SeinfeldRules

I'm going to respond to the rest of this post tomorrow but I can't help but address this one immediately because it's one of my favorite little known facts about artillery in World War II, and I would like to share it with the group: the US military made extensive use of light aircraft as forward observers, working directly with ground troops and FA battalions. They were more numerous then you would think! What's old is new again. Below is an excerpt from the hefty, 394 page Center of Military History book on the history of US Air Forward Observers: "Originally, the headquarters batteries of each division artillery headquarters, field artillery brigade, field artillery group, and gun and howitzer battalion in the Army contained air sections... The number of air sections in a division depended on the number of firing battalions organic to it. A standard triangular infantry division had 5 sections, a total of 10 aircraft, 1 section in the division artillery headquarters, 1 in each of the 3 105mm battalions operating in a direct support role, and 1 section in the 155mm battalion providing general support." This equates to each infantry regiment receiving a section of two spotter aircraft from the FA battalion supporting them... and more importantly, to put this into perspective, this aligns very closely to the amount of UAVs (RQ-7 Shadows) found in a modern Brigade Combat Team. Won't count Ravens into those because those things aren't even close to being capable fire support platforms, and I would argue the same about quadcopters. Great for observing effect but limited in their ability to actually conduct proper targeting.

An excellent piece on an Ukrainian artillery unit, videos like this make me miss being a commander. The first several minutes are what really caught my eye, and I'll share some artillery minded observations with you. First, this is obviously a direct contradiction to my previous claim that most units I see are in the open! I think that's still the case but highlights that drone footage isn't necessarily the ground truth of what is happening - maybe we aren't seeing the videos of artillery in treelines being hit because the UAVs aren't finding them. More on this later however. Second, it seems that the officer, who I am assuming is the Battery Commander, is the primary person responsible for fire direction. This is a very European way of doing things, and is not really a surprise. The American military (to my knowledge) is one of the few militaries that has a dedicated fire direction section with its own officer that computes firing data. Of note, the American style FDC was "invented" during the interwar period, and allowed a single FDC to control multiple batteries or even battalion. There are stories during World War II of an entire American Corps worth of artillery conducting Time on Target missions. This is contrasted with other nation's FDCs, who had difficulty massing batteries on dynamic targets due to the decentralized nature of battery level fire control. History notes aside, observe that he is using a tablet and phone for what I assume is the calculation of firing data. Presumably this would be the GIS ARTA app discussed early, used to compute a technical firing solution to lay the howitzers. The actual computation of data is not hard, with enough time and patience I could take the American firing tables for a howitzer and put it all in a spreadsheet that spits out an answer as well. A pretty robust solution on the Ukrainian side. Howitzers begin firing at about 30 seconds in. They are firing off the traditional optical fire control systems, and at 40 seconds in you can see the gunner looking through his pantel (panoramic telescope) to re-lay the howitzer after firing. Note that is highly unlikely that he is receiving new firing data as the narration later on suggests. I have yet to meet a howitzer crew, fire direction crew, or observer team that could accurately and rapidly re-direct fire on a maneuvering vehicle and have it land directly on top. I think this was a nice coincidence that was emphasized in editing to create a better narrative. A little example of the power of video editing that can lead to incorrect conclusions for those not in the know. I'll take this opportunity to segue briefly into my previous comments about howitzers having to remain close together. One of the most crucial aspects of achieving effective indirect fire is accurate location and direction for the firing unit. Every howitzer in a firing unit needs to be facing the same direction, accurate down to the miliradian. It greatly simplifies firing data calculation, as you only need the data for one howitzer as opposed to 4 or 6 or 8 - all the other howitzers, since they are pointed in the same direction and generally in the same area, can fire that same data. The close you are to your "base piece", the more accurate the fire. So how do they get all the howitzers pointed in the same direction? Enter the aiming circle: If it looks like a theodolite used by engineers for surveying, you aren't far off, the concept is the same. Through math, multiple rotating dials, and lots of shouting, the aiming circle operator relays direction to each howitzer until every gun is pointed in the same direction. A key part of this step is the pantel that I mentioned earlier, which is how each howitzer references the aiming circle for proper direction. If you firing is spread out in a tree line, or over a great distance, the ability for each howitzer to see the aiming circle with their pantel can be lost. This greatly complicates laying the battery. Additionally, units spread out or in odd formations reduces the accuracy of your barrage - remember, each gun is firing the same data, regardless of their position! Now, with modern computing technology, the ability to calculate firing data for each individual gun can be trivial - assuming you know the location of each gun, down to a 10m or 1m radius. In a GPS degraded environment, that can be quite difficult and time consuming. It's much easier to have everyone located together in a formation that can see the aiming circle and in close proximity to your base howitzer. Then you only need the location of one howitzer. How do digital systems change this? Well, in a digital system like the Paladin and M777, each howitzer has a GPS and inertial navigation system that accurately tracks the location, but also the direction. The requirement to be laid by the aiming circle goes away, assuming your equipment is working, as the howitzer ALWAYS knows which direction it is pointing. Laying the battery and executing fire missions become simple tasks. You can have howitzers spread out over a kilometer and calculate firing data for each one at the press of a button. The reality is of course more complicated however, and the aiming circle and our "manual" methods still have a role even with fully digital howitzers, but I don't think I will get into that here for a variety of reasons. Moving on from my not so brief segue, one more point I would like to highlight - at the end of their mission, they all jump into bunker, as a precaution against Russian counter battery that never comes. They have obviously made the decision that taking cover is preferable to displacement - a notion that goes against a lot of Western doctrine. And their cover is not overly complex - enlarged foxholes with trees to stop shrapnel. I suspect the reason we see videos with "abandoned" howitzers sitting in fields reflects exactly the situation illustrated in the video - crew live in bunkers in the treeline and occupy howitzers only when firing. If your howitzers are out in the open, they will be going for that, not you! Again, not something you'll see in a lot of Western doctrine or training. Still, I suspect the level of counterfire doesn't justify the time or effort required to conduct rapid displacements of artillery on a routine basis. For counterfire I think a lot of what we could be seeing would be probably be described as cross-cueing of intelligence assets in the American military - firefinder radars pickup an enemy battery, but instead of unmasking your own artillery to conduct immediate counterfire, you send a UAV to confirm target location and disposition - greatly enhancing your ability to bring effective fires down on the enemy.

I probably have more questions then observations at this point. I don't think anything fundamentally has changed from previous conflict, even dating back to WW 1. Artillery is still a crucial arm of any modern military and is your only all weather, truly responsive means of shaping the battlefield. Artillery is the King of Battle, even with today's technology. I can't say I've been truly shocked at anything I've seen so far. All of my observations are based off OSINT videos - I imagine most of the US military's observations of the conflict are still close hold at higher levels due to the sensitivity of collecting in an active conflict. Drones have proven to be incredibly useful but I don't see anything revolutionary or fundamentally doctrine-altering with them - aerial observers have been a thing since the Civil War, and artillery battalions during WW2 literally had their own observation planes sometimes - we can just get them closer then ever before without risking a human. You still see a lot of "long range" observation from drones in these strike videos however - so there is definitely a real threat of ADA/EW that is keeping drones at a distance. It's harder then ever before to hide your forces from observation, but I imagine there are a lot of smart people churning away at a practical military answer to the UAV problem, and I think it will have an easier solution then the tank will have dealing with top down attack, fire-and-forget ATGM systems. Loitering munitions I'm still not 100% sold on - probably useful for high value targets (radar, ADA, command posts), but seem hard to utilize at a more tactical level. Honestly, it seems like a complex solution to a problem that isn't terribly hard to solve with more conventional and flexible fires. The Switchblade 300 is seriously unimpressive to me, a glorified flying grenade. Great for taking out an ISIS leader in the middle of a crowd, not so impactful in a war where individual casualties are a given and virtually meaningless in a tactical or operational sense. I don't think the Switchblade 300 is going to single-handedly stop a town from being lost. Would LOVE to see an actual statistical analysis on the effectiveness of loitering munitions, that isn't all buzz words and "ooooh scary kamikaze drones!!" Armored vehicles seem to be more vulnerable to artillery then commonly believed in the US/NATO. Lots of footage of (what seems to be) destroyed vehicles due to rocket and cannon fire. Not seeing much utilization of mortars. Not sure if this is due to a lack of use, improper characterization of OSINT videos, or a function of UKR/RUS TOE lacking a significant amount of mortar tubes? Russian and Ukrainian artillery forces seldom use effective cover and are often lined up in neat rows in the open, instead of utilizing dispersion and tree lines. I think this is mainly a function of the manual nature of most of their artillery, which requires howitzers to be somewhat closer and more orderly for a variety of technical reasons I won't get in to (unless you would like me to). This is in contract to the digital, self-locating, self-laying howitzers the US military has, which have a more robust ability to "roam". Of note, the M777s we gifted to Ukraine do not seem to have this self-locating capability, as the two videos I've seen of the howitzers operating in Ukraine showed them lacking these digital systems. These may be the Canadian howitzers though. Will be following that one closely. Lack of digital systems aside, the above does stir some questions in my mind on the actual effectiveness and feasibility of true "counterfire" - meaning a howitzer shoots, then immediately has to move to avoid rapid and accurate fires from an opposing artillery unit. I don't think UKR and RUS artillery units are so pig headed or naive to not appreciate the usefulness of emplacing in a tree line - I wonder if the impetus to do so is even there. What I mean by that is: how often are artillery units shooting and then immediately taking fire? I don't see many videos of fires being directed on artillery units actively engaged in shooting, displacing, or even moving between firing points. In fact, in most videos of fire against an artillery battery, I don't see any people at all! Just the howitzers. And videos I've seen of artillery units firing don't seem to have a terrible sense of urgency on the need to displace immediately, which raises even more questions for me on why that would be the case. Again, would LOVE to do a deep dive into counterfire procedures during this conflict, and the effectiveness of firefinder radars and whether we truly need to "shoot and scoot" after every mission to stay alive. From my limited view of things, I'm just not seeing the same counterfire fight our doctrine envisions us fighting - but maybe that's just due to the nature of what videos are actually released versus what is happening... would love to know the actual ground truth there.

Trent Telenko's posts on Twitter really bother me because he seems to take singular events and extrapolate them into generalities that sound good on paper and which people lap up. It started with his tires post, and if he saw the quality of some of the equipment I had as a battery commander (yes, including their tires) he'd probably have an aneurysm. I've also seen my own share of 40 mile convoys of stopped American logistical vehicles, the difference being that US soldiers got to go home after their training with some lessons learned, and the Russians didn't. And as an artillery officer I don't even want to talk about his observations about VT fuzes. I'm not entirely sure where he is going with this thread, but having actually worked in a Division level strike cell in Iraq, processing missions from SOF, ground space owners, and targets developed within our own cell, the so called "JAG officer poisoned chain of command" is a gross over simplification at best. Yes, times to strike were lengthy, but it was designed that way and NOT due to JAG considerations, and we were certainly capable of being faster, and routinely did so when the situation required. Trying to compare a COIN oriented environment to the modern LSCO fight is ignorant, and as a OC/T who see units training Brigade level fire support in large scale combat operations on a monthly basis, we are certainly faster then the "hour" he claims we are at. From what he describes, the GIS ARTA app is very similar to the US Army's AFATDS system - designed to process a large range of target requests and associate them with a shooter. It's good to see Ukraine adopting this style of software, but it's hardly unique, and the realities of maintaining the digital communication linkages required for full functionality of the system can be hard in a contested environment. The US military has a difficult enough time doing that in the field, and we have much better comms equipment then Starlink and a lot less incoming rounds. Sure makes for a good sounding Twitter thread though.

I know it increases load times when I’m editing the map in the editor. It may be baking that information every time. If you are running into terrace issues I would recommend “skipping” some blocks while painting your contour lines, especially when they get too close together. That can help the algorithm create smoother elevation changes. Some “reinforcing” elevation points in between contour lines can also help. And I can’t help but notice the username - a sun baked veteran trooper of the Mojave Desert I presume?

I believe manual elevation points increases map load times but doesn't have any effect once the scenario is loaded.

Proper use of the game's elevation tools will make or break the look of a map. It probably the number one thing that can ruin a map for me (right alongside large blocks of the same tree model in one place). I'm a big fan of the adjust tool - set the delta to one and alternate between clicking and shift-clicking to add elevation differences between your contour lines. Adds realistic undulations that can help break up LOS and prevents the stair-step effect you can sometimes get with continuous contour lines. Also, if you set the adjust tool to 0, you can "lock" the height of a tile... if you want to create a stream bed in the side of a hill, lock the height on both sides of the area where you want the stream bed to be, then go back and shift click with the adjust tool (but this time set at 1) to lower the terrain of the stream... if you do it right, you can create a realistic steam that follows the slope of the hill. Works on roads too! You can create a sunken effect (like a dirt track) or elevated effect (such as a graded paved road), which you'll find on almost every road in the real world.

I believe the desert camouflage uniform was only issued to soldiers deployed to an overseas desert environment.

So I've replayed this one multiple times and I'm puzzled... I chose this variation to utilize the openness of the terrain and attempt to surprise the Russian FSE, as was stated in the mission briefing. However, your starting force is so lackluster, and the enemy so numerous and deployed so far forward to start with, you basically have no chance of leaving Brown Pass or your starting area before the rest of the company arrives. In fact, I found the best strategy was to cluster my forces into the lowest ground possible and then wait for the rest of my company to arrive. By that point the enemy is only a minute or two from reaching your starting area and you can setup a reverse slope defense with your tanks. Anything else is almost guaranteed to lose you the majority of your starting force to either artillery or BMPs. The enemy's head long rush into your starting area is enough to attrit about half of them, then it's a game of cat and mouse with your TOW launchers and tanks to take out the rest of the BMPs that sit right outside the pass (with my all seeing FSO sitting on the side of the mountain pointing them out)... basically leaving the rest of the map undefended for the "hasty attack". I feel like I gained none of the advantages of choosing the "hasty attack" option as I was forced to defend from the pass anyway. Perhaps I misunderstood the briefing or the intent of the scenario, but the enemy seems too numerous and too far forward to match the text.

Some more NTC terrain that you wouldn't think of... up in the mountain ranges, light infantry would be right at home.

Those PS Mags are still being published today, in almost the exact same art style (though no more scantily clad women). Really useful source, usually has obscure info that would be impossible to find elsewhere.

The desert really has a special beauty to it. The more you explore, the more you find beyond the stereotypical flat plains and rocky mountains. Like Mastiff said, you can find wadis that would swallow a platoon whole. '

How many "master maps" of NTC are there? Also, in my year or so out here, I don't think I've ever seen a cactus that was higher then my shin, so the lack of cactus assets is actually pretty realistic.

Well thank you for the compliment! The new kinder, gentler term is Observer, Coach/Trainer. Observer Controller was the old term, back when the OCs just stood and watched, and then mercilessly crushed souls in the AAR! Now we take a more active role in course correcting units, hence the "coach". Some units we have to do more hard coaching then others. NTC is a very interesting place with lots of history, and with how many units rotate through it really is a modern "battlefield" in a sense. Very excited to see what CM has to offer.

Love that you guys are including the National Training Center! As a OC/T at the NTC, I'm looking forward to some of our iconic "battlefields" being replicated in their full CM glory. Are there any plans for NTC Master Maps?

I wonder if negative scores for objectives would work? Could have a hidden touch objective surrounding the extra forces that will trip when a player moves units out.

Community maps are possible, you can't copy paste but you can reduce the size of a map to what you want to use. It's basically how master maps are right now. Maps that large are incredibly hard to make detailed however, mostly because as you build more and more elevation data into the map the editing process grinds to a halt as the game re-calculates every. single. point. Well it kind of resembles the cliffs in Dinant... which is kind of in the Ardennes! Would probably make an interesting "what-if" scenario...

Building off Bulletpoint, I think the aspect of having to make a less then perfect decision amplifies that satisfaction even more. The terrain of a map plays a huge role in this, because it is the one thing you have no influence over. Real life commanders never had the perfect support by fire position or covered routes into the enemies rear, they had to deal with the hand their were dealt, both on offense and defense. The terrain was as much of an enemy sometimes as the man on the pointy end of your rifle. It's why the first step of almost any military planning process is to analyze the terrain. The great captains of military history are as renowned for their ability to read the ground just as much as their ability to lead men. "Terrain walks" are a staple of any military staff ride. All this to say that when you "bake in" terrain, you are taking away a big chunk of the decision making process. When you bake in these convenient support by fire positions, the decision is no longer "where on this map should I place my support by fire position?", but instead "should I go to Position A, B or C?". On a "natural" map, maybe there is no tenable support by fire position. The player must adapt. Maybe they utilize more of their artillery up front to compensate. Or choose to utilize a smoke screen. Or one of a hundred other ways a player can utilize the terrain and their understanding of tactics to achieve their mission. Offering up a player a series of built in options is no longer a tactical game, but a "choose your own adventure". It's why I'm deeply dissatisfied with games like the new X-Com or Unity of Command - the game offers up to you a series of baked in options, of which only a few actually work. Another factor of tactical appeal is that the closer a map is to realistic terrain, the more likely you are to utilize realistic tactics. Half the fun of Combat Mission is pretending you're a WW2 commander and understanding why they made the decision they did. Check out combatintman's excellent play through of one of my scenarios here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120527-no-plan-survives-first-contact-with-the-enemy-planning-tutorial/ He dives deep into an excellent analysis of the terrain I provided and builds a plan that I never even envisioned while designing the scenario. That's exciting! That's what real commanders had to do! Not solving a puzzle the designer offered up to you. Later in that thread I also talk about how I designed the map and more about my philosophy on scenario design. As for why sometimes *too* realistic is a bad thing, I imagine a faithful re-creation of Ardennes style woods would result in little decision making beyond putting your soldiers in a line and waiting until they step on a mine or take a bullet to the face from 15m away. Realistic terrain yes, but not very fun. Also, a personal pet peeve of mine - zig zag roads. Yes, the "real thing" has a road branching straight off at a 67.76 degree angle from the main junction, but if I try to replicate that in Combat Mission with the draw tool, it will create a mess of zig zaggy road sections. If you now try to put a hedge or forest along that road, it will inevitably create a break in LOS on what is, in real life, an arrow straight road that just happens to branch off at a weird angle. The resulting CM recreation looks odd and often plays odd.

Try my CMRT "Assault Position" and "Pastureland" for examples of how open fields can be tweaked to create interesting tactical situations! Pastureland takes place pretty much entirely in an "open" field. The only cover you have is the folds you find in the terrain. Also check this out: https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=AD+Waldbillig+Waltz.btt It's a scenario I was never able to get over the goal line due to other commitments, but I think it's probably one of my better maps. It has the size and terrain you are looking for and is based heavily off the real thing. Also, re:frontages again. Remember that the entire company was not on line, and these companies could often be at 50% strength if they've been in heavy combat. These companies may only have a platoon up, and that platoon may only be 25 dudes. That stuff is lost in translation sometimes.

On elevations, I will say don't be afraid to create that dead ground. Hike through the hills and you'll see dead space is a common issue defending units would have to deal with in real life. Going out of your way to create clear lines of sight creates the tabletop gaming look you are actually trying to avoid. Natural hills have undulations and numerous draws and spurs that create difficulties for the defender and opportunities for the attacker. I don't think any attacking infantry force would ever have taken a hilltop defensive position if those natural dead spaces didn't exist in real life. You'd be surprised at how nuanced and "stepped" terrain can be in real life. I've found the best way to construct realistic elevations is to draw your contour lines fairly spread out (10 or 15m in elevations) and then using the "Adjust" tool set to 1m to add variation. This creates the natural folds you are looking to re-create, adding micro terrain infantry can utilize. I go to great lengths to try to re-create the real world in CM, and many of the things you discuss about here concern me as well. Check out some of my scenario maps to see how I deal with them. I put an extraordinary amount of time into my elevations and villages. Also on the subject of infantry frontages, attacking infantry forces would absolutely stick to cover. Defensive lines weren't literal lines of men occupying every piece of ground, instead clustering and flowing around the terrain that is actually defensible. Vast open ground could easily be covered by artillery and machinegun fire, and often didn't serve a purpose anyway. Roads have always been the key to warfare and defenses were focused around those key avenues of approach. Even a "hilltop defense" was key only because it overlooked an avenue of approach needed by the attacker to continue their offensive. Your map may be 1.5km wide but not every piece of ground on that map is key terrain the defender would occupy or even care about. A 1.5km map would probably support an attacking infantry battalion with 2 companies up 1 back against a company sized defending force. Check out the US Army Green Books, they provide a history of the US Army in WW2 in all theaters, and have excellent maps sometimes showing maneuver down to the company level. Gives a great picture on how WW2 armies actually fought and what they considered important. Also, don't overly concern yourself with machinegun lines of fire - take a trip through Europe on Google Street view and see how rare it actually is to have long sight lines. Far too often vegetation and microterrain blocks line of sight over what would otherwise look like good ground. Remember, these machineguns are dug in at ground height! Go for a walk outside and when you think you've found a good position, lie down and see how much your opinion changes!

@ebphotoTry this link! https://www.dropbox.com/s/tr4lgsdlo6sehnl/AD CMRT Terrain Mod.zip?dl=0

This map looks fantastic - one of the very few urban settings I've seen done well. Most look sterile and repetitive, you've really taken it to the next level!

Those uncons look perfect to model US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces up against pro-Assad Regime forces. They've clashed a couple times in the Deir ez Zor region, would probably make perfect CMSF2 scenarios.

I'm going to offer my own, un-solicited advice on map making... Use the light forest tile under trees, fences, hedges, roads, buildings, any sort of man-made "divider" - its represents well the undergrowth that builds up on these less traveled/less maintained areas. Look at pictures of rural fences and such and you'll see shrubbery/grass growing taller then the immediate surrounding foliage It also serves as an eye pleasing way to "break up" large chunks of terrain, especially when you're zoomed out - where most players actually play the game - and the fences start to blend in with the surrounding grass. Alternate between yellow grass, tall grass, green grass, extra tall grass, etc when building large fields. Breaks up the color tone that looks unnatural when zoomed out. Same goes for dirt - mix in dirt, red dirt, hard dirt etc when building lots for your buildings. These large lots - either grass or dirt, or whatever - should look like a Jackson Pollock painting in the editor. Just splashes of different tiles everywhere. Dirt footpaths serve as a great way to break up terrain as well - simulates the many different ways people cross fields, and the paths they create. Also works great in residential dirt lots. Combine different buildings to make a realistic looking residence. I like to use the half tile barn on the end of an independent one story house. The half tile barns also look good between fences, and when they form an "L" at a 90 degree angle to a house. Really pay attention to how homes are setup for the area you are modeling. They are often tighter and more "intimate" then you think. Remember, tiles are 8 meters by 8 meters, which is absolutely huge. I would say most Eastern European residential lots are maybe 3x3 or 4x3 in CM terms. Use street view when you can to see how they look from ground level. Satellite imagery can be deceiving. When it comes to forests, less is more. I almost never use the two or three tile tree lots. Single trees are enough. In fact, drop your block of trees, and then go back and remove some trees from random tiles. Creates a realistic patchwork effect. Also, use different types of trees in a forest. Trees of the same type in CM are universal in height - no forest is like that in the real word. I like to use Tree D - a fairly short tree - and mix the taller A and C trees into the mix. Creates a more natural forest. Avoid painting solid lines of height elevation. There is nowhere in this natural world where you have a universal flat area or a universally sloping area (bar maybe a salt bed, I guess..) Purposely leave gaps in your contour lines, and then drop random points in between contours that are one higher or one lower then what the game "calculates" it should be. It will create very pleasing, very natural, undulating terrain. Failing to do this is probably the biggest sin when it comes to map making in CM, in my mind. Elevation is much more difficult in CM2 then it was in CM1, which is why I think people have a hard time with this. But if you take the time to hand craft your elevations, it will pay off big. It makes your map look 100x more realistic. Don't tie yourself to an overlay! The real world is much more angular then what CM can handle. Have fun with your map - no one will care if this street had 7 houses instead of 5. What matters is the look, and how it plays, Additionally, the height data in Google Earth and other public programs does not have the fidelity to make a realistic map. It's great for a starting point - ie, this town is on a hill - but the nuances of height elevation in real life terrain can not be captured in an overlay. Go for a walk and look for the micro terrain that is out there. Most of it is well within CM's ability to model.

@Kaunitz, don't stress the details man. No one is going to armchair quarterback the likelihood of the background for your scenario, because no one actually knows what would happen... The scenario you have is plausible. The enemy is guarding the woods, whether it be for recon purposes or to provide direct fire over a minefield, it doesn't truly matter. The enemy has their own reasons for being places and you can't understand it all the time. But the enemy is there. Your commander wants you to take it out. Maybe they are calling for fire on the decisive effort. Maybe the battalion commander really hates the idea of an enemy in your rear area. Maybe he's is drunk. Anything could happen, even in training nothing ever plays out the way our brilliant military masterminds expect it to, believe me on that one!! The enemy is there and they must die, that's all that matters to the players. If you are worried about play balance, I can tell you that 2:1 in favor of the player is a good ratio for an attack. So you can do two friendly platoons with APCs or IFVs, vs one reduced enemy platoon, whio are sans vehicles but with guided ATGMs. That would make a balanced scenario. Take away vehicles or raise the casualty percentages in the editor to get the numbers closer, if needed. Easiest way to justify changes to the TOE is casualties or hasty field substitutions... just because big Army doesn't think your troops need RPG 7s, doesn't mean the ground commanders agree! The exact details (ie recon vs infantry, BMPs vs BTRs) of that force can be shaped by the background of your missions.