Red vs. Blue balance

[Revenant]

Hello!

I just started playing this game so I am very inexperienced with it, but:

when playing quick battles, it is much more easy to play as US

I tried several battles as syrian army or unconventionals and the best result I managed was draw. When playing as US in such scenarios, I usually won and won without too much effort. I of course agree that US army is superior, but it should be properly reflected by number of troops available. I think syrians get too low number of units, if we take into consideration their inferior quality.

Any ideas on this subject? I noticed there is a possibility to give handicap to "blue" side, maybe thats the way?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Well, numbers are not the problem, IMHO. In a war I wouldn't expected Syria to get a numerical advantage sufficient to offset their poor quality. It's the point off manoeuvre warfare to keep the Syrians on the back foot. And any massing of troops would quickly get disrupted by air activity anyway.

The trouble lies in scoring. Especially in early scenarios the scoring is too generous by far in allowing Blue casualties. It should be punished much harsher. Even in more recently made scenarios the designers seem reluctant to severely punish Blue for casualties that would be a considered disastrous these days.

[Revenant]

Thats true. Can I change these conditions somehow in Quick battles?

[Eagle2]

The trouble lies in scoring. Especially in early scenarios the scoring is too generous by far in allowing Blue casualties. It should be punished much harsher. Even in more recently made scenarios the designers seem reluctant to severely punish Blue for casualties that would be a considered disastrous these days.

Perhaps you underestimate the will of the coalition forces (well the UK and US) to take large numbers of casualties. True, we have come a very long way from the thousands of casualties taken in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam, but you have to remember that CMSF mostly models the initial invasion of Syria. I can not recall exact numbers, but something like 150 US service personel died before the fall of Baghdad. That doesn't include the seriously injured, as modeled as incapacitated in SF. I agree that Blue forces should be limited in the amount of casualties taken, but the notion of being punished by only taking 5 casualties throughout an engagement is slightly ludicrous.

[SlapHappy]

So would this be considered a BLUE victory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nasiriyah

How would the typical CMSF designer score this?

[Eagle2]

In my experience, that would definitely be a major defeat. 89 casualties??? Granted, it was a 6 day long operation, but if I had taken that many casualties in a scenario you be certain that a major defeat would be handed out.

[YankeeDog]

So would this be considered a BLUE victory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nasiriyah

How would the typical CMSF designer score this?

'

Totally depends on what part of the battle you're talking about; the entire battle of Nasiriyah would be a CMSF campaign, not an individual scenario. And even a CMSF campaign wouldn't tell the story of then entire battle, but rather the story of some of the more tactically interesting engagements that an individual Company (or so) sized unit participated in as part of the battle.

It's also important to keep in mind that proper scoring in CMSF is very dependent upon the kind of situation the designer gives the player at the start of the battle.

For example, if the designer sets up a situation similar to the ambush of the supply convoy at the beginning of the Battle of Al Nasiriyah, starting the scenario moments before the ambush is sprung, then escaping with <25% casualties might well be a good victory criterion. Sometimes, sh*t happens, and if you deal with the SNAFU better than most, then that's a victory, of sorts.

In contrast, for a scenario intending to represent something similar to part of RCT-1's push through Ambush Alley, 10% casualties to blue might be a dismal failure.

The devil is, as always, in the details.

Cheers,

YD

[Revenant]

Well,

maybe you misunderstood mi initial question:)

First thing is, I talked about Quick battles.

Second thing, its about how computer picks forces.

I have played several of those random generated battles until now, playing as US and Syrians. I have chosen a lot of different force type as Syria and the better the troops and their equipment, the better result, of course. So far I have the best results with Republican Guard and even better, Special Forces. But, only if I have given massive handicap to US, like 30 percent less troops, I could get major victory.

So I think the game does not create balanced forces in Quick battles scenarios.

In previous similar games, like all Combat missions, or Steel Panthers, all units are fiven a points value according to their effectivity (quality and equipment). So force which is inferior in those areas would be substantially larger to offset it. But I think the random generator here picks forces only according to organisation structure.

example: If I choose "small" battle, there would be something similar to two platoons to fight. So on one side there will be 6 BMPs 2 with infantry (regulars) and on the other side there will be 8 Bradleys with some support (veterans) fair fight? I think not...

So mi opinion is, the game does not create balanced random scenarios.

Thats problem vs. computer, but even worse vs. human, who is usually better than comp. If I want to play with somebody else, the Red side will be screwed, without using handicap for Blue.

My question is how do you solve this issue.

[Blackcat]

Revenant,

My answer to your question is that the way to solve the issue with quick battles is to play scenarios.

For reasons that seemed sensible at the time, Battlefront went away from the points based system of quick battles that had been used in CMx1 games. The results in the end are less than one might have hoped for. There are umpteen threads on the subject going back to day one of CMSF release and even, if memory serves, during its design stage. It is unfortuate but there it is, the QB system is basically naffed.

The good news is that it is being redesigned for Normandy.

[Jonny(FGM)]

I can not recall exact numbers, but something like 150 US service personel died before the fall of Baghdad. That doesn't include the seriously injured, as modeled as incapacitated in SF. I agree that Blue forces should be limited in the amount of casualties taken, but the notion of being punished by only taking 5 casualties throughout an engagement is slightly ludicrous.

Exactly! 150 casualties is not a lot of casualties when you think about it, if you take 5 casualties per engagement it does not take long (well 30 engagements) to reach that figure. I don't know how many CMSF style engagements took place in the Iraq War but i'd guess it was more than 30, i'd also guess a significant proportion if not the majority of them involved no casualties for the coalition side.

Also I don't think we Brits have had a willingness to take casualties since the Falklands. Unless another piece of British sovereign territory was invaded again, if any government that took us into a war that had the same intensity of casualties as that heads would roll.

However, having said all that I sometimes wonder if we are making a mistake in drawing direct comparisons between the Iraq War and the hypothetical Syrian war, just because the 2 countries are side by side doesn't neccessarily

mean they will roll over the same.

Oh and Revenant no one misunderstood your question, we just happen to go way off topic here at the slightest opportunity. Besides no one plays QBs because the QB generator sucks, play scenario's instead : )

[Revenant]

Thats what I was worried of...

Thanks for answer nonetheless.

So... Where can one download some interesting scenarios to play with his buddies?

[Blackcat]

"we just happen to go way off topic here at the slightest opportunity", we sure do and I am going to add to the tendency.

"Also I don't think we Brits have had a willingness to take casualties since the Falklands. Unless another piece of British sovereign territory was invaded again, if any government that took us into a war that had the same intensity of casualties as that heads would roll."

Only if the public find out. The casualty rates for UK combat units in Afghanistan are not treated as secret but buried in amongst almost impentrable waffle and officialese get-out clauses. However, they are higher than most people believe - 10% in a tour seems to be not unusual and I have seen figures that suggest some specialist units have taken 25% casualties. The improvements in first-aid and truama care since the Falklands mean that many more survive now (that is not to take anything away from the skills and super-human efforts of, then, Surgeon-Commander Rick Jolly and his team). The MOD seem to be doing an excellent job of keeping the facts, and not just about casualties, from the public.

[Blackcat]

Thats what I was worried of...

Thanks for answer nonetheless.

So... Where can one download some interesting scenarios to play with his buddies?

Just go to the Repository (accessible via Battlefront's home page), there are dozens of them. Have fun

[hcrof]

I agree with Blackcat in regard to casualties. Bringing it back to Syria, I fail to see how US forces taking even 100 casualties in a battle would count as a 'victory' for the Syrians. At the end of the day, US or British forces (I can't really speak for the rest of NATO) would keep on rolling through and as long as they take the objectives or defeat the opposing force they win (from the Syrian point of view). The political sh!tstorm that would follow means nothing on the operational scale.

I believe that this idea that western forces can't take casualties is a false one based on decades of counterinsurgency where casualties are less acceptable. If a major war should kick off the generals would stick to their training (against a competent OPFOR) and accept that bodybags are going to go home.

[Dietrich]

Speaking of Red vs. Blue force balance, I've wondered a few things about that. If anyone can offer some thoughts/answers regarding any of these questions, I'd very much appreciate it.

1. As we near the middle of 2010, US forces are largely gone from Iraq but are increasing their already significant deployment in Afghanistan. The hypothetical invasion of Syria was drafted around 2004-2005 (right?). Is the invasion of Syria in June/July 2008 based on the assumption that the US military's committments in Iraq and Afghanistan were the same as they actually were back then?

2. How many units would the US military be reasonably able to field for the invasion of Syria? ("Units" means brigades/BCTs/RCTs, since nowadays it's rather less common to deploy discrete divisions.)

2a. The battalions which comprise the composite Task Force Thunder are not specified. What BCTs would these units likely be from?

2b. The Highland Games campaign briefing states that 7th Armoured Brigade is OPCON to the US 1st Cavalry Division. Does this indeed suggest that at least one HBCT from 1st CAV would be in the OOB?

2c. Would the USMC have just the 2nd MEB -- with the 26th MEU (SOC) as its spearhead (as per the official campaign) -- available for invading Syria's coast?

3. What routes other than the ones specified in the various campaigns (TF Thunder, Semper Fi Syria, and Highland Games) would the invading forces be sent along?

3a. As per the official campaign, the USMC contigent's task is to invade eastward to Hims (effecting a link-up with US Army forces there) and then southward to Damascus. Would perhaps a second unit (say, an RCT) be tasked to invade east and north from Latakia to Aleppo so as to effect a link-up with the NATO forces coming from the north?

3b. Would a BCT (or maybe even two) be tasked to advance from Al Bukamal (Abu Kamal) along the Euphrates to, say, Ar Raqqah to link up with the NATO forces advancing southward thereto?

4. Forgive me if this sounds fanciful or unduly influenced by a certain mini-series, but would a Ranger battalion (mounted in Humvees with M2s, Mk.19s, and TOWs) be sent ahead along a certain route to capture key locations like airfields, bridges, etc., similar to what part of the 75th did in western Iraq in OIF? I have an idea for what I think might be a fun scenario: A company-sized Humvee-mounted Ranger task force races ahead to capture an airfield in advance of a Syrian mechanized force, and when said enemy force arrives, they defeat it with a combination of Javelines, TOWs, and air support.

The main reason I ask these questions is because I'm drafting a hypothetical strategic OOB for the Coalition forces including all nations and all branches (US Army, USMC, etc.), taking into account the forces involved in the "canon" campaigns, and I'm unsure as to how many forces the various nations would be able to deploy for the invasion of Syria.

[LongLeftFlank]

As with most video games, historical or not, some suspension of disbelief is required. The scenario laid out is a terrorist attack on the West that is so egregiously bloody and nasty that all the "lessons" of Iraq (i.e. no aggressive wars) are laid aside in favour of an all-out aggressive war on Syria.

And evidently the Syrians themselves are not sufficiently impressed by the case against them that their regime / army / citizenry doesn't disavow the act but resists the invasion vigorously.

[Eagle2]

However, having said all that I sometimes wonder if we are making a mistake in drawing direct comparisons between the Iraq War and the hypothetical Syrian war, just because the 2 countries are side by side doesn't neccessarily

mean they will roll over the same.

Very true. From what I'm played it seems the Syrians put up a much tougher fight than the Iraqi's did. It just really bothers me when scenario designers make it so the Blue player can't take more than a handful of casualties. What wears a populace down is the extended bleeding out of its forces, commonly found in COIN ops not the invasion of a country that had, according to the manual, launched biological attacks against many western countries. I think the patriotic fervour would demand the toppling of a country or two, nomatter the price.

[MikeyD]

I sometimes wonder if we are making a mistake in drawing direct comparisons between the Iraq War and the hypothetical Syrian war

I'm reminded in preperation for the Iraq invasion in 2003 first-wave infantry NCOs were told bluntly that they should expect 30% casualties among their men. So it seems this hypothetical Syrian war more closely resemble how they expected the Iraq invasion would go rather than how the invasion turned out. You may also recall the Pentagon basically freaked out at an (inaccurate) report that Iraq had got hold of Syrian Kornet ATGMs. Again, that gives an indication of the great difference between ivading Iraq and Syria.

We can't compare CMSF to the occupation at all. What' the game's timeframe, 3 months? Steve's steadfastly opposed to 'opening up' the game, adding years to the available dates or introducing occupation-specific equipment (Bremmer walls, MRAP, etc .etc). CMSF wargames a particular combat situation and it was purposefully set up that way.

[Paper Tiger]

Since we're discussing a way to make BLUE v RED scenarios balanced I think some of our 'Modern Era' fans are simply closet WW2 gamers who want to play Modern Era as if it were WW2. Hell, I did that for long enough. That's why I created two LARGE Red v Red campaigns that allowed me to play CMBB style battles.

I think that restricting the number of casualties that the BLUE player can take while pursuing his mission produces far more realistic missions and results that more closely reflect what you'd likely see in real life as opposed to simply allowing the BLUE player to soak them up and win his victory dearly. It may very well be true what you say about folks at home being willing to accept high casualties. However, I don't believe that Company and Platoon leaders are quite so willing to squander the lives of the soldiers under their command in pursuit of their objectives and the game reflects fighting at that level. To me that's what the casualty restrictions on BLUE represent.

[Eagle2]

However, I don't believe that Company and Platoon leaders are quite so willing to squander the lives of the soldiers under their command in pursuit of their objectives and the game reflects fighting at that level. To me that's what the casualty restrictions on BLUE represent.

Perhaps, but no leader wants to lose his men in combat. Whether its 1 or 100, taking casualties sucks. But if there's a job that needs to be done, the officers will do everything in their power to accomplish the mission, regardless of the cost.

[Ryujin]

I think it's somewhere between the two posts above . A lot more value is placed on force preservation these days and I don't think the US/UK/NATO are going to go all "Stalingrad" on most objectives. Political factors aside, I do think at a operational level there is going to be some limit to acceptable casualties in most cases (unless maybe it's something really key).

In most CMSF scenarios it seems you can take a pretty big number of BLUFOR casualties and win as long as you achieve all the objectives. However, taking 30% casualties or such in one battle seems a bit extreme and unsustainable. You do have to fight carefully and not throw away your troops.

[Paper Tiger]

Agreed. I appreciate that the rules would change were the US/UK/NATO countries actually fighting for their survival - like they would have had the old Soviet Union invaded West Germany back in the 80s. I look forward to CMSF2 which should have a storyline that permits scenario designers to waive the casualty restrictions on BLUE credibly.

It can be very tough balancing BLUE v RED missions, especially when said missions are being fought in the open where BLUE is the undisputed king. Option A - imposing casualty restrictions is one way to do it, and it's not an unrealistic condition, just an undesirable one for some. Another option to balance it, option B, is to remove BLUE's more fun toys and thus reduce BLUE more or less to a WW2 force of infantry with a few mortars for support.

Personally, I'd much rather have a battery of 155mm heavy howitzers and some air support in my pocket when I'm playing and try to minimise my casualties. I think that's more fun than the 'You have no heavy artillery or air support in this mission' type of hamstringing condition allows you to have. Just my own preference. Some prefer option B. I make for folks who like to play BLUE with all the bells and whistles. Nothing wrong with that.

edit at ask:

BTW, just out of curiousity, how many scenario designers actually restrict BLUE in the fashion that I do, i.e, expect the BLUE player to take 15% or less casualties? (Hardly just a handful!) I honestly admit that, apart from George Mc stand alones and a couple of FMB's excellent mini campaigns, I have very little more than the stock missions that came with the game/modules and I was under the impression that 'USMC Second Storm' was the first real attempt to do this. 'USMC Gung Ho!' is a further elaboration of the idea.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

edit at ask:

BTW, just out of curiousity, how many scenario designers actually restrict BLUE in the fashion that I do, i.e, expect the BLUE player to take 15% or less casualties? (Hardly just a handful!) I honestly admit that, apart from George Mc stand alones and a couple of FMB's excellent mini campaigns, I have very little more than the stock missions that came with the game/modules and I was under the impression that 'USMC Second Storm' was the first real attempt to do this. 'USMC Gung Ho!' is a further elaboration of the idea.

I think the practice may have started with Normal Dude's TF Panther campaign. When I was beta-testing it, that was where I got the idea to restrict Blue's casualties (I generally do it to the more punitive 10%), which I've done in everything I've released since beta-testing TF Panther.

[Secondbrooks]

I'd rather have balancing in forces, take away vehicles, support etc.

It feels even more like smacking duct taped mouse (not hamster!) with hammer if i already have briefing clearly stating that i have to protect my men from harm. Surely there can be scenarios and campaigns where this suits well, but as general rule it's not good solution in my opinion.

Funny thing here is that people seems to think that it's only Blue who would win with too high costs if they get some 50% or even 30% casualties... It would be interesting to play a 8 missions long campaign as Syrian Battalion which looses 50% of it's force with-in few first missions. I admit i try to preserve my troops as much as i try to do it with Blue, even more so as Syrians loose their ability to fight effectively with less casualties (two rifle squads in platoon, less men, less firepower, less technical quality). As far as i can tell Syrians don't handle necromancy. I admit Syrian Skeleton and Zombie Brigades sounds pretty intriguing from game-play aspect.

[Paper Tiger]

Funny thing here is that people seems to think that it's only Blue who would win with too high costs if they get some 50% or even 30% casualties... It would be interesting to play a 8 missions long campaign as Syrian Battalion which looses 50% of it's force with-in few first missions. I admit i try to preserve my troops as much as i try to do it with Blue, even more so as Syrians loose their ability to fight effectively with less casualties (two rifle squads in platoon, less men, less firepower, less technical quality).

Done that.... twice. Once NATO is out of the door, I plan to return to complete my proposed Syrian civil war trilogy with a short-ish campaign that uses a Syrian Airborne Battalion as its core unit. I already have the locations marked on Google Earth. But that's as far as I've gotten yet

I'm not against playing without casualty restrictions at all. I really enjoyed playing my RED v RED missions and although taking heavy casualties in a mission wouldn't necessarily deprive me of a victory, I knew that I'd pay for it later when those missing forces were desperately needed.

FMB:

Thanks for the reminder. Of course, I should have remembered your 'Dawn to the Setting Sun'. I've just been playing BLUE this way for so long that I'd forgotten. I think I set a 25% casualty restriction on BLUE in all my Brit missions and that seemed a bit excessive. Thus, I dropped it to 15%.