Combat Tactics and Strategies

[ChalkLine]

I'm in a PbP game, and in every situation where the PCs have stood their ground and fought, they've been slaughtered.

True, the PCs are all fairly unskilled and are fighting a crack team of VDV and Spetsnaz (thanks GM! :)) but the defining feature seems to be that if the PCs stand still they get creamed.

So I've read up on infantry tactics, and the German concept of 'elastic defence'. This is where you start with strongpoints that shelter you from bombardment, and fall back with supporting fires to trade ground for time to counter attack when the enemy seems disorganised in the assault phase.

How realistic does the forum see this?
Do strongpoints represent tactical assets to fought from and defended?

[Mohoender]

I'm pretty sure it works but that depends on the general battle condition. That wasn't only used by the Germans but it was also used against them.

That was used with success (by the Australians) at Tobrouk where the troops used to remain into their holes while the tanks where progressing. Then, they got out behind them, taking out the protecting infantry and attacking from behind.

That was also used with great success at Kursk by the Russians and later, Von Manstein used it against the Russians sometime after Stalingrad (winter 1943-1944). Von Manstein, managed to stop an all out Russian offensive with inferior troops (2nd line Germans, Italians and Romanians) that should have been wiped out. he stopped T-34 with almost no tanks.

I also think that it was used by Hezbollah against Israel during the last war in 2006.

The problem with it is that it works only if your troops have steel nerves and your position can't be taken by a flank maneuver. The Russians advisors kept it as the main tactic for a long time and the Egyptians used it often against Israel. Each time, Tsahal sent its tanks on a long range flank maneuver that cut the defending position from behind. Then, you only have to crush the defenders as if they were some kind of nuts. That's also what happened with the Magino Line by the way (also a fixed defensive line). Worse, the French had decided to save money and the turrets couldn't turn 360°.

[kcdusk]

Maybe the GM wants to see the PCs thinking, and putting any sort of tactics into play rather than just sitting tight and slugging it out.

I dont know anything about infantry tactics. But as a GM i'd give the PCs a break if they were trying something (flanking force? Booby trap a position before pulling back ...) rather than hoping the concrete and sandbags were going to save them.

Is the GM any good? Or is he just smashing you? Or does the opposing force have a weakness he wants you to figure out and hit?

I can see what you mean chalk about the tactic you suggest. The only problem i have with this (and it applies to almost any tactic you want to use) is its often hard via PbP for the PCs to have much situational awareness and know whats available or what position they are in to put "larger scale" (dare i say "wargame"???? :-) tactics into practice.

[Badbru]

I'm in a PbP game, and in every situation where the PCs have stood their ground and fought, they've been slaughtered.

I'm in the same pbp game and we haven't been slaughtered in every encounter although we have taken casualties in pretty much every encounter. I think it's a product of two things;1) the game system mechanics, I go, you go, everone gets a turn so everyone gets to shoot at someone and we're mostly outnumbered... and 2) It's a pbp that is more of a collaborative writing exercise than a role playing game and much less of a wargame. The majority of the players are more interested in portraying a good story.


True, the PCs are all fairly unskilled and are fighting a crack team of VDV and Spetsnaz (thanks GM! :)) .

This is a natural conclusion to actions current and past players have taken. Unfair to blame the GM on this, and, I do not believe that was Chalklines intention.

So I've read up on infantry tactics, and the German concept of 'elastic defence'. This is where you start with strongpoints that shelter you from bombardment, and fall back with supporting fires to trade ground for time to counter attack when the enemy seems disorganised in the assault phase.

How realistic does the forum see this?

It seems realistic enough for reality, see Mohoenders' post, but probably less so for an rpg and our pbp.see kcDusks' last paragraph.

Do strongpoints represent tactical assets to fought from and defended?

In an rpg, and particularly our pbp a strongpoint represents a static target for 40mmGrenades, rpg7 rounds, and when available mortars. You don't want to be in any kind of strongpoint in our game.

There is a logic behind the way our GM runs his game. I can see it but can't explain it. It's a kind of universal fairness constrained by game mechanics. To remain above criticism everything must be strictly adhered to rules wise for both parties and yet party size and capabilities reflect the expected situation and thus the players often find themselves deep in the poo.

[Webstral]

It seems to me that gameplay and player satisfaction outrank realism. After all, it's untirely unrealistic for any of the characters to be alive in 2000. Exceptions to what is most likely are made for the sake of the game. Perhaps the Spetznaz could have a bad day or make a few bad decisions if that is what is required to keep the PCs alive and wanting to play.


Webstral

[Raellus]

I too play in this particular PbP and it is a lot tougher on PCs than any other game I've ever participated in.

The GM has stated that he wants the players to "earn it" and so I think he may be approaching combat scenarios with this in mind. This isn't to say that he's stacking the deck against the players. As Bru pointed out, our current opponents were determined in large part by the overarching plot/story line of the game. I will admit, it would be nice to wipe out the occasional squad of marauders or Soviet conscripts but that's probably not going to happen any time soon (if ever). The challenge of combat in this campaign sure adds a lot of suspense and tension (not to mention frustration).

As for strongpoints, if we had an actual strongpoint, I'd argue for using it. I'm thinking of concrete or timber reinforced bunkers with interlocking fields of fire and wire entanglements and anti-personel mines out in front- that sort of thing. Unfortunately, we have nothing like that in (***edit kato13) the game. Your average Polish town building is not a strongpoint. Machine gun fire, not to mention 40mm grenade and RPG fire is more than adequate for reducing it or killing/wounding everyone inside of it (see LeBlanc's last stand).

So, in closing, I empathize with you Chalk. It is frustrating to always just barely be not losing every single fight. It's a brutal campaign. On the other hand, it is what it is, and we just have to roll with it.

Now, as for the post rate, don't get me started!

[ChalkLine]

I'm pretty sure it works but that depends on the general battle condition. That wasn't only used by the Germans but it was also used against them.

That was used with success (by the Australians) at Tobrouk where the troops used to remain into their holes while the tanks where progressing. Then, they got out behind them, taking out the protecting infantry and attacking from behind.

That was also used with great success at Kursk by the Russians and later, Von Manstein used it against the Russians sometime after Stalingrad (winter 1943-1944). Von Manstein, managed to stop an all out Russian offensive with inferior troops (2nd line Germans, Italians and Romanians) that should have been wiped out. he stopped T-34 with almost no tanks.

I also think that it was used by Hezbollah against Israel during the last war in 2006.

The problem with it is that it works only if your troops have steel nerves and your position can't be taken by a flank maneuver. The Russians advisors kept it as the main tactic for a long time and the Egyptians used it often against Israel. Each time, Tsahal sent its tanks on a long range flank maneuver that cut the defending position from behind. Then, you only have to crush the defenders as if they were some kind of nuts. That's also what happened with the Magino Line by the way (also a fixed defensive line). Worse, the French had decided to save money and the turrets couldn't turn 360°.

Actually, elastic defence is a WW1 German system, post Hindenburg/Ludendorf. It was used by other armies though in other places too about that time. Also, just to be nitpicky, the 'Maginot guns couldn't turn 360º' isn't true :) The real problem with the Maginot guns was that they were too light a calibre, being mainly 75mm - much too light for a fortification gun. The French wanted speed of fire over weight of shell. The Maginot line worked brilliantly, the German's didn't dare attack it directly except in one set-piece assault after it was already outflanked. The real reason the French, in my view, lost the Battle of France is a certain general named 'Gough' cutting and running to Dunkirk and leaving the French to do it alone.

[kcdusk]

So it comes back to this; is it better to fight from a strongpoint knowing the extra protection the position gives you is worth trading for manoeuvre, or do you keep moving and try and keep the enemy unsure of your position long enough for some sort of reserves come up and and help out?

Are these the only options?


I would think fighting from a strongppoint is OK. Except in this case your enemy is coordinated AND it sounds like he has the gear to hurt you (RPGs etc) despite the hard cover.

So i'd go mobile and negate his advantage. Float like a butterfly. Give him moving targets (mortars etc are harder to use???) or better still dont give him a target.

It sounds like your defending a town against a better opposition. So use your hit and run tactics and behave like rebels (sorry, couldnt think of a better word).

Can you somehow string your enemy out and take him out in bite size chunks? Maybe thats the example you used at the start re elastic defence.

[headquarters]

If you hole up you can be smoked out..if there is no cav ready to rush in and turn the attackers I mean.

The possibility of loosing and the uncertainty -sounds like a great campaign imho.

As for tactics - you have a militia larger then the enemy force but the enemy is hard troops whereas you guys are not .

Fighting is difficult as the attacker can choose his battlefield in those circumstances.

Without knowing the lay of the land or any numbers etc of troops and equipment its hard to advice.

As a GM I would say - give the man runnning the game what he wants - let your desperation show so h eknows that you have got the message .Then start whitteling down the opfor in a series of skirmishes and mortar assaults or some such - no one time set battle but carefully bleedding him as you loose the said firefights..Even Spetznas will not take infinite casualties for a hick village of no importance ( or might there be an importance ????)

If not applicable use the oldest and most common tactic in military history -


run.

[Mohoender]

Actually, elastic defence is a WW1 German system, post Hindenburg/Ludendorf. It was used by other armies though in other places too about that time. Also, just to be nitpicky, the 'Maginot guns couldn't turn 360º' isn't true :) The real problem with the Maginot guns was that they were too light a calibre, being mainly 75mm - much too light for a fortification gun. The French wanted speed of fire over weight of shell. The Maginot line worked brilliantly, the German's didn't dare attack it directly except in one set-piece assault after it was already outflanked. The real reason the French, in my view, lost the Battle of France is a certain general named 'Gough' cutting and running to Dunkirk and leaving the French to do it alone.

About the elastic defense I knew it. However, I was thinking about later exemples inspired by it and working on a similar idea/principle (or so I think). I can't imagine the elastic defense as it was conceived to be working in T2K except may be around free Krakow. Anyway, it seemed from what I read later that I was off-topic. My appologies but that day I was out and shouldn't have entered that discussion at all.:D I didn't get everything right I think and was not capable of thinking strait (puking all night doesn't help).

For the Maginot line, you are right about the turrets (never went to check that one before). However, the turrets represented only about 15% of the defensive position as most were made of casemates and "cloches". Again I was wrong the angle of fire was on the average 45° (much less than what I thought). I have never been very interested in modern forts and I'm far from knowing everything about them (I was living less than 50 miles from several such position and never visited them). Therefore, thanks, I would not have checked if you had not correct this. Another problem with the line, however, was that an entire army had been positioned there and the order to move came quite late I think.

However, I disagree with the responsibility you put on Dunkirk (Gort was the general's name I think). When that move was decided, the allied forces had already been cut by the German and all attempt to brake through had failed. On the other hand, the French move to Belgium (they were the one to insist upon it) was all but stupid as it was designed without any coordination with the Belgian army. Obviously, that was not possible as the Belgian and Dutch refused any pre-war plan in order to preserve their neutrality. As a result, planing to take defensive position anywhere in Belgium was silly or hazardous at best. Moreover, that move was an answer to the schliffen plan of WWI and the Nazis chose a plan that was a mix Schliffen/Guderian.

At the time the French (Paul Reynaud) blame their defeat on the Belgian which I think to be equally false. When the king of Belgium chose to capitulate he offered the french all the trucks and vehicles that were available to help them in their retreat and delayed its capitulation, buying them 48hrs. The british didn't have that problem as their army was the most mechanized of Europe. A true problem, however, was the inhability of the allied commands to combine their efforts: at times both French and British refused to share informations.

After Dunkirk, it was widely believed that the french soldiers were left behind and that was false again. Of course the British troops were given priority (a smart move in my opinion) but 120000 french soldiers were taken along with only 40000 left behind (Oops, they had to leave behind most of their equipment). Then, most of the french soldiers were shipped back to France in the following days and that continued after the french capitulation. At last only a few hundreds (I recently learnt that they were about 300+a few naval officers/sailors/airmen and was amazed by so small a number) will remain to continue the fight while several thousands chose to get back to France instead. Nevertheless, the British didn't really want them in june 1940 as they quite dislike/distrust de Gaulle and probably the French.

That defeat was a collective defeat due to superior fighting spirit, command structure and tactics on the German side. Even, the german technical superiority was untrue except when it comes to tactical bombers. However, their tactics were far superior on land and in the air.

[pmulcahy11b]

I think it's a reflection of three things:

1) Such a fight, given the average T2K adventuring party, is really, really foolhardy. The PCs in a T2K game are almost always equivalent to underequipped guerrillas, and don't last long in a head-to-head, stand-up fight.

2) Your players are unskilled in military matters, and tactics are not their forte.

3) The players don't seem to learn from their mistakes. Perhaps the introduction of an older, wiser, militarily-skilled NPC would be in order. He would act as sort of an adviser, pointing out mistakes and lethal errors, offering some suggestions, teaching little nuggets of military wisdom, etc. (He wouldn't actually control the group, though; I realize that's a tough job for the GM, but it can be done.) Later, if the GM desires, the NPC can die in some manner.

[O'Borg]

Bah, the French lost WW2 because the bloody pommes ran for it like a pack of scared wallabies from a roadtrain!
It's not all the Brits fault.

I think this is one of the signs of the forthcoming apocalypse :D

[Badbru]

Guys, I don't want to put words in Chalklines mouth or otherwise speak for him but I think you're all getting the wrong idea about the intention of Chalklines post.
None of us who actually play in it are bitching about the game.

Those of us who play in it understand and accept why we are where we have come to.

So to get the thread back on track I'll give some more background info.

First off we're not the typical raggedey assed motely bunch of player characters typical of any T2K I've been involved with or even seen before.

We are, or were, nearly company strength. At our strongest I think we fielded three allmost full platoons and a small HQ Det with some hangers on. We have suffered many casualties, and no small amount of desertion and are current barely fielding three full squads.
A significant number of the troops are REMF Clercs n' jerks but they are led by competent seargentry with a sprinkling of seasoned veterans. Our officer pool on the other hand has been wanting.

We're currently escorting a MASH unit and have just holed up in a town also occupied by some mostly german civillian refugees who have about a squads worth of armed civilian malitia with them.

The reason we're being hounded by SSD-1109 and about a company of VDV Desantniki is because the MASH had been sheltering a Radio intercept/relay team from who'm the Russians have good reason to believe we have inherited vital communications codes and other intelligence. Their mission is to retrieve or destroy this intel and that is why we are where we are.

We're low on fuel.

We have near 50% casualties at the moment.

And, we have a team out looking for intact bridges to cross a nearby river.

Running is not an option.

So back to the question at hand: In urban terrain, what tactics would you use, given about three squads of mediocre US infantry supported by one squad of civillian malitia, to hold off constant harrassment by Spetznas led VDV Desantniki in near company strength?

[kato13]

Just have to say that sounds like a real interesting game. If you have the time to keep us informed, I am sure people here would be interested in how it goes.

[Mohoender]

I think this is one of the signs of the forthcoming apocalypse :D

Yes but that frenchman was born as a Belgian so don't be that happy.:D

[Earthpig]

Guys, I don't want to put words in Chalklines mouth or otherwise speak for him but I think you're all getting the wrong idea about the intention of Chalklines post.
None of us who actually play in it are bitching about the game.

Those of us who play in it understand and accept why we are where we have come to.

So to get the thread back on track I'll give some more background info.

First off we're not the typical raggedey assed motely bunch of player characters typical of any T2K I've been involved with or even seen before.

We are, or were, nearly company strength. At our strongest I think we fielded three allmost full platoons and a small HQ Det with some hangers on. We have suffered many casualties, and no small amount of desertion and are current barely fielding three full squads.
A significant number of the troops are REMF Clercs n' jerks but they are led by competent seargentry with a sprinkling of seasoned veterans. Our officer pool on the other hand has been wanting.

We're currently escorting a MASH unit and have just holed up in a town also occupied by some mostly german civillian refugees who have about a squads worth of armed civilian malitia with them.

The reason we're being hounded by SSD-1109 and about a company of VDV Desantniki is because the MASH had been sheltering a Radio intercept/relay team from who'm the Russians have good reason to believe we have inherited vital communications codes and other intelligence. Their mission is to retrieve or destroy this intel and that is why we are where we are.

We're low on fuel.

We have near 50% casualties at the moment.

And, we have a team out looking for intact bridges to cross a nearby river.

Running is not an option.

So back to the question at hand: In urban terrain, what tactics would you use, given about three squads of mediocre US infantry supported by one squad of civillian malitia, to hold off constant harrassment by Spetznas led VDV Desantniki in near company strength?


Any claymore mines?
Any anti personnel mines?
Any explosives?
Any LATW's(light Anti Tank Weapons)

1. Use explosives planted along Avenues of approach to either detonate when the "Baddies" come by or to detonate before the battle to create barriers to enemy movement, canalizing them into kill zones. Also you can manufacture pole charges( an explosive charge at the end of a long pole you can use to put the explosive in a window of a building or vehicle hatch. Also booby traps (I like BOOBY traps:sagrin:) placed at points you KNOW they will use like good firing positions and avenues of approach
2. Use anti personnel mines to protect key areas and COVER THEM WITH FIRE (something many people forget to do) and also to canalize the enemy.
3. Claymore mines can be set up to cover dead space (areas not open to your main automatic weapons (machine guns)) they can be used on the end of poles similar to pole charges:evil3:
4. LATW's can be used in the conventional point and shoot way, to take out the bad guy's vehicles and support by fire positions but can also be(in the case of LAW rockets) set up in a booby trap versus vehicles or personnel. a blasting cap in the back end of the rocket can set it off and have a firing device in the kill zone that the baddies trigger.
I would divide into separate 3-4 man groups out forward and fall back to your main perimeter drawing the bad guy's into your booby traps and kill zones of other groups. Ambush! Ambush! Ambush!


Good luck....sounds like you need it:)

[simonmark6]

"So back to the question at hand: In urban terrain, what tactics would you use, given about three squads of mediocre US infantry supported by one squad of civillian malitia, to hold off constant harrassment by Spetznas led VDV Desantniki in near company strength?"

You sell out the radio team and information in the hope that the Soviets will let you live. Otherwise you fight house to house, blowing holes and retreating and bringing as many houses down on the Soviets as you can to cause casualties, all to buy time to destroy the info or get it off to Command, you can't win this situation.

Again, this is not meant as a criticism on the GM, it's a common trope in Twilight, the PCs get involved in a "one in a million" situation where they have, RESET, vital information, whatever and are hunted down by the authorities. I've seen it happen, commonly it's because the GM introduces a big ticket MCGUFFIN but then realises that the PCs can't survive without the plot protection a novelist gives his heroes.

In a gritty Twilight game, you can't give this to the PCs and eventually either everyone dies or it's an anti-climax where the PCs know they didn't survive by their own devices.

The moral of the story is don't introduce cinematic plots to gritty war stories.

On the other hand, in game, don't see it as a failure, go down with glory. That's how the French Foreign Legion got famous, embrace the hopeless situation, fight the good fight and die with your enemy's heart in your hand.

[Earthpig]

Just thinking it might be the GM's thinking to capture you as a plot device.....but I wouldn't surrender. them Spetznatz boys don't sound very nice:)

[ChalkLine]

Good call on the tactics guys, and cheers to Bradbru for making it clear we don't want to whinge about the game. Yeah, it's tough and we're probably going to go down clawing and scratching, but hey - I can always use the PC in another game! :) Really, it's a lot of fun and our GM puts a huge effort into personalising every member of the NPC category, including an entire company.

I guess, looking at what simonmark6 says in his great post, that we're just going to have to accept giving up ground and tighten the perimeter while still leaving room to move. I was really hesitant about letting the OPFOR into the village because they can simply tighten the noose, but in our position you have to give something to avoid casualties.

From a gamer standpoint - and this has nothing to do with tactics - I'd rather the line was smaller because then PCs are closer together and more able to interact.

I've got to start looking at end games, and see if I can plot a run out of the village and back the way we came if all else barks.

How about moving reserves about in a radio free environment? Anyone got any thoughts on how you'd do this?

[pmulcahy11b]

How about moving reserves about in a radio free environment? Anyone got any thoughts on how you'd do this?

Are you in a position to string wire for field telephones? Or, as an expedient, are there any relatively intact barbed-wire fences around that you can hook your field telephones into? (I've done that; it actually does work, as long as the fence isn't too rusty.)

[kcdusk]

Can you set fire to your surrounding buildings? Fire might drive them back, or burn down there cover. Just need to be careful it doesnt turn back on you.

[Legbreaker]

I believe the problem is partly one of mindset.

It seems everyone is thinking defensively and ignoring the fact that the Spetznaz have to have somewhere they're operating from. Why not sent out small patrols of your best people to find them and attack before they can do it to your PCs and allied forces?

As any infantryman should know, even when in defence, patrols must be sent out in an attempt to keep the enemy away from your positions. Once they're assaulting, it's already too late as they're likely to have scouted the position, worked out fields of fire, barbed wire, mines, etc, etc, etc and come up with a plan for avoiding/neutralising it all. If you can keep them away from the position in the first place, or at least delay their intel gathering efforts, you've bought yourself a good deal of time to further develop defences, prepare withdrawal routes, and so on.

Fixed defences can work, but they work best by denying intel about them from the enemy....

And don't forget that the best defence is a good offence.

[simonmark6]

I was under the impression that the attack was already under way, in which case patrolling would be pointless. If however the attack hasn't happened yet, it's a viable option.

Mind you, pitting Spetznatz and an airborne company against three squads of clerks and mechanics, the Soviets would probably have a field day cutting them apart and surrounding them as they attacked.

[ChalkLine]

My first thought was that the radio jammer should be easy to find; a directional antenna would be easy to make. Then a strike force goes out, blows the bastard up and we call for help.

I wanted to run this past the CO, but as simonmark6 said, the probe is still under way and real time intel is what's needed.

[kato13]

Had to remove some unpleasantness to end it. That thread is now locked. Hopefully it will fall off the front page soon and all will be forgotten.

I do have to say that I am a little frustrated that every time if feel I can take a break from my babysitting of this board, ridiculous overreactions start to occur from everyone involved in what should be a minor disagreement.

I'm leaving the board for at least a day because mentally I just have to. So play nice or you will only be crapping in your own bed.

[simonmark6]

'Yes the fight is allready underway. We reached the outskirts of the town before light, having suffered a dusk ambush on the way. We waited untill light to move the bulk of our forces in. We really haven't had any time to set up mines, or booby traps etc allthough as a player I've made it clear I wanted to. We have a mortar and some ammunition for it but our radios are being jammed. SSD-1109 does stand for Special Signals Detatchment afterall. We took harrassing sniper fire during the morning and have now lost one fire team from an aggressive probe which we are repelling now, with even more casualties...'

OK, there are some possibilities from this information. If you get the opportunity, finding out where the jammer is would be vital. If you can knock it out, great, but I wouldn't risk too many people, your very best two or three fighters might have a better chance than a squad.

Bear in mind that all the below assume you get some time to breath. My opinion would be that this time would be best spent fleeing. If, however you can't do this:

Using your mortar will probably be vital too. Place it somewhere where a spotter can relay corrections, if you can, or where you can channel the enemy into a kill zone you've set up, with time you could pre-register fire, but the enemy might clock on to that.

If you have mines, again used them to channel the enemy.

Other tricks:
Set bait in your kill zone, by now the enemy might have such a poor opinion of you that they'll get cocky

Set up sneaky ambushes (again, time reliant), if you have vehicles, use the tire jacks for a Chechen trick, burrow under a collapsed wall and use the jack to raise it up a bit. Fire at the enemy and release the jack. Hey presto, they can't find you. A few tricks like that might rattle the Airborne, or at least take out a couple of soldiers. If you can go for wounds rather than kills, an injured soldier is a logistical nightmare, a dead one, a resupply opportunity.

In an urban environment think in 3 dimensions and remember explosives are your friends. Don't cross roads when you can go under, don't go around houses, go through.

Good luck, a few lucky ambushes and luring the bulk of the enemy into a kill zone might cause enough casualties for the enemy to break off. Otherwise, it's 'Saving Private Ryan' time, take out as many as you can before you go down.

Remember, your campaign has evolved into something greater than a game, I know, I've read and admired it. There are two ways to go:

Win or die gloriously in the attempt.
Don't feel cheated if the GM has a Deus Ex Machina up his sleeve, your writing has earned you just a little bit of plot protection just as a fictional character would.

Anyway, good luck, and most of all, enjoy the game, I admire what you've all created.

All the best,

Mark.

[Haven]

Any chance of a link so i can lurk?

PM if you don't want it open to the world or whatever =)

[Raellus]

In Grozny, the Chechnyans would rig a building with massive demolitions charges. They would then occupy it, fire from it to lure in enemy units, withdraw when Russian infantry looked ready to assault it, and then blow it up when the Russians took posession. Then, if it looked like they could press the advantage, they would counterattack.

I think someone (not I) suggested preparing such a trap in the game (OOC) before it shut down last year. I can't recall why it wasn't implemented.

The Chechyans really perfected urban wafare against a larger, better equiped enemy force.

[headquarters]

sounds like a cool mission for the party - sit on top of massive demolition charges and draw the Red Army to you and make them attack and take your position...

thanks for that one .