Q1: ***What's FDFMod got that isn't anywhere else? ***What makes it the only example of realism? What 'things' are we to base our realism on?
OK, so that's three questions . . .
AI have an adequate basic reactive intelligence 'out of the box'. ***I don't know why some people seem to think you should be able to drop SoldierE on an island and he'll display the skills of whoever-they-believe-to-be-the-best-tactical-and-strategic-genius-ever (not going to start an argument there!. ***But I suggest that AI will only be as intelligent as the mission designer can (or can be bothered to) make them . . .
In real life, if you sit on a reverse slope with enough ammunition it's not impossible you could defeat an army if it comes over the crest one at a time (aka defeat in detail). ***But a real army is unlikely to give you that opportunity - it isn't realistic as a tactic or as an expectation of the poor squaddies.
I suspect if the 1000 came over in one go (not much more elegant, but much less unrealistic) it would be a slightly different outcome.
OK, now apply that most basic realistic tactical concept of fire and movement: 500 swarm over the hill, get down and start shooting at you, then their 500 mates come over and kept coming; well, pop quiz: whatcha gonna do?
Clue: rhymes with 'dye'.
Point is, a couple of semi-intelligent waypoints per group and the mission ceases to be fun because you're going to spend a lot of time dying; survival becomes a matter of luck, not skill. ***My (limited) experience is that you actually need to build in a bit of unreality to give you a reasonable chance of surviving a 'realistic' mission.
Again, it's an unsubstantiated opinion, but I 'feel' that there are a lot of designers who spend far more time tittivating friendly forces rather than the enemy, but it's the enemy that make the game.
At the risk of flogging the dead horse, my belief is that a mission maker trying to implement the TDG that started all this shouldn't be thinking about the best tactic the player could use against the enemy. ***He's far better off wondering how the enemy would best react to the various things the friendlies might do and spend time programming an approximation to those reactions. ***Then just drop in the player with his 11 mates, sit back and see what happens . . .
(I'd love to put my money where my mouth is, but other things to finish first . . .)
Well if I was going to build a scenario based on the TDG, I'd plop the player's forces down without any waypoints or anything at all. Just a simple "Here you go - if you read the breifing you'll know what's going on." Then I'd set up a lot of randomization in the mission - like variable timed waypoints for the enemy, a chance they may be reinforced, etc. so that each mission will have the enemy doing something different.
The only downside to this would be that the solutions to the TDG would be inconsistent - one player may encounter a reinforcing BMP, another may not.
Yes - too much randomisation and the lesson of the TDG can get lost. ***Agree about the absence of player WPs, though.
I say lesson because a 'professional' TDG/TEWT/sandtable-exercise/wargame/vignette/whatever will be teaching, testing or trying real tactics and concepts (or it should be if it's seriously intended as a training aid). ***Moving away from those must therefore move the mission closer to unreality. ***The trick is to get or work out the 'school solution' (the vignettes link at the top has these as well as the scenarios IIRC).
I'd expect a lot of the discussion for this TDG would be around the likely-enemy's counter-ambush, platoon attack and meeting engagement SOPs/drills etc. ***A competent enemy are likely to respond differently to different tactics that are used against them. ***By whittling away the 'unsafe' ideas you'll supposedly get to the best (in the sense of least suicidal) solution.
For me, it's those enemy counter-tactics that can make the biggest difference between less-realistic missions and more-realistic ones. ***As for Flashpointing this TDG, as a taster, I'd expect the enemy to react very differently depending on the range at which they are engaged. ***This would be harder to achieve than 'simple' reinforcement randomisation, but isn't impossible (sometimes I wish it was simply impossible - then I wouldn't have to worry about it as much!
Looking at it another way: list what is done in the school solution, give the player the option to do those things, apply realistic penalties if he doesn't. ***e.g. if he doesn't send a contact report, why not lower the skill of 2nd and 3rd squads so the enemy could get to the LZ and he has to fight better to win?
Of course, this TDG as it stands is probably only a 5-10 minute game once you've cracked it. ***Extending the scope of the mission is one fix, but the original scenario could get lost within it. ***Instead, varied and randomised realistic enemy responses may not lengthen the mission but could improve replayability and encourage experimentation to find other valid solutions. ***How much of a market is there for short, sharp standalone missions? ***Would players go back to them to see if they can beat it better another way?
Reverting to the other aspect of the thread, relevant resources for this would be examples of Warsaw Pact counter-ambush and platoon attack tactics for inspiration. Any offers?
The best resource, I suppose, is imagination - play the TDG from both sides in your head as many ways as you can to get a feel for what could happen and the consequences.
I certainly admit that I'm also a supposed "casual military hobbyist" who sometimes doesn't want to learn by reading, but to learn by getting his ass kicked. However, I think it would be cool to provide a separate README with every mission with cut-paste definitions of all the words and tactical options. I actually like "easier" missions like Facile Ground and FDF's Russian Take the Hill scenario over "challenging" super-specops scenarios. That's my two cents.Originally Posted by (redface @ Jan. 07 2005,04:54)
[J/k sarcasm mode on]
BTW, Chinese is easy, hen yo yi si. Ri ben de Ri yu mei yo yi si. Ying yu ye mei you xing qu, wen fa hen nan xue. Han yu zhi yao lian xi, lian xi. Wo shi Mei Guo ren, yo Tai Wan lai de fu mu, ke shi wo jue de han yu bu tai nan. Yi dian dian han yu shuo de hen liu li.
[J/k sarcasm mode off: Half pin-yin, half Wade-Giles]
(I just said that Japanese is harder than Chinese. And the English Grammer is wierd once I think about it as a Chinese American.)
Have a nice day.
BTW: I realize I violated the BI Forums langauge rule, but hey its for fun.
Sorry If I am wrong, but I think that original thread changed to information source about doctrines, tactics and so on, no more TDG...
So please don´t post your solutions here, it would make a bit chaos here.
Hellfish - is it possible for you (as a moderator) to make unsticked TDG thread and transfer all posts that are related to TDG to new thread (and delete here)?
Anyway when I write this message, I will comment the solution from my viewpoint (not soldier, just "military airsofter").
You left very suitable defensive posts even before enemy seen you. Note that enemy is much stronger than you and the "deadzone" is too small - you kill some soldiers and rest hide in orchard. Enemy have mortars and I believe it to be used against MG position at least. Enemy will have good chnce to flank east (in cover of forrest) and your MG would be trapped and crossfired (orchard and east forest). However, at least you have good withdraw route for rest of squad. I dont belive this tactic to have ideal delaying effect on enemy.
It may work better than Gandalfs plan as he have too few force to advance - I am not sure but the rest two teams are blocking points or what Im not sure if that means squad.
However - theoreticly its not bad idea since he make much space to continuosly delay and withdraw. But I wouldn´t belive he would make these positions in time and also the red team should be seen.
I would stay with my plan wrote at begining - it would crush the front of enemy column and make good chaos to enemy commander. Also, enemy wouldn´t have good covering positions which would endanger me.
I would belive enemy fo fall bit back, taking cover, find what happend and then use mortars and flank.
I would keep my positions and firing enemy until he gets to cover and than withdraw - one part to West forrest, second to east forrest. This will mean that enemy will fire mortars on empty positions (from his position he wouldn´t have good watch to me an my moves) and since he tries to flank, I will be ready - continuosly slowing him in forrests or firing from forrest to open ground and than withdraw bit back to avoid mortars. Note that space in middle is covered and enemy shoul expect that.
We can debate that trough PM until the new thread is estabilished.
Munch Studios & Bohemia Interactive Studio designer
Excuse me !
We understood ourselves wrongly. Naturally one cannot keep the positions eternal here. The enemy can have mortars and thus is delay only possible tactics from my view. The enemy is on the crossing under fire to become thereby it into the orchard and to the north withdraws itself. Without sufficient support (artillery, helicopter, airplanes or reinforcements) one knows this combat (from my view) but does not win only self-towards troops the time to provide. A 3rd (probably improves) possibility gives it however still. The mg would have to take temporarily a position right from own position and the course takes position in the ditch at the northeast end of the orchard and attacks the enemy. The mg would not have to then secure however direction the east (forest) with it the enemy the own course to can go around. As said - without support however no 30 minutes can hold themselves young there.
Gandalf has actually none it not times the tactical indications had recognized flat made there. Its routes were connected with positions and the course are however in orchard. It could also not go from there forward the enemy into its direction moved and thus remains oneself no time for the 600 meters there. The only possible is thus like avowedly either positions at the edge of forest prepares above, the enemy attacks and then again withdraws themselves or position immediately into digs and at the crossing (or in a house) takes, the enemy in the open area fires at (in the curve) likewise evade and then after some time by orchard.
Sorry for my english - its not my first language and this text is partialy translated with google.
I like to make realistic missions mostly after Ive watched the History Channel I can cook up some nice senarios after watching it.
So, are there any TDG-missions done in the meantime??
If so, please post link...
A Bradley recon platoon??? ***Earlier in this thread there is an excellant Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE) displaying a mechanized infantry platoon. ***Originally Posted by (ofpchaos @ Jan. 16 2005,04:02)
But even if you don't have military experiance, ask yourself how likely is it that an US infantry force would perform recon with M2s?
There a handful of alternatives. ***All combat arms battalions, regardless of branch and organizations, have a scout platoon attached to the headquarters of the headquaters company (HHC) which reports directly to the battalion commander (Bn Co).
The scout platoon is generally lead by the top lieutenant in the organization and is responsible for being the eyes and ears of the Bn Co by conducting leaders recons to determine OCOKA and benefit METT-TC.
OCOKA: Observation and Fields of Fire, Cover & Concealment, Obstacles, Key Terrain, and Avenues of Approach
METT-TC: Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Time Available, Troops, and Civilian Considerations.
It sounds like you'd like to have an armor or mechanized force. ***For an armor force, consider looking into the organization of a cavalry platoon or troop, who use M3 bradleys instead of the infantry's M2 variety.
But what is even more likely than organic calvalry assets at the battalion level is a platoon of mounted infantry or cavalry (who often dismount close to the objective) using HMMWVs. ***Equip them the HMMWVs with 3 soldiers per vehicle, and have the vehicles carry M2s, Mk19s, or M240s on top.
I hope this helped, goodluck with the mission and keep us posted.