H2H scenarios

[Erik Springelkamp]

I have now played, or are playing, a number of PBEM scenarios, but in each and every one the Syrian side gets totally hammered, whether I am playing Coalition or Syrian.

What are the interesting battles for a PBEM from a balance point of view?

Or are we all just so bad at playing the Syrians?

[Alan8325]

The only Syrian units that approach the coalition units in terms of technical capability, not considering experience and motivation factors, are the special forces and airborne units. The closest armour is the T-90, used by the Republican Guard under "excellent" equipment settings in CMSF. The most balanced scenarios would be those that use these units and limit the coalition side to lighter/less experienced and motivated units and limit artillery and air support. Also, MOUT scenarios even the playing field a little more than scenarios with more open space. I haven't played H2H so I don't know exactly which ones are balanced though.

Of course, to play scenarios with Syrian Airborne or T-90's you would have to have the Marines module.

[Gpig]

You could also play BLUE on BLUE scenarios and RED ON RED scenarios. There are plenty of red v red scenarios and campaigns out there. Less so of the Blue v Blue kind.

Gpig

[Erik Springelkamp]

You could also play BLUE on BLUE scenarios and RED ON RED scenarios. There are plenty of red v red scenarios and campaigns out there. Less so of the Blue v Blue kind.

Gpig

RED ON RED doesn't require an extraordinary imagination to create a backstory.

But BLUE on BLUE?

Fight the USA with the Dutch army? I wouldn't dare :-)

[gibsonm]

I have now played, or are playing, a number of PBEM scenarios, but in each and every one the Syrian side gets totally hammered, whether I am playing Coalition or Syrian.

What are the interesting battles for a PBEM from a balance point of view?

Or are we all just so bad at playing the Syrians?

Well things like:

Blue fore recce Vs Syrian main position.

Blue Mech or Mot Inf attempting to delay Syrian advance.

Syrian attack with air spt.

etc.

All give Red an "edge".

Often its a case of how you use the tools you have, not just which tools you have been given.

[Sivodsi]

RED ON RED doesn't require an extraordinary imagination to create a backstory.

But BLUE on BLUE?

Fight the USA with the Dutch army? I wouldn't dare :-)

I just finished a PBEM of Atlantic Games, CV90s vs M1128s - great fun. Once the shooting starts you soon forget which side you are fighting, and they just become 'the enemy'. It is disappointing that there are not more blue on blue match-ups.

Probably the real reason for lack of blue on blue battles, is lack of a French side...

Perhaps we need to set up an artificial political world as a milieu to give such match-ups more meaning?

I remember that this was done for CMX1 as 'the onion wars' and the campaign continued for years - perhaps still going on?

Such a campaign makes more sense for CMSF than for WW2 era stuff, simply because SF doesn't have the real world to draw on.

So why hasn't this been done? Anybody have time and enthusiasm for something like this?

[LongLeftFlank]

Pretend it's Fort Irwin, and that it's all simulated. Except that the losing commander has to buy booze for the entire winning force. That should give you motivation to care.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Probably the real reason for lack of blue on blue battles, is lack of a French side...

I am digressing here but...

I don't get this ongoing French bashing, and in fact it rather annoys me at times.

On the Western Front all Allied armies got beaten by the Nazis, the British ran away, and the French fought hard to cover their retreat. But the French, like the Dutch and Belgians and others, didn't have a place to run away to.

And of course the French were completely right about Iraq, still I didn't hear much excuses about the abuse they got by the Americans over that affair.

[Berto]

I've played H2H "UK Soldier's Fury BE ", it is a small scenario with only infantry (british module).

I think it's well balanced, you can win with the Syrians.

[sawomi]

"Stolz von Bayern" (NATO module). GER Gebirgsjäger vs SYR MechInf on a small map with 3 objectives. 30min. Each side has just one platoon. Fuchs (7,62mm) and Panzerfausts against BTRs (14,5mm) and RPGs. The side with better tactics wins.

"Badinni Dilemma", "Battle of the Old City" (Marines module)

For blue-on-blue

"Atlantic Games" (NATO module) and "Friendly Fires! (British module)

For red-on-red

"The King Copper Mines","Asmar Crossing","Hatflieds versus McCoys"

[Sivodsi]

I am digressing here but...

I don't get this ongoing French bashing, and in fact it rather annoys me at times.

I think it is largely residual feelings from the French not being 100% supportive of the so-called 'war on terror' 100% after Sept 11. Remember 'freedom fries' and other such ridiculousness? There are a few more things, of course, but I'm sure that's where most of the recent French bashing comes from.

My 'joke' was more aimed at the general tendency to French-bash than at the French themselves. The only thing I really have against them is their unfortunate ability to beat my team in crucial games in World Cup matches. Some of you will know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, to get back on topic: I've just made a scenario of mirrored Red mech forces strictly for H2H play. If you have an opponent you want to try it out with PB me and I'll send it to you.

Edit to add: no big deal with the scenario - I just used a stock QB map and rustled up a range of mech forces (BMP2,3,T72,T90) from the stock and Marines module

[Erwin]

Road to Dinas is an xnt red on Red campaign.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Road to Dinas is an xnt red on Red campaign.

Yes, that is one I am playing and enjoying at the moment.

But the question was about PBEM against a human opponent.

Everybody thanks for the suggestions so far.

But one of my opponents only owns the base game, and there the choice appears to be thin. Most interesting scenarios from the repository require one or more modules.

I know some NATO scenarios that even strongly favour the Red player.

[dan/california]

To put it simply, most of the people who like the game enough to do scenarios own one or more modules, I would venture to say that most of them own all of them. Your buddy may need to find the $25. It is not a lot of money, when coffee for two at Starbucks can run $10-15.

[Wengart]

If you wanted to you could pop into the editor and just knock Syrian experience up to Veteran or Elite.

[Erik Springelkamp]

To put it simply, most of the people who like the game enough to do scenarios own one or more modules, I would venture to say that most of them own all of them. Your buddy may need to find the $25. It is not a lot of money, when coffee for two at Starbucks can run $10-15.

I completely agree. I bought all modules, and in Euros that is really a bargain when I see the line in my bank account.

But it is kind of hard to recruit, when there is so little to show on the PBEM front with just the base game.

[Erik Springelkamp]

If you wanted to you could pop into the editor and just knock Syrian experience up to Veteran or Elite.

But then I would see both sides of the scenario.

I like to play an unknown scenario, where there can be many surprises.

Replaying a scenario never gives you that kick of the unknown.

[noob]

Being a WW2 obsessive i'm relatively new to the CMSF engine and modern warfare in general but knowing the old CM wego system only to well via CMBB the learning curve wasn't to steep when i started playing this particular theatre.

I'm still playing the demo at the moment but the imbalance in the forces so far has been quite drastic to say the least.

However after looking at the briefing for the demo mission "Going to Town" i noticed one of the parameters was to sustain no more than 10% casualties which was 11 men approx.

The other parameter was to secure three objectives.

The casualty parameter could only be because of the political consequences of dead Blue troops and this added a whole new dimension to the game.

So i was faced with having to fight a battle and only lose 11 men......totally new experience and utterly fascinating, also the Syrian problems were equally as fascinating (you cant hope to hold any property so just kill as many Blues and vehicles as you can, then try and escape and try it again)

That parameter made me realise that force imbalance is relative to the victory conditions, but i'm not sure exactly how the game calculates them and if they are as harsh (but fair) as some of the briefings imply.

What is needed i think is a battle evaluation reference manual that allows players to work out the results of a battle from a standard reference source after the battle and not the via the subjectivity of the individual scenario designers.

If there was a standard set of victory parameters that took into account force balance and politics and then all the scenarios would be balanced theoretically.

Also if this standard was rational and fair it could be the benchmark for the parameters of new scenarios.

The question is who will do this ? ( i might do start some research but im not commiting to anything as i feel a little out of my depth with my modern warfare knowledge )

[gibsonm]

The bigger question, if you don’t minding me asking is who would be bound by such a guide?

All the designers are individuals and they tend to allocate their own weights to things that they think are important.

There is no central vetting authority for the ones released with the title, let alone the ones created by the user community.

Also some scenarios don’t have those “minimise friendly / civilian casualties“ limitations so such a guide may not help there.

[noob]

The bigger question, if you don’t minding me asking is who would be bound by such a guide?

All the designers are individuals and they tend to allocate their own weights to things that they think are important.

There is no central vetting authority for the ones released with the title, let alone the ones created by the user community.

Also some scenarios don’t have those “minimise friendly / civilian casualties“ limitations so such a guide may not help there.

No one would be "bound", it would either make sense to a player or not, if it did they would use it if not they wouldn't, it would just be something that was available, if it proved worthwhile it would be adopted.

I know there isn't a central vetting authority at the moment, that is why i have suggested what i have, so there could be the possibility of one.

Even if the designers are individuals i would of thought there were a set of standard parameters that determined whether a mission was a success or not in real life conflicts.

[gibsonm]

Even if the designers are individuals i would of thought there were a set of standard parameters that determined whether a mission was a success or not in real life conflicts.

Well yes its called Orders.

If you achieve the Mission you are successful.

But again one mission may have a limitation in terms of casualties, another may not. Just like most are constrained by time but many may not.

There is no checklist to determine if a RL mission is a success apart from the Senior Comd’s view who wrote those orders.

[Erwin]

"There is no checklist to determine if a RL mission is a success apart from the Senior Comd’s view who wrote those orders."

Quite so...

Noob: That is why in RL a nation can "declare a victory" and withdraw when it's pretty obvious they've had their head handed to them.

[noob]

Well yes its called Orders.

If you achieve the Mission you are successful.

But again one mission may have a limitation in terms of casualties, another may not. Just like most are constrained by time but many may not.

There is no checklist to determine if a RL mission is a success apart from the Senior Comd’s view who wrote those orders.

But surely for the Blue forces as the invaders of a foreign country in the modern era the avoidance of large numbers of unit and civilain casualties are paramount for winning the propaganda war back home and in the U.N. (i.e. the Vietnam syndrome) so i would of thought that the only parameter of any significance given the force imbalance would be keeping casualties within acceptable levels for Blue only, obtaining the terrain objectives should not add to Blues score as its unlikely the Red forces can ever hold a position against the superior forces of Blue so a casualty only VC would negate that material difference.

So at the end of a game the players could asses the forces in action against the casualties sustained and then determine the winner based on the casualty parameter only.

[gibsonm]

Um sorry but “no”.

I’ve done this in RL and we are given “Rules of Engagement” / “Orders For Opening Fire” and they give us the legal limitations that we work under.

In the Australian Army you follow these or else you are liable to an internal investigation / prosecution or similar from the International Criminal Court.

These apply equally to a truck driver of a front line Infantryman.

Beyond that the measure of success is the success of the mission (and the plan to achieve the mission is written within the ROE framework - that’s why as a sub unit commander I had a lawyer and a gunner in my back pocket).

So its still “Clear feature 268” but achieving that by flattening the place with airstrikes and tank fire would be outside the ROE so you come up with a different way to do the same job that is within the ROE.

[noob]

Um sorry but “no”.

I’ve done this in RL and we are given “Rules of Engagement” / “Orders For Opening Fire” and they give us the legal limitations that we work under.

In the Australian Army you follow these or else you are liable to an internal investigation / prosecution or similar from the International Criminal Court.

These apply equally to a truck driver of a front line Infantryman.

Beyond that the measure of success is the success of the mission (and the plan to achieve the mission is written within the ROE framework - that’s why as a sub unit commander I had a lawyer and a gunner in my back pocket).

So its still “Clear feature 268” but achieving that by flattening the place with airstrikes and tank fire would be outside the ROE so you come up with a different way to do the same job that is within the ROE.

Yes, thats what im saying, the restrictions put on Blue forces are far more stringent than on Red forces, it's too easy for Blue to use overwhelming area fire to defeat Red so applying restrictions to building damage would be another factor impinging on Blues tactics but i will defer to your obvious experience as a/ im a civilian and b/ im new to CMSF so maybe i will find most of the scenarios well balanced in hindsight.

However it would be good if someone like yourself went through the scenarios that are available and recalculated the VC's or at least rated them for balance given your experience in RL.