CMSF irregular thoughts

[domfluff]

Have been thinking a lot about Opfor in general (sucker for an underdog), and how to approach this with CMSF 2, particularly from a PBEM standpoint, and trying to be somewhat competitive.

Doing some experimenting with CMSF 1:

The heaviest option for civilians in CMSF will allow Combatants (not Fighters (Mujahideen), but the guys in camo and jeans), and possibly VBIED (but not taxis) to remain invisible until very close indeed - it seems like if these are Move-ing along city tiles, these won't be spotted until around 2 action spots away. VBIED seem to have some degree of stealth, but nothing like as much as that. Usually that doesn't matter, since they cover a huge amount of ground pretty quickly.

They are not spotted directly, but the soldiers will still call out "SPOTTED AN ENEMY UNIT", etc. - so there's some contextual clues. Occasionally they might pop up with contact icons, but still nothing they'll directly fire at. Originally I thought this was a problem, but on further thought I think this might actually be okay - the manuals talk about spotting unusual behaviour in civilians, dogs etc., so this could be put down to that kind of observation. I was also originally of the opinion that this "stealth device" approach to modelling insurgents wasn't terribly great, but it does seem to match up to the tactical considerations quite well - hiding amongst civilians to get to point-blank range, etc.

Combatants do not have the firepower to go into a straight fight with any Blufor squad, at least with small arms, and they're mostly equipped with small arms alone. This means that I suspect the correct approach is to force them into something other that a straight fight.

E.g.:

The mission is to attack a US squad, inside a police station. The plan is to use spies to discover their location, infiltrate (whilst holding fire!) to locations surrounding the building, then give them a really good reason to leave the building - ideally a VBIED, but perhaps an ATGM, mortar fire, RPG volley, whatever.  The Combatants can then open up whist he US squad is fleeing the building, giving them the advantage that they need. Any technicals are ideal here as flankers - probably not engaging directly, but cutting off retreat routes.


The TC 7-100 series are the  recent OpFor guides for the US. 2 and 3 are of particular use:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/TC_7-100.2_-_Opposing_Force_Tactics_(December_2011).pdf
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/TC_7-100.3_-_Irregular_Opposing_Forces_(January_2014).pdf

The interesting things here are how generic these are (the same basic concepts work for Syrian Mechanised infantry battalion assaults, or a fighter group ambushing a few HMMWV's). This generally splits a plan into three sections:

Active Element - This is the element that will make the assault/carry out the ambush/manoeuvre onto the target.
Security Element - Early warning for the approach of reinforcements, possibly delaying or preventing this. Typically this might just be an RPG team, but could include spies, IED's, mines, ATGMs, etc.
Support Element - C2, Direct fires, Indirect fires and mobility.

Direct fires will be MG's, RPGs and maybe an ATGM. Mobility is obviously civilian transport.

The "C2" part of that is worth some thought. Irregular forces don't get much in terms of equipment, and I can't remember if there's much in the way of radios in CMSF. The Spy in Passage at Wilcox (CMSF 2 Demo) definitely has a radio, so there's that. I do wonder if it's worth using teams in taxis as messengers, sharing the spy spotting information horizontally? In any case, it's going to be important to pay attention to force (cell?) structure here, and a reasonable percentage of your force allocation should probably go on spies (or at least dedicated to spotting Combatants), since you'll need all the help you can get.


This does leave the Fighters in a slightly odd position. Without the stealth of the Combatants, they're mostly useful for having better equipment (including ATGMs), usually a little better training, and higher motivation. Whilst that means that they're a good choice for the actual attack, they don't have the same ability to get close without some thought - I wonder if they're best used from concealment as the assault element, after the support element suppresses the target? That would leave Combatants in the Security and Support roles mostly, I suppose.

E.g.:

The mission is to attack a US squad, inside a police station. The plan is to use spies to discover their location, infiltrate RPG teams (whilst holding fire!) to locations surrounding the building, then fix them in place -  unleashing a volley of RPGs and MG fire from multiple directions.  The Fighters can then debus from civilian transport and storm the building directly.

One idea I did read in the above manuals which I think could work well in CMSF is using taxis to form an impromptu roadblock - using them to block in either end of a street so that exits are impeded. The taxis will be destroyed, of course, but if it keeps the enemy in the kill zone longer, so much the better.
 

Edited October 23, 2018 by domfluff

[domfluff]

Actually spotting stationary units inside buildings is tough for spies - they don't have any enhanced optics, thermals or other gear, so the most useful method will be to try to spot them on approach to a target - this means covering all likely avenues of approach with eyes. Either spies or combatants should be decent at this, since they won't need to move around all that much, and can do this from concealment, making them mostly invisible. Actually standing against an occupied building or walking inside will get a spy spotted, of course. Sniper teams will have scopes, which might help.

A lot, therefore, will rely on careful reading of the terrain, anticipation and planning - setting up the attack is even more important with irregular forces than others, since you want the offensive to be as short and overwhelming as possible - anything that gives Blufor a chance to recover the initiative will usually end badly for the Irregulars.

Defensively, the forces can't manage anything particularly complex, and a positional defence is probably the way forward. The key is to try to remove the ability of Blufor to reduce these positions from a safe distance - the overwhelming firepower is very difficult to deal with.

e.g.,
The mission is to defend a small village against enemy mechanised infantry and armour. The plan is to fortress three locations with small arms troops, mines and defences. Each position can cover the others with at least one ATGM, and the best areas for a Bluefor base of fire are made unattractive through IEDs, mines and mortar fire.

ATGMs have a ton of reach, and even the AT-3 is a powerful capability to have. Being able to mutually support each position, and removing the best bases of fire will reduce the firepower disparity, and smoke can be used to reduce this further - you want a short ranged, overwhelming firefight.

ATGMs are very easily exposed when fired, but quick to pack up - one shot, and then moving to a (pre-planned) secondary location to set up again is probably the best SOP. Setting up in depth, on the second of a pair of buildings can help (the first will block a lot of the fire), but you do want to shift it as soon as possible. AT-3 takes seconds to break down, and five minutes to set up - I think that's more than worth it if it means you end up with two dead Bradleys, and it's a lot easier to relocate than a WW2 AT gun.

I think the overall trend here is that you typically have to work an awful lot harder with Redfor - you need to have a great understanding of the terrain, accurate anticipation of enemy movements, and the ability (or luck) to squeeze out every advantage that you can. Clearly some environments (Urban terrain) help tremendously.

Edited October 23, 2018 by domfluff

[Lethaface]

Interesting post!

Back in CMSF1 I played quite a couple of PBEMs with RED. Although those were all scenario's, since the quickbattle format wasn't up to speed yet, so the force selection was done by the scenario author and for good scenario's the objectives were asymetrically balanced. 

My most basic lesson was more on the strategic level (for both regular and irregular RED forces):

* Kamikaze: all assets should be considered expandable to the mission. When you look at it realistically there is little chance for an individual asset to survive a contact and still be combat effective for follow up action. Besides troop and equipment quality, the main reason for this is IMO observation and C2 advantages, coupled with on call accurate support fires. Hence, you usually have only one chance for a unit to achieve their goal. One can learn from how the Japanese dealt with a similar situation: kamikaze tactics.

* Ambush. Hide and covered arcs are your friends: long range firefights will usually lead to your forces getting annihilated without getting much done in return. Ambushes where you can gain temporary local fire superiority are the way to go. Of course there are exceptions like ATGMs, which can and should be used in long range ambushes. However, shoot and scoot is difficult, since near instant accurate heavy return fire is usually a given. So I like to put ATGMs in positions where they can get a nice shot on enemies flanks/rear and have some opportunity to fire a good number of rounds before they get annihilated. In other words: don't put them directly facing the front or their will be a good chance they take 120/20mm HE to the face before their missile has actually reached the target. Packing up and running from a building is possible at times, but more often not. In the field I think ATGMs can be more easily packed up, however they are much more prone to being detected when not hiding in a building and an easy target for indirect fires.

* 'force multipliers' like RPG's and ATGMs are key to causing casualties. Use them during a firefight to tip the scales in your direction. Don't save up ammo, fire off all rounds asap. A round that doesn't cause casualties often does cause suppression, while rounds laying next to WIA/KIA pixeltruppen are usually not easy recoverable.

* Vehicles. Vehicles are in a tough spot going up against all those thermals. Usually I keep them behind hard cover, only to pour in fire on a objective or important enemy asset after a firefight has started.

* Isolation: your c2 is poor, much poorer than the enemy. Don't rely on C2.

From the moment the firefight has started it's mix and mash. A hidden reserve comes in great to punish enemy mistakes and or take on targets of opportunity.

For example: Blue is attacking a town. Our objective is to deny them the objective and or cause heavy casualties. Setup a few sentries on outposts for spotting duties. Have the actual ambush take place deeper inside the town, where direct support fire from outside the town is limited. Have some ATGMs on overwatch in high rise positions.

1. Lure the enemy towards your ambush.
2. hide and wait
3. Give them some false sense of comfort. Spring a small ambush here and there, a little sacrifice to keep them from worrying to much about your main ambush. 
3. wait some more
4. Unleash the ambush at close range. Ideally with an IED of course. And fire those RPGs, use area fire and or Target to make sure they let them fly.
5. Have the units you had hiding, now bypassed by the enemy, move into blocking positions behind/flank of the enemy . They can pour in fire from unsuspected locations or attrit reinforcements that think they are going through a 'safe zone'. 
6. The ATGMs now unhide and target enemy vehicles moving to overwatch/firebase positions with LOS/LOF to the ambush zone. Or else just shoot them at strong enemy positions. Shooting up the cavalry now without their infantry support will psychologically attrit your enemy.
7. Victory at any and all costs!

 

Edited October 23, 2018 by Lethaface
added an example

[domfluff]

One thing I'm really interested in (especially with Quick Battles) is whether the scenario conditions will make up for the gap in capability. I've now played Passage at Wilcox from the demo, and I'm not sure the score really reflected the outcome appropriately (it was scored as a "total victory", but possibly should have been a "tactical victory"? something like that anyway).

Certainly liberal use of "preserve" objectives, as well as stiff penalties for losing blue forces and conserving ammunition can all help, but it's going to be very difficult to balance this effectively - certainly a lot more difficult than doing the same for symmetric scenarios.

Easiest option would be to have literal asymmetric conditions - a bluefor which only gets points for occupying ground, and a redfor that only gets points for destroying forces, that kind of thing, but even then that's hard.

[domfluff]

14 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

* Kamikaze: all assets should be considered expandable to the mission. When you look at it realistically there is little chance for an individual asset to survive a contact and still be combat effective for follow up action. This is mainly due to observation and C2 advantages, couple with on call accurate support fires. Hence, you usually have only one chance for a unit to achieve their goal. One can learn from how the Japanese dealt with a similar situation: kamikaze tactics.

My rule of thumb has been that each unit or element can be given one job that it can be reasonably expected to do, and no more. This AT asset is expected to lie in place and take out one vehicle, this Fighter squad can fanatically storm one building, etc.

If they happen to survive intact, so much the better (and they might be able to regroup for something improvised later), but the basic concept is of single-use units, kamikaze or otherwise.

[domfluff]

In terms of C2, with the way morale works (specifically in reducing the morale of closely attached units), I wonder if more, smaller groups of combatants are better than a smaller number of larger groups?

Josey Wales' terms "Combat Stress" and "Combat Shock" (the permanent and temporary forms of morale loss) are shared horizontally between units in the same formation. It's not clear whether this is a strict percentage, but, assuming that it is:

1 HQ + 9 soldiers = 10 men, two dead = 20% casualties.
1 HQ + 19 soldiers = 20 men. two dead = 10% casualties.

I wonder if it's better to have 8 guys suffering the effects of 20% losses, or 18 suffering the effects of 10%?

If this is in any way modelled linearly - 8 x 0.2 = 1.6 and 18 x 0.1 = 1.8 - you'd imagine that smaller cells were a little better here?

Speculation, obviously, but I imagine being very aware of C2 links becomes a lot more important.

[MOS:96B2P]

4 hours ago, domfluff said:

The heaviest option for civilians in CMSF will allow Combatants (not Fighters (Mujahideen), but the guys in camo and jeans), and possibly VBIED (but not taxis) to remain invisible until very close indeed - it seems like if these are Move-ing along city tiles, these won't be spotted until around 2 action spots away. 

 

2 hours ago, domfluff said:

standing against an occupied building or walking inside will get a spy spotted.

Another interesting and useful topic you have started. 

I have it on my list to test civilian density and the effect it has on spotting unconventional forces.  I'm waiting for CMSF2 to be released before I test just in case the behavior gets "tweaked" going from CMSF1 to CMSF2.     

In the Editor civilian density can be set at one of six choices: none, sparse, light, moderate, heavy or very heavy.  The greater the civilian density the harder it is to spot unconventional units.  In the Editor unconventional units are divided into three groups: Fighters, Combatants and Specialists.  In the CMSF1 game manual page 102 it states, at the beginning of a battle all Uncon Specialist units are simulated as civilians to the US player.   I think the civilian density only applies to unconventional forces that are in the Specialist category.  

The manual also describes that three factors determine when the unconventional (I think just specialists in relation to civilian density) units are spotted: terrain, movement command and proximity to OpFor units. 

A lot of interesting scenarios will be possible with unconventional units and the Engine 4 upgrade.        

  

[domfluff]

Running some tests with CMSF 1 - Very Heavy density, and some Combatants and Fighters Move-ing towards a stationary Typical US squad, the Fighters were spotted the minute they turned the corner (200m away or so), and the Combatants were not formally spotted until two action spots away (but there were contextual clues due to shout-outs, and some ? markers).

I imagine the system will be similar, but yes, well worth doing once CMSF 2 hits.

The "stealth" definitely applies to Combatants and Spies (so, Specialists - VBIED's seemed to have some of that, but transports did not), but did not apply to Fighters.

Combatants could normal-Move almost directly up to the US squad without being spotted. If they ran or crawled they were spotted much earlier. This has a secondary effect, since any fires that cause them to Quick-move or crawl (say, stray MG fire or random mortars/HE from any side) may well end up revealing them unintentionally.

 

[domfluff]

By way of example (CMSF 1, Very Heavy civilian setting)

Red view:



Blue view:



All combatants, and the only orders were Move.

The only clues to their existence is the US Squad shouting "Warning! Infantry approaching!" and the like.

Edited October 23, 2018 by domfluff

[domfluff]

How close they managed to get before being seen (the right-most squad is Move-ing one square forward)

[MOS:96B2P]

6 minutes ago, domfluff said:

Running some tests with CMSF 1 - Very Heavy density, and some Combatants and Fighters Move-ing towards a stationary Typical US squad, the Fighters were spotted the minute they turned the corner (200m away or so), and the Combatants were not formally spotted until two action spots away (but there were contextual clues due to shout-outs, and some ? markers).  

Hmm, that's interesting.  The manual came with the original CMSF1 release.  Maybe there was already some "tweaking" of how civilian density works between the original release and CMSF1 v1.32.  Can't wait for CMSF2 to be released so we can get in the Editor and figure this stuff out.  

Nice screenshots.  They pretty much prove civilian density works a bit different than the way it is described in the manual...........

[domfluff]

Also, if proof were needed of the firepower disparity - the above firefight ended in a few seconds with both sides fleeing. The 9 US had taken 5 casualties, 1 wounded and 3 ok, whereas the 19 insurgents had taken 4 casualties, 3 wounded and 12 ok - more than 2:1 odds, point blank range (albeit behind cover), and the insurgent force is probably not capable of achieving any further objectives. The cover and the fact the US started it will work in their favour, but that's still pretty awful.

This is why I think the correct way to use the above would be to infiltrate to point-blank range, force them out of the building (VBIED would be ideal, but obviously single-use), and catch them whilst they're running.

[domfluff]

Some maps from the above sources, describing the Active, Security and Support roles in different contexts:

This is more than doable with the mechanics in CMSF - obviously the crowd/riot would have to be abstracted (flavour object? burning cars?), but it would work.

As a scenario it wouldn't be all that interesting, obviously, but it's nice to know.



More of a formal Syrian army hunter-killer ambush, but one that would work just as well with irregular forces. Given the obstacles, this wouldn't work in CMSF, but should work fine in CMSF  (ignoring the basements).



"Exit" objectives will help this kind of thing with CMSF 2

The above is probably what a typical irregular scenario should look like - attack a target, and get out before the reaction force shows up. Again with the "exit" conditions making this kind of thing possible now.


One thing that is notable is how small these examples are - most insurgent-only scenarios should probably be really small - Blufor getting a squad or maybe a platoon at most. That's pushing the lower limit on scale for CM, but I think it's workable.

The importance of Infowar elements in the above makes me wonder if there's something clever you can do with Spotting objectives.

Edited October 24, 2018 by domfluff

[Lethaface]

With regards to CM scenario's a big difference is the element of surprise. In a CM scenario you know there is gonna be an ambush and, depending on the size of the map and objectives, approximately where. So for any H2H game the RED player needs to trick the BLUE player in such a way that his ambush isn't counter ambushed. 

 

[domfluff]

Hidden information is always difficult in a wargame - even with "double blind" information like CM, you're still very aware that you're playing a scenario, and have an idea what to expect (you'll never guess what happened in the CMSF scenario "ATGM Ambush"...)

Still, a combination of a city with a lot of Preserve objectives, objectives that have to be reached, a limited mission time and the Civilian density mechanics, you should be able to cobble something together.

e.g., if the intention was to be an urban ambush scenario, then giving the Red player freedom of the map and fortifications (especially wire), and giving the blue forces preserve and touch objectives and a tight time limit (so that they really have to use vehicles to get to them all), you should end up with a reasonable chance at setting up an ambush. To make it more interesting, it might not be clear what kind of route is possible to travel on.

For an "assault"-type scenario, having the blue forces split up over more than one setup zone, and giving Red an Exit zone should do the trick nicely - you'd get the basic "kill A and get out before B gets here" structure.

Since the irregulars have so many disadvantages, it's tough to see how they'd cope in most meeting engagements, even in urban terrain. Offensive and defensive scenarios seem a lot more plausible in general. I'm also not sure about how well these will work in Quick Battles generally - none of the Red forces really work in "fair" fights to begin with, points-based force selection doesn't make it easy to create unfair situations, and the further down the chain you go, the worse it gets.

[LongLeftFlank]

Great thoughts and data here, @domfluff! You need to join @Sgt.Squarehead, @Combatintman, @sburke and myself (when work allows) in the Urban Asymmetrical Warfare scenario skunk works.

Edited October 24, 2018 by LongLeftFlank

[domfluff]

7 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Great thoughts and data here, @domfluff! You need to join @Sgt.Squarehead, @Combatintman, @sburke and myself (when work allows) in the Urban Asymmetrical Warfare scenario skunk works.

Yeah, I'd be up for that. Irregulars have so many obvious failings that everything's dialled up a notch or two - meaning it's correspondingly difficult to make a scenario that represents an even challenge. Setting up a one-sided ambush or mowing down hordes of "fuzzy-wuzzies" (borrowing Kipling for emphasis) is simple, but doing something more sophisticated would be the goal.

Edited October 24, 2018 by domfluff

[LongLeftFlank]

I think the basic building blocks haven't changed since SF1:

1. put a huge vp penalty on BLUEFOR losses to drive realistically conservative behaviours (and increase RED degrees of freedom).

... Of course this also means you can't whack BLUE right away with an unavoidable hi-cas ambush (unless you provide a vp cushion that provides for it). I generally just assume that on turn 1 the Big Bump has already happened, humvees are burning, etc.

2. Suitably constricted/compartmented terrain where BLUE can't instantly converge/call in their overwhelming fire superiority (*yawn*). Hard cover remains  undermodeled, so in the absence of robust strongpoints RED has got to be able to break contact and rally.

[ncc1701e]

Thanks a lot @domfluff for the above links. Starting reading them. Looks like very interesting insights for my little Libya civil war project.

[Lethaface]

14 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

I think the basic building blocks haven't changed since SF1:

1. put a huge vp penalty on BLUEFOR losses to drive realistically conservative behaviours (and increase RED degrees of freedom).

... Of course this also means you can't whack BLUE right away with an unavoidable hi-cas ambush (unless you provide a vp cushion that provides for it). I generally just assume that on turn 1 the Big Bump has already happened, humvees are burning, etc.

2. Suitably constricted/compartmented terrain where BLUE can't instantly converge/call in their overwhelming fire superiority (*yawn*). Hard cover remains  undermodeled, so in the absence of robust strongpoints RED has got to be able to break contact and rally.

Good to see the veteran (asymmetrical) scenario authors form CMSF1 still in the mix with new plans!  
If needed I'd be willing to playtest those, time allowing. The CMSF2 demo got me back into playing CM a lot. Less workrelated headaches also helps 

Anyway I'm curious to see what all of you can cook up with the new possibilities in CMSF2!
Who knows one day i'll have a more serious go with the editor. 

[LongLeftFlank]

Of course, guerrilla-friendly terrain is in no way restricted to cities, even in the 'arid'  Middle East. Consider a few square kms patchwork of vehicle-unfriendly marshy fields, dikes, walls and irrigation ditches unchanged since Assyrian times, with LOS broken up by unkempt orchards and palm groves, walled farmsteads and dense clusters of reeds.

On 5/15/2017 at 7:03 AM, LongLeftFlank said:

 .... Outstanding new histories on the Iraq War are now coming out (2016) and being declassified. They effectively debunk the earlier wave of personality cult narratives, e.g.  "SEAL sniper teams won Ramadi single handed, killing the entire AQIZ chain of command with 700m head shots" or "Petraeus and MacFarland were the first US commanders ever to think of recruiting Sunni sheikhs and their clans to fight Al Qaeda."

https://www.ida.org/idamedia/Corporate/Files/Publications/IDA_Documents/JAWD/2016/P-5059V4A.ashx

The Sufiya uprising, where 1/9 Infantry crushed an al Qaeda attempt to make an example of the Abu Soda tribe by dragging their corpses behind pickups, Trojan war style.

https://www.ida.org/idamedia/Corporate/Files/Publications/IDA_Documents/JAWD/2016/P-5052V4.ashx

Look closely at the second map, or go to Google Earth. This is incredibly challenging ground to secure, even with overwhelming force available. Not quite bocage, but close.

And as I've preached umpteen times, terrain is the "third player" in the game; it can equalize or cripple pretty much any force.

Edited October 24, 2018 by LongLeftFlank

[domfluff]

The issue of course is that this means that irregulars may be better suited to Scenarios than Quick Battles (in a purely competitive sense at least - why would you accept a battle on ground that's horrendous for you?). That's a shame, but it's probably unavoidable.

[LongLeftFlank]

Well, you don't always get to say nah, I won't fight here. Let's say your heavy mech is doing 'haul ass and bypass' to Damascus. But then a Syrian rifle company mixed with irregulars appears out of this dense farmland and shoots up a fuel convoy? You get put in command of a scratch force and get told to "go clear those bastards out asap". Which mostly means 'find them and then call in air/helo strikes'. You have insufficient forces to cordon off the area. So there's no alternative to going into the bush. The general wants the MSR secured, like yesterday! No more goddam burning fuel trucks on al Jazeera.... 

(I know you know this stuff btw,  just shootin' the breeze. Don't want to sound preachy) 

Edited October 24, 2018 by LongLeftFlank

[Lethaface]

27 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Well, you don't always get to say nah, I won't fight here. Let's say your heavy mech is doing 'haul ass and bypass' to Damascus. But then a Syrian rifle company mixed with irregulars appears out of this dense farmland and shoots up a fuel convoy? You get put in command of a scratch force and get told to "go clear those bastards out asap". Which mostly means 'find them and then call in air/helo strikes'. You have insufficient forces to cordon off the area. So there's no alternative to going into the bush. The general wants the MSR secured, like yesterday! No more goddam burning fuel trucks on al Jazeera.... 

(I know you know this stuff btw,  just shootin' the breeze. Don't want to sound preachy) 

I thought quick battles are limited to one force? As in no mixing of irregulars and regulars?

[domfluff]

Yup. LongLeftFlank is quite right from a realism perspective, but from a H2H PBEM point of view, especially a competitive (Ladder) one, I'm struggling to see how well CMSF 2 is going to work, and especially uncons. Obviously playing back to back mirror matches are the easiest way to balance this, if not the most elegant.

Now, that's not strictly a problem (and I'll happily try to fight uphill with an irregular force), but it would be a nice-to-have.

Same problem applies to the Italians in CMFI, naturally.