TGIF 2018: scenario list, discussion, and house rules

[Colebrook]

Mission is posted 10-5 min before the game.

[Colebrook]

Gibsonm and Paladin, the reason players focus on a single vehicle  and keep the others behind is because AI is too bad compared to a human player, so i dont think reducing the number of units or playing with enemy map contacts is going to solve this. Unrealistic?, yes, but  also  is very unrealistic loose all your AI plt in seconds because they cant take a proper hull down position.

Having said that, i have not problem playing smaller missions or with eny map contacts on, is a bit diferent mission style but i enjoy the same.

[MDF]

17 minutes ago, Colebrook said:

Gibsonm and Paladin, the reason players focus on a single vehicle  and keep the others behind is because AI is too bad compared to a human player, so i dont think reducing the number of units or playing with enemy map contacts is going to solve this. Unrealistic?, yes, but  also  is very unrealistic loose all your AI plt in seconds because they cant take a proper hull down position.

Having said that, i have not problem playing smaller missions or with eny map contacts on, is a bit diferent mission style but i enjoy the same.

I agree that the issue is with the AI.  But wouldn't that issue largely be fixed if the missions had much smaller forces, and you only have to control a single vehicle at a time?

[DarkAngel]

21 minutes ago, Colebrook said:

Gibsonm and Paladin, the reason players focus on a single vehicle  and keep the others behind is because AI is too bad compared to a human player, so i dont think reducing the number of units or playing with enemy map contacts is going to solve this. Unrealistic?, yes, but  also  is very unrealistic loose all your AI plt in seconds because they cant take a proper hull down position.

Having said that, i have not problem playing smaller missions or with eny map contacts on, is a bit diferent mission style but i enjoy the same.

That's a bullshit excuse. Everyone is in the same boat with AI and the single tank / sniper tank tasctics often destroy the tactical concepts of the mission and turn it into tank quake.

[Colebrook]

9 minutes ago, MDF said:

I agree that the issue is with the AI.  But wouldn't that issue largely be fixed if the missions had much smaller forces, and you only have to control a single vehicle at a time?

Yes, if you have only 1 vehicle per player. But this has big problems :1- You need to know in advance the number of players joining,2- when you die you are out of the game( you also can multicrew, but usually is a bad idea)

I like this kind of missions, it is in fact how we play in kanium, we could even go further and play with blind tanks(no magical TC identifying targets at 4km) like in TTP,but i think the majority prefer  the current mission style. Maybe we should do a poll?

[Colebrook]

23 minutes ago, DarkAngel said:

That's a bullshit excuse. Everyone is in the same boat with AI and the single tank / sniper tank tasctics often destroy the tactical concepts of the mission and turn it into tank quake.

so using terrain to cover your tanks and the trees and bushes to hide destroys the tactical concepts?

Its the first time i hear about " tank sniper tactics",if it is not what is written above feel free to enlighten me.

[MDF]

2 minutes ago, Colebrook said:

Yes, if you have only 1 vehicle per player. But this has big problems :1- You need to know in advance the number of players joining,2- when you die you are out of the game( you also can multicrew, but usually is a bad idea)

I like this kind of missions, it is in fact how we play in kanium, we could even go further and play with blind tanks(no magical TC identifying targets at 4km) like in TTP,but i think the majority prefer  the current mission style. Maybe we should do a poll?

Well, it doesn't have to be a strict 1:1 player/vehicle ratio at all times.  You could start out with a company of 10-14 tanks.  Since TGIF usually has about 8-9 players per side, the people who like having multiple vehicles can have two, and people like me can have just one.  As vehicles are destroyed, you can take a vehicle from a player who had two to start with, or you can multicrew.  (I don't think multicrewing is a bad idea.  Maybe we just need to run a short  (like 10 minutes) multicrew training mission before the main mission starts so that people can get more experience with it.)

[Gibsonm]

42 minutes ago, Colebrook said:

Yes, if you have only 1 vehicle per player. But this has big problems :1- You need to know in advance the number of players joining,2- when you die you are out of the game( you also can multicrew, but usually is a bad idea)

I like this kind of missions, it is in fact how we play in kanium, we could even go further and play with blind tanks(no magical TC identifying targets at 4km) like in TTP,but i think the majority prefer  the current mission style. Maybe we should do a poll?

 

As I said initially, you can always set the mission up to spawn additional units as required.

 

Say you only have 8 players per side, during the draft section the two COs can agree that they'll use the on map forces (say 3 Companies - again would vary if the mix was tk heavy or mech heavy [you need more people in a Mech Coy, than a Tk one], but that's roughly 1 x CO and 2 players per Company).

 

If more are there (say 10), the COs agree to activate "Trigger 1" on launch to spawn say a 4th Company on each side.

 

Similarly depending on the mission you could still have "reinforcement by Trigger" whereby you generate additional forces to offset losses and keep the players busy.

 

Of course you'd then have to play with the scoring - if one side went through 30 tanks just to remain in the fight versus the other side that still had all its original 10 or so then I'd say the guys on the "10 vehicle side" had won.

 

To me multi-crew drives you to numerous sub channels in TS so that crew briefs, etc. don't overlap.

 

Anyway I guess I'll see in a few hours when the mission gets posted.

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Gibsonm

[MDF]

10 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

To me multi-crew drives you to numerous sub channels in TS so that crew briefs, etc. don't overlap.

Just use a whisper list with the other crewmember.  Everyone stays in the same channel.

 

Best practice would be to pick a "wingman" prior to the mission, somewith with whom you have multicrewed previously and are familiar.  When your vehicle is destroyed, you jump into his, and vice versa.

[Volcano]

23 FEB scenario:

 

Top Mech Company Challenge 01e-HN-4019a

 

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

• Draft? No.

 

NOTES:

• Avoid studying the enemy's side; only gather intel from the briefing and exposed enemy unit icons (enemy intel), and briefly looking over both sides to figure out which one you want to CO. Anything beyond that ruins the fog of war element.
• To avoid passwords, open the scenario in Network Session as HOST and choose the side you want to play and go to planning phase. You may briefly look at both sides like this to see which side you want to play or CO on. As CO, once you choose a side, go to that side and create your plan.
• Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com community rules.

 

[Gibsonm]

I obviously need to go back to the books on the Ulan - couldn't get it to fire at all.

[Volcano]

FWIW, I gave the thermals back to the VEC. They used to have them, but its probably better to give them the benefit of sight, versus Red's benefit of a lot of recon infantry.

 

Besides that, the tanks remain the same. They are supposed to be 2nd rate to the IFVs. Neither tank has thermals. T-72 has ERA and better speed, but M60 has 2x the rate of fire and dynamic lead. Pro and con.

 

Red had 1x tank and 1x CV90 operational at the end (the rest of the vehicles were disabled), so it was very close...

[Volcano]

1 hour ago, Volcano said:

FWIW, I gave the thermals back to the VEC. They used to have them, but its probably better to give them the benefit of sight, versus Red's benefit of a lot of recon infantry.

 

Besides that, the tanks remain the same. They are supposed to be 2nd rate to the IFVs. Neither tank has thermals. T-72 has ERA and better speed, but M60 has 2x the rate of fire and dynamic lead. Pro and con.

 

Red had 1x tank and 1x CV90 operational at the end (the rest of the vehicles were disabled), so it was very close...

Actually, I take that back. I recall now that the intent was the that the IFVs are superior here, so only they have the thermal. 

 

So, instead of adding thermal to VEC, removed the BMP-2 from Red recon, made them BRDM-2 instead (so a downgrade). Also, a VEC advantage is that its default recon infantry has 2x M136/AT-4 RPG by default, where BRDM-2 recon has none. So, VEC already has more RPGs in the recon infantry than Red (6x teams vs. 3x teams on BTR).

 

That should be a sufficient pro/con between the recon.

[Bond_Villian]

 Thanks for the scenario

[Colebrook]

On 24/2/2018 at 6:16 AM, Gibsonm said:

I obviously need to go back to the books on the Ulan - couldn't get it to fire at all.

I also had problems remembering the keys and shooting procedure for the ulan. Volcano,why dont you post the vehicles we are going to use a few days before?. So we can refresh the tutorials or go into the shooting range for some practice.

[Volcano]

20 hours ago, Colebrook said:

I also had problems remembering the keys and shooting procedure for the ulan. Volcano,why dont you post the vehicles we are going to use a few days before?. So we can refresh the tutorials or go into the shooting range for some practice.

OK, I can try that if the vehicles are not standard types. Lately I haven't been able to even check in advance what the scenario is until just before TGIF time, so we'll see...

[Volcano]

BTW, the only real thing that will keep you from firing on the Ulan are...

 

• End of Belt, at 24 rds, which can be overridden by the GURT ENDE button on Weapon Control Panel.
• If you override the EOB, then if you toggle to the other ammo type and back again, you will have to override the EOB again. Basically, any time an ammo type is at or below EOB level (24 rounds) then you have to press it again when that type is selected again.

There could be other reasons, but those are the main frustrations...

 

[Volcano]

02 MAR scenario:

 

Relief to Defense 01-multiparty-4019bx-OMU

 

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

• Draft? No.
• Four COs needed: Blue (US) (overall CO for allied side), Grey (DE), Green (UK) vs Red.

 

NOTES:

• Avoid studying the enemy's side; only gather intel from the briefing and exposed enemy unit icons (enemy intel), and briefly looking over both sides to figure out which one you want to CO. Anything beyond that ruins the fog of war element.
• To avoid passwords, open the scenario in Network Session as HOST and choose the side you want to play and go to planning phase. You may briefly look at both sides like this to see which side you want to play or CO on. As CO, once you choose a side, go to that side and create your plan.
• Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com community rules.

Relief to Defense 01-multiparty-4019bx-OMU.zip

[TSe419E]

I'll CO green.

[Gibsonm]

AAR Point: Can we remove the WP in the CR2 and increase the HESH to compensate?

 

It seems they currently always select WP as the alternate to the FIN, even if HESH would be a better choice.

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by Gibsonm

[Volcano]

09 MAR scenario:

 

Civil War Mykonos-4010a

 

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

• Draft? Yes.

 

NOTES:

• Avoid studying the enemy's side; only gather intel from the briefing and exposed enemy unit icons (enemy intel), and briefly looking over both sides to figure out which one you want to CO. Anything beyond that ruins the fog of war element.
• To avoid passwords, open the scenario in Network Session as HOST and choose the side you want to play and go to planning phase. You may briefly look at both sides like this to see which side you want to play or CO on. As CO, once you choose a side, go to that side and create your plan.
• Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com community rules.

 

[Gibsonm]

Sorry, can't make it.

[Robin_Sage]

Had a lot of fun last night as a new player. Had to bounce early after an hour in but definitely a great first experience with some great people. 

[TSe419E]

Glad you enjoyed it.

[Bond_Villian]

11 hours ago, Robin_Sage said:

Had a lot of fun last night as a new player. Had to bounce early after an hour in but definitely a great first experience with some great people. 

Thanks for playing. It gets easier (except for the company, that never gets easier)