The ArmA2 vs. OFPDR Realism Debate: A Random Thought

"The first casualty of war may be truth but the first casualty of wargames is reality."
Mad Russian, from a post at a Combat Mission discussion forum

Which game is more realistic, ArmA2 or Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising?

I never served in the military, never been shot at, never shot a single round with an M16 ... the list goes on. I'm totally unqualified to even try to answer that question.

Yet, the question is out there and so frequently found in discussion boards, reviews, etc, that I thought about it more than once. I can point some aspects in each game which are not ”realistic”, some of them obvious, others just because of the general limitation of computer simulations. I can also point some features of one game that are more “realistic” than in the other. In the end, pointing out what is more realistic in one game than in the other feels a bit futile. “There is no substitute for reality”, they say.

But I said I’m not going to try to answer the previous question. So let me re-phrase it: how much realism is enough for games like ArmA2 and OFPDR?

Realism in unexpected packages
Some years ago, when the USMC needed a war game to train small unit leaders in tactics, they didn’t put out a contract solicitation for a multi-million dollar simulation (to be sincere, I doubt they had the money for that). Neither they went into off-the-shelf war games considered to be sort of the holy grail of tactical war gaming (Advanced Squad Leader, Combat Mission, [insert your “realistic” war game here]). They chose Close Combat, a quick, easy to learn, highly popular war game of the late 1990s. I don’t know if you remember Close Combat, but despite being an instant hit and almost a genre-defining war game, was scolded by the old guard war gamers for its “lack of realism” in many aspects. The USMC commissioned a mod for Close Combat that ended up being accessible to every grunt in the Corps: Close Combat Marines.

Close Combat Marines' main menu

How much realism is needed when lives are at stake?
For me, this virtual war-waging thing is just a hobby. If I don’t get some tactical thing straight the consequences are not important. When a Marine plays a war game for training, if he gets something wrong his Squad may die later in the thick of a real firefight. Close Combat Marines was realistic enough to teach small units tactics to real Marines.

A Close Combat Marines scenario.

Objective-driven realism
There is a key thing in the Close Combat Marines story: as far as I know, the war game was never used for training on anything else than small units tactics. You cannot train on in the particulars of communications, close air support, indirect fire support, etc. Heck! In Close Combat Marines you have perfect command of every unit: they don’t get disoriented, they don’t confuse your orders, etc. Yet, the humble Close Combat delivered well for small units tactics training.
The point I'm trying to make is that realism for the sake of realism is a flawed premise. You, as a player or trainee, need to figure out what you want to achieve and that’s exactly where you draw the line for how much realism you demand in a war game or simulation.

And that’s why I play both ArmA2 and OFPDR. They both give me something of what I am looking for: practice real life infantry tactics for small units in a modern war setting.

Even when in OFPDR the recoil of the M16 is 5 mm lower than what it should be. :)

Cheers,

Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising: You Lean That's Mean, Don't Scoot While I Shoot!

I haven't abandoned Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising (OFPDR). The bulk of my gaming time has abandoned me instead. :(

I'm having a blast with OFPDR during homeopathically dosed gaming sessions here and there. The sandbox experience with this game is fantastic. I'm learning how to command a USMC Squad in OFPDR, and so far everything looks dandy. Who knows? I may get competent by the year 2012! :)

As you know, one of the things fans complained about is the inability of your virtual character to "lean" in OFPDR. I've read somewhere in the web that leaning is actually implemented in OFPDR's game engine but somehow the move is unaccessible for the player. For me, "leaning" is not a big deal, but nonetheless I hope they can give us access to it with a patch.

It's mean to pull moves I can't do, Marine! Computer-controlled characters in OFPDR can lean. On an unrelated note: the guy is taking cover behind a tree trunk. Fantastic. Click the image to enlarge.

The other trivial comment I wanted to make today is that I fell victim of friendly fire. In my eagerness to command from the front, I walked through the line of fire of a subordinate and I got instantly killed.

The guy blew my head off, yet we have to call it "friendly" fire. The Marine with the SAW is looking ahead not for targets but rather for my eyeballs. Click the image to expand it.

OK, this is my new personal record for the most trivial, non-sensical, un-called for blog entry. I will refund your time with some more tactical meat and potatoes. Promise. Look, I'm working on it ... like five minutes a day.


Cheers,

Random Picture from FreeMilitaryPhotos.com

Lance Cpl. Dustin Thompson, a radio operator with Firepower Control Team Alpha, 1st Brigade Platoon, 2nd Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company, Marine Expeditionary Brigade-Afghanistan, sits in an irrigation canal with Cpl. Tim Barney, a forward observer with FCT-A, during a patrol, Sept. 23, near Checkpoint North in Helmand province, Afghanistan. The patrol took the soldiers and Marines through fields of crops and through waist-high irrigation canals from the checkpoint down to another U.K. post known as Tapa Parang and back up to the checkpoint. Photo by Cpl. Aaron Rooks

Original link at freemilitaryphotos.com

Monster PC Wargame Reviewed by Michael Peck at TSJ

"Monster" wargames is a denomination that some wargames receive because of their sheer size in terms of units, complexity and time needed to play them. In the latest issue of Training and Simulation Journal (both print and online), off-the-shelf simulations point man Michael Peck has a very nice review of "War in the Pacific: Admirals Edition" (WitPAE).

WitPAE may be very well known to many readers of this blog. If not, Mr. Peck's review will give you an idea of what this game is about.

As I said before, is always very nice to see articles in TSJ about simulations one can relate to and also afford. :) Every time I browse the print version of TSJ, with all the extremely cool toys there, I feel like throwing my joystick and monitor through the window. :)

Cheers,

Flight Safety for the Ka-50: Retreating Blade Stalls

Writing about "flight safety" for an aircraft that is supposed to fly right into the teeth of enemy anti-aircraft guns and missiles sounds like an oxymoron. However, attack helicopter pilots are taught and practice the principles of helicopter flight safety. This short series of "Flight Safety for the Ka-50" is intended to raise some awareness on the topic. The extended DCS Black Shark manual has great information on this topic, make sure to check it out.

Ever flew the Ka-50 straight and level around 295 Km/h, right when all alarms start buzzing, seconds before your blades disintegrate and you plummet into the ground? I have to confess that in all my ignorance I thought that this blade clipping was just the strength of the forward airspeed bending the blades downward, sometimes forcing the top blades into the bottom ones (doh! the top and bottom blades can't collide with each other!)

UPDATE 10/30/09: The top and bottom blades CAN hit each other. Thanks to faithful reader Loke for the correction (see "comments" below). Also, take a look at the following links:
Thread at the official DCS forums
News article on a Ka-50 crash due to top and bottom blades collision
SimHQ article on coaxial rotors aerodynamics

Doh! Rotor blades clipped at high forward airspeed. Image is clickeable.

What actually happens is that a stall of the rotor blades makes the blades flutter and fail structurally.

Stalls, the helicopter version
Every airfoil can stall and helicopter's ones are no exception. Actually there are two main types of stalls for helicopter airfoils: retreating blade stall and settling with power. In this entry, I will briefly mention retreating blade stalls. Settling with power will the topic of a future entry.

I'm no airfoil guru, so I will make this very simple. Imagine the simplest helicopter, with just two blades in its main rotor. The airspeed at each blade is what generates lift. When the helicopter is moving at a considerable forward airspeed, an interesting thing happens: at every turn of the main rotor there is a point where the instant airspeed at the blade moving forward is bigger than the one at the blade moving backwards (retreating blade).

A simple, two blade helicopter with the blades rotating counter-clockwise (the red arrows circle represents the rotation of the blades). The total airspeed at the advancing blade is the airspeed generated by the rotation of the blades plus the airspeed generated by forward movement. The total airspeed at the retreating blade is the airspeed generated by the rotation of the blades minus the airspeed generated by the forward movement. Click the image to enlarge it.

Eventually, if the forward airspeed is very high, the retreating blade will stall! Fortunatelly, retreating blade stalls are easy to avoid (don't exceed the maximum forward airspeed), easy to get out of plus and as frequent as stalls in fixed wing aircraft.

However, keep in mind that in the case of the Ka-50 the vibration generated by a retreating blade stall will eventually cause the blades to fail structurally. This has catastrophic consequences most of the times.

Dissymmetry of lift, de la Cierva and how this sim got me officially freaked out
Now, if you remember that in helicopters the airspeed at the blades is what generates lift you will realize that if the forward airspeed of the aircraft goes up, the advancing blade will generate more lift than the retreating blade. The result is that right half of the rotor disk will generate more lift than the left side. This is called dissymmetry of lift. The guy who solved this dissymetry of lift problem was the Spanish engineer and aviation pioneer Juan de la Cierva. De la Cierva invented the so-called flapping hinge, a device that allows the advancing blade to flap up (see third figure in this page).

This flap up of the advancing blade at high speeds is modelled in DCS Black Shark. See the screenshots below.

Flying at 60 Km/h IAS. The advancing blade in the bottom blade assembly has almost no "flap up". Click the image to enlarge.

Flying at 295 Km/h IAS. The advancing blade in the bottom blade assembly has an evident "flap up". Click the image to enlarge.

The level of detail in this simulation is un-freaking-believable!

Cheers,

Hasty Defense of a Built Up Area by a USMC Squad, Part 4 (ArmA 2 Tactical Vignette)

Now, the firefight.

I positioned myself right behind position AR2a, to keep a close eye on the enemy's movements.

The enemy advanced through the main road. Once the shooting started, they tried to maneuver towards both flanks. This is when they got mauled, and most of them were caught in the middle or near the main road. One enemy soldier made it to just a few meters from position AR2a and threw a grenade that fortunately didn't catch anybody. This soldier was my only kill during the mission. How close the enemy soldier made it to our position reveals a serious deficiency in my defensive fire plan: I underestimated the danger of dead spaces.

I lost a fireteam leader (#3, right flank fireteam) to an RPG that was shot from the main road. He was in a too exposed position near AR2a. One rifleman (#10) was also injured in the firefight.

I think we killed one enemy squad right at the gates of the village. An additional squad or two moved into the village at the same time, but in the confusion of the firefight I lost track of where they went. I saw them later seen in the distance, but after 10 minutes they wouldn't move (this has to be an scenario issue?).

This is one of those times where I regret not being able to afford VBS2 and all the after action report goodies. Everything happens so fast in ArmA2 that is difficult to keep track of everything.

Some screenshots below.

My position right behind AR2. Click on the image to expand it.

Fallen Marine: fire team leader (#3). Click on the image to expand it.

That wound (just left of my aim point icon) doesn't look good, Marine! Click on the image to expand it.

Enemy casualties on the main road. Click on the image to expand it.

Enemy casualties on the main road, another view. Click on the image to expand it.

Cheers,

Hasty Defense of a Built Up Area by a USMC Squad, Part 3 (ArmA 2 Tactical Vignette)

Let's review: the enemy [Plt(-)] is advancing from the background into the village. My US Marines Squad is to stop the enemy at the village. In the previous blog entry I outlined some general considerations for the defense. In this blog entry: the fire plan!

Hasty defense fire plan. The green dotted lines represent fields of fire. See explanation in the text. Click on the image to expand it.

The red arrows represent the three enemy avenues of approach I could imagine. The main is the one on the road (labelled "1" in red). The other two could be considered secondary. I drew a kill zone for each avenue of approach (labelled "KZ1", "KZ2" and "KZ3" in yellow).

I positioned the first AR (AR1) in a (more or less keyhole position) with a good field of fire on KZ1 (position AR1a, the arrow is the tactical symbol for light machine gun). A secondary position with a good field of fire on KZ3 (position AR1b) is marked in the figure above. In the birds-eye view above, note how AR1 would move from AR1a to AR1b under the cover provided by a house.

Automatic Rifleman 1 (AR1) at position AR1a. The main road and KZ1 are in the background. Click the image to expand it.

I positioned the second AR (AR2) at a position labeled AR2a (see birds-eye view above), with a good field of fire on KZ1. An alternative firing position (AR2b) is provided for dealing with enemies entering KZ3. Again, AR2 can move from one position to the other under the cover provided by the house.

Automatic Rifleman 2 (AR2) at position AR2a. The main road and KZ1 are in the background. Click the image to expand it.

I positioned the third AR (AR3) at a primary position labeled AR3a, with a good field of fire on KZ2. His secondary position is AR3b, mainly to assist with enemies in KZ3. This guy has a relatively nice keyhole position, only thing missing is the depth (he is relatively close to the edge of the village).

Automatic Rifleman 3 (AR3) at position AR3a. The house on his left is the southern edge of the village. Click the image to expand it.

Finally, I positioned the fire teams at the flanks and/or nearby the SAWs, to provide observation and protection.

Our right flank. This rifleman is transiently occupying position AR2b, overlooking KZ3. Click in the image to expand.

Our left flank. This fire team (minus AR) is overlooking KZ2. Note how their field of fire is wider than the ones of the SAWs. This is for them to provide observation. Click on the image to expand.

Do you note something missing?
I don't have withdrawal plans!
Glaring omission from my side. Good topic for a future blog entry.

Coming up: how the plan worked out. Stay tuned!

Cheers,

Hasty Defense of a Built Up Area by a USMC Squad, Part 2 (ArmA 2 Tactical Vignette)

This blog entry is a continuation from a previous one and contains some general considerations for the fire plan to be used in the hasty defense of Pogorevka.

Organizing the Squad for this fight
A USMC squad is composed of 3 fire teams plus a squad leader. In this vignette I have the role of squad leader.

Pop quiz!
Who are the most important men in each of your fireteams? What ... ? Don't make me go all Lee Ermey on you, maggot! :)

Yes, I knew you knew it. "The" men in each of the fireteams are the automatic riflemen (AR), each of whom carry an squad automatic weapon (SAW). If you didn't know the answer, put a sticky on top of your monitor: the SAW is the backbone, the bedrock and the foundation of the USMC fireteam.

Of such importance these AR bastards are, that for the defense of Pogorevka I'm going to detach each one of them from their respective fireteams and place them under my direct control. The Marines remaining will be organized as three depleted fireteams (groups Red, Blue and Yellow).

It takes a village to kill an enemy patrol
The USMC is the first and only US Armed Forces branch to fully embrace the so-called maneuver warfare theory. This theory makes a strong emphasis on the destruction of the enemy rather than on holding terrain just for the sake of it. More often than not, the budding maneuverist tactician overlooks the subtle difference between holding terrain as a goal and holding terrain as a mean to destroy the enemy. So let's put this clearly then: defensive operations are tied to the terrain ... but ... once we set up a fire plan from our positions in the village, each particular position will be a means of destroying the enemy. As soon as any particular position becomes irrelevant to the destruction of the enemy, the boots are moving to a new one.

I walked all the way down to this village, and all I got is into a kill zone
Let's review how a defensive fire plan is made:

1. Guess the enemy's main route of attack.
2. Select the ground where you will destroy the enemy if he follows the main route of attack. We will call this ground "kill zone".
3. Provisionally position key weapon systems in a way that their primary sectors of fire interlock into the kill zone.
4. Guess how the enemy would react to your deployment and fire or guess an alternate route of attack.
5. Select the ground where you will destroy the enemy if he follows the alternate route of attack. We will call this "secondary kill zone".
   
6. Refine your previous provisional key weapon systems positioning in a way that they now cover both kill zones.
7. If needed, guess an additional route of attack, rinse and repeat the kill zone and key weapons positioning thing.
8. Position the fireteams to observe and protect the flanks of your key weapon systems.

Don't get stranded into an endless cycle of fire plan refinements. For a squad-sized defensive formation, three enemy avenues of approach and kill zones is already an overkill (pun intended). Also, don't forget that for each key weapon system, a single fire position will probably not be enough and you will have to think of a secondary firing position. If you do so, make sure that the move between primary and secondary firing positions is across a well covered route. It may look like a puzzle, but remember that tactical problems do not have a unique solution, not even an absolute optimal solution. It is useless to chew forever on a tactical problem: no plan survives contact with the enemy, just make sure YOUR MARINES survive your fire plan. :)

Key weapons in keyhole positions
You guessed it, the key weapons mentioned above are the SAWs. Now, one important thing about the positioning of SAWs: position them in places with narrow and deep sectors of fire (also known as keyhole positions). This avoids the SAWs being targeted by multiple enemy units. Imagine that: your SAWs shredding the advancing enemy units to pieces and the enemy not being able to do anything because his overwatch teams cannot target you. A good SAW firing position should have defiles on both sides and have its flanks protected by other fireteam members.

We don't need no stinking reserve
Reserves are a luxury that only company (and above)-sized forces can afford. As a squad leader you will have to make up your reserves out of thin air by moving a fire team out of contact and re-deploying it into the needed sector or position. Sorry. Life is hard at the botton of the command structure, deal with it.

Coming up: my fire plan for the hasty defense of Pogorevka. With (very much needed after all the words above) screenies!

Cheers,

Hasty Defense of a Built Up Area by a USMC Squad, Part 1 (ArmA 2 Tactical Vignette)

In this vignette, a USMC squad under my command attempts to delay Russian forces from entering the village of Pogorevka.

Situation: enemy patrols, Plt(-) size, have become bolder over the last 12 hours. Our Plt. is withdrawing north and we are expecting contact at Pogorevka. 1st Squad (that's us), will guard Pogorevka in order to avoid enemy interference with our withdrawal.

The town of Pogorevka. The enemy is advancing north from the far background. Click the image to expand it.

Next entry: hasty defense plan. Stay tuned.

Cheers,

Danger Hint: Little Tricks with Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising's Mission Editor

I'm messing around with the mission editor of Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising (OFPDR).

Under the systems tab and into the AI folder there is an object named "Danger Hint" that can be added into the scenario. I was a bit puzzled about what this object would do to the AI, so I added it into the map and saw it in action by playing the scenario.

The scenario editor interface. I added the "Danger Hint" object (the icon surrounded by the circular blue halo). The group of icons below is a USMC rifle squad. Click the image to expand.

Playing the scenario: the US Marines are moving up the road, but they are still to enter the "Danger Hint" zone. Note their relatively relaxed stance. Click the image to expand it.

A few seconds later, Sheats steps into the "Danger Hint" zone and changes his stance to crouching. Wykes and Andreasson are still to enter the zone and are holding their original, more relaxed stance. Click the image to expand it.

The "Danger Hint" object comes in three exciting flavors: "US", "PLA" and "All". The first two flavors affect a specific side of the conflict and the third flavor affects both.

Cheers,