Draw Your Military Maps with MILSketch!

If you are reading this blog, chances are you will be interested in MILSketch.

This free software allows you to import a base map as a .jpg or .bmp image file and draw authentic NATO military symbols on top of it. It's easy to use, very versatile and it produces high quality graphics.

Please see below some examples of what can be done with it.

This is the tactical SITREP I made for a DCS Black Shark mission. Click the image for an expanded view.

This one from an ArmA 2 mission. Click on the image for an expanded view.

This other one for an OFPDR mission. Frontal assault, yikes! Click the image for an expanded view.

Cheers,

The Armed Scout 645

Looking good! :)
This thing can pack a lot of punch. Learn more about its capabilities here.

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,