Personally I would steer well clear of Turn 1 catastrophic events and any randomness about the player's available force at that time in the scenario and here's why ...
No matter how much of a heads-up you give in the briefing, the player is already emotionally invested in their blokes from set-up so when their blokes get killed by something that they cannot avoid or influence they find it irritating. If you doubt this then look at the endless whinges that come from WEGO Players who micromanage their moves to the nth degree, with 'Fast'/'Pause 15 Seconds'/'Target Arc'/'Blast' etc combinations in a single move and then find that the unit doesn't do exactly what they wanted it to do. Face it ... most CM players prefer control over lack of control. So it is an absolute sure fire way to induce a rage quit and is a proven gripe among players who have played scenarios with Turn 1 casualty events.
Without a reasonable idea of what the player is starting with (or will have at the end of Turn 1), it becomes difficult to balance the mission and to test it. Remember if you go with the using two IEDs suggestion there are three possible results ...
None of the devices function.
One of the devices functions and say whacks a single vehicle and 4 blokes.
Both devices function and say whacks most of your convoy and cause fratricide to the ambushing force.
Added to that - you cannot predict what the surrounding terrain will look like:
Will everything be flattened?
Will nothing be flattened?
Will different walls be flattened in Test #1 to those that are flattened in Test #2 when only one device functions?
Etc ...
Of course there is also the vehicle cook off issue which will be another random event to cater for because one or both (or more) of the vehicles you destroy using the IED (s) may be set on fire and thus cook off and cause more random casualties. This doesn't happen if you start with the vehicles already destroyed.
There will be a way of doing this and it probably involves just picking a truck platoon or two and stripping away elements or setting them as never arriving reinforcement groups and setting some of the on map vehicles to destroyed. You don't need bodies on the ground to convince the player that a couple of trucks have been whacked. Back it up with an appropriately worded briefing and the job is done.
While mission designers have to accept that there will always be variables when they design, balance and test missions because of different play styles, difficulty settings and player COAs that you don't anticipate, you should always aim to reduce unnecessary variables - particularly those that relate to key aspects of the mission narrative.
Of course I can give better guidance if you share more about your design concept, narrative and the sorts of challenges that you want to set for anyone playing the mission.
I designed a CM1 mission many years ago which started with an ambush that the receiving player could do nothing about. The whole point was to create the sort of shock and dismay that a real ambush would cause. This ambush set the tone for the rest of the mission. My concept was to demonstrate the players' lack of control in an ambush situation and to create cautiousness in the ambushed player - at least for the start of the mission.
As Combatintman says, the screams of horror and criticism from players were loud. It's a psychology issue. Players do not want "realism". They want the "illusion of realism" (verisimilitude) - that encourages the player to think that (s)he is a great commander and is in control of the situation.
So, yes it's a wonderful idea, and some players may appreciate a mission that starts with a nasty ambush in turn 1. But, be prepared that most will not appreciate it.
TBH that's why I suggested stacked Medium IEDs, they are just enough for the job and even if both go off it doesn't leave a massive crater.
I know you don't like these dramatic scenario starts @Combatintman, but tastes differ and it's not an inauthentic way for the action to commence. Workarounds for the problems you describe can be devised, not with 100% predictability for sure, but within a reasonable margin of error IMHO.....If @ncc1701e can pull it off, I'd certainly be willing to give it a go.
This would indeed be a viable option.....But a lot less dramatic.
ncc1701e reacted to Combatintman in Editing Unit status?
ncc1701e got a reaction from Splinty in How accurate *is* CMBS?
ncc1701e got a reaction from Sgt.Squarehead in How accurate *is* CMBS?
ncc1701e got a reaction from LUCASWILLEN05 in Naughty or nice... here's some bones!
