Playtesters Wanted
 

Grind them beneath our treads

Date: February 20, 2016
Battle Type: USMC defend vs Iraq assault

Two armored brigades have been deployed to stop our evacuation. The Iraqi general is quoted as saying: "The American Marines have but four tanks, we will grind them beneath our treads!"

Not suitable for two player. The human player must play the USMC side.
This scenario requires the use of Suhiir's modified USMC OOB (#13). The current version is included in the ZIP file.

####################
Feedback requested.
What "needs" to be changed?
How?
Why?
####################

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

Now this is an ambitious project! :cheers:
First scen of the campaign...?

Love the map!

LAV-25 in the south draws first blood!

13MEU straining at the leash...

"...I want turmoil and the brawl", now bring it..! :)

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

Last or 2nd to last scenario actually.
I want to make sure it's "winable" with an intact CORE.
Also make sure the hours I spent doing waypoints for the Iraqi's create a semblance of reasonable tactics on their part.
By the time the player gets to this scenario (s)he will probably have lost some units, making this scenario "fun" !

I can take no credit for the map, it's a stock one. Just one I haven't seen used before in a scenario. I love that it's large enough you can actually use some fire-and-maneuver.

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

Turn 8 now. The AI moves it's forces beautifully.

I evacuated all the high cost civilians and wounded off the map, might not have been neccessary. We'll see...

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

Here's a funny thing - suddenly I recognized the map. I made it myself. haha :D

It was used for this campaign:

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=44370

Nice to see the map being put to good use. :up:

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

Love the map!

Hard to properly play-test your own scenarios as you know exactly what, when, and where.

What? No faith in your ability to protect them? :ahh:
Hope you evac'd the various ambassadors too. Collectively they're worth a sizable fraction of your entire combat TO&E.
And you might want to check the unit cost of your supply trucks. ;)

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

hehe ;)

Of course it is only out of our concern for their well being...

Turn 15. I have lost one Abrams and had another damaged. One of my Iraqi T72s have also been lost.

The Iraqis have taken big losses, but there's more comming! And one Iraqi column of tanks I had lined up for attack by a CM barrage just veered 'south'! I pounded empty desert!

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

Done! :up:

The way points for the AI advance works great, IMHO.
I don't see the need to change anything.

In a campaign where this is one of the last scenarios and the troops have been deployed by the player (and depending on how intact the core is) you might get other outcomes.

The USMC firepower in this scenario is awsome and it is possible to stop the AI Iraqi cold, although, at first, it looks intimidating with all those enemy tanks comming at you.

As it was, the high water mark of the Iraqi southern force reached about as far along the map as Recon Plt Gomez (the scout teams in the hills) - but after the destruction of virtually all the tanks in the south, the Iraqi infantry or M113 did not continue advance.

They got further in the "north" and captured some VHs but their attack force was broken just beyond the initial position of TOW section Deveraux.

Both the Iraqi southern and northern groups had about a company size mech formation of M113 and dismounts in their forming up point who did not seem to have advanced at all.

In the north in was S0 Mech Inf Company Ismail and in the south it was BI0 Mech Inf Company al-Hadidi. I'm not sure why they did not advance, usually the AI will push everyhting forward. Kind of a realistic result - maybe broken morale. :)
Their status are indicating 'moving' though at a slow pace...

Overall, very nice. Looking forward to the campaign! :up:

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

Suhiir, thanks for posting this challenging scenario.

Some feedback: In the early engagements, I used my Apaches at low altitude to score big time against the Iraqi armor in the Center sector. My Apaches in the North sector popped-up from buildings with tremendous devastation. In the Southern sector, I have prepared an ambush.

Since some units are positioned at certain off-road points, as they are not appearing as check-points, I assume the brigade S2 staff anticipated as Insurgent encroachment, correct?

As with the other guys, I find the AI movement is very good thus far. I want to play the USMC side then switch to Iraqi using a simple straight-up penetration maneuver.

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

Thanks wulfir.

Yeah, the sheer number of tanks is suppose to give the player a mild heart attack. Most of the previous scenarios will be infantry based or line of march ambush/harassment ones where the goal is keeping those high value units safe and getting them from one end of the map to the other (one place I miss the SPWW2 victory exit hexes).

The USMC is a real TO&E MEU. While not even remotely an armored assault force themselves, they can deal with one fairly well.

Yeah, the whole intent is if the player lost too much in the previous scenarios this one may be near impossible. But as I said I needed to see if someone with an intact CORE that didn't know exactly what the Iraqi's were sending, when, and where could deal with them. Of course by this time the CORE will also be veteran units so that will help make up for previous losses somewhat, depending on what they lost.

From what you say it sounds like the Iraqi's never got to your main defensive positions? If so I need to tweak. Some are suppose to be able to make it that far.

I'll check on those Iraqi mech formations that didn't move, if it was broken morale I'd say no problem, but their waypoints may have a glitch.

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

Cobra's actually, the USMC has never used the Apache. :D
Yeah the lack of USMC tanks means our air, helos, and ATGMs are our anti-armor units. Part of the intent here to let players "learn" for themselves that you don't necessarily need tanks to stop tanks.

If I understand your comment correctly it's more that this is the desert. Roads are convenient but rarely limit the potential avenues of approach one can use. So units are positioned to cover those not the roads themselves.

I seriously doubt the AI will put up much of a fight as the USMC side, as they'll die in place in their initial positions. The AI can't handle "shoot and scoot" tactics. Nor will it reload from ammo trucks.

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

The did not engage any of the entrenched USMC rifle companies. I moved Echo Company forward and this unit saw some action, but not that much.

ATGMs, artillery and air killed off the bulk of Iraqi armour before they got close. But it's not given the result would at all be similiar with a different setup of the core...

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

Very true, but while exactly as expected I thought some would make it to the entrenched positions. Have to tweak a bit.

Questions:
What did you find odd/unusual about USMC deployment?

Was any of the initial deployment "wrong"?

How useful were the UAV's and MV-22's as spotters? Too much? I'm considering pulling the MV-22's as they're NOT recon helos, but they are part of a MEU and under the circumstances they're not needed for redeployment. The other option is to use Gulf Co in the MV-22's as the reserve vice Echo Co in AAV's.

How useful/effective did you find the inherent air assets (the F-35's) of the MEU? Decisive or merely handy?

The Iraqi's had an off-board artillery battalion (3 x batteries in a total of 6 x platoons) did your non-player-controlled "Ctr Bty Air" do a fair job dealing with them? Too effective?

I made the bulk of the Iraqi armor T-72's because M1's would be near invulnerable to SMAWs/AT4s but from the sound of it they never made it far enough for that to be an issue. Did you find the M1's difficult to deal with?

Did Iraqi AA play any role on the battle? Most was MPADs in M113's, did any actually deploy? Did the Iraqi MT-LB w/ZU-23's have any effect on your use of air?

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

Nothing really..., the service/support units, wounded, civilians etc might be somewhat unusual but I understand their role in the scenario.


IMHO, not really.

They give you near complete coverage of the battlefield.


More decisive than handy. I used them to target Iraqi Abrams tanks mainly.


The Iraqi artillery did not give me much trouble so I guess not.


More dangerous than the T72s - but they will be killed by TOWs, air and artillery. Especially the quick response artillery with their ammo trucks are useful. The true hero of this scneario is the Forward Observer...

The MT-LB AA tracks did not make much of an impact but the Strela/Stinger teams did damage one Jet and one Cobra.

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

Thank you again. Very useful observations.
*begins tweaking*

*just chuckles*

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

Just for fun I will re-play the scenario with a similar size force based on the Nordic Battle Group concept that will have somewhat less AT capability.

The OOB is loosely based on a mix of NBG 08 and NBG 11.

HQ/NBG Cmdr
Forward Observer
Special Forces Element (4 SSG Teams, RG-32M)

Mech Inf Coy (CV90) Sweden
Mech Inf Coy (Bv309) Sweden
Mech Inf Coy (AMW Patria) Finland
Bn Support Coy (Pioneer Plt-trucks, Recce Plt-RG32M, AA Plt-Rbs 70, Lvkv 90, Mortar Plt - 120mm towed, Supply Element - 6 Ammo Carriers)

Cavalry Recce Coy (Piranah) - Ireland (this formation is a mix of in game Australian and Swiss units)

Heavy Company - Norway (Tank Plt - Leopard 2A4NO, Leo 2 Dozer, 2 Engineer Plt's - Bv206, Indirect Fire Plt - 6 BW L52 Archer)

Heavy Supply Company - (6 Ammo Carriers) Norway

Independent Mech Platoon(+) - (XA-185 Pasi) Estonia (mix of in game Israeli and Finnish units)

Independent Mech Platoon - (Patria AMW) Croatia

Helicopter Group (2 Augusta 109, 2 UH-60 Blackhawk, 2 Mi-8 C Hip)

Air Support Element (6 JAS-39 Gripen)

No attack helicopters, no UAV, no off board artillery.

I'm using mostly stock OOB units and the Mech Inf companies are mostly equipped with AT capability having about 3 ATGM teams each. The Irish Recce Company has the most ATGM weapons, including two TOW armed Pirahnas. The Norwegian Heavy Company has all the tanks and the Archer artillery systems and is probably the best equipped to kill armour.

Of course I know the routes the AI will take, but I will probably not be able to halt all the attacks at once. We'll see...

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

This is good stuff,and another campaign being hammered out,keep up the great work Suhiir and you have probalely the best playtester with Wulfir:banana:

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

Unfortunately, if I'm not mistaken, if you buy any new units for a scenario it tends to screw up the waypoints.

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

More the merrier!
Feedback as always appreciated. Specially in a project of this scope because you're ALWAYS going to miss something.

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

Don't know - but I'm not playing it as a scenario, but as a two scenario long campaign. I made a 1 turn long "intro scenario" where I bought the forces to be used, bought air support for aux pts.

I'm on turn 8.

The Irish in the south have knocked out about 8 or so T72s and a couple of M113s, but are now running low on ammo. There are two TOW armed Piranah's and one Leopard 2 Dozer. Three of the infantry Cav Scout Teams have Javelin ATGMs, but with only two rounds. Falling back to re-load, but the T72s are closing in, and behind it the wave of mech inf and Abrams'.

There are two things I happening I did not notice before. There is one T72 platoon moving through the rough terrain in the middle of the map, and about a company size T72 tank force is moving along the hard surface road from the centre of the map to the upper part...

In the far upper part of the map I have the Norwegian Leopard 2 platoon, and these have killed off a large part of the enemy tanks and armoured cars.

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

Odd, you should have seen both of those maneuvers the first time.

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

Maybe the units died before they could execute the manouver? Maybe the AI ad libs a bit. The Iraqi advance has carried further this time - and the first time I did not see many units start to move through the rough terrain - I don't mean the lanes of clear terrain, but through the actual patches of rocks.

The biggest difference seems to be in the north. I don't have any choppers in overwatch so I can't really see the majority of the AI force though. Turn 25 now.

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

If they're moving thru the rocks that's the AI ad-libing. You probably delayed them and they're taking "short cuts" to catch up to their waypoint markers.

And if you can't see the north all that well ... remember the soldiers prayer - "For what we are about to receive..."

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

Ok, done.

Overall result similar.

The South: Resistance being weaker the AI pushed further and managed to knock out the on Leo 2 Dozer and with a well placed artillery strike kill off the two SP-ATGM Piranhas.
But there were four sections of Cav Scout teams with Javelins and with artillery and air support these stopped the remaining Iraqi tanks - in reality it was only two scout teams because only two of them were in a position to be re-armed. Both had about 13-14 kills, all being tanks or apcs. The AI did go for the 200 VH location in the extreme south and captured it but lost about two tank platoons and an apc or two in the rocky hills.

The Centre:
The T72 tank formations that started in the centre of the map did not as last time pass through the VH in the major built up area and strike the centre of the map region. Instead they advanced along the main road "north" towards the big intersection. Some tanks were killed, but four of them ended the map with ready status in a strange location - the deployment zone of the main Iraqi group in the "north". Gun tubes pointing "east". Some escorting infantry also followed this route but virtually all died during the battle.

The other main group in the centre, the Cascavel and Abrams units attacked in a similar fashion as last time, but now focused on the VH at 31,56 (in the small built up area near the patch of woods) and not VH 76,56 as last time. This attack was weaker than last time because the T72 did not support it.

The North:

The tanks got further here than last time but took a partly different route. The main force went through the rocky terrain in the "north", last time they skirted it to the "north" as the waypoints were set. However I had placed the Leopard tanks in the north and they killed off a large number of T72s in the initial wave before I pulled them back. Might have impacted.

The Iraqi force did slightly better against the Nordic Battle Group than the USMC setup but not much. If I had been playing it blind they would have probably done slightly better. Those two mech companies that didn't move again stayed put in their jump off locations...

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

Thanks again wulfir.

Forgot to ask before.
Was 36 turns enough to "defeat" the Iraqi's without spending the last few turns killing stragglers? Or were there still enough of them alive to continue the assault?

Sounds like I need to trade some T-72's for Abrams if I want them to reach the main defense line.

VERY odd about those two mech companies. Maybe I'll have to have them enter earlier or something *scratches her head*

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

I think 36 turns will be enough for most players.


Maybe, maybe not - this all depends on the deployment of the player, and if he still packs enough AT punch at the end of the campaign (though I think most players will).

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

They should unless they lost a couple tanks/Vipers during the earlier scenarios. And if they've lost half their tanks/vipers then I guess they'll learn attrition battles hurt.

Going to trade in one battalions T-72's for Abrams, so wind up to half and half instead of the current three-fourths one-fourth. Also think I'll give the T-72 battalions BMP's vice M113's. Seems the BMPs don't carry ATGMs but most players won't realize that at first, greater initial heart attack value.

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

You could mabye increase the experience/morale value some on selected Iraqi units, not all perhaps, but some. Depending on the number of scenarios the player's units will probably be close to elite...

...but what a new player might consider a hard scenario is an easy meal for a veteran player - perfect playblance does not exist, IMHO.

Re: Playtesters Wanted
 

This will be about the 7th scenario, so some may be elite, but all should be veteran.

Yeah, playbalance is ALWAYS "fun".

With luck this campaign series will "teach" the value of maneuver as most scenarios seem to be head-on-head.
Course the problem is creating scenarios that require the player to do more then "Hey Diddle, Diddle, Straight Up The Middle".