Weeding Out Silly Scenarios...

[HotTom]

I've downloaded a ton of scenarios for the Abrams and the Bradley (no offense to the Leos, I'll learn them next). And I've been working my way through them. If I lose (and I usually do), I rethink the tactics and try again (without doing an AAR so I can see the opposing forces).

Some of them are great and doctrinally very correct (the Team Yankee series gets two thumbs up!).

But some of them are ludicrous. No commander in his right mind would fight a battle under those conditions.

I don't mind getting killed a lot. That's happened in every new sim I've learned as a noob. I'm sitting here alone. My ego isn't at stake.

For those who don't recognize my avatar, it's the badge of the 17th Lancers, which led The Charge of the Light Brigade (and stuck around as a tank unit until 1992 when numbered cavalry units were abolished in the British Army).

The 17th charged the Russian cannon with 145 men and only 38 came back. I'm not even doing that well in some of the SB scenarios :D

I just spent half a day trying to reach an objective in one scenario (I won't name any names). Closest I got was two infantrymen left alive within sight of the goal.

Finally, I reran the AAR from the red side. The red tank platoons defending the objective outnumbered my attacking platoons by more than two to one. The MR platoons outnumbered mine by almost three to one.

I don't care how concentrated a "Guderian Fist" I made, there was no way I could ever punch through that many enemy AFVs. In real life, I wouldn't even try.

I seem to remember from my days as both a student and later an instructor at Fort Leavenworth that an attacking commander is supposed to concentrate his forces so that at the point of attack the defending force is outnumbered, ideally by a ratio of at least 3 attackers to one defender. Take a look at FM 3-0 (used to be called FM 100-5) "Operations."

"We must select for our attack one point of the enemy's position...and attack it with great superiority, leaving the rest of his army in uncertainty but keeping it occupied....Frederick II doubtlessly won the battle of Leuthen only because he massed his small army together in one place and thus was very concentrated, as compared to the enemy." A fellow named Clausewitz wrote that in his Principles of War, which is the basis of FM 3-0.

If this sounds like a bit of a rant, I plead guilty. Hopefully, it's not a whine :D

What's the point of having the most realistic tank sim ever, if the scenarios are pure fantasy?

HT

[Grenny]

Yapp, 3 on 1 is the best ration for the attac...at least thats was what I was told at "school"

Some sce designers put in more enemy so the player has more to shoot at(thats only my guess)

As there are many different designers...sce quality differs a lot. At the end its down to the "consumer" to pick the ones he thinks are ok.
Or, just create some of your own!

[GaryOwen]

A rant, true. Nevertheless, it's an apt one. The difficulties in designing, what have come to be called 'realistic' scenarios, are IMO threefold.

First, the terrain modelling, although vastly improved from SB1, is too simplified for different patches of dirt or asphalt to have appropriately differing tactical value. Scenario designers now have plenty of tools to use on the terrain to restrict movement more realistically than was ever possible in SB1, so this point is probably now more of a case of the scenario designers and mappers being behind the learning curve, than it is a case of the game itself.

Second, the amount of work it takes to account for a player's probable course of action and then program an apparently intelligent AI response is immense. Using the mission editor, try and figure out a way to write a company sized meeting engagement scenario where the AI tries to fix and then flank the player's main body. Conceptually it's simple, just use regions and conditional routes branching from the main axis of advance. But you're going to need to condition your branching routes using some algorithm for determining whether you've made contact with the main body, and you're going to need branching routes for every likely point of initial contact to every possible axis for a flank attack. On a map big enough to have enough space for just a little bit of meaningful manuever, that's likely to be over a thousand conditional routes.

Third, there is a vast difference in the amount of skill amongst the people playing in handling a single tank or platoon. There are people playing these scenarios that are so skilled with the game's user interface that they can likely handle a single tank well enough to reliably take out AI tanks until they run out of ammo. There are also people who'll get hit every time without knowing where it came from. Those who stick with it, though, will become skilled enough to eventually almost always beat the AI in an even engagement. That's the reason for the shooting gallery scenarios.

The solution is, again IMO, for community members with some experience in real world tactics to start writing scenarios. Two benefits to this are that it is much more interesting and challenging to program the AI to act in a doctrinally 'correct' or tactically intelligent manner than it is to play scenarios that you find irritating, and that the rest of us might learn a thing or two.

[BRGillespie]

3 to 1 odds in our favor is doctrine for all combat arms branches, isn't it? Infantry operations scale the force upwards by a factor of 3 depending on how many enemy personnel we'll likely encounter (squad vs. platoon, platoon vs. company, company vs. battalion or brigade, etc).

I'd give a go at creating scenarios, but... I love the Brad, and the "realistic scenarios" I could present would probably be fairly boring. Along the lines of cordon and searching a city with a 2 sections of Brads and a platoon of dismounts.

[SquidLord]

I'd give a go at creating scenarios, but... I love the Brad, and the "realistic scenarios" I could present would probably be fairly boring. Along the lines of cordon and searching a city with a 2 sections of Brads and a platoon of dismounts.
Actually, that sounds kind of interesting, especially if you pitch it as a training exercise and discussion of how to <i>do</i> a cordon and search.

[BRGillespie]

That's... actually an interesting way to do it. I've got nothing but spare time; I'll give it a shot! ;)

[SquidLord]

That's... actually an interesting way to do it. I've got nothing but spare time; I'll give it a shot! ;)
More useful education for all of us unable to get the first-hand knowledge. :)

(Though my friends have all decided that in case of zombie apocalypse or other major disaster, I must be protected at all costs purely for military knowledge.)

[Grenny]

Well, I plan to come up with a MG-gunnery training...will be boring to, but may be helpfull.

Next I'll try is a "Sturm und Einbruch" Sce. from the "old days" where we all trained for WWIII...

[GaryOwen]

Well, I plan to come up with a MG-gunnery training...will be boring to, but may be helpfull.

Here's a quick one I did a while ago with some soft targets at known ranges for a flex mount.

[Grenny]

Here's a quick one I did a while ago with some soft targets at known ranges for a flex mount.

Thats what I had in mind too...so no need for me to reinvent the wheel ;-)

[GaryOwen]

Thats what I had in mind too...so no need for me to reinvent the wheel ;-)

So I suppose that you can start right away on the Sturm und Einbruch.

[Hackworth]

Yapp, 3 on 1 is the best ration for the attac...at least thats was what I was told at "school"

Some sce designers put in more enemy so the player has more to shoot at(thats only my guess)

As there are many different designers...sce quality differs a lot. At the end its down to the "consumer" to pick the ones he thinks are ok.
Or, just create some of your own!

Actually, this has been much debated here. IMHO, 3:1 would only be sufficient if I were Gen. Eisenhower planning the invasion of France or North Africa. It's more likely that you will want to increase the old 3:1 ratio to as much as possible in a tactical situation. 10:1 would be my preference :mrgreen: I like to make coop/sp missions with a greater than 3:1 ratio if being attacked. But, when I make scenarios where the player is attacking, I might weigh those odds against him, i.e. attacking with a 1:2 ratio. It's more challenging than overwhelming the AI with a greater supperiority, IMO. But, I do agree some designers put some really high ratios against the player when he's called to attack. Much more than any rational commander would require of his men. Sometimes, this exess is no fun for the players at all. But, you might be surprised how many people love to take on missions where the player is asked to defend against insane odds; for instance, taking on Fulda Gap versions with huge armadas of T-80s crashing down on our poor 2 or 3 companies.

One way to make up for a lack of overall superiority in numbers during a coop/sp scenario is, if possible, to concentrate on one part of the enemy's defenses. The designers can't plan for everything, and it's likely that the designer didn't plan counter-attacks when the AI is defending. (Unless I made it ;) ). So, you attack locally with a numerical superiority and roll up their line attacking each smaller group.

Great post Gary O.

[HotTom]

LOL, none of us who ever did a tour in Germany staring up the Fulda Gap (in my case in an extremely thin-skinned MP M-151 armed with one M-60) would have "loved" to see huge armadas of T-80s descending on us :D The Soviets would have swallowed West Germany in one bite.

If the two sides violate the minimum 3:1 doctrine, that's okay. But that should be pointed out in Paragraph 1 of the OPORDER, IMHO. What prompted this thread was a mission (see the original post) that I played three times, the last time concentrating my forces on an avenue of approach that was so narrow that it couldn't happen in RL. It was only after I was wiped out that third time that I checked the AAR and saw how many reds I was facing. Needless to say, it's no longer on my hard drive. Maybe once I gain some skill at this sim, I will get into suicide missions. :)

BTW, Hack, one of my old Army buddies and still one of my best friends worked for your namesake in Vietnam. He said the first time he met Hackworth he thought he was total BS. "Within three days I would have followed him anywhere," he told me. Hack was the real deal. I really miss his column since he died.

S!

HT

[Grenny]

Actually, this has been much debated here. IMHO, 3:1 would only be sufficient if I were Gen. Eisenhower planning the invasion of France or North Africa. It's more likely that you will want to increase the old 3:1 ratio to as much as possible in a tactical situation. 10:1 would be my preference :mrgreen:



Well, numerical superiority isn't allways the point.
If you look at the battle at the "Seelow heigts"(just east of Berlin) the thing thats slowed the Sowjets down (most) was that they threw in way too mayn troops...effectifely creating an "amour traffic jam".
This battle was much discussed at tac-school, in view of effective force deployment.

[BRGillespie]

Exactly. 3-to-1 is preached because its a fairly controllable number. If you get into the huge operations, let's say you've committed yourself to a battle against an enemy armored battalion, so you've brought along an entire brigade in response.

Ask any of the military guys in here... military operations can be confusing at the platoon-level. When you hit the company-level, it gets even worse. Battalion-level sized operations (all the way up to brigade and higher sized operations) are full of so many little parts that it becomes controlled chaos. How anything ever gets accomplished is an amazing feat in itself. :)

[Grenny]

Exactly. 3-to-1 is preached because its a fairly controllable number. If you get into the huge operations, let's say you've committed yourself to a battle against an enemy armored battalion, so you've brought along an entire brigade in response.

Ask any of the military guys in here... military operations can be confusing at the platoon-level. When you hit the company-level, it gets even worse. Battalion-level sized operations (all the way up to brigade and higher sized operations) are full of so many little parts that it becomes controlled chaos. How anything ever gets accomplished is an amazing feat in itself. :)

...Only works 'cos Bn Commanders don't have to do everything for themselfes...they get a Staff to do most of the planning work ;-)

[Hackworth]

...Only works 'cos Bn Commanders don't have to do everything for themselfes...they get a Staff to do most of the planning work ;-)

That's also why Soviet companies don't get used separately from their BN or even regiment much - the staff isn't there, the ability to think and act on their own isn't provided. The Sov BN gets applied more like a US company or team. Hell, no one but officers even have a map, so a platoon would never get used the way we use them here (in BLUFOR). If you think about it - some situations aren't really that fair even when numbers are for you, or likewise against you. Imagine you have a company of M-1's to hold off a BTR-80 regiment. The only problem you will have is running out of ammo... Likewise, attacking 2 enemy tanks with a full company of tanks/brads is a 7:1 ratio... That is what I was eluding to by concentrating in one area. Taking the enemy down in little bites with a big mouth. by the time you're done, you ate a horse. But, the "how" all comes down to METT.

HotTom (I feel so weird typing that... anyway), yea, Col. Hackworth was a soldier's soldier for damn sure - a killer in a world of "lovers, fighters and killers." That's why I've used his name in sims for over 7 years. ;) I even emailed him and got his permission when I caught some flak over it. (People where saying he wouldn't approve... lol. well, he did.) Later, I met him at a book signing and he was quite a presense and is definitly missed. Fulda Gap huh? You and Gary Owen will get along just fine ;)

BTW: IMO, it's always "controlled" chaos as much of an oxymoron as that is, and as much as one can actually control anything. And don't forget, the larger the organization, the more staff and the more lower echelon staff there is to control their units and make sure there are no cluster...traffic jams. It's not as if the DIV CG has to radio each one of his 13 BN commanders and issue orders...

[HotTom]

Sri, Double post.

HT

[HotTom]

Hack:

"How The Army Is Organized 101": Staff NEVER controls subordinate units, commanders do. Staff plans but it NEVER gives orders (or "commands," hence the term "commander.")

And commanders only give orders to subordinate commanders one level down.

"Span of Control" is one of the weaknesses of large SB scenarios. In real life, that DIV CG has three Brigade Commanders, a DIVARTY commander and a DISCOM commander to give orders to. The Bde CO has two to five Battalion commanders. Each Bn CO has three or four company commanders, etc.

That's a reasonable span of control. The Army considers five subordinates about the most any commander can deal with. In fact, Harvard Business School does, too :). Even a humble TC has only three subordinates.

In a battalion scenario, as Bn CO, I have to control 15 to 20 platoon size units plus call arty. Thats FAR too big a span of control and totally unrealistic.

In my admittedly limited experience with this sim, a reasonable span of control ends at playing the role of company commander. It really seems to work best at platoon leader level. In either case, the span of control is four, which is just about optimal.

Battalion-size Scenarios that require me to position and move and fight more than a dozen individual platoons are just not the way it's done. Any more than three to five, and a commander is grossly task overloading.

Which is another point of this thread: This sim was designed for small unit operations. In Falcon 4.0, (my long-time flight sim passion), the largest formation you can command is a four-plane flight. That's it. Same size as a tank platoon. Sure, in F4 there's a huge and (usually) doctrinally correct campaign going on in the background, but it's all AI. SB doesn't have that. It was designed for training individuals, crews and small unit commanders.

At some point soon, I'll try my hand at writing scenarios. I guarantee they all will be playable only at company or platoon level. There may be many other friendly units involved, but they will be totally AI, their roles will be written into the story line and the person playing the scenario will have a reasonable span of control.

Trust me on this. I've written many, many tactical scenarios in the RL Army, but no commander at any level (up to and including EAC or echelons above corps) gives orders to more than (roughly) four or five subordinates.

BTW: What's weird about Hot Tom? Since this is my first ground sim, I didn't want to use the same handle I have in every flight sim, which I have flown for more than a decade. Actually, I borrowed it from one of my dogs. Hot Tom was one of the fastest and winningest greyhounds in the history of Arizona dog racing. He's retired and sleeping on my couch as I type this. :)

I'm retired and sometimes fall asleep on the couch, too. It seemed appropriate.

HT

[BRGillespie]

I think he meant as a "Wow, you're so hot, Tom"-weird way.

[RecceDG]

Geez HT, I'm coding as fast as I can. :)

For the most part, I completely agree with you, especially when it comes to span of control. And armoured squadron + (3-4 troops of tanks, plus OC and BC, plus recce) seems to be about the upper limit - and that is helped somewhat by being effectively two units (player controls recce until the enemy positions have been located, then positions recce in computer-controlled overwatch positions and jumps into the armoured squadron)

Larger units *can* be effectively player-controlled, but typically in the defensive, and if the enemy attacks in a phased manner such that the player's instant span of control is a squadron-ish - ie, he's not conducting battles over the whole map.

I do wish people made more use of the download rating system and feedback in general. I get next to no feedback about my scenarios and so don't get to find out about the shortcomings people identify. I can't fix what I don't know about.

DG

[DrDevice]

RecceDG - the current system is a bit antiquated. It's not a simple affair to offer constructive criticism on scenarios, and a simple rating system isn't really enough for a scenario designer to act on.

I agree that a better rating system would be nice, but I think SB.com would need some added features to do it. Having something like a survey, with 5 or so areas of interest (briefing quality, ease of setup, ease of execution, overall score, etc.) that are rated on a scale from 1-10 might make the feedback easier/faster for the user and more useful for the designer. It could still include free-form comments, just not rely on them completely.

This is something I had thought about when hosting scenarios on a separate website; using a web form for feedback on a given scenario. (The time-suck issues nixed it though)

[CommC]

I played three times, the last time concentrating my forces on an avenue of approach that was so narrow that it couldn't happen in RL. It was only after I was wiped out that third time ...

Just because you couldn't win it with concentration of force tactics doesn't mean it is unwinnable or the scenario designer is stupid.

You could try it with covered approaches, fix and flanking maneuver, cover by smoke or arty, etc.

Also, just because one side enjoys numerical superiority doesn't mean the scenario is unbalanced. One side could have equipment advantages, terrain advantages, etc. I suggest you be a little more cautious before discarding scenarios as "unrealistic".

[DrDevice]

Sure, numerical balance does not equal scenario balance.

Expecting a unit to attack a defensive position with less than numerical superiority is doctrinally incorrect for just about every modern military in the world, however. It’s not a realistic situation to begin with.

So it's not "they had more stuff and that made it unrealistic." It's "they had more stuff and in RL it would be stupid for us to attack under those conditions." In other words - the scenario is designed poorly unless you are trying to demonstrate how NOT to execute an attack. The scenario may still be fun, well executed and have a great map, but the basic premise is off.

IMO scenario balance if the purpose is an enjoyable game should mean "both sides have an equal chance of winning if they plan well and execute well." Numbers, terrain, victory conditions and equipment all factor into those, but do NOT have to be identical for this to work! This applies to SP and MP. It does not apply to training or historic scenarios attempting to simulate a specific set of conditions.

HotTom is 100% on target with the "span of control." I have been saying for years that having single players running whole companies robs this sim of 90% of its realism. The very best players I've seen only operate 3-4 vehicles at a time, and basically just good at keeping the other stuff out of harms way just long enough for them to hop in the turret when things get hot. I am perfectly happy in a 1-platoon-per-player world, and even a 1-per-tank world. I think it enhances the immersion and leverages the strengths of the sim.

I think the trend toward large units is a factor of the brutal, short nature of the game. It takes so long to get a game going, that you feel awfully cheated when you spend 15-30 minutes of set up, then 10 minutes of creeping around in game, to be blotted from the landscape by an unseen enemy. That 40 minutes is wasted if that is your only tank. It’s not a good game play experience. (And if you are playing for fun, what could be more important?) Hence, 1 platoon seems a good blend of practical control and game fun. Alas - the days of people controlling 10-14 tanks plus support vehicles are far from gone with ProPE.

[HotTom]

CommC,

That's why I purposely didn't name any name any specific scenarios. It's not my intention to make anyone look foolish or hurt their feelings.

It IS my hope that some scenario authors will take real life doctrine into account. That's what separates a "sim" from a "game."

It IS also my hope that scenario writers will take "span of control" into account. A scenario in which I have to micromanage a dozen (or dozens) of platoons and individual attached support vehicles just isn't realistic. Instead of fighting the battle, with a large unit to micromanage I find myself spending all my time watching the map and making adjustments. In terms of unit training, it appears to me this sim is really designed for platoon-level fighting. Some (not all) of these scenarios are forcing me to fight them on a map like a battalion commander rather than from a tank as a platoon leader.

For example, I just spent over an hour on an attack of a town and, as you suggest, I avoided the obvious avenues of approach and took my company-size combined arms team with attachments and recon vehicles (about 18 various units and individual vehicles to supervise) down a back route, using bounding overwatch, from which the Reds never detected me from my Assembly Area to my Attack Position.

Two of my recce vehicles survived and were watching the town from good vantage points. They never reported seeing any enemy in the town.

We attacked with a solid fist preceded by a heavy artillery barrage and obscured by smoke. In the AAR, I watched from the red side. My Blue arty and my Blue tanks knocked out about half the Red tanks on the objective and they STILL outnumbered me by more than two to one. In no way was a I going to take that town.

I admit I'm a noob to this sim and still learning. And I never was a tanker in RL. But I was an MP (which in combat is like Humvee-mounted infantry) LTC and a tactics instructor at a senior service school and both a company commander and battalion commander. There is absolutely no way I would try to attack a dug-in enemy battalion with a single company. I would either put arty and smoke (and air strikes if they were available) on the objective and bypass it or dig in and call for reinforcements.

If I'm making some of you think about how you design scenarios, this thread is achieving its goal. Again, I'm not trying to flame anyone.

And, as the title of this thread suggests, I'm just weeding out the silly scenarios from my downloads and keeping the good ones (and there are LOTS of really good ones!). I'll try my own hand at designing some shortly and offer them for your comments :)

Aloha,

HT

[CommC]

I would be the 1st to agree with you that there are plenty of baloney scenarios out there, starting with the original SB1 demo, which had the player with one tank navigate down a route lined with ambushes, outnumbered 5 or 10 to 1. I just don't want you apply the "bad scenario" label when you have only used what most of us consider to be "novice" tactics of brute force up the middle.

There seems to be a disconnect between "real life" tanking where the company is the typical smallest maneuver unit, and yet in SBPPE, effectively moving and fighting a company is a near impossible feat. I have always been an advocate of trying to get people to use the built in friendly AI features to try to control a company in a fight, but I realize the AI is not (and may never be) close to as good as human control. (However, I think at times the AI spotting and gunnery is better than mine.)

I still think we shouldn't shy away from scenarios that rely on the AI, as battles on this scale seem to be more prevalent in and representative of "real life" situations.

[BRGillespie]

I skip scenarios that have me controlling an element larger than a company, and tend to just control a single platoon when in a company-sized scenario. I send some general waypoints to the AI-controlled platoons, then go and control my chosen platoon.

Controlling a massive battalion/brigade sized scenario invariably leads me to frustation when my carefully-constructed plan in which I spent 30 minutes plotting routes (and battle positions and "embark if" "retreat if" conditions and everything else) falls to shit.

I hate micromanagement.

[Volcano]

True, although some of the better multiplayer scenarios do consist of multiple companies. I agree though, playing a scenario by yourself with more than a company is extremely difficult unless you plan on playing strictly from the map.

Speaking of which, I am going to bring back an updated Deliberate Assault 02 scenario to the 'classics', hopefully in the next update. That is the one from SB1 where we had the german company and US company attacking a soviet MRB with another MRB in reserve.

[Ssnake]

I'd like to comment on two issues Three-to-one ratios
It's a nice formula, and may still have a meaning at operational level. At tactical level however we'll see what I'd call "granularity" - you can be facing odds like 10:1 or even higher and still be victorious under certain conditions - because a strictly numerical force comparison doesn't tell everything. We need to take into account combat multipliers, e.g.
- Thermal imagers
- Marksmanship
- inherent weapon system accuracy
- standoff advantages (including artillery)
- terrain selection
- morale

All these may tip the balance in favor of one side. Even with parity in weapon systems (human male Mk I, pointy stick & shield) the Spartans at Thermopylae could have held the pass despite a numerical inferiority well in excess of 10:1, had there not been treason involved.
3:1 is a nice rule of thumb, and I guess people are a bit fixated on it because it's a catchy slogan, but if we care to look we'll find many examples where this ratio didn't matter, so it's about as good as any other figure that one could throw into the debate. Doctrinal accuracy of scenarios
The majority of Steel Beasts scenarios are NOT doctrinally correct (well, may depend a bit on which doctrine you're picking, but still). At least the majority of public scenarios. Steel Beasts is a tool for armies to create their own content for training purposes. They may or may not share the results with the public (looks like they don't, on average), so it's mostly up to the hobbyists to produce scenario files.

How many of the (public) mission designers have a background of years of tactical instruction? Even if they served, the question remains to which degree they have a full picture of what is required to trigger an accurate intelligence picture (force template) in a scenario?

Instead, most mission designers try to create something that's fun. We need to acknowlege this inherent limitation of our "work force".

I tried to select the majority of scenarios that we sent out with SB Pro PE for doctrinal accuracy (doesn't apply to all of them), but even then my understanding of doctrinal accuracy may be at odds with yours, or it may be outdated (I received training for classic WP steamroller situations, one and a half decades ago - and last I heard was that the overall situation has changed a bit).


Last but not least, scenario design is time consuming if you try to be innovative and doctrinally accurate, and if you try to set up proper timing for computer controlled forces on the move. It's probably best to leave meeting engagements to team on team multiplayer sessions, but even then both opponents should have a good understanding of doctrine to "play be the rules".

Finally, as much as I learned to like "doctrinally correct" scenarios I can see a danger that we may be fixated a bit too much on this issue in wargaming in the face of non-linear battlefields and irregular, decentralized forces that may share an ideology and basic weapons, but who do not necessarily follow the laws of regular maneuver warfare.

[Ssnake]

In my admittedly limited experience with this sim, a reasonable span of control ends at playing the role of company commander.
My words, for years. Still, some people simply like it big.
The solution: Multiplayer sessions. Which only makes sense if all participants try to stick to the same realistic mindset, and procedures.
Battalion-size Scenarios that require me to position and move and fight more than a dozen individual platoons are just not the way it's done. Any more than three to five, and a commander is grossly task overloading.
While I basically agree, people often underestimate the amount of planning that they can do before hitting the Start button, and the amount of work relief that proper planning offers.

[Ssnake]

It IS my hope that some scenario authors will take real life doctrine into account.
Try anything by "LtHenkel". the "Byto" series HoH pt I & II Stryker Ambush Are They Attacking Here? HMMWV recce
Most of them are Leopard/Marder scenarios since most of them were from "my" group of German mission designers who either are better qualified than I am (LtHenkel, James Sterrett), or where I tried to coach the mission design process to get things reasonably right. Didn't always work out, but overall I'm rather happy with these.

[Grenny]

Try anything by "LtHenkel". the "Byto" series HoH pt I & II Stryker Ambush Are They Attacking Here? HMMWV recce
Most of them are Leopard/Marder scenarios since most of them were from "my" group of German mission designers who either are better qualified than I am (LtHenkel, James Sterrett), or where I tried to coach the mission design process to get things reasonably right. Didn't always work out, but overall I'm rather happy with these.

I realy liked the HMMWV recce...
Hope someone makes more like it ;-)

[RecceDG]

Try "Lt Perkins I Presume"

DG

[HotTom]

DG, Lt Perkins (BTW, who is he???) is a perfect example of a really good small unit mission. I just managed my vehicle -- I didn't spend the whole mission head down in the (oops -- almost said "cockpit," too many years in flight sims :) ) tank maneuvering two dozen units on a map instead of fighting the battle right outside.

Snake, I've noticed over the years that almost every thread on a sim forum can be reduced to gamers versus simmers. I consider myself a hard core simmer. So, when I design missions (I have one almost completed; the first one really is a chore but I'm learning :) ) I am going to rely heavily on doctrine because that's how armies really fight (the ONLY problem with doctrine is that it often is based on fighting the LAST war instead of the NEXT war).

Yes, it is once-in-a-very-great-while true that a small attacking force under very rare circumstances (Santa Anna's troopers were grossly overconfident and caught sleeping when the smaller Texas Army under Sam Houston whupped them at San Jacinto, not a battle often studied in Germany, I suppose) can beat a much larger defending force by employing better weapons, tactics, surprise etc. but it's not very likely. David versus Goliath was the rare exception to the rule: A big man will always beat a smaller man.

For many years during the Cold War, the phrase "Fight Outnumbered and Win" was very popular among the generals but those of us teaching tactics at Fort Leavenworth knew that was BS and more frequently said of our forces on the Czech border: "The Cav will die in place."

There used to be a couple of US Air Force intelligence officers who went around to US military units (and Kiwanis Clubs in a declassified version) giving an overview of Soviet capabilities in the Fulda Gap. It was entertaining and scary as hell (these guys were really great). They were dressed in Soviet Army uniforms, spoke with Russian accents and were very, very arrogant. Their main point: There's a lot more of us than there are of you.

Invariably, someone always pointed out: "But NATO has technological superiority."

Their stock response?

"Custer had technological superiority."

I'm still not going to attack a dug-in enemy battalion with my one company of tanks. :)

HT

[RecceDG]

Lt Perkins, LdSH, was a recce troop leader during WW2.

During the Melfa River campaign in Itialy, Lt Perkins was sent forward to locate a river crossing. Not only did he find one, he siezed it and sucessfully defended it against constant counterattacks, often using stealth, guile, and deception to make his tiny, lightly-armed force seem bigger and more capable than it actually was.

And as the follow-on infantry were delayed, he was forced to do this for FAR longer than anyone could reasonably expect.

He *should* have won the VC, but it was downgraded to (I think) the MM.

DG

[IrishHussar]

Hi there HotTom
I must first congratulate you on a well thoughtout discussion about force ratios. I work in the British Armys Command and Staff Trainer and alltough its primary aim is to teach Staff proceedures it is often the case when orders are given and the plan moves into its execution phase not enough attention has been paid to force on force ratios.

I also feel duty bound to correct you on a couple of minor errors included in the quote below:

"For those who don't recognize my avatar, it's the badge of the 17th Lancers, which led The Charge of the Light Brigade (and stuck around as a tank unit until 1992 when numbered cavalry units were abolished in the British Army)."

a. The badge that you referred is not called a badge but a "motto".

b. The 17th lancers did not actually lead the charge but were in the front echelon alongside the 13th Light Dragoons. There were two other echelons, or lines, the second line was the 11th Hussars and the third line consisted of the 4th Light Dragoons and the 8th Hussars.

c. The 17th were not abolished in 1992 but were amalgamated as they had been in previous years. Their present Title is the Queen's Royal Lancers.

please dont take this critism too much to heart however history is history and should be accurate.

Mente et Manu

Irish Hussar

[HotTom]

You are indeed correct and I am guilty of oversimplifying (hangs head in shame).

They were one of two regiments in the first echelon of the Light Brigade. I would say that both share claim to "leading the charge."

(I might note that there used to be, in the U.S. Army, an expression for someone who won a meaningless distinction: "It's like being named Soldier of the Month in the Light Brigade." :) )

And it's true they were amalgamated twice. First as the 17th/21st Lancers (after WWI, I believe) and again in 1992 when the remnants of all the numbered units were bunched together in the Queen's Royal Lancers. Interestingly, the Queen's Royal Lancer's adopted the 17th's "Death or Glory" insignia as "motto" (if it's metal and you pin it on, we would call it a "badge") for all the combined Lancer units.

For more, read here:

http://www.qrl.uk.com/h_home.html

I had several classmates at C&GSC who were "exchange students" from the 17th/21st. Excellent officers who left me with lasting respect for their regiment. I'm glad at least their insignia survived.

HT

[IrishHussar]

Hi again HotTom


(I might note that there used to be, in the U.S. Army, an expression for someone who won a meaningless distinction: "It's like being named Soldier of the Month in the Light Brigade." :)
HT

There is a lot of misinformation about the Charge and whether or not it is to be viewed as a folly or a magnificent act of bravery and discipline.
Here is a poem written at the time by Lord Tennyson it captures something of what the nation thought at that time.

1.
Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.


2.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.


3.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.


4.
Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.


5.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.


6.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.

Having read much of my own Regimental history about this battle the best accounts that I have come across is from a Lancer in a book called "Hell Riders" By Terry Brighton

If nothing else this is just a bit of old cavarly culture for those with nothing better to read.


Irish Hussar


Mente et Manu

[HotTom]

LOL, I'm very familiar with the poem. But you missed the humor (sick as it is) in the expression.

The point of the expression ("It's like being named Soldier of the Month in the Light Brigade") has nothing to do with whether the Charge was folly or bravery.

What makes the distinction meaningless is that they're all dead. Could just have easily been "Soldier of the Month in the 7th Cavalry." Nice award but it sure didn't do him any good...

Or, if you prefer a non-military context: "It's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic."

It's okay. British humor (humour?) sometimes goes right over my (thick) head as well. :)

HT

[Hackworth]

I've downloaded a ton of scenarios for the Abrams and the Bradley (no offense to the Leos, I'll learn them next). And I've been working my way through them. If I lose (and I usually do), I rethink the tactics and try again (without doing an AAR so I can see the opposing forces).

Some of them are great and doctrinally very correct (the Team Yankee series gets two thumbs up!).

But some of them are ludicrous. No commander in his right mind would fight a battle under those conditions.

I don't mind getting killed a lot. That's happened in every new sim I've learned as a noob. I'm sitting here alone. My ego isn't at stake.

For those who don't recognize my avatar, it's the badge of the 17th Lancers, which led The Charge of the Light Brigade (and stuck around as a tank unit until 1992 when numbered cavalry units were abolished in the British Army).

The 17th charged the Russian cannon with 145 men and only 38 came back. I'm not even doing that well in some of the SB scenarios :D

I just spent half a day trying to reach an objective in one scenario (I won't name any names). Closest I got was two infantrymen left alive within sight of the goal.

Finally, I reran the AAR from the red side. The red tank platoons defending the objective outnumbered my attacking platoons by more than two to one. The MR platoons outnumbered mine by almost three to one.

I don't care how concentrated a "Guderian Fist" I made, there was no way I could ever punch through that many enemy AFVs. In real life, I wouldn't even try.

I seem to remember from my days as both a student and later an instructor at Fort Leavenworth that an attacking commander is supposed to concentrate his forces so that at the point of attack the defending force is outnumbered, ideally by a ratio of at least 3 attackers to one defender. Take a look at FM 3-0 (used to be called FM 100-5) "Operations."

"We must select for our attack one point of the enemy's position...and attack it with great superiority, leaving the rest of his army in uncertainty but keeping it occupied....Frederick II doubtlessly won the battle of Leuthen only because he massed his small army together in one place and thus was very concentrated, as compared to the enemy." A fellow named Clausewitz wrote that in his Principles of War, which is the basis of FM 3-0.

If this sounds like a bit of a rant, I plead guilty. Hopefully, it's not a whine :D

What's the point of having the most realistic tank sim ever, if the scenarios are pure fantasy?

HT

don't try mine.

BTW: I want a 10:1 ratio to attack if I'm commander (that's fair, but what does the defending CO think is fair...), but I don't expect nor plan on it.

P.S. Awesome poem Irish. The charge of the Light Brigade is one of those much-talked-about, but little understood and read about events. The greatest heroism and galantry, in such a short period of time, but with so much slaughter in such a short period of time and over nothing but enthusiasm and pride. But, that' what happens when you "eff-up".

[IrishHussar]

Hi there
I think the whole affair was down to leadership of the worst kind anybody could imagine.
We could, however, take a few lessons forward into our gaming community. Imagine that you had to write a letter to everyone of your crewmens families each time you lost one on the simulated battlefield. I think we would all be a bit more cautious as to the routes we take in the ensuing battles LOL.
If your not that emotionally tied to these imaginary crews then perhaps you could think about the cost of the material that gets toasted each time you recieve incoming. Or maybe a better incentive to play/fight better is to think of the street cred that is being gained or lost with each of those "Flying Fryin Pan Turret Lookalikes"

All the best

Irish Hussars

Mente et Manu

[chappy]

If u want to use this program as a simulator then the fear (or penalty) of death has to be accounted for. The simulator can only do this in the form of
a) you die once, the scenario is OVER (ie have ONE playable vehicle, or # of playable vehs = number of players in multi player)
b) This one is dependent on the intensity of the conflict modelled (as well as the political and cultural situation the sce is based around) but: If you lose even 5%, or 10% or X% of your force, consider it mission FAILED.

Consider a western democracy in the 21st century. Consider Australia for instance. The loss of just ONE soldier sends the media into a feeding frenzy, causes public displays of feeling and sadness for the 'victim'. Consider what reaction would be encountered in the polls and the next election if Australia were to start losing a soldier a day in A-stan or Iraq.

'Winning' in scenarios, for realism's sake, should always involve an acceptable loss % modelled into it. That % for some may be 30%.. for Australia i would suggest it would be somewhere in the order of less than 10% even in a high intensity conflict. For the US. it's hard to say but perhaps the 10%-20% figure would be considered acceptable in a high intensity conflict. For Syria, or Iran, or whoever else one model's one could argue it would be a lot higher, based on their history, culture and policitical environment.

[tarball]

If u want to use this program as a simulator then the fear (or penalty) of death has to be accounted for. The simulator can only do this in the form of
a) you die once, the scenario is OVER (ie have ONE playable vehicle, or # of playable vehs = number of players in multi player)
b) This one is dependent on the intensity of the conflict modelled (as well as the political and cultural situation the sce is based around) but: If you lose even 5%, or 10% or X% of your force, consider it mission FAILED.

Consider a western democracy in the 21st century. Consider Australia for instance. The loss of just ONE soldier sends the media into a feeding frenzy, causes public displays of feeling and sadness for the 'victim'. Consider what reaction would be encountered in the polls and the next election if Australia were to start losing a soldier a day in A-stan or Iraq.

'Winning' in scenarios, for realism's sake, should always involve an acceptable loss % modelled into it. That % for some may be 30%.. for Australia i would suggest it would be somewhere in the order of less than 10% even in a high intensity conflict. For the US. it's hard to say but perhaps the 10%-20% figure would be considered acceptable in a high intensity conflict. For Syria, or Iran, or whoever else one model's one could argue it would be a lot higher, based on their history, culture and policitical environment.

Chappy,

Penalty/fear of death is the one lynchpin in gameplay that would drastically change a LOT of things.

As to the original subject:

Asserting that there are "silly scenarios..." is all in the eye of the beholder in the end. I am a scenario maker of moderate to less-than-moderate skill and, as a civilian, I have only bits and pieces of "doctrine" under my belt. However, steelbeasts, as an electronic simulacrum realized within software, presents itself as yet another field of battle requiring its own unique doctrine. In many of the scenarios I create, I choose to have longer odds against the human player(s) due to foibles in the nature of AI. The AI in SB is better than average, but AI is ultimately delivered as a set of algorithms and a series of decision tables. Surely doctrine represents a ruleset and decision structure similar to the implementation of AI in the game. In many scenarios, I can get ahead of the AI's decision cycle in a larger tactical sense. The AI can see better than I can, but there are lags in the AI's reaction time that I can get past most of times (well, troops are a glaring exception to this).

Doctrines are developed as stylized and routine response to perceptions about how to use force and how to act in certain situations. Doctrine is developed over time, hopefully, in response to data concerning "actual use:" be it in the battlefield or on the wargame field. As with doctrines in the RW (real world), I work on my mission-building craft and skill by playtesting and learning from trial and error. So, most missions designers behave as militaries in that militaries learn through play testing (wargaming and actual battle) and develop doctrine accordingly. I can't hope to obtain the same absolute command of RW doctrine as would be the case with most of the current and ex military guys around here. As a mission designer, I can learn what works and doesn't in the battlefield of steelbeasts and act accordingly. In fact, through steelbeasts we can gain a near infinite number of "what if" insights beyond what is available via the costlier efforts of real wargamming and actual fighting. While moving real vehicles about is required at times, and while actual combat engagements are indispensable for learning, a virtual battlespace, like what is provided in SB pro PE, offers the ability to try out "silly" things and see how it all pans out.

So, how to pick and pan downloadable scenarios? Well, perhaps an "abstract" from the author would work too. Since the efforts of the "public" scenario builders are gratis, it is hard to complain too much in any case.

While I've been a fan/enthusiast about things military all my life, I am not an expert from experience. In this light, I will usually yield to the expertise of those who have experience when it comes to questions about things in RL. However, I've played this game for 6 years now and have been farting around on the mission editor for 4 to 5 of those years. Mission-building is time-consuming and difficult at times. Since the release of SB Pro PE, I play-test my missions online mostly and have yet to release any of them to SB.com. My main reason for this is that they require more play testing and perfecting (or, maybe I'm lazy). Whether this is a testament to my skill (or lack thereof) is not for me to answer, but it speaks to the degree to which scenarios require lots of TLC until they can be considered "baked." However, as one man's trash is another's treasure, who is to say that a mission is "silly","lame", or possessing any other number of negative qualities?

There are a sizable number of people playing SB Pro PE who just want to "shoot shit up" and behave/operate as though SB Pro PE is a first-person shooter game. Are they "wrong" for doing so? I don't know, but they paid their $125 and it is not my place, in a free country, to tell them they are wrong. Thus, someone surely makes missions for this crowd too.

I've meandered and rambled here so let me summarize:

1) Doctrine in RL can be modeled and practiced in SB Pro PE for sure.
2) When mixing humans and AI, RL doctrine can't always be realized.
3) When RL doctrine doesn't entirely pan out in SB Pro PE (such as the penalty/fear of death issue) - adjustments are required.
4) SB Pro PE can become a laborartory where a multitude of angles and "what ifs" can be explored. This challenges assertions that there is one best or correct use of SB Pro PE.
5) Mission-building is tedious and demanding, some of us just don't have the time to create a true-to-reality masterpiece with every effort.
6) The mission-editor is open enough to accomodate most of your desires

Having said all this, I hesitate to out-and-out call another's scenario as "silly" and "rubbish;" however I would expect that the circumstances and premise of any scenario be made as clear as possible to me upfront.

Try playing online on the TS (TeamSpeak) server from time to time. You might find a whole other set of missions available there. I've created nearly 20 missions for SB Pro PE and they have only been played/used in online sessions. Also, direct commentary and feedback regarding missions and playtesting are possible online in TS. You can exchange scenario ideas and comments with others who make scenarios.

WARNING: While 99% of the folks you meet online at TS are good people, some are there just for shoot-em-up play. If you keep this in mind, you won't be disappointed when you encounter that style of game play. However, watching the various play styles during a game, and in the AAR, is VERY useful for scenario design and testing.

[chappy]

In my opinion , if someone wants a scenario to be a truer simulation of a combat situation then i would suggest NOT manning the vehicles as gunners or even at all, but instead 'playing' from the map or from the commander position or even just from an external view.

Just something else to think about

[HotTom]

This thread has taken on a life of its own. Sort of like "The Night of the Living Dead." :)

Chappy, I have no problem with sim missions that are one player = one life. In fact, I prefer that and that's the way I have played (yes, played) most other sims.

In SB, any tank that you can control, you can jump into if your tank is disabled. All of my scenarios involve control of no more than a company.

I wouldn't complain a bit if I could control that company but would be unable to switch to another tank if I am "destroyed."

That's the way my current flight sim, F4AF, is designed. I lead one flight (four aircraft) in a world of many, many AI aircraft (or human in MP). If I'm shot down, I'm done for that mission. If I set the sim that way, it can also finish me for an entire campaign. So there is a bit of risk involved, especially if you have a couple hundred hours invested in a campaign. But, no, it isn't risking my real life. Just my virtual life.

On the other hand, consider this quote from "Duel For The Golan," about the largest tank battle since WWII in October 1973: "During the 100-hour battle that saved Israel, every Israeli tank that was committed to the Golan fighting was hit by hostile fire at least once, and some (tank) commanders had five or six tanks shot out from under them."

So, what's really real? :)

I won't debate you philosophically about "acceptable losses." Too political...

Tarball: A very thoughtful post. I fully agree that anyone who plunks down their $125 can play SB any way they want to. It's their property. If they just want to blow stuff up, that's their right.

But allow me the right to erase scenarios that have nothing to do with reality from MY hard drive (not yours or anyone else's). And allow me the right to term those scenarios "silly." You can disagree. My opinion is free and worth exactly what you're paying for it :)

To me, the most attractive aspect of SB (and F4) is the depth of realism in the tanks (and aircraft in F4). To me, the way one uses those models should reflect the integrity and fidelity of the models themselves. It's just an extension of the accurate vehicle or aircraft model if you use it in an accurate way.

And, for myself, I spent a lot of years doing this stuff for real and if I'm a bit obsessive about things being "doctrinally correct," it's because I understand the doctrine (don't always agree with it) and have deep respect for the price at which it was developed.

I'm still learning the quirks of AI and the Mission Builder. I agree, creating realistic missions is very time consuming. And you have to test and test again and tweak a lot and then test and tweak even more to make things come out correctly. But I feel it's worth it. I have a new one almost ready to go up and I've spent almost a solid week on it. It will be as realistic as I (and Mission Builder) can make it. And that was the "end state" (as we say in the military -- but obviously not in the White House) I was seeking.

But, hey, if you want to paint your tank pink and take on the entire Russian army all by yourself, it certainly is your right. The Gunfight at the OK Corral in Tanks? Go for it! (Actually my Gettysburg scenario comes pretty close. It's a wild shoot-out. But it was a real cavalry battle. And it was won by a doctrinally correct flanking maneuver. You can blow lots of stuff up and be realistic at the same time :) )

Great post. I enjoyed reading it.

Aloha,

HT

[tarball]

Tom,

I certainly agree that, either through a meta-data system, or through peer review, it would be great to have a "buyers guide" for missions. So that, "one man's trash, one man's treasure" aside, one can make informed choices. Life is indeed to short to always "come up short" when trying too find worthwhile missions. In this case, the sim is flexible enough to make most of us happy and allow each user to find what they want.

Looking forward to more of your missions.

Jeff (Tarball)