Russian Training Scenarios

[SteveP]

Quick note: if you do decide to edit these scenarios, pay close attention to the file names that the editor will try to save to. If you are not careful, you will overwrite one of the later scenarios.

If you do this same fix on 111 and 112, there are some significant problems with setup for the Russians. There aren't enough locations for them to setup without getting shot at on the first turn. Don't know if this makes them unplayable or not, but it certainly gives you practice in moving green troops under fire!

[SteveP]

Had yet another epiphany (for anyone who's still with me on this! Could it be that the reason the MG was suppressed by pre-emptive area fire on the trench in 110 is that the fire was coming from behind him? After all, he's still looking the other way, until the Russians either get close enough or open up on his trench with preemptive area fire. Being fired at "from behind" would probably cause a unit to dive for cover and not come up too quickly.

Once he's facing the right way, this area fire on the whole trench line doesn't affect him much. Unfortunately, there's no way to test this, but it does provide a plausible explanation.

[JasonC]

PC - thanks, that is perfect.

On the assessment that "this defense will not lose to that (attacking) force", I agree it can hold but I doubt the ability of most CM players to fight it correctly against a human commanding the Germans. With the 105 shells walking in first, infantry covered by tank overwatch following the shells, picking only one route in, buttoned AC leading the tanks to spot minefields, etc. The Russians have 150 men and the terrain is tight. But I do think they definitely need the AT mines against a human.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by JasonC:

PC - thanks, that is perfect.

On the assessment that "this defense will not lose to that (attacking) force", I agree it can hold but I doubt the ability of most CM players to fight it correctly against a human commanding the Germans. With the 105 shells walking in first, infantry covered by tank overwatch following the shells, picking only one route in, buttoned AC leading the tanks to spot minefields, etc. The Russians have 150 men and the terrain is tight. But I do think they definitely need the AT mines against a human.

That is all well and good but the Germans are short on infantry and the Russians have more than 40 antitank grenades and 16 satchel charges. If I'm a betting man I bet on the defense in this scenario every time.

That 105mm will not kill many Russians. The shortage of infantry will force the armor to try to advance into the town unsupported. Do that and the German loses again.

That's the way I see it.

[JasonC]

Um no, they have no anti-tank grenades at all, only molotovs and the pioneer satchel charges. The latter are excellent infantry AT weapons certainly, but limited to 30m range.

The arty doesn't have to kill many it just needs to pin anybody close enough to the tanks to toss one. The German infantry is not remotely numerous enough to go first, true. But with most in cover and others risked only one at a time, they can follow the shells and make Russians unmask. Once a unit shows itself, its life expectancy (good order, anyway) under 4 tanks firing direct at 100-150m, is very low.

I do think with proper play the Russians can hold. But it is not as trivial as you present it. Just one of those Panzers can easily "eat" 30 infantry, without breaking a sweat.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Um no, they have no anti-tank grenades at all, only molotovs and the pioneer satchel charges. The latter are excellent infantry AT weapons certainly, but limited to 30m range.

The arty doesn't have to kill many it just needs to pin anybody close enough to the tanks to toss one. The German infantry is not remotely numerous enough to go first, true. But with most in cover and others risked only one at a time, they can follow the shells and make Russians unmask. Once a unit shows itself, its life expectancy (good order, anyway) under 4 tanks firing direct at 100-150m, is very low.

I do think with proper play the Russians can hold. But it is not as trivial as you present it. Just one of those Panzers can easily "eat" 30 infantry, without breaking a sweat.

Um yes. Every grenade in CM is potentially an antitank grenade. They will take out a tank within 30 meters of ANY infantry unit armed with grenades.

That is a lot of anti armor fire power.

Molotov cocktails in CM are a 4th of July firecracker. Not worth much against tanks. Grenades on the other hand, especially those delivered by leaders can be deadly.

I never said it was trivial. I guess I should clarify as well, what I meant is that, I feel, that I personally, would not lose this position to the attack force you have in this scenario.

I think it is far easier for the Soviet forces to win this fight than it ever would be for the Germans. At some point the tanks have to come in. When they do they die. They may well eat 30 Russian soldiers but it only takes one antitank grenade thrown by a pinned green squad with one man left in it to kill one of the four tanks. The attack force is too fragile.

[ December 05, 2005, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Panther Commander ]

[junk2drive]

SteveP and SteveO

These are supposed to be training simulations, not scenarios. IMO Jason may have given the student some advantages in his design.

SteveP the MG and StuG may be facing the wrong way to buy some time for the student, not because Jason doesn't know how to make a battle.

[JasonC]

PC - I thought you meant RPG, the actual anti-tank grenades. Sure close assault can KO a tank. But they only deliver them after they have thrown their molotovs. They don't deliver them pinned, either, and they take about 30 second of unpinned time at 30m distance, not instant like real AT weapons.

No, the way the Germans win is to walk in the tanks and infantry together, one infantry unit at a time leading, behind 105mm ready to drop any minute. They can indeed do that right to the middle, only one route needed. There aren't that many locations with cover near the flags, and any location without cover won't work when there are 2 or more tanks covering each other with MGs. Don't even need to clear them, just to not lose more than one tank, while hurting enough Russian infantry and contesting by the end.

Vs the AI, easy enough and that is the training intention. But if you think it is trivial against a human, you'll have to prove it to me PBEM...

[John_d]

Panther Commander,

following my challenge on the other thread, I'll hopefully be sending a setup of 315 with myself as the Germans sometime today, workload permitting. I'll leave the scenario defaults as they are to see how difficult it really is. May the best man (with the best troops) win!!

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

SteveP and SteveO

These are supposed to be training simulations, not scenarios. IMO Jason may have given the student some advantages in his design.

SteveP the MG and StuG may be facing the wrong way to buy some time for the student, not because Jason doesn't know how to make a battle.

I fully understand that. It was Jason that went into the realm of balance, etc. with this request...

More 315 AARs please, with infantry-AT vs. tank engagement details.

Also, those who played it I'd love an assessment of the following. Against a human rather than the reckless AI, do you think you could win easily as the Russians? If not easily, sometimes? How much would change and why?

An assessment of the how the scenario would do against a human player now involves playbalance and is no longer just about training. He asked for opinions and he is getting them.

So far I don't see a problem.

As a scenario designer the first decision I have to make is whether the scenario will be for vs the AI or H2H play. I have rarely seen a scenario that will do both. The same applies here. These training scenarios that Jason has put out aren't balanced. I've yet to see one that wasn't an all or nothing.

Take a look at what Jason is trying to accomplish here; there is an assualt against a single HMG across open ground, attacks against a single StuG, setting up a basic minefield and AT defense with no tanks or ATG's. These scenarios aren't balanced and to be honest with you if they were balanced they would lose alot of their value as training scenarios. There is a goal here that is sometimes hard to attain but always worth the experience gained.

Now, when Jason asks for opinions on how a scenario would do H2H that is a horse of a different color. Now playbalance does come into affect and the playbalance on all of these for H2H is off. Sometimes not far but IMO off.

Jason thinks that 315 would make a good H2H scenario. We won't know that until somebody tries it that way.

I really don't think so but I could be wrong. That happens on occasion...

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by John_d:

Panther Commander,

following my challenge on the other thread, I'll hopefully be sending a setup of 315 with myself as the Germans sometime today, workload permitting. I'll leave the scenario defaults as they are to see how difficult it really is. May the best man (with the best troops) win!!

It certainly won't hurt your chances, that you have my entire defense laid out for you to read, now will it?

While this is nothing like a "real" playtest, since both sides know the forces involved AND you know exactly how I will set my defense, I still think I can win this battle. That should show how balanced to the Russian side this scenario really is for H2H play.

Know this, about this fight, John, when I kill your infantry I win. It comes down to that. Wile your tanks can stand off and pound the village, without infantry sooner or later they will have to come in and occupy that flag. When they do I'll be waiting.

[John_d]

That's fightin' talk Panther Commander!

I realise that as soon as my infantry goes, I am screwed. I was thinking of adding in an extra platoon of men for the Germans just to even things up a little, but I want to see if its possible just with the troops that each side are given. And b/c if I beat you with the scrawny bunch of misfits that Jason has provided me with, I win serious bragging rights regarding gamey use of snipers

I should have the setup sent to you at about 20.00 GMT- I'm a bit snowed under with work right now

Oh, and you could always suprise me by using MY suggested setup from earlier in this thread

[John_d]

We should probably provide an AAR for the benefit of the others here too. I'm sure that Jason would be interested at the very least

[JasonC]

PC is right that these scenarios are not about balance, in general, but are to teach specific tactical skills. In 315, pure infantry vs. armor tactics. I don't recommend infantry only against armor, but it can frequently happen that you are left with that by exchanges and losses, or it arises on one part of the field. And it is extremely useful to be ready for that sort of situation, and to know how much you can accomplish with other strengths, like overall manpower, hidden defenders, terrain, obstacles, etc.

As for 315 H2H I do think it should be interesting. I was prompted to it by the reports that players seemed to find it easy against the AI. I win it against the AI regularly but I don't find it all that easy. Maybe they know more about it than I do. But the AI is also quite clumsy about combined arms coordination, and that is vital on the attacker side in cases like this.

To learn a skill, you have to face reasonably realistic tactics. In a number of the scenarios, I envision them as played against the AI but want players to learn said skill. And one means I use it making the oddsa bit harder. More frequently, I remove "crutches" that players rely on in more common situations - lots of cover for infantry attacks, armor with thicker front plates than the enemy can penetrate, AT and armor defenses stronger than the attacking armor, etc.

You can learn even up against the AI if you face a typical tactical situation without those things, and need to get your forces to perform tasks you may not ask of them normally. And your forces will be vastly stronger in all situations, if you can ask such things of them when you need to. Whether that something is infantry advancing without as much cover as you'd like, or stopping tanks with less AT than you'd like, etc.

I think 315 gives the AI enough forces to make a newish player learn something about infantry AT ambushes, even under AI direction. It won't coordinate them well, but it isn't pure armor, and there are enough tanks that one frequently closes while the others provide overwatch (to the extent terrain permits). The arty doesn't always come down and is typically aimed at old positions, but can tear a gap in an infantry AT screen sometimes.

I thought and I still think, human coordination can make the Germans much more formidable than the AI, in this specific situation especially so. Because there are tactical formulae, specific roles and "move orders", for taking apart a defense short on AT ability and especially any sort of ranged AT ability. I do think with strong enough play the Russians can win, and that the task for the Germans is hard. But I don't think it will be easy for the Russians, against a decent human.

Since PC thinks it might well be, I am intrigued, and want to see if he knows infantry AT stuff well enough to show it. I understand the formula for success he has for the Russians. But it is not clear it is easy to pull off, if the German is careful with the bulk of his infantry and fully exploits the firepower over time of his tanks and artillery.

I do suggest we move the 315 discussion to another thread, as this one is getting long as it is.

One further point about the scenarios. The 200 level and 400 level series are different in concept than the 100 and 300 level. 100 and 300 are all about particular skills. But the 200 and 400 are meant to put them together, to teach coordination. They have more typical force mixes, like ones you would actually use as the Russians in a typical game.

They are divided into the 3 main ways the Russians had, which (roughly) correspond to the force types in CMBB. Infantry division infantry force types, infantry division combined arms (for modest armor support), and mech division armor force type (for the Mech way of fighting). The 200 level deals with company sized coordination problems, the 400 series with point totals in the battalion range.

Those fights are supposed to teach overall Russian offensive combined arms (all are attacks). The defenses are not supposed to be particularly strong, but they are supposed to have enough to cause at least one problem for each attack method. They are close to each other in strength, so you can gauge the strengths and weaknesses of each of the Russian force "styles" against similar opposition.

Attacking against the AI you should be able to win all of them, but doing so should also teach you how to coordinate your forces. Less is asked of the AI on defense (though it can also screw up in special ways of its own, at that - e.g. leaving its positions prematurely). You could play any of them against a human, but the Russians should be favored if the players are of equal skill. They'd make fine guided teaching games, with the more experienced player taking the German defenders, and giving pointers during the game to a less experienced Russian attacker.

[Michael Dorosh]

Incidentally, Jason, I was wondering what the status of the Kursk campaign from the summer was? I've tried to email you but no response. A simple "it's on" or "it's off" would be quite satisfying if you could respond, either here or in an email to me at madorosh@shaw.ca or to Adam....

[SteveP]

Jason:

Not sure how much further to take this side discussion -- probably not much since I may be the loner here But I have to say that I'm still puzzled about the reasons for the design of the 100 series, in having the Germans start out facing the wrong direction.

Specifically, in 110 you are giving the Russians virtually a free pass to a point less than 200m from the trench, since the MG is looking entirely the other direction. This is functionally the same as giving them a covered route to a line of scattered trees located about where the house behind the fence is placed. However, the trainee doesn't know that he's getting this benefit -- to say nothing of the problem of preemptive area fire on the trench working when it shouldn't be.

I think it would be better to make it explicit, by giving him the covered approach and the scattered tree line (but also having the MG facing him, of course), so he knows this is part of the context of the lesson. The problem for me is that the lessons I learned from playing the scenario with the original parameter settings were worthless when I found myself faced with the same map and the MG facing my direction, and it took me considerable time and research to understand why that was (which I admit was pretty educational as well, so why should I complain, right ?)

Anyway, since others are apparently content with the designs as they are, 'nuff said.

[Ted]

Jason,

Would you send off the scenarios to me.

tramos1@optonline.net

thanks!

[Mad Russian]

315 from the other side. I took the German force against my own defense. Knowing where everything was, gave the computer a +3 CEB to give it as close to a human but still not there yet affect, and attacked.

I did win the scenario on POINTS. I never got close to the flags and it was only getting worse as the defense collapsed in around me.

The BIG achilles heel for this scenario from a German point of view as we have all said is too little German infantry.

As John pointed out, the addition of a single German infantry platoon will allow you to play the fire and maneuver game. A single platoon does not.

For those that find 315 easy from the Russian side give it a try from the German side. Let us all know if you get the flags.

[John_d]

I've played 315 as the Germans a couple of times and there is a rather serious Achilles heel in the Russian defence, but its really hard to spot. I'm now not so sure that the infantry is the key to winning this one- the armour can do it pretty much on their own if you use the right tactics. I'm not gonna elaborate for the time being as I've just sent off the setup to PC and I want to see how this new approach works on a human player. However, this new approach to the problem basically exploits a weakness of this kind of AT infantry defence. More on this later...

P.S PC: I think I said something about us nearly sharing a birthday on a different thread. This is not the case. Instead, you registered on this website a couple of days before my birthday and I mistook this for your date of birth. On reflection, if this were your birthday, you would only be 2 years old

[Zwollo2003]

Originally posted by SteveP:

Jason:

Not sure how much further to take this side discussion -- probably not much since I may be the loner here

Steve,

no, you are not the only one. My experiences with scen.110 support your conclusion.

I noticed that if I wanted to advance from behind houses & the open field to the flag (as JasonC described) the success depended on whether I started to "area fire" into the trench before shot at by the defenders or not. If I shot first, I won - the HMG would panic from my area fire without firing back, and I could advance. If the HMG fired first, it won - I could neither outshoot it (each turn I would have a squad panicked or sent sneaking sideways, anyway not firing, and I would be loosing shooters quicker than recovering suppression or supressing the defenders) nor advance into cover and take up the fight from there.

This fits well with the wrong facing theory - I think the HMG ought to fire before I closed to 200m unless it was looking the other way. I also think it should not be panicked by a couple of squads' area firing into the trench, unless it was shot in the back.

And I am inclined to think it distorts the picture somewhat. You do learn very valuable lessons by playing the scenario about spacing, coordination, proper use of commands, etc. However, I am afraid it suggests the wrong solution (rifle squads' area fire onto the trench) and paints an overly optimistic picture about the chances of infantry platoon advancing over open ground to take an enemy held trench. JasonC said it was a routine task in real life - and I agree, it probably was. But I don't think you can do it in CMBB as a routine and easy task, not in this kind of cover. I suspect the reason is TacAI's abject fear of being shot at in open ground and desire to seek any cover, at the expense of shooting back. Also, I don't think that in more usual circumstances, with the entrenched defenders facing the right way, you will gain much through having your squads area fire onto the trench.

Please don't get me wrong, I don't want to sound overly critical - the idea is great, I love the scenarios and I am learning invaluable lessons from them. Just that because of this facing issue I suspect not all lessons learned in 110 may be applicable to the more usual situations in the game.

Zwolo

[Mad Russian]

I don't believe that Jason turned the HMG around, and I'm not suggesting that anyone else thinks that either. In the past, I have noticed that the computer AI will have their men facing their own lines. While doing playtesting for my scenarios, there are often times when you have to adjust lines of sight. Sometimes you can see an enemy unit when the scenario opens. It has been during some of these situations that I find tanks, infantry or guns all facing the wrong way. When I check the scenario, in the editor, they are just fine.

Something about the AI facing is a bit off. Even then though, you are moving for about 4 turns, at least, before coming into LOS of that HMG. Plenty of time for the AI to turn it around.

[Zwollo2003]

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

I don't believe that Jason turned the HMG around, and I'm not suggesting that anyone else thinks that either.

I am not saying that JasonC placed the HMG facing wrong way, or that TacAI did that, or that the HMG turned itself because of some problem with alignment of the friendly map edge - I don't know and it does not matter anyway. Having said that, please read SteveP's posts carefully (esp. the one about the HMG firing on the Russians from the set-up onwards). From that I understand that the HMG was facing the wrong way already on turn 1, as opposed to TacAI realigning it by turn 3 or 4.

Zwolo

[Renaud]

I had great fun with 315. Been designing scenarios so much I forgot how much fun it is to actually play!

I played germans giving AI soviets +50% troops...was I supposed to play russians? hehe.

It's just amazing how much CM complements and enhances the study of WWII.

** oh yea I won 91% to 9%. 12 casualties.

[ December 06, 2005, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Zwollo2003:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panther Commander:

I don't believe that Jason turned the HMG around, and I'm not suggesting that anyone else thinks that either.

I am not saying that JasonC placed the HMG facing wrong way, or that TacAI did that, or that the HMG turned itself because of some problem with alignment of the friendly map edge - I don't know and it does not matter anyway. Having said that, please read SteveP's posts carefully (esp. the one about the HMG firing on the Russians from the set-up onwards). From that I understand that the HMG was facing the wrong way already on turn 1, as opposed to TacAI realigning it by turn 3 or 4.

Zwolo </font>

[SteveP]

PC:

Zwolo has this exactly right. And it is a systemic factor of some consequence in the whole play of scenarios 110-112. Despite what it shows in the Scenario Editor, the AI (the Strat AI, if that's what it is called, not the TacAI) will turn the HG immediately around, even before it can spot any Russians in the distance, because it is expecting the Russians to come from the other direction. It will keep it facing the wrong way until it senses the Russians coming up from behind or gets into a fire fight for some other reason. The reason for this is because of the map side ownership set in the Scenario parameters.

An additional point about this that I haven't made yet, is that whenever the HG finally spots your squads and turns around to shoot, the Russians will soon break for cover. As soon as they are in cover, and no longer seen, the HG will turn back around and forget that you were ever behind him. This is because the AI has no memory. This is why players discover that they are able, through trial and error, to get their squads close enough before the MG senses them. The problem, if there is one, is that the player does not know why he is able to do this, and could readily reach wrong conclusions about the resiliency of this platoon closing on a HMG in this relatively open terrain.

If you want to test this out for yourself, without going into the Scenario Editor, simply play yourself using Hot Seat, and watch how differently the MG behaves (don't give it any orders, just let the TacAI control it). The reason for the difference is that the Strat AI is shut off in this mode.

The facing quirk also exists in 100-102, but it isn't as noticeable except in 102, because the Germans are facing 90 degrees away from the Russian's line of approach, rather than 180 degrees, and the placement of the flag causes the German tanks to reorient themselves in the proper direction during the first turn (at least I think that is what happens).

The 200 series also has a bias that is similar to 100-102. I haven't played these much so though I know there's a noticeable impact, I'm not sure how significant it is. This quirk doesn't show up in the 300 and 400 series.

I hope this is starting to become clear to everyone, because I don't want to beat this dead horse any more than necessary for its own good.