Syrians on the Attack

[dan/california]

Is there any consensus on what the assumed kill rate of TOWs and javelins should be. My rule of thumb would be along the lines of 70% of the supplied missiles taking out a vehicle in a defensive scenario, after accounting for both misses and combat losses.

[Apocal]

Is there any consensus on what the assumed kill rate of TOWs and javelins should be. My rule of thumb would be along the lines of 70% of the supplied missiles taking out a vehicle in a defensive scenario, after accounting for both misses and combat losses.

75% is my planning figure.

[Paper Tiger]

If you are creating a scenario where the RED side is a Human controlled player, you'd be surprised how easy it is to create missions like this. However, if you want to play as BLUE defending vs the attacking RED AI then you've got an enormous challenge. One way to do it is to give RED LOTS of artillery and create a Pre-planned artillery barrage that targets the best positions for the BLUE defender. Doing this will expose you to the risk of the human player crying 'FOUL' when his set up area gets targetted at the start.

Further, you need to take away artillery from BLUE, ALL of it. Even one module of 60mm mortars will kill any chance the AI has of winning. I believe that player controlled artillery is the single most unbalancing feature in a scenario v the AI. Some air support works quite well though for BLUE, a single Helo or Harrier (or even two) shouldn't unbalance things nearly so much.

Regarding armour, give the Syrian lots of it, a least one company. Set the experience level to Regular and even T-62MVs start to become quite challenging.

Birdstike. Stunning looking map. Look forward to giving your mission a spin sometime if it's designed for play against the AI.

[dan/california]

Just out of curiosity how much artillery would you give BLUE if it was designed to be played by the AI? With the player controlling RED.

How much would give BLUE to optimize for a H2H scenario?

Is the imbalance due to the speed of BLUE artillery response? Or the tendency of player to blitz the obvious spots on a maybe? You are two of the best scenario designers out there, I'm trying to get a feel for how you do it.

[tyrspawn]

I have never played as the Syrians yet, so i'm just going to talk about what is a major issue for me when I play. As far as I can tell the Syrians have very few advantages, but they are potentially tide turning:

- HMG: As MikeyD said, the Syrian HMG can more easily suppress and inflict lethal casualties than the m240, and also is better equipped for taking out light vehicles. It also seems to have a longer range.

- Cheap HE weapons: The Syrians have an abundance of cheap and deadly HE weapons which also double as semi-useful AT weapons, namely the RPG. The US has no equivalent - the closest you get is the m203. A well placed RPG round can knock out 2/3 of a fireteam in a building.

[Dietrich]

Cheap HE weapons: The Syrians have an abundance of cheap and deadly HE weapons which also double as semi-useful AT weapons, namely the RPG. The US has no equivalent - the closest you get is the m203. A well placed RPG round can knock out 2/3 of a fireteam in a building.

On account of how common RPGs are among Red forces, I often feel like my troops are at a disadvantage in MOUT situations -- spot one enemy unit, open fire, get plastered by an RPG seemingly out of nowhere. Slightly less so with the Marines, on account of their multiple M32s. The irony, though, is that a Marine rifle squad means more men packed into the same area for an RPG to nail.

HMG: As MikeyD said, the Syrian HMG can more easily suppress and inflict lethal casualties than the m240, and also is better equipped for taking out light vehicles. It also seems to have a longer range.

It should have a longer range and greater terminal ballistics; it fires 12.7mm rounds -- it's pretty much the Russian equivalent of the M2 Browning.

If you play as the Marines, you can get (dismounted) M2s.

[Paper Tiger]

how much artillery would you give BLUE if it was designed to be played by the AI?

Since the AI can't use it's artillery 'intelligently' during a mission, ie anticipating observed enemy movement and bombarding ahead of them, you can give the AI side a lot. Exactly how much would depend on the terrain, potential LoS etc, and you'd gauge this only after playtesting your mission for the umpteenth time. If the terrain is very closed, dense urban or example, the AI will probably never call in any artillery bacause the ranges are too short. There's a lot to consider.

Something very important to bear in mind when designing missions to be played as RED vs the BLUE AI is that the AI controlled units won't be able to access extra javelins and so won't be nearly as uber as they would be if controlled by a human player..

How much would give BLUE to optimize for a H2H scenario?

Again, it's hard to say because playtesting would determine this. Basically a human player, whether RED or BLUE, will react to spotting rounds zeroing in on his positions and move those units out of harms way in good time. The AI won't. It will even run its units into an active barrage.

[Paper Tiger]

Cheap HE weapons: The Syrians have an abundance of cheap and deadly HE weapons which also double as semi-useful AT weapons, namely the RPG. The US has no equivalent - the closest you get is the m203. A well placed RPG round can knock out 2/3 of a fireteam in a building.

Agreed. Another good reason for keeping the engagement range nice and long for the BLUE player. Make the Syrian unit's experience Regular or better and you're in real trouble. Airborne units with Veteran and Crack experience are lethal when equipped with them. I've never tried Elite...

[birdstrike]

I should have done that in the first place-

anyone interested can download the map here, to take a closer look at the terrain:

http://www.mediafire.com/?znyh05mdklw

(and if there are no objections I'll delete some of the pics to save some bandwidth )

Please keep in mind that this is a work in progress, the units on the map are a only meant as a starting point and do not represent everything that I want to use in the finished scenario. It should give a general idea, though. Also, the original plan had the Marines first retake the village from a Red Paratrooper unit which occupied the village shortly before - for a defense-only scenario the Blue troops would have a few less troops.

Blue would retain about 1 company + 1 CAAT squad and 2 additional TOW launchers and a few Mk19 and M2s. They would not have access to heavy artillery and keep only mortars with limited ammo. I have to rethink about giving blue air support (thanks for the suggestions, PT - I think giving a lone harrier to blue would be quite a good idea).

Red would get something like 1+ tank company (TURMS and T90s), 2 Mech Companies (BMP-2s and -3s), some other bits and pieces and some infantry on foot, bringing the total to something like 1 Battalion or so.

Red unit experience would be veteran and above (with some elite formations).

In addition, Red gets abundant artillery and some air support (at least that's the plan - will see if my machine can take it ).

(That's for a Red AI attack, of course. For a H2H scenario Red would get considerably less.)

[Drescher]

Since the AI can't use it's artillery 'intelligently' during a mission, ie anticipating observed enemy movement and bombarding ahead of them, you can give the AI side a lot. Exactly how much would depend on the terrain, potential LoS etc, and you'd gauge this only after playtesting your mission for the umpteenth time. If the terrain is very closed, dense urban or example, the AI will probably never call in any artillery bacause the ranges are too short. There's a lot to consider.

This is something ive always wondered about since CMBB.

Wouldnt it be possible to lower AI arty delay to zero(or have it *significantly* reduced), so it gets at least something out of its arty? Its an unfair advantage i know, but even after hundreds of games against the AI i have yet to see a good artillery strike delivered by it(except the preplanned thing).

[flamingknives]

You want a situation where the blue force has to pause in the arty spotters field of view. I find that I get mortared when shooting and scooting with infantry AT at enemy armour over a ridge.

[Redwolf]

I think it is to a large part a function of time.

If the attacker has no time constraints he can organize the assault to maximize defensive ammo draw. Ammo draw also means revealing key positions in the defense that could then be brought under fire in a manner that makes the most out of the attackers indirect fires. Plus as MickeyD said if you have all the time you want to build a network of MG coverage you place the defender in a very difficult position.

[Apocal]

You want a situation where the blue force has to pause in the arty spotters field of view. I find that I get mortared when shooting and scooting with infantry AT at enemy armour over a ridge.

As unpopular as they are, mines work for this purpose. It would be nice to have alternatives available.

[flamingknives]

Not sure I follow you Apocal. The AI will use mortars on you if you are popping up over a ridge. You could mine the ridge but that's a completely different tactical challenge.

[Apocal]

Not sure I follow you Apocal. The AI will use mortars on you if you are popping up over a ridge. You could mine the ridge but that's a completely different tactical challenge.

I was actually referring to getting the blue player to pause in an FO's line of sight.

[flamingknives]

Right, with you now.

[Sgt Joch]

Interesting topic. I have been playing as Syrians quite often lately and they can be effective on the attack if used properly. Some comments, all based on H2H play, some of which have already been stated.

As a general comment, playing as Syrians is similar to playing as the Soviets in CMBB in 41-43. They have numerical superiority, but lower quality troops and equipment.

To carry out a successful attack, you first need decent troops, green/regulars with a decent morale at a minimum. You also need numerical superiority, at least 1.5:1 all arms and ideally 2:1 or more. You also need good terrain, urban or broken rural terrain. Attacking across a wide open map is suicide.

All of these pre-conditions are realistic. If the Syrians did launch a counter-attack against NATO forces, they would use their best troops (Special Forces/Republican Guards) and attack on terrain that would maximize their advantages.

On the attack, the most important rule is to avoid the long-range fight and get as close to the Blue forces as quickly as possible. Getting into a long-range fight with Blue forces is suicide, Blue has too many ways to kill your forces before they can even get into range (i.e. tanks, javelins, ATGM equipped Strykers/Bradleys/Hummers, Air power, Artillery. etc.)

Getting in close maximises the effectiveness of Syrian short range weapons (i.e. greater number of shooters, RPGs) and takes away the advantage of Blue Air Power/artillery because of potential friendly fire.

The attack should be led by small groups of infantry/RPG teams advancing under cover or from cover to cover until they can establish where the Blue forces are and how their defences are setup.

Syrian AFVs should not lead or participate in the attack since they are too vulnerable to Blue AT weapons. They should be held back out of LOS until Blue infantry strongpoints have been identified. They can then be used to clear up the strongpoints, so the infantry attack can then continue.

Red artillery is only useful as pre-planned barrages. The long delays (12-15-18 minutes) make it useless in an attack. You are much better off using AFVs/RPGs to provide quick artillery support, as required.

In certain ways, attacking as Red is easier than attacking as Blue since you do not have to worry as much about casualties. You often have an infantry-heavy force which allows you the luxury to fight an attrition-type battle against the Blue player who is typically short of infantry and can't afford an even kill ratio.

[GLynn41]

A battle that has much of what is being discussed is Red Pepper-- with out spoilers -- it is a good and tough battle with marines-- there are 2 versions the first is the hardest--