New file at the Repository: Two Bridges (2011-08-12)

[Battlefront Repository]

U.S. vanguard must capture weakly defended bridges before panzer reinforcements arrive. Playable as H2H or Allies vs AI. NOT suitable for Axis vs. AI

More...

[umlaut]

Here´s a bit more info on Two Bridges:

This is a fictional scenario. I´ve basically made a map with two sets of (not too unrealistic) forces with only one purpose in mind: To make a scenario that I myself would find entertaining. Only afterwards I´ve then tried to find a plausible setting to fit the scenario in. I chose Operation Cobra and invented the village of Basse-Gris on the river Vire.

Here´s the story:

The U.S. forces have gained a major breakthrough at the St. Lô-area and the german lines are crumbling. The U.S. vanguard are pushing forward in order to maintain the momentum, when a golden opportunity presents itself:

The germans haven´t had time to reinforce the troops holding the two bridges across the river Vire in the village of Basse-Gris. Two days ago this village was miles behind the lines. Thus, a vital crossing can be secured at a relatively low cost, if the U.S. vanguard reacts quickly and captures the village before the german reinforcements arrive.

I´m pretty pleased with the map itself, so if everthing else fails, I´ve at least have contributed with a decent quick battle map :-)

NB: At the moment this is only an Allies vs AI/H2H version. The axis vs AI will be ready later.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[umlaut]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[umlaut]

By umlautdk at 2011-08-13

By umlautdk at 2011-08-13

[Sgt Schultz]

Verrry nice.

On my list to play once I finish my WIP.

[gumby7]

You should upload this under scenarios instead of maps since it has a human vs ai plan. Looks good.

[umlaut]

You should upload this under scenarios instead of maps since it has a human vs ai plan. Looks good.

Yes, I should, indeed. My bad.

Does anyone know what happens if I just go to the repostitory and save it under "scenarios and campaigns" instead of "maps"?

Will the link in the first post in this thread then turn into a dead end?

And will the file be moved immidiately, or will I have to go through the whole approval thing and wait again?

[Erwin]

"I´ve basically made a map with two sets of (not too unrealistic) forces with only one purpose in mind: To make a scenario that I myself would find entertaining. Only afterwards I´ve then tried to find a plausible setting to fit the scenario in."

I think this approach has worked wonderfully in your scenario. I really enjoyed the first version and look forward to this improved version.

imo "realistic" scenarios are virtually impossible if you want to have fun.

[Childress]

Interesting, Umlaut. That infantry platoon that arrives as a replacement was truly precious.

An oddity with one particular road that I noticed: no matter how closely you space the waypoints along the route the Greyhounds negotiate the second half weaving off-road as if the drivers were tripping on LSD.

I doubt this is related to your design, but something of which BFC should probably be made aware.

[umlaut]

Yes, Childress, I´ve wondered about that too. And I wonder if it is only in this scenario - on this road? Can´t recall seeing it anywhere else.

[Childress]

Neither have I. Maybe it's more noticeable on your map due to that unusually long and straight paved road.

[Erwin]

I noticed that it usually seems best to give multiple waypoints even with a long straight road.

[gumby7]

I don't know anything about the historical makeup of the units involved in the scenario, but IMHO Two Bridges desperately needs a forward observer. You've got the mortars necessary to hit the anti-tank emplacements but the only way to call them in the first 20-30 min of the game is the M8's and they can't view the target without getting killed.

Other than this its a great scenario.

[umlaut]

the only way to call them in the first 20-30 min of the game is the M8's and they can't view the target without getting killed.

I get your point, but I don´t think you´re entirely right: Yes, a FO would certainly be handy, but he wasn´t part of the cavalry troop formation. And he is IMHO not that nescessary. As I see it, there are three things you can do:

1) Let the mortar team fire directly at the AT gun. That is by far the most accurate fire, but of course also the most dangerous approach

2) Use the mortar section HQ as a spotter. This way he can spot from a building and even though he can´t fire his own mortar, he can spot for one of the other teams.

3) This is the one I´ve used most, when playtesting the scenario: Let the M8 HQ disembark and then spot from a building.

I know a FO would be nice, but the US forces (and the german forces for that matter) in this scenario are supposed to represent an "ad hoc"-force, hastily assembled from the available troops in the area. The forces are not meant to be "perfect".

Other than this its a great scenario.

Thanks. Glad you like it anyway

:-)

[Erwin]

umlaut... I liked your original philosophy of making a fun game and "realism comes 2nd."

If it would make it more fun, I would add the FO.

[umlaut]

Hi Erwin

I don´t think realism and fun are opposites. In fact, I think it is save to claim that if you didn´t care about realism at all and only about fun, you wouldn´t be playing CM in the first place, would you? (-:

It is true that I make scenarios for only one purpose: My own amusement. But for me realism is a great part of the fun of playing CM. But if I have to choose between the two, I would chose fun.

Now, my reason having no FO is simple: He wasn´t part of the cavalry troop to begin with, and during my 5 to 7 games of playtesting I didn´t really miss him, so it never accured to me to add one.....

And IIRC, the need for one wasn´t mentioned by any of my five playtesters - one of whom were yourself (and thanks a lot once again).

But I´ll certainly consider it, if I upload a new version.

Cheers (-:

[Erwin]

You are correct. I did not miss an FO in my test. Was happy to use regular HQ's, so no worries.