|
Stimpak -> RE: OOB information questions (3/24/2016 9:15:27 AM)
|
I've found myself adding Warpact units in by the Battalion instead of by the Regiment, now. It feels more flexible and allows me to more easily control a scenario's size.
I've also been experimenting with artillery allocation, based on readings from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a216371.pdf and http://coldwargamer.blogspot.ca/2012/06/orbat-1980s-mrr-and-trr-part-4.html, I've uncovered some interesting information regarding the sheer scope of their fire support.
Observed exercises suggest the following allocations:
for MRB Exercises:
In only 7% of the exercises was no Artillery attached
.5% of the exercise 2 Bns were allocated
5% 1 Bn and 1 Battery were allocated
34% 1 Bn
5% Nuclear Artillery
5% 2 Batterys
21% 1 Battery
A Tank Battalion would have even higher priority, receiving at least a battalion of support 80% of the time.
A main axis attack for example could see a 1:1 ratio of Artillery Bn to Maneuver element, with supporting fires attached. In addition to organic elements, that means the attachment of divisional 2S1 battalions to form RAGs, while DAG support would come in at 1 battery of 2S3 and 1 battery of BM-21 for a battalion of maneuver units.
So in ideal conditions (And ideal conditions would be so, so rare [;)]) that would see the Tank regiment in Thor's Hammer supported by 9 batteries of 2S1, three batteries of 2S3, and 3 batteries of BM-21, with supporting fires.
An individual piece that has caught my attention is the 2S5 Giatsint-S, strangely absent in the stock scenarios of FPRS. Firing a wide variety of Rocket-assisted, DPICM, FASCAM, and even Nuclear shells in the 0.2-0.4kt range, it possesses almost double the range of the 2S3 which shares it's caliber (18.5km vs 30.5km, 24km RA vs 40km RA). It's position as an army-level asset also seems to suggest a piece with a role of striking deeper targets, such as enemy HQs, other centers of communication, long-range air defenses, or counter-battery missions. To this end I have again modified my Soviet database: ICMs have been added to the National Values, and the 2S5 and 2A36 it is based on have received the ability to fire ICM missions.
The more deadly environment of 2.0.11 leaves a Warsaw Pact player with the need to pay more attention to his battlefield preparation in order to overcome strong NATO defenses. As demonstrated in a much older thread by Mad Russian, (@ http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3679371) an artillery preparation of 30 minutes would be sufficient. However, up to an hour could be given to complete the full mission hierarchy:
- Enemy Nuclear weapons and nuclear capable systems: If the NATO player has an on-map nuclear launcher, then it certainly would be in one's interest to destroy it before it could launch!
- Artillery and Air Defense: Control of battlefield supports. Destroy or suppress your enemy's force multipliers while protecting your own. My experience with FPRS thus far however sees the WP unable to effectively counter-battery NATO's strikes, while NATO artillery has a high chance of detecting and engaging my own elements. Obviously the WP player wants his artillery to be highly active, so this is the highest priority conventional mission. Probably needs heavy cooperation from recon, in the form of special forces and aerial assets. UAVs and Recon helicopters come to mind.
- Defensive strong points: The main battlefield prep, designed to trash the readiness of enemy defenders while claiming some early kills in the process. Second highest priority as it means those enemy tanks might be claiming only 1 or 2 of your own per engagement rather than 4, 5, 6, 9...
- Command Posts, OPs and communications facilities: Targetting enemy C3 restricts his ability to respond to the focus of your attack, or maneuver in general.
- Reserves, logistical support, reinforcement/counterattack routes: Neutralizing the enemy reserves before it becomes a threat is an attractive target indeed. This can be accomplished by finding and shelling the enemy reserves on their ingress, or simply laying FASCAM along their likely routes of counter-attack.
|
|
|
|
