Cold War Holiday Tournament!!!

[Butschi]

56 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Another reason why the USSR forces must move out with speed, although I'm not particularly  fan of battles where forces start within LOS of eachother. 

However one thing some people might have missed is that you could switch troops between deployment zones. I think my opponent didn't realize this either. 

There is exactly one way down that is covered at least at the beginning. I used that for ~2/3 of my infantry and rushed the rest down the right side along with every vehicle I could empty, distributing the squads to as many vehicles as possible. Both worked exceedingly well, didn't lose a single vehicle (I guess my opponent had thought I couldn't possibly be that stupid and so hadn't tried to intercept me). It just annoyed me that one player was able to exploit knowledge while the other couldn't. As the Soviet player you have infantry ATGM to cover your advance and so you are naturally more vulnerable to artillery.

Well, just feedback not complaint. I'd have preferred different maps where one player is attacker on one and defender on another. Who cares if something is perfectly balanced?

[jackal263]

2 hours ago, IdontknowhowtodoX said:

Very unfortunately, the PC is dead. I have to buy a new one after at least 2 weeks. I'm sorry I can't continue playing right now. I'll start my round as soon as I get a new one. 

We were unfortunate in this battle... Anyway it was fun, to this point we arrived... I also don't like the mirror system for the reason explained before, and also for the lack of surprise about enemy force composition.. I think future tournaments should consider the possibility to play maybe an attck map with US, an attack map with Soviets and a meeting engagement with random side. That would surely be better, unless there is the possibility to select force composition at start.

[rocketman]

14 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Sure is strange! Could it be your steam CM is on non-SSD disk while your other CMs have the save files on \documents which is on an SSD? Just thinking of an explanation.
 

Thanks for trying to solve it. All CM installs and files are on a SSD, but the game not on Steam (could that be the problem)?

[rocketman]

14 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Sure is strange! Could it be your steam CM is on non-SSD disk while your other CMs have the save files on \documents which is on an SSD? Just thinking of an explanation.
 

Double post.

Edited January 17, 2023 by rocketman

[Chibot Mk IX]

5 hours ago, Lethaface said:

I think the USSR force should do a move in force, although if there would have been enough good cover around the map I would probably also setup ATGMs and artillery fires / smoke before moving. 
But imo there wasn't good cover around the map to hide all my forces in good spots to move out from. So I went for the zerg rush too, but not with everything.

My RU plan was to rush the 3x infantry platoons to the objectives to the valley, spread out between the middle and right objectives.
Some empty BTRs mixed in to give weight (or rather act as decoys and drive in front of the BTR with the SPG-9 RRs ;-)). All AT-4s to be setup in the treeline over the whole breath of the map, along with the grenade launchers. I did puss out on the tanks because I expected enemy TOWS and tanks on the enemy ridgeline turn 1. 

I did lose 2/3 of a platoon and some empty BTRs in the rush, but the rest of the infantry made it to the valley / cover after the first turn and went on to secure 2 of the 3 objectives.
While the AT-4s did a big number on enemy tanks and TOW launchers. My tanks joined the duel from covered position but lost one T-55 against a M-48, so I let the AT-4s finish the job and they did (all enemy tanks and either all or 4/5 of the TOW launchers). Quite a number of m113 laden with infantry have also been brewed up by AT-4s.

Now moving on last objective with tanks, BTRs and some infantry, while calling in arty on enemy positions. I think my oppo has ~2 platoons of infantry left. But if they want to move to any objective they will have to expose to the AT front that already did a number on their bro's.

So my USSR rush worked fine. I have to add that my opponent is probably quite a bit less experienced playing CM/PBEMs. 

I guess we all agree this map is not the best choice for a tournament. 

 

 

The Sov left wing has good cover for the whole Company task force, but the entrance is funneled.

So, I am thinking a plan like: besides AT-4, grenade launcher teams, everybody else hide behind the left wing. Spread out AT-4, GL in the center and right wing.  Move the AT-7, SPG and HMG team forward. Build a fire base on the left wing hill. Their task is to suppress the US force that approach the VP through the covered avenue.  Call in the smoke, then move everyone out attack the left wing VP in a close quarter combat then turn to the center VP.

 

Of course this is a rough plan that need alot of analysis to finalize.  I could be screwed by

1, miscalculated the number of smoke needed to cover the avenue from the forest path to the left wing VP

2, underestimate the risk of traffic jam

3, given the enemy the initiative so that he can concentrate all the 105mm HEAT and .50 cal HMG to defeat the exposed AT-4 team first, then suppress the AT-7 and HMG team on the left wing.

4, and Dragon ATGM can fire through smoke.... 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Chibot Mk IX

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, rocketman said:

Thanks for trying to solve it. All CM installs and files are on a SSD, but the game not on Steam (could that be the problem)?

Seems unlikely I'd say. I have all CM as BFC installs but have CMCW also on Steam. I use that one for the PBEM++ system and I remembered all the saves etc go into the /steam folder so I thought that could be an explanation. 

But without having inside knowledge of the process that calculates the turn and saves it to disk, I'd say the bulk of the workload is into crunching the numbers and not saving a technically small file to disk or upload it to internet.

In my anecdotal experience there is no difference between steam/non-steam CM installs, nor with the PBEM++ system. The only time I experienced something like you mention is when I played an insane large game and all the pieces where moving and shooting at eachother. 

[Lethaface]

4 hours ago, Butschi said:

There is exactly one way down that is covered at least at the beginning. I used that for ~2/3 of my infantry and rushed the rest down the right side along with every vehicle I could empty, distributing the squads to as many vehicles as possible. Both worked exceedingly well, didn't lose a single vehicle (I guess my opponent had thought I couldn't possibly be that stupid and so hadn't tried to intercept me). It just annoyed me that one player was able to exploit knowledge while the other couldn't. As the Soviet player you have infantry ATGM to cover your advance and so you are naturally more vulnerable to artillery.

Well, just feedback not complaint. I'd have preferred different maps where one player is attacker on one and defender on another. Who cares if something is perfectly balanced?

I had the same 'issue' of not knowing the US setup since my opponent didn't realize it was a mirror battle, but if both players send their RED turn first (just a click) the situation is same for both players.

In the end I had fun with the tactical situation of the map but it felt like a gamble for sure. Usually I too prefer attack/defend over meeting engagements. The latter often feature 'need for speed' situations which look more like a racing sim than a combat sim ;-). 
Anyhow in this battle the race is more for the soviets which kind of fits how they should be played I guess so in the end it didn't bother me. But probably I'd fell different if my whole company would have been toast on the first turn 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Lethaface

[Lethaface]

54 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

I guess we all agree this map is not the best choice for a tournament. 

 

 

The Sov left wing has good cover for the whole Company task force, but the entrance is funneled.

So, I am thinking a plan like: besides AT-4, grenade launcher teams, everybody else hide behind the left wing. Spread out AT-4, GL in the center and right wing.  Move the AT-7, SPG and HMG team forward. Build a fire base on the left wing hill. Their task is to suppress the US force that approach the VP through the covered avenue.  Call in the smoke, then move everyone out attack the left wing VP in a close quarter combat then turn to the center VP.

 

Of course this is a rough plan that need alot of analysis to finalize.  I could be screwed by

1, miscalculated the number of smoke needed to cover the avenue from the forest path to the left wing VP

2, underestimate the risk of traffic jam

3, given the enemy the initiative so that he can concentrate all the 105mm HEAT and .50 cal HMG to defeat the exposed AT-4 team first, then suppress the AT-7 and HMG team on the left wing.

4, and Dragon ATGM can fire through smoke.... 

 

 

One downside of the PBEM++ system is that you can't look at the previous turns anymore (unless one saves a game I guess).

But I did still have this screenshot:

Not sure if I'd go with your plan to be honest. I assume you want to use that open ground for the charge and cover it with smoke? But where you want to put the smoke? I think the slope has enough elevation that smoke in the valley won't cover the treelines. 

Besides there's only 2x10 120mm rounds of smoke IIRC? And it would take ~10minutes for spotting rounds to arrive. By that time the US forces will probably have at least a platoon of infantry in the valley near that left objective (I had 2) and or near enough for dragons to fire into your forces moving towards the valley, smoke or not. 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Lethaface

[Butschi]

9 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

if both players send their RED turn first

But that should be enforced then.

12 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

In the end I had fun with the tactical situation of the map but it felt like a gamble for sure.

Nothing wrong with a bit of gambling! But it is much more interesting when you don't know the other side, I think.

14 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Anyhow in this battle the race is more for the soviets which kind of fits how they should be played I guess

No, the Soviet system was momentum, yes, but also mass. In this kind of situation rushing down a hill with force equal to that the other side has and without artillery (hell, who came up with the idea to give the US mortars and the soviets nothing?! ) would have been the last thing the soviets would have felt comfortable with.

[Lethaface]

20 minutes ago, Butschi said:

But that should be enforced then.

Nothing wrong with a bit of gambling! But it is much more interesting when you don't know the other side, I think.

Indeed a downside of mirror matches. But I have a fix for you, check the  @slysniper tournaments of FGM ;-). Non-mirror battles with relative scoring per side. 

 

20 minutes ago, Butschi said:

No, the Soviet system was momentum, yes, but also mass. In this kind of situation rushing down a hill with force equal to that the other side has and without artillery (hell, who came up with the idea to give the US mortars and the soviets nothing?! ) would have been the last thing the soviets would have felt comfortable with.

In a perfect world perhaps. But it doesn't take that much imagination to 'see' that our USSR force is a forward (security) element of a larger force and is tasked to move and occupy the road through the valley which is free of enemy forces according to good intelligence. However contact was made upon arrival at the edge of the valley and Bn mortars are still setting up. The heavy artillery is working but not on this grid square as there was no known enemy forces here.   You'll have to make do given the situation at hand, commander! 

FWIW my forces rushed in full view of the enemy tanks and TOW carriers and while I lost most of a platoon, the rest was now moving in the valley, ready to control it. While the AT-4s were working revenge on the enemy AFVs, to very good effect. 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Lethaface

[Chibot Mk IX]

2 hours ago, Lethaface said:

One downside of the PBEM++ system is that you can't look at the previous turns anymore (unless one saves a game I guess).

But I did still have this screenshot:

Not sure if I'd go with your plan to be honest. I assume you want to use that open ground for the charge and cover it with smoke? But where you want to put the smoke? I think the slope has enough elevation that smoke in the valley won't cover the treelines. 

Besides there's only 2x10 120mm rounds of smoke IIRC? And it would take ~10minutes for spotting rounds to arrive. By that time the US forces will probably have at least a platoon of infantry in the valley near that left objective (I had 2) and or near enough for dragons to fire into your forces moving towards the valley, smoke or not. 

Haha, thanks for the screenshot. I am screwed. I was still thinking about the US 107mm mortar section which has 40 rounds of WP. Yup, you are right. 20 rds of 120 smoke are not enough to cover such a long distance. 

[Chibot Mk IX]

So, round 2 begins?

[Lethaface]

@jheinrichk first file send (just clicking), please also send your first file so we don't have to wait on eachother for setup 

GL & HF!

[Lethaface]

47 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

So, round 2 begins?

yes file is there.

[Lethaface]

I hope my previous oppo is still in the race, didn't get a file / message from him anymore since a day or 10. But the games were mainly played and especially in my US game it wasn't a fair fight. So I understand if he threw the towel. 
Although I don't really know what happened, it's not like I never have RL things getting in the way of gaming stuff.

[jheinrichk]

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

@jheinrichk first file send (just clicking), please also send your first file so we don't have to wait on eachother for setup 

GL & HF!

I will after work. 

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, jheinrichk said:

I will after work. 

No rush! 

[Stimo]

On round 1, I sent out my starting file, didn't receive a single file from my opponent, yet I'm tagged as timed out on one of the 2 games and I'm not in the rooster for round 2. Am I kicked out of the tournament?

Stimovsky

Edited January 23, 2023 by Stimo

[laurent 22]

... and for the 2nd round, I'm the next opponent of your ghost player, I mean the one with an "s" at the end of the name. I private messaged him on Matrix forum, and this forum, asking him to let us know if he can't play. My opponent for the 1st round didn't give a sign of life either, I was still able to send a setup round on one of the games. I don't think you will be expelled from the tournament because we all appear in the list of the 2nd round. Maybe the list of opponents will update, and yours is not yet found.

[Free Whisky]

On 1/8/2023 at 3:51 PM, BFCElvis said:

We are advising everyone to NOT complete each battle. Play until there there is 1 turn (or as far as you can go) left in each battle. If everyone were to play their battles to completion all scores would match the end game AAR CM score. But, until then the higher scores will remain. Anyone looking to "game" the system would only need to stop playing to have a higher score than players who complete each battle. That's why we (and Matrix/Slitherine) have decided to post this advise. Matrix/Slitherine will be making a similar announcement on their forum and the Discord channel. For good or ill, only half of each pairing needs to be reached as long as 1 player stops playing toward the end. 

There is a tiny chance that a hot fix will be created before Round 1 is finished but I wouldn't count on it.

We understand (and share) anyone's unhappiness about this.  No one is happy about this. No one. 

So where are we now on this problem in round 2? Does the ploblem persist? Since this is an exit scenario, a rather great deal depends on it. Exiting = taking risk, but that risk is not worth it if the best strategy is, again, to not finish the scenario and just play for kills...

[BFCElvis]

48 minutes ago, Free Whisky said:

So where are we now on this problem in round 2? Does the ploblem persist? Since this is an exit scenario, a rather great deal depends on it. Exiting = taking risk, but that risk is not worth it if the best strategy is, again, to not finish the scenario and just play for kills...

Excellent question. It's also a question that I'd hoped to address after I do some testing today on a new Normandy build with new tournament scoring.

 

It looks like this entire tournament will be dependent on casualties and not completing battles. We've revamped how the "running score" is done. As we prepare Normandy for Steam it is the first title that has it and I will be doing the first testing on it today (although the first public "test" tournament will be Shock Force 2).

[jackal263]

My little suggestion...

Lowering the kill points by a factor 100, so that completing the objectives has a reward

[George MC]

4 hours ago, Free Whisky said:

So where are we now on this problem in round 2? Does the ploblem persist? Since this is an exit scenario, a rather great deal depends on it. Exiting = taking risk, but that risk is not worth it if the best strategy is, again, to not finish the scenario and just play for kills...

If you don't exit your units will be counted as killed regardless - so push on comrade!! Better to die for the Motherland gloriously!

[BFCElvis]

3 hours ago, jackal263 said:

My little suggestion...

Lowering the kill points by a factor 100, so that completing the objectives has a reward

That is pretty much what the fix is. But lower than that. There needs to be an incentive to complete the battle. 

The fix is working fine so far. We decided not to release it for this tournament because, if we did the tournament would be over since the scores are so high from Round 1 that hey could never be caught in Rounds 2 and 3.

[ng cavscout]

51 minutes ago, George MC said:

If you don't exit your units will be counted as killed regardless - so push on comrade!! Better to die for the Motherland gloriously!

So, do or do not exit troops as per the scenario briefing?