Scenario: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies

[Suhiir]

I know from personal experience up till the 80's the USMC was still working under the "achieve this objective" model, how it was achieved was up to the subordinate commanders.

During Gulf-I (I was with 2nd MarDiv) each regimental task force (more-or-less the equivalent of a US Army Brigade) was given a corridor of responsibility and the final objective, Kuwait City. Each subordinate battalion had it's own section of that corridor. Units were expected to coordinate with those on their flanks to insure they stayed in a more-or-less in a cohesive line of advance.

While it may not sound like a terribly large improvement from "Go to A, now go to B, now..." being assigned a sector of responsibility and an axis of advance is pretty significant.

[Airborne Rifles]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

I know from personal experience up till the 80's the USMC was still working under the "achieve this objective" model, how it was achieved was up to the subordinate commanders.

During Gulf-I (I was with 2nd MarDiv) each regimental task force (more-or-less the equivalent of a US Army Brigade) was given a corridor of responsibility and the final objective, Kuwait City. Each subordinate battalion had it's own section of that corridor. Units were expected to coordinate with those on their flanks to insure they stayed in a more-or-less in a cohesive line of advance.

While it may not sound like a terribly large improvement from "Go to A, now go to B, now..." being assigned a sector of responsibility and an axis of advance is pretty significant.

This is still how it is, in the Army as well. Operation orders can get voluminous, but in the end you get a mission and a commander's intent from higher, and you have great freedom in how you execute within those wide boundaries.

[DRG]

Oh-oh..........I really screwed that up, it was supposed to be a reply with quote not an edit !!...... Mea culpa

[shahadi]

In the game against third world armies, the force values of Western armies are significantly greater, putting a tremendous advantage to the third world or insurgent forces.

To achieve a DV requires near complete destruction of the opponent with minimal damage to the Western side. A loss of an aircraft, FOO, or an USMC SMAW team can negatively affect the ratio of damage points so much so that a DV is not possible with such a singular loss.

I am finding that in a timed objectives scenario, the placement of VFs impacts the game battle damage points more than in a non-timed objectives battle.

In general, when a Western army is faced against a determined insurgent force, the scenario must pay particular attention to the value and placement of VFs.

I am struggling to get a balance in my scenario given an extremely high force value USMC side (western forces are expensive) against a low force value Taliban side with mixed results. Therefore, I am forced to study Pros and his suggestions for the use of victory flags (although his tutorial proceeded timed objectives).

=====

[Imp]

Regarding timed objectives which I use them regulary to force the pace in any battle I sm supposed to advance including meetings, this could be the opposite of what you desire.
Western side vs third world my one adjustment would probably be to time, make the battle longer to allow better recon & use of support.
You only have to look on youtube to see how loses are kept low.
Infantry finds the target then requests backup & if needs be mops up. Fortified house, plane or artillery lends an assist.
Sniper, fire ATGM or finger of god at the building or if hes in a field break out the grenade launcher or better still wait for the Bradley to turn up.
Seems a bit like overkill but it certainly saves lives & to be fair thats probably more US side than Western side the rest are more likely to get their hands dirty.
Youtube videos as a reference may not paint a realistic picture though if things are getting up close & personel taking the video might take lower priority.

[Suhiir]

Time is really the big thing. While the action might be hot and heavy for a few minutes or hours it's rarely longer ... the battle of Ia Drang (from the "We Were Soldiers" movie) is the exception. The "West" has a lot of support assets and makes liberal use of them. For the most part "Third World" forces have what they carried to the battle and little else.

[shahadi]

The scenario is an USMC company airborne assault, the Alpha 1/6 "Apache" in the Helmand province of Afghanistan.

I've extended the turns to give the Marine player time to assemble for the assault after debarkation, with the understanding in an assault timed objective scenario, points are awarded after a third of the turns.

Apparently, points are awarded each turn on the number (not value) of VFs held by the Taliban. Correct?

So, the tweak is to assign an appropriate number of hexes with VF's that are central to the mission and none more. Further, to do so in a way the Marine player has a reasonable period of time to accomplish the mission, else the Marine player will fail to achieve a victory. Makes sense?

Finally, making the scenario within "acceptable losses" suffered by the Marine player as introduced by IronDuke99.

I was erroneously looking at casualties to personnel (loss of men), but the game is concerned with casualties as loss of force value or damage points. Is this right?

=====

[Imp]

Originally Posted by shahadi

The scenario is an USMC company airborne assault, the Alpha 1/6 "Apache" in the Helmand province of Afghanistan.

I've extended the turns to give the Marine player time to assemble for the assault after debarkation, with the understanding in an assault timed objective scenario, points are awarded after a third of the turns.

Apparently, points are awarded each turn on the number (not value) of VFs held by the Taliban. Correct?

So, the tweak is to assign an appropriate number of hexes with VF's that are central to the mission and none more. Further, to do so in a way the Marine player has a reasonable period of time to accomplish the mission, else the Marine player will fail to achieve a victory. Makes sense?

Finally, making the scenario within "acceptable losses" suffered by the Marine player as introduced by IronDuke99.

I was erroneously looking at casualties to personnel (loss of men), but the game is concerned with casualties as loss of force value or damage points. Is this right?
=====

Not in front of my computer but I would read your game guide again.
VF hexes, any controled hexes would award points to the controling side. Therefore the only way to make it benefit the attacker is to ensure they control the majority by the time they start getting awarded points for them.

Game looks at force value not men so outcome is based on value of units damaged or destroyed plus any points awarded for VH at game end.
So if you have a high cost unit its loss can easily swing the outcome.
Losing 10 squads at 20 points each is the same as losing one vehicle thats worth 200 points.
Hence expensive units like FOOs should not be put in danger.

Fairly sure though I do it just because it feels right that losing a unit is far worse than it being damaged so if an infantry unit is badly damaged if possible try to stop using it in combat.
As I say unsure but if you have a 10 man squad & its wiped out you have lost the total unit cost.
If it is just reduced to 5 men but survives the loss is less than 50% of the unit cost.

[DRG]

Logistics......... I had intended to (mis)quote Nathan Bedford Forrest's "git thar fustest with the mostest." to illustrate the point but that sent me down the google rabbit hole of information and I'll derail this thread a bit

He was one of the few officers in either army to enlist as a private and be promoted to general officer and corps commander during the war but as far as " rises to the top " goes it's hard to beat this....

Enlisted as Private July 1861. (White's Company "E", Tennessee Mounted Rifles)
Commissioned as Lieutenant Colonel, October 1861 (3rd Tennessee Cavalry)

3 months from Private to Lieutenant Colonel is quite a feat

But on the thread topic I think forcing a quick outcome only benifits the "low tech" side so allowing more time to bring all the support required to cut down casualties would help balance the high cost of first world units ....and best caution the player to not rush things

Don

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by DRG

Logistics......... I had intended to (mis)quote Nathan Bedford Forrest's "git thar fustest with the mostest." to illustrate the point but that sent me down the google rabbit hole of information and I'll derail this thread a bit

But on the thread topic I think forcing a quick outcome only benifits the "low tech" side so allowing more time to bring all the support required to cut down casualties would help balance the high cost of first world units ....and best caution the player to not rush things

Don

I'd tend to agree.
If you look at most of the battles in Vietnam, post-invasion Iraq, and Afghanistan the low-tech side tends to hit as hard as possible as fast as possible then run for cover before the high-tech assets can be brought to bear.
No one ever said they were stupid, as a whole ... there's always the 10%!