Jump to content

Operation Variable 2


Tacbat

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here's the AAR from mission 5:

We had 16 players show up for the fifth battle.

The teams were:

Red: Toyguy (CO), Fidel (XO), Sean, JHay, Brun, and Tacbat

Blue: DarkAngel (CO), Volcano (XO), Mogwa, RogueSnake, Dejawolf, 12Alfa, Greevil, Gopher, Tanker6742 and Assassin7

Pic 1: Starting positions. Blue lined up their infantry to screen south. Blue's UAV and CCP can be seen on map. Red's CCP and UAV can be seen in the third screenshot.

Pic 2: In the west, Red held it's ground while inflicting heavy casualties on Blue. Red's minefields in that area prevented Blue from flanking the base from the west, and they eventually withdrew northwards back towards the center. In the center, things were relatively quiet. Blue made their best gains in the east by conducting a flanking manoeuvre. Both sides deployed a chopper in this mission, but they were lost fairly quickly. Red's chopper was downed by an IED that a blue Spec Ops team had planted. Talk about being at the wrong place at the wrong time! However, Fidel made a long range shot that hit 3 Blue PC's at the same time. Robin Hood would have been impressed.

Pic 3: Ending positions. Blue swept through Red's CCP area, destroying most of their support vehicles as they cleared the south east area of the map. However, Red retained control of their base.

Casualties were higher in this one with Red losing 25 vehicles to Blue's 22. Blue also suffered higher infantry losses from Red arty and air strikes.

In the next mission, Blue will have to capture Red's base to continue the campaign for one more mission, otherwise Red will win the campaign. Thanks again to both CO's for their hard work behind the scenes, and to all the players who showed up. It wouldn't be a campaign without your participation.

5a.jpg.b430b0c5e71b883cc08f24ae09814fd1.

5b.jpg.0a0a122d5b7e001f25d5b430751ff2a3.

5c.jpg.4b93bbe1905e346b4d9b187257a94a02.

5a.jpg.b430b0c5e71b883cc08f24ae09814fd1.

5b.jpg.0a0a122d5b7e001f25d5b430751ff2a3.

5c.jpg.4b93bbe1905e346b4d9b187257a94a02.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Here's the AAR from mission 6:

We had 16 players participate in the sixth battle.

The teams were:

Red: Toyguy (CO), Fidel (XO), Sean, JHay, Sabot Ready and Darkhorse.

Blue: DarkAngel (CO), Volcano (XO), Mogwa, RogueSnake, 12Alfa, Greevil, Trackpad, Tanker6742, Wombat and Tacbat

Pic 1: Starting positions. Red fortified their base with their remaining infantry which include heavy MG positions while their reinforcements moved up from the south. Their UAV was positioned overlooking the hills to the NW of their base. Blue set up along the perimeter of their boundary as their reinforcements arrived from the north. Blue's infantry began advancing towards Red's base while their UAV circled overhead.

Pic 2: The west was pretty quiet as Blue's infantry advanced further south and cleared the high ground. In the center, artillery rained down in and around the base as infantry on both sides fought for control of the base. In the south, Red launched a large spoiling attack in an attempt to disrupt Blue's attack on the base. What followed was an intense 20 min battle for control of the area.

Pic 3: Ending positions. Blue was able to absorb Red's attack with the help of air support, but losses were high on both sides. The number of destroyed vehicles on the map gives an indication of the ferocity of the engagement. With Red forces severely weakened, Blue was able to push their vehicles into the objective and secured the base.

Blue lost 26 vehicles to Red's 41. Casualties were the highest in this mission then any other before. Red will now have an opportunity for a counterattack to try and take back their base in mission 7.

AAR1.jpg.1f051198bb37eda7e48b3f1f2a1618d

AAR2.jpg.87b44dd00dad99a0ea9713b32929608

AAR3.jpg.5195c2be887d5b1e28efc2a1eb7e101

AAR1.jpg.1f051198bb37eda7e48b3f1f2a1618d

AAR2.jpg.87b44dd00dad99a0ea9713b32929608

AAR3.jpg.5195c2be887d5b1e28efc2a1eb7e101

Edited by Tacbat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prologue to mission 7:

After nearly 48 hours of continuous fighting, Blue is able to capture Red's base. Red, having exhausted nearly all of their available forces in the area during the last battle, withdraw to rest and regroup. Although Red's forces were defeated in this area of operations, fortune has favoured them elsewhere. Now fresh reinforcements area being amassed south of the base in the hopes of launching one final attack to dislodge Blue forces from this area once and for all.

Blue must change their strategy from offence to defence as units are reassigned to continue the fight in other areas of the country. However, Blue takes full advantage of the pause to consolidate their gains, and they prepare a robust defensive perimeter, using minefields and dugouts to prevent the Red side from regaining their lost territory.

During this temporary break in hostilities, both sides exchange sporadic artillery fire and Red makes numerous air raids against Blue's defensive perimeter. With preparations complete on both sides, the stage is set for one final confrontation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a few words about mission 7:

This is a continuation of the campaign, so teams will remain the same. However, the scenario will be provided to the CO's with a fixed force (much like a regular TGIF mission). This is because the Red side is pretty much out of equipment that could be used in a counter-attack. Sure, we could go through the process of assigning points, but that would result in Red attacking with PC's for the most part, so that's not a viable option.

As such, Blue wins the campaign by virtue of meeting their victory conditions. However, don't let it go to your head as the shoe is on the other foot this week. Now Red gets a chance to do the attacking!

Also, if anyone has any AAR points from the campaign, feel free to mention them here. What were things you liked? What didn't you like? What would you like to see next time? Without feedback, I can't improve the Operation Variable series of campaigns. Although this one improved upon the first, I'm sure there's always room for improvements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without feedback, I can't improve the Operation Variable series of campaigns.

So, Op VARIABLE is a series and, with the stated intention of improving it, one can only assume the inevitable: that there will be more, and better, iterations. Excellent news! Well organized, well scripted, well executed: what more could we want? :luxhello: :clap: :luxhello:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Also, if anyone has any AAR points from the campaign, feel free to mention them here. What were things you liked? What didn't you like? What would you like to see next time? Without feedback, I can't improve the Operation Variable series of campaigns. Although this one improved upon the first, I'm sure there's always room for improvements.

Yay, AAR time. First off, thanks for putting together and running the campaign. I had a lot of fun and I think many others did as well.

What I liked:

  • Desert environment / Mog's map - it was a nice change of scenery that came with its own tactical considerations. Missiles anyone?
  • The last scenario was a great deal of fun. There was a feeling of desperation on both sides. I think Red had a shot at taking back the "base", and I was a little concerned in the last 20 minutes of that scenario.
  • Campaign coordinator switching sides each week was a good idea. As mentioned before, this approach helps lend to a fair and impartial feeling and I imagine that it helped you come up with some balancing adjustments based on what you were hearing from each side as the campaign went on. In the past I was thinking that a good approach would be for a campaign to have two coordinators, one that plays as XO on both sides, but your approach of one coordinator that plays on both sides is a good alternative to that.
  • The UAV and CCP was a novel idea, especially the CCP which added an interesting dynamic to the campaign. Of course the trouble with both is that if one side uses either of these well and the other does not then there is no way to have any sort of balance, but some things just cannot be balanced and it is up to the participants on both sides to take advantage of the tools.
  • And of course everyone loves hearing the "cha-ching" and seeing $ symbols float above enemy vehicles when they get killed. Seriously though, the whole point system to buy equipment is always fun.

Suggestions for improvement (Variable 3):

  • End Victory determination. I think that in a setup like Variable 2 where one side is attacking and one side is defending the victory should be determined as:

  1. Attacker is unable to capture objective by scenario X, Defender wins

  2. Attacker captures objective by scenario X, but Defender takes it back in scenario X+1 then Draw

  3. Attack captures objective scenario X, and Defender does not take it back in scenario X+1 then Attacker wins

  • Define the final counter attack in the rules. Granted, no one knew what the counter attack force should have been at the beginning of Variable 2, so there is no real way for you to have defined it earlier, but at the end of Variable 2 I think there is a good idea on what it could be: the Defender's counter attack force should probably be something like, no points to spend on purchases but they get all of their (then) current strength plus every combat unit remaining in their ORBAT. Blue should probably, in that counter attack scenario, get a one time "defense" point bonus to spend on defenses to put anywhere on the map (just like how Red got the same bonus in the beginning).

  • UAV circle. I do like the UAV circle idea, but I think it made it too difficult for the defender (Red) to actually hold an important area. What I mean is, when Blue wanted to take an area like an important objective or ridge, Blue would naturally put the UAV circle over it. This made it difficult, if not impossible, for Red to defend that place because Blue could constantly harass them with artillery and maneuver forces accordingly. While that sounds reasonable, my point is that this makes Red's job, which is already very difficult, much harder than it needs to be.

Suggestion:

Option 1:
Cut the spotting % (the penalty) in the UAV zone by 1/2 or even 2/3. What was the current probability BTW (I just want to make a note of it). Cutting the probability in half would make it so that the report is still helpful, but not so accurate.

Option 2:
(This is the one I prefer) Do away with the UAV circle and provide both sides with an actual UAV vehicle. This would do many things to balance it out:

  1. First, it would allow both sides to actually kill the UAV, and it would also allow them to defend against the prying eyes of a UAV with the 2S6. If the enemy sees the ADA on the map, they simply will avoid flying anywhere near it. In this way, Red can park the ADA in a place where they don't want Blue looking, and it would go a long way to providing them with security and the ability to hold ground.

  2. The UAV unit would, by default, not be as accurate at spotting than a penalty spotting circle would. It would require someone to actually look for units on the ground and "tag" them.

  3. The UAV could be eliminated. Both sides should have the option to replace an eliminated UAV, but doing so should be extremely expensive (like 800 to 1000 points). So, it would be possible to replace it, but it wouldn't be done unless you were very well off with your point earnings. Naturally this means that the cost value of the unit would discourage it from being used recklessly and losing it might mean that you never have one again because you can't afford to spend the points to get it replaced (this is a good thing).

Naturally, if a UAV unit existed, then it will have to be crewed by someone. I believe there is always someone willing to do it, and the CO and XO (at least on Blue) had ample time to man the UAV in Variable 2.

////////////////////////////

Ok, there is my feedback. Like I said, it was a lot of fun - I just want to provide some constructive feedback and suggestions for future iterations. :smilelove-1:

Edited by Volcano
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it weren't based on a point system for replacing destroyed equipment, then a tactical reserve method could be implemented to produce the reserve force for any final attacks or defences. This would be, as I envision it now, just be a unit earmarked as the reserve that the CO could draw upon to replace losses in his main force as they occur or alternatively, retain intact for that final effort at his discretion.

I've never played a Variable campaign, so I don't know how it works exactly, but I would think this could supplement the existing points system or vice-versa. It needn't obviate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your comments V.

I agree that the victory conditions for both sides should be clearly defined before the beginning of the campaign. Hopefully this will be the case next time.

The counter-attack force should probably be a set force, plus any surviving units. I hesitate to release all remaining forces in Red's ORBAT because it could be unfair to Blue if I give Red too much equipment as part of their initial ORBAT, and vice-versa if I don't give them enough. Also, the counter-attack force needs to have a chance against the remaining Blue units, and there's no way to come up with a fair scaling until the mission prior to the counter-attack. Perhaps the counter-attack idea should be removed altogether.

Yes, the UAV certainly was more useful for the attacking side. It was set at 30% exposure in 30 seconds during the scenarios. I'll have to revisit the idea of including the actual UAV's as I previously thought that they were nearly impossible to kill, and they distracted the AI units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it weren't based on a point system for replacing destroyed equipment, then a tactical reserve method could be implemented to produce the reserve force for any final attacks or defences. This would be, as I envision it now, just be a unit earmarked as the reserve that the CO could draw upon to replace losses in his main force as they occur or alternatively, retain intact for that final effort at his discretion.

Alright, but how would you balance it out so that one side doesn't call up their entire reserve force all at once?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to Tacbat for a very enjoyable campaign. Likewise, thanks to my comrades on Red that put up with me for the entire campaign and returned every week to battle it out in the face of increasingly difficult circumstances. It made my job a lot easier knowing I could count on the team to be there. :)

It was a great learning experience, and I'd highly recommend that anyone who hasn't done any COing take the opportunity next time. It really broadens your appreciation for the simulator, as well as the scenarios you get to face.

Kudos to Dark and the Blue Team for a well played campaign - it was a victory well earned!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, but how would you balance it out so that one side doesn't call up their entire reserve force all at once?

I wouldn't be able to balance that. One could handwave in battlefield air interdiction taking a toll of complete units moving to the front outside of the counterattack scenario (not entirely realistic; BAI would arguably be heightened to allow BLUFOR/REDFOR to consolidate on the objective they'd just captured. BAI would be simulated by deleting sections or even entire platoons from the reserve coy's ORBAT), thus encouraging COs to draw on his reserves to replace losses as the campaign continues rather than calling up the reserve when he's got his opponent on the ropes to deliver the knockout blow.

My suggestion falls through in the face of fairness; anybody who's not mentally handicapped would call up the reserve and decisively end the battle as soon as is tactically possible. That would abort the campaign pretty quickly - I'm used to much more unforgiving operations (e.g. short campaigns of two-three missions or so). I also tend to prefer cooperative against the AI rather than force on force, so my experience is doubly unsuited. In any case, discount my commentary. It's not possible to balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...