Jump to content

Soviet campaign game 1- why does my FSE show up in a shooting gallery?


Recommended Posts

After really enjoying the US campaign, I started the Soviet one.

In the first game, your first wave of significant forces show up at the 10 minute mark. In a huge open field. Right under the guns and TOWs of a US cavalry screen. I started the scenario several times and I will lose 4-6 vehicles in the next 90 seconds and there's nothing I can do about it.

Why do the reinforcements show up there? According to the briefing tactical map, they're supposed to arrive on the other side of that map edge in cover.

Am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the FSE shows up as intended.   The short answer is “Soviet doctrine”, the FSE is designed to basically “recon in force” and will follow up a CRP quickly and in force to either 1.  Defeat the enemy in contact, 2. Piquet the enemy, if they cannot defeat them, so the follow on forces can attack or bypass.

In the first Soviet campaign scenario the FSE is going to come straight down that road with momentum based on the enemy they are facing and overall operational context, it main mission would be to take Mansbach (the first objective)…and they are going to take losses.

A lot of players have found the switch to Soviet tactics somewhat jarring but once you make the shift they can be really cool to play and a great challenge.  
 

How did you do in the US Campaign by the way?  Very glad you enjoyed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

 

How did you do in the US Campaign by the way?  Very glad you enjoyed it.

I did the '79 campaign and scored a minor victory. There were some great games. Very nicely done.

I think the Soviet briefing is somewhat misleading. It stresses the need for conserving forces and indicates your forces entering a different part of the map. If force conservation is the mission priority, there's no way I'm bringing the FSE in where they arrive. Why doesn't the tactical map in the briefing show the correct entry point for the FSE?

If the briefing instead prioritized momentum and maneuver, then I'd have less of an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Green Clutch said:

I did the '79 campaign and scored a minor victory. There were some great games. Very nicely done.

I think the Soviet briefing is somewhat misleading. It stresses the need for conserving forces and indicates your forces entering a different part of the map. If force conservation is the mission priority, there's no way I'm bringing the FSE in where they arrive. Why doesn't the tactical map in the briefing show the correct entry point for the FSE?

If the briefing instead prioritized momentum and maneuver, then I'd have less of an issue.

Thanks and very glad you enjoyed it.

That is not a bad point, I think we can amend the mission briefing.  As to the tac map, lemme check but if you keep going the follow on forces fall more in line with the Tac map.  The thing with the Soviets is that at a tactical level they were pretty much committed from the word “go”.  As a Bn commander you would not really have the FSE pull into those woods and carefully prod for enemy contacts (that is more the CRPs job).  Force preservation is very important but so is momentum, that is the Soviet dilemma both in the game and historically.  But Soviet force preservation is different than US definitions, losing 30% is not out of the ordinary..again so long as you can keep momentum.

We can look at giving the player more of this in the briefing so it feels a bit less like a “gotcha”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Green Clutch said:

I think the Soviet briefing is somewhat misleading. It stresses the need for conserving forces and indicates your forces entering a different part of the map. If force conservation is the mission priority, there's no way I'm bringing the FSE in where they arrive.

HAHA! This is how I felt too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

 

We can look at giving the player more of this in the briefing so it feels a bit less like a “gotcha”.

I went back again after your first message and went balls to the wall to try and go straight through the ambush zone and push on the village and it went better than previous attempts.

I think something in the briefing that encourages maintaining momentum and forward progress might be useful.

Thanks for the feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The_Capt said:

No, the FSE shows up as intended.   The short answer is “Soviet doctrine”, the FSE is designed to basically “recon in force” and will follow up a CRP quickly and in force to either 1.  Defeat the enemy in contact, 2. Piquet the enemy, if they cannot defeat them, so the follow on forces can attack or bypass.

In the first Soviet campaign scenario the FSE is going to come straight down that road with momentum based on the enemy they are facing and overall operational context, it main mission would be to take Mansbach (the first objective)…and they are going to take losses.

A lot of players have found the switch to Soviet tactics somewhat jarring but once you make the shift they can be really cool to play and a great challenge.  
 

How did you do in the US Campaign by the way?  Very glad you enjoyed it.

Speaking of "Soviet dictrine", may I inquire what documents did you base your research on? 

If there is an authentic papers describing this "doctrine" (that became available, let's say, after collapse of USSR) or all that "zerg rush" tactics is based upon Western assertions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

Speaking of "Soviet dictrine", may I inquire what documents did you base your research on? 

If there is an authentic papers describing this "doctrine" (that became available, let's say, after collapse of USSR) or all that "zerg rush" tactics is based upon Western assertions?

The sources are referenced in-game and in the manual. A good list are mentioned in the Tutorial scenarios and the thread on the same here.

In the specific case of this scenario, I dont mind the FSE spawning in LOS of TOWs. You start with both artillery and pre-battle intel, so you do have the tools to deal with this, to some degree.

The combat recon patrol would only have up to 30 minutes time to find the enemy, which is somewhat compressed here, and reflected in the btr platoon and the pre-battle intel. One thing implicit in this very limited time frame is that you will not spot everything, but you can and should call in artillery missions with perhaps a five minute delay.

It's harsh, certainly, and perhaps not the best introduction to the Soviets, but I'm happy with it as a doctrinal meeting engagement, in less than ideal circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dbsapp said:

Speaking of "Soviet dictrine", may I inquire what documents did you base your research on? 

If there is an authentic papers describing this "doctrine" (that became available, let's say, after collapse of USSR) or all that "zerg rush" tactics is based upon Western assertions?

Even if they were based on non-Soviet publications those so-called "Western assertions" were solidly based.  I know from experience that both the US and UK had some pretty swept up Soviet studies branches staffed by Russian speakers and specialists in the discipline and no doubt other NATO nations had similar capabilities.  On top of that the intelligence operations with which I am very familiar, having worked on one of them, were enduring, comprehensive and multi-disciplined.  The doctrinal pamphlets therefore benefited from the results of the massive collection effort.  The Soviet Army was largely a conscript army which in time of war prioritised getting to places quickly, en masse supported by massive amounts of firepower.  To achieve all of this, it needed forces that were well-armed, reasonably well-protected and mobile that could deploy quickly and with the minimum of coordination.  For this it employed a series of simple but highly effective drills in offensive operations.  Those drills were practiced on exercises which were overtly publicised and often attended by Western military attaches.  Fine if you want to go with the 'yes but they will only show what they want people to see' argument but other exercises were tracked by NATO intelligence and in Germany these were covertly tracked by the three Allied Military Missions (BRIXMS, MMFL and the USMLM).  Skepticism is fine in limited doses but it is not so in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

Even if they were based on non-Soviet publications those so-called "Western assertions" were solidly based.  I know from experience that both the US and UK had some pretty swept up Soviet studies branches staffed by Russian speakers and specialists in the discipline and no doubt other NATO nations had similar capabilities.  On top of that the intelligence operations with which I am very familiar, having worked on one of them, were enduring, comprehensive and multi-disciplined.  The doctrinal pamphlets therefore benefited from the results of the massive collection effort.  The Soviet Army was largely a conscript army which in time of war prioritised getting to places quickly, en masse supported by massive amounts of firepower.  To achieve all of this, it needed forces that were well-armed, reasonably well-protected and mobile that could deploy quickly and with the minimum of coordination.  For this it employed a series of simple but highly effective drills in offensive operations.  Those drills were practiced on exercises which were overtly publicised and often attended by Western military attaches.  Fine if you want to go with the 'yes but they will only show what they want people to see' argument but other exercises were tracked by NATO intelligence and in Germany these were covertly tracked by the three Allied Military Missions (BRIXMS, MMFL and the USMLM).  Skepticism is fine in limited doses but it is not so in this case.

It's also worth mentioning that the doctrine as shown in Cold War matches up the listed sources, which match up well to those written in the last few years.

I don't think there's any room for doubt that this is presented correctly. It's obviously always possible that a given implementation in a scenario could be off base - that kind of issue has always been endemic to simulations, whether it's down to the understanding or ability of the arbitrator/designer, or the limits of the sim itself.

But no, CM:CW does not represent the Soviets as mindless hordes, and nor did the period field manuals. Suggesting that they might does a pretty big disservice to a lot of hard work across the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dbsapp said:

Speaking of "Soviet dictrine", may I inquire what documents did you base your research on? 

If there is an authentic papers describing this "doctrine" (that became available, let's say, after collapse of USSR) or all that "zerg rush" tactics is based upon Western assertions?

So my suggestion is you start here on this thread: 

A lot of western literature on all of this, which as Combatintman points out was not only pretty accurate in the day but has been validated post-collapse.  There is always going to be some western bias but here history really helps.  The Soviets were a product of WW2 and by the end of that war, their tactics may have seemed all human waves and mindless charges but if one pulls up a level in altitude you can see a lot of intelligent design going on here. 

The Soviet doctrine was never a "mindless horde" they just worked at a different resolution.  As was noted, they knew their force was going to be largely conscripted in depth so they built a system that made that a virtue, it is really smart.  They basically got over the tactical-horror of losses, accepted them as par for the course and instead focused on operational and strategic maneuver to end the war quickly, resulting on overall lower losses strategically.   This is why an FSE may feel very important to a player (and probably to the Soviet Bn commander too) but in reality it was a fire-and-forget peice of ammunition..in fact if one unpacks a Soviet Division, it was also a "one-way" formation.

Scenario design is tricky as one cannot force a player to play it a certain way, all one can do is encourage through things like; initial placement, scenario length, environment and mission briefings.  The Soviet Campaigns were never designed to be played first (there are plenty of warnings) so they are not really an introduction (that is what Cpt Miller's excellent tutorials are for).  But we knew that players, predominantly coming from the west, would likely default to western tactics, which are more cautious and "elegant" - makes sense for a quality over quantity force - so the first Soviet Campaign scenario is designed to be a bit of a jolt...and apparently it is working.  This is not the last time in this campaign that the player will be thrust into an awkward tactical starting position but high mass with a lot of momentum is going to do exactly that.

As we learned though, once a player makes the transition to Soviet-type problem solving successfully, CMCW becomes a whole new experience which I can only hope most enjoy.   I personally played through Scenario one multiple times and on my last go through, I managed to kill all of those lead M60s and took a single T62 and 2xBTRs as losses.  The best part was figuring out how to do it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

soviet training missions are great way to understand how they operate. Reading the briefing is one thing, but seeing it unfold (if executed well) is real eye opener. i was used to ww2 titles and only western front which always used limited artillery. however, in soviet doctrine, artillery is absolutely crucial and used in ungodly amounts compared to anything I've experienced previously (i'd say, soviets use the arty as it should be used).

the downside (from gameplay perspective) is inherent need to fire from all vehicles during the advance. This is very laburous if you have whole batallion of troops but also crucial to success as you need all that firepower to allow for relatively quick attack. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, domfluff said:

In the specific case of this scenario, I dont mind the FSE spawning in LOS of TOWs. You start with both artillery and pre-battle intel, so you do have the tools to deal with this, to some degree.

I disagree. It's impossible to get rounds down from prefires before the FSE arrives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, domfluff said:

How do you mean? You can set rounds to arrive immediately, or at 5, 10 and 15 minutes. The FSE arrives at 10. Start the barrage at 5?

Oh snap nevermind. You're right. I am on it. 

I always like moving my FO to where they can actually see the enemy before I drop rounds 

Edited by Artkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the whole recon process is compressed in this scenario - the FO wouldn't typically accompany the combat recon patrol at all, for example, but this uses a combination of an on-map FO, the recon platoon and pre-battle intel to compress the 30-ish minute process into 10.

There are obvious compromises to that, and (as before) I'd argue that this isn't a great introduction to the Soviet campaign, since it's asking a lot from the player up-front. Really cool scenario though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, domfluff said:

I'd argue that this isn't a great introduction to the Soviet campaign, since it's asking a lot from the player up-front

Guilty as charged on this count and proudly so.  The Soviet campaign is. by-design, for advanced CM players; if you are playing it you are already in a smaller group of devotees.  This is why I had no compunction on taking the gloves off and leaving them off.  I also fully expected some to be downright angry...and that is ok.

If you can finish it with a win, particularly March or Die, well that puts you in truly rarified air in my books.  That all said, it is still very realistic and built pretty much straight from Soviet doctrine, with abstractions of course.  You are totally correct in the recon compression, originally I had it as the 30 min window right out of the manual but the feedback during testing is that is made the front end really a drag and kinda boring (which CM should never be), so we compressed it for shock factor.  We tightened up several other scenarios in the campaign as well for that reason.

Hey, when you get to Alsfeld, send screenshots.  I haven't seen anyone make it that far yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...