Operation Hangman Campaign Released!

[Field Marshal Blücher]

My newest campaign, Operation Hangman, has been submitted to the Repository and should be up shortly. In this campaign, take command of a Special Forces Operational Detachment Alpha, as well as A Company, 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division, and the 4th Battalion of the fictional 56th Syrian National Guard Regiment as they undertake a COIN operation against insurgents holed up in the mountains of Western Syria.

The campaign is all-infantry. It's on a larger scale than my previous campaign (From the Dawn to Setting Sun); most battles are company-scale. However, it's still quite practical for RT players (I know, I am one! ). The campaign requires the Marines Module to play.

The campaign is in BETA form right now. All of the missions have been playtested independently, but only up to the fifth mission has the campaign as a whole been tested (as stated in another thread, I do not have very much CM:SF playing time right now!). With that in mind, feedback is doubly important, so please post here with any thoughts/recommendations/bugs/etc.

One other thing I forgot to put in the file description on the Repository (which I will edit in as soon as it's up, hopefully!): It is highly recommended that you play the campaign with Normal Dude's Marines to SOF mod.

Please enjoy!

-FMB

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Nice.

All Infantry is...good.

[theFightingSeabee]

Thanks FMB! From Dawn to Setting Sun is a work of art, so I can't wait to get back home to play the new one! I'm an RT player myself, so I'm glad to hear it's still managable. I guess I have my work cut out over the next couple of weeks. Thanks!

[SlapHappy]

Hmmmm....Tactical Blue Victory after the 3rd mission.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Hmmmm....Tactical Blue Victory after the 3rd mission.

Really? Were you defeated on the third mission?

I may need to alter the campaign script either way, but please let me know what happened.

[DaveDash]

Same thing. I suffered a minor defeat after the Syrians surrendered on mission three, but I had taken 2 KIA 8 WIA which was over the 10% threshold (ouch), so they effectively won that mission.

However, after that, I won a tactical victory in the campaign.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Hmm. OK. I guess I should re-do the campaign script. The campaign's supposed to end if you lose, but I guess if you've done well enough in previous missions it makes you "win."

[Field Marshal Blücher]

OK! New version should be up soon.

The campaign is linear, so you should probably re-start from the mission you lost anyway. If you've already played through mission 3, just load the auto-save at the beginning and try it again; you won't lose anything from not playing the new version.

[SlapHappy]

Same thing. I suffered a minor defeat after the Syrians surrendered on mission three, but I had taken 2 KIA 8 WIA which was over the 10% threshold (ouch), so they effectively won that mission.

However, after that, I won a tactical victory in the campaign.

SPOILERS

Yep....that's what happened to me, too. And will probably happen to about 90% of others playing this mission. Without heavy weapons and only a very light mortar support, I think you'd be VERY hard pressed to dig those reverse slope infantry out while maintaining casualties below 10%. But, hey, if anyone does it, I'd be happy to be clued in to what they did.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Heh, that mission's pretty tricky. I managed to beat it on Elite though. Of course, that was with me knowing where they all were.

If it turns out to be too tricky I can reduce the number of enemies there.

[SlapHappy]

Heh, that mission's pretty tricky. I managed to beat it on Elite though. Of course, that was with me knowing where they all were.

If it turns out to be too tricky I can reduce the number of enemies there.

Impressive! I never play above VETERAN level. I'm always willing to concede, of course, that I might be a fairly lousy tactician.

[DaveDash]

SPOILERS

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I was actually pretty unlucky to suffer those casualties. Almost all of them were when I assaulted the top trench on the western peak. I had two squads hunting towards the trench with cover arcs and they both got nailed by a fistfull of grenades before even spotting the Syrians. Really, I should have been more careful and area fired the trench with two squads and assaulted with one.

For the reverse slop positions - after gaining a foothold at the top of both hills and clearing the opposing side with mortars, I moved the reserve force (3rd platoon) around the sides (up the middle basically) and used them to assault side-on. I did this without taking basically any casualties.

Assaulting reverse slope defenders with opposing slope defenders in support? No way.

The Syrians were however VERY tenacious.

This is on Iron.

[Apocal]

I just finished the second mission. Defeat sue to certain forces taking it, so I have to repeat...?

[Field Marshal Blücher]

It's a linear campaign. Either I end the campaign, which gives you a victory if you've done well enough previously, or I make you re-do the mission. It's not a great set of options, I agree, but it's better than making people think they won. Just re-load the autosave at the beginning of the second mission. I wish I could fix that, but I think it's the better of the two options.

Even when I had more time, I still didn't have enough to make variants for every combination of losses unfortunately.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

OK! A new version is up now that should hopefully have fixed the handling-of-losses issue.

Now, when you lose the mission, it should end the campaign in a Blue loss: nice and unambiguous.

Enjoy!

[theFightingSeabee]

Thanks FMB! I did play the first scenario and it was pretty stealthy. I managed to make it across without losing anyone. On to the next!

[RadioactiveMan]

So far, so good! Thanks very much for what looks to be another awesome campaign (Your previous Dawn to the Setting Sun is one of my very favorites).

SPOILERS BELOW

I enjoyed the first mission quite a bit. The briefing scared me and made me very cautious about using my snipers at first, but after watching for awhile I decided it was probably dark enough to let them engage. They worked great. I pinned down the patrols and got everyone across safely. I'm still of the opinion that snipers are not accurately represented in CMSF yet... From 200 to 300 meters my (unsuppressed) snipers had a very difficult time hitting both running and stationary targets. Most of the casualties I inflicted were caused by the my grenade launchers. But I saw at least a couple of sniper kills, so not all was lost

I'm working my way through mission two now... I'm really enjoying the idea of having a few elite "advisor" type guys operating with a company of syrians. This is a great idea and really adds a lot of character and personality to the campaign.

So far in the second mission I've pushed up a platoon of Syrians on either side of the valley- but the platoon working up the "left" side of the valley (looking up valley) ran into RPG fire... or possibly a recoil-less rifle? not sure yet. Either way, they took several casualties and I can't bring fire onto the trench that the RPG appears to have originated in, so that flank is stalled- especially now that the sun is coming up. So I'm working my way into the forest on the "right" side, with my machine guns and SOF snipers looking across to cover the opposite slope. Things are going well, but my Syrians are getting dangerously low on ammo. My lead platoon has almost nothing left- so they may get relegated to casualty duty here soon.

I just made the mistake of letting the Syrian Batallion HQ call in an airstrike- I wouldn't trust regular line troops but SURELY an HQ assigned to work with the Americans would know enough to call in a strike properly... but of course they don't. Result: 30+ Syrians and 3 Americans killed in the single largest-casualty causing explosion I've seen in CMSF! Fortunately I have a save a few turns back. I'll give it another go once I've calmed down a bit.

Anyway, this is long. But kudos on a job very well done! You have re-sparked my interest in this great game.

[BlackMoria]

I just made the mistake of letting the Syrian Batallion HQ call in an airstrike- I wouldn't trust regular line troops but SURELY an HQ assigned to work with the Americans would know enough to call in a strike properly... but of course they don't. Result: 30+ Syrians and 3 Americans killed in the single largest-casualty causing explosion I've seen in CMSF! Fortunately I have a save a few turns back. I'll give it another go once I've calmed down a bit.

:eek: OUCH! Sets the bar for friendly fire. I got POed when the bloody zoomees dropped one on one of my Hummers in 3:10 to Yuma and killed 3.

I think my fist would have gone through the monitor if that happened to me.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I agree with BlackMoria: OUCH!

I use the ODA to call in airstrikes. Not only is it a lot faster and more accurate, but from what I've read that's usually the way it works in practice as well!

Glad you're enjoying it so far!

[RadioactiveMan]

Yes, well, I couldn't see a darn thing in that forest, so I had my Syrians strung out in a skirmish line-type arrangement, with squads spaced 2 to 4 tiles apart, cautiously hunting forward and supporting each other.... It was a fairly nail biting experience. I was actually zoomed way in watching them shoot it out with an enemy squad when my whole screen blazed white! I didn't even realize what had happened for a few seconds until the screen cleared and I saw the forest had been replaced with a crater full of red cross casualty markers

[RadioactiveMan]

Thought I would give this thread a bump... I am continuing to progress through this campaign and enjoying it. Anybody who hasn't tried this campaign and who likes infantry-centric combat should definitely give it a look.

SPOILERS BELOW!

I'm working my way through mission 6 now: Its the one with the buildings in the deep valley with hills on all sides. You deploy behind two very large hills that overlook the area you are assaulting.

I'm liking this scenario a lot, but I am finding it extremely challenging! I sent my platoons up the hills- 3 to the left w/ the infantry special forces squad, 1 platoon to the right w/ the sniper special forces squad. Got up to the top of the hills.. so far so good. But now I have engaged with the enemy forces arranged in a semi circle around the rim of the treeline above the valley. This is proving to be a tough fight, particularly for the relative lack of long range firepower carried by the Syrians. My only effective shooters at these long ranges seem to be my machine guns and the snipers in the syrian infantry platoon HQ squads.

So advancing is proving difficult. All my long range weaponry is running low on ammo but I haven't cleared enough of the rim to advance down on the buildings. And now I see that the buildings do indeed have bad guys inside... and these occupants have full ammo load outs to shoot at me with while my ammo is becoming severely depleted! I sure wish I had a truck full of machine gun ammo at this point.

I'm not sure how I am going to proceed. I dropped airstrikes on the two platoon-sized clusters on either side of the valley, but they were only moderately effective. I think this is a scenario where I really would have preferred artillery over airpower. Artillery could provide me with a smokescreen to advance with, come to think of it.

Anyway, thats just wishful thinking. I'm enjoying the campaign a lot. Thanks for putting so much time into it!

[Field Marshal Blücher]

RadioactiveMan,

Glad you're enjoying it!

This is why I say that this is a Beta version. I need feedback like this. This scenario was even harder in the original version, but it looks like I may need to tone it down some more. I may consider putting in a couple of MTVRs or HMMWVs for ammo resupply as well.

"I think this is a scenario where I really would have preferred artillery over airpower. Artillery could provide me with a smokescreen to advance with, come to think of it."

This is a common theme throughout this campaign. It's based on a real-world operation, where the high brass made the same mistake: thinking that airpower and artillery are basically the same thing. There are some missions later in the campaign where you do get howitzers, and it's a world of difference!

I will definitely be releasing a new version of this campaign once 1.20 gets released publicly. Thanks for having a go and for the feedback!

[RadioactiveMan]

Playing this campaign I have only one real complaint, and I think the problem is a combination of the CMSF engine and the scenario design:

Advancing through thick tree cover in this game is exceptionally frustrating and tedious, particularly in turn-based play, where your next order is a minute away. My guys are constantly blundering into hidden enemies and getting shot to pieces. I would say that probably 80% of my casualties have been sustained in engagements at ~30 meters (about as far as you can see in the trees).

A few tense firefights in forests is fine, because they are fun, but they seem to crop up everywhere in this campaign. Every mission has me advancing through or into a forest. And the forests are always so thick I feel like I am advancing into a Vietnam-esque jungle each time now. I know I am going to take casualties, particularly with the un-armored Syrians, and this is a nail biting experience. Bad luck with grenades has ruined my game more than once...

It breaks the immersion a little bit. I don't picture Syria as having all these dense forests that I cannot see/move through easily. Oh well, I'll survive... :cool:

EDIT: In regards to your post- I totally agree with you regarding airpower. It definitely makes the scenario more challenging- but its a good, believable, overcome-able challenge. It suits the style of the campaign.

[RadioactiveMan]

As per your request in the other thread, FMB, here's my thoughts on mission 9:

SPOILERS

Well first, how bout my thoughts on mission 8! This mission was an absolute breeze for me. I got through with one KIA and no wounded. The KIA was from a lucky rifle shot. In almost all other instances my squads, with hunt commands, spotted the Syrians before they could return fire. I think even in dense forest the nightvision gives a short-ranged but very important advantage, often allowing the Americans to spot and shoot the Syrians before they can fight back. And once I've got suppression over a target, its just a matter of time until the grenades finish them off.

I went in expecting a brutal battle, and so advanced very cautiously. The caution paid off, and I got that good result. It was somewhat tedious hunt-moving across such a large map, but it was fun to watch the small scale firefights when they broke out. I split my rifle squads alot in this mission, and this often worked quite well. In the darkness I would only spot a handful of Syrians at a time, and the split squad could take them out fairly easily.

My only complaint about this mission is that by this point in the campaign I have quite a few yellow walking wounded soldiers (maybe a dozen). They kept falling behind on that long uphill walk and it was somewhat frustrating to watch my squads lose coherency. Its not a big problem. I wish CMSF gave more options about how to divide squads or maybe even leave the wounded guys at a rally point for a mission like this.

[RadioactiveMan]

And now on mission 9:

SPOILERS AGAIN

This mission is an absolute beast, but I think I just have to suck it up and resign myself to taking lots of casualties. This is hard for me, even though I seem to get a new Syrian company to play with every other level

First of all, so many bunkers! They don't seem to be much of a threat initially- You start for the most part hidden or out of range of them. However, you spot them all at once, and know you will have to deal with them eventually.

The bigger threat is the snipers. Right from the get-go you are under fire from multiple sniper squads, and its difficult to take them down. My Syrian platoon HQs have a sniper of their own, but it seems like he is always the first casualty. Often I will move an HQ squad into position to shoot at the snipers, and watch as the other 6 guys stick their faces in the dirt while the sniper tries to engage (which makes sense) but then the sniper is the only target available for the enemy sniper, and often my sniper seems to lose this battle. Its very Saving-Private-Ryan-esque.

So during my first attempt on this mission I thought I would rush down the hillside and close distance on those enemy snipers so that more of my force could engage them effectively. I was expecting troops on the reverse slopes of the other ridge, but I was admittedly surprised by the platoon (or two?) that is strung out along the reverse slope of your starting ridge. Between clearing out those snipers and that reverse slope surprise I had quite a few casualties by the time I had even moved into position to assault the main objective.

I tried to crest both ridges simultaneously and engage the bunkers with multiple squads but was repulsed badly. I "knew" there would be enemy on that reverse slope, but I didn't expect them so high up. There are a lot of cliff areas on the hills you build (they look cool by the way) but I've learned that putting troops in the trees above a cliff is pretty much a death sentence. Its like a neon-sign for the CMSF targeting AI. And there are lots of cliffs on the top of that ridge... it led to a bad situation where my troops crested the ridge, mostly slow crawling, so they were pretty tired, took fire from the bunkers, the enemy platoons on the far slope with the bunkers, AND the enemy on the reverse slopes- they took alot of casualties and many of my squads broke and ran, leaving the casualties in a spot where it would be hard to recover them. I got frustrated at this point and quit. I had only lost ~15% of my force, but this felt like a lot to me for little gain, and I needed a break.

So I've come to terms with my defeat, and I'll be going back for a second attempt soon. I already know the scenario now, so I'm going to be doing a little "cheating" this time around- I'm going to do an opening bombardment with everything I've got. I'm designating the air support to bunker duty- this is a big job and I expect they will be at it for quite awhile, or until they run out of ammo. The artillery is going to area fire on the reverse slopes of that middle ridge. I'm using area fire because I don't quite know where I am aiming. I would prefer to use linear fire and march it down the ridge and up the other side, but CMSF doesn't provide for that option easily. I feel okay about this pre-bombardment. I'm gonna call it "preparatory fire on known enemy positions" and not feel like a cheater.

I am going to do one other bit of cheating though- I don't know if you meant to do this or not, but the special forces HQ elements start in the deployment zone with the rest of the troops. I'm gonna move one of these elements up where they can see and use them to call in the fire support. The quicker response time is pretty vital I think, particularly for the very long call-up times on the artillery.

Anyway, long post, I like the mission a lot, its a good thorny problem. I'm going to try and fishhook around the middle ridges rather than going over the top this time. I really have no complaints with this scenario, other than it being quite challenging. I don't mind taking casualties but I guess I'm worried because I don't know how much I will need this company later in the campaign, and I'm afraid this mission might leave the company pretty much combat ineffective.

Kudos on a great campaign!