My first complete British campaign..

[phil stanbridge]

BLUE TOTAL VICTORY. (Playing on vet)

Very pleased with that as it goes. I found the missions particularly tough going. I had never managed to complete the British campaign before for some reason - possibly my losses were too high? I'm not sure why it quits - maybe I lost a couple of battles, I can't remember now.

Stats for both sides

BLUE

51 KIA (15 of these were Syrian forces allied to me)

44 INJ

6 MIA

13 AFV

3 OTHER

versus

RED

1278 KIA

637 INJ

504 MIA

60 TANKS

103 OTHER

[AkumaSD]

Grats on making it to the end!

[Webwing]

phil,

Congratulations!

Did you keep track of how you did in each battle? I´d be interested to know. Also any comments and feedback.

-

[Erwin]

Initially I wuz dismayed and frustrated at the relative poverty of the Brits gear. But, I ended up enjoying mastering their systems and enjoy playing the Brits more than the US. One has to be rather more clever/skillful imo.

90% of US tactics seem to be using their massive firepower to blow up everything before moving in. Not much subtlety.

A couple of terrific Brit scenarios are "Royal Mud Marines" and "Joint Venture". Both at the repository.

[phil stanbridge]

phil,

Congratulations!

Did you keep track of how you did in each battle? I´d be interested to know. Also any comments and feedback.

-

Every mission was either total or tactical victory which was a first. Basically the Syrians surrendered. The last mission was a tricky one, and so was the riot/urban one. But they all stand out for one reason or another. A great selection of missions really and it appears longer than the others - do you know if this is the case, or have I failed at other campaigns too?

I found you have to use the British differently to the US forces in order to succeed. The fact that their squads are much smaller and less well equipped means that you have to use them in a more discrete way (plenty of smoke!). You also have generally less AT assets too which makes some mission extremely tough. You can't load up every squad with a Javelin unfortunately. That said, there were some surprises. I felt like the Challenger was a slightly better tank than the M1A1, or at least it was in my missions - it was able to take more punishment. But to change the 12.7mm ammo by unbuttoning.. well, i lost a crew man once to that trick! On a few occassions I took direct hits from T72s and the rounds just bounced off! ATGM were a different matter however, and it must be really painful trying to find these in real life.

The warriors were also pretty able - and could take more punishment than the US AFVs - but their main armament doesn't seem particularly clever against anything other than soft targets although they are deadly accurate. I would have to fire a whole load of rounds into a BMP 1 before the crew would jump out, and more often than not that would give them enough time to fire back.

The soliders feel more exposed to me than the US equivalents.

[flamingknives]

The fact that their squads are much smaller and less well equipped means that you have to use them in a more discrete way (plenty of smoke!).

This puzzles me. It's one man different (unless you're using Armd Inf, then it's two) and the Brits have more toys and longer ranged weapons for their section inf. What they don't have vs the US is Javelin. That's it.

[phil stanbridge]

This puzzles me. It's one man different (unless you're using Armd Inf, then it's two) and the Brits have more toys and longer ranged weapons for their section inf. What they don't have vs the US is Javelin. That's it.

Sorry I was comparing the USMC to the British - I tend not to play the US Army module. But I think the single fact they do not have as much access to the javelin is very telling!

[flamingknives]

Comparing USMC with UK forces, the USMC has about twice the manpower for a given unit (Section, platoon etc). For a given number of men in the field, the British forces should have twice as many units.

Part of the problem is that as of 2008, the British Army had an acknowledged shortfall in terms of section AT capacity, as the LAW80 had gone out of service some years before and NLAW was only just starting to be used on training exercises and wasn't ready in operational numbers. Had it been, then the British army would have had ripple-fire Javelin-like capability out to 600m

[Webwing]

Every mission was either total or tactical victory which was a first. Basically the Syrians surrendered. The last mission was a tricky one, and so was the riot/urban one. But they all stand out for one reason or another. A great selection of missions really and it appears longer than the others - do you know if this is the case, or have I failed at other campaigns too?

I would need to check. I was closely involved with the UK campaign, obviously, but not with the other 2 so I can´t remember the exact number of missions. Not to mention my memory is crap.

We do try to keep the campaigns about the same length though. Specially provide roughly the same amount of content with every product.

This is a bit different for NATO though since we have 3 different campaigns. In total they are almost twice what you get in the UK campaign. However the individual campaigns, for each country, are smaller.

I found you have to use the British differently to the US forces in order to succeed.

I´m glad to hear that. Means things are as they should be!

But to change the 12.7mm ammo by unbuttoning.. well, i lost a crew man once to that trick!

Yep!

The warriors were also pretty able - and could take more punishment than the US AFVs - but their main armament doesn't seem particularly clever against anything other than soft targets although they are deadly accurate. I would have to fire a whole load of rounds into a BMP 1 before the crew would jump out, and more often than not that would give them enough time to fire back.

That´s not my experience at all. I even ran a few tests before release where I had a Warrior targeting a BMP. It did it many times to be sure what the average result would be. I didn´t take more than a few rounds to get the target blowing.

The soliders feel more exposed to me than the US equivalents.

Well, they are more exposed in the Jackal than they would be in a Humvee with upgrades, that´s for sure!

-

[phil stanbridge]

We do try to keep the campaigns about the same length though. Specially provide roughly the same amount of content with every product.

This is a bit different for NATO though since we have 3 different campaigns. In total they are almost twice what you get in the UK campaign. However the individual campaigns, for each country, are smaller.-

Interesting - not sure why my first British campaign ended so abruptly - do you know if it calculates overall losses and kicks you out at a certain point if they deemed unacceptable?

It was 3 or even 4 scenarios longer than I anticipated. Some real tough cookies in the latter stages too! That huge map counter attack one was a nightmare, although a few challengers in some nice little hull down spots soon put pay to the majority of the attackers.

That´s not my experience at all. I even ran a few tests before release where I had a Warrior targeting a BMP. It did it many times to be sure what the average result would be. I didn´t take more than a few rounds to get the target blowing.-

Interesting too - funny how it pans out like that. All the way through the campaign I've had some trouble getting confirmed kills on BMPs with my warriors - sure, they are generally easy enough to hit, but on one occasion I had to put at least 10 rounds into one just to knock it out. I was amazed when the thing started to fire back too! But then I've had success with just a few rounds. Of course it maybe FOW at play too.

[Erwin]

I noticed in Road to Dinas first time I played the campaign ended abruptly due to too high casualties. Probably a good thing as it would be frustrating playing a hopeless situation campaign.

Regarding regular scenarios, thos also tend to end too soon with your victory as the AI calculates the AI enemy has no hope, whenin fact they seem to have a fair amount of capacity.

I understand that too quick ending this can be avoided by adding enemy reinforcements that would arrive only after the game ends, and this will keep the on map guys fighting to the bitter end, (or at least till one achieves a satisfying victory).

[Webwing]

Interesting - not sure why my first British campaign ended so abruptly - do you know if it calculates overall losses and kicks you out at a certain point if they deemed unacceptable?

It does. 15% casualties from what I remember. I would need to check with Jon though, to be sure.

It was 3 or even 4 scenarios longer than I anticipated. Some real tough cookies in the latter stages too!

The whole campaign is 18 missions long. At mission 9 there is a fork and you can go one way or the other. 4 unique missions one way and 4 unique missions the other way.

Maybe previously you were kicked out at this point? If so and you played one variant then there is still the other variant for you to play!

That huge map counter attack one was a nightmare, although a few challengers in some nice little hull down spots soon put pay to the majority of the attackers.

If it is the HELA Counterattack, mission 08, then this is the one I did!

Pretty tough yes. Defensive scenarios are very hard to design and make them interesting and challenging without the player feeling just like a powerless spectator.

Interesting too - funny how it pans out like that. All the way through the campaign I've had some trouble getting confirmed kills on BMPs with my warriors - sure, they are generally easy enough to hit, but on one occasion I had to put at least 10 rounds into one just to knock it out. I was amazed when the thing started to fire back too! But then I've had success with just a few rounds. Of course it maybe FOW at play too.

It could be. There are many variables at play. Crew also gets tired and stuff like that.

-

[Webwing]

I noticed in Road to Dinas first time I played the campaign ended abruptly due to too high casualties. Probably a good thing as it would be frustrating playing a hopeless situation campaign.

Designing scenarios is tricky. Designing campaigns a big challenge.

While testing you get conflicting feedback. It ends too early to one player, it´s not enough time for the other. Too easy for one, impossible to win for the other.

We are facing this exact issue right now with the final testing in NATO. Thank god PT is a master at this and has a lot of patience and experience.

Regarding regular scenarios, thos also tend to end too soon with your victory as the AI calculates the AI enemy has no hope, whenin fact they seem to have a fair amount of capacity.

I understand that too quick ending this can be avoided by adding enemy reinforcements that would arrive only after the game ends, and this will keep the on map guys fighting to the bitter end, (or at least till one achieves a satisfying victory).

For standalone scenarios it´s easy to fix it to your own style. Just open it in the editor and extend the time, change the hour of the day, make the enemy weaker or whatever else you like!

-

[phil stanbridge]

The whole campaign is 18 missions long. At mission 9 there is a fork and you can go one way or the other. 4 unique missions one way and 4 unique missions the other way.

Maybe previously you were kicked out at this point? If so and you played one variant then there is still the other variant for you to play! -

Wow, I didn't realise that. That's great! As I have only got this far once I guess I need to explore the other direction now - was it the mission where you could choose Damascus and somewhere else by a direction on the map? Actually that mission was a bit of an odd one as far as I recall. I think it had changed somewhat from the very first time I played it (played that mission twice now) - do you know if they were edited at all in 1.21? I basically crept a small force up the right hand side of the map - but I'm sure I recall of manner of enemy units beforehand and I was relatively undisturbed this time round.

If it is the HELA Counterattack, mission 08, then this is the one I did! Pretty tough yes. Defensive scenarios are very hard to design and make them interesting and challenging without the player feeling just like a powerless spectator. -

Yep that's the mission - was damn hard work without losing a whole load of infantry, especially using the default start-up positions on the map. I ended up attacking from the rear and they didn't expect that.. Actually that was chaotic - always the same when the AI attacks.. It was just as bad in the million man rush in the riot mission..

[Webwing]

Wow, I didn't realise that. That's great! As I have only got this far once I guess I need to explore the other direction now - was it the mission where you could choose Damascus and somewhere else by a direction on the map?

That´s the one!

Actually that mission was a bit of an odd one as far as I recall. I think it had changed somewhat from the very first time I played it (played that mission twice now) - do you know if they were edited at all in 1.21? I basically crept a small force up the right hand side of the map - but I'm sure I recall of manner of enemy units beforehand and I was relatively undisturbed this time round.

Notice that there are several AI plans made by the designer on each mission and that are chosen at random by the system each time you play. What that means is that if you play it again the enemy will not do the same as before or even be in the same place. Could be easier, could be harder.

It adds a lot of replay value to the campaign and it´s not boring to play the missions several times.

Yep that's the mission - was damn hard work without losing a whole load of infantry, especially using the default start-up positions on the map. I ended up attacking from the rear and they didn't expect that.. Actually that was chaotic - always the same when the AI attacks.. It was just as bad in the million man rush in the riot mission..

Well, it was in the script for the campaign. We had very clear goals for each mission. What location, what difficulty and what kind of scenario. Hopefully it was fun!

-

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[phil stanbridge]

This is pretty decent even given the inequity of the campaign scenarios/matchups.

What exactly were your methods?

When did you dismount troops?

Did you bother to clear large building objectives?

Did you ever send infantry into a building you knew had enemy either within or nearby?

How much suppressive fire did you use?

How quickly did you advance your units and in what order? (Terrain adds minor variation, but overall... not much in the modern era.)

What use did you make of artillery?

Did you use your tanks up front or in back?

Cheers, I presume this is aimed at me so I'll try to answer.

Methods - Keep armour back and only expose if I know there aren't any ATGM's. Never tank rush, usually ends in disaster. You cannot afford to lose a tank. Use warriors/light AFV in hull down, or as bait I tend to keep a selection of my force in any mission well back and out of harms way. I use these as reinforcements should the need arise. I only focus on a single platoon or a few vehicles at a time where possible and I only play in WEGO. I only try to probe certain areas of the map and never in force, unless I'm dead certain what I'm up against. I try to create a safe area and then I can slowly exploit it from there. If time is short, I only head for the target areas, and try to bypass everything else. I've never had masses of luck using long range overwatch so I try to get in close before I attack.

I tend to dismount early, but I make sure every squad if fully loaded, UNLESS I want to recon an area, then I use one squad, and keep them as light as possible. They wont tire as quickly.

I only clear an objective if it looks like I can win without significant loss. Every mission I won a tac or total victory due to the enemy surrendering. That was without gaining the objectives in some cases, as the enemy morale was too low. Some objectives are virtually impossible to win without major loss it would seem.

I nearly always attack a building if I know enemy are within providing it is an objective, or it is in my path. I use smoke, hunt or assault. I have to accept a percentage of loss using this tactic. I try to to suppress with 7.62, before lining the infantry up. I use lots of suppression but it is more difficult in WEGO. You need to time it spot on. If in doubt, send a few heavier rounds in.

Patience is a virtue, and I never rush unless I'm out of time. Some missions give you extra time, but there are a couple in particular where you really could do with an extra ten minutes or so.

You'll also find that heavy artillery (general) does a wonderful job of sending the enemy into a blind panic running out of the back of the building. But only general rounds - airburst doesn't have much effect on larger buildings. USe artillery slowly - and try to use it on target (not radial fire). I use LINEAR, 1 and MAX so that I can plot a small line, and have it last forever. Then you can specify personnel or general depending on the target. 155mm rounds easily take out earlier tanks - using AP, but I tend not to bother. I prefer to use specific AT assets for armour.

Hope some of this helps!

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[phil stanbridge]

Say you have an enemy consisting mostly of uncons, lots of light infantry, rpgs, machine guns.

Do you think it would be better to keep the light afv's in the place where you normally keep the tanks, and use the tanks themselves as your "bait" or forward afvs?

The problem with that is one of your AFV's is a fairly easy target for an RPG or even grenades when close enough. They don't take a huge amount of punishment, and unless unbuttoned they can't spot easily. They can be immobilized or destroyed a lot easier than a tank. But I rarely charge a tank into the front line so you have to weigh up the pros and cons. It's a combination of support elements that works best. An infantry unit with an AFV backing them up is a good move. Tanks on over watch. Use suppression (pray and spray)

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[phil stanbridge]

Ah, I thought you meant you were leading with light armored vehicles in those situations. Since they are considerably more vulnerable than tanks, it seemed odd.

Nooooo. I'd never lead with an AFV unless it's an absolutely desperate situation. Like you say, it doesn't take much to knock one out. I try and keep them about 400m back, dismount, and then recon the area. Doesn't always work out like that. HMG have a nasty habit of damaging vehicles too, even tanks.

[Boche]

i just finshed "counterattack" lost about 8 men KIA and 16 wounded, cant remeber the enemies lossed but severe. big mention to my challenger 2 tank which destroyed more that 30 vehicles and perished, along with its crew near the end of the battle, victorias cross for sure surely an epic mission.

[phil stanbridge]

i just finshed "counterattack" lost about 8 men KIA and 16 wounded, cant remeber the enemies lossed but severe. big mention to my challenger 2 tank which destroyed more that 30 vehicles and perished, along with its crew near the end of the battle, victorias cross for sure surely an epic mission.

I found that mission quite difficult. First time I had played it. I managed to knock out a lot of AFV and tanks with a single tank, but I took some heavy infantry casualties along the way. Managed to win with a total victory but i cant remember how many i lost. I definitely took the most KIA in that mission, bar the urban riot one (but the KIA in that were Syrian).