The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> The War Room



Message

MBot -> The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/21/2015 8:52:56 PM)

The best tactic in Red Storm to win meeting battles, scenarios with unclaimed VP locations, seems to be taking some objectives as fast as possible and then destroy the enemy (AI) in a defensive battle holding said points. This does not sound like a particularly Soviet thing to do, nor does it sound like something NATO would fall for.

Therefore I decided to try "3rd Herd" playing the Soviets in a classic movement to contact, employing forward patrols, a forward security element, an advanced guard etc. in a classic force build up by the book. The problem I have, I have great troubles translating to concept successfully into the game.

The first issue is the question of movement type. Conceptually, Hasty movement seems to be most appropriately, as it is a speedy road column movement which the Soviets would have employed right to contact. The obvious downside is of course the very exposed posture which leads to high losses upon immediate contact. But I assume this is to be expected and therefore the Soviets used this "meet the enemy with the smallest possible force"-approach in the first place. The bigger problem I see is the lack of an appropriate reaction. With some luck the unit falls into screen, but more likely it will just drive on hastily until being neutralized. It seems some automatic battle drill to go into battle formation (Assault) upon contact might be appropriate.

Perhaps the solution is to simply use Assault moves, but I dislike the thought that my units drive across the map in battle formation all the time. More practical in-game downsides are slower movement, long delay to initiate movement and artillery/mortar units cannot move with formations due them lacking the Assault order. Also I have the impression that Assault moves cost big in readiness, though this might be subjective.

The second problem I have is one of control once contact is made. If I have a good command cycle, in the worst case I still have 30 minutes until I can give orders to the follow up formation. In addition to the 1 hour order delay for Assaults and some distance to cover, it will take a good 2 hours until a follow up formation is committed to battle. This seems an unreasonable way to conduct a meeting battle.

Perhaps "3rd Herd" is a bad example to test the concept due to the vast superiority of the NATO force, at least for me it resulted in utter failure. If anyone can share his own experiences with employing FSE, AGMB and co. in Red Storm, I would appreciate to read it.



Tazak -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/21/2015 10:26:05 PM)

With the soviets I prefer to use deliberate movement orders, it has an impact on readiness but increases the use of cover and the unit is more likely to go into screen stance if engaged.

Also now with direct support working assigning a battery to direct support of your lead units is helpful, mortars are a bit tricky to keep within range for direct support but a battery of 2S1 works well

Order delay while annoying really does highlight the limited C3 of the soviets, but I try to keep between 1-1.5 hour delay between advance guard and main body, FSE only really serves to spot forward defences as smaller groups tend to die very quickly to even modest NATO forces

Once you have found the NATO forces use the advance guard to try and pin them in location while you set up your main body for the main attack - use assault orders at this point, and with a hour or so gap I find I have time to issue orders to the main body while still out of LOS



ivanov -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/22/2015 5:29:24 PM)

I think you should be avoiding meeting engagements, regardless if you are playing NATO or WP. Meeting engagements leave too much to a chance and you should be seeking the ways of maximizing the control over your forces. Due to that, don't issue complex orders that would need to be executed over few command cycles. I prefer to issue simple orders, moving from A to B, using terrain cover if possible. You should always seek ending the movement in a good defensible positions. Always try ambushing your enemy and avoid meeting him head on. It can be easily done against the AI, because it advances along the roads towards the victory locations, so it's not difficult to lure it into the kill zones. Most of the times I order hasty movements. The speed that would allow you to outmaneuver your opponent is essential. If I expect that my units may enter in a fire contact, then I use assault order, because the units adopt more aggressive stance and fire more often at the enemy units.



MBot -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/23/2015 8:33:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: katukov

I think you should be avoiding meeting engagements, regardless if you are playing NATO or WP. Meeting engagements leave too much to a chance and you should be seeking the ways of maximizing the control over your forces. Due to that, don't issue complex orders that would need to be executed over few command cycles. I prefer to issue simple orders, moving from A to B, using terrain cover if possible. You should always seek ending the movement in a good defensible positions. Always try ambushing your enemy and avoid meeting him head on. It can be easily done against the AI, because it advances along the roads towards the victory locations, so it's not difficult to lure it into the kill zones. Most of the times I order hasty movements. The speed that would allow you to outmaneuver your opponent is essential. If I expect that my units may enter in a fire contact, then I use assault order, because the units adopt more aggressive stance and fire more often at the enemy units.


In game terms this might be correct, but I think this has more to do with AI and the way victory conditions are defined. In reality it would be of little value for the Soviets to occupy some German towns and then just keep defending them against NATO. Likewise NATO would not exhaust its forces in an attempt to take the forward positions it wants to defend from. Of course exceptions define the rule and assuming the context of the initial Soviet offensive. I have read somewhere that the Soviet expected 80% of combat to be meeting engagements.


It seems the Soviets were heavily dependent on drills and pre-planning to overcome the C3 challenges in a meeting engagement. How can this be translated to the game?



ivanov -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/24/2015 12:15:15 AM)

In the game you fight relatively small engagements and your objective is to capture and hold the victory objectives. The losses are also taken into the account, so you should be pursuing the ways of minimizing your casualties. This is a tactical game and you should be also seeking best ways of using the combined arms tactics in order to overcome your enemy on the tactical level. Many scenarios simulate skirmishes between NATO covering force and the Soviet spearhead, which is tasked with capturing and holding for example an important river crossing, before the arrival of the main force. In order to achieve those objectives the Soviet player shouldn't be advancing recklessly forwards because in most of the cases, it would mean destruction of the attackers by NATO's firepower.

As to Soviet C3 limitations, I think that their more rigid doctrine is represented for example by the impact of the loses on the existing orders. In case of suffering casualties they would continue advancing while NATO armies would rather switch into screen to avoid further loses. But this subject should be really elaborated by the devs.



Mad Russian -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/24/2015 1:44:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MBot


Therefore I decided to try "3rd Herd" playing the Soviets in a classic movement to contact, employing forward patrols, a forward security element, an advanced guard etc. in a classic force build up by the book. The problem I have, I have great troubles translating to concept successfully into the game.


Time and space are issues for the Soviet doctrine. You have to bring the Soviet waves in by reinforcement times.

quote:


The first issue is the question of movement type. Conceptually, Hasty movement seems to be most appropriately, as it is a speedy road column movement which the Soviets would have employed right to contact. The obvious downside is of course the very exposed posture which leads to high losses upon immediate contact. But I assume this is to be expected and therefore the Soviets used this "meet the enemy with the smallest possible force"-approach in the first place. The bigger problem I see is the lack of an appropriate reaction. With some luck the unit falls into screen, but more likely it will just drive on hastily until being neutralized. It seems some automatic battle drill to go into battle formation (Assault) upon contact might be appropriate.


Conceptually, Hasty Movement is a type of movement used in a secure area. Not the type used to move to combat. The Soviets would not have used that right to contact. They would have stopped using that type of movement anywhere on these map sizes. Deliberate Movement is the appropriate movement type you are looking for.

As to the posture of the units, you set that at the end of the movement orders. Not much in the game happens 'with some luck'; although it may seem that way when you first start to play.

quote:


Perhaps the solution is to simply use Assault moves, but I dislike the thought that my units drive across the map in battle formation all the time. More practical in-game downsides are slower movement, long delay to initiate movement and artillery/mortar units cannot move with formations due them lacking the Assault order. Also I have the impression that Assault moves cost big in readiness, though this might be subjective.


I thought you were going to try to use Soviet tactics here. If you do, then it doesn't matter what you like or dislike. The Soviets wouldn't move across the map in assault mode. They would be using Deliberate Movement. Which is a tactical movement mode that allows for good movement rates with some tactical ability to react offensively and not take excessive casualties if they encounter enemy units.

Assault moves cost big in readiness because they are assaulting. Running, probably on foot, at the enemy positions. You don't want them to do that for very long distances, because they don't want to do it over long distances. It's not subjective, it's intentional. You simply can't have troops assault for very far. Certainly not a handful of klicks!


quote:


The second problem I have is one of control once contact is made. If I have a good command cycle, in the worst case I still have 30 minutes until I can give orders to the follow up formation. In addition to the 1 hour order delay for Assaults and some distance to cover, it will take a good 2 hours until a follow up formation is committed to battle. This seems an unreasonable way to conduct a meeting battle.


You lose control of your units in battle? Good, then the game is working as intended. That's what happens to units in combat. They start to stress. The more stress they take the less they obey orders. Simply moving around the map, even without being fired on, is stressful to units. They will get tired and nervous as they move around. Not knowing when or where they may be included in the battle.


quote:


Perhaps "3rd Herd" is a bad example to test the concept due to the vast superiority of the NATO force, at least for me it resulted in utter failure. If anyone can share his own experiences with employing FSE, AGMB and co. in Red Storm, I would appreciate to read it.


I have just rebalanced 3rd Herd and it was overbalanced for NATO. When they are all rebalanced we will release them again. You will then find that the US forces have a much tougher fight on their hands.

Good Hunting.

MR



MBot -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/24/2015 8:51:14 AM)

Thank you for your feedback MR.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Conceptually, Hasty Movement is a type of movement used in a secure area. Not the type used to move to combat. The Soviets would not have used that right to contact. They would have stopped using that type of movement anywhere on these map sizes. Deliberate Movement is the appropriate movement type you are looking for.


Perhaps I am missunderstanding the movement types but I was under the impression that they mean (and I think I read that in the manual):
-Hasty: column march
-Assault: Deployed in combat formation, using some terrain advantage
-Deliberate: using terrain to best advantage and security measures such as bounding overwatch


Now the ST 100-7 OPFOR Battle Book mentions some of these tibits:

quote:


Actions of the FSE, moving in column behind the CRP(s) by up to 10 kilometers, are:
- Advance at maximum speed.
- Engage the BLUFOR with all weapons.
- Develop the fight.
- Seize and hold a position until arrival of the advanced guard main body.

At the time of initial contact, the advance guard main body is moving in march column 5 to 10 kilometers behind the
FSE.


Perhaps I am completely missing the point, but this does not sound like deliberate movement.



Tazak -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/24/2015 7:25:23 PM)

If you look at the actions separately then none of them appear to be deliberate movement but a mix of hasty and assault orders.

you need to look at the context of what they are trying to achieve - to tie the enemy down, confirm positions and extent of defences, try to by pass if possible so using hasty leaves them exposed through min use of cover while moving as a column, assault orders are more for final stages of an attack

That leaves deliberate moves, providing overwatch and best possible use of cover, this is really the best option if your trying to stay combat capable and find the extent of the enemy positions while awaiting the main body





Tazak -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/25/2015 11:12:25 PM)

Cold war gamer blog has a nice post detailing advance guards and meeting engagement

http://coldwargamer.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/ttp-soviet-advanced-guard-and-march.html




ivanov -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/26/2015 12:32:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

I have just rebalanced 3rd Herd and it was overbalanced for NATO. When they are all rebalanced we will release them again. You will then find that the US forces have a much tougher fight on their hands.



So I guess multiplayer as NATO will become unplayable? [;)]


Since you're working on this scenario, please remove the Soviet 2S7's Pion howitzers and replace them for example with with 2S3's. 2S7's were front level assets designed to destroy fortifications or fire nuclear munitions. They would not support ground troops on the regimental or divisional level. They also didn't fire FASCAM munitions.



Tazak -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/26/2015 9:21:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: katukov


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

I have just rebalanced 3rd Herd and it was overbalanced for NATO. When they are all rebalanced we will release them again. You will then find that the US forces have a much tougher fight on their hands.



So I guess multiplayer as NATO will become unplayable? [;)]


Since you're working on this scenario, please remove the Soviet 2S7's Pion howitzers and replace them for example with with 2S3's. 2S7's were front level assets designed to destroy fortifications or fire nuclear munitions. They would not support ground troops on the regimental or divisional level. They also didn't fire FASCAM munitions.


Outside of this being in the wrong thread [;)], WW3 would have been a "come as you are party" with either side having to make do with what was available



CapnDarwin -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/26/2015 3:03:41 PM)

I think most of these movement style issues will go away in Southern Storm with multi-order waypoints. You will be able to plot a hasty road move to close to the objective area, then a deliberate move into the objective area, and then a short assault to the objective. Then hold when there.



ivanov -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/26/2015 4:51:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tazak

Outside of this being in the wrong thread [;)], WW3 would have been a "come as you are party" with either side having to make do with what was available



We're in a war room, aren't we? [;)]

Interesting rationale. It's like replacing artillery with tactical ballistic missiles and explaining that they, not artillery are available at that given time. Also, it would be probably more fighting "with what's available" for NATO, than for the Soviets.

Another issue is 2S7's firing FASCAM, which is probably an error in the data base.



Tazak -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/26/2015 5:21:17 PM)

I was thinking of MR's scenario rebalancing thread

In war anything is possible, its a not a huge reach to say that NATO CB/airstrikes have degraded 2S1/2S3 batteries leaving the soviets to use the heavier stuff, WP while they had 1000's of barrels would still have a time delay between losses and replacements, time would not be their friend so its plausible to use SP heavy arty to support a OMG breakthrough force. SSM's would be a huge reach I think for either side.

Yea firing FASCAM is in the DB (remove SC from the weapons specials) so easily fixed



Mad Russian -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/26/2015 7:49:18 PM)

Katukov,

Tazak has the way I do scenarios figured out. War is always a "Come As You Are" party as far as I can see. What you thought you would have you are missing. What sometimes doesn't make sense is here. And where is the rest of the Bn?

I'll look at what is in each scenario as I go through them. If it looks like something overbalances a scenario I'll make changes to it.

Just as a side question, do you not think that Corps, Front, Army level assets could be used in breakthrough battles?

Good Hunting.

MR



ivanov -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/26/2015 11:24:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Katukov,

Tazak has the way I do scenarios figured out. War is always a "Come As You Are" party as far as I can see. What you thought you would have you are missing. What sometimes doesn't make sense is here. And where is the rest of the Bn?

I'll look at what is in each scenario as I go through them. If it looks like something overbalances a scenario I'll make changes to it.

Just as a side question, do you not think that Corps, Front, Army level assets could be used in breakthrough battles?

Good Hunting.

MR



Mad Russian,

Your scenarios are your babies - you design them as you please - I just wanted to point out the issue with 2S7's. Their presence in Herd scenario seemed strange for me. Very few of them were build an they would be very uncommon on the battlefield.

Herd doesn't look as a breakthrough battle, rather a mobile engagement of spearhead forces. 2S7's would look good for example in Fulda Gap scenarios.



Mad Russian -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/27/2015 1:00:23 PM)

I would say that you could find anything, at anytime, in any place. To assume that they don't belong there would also assume that the Soviets are perfect at force management. Which doesn't really work for me. In the US Army I served in Murphy was a Six Star General. I haven't seen, or read, anything that shows that other armies are any different.

As to a Front's intentions, This doesn't have to be an assualt for it to be the Front's main thrust. Just because it's a Meeting Engagement doesn't mean it's not the main effort and there won't be 'unusual' assets available.

As to weapons capability we checked on the 2S7's ammo load outs. If those are incorrect they will get changed with the update that comes out with the rebalanced scenarios.

Good Hunting.

MR



ivanov -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/27/2015 6:43:06 PM)

Another thing worth keeping in mind, is that the rate of fire of 2S7 is only two salvos per minute, making it ill suited for the support of ground troops during meeting engagements. You'd rather see them during pre planned strikes ( conventional or atomic ) against the fortified positions. It was also slower and more fuel consuming than the 2S3's or 2S1's, so it's quite unlikely that Pions could keep the pace with advancing mechanized troops.



pzgndr -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/27/2015 7:08:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Tazak has the way I do scenarios figured out. War is always a "Come As You Are" party as far as I can see. What you thought you would have you are missing. What sometimes doesn't make sense is here. And where is the rest of the Bn?


This is fine. However, it would also be nice to have several generic doctrinal scenarios useful for benchmarking. For example, a Soviet MRR or tank regiment versus NATO Bn TF, both with more or less standard OOB.

Again the game scenarios with the "come as you are" premise is OK and interesting. Players can do what they want with the hypothetical results. Our US Army NTC and Hohenfels experiences are also somewhat hypothetical but they do provide some useful results that we can compare and contrast with this game. Just a thought.



Mad Russian -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/27/2015 9:23:50 PM)

Hohenfels, Graf and NTC is like playing chess. Line up all your pieces and I'll line up mine. You know what I have, I know what you have. Now it's your turn to go.

My experiences with military operations aren't like that. Often you have no idea what the enemy's intentions are. You have no idea where the heck Lt. Smith and 3rd Platoon are. You have no idea why the POL didn't get here in time and you are running on fumes. You have no idea why the batteries for your radios are bad....that's the military I saw. If yours was different than that I'm amazed at the unit you served in.


Good Hunting.

MR



pzgndr -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/27/2015 10:07:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Line up all your pieces and I'll line up mine. You know what I have, I know what you have. Now it's your turn to go.


Like, a game. Like this game. It's just a game. I made a perfectly reasonable suggestion for some generic scenarios. Sorry to bother you MR. [8|]



Stimpak -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/2/2016 2:03:25 PM)

A recently posted 1980 training film sheds light on this type of battle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAciU8DJVgM




Mad Russian -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (7/16/2016 3:21:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr


This is fine. However, it would also be nice to have several generic doctrinal scenarios useful for benchmarking. For example, a Soviet MRR or tank regiment versus NATO Bn TF, both with more or less standard OOB.

Again the game scenarios with the "come as you are" premise is OK and interesting. Players can do what they want with the hypothetical results. Our US Army NTC and Hohenfels experiences are also somewhat hypothetical but they do provide some useful results that we can compare and contrast with this game. Just a thought.



It is possible to see some of these basic scenario sets as we move forward. The amount of possible scenarios is unlimited.

You should know that we read every comment about the game and rarely throw anything away. This post is from July of last year and it's still active in our thought processes. A huge part of our issue in doing anything with the game is the team's very restricted free time to spend on it.

quote:



Like, a game. Like this game. It's just a game. I made a perfectly reasonable suggestion for some generic scenarios. Sorry to bother you MR. [8|]





My original reply seems to have been too harsh and for that I apologize. We are working on several ideas for more content as well as some personal projects. So, if you find some scenarios you would like to create by all means test your skills.

Part of your comment above is going to come to fruition with Southern Storm as a part of our mapping area will cover the Hohenfels/Grafenwöhr area of Southern Germany.

We are trying to cover as many possibilities as possible for you guys but we simply only have so many hours in a day.

Good Hunting.

MR



tbridges -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (9/6/2016 9:10:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

I think most of these movement style issues will go away in Southern Storm with multi-order waypoints. You will be able to plot a hasty road move to close to the objective area, then a deliberate move into the objective area, and then a short assault to the objective. Then hold when there.


This sounds sensational! Can't wait! [sm=happy0065.gif][sm=happy0065.gif]



Mad Russian -> RE: The Soviets and the Meeting Battle (9/12/2016 8:00:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Tazak has the way I do scenarios figured out. War is always a "Come As You Are" party as far as I can see. What you thought you would have you are missing. What sometimes doesn't make sense is here. And where is the rest of the Bn?


This is fine. However, it would also be nice to have several generic doctrinal scenarios useful for benchmarking. For example, a Soviet MRR or tank regiment versus NATO Bn TF, both with more or less standard OOB.

Again the game scenarios with the "come as you are" premise is OK and interesting. Players can do what they want with the hypothetical results. Our US Army NTC and Hohenfels experiences are also somewhat hypothetical but they do provide some useful results that we can compare and contrast with this game. Just a thought.



We are have some of these we use for testing purposes but they aren't close to being balanced. And often that is the problem for the scenarios released for play. Often gamers want the scenarios to be at least reasonably balanced and have a chance to win the battle.

Would you like to see them setup where there are only one side set up where you input the other side? Or would you want basic ORBAT's for both sides in some of the standard tactical situations?

Good Hunting.

MR



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.953125