British Campaign AAR Points

[RecceDG]

OK, this is the start of my AAR for the Combat Mission - Strike Force British Forces campaign. It is, I'm afraid, somewhat long and detailed, but I have reached a critical mass of frustration with CM scenario and campaign design and it is time to pass my observations up the chain.

Firstly, a few words about "campaign" design vice "scenario" design - a "campaign" is a narrative. The intent of a campaign should be to tell the story of a unit as it progresses through an operation from phase to phase. This is different from a "scenario" which is a single, stand-alone engagement that occurs in a vacuum.

The size of the unit is a design consideration that could vary from Corps to Platoon. In a CM-SF context, there is a "happy place" in and around the combat team level. Squads are too small and too fragile to build a story around. Brigades are too large and impersonal. But we'll get to this later.

There are a couple of major considerations involved with campaign design:

1. The unit the player controls will be carried forward from engagement to engagement. Accordingly, casualties now matter. There will be a certain amount of repair and replacement between engagements (which could be "zero" if an engagement follows right on the heels of a previous engagement) but it is assumed that replacements will never be to 100% capacity and that replacement troops will be of lesser quality (the troops themselves may be fine but there is an efficiency loss that comes with being the "new guys"

2. The results of engagements set up follow on engagements. The player should be rewarded for success and punished for failure (with opportunities for redemption provided) Accordingly, the definition of "success" and "failure" matters and needs to be clearly spelled out. The "victory" or "defeat" message should NEVER be a surprise to the player.

3. The arc of engagement to engagement (complete with branch points) needs to make military sense, both from a tactical and a narrative perspective. The player should be able to see WHY he is doing this particular mission and how it fits into the overarching campaign. Both the mission goals and the force mix assigned must be aligned so that it makes sense from the bigger picture.

4. Finally, from an immersion point of view, the player needs to be able to identify on a personal level with his pixeltruppen. He needs to care about them and their success - and this is all about narrative. What you as a campaign designer are attempting to do is replicate "Band of Brothers" (the TV series) As a campaign designer, you are first and foremost a STORYTELLER - the better the story, the better the campaign.

OK then, if we are going to tell a story, who will our "main character" be?

British doctrine (Canadian too since it is mostly shared) provides an excellent unit structure for telling a campaign story at the CM-SF scale - the combat team.

A combat team is an ad-hoc combined arms unit that is about the smallest organic combined arms element used in offensive operations. For full-spectrum ops you can go much smaller (and that works as subelements of the combat team can and are detatched on occasion for independent operations when the mission demands it) but if you want to invade someplace, a combat team is the smallest unit that will operate under independent command.

A combat team's composition is not a fixed thing but the generic version is:

A tank Squadron (4 troops, the OC, the BC, and the dozer, plus the Sgt Major and the A1 Ech)

An infantry Coy

A FOO (with some measure of guns in support)

Some engineers (total number varies depending on where the higher main effort lies, but a couple of field sections as a minimum)

And while not organic to the combat team, they will be constantly working with Bde Recce, who precede them on the move and are constantly handing over contacts to them.

The combat team can be commanded either by the Sqn Commander or by the Company Commander - I've seen both. Who is in command doesn't really change the tactics at all, but someone has to be in charge (and no, it doesn't move back and forth between the Armd OC and the Inf OC)

This is a very powerful and flexible organization; small enough to be controllable by a single player, but big enough so that it can absorb some losses (the way a platoon cannot). It can be subdivided into smaller chunks (temporarily) if the mission requires it (and there is a command structure there to support it) or it can fight as a unified whole. And the size of the unit fits well within the CM scale.

So let's assume a combat team is our "main character" for the time being.

Next is the mission arc.

In the sort of greater CM picture of the fictitious invasion of Syria, the grand arc goes something like this:

1. Invasion

2. Destruction of Syrian combat power

3. Seizing of key infrastructure

4. State-sponsored asymmetrical warfare over the control of infrastructure (last gasp)

5. The collapse of the state

6. Provision of security until the new state gets on its feet and assumes control

7. Mentoring of state elements in a counterinsurgency environment

8. Withdrawl

In terms of actual missions, this might look like:

1. Combat team crossing the border

2. Combat team quick attacks against Pl sized defensive positions (with counterattacks) as Syria attempts to delay

3. Combat team meeting engagement against large armoured formation (Syrian counterattack)

4. Combat team assault against prepared defensive position

5. Combat team seize of an infrastructure item, with a constraint of minimizing damage

6. Convoy escort mission with QRF/EOD deployment

7. VCP defense against SVBIED attack with QRF deployment

8. QRF response to SVBIED attack on police station

9. Coy cordon and search of suspected IED factory

10. Pl patrols in support of local security forces.

For the "failure" missions, you basically have:

1. The remnants of whatever failed holding out against a counterattack, subsequently rescued by the Americans

2. Relegated to some sort of rear area task

3. Another rear area task with a surprise visit from a Syrian main force (this is the redemption mission)

4. Back to the success track

With all this in mind, let's look at the campaign as provided:

SPOILERS ABOUND BEYOND THIS POINT

Mission 1 - The Border Station

Right away, we start off with a mission that makes no sense what so ever from a military good sense perspective. We have a border post that needs to be seized and searched. The need for the search is specious at best (important documents? In a border post?) but that isn't really all that important, as I can buy the need to seize it with minimal damage to the infrastructure (as NATO gains experience with failed state reconstruction, the lesson "don't destroy all the security infrastructure because you will need it later" is starting to sink in)

So I'm on board with "seize the border post and break as little as possible" as an opening mission. What I am not on board with is the assignment of troops to task.

This is the opening mission of the campaign. Everybody is at full strength. The staffs have had tons of time to recce and plan out this mission. Of all the missions in the whole campaign, this is the only one that will be - for sure - fully planned and have full strength forces assigned. There is no "make do" here. And this is a combat team sized objective as a minimum.

The border post will have known that an invasion is coming. They are sitting right on an MSR and know they are going to get it. They are a tripwire whose primary purpose is to ID the forces crossing the border and get the counter-moves armoured attack moving in the right direction. Depending on the quality of the troops, they will either be intending to hole up and delay as much as possible, or make a decent show of it and get the hell out of Dodge. That means minefields running across the frontage and some sort of block or obstacle on the MSR itself, along with counter-armour ambushes on the position.

Were this my combat team, I'd be conducting a pair of minefield breaches on both sides of the installation. I may not know where the minefields really are, so I'm going to assume a deep one along the border, drop the plows on the breaching tanks, and cut some gaps. I'll then send 3 troops to the far side of the installation - 2 troops facing out to keep a counterattack from getting in, and 1 troop facing in as a cutoff force to keep anyone from escaping - and the last troop to escort the infantry in and act as intimate support.

From a game perspective, the game starts with a pair of recce vehicles securing the LoD, the next turn has 2 troops of tanks show up (plus the OC and dozer) the engineers, and the FOO. The following turn has the last 2 troops of tanks and the BC arrive. 5 turns later (or so) the Inf Coy arrives, and the breach should be done by the time they show up.

Enemy has a huge wire IED on the MSR and gets points for detonating it. Player gets points for preventing the detonation, not taking recce casualties, and clearing the buildings without damaging them.

But that's not what we have. Instead, Recce and the Engineers (!!!) are tasked with clearing the installation - and that is simply ludicrous. Maybe - MAYBE - in an under-pressure, nobody else around, things are not going well later mission / failure track mission OK, but as the opening mission of the campaign? No general is going to use his most two valuable and irreplaceable units (recce and engineers) to carry out a cordon and search as the opening move in an invasion. What next, a frontal assault led by the FOO and the ambulance? ENGINEERS ARE NOT INFANTRY - they are far, far too valuable to be used in assaulting buildings (except blasting holes in walls/obstacles)

Mission 2 - The Gravel Pit

This opens up well enough - recce stumbles across a convoy that got shot up OH **** THERE'S A TANK STILL MOVING! Awesome way to open up this scenario; this could happen in real life. But that tank, who should be hungry for revenge and should chase down that poor Scimitar like the crunchy target he is, just sits there passively (this will be a reoccurring theme) and I bring forward a Javelin (WONDERFUL missile; boo ERYX) and that's the end of that.

And as other forces arrive... it's a partial Infantry Coy, no tank support. For a deliberate attack on a prepared position. Again, this is a combat team sized objective. Luckily though, the defensive position is sited with no mutual support between weapons and no artillery support. I drop a linear barrage into the left forward trench line and do a left flanking that clears the objective. There is another tank back there, but instead of popping forward to wreak havoc on my assault force, he just sits there until I can bring the Javelins up to deal with him.

The enemy has no reserve, no counter-moves force, and exposed positions do not attempt to counterattack. He is cleared out in detail.

Mission 3 - The Crossroads

AT LAST we have something like the right force mix - 2 troops of tanks, plus the OC and the BC (huh? Who is minding the store? Well... maybe that's supposed to be the dozer) plus some infantry. Having the command element present means I can build 2 x 4-tank troops (the way God intended) and the infantry gives me a combat team minus.

Except - that the ground here has the objectives laid out crossing the axis of advance, instead of in line with it. That is OK (it happens) except now there is a flank protection task for when the advance swings right. The CT- grouping is OK for serialized objectives, but any combat team commander worth anything would have seen that ground layout and kept the team whole so a troop (or maybe a full half-squadron) would guard the flank - and the mission brief makes if very clear that I am going to see a surprise from the North. So once again we are understrength for the tasks assigned. I do, however, have those Javelins - they will have to do as flank security.

So we set up 2 troops up with the infantry tucked into the low ground in an RV, just like the book says. 1 troop stays set as the firebase, the other swings out for a left flanking. There's some high ground to the left of the crossroads I want to seize as it dominates the whole map and sets up my subsequent objectives.

The firebase shoots holy hell out of the crossroads, and when the assault troop crests the ridge.. hey, recce party! A whole bunch of enemy recce vehicles! Crunchy!

Now I can think of a hundred different reasons for those recce guys to be there - most of them involving getting lost, but perhaps they were to sieze the crossroads and were holding it until relieved. But with the first tank round fired into the crossroads, any recce guy worth anything would have realized his position was untenable and beat feet. If he was really hard core and had access to a bunch of RPGs, a reverse slope RPG ambush could have made my life difficult... but nope, he just sits there and dies heroically.

With the high ground secured, the infantry move forward into the low ground behind it, the firebase moves forward to join the other troop, and we get into a firefight with a bunch of vehicles that appear in the east. But I have a perfect battle position and we maul them. A troop moves forward to the next high feature, I move a platoon onto the crossroads, I shoot up some more late arrivals, and then the rear troop leapfrogs through the lead troop to take the first bridge - and then the cheap surprise shows up from the north flank. But I have Javelins in place for this very contingency, and they slaughter the surprise (although not before I lose a Warrior and a tank to flank shots)

Another total victory....

Mission 4 - Airport Recce

I play this one 4 times, ending in one tactical defeat and 3 draws (that the campaign engine treats as defeats) In this, I determine that:

1. The only units who can see anything are the snipers.

2. Touching all but 2 of the OP locations (all of which suck) and scouting out the trench system, the control tower, and the radar dome still isn't enough to win.

3. Given that the enemy never stands to and never seeks to chase down spotted units, it is impossible to discover when you have been discovered, and

4. 30 min to accomplish what would be a 4 hour patrol sucks.

This is a key example of a poor scoring design. A perfectly successful patrol (in an unrealistically short timeframe) still generates "failure"

Mission 5 - Airport Assault

So this is supposed to be a heliborne assault, but we have vehicles? Huh? And the enemy has TONS of arty that he just dumps randomly on the first turn and that's the end of it. I use the helos to sweep the field clean of vehicles and then it is just one building at as time. In the direction I come from, they all have huge walls behind which I can take cover - the engineers blow the wall right opposite the door, the HMGs and the 40mm on the vehicles suppress the target for a minute or so, and we clear out each building. Because CM doesn't seem to differentiate between a combat entry (in which Pte F. Grenade is the first guy through the door) and an admin entry, I take some casualties... but nothing too bad. And notwithstanding the huge force sitting in the trench area, the enemy never counterattacks and I just walk through the place.

Mission 6 - VCPs

OK, so we have 2 VCPs to do and only a Pl to do it with... Ideally, we'd want a Pl per VCP (each end of the VCP uses 2 vehicles to block the road in a chicane and the search area is in the middle) but one CAN do snap VCPs with just two vehicles per CP... so that's what I do. And by breaking up sections into fire teams I can arrange the VCPs into something resembling the standard layout.

Then the westernmost VCP opens up on a truck on the other side of the bridge... well. that's a little far for an ROE escalation... but I'll roll with it. They get hammered, whoever they are.

Then someone appears in the SW corner... and the W VCP hammers them too. Going to have to talk to the Pl Cmdr about his triggerhappy boys....

But it is all quiet on the E front, and I get nervous. Spidey sense is tingling. So I nudge a vehicle forward over the crest (normally you want to be behind the crest so you surprise people and snatch them up, like a speed trap) but HEY! WHY ARE THERE TANKS ALL OVER THE REAR AREA?!

Leave a section on the crest, hidden, to keep eyes on. Didi mau the two vehicles back to the saloon to hide. Start calling for the Apaches (7 minutes?) And then Deus Ex Machina, a tank troop shows up. On the high ground. That utterly dominates the tanks. And they shred the attacking force. And I don't take a single casualty. Boooooo.

Mission 7 - Police Station

VBIED at a police station - circle the wagons and dispatch the QRF! This one is near and dear to my heart because I have dispatched QRFs for real. Odd all these militia guys I get to control... let's just call them "ANP" and hope they aren't all stoned this time. Set up defenses of the station. Get all the militia into places where they can cover access routes. Plot the route for the QRF... wow, robust QRF. Move in through the "waste land" to give me standoff from buildings. Shoot up some baddies on the way in. Start probing routes to the station - whoops, there's a road block on that one (nice touch) so go left instead. Thread the recce vehicle and one other warrior through the space in the other roadblock to set up a cutoff on the other way in. Set up an outer cordon facing out. Dismount the QRF and start clearing buildings. And then watch as WAVE AFTER WAVE OF INSURGENTS RUSH DOWN THE EXACT SAME ROAD, RIGHT THROUGH MY CUTOFF KILLZONE, AND ARE KILLED EN MASSE!

Final score: I have 9 KIA, 11 WIA. They have 111 KIA, 97 WIA, 17 MIA. Somehow this is a "Tactical Victory". I call it a bloody slaughter. Shades of the Somme! I thought this was supposed to be a tough scenario? Not to mention that not in a million years would the stupidest, highest insurgent commander have attempted a mad rush like that. Once the QRF is on the ground, they'd all just melt away - or strike elsewhere.

And that's as far as I have gotten.

So to sum up, the campaign so far has suffered from:

1. A lack of a central "main character" (meaning a unit, not a person) to hang the narrative on;

2. A lack of continuity mission-to-mission in most cases;

3. A gross misunderstanding of the sequence of tasks involved in an operation;

4. A further misunderstanding of the troops assigned to tasks (both type and amount);

5. A passive AI who does not react to opportunity, nor commits reserves, nor even makes effective use of artillery.

Furthermore, on more of a game engine / UI tack:

1. There needs to be a way to differentiate between a combat entry of a building (where troops will lob in grenades, seek to get clear of the fatal funnel, charge the corners, etc) and an admin entry where everyone files in fat dumb and happy. My suggestion here is that the UI for selecting the floor of a building be extended, so that when you click a move order on a building, you first are presented with a list of floors, and then are presented with "Combat Entry" and "Normal Entry" as a secondary menu.

2. The A1 Echelon (Sgt Major, a fuel truck, a bomb truck, an ambulance, a mobile repair team, a fire control systems/gun plumber truck, and the ARV) needs to be modeled. These are not "rear area" units; they are a bound back of the Sqn and they do replenishment under fire if required. Specifically, there needs to be a way to do ammo replen for tanks and IFVs within the time frame of a CM scenario. Fuel isn't a concern as it isn't modeled (is it?) and some repairs (thrown tracks particularly) may be fixable in a CM-scale timeframe - plus it would be good to model vehicle and pers casualty management as it turns out to be really very important in real life. But ammo resupply is really very badly needed. The start of it is there with troops being able to bomb up from stores on their IFV/LAV, but reloading vehicle weapons is really very badly needed.

I'm sorry if this seems overly critical, but I have been with CM since the beginning and its major downfall has always been the scenario writing, and I've reached the tipping point on my frustration. Consider it "tough love". And if there are questions about some of the points I have raised, I'll be happy to discuss them in more detail.

DG

[Moon]

I'm sorry if this seems overly critical...

It does. And the main reason for that is the fact that you fail to mention even one good thing about the campaign. From what you write, it sounds that you found 100% of it bad, unrealistic, borderline unplayable, and almost stupid. This greatly diminishes the value of what otherwise could be constructive criticism.

As it is, your post has to be taken with many grains of salt. The 100% negative score shows that either you're not really interested in a "discussion in more detail" or that you have a hidden agenda or that you evaluated the campaign based on solely your preconceived opinions about it. No matter what it is, it will make discussing your points rather futile. I could for example explain to you a few things about missions 4 and 5, which have been made by me (such as for example why you only have 30 minutes for the recce in mission 4). But as it is, I don't see the point why. Too bad, all the time you have taken to write up such a lengthy "review" could have been put to a much better use.

[Combatintman]

I can be more sympathetic here - the concept and narrative of which you speak is a good one - a lot of thought went into it and it fits the geography. However there are lots of factors in play with the whole thing and lots of punters were involved in putting the thing together. A happy medium has to be found between the realism wing and the variety/wargamer wing. I am a subscriber to the realism wing and there were plenty of things that I wasn't happy with - the classic being why isn't there air and arty racked up for every mission as there would be for real? Simple answer is that if it was there as it would be for real then the campaign would be a doddle. So in many missions you don't get that support as a deliberate design decision to make the missions harder. All I'd say is ... stick with it.

[RecceDG]

From what you write, it sounds that you found 100% of it bad, unrealistic, borderline unplayable, and almost stupid.

Yup. And that isn't the fault of the engine, or the maps. It's the writing of the scenarios and the campaign.

No matter what it is, it will make discussing your points rather futile.

Try me. Given that this appears to be your personal ox I am goring, go ahead. Make you points. I would not have posted such a lengthy AAR if I were not willing to discuss the design points.

I'm tired of crappy campaigns and I want to help the scenario designers improve. So hit me. Explain to me your design decisions in the missions you wrote.

So in many missions you don't get that support as a deliberate design decision to make the missions harder.

Actually, I'm totally OK with that, as it turns out that the arty don't shoot every single time you call, and sometimes the birds aren't flying. If you aren't the main effort, you may not get the guns. There aren't as many of them anymore, and they may be needed elsewhere. Or the FSCC may decide that your target just isn't worth the ammo. It happens.

I'm talking about things like using recce and a platoon of engineers to do a cordon and search op on what is a combat team sized objective - as the opening mission of the campaign. Or an airfield attack where a good sized chunk of the defenders occupy a position where they have no influence on the defense of the airfield and make no move to counterattack once the attack goes in.

Simple answer is that if it was there as it would be for real then the campaign would be a doddle.

Not at all.

Take, for example, the gravel pit mission.

Blue is handicapped here by a poor assignment of troops to tasks. That gravel pit is somewhere between a platoon and company sized defensive position. At a 3:1 attacker to defender ratio, that means attacking with a company to a battalion, with a combat team being a decent sized force that can deal with the expected range of enemy.

Blue is helped here by having a position of dominating ground overlooking the objective. Why does he get that ground? What commander in his right mind would allow the enemy to have a perfect overwatch position?

And then the layout of the position is such that there is no mutual support between positions. It is tailor-made for a left flanking and then clearing the position in detail.

So here's how I would fix that mission:

1. Give Blue his full combat team - but make it the same combat team he did Mission 1 with to help set the expectation that he is going to have to shepherd this unit through the whole campaign and he cannot just absorb losses willy-nilly. The Mission 1 cordon and search should not have inflicted much in the way of casualties so there shouldn't be much need for resupply in terms of units - just bomb up everyone who survived.

2. Either rotate the map so that the high ground is in the REAR of the enemy position (giving him observation for HIS spotters and runup positions for HIS zulu BMPs) or make the high ground a trap - mine the crest, and have it under observation and a planned fire mission that smashes the whole top of the hill once someone works up to it.

3. I like the whole "shot up convoy" angle - that makes it different from a pure set-piece and gives the mission a little life. But I would have TWO tanks there, and I would make them very aggressive.

4. Start the mission with Blue having 2 Recce Scimitars entering the map. They get a couple of turns alone, where ideally they will bump into the 2 tanks and spend those turns trying desperately to stay alive. The tanks should be written to chase the recce around until just before Blue's next set of forces arrive, and then turn tail and head for the main defensive area (this simulates them seeing the next forces coming up and making the wise choice - dealing with maps with hard edges is always a pain)

5. Next Blue forces to arrive are the first two tank troops and the OC and his wingman. Ideally from a scenario POV the tanks arrive to find a pair of smoking recce elements (or if the player has been lucky, the reward of the Calvary arriving in the nick of time to save the recce. He now has the opportunity to chase the tanks... in which case he should blunder directly into the anti-armour defenses of the main defensive position which should rip up those tanks. (Smart player sits tight and waits for the rest of the Sqn because he knows that gravel pit is well defended)

6. 2 turns later, the rest of the tank sqn shows up - 2 troops and the BC. As well, the inf coy OC, the FOO, and the engineers arrive. And now the player has enough forces on the ground to start probing the defenses and come up with his plan.

7. 5 turns later, the rest of the coy shows up and the player has all his forces. The tanks should have made contact and the plan should be shaking out - firebase established, an idea if the attack is going to be left, right, or frontal.

8. Another 5 or so turns in, the attack should be well underway. At some point, Red should commit the zulu BMPs and the intimate support tanks (1 per Pl and the two from the start of the mission if they survived) and try and get some kills with the saggers and main guns... but really, the Blue tanks will probably just hammer them, and that's fine. The Red position should be set up with HMGs and RPGs sited defilade to produce enfilade fire, interlocking and mutually supporting arcs between positions, and generally be a tough nut to crack. But a player who sets up a firebase, assaults from an intelligent direction, and keeps his head should do fine - where a player who just rushes in should get mauled.

9. And then... Red fires a smoke mission along the left edge of the map. This is a BIG FREAKING CLUE as to what is coming next... and depending where Blue is in his attack, he may be either in a good place to re-orient, or he might be in the middle of his assault.

10. And through the smoke comes the Red counter-moves force - say 2 Pl of tanks plus a command tank, plus maybe the regimental anti-tank Pl (missile BRDMs or some such) Small enough so that if Blue was thinking flank security and/or reoriented when the smoke started landing, he'll be OK, but if this comes as a surprise, he's going to get hammered. Plus maybe we reload Red's arty just as a bonus.

11. Scoring:

Blue Total Victory: Objective secured, recce preserved, no to light casualties

Blue Major Victory: Objective secured, recce killed, light to moderate casualties

Blue Tactical Victory: Objective secured, recce killed, moderate casualties, some vehicles knocked out

Red Tactical Victory: Blue moderate to heavy casualties, many vehicles knocked out

Red Major Victory: Blue heavy casualties, many vehicles knocked out

Red Total Victory: Blue heavy casualties, objective not taken

Basically, Red assumes he is going to get rolled over and wiped out - but that's OK because this is a delay/attrition mission for Red. Blue is going to take the position; what matters is how skillfully he does so (where "skillfully" is measured by how many casualties Blue takes)

Recast this way (and assuming Mission 1 was rewritten so Blue used this same combat team in it):

1. We achieve the goal of "Continuity of Narrative", given that we have the same "main character" from Mission 1 to Mission 2

2. We achieve the goal of "Campaign Narrative Makes Military Sense" because combat team sized actions against delay strongpoints with small local counterattacks fits the expected progression of an invasion (Blue cannot afford to leave these strongpoints active in his rear so they must be reduced, Red seeks to attrit and delay while setting up a large-scale countermoves)

3. We achieve the scenario goal of "Scenario Force Balance Makes Military Sense" because we have a combat team attacking a combat team appropriate position, but Blue doesn't get all the advantages - Red should have advantageous ground, should have his forces positioned as strongly as possible, and should basically make Blue work for his victory, notwithstanding Blue's massive firepower and quality advantage

4. And finally, we achieve the "Fun" objective, because Red isn't static, but neither does he cheat. It's tough without being cheap, and you have to think a little or you get mauled - which is fun to me.

See? It is possible to be both realistic AND fun. They two concepts are NOT mutually exclusive.

DG

[Other Means]

OK, in depth criticism. Always good to have. I guess the point is - what are YOU going to do about it? Don't like it? Do it better. The people who made the campaign are unpaid volunteers and have just the same tools as you do.

So if you hold such strong, detailed ideas about what should happen - do it yourself. Post here and you may get some people to help you do it. There's scenario designers present who, if you convince them of your ideas, would probably help you realise what you visualise.

There you go. It's your chance to step up and do better.

Good luck.

[RecceDG]

The people who made the campaign are unpaid volunteers

That's perhaps part of the problem, isn't it?

There's more to a game than the engine. In fact, the engine is only half the battle.

do it yourself

That's a bogus answer - and a cop-out.

If you had a bad appendix, and went to the doctor and he removed your spleen instead, would it be reasonable to hand you a scalpel and tell you "here's the same tools - do it yourself"?

Besides, blowing sunshine up the posteriors of the current scenario designers does them no favours whatsoever - it just reinforces failure. Helping them out means honest and forthright critique of their work, and a scenario designer who wants to improve won't just get their panties in a knot and throw their toys out of the pram, but rather discuss the shortfalls with the critic.

DG

[Thomm]

RecceDG,

Your review makes for an interesting reading, and I appreciate the effort you put into it.

Personally, I have enough fun with the campaign as it is, since I am not burdened by real-world military knowledge, but it is interesting to read your comments.

Best regards,

Thomm

[MikeyD]

It took awhile but I finally read all the way through the 'criticism'. Oh lordy. Like it was written by a castmember of that TV show "The Big Bang Theory". I'd like to read your critique of that Herman Mellville novel about the whale someday. Not to say that some scenarios couldn't have been better thought through, there are points up there I totally agree with. But I've got to say my own least favorite scenarios in the campaign have turned out to be the forums favorites and my own favorites haven't even warranted a mention. One man's meat and all that. so be careful, your 'ideally' arranged and plotted campaign might look like perfection on paper but go over like a lead balloon in the execution.

[flamingknives]

Other Means makes a very valid point when he says that RecceDG has the same tools that the scenario designers have. This is important because some of his suggestions are not possible with the current toolset. Specifically the reactive AI plans. Smashing the hilltop or having the tanks chase the recce elements as soon as they see them is not possible as there are no "If" statements in the AI plan tools. It's something that people would like, no doubt, but it isn't available at the moment.

BFC has always had full-featured mission editors in the CM series because plenty of people can do better. (and some get invited to the beta team on the strength of it.)

Criticism is valid and I would hope welcome, but you have to be very careful about how you provide it as judging tone is very difficult on the internet. A sentence not intended to be offensive can come across as being insulting. If you mean to be insulting, then don't bother to post, as that makes people go onto the defensive and then discussion becomes impossible. A key technique is to suggest ways to make it better rather than just to lay in and tell the designer that it is rubbish. If you want to help the scenario designers improve, don't tell them it's crap. You might be in the Army, but they're not and they don't answer to you on that basis.

I have to agree that the forces that are made available to Blue in many scenarios are inadequate. It's a bug-bear of mine as well. I'd like to see more realistic attacking forces ("take a town infested with republican guard armour? with a company of light infantry? and no air cover? and a need to preserve my forces? Not chance in hell... Sir.")

[zmoney]

RecceDG, I think you’re awesome. I share some of the same opinions but have more compassion for the designers. I have tried to make a few scenarios and fully realize how difficult it is to do. Even if you start with a great idea, it’s just never 100% right.

One thing I would like to reiterate from Recce’s posts is the game desperately needs some kind of mine detection/clearing unit in game. Instead of the mine blows (kills some of my men as detection) then send the engineers to mark mine field and they take a few more casualties trying to mark the mines. The eng at very least should be equipped with some sort of mine detection gear and be able to handle that task.

I think all infantry unit should carry some sort of demo charge to handle building entries. Maybe there could be two kinds of charges one small (for the inf) and one large (for eng). The small one can be just for blowing holes in walls or blowing open doors etc…..

The large or eng charge will be tasked in handling a wider variety of missions which brings me to my next wish. The need for wire obstacles that can be dealt with by inf cutting through them or eng blowing through them with their large charges/bangalores. The eng could use their large charges to easily blow a path through a mine field as well.

I will eventually start my own thread concerning some of these issues as to not muddle up RecceDG’s thread.

Getting back on track though I have always thought the biggest problem with some of these scenarios is the force mixture and I know from first hand experience it’s hard to get right. So my advice to designers is…. Don’t be too ambitious and don’t try to make a movie, make realism.

[Combatintman]

This is in danger of getting extremely fractious - to say that the Campaign is 100 per cent unrealistic is I think over the top. It was well thought through and put together in my view - yes we can quibble about the execution of individual missions but the campaign concept is sound and was written by someone with military experience. Also to address the scenarios thing - each one was tested by the team and feedback given. I did a couple myself and in terms of redesigning them was faced with the spectrum of 'good mission' to 'totally unplayable' - remember everyone has an opinion. So how do you deal with something like that ... you compromise. The type of AAR you put up here was the type of AAR that was going in on the Beta Forum - however not just from one person but a dozen or so people - a balance had to be found.

In terms of the thing about the people who made the Campaign are unpaid volunteers being part of the problem I'll turn that on its head and say that it was part of the solution for without those people you wouldn't have had a module.

[ScubaSam]

I agree that some parts of the campaign were unrealistic, but in other respects I actually found it more engaging than the Army or Marines campaigns, probably because I know more about British tactics and organisation. It was obviously designed by somebody that has a working knowledge of these tactics as well, but perhaps not to the same standard that RecceDG has. However, I still enjoyed every mission of the campaign, which has to count for something as well.

I would echo the other advice about trying to do it yourself. I've got ideas for a mini-brits campaign of my own, and I've already got the research done and a rough campaign plan. Making the maps, however, is turning into a chore (I'm trying to be faithful to the real world locations as much as possible), so I do have a lot of respect for the scenario makers of the campaign that comes with the game. It's very easy for me or RecceDG or anyone to come up with a grand design for a campaign, but it takes an awful lot of man-hours to turn it into a reality.

On the bright side, this could be an opportunity for the "hardcore-realists" to band together and create a campaign between them, based on as much real-world military knowledge as possible. I'd certainly be intrested in such a collaboration.

[Thomm]

About the "do it yourself" aspect:

At this very point I remember to congratulate the designer of the "Riot" map. In all the time I played on this map I did not find any door that was misplaced or not in a sensible location. It is a small detail, of course, but I remembered thinking how much of a chore it must have been to set all these doors and walls on this city map ...

Best regards,

Thomm

[RecceDG]

I will eventually start my own thread concerning some of these issues as to not muddle up RecceDG’s thread.

No, feel free to continue here. This isn't "my" thread; it is for campaign AAR in general.

your 'ideally' arranged and plotted campaign might look like perfection on paper but go over like a lead balloon in the execution.

And my argument is that "military good sense" and "fun" are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, it is possible to do a campaign that is 100% militarily realistic and as much fun as watching paint dry. Try this one - only enemy unit on the map is a huge IED. Start with a convoy escort force that finds the IED, then add a QRF force that defuses it. Completely realistic. Not much fun.

It is also possible to do "fun" with no connection to military good sense at all - no examples needed.

The trick is to do both - and I contend that not only is it possible, but having "good sense" in place increases fun, as there is a satisfaction bonus that comes with a job well done.

the game desperately needs some kind of mine detection/clearing unit in game

Agreed - although I've thought of ways to fake it, if you start with the assumption that the minefield's location is known from the start. Make the cleared lanes "touch objectives" with high enough scores that the player must go through there in order to win. That works for Mission 1. It doesn't work for hasty breaches of tactical minefields though - the game engine needs mine plows.

This is important because some of his suggestions are not possible with the current toolset.

This is a pertinent observation on a subject (AI scripting) that I have yet to delve into in any depth.

Part of my frustration involves the scenario design, but a lot of it comes from the AI itself, which is very passive. The AI needs to be able to be conditionally scripted (if THIS then THAT) as well as timed scripted (on turn X do THIS) Without this, Red is just a shooting gallery target that shoots back.

I need to investigate the AI controls in more detail.

Don’t be too ambitious and don’t try to make a movie, make realism.

Agreed.

A simple rule of thumb is the 3:1 ratio attackers to defenders. If Red has a platoon, Blue gets a company. Red has a single tank, Blue gets a troop.

And subsequent objectives are additive. If you have three platoon sized objectives in sequence, that isn't a company - because each objective will require a platoon to secure it and/or take a platoon's worth of losses. So the first one is OK, the second one is marginal, and the by the third one that company has shot its bolt. Three platoon size objectives is a combat team with a second coy in reserve.

And OBUA? A single building is a platoon objective - a section on the inner cordon, a section breaching, and a section in reserve.

DG

[Apocal]

1. There needs to be a way to differentiate between a combat entry of a building (where troops will lob in grenades, seek to get clear of the fatal funnel, charge the corners, etc) and an admin entry where everyone files in fat dumb and happy. My suggestion here is that the UI for selecting the floor of a building be extended, so that when you click a move order on a building, you first are presented with a list of floors, and then are presented with "Combat Entry" and "Normal Entry" as a secondary menu.

The easiest way I've found to do this (no special UI needed) is to plot a (move/quick/fast, whatever) waypoint just outside the building and hook a "Target, Light" into the building being assaulted onto the waypoint. Follow up with an assault waypoint. Your men will reach the first waypoint, stack up, fire a few rounds and put some frags into the building, then go in a team at a time.

I play real time, so no idea if there is any command you could hook onto the assault waypoint to turn off the 'Target, Light' though. Most likely you could hook a target arc onto the assault waypoint to stop the area fire.

[Guest]

I'm sure that Other Means didn't mean his "try it yourself" comment as a cop-out. I for one would love to play a campaign you (or any user with a particular focus) had made. The tools are limiting in some ways, though - I'd suggest taking a crack at it. If you can achieve most of what you set out to do I'm sure it would be a great play.

I thank you for your post, though. Despite the negative generalizations (without which I think you'd be seeing a much different response) it was a great read. Please try to build some scenarios, play with the AI, and then continue with your critique - I think you'll find (as I did) that your views may change, but your opinions will be even more valuable for the experience.

[Cuirassier]

I haven't bothered to read the whole thing yet, but I don't think this advice is workable:

"A simple rule of thumb is the 3:1 ratio attackers to defenders. If Red has a platoon, Blue gets a company. Red has a single tank, Blue gets a troop."

With blue attacking, that would be way too easy. 3:2 odds are plenty to conduct a successful attack. With 3:1 odds, the blue attacker would never lose. He could leave half his force on the back side of the map and still win, probably easily, provided the terrain doesn't favor the defender to an absurd degree.

And I hope this suggestion for scenario design doesn't carry over to CM:Normandy, since 3:1 ratios weren't the norm. Ask Panzer Lehr...

[dan/california]

I like this game rather a lot, as anyone who reads this board is aware. I do think conditional AI programming instructions are one the single biggest improvements needed in what is now a truly excellent game engine.

The other complaints are really about campaign scripting, that is something that is impossible to do to the satisfaction of the entire community. Because there are

actually a number of different communities, with differing desires.

From a realism/training aspect all the campaigns can do is drive home the importance of preserving your forces, and the adjustable victory conditions allow for this in single scenarios as well. Much better multiplayer and co-play is what the game truly needs from a realism/training standpoint. Unfortunately, unless some government money appears we aren't getting it for a while. So unless someone is aware of a better tactical wargame...........

A better treatment of mines would be nice.

[Webwing]

RecceDG,

From the size or your post, the amount of detail you go into and time you spent on it, it is clear you are very interested in mission/campaign design. You have very specific ideas of how a mission should be done and what would make them perfect for you. It seems to me thinking about mission design is more fun to you than actually playing them. And you know what? That´s great. I´m a bit like that myself. Good thing is the CM:SF package you bought comes with a great tool for you do missions just as you want to.

No, no, I´m not challenging you like saying *Hey you are criticizing the missions, let´s see if you can make better!* Nope, not it at all.

I think you are just missing something that could be a lot of fun to you. Creating scenarios is one the most fun and rewarding thing there is. And you paid for the tool that came with the game.

I have always been into creating missions and mods for games and I´ll tell you the editor in CM:SF is one of the most powerful tools available to players I´ve seen. A perfect compromise between easy of use and wealth of options. Why let it sit there and not give it a try? You don´t even have to upload anything to the repository. Do it for yourself. It´s very gratifying to put your ideas in practice and see how it works in game terms.

I consider CM:SF two games in one. The play area and the editor area.

Also no one will ever do the scenarios you expect. You have to do them yourself. I do scenarios because, I´m just like you, very specific about what I want. So I make them for myself and I do have fun making and then playing them. Most of them I don´t even *release*. Too personal.

Regarding the British Module campaign, it isn´t broken, so there is nothing there to fix. But let´s suppose we opened a discussion about things to change in it. We would never get to a consensus on what to change! Everyone has his own idea of what should or should not be done!

I was one of the lucky guys that saw the whole development of the Marines campaign and then was much more involved with the process of making the British module campaign. Honestly I don´t know how it could have been done better.

We had the best scenario designers in the community either doing standalone missions or missions for the campaign. Guys with military backgrounds, guys with a huge wargaming experience, guys worried about every detail and worried about doing their best so the final product would be great.

I´m very, very proud to be part of this team. I look at their scenarios and go “Wow, that´s great I´ve got to remember to do that in my next scenario!”. I´m always learning with these guys.

We had some old hands and some guys new to the scenario creation in CM:SF. But all have put a lot of time, effort and talent into it.

In the beta team we all tested and criticized each other´s work. I don´t remember anyone having a problem with that. There was a lot of respect and courtesy when doing it though. And that is so important, crucial really, because if you don´t respect the other guys effort and opinions how can you expect them to respect yours.

Anyway, RecceDG, give the editor a chance and you won´t regret it!

-

[RecceDG]

With 3:1 odds, the blue attacker would never lose. He could leave half his force on the back side of the map and still win, probably easily, provided the terrain doesn't favor the defender to an absurd degree.

1. Terrain had better favour the defender - otherwise, why is he there?

Think about it - you're defending. In particular, you're Syria, defending against a grossly superior army with overwhelming firepower. But it is your turf; you know it inside and out. Why would you NOT be on ground that gives you the best possible advantage?

The only reasons I can think of are:

a. Meeting engagement, in which case: whoops! Make do as best you can; or

b. There's something we absolutely positively have to secure and it is on a crappy piece of ground; or

c. Whoever sited the defensive position is incompetent.

If you are attacking 3:1 and leaving half your force behind, Red is doing it wrong.

2. Given a choice, Blue never ever ever wants to give Red an even break. The whole point is to steamroll over the enemy is as one-sided a contest as possible.

OK, from a game perspective, so what?

a. Sometimes an attack has to go in with less than desirable force ratios. Sometimes you do have to fight 3:2 or even 1:1 - but if so, the justification for it and the force balance must make some sort of sense. There must be a logical reason for why we are assuming this level of extra risk - and even then, there must be realistic expectations of what that force can accomplish (I'm thinking specifically of cascading objectives)

b. Victory conditions need to adjust to account for the effect each side is trying to achieve. Red isn't going to hold that bit of ground in the face of a 3:1 ratio - so don't make holding it the key to Red's victory. Instead, Red's task is to inflict casualties and impose delay - and I can state with a fair amount of authority that NATO armies are VERY sensitive to casualties. Lose 6 guys in 24 hours and it's a disaster...

c. Sometimes, it's not about the attack - it's about the COUNTERATTACK. Sure, your combat team steamrolled that poor little platoon - but then a tank coy hit your flank while you were consolidating on the objective... how about them apples?

The other complaints are really about campaign scripting,

I don't agree.

OK, so the campaign script system is really very simple. That's fine. You get a conditional branch to the follow on mission, and you get the ability to carry units forward into the following mission (with, I believe, some degree of recovery/repair) That's all that is really needed. Yeah, you don't get cut-scenes and medal ceremonies and voiceovers and whatnot - not needed. Nice from an immersion perspective, but totally not needed from a gameplay perspective.

What IS needed are for the scenarios in the campaign to dovetail into a coherent story - and that is totally doable with the campaign system the game has now.

Please try to build some scenarios

I probably will, if only to serve as demonstrations for what I am talking about.

As it sits now, I may be going back to Afghanistan shortly and I don't know how much time I will have to spare.

DG

[Cuirassier]

"Terrain had better favour the defender - otherwise, why is he there?"

For operational reasons. The Syrians need a continuous front in depth if they want to have any hope in fighting the coalition in a conventional campaign. Syria isn't one giant reverse slope. It is impossible and unrealistic to assume that every Syrian defensive position in the country will have perfectly integrated combined arms while the coalition attackers will not. So the particularly tough positions will not be assaulted and the coalition will envelop them by striking more suitable points. Thats the doctrine. Likewise, the coalition forces, by virtue of having the initiative and attacking, can choose ground that maximizes their ability to coordinate and use firepower.

"Given a choice, Blue never ever ever wants to give Red an even break. The whole point is to steamroll over the enemy is as one-sided a contest as possible."

Of course. Thats always the goal in combat. But that didn't mean the people in CMBB made scenarios that featured a whole Panzer Reg. with Panzergrenadiers overrunning the borderguards while they were still sleeping. There is no fun in that. No tactics or strategy. It is a movie.

"Sometimes an attack has to go in with less than desirable force ratios. Sometimes you do have to fight 3:2 or even 1:1 - but if so, the justification for it and the force balance must make some sort of sense. There must be a logical reason for why we are assuming this level of extra risk - and even then, there must be realistic expectations of what that force can accomplish (I'm thinking specifically of cascading objectives)"

Sure. Then make this or that justification in the briefing. Either way, a coalition attack at 3:2 odds is hardly a risk. If they bring their whole tool kit, they'll be fine, provided the commander has half an idea what he is doing.

I will also point out that a 3:1 odds ratio isn't always sustainable. When you open an attack, and have the advantage of global odds, surprise etc, it may be expected to have these odds or even higher. But campaigns aren't won in single breakthroughs. Enemy reserves rush to the wound site and local odds quickly dwindle, often the the global odds ratio.

"Victory conditions need to adjust to account for the effect each side is trying to achieve. Red isn't going to hold that bit of ground in the face of a 3:1 ratio - so don't make holding it the key to Red's victory. Instead, Red's task is to inflict casualties and impose delay - and I can state with a fair amount of authority that NATO armies are VERY sensitive to casualties. Lose 6 guys in 24 hours and it's a disaster..."

I guess CMSF's setting is to blame for this one. Sure you can adjust settings to balance victory conditions. But still, not many red players like to see their Republican Guard battalion mowed down in 5 min in exchange for a squad or two of infantry. This imbalance has been one of the biggest gripes on the board, if you look around.

"Sometimes, it's not about the attack - it's about the COUNTERATTACK. Sure, your combat team steamrolled that poor little platoon - but then a tank coy hit your flank while you were consolidating on the objective... how about them apples?"

Sounds like a scenario? Javelin's make short work of those. Or airpower. Or Abrams, Bradelys and Challengers.

[Plugger]

Goodaye,

I'm going to add to the debate here without, hopefully, getting into the politics.

A major limitation and point of frustration with the CMSF system is the lack of conditional AI triggers. The AI is extremely passive and non-reactive as a result which is probably what is driving a lot of the arguements here.

It's pretty much impossible to have any realistic or even fun scenario or campaign if you've up against a dead dog AI. Yep you can script stuff but it's totally out of context with what's happening on the ground and next to useless.

The passive AI is something that is concealed from open view by virtue of the weapon ranges in relation to the available map sizes but sooner or later you are going to bump into it and realise that the bad guys are unable to react to anything you do on the battlefield.

I understand that some kind of triggers or conditional AI is on the cards from Battlefront but it seems to be on the distant horizon.

Imagine what kind of game you would have if you were dealing with an AI capable of 'thinking' and 'reacting' to what you did rather than one which is robotically following a preprogrammed script.

I think that an awful lot of engine limitations (and it''s inevitable that this occurs given the complexity of what's being modelled) would be minimised or overlooked if the users were confronted by an active AI.

Cheers,

Plugger

[dan/california]

The thing about the triggers is that a few very simple triggers could do a LOT. The ability to specify a a zone or combination of zone, the forces that have to be present in that zone, and some sort of casualty threshold would go a long, long way.

What I envision is along the following lines for a scenario designer creating an ambush type scenario.

First be able to specify a zone and the number of vehicles that have to enter/cross it to trigger the ambush. Then be able to say stand and fight until you have expended 50% of your ammo or taken 25% casualties. Fall back to a predefined position more or less the way the AI works now. Even a very small number of triggers per AI plan would change things completely. Their are infinite possible variations, but the difference between no triggers and even the most basic possibilities is huge.

Steve has stated repeatedly that a lot of what Recce wants BFC would be happy to provide, just as soon as the MOD writes a check. BFC just can't chuck their current development schedule to do it otherwise.

Should we just start a new thread on AI triggers to separate what is becoming two different discussions?

All the best on your next tour Recce!

[flamingknives]

An "If" statement in the AI plans is definitely what is needed.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Hopefully AI triggers will make it into some CMx2 games. It could help a ton.