Habibollah Kalay

[cns180784]

Playing this scenario and have so far took quite a number of casualties with a good number killed and have only so far secured the first two initial Northern and Southern objectives (small compounds/villages). I've found the Taliban mortar fire to be deadly pin point accurate which wouldnt reflect real life, i've lost most of my men to these and just shockingly lost my whole 1 Troop HQ and 1 Troop 1 Section to a pin point mortar barrage. They had took no casualties up to this point then all of a sudden these came raining down and killed/wounded them all. Not exactly realistic the accuracy was unbelievable and they had cover from trees. So now the rest of 1 Troop (2 Sections) have no Troop HQ and are now cautious...not good.

[Combatintman]

As the designer of this scenario and someone who was in Helmand as part of the headquarters supporting the individuals depicted in the scenario and knowing the breakdown of how casualties were caused during that tour, I beg to differ.   Insurgent mortar teams were very adept at setting up quickly, often at pre-registered baseplates and were eminently capable of bringing down accurate fire very quickly.

However - realism is something that generally has to be compromised when making scenarios in order to create a challenge for the player - the number of insurgents in this and pretty much all of my scenarios is grossly exaggerated for the same reason.

 

[cns180784]

Well since that happened only had 2 more men wounded and have flushed out a good number of Taliban and are now preparing for an assault on Changal. Just under 2 hours left not sure if we can secure the Sluice Gates in time but i'll see, having fun with it, very good scenario and nice large map. I used loads of mortars/light guns and a few Apache strikes on a position where the Taliban were dug in along a tree line and next to them a row of buildings 2 of which got flattened by bombs dropped from F-15s. Thing is one insurgent survived inside one building that was blown to bits but got him in the end lol.

[Erwin]

I recall very much enjoying this scenario.  It is very winnable (I played WEGO ELITE). 

One has to be very consistent in splitting all units, advancing by bounds with the smallest unit in the lead, being careful and using "recon by fire", not ever bunching up to offer a tasty target, using heavy support on suspected positions, often just sitting and observing from a safe position until an enemy is revealed - but also not staying stationary for too long so that mortars can target you. 

I recall that running out of ammo was an issue for some units.

Very good scenario.

I also highly recommend "UK Mud Marines" - probably my all-time favorite CMSF scenario.

[cns180784]

Yea before i last saved the game i had all of 2 Troop resupply from the APC's with 556 and UGL grenades. Thats something that can always catch you out in the longer scenarios.

[cns180784]

Finished it and got a Tactical Defeat which i wasnt surprised by mainly due to my casualties, finished with 24 killed and 25 wounded. A lot less than theirs but its expected that they would suffer much more casualties. It wasnt actually due to my casualties why i got the defeat though, it was mainly due to their 50 points for "Friendly Bonus". What is that? is it points awarded due to not losing a certain amount of men? they did have 128 killed and 88 wounded so surprised by that.

But what else surprised me was the first two objectives we secured at the start we cleared them totally of enemy but at the end when i reviewed the map there were fresh enemy troops both in those two objectives like they just seemed to appear when my troops pushed East towards the Sluice Gates. Were these their reinforcements?

[Erwin]

Replicates the enemy infiltration into cleared areas.  There are some CMSF scenarios that do that and it shows effectively how difficult it was for the troops when enemy popped up in their rear.  You have to garrison everything.

Friendly Bonus may have been for the Brit casualties, or if you didn't kill enuff of the enemy, or maybe for the re-occupation of objectives.

[cns180784]

I see but i did still get the points for the two objectives that we initially cleared which the enemy re- infiltrated. I'm guessing the friendly bonus must have been due to my casualties.

Oh dear minor defeat when i played Green 9 and now tactical defeat...think i better sharpen up my tactics. One thing i've learned is to watch out for enemy spotting mortar/arty rounds and then move my troops accordingly. I take it a tactical defeat is worse than a minor defeat?

Edited December 5, 2016 by cns180784

[Erwin]

CM2 is very complex and you have to give it all your mental focus as errors are severely punished, esp in CMSF where almost any friendly casualties are a disaster.  I play WEGO/ELITE and I regularly burn out quite quickly, and have to play something "easy" like Gary Grigsby's "War In The Pacific Admiral's Edition" for R&R. 

The objectives you gained then lost but still got points for must have been "Touch" objectives as touching them is all you have to do.  If they had been "Occupy" the enemy would have gained the points if they were the last to occupy. 

CM2 is much tougher re "ownership" of objectives than CM1.  In CM1 you owned the objective if you had a preponderance of units on and/or around it.  In CM2, one enemy soldier hiding there can be enuff to deprive you of the points.

These are good scenarios for training.  But, hard as you can't afford losses.  When you feel up for it, I recommend larger scenarios like UK Mud Marines as you can afford more losses.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Erwin

[Blazing 88's]

Hey Erwin check your PM, sent you an fyi.

[MOS:96B2P]

On 12/4/2016 at 6:29 PM, cns180784 said:

<Snip> Oh dear minor defeat when i played Green 9 and now tactical defeat...think i better sharpen up my tactics. One thing i've learned is to watch out for enemy spotting mortar/arty rounds and then move my troops accordingly. I take it a tactical defeat is worse than a minor defeat?

Yes, tactical defeat is worse.  The Victory levels are: Total Victory, Major Victory, Tactical Victory, Minor Victory and Draw.   Or substitute Defeat for Victory.  

[Erwin]

Hi Blazing. I received (thanks for the heads up) and did one or two REPLY TO's back to you.  Did you not receive? 

[Blazing 88's]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

Hi Blazing. I received (thanks for the heads up) and did one or two REPLY TO's back to you.  Did you not receive? 

I checked and no, I don't see anything??  Hmmm...  Good at least you got the message.  That is a heck of a deal for that sim.

[Erwin]

Re your message.  I simply did a REPLY TO. But, I wonder if I need to do something else to reply as the REPLY TO goes to forum@battlefront.com rather than to you.

Am I replying in an incorrect way?

 

[cns180784]

On 12/5/2016 at 3:09 AM, Erwin said:

CM2 is very complex and you have to give it all your mental focus as errors are severely punished, esp in CMSF where almost any friendly casualties are a disaster.  I play WEGO/ELITE and I regularly burn out quite quickly, and have to play something "easy" like Gary Grigsby's "War In The Pacific Admiral's Edition" for R&R. 

The objectives you gained then lost but still got points for must have been "Touch" objectives as touching them is all you have to do.  If they had been "Occupy" the enemy would have gained the points if they were the last to occupy. 

CM2 is much tougher re "ownership" of objectives than CM1.  In CM1 you owned the objective if you had a preponderance of units on and/or around it.  In CM2, one enemy soldier hiding there can be enuff to deprive you of the points.

These are good scenarios for training.  But, hard as you can't afford losses.  When you feel up for it, I recommend larger scenarios like UK Mud Marines as you can afford more losses.

I play real time in Elite, with many pauses. CM does most certainly demand that you think through properly what orders you give to your forces. I have been playing these Afghan based British missions that have been mostly made by Combatintman and they're very good scenarios. IIRC when playing other missions like against the Syrians in the included scenarios or campaigns that came with the game and the modules, you can take more losses as more losses would be expected fighting a force that has tanks, armoured vehicles and can call on more mortars and arty.

Having said that, i have started on a small 4 mission campaign called Cobras Strike where you just command a single Platoon with two supporting MG teams and Javelin team. I got a victory (think tactical victory) in the first mission and only had 1 killed, 2 wounded but that was just against insurgents. For mission 2 my casualties havent been replaced and neither have my troops been resupplied...theres' just a Humvee with 500 rounds of 556 and 400 rounds of 762 for the MG's. No javelin missiles for the Jav team and they fired both missiles they had in the first mission. The Platoon was low on ammo after the first mission and not sure if what we have in the Humvee will be enough for mission 2 especially as theres more objectives and more enemy. Think its just insurgents again but we are expected to come up against elements of the Syrian 10th mech brigade at some point. Shall attempt mission 2 soon and see how that goes, gona need full 100% mental focus for that one considering the objectives, enemy and ammo constraints!

Edited December 7, 2016 by cns180784

[Blazing 88's]

9 hours ago, Erwin said:

Re your message.  I simply did a REPLY TO. But, I wonder if I need to do something else to reply as the REPLY TO goes to forum@battlefront.com rather than to you.

Am I replying in an incorrect way?

 

Not sure as it has never been an issue on my end.

[Erwin]

I now sent you a reply via the BF message system.  See if that works.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Erwin

[Combatintman]

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 at 7:28 AM, cns180784 said:

Finished it and got a Tactical Defeat which i wasnt surprised by mainly due to my casualties, finished with 24 killed and 25 wounded. A lot less than theirs but its expected that they would suffer much more casualties. It wasnt actually due to my casualties why i got the defeat though, it was mainly due to their 50 points for "Friendly Bonus". What is that? is it points awarded due to not losing a certain amount of men? they did have 128 killed and 88 wounded so surprised by that.

But what else surprised me was the first two objectives we secured at the start we cleared them totally of enemy but at the end when i reviewed the map there were fresh enemy troops both in those two objectives like they just seemed to appear when my troops pushed East towards the Sluice Gates. Were these their reinforcements?

Sorry it has taken a while to get back on this.  The fresh enemy troops that you saw were indeed reinforcements and the objectives there are 'touch' objectives.  This was one of my earlier scenarios where I hadn't learned that I could create off map reinforcements to stop an early surrender triggering so I thought that by having these guys arrive in this area, it would give the enemy a chance to pick off any stragglers but the main rationale was to prevent an early surrender.

Had I known this trick at the time I made the scenario it would have looked a little different and, even though I added these guys I still think that the enemy surrender probably triggers a little too early.  Anyway I am glad that the scenario at least kept your attention and thank you for downloading and playing it.

[cns180784]

I enjoyed it and will try again at some point.