The Blue Bar Returns!

[tc237]

Falconander, every major unit has deployed in support of the GWOT.

Even the OPFOR at the NTC (11th ACR) deployed, and IIRC so did at least a company of the Hohenfels Opfor.

Anyway, as someone that recently trained LT's at Ft Knox, I really can't see CM:SF, in it's current form, being used for any type of training.

It isn't any better that what is being used now, no matter how cool we think it is.

Right now it is simply a 3D game with modern weapons and equipment.

There are no formations, tactics, SOP's etc... that an instructor can use to train with.

No way to teach Army doctrine, which is what every training aid must do.

A civilian example is using Madden football to teach a high-school football team it's own playbook, but not having any of the team specific plays in the game.

Would the kids learn a few things and have fun?

Sure, but that is missing the point of using the game, which is to focus training on very specific aspects and objectives.

Take a Tank Platoon for example, in game it is really just 4 seperate tanks that have no link to each other.

No way to move together, support each other, no formations, battle drills, SOP's, etc... unless by excessive micromanagement from the player.

Sure, you can give each LT a tank and tell him to work as a member of the platoon, but that can be done now with current training aids and doesn't require CM:SF.

And enough with the -military is locked into old ways of thinking and doesn't like video games- line.

You might be able to put that over on civilians that do not know any better but the truth is that the military spends millions of dollars every year on new technology for training.

Ft Knox has Walmart sized buildings full of every type of simulator.

Every LT and NCO student is issued a laptop with numerous games and aids, every class room is equiped with a wall sized screen, network link and cable TV hook up.

When I left they were just about to remove the old terrain tables from the classrooms.

I would say the military is way ahead of any other sector in training methods and equipment so that arguement just doesn't fly.

Could CM:SF be used as a trainer one day?

Sure, but it would probably take a lot of work, be vastly different from what we are playing now and probably wouldn't be as much fun to play.

[GSX]

Right now it is simply a 3D game with modern weapons and equipment.

There are no formations, tactics, SOP's etc... that an instructor can use to train with.

No way to teach Army doctrine, which is what every training aid must do.

Couldnt agree more, doctrine drives tactics.

The mere lack of platoon formations breaks it for me as a viable training tool right now, and there are a lot of other methods of training that work too.

[Thomm]

Pardon me, but is Close Combat: Marines not used as an official training tool? Is there anything that CCM does better than CM:SF?

Best regards,

Thomm

[JohnO]

Yes, as a matter of fact the Marines do use CCM as a training tool but it is used mostly from squad level up to Company level.

JohnO

[Thomm]

Pardon me, but is Close Combat: Marines not used as an official training tool? Is there anything that CCM does better than CM:SF?

To answer my own question: it supports more than two players in multiplayer mode.

Re. Close Combat: Modern Tactics: I own 3 out of 5 CC games and did not even know this one existed. The PR does not seem to be awfully good.

Best regards,

Thomm

[GSX]

To answer my own question: it supports more than two players in multiplayer mode.

Re. Close Combat: Modern Tactics: I own 3 out of 5 CC games and did not even know this one existed. The PR does not seem to be awfully good.

Best regards,

Thomm

Its not all that often that a military Sim makes a popular wargame, too many things that the military want, the public doesnt.

[Battlefront.com]

Hey, I don't disagree that CM:SF has its shortcomings as a training tool, but let's not forget that the multi-million Dollar trainers aren't perfect either. I've actually used some of them at Ft. Knox, for example. As of a few years ago, at least, SIMNET was using computer technology from the early 1990s. The trainer was excellent at inter crew communications, simulating individual station jobs, and coms between tanks. It sucked for almost everything else. The terrain was flat and featureless. The resolution of images extremely low. Combined arms? Not any sign of it as far as I could tell. CM:SF, in terms of overall environment, kicks SIMNET's ass all over the place even if it can't hold a candle to the physical elements of SIMNET.

The Abrams driving sim pod was another one we used. Fantastic piece of equipment. I've driven some heavy vehicles before, and also tracked ones, so I have some sense of how realistic the sim was compared to the real deal. But I was just driving around in an environment without much interaction with the rest of it. I didn't have to worry about driving over friendly troops (obviously CM has the same problem), negotiating a dense urban environment with RPGs around every corner, no IEDs to avoid, etc.

Back at Redstone we used Javelin trainers and saw TOW trainers in action. They all presumed the crews were in optimal positions, they did not have to worry about return fire, and there was no combined arms involved at all.

Many of the virtual trainers I've seen on the news and in military press releases are also devoid of things like supporting combined arms and complex conventional threat environments. I've heard nightmare stories about VBS and VBS2 from insiders.

My point here is not to say that little old CM:SF is better than these million dollar sims. My point is to say that it COULD have a place within the full spectrum of training tools. Give us a few million bucks and it could have a huge place within it.

Now, everybody is entitled to their opinions about its applicability or not. It is, after all, just an opinion. The guy who emailed us yesterday asking if we will ever do a VISTA version of CMx1 also has an opinion. It is his opinion that he'd rather CONTINUE to use CMx1 products for his course work at a major US military university instead of rewriting his course to use some other products. And CMx1 games aren't even set in the right century

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

GSX,

Its not all that often that a military Sim makes a popular wargame, too many things that the military want, the public doesnt.

Exactly right. The provisional design specs we received from US Army TRADOC for the sim we almost did for them was almost a recipe for "how to lose money in the commercial market" The more formally a sim is going to be used, the more structure it needs to support the coursework. Fortunately that stuff is pretty much busy work for us, so as long as a military customer is willing to pay for it we have no problem doing it. But I'd expect hardly any of those features would ever go into a commercial release. CoPlay, as I've said many times, is definitely an exception.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

tc237,

And enough with the -military is locked into old ways of thinking and doesn't like video games- line....I would say the military is way ahead of any other sector in training methods and equipment so that arguement just doesn't fly.

Unfortunately, the military is still locked into its old ways of "if it doesn't cost millions then it can't be good" way of thinking. When we had a contract with TRADOC (which got cancelled due to OIF funding shortfalls) the officers we worked with were doing an end run around the military procurement system. As they said, if anybody outside of their office got wind that they were doing they would put it out to bid, the final bid would come in a little higher than ours, and they would be selected because of prior work history. In the end the tool would wind up costing 100 times more and would be delivered 10 years late in a state that didn't do what they wanted. Since the guys we were working for actually cared about training people NOW, this was all a bunch of BS to them and they weren't shy about saying so

The other problem is that these decisions are also still largely personality driven. The point man on our deal retired in the middle of the whole thing because it was dragging on for years (a common dual problem we were warned about, BTW) and his replacement came in fresh from a command assignment who had other priorities to deal with. We got back burnered despite others inside trying to keep it moving forward. Then OIF came along and the money that was set aside for us disappeared in a general spending freeze. Which was actually fine with us because by that time we weren't sure we would have signed up anyway since we had moved on to CMx2.

Anyway, this is the sort of thing that keeps us from caring much about military interest in CMx2. In theory we have a lot to offer and we would be very happy to do a specific military project for the right fee. But working with fickle bureaucracies who are used to people in $5000 suits telling them what they need is very frustrating. Since the chances of getting a military contract are so low due to our lack of "marketing funds", we're not expecting anything major to happen.

Individual instructors who use CM products, on the other hand, are a different matter. We're always willing to help out there.

Steve

[Bartokomus]

i just wanted to say thanks for bringing back the blue bar. i really did try RT, but it was always a chore for me...as people have mentioned it's like seeing a very dear friend again you thought was dead!

take care.

[CogNative]

"if it doesn't cost millions then it can't be good" ..."these decisions are also still largely personality driven" ..."working with fickle bureaucracies" ... sounds like a nightmare SIMS adventure;)

GSX has it right... too many things that the military want, the public doesnt.

Having worked in and around fickle (non military) Guv-Mint bureaucracie$ you are wise to move along your but cultivate those individual instructors who use CM products. One of these guys / gals may be in a position to help in various ways over time.

Hell, help one soldier stay sharper and healthy is a plus... and money saver for the Military.

[GSX]

Unfortunately, the military is still locked into its old ways of "if it doesn't cost millions then it can't be good" way of thinking.

Im sorry but this just isnt so, there are many examples of cost effective military procurements. From new uniforms to ammo to rations. It may be that often the procurement cycle for some things can be costly but in the main in my experience we always want value for money, or lowest bidder wins.

Thats not to say that major projects are not total FUBAR, I only have to think Nimrod AWACS there....

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, there have definitely been improvements to the procurement process. COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) purchases by the US military have been greatly increased over the past few years, though mostly because of procurement problems with units being shipped over to Iraq/Afghanistan. It seems that the more limited the need, the smaller the price per unit, the more likely COTS purchases can happen.

Unfortunately, sims for training are not in that ballpark for a bunch of reasons. As we all agree, CM:SF needs modifications in order to be the best it can be for widespread training. In order to do that someone has to draw up specifications, which in turn kicks in the entire bureaucracy. Once that happens the specs can become subject to politics because the entity requesting the sim probably doesn't have the authority to contract.

Small COTS purchases of sims like Combat Mission have never been a problem for the military to get authorization for. We've processed special purchase military POs before, for example. Even sold product to the CIA (something other than CM).

Steve

[LuckyStrike]

Thank you for bringing back the blue bar, it has made the game much more enjoyable

[Apocal]

Funny that Close Combat having precisely zero formations, zero SOPs and pretty much zero of anything except a workable morale model and decently realistic small arms performance doesn't prevent it from being used for training.

[salwon]

I think it's just the Co-op multi. Once CM gets that in there will be no reason to use CC...for anything, really

[RockinHarry]

Thanks for the efforts! V 1.11 makes CMSF now fully playable and well performing on my vintage computer! Now get to play more and get aquainted with the full system to be prepared when the Normandy game arrives! 8)

[Cid250]

Cid250 wlll be so pleased you listened to him.

Yes i'm really pleased!. 1.11 is the first patch that pleases me as WeGo PBEmail customer.