Matrix Games Forums

Hi all,

I have been doing some thinking based on a response by a very experienced user of this system. The point being that a FUP isn't a point, it is the designation of an "area".

If you look at this image:




What I am trying to understand are the following:

What is the rough diameter of a FUP area?

Given that I expect the answer to be it depends on the size and the composition of the unit(s) in question, what are the guiding principles to aid in planning?

Does the FUP point designated specify the "center" of the FUP area?

How far in front of the FUP designation is a unit allowed to advance while shaking out. It seems to me that the FUP area should also have hard boundaries so that units don't make accidental contact when shaking out and so that they don't interfere with allied units to either side.

I am puzzled at this point because the manual, and a number of posters have echoed this warning, states that you don't want to set the FUP too far away as an attack loses cohesion and become exhausted if the attack after the FUP is too prolonged.

How do you balance "not to far away" and "ensure that during shake-out no unit advances too far"?

But in the picture I posted, the lead unit is still (as I now understand) advancing as part of the shake-out into attack formation and it is at least a half-klick beyond the FUP point I designated. (and therefore within the lethal range of OPROF units that were known to be in the area).

If one wants to try to keep the final attack/assault leg of an attack to 1 klick or less, should units be shaking out a half-klick beyond what was designated as the FUP? Or, the FUP designation should indicate the initial line of departure and units should shake out along, but not in front of this line.

Or am I just thinking about this wrong?

I haven't played this system for more than a few months, but I hadn't run into a situation where the shake-out was so far in advance of the FUP.

Note: If you move the FUP about 1/4 Klick to the right, then the units shake out much more closely to the FUP. So something about the hill is exacerbating this issue?

Thanks an advance for your thoughts and ideas

The FUP will have a similar size and shape to the 'Objective' formation box - the units shake out into the attack formation at this location and then move forwards theoretically in a constant location relative to the centre of mass of the assaulting group.

This obviously won't hold true with interactions with terrain or enemy fire all the time, but it is a rough rule of thumb - so you need to balance the need to occupy the objective area with security during the assault.

Avoid placing the FUP in an observable location if alternatives exist (not always possible to use terrain/landform - but you can use low light or poor weather for the same effect).
Avoid placing the FUP too far from the objective - an hour's march is too far - but obviously mech can get away with longer distances (unless the going is poor).
Avoid placing the FUP too near to the start point -  too small distances will be ignored, the FUP will be disregarded and the AI may 'opt' for a totally undesirable alternative.
Avoid placing the FUP on the far side of terrain that will restrict the advance from the Objective (ie for an assault crossing). If you must do this break it down with one assault on the crossing supported by the bulk of the forces that then cross and form-up/assault from the enemy bank - movement can be unpredictable is alternative crossings exist anywhere on the same river, and HQ in particular may go to odd places.

Making the forces use a more concentrated FUP/Objective aids finding suitable spots for concealed organisation/recovery, but may make the force more vulnerable to fires, particularly artillery once detected. Dispersing the FUP/Objective makes it more likely that some forces will be fired on during their re-org (thus potentially delaying/disrupting the whole attack) - however the effect of semi-random fires into a concealed location will be lower.
Attacking with 2-3 Bn groups allows some chance of (one or more) undisrupted advances, while a Single Rgt attack is more likely to receive disruptive fires. The relative effect of fires will be higher on the smaller grouping though.

Lieste,

As always thanks for your prompt and thorough answer.