My first scenario: BattleAxe 1941

[Siberian HEAT]

After doing some preliminaries for my Europe Aflame 42 scenario, I quickly realized there are too many things I am unsure about in the TOAW editor. :hmmm: Therefore, as practice I am going to work on a MUCH smaller scenario and have picked the BattleAxe operation of the Commonwealth forces against Rommel near Sollum and Bardia in June of 41.

Going to do 8-12 half-day turns (since the real battle was only 3 days long), 2.5km/hex, battalion size, with a map focusing on the area around Bardia, Ft. Capuzzo, and Halfaya pass region.

I have been trawling the internet for a good map of this battle, and so far have been unable to find anything that I would call reference quality. At the very least I would like to find a good large-scale topographic map of the area. Anyone have any suggestions? The US Military Academy maps aren't detailed enough

You would think since I have a degree in Geography finding maps would be the easy part of this endeavor! :laugh:

Any ideas appreciated!

 

[RhinoBones]

As a suggestion to get yourself started, use an existing TOAW map as a starting reference and rescale it to 2.5 K/hex. Even a 10 or 15 K/hex map provides enough information to block out the general area. When you eventually find the references you need, you can go back and fill in the details and correct the geography errors. You would not be copying the map verbatim, however you may want to consult the original author before you use the map as a reference. Who knows, maybe the original author has additional references and details.

Regards, RhinoBones

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

As Siberian well knows, Daniel´s Tobruk´41 covers the area with 2.5km hexes...I think there couldn´t be better reference to start with...

 

[Ben Turner]

Never use anyone else's scenario as a source unless as an absolutely final resort.

Try a modern atlas. Lybia's hardly been a paragon of modernisation- I don't think they've built any railroads since 1941 and any roadwork will simply have been in improving existing routes.

 

[General Staff]

Originally posted by Ben Turner
Never use anyone else's scenario as a source unless as an absolutely final resort.

I would have thought that with permission (and sources) this could be useful for all, providing the new author checks the sources.

It could circumvent reinventing the wheel on producing the map, plus the new author checking the sources of the original map would be doing useful work that might find its way into both.

 

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by General Staff


I would have thought that with permission (and sources) this could be useful for all, providing the new author checks the sources.

Really, one would want to get those sources (if possible) and use them directly. The original designer will filter the sources through their own opinions etc. We all do this- there's no point trying to deny it.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

When I pointed out that Siberian could use Daniel´s Tobruk´41 as a reference, it didn´t mean that I adviced Siberian to not use any other sources and copy Daniel´s map without permission.

 

[Red]

I suspect Mr. Turner is more worried about the quality rather than "copyright"...

This is the same Turner that in the TDG forum reacted when he felt that he was "patronised"...

Yes Ben, I'm mocking you and you probably dont care or understand why I'm doing it...

 

[Siberian HEAT]

Well, to clear things up of course I am well aware Daniel made Tobruk 41 I am using his map as a guide for my initial draft of the size and scope of my own smaller map...but because I prefer to have something that is more or less my own creation when it comes to a final product. I am sure Daniel's map is near perfect, but even if I create a map that is nearly the same as his I want it to be because I came to the same conclusions in my map interpretation as he did...and not just because I took the lazy route and copied it. Therefore, I am looking for as many original sources as I can.

By the same token, I don't have nearly the resources that Daniel did when making this map (he drove part of the battlefield for crying out loud!) so if there was ever a map that could be used as a source it would probably be this one. In this instance though, I feel the need to get my own sources so I can do the work myself, and also have a bibliographic reference to back myself up.

Thanks for the suggestions guys. I have gotten some private emails as well that have helped!

 

[General Staff]

Maybe ask Daniel for his sources? Having looked a little at this there's a fair bit of overlap in some net documentation on Crusader and Battleaxe.

I just hope nothing source-wise was Egyptian, particularly maps, which seem designed to keep you in the country as long as possible (fortunately there's the Nile). Tell your average Egyptian you're looking for something over 50 years old and show them a dollar bill and it's just amazing what they can rustle up in no time at all.

 

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Red
I suspect Mr. Turner is more worried about the quality rather than "copyright"...

This is the same Turner that in the TDG forum reacted when he felt that he was "patronised"...

Yes Ben, I'm mocking you and you probably dont care or understand why I'm doing it...

You're a real peice of work, aren't you Red?

An example of what I mean: for my Poland scenario, I used an Atlas, a scanner and ODD. This means that the map, in fact, is very much source-based rather than influenced by me personally- however there was a suggestion that I move the roads a bit so there are only TOAW bridges where there are real bridges. It's a minor example but it expresses the point well.

Again for the map, it can be a matter of opinion whether something is "light wood" or "forest"; "hills" or "mountains" etc.

Furthermore, in any scenario, you will never have 100% of the information from sources. It's one thing to randomise supply and readiness- quite another to be able to say that 2/5th Rajput was low on supply on 1st February 1944. However the guy taking your scenario as a source is not going to know which of the above you did. This is similar to the debate over on the wwii Turkish OOB thread about the validity of the OOB posted there.

As a footnote, of course one should always attempt to contact the designer before taking their scenario as a source, and credit them in the scenario briefing.

 

[JMS]

Grant proposed using Air charts which is probably the best way to go. There is also National Geographic's Map machine which has satellite images of the are, however there has been a lot of development in the area since the war due to oil discoveries.

 

[a white rabbit]

Originally posted by Ben Turner



Again for the map, it can be a matter of opinion whether something is "light wood" or "forest"; "hills" or "mountains" etc.

..a matter of period, then a matter of opinion..rivers have shrunk over time, or rather bridging equipement's got bigger..,

 

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by a white rabbit
..a matter of period, then a matter of opinion..rivers have shrunk over time, or rather bridging equipement's got bigger..,

Well the same river is the same obstacle if you haven't any bridging equipment at all. In fact I would say that for TOAW the same river should really be the same for all periods.

This comment does have some relavence for other terrain types- but of more importance are tracks and paths through hills or mountains that won't necessarily be marked on a lot of maps.

 

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by Ben Turner


Well the same river is the same obstacle if you haven't any bridging equipment at all. In fact I would say that for TOAW the same river should really be the same for all periods.

I have to disagree. If during ww2 bridging equipment could allow the easy crossing of rivers upto half a mile wide, but had signifigant diffculty with wider ones then dividing rivers between normal and superriver status at the half mile width would be reasonable. If by 1980 bridging equiptment had improved to the point that rivers upto a mile wide could be crossed before signifigant difficulty set in then not changing over to super river tiles until that point was reached would be the reasonable action. Bridging capabilities in my example are completely arbitary. Any resemblence to actaul capabilities is purely coincidental.

Also there're rivers that flood at one point of the year and dwindle down to a trickle at others. In these cases using a superriver for a battle during the sping thaw/monsoon and a normal river for scenarios set during the dryer period would make sence.

 

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Dan Neely
I have to disagree.

Whilst your point is valid in general terms, for TOAW in particular: ANY unit can cross a "river"- that means the defintion of a river is fixed. A super river is something that requires a certain amount of ferrying capacity to cross. Figure in the case of TOAW the way to account for this is to modify the ferrying units to meet historical reality: if a certain engineer unit would not be enough to cross a river that was too big to be crossed without engineers then reduce the ferrying capacity low enough so that it cannot do so in the scenario. This of course is conveniently another example of a reasonable design decision making a scenario a less than ideal source.

Also there're rivers that flood at one point of the year and dwindle down to a trickle at others.

Well that's part of the reason I said "the same river". The other is that Richard is known for his obsession with pre-1900 scenarios and of course rivers etc. have changed shape and size over longer periods of time.

 

[JAMiAM]

LoL...somehow, I don't think that Brian will have to worry about too many rivers in his BattleAxe scenario...:laugh:

 

[Martin Schenkel]

Originally posted by Siberian HEAT
Therefore, as practice I am going to work on a MUCH smaller scenario and have picked the BattleAxe operation of the Commonwealth forces against Rommel near Sollum and Bardia in June of 41.

I have some good British OOB info if you're interested.

 

[Red]

Tactical Pilotage Charts (TPC) is an excellent map source if you is willing to shell out. They cover most of the world in 1:500 000.

Go here to buy TPC charts in USA

... and in Europa

I recommend both sites as I have used them both...

 

[Grant]

In addition to Tactical Pilotage Charts, you can also use Operational Navigational Charts. Same thing essentially, but ONCs are at 1:1,000,000. They're a lot easier to use for creating large maps or maps at a greater scale than the TPCs. For a 2.5km/hex map, TPCs would be the way to go, though.