Updated scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Updated scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> Mods and Scenarios >> Updated scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Updated scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 12/7/2014 11:32:00 PM

WABAC

Posts: 337
Joined: 1/25/2014
Status: offline

You can find the map and data file here: http://ftp.matrixgames.com/pub/FlashpointCampaignsRedStorm/Scenarios/ Labeled Depuy19620105.

The file that is now attached to this post updates the scenario information. There are no changes to the map.

This is a Soviet offensive against a prepared NATO defense conducted in terrible weather. There is lots of corps and army supporting artillery too. Have fun. And dive for cover.

Those of you that have been wondering about WWII versions of this engine might be interested to see how this scenario plays out. The weapons and munitions available were not much advanced over what was known at the end of WWII.

Next up Gelnhausen Sleigh Ride. AKA: Катание на санях в ад

The game file was updated 20181010

The game file was updated 20181011 to remove a minor early Soviet ATGM unit from their ORBAT. If they were present at all they would have been in place of the 85mm AT guns. From previous play-tests they just added to the clutter.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by WABAC -- 10/11/2018 4:17:15 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 12/8/2014 12:25:13 AM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Thanks, going to give this one a try. I see Col. DePuy is in the scenario.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to WABAC)

Post #: 2

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 12/8/2014 12:30:29 AM

WABAC

Posts: 337
Joined: 1/25/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Thanks, going to give this one a try. I see Col. DePuy is in the scenario.

Best I quote my own designer's notes because I don't want DePuy to get the blame for any of my mistakes.

quote:

While I have long been fascinated by the Berlin Crisis and the Pentomic Army, I was particularly motivated to creat [sic] this scenario first because of this excellent web site: http://www.14cav.org/a2h.html, and from reading excerpts from this book: General William E. DePuy: Preparing the Army for Modern War By Henry Gole

That being said, I don't claim to know a whole lot about DePuy. This scenario should not be taken as any kind of representation or interpretation of his thoughts.

It just happened to be the case that the 2/14th web site provided a lot of historical detail. And it just happened to be the case that DePuy was stationed down the road in Schweinfurt.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 3

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 12/8/2014 12:45:43 AM

WABAC

Posts: 337
Joined: 1/25/2014
Status: offline

As long as I am engaged in shameless self-promotion

Player 1 briefing:

quote:

LTG Garrison H. Davidson, commander 7th Army, an engineer by training and the architect of Line Davidson at the Pusan Perimiter, decided that he had the luxury of an active forward defense due to the ongoing buildup of conventional forces. And he knew those forces needed time to work the kinks out of depot stocks that had recently been scoured out of every corner of Europe.

LTG. John K. Waters, Commander V Corps, had been rotating battalions from his 4th Armor Group through reinforcement exercises to the 14th Armored Cavalry Regiment that had been forward deployed to the border since August.

COL William E. DePuy, Commander 1st Battle Group, 30th Infantry, 3rd Infantry Division was eager to get in on the action and had been pestering the chain of command to get the assignment.

LTG Waters wanted to have his 4th Armor Group intact. MJG William W. Dick Jr., commander 3rd ID, was just as happy to have "his own eyes" on the border in front of him.

And so it was that on December 31, 1961, COL DePuy led his reinforced battle group out of Schweinfurt to relieve the 3rd MTB 37th Armored Regiment on border duty north and east of Camp Wollbach.

Losing a holiday to field exercises was nothing new to men serving under DePuy, or to the troopers of the 14th ACR. Everyone understood the gravity of the Soviet threats. Everyone knew they would soon be fighting for freedom and a better future.

COL DePuy took full advantage of the time he had to walk the ground with his company commanders. This close to the border, and in a relatively unsettled area, there had been every opportunity to clear out civilians and to add mines and obstructions. The 14th Cavalry artillery had been more than cooperative in passing on their pre-registered targets.

The weather was awful. The visibility was limited. The jamming was intense. The border outposts could hear the rumble of heavy vehicles manuevering beyond the border. And they still had good wire communications back to HQ. They too were wondering what the Soviets were up too after they declared they would oust the Americans from Europe.

When the OP's reported increased motor noise well in excess of what they had been hearing the engineers were dispatched to other tasks, and the company work parties were pulled in for hot food and a night's sleep.

A serious effort was expected in this area to focus the attention of the 3rd Infantry Division. And because Bad Neustadt sat in control of 279 west towards Fulda, and 19 south towards Wurtzburg. How serious an effort was not to be known until the shooting started.

Soviet Military Liason Missions have had ample opportunities to register target beyond sight of Soviet observation posts on the Inner German Border. Heavy artillery fire is to be expected.

Wow. I have some copy editing to do.

(in reply to WABAC)

Post #: 4

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 12/8/2014 3:48:26 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

Let me help a little. Colonel is abbreviated as Col.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to WABAC)

Post #: 5

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 12/9/2014 1:57:07 AM

WABAC

Posts: 337
Joined: 1/25/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Let me help a little. Colonel is abbreviated as Col.

Good Hunting.

MR

Engineer humor.

If I abbreviate it that way then I have to use Lt. Gen., and Maj. Gen. And that's just too many keystrokes.

Anyway. I have to make a few changes. Mainly to knock down Soviet detection and counter-battery. It's a little too good right now. And I know how sensitive people are about artillery.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 6

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 12/9/2014 2:21:02 AM

IronMikeGolf

Posts: 899
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline

Haven't played this yet, as I just got back home from vacation. Looks very interesting!

I was paging through the SUI and noticed something about the M41. It has no main gun! Also, it should have an M2, probably same stats as on the M113.

Unless, you are simulating no ammo for these.

_____________________________

Jeff
Sua Sponte

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 7

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 12/9/2014 4:07:17 AM

WABAC

Posts: 337
Joined: 1/25/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Mike Golf

Haven't played this yet, as I just got back home from vacation. Looks very interesting!

I was paging through the SUI and noticed something about the M41. It has no main gun! Also, it should have an M2, probably same stats as on the M113.

Unless, you are simulating no ammo for these.

No wonder the Walkers were replaced by medium tanks at every opportunity.

Thanks for the sharp eyes.

The BG recon platoon is mainly setup to show the intended cavalry TOE. I had to convert the integral mortar to a super RPG for it to work in the game engine.

The 14th Cav is not per TOE, but based on task organization that I was able to dig up for the 14th at that time. The Soviets are mostly not TOE either, but organized in line with what the Aggressor FM suggests they might do if they felt like it.

I hope to have an update out sometime Thursday. So all comments are invited and encouraged.

And I hope you had a good vacation.

(in reply to IronMikeGolf)

Post #: 8

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 12/9/2014 4:47:18 AM

IronMikeGolf

Posts: 899
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline

Should the M84 carrier have a 4 deuce instead of an M29?

_____________________________

Jeff
Sua Sponte

(in reply to WABAC)

Post #: 9

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 12/9/2014 4:02:48 PM

WABAC

Posts: 337
Joined: 1/25/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Mike Golf

Should the M84 carrier have a 4 deuce instead of an M29?

I believe the issue there was that I could never track down the model number for the 81mm version. IIRC I went with M84 81mm and M84 4.2" or something like that. There should be an M106 and an M125 in my working TOE. I'll check tonight.

(in reply to IronMikeGolf)

Post #: 10

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 12/9/2014 5:35:41 PM

IronMikeGolf

Posts: 899
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline

Yeah, I spent about an hour looking for what was used to carry the 81's back then, too, but could not find what replaced the M4 half track.

I am coming to the conclusion that the Cav had only M84's with M30 4.2".

Battlegroups had a battery of M84 with M30. Looks like 81mms might well have been in infantry companies (6 tubes). In that case, they would have been humped, because the line companies had no organic M59 tracks (or trucks for moving line doggies). Those were under Div Trans Co and were parceled out on a mission by mission basis, if I understand things correctly. The exception were the carriers for the Dragoon sqds in the Div Recon Sqdn.

So, I am thinking the AC M84 really ought to be a 4.2" mortar.

On the M20, you might consider calling it "3.5 inch Rocket Launcher" (or some abbreviation). And the graphic for it should have a double arrowhead, to show it is a rocket system. This is really the minorest of quibbles. :)

_____________________________

Jeff
Sua Sponte

(in reply to WABAC)

Post #: 11

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 12/9/2014 9:29:16 PM

WABAC

Posts: 337
Joined: 1/25/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Mike Golf

Yeah, I spent about an hour looking for what was used to carry the 81's back then, too, but could not find what replaced the M4 half track.

I am coming to the conclusion that the Cav had only M84's with M30 4.2".

Battlegroups had a battery of M84 with M30. Looks like 81mms might well have been in infantry companies (6 tubes). In that case, they would have been humped, because the line companies had no organic M59 tracks (or trucks for moving line doggies). Those were under Div Trans Co and were parceled out on a mission by mission basis, if I understand things correctly. The exception were the carriers for the Dragoon sqds in the Div Recon Sqdn.

So, I am thinking the AC M84 really ought to be a 4.2" mortar.

On the M20, you might consider calling it "3.5 inch Rocket Launcher" (or some abbreviation). And the graphic for it should have a double arrowhead, to show it is a rocket system. This is really the minorest of quibbles. :)

According to the manuals I have from that era the company mortar section was three tubes. I will double check whether there was a dedicated mortar carrier, or they were just tossed in the back of an M59. Usually I try to confirm decisions from pictures in the manual. But what you say would explain the absence of a model number. I will look into organic transport for the weapons platoon if any. The Paras had the mechanical mule.

The next scenario features an infantry BG dumped in the Kinzig valley while the divisional truck company heads west. It is likely to be the 1/18th, under COL Glover S. Johns, since it rotated out of Berlin at the end of December (I think.) I am going to play around with fire teams for that scenario, just to see what happens.

[

I'll fix the graphic on the rocket launcher, but I think I'll go with Super Bazooka so people know what I am really talking about.

< Message edited by WABAC -- 12/9/2014 10:33:28 PM >

(in reply to IronMikeGolf)

Post #: 12

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 12/9/2014 10:05:42 PM

IronMikeGolf

Posts: 899
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline

Fair enough on all counts. I saw a discussion that said 30 tubes of 81MM per BG and 5 Rifle Companies per BG. I wasn't a Charlie, so I can't say whether swapping an M29 for an M30 in the M84 is doable my local MWO.

_____________________________

Jeff
Sua Sponte

(in reply to WABAC)

Post #: 13

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 12/22/2014 2:03:44 AM

WABAC

Posts: 337
Joined: 1/25/2014
Status: offline

Check the first post for an update to the scenario file. No need to mess with maps or their data files.

This update should address issues noted by Tazak and Iron Mike Golf over the course of development.

I look forward to seeing how it works with 2.08.

Thanks to Capn Darwin for technical support through out.

All mistakes are mine alone.

(in reply to IronMikeGolf)

Post #: 14

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 7/12/2015 10:21:02 PM

drhyed

Posts: 34
Joined: 4/23/2015
Status: offline

Ive played this several times and its been great fun... except for the always accurate Soviets counter battery fire! After getting a bit frustrated I turned things on so i could see everything and ran a little test. Within a 16 minute command cycle the following happens, I hit them 3 minutes into the command cycle with a salvo and in the remaining 13 minutes they were able to move one grid square and then fire TWO salvos of counter battery fire, I know there is a balance between realism and playablility but this seems completely unbalanced. Being pretty familiar with FA myself, jumping a grid square with towed tubes (at night in snow over unfamiliar countryside) and then getting off 2 salvos of extremely accurate counter battery fire all within 13 minutes isnt possible. I even tried to dig up information on counter battery tactics from the 1950's to justify things but came up empty. Can someone either share why/how the soviets would have been so deadly or at least share in my frustration since misery loves company lol!

Thanks
Jay

(in reply to WABAC)

Post #: 15

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 7/13/2015 12:56:44 AM

CapnDarwin

Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline

drhyde, one thing we'd need to know from WABAC is if he mad any adjustments to the national data to slow the arty mission times down to a 60s level for both mission times and between mission delays and also CB effectiveness. Odds are they are at the 80's defaults.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to drhyed)

Post #: 16

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 7/19/2015 10:45:02 PM

WABAC

Posts: 337
Joined: 1/25/2014
Status: offline

Soviet values have not been changed to reflect the last two or three updates, but right now they are at 4, 7, 8, 20 for the first four values, and no change thereafter. I really have no idea what numbers would be correct for the era. If anyone has any suggestions I am all ears.

The Soviets do have a crap-load of attached artillery.

Soviet OOB needs to be redone. After re-checking my sources, I realized that the Soviet tank units would not have been parceled out below company strength. I never had any trouble stopping the Soviets, so I am hoping this will give them a leg up.

For now I hope to get back in the swing of playing the game.

(in reply to CapnDarwin)

Post #: 17

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 10/10/2018 10:45:02 PM

WABAC

Posts: 337
Joined: 1/25/2014
Status: offline

The OP has an updated game file, and the pointer to the map now goes to the Matrix FTP site.

The Walkers have their main guns.

The M20 Super bazooka has its icon.

The Soviet ORBAT has been corrected so that no tank units are broken down below company size. There has also been some consolidation and simplification to reduce the number of units filling up the board. This particular scenario does not feature the full allotment of ZPU's and D-85's.

The US supporting artillery is now V Corps instead of VII Corps.

Artillery timings/detection have been degraded between 75-80% for both side. I did not change time in queue, because I do not understand those values.

AI artillery is now well behaved. Things may get more hectic when he has more targets under observation.

If you are playing from the US side you may want to turn off FSCC, because he will fire on mine explosions even if the units aren't under observation.

Hard to believe I've been away from the game this long. But it's nice to be back.

(in reply to WABAC)

Post #: 18

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 10/10/2018 11:59:33 PM

drhyed

Posts: 34
Joined: 4/23/2015
Status: offline

I�ll give it another try, I actually took 2 �breaks� since most of these posts and just started playing again in the last month or so myself again, and I agree it is nice to be back. Thanks for the effort to make the update!

Jay

(in reply to WABAC)

Post #: 19

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 10/11/2018 3:59:31 PM

WABAC

Posts: 337
Joined: 1/25/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: drhyed

I�ll give it another try, I actually took 2 �breaks� since most of these posts and just started playing again in the last month or so myself again, and I agree it is nice to be back. Thanks for the effort to make the update!

Jay

My pleasure.

I already have a map of the Knizig Valley in the can, and the US ORBAT on the map. So I just need to add the Russkies.

Then I'm going to try a smaller project on Highway 84 from Rasdorf to Hunfeld, after reading a google books excerpt of The Defense of Highway 84: Recollections of the Commander, B Troop, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment 1978 to 1980. It's a very detailed ops plan.

(in reply to drhyed)

Post #: 20

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 10/12/2018 6:51:57 PM

CapnDarwin

Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline

WABAC, the time in queue reflects how long a requested fire mission stays in the queue for the FSCC to assign to an available artillery or air support asset. The shorter the time the quicker old missions are dropped so newer mission requests can be performed. It can be used to reflect the command and control of the fires support chain.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to WABAC)

Post #: 21

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 10/12/2018 11:47:01 PM

WABAC

Posts: 337
Joined: 1/25/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CapnDarwin

WABAC, the time in queue reflects how long a requested fire mission stays in the queue for the FSCC to assign to an available artillery or air support asset. The shorter the time the quicker old missions are dropped so newer mission requests can be performed. It can be used to reflect the command and control of the fires support chain.

thanks Capn.

Not sure if I would want it longer or shorter for that time period. For the Soviets it probably hadn't changed much from WW2. And there is probably a ton of that stuff online. For the US side I would have to dig through the online editions of Artillery Trends.

Maybe for Southern Storm.

(in reply to CapnDarwin)

Post #: 22

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 10/17/2018 7:25:02 PM

Jo van der Pluym

Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline

Hello WABAC

Can you also post the National Databases of the scenario?

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
Crazy

Dutch

(in reply to WABAC)

Post #: 23

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 10/20/2018 7:41:10 PM

WABAC

Posts: 337
Joined: 1/25/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

Hello WABAC

Can you also post the National Databases of the scenario?

Well. They're kind of messy right now.

Lots of idiosyncrasies to suit the scenarios I am working on.

And I'm still wrestling with a few questions in my mind about protection factor and armor penetration numbers.

But, yes. I can post them once I get through my next scenario. I'm just working out the order of battle. So I hope to get it done this weekend or next.

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)

Post #: 24

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 10/21/2018 6:05:53 AM

Jo van der Pluym

Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WABAC

Well. They're kind of messy right now. Lots of idiosyncrasies to suit the scenarios I am working on.

And I'm still wrestling with a few questions in my mind about protection factor and armor penetration numbers.

But, yes. I can post them once I get through my next scenario. I'm just working out the order of battle. So I hope to get it done this weekend or next.

Thank you for youre reply.

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
Crazy

Dutch

(in reply to WABAC)

Post #: 25

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 11/8/2018 12:30:01 AM

WABAC

Posts: 337
Joined: 1/25/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

quote:

ORIGINAL: WABAC

Well. They're kind of messy right now. Lots of idiosyncrasies to suit the scenarios I am working on.

And I'm still wrestling with a few questions in my mind about protection factor and armor penetration numbers.

But, yes. I can post them once I get through my next scenario. I'm just working out the order of battle. So I hope to get it done this weekend or next.

Thank you for youre reply.

I need to create a silhouette for the M103 heavy tank, and then the US side will be ready for anyone to error check.

The biggest hurdle (besides life getting in the way of a good game) was finding numbers for the late 50's tank guns that seemed probable. The rule of 15 has been rigorously applied, with no rounding up.

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)

Post #: 26

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 11/8/2018 1:02:40 AM

CapnDarwin

Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline

Here ya go...M103 sil

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to WABAC)

Post #: 27

RE: New scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain - 11/10/2018 12:47:53 AM

WABAC

Posts: 337
Joined: 1/25/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CapnDarwin

Here ya go...M103 sil

Thanks for the art Cap.

I kind of ran into a cold and foundered on tactical fighter-bombers checking the numbers one last time.

(in reply to CapnDarwin)

Post #: 28

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> Mods and Scenarios >> Updated scenario January 1962 Rumble on the Grabfeld Plain

Page: [1]