Jump to content

Volcano

Moderators
  • Posts

    8,623
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    29

Everything posted by Volcano

  1. 23 FEB 2024: Future Wars-Viper-2024-5A-4379x (This scenario 5 of 5, round 1 (of potentially 4), of the ongoing campaign; anyone may join in progress). Last one for this "season" (round) and then 3 months from now we can assess whether we will continue to round 2. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? No (unless the teams are not balanced, or new players take part) Random CO selection? No Minimum # players: 8 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  2. Here are the points for A5. Note, there is a new method to determining Attachment Points, due to grumblings (and I wasn't happy with how it worked myself), and I think this system is much better and makes more sense. Now, instead of a drastic jump where you either have 1000 or 500, here is how it works... 6300 points is the minor victory level total, so the amount of points you get is based off of the % of your mission score compared to 6300. If for example in this past mission, BLUEFOR has a score of 4875, then that is 77.4% of 6300, which equals 774 points. So think of it this way -- the maximum is still 1000 and the minimum is still 500, but now that 1000 is gained when you reach the minor victory score (the score where a side has to hold objectives for 2x consecutive rounds). The idea is that once a side reaches the minor victory amount, then they are receiving the max amount of Attachment Points to help them win, or until pushed back. There are several benefits to this method: It allows a nuance to the distribution behavior, so it isn't such a drastic jump like the old method of an ON/OFF switch. You can use the Attachment Point value as a way to tell how close you are to winning a minor victory. In other words, BLUEFOR is 77.4% of the way towards a minor victory here. With that in mind, to be fair I will have to rectify the Attachment Point amount in the 5A scenario by recalculating what we would have gotten with this improved method in Scenarios 1A to 4A, but this shouldn't be too bad -- it actually doesn't change that much given the small number of scenarios so far. BLUEFOR For Scenario A5 (9000 - 4875), 4125 //total points - mission score +(4500 / 5), 975 //mission score bonus -(109 * 6), 654 //troops lost -190 //troops remaining -2042 //vehicle upkeep [30% of cost] -(50 * 3), 150 //non-attachment ATGM teams fielded -(100 * 1), 100 //non-attachment drone teams fielded +(125 * 0), 0 //attachment helicopter survival bonus +(35 * 0), 0 //attachment tank survival bonus +(25 * 4), 100 //attachment PC survival bonus +(15 * 0), 0 //attachment truck survival bonus =2064 //total Reinforcement Points & 774 //total Attachment Points (based on the mission score's % compared to 6,300 pts [the 70% minor victory total]; minimum 500 pts) (INITIAL) +63 //rectify Attachment Points based on new method S-2A,3A,4A: 615, 734, 714 = 2063 (what should have been received with the new method) - 2000 (what actually was received with the old method) & 837 //total Attachment Points (based on the mission score's % compared to 6,300 pts [the 70% minor victory total]; minimum 500 pts) (ACTUAL) A breakdown of total BLUEFOR force structure value between each scenario so far: A1 end 2 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 430, 1 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 40, 3 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 1800, 2 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 990, 1 x CV9040-B, 238, 238, Total= 3498 * .3 = 1049 A2 end 2 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 1200, 2 x Strv 122, 754, 1508, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 6 x CV9040-B, 238, 1428, 3 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 1485, 2 x M1064A3, 199, 398, 3 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 645, 1 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 40, Total= 7004 * .3 = 2101 A3 end 2 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 1200, 2 x Strv 122, 754, 1508, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 3 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 1485, 3 x CV9040-B, 264, 792, 6 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 1290, 4 x M1064A3, 199, 796, 2 x Cougar 6x6 w/HMG [MRAP L2], 91, 182, 2 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 80, Total= 7633 *.3 = 2290 A4 end 1 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 600, 2 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 80, 3 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 1485, 1 x Cougar 6x6 w/HMG [MRAP L2], 116, 116, 2 x Strv 122, 754, 1508, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 2 x CV9040-B, 264, 528, 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 4 x M1064A3, 199, 796, 4 x BTR-82A, 133, 532, Total= 6805 *.3 = 2042 OPFOR For Scenario A5 (9000 - 4125), 4875 //total points - mission score +(4500 / 5), 825 //mission score bonus -(89 * 6), 534 //troops lost -171 //troops remaining -2211 //vehicle upkeep [30% of cost] -(50 * 3), 150 //non-attachment ATGM teams fielded -(100 * 1), 100 //non-attachment drone teams fielded +(125 * 0), 0 //attachment helicopter survival bonus +(35 * 0), 0 //attachment tank survival bonus +(25 * 2), 50 //attachment PC survival bonus +(15 * 0), 0 //attachment truck survival bonus =2584 //total Reinforcement Points & 655 //total Attachment Points (based on the mission score's % compared to 6,300 pts [the 70% minor victory total]; minimum 500 pts) (INITIAL) +221 //rectify Attachment Points based on new method S-2A,3A,4A: 813, 694, 714 = 2221 (what should have been received using the new method) - 2000 (what actually was received with old method) (ACTUAL) & 876 //total Attachment Points (based on the mission score's % compared to 6,300 pts [the 70% minor victory total]; minimum 500 pts) (ACTUAL) A breakdown of total OPFOR force structure value between each scenario so far: A1 end 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 2 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 310, 2 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 1130, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 3 x BMP-2, 160, 480, 2 x BTR-82A, 133, 266, 1 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 52, 52, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0] w/AT-13 teams, 180, 540, Total= 3938 * .3 = 1181 A2 end 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 2 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 310, 2 x BM-21 Grad, 115, 230, 1 x BM-27 Uragan-1M w/DPICM, 620, 620, 1 x TOS-1A, 490, 490, 1 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 565, 1 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 150, 1 x BMP-2, 160, 160, 1 x BTR-82A, 133, 133, 1 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 52, 52, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0] w/AT-13 teams, 180, 540, Total= 4110 * .3 = 1233 A3 end 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0] w/AT-13 teams, 180, 540, 1 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 565, 1 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 150, 1 x T-72B3 (no TIS); T-80U m.1992, 485, 485, 3 x T-72B1 ERA, 415, 1245, 1 x BMP-2, 160, 160, 1 x BTR-82A, 133, 133, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 52, 156, 2 x TOS-1A, 490, 980, 1 x Tigr-M SpN HMG [MRAP L1], 67, 67, 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 3 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 465, 2 x BM-21 Grad, 115, 230, 1 x BM-27 Uragan-1M w/DPICM, 620, 620, 1 x *Medic, Tracked, 71, 71, Total= 6727 * .3 = 2018 A4 end 1 x *Medic, Tracked, 71, 71, 1 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 565, 1 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 150, 3 x TOS-1A, 490, 1470, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 64, 192, 1 x T-72B3 (no TIS); T-80U m.1992, 485, 485, 3 x T-72B1 ERA, 415, 1245, 1 x Tigr-M SpN HMG [MRAP L1], 67, 67, 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 3 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 465, 6 x BM-21 Grad, 115, 690, 1 x BM-27 Uragan-1M w/DPICM, 620, 620, 2 x Ural-4320/Eng w/RPG-26, 99, 198, 1 x BMP-2, 160, 160, 1 x BTR-82A, 133, 133, Total= 7371 * .3 = 2211
  3. 15 FEB 2024: Future Wars-Viper-2024-4A-4379x (This scenario 4 of 5, round 1 (of potentially 4), of the ongoing campaign; anyone may join in progress) SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? No (unless the teams are not balanced, or new players take part) Random CO selection? No Minimum # players: 8 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  4. Yes, the GAS is a damage type, and vehicles have this applied to appropriate areas. The issue is that the GAS is usually heavily protected, so for it to get damaged then you likely have all sorts of other problems (most GAS sights are protected from small arms fire, either by their small size and location, or thickness of glass - which we are generous here, since we don't really model a cracked/damaged state, it either works or is blacked out). So, for a GAS to be damaged, it likely means you took a larger round impact in the area, which probably means you have other serious damages, or even vehicle destruction. I the case of the T-72, there is no GAS, at least on the older types. You the GPS and the unity sight (forward vision block, essentially) so really, it is quite vulnerable in that regard (in a duel) with no protected backup sight, really.
  5. Scenario A3 MAP NOTES: Shaded color: Previous front line trace from the side that pushed it forward; shading is the color of the side that gained the terrain Arrows: Rough avenues of advance w/ size and type of unit; darker arrows are repelled advances Scale: Zoomed in map of the front line (the full map is in the first post in this thread) OPFOR attacked on the south and southeast of Jegum, and BLUFOR counterattacked in the same area. Most of the fighting occurred inside of the town with indiscriminate artillery strikes on the town from both sides. Despite some losses, BLUFOR was able to hold on to Jegum, with OPFOR only able to recapture OBJ S01. An additional OPFOR infantry probe occurred from C07 to N06 that met with some limited success, but failed to take significant ground. Losses: BLUEFOR 1x M1A1(HA) 3x CV9040-B 79x personnel Heavily damaged vehicles (out for one mission): 2x CV9040-B OPFOR 1x Typhoon MRAP 109x personnel
  6. Certainly all that is possible in SB, apart from the fact that the tank crew will not decide to abandon the vehicle. But perhaps, one day in the future, the AI crew could decide to abandon a vehicle and that could be based on a 'crew quality' setting, with "elite" crews never doing so (death before dismount and all that). But firing 50+ autocannon rounds at a tank at point blank range will certainly damage sensors, blind and in some cases disable, a tank in SB. Another thing we should consider one day is modeling damage on the smoke grenade launchers where the smoke rounds may detonate or fire off when hit, which seems to happen, perhaps infrequently, on both sides. As a side note, what I find funny is the narration of these videos. In most you can tell that they do not really know much about the subject matter. Still, the videos are interesting. I think what SB shows is what we are seeing now -- usually if a tank is in a knife fight with an IFV, then usually the tank will lose. It is almost (but not nearly) as bad as a tank being point blank range with infantry. The primary goal of a tank crew is to avoid a knife fight with anything but another tank, and to totally avoid infantry as much as possible.
  7. Since I have the point systems worked out (% of cost method), I was able to calculate this faster. Here are the points for 4A... (I'll work out mini-AAR map image later) BLUEFOR For Scenario A4 (9000 - 4500), 4500 //total points - mission score +(4500 / 5), 900 //mission score bonus -(79 * 6), 474 //troops lost -149 //troops remaining -2290 //vehicle upkeep [30% of cost] -(50 * 3), 150 //non-attachment ATGM teams fielded -(100 * 0), 0 //non-attachment drone teams fielded +(125 * 0), 0 //attachment helicopter survival bonus +(35 * 0), 0 //attachment tank survival bonus +(25 * 0), 0 //attachment PC survival bonus +(15 * 0), 0 //attachment truck survival bonus =2337 //total Reinforcement Points (previous was 2237) (INITIAL) +100 //rectify +100 points because of score error in Scenario 2A's previous total =2437 //total Reinforcement Points (ACTUAL) & 500 //total Attachment Point (OBJ score is currently tied at 36 OBJs each; neither side has a higher score!) A breakdown of total BLUEFOR force structure value between each scenario so far: A1 end 2 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 430, 1 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 40, 3 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 1800, 2 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 990, 1 x CV9040-B, 238, 238, Total= 3498 * .3 = 1049 A2 end 2 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 1200, 2 x Strv 122, 754, 1508, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 6 x CV9040-B, 238, 1428, 3 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 1485, 2 x M1064A3, 199, 398, 3 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 645, 1 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 40, Total= 7004 * .3 = 2101 A3 end 2 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 1200, 2 x Strv 122, 754, 1508, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 3 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 1485, 3 x CV9040-B, 264, 792, 6 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 1290, 4 x M1064A3, 199, 796, 2 x Cougar 6x6 w/HMG [MRAP L2], 91, 182, 2 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 80, Total= 7633 *.3 = 2290 OPFOR For Scenario A4 (9000 - 4500), 4500 //total points - mission score +(4500 / 5), 900 //mission score bonus -(109 * 6), 654 //troops lost -143 //troops remaining -2018 //vehicle upkeep [30% of cost] -(50 * 3), 150 //non-attachment ATGM teams fielded -(100 * 1), 100 //non-attachment drone teams fielded +(125 * 0), 0 //attachment helicopter survival bonus +(35 * 0), 0 //attachment tank survival bonus +(25 * 5), 125 //attachment PC survival bonus +(15 * 0), 0 //attachment truck survival bonus =2460 //total Reinforcement Points & 500 //total Attachment Points (OBJ score is currently tied at 36 OBJs each; neither side has a higher score!) A breakdown of total OPFOR force structure value between each scenario so far: A1 end 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 2 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 310, 2 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 1130, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 3 x BMP-2, 160, 480, 2 x BTR-82A, 133, 266, 1 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 52, 52, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0] w/AT-13 teams, 180, 540, Total= 3938 * .3 = 1181 A2 end 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 2 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 310, 2 x BM-21 Grad, 115, 230, 1 x BM-27 Uragan-1M w/DPICM, 620, 620, 1 x TOS-1A, 490, 490, 1 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 565, 1 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 150, 1 x BMP-2, 160, 160, 1 x BTR-82A, 133, 133, 1 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 52, 52, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0] w/AT-13 teams, 180, 540, Total= 4110 * .3 = 1233 A3 end 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0] w/AT-13 teams, 180, 540, 1 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 565, 1 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 150, 1 x T-72B3 (no TIS); T-80U m.1992, 485, 485, 3 x T-72B1 ERA, 415, 1245, 1 x BMP-2, 160, 160, 1 x BTR-82A, 133, 133, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 52, 156, 2 x TOS-1A, 490, 980, 1 x Tigr-M SpN HMG [MRAP L1], 67, 67, 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 3 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 465, 2 x BM-21 Grad, 115, 230, 1 x BM-27 Uragan-1M w/DPICM, 620, 620, 1 x *Medic, Tracked, 71, 71, Total= 6727 * .3 = 2018
  8. Scenario A2 MAP NOTES: Shaded color: Previous front line trace from the side that pushed it forward; shading is the color of the side that gained the terrain Arrows: Rough avenues of advance w/ size and type of unit; darker arrows are repelled advances Scale: Zoomed in map of the front line (the full map is in the first post in this thread) BLUEFOR advanced, taking 6 objectives (C01,02,03, and N03, S01). OPFOR had planned to attack in the same area that BLUEFOR attacked, and so a battle developed immediately, and OPFOR had all sorts of misfortune that followed. Most notably, a platoon of T-80U arrived for an attack that was now a defense, arriving too close to the fighting and was ambushed immediately and destroyed. Instructions were also misunderstood and a BMP-2 and T-72B3 rushed into the city to assist, and drove right into an infantry ambush and was destroyed. OPFOR held as best they could but was overwhelmed in the town in the confusion that followed. Losses: BLUEFOR 2x Cougar MRAP w/HMG 1x CV9040-B 1x 2S3 Akatsiya 1x Munin (Adv.) UAV Team 111x personnel Heavily damaged vehicles (out for one mission): 2x M1A1(HA) 1x Strv 122 w/APS 1x CV9040-B 1x 2S3 Akatsiya OPFOR 3x T-80U (T-72B3 w/o TIS) 1x T-72B3 w/APS 2x BMP-2 1x BTR-82A 3x BRDM-AT 1x Tigr-M w/HMG 149x personnel
  9. 09 FEB 2024: Future Wars-Viper-2024-3A-4379x (This scenario 3 of 5, round 1 (of potentially 4), of the ongoing campaign; anyone may join in progress) SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? No (unless the teams are not balanced, or new players take part) Random CO selection? No Minimum # players: 8 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  10. Well, it is because that CV9040 gun is more powerful (170mm KE RHA penetration versus 110). There is an actual literal cut off point where the AI decides "no". And even if the AI fired on the vehicle that it could *damage but not kill*, there would be a complaint that the AI damaged the vehicle to the point of all it could accomplish (all the damages it could achieve), yet continues to fire and not kill the threat, using up all the ammo. So then the AI would have to be aware (cheat) of whether or not it damaged the target sufficiently, then stop wasting ammo. Or the AI could be cleared to fire a portion of its ammo, not re-engaging again unless the target fires, perhaps. Or it could be that the AI is allowed to fire a % of its ammo in self defense like this, but save the rest for targets it can kill. In the latter case, the user would not know what is going on, and would think that is a bug. There is no easy solution here, as either behavior causes a problem - and the current behavior is designed to be the lesser of evils, but not perfect of course. The current behavior is that these vehicles are expected to operate with other entities that can kill the tank (whether it is infantry with RPG and ATGMs, or friendly tanks). The AI doesn't waste any ammo on things it cannot kill, but yes, you end up with edge cases where the vehicle is alone and the AI could damage a threat but not kill it, and it doesn't attempt it at all, nor is it able to ascertain that a threat is damaged sufficiently enough to stop wasting ammo (most humans do not know that either, granted, but they usually have a gut feeling on when they are wasting ammo). In order to make the AI "smart" in that regard, it would take a lot of conditions to evaluate, which would not always be the same in every situation. It is certainly a difficult subject.
  11. Took me a while to get to process the points this time, because a flaw was discovered and I had to work out an improved system, which I think I have here (keep in mind this is a prototype test of the campaign, to possibly run it again later with improvements like this -- we are essentially testing it). In the first version of the idea, the "upkeep" was a flat rate value for every tank, PC, truck, helicopter. The flaw that was discovered is, that this 'keep it simple' idea doesn't really work well here, because there is no incentive to acquire the "cheaper" equipment. So what you end up with is OPFOR "paying" the same "upkeep" (which is an abstraction for spare parts, ammo, fuel, etc) for 10x tanks if they were T-72B1s, as opposed to 10x tanks from BLUEFOR even if they are Strv 122s for example. This does not make sense, because a more advanced vehicle would have higher maintenance requirements, more expensive spare parts, usually better ammo to resupply, and so on. This especially doesn't make sense if you think about if both sides reach a max force size that they can sustain upkeep on, because at that point the number of vehicles would be the same, where the side that fields the cheaper value equipment would need be able to field a larger sized force. So, after some discussion with BLUEFOR CO, I have a better "upkeep" system devised, this time based on the % cost of the total force. ATGM and drone teams are still handled separately, but all non-attached vehicles now have an upkeep cost based on their total value. This way, more expensive equipment has higher logistics expense than cheaper things do. It works out pretty well I think. The current upkeep value of 30% is based on test calculations which determined that it should be something between 25-33% in order to have something close to the old costs for the mid-capable vehicles of their respective types. This number might change later, with more experience, but it should be pretty solid. With that in mind, I had to rectify the upkeep costs from Scenario 2A, however, to "balance the books" so I adjusted the Scenario 3A total with that in mind. It ended up subtracting additional points from both sides for this next scenario. BLUEFOR For Scenario A3 (% of cost method) (9000 - 4625), 4375 //total points - mission score +(4625 / 5), 925 //mission score bonus -(111 * 6), 666 //troops lost -148 //troops remaining -2101 //vehicle upkeep [30% of cost] -(50 * 3), 150 //non-attachment ATGM teams fielded -(100 * 1), 100 //non-attachment drone teams fielded +(100 * 0), 0 //attachment helicopter survival bonus +(35 * 0), 0 //attachment tank survival bonus +(25 * 3), 75 //attachment PC survival bonus +(15 * 1), 15 //attachment truck survival bonus =2125 //total Reinforcement Points (INITIAL) -646 //rectify % cost upkeep from 2A (total points received should have been 4027, not 4673) =1579 //total Reinforcement Points (ACTUAL) & 1000 //total Attachment Point A breakdown of total BLUEFOR force structure value between each scenario so far: A1 end 2 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 430, 1 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 40, 3 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 1800, 2 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 990, 1 x CV9040-B, 238, 238, Total= 3498 * .3 = 1049 A2 end 2 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 1200, 2 x Strv 122, 754, 1508, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 6 x CV9040-B, 238, 1428, 3 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 1485, 2 x M1064A3, 199, 398, 3 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 645, 1 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 40, Total= 7004 * .3 = 2101 OPFOR For Scenario A3 (9000 - 4375), 4625 //total points - mission score +(4375 / 5), 875 //mission score bonus -(149 * 6), 894 //troops lost -70 //troops remaining -1233 //vehicle upkeep [30% of cost] -(50 * 3), 150 //non-attachment ATGM teams fielded -(100 * 1), 100 //non-attachment drone teams fielded +(100 * 0), 0 //attachment helicopter survival bonus +(35 * 0), 0 //attachment tank survival bonus +(25 * 0), 0 //attachment PC survival bonus +(15 * 0), 0 //attachment truck survival bonus =3053 //total Reinforcement Points (INITIAL) -408 //rectify % cost upkeep from 2A (total points received should have been 2716, not 3124) =2645 //total Reinforcement Points (ACTUAL) & 500 //total Attachment Points A breakdown of total OPFOR force structure value between each scenario so far: A1 end 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 2 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 310, 2 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 1130, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 3 x BMP-2, 160, 480, 2 x BTR-82A, 133, 266, 1 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 52, 52, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0] w/AT-13 teams, 180, 540, Total= 3938 * .3 = 1181 A2 end 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 2 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 310, 2 x BM-21 Grad, 115, 230, 1 x BM-27 Uragan-1M w/DPICM, 620, 620, 1 x TOS-1A, 490, 490, 1 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 565, 1 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 150, 1 x BMP-2, 160, 160, 1 x BTR-82A, 133, 133, 1 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 52, 52, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0] w/AT-13 teams, 180, 540, Total= 4110 * .3 = 1233
  12. So the person thought that AW's armor or ammo data was more realistic than SB. That's a good one! 🤣 Jokes aside, what it is really about is how confident does a developer feel with their numbers? We feel very confident in ours, and in the few areas we don't we revise periodically. If the AW developer feels confident in their values, then good for them.
  13. 02 FEB 2024: Future Wars-Viper-2024-2A-4379x (This scenario 2 of 5, round 1 (of potentially 4), of the ongoing campaign; anyone may join in progress) SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? No (unless the teams are not balanced, or new players take part) Random CO selection? No Minimum # players: 8 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  14. Takes a bit of effort to create these scenarios, but I would like to provide a sort of weekly re-cap to what happened in the previous mission, if time allows. Scenario A1 MAP NOTES: Shaded color: Previous front line trace from the side that pushed it forward; shading is the color of the side that gained the terrain Arrows: Rough avenues of advance w/ size and type of unit; darker arrows are repelled advances Scale: Zoomed in map of the front line (the full map is in the first post in this thread) OPFOR advanced, taking 9 objectives (C01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08 and N03). OPFOR attempted to attack further but was stopped just north of the central east-west river. New "gray zone" is established along the north side of Jegum to Nibro Gas Plant. Losses: BLUEFOR 1x M2A2(ODS) 2x CV9040-B 77x personnel OPFOR 2x T-72B3 w/APS 107x personnel AAR is TEMPORARILY attached here for one week, until the next mission (when it will be deleted).
  15. I agree. Ideally no two maps should be named the same (but of course obviously there is no way to control that, unfortunately). Do you happen to know what folders those two "ScaniaSE" maps are in? I might be able to force a name change here, assuming they are both in the install. Otherwise, if one is officially installed and the other is "out in the wild" then we can possibly track that one down too - but it may not be easy. If they are both in the install then it could have been an oversight when all the maps were converted. 🤔
  16. Thanks to everyone for playing. It was very tense. 😬 When discussing the # of troops lost, I was looking at the wrong numbers. In case anyone is wondering troop casualties were actually: BLUEFOR: 77 OPFOR: 107 Also, in case you are wondering about the Reinforcement and Attachment Points calculation for the next mission, then here is that info. I checked it multiple times but if anyone sees an error then PM me please (the text in the briefing has the formula, so anyone can check this with the report document if you desire - but keep in mind the UAV costs in the formula were adjusted/simplified after that scenario/briefing version, all else is the same)... BLUEFOR For Scenario 2A (9000 - 3875), 5125 //total points - mission score +(3875 / 5), 775 //mission score bonus -(77 * 5), 385 //troops lost -112 //troops remaining -(120 * 0), 0 //non-attachment helicopter upkeep -(60 * 5), 300 //non-attachment tank upkeep -(40 * 4), 160 //non-attachment PC upkeep -(20 * 1), 20 //non-attachment truck upkeep -(50 * 3), 150 //non-attachment ATGM teams fielded -(100 * 1), 100 //non-attachment drone teams fielded +(60 * 0), 0 //attachment helicopter survival bonus +(30 * 0), 0 //attachment tank survival bonus +(20 * 0), 0 //attachment PC survival bonus +(10 * 0), 0 //attachment truck survival bonus =4673 //total Reinforcement Points & 500 //total Attachment Points OPFOR For Scenario 2A (9000 - 5125), 3875 //total points - mission score +(5125 / 5), 1025 //mission score bonus -(107 * 5), 535 //troops lost -111 //troops remaining -(120 * 0), 0 //non-attachment helicopter upkeep -(60 * 6), 360 //non-attachment tank upkeep -(40 * 12), 480 //non-attachment PC upkeep -(20 * 2), 40 //non-attachment truck upkeep -(50 * 3), 150 //non-attachment ATGM teams fielded -(100 * 1), 100 //non-attachment drone teams fielded +(60 * 0), 0 //attachment helicopter survival bonus +(30 * 0), 0 //attachment tank survival bonus +(20 * 0), 0 //attachment PC survival bonus +(10 * 0), 0 //attachment truck survival bonus =3124 //total Reinforcement Points & 1000 //total Attachment Points In summary, BLUEFOR will receive +1689 more than OPFOR for replacements ...and OPFOR will receive +500 more Attachments ...in the next scenario. To put things into perspective, in the Future Wars "Adder" campaign (the 3-part high intensity attack/defend "mini campaign"), the attacker received 5,000 Reinforcement Points, and defender received 3,000 Reinforcement points each scenario, so the "economy" math is about right. I'll see about making a post showing the new front lines, when/if I have time. But actually, might just attach or give a link to the AAR when I upload the next map image. Let's see what happens...
  17. Right, as mentioned in the game (just answering here in case anyone else is wondering)... About 45 min for planning, and ~ 120 minutes for the scenario (+/- 6 min). No problem, just play when you can and and if you can't make it some games that is OK.
  18. If anyone is interested in the how the Planning Phase will work, here is some info about that: Planning will start as soon as we are ready to do so, and will last until TGIF time +1 (which is 2100 CST +1 = 2200 CST). The mission will start immediately at TGIF+1. The good thing about this is that it sets a certain time the mission will begin, allowing the COs to better manage their time. If both COs agree to start before TGIF+1, then the mission can start earlier (they can PM each other or send a text when complete). However, there is no obligation to start the scenario early - each CO is granted the full time if needed. Once the Planning Phase begins, we cannot save the plan and go back to the Assembly Area (for technical reasons, because otherwise the deployment zones will not be correctly limited in all cases). This means that unless the CO dropped (obviously), anyone that drops during Planning Phase will just have to listen to the plan in the channel, and rejoin once the scenario starts. We can make exceptions here, but this is how it will be typically done. There can be no pre-mission saved plan usage (by providing the scenario early), because I want to completely avoid a frequent situation where a CO's saved plan file is broken because I may had to fix something broken in the scenario at the last minute. Also, this avoids a technical issue with deployment zone assignments, of which this campaign has quite a number of complex deployment zones on each side. So in other words, when a CO is purchasing their obstacles, keep in mind that you will only be able to place them during the normal planning time limit. It is recommended that you load any version of the scenario before game time, and create a Map Overlay of map graphics, and plan out where you want your minefield belt and fortified AREAS, and where units will be located, etc. It is perfectly fine and suggested to pre-plan with Map Overlays, these will work fine. Obstacles and fortifications that are new to the current scenario will not be visible to the enemy side in the Planning Phase. However, in the following scenarios those obstacles and fortifications (that now can no longer be re-deployed) ARE visible to the enemy in the Planning Phase (thanks to the AAR, and we can simulate all this as gathered intel). This allows both sides to plan deliberate attacks on how to breach fortified areas.
  19. 26 JAN 2024: Future Wars-Viper-2024-1A-4379a (This is scenario 1 of 5 of the campaign mentioned before) SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? No (unless the teams are not balanced) Random CO selection? No Minimum # players: 8 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  20. 19 JAN 2024: Warlords of Paderborn-4268-smaller-FMU SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes Random CO selection? Yes Minimum # players: 8 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  21. The two factions in this campaign are BLUEFOR and OPFOR. BLUEFOR being modeled loosely on UA and OPFOR being modeled loosely on RU as the theme, but obviously this is not anything historical - more of an attempt to model a tactical situation that so few in NATO actually train for, and we never scenario. Just as before, every single soldier and vehicle has value, based on these sort of nebulous "points", that we have used before which seems to work quite well. Think of the "points" as a sort of requisition cost, when it comes to either logistics or high level planning allocation of resources. Units available to the BLUEFOR side are restricted to the textures available in the .../woodland/UA nationality folder. IMPORTANT: In the SB Lobby of TS, there is a "UA Texture Pack.zip" file available, which are official textures created for the next version of SB. These are made available there, and if any of them are added then the file will be renamed accordingly (v2, v3 etc). Feel free to download those scenarios and extract to your ...textures\woodland\ua folder, whether you are participating or not. The first part of the campaign will be Tankhunter as BLUEFOR CO, and myself as OPFOR CO. As mentioned above, if we find that it is entertaining to continue, then we will resume another "Round 2" of up to 5 more missions later in the year, with the same sides, but someone else on that side will be the acting CO. Idea is that if it ends in a draw then the current CO's are relieved of duty for failure. 😂 We will leave the sides open for people to choose from, so choose wisely the side you will want to stay on. No flip flopping to the winning side later - UNLESS it is required to re-balance the sides as participants might come and go between "rounds".
  22. OK, I created a thread here: Let's see what happens. Flop or success, who knows - it's all part of the fun.
  23. As mentioned in the TGIF thread, the idea is to start a new TGIF campaign on either the 19th or 26th of this month. The start date depends on finalizing a few details with the mechanics of how it will work, the math behind it, and some things still needed on the map (and of course work -- this is all done during my "free time"). This thread will cover details of that campaign so that it isn't lost in the TGIF thread. Future Wars-Viper 2024 This is sort of a continuation of the Future Wars-Adder 2023 mini-campaign that we played previously. FW-Viper will build on those mechanics, but instead of a OPFOR attack versus BLUEFOR defense of FW-Adder, this one will attempt to model a conflict that has transitioned into a stalemate situation. The general idea is that the campaign will be played in parts, each of up to 5 scenarios. As before, losses will carry over, and the Unit Cost Calculator will be used to "purchase" vehicles. The "Points" used to purchase vehicles are sort of directly representative of resources provided to the commander by a high command that rewards performance, and adjusts to the situation. There will also be the temporary "Attachments" gained to support the next scenario, but are removed after the completion of that scenario. NOTE: The map used is the "Oksbol 50x50c" map created by DK. Other differences from FW-Adder, to represent the stalemate situation: BLUEFOR and OPFOR are neither the attacker nor the defender. The situation is a stalemate, and both sides are attempting to break that stalemate by gaining momentum, capturing objectives and moving the front line forward. Whether this happens methodically, or as a coordinated breakthrough type offensive, is up to both sides. The idea behind this is to reflect current ongoing conflict, and how tactics change in such situations which we rarely attempt to simulate in scenarios. Unlike FW-Adder, where a high intensity offensive was being played out in 3 linked scenarios all happening the same day, each scenario in FW-Viper occurs and then there is 50 hours of time passing in between (for time drift across the 5 scenarios). Time and weather will change to reflect this. The base amount of "points" received by each side depends on how many of the objectives are held by each side. The side that has more objectives receives less "points" than the side that has less objectives, which represents high command sending more resources to the area to turn the situation around. Still, the side that has more objectives will receive other advantages, however, but will receive less base "points" because resources are being taken and sent to other sectors that are not performing as well (think of a broad front line where the situation is a stalemate like this). "Points" paid for infantry losses are 2x FW-Adder, to represent manpower shortages typical in a stalemate situation. "Points" will be required for logistics - for living soldiers, vehicles remaining, and for dismounted ATGM teams that have high-demand ammunition (the scenario briefing will have the formula for all this). Objective control is handled differently. To represent a stalemate situation, when a non-neutral objective changes hands, it is owned by the side that captured it but the deployment zone only extends into the near side of the objective, not the entire objective. The rest of the objective is then the neutral "gray zone" between both sides, where only recon from both sides can deploy. Once the front line is pushed beyond said objective, then the deployment zone will encompass it entirely. This is done to establish a gray zone buffer in between, and also to prevent a side from immediately fortifying the entire area in the next scenario after an objective was captured. Instead of there being objectives determined for each missions, the objectives are static, constant throughout -- 32 objectives per side, with 8 in the middle, each worth 125 points (for a total of 9,000 points). The math behind this was actually worked out in the FW-Adder mini-campaign, by totaling the base points for the attacker and defender there. If a side controls 70% of the objective points for two consecutive scenarios then they will win a Minor Victory and the campaign ends (any break between the 5 scenario round cancels this). If a side controls 75% of the objective points then immediately at the end of that scenario the side wins a Major Victory and the campaign ends. If neither happens by the end of the 5th mission, then it will be considered a Draw. If a Draw occurs, and most importantly if we had fun playing it, then the map will cleaned up of destroyed vehicles (50% of non-burned out AFVs will return to the starting force if located in friendly territory), and it will be saved to resume in the Spring as "Round 2", with the Round 1 situation as-is. The sides would be the same, with the same forces, but the CO would be changed as well as the map theme (season). The idea being that the front line went inactive for a a few months before starting up again. This would then continue until the end of 2024 or until a side won. In this way, the attempt is to model a stalemate type conflict in parts, rather than attempting to represent anything remotely realistic in one sitting, of something like 15-20 scenarios. Think of each "round" as being up to 5 scenarios, with a maximum of 4 rounds total. So, let's see how it turns out. If it is fun then this can be something we play periodically over time, or if not then it will be a one-off thing. Either way, it should at least be entertaining to try out something different. I'll use this thread to provide summary report of each scenario, and make any announcements.
×
×
  • Create New...