Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor
Panther Games Designer
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 3,416
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Canberra, Australia
- Website
- www.panthergames.com
Hi all,
I'm back coding the attack overhaul and need your feedback on the best way to position the reserve location of the various sub attack groups of a complex attack.
The approach I have taken is to model the US 4th Armored Division's attack doctrine it used during its breakout operations on the western front in late 1944/ early 1945. The division was often operating out ahead of the army's main force. So, it needed a way of concentrating for an attack while providing maximum protection for its rear elements, who would otherwise be exposed to threats from the flank and rear. So, it developed and used what it referred to as the coiled snake doctrine.
The force would advance in column till it encountered opposition that required it to launch an attack. Then it would work out the best approach and move the entire force along that approach coiling it up as it went through the assembly loc, reserve loc and finally the forming up point from where it assaulted the objective. By moving as one it ensured maximum protection. Sequencing was key. The various support and reserve elements would drop off at various locations along the route.
This is what I have modelled in the new code. It works fine for a basic attack - ie where you have a single HQ as you do with a Battalion (Bn) attack. But I have an issue with complex attacks and the location of the reserves. Each level (Bn, Bde and Div) has its own reserve group. We don't want these all co-located for security and efficacy reasons. So, at each level of attack, I have introduced the concept of a boss reserve and subordinate reserve location. The subReserves are up front and the bossReserve is further back along the approach route. That provided for suitable separation. But what of the cases where we have multiple sub reserves - eg for a Bde we have two or three Bn reserve groups.
My first thought was to arrange these in similar offsets to the assault groups. So, if the assault groups were arranged in echelon or line, then the subReserve groups would be too. This sort of works for echelon, but for line we could end up with the left and right groups stuck out on their own some distance from the main approach route. They would be vulnerable and may end up in terrain with poor manouvreability and hence slow to react and intervene in the attack, should they be required. So, I then thought that maybe these too should be echeloned along the approach route.
In real life this would see a lot of troops clogging up the road - not good. They would in fact deploy a short distance off the side of the road. We could simply arrange these in echelon off to one side of the road. Or should we split them on both sides and have a more concentrated grouping. What do you reckon? Or do you have a different option?
I'm back coding the attack overhaul and need your feedback on the best way to position the reserve location of the various sub attack groups of a complex attack.
The approach I have taken is to model the US 4th Armored Division's attack doctrine it used during its breakout operations on the western front in late 1944/ early 1945. The division was often operating out ahead of the army's main force. So, it needed a way of concentrating for an attack while providing maximum protection for its rear elements, who would otherwise be exposed to threats from the flank and rear. So, it developed and used what it referred to as the coiled snake doctrine.
The force would advance in column till it encountered opposition that required it to launch an attack. Then it would work out the best approach and move the entire force along that approach coiling it up as it went through the assembly loc, reserve loc and finally the forming up point from where it assaulted the objective. By moving as one it ensured maximum protection. Sequencing was key. The various support and reserve elements would drop off at various locations along the route.
This is what I have modelled in the new code. It works fine for a basic attack - ie where you have a single HQ as you do with a Battalion (Bn) attack. But I have an issue with complex attacks and the location of the reserves. Each level (Bn, Bde and Div) has its own reserve group. We don't want these all co-located for security and efficacy reasons. So, at each level of attack, I have introduced the concept of a boss reserve and subordinate reserve location. The subReserves are up front and the bossReserve is further back along the approach route. That provided for suitable separation. But what of the cases where we have multiple sub reserves - eg for a Bde we have two or three Bn reserve groups.
My first thought was to arrange these in similar offsets to the assault groups. So, if the assault groups were arranged in echelon or line, then the subReserve groups would be too. This sort of works for echelon, but for line we could end up with the left and right groups stuck out on their own some distance from the main approach route. They would be vulnerable and may end up in terrain with poor manouvreability and hence slow to react and intervene in the attack, should they be required. So, I then thought that maybe these too should be echeloned along the approach route.
In real life this would see a lot of troops clogging up the road - not good. They would in fact deploy a short distance off the side of the road. We could simply arrange these in echelon off to one side of the road. Or should we split them on both sides and have a more concentrated grouping. What do you reckon? Or do you have a different option?
