Independent Marines campaign - a few questions

[Paper Tiger]

I've just finalised the list of missions that will make up my own Marines campaign. It will be short, consisting of six missions only but I'm hoping that, played together, they will provide the BLUE player with a very tough challenge indeed. I just don't have time to playtest this thoroughly and release it any time soon as I'm very busy creating content for the NATO module. So it will probably have to be a Beta version.

The sisx missions will be:

Mission 1: Pre-dawn mission. Two platoons of Infantry assault a small town defended by Syrian Reserve Infantry. Lots of artillery support for BLUE.

Duration: appx 1 hour 10 minutes. No extra time

Map size: Medium

DINAS Mission name - Petani

Mission 2 : Cross-dawn mission which sees the MEU Recon units perform a lengthy recon (appx 25 minutes) before the third Marine platoon arrives. As daylight increases BLUE is reinforced. Again, plenty of artillery support and air support is added here too, especially for supporting the Recon teams

Duration: 2 hours. No extra time

Map size ENORMOUS (over 3km long)

DINAS Mission name - Orchard Road

Mission 3: Late morning mission that sees two teams from the CAAT operating alone ahead of the main force. They are backed up by air support but have little artillery available.

Duration: about 1 hour

Map size: Big

DINA Mission name - SAM Hill

Mission 4: Night mission. Once again, two platoons assault the northern sector of a small town defended by Syrian Reserve Infantry and a small number of Special Forces. Much tougher than mission 1!

Map size: Medium

Duration: 1 hour 30 minutes

DINAS Mission name - Sabatani

Mission 5: Afternoon mission. the full company performs an assault on a large farm. Let's just keep this one a surprise

Duration: 2 hours

Map Size: Large

DINAS Mission name - Where Farmers Dare

Mission 6: Late afternoon, evening mission. The entire OB is present for this one. I'm just finalising the AI plans and will start playtesting this one later today/tomorrow morning.

Map size: Large

Duration: Minimum 2 hours 30 minutes - possibly 3 hours

This is a map that I intended to use in Dinas but got dropped in final testing.

Right, my questions are:

How realistic is it to have just two platoons from a single company perform an assault? They are backed up by teams from the CAAT but the third platoon is attached to some other MEU formation and is not available in this mission.

My rationale for doing this is this - The Marines Infantry company is a BEAST! To put in the entire company would require me to beef up the defender and that would require more playtesting.

Secondly, who assigns names to objectives in an operation? My thinking is that the Battalion commander issues objectives to his Company commanders and they, with their XOs prepare the actual mission plan. Is that right?

Thirdly, I have given the three platoons from BRAVO company the call signs Fred, Barney and Bamm Bamm (need I say from where?). Is that a bit frivilous or demeaning? The four tanks from the tank platoon are named after the four archangels, the three CAAT teams ar HUEY, DUEY and LUEY (commanding officer call sign is Donald and LUEY never appers in the campaign) The Battaion Commander's call sign is 'Preacherman'.

[Jonny(FGM)]

How realistic is it to have just two platoons from a single company perform an assault? They are backed up by teams from the CAAT but the third platoon is attached to some other MEU formation and is not available in this mission.

I'm not massively knowledgeable here but i'd say pretty realistic, i'm sure there are quite a few 2 plt sized assaults in the stock campaigns, and isn't it usually standard practice to keep 1/3 of your force in reserve? perhaps the 3rd plt could be "on call in reserve" but never actually turn up instead of supporting another unit in the MEU?

[Paper Tiger]

Good. I'm glad to hear that. I've never played the official Marines campaign because I was under the impression that it had Battaion sized battles in it. As a Real Time player, an entire Marines battalion sounds like a nightmare to manage. Heck, a whole company is a bit of a monster, especially as I usually break those monster squads up as soon as they're getting close to contact with the enemy. Two platoons of Marines field more bodies than most, if not every other Infantry company in the game so I think two is enough for the first three missions.

They won't be alone though. There'll always be units from some other part of the MEU accompanying them. That makes for some interesting force mixes for a bit of variety.

[Chainsaw]

I think only the Company gets a name, the platoons and squad within the company gets a number. like "Assasin one one" is 1st squad 1st platoon in a company named Assasin.

and about only assualting with 2plts. no problem. the 3rd platoon can be in reserve, can move out to flank the enemy (seal of the enemys retreat etc) or something like that.

about names on objectives, this is what i think: they come from higher upp, above battalion level (big objects like MSR or battalion targets etc) then you name own areas of intrest or targets localy/temperely on battalion/Company level.

Ex: Regiment names 3 intersections Alpha,Bravo,Charlie and tells your battalion to take Alpha, 2nd battalion takes Bravo etc.

Battalion HQ checks the area on the map, defines som referencepoints/ objects needed to be taken, Names them "custers hill" "Saratoga" "yorktown" and tells each of its Coys to take each of them.

Then the company commander looks at the map, and defines hes reference points/objects needed to be taken and either just gives them a RP number or name them.

And I cant wait to play 2nd mission, tell me its a LAR platoon thats the recce?

[Dietrich]

First of all: I very much look forward to playing this campaign of yours, Paper Tiger, since I've thoroughly enjoyed all your scenarios and campaigns thus far. Thanks very much for the consistently quality work. =)

I've never played the official Marines campaign because I was under the impression that it had Battaion sized battles in it. As a Real Time player, an entire Marines battalion sounds like a nightmare to manage.

There are three or four battles in the official USMC campaign which feature about one to one and a half rifle companies plus elements of the Scout/Sniper platoon, of the LAR platoon, and of the CAAT, along with the entire Abrams platoon as well as attached AAVs and MTVRs; though not every one of those battles has all of the aforelisted assets. Those are the battles which I'd like to re-play in wego mode.

A whole company is a bit of a monster, especially as I usually break those monster squads up as soon as they're getting close to contact with the enemy.

Yeah, I've long thought that a full-strength USMC rifle squad is like a platoon in miniature. And they carry more light AT assets per fireteam than their Army counterparts.

[Paper Tiger]

Thanks for the feedback Dietrich. I will remove the platoon names and give them the platoon leader's name instead. Of course, the game will give the game a leader randomly picked from its pool of names but it helps give ME a greater sense of immersion if they have names.

Chainsaw: It's an LAR platoon alright. The whole platoon.

As an aside, playtesting modern era missions like these just distances me further from playing WW2 Infantry battles. Modern Era Infantry combat is so much more interesting and complex. And throw IFVs and other light vehicles into the mix and it just leaves WW2 behind.

[Jonny(FGM)]

As an aside, playtesting modern era missions like these just distances me further from playing WW2 Infantry battles. Modern Era Infantry combat is so much more interesting and complex. And throw IFVs and other light vehicles into the mix and it just leaves WW2 behind.

But arn't you basing that on CMSF vs CMx1? You might change your mind when CM:N comes out

[Paper Tiger]

Actually, no. But let me reassure you that what I posted is only my own personal opinion. I'll probably get more excited about WW2 when they do the Commonwealth module. One word - Churchills.

[Jonny(FGM)]

Yes i was dissapointed when i heard i had to wait for commonwealth forces too : ( understandable though.

I guess why i still think WW2 combat is more fun is because i'm more willing to take heavy casualties to achieve my goals as it was historically accurate to do so, in modern combat it's definitely a lot less so. So i guess i prefer WW2 because it covers up my poor tactical skills ; ) if every tac commander in iraq had been like me the invasion casualties would have been as high as the running total to today lol

[DaveDash]

Good. I'm glad to hear that. I've never played the official Marines campaign because I was under the impression that it had Battaion sized battles in it. As a Real Time player, an entire Marines battalion sounds like a nightmare to manage.

With the 'Pause' button it isn't too difficult. However you can miss a lot but it's not that unrealistic I suppose.

Move one company into position - that's your support company. Assault with the other(s). One moves through the other in overwatch fashion.

AAV's are worthless in combat if there is even the hint of ATGM's or RPGs around, and just sit around mostly (load up on ammo first). Things like CAAT are also fairly useless given the scope of the maps and current HUMVEE vulnerability, so they're just parked in overwatch positions then ignored.

It's only difficult if there are timelimits imposed, you're spread out all over the place, and/or you have to move your forces concurrently.

I do admit that smaller battles are indeed a lot more 'relaxing' in the management department but I have to say the Marines campaign was probably the best out of all the official campaigns, YMMV of course. They also felt more 'realistic' to me when fighting with the USMC since they are very much a HAMMER force. Wheras playing with the Brits using their smaller forces also felt realistic.

In short, a couple of companies in RT isn't that bad as long as:

A) They're not all on the map in the beginning (that can be a nightmare to sort out)

You're mostly focused on one area and not spread out doing multiple things at once (The SNAFU mission in the marines campaign was horrible in RT to manage, but I imagine this was the point)

C) Things don't appear on the map in view of the enemy and varying times (see above mission)

D) There is plenty of time

To be honest its the maps that make the missions for me rather than the units involved, and I know a lot of your maps are very good PT.

[Paper Tiger]

i'm more willing to take heavy casualties to achieve my goals as it was historically accurate to do so

That's a very good point and perhaps something I will have to learn to cope with when playing WW2 missions. Both the US and the Germans demonstrated a willingness to accept high levels of casualties in getting the job done rather than pussy-footing around and taking fewer in the short term but more in the long term. After four years of war, the Brits weren't able to take so many casualties and so working with them will feel a bit more familiar to me.

DaveDash

I have no doubt that I'll get round to playing it at some point in the future. What really holds me back though is that I prefer to spend my CMSF time creating missions and campaigns of my own. Since I started working on 'Hasrabit', there has never been a time when I haven't been working on something. I keep promising myself that when I finish project X, I'll sit down and play through some GeorgeMc missions. But I never get round to doing it. I love the scenario editor.

[DaveDash]

i'm more willing to take heavy casualties to achieve my goals as it was historically accurate to do so

DaveDash

I have no doubt that I'll get round to playing it at some point in the future. What really holds me back though is that I prefer to spend my CMSF time creating missions and campaigns of my own. Since I started working on 'Hasrabit', there has never been a time when I haven't been working on something. I keep promising myself that when I finish project X, I'll sit down and play through some GeorgeMc missions. But I never get round to doing it. I love the scenario editor.

I kinda know what you mean. The bigger missions can be a real undertaking in concentration and time (A 2 hour mission is really 3-4 hours with all the pausing/WEGO etc). Sometimes it can be rather difficult working up the motivation to start.

One thing I did like about the Brits campaign is there was a lot of smaller 30-40 minute missions. However the main downside to this is some of the maps were fantastic so I couldn't help but wish there was more time to try proper tactical approaches to them (and explore them), instead of rushing around from A to B in order to finish in time.

[snake_eye]

Hi Paper Tiger,

For the callsign, they have to be short and precise in order to be understood in the heat of a battle;

I think that platoon leaders usually are Alpha, Bravo, Charly. The squads leaders are Alpha 1, Alpha 2 and Alpha 3 and so on for Bravo and charly.

The companies could be Devil 1, Devil 2 and Devil 3 or a name you think fit for it.

The regiment usually assign the company name.

The fact to have a name and then the digit make it easier to understand on the radio chatt.

When there are platoons from 2 companies on the field, Alpha 1 could be from first company and Alpha 2 from the second one.

Hence Alpha 1-2 will be the 1st squad from the 1st platoon of the 2nd company, if I am right or the contrary.

Usually for an assault as Jonny(FGM) said rightly it is 2 up 1 in reserve. It is all about the triangular formation use from centuries back.

Waiting for your campaign impatiently

Cheers

[Paper Tiger]

snakeye

that's very useful and makes a lot of sense too. It seems that I'm alright with the two CAAT teams Huey and Duey. The team leader is Huey and the other four humvees are Hue 1, Huey 2 etc. So I'll keep that.

My four tanks are nicknamed the Angels and are called Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel. While I like that, I'm not sure if a Marines unit would use such names.

I'll have a rethink about Company/platoon names following your guidelines.

cheers

PT

[Paper Tiger]

I finished testing the AI plans for the 'High Chaparral' mission today so it's pretty much finished. I had a tense time doing a proper recon on the Syrian positions in the pre-dawn murk. I was able to infiltrate my scout teams through the Syrian perimeter and locate some ATGM teams, waiting just long enough for the C2 to pass the information back to the HQ who then called in air strikes on their '?'s to eliminate them while the scouts scarpered to safety. I am a real stickler for not cheating when playing against the AI so if you think my missions are tough, just imagine how tough they are for me

The new AI planning techniques I've been developing since 'Second Storm' allowed me to make the AI player a bit more effcient so I've been able to cut back the RED side numerically and to shorten the mission from 150 minutes to 120 minutes. Two hours is long enough for me.

Being able to co-ordinate all the different arms efficiently and is one of the things that has really got to me in playing Modern Era combat. Because I don't (often) resort to cheating by giving my units orders to open fire on enemy positions that other units have exposed but they are unaware of, I am able to appreciate the real superiority the BLUE side has over the RED side: the ability to develop intelligence on enemy dispositions and to use that intelligence to formulate their response. The game allows me to do that whereas in WW2, the very best intel any side has is significantly less than the Syrian side currently enjoys in CMSF.

So, when you finally get round to playing these missions, I hope some of you will try to play the game in a similar fashion. I play Real Time, only pausing when I'm issuing fire orders for my artillery or air assets. (You really are hands-off while you're doing that) and only giving units orders to fire on positions that have been informed of.

BTW, I was thinking about what I said earlier about WW2 and thought this was an interesting analogy:

WW1 had artillery, tanks, machine guns and aircraft and can be compared to kids playing football. No real knowledge of how it should work, no zones, no domination of the midfield etc, just 20 kids bunched up around the ball for most of the time (hey, that's how we played it when we were small kids and it was great fun too - unlike WW1)

WW2 is like 3rd Division football (or College Football is you're into American Football) while Modern Era is like Champion League football (or playing in the NFL). All playing the same game but the experience at each level is substantially different.

[Wiggum]

I finished testing the AI plans for the 'High Chaparral' mission today so it's pretty much finished. I had a tense time doing a proper recon on the Syrian positions in the pre-dawn murk. I was able to infiltrate my scout teams through the Syrian perimeter and locate some ATGM teams, waiting just long enough for the C2 to pass the information back to the HQ who then called in air strikes on their '?'s to eliminate them while the scouts scarpered to safety. I am a real stickler for not cheating when playing against the AI so if you think my missions are tough, just imagine how tough they are for me

Wow, wait a minute...

Your Scouts spotted ATGM positions, and this information was given to the HQ that now sees some red "?". Now i would say your HQ needs LOS to the red "?" to call a airstrike.

Or is there some way to call a airstrike on suspected enemy positions without a LOS to the target ?

[snake_eye]

Wow, wait a minute...

Your Scouts spotted ATGM positions, and this information was given to the HQ that now sees some red "?". Now i would say your HQ needs LOS to the red "?" to call a airstrike.

Or is there some way to call a airstrike on suspected enemy positions without a LOS to the target ?

I have the same interrogation. If the scouts are leaving, their LOS is lost and if the Air strike still comes, it should be rather misguided toward the targets. Am I right ?

Cheers

[Jonny(FGM)]

I would guess the HQ units have LOS to the enemy lines but are just too far away to spot them?

[Dietrich]

As much as I enjoyed (and found satisfyingly challenging) your "USMC Second Storm", reading about your playtesting makes me look forward to the campaign even more. =)

My four tanks are nicknamed the Angels and are called Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel. While I like that, I'm not sure if a Marines unit would use such names.

While I like your code-naming ideas overall, giving each of the four tanks a unique name sounds a little out of place. Also, the more-than-two-syllable names would perhaps be a little awkward. As merely a suggestion, perhaps a single name for the tank platoon, namely "White Horse" (in reference to the conquering first horseman of the apocalypse from Revelation 6:1-2), with the individual tanks numbered therefrom -- White Horse 1 for the platoon CO's tank, etc.

Because I don't (often) resort to cheating by giving my units orders to open fire on enemy positions that other units have exposed but they are unaware of, I am able to appreciate the real superiority the BLUE side has over the RED side: the ability to develop intelligence on enemy dispositions and to use that intelligence to formulate their response.

I applied this 'rule' in playing "British Mettle" (which, IIRC, is one of yours, PT; and excellent job on it, btw!)...

*** FILMED IN SPOILER-VISION! ***

Knowing that a mech/armored force would be approaching from the east, I infiltrated a sniper team into the trees on the southern part of the ridge. Said sniper team got <?> contacts on one and then both of the T-72s in hull-down position on the far side of the map. About five minutes later, my TAC had two corresponding <?> contacts (which was good, since the sniper team was too low-rank to personally call for air support). Once the TAC had been informed of the enemy tanks lying in wait and knew their approximate position (he had LOS to that area but had not spotted anything there), I had him call on the Typhoon (a wide-area Heavy mission), which then knocked out both T-72s.

[Paper Tiger]

Wow, wait a minute...

Your Scouts spotted ATGM positions, and this information was given to the HQ that now sees some red "?". Now i would say your HQ needs LOS to the red "?" to call a airstrike.

Or is there some way to call a airstrike on suspected enemy positions without a LOS to the target ?

Let's just say that I picked my spot well for the overseeing HQ. He can see about 50% of the map from his position but, because of the low light conditions, he can't actually see any enemy units because they're not moving. When he is informed of the enemy's location the LoS check is part of the call-in procedure and so he can go ahead. (It's details like these that I enjoy about the game.)

Yup, I could have called in the airstrike with the spotting unit but they were less than 100m from the ATGM's position. A bit too close for my liking. And if I'd called it in and then ran off to safety before the strike was delivered, the strike might go awry. I wanted to be as sure of a kill as possible as the ATGMs can deny victory to the BLUE side.

Dietrich

I'll either go with Angel-1, Angel-2 etc or I'll go with your suggestion White Horse. You're right, the Archangel names are a bit out of place.

BTW, I have a Sniper team that's nicknamed 'The Whackmeister'. Elite/+2

[Paper Tiger]

With 'The High Chaparral' mission under my belt, I got the third mission more or less finalised this afternoon. 'CAAT Fight' sees both HUEY and DUEY join forces with the part of the LAR to overrrun a Syrian position before they have time to form a defensive position. There's a ton of support in this one and it's a welcome change of pace after the preceding mission. I also discovered something really cool about the game engine while playtesting this mission too. I'm not going to give anything away but if you play this mission aggressively, then you'll see it too and it's awesome This is going to change the way I play BLUE v RED Missions when I have helicopters in support.

Since missions 4 and 5 are already finished, this just leaves me the finale to do. So, hopefully, this'll be ready for playing quite soon.

[souldierz]

Now you got me very curious on this cool engine discovery you made.I like good tips and new discoveries when it comes to tactics and strategies so please,do share your findings

I always enjoyed your missions Paper Tiger and I will no doubt download this campaign when it's ready and play it when I have time.Keep up the good work,and keep it up often:D:)

[Paper Tiger]

I'd love to tell you but it would fall under the category of a spoiler and the mission hasn't been released yet But trust me, if you play 'CAAT Fight' very aggressively, you'll see it happen too. And my aggressive approach didn't result in heavy BLUE casualties either. I completed the mission with the loss of one Humvee only. It goes against the grain for me to create a mission that's so easy to win but I'm going to leave it that way for two reasons:

first, and by far the most important, it's fun!

secondly, it's the fourth mission in the campaign and so your core forces will have taken some casualties by now. So it probably won't be so easy to get a win as playing it with the full OB

I've decided to drop the 'Bridges' map for the finale and use the 'Sulit Airfield' map instead. The map's a very detailed recreation of a real world airfield and it's already finished. I'd just have to add some T-90s and some BMP-3s to the mix and I could have this finished later this week.

[DaveDash]

How do you make your maps PT? Google maps etc? Or do you just make them up on the fly?

[Paper Tiger]

The Dinas maps, and everything prior to that, were just 'made up', the exceptions being the maps for the 'Hasrabit' finale - a real world place just to the south of Damascus International airport, 'Orchard Road' (now The High Chaparral') which is now an amalgam of three real world places and 'Sulit' Airfield' which is called Al Qusayr.

All the maps I've been making since 'USMC Second' Storm' have been real world places researched using Google Earth. Real world requires less imagination but a LOT more patience and dedication to do right. All the maps I've done for NATO are real world locations. I would LOVE to show you some screenshots as I'm very proud of them - just wait until you see the map I've done for the German campaign finale . It's my very best map ever - but you'll have to wait.