General Discussion Forum Open

[Double Deuce]

Just a quick note to let the team know that the NATO General Discussion Forum is now Open for posting.

[Shortreengage]

I think that the first order of bussiness would be to select a (Multinational) Division Commander. Then Brigade Commanders. And assign additional staff functions. Thoughts?

[shadowcougar]

any ideas who?

[Temujin]

I don't know how we should get this division commander thing started, but, i'd like to nominate/encourage Dita to have a go at it. If you have the time mate!

He has experience from the old campaign and has a head for it and seems interested in that level of command, at least discussing and thinking about it.

Another way to do it is to ask everyone who is interested in that level of command to raise their hand at least as an expression of interest, then we can go from there.

I have no problems doing it if no one else wants to, but i'd rather see someone else have a go as i have already had a turn at it.

[Shortreengage]

I hate to bring this up as I don't know any players from the NATO side. AS strange as it may sound we must run this campaign as a military organisation.

IE once we select the BDE and DIV CDRs their word is final. ORDERS are orders. Of course there can be constructive dissent(something new to any infantry types in the audience but crucial to the Armor community)

Preferably the DIV CDR should have some military experience or considerable experience at operational level wargames so as to have a CLUE as what we're at.

Other players already want to mix and match forces just for the flavor of having different units. I must caution aganst this. Certain forces have certian unique traits that can be capitalized on.
We should stick to that. (and switch things up when neccessary.)

[Shortreengage]

Anybody got any military/Operational gaming experience?

[Temujin]

I hate to bring this up as I don't know any players from the NATO side. AS strange as it may sound we must run this campaign as a military organisation.

IE once we select the BDE and DIV CDRs their word is final. ORDERS are orders. Of course there can be constructive dissent(something new to any infantry types in the audience but crucial to the Armor community)

Preferably the DIV CDR should have some military experience or considerable experience at operational level wargames so as to have a CLUE as what we're at.

Other players already want to mix and match forces just for the flavor of having different units. I must caution aganst this. Certain forces have certian unique traits that can be capitalized on.
We should stick to that. (and switch things up when neccessary.)
Good points, at the end of the day someone has to make a final decision on the overall depoyment, from all the suggestions/discussions. So it certainly needs a structure, and also the realsisation by everyone to trust and support the division and brigade comanders on their decisions even if they do not include much of their own ideas.

I was thinking it would be a good idea to discuss a structure of strategic planning that we can start of right away.

Something like:

1, Long term,
2, mid term,
3, short term,

-strategies so we have a prearranged plan.

Long term , this would be open to review when necessary, as strategic goals change due to circumstances.

Mid term, this would be more open to shorter notice re-planning, but its goal should be to fulfill long term goals. If reviews of overall goals are needed, this may be the first place to start, and replanning here may save the longterm goal from being re-planned.

Short-term, this would be discussion of tern by turn planning, which relies on the strategic and tactical environment at hand each turn, focusing on fullfilling the mid-term goals.

I am just making this up as i go, it just seems practical and comes from my short experience with the old campaign. I certainly have no knowledge of how strategic matters at this level are planned, but it seems like a viable idea.

I think the positives are that it will help keep everyones strategic thinking focused and orderly, once we engage a strategic plan or modify it, everyone should be able to clearly see which way we are heading, so ideas can be more focused. Furthermore, there is probably going to be alot of ideas thrown up from turn to turn and one way to decide which is going to be more effective, is having a structured strategic plan like i have suggested, this will aid the division commanders decision as he will have a clear idea of the strategic planning.

I think its pointless to start and just rely on turn by turn reactionary planning, there should be a bigger plan that needs sticking to, but of course reviewed and replanned when the situation necessitates it.

[aef027]

I would like to be a lower level commander.

[Spark Vark]

I was thinking it would be a good idea to discuss a structure of strategic planning that we can start of right away.

Something like:

1, Long term,
2, mid term,
3, short term,

-strategies so we have a prearranged plan.


That sounds like a good idea to me Temujin. Are you sure you don't want to be Division Commander? :halo:

Obviously we should all contribute to long and mid-term planning. However, should we try to be more realistic and keep the short-term (i.e. turn-by-turn) planning limited only to players of the same nationality? Might be an interesting way to simulate the real chain of command. Or would the benefits gained by everyone's input on the developing tactical situation be better?

[Temujin]

That sounds like a good idea to me Temujin. Are you sure you don't want to be Division Commander? :halo:

Obviously we should all contribute to long and mid-term planning. However, should we try to be more realistic and keep the short-term (i.e. turn-by-turn) planning limited only to players of the same nationality? Might be an interesting way to simulate the real chain of command. Or would the benefits gained by everyone's input on the developing tactical situation be better?

I never said i don't want to be division commander, just that i would didn't have an interest in actively trying to be the CO :halo:

Because i have already done the job a little, i want to encourage others to do it, but yeah i'll do it if no one else wants to.

Good idea about the short term stuff, although if in the general discussion part of the turn planning it would be ok for all to comment on a general strategy. as plans will need to be done in cooperation with others. But certainly when planning of the brigade movements are needed, then it would be a more individualised process.

So, general discussion of turn ideas would be open to all, movement planning of each brigade is open to brigade commanders. Of course some liason with other brigades is needed in that process for the interest of co-ordination.

[dita]

From my experience in the previous campaign, Temujin is right. There should be definate goals and obejectives for all the stages of the operation. There whould be plans and more plans, contingencies for what ifs etc. Obviously resources are limited, but you get the idea. As the saying goes "expect the unexpected"

Ideas to consider (very basic, of the cuff ideas)

What are the long term campaign objectives?—Is it to crush the enemy on all fronts?; maintain a defensive role in some areas, whilst building forces ready for the “fatal” blow?; maintain a defensive posture throughtout, aiming to reduce the pact forces supplie/logistics?

Medium term objectives---Contain certain pact forces? Control certain provinces (locations on strategic map)

Short term. Objectives--- Survive the initial onslaught, react either aggressively or passively against the enemy, on a turn by turn basis.

These are just some ideas.

During the actual battles, I think guidance should/can be sought by the player from his fellow commanders. For example, if the player is faced with a hopeless situation, seek guidance from the division/brigade commanders if it is acceptable to withdraw and conserve forces. This enables such a “planned” withdrawal to be done with agreement from the commanders, and also allow time to adjust the medium plan objectives as a whole. What if this area is withdrawn from, what is the plan then as force?

On a different note, I’m not sure about taking on the divisional commander role. As Shortreengage said, it would be most useful if the divisional commander has experience in operational games and/or military service who would be more suited to such a role

Like Temujin said, not rule it out but…..

[Spark Vark]

Good ideas all around on the planning structure. I think we'll need to get a little bit more direction from above on what the military/geographical situation is before we can really start on the long-term planning though.

[dita]

yes your`re right. Some decisions cannot be made until more of the campaign scenario etc is laid out.

[Temujin]

Yeah, if we can get a structured idea of how we are going to process strategies and situations before we get any more info, then we are pretty much ready to get into strategic planning as soon as the info is available.

[Shortreengage]

We have to think on a Divisional level. This is a Movement to Contact/Meeting Battle. I seriously hope we're not going to divide the sector into three then dash off after the foe. First we must determine if we are TERRAIN oriented or FORCE oriented. IE whether our goal is to sieze and hold ground or to destroy specific enemy units. I usually prefer the latter but it will depend on the situation. We may need a certain ridgeline,bridge etc to facilitate the destruction of said forces.

Do we plan to fight defensively or offensively? I suggest primarily defensive. Once we make contact we should seek to draw them into a series of ambushes/traps using strong counterattacks to defeat his units in detail. Then break contact before he brings up his second echelon or reserve.
They have the larger offensively oriented force but through skillfull maneuver we can achieve LOCAL SUPERIORITY by massing OVERWHELMING COMBAT POWER to bear at a specific point. Repeat as necessary. Use the 5 "F"s of warfighting.

Find them (locate the enemy)

Fix them (force them to deploy and attack)(use as small of a force as possible)

Flank them (bring maximun combat power to his flank)

Fight them (use all available forces and fire support to destroy the enemy)

Finish them (mop up and purse remnants while avoiding his ambushes)


Divisional March Formation for MTC (this applies to smaller formations as well)

Recon/Cavalry (Finds the enemy)(whatever we scrape together for a recon force)

Advanced Guard (Fixes the enemy or if he is weak destroys him)(For a Division it is usually a Brigade)

Main Body (Maneuvers and destroys the enemy) (the bulk of the division minus Guards)

Flank/Rear Guards (protects Divisions flanks and rear. Keeps them from doing us like we're going to do them :devious: )(Usually a Battalion TF)

Just a few thoughts.

[dita]

Could `t agree more.

I`m sure the first clashes and maybe even beyond will be defensive in nature for the NATO forces.

The forces available to us should be considered as "one entity". Whilst each force may have a sector of operations, mutual support and assistance from the other forces is key. The risk is obviously going to be that the three seperate nations go off in three seperate directions, veering into three different objections.

I think we are all agreed that there should be one coherent plan, with all the forces aiming for the same objectives. Keeping the three forces working closely together will be key.

Someone has already stated that each force (and each weapons platform) have their own specfic abilities and attributes and these need be brought to bear against the appropriate enemy, where possible.

Defensive posture is something that I would too favor, with "spoiling attacks" into rear if possible, diversion attacks, etc. Let the enemy expose its flanks, then hit hard!

A mobile reserve of some kind is something I would also like to see.

Again, just a few more thoughts into the pot!

[Shortreengage]

And then there is the subject of Follow-on Forces Attack. And Battlefield Air Interdiction.

[shadowcougar]

He is the one responsible for the direction of the battle. The BDNCMD is responsible that the actions happen

It would seem that the way to go is to fight defensively at first and try to pick an opponent and slam them. That waay we can get an edge. I predect they will try the same thing.

We also need to see about building a reserve force. I know that each brigade will need a reserve that will have to be culled from our force and then there is the divisional reserve. That is the one we need to build over tome and then allow us to commit to the offensive.

Will have more ideas after sleeping.

[Temujin]

I agree with everything so far, only have a couple of things to say.

Firstly, as Dita mentioned, 'spoiling attacks', the german team is discussing a heavy recon component, which could manage this type of attack if the situation were favourable, as well as bieng the braigade eyes and ears. If we do that i am thinking we will have that manouvring imediately, so if, when you mean 'defensive' you also mean agressive manouvre by some units, i agree. I don't think everything should be sitting on thier hands, and we should be looking to gain any exploitable terrain as best we can before contact, it may be better terrain than our border areas. As a rule i usually go for terrain first, then hunt and kill while holding pivotal terrain areas.

On reserves, Germany is considering something different, but the reserve aspect is present. We are considering using a main Bn TF, and the 2nd battallion will be smaller but generally consist of the same elements of the main Bn, just lesser in size. The main Bn will be the work horse of the brigade, given most tasks, or the heavier tasks and the 2nd Bn will remain as a front line unit, but also be used to reinforce the 1st Bn, so it has a reserve role also.

This is different to having a rear reserve like is bieng discussed here, so i spose we should discuss this aspect further before we krauts finalise our plans on that aspect.

[shadowcougar]

allows you to decide on a defensive battle or ofensive battle.

In general and because Americans hate to defend the concept of spoling attacks is a good one.

We need to look at our forces and decide with are better on offense and witch are better on the defensive and plan that way,

[dita]

Yes, I think there is a fine line that must be met. Agressive, carefully selected attacks, with other, those more suitable, taking a defensive posture. (at first;))