TGIF 2015: scenario list, discussion, and house rules

[Volcano]

19 JUN scenario:

Civil War Krasnovia-Scania

DISCLAIMER: This is an all new scenario, so it may have some rough edges or bugs to iron out.

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 June 23, 2015 by Volcano

[DarkAngel]

I'll CO Blue

[Colebrook]

I'll take red CO

[Volcano]

26 JUN scenario:

UN Safe Zone-3025-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 June 30, 2015 by Volcano

[Volcano]

Ah yes, I forgot to say...

Need THREE COs for this one:

Orange, Red, Blue. Blue is UN, and Orange and Red are rival factions. All three are enemies but with different objectives.

[MDF]

Ah yes, I forgot to say...

Need THREE COs for this one:

Orange, Red, Blue. Blue is UN, and Orange and Red are rival factions. All three are enemies but with different objectives.

I'll CO the UN side.

[MDF]

BTW, weren't you going to add a UAV to the UN side? :1:

[Volcano]

BTW, weren't you going to add a UAV to the UN side? :1:

Actually, they do have a UAV, but it shows up with the reinforcements when the UN gets "activated". More like a reactionary thing, rather than constantly flying around from the start (the UN is on stand-down).

[Volcano]

I CO'd Red last time, IIRC, so I will CO Orange this time.

We still need one more CO for Red...

[MDF]

Actually, they do have a UAV, but it shows up with the reinforcements when the UN gets "activated". More like a reactionary thing, rather than constantly flying around from the start (the UN is on stand-down).

Ahh, okay.

When we played this last year, there was an EPIC battle between mixed groups of T-72/62's. This was probably my favorite TGIF mission to date.

[Volcano]

Ahh, okay.

When we played this last year, there was an EPIC battle between mixed groups of T-72/62's. This was probably my favorite TGIF mission to date.

Yeah, I remember that -- very fun. UN just has to pick and choose when (not) to get involved. :shocked:

[Volcano]

3 JUL scenario:

Bridge Crossing Heavy 2013b

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 July 7, 2015 by Volcano

[MDF]

Just wanted to chime in with a few suggested improvements to the mission.

First, I think that the two revolutionary factions should receive victory points for VBIED attacks only if they have not attacked any of the three "Green Zone" areas with other ground forces. To my mind, the significance of VBIED attacks is their terror or propaganda value. This seems entirely superfluous where the owning faction is going to launch a ground attack on the Green Zones a few minutes later. (In fact, as written, the briefings imply that a faction could overrun a Green Zone and subsequently detonate a VBIED there and still get the points for the VBIED.) Making the VBIED strategy an either/or proposition makes VBIED attacks less remunerative (their pointless if you're going to attack the UN conventionally), and possibly helps redress the UN's doomed position.

...and in that vein, I've taken the UN CO role twice now, and spent a lot of time on pre-mission planning. While it has been an enjoyable experience, it is apparent that the UN has no hope of winning (even on points) if one or both factions decide to attack the Green Zones rather than bypassing and going after the enemy faction. A reinforced mechanized company plus 4 light mortars are not going to hold off 2 reinforced mechanized battalions. Yes, the 2 Leo2s overmatch against T-62/72s, but they have to defend against a 360-degree threat, as was seen this past mission. Leo 1's have only a slight advantage over T-72Ms.

So, my suggestion in that regard is to replace the Leo1's with Leo2's. I think this will give the revolutionary faction CO'ss considerably more pause before deciding to attack the Green Zones.

I still like this mission quite a bit, and, with some tweaking, it has tremendous replay potential.

[Volcano]

Thanks for the info.

In regards to the VBIEDs, I really cannot do much to award points for a green zone only if a VBIED did not explode in it, because regions are handled by region scoring and it would likely take major surgery to change how it behaves. To me, the VBIEDs are just simply representing an attack on the UN, but I didn't want each side to be able to explode them inside of the UN Safe Zone, because that would be too easy. They just work as target areas that the UN can know to defend.

That said, what I can do is make it where the VBIED will not count if the green zone region has other friendlies in it, that way Red and Orange couldn't secure the objective, THEN drive a VBIED safely into it and blow it up - so that part might be do-able, and that might actually be what you meant.

In regards to the tank types, I did add more Leo 2A5s this time, because in the past they only had one. Just keep in mind that from Red and Orange perspective, these tanks are beasts that are nearly impossible to kill. What helped us this time is that we so happened, by chance, to be attacking the same places -- we did not coordinate that, and even then we were both terrorized by the Leo 2s, and had trouble dealing with them.

However, I could add one more Leo 2 and two more Leo 1s from the reinforcement force, but I would be afraid to add too many more Leo 2s than that. I still want to retain the Leopard 1s though, because although they cannot take a hit very well, they are still completely superior in all ways (speed, thermals, reloading, ammo) so I want to retain the majority of the UN's tanks as Leo 1A5s.

I do agree though, I need to make the UN a little easier to play here, which I adjusted last time already. I will look at making additional minor changes like this, perhaps also to UN scoring.

[Volcano]

Actually, I went back and studied it...

I want to add that you might not have realized how close the scenario could have been for the UN to win, even though both sides decided to attack the same objective that the UN was intending to hold as their "Alamo" (again, all coincidental). The UN nearly held the central objective actually, we (Orange) were operating on fumes there, throwing whatever we had available into it but for all intents and purposes we were spent. That would have been +300 points for the UN there. It certainly wasn't obvious that we held it until the very end and the score was calculated.

Then there are the VBIEDs. We got our two VBIEDs into the green zone, true, but all other VBIEDs were destroyed. It is possible, I think, that the UN can prevent this. The first one we got in could have easily been destroyed because he was in full view of an armed vehicle for about 10 to 20 seconds on approach. The other VBIED could have been killed by the infantry that shot and killed the commander of the truck instead of the driver. In any case, that would have been +300 points.

The UN already only requires 500 points for a win, not 600 like the other sides. This means that they can try to hold just two of the green zone regions if they fail to prevent any VBIEDs, which is very difficult though of course, or they could prevent the VBIEDs and hold ANY single objective (because the flank objectives are worth only 200 points).

The idea has always been that the UN has the best stuff, but should be the most challenging side to play. This was to demonstrate the multiparty system and also to show that a scenario can be balanced with high tech vehicles versus low tech ones. I guess I just wanted to explain these things - that I don't really subscribe to the point of view that the UN cannot win if both sides decide to attack the Green Zones, but indeed that is the most difficult situation to deal with.

A few ideas I am toying around with, again from a minimalist approach - because I know not to make drastic changes here:

1) Make it so that Orange/Red cannot get credit for VBIED if that green zone they are detonating it in, has friendly AFVs or troops already in it. This would at least prevent the possibility that one side can take and secure a green zone, and drive an IED into it safely for points. The idea behind the IED is that the UN is losing standing for allowing their green (ie. "safe") zone to be attacked, and that it is enemy controlled at the time. Other than that, I cannot easily make it an either/or relationship, and I don't really think that would help to be honest because it would only serve to focus Orange and Red's attack (which would be worse for the UN who are better off with Orange and Red attacking everywhere, in an non concentrated fashion, IMO).

2) Add 1x Leo 2A5 and 2x Leo 1A5 to the reinforcement force.

3) Remove one VBIED from both sides so that they both have two instead of three. This is the most helpful to the UN I think because it means having to defend against 66% of the current number of VBIEDs.

-----------

Only issue is that with the above changes then perhaps #2 is too extreme, but I will try these changes and see what happens for next time.

Thoughts?

[Volcano]

OK, here is what I have done so far (needless to say I am serious about feedback and balancing)...

The previous post contained IDEAS, but this is a list of actual changes for the next version:

1) Added one platoon of Warriors (with infantry) to the UN side, and increased the number of Warriors per platoon to the correct 4 vehicles per rather than 3 per. This means 5 more Warrior vehicles with troops. Why? Although the Warrior is lacking in many areas, it is very durable especially against these threats and it can kill anything on either side if engaged in the flank. Also, I think the way the UN will actually have a chance to hold objectives is with more infantry, not more tanks (the tanks would support the infantry in the endeavor).

2) Placed additional requirements on Red and Orange so that they can only get credit for detonating an IED in a green zone if it is not occupied by friendlies, AND it must happen in the first 45 minutes of the scenario. This will hopefully help prevent the possibility that either side can take and secure a green zone, then casually and safely drive the IED in later for easy points. It also means that the UN only has to be concerned with defending against IEDs in the first 45 minutes and not have to worry about it through the entire scenario, which is obviously too much for them to worry about since they may want to abandon one of the Green Zones.

3) Reduced the number of IEDs on both Red and Orange side from 3 to 2 each so that they cannot be so careless with them, and so they cannot just decide to attack one in each Green Zone, and so that the UN doesn't have to defend against so many of them.

4) Added 2x Leopard 1A5s to the reinforcements. I know that doesn't seem like much, but I think that if Red or Orange attacks one heavily defended UN objective, alone, then they will likely get slaughtered in large numbers. It just so happened that both sides attacked the center in this last mission, which has never happened before. Also, I recall that Rotar had something like > 20 kills in a single Leopard 2A5, so I am... um... scared to add more Leopard 2A5s based on this past game where both sides attacked in the same place, and in the same place the UN was concentrated. Had it been any other way then I think it would have turned out very differently. I am also cautious against adding more Leo 2s because of all of the above changes.

One alternative to #1 and #4 would be to not add the additional Warrior platoon nor add the additional 2x Leopard 1A5s, and instead just add 2x Leopard 2A5s so that there would be 4 of each vehicle (Leo 2A5, Leo 1A5, Warrior). I just think that it might be more logical to have each outnumber the other by 2x (2, 4, 8 respectively).

/////////////////////////////

So unless there are additional suggestions, let's see how this goes next time for the UN, and if no improvement then I will make additional changes (probably convert some Leo1s to Leo2s).

[MDF]

Thanks for the info.

In regards to the VBIEDs, I really cannot do much to award points for a green zone only if a VBIED did not explode in it, because regions are handled by region scoring and it would likely take major surgery to change how it behaves. . . .

That said, what I can do is make it where the VBIED will not count if the green zone region has other friendlies in it, that way Red and Orange couldn't secure the objective, THEN drive a VBIED safely into it and blow it up - so that part might be do-able, and that might actually be what you meant.

No major surgery required. See attached modified .sce file. For both factions, I added three "ground attack" events -- one for Owerri, Calabar, and Lagos. They become true whenever the owning faction has at least 3 AFVs or 1 tank in the respective Green Zone. If any of these events becomes true, an encompassing "ground attack" event becomes true. Then I added a condition, "VBIED points available" that becomes/remains true whenever the "IED attack true" event is true AND the "Ground attack" event is false. Finally, I tied the VBIED score to the truth of the "VBIED points available" condition. Simples.

N.B. that a side becomes ineligible for VBIED points if it ever enters a Green Zone with the requisite amount of AFV/tanks. Capture/control is not necessary.

In regards to the tank types, I did add more Leo 2A5s this time, because in the past they only had one. Just keep in mind that from Red and Orange perspective, these tanks are beasts that are nearly impossible to kill. What helped us this time is that we so happened, by chance, to be attacking the same places -- we did not coordinate that, and even then we were both terrorized by the Leo 2s, and had trouble dealing with them.

Well, these uber tanks didn't deter either side from attacking the UN nor did they prevent the UN force from being annihilated save for the CO's M113 and a few dismounts.

Looking at the HTML mission report, the 2 x Leo2s killed 9 tanks and 6 PCs. The 4 x Leo1s killed just 6 tanks and 5 PC's. Our PCs killed 1 tank and 4 PCs, and our dismounts killed another 8 tanks and 1 PC. That's a total tally of 24 tanks and 16 PCs, out of a total enemy force of 67 tanks and 38 PC's.

Assuming that the Leo2 kill numbers would hold true (and I know it's not necessarily a sound assumption, but running this mission 50 times for statistically valid results is infeasible), a force containing 6 x Leo2s and no Leo1's, plus the preexisting complement of PCs and dismounts would have killed 36 x tanks, 23 PC's and 3 trucks. So, roughly a 50% greater overall kill total for the UN force. Perhaps enough to turn the tide and avoid UN annihilation.

Let's also not forget that both factions also have a very significant ATGM threat in their Hinds, and the UN has just two MANPADs teams to cover what is, in essence, a 22-km front (11 km strip that has to be defended from both NE and SW).

However, I could add one more Leo 2 and two more Leo 1s from the reinforcement force, but I would be afraid to add too many more Leo 2s than that. I still want to retain the Leopard 1s though, because although they cannot take a hit very well, they are still completely superior in all ways (speed, thermals, reloading, ammo) so I want to retain the majority of the UN's tanks as Leo 1A5s.

Well, every little bit counts.

UN Safe Zone-3025-OMU (MDF edit).rar

[TankHunter]

Well, these uber tanks didn't deter either side from attacking the UN nor did they prevent the UN force from being annihilated save for the CO's M113 and a few dismounts.

My CO said there were cookies and fluffy pillows where the uber tanks were, he didn't say anything about the uber tanks. My CO lied to me! If he mentioned there were uber tanks I would have fled in the other direction and let Onnerby & Co deal them!

:clin:

[MDF]

My CO said there were cookies and fluffy pillows where the uber tanks were, he didn't say anything about the uber tanks. My CO lied to me! If he mentioned there were uber tanks I would have fled in the other direction and let Onnerby & Co deal them!

:clin:

Well, we did put up a big patio umbrella on each one.:present: Maybe that was the cause for the confusion?

[Volcano]

I took a look at the scenario file, the problem is that it doesn't quite work along with what is intended with the scenario design, but it might be on the right track. What I mean is, if "ground attack" = true, then the IED points are not available. However the problem is that after the IED event occurs, then those points can be denied if that side conducts a ground attack on any objective afterwards. The issue is that a successful IED is SUPPOSED to equate to encouragement for that side to attack one of the objectives for a win, not cause them to go after the other side's rear area objective.

If an IED is not successful, then the rear area objective offers an attractive and certain way for the side to win, not the other way around.

On the other hand, your approach may work the other way around by trapping out and preventing capture points to certain objectives IF the IED is detonated in it. The problem is just that: figuring out a way to know what objective the IED exploded in. I suppose this can be determined by simply checking if IED success is true, and whether or not a destroyed IED vehicle is located in a green zone region. However now that I think about it, it does make sense to strike an objective with an IED to terrorize, then use that to soften up the enemy for an attack on the same objective, so I am not really sold on this exclusive OR idea. I think it is better to just restrict IEDs to the first 45 minutes of the scenario and also reduce them in number.

Other than that, I think all my changes accomplish what is necessary though without further changes, since it should encourage a rapid IED attack phase at the start of the scenario, plus it reduces the number of IEDs, and it prevents a successful IED attack if the Green Zone contains friendly units.

Also, in regards to strengths and Leo 1st versus Leo 2s. You forget that Orange and Red are fighting each other. The UN is not expected to hold off both sides and destroy everything on both side. The UN, in this case, should pull away and let Red and Orange fight over the same objective, and then pull back in later. Nothing is keeping the UN in the safe zone after hostilities commence either. And finally, it is just a total fluke that both Orange and Red attacked the same objective like what happened this time. There is nothing stopping the UN from retreating out of Calabar here, then returning to take it back later. It is designed to be flexible there. If the UN had all Leopard 2A5s, and if Orange or Red attacked in different places then I think it would be slaughter. Then you have to think of it from Red and Orange's perspective too: who would want to play in T-62s and T-72s if the UN side had 6 Leopard 2A5s? I sure wouldn't. I think that the UN side has to think more outside of the box with the plan rather than trying to hold all three objectives (after a VBIED hits).

In any case, I will keep the changes I had but I will remove the extra 2x Leopard 1A5s though. The more I think about it, the more these changes should add up to be significant.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Volcano

[Volcano]

Ah, I just remembered two more minor changes I made:

I made it where the UN UAV can fly off map and not be killed by the penalty zone, to encourage flying around the perimeter, or at least loitering close to the edge. This is necessary because once it spawns it is pretty much in the thick of enemies, with no safe place to observe from because it is a relatively small map. I also added a possibility for a second UAV spawn should the first be shot down.

I think the UAV should help the UN react better, but it just didn't last long enough here to play a factor.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Volcano
typos

[Colebrook]

I'll CO red side.

[Colebrook]

Can you change the map to only friendly map contacs (OMU)?. Any bridge crossing is going to be almost impossible with enemy map contacts,also is going to be a nightmare for the infantry(arty is too precise)

And talking about last week map, yes, the map was too unbalanced, but I'm ok with unbalance maps as they are fun to play,on war sides are never balanced :gun:

[Volcano]

Can you change the map to only friendly map contacs (OMU)?. Any bridge crossing is going to be almost impossible with enemy map contacts,also is going to be a nightmare for the infantry(arty is too precise)

And talking about last week map, yes, the map was too unbalanced, but I'm ok with unbalance maps as they are fun to play,on war sides are never balanced :gun:

OK changed.

[Volcano]

10 JUL scenario:

TGIF Watan Saraf Ekhlas v2

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 July 14, 2015 by Volcano