AARs for the CPX held on May 16, 1998; umpired by Nick Moran.

This CPX produced a fair amount of debate on victory conditions; this debate has been 
reproduced below from the amjor postings on the topic.

--------

Nick Moran’s AAR:

	Never has a CPX been so riddled with so many problems. It is a tribute to those 
that took part that they were willing to go with about anything...
	The BeNeLux team was completely screwed from the start. (Can I say that on an 
email list?), with people dropping out, or unable to give sufficient attention for whatever 
reason. I finally got their orders (Most of them) the evening before, and diligently put 
them all in. I held the Belgian orders until I had received an expected mail about two 
hours before game-start. At about GS-40minutes, I attempted to access my email, only to 
discover my modem was broken. (I have since traced the problem to a possible short in 
the phone line :(  ). After a mad dash to the shop (10 minutes after closing time), they 
swapped it for me, and there was a mad dash home. In the meantime, the players were 
beginning to wonder where I was. And I still had to do the Belgian orders. This was a 
disadvantage for them because I didn't have time to split units or mark codenames for 
TRPs etc...
	Anyway... The scenario... This was to be a 'realistic' 1989 WWIII scenario.. 'False' 
equipment levelling (e.g Thermals and Improved ATGMs) were not to be used.

NATO orders were as follows (A little snipped)

OpOrder, BeNeLux Corps.
From: SHAPE, Brussels.

Situation: The last day has seen fierce fighting in your area. As UK and German units 
fought further forward, you Belgian brigade was digging in at a position towards the rear. 
When ready, the German and British units fell back through the Belgian positions. The 
pursuing East Germans raced headlong into  the trap, and the attack lost its 
impetuousness. The FEBA has stabilised over the last day or so, with neither side having 
much of an advantage. The German and UK troops have been withdrawn for Rest, Repair 
and Resupply, and will be held for an attack in the coming days. In the interim, it is 
believed that the WarPac forces intend to resupply and reinforce your area in preparation 
to jumpstart their stalled offensive: They cannot allow the momentum they have achieved 
to falter or they will find that they have lost their most critical advantage, and they know 
this. In order to buy time, it has been decided that you are to penetrate the WarPac front 
line to the nearest sidings capable of off-loading heavy equipment. This will have two 
effects. Primarily, it will force his reinforcing units to offload further to the rear, with the 
resulting time delays and mechanical failures. Further this will allow more time for our 
interdiction aircraft to work them over. If they are allowed to build up for an attack, they 
will almost certainly be able to penetrate your lines. Secondarily, it will cut off one of the 
supply sources to the WarPac forces currently in the town of Gustonburg. In addition, the 
location would give a good field of fire to interdict road supply lines to the town. Do not 
push forward beyond this point for the moment. You lack the forces needed for a 
successful penetration in depth.

Your mission is to take the rail facilities located at ref 704955 to prevent resupply and 
reinforcement.

(GM's Note: This is the area with the BM 207 written on it.. I know there is no indication 
of an offloading facility on the map, but it is a few team tracks (sidings with concrete 
platforms and not much else) put in only a month ago.)(All right..I just wanted you to try 
to get from (A) to (B)....) 

Enemy Forces:
	The opposition is part of a Category A East German Motor Rifle Division, 
equipped with T-72s, BMP-2s and BTRs. They seem to have their front line stretching 
along the 675 Easting. You can expect heavy artillery support, but our Air Forces have 
achieved Air Superiority. Their morale seems good, and their training is similarly 
good.Finally, they have something to prove to the Soviet 'Allies'.. That they are not 
useless, so they will fight with determination. This will not be a pushover.

Friendly forces.
	In situ is the remnants of the Belgian Brigade, now down to about 1/3 strength. 
Their front line is at about the 657 Easting South of the 950 Northing, and at about the 
650 Easting North of the 950 Northing. They number two companies of Mechanized 
Infantry, one of Leopard 1s, and one combat support company, together with an Artillery 
spotter. Some units are in prepared positions
	The force allocated to you for the attack is two reinforced battalions from the 
Dutch II Corps. They consist of a HQ company, three Mech Inf companies, a combat 
support company and a tank company to each battalion.
They have just arrived near reference point IRVINGTON.
	Supporting Fires: You have four batteries of 155mm M109 howitzers.
	Air support consists of three airstrikes, with the chance for more. There are two 
Target Reference Points already plotted.

Terrain: This area of Germany consists of undulating terrain, and is moderately forested. 
Much of the land is not zoned for agricultural use, and as such much is left wild. Weather 
is good, with visibility at 4000m

Support and supply. None. You fight with what you have, Brigadier. Supplies will be 
available upon battle resolution.

Command and Signals: CAS will be SOP, with your immediate commader being 
NORTHAC. Belgian units are designated by (Coy #)/(Platoon#), the first Dutch battalion 
by (Coy Letter)/(Platoon#), the second Dutch battalion by (Coy Letter)/(Platoon #) with 
the first battalion starting at A and working on, with the second battalion starting a Z and 
working back.
----------------

Opfor orders, on the other hand were as follows....

From: Commanding General Western Army
To: Commanding General, Force Wibble.

Comrade Brigade General [Or whatever the heck the Russian equivalent is..GM]
We would seem to have been left at something of a loss by our 'esteemed' 
allies, the Armed Forces of the German Democratic Republic. Despite the momentum 
gained in our initial attacks, they foolishly ran straight into a capitalist ambush, and lost 
much of their strike force. As a result the front in your location has stabilized over the last 
day or so. THIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE. If we give NATO time to 
catch their breath, then our steamroller will have run out of steam, and we will yet again 
have to fight to regain the maneuver war, but next time we will not have the advantage of 
surprise.
	However, good planning, the Party, and no insignificant bit of good fortune has 
prevailed.We have been able to divert a brigade-sized task group to your location to 
kickstart the stalled offensive. You will show the Germans just how it is done.

Enemy Forces: Up to this point, Opposition has been British and German. It now appears 
that they have fallen back through prepared positions held by Belgian and Dutch forces. 
(There is a theory that the dreaded Luxembourg platoon is present as well, but this is 
unsubstantiated at present). Their Front Line stretches from 658920 through 658948, 
through 650950 and North to 650980.

Friendly Forces.
	Our side of the FEBA is held by a mixed battalion of East German units.. Two 
BTR companies, a Tank coy (T-72M), an anti-tank battery, and air defense battery and a 
howitzer battery.
	To the attack, you are allocated a Motor Rifle Battalion (BTR) with two 
companies T-72, and a Motor Rifle Battalion (BMP) equipped with BMP-2s and T-80U 
tanks. You will have support from a flight of 4 anti-armor helicopters, and ample artillery 
support. You have been allocated two batteries of BM-27 MRLs for the preliminary 
barrage, but they are needed elsewhere after that. We have spoken with our colleagues in 
Frontal Aviation, they say that despite NATO air activity that we will have 'Good' Air 
support.


Mission. Penetrate and Break through the NATO lines. Do not attempt to capture the City 
to the SW of the area of operations.. We will encircle it and stop to mop up later. You 
MUST regain the earlier momentum of the operation. Do not just get past the defending 
forces, annihilate them. You must be a plough on a train, an unstoppable mass of 
thousands of tons of steel, obliterating anything in your path. Further, if you leave the 
NATO force relatively intact, you will find supplies not coming through to you as fast as 
you would like.

Deployment. As you see fit. GDR forces are holding the front. This stretches from 
675920 through 674955 through 680960 and North from there. They may start at any 
location on or East of that line.
Soviet forces start the game in their marshalling area which is a square defined by 
opposite corners 700958 and 713942. (There is, for game purposes an unloading area for 
the railroad where the BM207 is written at the NW corner of the map. Your units have 
just been offloaded and have mustered into their respective units. Part of the luck was the 
fact that your units could be transported by rail so close to the front line. We'll just say 
that it was added after the map was drawn, eh?)

Environment: Surprisingly good for this part of the world... clear skies, so our aircraft 
will be able to play a role, visibility some 4 kilometers.

Support: 6 Airstrikes (See special notes), 2 Batteries 122mm howitzers, the Regimental 
GRAD-P 122mm MRL battery, 3 Batteries 152mm, and 2 Batteries BM-27. (Again, see 
special notes following), with 3 TRPs plotted.

Special Notes:
	Airstrikes: To simulate the fact that NATO is gaining the upper hand in the air, 
aircraft will not be able to loiter near the target area. There will be a 10 minute delay 
between when an airstrike is requested and when it arrives. further, because the two 
forces in the Soviet structure are not as integrated as they are in NATO, once the inbound 
aircraft reach ETA-6 Minutes, they cannot be redirected to another location or aborted. 
	BM-27s. These are US MLRS used in conjuntion with the 'Allow fire on own 
positions' checked on NATO units. You get one, and only one salvo with each battery. It 
must be fired in the first 10 minutes, for they are in high demand and they must support a 
mission elsewhere. Given a 4-minute response time, this means that you have about 6 
minutes to decide where to use them. However, do not be overly worried about this yet. 
Because your forces have been on the same spot for about a day, they should be able to 
give you an indication of where enemy forces are. Of course, I can't tell you until the 
NATO guys send me their deployments, but do not expect information more detailed than 
'Positions in such-and-such' a location. Besides, looking at the map, I think I can have a 
fair idea as to where they might be!

Equipment note: This is a pseudo-historical scenario. The BTR battalion, whilst Cat A is 
not considered to be the best in the Soviet Army, and so is low down on the pick-list for 
equipment. The T-72 guns are capable of firing only Tungsten ammunition. The German 
T-72s are of a later type with DU. The      T-80Us are of the prototypical type with AT-11 
Sniper, and DU rounds, but none of your units have improved warheads or thermals.
None of your artillery has ICM. Further air support is possible. Soviet forces at the time 
did have artillery smoke capable of defeating thermal sights, I may make it available in 
limited amounts. (Basically by playing around with preferences) 
------------------------------------
As it turned out, after asking around, I decided that in 1989, vehicle smoke grenades 
would defeat thermals, so that's what I did.

The 'Trick' with this scenario was for the NATO commander.. Basically would he realise 
that the OPFOR reinforcements had already arrived, and that his mission was a bit of a 
moot point?

The map was 230, from South of Northing 96 to the bottom. 

Nato's Grand Plan was two battalions in a Feint along the North, then a charge down 
South with the remaining battalion. WarPac on the other hand, went for a simple, 'Right, 
let's send everything down there along the Southern route.' This left the North Flank 
dangerously underdefended.

NATO deployed the Belgians with most of the forces at 646977, to take the woods at 
680970,  a coy in the woods at 655945 to capture Hayesville. There were also a few 
scattered Belgian APCs around the rest of the FEBA. The two Dutch battalions were 
divided... two-thirds of NL1 deployed North of the Merino Cemetary, to move North then 
pass through the Belgian positions and then take 695970 woods. NL-2 and the rest of NL-
1 were to bascally follow the L&N railroad to the objective at BM-207.

Warpcac's deployement was generally South. Actually, it was totally South. The only 
ground unit North of the 96 Northing was a unit of two ZU-23 anti-aircaft guns. 
There was a battery of 4 Rapira 100mm AT guns at 673954, a BTR coy just to the South 
to go into Hayesville, and the tank Coy and another BTR coy was in the extreme South 
ready to move into the woods S of highway 60. A coy[-] was placed to advance on the 
woods at 667942, also an objective for a Belgian Mech platoon.
The Russian BTR battalion was to follow the L&N railroad  the same direction whilst the 
BMP battalion, less a reserve coy of T-80s were to follow the BTRs in the extreme S. To 
cover the North, they positioned four Hinds.

From the end of Turn 1, I thought I had seriously misjudged the play balance in NATO's 
favour. Certainly I misjudged the effectiveness of the 25mm autocannon on the Benelux 
Vehicles. Corinne's units going into Hayesville got slaughtered. (The Belgian forces SW 
of Hayesville decided to wait for smoke, Warpac decided that speed was more important 
and didn't wait for the MRL strikes, (Which turned out to be singularly ineffective 
anyway))
	The NATO advance up North went smoothly, being generally undetected thanks 
to smoke. The 1st NL also didn't have much problem. Down south, 2NL reached their 
staging point without interference. The units heading for Hayesville got hit by the AT-
guns and even a Hind. NATO then put all three aircraft against the Hinds. (These turned 
out to be a general obsession, NATO put 10 airstrikes against the Hinds in total, losing at 
least 3 F-16s, and only getting one Hind in return)
	The woods S of Hayesville became a general combat zone, with units engaging 
each other at 100-200 meters. NATO got the better kill ratio and survived the first 
assault. Unknown to them, however, there were two platoons deployed about 300m away 
to both North and South, these then engaged later on in the game with obvious outcome.
	Corinne's BTRs in the South ran afoul of a NATO OP at 650920, but they stopped 
and deployed. The advance of the BTRs seems to have confused NATO, but they were 
even further confused when the BTRs just stopped, even as two batteries of ICM were 
hammering them, they just stayed there.
	Belgian and Dutch forces up North, meeting bugger-all resistance continued their 
advance, getting hit by the AT guns as they crossed through the valley. If I had 
underrated the 25mms, then I seriously underrated the 100mm AT-guns. They killed off a 
Belgian tank platoon and thensome. Although they then spent much of the rest of the 
game being smoked by NATO, they still got the occasional potshot off...Much NATO 
smoke was being expended between their forces and the Hinds. (I noted later that smoke 
won't block LOS from high level...) Whilst the Hinds didn't exactly do too much damage 
throughout the game (One sensible one took out two Flak units), they seemed to have a 
disproportionate effect on NATO planning.. One gets the feeling that the NATO CO is a 
tanker.... (Am I right?) Belgian Stingers took out another chopper.
	NATO CO was beginning at this point to cop on that OPFOR seemed to be 
attacking as opposed to defending, and asked HQ for permission to defend. The response 
was along the lines of 'If not a feint, then you may temporarily defend, but you must get 
the railhead before the enemy reinforcements arrive'. It seems that NATO decided to 
continue attacking. This decision would cost them the game, though even if they had 
decided to hold tight I'm not sure about the outcome.
	Opfor on the other hand, didn't seem to realise that there were two NATO 
battalions on the North. The only concession they made was to move the anti-tank 
reserve (A T-80 company to the North to defend the area N of the railhead, and to hit it 
with a little artillery. This area was heavily smoked though, and WarPac frequently could 
see nothing.
	As a concession to WarPac having a coy of tanks and a (Now reduced) coy of 
infantry in NL-2's planned Route of Advance,  NATO changed their axis of attack to the 
Hayesville region, and continued pressing forwards up North. Unfortunately for them, an 
MRL strike got very lucky, and killed of almost a dozen vehicles (And accompanying 
Inf) of the Northern groups. A Belgian Milan squad firing from smoke achieved some 
kills on BTRs...
	The Belgian unit in Hayesville, now reduced to a few infantry squads courtesy of 
152mm Artillery, moved East and engaged the remnants of Corinne's company. Not a 
particularly good move, especially as the 100mms opened up... 2Nl left a platoon of Leo-
2s and a MechInf platoon at 650648 to defend the south, the rest of the battalion went 
North to pass through the trees at 655945.
	Unfortunately for Opfor, due to a miscommunication on the orders channel, a 
decision by Corinne to advance the BTR coy on the Southern edge, and more smoke 
missions required than could be provided, the lead units going into those trees got hit by 
T-72s to the SE. A platoon of valuable Leo-2s was knocked out, with one remaining 
immobilized Leo becoming something of a nuisance later from behind a smokescreen, 
killing off Corinne's BTRs and taking pot shots at her T-72s. Most of the rest of 2NL 
made it into the trees. One Mechinf platoon with Dragons was dropped off there, these 
proved useful later.
	Specific mention must be made of a detachment of GDR PKM machine-gunners, 
all of whom were single, orphaned, and generally wouldn't be missed back home. These 
guys were detailed to stick their heads over the edge of the ridge down south, they went 
to 650648 or so, spotted the YPR-765 APCs, and promptly machine-gunned them, killing 
three of the four. Unfortunately, the Leo-2s and accompanying infantry didn't seem to be 
impressed....I guess the PKM AP round needs a little work for Leos: Awards will be 
Posthumous.
	Rick's BTR battalion, (After a couple of wrong turns, I can only assume they were 
my fault, but I still don't know what happened) finally got to their jump-off line and 
started an attack towards the woods at 645942. As they charged, the defending Leo-2, 
Dragons and 12 ITVs that were entering the treeline opened up from behind smoke with 
predictable results. However, the ITVs kept going NW, disappearing into the treeline, the 
Leo got hit by a T-80 company (Smoke ran out...), and the dragons were getting about a 
kill every three or so shots. Not good... The BMP battalion, less a Coy reserve also joined 
the fray going for Irvington...
	Up North, the Belgian/NL force, now attrited, reformed into one battalion, and 
secured the trees at 695970.
	At this point, I called the game, as it was 1 in the morning for several people 
(Myself included.. I was in barracks at 07:30 that morning coming.. (Incidentally, though 
not official, I appear to have been killed by a Fantasian Paratrooper from the front at 15 
meters... I never saw him until it was too late. (He got a shot off a half-second before I 
did, but I digress. :(   )), some had to leave, and some were just plain tired.
	It seemed obvious that two platoons were not going to stop a 1-2km charge by 
two battalions. NATO responded by aborting their attack (Finally) and would have 
conducted a counterattack from 642945 with some three companies. Even from behind 
smoke, at the ranges that would have involved, I figure WarPac would have come out 
better. Therefore I would say that WarPac completed their mission of creating another 
breakthrough to restart their offensive.
	On the other hand, NATO would have quite likely has completed their mission 
(Grab the Railhead), but would have failed the objective (Prevent Warpac from launching 
a successful attack). In addition, that combined force was now cut off.. So pending the 
result of my continuing the battle on my own, I called it a decisive WarPac victory.

	Notes...
	Warpac (Reasonably) wanted the BM-27 strikes to land immediately. Of course, 
the fastest they could come was three minutes. Too late, I thought of deploying all forces, 
not giving orders to anyone except the MLRS, and running turns until they hit, then give 
the forces orders, and then go online and start the CPX. As things turned out, courtesy of 
the Modem, this would have proven a <really> bad thing to carry out on the fly.
	NATO gave me a <whole> pile of TRPs to be ranged in on at various points. I'm 
afraid to say I ignored them. Not only did I not have time to plot them courtesy of the late 
orders, but I would not have been able to keep track of when and where during the game. 
It's not a bad idea, but I think one would need a second umpire just to deal with TRPs and 
checkpoints...
	NATO did apparently an excellent deception job.. WarPac didn't have a clue as to 
what they were up to..or so I'm told.
	10 Airstikes againt Hinds? I think they could have been better used....
	In about 6 hours of Real-time playing, we covered a mere 35 minutes of game 
time, a ratio of about 10:1. Whilst not outstanding, it was a complicated enough scenario 
(Especially with NATO changing their entire plan half-way through, one orders phase 
alone took the guts of 20-30 minutes to put in), and I believe it wasn't too bad for my first 
attempt at CPX umpiring. Further, it was enough to decide, in my mind, a clear winner, 
so whilst I (and I'm sure NATO) would have like to continue at least 15 more minutes, I 
wasn't overly worried about calling the game then.
	Most of the attrition was caused by GDR ground forces and USSR artillery... 
Interesting, but then the USSR ground forced weren't commited until the end.

		I'm sure there was more, but I'll probably be reminded after I read the 
Player's AARs...

--------

Stephen Althouse’s AAR:

I was the OPFOR commander for the CPX.  I would first like to say that
Nick did a very good job running this large and complex CPX.  This is
especially so since it was his first one.

Force Wibbel (where the name comes from I don't know...;)) consisted of:

 	A GDR Army taskforce of around Bn strength
	
	A Soviet BTR Bn plus attachments (T-72s with no DU ammo and some 	other
odds and ends)

	A Soviet BMP Bn plus attachments (T-80U w/atgm)

	Four Hinds, 3 btrys 152mm, 2 btrys 122mm, 1 btry 122mm MRL

	2 single strikes from BM-27s that had to be used within the 		first 10
minutes (MLRS was used to simulate them)

	6 Airstrikes

Our orders were very direct, "Penetrate and breakthrough enemy lines"
and "Do not just get past enemy forces, annihilate them".

Our intelligence estimate was that there would be a mixed bn sized unit
in our area.  (This was our first assumption, and a wrong one).  The
unit was both Dutch and Belgian with 1989 era equipment, that had been
preparing it's defenses for sometime.  (Our second assumption was that
NATO would be fairly immobile, dug in and waiting.  Maybe some forays
forward to gain some depth and a company sized mobile reserve. We were
wrong again.)

Based on this order, and Intel estimate I decided to mass my forces in
the South to take advantage of the terrain both on the approach to the
objectives and for the roll up of NATO's flank northwards.

The basic plan was to use the germans to literally leap forward and grab
several key pieces of terrain that dominated the attack route of the
soviet bns.  At the same time the soviet bns would march out of their
start positions near the railhead.  The BTR Bn (1BN) would make the
initial assault on the woods vic of 657928.  The BMP Bn (2BN) would
roughly parallel 1BN's route slightly behind them.  This would
eventually place them in the woods vic 665923 (previously taken by GDR
units if things went right).  From there we would play leap frog to the
north with as close to a bn in overwatch as possible.  2BN had to give
up a company of T-80s to form what we called the Anti-Tank Reserve
(ATR), this was for two reasons...One, a soviet style unit this size
would doctrinally form one and Two we were concerned about a NATO
counter attack from the north once they figured out we were all in the
south.  The Hinds were placed in the North as another ATR and to provide
additional observation.  The firestrikes were planned to hit known and
probable NATO postions.

The GDR unit was dubbed Kampfgruppe Mahaffey (KGM) after it's commander
Corinne Mahaffey.  It could be deployed anywhere along the front line up
to the map edges.  This unit had T-72Ms with DU ammo as well as a btry
of 100mm AT guns and a battery each of Zsu-23's, 122mm SP Guns, and
ZSU-23-4.  She was tasked to take the woods vic 665943, woods vic 665923
and put a platoon into the east side of Haysville.  Additionally she was
responsible for maintaining an ADA screen up to the north map edge, and
overwatch the open area surrounding Haysville to protect 1BN as it moved
forward. 

1BN commanded by Rick Nelson, was to take the woods vic 657928 and be
prepared to continue the attack or overwatch for 2BN as it went
forward.  His route was basically straight down the railway to the
woods.

2BN commanded by James Sterrett, followed Hwy 60 down to the woods vic
665923.  His ATR was to move to 685935 and wait for orders.

The Hinds were deployed in the north behind the ridge to wait for orders
as well.

Our biggest concerns were: Leo2s, the lack of thermals on our entire
side, NATO air and helos, and Mines.

The Leo2s were nearly invulnerable to most of our missiles and all of
1BN's tanks.  We decide to rely on massed overwatch by the KGM and 2BN
as 1BN did most of the dirty work and dying.

The lack of thermals makes us use the terrain more effectively, really
the only counter to thermals other than arty.

What happened from our viewpoint:

Initial Phase:

KGM Jumped off on time and immediately hit a storm of fire on the
platoon heading to Haysville and some on the unit heading to the woods
south of Hayesville.  Eventually the plt heading for Haysville died and
the company moving to the woodstook them after a lively firefight.  The
company in the south also had a lively firefight in the woods and took
them.  1BN and 2BN began moving, although 1BNs units kept stopping or
heading in the wrong direction, but Nick got it worked out and they were
off.  We saw NATO moving fairly large units forward all along the
front.  This was pidgenholed as local units trying to grab forward
battle positions like Haysville and the same woods we had taken.  We had
some indications of NATO movement east in the north but nothing solid so
the Hinds were moved to see what they could see.


Mid Phase:

KGM had basically done it's job with about 45% losses, nearly all
infantry and APCs.  The two woods were ours and 1BN had gotten past
Guston without incident from the NW.  Now they had to weather the arty
raining on them until 1BN and 2BN closed up on their objectives. 
Resistance had been fairly light considering that we thought the NATO
forces would be dug in and waiting for us.  More indications of NATO
movement east in the north, moved the HINDS again.  NATO keeps moving to
Haysville, seemed to be more than just a grab for a battle position. 
KGM's AT guns and atgms really do a number on the forces heading to
Haysville and they stop coming. We drop lots of arty on them to make
them move or die.   The smoke parts in the north and the Hinds see a
company+ moving east along the map edge.  We drop arty on them and use
the Hinds to keep track of them...Why are they up there? 
Counter-attack?  Moving to shoot south past Haysville?  Exit troops off
the west edge???  I ordered the ATR to deploy to the woods vic 703965
and keep them from exiting if they try.  More and more NATO units are
moving east up north.
As the commander I don't really care if they are up there as long as
they don't come south.  We firestrike an apparent assembly area and are
rewarded with lots of secondaries....Hmm more than the company we
thought was there.  The Hinds draw lots of fire and airstrikes, finally
only one section of 2 remains..but the KGM ADA knocks down 3 F-16s and
abort several others.  I move the ATR to keep the NATO units from coming
south if they come.

End Phase:

1BN reaches their objective with it's scouts and only finds wrecks.  We
decide to push them forward and to move the KGM units in the south
forward to overwatch and get out from under the arty.  The scouts die in
a hurry but see what kills them...the dreaded Leo2s.  We dump arty on
them and eventually the KGM tanks take care of the leos.  We think that
was NATO's reserve company and we are clear to launch the 2 bn attack. 
But wait, the elite KGM orphan MG unit spots more Leo2s and YPRs before
it dies. The attack is delayed as we bring more units forward.  More
NATO units head east.  We have no idea what they are doing now.  The ATR
is adjusted slightly again and the hinds continue to harass and snipe.
Finally we launch the big attack up and over 2 bns wide..a little ragged
at first but it will get better.  Then the game ends.

Overall comments:

We had a clear cut mission, go forth make a hole and kill NATO.  We
did.  While it may have looked like a simple charge it was several
phased actions with supporting players.  Corinne and her KGM suffered
atleast 50% losses and still suceeded in every mission but one, the
platoon to Haysville which turned out not to be needed.  Her AT units
kept their area under fire and killed several units.  Her ADA screen
fired 90% of their ammo and kept the Hinds alive.  1BN took his
objective without loss and was changing direction 90 degrees to attack
north when we ended.  2BN had moved up and was co-ordinating his attack
with 1BN plus jockeying his ATR around.  The NATO attack in the north
surprised us but didn't influence the operation.  There was nothing in
our orders about defending anything.  The rail head had nothing in it
but treadmarks and trash. We didn't even consider it a possible target
until after the game was called.

Things we can improve on:

We assumed way too much on what NATO had and what their mission was.

Keep better track of BLUE side losses...if we had we might have
discovered that we were facing a much larger force than we thought.

Keep better track of current arty missions and trps.

Routes of march to attacks...a little better recon might have reduced
our losses in KGM.

The BM-27 strikes.

Things that went well:

The overall plan went very well.  If NATO had decided to feint in the
south or if we went north, we would have had a much different battle.

Co-ordination and inital deployments were superb and on time.

Reacting to changes and the on order missions went very well.


Thanks to all that participated especially Nick.  NATO had a tough
mission that they had to change in midstream.  It could have gone
differently with just a few changes in set up or movements.

--------

Jerry Hall, the NATO commander, wrote this AAR:

NATO AAR

First, our orders:

BASTARD BRIGADE OPORD	

TASK ORGANIZATION

Belgian Battalion: unchanged, add 1 FISTV

1st Netherlands Bn (minus)
HQ, 1 FISTV
	B, C Coys (Mech)
	E Coy (-): E/1, Mortars (rather than attach them to 2 NL, I will assign them
to 2NL later)
	F Coy (-): F/1, F/2 (Leo 2)

2nd Netherlands Bn (plus)
	HQ, 1 FISTV (2nd FISTV goes to BE Bn)
	Y, X, W Coys (Mech)
	V Coy (Support)
	U Coy (Leo 2)
	D Coy/1st NL Bn (Mech)
	E/2/1st NL Bn (ITV)
	F/3, F/4/1st NL Bn (Leo 2)
	
4 155mm Arty Batteries (let's call them A, B, C, and D Batteries)
3 CAS sorties
TACOPS TRPs: 01: 667975 
    02: 663948

Other TRPs (for reference; arty not firing missions should start to shift and
register these TRPs as soon as possible). Bn Commanders plot TRPs that you
might need, but not more than about 5.

BDE TRPs: (00 series)
	03: 670950
	04: 684966

Belgian TRPs: (000series)

1st NL TRPs: (010 series)
	011: 655975
	012: 660970
	013: 665968
	014: 678976
	015: 684973

2nd NL TRPs: (020 series) 


1.  Situation. 
Enemy. Estimate that a Motorized Rifle Battalion (BMP-2) reinforced with a
Tank Company (T-72) is defending in sector along the 675 N-S gridline. This
force can be reinforced with up to a Motorized Rifle Regiment no earlier than
60 minutes after our attack begins. Assumption: OPFOR should not have thermals
or improved ATGM warheads; confirmation of this fact is a priority. If your
forces are engaged through smoke, or if Leo 2s are killed by ATGMs from the
front, we need to know ASAP and adjust our plans. Use of smoke and frontal
armor of the Leo 2s will be decisive in the attack; smoke and ITVs and tank
fire will be decisive defending against the OPFOR counterattack. 
· Equipment: the T72 can penetrate the frontal armor of the Leo C1A1 at any
range, and the Leo 2 out to 2500m, although at less pH than either the Leo 1
or 2. The BMP2 AT5 can kill the LeoC1A1 at any range and aspect, but cannot
kill the Leo 2 from front or side at all. Keep this in mind.
· Estimate Motorized Rifle Platoons at the following locations: OBJs Antwerp,
Brussels, Hague, Assen, Guston, Bonn (woods 680960), Berlin (woods 675952),
and Frankfurt (woods/high ground 682932), a squad at Daffodil, and a Reserve
T-72 Company vic Rotterdam/Amsterdam. This Company will probably include the
MRB ATGM section (BMP2s carrying AT3 Saggers?), and will be able to conduct
local counterattacks toward Hague, Berlin or Guston within 10-15 minutes.
· Composition of the MRR CATK force unknown. Assume T72 and BMP2, but
possibility of some T80s. It appears that the MRR CATK force could reach the
map before we take Amsterdam. Plan defensive positions along the Hague/Munich-
Rotterdam-Arnhem-BP2 line. This decision will have to remain flexible.
Determining the location of the OPFOR CATK is another priority.
· Estimate that OPFOR will move an MRP into both Antwerp and Brussels at game
start; they can be in position as early as 0702, able to fire on forces using
Axis Belgium. OPFOR MRPs will also move forward within Berlin and Assen. OPFOR
MRPs will probably defend in place. The OPFOR reserve will remain in place
until OPFOR has determined our main effort; hopefully they will commit north.
· OPFOR Graphics: I will attempt to describe these before I send a bmp file
since we can't all read them. The MRPs will be described using our codewords.
AAs (Avenues of Approach) follow. These are possible routes OPFOR may use to
move forces:
	AA01: from 675977 into OBJ Antwerp
	AA02: from 675974 into OBJ Brussels
	AA1a: from 720975 west to Munich
	AA1b: branch off of AA1 southeast along L&N Railroad
	AA2: over BP3 and west toward Arnhem
	AA3a: from 720930 to OBJ Holland
	AA3b: from 720925 west along our Axis Holland toward Daffodil
	Tank Company Reserve CATK routes:
		A: Northwest from Amsterdam toward Hague
		B: West toward Berlin
		C: Southwest toward Dresden


2.  Mission: Bastard Brigade attacks at 0700 16 May to seize OBJ Amsterdam vic
704955; on order defends to defeat an MRR counterattack and resumes/completes
attack mission.

3.  Execution: I intend to conduct a feint with the Belgians and the 1st NL(-)
in the center and north to draw the MRB counterattack force away from
Rotterdam,/Amsterdam. After the BE Bn seizes Antwerp, Brussels and Leipzig and
the 1st NL passes forward and seizes Hague, 2NL (+) will begin the Brigade
main effort along Axis North Sea to seize Dresden. Once these initial
objectives are taken we will decide how to take Amsterdam, based on the time,
enemy losses and locations, and status of our forces. We will on order
transition to a defense based on how long it takes to seize initial objectives
and enemy activity.
	
A.  Scheme of Maneuver. 

	1. Belgian Bn: The BE Bn deploys along the current front line (FLOT),
prepared to attack Antwerp, Brussels and Leipzig. The BE main effort attacks
along Axis Belgium and seizes Antwerp and Brussels. Recommend a BE Coy,
reinforced with a tank platoon, attack and seize Leipzig and BP9 (BP 9 is an
option; there is a possibility that OPFOR may try to push something into it,
but I'm not sure. Steve: Take BP 9 if you feel comfortable with it). This
company should further divide one platoon into individual squads and establish
Ops at BPs 4, 5, 7 and 8. The squad at BP 8 should scout along Axis Holland to
SBF B and report.  FISTV should use BP4 to register arty vic TRPs 01, 04, 011,
012, 013.
	Be careful of setting up and moving in clear vic 648979. ATGMs vic Berlin or
Bonn could possibly target your forces. Smoke vic TRP 012 or 013 would screen
you from this possibility. You will have priority of artillery fires during
this phase. Batteries A, B, and C will be under your direct control. D Btry
will be in reserve under my control. You will have to plot a smoke mission on
TRP 01 at game start to have it impact before OPFOR arrives at Antwerp and
Brussels. Also plot smoke on TRP 02 to cover your move along Axis Luxembourg
(you will want to start on the low ground if possible) You may have to renew
this mission after three minutes to ensure coverage until you arrive. I would
lead with tanks, followed by your M113s. Another option would be to use your
HQ Scimitars and Scorpions as scouts to lead your formation and draw fire. You
could also dismount your Milans and Stingers and place them in other vehicles,
and use the HUMMVs for scout vehicles. Just some ideas: these apply to
everyone.  Use HE on the west edges of the woods, dismount your infantry and
move into the woods, with the tanks overwatching at least 600 meters away from
the woods to avoid RPGs. Then push to the east side of the Antwerp and
Brussels and set-up to cover 1 NLs attack on Hague. If you can, establish a
force (tank plt and mech plt?) at SBF A to better cover OBJ Hague. You and
Rattler will have to talk to each other to coordinate exactly when 1NL should
pass through. You may want to move some dismounted infantry into the open
toward Hague just before 1NL attacks so that you can trigger enemy fire and
target it with arty/smoke/direct fire as Rattler attacks. 
	After Rattler passes thru and you have finished supporting him, consolidate
what you have left in two groups, one each on Antwerp and Brussels. You may be
tasked to support Rattlers continued attack, move to an OBJ to defend against
the MRR counterattack (Munich, Amsterdam?). If you are given the defend
mission, you'll want to establish an infantry based defense backed up by your
tanks and dragons. Probably best to be in woods, rather than at the edge where
OPFOR could mass fires on you; keep some observers forward, with most of your
infantry deeper in the woods to ambush OPFOR if they enter. Dragons and Milans
can cover the west edges to kill OPFOR vehicles that attempt to bypass your
forces. Just ideas.

	2. 1st Netherlands Bn: 1st NL deploys in column and uses Route Tulip to move
to Axis Belgium, then follows Belgium thru Antwerp to Hague. 1st NL will
coordinate with BE Bn to synchronize the forward passage of lines; it is OK
for 1st NL to move forward if BE Bn is still fighting for its OBJs. 1NL should
lead with tanks, followed by M113s, and overwatched by ITVs. 1NL will order
smoke as necessary using Battery D as it advances, using TRP 012, followed by
TRPs 014 and 015 during the attack. You will also have 2 CAS sorties to use on
your attack on hague (part of the deception effort). 
	Once 1NL seizes OBJ Hague, be prepared to continue the attack to Munich, Bonn
or Rotterdam, or to support 2NLs attack on Arnhem or Amsterdam. Flexibility
will be key.

	3. 2nd Netherlands Bn: 2NL advances to AA Haarlem, exact locations dependent
on how these forces want to attack (AA Haarlem is deliberately large to allow
for this). On order (when 1NL seized Hague), 2 NL attacks along Axis North Sea
to seize OBJs Assen and Dresden. Lead with tanks, followed by M113s,
overwatched by ITVs from SBF C. You will want to position your overwatch
forces first. Plan smoke on Assen, Dresden, Frankfurt to support your attack.
When you start your attack, Batteries A, B, and C become yours, as well as
1NLs mortars. Once you seize Assen and Dresden , be prepared to continue the
attack or move to a defensive OBJ (Arnhem, Eindhoven).
	You have sufficient forces to hold some in reserve, allowing you to commit
some to Axis Holland or OBJ Frankfurt if this is necessary.

	B. Fires. I will assign batteries to each Bn Cdr as I deem necessary. I would
like to save the mortar smoke for when OPFOR counterattacks: they basically
have 100% smoke since TACOPS doesn't track mortar rounds by type, so don't
fire mortar HE unless absolutely necessary . When you use smoke in your
attacks, use the minimum amount necessary so that we have enough for later.
Use HE to suppress as you attack, and ICM only on confirmed targets of at
least platoon strength. 2 of our three CAS sorties will be used to support
1NL's attack; this is mostly to reinforce OPFOR's impression that our main
attack is in the north, as well as in recognition of OPFOR ADA strength. We
will save what we have left for helping 2NL or against the OPFOR CATK.

When you do your orders, be as specific as possible on your intent and SOPs.
If Moran understands what you want to do with your force, it will be easier
for him to move your forces without you having to give lengthy orders during
the battle. Contingency orders work well: if fired on, immediately fire HE and
smoke, etc. 

That's it for now.

This should give you enough guidance to prepare your orders and get them to
me.

 




Overlay clarifications

BP1 (Battle Position 1): vic 687927, purpose: protect flank of any force using
Axis Holland 2

BP2: vic 693927, same purpose as BP1

BP3: vic 718946, infantry to stop OPFOR counterattack (CATK) forces from
sneaking on the map in the woods

BP4: vic 648968, Observation Post (OP) site for Belgian squad (?), FISTV/FO

BP5: vic 648958, OP

BP6: vic 655946, OP/attack position for BE forces using Axis Luxemburg

BP7: vic 658930, OP

BP8: vic 658924, OP; 7 and 8 observe any OPFOR movement into BP9 from east or
any move onto high ground N or S of Axis North Sea

BP9: vic 668941, overwatch Axis North Sea

OBJ Antwerp: woods on high ground vic 670977; initial objective for BE bn
(Enemy: MRP)

OBJ Brussels: woods on high ground vic 668970, initial BE objective (Enemy:
MRP)

OBJ Hague: woods on high ground vic 683970, initial OBJ for 1NL Bn (Enemy MRP)

Axis Beligium 1: starts vic 650977, east to OBJ Antwerp, then SE to OBJ Hague

Axis Belgium 2: starts vic 650977, east then SE to ONJ Brussels

Support By Fire (SBF) Position A: in woods vic 674975; after BE Bn occupies
Antwerp and Brussels, establish this position to support 1 NL's attack on
Hague

Assembly Area (AA) Haarlem: large AA centered on 650933, for 2NL to occupy
while waiting for 1NL to seize Hague. Place units so that they can use either
North Sea (main emphasis), or Holland (secondary emphasis).

Axis Luxemburg: from BP 6 to OBJ Haysville. Elements of BE Bn use Lux to seize
OBJ Haysville 

OBJ Leipzig: village of Haysville vic 664952, initial OBJ of BE Bn

Axis Ghent: from BP6 to BP 9; a BE plt uses Ghent to seize BP 9 and establish
OP
SBF C: vic 660930, 1NL use as an overwatch for Axis North Sea

Axis North Sea 1: from SBF C to OBJ Assen, supporting axis

Axis North Sea 2: from SBF C along RR track to OBJ Guston, main axis for 2NL

Obj Assen: woods vic 677938 (Enemy: MRP)

OBJ Dresden: town of Guston vic 684940 (Enemy: MRP)

SBF B: vic 673923, overwatch valley along Axis Holland and any attack on OBJ
Daffodil

Axis Holland 1: southern axis from BP8 to SBF B

OBJ Daffodil: woods on high ground vic 680925, initial OBJ to begin Axis
Holland 2 (Enemy: OP/Squad)

Axis Holland 2: from OBJ Daffodil to OBJ Holland

OBJ Holland: woods on high ground vic 708935, possible objective for 2NL
southern flanking force

OBJ Arnhem: woods vic 693945

OBJ Rotterdam: woods vic 694955

OBJ Amsterdam: THE OBJECTIVE vic 704955

OBJ Eindhoven: vic 700940

OBJ Nijmegen: vic 714958


New:

OBJ Bonn: woods vic 680960 (Enemy: MRP)

OBJ Berlin: woods vic 675952 (Enemy MRP)

OBJ Munich: woods vic 695970

OBJ Frankfurt: woods/high grounds vic 682932 (Enemy: MRP)



Execution:

Unplanned problems intervened and caused our orders process to derail. We got
our orders to Nick late, and we never recovered from this problem. Biggest
lesson of the CPX from our point of view: be prepared! (also: rather than
sending attachments, cut and paste orders so that they can be understood by
all).

As the scenario began, we expected some limited OPFOR attacks to take terrain
favorable for defending. The Belgians rapidly took OBJs Antwerp and Brussels,
as well as Haysville (with casualties), and reported significant OPFOR
activity in the south. 1st  and 2nd NL were moving as planned. 

By 0710-1715, it became apparent that OPFOR's attack was not limited, but
general. We were still successful in the north, so I had the Belgians continue
the attack to OBJ Hague (1st NL's OBJ), with the intent of passing 1st NL
forward to seize OBJ Munich. At this point I asked the Div Cdr for further
guidance:

<Trooper> yo
<Bastard6> Bde Cdr to Div Cdr; appears OPFOR not defending but attacking
<Bastard6> need clarification: can we bypass enemy and continue with mission,
or defend, then atatck?
<Bastard6> really need to know whether DIvision cares if we let some OPFOR
thru and concentrate on taking the RR?
<Trooper> If opfor attack not a feint, then defend. But you must get to the
railheads before the reinforcements get there
<Bastard6> OK

Given this guidance, we decided that we would continue the attack in the
north, and shift the 2NL's axis from Axis North Sea to west of Axis
Luxembourg, "sidestepping" OPFOR's attack. This would allow us to seize the
railhead and insert our Brigade between OPFOR's forward and follow-on
echelons. Once on the OBJ, we planned to defend with 1st and 2nd NL facing
east, and the Belgians protecting the rear.

At this point "friction" really heated up, and I lost control of 2NL's shift
to the northeast. Due to confusion and muddled orders, 2NL's forces were
scattered and exposed themselves to flank and rear shots as they tried to
redeploy to the north. I never really regained control of the 2NL. This is the
next lesson: develop SOPs for how you want to run your orders channel; we had
discussed this, but obviously not enough to overcome this control problem.

At this point I had to quit the game. 

The scenario was interesting and challenging, although somewhat unbalanced. By
unbalanced, I don't mean in forces, but in expectations and evaluation. Both
sides initially received attack missions; both sides assumed that the other
was defending. OPFOR was given the classic "attack at all costs" mission that
did not require modification regardless of what NATO did. NATO on the other
hand, was expected, although this was not communicated, to evaluate the change
in OPFOR mission and change its plans. "The trick with this scenario was for
the NATO commander." I won't argue with that one, NickJ Maybe next time you
should have a trick for both sides.

Lessons:

1. Be prepared. Make sure you allot enough time for planning and preparation.

2. Develop SOPs for how you want your team to operate on the orders channel.
For teams with several new players, a practice mini-cpx or access to previous
CPX log files may help.

3. Never assume!

Sorry this AAR is so short; in keeping with BENELUX luck, the first AAR I
wrote was lost in the black hole that is my hard drive, and I just didn't have
the focus to write it as well the second timeL

Jerry Hall

--------

Matt Ohlmer (a NATO player) took the next step, and a moderately long discussion of victory conditions 
ensued…  henceforth I’ll just identify the person who wrote a given piece.

Hi, Jerry!

First let me thank you and all the blokes on our team for this wonderful
exercise, I really enjoyed it (despite or because of the fact that all I
had to do was driving around beautiful countryside with a bunch of stonded
Dutch...<g>) and I am looking forward to try again with you all, prob June,
rather in July, when my workload gets significantly less.

special tx to steven (for staying that long), hope your girl is better!

I learned a lot, most S2 Stuff, like having the map and my OOB unit
overview table up-to-date in a timely manner, a problem I had during my
first cpx. This time everything went well as far as this is concerned, I
had instant access to the relevant info. (only when I suddenly had to take
over the whole thing alone I realized I was not really prepared to do it,
because of no unit tables and no map info on the overall situation. I will
be prepared next time...)

>>...My first impression after reading Nick's AAR...<<

is that in NATO orders, he *left out the core* part:

>>In order to buy time, it has been decided that
>>you are to penetrate the WarPac front line to the nearest sidings
>>capable of off-loading heavy equipment. This will have two effects.
Primarily, it >>willforce his reinforcing units to offload further to the
rear, 
>>with the resulting time delays and mechanical failures. Further this will
allow >>more time for our interdiction aircraft to work them over. If they
are allowed to
>>build up for an attack, they will almost certainly be able to penetrate
your lines.
>>Secondarily, it will cut off one of the supply sources to the WarPac
forces
>>currently in the town of Gustonburg. In addition, the location would give
a
>>good field of fire to interdict road supply lines to the town. Do not
push
>>forward beyond this point for the moment. You lack the forces needed for
a
>>successful penetration in depth.
>>
>>Your mission is to take the rail facilities located at ref 704955 to
prevent
>>resupply and reinforcement.

This kind of paints a wrong picture to outsiders reading it, maybe you
should advise him accordingly.

Like you, Jerry, I feel the scenario was a bit out of balance as far as
decision making was concerned, and, with a strict mission like this and the
comments of DIV Cdr, the decision to make way, let them pass and pull north
to secure our objective approach was a right call at the time.

Had DIV Cdr on the other hand related new intel (like: re-inforcements seem
to have arrived earlier than we thought...), it would have made a nice
excercise for ump and us to try and bring back these northern BNs into play
for flank games while defending in place with NL2.

As for the airstrikes: I re-read my log files carefully and find we never
knew we had 10 availiable. OTOH we maybe should have used some for recon,
to find out what was going on (I remeber OPFOR CATK location *was* our
seccond priority after establishing their thermals capability...).

Generally I feel, with more recon we might have got the picture in time to
do something about it, despite DIVīs comments (but thats quite a personal
obsession of mine, I sometimes use up to a third of my forces to provide me
with who is where doing what, usually ending up with too little forces to
do something with the gained intel...<g>).

>>...Orders during the battle is next; I like Rattler's idea of the CO
going first
and giving intent, then the players giving orders. Of course, that may not
work with someone like James, who severely limits the time for orders to
keep
the game moving fast..<<

I think even with James that would be a good road to choose, because he at
least *will have* the big idea and (hopefully <g>) act accordingly
(James?).

To be better/faster during this phase, I as CO would like to get
*condensed* status reports in from subunits every now and then, like: "Team
PETITE 2km W of LEIPZIG, moving N, engaging on retreat" and so on,
generally relaying more to the overlay then to give UTMīs (which always
involve some searching). That would enable CO to paint the pict on orders
channel. Providing these reps could be done by each BN cdr having report
forms with the last info ready where only the changes would have to be
documented for rapid reports (I usually have a word-processor open during
game to pre-write orders/reports and then send them to ump by
copy-and-paste).

Suggestion: Maybe we do a little training beforehand next time we play,
esp. for the newbies like Chris (who did quite a job, I think). Some of us
have develloped nice systems to handle the amount of info flowing, we could
share and improve.

Anyway, it was a lot of fun and I think we did a good job considering what
IRL time limits and other probs (unpaid e-mail accounts...<g>) we were
facing.

Looking forward to working with all of you again

Matt

--------

Nick Moran:

>This kind of paints a wrong picture to outsiders reading it, >maybe you
>should advise him accordingly.

Responsed ny the GM, and my rationale behind them.. They make sense to me, even if you don't agree with 
them...  <G>

>Like you, Jerry, I feel the scenario was a bit out of balance >as far as
>decision making was concerned, and, with a strict mission >like this and the
>comments of DIV Cdr, the decision to make way, let them >pass and pull north
>to secure our objective approach was a right call at the >time.

	The Div Commander (Me) I thought gave you a fair bit of leeway as to what you could do... In 
response to a direct request to stop and defend and head for the railyard later, my verbatim reply was very 
close to "If you are sure that the Opfor attack is not a feint, you may defend, but you must stop 
reinforcements from reaching the railhead" See next comment on intel.

>Had DIV Cdr on the other hand related new intel (like: re->inforcements seem
>to have arrived earlier than we thought...), it would have >made a nice
>excercise for ump and us to try and bring back these >northern BNs into play
>for flank games while defending in place with NL2.

	Possibly.. But the reinforcements that did come were not the divisional reserve that was mentioned 
to be about an hour away in a later post to you early in your planning phase just after you got the initial 
orders... Those boys were indeed at least an hour away. However, look at the WarPac orders a little more 
carefully. They imply that the two Russian battalions were not part of the reserve, they were on their way to 
the front, they merely decided to throw a railway switch and redirect their destination. So in this, the intel 
boys were correct as regards how long reinforcements would take to get there, they were correct as to the 
disposition of the reserve unit, but they did not notice the diversion of another force. This sort of thing 
happens, especially when the enemy doesn't particularly wish you to know that they are about to launch an 
attack. This was a judgement call on my part, indeed central to my idea behind the scenario, and as such I 
stand by it, though I can see the merits to the fight which you propose.

>As for the airstrikes: I re-read my log files carefully and find >we never
>knew we had 10 availiable. OTOH we maybe should have >used some for recon,

	NATO had air superiority... you started with three strikes, but you had a much higher probability 
of new strikes than WarPac did. (I may indeed have forgotten to mention this in your orders) However, you 
may recall that I expressed some mild surprise after being told to send all the second wave of strikes against 
the Hinds... "All 6 against the Hinds?" This was confirmed to me, and so I must believe that someone in 
your team knew that there were six planes available. For whatever else I may feel guilty for, I don't think 
that's one of them <G>

>to find out what was going on (I remeber OPFOR CATK >location *was* our
>seccond priority after establishing their thermals >capability...).

	I don't know if you ever established it or not during the game, but as you saw, they didn't...

>Generally I feel, with more recon we might have got the >picture in time to
>do something about it, despite DIVīs comments (but thats >quite a personal
>obsession of mine, I sometimes use up to a third of my >forces to provide me
>with who is where doing what, usually ending up with too >little forces to
>do something with the gained intel...<g>).

I certainly didn't say anything about your not using recon. Where'd you get that idea?

>>...Orders during the battle is next; I like Rattler's idea of the CO
going first
and giving intent, then the players giving orders. Of course, that may not
work with someone like James, who severely limits the time for orders to
keep
the game moving fast..<<

	To be honest, I'm not totally sure I liked it either.. I'd have been receiving two sets of orders from 
two people about the same unit. The orders may not have been contradictory, but I would say that the 
statements of intent at the CO level should be kept for the pre-battle mails and on the planning channel 
during the game. After all, a General doesn't give statments of intent to companies (Played by umpire), he 
gives them to the colonels who then <may> decide to give an SOI to the troops. It would be a lot easier for 
a panicked and rushed GM (Even more panicked and rushed in my case because I knew I wasn't doing the 
best possible job at thge time) to simply get a set of orders that said 'Unit A goes to location L and deploys 
as a covering force for B'. Or thereabouts.
	I did want the game to move a bit quicker, but considering the circumstances and the fact that 
NATO had to totally reorganise themselves, I couldn't justify cutting short the amount of time you had to 
give orders by much.

>To be better/faster during this phase, I as CO would like to >get
>*condensed* status reports in from subunits every now and >then, like: "Team
>PETITE 2km W of LEIPZIG, moving N, engaging on retreat" >and so on,

	I'm afraid that at my level of experience and competence, that would be a luxury... I had to settle 
for Flashreps every now and then, and the odd running commentary. 

>generally relaying more to the overlay then to give UTMīs >(which always
>involve some searching). 

	In the commentaries, I did give locations by Battle Point #s or Objectives, but when UTMs were 
given (i.e. Spot and Sitreps) you were on your own.. Better to have each team search their own maps than 
to have the GM spend double the amount of time doing both.
>(I usually have a word->processor open during
>game to pre-write orders/reports and then send them to >ump by
>copy-and-paste).

	A good idea, I usually just have it typed out and ready to hit 'send'... But it doesn't allow me to 
make a comment in the interim.. I learn...

>Suggestion: Maybe we do a little training beforehand next >time we play,
>esp. for the newbies like Chris (who did quite a job, I think). 

A suggestion which I second, but I simply didn't have the time to run one.. Maybe if a team CO could run a 
mini CPX of their own, maybe even wargaming their estimate of the coming battle, but that takes enough 
time and effort as it is..

			DWH
				Manic Moran

--------

James Sterrett (Opfor player)

>>...Orders during the battle is next; I like Rattler's idea of the CO
>going first
>and giving intent, then the players giving orders. Of course, that may not
>work with someone like James, who severely limits the time for orders to
>keep
>the game moving fast..<<
>
>	To be honest, I'm not totally sure I liked it either.. I'd have been receiving two sets of orders from 
two people about the same unit. The orders may not have been contradictory, but I would say that the 
statements of intent at the CO level should be kept for the pre-battle mails and on the planning channel 
during the game. After all, a General doesn't give statments of intent to companies (Played by umpire), he 
gives them to the colonels who then <may> decide to give an SOI to the troops. It would be a lot easier for 
a panicked and rushed GM (Even more panicked and rushed in my case because I knew I wasn't doing the 
best possible job at thge time) to simply get a set of orders that said 'Unit A goes to location L and deploys 
as a covering force for B'. Or thereabouts.
>	I did want the game to move a bit quicker, but considering the circumstances and the fact that 
NATO had to totally reorganise themselves, I couldn't justify cutting short the amount of time you had to 
give orders by much.

I'd agree with Nick here:  during the game, having the CO give the umpire an intent, followed by specifics 
from players, looks like a high road to confusion.  IMHO it works better for the CO to tell players the intent 
on the planning channel, then the players relay their interpretation of that to the umpire.  Matt is correct that 
it does help to keep the umpire in the Big Picture, but I doubt that is needed very often (major changes of 
plan...)

  On the other hand, I prefer to get intent-driven orders - they are often much quicker to understand and 
punch in (especially when combined with a good ops graphic.  8) 

>>To be better/faster during this phase, I as CO would like to >get
>>*condensed* status reports in from subunits every now and >then, like: "Team
>>PETITE 2km W of LEIPZIG, moving N, engaging on retreat" >and so on,
>
>	I'm afraid that at my level of experience and competence, that would be a luxury... I had to settle 
for Flashreps every now and then, and the odd running commentary. 

The main problem I have in doing this is that I rarely am following what any given unit is doing quite that 
specifically.  If you've got a unit that I know is assembling and then gets some other orders, I'll probably 
remember to check on it periodically, but not all of them.  

>>Suggestion: Maybe we do a little training beforehand next >time we play,
>>esp. for the newbies like Chris (who did quite a job, I think). 
>
>A suggestion which I second, but I simply didn't have the time to run one.. Maybe if a team CO could run 
a mini CPX of their own, maybe even wargaming their estimate of the coming battle, but that takes enough 
time and effort as it is..

We've run these in the past on rare occasions.  If there's a number of people who want a training CPX, I'm 
happy to run one.


On the scenario and tricks in scenarios:

	I gather NATO feels a bit screwed, and to be fair I can understand that; the chunk of text Jerry 
quotes would have left me feeling I needed to both attack and defend.

	On the other hand, the scenario could easily have gone very differently, and there was a trick 
facing Opfor, if a subtle one.  If our attack had happened to collide with NATO's attack, we would likely 
have been wiped out: NATO would blow smoke and obliterate us.  The trick played on us was this:  we had 
no notion that NATO had a force of anything like the size they did.  A case of ASS-U-ME on our part; we 
figured we were attacking, therefore NATO was defending.  Not too bright of us on Opfor; and we would 
feel a bit screwed had the battle been a disaster for us in which most of a battalion of invisible and nearly 
invulnerable Leo IIs had stormed forward into our main force.  Note that we also had *no idea* of the true 
size of the NATO force, throughout the game.  Nick sent us the end-of-game savegame file after the battle, 
and our jaws dropped at the size of the NATO force - there was at least twice as much as we'd dreamt of, 
and far more Leo IIs (we'd figured on at most a company of them.)

	The scenario, as a scenario, was in many ways very realistic.  Planning and intel cock-ups and luck 
(good and bad) are quite commonplace in military history, and I have no difficulty imagining this scenario's 
basic premise as a real event.

	The wider problem it brings up, though, is that of tricks in scenarios in general.  In making a 
scenario, you need to be careful about how they are constructed.  There's two things to chew on.

	One of them, on which you have little control, is the players.  Some people like weird twists and 
sudden surprises; others do not.  Personally, I tend to like them.  Fortunately, the people who played 
Genforce in my recent Genforce-Canada scenario do too, for they faced a major trick as well.  (In that 
scenario, Genforce was trying to get across the map, whilst the Canadians tried to ensure that Genforce 
exited a certain section of the map edge.)

	The one you do have control over is this:  think about how the trick affects the game.  I spent a lot 
of time on the Genforce-Canada scenario pondering how it might run, and how it would be fair to one side 
or the other.  On the one hand, the Canadians might be overrun by a headstrong Genforce - so they needed 
enough power to potentially seriously bloody a direct assault.  On the other hand, there had to be a 
mechanism through which Genforce could pick up on the problem and change its mission.  In the event, 
Genforce's scouting was pretty poor, so the necessary alarm bells didn't ring quite loudly enough (they 
never hit the well-defended sectors and ignored the clue of there being only one bridge standing.)  I hadn't 
worked out exactly how their mission would change if they twigged to the problem, planning to play along 
with any suspicions they came up with and changing the mission as they might see fit.  (Destroy the 
Canadian force?  Exit scouts first then a main force?  Exit through a different sector?)  That play-by-ear 
was a potential problem which I avoided (and Nick didn't) - because there's a fine line on how far to go in 
revealing the trick to the players at any one time.  Optimally, they'll deduce it themselves and make it 
perfectly clear that they have.  More commonly, they'll voice suspicions, and the umpire needs to thread a 
needle, neither driving them off the scent nor giving inadvertent clues confirming the case.

	Shorter version of the second case:  the players being tricked must have a reasonable means open 
to discovering the trick, and must reasonably be able to cope with the trick once they discover it.

	IMHO, NATO had both in theory.  They would in theory rapidly discover that we were launching 
an attack (though in the event they dismissed our initial moves forward as attempts to gain key defensive 
positions - just as we dismissed their intial moves as the same thing, with a possible flank attack up north.)  
Also, in theory, they would have enough of a force to counter our attack.  As it turns out, neither we nor 
they did this.  We left a tiny screen in the north (and although we had a company of T-80 ATGM as our 
defensive reserve, it wasn't enough to cope with an attack of the scale NATO launched).  NATO left a 
larger force to screen its southern wing, but again not enough to stop our force as it moved forward (though 
quick testing with the end-of-game savegame indicates they'd take a heavy toll, probably killing a bit over a 
battalion of our forces.)  In theory, both sides could react; in the event, both sides had maneuvered in such a 
way as to make reaction pretty difficult.

--------

Nick Moran:

here has been a little discussion now as to how good a job I did with the <design> of the scenario. NATO 
afterwards feeling that they were doomed to lose from the start, and WarPac pointing out (Quite accurately) 
that if NATO did figure out what was going on, they'd just drop smoke and kill away with impunity.
Perhaps there was too much swing involved: The battle would go one way or the other, but perhaps not 
much in between. However, whilst doing my research, I read the Umpire's CPX FAQ, wherein it mentioned 
under scenario design: 'Think about whether it is possible to win the game.. If you get a queasy feeling in 
the shoes of both sides, you have it right' Or words to that effect.
	I thought about the forces involved, and the mission, and I could come up with possible game 
results which would result in either one side or the other losing horribly. One actually happened (NATO 
didn't realise Opfor was attacking) and the other was sussed by James (Opfor are at the mercy of NATO 
thermals).
Whilst I can perhaps sympathise with the NATO feelings after the game (I've been in games where the 
other guy completely wiped the floor with me), I also do have some difficulty in coming up with real-life 
battles where it was right down to the wire.
	Another possibility for thought: Who says the scenarios have to be play balanced? There are 
enough games going around wherein the OPFOR forces are similarly equipped to the NATO forces with 
all-conquering ATGMS and thermal sights. Where's the fun in that? (Or realism for that matter) A chap on 
the Command Decision mailer pointed out quite reasonably that it can be fun to play the completely 
overwhelmed defender. You're going to be overrun no matter how well you do, but victory in game terms 
may be determined simply on losses caused. So Player A can be overrun, but cause 30% casualties on the 
attacker, so A is declared the winner.
	However, I think my CPX has caused perhaps a little more debate than most on scenario design, 
and I shall consider it carefully for my next one. (Whenever that may be...)

	DWH
			NTM
--------

Jerry Hall:

OK; let me rephrase my concerns and put this to rest.

I liked the scenario concept, and the forces involved. It was interesting and
innovative.

It is the "victory conditions" and the evaluation criteria that I have a
problem with. Both sides were given a deliberate attack mission against what
they assumed was a smaller defending force. Both sides were wrong. Both sides
realized the situation was not as assumed and made decisions based on their
orders in reaction to the changed situation. This is where balance was lost.
OPFOR had been given an "attack at all costs," "annihilate the enemy" type
mission; there really was no decision for OPFOR to make-he was supposed to
attack and destroy NATO units regardless of whether they were defending,
attacking or standing on their heads. NATO on the other hand, was given the
mission to seize an objective. When it became clear that OPFOR was attacking,
NATO was given guidance that left the decision NATO should make much less
clear. It can be argued both ways as to whether NATO should have continued the
attack, defended, or tried to do both. This is where I feel balance was lost;
we were assessed as being decisively defeated because we did not figure out
the "proper" decision.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the scenario ended with OPFOR exiting
the map with 75% of its force, and NATO occupying the railhead with 75% of its
force. Who wins? OPFOR because they exited the map (but they didn't
"annihilate" NATO forces like they were supposed to), or NATO because they
chose to take their objective in the face of vague guidance and a vague
situation, while allowing OPFOR to take ground? Tough call.

I personally don't care if I win or lose; I just feel that as the commander I
should voice the concerns of my team. We were all slightly dismayed and
wondering about the victory conditions. We interpreted what Nick told us
differently than he perhaps meant it; OPFOR did not have to worry about
interpreting its orders. I think that surprise and unique situations are a
great tool in CPXs, but there should be an equal chance for both sides to make
those "wrong" decisions.

But that's just my opinion; I could be wrong:-)

I had fun and somehow I feel that my concerns have been blown out of
proportion. 

Jerry

--------

James Sterrett:

>There has been a little discussion now as to how good a job I did with the <design> of the scenario.

I hope you do not feel beaten upon in that respect; IMHO, it is useful to have discussions like this.  (And 
IMHO I narrowly avoid getting nailed for it in my recent Genforce-Canada scenario, and I'm known for 
weird stuff in my scenarios.  So if you are taking heat, it ought by rights to be flying in my direction as 
well.  8)  )

>Perhaps there was too much swing involved: The battle would go one way or the other, but perhaps not 
much in between. However, whilst doing my research, I read the Umpire's CPX FAQ, wherein it mentioned 
under scenario design: 'Think about whether it is possible to win the game.. If you get a queasy feeling in 
the shoes of both sides, you have it right' Or words to that effect.

I stand by that means of assessment too. 8)  IMHO, the scenario had balance; the planning on each side 
interacted in a way such that it wound up lopsided.  It could have gone lopsided the other way, or anything 
in between.  Too much swing?  Beats me; I enjoyed it, but I was on the winning side.

Somehow, this keeps reminding me of something my fencing coach was often telling us:  

	"Fencing is not something *I* do - it is something *we* do."

Similarly, a CPX is not something I do, it is something we do.  Each scenario is a two (or more) sided 
equation....  and the combination of the inputs that the sides put in can have radical effects on the outcome; 
and since the umpire cannot know the player's plans in advance, the result is largely unpredictable.  A good 
thing IMHO....  8)

>	Another possibility for thought: Who says the scenarios have to be play balanced? There are 
enough games going around wherein the OPFOR forces are similarly equipped to the NATO forces with 
all-conquering ATGMS and thermal sights. Where's the fun in that? (Or realism for that matter)

Realism?  Beats me.  8)  Fun?  Personally, I find the perfect nature of thermals seeing through smoke 
annoying; it may or may not be realistic (I've seen opinions claiming both) but it feels gamey for one side 
to be able to massacre the other with impunity.  For that reason, I tend to avoid it.  (Though I admit I've 
seen a number of games where the tech-disadvantaged side has blown apart the one with the special 
equipment.)

On the other hand, I have nothing against scenarios where *both* sides are equally blinded by the smoke.  
8)

> A chap on the Command Decision mailer pointed out quite reasonably that it can be fun to play the 
completely overwhelmed defender. You're going to be overrun no matter how well you do, but victory in 
game terms may be determined simply on losses caused. So Player A can be overrun, but cause 30% 
casualties on the attacker, so A is declared the winner.

I'd agree with this; the balance involved is in 'equal chance to win' not 'equal chance to survive'.  However, 
I gather that many players prefer to feel they've won, not just get the needed percentage while losing 
everything.  Can people comment on how they feel about this?  I've been wary of trying to set up scenarios 
of that nature; if people don't mind them, they will begin to show up.

>	However, I think my CPX has caused perhaps a little more debate than most on scenario design, 
and I shall consider it carefully for my next one. (Whenever that may be...)

Hopefully sooner than later!  You did a good job running it and I look forward to the next one.  8)

--------

Nick Moran:

(Sheer mental effort of will here.... Force smile on face and accept
constructive criticism as it is meant! <G>)

>This is where I feel balance was lost; we were assessed as being >decisively
defeated because we did not figure out the "proper" decision.

 I can see where you are coming from, as regards a game enjoyability
standpoint. On the other hand, aren't most battles lost because the commander
didn't figure out the correct thing to do? I grant you that perhaps the concept
of 'proper' is a little subjective on the part of the GM, but in the final
analysis I believed at the time that my criteria were fair. I am now
re-evaluating my decision.

>For the sake of argument, let's say that the scenario ended with OPFOR
>exiting the map with 75% of its force, and NATO occupying the railhead >with
75% of its force. Who wins?

 Opfor would probably have been given a marginal victory, keeping in
mind the larger scheme of the war outside of the boundaries of the game map.
The situation at the time meant that WarPac needed to regain the initiative.
Making a hole in the other guy's lines, even at the cost of the guts of a
brigade would most likely achieve this objective. OTOH, NATO holding onto a
railyard in the middle of enemy territory with about a battalion's worth of
infantry and armor wouldn't have advanced the NATO cause all that much. Jim
mentioned that in his continuation of the game that he lost a further
battalion. In view of these losses, maybe decisive OPFOR was excessive and it
should have been reduced, just at the time I called the game, it really didn't
look much like there was much going to stop the incoming attack.

 As regards the M1TP2 review, fairly spot-on I'd say, though I
personally don't find a need to spend that much time on the IVIS screen.. 90%
of my time is spent in the gunner's seat, and I still tend to win most
scenarios.

 BTW, did I give you the website with the unidentifiable tanks?
www.clubi.ie/exalted

   NTM

--------

Finally, Stephan FH. (NATO player) weighed in:

All,
It seems a bit of controversy has sprung up about this CPX.  I'm surprised.
IMNSHO, all participating had a good time.  I got not one message or IRC that
that indicated anyone was bored or dissatisfied during the game.
Pardon me, but, Hell, I had a blast that made a rather difficult week go away.
I wound up with a (weary) smile on my face.  <G>

Kind of the point of a game.

Jerry planned well, without much feedback from the NATO players.
Nick put together a unique and interesting scenario.

Don't know about the opfor folks, but I was darned confused to the end.  When
the MRR appeared in the South, my jaw dropped (literally).  I'm not usually so
surprised by events.  And the rush from that surprise was highly entertaining.
I like to win, don't get me wrong, but I don't mind losing if I've had fun
doing it.

The polite and measured comments about play balance are well taken, and I've
recorded them for my own reference.  Such manners are rare out here, and I
appreciate that the conversation has stayed on a task level rather than
getting personal.  Also rare.

If anyone is interested in a running commentary on this cpx, I've saved almost
all messages to me in a Word.doc.  My messages ain't in there (no loss), but
it should give you the flow.  E-mail me directly if you want a copy.

Play-balance-Shmay-balance.  I had fun, which I hope is the point of these.
VR,
Steve

----------