#3 The Road to El-Arish
 

Just wondering if anybody has ever just drawn this one as the Izzies. They have six light AMX-13 tanks, a few jeeps, four SPA pieces, three motorized infantry platoons and six planes. The Egyptians are dug-in with a mix of tanks, ATG's, mortars, MG's, B10 recoilless guns, and infantry along with some mines and barbed wire. Plus they get heavier tanks and more infantry as reinforcements.

Somehow the attacker is supposed to get TWICE as many points as the Egyptians. Is this even remotely possible? I couldn't even get half as many, suffering a marginal loss :(. Thanks and happy gaming.

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

It's not meant to be easy. However, I will put this on the list to test but if anyone HAS achieved the VC's let me know

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

Well, this--- http://balagan.info/egyptian-order-o...ab-israeli-war

seems to suggest that a lot of the Russian equipment that shows up as re-enforcements in this scenario wasn't there and any re-enforcements should be Shermans at best. There is NO mention of ISIII's or SU100's and they seem to think that there may have been 4 Archers there not 6 and that alone makes a big difference.

I'll poke around and see what else I can find out then make some adjustments so there is more of a chance to actually make those victory conditions

Don

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

Try this one and let me know how it went for you this time. I have NOT made it "easy" , This should not generate a walk over result but there have been adjustments that may bring it closer to the spirit of the declared victory conditions and perhaps use more historically accurate equipment on the Egyptian side

Don

EDIT......... I had intended to increase the number of game turns to 14 so before you play increase the turns to 14

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

It seems w/o the CD version any changes to the scenario are disabled so I can't increase the turns. Serves me right for being a cheap charlie--also living in PI makes ordering stuff problematic. Anyway thanks for the help; I'll have another go with the modified Egyptian OOB and see what happens. :up:

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

Use the in game editor

Load the scenario into the game editor
Press deploy for either side
Press the button on the right side of the screen that looks like a watch
Enter 14 then press enter on your keyboard
Press Quit deployment button
Press SAVE

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

May the God of Battles bless you sir for such precise and patient instruction. Even this old dog can be taught. Not sure it'll make much difference though. With only four tubes of arty and two smoke tanks it's a tough proposition. Last time--with ten turns only--I got creamed again. Wish me luck!

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

Took it that there were "who, what and where issues. Though it seems I'm a "A day late and a dollar short", here are two maps and index of symbols from the USMA at West Point, NY with unit ID in this case under the IDF Southern Command. And I included your source again showing the IDF OOB. Did find an interesting story about how 4 IDF P-51's were used to cut lines of communications using their props just ahead of the two main Para drops. It seems El-Arish was a site of a major air battle in the Sinai War and I couldn't find anything much on El-Jiridi.
http://balagan.info/israeli-order-of...ab-israeli-war
Is this ref worth keeping?

Maps from USMA (Click on maps 3x for largest view.):
Attachment 12706
Attachment 12708 Attachment 12707

Regards,
Pat

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

Well I'll be hornswoggled. Got a win out of it, pretty lopsided, too: 2201 to 376. Attached the last turn in case you're interested.


--SPOILERS BELOW--

Previous attempts at "cutting the corner" around the front northern trench stayed on the road too long. This time I high-tailed it into the desert with a wide right hook. A few vehicles got stuck in soft sand but most made it around to the side and rear of the enemy position. There was just enough smoke to mask the flankers--except for one unfortunate laggard :smirk:.

While this was going on planes and jets took out all the Archers while the sniper and a couple scout jeeps (!) dealt with the front-line ATG's. AMX's caught enemy armored reinforcements in the flank as halftracks and mech infantry swept through to the objectives. A strategy of indirect approach was vindicated yet again.

Appreciate your assistance Don; couldn't have done it without the extra four turns. Cheers. :up:

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

OK, I may been to tweak that a bit more. It's supposed to be difficult, but not impossible, to get that 2:1 victory. I don't suppose you have a save around turn 10 ?

Don

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

Try the same tactics with this version. A couple of small changes to the Egyptian set up and 2 turns less. Remember we are looking at the difference between victory or defeat at 2x the points for the Israelis and conditions like that should require you work for it

Don

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

Okey-doke, I'll give it a try later (after shopping with the missus). Sorry I don't have a save from turn 10 or earlier but I'll try to remember this time. Thanks again. Jon

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

Considerably more difficult this time. Got a draw, 1795 to 961. Again, I got so engrossed in the action I forgot to save earlier, just the last two turns :doh:. Sorry about that. The flyboys got most of the tank kills, all four Archers and one or two reinforcements. The AMX's got three IIRC.

OK gimme a break on El Arish for awhile :hurt:. There's a scenario (#63, El Firdan) I'd like to try again, along with its variant (#64) with more infantry and arty. Got a lucky draw on 63, haven't played 64 yet.

They're 10 and 11 turns respectively. You think it might be reasonable to bump them both up to 14 turns? The Egyptians have lots of ATGM's so otherwise a win chance is pretty remote.

Thanks again and have a happy. Cheers, Jon

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

That's not far off the victory conditions

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

Yeah, but as we used to say in the US Army, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades :-). A loss is still a loss, but maybe a better player could win it in 12 turns. Pretty challenging though.

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

I've set it to 13 turns now. I think that will do it. Thanks for the playtesting help, It should be challenging, not impossible

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

Yes 13 turns should be spot-on. Pleased to be of service. :up:

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

None of these scenarios are meant to be easy,the designers make them hard for the reason, they don't want to hear"it was easy" after putting so much work into it.

You could have used the scen editor to add more turns yourself, so no need to ask the devs to add more turns imo, just saying.

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

The scenarios in MBT seem harder than WW2. A lot of that is 'cuz of the post-sixties ATGM's I suppose, but even the earlier ones are tough (for me, anyway). Which is exactly how they should be.

As for the turn increases I was just meaning to ask Don if he thought it was reasonable for anyone to increase the turns on their own (I don't have the disc but Don kindly told me how to use the in-game editor). Those particular scenarios (#63 and 64) expect you to assault a position defended by malyutka teams, ATG's, infantry with RPG's, MG's and tanks.

They're 10 and 11 turns respectively--the variant gives you more infantry and arty too--which IMO is asking the impossible, at least for #63 (haven't played #64 yet). Fourteen turns each might give you a fighting chance for an MV. And yes, I've already bumped them up on my own; just waiting for positional memories to fade before having another go. Wish me luck, I'll need it.

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

Mr Blackard keeps time tight on a lot of his scenarios, I have not played any recently but there might be a good case for play testing & increasing the number of turns & putting timed objectives on at around 9-15.
Timed objectives are a very good addition which give you the need to hurry up.

Its up to you what the length is & in most cases adding a turn or 2 is fair enough, its just play balancing. Keep in mind some have become harder & some easier since they were designed due to changes in units etc.

If people do update them another thing to look at is just making some minor adjustments to deployment. A lot deploy the platoon leader to the front so just swap his position with the rear platoon unit. Saves spending the first turn with your platoon leader staying as is or even moving backwards to sort this.

63 is unwinnable its supposed to be, read 64s intro notes.
64 is still nigh on impossible, see if you can do better but what I did was send infantry forward, stick a vehicle over, see what fired & killed it. Then use your infantry to smoke so just engaging one or 2 targets & send the rest up.
Recon by death due to the time constraints.

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

65 is okay I got a marginal, lost 2 Sherman's & did not risk capturing last 3 victory hexes.
AI has 20 vision so be wary.

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

I would avoid scenario 73 I gave up after a few turns, facing superior armour & 5 Apaches.
Might try playing from the other side moving just the Apaches reckon you could get all the vehicles easy enough.

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

The intent of scenarios like that is replay value. You are challenged to try to do better the second time based on what you learned the first time. That said if you are handed your head on a plate there isn't a lot of incentive to have that happen again but so much of that depends on the player, his experience and his "morale". However, there have been a huge number of changes over the years and it doesn't surprise me that some of them may need a tweak to get back to the original intent of the victory conditions. However, that doesn't mean every scenario a players loses needs adjustment but in this case I felt #3 did and it really wasn't much. I've put 73 on the list to investigate


Don

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

[quote=jivemi;822977]I'll admit that it's a tough,but does every battle have to be balanced?
More times than not there totally not equal or the avantange swings to one side or the other,depending on numerical or just plain skill of the commander,look at Alexander he was always out numbered but still won.
There is alot research done on historical battles to make them accurate as possible i'm sure,and sometimes you are lucky not to get a major disaster:hurt:
I play it as it is most of time,adding more turns can make the difference,although not the way as the designer intended,but who's watching over you anyways;)

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

Thanks for the warning. It's a delay so it should be easier, but I played #62 Kuneitra--a defend for the Israelis--and "only" got a marginal. The Syrians managed to grab a VH west of the trench but there was still enough point differential for the win.

So far out of about 15 scenarios I've only two DV's to show for it: #1 Obong-ni Ridge and #50 Kalilah. Kalilah is Blackard's first AIW scenario and it's an assault, but it seemed heavily weighted in Israel's favor. It may well be historical, since they didn't seem to need their reinforcements (unless the Jordanians overrun the AO who's hanging out on a proverbial limb).

Anyway MBT is really fun, not to mention demanding of the godlike commander's skill, flexibility, and crisis management :).

@gila: No scenarios shouldn't have to be balanced. As you mention many historical battles were mismatches so this may be reflected in the game. Still, it would be nice to know sometimes if you're facing a seriously uphill fight.

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

Update--Finally got back to this venerable chestnut after an interval of 3 years. Still rather tough with 13 turns (3 more than the original) as it took two restarts and a reload on turn 4 in the last iteration after coming back cold from a real-life interruption. Very rewarding though to finally get into the chicken coop after a nerve-wracking desert end-run. Final score 2271:616 despite the loss of 3 tanks, 4 APCs and the usual sacrificial lambs.

Enclosed are some saves for illustration. Cheers and happy holidays!

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

I've found this thread while wondering, if anybody ever won with Israel :) I must admit I play not too often and first I obtained rather easy victory for Egypt. After changing sides, despite my efforts, the AI did the same for Egypt... ;) I gave it another try, and another, with several saves, and finally felt like the "Groundhog Day" - you learn what to do, but would you know it the first time?.. The problem is, that the Archers fire, but you can't see them for several turns, and then you're running out of time. Last time I was fortunate to locate them quite quickly, while sending the halftracks with part of SP artillery to the northern flank. The final result was a draw with some 1020:1500.

As a sidenote, Israeli para sniper has a sound of SMG or something like this - is it correct?

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

What you found was an error that is bordering on ancient.

The 4 Israeli Para snipers ( U430-U433 ) point the sniper rifle to sound 55 as the unitweapon Sound. Problem is.....there is no sound 55 in MBT and never has been so the game is picking the closest sound based on the weapon data for that rifle. Those units should be pointing to sound 61 like the rest of the Israeli snipers.

Now changed in the master. If you don't play secure PBEM you can change it in your OOB

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

This actually just reminded me of a funny error in MBT scenario 51 AIW: Bir Gifgafa 11/56. Israeli unit A1 is a jeep but when it moves it makes the sound of a horse. Not really a problem at all, more funny than anything else, but I thought you should know.

Re: #3 The Road to El-Arish
 

That's another on bordering on ancient. For whatever reason, the scenario designer decided the Jeep needed to be hobbled and for the speed he picked ( 6 ) the game thinks it's horse-drawn for that unit class.

I have corrected this by increasing the speed to 9. It's an easy fix using the in-game editor.

Thanks for pointing it out