Forums

I'm playing Duel for the Golan Heights-85-Valley B vs Tiger 88. The designer gave my Syrians a ton of T55 BTUs and a handfull of the mine clearing ones as well (T-55 KMTs). Naturally the scenario has blockades and minefields across half the map which I have to navigate through under fire.

In trying to figure out why nothing is getting cleared I remembered a tournament post by Petri and sure enough, it was the same T55 BTU problem:

Commanders, this just in: Unfortunately, there's errata in T-55 BTU Platoon Description, where it states the unit can clear obstacles and minefields. What BTU does it can be used for creating Improved Positions, all important to have your tanks in hull down positions. Clearing minefields is what T-55 KMT does. 

There's a lot of special capabilities with units, and the Unit Card does not have icons for everything due to lack of space (to be addressed in some future release at least to some extent. There's so many capabilities often in play though will be a bit of a challenge). 
Meanwhile, F2 Unit Info is your best friend for viewing all unit special capabilities. [Apparently not in this case, that's where I went in the first place.  ]

So does this mean that any scenario that the designer used these tanks in is flawed? I can't believe the designer of the Golan scenario would have given me so many tanks to build improved positions with. Especially since I'm attacking. I really don't need anymore improved positions, unless maybe they have Netflix.

Is there any way to know which scenarios should be avoided going forward?

Has there been any effort to notify designers of this flaw, so they can address their current scenarios and avoid this problem with future ones?

Dave

(06-27-2017, 02:49 AM)Scud Wrote: [ -> ]I'm playing Duel for the Golan Heights-85-Valley B vs Tiger 88. The designer gave my Syrians a ton of T55 BTUs and a handfull of the mine clearing ones as well (T-55 KMTs). Naturally the scenario has blockades and minefields across half the map which I have to navigate through under fire.

In trying to figure out why nothing is getting cleared I remembered a tournament post by Petri and sure enough, it was the same T55 BTU problem:

Commanders, this just in: Unfortunately, there's errata in T-55 BTU Platoon Description, where it states the unit can clear obstacles and minefields. What BTU does it can be used for creating Improved Positions, all important to have your tanks in hull down positions. Clearing minefields is what T-55 KMT does. 

There's a lot of special capabilities with units, and the Unit Card does not have icons for everything due to lack of space (to be addressed in some future release at least to some extent. There's so many capabilities often in play though will be a bit of a challenge). 
Meanwhile, F2 Unit Info is your best friend for viewing all unit special capabilities. [Apparently not in this case, that's where I went in the first place.  ]

So does this mean that any scenario that the designer used these tanks in is flawed? I can't believe the designer of the Golan scenario would have given me so many tanks to build improved positions with. Especially since I'm attacking. I really don't need anymore improved positions, unless maybe they have Netflix.

Is there any way to know which scenarios should be avoided going forward?

Has there been any effort to notify designers of this flaw, so they can address their current scenarios and avoid this problem with future ones?

Dave

David,

Honestly its been a while since I designed those 1985 war scenarios, and they were an extension of the 1985 series scenarios I did for the HPS Campaign: MiddleEast '67 (actually for the HPS Scenario expansion site that Glenn Shaw used to run). It seems like when I designed those I was following the Syrian policy from 1973 were (from one of my readings, I think the updated OOB from Anthony H. Cordesman "The Lessons of Modern War Vol 1") they added more dozer units to the front line tank brigades to fill in the IDF AT ditch. Seemed like a reasonable step they would continue just 12 years later with their expanded Armored and Mech Divisions. So much of the OOB for these Campaign: Middle East Scenarios was derived from the HPS Scenarios and as the games behave differently this slipped through. 

You know when you design a hypothetical scenario you try to think of everything you can but sometimes details fall through the crack especially if the overall scenario follows the path you envision for the battle (rightly or wrongly). I always thought a replay of 1985 would be largely channeled like 1973 was and when I got that result I didn't think much more about the engineering units. 

I'll look at it when I have a chance but honestly I'm up to my butt hole in alligators right now with work and kids (which is why I haven't produced much in the way of scenarios recently). 

Overall glad you're enjoying it and I haven't been on The Blitz in years. I don't even know if I would remember my password any more. If you would like to cut and paste this there please feel free.

Al Sandrik

Thanks, Al. I like the scenario except for that one thing. I appreciate your efforts and the response. Kids grow up all too fast, so they should always be the priority.

Thanks again and don't be a stranger. 

Dave

Good to hear from you Al, those are cool scenarios, hope to see more of them at some time perhaps :)

I fully agree with Dave, kids grow up so fast, mine are now both young adults (at least in age ha), how did that happen!

The T-55 BTU indeed has a regular dozer plow, it is not capable for clearing minefields with anti-tank mines in there, that's what the T-55 KTM is there for, with its KTM series of a mine roller installed. We'll correct the unit text for CSME 2.0 for the BTU units.

(06-28-2017, 05:34 PM)Battle Kat Wrote: [ -> ]Good to hear from you Al, those are cool scenarios, hope to see more of them at some time perhaps :)

I fully agree with Dave, kids grow up so fast, mine are now both young adults (at least in age ha), how did that happen!

The T-55 BTU indeed has a regular dozer plow, it is not capable for clearing minefields with anti-tank mines in there, that's what the T-55 KTM is there for, with its KTM series of a mine roller installed. We'll correct the unit text for CSME 2.0 for the BTU units.

Petri, does this affect the way scenarios were designed? Would designers have added the BTUs thinking they'd clear blocks? Obviously Al thought they'd do what they don't. I guess what I most want to know is if we start a scenario that has BTUs, should we mark the scenario as flawed and not play it until the designer has a chance to address it?

(06-28-2017, 11:14 PM)Scud Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017, 05:34 PM)Battle Kat Wrote: [ -> ]Good to hear from you Al, those are cool scenarios, hope to see more of them at some time perhaps :)

I fully agree with Dave, kids grow up so fast, mine are now both young adults (at least in age ha), how did that happen!

The T-55 BTU indeed has a regular dozer plow, it is not capable for clearing minefields with anti-tank mines in there, that's what the T-55 KTM is there for, with its KTM series of a mine roller installed. We'll correct the unit text for CSME 2.0 for the BTU units.

Petri, does this affect the way scenarios were designed? Would designers have added the BTUs thinking they'd clear blocks? Obviously Al thought they'd do what they don't. I guess what I most want to know is if we start a scenario that has BTUs, should we mark the scenario as flawed and not play it until the designer has a chance to address it?

Cheers Dave,

I can't speak for others but I for one start with the standard OOB organizations the game comes supplied with, and then tweak them per the scenario being designed.

A Syrian 1982 Tank Bde comes with three Tank Bns, each with three Tank Coys,  and an organic HQ + two BTU and two KMT platoons. 

Opening the Valley B scenario, seems that's what there's deployed for your use. The unit out there is the 1st Armored Div of the 2d Corps.  and its 44th Tank Bde. 

Standard formations as far as I can (quickly) tell. 

So this might be the case there's never enough troop on one's command  

(06-29-2017, 01:37 AM)Battle Kat Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017, 11:14 PM)Scud Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017, 05:34 PM)Battle Kat Wrote: [ -> ]Good to hear from you Al, those are cool scenarios, hope to see more of them at some time perhaps :)

I fully agree with Dave, kids grow up so fast, mine are now both young adults (at least in age ha), how did that happen!

The T-55 BTU indeed has a regular dozer plow, it is not capable for clearing minefields with anti-tank mines in there, that's what the T-55 KTM is there for, with its KTM series of a mine roller installed. We'll correct the unit text for CSME 2.0 for the BTU units.

Petri, does this affect the way scenarios were designed? Would designers have added the BTUs thinking they'd clear blocks? Obviously Al thought they'd do what they don't. I guess what I most want to know is if we start a scenario that has BTUs, should we mark the scenario as flawed and not play it until the designer has a chance to address it?

Cheers Dave,

I can't speak for others but I for one start with the standard OOB organizations the game comes supplied with, and then tweak them per the scenario being designed.

A Syrian 1982 Tank Bde comes with three Tank Bns, each with three Tank Coys,  and an organic HQ + two BTU and two KMT platoons. 

Opening the Valley B scenario, seems that's what there's deployed for your use. The unit out there is the 1st Armored Div of the 2d Corps.  and its 44th Tank Bde. 

Standard formations as far as I can (quickly) tell. 

So this might be the case there's never enough troop on one's command  

Thanks, Petri. Having never designed a scenario I was under the impression a designer would pick each unit to add to the map, rather than a package (if I'm understanding that correctly). So scenarios with T55 BTUs would play as intended, provided the player just remembers the F2 description is wrong and knows how to use them correctly. That's good, as I was concerned the scenarios would be flawed otherwise.

Pardon my ignorance. 

Dave

(06-30-2017, 07:56 AM)Scud Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks, Petri. Having never designed a scenario I was under the impression a designer would pick each unit to add to the map, rather than a package (if I'm understanding that correctly). So scenarios with T55 BTUs would play as intended, provided the player just remembers the F2 description is wrong and knows how to use them correctly. That's good, as I was concerned the scenarios would be flawed otherwise.

Pardon my ignorance. 

Dave

Dave, it was a valid question, and there's no one way people approach scenario design. What I do I typically take a base formation from the OoB, move it to the scenario side of things, but then often add support elements, even individually as you noted. It all depends on the scenario.

So say for a Regt sized scenario, I might take the infantry regt I need, I then add the supporting elements, like perhaps an engineer coy, artillery bn, tank coy, what not, to have the battlegroup in place. 

I guess what I have personally learned from this BTU / KMT thing is a new appreciation how vital the engineering units are in modern warfare. Everything being mobile does not help, if one is stuck at the first natural or man-made obstacle. And with a mech formation, engineering units being mechanised as well ensures they remain mobile, in crossing streams, clearing obstacles and minefields, and I suppose preparing defensive positions as well.