CMBS Power Hour

[V2 Uploaded] 20/10/2017

TF Warhorse conducts a deliberate attack to penetrate the enemy MLR. Blu v. AI, H2H only. Best played as Head to Head.

Map size: 4096 x 1696

Month: August

Sides: US vs RUS


About Author

Author: Bootie

11 thoughts on “CMBS Power Hour

  1. Reccomended that the more experienced player is REDFOR. The mission is heavily skewed in BLUFOR’s favor but the objectives balance out. Example: One playtest session gave the Russian player a minor victory despite losing 60 percent of their defensive network.

    The demands put on the BLUFOR player are exceedingly strict.

    Known issues:

    1) Russian fighting positions all lack a forward observer; this will be updated shortly.

    2)Ammo dumps in game don’t give ATGM or AA ammo, and have been excluded. I can only work with what Battlefront give me. Pick and choose your shots, REDFOR players.

  2. A nice little scenario though as the US player against the UI I found it too easy to win. On my first game I played very cautiously because I feared the presence of mines and still managed to win a total victory within the allocated time. Perhaps adding some additional Russian minefields would increase the difficulty.

    I also noticed that there were a very high number of TRPs. I don’t think you require as many s you actually have. Take a look at the scenario from the Russian POV and I think you will see what I mean! 🙂

    A night time variant might also be an interesting alternative. This engagement seems reminiscent of actions fought by US 1st Infantry Division against the Tawakalna Republican Guard Division during the 1881 Gulf War as described in Gregory Fontenot’s Book The 1st Infantry Division and the US Army transformed: Road to |Victory i Desert Storm 1970 – 1991. This of course may be purely accidental

  3. Further to my previous post there are a lot of mines that don’t appear. Whilee this scenario might well be adjustable for play against the Red AI it is certainly not here yet and I think it will require a lot more work to achieve that though it likely works well as a head to head,

  4. Hello Lucas,

    Night time was initially tested but was deemed unsatisfactory despite being more doctrinal. I am well aware of the ideal SOSRA conditions and set out to do that at first. If you believe it is too easy now against the AI, you would be even more disappointed at night.

    REDFOR’s last-generation night optics are modeled too well in game for it to be much of a challenge and even my H2H RED play testers were bitterly disappointed. BMPs were often trounced effortlessly from the LD without nary a shred of return fire, as identifying targets at that range in a 3 or 3M is exceedingly difficult. Realistic; but not very fun for either player.

    Toning down the ideal circumstances a bit has led to much more H2H play-ability. Making it a day time attack and writing away further fire support by implying it is too busy participating in a corps’ fire plan (not, I feel, too artistic a license to do in a war very much expected to be high in ammo expenditure) eased my Russian player’s burdens. H2H wins sit at an easy 50:50 among the playtesters now.

    Thanks for your comments. I will see about toning down REDFOR TRPs; the addition of FOOs will make many of them not too necessary. I won’t countenance additional mines though, not until we see flails or MICLICs in game. At any rate, I doubt the situation in Black Sea would ever allow for anything like an unbroken MLR rather than a series of strong points, as is modeled.

  5. Hi Rinaldo

    Having played the scenario a couple of times now my main issue with the mines is that in Blue vs AI the mines don’r actually appear although the are obviously present on the Russian map. Correcting this in itself would make the battle harder for the US since a real breaching attack requiring the clearing of lanes through the mine fields now becomes necessary

    In the Ukraine scenario we probably won#t see anything on the scale of the WW2 defenses at Kursk or the 1991 Gulf War Saddam Line. We might see thi kind of thing in the Kaliningrad Oblast or, in the event of a Russian takeover of the Baltic States in the Suwalki Gap with the Russians digging in to defend against a NATO counter offensive. The situation in the NATO counter offensive the Power Hour scenario defenses portrays is different. A series of battalion/company strong points as you suggest is probably about right given the operational situation.

    Correcting the problem with the Russian mines (there are a decent number shown in the scenario editor) for AI play and including more detailed Russian AI plans would help.

    Perhaps the US should not have their whole force available at the start of the force. We might have the Tank Heavy Team deployable on table at the tart of the scenario. Make the engineers aad Mech Infantry team available as reinforcements (they are doing a Passage of Lines through the Ukrainian Unit previously holding the sector) and allow a small variation for possible delays that might result from this.

    All this may require adding some more time for the mission (say 15 minutes)plus the 15 minutes variable time you have.

    Regarding the Russian TRPs maybe 4 – 6 should be sufficient particularly if you include FOOs. Maybe some TRPs should cover some of the minefields and watched by the FOO. I think one or two Russian FOO would be a reasonable proportion. The level of artillery support seems reasonable for the scenario. Maybe for the US some of it should be unavailable at the start of the scenario arriving instead as reinforcements. After all this is a fast moving offensive situation for the US and, arguably, some artillery assets, particularly the Paladins, may not yet be in place. A situation much ike this happened during US 1st Infantry Division’s assault against the Tawakalna Division during Desert. Storm as described in Fontenot’s book. Whether coincidental or not your scenario seems reminiscent of that.

    Anyway, I hope all that feedback helps 🙂

  6. I enjoyed this scenario! The only area of improvement would be a larger map. I thought the detail in the Russian defensive positions to be outstanding. Great job!

  7. I second the larger map suggestion. More important to me though is the addition of Russian AI plans in the first instance and perhaps also US plans to make the scenario suitable for play against the computer.

  8. Updated map:

    – Reduced TRPs for Russians
    – Added Russian FOOs to every fighting position
    – Minor changes to briefings

  9. Awesome scenario, played as NATO which is a lot of fun. You could consider giving more armor to the russians those abrams dominate the battlefield. The time limit is almost perfect. Hope to see more from you, TY for uploading this scenario.

  10. I’ve played this map only in singleplayer as a BLUFOR and have to say it’s an OK mission as it is – but I feel there’s one major design issue. Namely right BLUFOR starting position is completely open to the furthest russian units and as a result combat starts right away with there being no chance for a BLUFOR player to properly react (and for REDFOR too since it takes some hits from TOW missiles immediately). Generally this is a bad design and there should be some kind of a ground incline in front of that BLUFOR starting area.

  11. I start to play the russian. Its not possible to transfer the mines,trenches and wire?? if i click on mines or trenches i see the “move” button. But its not possible to move them to another place.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *