Combatintman

Different Army on the Philippines... but destroyed or not destroyed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroo_Onoda

The Aden Emergency would be the one to do: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205189876 http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205189872 http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205214756 http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205189877 A great mix of kit - some hangovers from WW2 and some kit that is in CMSF already ... GPMG, Landrover (albeit a newer version), FV-432.

Whatever you do ... fight it better than I did!!!

Heinrich505 - great picture mate. Ok here is part one of how I executed the mission - as I said in my previous post I went for COA 3. Spoiler More to follow

FRAPS - the legal way - easy as.

MOS96B2P - yes same here, Comd's guidance for COA development and analysis would give natural weighting to the Staff working up the plan. In this case as I am both commander and staff I have my own prejudices/direction. With a big map and big force, Command and CSS weighed quite heavily and my firepower was important due to my assessed force ratios. I won't deny that I was heavily influenced by the desire to dislocate the force on the hill feature ... why fight something I don't have to? Particularly so given my assessed force ratios.

Rokko - as I've said before, I don't think you need to change much if anything in the briefing. There is enough there to get the thinking juices going and there is nothing that is deliberately misleading. Despite my assessed ratios, I still felt the task was doable through echeloning although I knew I was carrying risk in terms of dealing with armour and assaulting the final objective. I mitigated the armour risk by crossing my fingers a little bit and hoping that any armour sortie would be dealt with be delaying it sufficiently by in place ATGs and handheld anti-tank weapons and keeping all assets well hidden. While that was going on, my OP on the nearest hill would have found and tracked the target and it would give me cueing options for swinging my Stugs into a flank attack. My assault on the final objective would be supported by the reinforcing Arty Bty which I figured would even up the assessed unfavourable force ratios in combination with good old shock action of a rapid follow-up force.

AAR … of sorts (don’t expect anything of Bill Hardenberger’s quality) What I know Enemy An unidentified regiment of 220 Rifle Division which has started to dig in. Army artillery is likely out of range and no armour has been seen yet. Likely dispositions are: An outpost line to the front. Forward defensive line between the outpost and Biale Blote Defensive position in Mankowice. Defensive position in Biale Blote. Defensive position on the hill feature with some anti-tank guns. Deductions: An outpost line to the front = probable recce coy. Forward Defensive Line = one coy from the assessed inf bn in Biale Blote Defensive position in Mankowice = probable inf bn. Defensive position in Biale Blote = probable inf bn. Defensive position on the hill feature with some anti-tank guns = probable inf bn and atk bty. Artillery will certainly include mortars up to 120mm = probable bty/coy and possible a bty of 76mm on call. Armour not seen but plan for either a tank or assault gun coy. These deductions are recorded on the COA schematics that you will see later. Friendly Forces III Bn minus vehicles 7 x Stug III 4 x 81mm mortars, 2 x 150mm guns and 1 x bty of 105mm Deductions Outnumbered and therefore must concentrate combat power. Stug III are going to be important. Ground In essence a flat open plain flanked on my left by hill features which dominate the plain. On the right flank, the ground slopes away and is more broken with a mix of foliage, built-up areas and marsh. The village of Biale Blote is at the far end of the map and again is a built-up area surrounded by broken wooded marshy terrain. Deductions Successful advance across the plain requires either securing the heights or denying them to the enemy. They are probably Vital Ground/Decisive Terrain. The low ground on the right flank provides a covered avenue of approach and using this will dislocate enemy on the heights. Mission (abbreviated) III Bn is to secure Biale Blote and Mankowice NLT 0700 and conduct a passage of lines with II Bn IOT enable the II Bn attack on Sopocknie. I’ll spare you a full mission analysis but in essence my key deduction is that I’ve got 2 hrs and 40 minutes to do this so I need to get a move on given the distance I have to cover. This means that I need to factor in using the Stugs as battlefield taxis. Likely COAs/schemes of manoeuvre are: COA 1 – I’ll call it secure the heights for want of a better term. Preliminary operation by 2 Coys (9 & 10 Kp) to secure the heights. Once secure, advance across the plain with the remaining Coy (11 Kp) supported by the Stugs to clear the outpost line. Once this has been done, clear and secure Biale Blote using one Coy to provide a base of fire while assaulting with the other Coy. Stugs will also provide fire support for this attack. With Biale Blote clear, the Coy that had cleared the outpost line swings right supported by the Stugs to conduct a clearance of Mankowice. Pros Secures the left flank hill features. Maximises combat power for the assault on the main objective (Biale Blote) Stugs are in the best position to counter any armoured threat Complex terrain on the hills allows for a covered approach and minimises artillery threat Cons Dismounts have to cover a lot ground before initial contact with the enemy. Forces crossing the plain are vulnerable to flank shoots if the hill is not effectively cleared and flank shoots from any forces on the right flank. Only one Coy and the Stugs are available for the clearance of Mankowice. Clearance of the hill features may take too long to achieve the objectives. COA 2 – I’ll call it middle for diddle for want of a better term. A two up advance with my two on-map Coys (9 & 10 Kp) supported by the Stugs. This envisions company clearances of the outpost line/lines. Initial line will be cleared by the two on map Coys supported by the Stugs and once complete the Inf Coys will clear the second line with Stug support at distance. By this time I will have observers forward to call in indirect fire on the hill feature on my left flank. Once both lines are clear and the hill feature has been neutralised by indirect fire, both forward Coys will clear and secure Biale Blote with one Coy allocated to each objective. The third Coy (11 Kp) will move up to the outpost line in trail and is to be prepared to provide fire support to the assaults on the Biale Blote objectives. Once Biale Blote is secure, the trail coy supported by the Stugs will swing right and clear and secure Mankowice. Pros Concentrates combat power for the assault on the main objective (Biale Blote). Stugs are in the best position to counter any armoured threat. Ground and avenue of approach offer the quickest route to the primary objective (Biale Blote). Use of open ground as an avenue of approach takes advantage of superior skills/spotting of Stugs. Cons Does not secure the overlooking hill features. Use of fire to deny the enemy the hill features cannot guarantee the neutralisation of the flank threat. The advance across the plain will be vulnerable to attacks from both open flanks. The main avenue of approach is overlooked by dominating ground and dismounts will be vulnerable to indirect fire. Dismounts have to cover a lot ground before initial contact with the enemy. Only one Coy and the Stugs are available for the clearance of Mankowice. COA 3 – I’ll call it right hook close to Sopocknie for want of a better term. An echeloned attack using the right flank as the main avenue of approach. One Coy (9 Kp) with Stugs will advance to provide fire support to an assault by an echeloned second company (10 Kp) into the first Mankowice Objective. Once secure, the assaulting company and Stugs will provide fire support to the echelon Coy (10 Kp) to clear and secure the second Mankowice objective. Once secure the first company (9 Kp) will conduct a left flanking manoeuvre to clear the outpost line as far as is required to facilitate further manoeuvre to Biale Blote and provide observation of the hill features on the left flank. With the outpost line cleared, the third company (11 Kp) supported by the Stugs will clear and secure Biale Blote. Pros Dislocates the anti-tank threat on left flank hill feature. The right flank offers a covered avenue of approach. Maximises combat power for the assault on Mankowice. Echeloning will allow momentum to be sustained. The right flank is secure (gamey but true). Force is better balanced. Cons Does not secure the overlooking hill features. Clearing and securing Mankowice may take time. Isolates one of 9 Kompanie’s platoons in the early phases. Enemy armour attacks along the most likely avenue of approach will require Stugs to reposition. Route to Biale Blote is indirect and will take time to traverse. Only one Coy and the Stugs are available for the assault on Biale Blote. Echeloning across a narrow avenue of approach is vulnerable to enemy indirect fire. COA Analysis I've used the functions in combat as my metric: My chosen COA is ... Course of Action 3.

To prove I wasn't fibbing ... I have played this again and got a Tactical Victory this time. The second play through pretty much confirms what I said first time around - this is a great scenario. I'll post some screenshots and talk through how it went in a little more detail for those who are interested.

Ok just played this after a number of false starts and got a tactical defeat. My plan was pretty much to avoid going straight across the centre of the map so I basically focussed on securing Mankovice and then hooking in to Biale Blote from the right flank. I figured by doing this, not only would I tick off all of the ground objectives I would also dislocate the anti-tank guns on the hill feature mentioned in the briefing. I was only successful in the dislocate part of the plan. Mankovice was a tough nut to crack although to be fair I didn't really pile on with the Stugs as I should have. In terms of comments and observations - I don't really have any - the force balance is about right, the map is good and I think you've done some pretty good things with the AI. I enjoyed this thoroughly and will certainly play it again.

Well done - I think you were probably borderline on your friendly casualties - probably one dead guy away from 'failing' that parameter. Reference the IEDs - they are a pain to get right - usually because the triggermen start spraying rounds rather than detonating the device - needless to say I did test them and got some to work reliably. I think next time around - now you know not to clear every compound you should stay within the ammo parameter.

I heartily agree with astano, sburke, SLIM and Sequoia on this one - the time snapshot and Middle East setting is just right - you can do Iraq and Afghanistan, as I have done with my released scenarios: Op GLACIER 1 - Afghanistan Op GLACIER 2 - Afghanistan OP GLACIER 4 - Afghanistan CIMIC House - Iraq Habibollah Kalay - Afghanistan Into the Green - Afghanistan Zumbelay Withdrawal - Afghanistan Fallujah Hospital - Iraq If I ever finish it I have a campaign based on 3 Cdo Bde RM on Op TELIC which does the warfighting bit as well - Syrian Army TO&E is not that radically different from the Iraqi Army that you would notice the difference. Current and recent red on red conflicts such as Syria and Libya can also be done in CMSF and I have seen at least one historical mission released set in Syria and (from memory) a fictional/semi historical mission or even mini campaign based on Libya - some new Gucci setting for CMSF 2 takes all of this flexibility away and would be a mistake. As I have said before on this and other threads - the ability to do rivers and bridges and the Special Editor Overlay feature would bring new life into CMSF and would allow time poor people like me to knock out real terrain maps and missions at a much quicker rate.

As to other thoughts raised by both you and SLIM - the natural swap out would be USMC who took over from the Brits in that part of Helmand during the surge. I have really wanted to do more USMC missions because they have some good stuff to bring to the party (LAVs and Abrams). I toyed with doing something based on the National Geographic series Battleground Afghanistan which features Golf Company, 2nd Battalion 5th Marines. Actual location details are difficult to work out because the maps on the programme are pretty bland - but they were up in Zamindawar and one of the villages is named. I have a concept for a 7 mission campaign and some areas identified on Google Earth but I just couldn't face the map making ... if only we had the special editor overlay feature in CMSF ... sigh. Likewise there is scope to do some really interesting stuff with the USMC south of Garmsir. Of course you could always do US Army and Canadian stuff as well - the obvious US Army one is something based on Restrepo although I didn't fancy it because I find mountains are well in the 'too difficult' basket in the map editor so I would have gone for the Canadians around Kandahar as my first choice (it also means LAVs and Leopard tanks). Again I did do a bit of research on Canadian operations and there is scope to do some of their BG sized operations in the Panjwayi valley. Trouble is - I've got heaps of ideas but just not the time to do them (I still have an unfinished Iraq War (Op TELIC) campaign and a Helmand Op LOAM campaign sat unfinished on my hard drive).

Royal Marines aren't in CMSF TO&Es - I fought for their inclusion but it was a no go. At the time they were organised into Close Combat and Standoff Companies although for the Helmand task where a lot of foot patrolling was the norm I suspect that the Coys were put onto a uniform establishment which wouldn't have been that dissimilar to the Light Infantry TO&E that is already in there. My earlier Afghan missions are mostly about the actions of 3 Cdo Bde and I just used standard Light Infantry units. As to the FOB concept - I did kick the idea around based on this very map - the trouble is that you have to move the action to avoid having a subsequent campaign mission being fought over the same map. Based on one of the books I read when researching this, the concept would go like this: Mission 1 - The mission you've just played Mission 2 - Route security mission for a resupply convoy in the area to the left of FOB ALMA Mission 3 - Partnered ANA Green Zone patrol in an area extended to the right of CP JUNDI Mission 4 - Partnered ANA Green Zone patrol in an area extended to the left of FOB ALMA (different to 2 above) Mission 5 - Mission to locate and return airdropped supplies in the desert (extended area in the direction of the Technicals arrival in the mission you're playing) Mission 6 - Out of area operation as part of a larger BG operation (in the book this was in the Musa Qal'eh area) I doubt I'll ever get to realising this due to time constraints. However I do have a map and a mission revolving around Sangin DC which I am looking at tweaking and kicking out the door. I also have another mission based on a patrol from a CP which I've been (funnily enough) trying to get right based on the action in which Lt Evison, 1st Battalion the Welsh Guards lost his life. Details are here if you're interested: https://vimeo.com/49190235

Don't worry SLIM it will work out - the map is such that it creates a real challenge in the context of the enemy laydown and the ammunition and casualty thresholds I want for VPs. As a result I need to rejig about 50% of the enemy to keep me within those thresholds and to retain the feel of Op HERRICK in 2006/2007.

Thanks for the observations SLIM - I only design Blue player vs AI scenarios because I find it too difficult to get force balance and VPs right (this scenario took a lot of testing before I was happy with the VPs and it is one of the reasons why 'M Wadis' is not finished yet). I am thrilled that it is viable as an H2H scenario and that you had fun playing it. Thanks again.

So here I am 4 months down the track with this and I just can't get it to work in its current format ... I need to rejig this a fair bit to stand a chance of getting this released and luckily I have 3 weeks relatively free of distractions so I shall see if I can solve this while I'm away.

Loved the grenade sequence a few posts back which did for the Americans in the family plot.

The next East Front module is going forwards not backwards and anything Pacific has pretty much been ruled out by Steve.

I really wouldn't bother mate - Kohenklau has pretty much described the solution in post #7. You just need to apply that to your map and adjust the timings as required. You will never get a 100% solution with AI artillery with the engine as it is right now.

Interesting read - you have pretty much cracked the nuance of this - clear what you need to clear which boils down to: Your target compounds. Compounds offering good overwatch I suspect your losses will count against you at the final reckoning though. With an hour left you should have sufficient time to tick off the other two target compounds although you're probably wondering whether you have enough breaching charges left.

Early RAF Tornado losses in GW1 were down to this attack profile making them vulnerable to point air defence. RAF information on Tornado losses: http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/RAFTornadoAircraftLosses.cfm Gratuitous footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw-Cb_3MR50

Good to see you persevering - are you at any of the target compounds yet?

Warminster certainly looks different to the last time I was there or is this the Land Warfare Hall at Duxford?

I don't have CMBS but I've just randomly cracked open a QB map in CMRT and there are triggers in one of the AI plans. It would be strange if this functionality was not ported across to CMBS. I'm not a black belt on triggers yet but your problem might lie with the fact that you are trying to trigger from setup - might be worth a rummage around the manual.