SP Scenario: Hidden Valley Blues

[DrDevice]

I'm working on a few scenarios, based on readings from "66 Tales of Battle Command." This paper focuses on experiences at the NTC, and has a lot of great material.

The first scenario is completed and posted: Hidden Valley Blues.

If you care to check out a Google Maps view of the NTC, featuring the location nicknames used by the units there, check out my NTC Place Names map.

I'd appreciate any constructive feedback, bug notes, etc. (The .sce file is not locked.) My big focus has been replayability, so I hope that comes across, while keeping the action realistic and enjoyable.

[Toyguy]

Hi Doc,

Played your mission tonight, only once though so no comments yet on replayability, but I thought you might like the feedback.

I have a feeling it was easier than you intended it to be. I basically just blew right down the road through the pass. I sent 1/A and the chopper out first. The helo detected 3 APCs in that saddle NE of Hidden Valley. 1/A made short work of them and that was it for the game. No other enemy was encountered, although it was obvious some eyes were around as the enemy tried a few artillery barrages, though unsuccessfully. All vehicles made it intact to the east of John Wayne pass, with the last ones, the support vehicles, squeaking across in the last 10 secs. I ended up with 1000 out of 1000 points.

It was a fun mission, but it was a little on the sluggish side. Now that might be due to the variable force distributions you mentioned so we'll see how the next one goes, probably on Saturday. The 45 minute timer seems good, keeping the tension up, particularly, I bet, when there are more obstacles to get past.

Thanks for the mission!

Dave

[Koen]

More or less the same experience here, but I also encountered 3 ENY tanks, which were quickly dealt with.

Will replay later once more.

IMHO scenario's do not have to be always very difficult.

Good idea also to use "66 tales" as source for inspiration.

-> What chapter did you use here ?

-> What tactical challenge do you want the player to surmount here ? Finding the path of least resistance (e.g. through the rocky terrain on the other side of the valley, instead of going via the road ?), or what ?

THX for your effort to create this scenario,

Koen

Edited February 19, 2010 by Koen

[DrDevice]

Guys, thanks for taking the time for feedback.

You are both right in that the OPFOR in this scenario isn't going to be a big "shoot your way thorough" level of toughness. This is supposed to be a realistic expectation for a company force. This isn't a 1:1 fight, by any stretch. Blowing through some CRP/CSOPs shouldn't slow down a company team, if they are doing their job right.

On the other hand - it should be a challenge and fun to play!

From Toyguy's explanation, I think the time is actually too lenient. If you have time to send the recon helo, ID the badguys, send a platoon up by itself, kill the CRP and then have time to run the rest of the team through, you have too much time. The idea is that the team should have to move fast as a cohesive unit to make their plan work and still deal with threats along the route.

The observation about the AI trying to use arty vs. a column on the move is also indicative. The only way the arty is a threat is if the team stops for more than 3 minutes within the valley. If you can just train on through, it's no big deal.

Also - some of the random events are pretty low percentages, so perhaps they need to be increased in frequency of appearance. There is an ATGM ambush, a SAM threat, etc. The force loss can pile up quickly under the "wrong" circumstances, so perhaps those need to appear more than 25% of the time.

I've also thought about including more logic for a reaction force based on how much time the OPFOR has eyes on your group. Something along the lines of "If [known enemy] [forces] in [region 1] > [3]" condition, attached to an event like "[condition 1] true for [10:00]" that releases a force that either approaches from the north around Hill 780, or plugs the gap in the east exit of John Wayne. Only problem with this is that the OPFOR has great eyes on the valley the whole time, and it is near-impossible for Blue to eliminate them. (Did you detect the FO's at all during your run through? In all my tests, I could not spot them "naturally" even with a helo sitting practically on top of them!)

Another solution might be to trigger this OPFOR reaction force based on Red identifying a higher number of Blue units. So instead of just 3, maybe set it to 9. This simulates the OPFOR CO saying "look, I've identified a company moving through this territory, and I intend to stop it." The OPFOR QRF might be another random event, but I want it tied to the player doing the wrong behaviors. (specifically, taking too long in the valley.)

The scenario balance, to me, is that if the player does things "right," then the mission should work without too much trouble. Timing would seem to be everything here.

Koen: to your questions:

- this is a non-specific example. Perhaps "inspired by 66 Tales" is a better way to put it. I'm not trying to recreate a specific story per se, but reading them again got me "in an NTC frame of mind."

- the tactical lesson should be: defeat an inferior force, and use speed of advance to keep the enemy off balance. (to that end, Toyguy nailed the scenario. I just think we can make it a bit more challenging.) As far as "finding another path" - the terrain doesn't really lend itself on that, so it wasn't my intent.

Thanks again, and I'll tweak up a v.91 and see if it can be a little tougher.

[Ssnake]

Also - some of the random events are pretty low percentages, so perhaps they need to be increased in frequency of appearance. There is an ATGM ambush, a SAM threat, etc. The force loss can pile up quickly under the "wrong" circumstances, so perhaps those need to appear more than 25% of the time.

I made it a habit to use 35% as the lower limit for forces that aren't going to be freak accidents. That already means that in two out of three replays the event will NOT happen (or the unit will not spawn).

This is okay if the scenario is strong enough to be played at least four or five times by the player - but it also means that the player actually needs to play it four or five times to fully appreciate the mission. IOW, it must be pretty good, actually.

[Koen]

Looking forward to another version.

Out of curiosity:

* If you would simulate an OPFOR reaction force, how do you think the US Company should react to it ?

-> Fight it out, if they think it's doable ?

-> Retreat, if they think they cannot take on this reaction force

-> ?

* And would you include this in the victory conditions (correct vs wrong behaviour, depending on size of reaction force) ?

Did you detect the FO's at all during your run through?

Nope, never saw them.

Rgds, Koen

[DrDevice]

* If you would simulate an OPFOR reaction force, how do you think the US Company should react to it ?

-> Fight it out, if they think it's doable ?

-> Retreat, if they think they cannot take on this reaction force

-> ?

* And would you include this in the victory conditions (correct vs wrong behaviour, depending on size of reaction force) ?

Good question. The root answer to me would be "does what the player observes require a change of mission?" If so, there should be a mechanism in the .sce for the player to inform TF of the change and get guidance. i.e. SB isn't intended to model the command relationship.

In this case, if the OPFOR sends a company minus reaction force into the valley, it's probably best to stick to the plan and get the hell out of dodge. Preservation of combat power is modeled in the score, so losing even a platoon is likely to run into a "Defeat" result.

I believe you can give the player some degree of control during a "realistic" scenario to "make the call" and change the mission, especially with regards to observed events. Most of the time, however, it's about following the commander's intent, and overcoming obstacles to your mission. (To me this is the separation between "realistic" scenarios and just "shooting stuff" scenarios.)

All of the above applies to the company-level, rather than the battlion/task force level, where greater flexibility is part of the process. In this scenario, the player isn't making those planning choices. In reading 66 Tales, you get a distinct view on how much effort goes in to planning and executing, and how little bits of friction can bring down the whole house of cards. There is even a story on how getting a company team out of synch for its mission causes an attack to fail. I think that would apply here.

[DrDevice]

OK - I've updated the file and uploaded it. Should be available when the mods get a chance to approve.

Changes include:

• increase appearance chance for force add-ons (AT and SAM) - per Ssnake's advice.
  
• update of briefing file (my last version w/ correct names/numbers was not saved correctly...woops)
  
• shortened to 35 minutes
  
• added QRF for OPFOR under certain conditions.
  

The player's mission is unchanged, just on a tighter timeline.

[Wolfseven]

I still have my original FT. Irwin NTC map.

I especially have fond memories of CHOD area as me and my team chased a bdrm through the dessert from Peanut to the pass just right of CHOD and they set up on us as we went in .. We were in light armor Hummers. We followed in, we had; an other team set up on the back side of the pass, when we saw a puff of white smoke our driver lunged our vehicle hard left into a wadi we dismounted and went after the bdrm team and got into a fire fight. Eventually the white hat told us we were dead when we came in from the rpg shot the Lt. of the opfor team, asked wtf we were doing chasing him with out the, forgot the name of the laser receivers for the laser tag thing's? lol; oh well, I really enjoyed the training there.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Wolfseven

[Koen]

Played version 1.1 & met only 3 ENY tks, that we could destroy.

Result:

* 2 M1A1 destroyed by T-80; 2 KIA, 3 wounded (picked up by the Med track)

* Then the rest of the column got blocked by these 2 wreckages,

got caught by arty, while I was manoeuvring with the M88 to tow a damaged tank => 3 more M1A1 destroyed; 5 KIA, 6 wounded (med evaced by the Kiowa)

* We exited the pass, via an alternative road through the hills (4445 0850 & further), which was reconoittred by the helo & found to be safe. Unfortunately, it was a very narrow road, which I decided to take at high speed => 3 vehicles had to be left behind due to damaged tracks, among them the M88 ... Their personnel could be flown out with the helo.

... So that was not a defeat but a catastrophe.

Can you believe this ?

You meet only 3 ENY tks and end up with 7 KIA, 8 wounded, some of them severely, I hope they will make it ... those burnwounds :-( and 8 vehicles lost ...

What could I have done better ?

WHAT COULD I HAVE DONE BETTER ??

YOU TELL ME, DRDEVICE, yes you, because you're the one who got me and the team in this mess !

I will get back there & fight it out again - but what tactics should I use ?

I know, probably it's a case of better handling the company, to avoid arty ...

Also, given the losses that we took early on, should we have continued the mission or retreated ?

Cdr, Team Aces

------------------

In other words, this was fun.

Rgds, Koen

[Ssnake]

Well, I think this wouldn't have played out this badly with more human players lifting some of the micromanagement burden from you.

The only saving grace would have been to make contingency planning for the alternative routes, but that's impractical as long as the Save Plan feature isn't back. (Yes, I haven't forgotten about it).

[DrDevice]

YOU TELL ME, DRDEVICE, yes you, because you're the one who got me and the team in this mess !

I will get back there & fight it out again - but what tactics should I use ?

I know, probably it's a case of better handling the company, to avoid arty ...

Also, given the losses that we took early on, should we have continued the mission or retreated ?

Glad you had fun Koen. In many of my tests, my results were similar. Getting caught up in the fight can be lethal and if you get stalled, even for a little while, you can be in some trouble. Even with knowing the setup, I can't get a victory every time! That's kind of what I'm hoping to get out of my scenario designs, and hope it comes across.

My most successfull attempts involve early detection of the CSOP, and arty use to keep them off ballance/off the ground of their choice.

Something interesting in your note as well: "should I retreat?" We usually design scenarios for players to work out until the very end, often with rather phyrric victories. Perhaps if the player reports "this plan is no longer tenable," it's not worth a victory, but maybe a draw? Something to think on.

I'm also 100% with Ssnake - a company is very difficult for one player to handle realistically. I'd be eager for a co-op play though. Maybe we can set it up.

[Toyguy]

I had my second go-around with the scenario this evening, with the same end result, 1000 out of 1000 points, no losses, 4 PC kills. The helo spotted some tanks but they were never a factor. The time pressure was intense though, and I can see it would be easy to get behind.

One thing I noticed, that I don't recall happening before, was that none of the vehicles started out on their routes that I had set for them in the planning screen. I physically had to jump into each unit and give them a Continue to get them rolling. That was a bit annoying, especially since I noticed it about 8 minutes into the mission. They were all still parked in the staging area.

Is that a setting in the editor, or am I just remembering things incorrectly and they always do that?

Anyway, was a lot more fun this time, and sounds like even more to come. Nice job!

[Wolfseven]

I had my second go-around with the scenario this evening, with the same end result, 1000 out of 1000 points, no losses, 4 PC kills. The helo spotted some tanks but they were never a factor. The time pressure was intense though, and I can see it would be easy to get behind.

One thing I noticed, that I don't recall happening before, was that none of the vehicles started out on their routes that I had set for them in the planning screen. I physically had to jump into each unit and give them a Continue to get them rolling. That was a bit annoying, especially since I noticed it about 8 minutes into the mission. They were all still parked in the staging area.

Is that a setting in the editor, or am I just remembering things incorrectly and they always do that?

Anyway, was a lot more fun this time, and sounds like even more to come. Nice job!

I had that same issue I had to micrimanage the task force. But lost only 1 M2.

[DrDevice]

Is that a setting in the editor, or am I just remembering things incorrectly and they always do that?

The units began with "Stay" orders in order to orient them at start. Just a nitpick I do when setting up. It is easily fixed, both from the editor by simply selecting "None" orders after the units are at the desired facing, or by the user during setup in doing the same thing. Remember that if the units begin with any orders at all (Hold, Defend, etc.) they will not proceed until you tell them to.

That's a simple fix that I'll do for 1.2. I'm also re-working the CSOP unit choices just a tad, and fixing the OPFOR QRF. (I did the exact same thing with the stay orders, so they got stuck even when summoned!)

Thanks again to all for the feedback.

[Koen]

Even with knowing the setup, I can't get a victory every time!

Shows again how good a simulator SB is, as it includes the impredictability of battle in RL

I'm also re-working the CSOP unit choices just a tad, and fixing the OPFOR QRF. (I did the exact same thing with the stay orders, so they got stuck even when summoned!)

Looking forward to this.

What I also plan to game mentally is the medevacing of casualties:

* I'll let a dice decide how many KIA, and especially WIA there are after the destruction of a tank (can be done also with a random number in excel or a random number in SB generating a msg with a number of WIA).

* Then I'll try to organise medevacing - thx to the med track and the helo that you added to the scenario. Maybe OPFOR should have a med track as well.

Or we should - IF possible - also medevac their wounded ...

* Maybe I will withdraw even if the number of WIA is becoming too large and/or their evacuation becomes too difficult.

=> How does this go in real life ? To what degree does one take care of the wounded (be it own or adversary) ?

=> How many med tracks accompany normally a US or German tankcoy ?

=> How many wounded can a med track carry ? And a helo ?

=> I guess SB as a sim underestimates a bit this problem of medevacing , in fact does not pay enough attention to it - or not yet, Ssnake ?

And pardon if I ramble on a bit more about the "phyrric victories" that you rightly mentioned:

Perhaps if the player reports "this plan is no longer tenable," it's not worth a victory, but maybe a draw?

This can be gamed mentally as well by the player, without that you have to adapt your scenario.

Why ? The presence of an OPFOR QRF is indeed a realistic add-on to this scenario.

But then it may be realistic as well to give to BLUE:

a) the option to call in reinforcements as well, given that a larger battle is developing. But that would be making life even more difficult for SP: too much units to handle ... (unless you all script them ...)

or b) if such reinforcements would not be available, the possibility to withdraw, when faced with a superior force.

Which would be in line with your original tactical lesson: "defeat an inferior force, and use speed of advance to keep the enemy off balance".

So I probably will game the mission as if there were an option b) - without that you have to program it into the scenario.

It's all in the mind, isn't it ?

Again this shows how a "simple" scenario is quite fun & inspiring,

- way more than the "shooting stuff" scenario's - thx to your realistic approach, DrDevice !

Rgds, Koen

Edited February 21, 2010 by Koen

[DrDevice]

=> How does this go in real life ? To what degree does one take care of the wounded (be it own or adversary) ?

Some guidance on US policy for handling of WIA/KIAs at the company level can be found here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/71-1/711-ch7f.htm#sec6

This can be summarized as in some SOP docs as: "An armored ambulance or MEDEVAC helicopter will be dispatched to the platoon’s location if support is available. If MEDEVAC is not available, the platoon consolidates WIA personnel on one tank and evacuates them if the tactical situation permits."

Adversary casualties would be handled as Enemy Prisoners of War (EPW) and subject to the care guidelines under the appropriate SOP/articles of war, etc. An example: "Captives requiring immediate medical attention which is not for life or death circumstances are provided such if the mission permits. Captives who require immediate attention for life or death circumstances are provided such. US forces have priority of medical treatment. The medical officer will report any captive casualty immediately to the S2. Captured personnel are allowed to retain protective mask/clothing and other such items for protection against battlefield effects."

I believe Ssnake commented (some time ago now) that modelling this was not yet part of the scope of SB. It's important to real-world training, but handled in methods outside simulation on a PC.

=> How many med tracks accompany normally a US or German tankcoy ?

As far as I know, 1 per company team is typical. The medical platoon is a battalion-level asset with 6 M113A3 ambulances, assigned as needed. This is from a Force XXI OOB of an armored battalion: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/toe/17376F100.htm So if there are 3 MED tracks farmed out to the company maneuver teams, there are still 3 to perform other tasks, help transfer casualties, etc.

=> How many wounded can a med track carry ? And a helo ?

"The M113 tracked ambulance has a capacity of four litter casualties, or ten ambulatory casualties, or

a mixed load of two litter casualties and five ambulatory casualties."

source: http://www.olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_m113_ambulance.php

"The UH-60Q's medical interior can accomodate three to six acute care patients and their medical attendants."

source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/uh-60q.htm

or b) if such reinforcements would not be available, the possibility to withdraw, when faced with a superior force.

I agree that this eventuality could be addressed. Right now, the OPFOR QRF is tied to the player eliminating the CSOP, and a 20% chance that the OPFOR can afford to release the forces. (Assuming an imaginary battle going on to your north as TF 1-63 engages the Krasnovians on the south wall of the central corridor, somewhere east of Hill 780. The idea is that they won't have the ability/time/resources to stop Team ACES.) I might further refine that to a time-related variable. e.g. if the player whacks the CSOP early on then the chances are higher that TF 1-63 has enough time or inclination to send the QRF.

As for Blue reinforcements: From my imagining of the battle plan, and from readings in 66 Tales, if I were the TF 1-63 CO and I got a company stuck in Hidden Valley, it's unlikely I could get forces to them in time, or that I could spare the assets from my main effort. There are only so many maneuver companies to go around, and in Hidden Valley Blues, you are playing the role of the support force. If you fail, there isn't any extra combat power to back your play.

This is the cool part of scenario design - telling a story that the player gets to be a part of.

[Koen]

THx for the info ! K

[Ssnake]

I really appreciate this discussion in general, and your detailed background explanations for your scenario design decisions.

[Koen]

I'm working on a few scenarios, based on readings from "66 Tales of Battle Command."

Battalion Commander DrDevice, this is Team Aces:

So we exited the Hidden Valley - are waiting for you orders - which new missions do you have in store for us ? - we want to participate in this Campaign - Over & out

Cdr, Team Aces

-----------------

Just being curious, if you would be designing a new scenario (or even a campaign ...) ?

NB Can be quite time-consuming in SB to do so, isn't it ?

Rgds, Koen

:-)

[DrDevice]

I'm working on another company-team level mission called "Tombstone" that is a relief in place mission. I'm at about 80%, I'd say. I hope to get it done in the next 2 weeks. It's not set at the NTC, but I'm aiming at a similar realistic feel.

At the NTC they use the "Krasnovians" as the OPFOR, a fictional Soviet-style enemy. Along with several other fictional entities, they use this to give the students a better picture of "the road to war" and the expected tactics and equipment of varying forces.

I've been taking that same concept and working on 3 "theatre" concepts for use in my SP designs. One desert, one temperate, one jungle. Each will have some CIA factbook-style background for online viewing, fictional units for both sides and the missions set on a specific SB map, or group of maps, similar to how the Red Leopard campaign has been running.

My basic goal is a set of plausible missions with manageable levels of units.

I've also thought about trying to assemble a "scenario design team" to work on various aspects of a SP or Co-op campaign. The idea being that 3-4 folks could combine effort to produce high-quality scenarios in a shorter time frame. The scenario packs would be not just mission files, but the skins, background info, mock intel stuff, all packaged in a neat little zip file.

This could just as well work in an MP campaign, I suppose.

Just some thoughts.

[Koen]

* New mission & concept:

Outstanding !, is the word that comes to my mind.

* "Scenario design team of 3-4 ppl":

SB could use this very much indeed, given its wealth of possibilities as a sim,

but also given the amount of time that can be required to create a well tested & functioning scenario.

Oh, I wish I could take part in such an effort.

But of course, I don't want to invite myself, as I don't know whether you would be interested in a helping hand from my side

- and moreover my free time is probably too limited to be of use to you (cfr. the shorter time frame that you have in mind).

* Here's another idea in this respect: Multi Single Player.

The idea would be that 2 or 3 persons ("Multi") together build one scenario for "Single Player".

They do this together, but at the same indepently from each other:

-> One person gives a task to both the Blue scenario designer and the Red one: occupy region X, or whatever ...

But important, Blue doesn't know what is the Red task & vice versa (password protection and work alternately) !

-> Another person then builds the Blue side;

-> The third one builds the Red side.

There would be more the element of human verus human in this scenario, à la MP, but in a SP scenario (more impredictability) ?

And as one person really only has to focus on one side, the actions of the AI-units could be developed more indepth, with several branching plans.

Scenario could be played eventually both from the Red and Blue side (in SP !)

All the best,

Koen

[DrDevice]

Oh, I wish I could take part in such an effort.

But of course, I don't want to invite myself, as I don't know whether you would be interested in a helping hand from my side

- and moreover my free time is probably too limited to be of use to you (cfr. the shorter time frame that you have in mind).

Actually, the reason I haven't started this up is the same as yours: ensuring enough free time. However, the goal is to allow the contributors to have a real life with limited time and still get something done. I'll start up another thread regarding the design team where we can discuss further.

And don't feel like you are inviting yourself. If/when I can get this started, there would have to be a plea for interested parties! If you were so inclined, your help would be welcome.

To be back on track - I will upload the final/corrected version of Hidden Valley Blues tonight, for those that are interested.