Camp Hornfelt scenarios

[GaryOwen]

I've just uploaded a few scenarios that I've been working on the past month or so. They are all single player and are platoon sized. The scenarios are intended to form a series with each of them focusing on a single platoon task as described in FM 17-15, the old tank platoon field manual. Scoring is roughly based on the performance measures outlined in the ARTEP mission training plan. They are not all that complex and can be played quickly. It's my intent that they should be able to be enjoyed by new players and old players who've yet to RTFM.

Just uploaded are:

Camp Hornfelt (1) Tactical Movement

Camp Hornfelt (2) Destroy an Inferior Force

Camp Hornfelt (3) Attack by Fire

I'm finishing up the Support by Fire and the Assault scenarios, these two are basically the same with the player's platoon swapping position in the company plan.

I'm starting the Displace and the Counterattack by Fire and Manuever scenarios. I hope to have all these finished within the next week or so.

I'm posting here to solicit any comments or suggestions.

[Steel_Hamster]

Great initiative!

[daskal]

Excellent, thanks for making & uploading these! Will try them out online with fully manned platoon during the week.

[scowlmovement]

Dang! You beat me to it, Gary! I remember reading something about how you wanted to make the tactical tasks into scenarios, and I wanted to give it a try. Unfortunately, I still do not have SB Pro PE. Oh well, I look forward to playing these when I do eventually get SB Pro PE, and the type of feedback you get.

[Toyguy]

Great scenario idea Gary. I've played the first one twice today, and I think I may have encountered a bug. In my last attempt, I lost one tank destroyed, and the remaining 2 had accumulated light damage after reaching Kermit but were still in action. I presumed I would get a GO from that result, but I did not.

Looking at the scenario in the editor, I got to wondering about 2 things:

1. What is an "operational" AFV in SB's eyes? Would a tank with light damage be counted as non-operational?

2. It looks to me like the NOGO Event may be wrong. If I recall correctly, it looks for an "operational AFVs anywhere < 4" but you only start the scenario with 3 tanks to begin with, so NOGO will always be true, will it not? The GO condition then depends on NOGO, so if I am reading it all right, GO can never be attained.

That said, playing the mission was a lot of fun and I will be back to try it again! Thanks for sharing.

Dave

[Tacbat]

Looks like someone's been busy.

[GaryOwen]

1. What is an "operational" AFV in SB's eyes? Would a tank with light damage be counted as non-operational?

2. It looks to me like the NOGO Event may be wrong. If I recall correctly, it looks for an "operational AFVs anywhere < 4" but you only start the scenario with 3 tanks to begin with, so NOGO will always be true, will it not? The GO condition then depends on NOGO, so if I am reading it all right, GO can never be attained.

Thanks for the feedback. I've just uploaded a fixed version. The tank platoon should have four vehicles. ---- That's my bad for sloppy proofreading.

I've corrected the NOGO event to count destroyed friendly vehicles (greater than 1) rather than operational friendly vehicles (less than four).

[Toyguy]

Excellent! Thanks Gary. Maybe this means I am beginning to get a handle on all the conditional logic.

I'll be trying that scenario again tomorrow night

On a related note, does anybodyactually have any insight into that key phrase for conditions and events - "operational"? What precisely does that mean in game terms - can shoot, can move, both, something else altogether (maybe NOT Destroyed)?

[GaryOwen]

I just got a question about the map used in these scenarios. There are some sinkholes on the map. Below is my response:

The map is actually of the Combat Manuever Training Center at the Hohenfels Training Area in Germany. It's my understanding that the original terrain map was made by someone, who was at that time, serving at Hohenfels. Those 'anomalies' aren't. They're sinkholes. I've personally mired an M113 in one of them. It's a real bitch in winter. The sinkholes and the mudholes freeze over and get covered with snow. The only way to know exactly where they are is to get stuck in them. With different versions of that map, I've added a few logging roads here or there, added some buildings (Blauheim is actually a MOUT site), and removed some of the sinkholes.

I'm not going to further edit the map. I like to have terrain cause mired vehicles. It adds 'immersion' -- sorry for pun. The scenario is not passworded. If you'd prefer, you can go into the mission editor, load the scenario, using the map pull-down menu - extract the map, edit it in the map editor (the sinkholes are one or two pixel water features, just paint them over with grass or sand), then replace it back in the mission editor.

Actually I just checked on Google Maps, the MOUT site is at the built up area due south of what I've labelled as Blauheim on the scenario map.

Edited November 11, 2009 by GaryOwen
correct factual misstatement

[scowlmovement]

Excellent attention to detail. Sounds like it'll be great to play.

[ashdivay]

Played the first one only once. lost my first tnk to friendly fire . and later other two too eny tnks.

I must say its very well done. and requires good communication among the players and crews. i belive it can be done. Good Job .

I will run other parts later. will report back after.

Thank you

Ash

[GaryOwen]

I've just submitted scenario #4 in the series, Conduct a Support-by-Fire/Overwatch. While I did spend a fair amount of time testing the scenario, it does have a bit of scripting to it; reports of any problems or other criticisms will be appreciated.

Thanks.

[GaryOwen]

Number 6 in the series, Conduct a Platoon Defense and Displace, has just been submitted. Comments and pointing out any problems I've missed will be appreciated.

[Koen]

Camp Hornfelt (6) Conduct a Platoon Defense and Displace:

played it quickly - nicely done, thx GO.

One question about the behaviour of Red:

I have the impression that once they are ambushed, they don't change their tactics, but just keeping streaming forward.

(but I didn't check the Red routes in the mission editor, so I may be wrong)

-> Is this standard opfor/warpac tactics ?

-> Or, instead of behaving like lemmings, couldn't they adapt their tactics once they are in contact ?

E.g. deploy infantry - before the kill zone - who advance then through the woods, next to the valley, to attack Blue from the rear.

-> Also, in real life, couldn't the Blue troops of the M2A2 be deployed next on the flanks of the tanks - to protect them from Red deploying infantry that would advance next ?

And a word of criticism: ahem, triggers 5 & 6 ("contact"; "displace") are not explained in the briefing ? just a detail of course

Thx again for your efforts to create these nice tactical vignettes,

Koen

[GaryOwen]

Thanks for the comments.

You are correct. The red units have no variation in their reactions. They do as the briefing predicts: they deploy from the march. Whether that is good tactics or standard warpac tactics wasn't something that I put time into developing. (Although given the situation, moving across a map via an obvious bottleneck, trying to muscle your way through is certainly one option.)

My primary goal was to provide a context for the player (here the platoon leader) to select a battle position from which the obstacle and NAI could be observed, defend himself against the forward screening elements of the opfor, and then displace without getting clobbered too bad. The rest of the battle is just gravy. My experience is that most SB players like a lot of shooty-stuff. So I thought: reward the player for effectively breaking contact by giving him a bunch of turrets to pop.

As far as the clarity of what is expected from the player:

I had hoped that by explaining the following in the briefing

In order to receive a GO for this exercise you must:

Timely report contact at NAI HARDPLACE;

Timely report displacing once the the displacement criteria are met;

Timely occupy your position overwatching EA ANDREW;

Maintain a platoon strength of at least 3 vehicles.

and by having this message transmitted at the scenario beginning,

Report contact at HARDPLACE and report displacing, ANVIL SIX, out

along with naming trigger 5 as 'Contact NAI HARDPLACE' and trigger 6 as 'Displacing, now.' that the player would understand that those triggers were to be used. I'll edit the briefing to make it more explicit and post the edited version.

One of the things I was hoping for with these scenarios is that others might use this stuff to make their own scenarios. The platoon level tasks that are described in the field manual and ARTEP training guide are tactical 'building blocks' that a commander can use to 'assemble' a mission plan at higher echelons. Yes, in these scenarios the situations are contrived. But that is by design in order to demonstrate how the individual tasks fit into a bigger picture and to provide a bit of immersion for the player.

[mpow66m]

ive uploaded all the sce. but they wont play.i click on them in the mission screen it loads the goes blank and back to the mission screen.....never had this prob b4.

[GaryOwen]

ive uploaded all the sce. but they wont play.

This sounds like a version conflict. These scenarios were prepared with version 2.483.

[mpow66m]

THNX,DIDNT REALISE I WASNT UP TO DATE.

[Tacbat]

Maybe Santa will come to your rescue...

[mpow66m]

Lol.

[GaryOwen]

I've just submitted scenario #5 Assault and scenario #7 Counterattack. They complete the scenarios that I had originally intended for the series. I'll wait a few days for comments and suggestions, then I'll submit all seven scenarios as a group for download.

As before, any criticism, comments, or suggestions, will be appreciated.

Thanks.

[GaryOwen]

The folder with all seven scenarios in the series is now posted.

[CharlieB]

Got to say that this is great work!

[GaryOwen]

Thanks for the encouragement.

[Gibsonm]

Mate,

I’m grabbing them now.

Looking forward to them (even if they are US based - but the doctrine shouldn’t be too different).

Update: Just ploughed through first four - Great Stuff!

Edited August 5, 2010 by Gibsonm