While researching for an un-related issue I stomped into a wonderful chapter book by John F Schmitt ("Command and [Out of] Control: The Military Implications of Complexity Theory"). The piece goes on the line of Western civilization being completely pervaded by the Newtonian view of the universe as a machine, whose mechanisms should be perfectly known and controllable. This view of the universe has driven military thought until today. Professional military leaders view command and control as a clockwork in which they should always be in control of the more minuscule aspects of an operation. This needs not further confirmation, just watch how the Pentagon invests the taxpayer's money in more and more sophisticated ways to know exactly where every platoon of a brigade is located. According to Schmitt, this vision of command and control is folly. Warfare is always in the edge of chaos, and not only chaos in the street meaning, but in the most strictly scientific one. Warfare with a commander in perfect control of the situation is the acme of generalship for many professional military leaders.
Classical war gaming doesn't fare any better. Hexes, tables of movement, combat result tables, specific intervals of times in which to intervene (turns), etc. Everything fits into the tidy, comfortable, "clockwork" frame of thinking. There is a written, well documented mechanism for everything in the little wars we play.These mechanisms (not surprisingly called "rules", the parallel with Newton's "laws" comes immediately to mind) provide the comfort of knowing exactly what could happen next. Despite their appearance, dice throws or any other mechanism to add chaos into turn-based war games follow the same philosophy of keeping control of things. The unknown and uncontrollable in our war games comes only at specific times in the game play. You know exactly when you will be out of control and paradoxically you are in control of when and how much you will be out of control.
There's no substitute for reality, but that's not a good excuse to ignore it.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
Great Stories, The Tides of Warfare and the Unappealing Single Player Experience of Battlefront’s Combat Mission Shock Force
On its June 5 2008 issue, the science journal Nature published news about a "script-reading software designed to help writers create blockbusters rather than flops". Although the script-reading software cannot guarantee a particular script will be a huge success or not, it can actually identify patterns in scripts of movies that have been very successful, like Casablanca. Apparently, great movies build tension in short waves, which are then resolved in a conclusion. Maybe the secret of appealing story-telling is a wavy pattern of ups and downs, eventually leading to a conclusion where everything stabilizes?
Wavy patterns are ubiquitous in competitive environments. Predator and prey populations go up and down over time. When a new species appears on an ecosystem it will initially thrive until it finds a lack of resources or a new species as competition. It’s all ups and downs since life has been around in this planet. Maybe we are hardwired to deal with environments that show these type of wavy patterns, sort of a survival software. Maybe we are also hardwired to enjoy these patterns in environments where survival is not an issue, sharpening our coping abilities through play and story-telling. We are competitive creatures and we enjoy competition.
Among human activities, warfare is the most extreme forms of competition and is no exception to the patterns of ups and downs. A particular force attacking will eventually have to pause to protect its flanks, refit, re-arm, rest, etc. This gives the defender an opportunity to counter-attack. The relative military power of the attacking force will then have a wavy pattern: going up during the attack and going down when the flanks are extended or the force is refitting. The cycle will repeat until one of the forces cannot stop the other from gaining more and more advantages. This wavy pattern has been described by Clausewitz in his On War classic (see the On War's section about the opposing principles of continuity and culminating point). If some of the things I proposed in the previous paragraph are true, this patterns of up and downs during wars could explain in part why we find war stories and games so appealing.
Let’s talk about war games then, specifically Combat Mission Shock Force (CMSF) from Battlefront. As opposed to previous Combat Mission iterations, CMSF never got a single decent review score anywhere. The majority of old guard of Combat Mission 1, 2 and 3 players have moved in droves into something else. In other words, I don’t see the furious enthusiasm I saw with Combat Mission 1, 2 and 3.
Why?
This question has been discussed to exhaustion elsewhere and everybody has a take on the question, takes that I respect a lot. However, I will spare you a recount of the many views about this issue, as this blog entry is just my tiny, personal point of view on the seriously lacking single player experience in CMSF.
It all boils down to this: interesting/appealing competition only happens against an adaptive opponent. If you extend your flanks, your opponent should notice it and act on that. Otherwise the relative power of your forces would always go up, never to come down, making the competition .. Well .. There is not much of a competition in such cases. For Combat Mission Shock Force, Battlefront created a scripted computer opponent that knows nothing else but moving around, target, fire its weapons and evade enemy fire. Decisions on when or where to attack or defend are completely left to the scenario designer, who must guess beforehand what the player will do, where and when. When you come to think about it, you realize that no-matter how smart the scenario designer is, he will always overlook something the player can do that will make his computer opponent look beyond silly. Every time I play a single player battle in Combat Mission Shock Force is like I’m playing against an opponent who is fighting another battle, not the one I’m presenting him with. The computer opponent in Combat Mission Shock Force is a non-adaptive one and there is no way around it, no matter how good the scenario designer is. If one of the parties in a competition has no clue on how to adapt to the opponent’s actions, that whole thing is just dull.
That’s my story (pun intended), and I’m sticking to it.
Wavy patterns are ubiquitous in competitive environments. Predator and prey populations go up and down over time. When a new species appears on an ecosystem it will initially thrive until it finds a lack of resources or a new species as competition. It’s all ups and downs since life has been around in this planet. Maybe we are hardwired to deal with environments that show these type of wavy patterns, sort of a survival software. Maybe we are also hardwired to enjoy these patterns in environments where survival is not an issue, sharpening our coping abilities through play and story-telling. We are competitive creatures and we enjoy competition.
Among human activities, warfare is the most extreme forms of competition and is no exception to the patterns of ups and downs. A particular force attacking will eventually have to pause to protect its flanks, refit, re-arm, rest, etc. This gives the defender an opportunity to counter-attack. The relative military power of the attacking force will then have a wavy pattern: going up during the attack and going down when the flanks are extended or the force is refitting. The cycle will repeat until one of the forces cannot stop the other from gaining more and more advantages. This wavy pattern has been described by Clausewitz in his On War classic (see the On War's section about the opposing principles of continuity and culminating point). If some of the things I proposed in the previous paragraph are true, this patterns of up and downs during wars could explain in part why we find war stories and games so appealing.
Let’s talk about war games then, specifically Combat Mission Shock Force (CMSF) from Battlefront. As opposed to previous Combat Mission iterations, CMSF never got a single decent review score anywhere. The majority of old guard of Combat Mission 1, 2 and 3 players have moved in droves into something else. In other words, I don’t see the furious enthusiasm I saw with Combat Mission 1, 2 and 3.
Why?
This question has been discussed to exhaustion elsewhere and everybody has a take on the question, takes that I respect a lot. However, I will spare you a recount of the many views about this issue, as this blog entry is just my tiny, personal point of view on the seriously lacking single player experience in CMSF.
It all boils down to this: interesting/appealing competition only happens against an adaptive opponent. If you extend your flanks, your opponent should notice it and act on that. Otherwise the relative power of your forces would always go up, never to come down, making the competition .. Well .. There is not much of a competition in such cases. For Combat Mission Shock Force, Battlefront created a scripted computer opponent that knows nothing else but moving around, target, fire its weapons and evade enemy fire. Decisions on when or where to attack or defend are completely left to the scenario designer, who must guess beforehand what the player will do, where and when. When you come to think about it, you realize that no-matter how smart the scenario designer is, he will always overlook something the player can do that will make his computer opponent look beyond silly. Every time I play a single player battle in Combat Mission Shock Force is like I’m playing against an opponent who is fighting another battle, not the one I’m presenting him with. The computer opponent in Combat Mission Shock Force is a non-adaptive one and there is no way around it, no matter how good the scenario designer is. If one of the parties in a competition has no clue on how to adapt to the opponent’s actions, that whole thing is just dull.
That’s my story (pun intended), and I’m sticking to it.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
War Gaming the Fight Against Al Qaeda
Many off-the-shelf computer war games have scenarios featuring US military forces against irregular forces (I will post more about this at a later time).
In this regard, ProSim's latest "Air Assault Task Force" war game is just outstanding. In a series of four scenarios entitled "Operation Anaconda", the player can test his tactical wisdom while fighting irregular forces in the challenging terrain of Afghanistan.
Screenshot of one of the "Operation Anaconda" scenarios of "Air Assault Task Force". Click the image for an expanded view.
From the screenshot above, you can guess this ProSim war game is not for the casual gamer. For example, all blue lines are authentic military operational graphics. Since its first war game, ProSim has raised the bar in terms of realism. But in the case of this particular series of scenarios, there is an additional treat: the scenario designer was involved in the planning of the real "Operation Anaconda". In the game credits the "Team Afghanistan Project Lead" is listed as "name witheld".
It doesn't get any better than this.
In this regard, ProSim's latest "Air Assault Task Force" war game is just outstanding. In a series of four scenarios entitled "Operation Anaconda", the player can test his tactical wisdom while fighting irregular forces in the challenging terrain of Afghanistan.
Screenshot of one of the "Operation Anaconda" scenarios of "Air Assault Task Force". Click the image for an expanded view.From the screenshot above, you can guess this ProSim war game is not for the casual gamer. For example, all blue lines are authentic military operational graphics. Since its first war game, ProSim has raised the bar in terms of realism. But in the case of this particular series of scenarios, there is an additional treat: the scenario designer was involved in the planning of the real "Operation Anaconda". In the game credits the "Team Afghanistan Project Lead" is listed as "name witheld".
It doesn't get any better than this.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Military Grade: Off-the-Shelf War Games Used by the US Military and Military Simulations Available to the War Gamer
In this entry, I will list some war games that were mainly designed for the civilian market and are used ( most of the times with modifications) by the US military services. And vice versa: military simulations that are available for the civilian hobbyist. This list is by no means comprehensive. Please comment below if you know of more.
Initially targeting the civilian market were:
-Steel Beasts, then modified into Steel Beasts Pro and then made available to the public as Steel Beasts ProPE
-Close Combat The Road to Baghdad, then modified into Close Combat Marines and then made available to the public as Close Combat Modern Tactics
-Operation Flashpoint and Armed Assault, the modified into the VBS1/2 series both of which can be purchased by the general public
Initially targeting the military student and then made available to the public were:
-TacOPs
-Point of Attack 2
-Decisive Action
-Wargemes from Prosim: Brigade Combat Team, Armored Task Force and all titles that came after these
Then there is this game series which was developed under a US Army contract, aimed towards both US Army trainees and the civilian market (?!): Full Spectrum Warrior.
Cheers,
Initially targeting the civilian market were:
-Steel Beasts, then modified into Steel Beasts Pro and then made available to the public as Steel Beasts ProPE
-Close Combat The Road to Baghdad, then modified into Close Combat Marines and then made available to the public as Close Combat Modern Tactics
-Operation Flashpoint and Armed Assault, the modified into the VBS1/2 series both of which can be purchased by the general public
Initially targeting the military student and then made available to the public were:
-TacOPs
-Point of Attack 2
-Decisive Action
-Wargemes from Prosim: Brigade Combat Team, Armored Task Force and all titles that came after these
Then there is this game series which was developed under a US Army contract, aimed towards both US Army trainees and the civilian market (?!): Full Spectrum Warrior.
Cheers,
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
CMSF AAR: Counter-Recon, Part 2
Lt. Hall climbed to SSG Giessen’s Bradley with such a momentum that the young subordinate was forced inside the turret as if buttoning up. “Where is it?”, Lt. Hall demanded, lying flat on top of the Bradley’s turret and trying to adapt his eyesight to the darkness of the vehicle’s interior. Both Hall and Giessen were looking at the FBCB2 display, trying to make sense of the situation. SSG Giessen was inadvertently de-centering the map by holding the screen with his right hand. His right thumb was right into the mini-map section of the screen, making the touch-sensitive system jump all over different map locations. Lt. Hall slapped Giessen’s right hand out of the screen, as a father would do to keep his child out of the power tools. “There it is … what the f**k … who made this entry into the system?”, Lt Hall asked at the sight of a single enemy tank icon in an un-named Syrian village, three to four hundred meters down the road from the platoon’s position. Visibly disgruntled with Giessen’s lack of response, he jumped through the vehicle’s bustle rack towards the rear of the hull, knocking a couple of empty coolers down the road below.
The third vehicle in the platoon’s column was SSG Olson’s Bradley CFV. Olson was already standing on the hull of his vehicle, waiting for Lt Hall’s orders and trying to cool down with a bottle of water pulled out of wet sock (an improvised cooling device). “You got that tank in your thing [the FBCB2]?”, balked Hall. “Sir, after we cleared a jam in our coax we haven’t been able to boot it up”, responded Olson. The FBCB2 is mounted right in front of the Bradley CFV’s coaxial gun service panel, which means that the FBCB2 keyboard, screen and CPU have to be removed before servicing the gun. The question about the enemy tank was then passed to the last vehicle in the column, SSG Dorn’s Bradley CFV. “L-T, my unit [FBCB2] has been attempting to update during the last four miles, I don’t even have my vehicle’s icon in it”, responded Dorn. “Damn engineers they made these things with less bandwidth than a 1985 dial-up modem from RadioShack”, thought Lt Hall. He then gestured the team leaders to follow him for a hasty briefing in his HMMWV.
The lieutenant pulled a single map sheet out of the HMMWV and spread it on the wide engine lid. His orders were usually brief and this time was no exception.
“I want to develop this [situation] within the next half-hour. There is an enemy tank reported in the village just around that road bend. The village is split in half by a river and connected by two crossings. Go there and take a peak, but leave the tracks out of sight until there’s no tank threat. Giessen, killer [team], left. Olson, hunter [team], center. Dorn, killer [team] right. Giessen and Dorn, pack some Javs [Javelin missiles] after dismounting. Olson, SITREP me good and often, you call the shots.”
To be continued ...
The third vehicle in the platoon’s column was SSG Olson’s Bradley CFV. Olson was already standing on the hull of his vehicle, waiting for Lt Hall’s orders and trying to cool down with a bottle of water pulled out of wet sock (an improvised cooling device). “You got that tank in your thing [the FBCB2]?”, balked Hall. “Sir, after we cleared a jam in our coax we haven’t been able to boot it up”, responded Olson. The FBCB2 is mounted right in front of the Bradley CFV’s coaxial gun service panel, which means that the FBCB2 keyboard, screen and CPU have to be removed before servicing the gun. The question about the enemy tank was then passed to the last vehicle in the column, SSG Dorn’s Bradley CFV. “L-T, my unit [FBCB2] has been attempting to update during the last four miles, I don’t even have my vehicle’s icon in it”, responded Dorn. “Damn engineers they made these things with less bandwidth than a 1985 dial-up modem from RadioShack”, thought Lt Hall. He then gestured the team leaders to follow him for a hasty briefing in his HMMWV.
The lieutenant pulled a single map sheet out of the HMMWV and spread it on the wide engine lid. His orders were usually brief and this time was no exception.
“I want to develop this [situation] within the next half-hour. There is an enemy tank reported in the village just around that road bend. The village is split in half by a river and connected by two crossings. Go there and take a peak, but leave the tracks out of sight until there’s no tank threat. Giessen, killer [team], left. Olson, hunter [team], center. Dorn, killer [team] right. Giessen and Dorn, pack some Javs [Javelin missiles] after dismounting. Olson, SITREP me good and often, you call the shots.”
To be continued ...
Monday, October 13, 2008
CMSF AAR: Counter-Recon, Part 1
“-Tank!”
SSG Giessen’s call on the US Cavalry platoon’s net triggered a response disproportionate to the boyish pitch of his voice. As Lt. Hall’s driver violently veered the command HMMV into the road’s shoulder, the sound of small rocks thrown into the vehicle¹s belly by the fast spinning wheels could still be heard above all the loud cursing. Lt. Hall leaped out of the vehicle in a less than jovial mood. His back towards the still to be seen tank threat, Hall walked to SSG Giessen’s Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vechicle (CFV) making all kind of gestures. “-If you’d throw Lt Hall into the water when he is cursing, his arm-swinging would make him swim!”, one of the troopers once said about the lieutenant ’s less than subtle body language. The whole scene looked like a fender bender, all the way down to a road-raged front-vehicle driver. Except that this time the vehicles were tactically separated by 25 yards, the real collision was still to happen and it would result in more than fenders being broken.
SSG Giessen deserved some scolding: the word “tank” on the platoon’s net meant one and only one thing and that is the caller being in contact with a tank. Giessen had actually seen a tank icon in the Force XXI Battlefield Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) screen of his vehicle. According to the system, the tank was supposed to be just around the road bend, less than 100 meters downstream the road. The SSG just wanted everybody to stop but found no other way than the “tank” call to do it. Actually, Lt Hall’s rage had nothing to do with Giessen’s misuse of radio calls. The platoon under his command was one hour behind schedule and was frantically trying to link up with the rest of Troop A. Lt Hall’s thought his platoon was traveling through interior lines, a notion rapidly smashed by SSG Giessen’s radio call. To make things worse, earlier in the morning, Lt Hall had to make the tough decision of letting his only tank behind, waiting for the repair of a broken torsion bar. Things were not going good for 1st Platoon.
To be continued ...
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Combat Mission Shock Force/Marines: Reading List
One of the greatest compliments you can make to a war game is saying that insight from military history books actually helps you play the game better. Combat Mission Shock Force/Marines deserves such a compliment.
The US Marines fight differently than the US Army. There are differences in organization, equipment, command and control, doctrine, etc. There are plenty of free sources out there from where to get US Marine Corp doctrinal publications, but sometimes these publications are not easy reads. Furthermore, doctrinal publications are just guidelines and troops in the field frequently adapt their tactics to something different of what the manuals say. Fortunately, there are a good amount of books out there with first hand accounts of recent battles. Let me list a few books I think will fit the CMSF/Marines war gamer.
The following two books are a bit more grand-tactical and operational in their scope. Scenario or campaign designers may find lots of information for the new creations.
Cheers,
The US Marines fight differently than the US Army. There are differences in organization, equipment, command and control, doctrine, etc. There are plenty of free sources out there from where to get US Marine Corp doctrinal publications, but sometimes these publications are not easy reads. Furthermore, doctrinal publications are just guidelines and troops in the field frequently adapt their tactics to something different of what the manuals say. Fortunately, there are a good amount of books out there with first hand accounts of recent battles. Let me list a few books I think will fit the CMSF/Marines war gamer.
- Tip of the Spear: U.S. Marine Light Armor in the Gulf War by G. J. Michaels
- Ambush Alley: The Most Extraordinary Battle of the Iraq War by Tim Pritchard
- We Were One: Shoulder to Shoulder with the Marines Who Took Fallujah by Patrick O'Donnell
- My Men Are My Heroes: The Brad Kasal Story by Nathaniel R. Helms
- The Highway War: A Marine Company Commander in Iraq by Maj. Seth W.B. Folsom
The following two books are a bit more grand-tactical and operational in their scope. Scenario or campaign designers may find lots of information for the new creations.
- Marines in the Garden of Eden: The Battle for An Nasiriyah by Richard S. Lowry
- Basrah, Baghdad, and Beyond: U.S. Marine Corps in the Second Iraq War by USMCR Col. Nicholas E. Reynolds
Cheers,
Friday, October 3, 2008
TacAI in CMSF v1.10/Marines: Getting There
In a previous entry I mentioned my hopes for an improved TacAI in CMSF v1.10/Marines.
One pet peeve I had with CMSF v1.08 was that computer controlled units were not very good at getting out from kill zones. The computer controlled units were too slow to run away from enemy fire and (given the lethality of the weaponry involved) died quickly while crawling to cover (the crawl of death).
Back in the v1.08 times, I assembled a silly scenario to test the TacAI. Three rows of one-story buildings, with a relatively wide space between the first and second rows ("main street"). Under my command one M2 IFV and a two men HQ team overlooking "main street" from one edge of the map. The enemy is two Plt (-) of Syrian special forces (all dismounts), deployed on the opposite edge of the map. The Syrians are out of my forces view, behind of a row of houses that runs perpendicular to "main street". The Syrians have orders to "advance" towards the edge of the map held by the US. Their objective is strip of terrain as wide as the three rows of buildings. Their stance is "normal" and their allowed time to advance is 35 minutes.
While running the scenario with v1.08, the computer-controlled Syrians would advance in a wide front, including "main street". The poor bastards assigned to advance through "main street" were always mowed down. They would advance first, then get pinned down, crawl and die.
I ran the same scenario with v1.10 to see what had changed. Below is a screen shot after I asked for a cease fire.
Some Syrian units had no major problems advancing. They made to quite near the US forces because their routes of advance were out of LOS from the US forces. My focus here is the Syrian forces advancing through "main street".
A Syrian HQ unit opted for the right side of "main street", came under fire (see "A" label in the screen shot), suffered three casualties and moved to a building to find cover. Three survivors!
A Syrian squad chose the left side of "main street", came under fire (see "1" label in the screen shot), suffered three casualties, pulled a bit back and entered a building they were hugging. From there they engaged my forces with their RPGs (see "2" label in the screen shot). My Bradley lost its engine to their fire. Some members of this squad can be seen advancing (see "3" label in the screen shot).
Granted, fire accuracy has been toned down a bit in v1.10. But I don't think this could have helped the Syrians because the M2 IFV has a very high rate of fire. Whatever the reason, the Syrians have a chance to survive "main street" now!
I'm pleasantly surprised.
One pet peeve I had with CMSF v1.08 was that computer controlled units were not very good at getting out from kill zones. The computer controlled units were too slow to run away from enemy fire and (given the lethality of the weaponry involved) died quickly while crawling to cover (the crawl of death).
Back in the v1.08 times, I assembled a silly scenario to test the TacAI. Three rows of one-story buildings, with a relatively wide space between the first and second rows ("main street"). Under my command one M2 IFV and a two men HQ team overlooking "main street" from one edge of the map. The enemy is two Plt (-) of Syrian special forces (all dismounts), deployed on the opposite edge of the map. The Syrians are out of my forces view, behind of a row of houses that runs perpendicular to "main street". The Syrians have orders to "advance" towards the edge of the map held by the US. Their objective is strip of terrain as wide as the three rows of buildings. Their stance is "normal" and their allowed time to advance is 35 minutes.
While running the scenario with v1.08, the computer-controlled Syrians would advance in a wide front, including "main street". The poor bastards assigned to advance through "main street" were always mowed down. They would advance first, then get pinned down, crawl and die.
I ran the same scenario with v1.10 to see what had changed. Below is a screen shot after I asked for a cease fire.
Some Syrian units had no major problems advancing. They made to quite near the US forces because their routes of advance were out of LOS from the US forces. My focus here is the Syrian forces advancing through "main street".
A Syrian HQ unit opted for the right side of "main street", came under fire (see "A" label in the screen shot), suffered three casualties and moved to a building to find cover. Three survivors!
A Syrian squad chose the left side of "main street", came under fire (see "1" label in the screen shot), suffered three casualties, pulled a bit back and entered a building they were hugging. From there they engaged my forces with their RPGs (see "2" label in the screen shot). My Bradley lost its engine to their fire. Some members of this squad can be seen advancing (see "3" label in the screen shot).
Granted, fire accuracy has been toned down a bit in v1.10. But I don't think this could have helped the Syrians because the M2 IFV has a very high rate of fire. Whatever the reason, the Syrians have a chance to survive "main street" now!
I'm pleasantly surprised.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Circle the Wagons!- A Priceless Wargaming Moment
The debate between military theorists arguing over the pros and cons of attrition vs. maneuver warfare is endless. Arguments between pundits can go as far as to labeling each style of war-fighting as just pure evil.
Some more moderate thinkers always refrained from such vicious critiques. Richard Simpkin and Robert Leonhard, even when advocating maneuver warfare, had always recognized that attrition and maneuver warfare are two sides of the same coin (i.e. There is no such thing as pure maneuver or pure attrition warfare). In his book "The Changing Face of War", van Creveld explains that armies from countries with plenty of resources had always tended to favor attrition warfare because they can always take the less risky approach of out-gunning the enemy (the US Army for example). He also argues that fighting forces with less resources or in more perilous situations tended to favor the more riskier maneuver warfare style (the German Army in WWII, the IDF, the US Marines, etc.). In van Creveld's point of view, there is no intrinsic vice or virtue in adopting either attrition or maneuver warfare. After all if a commander has the resources to wipe out the enemy's position without risking life and limb, what's the point on trying anything else? Conversely, if the enemy has more and bigger guns, there is no point on trying a mano a mano with him.
Being just a civilian, I read the books or articles and do my best to try to understand the subject. I have this character flaw of always being aching for the innovative theory, the approach that breaks the mold, the out of the box thinking. As such, I sort of internally embraced the maneuverist approach. I just couldn't help it.
Then CMSF came. I played it to death. With the CMSF battlefield being as lethal as it is, I quickly learned to use the superior firepower of the US forces to my advantage. I wouldn't move a single infantry squad without absolute fire superiority. I couldn't find anything wrong with attrition warfare. It just worked.
Then the Marines module came. I fire up the "Circle the Wagons!" scenario (by GeorgeMc): two platoons of AAV US Marines must defend a couple of M1 tanks stuck in the muddy streets of a village. Played it once, played it twice. Still playing it without any progress. The AAVs are like tin cans with a big cannon on top, even the nimblest of the RPGs destroys them. Forget about the AAVs providing fire support. Not enough Javelins, not enough anything. I find myself taking risks I buried in my bag of tricks when I was commanding US Army troops. There is no room for attrition with my virtual Marines.
There, in front of my computer monitor, I have gamed full circle trough two opposing schools of thought. I haven't discovered anything, nor did anything important for the world. But it felt like a million bucks.
Dozens of books on military history/theory: $636.60
CMSF plus Marines module: $60.00
An experience on the vices and virtues of maneuver and attrition warfare: Priceless
Some more moderate thinkers always refrained from such vicious critiques. Richard Simpkin and Robert Leonhard, even when advocating maneuver warfare, had always recognized that attrition and maneuver warfare are two sides of the same coin (i.e. There is no such thing as pure maneuver or pure attrition warfare). In his book "The Changing Face of War", van Creveld explains that armies from countries with plenty of resources had always tended to favor attrition warfare because they can always take the less risky approach of out-gunning the enemy (the US Army for example). He also argues that fighting forces with less resources or in more perilous situations tended to favor the more riskier maneuver warfare style (the German Army in WWII, the IDF, the US Marines, etc.). In van Creveld's point of view, there is no intrinsic vice or virtue in adopting either attrition or maneuver warfare. After all if a commander has the resources to wipe out the enemy's position without risking life and limb, what's the point on trying anything else? Conversely, if the enemy has more and bigger guns, there is no point on trying a mano a mano with him.
Being just a civilian, I read the books or articles and do my best to try to understand the subject. I have this character flaw of always being aching for the innovative theory, the approach that breaks the mold, the out of the box thinking. As such, I sort of internally embraced the maneuverist approach. I just couldn't help it.
Then CMSF came. I played it to death. With the CMSF battlefield being as lethal as it is, I quickly learned to use the superior firepower of the US forces to my advantage. I wouldn't move a single infantry squad without absolute fire superiority. I couldn't find anything wrong with attrition warfare. It just worked.
Then the Marines module came. I fire up the "Circle the Wagons!" scenario (by GeorgeMc): two platoons of AAV US Marines must defend a couple of M1 tanks stuck in the muddy streets of a village. Played it once, played it twice. Still playing it without any progress. The AAVs are like tin cans with a big cannon on top, even the nimblest of the RPGs destroys them. Forget about the AAVs providing fire support. Not enough Javelins, not enough anything. I find myself taking risks I buried in my bag of tricks when I was commanding US Army troops. There is no room for attrition with my virtual Marines.
There, in front of my computer monitor, I have gamed full circle trough two opposing schools of thought. I haven't discovered anything, nor did anything important for the world. But it felt like a million bucks.
Dozens of books on military history/theory: $636.60
CMSF plus Marines module: $60.00
An experience on the vices and virtues of maneuver and attrition warfare: Priceless
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Combat Mission Shock Force-Marines Module Released
Battlefront, the company that developed the venerable "Combat Mission" war games has released the Marines module for its Combat Mission Shock Force war game.
The new module features US Marine units and new Syrian units like the T-90 main battle tank. Changes have been also made to many tactical AI (TacAI) behaviors and responses. Installation of the Marines module patches the game to v1.10.
I have a lot of hope regarding the Marines module and the v1.10 patch.
I certainly hope that changes to the tactical AI will make this game enjoyable for me again. In particular, as featured in one of Battlefront's game play videos, one change for the TacAI is being able to fire back and continue moving while under fire. Could this new behavior be the solution to the so-called "crawl of death"? Apparently yes! In other game play video, one Marine unit gets ambushed and returns a great deal of fire (including grenades!) and move quickly out of trouble (as opposed to just dropping to the ground and crawl towards secure death like in v1.08). Will this change in the TacAI result in a more believable computer opponent that doesn't insist on marching though the lines of fire of the enemy until no one is left standing? I am looking forward to find the answer to this question. Battlefront also mentioned that they made changes so the virtual troops will "hug" walls and corners better. MOUT scenarios should be more realistic now.
I will post more impressions later.
The new module features US Marine units and new Syrian units like the T-90 main battle tank. Changes have been also made to many tactical AI (TacAI) behaviors and responses. Installation of the Marines module patches the game to v1.10.
I have a lot of hope regarding the Marines module and the v1.10 patch.
I certainly hope that changes to the tactical AI will make this game enjoyable for me again. In particular, as featured in one of Battlefront's game play videos, one change for the TacAI is being able to fire back and continue moving while under fire. Could this new behavior be the solution to the so-called "crawl of death"? Apparently yes! In other game play video, one Marine unit gets ambushed and returns a great deal of fire (including grenades!) and move quickly out of trouble (as opposed to just dropping to the ground and crawl towards secure death like in v1.08). Will this change in the TacAI result in a more believable computer opponent that doesn't insist on marching though the lines of fire of the enemy until no one is left standing? I am looking forward to find the answer to this question. Battlefront also mentioned that they made changes so the virtual troops will "hug" walls and corners better. MOUT scenarios should be more realistic now.
I will post more impressions later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)