Sand Castle 2.0 AAR

[kbluck]

I just put up an AAR for Sand Castle 2.0. Be warned, it contains major spoilers complete with pictures, so don't look at it if you want to crack this scenario on your own.

Sand Castle 2.0 AAR (http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6092)

Actually, spoilers may develop in this very thread. If you're worried about running across one, you should even stop reading this thread now.

Enjoy,

--- Kevin

[Stardog]

WOW great AAR!

I can't wait until I can actually play this game with some sort of compitence and not die consistancy.

Great job!

[Scully]

Holy Sh*t...I didn't even realize the scenario was at night. LOL!!! That could explain the visibility problems.

Nice job KB. Well executed plan and great AAR.

I still have to learn a few of the missions better, particularly "Recon by Fire." I've never really used that one before. I also have to learn to use the Copperhead ammo better. I just don't really consider it too often.

Quick question for you...would you have normally divided your force like that against a more competent enemy? Or did things just work out where you were able to move both lines of attack forward?

I started out and moved forward exactly like you, but I swung my all my troops around north once the bad guys were fixed. Which, as I mentioned in the other thread left my flanks wide open, but brought more firepower to bear.

Take care,
Brian

[kbluck]

I still have to learn a few of the missions better, particularly "Recon by Fire."

Actually, I didn't use any game missions at all. I used the term "Attack by Fire" merely to describe what I was doing. The game doesn't even have a "Recon by Fire" mission; that's not really a doctrinal "mission" at all. Actually, I misused the term a bit; it really means shooting at likely-looking hiding places in hopes of eliciting an unwise response from any enemy that might be hiding there. In this case, it just meant I was dangling a target in front of the enemy in hopes of attracting fire, hopefully ineffective fire, to identify their location and capabilities. This is essentially what vanguards and advance parties do, and recon units in general if you think about it; present a relatively low-value element to the enemy to make contact and gain intelligence while preserving the main body. A well-disciplined foe won't take the bait and will continue to lay low until a higher-value target appears.

I also have to learn to use the Copperhead ammo better. I just don't really consider it too often.

The hardest part about PGM is getting the FIST into a position where it can lase the enemy without getting it killed or targeted by artillery. Not so hard on defense, very difficult on the attack. I was able to do it here mainly because I snuffed the enemy artillery and all their ATGMs in the area, and was able to get a good spot on the tanks just outside their direct fire range. Once you get that laser spot, planning a PGM mission is as simple as any other.

It would have been nice to have a COLT team along with the dismounts. Much less visible.


Quick question for you...would you have normally divided your force like that against a more competent enemy? Or did things just work out where you were able to move both lines of attack forward?

Initially, yes. I was keeping my options open on both sides of the battlefield. Notice that even so, I maintained a strong reserve to react to unexpected developments. Had a counterattack developed, my plan was to trip them up with FASCAM and cut them apart with my abundant TOWs and 120mm guns, maneuvering B company to reinforce if necessary. Their own obstacle would have gotten in their way, as well. As the situation unfolded, it became clear that I was going to be able to destroy the enemy in detail without much trouble, so I found it more expedient to simply carry forward as is rather than reconsolidate along a single axis. When the time came to assault the city, given my lack of attrition and good ammo state I was confident in my ability to develop overwhelming fire superiority with individual company teams, and saw no need to concentrate the task force as a whole; they would have just gotten in each other's way. Even the teams were a bit crowded as it was.

I swung my all my troops around north once the bad guys were fixed.

In this case, the bad guys fixed themselves by being reluctant to leave their holes. A common failing of entrenched defenses. My only real task was to maneuver firepower into its kill envelope while remaining outside of theirs and let them have it.

--- Kevin

[Scully]

[QUOTE=kbluck]Actually, I didn't use any game missions at all. I used the term "Attack by Fire" merely to describe what I was doing. The game doesn't even have a "Recon by Fire" mission; that's not really a doctrinal "mission" at all. [QUOTE]

That explains why I never used it before! :D You can clearly see the problem I have when playing ATF well past my bedtime.

I feel better now about Recon by Fire, because that's basically what I did. I think one of the the big differences for me and the reason I had such high casualties, was that I never used illumination. I was literally on top of units before being able to fire.

Take care,
Brian