Jump to content

TGIF 2014: scenario list, discussion, and house rules


Volcano

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 467
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

What is the password for the scenario we played back Sunday? I want the option of playing both sides on this.

RedWardancer,

The mission we played was not a TGIF mission. You can PM me or talk to me on TS about the password, but until our group can master it, I will not be giving out the password till then.

Cougar11

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where I have to put the .htg file to open the mission with the editor?. I can not remember :c:

Windows 7 & 8

C:\ProgramData\eSim Games\Steel Beasts\maps

Windows XP

C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\eSim Games\Steel Beasts\maps

Note: There are folders within the maps folder and the appropriate files should be dropped in the correct folder

"*.ter" in the "terrain" folder

"*.hgt" in the "height" folder

Note: The folders may be hidden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

14 NOV scenario:

Island Civil War 02-MK-3011b

This is one of the more "busy" scenarios (lots of objectives and events), but it was simplified/streamlined it a bit lately. And yes, the last Op Variable was on this map - so everyone that participated in it should know the central part of the island like the back of your hand. ;)

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 by Volcano
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Interesting. Both certainly sound like a mistake, I will take a look...

OK, I updated it again. The technicals on both sides should now have ammo (neither side had ammo for some reason). As for map updates, both sides had full map updates (the original scenario was on a very large island and it was necessary), but I think this small island scenario could have own party map updates just fine, so I did that in this version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

21 NOV scenario:

Tactical Checkers 01-NP-3011

Yes, this is one of the more different scenarios. It is a huge tank-pure battle with a twist.

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 by Volcano
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From house rules:"DO NOT hover helicopters at maximum ("Normal") height in battle positions, to use as an ATGM platform or to act as a recon satellite or an AI distraction. This is unrealistic at the moment since the Scenario Designer currently has no way to restrict/limit/cap flight height because he may want to represent certain types of conflicts where long range air defense and air superiority fighters exist. At such time, if ever, that the Scenario Designer can specify a maximum flight height, then we can remove this house rule."

It only says hover,does this means that you can use routes(atack,assault,etc) at high height?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
From house rules:"DO NOT hover helicopters at maximum ("Normal") height in battle positions, to use as an ATGM platform or to act as a recon satellite or an AI distraction. This is unrealistic at the moment since the Scenario Designer currently has no way to restrict/limit/cap flight height because he may want to represent certain types of conflicts where long range air defense and air superiority fighters exist. At such time, if ever, that the Scenario Designer can specify a maximum flight height, then we can remove this house rule."

It only says hover,does this means that you can use routes(atack,assault,etc) at high height?

Well, it is specifically referring to hovering and engaging targets at maximum height. This is a bit silly. Flying around is another matter and that is fine, but the problem here is that someone will have the helicopter on ENGAGE or ASSAULT and it will stop to hover to engage, and so we are back at the helicopter hovering at maximum height issue, and then we debate whether the person giving it the order meant to have it stop engage or not, or that he didn't know, etc. So no, they shouldn't "fly around" at maximum height if you intend to have them engage the enemy, but in general you just shouldn't have them flying around at maximum height anyway.

I would only have them at maximum height if it is a transport helicopter to get from point A to point B, or it is a very mountainous map. Otherwise whoever is using them is intentionally trying to piss everyone off by drawing attention, spotting units, or trying to go into an orbital position to drop missiles across the map. The point here being that since SB doesn't have long range air defense units, it really doesn't make sense to do this behavior unless it was a scenario modeling an insurgency of Apaches versus irregulars.

Edited by Volcano
clarified a few things
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I supossed, then i think that the rule is very restrictive, and we are moving from one side to the opposite,from helicopters being deadly killing tank machines to being near harmless flying birds.I think its better limit helicopter's power using worst ammo,or adding more air defense units,or limit their resupply times,like addind a simulated "air base" that ressuply helicopters only after 15 mins.

Im going to explain the ridiculous situation that happened last TGIF.There was some enemy tanks in a objective at the top of a hill, and my helicopter was not able to engage them because my height was too low, so my only option was get very close inside the top of the hill to engage(i will add picture later for clarify this).

dibujo.jpg

subir gif

The problem with helicopters detecting everything can be solved using no enemy map contacts, as we usually do in TGIF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with helicopters detecting everything can be solved using no enemy map contacts, as we usually do in TGIF.

Well I don't know about "usually".

"Often" perhaps or "the recently adopted practice of no enemy map updates for some/most missions", sure.

But over the last four yrs or so that I've been involved in TGIF I wouldn't call it "usual".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a tough problem. How do you enforce responsible behavior with a powerful weapon and still model that weapon at least somewhat accurately in a world where there are no tangible consequences of misuse?

Maybe whoever takes the helos at mission start would not get another vehicle if killed or exploiting? IDK, I'm just thinking out loud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rule is to avoid the use of exploits (cheats) that may be tried for the most part. I think it is less intended to prevent their tactical advantage in most situations.

Way back in the day, just after helos were introduced into SB, a group of players figured out that a player could orbit a helo at max altitude and that AI ground vehicles would orient their gun tubes into the sky, even though the vehicles could not see or engage the helo. Vehicles would do this even with a known ground threat that was visible. It is easy to see the advantage that was gained by players who would game the system at the right times. This was most effective when the slant range to the helo was greater that the visibility range. IRL it would be suicidal to orbit the front lines in a helo at such an altitude, but the array of threats is far greater IRL than in SB, of course.

Later, as that AI behavior was reduced, others discovered that with map updates on, a cargo helicopter could be used as a reconnaissance satellite as it flew at high speed into enemy territory, spotting every enemy unit within 4KM of it and instantly plotting those units on the map. So half the players in a TGIF who had low tech forces and depended on surprise for their survival against a high tech force, had their positions instantly revealed and were destroyed Desert Storm style. Not much fun for the low tech team that night. Of course IRL no sane pilot would slalom through the enemy front lines in a CH-47 for recon, but it can happen in SB when players have a win at all costs mentality. The balance of the scenario was destroyed by one player with 1 helo that could not even fire missiles. Do not read this as me being against helos. I spent almost 20 years as a Uh-60 crew member. I loves me some helicopter.

I dont think the intent of the rule is to prevent a player from going to whatever altitude is required to gain LOS for a missile engagement. I think it is simply meant as a reminder to keep helos attended by a human when they are in a BP as they will currently climb in some situations under AI control. Helos at max altitude can cause unintended behaviors from the AI.

IIRC, the rule stems from a scenario where one side was not careful with its ADA or just had bad luck, I dont remember that part, but its ADA assets were destroyed and a well placed attack into the enemy rear area was spotted and slowed/attritted by attack helos at near max altitude and range. Although this is what would probably happen IRL, it sure took the fun out of that scenario for one side.

Helos are problematic in SB. They have the power to unhinge a scenarios balance. As IRL they are powerful assets that must be utilized wisely, and they currently face in immature threat array in SB. The larger question of how to control behavior has no easy answer. The recently added ability to set map updates is helpful but not a cure.

Regards,

Mog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Well, the usual problem with the train of thought that goes into using helicopters in SB revolves around what is possible in the game, and what is practical in real life. Again, on a real life high intensity battlefield, helicopters do not fly around at a thousand feet, they fly NOE, and they certainly don't HOVER at 1000 feet to engage targets. The very idea of this is just plain silly and is in the realm of fantasy (again, notice that I am speaking of HIGH INTENSITY CONFLICTS).

The fact is that very few SB scenarios represent low intensity conflicts. These would be the kind that cover a high tech force engaging a low tech insurgency. In those scenarios, which would be similar to Iraq and Afghanistan, helicopters should be able to fly at any altitude that they like, and engage targets at any altitude that they wish because they are actually safer when they do this, in those types of conflicts.

But everyone knows the scenarios I am referring to here -- the tank versus tank scenarios, which make up something like at least 90% of all scenarios in SB. In those situations, which would be called high intensity conflicts, both sides would certainly have a long range anti-air capability, be it either from fighter cover or medium to long range SAM missiles. We have none of these threats in SB at the moment, this is why it is completely gamey to fly at maximum altitude and engage targets at maximum altitude in SB.

Not sure how much better that can be explained. Maybe one day we will get medium range SAM systems, or some way to apply a penalty zone to helicopter flight height, or some way to allow the scenario designer to specify a max helicopter flight ceiling in the scenario (I am for all of these things). However, until then it is treated as an exploit to fly an attack helicopter at maximum altitude and to engage from that height because a) it completely ignores real world threats that would prevent this silly behavior, b) the act of doing this is done to exploit the situation just to have the helicopter easily see and shoot across the map and stay out of gun range.

Instead however, this has often been interpreted as if the helicopters are being handicapped unrealistically somehow. This is totally false, because the handicap is realistic and it is done to encourage a more realistic end result where a single helicopter or two does not annihilate every enemy on the map with little to not threat to it. The alternative to all of this behavior seems to be that we place a 2S6 every two kilometers of map space, which is equally silly, so surely we can just voluntarily control ourselves here (I do). In general (this is not directed to anyone specific), if you find that you are someone who cannot control yourself here, then you should not control the helicopters in any scenarios.

There is one case where I say maximum helicopter flying and engaging should be fine -- when the scenario briefing specifically says it is allowed. This would be stated in a scenario which covers a situation like Iraq and Afghanistan and it would be intended by the scenario designer. Otherwise, treat all scenarios as off limits to this behavior.

And finally, in regards to cargo helicopter spotters, I try to go out of my way to make all cargo helicopters BLIND in scenarios because this spotter behavior is completely unrealistic. Imagine for a moment: do you think the transport helicopters in real life are on the same radio net as ground forces and are accurately determining the size, type and location of enemy forces on the map and relaying it to commanders below? No, they are too busy flying their helicopter and staying on their own radio frequency, amongst other things. However I sometimes forget to make them BLIND or someone else makes a scenario and doesn't make them blind so this is where this behavior creeps in. This is why we should all operate under the rule to never use cargo helicopters to intentionally spot or distract enemy forces, as it states in the TGIF house rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Maybe whoever takes the helos at mission start would not get another vehicle if killed or exploiting? IDK, I'm just thinking out loud.

Well the way the TGIF rules work, or how they are intended to work is that anyone who violates them will be publicly called out on it, either in TS during the AAR or in the multiplayer forum (or both) and it will serve as a warning. If the behavior repeats, and that doesn't mean that the person has to do the same exploit twice - just repeated exploits in general - then it will be temporary ban from TGIF along with an announcement in the forum (in the TGIF rules thread) so that everyone knows why it happened. If the person still cannot play fairly after that, then they would be banned permanently from TGIF. I imagine that VU house rules and VU codes of conduct could work in a similar way.

But anyway, I think this has only happened once in the entire history of TGIF, and actually it is probably not the instance that everyone is thinking about, I am talking about something that happened over five years ago and I will not discuss the details. ;)

Other than that, rare occasions where someone cheats and exploits so severely (or does so many cheats at once) would warrant an immediate and permanent ban from TGIF, but we are a very forgiving bunch so this would be quite rare. However the fact is that we take game behavior very seriously because it ruins the experience for the normal and fair gamers in the community. The world is certainly big enough for exploiters, hackers, and cheaters to go to an underground community and play amongst like minded people - it is not the end of the world if someone is banned from TGIF.

Edited by Volcano
clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

In regards to the scenario, besides it being the best scenario of all time, any complaints about the map?

Last time it was played the complaint was that the map was too hilly, I cut it down in that. Maybe it is better on a more clear and rolling map like Scania though (maybe something for next time). Personally I like the occasional outside-the-box scenario like that. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

28 NOV scenario:

Tanksgiving 3011

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 by Volcano
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...