Combat Mission Black Sea: Poking the Bear - After Action

[@scottcoulson257]

LTC(ret) scenario designer here. Love your commentary - not a perfect scenario by any stretch, but I appreciate the fact that despite all your criticism (some merited!) you said you liked it at the end. My primary defense is that you frequently don’t get to choose your force package. Decisions made by your higher headquarters DO impact your mission and life on the ground. As a commander, you get the assets assigned to you and the mission you have to go execute evolves as your intelligence picture firms up. Never assume unlimited boutique support assets. Special Forces, FACs, A-10s, SEAD packages, 20km long engagement boxes, and better terrain would all have been nice. How long was the stretch of road in Kuwait where the USAF decimated two Iraqi Republican Guards Divisions? This was the force package available to the JTF commander at the time the enemy movement was detected, and the terrain was the closest point your force could reach to intercept before losing the use of the CAS. Believe it or not, this is - in my experience - how it frequently works. Many of the platforms you found less than valuable were used to good effect by testers or other commentators in various roles. The original version of CMBS this was developed under presented significantly greater UAS survivability challenges I believe. They were good for a bit, but wouldn’t survive as extended duration JTACs unless you literally destroyed every SAM on the map, hence my desire to try and force you to use ground based observation. I actually built two versions, with the more challenging having less forces (there is a branch in the campaign). I cannot recall the specifics, but it might be interesting to go look and see which one you played, though I suspect it was the tougher one. I thought of leaving the UAS out entirely for a while, but wanted the mission to be achievable by average tacticians. Lack of cluster munitions, as you pointed out, is deliberate as the US military was directed by the Obama administration to adhere to the tenets of the Quebec treaty despite the fact that the US is not a signatory. Believe it or not, what you bring to the fight in the Ukraine is largely dependent upon what you have in your prewar stocks. Cluster munitions take quite some time to manufacture, and today we have mostly depleted our stocks through use and expiration date. FASCAM is also gone - same reason. I readily admit that the scenario does really push to and even outside the envelope of CM’s reasonable limitations on scope and accurate depiction. But, it is completely different from any other CM mission ever conceived before it, so I think that might just be okay. I am glad you enjoyed it and am happy to chat further about it and ensure your considerations are up front with future efforts I do for Battlefront.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Thanks for taking the time to comment, its always good to hear what the scenario designer thinks! Overall, I think I have probably been spoilt by playing too many quick battles, but I understand and appreciate all of your points even if I didn't articulate them in the video. Having to make do with what you've got at the time, having to carry out orders in less than perfect situations, being unable to choose the ground you want (the enemy gets a say!) and not getting the full situation at all times is of course the soldier's lot. In my defence, I'm sure my (surviving) pixeltruppen would be making the same criticisms, albeit less politely! I suppose my only challenge is how the force selection, orders and distances mesh together in (what I presume is) a mission-command context: if it is my show to complete as I see fit with the forces handed to me, surely I don't necessarily have to bring my entire force so close to the enemy? But of course perhaps the terrain doesn't permit them to loiter somewhere safe outside the map, maybe there are communications problems, there are a million maybes. And like you say: plenty of other people used a lot of the assets that I didn't which creates additional problems from a design perspective.

[@paulalex19]

This was a great scenario, and the commentary was great as well. Aside from being an excellent deviation from mainstream Combat Mission battle design, this scenario really is the ultimate showcase of how massive a force multiplier situational awareness can be. If we played the version of the scenario with just ground observation and no UAS, I'd wager that getting anywhere close to the kill-loss ratio we'd normally get would've been nigh impossible due to the inability to quickly employ precision artillery on all the easily identified AA positions and the constant harassment of CAS assets by unidentified SAMs. Maybe a mission like that could be released as a standalone battle at some point?

[@donkey82]

I just replayed this. Ended up trading a couple of vehicles. This is perhaps jumping the shark a little bit. A larger map would do this a lot of favours. The engagement zones are really tight and there is no way to develop depth. The close in AI counter-attacks in particular made no sense. Like penny packets out of mutual support being hurled against super shallow ATGM defence. It would work well on 3x the map. It also brings home how wrong tac air is in game. Most of the stuff being dropped would be outside the engagement zone for the systems on map.

[@pnzrldr]

@@donkey82 no argument. Map was given to me. I thought that targeting the IADS for SEAD to permit the CAS stuff to kill would be a unique scenario for CM, so gave it a whirl. Plenty of room for criticism, and the space to extend laterally and ghost the BDE's movement for forty KM or so would definitely be more representative. Unfortunately, the map system is one of the biggest criticisms I have with CM, and is a key reason I am struggling to maintain any engagement with the game today. The new module should be fun, and perhaps a better venue for reasonable CAS, but without better mapping in the near future I'll probably we less involved. I got sucked into DCS/IL2 flight simming!

[@donkey82]

@@pnzrldr it is interesting for sure, but you are right about the maps. Last night I was trying to finish a replay of 3-69, and all of it centred on managing the map edges. I’ve got less time each year but have moved onto occasionally playing Graviteam. It eventually makes sense. You have to let go a little but I’m not a huge micro go anyway. DCS is super engaging.

[@GM-kl9mw]

frustrating ahhh mission, up until this mission I found the campaign fun and somewhat straight forward

[@RayLovesToMakeMusic]

Hap, another great video and analysis. I do think that the unsuitability of the US force mix is deliberate, and the Briefing mentions why: the flanking advance of the Russkie Brigade took the Americans by surprise. They sent what troops were available, not the troops that were most suited to the task. That could also account for the too-small-frontage of the battle (the Russians were trying to sneak this Brigade into a narrow route to keep it undetected). And while I agree that Tomatow's scheme for reconstructing the scenario would result in something more suited to the CM game engine, perhaps part of the "point" was to illustrate the efficacy of air assets that are also not well suited to the task (no A-10s, no SEAD aircraft, too many iron bombs).

[@usuallyhapless9481]

You're right: I think my reaction has more to do with me being pushed out of my quick battle "Bring what you want" comfort zone than anything else. Damn those Russians for doing the unexpected!

[@Tomatow]

Having tried to push the Russian security perimeter back I can tell you that I'm more 25 to 75 on it with advantage to staying put. The T-90s on the left tend to get infrared spots through the woods and turn your Bradleys into big fireballs. add to this fact that the Russian troops can be very hard to completely root out you wind up with small AT teams getting ambushed in a small village while your Bradley hide from T-90s. Occasionally that probe you saw with the BMPs on your right is accompanied by a reinforcing platoon of T-90s to that village. All in all a very rainy day, better to just stay inside and lock the windows and doors. Those things said this mission just didn't feel very combat missiony to me. I've always found the game to be about good management of small infantry groups and supporting armor and artillery. I think its very rare that I've played a mission that diverges from this formula whether it be platoon or battalion size that I can say I've thoroughly enjoyed. That being said I think what went wrong with the mission was the switchout of artillery support and infantry the mainstay of the game, the infantry, simply got pushed to the rear as support for the delivery of artillery. And since I hate a complainer without any solution I think a better way to have created this mission would to have had a short time span, the initial scouting force followed by the infantry platoon, some light arty support (mortars and such) and 30-45 minutes to dislodge a Russian security screen and secure two OP's with observers so that they can (abstractly after the mission) bring fire to bear on the the bear. Maybe an objective to secure your line of retreat too to avoid a(n abstract) Russian armored probe back. Its fast paced, there's the same high stakes, but it focuses on infantry having to get down and dirty fast, and it puts arty back where it belongs, in a support menu. Alternately they could be assigned to attack a Russian SAM battery al la paratroopers in Normandy style. Make them overrun a village filled with manpads, or something like that. really just anything to not have a mission that is just (hit the red button to ask the airforce to do your job for you. That being said your videos are pretty great love the AAR's really help me to pull my head out of WW2. (theres to many panzers to think straight).

[@usuallyhapless9481]

I think some T90s did visit the village in my playthrough, I remember hoping that they didn't carry on. Thankfully. As for the mission, for me what stands out most was that I was actually scared of the AI: I really didn't want it to come anywhere near my corner and overrun me, I certainly didn't want that MRB (a whole brigade!) to take a left at the crossroads and pile on through me. I agree that a light infantry raid on a SAM position or to set up OPs would fit into the Combat Mission formula better than phoning the air force, but it would perhaps lack the same tense atmosphere.

[@sullybiker6520]

So many times in CM2 I have some units sitting there and I think "I just do not know what to do with these". It's usually the bigger maps, and you get these odd units that don't really contribute to your combat power (XO group in an APC, for example) and really all that happens is if you use them you're going to risk them.

[@purpheart23]

I use the XO's and 2IC's as combat medics. Gotta have somebody tag and bag my pixeltruppen.

[@austintatious7209]

👏👏👏 you’ve just expressed exactly, my own thoughts about pre determined scenarios. The Units makeup, objectives, time constraints etc. I usually re write scenarios and add 4 hours. That gives my time to play out the mission as I think best. Rather than follow the predestined path of destruction. As always, a well presented and very articulate vid. 👍🇬🇧

[@AAA9734]

With the modern Russian AA systems here, the A-10s would have been slaughtered. There is a reason why PGMs are so popular, as they allow stand off engagements, which gives the aircraft survivability when encountering modern AA systems, like the Russian Tunguska, for instance.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Good point. Obviously someone needs to get to work on a stand off cluster bomb.

[@jabawocki9462]

@@usuallyhapless9481 there is one in use, the AGM-154 JSOW. Developed in 1997, first used against Iraqi SAM sites in 1998. It also can use the more advanced SFW bomblets. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon?wprov=sfla1 SFW bomblets: kzbin.info/www/bejne/o6rYi4iuiJiIrdk

[@bobtank6318]

@@usuallyhapless9481 I don’t know if you will see this, but another reason the A-10 would’ve sucked for this mission is that their famous tank-killing gun can’t actually kill tanks. The US Army conducted a test in the 70s where an A-10 was given 1000 rounds to shoot at ten M-47 Patton tanks. After all rounds were expended, it was discovered that only 100 rounds hit, and of those only a handful penetrated. It was estimated that none of the tanks were knocked out. The A-10s might’ve been good as PGM trucks due to the large carrying capacity, but the gun would’ve been largely ineffective.

[@cjcolehour2778]

and yet this is A) exactly what the a-10 was built for, and B) has handled simerlly bad air defense systems and wile it didn't get away clean it did get away after completing the mission.

[@mikevargas809]

brilliant