USMC Gung Ho! campaign

[Paper Tiger]

Okay, let's have a look at this.

RED starts the mission with 750vps, BLUE with 350vps:

RED 500vps 60% or less casualties

250vps for occupying Bedrock

BLUE 100vps for 5% or less Friendly casualties

250vps for PRESERVE objectives

1st

Minor Defeat - TLR

Marines Syrians

7 KIA 44

5 WIA 17

0 MIA 43

0 Tk lost 3

0 Trk lost 0

1 o.v.lost 0

200 points 633

Okay, mission 1 is obvious. RED still has it's FFP bonus, some casualty points for killing BLUE and possibly some points for damage to the mosque. BLUE has 200 PRESERVE points.

2nd

Draw no Winner - Syrian Surrender

Marines Syrians

9 KIA 80

23 WIA 55

0 MIA 90

0 Tk lost 4

1 Trk lost 0

0 o.v.lost 0

325 points 361

Mission 2 is still obvious. Your Friendly casualties are WAY too high.

3rd

Minor Defeat - TLR

Marines Syrians

5 KIA 39

3 WIA 32

0 MIA 60

0 Tk lost 3

1 Trk lost 0

2 o.v.lost 0

100 points 943

Mission 3 looks like you smashed the town up very nicely, only 100vps for PRESERVE no doubt, but you didn't really hurt REDfor as they got their points for preserving their force and occupying the objective. Probably got some for damaging the Mosque too. Plus casualty points.

4th

Minor Defeat - Syrian Surrender

Marines Syrians

17 KIA 56

24 WIA 46

5 MIA 130

0 Tk lost 4

3 Trk lost 0

1 o.v.lost 0

300 points 706

4th try. A Surrender so you get the points for capturing BEDROCK (100vps) and destroying REDFor (150vps) and some PRESERVE points. But just look at your Friendly Casualties! It looks like you lost 3 of the AAVs as well as 46 men. No wonder your commander was pissed.

5th

Draw no Winner - Syrian Surrender

Marines Syrians

9 KIA 87

16 WIA 60

0 MIA 81

0 Tk lost 4

1 Trk lost 0

2 o.v.lost 0

400 points 372

And finally, another surrender, this time with more PRESERVE points. Again, look at your casualties. You have 163 men at the start of the battle. You lost 25 of them one AAV and a couple of Humvees. And you probably damaged the Mosque again too.

So I don't see anything wrong with the scoring conventions at all. You're taking too many casualties when you are completing the mission. You came close on your last attempt.

[Jonny(FGM)]

This second mission is taking me forever!

*************************SPOILERS******************************

I have 32 minutes left on the clock, I have one plt moving through manolito (SP?) and one plt moving through Big John.

it's going to be tight to win this one, i hope there is extra time available! i'm being pinned down (but with very few casualties caused) by some AGSs that i just cannot find, not even a "?"

Current casualties are

2 LAVs (one to the mines/IED, one which blew up taking all it's crew with it when it got in the sights of a T-72.

Unknown infantry casualties, at a guess i'd say about 10 but its probably higher than that.

Both M1A1s are still alive but badly damaged, one just let itself get pounded by a t-72 because it was out of its arc (he could see the t-72!), the other took an AT-4 to the front. Will these tanks get repaired or am i going to have to go through the campaign with a tank with no working targeting system?

The T-72 in the woods on big john is a right pain! The helicopters couldnt find it for ages, eventually the harriers and apaches found it, but several bursts of chain/gatling gun and a hellfire missile didn't kill it! After that it survived 2 SMAW rounds (killing the gunner after that) before an AT4 finally forced the crew to bail, the tank isn't dead though, right now i have an AAV and LAV wasting all their ammo on an empty tank (aswell as a squad which through all of its grenades at it)

***************************** /SPOILERS ***************************

overall im quite enjoying it, if i lose this mission then i might stop enjoying it quite as much ; )

[snake_eye]

Hi T.P,

Here is the 1st mission complete AAR. Too bad I don't have the same, besides the losses for the 2nd try, I have made.

Hope, you can make something out of it. A shot of the final troops location at the end of the TLR, has unfortunately not been taken. But I am sure the troops were in the part of the town on the right side and almost up to the square. They had not taken the houses along the road.

Cheers

[snake_eye]

Hi P.T,

Final troops location at the surrender time of the Syrian of the1st mission, 2nd try. The Red's ones have been erased for not giving any hints.

Looks like you should win with a troop deployment in town, like that one. Believe me they were not too many Syrians around. just a few on the right side of the town.

Cheers

[snake_eye]

3rd Try of 1st mission. I used a lot of artillery and mortars pounding. Yet the red troops did not seem to be shaken by it. I was on the edge of the Mosque district at TLR.

My analysis is that I did not get into the town and it was in no way secured.

I was amazed at the low casualties of the Red, considering the huge artillery barrage they got. That is why I wrote earlier that they were hidden in the cellars.

Besides the lost AAV, my casualties were very low. I did not win that fight. So I am OK with P.T points set up this time.

Cheers

[Paper Tiger]

Well, that's all fine and dandy but you seem to be forgetting about the 15% Friendly casualty limit. It's not there just to create a more realistic challenge for BLUE. It's also there to ensure that, as the player progresses through the campaign, he still has a viable force in the later missions. What's the point of having a 'troop deployment in the town like that' when you've taken around 20% casualties achieving it? Two more missions like that and you're force will be destroyed and you will be forced to retire from the campaign as your force is no longer fit for active duty. There are six missions using the same small core group and the first three are the easy ones...

I'm sorry but I don't see anything wrong with those results, snake eye. The campaign is scored that way for a reason and not because I'm some tyro campaign/scenario designer.

[snake_eye]

Well, that's all fine and dandy but you seem to be forgetting about the 15% Friendly casualty limit. It's not there just to create a more realistic challenge for BLUE. It's also there to ensure that, as the player progresses through the campaign, he still has a viable force in the later missions. What's the point of having a 'troop deployment in the town like that' when you've taken around 20% casualties achieving it? Two more missions like that and you're force will be destroyed and you will be forced to retire from the campaign as your force is no longer fit for active duty. There are six missions using the same small core group and the first three are the easy ones...

I'm sorry but I don't see anything wrong with those results, snake eye. The campaign is scored that way for a reason and not because I'm some tyro campaign/scenario designer.

Hi P.T

Thanks for explaining what is right for you. Since you made that setting for obvious reasons which are yours, I comprehend that it is rather difficult to get yourself in my shoes and the ones of other players.

I do understand the Core issue. If the casualties are too high, they won’t be able to deploy later on with sufficient forces. So you set them at the 15% mark. That doesn’t surprise me at all. 15 % losses is rather high, but not inconsiderate in MOUT fighting like the one you have to fight in the 1st mission.

I have tried every conceivable type of attack at Bedrock, since I was not having a Total Victory and at the least a tactical victory.

I did not destroyed at anytime the Mosque on the five attempts and the Red did not get any points for that .

My casualties were for the 1st try : 7.6%, the 2nd :19.6%, the 3rd: 4.9%, the 4th 25.1% !!!!!, the 5th 15.3 %

The differences were due to the fact that I tried to get under the time limit at time and that at others, I tried to gain more ground into the town before the TLR, in order to have them surrender.

I tried to no avail, besides giving points to the Red’s, to shaken them with artillery, mortars and Apaches (even getting a Blue on Blue incident, once).

No, really and very frankly, the 1st and the 2nd missions (since I never went any further in the Road to Dinas and on that new campaign) are hard to get through and besides the points issue, the red Opfor is having quite a lot of troops. Since you are tasked to destroy them in order to get to your objective, you get yourself every time in an awful fight, you take casualties and you are a loser with the 15% mark, very difficult to avoid.. If you try to avoid casualties, you have to take your time. But, you don’t have time giving to you.

Every way you turn it, there is a problem.

Very seriously, I don’t feel bad because I can’t win these battles, the way I usually succeed in doing it and I am telling you all about it. How many players are being stuck in the 1st and or the 2nd missions, besides a few having no casualties and going straight to the end ? Not that many or I am the worst player and tactician that CMSF might find.

All these facts to try to make you understand that If you don’t change a few things, the players like me will be discouraged to try another time and again, another time the mission, with no realistic results. That will be too bad. Your campaign could be a race car that we will have pleasure with, but you are imposing us, by your rules to stay in low gear, since you don’t allow us to shift in high gear. It is your campaign and I am just giving you my insight as a player. After all, you made it to be played. So, make it playable to a larger number, hopefully till the end of the 6th mission.

Just a last thing. You wrote that the the first three missions were the easiest one. All I can say is : oh, my God ! what about the others !

Cheers

[Paper Tiger]

Oh dear God! I wish I could close down my own thread as I've had enough of this one. Sorry, but you are wearing me down with your constant complaining. I HAVE explained my reasons to you but you simply dismiss them and then have the temerity to accuse me of not being able to 'get into other peoples shoes'. You are taking this all far too seriously and I've wasted too much of my time trying to justify my design decisions to you.

I do know what you want. You don't want casualty restrictions placed on BLUE. Playing unmindfully of your own friendly casualties is getting into high gear. There are plenty of folks who make them that way. My advice to you is to play their missions instead and, in future, when you see 'Scenario author: Paper Tiger', you can just pass on it and we'll all be happy.

[Jonny(FGM)]

Just finished the 2nd mission

18 KIA

19 WIA

1 MIA

2 Tracks

1 Truck

Minor Victory

************************POSSIBLE SPOILERS***************************

Damn that was hard! I thought i was going to go lose that one on friendly casualties alone. Some of my friendly casualties were down to my own stupidty, one LAV which i thought was in dead ground but wasn't, a truck i left in my rear areas that fell foul to a RPG that i'd left in my rear with it. The rest were caused by MG fire, AGS fire (god i hated them!) and to those troops on the reverse slopes at wily e cyote.

Those AGS's really really did my head in, I just couldn't spot them! They wern't even that deadly, just inflicting minor wounds but now at least a 1/3 if not more of my foot soldiers are now yellow bases, thats really gonna slow me down!

i'm also almost out of arty, only 1/3 of 1 81mm battery left, i got a bit over zealous with taking out the tanks with the 155mm

Oh well, looking forward to the next battle

[Jonny(FGM)]

Ah, just looked at the next mission.

What i didn't mention was is that i got virtually the entire LAR dismounts killed (one squad had a very bad run in with a tank) so now the sum total of my dismounts are the 2 hq units and one yellow based soldier.

I don't even know if that is possible.

[snake_eye]

P.T,

You did not understand what I meant, that is your right. You can stay on your position that is your right. Mine has been to tell you what I thought you could improve to offer a better access to the missions to a greater number of players. After reading that, you are free to do what you want and the way you want it. That doesn’t bother me at all, since I am not taking that scenario seriously. If I had I would not have wrote my thoughts the way, I have done it.

However, it is too bad that you don't recon what is obvious and that you take it so badly. You are right on one point however, it is better to drop off the matter here, since we are going no ways. That won't prevent me to play your scenarios at all, having nothing against them, besides what I wrote in the post.

Some players will none the less, agree with some of the following points, some already underlined in that post :

1/ The TLR, somehow a bit short.

2/ The points, not so easy to get within the frame you set.

3/ The fact that you are busted at the end of the 2nd mission if you don’t have a victory. That prevents the player to go further. Besides, after few hours of play and to have, to go back once more to the beginning of the campaign to try to fare better is a bit frustrating.

4/ The Red Opfor has too many forces available. Especially, in the 2nd missions. After that one, I can’t judge having never been farther in my six attempts of that campaign and numerous other attempts in the Road to Dinas V1.

5/ The casualties? I never told you to lower the % of them. I only wrote that the 15% mark, was what we should expect in a MOUT fight ( 1st mission) and that it was difficult to stay under it.

It is sufficient to say, that these remarks are really different from what you understood

Finally, to end that issue, that has become sterile, from the analysis of your answers, I am amazed at your reaction and the lack of cool you are demonstrating, being on the verge of losing one’s temper, That is FAR from the praise I have made about your campaign and the few very soft and mild advices I felt authorized to let you know about.

For that, I have no word, I will rather stay polite. That is the normal way to behave in these posts.

[Blackcat]

I am obliged to Paper Tiger for putting effort in to create this very challenging campaign. The maps are good and the enemy force dispositions are cunningly placed. However, for me it is a good illustration of what I find so frustrating about the campaign system in CMSF.

The tight limit on casualties and the limited/no re-supply/replacement rule mean that mistakes early on can mean that to complete the campaign becomes impossible, but that fact does not become apparent until much later (after tens of hours of game play).

To play a campaign requires a very significant investment of time. I think as return for that investment the designer needs to allow the player to reach the finish line. It is acceptable at that point to rate how the player did, but at least give us the satisfaction of getting to the end. To play for, maybe, thirty or forty hours only to find the further progress is impossible, because of early casualties, is intensely frustrating.

I think I know what Paper Tiger was attempting to achieve by being so strict with the conditions in this campaign, but for me it detracted from the game experience rather than added to it. Tight conditions on building damage/casualties work very well in a scenario, where all one is investing is an evening, but not in a campaign. They maybe realistic but they tilt the balance between a game and a simulation too far for my money.

[Pvt. Ryan]

I appreciate the difficulty in these missions, and I might even eke out a victory on mission 2 on my tenth attempt. What is so frustrating is how long it takes to quit the game and load a save each time I screw up. If I do a normal quit and load the game starts from the beginning of the scenario regardless of when I saved. I have to completely quit CMSF, restart, and then reload the save. It takes about five minutes, which is frustratingly long for as many times as I have to do it.

[Clavicula_Nox]

I had an incredibly frustrating problem with the first mission that is in no way Paper Tiger's fault. A squad entered a room that housed an enemy machine gun team (they were suppressed). The bad guys were able to kill one Marine before they were wiped out; all good.

And then, one of my idiot team leaders decides it's time to drag out the M32 and start shooting grenades at teammates. 3 Marines were KIA'd and 2 others were lightly wounded by this *******, all of them several seconds (30 sec-1 min) after the last enemy was taken out. As I speak, there is another "hero" throwing fragmentation grenades at another Marine's feet. Until this incident, I had only suffered 1 KIA/1 WIA and was pushing into Bedrock.

[c3k]

Ah, yes, the lack of adequate CQB training rears its head. I've had to send many (surviving) squad members back to the training center for inappropriate weapons usage in close quarters environments. M32/M203 use seems particularly prone to errors, second only to the "rain of frag grenades" syndrome... On the plus side, they DID clear the building, right?

I feel your pain.

Ken

[Clavicula_Nox]

Ah, yes, the lack of adequate CQB training rears its head. I've had to send many (surviving) squad members back to the training center for inappropriate weapons usage in close quarters environments. M32/M203 use seems particularly prone to errors, second only to the "rain of frag grenades" syndrome... On the plus side, they DID clear the building, right?

I feel your pain.

Ken

Yeah, they did. They were able to successful kill 3 suppressed and panicked Syrians, though, they killed and injured more Marines by far. CQB is, in my opinion, the absolute weakest part of the game.

[Paper Tiger]

To play for, maybe, thirty or forty hours only to find the further progress is impossible, because of early casualties, is intensely frustrating.

And there, sir, you find the reason why the campaign ejects you when you are consistently taking too many casualties. You do not have to waste 30-40 hours of your time struggling through only to find that you don't have sufficient force left in later missions. Think of it as a safeguard. There are only six missions in this campaign, five of which feature two or more platoons of the same company. That's a very small core group. If I remove the casualty restrictions, sure, you'll go through to the next mission but what you are describing is what is inevitably going to happen.

But the casualty limit is also employed in conjunction with a second condition, the PRESERVE condition. There are only two missions in the campaign where the PRESERVE objective plays any part in determining victory. Those are missions 1 and 4. I think the problem some folks are having is understanding what the PRESERVE condition does when it's utilised in conjunction with the FFP limit. When you click START, you have all those PRESERVE points in the bank. They can only go down as a result of your actions. They give no benefit to the RED side. Except for those rare special cases (Mosques and Schools which you are alerted to in the briefing and Tac Map) RED gets nothing if you reduce each PRESERVE Objective to rubble. What is does is reduce the total number of victory points that the player can earn in a mission. Coupled with the Friendly casualty restrictions this presents the player with another (and in some folks' cases and unwelcome) decision to make when he is playing the mission.

Now, the enemy still gains the same number of points for killing your soldiers so the mission's 15% casualty limit drops as your PRESERVE points are lost. This allows me to weight the importance of PRESERVE over the other victory conditions in the mission. If I decide that the PRESERVE condition is paramount (which it's not in THIS campaign) then you may only end up with 100 vps at the end of the mission. Or, if I give the PRESERVE Objective less weight, you may still have 400vps+. Your commander will forgive your blatant disregard for civilian casualties if you are able to achieve your objectives and keep your men alive. (It's not called 'Gung Ho!' just because that was the name of the ASL marines module either)

Regarding difficulty. I play this game exclusively against the AI and when I do so, I expect the scenario/campaign to present me with a real challenge. I genuinely dislike it when a mission finishes too quickly or if it's too easy. THAT feels like a waste of my time and it is a guarantee that I will never play it again. I design my missions/campaigns first and foremost for my own enjoyment and then I share it with the community. If you appreciate a challenge, then I hope you'll get some pleasure from my work too.

Having said all that, I am very interested to hear how folks fare in the optimal version of mission 2 as I am not sure if it needs another 30 minutes tacked on. I do actually playtest my stuff very thoroughly but it's not so easy to playtest a 3 hour monster. (Playtesting 'British Mettle' nearly drove me crazy and I can't stand the thought of playing it again) I could finish the mission quite nicely in 2 hours 30 minutes but then, I do know what the enemy is NOT going to do, that there will never be any mines anywhere except point A and B, etc...

snake eye:

I have added you to my Ignore list. I'm sorry but I don't believe that you are as innocent or as well-intentioned as you are purporting to be and I refuse to be baited further by you. That is my right.

[Pvt. Ryan]

In mission 2, I always find myself nearing my goal only to run out of time. An extra 30 minutes would make a huge difference.

[Paper Tiger]

In mission 2, I always find myself nearing my goal only to run out of time. An extra 30 minutes would make a huge difference.

Okay, then that's decided. I have upped the time limit to 3 hours for both versions of the Chaparral mission for a new version later.

I confess that I have a tendency to listen more to the guys who blow through missions without much difficulty like AkumaSD . I HATE making stuff that is too easy - mission 3 (CAAT Fight) excepted.

[Clavicula_Nox]

I just finished mission 1. I reloaded a save that was taken about 30 seconds before my aforementioned CQB mishap. I suffered a minor loss because I was unable to secure Bedrock and I did not cause enough casualties.

I suffered 2 KIA and 2 WIA (1 of the KIA was needless; he was killed a second before time was called)

There was 149 enemy remaining and 1 tank. Enemy forces in Bedrock consisted of 1 rifle platoon; 1 tank (damaged); and 2 machine gun teams that were rattled and panicked.

Simply, I wasn't aggressive enough; I could have worked at a much faster pace. I dedicated a very large force to taking Gold that was, apart from being unneeded, was completely unused and spent the entire mission holding an Overwatch position. All of my casualties were suffered by Redwolf: 1 KIA and 1 WIA were caused by a single tank shot as they were rushing the town; 1 WIA suffered in House to House fighting; 1 KIA as time was called.

I had Red Wolf wait far too long before moving them in for no real particular reason and that cost me the mission.

[snake_eye]

Cheers

[AkumaSD]

Been stuck on the last map for a few days now. I'm out of arty with the exception of maybe one more light/quick 155 mission. A few of my squads are pretty beat up. I think I'm spending too much time spotting and eliminating the armor at the start of the map. Red is setup in some brutal defensive positions. Red also seems to have a decent FO and mortar section for once. I've been on the receiving end of a few perfectly placed red mortar missions. One time I had a fairly large group stationed around a building. I saw the incoming spotting rounds and assumed the building area was being targeted. I moved the entire group to the SW of their position and into a large open field only to find out I moved them directly into the mortar strike zone, lol. Excellent use of mines around the airfield.

This campaign has been difficult for me but in a very satisfying way. I'm trying my best to not reload a save when something bad happens but I admit I've done it a few times. The extra attention paid to ensuring your troops are fit to carry on to the next battle is a new dimension to the campaign that I really like. I actually feel bad each time I see one of my men go down in battle. I think to myself "****, there's another letter I have to write to a family."

I plan on hunkering down tonight and finishing the campaign. I already feel a sense of accomplishment at getting this far in the shape I'm in. Once this is done then it's back to finishing the Dinas campaign. I really can't say enough times how much I appreciate this campaign and everything else PT (and all scenario designers in general) have been putting out. Thanks!

Um... did we really need the large picture of the monkeys that have nothing to do with this thread? At least resize that kind of thing.

[stikkypixie]

I have a question, what is the best use for the LAV-AT. They seem to have really bad spotting capabilities and on the offensive they're just crap.

[AkumaSD]

I have a question, what is the best use for the LAV-AT.

I treat them like any other IFV. Keep them in over watch position as support for dismounted inf. They're really just a bigger version of the TOW Humvee and as such can take a few more hits, but not many.

[stikkypixie]

I was asking because I tried to use them in a more offensive role in the second scenario and the got smoked before they could even identify a target.