Real life deliberate defense, modelled for SB

[Chaplain]

I hope this helps further the discussion on Real Life Tactics versus Tank Quake.

I have put together a "scenario" to show what a real-life deliberate defense of a key terrain feature would look like. I used a bunch of sources, including historical wargames, history books and tactics manuals.

The "scenario" shows the Blue attack boundaries. The assumption is that there are adjacent units, so the entire attack must stay within those boundaries to avoid fratricide. Note the attacking units' designations - 1st & 2d BRIGADE. That is not a typo - this would be a division-sized attack, with the 3d Brigade holding in reserve until the battle develops.

The "scenario" also shows the Red start positions. Don't be shocked at the number of units! This is a Motorized Rifle Regiment (actually is a little bit smaller than usual, I think). I did not bother (for this exercise) to create any BP's, routes, etc.. The assumption is that there are also adjacent Red MRR's or TR's to the left and right, and likely another MRR or TR about 5 km to the rear in reserve. There might be gaps between the main bodies of the adjacent units, but they would not likely be more than 3-5 km's wide.

In a real war, when important terrain is contested, this is the density of units that should be expected in armor warfare. Therefore, command and control is very important. You have a great deal of enemy troops to fight through, and your own units will be tripping over each other if you're not careful. There is no room for "sniper tanks" in these battles.

Now, of course there are going to be real-life battles where small units fight over a big piece of terrain. Those battle will have a place for "sniper tanks." (In SB, there is even more incentive because the F5 view will almost always warn you that you are about to frat one of your own tanks. IRL the danger of dividing up and getting spread out too far is much higher.)

However, these battles are only one part of armor warfare. The difficulty that some of us here have is that the typical SB-MP battle is played using scenarios that model those low-density battles. Few people here seem interested in playing battles where the scenario is designed to model the high-density combat that tanks are often involved in, where "official" Armor doctrine is the best way to survice and win.

I have some ideas for scenarios that might create conditions more like high-density combat, without requiring 300 AI units on each side (within which the 10 human players would do their part). It's not worth the trouble to do that, however, unless people really support the concept of playing MP battles in relatively tight quarters, as if there are lots of other units on all sides, even when there really isn't anything there.

I'll stop here and wait for your responses.

[Bluewings]

This is the type of MP scenario I would like to play .

BTW , I did something like that called "Operation Hardcore cleaning" . :mad2: (in moderate planning)
To play it Co-op must be TOP . A dream of mine . :P

If you Tankers want to have a look at , we could try it on-line .

It would be cool I believe .
2 to 4 players on Blue side vs AI .

I agree with Chaplain . I think we should try a different approach (just to try out if it is feasible) and we 'll see what people think about .

My scenario or any other , I am willing to try .

Cheers. :3starsk2:

[Chaplain]

Well, it looks like it's just you and me, BW. I guess this is a dead issue.

Maybe with the new AI in SB2 we can revisit this.

[PaleRider]

Don't give up Chaplain! I love to do co-op battles, (Fulda-Gap is a good one) I haven't downloaded it yet, but I will take a gander at it.

[Bluewings]

If anything comes alive , pass me a personal message .

I AM IN .

Cheers. :3starsk2:

[GsMcAmis]

Chaplain, you had mentioned that there seems to be no interest in such high density scenarios.

On this assumption you are wrong in that it has been proven that their is a demand for larger scenarios as seen via various points in the history of SB.com. I believe all the most veteran scenario designers attempted to create many versions of these styles of scenarios. Hackworth had put together one that was incredibly huge for us to play.

But the larger scenarios are almost unplayable by more than a fellow or two at a time, the info being passed around the network due to the enoprmous numbers of tanks begins bogging the network and some rather bizarre lag effects begin to manifest themselves.

It is only that problem that keeps these larger scenario's from being the normal state of affairs in SB MP land.

[Bluewings]

ok .

So let 's find a good compromise between bandwith and big scenarios .

Cheers. :3starsk2:

[mapman]

Well...I downloaded it and there was no blue, only red making it unplayable regardless of the number of units.

Am I missing something?

[Camo]

Same here, Scenario wont load, says there is no player or some such.
Could we get that again? Im looking forward to it,
Cheers
Flash Out

[dejawolf]

go into the scenario editor, and add 1-2 blue platoons if you really want to play.
as chaplain said, this isn't a finished scen, but shows off a motorized rifle regiment,
and some tactical stuff my 2 gearwheels have yet to sum up.

[Chaplain]

Right, Dejawolf. This was an illustration, not a true scenario. I'll work up a few basic graphics and post them here to explain better - I'll try to do that by the end of today.

[Chaplain]

This scenario is based on a realistic divison-level attack against an important terrain feature in moderately restrictive terrain. (If you think this is too tight for modern-day combat, note that during GW I, in the wide open desert, the units were often spread out only about 50% wider than in this scenario.)

The Cav Squadron to the west will provide pressure to prevent a flanking movement from that side, while the Tank Division on the east will be making a simultaneous attack against the TR on that side.

The attached graphic shows our division commander's plan. The LD is the start point, the town marked Objective Sky is the main goal, but the territory up to the LOA is to be secured. 3d Brigade is in reserve. If the advance goes as planned, and they do not need to enter the battle, they will start the next attack (across the LOA) as soon as Obj. Sky is secure.

(Note - the traces and phase lines run along terrain features. This is for two reasons. First, it makes it much more likely that the units will know where they are in relation to where they should be with, since real tactical maps don't have god-like powers. Second, it also makes it less likely that the enemy can exploit a gap that forms between advancing friendly forces.)

The estimated positions of the enemy are plotted - a motorized rifle regiment in all. These position estimates are based on ground scouting, as well as air and satellite recon. More detailed info is available on the forward enemy units, but we'll wait and deal with that info in the brigade and battalion commander's plans.

What I am trying to do here is create the environment. The important thing to see is how much of a force is fighting in a very restricted area. The next step will be to look at the plan of the 2d Brigade commander. having done that, we will look at the plan of the 1st Battalion commander.

The reason for doing it in this manner is that the actual SB scenario will only include the 1st Battalion of the 2d Brigade and those MRR units that will be opposed to them. We have to create the larger environment because the players need to understand why they have to fight in the relatively restricted space allowed in the actual scenario.

The goal is to recreate the dense battle space that tank units often fight in, without overwhelming either the players or the network with too many units.

I'll work on the 2d Brigade commander's plan tonight, but I may not get it done until tomorrow.

[attackrat]

Cooperative missions (or at least heavily unbalanced Vs. play: one Red CO and his battalion vs. a few of us Blues) were my hands-down favorite scenarios in my more active MP days. If new and varied coop missions were to start popping up, I might well be tempted out of semi-retirement. 8)

[mapman]

Very nice Chap!

You might even build a few "parallel" scenarios all from this map, but each battle happening seperate in SB, but side by side in your overall example....

Enjoying the education...thanks!

[Chaplain]

Wow - it takes a while to do this stuff thoroughly. Here is the 2d BDE plan, shown in 10 pictures with a bit of explanation with each picture.

Post 1 of 5

Note that the adjacent unit's actions (friendly and enemy) have been shown where there is likely to be some overlapping of action. Also note the while the brigade commander has designated actions that require the battalion commanders to split off companies here-and-there, he has left it mostly up to them how to fight their battalions.

A bit of background - I am using the concepts of "main effort" and "attack by fire," each with their own US Army graphics. There can only be one main effort at a given time. That main effort receives priority of FA support. In addition to that, the front-line commanders are to shift resources from their designated (but not main effort) attacks to the main effort if there is a possibility that the main effort will fail. Attack by fire is similar to an overwatch position used during small-unit movement. However, as you'll see on to Cav's action to the west, attack by fire is often used to soften up an enemy unit and fix him in place, so that he is not free to move to another position on the battlefield and interfere with the forward movement of other friendly units.

The brigade commander's goals, based on the division commander's instructions, are to secure the area within his traces up to the Limit of Advance, within no more than 6 hours, wth no more than 10% casualties, and retaining an average of 50% ammo supply on board to repel a likely counterattack from the SW.

Comment for first picture: Here we see the 3 battaltions behind the Line of Departure, out of site of enemy scouts. Three platoons of scouts are already up on the FEBA, watching and coordinating the passage points.

Comment for second picture: The attack begins with the scout platoon actively surpressing the enemy scouts. The two lead battalion task forces in the attack, 4-12 In (M) and 1-68 Ar, move through their passage points to their attack positions. C Troop to the west and 2-68 Ar to the attack the front line enemy positions by fire because of the more open terrain in their sectors.

[Chaplain]

Post 2 of 5 - continuing the 2d BDE attack plan

Comment for first picture: As the real attack commences, 1-68 becomes the main effort, splitting off one element to provide a base of fire while the main body overruns the first enemy MRC. 4-12 advances on the adjacent MRC, also splitting up, but moving through the woods will take more time. C Troop holds, but 2-68 continues to advance toward the MRC. 2-68 also puts fire on the 2 TC in front of 1-68.

Comment for second picture: As the attack continues, 1-68 maintains the main effort and overruns the lead enemy TC. Its B Co continues to provide fire support on the second enemy TC, though it is also advancing slowly. 4-12 overruns the MRC in the west and moves beyond it to prepare for an attack on the second line of defense. The scount platoons also start moving to cover the western boundary from any counterattack.

[Chaplain]

Post 3 of 5 - continuing the 2d BDE attack plan

Comment for first picture: The main effort now shifts to the main body of 4-12 as it attacks the second line of defense. Team C moves to block any counter attack, while a large FA barrage protects the main attack when it is most exposed. Team B from 1-68 cleans up the last TC on the first line of defense, while the main body moves to put heavy fire on the TC in the second line of defense.

Comment for second picture: As 4-12 secures the position it just overran and prepares for a possible attack by a likely reserve MRC, 1-68 becomes the main effort again as it attacks the third TC. Pressure is also being put on the MRC in the town, too, as 1st BDE is getting ready to attack it in force.

[Chaplain]

Post 4 of 5 - continuing the 2d BDE attack plan

Comment for the first picture: As the 1st BDE moves to take Obj Sky, 1-68 supports it by fire. However, if the enemy reserve MRC is present, the main effort of 2d BDE is to finish it off it before it can reinforce the town. 4-12 solidifies it positions and also softens up the enemy units to the west. 3-12 moves up to get ready for its main push in the planned battle.

Comment for the second picture: As 1-68 also takes up a temporary blocking position facing SW, 3-12 sweeps through and makes a quick assault on the enemy MRC at the river. (Their attack is left more vague, since the enemy's reinforcements might be comeing up by this point. they will need to adjust as necessary.) They have authorization to cross the river if need be, since units of the 1st BDE will not likely be as far south yet. The scouts also take this opportunity to move into the woods along PL Water.

[Chaplain]

Post 5 of 5 - final part of the 2d BDE attack plan

Comment for the first picture: In the final moves of the attack, 1-68 pushes to the town south of PL Water. Though no significant known enemy units are there before the attack, initial enemy reinforcement will likely be at or moving toward those crossroads. 1-68 will recombine on the move, to have its full force if needed, and the scouts will push out further if possible.

Comment for the second picture: This shows the final (planned) positions. 3-12 is to be ready to push forward, especially if a significant counterattack comes from the western or southern directions, since the area to the east should be secure by this point.

At the end of this plan, the division commander's plan is to send 3d BDE though 2d BDE to continue the advance to the south and southwest. However, if things don't work so well in the 1st BDE's area, 3d BDE will reinforce 1st BDE, and 2d BDE will have to (as a minimum) hold the ground it gained on its own until Corps decides on the next move in this offensive.

The next step is to turn the individual actions of this large attack into SB scenarios, scenarios that have no more than a battalion's worth of vehicles on a side. (Some of the actions will have only a company's worth of vehicles on the blue side.) In those scenarios the larger battle will simply be "ignored," except for the fact that the players on both sides must stay within very tight boundaries because of the other actions going on around them.

[Ssnake]

Though not impossible, squeezing three reinforced battalions through a just two kilometer wide battlespace really means one tight formation.
Assuming a case of two battalion task forces next to each other, both leading with two companies in front, that's four companies spread over two kilometers. If a company again leads with two platoons, we have eight platoons over two kilometers, or 250m for four vehicles if the entire width of battlespace is free of bottlenecks. That's the entire width of the brigade's battlespace completely filled with combat vehicles every 50 meters. One can certainly pack a punch that way - but enemy artillery can hardly miss either that way...

[Chaplain]

I admit that I am taking the extreme case of a densely-packed attack. I do that in part because all of the MP games I have seen so far are on the opposite side of the scale.

I am also assuming that as the battalions attack, they will not fight with 4 platoons abreast for most of the time. Think of a battalion as 12 platoons which are constantly leap-frogging each other to keep momentum. Depending on the situation, there will be anywhere from 2-4 platoons abreast of each other. I think that as the battalion plans develop, typically there will be 2 platoons providing a base of fire, two platoons advancing on the enemy, and 2 more platoons following up the advance. The other 6 platoons are preparing for the next phase of the attack, because the 4-6 that actually take part in the immediate action will need time to reconsolidate before they are ready for attacking again.

It would also be possible to do this attack with three battalions in column, with the lead battalion spread out over the width of the attack and the battalions as-a-whole leap-frogging each other. I personally think that is harder on command and control. Companies within a battalion often train together and can pull this kind of thing off, but battalions rarely train for such operations with other battalions.

One other thing I am trying to ensure is that the lead companies and platoons keep casualties to a resonable level. If a company loses more than a few vehicles it should go to ground and allow the next company to carry on the advance. That gives the company a chance to consolidte. The tendency in MP is to fight until all one's lead vehicles are all destroyed and then bring up some reserves. Too many people have read books like Team Yankee and think that operations where a company fights on its own are the norm. Well, they happen, but I do not believe they are very common.

[Chaplain]

I do want discussion about this, Ssnake. I'm glad you responded. The more people involved in a discussion like this, the more likely we'll actually come up with more fun, playable and realistic scenarios that simulate intense armor battles. My ideas certainly aren't the only ones. :)

[mapman]

Chap...most of your comments for the images were truncuated. Perhaps you can edit them into the regular post text instead of the image caption area.

Thanks.

[Chaplain]

Ahh! I'll fix that.

fixed - thanks for pointing that out. :oops:

[Newbie-Olle]

I like the idea, but if you don't have plenty of players and bandwidth a smaller scale battle of the same type should be sufficient.
Say use a third of the troops and make the combat area narrower...

Cheers
Olle

[Chaplain]

Okay - I have some more time I can devote to this now.

Say use a third of the troops and make the combat area narrower...

Actually, that is the final goal. With the bigger battle plan in place, we can now focus on the battalian actions. Or, the actions of one particular battalion. Then, we have focus it a bit narrower yet and focus on the actions of several platoons or companies. Those actions become the actual SB scenarios. In play I believe the Blue team will lead with a platoon of tanks all controlled by human players, supported by a platoon controlled by several more human players. When a tank gets killed or crippled, the human player jumps to a tank in the supporting plantoon. If a bunch of tanks get taken out, then those players jump to fill the next platoon in line which then moves to continue the advance.

Why go through all the trouble of starting at the division level? because then the players know why they have to stay within the boundaries given to them in each operation. To make the scenario work over a reasonable network the force sizes have to stay small, but it seems difficult for players in an MP game to accept any boundaries except those of the map edge. Therefore, we have company\battalion sized forces fighting on the geographic scale of a division or corps. (I know, I know - some battles in real life have such a light density of combatants, but such battles will often become sniper battles. It seems that many of us would like to play higher-density battles where close-coordination and units formations become the best way to fight and win.)

In addition, a single large-scale battle can then become a mini-campaign for SB. This big battle would likely last for at least 8 hours - it could last several days. As each 30-90 minute plantoon and/or company action is played out in SB, the next battle can be adjusted to reflect what happened. This also means that there will never be a time when the two sides are whittled down to 2 tanks on a side, playing cat-and-mouse, with 4-6 players sitting on the sidelines because there aren't enough tanks for them anymore. When the attacking force in a scenario loses more than a few tanks, the emphasis of the battle shifts to the next phase. In fact, if the blue side is down below 1-tank-per-player, it has lost that phase of the battle.

Finally, this would force a more "doctrinal" NATO-WP battle. The blue side will have mostly human-controlled tanks leading. The red side will have human players, too, but they will be forced to make decisions for a much larger number of units than the blue side. The result will be less flexibility on the WP side - not because they are stupid or because they have to use "artificial" tactics, but because more reliance on formations and "simpler" tactics is necessary when there is a smaller ratio of decision makers on one side than the other. Anyone who has played Command Decision or similar miniatures games knows how this works.

[TaNkB0y]

One other thing I am trying to ensure is that the lead companies and platoons keep casualties to a resonable level. If a company loses more than a few vehicles it should go to ground and allow the next company to carry on the advance. That gives the company a chance to consolidte. The tendency in MP is to fight until all one's lead vehicles are all destroyed and then bring up some reserves. Too many people have read books like Team Yankee and think that operations where a company fights on its own are the norm. Well, they happen, but I do not believe they are very common.

Its "sim-bravery". You get it in real life while doing field exercises with MILES gear. Its just laser beams and simulators so everyone is alot braver and fearless than they would be if the bullets were real. At the NTC you often see entire companies strung out and a' blinking along a axis of advance as they pushed against an OPFOR defense down to the last tank. In real life they would move alot more carefully and would think twice about following the tank that just burst into flames in front of them.
So in that sense, SB is more realistic than real combat. hehehe

Too many people have read books like Team Yankee and think that operations where a company fights on its own are the norm. Well, they happen, but I do not believe they are very common.

Eh, depends on your perspective in the fight. The company is the highest level in which the individual units (AFVs and Squads) interact directly. For everyone below the company/troop commander, it pretty much just is thier own little fight. Even the commander has his specific mission & plan and manuvers his platoons in coordination with but independently of the Batt. & Bde its working within.

Nice massive scenario, I wonder if my puny PC can even run it...

[Chaplain]

Eh, depends on your perspective in the fight. The company is the highest level in which the individual units (AFVs and Squads) interact directly. For everyone below the company/troop commander, it pretty much just is thier own little fight. Even the commander has his specific mission & plan and manuvers his platoons in coordination with but independently of the Batt. & Bde its working within.


If your talking about how a battle is perceived, I agree - each small fight will seem independent of any others to the soldiers who participate in it. However, in Team Yankee, the team was geographically independent of the higher command in almost every battle. I do not believe that is the norm for armored warfare.

[ShermansWar]

This might not be the right thread for this, and I'll probably bring it up somewhere else, but I have 2 questions. First, if SB is an accurate sim, then shouldn't the tactics that work in SB work in real life?If not, why not? Just because it's not doctrine doesn't mean it doesn't work. And 2, going over potential fronatges in my head where the US might find itself in a conflict, and considering the force levels deployed, might we not find ourselves fighting on frontages like we find in SB, simply because if we have to cover a 50 mile front with 1 division, might we not come up with scenarios like we have?Before you say a 50 mile front is unrealistic, consider how many divisions we have and where we might be deployed. Frontages even much greater than that are possible, and i wonder how many miles of frontage each division is responsible for in Iraq , Korea and Europe now. I do like the idea of games like you guys are designing and would play them, however.It's always good to replicate doctrine, but for me, half the fun is seeing what other tactics might work, as oppossed to trying to replicate SOP.

[Ssnake]

Steel Beasts is comparatively realistic. That is, in comparison to other computer games featuring tanks. It also is realistic in terms of the portrayal of basic maneuver procedures, of the sequence of actions to take to master the fire control systems of the two portrayed tanks, and somewhat realistic as far as the damage model is concerned (even though it has a couple of simplifications). Nevertheless, Steel Beasts is a model of reality, and must not be confused with reality itself. We can predict the past with SB (tweaking the in-game model parameters until the results of a virtual battle match the results of historical battles fought under the same circumstances).

That does not necessarily apply to future combat actions. It also works only within a limited envelope of conditions. For example, the hull-down finding algorithm works well only in rolling terrain. The dismounts and vehicles recognize a building as a mobility obstacle, but not as a form of cover, fortification, and a place for ambush. Therefore all combat simulation in built-up area will probably yield invalid results/inaccurate predictions. Finally, the vast majority of combat units in the sum of all Steel Beasts scenarios are computer controlled and scripted. You can therefore see the results of computers fighting other computers. That's not necessarily a good basis to draw conclusions on real life.

[ShermansWar]

So you would say then that SB is not a good tool for testing new tactical concepts?Or is that what you just said.

[DrDevice]

Sherman,

You are right, the tactics should work, but they don't because we players cannot give trust to the AI. It cannot take initiative, and cannot predict and react without a good deal of guidance from the player (which we are usually to busy to do if we are attempting to crew 14+ vehicles plus support) and cannot "look out for me" as a good wingman should.

It's a simple game limitation, but I imagine that if the game play were with fully-manned tanks, or at least one tank per player, with communication approximating real conditions, you would see a lot more "actual tactics" than we do on average. Our play style has adapted to the limitations of this excellent, but limited by technology, simulation.

I am inspired that many of us seem to be seeking alternatives to "Tank Quake" and are wrestling with the best way to simulate this within our beloved game. It reinforces my beliefs on MP at this time:

You are only 1 player...you can't command more than about a platoon + support and expect any real control of the battle. IRL, commanders have to rely on the initiative of their subordinates to execute their orders to the best of their ability. Unfortunately, we can't afford that in SB.

So how do we change that without stagnating gameplay? Chap is onto a great idea...it's about the small fight inside the larger context. And how we players can simulate that intensity, that sense of mission and that sense of consequence. (see the "How hard do you fight" thread)

My post regarding MP was in this same vein. I am working to get some smaller scenes together, without the "big picture" aspect, but along the lines of the SP scenes I've played so far: METT-T, mission oriented, etc. etc. I am also planning to design the scenarios as "training" with allied units practicing against one another, rather than attempting to simulate WP or other non-NATO forces with their doctrinal differences. (which most players would be reluctant to simulate in my opinion). My hopes are for better gameplay experience (for me at any rate) by more detailed planning, better team cooperation, and goal-oriented victory conditions.

[TaNkB0y]

Chaplain- Literary license?

Sherm- A Division is easily capable of defending 50 liner miles of front. Hell, Ft. Irwin isn't even big enough for a measly brigade to really stretch out.
Most of the main units are either in assembly areas or at stratigic points with the scouts and Cav screen out front. Once contact is made and the enemy's intentions are found, then units are manuvered to form a defensive line.
A textbook example is early months of Desert Shield where the 82nd and 101st held the Saudi/Kuwaiti/Iraqi border "alone".

There is nothing wrong with innovation. I've played with simulatiing light armored forces (Strikers) in SB against conventional forces. I used the nearest equivelent (BTRs & BRDMs) in both the defense and offense. The results were interesting but rather scary at the same time.
I should polish them up and publish them...

[mapman]

One Idea would be to take the narrow trace the human players were going to play on and then on the traces to either side, set up fully scipted AI battles.

This would simulate being part of a larger offensive while keeping the number of human controled units to a minimum.

Might help with the immersion factor too.....

[Chaplain]

The battle I have created here is based on a WWII battle between Germany and the USSR. In that battle the density of combatants was considered "typical," and I actually reduced it by at least 25% because of the lack of supporting units (like AA and SP FA assets) in SB. I'll double check this, but I believe the frontage for a Coalition armor divsion in GWI was about 10 miles on defense and 5 miles on offense. That was on a pool table, not in hilly, wooded terrain, where the frontage drops by a considerable amount.

Remember the discussion in the FFZ about tactical and strategic? That comes into play here. Strategically the US does not have enough divisions to have one/50 miles of our borders. However, when the US Army makes an attack, it will usually do so on a narrow front with multiple divisions - that is the tactical side of the equation. While battles do occur outside of the main operational area, and those battles might have a low density, much of the hard fighting will occur in the high-density areas.

TaNkBoy - I have no problem with Team Yankee as a book- my concern is that many people seem to think it was of a "typcial" company fighting in "typical" battles. In the book, Bannon (SP?) himself grumbled because his team kept ending up on its own, rather than working in coordination with adjecent units.

[Chaplain]

One Idea would be to take the narrow trace the human players were going to play on and then on the traces to either side, set up fully scipted AI battles.

This would simulate being part of a larger offensive while keeping the number of human controled units to a minimum.

Might help with the immersion factor too.....

For MP games, that eats lots of bandwidth, doesn't it?

The scenarios would also take much, much more time to create because of all the extra routes - at least if the surrounding fights are to be realistic. I know I don't have that kind of time.

[mapman]

Well....one could always make that an optional scr where the units are available, but each CO would have to set up his AI and hope for the best....or...have one player on each side who are only allowed to control the AI, but not the individual tanks....yeah...it might be tough on Bandwidth...:-(

[TaNkB0y]

Its just window dressing.
You don't have to simulate the entire left and right flank units. Just those elements closest to the sector boundary. If you have a battalion level fight, just adding a company or so of both the friendly and enemy on either side is good enough to get the simulation that the player(s) is part of a combined operation. Each side should be able to shoot out of sector, but I'd put penalty zones along it to keep players from blundering off their path.
From a gaming standpoint, these side shows shouldn't count towards the player's victory conditions and should be predictable (a draw)so that the players actions decide the outcome of the engagement.

[YdnarB]

If a MP game was played with fully manned tanks, or nearly so, wouldn't real life tactics be more accurately modeled? Would the tactics and methods AA and other SB studs use be as effective on a real battlefield as they are in SB? Assuming real battlefield contained only the units modeled in SB. How do the best in SB online compare to how well real-life tankers would fight?

Do the military units using SB use SB to only roughly model their own established tactics or do they ever play SB and say, 'damn, we ought to try that out in the field.' Ever hear of that happening? And if SB is that effective, should it be available to the general public?

Lunch rambling over...

[Hell_Hound]

This might not be the right thread for this, and I'll probably bring it up somewhere else, but I have 2 questions. First, if SB is an accurate sim, then shouldn't the tactics that work in SB work in real life?If not, why not?

Long have I meditated on this, although I was coming at it from the other end - "If SB is an accurate sim, shouldn't the tactics that work in real life work in SB?"

Here's what I came up with:

i) Sniper effectiveness is exaggerated in SB because the TIS model is too good. This is being addressed; SB2 is expected to have noise on the TIS display to reflect real-life effectiveness and reduce pixel-hunting.

ii) In typical conditions, members of a platoon don't react when another platoon member takes fire - they sit (or roll on) phlegmatically. In a real platoon, shooting at one tank would result in at least that tank and its fire team partner engaging you. Hence a group of four tanks, which should be more than four times as powerful as a single tank, isn't.
I've suggested that members of a platoon be telepathically linked, so that when one member spots a target the other members become aware of it after a certain delay (5 seconds or so). This is clearly a brilliant suggestion :wink: which would contribute to what Ssnake calls "realism of result", but I don't know if anything of the kind is planned.

iii) Strategic surprise is not possible. Attacks in SB are always met by forces at a state of highest alert, with fully crewed and prepared vehicles.
Little can be done about this, except to give defenders big frontages so that they can't be strong everywhere and have to use recce and guesswork to situate their defenses.

iv) The psychological effect of armor attacks is non-existent, so panic and confusion don't take hold.
In fairness, no computer game has ever made me sweat so much, or my hands shake so much. Given that Volcano Man is improving the sounds, I think everything that can be done about this, is being done.

v) Comms and passage of intel are perfect as long as the radio's working, which means that commando tanks never get fratted, commando tanks never frat anyone and any attempt at a breakthrough is instantly recognized, contained and smashed.
If we could lock certain views in multiplayer, we could deprive players of the F5 map (selectively, perhaps, so the CO can still see it but nobody else?) and give everyone a C2I handicap. As mentioned previously, though, a lot of the platoon control functions are only accessible through the F5 map so there would have to be some method of keeping the F5 functionality while reducing its information value.

[Hell_Hound]

Follow-up on the F5 view:

What if you took a typical MP scenario and gave every single vehicle radio damage? Suddenly massed-armor would be the only way to go. :twisted:

[12Alfa]

One Idea would be to take the narrow trace the human players were going to play on and then on the traces to either side, set up fully scipted AI battles.

This would simulate being part of a larger offensive while keeping the number of human controled units to a minimum.

Might help with the immersion factor too.....

The last set of Battle Labs were of this kind, how did you like them?


On the victory conditions:
I like to design missions with no editor placed victory conditions, this i find is faster. If the breifing is clear, and the playback and stats are on, you can see the conditions are met(most times) from the breif.Don't get wraped around this detail if you can spell it out in the breif.

My 2 cents


12Alfa
Lost but making good time.

[YdnarB]

The psychological effect of armor attacks is non-existent, so panic and confusion don't take hold.

This is how I explain it to myself when I have an entire squad of infantry refuse to shoot and start running in circles while being machine gunned. Or when they walk up on a flank of a tank, fire 2 -3 times, miss all three, then get machine gunned. If that isn't panic (me wailing on the E and F buttons) and confusion, I don't know what is. 8)

Some times infantry is deadly, sometimes they are the 6 stooges.

[TaNkB0y]

The map is the antidote to "sim-disorientation". Try navigating a tank around without the map. It sucks, I once drove my platoon off the "edge of the world" once in SIMNET... :(
I would suggest limiting or eliminating the auto placement of enemy icons on the map. This would be more realistic as it would require TCs to "listen" to spot reports and remember where the enemy was. This would limit the tendency to play chess with the map.
But on the other hand... The M1A2s or anything else equiped with the EPLARS system (or the NATO equivelent) sees a map very similar to how SB works. So maybe keep it but just build in a delay between when the spot report is given and when the icons get painted to the map...

[TaNkB0y]

Follow-up on the F5 view:

What if you took a typical MP scenario and gave every single vehicle radio damage? Suddenly massed-armor would be the only way to go. :twisted:

That didn't work to well for France in '39...
:roll:

[12Alfa]

[quote="Hell_Hound"][quote="ShermansWar"]"If SB is an accurate sim, shouldn't the tactics that work in real life work in SB?"

Here's what I came up with:

i) Sniper effectiveness is exaggerated in SB because the TIS model is too good. Why not disable the TIS?.

ii) In typical conditions, members of a platoon don't react when another platoon member takes fire - they sit (or roll on) phlegmatically. In a real platoon, shooting at one tank would result in at least that tank and its fire team partner engaging you. Hence a group of four tanks, which should be more than four times as powerful as a single tank, isn't.
I've suggested that members of a platoon be telepathically linked, so that when one member spots a target the other members become aware of it after a certain delay (5 seconds or so). .
LOL

iii) Strategic surprise is not possible. Attacks in SB are always met by forces at a state of highest alert, with fully crewed and prepared vehicles.
Tun the enemy away from your attack and engine off.....

iv) The psychological effect of armor attacks is non-existent, so panic and confusion don't take hold.

Well I think you haven't played long enough,the effect is present in SB, ever jump in your computer chair when hit?, Ever under fire hit the wrong key?, so you haven't played where you were in a panic?, and your never confused?...hmmmmmmmm.

v) Comms and passage of intel are perfect as long as the radio's working, which means that commando tanks never get fratted, commando tanks never frat anyone and any attempt at a breakthrough is instantly recognized, contained and smashed.
[color=#ff0000]
What is a commando tank?color][

12Alfa

[DrDevice]

I agree that the TC's god gift of auto ID for friend, foe, and destroyed tanks is a bit much. The map provides the functionality need by a sim (as TankBoy mentioned) and does a fairly good job of "stale" intel. If someone sees you, sure, you are plotted, but they have to maintain contact to keep that up. More than once I've blundered into or surprised someone who thought I was somewhere else.

Maybe future AI TCs and gunners will have an ability to ID targets based on their experience/rating? Games like the Combat Mission series model this.The longer you observer, the more detailed the report gets. Is this possible for SB as a real-time sim? First, a general sound contact, then a vehicle visual id, then a type ID, then a model ID if you are lucky. Trying to ID a recon BRDM vs an AT version and a T-72 vs a T-80 at 4000m isn't easy.

The hesitation and C2 factors lost by less-than-perfect TCs would greatly increase the need for unit cohesion and awareness.

YdnarB - I agree that fully manned tanks would offer more...but no one seems to want to have their tank shot out from under them and then wait it out. I think platoons are enough that players can effectively control their unit, yet still have a "3 strikes and you are out" style of play. After your forces are gone, you move up to the Company commander's support units, or wherever he deems the team to need help, maybe assisting another platoon. Many players can make even uncrewable vehicles a LOT more dangerous and effective, like HMMWVs for arty spotters. :twisted:

[mapman]

Follow-up on the F5 view:

What if you took a typical MP scenario and gave every single vehicle radio damage? Suddenly massed-armor would be the only way to go. :twisted:

Only problem with that is you would never find out what your reccon knows.

What if they were all set on blind with no TIS? Then if a human didn't see and correctly identify the target, it does not get hit.

Also, it would be up to the players to advise their CO of target locations and the CO to add graphic references for the targets that were spoted.

The APCs and Troops would not be blind, but all the manable tanks would be.

That should make for some realistic play! :D

[mapman]

12Alfa wrote,

The last set of Battle Labs were of this kind, how did you like them?

Unfortunatly I was unable to attend any of the module two BLs and they are not available on your BL website.

I would love to check them out!

[Ssnake]

So you would say then that SB is not a good tool for testing new tactical concepts?Or is that what you just said.
That's what I tell our Army customers, yes. You see, game design - even if it is closely tied to the simulation business - as also a lot about "convincing deception" of the user. because we do not have unlimited computing power, a game developer just as much as a movie director is forced to cutting corners now and then.

For a movie director it is impossible to have people shot with life rounds in a war movie - he must resort to trickery like suggestive scene cuts and special effects. Likewise a computer game designer's "prime directive" is to support a suspension of disbelief so it appears as real as possible to the player. That doesn't make it real, though. Computer controlled units are supposed to mimic human behavior, there are no known algorithms to accurately predict and simulate human behavior - especially not several hundred in real-time conditions on a single PC. If that were possible, why not have entire wars fought completely with combat robots?


Computer control logic is closely tied to the artificial and simplified laws of the virtual environment. If the laws of this virtual reality do not allow vehicle roll-overs, the behavioral algorithms for vehicle movement need not take this possibility into account. If you then change the laws of the virtual world but leave everything else as it was before, be prepared to see a LOT of vehicles rolling over.

Therefore, a model of reality as our simulation inevitably simplifies wherever it appears to be acceptable - that is, without endangering the suspension of disbelief. That means that the laws in the virtual environment must be similar enough to support the willingness of the human psyche to accept the artificial sensorical input as "reality" on a subconscious level (just like in a good movie, or even so comparatively simplistic shooters like Doom).
Since our goal is to fool even experts (people who are active or retired tank crews), our method of cutting corners doesn't allow gross deviations of reality. Nevertheless, there are serious simplifications. In SB1 for example you will never find steep cliffs - simply because the rendering algorithm doesn't support this type of gradient (or slope) well. Consequently you are presented selective information - you get rolling hills as the dominant form of landscape. You can paint the hills yellow to make them look like sand dunes, or green to turn the desert into lush meadows. Nevertheless, it remains rolling hills with moderate to shallow slopes.

That isn't distracting at first sight, simply because this is ideal tank terrain, and one would expect to see tanks in combat operations in exactly this type of landscape. It could therefore be considered a "justified simplification".

But make no mistake: The behavioral routines of the tanks in Steel Beasts are based on the assumption that the terrain will always be "rolling hills", and the highest point won't be higher than 100m above the lowest point of a map. Tanks will always assume that they can knock down trees that stand in the way. Make the trees indestructible, and the computer controlled drivers get into truckloads of trouble.


Now, if a computer controlled driver can't even determine at first sight that the forest ahead is impassable - how can anyone seriously expect that the results of a test run of innovative tactical concepts have a strong relevance in reality?
At best you can hope for a suggestion that it just might work out - but you would still need to verify this hypothesis with better tools, e.g. a MILES exercise. And then it still would be simulation, with all its good and bad aspects - e.g. the simulated bravery. Since troops know that they can't get hurt (after all, that's the point of exercises), they tend to act braver than they do in reality.


Even with all these restrictions, Steel Beasts isn't worthless as a training tool. But use it as it was intended - to illustrate and practice basic maneuver and tested tactics, not so much as a test lab for future wars. But that advice applies to each and every simulation, not just Steel Beasts.
;)

[Ssnake]

BTW: Lots of good suggestions in here. Keep it going!

[Hell_Hound]

iii) Strategic surprise is not possible. Attacks in SB are always met by forces at a state of highest alert, with fully crewed and prepared vehicles.
Tun the enemy away from your attack and engine off.....

Leopards take about two seconds to spark, and maybe 4-5 seconds to do a 180. I'm not sure that qualifies as strategic surprise. :)

iv) The psychological effect of armor attacks is non-existent, so panic and confusion don't take hold.

Well I think you haven't played long enough,the effect is present in SB, ever jump in your computer chair when hit?, Ever under fire hit the wrong key?, so you haven't played where you were in a panic?, and your never confused?...hmmmmmmmm.

Yes, yes, no and not often. I've often unsure where the fire is coming from or unsure what to do next, but not to the point where I'm unhinged and in total chaos. For total chaos, think fratricides, panicked crews abandoning their vehicles upon getting hit and mass routing as in episode 4 of Band of Brothers.

v) Comms and passage of intel are perfect as long as the radio's working, which means that commando tanks never get fratted, commando tanks never frat anyone and any attempt at a breakthrough is instantly recognized, contained and smashed.

What is a commando tank?

I'll show ya sometime. :twisted:

[ShermansWar]

Very informative, Ssnake. I was thinking about it's use as a tactic concept tool when using humans crews, i can see the restrictions on the AI.
also thanks for your response, HH

[Ssnake]

Very informative, Ssnake. I was thinking about it's use as a tactic concept tool when using humans crews, i can see the restrictions on the AI.
also thanks for your response, HH
Might work, but you're abandoning the option of quantitative analysis (you can't run many iterations of a scenario that way - either because it's manpower intense and therefore costly, or because the crews will learn and adapt to the new tactics so each consecutive run cannot really be compared with the previous); that opens the way to critcise and disregard any findings as "anecdotal" and of no relevance for real life.

Finally, the enemy must be so kind later and adhere with his reactions to the plan. If they don't get the memo...

[mapman]

Hell_Hound wrote,


... but not to the point where I'm unhinged and in total chaos.


Do we really want that kind of realism?

"Honey, why are you crying hysterically? Will you stop shaking please??? You are scaring the children!!!

Awe.....you messed your pants again and we just had your desk chair dry cleaned!!!"

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

[Hell_Hound]

Do we really want that kind of realism?

Probably not. :)

But my point is, a tank company represents six hundred plus tons of pissed-off steel, and the sight of that company assaulting YOUR position is going to put heavy psychological stress on the defenders and affect their performance. Because of the aforementioned "sim bravery", units in SB will always react with unnatural coolheadedness.

It's probably best that way, since watching your troops rout because of terror and noise you don't feel is a frustrating experience...but it's one more reason why an armor assault in SB doesn't have the same oomph that it would in real life.

[PS-SCUD]

"units in SB will always react with unnatural coolheadedness."

You have used troops or PCs lately have you? :lol:

[Hell_Hound]

Except troops, who often react as if their heads are actually frozen solid.

[ShermansWar]

I wonder if somehow morale could be built into a game like this, where say, if they sustain certain level of casualties they wont attack, until they rally( a preset time)

[Grenny]

...panic during an amor attack?

Only after you fired your PzFst and your buddy shouts:"Over!" :shock:

(but I'll be only a short time of panic you have to endure :) )

BTW: when you shut down your engine...how does this affect your thermal signature in SB?

[Puckstop31]

Probably not. :)

But my point is, a tank company represents six hundred plus tons of pissed-off steel, and the sight of that company assaulting YOUR position is going to put heavy psychological stress on the defenders and affect their performance. Because of the aforementioned "sim bravery", units in SB will always react with unnatural coolheadedness.

It's probably best that way, since watching your troops rout because of terror and noise you don't feel is a frustrating experience...but it's one more reason why an armor assault in SB doesn't have the same oomph that it would in real life.

This is me agreeing with this post. Troops especially should be programmed to "hesitate" X amount of seconds before reacting once tanks are close. (> 1000 meters?)

I am a career tank crewman so perhaps I am a little biased, but I am STILL awed by feeling a tank rolling by. (A Leo sounds better than an M1, but that is another discussion.) Another psych factor that could be used is the .50 cal on a M1. That has got to be the scariest sound on earth if your on the receiving end. It just sounds BAD!

Anyway, this is my vote for adding some sort of "fear factor" into the AI. Even if it just causes them to hesitate a second or 2.

[Puckstop31]

...panic during an amor attack?

Only after you fired your PzFst and your buddy shouts:"Over!" :shock:

(but I'll be only a short time of panic you have to endure :) )

BTW: when you shut down your engine...how does this affect your thermal signature in SB?


PzFst... If a tanker is close enough to bad guy infantry where Light AT weapons can be used against him... He F-ed up. :D That is why we break units up into combined arms "Task Forces". "Go get em boys... we got your back... WAYYYYYy back." :lol:

Thermal Sig... Shutting down the engine does not make much of a difference right away. A M1 probably takes about an hour or more to cool down after you shut it off. And, unless you have a APU, your running the tank 15 minutes an hour anyway!

[Grenny]

Afterburner: I just read TaNKboy's post about "sim-bravery" concerning "MILES" or "AGDUS"(thats how we call it).

I witnessed that knowing when you've been hit had the exact opposit effect:
-The troops moved more carefully (If it goes "bang"...jump the ditch)
-you move back if theres too much counter fire
(one time some soldiers even refused orders !!)
etc.

Basicly I think this is as close as you could get to real battle.(without risking injury)
...well I'd hurt my knee onces, but that doesn't count :wink:

[DrDevice]

Grenny- No noticeable difference. Besides...it takes much too long for a vehicle to cool down enough to not show up on thermal imagers. Just ask the Apache pilots picking off T-72s in Desert Storm from their heat signatures hours after they were turned off by their operators. And even with them buried up to their turrets!

Sherman - Check out the Combat Mission series for pretty good portrayals of morale effects on troops and their actions. I think that level of AI is beyond what the SB team had in mind. Since crews have no quantifiable training level, experience level, etc. morale and some other things are rolled into the basic decision-making AI. Since Combat Mission is turn-based/hybrid the troops are always under AI control, with player order making and guidance; a different animal all together.

[Grenny]

APU ??
extra batteries?

(btw: Leo 2/A5 (A4 I don't know) can operate all systems for XX-hours without starting its engine...)

[Puckstop31]

APU ??
extra batteries?

(btw: Leo 2/A5 (A4 I don't know) can operate all systems for XX-hours without starting its engine...)


Sorry, APU = Auxillary Power Unit. Basically it is a little motor that supplies power when the engine is off. The older version is this big box attached to the rear of the tank. Being in a reserve unit now, this is what we have. I heard there is a new internal APU for the M1.

This is needed because the M1 uses 50 gallons per hour moving or sitting still.

[Poker]

I can attest to the "Sim bravery" theory of knowing if it's real or not.
Any of you who went through Basic will remember the field with the barbed wire, etc... and the 2 machine gun nests that fired over your head.
You were supposed to low crawl across this field.............. but myself and 1 other knew that the machine guns had stops on their elevations so that they cannot fire below a certain level (safety).
Assertaining that this was approx set for 5 ft, we didn't bother low crawling, but crouched and moved much faster though the field, only getting down for the back crawl under the barbed wire.
The 2 of us were across that field at least 10 minutes before most of the others. Sadly, our reasoning for this was so we could haul ass to the woodline and smoke a cigarette before the Drill Sgt.'s got there ! (Mine was the first rotation where smoking was banned for both Basic and AIT.
With the knowledge that we would not get injured, we took advantage of the situation in order to complete our task - if we thought we might get shot, I for one would have been the lowest of the low crawlers !!!!

[Newbie-Olle]

Turn the enemy away from your attack and engine off...Unfortunately you can't start a battle with the computer controlled vehicles' engines off, unless the vehicles start as "destroyed". (But you can, and probably should, start them facing away from the enemy.)
For player controlled vehicles it works to have them set up in the correct starting positions, facing the right way, but initially computer controlled and set to "blind". Then they're set to "Players if ..." with a suitable trigger and delay. The player can be allowed to toy around with some forward recon units in the meanwhile...

Cheers
Olle

[NEpi]

you're refering to "sim bravery" as essensially a bad thing. it doesn't have to be.
a sim is the perfect place to try stuff, and suffer much more minor consequences. it also can make soldiers used to the idea they have to run through fire (you DO get used to being shot at). after that training phase, soldiers are much better than before, because they can be more coolheaded than they would have been without the sim.

also, there's a big question wether any of that realism have any effect on the quality of training. there is some research concerning such effects. most of it is classified.
anyway, you can train quite well without sitting in a turret being steamed in 50-60 celsius. really :-) so at what point realism is redundant?

ssnake, for your post: i disagree with you. you can use methods to reduce such training factors, like leting them train a lot on the other factors, changing factors in the scenario leaving only the abstract concepts you with to research constant, and using control group for comparison, while making sure your assignment to groups is random (or echelon-sampled).

[Ssnake]

Yes, but that requires a LOT of effort which one could easily invest into real-life exercise in a MOUT village, for example.

[m1a1vha]

i could go on and on about how realistic i want my game, but i think i will have to wait for SB3/4 to see it. rocks on the ground, actual shrapnel from HE fire with penetrating abiltiy (though very weak), troops using houses as bunckers, using jamming equipment, listening to enemy radio chatter, civilian cars, refugees, food aid trucks, radio transmisson failure to atmospheric phenomina, rain that turns the ground into quagmire, damage representation on all hit structures and AFVs,...etc. just to mention a few.

but its still a game. i like the realisem and try to overlook the fact that its not real with actual people dying in a bloody mess. "war is hell" as the saying goes.

[NEpi]

RL excercises cost imaginary sums of money. manpower is MUCH cheaper.

[Chaplain]

Okay, let's look at this from a different angle. Most of the guys who defend sniper tanks talk about having to defend a large area. OK - sniper tank tactics may make sense then, even IRL, because you want to cover as much area as possible per tank.

However, what about when you are on the attack? Then, the key is MASS. That means, you pack your tanks AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE, given METT-T considerations. You want to strike hard and overrun quickly AT ONE POINT OF CONTACT. Now, as close as possible might mean one tank every 50 meters in one case and one tank every 200 meters in another, but the goal is focused combat power. Whether the attacker uses rigid or flexible formations, he will be using highly coordinated maneuvers to keep his force from tripping over itself.

Now, to defend from an expected deliberate attack, one needs to counter this dense-packed spearhead. One still needs to spread his force out to cover his whole sector, but he will reinforce and layer the defenses where he expects the attack to hit. The battle that I started this thread with is an example of a deliberate attack that was expected and therefore defended against in depth, and I am confident that the battle densities are not unreasonable for a key piece of terrain. The attacker will strike hard, so the defender has to be prepared for such a strike.

This is the battle density that I would like to see modeled. The trick is to create it given the limitations of SB and the limitations of Internet MP.

[Chaplain]

OK - I did some rechecking on GWI.

The defending Iraqi divisions where typically holding a 10 mile/16 km front. There were gaps, where smaller units were spread out over wider areas, but except for the border itself they relied on densely-packed brigades at important points instead of trying to spread out to cover the entire front. This style of defense fits the experience of most previous wars involving modern armies - even most previous wars going back through human history, I believe.

In the east, most of the Coalition divisions were also holding 16 km fronts, though they had enough brigades that there were not many gaps. 1st Cavalry was the hingepin, so it was atypical in that it was spread out over a 32-40 km front. To the west, the attacking British and American divisions who would make contact fairly early were spread between 8-16 km (the really dense ones were in the rear, still in brigade column formation) and the divisions WAY to the west were spread out on 16-24 km fronts.

At one point early in the advance, the 1ID ended up spread out to 32-40 km. Rather than continue the push, they passed the 1AD (UK) through to continue the advance while they consolidated. They did not try to continue until they could regain a density better suited to offensive operations.

For many of the ongoing attacks, it was often an Iragi division on a 16 km front or a lone brigade on an 8 km front defending against American units of similar size attacking with similar frontage. Those American forces would either destroy them through superior firepower or fix them while other American units would maneuver to flank them. This, of course, only works when there are enough follow-on brigades to be able to do this maneuvering. If the US and British forces had not been packed in during the early phases of the offensive (which meant that many battalions were simply following the leader), they would not have been able to continue such a rapid advance.

These distances are approximate because the only record that I could find that describes this information in enough detail is a very carefully researched wargame by Frank Chadwick. He used an 8 km hex-grid to represent movements and positions of units.

In a European war, these distances would be decreased significantly because of the differing terrain.

Okay, then - how wide is the map in SB? Wide enough for at least a division on a flat desert map, and several divisions online on a European map. Battles would alternate between meeting engagements in the gaps, where you might have a cavalry regiment spread out to cover the entire map, and major battles with many, many units packing the map fairly tightly. The light-density battles are easier to create in SB, and they are also easier to play in MP mode. Thus, there are very popular. Though they certainly take place IRL, I believe that most soldiers will spend their time fighting in the high-density battles. Why? Because one high-density battle will involve more tankers and infantry than a dozen low-density battles. Even if the low density battles can be showed to be more common numerically, do they occur at least 10 X as often? My study of military history does not lead me to believe so.

(My apologies to those who might think I am belaboring this issue.)

[NEpi]

while agreeing with your results of the extensive historian research, i disagree with the conclusions.
as time goes by, and technology evolve, tanks and air assets become more and more lethgal for the same price. that means the same number of pieces can now occupy much more territory. i think that was one of the conclusions from, GWI, actually.

lets look at GWII: 500 tanks taken control over a really big country with ease. they were spread over very deep fronts too. 2 british comando regiments took control of the whole western parts of Iraq, while using novel mobile techniques. american and british armor had very few armor vs. armor combat, since the airoplanes did all the work with standoff percise missiles costing 1/100th of a tomahawk. that means that:
1. fewer pieces CAN be spread quite widely, as long as they've got enough support.
2. those who fail to spread get screwed by the support of the other side.

SB depicts a certain point in time, in which GWII was not yet on the horizon, so historically, you're right. on the other hand, the "empty battlefield" paradigm might be correct for future confrontations, and that means no more real high-density battles.

[Viper-3]

But on the other hand... The M1A2s or anything else equiped with the EPLARS system (or the NATO equivelent) sees a map very similar to how SB works. So maybe keep it but just build in a delay between when the spot report is given and when the icons get painted to the map...

Hmm,

I was on the EPLRS fielding team and I have yet to see a EPLRS radios set show any type of map. The only display is a handheld keypad that displays numbers and various other characters. There is no graphical display even close to a map view in SB. And eplrs is very slow to update your position or a friendly units position. You must be talking about the second generation BCIS. ???

[Viper-3]

A textbook example is early months of Desert Shield where the 82nd and 101st held the Saudi/Kuwaiti/Iraqi border "alone"


On the 9th of August, members of the 82nd arrived in Saudi. Shortly followed by some from the 101st. But neither were the first US soldiers in the sand. A Patriot battery from Turkey was the solo defenders of Iraqi aggression the first couple days. On or about the 12th - 18th of August elements of the IRC and DRF1 from the 24th Inf Div begun arriving in Saudi and quickly dispersed to protect the Port facility from attack by land,sea and air. I happened to be one of those early defenders.

Our entire DRF and IRC package was on the ground and fully operational before any more soldiers from the 82nd or 101st ( exception of Apache crews) even arrived. Neither of them ever held the line by themselves and certainly they never were alone for months as you stated.

[Chaplain]

Plus, if Iraq had pushed into Saudi Arabia during the early weeks of the 18th Airborne Corps' deployment, the 82 and 101 would have simply ceased to exist. They weren't defending the border - they were simply a tripwire to prevent Saddam from doing anything even more stupid than he already had done.

I agree with you, NEpi, that times may be changing. We'll have to see what happens when two REAL armies fight with modern equipment. That was not the case in GWII. Of course, it may be generations before that happens again. Ane wouldn't that be wonderful?

[NEpi]

you're such an optimist, chap

[mapman]

So for a higher density battle representing earlier war times, we might want to use older ammo and turn off the TIS all together?

[Chaplain]

I'd go for older ammo, but not turning off TIS. All M1's, M2's and M901's had thermal sights from the get go. Even the M60's were upgraded to all have thermal sights before the end of the 1980's (maybe earlier), at least in the Army. I suspect that removing TIS altogether would make things just as "unhistorical" but in a different way.

[Newbie-Olle]

... a very carefully researched wargame by Frank Chadwick.Which game?
I like Chadwick's games and generally find all of them based on the latest available research and facts at the time they're written.

Cheers
Olle

[Chaplain]

Phase Line Smash - a solitaire game about the ground war phase of GWI. (Solitaire? "Who would you get to play the Iraqis?" :lol:)

Because the game is only about GWI, it not only gives rules, but it also give a fairly thorough, blow-by-blow account of how the actual fighting took place. Since Chadwick describes a number of the actions by the game's hex grid, one can determine the frontages of a number of units at key times during the war.

One thing to note about the rules of this game. If ANY Coalition battalion takes heavy casualties such that it has to be removed from play, the Coalition side immediately LOSES THE ENTIRE GAME! :shock: Force preservation is critial to win. This is because the Coalition took such light casualties during the real war - if you want to win the game, you must conduct the campaign to do as well or better!

How about that for victory conditions for the NATO player in SB? If you lose more than 10% casualties against WP-type units, you cannot achieve better than a tie! If you lose more than 30%, YOU LOSE, no matter what else you achieved! It would not be appropriate for every scenario, of course, but it should be for at least some.

[NEpi]

chap, i disagree. i think turning off the TIS is a good move, as TIS in SB is MUCH too clear to consider, and usually daytime allows good enough day channel anyway. if not, then the TIS should have been quite obscure also (most of the times).
on the other hand, those 4km shots...

[Chaplain]

Remember, TIS is needed when the enemy uses smoke. The US forces used that capability to great effect in GWI, and smoke is used a fair amount by WP units in SB. I can't argue about whether the TIS model in SB gives the NATO player too much of an advantage, but to remove it entirely would remove too much of his real-world advantage.

[Newbie-Olle]

Phase Line Smash - a solitaire game about the ground war phase of GWI. (Solitaire? "Who would you get to play the Iraqis?" :lol:)I don't know the name of the game, but I saw a board game about GWI some 10yrs ago.
You could play it with two players either using historical units or, if you felt cheezy, provide Iraq with reinforcements in the form of Godzilla and some powerful "LASER death ray weapon"... :twisted:
... i vagely even seem to recall that there were some WW2 Waffen-SS to throw into the mix as well. 8)

Cheers
Olle