Creating Realistic Missions

[DaveDash]

Here is some worthwhile reading for those budding mission designers out there like me who want to create realistic scenarios.

FM for Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT):

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-31/c01.htm

SBCT Infantry Battalion:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-21/index.html

Probably the most important for CM:SF:

SBCT Rifle Company:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-11/index.html

SBCT Rifle Platoon:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-9/index.html

Lots of reading involved, but worth it.

[Paper Tiger]

Whew! You weren't joking when you said that there was a lot of reading to do :eek: I'm not sure I'll ever get the time to wade through all that.

Anyway, when I saw the title of the thread, I was hoping that it would be a discussion about how to create realistic missions. This is something I would be very interested in hearing other peoples opinions about.

At present, I feel that it is possible to create BALANCED scenarios pitting US forces against the Syrians but these situations are (at least the ones I've made) very unrealistic. In a realistic situation, the US should blow the Syrians away with ease. When I designed "In Harms Way" I was astonished at how powerful a single US infantry platoon was. They had no artillery or air support (how realistic is THAT?, just a couple of Stryker ATGM vehicles in support and they could annihalate the Syrian AI force.

I have been trying to design a scenario where the US AI attacks a Syrian held village in very hilly terrain. I gave the US four M1 Seps and gave the Syrians lots of AT-14s and the M1's blew them away. One M1 took 10 (yes 10!) consecutive hits from Kornets and continued to fire back at the ATGM teams. It was immobilzed, big deal, but in such a good firing position that that was unimportant. The ATGM teams were knocked out for no real loss, game over. I dropped the M1s straight away from the OB.

I'm not complaining because the US forces are clearly superior in every way to the Syrians but it does make it hard to design interesting scenarios with lots of cool stuff for the US to use without creating a turkey shoot. (Hard, but not impossible if 'Hammertime' is anything to go by).

Anyway, I've started work on a Red v Red campaign because it's easier to get balanced battles with cool equipment for both sides. The Republican Guard units ARE still very tough to beat though.

Well, that's my 2p worth. By the way, how do other scenario designers find time to play other peoples scenarios? I spend all my CMSF time either in the scenario editor OR playtesting my creations.

[DaveDash]

You dont need to read everything. Probably more along the defensive operations, capabilities, and limitation sections of the FMs

Regarding creating challanging, but realistic scenarios, its all using the terrain to your advantage.

I have designed a scenario (based on an old CMBO scenario) where the U.S. has a 2 to 1 advantage over the Syrians and attacks at night. My last playtest of the scenario the U.S. suffered roughly 60% casualties and I employed proper tactics and know where the enemy is. I wanted it to be as realistic as possible but not a push-over.

The key is to get the U.S. forces engaged close and without vehicle support if nessesary. If you read those FM's its quite permissable for U.S. Rifle Platoons to operate outside of Stryker support, and in the particular scenario I designed the initial Rifle Company has none for numerous reasons (surprise attack, ATGM/RPG threats, etc).

Using the terrain to the Syrians advantage is key. One of the best ways to slaughter the U.S. squads are to use reverse slope defences. This is when you have a Syrian squad/platoon element on the backside of a slope that the U.S. is going to cross. Trenches for the Syrians increase their survivability significantly but annoyingly they are easy to spot on the map (I wish this could be changed). Even so however without trenches the defenders will dig foxholes provided they dont move.

How do you get the player to cross that ridge? Well, mines and terrain factors of course. Place mines with cover fire from machine guns to filter the U.S. player where you want him to go.

Try not to clump Syrian units together, especially in obvious targets like buildings. Having them behind buildings is sometimes better, since I know personally I like to level any suspicious building I see with HE fire or artillery. Fake trenches are also good to waste U.S. ammo, but just make sure they are covered by machine gun fire or filled with mines so the U.S. player cant use them to his advantage.

Tanks with limited fields of exposure behind buildings or walls covering danger areas can get flanking shots on U.S. armour and Strykers.

The use of AI plans is key. Good use of Hide/Ambush/Hide/Assaut plans after playtesting should really give the U.S. player a headache. Lure the U.S. player into a U shaped defensive position, unhide, then unleash hell on his flanks. Most players like to advance in a nice line and you will utterly decimate his formation.

Supporting elements are key. Make sure all your defensive units can support each other, so the U.S. player cannot defeat your defenses in detail. For example, have machine guns on the hill behind your reverse slope defense.

One big advantage the U.S. player has are Javelins and tons of ammo. Either remove his Strykers but putting him in a situation which would warrent it (e.g mountian assault with heavy ATGM presence, infantry must clear the mountians) or limit ammo supplies. In an ongoing operation its not unrealistic to assume limited ammo supplies, especially for reinforcements that were hastily sent to the battlefold. Otherwise given 3 x U.S. infantry squad with 3360 5.56mm bullets and 3 Javelines, with supporting fires from MG teams with 3000 7.62mm rounds, they can surpress everything any anything all day.

Given all the above, I guarentee the U.S. will lose a 1:1 matchup and will suffer heavy loses in a overmatch situation (2:1) which allow for much more realistic fights.

[ December 13, 2007, 04:44 AM: Message edited by: DaveDash ]

[DaveDash]

> I have been trying to design a scenario where the US AI attacks a Syrian held village in very hilly terrain. I gave the US four M1 Seps and gave the Syrians lots of AT-14s and the M1's blew them away. One M1 took 10 (yes 10!) consecutive hits from Kornets and continued to fire back at the ATGM teams. It was immobilzed, big deal, but in such a good firing position that that was unimportant. The ATGM teams were knocked out for no real loss, game over. I dropped the M1s straight away from the OB.

Channel the M1's into areas with mines, or use mines to channel them into kill boxes. The AI won't run over mines. Be smart in your placement of mines too so they jam up vehicle formations and slow the advance down. Even channel M1's into mud with mines early on so they stuck. Unless the damn heavy things are driving along paved roads they get stuck often on damp ground and end up useless for most of the fight. That's really the best way of taking them out.

Use ATGMs in trenches in reverse slope positions and not on top of buildings, since tanks have a harder time clearing out trenches and will generally ignore reverse slope positions without any 'lobbing' weapon to attack it with.

Support your ATGMs at close ranges with RPG-29's and use hide/ambush AI plan combinations to get top down shots on the M1A2SEP's from elevated terrain positions.

Use fake bunkers that can't be used against you with cannon fodder infantry (or purely empty) so the tanks waste ammo destroying empty bunkers with direct fire. Not sure if it works against the AI but a human will waste ammo destroying fake bunkers.

I've also had T-72 (2001)'s take out M1A2SEPs by landing flanking shots at close ranges by hiding a T-72 behind a house or terrain feature. It won't last long against the other three, but it's job is done. Most players dont use cover arcs when advancing so your tanks will get off one shot at least and usually disable the M1A2SEP.

[ December 13, 2007, 04:58 AM: Message edited by: DaveDash ]

[Cpl Steiner]

Whilst on the subject of making scenarios more realistic, I thought I'd post a link to a thread I started ages ago pointing to resources about the real world Stryker units shown on the map that comes with Shock Force (Deluxe Edition). It would be nice to see such information in the briefing and used for unit names for a bit of added immersion.

Real World Units Thread

And then there is also the NATO military symbols resource I found a while back. Really useful. You just install the fonts and you're away.

NATO Military Symbols Thread

[ December 13, 2007, 05:02 AM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ]

[DaveDash]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Whilst on the subject of making scenarios more realistic, I thought I'd post a link to a thread I started ages ago pointing to resources about the real world Stryker units shown on the map that comes with Shock Force (Deluxe Edition). It would be nice to see such information in the briefing and used for unit names for a bit of added immersion.

Real World Units

I like what you've done there, how do I rename a unit to get proper unit designations?

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by DaveDash:

I like what you've done there, how do I rename a unit to get proper unit designations?

Easy. Just purchase a Stryker battalion, highlight it, and click on "rename" in the bottom-right of the units page of the editor. Just don't make the name too long otherwise you get text overlap.

[DaveDash]

Duh. I completely didnt see that rename button

[Paper Tiger]

Hi Dave

you gave some very good advice there. I haven't played it yet but it sounds like you're describing Hammertime. The US forces actually outnumber the Syrians but they have a hard time winning because they have to negotiate their way through a well prepared Syrian position in just 2 hours.

I don't really like being forced to follow a path that obviously leads to an ambush that I can't avoid. In real life, a US commander would probably plaster any zone with artillery or air power before sending his boys into such an obvious kill zone.

To make BALANCED scenarios, you have to take options away from the US player that probably wouldn't happen in real life.

What's missing from my original post is that I really love encounter type battles. I guess I'm just playing this game until WW2 comes along and then I can get back to work on designing the kind of WW2 battles I really enjoy.

I CAN do WW2 encounter battles with Syrian v Syrian but the US side is just too powerful for that kind of action, especially if they have M1s.

The battle I was describing above has very long LoS and the US player has an almost unlimited choice in how he wants to approach the objective. The US side is AI controlled and I gave the M1s movement paths that would largely help them to avoid taking flank shots, just like a real life commander would do. The M1s are almost indestructable in situations like this and so they should be.

Now MOUT is a different thing altogether but there's a thread in the main forum about that so I'll save it for there.

[DaveDash]

you gave some very good advice there. I haven't played it yet but it sounds like you're describing Hammertime. The US forces actually outnumber the Syrians but they have a hard time winning because they have to negotiate their way through a well prepared Syrian position in just 2 hours.

I don't really like being forced to follow a path that obviously leads to an ambush that I can't avoid. In real life, a US commander would probably plaster any zone with artillery or air power before sending his boys into such an obvious kill zone.

I've played Hammertime and won it with minimal loses, this scenario I'm talking about is one of my own creation.

Missions that are considered tip of the spear, yeah, the U.S. would have a lot of assets available, but just like it has happened in real life before intel can get it wrong and not divert assets to a task because of underestimating enemy strength, or behind the scenes operations.

Im working on another mission type that is based on some real life footage I've seen from Afghanistan. There, many U.S. troops do not have tanks and IFV's to support them, and have to rely on local mortars and limited air support assets. These missions are much more challanging for the U.S. side.

'Conventional' open warfare type situations the U.S. will dominate the Syrians. The challange becomes more about how little loses you can take rather than whether you're going to win or not. That extremely hard to spot RPG-29 team behind low wall in the trees can still disable a tank, or at least take out its tracks. Maybe destroying one U.S. tank is victory enough for the Syrians.

Remember, the U.S. politically is weaker when it comes to battlefield casualties than the Syrians. If they take enough, the U.S. public may force cease-fire.

If you want, email me this scenario so I can take a look.

[Paper Tiger]

Yeah, I've watched footage of real combat operations for scenario ideas too. It takes hours, largely static, mostly area fire and hardly anybody gets hurt. Woo hoo!

Only joking. As I mentioned earlier, I prefer the conventional scenario and Blue v red is difficult to balance and make realistic. When I return to MOUT after the patch, maybe I'll try my hand at an urban fight with little or no air/artillery support but plenty of special vehicular goodies for the US.

I don't have a finished copy of that scenario yet. The map is stunning and I want to use it in my current project, a Syrian v Syrian campaign. It would be a shame to waste it on a US v Syria turket shoot.

[Webwing]

--

Great thread!!!

--