scenario design ... rambling query

[Javolenus]

Apologies for long, rambling query from a noob. First: love the game engine -- many thanks devs! Second: I've got little or no knowledge of real-life Cold War armies/tactics. Third: I got a bit bored with the "stop many tanks" scenarios. That's not a criticism. It's just me. I wanted some infantry-specific scenarios. And so I jumped into the editor. I know virtually nothing about Cold War armies, their deployment zones or doctrine etc. I just wanted to play around with the editor.

And so I made a scenario where a Soviet Recon battalion and a British infantry battalion are both advancing to secure a series of bridges across the Weser. The Brits have numerical & training advantage. But no air or fire support. The Soviets also have no offmap support but they have choppers. I assumed this would be an easy scenario for the Brits. But it's hard to get top score. It's actually quite a tense mission. The problem for the Brits is not capturing/holding objectives but reaching them safely. The Soviet choppers cause mayhem and even Brit AA units can't seem to down them, or at least not quickly enough. I played the scenario many times and usually with the same "tolerable" or "disappointing" result.

And so I am now wondering ...

1. Would this mission be near-impossible in "real life"? I mean, would it even be attempted?
2. Are there any infantry-based scenarios out there somewhere?
3. Am I approaching this game all wrong? Is it really better to focus on armour v. armour? Do I need to study Cold War doctrine to design scenarios?

Hmm ... I kinda liked the idea of making smaller scenarios featuring localized objectives ... but is this possible or should I just stick to the scenarios that ship with the game?

I think the game engine & systems are great. Absolutely no criticism. I'm just kinda wondering if I'm trying to take the game in a direction it's not meant to go in ... ?

Thanks in advance for replies ...

[Mad Russian]

Look at scenario Eyes, Ears and Teeth, as well as Purple One. Neither of them are tank heavy. The Wolves Campaign is about a Panzer Grenadier unit. Not a tank unit. While they have tanks they are the lesser of the units forces. You could give that a try as well.

While the predominance of the WWIII battlefield would have been tanks infantry would of course have been called in to hold what the tanks took. Any situation is probable at some point in the war. You would have to work really hard to come up with a situation that probably wouldn't be done at least once in the actual war if the 'curtain had gone up'.

For your own scenario creations don't put artillery off map unless you want them to be unreachable to the otherside for counterbattery fire. Currently artillery won't counterbattery fire at units off map. All kinds of mixups happen in war. Many of those you will find in my scenarios/campaigns for this game. Units fighting without artillery, without air defense, people arriving late or from a 'wrong' direction, units that are reduced, getting lots or no Close Air Support, etc... the actual movement and combat is chaotic beyond what you can show in a game, so create what you like to play and others will more than likely find it interesting as well.

If you have any questions just ask. Someone will answer you from these forums. This is a very friendly group, always willing to help. Not just the developers but the gamers themselves.[&o]

Good Hunting.

MR

[Tazak]

1 trick you may want to try is to set the helicopters to withdrawal after a period of time, then create a reserve group (identical to the first but change the name ever so slightly) to enter a short time e.g.2-4 hours after the first group leave.

This could represent the heli's going back to base for full fuel & maintenance period giving the infantry a chance to get close

[calgar]

there are situations where you want your Armoured Infantry to form the first echelon. fighting in restricting terrain (basically where the MBTs can't use their main guns to the fullest), driving the enemy off obstacles, chokepoints, and urban terrain, could be one of these cases.

You could build your scenario around one of these situations.Armoured Infantry and Tanks are just the mainstay of every army in that era. Pure leg infantry is a specialist. You find them in Airborne Ops, rear area security duties, mountain warfare etc.....or as speed bumps after everything has terribly gone wrong.

A

[Javolenus]

Many thanks for this -- OK, I will happily give those suggestions a try!

[Javolenus]

Oh yeah -- that sounds neat! Many thanks for that!

[Javolenus]

Many thanks for this -- appreciated. That's good and useful info.

The scenario I had in mind was a hypothetical situation where, in a fluid, panicky operational state, the HQs of both sides are tasking units to secure bridges for later use by armour (a possible add-on scenario). And so it's a kind of race as to who gets onto the objective first. If The Brits get onto the bridges and into the town first, they win a minor victory but take significant losses from the Soviet choppers. If the Brits can't get there first, then even a minor victory is touch-and-go. Despite advantages in numbers & training, crossing open terrain in the face of choppers seems to decide it in favour of the Soviets. I tried adding dedicated AA units to the Brits but they don't seem very effective. All these factors just got me wondering what the real-life doctrine is and whether or not such a mission would ever be given?

If I add choppers to the British Orbat I'm thinking the scenario would then become too easy. Likewise, if I moved the Brit deployment area closer to the objectives, it would take some of the tension & drama away. I set the start time at 0400hrs to give some darkness cover, and set the mission time allowance at 4 hours.

[calgar]

ORIGINAL BY Javolenus

All these factors just got me wondering what the real-life doctrine is and whether or not such a mission would ever be given?

I think in a WWIII scenario where everything is going downhill it is very easy to justify every situation you can think of. What you are discribing is a meeting engagement. Let's say your Brigades Main Battle Area has been penetrated, BdeCmdr decides to move the Brigade reserve into a blocking position to contain the breakthrough. The blocking position is situated along that river in question. At the same time, the soviet DivCmdr recognizes that the water body is probably where the NATO forces will try to gain foothold again, intel indicates that a Reserve force is heading into that direction too, confirming his assumption. He decides to form a forward detachment to race ahead and seize the bridges, hoping to get there before the brits do.


That could be one narrative for your scenario.

A

[Javolenus]

Oh yeah -- that sounds really great! Sums it up very neatly. Many thanks indeed -- I really appreciate that.

[DoubleDeuce]

Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents.

Since the Cold War going hot is a hypothetical situation I can see the scenario you mentioned in the 1st post happening. Most people think of the Cold War being tank heavy, which it probably would have been, at least in the beginning however, I see plenty of room for infantry based scenarios to include airborne forces operating behind the front lines or units having lost almost all of their operating vehicles over time.

IMHO, a good design is just part of what makes a good scenario, a good/interesting storyline is just as important. Just write out the situation in the briefings with something that is plausible and design away.

[Javolenus]

Hey thanks for this. I like your idea of providing a backstory to the scenario. I guess calgar already provided the bones for that, so maybe I'll try to flesh it out a bit. As for the actual scenario design, I found that Tazak's idea of limiting the Soviet chopper time works well -- the choppers are still dangerous, the mission remains tense, but the NATO player can use the gaps in Soviet air dominance to good effect.