ScoutPL

I think I'll create a road rally scenario. That's creative right? And doable? Well except for the massive crowds mowed down by the occasional out of control car. Civilian crowds are an abstraction... oh wait, can we have COIN scenarios without a significant civilian presence? NO. That's the whole point of COIN, otherwise its just a firefight. Which is what CM provides - a great tool for replicating platoon and company level firefights. I suppose if you want to title it a COIN firefight vs. a conventional firefight, you are free to exercise your poetic license to do so. The point (as confirmed by ChrisND) is that the designers have to stop somewhere. Otherwise, we'd be bombarded with Buzz's "I cant wait" posts for years as they continued to develop and test every possible aspect of the "Full Spectrum of Conflict" without an actual release. So CMSF (father, son, grandson) is focused on a conventional fight. The rest is up to the modders. Which is what this thread was originally asking about. Apparently.

Overrated? US patriotism? What? I am pretty sure there were Brits there that day. Canadians. Followed swiftly by Free French, Poles and others. I doubt any of the Germans there that day would have considered it overrated either. Other Amphibious Operations in WW2 conducted by the stuck up, self righteous Americans: Okinawa 14000 US killed in 80 days - 175 a day Iwo Jima 6800 Killed in thirty days - 226 a day Tarawa 1700 Killed in three days - 566 a day Normandy 20,000 Killed in 60 days - 333 a day Sarcastically- Obviously, none of those sacrifices is a big deal, especially considering we could have simply waited it out and became Germany's biggest trading partner. My apologies for perhaps overreacting, but having fought in three wars in the last twenty years for the US Army, I get my hackles up when I perceive someone trying to minimize what that means (to any soldier or "patriot"). This is a forum about a great wargame. I would hope we can keep the comments to that, as we are all from different life experiences, political affiliations, loyalties, etc. and you never know whom your strongly worded opinion might offend. I will strive to do so from now on as well.

OK I am open to all sorts of persuasions (drives my priest crazy). Name a CMSF scenario that you feel accurately depicts a COIN operation.

I can see a use for UAVs, just probably not in game. This goes back to the constant debate about reconnaissance and whether it can and/or should be replicated in CM games. Practically all a UAV provides is eyes on an objective or NAI (Named Area of Interest). An objective that you know you are going to hit and want to collect intel on or an area or route that you suspect the enemy will be using and you need eyes on to confirm or deny that assumption. Once you are within small arms range of your enemy (ie the scope of CM) they become pretty useless. There just isnt any way for a commander to get full motion video (FMV) of his objective WHILE he is attacking. It requires setting up a workstation with a satlink, etc. Something you can do in a CP or the back of a vehicle, but honestly if the commander has his eyes glued to his TV he is already losing the battle because you cant lead/make decisions watching a television displaying one small part of the battlefield. You can delegate someone to watch the tube and send you updates but that takes time, flows through a filter only as good as your guidance, and will usually be minutes late. The true value in UAVs is in their ability to provide you information during planning. So the next time you play CMSF, turn the intel feed up as high it will go at the beginning of the scenario and attribute it to more UAV resources than you would ever dream of as a battalion or brigade commander. And enjoy!

MRAPs are COIN taxis, not necessarily fighting vehicles. Practically no maneuverability and very little firepower or protection above 12.7mm (except underneath, of course). Unless you want to play a game with you driving twenty Ks hoping you dont hit an IED. I believe CMSF is about fighting a more kinetic, direct action fight, not chasing down Gs (well, maybe I should say shooting back at Gs when they are dumb enough to shoot at you). Thats what the "Invasion of Syria" was about and thats what the (hopefully) forthcoming Black Sea will be about. Not sure there will be a lot of use for MRAPs.

I've seen vulcans fired in ground mode (the old towed Vulcan AA systems the Army used to have) and I have seen them fired from AC-130s. The targeting systems would adjust the lead electronically. For both systems, either the target or the platform are moving at a high rate of speed. I wouldnt think there is any side spin to worry about. The cannon are all electronically controlled and as I am sure you know that can be calibrated down to the nth of a millisecond. So to the eye that gun is turning at a high rate of speed, but as long as its not faster than the bullet or shell traveling down the barrel I dont think it would be a problem.

I know for a fact they don't. We still teach Land Nav, hand drawn map overlays, etc. but only in the school house. Practical application is entirely devoted to how well we can leverage the tech advantage we have. So much so that we continue to drift away from the basics that the analog way of doing things require. And I mean the higher echelons of command of course, every level below the battalion will always fight the way they have fought since 1918 until something revolutionizes the area of kinetic weapons and/or body armor. There are still a lot of senior leaders who remember the pre-satellite/laptop days but they are aging out, myself included. The idea of a battalion commander having to crawl under a poncho with his operations officer and develop, scribble down and radio transmit a FRAGO to the current order (like I saw in the 90s) is so foreign to our younger generation they find it laughable. Which would be fine except the current tech is extremely reliant on one point of vulnerability - satellites. This is common knowledge but often gets whitewashed in favor of our culture's gadget fetish. There are alternatives of course. I heard a very viable proposal using cell tower tech. Essentially each Battalion HQ would erect a cell tower like antenna, thus creating a cell coverage area across the entire BDE or DIV battle space. Most of todays smart phones can do everything a BFT or CPOF (electronic, GPS based, C2 systems) can do, so its not that big a leap. A more perfect, contingency ready system might include both cell and Sat tech. But that will take money and development and by the time the govt has it figured out and purchases the needed equipment, Google will be teleporting people around the globe for 5 bucks.

Careful, you're going to have the NSA knocking on our doors. Russia has obviously expressed deep concern for what they still consider a satellite state. Historically they have not been above doing what they want to protect that vision. I think when they look around and do their analysis they will find very little to deter them from doing what they like in their backyard. So, yes CMSFv2 is very, very desirable and Ukraine would make a very viable, relevant and interesting AO. The really interesting point would be how the scenario developers keep the conflict regional and to what level of "total war" the combatants go to. When it comes to two tier one class opponents going at it (NATO vs Russia), space (not the sky) is literally the limit. With effects all the way to the tactical level. I cant imagine the US Army having to operate at this time without satellites, but destroying or limiting their use is within easy reach of any tier one opponent and vice versa. Strength and capability is always the best deterrent for war. Anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge in modern warfare will always end up concluding its better to just rely on other means to achieve your goals. (Alternates are currently working well with Iran, for example.)

I have no doubt the Russians will do what they did in Georgia a few years back. And we wont be able to do anything but shake our fists.

Not sure this thread hasn't descended into obscurity but thought I would make a few points/suggestions. 1. As I am sure Battlefront staff are aware Caspian Sea area is now a major "training environment" for the US military at least as far as simulations go (live and virtual). So anything in that general AO has some real world potential for interest from the boys with the govt pocketbooks. 2. A future NATO/Russia conflict may very well include chem use, massive numbers of displaced civilians, and a substantial insurgent threat. (Ok, now try to not pull your hair out thinking of all the potential code ramifications of that. Yeah, there are very good reasons why we don't go to war anymore. Well, unless you're a republican from Texas.) 3. UAVs are seriously misunderstood. They are very specific in their feedback and very operator focused. You wouldn't be able to throw one up and immediately gain SA on 25-50% of the game map. The only semi realistic way to simulate them would be as an icon that the player has to give waypoint movement orders to. As the icon moves across the map the player gains SA in a 50-100m cone (Its the camera lens not the aircraft that provides the feedback). As soon as he moves away from a contact that info goes stale, quickly. It should be possible to lock the icon(UAV) on a particular target and have it follow it, but thats the only way to gain live SA. If you want to simulate larger (i.e. higher) UAV assets than you will just get a huge picture with very little definition (think groups of vehicles and masses of personnel, not individuals or identified weapon systems. Those images can be zeroed in to smaller focus but you immediately lose SA on the bigger picture. Tradeoffs. Despite the media buzz, UAVs are not that big of a game changer. Oh yeah, any UAV within range can get shot down rather easily. (more coding...) 4. I would like to see a greater ability to task organize units. Currently, subordinates are hard coded to their headquarters. You can get around this by adding teams and weapon systems to a formation but I want to be able to take a Combined Arms Battalion and create Combat Teams by cross attaching multiple Bradley Platoons and a Tank Platoon and vice versa, each under a unique Company Headquarters. Or the next step, Split a Tank Platoon among the rifle platoons of a Bradley Company, with the Tank under the direct C2 of the Platoon Leader.

Not really. Doctrinally, reconnaissance requires a task, a focus point, so if you are running a presence patrol or establishing a checkpoint or other type of reoccurring bread and butter COIN task you are still looking at a movement to contact type scenario. In an asymmetrical environment recon missions usually consist of setting an OP on a known/suspected enemy location in an attempt to spot a High Value Target in order to carry out an on-order raid to kill or capture. Or setup an OP on a known IED location and attempt to conduct a sniper attack or call for fire when Mr. Bombmaker tries to set up another IED. Still a lot of sitting and waiting from a hidden location. Most units just don't have access to the high tech "eye in the sky" sort of intel resource gathering. The US military has UAVs at the company level but they are slow and loud, so the enemy is always very aware when they are up and reacts accordingly.

The CG, AT4, RPG, and PF fill the same role. They are basically the same as far as penetration, range, weight etc. Minor differences and everyone has their preferences. The key is the weight. Every infantry squad requires a light anti-tank, bunker busting, building entry creating weapon system. These low tech, light weight weapons are some of the attempts at fulfilling that need. The key limiting factor is the weight. Lighter is better and that limits its capabilities. If you want greater range/penetration then you need a vehicle mounted system. The US Army has gone almost exclusively to the AT4 (see any youtube firefight video from the last ten years and you are bound to see one being fired at real targets). There is a push to go to the CG (it has a small increase in penetration and a versatile array of warheads - which to an infantryman just means more stuff to carry) but due to current budget constraints this will probably not happen (Again. the CG has been around since the 90's). As to your original question: Scouts and their mission cannot be accurately portrayed in CMSF or any CM game really. Now, I know there is always an uproar when someone makes this statement. I have been playing CM and around these forums since the original game came out so I know what I am writing out. If you want to read about this issue until your brain explodes just do a search for scouting, scouts, recon, etc. Essentially scouting/recon falls into two categories. The grognards (hardcore realists) and the gamers (those who just want to figure out how to beat the game or manipulate the game mechanics to beat an opponent). To a grognard reconnaissance follows the doctrinal (i.e. original design/theory) purpose for those units. Which means a lot of passive, stealthy, slow movement and observation. The spotting rules, time limitations, aggregate movement/hiding factors of the game engine make this almost impossible. CMBN is getting closer with its two man scout teams and improved spotting rules, but CMSF lacks these refinements. To the gamer reconnaissance means sacrificing fast, low cost units (jeeps, trucks, fire teams, etc) to push forward and draw fire. This will show you where your opponents positions are located and help you develop a plan on the fly. Reconnaissance should be conducted prior to the type of engagements usually simulated in CM (i.e, what military professionals call "actions on the objective"). Before you conduct that company/battalion attack the commander should have already sent his scouts forward (days/hours before, not minutes before). He should have conducted a thorough map reconnaissance, looked at some SAT imagery if available, etc. All of this should build a picture of the terrain and how the enemy is arrayed on it. This allows the commander to pick his forces, place them in attack positions (or defensive positions) that support his overall plan. In CM this all comes in the scenario briefing. Unfortunately, the scenario designers usually do a very poor job of providing this so the player is usually conducting a movement to contact and trying to develop the situation as the game progresses rather than conducting the deliberate attack the designer might have wanted to portray, hence everyones frustration with reconnaissance in the game. Everyone sees the need for it since in most cases you are forced to do it because the scenario briefing did a horrible job of painting a picture for you. Unfortunately, the game mechanics just dont portray one well camouflaged guy belly crawling up to the crest of a ridge and remaining in an OP for 8 hours watching an enemy build his defenses. Of course, there are plenty of examples where this sort of reconnaissance just isn't possible and so you get your movement to contact/running battle and CM excels at showing that, its just not a comprehensive blanket for offensive/defensive operations. So, in game terms the scouting abilities of a marine or army scout platoon doesn't really matter. And that is what their component built their TO&E on. Scouting, not fighting. But CMSF forces you to rely on their fighting capabilities and so their shortfalls in this area will become self-evident. I have some old tutorials from years ago if you are interested in reading more of my opinions/viewpoints. http://cmsfwarchest.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2010-11-01T00:00:00-04:00&updated-max=2010-12-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=1

Experienced player looking for opponents for CMBN and CMSF games. Not concerned about your experience level, willing to learn as well as teach. Just be dependable and willing to stick it out to the End Game screen! Please contact my via pm or at toddj4143@gmail.com Thanks.

All positions are filled right now. BUt I'll keep you on the short list since we'lll probably lose another player or two before this is over. Thanks for the interest.

OK, having some trouble getting this thing started due to players having to drop out after everybody in uniform got a lot busier a couple weeks ago. Looking for interested players to jump on board and give this thing a try. Go to my web page for more info.

Campaign Rules revised edition 1.1 ScoutPL’s Operational Campaign for Combat-Mission (SOCC-M) Rules, Regulations and other things open to long extensive debate.... 1. Objective: The objective of each campaign game will, of course, first and foremost, be to have a good time. On a more objective level (pun intended), each side will have a “mission statement” issued to them by higher headquarters that will ultimately decide whether they are successful or not. 2. Sequence of Play: a. Players decide who will play each side and what “gamey” rules are in effect. A lot of gamey issues will be moot since neither player will have control over unit purchases. They each will be commanding a combined arms task force based on the historical TO&E’s of the period, at least as close as I can get them. b. Players then download the files for their perspective side (Axis or Allied). Since the TO&E will be balanced and based on unit tables found in any Threat manual of the period there is no need to worry about the other guy seeing your force makeup. Once you organize your forces as you see fit and deploy them on the large map, your opponent will only be able to guess at what forces are where. c. After a thorough map and unit study each commander will develop a plan for how he wants to achieve his mission over the next 24 hours (campaign time). Battalion Task Forces and Company Teams (combined arms at the company level) can be created out of the TO&E pool. d. Each player will then prepare a Oporder and map overlay for me. All I will basically need to know is how you have divided up your forces, which forces are moving to new locations, who will be digging in, and who is sitting in reserve. All of this will be covered on the Operational Planning Sheet (OPS). e. Once I have collected all of the information and transferred it over to my master map, I will determine what battles will take place in the first Operational Turn (OT, each OT represents 12 hours campaign time). If multiple battles occur at the same time on the campaign timeline, then I will randomly decide which battle is fought first. f. I will then create a scenario using the pre-made map for that Sector and the units that each player informed me were in or moving into that Sector. g. Players will then be responsible for fighting the battle. At the end of each battle players will be responsible for emailing me the last turn (and any pertinent passwords). This will be used to update the TO&E charts to reflect any losses. And of course who still holds the ground. h. Battles will be fought until all within that OT are complete. Players can then cancel or modify previous orders. New Attack orders can only be drawn up at the end of each 24-hour period. i. This process will continue for 24 hours campaign time (or two OT’s). Players will then have an opportunity to develop new Attack orders, this is referred to as a Planning Phase. This represents the late night staff sessions that took place between the daytime fighting. j. Play will continue along this vein until the end of the campaign is reached (48-72 hours campaign time) or one side is forced to withdraw off the campaign map (or CM II comes out, at which point I’m sure just about everyone will lose interest). 3. Map: There are two types of maps, Campaign and Sector. The campaign map depicts the entire maneuver area. I drew it from scratch with MSPaint. The campaign map is divided into Sectors, usually centered on key terrain, such as a village, bridge, hilltop, etc. Each Sector map is drawn with CM and will be used to create the scenario files. Each Sector map is finite, approximately 3 km (H) x 5 km (W), so the limit on the number of personnel and equipment (the stacking limit, if you will) per Sector will be set at the equivalent of five rifle companies per side. The only exception to this will be in those rare instances a player is able to carry out a successful flank or enveloping attack. Then he would have units converging on the same Sector from different points on the compass. Put another way, you can’t push two battalion task forces down the same road into the same Sector in the same OT. In reality all you would end up with is one hell of a traffic jam. Also, since each battle will only last 35-50 turns, there just wouldn’t be enough time to deploy that many units on such a narrow front. Task Forces may pass one another during an OT in friendly controlled sectors, for example a depleted task force could pull out of a sector while a second reserve task force moved into it with no penalty to the depleted units defensive network. In other words a relief in place could be done. Movement between sectors can only occur along maneuver corridors marked on the Campaign Map by the major roads. It is assumed that restrictive terrain (destroyed bridges, poor roads and other obstacles) prevent movement along other axis of maneuver3. Combat and Task Force Status: Combat is decided using CM on the sector maps. Individual scenarios will be limited to the forces that players briefed in their OPS. All rules concerning play in CM (including Gaminess) are the responsibility of the players. I will simply operate as a facilitator for the setting up of scenarios. Task Forces must be assigned a status during the Planning Phase (every two OT’s). Available Status: Move – Any TF can move from one friendly sector to another during any OT. A sector has to have last been occupied by a friendly unit to be considered friendly. Attack – Task Force has been issued orders to attack a Sector. At certain times TF’s in Attack Status may be placed in Hold or Reserve Status, if due to action elsewhere on the map the player wishes to delay or cancel his attack. Note: Recon in force missions are considered a type of attack. Attack orders can also be planned for a later OT. For example a unit could start a 24-hour period with attack orders, spend the first OT in Defense or Reserve status, then implement their attack in the second OT. Dig-in – TF units will dig fighting positions. Units are not available for Reserve missions and, depending on amount of time preparing positions may defend with obstacles and fortifications in place. Digging units must spend a turn on Reserve Status before being able to implement Attack orders. For example, a TF in Dig-in status during the last OT of a 24-hour period can be given attack orders during the Planning Phase, but must still spend a turn in reserve status before implementing the attack plan. This requirement simulates the major transition a unit has to go through when switching from a totally defensive posture to an offensive one. Defend - TF’s will defend in position, but without the benefit of obstacles and fortifications (exception: foxholes will be available). Units Defending can switch to Attack orders without having to go into Reserve Status. Reserve – TF’s in reserve status are available immediately to a player for movement or attack orders. For example, in OT 1 a player has TF A, in Sector Tronville, Attack Sector Rezonville. He places TF B in Reserve Status behind it in Sector Mars Le Tour, with orders to move forward once TF A attacks and to be prepared to attack Sector Rezonville if TF A’s attack fails. In OT 2 the player orders TF A to withdraw (Move) from Sector Rezonville and issues TF B orders to Attack. Recon - This status is only available to units designated in the TO&E as reconnaissance or scout units. All it really determines is how these units will enter the scenario Sector Map as discussed below. 5. Starting Boxes: a. Meeting Engagements, Defenses: The sector map will be divided into fifths, left to right. One side will start at 2/5ths the other at 4/5ths. This is due to the fact that for later battles in the campaign timeline, a player (due to events in another sector) may wish to cancel an attack or other order. This initial placement will force him to fight an organized withdrawal rather then just exit his forces off the map as he would in a more conventional scenario. At the same time the opposing player will have the opportunity to pursue his opponent off the map, possibly inflicting casualties. The defender will set up in 2/5 through 4/5, for the same reasons. b. Attacks: In his OPS, a commander will be responsible for listing an Order of March for units moving into neutral or enemy controlled Sectors. This will be used to determine unit arrival on the map. Since in real life a commander rarely arrives on the outskirts of a village with his entire battalion task force around him the usual manner of piling everything along the map edge will be discarded here. The attacking forces will be divided into thirds. The player will decide the exact makeup of each third (or wave, so to speak). The only guideline being that no wave can contain more then 50% of his force. In addition to OOM the player must designate a movement technique. There are three to choose from, traveling, traveling overwatch and bounding. The biggest effect this will have in the actual battle will be the location and time of arrival of follow on units. In traveling the units will arrive on or near a road and relatively close together. In traveling overwatch, there will be a longer gap between the first group of units and the follow on ones. The first group will arrive dispersed, to simulate them clearing the way for the rest of the task force. The rest of the TF will arrive relatively together and on or near a major road. In bounding the entire TF will arrive dispersed and so it will take longer for each element to enter. 6. Fire Support: Each regimental task force will have supporting it a 105mm Artillery Battalion and a 155/150mm Artillery Battery, for a total of four batteries. These arty forces are represented in the scenarios as arty spotters. Here is where we take another step away from the norm. It will be up to the player to designate the support status of each battery, as either being in Direct Support (DS) or General Support (GS). The number of spotters allocated to a task force will indicate support status. Each battery will have a spotter assigned for every two guns. The 105mm batteries (US -6 guns, German – 4 guns) will have three/two spotters and the 155/150mm Battery (4 guns) will have two. For example, if the player places his 155/150mm Battery in DS of a particular battalion task force then that task force will receive both 155/150mm spotters. If the 155/150mm Battery is placed in GS then two task forces will receive their support in the form of one spotter apiece. If a 105mm battery is placed in DS then it will still assign only two spotters to that unit, the third will remain assigned to another task force as a GS Spotter. Only one battery per OT can be placed in DS. DS spotters will have the full ammo allotment. The GS spotters will have their ammo ration halved. Air support will be available to US player provided weather and availability factors are favorable (determined randomly). 7. Obstacles: Once a unit is designated as Defending it will begin that OT in foxholes. At the beginning of the second OT (if placed in Digin status) it can expend 150 points on obstacles (no fortifications). By the third OT, still without enemy contact, in Dig In status, it can expend another 350 points to include the purchase of Bunkers. For each bunker the player will exchange one MG unit or MG equipped squad. At the end of the fourth OT the player can expend another 550 points to include all pillboxes. For AT gun pillboxes the player must have an AT gun of equivalent size to exchange. An appropriate number of personnel must be available during all turns. To gain the full point obstacle value for all turns the player must have the equivalent of a rifle company or an engineer platoon in the sector. To gain the bunkers and pillboxes, the units to be exchanged must remain in the sector for the entire required amount of time. Also at the end of the fifth OT, any vehicles that spent all five OT’s in the Sector can begin the next OT dug-in. 8. Misc. Use of Forces: a. Recon: Reconnaissance units are attached to the regiment. They will fall under the same guidelines as regular units, except that when they enter a Sector in recon mode they will always enter from the board edge. This applies only to recon specific units. Regular units performing recon in force missions will arrive in sector as regular combat forces. Recon units that are able to exit off the enemy side of a map may do so and continue on to the next sector. b. Reserves: The player may designate as many units as he wishes as reserve units and place them anywhere behind his own lines. Reserve status indicates that the units are in local assembly areas packed up and ready to move out. Therefore, reserve units are the only units that can receive movement and attack orders prior to the Planning phase between every two OT’s. Reserve units may or may not be organized as Task Forces. Those organized as task forces must move and attack together. Units not assigned to a particular task force can move forward independently to reinforce units already in combat. [ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: ScoutPL ]

"I'm doing the strategic planning for the allies, I forgot who's the axis bossman. The FOW is kind of ruined anyway when we get the end game screen." I disagree. All you learn is the opposing sides casualties which a good intel officer could get a handle on from interviewing participants or counting the bodies or wrecks left on the field. Also, in an operational campaign the desire to live to fight another day would be much higher, no more last minute rushes by two vehicle crews and a couple ammoless bazooka teams just to get that last VP location. Since your TO&E carries over from battle to battle, forces who are losing the fight would be more inclined to withdraw from the field in good order, further clouding the intel picture. But when each side offers a briefing at the end of the fight, detailing the size of the force and its composition, then it wouldnt take some one who was trying to figure out where you're strongest (and weakest) on the campaign playground. Thus taking away the whole cloud of doubt and tension that makes operational warfare such a thrilling gamble. I realize this isnt really what JasonC set out to emulate, but I felt like throwing my two cents in anyway.

I would suggest using the current team members as Staff officers. That will make sure everyone is involved in the planning. I need to know if once the fighting starts you think you will have enough fights going on to occupy four players per side (not counting the commanders). Every one pretty much joins to fight so lets make sure they all get enough action. If in doubt then lets hold them as reserve players or have them form the nucleus of another, seperate campaign game

I now have two guys waiting in the wings. Commanders if you feel like it is feasible, can they be added to our current game? Otherwise they can hold out until we have enough interested to start a second campaign or they can go head to head.

You up to date, Panzerman? Email me any questions you might have. Or post'em here.

Arent you guys kinda ruining the campaign FOW by discussing each battle from each side right after it's complete? Or is JasonC handling all the upper echelon planing/decision making?

Iron Duke, get a hold of Panzerman. Unless he has been caught up in recent events, a real posibility if he's active duty US Military, he should be in the early planning stages now. I sent him an email a couple days ago and havent heard anything so I'm beginning to wonder myself... I will be publishing the revised edition of the campaign rules on here within a few hours. Both to make them a matter of public record and in the hopes of drumming up more interest.

We'll have to wait and see I guess. Since Jason is doing such a good job running courses of action, I'm sure what we'll end up with is infantry forces forward with tanks in reserve since both sides will be deathly afraid of massed armor attacks now. So lets look at it from this perspective. I know I am facing an opponent of roughly equal size, with limited AOA's. SO I decide to go for broke and mass as much armor as I can in one sector attack. My max is five companies, since this is the max a bn headquarters can effectively control as well as time and space factors. So I throw in all four tank companies with a infantry company in support. That leaves me with 5 infantry companies to defend two other AOA's and provide a reserve. thin but doable. Now lets suppose my opponent gets a good intel die roll at the start of the game or sets up a good screen forward one sector from his MLR. He identifies my armor thrust before I can close with him and reacts accordingly sending in extra AT units and tanks. Meanwhile, he sends a combined arms task force (say a inf bn and a tank company) against my thin infantry line on another AOA. WHile we are slugging it out in our Kursk like tank battle, he's wheeling around my flank, going for my rear. In another round or two I may have been able to punch a gap in his line with my tank heavy force but all I've really done is put myself in a pocket of his making. Hence, a lesson in operational art has been taught. Hey it could happen. Or I could totally miss the armor buildup and he could cut through me like butter and put my entire unit into chaos. But damn it'd be a grand fight! And teach a lesson about intel and contingency planning at the operational level. I didnt want to bring this stuff up but since Jason brought it over here, I'll go ahead and throw in my two cents. I dont want to start a flame war, lord knows there have been enough of those in the past. BUt I think what JAson has created is a management monster. As you go up in organizational level the less control you have of what happens out at the pointy end. What I see happening is one of Jason's battalion commanders coimng up with the best plan since swartzkopf's "Hail Mary" and then watching it fall apart as the companies involved (all fighting very different fights on different maps) go their own ways. It will be up to JAson to determine what effect these seperate, consecutive fights have on one another. A bigger map may help but it sounds like he's just going to set up a lot of company fights that will have little to do with one another. The smallest self contained combat unit is the battalion. Its the smallest element in operational warfare. To break a battalion task and purpose down into 3 or 4 seperate parts just doesnt work. All the companies in a battalion have to fight together as a cohesive element, all striving for the same goal. I'm not sure you can do that by seperating out the battles into company sized packets. As an infantry leader in the army i participated in countless battalion attacks. 1 company clears the route and makes a breach, one company establishes a SBF position, 1 company isolates the objective area. All of that so another company can move in and seize the first row of buildings in a town so that another BATTALION can come in and start actually seizing the town. How are you going to break that up into individual battles on a small map? I'm not trying to say Jason's approach wont work. And I dont think he's trying to say mine wont but if we're just wanting to set up a string of little battles to fight then lets call it that.

OK good argumants on the Panther issue. I'll change it to 2 Panther companies and 2 PZIV companies with the understanding that they cant be mixed below the platoon level. I.E. no 2 x Panther 2 x PZIV platoons. I think the conception that these will all be huge battles is a misnomer. A regiment in the attack has to do alot more then attack, particularly with the size AO that we're talking about here. I purposely set it so that each player will only really be able to muster up one good sized battalion task force for an attack, unless they're willing to take some serious risks. For example. Each player will be responsible for their own reserves. This includes reinforcments, counterattack forces and follow on (exploitation) forces. All of these missions would take at least a battalion to support effectively (1 IN company and tank platoon as reinforcements, 2 IN companies and a tank company as regimantal counterattack/exploitation). The map is big enough that another battalion will be required to cover the AOA's not used in the main attack (2 companies and 2 tank platoons forward, with a company and tank platoon as battalion reserve). This only leaves 1 IN BN and a reduced tank compnay as the main attack force. I'm sure we could put enough players on a team together that those who like company sized battles can handle those and the ones who like the bigger ones can handle those. Now I suppose a player could put three battalion sized combined arms task forces together and send all three forward. but this ignores most tenets and principles of the operational art and just wouldnt work out. A flexible opponent could defeat one or two of the battalion sized task forces with a defending reinforces company and still have a enough forces in reserve to smash the third and launch a counterattack that would end up seizing all of their opponents map since he had blown his entire wad in the first few rounds of combat. I'll make the changes to the TO&E. But I'm beginning to think we just dont have that much interest because we dont have that many players that are really knowledgable or interested in operational problems. No prob I'll just go back to TOAW and TAlonsoft's Campaign Series for my operational challenges. Unless of course their are a few of you out there who want to prove me wrong...

Well, perhaps my headline was a little too optimistic since we cant even seem to get out of the assembly area due to lack of interest! Come on guys, I know you've all got to be tired of the same campaigns and scenarios all the time. And QB's will only go so far before they turn into squibbles over gamey force selection. So why not become a part of something bigger? I have a couple guys who would be willing to play the part of regimental commanders (and thus take the brunt of the operational work) but what we need is more players interested in the battalion/company level fights. THis is your opportunity to get a real feel for what happens when you successsfully seize your objective but the sister battalion next door fails miserably. So drop me a line and lets get this thing rolling!