Defense of Kozda - Is this Cheating? ;)

[Quagmire]

Hi guys,

I played the Defense of Kozda scenario for the first time yesterday. Great gameplay! Thanks to GaryOwen for the mission!

Just wondering if my tactics could be viewed as 'cheating' somehow? :biggrin:

As you only control the forces on the left I noticed an obvious choke point with the bridge, and after knocking out a PC on the crossing I hammered the area several times with HE.

Even though I had no direct fire to the road on the right, it too came under heavy HE attacks.

The results speak for themselves.

First pic is the map taken just before the scenario ended. As you can see there are two groups of enemies to the top left and right of the screen.

Second pic is the road, looking towards blue's forces.

Third pic is the bridge - total mayhem. :biggrin:

Needless to say, no forces made it close to Kozda!

Q

Edited September 10, 2010 by Quagmire
Corrected mission author's name

[GaryOwen]

The 'Kozda' based scenario authored by Hot Tom is available for in the download area and is not the same as the scenario included in the contest folder of the latest upgrade.

With this scenario, I attempted to be as faithful as possible to the vignette published in Armor magazine, especially with respect to the map, order of battle, and the possible enemy courses of action. I made no attempts to adjust forces or courses of action to balance the gameplay once the map and the initial route plotting were completed. The obstacle belts indicated in the original vignette proved very difficult, given the AI, to bypass or breach while under observation and under direct and indirect fire. Moving a motor rifle regiment is rather complex and in my attempts it tends to bottleneck somewhere; if not at a bridge, then later at the minefield.

The point of Armor Magazine's Tactical Vignettes was, arguably, to generate discussion on tactics by posing tactical problems and then publishing proposed solutions. As Ssnake recently posted, "Advanced players know that SB Pro actually is a wargame construction kit with appended capability to shoot stuff." The intent with this scenario was to attempt to demonstrate that with a bit of work, despite the inherent limitations of the pre-programmed instruction, SB may provide a semi-objective 'sandbox' to test such solutions. Accordingly, in my opinion, there is no 'cheating'.

[Quagmire]

Hi Gary, thanks mate - I didn't realise you did the Contest Version.

It wasn't 'cheating' I was questioning, more a case that I was quite chuffed for actually beating a scenario for once! :biggrin:

Cheers!

Q

[Gibsonm]

As Ssnake recently posted, "Advanced players know that SB Pro actually is a wargame construction kit with appended capability to shoot stuff." The intent with this scenario was to attempt to demonstrate that with a bit of work, despite the inherent limitations of the pre-programmed instruction, SB may provide a semi-objective 'sandbox' to test such solutions.

Exactly. I'm about to spend about 2 weeks doing this type of stuff every day as we use it to test "post H hour" decision making.

That is does their proposed plan (we do 2 or 3 a day) work?

This is almost always using F5 and the "observer" position to see what's going on in the "world". Almost never in the Gunner's seat.

[Ssnake]

Of course there are other military customers that consider Steel Beasts Pro to be a gunnery trainer with an appended capability to wargame tactical scenarios.

SB Pro is what you make of it. Can be a pretty entertaining game as well.

[Gibsonm]

Nils,

Yes you are absolutely correct.

This upcoming course is for Cbt Team commanders (well prospective ones anyway ) so they want the "bigger" picture. To see how their plan works out (or not).

I've also used it in the crew trainer role where we didn't get off a single vehicle and each person sat in their respective seat.

I've also used it at the LT level where the guy has to manage his time between the crew and the map. Three outcomes here:

1. Gets the balance right.

2. Focuses too much on the crew / "from my position" stuff and finds that his vehicle (or Troop) has survived but is cut off and useless.

3. Focuses too much on the map and doesn't notice the T-80 that pops his turret from 500m. Usually results in blood draining from face and me being asked "where the **** did he come from" and then in the AAR you show him that if he'd got out of the map once and a while he would have seen him.

Lastly, we intend to also use it as a lower control for a BDE HQ CPX.

They have the OPORD (as does my machine). We start and I use it as a basis for reports and returns as the units progress, sending in SITREPs etc.

So at say 0900 I can send in the locstats then at say 0930 we walk in with the "map" on my laptop and compare it to the HQ Battle Map and see if the locstat sent half an hour ago has made it onto the map yet (or is stuck in an IN tray or gone astray elsewhere), etc.

So certainly not contrained to one "level".

[Hedgehog]

Getting your moneys worth then?

What taxpayers like to see, well made investments....