Go Back   Project Reality Tournament Forums > PUBLIC FORUM > General Tournament Discussion

Welcome to the Project Reality Forums! Join the Project Reality forums! Contact Us

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2017-02-28, 22:48   #11
[R-COM]​Michael_Denmark
Retired PELA/CATA CO

 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 3,810
Re: C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stark38 View Post
YTMan has the rest of the documents, whenever he shows up. I think he's still too sad to come back online here.
I have watched tournament teams since when, campaign 3 or 4? Played against some of them too. Advised a few of the decision makers as well.

Ytman did very well indeed. As did the whole of APN. In my opinion, both he and his team, has everything to be proud of. Because it achieved something really difficult.

Besides, both the EMC and APN are in overall, as close to equal as I have seen in the tournament, in a loong time. The total kill count says it all. Respect to the administration, for having created these very balanced teams.
__________________
Speed Surprise Strength

500 million combat boots... One heartbeat
Michael_Denmark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-02-28, 22:51   #12
[R-COM]​Michael_Denmark
Retired PELA/CATA CO

 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 3,810
Re: C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raidonrai View Post
Xiangshan was nothing compared to Wanda and Vadso m8
Because of the level of coordination on Wanda, during that last squeezing assault?
__________________
Speed Surprise Strength

500 million combat boots... One heartbeat
Michael_Denmark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-02-28, 23:05   #13
Filamu
Task Force Member
 
Filamu's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 579
Re: C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread

Tbh, we planned for a fallback on Xiangshan, although we got pushed back a little more than planned, it was in no way a surprise.
On the other had, the quick deployment on Vadsų contesting our hill, that was completely unexpected. We were expecting you guys to dig in hard.
__________________
Something's very wrong here, and yet a little bit right.
Filamu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-02-28, 23:50   #14
[T-CON]​Raidonrai
Tournament Contributor
 
Raidonrai's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Liverpool laa
Posts: 255
Re: C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stark38 View Post
YTMan has the rest of the documents, whenever he shows up. I think he's still too sad to come back online here.
If you type "google map-name-here" your browser is likely to suggest the correct google doc URLs, assuming they are all google docs and that you visited them all repeatedly.
__________________
Raidonrai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-02-28, 23:54   #15
[R-COM]​Michael_Denmark
Retired PELA/CATA CO

 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 3,810
Re: C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Filamu View Post
Tbh, we planned for a fallback on Xiangshan, although we got pushed back a little more than planned, it was in no way a surprise.
On the other had, the quick deployment on Vadsų contesting our hill, that was completely unexpected. We were expecting you guys to dig in hard.

True, the initial APN deployment had all the signs of a trap. Beautiful trap too btw. Same with the APN defense in the north. Seemed to be well planned and in overall worked very well too.

However, the timing of the EMC offensive, did seem to be a surprise. Or at least here from the sideline it did.

Vadsų, yes now I watch it again, I can see it, but up to your post, I actually though something had gone wrong. I did not read that initial tactical APN defeat, as the result of an operational surprise. But now you say it, and watching it again, it is obvious.

Never read it like that, due to the successful reaction from the APN. It handled the defensive situation hereafter, really well. And kept doing so, until Frank_Jaeger and Sephi lost that BTR-80 to Menuen. After that things just went wrong for the APN, for quite some time, until it was 40+ tickets behind. rest is history.

But up to that point, Vadsų, again here from the side line, looks like fight between two very balanced teams.
__________________
Speed Surprise Strength

500 million combat boots... One heartbeat
Michael_Denmark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-03-01, 00:29   #16
[T-CON]​Raidonrai
Tournament Contributor
 
Raidonrai's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Liverpool laa
Posts: 255
Re: C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread

We won Vadso so decisively due to lack of APN fobs, plain and simple. A single area attack wiped a third of the southern hill defenders and their only means to reinforce. Am genuinely baffled as to why there weren't at least 3 FOBs on that hill.
__________________
Raidonrai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-03-01, 00:53   #17
Stark38
C12 Member

 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 473
Re: C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raidonrai View Post
If you type "google map-name-here" your browser is likely to suggest the correct google doc URLs, assuming they are all google docs and that you visited them all repeatedly.
He uses OneDrive
__________________


Stark38 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-03-01, 00:59   #18
[T-CON]​Raidonrai
Tournament Contributor
 
Raidonrai's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Liverpool laa
Posts: 255
Re: C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread

what a madman
__________________
Raidonrai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-03-02, 21:32   #19
[R-COM]​ytman
Retired PRT Command

 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 534
Re: C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raidonrai View Post
We won Vadso so decisively due to lack of APN fobs, plain and simple. A single area attack wiped a third of the southern hill defenders and their only means to reinforce. Am genuinely baffled as to why there weren't at least 3 FOBs on that hill.
Vadso was won decisively because of our effort to attack Tunnel instead of continuing the fight over that southern hill. The number of FOBs don't affect the actual battle, its the number of troops. There was a massive difference in squads fighting on the Southern hill - EMC fielded their entire team while APN fielded just three squads.

I considered that at the 200 ticket mark we couldn't successfully win the hill without redistributing our city forces to combat your larger numbers, so the mission was to buy time until the inevitable artillery strike would come down let the squads get defeated and wiped, while unleashing a counter attack. The counter attack was a failure and that is why it was a big gap, until that devoted effort the ticket balance was approximately even. The biggest failure probably comes from the improperly aimed artillery strike mid-game, it hit a useless target and should have been targeted on the hill or we should have dropped the squads into the tunnel flag and not the F8 hill.


In regard to Xiangshan's baiting. Yes, we did. It was designed from the get go since, on many layers, the terrain was not found to suit our advance and FR deployment was superior. Combine that with a careful dissection of C10s Xiangshan battle I came up with the battle plan that quite literally predicted the assault.


APN C12 Documents:

Pre-Tournament Scrims:

Marlin Folder PowerPoint wasn't used for this.


Burning Sands Folder === PowerPoint Brief ===

Rising Sun

Xiangshan C10 Story
Xiangshan Brief

Wanda Shan (not handled by me)

Stronghold


Fool's (Wrecked) Road

Grozny
Grozny Rope Building

Guardian

Saaremaa

Saaremaa Internal AAR

Vadso
__________________

Last edited by ytman; 2017-03-02 at 21:46.
ytman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-03-03, 07:41   #20
Senshi
Lead Admin / Retired EMC CO
 
Senshi's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Wiesbaden
Posts: 2,369
Re: C12 Intel/Battleplan Sharing Thread

I think you underestimate the importance of FOBs a bit.
If you want to attack a flag, make sure to have at least two FOBS near it, from different (preferably opposed) directions. Only then can you sustain an attack. Not only for squad wipes, also merely for ammo and kits.

Defensively, having a staggered FOB network helps as well: If a frontline FOB becomes overrun or taken down, you got another spawn in. This wards not only against artillery strikes or heavy assets pushing damage, it also wards against sneak attacks. FOBs serve as kind of an early warning system as well (as do squad RPs, btw).

Last, but not least: If you only have one FOB, it is VERY easy for the enemy to identify where you're coming from. It made it very easy to predict where your guys would come from on the hill, and it's easy to get bogged down close around the FOB. More importantly, it gave us the knowledge that you had no way to replenish the line if we took down the FOB and followed up with an assault. We sent recon (and myself with a logi...) to check your rear lines before the final push, and no backup FOBs was simply too much of an invitation.

We were constantly at the FOB limit, creeping up with FOBs, trying to get them up near objectives. We had 3-4 FOBS on the tiny patch on southern hills, which gave a lot of comfort and flexible spawn opportunities to our squads there.

It also helps misdirect and survive area attacks (or mortars) without losing critical infrastructure.

@Xian: I expected you to have a fallback plan , and it was clear from your movements that you intended to get pushed back a bit. I still guess we came a bit closer than you liked. Your armored assets had to hunker down a bit (if not destroyed/damaged/rtbed outright) while we were setting up outside PLA outpost. The double-tank-kill was just incredibly unlucky. The assault plan was discussed and prepped for the entire round up to that point, but boredom was really the main motivator to push out.
__________________
Senshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
c12, intel or battleplan, sharing, thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All Content Copyright ©2004 - 2016, Project Reality.

Project Reality is a computer game and the Project Reality Tournament is an organized simulation of that game.
The PRT is not affiliated with and does not seek to emulate the practices or ideals of any current military force, foreign or domestic.
Name or organizational similarities are aesthetical only.