Jump to content
Nike-Ajax

KANIUM SUNDAY 27th OF JAN 1900 GMT - The East Wind

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Grenny said:

 

Can you take away the AI control for the arty? Or is it meant to be that way?

 

Done and resent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KKnispel said:

Arty for me, F1

 

OK - put you in it for now. But otherwise perhaps multi-manning?

 

I will leave it to you and the CO to figure out what is best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mahzel said:

Know I'm late :P Was sick, unsure I would be in good shape ^^Anyone want's a gunner?

 

I am certain we can find someone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very pleasant mission. Hard (for me) but very nice !

Just one thing to add : 

 

2s6j2h.jpg

Edited by Mahzel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

Thanks Apocalypse, for taking my suggested "improves" on board.

Thanks for the feedback - its very important to me.

 

I normally sit through the AAR with two copies of SB running - one copy of the actual AAR and one copy with the mission editor running so i can make changes as people suggest them.

 

Made a bunch of recommended changes, will post the sce to the page shortly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nike

 

Great mission mate very much enjoyed it, I look forward to the next if positions are available.

 

Chris

 

Great job as the PL leader and thanks for those gems I am sure they will help out in the next mission I play. It was also good listening and working with Assassin and DBoy.

 

All the best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for playing everyone.

I  know, that plan was shit. The tough was that I may be able to suprize OPFOR a bit by moving in from an unexpeted direction. I hoped this would outweight the risk by seperating the force and needed more coordination the get "barrels at the enemy".

The moment E1 asked for support, and I realized, all units are commited in a way that I can't give any support...well, bugger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MAC84 said:

Nike

 

Great mission mate very much enjoyed it, I look forward to the next if positions are available.

 

Chris

 

Great job as the PL leader and thanks for those gems I am sure they will help out in the next mission I play. It was also good listening and working with Assassin and DBoy.

 

All the best

 

For sure there is room - one rolling on Sunday and as always you are all most welcome

 

And that goes for all who feel a bt nervous because they havent played a lot of MP games

 

Edited by Nike-Ajax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2019 at 12:57 PM, Grenny said:

Thanks for playing everyone.

I  know, that plan was shit. The tough was that I may be able to suprize OPFOR a bit by moving in from an unexpeted direction. I hoped this would outweight the risk by seperating the force and needed more coordination the get "barrels at the enemy".

The moment E1 asked for support, and I realized, all units are commited in a way that I can't give any support...well, bugger

I don't think it was a bad plan, just poorly executed. Rather, we failed to mass forces or control tempo (manage tactical pauses)

 

I think there was a missed opportunity with E-1 being as engaged as it was, early in the scenario. E-1 drove directly into an enemy engagement area and paid the price with no other friendly attackers to carry the assault forward. We didn't use artillery against likely/suspected positions and our demise could've been anticipated by even the most junior LT that knows how to conduct a terrain analysis. 

 

Perhaps we would've had more success if we attacked simultaneously along multiple axis, with E-2 and E-3 in the east while E-1 got beat up. At least we would've been able to penetrate with E-2 and cause the enemy to think about more than 1 problem at a time. 

 

We did the same thing for the second attack, in which remnants of E-1 and E-4 attacked along a single axis while E-2 and E-3 resupplied. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think to be fair though that is also in part a failure of the "we need a result in under 2 hours" format.

 

Deliberate, synchronised planning is the first casualty of maximising the "most shots in the least time (maximising the entertainment factor)" approach.

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

I don't think it was a bad plan, just poorly executed. Rather, we failed to mass forces or control tempo (manage tactical pauses)

 

I think there was a missed opportunity with E-1 being as engaged as it was, early in the scenario. E-1 drove directly into an enemy engagement area and paid the price with no other friendly attackers to carry the assault forward. We didn't use artillery against likely/suspected positions and our demise could've been anticipated by even the most junior LT that knows how to conduct a terrain analysis. 

 

Perhaps we would've had more success if we attacked simultaneously along multiple axis, with E-2 and E-3 in the east while E-1 got beat up. At least we would've been able to penetrate with E-2 and cause the enemy to think about more than 1 problem at a time. 

 

We did the same thing for the second attack, in which remnants of E-1 and E-4 attacked along a single axis while E-2 and E-3 resupplied. 

The main flaw in the terrain analysis was the assumtion(assumtion are laways bad btw) that the woods on our left provide concealment all the way down to the planned positions for E-3.

The Idea WAS to strike from multiple axis...the terrain had 3 lines of ridges where red could defend/dely and wear us down. So E1 should press from the front on those ridges while E2/E3 hit from the side and should* have been able to be effective behind those ridges. (* see assumtions, that was where it went wrong)

 

I also thought that Hill 231 was a cornerstone in Nikes defence...just by that fact that it provides observation over that whole area (except  parts EA-2). Remember how I was hesitant to let E1 bypass the mines to the right, wanting them on the left.

I knew 231 was bad for us...but failed to act on it. Stupid.

(Also an organization thing...I was to keen on moving that chopper around and basicly gave control of the artillery away. Again...stupid)

 

Attack on MOLOS, well not to bad...apart from the fact that E3 broke forward(or had to move forward) while others where still doing replen. A bit more time to get E1 in on the right would have helped, but maybe this would have meant that E2 can hit all of you at once B|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

I think to be fair though that is also in part a failure of the "we need a result in under 2 hours" format.

 

Deliberate, synchronised planning is the first casualty of maximising the "most shots in the least time (maximising the entertainment factor)" approach.

 

Well, in the phase after Molos...getting soemthing going before the timer ticks down was a factor, but not the main one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

I think to be fair though that is also in part a failure of the "we need a result in under 2 hours" format.

 

Deliberate, synchronised planning is the first casualty of maximising the "most shots in the least time (maximising the entertainment factor)" approach.

 

 

It would like to just calmly clarify two things with regards to this:

 

Firstly then the CO of a given session always gets scenario file in advance to enable him to do a Deliberate, synchronised planning - at least to the degree you can plan without knowing how the OPFOR will react. (And it took me a long time to plan the defence).

 

Secondly then we do not actually have a firm 2 hour format. Reference the calendar then the sessions is actually timed at 3 hours duration. However I accepted the defeat - because I was defeated no ifs and buts there - after about two hours, because my capacity to do damage to Bluefor had been destroyed.

 

It was a good defensive terrain. And I used whatever skill I have in exploiting it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nike-Ajax said:

It was a good defensive terrain. And I used whatever skill I have in exploiting it.

You gave us a good fight and made us think.

 

Mission accomplished as OPFOR. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

You gave us a good fight and made us think.

 

Mission accomplished as OPFOR. 

 

vivo ut serviam

xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...