Russian Training Scenario 110

[Cuirassier]

Since the generic Russian Training scenario thread is 11 pages of unsorted information regarding all of the seperate scenarios, I though I should make a thread that is only specific to each scenario.

Before I changed the facing of the MG-42 on this scenario (the MG-42 was facing with its back to my platoon), I passed Scenario 110 with little difficuluty. However, today, I changed his facing to what it should be. Now he fires earlier and is creating havoc whenever I try to advance my platoon. I have tried the scenario three times so far, to no avail.

I know the basic tactics involved. For example, I stagger my movements, advance no more that 50m at a time, and hide at the end of each waypoint. In fact, I have tried advances as short as 10m. I keep my troops in blob formation, or 2 by 2 with the HQ in the middle. I have tried a number of approach routes: one from the default set up, one from the left hand side of the map, and one down the road, using the houses for cover and hoping to reach the fence.

Despite this, I men rapidly pin, cover panic and often panic all together. The platoon is so brittle. One squad simply broke from one birst of machinegun fire, despite taking no casualties. I realize that rallying the men is important too, but there is limited scenario time and even when moving non yellow squads, the machine gun plinks away at the squad he shot at first, panicing it and quickly routing it.

Thus, what am I doing wrong. Are my tactics flawed? Do I need a different avenue of approach? Or is it ok if men panic and side ways sneak out of command radius? If this appens, is the platoon recoverable, or are you done for.

I look forward to how more tactically skilled players have done on this scenario and how they have beaten it.

I will probably make posts on the other training scenarios as well, to discuss tactics and general strategies.

[Sivodsi]

Nice post! Not qualified to comment myself, since I haven't passed the default 110 setting yet.

Still, good luck!

[Interlocutor]

Cuirassier, I would by no means describe myself as tactically skilled at this point in my CMBB career .

But for what it's worth, I was also able to "win" the "standard 110" using the tactical methods learned from Jason, but have been unable to even come close to winning after modifying 110 so that the MG faces East.

Like you, I've tried several lines of approach. Like you, I've made every effort to keep the squads in command. Like you, I've made shorter advances & hid at the end of each.

No luck , in spite of the aforesaid efforts I've failed each time.

As I said in the original thread, in spite of these failures I believe I've learned a lot from the overall "110 exercise" . But again like you, I also would be interested in hearing from anyone who had "accomplished the mission" in an "MG facing modified" version of 110.

[Cuirassier]

Thank you for the earnest replies.

Well, at least I am not the only one having difficuluties with this scenario. Perhaps a more experienced player will kindly respond to this post and enlighten us...

[Erik Springelkamp]

I needed 4 runs of the original scenario before I won it, and I don't feel the drive to return to it in more difficult conditions.

I think I profited especially from the 'forward sneak' effect to reach the craters with my first squad.

But I think I learned the lesson in general, and for the time beeing I am content with an 80% technical handling ability.

[SteveP]

Originally posted by Cuirassier:

Perhaps a more experienced player will kindly respond to this post and enlighten us...

I don't know if I am more experienced in general, but I certainly have a lot of experience with playing an orientation-corrected version of this scenario. This has actually become one of my favorite scenarios for testing out ideas about how CM models various aspects of infantry behavior.

If you are interested in doing the same thing, let me suggest one technique I've used. Use the scenario editor to start your squads behind one or the other or both of the houses closest to the trench. This saves you the trouble of advancing from the setup zone (which is tedious and time-consuming). That way you can experiment with different tactics for assaulting the MG. Also you can experiment with things like using regulars, or adding bonuses to the HQ.

What I have found from doing many tests is that this green platoon is fundamentally handicapped in several ways, given the distance they have to cross once they leave that final cover:

1. They do not have sufficient morale to stay out in the open under fire, much less continue to advance.

2. They do not have sufficient FP at the 180-200m range to disrupt the MG using area fire (since they are not close enough at that range to get a direct spot).

3. They have to get significantly closer to the MG to get a direct spot (i.e., somewhere in the neighborhood of 135-140m) compared to regulars or veterans.

4. The HQ has a command radius of only 45m, making it harder to keep the squads in command (this is less important than the others, but worth keeping in mind).

In doing your own tests, I recommend playing it Hot Seat solitaire, at least a few times. That allows you to see when and where the MG is getting spots, and also how the MG is reacting to attempts at using area fire, if you try that. Also, when playing Hot Seat, the MG will reliably fire as soon as the Russian squads break cover (which I think is most realistic). For some reason, this does not always happen when the full AI is in control.

As I noted in a couple of posts in the other thread, I did ultimately reach a conclusion about what was minimally required in the way of modification to the HQ in order for this platoon to succeed, but others may reach a different conclusion.

[Cuirassier]

The world no longer has anymore problems...

I FINALLY PASSED 110 in 20 turns, with the MG-42 facing the right way and without changing the vanilla platoon one bit.

I completed it on my 7th crack at it, passing it on turn 20 with a total victory. I forget the precise score, but I routed the MG and took 3 casualties myself, 1 being KIA (poor bastard).

Finally, I can move on to the other training missions and won't be bothered by this hellish scenario. (Be honest, who hasen't flipped out after constantly failing at this scenario!)

I couldn't be happier.

[Peterk]

Might have been just lucky. You should do it again to prove your mastery of the situation.

[Christian Knudsen]

Heh heh. I thought the 110 scenario was tough enough without messing with the facing - If you haven't tried the others yet, you may be in for more frustration. If you've read over all many pages of the original training scenario thread, you will have gathered where I had problems, if not...

312 and 315 took a couple of tries for me, as well as the 300 AT defence vs Tigers. The toughest for me were 200 and 400. These, however, proved to be easier once JasonC let me in on the trick for winning them. I still haven't beat 401 or 402, more for lack of trying than anything else.

On the other hand, I dusted off my Soviet ROQC game, featuring a supported Guards Mech company currently in Feb 42, just to see whether the tricks I'd learned made me more effective in the attack (admittedly vs the very stupid AI), and I found that these scenarios have made a huge difference. My infantry handling is so much better now, especially as regards integrating supporting arms. I still have a way to go, but these scenarios have helped a lot.

I think that these scenarios would benefit from a briefing that includes a spoiler how-to on the second page. So for instance 110 would describe the basic scenario on page 1, and then on page 2 would outline how to go about achieving the objective - ie. covered approach, proper interval, need to stay in command radius, platoon advance drills, need to achieve spotting range, etc. Much of this could be collated from JasonC's and others' posts...

[Sivodsi]

Er, Cuirassier, how did you do it? What was different in the successful attempt that was not there in your other attempts? Pray do tell!

[Cuirassier]

I should probably do it again to confirm mastery of this scenario. However, I will later... For now I'm going to gloat to myself the hard won victory I achieved.

The largest diference between my success and failure I believe was my intervals. I used proper intervals the time I one, everyone being 26m from each other. I also utilized more coordinated staggering of squads.

When I was failing at the scenario, I thought that I had proper intervals, but my squads were often only 15m apart, and their suppression effects were thus shared.

The time I won the scenario, I used the village approach route. Two squads and the HQ advanced behind the log peaseant shack nearest the fence, while another squad advanced behind the white house to the near the hedge. My final squad was behind another log shack, just before the road. With this approach, I noticed that my infantry were well spaced, and, if staggered right, all of the men would leave cover at different times, but in close enough intervals to spread the fire. Once in the open ground, it got scary, but I pulled through. Intervals were maintained, staggers used, and I advanced and hid in 20m bounds, to keep everyone in command radius. Eventually, one squad made it to the left-most crater and another was adjacent to its left. From here, I got a spot on turn 17 I think, suppressed the MG-42, advanced to grenade range and took the flag.

Frankly, I learned how to do this scenario (if it wasn't luck) by making my own scneario where I advanced a similar green platoon against an MG-42 in cover over open ground.

Here I learned proper intervals, staggering, and that you shouldn't advance more than 20m at a time, or else maintaining command is difficult.

This scenario needs more time added to it however, as in my experience it takes almost 20 turns to get to spot range. If you don't use the town for LOS blocks, you will never reach the MG in time.

So what was different from the successful attempt and my many failures. I would say intervals. In the games I failed, I went through the town using houses as LOS blocks. But, I moved my entire platoon in column, hiding the whole thing behind one or only two houses. This is too close together. On my successful attempt. my men were spread throughout 3 houses, and when I advanced everyone used extremely short advances (forget using 50m advances-much too long) and fire was spread throughout the platoon. Sure, I had many pinns and even one panic, but the men rallied because the intervals allowed for squads not being picked on to recover ad advance. Thus, my 2 cents is this.

1. Spread the platoon through the town, using houses as LOS blocks.

2. Always advance towards the MG. I noticed if you advance sideways, for example, going across the street from one house to the other flanking fire will panic sqauds with one burst. However, if the squads advance straight and see the icoming bullets, they only become allerted or cautious, with pinned being the worst.

3. When leaving the confines of the town, stagger movements, but amke sure everyone is out in the open quickly. Thus, one squad will not be isolated and picked on for over a minute by the MG.

4. Use 20m advances in box formation, to keep everyone in command. For good staggering, I noticed that squads should advance 20m, with 20 second intervals seperating squad movements and hides.

5. When a spot is achieved, keep moving the men forwards. At distance, their firepower is too weak to suppress the MG. Keep most men stationary however, as advancing halves firepower.

Yep, that is what I have learned. I hope my success wasn't a fluke, but you never know.

[Peterk]

By hiding aren't you minimizing your chance of a spot? It means those guys have their head in the dirt and they're not even trying to spot. It looks like you were depending on your moving guys to get the positive identification.

[Cuirassier]

Sorry, I never made my point clear. I only hide when I am out of spotting distance (135m) It does indeed reduce your spotting ability. Once my men see the trench in this scenario, i stop hiding at the end of my advances. The HQ I rarely hide too, because he has binocs.

[Sivodsi]

thanks for the AAR. I'll try it again :-{

[Sivodsi]

GRRRRR. Much gnashing of teeth.

I'm trying to advance through the village. I keep proper intervals, but then a squad decides to advance towards a crater where the other guys are and then breaks, causing the other guys to get their heads down... units break and run away, and don't rally until they are far away and time running out.

This is murder!

I have managed to get pins on the mg, but it don't last long.

What sort of timing are you chaps getting? I don't get a spot until turn 10 (with two panicked squads). At what point do you get a spot? Do you keep advancing all units after getting the spot? Do you keep some just firing from cover?

[SteveP]

Originally posted by Cuirassier:

I should probably do it again to confirm mastery of this scenario. However, I will later... For now I'm going to gloat to myself the hard won victory I achieved.

Congratulations! I hope you do try it again. Even better, try it by giving yourself 30 turns, but also letting the AI be free to place the MG. I tried it a few more times again after reading your post (without success). I still believe this green platoon is too brittle to accomplish this mission with anything like the sort of certainty that JasonC promotes as a reasonable expectation. A couple of specific points:

1. I think your approach assumes you can get the MG to switch firing from a nonmoving to a moving unit most of the time. However, the TacAI's behavior is too randomized to be certain of that. The TacAI may well fire at one of these units long enough to break or rout it (which doesn't take long against a green squad at 200m) before switching to another target . Also, if you were playing a human who gave firing orders rather than relying on the TacAI, I think the chances of getting the MG to switch firing targets so quickly goes way down.

2. The reaction of the units to being fired upon in the open is also randomized. Sometimes they will take three shots and only pin. However, the same unit in the same location may rout after three shots the next time you play. And anytime you have a unit that goes into serious cover panic, breaks or routs, you start to have cascading problems (units bunching up near the same cover, units running outside the HQ's command radius, inability to keep other units advancing forward because they will get beyond the HQ's range -- and green units can't be advanced once they get outside of command).

3. I don't think using the Hide command is providing any benefit. If you look at it from the MG's point of view, you can see that he has no problem spotting your units in the open anywhere in the eastern half of the map, regardless of whether they are hiding or not. These green units simply don't have enough stealth competence.

4. Your point about avoiding movement in a lateral direction across the front of the MG, which creates flanking fire on a squad, is very interesting and might be a real insight. It's something I want to investigate more myself. If there's something to it, I'd also like to see if giving the unit a covered arc in the direction of expected fire might be a mitigating tactic. However, it is relatively easy for the MG to break or rout one of these squads at any range on this map, regardless of which direction they are facing, given the chance to shoot at it for 30-40 seconds.

5. Your approach, if it works for you with any consistency, may be possible only against the AI. For some reason, in this scenario, the AI has a tendency to withhold fire when units first emerge from behind the houses. I can't imagine why or how (covered arcs??) it is doing this, but I know it doesn't happen when you are advancing against the TacAI only (i.e., when playing Hot Seat solitaire). This delay gives you a little time to organize your platoon in the open and prepare your advance pattern. It is is much more difficult when your units are getting shot as soon as they step into the open.

All this is just to help explain why I'm still a bit of a skeptic.

[John_d]

I agree with Steve here- I honestly don't see the point of this scenario. It involves doing something that I would never do if I were playing for real and which would be even harder done properly (if only b/c you would constantly be on the lookout for other troops). I could only be convinced of its worth if someone could manage a total victory the first time they played it. As it happens, nobody much can do this mission and those that can do so knowing the terrain and the enemy- a privilege that you rarely get when you are playing for real. Besides, when was the last time you found yourself in a position to take 20 minutes to use one green platoon to assault a single MG post? Its never happened to me in over a year of playing CM. Realistically, somebody would have shelled my troops to pieces whilst they were still farting about between the village and the hill.

I have won this battle a couple of times and come close a couple more times (i.e. suppressed the MG but not had time to take the trench) and a far as I can tell, it is largely down to luck. All it takes is for one unit to break unexpectedly (as they do in CM) and the whole plan goes to buggery. Test it for yourself- save the game halfway through your attack and then replay it exactly (or as close as you can get it) a few times. Different outcomes each time. Units which had previously broken will now shrug off MG fire or not be targeted at all. Other units that were pinned for 3 minutes or more will now be given a chance to carry out their orders. And the next time you run it, it will be different again.

The only real value I can see in this scenario is to demonstrate how inflexible single platoons are compared to a company, and how they should be handled differently.

[Cuirassier]

Thanks for the logical and interesting comments. I am trying the scenario again, to hopefully confirm I didn't fluke out.

What sort of timing are you chaps getting? I don't get a spot until turn 10 (with two panicked squads). At what point do you get a spot? Do you keep advancing all units after getting the spot? Do you keep some just firing from cover?

Getting a spot during turn 10, from my experience, is quite early in the game. I usually achieved spots at turn 15 being the earliest, so your approach evidently has no problems. Once it took me 17 turns to get a spot, as short advances take an exceptionally long time to get anywhere. When I do get a spot, I keep advancing. I found that staying staitionary, in which your platoon will be about 135m from the MG, the squads do not have enough firepower to break him. The best you get is a pin. Thus, I keep advancing the platoon, but only a squad at a time, for if everyone advances, firepower is halved. You must close the distance however, break him, and get at least a squad into grenade range.

I think your approach assumes you can get the MG to switch firing from a nonmoving to a moving unit most of the time.

Well, this is what I try to achieve by staggered movements. Obviously, it may not work all the time, but against the AI, I have had some success. Against a human opponent, your comments hold water and the tactic may not work. However, I still utilize it because every little bit helps.

The reaction of the units to being fired upon in the open is also randomized. Sometimes they will take three shots and only pin. However, the same unit in the same location may rout after three shots the next time you play. And anytime you have a unit that goes into serious cover panic, breaks or routs, you start to have cascading problems (units bunching up near the same cover, units running outside the HQ's command radius, inability to keep other units advancing forward because they will get beyond the HQ's range -- and green units can't be advanced once they get outside of command).

This is true. Sometimes units break with one burst, and other times they are just alerted, even when the MG prods away at them all day. All one can do is try to utilize their tactical knowledge to minimize this possibilty. Now when I play 110, I just quit the scenario if squads leave command radius, as the situation in my oppinion is not recoverable.

I don't think using the Hide command is providing any benefit.

You are probably correct. I just hide because of force of habbit from reading so many 'advance in the open' posts.

Your point about avoiding movement in a lateral direction across the front of the MG, which creates flanking fire on a squad, is very interesting and might be a real insight. It's something I want to investigate more myself.

This I haven't investigated thoroughly, but it is certainly something I have noticed in my experiences. For example, when a squad advanced directly at the MG from a house, the worst I recieved was a pinned, or a cover panic, only if the MG shot up that squad for over a minute. However, when I advanced a squad laterally, from the same position, it often panicked from the first burst. Perhaps this is just luck of the draw, but I did see some consistency in my games.

I agree with Steve here- I honestly don't see the point of this scenario. It involves doing something that I would never do if I were playing for real and which would be even harder done properly

I think this scenario has a valid point. Remember, the objective of it is to teach proper tactics as to how to advance infantry over open ground. Its purpose is not to teach you how to attack with only a green platoon at your disposal, which of course, would be ridiculous. To learn from this sceanrio, you don't have to necessarily pass. Just trying it teaches you important skills.

I will report back when I am done my second go at this scenario.

[Sivodsi]

Okay, I did it!

Once. The mg pinned early and I was able to advance in good order. The mg panicked and I won after 18 moves or so.

I thought "great, now I am a hero of the soviet union" and tried to prove it was no fluke by doing it again...

4 tries later I am willing to admit that the time I did it was a fluke. You need all four squads approaching in good order. Three is not enough

"To learn from this sceanrio, you don't have to necessarily pass. Just trying it teaches you important skills"

This I will take to heart. I am totally sick of this scenario. On to the next!

[SteveP]

Originally posted by John_d:

I agree with Steve here- I honestly don't see the point of this scenario.

In all fairness, I think that JasonC had two objectives with this scenario. The one that may have been most important is this: that a Russian infantry platoon has a lot of FP, which if used correctly can provide even a green platoon with enough cover to accomplish missions that regular platoons from other countries could not. I think this objective was met, even in the uncorrected scenario (and my only real objection to that scenario was that people didn't know they were advancing into the rear of the MG).

The other objective I think he may have had was to prove green troops could advance over a lengthy expanse of mostly open terrain, under fire, without overwatch protection, to take out a single shooter. If this was his objective, then I think this objective wasn't met with this scenario, once the orientation is corrected (which is only way this lesson could possibly be useful in the general run of scenarios and QBs). What I learned is that this green platoon needs a little help. However, figuring out exactly how much help, and of what type, I did find was a very useful "training exercise" for myself. For that reason, I think this scenario has been one of the more valuable that I've spent time with.

Having said that, I can certainly understand people saying that they'd rather just move on.

So ... what have any of you learned from trying scenario 111 with the orientation corrected???

[John_d]

Completely. This scenario really isn't any use unless compared against 111. I assume that's the point of it.

It been a while since I've played 111, but from what I remember it is a damn sight easier than 110. One platoon goes out first and spots targets, the mortars and MGs suppress and the other two platoons go in for the kill. Roughly speaking anyway. Also what shows up is the amount of punishment a company is able to take as opposed to a platoon. One platoon can be stopped dead, but they recover much faster when are 2 other platoons there to bail them out and provide alternative targets. And even when squads break or route, there is the company HQ travelling behind to rally them. Thus the recovery speed of a company is faster than a platoon as it is much harder for a unit to go out of command radius

[NameUsedBefore]

I beat it on my second try and every try after with zero casualties.

All I did was have three of the squads put down area-fire while having a fourth squad 'advance' forward, typically 20m or so. Staggered movement, just like everyone else. Once I knew where the MG was it was all over and eventually it tried to make a run for it or something and was killed instantly.

Once you spot the trench you're in good shape. The problem with this scenario is that the MG is just poorly commanded. It's a good lesson about staggered movement, but the problem is that in your typical battle one MG isn't the only problem you're facing (mines, bad terrain, other enemy etc.) and you typically have little idea of where an MG may lay.

[SteveP]

Maybe I need to repeat my question:

What did you find out from playing scenario 111 With The Orientation Corrected?

The advice that JasonC gave for 111 was roughly to take out the first MG (the one placed where it was in 110) and either ignore the second MG or deal with it as a secondary problem. With the orientation corrected, you can't take this approach. Between the two MGs, you have absolutely no cover within which to advance from the setup zone -- and in much of the eastern half of the map, you potentially face getting caught in converging fire from the two MGs. So what do you do?

It's true that it's easier to win than 110 (when both have been corrected) but I think there's only one approach that will do it, and it's not like what was recommended for 111 in its original form. I think it's definitely worth trying at least once.

[Cuirassier]

I have played 110 twice more, failing the first time, and succeeding the second. On the second try, I got a spot on turn 14, took three causalties in the advance, and eliminated the 42. I agree with Steve P in that there are too many random variables in this sceanrio to be able to succeed at it with any consistency.

All I did was have three of the squads put down area-fire while having a fourth squad 'advance' forward, typically 20m or so. Staggered movement, just like everyone else. Once I knew where the MG was it was all over and eventually it tried to make a run for it or something and was killed instantly.

Just wondering if this victory was achieved when the MG-42 was reoriented the correct way. Before it was, area fire was very effective, but I thought it was useless against the MG if he was actually facing the right way, or so I have read from others' posts. In this scenario, I try to not use area fire, as in a real mission, you would not know the actuall locatio of he shooter based only on sound contacts (he might be in the trench, pines, woods, etc.

What did you find out from playing scenario 111 With The Orientation Corrected?

I have yet to play 111 with the MG reoriented. I have skipped ahead and am currently playing 200. Your point is interesting though, and something I haven't considered. Basically, with the MG's reoriented, I am beginning think these three scenarios (110, 111, 112) are slightly flawed. They are much too difficult. Then again, in 111 and 112, your platoons aren't vanilla like 110, and the overwatch MG's have considerable ammo depth for supressing sound contacts, although MG's aren't great at this.

I will try it soon and report my results.

[NameUsedBefore]

" as in a real mission, you would not know the actuall locatio of he shooter based only on sound contacts (he might be in the trench, pines, woods, etc. "

Yup; which is why I laid down suppressive fire all around the contact. The contact originally showed him out of the trench and to the left; I thought that was "odd" and so just put a 'general area' for my guys to fire until I fully knew where the MG was.

Does 111 have the gun facing the right way or...? I kinda wish there'd be some sort of briefing or something telling you what you're doing/practicing. I always have to check back on the site with the downloads.