Valet parking?

[birdstrike]

With all these mechanized forces in the game, there seems to be an awfully high number of vehicles in some missions.

Overwatch all good and fine, but I sometimes have a really hard time to find a useful task for them, especially in MOUT operations, and end up with a whole car park waiting somewhere in the back, while I never seem, to have enough infantry to do all the things I want to.

Now there is two things I wonder about:

1) am I still stuck too much in WWII thinking to assume a single AFV per infantry platoon is more than sufficient armor support?

and

2) what is SOP in real life for instances like this? Do commanders have to learn how to deal with traffic jams or is it acceptable for them to leave all this potential firepower unused?

[tharawdeal]

The expectation that some of the vehicles will be lost during the course of the mission is probably built in to the scenarios, which could lead to a lot of "extra" IFVs being included.

Also, one platoon of infantry can not be transported to the battlefield with only one IFV. Depending on the size of the platoon, it would take 3 or 4 just to get everyone in the right place. The number of IFVs grows when considering a company-sized engagement, unless multiple groups of troops were ferried to the battlefield by fewer IFVs making multiple trips. It could be that the scenario designer is taking this into account, so that the player isn't left wondering how all of these infantry troops arrived and how they will leave.

What to do with your IFVs will be dictated by the mission and the commander's intent. In general, armored units should adhere to the "buddy system" just as much as infantry units do. Unless your vehicles will be close enough to each other to provide mutual support over the course of the entire mission, isolated IFVs are in danger of being disabled or destroyed with no other friendly force with similar capabilities nearby to provide security.

If one aspect of the mission is to present a "show of force" to the enemy or to a hostile civilian population, multiple vehicles present on the battlefield can serve to intimidate any would-be attackers. Vehicles placed at key points around the engagement zone can also serve as a cordon that will prevent the escape of enemy combatants from the area or prevent the influx of reinforcements to it.

Of course, the flipside of using all of your vehicles is that it presents the enemy with a greater range of potential targets. At some point, having more and more vehicles will yield diminishing returns. Most commanders understand the need to have a reserve force that will not become immediately engaged, but can be sent to various trouble spots to provide rapid support. They also exploit the value of having an "ace in the hole" with maintaining some forces that the enemy will not be aware of right away. If you feel that your IFVs are getting in the way of each other, you might consider leaving some outside the immediate fight to be used as a quick reaction force. This way you don't risk more vehicles being destroyed or disabled, but you retain the ability to bring extra firepower to bear when and where it's needed.

[PrezCartman]

Raw, that's an excellent explanation.

One thing I would like to add from personal experience is the way I handle having the vehicles in urban environments.

I generally use my vehicles to hold large areas, i.e. major lanes through cities are locked down by the vehicles to prevent enemy movement from one sector to another while infantry moves up and clears the smaller areas. Like Raw said since I usually have enough vehicles left over a few vehicles, particularly Bradleys if I have them are, kept to rapidly go in and rescue any infantry forces that meet heavy resistance.

[metalbrew]

In CM:SF, don't dismount infantry. Fight from your IFVs. There's only a few situations where dismounting is preferable and MOUT isn't one of them.

Try it out, move vehicles slowly, compare casualty numbers to see the difference.

BTW, I'm specifically talking about playing vs. the AI. The AI is pretty bad and you can spot units very far away. No need to risk infantry to complete the campaign. I just finished the elite campaign for the 2nd time (this time with the v1.02 patch) and only dismounted to fulfill AT roles or in the few scenarios where you begin on-foot.

[Guest]

metalbrew, is that because of the TacAI limitations on the part of your dismounts, or something else?

I find that the Syrians do a great job of tearing up my armor, although I haven't played the campaign yet, just brutal little scenarios of my own devising. I need to dismount my troops to win.

[metalbrew]

If you keep your vehicles 150m away from enemy infantry they are very safe. The AI doesn't seem to fire RPG7s until you get closer. Therefore you can usually sit far back, spot hiding enemies way too easily, and pound them with 40mm grenades and .50 cal. Against a human, they'd likely give a manual targeting order and the squad or AT team will fire from much further away.

Of course, more serious AT threats exist but primarily you face RPG7. If you face AT3s, get closer than 500m and the won't fire. AT4, AT5, 73mm recoilless, AT14, and RPG29 need to be killed as high priority targets. The AI won't perform hit and run tactics so while you may lose 1 vehicle to a surprise hit you can pound the AT team with your other vehicles and continue advancing. Human opponents will often withdraw their AT teams after 1 shot and live to fire another shot.

By dealing with AI led AT teams you only face RPG7 and as long as you stay outside the AI's engagement range that's easy to deal with. The AI is very predictable.

Since infantry is very fragile and there's an easy way to defeat the AI from afar, I haven't found a compelling reason to dismount my own infantry. My exceptions are when I need to use Javelins. I usually acquire the Javelins, split into an AT Team, then put everyone back in the vehicle. For now the game is broken though so squads don't rejoin. This means I can conveniently dismount just the AT team when needed. If the AT team dies performing it's mission, well that's only 2 guys dead vs. a whole 9 man squad.

I finished the campaign with 25 dead and 43 wounded. I lost 3 Strykers, 1 M1, and 1 Bradley along the way.

I have confidence that as the game gets patched things will get harder. For now the AI is predictable and easy to defeat. Against humans I play differently.

[birdstrike]

Yes, thank you tharawdeal, this is quite an insight. I will see how I can put this into practice, now.

Concerning the mounted/dismounted infantry, I must say, I too prefer dismounted infantry. Maybe because I have lost too many ICVs and their passengers to AT weapons.

Also, an infantry squad has a better FOV and is capable to deal out alot of damage compared to a stryker with an M2, for instance.

And depending on scenario design, there will be places you simply cannot go with a vehicle, or not as easy as on foot.

[metalbrew]

Originally posted by birdstrike:

Maybe because I have lost too many ICVs and their passengers to AT weapons.

This is the red herring of the game. Dismounted infantry die. Any situation you find yourself in where an AT team can kill an IFV there will be a squad of enemy infantry to kill your dismounts too. If you're losing IFVs drive slower. The US IFVs spot much better than infantry.

Originally posted by birdstrike:

Also, an infantry squad has a better FOV and is capable to deal out alot of damage compared to a stryker with an M2, for instance.

What's your hurry? I don't think there's a mission in the campaign that I didn't have 30 extra minutes left after the enemy surrendered. Knock the entire city down. Even if there's a penalty for destroying a city, knock the city down. Don't believe any scenario briefing that tells you to search a building and then destroy it. There's no functionality built into the game to score you based on whether you searched a building before you destroyed it. Destroy the building and then drive into the rubble to get credit for securing the objective.

Originally posted by birdstrike:

And depending on scenario design, there will be places you simply cannot go with a vehicle, or not as easy as on foot.

Name one.

The game is flawed and very easy. It's not just that you don't need to dismount infantry but rather 99% of the time against the AI, dismounting is the wrong thing to do with respect to your overall game score. I say play every gamey angle you can find in the game for all it's worth. Tell the forum where you find gamey shortcuts and maybe the shortcuts will be patched and removed for the benefit of a better game.

[birdstrike]

You are talking about the stock scenarios. Sadly a number of them favor these gamey exploits. But I will tell you, any capable scenario designer will punish the use of vehicles without infantry, and the unncecessary destruction of buildings, not to mention ammo expenditure.

[metalbrew]

Originally posted by birdstrike:

You are talking about the stock scenarios. Sadly a number of them favor these gamey exploits. But I will tell you, any capable scenario designer will punish the use of vehicles without infantry, and the unncecessary destruction of buildings, not to mention ammo expenditure.

It can't be done. The game is not capable of creating such a scenario.

[birdstrike]

Sure.

Set up some narrow roads with no chance to attack the buildings from more than 50 or 100 meters, set up one or two RPG teams and normal infantry squads in opposing buildings somwhere along the road check for appropirate AI orders for a nice ambush, there you go.

And the buldings just need to be marked as "Preserve" with a high points value, so if you level them, you're missing a lot of points in the end.

[metalbrew]

What else can I possibly say to get you to hear what I'm saying? What you're describing cannot be done. You can build it exactly to the letter that you've described and I will not play into your script.

You have the added burden to show how that scenario is uniquely suited to a combined infantry and vehicle attack (or just infantry if you prefer). Build the scenario to your liking and specification and I'll prove vehicles alone can dominate without infantry support. Before I go to that trouble though show me you can successfully complete the same scenario with dismounts.

Extra credit if the scenario is remotely fun. As described it sounds like a tedious contrived example that I'll be able to break out of the script and defeat regardless.

I'm not calling you out. I'm saying the game is very easy to exploit in ways that aren't possible in real life. I understand infantry are important to real life MOUT and ambush denial. However in the game and playing against the AI these situations can very easily be gamed with fewer losses and higher scores.

If you're serious about building the scenario I'm serious about writing up my side of the AAR. Text and screencaps will be included.

[birdstrike]

I will see if I can come up with one. Maybe a small one in a town. But don't expect too much.

The single claim is that the same scenario (with the same enemy units) can be completed by using infantry only?

Apart from this, may I use any viable objectives and possibilities that the editor offers?

[metalbrew]

Sure, whatever you like.

The scenario would be a US player vs. the Syrian AI. You can play the game however you like (I assume with dismounted infantry) and I'll play the same game however I like (infantry embarked). My goal is show that dismounted infantry are only needed for AT roles, if there's no armor in the scenario my infantry will stay inside the tincans.

If you need a few days, no rush. My email is in my profile.

[birdstrike]

Will start right away

Hope it will turn out to be fun.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by birdstrike:

Will start right away

Hope it will turn out to be fun.

Good for you, birdstrike. Looking forward to seeing your scenario.

Metalbrew is stacking the deck with contrived caveats the same way JasonC used to in the CM:BB scenario discussion forum, by the way. Seems like old times.

[metalbrew]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Metalbrew is stacking the deck with contrived caveats the same way JasonC used to in the CM:BB scenario discussion forum, by the way. Seems like old times.

No, I really don't want the deck stacked one way or the other. If anyone feels my conditions aren't fair or in the spirit of the point we've been discussing, please point out where the fallacy lies. I realize I left the door wide open for abuse of the theme though. It all comes down to the idea that birdstrike (or anyone who cares to play) has to play as well or better as I can play without dismounting my infantry.

Honestly, I thought about including conditions about unit experience and motivation so that birdstrike didn't create green Strykers (or Brads...) and crack infantry. The more I thought about it the more I thought I could cope with whatever was included. Besides, if I'm only given poor units and still succeed, well that makes my point all the stronger.

The comment about armor is directly related to all of my previous "don't dismount" statements where I've said the infantry is only useful for firing Javelins. I've always ceded the point that infantry is useful for firing Javelins, whether it be at buildings or armor. If you haven't read my previous statements, you may not realize that this has never been a point of contention.

It might be interesting to note that I finished Louch's excellent Chechnya village attack scenario with only the BTRs. I lost 1 BTR in the process.

[birdstrike]

Have no fear, I'm trying not to put you into an inferior position through cheap tricks.

Currently I've set up the game with Strykers, but I can use Bradleys instead, if you insist.

However, I have encoutered a little problem with my map which I hope can be solved in time, otherwise I fear I have to find a way to work around it.

[Stryker]

Originally posted by metalbrew:

It might be interesting to note that I finished Louch's excellent Chechnya village attack scenario with only the BTRs. I lost 1 BTR in the process.

metalbrew - you only used the BTR's! Was this on your first play of the scenario? I used my infantry to flush out the enemy, but took a fair amout of casualties in the process.

I agree it was an excellent scenario.

[metalbrew]

Originally posted by Stryker:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by metalbrew:

It might be interesting to note that I finished Louch's excellent Chechnya village attack scenario with only the BTRs. I lost 1 BTR in the process.

metalbrew - you only used the BTR's! Was this on your first play of the scenario? I used my infantry to flush out the enemy, but took a fair amout of casualties in the process.

I agree it was an excellent scenario. </font>

[birdstrike]

@ metalbrew: a quick update

FYI a quick preview of the map:

(currently) Forces are 2 Stryker Platoons, skill=veteran, motivation=high, versus uncon combatants, green, extreme motivation.

I need to do some more playtesting, though. I fear the map didn't like me going from 1.01 to 1.02, so I cannot use all the stuff I wanted, like penalties for collateral damage.

I think anyway, it will show the advantage of dismounted infantry/combined arms versus mounted infantry/vehicles only.

As I said, you can have Bradleys instead of Strykers, if you prefer them. I tested both, but there is a tradeoff between higher firepower and greater vulnerability because Bradleys are lacking the Slat cage. Their infantry platoons are also weaker in manpower than Stryker platoons, so I myself would like to stick to the latter, but you can go either way.

[metalbrew]

I'm OK either way, it's your design and I'm OK with whatever you choose.

Next week is busy, I have family visiting. It's possible I won't even have a chance to break down the scenario and start playing until they leave next weekend. My point, is it's likely that v1.03 is probably going to release before I can begin.

P.S. More buildings.

[birdstrike]

No problem for me. Take your time. Actually this also gives me some more time to sort a few things out. Maybe I even come up with a nice briefing and a tactical maps.

P.S. More buildings.

Sure, I'd like to, but I'm afraid there is no space left on the map .

[dan/california]

This is the most PRODUCTIVE discussion I have seen on this forum in quite a while. It should be held up as a model somehow. I would love to take a swing at the scenario as well.

There is a possibility that 1.03 could change things quite a bit. A great deal of the advantage to staying mounted that metalbrew is discussing is due to effectively suicidal tac AI on the part of attacking infantry. It is effectively impossible to babysit more than a squad or two in real time. And with one minute turns it is impossible to babysit any number of squads in WEGO effectively with current AI and order limitations. The current LOS confusion just makes this worse. When this gets fixed, and I am absolutely sure it will be in no more than a few weeks, it will change things radically.

Right now vehicles are just inherently easier to manage effectively. An AFV might go around the wrong side of the house but it , usually, cannot go around both sides at once and guarantee that half of it gets shot to pieces.

I realize that defending infantry has issues too, but they usually commit their first stupid mistake in some form of cover or concealment. Stupid mistakes that involve crossing streets covered by HMGs are extremely final.

[birdstrike]

Managing units is a good point.

During playtesting, I had to recognize the fact that the pathfinding in narrow streets can be terribly frustrating. In part, for a scenario as the above, this is a deliberate effect, such as when a Stryker is taken out by an RPG and blocks the whole road, but other times, I have bugs like vehicles passing through buildings and infantry squads getting stuck in places without a reason.

You do learn a couple of tricks and workarounds in moving troops when faced with such things and I'm really beginning to appreciate some features in the game that might get easily overlooked, for example squads ordered to move alongside a building tend to move only as far as the corner of a house.

The second issue is clearly the lethality of small arms against dismounted infantry. It would be foolish to deny that. In addition, the danger is greatly enhanced by the very short ranges in urban firefights, paired with the relatively late detection of enemies, hidden in buildings.

Another thing that came to me as an unpleasant surpirse was the effectiveness of RPGs versus infantry. I'm still losing at least 1/2 squad every time I play to a single well placed RPG round.

(Not to mention the loads of Strykers I've lost to RPGs )

And I'll try to find a place to put the scenario for public download and testing as I'd like to hear more opinions about it myself.

Finally, just for fun, a small action screenshot:

As close as it gets