Steel Beasts vs. Real Life: Communicating

[GaryOwen]

Real-life tankers also stick together so they can maintain command and control using hand signals and the Mk 1 eyeball instead of radio.

A moderately-sophisticated enemy like the USSR will punish your use of radio by jamming you off the air; a highly sophisticated enemy like the US Air Force will either tell their army about you, or hammer you with anti-tank missiles from twenty miles out.

When in basic training some twenty-odd years ago, my drill sergeants explained that there were three skill sets that a soldier needed to master in order to be tactically proficient. A soldier must be able to proficiently Move, Shoot, and Communicate.

My dated and obsolete copy of the Soldier's Manual of Common Tasks, STP 21-1 SMCT (1990), divides its tasks into the following headings: See, Communicate, Navigate, Shoot, Survive.

Communicating, arguably, is something that is fundamental to tactics.

Communications are, however, very simplified in SB. The example of using hand and arm signals is reproduced in game to some degree by the use of the hotkeys for the various formations such as line, wedge, echelon right, etc. Electronic counter-measures, such as radio frequency jamming, can be reproduced to some extent by a scenario design using regions and radio damage.

But instant and complete communication between units in the game can be accomplished by clicking on a unit's symbol on the map-screen or using the go-to-next-unit keystroke command.

The nature of communications in SB lifts quite a bit of the 'fog of war' and consequently, IMO, increases the tempo of the fighting in the game from what the tempo would be in the real world under similar circumstances.

I understand that Jason has experimented with scenarios that use paper maps printed before the game starts rather than using the F5 map screen. Players are then forced, I'm assuming, to actively -- through text or voice chat -- report their locations and situations.

To what extent is this method effective in reproducing friction and slowing down the tempo of play?

Are there other ways to design scenarios or play the game that would also address this issue?

[mapman]

To what extent is this method effective in reproducing friction and slowing down the tempo of play?

The experience was unusual and enjoyable to say the least. If I recall, we did three different versions on three different maps. Much time was spent determining where you were, where your team mates were and what your orientation was to the enemy.

More than once, if trying to join up, you would have others meet you by the south side of the lake, or ask them to turn on their smoke just so you could find them to join up.

Definitly slowed down the tempo, which was challenging when being outflanked by the enemy you were supposed to be keeping from the objective you were defending or when a team mate was calling in a contact, but he was off by a few kilometers...LOL...

[PS-SCUD]

1. The tempo slowed to an absolute crawl.

2. Anything but a deliberate attack was unworkable.

3. Instead of being a joke, the enemy AI was a worthy adversary, and I took serious losses from my encounters with it.


The biggest problem with the AI, is the inability of the computer to effectively manuver its units. This allows the player to use the map screen, fix enemy locations, pick perfect BPs to engage said locations, pull up to the BP, align his turret with the target, then do a berm drill, ready to shoot the hapless AI.

With no map screen, and "godlike" information sharing ability. It is extremely difficult to exactly fix enemy locations, or find those perfect BPs, and thus, the inability of the AI to manuver effectively has less of an effect on its performance.

In addition, units had to be kept in platoon, or section formation, because it was much more difficult to track 16 individual tanks than 4 platoons.

[ShermansWar]

Comms definitely has these effects, I agree.Interesting observation, scud, that the hapless AI is adequate when we dont have the Omniscent comms and intel we get in game. i can see how this differs from real world tactics.

Is IVIS going to change this in the future, and to what extent does actual doctrine permit/allow units within a platoon to be deployed outside of visual contact with each other?are anticipated advances in comms and coordination and command and control systems going to allow units to be deployed the way we do in game, or is this unrealistic for the foreseeable future?

[Homer]

What concerns me is that commanders and soldiers will be so enamored with staring into computer screen that they will forget which end of the binoculars to look into.

The Paper Tiger series (I think that was the name) demostrated what can occur when you become dependent on a technology. This is true in the real and virtual world. I bet if there were never a F5 button in SB, people would have adapted and learned to play without it and be just as proficient. I can only hope that our real soldiers will remember to turn off all those gee-whiz gadgets more often than once in a while and do things the old fashioned way.


MM and Scud: The last one was fun. In fact, we almost won if I remember correctly.

[ShermansWar]

I have a different opinion, Homer. I think the point thats come out of this the discussion, is that without the F5 and constant map intel, that units have to stay within sight of each other. This greatly reduces the area that each unit can cover with it's LOS, and makes a defense more porous by it's nature.You can man multiple Bps with only one tank and a backup apeice if you dont have to stay within eyesight of each other, and thus can man more positions, and have them spread out and have a more effective defense.. This is a major difference between how the game is played and real world tactics.The comms command and control and intel we have in game act as force multiplyers.

We use technology is because it is a force mulitiplyer, and this is a perfect example.The unit with the comms advantage will beat the unit that doesnt, all other things being equal, for no other reason than they can have a decentralized control and deployment.This enables them to man more BPs just as effectively in game.

Your concern about relying too much on a technology is a valid one, at least for SB players. I think in the real world they dont utilize their existing technologies to the extent they could to capitalize on the advantages that can be acheived IF you could maintain the kind of contriol we do with a dispersed force.

I do have concerns about how our forces in general would handle themselves if their sattelites and uplinks were lost or jammed.

[Homer]

Actually Sherman, that was the point I was trying to make... F5 is such an integral part of how we play the game that it affects every part of it: tactics, navigating, communications, etc. Paper Tiger showed exactly how much we are dependent on it.

Now, modern armies are trying to reproduce the "F5 key" in real life because of the reasons that you mentioned. If and when this is accomplished and proves to be reliable, yes, it will revolutionize many aspects of warfare and like us in SB land, they will most likely learn to rely on it... too much... and when they find their own Paper Tiger, will they suffer the same consequences as we did?

[ShermansWar]

It'd a valid concern, I give you that, one I have asked myself more than once.When all of a sudden your fancy systems go down, all those weapons platforms a potential enemy like the russians or chinese have with the ability to put all those round on target with all that weight of shot ( particularly in the case of WP style forces) the advantages we have can very quickly turn to disdvantages, and I agree there should be training in how to work without all the Gizmos as well, so we dont lose basic skillsets we may have to rely on, as we have in the past.

[bewing77]

During my time in the Swedish Armed forces we used a system much like the IVIS. And sure, it helps your SA a great deal, but it can't be trusted blindly. First of all, only units equipped with IVIS themselves are exactly positioned on the map. Other units still have to report their positions the old fashioned way and the co has to add them to the IVIS map. Secondly, enemy contacs is also marked manually into the map, so if the TC who entered the contact made a mistake the enemy unit will show up in the worng location on the maps. This means that you can get an idea of contacts and friendly positions from the system, but you can't trust it to much. Basicly it makes the job of keeping track of things easier and quicker but not more accurate.

That said, we, and I suspect other forces with similar systems, did/do train without all helping systems, just as gunners trains in firing the maingun with the aux-sights, stab knocked out or balistics computer down. It makes you less effective of cource, but you can still fight without it.

[mapman]

IIRC, on one of our FG missions (5 ? ) in which NATO was trying to get our C&C out of the way of the coming onslaught, that our CO, HH, was adding and changing reference points like mad as he directed our feint and retreat to the north.

It would be very nice if SB Pro PE allowed for turning off automatic enemy contacts in F5 and instead actual visual contacts could be manually/graphically entered into the map by anyone in the TC position.

[Hell_Hound]

I understand that Jason has experimented with scenarios that use paper maps printed before the game starts rather than using the F5 map screen. Players are then forced, I'm assuming, to actively -- through text or voice chat -- report their locations and situations.


It was something like 2/3 voice. We used occasional four-figure grids, but before the fight we'd spend some time laying out reference points and used those extensively.

You'd get wonderfully realistic (I guess) reports like "We're on a ridge somewhere west of CITADEL, I hear engine noises to the south. Charlie, are you in that area?" You had to really gather your concentration if you wanted to nail down your location or send a six-figure grid.

To what extent is this method effective in reproducing friction and slowing down the tempo of play?

To an enormous extent. The feeling of isolation is huge; as combat veterans often remark, you just take care of your little piece of the fight and count on everybody else to do the same. When you're not sure what's going on there's a tendency to hold your position and watch to the front.

Two of the scenarios were defenses, and in both cases I gave the defender too much area to cover. This was a little bit intentional because I wanted to force them to reposition and adapt, but I overdid it.

Cross-country navigation was punctuated by stops to re-orient yourself.

Sending one tank forward to snipe would have been just about unthinkable; even if he didn't get fratted there's a strong possibility of blundering into the middle of an enemy formation. Maneuver had to be simple and direct and clearly laid-out beforehand.

After the last one we had pretty much decided we should have one commander who just gave orders and called artillery, either on the F5 map or with a paper map. (With that you could keep your F5 map on the 8X magnification, allowing you to call arty while keeping your situational awareness to a bare minimum.)

It was clumsy and confusing and difficult, and I enjoyed it immensely.

[Kingtiger]

maybe there should be a setting for dificulties about the map? so you can turn of own and enemy forces and arty and mine reports, so all you have is a map with your own markings on, so you dont need to sit with a paper map on your knee (bugger if you dont have a printer)

[ShermansWar]

So what exactly is wrong with the model in the game?What is modeled that doesnt actually exist?are the comms wrong? All they give is typed comms, and i cannot think TS is as efficient as military comms.What does the F5 view actually represent in reality, and how is this innaccurate?

Gary Owen wrote:

1)Communications are, however, very simplified in SB.

How,as concerns electronic communications

2)instant and complete communication between units in the game can be accomplished by clicking on a unit's symbol on the map-screen or using the go-to-next-unit keystroke command.


what isn the difference between this, and using the radio?
also, does not control of a platoon mean you are in control of it?inasmuch as we are able to switch from one unit to another under our command,isnt this appropriate, if we are the sole person in gharge of the platoon? i see this being problematic and unrealistic when one is able to switch into units not under ones direct control. Maybe a game function where you cannot access teamates vehicles not under your direct command would be a good idea?

Also, inasmuch as you AREable to switch from one vehicle to another under your command, the converse is your other units lack your personal control, andd the AI gets half your stuff killed as soon as you leave the unit, so i wonder if it doesnt balance out.
The point you make is a good one, but it seems to me it holds up only as long as it is assumed you have command of only one vehicle. if you have command of multiple vehicles, then you have to be able to switch between them, is my thinong. maybe you have some other thoughts onthis issue as to what degree you should have acces to direct control and intelligence of units under your direct command.
In real life, there is no AI and human man all the vehicles and dont get stuff killed by doing stupid things like cresting, so i cant help but wonder if this is a diouble edged sword, or am I diverging into sommething that ought to be under another thread, titled, "Steel beast vs real life:Command and control"

We need another forum.

[bewing77]

what isn the difference between this, and using the radio?

When using the radio you can of cource never get as full a picture of the other units situation. Sure, this may balance out by stupid AI, but it would be better if one lacking area wasn't balanced by another.

Regarding the F5 screen. Since the Lea2A4 and M1 doesn't have something like an IVIS system it seems to be a representation of your pen and paper map. But it has an extreme ammount of benefits: On the RL map friendly units aren't automaticly drawn in: you (the TC) only get radio reports and have to mark the map yourself. On contact you need to estimate the position of it and draw that on your map + pass it on by radio. Even your own position on the map isn't always acccurata (hmm, is this really the lake I should be sitting next to)

[Newbie-Olle]

The biggest problem with the AI, is the inability of the computer to effectively manuver its units. This allows the player to ... shoot the hapless AI.???
The AI doesn't "maneouvre" the opposing units any more than it does your's. Any paths used are defined by either a player or the scenario designer, so blame these and not the AI.
The only poor performances by the AI is in gunnery and picking the exact spot for a good BP. The AI is totally incapable of any form of independant manouvre other than keeping the units in formation and keeping/breaking contact with the enemy as defined by it's orders.

And for a good simulation of combat where lacking AI performance become a minor issue the trick is to design the scenario so that the player is commanding a force of at least company size and have only the map view available.

/Olle

[PS-SCUD]

Trust me. Even bad gunnery can be made up for by good manuver.

I manuver to give myself easy shots. Most of the time, even a n00b could make the shots I make.

[Rogue6g]

As far as Comms go "in-game" has anyone on the dev team tried to interface TS with the game so a designer or OC could "simulate" Real world comms issues such as an antennae shot off reducing comm range & clarity or even active jamming by the enemy, etc. IMO that would be a great feature for scenario designers and would probably greatly enhance the immersion factor for real-world units who use the sim outside of the classroom.
Just think of the havoc that would reek in MP. A sudden Comm disruption would really let a CO know who their Top Dog Lts are when they weren't micromanaged, by evaluating them on their ability to a) Stick to the mission Objs and/or make their own decisions based on a micro perspective on a large battlefield. etc etc etc

[Bluewings]

Very good idea , very realistic , but probably very hard to implement .

eSim needs to develop its own Comm System or sign a contract with ie: Teamspeak . Then you have to "Mod" the software to the game engine ...

Cheers . :3starSK:

[mapman]

Not to mention that in Pro PE there are only 8 players...so you would only have 3 Lts below the CO with nobody to command below them.

[Bluewings]

Good point Marc .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[mapman]

Although from an electronic warfare standpoint, you could always shut down the map updates and the battalion level and AI radio messages while you were being "jamned."

The above suggestion might be worth implementing from a co-op or SP perspective though.

[ShotMagnet]

To what extent is this method effective in reproducing friction and slowing down the tempo of play?
Depends on what you mean by 'tempo'. If you're looking for sleek co-ordination between units, and instantaneous reactions to the shifting whims of the enemy, then it's a lot slower. If you're looking for something realistic, then this is the biz.

Map and I were fighting the first mission as a pair, watching each other's flanks. The op-tempo was something like what you'd expect from a drunken millipede, but it was WTFC because of, not despite, the handicap. At one point I had to pop smoke so that Map could find me, that first mission (we'd both blundered off 'the edge of the world') and we both found enough bearing to surprise the baddies in the flank, all the while hearing our buddies call for help.

So was it like a typical SB mission? No. We swanned about like besotted allosaurs. Was it realistic? Hell yeah, we swanned about like besotted allosaurs.

I highly recommend the experience. Takes you out of your comfort zone.


Shot

[mapman]

I would really like to do another Paper Tiger scenario using Homer's mods:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=5955&highlight=

This would allow us to use the F5 view without feeling like we were peeking.

Will Pro PE have customizable F5 views. i.e. can we select the amount of intel that will be available to us for a given scenario?

Also, will it be possible for other players (besides CO/A) to draw and send graphics while IN Game?

[RecceDG]

I was trained in the days before Global Positioning and the magic PLUGR (or the little magic Garmin with the moving map that is now my best friend)

Part of that training involved knowing where you were to within 100m at all times. At any time, the instructor could tap you on the shoulder and request your current grid, and being more than 100m off was an instant failure.

Live in this environment for a while, and you get very very good at maintaining your situational awareness. You learn to anticipate terrain features and to use landmarks to constantly verify your current position and orientation. (If you are ever in Gagetown, cemetaries are your best friend. They never move, and each cemetary is unique)

You also learn very quickly to write down every single grid reference that comes over the radio and plot it on your map. Every SITREP, every LOGSTATE, and especially every CONTACT - bang! Right onto the map.

It can take a while to learn how to do this - it takes constant practice.

Hm... maybe there is a scenario in this. Locked to the TC position, no external view, no map (save the briefing map) navigate to a series of waypoints in a set amount of time....

DG

[Bluewings]

That would be excellent for VU ~Virtual Units~ training .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[DrDevice]

All we need is the ability to lock players out of specifc views in MP. Did this happen for ProPE?

[Dog24]

Please forgive my ignorance... I only got my copy of SB a week ago.

How about trying this:

A) Each human player kills off the other 3 vehicles in his platoon and gathers into platoons manned by human players. Designate a platoon leader, platoon sergeant, and wingmen

B) Honor system: NO F5 views. Paper only for everyone.

C) Voice only comms with each TC or adjacent unit.

That should slow things down a bit. Only one life in the fight and no AI accidents from skylining.

PS... in the Cavalry it's not unheard of to be scattered far and wide out of visual contact while screening or manning counterrecon BP's. You just make sure your battlespaces overlap. You just have to count on the other guy's SA and reports.

Again, forgive my ignorance, please.

[DrDevice]

a) Actually, you don't need to kill of the platoon members. Players can simply choose a single tank TC position all in the same platoon to achieve the 1 tank limit.

b) That's exactly what Paper Tiger did - we used the honor system and printed maps with no F5.

c) Not sure why this is an issue. Voice comms are preferred - typing is tough during the fight, and thus, less used. Without explicit map positions, the "adjacent" part may be hard to enforce.

No worries about being new player - you seem to have described the Paper Tiger series on your first post! If that's a type of game you'd like, be sure to keep your eyes peeled for the next event. I'm sure you'll like it.

I really enjoy games where you are trying to keep a single tank or vehicle alive. If you are destroyed, you hop into a buddy's tank and help drive, or gun or spot. If you aren't stuck waiting on some 60-minute scenario, you'll only be out of the action for a while. Besides - that "sitting on the bench" is an appropriate punishment for losing your ride!

(Sideline idea for a more "gamey" scenario: players eliminated have a 5- or 10-minute penalty before they can man another unit. More like a hockey game, or NXL paintball. Might be fun for a purely fun style game. I think it would need in-game support or a "ref" player before it could work, though.)

[Sean]

Yes, you can disable all kinds of things. In the scenario im going to post tonight for friday, the map view will be disabled, which will lock people down to their platoons.

[GaryOwen]

(Sideline idea for a more "gamey" scenario: players eliminated have a 5- or 10-minute penalty before they can man another unit. More like a hockey game, or NXL paintball. Might be fun for a purely fun style game. I think it would need in-game support or a "ref" player before it could work, though.)

It would be easy enough using the spawn-if function along with a condition such as unit 1-1/A is destroyed being true for 5 minutes. Using that technique, one really could write a tank-quake scenario with multiple re-spawns.

[RecceDG]

Yes, you can disable all kinds of things. In the scenario im going to post tonight for friday, the map view will be disabled, which will lock people down to their platoons.

Cool. How do you do that?

DG

[Bluewings]

Right click on all Units one by one and choose Options/damage and check "Disable map view" .

Cheers . :3starSK: