Hard Cat Rules v2I - Simple to Use Command & Control Rules - UPDATED 01 JUNE 2022

[Sgt.Squarehead]

52 minutes ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

My thinking behind this rule is that irregular forces should not be able to maneuver as flexibly as a regular unit... it has nothing to do, in my opinion, with how well they know the ground but is a reflection of their less than professional leadership and training.

I'd completely disagree with this assumption.....Time and again we've seen Unconventional forces run rings around technologically superior conventional units when fighting on their 'home ground'.  Everywhere from Vietnam through to Afghanistan, Syria & Yemen this has tended to be the case.

As it is CM:SF2 fails to provide Uncons with the ability to breach walls, which massively hobbles them in the urban environment, the very environment in which they tend to excel.  Neither do they have anything resembling a higher command structure, which may also rather limit their utility under these rules.

PS - The practical effects of this rule in play on a properly made urban map like @LongLeftFlank's Ramadi would be beyond ridiculous.....Imagine an Iraqi insurgent commander ordering his men to 'Go to the water-tower'.  In reality these men would likely make their journey reasonably quickly and by the safest possible route, observed only by drones at best, simply because they know the streets of Ramadi so well.  On the other hand your rule would have them running straight down the main streets due to the TacAI's utter inability to navigate such complex environs in an even vaguely realistic fashion.

Edited May 26, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Zveroboy1]

I really like some of these rules, especially the higher importance given to platoon leaders and their positioning. But there is something that bothers me a little about not being able to direct infantry fire. The main reason is that if I understand the rules correctly, you are allowed to perform area fire under certain circumstances and that basically means that you can give an infantry squad an order to shoot at something unseen but not to switch fire and shoot at something they do actually see.

But I considered this problem before. It is interesting. I have played several times with a house rule where conscripts or green troops couldn't be given targeting orders. The rest could though.

I also strongly disagree about irregular troops. The way I see it, one of their strengths is that they don't have a strict hierarchical structure and don't have to follow a rigid chain of command. Well of course they do to some extent but I see them as being able to act on their own initiative more and therefore they should be more flexible. Perhaps less well coordinated too and I see how both can be hard to reconcile.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Here's the thing about these rules, they can be used ala cart, keep what you like and discard what you don't.  As for the irregulars,  What you are telling me is that an irregular force made up of farmers, shop keepers, and high school drop outs with little to no tactical training can be more effective than a fully trained Western style force of the same size.. sorry I don't believe that.  Throw that rule out if you disagree... no hard feelings.

As for direct fire.. I think of fire in two ways... area fire which is really recon by fire or suppressive in nature should be directed by a leader in support of a maneuver or other operation/action of some sort.  I also think that the commander's role is to assign sectors of fire not to micro-manage how every unit under his command fulfills his responsibility within their assigned sectors, thus the restriction to direct fire.

Those are my thoughts anyway, and you are free to disagree,  I really do appreciate the feedback @Sgt.Squarehead and @Zveroboy1... you have given me food for thought.

Bil

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 minute ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

What you are telling me is that an irregular force made up of farmers, shop keepers, and high school drop outs with little to no tactical training can be more effective than a fully trained Western style force of the same size.. sorry I don't believe that.

Absolutely not, but when it comes to manoeuvre in a complex environment that would intimately familiar to them, IMHO they should not be placed at a disadvantage.

If I didn't value your content so much I wouldn't comment. 

[Zveroboy1]

Well to be fair, if they're shop keepers they should be represented by conscripts really. And conscripts won't be able to hit the broadside of a barn and will just panic and flee. So they won't be more effective than a fully trained Western style force.

[domfluff]

The issue with commanding irregulars in CM is that you (still) have a god-like view of the battlefield - the C2 sharing helps, but it doesn't go far enough to be an accurate sim of what you can actually do.

In a practical sense, it just shouldn't be possible to precisely co-ordinate movement with disparate elements across a city, or indeed, out of line of sight.

So... restricting uncons to a single movement path is crude, but I think it's a workable solution. It's not representing knowledge of the land, so much as limiting co-ordination and control.


In terms of the simulationist value of irregulars in CM - the Civilian density obviously allows a degree of blending in with the local populace, and the flexibility is modelled in the wildly disparate weapon loadouts they can be given. i think, given the restrictions, that's fine. The other advantages are mostly around scenario and map choice - defending urban areas, etc.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Thank you @domfluff  it was late when I saw those last two posts so I didn’t respond. 

You hit the nail on the head with this:

Quote

In a practical sense, it just shouldn't be possible to precisely co-ordinate movement with disparate elements across a city, or indeed, out of line of sight.

So... restricting uncons to a single movement path is crude, but I think it's a workable solution. It's not representing knowledge of the land, so much as limiting co-ordination and control.

 

[Bil Hardenberger]

What I am thinking about is changing the irregular rule to include up to one waypoint with any movement order.  That should keep the C2 restriction and allow a little more tactical flexibility. 

Bil

[Sgt.Squarehead]

@domfluff's argument makes good sense to me too, although it must be remembered that (reasonably) coordinated attacks are the hallmark of some of the better organised Uncon groups and also that to date, with the possible exception of Syria, these groups remain, by & large, undefeated.

From a purely practical point of view I think this rule may create issues on urban maps, especially those with properly intricate compounds, streets & alleyways, such as @LongLeftFlank's Ramadi.....I used that map as the basis of my own mini-maps and in testing I found it necessary to place up to a dozen waypoints per unit, per-turn, when they were manoeuvring through these areas, just to prevent the TacAI from doing dumb things like taking a short cut across the roof or running down the main street (on the AI side I slightly tweaked the map to facilitate their deployment and ran oh so many iterations of testing to see where they actually went)! 

[Bil Hardenberger]

10 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

@domfluff's argument makes good sense to me too, although it must be remembered that (reasonably) coordinated attacks are the hallmark of some of the better organised Uncon groups and also that to date, with the possible exception of Syria, these groups remain, by & large, undefeated.

From a purely practical point of view I think this rule may create issues on urban maps, especially those with properly intricate compounds, streets & alleyways, such as @LongLeftFlank's Ramadi.....I used that map as the basis of my own mini-maps and in testing I found it necessary to place up to a dozen waypoints per unit, per-turn, when they were manoeuvring through these areas, just to prevent the TacAI from doing dumb things like taking a short cut across the roof or running down the main street (on the AI side I slightly tweaked the map to facilitate their deployment and ran oh so many iterations of testing to see where they actually went)! 

I have updated the rules to allow one waypoint, two legs of movement.. I have also made this standard for regular out of C2 units and that should allow more unit controlled behavior like moving into hull down, entering a building with a pause on the outside first, etc. without giving too much control..

I also am making the Irregular movement rule optional.  I understand your concerns, but really IMO I think this will force players to move them slower and use shorter movement paths... that could be a good thing I think as it would illustrate poorer flexibility and coordination and more closely replicate the command and control problems these units (all out of C2 units and Irregular forces) must face than what is possible in the game right now.

I will update the initial post in a bit with the latest iteration reflecting this change.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I appreciate you giving the point some consideration. 

I was trying to come up with a definition for a 'Building Group' (compound, large house, cluster of interconnected houses etc.), within which all movement could be treated as one (thus allowing one to adhere to the single waypoint rule, but giving the Uncon player the option of free movement within that compound on arrival or prior to exit). 

This would prevent the problem of overly coordinated uncons and also minimise the difficulties of urban maps.....But how to set that definition such that it is not open to unconscious abuse? 

 

[Bil Hardenberger]

This initial post has been updated with the latest iteration (v2d).  Changes in this version:

• Moved the Intelligence Rule (no hit text) to the Advanced/Optional page
• Changed the movement rule in the following way:
  • Squads, teams, and vehicles NOT IN C2 to their immediate superior can ONLY plot movement paths with one waypoint (two legs)
  • OPTIONAL - CMSF 2 Irregular Forces Movement – these units can ONLY plot movement paths with ONE waypoint (two legs) regardless of their C2 status
    • NOTE:  This rule is intended to simulate the command and control difficulties with ill-trained irregular forces

I always meant to add (and forgot again with this version), that HQ Units (HQ units only, not XO Teams, Command Squads, etc.) can always plot an unlimited number of movement legs (waypoints).  That is why they are not included in the rule language shown above, but it isn't clear.  They always have freedom of maneuver within their area of responsibility with no limits, unless the National Characteristics Rules are being used.

 

12 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I appreciate you giving the point some consideration. 

I was trying to come up with a definition for a 'Building Group' (compound, large house, cluster of interconnected houses etc.), within which all movement could be treated as one (thus allowing one to adhere to the single waypoint rule, but giving the Uncon player the option of free movement within that compound on arrival or prior to exit). 

This would prevent the problem of overly coordinated uncons and also minimise the difficulties of urban maps.....But how to set that definition such that it is not open to unconscious abuse? 

I really do appreciate the input, I think this is a pretty strong set of rules now. Let me ask you this.. re: the bolded part of your quote text above: how many waypoints do you think an irregular unit can fulfill within each 60 second turn within the structures you list?  I am okay with something like what you suggest, but it shouldn't be a string of movement commands that go over more than one turn.  The reason is that these types of units (including out f C2 regulars in this) will be getting what we call Hip Pocket orders, something like, "assault the next room", "move to that treeline" and these orders would be to points within LOS.. I am not limiting to LOS of course, but the limited waypoints should force that... long movement legs can be dangerous as you know.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 hour ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

Let me ask you this.. re: the bolded part of your quote text above: how many waypoints do you think an irregular unit can fulfill within each 60 second turn within the structures you list? 

That's a tricky one.....Perhaps rather than attempting to define the above, might it be more effective to restrict the free movement rule to the 'Move' order only? 

If the Red player needs to 'go tactical' within a building cluster (however one defines it), your normal two waypoint rules should apply.

1 hour ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

I think this is a pretty strong set of rules now.

I don't disagree in general, but negotiating something like this:

Is kind of waypoint heavy! 

PS - On my maps all adjacent modular buildings with identical skins and window types will be found to interconnect in some fashion.....They are meant to be (and using the rule suggested above, could perhaps be treated as) one building.

Edited May 26, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Bil Hardenberger]

11 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I don't disagree in general, but negotiating something like this:

Is kind of waypoint heavy! 

PS - On my maps all adjacent modular buildings with identical skins and window types will be found to interconnect in some fashion.....They are meant to be (and using the rule suggested above, could perhaps be treated as) one building.

Well, even that you will take one step at a time.. and will not want to rush it.  To be honest I don't know what anybody would put themselves through playing on a map like that.  I really do hate urban combat and avoid it whenever possible.    

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Playing as the Uncons it's much more fun and it's the one scenario in which they have a decent chance of giving Blue a good pasting.....Hence my fears about hobbling them on home ground. 

The current lack of Combatant or Fighter Breach Teams is possibly the major shortcoming of the CM:SF2 TOEs, IMHO.....Using the streets is suicide, as demonstrated everywhere from Stalingrad to Raqqah. 

 

[Bil Hardenberger]

One final edit.. initial post has been updated... the PDF has also been updated.  I just got off the phone with a friend of mine and we talked through the rules, doing that showed me where I needed to make some edits here and there.. those are included in this version.  Also:

• Added HQ Units to the exception to the movement rule
• Changed the order of Succession to include XO teams (etc.) as long as they contain an officer in the event of a Commander casualty.

I am hoping this is the last version for a while.  Unless someone else comes up with a good argument...   

Bil

Edited May 26, 2019 by Bil Hardenberger

[A Canadian Cat]

Cool. I still have concerns about the limit of two movement orders but it's based on gut feel rather than experience. So I would be willing to give it a shot.

My concern is similar to the debate about command delays. A team leader should always be able to get thier men out of trouble or maneuver the final approach to deal with tactical situations. Trying to put restrictions on the number of movement orders could prevent a team from doing something as simple as "go out the back door, through the gate and get across the alley to safety". In my opinion team leaders should be able to accomplish that at all times. I know one move order would not allow that. I worry that two might not. Let's try and see. As you correctly point out how much can actually get done on one minute anyway?

[Aurelius]

To complicate matters a little. I don't know whether the issue of fire control for Soviet and Soviet-like armies was mentioned here or in the other thread. It concerns the statement that company commanders decide in creation of fire systems, along with the platoon commander. That statement is not entirely true.

To elaborate further. Creation of system of fire is a task for the squad leader. He is the one that says to the rifleman this is your main direction of fire, this is your supportive. He creates it in such a way that at least two riflemen are covering the same direction. He says to the machineguner this is your arc of fire. To the designated marksman he says this is your sector of fire (either a rectangle or sqaure). He assigns to the marksman an area of observation, usually to augment his own observation capacity. Furthermore, he also must know the basics of engineering, mostly minelaying.  Squad leaders do this in realization of platoon leaders plan, who in turn is realizing company commanders plan and so on. Platoon leaders can make changes, of course, but in most cases it is not needed, the squad leader is usually far longer in the army and is experienced. Most commonly, platoon leaders will directly influence the placement of and fire arcs of support weapons that were given to them (think of AGS's and heavy machineguns and AT assets), and that is natural, they were given to him to augment his fighting capacities.

As far as soldiers are concerned, most orders to fire will come from the squad leader. Platoon leaders can override the squad leaders, but it is not common. Again, this is in realization of common plan, a system of fire, whether it is in defensive actions, offensive actions or ambushes. This is not to say that squad leaders have complete autonomy, of course there are situations where you wait for a command to issue orders for fire, but there are situations where it is almost weapons free at any time. Those who have served know the value of sudden platoon sized fires and understand that what is written is not set in stone.

As far as company commanders, they really have no concerns about individual fire systems. They are to busy coordinating three rifle platoons and a fourth support platoon, and along company nco,  worry daily about unit sustainment.

As far as unit movement and C2 is concerned, I have no real issues with what was said. Still, might be too rigid, but staying in C2 is far easier in modern titles.

I realize this may be nitpicking on my part, but it was bugging me. This is all written from my experiences in Serbian army. It is a successor to the Yugoslav Peoples Army, influenced by wartime experiences in 90-ies and current developments in cooperation with NATO forces and Russian Army. Most of my handbooks had a red star on it. On the field, we were taught that the best way to assault a dug in position is (after a lenghtly fire preparations and move and fire manouvers) to storm it after an URA shout. Then it is standard procedure, split into threes (security, grenadier and rifleman to shoot those that continue fighting after the grenades go off) and cleanse it. I don't know if that makes me Red OpFor commander, or if it does whether the Soviet-like ones will accept me as their own.  

[IICptMillerII]

RE: Restriction of direct fires
I actually think this is one of the single best elements of these rules, and I would actually love to see something like this added to the Iron difficulty mode. There are tons of reasons why having fire like this be directed by a command element is more realistic. For one, there is basic psychology. Men will tend not to fire (even if they are shot at first) unless their leader tells them to shoot. This is slightly less true in the modern era as lots of training is devoted to instilling muscle memory responses, but it is still a factor. Much more so in WWII. Then in the modern era you have more concerns over what constitutes a safe target. Teams and squads aren't just going to go around blasting any building they think looks suspicious. Stuff like that requires the go ahead from a leader at the very least. Overall I think these types of C2 restrictions makes the game much more realistic in this regard.

RE: Irregulars
This one is tough and complicated, but I tend to agree with Bil. 

58 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Using the streets is suicide, as demonstrated everywhere from Stalingrad to Raqqah.

This is very true, but it is worth mentioning that this is by and large the main way irregular forces move around cities. They tend to form large groups and then move down streets towards the sound of fighting. This happened constantly in Mogadishu, and helicopter gunships took advantage of this. Crowds of fighters would mass and start making their way towards fighting, only to be strafed and rocketed by gunships. However, the irregulars did not adjust their tactics. They continued to form large crowds and move down the same streets and continually get blown apart. Similar things happened at night, where a small group (2-3) fighters would try to infiltrate a perimeter, only to be gunned down. Then, just a few minutes later, another small group would attempt the same thing, across the same path, with the same end result. Repeat that all night. 

These behaviors have been repeatedly observed in other urban environments with irregulars operating as well. For example, the drive to Baghdad in 2003 saw Bradley gunners killing tens and hundreds of Fedayeen fighters who kept assaulting in groups down the same roads directly at the IFVs, and then after the invasion in the city fighting that sprung up similar things were observed. Groups of enemy fighters moving through streets towards strongpointed positions and getting cut down in the open, only to have another group follow shortly thereafter and suffer the same fate. This can even be directly viewed by watching some now infamous footage of gun cams on places like YouTube. An Apache or F-16 strafes/drops a bomb on a large group of people clustered in a street. Out of context, it looks rather horrifying and barbaric. In context however, these are combatants forming up and getting ready to walk down the street towards fighting raging a few blocks down the road.

Of course there is plenty of nuance to urban warfare, especially when irregulars are involved, but I think what Bil is trying to capture is that while irregular forces can move faster (less weight carried, personal knowledge of terrain) when it comes to actual warfighting coordination, there essentially isn't any. The only thing they have to go by is, "move towards the sound of fighting, and when you get close, start shooting in the same direction your buddies are shooting in." It's also important to remember that in high stress, terrifying situations like these, basic human psychology causes people to group and bunch up together. This is one of the fundamental things that modern training has to overcome in soldiers. Irregulars by and large do not get any type of modern training or conditioning to combat this, so they default to bunching up together. You actually see the same type of behavior in city gangs. Men from the opposing gangs have a general idea of where they want to confront the others, and then everyone groups up and makes their way to the confrontation.

A final note, irregular forces tend to take atrociously high casualties on the tactical level for reasons detailed above and more. Aside from a lack of training and advanced weapons/sensors, the main contributor to their high casualties is their tactical inflexibility on the battlefield. Again, this has nothing to do with their operational flexibility, purely the behaviors used once a fight has started. 

All of this is to illustrate my thinking as to what I think Bil is trying to achieve with the rules regarding irregulars. 

P.S this isn't a direct response at you @Sgt.Squarehead just my general thoughts using something you said as an example.

[A Canadian Cat]

Edit to say this is in response to the concerns raises by @Aurelius

 

I am sure no one has any allusions the orders to the soldier would come from anyone other than the squad leader. These rules are about coordination between squads. 

3c covers squad leader directed fire. And I thought there was a rule about allowing the tac AI to choose its own targets for spotted units. That too would be the squad leader controlling things on thier own.

 

 

Edited May 26, 2019 by IanL
Clarification

[Aurelius]

@IanL Am aware of those rules and commend you both for codifying them. Been playing under similar rules for some time. 

The post was merely an allusion to how the system of fire is created and sustained under the "Russian way of war" and that company commanders don't really bother themselves with it. That and being thrown into the same place with Italians. That rustled my jimmies. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

19 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

this isn't a direct response at you @Sgt.Squarehead just my general thoughts using something you said as an example.

No worries fella.....You site some excellent counter examples in the body of your post and the whole point of a forum is to have a discussion, after all. 

However I'd suggest that the tactics displayed by the core insurgents themselves (as opposed to the armed mobs they attract) may have become somewhat more sophisticated since those events.

At the end of the day, as Bil says, the rules are optional and open to some interpretation.....They remain an excellent starting point for a more sophisticated game of CM regardless. 

 

[Bil Hardenberger]

31 minutes ago, IanL said:

3c covers squad leader directed fire. And I thought there was a rule about allowing the tac AI to choose its own targets for spotted units. That too would be the squad leader controlling things on thier own.

Ian, Rule 2 covers direct targeting:

        2.       TARGETING - No direct targeting allowed, units must find their own targets

[Bil Hardenberger]

@Aurelius, @IICptMillerII, @Sgt.Squarehead, and @IanL, really appreciating the discussion.  I ran out of likes for the day so I will have to catch you tomorrow... someone remind me.   

59 minutes ago, Aurelius said:

The post was merely an allusion to how the system of fire is created and sustained under the "Russian way of war" and that company commanders don't really bother themselves with it. That and being thrown into the same place with Italians. That rustled my jimmies. 

heheh.. I do not believe I am wrong with regards to the quality of Russian (or Soviet in WW2 and CMA) NCOs and lower leadership.  They operate at an echelon different from the Western style armies that do have high quality professional NCOs and use initiative as a rule rather than as an exception and where officers and warrant officers fill the traditional role of NCOs in western style armies. 

There actually might be a case for loosening up on the national restrictions for WW2 Soviets for high quality formations as they did build up a very high quality NCO corps.. this was pissed away after the war however.

I am not as comfortable with the modern Russian/Serbian/Ukrainian, etc. style of battlefield leadership... if they have gone to a more western philosophy than in my day then I am willing to loosen up those restrictions.  I would like to see some documentation on that fact though, because when I was an Intel analyst (80s and early 90s) it was not the case and that type of systemic change is difficult.

This is an outstanding discussion and I wanted to thank you personally Aurelius for jumping in and sharing your experiences with us.

Bil       

Edited May 26, 2019 by Bil Hardenberger

[Bil Hardenberger]

@Aurelius, I found this document which gives an excellent summary of the current (as of 2017) state of the Russian Army and NCOs.  I have bolded what I think are the important parts:

Quote

The Russians have struggled with enlisted professionalization since Soviet times, and have experimented with several different models. Russia is quite aware of the US/Western model of enlisted professionalization, but this model has been evaluated and rejected for use in Russia. Although the Russian military understands the institution in the US/West, they do not think it would be a good fit for the Russian military due to different military decision-making processes, histories, and social conventions. Russia does not want well-rounded enlisted leaders, they want narrowly-focused, technically competent, professional, enlisted soldiers. Due to this very different system, Russian contract servicemen are probably more accurately described as "enlisted professionals" than “noncommissioned officers.”

Bil

Edited May 26, 2019 by Bil Hardenberger