The Cove - The Australian Profession of Arms

[Combatintman]

Bit of a plug for CMBS in this article here:

https://www.cove.org.au/wargaming/article-experimenting-with-a-commercial-off-the-shelf-wargame-as-a-pme-tool/

The remainder of the site may also be of interest, home page is here:

https://www.cove.org.au/

[Erwin]

Very interesting.  According to their assessment of CM:  "The commercial scenarios are not balanced according to military doctrine. They are weighted more as ‘problems’ than as balanced engagements. For example, enemy assets always seem substantially larger than doctrine would support  such as a US dismounted company attack set up against multiple enemy platoons."

But their review is generally positive.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Very interesting stuff. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

Very interesting.  According to their assessment of CM:  "The commercial scenarios are not balanced according to military doctrine. They are weighted more as ‘problems’ than as balanced engagements. For example, enemy assets always seem substantially larger than doctrine would support  such as a US dismounted company attack set up against multiple enemy platoons."

But their review is generally positive.

I remember pulling my hair out at a CMSF scenario that was basically a Stryker Company+ (MGS platoon, snipers, and I think AH-64s) vs what felt like the entire Syrian insurgency plus a SOF BN on something like a 45 minute time table.  

Wargames tend to trend to "The worst day of the war" missions because they're exciting.  It's situations that doctrine often needs to be dramatically adjusted, while a training aid wants to build basically a showcase how to do it "right' with much more modest improvisation (with of course, once the doctrine is well understood, then the OPFOR tap turns on and things go sideways, but you want to start from "the book is right" and move to "The book was right about these two things, and I'll use what I've learned in earlier training  to improvise solutions to these twenty things")

[Battlefront.com]

Heh... that didn't take long for you guys to spot

Yes, the comments reflect the core difference between a sim and a game.  While Combat Mission's mechanics are absolutely a simulation engine, the manifestations of it are very much aimed at gamers.  A sim might have a platoon sized force do nothing more than maneuver a map without taking much fire, then be judged almost exclusively on friendly casualties with even 1 or 2 being enough to get a poor score.  Gamers would consider such a scenario a waste of time.  For the most part.  I mean, a gamer who really wants to have realistic scenarios might like one or two battles set up as sims, but would then say "OK, bring on a horde of T-72s or I walk away!"

The other aspect is that sims require a bunch of different "tools" for a classroom environment that gamers would hate or at best not use.  So not much point in spending our time on such things, especially since gamers are paying for all our development time.  Literally.  We don't misspend your money

Steve

[Rinaldi]

What battlefront can't do in scenarios for all the reasons of business you just stated Steve, community map makers can step in and do. They don't get a paycheque either way, or risk going out of business, so they can experiment.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Rinaldi

[Battlefront.com]

Yup   Someone in the community can make THE MOST BORING SCENARIO EVER (according to gamers) and yet the sim types might think it's the best thing since sliced bread.  Different needs mean different solutions.  Our solutions, by default, are to entertain the gamers buying Combat Mission.  If someone wants to pay us to make the game boring for gamers, we're always up for a challenge

Steve

[Apocal]

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I remember pulling my hair out at a CMSF scenario that was basically a Stryker Company+ (MGS platoon, snipers, and I think AH-64s) vs what felt like the entire Syrian insurgency plus a SOF BN on something like a 45 minute time table. 

Yeah, it is kinda silly, because at that point doctrine breaks down and you start looking for ways to just game the hell out of the AI, rather than implement a realistic solution- In the case of that scenario, I'm pretty sure the common sense solution would be to back off and wait for BDE to provide escalation options.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

The fact that the engine handles either format with equal aplomb is to its credit.....While time spent in the editor can be frustrating (one of those nights again) it can also be very rewarding. 

I now need a long lie down! 

Edited May 27, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Battlefront.com]

25 minutes ago, Apocal said:

Yeah, it is kinda silly, because at that point doctrine breaks down and you start looking for ways to just game the hell out of the AI, rather than implement a realistic solution- In the case of that scenario, I'm pretty sure the common sense solution would be to back off and wait for BDE to provide escalation options.

Absolutely, but where's the fun in that?   I fondly remember the scenario PzKrtWfr mentioned because it was the first one created, during testing, that featured air power as a central part of a large scenario.  I had a ton of fun with it.  Though if we are thinking of the same scenario, it was a platoon of Stryker infantry backed by a platoon of Stryker ATGMs, artillery, and Apaches.  Though maybe George changed it into something different than what I tested, that I don't remember.

Regardless of the details, this is an excellent example of the difference between a sim intended for real life commanders and a wargame intended primarily to entertain.  The sim would be set up to see if the commander made the right decision (withdrawal) at the right time (pretty damned soon) in the right way (having the ATGMs punch up the lead Syrian column while the rest put the peddle to the metal rearward).  That's the complete opposite of what gamers want.  If anything, gamers would want another battalion of Syrian mech infantry to shoot up AND a resupply truck to reload the ATGMs

As said above, gamers thrive on battles which portray "worst case scenarios" for the average battalion or lower commander.  They probably want 9 out of 10 battles to be like that.  For a sim audience?  Probably 9 out of 10 would be low to medium intensity.  Different audiences, obviously, require different scenarios.  Since we sell our games to wargamers first and foremost, that's what we cater to.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

As said above, gamers thrive on battles which portray "worst case scenarios" for the average battalion or lower commander.

Which rather irks me. I don't say that they are wrong to like it that way, I can even supply an argument as to why that is a good thing. It's just not where I'm at. I personally am more bent in the direction of replicating historically plausible situations. And that usually means that no sane higher commander is going to send a company out to do a job that doctrine says requires a battalion. The exception being an operationally desperate situation where sacrifice of the unit may be the only option, or where his force is qualitatively so superior that they can routinely take on much larger enemy forces and win.

Michael

Edited May 27, 2017 by Michael Emrys

[Haiduk]

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The other aspect is that sims require a bunch of different "tools" for a classroom environment that gamers would hate or at best not use.  So not much point in spending our time on such things, especially since gamers are paying for all our development time.  Literally.  We don't misspend your money

I like CM for opportunity to model historical enagements and will be glad if, for example, on IRON level would be implemented those "tools", useless for wargamers, but need for sim-fans. Even for addition money

1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said:

It's just not where I'm at. I personally am more bent in the direction of replicating historically plausible situations.

 I have ideas to make complete historical campaign (or campaigns) of Donbas war 2014-2015, when all modules will be issued (UNCONS, please ), but scenarios will be like Steve said: A sim might have a platoon sized force do nothing more than maneuver a map without taking much fire, then be judged almost exclusively on friendly casualties with even 1 or 2 being enough to get a poor score. Will be interest to play most battles in about platoon-company size with lot of artillery on maps not less than 2*2 km ? I think, only for maniacs

Edited May 27, 2017 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, for sure people CAN have fun with scenarios where there is very little combat, unit counts, limited combined arms, etc.  In fact, one of my most favorite CMSF scenarios involved doing little more than maneuvering recon teams to figure out where the enemy was.  Engagement was suicide and a mission failure.  The combat came with the NEXT battle.  It was a blast and I think most people agreed.  But if it was like that for 9 out of 10 battles?  We'd lose our audience for sure.

The corollary of this is one of the things that the NZ Army is interested in, as are other militaries.  Due to the dispersed nature of most nations' forces, the cost of using heavy equipment, and the limited amount of space to use everything all at once... there's not a lot of actual full spectrum combined training maneuvers available to militaries.  Maybe once a year at best.  Even the Russians with all of their comparatively large scale "snap exercises" have the same problem, even though they probably spend more resources on this sort of thing than anybody else.  In the case of Russia the problem is the bulk of their forces are still 1 year conscription, so even 2 big events per year per soldier isn't great considering most of them only experience 2 in their entire career.

In almost all cases the training rarely has a full spectrum OPFOR of equal, not to mention greater, size.  The US Army is about the only one in the world that regularly does large scale OPFOR exercises.  But like I just mentioned, per soldier it is done far few times.  Going to Ft. Irwin once is definitely a big deal, but really... soldiers should be doing it every couple of months to really have the ability to hone their skills.  It is simply impractical to do that.

What Combat Mission provides is an opportunity for exploring the full array of military capabilities, on both sides, whenever and wherever the soldier wants.  Sure, it is not the same as doing it in real life, but if in real life you aren't doing it at all... well... better to have virtual battlefield training than none!  Better still is the opportunity for repetition and experimentation, two things that are absolutely off the table when it comes to real life maneuvers.  Even more so, a soldier that identifies a specific shortcoming/weakness can work on those issues specific to him or her.  Something that would not ever be possible with pretty much any training regiment as there's no way an exercise can be tailored specifically to one particular soldier within the larger force.  It also allows soldiers to experience command decisions related to weapons and units that otherwise would never be under his/her command, thus offering some insights into how to exploit positives and avoid the negatives when working with them.

Another benefit of Combat Mission is the ability to do "what if" scenarios.  Not only the obvious ones where "what if a hundred T-90s show up at one time", but more interesting things like "what if one tank shows up and I don't have any long distance ATGMs?" or "what if my vehicles can't get into a place where there's a determined enemy point of resistance?".  I still remember, quite fondly, when CMSF was used for a US Army battalion level training exercise where a captain kept requesting artillery support and the Colonel in charge kept saying "denied!".  The officer was a bit incensed and asked why he couldn't have it and the Colonel said "because they are busy with other things and you aren't important enough".  That captain had no problems like that in Afghanistan, so he did seem a bit puzzled why he wasn't the center of the universe in the training exercise

As the NZ article, and others point out, this is not a substitute for real life training nor classroom work.  It is, however, a great tool if used correctly.  And that does mean tailoring the battles to suit the training needs instead of using battles designed for entertainment as their primary goal.  Fortunately that is easily done thanks to our Editor and the game guts being inherently aimed at realism.

Steve

[A Canadian Cat]

12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Heh... that didn't take long for you guys to spot

Can I take it from that comment that you were aware of their plans? 

In noticed a couple of things slightly off in the article. One they called the game CM Shock Force Black Sea. No big deal just a regular journalistic mistake. And two they didn't mention the scenario editor instead they mentioned using the quick battle feature to create thier secenarios.

To me it seems like the scenario editor is the place to go for setting up exercises to support a course. Somewhat like what @Bil Hardenbergerhas been doing.

[Erwin]

For most humans the scenario editor is utterly intimidating.  Some people like coding...  or fishing.  Doesn't mean we all do.

[MOS:96B2P]

CMBS would be even better at simulating real world missions if it had unconventional forces, IEDs and VBIEDs.  Maybe someday. 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

@Bil HardenbergerCan I take it from that comment that you were aware of their plans?

Gold Star for you   I'm in contact with the project manager for this particular program.

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

For most humans the scenario editor is utterly intimidating.  Some people like coding...  or fishing.  Doesn't mean we all do.

This is it in a nutshell.  The idea is for the members of the program to get in, play, and get out as quickly as possible as many times as possible.  While there is nothing to stop them from fooling around with the Editor, nor would there be anything wrong with it from the program's perspective, it is not the focus of it.

53 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

CMBS would be even better at simulating real world missions if it had unconventional forces, IEDs and VBIEDs.  Maybe someday. 

Yup, that is entirely possible.  Though with CMSF2 on the way it won't be too long before those things will be covered in the existing Syrian scenario.

Steve

[sburke]

54 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yup, that is entirely possible.  Though with CMSF2 on the way it won't be too long before those things will be covered in the existing Syrian scenario.

Steve

Whoot!  The whole point of this thread was to get you to say that.    Gimme gimme gimme, are we there yet?

[Buzz]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

"......Though with CMSF2 on the way it won't be too long before those things will be covered in the existing Syrian scenario."

Steve

? ? ? ?

Buzz

[LongLeftFlank]

8 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

Which rather irks me. I don't say that they are wrong to like it that way, I can even supply an argument as to why that is a good thing. It's just not where I'm at. I personally am more bent in the direction of replicating historically plausible situations. And that usually means that no sane higher commander is going to send a company out to do a job that doctrine says requires a battalion. The exception being an operationally desperate situation where sacrifice of the unit may be the only option, or where his force is qualitatively so superior that they can routinely take on much larger enemy forces and win.

Michael

Of course, in the fluid, entirely unpredictable environment of asymmetrical warfare, e.g., an entire wing of your 'planned' force can be stalled, pinned or even wiped out (Mosul!) by a well placed IED coming from any direction. Leaving the rest of the force to complete the planned op (and to cover the wounded duck too, as like as not). 

Ergo, subunit commanders handling 'worst cases' becomes the norm. No plan survives contact, punched in the mouf, etc.

While a 'school solution' to a given tactical problem may actually be misleading, or an overly blunt instrument, given practical constraints of casualty avoidance and ROE.

Edited May 27, 2017 by LongLeftFlank

[Sgt.Squarehead]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yup, that is entirely possible.  Though with CMSF2 on the way it won't be too long before those things will be covered in the existing Syrian scenario.

Steve

Oh happy day! 

Can I pre-order? 

Edited May 27, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Vergeltungswaffe]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

... with CMSF2 on the way it won't be too long before those things will be covered in the existing Syrian scenario.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Of course, in the fluid, entirely unpredictable environment of asymmetrical warfare, e.g., an entire wing of your 'planned' force can be stalled, pinned or even wiped out (Mosul!) by a well placed IED coming from any direction. Leaving the rest of the force to complete the planned op (and to cover the wounded duck too, as like as not). 

Ergo, subunit commanders handling 'worst cases' becomes the norm. No plan survives contact, punched in the mouf, etc.

While a 'school solution' to a given tactical problem may actually be misleading, or an overly blunt instrument, given practical constraints of casualty avoidance and ROE.

All true, and part of what I had in mind when I wrote that I could think of reasons why practicing at a disadvantage could be a good thing. But even better is practicing putting the other guy at a disadvantage. But then, that usually happens at a higher echelon than is covered by CM.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

2 hours ago, sburke said:

...are we there yet?

Well, they must be up to something. I mean, they have been awfully quiet for the last month or two.

Michael

[Apocal]

16 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Absolutely, but where's the fun in that?  

The fun is being presented with plausible military challenges a modern commander might face and his likely options, regardless of the sexiness -- or lack thereof.

Think of it as a boxing game and the clinch. Clinching is pretty unexciting and arguably unimaginative. Certainly no one wants to watch twelve rounds of it. But it represents a valid counter to certain moves and can be integrated into a wider strategy for winning matches, so pretty much every boxing game that goes beyond the most ridiculously cartoonish depiction includes the clinch. Most any wargame with a persistent force mechanic can offer the same dilemma facing a real commander, who does have to make command decisions such as when to break off a fight going bad or when pushing harder through a tough defense is desirable, rather than simply having to reach deeper and deeper into his bag of tactical tricks until he's expected to pull a rabbit out.

 

Edited May 27, 2017 by Apocal
what are paragraphs?