Combatintman

Ok ... The groupings are just because they are ... when I did the scenario design/mission analysis, the tasks in big handfuls are 1. Clear the compounds 2. Protect the FOB and CP So to do that you have to allocate troops - or as the British Army says 'troops to task'. When you look at what is there, it then becomes a case of deciding who is best at what and let's not forget that it is only the infantry that has the mission of closing with and killing the enemy so while engineers are useful for blowing holes in compounds and finding IEDs, when you are short of resources they can be usefully employed guarding the FOB or 'sangar bashing' as soldiers call it. Going back to the infantry elements you will see that you have the Paras who are elite infantry (I can't remember what experience rating I gave them but it would be at the upper end of the scale) and the ANA who are less well trained, lack body armour and are accompanied by their OMLT (Operational Mentoring and Liaison Team) from the R IRISH. So numbers-wise they may look similar, capability-wise they are streets apart. It therefore makes sense to give them a more stand-off role (aka support) hence the label. Under Mission Command it is up to you how you employ them and there are plenty of options - such as a base of fire or to screen or guard a flank or (not advised) reconnaissance. With regard to the WMIKs - yes they are vulnerable and so of course they won't close with the enemy unless you are a worse player than I am but the commander that they are grouped under will know how to employ them and while his grouping might be called 'Assault Group' that doesn't mean that every element is physically going to assault. With regard to the 'Assault' and 'Support labels - just strip them away. If you do this, what you have is a B Coy 2 PARA group (Assault) and an ANA Group (Support). The Assault group has been optimised by giving it the ATK team (to blast holes in walls) and an engineer section for ostensibly the same reason. WRT groupings as a whole, while there are some generic groupings that people will use as a handrail when doing planning, ultimately your groupings will be decided by the planning process which will generate your troops to task or TASKORG. For more information on this process read my planning thread in CMRT here:

Stop stop stop - the CTS (which is what you're replicating) do not wear the Iraqi Police uniform. It is either black stuff or their own camouflage uniform which does not feature the colours blue and white. Just Google for images using the search term 'Iraqi CTS Uniform' and see how many results you get back with the blue and white Federal Police uniform (two at a quick count).

Ok - probably my bad as the JTACs aren't named as such - they are the units that are called Tactical Air Controller or similar. 1 R IRISH OMLT will be named as such or maybe called 'Mentor Team'. The bits that are recommended to stay in the base are those labelled FOB Alma Group and CP Jundi Group. Don't get hung up about the assault and support group verbiage - but when you look at the TASKORG it is pretty obvious that the bits named Assault Group are more suited to assaulting than the bits named support group. Bottom line is that if it is a dismounted element that is not in or on a building in FOB Alma, it is designed to go out of the door one of the key phrases being .. 'The patrol is now formed up on the HLS in FOB Alma and ready to depart on task pending final orders and ammunition issue'.

No worries - natural mistake .... as I said I had to check whether the mission was one of mine or not due to the similarities in the title to other missions. I will provides some explanations to your observations soon.

@ErwinI had to check whether this was one of mine because there are a couple of scenarios have a similar name. It seems so long ago since I put this together but by the sounds of it you found it challenging and enjoyable and most of all thank you for your comments. The enemy stuck around the perimeter are there to bump the numbers up so that the AI does not auto surrender. They are therefore set to arrive as reinforcements at mission end and won't appear during the time you have available in the scenario. In terms of your observations about tackling the mission, you are absolutely right. Tactical patience is required and the best method is to ensure that you concentrate your firepower/effects so that you can minimise your casualties. Not sure about the Apaches ... there are none in this mission. Your air/aviation assets are a Harrier pair (C/S Recoil 11) - or do you mean the Green 9 mission?

Ok so I've been a bit quiet since announcing this one so here are some more bones ... First of all an extract from the Company commander's planning considerations: The initial briefing for the Company Group took place in the departure lounge at the Operational Mounting Centre. Usually a BG brief is held here as part of the mounting process. The Battalion IO came directly from the Permanent Joint Headquarters at Northwood (PJHQ) and explained the ground and enemy to the company. It was clear that the West Side Soldiers (WSS) were a rebel grouping with similar characteristics to the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) that the battalion had already had experienced. Interestingly, during negotiations they had sought to be integrated into the Sierra Leone Army (SLA). The WSS had access to a wide range of direct and indirect weapons including twin ZPU-2 (14.5mm) HMG, 60/81mm mortars, AK series assault rifles, medium machine guns, RPGs, anti-personnel mines and grenades. They had the ground of their choice and had successfully survived two United Nations operations to deny them their jungle-operating base. Loosely organised into five "Battalions" their centre of gravity and the location of the hostages was known to be Gberi Bana, a small village on the northern side of the Rokel Creek. Access to the village was from the south across the creek and the village of Magbeni. From Magbeni, which was identified as the location of the "Gulf" Battalion, operations were mounted to the main supply route from Freetown to Masiaka. Here they kept their vehicles including a captured SLA Bedford with twin 14.5mm MG and at least three "technicals", pick-up trucks with heavy machine guns mounted on the back. Critically the distance from Magbeni to Gberi Bana is only 1600 metres, well within the reach of HMG and mortars. The British patrol had been captured by the WSS in Magbeni and taken across the Rokel Creek to Gberi Bana. Their vehicles including a WMIK were known to be in the village. Another battalion of WSS who effectively controlled the Laia Junction held the road south from Magbeni to the supply route. This brought another concern that they could reinforce to counter any friendly action to the north. Here are some draft mission/briefing graphics to give you a feel for the battlefield geometry and scheme of manoeuvre - I know that @MOS:96B2Plikes to start his planning early

Except ... 1. CMA does not depict the Coalition forces or Taliban - CMSF is a better fit. 2. Special Forces don't clear remote villages. 3. Regular troops clearing villages was historical fact but I don't need a game to give me that inspiration. 4. Medical supply convoys were not standard missions - I have done three tours of Afghanistan and can't recall any such mission being launched during any of those tours. 5. See above. Importantly - as you have repeatedly said, you are not prepared to design scenarios or campaigns I'm not sure what qualifies you to give design advice to those who do.

I'd treat the historical side of it with some scepticism as well - there are no non-US Coalition Forces and the last time I looked the ground West of Lashkar Gah (where I spent 5 months in 06-07) was not what you would describe as Mountainous which is the impression given in the map in one of the play throughs. However that aside the mechanics seem like a decent attempt to capture the flavour of the conflict and it looks vaguely fun to play but as a basis for scenarios I wouldn't go there.

Less political arguments and willy waving in the CMBS forum.

I spent 8 years in Germany with the British Army between 1990 and 2008 as well as exercising there on numerous occasions in 1988 and 1989. Wikipedia linky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Forces_Germany When I first went there, 1 BR Corps had three armoured divisions stationed in Germany and there was still the best part of a division there when I left Germany for the last time in 2008. And I'll bite regarding @user1000s asinine remark. In just one Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery alone in Germany (Rheinberg) there are 343 war graves for persons who fit the description 'British Army' and date of death between 01 Jan 45 and 08 May 45. For those interested here's where to look: http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead.aspx

It is a truism though that there is more information at a level of detail to be useful to scenario designers on both the Afghan and Iraq campaigns coming out these days. I just wish I had the time to knock out the maps to do them justice. Bring on CMSF2 and the map overlay feature. I'm currently slogging through an Iraq map and two Afghan maps with another on the 'to do' list.

I'd be careful for what you wish for. The more groups you have, the better your recordkeeping needs to be and the better and longer your testing becomes. The net result is that you'll struggle to kick the scenario out of the door if you try to be overly clever or complex about it.

AFAIK this shouldn't be a problem. The non-movement issue may be linked to the timing of orders you have set for AI Group 13. If group R2 arrives at 15 minutes and group R3 arrives at 30 minutes but the first order you have for AI Group 13 is timed at 5 minutes then it is unlikely that the later arriving elements (eg R2 and R3) will move. While I agree that it would be nice to have more than 16 AI Groups, it is generally possible to craft a workable AI plan with those 16 AI Groups - remember the AI just needs to present a challenge to the player and appear credible. Try doing it in CMSF which only has 8 available groups .

@LongLeftFlank good luck with your endeavours - I particularly admire your efforts to keep developing the map. When I opened the map for the first time I thought 'holy moley he must have lost his mind putting this together'. I look forward to seeing your efforts.

Yes and it is not MOST it is ALL - the discussion about AI quality centres around what tools scenario designers had (or rather didn't have - such as triggers) at the time CMBN was launched. As a result most of the bundled scenarios, campaigns and QBs don't have triggers or the other new fangled tools in the 4.0 engine. If you are primarily a PBEM player then the point is moot because the Tac AI which is the thing that makes the reactive decisions to the magic minute during turn execution in WEGO (eg to cower or return fire) is now the same in CMBN as CMFB if both games are patched to the same standard. And as I said before, while the new AI tools available to scenario designers add more flexibility, it is still perfectly possible to create a good AI plan without all of those tools because I never used them for the two scenarios I designed which bundled with CMFB. So ... nothing to see here really. As always if you want to recreate/play Normandy and Market Garden you should buy CMBN and the Market Garden modules - if you want later war stuff you should buy CMFB.

Ok as my good friend @MOS:96B2P has pointed out to me on PM - the date should read 2000 and not 1999. The error is mine and mine alone but in my defence the date quoted was that given by the Company Commander in the British Army's Army Field Manual Volume 2 Part 2 - Tropical Operations. This being the relevant paragraph (my bold) ... 'A Company 1 Para was part of a joint operation (Op BARRAS) to secure the release of some members of a UK Training Team held hostage in the jungle beyond Freetown Sierra Leone in September 1999. This article focuses exclusively on A Company's capture of a small village as part of the overall operation and describes some aspects of the estimate, orders and conduct of the battle carried out by the Company Commander'. I have now fixed it so that it reads 2000.

@LongLeftFlank - I just plonked trees down and mixed it up with the grain tiles here and there. Inevitably I was working within constraints so I've had to sacrifice 'real jungle' for what will load in a decent amount of time. Most jungle tiles therefore have only a single tree on them and for this mission the jungle areas are less important than the non-jungle areas. I guess this is a long way of saying don't get your hopes up as I know from some of your previous projects you have looked far harder at jungle settings than I have.

As per the title ... see map below ... There are lots of trees on the CMSF map btw but only some of them show up in the CMSF screenshot.

But didn't notice the grass and trees in the background in most of images/videos posted on this page in the thread

@Sgt.Squarehead- as previously discussed there are other ways of skinning the cat but whichever solution is adopted involves a compromise or three. The CTS dudes as implemented are all armed with the wrong weapons but the Syrian SF pick gives you the right colour uniforms, body armour, the right numbers (give or take) and the right language without too much hassle. If accurate weaponry is important then you would need to go for a solution that involves the standard US Army pick and using a black uniform Mod. The problem is that if you then swap out the sound files for the US Dudes this then impacts on the USMC guys who represent the Trident Team because they would also end up speaking Arabic. I know you are much like me with Mods in that neither of us really use them but this I think the last few posts on the CUF have demonstrated that if we are using US guys to represent normal Iraqi Army dudes then some distinction is required over and above the way that you've named the in the Unit Editor. I look forward to your new solution with the Abrams and engineers but otherwise I'd leave as is and just hunt down the Mod that changes US Army uniforms to the 2003 uniform. If you want to go down the US Army route for the CTS pick instead of the Syrian Special Forces then hit me up and I'll have a rummage around the editor.

@Erwin - I'm sorry but it is entirely credible that the ISF are capable of clearing Mosul - this is the same organisation that cleared the Baghdad belts and the Euphrates River Valley up to Haditha which included clearances of built-up areas such as Fallujah, Hit and Ramadi. It also went as far West as Ar Rutbah and cleared that. It has also cleared all the way up the Tigris River Valley to the outskirts of Mosul and conducted a break in and clearance of one half of the city. It is true that the ISF is not a finely honed fighting machine and logistics are a particular weakness but it is perfectly capable of clearing Mosul. As to the unit file you are looking at - the US Army elements represent Iraqi Army Engineer elements attached to the CTS - they will need a uniform Mod to look right. There are snipers in the unit and I have had no problems dismounting.

Pack of infantry with it sir? The 8th Army or US Infantry go well with it.

There's aiding and then there's Advise, Assist, Accompany which small numbers of US forces are doing. The Iraqis are perfectly capable of taking Mosul.

Sure a Sherman isn't too strong for you Sir - perhaps a Stuart instead?

I doubt the RN can spare the ships to be honest. How about the RN and RAN tow the mother country this way as it is a much more towable size - you might get to enjoy the weather that I left the UK for.