Stepsons Of Jihad

[Erwin]

"Zawiya Uprising" campaign wet my appetite for playing Red vs Uncon, so I started the "Stepsons Of Jihad" Red vs Brit forces campaign.

This campaign is a bit of a shock as the Brit Forces seem to know exactly where my Red forces are and they are rarely more than speed bumps to be massacred. However, that probably depicts the first Gulf War situation, and maybe even the start of the 2nd one pretty well.

The problem is that all of the "Stepsons" missions except for the last one are in open terrain. The Red ATGM's may get off some good shots before being killed, but the Challengers can shrug off frontal hits with an immobilization at worst.

The Red infantry are mostly Conscripts and Green, and they are useless in open terrain - even in trenches, buildings or woods. It's rare that they even get an RPG off. I wasn't able to use em for short range hit and runs as they get pinned easily.

If you move you get killed quickly - the Brit armor notice everything and react instantly. So, one is left with holding static positions and hiding.

Reinforcements get attacked by air or arty very quickly. You really can only try to get em into some trees or somesuch and hope they aren't noticed by the seemingly all-seeing "eyes in the sky".

In summary, the campaign feels like one is playing the wrong side. It's as if the Reds should be played by the AI and the real challenge is to play the Brits without taking casualties.

Only when they can occupy a built up area does the Red force have a chance of ambush followed by immediate withdrawal. And as in RL, one can see that that is the appropriate tactic. However, only the final mission in the campaign allows the Red force to do that.

So, a very frustrating campaign that teaches you why you do NOT want to ambush or stand and fight a modern western army in open territory. One mission is enuff. Playing the campaign is like beating yourself up.

[Stagler]

When i was doing both the campaigns in cma, both of them are so badly built that most scenarios you cant win. I hate fighting battles i know i couldn't win because they were made like that, either through poor craftsmanship or intent. Likely the former.

[agusto]

Here is an AAR of the first mission:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=91822

Looks very interesting. I might give it a try soon.

[Erwin]

I note that the AAR is by one of the designers. Maybe they designed it so they kinda knew what worked for the Syrians and what doesn't. But, I found it an exasperating experience since the Brit air and arty is fast, accurate and devastating. The Brit tanks especially seem to be able to detect Syrian enemy before the Syrians even see anything.

In all of the scenarios I played, it was usually fatal to expose or move from starting positions. (#5 is a night mission and you have better quality troops, so you can move somewhat in that one.)

The final #6 mission may have potential as it's in a town and I think the Syrians would do better in MOUT ops. However, I found the restricted set-ups in all the missions was frustrating.

It seemed as if play testing was inadequate. eg: In at least one briefing one is told to place mines in choke points - ie roads through built up areas to block the road. However, I couldn't find anyplace like that that allowed me to place mines. Perhaps the designers hadn't places the set-up zones properly.

Hope you give the campaign a shot as I would like to compare notes. However, per the above comments, I cannot recommend this campaign.

[Alex]

Good day. I'm one of creators of this campaign. 

 

We with my friend Alek was made this campaign some about 6 years ago, and for this time I many times hear that this campaign is too hard.

Of course we was tested all scenarios many time, and all it can be won, but this is hard, because we was not trying to create a balanced and funny campaign, but try do it realistic, like it will be in reality.

 

Some time ago I returned to play CMSF and I decided reworked Stepsons Of Jihad, and do it LITTLE easy to play, but this is not only reason to rework this campaign, some scenarios have imperfection and errors in some moments.   

 

Also I want try to finish mission #15, that was not present in campaign.

 

So I already reworked all 1-14,16 scenarios and now creating mission #15, if all will be good I'll finish this work an 1-2 weeks.   

 

Sorry my poor English, I hope you will understand me ;-)  

Edited April 5, 2015 by Alex

[General Jack Ripper]

Nice to hear there's still life in the good old Shock Force still.

[Alex]

By the way, here AAR(http://imtw.ru/topic/32751-аар-кампания-«пасынки-джихада»/) from guy whom played CM only a 1-2 month, and he is won many battles from first try. AAR on russian but google will help understand main line. So if some one thinking that missions is impossible to win, look at him ;-)  

[Sgt.Squarehead]

If it makes you feel any better Erwin, I feel the same.....After reading your comments I thought I'd have a look (I'm trying to get some inspiration to start writing scenarios again) and my experience was much the same as yours.

Before the inevitable massacre in the first scenario I managed to knock out four or five Challengers (ie: several times more than have ever actually been lost in action) plus a brace of lighter vehicles and infantry and I scored a draw.....I felt just a bit ripped off TBH.  Loss of that many MBTs would be an utter disaster for the British Army.

The second scenario is plain silly.....The reinforcements it seems somehow drive to the battlefield completely avoiding the notice of the countless jets zooming around overhead, just so they can be blown to pieces once they arrive and cost you some points.

I didn't bother with scenario 3. 

[Erwin]

Hope you get to do something new (and good). 

[Alex]

Good day.

I have reworked this campaign to do Syrian forces little stronger, also I'm fixed some bugs and reworked some maps. 

But I have a problem, I can't compile scenarios in campaign, just don't remember how to do it. If some one can help me it would be nice.

---

Here all scenarios in two versions Russian and English. Stepson of Jihad Campaign static, so you can play it like separate scenarios.

Downloading link (35mb)

 

 

 

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

To be fair, the strength of the Syrian forces was not an issue for me, at least in the first battle (I was always expecting to go down fighting).

The problem from my perspective was that with my comparatively meagre forces I'd caused a major blow to a British Battlegroup (five MBTs destroyed would be a calamity for us), but the outcome did not reflect this.

I don't mind fighting losing battles if the victory conditions allow one to salvage something from the ashes of (inevitable) defeat.....That's just how it is sometimes. 

My issue with the second battle was the AFVs arriving as reinforcements with NATO airpower overhead.....That just ain't gonna happen!  An OPFOR AFV rolling around in that environment is going to eat a Brimstone long before it ever gets in range of our squaddies.  By all means include the armour, but have it in-situ as you did in the first mission, that makes a lot more sense given the threat overhead. 

Have downloaded the files and will have a nose in the editor, always interested to see how other people go about their AI scripting.....Testing AI scripts is possibly the only thing I find more tedious than writing briefings. 

PS - Erwin.....Yes I've started again, totally fresh as everything from my old drive turned out to be trashed.....The only thing I salvaged was the modified 'Herat' map and even that was only a half-finished edit that I'd saved on a zip-drive.  

Edited February 12, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Alex]

2 Sgt.Squarehead 

You must understood thah main line of this campaign it's not the balancing and fun gameplay, All missions it's story of step by step battles, where Syrian mechBRG defence against western battle group, and in every missions we tryed to do like it must be in real warefare, I mean what forces will be used by each side, what combat tasks they will solve, and what geografic place is have strategic importance (some places that we choosen near Mahin became a strategic points alredy in real life in Syria). Becaus it's so, this campaign is very hard, but I say all missions can be win by player, it's was checked.

14 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The problem from my perspective was that with my comparatively meagre forces I'd caused a major blow to a British Battlegroup (five MBTs destroyed would be a calamity for us), but the outcome did not reflect this.

Game engine dont have flexability, to teach AI for retreat if it take defeated. But you should understood, that no matter how many tanks will be destroyed by syrians, if they don't stop the enemy, and enemy take control of strategic point, they will loose (wars are fought not in order to destroy all enemies). At my opinion it will look strange if in 1st mission, syrians will loose strategic positon, but kill some number of tanks and win the battle. Blue forces offencive by hundreds of tanks and loosing 5-10 of them can't change strategic situation.

14 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

My issue with the second battle was the AFVs arriving as reinforcements with NATO airpower overhead.....That just ain't gonna happen!  An OPFOR AFV rolling around in that environment is going to eat a Brimstone long before it ever gets in range of our squaddies.  By all means include the armour, but have it in-situ as you did in the first mission, that makes a lot more sense given the threat overhead. 

AI have 3-4 plans to do in every mission of this campaign. In your situation you should disperse your forces using terrain to cover and waitin a good moment to attack. Troopers can use tranches to take positions in the field. Syrians have chance in close range attacking. 

P.S. I did many changes in "Stepsons of Jihad 2.0", people who played this campaign before, can try it again, I think it will be different. 

P.P.S. Sorry my bad English I have no practice in it for a long time.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Alex

[Erwin]

Alex:  Perhaps look at the way you are calculating "Victory" as the issue.  As Sgt S says, if the Brits lose 5 tanks that is a tactical disaster even tho' they may win the war.  So, Syrians should have a big victory in that situation.

Need to assign Victory levels based on the specific mission/scenario, not on the overall war.  Eg: In Vietnam the US/UN may have won every battle - lots of tactical victories - but US/UN still lost the war.

[Alex]

If you look on it like simple separait virtual battels syrians vs brits, russians vs americans, earthlings vs marsians and etc. yes, 5 tanks and lossed strategic points it's victory. But as I told before, we used different ideology, when crated this camppaign, we tried to show the line of war. 

22 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Need to assign Victory levels based on the specific mission/scenario, not on the overall war. 

EVERY MISSION in this campaign can be win by player, it was checked few times. But it's hard, I agree. 

P.S. Separated scenarios give possibility to play the whole campaign from start to the end regardless of the battle results.

[Erwin]

"earthlings vs marsians..."

Is that the bonus mission?  I missed it. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

The loss of five Challenger (four burnt out) in an utterly insignificant engagement (against T-55s) would be more than a tactical defeat for the British Army, it would be a headline making disaster of epic proportions.....We only have around two hundred of them and only one Challenger has ever been KOed by direct fire, and that was achieved by another Challenger!   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2

Edited February 13, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Erwin]

I understand.  My point was (as you first said) that the result should be a big victory for the Red forces - despite them being massacred otherwise.  ie:  in these scenarios, Red casualties are immaterial, significant Western casualties however are a disaster.

[Alex]

12 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The loss of five Challenger (four burnt out) in an utterly insignificant engagement (against T-55s) would be more than a tactical defeat for the British Army, it would be a headline making disaster of epic proportions.....

By story of CM:SF Syria offensive by western coalition minimum at 5 country's, loosing of 5 Chelly will not stop this war. I think this is stupid to start war if you scary to loose your troops.

Just think about that moment if every western tank will coast a defeat for BLUEFORs, this campaign will be not interesting - kill 2-3 tanks and case fire - you won. So sorry, but I will not change my ideology of this project.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Alex

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Actually we achieved rather more than just killing the Challengers, they were just the most significant bit, but you seem to be completely missing the point.....Those four burned out Challengers don't get replaced at the local Challenger factory.....They are gone for good. 

And to achieve what exactly for the British government.....Four lads from Hereford with a laser-designator could have caused all the damage that the British armour did in this battle and the public would never even need to know about it.

But you can absolutely take my word for it that four burning Challengers would be all over the Daily Mail like a bloody rash.....The commander in charge would soon be on a charge!

All of the above should be reflected in the victory conditions.....This is not the Battle of Kursk. 

[Alex]

Guys not forget this is a game, and game with bad(old) engine (no scripts for AI, no flexibility), 1st mission one of the not very difficalt in this campaign, for all campaing (15 missions) Brits will loose about ~20-25 tanks, also americans can loose about 5-10 machins, and so what to do with it?

Just interesting if was Brits loose not one but 5-10 tanks in Iraq 2003, they would leave the war? Of course I understood that G.Britain not Russia (where we have about 20.000 tanks, and serial production of tanks), but so what, this country very often engagement in wars. And I want remember you, that in Falkland war Brits loose few warships, but did not leave war, but ship is much harder loose than tank. 

I trying to say, that if even losing of one tank will be national tragedy for England, it's will not change that fact that syrians lost strategic crossroad and will not be able to delay the BLUEFOR attack on flank of their brigade (1st mission story of campaign). This is not death match, no matter how many enemies you will kill if this is not give you a victory.

And one more, not every tank which was hit is destroyed tank, blue forces almost always take battlefield, so they can repair many of loosed machines. 

I looked at victory conditions, for every destroed british tank is given 50 points, for example for every terrain object (3 obj) given 50 or 100 points.

P. S. So no one want to help me compile this campaign?

Edited February 14, 2017 by Alex

[Sgt.Squarehead]

This is not how the British Army fight.....End of story. 

We've invaded Iraq twice and lost a grand total of one Challenger, to another Challenger.....If you think that HM Government would accept losing five just to crack the Syrian border, you are living in cloud-cuckoo land.

The point is it's damned hard to kill NATO gear with old Soviet gear.....If the player succeeds in doing so they should be rewarded, the Syrians would score a much bigger victory by burning those tanks (and undermining British public support for the war), than they would by holding a crossroads that nobody in the west has ever heard of, regardless of its 'strategic significance'.

I'd suggest focussing more victory points on causing losses and almost none on occupying the ground.  I'd maybe also replace the British forces with Yanks.....They seem to have more tanks than sense! 

I haven't had chance to look at the individual scenarios in the editor yet, but I'd be glad to help out if I can.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Alex]

11 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

This is not how the British Army fight.....End of story. 

We've invaded Iraq twice and lost a grand total of one Challenger, to another Challenger.....If you think that HM Government would accept losing five just to crack the Syrian border, you are living in cloud-cuckoo land.

If you are thinking that in CMSF you can do interesting red VS blue campaign where brits will not loose tanks, I don't know what to say   This campaign about syrians, not brits and player is on the red side, not blue. 

11 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The point is it's damned hard to kill NATO gear with old Soviet gear.....If the player succeeds in doing so they should be rewarded, the Syrians would score a much bigger victory by burning those tanks (and undermining British public support for the war), than they would by holding a crossroads that nobody in the west has ever heard of, regardless of its 'strategic significance'.

I'd suggest focussing more victory points on causing losses and almost none on occupying the ground.  I'd maybe also replace the British forces with Yanks.....They seem to have more tanks than sense! 

I haven't had chance to look at the individual scenarios in the editor yet, but I'd be glad to help out if I can.

Yesterday I was quick played 1st mission in real time, kill 3 chelli and loose almost all my forces, and strategy points, and take draw, at my opinion it's even to easy. 

Yanks also will take a part. 

In this 1st mission every side have 1000 victory points, for syrians 700 of them for killing brits, it's a little?

It will be great if you will help, when you have a time 

P.S. Little fun to see, when peoples start playing on "wrong side" and telling it's too hard, blufore too strong, this weapon works unreal and etc, but when they playing for bluforces all ok 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Please don't think my comments about this battle are an attack on you personally.....Anybody who takes time to create for the community has my sincere respect.  I still haven't had a chance to look at the files (to be honest I'm very into SC:WWI & SC:Pacific right now), but I will do and I will give your some more informed commentary once I have done so.

IMHO casualties should always be the prime factor in any scenario vs. Blue.....Holding ground is:

1st - A forlorn hope.....Bordering on suicidal.  

2nd - Not the way to win.....Sending bodies home draped in national flags is how you beat Blue. 

PS - This game so needs exit zones! 

PPS - I'm not your typical player, or scenario writer, I prefer to use unconventional warfare tactics wherever possible. 

Edited February 15, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Alex]

2 Sgt.Squarehead

I'm not offense, I open to critical, it's always good. Maybe my english not well and it's look like I'm offense, but not, I'm just discussed And year ago I start to rework this campaign exactly because it was too hard, maybe in some moments unreasonably hard, and I understood it, in version 2.0 I already made changes in victory conditions  

Ok, I'll wait for you. I'm also play different game (GT: Mius-Front) at now.

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Firstly I should say that I did enjoy the battle.....It was just that I felt the damage I had inflicted would result in not less than a tactical defeat for the British. 

In addition to the knocked out Challengers I caught an infantry platoon advancing up the ditch parallel with the highway and mortared the crap out of it.....There were few survivors.  The map was also quite liberally littered with burning British soft-skins & light armour (point-blank T-55 fire will do that).

I'm pretty sure that by just tweaking the victory conditions you will have a superb scenario.....The Syrian player has to expect to be steam-rollered, but if he can exact a big enough price in casualties, the British TV & news-papers would do the rest! 

Edited February 15, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead