Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

I love PBEM games, but they're mighty slow. And finding that soul that has the same tastes & standards as you is quite difficult. And it's often the case when you have incurred quite a juicy amount of casualty on the enemy's side, they'll just throw the game away, even if it's only 7 turns into the game (I admit I do this too sometimes).


So I'm thinking if I could have a satisfying game playing against myself (no puns intended).

Pros:

(1). Human vs Human (obviously more challenging than against AI).
(2). Very quick turn-rate.
(3). Easily understandable force composition & dispositions, because we bought & deployed them ourselves. unlike in Scenarios where you have to figure out which unit is where for each battle.
(4). Very modifiable & adjustable battle universe (perfect for role-playing types, for example you can reduce ammo or movement stats to simulate shortage in logistics, change Map, etc etc).
(5). No matter which side loses, we always win (unless we take preference on a certain side).

Cons:

(1). Obviously you know very well the enemy's composition & disposition, and know perfectly his entire plan, even when and where his artillery is going to land. But this is somewhat balanced by the fact OpFire phase is handled independently of human intervention; also the fact the enemy knows very well about you too, so it's about move-countermove-countermove-countermove and so on and so forth.
(2). We have to play both sides, which sometimes can get tedious.
(3). No fun factor as in the case with interacting with other human being.


Do you guys have any thought about this play style? Or if you actually have played such a thing, what's your experience on this?

I heard this is not a rare thing to do, especially in more serious & complex games, with huge amount of units and huge area of map, such as HPS Panzer Campaigns, Modern Campaigns, or even War in The Pacific.



Cheers,
ZA.

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

I have tried it, and it produces interesting results. One is that it is next to impossible for an attacker to capture many objectives if it is an assault game (unless you deliberately play bad vs. defender). The other is that if you play it cautiously, casualties are much more reasonable (no AI "throw everything and the kitchen sink at the one objective it was captured"). In general it is very difficult to get over the fact that you actually KNOW everything on every side. I can see it working if there are some specific "rules" you apply (like for example do not move the units away because of an artillery barrage you know it is coming, or stick to your orders even if you know that a counterattack is coming on your right flank etc) but it needs significant work from your part.

Let's just say that it isn't better than human vs. AI or PBEM.

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

The trick for that style of play is to have more than one going on at the same time and you don't play a turn from the same game twice in one day......having other things on your mind and a less than Eidetic memory is also a BIG help

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

Interesting title "Right-hand vs Left-hand?" At least we're not pubertal boys at the PC late at night. Okay on with the show.

I've played scenarios in this fashion, but after building one, I won't play it for say two weeks or so. In this way, I become less familiar with details.

=====

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

It is a useful way to try out a human V human scenario you have written to see what it is like to play.

Plan out a "game plan" for player A and B and stick to it. For example "attacker will concentrate on a left-flanking assault".

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

I have tried this, I even ran a short lived postal campaign where I completed all combats according to the "plans" of the players. This is, as Mobhack suggested, the way to perform a Self Vs Self game.

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

I have also, as a change of pace. Set up the game so that the AI controls the infantry on my side and I take charge of the tanks and do whatever it takes to support the infantry. It can be interesting

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

That sounds a very interesting idea, given the AI almost always charges its tanks ahead and hugely outruns its infantry support...

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

Oh my, thank you all so much! These are all cool ideas that I'll ponder, develop, and try. Hopefully I can find a good free time to test them.

Cheers!

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

Never done it with this game but works fairly well for some others.
I do like DRG's idea of handing over infantry control to the AI.
Might even try playing the AI with 2 out of 3 infantry platoons in a company under AI control.

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

This is the way I've done it. Usually a Soviet 80's scenario where I map out a battle plan and then execute it as planned (ala Soviet junior officer doctrine). I usually set the objectives first based on terrain or structures. Plan the attack and deploy the Soviets. Put the game away for awhile, then come back later and place the defensive forces.

Other types I've found somewhat successful are insurgent defense against Green offense. This I find a little easier because once the defense is set, it's generally a slugfest where moving either side can be made in response to action, or plan of action.

I guess it's a holdover from my board gaming days. I played a lot of solitaire play back then.

I've gotten out of habit with this, once I started learning movement orders. I prefer that because I can now make a battle plan and then get reasonable (OK, acceptable) response from the AI in executing it.

Tom

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

Rather than do it by unit type, I take charge of 1/3rd of the force. 1 Company out of a Battalion or 1 Battalion of a Brigade. Since the AI controlled forces may not respect unit boundaries even if movement routes are plotted, taking charge of a forward unit demands an understanding that a unit to your flank may move across your front. My best battles have been when I start out in 'reserve' with the two AI forces leading the attack/defense. In this case I must watch the battle, maneuver to support the battle and decide when or where to counterattack a penetration or make a spoiling attack or make an attack to renew a failed assault.
I also only control my organic fire support and designate which batteries are prioritized to my support. I let the AI control the other batteries. Do not turn A0 over to the AI however since the game considers that to be you.

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

Just leave A0 on the baseline, maybe somewhere he has a field of view where he may be able to spot some arty fires (he is an observer 2nd class, between proper FOOS and company etc commanders). His main job is to act as a comms relay to the off map support.

The game is no longer SP1 with 24 or so core units, where upgrading A0 to a combat unit made a significant addition to your force with the added exposure to deleterious results (e.g making him a vehicle attracts air - planes look at available vehicles to attack first). Now, losing A0 tends to kill a long campaign since you just died (but not, IIRC a PBEM campaign).

By all means move him to the rear of any mass rout you may have going on, as he provides an extra rally roll above company CO level, but dont get him mixed up in the furball. Also, dont place him right alongside indirect fire attractors sitting around in your rear such as SAMs, AAA or Arty units.

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

I usually put A0 right behind my main attack of defensive position near the company CO but far enough away both won't (usually) be affected by the same AoE attack.

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

In my scenarios, the A0 is the company commander if the scenario is company sized or less, otherwise I'd build battalion hq with A0 as the battalion commander.

I am aware my design is contrarian, but it is also exciting. It also forces the player to keep units within contact of formation leaders, rather than having units of same formation flung all over the map.

This will require creating formations in MOBHack. As an example, rather than purchase a weapons company, I'd integrate those weapon teams within my platoon and company formations.

=====

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

When you write 'weapons company' do you mean a company of a specific weapon (such as a company of all AT weapons) or a company of varied support types (HQ plt, Recon Plt, Mortar Plt, ATGM Plt....etc)?

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

Yeah, one of the things I did in the USMC rebuild was split the weapons platoons and companies up among the rifle companies as they normally would be. They only exist in the first place for admin/logistic/training purposes, none of which is terribly relevant in actual combat.

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

The weapons company provides crew-served weapons support to the infantry battalion, so typically you might find machine guns, mortars, and inf-ATM's. A weapons platoon would serve an infantry company. The organization and equipment may vary.

So, if you bought a weapons company those units may end up far removed from the formation leader. So, I'd insert MGs, Inf-Atms within my platoons, and mortars within the inf company.

=====

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

That is what i thought you had meant. While I will certainly be too verbose and explaining to a group that understands the concept I must observe, in order to be clear in this matter, that while these support units were usually attached to their organic combat units as missions were executed, the concept was a Bn Commander's greatest tactical option for flexibility without having to compete with the other battlegroups in requesting support from higher HQ.
Just as a Company level mortar unit is rather insignificant to the overall battle area, it is a Company Commanders only indirect fire support asset that he does not have to 'compete' with the other companies in requesting a finite amount of fire support. Even thought the weapons squad in a platoon would normally work within the squads it was not set which squad the Platoon Leader would assign the support to and thus he had flexibility to reinforce a squad with MG and AT if their situation warranted it.
While only evident in campaigns, in the cross-attachment set up between battles, removing the weapon companies from the OOB and dividing their formations among the combat formations would not allow a flexibility for a core formation to reinforce a company defense of a road area with the Bn AT platoon or sending the scout platoon to a end company to screen their open flank.
If there is a limitation in the game understanding these support units operating independently (in distance) from the Weapon's OOB HQ, perhaps more radio values or higher rally/morale/experience values for these formations to reflect their training and 'mindset' to go 'where needed' and function with greater initiative. If a tactical noob deploys such a support unit as a Line infantry formation or dislikes having to structure their forces between battles that is their concerns but I would like such formations to remain in the OOBs of the appropriate formations. I usually lament the fact that a transportation platoon of trucks and ammo supply vehicles are usually left out and I have to buy them separate and then I have to endue the 'I can attach the sub units to another HQ but I cannot attach the HQ unit to another HQ' problem.
But then again, I could be completely 'off the mark' to this matter to which I apologize for wasting 2 minutes of your time that you will never get back but I doubt you can fault my passion about WINSP and all the fantastic work that has been done to keep it alive.

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

Your free to set them up as you like either split the weapons company & cross attach it or take the weapons company if the OOB has one.
Open terrain separate weapons company with ATGM, MG, Mortar etc could be better if the leader hangs back with them but certainly have very few issues with them either way.
Cross attaching is just common sense for the game so you might attach your AAA assets to the weapons company as they are in the rear but not your scouts & engineers.

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

Not only that. Keeping all your support assets together gives the commander the freedom to deploy them in the most optimal way deemed necessary. He may ditribute them evenly among all companies, or that one company that is expected to be attacked by armor getting all the AT assets, or only two companies getting indirect fire support, or that one company not getting any support etc.

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

True.
But for game purposes it's usually better to have them evenly distributed as you can't usually be sure where the main attack/defense will be.

If you really want to distribute them yourself then you can buy formations without support weapons, then buy the support units and play with the editor. If you don't use Command Control then you don't even need to bother attaching them to platoons/companies.

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

It depends on a few factors such as: map size, battle type, and force composition. I always distribute my weapons between my rifle companies. I build in Mobhack formations for company, platoon, and squads with the weapons integrated. If air is not contested, I won’t deploy MANPads. If there are no enemy tanks, I’ll use inf-ATGM but with HE to target enemy infantry units. In short, depending on the mission, the composition of the force varies with what weapons and how they are loaded. I may put an infantry company to field without mortars.

As far as scouts, snipers, trucks, ammo carriers and the like, they are not put of a weapons company.

Now, in the game universe, each formation has a leader. You want to keep your subordinate units nearby the leader for rally and suppression recovery, etc. So, now map size is extremely important. If you have a large map and your weapons company is in the back, then you have to account for a lot of turns to get say a MG crew forty hex to support a rifle squad (at 5 hex per turn.) So, you keep your platoons together so that they can support each other in a fight in whatever formation (column, wedge, line, etc).

Now, scouts should cover your flanks and forward positions, but not as fighters, just to report to you where the bad guys are. Besides, they are not part of weapons anyway.

The one platform that will give your company or battalion the muscle against armor or the unexpected attacks is attack helos. They are mobile, quick, and pack a big punch. They are the cornerstone of the Land/Air battle doctrine of the USA since the 80’s. The Marines use a much similar approach but with more coordination between company commanders and what they call their air elements. In the game, attack helos are not part of the weapons company, but they can be crucial on the battlefield giving you the commander, the desired flexibility spoken of in earlier posts.

=====

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

One way to play yourself is to go back to the old ways of playing board games or tabletop model soldier wargaming. Solitaire play was always something that came up in wargaming magazines etc. Some hex-based cardboard games even had solitaire rules included, I think?.

Make a list of possible ways to do things and then roll a die or pick a card and reference the list. Then do what you told yourself to do.

e.g. make up a list of possible game strategies at the start then roll
1) Hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle. Everyone goes straight forward from where deployed.
2) Attack on his left flank only
3) Attack on his right flank only
4) Pincer - attack on both flanks, refusing the centre
5) Central attack - refuse on both flanks
6) Some other bright idea (e.g. in a meeter - perhaps "advance to the half way line, then let him come to me")

Then before setup (if not a scenario) you roll your die or pick your card and play the game as determined by that. If a scenario, you need to look at how the designer has your force set up initially, as it may restrict your options.

If you want to decide things during the game, maybe make up lists of things a company (say) should do - hold and shoot - cautious advance - all out fast attack etc. Or before playing a particular unit determine a few options in your head and roll a dice to decide which.

Or you could make a set of "tactical cards" with what a company should do and pick one for each per turn. You could if you wanted make up say 50 index cards (from office supply shops) with everything but the kitchen sink included. You could have a stack of cards for "offensive" oriented formations and one for "defensive". Some should be "do nothing" actions - I.e. sit and reserve shots for opfires. A couple of the cards may be marked "shuffle the deck", in which case you reshuffle and pick a fresh one.

A company probably would be the best size of decision unit, other than for skirmish level games.

You may want to roll a die if say the unit has an option to fire at several units - 1,2,3 the nearest MBT, 4,5 nearest non AFV, 6 nearest grunt or ATG perhaps, or simply figure out to yourself in your head the most likely and assign it 1,2,3 and then 4,5 for the next most logical target, and finally 6 for the third.

But figure out a scheme that works for you - and try not to cheat against yourself:).

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

Another way I have played the game when I feel like playing something short or different is set up a game AI vs AI.....you can pick for either side or let the AI do it. Start the game....go do something else for 15 minutes then come back and take over one ( or both ) sides....think of it as you are the replacement commander brought it to stabilise a situation.......just another variation to explore. It can sometimes be very interesting

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

A variant of DRG's suggestion above, would be to alternate sides every three turns or so. Play side A while the AI handles side B then on turn 4 swap and back again turn 8 or so. It can be "fun" watching the AI blow your carefully prepared attack!

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

...or make it work....it does good surprising things at times

Another variation for RH vs LH would be to decide what type of battle you want set up as Human vs Human then

A..you buy
B--let AI buy

Once that's sorted out you can

A- manually deploy both sides
B-let AI

Then the fun part.... as player 1 you take the units in the bottom half of the map and set the top half units to AI control then as Player 2 you take the TOP half units and let the AI have control of the bottom half then play it out. You'll never quite know what the AI will do in your other sector so you need to adjust your plans to keep it balanced or to assist the AI side in some way. It's a bit tricky but you would have your tanks and infantry and lets say mortar support only and the AI would have it's on both sides and you are generally playing against the AI but also against yourself and when you do you are playing (naturally)as if the other side has really great intel.

Just another variation someone might enjoy. I know I have enjoyed the ones where I take command of the tanks and play to support the AI controlled infantry. Great when you want to play a bigger game but really don't at the same time. Those ones I'm generally working on something else at the same time So I do my part, hit end turn then go back to what I was doing then after five minutes of doing whatever else I'm doing go back to the game ,figure out just what went on and deal with it

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

I have a relevant question: can you set AI controlled on-map units when you create a scenario? I know you can do it with off-map artillery but is it possible to set on-map units under AI control as well?

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

Do you not just use the HeadQuarters menu?

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

Correct and that's where you would set their waypoints ( if you used waypoints )

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

OK I'm processing all these tips and see what works best.
From reading all these, I think it's brilliant idea to set up "pre-turn" disposition & orders (for each turn), based on "what that side actually sees & experiences". And that order will be carried out to the utmost. Also assigning some units to AI control seems a very good idea.

Thank you everyone! I'll report back and see what I've got.

Cheers!

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

Can confirm playing with part of your force controled by the AI is certainly diffrent, you do end up coming to the rescue or sometimes think stop advancing I need to find that weapon. Sometimes however your AI can pull off a few localised good actions especially after the recon by death phase is over.
Played as the reserve but going to try leading the way & doing the scouting next time it might be more beneficial, I can fall back if needs be. Also next time I get a decent air role going to buy some & hand them all over to the AI airforce.

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

Certainly taking over the Recce as well as the armour would be a good choice while letting the AI handle the infantry with you doing your best to support the infantry wherever armoured support is needed most would be a good use of this variation.

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

Brainstorm:

-There's a master plan (pre-game), and there are ad-hoc plans (mid-game). Ad-hoc plans can only be created if enemy dispositions are known, i.e own units get fired upon, enemy units spotted, smoke pops up, artillery fires, z fires, etc, in essence anything that is tangible, visible, and has already happened, NOT based on intuitions, whims, taking-sides, etc. Preferably plans are quite simple.

-Dice roll to define which plan gets taken for each formation. This will detach even more from the player's God-ability.

-Multiple battles (i.e multiple formations), with each battle's result defining the course of action for the other battles.

-Use scen/battle editor to simulate prolonged battles (fatigue, low ammo, low fuel, replacements, time of day, weather, etc). Units are still taken raw from the previous battle. If one side gets exterminated, create a fresh one for it so the battle may continue (new mission, new enemy).

-Etc.

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

Brainstorm:

-Assign formations to computer (waypoints) until contact is made. Possibly do a dice roll every turn, which formations are automated. Once contact is made, manual control.

-Each side has some locations (e.g hex coordinates) that define supply routes. Preferably at rear and/or rear-flanks. If those locations are taken by opposing side, and the battle continues for the next round (prolonged, e.g night battle), units get lower morale, lower ammo, and less movement for vehicles to simulate failure to resupply.

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

Necroing because another idea came to mind:

First of all you need a dice. Either use a web-based application like random.org or an actual dice, whichever you prefer. Then roll the dice for player 1. Use some modifiers for extra flavor, some that come to mind are:

+1 if NATO vs. Soviet game (better command and control)
+1 if advancing (attacker has initiative)
+2 if assaulting (the above, plus time for better preparation of the offensive)

Then roll the dice and assign the modifiers above if applicable. The result is the number of turns you play as the player in question. After that repeat the above process for the other player.

Example: Player 1 is USSR in an assault scenario. Rolls a 4 and adds 2 since it is assault. End result 6. You play as the Soviet player for 6 turns. After that, you play as USA. You roll 4 again. Since it is USA vs. USSR you add 1, end result 5. So you play as USA for 5 turns. Repeat until the scenario ends.

I'm not sure about the number of dice needed and the modifiers, but you get the general idea. I'll probably try it for a couple of scenarios and tell you the results.

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

Interesting way, apparently to playtest scenarios. Yeah, eager to know how it works for you.

So, to be clear, after each number of turns, save the scenario and upon restart change sides?

Thanks.
<br>

Re: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?
 

Exactly. In the above example, at turn 6 you save game, restart with switching to the USA side and proceed as usual.