sdp

Thanks for all the info. As I mentioned earlier this is for the operational level of a future meta campaign, not something you necessarily would want to include on the "CM battlefield". Concerning the British establishment example one must bear in mind that it deals with the composition of a typical battalion sized battlegroup - an equivalent of a american battalion sized task force -so the LLAD, LRATGW and engineers are likely to be ad hoc units, I suppose. I got the information from http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0014.html Anyway, thanks for the input - I'm a bit wiser :-) regards/ sdp

Ok, thanks for the info. So it's nothing at all like in the British army? (3) LLAD - Low-Level Air Defence - HVM regards/ sdp

Yeah, well it's definitely not something that you need to simulate on the CM battlefield. My bottomline is; would it be fair to assume that a US army battalion has some kind of organic short range ADA capability and that there are long range ADA assets at brigade level? (Bear in mind - this is just for the operational level of a meta campaign...) regards/ sdp

This might be out of the scope for CMSF (but not if you're putting together ORBATs for a meta campaign...) I've studied quite a few TOEs for the US army but don't seem to find any ADA units at battalion or brigade level - anyone know how they are organized/deployed? Do they operate in battery-size or even smaller? regards/ sdp

it's the bulldog!

Youv'e got some good points there, Stemar. I agree, the hard part about constructing a MC is not the map itself, it's the losstracking and managing of units and subunits. Have to be detailed enough to be fun, simplified enough to be managable to GMs and tactical players (the CM players). One of the most tricky parts I'm working on right now is the fact that you haven't really got a useable loss record after you fought a CM battle - you only have casualties and losses in numbers - if you would like to find out losses as per unit you would have to go back to the map and count each soldier and vehicle. That would be to tedious imo... Even so, you don't have much use of the detailed loss record, since in the scenario editor you're limited to have units either "alive" or "dead". Now there's a tricky part - how to recalculate the actual losses in a CM battle and apply them in a reasonably complex and yet still easy enough way in the TO&E of the editor? Oh ,and btw, Cpl Steiner, your counters look really nice! Keep up the good work! regards/ sdp

Excellent stuff, stemar, this is useful indeed! If you find the time it would be great if you could post the to&e for the other units as well. Thanks! regards/ sdp

Seem to remember that I based the orbat on information that I found on this page; http://www.meib.org/articles/0108_s1.htm Of course, I suspect that there might be som factual errors in this text - if you read it carefully You'll see that the author contradict himself on one or two occasions... regards/ sdp

Well I'm still working on the Operation Nemesis MC... Progress is slow however, and to be frank I'm in no hurry - I'm aiming at Q1-Q2 2009 as I would like very much to include the british and the euro-modules in the ORBAT for the blue side. Anyway, your work really looks good! I've put together orbat for the 1st and 2nd syrian corps, don't know if you can use them - you may find them here; http://cmsfmc.googlegroups.com/web/syrian-orbat-2-corps.gif?hl=sv&gda=ECfdxEoAAADgMSU3h5zuQMwdV6aPJXDj_CRbNKjS_S5T82XzQVnQ2n4pbsX6gNqrcYcGC9jIzgtZbPj-1sokCvCMckrCUpkI_e3Wg0GnqfdKOwDqUih1tA and here http://cmsfmc.googlegroups.com/web/syrian-orbat-1-corps.gif?hl=sv&gda=QkCt30oAAADgMSU3h5zuQMwdV6aPJXDj_CRbNKjS_S5T82XzQVnQ2lmg9s1Us3LmcubhfTOH4sdZbPj-1sokCvCMckrCUpkI_e3Wg0GnqfdKOwDqUih1tA regards/ sdp

What would be the best way of simulating a light inf battalion with what we got right now in CMSF -the stryker battalion minus the strykers? (plus some Humvees?) -a marine inf battalion? (plus some Humvees?) Found this part on globalsecurity.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/battalion.htm Light Infantry Battalion. This is the most austere conventional combat battalion; its organization differs most from that of the light armor battalion. This battalion has only three rifle companies and a headquarters company. The light infantry battalion is an austere combat unit whose primary strengths are its abilities to operate under conditions of limited visibility and in close combat. The primary weapon of the light infantry battalion is the M16. There are 65 M203 grenade launchers, 18 M60 machine guns, and 18 Dragons in the battalion. The Dragons are being replaced with the Javelin which is in its Full Rate Production stage. There are four TOWs, four 81-mm mortars, and six 60-mm mortars. The battalion has 27 HMMWVs and 15 motorcycles. There are no 2-1/2 ton or larger trucks in the battalion. There were 42 AN/PRC-77 radios. These have all been replaced by SINCGARS radios, which are the primary means of communication within the battalion. There are no redundant radios. When attached, the light infantry battalion may come with a 105-mm howitzer battery from the infantry brigades direct support FA battalion. The differences among this battalion and air assault and airborne battalions are greatest in the organization of support and logistics. The battalion has no trucks larger than its 27 cargo high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs). There is no mess team in the battalion; Class I supply is prepared by brigade. There is only one mechanic in the entire battalion; repairs are conducted at brigade level. The battalion has only 18 long-range radios. The light infantry battalion has limited antiarmor capability: a HMMWV-mounted tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided missile (TOW) platoon at battalion level and a Dragon (Javelin) section at company level. Air Assault Battalion. The air assault battalion and the airborne battalion are similarly organized with three rifle companies, an antiarmor company, and a headquarters company. Tactical movement for both usually is a combination of air insertion and foot marches. A major difference, however, is in the number and types of wheeled vehicles in the air assault battalion. The battalion has six 5-ton cargo trucks and 45 HMMWVs. There is a mess section and a 17-person maintenance platoon. Communications are served by 29 long-range radios. Antiarmor capability of the line company is decentralized down to each rifle squad. Airborne Battalion. Once inserted, the airborne battalion tactically performs much like a light infantry battalion; walking is a principal means of transportation. It does have 10 2-1/2-ton trucks and 36 cargo HMMWVs, and it can move nontactically by truck. It has a mess section and a 16-member maintenance platoon. The airborne battalion has 30 long-range radios. Its rifle squads also have antiarmor capability. -is this information valid? regards/ sdp

-thanks! Yes you're supposed to be able to switch the terrainlayer on/off, that's correct. What you see in the screenshots are wip, have to remember that. The final design will surely look somewhat different I gather;-) -Adam; check your email! -Double Deuce; thanks for the offer, much obliged! I seem to remember that you were involved in a CMAK campaign also, weren't you? "Hunting the fox" or something? Anyway, having run campaigns before your experience might prove valuable to any future MC team. Do you have any MC of your own running right now? (I can't seem to access Combat Campaigns...) regards/ sdp

I'm at work right now, so I'll keep this brief: could this be of any use? http://groups.google.com/group/cmsfmc I suppose we could have different MCs at different stages of development - developers could share info and resources, maps, orbats etc between the projects. regards/ sdp

seems the Syrian OPmap went missing... I'll try this instead; regards/ sdp

That sounds terrific - actually you are one of the designers I had in mind! I'll let you know as soon as I've set up the "maparchive". You will of course be duly mentioned! regards/ sdp

Yes, well, at the very least the OPmap would have to be able to simulate movement costs/different terrain effects. The advantage of a grid is that it allows for specific tactical maps - CMSF battlefields - to be assigned to specific locations. I've already started to design some "TACmaps" in the scenario editor. They're basically generic representations of the terrrain in the hexes on the OPmap, like farmland, urban, open etc. Now there's an effort we could benefit from sharing! The "open" maps are quite easy of course, the urban maps takes some more time... My idea is to ask for permission to use some of the maps of the existing scenarios as well. Gulf Strike uses a rather comprehensive "Terrain Effects Chart" with some 20 different terrain types and their effect on movement and combat effects - for the OPmap of Syria a handful of those terraintypes would suffice, I suppose. This is how it looks on the Syrian OPmap at the moment (WIP). In the MC I've been working on the OPmap is based on the "real" CIA-map with a hex grid superimposed. Notice the centerdots in each hex? Those will be essential to determine possible ways for movement between hexes - that's my thought... I'll explain more later on. here's the entire map, also WIP... DLwarning! http://opnem.googlegroups.com/web/Operation-NemesisMap_terrainoverlay.jpg?gda=LM9CUlgAAACs093CQ4Pwg8Ogn52hwmB5tEEePRlag8-1tYkUwOeddMy_0OKmnVc50d6Ix6aA_-LTTwGW3TWyWaEcTVqY9Vh6C4wY8-GQPMi7v7q09XkUgwTVoLi73HfKOpqo9r4I9U8&hl=sv&gsc=_WgEfgsAAACuVlYeGOz2TKhnh8GDeqRq regards/ sdp

- I might very well be! Bear in mind though that the ruleset I'm working on is still in its very early stages. You reach me at sdp@molnhavet.se -Jenrick; Good point! The way I see it both modes would be possible, just as long as there is a finished battle to report in to the GMs at the end of the "tactical phase" of the turn - this phase might have to be 2 weeks to suit all (most...) players. regards/ sdp

JohnO: - I'd very much would like to have o look a the MOCAT, please send me a copy of that pdf! sdp@molnhavet.se Cpl Steiner: - it would basically be an adaption of the Gulf Strike ruleset (with the expansion "Desert Shield"). The word adaption is kind of crucial - Gulf Strike is very complex. Some more info;http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/2076 In the end it's a question of balancing between complexity and keeping it manageable. A MC will of course have to have a number of GMs as well "tactical players". You might even be able to participate as a corps commander in one area and at the same time as a brigadier in another - if you have the RL time, that is... To keep the MC winnable for the Syrian side the victory condition could be assymetrical, like in the OIF-module for Vassal. regards/ sdp

yes it is /sdp

Well, I've started working on something too... Perhaps we should get a dedicated site/forum to focus our efforts? Here's a rough outline of what i've been working on; - My plans for a MC would probably be based on the rules (simplified/modified) of Gulf Strike, a hex-based, operational, booardgame. It would be set in Syria. - Using Vassal to manage the operational level and CMSF to resolve battles on premade-maps. These maps would have to be made from scratch and/or existing scenario maps - with the permission of the designers of course... This is what it looks like at the moment - very tentative... - The campagin would advance in 2week-turns; 1 week for the GM:s and the divisonal and Corps commanders to issue orders and set up battles. Possibly also resolving political issues on the Op map (civil unrest, insurgencies), 1 week for the players fighting the battles and reporting in. Battles that don't have any players to resolve them in CMSF would be possible to resolve on the OPmap. Every turn equals 1 day in the campaign. - Units would have a combination of CMSF and Gulf Strike "values" to accomodate both operational and tactical resulotion (read CMSF battles) - perhaps something like this; - Units involved in CMSFbattles -and Losses - would be "extracted/extrapolated" from/to the OPmap. I.e; 1 battalion on the OPmap - 1 coy on the battlefield. You loose 7% of the coy in the fight - you loose 7% of the battalion... - Players would normally command a brigade, 3 battalion+ - and would have the possibility to design their taskforces based on the orders issued by their superior commanders. - Counters on the OPmap symbolize battalions and in some "rare" cases companies (Special Forces, Irregulars) - Corps and divisional commanders can issue artillerysupport and CAS to their brigade commanders as they see fit. Now, this is still in its very early stages. Seems to me it would be wise to syncronize our efforts - better to have one good Campagin than several that just die away due to lack in players and support. I'd be very happy to help out in the development of a campaign - not necessarily the one I've been working on; any campaign really. regards/ sdp

these; MORDS_SYRIAN_FIGHTERS SCIPIO_firemod Highway_Art_Fix_v2 FacesOfSyriaMod /sdp

missingreality; Yeah, you're right, it is. I guess what i'm trying to say is that it would be neat to be able to import core-units for both sides - but from two separate files. /sdp

Actually this might be somewhat off-topic; I'd like to see the possibilty to import core-units for both sides in the scenario editor. Now, why is that? Because if that was possible it would open up a wealth of opportunities - one of them being the possibility for a GM to easily set up battles in a (future) metacampaign... /sdp

Ah, so -just speculating -this might, just might, mean that we will get paras and/or marines in the British module? And then again, perhaps not... /sdp

John Kettler; Yes, I've already read that MoD study - excellent stuff you found there, thanks! Also enjoyed reading the UK Army Field Manual for Desert Operations! http://wikileaks.org/wiki/UK_Army_Field_Manual:_Desert_Operations_2003 /sdp

Flamingknives; Do you know what kind of British units that use the Jackal? /sdp