View Full Version : Command Structure
Double Deuce
29 Mar 04, 11:18
Here we need to discuss the team structure or who will be doing what. Each team can be different and nothing is written in stone. Responsibilities can change back and forth between players as needed due to RL issues or based on available free time.
What I need is a lead person (Force Commander) for each team. Based on the enlistment emails I received, no one has elected to be the Force Commander. He will be the approving authority for planning and stuff although he can delegate/assign ANY responsibilies he sees fit to. What is planned is things run more like a team than a rigid Chain of Command.
Questions, comments?
Pannonicus
30 Mar 04, 17:44
Well, I nominate Artur to be force commander, if he sees himself fit to this post. As far as myself, I would gladly take tactical command of the Ukr. mech. force, and, if pulled together with other mobile elements, the resulting Kampfgruppe.
On the other hand, as necessity dictates, we can appoint anybody to be commander of our elements.
DD, could we have maps for each sector to study them? Everybody could have a zone of responsibility, and whatever force (maybe except the mobile task force(s) is in his sector, he commands it.
Or does anybody have alternate ideas? I just proposed three possible things, which are sometimes contradictory by itself. I WANT TO HEAR OPINIONS!
Well, I nominate Artur to be force commander, if he sees himself fit to this post.
It ive very honourable, and awfully tempting but I cannot be the commander. I am the German commander in the Red Snow combat campaign so I cannot apply to this one.
Of course I will make myself heared when the planning is done and I can help the commander with my experience from my previous Combat campaigns.
So I nominate Pannonicus or any other player who has the best strategic plan for this.
But thanks agin it really pleases my ego. :D :devil: :D :devil: :D
Artur.
Pannonicus
30 Mar 04, 18:51
So I nominate Pannonicus or any other player who has the best strategic plan for this.
Tempting as well. However, I am very new here (altough I have some experience with Blitz). If no one more experienced reaches for it, I can take it. I would be honored to command UN. :)
Of course, this is a collective effort, a force commander is just a primus inter pares, mostly to keep track of things, or decide when opinions are very balanced.
So I nominate Pannonicus or any other player who has the best strategic plan for this.
Tempting as well. However, I am very new here (altough I have some experience with Blitz). If no one more experienced reaches for it, I can take it. I would be honored to command UN. :)
Of course, this is a collective effort, a force commander is just a primus inter pares, mostly to keep track of things, or decide when opinions are very balanced.
Well, as I have no experience in fighting human enemies, and I think tha Hub is also very occupied. So, i think we should continue discussing the isuues as we do now in the locations thread and take Pannonicus as our honorable command authority.
Of course if you all are too occupied I would take the job as I have a little knowledge of tactics and seem too have the longest experience in SPMBT.
Ohh, by the way as I don't want to spam ;) , thanks for the map link in the other thread Artur!
Pannonicus
31 Mar 04, 14:29
Well, Hub, then go ahead, you have my vote! We are waiting your proposal!
Ok Hub come out with a plan, I think a good plan will sell a good commander.
I am the German force commander in Red Snow combat campaign I have a half year experience in doing a similar job our new commander will do. I give some hints, if you accept them.
1. A remarkable amount of energy, time and attention has to be payed on the ongoing campaign every day.(No wonder why I do not apply for a commander's job here.)
2. He as the leader of the operational activities has to know the campaign rules very well.
3. A good plan has to be created which is supported by (possibly)the whole team. It can be achieved by forging the ideas of the team members. (Pannonicus and me have given some input!)
4. We have to know the equipment well so training battles are needed to get familiar with the equipment -both self and enemy- and situations that are very much likely they will occur. (Like attack on the airfiled or towns AA or G)
5. The worst of it the commander has to keep track on what everybody is doing and tell them to hurry if they are behind schedule...
6. After a few months the interest on this campaign will decrease. The commander always has to have someting in his pocket to keep the interes and good morale. (I have organized several interesting multi-player PBEM games with AARs in Red Snow). I had some bad experience in Crimea when nothing was happening for weeks and months sometimes. this has to be avoided. I will take good ideas into Red Snow if I see any from our new Commander ;).
Of course everybody has his own style, but I think the hints written above can be useful in general.
Regards, and good luck to all of us, Artur.
I am afraid I have comments on the plan:
1. our mission is : Maintain control of ALL urban areas and the airfield.
2. We must put a __complete__ unit in one area!!!
3. We __cannot__ use the stockpiled equipment. Basicly towns produce __points__ which can be spent by warring sides only.if a town is atacked it will not produce points otherwise it's posessor (isf it is different from UN) can spend the points on ANY equipment he wishes to buy listed in the rulebook.
4. We may "non officially" ally with one of the warring sides. I very much suggest, that it should be the loosing side to keep some ballance. After the warring sides have bled each other we will be able to re-capture what we lost.
5.Of course it will not be my decision, but I am very much afraid, that if we disperse our troops in the country we will be eaten one by one by the warring sides. I suggest to concentrate the Troops near the AA-CC and G and leave one platoon in the other towns. Otherwise it will be very much worth to go to war with UN for the warring sides.
DoubleDeuce please correct me if I am wrong with something about the rules.
First of all I am glad to serve under Hub. So, good luck commander ;)!
And I definately support Artur's opinion that the forces are stretched a little thin, I think we should not position many forces north of area G as crossing beneath a good protected G should be hard for the enemy. I definitly believe that keeping the troops together is crucial important as the enemy has numeric superiority (not forget the tanks).
Apart from that I generally agree with Hub's plan, but I believe Artur is right with his comment that forces can't be broken up.
I support the idea that side should not be taken if not absolutely crucial too maintain operational activity.
regards
First of all:
I appologize for statement no 3.It was my mistake. I did read the post but I miss-red this one. Of course we will not use stockpiled weapons.
As for unit deployment I asked DD to clarify the question. It very much seems to me (what I stated in point 2.) is that we initially cannot mix the units. We can move portions after that that is sure - at least how I could interpret from the rulebook.
DD will make it clear but I am very much afraid we cannot mix those companies at start.
For statement no 1. about the objectives. We need to defend the cities and airport.
Looking at the deployment
Area A- 2 plt/2 Fiats
Area C- 1 plt
Area G- 1 plt
Area I- 1 plt
Area J- 2 plt/2 Fiats
Area N- 1 plt
Area S- 1 plt
Area W- 1 plt
Area AA- 2 plt/2 Fiats
Area T- 1 plt/2 Fiats
It makes us very thin. Our goal is to defend the cities and towns
and if we leave platoons in key cities they will fall in the first turns and we can stay on the roads whatching the show...
Do not accept mercy from the warring sides.
I very much repect the mission and values of the UN - that is why I am here.
But we also have to be realistic in these hard times. If we deny the key resources which we can defend successfully we already made this shitty situation much better and defended the big majority of the population. If we risk everything to gain everything, well...
Finally about the round table thing.
As I said before everybody has his own style.We are different.
I agree that if something is decided the everybody should do his best to achieve it.
However the planning is something different I am afraid... I think nobody is perfect that is why the control of the others and the forging of the ideas -I am sure- will lead to a better strategy. Nobody is perfect enough to win this alone (see my previous fault ;)) I would rather play along a strategy that I believe in.
I have a suggestion:
1. Let us wait for DD to make the deployment issue clear.
2. There were two nominates for command Hub and Pannonicus. Let us give both a chance to come out with a plan after all questions are clear.
3. Then let us choose a concept and it's leader and obey ;).
Pannonicus
01 Apr 04, 12:49
Hello Gentlemen,
I agree with Artur on most points. At strategic planning everybody should have a word, and everybody should listen carefully, because non of us holds the magic key to the situation, and more or less everybody should fight for a doctrine he believes in. So I think we should discuss it as long as possible, and persuade each other, then, if everything doesn't work out, call a vote.
This is quite different from operational control, when things has to be decided quickly. Then subordinates only can execute the plan. Now, we are making the plan, not executing it yet.
So, with all respect, I would disagree with Hub on the following:
In a few turns - but maybe sooner - we can face forces as strong as 3 inf.coy+ supporting armoured elements, up to company strenght! We need at least a very well reinforced inf. company to deal with that. I would prefer using two companies at least, with the proper AT elements. So we have to mass our forces at key locations, instead of dispersing them.
We cannot control routes with this force present. For Hub's plan, my estimate is that a WP-style MRR would be needed to execute safely. We have a depleted infantry regiment at most, with below-the average heavy weaponry. Our only objective should be to keep as many towns as possible, and, above all, to keep the airport. Routes should be opened only when movement of forces is necessary. Opening of a road is best achieved by holding talks with the party controlling it, not by forceful movement. We are too weak for that.
From the rules I see, there is no press present on the island. (So there is not international public opinion, and all the accompanying political mess) Therefore we are free to bargain with any party to achieve our goals. We are not here to play a hero, but to protect the population and weapons caches. We cannot do it by force alone (no MRR peresent :( ), so we have to use our diplomatic skills as well. I have a few idea what we can offer to any party (NOT COMPROMISING OUR GOAL) in return of their benevolence. We can also punish those parties making trouble to us.
I believe, our objectives should be the following:
1. Preserve our troops as much as possible. They will get reinforcement, we will not (at least not for sure.)
2. Protect the airfield, if they get supplies stored there, we are dead.
3. Protect the capital and G, they are the most vital points on the island.
4. Protect T if possible, in a favourlable situation it can be defended, and helps controlling S, a vital route junction, midway between G and AA.
5. Protect A and J as much as possible, probably not possible at the beginning, but the who knows?
6. Try to keep the North and South separated as much as possible, easier to deal with both parties if they are confined in two boxes witohout the possibility of reshuffling reinforcement too much. North should be the primary battleground between them, the South should be pacifies as much as possible.
In my opinion, these are the strategic priorities, in this order. First, I think we should discuss these, and if we agree on the objectives, then we can move to plan the force outlay, answering these priorities. So I would like to hear opinions on these.
Regards,
Cpt. Tóth
I have a suggestion:
1. Let us wait for DD to make the deployment issue clear.
2. There were two nominates for command Hub and Pannonicus. Let us give both a chance to come out with a plan after all questions are clear.
3. Then let us choose a concept and it's leader and obey ;).
I may live with that for now...
... But I also strongly support the idea that we are in the "roundtable" planning phase, and that we definately should not stretch to thin.
@Pannonicus: regarding the MRR, you played the "Red Storm Rising" user-campaign for SPMBT yet, you may like it!
Hub, our ideas and style may differ but no offense was taken and I have respect for everyone here. (Not to mention that we played a good game side by side...)
This is not an easy game. It is spiced with difficult Strategic situation and the leadership and cooperation of many different people.Just look how fiercly I propagate my plan and point of view. However if we clarify the rules and ballance and judge the pro's and con's of the plans we can see which way to go.
It is your decision to stay or leave but you will never get anything even close to this gaming experience.
I see you play TOAW like myself. It is one of the best operational games. However you can never experience in it how hard it is to keep those rectagle icons' commanders go in one direction...
Artur.
Pannonicus
01 Apr 04, 14:10
First, my apologies to everyone involved. I have only managed to prove to myself once again that I don"t have the patience to deal with this type of gaming concept. Already my frustration level is beginning to rise, so I think it would be a good idea if I simply bowed out now before I say something I will only regret later on.
Cheers,
KP
Do you mean you want somebody else to take command of the forces? If so, I would like you to be the XO and help with your experience. We will face some extremely difficult situation, I am afraid around turns 4-6, we will need all the expertise. BTW, I don't think anybody got hurt, what you said about being a commander is right in most situations.
What do you gentlemen think about my objectives I listed? Do you accept them, or what modifications do you propose? (I believe Artur might have something to say about the importance of T :cheeky: )
Cpt. Tóth
Gentlemen,
I agree entirely with the priority list Pannonicus has posted.
We have enough resouces to fulfill points 1.2.3 in the beginning so we should focus on defending them.
What I say about T is the following. Defending T is point 4. So if we lose it and keep AA, CC and G it will be the first that it will be recaptured.
I very much agree that priorities are CC, AA and G.
Then T,J,A
The deployment will very much depend on what DD says about the initial deployment.
Unfortunately DD said we have to put a unit in every city at start if I recall right. (Complete or not we shall see.)
Artur.
Pannonicus
06 Apr 04, 07:04
Gentlemen,
Well, it seems there are only the three of us left: Artur, Mr.Clark and myself. It looks like I will assume the role of force commander, while you could be the tactical commanders. When a battle arises, I think we should decide on an ad hoc base who would command in that engagement.
Artur said he would not be XO, what about you, Mr.Clark? I really need someone with more experience dealing with administrative issues than I have.
Regards,
Cpt. Tóth
Acting Force Commander
Well, sorry Panonicus, but I don't have experience in this stuff either. But I hope my little knowlegde in operational concepts might be helpful. The only problem for me is that, thanks to that I am still a student, I am not really able to do something more then 2-3 times a day (O.K. except for weekends).
Of course I try to help as fast and often as possible, but I really can't take a role that's too large as I also have to prepare for my annual exams in the next weeks.
regards,
felix
Pannonicus
06 Apr 04, 11:29
Well, it seems to me that I would have a very-very small staff. :cry:
DD, then it is to you, I would be out of town from Thursday until Monday, so things should go a little slower for the UN these days.
Cpt. Tóth
Well, it seems to me that I would have a very-very small staff. :cry:
DD, then it is to you, I would be out of town from Thursday until Monday, so things should go a little slower for the UN these days.
Cpt. Tóth
Ohh, don't be too sad Pannonicus! Artur and i will do what we can to keep things running ;)
Well, if we don't "see" each other until you're out of town i wish you all a happy Easter (though I am not Christian, glad Cheetah can't read this :chuckle: )
Pannonicus
06 Apr 04, 15:12
Happy Easter to all of you as well! I will go on a retreat to Benedictine monks for these days, this is why I am away.
Double Deuce
06 Apr 04, 15:46
(though I am not Christian, glad Cheetah can't read this :chuckle: )
Ahh, the benefits of secure forums :D
Pannonicus
07 Apr 04, 09:46
Ahh, the benefits of secure forums :D
Yes, indeed. Great we have them!
Ahh, the benefits of secure forums :D
Yep, the discussion created by this in the open would have lasted for months... Well, might also have been fun :p
Pannonicus
07 Apr 04, 16:15
I was "promoted" to Lt.Gen. now. Quite a carreer, dont't you think? Almost as good as Gen. Custer's was. I hope the end will be different of that of the fate of the 7th Cavalry. :)
I think you should be Colonels, just to please there rank-hungry primitive tribesman who just climbed down from the tree... :devious:
I was "promoted" to Lt.Gen. now. Quite a carreer, dont't you think? Almost as good as Gen. Custer's was. I hope the end will be different of that of the fate of the 7th Cavalry. :)
I think you should be Colonels, just to please there rank-hungry primitive tribesman who just climbed down from the tree... :devious:
Colonel? Well why not?
This is Colonel Clark here..., yeah, that sounds nice :D
I wonder when does our regiment arrive... :devil: :D :cheeky: :D
I wonder when does our regiment arrive... :devil: :D :cheeky: :D
Well, didn't DD told something about reinforcements that will arive in the future? What about Blackhorse Cav or a Guards Motor Rifle Regiment?
Double Deuce
08 Apr 04, 13:05
Well, didn't DD told something about reinforcements that will arive in the future? What about Blackhorse Cav or a Guards Motor Rifle Regiment?
I am working on a Replacement System for the UN Forces. More then likley it will be something along the lines of 1/2 of the total points gained by the Green and Red Forces each Turn.
For example: Lets say at the beginning of OP Turn 4, The Pro-Government Forces earn 200 points and the Rebels earn 150 points. The UN will have earned 175 points or the result of 200 + 150 = 350 divided by 2. This way they are averaging about the same as what the other teams are getting.
The basic idea of the campaign is for the 2 national forces to fight for the island while the UN is there to keep it interesting. There can be more than 1 winner. The UN could control the cities (read win) and the Pro-Gov or Rebels control the island (win) by wiping the other side out.
Which OOB can we buy from? Air & Helos are allowed? :devious:
on DD's idea concerning the reinforcements:
Regarding that we, as the UN, are foreign to the island I tink it is quite unrealistic to assume that we can "buy" troops just as anybody else.
What about not giving us points in general, but present us with a complete reinforcing unit (a company or something like that) in the course of the campaign (OP turn five or so)?
These unit must be a little more modern or well equipped (e.g. another mech. infantry company) and that will it be then at all (well, this may also count for additional air support and such).
I mean there is no logical reason why the UN should gain forces from the islanders, and this would also eliminate the problem from wich OOB to buy from.
This is really just an idea from me to make it more realistic and if you all think it's stupid I will better shut up.
regards,
felix
Double Deuce
10 Apr 04, 21:43
on DD's idea concerning the reinforcements:
Regarding that we, as the UN, are foreign to the island I tink it is quite unrealistic to assume that we can "buy" troops just as anybody else.
I mean there is no logical reason why the UN should gain forces from the islanders, and this would also eliminate the problem from wich OOB to buy from.
Actually this is close to wha I have been working on. Equipment/Units form specific Nations as reinforcements using the points gained by the other 2 teams as a guide for unit cost.
Actually this is close to wha I have been working on. Equipment/Units form specific Nations as reinforcements using the points gained by the other 2 teams as a guide for unit cost.
Ohh, O.K., thanks for the info. So we are on the same "wavelenght" here :laugh:
Pannonicus
11 Apr 04, 17:39
I strongly in favour of what was said before. I think reinforcing nations could be the French, Russians, US, UK or Hungarians. :D (I'd love to command a Hun BMP coy!)
A BMP company? Hell, do you want to crush all this stupid islanders??? We're the UN! A T-72B1M company should be enough :D ...
Pannonicus
12 Apr 04, 17:49
Look at the US in Iraq! They are "peacekeeping" with M1A2, M3A3, AH-64 and A-10. A BMP coy isn't a big deal really. Instead of T-72 why not to test the T-90? :D
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.