TEWT use

[Cuchulainn]

When I was a lad, a long long time ago, and being trained by the british Army how to be an officer and a gentleman we use to have TEWTs, Tactical Exercises Without Troops.

CM seems to have brought tactical computer simulations to a stage where they might be of real use in training people as to how to approach tactical scenarios.

With the military's interest in using game technology (several games now being used/looked at by the US Army, Marines and Air Force come to mind), has anyone run CM past the "official" military yet for their take?

[Username]

I posted similar sentiments previously. I think CM would make a great training tool.

In addition I would like BTS to contact someone like the author of "Seven Roads to Hell" (Burgett?) and get their take on the game. I would be very interested in WWII LTs and Captains opinions that saw front line action. Their input would be worth a thousand speculations and educated guesses.

Lewis

[Fionn]

A British officer posting under the username Cu Chulainn ? Are you from Northern Ireland by any chance ( at the very least you must have served there) ?

As for the question: I believe there are a lot of lieutenants and captains playing CM and liking it. I also know of at least one Colonel who plays and participates on the forum also ( I won't name his username since he mightn't want to be "outed" ).

Hopefully, if CM goes out on Cover Disks a lot more of them will see it and give it a try. I know there are a lot of avid wargamers in the military and if they like CM they may turn their peers onto it also.

[Mannheim Tanker]

When I was in the US Army (early 90's), I was involved with several microarmor training exercises (I'm serious!). This was done at everything from the platoon to the battalion level. We even had a 2-D networked computer simulation (battalion level) called JANIS, and a networked simulator (each tank crew in a sim) called SIMNET. CM blows them ALL away! I'm not sure how far things have come since I've been out, but I'll guarantee that CM is cheaper! Certainly a selling tool for routine training in the barracks

[medlinke]

oddly enough the army uses Starcraft... I kid you not. They use it to practice command structure. One person holds the mouse while there are others on their team who call out decisions for production (logistics), Air units, ground units, armored type units...

Its over at cdmag.com I think. Pretty neat article and I think it shows how abstract games can really be used to simulate some real world type problems.

CM would be good for this I believe. Having one person in command with the teams only getting say 3 minutes to put in all their orders for the next turn to one person where each person controls 1 unit. Sort of like the CPX TacOps stuff, but not double blind.

What do you think?

Keith

[KiloIndiaAlpha]

I've spent the last four years heavily involved in large scale computer assisted exercises (CAX's) with both the UK and the US. These exs were at the operational level and simulated units down to co and sometimes plt/section size. We did these exs to train 3* generals and their staffs and, as you can imagine, this involved US army, marines, navy, air force, int, SF, logistics.. We, the Brits, participated on a similar organisational scale. (Joint force at brigade level).

We had a lot of fun, worked very hard and learnt a heck of a lot:

In general terms the US are way ahead of the Brits in the acceptance of technology in a training environment. Hopefully the UK military will become less reactionary over the next decade or so, particulary as young officers of today, brought up with technology, become the senior officers of tomorrow.But, with respect to any UK officers on this board, my (substantial) experience with the UK miltary (especially army) leads me to conclude that most are luddites and actually 'afraid' of the hardware/software.

There are several key aspects of warfare that CM and similar do not simulate.

(This is not a criticism, simply an observation. There is no need for much of what follows in a tactical game)

1. Intelligence gathering. The int effort involved in large exs/operations is MASSIVE. The simulation of int gathering assets in a CAX is complex, difficult and very important aspect. It is much more than the fog-of-war and can range from an OP or listening post to a surveillance satellite. Almost all of it is classified and could therefore not be fully/accurately simulated in a commercial game.

2. Logistics, logistics and logistics.! How does the saying go? Amateurs think tactics, professionals think logistics. Again the software development involved to handle logistics is a major part of the overall development and its importance can not be over emphasised.

The actual combat simulation is quite small in comparison to 1,2 and in my experience handled and resolved in a quite crude fashion. Indeed all commercial (modern warfare) games I've played handle combat resolution in much greater detail than any of the miltary games. IMHO the reason for this is that combat is 'sexy', the simulation of it is interesting and the customer wants detailed resolution. No one wants a massive logistics model in a commercial game, no one wants to spend hours counting beans and bullets and planning, in detail, the night-move of an infantry brigade through the rear areas. (Perhaps they do, but only once...!)

Anyway I'll stop rambling now... But in summary there is perhaps an opportunity for commercial games in a military training environement (believe me I banged my head against this one for over four years!) but it will require a different mindset from the miltary and a change in emphasis in the games, this change perhaps making them less desireable to the civilian wargamer and thus reducing the games commercial viability.

[Guest Seimerst]

TRADOC (Traning and Doctrine Command) is a four-star major US Army command and they are taking a serious look at the use of "wargames" as a training vehicle. Beltway bandits have made millions designing custom software programs to "simulate" certain operational conditions. Much of it has been a waste for several reasons, the state of the coding art was not mature and the computing power required to do all the customer wanted was not affordable. But that was then, and we are at now. Now the computing power is cheap and at least BTS has the coding art tamed. Rest assured that CM will be brought to the attention of the more forward thinking senior officers as something useful right off the shelf for small unit tactics. Yes, I know the weapons are outdated but the "teaching points" that CM provides are as true today as they were for WWII.

[slazzari]

(slightly out of the thread topic )Mannheim Tanker -

Just out of curiosity, were you in Mannheim, Germany, in the early 90's? If so, email me, I was there from 90-92

Scott

[Fionn]

Basic tactical concepts haven't changed much over the past 2000 years really. The ranges at which things occur and the lethality and force concentrattions have all changed in respect to weapons development but the basics are still the same.

I'm quite sure that company grade officers could learn a LOT from playing company-sized scenarios in CM and with the possible advent of a modern-day CM in the far future it may become even more obviously applicable.

Basically though I'm backing Seimerst the whole way on this. When you get down to basics a tank is a tank is a tank and a rifle is a rifle is a rifle. Someone who can command an SS Panzergrenadier company well will also command a much more poorly-equipped Volksgrenadier company well. Talent is independent of the weapons at one's disposal.

[Guest R Cunningham]

I don't expect the military to pick up on CM for a variety of reasons, the foremost being it is turn-based. CM is designed to be played by one player who is simultaneously the Battalion Commander, company commander, Platoon Leader, Squad Leader and even Team/crew leader. That kind of role mixing necessary to the design of CM does not jive with how the military does business. The turn-based gameplay, again necessary to accomodate the single player in all these roles does not put the "trainee" under any kind of time stress which is an integral part of the real battlefield. The time you take in preparing/issuing an order is time your subordinates do not have to execute.

The military sims all run in real time and are massively multiplayer. Often the people being trained, the ones "playing" the "game,"

have no contact with the automation at all. The computer feeds events to the soldiers who operate the hardware. These soldiers then submit the appropriate reports back to the commanders and staffs who will then react to this input by updating maps, issuing orders etc.

We did one in March with JCATS and to play a battalion defense, we had well over 150 people involved at all levels and 90% didn't have anything to do with the computers.

So while there may be benefit from individual usage of a game like CM, I don't think the military will ever adopt it. The Army doesn't even have any equivalent to the Project Warrior thing the Air Force had in the 80's (and may still have) that put wargames in the base libraries and encouraged airmen to use them for professional education.

Despite what I've said the Marines have let a contract with Atomic to produce some version of CC for them. The critical difference here is the real-time engine, despised by so many, that requires instant decision making which is what they are looking for, not the detailed armored penetration model of CM.

[Brian Rock]

The US Marines, Canadian Army and New Zealand armies have all purhcased licences to use TacOps in training. CM and TacOps both use one minute turns with players giving orders "offline" and simultaneous execution.

Although I agree the principles are basically the same, without modern equipment I can't see CM getting a large amount of formal support.

I can, however, see lots of soldiers giving it a great deal of unofficial support.

[Brian Rock]

The US Marines, Canadian Army and New Zealand armies have all purhcased licences to use TacOps in training. CM and TacOps both use one minute turns with players giving orders "offline" and simultaneous execution.

Although I agree the principles are basically the same, without modern equipment I can't see CM getting a large amount of formal support.

I can, however, see lots of soldiers giving it a great deal of unofficial support.

[Brian Rock]

(Double post)

[This message has been edited by Brian Rock (edited 05-04-2000).]

[DesertFox]

CM might be an excellent Wargame, but as an military simulator to teach Platoon/Company/Batallion Commanders the "Kampf der verbundenen Waffen" (combined arms warfare) as we say, it´s useless, since it is absolutely lacking the most important factor for decisions on the battlefield T-I-M-E !!!!

If it would ,sometimes perhaps, be developped a combination of a realtime engine and all the stuff which is in CM in a much larger environment on maps at least 10x10km this might be usefull, depending on how smart your AI guided platoons and squads behave.

But as it is right now, it´s too much of a game (although most likely the closest to reality I have seen so far) and you have do adapt your tactics to it being a game and occasionally replace real life tactics with gamey tactics.

The best is still to drive on a battle range with your Tank Company and teach your Platoon leaders and Panzer Commanders there.

Or do you want to simulate standing 72 hours in a forward position with your platoon having to overwatch a certain area with absolutely N-O-T-H-I-N-G happening and having no time to sleep at all in a game ?

No criticizm to CM, but you have to realize what it is. It´s a game, nothing more.

Cheers

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/

[iggi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the most important factor for decisions on the battlefield T-I-M-E !!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wasn't there going to be a timer for internet play in the patch?

[Guest Seimerst]

I understand your point and it is a good one-- I didn't make mine very clear. CM is a game, true-- but it has the capacity to impart to the player tactical truths in a manner (especially to today's young, computer-savvy leaders)that far outstrips any stack of field manuals. I used to teach small unit tactics some years ago and after so many lectures and presentations of reverse slope defense, platoon in the defense, etc., there would be a practical field exercise for the students to demonstrate their understanding of the tactical principles. My point is that CM has the potential, if properly integrated in to the lesson plans, of getting the basic concepts across more effectively than any amount of lectures, etc. It is a more effective way of learning-- more sensory input, good AI that will point out your mistakes or reward your tactical genius-- it also drives home the point about ever present lady luck and that troops will do the darndest things every now and then.

[Guest Big Fat Guy]

It is not just the Marines that are looking at Close Combat as a tactical trainer. The Air Force, Army, and Navy are all looking at it too. The turned based action of Tacops is a real turn off in tac sim's for company level training. I know they do want higher level games such as the World at War and Tacops for larger scenarios.

The Air Force uses Starcraft in an un-official/semi-official way.

I can see CM being useful in the training they are looking for, but right now they want realtime.

[Fionn]

I think CM will be used more in the training of recruit officers and suchlike than as part of formalised Bn-level training.

The ability to REALLY hammer home exactly what happened using the movie replays, the ability to set up EXACTLY the situation you want to demonstrate and the fact that the combination of visual, aural input, good AI and the ability to run on whatever computers are in the class could make CM quite useful in illustrating points to a class.

The impact of seeing a charge disintegrate as it hits a reverse slope defence or the effect of moving towards an ambush without a recon screen vs a replay of the game in which the player uses a recon screen will graphically hit home the points the class leaders want to make.

I think it'll be handy in teaching that sort of stuff but I don't see it becoming flavour of the month in entire branches of the armed service.

Some people are making such lessons using TacOps and I can't help but think that enterprising teachers will use the movie function in CM to its fullest since a CM movie is guaranteed to grab the attention of even the most bored cadet (especially when compared to some analysis in a mothy old FM).

[Guest Big Time Software]

I'll chime in here for a bit...

I don't think that Combat Mission is worthy of some huge, central role in military training. It lacks several features that are manditory for such a level of adoption. However, I do think it would be a valuable tool in any army's tool box. While it might not simulate the pressure of TIME, and does not simulate a single command level, it DOES simulate how everything works together to achieve, of fail to achieve, a desirable outcome from a directly applicable military setting.

Also, at this level of warfare, logisitics (beyond ammo conservation) is a non-issue once the bullets start flying. So the lack of logistics is not a liability so long as it is used with this in mind.

In conclusion, the military will NEVER find a Swiss Army knife, Holy Grail, simulator that will do eveything for every level of command in all situations. The Beltway Bandits might have tried to convince military trainers otherwise, but it is simply an impossibility IMHO. Therefore, CM does have a place within the military training structure. And I hope that this might happen.

After CM is out we will try and impress some brass that CM would make a good tool for military training, much the way Siemerst described. I also believe that the strongest form of education is one that involves a certain degree of entertainment. It tends to make a deeper impression than something that is totally dry. And since CM was designed to educate as well as entertain, it is well positioned to do this.

Steve

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

However, I do think it would be a valuable tool in any army's tool box. While it might not simulate the pressure of TIME, and does not simulate a single command level, it DOES simulate how everything works together to achieve, of fail to achieve, a desirable outcome from a directly applicable military setting.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was just about to say the same thing.

OK, maybe CM doesn't have the stress of TIME in it during the planning phase, but it does show/simulate how everything works together to accomplish goals.

It would help the Private learn why his Sergeant told him to go to this location and fire in this direction. Because in my view of the armed forces, there is a lot of, shall we say, "blind" orders given without much explanation. While playing CM, the average Joe Smoe soldier would learn why, instead of the "our's is not to reason why, our's is the reason to do and die".

------------------

"Why don't we say that we took this one chance, and fought!"

"Stupid humans. Hahahahahahaha!"

--from the film Battlefield Earth

[Guest JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ol' Blood & Guts:

... Because in my view of the armed forces, there is a lot of, shall we say, "blind" orders given without much explanation...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell me, what personal military experience or knowledge are you basing this bold statement on? (And I don't want to hear about your favourite SEAL, again)

Regards

Jon

------------------

Ubique

[This message has been edited by JonS (edited 05-04-2000).]

[Username]

I would still like WWII vets opinion of how the game "plays". It would be interesting feedback. Comments like: "Theres not enough surrendering" or "Noone would stick there head up then" or whatever would put the game in a different light.

Lewis

[Dar]

Good luck finding an actual combat veteran from any war who'll want to review CM for you. I'd wager a good sum that most veterans who've fired a rifle in anger don't want to relive the moment in their own minds--much less with a computer game.

Dar

[Zamo]

Oh, I dunno, Dar, I know my old man will check it out. It took him years to start talking about his combat actions (1st Marine div., Cape Glouster, Peleliu, Okinawa...and Pavuvu!), but now we can't get him to shut up. He goes to all sorts of reunions and can't be torn away from "The History Channel". He described combat as "Like deer hunting...except the deer have machine guns." I'm sure there are alot of vets who don't have problems with their combat experiances. Just as I'm sure there are alot who do. Different people behave differently.

As to games in the military, when I was in the Marines we had a game I believe was called "TacWar" which was played on a large table with nifty little foam hills and forests and concealible units and all sorts of other neat little stuff. It wasn't computer based, it was all minitures, with all sorts of tables and such. That was back in the early 80's. We did alot of rehersing that way before mounting the pigs and doing it for real. I personally think CM would be ideal for NCO's on up to company level officers. It really works out problems at that level much clearer than TACWAR ever did...and is much cheaper!

Zamo

[This message has been edited by Zamo (edited 05-04-2000).]

[DesertFox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My point is that CM has the potential, if properly integrated in to the lesson plans, of getting the basic concepts across more effectively than any amount of lectures, etc. It is a more effective way of learning-- more sensory input, good AI that will point out your mistakes or reward your tactical genius-- it also drives home the point about ever present lady luck and that troops will do the darndest things every now and then.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seimerst,

I agree here. Definitively it may serve well as a good addition to traditional teaching conceps. Worked out tactical situations can easily be represented and their outcome be analysed, using CM as some kind of visualization tool.

However, tactical decisision and military command of subordinates can´t be trained with it, since these processes require other factors to be considered, factors that the game can´t represent.

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/