Campaign: Red Tide '85 (discussion thread)

[Volcano]

Re channels (that old chestnut).

I just did a test and it looks like I can create sub channels.

Would it be OK if we just created channels as required (to relieve you of a burden)?

Otherwise to keep OPSEC we'd need to create 3 channels per nationality, just to allow us to run say a 3 x Coy UK group or 3 x Coy Ger group or 3 x Coy US group or a totally mixed group (rather than channels appearing to suit the force composition on a given week).

Ah yes, all members belonging to VU admin server group can create sub channels, good point. Sure, feel free to. Create and delete any subchannels you need/don't need as we proceed. Try to keep the channel voice quality on same setting as others though.

[Volcano]

Week one was a great success! Well done to V, Mog and the respective CO's. :thumbup:

Thanks, Mog and I put a lot of work I these scenarios; now we have to make new ones though. I hope the next ones are just as successful.

I suspect that was the easy one.

The challenge will ramp up as both sides throw units at say 60% into the fray or I at least am cobbling companies together to do a job, with say US players in Challenger, etc. (the Soviets are pretty standard and have less of an issue there)

Indeed. The intentional challenge is how both COs manage their units and losses and their own unique structure. When we cross the halfway "hump" is when things will start to either come together or fall apart. :eek:

[Volcano]

The only thing that is sorta rubbing me the wrong way is the gameyness of the ruleset - having to kill X amount of vehicles past a certain point etc. I think mostly everyone would like more realistic objectives like in the 2nd scenario. Other than that, great job, really enjoying it!

Well, as mentioned: the Wednesday Recon Battle is intended to be technical in nature (for the most part) because that is what reconnaissance objectives are, and that is the nice feel I like for the campaign. There might be an occasional all out brawl in the Recon Battle, but that is NOT the intent. The Friday Main Battle is the all out/straight up brawl for terrain, and Wednesday is supposed to require more thinking and sneaking.

Besides, any all out fight on Wednesday only reinforces the misconception that terrain is actually gained/lost in the Recon Battle, and this was never supposed to be true. Still I realize that the Recon Battle may not be everyone's cup o' tea, but so too for the Main Battle, the beauty is you can attend what you like most.

[Furia]

Hello all.

I just came from a trip from the Persian Gulf to find this very interesting Campaing here.

I have tried to get the basic idea of it but with more than 26 pages in the forum it is a bit confusing. So please bear with me.

I have some questions about it. :biggrin:

Are you still open for new players?

What is the agreed start combat GMT time?

What vehicle types is using blue team for the German and US Forces?

Thanks!!

[SeanPatrick]

#1: AFAIK anyone can join at any time...but command positions are reserved.

#2: Same as TGIF, currently 0200 Saturday GMT. (But it's recommended to show up early to sort out potential problems.)

#3: US is M1 (not A1), M2A2(ODS) with LRF damage, M113A1. German is Leo 2A4, CV90/40-B (optional), M113 TOW (optional).

See here and here for more info.

[Gibsonm]

What vehicle types is using blue team for the German and US Forces?

Thanks!!

Also I may use UK forces on a given engagement.

There is a force pool of US, German and UK gear.

There is no guarantee which nation's equipment will be used each week.

[JohnO]

Just noticed a private OPFOR thread but needs a password. Volcano, I'm assuming that I will need to get it from my CO (DarkAngle).

[Tjay]

Nice to see this.

[Furia]

Thanks for the answer gentlemen.

Sadly and with regret I will not be able to join you on this event due to my actual work schedule and the Campaing schedule.

However I wish you the best and I hope I can join the next time when I am a bit more flexible is scheduling.

[Volcano]

Just noticed a private OPFOR thread but needs a password. Volcano, I'm assuming that I will need to get it from my CO (DarkAngle).

Yes, he and Gibson have the PWs to their respective channels.

[Gibsonm]

Yes.

Have received it but as discussed already with the organisers, don't intend to use it.

The open thread is fine for traffic to "one and all" (and no doubt in the last few days hase provided entertainment value to both sides).

The PM network to Contingent Commanders (and their 2ICs / XOs) remains my preferred means to distribute secure information.

- A PM grabs your attention and who receives it, can be tailored.

- With changing attendance (and possible side swapping) I see no point in trying to get the password out to "everyone" somehow (I'm not PMing 30+ people from last time) and if this week they choose to play Red then the password is breached.

- PMs to subordinates and then they PM their key players is a better (IMHO) way to go.

So while I appreciate the thought, thanks but no thanks.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Gibsonm

[Volcano]

Thanks everyone for showing up tonight for Recon Battle, we had 23 people attending.

Both sides did well as far as their objectives are concerned, and we will of course carry forth the results to Friday's scenario. OPFOR could probably use more people on Wednesday if anyone is sitting on the side line and wants to play but hasn't wanted to commit yet.

[Volcano]

Thanks everyone for participating, we had 34 tonight. I know it was probably a little boring for some of the BLUEFOR guys this mission because the advance was slow going, but I am sure it will get more exciting soon when the terrain starts to open up. All I can say is, in a campaign sometimes there are missions like this were it is a grind, but one thing is certain: it can't be like that every week.

Also, a note so everyone is aware of it:

There was a complaint about COs advancing forward of troops. Well, there IS a rule that if a CO vehicle advances beyond all friendly troops then it doesn't count, he will be brought/moved backwards when the ZOC is plotted to the nearest friendly troops behind him. So, keep in mind that if you advance past your own forces then you are really just taking an necessary risk with no payoff.

Also, thanks BLUEFOR for pointing out the second in command ZOC in the north, I didn't see the 1st platoon German vehicles in that area as they were buried under a lot of infantry. Keep in mind that when I am speculating off the final map position, then it really doesn't mean a lot until the actual evaluation occurs. Also, don't knock the German CO there too hard -- "stuff happens" and it shouldn't be too much of an issue since the rest of the company and loads of infantry was prudently occupying that area.

[SeanPatrick]

Day 2 AAR. (Temporary link.)

Edited July 28, 2012 by SeanPatrick
Removed link.

[Volcano]

Day 2 AAR. (Temporary link.)

Thanks for taking the time to do this; I know people like to look at it.

[Gibsonm]

Me for one.

[Volcano]

Hello all,

Map and TOE now updated. Typing up a summarized recap of the week in the event thread now...

[Gibsonm]

Did you want links to the AARs for the Wiki?

Recon1:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/19518131/Red%20Tide%20%2785/Mission1/Red%20Tide%2085-1_RE_071212GIBSON-SERVE1212.zip

Main Battle1:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/19518131/Red%20Tide%20%2785/Mission1/Red%20Tide%2085-1_MA_071412GIBSON-SERVE1233.zip

Recon2:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/19518131/Red%20Tide%20%2785/Mission2/Red%20Tide%2085-1_RE_071912GIBSON-SERVE1222.zip

Main Battle2:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/19518131/Red%20Tide%20%2785/Mission2/Red%20Tide%2085-1_MAIN_Day2.zip

Edited July 23, 2012 by Gibsonm

[Volcano]

Did you want links to the AARs for the Wiki?

Sure, if you want to host it there but you might run out of space before the end unless you zip them.

[Tacbat]

Day 2 AAR. (Temporary link.)

Thanks SP.

[Tango29]

Thanks SP.

What Tac said: thanks! :biggrin:

[krause]

Most of these comments are re: day 2 main battle.

The gameiness of the ruleset has really been a turnoff for me this entire process. Its especially bad in the recon battles (having to kill X # of vehicles past a certain line etc), but its still an issue in the main battles. Take this last battle for instance:

1. The majority of the ridge is held by a large force of NATO forces - but for some reason we lose control over large portions of it.

2. The Dielmissen objective is denied, although only occupied by a few units. A basic premise in warfare is that an objective need not be occupied in order to be held - in fact occupying an objective is often the worst thing you can do given METT-C considerations. In the north on the ridge it made sense, in Dielmissen and in Halle in the valley it made no sense. Now NATO has dielmissen and halle in the "neutral" area because we didn't have a certain type of unit there, which leads to my next point:

3. HQ unit zone is control is gamey at the expense of enjoyment. Rushing forward your HQ units at the terminal stage of a mission to "land grab" ground has no basis in reality. Whether or not someone wins a battle should be based upon terrain exchanged en masse and losses incurred - NATO clearly won the day 2 battle in terms of military analysis, but it seems like a tie or maybe even loss for NATO given the ruleset. If a ruleset is to enhance gameplay it should have verisimilitude, which means it should model the truth of things - model actual combat operations and the outcomes wherein. What was the end state of the mission in real/military terms? Two companies of armor lost for the russians at the expense of nothing lost for NATO, 4-5 km of ground gained, now aligned along a borderline impassable terrain feature and up against entrenched infantry across the whole north and west side of the FLOT, with forces in depth to deny a breakthrough. Hardly a victory by any stretch of the imagination.

Alternatives to HQ zone of control? Why can't we just draw the FLOT as is? The main problem with control right now is that it doesn't take into consideration ground held or denied, only a "zone" given out by HQ vehicles. Ideally it would represent tactical decisions made in previous battles, and ground fought for.

I hope you will take these comments are constructive criticism and not an attack - I appreciate that you are putting together an event which is very time consuming for our enjoyment.

Edited July 21, 2012 by krause

[Gibsonm]

Well the ZOC thing applies to both sides and it is what we signed up for so we need to work within it.

I think we can achieve this by having the COs in reasonable locations (as per the "rules") of say within 1500m of the forward shooting units.

What we don't want is a CO's tank either:

- 500m forward of his call signs in contact.

- 5km behind the FEBA having a glass of Red and a chat with a young lady.

Same thing with occupying objectives with boots on the ground.

If the objective is well behind the front we park a Mech Pl there "transiting through" and if the objectivers are actually "in the fight" then I need to workout which ones we contest and which we withdraw from (so far we have had to "hold 2 out of 3" or somesuch - not "hold all").

Anyway "now that we have him right where we want him" ...

Onto next week.

[12Alfa]

In regards ti the Recon battles.

I have told the team multiple times ( confirmed by players who were there) that as the CO I could care less for X killed, but my main objective is to "denies the enemy the ability to gather intel in certain arras's (blue circles)".

The campain designer has even had to remind me of the X kill obj's as he heard and saw that that was not my main concern,

This is not game-e-ness.

During the mission I told players again to move into or near theses obj's, and still no movement or very little.

The role of recon (having 30+ years in Arm recce) is to gather intel and report higher in our army. I am willing to send units into the fire to gather this intel, I am willing to do what ever it takes to gather the needed intel for the NATO commander, as this is my main task as a recon commander, anything else is minor. The NATO CO' needs the intel to plan his missions, and win the battle.

The recon missions will continue to follow this basic function, if we kill the enemy good, if we fail at gathering the intel, well that's just bad.

On ZOC.

A lone inf with a small arms sys does not control shit. He can see, report engage other small units.

It takes the Co and his staff to be in a area with his assets to control. Meaning he can maneuver within his AO with multiple sources of intel and resources (fire power, supply res, etc )in the area.

I can see the reason behind the CO ZOC rule,and the way it's used in this campaign VS the other we have played.

I hope all will take these comments are constructive and not an attack.

[RogueSnake79]

While everything you just said makes perfect sense, you need to examine for yourself the labor required in implementing the tasks that you have stated.

Simplifications, such as CO tanks being used to determine a forces area of influence are only done to help make such a large campaign feasible. You should try it for yourself. Do what you have stated for the last mission. And then try and explain your result to the masses on TGIF. Volcano already has to spend several hours just to make calculations for the next sce. with our existing simplified rule set.

In reality, this gameyness is at its root a user problem. And the loss of that CO tank on the FLOT is the perfect example of crime, and punishment.

Eliminating every hole, or grey area in any rule set is impossible. It is the job of the CO(You) in this case, to reign in users who take such a huge risk.

Just keep in mind this is all manually created.

In past campaigns, when too much of the outcome of a battle is decided by the coordinator, its leads too people challenging the logic of every decision he makes. And feeling that they have been ripped off, or cheated by his decisions. This is in of itself a strong justification for a simplified rule set. And the reason Volcano spent WEEKS typing up the rules for this campaign, and putting them in a place for all too see.