SB Pro PE as Wargame

[Tacbat]

How can you disagree with the concepts of:

Communication

Coordination

Teamwork

Gunnery

Navigation

Movement

Observation

I don't have a backgroup in the armoured corps, but SB has given me some understanding of the above concepts. How is that an "illusion"?

[Chaplain]

Maybe the problem here is some are willing to live with what is feasible, while others are only willing to have either perfection or nothing?

I ran into the same argument in the active Army. We often had to do mediocre training. Sometimes it was because our unit was not at the top of the list for training resources. Other times it was because 2/3 of our unit was on some sort of detail, or we didn't have time available to make up a good training plan. Some of my fellow soldiers, both officers and NCOs, felt that imperfect training would do more harm than good. Others felt that it was right to use what you have available in as creative a way as possible. I'll admit that I defended both sides of this argument during my time in uniform.

I am now firmly in the latter camp. I believe that imperfect training is better than no training, just as a decent plan executed early is better than a perfect plan executed late.

[Homer]

Has anyone tried this?

http://www.army.mil/fcsold/f2c2/index.html

[jrcar]

This has been an interesting thread

Here in Australia (and from what I've seen most of the other Military users of SB) use SB to support combat (company) team tactical training in conventional operations. This is why the helos and a number of yet to be announced vehicles have been paid for by the military customers.

This is a fundamental set of skills that is required for before more mission specific training takes place.

This SB does fairly well (especially now we have some imporved infantry modelling, which is yet to come to PE).

We also use SB for education at Battlegroup (Bn) to Brigade level. I didn't expect this to work so well, however both instructors and students indicates it does a good job, for the cost and effort of running it.

The key difference between civvie and military use is that in the military we usually have a number of coy commanders also playing, not just the Bn comd.

I actually think Arty needs more work now (based on the inf mods we have already, which isn't in the civvie version... yet).

As noted elsewhere if you want an infantry centric tool for urban environments then VBS2 in multiplayer mode is much better, in particular if you have enough real people in the game to play almost everyone.

That is why VBS and SB are run under the one program here, they are complimentry with a good area of cross over where both can be used, and areas where one or the other is much better.

As a "wargame" tool SB just gets better and better and is in a class of its own in the commercial domain for what it does.

Likewise VBS is in a class of its own for what it does.

Cheers

Rob

[HotTom]

Has anyone tried this?

http://www.army.mil/fcsold/f2c2/index.html

Just downloaded it and starting to learn it. Thanks for the heads-up, H!

Here's an interesting take on it:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/11/72156

Also some links at the bottom of the article about the military using games to train.

HT

[IrishHussar]

There is where I strongly disagree. I hope sincerely nobody is under any illusions in that respect.

Hi Pillar

I can totally agree with you in that playing SB on its own will not make a tank commander out of anyone. For those civillian and non armoured bretheren on this site (I class them both the same), take that as you will, the actual commanding of your vehicle, allthough again IMHO the most important, only accounts for less than 5% of your actual sevice time and thats if you are lucky.

What I am adamant about though is due to various reasons, ie out of role operations, lack of budgets the modern armoured soldier can be of his vehicle for up to 2 years. When he comes back, the mountain of technical equipment he has to master is steep enough. If he can keep current and improve his batlefield management skills on SB it has to be of benefit.

I agree in the current online gaming community false lessons can be learnt but also new tricks can also be tried out without anybody getting hurt and in any case serious tuition should be in a controlled enviroment under the relevent supervision.

Pillar perhaps you could offer us an alternative to SB and I accept there is nothing better than the real thing however that is taken out of everybodys hands due to budgets.

Irish

[HotTom]

Hi Pillar

For those civillian and non armoured bretheren on this site (I class them both the same),

Irish

Iriish,

In terms of actual mechanical and technical skills operating a tank, you are absolutely correct. I wouldn't even know how to start the engine

However, much of what we do in SB is NOT armor specific (if we do it correctly).

The infantry uses exactly the same concepts in bounding overwatch during movement, actions on contact, breaching an obstacle, consolidating on an objective, conducting raid and recon and ambush patrols, and on and on

I learned all that stuff moving on shoe leather, not tank treads, but really it's the same. The biggest difference is that we go where the tanks are too fat to fit. You are handy in a support role for the grunts, but that's about it

In terms of knowing and understanding tactics and doctrine and how battles actually are fought (how to shoot, move and communicate) there are very few civilians or even other service (navy, air force) vets playing SB who know it or care to spend the time to learn it.

They can't write realistic missions with realistic units, they can't write an op order, they love head-to-head "death matches" with "balanced sides." They're pretty easy to spot.

Don't believe me? Stop in at any TGIF: Armored Quake

Nothing wrong with that. SB can be played and enjoyed at many levels. I'm not trying to sound arrogant (I usually do anyway) but there is a huge difference and we are not in the same "class."

So please don't paint us all with the same brush.

Incidentally, I place career military officers who sell their souls to defense contractors when they retire in a special "class" reserved just for them.

:MP:

HT

Feldjaeger (ret.)

[LarryHookins]

Incidentally, I place career military officers who sell their souls to defense contractors when they retire in a special "class" reserved just for them.

At least he won't be alone. I remember many of them from my days in the Pentagon. There was one contract company called CACI. I don't remember what it actually stood for, but we usually referred to it as Captains and Commanders Incorporated.

At least it's better than some of the people we could get. The fact that Steel Beasts is as good as it is (in those areas where it really shines) comes from the fact that almost everyone on the development team has been a tanker or ex-tanker.

Apparently there are a lot of things on the table to improve infantry. Hang in there.

Larry

[IrishHussar]

Hi Tom

firstly when I classified non armoured troops together with civillians I was obviously being a little flippant or maybe in the armored corps we would call it using humour. Obviously by your response the statement has some merit LOL. What I really wanted to draw attention too was the same facts that you later reinforced ie SB is not here too teach how to become a tank commander but can be used to reinforce some fundamentals of, as Tabcat wrote:

Communication

Coordination

Teamwork

Gunnery

Navigation

Movement

Observation

Iriish,

Incidentally, I place career military officers who sell their souls to defense contractors when they retire in a special "class" reserved just for them.

As for your next statement wow where did that come from.

Firstly I was never an Officer let alone a career officer. I can assure you I had to work all through my career and at the end of it, as the clock struck midnight for my 40th birthday, like thousands of other British soldiers, I was made redundant. So finding a job anywhere let alone working in command and staff training (lucky me) was a real urgency.

Irish

[Pillar]

Pillar perhaps you could offer us an alternative to SB and I accept there is nothing better than the real thing however that is taken out of everybodys hands due to budgets.

I would personally say book learning is #1. As for alternatives to SB, the old combat mission series (not the new one) or a patched SB with added infantry functionality.

[Tacbat]

Yeah, but I'm illiterate. Besides, I rather play on the computer anyways. :sonic:

[HotTom]

"As for your next statement wow where did that come from.

Firstly I was never an Officer let alone a career officer. I can assure you I had to work all through my career and at the end of it, as the clock struck midnight for my 40th birthday, like thousands of other British soldiers, I was made redundant. So finding a job anywhere let alone working in command and staff training (lucky me) was a real urgency."

LOL, well, it was said with a smile. You can take "special" several ways.

HT

[MAXMAN]

A few years ago I did a bad thing... I sold my copy of SB Pro PE... I know.. I know...

Now with all this talk about 2.6 I am again getting interested in the game... some of the new features have my attention, namely 3D infantry and plans. I don't really care about crewable vehicles.. but I do love seeing all the cold war equipment (Centurions and M-60s, where is the T-64 though? )

I have a few questions that are directly related to my original post in this old thread... maybe someone can help me with them.

My approach to the game is not the same as others:

I am not really interested in gunning or driving, but I am interested in the closest command simulation I can get. I am very impressed so far with SB Pro PE and I don't think there is anything remotely close to it in realism, detail, and quality of immersion.

So if you love going to the gunners station and shooting then that's great, but it is not something I am interested in. I am interested in whether any of the points I brought up all these years ago are now present in SB Pro PE...

First up my original questions regarding infantry:

Infantry

- I believe infantry dies too easily. I would rather see much more suppression and morale effects applied to an infantry unit under fire than just have them killed.

- Please give us a realistic representation of Squad support weapons, SAW, M-203, etc... I don't know if these are in the game right now, but it's impossible to tell if they are.

- I would like to see infantry units commanded at the Platoon level rather than the squad, just like vehicles. Allow the player to seperate them if they need finer control.

- generally more realistic representation of infantry TTPs when under AI control would be nice to see.

I love the 3D representation of infantry.. even though from the youtube videos I think the animation could use some work... are they still commanded at the squad level or can you command infantry at the platoon level now, like you can tanks?

Have any of the other points above been addressed?

Some General coments and questions:

General Items

- I would like to see the AI pop smoke when fired on by enemy units. Or at least give us an option for a reactions SOP.

- A hierarchical command representation would be nice... I would like to see Battalion and Regimental TOCs on map... with the ability of placing a player at each echelon for multiplayer games, with the restrictions that would enforce.

- C3 model that simulates command friction and order delays (for formation orders, not individual vehicle orders).

- Order of Battle organization with the ability to cross-attach and task organize. Not just in multiplayer but in single player as well.

- Observer mode for Pro PE. This would be great for training or for umpire oversight in multiplayer campaigns.

- Ability to add custom names to formations.

- Communications Jamming... I know I can do this with scripting.. and perhaps that is the way to do it, but I would like to see a way to have this with player control.. perhaps only at Battalion or Regimental command levels.

- the ability to lock the player into the command position of his command vehicle only... while still allowing control over the rest of his command in map view.

Have any of the above been added to the game since I left a few years ago?

Finally, pre-scripted tasks:

- Pre-scripted tasks. I would LOVE to be able to look up a task (ie. delay, withdraw, bound, etc.) and assign it to a Platoon or Company. A library that could be added to by players would be great. I see this giving the player the proper map symbol for the task, the waypoints and the scripting necessary for it... the player would then only have to drag points where needed for his situation. Sort of like loading a plan, but on a smaller level. Something like this would be a huge time saver when playing this as a command simulation.

I suppose the upcoming plans feature can be used only for full force battle plans.. but is it possible that it could be used for creating a library of tasks/battle drills that could be loaded for individual Platoons or Companies and then modified to fit the terrain and situation?

Thanks guys.

Bil

P.S. a special hello to LtCol Giibson

[Ssnake]

My approach to the game is not the same as others:

...I am interested in the closest command simulation I can get.

I'm with you, but with version 2.6 - especially the work that will not make it into this release - we are laying the foundation for future development which will eventually yield the features that you listed.

I can't vouch for all items, but for the vast majority the answer must be No, or at least "not yet" (therefore I won't go into details).

That doesn't mean that we have no interest in addressing these issues, but having three programmers instead of just one means that we can now spend some time on working on some fundamental changes, doing "research", so to speak.

I can't deny that I had hopes in the past two or three years that we would get to implement certain features much quicker. Partially we underestimated the amount of work, partially we were just overwhelmed with other development - but above all, we simply didn't have the time to hire additional programmers. In retrospect that may have been overly cautious, but give us some slack: It's out first attempt at running a company, and to organize a team of multiple programmers. You only know how difficult a task is after completing it.

I am convinced, for Steel Beasts Pro the best is yet to come. For the moment I'd like to be so audacious to suggest SB Pro PE 2.6 as a substitute.

[Gibsonm]

Have any of the above been added to the game since I left a few years ago?

Well a some of that stuff is possible but the scenario designer "you" need to put it in.

So an ORBAT where you task organise the CT or BG is possible but you need to know the composition of the units to begin with.

There is no menu to say I want a Square BG but if you build a scenario with 2 x Tk Sqns and 2 x Mech Coy its there.

Similarly you need to already know which vehicle type and qty are in each.

So I can build an AS Mot Coy becuase I know how many Bushmasters are in it (and what gear the guys have) but again there is no pre built menu option where you click on "AS Mot Coy" and get on the map:

X x Bushmaster

Y x Inf

Z x AT teams (with Jav instead of TOW)

etc.

There is currently no PL HQ or CHQ icons either (either cosmetic or with C2 linkages). If you add a PL you just get 3 x Squads / Sections.

BTW, unsure what the " " is for?

Edited November 18, 2011 by Gibsonm

[Skybird03]

My approach to the game is not the same as others:

I am not really interested in gunning or driving, but I am interested in the closest command simulation I can get.

So if you love going to the gunners station and shooting then that's great, but it is not something I am interested in.

I certainly do not want to keep you away from SBP, but you sound as if you are a strategy map player, and you explicitly mentioned command simulation.

You may want to go to the Matrix website and check out "Conquest of the Aegean" and "Battle of the Bulge". These allow you, though in a WWII setting, to go for command simulation. They advertize with both sims being used in military academies like Annapolis. Using a vector-based approach and real time plus an overwhelming plethora of subtle details and statistics modelled, these are quite different from the hex-field cosim that you maybe suspect. Both titles feature an extremely competent assisting/friendly and enemy AI - and the computer will set up a fight against you, making you wonder whether it really is a computer you are fighting against, really. The learning curve, however, is a bit steep, but for that you have a clever AI to which you can leave detail management - it usually will do it competently. However, if just strategic command is not satisfying for you, you can dive into micromanaging every single unit as much as you want - set up every platoon yourself for the attack, or just tell the company and batallion batallion commanders the "when" and "from where" - they will competently command and organise their attached units all by themselves.

Technically both titles are strategy titles, but in a way I tend to think of them as simulations indeed.

[Gibsonm]

Well there's also ProSIM's family of titles, like:

Brigade Combat Team

Armoured Task Force

Battle Group Commander

....

Got the PM - understood now.

[MAXMAN]

Thanks Skybird03, I know COTA and BFTB very well indeed.. I know Dave O'Conner (he even stayed at my house when visiting the East Coast a few years ago) I was in on the development of those titles as well all the way back to the very early Alpha days of the first Airborne Assault game (Red Devils over Arnhem).. though I can't really claim much credit for BFTB as I dropped out of the development team by that time and am simply in an advisory role these days.

...anyway I am looking for a sim that provides a Company to Batallion level sim.. I have played SB Pro PE many times before so I know how well this game does certain things, it is oh so close to being exactly what I have in mind. With Ssnake's reply above I can see that they aren't there yet.. but the important thing to me is that they are thnking about it.

Mark, I am not a fan of ProSIM's titles.. I have a few of them as well, but they do not provide the level of realism, detail, and planning that SB Pro PE provides.

All I am asking for is whether some consideration is being given to some of the thoughts I outlined above.. Ssnake says perhaps on some and no on others.. very well, I understand that programming time is expensive and fleeting for a project like this so I can accept that response.

I am leaning towards getting SB Pro PE again, but I haven't made up my mind yet. Perhaps there are a group of like minded guys out there that are playing multi-player games in command roles in SB Pro PE. That could be quite interesting.

Bil

[Ssnake]

If it is of any consolation to you, you are not the only one requesting certain changes to improve the utility value of SB Pro as a constructive/CPEx stimulating simulation. Of course it all works already if you have a sufficiently large group of minions who would execute your mission orders on the subordinate level. But for a single-player venture the user interface must be significantly modified, and in order for such modification to work well, more autonomous behavior for all units must be enabled. Finding the balance between deterministic behavior and autonomy in decision making so you can replay a certain scenarion with some confidence that it will play out the same where it is deterministic at the top level - if we can pull that off, I'll be very, very proud of the programmers. It is no trivial task.

[Tacbat]

I guess there's nothing stopping someone from creating a "template" mission that would have the ORBAT for a given side and size. It would be a starting point for a scenario designer at least.

[Gibsonm]

I am leaning towards getting SB Pro PE again, but I haven't made up my mind yet. Perhaps there are a group of like minded guys out there that are playing multi-player games in command roles in SB Pro PE. That could be quite interesting.

Bil

Well I have a bunch of spare licenses, happy to lend you one (you just download the software) and then join in the next ADF campaign mission and see how it works.

Would get you out of Normandy for a while anyway.

[Skybird03]

Thanks Skybird03, I know COTA and BFTB very well indeed.. I know Dave O'Conner (he even stayed at my house when visiting the East Coast a few years ago) I was in on the development of those titles as well all the way back to the very early Alpha days of the first Airborne Assault game (Red Devils over Arnhem).. though I can't really claim much credit for BFTB as I dropped out of the development team by that time and am simply in an advisory role these days.

...anyway I am looking for a sim that provides a Company to Batallion level sim.. I have played SB Pro PE many times before so I know how well this game does certain things, it is oh so close to being exactly what I have in mind. With Ssnake's reply above I can see that they aren't there yet.. but the important thing to me is that they are thnking about it.

Mark, I am not a fan of ProSIM's titles.. I have a few of them as well, but they do not provide the level of realism, detail, and planning that SB Pro PE provides.

Ah, so why am I talking...

You may have some interest to check this one, just in case you have not heared of it (for most people it seems to be an unknown):

Armored Brigade

Probably not the highly sophisticated detail you look for, but considering that it is free, it makes for some good gaming. Although a Beta, last time I checked it it ran stable, and nice. Reminds of SBP played from the map screen only.

Not to mistake with Brigade Combat Team. Didn't like that one myself. Not one bit.

[Grenny]

...I love the 3D representation of infantry.. even though from the youtube videos I think the animation could use some work... are they still commanded at the squad level or can you command infantry at the platoon level now, like you can tanks?

Have any of the other points above been addressed?

Some General coments and questions:...

The infantry in most wargames are just mapicons anyway. So blending them together in platoons and even companies is easy.

SB has a 3D world...and making and infantry platoon act like an inf. plt there is quiete a task.

Hell, esim would have a hard time implementing propper behaviour at team level!(and I don't know any other game that has it too)

Maybe we will see Inf.platoons in Version 10.546 ;-)

[Floydii]

Ah, so why am I talking...

You may have some interest to check this one, just in case you have not heared of it (for most people it seems to be an unknown):

Armored Brigade

Probably not the highly sophisticated detail you look for, but considering that it is free, it makes for some good gaming. Although a Beta, last time I checked it it ran stable, and nice. Reminds of SBP played from the map screen only.

Not to mistake with Brigade Combat Team. Didn't like that one myself. Not one bit.

I can vouch for Armoured Brigade, though I wish he'd make it MP.

[MAXMAN]

The infantry in most wargames are just mapicons anyway. So blending them together in platoons and even companies is easy.

SB has a 3D world...and making and infantry platoon act like an inf. plt there is quiete a task.

Hell, esim would have a hard time implementing propper behaviour at team level!(and I don't know any other game that has it too)

Maybe we will see Inf.platoons in Version 10.546 ;-)

All I am looking for re: infantry is a means to more easily command them. So I'd like a platoon level command type interface complete with formations etc.the same as is now available for vehicles. I am not looking for any special platoon level behavior (yet. ).

Bil