"Organized Chaos" vs. "Military Tactics"

[Bluewings]

I want to start a discussion .

It 's about the difference between "Military Tactics" and what I call "Organized Chaos" .

I copy-paste what I said in another thread :

This is a very interesting point which I 'd like to discuss . My view on the matter is quite simple : The actual training in most Forces lack two very impostant things : Mobility (rapidity of action) and freelancing .

I spent 7 years in the Commandos and SpecOps and I know the drill . The emphasis has always been in working together to archive firepower in one area or in one point in time .
This attitude has two bad sides :
#1: it relies on ONE commanding individual
#2: it is prone to take heavy casualties rapidly

1 --> Having only one "boss" slow down the entire group and inhibit personal initiative , which is SO important in asymetrical Warfare . One can perfectly leave the "Group" and act as a freelancer WHILE still being in permanent contact , thanks to today 's communication technology . Think "Organized Chaos" . A Group is very predictable , so it can be second guessed very easily and rapidly . Getting one "tempo" ahead of a spotted Fighting Group is as easy as 1+1=2 . How many time an entire Group gets pin-down by 2 flanking individuals ?
Think about it .
Furthermore , there are more ideas in 10 heads than in 1 .

2 --> a well placed area weapon (Grenade , flashband , RPG rocket , gas attack , etc) will decimate or render the Group combat ineffective for good .

My point is that today's Military tactics are dinosaur tactics . "Guerilla" tactics can win against a much better organized group , and even outnumbered 10 to 1 . It is why a bunch of "Chaotic" but well trained Mercs will win 9 times out of 10 against a diciplined Commando Group . I know Wink

What happen in Counter-Strike or in "paintball games" can be describe as an "Octopus" tactic where a disciplined Group is facing multiple attacks on multiple fronts . It gets overwhelmed very quickly .
It has to be noted that bringing these Tactics into a Sim-Game like SB brings victory 8 times out of 10 .
Reflect on this ... Rolling Eyes

It is why playing/fighting "loose" has enormous advantages . Here , I clash with ideas preached by people like Renegade , Sherman and the likes (in 2D) . Darkangel is guilty of the same symptom when he wants to "force" the community to use the software in a more "military manner" , which is rather surprizing when the Man is always talking about "Chaos theory" ...

When I was in the Forces , I 've always been seen as an "indisciplined" soldier , even if my records shown outstanding results .

Feel free to disagree and make a case , I 'm listening .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Lone*star49]

...

Well, I have stated in several threads of late, that in my experience from the last 6yrs, along with what I have learned from both Miltary personal and Civi's is ~ Adaptation ~ along with the best tactic, bar none, IMO is the ~ eliment of suprise ~.

Those IMO that adapt and learn both sides of the SB sim fence, and its uses are the ones that will have the best games, and have the most fun.

I know it's an ugly word around here, but Gueralla Tactics are a fact of life from long ago, and like fashion, styles come back, and Gueralla Tactics, Warfare, is, and are, in the books of going against the grain, yet achieve the eliement of surpise, and as you say so correctly, with risk, comes rewards going against the odds of larger forces being beat by much smaller ones.

Mind you, least at this end, I always try and use and preserve my boots, ahead of my heavy armor, and use artty to first try and knock out whatever they see and report, as not to show my true force.

But, as I said before, and live it as well, having adpated to both sides of the fence as far as what's right, real, concidered wrong, etc., in this sim, has allowed me to be asked, or join freely, most battles, pre planned, or just being at the right place at the right time, whether for OPFOR, or to fill in a vacant slot, with both types of structures and tactics, be it for other VU's practice, or open invitation to a structured events/battles, ongoing for a given amount of weeks.

My personal observation of what piss's off any CO is, when a player doesn't admit he doesn't understand his task and doesn't admit it and fuck up his assigned duty/s, or once there, doesn't chk in or wait the 10mins, or more, as ordered, and then becomes a rogue player, and win or lose, by his actions, it still does not support team play.

IMHO


LS

[Trekker]

This is simply solved if the commander (at any level) clearly state his end-state; What shall be done/ have happend when your done, or when you will get new orders (new end-state). By doing so anyone to the most stupid MG-gunner will know what he can do to help the commander accomplish the goal.

A "traditional order" tends to be something of contraproductive. way to maneuver, where to assault, when to assault, how to form the assault, how to supress and so on. That dosn't plant any tactical seed in anyone, or even a glim of reflection of "what the hell are we doing".

I noticed that even here in this small community there are both sides, some that give orders with a circle and the order "This is where you shall be, and stop anything inside this circle". And this is sometimes considered sloppy and lacking of tactics. Might be, but it provs leadership and the ability to trust the guy who will do the work for your medal.
Then there are the other sort, that dosn't leave anything to the imagination. Both are suited for different occations.

Reminds me of what a general once said. "It's easy to fight americans, but a hell to fight the russians, they never follow the manual". And to me it comes down to that.

[TopKick]

The kind of tactics used in MP would get a commander relieved of his command after the first battle. That is if he was alive to tell about it.

TK

[Bluewings]

Well , what you say is interesting but brings nothing FOR or AGAINST what I 'm saying LS .

My post is two-fold .

#1 : Military tactics are dinosaur Tactics . Agree/disagree ?
#2 : is it "correct" to use ProPE in a more "military manner" ?

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Bluewings]

Topkick , now we 're going somewhere :)

No doubt , what you say is true . But does it make the "commander" wrong ?
If the commander wins , his Tactics were sounds .

So ?

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Bluewings]

"This is where you shall be, and stop anything inside this circle"
That 's more like it ! :)
this is sometimes considered sloppy and lacking of tactics. Might be, but it provs leadership and the ability to trust the guy who will do the work for your medal.
I agree entirely . Basicaly , what some see as "sloppy" , I see it as sound .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[DrDevice]

Comparing real military tactics to SB ones is a dangerous and slippery slope. Both cases use what's best given the limits of the situation. Both can be too rigid or too loose. Too rigid and the enemy exploits your inability to react. Too loose and the enemy exploits your inability to mass.

1) Having confidence that subordinates will execute a task isn't sloppy. You command your subordinates as best you can in the time you have. If that is simply “defend in this zone” then that’s what it is.
2) Having subordinates that know when a situation has exceeded orders and what to do is just good training. Micromanagement is NOT needed for trained soldiers/players. The robotic behavior BW described is possible, but an indicator of a poorly trained enemy.
3)Initiative is not chaos. It does not have to be a free-for-all to embrace change and use adaptive combat techniques.


If you give me "organized chaos" on the paintball field (and I have been playing for 16 years, many of them at a competitive tournament level) I will give you a loss. I will exploit your over-eager "chaos" players and count the losses as they try and be the hero. Each player must have initiative AND be able to follow a plan. They need to know when the plan is broken and what to do in that case.

I don’t think the argument is as black or white as the first post lends itself to read.

[Lone*star49]

Well , what you say is interesting but brings nothing FOR or AGAINST what I 'm saying LS .

My post is two-fold .

#1 : Military tactics are dinosaur Tactics . Agree/disagree ?
#2 : is it "correct" to use ProPE in a more "military manner" ?

Cheers . :3starSK:
...

Well, we differ here, as I thought I made a, my, personal point as to what tactics do work and those that fail.. Otherwise, being on the fence, which supports both schools of thought on tactics that will work best for this sim are quite clear. Old, dinosuar tactics, like styles, come back into play, just depends on the CO's call, along with as I said, if this sim was used for capturing the real effects and efforts of a real tactical command strutured battle, then we'd be on the PC for a day or more. Therefore, given 1 or 2 hrs to win a battle, IMO, calls for risky, fast-paced actions, with the opportunity presents itself, along with those on your team being able to read a map and make judgement, action calls, on their own, as in my book, that is what a good team consist of, talent, and should be used as such when communications get delayed.

Personally, I think this is just a means for you to get inside information on how others will use what type of tactics.. lol

You're a spy.. j/k



LS :wink:

[TopKick]

The most difficult task facing any commander is writing a letter home to the loved ones of a soldier lost in battle under his command. Does he tell the truth, or does he embellish it. A simple form letter won’t do.

I think that writing a letter of condolence for every trooper you loose in MP should be a requirement for a complete AAR. That way you are faced with the enormity of the decisions you made … or didn’t make.

What price victory? Winning has a price, and so does loosing. As long as we are computer commandos, the taste of victory or defeat is hallow and meaningless.

[Bluewings]

You're a spy..
:lol:
DD wrote :

If you give me "organized chaos" on the paintball field (and I have been playing for 16 years, many of them at a competitive tournament level) I will give you a loss. I will exploit your over-eager "chaos" players and count the losses as they try and be the hero.
DD , I am not sure if you grasp or understand what I mean by "organized Chaos" .
Organized Chaos is the ability to adapt , improvise , create , survive , and multiply your chance of winning OUTSIDE of any known rules or conventional ways .
The best exemple I can come up with is the Virus .
The motto of Organized Chaos is that it has NO motto . "Expect the unexpected and more" would say the disciplined Commander to his Men about to face Organized Chaos , or the Scientist talking about the latest deadly Virus .

But it doesn 't mean that the threat will be undisciplined or uncapable of coherant actions . Writing this makes me think about the "winning at all cost" attitude :roll:
Actually it is more about survival than winning , like the dog who bites at you WHILE refusing the fight , run away then come back again , then run away again . It looks very similar to guerilla war from the outside .
The decisive factors are speed , mobility (forward and backwards) and ability to adapt .

Refusing the fight on the other 's terms and denying him any possibility to "bite back" is the key .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[TopKick]

What I’m saying in my above post is this: The outcomes of multi-player clashes during upcoming campaigns now being planned should have penalties attached, win or loose. Here are examples of what I mean:

Platoon Leader: If Loose more than half of your platoon then you are out of campaign play for a week. If you command two platoons and loose half of each, then you are out for two weeks.

Company commander: If you loose more than two platoons of your forces, then you are out of play for a week. If you command more than three platoons gathered ad hoc you, are automatically considered a provisional Company Commander whether you are the designated commander or not. Loose more than two platoons and you are out of play for two weeks.

Battalion commander: If you command more than two companies then you are a battalion commander. Loose over half of your forces, then you are relieved of command.

The penalty time will give commanders time for reflection, introspection, and remedial training in tactics and leadership.

This of course could be tweaked a bit, but you understand what I’m getting at.

[Bluewings]

Unacceptable . :lol:

SB is a game , not real life !

Cheers . :3starSK:

[TopKick]

No, there has to be a penalty. SB is a sim . . . not a game. I think you've said that on numerous occasions. What better way to teach that it's a "sim" and not a game? Who is to say that it's not acceptable? Those that can't tell the difference?

[Kingtiger]

I agree with TopKick here.... there really must be a penalty for loosing to much forces.. not only the aspect on that its your soldiers who are getting killed, but to in a way eliminate sniper tanks tactic and fighting to last damaged tank battles.


#1 : Military tactics are dinosaur Tactics . Agree/disagree ?
#2 : is it "correct" to use ProPE in a more "military manner" ?

1. both, I think it depends on wich countrys tactic you are thinking of and wich company commanders tactic you are thinking of. during one field exercise we had becoming captains as Company commander, one new for ewery day and you could clearly see the tactic change from day to day, so for me it feels hard to say Military tactics are dinousar tactic because I cant say wich kind of military tactic we are talking about. But the guerilla tactic is allowed. but its hard to command forces of company/batalion size with guerilla tactics, small taskforces as rangers or so can employ the tactics much betther, but I think company/bats need to stick with the normal tactics.

2. YES! it is correct to use Pro PE in a more military manner, atleast in my eyes, thats the whole reason why I bought SB1 and Pro PE, because I want real life fights in a PC. and no, I cant go out and get some real action in a war (and really dont want to) so I want real combat in my computer. and that means i want realistic gameplay and leadership, I want a CO to tell me what to do with my platoon, when to do it and who I must support so the outfit scores the victory. thats how I want pro PE to be played, and Now when Pro PE is out, I think we should stop the old SB1 "quake" game stile (as some like to call it) and start playing pro as it was meant to be played.

/KT

[Bluewings]

Thanks for your input KT :)
We will never get rid of the lone Sniper tank , simply because it works . A good gunner who knows how to drive well , who has good awareness and who can choose the right path to infiltrate enemy lines will always rake up few good kills before to be taken out .

Sure , it is not what the Military ~or the simmer~ wants to see/do , but sorry for my French : Fuck him . Myself , I do not endorse that tactic but I still have to deal with it everytime I play MP . I even sometimes use it when the right conditions present themselves .
It is about being complete .

Actually , I would like to see every players able to switch from one tactic to the other as the battle unfold .
One minute you are a disciplined Co/Platoon Leader/TC , the next you are a deadly lone threat . This is what Organized Chaos is all about if I may say . No-one has ever been blamed to be a Hero . Numerous battles have been won by the actions of a "Sniper Tank" at the right moment . The blame should lie on the Commander who did allow the enemy sniper Tank to go through his lines , and not on the sniper .

That being said , I am all willing to use the software in a more realitic manner , but only to a certain extent .
Military "Vignettes" go against my instinct even if I sometimes enjoy them . This is simply not my way .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Lone*star49]

...

Looking back at some TGIF's or maybe it was TNT's, but Elf did make sce's that part of the scoring was loss's, which made one think before losing a bunch of whatever.. as it was a big point penalty if you lost ex % of each type forces IIRC.

It was good.


Now, to tell someone, you lose ex amount, and your out of the battle for 2 weeks.. IMO, that is a losing method, cause who's gonna stick around to rejoin that battle (interest wise).. little harsh, IMO, but loss of points for such losses is good. IIRC, each team started out with 500pts, and you lost points only for losing so many of this, not holding that, going into restricted areas, etc..

Just made for more serious planning and the use of accurate communitcations a must within each team.


LS

[ShermansWar]

interesting thread. we're back to the old "SB is a razzle" conundrum. is it a candy, or is it a gum? is it a sim, or is it a game. seems to depend on who the host will be and what the scenario will be. myself, i am at an advantage in this psoition, because i'm just here to play SB. if the are all sim scenarios, thats fine, i'll play them. if they are all game scenarios, thats fine too, i'll play those as well.

There are :military tactics, which, of all the schools of thought around here, seem, for whatever reason, to be the least played and understood. there are the tactics used by the gunn, "Go deep" which, to me, is typical guerilla tanking. a lot of lone tanks, annd sniper tanks in that, although they did tend to push the whole force deep on occasion. still, this is the style of play I identify as" sniper tank" and what the tactics we use in 2D are designed to counter, inasmuch as it is the most effective tactic we find ourselves facing. then we have waht fred is calling" octupus, or free lance tanking.

I'l play all 3, or 4 style, i dont care.I'm not a purist.

LS nakes a great point, that some games are fast and loose, and some are not. if we have a few days, or longer, we willl have a more advanced plan, with more clearly divided missions and goals for each player as time goes onm. we may pick and mark particular BPs to be held not only by particular players but by particular tanks. if we have the time to plan like this we do. as LS points out, time is not always a Luxury we have.

it also has to do with assessing talent on an adhoc team in a pickup game as well. for one player, like sean, for instnace, i may draw a big circle and say" hold here" knowing he will. for another player, I may pick his BPs for him, as opposed to having him try and foiigure out what to do, an inexperienced player, for example.how much time you have to plan is a great factor and will influence the playstyle.

BW, i think you use a wrong approach here. you ask players to agree or disagree with you, i think the issues are more complex than that.

"#1 : Military tactics are dinosaur Tactics . Agree/disagree ?"
That depends. Do the tactics bring victory in a given situation?if they dom who cares how old they are, or whether or not they are real, if it's just a pickup game. If they game was meant to be played as a sim, then it doesnt matter, because dinosaur tactics are what are supposed to be used. If you cant recognize the need to play some games this way, as an actual sim( which i would like to do) then i dunno what to tell you.other games are played for fun and are just a contest, a game,. in this case, then whatever works best for you is the right tactic, old or new.

#2 : is it "correct" to use ProPE in a more "military manner" ?
Again, it depends.If you are playing on a team with GO, topkick and KT, and they need a fourth and pick you up in TS, then my bet is, yes, military tactics are correct. If scud and stumpy and TH need a fourth player, I would do whatever the hell i wanted, cause thats what thwey are gonna do. They are still disciplined enough to use a plan and carry out there assigned roles, however( usually).

To say it is wrong to play the game for fun, Top, or r that realworld tactics are the only way to go, then that ius a matter of personal taste,. if all you want to play are what you feel are "accurate" sims, then thats your choice. i will not miss out ofn a good fight on a good map in a good scenariobecause it is not of the "military" or realistic format. i can play both. if certain players have issue with a type of scenario, i guess they will boycott them. myself, if nothing else is going on, and you like to play the game, then thats just stupid.

[chappy]

I think the main issue re: dinosaur military tactics is that while claiming you can achieve more by throwing off some of the rigidity to the point of basically saying 'im going here by myself and you go there by urself and do whatever' is that you are willing to accept the RISK involved in doing that. Much of military tactics centres around security. 'one foot on the ground' so to speak. Much of the formations and movement techniques of troops, squadrons and larger formations is mutual support, fire and manouevre, bounding overwatch etc.

By going off on your own into a fire position that is 3000m from the nearest friendly teammate and theres a troop of enemy between you and him is accepting that while you may destroy a whole troop or more for the loss of your vehicle, your vehicle will almost certainly be destroyed once it is identified, localised and maximum firepower is brought to bear. Alternatively you may only destroy one vehicle, and the remaining troop or squadron of enemy may overwhelm you before you can engage another.

There was a comment about 'octopus' style attacking. In response to that, I say *if* that style isnt coordinated in some way in terms of timings and targets, it WILL be easily defeated. If 4 vehicles come at a troop of armour from 4 different directions at 4 different times, sure it may be confusing for the troop in defence but I see no reason for them losing out if they are in mutually supporting positions and watching their assigned arcs.

In conventional military forces there is still room for the 'chaotic' . Diversions including feints, Arty, SMK, fast paced manouvre, use of terrain, synthesis of battlespace operating systems, etc etc are all designed to (rough quote) 'Create a progressively deteriorating situation at a rate of change that is faster than the enemy commander can react, thus eroding his command and control and will to fight.' This is kind of chaos, for the enemy. But is implemented by a set of organised orders and objectives and timings AS WELL AS initiative by lower level commanders to acheive the commanders intent.

SNIPERS for example are a part of conventional military forces, they are attached to most infantry battalions. They achieve a chaotic effect on the enemy by generating fear and uncertainty about the security of an area and where the threat is, but are generally part of an overall organised plan and concept of operations.

At a minor tactics level, there is almost always an element of the chaotic. Unless the commander is a real control freak, simple individual movement of vehicles or infantrymen is designed to be a very random and difficult action to predict. Infantry basic drill is 'Run down crawl observe aim fire' along with the rule 'never pop up from the same place you went down' this promotes a random form of movement (but with a very deliberate objective)

[Brun]

Traditional, or So called gueralla tactics, matters not. Knowing how to plan for a certain scene to give the best chance at whatever the obj might be is the only responsibillity of a SB Co. This can be done in an organized mutually supporting manner with practice. The scene and the situation you are in will dictate your tactics. A bias to one or the other will restrict you ,and your planning, and your team. Keep it in the rules of the scene and do what you can.

Having back up plans in case things go bad in any part of the battle field is vital. When the @hit hist the fan and all you hear is "what do I do now" you had better have answers quick. Having vet players under your command who know what to do in crisis makes it easier for the Co, but is not always an option.

[Kingtiger]

Hum, I just remembered a reason against the Guerilla tactic, and that is fratricied...

In one MP on a take the square on that hill kind of battle we had a battle going pretty hard. and I spot a Tank 4km away into enemy territory but cant ID it so I dont fire, but while im trying to ID it fires against my area so I pull the trigger and KO the tank, it turns out it was Javehn who had managed to sneak thrue enemy line with a tank and was clearing out the enemys frontline from behind. when I looked on the map hes unit semed to be behind a hill, far away from where he was.

If we had been playing regular tactic that wouldnt happen, because we would have clear lines to hold and borders not to cross (he was within my "area" so to say).

BUT, he did manage to rack up a few kills before I knocked him out, maybe it was worth it for him? but I can tell you it sucked real hard for me to have done a fratricide....

And now on PE its ewen harder to ID targets so it feels like fratricide will go up a bit with guerilla tactics, but on the other hand its easier to infiltrate at the same time.

I dont mind if a Co commander sends a whole plt to infiltrate the enemy, its an old tactic to do so. but a lone tank feels unrealistic to me to send into the enemy held area by itself.

[Bluewings]

A lot of good things have been said in this thread :)

May I say again that "Organized Chaos" is NOT about going with a lone tank . Far off .
I repeat :
Organized Chaos is the ability to adapt , improvise , create , survive , and multiply your chance of winning OUTSIDE of any known rules or conventional ways .

What I call "conventional ways" is what can be predicted . As an exemple , during GW1 a Group of Scottish Infantrymen suddently faced a strong Iraki position waiting in ambush . The Irakis openned fire on the Scots and they had all the reasons in the World to believe that the Scots were going to disperse and take cover .
What they did not expect is the Scot Commander to order his Men to put the bayonettes on their SA80 assault rifles (!) and to charge !! :shock:
...
The battle lasted 5 minutes and all the Irakis fleed or were killed ! :P

Turning a battle around against the odds by the use of "Shock and Awe" or unexpected move/tactic is part of the "Organized Chaos" . You are mistaking by linking "lack of discipline" with Chaos . It is about bringing Chaos to the enemy and not being chaotic yourself .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[TopKick]

BW,

Unorganized Chaos is what Leaders get if they fail the seven P’s of planning. It goes like this: “Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance”. If leaders plan properly they get Organized Chaos. In other words, Organized Chaos is what you do when the shit hits the fan. Military leaders plan for that and it’s expected. It’s also known as “flying by the seat of your pants” or “Aggie engineering,” or “faking it.” Personally, when my commander asks me, “WTF happened in your sector today,” If the facts don’t impress him, I prefer to dazzle him with bullshit.

[Bluewings]

I know exactly what you mean TopKick .
I like your seven P's :)

Cheers . :3starSK:

[ShermansWar]

organized Chaios, is a military tactic. BW, suprised you did not point this out, as USMC DP-1 is required reading for 2D , and what we base most of our tactics on( or at least we discovered we're doing the same things)

I tried to copy and paste the section on disorder, but I can copy from an adobe doc, unless someone can tell me how. It states how chaos and disorder are to be used and exploited in battle. i'd rather try and find some way to copy it as oposoed to paraphrasing, and it's to long to copy( or I'm too lazy, one or the other)

[ShermansWar]

http://www.steelbeasts.com/modules/Downloads/store_folder/PDF_Library/US_Marines_Field_Manuals/MCDP_1_Warfighting.pdf

i reccomend all SB players read this publication, whether they ba gamers or simmers. it is an approach that will serve you well.it has been adopted by over 80 military services worldwide.

[chappy]

A lot of good things have been said in this thread :)

May I say again that "Organized Chaos" is NOT about going with a lone tank . Far off .
I repeat :
Organized Chaos is the ability to adapt , improvise , create , survive , and multiply your chance of winning OUTSIDE of any known rules or conventional ways .

What I call "conventional ways" is what can be predicted . As an exemple , during GW1 a Group of Scottish Infantrymen suddently faced a strong Iraki position waiting in ambush . The Irakis openned fire on the Scots and they had all the reasons in the World to believe that the Scots were going to disperse and take cover .
What they did not expect is the Scot Commander to order his Men to put the bayonettes on their SA80 assault rifles (!) and to charge !! :shock:
...
The battle lasted 5 minutes and all the Irakis fleed or were killed ! :P

Turning a battle around against the odds by the use of "Shock and Awe" or unexpected move/tactic is part of the "Organized Chaos" . You are mistaking by linking "lack of discipline" with Chaos . It is about bringing Chaos to the enemy and not being chaotic yourself .

Cheers . :3starSK:


ahh see to me i would call that an excellent DRILL performed properly.
Counter ambush drill:
Forces caught in Killzone, turn into the enemy, return heavy fire and close with enemy ambush line. Effect acheived: neutralising the flanking weapons due to possibility of fractricide by the ambusher as the ambushed get too close to the flank ambush.
Forces out of the Killzone: move quickly to an enfilade position and roll up the flank of the enemy ambush.

So yes, in a sense it was organised chaos, the enemy dont expect that reaction and the situation for the enemy rapidly deterioated as a result of the bold, well rehearsed well disciplined actions of the men they thought they had ambushed. Chaos for the enemy, drill movement and SOPs by the Scots.

So to go back to your original point, that organised chaos is NOT the same as conventional military tactics... well honestly it is. At least in the Aus. army, we train using manouevre theory and that theory allows to generate the chaotic environment for the enemy. Hence, military tactics are NOT 'dinosaurs' because they allow for the use of initiative and lateral thinking. At least in my experience.

[tarball]

In order to simulate conditions you expect on the battlefield, you have to constrain the simulation and provide the proper inducements to comply with expected behavior.

However, with SB Pro PE MP, the objective is to win and not necessarily to perform certain manuevers or demonstrate certain tactics. Furthermore, chaos and deviation from plan seem to be most likely once real war breaks out.

I think that scenario design would rule ultimately in terms of how "realistic" a scenario will be. I know we want to use our $125 U.S. to "rise above" the gamey-ness of SB1, but unless we abide by certain constraints in order to emulate textbook conceptions of certain war menuevers, we can assume that non-standard tactics are adaptations by players who want to win.

We are making our own armored warfare and our own rules about this warfare by using a computer simulacrum of armoreded war. Ultimately, there are few REAL disincentives for MP players to act with reserve as the stakes of losing (the game or units) is negligible. Whether you realize it or not, you are breaking ground for some of the ways in which armored warfare will be fought in the future.

You see, I believe military tactics are about force multiplication, preservation of forces, supply lines and logistics, preserving human life and costly machinery, etc. etc. etc. These are not modeled in SB Pro PE other than perhaps by using special conditions and scoring penalties in scenario design. You'll never replace the win as prime mover and most players will want to win by way of personal performance and demonstration of target-acquisition and kill. If you were a good team player during a MP battle, you may get a "good teamwork" from a few, but most AAR discussion is on who shot who - not manuever, not adherance to doctrine or orders, but which INDIVIDUAL got kills by his hand. There are exceptions to this, but the sense of reward and accomplishment for spending 3 or so hours on a Friday night will eventually come to how much killing an individual did.

My tuppence is "don't over think these things and try a variety of approaches." The "gamey" scenarios will can be enjoyed just as the "simlation"-oriented scenarios can. More than anything else, "realism" will mostly be found in the interactions between the players themselves.

T-

[ShermansWar]

In order to simulate conditions you expect on the battlefield, you have to constrain the simulation and provide the proper inducements to comply with expected behavior.

However, with SB Pro PE MP, the objective is to win and not necessarily to perform certain manuevers or demonstrate certain tactics. Furthermore, chaos and deviation from plan seem to be most likely once real war breaks out.

I think that scenario design would rule ultimately in terms of how "realistic" a scenario will be. I know we want to use our $125 U.S. to "rise above" the gamey-ness of SB1, but unless we abide by certain constraints in order to emulate textbook conceptions of certain war menuevers, we can assume that non-standard tactics are adaptations by players who want to win.




We are making our own armored warfare and our own rules about this warfare by using a computer simulacrum of armoreded war. Ultimately, there are few REAL disincentives for MP players to act with reserve as the stakes of losing (the game or units) is negligible. Whether you realize it or not, you are breaking ground for some of the ways in which armored warfare will be fought in the future.

You see, I believe military tactics are about force multiplication, preservation of forces, supply lines and logistics, preserving human life and costly machinery, etc. etc. etc. These are not modeled in SB Pro PE other than perhaps by using special conditions and scoring penalties in scenario design. You'll never replace the win as prime mover and most players will want to win by way of personal performance and demonstration of target-acquisition and kill. If you were a good team player during a MP battle, you may get a "good teamwork" from a few, but most AAR discussion is on who shot who - not manuever, not adherance to doctrine or orders, but which INDIVIDUAL got kills by his hand. There are exceptions to this, but the sense of reward and accomplishment for spending 3 or so hours on a Friday night will eventually come to how much killing an individual did.

My tuppence is "don't over think these things and try a variety of approaches." The "gamey" scenarios will can be enjoyed just as the "simlation"-oriented scenarios can. More than anything else, "realism" will mostly be found in the interactions between the players themselves.

T-


Excellent post

[Bluewings]

Indeed , good post Tarball .

So , what I call "Organized Chaos" is in fact part of the Military doctrine . Fine :)
I strongly believe that with the advance in Communication Technology , these tactics will be more and more employed in the Futur . It will be far easier to "disperse" on the battlefield ~as opposed to the "Roman Turtle style formation"~ , and the average reaction time will be greatly diminished .
High mobility , fluidity and rapidity of execution will most likely be the decisive factors .

The game we had this Friday ~without the F5 view~ clearly showed that Tactical awareness is ultimatly linked to the amount of information you can get IN REAL TIME from the battlefield . Wahrborg , Alan and I used "overlays" on our paper map ~like in the old days~ and were able to manoeuver in a somehow coherant manner , but certainly not as fast as if we had the F5 view . Use of radio ~TS~ was the decisive factor and we talked to each other FAR MORE than in any other game we had before .
I had the same feeling that the one I had in lebanon in the 80s . I don 't even want to imagine how it was like in '39-45 ! :shock:

Digital Battlefield Management Systems like the ones used on the latest Tanks are clearly a strong force multiplier . You see Sherman , some Countries might cut down their numbers of Units :wink: but by employing high-tech Comms they can make up for it .
Even the average Infantryman will benefit of this latest technology .
See the French Felin System : http://www.defense-update.com/products/f/felin.htm

Battles will be fought at a much faster pace and the only challenge will be for the "Logistics" to be able to keep up .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Lone*star49]

...

Interesting thought just popped back into my head..

Tactics, by who's book?, was, and is, my stance..

IIRC, there was a thread running long ago, that the question came up.. What is the best tactic to do when your're caught in an ambush.

SW IIRC, drop and return fire..

BW's, disperse (spread-out-first) not become a common large target and then return fire..

I may have messed up on SW being the one, but I do remember BW's



LS

[chappy]

...

Interesting thought just popped back into my head..

Tactics, by who's book?, was, and is, my stance..

IIRC, there was a thread running long ago, that the question came up.. What is the best tactic to do when your're caught in an ambush.

SW IIRC, drop and return fire..

BW's, disperse (spread-out-first) not become a common large target and then return fire..

I may have messed up on SW being the one, but I do remember BW's



LS


There are many tactics for being caught in an ambush (may i suggest if you are caught in an ambush in the first place your original tactics werent very good! :shock: )
And they differ depending on situation.
For instance, if your WHOLE unit is caught in the KZ/EA (your tactics must've stunk! :P ) There's little else to do than turn in, engage with max fire and close with the enemy For the reasons i mentioned above (neutralises the enemy's flank weapons and allows you to perhaps engage and destroy with close fire/grenades, the middle of the enemy ambush line.
May i suggest to take cover/return fire without moving is doing little to extricate yourself from the situation and it is purely a matter of time before you are either picked off, F1 fragged, claymored or cornered and captured during battlefield clearance.
Being in an ambush is a pretty bad situation and theres a good chance you're already dead if the ambush was any good.

In a convoy situation, (or any situation for that matter) where ambush is always possible, the key is to spread your convoy/group over a space that is LARGER than any enemy enagement zone can possibly cover. This includes sending an element well forward and maintaining spacing beteen vehicles/troops. The reason for this is that it provides you with the opportunity to employ your men/vehicles that ARENT in the EA/KZ to flank and neutralise the ambush while those caught *can* take cover and just return fire.


So you see there's various tactics for various situations (and there's plenty more). tactics will depend entirely on the ground and forces involved. If military training is done well, it will equip the soldier and officer with 1: a set of drills that are useful in common situations and can be reverted to. 2: (most important one) a method of thought that allows lateral thinking, initiative and creativity without compromising things like security, safety and the commanders intent.

[MatsW]

In SB, there is no fear for your or your buddies life. In real life, it's always good to have a back up when vehicles run out of supply, bug or break down or you facing enemy fire. In real life you can't always hit the F5 and see where your forces are.

But, as some of you say, with a command and control system, a battlefield management system, the tactics could be improved, but I don't think we will end up in a organised chaos with one or two tanks moving around and win the battle with sneaking ambushes.

I think the human being itselfs will be the limit to what can be done, not the techniques itself. The training is a key item.

Almost all guerilla forces have transformed to regular units and "military tactics" when they are big enough to do so. In all guerilla warfare, the civilian have taken a great deal of the causualities.

[Rogue6g]

I didn't get to play the sce last Fri(I don't hav e PE yet :cry: ), but I like the concept of the F5 disabled. IMO if you train for the worst scenario then the best ones will be relatively easy. I remember in GW1 we had an FM per platoon which described, in detail, how to jury-rig many of the switches to perform as backups in case the fire control switches either failed or were taken out during combat. We had no sophisticated computers to "rely on". Simulating a battle without all the gizmos IMO teaches PLT leaders to act more independently(while still following the Cos OPORD) and allows the Co to not be forced to micromanage units from the TACMAP and be more involved in managing the battle. IMO an F5 view forces the Co to constantly monitor where his forces are. My point is that IF a PL or Platoon Sergeant can read a Map effectively,react efficiently to any surprises, and Communicate the situation effectively to Commanders,then the F5 view is renderred moot.

In SB play, having the F5 view disabled during a preplanned game would not only slow the pace of the advance, but also create more effective comms by constantly calling in CPs, Phase lines, etc. and ultimately forces players to "study" the map and "wargame" how they as small units or individuals will react if Contact is made at X or Y checkpoint, phase line, etc.

[Lone*star49]

...

Send out the Scouts.. move out!

I want Intel reports asap..

Get me artty on the phone, I want them rdy!!

"Arrty, get ready to unleash the Dogs of WAR!!!"


Anyone caught in an ambush, is gonna get shot by me.. Copy!!?


LS :wink:

[Bluewings]

BW's, disperse (spread-out-first) not become a common large target and then return fire..
The point being to LEAVE the KZ asap .
engage with max fire and close with the enemy
May I say that in a well prepared ambush , you 're going to take fire from TWO different directions , usually at 45deg from each other . ie: a concealed barrage on the road PLUS a flanking Unit .
NEVER set up an ambush along the road from both sides of the road or you 'll end up killing each other :casstet:

So , "closing with the enemy" might be a tricky business ...

Cheers . :3starSK:

[chappy]

Yet that was exactly what the scotts did. I would suggest that most ambushes that are walked into in Iraq arent setup ideally and most likely involve disorganised placement of fire positions that dont employ 90degree angles and the concepts of enfilade from defilade and not very effective trigger for the ambush.
doing anything in an ambush would be considered tricky business...
the point was more that if the ambush was any good then u are already dead. If you find yourself alive inside the KZ, standing up and running any which way is gonna have a high chance of death, moving towards the enemy on your guts with whoever else is left alive a better option generally than hiding behind a rock until you are found or crawling away from the enemy which generally involves being inside the KZ for a very long time/distance.

the best thing to do is make sure your whole unit is never inside a KZ at the same time so you have the ability to roll up one flank of the ambush from outside the KZ

[Debaker]

My idea of "Organized Chaos" is a battle plan used in actual battle. The plan may still provide an overall framework for the team to work with, i.e: Communications, Command Structure and SOP's, but of course, the battle may flow in ways the plan didn't account for. Military Tactics come BEFORE the battle is joined, this involves the tactical doctrine of the force, how they are preparing and how they intend to fight in the battle.

A good leader will have his forces trained in the tactical doctrine of choice, but also know what his force is capable of doing and trust that, when needed, will quickly adapt and overcome an unforseen obstacle in the heat of battle.

When our Anzac squad of WW2 Online players have a "mega-squad" night we set up a command and communications structure a week ahead of the battle. The leader will have a plan of attack for a town and pass it down the chain of command. If one section runs into a problem and needs to operate outside the plan it is just a simple matter of letting the commander know what you propose to do, he trusts your skills and judgment. He will let other relevant units know what your change of plan is. You overcome the obstacle and continue on achieving the goal set by your commander.

My point is a "Leader" does not necesarly slow down a battle or stifle his troops initiative. Maybe it is the Aussie way of doing things, but improvisation and adaption at all levels has historicaly been recognised in the Australian Army and you'll see it when the Anzacs roll onto this field of battle :)

[Rodomir]

I think all actions on a war are some kinda organiced chaos. This is what the generals get after "playing" with military tactics. That´s what Annibal Smith was trying to say: "I love when a good plan comes together" :) .The best army is the one wich reduces the chaos, and I think it really makes the difference on a battlefield.

When there are loads troops, tanks, trucks, planes and whatever on a war working together there is no matter how well you know the tactics, they won´t fit the situation. Sometimes humans are not predictible, and there are too many variables to manage. I think you can reduce the fog of war but cannot eliminate it.

The gulf war theached us some lessons about how to organice that chaos using technology like GPS navigation systems, broadband, advanced communications, satellites... and even that caused friendly fire casualties.

But when the field of battle is located inside cities, were technology is less valuable, it´s another story.