Meeting Engagement in Operation?

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I have a question about scenario design:

I'm trying to create a Meeting Engagement that has some of the benefits of an operation, such as the ability to resupply ammo, the changes in time of day, dynamic reinforcements, etc. However, I was hoping to create a meeting engagement for easier balancing and a more static front line geographically.

My idea was that there would be a nice map with quite a few buildings that would be compact (800m x 800m perhaps) and allow for intense firefights. The reinforcements for each battle would up the ante and provide a new means of destroying the map. For Battle 1, each side gets a basic infantry company and perhaps some SMGs. Battle 2, motorized infantry and some medium-sized arty spotters. Battle 3, night falls and the flamethrowers get to torch some buildings. Battle 4, send in the heavy arty and tanks. Battle 5, heavy anti-tanks, laser-equipped ninjas, and so forth.

It would not only be fun to reduce the pleasant little landscape to flaming rubble pockmarked by craters, but it could be tactically interesting to see how different elements of the same map become important depending on conditions and troop types.

The problem with most scenarios is that the scope is not long enough. Most scenarios have given up the reinforcements before turn 10, when the initial units are still just figuring out how the land lays and counting on reinforcements to help them. I would like each wave to play a more-or-less realized battle before the next wave comes in to help. On the other hand, in a scenario, there is no option to resupply the units and ammo will certain become an issue.

In an operation, it seems that one side must be the defender, changing the numerical balance of troops, and that the same chunk of map would not continue to be the focal point throughout the game.

Any suggestions on how I can create this type of siutation in a scenario or an operation?

Thanks,

Dr. Rosenrosen

[Sergei]

There is an operation type with flags. Use that one (you don't have to use the flags if you don't need them). I would suppose it would best serve your needs.

Operations are most interesting against a Human player (but also time consuming), because the AI has a tendency to not care about tomorrow. So be sure to give both sides enough backup reserves (regimental and divisional) so that if the AI gets totally spanked its brain out of nose during encounter #1, it still has something in the next battle.

I would be interested in an operation which would start on a big map with like maybe half a company of forces per side. The next battle there's a whole company. Then two companies. Then a battalion, two battalions... minus the losses accumulated, of course. This way the operation would kind of keep realigning itself, so even if P1 lost half his forces in battle one, that would only give him a 1/4 disadvantage in the next one. The biggest problem would probably be to limit the length of battles so that it would be appropriate for all force sizes.

[Moon]

Dr. Rosenrosen, use "Static Operation". It provides flags (if needed) and the map does not need to shift (i.e. the battle window can encompass the entire map for the duration of the operation). Essentially, you can think of Static Ops as a series of battles without the frontline calculations and map movements of Advance or Assault ops. So it should work especially for Meeting Engagements.

Martin

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Thanks for the suggestion, Martin. I set up a test operation like you suggested and things are much clearer to me now. One thing that I'm still a little hazy on is determining the final victor. I played through two static operations quickly against the AI. I understand how the posiiton of the troops at the end of each battle determines the set up zone for the next battle. One thing that surprised me is that even though my "no man's land" was 400m, the enemy units set up much closer than that to my own set up zones.

An even bigger question is what do the flags do? After the last battle, the points section in the end screen was blank. No points were calculated for holding flags, causing casualties, etc. And no final percentages had been calculated. Yet I was told that I'd won a total victory (on my own test operation, of course). The manual says that these are taken into account for operations as well as battles, but I don't understand why it wasn't displayed.

Can anyone help me understand this better?

Thanks,

Dr. Rosenrosen

[WWB]

Operations are kind of a black-box function. Precise victory is a bit hazy.

The reason you see troops setup closer to your positions than thier edge of NML is because troops can get stranded in NML between battles. They are then padlocked.

Try a defensive operation and get overrun, a good one to practice with is Moon's operation on the CD--kruglowla railroad. Play as germans and just hit go thru the first battle. Afterwards your front line positions should be stranded in NML.

WWB

PS: after re-reading your first post: minimum size for an operation map is 1600m wide, IIRC. So no 800x800. You can do 1600x240 if you are a sadistic bastard.

WWB

[ August 18, 2003, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: wwb_99 ]

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

One last question sort of on topic: Can I take a map that I made as a battle and turn into an operation or vice versa? I think I already know the answer (nein), but it doesn't hurt to ask.

Dr. Rosenrosen

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenrosen:

One last question sort of on topic: Can I take a map that I made as a battle and turn into an operation or vice versa? I think I already know the answer (nein), but it doesn't hurt to ask.

Dr. Rosenrosen

It hurts other as they'd like to say "Ja!" but have to remind themselves that the correct answer is just a plain "Njet!"

Gruß

Joachim