest of Cagny by the British Guards Armored Division.

The History:

After six weeks of hard fighting, the city of Caen and the surrounding vicinity was still putting up stiff resistance. The struggle had been costly for both sides, especially in men.

General Montgomery now proposed an operation that would utilize the three armored divisions under his command. They were the Guards, the 7th, and the 11th Armored Divisions.

Against this formidable force of over 700 tanks Rommel had prepared well his defenses in five separate layers. Each layer had a buffer zone of infantry backed by armored mobile forces with well hidden antitank guns behind them. The German defenses had a depth of nearly seven miles, a few miles more than what the British anticipated.

After a devastating carpet-bombing executed by most of the aircraft of the British Bomber Command, the advance of the tanks began. It was a long and difficult process. The attackers were bound on the right by continuing resistance of the Germans in the southern end of Caen. To their left the high ground of Troarn, heavily wooded, precluded any armor entering in strength.

Thus the British tanks found themselves wedged into a narrow line of advance with little room for maneuver. This was an ideal defensive situation and the Germans took full advantage of it.

After reaching the town of Demouville, the three British armored divisions moved in different directions. The 11th Armored moved to the southwest; the Guards to the southeast, and the 7th following the first two divisions and pressing on to Bergebous Ridge.

After suffering serious losses at Cagny, the Guards Division turned to the left and moved toward Vimont further to the south and to link up with the British 3rd Division covering the left flank of the advance.

Though suffering terribly at the hands of the British carpet bombing, enough tanks of the 503rd Heavy Tank Battalion were able to get moving and provided an additional bitter surprise to the weary British tankers.

For the Guards, this was their first major engagement in World War II. It would be a costly one. In fact, all three divisions met with disaster. The Guards lost nearly half their tank strength in a period of two days. By the end of the first day of action in Operation Goodwood, British tank losses were in the hundreds, a very high price to pay for a small bit of ground gained.

The only plus of the entire operation was that the Germans too had suffered irreplaceable losses and were forced to begin a retreat from the area.



Title: A Canadian Confrontation

Type: Canadian Attack vs German Defend

Date: July 18. 1944

Location: South of Caen

Weather: Clear

Terrain: Dry

Turns: 20

Author: Wild Bill Wilder

Wild Bill's Raiders


By July 19th, the second day of Operation Goodwood, the Canadian 2nd and 3rd Infantry Divisions had crossed the Orne River and completed the encirclement of Caen.

The next move was south, toward Bourgebous Ridge. In the lead was the Canadian 2nd Armoured Brigade. The 12th SS Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) had been giving and taking from the Canucks for over a month.

The series of confrontations would come to a fiery climax here on the battlefield as what remains of the Hitler Youth make a hard stand south of Caen.

I'll let you know when and where.

Wild Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Okay, off my butt and on my feet, well, in a manner of speaking. I don't do scenario design standing up ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> SLACKER! Oh well, despite that I'll look forward to the scenarios ... I should be done mopping up Mace by that time.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunny_ Bunny:

Could someone tell me how to add Victory Flags to a created scenario map ?

Thx :eek:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

set the number of big and small VL flags you want the scenario to have in the PARAMETERS, then go to MAP - PREVIEW and place them just like you place the units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

Wild Bill,

just a question out of interest, since as a matter of personal taste I personally like longer scenarios better:

why do you always make your scenarios so short?

(absolutely no offense or anything meant)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why make a scenario 35 turns long when there's no one left standing by turn 25? The one thing you can count on from a Wild Bill scenario is a map filled with carnage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good answer, MH. You are correct about the flags.

As to scenario length. I've done a few forty turn ones but that is usually the max for me.

Most of mine bounce in the 20-30 turns category.

You've asked why. No offense taken and I'll be happy to explain.

"Short-Long" are, of course relative terms.

Compared to a 50-60 turn battle, mine are short.

Now as to why:

1. Most firefights on the level of Combat Mission lasted for a shorter period of time, 30 minutes to an hour. Some of course, are much longer, but as a rule firefights are over relatively quickly.

2. We are living in a time when everyone has a life overflowing with activities. They include work, more work, family, sleep and other little matters which squeeze the life out of 24 hours.

3. Knowing that the bulk of wargamers are so limited, and would like a scenario to play before supper or bedtime, I decided to make most of mine so that they are playable in one sitting.

4. A long scenario almost inevitably means a big scenario. With a smaller amount of units, you can only keep action going for so long.

5. My good friend Kingfish said it right. By turn 25 or 30 its all over anyway :D

6. Occasionally I'll go a little longer just for a change of pace.

7. Many designers, espcially those just starting, tend to make the monster long ones. They definitely have a place in the wargaming community and I applaude them.

I have the utomost respect for their efforts and so I try to cover ground that are not covered by others.

8. Many computers out there still have a hard time handling all data and graphics involved in those monster, long scenarios.

9. For some gamers, having to leave a battle by saving it since they can't finish kind of makes them lose their train of thought, thus being a little harder to get back into the groove, so to speak. And in that interim of catching the feeling, terrible things can happen :eek:

MH, you did well to ask this question. I appeciate your interest. I'll never be offended with any questions or comments, as long as I know they are meant to help, correct or inquire about my work. They are ALWAYS more than welcome.

Wild Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Bill for the elaborate response!!

I guess it really depends on personal playing style. Since I am more of a tentative player, hesitating to take chances and casualties, it usually takes me longer to get somewhere compared to everybody else. Now I am used to that.

The thought about the short scenarios occurred to me after playing a very nice scenario of yours, "Death of Titans" IIRC. It played well, and indeed, as you described above, action started soon and lasted in a very short but fun-filled battle.

The problem was that the AI didn't get along too well with the 25-turn limit. As suggested I was playing the germans against the AI, and at the end of the battle, I *did* have lost most of my tanks, the problem was that I still won because the AI just didn't get anywhere near the further VLs, and still had almost half of his tanks left. So, in this concrete example, it was a bit disappointing to have the battle cut-off right there, and my victory tasted a bit strange, because I was wondering how my surviving Panther and Tiger would have fared against all the british tanks still out there had the scenario lasted a bit longer.

OTOH, you are right about short scenarios being a nice way of doing a quick battle in one session. That does have it's RealLife - advantages, no doubt.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Herr Hofbauer. I like longer time limits even if the battle itself has played out before then. This prevents historically unrealistic actions such as flag rushes and the like. I dislike being forced to show my hand or make rash decisions because an artificial "game clock" is counting down. How many WWII comanders said "Dammit Jones, you're platoon needs to capture that crossroads by 12:10 or we've lost." "But sir, we've only got 10 men left and Jerry's got over a company of reserves left!" "Not to worry, you only have to hold it until 12:10, after that it's time for tea and crumpets my lad." I'd rather lose a battle due to not taking the victory location but still have a majority of my troops alive and functional than win one while losing 75% of my troops just trying to take the flags. FWIW, Hanns

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, since we are discussing more about the time frame of scenarios. We are discussing the game.

I don't think the powers that be would lop off your head, Iron Duke. There is no favoritism here, my friend.

Right now with no official role, I'm simply a gamer just like you. And I have been moved before, so I know that feeling too.

I also believe this contributes more to the gaming community than slam dunk seesions, or let's kill Peng sessions that go on page after page. I don't always find a lot of interesting material in these either, do you?

Where should they go, do you think?

One more point on scenario lengths. Hans and MH have valid points.

I would offer, however, in consideration the fact that many commanders are faced with a squeeze on time. "Take that hill now." "The other units are moving ahead! What is wrong with your unit? Let's get moving. No excuses. Take that hill!"

Commanders were often prone to push lower echelon units and their commanders into action, thus depriving them or prudence and a more leisurely approach to the fight.

That is not true in every case, but I'm sure in your reading you've run across many examples of getting it done and getting it done now.

That transposes into a scenario with a limited time frame. Now you must throw some of that caution to the wind. You must move ahead, "damn the torpedoes" (in a manner of speaking). That is the idea with some of my scenarios that push you hard with a limited time frame.

Wild Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who only plays against the AI, I usually find scenarios less than 40 turn s to be the most fun. Two main reasons:

1. As WWB said, I enjoy the challenge as the attacker of having to achieve my victory conditions in a limited time.

2. Whether i am on the offense or defense, I find that most battles tend to kind of "wind down" after 30 or so turns. If I am defending against the AI, it no longer has the forces to take VLs, or as the attacker I may have all or most of the VLs and don't have the ability or the motivation to hunt down every last enemy unit.

The big exception to all this is when reinforcements come in later in a battle, in which case the number of turns that seems right is directly related to that.

All this to say I really enjoy your scenarios Wild Bill!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...