Port Stanley map

[zwobot]

Hello community

I have created a map of the area of Port Stanley on the Falkland Islands based on OpenStreetMaps.

While my source map contained sufficient information for the contour lines and road network it is lacking information about terrain types.

Currently I have modeled broken terrain covering the highest contours as I see fit and free-hand-drawed some beach areas around the airport from Google Maps.

Do you think it would be reasonable to cover the lowest contour areas with the Heide terrain in the map editor - I am unsure what exactly the Heide is supposed to resemble in real life.
I also thought about covering the vicinities of rivers with Marsh terrain.


Unfortunately some post count rule in the forum software prevents me from posting a preview image of the draft map and the upload/embed function of the Post New Thread form does not seem to work as intended for me as well.

[tukker]

'Heide' is a flat area, covered with heath, it looks something like this.

Pieter

[zwobot]

Thanks tukker.

I think Heide terrain is not suitable for the Stanley map then. I might use the Marsh terrain more extensively or leave large parts of the map as Clear.

[Phoenix100]

Look forward to the map, zwobot. What will you use it for? Are you doing an estab too, for the 1982 conflict?

[zwobot]

Hi phoenix

Unfortunately I lost the first try of the map due to a mistake in handling the Jone Soft Generic Mod Enabler (JSGME). I have recreated the map now.

Yes, I am trying to do an estab as well. While I do have fairly detailed information about the combat elements of both sides, I am lacking information about the composition of the logistics elements of the Argentine and British forces of the era which are required to add the bases to the estab.
Until I can find any useful information for the base units, I might use parts of the stock BFTBEstab as interim solution.

I am also unsure about the composition of higher echelon HQs, for example 3 Commando Brigade HQ and the various HQs on the Argentine side.

There's also a lot of guesstimating in other areas of the estab, especially in the performance sections of the weapons (ranges, effectiveness and penetration).

[Phoenix100]

Good luck with it! I guess it's a relatively difficult project you've picked, as the estab will be very different from the stock estabs.

[zwobot]

There are few parts which can be reused from the stock estab, e. g. weapons like Sten, Bren, M3, certain data of the howitzers.

The most difficult part is, like I said, figuring out the base and higher echelon HQ units as well as support vehicles and staff in all of the formations which are not remotely as well documented as combat troops.

I am not aiming for a highly accurate researched estab, I don't have the resources available to do this. I hope that most of the data in the estab will not have dramatic impact on the gameplay since so much is going on without the player noticing it in the first place.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: zwobot

. . .


While I do have fairly detailed information about the combat elements of both sides, I am lacking information about the composition of the logistics elements of the Argentine and British forces of the era which are required to add the bases to the estab.
Until I can find any useful information for the base units, I might use parts of the stock BFTBEstab as interim solution.

. . .

Here's a US Naval War College student's analysis of the logistics situation for the British in the campaign:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a249896.pdf

Here's a bibliography from the US National Defense University on the whole war:

http://www.jfsc.ndu.edu/library/publica ... ds_war.asp

Keep in mind that "bases" are an abstraction of how logistics systems function in battle. If your issue is the number of personnel and transports that should be assigned to a "base," you will have to aggregate up from company level logistics support elements to your regimental / brigade base structure to get the number of personnel assigned logistics support responsibilities at the "base."

In existing logistics systems, those brigade / regiment and below elements were controlled by the commander at the level they were assigned, but in BftB they become assets for the "base" and should be subtracted from the lower echelon strengths to remain true to stregnth for manpower and equipment at the brigade / regiment accounting level.

What it amounts to is that the truck driver in company ordnance section can't be used to defend the company's perimeter because under BftB that truck driver reports to the "Base commander."

[zwobot]

Thanks for the links jimcarravallah. Major Valovcin's analysis looks like an interesting read, I quickly browsed it.

I am aware of the abstractions of bases in estab files. Maybe I'll reengineer the base units with calculations described by simovitch in post #7 in the Weapons Data thread and then tune the resources in the estab down until it "feels right".

(I'm still not allowed to post links - what a strange forum rule).

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: zwobot

Thanks for the links jimcarravallah. Major Valovcin's analysis looks like an interesting read, I quickly browsed it.

I am aware of the abstractions of bases in estab files. Maybe I'll reengineer the base units with calculations described by simovitch in post #7 in the Weapons Data thread and then tune the resources in the estab down until it "feels right".

(I'm still not allowed to post links - what a strange forum rule).

Unfortunately, I didn't see much on-line English-language information regarding Argentina's logistics issues (perhaps a holdover from the "Monroe Doctrine?" or more likely, the fact that Argentina was a closed government not prone to analyzing it's mistakes in public at the time the battle took place).

Simovitch is a good source of information for tips on crafting scenarios.

The "link" issue can be overcome by changing to verbal descriptions of links ("slash" instead of "/") until the Matrix forum oversight defaults calculate you've posted enough times to be eliminated from the spam filter constraint.

[zwobot]

According to Martin Middlebrook's The Argentine fight for the Falklands the certain Argentine brigades deployed to the garrison on the Malvinas left most of their vehicles on the mainland. I'm not sure though if this only includes the combat vehicles or also the logistic vehicles.

At the moment I'm busy with iterating through the Ammo, Weapon and Vehicle data I have added to the estab so far to tidy up and documenting the sources I used for which object.

And thanks for the Link tip.

[zwobot]

I made some progress with the Estab lately.

For the moment I worked around the lacking information about logistics and HQ units in the conflict by aggregating data of similar units from the stock COBFTB Estab and using this as input for personnel and equipment types of my Estab.
Later I might compare the total numbers of my combat troops in the estab with the total number of troops deployed to the islands and assign the difference of the two values to HQ and base units of either side.

My next open topic is which vehicles to assign to artillery units. I don't know which vehicles were available to those units in the conflict.
The British guns were moved forward by helicopter, therefore I would not assign any vehicles to those units but I'm not sure what this would mean for the gameplay of the scenario later.

How do the vehicles a (artillery) unit has available affect their mobility in the game?

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: zwobot

I made some progress with the Estab lately.

For the moment I worked around the lacking information about logistics and HQ units in the conflict by aggregating data of similar units from the stock COBFTB Estab and using this as input for personnel and equipment types of my Estab.
Later I might compare the total numbers of my combat troops in the estab with the total number of troops deployed to the islands and assign the difference of the two values to HQ and base units of either side.

The "Base" in Command Ops is an abstraction of the supply system below the regimental echelon. In most official TO&E's, you'll find a dedicated cadre of personnel with equipment for handling supply and support operations down to company sized units (as a minimum personnel dual qualified for handing supply and support in addition to their line combat duties in leaner fighting units such as commando organizations). Not many TO&E's available to the public show these, but when they do, the Battalion and Company assets are assigned at the regimental level in Command Ops.

The "base" aggregate represents the main supply point for the higher headquarters (in a regiment, it's the equivalent of where the Major or LT Col in charge of supply operations maintains his headquarters tent), and the personnel aggregate represent it's ability to receive and distribute supplies (the "handling" and "transport" capacities) to subordinate units during the game. In standard supply operations, the main hub may support a number of subordinate storage / stowage areas (such as Ammo Supply Points) in the battle space.

One could view the "avoidance route" (defined as the quickest route where the friendly force believes it will avoid most fire from opposing units) to include the most likely locations for these subordinate redistribution points to be located between the "base" and the units being supplied by the unseen "subordinate" storage / stowage areas.

This system was a compromise made to reduce the need to portray player-accessible formations on the map.

Most designers define the "base" at regiment and above, being careful not to duplicate personnel as they aggregate (e.g. regimental supply and support "base" personnel are not added to a division's "base" strength).

You have latitude to define a "base" at any echelon, but this starts butting into map scale considerations when there are significant numbers of units portrayed in a limited space or when multiple base operations have to be supported by AI "supply operations" during the standard twice daily supply pulses, and "emergency deliveries."

My next open topic is which vehicles to assign to artillery units. I don't know which vehicles were available to those units in the conflict.
The British guns were moved forward by helicopter, therefore I would not assign any vehicles to those units but I'm not sure what this would mean for the gameplay of the scenario later.

How do the vehicles a (artillery) unit has available affect their mobility in the game?

This is an issue with "transport" that has been surfaced in earlier discussions.

There are no dedicated transport units in Command Ops.

Supply is delivered by an abstraction of the number of vehicles assigned to a base and their "carrying capacity," but you never see the vehicles.

Same is true of units which have dedicated transport (armored infantry for example), but the troops in the armored carriers cannot fight as foot troops when the battle requires it, and the carriers can't operate independently as fire support units after the "troops" dismount.

When it comes to air transport, units simply "appear" as reinforcements where they were dropped, and operate from that point with their organic transport. So, you can portray the initial placement of artillery by British helicopters in the Falklands, but you lose the tactical flexibility to pick those units up, and move them to another place by helicopter later in the game play.

The developers are working out issues with this as part of the Command Ops 2 release, particularly as it relates to dismounted troop operations so prevalent in the Eastern Front scenarios planned as paralleling or succeeding that release.

There also has been discussion of sea transport and river crossing operations being added to the game and the start of discussion of air mobile operations to expand the game engine's ability to portray operations beyond what occurred during World War II.

Since the intent of the developers is to devise a combat simulation, it would help in refining their solutions if you identified what you encounter in shortfalls during development of the Falklands scenario, and any insight on how the problem was addressed operationally from your research.

You may not get a solution immediately, but the concerns will be included in the developers' long range planning.

Both the supply issue and the helicopter transport of artillery are good examples of what they like to discuss, so long as you don't demand a solution tomorrow [;)].

[zwobot]

Are you saying any vehicles I assign as equipment to a unit does not have any effect on its mobility? I did a quick test with a scenario on my map with a tentative OOB. There was one artillery unit which had no vehicles in its equipment list whatsoever, only their guns and some small arms. They were able to move very quickly, the normal and max speeds of the force in the Estab Editor were set to 20 and 30 KPH respectively.
This leads to the conclusion that only those two speed values affect the mobility of units apart from terrain modifiers, fatigue etc. but certainly not their equipment as it seems.

In this case, I would just set those speeds to a relatively low value for British artillery units to emulate them being lifted one by one by a very limited number of helicopters available to the whole invasion force.

Are vehicles (trucks and maybe cars) in non-logistics forces used to resupply the respective unit then?

Regarding the base units themselves, I am not sure whether you are suggesting me to
1. compose the base units to facilitate the games mechanics (in terms of equipment and personnel in the unit) rather than
2. trying to recreate reallife personnel strengths and equipment amounts or something else.

For example, I once read that the Commando Logistic Regiment of 3 Commando Brigade had about 1,000 personnel in total at the time of the conflict but only some 364 or so were actually sent to the Falklands (the actual numbers might be wrong but that's not important for this example).

Case 1:
I calculate or test the drawing units' supply needs in a test scenario and setup the 3 Commando Brigade Base in the Estab Editor in a way that it can handle the incoming requests within 2 hours or whatever seems appropriate for this conflict.

Case 2:
Ignoring any lower echelon personnel and equipment which would have to be added to the base unit's personnel/equipment rather than to the respective line and support units, the 3 Commando Brigade Base would than have 364 personnel in my estab + any equipment present on the island from the Commando Logistic Regiment.

[Arjuna]

Re uploading image of your draft map. Is it a size issue? What error message are you getting?

[zwobot]

After I have uploaded the image, nothing appears in the reply form but when I click the "Click here to upload!" link again, the popup tells me that I can only upload one file per message.

The image's file size is 211kb and its dimensions are 922x557

Edit: turns out the embed checkbox next to the upload file link did the trick. I'm almost sure this didn't work before or I did not try it because no attachment was shown in the message's preview.

[Arjuna]

Cn you provide a shot with the map grid on so we can get an idea of scale.

[zwobot]

Sure, good point.

The area north of the Murrell River might be worth cropping away since it would probably not be used much.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: zwobot
Are you saying any vehicles I assign as equipment to a unit does not have any effect on its mobility?

No. I was saying under Command Ops that once a unit is deployed by helicopter, it can’t be moved to a new location by helicopter.

I did a quick test with a scenario on my map with a tentative OOB. There was one artillery unit which had no vehicles in its equipment list whatsoever, only their guns and some small arms. They were able to move very quickly, the normal and max speeds of the force in the Estab Editor were set to 20 and 30 KPH respectively. This leads to the conclusion that only those two speed values affect the mobility of units apart from terrain modifiers, fatigue etc. but certainly not their equipment as it seems.

Your conclusion is correct. The 20-30 Kph speeds are not realistic for troops on the march, however. Sounds like the force was classified as “wheeled” without taking into account there were no powered wheeled towing platforms involved.
If you want to set the speed to a more realistic march pace, I’d suggest leaving the class “wheeled” to define what terrain it can traverse, and set the force speed to something closer to a march pace.

In this case, I would just set those speeds to a relatively low value for British artillery units to emulate them being lifted one by one by a very limited number of helicopters available to the whole invasion force.

If you’ve played Highway to the Reich, the “helicopter deployment” would be performed the same way airborne troops were dropped into Holland.
Artillery would appear as a “reinforcement” where the “helicopter” dropped it. However, there is no machinery in the game for redeploying the unit by helicopter later in the game.
Efforts are underway to change the Command Ops engine to include transport, the first being what are termed by the developers dismounted troops. Those are troops who are transported to a combat site by a vehicle and dismount from the vehicle to fight while the vehicle becomes a separate platform.
It’s a necessity to include Russian tactics in an East Front game. Aspects of loading, unloading, and independent movement of transporting equipment are the prelude to updating the game engine to include airmobile operations.

Are vehicles (trucks and maybe cars) in non-logistics forces used to resupply the respective unit then?

I don’t believe so. Using them for supply purposes as a secondary mission when their prime task is to move troops and equipment is similar to the problem that has to be addressed for transporting units to operate independently after troops have been unloaded from the transports to perform combat missions.

Regarding the base units themselves, I am not sure whether you are suggesting me to
1. compose the base units to facilitate the games mechanics (in terms of equipment and personnel in the unit) rather than
2. trying to recreate reallife personnel strengths and equipment amounts or something else.

For example, I once read that the Commando Logistic Regiment of 3 Commando Brigade had about 1,000 personnel in total at the time of the conflict but only some 364 or so were actually sent to the Falklands (the actual numbers might be wrong but that's not important for this example).

The base’s capacity for handling supplies is based on the manpower in the theater located at the base. Those get allocated as manpower to handle supplies (nominally packaging, loading, and unloading supplies from delivery vehicles), and transporting supplies (driving delivery vehicles). Administration (compiling lists of requirements, issuing requisitions to fill those requirements, and keeping track of inventory as supplies flow in and out of the base doesn’t get calculated as a manpower burden.
Those clerical positions, however, should be included in the defensive strength calculations for the base, I believe as “troops” with no responsibility to handle or deliver supplies.

Case 1:
I calculate or test the drawing units' supply needs in a test scenario and setup the 3 Commando Brigade Base in the Estab Editor in a way that it can handle the incoming requests within 2 hours or whatever seems appropriate for this conflict.

Case 2:
Ignoring any lower echelon personnel and equipment which would have to be added to the base unit's personnel/equipment rather than to the respective line and support units, the 3 Commando Brigade Base would than have 364 personnel in my estab + any equipment present on the island from the Commando Logistic Regiment.

Case 1 is more in line with the “base” (keep in mind it’s an emulation of the operation). “Handling” occurs at both ends of the supply chain (loading at the base and unloading at the unit) but, as best I can determine, it’s only calculated at the base. Adding lower echelon personnel numbers typically responsible for unloading vehicles at the delivery point should compensate for any penalty built into the engine for the unloading at the unit.
This assumes, of course, there is a global time for “unloading” at the unit.

[zwobot]

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah
Your conclusion is correct. The 20-30 Kph speeds are not realistic for troops on the march, however. Sounds like the force was classified as “wheeled” without taking into account there were no powered wheeled towing platforms involved.
If you want to set the speed to a more realistic march pace, I’d suggest leaving the class “wheeled” to define what terrain it can traverse, and set the force speed to something closer to a march pace.
[...]
If you’ve played Highway to the Reich, the “helicopter deployment” would be performed the same way airborne troops were dropped into Holland.
Artillery would appear as a “reinforcement” where the “helicopter” dropped it. However, there is no machinery in the game for redeploying the unit by helicopter later in the game.

I've played HTTR and understand what you mean with the airborne deployment to be applied to the artillery guns in the Stanley scenario. My plan for the scenario is to start it one or two days prior to the first major attack on the western Argentine positions when the artillery guns were already deployed. Therefore they would be present on the scenario map right from the beginning.
This is why I shared my thought about setting them up as wheeled units in the Estab but with very slow movement speeds. This might cause trouble though when the AI decides to redeploy the artillery as part of a task from an AI subordinate.

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah
Case 1 is more in line with the “base” (keep in mind it’s an emulation of the operation). “Handling” occurs at both ends of the supply chain (loading at the base and unloading at the unit) but, as best I can determine, it’s only calculated at the base. Adding lower echelon personnel numbers typically responsible for unloading vehicles at the delivery point should compensate for any penalty built into the engine for the unloading at the unit.
This assumes, of course, there is a global time for “unloading” at the unit.

I'll stick with my current bases then. They have similar headcounts, type and amount of equipment as COBFTBEstab bases in similar levels of the hierarchy.

At the moment I there are two Brigades in either side's OOB with one base each and I am not sure whether a Corps base would be needed in the scenario supplying the two Brigade bases?
There is something strange happening in my test scenario which might be caused by the lack of a higher echelon base on the map. In the attached screenshot you can see that III Brigade and X Brigade should be at the same level of the OOB however in the scenario X Brigade is a sub-unit of III Brigade...