View Full Version : The Breach
I just finished playing The Breach and wanted to get a few opinions on it. Since this is not an AAR I don't think there will be any great spoilers in THIS post. However, what I did worked pretty well so if you haven't played the scenario you might want to wait before reading the rest.
Anyhow, I don't want to get too specific. I set up my forces to breach the DMZ in three places, launched my UAVs and kept my air support on the ground. Once the UAVs were in the air I pretty much saw what I needed to see and commenced the systematic destruction by indirect fire of any air defenses I could find.
After I had the SA-11s and Gatlings reduced to scrap I launched a deep strike with the A-10s. The strike put an end to all of the North Korean indirect fire units and nearly all of their helos. Unfortunately my A-10s were not able to spot the sole remaining SA-11 until it was too late and were hit hard. The SA-11 did not last long after.
Confident I had surpressed all of the enemy air defenses I sent my Apaches to the north and south and began knocking off any units that I thought might get in the way of the advancing columns.
At this point the scenario turned into a bit of a turkey shoot. After a few minutes I had destroyed everything worth destroying and was left with only the menial task of maneuvering my columns through the difficult terrain around the DMZ (which actually proved to be the hardest part of the scenario).
I had enormous problems breaching the DMZ with my mechanized companies, but was able to maneuver my armoured formation with little or no trouble. Once I gave up on giving orders to companies and started controlling the movements of individual platoons the task of moving sufficient forces into the objectives became MUCH easier.
Still, the frequent obstacles produced several sizeable delays as I found myself forced to do a great deal of micromanagement in order to keep my units from getting trapped or wandering off in other directions.
If anybody else has played this one I'd like to hear how it went, especially any ideas concerning breaching. I played the scenario a second time and managed to conduct a much smoother operation around the DMZ, but was still frustrated by my own inability to effectively organize a breaching mission.
Cheers
Paul
Still, the frequent obstacles produced several sizeable delays as I found myself forced to do a great deal of micromanagement in order to keep my units from getting trapped or wandering off in other directions.
As anybody who has seen a real life breach operation unfold can tell you, this is actually fairly realistic. Real-world breaches routinely turn into complete goat ropes. It is not uncommon for units to flounder around ineffectually amidst an obstacle for hours, even against light or no resistance at all. But, from the point of view of perfectionist gamers, with their "God's Eye View" of the situation, it is often very irritating.
The automated pathfinding in ATF is marginal at best in any sort of complex terrain, which describes most maps in RT. This issue is not limited to ATF; most games that model any sort of terrain show limits in their ability to figure their own way out of cluttered situations.
The best way to deal with difficult terrain, including obstacles, is to select the "None" formation while moving units through it. Every individual will then hit the exact waypoints you select, ducks in a row. Don't confuse this with "Column" formation, which tries to keep units in a straight line even when they go around corners. Perhaps you've noticed the marching-band-like "wheel" operation at sharp turns.
The only difficulty with "None" is that when units reach the last or a "stop" waypoint, they will all pile onto it like angels onto the head of a pin. You have to keep an eye on them and set them back to a real formation once they're through the tight spot. It would be nice if you could assign formation orders to waypoints.
I've long since given up on the automated missions for breaching obstacles. It just never works for me. I control breaching assets individually, and I always send assault units through the breach in "None" formation, restoring their proper formations on the other side.
--- Kevin
As anybody who has seen a real life breach operation unfold can tell you, this is actually fairly realistic. Real-world breaches routinely turn into complete goat ropes. It is not uncommon for units to flounder around ineffectually amidst an obstacle for hours, even against light or no resistance at all. But, from the point of view of perfectionist gamers, with their "God's Eye View" of the situation, it is often very irritating.
Irritating is one way to put it. Well, what I really found odd was the vast difference in the behaviour of the same formations when directed or when given a mission. By the way, I like that expression "goat rope".
The automated pathfinding in ATF is marginal at best in any sort of complex terrain, which describes most maps in RT. This issue is not limited to ATF; most games that model any sort of terrain show limits in their ability to figure their own way out of cluttered situations.
True enough. The pathfinding ability is fairly dependant on the choice of formations. I think a large part of my problem had to do with my efforts to keep everyone in a column formation. You see, I found that using the "none" formation resulted in formations becoming widely separated during breaching operations. Accordingly I tried to use the column formation at the company level and created a giant mess. In the future I will only do so at platoon level.
The best way to deal with difficult terrain, including obstacles, is to select the "None" formation while moving units through it. Every individual will then hit the exact waypoints you select, ducks in a row. Don't confuse this with "Column" formation, which tries to keep units in a straight line even when they go around corners. Perhaps you've noticed the marching-band-like "wheel" operation at sharp turns.
I think you're right. The column formation brought me nothing but headaches during most of the scenario. I also noticed a great deal of waypoint shifting which I attributed to the pathfinding capability of the game. Now I wonder.
I've long since given up on the automated missions for breaching obstacles. It just never works for me. I control breaching assets individually, and I always send assault units through the breach in "None" formation, restoring their proper formations on the other side.
Good advice, although I have found that the column formation also works very well during a breach especially if your guys are following a lead tank with a mine plow. It keeps them from getting separated and ensures they will go directly through the area you point them to.
How did you find the scenario? Have you played it?
Cheers
Paul
I like that expression "goat rope".
There are many other equally amusing but more profane variations to express the same sentiment.
How did you find the scenario?
In general, I find attack missions against the ATF AI to be fairly easy, when I am allowed plenty of time to get my recon together and develop a good picture of the enemy. Especially where LOSes are short, as on this map, and the enemy is wedded to their static positions, it is usually not difficult to methodically grind them up piecemeal while never giving them a good shot. My DVA AAR, I think, shows a good example of my usual technique in that regard.
Time-pressure missions, such as when a follow-on unit is coming along at a certain time, or defenses where the enemy often sets the timetable, are more difficult for me.
The only things I found difficult in this mission are shepherding your lost sheep through the rough ground (as you discovered) and having the patience to hunt down and exterminate sufficient numbers of enemy units to trigger the victory conditions. I haven't yet had the patience to get that done; I lose interest after the "exciting" part of the breach op itself.
--- Kevin
Pat Proctor
27 Oct 04, 16:57
Cabron66,
In Army speak, they call your method of executing the breach "setting the conditions" for the attack. You exercised "tactical patience" by not conducting the breach until you had air supremacy and air freedom of maneuver.
Good job!
Cabron66,
In Army speak, they call your method of executing the breach "setting the conditions" for the attack. You exercised "tactical patience" by not conducting the breach until you had air supremacy and air freedom of maneuver.
Good job!
Well, I did it by luck only. I just assumed that the scenario designer giving me overwhelming air power meant that I would be facing some kind of nasty air defenses. Actually, I assumed I would lose the UAVs within a few minutes and was very surprised to find that I could maneuver them all over with almost total impunity. Although, not nearly as surprised as I was when one of my attack helos was shot down by a missile fired 15 or so kilometres away.
Well, all of that and I think A-10s and Apaches are cool so I like to keep them around until I can go on a rampage. Are they that deadly in real life?
Cheers
Paul
Pat Proctor
28 Oct 04, 12:51
If used correctly, yes, they are that effective.
CPangracs
28 Oct 04, 13:09
You will find that I intentionally made some of the "early" scenarios (Beach Party/Beach Party II/The Breach) a bit less difficult than the scenarios later in the "campaign" for the simple fact that I didn't want the difficulty to scare-off new players, yet still require the proper use of doctrinal tactics. There is also the consideration of amphibious warfare that is new to many, even in the ATF community. This was also done to hopefully reflect the element of surprise gained by the South attacking the North, as these scenarios occur simultaneously in my alternate world! ;) As the North gains its footing, the forces become tougher and smarter.
There are also some very interesting actions I experimented with in using the AI in missions in Raging Tiger, so, when I see anyone write an AAR that includes the phrases "I never would have expected the AI units to do that...", "I expected the AI units to do...", or "I would have had the AI doing ...", I get a huge grin on my face! I don't like to have a predictable enemy in the games I play.
You mentioned expecting to lose the UAV's. This should NOT be expected, as UAV's are very small in comparison to normal combat aircraft, and most often can be used at great enough an altitude as to render it alost invisible to the eye, so it takes much more to acquire and kill them, even with their slow speed!
As for the A-10's and Apache's, if you can take out the enmy ADA assets, then you can often destroy targets with extreme prejudice at will on the battlefield. I tried to use these assets sparingly in missions for this very reason.
If used correctly, yes, they are that effective.
Hoffman Nickerson wrote that "airpower is a thunderbolt launched from an eggshell". I would have said a Faberge egg, since they are extremely expensive eggshells.
--- Kevin
There are also some very interesting actions I experimented with in using the AI in missions in Raging Tiger, so, when I see anyone write an AAR that includes the phrases "I never would have expected the AI units to do that...", "I expected the AI units to do...", or "I would have had the AI doing ...", I get a huge grin on my face! I don't like to have a predictable enemy in the games I play.
Unfortunately, I have only played one scenario so far in which the AI had a lot to do except pick targets for indirect fire (which it did poorly, often picking moving armoured formations and missing badly). In "Turn of Events" I was surprised by the mass of T-80s forcing their way through heavily forested areas. Unfortunately for them, their advance was so slow that I had a tonne of time to reposition my armour and greet them appropriately.
How good is the AI at using smoke?
Oh, and by the way, is spotting always visual? Is sound spotting taken into consideration?
You mentioned expecting to lose the UAV's. This should NOT be expected, as UAV's are very small in comparison to normal combat aircraft, and most often can be used at great enough an altitude as to render it almost invisible to the eye, so it takes much more to acquire and kill them, even with their slow speed!
All of which is good for me. What kind of radar cross section do these things have? Are they even invisible to a reasonably advanced system like the SA-11? I sent them everywhere and only received small arms fire at very close range.
As for the A-10's and Apache's, if you can take out the enmy ADA assets, then you can often destroy targets with extreme prejudice at will on the battlefield. I tried to use these assets sparingly in missions for this very reason.
The A-10s I can see being extremely effective for any number of reasons, but I wonder about the Apaches. They have been problematic at times and were badly embarrassed during the last Gulf War. I don't know if they are as tough as many seem to believe them. At a distance and with support I have no doubt they can pick off any number of armoured targets with relative impunity, but I wonder if they are so good at dealing with infantry. Judging by some of the gun cam clips I have seen I doubt they would be able to cleanly deal with dispersed infantry. Of course, I don't fly one of these things so what do I know.
Cheers
Paul
Pat Proctor
29 Oct 04, 10:36
The AH-64D Longbow Apache is a quantum leap in technology. One designating aircraft can pop up its mast, acquire all of the targets, send the targets to the other aircraft, and then they can fire without ever exposing themselves.
This advantage is largely negated in flat terrain like Iraq/Kuwait, but in a place like Korea, it would be devistating.
The AH-64D Longbow Apache is a quantum leap in technology. One designating aircraft can pop up its mast, acquire all of the targets, send the targets to the other aircraft, and then they can fire without ever exposing themselves.
This advantage is largely negated in flat terrain like Iraq/Kuwait, but in a place like Korea, it would be devistating.
I could see how it could be if used correctly, but the aircraft's vulnerability to small arms fire could make it difficult to use in terrain like North Korea's. Basically, the more difficult the terrain, the more places for men and machines to hide. I wonder if an enemy force could not cause the Apache no end of headaches by placing a few small AA guns around and waiting.
Wasn't the Apache originally designed to deal with large number of armoured vehicles (i.e. the Warsaw Pact forces)? What would it be able to do against dispersed infantry armed with shoulder fired SAMs? You would still want to be sure to keep the Apache in safe air and not let it wander too far. I would imagine a single Apache is far more expensive than a Bell Huey (or even a Blackhawk).
Cheers
Paul
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.