ROE when playing Afghan scenarios

[Sandokan]

I'm playing right now "Day of days" starring brits in A-stan in 2006. As a theory I have enough firepower to obliterate any and every costruction along my advance lines but, this would probably mean losses among civilians too, and since I want to stay as close as I can to real situation on the field, this is surely a no-go. So, I shoot only when there is at least a "?" sign. Generally speaking, is this close enough to standard NATO ROE or am I too strict?

Thanks!

[vigilante87]

Hey there, if its realism that you are wanting then I would say thats still not good enough. In todays military(US, anyhow) you must have PID(positive identification) with targets you are wanting to open fire on. But if you are just trying to get close, then yeah its just fine!

[Sandokan]

I see. Thanks for the help!

BTW, PID is the magic word. I did a short research about the meaning on internet finding this explanation:

Positive identification. All soldiers must “positively identify” a person whom they intend to kill as a legitimate combatant. According to the Rules of Engagement, this means that there must be a “reasonable certainty” that the person is displaying hostile intent, or is behaving in a hostile manner, before soldiers may attack.

Clear enough, I'd say.

[Buzz]

"Day of days". That would be Habibollah Kalay?

I have not completed it but have advanced about 2/3 way through. I would not assume you can obliterate any and all along the map. At least I did not find that to be the case.

You will enjoy it. Good Luck.

[Erwin]

+1 for Habibollah Kalay. Xnt scenario. You can train to win without "recon by fire".

[Fuzee]

I'm playing right now "Day of days" starring brits in A-stan in 2006. As a theory I have enough firepower to obliterate any and every costruction along my advance lines but, this would probably mean losses among civilians too, and since I want to stay as close as I can to real situation on the field, this is surely a no-go. So, I shoot only when there is at least a "?" sign. Generally speaking, is this close enough to standard NATO ROE or am I too strict?

Thanks!

This documentary by the BBC might help you by providing some background to the British campaign in Afghanistan:

[Sandokan]

Thanks Fuzee, it seems very interesting!

BTW, the official name of the scenario do is Habibollah Kalay. My fault.

[Buzz]

You will enjoy Habibollah Kalay Fuzee.

Let us know how you approached it using "PID" and results when you have time.

[Erwin]

Interesting Documentary. Thanks Fuzee.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Is that not the reason we have the civillian density option in the scenario editor data section. Apparently the heavier the civillian density the harder insurgents are to spot.

You can also model ROE into the scenario victory conditions. For example firing on that village or the mosque incurs victory point penalties set by the scenario designer. He may or may not tell you about exact penalties (though you can cheat and go into the scenario editor But I think it is reasonable to give a clue in the briefing.

[Sandokan]

You are right, obviously. But this doesn't prevent a player from recon by fire heavily or simply bomb out almost any suspect position. So, at the moment I'm using this sort of rules:

1. a. Fire incoming from a unknown position. Like sniper's fire and the likes. I can guess the general direction by the noise but not a lot more.

b. A "?" sign suddenly pop up, but there is not any hostile action yet. There could be insurgents, but I don't know for sure.

In this case, hold fire

2. There is some fire incoming from a "?" sign.

Return fire with light weapons only and try to identify properly the attackers

3. Enemy symbol, shooting or not.

Fire at will!

At the moment i have played only the first 30 min of the scenario, so I still can't say a lot. I think I could report on the situation later, maybe with some image, if I manage to understand how FRAPS&MilSketch works...