US biased Victory Conditions

[Knaust1]

Just finished TF Thunder Campaign skill level iron.

Every battle US Total Victory

It sounds like that Victory Conditions are heavily US biased.

[MikeyD]

Either that or you're a tactical genius!

A couple questions. Had you played the battles before? Had you stopped any scenarios and restarted when things got tough? Did you do a lot of WeGo rewinding to search-out the exact positions of incoming fire?

I ask because that's how I play I can think of several occassions where I said "That was a really easy scenario!", having conveniently forgotten that I had quit out of the scenario twice and restarted after all my APCs got brewed-up.

Oh ,a second point. The word "biased" implies there's some cheating going on that is favorable to the U.S. I don't really think you have to cheat to have the U.S. Army win battles against Syrian conscript reserves.

[Knaust1]

No genius...

first and second battle (uhmmm...that with the Red airport, you know) just played before with v1.03...but Red deployment was changed (maybe the scenario has 2 or more red deployments)

other battles just played once with v1.11

No cheating favourable to US...but I think that US Victory Conditions have to weight more US losses as in real life...just my 2 cents

[bassplayer192837]

correct me if im wrong but, the us army has never lost a firefight in Iraq and Afghanistan if i recall

[Kwazydog]

Thats the beauty of having an edited I guess...make your own campaign and set the victory conditions to whatever you please

Dan

[MikeyD]

correct me if im wrong but, the us army has never lost a firefight in Iraq and Afghanistan if i recall

Never officially, anyway. They shoot at you, you shoot at them, no casualties result - Whose to say who 'lost'?

I'm reminded of this weird story told to me by a 'spooky' old Vietnam war special forces guy. There was only one 'official' U.S. tank vs NVA tank engagement in the war at the Special forces firebase at Ben Het (if i recall correctly). But this guy claimed there were any number of significant 'unofficial' tank actions along the DMZ that nobody to this day is willing to admit to. I assume because the results weren't sufficiently 'victorious' for publication.

[Apocal]

correct me if im wrong but, the us army has never lost a firefight in Iraq and Afghanistan if i recall

This does not sound like victory to me.

Another one going in the L column.

[MikeyD]

I think the military's assumption is that the opponent can read. Much information they're willing to release often appears to have a subsidiary PSYOPS intent. The troops are the best trained, most intelligent, most motivated, best equipped; the equipment can work marvels, etc. etc. The intent is to dissuade any potential aggressor from even contemplating hostilties.

Of course sometimes it backfires. The Pentagon claimed the Copperhead artillery projectile was more of a wonder-worker than it was. Russia set their design teams to work recreating its 'purported' capabilities and now are fielding precision weapons that actually work! Pentagon implies our soldier are very nearly ubermenchen on the battlefield, so our opponents celebrate a mighty victory if they're able to inflct a single casualty. PSYOPS is a weapon that cuts both ways.

[Secondbrooks]

First time i played CMSF's Thunder campaign i was totally sucked into game, and i played skillfully. Now as i know what the those battles are about (terrain, enemy forces, their general setups) and i have LOTS of experience under my belt, i'm performing averagely To reach same level as i reached before i have to re-load most of the battles at least once.

This sucks a bit. And even more when in 1.11 enemy is much more willing to give up sooner... Then again Ceasefire didn't work those times like it works now and i actually had to spent my time with mission untill it's time ended, probably "forcing" me to play safer, slower and with more planning and thought.

[Knaust1]

correct me if im wrong but, the us army has never lost a firefight in Iraq and Afghanistan if i recall

yup...but I considered the point in the view of game challenging

[Knaust1]

Another point

I use to have armored vehicles in the rear, safe from AT attacks.

Infantry goes forward first with some accompaning Strykers sometimes waiting for enemy AT teams to reveal themselves.

When AT teams are mopped up tanks advance to finish the work.

Now it seems to me that an Armored Target Arc command is missing. AT teams seem to me to be in the habit to fire with their rifles to advancing infantry.

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

the Syrian side surrenders faster in 1.11 than in previous versions. This has made the campaign easier.

[stikkypixie]

I think the Thunder campaign is also a bit easier because the scenario designers were not very experienced at making scenarios, something that is very well illustrated by the marines campaign.

[GSX]

Getting back to the specific point of the Campaigns, I do remember Steve saying way back in 2007 that these were designed to be won by the US as it would be no fun for new players etc to never beat them.

This is a good solution in my opinion as nothing puts you off a new game more than being unable to play it because its far too hard.

The Marines campaign is no harder to win than the Army one in my opinion, unless you lose too many forces in the God awful carnage that is Objective Pooh.

At the end of the day I consider the campaigns as a throwaway bonus to let new guys learn the game. The real challenge is playing humans, or semi-humans in my case....