How to rate Talibans?

[Zveroboy1]

How would you rate Talibans in Afghanistan as far as experience and morale are concerned?

 

Should they be green or regular? possibly Veteran?

 

On the one hand, the war in Afghanistan has been going on for over a decade so there has been plenty of time for getting combat experience but on the other hand, the life expectancy of insurgents actively fighting ISAF is maybe not super high in the long term?

 

I am guessing the crucial factor is maybe not so much their level of experience per se but rather relatively speaking, what their experience level is compared to blue forces. But still it would be interesting to know what you guys think.

 

Also should Talibans be rated differently than Mujaheedins in CMA?

 

 

[Combatintman]

Ratings are always subjective and discussing them can be a bit of a willy waving exercise.  To enter that discussion here could end up in an unnecessary willy waving exercise such as is routinely seen on YouTube, although at least we will be spared the usual 'What's the soundtrack?' question that appears within the first dozen posts there.  As a scenario designer you are better off focusing on what you want to achieve with your ratings and how it translates into how the scenario plays out. If you want your Taliban to be more experienced than the force against them - make them more experienced.

[Zveroboy1]

Right, I was probably being a bit too naive here. It didn't cross my mind at all that this could turn into a dick waving exercise. I was just looking for pointers.

But you got a point.

 

I want to include some ANA units for my scenario and will probably have them green with low morale. For the Talibans I will run some tests and see how it unfolds.

 

I was wondering though if making them have a low morale would not be a way to have them break contact more readily and disperse and thus help portray some sort of hit and run tactics where they disengage or even vanish after initial contact. I need to explore this option.

[Combatintman]

That's the way to approach it - certainly if you are designing as a Red vs AI or Blue vs AI mission.  I haven't really tested the individual settings much to see exactly how they behave but if I don't want a defender to move then 'fanatic' usually ensures that nobody is going anywhere.

 

However if you want to simulate hit and run tactics you are actually going to have to make that part of the AI plan - motivation and quality settings are not going to do that alone.

[Centurian]

This can be a tough question to answer. No one has yet created a truly objective way to evaluate the average skill in combat of different armies, militias, or rebel groups. The best that can be done for now is some lightly educated guesswork.

Without a centralized training and doctrine command the actual combat skill can vary considerably from group to group. It is worth noting that many of the older fighters could have more than 30 years of combat experience, going back to the Soviet era(worth noting, they have prior experience fighting super powers). Many of them can also find opportunities for training in Pakistan. But without formal training their actual skill in combat can be lacking(although some can be pretty good). Although they can be considered very good at many other skills involved in fighting a guerrilla war such as rapid movement and concealment. 

They are particularly bad with mortars. The Soviets left behind tons of mortars when they pulled out. But they didn't leave behind any targeting systems or instruction manuals. Personal accounts from US soldiers say that mortars can often miss an entire FOB by kilometers. I can't say how much this translates to general combat ability as mortars are notoriously difficult to aim and require specialized training.

They tend to be pretty determined. Moral I would set fairly high. Skill might be green for most of them. Some of the younger and less experienced fighters might be conscript. The groups that have been able to receive formal training in Pakistan and elsewhere could be as high as regular. You might even go as high as veteran for the older ones who have been fighting since the Soviet era, but I would use that sparingly.

To really provide a good answer we need some kind of detailed study and lots of statistics. I'm just not sure how you would carry out such a study or what specifically you would be looking for. I suppose an obvious one is marksmanship under combat stress, but how would you even measure that without skewing the results?

[LUCASWILLEN05]

This can be a tough question to answer. No one has yet created a truly objective way to evaluate the average skill in combat of different armies, militias, or rebel groups. The best that can be done for now is some lightly educated guesswork.

Without a centralized training and doctrine command the actual combat skill can vary considerably from group to group. It is worth noting that many of the older fighters could have more than 30 years of combat experience, going back to the Soviet era(worth noting, they have prior experience fighting super powers). Many of them can also find opportunities for training in Pakistan. But without formal training their actual skill in combat can be lacking(although some can be pretty good). Although they can be considered very good at many other skills involved in fighting a guerrilla war such as rapid movement and concealment. 

They are particularly bad with mortars. The Soviets left behind tons of mortars when they pulled out. But they didn't leave behind any targeting systems or instruction manuals. Personal accounts from US soldiers say that mortars can often miss an entire FOB by kilometers. I can't say how much this translates to general combat ability as mortars are notoriously difficult to aim and require specialized training.

They tend to be pretty determined. Moral I would set fairly high. Skill might be green for most of them. Some of the younger and less experienced fighters might be conscript. The groups that have been able to receive formal training in Pakistan and elsewhere could be as high as regular. You might even go as high as veteran for the older ones who have been fighting since the Soviet era, but I would use that sparingly.

To really provide a good answer we need some kind of detailed study and lots of statistics. I'm just not sure how you would carry out such a study or what specifically you would be looking for. I suppose an obvious one is marksmanship under combat stress, but how would you even measure that without skewing the results?

Foreign fighter types would probably have more experience. Some AQ types for instance might be graded as fanatical as well as having a fairly high experience level. However. grading troops for any kind of warigame is a very subjective exercise.