Air Assault operations

[Don Maddox]

What limitations are placed on air assault operations? Which units can be moved by a lift asset? The DA help file says that only infantry, towed artiller, engineer, logistics units can be air assaulted. Okay, that's fine, but there must be some type of limit on unit size, right?

Surely, a company of UH-60 Blackhawks can't move an infantry brigade alone (not within a single turn anyway). Does the current unit strength effect the calculations? Example: 2-2 Avn Bn (UH-60's) is at 60% strength. Does this effect their ability to lift 1-22 Inf Bn, which is at 80% strength? I should certainly think it would.

I guess I can set up a test scenario to run some tests to see how this works for myself. Perhaps this could be added to the help file at some point.

[Don Maddox]

From what I have discovered so far, aviation units can only pick up units smaller than themselves. This leads to a lot of problems.

For starters, there aren't too many aviation brigades that are routinely employed to lift a like-sized element. It does happen, but more often aviation assets support units larger than themselves. A lift battalion will often be assigned to air assault an infantry brigade and its equipment over the course of several hours. The birds stop and refuel at a FARP when they need to and simply move the infantry in several phases. Sometimes, mutiple aviation assets are assigned to move a single ground asset if it is a big job or the distances are very great. This does not appear to be possible in DA. If most of the units in a given scenario are brigade-sized elements, then it takes a whole aviation brigade to pick up just one of them! :nervous:

CH-47 units are usually assigned to the Army as a corps or theater asset. There are only a few of these heavy cargo units around, but they do an awful lot of support. Since CH-47 units are company-sized elements, they are currently useless in DA for the most part.

One of two things needs to happen here: either units need to be able to be broken down into smaller elements so that they can be properly lifted, or aviation units need to be able to move larger units by cooperating.

Unless I'm missing something here, the current restrictions force scenario authors to basically re-write available TO&E's in order to beef up the lift elements to the next larger echelon. If you try to use an aviation company to move a battlion, DA will say "there are no available units to move" when you use the PZ and LZ commands.

[cbelva]

Don, I have messed around with using air assault over the past year off and on. I have found that you have to cheat a little bit. I have found that if you want to air lift a battalion, you have to have at least a battalion or higher of lift in order to do it. It is not very realistic, but if you want to model air assault, that is what you are stuck with. I have a scenario where I use an air assault division broken into brigades. I can move each brigade with a brigade of blackhawks. I have cheated in the TOE of my unit by calling the blackhawk Bde a battalion. It is not perfect, and it is odd, but it works. Until something better comes along, I can't think of another way to handle it.

[Don Maddox]

This is a fairly major issue from my perspective as air assault missions are a mjor part of modern Army operations. I have a lot of real life experience in this area so the shortcomings of the simulation were immediately obvious. To be honest, I'm a little surprised that this has not been a point of concern earlier. I would think the senior avaition officers who may have used DA would have pointed this out. Perhaps they have and Jim just hasn't gotten to it yet.

At any rate, it certainly puts a damper on air assault operations for now.

[switch_back]

On the point of air assault, can anyone fill me in on the use of special forces??

I just cant find anything that they are actually useful for, they have a combat power of 1 which really isnt terribly great, I realise that they are a small unit, but the damage special forces should be able to do greatly outweighs the size of their unit. :crosseye:

[cbelva]

On the point of air assault, can anyone fill me in on the use of special forces??

I just cant find anything that they are actually useful for, they have a combat power of 1 which really isnt terribly great, I realise that they are a small unit, but the damage special forces should be able to do greatly outweighs the size of their unit. :crosseye:

What do special forces do in real life? They sure don't attack a battalion or brigade on their own. I have found that they are good for disruption and intelligence operations. Place a special forces unit between a unit and its supply base and watch what happens. :devil:

[switch_back]

Aha!! excellant, thats the idea, I think I was getting my wires crossed from tactical and strategical wargaming and mixed up, of course Special Forces cant harm a Battalion or Brigade directly, that was a stupid idea :nuts:

Thanks now I can see what way to look at it, I will most certainly deploy some special forces on a suspected logistics route, sounds good.

Can special forces be effective at attacking small ADA units?

[Don Maddox]

On the point of air assault, the only way I can see around the current limitations of the game engine is to alter the scale of a given scenario. Instead of the primary unit being the brigade a scenario author will probably want to do the scenario at the battalion level. Here is the reason for this: Aviation brigades, just like other Army types, are not "pure" organizations (except for some very rare examples). What I mean by this is that you don't normally see a "lift" brigade composed entirely of UH-60 or CH-47 aircraft. Most brigades are Combat Aviation Brigades which have a mix of the following:

Air cavalry squadron (AH-64 or OH-58)
Attack helicopter battalion (AHB) (AH-64)
Assault battalion (UH-60)

CH-47 cargo aircraft normally come in company-sized elements and are usually assigned as a corps or theater asset, not assigned as part of the divisional aviation assets.

With Decisive Action, aviation is really an all-or-nothing type of affair. Aviation lift assets' prime ability is to move other units around the map. Attack units serve as added firepower and in the reconnaissance role. You can't really mix these two types into a single brigade in DA. The engine isn't set up for that and if you try to do it, I suspect you won't get the result you expected.

Can you create a lift brigade and have it function correctly? Sure, but where are we going to find one of these in real life (except for the 101st)? Now there are some attack units of brigade strength such as the 6th Cavalry in Korea and 11th Regiment in Germany, however, these are bad examples to cite as the battalion-sized elements that make up these two commands are stationed very far apart. They may be a "brigade," but they don't fight as a single entity.

No, it's better for a scenario author to break everything down to the battalion level if he anticipates significant aviation activity, especially air assault operations. This is the only way to realistically move the infantry units without fudging the OOB and making up some fictional lift brigades.

[cbelva]

No, it's better for a scenario author to break everything down to the battalion level if he anticipates significant aviation activity, especially air assault operations. This is the only way to realistically move the infantry units without fudging the OOB and making up some fictional lift brigades.
Don, The key word is "realisticaly". Unless the Army puts up a big stink about this, I don't think anything will get done. I personally have accepted the problem and have been willing in the scenarios which I have created in experimenting with ari assault that the lift unit will not be realistic. You can use the correct name (ie calling it a Co/Bn/Bde) but make it the correct size in order to lift the unit it needs to transport. I know, it is not realistic and I don't personally like it. But it does work. Your idea should work is some situation in fact, I have done that very thing. However, I have had a few situations which I didn't want to do that and "fudged" the OOB. :(

[Don Maddox]

Don, The key word is "realisticaly". Unless the Army puts up a big stink about this, I don't think anything will get done.
You may be right, however, I also think we should continue to bring things like this to Col Lunsford's attention. I understand that DA was developed as a training tool for the Army, however, HPS elected to market it as a wargame. We paid good money for this product and as paying customers have a reasonable expectation of support--just like players of any other wargame. Having said that, it's also realistic to expect that enhancements/improvements to the basic code may come at a somewhat slower pace with DA than they do for other titles as Jim has to make sure any changes he makes at our request are also good for the Army--or at a minimum don't interfere in how the Army uses the software.

I don't think any of us want to see DA branch into two separate versions--one for the Army and one for wargamers. That will only make Jim's job harder and slow things down even more. On the other hand, I think Jim will respond to suggestions and/or requests we make.

HPS is probably never going to hit "the big time" with DA as it is somewhat of a niche product, however, the system does have the potential to be a much bigger seller than it currently is (IMHO). Perhaps Jim would consider adding a bunch of the things we have requested, tossing in some new scenarios, and releasing it as Decisive Action 2 or releasing an add-on CD. This is a good way for Jim to respond to the needs of the community while bringing in some much deserved financial rewards for his hard work. I talk with Scott Hamilton all the time (president HPS Simulations) and I have suggested something along these lines to him.

At any rate it doesn't do any harm to talk about this stuff and get our requests/suggestions on the table. If nothing else it lets Jim know there is continued interest in the software.

[cbelva]

Don, All good points. I would like to see DA expand and grow. It really is a good system, and it is quite simple to use and to build scenarios. One of the problems I think we have with getting new scenarios is 1) good maps; and 2) potential scenario creators understanding what they can do with the system. I would like to see the Col work with some scenario creators and get some descent scenarios. Regardless of the complaints I read about Tiller's wargames, one thing people cannot complain about is lack of scenarios which come with his games. This is not true for all of HPS's games. HPS needs to learn from Tiller in this. Both DA and POA2 came with a pathetic number of scenarios. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect at least 20 scenarios to come with a new game such as DA and POA2. These scenarios should be everything from introductory to quite advanced which show off a systems capabilities. This IMHO would create interest and excitement for these systems. Most people or too inexperienced or lazy to create their own scenarios (myself included). It is somewhat lazy on the developer to release a game such as DA and POA2 and expect the "community" to create and release the scenarios. TOAW was initially released with quite a few scenarios. It grew from there. If it had been released with only a few scenarios, it might not have the success it is still enjoying.

Sorry for the rant. I have felt this way from some time regarding DA and POA2 and it sort of slipped out. I really want to see these programs succeed. DA is very close to being a great game. It just need a little attention. POA2, I think, is coming along and has great potential too. The next patch will be telling.

[Don Maddox]

Yes, the DA CD is a little light in the scenario department. There isn't much I can do about that, but Warfare HQ stands by to accept user-created scenarios. Now that we have a fair stock of fresh maps in our map archive (and there are more on the way), I'm hopeful that the renewed interest in DA will yield a crop of fresh scenarios.

I'm currently working on some Desert Storm material that may be of interest to some. It will be posted once it's complete.

[CPangracs]

Don, All good points. I would like to see DA expand and grow. It really is a good system, and it is quite simple to use and to build scenarios. One of the problems I think we have with getting new scenarios is 1) good maps; and 2) potential scenario creators understanding what they can do with the system. I would like to see the Col work with some scenario creators and get some descent scenarios. Regardless of the complaints I read about Tiller's wargames, one thing people cannot complain about is lack of scenarios which come with his games. This is not true for all of HPS's games. HPS needs to learn from Tiller in this. Both DA and POA2 came with a pathetic number of scenarios. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect at least 20 scenarios to come with a new game such as DA and POA2. These scenarios should be everything from introductory to quite advanced which show off a systems capabilities. This IMHO would create interest and excitement for these systems. Most people or too inexperienced or lazy to create their own scenarios. It is somewhat lazy on the developer to release a game such as DA and POA2 and expect the "community" to create and release the scenarios. TOAW was initially released with quite a few scenarios. It grew from there. If it had been released with only a few scenarios, it might not have the success it is still enjoying.

Sorry for the rant. I have felt this way from some time regarding DA and POA2 and it sort of slipped out. I really want to see these programs succeed. DA is very close to being a great game. It just need a little attention. POA2, I think, is coming along and has great potential.
The main problem with scenario creation in DA is that you really aren't creating a "scenario", you are just setting the stage for combat, so to speak. The system does NOT use triggers or events to activate the AI. The only thing you do is give the AI objectives (essentially points on the ground), and you let the AI fight as it will to get there.

You are very limited on what you can create with DA, and, as such, I believe it lends itself more to mulyiplayer gaming in this respect. As I believe I have stated before, the biggest thing is recreating the OOB's for each side to accurately reflect the battle(s). I have done scenarios for the Russo-Polish War and the Yom Kippur War with great success, and I say they were VERY easy compared to creating maps for FPS's like Black Hawk Down or Rainbow Six (yeah, I've done those as well).

It's not that people CAN'T make great scenarios, it's whether someone has the time and patience to research the OOB's, find a decent map at the scale desired (best at 1:250K), and actually DO it. It's easy for me, as it is my JOB!:D

If anyone would like to see a particular era/war/OOB recreated, let me know. I may have the info you need to do what you gotta do.;)

Curt

[Ivan Rapkinov]

Curt: oooh, wrong thing to say... :D

1982 Operation Peace for the Galilee - specifically the Sidon/Tyre/Beirut road

Angola - Cuba vs SADF

Chechnya - Groznyy through to Argun Gorge, Komsomolskoye and Goiskoye

1st marine Divsions drive down route Moe (Nasiriyah)

India vs Pakistan

Peru vs Ecuador

Cyprus...

more as I think of them...

[Don Maddox]

I'll be doing some stuff on Iraqi Freedom at some point. I'm working on some Desert Storm material first though. The scenario I'm working on is going to be highLY accurate, but I'm not sure if it's going to be any fun to play. I'm not to that point just yet.

It goes without saying that almost any Iraqi Freedom scenario I create will have the Republican Guard (RG) putting up a better fight than they did in reality. I do think that people have a somewhat distorted view of how these battles unfolded, as most people think the march to Baghdad was virtually unopposed (it wasn't). In reality, the RG did fight, in some cases reasonably well, but they were simply overwhelmed by a combination of factors. Having said that, the DA version of these battles may see the RG put up a bit more resistance. I have some good ideas about how I'm going to do all this. Remember, I designed the Saddam's Last Gamble (TOAW) scenario while I was actually in Iraq so I've already given a great deal of thought to this subject.

Iraqi Freedom scenarios will no doubt have to be divided into separate battles as the battlefield area is too large to do with a single map. But that's okay, there's enough material here for some serious scenario work.

[KG_Norad]

Can't wait to see what you come up with!:D

[switch_back]

Same here, on the edge of my seat Don! :ar15: