text: Chapter 3
  COURSE OF ACTION COMPARISON
  3-73. During COA comparison (see table 3-10), the corps/division staff compares feasible courses of action
  to identify the one with the highest probability of success against the most likely enemy COA and the most
  dangerous enemy COA. The staff evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of each 12 and presents their
  findings. The staff outlines each COA in terms of the evaluation criteria established before war gaming and
  identifies the advantages and disadvantages of each with respect to the others. The FS staff records this
  analysis in paragraph three of the FS running estimate.
  3-74. After the analysis, the G-3, G-2, and the FSCOORD compares strengths and weaknesses, highlights
  advantages and disadvantages from the perspective of the fires warfighting function and other warfighting
  functions. The staff assess risks and determine which COA promises to be most successful.
  Table 3-10. Course of action comparison
  MDMP STEP 5: COURSE OF ACTION COMPARISON
  Staff Actions Key FSE Actions FSE Output
  • Conduct advantages and • Participate with staff in • Final drafts of the:
  disadvantages analysis. comparing strengths, • Scheme of fires.
  • Compare courses of action. w die sa ak dn ve as ns tae gs e, sa d ov f a Fn Sta fg oe r s e, a a cn hd • Annex D (FIRES) and
  • Conduct a COA decision COA. appendices.
  briefing. • Update FS and information- • FSEM
  related capabilities estimates. • Target list worksheet.
  • Brief results of FS analysis • Target overlay
  including best COA from FS
  • Observer plan
  perspective.
  • TSM or modified (HPTL, TSS,
  • Refine fires paragraphs and
  and AGM).
  annexes to include EFSTs,
  FSEM, target list and overlay, • FSEMs
  TSM or modified FS products • NAIs and TAIs.
  (HPTL, TSS, AGM).
  • Airspace requirements and
  • Integrate information collection
  associated recommended
  capabilities and CEMA input into ACMs.
  targeting products.
  • Provide inputs to the information
  collection plan.
  • Update FS running estimate.
  • FSCOORD briefs FS plan for
  each COA.
  ACM – airspace coordinating measure, AGM – attack guidance matrix, CEMA – cyberspace electromagnetic activities,
  COA – course of action, EFST – essential fire support task, FS – fire support, FSE – fire support element,
  FSCM – fire support coordination measure, FSCOORD – fire support coordinator, FSEM – fire support execution matrix,
  HPTL – high-payoff target list, MDMP – military decision-making process, NAI – named area of interest,
  TAI – target area of interest, TSM – target synchronization matrix, TSS – target selection standards
  COURSE OF ACTION APPROVAL
  3-75. The inputs to COA approval and the following step, orders production, are the outputs of COA analysis
  and comparison. After completing the COA comparison, the corps/division staff identifies its preferred COA
  (see table 3-11) and recommends it to commander. The FSCOORD translates the recommended COA into a
  FS recommendation for approval by the commander. The commander approves a COA (as presented, or with
  any directed modifications). It is a summary of the concept of operations, the scheme of fires, and associated
  EFSTs including:
  * Priority of fires.
  * Allocation of FS resources.
  * FA organization for combat.
  * Command and support relationships.
  * Final HPTL, target selection standards, AGM, or if used the target synchronization matrix.