Pegasus Bridge 1.2

The Pegasus Bridge scenario pack for Command Ops 2

  1. ioncore

    ioncore Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2015
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    39
    Hi Bie,
    One question I had about these lovely fortified positions you've created.
    What's your experience (both from developer's perspective and from playtest experience) about the model of fortifications in the game? Do they feel like a real tough nuts to crack, are there any special hints and tricks you've made with OoB and/or terrain? Any hints on assault equipment like FTs?
    I'm asking because I'd like to model some fortifications in future as well, and I was, like, thinking about stationary (0 kph speed) pillbox garrisons etc but wasn't sure if that would play well with CO2 mechanics.
     
  2. Bie

    Bie Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    71
    They certainly are something to keep in mind when planning your operation. An entrenched unit with heavy weapons can be a serious problem. On the other hand with enough artillery, heavy weapons on your own and infantry you can dislodge most garrisons without much trouble. So, it is crucial to outnumber the defenders when assaulting fortifications. In the case of Sword to Caen the forts (Wn's) are mostly there to delay troops. The Allies just have to much units at their disposal to be solely stopped by the forts.

    As for scenario development. If you really want the forts to be used by the AI you have to either make them static or you'll have to put an objective on it, so the AI would have to defend it. I've used a mix of both in Sword to Caen.

    As for garrisons, making them static is the way to go. I thought about experimenting and actually creating casemate forts as static "vehicles" in the estab. That way I could make casemate encased artillery guns and be more specific in how "armoured" the fort is. I've actually not tried it, but I might still take a look at this in the future.
     
  3. ioncore

    ioncore Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2015
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    39
    Cool, thanks, I also was thinking about making static vehicles (both to keep them in place and also make garrisons more difficult to kill/route). Given these "vehicles" would receive huge armor values (200-300mm or something) I thought about supplying assault engineers with HE charges and flamethrowers that would receive high penetration values at short range. That way attackers will be forced to approach and engage bunkers really close.
    Ok, hope we could disccuss it again in some time and with some new findings :)
     
    Bie likes this.
  4. Bie

    Bie Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    71
  5. Bie

    Bie Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    71
  6. ghibli

    ghibli Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    1
    I've always thought that close combat is not very well implemented, so assaulting heavily fortified places or buildings present some issues.
    For instance an attacking unit do not try to close the distance with the defending one, even if it's badly cohesion and 100% suppressed.
    This has to do probably with the fact that the firepower added by short range wpns is not very high.
    I was thinking that reducing accuracy of rifles and MMG and LMG at close distance, which would represent tge fact that these weapons are not suitable for close combat could help.

    Cheers mates,

    Ghibli
     
  7. jimcarravallah

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Messages:
    589
    Likes Received:
    44
    The issue you describe may have to do with the standard used to calculate firepower effects -- a 100-meter default grid measured from center to center of adjoining grid sections.

    Maximum fire effects calculations start at 100-meters for all direct fire weapons, and accuracy diminishes as the distance to target increases from that.





    .
     
  8. Bie

    Bie Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    71
  9. Bie

    Bie Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    71
    Bie updated Pegasus Bridge with a new update entry:

    Various updates and corrections to Sword to Caen

    Read the rest of this update entry...
     
  10. Tegularius

    Tegularius Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello, I try to play the scenario and I can not do it because my version is 5.1.28 and the one in the game is 5.1.31 (from steam). The strange thing is that in LnL the version I have is the last one, I can not access that version 5.1.31. Can be?
     
  11. Bie

    Bie Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    71
    Indeed, the scenario is in version 5.1.31. I'm not sure but I think the only option is to play it through Steam.
     
  12. Tegularius

    Tegularius Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
  13. Bie

    Bie Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    71
    panzerpit likes this.
  14. col.sanders

    col.sanders Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    10
    Nice Bie,that is a tough little fight I'm just now checking it out.Your like a scenario guru.
     
    Bie likes this.
  15. ioncore

    ioncore Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2015
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    39
    I have a qustion regarding this
    How does it play and feel now, compared to the stock? I have experimented with this approach for particularly small units like German infantry gun and AT platoons (2-3 guns only) and my experiences are mixed. They are definitely more fragile and unforgiving, but also offering greater tactical flexibility, esp. for recon units etc. On the other hand, for regular infantry I could think of scenarios with densely packed setups where I'd prefer to have less ants.
    For that reason in my work-in-progress Eastern estab I have opted for providing both possibilities.
    What are your observations so far?
     
  16. Bie

    Bie Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    71
    I always disliked the support company. As in my mind it was meant to do different things, but never really did any of them as they were intended. The British support company with its mortar, AT and recce platoon for example would just regress to being an AT company.

    As far as implementation: they are definitely more fragile and will be destroyed if you don't take care of them. In the smaller scenarios they fit in quite nicely, but as you say in the bigger scenarios they tend to be overlooked or drowned out. Still, I kept them in for the sake of being complete and to have some continuity between my scenarios.

    I've noticed that the AI sometimes uses these support platoons quite creatively. A brigade or even division would take some recce platoons from its battalions and arrange them into an ad-hoc recon group. That is really awesome to see happen.
     
    ioncore likes this.
  17. john connor

    john connor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    82
    Am I remembering wrong, but way back didn't the support units all used to be separate in stock (for HttR, for example) and there were so many complaints about their fragility that Dave changed it and built them into ordinary companies? I also think that they are so small that they are like a scale anomaly - more suited to tactical, platoon level type scale. Personally, also, I'd rather not be bothered with them at this scale. It's quite a nuisance when you have to separate off smnall wheeled units, especially, from Bn attacks or advances, just to make sure the AI doesn't lose them out front.
     
  18. ioncore

    ioncore Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2015
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    39
    Yes, this is one of the reasons why this may be troublesome.
    Probably we all could agree it is very specific to the scenario (and may be even to the particular unit / sector).
    E.g. ants may rarely be an issue for a recon battalion / regiment, and recon units I often prefer to micromanage. Or e.g. when you have an exploitation scenario with lot of open spaces and possible routes to cover / follow.
    But this definitely may be a pain in the ass for brigade-sized AI-driven attack involving 15-16 ants on top of line units, of course.
    So in my opinion it is just (yet another) problem the scenario designer has to solve, not something Estabs should enforce.
     
  19. jimcarravallah

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Messages:
    589
    Likes Received:
    44
    Tactically, support companies seldom fought as single entities.

    Portions of them (primarily specific weapons teams and squads) would be cross attached to line companies for combat purposes.at the Battalion Commander's discretion.

    Command Ops allows cross attaching "on the fly" during the game, but breaking the support company into team and squad slices to replicate a battalion commander's tactical flexibility lies outside operational level design constraints. Essentially, it's more workable in terms of scenario design to pre-suppose the cross attaching of the tactical squads and teams to individual companies / platoons as the baseline Estabs are designed.

    The downside to that is the proliferation of varying line platoon and company designs in the baseline Estabs based on what slices of the Battalion support companies are assigned to which platoon / company. It usually gets portrayed as a couple of machine gun squads and an anti-tank team in each of the three or four line companies under a battalion's command.

    Mortar platoons from the support companies, which usually are the Battalion's organic long range support weapons, tend to be the one exception in the designs.
     
  20. Bie

    Bie Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    71
    The last couple of days I've been looking into putting another scenario in this pack. I want to recreate the push north by Kampfgruppe Rauch (192 PzGren) on the 6th of June. It would be a quite small scenario in terms of units (about 2 brigs vs 2 brigs) and time (10 to 12 hours). I've got the OOB and the map already. Though when doing some of the reading I noticed that I didn't include the radar station at Douvres-la-Délivrande in my Sword to Caen scenario. Turns out that it was manned by the Luftwaffe personnel of the 8. Flugmelde-Leit-Kompanie and it included two sites close to eachother: StP (Stützpunkt) Douvres I and StP Douvres II. They actually held out until the 17th of June.

    So I decided to model them in: updated the estab, changed the map and included 8 FLK and the 41 Royal Marines (the radar station was one of their objectives).

    StP Douvers I and II.png

    With that done I'll upload the updated Sword to Caen scenario to the Steam Workshop and start working on the new scenario.
     
    panzerpit and ioncore like this.

Share This Page