Scenario War of the Fleas: the Blue Hills

Grant1pa · #1 June 2nd, 2015, 02:45 PM

The following is a scenario set hypothetically in April, 2016 involving a Russian Assault of prepared Estonian positions west of Narva (in the Blue Hills of Siminae). This same area was the site of a large battle between German and Soviet forces in 1944.

Russian Forces began assaults on Norway and Finland in 2015. Both offensives bogged down. Now Russia looks to the Baltic States to pressure the rear of the Finnish Line.

Russian MRB's have broken through the Narva frontier and a single Motorized Rifle Brigade is quickly advancing towards prepared Estonian positions in the Blue Hills. The Estonians have no armor. However, NATO has provided ATGM support, and NATO air has for the moment suppressed Russian Air and Artillery.

This scenario is designed to play as the Estonian forces (Green units) and units have had their reaction range reduced to increase effectiveness of their ATGM and anti-tank capacity.

As the Estonian commander, you must hold the three hills comprising the Blue Hills (Tower Hill, Grenadier Hill, and Orphanage Hill), a key topographic feature in the otherwise flat topography of Eastern Estonia.

Both sides are limited to only mortar supporting fire. Estonian reinforcements are limited. The Russian assault force is large.

I've played this scenario eight times before publishing it, and even knowing where the thrusts are coming from, the AI makes you work to stay alive.

Luck

Tom

shahadi · #2 June 2nd, 2015, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grant1pa

The following is a scenario set hypothetically in April, 2016 involving a Russian Assault of prepared Estonian positions west of Narva (in the Blue Hills of Siminae). This same area was the site of a large battle between German and Soviet forces in 1944.

This scenario is designed to play as the Estonian forces (Green units) and units have had their reaction range reduced to increase effectiveness of their ATGM and anti-tank capacity.

Yes. I'm eager to open this guy and see what's in store. It sounds interesting. The ATGM units have their Op-fire filtered and ranged, is that what you're saying by what I've highlighted in "red." If so, a good move, I would have done that immediately upon reviewing the force.

Thank you Grant1pa
----

Grant1pa · #3 June 2nd, 2015, 08:08 PM

Yes. I'm eager to open this guy and see what's in store. It sounds interesting. The ATGM units have their Op-fire filtered and ranged, is that what you're saying by what I've highlighted in "red." If so, a good move, I would have done that immediately upon reviewing the force.

Thank you Grant1pa
----[/quote]

Yes. That's the way I playtest this as I develop it. It just makes it a one-way scenario. If you want to play it from the Russian side, you have to load it into the editor and remove the settings (which I've done to my delight!).

Tom

shahadi · #4 June 3rd, 2015, 08:30 PM

My first impressions were dismal for the Estonians. The map is favorable to Russian mech and mtr rifle companies. Fain an assault in the center, with remaining forces flanking to strike Estonians from the south and rear were my initial inclination. Then I reviewed the Estonians:

I did not find any AT units Op-fire filtered. So, I would definitely spend time doing that, and also other units especially APC's and rifle units.

I found only one mech inf company. The remaining 11 platoons did not have a hq unit. I would at least form a mtr inf co and a rifle company. I would attach scouts, AT units, & snipers to those now three companies. Lastly, I like units to stay together rather than mixed with other units and/or spread over large areas on the map. I found too many units with direct reports to the A0 unit.

I did not look at the Russian side. Is the Russian side with way-points to objectives for each formation since it is AI controlled.

-----

Grant1pa · #5 June 4th, 2015, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shahadi

My first impressions were dismal for the Estonians. The map is favorable to Russian mech and mtr rifle companies. Fain an assault in the center, with remaining forces flanking to strike Estonians from the south and rear were my initial inclination. Then I reviewed the Estonians:

I did not find any AT units Op-fire filtered. So, I would definitely spend time doing that, and also other units especially APC's and rifle units.

I found only one mech inf company. The remaining 11 platoons did not have a hq unit. I would at least form a mtr inf co and a rifle company. I would attach scouts, AT units, & snipers to those now three companies. Lastly, I like units to stay together rather than mixed with other units and/or spread over large areas on the map. I found too many units with direct reports to the A0 unit.

I did not look at the Russian side. Is the Russian side with way-points to objectives for each formation since it is AI controlled.

-----

Thanks for the input. I had problems with waypoints for this scenario. I'm not sure if it was my own stupidity or a problem with my initial setup, but my initial waypoint flew off the map and caused issues. I'll work on correcting that as I agree that I want the units to be cohesive in the Russian Assault.

As for the OPFIRE, I thought I had that adjusted correctly but I'll take a second look at it.

The Hq matter was an error. I spent over 3 weeks working on the map and between work and other duties, it got passed me.

Truly appreciate the input to make this one better. I have a series of five more scenarios that I've done the basic research on that I want to follow this one so the input definitely helps me. I'll work on this in the coming week. I have leave time to take and it will take my mind off of the real world for awhile.

Thanks!

Tom

shahadi · #6 June 4th, 2015, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grant1pa

Quote:

Originally Posted by shahadi

My first impressions were dismal for the Estonians. The map is favorable to Russian mech and mtr rifle companies. Fain an assault in the center, with remaining forces flanking to strike Estonians from the south and rear were my initial inclination. Then I reviewed the Estonians:

I did not find any AT units Op-fire filtered. So, I would definitely spend time doing that, and also other units especially APC's and rifle units.

I found only one mech inf company. The remaining 11 platoons did not have a hq unit. I would at least form a mtr inf co and a rifle company. I would attach scouts, AT units, & snipers to those now three companies. Lastly, I like units to stay together rather than mixed with other units and/or spread over large areas on the map. I found too many units with direct reports to the A0 unit.

I did not look at the Russian side. Is the Russian side with way-points to objectives for each formation since it is AI controlled.

-----

Thanks for the input. I had problems with waypoints for this scenario. I'm not sure if it was my own stupidity or a problem with my initial setup, but my initial waypoint flew off the map and caused issues. I'll work on correcting that as I agree that I want the units to be cohesive in the Russian Assault.

As for the OPFIRE, I thought I had that adjusted correctly but I'll take a second look at it.

The Hq matter was an error. I spent over 3 weeks working on the map and between work and other duties, it got passed me.

Truly appreciate the input to make this one better. I have a series of five more scenarios that I've done the basic research on that I want to follow this one so the input definitely helps me. I'll work on this in the coming week. I have leave time to take and it will take my mind off of the real world for awhile.

Thanks!

Tom

Okay... well, thanks for putting this and the other scenarios together. I'll take a look at the Russian side and report back here what if anything I find significant, otherwise, I'll wait for your update.

----

Suhiir · #7 June 6th, 2015, 09:22 AM

I had all kinds of fun creating the "Cuban Crisis" scenario. Open it with editor and take a look ... all infantry and vehicles in separate units, some vehicle speeds reduced, a zillion waypoints. And it's still far from perfect.

Grant1pa · #8 June 6th, 2015, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir

I had all kinds of fun creating the "Cuban Crisis" scenario. Open it with editor and take a look ... all infantry and vehicles in separate units, some vehicle speeds reduced, a zillion waypoints. And it's still far from perfect.

Yeah, I can understand that. The topography in this one makes the assault difficult and waypoints to direct the units is imperative. Somehow the version I published got screwed up but with the help you guys have given me, I think I can resurrect it well.

I really liked this scenario and did a fair amount of research into the 44 battles there.

Thanks for the help gentlemen!

Tom

Grant1pa · #9 June 14th, 2015, 09:55 AM

I've spent the last week totally revising this scenario. I know I should have been more diligent prior to posting it originally, but I've undergone a substantial learning curve in understanding the AI (or so it thinks...)in attempting to simulate realistic OPFOR tactics.

I had significant trouble with waypoints. Thanks to those who offered comments on this (Shahadi, Suhiir), it motivated me to overcome the problem, or at least, come to par with it. One thing I observed was this. If you remount the HQ into the transport, then later go back and adjust or add waypoints to another unit (going back to the deploy screen), the AI reverts back to the practice of pushing the initial waypoint to the far edge of the screen (my initial problem revisited). Therefore, if you adjust your forces, then go back to deploy and add new waypoints for them, you'll have to dismount all infantry HQ's, then mount them again to get the AI to revert to the proper first waypoint. Once I got that down, my major problem was solved.

I read and re-read the manual and attachments on waypoints, and once adhering to the 3-5 rule, was able to get my units to where I wanted them to go, in reasonable fashion. My wayward initial waypoint for HQ units was a factor of the leg unit being loaded into a transport unit. Once dismounted, waypoints were effectively laid. One problem solved. I'm still trying to master the "Pyros formula", but learning. That method takes a lot of time.

The other problem was keeping the infantry in transport as long as you can. It's been a prevalent comment of the problem of IFV's and APC's dismounting their infantry too quickly. I can't say I've solved that issue, but keeping to the manual's admonition to set the reaction time for the transport to zero helped substantially.

The real issue is using the limitations of the AI to simulate a reasonable OPFOR tactical assault. I'm still learning this, and some good can be achieved, but some core tactics simply are beyond the AI. I can get them to where I want them to go, set multiple objectives, and utilize terrain to a reasonable level. But getting (for example) Red Team units to go from a line march to a reasonable assault formation is beyond the capabilities of me, or the AI (OK, blame me..).

Again, using both suggestions from other members as well as prior knowledge of playing this game since it's inception, use of Objectives and selective placement of units in tactical formations as reinforcements simulates real world tactics to some degree. But it's surely tricky and demands attention (of which, mine wanes after a couple of hours).

Either way, I've spent the greater part of a half week of leave revisiting this scenario and I'm on my last update test today. I completely revisited the Russian TO&E, and adjusted the Estonian force level to maintain a realistic hypothetical force balance. I think you will find this to play significantly different than the original scenario. It also is quite harder for the Estonians.

Question here is on posting etiquette. Should I repost the updated scenario in this thread, or create a new one?

If someone could advise me on this, once I spend another 4-5 hours running my last test, I'll repost this scenario and start work on my next in the series.

Thanks again for all the help.

Tom

shahadi · #10 June 15th, 2015, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grant1pa

The real issue is using the limitations of the AI to simulate a reasonable OPFOR tactical assault. I'm still learning this, and some good can be achieved, but some core tactics simply are beyond the AI. I can get them to where I want them to go, set multiple objectives, and utilize terrain to a reasonable level. But getting (for example) Red Team units to go from a line march to a reasonable assault formation is beyond the capabilities of me, or the AI (OK, blame me..).

Tom

It is a challenge indeed. I've started playing with placing essentially markers, opposing unit, say a RPG-29 at the spot I want a dismount. The opposing unit has no weapons, is damaged already. The unit is there just to force the AI to dismount. So prevent the APCs from picking of the infantry, I place other "markers" along the waypoint to the objective. Although, it is crude, it seems to work reasonably well. The LAI speed was reduced to that of their passengers and they did follow-up.

Another, I want to try, you might consider it as well, is to change the APC to a CS tank or even a MBT. In the Editor change the picture and change the Armor and other factors like setting APC, and ammo loadouts, etc. This will give an IFV with the class of a MBT. He may lay suppression fires as the RPG-29 at 300m is not a real concern for him.

Chin up my man, this one reason I like this game, you have to think about what ya doing?

Here is the AI thread for further reading and your contribution, please: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showp...94&postcount=7
------