The Decision Curve and Combat Mission

[Terence]

Hi Everyone,

I was talking to my dad about Combat Mission and how it was a great simulation of small unit combat. We discussed tactics, and I mentioned some of the stuff that was being posted on the board and then he related the following to me:

This interesting discussion reminds me of an old friend of mine, a famous fighter ace and military theorist,retired Col. John Boyd.

He wrote the F-16 tactical manual, among other things. He summarized the discussion by saying that in aerial combat, and by extension in all battles, what you try to do is "get inside the other guy's decision-curve." By that he meant doing things

that make the enemy uncertain, and to do them in succession, faster than he

can react to them. When he is confused, you win. It's easier said than done,

of course, but it's a nice idea.

It seemed to work for him, and his briefing

on it was famous througout the Pentagon and the military planning outfits.

Anyone care to tell me if they think this is valid way to do business in CM and if they've ever done it?

[Jeff Heidman]

I know I have tried to do it, it is hard to be sure if I suceeded.

I do know that I have fallen prey to it.

When you are making decisions only in reaction to what the enemy does, and likely reversing those decisions prior to actually getting somewhere with them, you are a victim of this.

Jeff Heidman

[Guest ckoharik]

It is most definitely the way to do it in Combat Mission and anything else. Of course, that assumes you are playing a human opponent. The AI does OK for battles but it's not too terribly hard to defeat in an even (point wise) engagement. Once you get a human opponent reacting to your moves then you have the advantage. But don't think that they won't be able to regain their balance and cause you a world of hurt. In fact, I've seen/heard people who lull you into thinking their forces are in disarray and just wait evily to pounch on an overeager force.

[aka_tom_w]

"get inside the other guy's decision-curve." By that he meant doing things that make the enemy uncertain, and to do them in succession, faster than he can react to them. When he is confused, you win. "

OK

I can see this in an RTS (Real Time Sim) Like Myth or Age of Empires.

but because we can take our time planning moves, (unless you set the TIMER real LOW like a minute or two) it would be impossible to do things that make the enemy uncertain, by doing things faster than he can react to them." in CMBO without the timer on.

I think it is a great idea, it is such a great idea that young kids and teens do this extremely well in "click fests" to win RTS games and it seems to me like old slow Grogs find this tactic infuriatingly "gamey" !

BUT, now this it has a name ("get inside the other guy's decision-curve.") and it is a REAL life military tactic I will be happy to point it out to those that HATE the RTS "click fest"

Any other comments?

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-08-2001).]

[Terence]

Originally posted by ckoharik:

Once you get a human opponent reacting to your moves then you have the advantage.

That makes a lot of sense. Clearly when you are doing stuff faster than the other guy can react, you have some advantage.

But what about the turn-based nature of the game. Doesn't it become a lot harder to get inside someone's decision curve if they can stop for an hour and consider what it is you are up to and how to react? (aka tom: sorry man, we posted simultaneously....)

And how would this general principle apply in an attack scenario? Would that mean, for example that if the defender has to defend a certain area with a finite number of troops the trick would be to hit hard and fast in a way that lets you defeat his troops piecemeal?

[This message has been edited by Terence (edited 03-08-2001).]

[Terence]

extra post because I am an idiot.

[This message has been edited by Terence (edited 03-08-2001).]

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

OK

I can see this in an RTS (Real Time Sim) Like Myth or Age of Empires.

but because we can take our time planning moves, (unless you set the TIMER real LOW like a minute or two) it would be impossible to do things that make the enemy uncertain, by doing things faster than he can react to them." in CMBO without the timer on.

Doesn't matter. Forcing your opponent to react to you is the basis of chess... the original turn based wargame.

[Guest ckoharik]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

Doesn't matter. Forcing your opponent to react to you is the basis of chess... the original turn based wargame.

Exactly! It doesn't matter if your opponent ponders his move for a minute or an hour. If you have him reacting to your moves and thereby having to drastically modify his plans then you have the uppder hand.

Figure your opponent has come at you from an unexpected front. What happens is you have to adjust your plan of action to accomodate that in order to preserve your cohesion. But what if he's lulled you into thinking that is his major thrust and you've redeployed to meet it when suddenly his real force strikes on the opposite side. You are now seriously off balance and it would take some considerable effort and luck to regain it.

[Terence]

. Doesn't matter. Forcing your opponent to react to you is the basis of chess... the original turn based wargame.

So its possible that by feinting as part of your attack you could draw your opponent to move some of his defending troops, then call in smoke to mask your advance and hit him where he is weak? that way, your attack is inside the "decision curve" cause he can't move back fast enough to stop your assault.

*opens can of worms*

is this decision curve thing a maneuverist thing or an attritionist thing?

[Windopaene]

I think a lot of this can be done in CM, regardless of the fact that it's turn based. Things such as smoke, hiding and splitting squads at a distance can contribute. Get the opponent thinking you are doing something, when in fact you are doing something else. Use smoke to obscure the battlefield, thus giving the opponent uncertainty. Use the terrain to "hide" a unit that was seen going north, then turn it south. Split squads early, so the opponent thinks you have a whole lot more inf on the left flank than you actually do, while sneaking the bulk of your inf on the right flank, etc.

If the opponent takes the bait and reacts to what they "see" you doing, then you are going to be able to mess them up and be responding "faster" to the actual battlefield circumstance than they can.

[Terence]

Originally posted by Windopaene:

Split squads early, so the opponent thinks you have a whole lot more inf on the left flank than you actually do, while sneaking the bulk of your inf on the right flank, etc.

That is very sneaky indeed.

[Berlichtingen]

A good example would be...

You are on the defense, and you hit one of your opponents thrusts with a counterattack with your mobile reserve (you did buy a mobile reserve, didn't you?). He must now react to what you have done. At this point, you have the upper hand. if you keep him reacting, you've got him... if he forces you to react, the initiative swings back to him. how much time you have to ponder it has no baring what so ever

[Croda]

Originally posted by Windopaene:

...Split squads early, so the opponent thinks you have a whole lot more inf on the left flank than you actually do, while sneaking the bulk of your inf on the right flank...

I love that move. I try to use it a lot. It's the same premise as building twice as many campfires as normal so that your enemy think you have twice as many men.

I also think that getting inside his "decision-curve", when done properly, is just a matter of having something more than a simple plan. Smoke affects him, a sharpshooter on the wrong side of the map affects him, two jeeps away from what appears to be your main body affects him. Anything that makes your opponent question what he previously thought to be true causes him to pause and react, makes him second guess his plan, and gives you the upper hand. I think this is what your dad was talking about. How do I know this so well? It gets used against me all the time. I'm so stoopid!

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

Woot! - Maximus2k

The New CessPool

[StellarRat]

I think there's a big difference here if your talking about defense vs. offense. Jet combat really doesn't have a defense component while CM definately conveys advantages to the defender (if you know what you're doing.) I've found that if I'm defending a specific objective the decision curve is pretty small. The offensive player is the one with big decision curve.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

Doesn't matter. Forcing your opponent to react to you is the basis of chess... the original turn based wargame.

OK

I don't disagree, but as a WWII simulation, I would prefer to consider this radical different from the IGO UGO turn based nature of Chess. I like Chess and can play chess reasonably well, so of course I agree that you can most certianly gain the upper hand when you are making your opponenet respond to your intiatives. No problem there, BUT I guess I think that the real value of actually exectuting the "get inside the other guy's decision-curve." tactic comes when you can play in an RTS game that is fluid and dynamic, like a real world battlefield and pull off a Real Time tactical attack with the clear intention of doing things and moving units so quickly that the enemy is overwhlemed and confused. I like the CMBO system because the 1 minute "turns" give the computer time to pause and crunch all the realistic penetration results, but unless you play with a very short timer, the "get inside the other guy's decision-curve" tactic in this case, seems to be limited to just "oridinary " good battle tactics like "use smoke" and "split Squads" and fake flanking attacks to confuse the enemy, which I figure are all good everyday basic combat tactics to begin with.

The Real Value of the "get inside the other guy's decision-curve." comes when things can be made to happen FASTER in a RTS environment (Like Real Life Arial Fighter combat for instance) where your forces can do so much so fast as to overwhelm your opponents ability to react and of course hopefully confuse him.

I think, that like in chess, taking the initiative and making your opponent react (preferably in a predictable way) is just a common sense military tactic. But the "get inside the other guy's decision-curve" trick is a COOL new phrase now for the same tactic kids and teens use in the RTS video game click fest IMHO!

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-08-2001).]

[Terence]

Originally posted by StellarRat:

I think there's a big difference here if your talking about defense vs. offense.

In the situation you are describing, defending a specific objective, it occurs to me that you can get inside the opponent's decision curve as early as the unit purchase process and the setup screens.

[Bimmer]

Ahh, yes, the famous Boyd Cycle, or OODA Loop: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. It applies to CM, most other wargames, Flight sims, clickfest RT stuff, business, and virtually every other competitive activity known to man. A modern-day version of Nathan Bedford Forrest's "get there firstest with the mostest." Force your opponent to react to you, and you will set the agenda and pace, and give yourself a potentially decisive advantage.

The only question is just how strictly you adhere to it and how loudly you proclaim its superiority to all other methods of decision-making, which seems to be decided based solely on whether or not you wear a blue Class A uniform and turn fuel into noise for a living.

[Terence]

Originally posted by Bimmer:

The only question is just how strictly you adhere to it and how loudly you proclaim its superiority to all other methods of decision-making, which seems to be decided based solely on whether or not you wear a blue Class A uniform and turn fuel into noise for a living.

I turn bull**** into paper for a living, so that may rule me out as a OODA loop devotee.

It seems to make sense, but Im thinking about some of what Ive read about the use of MASS and some soviet doctrine and Im wondering if they are compatible....

[Wesreidau]

I had the OODA loop hammered into me by Blackhorse (Active US Cav) a LONG time ago. It works gentlemen, whether its playing an older game like the Battleground Series, any flight-sim and even more so CM.

The psychological advantage it can convey often outweighs any material or tactical advantage to a point where your enemy loses heart when he really shouldn`t.

I`m an OODA convert, although I`d be interested to hear others schools of thought..?

[BlueFalcon]

I would bet it would be much easier to achieve this in TCP/ IP than PBEM, where you have plenty of time to analyze all posibilities. TCP/ IP with a time limit, things seem to cook under a little more preassure.

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

Ours is not to reason why, ours is to do or die!!!

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by StellarRat:

I think there's a big difference here if your talking about defense vs. offense. Jet combat really doesn't have a defense component while CM definately conveys advantages to the defender (if you know what you're doing.) I've found that if I'm defending a specific objective the decision curve is pretty small. The offensive player is the one with big decision curve.

The advantage is with the attacker. The defense, by its nature, limits your choices. The attacker sets the pace unless the defender can steal the initiative.

BTW, on a different topic... RTS is more an excersize in hand/eye coordination than in thought

[Jagdcarcajou]

Hey,

The time it takes to consider your move has nothing to do with this working or not. Having extra time probably gives you more time to second guess yourself, in fact. The WEGO system employed by CM does nothing to hinder the effectiveness, and basically this is common sense in any tactical situation. If the enemy deploys to react to a feint, this "theory" is in effect. By forcing the opponent to react you are able to take the initiative.

TW, on a different topic... RTS is more an excersize in hand/eye coordination than in thought

This is spectacularly short-sighted. RTS games CAN require thought. Age of Empires and Sudden Strike are two good examples of games that do not repay "twitch" reflexes with favorable results. A carefully planned attack/plan of action will yield far greater results than clicking quickly. Good reaction times help to deal with simultaneous actions on multiple fronts, but a good head on your shoulders will go far.

Chris

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

What the hell is a Jagdcarcajou?

CM Recon

[StellarRat]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

I'll have to disagree with you on this one. If what you're saying is true the attacker should be able to win 50% of the time or more with an equal sized force. I really think you need to be at 2:1 or better to win against a competent defense. Although there are historical examples of much smaller forces beating numerically superior forces they usually had a qualitative advantage or complete surprise in their favor.

[This message has been edited by StellarRat (edited 03-08-2001).]

[Bimmer]

Mass is fine, but the problem with the Soviet interpretation of mass is that they looked to sheer weight to overcome weaknesses in their tactical system, not to complement strengths. You can have lots of mass, but if it isn't where you need it when you need it, it doesn't do you much good. Modern US doctrine tends to do a better job of combining massed fires and maneuverability to form a flexible tactical system. The Soviets were not very good at high op-tempo, and susceptible to losing their balance if caught off-guard - precisely what OODA is aupposed to do.

Now, in CM terms, mass has more value simply because the force is almost always at or very close to where it can be employed. However, OODA type planning can still throw off the steamroller-style tacticians, though the potential for disaster is significant.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by StellarRat:

I'll have to disagree with you on this one. If what you're saying is true the attacker should be able to win 50% of the time or more with an equal sized force.

Ok, your logic excapes me on this one. the defender has the advantage of position.

I really think you need to be at 2:1 or better to win against a competent defense.

Not true in the broad sense. As the defender, you have to defend your position (however that is defined)... the attacker is not required to attack your entire front, giving him the ability to gain numerical superiority at the point of attack. The attacker always begins with the initiative advantage. It is the defender's job to take that advantage away. The timing of the attack and the point of attack are decided by the attacker.