Jump to content

TGIF 2015: scenario list, discussion, and house rules


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 459
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

22 MAY scenario:

!Battle for Lawfield Corridor v8-OMU

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 post
Share on other sites
With only 3 batteries and attacking on a front only 6km wide, Blue has about a hells-bells chance of winning without a dedicated FO and/or more fire support. :gun:

Blue has a significant (~2:1) preponderance of AFV combat power in this mission. I think I've played this one twice and, IIRC, Blue won both times but it was close. I tend to agree with you, though, that a dedicated FO might benefit a team more than the loss of efficiency resulting from putting that many more AFVs under AI control. As far as the lack of a FISTV, I think the ability of an FO player to bounce all over the map using F8 is worth a lot more than a FISTV or two which (in SB) merely adds a precision designation capability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A dedicated FO is always a good idea (unless there is no artillery of course), because usually when the CO is also the FO, you can notice that artillery slows or stops at the precise moment that it is needed -- when the battle gets intense -- because the CO is usually taking that time to coordinate with the units.

Speaking of the level of artillery here, 3 batteries (18 tubes) on the attack is typical, and sometimes excessive actually. Usually you are lucky if you can get one dedicated battery to support your attack, and most often you will only get a preparatory barrage and then have to beg for artillery while other units to your left/right does the same from the same guns (i.e. you are lucky to get any after you cross the LD). So, yes, 18 tubes is plenty. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean that whomever will host the mission will NOT grant the Blue side a FO/FIST-V unit? I'm content with the amount of fire support so no arguments there.

The good news is that Blue gets US equipment.

The bad news is they are facing the formidable Leo2A-GODs in a face-to-face contest on a front only 6 km wide.

Either way, gonna be messy real quick, real fast :bigsmile:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this mean that whomever will host the mission will NOT grant the Blue side a FO/FIST-V unit?

Well the person hosting it isn't the scenario designer so by default no they wont.

If you want the scenario designer to add the FIST-V then that is a question for a different person.

I suspect the answer will still be "no" though.

Be aware though that adding a unit changes the scenario and therefore breaks any plan file that a CO may have made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bad news is they are facing the formidable Leo2A-GODs in a face-to-face contest on a front only 6 km wide.

That match up has been certified by the authorities as "fair", given the ammo types and the vehicle types and quantities (not that it has to be, since you can balance a scenario with numbers, end if conditions and scoring regardless of vehicle types -- just saying). But yes it will (and usually is) bloody for both sides. ;)

And as MDF said, this is not a new scenario, it has been played many times before (it is version 8 after all).

Link to post
Share on other sites

:mad3:

The plan was to have one company flank along the east and west of the map while a third company supported up the middle. Didn't work out so well. the eastern flank penetrated too deep while the western flank farted around too much, exposing flanks and allowed Red side to concentrate on one flanking unit at a time. People didn't "Bound-n-overwatch", failed to use infantry on the ground effectively, and our recon company died too quickly to spot enemies. We did not have a dedicated FO unit so I, as BN Co, was too tied up with 40+ artillery missions and not focusing on guiding the mission at the front. Red Co says it was close, I think I had my head mounted on a poll again. :c:

One of the #$%@ days, I'm going to win a TGIF mission against Red...but not if it's the last thing I ever do:1:

TGIF record: 0-4. About as sad as Cleveland Browns football :gun:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regret unable to attend last night: Regimental reunion weekend up here. Can anyone post the AAR for this mission? I've been over that ground "for real" more times than I can recall since 1973 (as has 12A, I'll bet!), and I'd like to see how the mission went. TIA! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
:mad3:

the western flank farted around too much, exposing flanks and allowed Red side to concentrate on one flanking unit at a time.

Look at the AAR at 24:00. Red retreated on the Eastern flank, allowing Bravo to advance rapidly through woods that offered cover but left seven tanks covering the open ground that Alpha "Western Flank" had to cross. By 56:00, Alpha had killed three tanks and Red began to retreat. Alpha then was able to advance through the cover of woods and made it all the way to the bridge at game-end.

Connaugh

Link to post
Share on other sites

RW

At the end of the day its a game, no one really cares about win/loss rates or any of the rest of it, what matters is having a good time and not pissing people off while having a good time. If you start getting aggravated (or aggravating people) then people probably won't want to play with you.

And lets be honest, it was a close match, the battle at the end was focused on the objective, if we lost a few other vehicles earlier on, if the attack on us was perhaps more organized, or even if a butterfly farted in Indonesia then we would have not been able to contest the objective as well as we did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to get a star on my profile :cool3:

Oh well, just means I need to go back to CO school :c:

Did I ever go in the first place? :clin:

Can't complain about the equipment I had available this time.

I haven't been in TGIF in a very long time. The ONLY reason I played last night was due to an aggravated back muscle and Memorial Day fireworks that prevented any sort of sleep. :gun: But it's tough not to play the game though, best game since Skyrim and XCOM :bigsmile:

Link to post
Share on other sites
RW

At the end of the day its a game, no one really cares about win/loss rates or any of the rest of it, what matters is having a good time and not pissing people off while having a good time. .

What "Pisses people off", and what is "Having a good time" Is a matter of opinion. IMO If a Co has to piss some people off to get the results He wants then so be it. The Co's only concern is the completion of the mission, not to motivate or coddle individual players. Each player must put aside His vision of what the battle should be and submit fully to his Co. If the Result of this submission negative, then that will sort itself out also. In short the Co Must have vision and passion for what he does. If I am under that type of Command I had a good time win or loose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think the result was close because I saw it from the other side and know how easily it could have turned out differently. It was not a disaster (I have seen disasters).

Personally I think there is a fine balance between fun and the pursuit of victory. I know I have moments where I get intense but in the end we have to all accept that victory or defeat is a team effort. If the team did something poorly then the CO did something poorly as well (by not minimizing the fault through compensation and direction. Also there is an element of luck involved in all things. The best thing you can do is try to minimize situations where luck is a factor, but that is not always possible.

IMO the great thing about SB is that there are so many elements that have to come together for a victory: a good plan, effective communication of said plan, and effective communication between all players during the mission (cross talk), good judgment on when and how to adjust during the execution, good initiative by lower commanders, good delegation, and good individual skills with gunnery and platoon management. IMO the plan accounts for very little of the end result, UNLESS it is a very bad one. ;)

In the end you should just strive to make a "good showing".

Just my 2 pesos...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think delegation is one of the more important aspects. Some trust has to placed in your teammates. You have to assign aspects of the plan to them, and by doing so, assign responsibility of the execution of your intent to them.

The CO can't be everywhere, and if he doesn't delegate, that's essentially what he's trying to do. It speaks to a total lack of confidence in the ability of his team to make decisions at the lowest level.

And it is certainly the case that he should take care to assign important aspects to competent team members. Those "team leaders" in turn must then convey the tactical situation(at regular intervals) to the CO.

Its only when these things are working can the CO remain focused on the overall tactical situation. And make well timed, and informed decisions.

Because of the varying size of scenario's, and number of players. What added responsibilities a CO needs to handle will vary(Artillery, UAV's, logistics).

We often play large scenarios, with a limited number of players. In these cases it may be, and often is, required for the CO to directly partake in the action. He may need to put himself in direct command of an important aspect of the plan. Put himself in the command of a Company, or platoon of tanks. In these cases the importance of proper delegation and communication is even further magnified.

You simply can not play Company level, or god forbid Battalion level scenarios with 8-10 players per side, and expect that luck, and the ability of each individual team member not be a major deciding factor. And that is exactly what we do, on a regular basis.

So for anyone to keep a "CO score" is foolish to put it politely. Responsibility is shared in victory, and defeat.

1. Come up with a plan.

2. Identify team members who you believe can handle added responsibility.

3. Assign important aspects of the plan to them(axis of attack, sectors of the battlefield, objectives)

4. Assign team members to your chosen team leaders. Based on their stated ability(people will tell you what they THINK they can handle)

5. Based on steady, and constant feedback from your team leaders, make adjustments to the plan.

6. Hope for the best, understand that there are limits to the CO's ability to control the battles outcome. At best, you are 1/3 of the equation. All things being equal, the plan very well could be the deciding factor. But rarely are all things equal. This would be the exception, not the rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+1

I'm not good at delegating, which is why I never volunteer to CO. I'm much better (and happier) at taking orders and focusing on a single task.

My problem is the people I'm delegating to. (When I do CO)

"Stop showing initiative, Lansley! Do as you're bloody told!"

Lt Col. Smith, Bluestone 42.

Link to post
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...