On Tactics and Turns

[gabeeg]

...I was just going to ask which titles... I do not own AOTR but do have RV and have not found a scenario yet that I have found unbalanced grossly to the point that either side could not win. I truly believe it is the "style" you might be playing. I say that because when I first got into the SB system I felt the exact same as you. I had like 8 losses for 1 draw before I got my first victory...and I always felt I was 2-3 turns from victory! It did not matter if I was the attacker (most of the time) or defender (thats where I did get my first draw...but also a few losses). The problem I was having is that for one I was being too fancy with my tactics. I went from being fancy to deliberate in my tactics and was still losing. Now I go for speed and overwhelming firepower on a single perceived weak point (I still bluff and if possible go for a flank...but that is often not possible). I go for the victory locations instead of the kills of valuable units (as I perceive them)now. Second, early on I was obsessed with killing things, that was the number one limiter of potential victory, Suppress (generally to pin...but sometimes you can only get a disrupt)and assault and keep moving towards the VL's. Lastly I would also never take the risk and get my units up off of "ground" status as I was paranoid that I would take casualties, now If I can get the enemy disrupted I will get my undisrupted units up off ground so I can move faster. Yes sometimes I will take a pin and heavier casualties but there are some scenarios that if you just move a hex or two at a time with your units gone to ground...you will never get to the VL...and IMO this is very realistic.

Highlights.
1. Move fast and use overwhelming firepower on a particular attack point(s).
2. Fight to suppress and assault, not to kill.
3. VL's are your goal, be willing to by pass juicy targets for them.
4. Do not get fancy and try and attack in half a dozen locations or across a broad front, pick one or a couple spots and concentrate your forces.
5. Move fast even if you take more casualties. If you are not willing to unground your units there are some scenarios you probably will never win, suppress your opponent and then move fast (yes you will take more causalties probably and end up with a squad or two pinned/disrupted but if you have concentrated your attack you should have enough units to keep moving).

[Richie61]

I do not own AOTR

Dude! This just ain't right

[Laza]

Yeah man, mostly AOTR and RV scenarios...This post feels like quicksand...

Anyways, the scenario makers, modmakers, play testers and everyone involved in the creative processes have done a wonderful job (otherwise we wouldn't be here playing and being a part of the community) And again, it may be just me, and that I royally suck which is fine too. I don't want to come off as a whiner, because we all know that - nobody likes a whiiineeer.

All the best!

Well I remember when AOTR was released many of us thought that stock scenarios were pretty rough in terms of pbems
Have a look over at TFE4 where there is a good selection of customs scns.
I'm pretty biased towards my old comrade Frank Harmon's work
Surprised you think the same of RV, I'm of opinion that it has some of best stock scns in all the titles that I own, eye of beholder though

[Ozgur Budak]

A title is a team work. Playtesting plays a vital role in this process. Quality playtesting gives valuable feedback to the scenario designers especially for playbalance. Poor playtesting reveals itself pretty quickly in gameplay and balance issues. I can talk about SAW and later projects as the development team was completely changed after a long inactivity. Perfect development is impossible but among the titles I worked, RV had the best playtesting. Nearly all scenarios were played as solo (from both sides) and pbem. Sometimes, in difficult scenarios we ran a third playtesting round. Apart from that the playtesting team members had extensive pbem experience. Most of them were veterans of the SB community. I am really surprised you found RV scenarios unbalanced.

[Jeff Conner]

There are a couple of different things I am reading here. One is that the scenarios, without any specifics, are too short. This leads to a bias against the attacker. While I don't really think this is the case, someone could go through the scenario stats and see how many times the first side wins. While the first side is not always the attacker, this is usually the case.

The second thing I am hearing is that the scenarios are designed so that the only option the attacking player has is to conduct a frontal assault. There is not enough time for the attacker to try a feint or some kind of flank attack. This might have some merit, but is probably very scenario specific. One of the problems with changing this is that with the addition of even just a couple of turns, the play balance can be thrown off when the attacker does conduct a frontal assault. I think one of the skills needed to be a good SB player is to be able to figure out how the designer thinks you should attack (and defend for that matter) a position including the potential risks and gains of different options.

The last thing I am hearing is that the scenarios are not big enough and don't have any flexibility. I personally don't care for huge scenarios, but the biggest problem I see with them is playtesting. Playtesting time is almost always at a premium and there is rarely enough to test a monster. I don't think any of the designers really want to release a scenario that hasn't had someone else look at it and provide feedback. Then this discussion would be about something else. Another problem with large (and usually long) scenarios is that it is not really possible to put together competent AI scripts when there are so many possible options. Market research suggests that the majority of people who purchase these products only play against the AI and so an adequate script is important. As for the flexibility, that just is not possible with the current editors. If you want a game with variable deployment and strength, you are going to have to create it yourself, most likely with the help of an umpire. I think this would make for a good game and I believe I even offered to set one up in the past (but was not taken up on my offer), but I don't have the time to do that now.

I think I have mentioned it before, but I intended to make a brigade level scenario for Falklands that combined all of the battalion level assaults on the Outer Defense Ring into one scenario. I ran out of time and there would have been no opportunity for playtesting. I will try and get that scenario completed, mainly because I think it might make a good team game.

Jeff

[TheBigRedOne]

This has been a great discussion, thanks to grofaz for bringing this up. I think one of the things I wish happened more around here is discussions like this where ideas are thrown about and the merits of the game-play are discussed.

My take on the scenarios and how they are approached are a combination of two quotes.

1. A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week. G. Patton
2. When I'm in Hue, when we're in Hue City, it's like a war, you know? Like what I thought about a war, what I thought that a war was supposed to be. There's the enemy, kill 'em. Cowboy, Full Metal Jacket

Battles are never flawless, and there's never enough time, planning or resources to do what you want to do. To that end, it's hard to plan a scenario that will make both sides feel completely satisfied with how things are set up. As has been mentioned, the attacker is *always* going to want more time to complete the mission, and the defender is always going to want less. Because actual battles don't have time limits, the designers do their best to simulate a typical battle. I'd say that a large percentage of battles in history have a full frontal assault component to them, mainly due to the fact that time was of the essence. If you're an infantry company commander that doesn't exactly know where your enemy is, pretty much every encounter is going to potentially be a frontal assault...

I think that objectives can oftentimes be deceiving in SB as well. I know that there are many scenarios that have multiple objectives. Some are reachable, some aren't. You don't always need all the objectives in order to 'win' a scenario. The key is to pick the *right* ones and execute your plan quickly. Part of the fun is screwing up a scenario by choosing the wrong path. You learn and move on to the next battle. As OLJW said, enjoying the battle is truly the fun part. Winning and losing, at least in my mind, is secondary.

The early game scenarios were not balanced well, but they are probably somewhat realistic in their setup. Some battles you just can't win, and I think Tiller tried to impart some of that reality into the early scenario design. It makes for lousy PBEMing, but as was said, the larger portion of SB game buyers play solo, not PBEM. We are the vocal minority, believe it or not.

[Ozgur Budak]

As our old friend Frank said a long time ago; playing SB is generally trying to understand scenario designer's intents. Jeff pointed out this aspect. I believe a well designed scenario should have one or two formulas for winning. In a certain instance such as assaults on a fortified position there is nothing but only one solution for the tactical problem. So players must seek the raison d'etre of a particular tactical situation. The amount of turns are generally closely related with that. In some cases where the designer wants to orient the player to a frontal assault (and frontal assaults are not always suicidal if you can use the means you have timely, not to mention with a bit luck) he gives relatively limited amount of turns. Of course a mobile battle requires more time.

I dont believe in big SB scenarios. IMO they are not worth the labour they require. I think a reinforced company level scenario has optimum size (excluding pre-ww2 situations). Most of the RV scenarios reflect this belief and depending on the map they have almost always have 16-18 turns.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Another idea about this I was thinking was if someone made some of those larger, longer scenarios for a specific title, say 20 or 30 of them as an example and put them as a group for purchase for like 15 bucks or something. It would be a purchase of scenarios only for a specific title without having all the extra coding or anything else game engine related. Just scenarios, maps and OOBs. I don't have much money, but I would definitely save up to get something like that. I don't think it should be done for free. Look how much one can get from just one title for 40 bucks. Maybe a group of scenarios for a specific battle like ASL did for Red Barricades. A group could be made for Brit 1 AB at Arnhem, then another for 82, another for 101 another for XXX Corps and then another that would tie them all together if one wanted to go that large. Many possibilities out there to think about.

[Stejones82]

First, I say out of the gate that I am new to the system. I only have Eagles Strike and Vietnam, and am far from mastering either - though Jeff, Dmitriy and Ed are giving me quite a learning curve!

That said - in terms of tactics, IMHO this engine is certainly not strategic in focus. Nor is it truly tactical. I see it as sort of a sub-tactical scale wherein all the BIG frontal assault or flanking decisions have already been made by the guys wearing oak leaves or screaming chickens. And these guys are merely implementing the decisions of the guys wearing Stars!

In fact, one of the things that greatly appeals to me is that the mechanics actually do match the scale in this system. One of my great rants regarding wargaming is the micromanagement of scale.

For example, most of my PBEM experience is in JT's EAW era (C1776, FIW, MAW). Even that system stretches the scale. To illustrate: Brandywine: the player commands a major field army (for the time and theater) and gives orders to two or more far flung wing commanders. Then the player makes and implements the decisions of brigade commanders - then he takes the role of the battalion commanders, then the company commanders.

*** How could a corps commander in 1779 control when each individual company changes from column to line formation??? ***

Sorry, back to topic - if a player wishes to play a strategic, grand strategic, or true tactical game, those systems exist, but we should be careful about pushing a given system out of its designed environment.

So, truly back to topic - I see SqB as the guys at the company level making the pin-pushers' dreams come true! Frontal assault or flanking manuever? This has already been decided and the enemy has already reacted. With the 5 minute turns and whole engagements that last one to two hours - in the real field, even with today's magical forces, the company commander would have a tough time making tactical decisions much more elaborate than:

"First platoon, covering fire from those village buildings, When you hear hell break loose over in those woods. No, dammit, THOSE woods, yes, with the flippin birch trees. When you hear the BARs cut loose, then advance and take those MG42 positions. Yes, I AM serious. Now where the hell did Frankie go - 2nd Platoon, on me, now!"

So my vote - the designers, Scenario designers and playtest team have done well to keep the game at the intended tactical scale.

Remember these are often, or at least should be, microcosms of much larger engagements. I see that reflected in the small map sizes and limited time endurance. The player is forced to the limited objectives because if he went to the left in order to hit the yummy looking flank - he would stray into the area of influence of the SS Panzer Regiment that is over there, not to mention, the pre-planned coordinated FB strikes plastering that "off limits" approach.

Now the additional beauty of the system is that the design-your-own is a viable option. Seems I read something about a DYO scenario of the entire landing of Tarawa recreated in SqB. And this might work, given the limited geography of an island. But I think that it was designed as a Multi-player game, and probably a good thing, too.

Good thread!

Steve

[Stejones82]

Wow - - - I am not used to having the last word - - - - don't tell my wife!