text: Chapter 3
  effect quantifies successful accomplishment of the task. Once EFSTs are determined the FSCOORD directs
  the development of EFATs. For more information on the development of EFSTs and EFATs see annex A.
  Force Protection
  3-70. The MDMP is the initial point to apportion force protection assets for FS assets. This will allow the
  entire staff to be involved in how it affects the mission. When possible, units should standardize force
  protection packages for planning purposes. Additionally, these attachments must be listed in coordinating
  instructions and specific tasks to subordinate units, not simply Annex D, for clarity and adherence to
  survivability standards. Table 3-8 is an example of force protection package minimums:
  Table 3-8. Example of minimum force protection package for FA systems
  Equipment Force Protection Requirement
  Weapons locating radar section 1 infantry squad or military police section (with
  transportation).
  MLRS/HIMARS battalion 1 mechanized infantry platoon per battalion
  Ammunition cache 1 infantry squad or military police section (with
  transportation).
  HIMARS – High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, MLRS – multiple launch rocket system
  Determine Evaluation Criteria
  3-71. Before beginning the war game, FS planners develop evaluation criteria to measure the effectiveness
  and efficiency of the FS contributions for each COA. They use these to compare courses of action during
  COA comparison. These criteria are listed in the FS running estimate and become the outline for the COA
  analysis subparagraphs. The FSCOORD and FSE planning personnel develop the criteria for evaluating the
  effects of fires by using fires-specific criteria that allow them to explain the FS related advantages and
  disadvantages of each COA. Evaluation criteria that may help discriminate among various courses of action
  may include:
  * Lead time required for implementing EFSTs.
  * The number of decision points that require FS.
  * The cost of fires versus the expected benefits.
  * The risk to friendly assets posed by enemy fires.
  COURSE OF ACTION ANALYSIS
  3-72. COA analysis or war gaming (see table 3-9) identifies which COA accomplishes the mission with
  minimum risk of casualties while positioning to retain the initiative. The war game provides detail and
  refinement, validates capabilities, and synchronizes the FS plan. During war gaming and COA comparison
  the FSCOORD and DFSCOORD must understand and be able to brief the commander on the strengths and
  weaknesses of each COA from a fire support perspective.