"Specific scenario discussions" Topic

I thought it may be interesting to discuss scenarios, the what and why. A recent one that has been played by a number of players is a road passing between two small for the want of a better word plateau about the size of a platoon deployment area. Sufficient wire defenses are provided to create two platoon defensive areas, however it is anticipated that effectively only one will be properly defended. certainly some military manuals do cover the use of alternative dummy positions. The attack is a re-enforced company battle group.
The objective being given quite limited time how best to approach the task. Clearly a formal assault on one position if its not the correct one could prove extremely costly but a reconnaissance could not be done with any degree of stealth due to the time limits imposed from higher command. Within reason the attacking commander may decide to use a couple of reconnaissance teams if he sees fit.

Now this scenario like many of mine are designed to explote the basic approaches to a specific task and to see how these approaches match or do not match real world tactics and why if any disparity occurs, to understand if it is the basic simulation that is at fault or just a lack of experience of the player to command his forces in the best way.

What guides the design of specific scenarios? Simply saying whats fun is a cop out, all my scenarios have that in common but it is not a directly useful in specifying a specific scenario.

If you're under really severe time pressure, I'd use arty to plaster both positions as soon as I could direct fire onto them.

With modern vehicles (and thermal sights!), it's probably not hard to see which position is occupied.

There is never enough artillery and directing fire onto both will not do much damage to either position if they are prepared. A lot of vital artillery will be wasted and what do you do? Keep plastering the opposite one while you clear the first one. Thats very heavy on artillery if you assulted the wrong one. You do not have enough kit to assult both at once safely. That the point it's a challenge.

The defender should deploy 1 squad/section to the dummy area with orders to withdraw ASAP in the event of contact, defensive fire supplied from the alternate site and whatever support (mortars?) can be arranged……The opportunity to engage from a 'secondary' position could effectively ambush the enemy column.
Warpac doctrine would be to roll past with the recce element and roll over with armour and mechanized in the vanguard.

The question really was not how to attempt it but do you design/play scenarios like this to test your expertise. Can you before hand estimate your losses? These issues are key for instance in a campaign where you never have as much as you want.

We like a Random Scenario Generation system. That amazingly came out with GW's AT1/SM1 in the later '80s. We used it with minor modifications. Both Defender and Attacker draw numbered chits from specific Atk or Def set. Neither knows the others mission. Or if his basic force level went up or down based on the specific mission chit drawn. The chit is hidden until one side claims victory based on the conditions set by the specific mission And of course you select you OOB based on your mission.

I must admit a random system seems a cop out, a good scenario needs a map to be compliant with the scenario and perhaps a test of new or diffrent equipment or organisation of say a battle group. A senario using a bridge layers needs the scenario to have a carefully designed map to make it a prectical game as the "table world" is far smaller and offeres less flexability in allowing players to "select" as close an optinum terrain, given enemy potential intervention.

Not IMO, Just like in reality … you get a mission, you don't choose it. HQ does … And for gaming we set up the table before you roll off for who attacks and defends. There are deployment set up rules for each. How are you going to do your mission with the terrain you are operating in ? With the forces that may be limited or reinforced, etc. Just like in the RW.

In the RW you don't get to choose what higher HQ tells you your mission is. Sometimes you don't even get a map until you are there. E.g. in the 101 we'd deploy to Panama, the CZ, it was a 5 hour C130 ride from Ft. Campbell, KY. You land, you go thru prep for combat procedures, then you get your mission(s).

We'd do Chopper insertions, amph landings off the coast or along the rivers, of just walk into the jungle to your AO/OBJ. Didn't get to choose my AO. We always seems to end up in swamps along the Rio Chagris. Other units got the higher ground. Mission varied from recon, ambush, movement to contact, etc.

Same thing in the ROK, you get deployed to the DMZ as ordered by the Div Cdr. Your time there could vary. Or we'd be ordered South to our LDA. Attached to another Bde, etc.

Even with a map you really don't get a total appreciation until you see it for yourself, on the ground.

Same goes for any place we deployed/operated in. West Germany, the NTC/Mojave, everglades of FL, swamps of LA, etc.

a carefully designed map to make it a prectical game as the "table world" is far smaller and offeres less flexability in allowing players to "select" as close an optinum terrain, given enemy potential intervention.

Again that generally does not happen in the RW. The terrain you operate in and the mission is not of your choosing. Then how the Ldr/Cdr reacts to those variables is the measure of his tactical expertise, etc.

But you are just playing a game, so do what works for you & your gaming crew.

If you were a commander setting up an exercise, which is fundamentally the equivalent of a wargame you would do your best to pick terrainthat would optimize the learning potential of the excersize within the limits of your flexibility on choice of venue. Likewise I am sure looking at the UK urban area trainig grounds a lot of thought has been put into the design of the terrain to maximize its potential for training.

A good commander will always attempt to optimize his defense to make use of its potential in the real world. There may be odd cases where this is not optimum for one platoon but for larger forces he will attempt to do so.
Hitler failed utterly in that he did not allow this and many of his men paid the ultimate price for this. I have no interest in representing failed commanders, the is outside the range of interesting or useful learning games.

I look at a wargames as more of a test … not an exercise. So trying to be a little more "realist", is more interesting to me. It's for fun but we still like the competition. We still like to do an AAR at games end.

And yes, I know all about setting up an exercise, did both as a Plt Ldr and Co Cdr. Even ran exercises as the acting Bn and Bde Cdr, as a very senior CPT. As well as being chosen to be the Bn Cdr when the BC, XO and S3 were gone.

you would do your best to pick terrainthat would optimize the learning potential of the excersize within the limits of your flexibility on choice of venue.

Yes, if I were running an exercise I would do something like. But again a wargame IMO is a friendly competition. A test of one's tactical and technical expertise, etc.

the UK urban area trainig grounds a lot of thought has been put into the design of the terrain to maximize its potential for training.

Yes again I was trained in MOUT and set up training for MOUT for my unit.

A good commander will always attempt to optimize his defense to make use of its potential in the real world.

I've set up defenses in various terrain, as Plt Ldr/Co. Cdr. And in both Light and Mech units. Been there … done that … in 1 to 1 scale. E.g. real Infantrymen, APCs, MBTs, etc.

Hitler failed utterly in that he did not allow this and many of his men paid the ultimate price for this. I have no interest in representing failed commanders, the is outside the range of interesting or useful learning games.

Well I'm no Hitler. Albeit my DNA test shows I am a very distant relation to … In the real world I was trained and trained my troops generally pretty effectively, AFAIK. And if at the risk of sounding like a pompous . For the record … or just for the Hell of it … I have the orders to prove it …

So yes, if my DNA is correct, would not see me as much of a success only obtaining the rank of CPT … Sorry cousin Napy !

Double post !!!! DOH !!!!!

Let me get this straight: You don't have enough arty/CAS to stonk both positions, AND you don't have enough recon so see which position is occupied?

As a game, my reaction is to say, "have fun playing that solo."

Because all I can see from that as a 'learning experience' is 'how to lose most of your command for no gain'.

About the only way I can think of for this to work is to just drive on through, get the arty/air ready to pound both positions on a keyword (different keywords for each), and plan to take a lot of casualties.

Maybe a tank-style Thunder Run where you put a round of HE into each side as you drive past, like what Dave Drake wrote about once (leaving a firebase, first vehicle covered left, next vehicle covered right, and so on, and every time a building crossed in front of the gun you put a shot into that building).

Yeah got to agree with ya Lion … And yes, I read the story that Drake wrote about the Slammers that is based on that mission. When he was with the 11th ACR.

There are lots of accounts where an assault was put in and the artillery was either not there or was late, so this simplification is not irrational.

One of the issues in the scenario was to give sufficient time for a limited reconnaissance of one or both of the areas. The key is that there is lots of weaponry in the attack force, but as the top of the plateau not visible to forces below them should they chose not to shoot down, which is a reasonable tactic.

The key issue is what forces are you prepared to lose for the intelligence of which one is the real one. Or take the risk that you just pick one and hope you are right. This puts the force at some risk of being "out of position". It gives the commander either a probe against one or other to ascertain if the position is occupied or a full on assault of one feature or probably most risky to assault both with one side having insufficient force and the other too much.

@Lion in the Stars

If you're under really severe time pressure, I'd use arty to plaster both positions as soon as I could direct fire onto them.

With modern vehicles (and thermal sights!), it's probably not hard to see which position is occupied.

Let me get this straight: You don't have enough arty/CAS to stonk both positions, AND you don't have enough recon so see which position is occupied?

As a game, my reaction is to say, "have fun playing that solo."

…

I'm sorry, I normally don't get involved the this sort of crossfire, but I had to ask this time, because that seemed so bizarre.

If the enemy can't be hidden, and you have enough air-support and artillery to immediately wipe out all the enemy positions – and this could apply to any scenario, not just UshCha's specific one – how is it a game for the other player? (Let alone a fun game?) Why would he even bother turning it up to put his models on the table if you're just going to arbitarily no-sell the game?

It sounds akin to having your character be completely immune to fear and madness in a horror campaign or having a starship game which is an attack on your convoy and having your convoy immediately FTL jump off the table on bound one.

___________________________________________________________

Me, my scenarios are pretty much entirely built around an ongoing narrative and what happened in previous games (be they in space or on ground, or in a different sector of the galaxy) will likely have some impact on the current scenario.

For example, and this is pertient – though you will have to forgive the dirty, dirty scifi – a brief snagged from one of mine:

NAC Brief

It began as a normal enough day, and the large colony world of Nantstoke. You, the renowned General Motus, and your staff have just finished a shake-down tour of duty after the Fifth Division was refurbished with the latest NAC armoured vehicles and weaponry.

Suddenly, the base's power went completely out, and all hell broke loose; Nantstoke was clearly under attack. You and your current bat-men (though neither of them would call themselves that, of course), Captain Crimson and Commissar Killer Colin rushed outside to see what was going on. Smoke was rising already from the nearby city of Genworth, and the base's primary, secondary and tertiary power plants were off line. As you watched, a dark triangular shape overflew across the parade ground and made a spirited attempt to strafe the three of you with plasma-pulse fire. It took only a second to recognise an Aotrs Apparition; it has been a long time since you last clashed with the Undead, but some things you don't forget!

As the three of you rallied the Fifth Division into some kind of order, you could see Aotrs troops occupying the city. What they are after you have no idea, but for the moment, that will have to wait!

Securing the base temporarily, you knew your next task would have to restore power, so that the base defences and shields could be brought online, and fast. You don't hold out much hope that the fleet above can hold out long against the Aotrs, and when they are dealt with, the base will be first in line for orbital bombardment.

The Captain came up with a plan; the city has several power plants that would do the job, provided you can get someone into the facilities. Civilian communications are completely jammed, though fortunately, your long experience with the Aotrs means you have mitigated the worst of the effects on your troops.

As speed is essential, you ordered a full-scale assault on the city with as many of the Division as were combat ready. This leaves you rather low on reserves, but it you don't get the base shields back on line, they'll all be dead anyway.

The bulk of this attack is simply diversionary. You are personally going to lead a reinforced company to secure the power plants. A direct route would be suicidal, but you can reach the rear of the power plant facilities by making a quick flank-march and approaching through the Genworth park and past residential and industrial estates. You must be careful not to stray too far out of your planned corridor, as either side is where the fighting will be the thickest, and the area much more open.

The Aotrs will not have had time to prepared extensive defences, but even in the time they have had, there are plenty of nasty tricks up their sleeves. The only good news is that the bulk of their forces (and especially in this attack corridor) are relatively light, so you shouldn't run into too much heavy armour. Though Enrager Assault Droids are likely, at the very least, to be present, being ideal in the close confines of the city.

The NAC a time limit of twenty bounds or until packing up-time (it was a day-game), but essentially, it is not dissimilar to UshCha's example in boundary conditions (only with a much better context) – an attack that HAD to be made, without recon or fire-support.

(For the record, the NAC failed at the eleventh hour. One more bound and they would have won and broken through the Army Of The Red Spear forces – but that was one bound past packing-up time. They just didn't quite fight fast enough.

This scenario lead directly on to four more in this particular sequence.)

There are lots of accounts where an assault was put in and the artillery was either not there or was late,

Yes, that does happen … there is no doubt. There are many variables in military ops. E.g. we were landed in the wrong LZ in the middle of then night. So you take the current situation that you are in. Adapt, modify, etc. and go from there. We also know, e.g. at Normandy units landed in the wrong places, airstrikes missed their targets, the Rangers grappling line were soaked with sea water and harder to deploy, etc., etc.

IMO a war game is more enjoyable and "realistic" with variables thrown in. But that may just be me.

One of the issues in the scenario was to give sufficient time for a limited reconnaissance of one or both of the areas. The key is that there is lots of weaponry in the attack force, but as the top of the plateau not visible to forces below them should they chose not to shoot down, which is a reasonable tactic.

Recon is critical but frequently you don't have enough and it is perishable. Firepower can give a very good edge, but it has to be use properly, etc.

The key issue is what forces are you prepared to lose for the intelligence of which one is the real one. Or take the risk that you just pick one and hope you are right. This puts the force at some risk of being "out of position". It gives the commander either a probe against one or other to ascertain if the position is occupied or a full on assault of one feature or probably most risky to assault both with one side having insufficient force and the other too much.

And sometimes you may not have the time to get a good intel, or the intel is wrong and have to go with what you got. E.g. Movement to Contact used to be called Recon in Force … for a reason. And those kind of decisions is what being a capable Cdr is all about. And we studied and trained for that. At all levels. Basic and Advanced Courses, Combined Arms Schools, at the Ranger Camp, Squad, Platoon, Company FTXs, etc., etc. I even was fortunate to be chosen to cross-train at USMC and USAF schools. Some of comrades trained with the IDF, etc.

Also massive amounts of FA, CAS, etc. may still not always be enough. E.g. many of the later island battles in the PTO demonstrated that. Prep went on for days and still the battle was fought taking out enemy positions one by one, etc. Again, terrain & situation.

But frankly I'm a fan of prep fires. However, as a Cdr I also favored the dismounted night attack. Sometimes stealth and surprise is better than massive firepower. But again, not always. A capable commander has to be able to decide which may work. And again use what you have available … properly …

If the enemy can't be hidden, and you have enough air-support and artillery to immediately wipe out all the enemy positions – and this could apply to any scenario,

Yes and No, we do know historically where units were out gunned, out numbered, etc. And in many times, they get wiped out. But e.g. Rouke's Drift … certainly the Brits were out numbered. But proper use of firepower proved to be successful. Along with good leadership, soldiers' courage, fighting for their lives, etc. I.e. Sun Tzu's "Death Ground" … Also just like at Normandy, etc.

@Legion 4

Yes and No, we do know historically where units were out gunned, out numbered, etc. And in many times, they get wiped out. But e.g. Rouke's Drift … certainly the Brits were out numbered. But proper use of firepower proved to be successful. Along with good leadership, soldiers' courage, fighting for their lives, etc.

Yes… I'm not sure I'm following your point, though…?

If what you are saying is it's okay to have scenarios where one side is heavily disadvantaged, why can't that be applied to the attacker here? Why, if it is acceptable to make the defender fight a kobayashi maru scenario like Roake's Drift, is it unacceptable to make the attacker fight while under different handicaps (i.e. no visible enemy units and little artillery, as opposed to being hopelessly out-numbered) in this instance?

I can only point at the scenario I posted above, which also didn't let the NAC see where the Aotrs troops were until they found them on-board, nor have any artillery or airstrikes. UshCha's scenario is broadly similar, really, with the major difference being in philosphy (he sees a good scenario as a difficult puzzle to be solved using as close to real-world tactics as possible, whereas I see a good scenario as a story to be told).

If that's not what you're driving at, I'm not following your point at all, I'm afraid.

I think we are all getting off topic here, including me. The topic is about constructing scenarios with specific aims and objectives and addressing/emphasising an aspect of combat command decisions by tailoring the boundary conditions. The scenario was merely illustrative of how a scenario was constructed to offer particular challenges, that may not be present to the same extent in other scenarios and if this is how you work. It was definitely not about how to solve the scenario, that is for the players and there may not be a single optimum solution anyway.

If what you are saying is it's okay to have scenarios where one side is heavily disadvantaged, why can't that be applied to the attacker here? Why, if it is acceptable to make the defender fight a kobayashi maru scenario like Roake's Drift, is it unacceptable to make the attacker fight while under different handicaps (i.e. no visible enemy units and little artillery, as opposed to being hopelessly out-numbered) in this instance?

More like with a random system I had originally mentioned we use. Based on your mission that is randomly drawn, your basic force level [BFL], e.g. you decide before the game what both your basic forces level [BFLs] will be, i.e. 1000 pts or 4000 pts, etc. In other words the size of the game i.e. big, small, etc.

And your levels can go up or down based on the mission randomly drawn. Which both sides do secretly. But it does/should not significantly hamper your victory conditions. But now your opponent does not know that whether your BFL is up or down, or stays the same. So you may get a bigger advantage … or not. You may get to add 500 or more points to your force level. Or … lose 500 pts., etc. Do you see what I'm getting at ?

Not always will forces using that system we use will you have e.g. 1000 pts vs. 1000 pts. Plus you pick your forces, so e.g. you can spend up to 25% of your force level on off-board support/CAS, etc. And the rest on troops, tanks, APCs, etc.

So you have to "tailor" your units purchased based on … wait for it … terrain and situation. E.g. if your mission/victory conditions requires you to exit a part of your force off the enemy's side of the board. And you have to cross a river. You have to pick your unit mix to accomplish that. Yes ?

I think we are all getting off topic here, including me.

As always do what works for you & your gaming crew …

My point was that this was so lopsided (either direction) that it would not be fun to play.

If the attacker has the arty/air support he needs to do the mission, the defending player might as well not show up. And if the attacker doesn't have that arty/air support or time to recon, he's likely to lose his entire command, so might as well not play.

The NAC a time limit of twenty bounds or until packing up-time (it was a day-game), but essentially, it is not dissimilar to UshCha's example in boundary conditions (only with a much better context) – an attack that HAD to be made, without recon or fire-support.

Thunder Run. Shoot everything as you go past. Don't stop for anything until you are on the objective.

Yep … Thunder Run …

@Lion in the Stars

Except that the lack of artillery DOESN'T make the game unplayable, it means you don't have an easy solution. Not having an easy solution is what makes the game interesting.

UshCha even more than me, thrives on having really difficult games that tax your decision making.

(I liken it to the equivilent of playing a computer game on the highest difficulty settings on ironman.

Conversely, when I play computer games (and I only play single-player) I'm not interested in that – after all, that's what my TT games are for, so I tend to be playing on at most normal difficulty and I will save-scam like it's going out of fashion. Because I'm playing for entirely different reasons.

Neither is wrong, just different.)

[Sidetrack]

Thunder Run. Shoot everything as you go past. Don't stop for anything until you are on the objective.

If they'd tried something like that, the Aotrs would have utterly obliterated them.

For example, the aforemention Enragers WOULD tank (unless they had got VERY lucky, like natural 20 every time) that one shot (they have shields, the NAC don't) – assuming you even got to make the shot and they didn't just react-fire kill the tanks as soon as the tanks drove past them – and then the NAC would just have been shot in the rear.

One on one, they are more than a match for a single NAC vehicle. In one past incident an Enrager, in this sort of optimal environment, has been known to pick up a light tank and hit another light tank with said light tank. Taking one down requires a bit more of a deliberate effort.

(They are absolutely HOPELESS at any kind of range, though; the Enragers are great when playing a close-in game at 25/28mm, considerably less so when playing at 144th…)

Heck, if you were unlucky, a simple War Droid could have taken out one of the M1-Y1 Abrams tanks, if it could shoot the top or rear hull. (I did it once.) Hunter Drones (which can fly) would have a slightly better chance.

Plus of course, if the NAC infantry were in their APCs, doing that, they'd have been even easier meat (can't hold ground without infantry) and if they were not, then the charging armour would likely have been neatly cut off.

Trying to rush past a numerically inferior but (significantly) technologically superior enemy lying in ambush would not have been a recipe for success, put it that way. So the NAC had to defeat in detail, through a careful and deliberate advance. That was, like, the point of the scenario as set-up. And it's what they did, but just not quite fast enough.

I feel that was a good game, though, considering it came down to the wire. I don't think many people (I certainly don't and I know UshCha doesn't either) enjoy a curb-stomp (and, honestly, if they do, you're probably best off not playing with them), so you can't really have much of a better game than it being close.

[/sidetrack]

I don't think many people (I certainly don't and I know UshCha doesn't either) enjoy a curb-stomp (and, honestly, if they do, you're probably best off not playing with them), so you can't really have much of a better game than it being close

Never said we did, and we played many very close games. Using the system I mentioned. With one side being a little less in numbers/point values than the other. Plus in many cases you don't have to destroy the enemy entirely to accomplish you mission/victory conditions.

Trying to rush past a numerically inferior but (significantly) technologically superior enemy lying in ambush would not have been a recipe for success, put it that way.

I don't think anyone said that. And even in games it pays to use cover and concealment. Plus the proper use of firepower.

Principles of Firepower :

Timely
Accurate
In the "proper" volume …

I think based on your response you may not understand what I was trying to say ? OR more likely I didn't say it in the proper context, etc.

I was trained in all forms of Infantry and combined arms operations. E.g. a dismounted [or mounted] Infantry ambush is one of our most basic and important missions. We were trained on a dismounted patrol if the ambush is 20m of less away. You charge into the ambush guns blazing, yelling etc. to "shock" enemy, etc. If beyond 20m you attempt to break contact by throwing smoke grenades, roll back firing, etc., etc. At 20m or less you will take more losses trying to break contact than overrunning the ambush.

And it many times it is difficult to fire accurately when you are taking direct fire at short or close range. Especially with some Infantry AT weapons. E.g. RPG, LAW, Sagger, TOW, etc.

E.g. Sagger Watch – As soon as an AFV, or even a truck, sees the firing signature of a weapon system, etc. All the vehicles in the unit fires in the general direct of the incoming direct fire. And maneuver your vehicle["serpentine"] erratically to make you a harder target to hit. And move behind cover if possible but continue to move and fire toward the enemy. Overrunning his position if possible.

But again, do what works for you and your fellow gamers … not me …

The point is this thread is it is trying to understand if others write scenarios with a particular theme or emphasis certain aspects of combat generally, tailoring the boundary conditions forces and terrain to optimism the learning experience round the theme. Or do you randomly generate a simple scenario and go with just a points system.

@Legion 4

The [sidetrack] in the previous post was mostly in reponse to Lion in the Star's comment that implied the NAC should have done a Thunder Run[1] in that presented scenario and why, in that case, it would have gone horribly wrong. (Which he couldn't have known the details of course, but I'm afraid once you get me started blithering…)

(@UshCha: This is what we call a patent Bleakbane inadvertent thread de-rail; have pity for the poor souls on the Giant in the Playground boards, they get Bleakbane'd all the time… I'd say sorry, but you know me far too well…!)

[1]From my limited understanding of what a "thunder run" is from the post where Lion in the Stars first mentioned it.

Trying to rush past a numerically inferior but (significantly) technologically superior enemy lying in ambush would not have been a recipe for success, put it that way. So the NAC had to defeat in detail, through a careful and deliberate advance. That was, like, the point of the scenario as set-up. And it's what they did, but just not quite fast enough.

That was not stated in the initial brief, nor in your post describing the action.

With near-peer standards, even to insurgents v US military, Speed and Violence would have been enough to carry the day.

There are three foundations of successful combat engagements: Speed, Surprise, and Violence of Action.

You need two of the three to win, so any ambush situation (where you don't have surprise) means you need to throw down on Speed and Violence.

A situation that requires direct hits on the bad guys to stop them also takes violence off the table (in that you cannot do enough damage to them).

Which leaves you with one of the three sides of the triangle, and that means you essentially cannot win. So speed needs to turn into 'run like hell away'.

The point is this thread is it is trying to understand if others write scenarios with a particular theme or emphasis certain aspects of combat generally,

Generally – NO, but some may find my comments interesting, valid, etc., if only generally. I thought we could exchange ideas, concepts, paradigms, etc. Based on war game scenarios, etc., …

Or do you randomly generate a simple scenario and go with just a points system.

[nothing really "simple" about it, but effective and has a modicum of "realism" … ]

1) we decide to play a game …

2) Set up terrain. And we have a random generation system for that too. We some times use …

3)we decide which force(s) each side will use. E.g. nationality, race, army, etc., …

4) we decide how big a game we want to play. E.g. Big -4000-6000pts, small – 1000-2000, medium – 3000 … + or – …

5) roll off to see who gets to choose – Atk or Def …

6) randomly choose chit from cup secretly. One set for Atk, one for Def …

7) read scenario which outlines mission, Vic conditions, if force level goes up, down, stays the same. Again your opponent knows none of this. Other than Army/race, etc., and basic game size agreed upon before game.

8) choose your OOB/force structure based on basic force level and any changes dictated by scenario.

9) Defender sets up as outlined in basic rules and/or scenario specific instructions.

10) Attacker set-ups. Again based on basic rules or scenario specific instructions.

11) roll off for initiative.

12) play game until one side obtains his victory condition.

The [sidetrack] in the previous post was mostly in reponse to Lion

Understand … but my comments still may be valid if only in general(?).

US military, Speed and Violence would have been enough to carry the day.

Yes, that is why I gave Lion a …

Ok so I think you have answered the question. In none of my games would we have time to define the terrain and the forces, the defender set up his positions defining wire positions, artillery targets and amounts and generally define the defense. Certainty we would not dream of a points system, they are incapable of working effectively in complex terrain.

So the answer is no you do not spend the time and effort on the scenarios. I guess the second question I should have asked but did not because, I guess because to me its second nature to me. Do you play the same period or close to it almost every week one to one. The latter is key to complex games, and do your opponents also do that?

Certainty we would not dream of a points system, they are incapable of working effectively in complex terrain.

Disagree … again based on gaming experience since the '60s. And the real world 1 to 1 scale wargames in the US ARMY. Points system outlines your basic force levels and in some cases Victory Conditions.

Do you play the same period or close to it almost every week one to one. The latter is key to complex games, and do your opponents also do that?

Varies based on time available to play, etc. Sometimes we play the game for a period of days, off and on until one side reaches it's victory conditions(v/cs).

Or if we run out of time … we just go with body count, OBJs secured, etc. If neither side obtains any of his v/cs.

Not sure that I made the point correctly. I and my opponents have been playing Maneouver Group for the last 10 or so years every week, probably 40 times a year, with basically the same few armies just with ever expanding supports like Bridge Layers engineering vehicles etc. So is that how you play?

Well if that works for you … it does not matter how we play. I have about 10-11 different "Armies" per se. My OPFOR has about 7 or 8. And I have the same 7 or 8 + 3 or so more …

We started playin this system @ '90. And updated and modified rules as we saw fit. And/or when new rules come out. Then we see if we want to add or modify those rules. And add, modify, etc., our existing rules. If we see them as an improvement.

We add new units and weapons, etc., as they become available and/or we think we need them.

Do you play the same period or close to it almost every week one to one. The latter is key to complex games, and do your opponents also do that?

No, we tend to be pretty ADD in terms of what game(s) we play, and even then we usually don't play more than 1 game a week anymore.

If we get into a game we really like, we will play it quite a bit for a while, then something else will catch someone's eye and we will try that. Might stay with the new game, might go back to what we'd been playing.

To the original question.

My understanding of the situation is that a road passes through a saddle in a ridge. There appears to be platoon defensive positions on both sides of the road. Intel indicates that only one platoon is expected to be defending. Time has the priority and the mission is quickly clear the road for follow on use. Nothing is said about time or weather so I'm assuming daylight and clear weather. Night would be preferred. I would not expect the enemy to occupy one position or the other, but to occupy each position with a squad. With the third squad held in reserve.

I'm going to focus a company attack on whichever position has the most covered and concealed avenues of approach. Ideally I'm trying to use terrain to mask our movement from at least one of the positions. Artillery targets will be planned on both positions. (and artillery sheaf will normally cover a platoon position so only one per position.) To the extent terrain permits, I'll orient a MG squad (2 MMGs) to fire down the road effectively preventing reinforcment of one position from the other. The Company will occupy support by fire positions oriented primarily on the selected battle position. Scout sniper teams (in modern USMC equipped with thermals) will scout out the support by fire positions, guide in the remainder of the company and observe enemy positions. If lucrative targets present themselve they can engage either with precision rifle fire or mortars and/or artillery. I'm assuming my company UAV is out of batteries or whatever and that I cannot get any ISR support from HHQ.

Our first platoon (nominally senior/best platoon commander) reinforced by combat engineer squad will be the designated assault force. Once the force is in position, the company will initiate fires to suppress and destroy the enemy position. Rockets and Machine guns will be primary method of engagement with riflemen and snipers engaging visible targets. The Company Fire Support Team will initiate preplanned artillery series. One commander is convinced the enemy is suppressed, the company mortars will fire smoke to obscure closure of the breach force (engineer squad reinforced) who breaches the wire explosively. First platoon remains in assault position until approach is clear then seizes a foothold in the enemy position and develops it from there. Second Platoon follows and supports first platoon.

Not expending artillery rounds is not that much a concern for most forces. If there are specific restrictions on the number of rounds used, there are specific methods of making sure rounds are most effective. At the least, I'd expect to hit BOTH fighting positions with a battery one (6 rounds of 155), the series to fire that should take about 3 minutes from begining to end. If either position continues to fight – Repeat AB 2015. Assaulting prepared positions without fires support should only be done in the most dire situations (or when proper reconnaissance and planning allows infiltration of enemy positions capitalizing on superior night fighting capabilities.) Saving rounds and expending men is a false economy.

Apache 6, would a single 155 shell, if it hit in the center of a squad to platoon size defensive position, suppress (if not outright kill) said position?

Because it that is the case, I'd call in Excalibur (or GPS-guided 120mm Mortars!) fire, one shell on each position.

+1 Apache 6. Sounds like a good plan …

Lion in the Stars: A 155mm shell in the middle of a squad position will CERTAINLY suppress them for a few minutes. It would very likely kill or wound some. If they are dug in with overhead cover that would be reduced though.

The first rounds of a barrage are considered to be the most deadly, as they are more likely to catch people in the open.

An Excaliber round may be overkill. With modern mapping, GPSs and laser range finders, It would not be unusual for an artillery unit with trained FOs to get the first round within 10 meters, with 'just' plain HE rounds.

Yes, we were taught when digging in you needed at least 18 inches of solid over head cover. To give you any chance of surviving Russian FA fires.

Yes, we were taught when digging you needed at least 18 inches of solid over head cover. To give you any chance of surviving Russian FA fires.