Campaign Design: OPV3 Retrospective

[Mousehold]

I'm starting this thread because I didn't want to clutter up the OPV3 thread over here: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=17434

I'm going to quote some things from that thread, since they're germane to this one.

1. Quality Assurance with respect to the scenario design. I know I made some mistakes throughout the campaign that affected both sides, and for that I apologise. I'll have to be more thorough in testing the missions. I also need to read the rules myself to make sure they are 100% accurate (the HQ issue).

2. Side missions. Generally good, but the UAV mission could have been set up better.

3. Objectives. Need to make sure that they are even and fair for both sides at the beginning. One idea was to have an equal number of objectives already behind both side's front lines at the beginning of the campaign.

4. Campaign Objective. I'm going to rethink the HQ idea, and try to come up with a different campaign objective.

5. Levels of victory. Add conditions for Major/Minor victory or a draw.

6. Objective points when already under control. I'll probably reduce this from 50% to 25% next time.

7. Adjustment of some of the point values for defensive items.

8. CCP. Instead of one big one, I'm considering making smaller ones for each of the companies, as they all had their own support vehicles. This might make the CCP's more valuable.

9. No map updates. This slows things down, so if used, then number of missions should be increased to give more time to move the map.

10. Map size. Keep it east/west or north/south instead of a diagonal. The overall map size may need to be reduced, along with the unit count. One idea was to take a 20x20km map and divide it in half so you would play on two 10x20km chunks if a larger area of operations is desired.

1. I strongly disliked having an identical orbat for both teams. This was made worse by night missions and no map updates. I wouldn't do this again.

2. I disliked the night missions. I know I have read before on these forums from a developer or tester that Steel Beasts is not considered to be very good at simulating night time (mostly with regards to AI spotting), and that the time of day setting is really only there to have missions that begin at dawn or end at dusk. I'd suffer another night mission again if I really ad to.

3. I'm never playing without map updates again until they update the way it works. Blargh!

4. As well as allowing multiple CCPs per team, I would like to see the CCP be dynamic rather than pre-placed. It should a circle centered on the lead vehicle in the supply platoon, and should only function if all other necessary vehicles from the supply platoon are also within that circle.

5. Not only was the map size too big, but there were too many units in general. I don't think there should be more than one platoon of combat vehicles per player. As Blue XO, in command of Bravo Coy, I spent much too much time pushing pieces around the map rather than looking through a GPS.

6. That mountainous forest just off center of the map! I spent every mission wrestling with that thing. It was not fun, and it was made worse by the simulation's lackluster infantry, night time, and no map updates. Ugly terrain features like that make for good tactical choices, but it literally extended from one HQ to another parallel to our advance.

7. Six missions felt too long to me. I think I was 'done' after about the fourth one, but that might be because of my previous point.

8. Helicopters! Well, I actually have some good things to say about using them in a campaign, but I'll do that later. It will take some time to explain and probably deserves a separate thread.

9. I think there's not only a better way to handle objectives, but also reinforcements. It will take some thinking about though, and I've got to get going for now.

Okay, so that's enough quoting. We'll see how much of that I end up referring back to in this thread. Anyway, Operation Variable 3 was my first campaign, and Volcano implied in response to me that having the same vehicles on both sides was something central to the Operation Variable series.

Personally, I disliked having the same units on both side, but I recognize that balancing two sides with different units is pretty tough. You definitely can't test H2H balance using just AI either. I think people are comfortable with a 1:1 balance between the M1A1 and Leopard 2A4, but that would get boring after a while. We've got lots of other assets to use.

So that's a clear problem when designing scenarios. If you can schedule a game well ahead of time, like Operation Variable, and you know who the team captains are, then my suggestion to balancing asymmetrical teams is to use a bidding system.

Letting the team COs decide what is fair by bidding means they can't complain (as much :biggrin:) about play balance later on. The weakness is that bad judgement on a COs part could ruin the fun for his team even before the battle begins. They'll need plenty of information about the map and their objectives in order to make fair bids.

Now about HELICOPTERS! Helicopters are very shallowly modeled in Steel Beasts, and as of the current version of the game they have some serious issues when it comes to engaging the enemy from long range. That said, they can be very useful in scenario design once you understand how they work. Although Red's Tigers only destroyed a CV90 and an Abrams, Blue team successfully used their Tiger helicopters to wipe out two platoons of tanks during the campaign. Hinds were completely useless in OPV3.

According to my personal tests, helicopters in Steel Beasts work as follows:

1. Helicopters with thermal sights (like the Tiger ARH) can see out to twice the visibility distance set in the map editor, up to 4000m.

2. All helicopters can see out to the visibility distance set in the map editor, up to 6000m. Even though the Hellfire missile has a range of 8000m, helicopters will never see or engage a target farther than 6000m with any weapon. (The Hind's AT missiles have a range of 5000m.)

3. AI tank gunners will engage helicopters that come within 4000m of them. They are very accurate! All Tigers lost in OPV3 were killed by enemy tanks, not by Tunguskas.

4. Shilkas are terrible. They have a very short range of 2500m and are very inaccurate. A helicopter hovering steadily within a Shilka's engagement range can still often defeat a Shilka in single combat. Assuming the visibility distance allows them to do so, helicopters will gladly demolish Shilkas by the octet without ever risking themselves to return fire.

5. Tunguskas are magic! If a helicopter is within 7500m of a Tunguska, and the Tunguska has line of sight, then you can expect to lose your helicopter. Although the maximum engagement range of a Hellfire would normally allow it to engage a Tunguska with a sliver of safety, helicopters will not engage anything beyond 6000m no matter what. Tunguskas will happily do so, however. They are effectively a hard counter to helicopters in Steel Beasts. Only solid mountains of earth will save you.

6. The Hind's anti-tank missiles are not very strong. The Hellfire C is better, and the Hellfire K is great. A Tiger ARH in a head-on battle with a platoon of M1A1 Abrams will easily win if it has the Hellfire K and a 5000m+ engagement range, but may run out of missiles before destroying the platoon if using the Hellfire C. The Hellfire C's weakness against the frontal armor of M1A1s and Leo2s is why Blue team in OPV3 split their Tigers and attacked from two directions at the same time. As a rule of thumb, expect 2 Hellfire K's to kill an Abrams from the front, while it will take 3 Hellfire C's. A Tiger carries 8 Hellfire missiles. If you have a Hind, don't bother attacking an Abrams from the front.

In Operation Variable, the visibility distance was set to 2000m. That means the Hinds were effectively blind and worthless. The Tigers could see out to 4000m with their thermals, and that let them be somewhat effective. If the visibility were set to 5000 or 6000m, however, both helicopters would have been very useful because they could have employed their weapons at a safe® distance from the enemy. If you plan to use helicopters, and you want them to be effective, consider very carefully what you do with the scenario's visibility. And keep in mind that a well-played Tiger helicopter that can see the enemy at long range will almost certainly wreck someone's day if there isn't a Tunguska around to save them.

[Gibsonm]

Anyway, Operation Variable 3 was my first campaign, and Volcano implied in response to me that having the same vehicles on both sides was something central to the Operation Variable series.

Well different campaigns use different ORBATS and different force selection methods.

"Red Tide" for example allowed COs to rotate units through successive battles (losses were carried forward) so eventaully you had severely understrength formations facing each other.

Others like "Brave Rifles", "Nordic BG" and the "ADF Campaign" use doctrinally sound, current structures (so you got what you got).

"OP Variable" I gather provided COs with a budget and a list of kit for COs to select from.

[Tacbat]

Over all three variations of the Operation Variable Campaign, the equipment available to both sides has ranged from:

1. A few common vehicles, but the remainder different

2. Completely different equipment

3. Completely the same equipment

Of the three, I'm partial to allowing both sides to choose from the same equipment list because then it's entirely fair.

If you can schedule a game well ahead of time, like Operation Variable, and you know who the team captains are, then my suggestion to balancing asymmetrical teams is to use a bidding system.

What do you mean by a "bidding system"?

[Gibsonm]

Although the maximum engagement range of a Hellfire would normally allow it to engage a Tunguska with a sliver of safety, helicopters will not engage anything beyond 6000m no matter what.

Which has been mentioned, discussed and is being addressed.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=18930

6. The Hind's anti-tank missiles are not very strong. The Hellfire C is better, and the Hellfire K is great.

And given the age and capabilities of the Hind's AT-6 compared to the ARH's Hellfire C is understandable (and I believe was reflected in their respective platform "pricing").

Basically is a "cheap" first gen Attack helo compared to an expensive third gen Attack helo.

[Mousehold]

What do you mean by a "bidding system"?

Here is a simplified example:

One team's orbat must be determined by the scenario designer. The other will be decided by the bidding process. We'll say 12 M1A1 Abrams are on blue team. Red team gets T-72M1s, but we don't know how many T-72M1s until the COs bid on it.

The bidding can be done in different ways. Here's two that I've thought up.

1. The COs bid for the right to play blue team. They bid a number of tanks for the red team, and whoever bids the highest gets to play blue. Each CO is effectively saying, "I can kill X number of T-72M1s with 12 Abrams."

2. The COs bid for the right to play red team. They bid a number of tanks for red team, and whoever bids the lowest gets to play red. Each CO is effectively saying, "I only need X number of T-72M1s to defeat 12 Abrams."

You may do a single double-blind bid, or you might get both COs together and have them bid and counter-bid one another in person.

But what about all the other vehicles, like PCs? You can easily establish what they'll have by simple ratio (which the COs will need to be made aware of before bidding). In the case of a tie bid (mostly for a single double-blind bid), you can bid something else as a tie breaker, such as bidding for PCs, or moving the location of an objective a certain number of meters in one side's favor along a set axis.

Which has been mentioned, discussed and is being addressed.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=18930

And given the age and capabilities of the Hind's AT-6 compared to the ARH's Hellfire C is understandable (and I believe was reflected in their respective platform "pricing").

Basically is a "cheap" first gen Attack helo compared to an expensive third gen Attack helo.

I'm just making observations, and I'm sure other people are aware of some of these things. But not everyone is, so hopefully they'll find this thread with lots of consolidated, relevant information.

Also, that thread is incorrect and doesn't explain helicopter engagement ranges in detail as I have. In it Tacbat states helicopters won't engage beyond 4000m, but they can and will engage out to 6000m if you set the visibility that far. Even Ssnake implies that 4000m is the limit, but it's not. (He also says it's fixed in the next patch, so yay for that.)

[Gibsonm]

(He also says it's fixed in the next patch, so yay for that.)

Yes, hence my comment "is being addressed".

[Froggy]

Here is a simplified example:

One team's orbat must be determined by the scenario designer. The other will be decided by the bidding process. We'll say 12 M1A1 Abrams are on blue team. Red team gets T-72M1s, but we don't know how many T-72M1s until the COs bid on it.

The bidding can be done in different ways. Here's two that I've thought up.

1. The COs bid for the right to play blue team. They bid a number of tanks for the red team, and whoever bids the highest gets to play blue. Each CO is effectively saying, "I can kill X number of T-72M1s with 12 Abrams."

2. The COs bid for the right to play red team. They bid a number of tanks for red team, and whoever bids the lowest gets to play red. Each CO is effectively saying, "I only need X number of T-72M1s to defeat 12 Abrams."

You may do a single double-blind bid, or you might get both COs together and have them bid and counter-bid one another in person.

But what about all the other vehicles, like PCs? You can easily establish what they'll have by simple ratio (which the COs will need to be made aware of before bidding). In the case of a tie bid (mostly for a single double-blind bid), you can bid something else as a tie breaker, such as bidding for PCs, or moving the location of an objective a certain number of meters in one side's favor along a set axis.

Feel free to organize your own campaign with your rules, and I'm sure Sean will be glad to host it.

I have made my owns with 507 RCC.

They all were continuous: each battle was the sequel of the previous, even damaged vehicules were represented at the exact location they were at the end of the last battle.

We were fair enought to not look at AAR except for own side and to place units.

It took 2 weeks to place unit on map for each side for each battle (thanks to rapports), and set reinforcement accordingly to reserves.

Every battle was 2h.

1st was regiment size, with similar ordbat. But if we were enought for the first scenario, we finish by having more than a coy per player...

2nd was regiment size, but unit arrived at time on the battle field. recce with a small armoured force encounter eny. 1h latter, reinforcement arrive, and so on.

It was easier to handle, but once again, disponibility of player was not sufficient.

3rd was compagny sized, and last only 2 battles, one camp was almost annihilated after the first encounter.