(01-23-2017, 09:52 PM)Variable Wrote: Great post MJ, it was a good read.
Crash Site Red
Heavy Machine Gunner, MJ's team
Our force made its way up the mountain. When I finally arrived, exhausted, to one of the few rocks, I deployed the Navid and provided suppression fire to allow the other teams to advance. Looked like it worked. We reached a structure that looks like the relay of the nearby comm tower and a fierce close range firefight ensued with the NATO team that guarded it. I didn't have a chance to switch to my pistol and took out an AT gunner, firing from the hip. We were in a great position to suppress the enemy reinforcements that were climbing from the other side of the mountain. I think we took out at least two teams worth of infantry. A Marid then attacked and we tried to take it out with a scavenged Spike launcher, but it was too fast and the field of view too obscured. While fighting for our lives we saw the destruction of the UAV, not knowing if we managed to secure its data core. We fought for a long period of time before our team was wiped out. That was a great run.
This here is a good point to support what I am about to say quiet nicely.
Given the recent improvement in AI, we keep getting our teeth kicked in. I've spent some time thinking about it, trying certain things and also meshing it with my real world knowledge (which gets more and more appropriate every time the AI gets better), and there are a number of things that have occurred to me.
- Spacing
- Initiative
- Enemy effectiveness
- Flank protection
First was that it meant I could cover the flank. In fact, because of the position and terrain, we could cover both flanks, and stopped several flanking attempts by the AI. Simply by being spread further apart meant that it was harder to flank us.
Second, it put us in a good position to fight from, allowing us better arcs onto the enemy that was approaching the other teams. It literally made mutual support easier than if we had been together.
And third, it meant that we were more spread out, and less prone to suppression and damage from a single source. Something like a Marid turning up is much less of a threat to everyone when there are 12 of you spread over about 400m of ground.
Normally, we tend to have follow the leader chains, even when in contact, that are relatively easy to suppress, and have no depth or mutual support, making them easy to pin down and overrun. While there are many situations where a single column makes a lot of sense (covert insertions, or just getting to the mission area), if maybe mission commanders start spreading their teams out, the normally accepted distance for this is about half the effective range of your weapons systems, so separate element by about 150-200m for dismounted infantry.
Initiative is a difficult one. In the example above, I took it upon myself to take the compound at the top of the hill and provide support fire from there. This was a case of something I'd seen, that made a whole lot of sense and worked out. The trouble comes when the commander has a plan and needs it executed exactly to work, but someone sees an opportunity that would normally be a good idea. Best idea for initiative would probably be to call it up to the commander, but I know that whenever I lead, I don't really have a problem with team leaders working off their own initiative, because the commander is never going to see everything and be everywhere. Just don't go running off on an ill advised counter-attack on your own.
Enemy Effectiveness. In real life, riflemen rarely kill anyone. Belt fed and crew served weapons are the infantries main killing weapons, mainly because of the number of rounds they put in the air. But when riflemen do kill people, its at point blank range. Close range is the most dangerous form of combat for obvious reasons, and the defenders will go to great lengths to keep the attacker away from it. Generally, the attacker will inflict greater losses up close and take greater when further away.
And it generally been roughly the same in out games of ArmA. When the AI gets to grenade range in any sort of numbers, our casualty rate tends to go right up. The best example of this was on one of the random missions we played a few weeks ago, where you have to clear a town. My group, which came in through the low ground was contacted from close range, rapidly surrounded and overrun, taking several dead from grenades straight off. The other team, who had been shooting from the top of a hill, some 200 or 300m from the village had taken a couple of injuries and only started to take KIA once the AI focused on them and started to close in. Despite the overwhelming numbers of AI, the second team eventually prevailed, having managed to keep the AI mostly out of grenade range.
Given that we are almost always outnumbered, the AI tends to try and get close. And I think we should be more willing to withdraw so that they don't. It can be quite difficult, but I think that's more a function of the fact we tend to fight in one fairly tight group, rather than spread out like I posited above. With several distinct positions, other positions should be able to cover a withdrawal, ideally causing enemy casualties and preserving our own forces.
Flank protection. The AI is now very flank happy. This is a good thing, it's what we do, its what soldiers do in real life, it makes sense. However, sometimes we seem to forget that they flank, probably due to the fact that for like a decade or more we've been playing this game where they don't really flank you, except maybe a little bit by accident. Really, all you need is one person on each flank looking out. Its a boring job most of the time, but often a life saving one. Probably be a little easier to do in more large scale missions too.
EDIT: One more thing I wanted to mention, which again is showcased quite nicely by the above AAR, is weapon utilisation. Stuff like MMGs and ATGMs, when properly placed can change the course of a fight. Variable in the above AAR pretty much changed the course of the fight. He kept the enemy back from the edge of the hill as the other elements moved up the hill at the beginning, and stopped several attacks from the front while the other teams were trying to secure the drone. An MMG along with ammobearer/spotter on the top of a hill can do roughly the same sort of work as 4-8 riflemen. A lot of the time, they just get used like autoriflemen, in that they are essentially used like riflemen with a bit more firepower. They have the potential to be a lot more than this. This actually segues onto another thing I've just thought of, flexibility of organization. ACE allows us to change groupings on the fly. There's nothing wrong with making an extra team of say, an MMG gunner and an ammobearer and treating them as an MG team. Or the same for a Titan/Javelin team. Both the ATGM and MMGs have a relatively massive effective range, so it can be safetly put in a dominating position further away from the enemy than the rest of the forces and still be more effective than current usage. How many times would having a Titan overlook us from a high point have saved us from "suddenly TANK!"? Or an MMG in a dominating position allowed us to withdraw from an overwhelming enemy force?
Thoughts? Additions? Other Ideas?
Lead me, Follow me, or Get out of my way.