Jump to content

Rinaldi

Members
  • Content Count

    940
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by Rinaldi

  1. Actually, it is quite good reasoning. I basically abandoned/put on hold my work on Ithikial's latest project (geared towards Single player) because 'fire few rounds of 60mm and HE, slaughter battalion of rats swarming in the open' was neither challenging, fun, or rewarding as a scenario designer to see. Before you go 'but you can plan the AI now and wait on the patch...' I've been waiting on the patch for quite long enough already, when I have other ideas I want to put down (such as my H2H scenarios in Black Sea) and it makes playtesting impossible, and functionally moving ahead also. I see no point in pumping out something that will be for all intents and purposes unplayable. Wasted effort. That's what the singleplayer and mapmaking experience is currently like in the series: un-play-able.
  2. The first orders have been given, and I'm while I'm waiting for it to be bounced back to me, its time to finish my METT-TC analysis and look at my Scheme of Manoeuvre. ---------------------------------- Troops Available Assigned to this attack is a Mechanized Battlegroup consisting of a Guards Battalion (-), task-organized with a Guards Tank company, and some self propelled anti-aircraft artillery (SPAAG). The battalion is not concentrated, and we are attacking from the march. In approximately 20 minutes I can expect the trail elements of my force to arrive in the battle zone. Fires consist of rocket launchers and organic regimental mortars. Air support is available in both rotary and fixed-wing variety and I should have priority from all available air forces in approximately 15 minutes. Currently, a single SU-25 is available. This is the full Monty, a doctrinally appropriate force with an appropriate allocation of fire support to accomplish my objectives. Command has given me every tool I need to effect decision at an acceptable cost. Let’s have a look at my forces in detail; currently on the board there is: Time: It is now 0705 hours. I am expected to be on objective and ready to repel threat counterefforts no later than 0905 hours local. This gives me 2 hours to accomplish my objective. Civilian Considerations: ROE Green. There are no restrictions placed on me in this mission. I may place fires promptly and with whatever effect I desire on any and all positions. Opening Moves As mentioned previously, my battlegroup is attacking from the march, with the battalion being limited to three main axes – the paved roads at the right edge of the battle zone. The battalion is advancing with an armor heavy group on the open ground, using the top two roads. A mech heavy group is stationed in the built-up area directly across from Fafrin. These dispositions naturally limits my opening options, and forces me to basically launch my armor group into the attack immediately. The other option is to stew in the open and make myself an easy target – simply not acceptable. The mech group has the advantage of affordable cover to deploy in but has no MBTs to support or lead its advance across the open ground. I am also extremely worried about walking into a kill sack formed by mutually-supporting fires from TAI 11 and 21. The goal therefore is to unite my two forces or place them in a position to effectively support one another. Based on these considerations, my opening moves will be as follows: Armor heavy group advances immediately to attack TAI 22 and 23, with company weapons peeling off to establish support-by-fire. Mech heavy group establishes battle positions to it immediate front and attacks-by-fire TAI 11 and 21. Once the armor-heavy group has cleared TAI 22 and 23, they will swing towards TAI 11. From there, I anticipate they will be able to put effective direct fires on both TAI 11 and KT3. The cross-attached infantry will leave behind weapons and anti-tank elements (at the very least) at TAI 22 in anticipation of enemy counterefforts. The mech group will advance with the balance of its force to assault and secure TAI 11, leaving behind weapon and anti-tank element to support/attack by fire positions that threaten the advance. The desired end-state is to have the battalion now concentrated in and around TAI 11 with ample ability to interdict any enemy counterefforts. From there, my next steps cannot be properly anticipated – I will have to see what the enemy has done to me by then.
  3. FWIW the Russian APS is confirmed for being able to block HEAT in game (I have seen BMP-3s with the module block HEAT, which is a cool thing to see) , and the physics of it make sense. As @Sgt.Squarehead mentioned to disrupt the warhead doesn't take much. Furthermore, HEAT rounds tend to have a lower velocity and are lobbed at a target: slower = easier to track and intercept.
  4. I am not exactly sure why I was tagged or plugged in this, and hope @BletchleyGeek and @General Jack Ripper will carry on with their AAR and discussion - which I've been enjoying quietly. Let's move past this banal distraction.
  5. I'm aware of the bug - I'm not sure if this NATO map is pre 1.32; at any rate if I can get a surrender it will all be academic. I certainly have the means to as well I believe...without further ado: METT-TC analysis Mission: A key crossroads at the hamlet of FAFRIN is the main effort. Securing passages to MAERITE and an abandoned Army COMPLEX are also targeted areas of interest (TAI), but the pursuit of these secondary and tertiary objectives are not to interfere with the main effort. Desired end-state is to have friendly forces on the crossroads arrayed in defensive positions oriented south, ready to pass additional units through my positions for a general expansion of the attack. Enemy: The precise unit is unknown, however intelligence templates threat forces to our front consist primarily of light infantry from a German unit. I expect the unit will ultimately be supported by mortars and plentiful anti-armor weaponry. The probability of an enemy quick reaction force (QRF) is high; and I suspect it will consist of heavy, mobile threats. I also would be more surprised if the arrival of a QRF does not coincide with the threat forces gaining priorities from heavier fires, such as 155s. Finally, while command is confident the SAM network that is covering this effort will hold, I am not. The possibility of NATO airpower intervening at some point needs to be considered and on my mind at all times. Terrain: The battlescape is almost table-top flat. Almost. 01 - Demonstrating the flatness of the terrain generally There are key complexities: The terrain is broken in places by sunken fields, orchards, and small villages (consisting primarily of one-storey houses). The most notable terrain feature is a dried river bed that bisects my avenues of advance and hampers horizontal communications within my battalion – it is, however, passable to vehicles. Terrain is predominantly rural and many small stone walls separate plots of land. The sunken fields and the resulting berms dividing them create potentially deadly threat battle positions (BPs). The smattering of built up areas are less of a threat but may also provide many potential battle positions. The squat, flat houses will be difficult to target over the high crops and stone walls and may frustrate my attempts to identify shooters and place effective direct fires on them. 02 - A typical berm caused by the sunken fields and orchards 03 - The muddy riverbed I have identified 3 pieces of Key Terrain: 1. KT1: The dried riverbed – as stated, it bisects my axes of advance and currently separates my armor and infantry. 2. KT2: Seizing the paved passage over the river bed will ensure a link up between my forces without the risk of losing much needed fighting vehicles to bogging. 3. KT3: The sunken fields – a large rectangular swathe of them will offer good fields of fire over most of my targeted areas of interest. The KT offers good cover and decent concealment. It will need to be put under serious indirect fires to minimize the threat of anti-armor weaponry. KT3 also offers another advantage to my enemy: it is a well covered and decently concealed area to concentrate any QRFs that arrive. 4. TAIs 11, 22 & 21: Are all key terrain unto themselves; being the most built up areas on the map as well as my three most important objectives. The handful of two storey buildings on this map may as well be mountains for the fields of fire they provide the enemy – and for once in my life I am worried about enemies on rooftops; an otherwise suicidal move. They are almost certainly to be occupied for that reason alone. Given that these areas of interest all sit astride good roads, I strongly suspect that they are objectives for my enemy as well. They will have to be factored into my fires plan to frustrate anti-armor fire coming from them. 04 - The big picture and what I've identified as areas of interest and key terrain. I'm still mulling over my opening moves; next time we'll take a quick look at the exact forces I've been handed to accomplish my mission, and how I intend to use them. The terrain is what I would best described as "fire-swept" and I definitely need some time to consider how I can turn the sight lines to my advantage, rather than my enemy's.
  6. Situation Threat forces are advancing south rapidly, sprinkling light forces in their wake to secure their Lines of Communication (LOC). An opening has appeared for a counterattack and command has strained every nerve to concentrate an appropriately sized force to strike the enemy in the rear, cut their LOC and severely disrupt their offensive. ---- As promised - my opponent from Sabres at Dawn and myself are back at it. I have allowed my opponent to select the scenario and sides, and he has selected NATO. This once again puts me in command of the OPFOR forces, this time on the offensive. I have a defeat to avenge so I'll be putting my back into it. Expect my METT-TC and Order of Battle analysis later today. Naturally, I template an entertaining match and an inevitable victory
  7. First off, a good game to @BrotherSurplice - its always a pleasure doing a match with him. Suffice to say I think he has avenged our last PBEM quite well. I've taken the time to read through the AAR and everyone's responses: I agree - you fight with what you're given, and in this instance it wasn't much. Nothing to be done about that but try one's best. Command and Control was fairly decent when the platoon leader was alive and I was able to run him about. Once he panicked however (two turns before the final attack), it was all over but for the crying. As for round two...watch this space. It's my turn for a picture + post AAR shortly. I noticed there's a lot of people in the thread pointing out potential overmatch or difficulty for one side or the other - well, we like tactical problems, not ladder-style tournaments. A lot of people in our little group of PBEMers have no problem playing unbalanced matches. Our reasoning is straight forward (1) some tactical problems don't have breezy solutions in reality, (2) humans are always better opponents than an inflexible AI plan and (3) we're fine with winning or losing well, rather than the bottom line. I wouldn't take away from Surplice's victory. I'm really impressed with his performance over all. He's relatively new to the series but he's already grasped how to develop a plan of action with consideration for terrain and how to keep courses of action open - in other words, he had if not articulated a decision matrix. My only criticism is that he didn't roam far enough with his rotary-wing support. In the end it didnt matter, as my BMPs were neutralized through other means, but the fact that I was able to dash two BMPs under his very nose to potentially a dangerous position should have caused a redirection of assets. As to my dispositions: The hill was tempting but I realized my forces weren't worth a whit and holding it would have been suicidal. Given that the handful of units I placed there had to displace and were on the verge of panic after some desultory fire, I stand by that decision. The berm was the single most useful piece of terrain and I regret not arraying all my ATGMs there as a battery (something I normally do with Eastern ATGMs). As it was, the usual tactic of potshotting with ATGMs in obscure positions only exacerbated their inexperienced crews and allowed for overmatch of return fire with the Scimitars.
  8. 1000 rounds for 2 men isn't totally insane either - a bit beefy but manageable. Realistically you'd have 7-10 mags if you knew you were headed into the **** and would often carry additional rounds in stripper clips to load up empty mags. For context, 210-250 rounds per man is considered the accepted minimum. At any rate how frequently do you need to reload a marksman team? They're hardly what I call mag dumpers.
  9. That's because 1000 rounds of 5.56 is peanuts compared to 300 rounds of .30-06. Aren't you all gun nuts on here? Not rocket science. 1000 rounds, across nominally 9 men; that's about 4 mags per man. You burn through that in a single protracted firefight if the enemy is actually able to stand and bang.
  10. Perhaps stretching the definition of "AFV" but for me I have a soft spot in my heart for the UC/Bren Carrier. The Carrier platoon is actually my favorite formation and one of the few saving graces of the CW Infantry battalions.
  11. Stryker infantry conduct a dismount drill during an attack - IR blocking smoke obscures. Soviet VDV are ambushed, 1981. Both images from PBEMs done in the distant past.
  12. I'm not entirely sure how "give more indirect fire support" translates to "hamstring their experience." Yes, the article laments the rotation - but those men remain in the army. People made the same argument with cadres in WWII.
  13. I made no AI plans. I find it a waste of time given 4.0's current condition. H2H only.
  14. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ObJh26eNn73_pP_ca8v4uYEEhmzwpHwf A link to the scenario. I haven't published yet because I need to see if I have to make any balance changes/scoring changes. It took forever to get Power Hour balanced (it favored the Russians too greatly) and I'd rather not have to constantly re-upload. Right now the scenario still probably favors REDFOR too much. Unfortunately, Aer0mat (who was my opponent in my last AAR), is @Saint_Fuller's opponent and doesn't have an account so he probably won't be giving us an account of the Russian attack. So crack open the scenario if you'd like to see the balance of forces.
  15. 'Dirty trick' implying having indirect fires on call for when a firefight suddenly erupts, or would you like to just stop beating around the bush and out and out accuse the US of setting up a scenario in which they get to beat up on the Syrians and their support? We go from fingers-in-ears denial to a not so subtle conspiracy theory. I assure you, if the US wanted to do something insane, Cheeto Benito would just do it - we're talking about the dunderhead that flung tomahawks at an airfield because he wanted to. If I'm taking the piss, lord knows what you're doing. As to @IMHO and @IanL fine, fair points - but I would say its more telling that a unit attacking failed to allocate the proper amount of fire support and security measures. AIrpower I can understand - the opposition isn't expected to have it.
  16. @kraze states a fact - a unit using Russian equipment and doctrines got their ass whooped worse than I did as a kid for giving my mom lip, and you call him a troll. I'm sensing a disturbing pattern of 'hear no evil' with you when it comes to uncomfortable truths. The alleged reaction to the leak is also eyebrow raising if it was 'mere disinformation' from the West. Normally I'd say this is all off-topic - except its not. In addition to a subtle race going on between the two sides technologically to upgrade current systems, there's a doctrinal race happening as we speak: look no further than the ARMOR article I posted a few days ago. Its all well and good to show how the material they use performs but its equally valid discussion to show how Russian and US aligned countries use these materials to fight. Someone explores this and gets dismissed out of hand, poor show.
  17. The thing I find ironic is that Nazi Germany and the Soviets were in a non-aggression pact, Germany did much of their clandestine military development on Soviet territory to avoid prying eyes...yet the Soviets still had no clue whatsoever about Panzer tactics!
  18. By Summer '44 the Germans were using wood-burning trucks so this isn't entirely surprising.
  19. 1) LOS is drawn from the ground, its not an infalliable measuring tool. 2) The M8 is not a Panther; its gunner may be able to see in a situation where a Panther's gunner cannot and vice-versa. 3) The logic of "if it can shoot me, I can shoot it" is not borne out in reality. That's the textbook definition of defilade. Edit: Bil has beaten me to the punch, but his parting sentiments are mine own: we can only spitball. This seems like, as @IanL is fond of saying, a circumstance where one side got burned and the other didn't, so we're getting tunnel vision on perceived problems.
  20. The commander can see, the gunner cannot. Easy explanations to what you want to vent about. Its time to stop thinking about the tank as a single borg-like entity (and before you say "I don't" - you just did). Also yes - it is modeled in the game, the more individuals or vehicles in a position the easier they become to spot. Hence why a 3 man FO team in a hedge may go unnoticed the entire game versus a 9 man squad. Same with vehicles. Law of averages.
×
×
  • Create New...