|
 Hello, I'm sometimes LP'er Generation Internet and this is a participatory Let's Play of Combat Mission: Black Sea, the latest modern installment the Combat Mission series of grognard strategy games. This will be part of the fine tradition of goon versus goon games on these forums started by the one and only Grey Hunter where brave readers sign up to take on command positions within two opposing forces and do their best not to die horribly. For those wanting to get right into it, the sign-up sheet is located here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Qnsnthdejb03AyBcPrG2KuHap4_TwXgOXkDeIEYKEQg/edit?usp=sharing Side threads are now live! Russian: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3792674 NATO:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3792675  To quote the official Battlefront website: quote:Combat Mission: Black Sea is a military simulation depicting a fictional 2017 conflict between NATO and Russia in Ukraine. Following the events in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014, the Kiev government and Russia continue to clash over the status of the contested regions. This culminates several years later in a dramatic announcement by Ukraine that they will be joining NATO and the EU. Tensions explode as Russia perceives a direct threat to Russian citizens and deploy troops to the Ukrainian border again, while Western governments, welcoming a chance to expand NATO and EU influence eastward, mobilize as well. The escalation continues until the summer of 2017, when a large firefight erupts between Ukrainian and Russian troops in the Donetsk region. The next day fighting flares up on the border, and on a dark early morning in June 2017, pre-positioned Russian and NATO forces roll forward into Ukraine. Black Sea represents a modern day hot-conflict between NATO and Russia on a tactical level. Combat Mission is a 'realistic' strategy game where the player controls the individual units of entire battalions in the best maps 2004 has to offer. It operates on a WEGO turn based system where both sides input orders for the units simultaneously before ending their turn and watching the results unfold. It models things like wind-speed, visibility, command and control networks, armour thickness and penetration, and the like. It has it's limitations (such as hitting a Panther a few dozen times in the upper glacis while it's immobilized and blind without cracking the armour at the seams) but is generally decent at what it does. The current generation of Combat Mission titles have typically been set in various WWII theatres, which are markedly different from a modern battlefield. Drones, ATGMs, night-vision and assault rifles make for a fast and deadly battlefield, combat is significantly more lethal than in earlier eras. One distinguishing feature of Combat Mission is that the maps are actually fairly easy to make and are almost always based off real locations. This means that you can match any given battlefield with the real-world location on google maps, which will be in play in this scenario!  Now, Combat Mission is never really a great game on its own, until you involve goons. If you haven't had a chance to witness one of these spectacles, here's a list of the previous descents into madness: quote:Grey Hunter Battle for Normandy Thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3441897 Steps to participation: 1) Sign up on the sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Qnsnthdejb03AyBcPrG2KuHap4_TwXgOXkDeIEYKEQg/edit?usp=sharing 2) Post your pixeltruppen to their dooms It's that easy. You do not need any prior experience of Combat Mission to participate! I will be running this game with a firm emphasis on 'common sense' when inputting orders. I'm not sending anyone to their deaths because you accidentally scribbled on the wrong square or didn't use the exact correct phrasing. I'm planning on taking orders more as statements as intent than as treasure maps to the perfect tactical positions. Beyond that, there will almost certainly be participants who have going on five years of history with this format who can lend a hand, and there are plenty of great resources for learning the basics if you so choose. There's even a free demo for Black Sea, which is one of the nicer features of Battlefront being an older company.  Black Sea is an asymmetrical game. If you followed Grey Hunter's Black Sea LP, you'll remember that American forces tend to perform considerably better than their Ukrainian or Russian counterparts. To account for this, this battle will be a custom scenario instead of a quick battle. This means a few things. First, there will not be VPs on the actual map itself. Objectives will be defined by myself, and will be different for both sides, who will only have a general idea of what the enemy is fighting for. The idea is to give all commanders the greatest freedom in how to carry out their objectives and not fixate on occupying a few tiles of golden grass on the map, as well as ideally supplying some motivation to play for objectives even in the face of casualties. The scenario will also be slightly less balanced than a traditional meeting engagement. Welp hopefully this works! The Krolevets Pocket  Northern Ukraine, July 2017  While fighting has raged around Donetsk since June, the northern front has remained largely quiet, with Russia showing signs of limiting their engagement to indirect support. On July 1st, however, that changed, and Russian forces stormed across the border, encircling NATO units and driving hard for Kiev. The American 9th Infantry Regiment and Ukrainian 58th Mechanized Brigade are caught in a sweeping encirclement of Sumy Oblast. Cut off from reinforcement, they push West towards the narrowing gap around Krolevets.  Only a few kilometers from Krolevets, the lead elements of the NATO force encounter the Russian 20th Motor Rifle Brigade rushing to close the gap. It is now dawn on July 7th.  The battle will take place on a 4.6 x 3.3 kilometer map of variable terrain with both forces looking to achieve their strategic objectives. This thread will become the neutral/observer thread once the game gets started. For now it will stay open for a while to try and fill the entire roster of both teams. Tell your friends! If there's anything I forgot to mention or if there's any questions,  and I'll try my best to address them.Updates: Update 0 - Preview and Reinforcement Choices Generation Internet fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Oct 1, 2016 |
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:42 |
|
|
Signed up for a BLUEFOR armor  Time to dust off my copy of black sea
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
Signed up for blue recon. Really like the idea of doing away with on-map objectives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
Signed up for blue armor, gimme them tanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
I can slot in where-ever, I think. Time to make up for my embarrassing showing last round!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Putinistas, let's go
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
BLUFOR. Ukrainian infantry company commander.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
I was in the last combat mission game but it kind of felt like whoever's armor took out their rival's armor first won. Will infantry play more of a role in this game? Could we play an infantry only scenario?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
Apocron posted:I was in the last combat mission game but it kind of felt like whoever's armor took out their rival's armor first won. Will infantry play more of a role in this game? Could we play an infantry only scenario? I am well familiar with that feeling, after Abongination did his Battle for Normandy scenario I was so sick of Shermans bouncing shells off of Panthers that I did exactly that and ran an infantry only game, which starts here in that thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3678870&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=15#post442185471 I made some mistakes when I set up that game, one of which was not including any vehicles at all. This game I'm hoping should be better balanced. There will be tanks, but the map is massive and the terrain is varied. There's huge chunks of the map where tanks really won't be able to go at all, and there's some wide open spaces where they'll probably do very well. I'm also hoping the scale will help balance infantry versus tanks. Both sides have multiple companies of infantry, with actual numbers in the hundreds, and relatively few tanks. Besides that I'm trying to avoid the 'our tanks died so welp we give up" phenomenon by moving away from strict map objectives and more towards looser objectives that can still be completed even if you're losing. This isn't going to be part of any organized grand campaign, but it will be possible for either team to achieve a strategic victory at the same time as a tactical defeat. I could be completely wrong in my implementation, but one of my driving motivations was to put more of a focus on infantry, which is far and away the bulk of the forces. e: Not to mention, as you've chosen an American infantry platoon, that Javelin's are a thing. Tanks are deadlier, but so is infantry AT and it's prolific in modern formations. Generation Internet fucked around with this message at 08:24 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
Signed in for Blufor support platoon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Apocron posted:I was in the last combat mission game but it kind of felt like whoever's armor took out their rival's armor first won. Will infantry play more of a role in this game? Could we play an infantry only scenario? Infantry will be riding in APCs and AFVs armed with autocannon and ATGMs. The dismounts will be carrying RPGs and ATGMs of their own. Plus, infantry will probably be able to call on some close air support. Infantry used right in the right environment can be very potent. I think this map is going to give infantry commanders a chance to make a difference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
Signed up for Redfor Armour platoon. I've done this once before and lost it is time for some revenge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
I'll grab some bluforce infantry. As I need to try this from the other side. I was thinking of running one of these using the campaign from one of the games as opposed to gvg, but with a baby in the house my recording/gaming time is down to a bare minimum atm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:I'll grab some bluforce infantry. As I need to try this from the other side. The man himself! I put you down for a Ukrainian platoon since that's what there's the most of, but there's still American commands to be had right now if you have a preference. A campaign vs. AI would be interesting, I wonder if players would end up surrendering to the AI after losing too many units like they do in goon v. goon 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:The man himself! I put you down for a Ukrainian platoon since that's what there's the most of, but there's still American commands to be had right now if you have a preference. Thanks, I was phone posting, and couldn't get the spreadsheet to open in an editiable form. I'm happy to shift to Redfor if you need the numbers though! And its always interesting that goons break before their pixeltruppen do, I'd assume people would fight tooth and nail (I would/will) but a lot of people seem happy to go "Welp, I'm out of position slightly, for me the war is over!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
It's time to Сделать Америку великой Снова! (gimme redfor infantry)
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
In before this really happens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
This time with 80% less "our spawn zone is trees!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
I've been conscripted by Glynnenstein. I technically own the game but I never got it to work because my virus scanner keeps refusing to let it install, but maybe now I will finally get around to fixing it...
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
В чужу́ю жену́ чёрт ло́жку мёда кладёт. Signed up for a company to secure safety for our oppressed Russian people in
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
Deal me in! I'll wait to pick a role until it becomes clearer what we need. In case of emergency: I can fit the drunken commander Russian stereotype fairly well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:This time with 80% less "our spawn zone is trees!" Mistakes were made in the last LP, I will admit. That map was a lot more open than I thought!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Thanks, I was phone posting, and couldn't get the spreadsheet to open in an editiable form. I'm happy to shift to Redfor if you need the numbers though! If there's anything that validates the existence of something like the morale meters in Total War games its GvG Combat Mission. It's fascinating to watch teams disintegrate through increasingly hopeless posts even when the situation isn't as dire as it seems. I'm really going to try to avoid that this game as much as possible through various means, hopefully I can find a hook to keep people involved as the body-count rises. Hubis posted:I've been conscripted by Glynnenstein. I had to try to download this game on my desktop ~10 times on lovely internet before waking up every morning to 'connection corrupted' or something like that before bringing my laptop to the library, downloading it there, and transferring the files via USB back home. Battlefront works in mysterious ways. Dark_Swordmaster posted:Deal me in! I'll wait to pick a role until it becomes clearer what we need. Oh man, I wasn't even on your team but I still remember going through the German videos fondly after Abongination's game was over, especially the drunk and or tired ones  Grey Hunter posted:Mistakes were made in the last LP, I will admit. It's not just you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lTVpGMfEwY
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:A campaign vs. AI would be interesting, I wonder if players would end up surrendering to the AI after losing too many units like they do in goon v. goon Personally I don't think this would happen, because the entire thread would be there to pick up the slack, and there's no feeling of "wasting the opponent's time" when the opponent is a computer. Even a "Goons vs. single 'mastermind' Goon" might see this mitigated, because there's no reason to feel that one is being "denied information" or other things which lead to demoralization in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
My first impulse was overall russian commander but I think I'll try a ukrainian company commander instead. I don't own this one and my knowledge of modern systems is shaky, so should be a lot of fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Time to run some fine american infantry into the nearest autocannon I can find. Though the wall of tanks advancing in Grey's LP was fun to see from the winning side at least
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Taking an infantry company for Mother Russia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Hopefully I'll find wrangling 30 russian pixeltroops easier than 12 goons, because that's what I'll be doing this time. I'll swap for company commander if that's what we end up needing more of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
No force commanders yet, so I'll sign up as Russian battalion commander. I was just side commander in the previous combat mission LP. So if someone really wants to be side commander, just let me know and I'd be more than willing to pick another role in the interest of other goons getting a chance to command. Ed: DSM, just saw that you were eyeing that position. I'd happily drop down to something else if you want CO. abelian fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Preveet, Tovarishiy! Today, Coy. Commander Phi230 has reported to his duty station in the Ukraine! To the West lies those NATO dogs, protecting that fascist government which oppresses the Russian people! Today, we show those imperialists that we will not be bullied into submission! Today we show the world might of the Soviet Union! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:I will be running this game with a firm emphasis on 'common sense' when inputting orders. I'm not sending anyone to their deaths because you accidentally scribbled on the wrong square or didn't use the exact correct phrasing. I'm planning on taking orders more as statements as intent than as treasure maps to the perfect tactical positions. So, out of curiosity, can you really interpret orders fairly if you know the other side's exact positions and orders? If you interpret orders subjectively, you'll have to pretend to not know what the other side is doing. This is extremely hard for humans to do. Can't be unseen and all that. In other words, if you need to make significant judgement calls when interpreting players' "statements of intent", how can you be sure you don't let your knowledge bias the orders that you input? As an alternative, would you be open to the idea of having a designated player for each side interpret and input the orders, and play it more like a PBEM style? (I'd volunteer to be one of the inputters).
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
abelian posted:So, out of curiosity, can you really interpret orders fairly if you know the other side's exact positions and orders? If you interpret orders subjectively, you'll have to pretend to not know what the other side is doing. This is extremely hard for humans to do. Can't be unseen and all that. I appreciate that this is a valid concern, but I'm not sure I agree. I'm hoping I won't have to take large subjective leaps, I think my perfect world is where everyone draws a map of where they want their units to go, tell me explicitly what they want them to do, and add in a few conditionals to cover bases. Basically I want players to be focusing more on orchestrating the flow of the battle instead of the individual placement of any given soldier. By that statement I really mean that there won't be any willful malice when running the turns. I'd like to think that the larger scale decisions of the commanders will determine the outcomes of firefights instead of where they put the units. Having order-inputters would certainly eliminate any doubt of bias while also taking a bunch of work off my shoulders, but I'm not sure if I want to add that extra complexity of coordination needed to run turns and put out videos. I've also thought a bit about whether or not to hand out saves. My only concern is that people end up simulating the battle outside the actual game, but the sheer scale means I probably will give the action-replay turn out so people don't have to wait on me to address anything they want to focus on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
You could argue that the flip-side is that a person entering orders for their team, who is very experienced with the game, could fudge things towards more optimal play. Also, I like having the saves to be able to check the terrain and LOS, but yeah, you have to have faith that people won't actually run turns in the future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:I appreciate that this is a valid concern, but I'm not sure I agree. I'm hoping I won't have to take large subjective leaps, I think my perfect world is where everyone draws a map of where they want their units to go, tell me explicitly what they want them to do, and add in a few conditionals to cover bases. Basically I want players to be focusing more on orchestrating the flow of the battle instead of the individual placement of any given soldier. By that statement I really mean that there won't be any willful malice when running the turns. Ok, that's fair. Previously, there had been some talk about changing the game format quite a bit so that players would only provide very broad/vague orders, and leave the details up to the GM. I wasn't quite sure how far you were planning to go along that route. As long as you intend for us to have relatively unambiguous orders, I'm cool. As far as posting the turns: password-protecting them will prevent people from inputting orders and running the turn. Of course, that won't stop people from firing up the editor and trying to reconstruct the state of the battlefield. But they can also do that from the videos/maps. And they could always cheat and read the other side's thread to get the password, but there are far easier ways to cheat if they're going to go that far. Although I'd prefer it if the turns were posted, I'm not too worried if you decide against this, either. The videos from your commonwealth LP were great. That was the only CM LP where I felt like videos consistently gave enough information for players to make good decisions (not to knock others'; it can't be an easy task, and the small scale of that LP was working in your favor).
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Preveet, Tovarishiy! Wow, cool your jets, Kapitan Malashenko! Remember how he ended up? Anyway, let me officially put my hat in the ring as the Russian support platoon. Far enough outside the chain of command that my taint won't infect the Polkovnik. Priyom!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
pthighs posted:You could argue that the flip-side is that a person entering orders for their team, who is very experienced with the game, could fudge things towards more optimal play. abelian posted:Ok, that's fair. Previously, there had been some talk about changing the game format quite a bit so that players would only provide very broad/vague orders, and leave the details up to the GM. I wasn't quite sure how far you were planning to go along that route. As long as you intend for us to have relatively unambiguous orders, I'm cool. I'll probably end up doing all the orders myself and giving out password protected saves in order to delegate LOS checks and stuff like that. It went pretty well in the last Black Sea game when Grey Hunter gave them out and ideally should reduce stress over not knowing where your unit is, what it's doing, etc. I was able to do ammo, condition, and LOS checks for everyone in that paratrooper game but there was only a total of ~120 troops, and last time I checked this scenario is clearing 1000. On an unrelated note, everyone please feel free to talk up this game around the forums! I'm going to give it a few more days so the maximum amount of people can have a chance to see the thread while it's open and sign up, but the more the merrier and I know personally I'm ready to start whenever. My plan right now is to open up side specific threads once the rosters fill up so I can start giving out details of the scenario to both sides. After that I'll give it about a week for both commands to hash out a plan and organize themselves before
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Signed up as a Ukrainian Infantry platoon! I for one am excited to lead my troops into glorious victory and/or a horrific massacre, whichever comes first.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:A campaign vs. AI would be interesting, I wonder if players would end up surrendering to the AI after losing too many units like they do in goon v. goon Davin Valkri posted:Personally I don't think this would happen, because the entire thread would be there to pick up the slack, and there's no feeling of "wasting the opponent's time" when the opponent is a computer. Even a "Goons vs. single 'mastermind' Goon" might see this mitigated, because there's no reason to feel that one is being "denied information" or other things which lead to demoralization in the first place. Grey ran some of the US campaign in Shock Force, and Skillness622 did the Commonwealth campaign. Some of the scenarios were a lot of fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
I'm planning on signing up on whatever side needs more people at some point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:42 |
|
|
I'm gonna bow out and observe so that frees up some US infantry if anyone wants it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 05:01
|
|