Question: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?

[Grant1pa]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

It is a useful way to try out a human V human scenario you have written to see what it is like to play.

Plan out a "game plan" for player A and B and stick to it. For example "attacker will concentrate on a left-flanking assault".

This is the way I've done it. Usually a Soviet 80's scenario where I map out a battle plan and then execute it as planned (ala Soviet junior officer doctrine). I usually set the objectives first based on terrain or structures. Plan the attack and deploy the Soviets. Put the game away for awhile, then come back later and place the defensive forces.

Other types I've found somewhat successful are insurgent defense against Green offense. This I find a little easier because once the defense is set, it's generally a slugfest where moving either side can be made in response to action, or plan of action.

I guess it's a holdover from my board gaming days. I played a lot of solitaire play back then.

I've gotten out of habit with this, once I started learning movement orders. I prefer that because I can now make a battle plan and then get reasonable (OK, acceptable) response from the AI in executing it.

Tom

[jp10]

Rather than do it by unit type, I take charge of 1/3rd of the force. 1 Company out of a Battalion or 1 Battalion of a Brigade. Since the AI controlled forces may not respect unit boundaries even if movement routes are plotted, taking charge of a forward unit demands an understanding that a unit to your flank may move across your front. My best battles have been when I start out in 'reserve' with the two AI forces leading the attack/defense. In this case I must watch the battle, maneuver to support the battle and decide when or where to counterattack a penetration or make a spoiling attack or make an attack to renew a failed assault.
I also only control my organic fire support and designate which batteries are prioritized to my support. I let the AI control the other batteries. Do not turn A0 over to the AI however since the game considers that to be you.

[Mobhack]

Just leave A0 on the baseline, maybe somewhere he has a field of view where he may be able to spot some arty fires (he is an observer 2nd class, between proper FOOS and company etc commanders). His main job is to act as a comms relay to the off map support.

The game is no longer SP1 with 24 or so core units, where upgrading A0 to a combat unit made a significant addition to your force with the added exposure to deleterious results (e.g making him a vehicle attracts air - planes look at available vehicles to attack first). Now, losing A0 tends to kill a long campaign since you just died (but not, IIRC a PBEM campaign).

By all means move him to the rear of any mass rout you may have going on, as he provides an extra rally roll above company CO level, but dont get him mixed up in the furball. Also, dont place him right alongside indirect fire attractors sitting around in your rear such as SAMs, AAA or Arty units.

[Suhiir]

I usually put A0 right behind my main attack of defensive position near the company CO but far enough away both won't (usually) be affected by the same AoE attack.

[shahadi]

In my scenarios, the A0 is the company commander if the scenario is company sized or less, otherwise I'd build battalion hq with A0 as the battalion commander.

I am aware my design is contrarian, but it is also exciting. It also forces the player to keep units within contact of formation leaders, rather than having units of same formation flung all over the map.

This will require creating formations in MOBHack. As an example, rather than purchase a weapons company, I'd integrate those weapon teams within my platoon and company formations.

=====

[jp10]

When you write 'weapons company' do you mean a company of a specific weapon (such as a company of all AT weapons) or a company of varied support types (HQ plt, Recon Plt, Mortar Plt, ATGM Plt....etc)?

[Suhiir]

Yeah, one of the things I did in the USMC rebuild was split the weapons platoons and companies up among the rifle companies as they normally would be. They only exist in the first place for admin/logistic/training purposes, none of which is terribly relevant in actual combat.

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by jp10

When you write 'weapons company' do you mean a company of a specific weapon (such as a company of all AT weapons) or a company of varied support types (HQ plt, Recon Plt, Mortar Plt, ATGM Plt....etc)?

The weapons company provides crew-served weapons support to the infantry battalion, so typically you might find machine guns, mortars, and inf-ATM's. A weapons platoon would serve an infantry company. The organization and equipment may vary.

So, if you bought a weapons company those units may end up far removed from the formation leader. So, I'd insert MGs, Inf-Atms within my platoons, and mortars within the inf company.

=====

[jp10]

That is what i thought you had meant. While I will certainly be too verbose and explaining to a group that understands the concept I must observe, in order to be clear in this matter, that while these support units were usually attached to their organic combat units as missions were executed, the concept was a Bn Commander's greatest tactical option for flexibility without having to compete with the other battlegroups in requesting support from higher HQ.
Just as a Company level mortar unit is rather insignificant to the overall battle area, it is a Company Commanders only indirect fire support asset that he does not have to 'compete' with the other companies in requesting a finite amount of fire support. Even thought the weapons squad in a platoon would normally work within the squads it was not set which squad the Platoon Leader would assign the support to and thus he had flexibility to reinforce a squad with MG and AT if their situation warranted it.
While only evident in campaigns, in the cross-attachment set up between battles, removing the weapon companies from the OOB and dividing their formations among the combat formations would not allow a flexibility for a core formation to reinforce a company defense of a road area with the Bn AT platoon or sending the scout platoon to a end company to screen their open flank.
If there is a limitation in the game understanding these support units operating independently (in distance) from the Weapon's OOB HQ, perhaps more radio values or higher rally/morale/experience values for these formations to reflect their training and 'mindset' to go 'where needed' and function with greater initiative. If a tactical noob deploys such a support unit as a Line infantry formation or dislikes having to structure their forces between battles that is their concerns but I would like such formations to remain in the OOBs of the appropriate formations. I usually lament the fact that a transportation platoon of trucks and ammo supply vehicles are usually left out and I have to buy them separate and then I have to endue the 'I can attach the sub units to another HQ but I cannot attach the HQ unit to another HQ' problem.
But then again, I could be completely 'off the mark' to this matter to which I apologize for wasting 2 minutes of your time that you will never get back but I doubt you can fault my passion about WINSP and all the fantastic work that has been done to keep it alive.

[Imp]

Your free to set them up as you like either split the weapons company & cross attach it or take the weapons company if the OOB has one.
Open terrain separate weapons company with ATGM, MG, Mortar etc could be better if the leader hangs back with them but certainly have very few issues with them either way.
Cross attaching is just common sense for the game so you might attach your AAA assets to the weapons company as they are in the rear but not your scouts & engineers.