Modelling just onesided

[Taki]

Hi there, i got into the PBEM Games so far and have Fun playing them. THe Mark Erza H2H Games are really okay and im enjoying much. But its much a Factor of Balance from the Scenario Designer.

Reason why i wrote this is a PBEM that i quit called "The Crucibel" wich is recommended for H2H. After 20Minutes i quit because Uk Troops ran in perfect Ambushes qiping out whole Suqads of Syrian Green Troops that cant hit a S***

Thats okay to me if thats the Way you simulate the Superior of Imperial Troops and Equipment, im fine with that somehow. But what i dislike is that you dont simulate it well enough.

After i quit i got 16! Points for UK Casualties. 3 Dead, 1 MIA and 2 more wounded. That really sucked. Modelling the UBERtroops with their UBERequipment is fine to me. Breaking every well setup Ambush is also okay if thats the Way the UK/US can handle them.

But whats definatly not okay is 16 Points for so much casualties. Reading Battle of the 2 Bridges (Sniper Alley was its name or something like that) this Mission was a Political Disaster with around loosing 30 US Soldiers that Day and 1-2 APCs!

So everything fine. But if you modell the Superior of the US/UK Army than also modell the Downside of that Like CIvilian Casualtys (in this Scen you can pound the **** of Civilian Buildings without getting any Minus Points for that) and the delicate Situation those HighTec Soldiers are in.

[Vark]

I guess, given the events proceeding the invasion the traditional reticence to taking casualties would not be so evident. Neither, I guess, would the ROE be so restricted concerning civilian infrastructure.

As for superior troops, the opponents of the Western conventional forces soon realise traditional large scale ambushes of units is a suicidal option. So small teams hit and run like old fashioned skirmishers, often after using IED's. There have been rare assaults, causing severe casualties, but often the attackers are savaged during the engagement and as they retire. In Chechnya, Russian units were often pinned and suppressed and then assaulted, often suffering tens of KIA, especially on convoy duty. When Chechen/Tadjik/Uzbek/Iranian advisors and their Iraqi/Afghan militia/insurgents tried replicating these tactics they found that even a lowly allied supply convoy would aggressively execute counter-ambush drills supported by state of the art fixed wing and rotary assets crewed by professionals. Artillery reaction times with small CEP's also added to the negation of typical insurgency tactics as units could not form large formations needed to inflict severe casualties.

If you examine traditional, well supported insurgencies, what is remarkable is that in both Iraq and Afghanistan large scale deaths of allied troops have been absent and the enemy have adopted an entirely sensible policy of small engagements. Their greatest weapon is the Wests political weakness to continue operations, due to political factors, and their lack of any democratic accountability, allowing a decades long strategy to be used. Neither of these factors would be strongly in evidence in the SF world.

[Taki]

If you examine traditional, well supported insurgencies, what is remarkable is that in both Iraq and Afghanistan large scale deaths of allied troops have been absent and the enemy have adopted an entirely sensible policy of small engagements. Their greatest weapon is the Wests political weakness to continue operations, due to political factors, and their lack of any democratic accountability, allowing a decades long strategy to be used. Neither of these factors would be strongly in evidence in the SF world.

And thats the Point i disagree with you. All thoses Factors are evidend in a SF World. Why should they keep on Fighting if there is not the Hope that with countinusly few losses on the Weastern Side they will retreat that country some day?

Those Few losses should matter more in any analysis after the Battle.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

So your issue isn't so much with modelling but with scoring?

I do do agree with the scoring in general being a bit too forgiving on Blue casualties.

[Paper Tiger]

#1 After i quit i got 16! Points for UK Casualties. 3 Dead, 1 MIA and 2 more wounded...

#2 But whats definatly not okay is 16 Points for so much casualties...

#3 But if you modell the Superior of the US/UK Army than also modell the Downside of that Like CIvilian Casualtys (in this Scen you can pound the **** of Civilian Buildings without getting any Minus Points for that

On point 1 and 2, I happen to agree with you. The entire Brit force is worth 1000vps to the Syrian. Since the three vp locations are only worth 200vps and BLUE gets a further 50vps for destroying the RED force, that means that BLUE can take up to 20% casualties before the mission becomes unwinnable (Draw or worse). I agree that, with hindsight, that seems a bit excessive even for a wartime mission. However, I'd have thought it would be very difficult for a Brit player to get such an easy win against a RED Human opponent seeing as how the Syrians occupy all the VP locations at the start of the mission and outnumber the 'attacker' by 3:1. Not to mention the tanks... If I'd increased the number of VPs awarded to RED for killing BLUE troops I'd think this mission would be too tough for BLUE.

Regarding point 3, the battle takes place out in the countryside, in an orchard complex. There are no civilians so you can bomb the crap out of all the buildings with impunity so I don't understand your point there.

Anyway, that mission is almost a year old now and it was one of the first BLUE v RED missions I'd done since 'In Harm's Way'. Since then, I have released 'USMC Second Storm' and that better represents my current thinking on how BLUE vs RED missions should be scored. BLUE casualties are severly punished and you can't kill the civilians without losing LOTS of PRESERVE VPs.

Re H2H play. You can be certain that any Mark Ezra H2H mission has been thoroughly playtested as H2H. I confess that I have never played any CMSF mission against another human opponent, Human vs AI only, so I'd take the H2H on any of my mission with a pinch of salt. They're designed to present a challenge to a Human player playing against a computer controlled opponent (usually the RED side). However, some folks can, and do, play my missions H2H and they seem to work just fine, hence the H2H in the description.

[Taki]

@Paper Tiger: To be honest. i really like the Idea and the Mission Designt that you made there. Correction in that Scenario would be nice but more of the Problem is that MOST of the Scenarios ever made are bit offbalance. Points for Syria should be WAY greater when inflicting UK/US Casualties.

With Point #3: I just played a PBEM against a Finnish Person. Quickbattle. I had a Bunch of Bulldogs and Enforcers without any Infplattons, just support Weapons and portable GMG. All right with that. But he didnt get any Points (or me any Minus Points) for pounding the High Civilan Area with 9x155mm Barrages. No Minus Points for that. Are there any Scens out where you get Minus Points playing as UK/US for destroying Civilian Structures?

Watch the German Airstrike Call on 2 Fueltrucks. Tactical it was the right descision but a poltical disaster. Germans Minister of Defense had to go. So im still thinking that modelling the "Downside" or the Problems that NATO and Coalation Forces are facing are not well modelled in the Game.

[MeatEtr]

I think it's pretty well common knowledge by now that Blue is a bit too uber even in the worst ambush situations. Somewhat understandable since they are better trained and better equipped. But still, at such short ranges of like below 50m or so it doesn't matter whether you got a AK-47 or a M4, your gonna hit what your aiming at.

In regards to balance, if you got USMC/US/UK infantry that are vets, then your Syrians should be crack or elite.

[MikeyD]

Lets remember wars aren't chess games. You don't line up equal forces and have at it. As the old saying goes, some days you eat the bear and some days the bear eats you. There can be some utility to seeing how you handle the situation if you find yourself outmatched. U.S. Army OPFOR training, as a matter of fact, deliberately puts commanders into near impossible situations. Its often more valuable to have a lesson what NOT to do as learn what to do.

[Paper Tiger]

Are there any Scens out where you get Minus Points playing as UK/US for destroying Civilian Structures?

I used PRESERVE victory objectives in 'Second Storm' but not as extensively as you'd like so I wouldn't go after that one. The PRESERVE victory condition doesn't give BLUE negative points but reduces the points he starts the mission with. The DESTROY terrain objective can be employed to give BLUE negative points but it's only effective when you paint a very small area of the map with it. You need to destroy at least 50% of the structures in a DESTROY zone before you start losing points, great if it's only 1 building but if you have painted a whole city block it's not so effective.

Let's just say that the next (i.e. NATO) generation of missions will be more to your taste. Be careful what you ask for as you might just get it.