Moderators Volcano Posted January 11 Moderators Share Posted January 11 As mentioned in the TGIF thread, the idea is to start a new TGIF campaign on either the 19th or 26th of this month. The start date depends on finalizing a few details with the mechanics of how it will work, the math behind it, and some things still needed on the map (and of course work -- this is all done during my "free time"). This thread will cover details of that campaign so that it isn't lost in the TGIF thread. Future Wars-Viper 2024 This is sort of a continuation of the Future Wars-Adder 2023 mini-campaign that we played previously. FW-Viper will build on those mechanics, but instead of a OPFOR attack versus BLUEFOR defense of FW-Adder, this one will attempt to model a conflict that has transitioned into a stalemate situation. The general idea is that the campaign will be played in parts, each of up to 5 scenarios. As before, losses will carry over, and the Unit Cost Calculator will be used to "purchase" vehicles. The "Points" used to purchase vehicles are sort of directly representative of resources provided to the commander by a high command that rewards performance, and adjusts to the situation. There will also be the temporary "Attachments" gained to support the next scenario, but are removed after the completion of that scenario. NOTE: The map used is the "Oksbol 50x50c" map created by DK. Other differences from FW-Adder, to represent the stalemate situation: BLUEFOR and OPFOR are neither the attacker nor the defender. The situation is a stalemate, and both sides are attempting to break that stalemate by gaining momentum, capturing objectives and moving the front line forward. Whether this happens methodically, or as a coordinated breakthrough type offensive, is up to both sides. The idea behind this is to reflect current ongoing conflict, and how tactics change in such situations which we rarely attempt to simulate in scenarios. Unlike FW-Adder, where a high intensity offensive was being played out in 3 linked scenarios all happening the same day, each scenario in FW-Viper occurs and then there is 50 hours of time passing in between (for time drift across the 5 scenarios). Time and weather will change to reflect this. The base amount of "points" received by each side depends on how many of the objectives are held by each side. The side that has more objectives receives less "points" than the side that has less objectives, which represents high command sending more resources to the area to turn the situation around. Still, the side that has more objectives will receive other advantages, however, but will receive less base "points" because resources are being taken and sent to other sectors that are not performing as well (think of a broad front line where the situation is a stalemate like this). "Points" paid for infantry losses are 2x FW-Adder, to represent manpower shortages typical in a stalemate situation. "Points" will be required for logistics - for living soldiers, vehicles remaining, and for dismounted ATGM teams that have high-demand ammunition (the scenario briefing will have the formula for all this). Objective control is handled differently. To represent a stalemate situation, when a non-neutral objective changes hands, it is owned by the side that captured it but the deployment zone only extends into the near side of the objective, not the entire objective. The rest of the objective is then the neutral "gray zone" between both sides, where only recon from both sides can deploy. Once the front line is pushed beyond said objective, then the deployment zone will encompass it entirely. This is done to establish a gray zone buffer in between, and also to prevent a side from immediately fortifying the entire area in the next scenario after an objective was captured. Instead of there being objectives determined for each missions, the objectives are static, constant throughout -- 32 objectives per side, with 8 in the middle, each worth 125 points (for a total of 9,000 points). The math behind this was actually worked out in the FW-Adder mini-campaign, by totaling the base points for the attacker and defender there. If a side controls 70% of the objective points for two consecutive scenarios then they will win a Minor Victory and the campaign ends (any break between the 5 scenario round cancels this). If a side controls 75% of the objective points then immediately at the end of that scenario the side wins a Major Victory and the campaign ends. If neither happens by the end of the 5th mission, then it will be considered a Draw. If a Draw occurs, and most importantly if we had fun playing it, then the map will cleaned up of destroyed vehicles (50% of non-burned out AFVs will return to the starting force if located in friendly territory), and it will be saved to resume in the Spring as "Round 2", with the Round 1 situation as-is. The sides would be the same, with the same forces, but the CO would be changed as well as the map theme (season). The idea being that the front line went inactive for a a few months before starting up again. This would then continue until the end of 2024 or until a side won. In this way, the attempt is to model a stalemate type conflict in parts, rather than attempting to represent anything remotely realistic in one sitting, of something like 15-20 scenarios. Think of each "round" as being up to 5 scenarios, with a maximum of 4 rounds total. So, let's see how it turns out. If it is fun then this can be something we play periodically over time, or if not then it will be a one-off thing. Either way, it should at least be entertaining to try out something different. I'll use this thread to provide summary report of each scenario, and make any announcements. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted January 11 Author Moderators Share Posted January 11 The two factions in this campaign are BLUEFOR and OPFOR. BLUEFOR being modeled loosely on UA and OPFOR being modeled loosely on RU as the theme, but obviously this is not anything historical - more of an attempt to model a tactical situation that so few in NATO actually train for, and we never scenario. Just as before, every single soldier and vehicle has value, based on these sort of nebulous "points", that we have used before which seems to work quite well. Think of the "points" as a sort of requisition cost, when it comes to either logistics or high level planning allocation of resources. Units available to the BLUEFOR side are restricted to the textures available in the .../woodland/UA nationality folder. IMPORTANT: In the SB Lobby of TS, there is a "UA Texture Pack.zip" file available, which are official textures created for the next version of SB. These are made available there, and if any of them are added then the file will be renamed accordingly (v2, v3 etc). Feel free to download those scenarios and extract to your ...textures\woodland\ua folder, whether you are participating or not. The first part of the campaign will be Tankhunter as BLUEFOR CO, and myself as OPFOR CO. As mentioned above, if we find that it is entertaining to continue, then we will resume another "Round 2" of up to 5 more missions later in the year, with the same sides, but someone else on that side will be the acting CO. Idea is that if it ends in a draw then the current CO's are relieved of duty for failure. 😂 We will leave the sides open for people to choose from, so choose wisely the side you will want to stay on. No flip flopping to the winning side later - UNLESS it is required to re-balance the sides as participants might come and go between "rounds". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted January 26 Author Moderators Share Posted January 26 If anyone is interested in the how the Planning Phase will work, here is some info about that: Planning will start as soon as we are ready to do so, and will last until TGIF time +1 (which is 2100 CST +1 = 2200 CST). The mission will start immediately at TGIF+1. The good thing about this is that it sets a certain time the mission will begin, allowing the COs to better manage their time. If both COs agree to start before TGIF+1, then the mission can start earlier (they can PM each other or send a text when complete). However, there is no obligation to start the scenario early - each CO is granted the full time if needed. Once the Planning Phase begins, we cannot save the plan and go back to the Assembly Area (for technical reasons, because otherwise the deployment zones will not be correctly limited in all cases). This means that unless the CO dropped (obviously), anyone that drops during Planning Phase will just have to listen to the plan in the channel, and rejoin once the scenario starts. We can make exceptions here, but this is how it will be typically done. There can be no pre-mission saved plan usage (by providing the scenario early), because I want to completely avoid a frequent situation where a CO's saved plan file is broken because I may had to fix something broken in the scenario at the last minute. Also, this avoids a technical issue with deployment zone assignments, of which this campaign has quite a number of complex deployment zones on each side. So in other words, when a CO is purchasing their obstacles, keep in mind that you will only be able to place them during the normal planning time limit. It is recommended that you load any version of the scenario before game time, and create a Map Overlay of map graphics, and plan out where you want your minefield belt and fortified AREAS, and where units will be located, etc. It is perfectly fine and suggested to pre-plan with Map Overlays, these will work fine. Obstacles and fortifications that are new to the current scenario will not be visible to the enemy side in the Planning Phase. However, in the following scenarios those obstacles and fortifications (that now can no longer be re-deployed) ARE visible to the enemy in the Planning Phase (thanks to the AAR, and we can simulate all this as gathered intel). This allows both sides to plan deliberate attacks on how to breach fortified areas. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted January 27 Author Moderators Share Posted January 27 Thanks to everyone for playing. It was very tense. 😬 When discussing the # of troops lost, I was looking at the wrong numbers. In case anyone is wondering troop casualties were actually: BLUEFOR: 77 OPFOR: 107 Also, in case you are wondering about the Reinforcement and Attachment Points calculation for the next mission, then here is that info. I checked it multiple times but if anyone sees an error then PM me please (the text in the briefing has the formula, so anyone can check this with the report document if you desire - but keep in mind the UAV costs in the formula were adjusted/simplified after that scenario/briefing version, all else is the same)... BLUEFOR For Scenario 2A (9000 - 3875), 5125 //total points - mission score +(3875 / 5), 775 //mission score bonus -(77 * 5), 385 //troops lost -112 //troops remaining -(120 * 0), 0 //non-attachment helicopter upkeep -(60 * 5), 300 //non-attachment tank upkeep -(40 * 4), 160 //non-attachment PC upkeep -(20 * 1), 20 //non-attachment truck upkeep -(50 * 3), 150 //non-attachment ATGM teams fielded -(100 * 1), 100 //non-attachment drone teams fielded +(60 * 0), 0 //attachment helicopter survival bonus +(30 * 0), 0 //attachment tank survival bonus +(20 * 0), 0 //attachment PC survival bonus +(10 * 0), 0 //attachment truck survival bonus =4673 //total Reinforcement Points & 500 //total Attachment Points OPFOR For Scenario 2A (9000 - 5125), 3875 //total points - mission score +(5125 / 5), 1025 //mission score bonus -(107 * 5), 535 //troops lost -111 //troops remaining -(120 * 0), 0 //non-attachment helicopter upkeep -(60 * 6), 360 //non-attachment tank upkeep -(40 * 12), 480 //non-attachment PC upkeep -(20 * 2), 40 //non-attachment truck upkeep -(50 * 3), 150 //non-attachment ATGM teams fielded -(100 * 1), 100 //non-attachment drone teams fielded +(60 * 0), 0 //attachment helicopter survival bonus +(30 * 0), 0 //attachment tank survival bonus +(20 * 0), 0 //attachment PC survival bonus +(10 * 0), 0 //attachment truck survival bonus =3124 //total Reinforcement Points & 1000 //total Attachment Points In summary, BLUEFOR will receive +1689 more than OPFOR for replacements ...and OPFOR will receive +500 more Attachments ...in the next scenario. To put things into perspective, in the Future Wars "Adder" campaign (the 3-part high intensity attack/defend "mini campaign"), the attacker received 5,000 Reinforcement Points, and defender received 3,000 Reinforcement points each scenario, so the "economy" math is about right. I'll see about making a post showing the new front lines, when/if I have time. But actually, might just attach or give a link to the AAR when I upload the next map image. Let's see what happens... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankHunter Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted February 1 Author Moderators Share Posted February 1 Takes a bit of effort to create these scenarios, but I would like to provide a sort of weekly re-cap to what happened in the previous mission, if time allows. Scenario A1 MAP NOTES: Shaded color: Previous front line trace from the side that pushed it forward; shading is the color of the side that gained the terrain Arrows: Rough avenues of advance w/ size and type of unit; darker arrows are repelled advances Scale: Zoomed in map of the front line (the full map is in the first post in this thread) OPFOR advanced, taking 9 objectives (C01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08 and N03). OPFOR attempted to attack further but was stopped just north of the central east-west river. New "gray zone" is established along the north side of Jegum to Nibro Gas Plant. Losses: BLUEFOR 1x M2A2(ODS) 2x CV9040-B 77x personnel OPFOR 2x T-72B3 w/APS 107x personnel AAR is TEMPORARILY attached here for one week, until the next mission (when it will be deleted). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankHunter Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 The weekly propaganda effort 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted February 6 Author Moderators Share Posted February 6 Took me a while to get to process the points this time, because a flaw was discovered and I had to work out an improved system, which I think I have here (keep in mind this is a prototype test of the campaign, to possibly run it again later with improvements like this -- we are essentially testing it). In the first version of the idea, the "upkeep" was a flat rate value for every tank, PC, truck, helicopter. The flaw that was discovered is, that this 'keep it simple' idea doesn't really work well here, because there is no incentive to acquire the "cheaper" equipment. So what you end up with is OPFOR "paying" the same "upkeep" (which is an abstraction for spare parts, ammo, fuel, etc) for 10x tanks if they were T-72B1s, as opposed to 10x tanks from BLUEFOR even if they are Strv 122s for example. This does not make sense, because a more advanced vehicle would have higher maintenance requirements, more expensive spare parts, usually better ammo to resupply, and so on. This especially doesn't make sense if you think about if both sides reach a max force size that they can sustain upkeep on, because at that point the number of vehicles would be the same, where the side that fields the cheaper value equipment would need be able to field a larger sized force. So, after some discussion with BLUEFOR CO, I have a better "upkeep" system devised, this time based on the % cost of the total force. ATGM and drone teams are still handled separately, but all non-attached vehicles now have an upkeep cost based on their total value. This way, more expensive equipment has higher logistics expense than cheaper things do. It works out pretty well I think. The current upkeep value of 30% is based on test calculations which determined that it should be something between 25-33% in order to have something close to the old costs for the mid-capable vehicles of their respective types. This number might change later, with more experience, but it should be pretty solid. With that in mind, I had to rectify the upkeep costs from Scenario 2A, however, to "balance the books" so I adjusted the Scenario 3A total with that in mind. It ended up subtracting additional points from both sides for this next scenario. BLUEFOR For Scenario A3 (% of cost method) (9000 - 4625), 4375 //total points - mission score +(4625 / 5), 925 //mission score bonus -(111 * 6), 666 //troops lost -148 //troops remaining -2101 //vehicle upkeep [30% of cost] -(50 * 3), 150 //non-attachment ATGM teams fielded -(100 * 1), 100 //non-attachment drone teams fielded +(100 * 0), 0 //attachment helicopter survival bonus +(35 * 0), 0 //attachment tank survival bonus +(25 * 3), 75 //attachment PC survival bonus +(15 * 1), 15 //attachment truck survival bonus =2125 //total Reinforcement Points (INITIAL) -646 //rectify % cost upkeep from 2A (total points received should have been 4027, not 4673) =1579 //total Reinforcement Points (ACTUAL) & 1000 //total Attachment Point A breakdown of total BLUEFOR force structure value between each scenario so far: A1 end 2 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 430, 1 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 40, 3 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 1800, 2 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 990, 1 x CV9040-B, 238, 238, Total= 3498 * .3 = 1049 A2 end 2 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 1200, 2 x Strv 122, 754, 1508, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 6 x CV9040-B, 238, 1428, 3 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 1485, 2 x M1064A3, 199, 398, 3 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 645, 1 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 40, Total= 7004 * .3 = 2101 OPFOR For Scenario A3 (9000 - 4375), 4625 //total points - mission score +(4375 / 5), 875 //mission score bonus -(149 * 6), 894 //troops lost -70 //troops remaining -1233 //vehicle upkeep [30% of cost] -(50 * 3), 150 //non-attachment ATGM teams fielded -(100 * 1), 100 //non-attachment drone teams fielded +(100 * 0), 0 //attachment helicopter survival bonus +(35 * 0), 0 //attachment tank survival bonus +(25 * 0), 0 //attachment PC survival bonus +(15 * 0), 0 //attachment truck survival bonus =3053 //total Reinforcement Points (INITIAL) -408 //rectify % cost upkeep from 2A (total points received should have been 2716, not 3124) =2645 //total Reinforcement Points (ACTUAL) & 500 //total Attachment Points A breakdown of total OPFOR force structure value between each scenario so far: A1 end 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 2 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 310, 2 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 1130, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 3 x BMP-2, 160, 480, 2 x BTR-82A, 133, 266, 1 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 52, 52, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0] w/AT-13 teams, 180, 540, Total= 3938 * .3 = 1181 A2 end 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 2 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 310, 2 x BM-21 Grad, 115, 230, 1 x BM-27 Uragan-1M w/DPICM, 620, 620, 1 x TOS-1A, 490, 490, 1 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 565, 1 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 150, 1 x BMP-2, 160, 160, 1 x BTR-82A, 133, 133, 1 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 52, 52, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0] w/AT-13 teams, 180, 540, Total= 4110 * .3 = 1233 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted February 7 Author Moderators Share Posted February 7 Scenario A2 MAP NOTES: Shaded color: Previous front line trace from the side that pushed it forward; shading is the color of the side that gained the terrain Arrows: Rough avenues of advance w/ size and type of unit; darker arrows are repelled advances Scale: Zoomed in map of the front line (the full map is in the first post in this thread) BLUEFOR advanced, taking 6 objectives (C01,02,03, and N03, S01). OPFOR had planned to attack in the same area that BLUEFOR attacked, and so a battle developed immediately, and OPFOR had all sorts of misfortune that followed. Most notably, a platoon of T-80U arrived for an attack that was now a defense, arriving too close to the fighting and was ambushed immediately and destroyed. Instructions were also misunderstood and a BMP-2 and T-72B3 rushed into the city to assist, and drove right into an infantry ambush and was destroyed. OPFOR held as best they could but was overwhelmed in the town in the confusion that followed. Losses: BLUEFOR 2x Cougar MRAP w/HMG 1x CV9040-B 1x 2S3 Akatsiya 1x Munin (Adv.) UAV Team 111x personnel Heavily damaged vehicles (out for one mission): 2x M1A1(HA) 1x Strv 122 w/APS 1x CV9040-B 1x 2S3 Akatsiya OPFOR 3x T-80U (T-72B3 w/o TIS) 1x T-72B3 w/APS 2x BMP-2 1x BTR-82A 3x BRDM-AT 1x Tigr-M w/HMG 149x personnel 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted February 10 Author Moderators Share Posted February 10 Since I have the point systems worked out (% of cost method), I was able to calculate this faster. Here are the points for 4A... (I'll work out mini-AAR map image later) BLUEFOR For Scenario A4 (9000 - 4500), 4500 //total points - mission score +(4500 / 5), 900 //mission score bonus -(79 * 6), 474 //troops lost -149 //troops remaining -2290 //vehicle upkeep [30% of cost] -(50 * 3), 150 //non-attachment ATGM teams fielded -(100 * 0), 0 //non-attachment drone teams fielded +(125 * 0), 0 //attachment helicopter survival bonus +(35 * 0), 0 //attachment tank survival bonus +(25 * 0), 0 //attachment PC survival bonus +(15 * 0), 0 //attachment truck survival bonus =2337 //total Reinforcement Points (previous was 2237) (INITIAL) +100 //rectify +100 points because of score error in Scenario 2A's previous total =2437 //total Reinforcement Points (ACTUAL) & 500 //total Attachment Point (OBJ score is currently tied at 36 OBJs each; neither side has a higher score!) A breakdown of total BLUEFOR force structure value between each scenario so far: A1 end 2 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 430, 1 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 40, 3 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 1800, 2 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 990, 1 x CV9040-B, 238, 238, Total= 3498 * .3 = 1049 A2 end 2 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 1200, 2 x Strv 122, 754, 1508, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 6 x CV9040-B, 238, 1428, 3 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 1485, 2 x M1064A3, 199, 398, 3 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 645, 1 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 40, Total= 7004 * .3 = 2101 A3 end 2 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 1200, 2 x Strv 122, 754, 1508, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 3 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 1485, 3 x CV9040-B, 264, 792, 6 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 1290, 4 x M1064A3, 199, 796, 2 x Cougar 6x6 w/HMG [MRAP L2], 91, 182, 2 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 80, Total= 7633 *.3 = 2290 OPFOR For Scenario A4 (9000 - 4500), 4500 //total points - mission score +(4500 / 5), 900 //mission score bonus -(109 * 6), 654 //troops lost -143 //troops remaining -2018 //vehicle upkeep [30% of cost] -(50 * 3), 150 //non-attachment ATGM teams fielded -(100 * 1), 100 //non-attachment drone teams fielded +(125 * 0), 0 //attachment helicopter survival bonus +(35 * 0), 0 //attachment tank survival bonus +(25 * 5), 125 //attachment PC survival bonus +(15 * 0), 0 //attachment truck survival bonus =2460 //total Reinforcement Points & 500 //total Attachment Points (OBJ score is currently tied at 36 OBJs each; neither side has a higher score!) A breakdown of total OPFOR force structure value between each scenario so far: A1 end 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 2 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 310, 2 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 1130, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 3 x BMP-2, 160, 480, 2 x BTR-82A, 133, 266, 1 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 52, 52, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0] w/AT-13 teams, 180, 540, Total= 3938 * .3 = 1181 A2 end 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 2 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 310, 2 x BM-21 Grad, 115, 230, 1 x BM-27 Uragan-1M w/DPICM, 620, 620, 1 x TOS-1A, 490, 490, 1 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 565, 1 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 150, 1 x BMP-2, 160, 160, 1 x BTR-82A, 133, 133, 1 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 52, 52, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0] w/AT-13 teams, 180, 540, Total= 4110 * .3 = 1233 A3 end 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0] w/AT-13 teams, 180, 540, 1 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 565, 1 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 150, 1 x T-72B3 (no TIS); T-80U m.1992, 485, 485, 3 x T-72B1 ERA, 415, 1245, 1 x BMP-2, 160, 160, 1 x BTR-82A, 133, 133, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 52, 156, 2 x TOS-1A, 490, 980, 1 x Tigr-M SpN HMG [MRAP L1], 67, 67, 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 3 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 465, 2 x BM-21 Grad, 115, 230, 1 x BM-27 Uragan-1M w/DPICM, 620, 620, 1 x *Medic, Tracked, 71, 71, Total= 6727 * .3 = 2018 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted February 13 Author Moderators Share Posted February 13 Scenario A3 MAP NOTES: Shaded color: Previous front line trace from the side that pushed it forward; shading is the color of the side that gained the terrain Arrows: Rough avenues of advance w/ size and type of unit; darker arrows are repelled advances Scale: Zoomed in map of the front line (the full map is in the first post in this thread) OPFOR attacked on the south and southeast of Jegum, and BLUFOR counterattacked in the same area. Most of the fighting occurred inside of the town with indiscriminate artillery strikes on the town from both sides. Despite some losses, BLUFOR was able to hold on to Jegum, with OPFOR only able to recapture OBJ S01. An additional OPFOR infantry probe occurred from C07 to N06 that met with some limited success, but failed to take significant ground. Losses: BLUEFOR 1x M1A1(HA) 3x CV9040-B 79x personnel Heavily damaged vehicles (out for one mission): 2x CV9040-B OPFOR 1x Typhoon MRAP 109x personnel 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted February 17 Author Moderators Share Posted February 17 Here are the points for A5. Note, there is a new method to determining Attachment Points, due to grumblings (and I wasn't happy with how it worked myself), and I think this system is much better and makes more sense. Now, instead of a drastic jump where you either have 1000 or 500, here is how it works... 6300 points is the minor victory level total, so the amount of points you get is based off of the % of your mission score compared to 6300. If for example in this past mission, BLUEFOR has a score of 4875, then that is 77.4% of 6300, which equals 774 points. So think of it this way -- the maximum is still 1000 and the minimum is still 500, but now that 1000 is gained when you reach the minor victory score (the score where a side has to hold objectives for 2x consecutive rounds). The idea is that once a side reaches the minor victory amount, then they are receiving the max amount of Attachment Points to help them win, or until pushed back. There are several benefits to this method: It allows a nuance to the distribution behavior, so it isn't such a drastic jump like the old method of an ON/OFF switch. You can use the Attachment Point value as a way to tell how close you are to winning a minor victory. In other words, BLUEFOR is 77.4% of the way towards a minor victory here. With that in mind, to be fair I will have to rectify the Attachment Point amount in the 5A scenario by recalculating what we would have gotten with this improved method in Scenarios 1A to 4A, but this shouldn't be too bad -- it actually doesn't change that much given the small number of scenarios so far. BLUEFOR For Scenario A5 (9000 - 4875), 4125 //total points - mission score +(4500 / 5), 975 //mission score bonus -(109 * 6), 654 //troops lost -190 //troops remaining -2042 //vehicle upkeep [30% of cost] -(50 * 3), 150 //non-attachment ATGM teams fielded -(100 * 1), 100 //non-attachment drone teams fielded +(125 * 0), 0 //attachment helicopter survival bonus +(35 * 0), 0 //attachment tank survival bonus +(25 * 4), 100 //attachment PC survival bonus +(15 * 0), 0 //attachment truck survival bonus =2064 //total Reinforcement Points & 774 //total Attachment Points (based on the mission score's % compared to 6,300 pts [the 70% minor victory total]; minimum 500 pts) (INITIAL) +63 //rectify Attachment Points based on new method S-2A,3A,4A: 615, 734, 714 = 2063 (what should have been received with the new method) - 2000 (what actually was received with the old method) & 837 //total Attachment Points (based on the mission score's % compared to 6,300 pts [the 70% minor victory total]; minimum 500 pts) (ACTUAL) A breakdown of total BLUEFOR force structure value between each scenario so far: A1 end 2 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 430, 1 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 40, 3 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 1800, 2 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 990, 1 x CV9040-B, 238, 238, Total= 3498 * .3 = 1049 A2 end 2 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 1200, 2 x Strv 122, 754, 1508, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 6 x CV9040-B, 238, 1428, 3 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 1485, 2 x M1064A3, 199, 398, 3 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 645, 1 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 40, Total= 7004 * .3 = 2101 A3 end 2 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 1200, 2 x Strv 122, 754, 1508, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 3 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 1485, 3 x CV9040-B, 264, 792, 6 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 1290, 4 x M1064A3, 199, 796, 2 x Cougar 6x6 w/HMG [MRAP L2], 91, 182, 2 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 80, Total= 7633 *.3 = 2290 A4 end 1 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 600, 2 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 80, 3 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 1485, 1 x Cougar 6x6 w/HMG [MRAP L2], 116, 116, 2 x Strv 122, 754, 1508, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 2 x CV9040-B, 264, 528, 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 4 x M1064A3, 199, 796, 4 x BTR-82A, 133, 532, Total= 6805 *.3 = 2042 OPFOR For Scenario A5 (9000 - 4125), 4875 //total points - mission score +(4500 / 5), 825 //mission score bonus -(89 * 6), 534 //troops lost -171 //troops remaining -2211 //vehicle upkeep [30% of cost] -(50 * 3), 150 //non-attachment ATGM teams fielded -(100 * 1), 100 //non-attachment drone teams fielded +(125 * 0), 0 //attachment helicopter survival bonus +(35 * 0), 0 //attachment tank survival bonus +(25 * 2), 50 //attachment PC survival bonus +(15 * 0), 0 //attachment truck survival bonus =2584 //total Reinforcement Points & 655 //total Attachment Points (based on the mission score's % compared to 6,300 pts [the 70% minor victory total]; minimum 500 pts) (INITIAL) +221 //rectify Attachment Points based on new method S-2A,3A,4A: 813, 694, 714 = 2221 (what should have been received using the new method) - 2000 (what actually was received with old method) (ACTUAL) & 876 //total Attachment Points (based on the mission score's % compared to 6,300 pts [the 70% minor victory total]; minimum 500 pts) (ACTUAL) A breakdown of total OPFOR force structure value between each scenario so far: A1 end 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 2 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 310, 2 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 1130, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 3 x BMP-2, 160, 480, 2 x BTR-82A, 133, 266, 1 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 52, 52, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0] w/AT-13 teams, 180, 540, Total= 3938 * .3 = 1181 A2 end 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 2 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 310, 2 x BM-21 Grad, 115, 230, 1 x BM-27 Uragan-1M w/DPICM, 620, 620, 1 x TOS-1A, 490, 490, 1 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 565, 1 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 150, 1 x BMP-2, 160, 160, 1 x BTR-82A, 133, 133, 1 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 52, 52, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0] w/AT-13 teams, 180, 540, Total= 4110 * .3 = 1233 A3 end 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0] w/AT-13 teams, 180, 540, 1 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 565, 1 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 150, 1 x T-72B3 (no TIS); T-80U m.1992, 485, 485, 3 x T-72B1 ERA, 415, 1245, 1 x BMP-2, 160, 160, 1 x BTR-82A, 133, 133, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 52, 156, 2 x TOS-1A, 490, 980, 1 x Tigr-M SpN HMG [MRAP L1], 67, 67, 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 3 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 465, 2 x BM-21 Grad, 115, 230, 1 x BM-27 Uragan-1M w/DPICM, 620, 620, 1 x *Medic, Tracked, 71, 71, Total= 6727 * .3 = 2018 A4 end 1 x *Medic, Tracked, 71, 71, 1 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 565, 1 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 150, 3 x TOS-1A, 490, 1470, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 64, 192, 1 x T-72B3 (no TIS); T-80U m.1992, 485, 485, 3 x T-72B1 ERA, 415, 1245, 1 x Tigr-M SpN HMG [MRAP L1], 67, 67, 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 3 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 465, 6 x BM-21 Grad, 115, 690, 1 x BM-27 Uragan-1M w/DPICM, 620, 620, 2 x Ural-4320/Eng w/RPG-26, 99, 198, 1 x BMP-2, 160, 160, 1 x BTR-82A, 133, 133, Total= 7371 * .3 = 2211 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted February 22 Author Moderators Share Posted February 22 Scenario A4 MAP NOTES: Shaded color: Previous front line trace from the side that pushed it forward; shading is the color of the side that gained the terrain Arrows: Rough avenues of advance w/ size and type of unit; darker arrows are repelled advances Scale: Zoomed in map of the front line (the full map is in the first post in this thread) OPFOR attacked on the south and southeast of Jegum towards S02, and BLUFOR counterattacked to the southwest towards S03. BLUFOR also had a steady attack towards C05, and near the end also C04 and OPFOR defended those areas. Despite significant losses BLUFOR managed to capture C04, C05 and S03. Losses: BLUEFOR 1x M1A1(HA) 1x Strv 122 w/APS 1x CV9040-B 2x BTR-82A 2x Cougar MRAP 2x 2S3 Akatsiya 1x Unimog Medic 109x personnel Heavily damaged vehicles (out for one mission): 1x Strv 122 w/APS 1x Cougar MRAP OPFOR 2x T-72B1 89x personnel Heavily damaged vehicles (out for one mission): 1x T-72B1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted February 24 Author Moderators Share Posted February 24 (edited) Here are the points for B1 (which will be played 3 months from now, around May, unless we decide not to). More on this later in the AAR post. I'll update the final round 1 AAR image next week, it will take a bit of tedious work. I also want to put together a sort of "Round 1" stats (at least some basic stuff which might be interesting to the two COs), at some point. BLUEFOR For Scenario A5 (9000 - 4375), 4625 //total points - mission score +(4500 / 5), 875 //mission score bonus -(65* 6), 390 //troops lost -202 //troops remaining -1842 //vehicle upkeep [30% of cost] -(50 * 3), 150 //non-attachment ATGM teams fielded -(100 * 3), 300 //non-attachment drone teams fielded +(125 * 0), 0 //attachment helicopter survival bonus +(35 * 0), 0 //attachment tank survival bonus +(25 * 1), 25 //attachment PC survival bonus +(15 * 0), 0 //attachment truck survival bonus +200 //end of round salvage of non-burned friendly vehicles in own territory =2811 //total Reinforcement Points & 694 //total Attachment Points (4375 / 6300), 69.4% progress to Minor Victory (not spent until start of B1) Salvaged vehicles: 2x CV9040-B, 1x 2S3 Akatsiya A breakdown of total BLUEFOR force structure value between each scenario so far: A1 end 2 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 430, 1 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 40, 3 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 1800, 2 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 990, 1 x CV9040-B, 238, 238, Total= 3498 * .3 = 1049 A2 end 2 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 1200, 2 x Strv 122, 754, 1508, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 6 x CV9040-B, 238, 1428, 3 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 1485, 2 x M1064A3, 199, 398, 3 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 645, 1 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 40, Total= 7004 * .3 = 2101 A3 end 2 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 1200, 2 x Strv 122, 754, 1508, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 3 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 1485, 3 x CV9040-B, 264, 792, 6 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 1290, 4 x M1064A3, 199, 796, 2 x Cougar 6x6 w/HMG [MRAP L2], 91, 182, 2 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 80, Total= 7633 *.3 = 2290 A4 end 1 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 600, 2 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 80, 3 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 1485, 1 x Cougar 6x6 w/HMG [MRAP L2], 116, 116, 2 x Strv 122, 754, 1508, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 2 x CV9040-B, 264, 528, 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 4 x M1064A3, 199, 796, 4 x BTR-82A, 133, 532, Total= 6805 *.3 = 2042 A5 end 1 x *Medic, Wheeled, 40, 40, 1 x M1A1 (HA), 600, 600, 2 x M2A2 (ODS), 495, 990, 1 x Cougar 6x6 w/HMG [MRAP L2], 116, 116, 1 x Strv 122, 754, 754, 1 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 150, 2 x CV9040-B, 264, 528, 2 x BTR-82A, 133, 266, 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 6 x M1064A3, 199, 1194, 1 x Leopard 1A5-DK, 418, 418, 1 x ^MT-LB/Eng w/RPG-26, 110, 110, 1 x BM-21 Grad, 115, 115, Total= 6141 *.3 = 1842 OPFOR For Scenario A5 (9000 - 4625), 4375 //total points - mission score +(4625 / 5), 925 //mission score bonus -(126* 6), 756 //troops lost -210 //troops remaining -2235 //vehicle upkeep [30% of cost] -(50 * 3), 150 //non-attachment ATGM teams fielded -(100 * 1), 100 //non-attachment drone teams fielded +(125 * 0), 0 //attachment helicopter survival bonus +(35 * 0), 0 //attachment tank survival bonus +(25 * 2), 50 //attachment PC survival bonus +(15 * 3), 45 //attachment truck survival bonus +80 //end of round salvage of non-burned friendly vehicles in own territory =2024 //total Reinforcement Points & 734 //total Attachment Points (4625 / 6300), 73.4% progress to minor victory (Not spent until start of B1) Salvaged vehicles: 1x T-72B1 A breakdown of total OPFOR force structure value between each scenario so far: A1 end 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 2 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 310, 2 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 1130, 2 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 300, 3 x BMP-2, 160, 480, 2 x BTR-82A, 133, 266, 1 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 52, 52, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0] w/AT-13 teams, 180, 540, Total= 3938 * .3 = 1181 A2 end 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 2 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 310, 2 x BM-21 Grad, 115, 230, 1 x BM-27 Uragan-1M w/DPICM, 620, 620, 1 x TOS-1A, 490, 490, 1 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 565, 1 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 150, 1 x BMP-2, 160, 160, 1 x BTR-82A, 133, 133, 1 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 52, 52, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0] w/AT-13 teams, 180, 540, Total= 4110 * .3 = 1233 A3 end 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0] w/AT-13 teams, 180, 540, 1 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 565, 1 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 150, 1 x T-72B3 (no TIS); T-80U m.1992, 485, 485, 3 x T-72B1 ERA, 415, 1245, 1 x BMP-2, 160, 160, 1 x BTR-82A, 133, 133, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 52, 156, 2 x TOS-1A, 490, 980, 1 x Tigr-M SpN HMG [MRAP L1], 67, 67, 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 3 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 465, 2 x BM-21 Grad, 115, 230, 1 x BM-27 Uragan-1M w/DPICM, 620, 620, 1 x *Medic, Tracked, 71, 71, Total= 6727 * .3 = 2018 A4 end 1 x *Medic, Tracked, 71, 71, 1 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 565, 1 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 150, 3 x TOS-1A, 490, 1470, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 64, 192, 1 x T-72B3 (no TIS); T-80U m.1992, 485, 485, 3 x T-72B1 ERA, 415, 1245, 1 x Tigr-M SpN HMG [MRAP L1], 67, 67, 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 3 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 465, 6 x BM-21 Grad, 115, 690, 1 x BM-27 Uragan-1M w/DPICM, 620, 620, 2 x Ural-4320/Eng w/RPG-26, 99, 198, 1 x BMP-2, 160, 160, 1 x BTR-82A, 133, 133, Total= 7371 * .3 = 2211 A5 end 1 x *Medic, Tracked, 71, 71, 2 x ^Ural-4320/Eng w/RPG-26, 99, 198, 1 x T-72B3 m.2012, 565, 565, 1 x *APS [1x veh, new], 150, 150, 3 x TOS-1A, 490, 1470, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0] w/AT-13 teams, 180, 540, 1 x T-72B3 (no TIS); T-80U m.1992, 485, 485, 2 x BTR-82A, 133, 266, 2 x T-72B1, 405, 810, 3 x Typhoon-K 6x6 [MRAP L0], 64, 192, 1 x Tigr-M SpN HMG [MRAP L1], 67, 67, 4 x 2S3 Akatsiya, 215, 860, 6 x BM-21 Grad, 115, 690, 3 x 2S9 Nona-S, 155, 465, 1 x BM-27 Uragan-1M w/DPICM, 620, 620, Total= 7449 *.3 = 2235 Edited February 27 by Volcano Correction to BLUEFOR salvage (-1 Cougar MRAP, +30 pts) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankHunter Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 (edited) The weekly propaganda effort Edited February 26 by TankHunter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted February 29 Author Moderators Share Posted February 29 Scenario A5 MAP NOTES: Shaded color: Previous front line trace from the side that pushed it forward; shading is the color of the side that gained the terrain Arrows: Rough avenues of advance w/ size and type of unit; darker arrows are repelled advances Scale: Zoomed in map of the front line (the full map is in the first post in this thread) OPFOR attacked in the east and west. East attack was a mounted mechanized assault, while west attack on Jegum was primarily and infantry advance, supported by tanks and IFVs. Both attacks gained ground, but the eastern attack suffered heavy losses. BLUFOR counterattacked in the east, and ended up retaking N07, while OPFOR held N12. Normally the next scenario would be setup that way, with an isolated force, but between rounds the front line is "settled" and in this case, N12 and N07 is swapped. Losses: BLUEFOR 1x Strv 122 w/APS 1x M2A2(ODS) 2x BTR-82A 1x Unimog Medic 65x personnel Heavily damaged vehicles (out for one mission): [none, because end of round] OPFOR 3x T-72B1 w/APS 1x T-72B1 5x BTR-82A 1x BMP-2 126x personnel Heavily damaged vehicles (out for one mission): [none, because end of round] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted February 29 Author Moderators Share Posted February 29 With the conclusion of scenario A5, the 5th scenario of round 1, that concludes the first round. Thanks for playing! It was hard fought, and at times miserable, but hopefully there was some fun was had. The campaign started as a prototype, and evolved over the five missions, and I think was successful. It demonstrates that the tactical situation is very different than what we are normally used to, and reinforces how modern militaries need to train is such conditions because, as we see, everything you know goes right out the window. As intended, the campaign will now be put on hold until about 3 months from now, when round 2 will begin. In that time, the front line is assumed to be static, and both sides will be forced to selectively draw down 2,500 points worth of units. The map is cleaned up of destroyed vehicles (salvaged), and fortifications that below to one side that are in the other side's area have a chance that they are removed, reclaimed by nature. Additionally, both sides will be allowed to fortify areas as desired, between rounds, up to about 300 personnel capacity worth of L3 trench (or 1x Bunker per 10 capacity deduction). When the campaign resumes at the end of April or beginning of May, the terrain theme will be spring. Here are some images of the map in just a few hard fought areas that you may recognize (spring map theme already applied). Above picture is Jegum (OBJ S02, S03, C02, C03, N03), viewed from the east (right side of the picture is north). Everyone involved knows what happened here - heavy fighting occurred on the north and south side of the town (but strangely enough not much in the center... yet). So, lots of buildings are now removed or rubbled, forested areas are removed (the dirt areas with burnt trees). Above picture is objective C05, viewed from the southeast. Constant fighting of varying intensity throughout. Patches of trees removed (the dirt blobs) with burnt trees added in the areas heaviest bombarded. The very interesting thing about representing a long static conflict is that you can represent the changing tactical situation of the terrain both in weather, and through degradation from combat, which is something you cannot do in a shorter campaign, much less a singular one-off scenario of the situation. It will be interesting to see the map devolve, assuming one side doesn't breakout, of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted February 29 Author Moderators Share Posted February 29 Now I wanted to break down some winter "round 1" basic stats that might be interesting to digest. TOTAL LOSSES, ROUND 1 (winter): BLUEFOR 2x Strv 122 w/APS 2x M1A1(HA) 2x M2A2(ODS) 7x CV9040-B 4x BTR-82A 4x Cougar MRAP w/HMG 3x 2S3 Akatsiya 2x Unimog Medic 1x Munin (Adv.) UAV Team 441x personnel Point value of vehicle losses: 8017 Point value of infantry personnel losses: 2646 : TOTAL POINT VALUE OF ENTIRE FORCE LOSSES: 10663 ENDING (SURVIVING) FORCE POINT VALUE: 6141 OPFOR 3x T-80U (T-72B3 w/o TIS) 3x T-72B3 w/APS 3x T-72B1 w/APS 3x T-72B1 5x BTR-82A 3x BMP-2 3x BRDM-AT 1x Tigr-M w/HMG 1x Typhoon MRAP 580x personnel Point value of vehicle losses: 8385 Point value of infantry personnel losses: 3480 : TOTAL POINT VALUE OF ENTIRE FORCE LOSSES: 11865 ENDING (SURVIVING) FORCE POINT VALUE: 7449 --------------------------------------------------------------- LOSSES: Point value difference in losses: -1202 less losses BLUEFOR Point value difference in ending (surviving) forces: +1308 more strength OPFOR INCOME: Reinforcement Points earned: 12837 OPFOR / 13564 BLUEFOR Reinforcement Points earned difference: +727 BLUEFOR OBJECTIVES: Number of Objectives net gained at end of round: +5 OBJs OPFOR / +3 OBJs BLUEFOR //net gained means the number gained over what the side started the round with, minus what were lost Objective Point value at end of round: 4625 OPFOR / 4375 BLUEFOR Percentage of Objective Points towards a Minor Victory: 73% OPFOR / 69% BLUEFOR CONCLUSION: BLUEFOR suffered less losses in point value across the round OPFOR ended the round with a higher force strength (actually higher than the difference in losses) BLUEFOR gained slightly more reinforcement points across the round OPFOR had a net gain of more objectives at the end of the round Although it was a close fight, since OPFOR ended with a higher force strength and also with a higher net gain in objectives, the first round goes slightly in favor of OPFOR. ///////////////////////////////// Nice job to both sides for a hard fought round. 🍻 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Colossus Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 this would be very good drama if a representative of either side presented their side's case of the conflict. this is part of the game. someone might boast about victories to come, but that risks revealing strategy if it were true. then again that could be part of the strategy to make the other side believe that is what you intend to do next. now it is 6D chess or whatever 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted February 29 Author Moderators Share Posted February 29 Yes, possibly. It is tricky; both sides learned lessons and definitely for OPFOR (and BLUEFOR I am sure) adapted in real time. The tactical situation certainly provides plenty of room for changes in tactics and this has happened. OPFOR certainly has ideas on how to proceed, as I am sure BLUEFOR does -- but of course to talk about it would violate OPSEC, so I doubt either side will get into any details (this is also why the AAR text is very broad and brief). But perhaps some info may be shared in time... whether deception or not, who knows, I'll ask. 🤫 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Colossus Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 you are publishing this in an open forum for the community. you have my attention. consider a press statement from either side in this thread. either one of which not only gives not per se an AAR but a narrative sometimes provided as fact. consider bluffing your hand. and we will watch it here. the rest of the community will try to figure out who has the upper hand based on what is posted. maybe it will not quite translate though 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bond_Villian Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 The Battle for the Information Space continues 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankHunter Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 (edited) Drones definitely quickened the OODA loop of the kill chains for both sides. This seemed to benefit Red more than Blue due to Red's access to TOS-1s that would allow for near instant engagements on found vehicle targets as opposed to Blue needing a target to remain stationary for 3 minutes to successfully prosecute it. This was something that we on Blue seemed to struggle to deal with and we lost more armor than we should have as a result. While this Red capability wasn't the source of most of our armor losses, it was the source of enough to be problematic. At the same time, Red struggled with conducting offensive operations due to the Blue kill chain being able to attrite Red infantry with prompt and accurate indirect fires when they tried offensive operations and at the same time, be able to reliably win vehicle on vehicle engagements. Red's partial success in the last mission was a result of this kill chain being degraded due to an inability to get our spotting drone into the air. The result was inaccurate and inefficient indirect fire on enemy attacks. Despite that the Red advance was still contained even in those areas that were unprepared for it. Who is winning? The losses of the two sides should indicate this. We have been killing more with less despite Red's advantages in indirect fires. If Blue can maintain their drone assisted kill chain and manage to conduct attritional containment then I expect that Blue will be able to grind their way to a win. As regards our side's case for the conflict... Edited March 1 by TankHunter 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted March 1 Author Moderators Share Posted March 1 The former OPFOR commander wants to point out to the former BLUEFOR commander (COs have to be swapped out after each round) that OPFOR's combat strength (point value) is higher than BLUEFORs at the end of round one, and OPFOR also holds more objectives. Any other metric used to determine victory is propaganda. 📺 😛 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Colossus Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 2 hours ago, Volcano said: The former OPFOR commander wants to point out to the former BLUEFOR commander (COs have to be swapped out after each round) that OPFOR's combat strength is higher than BLUEFORs at the end of round one, and OPFOR also holds more objectives. Any other metric used to determine victory is propaganda. 📺 😛 red commander: may we ask if it is better for you to defend your gained territory now, and forgo any more offense? if you are ahead in point total, would not drag out a stalemate be the best strategy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.