The Javelin problem

[Scipio]

Here's something I noticed when playing the scenario 'Al Hawl' (PBEM) as the Reds. Without going to much into details, my opponent has started to wipe out my vehicels and other forces with his Javelins. That's of course his good right and the logic thing to do, since he has Javelins available.

But the 'Javelin problem' I see is a simple calculation. As example: in the Al Hawl scenario, the Reds have a total of 23 units, including all vehicels, HQs etc.

The Blue side has a full Stryker company, thats ~a dozen Strykers, each of them carries 3 Javelins = 36 Javelins. That's more than enough firepower to destroy all my vehicels (the Javelin rarely misses, as we know), and still leaves 1 - 2 Javelins for each of my infantry units - and one Javelin is usually enough to wipe out a squad.

It seems to me that this is an unbalancing factor that is oftenly ignored by the scenario designer - beside the fact that they can't do much to solve the problem at all, except limiting the general supply level of a unit, what would reduce the available Javelins to 1 per Stryker, leaving each Stryker company still with ~ one dozen Javelins

From another point of view - a single Javelin rocket is worth 80.000 US-$, maybe $75.000 at the sales! The cost factor is surely something that applies to all rare and expensive equipment. I wonder what will happen with the career of a company leader if his Stryker company would fire off Javelins for nearly $3 Million on a typical combat day . Of course I could be completly wrong with this, especially in regard of the US-Army.

Anyway...has somebody a simple solution for this problem? My two ideas are

1) a function to directly edit the available ammo for a unit in the editor. Disadvantage is of course that it wouldn't change older scenarios, and it's just one more thing on the endless to-do list that it will/will not make it into the game.

2) A simple by choice rule like the old quick battle purchase rules for CMBO/CMBB. Disadvantage is of course that it would restrict the Blue forces only.

Please excuse if ths topic has been hashed and rehashed already.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Scipio:

Anyway...has somebody a simple solution for this problem? My two ideas are

1) a function to directly edit the available ammo for a unit in the editor. Disadvantage is of course that it wouldn't change older scenarios, and it's just one more thing on the endless to-do list that it will/will not make it into the game.

2) A simple by choice rule like the old quick battle purchase rules for CMBO/CMBB. Disadvantage is of course that it would restrict the Blue forces only.

In the Falklands war, Britain flew strategic nuclear "Vulcan" bombers half way around the world in the longest bombing raid in history just to crater a runway. The cost must have been enormous but it was deemed necessary for the success of the campaign. Britain also had something like six naval ships sunk during the war. Imagine the cost of that in today's prices. And all this just to liberate a few hundred islanders.

The point I'm making is that when you are at war with another nation state, as in the postulated invasion of Syria, cost does not really play a big part in the decision process. The only thing you would tend to care about is capability. In other words, a commander might be told to hold back a few Javelins as a reserve in case there is an enemy counterattack but I doubt there would be any consideration of the dollar cost of a missile.

Having said that, it would be nice if BFC told us how the ammo level of a unit is calculated for "condition" status purposes. Does a Javelin count as a substantial part of the unit's ammo? If so, we could award Victory Points to the opposition for reducing the condition status of a unit below a certain threshold due to expending too many high value munitions such as Javelins.

Come on BFC, how exactly does the condition calculation work?

[Pandur]

since the latest patch you could try to give the unit "adequate" ammo in editor in order for it to have full loadout for board weapons but none or reduced ammo and weapons for the squads. i cant think of an other way to get no javelins or less of them.

in a QB you cant do anything about it, the quality setting has nothing to do with it as far is i saw.

[JasonC]

If you blow up half the Strykers before they get out, down to 18. If you blow away half the squads that do dismount before they get off more than one apiece, down to 12.

Everyone starts with an ammo load sufficient to wipe out the other side. The fight is over who lives long enough to use them all effectively. Whatever the weapon system.

[Sivodsi]

The obvious flaw in JasonC's argument is that it doesn't take into account the effectiveness of the firepower. As Scipo's opponent, my javelin armed troops have been able to launch at his AVs while out of their LOS. While Scipo's T72s do have the capability to take out all of my Strykers, it does him no good if my javelin equipped infantry can take them out before they can take even take aim at my forces.

[SgtMuhammed]

Then he needs to play better and not let you get into firing positions.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by SgtMuhammed:

Then he needs to play better and not let you get into firing positions.

That's easy to say, unfortunatly it would be necessary that I have both knowledge about the position and direction of the enemy forces right from the beginning of the battle and get into LOS/LOF before the infantry with the Javelins can dismount. In this special scenario for example there's a town between the Red and Blue forces. Not without reason by the scenario designer, as I assume.

[Combatintman]

A number of points already made and possibly worth reinforcing.

First the weapon system and cost - yes it is expensive and yes there are murmurings occasionally at the number of Javelin rounds fired but who's going to be the guy who says 'these guys died because we told them firing Javelin was costing too much'. Taking Afghanistan as an example when I was there on Op HERRICK 5 - pretty much every TIC ended with the line - Firing Point engaged with Javelin and mortars/105mm - TIC closed. Now how many tanks do the Taleban have again?

Until recently in Iraq it was the same deal - the LANCS battlegroup were using Javelin to ambush IED teams at night - you can find it on You Tube.

In terms of tactics - the points are well made - change your tactics to overcome the strength of the US Force - it might mean replying the battle a few times but there will be a way of getting a better result.

As to the numbers thing - wait for the British Module - we can't afford to give Javelin to every Rifle Section so there should be less of them about if Battlefront get the TO&E right.

[Flanker15]

A good tactic I found for dealing with a Javelin barrage is to stick all you tanks behind things so they can't be targeted. Then when they come looking F%#king Bang!

[Scipio]

It seems to me that the natur of my topic is missunderstood, maybe I have failed to express my thoughts. I did not not mean that the Blue forces should not be allowed to use Javelins at all. I just think that there are to much of them available. What's the sense if one side has 1.5 times so much Javelins available than the other side has units at all?

To the guys who recomment to change my tactic: you are very welcome share your best red forces tactics and experiences here.

[SgtMuhammed]

They have them in the game because they would have them in reality. You can always come to an agreement with your opponent not to use them. Or ask the scenario designer to leave them out.

As to tactics, use whatever you have to deny your opponent firing opportunities. Keep your vehicles in cover till they can identify a target and then blast the crap out of it. Advance with your infantry to draw his fire then use supporting fires to clobber identified positions. Javelin equipped infantry is powerful but vulnerable and if you take out a squad or team then you eliminate 3 missiles.

Of course he has the advantage, the US Army spent a lot of time and money to insure that this was the case. If you are without cover then you will have to rely on speed and firepower and hope for the best. If you are in a really hopeless situation then you will just lose.

[Moon]

Scipio, I think the base problem you're experiencing is one of an unbalanced scenario design. (I have to admit that I don't recall the scenario you're mentioning, so I can only say this is a generic way).

Scenario designers have plenty of tools to balance situations such as this by using victory point Parameters, Unit Objectives and the like. We designed CMSF with the firm goal that even unbalanced situations (in terms of firepower) can be balanced out (in terms of scoring). It surely takes a lot of play testing, and the question of what is fun at what level of un-balance is yet another one, also.

Assuming that the scenario designer did his job well, it can be perfectly ok to start off with Blue having twice the firepower (or more), as long as this is taken into account in other things (e.g. Red may win if it has 10% of his guys over, while Blue needs to end the battle virtually unscratched to win... etc)

Martin

[JasonC]

Before a Javelin team dismounts, they are vulnerable to ATGM teams and to T-72s. After they dismount, you need to hide your T-72s from them - they are its specific enemy.

The counters to dismounted Javelin teams are lots of snipers spread all over creation, and artillery, especially mortars and MRLs. The former are for single separated teams and the latter for bunches of them in "missile fronts".

That is all standard combined arms. Whether your scenario designer knows anything about Red combined arms and gave you the tools, is another matter.

[birdstrike]

I agree, It's all in the hands of the scenario designer. It's no problem, for example, to have 2 Strykers and issue only 3 instead of the 6 Javs they would usually carry. The problem for the designer is to remember to change these little things when using lot of forces in a battle.

That being said, it would be nice if there were no Javelines issued at all when the supply level is set to very low or severe. Right now they always carry a minimum of 1(+CLU).

[M1A1TC]

Each Abrams tank round costs around $2000

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by M1A1TC:

Each Abrams tank round costs around $2000

[bad Pun]

That's a lot of bang for your buck.

[/bad pun]

[Lethaface]

ssshht... just payed two months rent aka 1000 Euros

I see that's just about 1 Abrams shell, given the current EUR/DOLLAR exchange rate. Perhaps you could trade a EUR 1000,- for 1 cheap HE Shell delivered to my Landlord? Preferably you deliver it directly from the smoothbore

So, do we have a deal?

[Sgt Joch]

If i remember "Al Hawl" correctly, the 1st time I played it as Blue, I lost half my strykers in the first two turns before I could even close the buildings, so it is not necessarily unbalanced. It is also supposed to be the 1st day of the war, so the US side would have a full load of javelins, altough the map is probably too small and open for the amount and type of troops.

JasonC's comments on tactics is correct. You should keep your AFVs out of LOS and use your infantry to scout and hunt for the jav teams.

[ May 26, 2008, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Sgt.Joch ]

[Scipio]

OK, I'm maybe just a poor player and a bad loser .

Anyway, I would like to second the request by Cpl Steiner and also add that it would be very helpfull to know how the casualties calculation works!

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Having said that, it would be nice if BFC told us how the ammo level of a unit is calculated for "condition" status purposes. Does a Javelin count as a substantial part of the unit's ammo? If so, we could award Victory Points to the opposition for reducing the condition status of a unit below a certain threshold due to expending too many high value munitions such as Javelins.

[Pandur]

JasonC's comments on tactics is correct. You should keep your AFVs out of LOS and use your infantry to scout and hunt for the jav teams.

i am quiet sure he ment it would be better to deny all possible areas for javelin teams(spotted or not, also depends on battle lenght) by either smal area mortar fire or larg area rocket artillery fire. however 90% of the maps are too smal and dont have to assets available(becouse syria lost that to aircraft and the like )

i guess what he didnt suggested it that you come out of your live saveing cover to start to hunt javelin teams somewhere on the map. becouse that leaves your with nothing(not even a wall)between the US long range fire power and your troops. means your troops will die on that task.

so if you keep your vehicles away, and come out with inf in the offensive(as syrians ), its utterly unprotected and helpless faced with all the US vehicles. only after you denied as many areas for javelins as possible you can try bring out your vehicles to fend of the many strykers or brads and the enemy infatry too.

so i see it in theory. however, if the oponent chooses to split off his AT team is anothe matter. maybe you deny area he didt tried to occupie in the first place.

whatever he does, its rather hard to aim at the attacker on the fly as the syrians. wait time is long, spotting rounds are plenty. befor the shells come down the other side did relocated most probably if the map allows for it.

on the other hand it creates the allways present danger of an artillery strike(like damocles sword) as at first the spotting rounds are really off, so you dont know wher it will go. its another thing to worry about as the US, where and when it comes down. on the syrian side its much easier to get where a strike is plotted and when it will come(verry soon )

damn, i need TCPip WEGO, humans are more fun than the AI.

[Sgt Joch]

Pandur, to expand on my answer, my usual approach to dealing with enemy assets is to slowly do a lot of recon:

-first, divide up the map in notional areas you want to search;

-then move an infantry team (half squad/scout)to an area under cover from where it can look at the area while still being out of LOS of the other areas;

-wait a 1-2 turns to see if they take fire or spot a unit;

-move another unit to another concealed spot where it can watch the area you want to search from another angle.

-Keep repeating that until you have a sizable force overwatching the area you are searching.

-if they spot anything, either a unit or a question mark, you can then use your infantry, or if available, artillery or even maneuver a AFV to suppress/kill it.

-then move on to the next area;

Even on open maps, you can usually find some way to maneuver out of LOS. In a pinch, use smoke from your vehicles.

I dont know if this is possible in "Al Hawl" since I believe it is short, but slow and deliberate is the key to survival in CMSF.

[cool breeze]

except sometimes. I just rushed the Blue AI in Al Hawl and got a total victory with I guess 15 casualties.

Edit to add. it was a very careless rush. I gave on or two waypoint quick commands at start up to everyone and that almost it.

[Secondbrooks]

Is it true that each (styker, mechaniced) rifle platoon would have 4 Javeling guidance-units and 12 Javelin missiles in reality? Because i bit doupt it.

One thing would be supplylevel. Should even mild lack of ammo (anything good and below) reduce amount of Javelin missiles and guidance units? I think it should. There must be regulations of how many Javelins one should keep in reserve for actual need of them (=enemy tanks present). If we take standart US versus Syria/US fight we can expect that unit would end up having less than 10% of Javelin-missiles it had in start of the battle (rest have been used)... Think that this same unit would use it's missiles in each battle in Thunder-campaign it goes thru -> tens/hundreds of missiles used by single company at end of campaign which lasts just short amount of time! Can US keep on supplying it's troops with all those missiles?

Yes. I think amount of missiles should be dropped drastically (to 1 or even 0) if unit can't have full supply level. Think about it ... Better yet make it optional to have missiles!

[ May 30, 2008, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

[SgtMuhammed]

They come in easy to carry party packs that you can pick up at the local truck stop.

[Battlefront.com]

Good discussion.

There are definite issues with how we handle the employment of expensive weaponry. The main problem is that each battle is in a vacuum.

Within a single battle, should a Stryker Platoon come fully stocked with CLUs and Javelins as per TO&E? Yes. Should they be able to use everything they have if there are targets for them? Yes. Should there be negative consequences for correctly using them? No.

Within the context of a theater wide battle, these same issues come out quite differently. The problem is... the results would be dependent on circumstances that in general we can't simulate. For example, the total number of Javs available theater wide and how many are used by the thousands of other Jav gunners compared to the supply flow. No way for us to deal with that, but yes indeed that would be a factor in a real war. If all your Jav gunners are trigger happy, there's going to be a supply problem for sure.

The "politics" of use are also something we can't simulate. The way it works in real life is a commander is accountable for the use of its firepower, no matter what that is. If a Squad Leader allows his soldiers to pound out 5000 rounds of 5.56 ammo during a lull in the battle "just for fun" he most likely would get his ass chewed out badly. If this came after a series of infractions, he'd likely be replaced or even demoted. So in real life there is accountability (in theory) for wasteful or inapplicable use of military equipment. The problem is this is a judgement call by the chain of command and guess what? The player is the chain of command, so anything he does is automatically "authorized".

If in real life someone higher up than the player (a full Colonel, for example) has a problem with something done at the player's level (Major or Lt.Colonel) it would be handled differently. In the extreme it would be a mound of paperwork followed by some sort of formal hearing. The commander (the player) would make a case for the use and a decision would be made, based on the circumstances, if the use was within reason. The benefit of the doubt is given to the commander on the ground by default. This sort of thing is just a wee bit outside of CM's scope

The other problems can be simulated with CM:SF's Supply Level. This can simulate a unit going into battle after having expended a good amount of its ammo without a full resupply. In Campaigns the Campaign Designer can set resupply levels so that there is an actual direct cause/effect result from using too many.

Likewise, the Designer can set the victory conditions in ways that discourage, or even punish, inappropriate use of force. Removing all artillery simulates no authorization (or availability) to use that sort of weapon from higher up, but using the Preserve function allows the Designer to raise the stakes if the player ignores the mission briefing. Randomly mark buildings Preserve, assign a huge amount of points to them, and tell the player he is to not blow up the infrastructure. Every time he uses a JDAM, Javelin, or Abrams tank round he should be thinking about the possibility of losing the battle even if militarily he prevails against the enemy.

So there you go... it's definitely an issue, but it's not really something that is fixable in the sense that these sorts of variables must be context sensitive. The person that decides that is the Scenario/Campaign Designer, not us. That's the way it should be.

Steve