So I had an interesting discussion between me and Donogh on The Guild. I ran one of his scenarios, which had Tier 1 Taliban as a combatant, but listed as Troop Quality D8, I also played them as regulars because that is what the basic guidelines in the Enduring Freedom book recommends. I posted an AAR and said I felt they were a little bit powerful for this scenario. I received the following response:

"I wrote these using the old Operation Uruzgan book, maybe I got the wrong end of the stick, but I assumed that "Tier-1" meant better quality, motivated etc. and not necessarily regular.
In any case, I played all these "Tier-1" scenarios with the Taliban as irregulars and that's the way I intended."

This made me think quite a lot and I actually like it more than the idea of having Tier 1 Taliban as TQ- D6 and as regulars.

What are other peoples thoughts?
Tier 1 Taliban as TQ- D8 but Irregular
or
Tier 1 Taliban as TQ- D6 but Regular

I imagine both are decently interchangeable and I will probably test both ways out. Just curious if anybody can think of anything they really don't like about having the Tier 1 guys as TQ- D8 and Irregular.

_________________
Nick Johnson, Treasurer of the League of Extraordinary Gamers, Colorado USA
http://www.hmgsrm.org/forum/index.php

My Blog!
http://littlenickysgameroom.blogspot.com/

Since D wrote those scenarios and explained his intent that's what I would go with.
Each person may have their own interpretation of what a Tier 1 Talib AQ might look like.
But generally these are long term fighters with over 20 years combat experience , who's sole function is to promote and carry out Armed resistance.
They have faced 2 modern Armies and are not impressed with mere fire power alone to gain their respect requires a skillful application of that fire power.
They will size up the enemy testing his skill and searching constantly for weakness or bad tactics and will then capitalise on his mistakes.
When faced by a talented enemy he will decrease or even cease operations until his enemy becomes lax or complacent and then will strike to cause maximum casualties and then fade away until the next opportune time arises.
At the opposite end of the spectrum are the tier 3 fighters These guys have no training and are part timers.
While not new to warfare itself they are however easily awed by the level of violence and the speed at which it can be brought to bare. Currently there are two methods of reaction to contact used by ISAF one is to use Air or large indirect fires to suppress and then break contact. the other is to forgo close or indirect fires and close with the insurgents. The insurgents fight from the bottom up the local source of tribal authority is what will drive the level of resistance from Tier 2 or 3 insurgents, these guys may follow the general intent of higher level leaders and religious figures rarely if ever receiving direct orders from high level command.

_________________
"All Men for the rights of Every man, every man for the rights of all Men"

My take on it is that it depends on unit size. The rules for Irregulars and Regulars both presume a certain size range, at which there is an optimum balance between advantages and disadvantages.

Regular units are very powerful, so they necessarily need to be small. 4 on average, 5-6 at the most. Irregulars have many weaknesses, but they are compensated by the rules with bigger units of 6-10 figures. If you make a Regular unit too big, it will be become too powerful and conversely an Irregular unit becomes too weak when it starts out too small.

So, if the scenario lists many small units of Tier-1 Taliban or AQ fighters, you could use them as Regulars. However, if the scenario puts them all in bigger "mobs", and more importantly, if it has a reinforcement table that allows for very big units to be created (leader, RPG + 1D6+2 small arms for instance) then I would class them as Irregulars, even if they have TQ8. I think that's the best way to keep it balanced.

For me this makes sense, even though Regular vs Irregular status doesn't necessarily correlate directly with unit size. I think that a unit that is tactically more proficient and better trained would automatically split itself up into smaller specialised subunits to be able to carry out more complicated tasks. Whereas untrained or Irregular units would naturally bunch up into bigger groups for easier C&C and also a personal sense of "security" (however false).

_________________
...
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old lie; dulce et decorum est
pro patria mori.

Wilfred Owen