|
Weather report:  Time is set to maximum so it doesn't run out on anybody. The battle will end when it ends, which I don't think will be four hours, but it takes a ticking clock out of the equation.
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
glynnenstein posted:The road that cuts from NW to SE has tons of open LOS the whole length of the map after it straightens out. Same for the stuff to the East of that road in the open fields. There is minimal terrain relief and even where there is, Blufor has some overwatch heights that might be able to reach fairly fast. There are ways for vehicles to move throughout the cuts in the woods on both the East and West side of the map, but they constrict to narrow chokepoints at swampy areas in a few spots. In particular, a quick glance shows an early crossing of the swamp near our deployment but after that we can move throughout the cuts through the woods in the Western side of the map. There is also a lot of terrain relief that way. I was just thinking the same about the ATGMs. I wouldn't be surprised to see the enemy go on the offensive since it sounds like their goal is to escape to the edge of the map. Concealed ATGMs would wreck any oh-so-goon-like charges up the highway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Fray posted:I was just thinking the same about the ATGMs. I wouldn't be surprised to see the enemy go on the offensive since it sounds like their goal is to escape to the edge of the map. Concealed ATGMs would wreck any oh-so-goon-like charges up the highway. It also looks like they start on the west edge of the map, rather than the SE (as the village objective might suggest), so...yeah, they'd have overwatch over the whole road.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Fray posted:I was just thinking the same about the ATGMs. I wouldn't be surprised to see the enemy go on the offensive since it sounds like their goal is to escape to the edge of the map. Concealed ATGMs would wreck any oh-so-goon-like charges up the highway. Yeah, my inclination is to use the long but covered sightlines in the Northeast to pin down any aggressive pushes up along the middle by deploying ATGM teams with a one company spread for scouting, recon denial, and force protection. Other companies work down the western side. Detached tanks push up the gaps in the woods the open area in the southwest while the infantry does force recon. Armor rolls up from the West and pins their force between the defensive positions in the Northeast and the flanking force. Risks: - how navigable is the western approach, is it too wide of an arc to wheel to be effective - how vulnerable will we be to bombardment fire especially in the defensive positions - how do we minimize/negate their recon advantage from drones - does this spread us too thin?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:It also looks like they start on the west edge of the map, rather than the SE (as the village objective might suggest), so...yeah, they'd have overwatch over the whole road. Oh, hm. That might change things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Hubis posted:Oh, hm. That might change things. Well, don't take my word as gospel--it's possible they have preset forces in the southeast and their main body is in the west, or vice versa, I'm just guessing based on the "Blue Friendly Direction" parameter. EDIT: Other things that might be of note--it's 6:30 in the morning at game start, and also it's drizzling. Visibility might be hampered a bit if you don't have thermal optics? Davin Valkri fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Oct 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Well, don't take my word as gospel--it's possible they have preset forces in the southeast and their main body is in the west, or vice versa, I'm just guessing based on the "Blue Friendly Direction" parameter. For clarity, that's referring to the main front-lines:  Your latest intelligence still has you facing NATO forces being pursued from the south-east.  Also, heads up, sign ups are officially full now and the open thread is thus officially off limits, if you were still reading it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
We should charge. Edit: We start in the NW, they start in the SE. The objective, narratively, is controlling the highway that intersects the middle of the map. The SW side is all trees and lessons learned last time probably means no one is going to gently caress around in those loving trees gently caress trees. Total victory is us punching them so hard we can take their spawn town. Gamerofthegame fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Oct 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Roll20 is up: https://app.roll20.net/join/1705309/x__W3Q Sign up and make an account. I'll have to promote you to "GM" before you can draw on the map. We can use Roll20 to draw out and discuss plans, but I want to make sure that our primary tactical discussion takes place in the forum thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Should we both this time around? In practice it's mostly range finding and then it gets ignored a day after.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
I found a contour map but it's... ...not a good one. Click for bigger
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
Threw together a small preview video of your starting force as an exercise in getting into the groove of making videos again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gvsjfw8wY0
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
Choice 1 Decision time. The rest of your regiment is currently caught up on the outskirts of Krovolets, but are being re-tasked to support you as soon as possible. High command can send you either one company from Tactical Group 2, or two companies from Tactical Group 3. These reinforcements are expected to arrive at the 45 minute mark. Option 1, TG2:  3x T-90AM, 10x BMP-3M with mounted infantry, 1x Tunguska, 1x Air Controller team with 1x KA-52 and 1x SU-34 as support. Option 2, TG3:  7x T-72B3, 23x BMP-2M with mounted infantry, including TG3 Battalion HQ and Igla platoon, 1x Air Controller team with 2x MI-24PN and 1x SU-25SM as support. Decide which group you would like to receive as reinforcements and let me know within the next few days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
I vote TG1
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:We should charge. loving off through the woods in trucks may be problematic, that's why we need to verify if there are any navigable paths there. I also agree with the sentiment that we should dismount our infantry and use the vehicles as rear support before we engage. However, trying to somehow just do a frontal spearhead assault with a motorized rifle battalion across terrain that consists of a few narrow roads running between massive forests and open swampland feels like a singularly bad idea, especially versus a force of unknown composition but with what is almost certainly a superior core of Abrams or Bradleys who are going to be trying to dominate that open areas as best they can. I think whatever strategy we use should try and take advantage of mobile force to apply threats from multiple directions and redeploy quickly based on resistance we encounter. It might not make sense to do specifically what I suggested earlier (esp. the best allocation of our armored assets) but I think whatever we come up with should be a variation of this approach.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Hubis posted:loving off through the woods in trucks may be problematic, that's why we need to verify if there are any navigable paths there. I also agree with the sentiment that we should dismount our infantry and use the vehicles as rear support before we engage. Classic Wargame Tactic, we should put our ATGMs on the Northern Treeline to intercept any enemy vehicles attempting to push forward. The treeline on the north edge of the mpa. In south, an infantry push would be wise. Should we just hold the center with Armor until infantry and ATGMs can flank?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Between BMP-2Ms and BMP-3Ms, which are more effective and which are more explosive? There's no point in bringing 10 super-powerful BMP-3Ms if they all blow up with all hands before we can deploy them right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
They're both loving deathtraps but at least the -3Ms can shell things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
If the 3's we are bringing have ERA then that makes them much more survivable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
One thing to ask is "where will we be at +45m and what would be most useful at that point?" If we do a defense-in-depth and slowly falling back along the road while our West flank advances, we probably want something we can counterpunch with to really pin them down. On the other hand, if we try to aggressively push, we will need a larger number of units that we can use to secure an ever widening salient. Then we should consider what we want for the worst case of both of these strategies. We also don't know the exact in-gsme objectives, but it seems like we need to be actively holding/denying that highway crossing if possible. Can we do that with ATGMs and MBTs from the N/NE? Or do we need to push a company S/SW and contest access by controlling the highway from there? Finally, I think the "friendly direction"settings indicate the corridor from which air support (and possibly reinforcements, such as we are getting?) May arrive. Weighting our AA towards the West may be valuable. It Also means we should consider what we want to have in place should a US armored company suddenly show up or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Voting for option B because if there's anything goons love to do in combat mission it's heedlessly throw away armour assets on unwinnable fights. Quantity matters much more than quality at that point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
I think I want the Tunguska and the better spotting. I don't remember if the BMP-2M has a better long range atgm than BMP-3M but that is something to think about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:I think I want the Tunguska and the better spotting. I don't remember if the BMP-2M has a better long range atgm than BMP-3M but that is something to think about. BMP-3 uses a barrel fired Bastion (AT-10) and the BMP-2 uses the Konkurs (AT-5) A BMP-3 with ERA is superior in p. much every way to the BMP-2 We also really want those T-90s. T-72s are too useless not in vast numbers. 7 is not enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
The BMP-3 also has much better optics, and would be more useful as a support vehicle
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
I think option 1 will be easier to control in a goon game, tempting as it is to absolutely flood the map with angry green men.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
literally quality versus quantity Given we're defending a place, quantity has some merit. But that quantity can't actually do anything so modern it up
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess let's go with team T90-As and BMP-3Ms. I just hope that the other guys won't pull out a full company of M1A2SEPs in response.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Yeah, I guess let's go with team T90-As and BMP-3Ms. I just hope that the other guys won't pull out a full company of M1A2SEPs in response. I highly doubt it. They maybe have 2 or 3
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
All right, I've been heads down trying to finish this contour map without any distractions. I finally have a version that doesn't look like complete poo poo. WARNING: massive image.  Sorry it took so long. This map is about 15 km^2. The last LP map was about 2 km^2. I'll get caught up on the thread now. (Edit: the units are in meters, each contour is 2m apart. abelian fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Oct 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Well done! Gotta love the amount of work that goes into the maps for these big games. I knew that patch in the NE wasn't going to be as featureless as it looks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Jeez, with all the hills and nature on this map, the sight lines are going to be insane. Where's the herbicide and pancake bomb support option when you need it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
 Folks, professor_curly has asked to take command. He had expressed interest after the last LP, and since I was commander for the previous game, I'm more than happy to step aside. He's asked for me to control his physical in-game units, so I'll be chauffeuring them around. Besides that, I'll try to act as an XO and generally support professor_curly and any players who need in-game information. I'll also be a backup in case we suffer some attrition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Such is the Motherland's will
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Option 2, TG3 seems like the best option. If those BMP2s have ATGMs that's a lot of armor killing ability without a massive need to worry if you lose a few. Even if you lost half of them to the enemy before eliminating their armored threats you still have close to a dozen left to mop up infantry and soak Javelin hits. The problem with a fewer number of better quality units is that each of them will be just as dead when they take a hit from anything designed to defeat armor. I think we'd be far better off with the greater quantity of units and the infantry and other support assets that come with them. We're going to take some losses, lets not make our outcome dependent on keeping a few high-quality units alive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
FrozenLiquidity posted:Option 2, TG3 seems like the best option. This is untrue. ERA or APS estentially grabts temporary immunity from HEAT rockets/ATGM so BMP 3s are much more survivable The ATGMs on those BMP 2s are also really old and super ineffective
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:This is untrue. 1/3 of the BMP-3s would come with ERA, none would come with APS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:1/3 of the BMP-3s would come with ERA, none would come with APS. Balls Well 1/3 is better than 0 with ERA Plus each BMP 3 is vastly superior to a BMP 2
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Balls Superior. But... vastly? Maybe IRL but not in CM. In the last Black Sea game, we went with quality over quantity, and it did not serve us very well. Phi230 posted:The ATGMs on those BMP 2s are also really old and super ineffective No, these are BPM-2Ms. They have Kornets (aka AT-14s), not the older Konkurs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Dude a BMP 3 has a Bastion ATGM, a 7.62 MG, a 30mm autogun and a 100mm cannon. The 100mm is hella worth it
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
Phi230 posted:Balls Would you say they are twice as good? We get twice as many BMP2s with TG3. Given the AA and aircraft options we've been presented I don't think it's too far out of line to assume that they may also be getting some air assets. Perhaps a Cobra and an A10? Who knows Our AA doesn't outrange them, so we've already lost on that front until they run out of long range guided munitions to throw at us. How many vehicles of ours are they going to take out before that happens? 6? 12? At least if you lost 12 BMP2s, you'd have another 12 to throw at them. Lose those numbers from TG2 and that would just about be the entirety of the reinforcement group. Lose the same number from TG3 and you still have over half of those reinforcements remaining. If you really think having a few units from TG2 with a countermeasure system is going to make up the difference in numbers then I don't know what to say. TG3 in my mind provides far better offensive capability that won't be whittled away by bad luck or a few casualties. It's got better staying power than TG2, as in most cases whatever kills a unit from TG3, will also kill one from TG2 (unless it happens to be one with ERA). It will maintain substantial offensive capabilities even after significant losses, where TG2 will not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 02:02
|
|