Squad Ops
Hello There, Guest! Register

OPERATION: BLEEDING SHIELD
#1
Oh hey look another Op suggestion whadya know.

I wanted a different take on the whole 'One squad must be rescued and taken back to a secure location to hold out against enemy attack' scenario so I came up with something a bit different.

OPERATION: BLEEDING SHIELD involves a single Russian squad attempting to hold back Militia forces so that their main battle group has time to set up a secured location, trying to stay alive long enough on their own for the all clear to extract to the secured location.

The concept here is that Militia has the advantage with mobility and number of vehicles while Russia will be able to fortify one of three locations, each with their own advantages and disadvantages, along with their armored support, a single MT-LBM armed with a 14.5mm autocannon.

Both sides have quite a bit of freedom in how they decide to use their resources and how they want to approach their objectives, with the only real restrictions in place being:
  1. Vehicles must use bridges to cross the river
  2. Militia must dedicate themselves to securing a bridge before assaulting the Russian fallback FOB.
Aside from that, how much or how little supporting assets and supply Russian command decides to give to their 'Bleeding Shield' at the bridge is up to them.

I'm interested to hear feedback on the Op. Thanks.
[+] 4 users Like Sightless's post
Reply
#2
I do like the idea of having 3 separate locations to choose from, gives the OP a good bit of replay-ability. However giving militia the option to attack whichever objective they want first would give them a slightly too big of an advantage in my opinion. Other than that, the OP sounds quite solid.
Reply
#3
I was the one that suggested the ability to choose which place to attack first and my reasoning for that was two-fold.

One, if you know that an attack is coming on one location at first, you'd be a fool not to send your forces to back that up. It seems like the crew that was sent to defend the bridge would simply be a suicide crew,.

Two, it allows for replayability when you never know where the militia might hit first.

Outside of that, I feel like this could be a really fun operation mostly due to the out of the way secondary FOB locations and the difficulty of defending a bridge from an enemy attack. I might argue for giving militia 2x LAT instead of 1x LAT and 1x Scout but that's mostly just due to them having to assault positions that will be entrenched. Though I can see the value of maybe using the scout to mine the road that the logi is traveling on.

The bridge defense is going to be REALLY tough on that squad if they have nothing but 4 sandbags so that's going to be something to think about. Maybe should they get a FOB and a logi with the goal being to take out both FOBs? That's just a thought.

Overall I'm really liking the direction of this and I think it could turn into something really neat.
Reply
#4
(07-30-2017, 05:09 PM)CMYKMatter Wrote: I was the one that suggested the ability to choose which place to attack first and my reasoning for that was two-fold.  

One, if you know that an attack is coming on one location at first, you'd be a fool not to send your forces to back that up.  It seems like the crew that was sent to defend the bridge would simply be a suicide crew,.

Two, it allows for replayability when you never know where the militia might hit first.

Outside of that, I feel like this could be a really fun operation mostly due to the out of the way secondary FOB locations and the difficulty of defending a bridge from an enemy attack.  I might argue for giving militia 2x LAT instead of 1x LAT and 1x Scout but that's mostly just due to them having to assault positions that will be entrenched.  Though I can see the value of maybe using the scout to mine the road that the logi is traveling on.

The bridge defense is going to be REALLY tough on that squad if they have nothing but 4 sandbags so that's going to be something to think about.  Maybe should they get a FOB and a logi with the goal being to take out both FOBs?  That's just a thought.

Overall I'm really liking the direction of this and I think it could turn into something really neat.

The scout addition I wanted to try and help deal with the Russian defensive structures. 2x LAT would make dealing with the MT-LBM easier for sure, but figure with the Dshk techi, SPG techi and the BRDM-2 (also armed with the same 14.5mm autocannon a the MT-LBM), Militia would be able to deal with it just as well.

As for the suicide squad thing, the entire idea there is that the bridge defense is holding out long enough for the main force to find a better defended area to hold off the enemy attack. Once the secondary FOB is up and defensible, command is free to order the bridge squad to retreat. Also the objective for the bridge squad isnt to keep them off the bridge, per say, but to keep the radio placed on top of it safe until they dont need it anymore.

The idea has merit however so I'm not going to dismiss it. Will def be wanting more feedback from more people though to see what the genera consensus is on both ideas. Thanks for the input Matter.
Reply
#5
I like this idea!

That's my feedback Wink
Something something something...
Reply
#6
Would the militia be able to setup a fob and make a mortar team within relative location to the Russian forces? Bc that may be a bummer if they can depending on the map of course and the exact location they pick due to it being so open. Might be too overpowering? Just brain storming here and trying to think of the outcomes, and different feedback from what the others said. I like the idea though, gets the op moving a lot and with moving parts like that gives opportunity to really see commanders strategically move the squads and such. Excellent work though!
Reply
#7
(07-31-2017, 03:40 PM)Sexyton Wrote: Would the militia be able to setup a fob and make a mortar team within relative location to the Russian forces? Bc that may be a bummer if they can depending on the map of course and the exact location they pick due to it being so open. Might be too overpowering? Just brain storming here and trying to think of the outcomes, and different feedback from what the others said. I like the idea though, gets the op moving a lot and with moving parts like that gives opportunity to really see commanders strategically move the squads and such. Excellent work though!

Militia don't have any access to logistics vehicles or a FOB so mortars won't be a factor. Russia has a single NSVT/NSVT bunker they can place at either FOB depending on their commander's preference. The 14.5 on the BRDM-2 as well as the IEDs and RPGs the militia have serve as hard counters to the Russians defensive structures. Anything else would be overkill
Reply
#8
For a second I was like where is the doc, I need to see the map and thoughts.

So here is my feedback:

The Bridge crossing is pointless unless you force the attacker to 1 bridge. Otherwise they will go around every time. With that said I'd pick locations on the other side of the bridge forcing the attacker through the choke. There has been push back on the idea of limiting a teams ability to manage their resources in that only allowing 1 squad to defend the bridge. I only mention it because there is nothing preventing the commander from parking another squad 100-200m to the east of the bridge to form a second line to further delay the attacker.

Here is what I suggest. Have RUS defend all 3 bridges and only have 1 squad setup defenses, and all 3 locations on one side of the river. Once MIL crosses a bridge RUS knows they can release their defenses on the other bridges. It's like Fishhook in that it forces either a feint or full force crossing at a bridge. It allows both teams to choose their direction and allows more replay.

If one bridge is taking fire and the commander pulls off his other 2 bridge forces to soon, MIL might cross unopposed but RUS gets more defenders at the location of their choosing.

So all of this bridge crossing could take 30m if done right, which brings me to my next suggestion. Focus the RUS possiable FOB locations close to each other say, 300-500M so that the op time doesn't run to long while MIL hunts for the location. I'd make each unique. So one like buildings/farm, provides some cover with little logistics, 1 that requires more, and 1 that has no cover and requires a lot of resources.
[+] 1 user Likes XbiT's post
Reply
#9
(08-02-2017, 06:19 PM)XbiT Wrote: For a second I was like where is the doc, I need to see the map and thoughts.

So here is my feedback:

The Bridge crossing is pointless unless you force the attacker to 1 bridge. Otherwise they will go around every time. With that said I'd pick locations on the other side of the bridge forcing the attacker through the choke. There has been push back on the idea of limiting a teams ability to manage their resources in that only allowing 1 squad to defend the bridge. I only mention it because there is nothing preventing the commander from parking another squad 100-200m to the east of the bridge to form a second line to further delay the attacker.

Here is what I suggest. Have RUS defend all 3 bridges and only have 1 squad setup defenses, and all 3 locations on one side of the river. Once MIL crosses a bridge RUS knows they can release their defenses on the other bridges. It's like Fishhook in that it forces either a feint or full force crossing at a bridge. It allows both teams to choose their direction and allows more replay.

If one bridge is taking fire and the commander pulls off his other 2 bridge forces to soon, MIL might cross unopposed but RUS gets more defenders at the location of their choosing.

So all of this bridge crossing could take 30m if done right, which brings me to my next suggestion. Focus the RUS possiable FOB locations close to each other say, 300-500M so that the op time doesn't run to long while MIL hunts for the location. I'd make each unique. So one like buildings/farm, provides some cover with little logistics, 1 that requires more, and 1 that has no cover and requires a lot of resources.

An interesting set of suggestions. I had intended for Russia to only defend one bridge not really as a crossing point but more of a kind of checkpoint of sorts, but I can see the merits of making russia have to defend all three vehicle bridges to ensure nothing with wheels is crossing over until the fallback order is called. 

Only issue I can see is that militia and Russian main are both on the same side of the river, meaning Russia has to defend the left side of each bridge and the fallback FOB will therefore also have to be in the left of the river. 

Though, it's possible militia could also choose their start point and Russia would have a different selection of close areas to choose from on the right side of the river as a result, offering even more variety. Would be a simple matter for militia command to type in all chat what side they want to start on.

I'll take a bit of time tonight to scout out a few spots that fit the bill and edit the Op Doc accordingly as I like the idea and I feel it would add replayability as well as give more players on the RUS side something to do. 

Thanks for the feedback Xbit

EDIT: Upon a bit of testing and exploration of the map, my addition to your idea has shown me that if Militia were to spawn on the left side of the river and Russia were to defend the right, Russia would have a major advantage with resupplies as well as being far closer to all the bridges given the smaller landmass on the right side of the map. I'll stick to having Russia control everything left of the river, as there are more options available for me to put potential fallback points and it will make it slightly more interesting in terms of Russian resupply.

I've adjusted the Russian fallback points as needed to account for all being on the same side of the map. Will adjust Op Doc tomorrow after work.
Reply
#10
Op Doc and OP has been updated folks. Thanks for the feedback (givememore)
[+] 1 user Likes Sightless's post
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)