Hell on Wheels - No Clue

[vettim89]

I'm going to load the beta and see if the game plays differently for me

[IronMikeGolf]

What was your plan? Where all did you choose to kill the Soviets?

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Iron Mike Golf

What was your plan? Where all did you choose to kill the Soviets?

Well I was planning on killing as many as possible in the space between Steinbeck and the river. I killed a lot but not enough. The slaughter of the Mech INF Coy guarding the southern edge did not help. Failing to position units on the east bank of the River was not a good idea. You just have a lot of territory to cover and not a lot of units to accomplish it with

I was really frustrated the other not and may have spoke harshly. This scenario is VERY challenging and my neophyte skills may not be up to it. I will, however, stand by my statement that it is more than a little unbalanced.

[CapnDarwin]

I have a curiosity question. What makes the scenario appear unbalanced? The game is built to score based on the ratio of VP points scored. It's technically feasible to have one tank platoon fight against a full MRR. May not be a lot of fun and probably over rather quickly, but you can still win by taking out enough bad guys to offset the loss of your force.

This question has importance to how we setup scenarios in the future and more importantly, how we explain them and assign difficulty ratings to them so players have an idea of what they are getting into. Southern Storm will have a number of additional features that, in theory, will help direct forces, but there is also an increase over overhead in what player need to know and integrate into the fight.

[BeirutDude]

As a Scenario Designer, I have actually found this to be one of the easiest games to balance in terms of Victory Points and Unit Point totals. If you look at the three scenarios (six actually since they go both ways [:D] ) I have made for the 1985 War, the units and VPs are as closely balanced as possible with an almost "bell curve" for the Victory conditions. So Vettim89, and please don't think I'm being critical I am interested in your perception as well (too easy to think things are critical said on these boards), but could you try to play one of the 1985 scenarios and see if you feel they are unbalanced?

Thanks,
Al

[vettim89]

My balance issue is based on the fact that the Red player gets an entire Tank Division at set while the Blue player gets one reinforced battalion with no air support, no helos, and no arty to start.

Perhaps its just that I suck at this game

[Stimpak]

Your play will improve with enough experience under your belt - I used to be terrible too.

[BeirutDude]

I sense frustration with the scenario (and a disturbance in the force).

So I've designed a fair amount of scenarios in my day and generally I look at...

1. What was the historical, or if hypothetical likely, force composition. I think you will admit not all situations were fought by equal forces. A 1980s vintage ACR was designed to take on 2 to 2.5 Soviet divisions for a few days. The 11th ACR was spread out over a large area and was going to have a Squadron (reinforced Battalion) hit by a Soviet division at each point.

2. What were/are or likely would have been the objectives. Exit the map? Take the bridge?

3. Now balance the VP hexes and unit points to make it balanced as a game.

So that one reinforced battalion may never have been slated to "win" or even survive but if their job was to slow down the division (keep them from exiting the map) that wiped out battalion may have won the game.

There's a lot more to design but that is my basic approach. Maybe I suck as a scenario designer?

[cbelva]

When I first started playing this scenario, I tried defending too far forward and got my clocked cleaned pretty good. I then started trying different strategies and studying the terrain. I just finished my scenario which I won with a Tactical Victory with 72% rating and with 76% of my starting force in tack. I don't think the patch will make that much different. this game rewards good tactics and punishes poor tactics. You have to learn correct strategy like the rest of us. Studying AAR is a good way. Also, posting like you are doing is also good.

It is true when the scenario start you are facing a division with part of 2 battalions. But you do have the rest of an entire brigade moving up behind you as reinforcements. The initial job of the 2 partial battalions is to buy time until the rest of the brigade gets on line. That is a difficult task, but not impossible. I have learned three lessons playing this game which I also learned during my time in the army. 1) picking the correct terrain is vitally important. You want good terrain that gives you good field of fire but also some protection. 2) Don't try and defend terrain physically all the time. It is also just as effective and many times even more so to defend and protect terrain with fire. In other words, place your units in good terrain over watching the terrain you need to protect and cover it with concentrated fire. 3) You have to mass your fire. When the enemy comes thru the valley behind Steinbeck or down the forest road north of Steinbeck or swinging south thru the trees and hills south of Steinbeck, I want them to be met with multiple units engaging them. That gives them little time to react to your fire. By following these three rules, I was able to frustrate the AI's plan and deny him any of the crossing over the Este River on the western side of the map. I also blew all the bridges on the Este except two that I needed to bring my reinforcements to into the field of battle. I will post my final map. Note all the dead red subunits in the valley behind Steinbeck. all due to concentrated fire from having multiple units engaging every time any of the AI's unit tired to move west of Steinbeck. Also, the mech plt in the woods north of Steinbeck was able to hold up an entire Soviet regiment for almost 6 hours by having mass fire as they tried to move down the road, minefields set by FASCAM, and arty support. By the time the AI had push thru, my reinforcements were in place waiting for them. I should also mention that I use smoke on my most critical units/positions when they are facing heavy odds. With NATO's thermal sights, that give them a better advantage. If you compare the first map I posted you will note that the AI had a hard time getting past my initial deployment. Then in the second map at just over 2 hours of game time, the Soviets never really was able to advance much further.

One more thing, most of my losses was due to arty. In fact, 40% of my losses was caused by artillery fire.

[vettim89]

I played it again tonight and did a little better. I scored 68% but only had 56% of my units active. I made a few mistakes early and one late. I also discovered the AI will go quiet if you slap him in the face hard enough. I learned to get the AI moving again I needed to retake a VP hex or two. The AI then sent units to retake it. If I had done that earlier and in force I may have scored a little better.

I nearly eliminated the MRR and destroyed just shy of 2/3 of the T-80.

Practice makes perfect. Thanks for all the advice and encouragement.

[WildCatNL]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I played it again tonight and did a little better. I scored 68% but only had 56% of my units active. I made a few mistakes early and one late. I also discovered the AI will go quiet if you slap him in the face hard enough. I learned to get the AI moving again I needed to retake a VP hex or two. The AI then sent units to retake it. If I had done that earlier and in force I may have scored a little better.

I nearly eliminated the MRR and destroyed just shy of 2/3 of the T-80.

Practice makes perfect. Thanks for all the advice and encouragement.

Thanks for posting your experiences and thought process. Great to see you enjoying the replayability of the game and getting victorious.

I don't believe you have to retake a hostile VP in order to force an AI response; it is sufficient to pose a (visible and clear) threat for the AI to move/keep units near a VP. You've got to create problems for the AI : )

William

[cbelva]

You learned something, if you hit the AI hard, it will pull back and regroup. If it finds a weakness in your defense, it will exploit it. The AI was coded to respond to how you are playing. I have found in defending against the AI repeatedly that if I hit it hard and bloody early in the scenario, it will pull back and regroup. It will then probe me looking for a weakness. It will then try a second time to break my defense. Usually there is a lull while it is regrouping and probing. If I don't bloody it early, it will continue to push against me until it breaks me or I break it.

[bootlegger267]

The one thing that I disliked about the scenario (and I like the scenario) was the absence of 3/41 Mech's Mortar Plt at the start. Actually no Mortar Plt's played a role in my AAR and that organic asset is vital.

No American Cdr would sacrifice a Mech Bn like I did with the 3/41 Mech in Buchholz, but I wanted to delay the Russian attack out of Buchholz for as long as possible.

3/41's "DIP" mission was very successful as seen by their kills and how long they delayed and broke up the Russian attack. Also, the Scout Section screening the southern approach took out an amazing number of vehicles before being destroyed reducing the threat from the south.

Disengaging and getting units to pull back is extremely difficult in this game and I have not been able to do it, as the execution delay is a bitch to nail down.

By delaying/breaking up the attack, I was able to get 2/66Ar on the map, even though they approach from two different axis (One Co north, one South). If the scenario didn't end, they would have caught the Russian's in a murderous crossfire west of the B3.

The Soviets never made it past the North/South B3 highway as the long ranged fires from TF D/3/41 caught the Russian attack in the flank while TF D/4/41 blocked the high speed approach at the intersection. It wasn't pretty, and I'll find out the ramifications in the continuation of the campaign......


Bootlegger267

[cbelva]

ORIGINAL: bootlegger267

The one thing that I disliked about the scenario (and I like the scenario) was the absence of 3/41 Mech's Mortar Plt at the start. Actually no Mortar Plt's played a role in my AAR and that organic asset is vital.

Bootlegger267

If you want to see how the mortar plt would have affecting the scenario, you could load the scenario in the editor and add the mortar in. Just save it under a different name. You can find the scenario in the Campaign folder.

ORIGINAL: bootlegger267

Disengaging and getting units to pull back is extremely difficult in this game and I have not been able to do it, as the execution delay is a bitch to nail down.

Bootlegger267

I feel your pain. Personally, once the bullets start flying in modern combat, I believe that it will be difficult to disengage. In fact, getting up and pulling back will just make you easier to kill. Only well trained and disciplined troops would be able to do that effectively.

[IronMikeGolf]

Think of your orders as being "new" orders. That means unplanned. So, the plt leader or company commander needs to select the route and get that info to the vehicle commanders. For mech inf, the squads need to move to the track, load up, maybe take a machine gun from ground mount and put it on the vehicle mount, etc.

The game engine does not currently support much in the way of maneuver control. The next version will let you do things like move to your next battle position based on enemy activity (e.g. close to 2500 meters).

In the meantime, the work around is to issue a Deliberate Move order to a unit way before you want it to move, but set the waypoint delay very high. When you want to execute the move, reset the waypoint delay accordingly.

[bootlegger267]

Now that's an idea I never would have thought of!!!!

Thanks!

Bootlegger267

[exsonic01]

After several big failures, I set major kill zone around the town of Trelde and 800VP cross load, and so far so good in the middle. But looks like my southern flank (route K75, and 900VP bridge) is in danger. Man, this scenario is not easy. No plan survives after contact... Plus, I really hate soviet arty :{

[cbelva]

Arty is the big killer in this game. As NATO, you fight outnumbered and you can afford to loose too many assets. I don't know how many times I was defending and felt like I was in a good position and could hold it when Soviet arty started raining down on my position and killed just enough of may tanks to ruin my plan.

There have been players who complained that arty is too strong. It is not called "The King of Battle" for nothing. Arty has always been a big killer on the battlefield.