Jump to content

H2H BW against RU, 24th of november 2012


Duke(911)

Recommended Posts

FB:

- The trigger for deactivating the map was mostly unnessecary. The whole Coy was just developing in this phase. But: if a IFV could not control their infantry, if the XO can´t handle his support units or I´m not able to return to my CO tank, respectively nobody can control AI units... I don´t get the point. With this trigger we lost the XO tank (route via bridge layer), 3 Leo2 by artillery and tank hunters, nearly one complete AI IFV plt in the river (route) and 2 IFVs and all remaining infantry from the other plt.

Just to mention that "Switch to next unit within the plt" or "Switch to next plt" didn´t work either... :confused:

- In the orders there was no hint for any estimated time, sce was ended after 90mins.

An assault over 14km, with several natural obstacles, against human enemy in equal strength and in defensive positions, superiour (triggered) artillery and trenches has to be quite optimistic during 90mins....

- Any more dismounted or leg infantry would be the dream for red side, I guess. But regarding the fact, how many time you need realisticly for fighting defending infantry (in urban area), determined time is unrealistic beyond that.

In order to make the scenario better:

- deactivate actualisation of map (trigger) then closing the map generally.

This makes no sense, when handling AI units.

- delete any estimated time, when bearing in mind the equal strength of both sides

- use modest reinforcements for red side (depending on red strenght or time or areas). Leo2/CV90 are normally superiour to T-72/BTR.

- perhaps let red side attack the next time :debile2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The two "EW" type triggers (jamming and map) were activated only as spotted Blue units were seen withdrawing from Donop in the last 15-20 mins of the mission, prior to that I would have thought would have been "normal".

BTW, as I didn't build the mission I have no idea as to what they were meant to do but as we were by then effectively reduced to RPG, limited TOW and Artillery fire I hoped they would have some effect.

I'd have to check, but I think only three artillery missions were "triggered" and all the rest were me.

However the fire units were only 3 tubes and given a 200 x 200 spread most times I would have though that would further disperse them.

Wasn't aware of your AI IFV platoon loss but for what its worth we lost 2 out of our entire T-72 strength (7) due to something similar (an unplanned error).

I guess if both sides can see room for improvement, it must be pretty balanced "as is"? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feedback C Platoon Leader:

The EW triggers do it for me and my buddy made ​​almost impossible the

Use AI units effectively. This led, among other things to which we had to withdraw despite superior forces at Donop. The EW-trigger use at this time was of course very smart tactically. I think the timing was right, otherwise it would not have been Donop hold of you.

But all in all, had also brought us the reach not so much because I think we only use 10-15 minutes before the end Donop. More infantry for the red side would not be appropriate in my opinion, rather more parts for blue.

Greetings Ricopico :drink:

P.S.

Otherwise it was a great evening, and I had a lot of fun. And of course, a salute to all the participants, "You are Great"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Falli and Riopico. The EW "surprise" would have been ok if only implemented disabling the Radio. I didn't knew that the possibility of dissabling the map was even considered for this match so it caught us by surprise and costed us several vehicles in the chaos.

Lol almost had the same effect as a low yield tactical nuclear weapon in Blue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EW triggers do it for me and my buddy made ​​almost impossible the

Use AI units effectively. This led, among other things to which we had to withdraw despite superior forces at Donop.

Ah so they did actually do something. :)

Anybody know what they were meant to do, in terms of the Mission Editor?

I gather disable the radios or something similar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah so they did actually do something. :)

Anybody know what they were meant to do, in terms of the Mission Editor?

I gather disable the radios or something similar?

It dissabled our radios and map in most vehicles at least in my platoon for some time.

Without the map we could not give orders to the AI neither to know where they were or even we could not jump into another vehicle.

I think for EW, disabling Radio is OK but dissabling Map is a playability issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah so they did actually do something. :)

Anybody know what they were meant to do, in terms of the Mission Editor?

I gather disable the radios or something similar?

Blue side: Damage if....Radios & Map view...Red Condition/Event "Radios Out" or "Maps Out" is true. (Arbritray titles)

Would be how I'd do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Hedgehog

Roof first one makes a silly face when suddenly no longer works properly. I also wanted my half platoon leader does not leave you alone. No later than the missile flew me around the ears, I thought it would then change your mind, but too late.

@ Gibsonm

Switch off the map update would have been enough I think. By the complete shutdown of the card you're already very affected. Despite all this it was still cool.

For my pulse then took quite a while to come down! :eek2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the problem with the EW-triggers, and think 2 radio-triggers would do the job.

- In the orders there was no hint for any estimated time, sce was ended after 90mins.

An assault over 14km, with several natural obstacles, against human enemy in equal strength and in defensive positions, superiour (triggered) artillery and trenches has to be quite optimistic during 90mins....

These are actually 2 points:

1. No hint for the time-limit

2. The timelimit itself.

To the first point I could only say: It's unlucky and it shouldn't be, but with a better preparation on blue, there wouldn't be this problem.

2. 90 minutes with the current forces on each side is definitely enough, because the red units AREN'T equal to the blue and the terrain prefers after a closer look the blue forces.

- Any more dismounted or leg infantry would be the dream for red side, I guess. But regarding the fact, how many time you need realisticly for fighting defending infantry (in urban area), determined time is unrealistic beyond that.

I don't think that red needs more infantry, but you are right, if more infantry on red side is implemented, there has to be more time.

- delete any estimated time, when bearing in mind the equal strength of both sides

They aren't equal, and you know that, due to your next statement

- use modest reinforcements for red side (depending on red strenght or time or areas). Leo2/CV90 are normally superiour to T-72/BTR.

On this map, they are FAR superior,just because of the optics and the terrain.

With perfect play, on both sides, in the current version, and all vehicles manned by players, I would guess blues chances to win are over 90%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Thonar.

You failed to account for the far superior artillery numbers in Red that helped to balance the forces.

The fact that Blue lost more vehicles to arty than to combat vehicles fire should be taken into account.

The artyllery delayed us a lot and inflicted heavy damage in our forces far more damage than any of your tank or tank hunter units.

90 minutes would force Blue to rush its attack into a well prepared defensive possitions.

Anyway the time limit should have been known before the combat so planning shoould accomodate with that. I had no idea about such limit neither it was mentioned in our Commander Orders

The use of TOW launchers in RED team using termal sights (Unless you tell me that the Thermals have been dissabled on the M113 TOW vehicles) is another factor you have not mentioned and TOW launchers were your only succesful combat vehicle on this fight. That was also another "bonus" for Red.

I was surprised to find in the AAR that RED have placed infrantry recon teams in our laterals real close to our line of departure. Spetnaz Rambos? That surely helped the Arty boss to know our wherabouts from minute 1.

However I can live with this. I was expecting heavy and skilled arty.

So I fully agree with Falli analisis of the situation.

Remove the time limit and the Dissable Map EW thing and then it would be perfect. :biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furia:

1. I took the artillery into count. But 3x3 isn't that strong. It's only strong if you guys stay still or when you guys getting blocked OR if your platoons haven't enough space to maneuver. But I expect from modern day tank drivers to change positions often enough to avoid artillery fields which cant be greater then 200x200 to be effective.

2. The M113 TOW doesn't have thermal sights, because they are disabled.

3. These aren't "spetnatz rambos", this is the disembark infantry of the red's recce-squads.

The only 2 chances for red to win this scenario is:

1.: A slow-moving, carefully acting blue-force, to win over time(! because such a force CAN'T be stopped by red).

or

2.: A fast advancing, well prepared blue force to compensate the own(red) disadvantages, but this is much more a coin-flip. If the blue platoon-leaders, and the CO is flexible, there will be even here no chance for red to win this scenario.

The following is: To remove the timelimit means to remove the only real chance for red to win this scenario.

Greetings

Thonar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a player of comparitively little experience who plays mostly at platoon or company commander level, I would be pissed off if I had routed a platoon of AI tanks over a bridge with the intention of halting them before the bridge and driving them over individually, to find that I was prevented from doing that by the disappearance of the map, and as result they ended up in the river.

On the other hand, I guess a prudent player would put the end of the route just before the bridge so the AI tanks would stop there until given further orders. But if the map is out for 15min then they are unlikely to alive when it comes back up as they will have been spotted and destroyed in place.

2p please.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M113 TOW doesn't have thermal sights, because they are disabled.

Indeed, I didn't have thermals.

TOW system has a max range of 3750m, Visibility was < 4000m

So, sitting around when TOWs are sneaking around is not good for one's health

I wasn't really doing much spotting, more hiding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Servus,

I try to explain, why I made this H2H.

I like the COOP mission Wahmbecker Wahnsinn, thats why I wanted to use this map and this zone of action for blue and therefore blue attacks.

It should be playable for ca 20 to 25 players and I wanted to use for red side only russian playable equipment.

After some tests and discussion with the russian guys I decided to use M113A3TOW for red, because the PALR squads are to slow for a flexible fight.

I think the ratio 10 Leo2A4 against 7 T-72M1 is ok.

But I had problems with the IFV`s. So the only playable is the BTR-80.

So we have 8 CV9030FI against 7 BTR-80. So I don`t want to be in a BTR against CV90 or what ever. If I take more BTR`s, I have to much infantry on red side. So I decided to gave red the posibility to destroy the bridges with IED`s and gave them two extra minefields. Therefore blue has a engineer plt with 2 bridges, MICLIC, ARV with mine plow, two M113A3Eng, and I gave blue the chance to defuse the IED`s. Ok, this works only if red forget to use the trigger.

So red has 3 plt`s with 3 tubes and blue has 1plt with 4tubes.

I think for blue it`s ok, you have not more in real life for a company in this situation and for red I don`t know how many artillery red flanking forces have, so 3x 3 is a compromise.

Why "triggered" arty? T-72`s are to slow in retreating therefore the most triggered mission are missions to interdict blue forces.

so I can write more, but I have nightshift.

But we can discuss in TS again or here.

best regards

Duke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You failed to account for the far superior artillery numbers in Red that helped to balance the forces.

The fact that Blue lost more vehicles to arty than to combat vehicles fire should be taken into account.

The artyllery delayed us a lot and inflicted heavy damage in our forces far more damage than any of your tank or tank hunter units.

I'm pretty sure Thonar only fired two or three of the scripted missions. If you look at the AAR from the red side you'll see the red boxes on the map from the beginning.

The rest (and I think the ones that caused the vehicle damage) were all "manual" and were limited to single three tube fire units.

So yes "far superior" in terms of three fire units gave some flexibility to engage multiple targets but as each fir unit was only 3 tubes (half a battery) their effectiveness in a 200 x 200 box would be limited compared to 6 tubes.

I was surprised to find in the AAR that RED have placed infrantry recon teams in our laterals real close to our line of departure. Spetnaz Rambos? That surely helped the Arty boss to know our wherabouts from minute 1.

However I can live with this. I was expecting heavy and skilled arty.

These were indeed the recon units that were forward of our position.

They provided limited spotting and again because you were moving by the time my missions arrived you were no longer in the target location.

They were used agressively by the person they were allocated to (perhaps too aggressively) and as a result they provided only limited information to me before being destroyed.

Edited by Gibsonm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blue side: Damage if....Radios & Map view...Red Condition/Event "Radios Out" or "Maps Out" is true. (Arbritray titles)

Would be how I'd do it.

Yes I'd do something siumilar but as the mission is password protected I was after the designer to tell how it was actually done so I could understand the effects.

As it stands the scenario has the triggers in German (and very brief English) and I was guessing when I activated them. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the problem with the EW-triggers, and think 2 radio-triggers would do the job.

To the first point I could only say: It's unlucky and it shouldn't be, but with a better preparation on blue, there wouldn't be this problem.

I´m not a friend of testing and planning and testing and planning a scenario over days just to have a better chance than the opposing force ;) I get an order, I make a plan (with some backups) within 30mins and then it´s good to go. When the orders don´t have a reminder for an estimated time... I presume there´s no one :)

2. 90 minutes with the current forces on each side is definitely enough, because the red units AREN'T equal to the blue and the terrain prefers after a closer look the blue forces.
They aren't equal, and you know that, due to your next statement
On this map, they are FAR superior,just because of the optics and the terrain.

Don´t mistake quantity for quality ;) The amount of RED units is nearly equal to BLUE side, but the effective combat quality of german units is better, of course. Because of this fact, I wouldn´t mention the optimal ratio 1:3 of attacker/defender.

Therefore the hint for some reinforcements in a later phase, maybe.

But don´t blame NATO to have "better" individual material :biggrin:

The terrain always has pros and contras for both sides, it just depends on how you "use" it for your purpose. As you know my understanding of german operational principals, you just had an overall suspicion of my general behaviour :P

With perfect play, on both sides, in the current version, and all vehicles manned by players, I would guess blues chances to win are over 90%.

BLUE played nearly perfect (within its AIs framework) and RED did their best to give us a hard way through the area. I would support your suggestion due to the fact, that we lost most of our combat strenght during the trigger time.

If there were US/other NATOs units instead of SU... it would be a massacre for BLUE.

All in all a good practise and a good scenario for H2H. As always it´s just a matter of tuning and usability :biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I´m not a friend of testing and planning and testing and planning a scenario over days just to have a better chance than the opposing force ;) I get an order, I make a plan (with some backups) within 30mins and then it´s good to go. When the orders don´t have a reminder for an estimated time... I presume there´s no one :)

For sure you can make a plan within 30 minutes, but maybe you shouldn't think then, that this idea of battle you did in the plan is an example for changing a scenario.

A H2H isn't, in my opinion, an COOP. Pre-Planning is decisive, not only for victory, also for a good fight and for a good leading.

Don´t mistake quantity for quality ;) The amount of RED units is nearly equal to BLUE side, but the effective combat quality of german units is better, of course. Because of this fact, I wouldn´t mention the optimal ratio 1:3 of attacker/defender.

Therefore the hint for some reinforcements in a later phase, maybe.

But don´t blame NATO to have "better" individual material :biggrin:

I didn't blame NATO for "better" equipment, but the 3:1 Attacker : Defender-Ratio is IMO given, due to the terrain and the equipment.

The terrain always has pros and contras for both sides, it just depends on how you "use" it for your purpose.

Sounds smart, but isn't. There are at least 2 points I think instantly of, why this sentence can't be true:

1. 2 opposite sites, don't have the same mission or idea of operation.

2. A natural object could for sure be positive and negative for both sides, but this positive and negative effects aren't the same, nor are they equal. Maybe the effects of the terrain will come into a balance, but this balance doesn't have to be on the same level. A river, which is positive for the company, doesn't has to be positive for the battalion. And we can't simulate all these levels...

As you know my understanding of german operational principals, you just had an overall suspicion of my general behaviour :P

Indeed I did, and more as you might think of...

BLUE played nearly perfect (within its AIs framework) and RED did their best to give us a hard way through the area. I would support your suggestion due to the fact, that we lost most of our combat strenght during the trigger time.

If there were US/other NATOs units instead of SU... it would be a massacre for BLUE.

If BLUE had been played perfect, they would have won.

And if RED would have NATO-Units, it would be a massacre.

The main problem is: The last battle CAN'T be an example for this scenario, due to the carefully operating blue forces, using every single advantage of their equipment and the terrain, which I have to say again: prefers blue.

Without the triggers, and with a longer time limit, BLUE would have crushed RED for sure.

With the time limit the odds are back to be even. Because BLUE has to be under time pressure or to be careless.

And a time limit isn't unrealistic, because the red battalion may throw another company into defense or the brigade arrives and starts a counterattack.

All in all a good practise and a good scenario for H2H. As always it´s just a matter of tuning and usability

For sure it is, but the last game, cannot be an example... (maybe for the EW, but definitely not for the rest...)

Greetings

Thonar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I understand that this isn't an optimal attitude with respect to entertainment, but I have to say it loudly and proudly at least once:

Screw Balance!

In combat, you're sometimes dealt a bad hand with which you can't win unless the enemy does you a favor and makes one or a string of bad mistakes, and Lady Luck is smiling on you. Of course winning is more fun that losing, but it's from losing that you learn. Winners get infected with victory disease. If they constantly win, they eventually stop learning and forget that they even COULD lose. So, losing is good, it has its purpose.

Be thankful that in a simulation, you live to learn from your losses. Much better than in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ALLWAYS: The better Plan wins !

Agreed, as a good(or better) plan will include the part: Kampfkraftvergleich (comparison of own/eny forces)

If that is in no favour for you, the better plan is: "Run like fuck..." :-D

As to the famed 1:3 force ratio. Lets try a scenario where 1 platoon, in a platoon size AOR, defends against 1 company and see how they fare.

If you can bring 1:3 to bear against your foe...you'll smash them. 1:3 is the grade A condition for an attack, not much fun to play on the defenders side.

In my p.o.v. it does not make sense to play a sce. with a preset, global, 1:3(quantity) force ratio.

Set the sce up that the attacker must WORK to gain a LOCAL superiority IOT to achieve his goal, it starts to get interessting.

One way to do it: Overstreched AOR for the defender, so the attacker can pick a spot where to strike.

(of course he has to bind/deceive the other defender forces to keep local superiority)

Edited by Grenny
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...