Default Mech Inf Platoon?

[Mike [MDS]]

Hi,

I've been working on a large-scale adv mission - but the standard platoon doesn't include enough IFVs to make the platoon truly mobile if you don't want to use helicopters.

Given that the BMP and the LAV take 7 and 6 passengers respectively, the following was my attempt to come up with the "lowest friction" (most intuitive) way to mechanise the platoon without breaking up elements, forcing elements to crew their own vehicles, or just plain having too many vehicles.

Obviously the CO can do what he (/she?) wishes but I thought a good 'default' would be:

Code: Select all

1 armed offroad each for the two man command elements

CO    DC    ASL   BSL   CSL

Those could obviously be upgraded to armoured vehicles if offroads aren't suitable for the mission...

and then, since the IFVs will each fit one fireteam & one attachment, but not e.g. two fireteams...

Code: Select all

1 IFV (BMP or LAV) each for

Alpha     Bravo     Charlie
          (Heavy)  (Support)

A1+       B1+       C1+
MMG       HMG       MTR

A2+       B2+       C2+
MAT       HAT       ENG

A3        B3+       C3+
SAM                 ST

Unless I've missed an attachment IFV B3 has a couple of spare seats - so you'd have the option of e.g. putting the DC element in here.

Not sure why I shared this with you - I guess because I have nobody to chat with about it IRL

[StrangLove]

Alternate ideas for a mechanised (new style) FOLK platoon:

Code: Select all

For each SQL/CO

1 BTR-40 (DSKHM?)

For each HMG element

1 BRDM-2

For each HAT element

1 BRDM-2 ATGM

For every 2 fireteams

1 BTR-60 OR 1 M113

For every 2 attachments other than HMG/HAT

1 Unarmed BTR-40

The BTR-60 has capacity for 8 passengers, and the M113 for 11, so either fireteam members could man the vehicle, or they could have dedicated driver/gunners. With the typical 3 fireteams per squad, this layout may be somewhat heavy on the armour, so an alternate setup could be:

Code: Select all

For each SQL/CO

1 BTR-40 (DSKHM?)

For each HMG element

1 BRDM-2

For each HAT element

1 BRDM-2 ATGM

For each fireteam

1 unarmed BTR40

For every two non HMG/HAT attachments

1 unarmed BTR40

This second layout reduces the vehicle mounted firepower, placing the focus more on quick infantry combat with high mobility, rather than relying on vehicle firepower. Next a very partisan layout may be as follows:

Code: Select all

For each SQL/CO

1 unarmed BTR-40

For each HMG element

1 Military Offroad (M2)

For each HAT element

1 Military Offroad (SPG-9)

For each fireteam

1 unarmed BTR40

For every two non HMG/HAT attachments

1 unarmed BTR40

This takes away the guided ability of the HAT team, and reduces the anti-tank firepower of the HMG team. It also makes them more vulnerable, which encourages caution and puts a higher emphasis on careful scouting of enemy emplacements/heavy weapons. It is by far the most mobile version of the armour layout, whilst still retaining some armoured protection from small-arms fire for the fireteams and lighter weapons teams.

Finally, an unarmed, light version of the layout. It's not mechanized as much as motorised, but it is still a viable setup for unit mobility:

Code: Select all

For each CO/DC

1 UAZ

For each squad

1 Ural

For ALL attachments 

1 Ural

This does focus the squads, and is more apt for ferrying infantry to the fight, as opposed to active vehicular support. By adding an M113, Military offroad (M2) or BRDM to each squad, mobile support may be added into the setup.

Throughout all of these it is important to consider that, whilst vehicles are great fun, they can make a mission too easy, and put too much power in the hands of a small percentage of the players on a server. This is why it's important to use lighter vehicles with higher vulnerability, as then caution is actively taken by vehicle crews, and more cooperation is needed between troops on the ground and drivers in their angry houses.

[fer]

This is a really interesting topic, and something that I'd like to see further discussion of - so thank you to both of you for your contributions to date. I'm a bit pressed for time this week, so probably won't be able to write a full response until the weekend, but could I add some quick thoughts:

1. I suspect we should avoid solutions that *require* squads and attachments to share vehicles. During the move to the F2 v2-6-0 platoon ORBAT we (the hosts) had a discussion about the relationship between squads and attachment, and agreed in the end to keep attachments separate, retaining the concept that they are only grouped with squads when the CO's plan calls for it (which can happen at any point before or during a mission).

2. I think we should be fee - within reason - to challenge the shape of a squad in this discussion/context. For example: perhaps in our mechanised squads we could have just 2 fireteams, of 4 or 6-man configurations? Splitting 10 men (inc. SL and Medic) across 2 fully-crewed vehicles such as BMP-2s might be better. Also, bear in mind that the vehicle crews will soak up players: imagine a mechanised squad with 2 x M113s crewed by dedicated drivers and gunners - if those crews come under the continued command of the SL, there's a string argument to say it's okay for the number of dismounted FTs to drop to 2, because we're still asking the SL to look after 13 comrades (inc. the medic).

3. A related point is whether the crews of vehicles are organic to the squad, or to the platoon and assigned to squads by the CO. in other words, when the vehicles have ferried the dismounts to the action and dumped them out onto the battlefield, do they stay under the command of the SL or return to independent tasking at the direction of the CO or DC?

[Kefirz]

But do we really need a mechanized platoon? can't we just go motorized with some vulnerable UAZ's and some Kamaz trucks? Sure in theory IFV's and infantry work close together with each other but we aren't that milsim-(ish?) to have proper drills and stuff to do that. So can't we just have glorious deaths while we charge for the greater good. (And don't fall back with disgrace to the whole platoon )
P.S Still awaiting tankicious for 80+ people.

[mike]

Adding vehicles into the mix will always complicate gameplay in my experience, so it would be best to keep them to a minimum. Maybe the best vehicle to test a mech inf platoon with is an AAV7 Amtrac since the new folk platoon is a lot like an US Marine infantry platoon, and 1 amtrac fits 19 men. Therefor you won't have to come up with a new platoon layout yourself which will save you time.

[Black Mamba]

Mike, you might have just saved my latest mission idea.
Totally forgot about them Amtracs. Up until now, we would have lost half the platoon in the first five minutes, every time.
Only problem with those is the Mk-19, which is kind of an overkill in almost every situation.

I could remove it though.

Edit: I guess they would still need a dedicated crew anyway.
I still have to meditate on fer's words of wisdom to come up with a functional platoon.

[Mike [MDS]]

-
Huh, a good reaction, excellent.

You all make good points.

Before that though, let me clarify my suggestion in case I didn't explain it very well:

I'm proposing teams & attachments share vehicles, but not that they be permanently OR rigidly attached together.

I believe some sharing is essential, because we can all agree that having a vehicle per element is too much!

So why did I pair them up as I did?

I propose we pair them up because getting the platoon into vehicles takes far too long, so players should always spawn facing a vehicle that they will all fit into
I pair them into fireteam/attachment pairs simply because that's how big the basic IFVs are (and there's usually conveniently similar numbers of each)

I propose a "standard" because
A) a standard can become a template like F2 for easier mission making and
B) if we had a standard, especially one designed to be easy to learn, leadership types would soon learn which team or attachment is

So now I've explained why I paired fireteams and attachments into vehicles, let me defend that decision with another point which is

a crewed vehicle can quite easily be given and then autonomously carry out orders to drop off one element then relocate and drop off a second

So question 1: Fer, have I answered your concerns about the fireteam-attachment pairings or not?

----

To skip to your third point Fer, I think who the vehicle crews report to can and should be entirely at the CO's discretion.

----

IMO the main flaw in my plan is that if the CO does want attached attachments but not in the 'default' pairing, coordinating shuffling them between vehicles would be effectively impossible.

What would be awesome would be if attachments could somehow be SHOWN (via scripting) which IFV was which at the start of the mission.

Combined with changing the IFV's default names, they could be told in briefing "Attach yourself to Alpha 2" and then spawn and find and run to the marker that says "IFV A-2"

Anybody got any idea if that might be possible via scripting? Would the difficulty settings we play with permit that?

----

Right, Fer you've said "We don't have to stick to the F2 platoon structure" and some of you have proposed good ideas for alternatives, really useful for me as I don't yet know exactly how many dudes each vehicle carries! I will go away and consider alternatives (including those suggested above) and tell you what I think

Thanks

Capitalised Mike

[Mike [MDS]]

One question - why don't we slot Commanders very often?

I'm assuming it's because people find them boring but my (limited) experience indicates they're not just the "brain" (the gunner can do that) but also the situational awareness of the vehicle.

Commanding a tank in single-player and stuck staring down the permanently-zoomed optics of the main gun turret, I realised how blind I was without a commander able to look around.

[fer]

One question - why don't we slot Commanders very often?

Historically, it has been to minimise the number of players 'lost' from the infantry. You're right about situational awareness, and the value commanders bring. They can also handle comms etc. Now that we have healthy playercounts, we may experiment with using fully-crewed IFVs (although that may mean a reduction in the total number of IFVs used).