MC NATO national army doctrine design question

[Taffy6]

Gentlemen,

I am hoping that this is not "off topic" for this forum. If it is, my apolgies and I will be happy to move it!

I am in the process of reviewing the "ZAPAD 85" OOB for errors prior to building the campaign scenario. This campaign is based on the original HPS FG85/NGP85/DF85 scenario design, ie set in June 1985 and predicated on the same casus belli etc but with a different approach to many aspects of command and control, movement, NATO arty break down, AAA, etc. 2 and 3 hour turns, NATO first move at 0100, WP jumps off at 0400, etc

The huge DF85 Germany map has been worked over hex by hex labeling all towns, rivers, canals, airbases, airports, fixing spelling errors, etc etc.

To get to the point, the current Zapad OOB relies heavily on the "KG" method to represent company-sized NATO combat arms formations (except arty). I am not satisfied that this work-around makes up for other game-play issues it creates (even though I may stick with it in the end).

As a result, I am going to attempt to model NATO combined arms (Tank/mech inf) battle-groups for the nations that used those tactics in 1985. The design goal is that NATO units break down into companies and can be recombined into BN's, and that these units represent mixed of tanks and mech infantry. BN ATGM units would be "rolled" into the units (and thus not represented in dribs and drabs as seperate maneuver units)

I have a very solid handle on 1985-era US combined arms doctrine (company teams, battalion task forces) mixing tanks and mech infantry at the BN and COY level. I believe that I can also work out mixed formations for the Brits and the West Germans and that their doctrine called for such combat synergy in 1985.

I am wondering about the Belgian, Dutch and Danish heavy units though, and I cannot seem to find any good sources on 1985-era doctrine for these three NATO Armies. Did these armies mix tanks and mechs (and in the case of the Danes, mot infantry as well) in such a way as to allow me to represent them as scalable, recombinable battalion battlegroups?

All opinions, ideas and/or points to sources welcomed!

Thank you,

Taffy

[Mike Bowen]

I have no idea but wanted to post to say please complete the project I am sure it will be great and also when will MC get the updates that PzC has had?

[Taffy6]

I have no idea but wanted to post to say please complete the project I am sure it will be great and also when will MC get the updates that PzC has had?

I am very very close to first playtest. The two in-game design concepts that I am still working are the NATO KG's vs combinable companies issue, and AA factors/range vs tacair/helos.

Personally, I don't like having all of those extra SAM units to push around the map because I believe they are too powerful against helos. Never liked the way that with in-game SAM units on the map, there is so much long range mobile SAM capability to fire against NOE helicopters engaged miles and miles away. The crux is finding a fair balance within the vanilla abstract AAA/SAM system. I haven't successfully cracked that nugget yet.

I plan on play-testing two OOB's, one with AA units ala Aaron's Bolt and Zemke's WWIII campaign, and one with abstract AA ala the Vanilla and ALT campaigns. Dunno which one will be released in the end.

Taffy

[JDR Dragoon]

I will get back to your main question later.

-One way to solve the Helo/AA riddle is to play w. Manual Defensive Fire "On". This means, that the Air defence, if it is at the right place and in range, will always get their licks in before the Helos can fire. Of course, the phased play makes a "Team Game" nigh on impossible and doubles the number of email exchanges, but it is a way to make it work within the confines of the game.

[bdtj1815]

Hope this is helpful.

In 1985 I served in 4th Armoured Brigade of 3rd Armoured Division based in Munster. The Brigade was composed of the 17th/21st Lancers, the Queens Royal Hussars, 1st Bn. The Irish Guards and 2nd Regiment Royal Artillery. I was serving in 2nd Regt RA as an FOO and BK in L (Nery) Battery supporting the 17th/21st Lancers.

The usual way the Brigade operated is as below:

QRIH Battlegroup: 2 Sqdrns QRIH
1 Coy 1.IG
supported by O Battery(The Rocket) Troop RA

IG Battlegroup: 1 Sqdrn QRIH
1 Sqdrn 17/21 L
1 Coy 1.IG
supported by N Battery(The Eagle) Troop RA

17/21L Battlegroup: 3 Sqdrn 17/21L
1 Coy 1.IG
supported by L (Nery) Battery RA

I think your approach to try to represent the all-arms "battle-groups" as used by NATO is a much better approach to the oob than in the original game. It was certainly a very strong part of BAOR thinking, especially helped by the fact that most of the officers, especially in a Brigade like 4th Armoured, had gone to school together!!

I can also give you some help with how other Brigades/Divsions were organised as well, though with less precision. If you would like I could also help with the Regimental and Battalion names used in the British Army which are sometimes not accurately represented, especially when abbreviations have to be used, in games.

[JDR Dragoon]

The problem with the "all arms" battalion battlegroup is, that the game flat out doesn´t reward it in its "vanilla" form. High stacking limits, increased fatigue for company sized units, and the ability for the phasing player to target individual companies means, that company sized units are very vulnerable to being picked out and rendered ineffective or outright destroyed, never to reappear. You can potentially stack almost a division against a single company (with aprox. a brigade stacked in each adjacent hex), meaning that the only way to realistically hold a hex, is to have at least a "full" battalion of a given type, w.out cross attachments of any kind. This is of course not realistic, but it is the most effective way to play the game in its current form.


There are of course workarounds:

-Lower stacking limits makes it harder to "gang up" on single companies.
-Single companies can be made KG´s, thus alleviating the fatigue problem (but cannot recombine into a battalion. This is less of a problem for battalions that are built as "all arms" units from the start like the danish ones or the "mixed" german XX1 battalions, but for everybody else it is)
-HPS/Tiller might make the "alternative fire resolution" optional rule available for the MC series as well at some time in the future, thus punishing high stacks and making it impossible to target a single company in a battalion sized stack of companies.
-Make the use of WMDs "free" for both sides. The WAPA player is not going to stack an entire tank regiment in a hex when there is a risk of 50% being fried in a "nucular" strike.

Will get back to the main question once I have a little more time.

[Taffy6]

Hope this is helpful.

[snipped]

I think your approach to try to represent the all-arms "battle-groups" as used by NATO is a much better approach to the oob than in the original game. It was certainly a very strong part of BAOR thinking, especially helped by the fact that most of the officers, especially in a Brigade like 4th Armoured, had gone to school together!!

I can also give you some help with how other Brigades/Divsions were organised as well, though with less precision. If you would like I could also help with the Regimental and Battalion names used in the British Army which are sometimes not accurately represented, especially when abbreviations have to be used, in games.

bdtj1815, that is extremely helpful sir and is exactly the sort of stuff I am looking for!

I have made numerous changes to the 1985 BAOR OOB based on the work and sources of guys like Tazaaron (who put together a superior 1989-era OOB for Bolt 4.7), but it took forever to back date the BAOR to June 1985. For 4 Armoured Bde, I do have QRIH, 17-21L, and 1IG brigaded together, and I have 2RA broken down into her four component batteries.

Still I am certain I have arsed up some of the British Army unit abbreviations and made some other mistakes here and there. I will send you an email later and would be pleased to incorporate whatever feedback you'd like to share.

Much obliged!

Taffy

[Taffy6]

@ JDR Dragoon,

I am extremely interested in all of your opinions on this subject, including gameplay. A long time ago when the AFNORTH mod was released for NGP 85, I read with great interest your work on the organization of Danish Army in 1985 and how it should look in MC, (morale, mobilization, equip etc). Zapad 85's Danish OOB is to a great extent based on the things you have written, exchanges you have had with other mod designers and posted here at the Blitz in other MC threads in the past.

I will try to upload to this thread the alpha build of the current ZAPAD 85 OOB as it stands right now so you guys can see where I am. Will try to post it in next message.

Regards,

Taffy

PS- We can go over to email if it would be better for community not to choke forum with MC design theory, but frankly all of the public back and forth here between you, Glen, Volcano, Tazarron, Zemke and others over the last several years was and still is very helpful to me as a forum reader.

[Indragnir]

Chip,

Another limitation factor is Hex Fire limitation. But I'm quite sure the KG approach will unbalance the game, the opponent can fire air and artillery strikes against individual coys.

But consider hex fire limitimation as a way to avoid an abusive gang up.
From manual: "there is a limitation on the total number of firing that can originate from a single hex. The Hex Fire Limitation rule says that for a stacking limit of X, at most 3 * X firings, measured in men equivalent strength, can originate from any one hex single turn.
For example, if the stacking limit was 1600, then one stack of 1600 could
fire twice from a single hex, but if they were to leave and another stack of 1600 men enters the hex in that same turn, they could only fire once before the Hex Fire Limitation applied."

[Taffy6]

Attached to this post is the current Alpha build ZAPAD 85 OOB, along with the alpha pdt, the new map etc. No units have been laid down yet so the included 200 turn scenario is just to scope out the new map.

With the help of Indragnir, I am currently undertaking a line-by-line quality assurance review of each unit in the OOB to correct several unit value mistakes I made. This involves comparing Zapad to Vanilla, ALT, WWIII and Bolt from the Blue, unit by unit.

For example, for Marder PzGren coys:

INF TRK 110 5 19 1 12 1 4 1 16 12 15 Marder Default
INF TRK 110 4 66 2 18 1 4 1 44 27 14 Marder ALT
INF TRK 172 5 22 1 20 1 7 2 18 16 18 Marder WWIII 1.65
INF TRK 145 5 29 1 19 1 8 1 38 22 15 Marder Bolt 4.7
INF TRK 145 5 29 1 19 1 8 1 38 22 17 Marder ZAPAD A1

I mention this so that if/when you spot obvious screw ups, know that I am actively working to find and correct them before I release the whole kit for play testing. Other things to note, this build uses KG's to represent most combat arms manuever units (tanks, inf etc) and COY's for NATO helos, arty etc. This is deliberate for this build. It also has SAM/AAA units to push around map, again deliberate for this build.

Once I squash the OOB unit bugs, I will next make the attempt to create NATO BN-level combined arms battlegroups and see how that plays.

Regards,

Taffy

First attachment removed. New attachment located further down in thread