Tactics Tutorials for CMSF

[Perforator]

I'm dying to download the videos but need to wait until the 25th for my connection speed to be reset - so frustrating. :mad:

[jnt62006]

I will get the rest of my videos up today. Unfortunately, I was fighting this one on my desktop rather than my laptop and forgot to transfer the save file before I left the house for two weeks. I will take a stab at finishing when I get back home after the holidays.

I have only started clearing Abel with an hour left, though I think it will go rather quickly. As soon as I have a fairly secure route past the town I will start pushing forces toward OBJs Adam and Eve (see my plan on the blog), probably the scouts, snipers and one infantry platoon.

The two hour time constraint is a little unrealistic for destroying an entire infantry battalion and taking two company sized urban objectives with only one company that takes 45 minutes just to get assembled.

So I am not even worried about the clock. My Army Officer Evaluation Report will not reflect how many CMSF battles I win or lose this year so I really dont care about a scenario designers artificial constraint. I'll see how far I can get in the time allowed and move on to the next one.

Side Note: I use Camstudio7 for my videos. You can download it with a thirty day trial. Its very easy and intuitive to operate though be prepared for some slow rendering times unless you have a super fast computer.

[snake_eye]

Dave, jnt62006,

Thanks for the videos and the naming of the softwares. I am already using FRAPS since a few years. The unregistered version. Good for snapshots, but difficult to use with the video limitation.

I think, that I have to decide to put on the Xmas list either FRAPS or Camstudio 7.

To get back to Cain & Abel. I do think that the only way to get toward Cain would be to get to the bridgehead within 01:15, (time left), at the most.

I was actually, at 01:03, at the curve of the road, ready to start an assault with the scimitar and 2 dismounted squads toward the bridgehead. At 0:56 they were at the objective. At 0:51 the scimitar was destroyed by the survivors of a squad, hidden in the right house at the bridge exit. At 0:40 the left and right houses near the bridgehead were cleared as well as the mosque. I then started to move for assaulting the high building on the left with engineers. That way, they were able to enter from the river side, after blowing the wall.

So if you are at 0:56 on the objective, following my actual time frame, you have 1 hour left to move forward.

From that time, you must absolutely avoid to get engaged by the enemy swarming in the Abel houses. A rear element could keep them busy a bit latter, without really engaging them to avoid unnecessary casualties. That way, the bridgehead, will remain open.

So, as I said, your troops and the tanks should keep rolling forward as long as the road stay straight, then turn right, toward Cain. Don’t take care of the buildings near the bend of the road. Artillery should have disposed of them.

At the bend of the road, I think that you will get tanks (that will depend of one of the A.I multiple plans), ATGM and all sorts of crazy squad ready to blast your forces, to please the designer, with complete disregard to their own casualties.

So, before, you get to that bend of the road, you must have decided of a tactic, to avoid high casualties. Since you realize that you won’t be able to apply the same one, that has been done at Abel objective, you known at that moment, that the time frame will not afford you with a sufficient remaining time.

Since, I don’t want to get into the scenario editor now. I shall try (for fun) the Thunder Run tactic and see how it goes. However, I am not too certain of the result. There is a great chance that it turns out badly, I shall then and only then get into the editor and put one more hour to the scenario. Without looking at anything else !With 3 hours at the clock, I think that I will be able to play once more that scenario and if I am cautious to get to Cain. To be able, to secure Cain is less certain, I am basing that on the knowledge of the way previous scenarios have been made.

[DaveDash]

I just finished it with 5 KIA 11 WIA (Syrian Surrender) and about 10 minutes left on the clock. Ran into a few 'surprises' along the way.

The vast majority of my casualties were from ABEL. Seems there is no good way of taking that urban area without levelling it (The back part at least). The AI will retreat until he has about 3 squads packed into one room, and woe to your section that discovers them.

A couple of things that have happened in 1.30 made this mission a lot harder than I remember, namely, HE being much more ineffective than what it was (in fact, I'm finding that to be a big factor in the NATO campaigns as well), and enemy units surviving buildings collapsing. They've been discussed to death in another thread though.

[snake_eye]

Good news dave, what did you promise the enemy to obtain that surrender ? Ah, Ah !

BTW, I have noticed in your video that while playing RT, you used the pause quite often. Jnt62006 does it also, as I do. it is certain that the time you use while looking around what next order and or move you should do, helps a lot in keeping the time frame down. Since, I have seen your videos, I am very much inclined in doing it more often. I might steal 5 or 10 minutes that way ! whow !

Speaking about the patch 1.31, I have noticed, the bad way, that when you are firing at a building with a track to help the assaulting troopers, you better switch its fire or stop it, as soon as the troopers get to the building. they got right into the path of the cannon shells and they went down seriously wounded. I got engineers mowed down that way at the taller building.

Before the support fire, If I am not wrong was stopped before we got a blue on blue. yet, that was not the case with mortars, artillery and air assets.

Another very good thing, I have noticed in one of my last scenario is the ability of A.I FO to deliver mortars and or artillery on the battlefield. During the testing, I was astonished the first time it happened, so good the shelling was.

[snake_eye]

Here after are 5 snapshots of the assault on Abel bridgehead and subsequent move near it.

The time frame left is shown.

The enemy troops icons that may have been visible have been removed not to spoil anything.

[DaveDash]

Good news dave, what did you promise the enemy to obtain that surrender ? Ah, Ah !

I told them if they died fighting, I'd bury them wrapped in Pork.

BTW, I have noticed in your video that while playing RT, you used the pause quite often. Jnt62006 does it also, as I do. it is certain that the time you use while looking around what next order and or move you should do, helps a lot in keeping the time frame down. Since, I have seen your videos, I am very much inclined in doing it more often. I might steal 5 or 10 minutes that way ! whow !

Yeah you probably will gain quite a bit more time. I pause when issuing orders basically.

Speaking about the patch 1.31, I have noticed, the bad way, that when you are firing at a building with a track to help the assaulting troopers, you better switch its fire or stop it, as soon as the troopers get to the building. they got right into the path of the cannon shells and they went down seriously wounded. I got engineers mowed down that way at the taller building.

Before the support fire, If I am not wrong was stopped before we got a blue on blue. yet, that was not the case with mortars, artillery and air assets.

Another very good thing, I have noticed in one of my last scenario is the ability of A.I FO to deliver mortars and or artillery on the battlefield. During the testing, I was astonished the first time it happened, so good the shelling was.

This has always been the case. I'm surprised you mowed down your own guys though, seems HE in 1.31 is only effective against BLUEFOR.

Yes AI artillery is much improved too.

Nice screenshots by the way. I have a feeling the best way to tackle that walled compound part of the town may be to set up supporting base of fires on the hill to the east, overlooking the buildings. Either that or screw the ROE and just shell it to pieces. Hmm actually, bringing 155 down in a line on the walls of the compound would be a good way to get in there.

[Perforator]

Thanks for posting the screenshots snake eye, it's always helpful to see how you guys employ tactics.

[snake_eye]

QUOTE=DaveDash;1219531]

This has always been the case. I'm surprised you mowed down your own guys though, seems HE in 1.31 is only effective against BLUEFOR.

Yes AI artillery is much improved too.

Nice screenshots by the way. I have a feeling the best way to tackle that walled compound part of the town may be to set up supporting base of fires on the hill to the east, overlooking the buildings. Either that or screw the ROE and just shell it to pieces. Hmm actually, bringing 155 down in a line on the walls of the compound would be a good way to get in there.

[DaveDash]

I don't like that tall building because of the balconies (death traps). Also I reckon if you blow the entire section of wall down next to the road with Arty, the Syrians will have no where to hide.

[snake_eye]

Thunder Run done, it ended the way I thought it will. I have done some videos and snapshots. Just a spoiler before posting them this evening or tomorrow at the latest. I was able to start the assault within 30 minutes and speed by the bridgehead and all the way down the road. As far as the end of the left side road compound.

Let you wonder meanwhile about the result. Ah, Ah !

[jnt62006]

Just for discussion:

The Thunder Run approach is basically an armed reconnaissance. You advance along a route, with certain march objectives and engage and report any enemy contacts. You don't plan on holding any terrain (at least not permanently) and you dont deviate from your route despite opportunities to engage and pursue enemy forces. I am not sure where the term Thunder Run originated from but it is a tactic that goes back to horse cavalry days and was used extensively in the American Civil War, less so in the Napoleonic.

I realize that you guys were influenced by the time contraints to bypass alot of enemy positions and minor objectives, but in doing so you failed to meet your overall objective which was to clear the route for follow on forces.

Really I suppose it comes down to what personal objectives you want from the game. If you are looking for a "Major Victory" in the game, which, understandably is why most anyone plays a game, than you have to take those sorts of deviations from "reality." I look for more of a simulation, not in the details of weapon characteristics or even AI behavior, but more of a "tactical decision game" where I get feedback from a solution to a tactical problem. Hence, my lack of concern over victory conditions and "win/lose" labels. I look at the mission statement and strive to achieve that with a tactically sound, force preserving plan.

Just laying out my approach to the game, so that there wont be a lot of confusion when I dont always come out with a "Total Victory" result.

[snake_eye]

Hi Jnt62006 ,

Having found that to overcome the enemy in Abel, the west yard, the hill houses and Cain was short of an impossible task due to the time allowed and then the points set parameters, I have come to the same resolution as yours. So, I define a tactic, play it and I am satisfied if it goes the way it has been planned. If I end with a total defeat defined by the set up parameters, I don’t care anymore.

About my Thunder Run :

I have decided to stage the units near the last bend of the road leading to Abel.

There, you will see on the video 2 Scimitars from the recce Plt (By the way one of them disappeared during the assault and I have not been able to find it again. No, I am not joking. No trace of it in the snap shots or the video. It is a complete mystery. I swear that there is no Tavern around the corner with pint ale available!).

The 7 Plt rejoigned as well as the Manoueuvre support C pioneers.

They moved on line ready to jump at the correct time.

The other half of the Recce Plt and Co C HQ units troops had been moved on the hill crest edge in overwatch position. The tracks and the remaining Scimitar stayed below the crest.

The Mortar fire controller want immediately to work. Air being called on the Hills house and the hill after Abel, near the right bend of its long stretch of road. The mortars were called on the bridgehead lightly at first and a short while after, the target area was extended from the bridgehead to the compound of houses along the road. It is at that time (the enemy being pinned by the mortars) that 7 Plt jumped from its departure line, move across the bridgehead and went to position itself along the compound houses walls. That way it provided suppressive fire for the following elements.

The tank troop rejoined and moved to an area at the end of the compound houses on the right of the road, where the river turns right into a gentle valley.

8 Plt moved in, bypassed 7 Plt and turned right into the valley and went uphill to have an overwatch position on top of the hill where they consolidated.

A group HQ FO rejoined them and called AS90 on to the hills houses and then on Cain to prepare an assault, since 52 minutes time remained.

The Manoueuvre support C A.A pioneers came along and stayed in the lower part of the valley while moving and turning left, to get near the road if necessary. 8 Plt keeping an overwatch with one Javelin team having rejoined.

The tank troop move from its preceding area along the Abel to Cain road, till they were in defilade, Cain being in view.

During all this time, I have not fired on the west yard. Tactically speaking they could not harm me and they would have been unable to comply with an eventual retreat without taking immediate casualties, from the overwatch troops.

Doing so, I lost a Scimitar at the bridgehead and had a Challenger immobilized. 7 Plt lost a Warrior and while securing the road another one.

……..In order not to spoil the ending, I am stopping this narration, which is what the video will show.

[DaveDash]

I generally don't play to the time limit in scenarios. I like to apply a 'realistic' approach (based on what I know) as I get more fulfilment from the game.

This is fine and dandy in stand alone scenarios (Heck I usually edit the time limit to 4 hours), but the campaigns change this. You have to win to get to the next missions, in some cases.

[jnt62006]

I am visiting family until after New Years. I dont have the Cain and Abel save game with me so I wont be able to finish that fight until later. However, I would like to work on a new project during my down time while on vacation.

Any suggestions or ideas? I am thinking I might do a defense as the other tutorials so far have all been offensive in nature.

[Paper Tiger]

I missed this thread and only just found it this morning. There's a LOT to read so until I have time to read them all later I'll confine my remarks to this:

When the 'Cain and Abel' mission was designed and playtested the maximum allowed scenario length was 2 hours. The code changes that allowed you to extended a mission time to 4 hours didn't come in until later in the development of the Brit module. Since it worked fine as a two hour mission, I didn't see the need to increase the time limit as the playtesters could win it in that time. (Besides, we were uncertain if missions over 2 hours in duration would be accepted for inclusion in the module so it seemed an unnecessary risk to take) However, if you guys feel that two hours is not enough for using real tactics then just edit it in the scenario editor. I won't mind

And regarding timing of missions in campaigns, I assume you're speaking about PT designed campaigns? You will frequently find that I design campaigns that have the core units fight two or more battles within very short time spans of each other - the BIG picture is broken down into 2-5 closely linked missions. I usually script things so that units in Mission A must accomplish their objectives in X amount of time so that they are available for the next action. Failure to achieve your objectives within the alloted time means that they will not be available, or will be delayed in arriving in mission B. Usually THAT is your penalty for failing Mission A.

A suggestion for another mission? GeorgeMc's 'Armor Attacks' or 'UK Armour Attacks'. George is the real deal if you're into serious Modern Era combined arms combat. I just get lucky sometimes when I'm designing

[gibsonm]

PT just one minor correction if I may on George's behalf:

"Armour Attacks" is US version

"Battlegroup Attacks" is UK version (more challenging IMHO in light of no TOW equipped Bradleys).

He and I are working on another Operation / Campaign along the lines of (text of rough ConOps in PM follows):

Regardless of country (US/UK/Germany I guess) picked:

Battle 1: The recce battle

Recce elm are told that between the start line (say the original setup zone) and the far town there are enemy recon elm and maybe a security position.

They do scouting (no house to house stuff).

Battle 2:

We assume that Battle 1 is over. Can rubble some buildings and even leave some wrecks from locations where the recce guys may have been (doesn't really matter as in Battle 1 Blue is the Recce guy, Battle 2 Blue is the COY Comd so we avoid the continuity problem but can include a bit of a brief from the recce guy).

Battle 2 might be the advance to contact (or in contact).

Battle 3: more damage. This time its the assault (now you can do the MOUT stuff).

Battle 4: Red counter attack

The idea being the same piece of ground used for different phases (but having cumulative effects) and the Blue player fills a number of roles.

Think it would work?

Personally i'm looking forward to doing it as I have the map building squared away but am hoping he will look over my shoulder for the Red AI as I haven't a clue how that's supposed to work.

Will post updates here as / when it happens.

[jnt62006]

Thanks for joining the thread PT.

My only concern with time constraints and mission completion is that the mission has to be something that can be realistically accomplished in the given time frame. There are a lot of tactical situations that can be handled in a rushed or haphazard way that will turn out successful 70% of the time. Its dangerous to assume that that sort of success rate is a good thing. It breeds complacency and over confidence in the Real World and usually leads to the other 30% of the time resulting in catastrophic failures. Time is certainly a constraint on the battlefield but usually due to some issue of synchronicity (focusing combat power). As a company commander I would rarely have to be concerned about whether 3rd Brigade was conducting their breach of the border defenses at the same time my brigade was (hypothetically). Unless I was the lead company with a definite attack time (and plenty of help from the division commander on down to make sure I made it), I am going to be sitting back in the order of movement just waiting for my turn. And that is going to be totally reliant on the situation, not a time hack. What I am trying to say here is simple. At the tactical level that CMSF represents, time is not that much of a factor. Scenario design and mission accomplishment should be more influenced by the mission, the enemy situation, and the friendly forces than an arbitrary time constraint. Put even simpler, as a commander I have a mission to seize a town. I have 2 hours to accomplish this according to my battalion commanders timeline. I lose a stryker in the opening advance to multiple ATGMs on the towns outskirts. I am going to pause, call for fire, find another route, whatever it takes. What I am not going to do is force more strykers into that fatal funnel because my Battalion commander is breathing down my neck every time he checks his watch. The majority of the commanders out there will be more than willing to let their precious timeline go out the window as the tactical situations dictates. If not, and he ends up with wasted lives because he was a timekeeper instead of a combat leader, than chances are he wont last long in command anyway.

Of course, there are a number of different factors that play in that. Scenario Designers are always challenged to create balanced scenarios whereas any commander in real life is only going to attack when he feels fairly strongly that he enjoys a three to one or greater force ratio in his favor. That way he is assured of a reasonable degree of success and able to keep his casualties down. Which is no big deal when playing the AI but no human player wants to play the side holding the short end of the stick. Player skill plays a big role. A novice can move forces around for an hour and never really get anywhere and a more experienced or knowledgeable player can be consolidating on the objective by then.

Cain and Abel is a good example. The mission statement reads that this is primarily a route clearance mission with the purpose of securing a route for follow on forces. In most militaries that means the enemy can no longer influence the route, either with direct or accurate indirect fires. In order to do that on the given scenario map the blue player would have to clear, practically with boots on the ground, every piece of key terrain on the map. Now, I understand most people just look at the map at the beginning of the game, identify the funky green areas, which are on every military map I have ever seen, ;-) and drive straight for them. Which you can probably do in two hours of game play. However, I dont even play with the VP locations illustrated and pay more attention to the mission brief. Actually, I would prefer the VP locations be hidden to both players (or at least the intended human player) and the mission brief contain everything the player needs to know to accomplish the mission. This of course, puts a burden on the designer to write a thorough and well thought out brief but I think it would do both parties good to get away from the "drive as fast and hard as you can for the green spot" and actually be forced to think through the scenario and conduct a good mission analysis (on the players part) to really grasp what he has to do to win.

[gibsonm]

Ah but the problem then is you are driving down the “simulation” fork in the road and not the wider, more popular, game / entertainment fork.

Personally I’m a fan of the “road less travelled” something I hope to persuade George to embrace.

[DaveDash]

Actually, I would prefer the VP locations be hidden to both players (or at least the intended human player) and the mission brief contain everything the player needs to know to accomplish the mission. This of course, puts a burden on the designer to write a thorough and well thought out brief but I think it would do both parties good to get away from the "drive as fast and hard as you can for the green spot" and actually be forced to think through the scenario and conduct a good mission analysis (on the players part) to really grasp what he has to do to win.

I like this idea, and I actually think it would help make those of us not in the know better tacticians.

Because instead of focusing on these big green squares on the map, we'd have to think more for ourselves about the key terrain and objectives. Also as mentioned, the big green squares give a metagaming like clue to where the enemy is going to be focusing at least some of his defences.

[gibsonm]

But often at Coy level your orders from a CO will be “clear / secure / ... OBJ 1” with a nice big circle on the trace with “OBJ” in the midst of it.

Certainly if you are tasked with “deny penetration” or “clear route AJAX to small arms range” or some other more flexible task then you can certainly come up with a plan that reflects your assessment of the KT and DT.

But in terms of “winning” the Designer has to come up with some arbitrary locations. So in the first example his “OBJ” no doubt matches yours, but in the second type you might in RL be able to clear a route without occupying the exact spots that the Designer though of so whilst you might achieve the mission you’d still lose in terms of not gaining the points the designer thought you’d gain.

In addition, unfortunately the AI is limited so it tends to defend to the last man, forcing you to attack a position whereas in RL you might be able to threaten the location (by threatening withdrawal routes, etc) which would cause a RL enemy to move off the OBJ without you having to attack it (certainly you’d secure it though).

So while I’m in favour of not displaying the “green zones” it may result in people not winning (at least by the Designers yardstick).

That’s the problem with applying a “DS solution” to tactical problems.

[snake_eye]

I am visiting family until after New Years. I dont have the Cain and Abel save game with me so I wont be able to finish that fight until later. However, I would like to work on a new project during my down time while on vacation.

Any suggestions or ideas? I am thinking I might do a defense as the other tutorials so far have all been offensive in nature.

Having in that Xmas period, tight time schedule preventing me to finalize the Thunder video, like I want it to be ,it will be longer to post it, than I initially thought.

I also have though, Jnt62006, these last days that you could use my Helluva Road opening for a tactical move consisting in securing and or clearing an area along the road.

Since you are thinking about a defence, it is still possible, but you will have to use the Red position against the blue. Yet, I don’t have any A.I done for the Blue.

You could use also the Counter Attack at El Derjine since it is a defence scenario and there is a lot of room to move tracks around

In any case if you feel interested by any one of my scenario Go ahead.

Just a last idea. Look at the Jsir Al Doreea scenario. It is a small defence one. Just modify the file in order to begin the move right away instead of the computer doing it till the troops arrive to the compound. If you need me, to modify a parameters or something else, let me known.

Have all a nice Xmas

[zwobot]

Scenario design and mission accomplishment should be more influenced by the mission, the enemy situation, and the friendly forces than an arbitrary time constraint. Put even simpler, as a commander I have a mission to seize a town. I have 2 hours to accomplish this according to my battalion commanders timeline. I lose a stryker in the opening advance to multiple ATGMs on the towns outskirts. I am going to pause, call for fire, find another route, whatever it takes. What I am not going to do is force more strykers into that fatal funnel because my Battalion commander is breathing down my neck every time he checks his watch.

At the end of the day most - if not all CMSF scenarios - are based on attrition. Because of the limited scope of the game and missing features like exit zones and event triggers in addition to time triggered AI plans all boils down to completely eliminate your enemy in CM scenarios whereas in reallife he maybe would withdraw or delay you (also see gibsonm's quote below). The time limits are a result of those limitations I think. Without any time limits most CMSF scenarios would be a walk in the park where you could push your enemy to the corner of the map and eventually annihilate him so to speak. In the real world though the battlefield around the scenario map would change and influence the scenario map. The game has to draw a line somewhere...

@jnt62006: in one part of your first tutorial you announced to talk about how to divide objectives especially built up areas into sectors. Are you still planning to do this?

And while we're at it: I'm curious about how control measures are actually developed and used in reallife, e. g. how do you decide where the borders for your companies of the batallion are and how wide, are they oriented along prominent terrain features and are platoons / companies / batallions allowed to criss-cross between their sectors on an attack to bypass enemy strongpoints... (again see gibsonm's quote below).

Do you employ control measures when playing CMSF?

In addition, unfortunately the AI is limited so it tends to defend to the last man, forcing you to attack a position whereas in RL you might be able to threaten the location (by threatening withdrawal routes, etc) which would cause a RL enemy to move off the OBJ without you having to attack it (certainly you’d secure it though).

Also as mentioned, the big green squares give a metagaming like clue to where the enemy is going to be focusing at least some of his defences.

I wonder if commanders in the real world get as little (or as much??) recon info as we get in CM scenarios. Normally you get some information of total enemy strength in the briefing but very rarely you are given exact recon information. So you know that you are up to a reserve infantry batallion with some old tanks in support but you have no clue about their exact whereabouts.

I was thinking about if I should spend a certain amount of time at the beginning of a scenario to probe for enemy positions and after that complete the planning process described in jnt62006's tutorials (choose avenue of approach, develop and assign tasks and so on; terrain analysis can still be done in advance).

[gibsonm]

And while we're at it: I'm curious about how control measures are actually developed and used in reallife, e. g. how do you decide where the borders for your companies of the batallion are and how wide, are they oriented along prominent terrain features and are platoons / companies / batallions allowed to criss-cross between their sectors on an attack to bypass enemy strongpoints...

Do you employ control measures when playing CMSF?

Well from my point of view:

Q1 In RL: Yes. I use control measures (bounds, feature numbers, report lines, phase lines, co-ord points, ...) all the time. Once you get above PL level its one of the few ways to keep track of everyone (and indeed as a Recce Tp ldr I used report lines at TP / PL level as my vehicles were spread well beyond visual distance).

As to how to choose them. Well natural features, road junctions, hills all are useful. Certainly if you are referring to boundaries then you need to give your subordinate enough room for the task as opposed to making him chase ground and give him too much room (or too many objectives) to be effective.

In Urban Ops often the blocks / significant buildings replace natural features, with roads that tend to lead towards the enemy becoming boundaries (since they are fire lanes, not a good idea to have to cross them often). So in an urban environment “clear to feature RED 6 within boundary” could well mean clear your assigned block to the prominent building (RED 6).

Q2 in CM:SF: Well the Scenario stuff I’ve done they are there but as they tend to be more “teaching activities” designed for H2H play between soldiers it was an obvious step.

I doubt they’d work too well with “normal” players as they’d cross boundaries with ease (since they control all units on a side and there’s no [or at least limited] friendly fire to worry about). They add colour to a civilian player but as they don’t abide by them they are of little utility.

[gibsonm]

I was thinking about if I should spend a certain amount of time at the beginning of a scenario to probe for enemy positions and after that complete the planning process described in jnt62006's tutorials (choose avenue of approach, develop and assign tasks and so on; terrain analysis can still be done in advance).

You need to do both concurrently. No point spending a heap of time working up mobility corridors and MCOO’s, etc. if you don’t know where the enemy is.

A mobility corridor is usually a corridor to an objective and similarly Key and Decisive Terrain (KT & DT) relate to objectives (either ones you want to take if attacking, or hold if defending).