Stepsons Of Jihad

[Erwin]

I have to agree with Sgt S on this one...

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I've had a quick look at this and the first thing I'd be inclined to adjust would be the setup zones, I'd use just two 'colours' one for all the AFVs & one for all the infantry.....The Syrians' ability to damage British forces is so limited that allowing the player to attempt to set-up creative ambushes does not seem at all unreasonable given that those ambushes will then have to survive a veritable storm of artillery and aviation attacks.  Some troops can still be locked in place (ie; left out of the setup zones) to help maintain the core story narrative (ie: defend the crossroads).

Do you still want holding the ground to be the core Syrian objective (a comparatively unlikely proposition given the advantage in capability of the Blue force), or do you accept my argument that causing significant & graphic casualties (ie: vehicles burning & lots of casualties for the embedded TV crews to film) would be a more advantageous objective (demonstrations against the war outside Parliament, questions asked in the chamber & so on)? 

Edited February 16, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Erwin]

All uncon forces have figured out the principles of asymmetric war at this point.  I can't recall the last time uncon forces stood around in the open allowing themselves to be slaughtered (Zulus maybe?).  So, imo your 2nd proposition makes more sense.  (That could involve holding territory but only if it would be very nasty for Blue to take it - like MOUT/Mosul etc ops.)

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I've been testing AI scripts on my own efforts and still haven't looked at this properly yet, but my recollections from playing was that the setup zones were nicely done (if a little visually confusing in places, especially around the crossroads).  The buried shelters in the trench networks, are very useful during the initial artillery stonk.  The flanking trench networks would also probably make viable spots for the Sagger teams to take flank shots at the mighty Challengers, but sadly the Saggers are in a zone of a different colour (and have to shoot at them front on).  I haven't checked the range but if it's over 500m the Saggers could at least attempt to engage (& hit the nearest sand-dune or palm-tree), if they could get there, but they can't (IIRC). 

I'd simplify the zones slightly both to make it easier to interpret them and to allow the player to formulate their own plan (allegedly they've been waiting for the British to come).  If the player is given limited setup options at the start and then promptly massacred while in those zones, it can leave them feeling more than a little stitched up.....If their troops die in a massacre of their own devising the player has nobody but themselves to blame. 

The key to victory seems to me to be to separate the infantry from the tanks when they make their rush up the highway.....I suspect this is how my successful point-blank T-55 ambush came about.  My guess is that the infantry I mortared out of existence in the irrigation ditch were scripted to occupy the buildings that I held with my own infantry in order to screen the tank ambush, one thing thus led to another.

I will take a proper look and with the OP's permission I might even have a tinker in the editor as soon as my own scenario is in a fit state for testing. 

Edited February 17, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Alex]

On 17.02.2017 at 1:12 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Do you still want holding the ground to be the core Syrian objective (a comparatively unlikely proposition given the advantage in capability of the Blue force), 

Yes I do  Campaign have main line, it's static but it have story line, all missions is associated. If player will not perform mission objectives and only will kill tanks or troopers main story will look strange. BUT as I said before I lifted up victory points for killing brits. And yes you can lost territory in 1st mission, but kill some enemy's (3 tanks for example) and you will take draw or even little victory.

By the way look on this result (fool victory), it's second mission of Stepsons of Jihad 2.0 This is not my result, just a some player.

 

On 17.02.2017 at 4:54 AM, Erwin said:

All uncon forces have figured out the principles of asymmetric war at this point.  I can't recall the last time uncon forces stood around in the open allowing themselves to be slaughtered (Zulus maybe?).  So, imo your 2nd proposition makes more sense.  (That could involve holding territory but only if it would be very nasty for Blue to take it - like MOUT/Mosul etc ops.)

Yes, but syrian army not uncon forces, not at start of this campaign, it's solid army, week but army, an in biggest half of campaign most time they fighting like army, not like guerilla forces. And last time was in Iraq 2003  But saddam forces was to week and tired, money and brute force quickly did the work.

15 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I've been testing AI scripts on my own efforts and still haven't looked at this properly yet, but my recollections from playing was that the setup zones were nicely done (if a little visually confusing in places, especially around the crossroads).  The buried shelters in the trench networks, are very useful during the initial artillery stonk.  The flanking trench networks would also probably make viable spots for the Sagger teams to take flank shots at the mighty Challengers, but sadly the Saggers are in a zone of a different colour (and have to shoot at them front on).  I haven't checked the range but if it's over 500m the Saggers could at least attempt to engage (& hit the nearest sand-dune or palm-tree), if they could get there, but they can't (IIRC). 

I'd simplify the zones slightly both to make it easier to interpret them and to allow the player to formulate their own plan (allegedly they've been waiting for the British to come).  If the player is given limited setup options at the start and then promptly massacred while in those zones, it can leave them feeling more than a little stitched up.....If their troops die in a massacre of their own devising the player has nobody but themselves to blame. 

You right about tranches and setup zones, but who prevents payer move their ATMG to new position in combat? Put it most close setup zone to position, that you want, and after mission start move it to place. Not forgot, story of the 1st mission it's surprise attack, not all syrians on the combat positions.

P.S. In briefings to all the missions we have written specific tips to victory, do not neglect them. 

Edited February 18, 2017 by Alex

[Erwin]

Holding ground (which may be worthless in the desert) vs causing casualties is a strategy decision.  I get the impression that (other than Mosul for example) uncon forces have learned the value of causing casualties (like the Leopards) that get massive TV exposure that lower the morale of western populations. 

The Russians have an advantage here in that they always seem willing to take casualties and since they emphasize quantity over quality, losing stuff is less upsetting.

[Alex]

Guys if honest I'm not real understand you, in all missions more than half victory points given for killing enemy, most in every mission you can win if kill many enemy and loose all another tasks, in most missions ground point's not 1st deal, very little number of missions where player mast hold ground (not for 0:30-1h but for story), all of them in big city's, what exactly you don't like? You think I should change points like 1-3 tanks = win battle? This will be absolutely uninteresting for player because AI is so stupid, not hard to kill few tanks and APC in every mission.

A story of first mission - hold positions only ~1h to give time for main forces to retreat, not stopt brits, not kill them all, just hold a little.

[Erwin]

"You think I should change points like 1-3 tanks = win battle?"

In this particular example, yes.  Certainly US and UK media would report a disaster if 3 Abrams or Challengers were killed in one minor battle.  (That would also mean quite a few troops/crew KIA or WIA as well.)

It's appreciated that when the AI controls Blue, its AFV's may be much easier to kill.

But, as a scenario designer that's a design challenge you need to address.  (When a human plays Blue in this theatre, he needs to be "encouraged" by severe penalties to only accept minimal casualties (if any) in order to achieve a win.)  Very low tolerance for casualties is the way the West tries to fight.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Alex I can win all my own battles too.....Every time. 

As I said I'm pretty busy with my own stuff, but I'd be glad to play and comment on an amended version of your scenario.

Where are you from BTW Alex.....I'm British. 

[Alex]

16 hours ago, Erwin said:

It's appreciated that when the AI controls Blue, its AFV's may be much easier to kill.

But, as a scenario designer that's a design challenge you need to address.  (When a human plays Blue in this theatre, he needs to be "encouraged" by severe penalties to only accept minimal casualties (if any) in order to achieve a win.)  Very low tolerance for casualties is the way the West tries to fight.

Unfortunately this problem don't have good solution, if you tried CMSF editor you must know that AI don't have flexibility, you can only give it a way, where and how to go, that's all. To save tanks in first mission, I'm spend a lot of time to sync tank and infantry actions, troops clean territory near the road to protect tanks from AT ambush. This is game where almost no AI, AI can't almost nothing to do by it self, it will not move a metr and not take not one desigion, it can only fire at will. And game don't have a scripts like "if happens this, do this". Because it so, to do interesting campaign with big battles we chosen way what you see. 

2 Sgt.Squarehead

I.m talking not about what I can win, I already give a picture and link where some players play and wins in Stepsons. 

I'm already understood that you from Britain  I'm from Russia.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

That's ironic.....You are writing a campaign with the British and I'm doing one with the Russians! 

Did you know you can get AFVs to go to a specific location on the map using the AI editor?

[Alex]

You makeing campaign in CMBS? 

Not shure what about you talking, what is AI editor? 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'm making a campaign in CM:A. 

 

[Alex]

Oh! CM:A it's nice, I love this one, you even can hear my voice when calling air or artillery support   

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Tried again, 1st scenario - UK Losses: 47 dead, 3 Challengers Burned, 3 Scimitars Burned, countless soft-skins burned. 

That's significantly more losses than the UK took in the whole of the first Gulf War (same KIA total).....I scored a Draw again. 

 

Edited March 23, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead