Combatintman

Goose Green wasn't that 'uphill' I've walked it. The other battlefields; however, were decidedly uphill.

The trick with VPs is to understand how they work, identify which options work best in your scenario and then see how they all combine. I generally use about four or five of the different types in all of my scenarios.

I'm reasonably sure it would be the same for the US but in the British Army of the time, platoons will be on a company net so as soon as the sighting platoon sends in their contact/sighting report every platoon and the company HQ would have the information. Battalion would be a different net so passage upwards would be from the company HQ on the battalion net which also goes sideways to all of the other callsigns on that net (i.e., the other companies in the battalion). I can't speak for the Soviets as I am nowhere near my reference materials but I don't think it was that much different.

Pretty much what Royal Armoured Corps crews thought in the 1970s/1980s before the thing broke down on its way from the tank sheds to the camp gates.

Highly recommended - it is a useful mechanism for balancing your VPs. I often just do a head count for each side and allocate 1 VP as a 'Destroy' objective. So if there are 130 dudes on one side and 150 on the other, the VP count is 130 and 150 respectively. The beauty of it is that each side picks up points as they go along ... provided they kill people of course.

Or you go the other way and say that Barbarossa began in 1944 and use the kit and units you've got. It might be quite interesting to see how 1944 formations matched in the 1941 battles.

It signifies a unit objective - this is what the manual (page 88 refers) says: To designate a unit or formation as a scenario objective, you have to first assign it to a “unit objective group” in the Unit Editor. To do that, select the unit or formation and hold down the SHIFT key while pressing a number key from F1-F7. The selected unit(s) will then show a [U] next to its name followed by the corresponding group number you pressed.

Sorry mate, that film is an utter shocker.

Who, perhaps appropriately, is sat in Kabul typing this

Peace loving peoples of the Soviet Union - bound to happen mate ...

I would hardly call it that - governments generally want to spend money on things other than defence. I doubt NATO countries would have spent money on training, equipping and deploying the numbers they did if they didn't believe that there was a threat to Europe. I lived and served during those days and understood that this was the threat and we trained extensively to defeat it. Whether the Soviet Union and its allies actually intended to invade Europe is of course a different matter and I'm perfectly prepared to accept that they didn't, perhaps for some of the reasons that you state. However it is immaterial because the perception that they would was there. Likewise, in recent years I've seen plenty of maps and details of Soviet/Warsaw Pact exercises which all work on the premise that the force would have to defend against a NATO invasion first before counterattacking. The exercises that I participated in, never featured such a scenario and I was never tasked to look at East Germany with a view to providing intelligence support for plans to attack it. Nonetheless, I accept that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact thought differently and had the perception that NATO would attack and it is a fair assumption, hence the exercise plans and the stationing of forces in such numbers in Germany to combat it. Perhaps one of the reasons that the Cold War never went hot is because neither side intended to attack each other.

Nothing automatic about it. NATO forces in Germany were under strength and needed time to round out. For instance most of the NL and BE corps were based in their respective countries. 1 (BR) Corps' 1 Armoured Division's peacetime locations were a good deal north of their wartime AORs and, depending on the time frame, two of the 1 (BR) Corps roled Field Forces and latterly one of it's divisions was based in the UK. Same for the US, who had even further to move their reinforcements. Soviet exercises plus the routine rotation of conscripts were watched closely because if GSFG/WGF went for the standing start option a lot of NATO would be in the wrong place. It would be naive to assume that the Soviets didn't know this and didn't have a planning option for the standing start scenario.

Win / Loss branching is determined by the campaign script which in turn is determined by the designer. It might go something like this ... Battle 1 result = Total Victory = go to Battle 2. Battle 1 result = Draw = go to Battle 2A. Battle 1 result = Total Defeat = Campaign ends. The designer can set any thresholds they choose so it could be that no matter what the result of Battle 1 is, the script says you go to Battle 2. For more detail on this, have a look at the thread linked below:

This is what the OP said (my bold) ... This got me thinking ... with indirect fire there are 3 points: TARGET, FO, GUN. Does it improve zeroing to align these points in a straight line or relatively straight line. I mean in real life, it seems aiming in a single dimension is an easier problem than two dimensions. Thoughts and/or experience (virtual or real)? If you hadn't noticed, the title of the thread is 'For you mortar men out there?' Therefore - the real experience of someone who has planned and executed indirect fires for a living is relevant. I accept that the OP also wanted game advice and am not disputing that one iota. Your mistake was to jump on my first post and say 'He is discussing the 60mm in the direct fire mode on platoon level.' It is clear he wasn't.

Neither is it determined by being the most persistent and vocal person in the debate. One of the people with whom you are disagreeing @Ultradaveis or was responsible for the planning and execution of indirect fires as a profession. You, on the other hand, appear to lack the same credentials, so guess who is more likely to be believed.

@markshot - no issues with the question from me either @LukeFFhas pretty much summed the situation up.

Have a like - me too, at least the OP has an answer to the question he actually asked.

Then why did he mention an FO (forward observer) and indirect fire in his question smarty pants?

No 20m is not the default water level, the water level defaults to the elevation of the tile that it is placed on and can only be on that elevation so if you place a water feature at 350m all water features will be at 350m. Maps containing water tiles must have a minimum elevation of 5m. The default elevation whenever you start making a map is 20m. For clarity's sake, in relation to this discussion, stream tiles are not water tiles. The bridge issues over the years are not limited to those running over water features and as @sburkesaid it has defied all attempts to resolve.

Linear deployment of mortar and observer to line up with a target is something I have never heard of. So, while I am not expertly versed in mortar procedures, I suspect it is something that doesn't happen or is taught as the 'ideal' solution. With all observed fire, so long as the observer can read a map accurately, see the target and can then communicate that to Fire Direction Center/mortar line you are well on the way to getting rounds where you want them. So long as the people at the FDC/mortar line transcribe those grids accurately and they are passed on to the individual mortars accurately you are further down that path. If the mortars/guns are correctly sited and even better, surveyed, and the crews know how many turns of the dial = 'up 100 - left 50 etc' on the aiming mechanism and how many charges are needed for the required range, then they should hit the target. Gunnery is lots of sums and works best if you know where the target is, what the weather's like and where your guns/mortars are so does not need mortar, observer and target to be in a nice straight line.

Maybe the designer goofed and forgot to label it. Are there any clues in the briefing and briefing graphics?

You cannot load more than one map in the editor so I figure it is a no.

Given the poster is talking about dismounted infantry employing a man portable Dragon, I'm not sure that it is a consideration at all.

You can't - you have the choice of straight up, down, left or right and diagonal road tiles. If you're trying to map a real place using the overlay feature, the top tip is to orientate your overlay so that the important/major roads or the majority of the roads flow to fit the limited choices you have see below: If you look at the image, you can see a whole heap of tracks through the forest which I decided should run north to south to make the map making easier. If you look at the topographical overlay, you can see that I have tilted it so that north in real life is actually pointing NW (the grid line runs from number '171' at the bottom of the image). You can also see that with the other roads and the railway line, I just have to compromise and make the best job I can of getting them to generally flow in the intended direction. This is a 3D view of part of the map: Which although not 100% accurate doesn't look too shabby.

I know - I said so in my first post on this thread - two up from yours.