Hasty Defense of Built-Up Area by a Marine Squad, the "Close Combat Marines" Edition

The background story for the firefight described here is more or less the same as in a previous entry. This time I'm using Close Combat Marines, scenario 1-1a.

The enemy patrols are advancing south, and my Marine Squad is to stop them. My Marine Sqd is reinforced with medium machine gun (MMG).

Hasty defense fire plan. KZ stands for "kill zone" and FT for fire team. Click the image for an expanded view.

Kicking butt at KZ 1, but getting uneasy about enemy advancing towards KZ2. Click the image for an expanded view.

Moving the MMG to an alternate firing position to deal with the threat at KZ 2. The blue dots are waypoints. Click the image for an expanded view.

Endgame: we stopped the enemy but suffered one KIA and one wounded in 3rd FT. Click on the image for an expanded view.

The 3rd fire team suffered casualties because I jumped the gun. While the MMG was re-deploying, I couldn't get a good LOS on the enemy from the 2nd FT. Anxious about the enemy advancing too far, I unleashed the guns from the 3rd FT on them. The enemy was not overwhelmed with my fire and responded.

Cheers,

Do you speak Battlefront?

Battlefront has one of the obnoxious customer relations approaches I've ever seen in my life. They must be doing something right, they are still in business after all ...

For the average guy out there, understanding what they are saying may be a bit challenging, so I thought of providing a translation of what they are actually trying to say.

(All stuff below provided in a jokingly way, I still play Combat Mission after all ... Oh, wait! My copy doesn't work. Should I go to their forums and ask for help?) :)


Original, Battlefront:
We have a very, very long and well established history of fixing things when they are proven to be in need of fixing.

Translation:
We have a very, very long and well established history of fixing things when we give up trying to prove they don't need fixing.


Original, Battlefront:
We also have a long and well established history of rejecting requests for change when they aren't backed up.

Translation:
We also have a long and well established history of rejecting requests just because YOU made them.



Original, Battlefront:
We've seen TONS of that with CM:SF, where people want us to make the Syrians like Russians or to change things so that Pet Peeve Of The Day is tweaked to make the Syrians more gamey and less realistic.

Translation:
Making the Syrians like Russians or anything else would mean to actually write real AI routines. Even when nobody have seen the Syrians fight a modern western army so far, take my word for it our Syrians are realistic enough.


(On Battlefront dropping HistWar from its product line)
Original, Battlefront:
After 4 years of waiting we've decided not to wait any more.

Translation:
After being bullied by Paradox with a deadline that made us to release CMSF in an unfinished state, we were looking forward to shove OUR deadline up this poor lone fellow's rear end.


(On the lack of water terrain in CMSF)
Original, Battlefront:
We deliberately avoided water for CM:SF because it is not a common terrain feature relevant to tactical combat. At least not proportional to the majority of probable combat situations. If adding such terrain weren't a major time consuming issue for us, we would have included it. But water has a lot of issues attached to it.

Translation:
We deliberately avoided water for CM:SF because we had no clue on how to implement it. Now stop bitching about water and Google Syria and you will see its just a freaking desert, with only minor rivers that nobody would want to establish a defense on. Everybody knows that the tactically sound way to defend a country against the US Army is to deploy forces in the open desert, preferably without any cover. That's why we also deliberately avoided writing decent path finding and use-of-cover routines for the AI.

Cheers,

Control of Fires in Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising

The effective delivery of firepower is vital to the US Marine Corps' way of war. In the rush of a firefight, each soldier tends to fire at whatever target he deems more threatening. This tends to disperse the firepower of the entire formation. Squad and platoon leaders are responsible for directing the fires of their subordinates, the goal being the delivery of overwhelming firepower onto single targets (instead of dispersed firepower on a multitude of targets).

That's the theory. I wanted to experience this Marines' fire fighting axiom and practice some of the fire control techniques using "Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising" (OFPDR). So, I winded up a scenario where I am in command of a USMC Rifle Squad attacking a squad of PLA Paratroopers defending a small industrial installation.

The result was an utter waste of time: apparently in OFPDR you cannot control the fires of computer-controlled soldiers without dumping your scheme of maneuver into the trash can.

The pieces for fire control in OFPDR are there. In my humble opinion, they are just wrongly implemented. For example, I see three PLA machine gunners in the second level of the industrial complex and off course I order one of my fire teams to "suppress" that position. The fire team fires a couple of volleys and then it starts moving towards the flanks of the target getting both shot at and into trouble collinding other enemy groups we had no contact with before. Multiply this by 3 (one squad has 3 fire teams) and you get a firefight that looks like a bunch of chickens being chased by a coyote.

"-Heard that? That was not a bullet flying by, it was my scheme of maneuver ..."

The "engage" order is another annoyance that produces similar results.

I appreciate the AI designer's eagerness to provide the computer controlled bots with some "independent tactical thinking". I've seen the AI do clever things in OFPDR. But when as a squad leader you get your AI fire teams spread over a front of 250 meters in broken terrain, your only sin being to order to supress a position just in front of you, you can only wonder why is not possible to have both the "halt" and "supress" orders active at the same time.

OFPDR gets a fail grade on this topic. I'm so upset that I don't even want to post screenshots of this.

Cheers,

Now What, Lt. Colonel? (fun with ProSim's "March to Baghdad")

I've written before about "March to Baghdad", the free war game from ProSim published by Armchair General.

A battalion-sized task force (blue icons) awaits my commands. From "March to Baghdad", by ProSim, and published by Armchair General.

ProSim game engine was created by a professional soldier (Pat Proctor, BTW now is deployed in Iraq). The scenarios of "March to Baghdad" were created by Curt Pangracs, who works at a simulation center creating and evaluating simulations for the US Army. At least for me, the "made by professionals" stamp really shows. This weekend, after carelessly conducting an approach march to attack the enemy at "Objective Liberty" and loosing way too many assets, I ended with a deer-in-the-headlights look in my face.

-"Now what? Really dude, I have no idea what the hell to do ..."

The best thing about ProSim war games is that you can use real life doctrine publications to approach the scenarios. Most of the times reading field manuals is a bit dull but fortunately for this specific scenario there is an excellent article at the Armchair General magazine (see "Tactics 101: The Deliberate Attack", even though this scenario looks pretty much like a hasty attack).

So many things to consider for my offense on Objective Liberty! :)

Cheers,

Napoleonic War Games: One Up, One Down (But then Up Again)

Not my favorite warfare topic, but the Napoleonics era can't be ignored.

I'm still waiting for that Napoleonic war game that screams "you can't procrastinate anymore, buy me now!".


So, HPS Simulations has released Austerlitz, a turn-based war game from a very popular series. HPS Simulations is one of my favorite war gaming companies: they do their work quietly and boy, they deliver. Unfortunately, I heard not so good things about the AI in this series and as I play solo (and lately very little) I am holding off from this series.










There is this other game, which I've waited on for ages. "HistWar: Les Grognards" is a 3D tactical war game that will focus on Napoleon's campaign in Russia. It was to be published by Battlefront, but it was dropped from their product line at almost the last minute. Nobody but the developer and Battlefront know the details about this divorce. Given Battlefront's take at customer relations during the last year and a half, it's hard for me not to make my own conclusions. Tthe developer of HistWar has decided to go ahead an publish the war game by himself. The manual of HistWar: Les Grognards is up for downloading. This game is very ambitious for just one developer. I will wait after somebody reviews this game before buying it.

Cheers,

Pinned Down Chinese Paratrooper (Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising)

A time ago there was a good amount of "I have proof" ArmA2 videos in YouTube (proof the engine can handle a million AI units, or something, proof the OPFOR AI can't see you, etc). I've seen some to these also for Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising (generally in the theme "I have proof this game sucks!" Yay!).

Fear not, I am not into proving anything in these games. In this case I just want to show something I though it was cool: a picture of a Chinese paratrooper pinned down.

Pinned down Chinese paratrooper. Even my lousy aiming (see impacts in the building and tree) did that to him. My excuse: I was hit in the chest.

Cheers,

A TV Show I always Look Forward To

This show is just great:

Special Ops Mission @ the Military Channel

A war game between the pros! Can't wait for tonight's episode.

Cheers,

Stay Away from that DNA, You Terrorist!

Companies that sell biotechnology reagents are to adopt a new screening tool that attempts to avoid DNA getting into the hands of terrorists.

I work with synthetic DNA every single day and I can't comprehend how on earth synthetic DNA purchased by terrorists can be a significant threat.

Using synthetic DNA one can amplify genes, let's say the gene for certain toxin from a pathogen. But from the amplified gene to the final product (the toxin, for example) there is a long, technically complex and painful path. In addition machines that can synthesize DNA are not that expensive.

Cheers,

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,