Volcano

OK, no worries. We will do what we can.

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.

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).

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. 🤔

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

OK, I created a thread here: Let's see what happens. Flop or success, who knows - it's all part of the fun.

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.

12 JAN 2024: Tactical Chess 03-GLW3-4363a-OMU-LT SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes Random CO selection? Yes Minimum # players: 8-10 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.

Just noticed your question here. Hmm, maybe, actually that isn't a bad idea if it turns out the way I intended (with it being played in parts over the year - but that would be only if people had fun with it). So, let's see...

Yep, I saw the same thing in a TGIF game a few weeks ago. I talked to Jartsev about what I saw and it sounds exactly what is being reported here. We will look into it. If you have a scenario where this occurs at the start then please attach here. One thing we aren't sure about is if this is Network Session only bug or not. If it shows itself at the start of an Offline Session scenario then that would be best, but that would be too easy... 😑

Also, just FYI, plan is to start the next mini-campaign on either 19 JAN or 26 JAN. Let's see how it goes (still working out the details of how it will work, and so on).

5 JAN 2024: Border Dispute 2013-4363-FMU (we will try this one again, with more players) 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.

Maybe not the case here, but it could also be that the scenario has a revive condition on the vehicle causing it to come back to life.

29 DEC 2023: Border Dispute 2013-4363-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.

22 DEC 2023: Civil War Mykonos-4362 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes Random CO selection? Yes Minimum # players: 8-10 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.

15 DEC 2023: Symmetrical Attack 12-FG-4265-FMU SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes Random CO selection? Yes Minimum # players: 8-10 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.

Ah OK, I was wondering why you mentioned they were destroyed. I'll fix that too. Edit: OK, I think that is fixed now too. It's a little tricky, but it seems like it was checking the loss of the pilots the moment the pilots were spawned, so I delayed the check for about 3 minutes after spawn and let's see if that fixes it next time.

Thanks all for playing the Island Invasion 02. I have made quite a few small improvements for next time. Fixed the Spec Ops UAV issue CavGunner found Added a message to remind Red to wait for the helicopters to refuel... so what happened this time doesn't happen again. 🤣 Added an ECW attack for Blue's SIGINT unit to execute, disabling Red's radios for 25 min (this can help them in their initial landings, or save it for later). Lot's of control logic is associated with that. Added a Valkyries... uh, theme for TF Valkries, courtesy of JC's suggestion. 😄 Made 50% of the ASLAV-PCs have Lemur .50 cal instead of AGL, which is I think a suggestion I absorbed subliminally. Fixed Red's trigger ownership problem, where our triggers were changing ownership throughout the scenario. Made a change so that Red doesn't get all their tanks/IFVs unless/until both Port and Airfield is lost, and they still hold the compound, to make things more interesting (they get 6x tanks and 4x IFVs first, then their remaining 3x tanks and 2x IFVs later). Some other small improvements. That should mix things up a bit.

It was fun. Just FYI, if you don't mind... I made a few *tiny* experimental changes for next time we play it, based on feedback, for a "The Road to Chateau Schlongberger_FMU_4379x" version (I'm keeping the original of course). I figured you wouldn't mind (I think they are changes you might have made over time from additional feedback that I have collected). Added a very minor 60 (defender)/40 (attacker) points for losses. This way the score can still turn out to be 500/500 when C is not taken, but if attacker does very well or very poorly then it would be just enough points to give a minor defeat/minor victory. Score different (60/40) is so that attacker can take more losses than defender. Losses in this was 26 (defender) to 22 (attacker), so that puts it right in line (means that defender's losses will be worth more points than attacker's losses) and was designed to where it should be roughly 500/500 score with that result. Added APS to the CO tanks, so they are more likely to get in on the action. Added 10 more minutes. It's perfect now, and I put my name in the briefing as the creator. 😛 Kidding, but it's only intended as an experiment to see if it fine tunes the fun now that we have played it many times. If it isn't good then I will change it back to the original version.

8 DEC 2023: Island Invasion 02-4379 We will run this one again, since we ended up playing a different scenario. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes Random CO selection? Volunteer, unless none then Yes Minimum # players: 9-12 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.