The Commander Series Forum

In preparation for a 2015 Iran game that I was thinking about running I had the chance to do some quite in depth research on the Heavy BCT and here is my take on the unit.

Headquarters
CinC cv 11
2x Chaparall
3x Enigineers
3x M113

Combined Arms Battalion (1)
Co cv 11
2x HQ cv 10
1x M3 Bradley (recce)- given TOW missiles for +20 points
6x M1A1 (or M1A2 which is the same stats wise but has a 2+ save for 260 points- I tend not to use them as such as they are just too good and it is no fun to play as the bad guys)
6x M2 Bradley
6x Infantry + AT4
1x M125 Mortar (81mm)

Combined Arms Battalion (2)
Co cv 11
2x HQ cv 10
1x M3 Bradley (recce)- given TOW missiles for +20 points
6x M1A1 (or M1A2)
6x M2 Bradley
6x Infantry + AT4
1x M125 Mortar (81mm)

Fires Battalion
FAO cv 9
4x M109 Paladin 155mm SP artillery- as far as I can tell there are only 2 batteries to the battalion as opposed to the traditional 3

Air Support
FAC cv 9
3x F35 JSF
Attacks: 8, Hits: 4, Save: 3, Points: 220?


The very high command values represent the increase in situational awareness brought about by the organic UAVs as well as higher level assets as well as the huge flexibility of the BCTs organisation and doctrine and the high levels of training among the troops which allow the unit to outmaneuver and outfight much bigger opponents. There is also a cavalry squadron organic to the brigade which is presumed to be operating dispersed and providing intelligence that contributes to the high cvs. The points and stats of the JSF are guesses and I prefer only allowing them to launch JDAMs (PGM). The whole lot is about 9000 points worth of gear and seems to me to be a very lethal and potent self contained fighting force.

Interesting idea for the CVs, factoring in the UAVs. I might be more tempted to give them a swarm of recce assets instead though. 3 hits, 6 save, AA target only. Max two per 1000pts.

And/Or perhaps extend the Initiative range even further, or borrow from FWC and give a greater distance for command minuses - e.g. -1 at40cm, -2 at80 etc.

I just suspect such high CVs will be utterly overwhelming. Might be better at 10/9 with a few 'specials' and rolling the opposition down a notch, for game play?

If the high cv reflect more situational awareness then you could also argue for cv 8 based upon too much information, much of which might be irrelevant? Sorting the wheat from the chaff takes time and it easy to become swamped by text which actually contains no information at all?

Just a thought......

I think that given the rather large well educated, assisted by modern technology and advanced training they will not have too much of a problem disseminating intelligence. If they were the Soviets with only 4 officers 1 NCO and 8 men in the battalion staff I might agree with you although even then cv 8 is definitely taking it too far.

Also the BCT structure and its advantages in situational awareness has been around for a while now so there has been plenty of time to work out how to best manage data flow in combat especially as the US army has the money to run big simulations at Fort Irwing. I think that in a game of this scale we just have to assume that the commander and his staff are competent at their jobs.

Information overload is very real, especially when it makes it easy for more senior officers to play with the troops (read interfere with) and second guess the guy on the ground from ever increasing distances (like Somalia and several instances in Iraq & Afghanistan).

Something that always comes out of evaluation of new kit & systems is keep it simple, concise and relevant. The new network centric warfare stuff claims to do that, but they always do...

Don't think I'd be as harsh on CVs as Dr Dave, but I do agree a CV11/10 is too high, and that UAVs should be recce/HQ unit of some sort.

I'd use them as a helicopter or light aircraft, hit on 6 save of 4 or 5, recce element.

IanS

If you costed them as spetnaz in a helicopter... (ie able to call artillery). And get all recce and airborne attributes

Huey - you would still need the FAO, just take the distance from drone rather than FAO.

IanS

"With modern radios especially, what affects them more is intervening terrain, ie hills, built-up area, ECM and weather. Personally I would abandon the -1CV per 20cm and replace with:
-1 if part of formation is in BUA
-1 if bad weather (scenario driven)
-1 if intervening high terrain
-2 enemy ECM mission (need other rules for that) "

I really like this Sultanbev...great idea. I would add -1CV if the unit is on the other side of a smoke screen from its commander as well (ala the Battle of 73 Easting.)

The biggest problem for any HQ is sifting the good intel from the bad before presentation to the CO / decision makers. Your UAVs simply present more of each type, not better of either. Hence it still comes down to a time issue. Too much to sift in too little time? In GW2 lots of munitions were spent on filling cabinets with drainpips leant over them - they have a huge radar cross section and a gun looking thing near the top. Hence, I think a CV11 presents this process as bordering infallable. You're in a pass or blunder situation with no middle ground. The Iranians might not have much to do as your US battle group stomps all over them?

I'd leave it at CV9s and 10s for the CO to make it interesting for all. Then add the UAVs as recce. They should be hard to hit: 6? 5+ to no save? 3 hits? After all it's a soft skin carrying cameras and possibly a laser RF and or designator depending on type. You even attach them to specific HQs rather than the nearest - this is how they are often used, or as specific FAO / FAC "transports" so that they can still be shot at.

I think directly representing the UAVs on table is a level of detail that we don't need (also I don't know if anyone makes them in 1/300). As battalion commander the function of a UAV is to provide intelligence and in a more limited role strike capabilities.

The increased CVs are I think warranted by the noticeable command and control improvements provided by netcentrtic warfare which allow a comparatively small force in terms of teeth arms such as the BCT outmanoeuvre larger opponents as they can in real life. I don't think the gameplay issue will be too noticeable because by increasing the CVs I have to double the points cost for each HQ leaving less combat troop- when you think about it 12 M1A1s in 9000 points isn’t that much, the Iranians will have at least 30.

Also I disagree when you say that the quality of the Intel provided by the UAVs isn't noticeably better as their endurance allows an on station ariel view of the battlefield which is not something that commanders have historically had access to. That said UAVs are vulnerable to AA and fighters so perhaps should be represented and be vulnerable to interception and ground fire, particularly as they often have to expose themselves to be useful- therefore the +1cv would only come into effect if it was within X cm of the enemy and it could be shot down.

"...(also I don't know if anyone makes them in 1/300..."

GHQ makes the Predator UAV in 1:285 and I think they recently released a Reaper version as well.

I think using UAVs for Recce is an excellent idea. You could call them in as A/S (the Pred as Recce and Reaper as an airstrike.)

I'd do what others have recommended for forces with large C4I disparities - keep the "top class" force on CV10/9, and knock the lesser party down to maybe CV8/7 (any lower is unplayable IMO, and it's not much fun at CV7!).

If it was Iranians against new Iraqi Army then both might be rated CV8/8 or CV9/8, but go down a level or two versus forces you consider to be so much better.

And UAVs as recce seems to fit perfectly - maybe buy them as assets, HQ makes a command roll, then places a UAV wherever they want (subject to air superiority? They appear hard work to knock down , esp. newer ones but in an all out war I bet a lot of stuff is going to get a lot more shot at than it currently is!), it can then take an "out of turn recce action" and then acts as normal recce in future. So you could drop a drone in where you suspect enemy to be, it spots them, you roll a recce action to knock your CV back up and Tally HO!

Make them air targets and 3 hits six save, should make them hard to knock down but doable if you concentrate. Make them a bit more expensive than the straight stats suggest as they'll be pretty hard to kill and given the time span should stay on table until game end, IMO.

If I remember rightly Skyraider Miniatures (if you can get hold of him) made a 1/300th UAV and a 1/300th target drone. The problem being I, for one, can't get hold of Skyraider so not sure whether you can get them anymore. I have also used 1/700th scale aircraft to represent them in the past. The smaller scales may suit as well.

Cheers

Richard P

Their are 1/600 scale UAVs out there from O8 which are just beautiful.

Hi,
I know it's late but!
I think the HBCTs are armed with 120mm mortars, not 81mm
A M1064 is an M113 with 120mm mortar, same points as a 107mm mortar carrier.

Just a heads up - the US Army doesn't use the Chaparral AD system anymore. It was phased out in the 90's.

The Avenger (HMMWV mounted Stinger) and Bradley Linebacker (Stinger) are the current vehicle mounted. You could also look at mounted AD unit with man pack Stinger mounted in HMMWV.

In the "what if" conflict of Iran 2015 - do you think they would be added back to the lineup for the brigades? Probably just the Avenger - if the Linebackers were converted back.

I've always created my near future/what if units with the Linebackers and Avengers as part of the TOE. The man pack Stingers I reserve for Air Mobile and USMC units. I'll probably rethink that now.

I suppose air defense wouldn't really be a priority when facing a foe who has limited air capabilities that would likely be erased by the USAF early on.

Thanks Mark - sounds reasonable to me.