TGIF: scenario list, discussion, and house rules

[Gibsonm]

6 hours ago, Colebrook said:

I think that was something caused by lag, im very sure that miclic was not in the position the aar is showing,also in the aar was not showing the vehicle destroyed marker after it was destroyed.

Well it certainly shot up forces on Mount Bental and there was an engagement in Merom Golam (Sean and I chased it) as well as Volcano and CavGunner commented on it so I beg to differ.

 

On Blue's side at least it was there and crewed by a player - the scenario designer no less (the AAR shows Blue reacting to it) and it was gamey, synchronised as it was to draw the limited number of human beings on the Blues side away from the main fight.

 

 

 

Personally this will be on my "avoid" list going forward unless there are say 9 a side, 6 people on Blue for this doesn't work (between holding the line, bringing forces forward, etc.). In fact the poor CO didn't even notice a Trigger until 10 secs before the mission ended because we were all flat strap.

 

I have better things to do for 4 hours on a Saturday afternoon (and certainly my wife thinks so) than this level of "fun" with gamey moves thrown in.

 

Edited May 17, 2020 by Gibsonm

[Bond_Villian]

An M113 found a hole in the line and drove into it. Would you be less mad about it if it wasnt towing a miclic trailer?

 

 

[Gibsonm]

 

1 hour ago, Bond_Villian said:

An M113 found a hole in the line and drove into it. Would you be less mad about it if it wasnt towing a miclic trailer?

 

Let me see:

 

1. Lets use a scarce Engineering resource that Commander's tend to look after for Recon. No BRDMs available I guess? I'm tempted to assume it had fired its charge was therefore deemed expendable.

 

2. Lets complain that there aren't enough people on the Red side so the manning is weighted to suit Red. But we'll dedicate one person on Red to drive this one vehicle.

 

3. Let's give the limited Blue side, numerous (in terms of frequency, not size) feeds of reinforcements to manage even though its undermanned.

 

4. Oh yes then lets send the single vehicle off on a tactically unsound move just as Blue is being overwhelmed elsewhere, knowing that Blue had to respond to it.

 

5. If we hadn't had map updates "on" I would have added, using the same APC as Blue - indeed I was asked a couple of times to confirm I didn't have a PC at the reported location, which probably helped its penetration.

 

Take your pick.

 

Edited May 17, 2020 by Gibsonm

[Bond_Villian]

I was using that M113, and you can interpret its use as you like- you can see it in the youtube video. Admittedly, yes it was gamey to use it as Recon, but its what i had on hand. I was also managing a ton of other stuff, as was every player on RED.

Im sorry that you had a bad game, i agree that more players would be better for a scenario of that size, but thats how it is sometimes.

As far as the criticism of the scenario design;  

 

46 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

2. Lets complain that there aren't enough people on the Red side so the manning is weighted to suit Red. But we'll dedicate one person on Red to drive this one vehicle.

 

3. Let's give the limited Blue side, numerous (in terms of frequency, not size) feeds of reinforcements to manage even though its undermanned.

2) I will be removing the MICLIC units, as they arent needed, and add to an already large 'force management' burden on RED.

3) I dont know if you have played this on RED, but there is far more stuff to manage and coordinate, more triggers and reinforcement waves etc than on BLUE.

Edited May 17, 2020 by Bond_Villian

[Gibsonm]

7 minutes ago, Bond_Villian said:

3) I dont know if you have played this on RED, but there is far more stuff to manage and coordinate, more triggers and reinforcement waves etc than on BLUE.

 

Yes I have and yes you do need someone to look after the breaching,

 

Then once the follow on forces are through (as each Company approaches the breach, you can give each player a Platoon each to get them through the breach and then give them back to the Company Commander, then bring the next Company forward, rinse and repeat) you need less people because you can give the Company routes so they attack as Companies (like the Syrians did).

 

If you want to manage each vehicle / platoon then of course that adds to the burden.

 

Anyway, do what you wish, as I wont be playing it again.

 

Edited May 17, 2020 by Gibsonm

[Bond_Villian]

3 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

Anyway, do what you wish, as I wont be playing it again.

Fair enough, its not compulsory.

[Colebrook]

I thought we were talking about another miclic to the north, so forget my last message.

About doing recon with miclics, obviously is not realistic, but is not giving an unfair advantage like doing recon with transport helicopters, or medic units. You are doing recon with a big, slow vehicle with no optics, that is a mistake and you should be happy about enemy making that mistake.And you don't need to draw a player to fight the miclic, an AI unit is good enough to do that.

 

[Gibsonm]

3 hours ago, Colebrook said:

I thought we were talking about another miclic to the north, so forget my last message.

About doing recon with miclics, obviously is not realistic, but is not giving an unfair advantage like doing recon with transport helicopters, or medic units. You are doing recon with a big, slow vehicle with no optics, that is a mistake and you should be happy about enemy making that mistake.And you don't need to draw a player to fight the miclic, an AI unit is good enough to do that.

 

Well yes you do because the vehicle was being controlled by a person so it wasn't AI vs AI.

 

In any event the solution is easy I'll just leave if Zero arrives in Teamspeak as I wont be participating if he is.

[Volcano]

22 MAY scenario:

 

!Test of Metal 2013-OMU-4163

 

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

• Draft? Yes.
• Random CO selection? Yes.
• Minimum # players: 8.

NOTES:

• Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.

[Bond_Villian]

Update released;  

 

https://www.esimgames.com/?page_id=1607

[MisterCommander]

19 hours ago, Bond_Villian said:

Update released;  

 

https://www.esimgames.com/?page_id=1607

Do I also need the "SB Pro Map Package Transfer Manager v31" updated as well in order to play tonight, or can I get by with just the 4.167 release of SB?

[Gibsonm]

1 hour ago, MisterCommander said:

Do I also need the "SB Pro Map Package Transfer Manager v31" updated as well in order to play tonight, or can I get by with just the 4.167 release of SB?

If it involves a customised map, like a week or so ago - "Yes".

 

If it doesn't - "No".

 

I'd suggest you get it anyway, other wise you'll eventually turn up for a session that does have a customised map and not be ready to download it.

 

[MisterCommander]

Downloading now.  Hope I get it all down and installed before game time...

[Gibsonm]

Well you have an hour, so unless you are running 14.4 ADSL or something you should be OK.

 

You'll be ahead of the individuals who turn up and then complain that they didn't know there was a patch.

 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Gibsonm

[Volcano]

29 MAY scenario:

 

Kymijoki River Crossing 4162-2_OMU

//Its something new, from the community. 1980s period Soviet invasion of Finland area.

 

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

• Draft? Yes.
• Random CO selection? Yes.
• Minimum # players: 9.

NOTES:

• Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.

[Volcano]

5 JUN scenario:

 

Combat Commander 4164

 

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

• Draft? Yes.
• Random CO selection? Yes.
• Minimum # players: 12.

NOTES:

• Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.

[Assassin 7]

Good Game, Well thats a bad day

[TSe419E]

Ouch!

[Bond_Villian]

GG, an interesting concept- i like the changes too.

A thought on the sce; it would be helpful for the CO if artillery was available to all, as opposed to FO only (unless its deliberately that way for design reasons, of course).

 

[Volcano]

On 6/6/2020 at 5:05 AM, Bond_Villian said:

GG, an interesting concept- i like the changes too.

A thought on the sce; it would be helpful for the CO if artillery was available to all, as opposed to FO only (unless its deliberately that way for design reasons, of course).

 

 Thanks. Right, its deliberate that the artillery is only available to the CO (he is the king -- the king *is* the artillery, that is his special ability).

 

In any case, yes, it was a good match. Felt kind of like a tournament. 😎

[Volcano]

12 JUN scenario:

 

Combat Commander 4167

//Again (we ended up playing the alternate scenario last week). Trying this again. Sorry about the 'false-start', but last TGIF there was an issue uploading the required maps to the server and that has been fixed now... I think. 🙄

 

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

• Draft? Yes.
• Random CO selection? Yes.
• Minimum # players: 12.

NOTES:

• Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.

[Gibsonm]

I just tried and received a "Map package not found" error from the Map package download wizard.

 

This is from the version of "Combat Commander 4167" dated 06 June 2020.

 

The "title" of the map its trying to find can be seen in this screenshot:

 

 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Gibsonm

[Volcano]

Thanks, yeah it seems that the wrong scenario was uploaded before the game, but it was fixed.

[Volcano]

19 JUN scenario:

 

Bridge Crossing Heavy 2013-4167-OMU

 

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

• Draft? Yes.
• Random CO selection? Yes.
• Minimum # players: 16. There is also a smaller version if less are available (minimum 10-12).

NOTES:

• Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.

[Colebrook]

Can you open the TGIF AARs? Since the last patch i can't, and only happens with TGIF missions ,I can open single player or Kanium AARs without problem.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Colebrook