Guinea pi...errrr...testers needed.

[ParaBellum]

My 1st battle, "Wadi al Bugger" is almost ready and I need 2-3 people willing to play each side at least more than once to provide some feedback and point out possible problems. Map is finished and the AI plans sometimes actually work quite well. I've managed to both win and lose with each side, so it probably isn't totally fubared.

My aim was to provide a reasonable challenge for both sides.

Forces are about company-size, playtesting the scenario was done in realtime-mode.

Some impressions:

PLEASE NOTE: the scenario is still NOT 100% finished, there are NO briefings yet, and there are still a couple of rough edges. If you just want to enjoy the battle when it's ready, then PLEASE wait a couple of days and don't waste your time playing a yet unfinished scenario. If you want to help me though, please download the battle and GIVE ME SOME FEEDBACK. I'd very much appreciate it.

Provisional briefing:

US forces: take the victory locations (the village and the police HQ) without suffering excessive casualties. You are the point of the spear, pursuing syrian army units after a succesful breakthrough the day before. Air force says they have destroyed an enemy armoured column fleeing to the west near the village of Wadi al Bugger, only infantry forces are expected to try to slow down the pursuit.

You start with a Stryker recon platoon with another Stryker platoon a couple of minutes behind, and a Bradley platoon in reserve if you stumble onto heavier resistance. A pair of F-16s provide air support.

Syrian forces: after the US forces broke through our main line of resistance our forces are in full retreat to avoid encirclement. Our tank forces have suffered heavy losses both from US ground and air forces. Your mission is to defend Wadi al Bugger and slow down the american advance. Although succesfully defending your positions is important, it is even more important to inflict heavy casualties on the US forces and, if possible, limit your own casualties. You need to buy us some time!

You have the remains of an infantry company at your disposal, with an armoured infantry platoon in reserve, ready to be deployed on short notice. A pair of mortars will provide fire support.

Download link: http://freenet-homepage.de/parabellum/WadialBuggerv09.zip

[ August 14, 2007, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[Roter Stern]

Uhh-huh… So how much does this job pay?

None? Hmm… I see… One last question…

What kind of monetary compensation can we expect for participating?

Love the presentation! Would love to try it out.

[Melnibone]

Only had time to look at the map so far - great job!

[Molloy]

I've played the scenario once from both sides and was impressed. I'm willing to play it several more times to help test it out.

After that, I can post feedback here, with spoiler warning, or email it to you, which ever you prefer.

Thanks for the scenario ParaBellum.

[ParaBellum]

I've uploaded an updated version with some minor tweaks:

http://freenet-homepage.de/parabellum/WadialBuggerv091.zip

Most important feature: I've deleted the 'support targets' that I had included yesterday night, forgot that they acted as pre-planned strikes. Didn't like them.

Molloy, thanks for your offer! A post here with spoiler warnings would be fine.

[panzermartin]

Just played it as Syrians and I was really shocked when those F-16 demolished the building with my men inside. At first I thought someone detonated by mistake some Lada VIED I hadnt noticed

Very nice map indeed Parabellum, love the realistic little details, the ditch along the road etc.

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by panzermartin:

Just played it as Syrians and I was really shocked when those F-16 demolished the building with my men inside. At first I thought someone detonated by mistake some Lada VIED I hadnt noticed

Hehe... same thing happened to me a couple of minutes ago.

While my Syrians put up a heroic defense in Wadi al Bugger suddenly the center of my defenses vanished in a gigantic BOOOM...

Please also make sure to take a look at the points distribution at the end of the battle. My intent is that the US forces in order to win must take both VLs, while heavily damaging (>70%) the syrian forces and suffering less than 30% casualties.

The Syrians OTOH should be able to win by holding onto one objective or at least manage a draw when causing heavy losses (>50%) for the US side.

[KNac]

Hi ParaBellum,

I've tried it, but only once as US (turns, against AI, elite). Once I've played it a couple of times and from both sides I'll draw better conclussions and give better feedback.

Just one quick suggestion though. It would make the game uneven for H2H playing with the current TacAI/infantry combat probably, but IMO you should increase the casualties threshold to around 20% for US, or even less (5% looks a more realistic figure but I guess it's just too unfair), more than this would mean failure under any circunstance.

I managed to get a total victory and I had the sense than in reality I didn't deserve it (a lot of KIA, partially cause I rushed to finish earlier). Didn't seem succesfull (this happens sometimes with included battles & campaing too).

Funny to see how a RPG team was more hamfull to my inf than to the ICVs haha.

In your last version still a pre-planned strike, is intended or you forgot to remove it?

[ParaBellum]

Thanks for the feedback, KNac. The latest version (v0.91) doesn't have the pre-planned strikes anymore. I'm currently fiddling with a workaround though.

Good ideas about the casualties threshold. I have thought about this a bit already. I agree with you that a 5%-10% casualty threshold for the US is certainly realistic but with regards to this battle is pretty much impossible to achieve.

I will most probably reduce the casualties threshold for the US (and the according setting for the Syrians), meaning the US will have to be more careful about sustaining casualties.

[Fugazzi]

A well done scenario. I like it. I find however that the initial Syrian infantry do not engage in interesting tactics. They pretty much stay where they start and get killed easily.

[Roter Stern]

Don’t have much time to do a proper write up tonight, but I’ll try doing a quick one…

Played the original version as Red in RT vs the AI. Here are the final stats…

Personally I would’ve liked to see that result in at least a Minor Win for the Syrians… after all Red’s prime objective is to execute a fighting retreat and cause casualties, and at 75% Blue casualties I think that was more than completed, despite Blue being able to capture both positions.

Perhaps adding the Bradleys and Strykers as an additional “unit target” will also help?

I would also completely get rid of those F-16s, they are far too overpowering for a rather small force composition like that, especially considering that Red has no real armor.

Overall an excellent scenario and a really well done map, keep at it!

[ParaBellum]

Thanks for your comments! I have already tweaked the casualties threshold, it should now be more challenging for the US side and make it easier for the Syrians by winning through inflicting lots of damage to the US.

The US now have to keep their casualties below 20% (less is IMO very difficult since they face quite well-trained and motivated resistance) in oder to get the 50 points bonus, while they still need to wipe out 70% of the syrian force to get another 50 points.

The syrians will now get 200 points if they manage to kill more than 50% of the US forces with an additional 50 points for restricting their own casualties to less than 50% (which is extremely hard to do, so they'll probably never get this bonus).

Since the terrain objectives only provide 150 points it is now easier for the syrians to win by inflicting heavy damage, even if they lose the victory locations. The new points distribution now IMO fits better my initial mission description.

As for the air support: I didn't want the US units to go into battle without any kind of arty/air support. IMO especially against a human opponent defending a US player will probably need those F-16s. Now even more with the adjusted casualties threshold. Since arty is even more powerful I thought the aircraft were, with their relative small payload (usually one pass) and long command delay, a decent compromise.

Fugazzi: I'm currently experimenting with withdrawing the forward syrian elements after some time, making them less a "fight and die" force. Since I can manage this only via time delays (and not factors like casualties or ammo)it's a bit tricky.

Good idea!

BTW I'll release an updated version later this afternoon.

[ August 16, 2007, 02:53 AM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[KNac]

I played as red and got a very very similar result to The Lounch.

Nice to see you have reduced the threshold, I'll wait until you upload the new version to play again.

As "Red" it was nice to see how the blue attacked. It all was in a very unordered and caotic fashion, but it did work to an extend. They took the first objective with casualties (or at least, not much mroe than I took when I played blue), looky smoke screen produced by a Stryker while it was being shoot helped, but hey, they did it.

They putted a lot of firepower into the building and managed to crush my AT teams fast -in the end I managed to knock out 3 strykers-. The second objective was an onslaugh for their infantry though, they asembled on the other side of the road in the open. And while they advanced were crushed, a final barrage just whiped them all, it resulted in almost all US infantry whiped out. At the end there was a weird situation where I holded a couple of hurted squads and HQ and the enemy had a lot of vehicles going around but just one squad (damaged quite badly) and a HQ alive.

[ParaBellum]

Newest version with adjusted casualties threshold/points and some minor tweaks:

http://freenet-homepage.de/parabellum/WadialBuggerv092.zip

I've played the scenario more than a dozen times as the Syrians, watching the US attack and I've seen virtually anything from a totally helpless AI with horrible pathfinding to fine assaults, almost resembling a competent human opponent.

On average the US AI seems to work Ok.

[Molloy]

The following comes a little late, and was with version 091, but here it is anyway...

********SPOILER ALERT********

ParaBellum,

Earnestly, a great little scenario. I played it three times to completion from both sides, and played partial games in hotseat controlling both sides to test certain elements. It seems that any criticism I might have concerns current bugs/game limitations rather than your design. Examples of this are LOS/LOF problems (specifically with walls), and the reluctance (and sluggishness) of BMPs to fire either AP rounds or their ATGMs. The current state of the game makes expected outcomes more difficult, but not impossible, to achieve.

I found your AI plans to be acceptable, however in every game (either as Blue or Red) I scored a total victory, badly mauling the computer opponent, but this is to be expected as it was generally in CMx1 and the Shock Force campaign. However, when playing hotseat, both sides slugged it out and it was much more balanced- I pulled out a minor victory against myself .

I find that your initial setup for Red is not optimal in light of the problems listed above. Units in the open (even if behind a "wall" and hiding) stand little chance of survival; the same holds for units on rooftops (at least until some LOS/LOF issues are addressed). When playing Red against Blue AI, this wasn't a critical issue, as I could effectively ambush and engage the near hapless Strykers/Bradleys (who often get bogged and/or dispersed attempting to cross the road ditches) with RPGs from multiple angles simultaneously, inflicting heavy loses (2 out of the 3 games as Red I KOed every Blue vehicle, without suffering significant casualties). By setting up the Red forces in either level 1 or 2 of the buildings, often using other buildings rather than walls as LOS/LOF blocks against Blue lines-of-fire and avenues of approach, the outcome was even more lopsided, as the AI tends to employ units in a piecemeal fashion. The combination of RPGs and artillery was highly unpleasant for Blue (stay mounted—get hit by RPGs; dismount—get hit by arty). This was a problem for the AI, as they tend to bunch around the nearest cluster of houses (SE section of the map) facing the "Police HQ". For a human player, this is not so much of an issue due to a much more coherent and organized advance.

When Playing Blue (my first game, with no knowledge of the above) I did the opposite of what the AI tends to do, and took my forces North, utilizing the open ground and facing to maximize local firepower superiority, even with the risk of increased exposure. However, I felt this was mitigated somewhat by the range, and by being exposed only frontally to two building facades of the Police HQ, rather than dozens of potential enemy positions and angles by swinging south to the housing cluster. This approach worked well against the Red AI. I used the F-16 air strikes against Wadi al Bugger, which was highly effective, and seemed the most obvious choice. This resulted in little and sporadic resistance after clearing the Police HQ and adjacent field. By the time the Bradley (and BMP) reinforcements arrived, I was already advancing on Wadi al Bugger. The Bradleys, Mk 19 Strykers, and Javelin armed dismounts made short work of the mech units in all games I played as Blue. BMPs simply do not stand a chance in open battle in the current state of the game (which seems flawed—IFVs should not dread an ICV like Stryker). Even when playing as Red, I was very cautious with them, essentially keyholing them in ambush for fear of open engagement (or rather, disengagement ) even with numerical superiority thanks to work of the RPG teams.

In conclusion, your map is fantastic, and your scenario all-around is a nice size, tactically interesting, and fun! I don't how much can be done about the StratAI plans, as I am not that familiar with the editor yet. I think this scenario is good as is, and will only benefit when BFC resolves the bugs/issues which cause much of the unbalancing. It also has great multiplayer potential.

Thanks ParaBellum, and I hope my input is somewhat helpful.

[handihoc]

Nice one. Tried it as US elite, got wiped out first time. Second time suffered a tactical defeat with major losses. Lovely map, tough mission and satisfyingly aggressive enemy AI.

Strange bug, though. My scout mmg team, ordered to move into an empty building, spent the entire mission exhausting themselves by leaping backwards and forwards over the same stone wall! Couldn't do anything to stop 'em.

Hope to see more missions from you.

[handihoc]

Another strange thing - CAUTION: SPOILER ALERT!! -

was that down the road, near the roadside stall, a massive IED exploded when none of my units were anywhere near it. Later I found a bunch of Syrian corpses scattered around the crater, so looks like they were trying to cross the road and set it off accidentally due to proximity. An example of not very intelligent AI, I guess. Or is there another explanation?

[GDog]

PArabellum, could you tell me how you posted that beautiful pic in your opening post to the forums?

I can't for the life of me figure out how to post screenshots here.....

Also, nice scenario. I've played it a couple of times as US and taken a beating each time.

[KiloAlpha4]

looks good...to post a image GDog first upload one to imageshack etc ( http://imageshack.us/ ) it will give you a link ( use the direct link to image url given at very bottom.

then just use the image tags to post it on here as in the example below

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> </pre>

[ParaBellum]

Thanks for help guys, much appreciated!

Molloy: thanks for that extensive feedback

handihoc: there are no IEDs in the scenario. What you saw was probably an attack by the F-16 air support.

I'll finish the scenario, add the briefings and will release the complete scenario later this week.

Again, thanks for the feedback and the encouraging comments!

BTW I'm experimenting with an "aerial pic" for the tactical map. Any comments?

[KNac]

excellent, can't read very well the "destroyed tanks" bit

what does S 850 mean? sorry for my ignorance.

[ParaBellum]

Due to JPEG compression there's some quality loss. The ingame map in (larger) BMP format is a bit more clear.

S 850 is the name of the road running E/W through the map. I found the name via a quick google earth search.

[Horus]

sorry for hijacking

i think BF should take your Scen in the nx demo.

i have played the old demo and i want a little bit more before i decide to buy or not and i think your scen could be the right one to get the infos that i want.

[Fugazzi]

My suggestion for the briefing pic is that the writing doesn't looks like a soldier's handwriting. It reminds me more of the Coca Cola advertisement.

[metalbrew]

Hi Para, is it finished yet?