Fast or Slow?

[iamfritz]

So after being hyped up over the fast moving Cavalry blasting thru Baghdad on the famous Thunder Runs I have tried this several times and NEVER gotten those results.

I have realized this is because the Iraqi Army/Fedayeen were inept and had no real anti-tank weaponry let alone training.

I have learned that in reality a slow, cautious moving attack with infantry, air support and artillery is the only way to victory.

Unless I make the enemy inept then it's a turkey shoot like 2003.

[Los]

In combat you have the whole rest of your life to accomplish any task.

[Apocalypse 31]

On 8/11/2023 at 2:00 PM, iamfritz said:

Unless I make the enemy inept then it's a turkey shoot like 2003

When you're looking at war and conflict from the hyper, ultra, extreme tactical level then there's not going to be much to see. It's like looking at an anthill through a straw.

 

Some countries can mobilize their military, move it thousands of miles and defeat the enemy. Some are incapable of invading their neighbors. Some people will continue to debate the M-16 versus Ak47.

[Captain_Colossus]

On 8/11/2023 at 11:00 AM, iamfritz said:

So after being hyped up over the fast moving Cavalry blasting thru Baghdad on the famous Thunder Runs I have tried this several times and NEVER gotten those results.

I have realized this is because the Iraqi Army/Fedayeen were inept and had no real anti-tank weaponry let alone training.

I have learned that in reality a slow, cautious moving attack with infantry, air support and artillery is the only way to victory.

Unless I make the enemy inept then it's a turkey shoot like 2003.

it depends on the scenario- a scenario with a particular time limit conceit worked in such as capture the bridge before the opfor blows it up probably entails the player forced to rush and adhoc solutions which means a fairly easy  opportunity to present obstacles and challenges and rack up casulaties against the player. there is probably no escaping the fact that a scenario is a reflection of the designer's ego, as you can imagine mamy are designed to be artificially difficult where the enemy never routes or surrenders but simply fights to the last, in which case it can be difficult and time consuming to create and exploit a breakthrough. what is called thunder run was a unique chain of improvised events rather than a single action of the typical steel beasts scenario, precisely because at this phase iraqi restance began to melt back into the cities and morphed into an insurgency, which is what bogged down occupation forces and which was the intent rather than to throw everything into one final battle. this is far away different from near equivalent forces fighting in ukraine where settlements and small villages repeatedly change hands, where attacking forces rush in with suppressive fires and displace quickly before artillery missiles and drones start zeroing in. still those same rushing units might blunder into minefields and anti-tank killzones- so in reality there is no either or solution for all cases in this type of warfare. there needs to be more context given before a rule like that can be applied

[Arch]

Well, those were raids, not attacks. You don't need to defeat all of the enemy, secure all of the ground and then make sure you can stay there in a raid. The point of them was to test to see what kind of resistance would be encountered.

 

SB AI is quite brave and will happily fight to the last man unless you order them otherwise, so your mileage will vary entirely dependent on that. In my experience, most scenarios become very silly if you don't add in some kind of retreat or surrender mechanics.

[Ssnake]

Surrender occurs on a very wide scale between absolute fanaticism of "fight to the last bullet" and "surrender monkeys" that hoist the white flag on mere suspicion of enemy presence.

Therefore, it's left to the mission designer to determine the degree of resistance the player will meet.

[iamfritz]

I need to start adding Surrender or retreat options to my scenarios, yes.

[Captain_Colossus]

i see tremendous value in development of the campaign creator in steel beasts- it should be more intuitive, more user friendly, easier to generate a campaign where results from one action carry over to the next- then the user can experiment where fast and slow might work or not

because the user sees the consequences of preserving forces at the expense of gaining ground or vice versa as the next phase develops.

 

i don't know if this is meaningful for mil customers, but for the PE user it is a different experience than compartmentalized scenarios where there is no real sense of this sort of basic dilemma other than perhaps a scoring formula in a single scenario but which is still sort of separates the user from his decisions.

[Ssnake]

I'd love to invest more time in this, but the reality is that the development of the new engine will keep us well occupied for a few years. Once that version 5.x is ready for general roll-out, I guess we'll look at this topic again.

[Apocalypse 31]

On 9/2/2023 at 3:30 PM, Captain_Colossus said:

i see tremendous value in development of the campaign creator in steel beasts- it should be more intuitive, more user friendly, easier to generate a campaign where results from one action carry over to the next- then the user can experiment where fast and slow might work or not

because the user sees the consequences of preserving forces at the expense of gaining ground or vice versa as the next phase develops.

 

i don't know if this is meaningful for mil customers, but for the PE user it is a different experience than compartmentalized scenarios where there is no real sense of this sort of basic dilemma other than perhaps a scoring formula in a single scenario but which is still sort of separates the user from his decisions.

This can already be done using the Operations editor.

 

It requires the time and effort to learn how to use it, and some patients to deal with it's interface.

[Captain_Colossus]

i do not have the time to disentangle it in order to do this. i have altogether stopped running DCS because of the lack of time.

 

of course steel beasts appeals to the type of user willing to put in the time and effort, but this is where i drop off. other users might spend more effort, but there is notable lack of community created operations. that might suggest

 a steep learning curve.

 

while i am not a developer, from a user standpoint, i might suggest a drag and drop graphical interface in some future build- that might perhaps make an operations creation tool more accessible.

it is probably more for the benefit of the solitaire PE user, that is, in itself it is likely not the highest priority for eSim from the business end of things. which is understandable

 

 

[Ssnake]

We got to get the new engine working, write an entire new GUI, replace the network code, develop a new AI, facelift the 3D artwork, and convert all models of the various fire control systems to the new architecture. Once that this is done we can shift our attention to the fancy things again.

[Iarmor]

On 8/11/2023 at 9:00 PM, iamfritz said:

So after being hyped up over the fast moving Cavalry blasting thru Baghdad on the famous Thunder Runs I have tried this several times and NEVER gotten those results.

I have realized this is because the Iraqi Army/Fedayeen were inept and had no real anti-tank weaponry let alone training.

I have learned that in reality a slow, cautious moving attack with infantry, air support and artillery is the only way to victory.

Unless I make the enemy inept then it's a turkey shoot like 2003.

It depends, there are a lot of variables. Terrain, engagement ranges, enemy defenses, readiness, etc.

In the Israeli army, after 1967 everyone was all for speed, but after 1973 opinions differed - officers who served in the Sinai advocated well-organized attacks with much fire support, while the ones who served in the Golan still favored quick assaults.