TGIF 2014: scenario list, discussion, and house rules

[Gibsonm]

Let him rest up for LNoT.

After all he has a staring role in all three missions.

[Tacom]

Let him rest up for LNoT.

After all he has a staring role in all three missions.

Yea, i will need it, for the loooong night :heu:

[Volcano]

3 OCT scenario:

Tigers in the Mist

IMPORTANT: The map is very detailed with a lot of hedges, if you have frame rate problems during the scenario, then it is recommended that you temporarily turn your shadow detail slider all the way down to 0.

DISCLAIMER: This is a brand new scenario and, as such, it may have some rough edges that may need to get ironed out after playing.

NOTES:

• Avoid studying the enemy's side; only gather intel from the briefing and exposed enemy unit icons (enemy intel), and briefly looking over both sides to figure out which one you want to CO. Anything beyond that ruins the fog of war element.
  
• To avoid passwords, open the scenario in Network Session as HOST and choose the side you want to play and go to planning phase. You may briefly look at both sides like this to see which side you want to play or CO on. As CO, once you choose a side, go to that side and create your plan.
  
• Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com community rules.
  

Edited September 30, 2014 by Volcano

[Volcano]

BTW, I think last TGIF demonstrated quite well how Hellfire equipped helicopters can dominate the scenario once air defense is destroyed, especially when told to fly at maximum height and also when a supply truck exists. I didn't say anything about it, because both COs have hovered helicopters at maximum height before to fire Hellfires (this is neither a personal attack or an insult, I am just making an observation). I think it is fair to say that both sides have now equally experienced this issue from both the giving and receiving end.

In Red's defense, Blue's SAM vehicles were destroyed fairly quickly so that contributed to the situation. Regardless though, perhaps both sides can see how this behavior can be a bit unfair and frustrating, so I recommend a TGIF house rule for the time being: do not hover helicopters in battle positions at maximum ("Normal") height during scenarios.

Anyway, hovering in a battle position at maximum height is both unrealistic and unfair, especially since this is done as a way to use Hellfires like orbital bombardments, or to use a helicopter to spot the enemy like a satellite, or to use the helicopter as a distraction and because the Scenario Designer does not have the means to control the experience in this regard (ie. long range air defense assets or fighter cover cannot be represented, the only threats are what we can place on the map). So, I recommend this as a house rule and if anyone does otherwise then anyone and everyone that observes it should send a friendly reminder text message in to please bring the helicopters back down to a reasonable height.

Other immediate solutions:

1) I will add a few backup MANPAD SAMs to that Three Sisters scenario.

2) At some point we may put in restrictions to flight height as a feature in the scenario, but that is still being discussed.

Anyway, feature, added MANPADs or not, I still think we should all abide by the friendly rule of keeping helicopters hovering in battle positions no higher than Tree Top height.

Thoughts, support or objections?

Edited September 30, 2014 by Volcano

[MDF]

BTW, I think last TGIF demonstrated quite well how Hellfire equipped helicopters can dominate the scenario once air defense is destroyed, especially when told to fly at maximum height and also when a supply truck exists. I didn't say anything about it, because both COs have hovered helicopters at maximum height before to fire Hellfires (this is neither a personal attack or an insult, I am just making an observation). I think it is fair to say that both sides have now equally experienced this issue from both the giving and receiving end.

In Red's defense, Blue's SAM vehicles were destroyed fairly quickly so that contributed to the situation. Regardless though, perhaps both sides can see how this behavior can be a bit unfair and frustrating, so I recommend a TGIF house rule for the time being: do not hover helicopters in battle positions at maximum ("Normal") height during scenarios.

Anyway, hovering in a battle position at maximum height is both unrealistic and unfair, especially since this is done as a way to use Hellfires like orbital bombardments, or to use a helicopter to spot the enemy like a satellite, or to use the helicopter as a distraction and because the Scenario Designer does not have the means to control the experience in this regard (ie. long range air defense assets or fighter cover cannot be represented, the only threats are what we can place on the map). So, I recommend this as a house rule and if anyone does otherwise then anyone and everyone that observes it should send a friendly reminder text message in to please bring the helicopters back down to a reasonable height.

Other immediate solutions:

1) I will add a few backup MANPAD SAMs to that Three Sisters scenario.

2) At some point we may put in restrictions to flight height as a feature in the scenario, but that is still being discussed.

Anyway, feature, added MANPADs or not, I still think we should all abide by the friendly rule of keeping helicopters hovering in battle positions no higher than Tree Top height.

Thoughts, support or objections?

I posted some thoughts as to admittedly labor-intensive and imperfect solutions here a few months back. Another suggestion is to impose a hefty point penalty for loss of a high demand/low density asset like an attack helicopter. That might deter the high-altitude tactics to an extent.

Alas, I think part of the problem is that, in a typical TGIF mission, there are too many units for players to control effectively, so the air-defense assets are an afterthought. So often, they are deployed indifferently in exposed positions and promptly destroyed.

[Volcano]

I posted some thoughts as to admittedly labor-intensive and imperfect solutions here a few months back. Another suggestion is to impose a hefty point penalty for loss of a high demand/low density asset like an attack helicopter. That might deter the high-altitude tactics to an extent.

Alas, I think part of the problem is that, in a typical TGIF mission, there are too many units for players to control effectively, so the air-defense assets are an afterthought. So often, they are deployed indifferently in exposed positions and promptly destroyed.

Yeah I think that for the most part ADA units do keep helicopters "honest" but last Friday was a perfect storm of events that saw Blue lose their air defense relatively early in the scenario. Usually the air defense units out live the helicopters or the helicopters stay hidden until the end of the scenario out of fear of being shot down. However, once all on map air defense assets are gone then the scales are tipped drastically, and this makes scenario balancing very tough at times (since there is no off map ADA currently).

On the one had someone could justifiably say that the air defense units should be better protected than was the case last Friday (by either side, ironically, because both sides lost them early), but that doesn't mean we can't voluntarily limit ourselves and just keep helicopters in BPs at Tree Top height out of the sake of being realistic and not pissing each other off.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Volcano
clarification

[Lt DeFault]

Looks like I may actually be able to attend this TGIF and maybe even the next one. I can still just show up about 30-15 minutes ahead of time and go wherever I'm told, yes?

[Gibsonm]

Yes, the commit early policy is for COs.

[Volcano]

Looks like I may actually be able to attend this TGIF and maybe even the next one. I can still just show up about 30-15 minutes ahead of time and go wherever I'm told, yes?

Yep! :luxhello:

You can show up at the last minute if you like, although a few minutes early is preferred for everyone.

[Lt DeFault]

Hell yeah, TGIF was awesome...just like I remember! :gun:

[Tacbat]

Good to see you were able to make it out.

[Lt DeFault]

Thanks! That promotion I mentioned a while back isn't exactly working out in my favor. They've had me doing the job for almost three months now, but haven't actually promoted me. :gun::ANI_DI:

But, on the bright side, my immediate supervisor told me he could probably get me most Friday nights off. So maybe I'll be around to FUBAR some more missions.

[Gibsonm]

I recall there being some post mission chat about tuning the CR2 ammo load.

Absolutely agree with removing the SMK and perhaps reducing HESH, but can I request they retain some HESH in order to support the infantry?

Alternatively if the CR2s are meant to replicate Tiger I and be the focus of the tank fight, perhaps retain the HEAT/HESH loads in the Leo 1 / whatever as the Panther / Panzer IV proxy?

With no real artillery, Red needs to retain some HE capability (the 25mm and Mortar rounds don't really cut it) otherwise the Infantry are terribly exposed.

[Volcano]

I recall there being some post mission chat about tuning the CR2 ammo load.

Absolutely agree with removing the SMK and perhaps reducing HESH, but can I request they retain some HESH in order to support the infantry?

Alternatively if the CR2s are meant to replicate Tiger I and be the focus of the tank fight, perhaps retain the HEAT/HESH loads in the Leo 1 / whatever as the Panther / Panzer IV proxy?

With no real artillery, Red needs to retain some HE capability (the 25mm and Mortar rounds don't really cut it) otherwise the Infantry are terribly exposed.

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, actually I wasn't very happy with the scenario in general so, when I have time, I will likely throw it out and redo it completely at some point. Too much infantry, too many units, Blue didn't have the proper ammo, I think I will use Leo 2A4 instead of CR2, Red should not have had smoke grenades, etc.

Anyway, thanks to everyone that played it. You never know if a sceanrio is good or bad, or needs major rework until it is played for the first time. :bigsmile:

[Volcano]

10 OCT scenario:

H2H_Supply_Nigtmare_Summer_DE-3011-OMU

I haven't played this one myself, but it was suggested by a few members in the community, so we will give it a go.

NOTES:

• Avoid studying the enemy's side; only gather intel from the briefing and exposed enemy unit icons (enemy intel), and briefly looking over both sides to figure out which one you want to CO. Anything beyond that ruins the fog of war element.
  
• To avoid passwords, open the scenario in Network Session as HOST and choose the side you want to play and go to planning phase. You may briefly look at both sides like this to see which side you want to play or CO on. As CO, once you choose a side, go to that side and create your plan.
  
• Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com community rules.
  

Edited October 10, 2014 by Volcano

[Volcano]

Whoops, picked the wrong scenario the first time -- corrected now (Winter vs. Summer).

[Gibsonm]

Sorry can't make it (dare I say I have to prioritise my weekend SB time allocation between this and LNOT).

Have a good one anyway.

[D u k e]

Servus,

I have to set up my alarm clock.

A good warm up for LNoT.

cheers

D u k e

[Tjay]

TGIF takes place in the early hours of Saturday morning for us Brits. Oops, sorry, that should be 'us Europeans'. (Well, for the time being anyway. :clin:). But I'll do my best to stay awake and dip my toe in the rather scary TGIF waters for the first time. Hopefully, Assassin will volunteer to C.O blue - then I will feel relatively safe.

[Volcano]

Servus,

I have to set up my alarm clock.

A good warm up for LNoT.

cheers

D u k e

Excellent, tanks for breakfast! :bigsmile:

[Tacbat]

[Tacbat]

I haven't played this one myself, but it was suggested by a few members in the community, so we will give it a go.

So why aren't those members who suggested it stepping up to CO it?

I'll CO one side if no one else wants to with one condition: The other CO agrees that we only spend 15 min in the planning phase then we launch the mission ready or not.

[Volcano]

So why aren't those members who suggested it stepping up to CO it?

I'll CO one side if no one else wants to with one condition: The other CO agrees that we only spend 15 min in the planning phase then we launch the mission ready or not.

Seems like that should be a standard rule, unless someone is CO'ing the Island Invasion scenario from a few weeks ago.

Yes, we need more people to step up here. At one time we had a rotating/involuntary CO thing going where if you won then you CO'd next week and so on, but someone screwed that up by refusing to do it a second time. Too bad, because that was fun.

[MDF]

At one time we had a rotating/involuntary CO thing going where if you won then you CO'd next week and so on, but someone screwed that up by refusing to do it a second time. Too bad, because that was fun.

How did this work?:confused: If you CO'd and won, you were required to CO again next week? Maybe I'm missing something....how would this involuntarily get reluctant folks into CO slots?

Maybe do the reverse....if you are on the losing side (other than the CO), you're required to take a CO position the next week? Although, not sure how that would work if there are multiple people on the losing side and only 2 CO slots the following week.

[Volcano]

How did this work?:confused: If you CO'd and won, you were required to CO again next week? Maybe I'm missing something....how would this involuntarily get reluctant folks into CO slots?

It wasn't about getting people to fill slots, it was about forcing people to CO (and pull some weight), and then encouraging those to do it again that won. Unfortunately some people get deathly ill CO'ing, apparently. Anyway, it was called "CO challenge" if I recall, and it was sort of a contest for fun to see who can have the longest winning streak (kind of like a hit streak in baseball) and it went on for about a month until the party pooper(s) killed it.

Doing it the other way around implies that CO'ing is negative and I do not look at it that way. We need to get away from that idea. Also, if the loser had to CO again, then honestly, it is easier to maintain that streak and get trapped in an infinite loop of CO'ing than it is to win constantly. Personally, I don't understand the reluctance to CO. It is not difficult, it is just about drawing some initial arrows on the map, and then "herding cats " (so to speak) after that. If it is more difficult than that, then that person is doing it wrong. Other than that, to CO well you do have to spend more time at the map than in the gun sight, but that is about it.