HEART OF DARKNESS - MISSION 4 AAR

[Erwin]

Playing WEGO ELITE.

While CM1 maps could be up to 8Km x 4Km this CMSF map is very large for a CM2 game: about 1500m x 1200m.  One also has the equivalent of a couple battalions of US and Brit troops (but only the Brits have a few vehicles including one AGL and one 7.62mm MG).  So a pretty large scenario for a CM2 game. 

The US have the left flank sector, the Brits are on the right.   I think it took me almost as much time to do the initial set-up for Mission 4 as it did to play the entirety of Mission 3.  The primary challenge is how to cross numerous impassible wadis using the fords which could easily be mined or have IED's or be covered by enemy fire.  The one has to clear several villages and one or two sizeable towns.  So, good MOUT SOP's are once again required.

 

 

************* SPOILERS *************

25 minutes in, 2 hours and 5 minutes to go:

95% of the scenarios one plays allows one to run one's troops 100 meters+ towards desired interim objectives before they have any danger of getting shot at.  A very few scenario have your units come under fire if they move a few meters off their start positions.  This is one of those rare scenarios.  Fortunately, there is little opposition. But, one of the Brit scout teams lost a man on turn one.   (It was then easy to bring up mortars and assault killing 5 Taliban in a ditch.)   Around 10 minutes later some Taliban arty started falling and the US lost a man in their sector.

10 minutes later the US spot some Taliban on the roof of a village objective. Used arty and fire to neutralize.

Am using the numerous engineers up front backed by the infantry units.  The engineers are now SLOW crossing several of the fords.  Am hoping that if there are mines, the engineers/pioneers will spot em.  (BTW:  What in RL is the difference between "Engineers" and "Pioneers"?)

Nothing one can do about IED's if one has not spotted and neutralized the triggerman.  It seems that the Taliban arty takes a long time to get going.  So, as long as one keeps moving we should be ok.  However, SLOW crossing the fords will slow down the significant allied forces at these choke points.   Hope we can MOVE or HUNT across.

 

[grunt_GI]

Well, the good news is...by the time I make it through Mission 2...maybe...you will have everything sorted out if I get stuck again.

Glad you're back on track... @dragonwynn makes some damn fine campaigns...infuriating...  but damn fine.

[Erwin]

********** SPOILERS **********

 

2 HOURS TO GO:

Just after I posted my last report, I drove the Brit dismountable AGL launcher through the first gate and hit a mine.  Total loss.     The Brits only have one.  As an experienced gamer I know I have to suck it up and forge ahead without this unique and valuable asset.  In RL, I am sure the shock would make us pull back and await reinforcements. 

I guess I had instinctively walked all the troops over the low walls and never thru a gate.  Instead I sent engineers and pioneers (what is the difference??) to every crossing point and SLOW moved them across with max waypoints and 30-45 sec pauses at each waypoint in the hope that they would identify mines.  Took 5+ minutes to check each crossing in this way.  But, it seemed like there were no mines (or IED's at any crossing point.  Nonetheless, all the Brit and US troops are now across the major water barrier using HUNT or MOVE in case moving QUICK detonated something.

The Brits seem to keep coming across enemies in the fields.  LOS is poor and it's hard to winkle the Taliban out and FO LOS for arty is also a problem, - the FO's have to be dangerously close to the Taliban.    Lost about 4 more Brit inf. in their (right flank) sector. 

The US haven't had a firefight yet, but are getting periodically bombarded by arty - lost 2 more US airborne/mech guys in their left flank sector.  Have to keep em moving...

Still at this point we are about to breach the walls of the furthest LHS objective village.  Looking forward to getting into some MOUT.  The plan at this point is to move troops down the left flank and try and assault the rest of the objectives from the flanks rather than straight ahead like one is forced to do in most CM2 games cos the maps are not very wide.  Fortunately, the 1500 meters width of this map gives one many opportunities for maneuver.

 

[dragonwynn]

15 hours ago, grunt_GI said:

Well, the good news is...by the time I make it through Mission 2...maybe...you will have everything sorted out if I get stuck again.

Glad you're back on track... @dragonwynn makes some damn fine campaigns...infuriating...  but damn fine.

Thanks grunt_GI for the kind comments. Yea I know they can be a pain in the "butt" to get through sometime. But in the end I hope it feels like a rewarding experience to complete.

[Erwin]

********* SPOILERS *********

 

1 HOUR 45 MINS TO GO:

Troops are now entering the first line of villages and small towns.  Taking a casualty here and there primarily cos of snipers, and the occasional surviving Taliban in a building.  But, the assaults are almost on auto pilot - each MOUT situation is essentially the same.  While the map is large, the challenges for entering and clearing each collection of objective location buildings are identical.   

SOP:  Basically, avoid township entrances of course.  Start by blasting thru a wall at a corner with extra inf just outside supporting the engineers ready to go in.  HUNT into the first building and then spread out from there with as many units in support from as many buildings are possible every time one enters a new building.  If an enemy is spotted they will be spotted by units in several buildings and they almost always die very quickly with no friendly casualties.  Simples...

LOS is generally very short/restricted - even from roofs - so it's not always easy to get arty where you want it.  Altho' arty is the best way to clear trench lines.  There is plenty of arty - altho' the single 81mm mortar is by far the most useful since it can take as little as 2 mins to get FFE.  I hope it doesn't run out. There are about five 105mm, but so far have used em very little.  And have not used the air support once as yet.  Have not seen appropriate targets.

My sense after playing this mission for 45 minutes game time is that there are a few interesting challenges like clearing trench lines, and killing isolated snipers and MG units dotted around the map.  But, it's all "rinse and repeat".  The main challenge with Mission #4 is becoming bored and careless with the virtually identical building clearing process.  One starts to want to "speed up" and "get it over with".  As always, that is when one suffers unnecessary casualties.

Anyway, we still have 4 compounds to clear and there are enemy occupied trenches ahead.  So, there is plenty of time and real estate to offer some nasty surprises ahead.

 

[Erwin]

Was getting burned out on Mission 4 so decided to CF and get a small victory so I could move on to Mission 5. 

The issue I had with the massive Mission 4 was not the large size and masses of Brit and US troops, but the fact that the objectives were repetitive.  One has to capture 6 or 7+ small towns.  The tactic is exactly the same for each and gets a bit boring.  There are few "surprises". 

I started to amuse myself by going off on non-mission critical adventures like trying to clear out drainage ditches and trenches with my excess troops.  That was a big mistake, and I lost more than a platoon just on these non-essential "adventures". 

A frustration of CMSF which this mission exemplifies is the relative ineffectiveness of artillery in CMSF.  I would accurately bombard a trench 3 or 4 times and still there were surviving enemy able and willing to fight.

I may go back and complete Mission 4 after the campaign is done, as am a bit anal about completing things.  For now, on to Mission 5.

[Combatintman]

Just an observation and not a shot, but it is funny how the exact opposite behaviour in the version 4 engine (ie troops fleeing from trenches when shelled) has 'broken' the game for many people. This is a classic example of you can't please everybody and BFC being damned if they do and damned if they don't.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I thought you were a fan of big battles Erwin, your commentary here feels a little harsh, especially considering the effort involved in building such things.

Edited October 30, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Combatintman said:

Just an observation and not a shot, but it is funny how the exact opposite behaviour in the version 4 engine (ie troops fleeing from trenches when shelled) has 'broken' the game for many people. This is a classic example of you can't please everybody and BFC being damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Heh yeah that pretty much covers a lot of the forum discussions.  I think in this case though it is more just finding the middle ground. Suppression is one thing, running into the open is another. I was trying out the first mission of the Scottish campaign, a couple arty rounds and the Germans crawled from behind the hedgerow, into the open and over to a shell hole in plain sight.  

Look at it as spotting rounds. First round was under, second round was over.  Hoping the next round hits spot on. 

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I thought you were a fan of big battles Erwin, your commentary here feels a little harsh, especially considering the effort involved in building such things.

It is also the nature of combat. It is repetitive. I can appreciate wanting something always surprising and different but it is unrealistic to expect that to be a constant in design.  On the other hand critiques are what allow a designer to see alternative perspectives. 

[Erwin]

"The issue I had with the massive Mission 4 was not the large size and masses of Brit and US troops, but the fact that the objectives were repetitive.  One has to capture 6 or 7+ small towns.  The tactic is exactly the same for each and gets a bit boring.  There are few "surprises". 

I would say that this mission could have been much better had there been a series of different types of objectives, rather than the same one over and over again.

This is intended as feedback for the designer and helpful info for anyone interested in actually PLAYING the campaign (as opposed to forum post wanking).

 

Edited October 30, 2017 by Erwin

[Sgt.Squarehead]

No disrespect dude, but you gotta remember how few tools the designers have to play with in CM:SF (and that not all of them work as advertised), look at my little Mosul thing, it's only 320m x 320m and I maxed the editor in a couple of areas to run it! 

PS - Please, please @Battlefront.com  could we possibly get a mini-patch to fix the Red Occupy bug in CM:SF.....It would give the game another little burst of energy prior to the big sequel! 

Edited October 30, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Erwin]

Firstly, if my AAR's are not useful to other players and/or the designer, I don't need to do em.  They are simply personal comments and suggestions re what works in the game and what does not.  Hope they are useful is all.  No reason to give in to the irresistible need to critique honest player feedback.   If the feedback is not wanted, plz let me know and I won't do any more.

For what it's worth, Mission 5 is a very good design.  I was only sorry that that mission ended prematurely - maybe due to me blowing up too many buildings.     (I didn't think I blew up that many, so maybe the victory conditions need to be looked at.)

Edited October 30, 2017 by Erwin

[Sgt.Squarehead]

What I am saying is that this is built with the first iteration of the engine, we've got used to scenarios built with a lot more toys, so it's only fair to keep that in mind when critiquing.

[Erwin]

I don't think "toys" are the issue.  There are design choices re what the player has to accomplish that could be looked at.  Taking a small scenario concept and "blowing" it up to 10 times the size with 10 almost identical objectives and 10 times the number of units, doesn't make it 10 times the fun...  usually the opposite.  And this is just my take. 

Of course you should look at what other players are saying about this campaign and take all comments "under advisement".

 

[dragonwynn]

21 hours ago, Erwin said:

"The issue I had with the massive Mission 4 was not the large size and masses of Brit and US troops, but the fact that the objectives were repetitive.  One has to capture 6 or 7+ small towns.  The tactic is exactly the same for each and gets a bit boring.  There are few "surprises". 

I would say that this mission could have been much better had there been a series of different types of objectives, rather than the same one over and over again.

This is intended as feedback for the designer and helpful info for anyone interested in actually PLAYING the campaign (as opposed to forum post wanking).

 

All feed back is welcome guys. I understand Erwins point about Mission 4. I actually considered downsizing it before I released the campaign but I had put alot of work into the map plus I was sticking to as much realisim as possible. Alot of the actual combat in Afghanistan Im sure was repetitive, at least from the accounts I have read. Go check that village out for signs of taliban, or patrol that roadway to keep it clear for convoys etc etc. And yes the Red Occupy bug sucks lol.

But I can see from a "gaming stand point" it gets boring so the suggestions are duly noted.

 

Michael

[Erwin]

Re my feedback for Mission 5.  I was really enjoying that one and it was a shock to have it abruptly end with a draw.  Not sure why.  I figured the game would continue until the objectives were accomplished and only then would I get marked down for (perhaps) destroying too many buildings. 

There is so much airpower and arty available in Mission 5.  Not sure what to use em on other than specific building targets when ID'd as full of enemy.  I suppose one doesn't have to use much of the available support HE.  But, maybe the Mission 5 victory conditions could do with a tweak.

Mission 6 could have had similar issues as Mission 4.  However, am finding Mission 6 much more fun.  Possibly cos the Brit force is wonderful with all the Scimitars, Jackals and GP Rovers with dismountable 7.62mm MG's and Automatic Grenade Launchers.  Lovely.

So, perhaps Mission 4 was less interesting (for me) cos the inf unit mix was not diverse.   Also, perhaps the objectives could have been different in some way.  As it was, it seemed like I was doing exactly the same MOUT tactic over and over (and over) again.