PDA

View Full Version : A brief little aar/tactical observation post


Pillar
03-26-2006, 10:23 AM
Beware of armor/armour spelling changes. I try to write for the American spelling to avoid the teasing, but I split in a "u" every now and then. Eh? :D

Played my first multiplayer match Friday night, had a good time.

The scenario we played involved US forces pushing towards a small city with Iraqi armor and troops inside. The US forces were supposed to push them out of the city.

The red team played very well tactically. (I have no idea how they did on the technical/excecution side of things.) They were right to keep their armor and most of their forces inside the city. They brought some armored cars needlessly to the front of the city, which ended up dead for the most part. But mainly, they kept their tanks in dug-in positions within the city commanding roadways and intersections, supported closely by infantry. This set them up for advantageous little ambush and flank shot encounters with US tanks or infantry (mech + dismounts) inside the city where, game-wise anyhow, there is little cover but lots of difficulty with LOS and support.

They used their artillery well but probably targeted the wrong things. This is really the key arm the enemy has for dealing with superior armor - the idea being to immobilize/damage enough of them so that the attack stalls out, forcing the BLUEFOR to either accept typically unacceptable casualties for an attack without close armor or to call it off, try again. Instead RED was calling artillery on troops in the open, which BLUE (mistakenly) provided. Taking that opportunity actually makes fair sense in real life, where inadequate infantry close support and unnaceptable personnel losses can stop an attack. In SB it doesn't have those desired effects. They also had repeating barrages on the main functioning bridge, but once the barrages ended each wave, it provided a very safe and predictable crossing opportunity for BLUE.

BLUE had a decent plan for the approach to the city, lots of bounding overwatch and supportive fire to get the force in safe. Where the enemy did show up with maneuver units, they were dispatched fairly quickly and without much loss. Where BLUE screwed up was trying to send squads of dismounted infantry on a 1km+ walk into town over open ground. These troops were eliminated again and again by enemy artillery. With the tanks providing the overwatch, the Bradley's really need to be used to get the troops up safe. If red armor is feared call for smoke, or pick approach routes with poor LOS down the streets the tanks might cover. But when RED has on-call artillery, it's safer than crossing the open ground. (If cover was available, things might be different.)

Most of the infantry was eliminated entering the city. Due to the nature of SB though, once in the city, the fight was focused primarily on piloting our tanks and searching street by street for enemy armor. Knife fighting. It was fun, if a little ackward to control. Most of the US forces were holding back outside of town (primarily due to lack of players to control them) during the remainder of the time.

Rest was pretty standard street by street searching and clearing. Pac-Man with tanks. 8) The one whole squad that was in the city reported engine noises and tank spottings for BLUE when that was available.

Generally teamspeak is a must. I could hear but don't have a mic yet, so I couldn't talk. I found getting player's attention on text-chat was pretty hard. Also, I had a hard time hearing what people were saying over the noise of battle -- do you guys generally adjust the volume of TS way higher than the game's volume?

All in all had a good time. I hope the aar/observations were interesting.

1stADCavScout
03-26-2006, 04:37 PM
Generally teamspeak is a must. I could hear but don't have a mic yet, so I couldn't talk. I found getting player's attention on text-chat was pretty hard. Also, I had a hard time hearing what people were saying over the noise of battle -- do you guys generally adjust the volume of TS way higher than the game's volume?

I'm a gamer from way back in many different games over several leagues and ladders. I run 2 computers. I got my gaming rig that does nothing but play games. My "support" computer handles IRC/ teamspeak/ ventrillo/web browsing. When actively playing a game I need to communicate in over TS, I wear headphones with a boom mic and have assigned the "push to talk" key to the spacebar. Then I put that cpu's keyboard on the floor and activate my mic with my foot, leaving both hands free to play! :P

Lone*star49
03-26-2006, 06:18 PM
I'm a gamer from way back in many different games over several leagues and ladders. I run 2 computers. I got my gaming rig that does nothing but play games. My "support" computer handles IRC/ teamspeak/ ventrillo/web browsing. When actively playing a game I need to communicate in over TS, I wear headphones with a boom mic and have assigned the "push to talk" key to the spacebar. Then I put that cpu's keyboard on the floor and activate my mic with my foot, leaving both hands free to play! :P
...

And I thought I was way ahead of the game by using Battledog to run and get me another beer, or sandwhich, or answer the phone and take a message, or give one.. GRRRR!!!! don't call back.. EVER!!!!


LS :lol:

Ssnake
06-28-2006, 11:00 PM
They used their artillery well but probably targeted the wrong things. This is really the key arm the enemy has for dealing with superior armor - the idea being to immobilize/damage enough of them so that the attack stalls out, forcing the BLUEFOR to either accept typically unacceptable casualties for an attack without close armor or to call it off, try again. Instead RED was calling artillery on troops in the open, which BLUE (mistakenly) provided. Taking that opportunity actually makes fair sense in real life, where inadequate infantry close support and unnaceptable personnel losses can stop an attack. In SB it doesn't have those desired effects.
Well, that's a matter of scenario design as well as (if BlueFor is being controlled by humans) adequate role-playing. Most multiplayer sessions tend to be a game of "Last man standing" which it would never be in real life.

For example, in the "Time limit" menu of the mission editor you can also add a "Blue end mission, if... (infantry) < (40) (percent)" condition. That way the mission would automatically end if Blue lost more than 60% of the dismounts.

Hackworth
07-01-2006, 12:23 AM
Welcome to MP! And thanks for the AAR...

BTW: never worry about the armour/armor thingy. You can even say "boot" or "lorrie" and we'll understand ;)

Check out Team Speak for multiplayer games too chief. Also, you might want to alter your email addy - to something like meemailaddy(AT)someISP(DOT)com. that way bots that roam the net looking for email addys don't find you and spam you harder than you already are being spammed.... those bastards.

Oh nm, I didn't read all the way. But, if you aren't using the PE/SB TS lobby then you should check it out.