Bulge44: Revised "Wacht am Rhein" Scenario.

[bdtj1815]

A little belatedly I would like to let people know that the revised version of my full campaign scenario, now renamed "Wacht am Rhein(Herbstnebel)" has been available at Glenn's site for a couple of weeks.

Although possibly not to everyone's taste with very detailed oobs and with some new ideas thrown in I hope people will enjoy it.

An enormous amount of research went into putting the scenario together but would be very interested in any comments/corrections people want to make.

Look forward to hearing from you and if anyone wants a game I would be happy to oblige.

[Sgt Fury]

Hi,

It looks like a very nice piece of work. Thanks!

I have a few comments, if I may. I'm not a fan of the alt fire rules, so I have a couple suggestions for the artillery spotters. To make them harders to destroy, how about raising their defense value to 100 or something pretty large? I'd hate to see the Germans use them to block roads etc though. Also, if these units could be made HQ units, they would "grow back" once destroyed. Do you think this is enough to avoid the alt fire rules?

I was wondering why you suggest the optional fire/assualt rules...they seem to make things pretty bland in my view.

I suggest one additional house rule: US airborne units must go "on foot" on Dec 18, or whatever, for the rest of the game...to simulate the motorpool.

Thanks!

Fury

[bdtj1815]

Thanks for the kind comments. An enormous amount of time went into this project.

I think making the spotters HQ units might be a good idea but Glenn thought it might have some unforeseen effects. i must try testing if it can work. Certainly giving them a huge defence factor would have some strange effects!!

About the airborne divisions I agree although it would probably be simpler just to say that they cannot re-motorise after their first deployment to keep things simpler and not make the player have to remember another date!

[Richrd]

Will the new scenario overwrite the previous version? I absolutely love the spotter units. I also use the alt fire, but not for direct fire, so if they get shot up they need to be withdrawn. I also use more than one spotter per Art battalion or Rgt and make them big enough to be pretty resiliant.

[Glenn Saunders]

...but Glenn thought it might have some unforeseen effects.

Just to be clear, I used HQ units for Naval Spotters for the Brits only in Sicily and that worked OK because the only units BELONGING to the units were the Ships at sea - so there was no side effects.

But HQ units, wherever they are in the OOB will trigger the game Command Rules to come into effect for unist which are part of the same formation - so this is one thing you would have to be certain you understood any effects of.

Secondly - on the HQs being re-grown. This is true, but they are grown back at another friendly unit of the same formation. Now I know the HQ Grow back rules work as I've tested them. But I'm not sure if they only grow back at MAN type units.

So, the net result of what you have here is or would be an HQ which would act like an HQ for game purpose and command for any unit under them - so you would want to keep them maybe in a formation only with GUNS but then I am not sure they would grow back if destroyed - they may need a MAN type unit to come back from. This is something I've never tried to study.

There might be other side effects - not sure what I was thinking about when I advise Brian to not use HQ. In fact I had to think why I would say that when as I said I did it in Sicily. But if I recall right, it was something in the OOB that I saw that made me think there could be an issue.

Best to set up a small scn covering a piece of the action and make sure you have the bases covered - and even then someone is apt to think of something you didn't think of<G>

Glenn

[bdtj1815]

For Richard: The new files should not overwrite any existing files, and only within the unit art folders. I cannot swear that there might not be the odd one but as I have mainly utilised Volcano Man's update they will be OK. The exception is the new weather.dat but that is mentioned in the readme. I use the new one for all scenarios now as I think, but I would say that, it better represents the weather conditions in the Ardennes during the battle.

I tried various methods of representing spotter units and am still not sure I have got it completely right. I did not want to make them too stong so as to give the player lots more units to "hold the line" but the problem is stopping them from becoming vulnerable to being targetted. No FOO would look at a dug in battalion position and be able to target "that trench" because that's where their gunners are! Hope I have hit a happy/realistic compromise. I also don't think the "spotter concept" is appropriate for all the PzC games.

For Glenn: Thanks for your comments and also a late thanks for posting the files at your site.

[Mikemat]

I have downloaded your fantastic work; I am using your "Wacht am Rhein" against AI and I enjoy it very much.
I like the recon units, I think (as Sgt Fury said) their defense value is weak but I try to resist.
Perhaps not enough units to build bridge but I think it is like reality.
Once more time thank you for your great job.

[Sgt Fury]

To follow-up on my last question, perhaps it is not possible to avoid the alt fire rules if all targets are fair game. But if the players agreed to avoid targeting spotters unless alone in a hex adjacent to enemy units, and then only with direct fire, then would the scenario work without the alternate fire rules? Or are there other aspects that still require these rules?

Thanks...and now that I've had more chance to look at the scenario, I can really see the depth of your work. Very nice contribution!

Fury