AAR - Jisrash Shugur

[THH149]

Played this as H2H and had a lot of fun, and won as the Syrians.

The basic situation is the US Blue force and in two parts, one coming from corners of the western side of the map, converging on a small town split by a river crossed by two bridges. The Syrians had a mechanised force with 8 x BMP-2s, plus several RPG/MG teams and a AT-4a team on the hill overlooking the town.

The 'Mission Objectives' for the Syrian are to hold two objectives - one each side of the river - and impose casualties on Blue Force, worth a total of 70 points.  For the US, they were to take three objectives - one on the closer side of the river and two on the far side, one quite a way from the town, for 70 points.

But we know the 'Mission Objectives' only mention some of the objectives for victory (the usual bull from the CM system), with many more points on offer for destroying Strykers/BMPs and each others specfic units like HQs and infantry, so I felt safe to ignore the Mission objectives pretty much.

I set up nearly all Syrians on the far side of the river, leaving only a squad and half on the near side. I used some trucks to block the bridges (but it turned out that they dont, though they block LOS especially when burning), adopting a reverse slope position and Hide everyone. I had to carefully manage the Target orders to make sure no one gave their position away before a point blank shot (though the AT4 shot early and destroyed the 105 on one the strykers).  Later I realised the AT5s on the BMPs couldve been put to better effect, as the US maneuvered onto the village (though that would've meant certain destruction for them if in LOS, but something to consider next time)

The Syrians had two art modules - one 81mm MTR and one 107mm rocket barrage. The rocket barrage was interesting as it either fired in the first turn or 21 minutes after the request - I time both to smash the village on the US side just as he was entering the area (lucky!).

In the buildup, the Javelin team destroyed 3 BMPs but I hid the rest, and took close range RPG shots against strykers when I could that seemed half the time to hit but not knock them out, otherwise holding fire.  I was able to destroy three more as they crossed the bridge, as they brushed aside the burning trucks. By this stage, the Us was I think 5 strykers down and the most of the rest were damaged, but he did have some infantry cross the bridges pusing into the second part of the village, but facing 5 BMPs and the bulk of the Syrian veterans.

At that point, at the 25 minute mark,  the US surrendered as he felt he didn't have sufficient vehicle support to hold what he had. I wished he'd had ceasefired as that would have given a more accurate calculation of the game situation.

The US scored some 160-170 points and the Syrians scored 460-70 (IIRC), for a Major Victory (though impacted by the surrender decision).

A couple of things we noticed after the game: a Syrian squad is setup outside the setup zone and cant be moved into one, the US has artie but only a handful of shells, we wondered if the US can cross the river rather than go over the bridges (something to check) and the US player was very agressive with the game called at the 25 minute mark (of the 50 minutes allowed) so that the result could've been very different if he was more cautious (possibly using Javelins to destroy Syrian strong points for 20 minutes), the Syrians can't set up to defend one of the US objectives (the Madrassa).

The VP count was the usual unknown (why are they hidden? doesnt senior command tell the mission leader what the f*** they need to do to be victorious?) I must say I don't like hidden VP when playing H2H.

How have others found this battle?

THH

[Combatintman]

57 minutes ago, THH149 said:

But we know the 'Mission Objectives' only mention some of the objectives for victory (the usual bull from the CM system), with many more points on offer for destroying Strykers/BMPs and each others specfic units like HQs and infantry, so I felt safe to ignore the Mission objectives pretty much.

The VP count was the usual unknown (why are they hidden? doesnt senior command tell the mission leader what the f*** they need to do to be victorious?) I must say I don't like hidden VP when playing H2H.

 

Probably being a bit harsh on the VP piece mate.  This scenario and Wadi Scouts scenario that you posted about on another thread date back to the very early days of Shock Force.  Certainly looking at the Wadi Scouts VP structure, it smacks very much of early days stuff because it seems the designer looked at the parameters and thought 'ooh I must use all of them.'  I certainly approached things this way when I started noodling around in the editor around that time.  The early CMSF-1 scenarios did not have the same level of guidance on VP structures from Battlefront that are in place now so you will probably find lots of variations.  The process of converting CMSF-1 scenarios to CMSF-2 was, as you can imagine a flipping huge task and was tackled with an economy of effort approach.  Namely, if the thing could be cracked open and played in CMSF-2 and no showstoppers were found then in many cases the scenario was declared GTG to allow the testing team to work on scenarios that needed more love (i.e. ones that did not function well in the new engine, or ones that needed terrain conversions).  Some scenarios got a major reboot from the team to incorporate CMSF-2 or later CMSF-1 features such as Syrian artillery, Syrian air, triggers, exit zone objectives and the like.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Yup.....There's a big difference between these early scenarios and the stuff that was written later.

Check out @George MC's stuff.....'Hammertime', in its various incarnations, is one of my favourite CM:SF scenarios for either game.  As Blue you can do the usual surgical elimination of Red's units, but if you screw up, or underestimate your opponents, you will pay.

PS - @Combatintman's scenarios are pretty good too! 

Edited December 18, 2020 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Erwin]

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

'Hammertime', in its various incarnations, is one of my favourite CM:SF scenarios for either game. 

+1  Very good scenario.  George MC is one of the most reliable designers for quality missions.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Erwin

[THH149]

21 hours ago, Combatintman said:

Probably being a bit harsh on the VP piece mate.

Don't get me wrong here fella, I know there are people behind all of these designs.

I think the process you've outlined was the issue (and behind that the underlying design of the scenario template, the logistics and economics of the re-release etc), meaning the scenario templates as a whole probably didn't get the love they needed. And while I've found some poor scenario's from a H2H view, many are exciting and worth playing twice or more h2h.

There could've been some easy work arounds to be more revealing on the scenario VC eg just include the full list of VCs in the designer notes, or in the scenario briefing.  It's quite disconcerting to see a scenario say it will award 70 points for victory actually award several hundred or a thousand points by your own side. 

On the game itself - Jisrash Shugur - if the US can surgically eliminate the Syrians in 50 minutes, then maybe they're OP and need less time which would force them to be a bit more aggressive (say shave it down to 40 minutes) for a more competitive H2H game.

Best

THH

 

[THH149]

This little fellow swam the river on his way to counterattacking Blue Force from the rear ....

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Playing the Reds is a lot of fun, isn't it? 

 

[THH149]

On 12/20/2020 at 11:39 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Playing the Reds is a lot of fun, isn't it? 

 

Red is quite a bit more demanding than Blue (which is like fighting the Death Star), so yeah Red and Blue is fun to play, the troops aren't real so who cares if they die so long as they contribute to victory!

[Erwin]

It's easy to get sucked into playing Red forces as if one was NATO - trying to medic WIA, trying to send out units piecemeal to snipe at the enemy instead of mass assaults etc.  One has to be prepared to take heavy casualties and that can be depressing at first.

[THH149]

7 hours ago, Erwin said:

It's easy to get sucked into playing Red forces as if one was NATO - trying to medic WIA, trying to send out units piecemeal to snipe at the enemy instead of mass assaults etc.  One has to be prepared to take heavy casualties and that can be depressing at first.

Yep the different style of play is extra gravy to the game.  

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Do you have CM:A?

The Uncons in that game have so much potential for an asymmetric campaign, but it's bloody difficult to write good scenarios for them with only 8 AI Groups & no triggers (although it does have exit zones, which are very important for that style of play).....It doesn't seem to like Win10 very much either.

[THH149]

13 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Do you have CM:A?

Nope, I'm only doing the Steam method, but hoping CMBS comes soon.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

That game is scary compared to CM:SF2. 

It also feels kind of tiny compared to what you are used to if you have the CM:SF2 Bundle, there just aren't enough unit types for scenario designers to be particularly creative.....Hopefully we'll see a module soon.

Edited December 24, 2020 by Sgt.Squarehead

[mjkerner]

Nope, no CMA module soon, and likely never. BFC doesn’t have the rights to it, “Snowball” does. So BFC has to obtain the rights from

them/him and IIRC, he/they are defunct.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Was talking about a module for CM:BS there, @mjkerner but sadly I've come to the same conclusion.....Unless we can somehow acquire the legal rights for CM:A, it is essentially a Dead Parrot. 

[mjkerner]

Oh, sorry, my bad. I thought you had known about the CMA situation. Btw, I’d love to see BFC pursue obtaining the rights to it.

Edited December 24, 2020 by mjkerner

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Real shame as it is such a cool game, the Uncons are properly structured as Mujahideen Battalions or Tribal Groups and thus can be played in a coordinated way with Iron level C2 rules.....The Uncons in CM:SF2 are utterly incapable of coordination and have NO radios (which hardly matches what we have discovered on the battlefield in the years since the CM:SF TOE was first formalised).

[chuckdyke]

Red forces need fanatics. A force of fanatics will increase their 'Combat Factor' with the increase of casualties the thing is you don't know them till the chips are down. They could be randomly generated in the engine.  

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Huh? 

'Fanatic' is a motivation level and can be set in the editor.....They don't surrender, ever.