Jump to content

New Scenario: Assault at Huberderie

Recommended Posts

Thanks, Fuser. You gave us a very good scenario with this one. A very nice map (though I by-passed its most interesting features in both of my attempts), and a very tough fight that needs proper tactics to avoid horrendous loses but even then is hard. My thanks, Sir, for something like 16 hours enjoyable gaming.

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

Just finished this one. Gotta say it was one of the best battles that I've played so far. Very well constructed. It was TOUGH and very challenging. It certainly felt like I was playing a human opponent at times. At least with the way the defenses were put together. I eeked out a Total Victory on Elite setting. The situation was fully in doubt all the way up until about the last five turns. Even with a "Total Victory", the truth is, I took a severe beating. 74 KIA's. I managed to keep three tanks alive and they were essential to winning the map. Especially that 105 Sherman. My infantry was a shambles by the end of the battle. Of course, the German's fared much worse, with only 9 men left to my 70+.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 years later...

**********SCENARIO SPOILERS INCLUDED BELOW IN AAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*******************





Hey Fuser,

I've returned to CM after a bit of a hiatus, and this scenario was the first SP scenario I've chosen to play. Just happens however that in my first PBEM back in another scenario, I thought I noticed in it what may have been the "evade towards enemy" bug that has been discussed.  Turns out, after a forum post discussion and an interrogation of the scenario file parameters, I discovered that the Allied (and Axis) Friendly Direction scenario parameter was incorrectly set to be West and East rather than North and South which explained why I was noticing my US infantry tending to evade west (rather than north).  I knew such a setting must have been defined somehow in scenario files but up until this investigation I had no idea how or where so it was all kind of new to me. The scenario designer apparently wasn't even aware the parameter existed.

Anyway, when I was at the setup of his scenario, with the US setup in the south attacking north, I just happened to notice one US platoon was curiously facing east. Now that I know (from experimentation) that the facing of units when placed on a map is determined by the respective Friendly Direction setting of the scenario, and given my recent experience of playing a scenario where the Friendly Direction setting was not correctly set,  for good measure and a level of curiosity, I thought I should quit the scenario and just check with the Scenario Editor before starting that the Friendly Direction setting was as I would think it should be for this scenario, Allied south, German north.....just in case!

Well, lucky I did, because I couldn't believe it when I saw the Allied setting was in fact set to north and the Axis to south! I of course changed it, saved and played the game without issue, which I will talk about below.  Before I do, I just have to say that unless it has been discussed elsewhere , I am absolutely surprised that I may be the first to have picked up on the fact that the Allied and Axis Friendly Direction settings were 180deg out of whack, and I had not even played one turn. I can only image how this reversed setting would have led to all sorts of odd/inexplicable evade/rout/retreat behaviour in all the games others have played. I am just curious to know if you were cognisant of this setting? Two random scenarios, two times this setting was not set correctly.  Is this a setting many scenario designers are not even aware of?

TBH, I was already suspecting and have been trying to confirm just how many of the other reported instances of the "evade towards enemy" issue were actually probably more related to the Allied and Axis Friendly Direction parameter of the .btt file being played. This discovery just deepens my suspicions.

Anyway, back to your scenario and my AAR. I don't know if it was bad luck on my behalf or just good predictive design on your behalf (probably the latter) but it seemed like my units were drawn like magnets to your hidden mines! Especially on the right flank along the train line and on the outer forward edges of those two wooded rises, I think those mines "saved the day" for the Germans. Even though I had discovered and taken out the ambushing Panther lurking in the wooded rise with an easy flanking shot from tanks nosing forward from the wooded train line, and had detected (and decided to completely avoid) the PAK gun and Stug on the far left German flank, and had discovered that 75mm PAK on the rear edge of the  wooded rise overlooking the approaches to the town which I knew had to be taken out,  I thought the the single infantry platoon that had taken only light casualties up to that point that I had sent that way supported by 2 tanks and HT was plenty enough to neutralise the two wooded rises as the rest of he force pushed in to the town.

When I discovered this PAK gun, i dashed a jeep loaded with infantry up to the forward crest of the wooded rise tasked to advance on to neutralise the PAK gun, only to discover they were  taking some fire from enemy infantry firing from the adjacent wood rise where the Panther had been hiding.  I didn't realise at the time, but my end waypoint for the jeep  happened to be exactly over the top of a minefield, immobilising the jeep, and killing/shaking a bunch of the passengers, something I thought was being caused by the infantry fire coming from the adjacent rise. Even though I knew I could have ignored them the infantry in that wooded rise (and probably should of) I thought maybe I needed the kill points so I sent an tank up to the jeep for support to fire on the infantry while sending an infantry team up from the train line to the woods in the hope of easy kills on enemy infantry suppressed by the tank. My infantry get to the woods line and discover mines taking casualties.  They also lost the subsequent shoot out with what i thought was enemy infantry suppressed by my tanks area fire. The jeep passenger/crew survivors made their way through the woods to the PAK gun which now was now under constant area fire from a MMG located at range just centre right of town. Despite being pinned down by MMG fire and under close range rifle/carbine fire and several bazooka rounds, this PAK (and friends) just would not break. I decided to use my last full squad, mounted in the HT to once and for all neutralise this last nuisance PAK gun. As I sent the HT through the treeline at the train lines, it hits a mine and aborted its move.  The infantry disembark and suffer 25% casualties in the ensuing debacle.  I had to waste a few more turns waiting for my HT and infinity squad to recover before i remounted the inf in the HT and try another passage through the woods.  Again they hit mines, this time immobilising the HT, disembark and suffer the consonances.  My once full strength squad is now down to about 65% strength and again shaken.  More wasted time, when they recover I route them on foot through another path and this time they make it.  As I still hadn't noticed the mines that took out the jeep/infantry originally, I gave this reinforcing infantry squad a move waypoint near the jeep and once again fall victim to their third minefield.  I think all game there were about 6 separate minefield incidents.

At this stage it was getting late for me and I was losing patience, and rather than take a break, save and return to it, I went looking for a quick and easy way to just finish up and win the game but it didn't happen.  I ended up taking more risks and paid the price falling in to some excellent ambushes.  Here is what happens when you get impatient and a little to sure:


It looks like you really spent some time setting up the defence. You really did a great job with this. Totally recommend this scenario (remember to update Friendly Direction settings and re-release!)

Do you have any others?


Edited by Lt Bull
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Six or seven or so years ago I found a QB map that I liked a lot and played two or three games on it. I noticed that the AI [German] side often set up units on the wrong side of a hedgerow, which puzzled me since it was placing them in the right set up zone. I suspect you are onto something with this. The map designer may have set, or allowed to remain, Friendly Map Edge settings incorrectly. I reported this on the forum, but I don't know if it ever got corrected.

This also resonates with something else, which is that writers discussing Normandy battles often get the cardinal directions wrong, confusing north with south and more frequently east with west. I find it infuriating that professional writers and editors make this mistake so regularly, but it seems to have become an ingrained part of the Normandy historical culture now. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the Allies were attacking north to south and writers find that confusing, especially if they happen to be referencing maps that are drawn with south at the top instead of more conventionally with north at the top.


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/17/2011 at 11:33 AM, Fuser said:

Struggling with the AI. That was the toughest part. There is no way that one can keep the AI hidden and effectively ambush or unhide. If you Hide them, they only fight back if attacked (what makes them be pinned anyway before the fight starts) and if you tell them to ambush to 300m they are VERY visible so you can destroy from outside that range and they won´t even shoot. AI plans add some replayability, but the problem remains the same.

It's some time now since i programmed the AI, but as far as I remember, you might be able to deploy the enemy in HIDE mode, and then make them change to ACTIVE mode when the player reaches a terrain trigger?

EDIT: Just got curious and made a little test scenario. The method works.

Edited by Bulletpoint
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.

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...