Jeff Heidman Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Interesting. Got to wonder if this was really just an excuse for some Major and his buddies to play wargames on the government dime though! However, when they talk about TOAW, he says this: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The Operational Art of War Volume II emphasized air and land operations. Although not truly operational in the sense that the user had only limited control over theater level flow operations,...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Anyone know what he means? Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 I shiver at the thought of playing this Major in CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimmer Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Do you have a link for this so I can get a more printer-friendly version? Or maybe you have it in a text or Word file you could send me? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumbo Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 My tax dollars hard at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Bimmer: The link is: http://leav-err.army.mil/call.html The click on the Call Database icon. It's a little tricky to figure out so I'll just send it to you as a word file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Good God! I wonder how many copyright laws you broke by posting this here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncawley@ameritech.net Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 "not truly operational in the sense that the user had only limited control over theater level flow operations" He is talking about the automatic and abstract character of logistics in TOAW. The player can influence supply states by not moving too far or fighting too much, by keeping roads or rail lines open and staying near them, and by appropriate placement of HQ units and the like. But he is not in charge of any of the logistics operations proper. The comparison is something like PacWar, in which the player can put together individual convoys of merchant ships to adequately supply particular bases or units, and the like. In TOAW, the supply system effects everything your units can do, but its mechanics are completely out of player control and its rules are largely hidden from the player to boot. It is a trial and error matter just to figure out how far a motorized force can afford to move across a desert in North Africa in a day. You cannot plan such things by manipulating the real constraints on the logistic factors yourself, as in "I can get the 101st Motorized to Point 151 today, but only if I strip out these trucks and leave these infantry divisions on the defense, and I'll have lower artillery ammo for 3 days along this part of the line", etc. Instead, the game just does those things by its own procedure, which you cannot directly integrate with your military plans. Doing so is key to real operational warfighting. This is a drawback of TOAW that is particularly noticeable on some unit scales and in some theaters or environments. In the large scale Korean War scenario it doesn't matter much. In some others, e.g. in the desert, it is bread and butter stuff, the real story, and the game keeps it out of your hands. I suspect that is what the guy noticed. Incidentally, they are smart to use them and they should have supported these things more back in the board wargame days to boot. People like John Butterfield made designs that are extremely good at the sorts of things they are talking about, in terms of the demands made on players, what one learns, etc. By comparison Sid Meier is a kids game, not in the same league at all with the others they are talking about. One interesting item in their discussion is the difficulty level they apparently found in the games, PacWar in particular. That was indeed a fine game, though with a clumsy interface (originally designed in pre-mouse DOS days, with tons of menus hidding every which where). But it is not all that hard to master if you know the history reasonable well, and the AI is no great challenge compared to decent human play (unless you take the Japanese in the late war, I suppose). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 11, 2001 Author Share Posted January 11, 2001 Thanks for the info Jason. Back in the day of TOAW I got into quite a long discussion with some people (including Kroger) about logisitcs in TOAW. I think it is the prime failing of an otherwise excellent game. I assume you are the same Jason Cawley from the Stars! newsgroup? Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeybutt Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 According to the Febuary issue of Computer Gaming World,West Point bought,get this now,1000 copies of Steel Beasts. Talk about your LAN games. -Monkeybutt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Jeff Heidman: No not Jason. Guess again. Give you a hint: starts with an S. My non-de-plume is Jasper. On another board someone started a thread to have people explain their handles. To answer the question: I just thought it sounded cool. I too was big into TOAW (the original not II) for awhile. Like CM ground breaking in it's way. I loved the 'event editor'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhorse Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dumbo: My tax dollars hard at work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, they are. Wargames and wargaming are a critical component of an officer's warfighting skills. What is entertainment to you is a tool to enhance critical and tactical thinking in officers. I use wargames at every opportunity to keep officers thinking tactically and to develop them professionally. More officers should spend time on wargames as opposed to tee-times at the O'Club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 11, 2001 Author Share Posted January 11, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jasper: Jeff Heidman: No not Jason. Guess again. Give you a hint: starts with an S. My non-de-plume is Jasper. On another board someone started a thread to have people explain their handles. To answer the question: I just thought it sounded cool. I too was big into TOAW (the original not II) for awhile. Like CM ground breaking in it's way. I loved the 'event editor'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jasper, I was talking to the guy whose forum name is "jasoncawley@ameritech..." I am about 95% sure it is him. Same name, same writing style: vast quantities of information. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumbo Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Blackhorse: "Actually, they are." Aye you are almost certainly correct, but you have to admit having someone reading a games mag on the military dollar does come over as a little odd 8) That said, I am with you regarding wargames, I am sure it helps military personell. No offense intended. _dumbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 The most fun computer wargame I ever got to play in the Army was an IntelEx run out of Ft. Huachuca. (don't remember the name, but it was designed by Lawrence Livermore Labs). It was a Division-level LAN game (units down to company size)whereby each workstation controlled one or two Brigades, another station for intel assets only, another for divarty (he had LOTS of fun), etc. It was run concurrently with a CPX at Ft. Riley whereby the console operators (incl. me) got movement/combat orders via telephone from the Brigades we represented and input the moves on our workstation. The system then generated SPOT reports, SHELREPS, and all sorts of battlefield intel that was automatically transmitted to and printed outat the relevant CP back home. The system took into account weather, elevation, LOS, smoke, vegetation, etc. And this was back in 1993! I always thought "Gee, too bad you can't play this on a PC!" Still, it revealed to me how "God's eye view" wargames can put TOO much control in the player's hands compared to Real Life . Several times I had to sit and watch friendlies get blasted while waiting for someone at the CP to realise what was going on and issue orders. Great fun, though! I think computer wargames (commercial or military-only ones) are an invaulable tool for teaching in the military. Despite the cost of some of the systems, it's peanuts compared to the cost of doing the same thing with real people and equipment. ------------------ "It's a boy!" - My wife's OB/GYN Nov. 8th, 4:45am Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankDawg Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Hey Blackhorse, This kind of study sounds right up your alley! I bet you could TDY it for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhorse Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TankDawg: Hey Blackhorse, This kind of study sounds right up your alley! I bet you could TDY it for a long time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Let's see...I'll need to go to Waterloo, then scurry off to La Gleize, Cheneux, Long Champs, Bastogne, Elsenborn, Dom Butgenbach, Normandy, Carentan, and wherever the scenario "August Bank Holiday" occured. Yup, I think I'll take that Officer Professional Development trip. You need to go too right? As an aside, one of the best OPD sessions I ever participated in was studying the initial stages of WWI when the Germans stormed through Belgium into France and encountered the BEF. Our Squadron officers studied this and each officer had to brief a portion of the battle. We started at Mons, and over the course of a week made our way From Mons to Cambrai, to Le Cateau to St. Quentin. It was the OPD to end all OPDs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncawley@ameritech.net Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Yes Jeff, same person. I haven't been doing Stars in 10 months or so. I've been doing the Napoleonic Battleground series (NWC club), some TacOps, and now Combat Mission - as well as work LOL. When Stars SN comes out, I may get back into that I suppose. The Battleground series, battlefront's games, and Stars are far and away the best strategy games out there IMnsHO. Interesting that they weren't in the ones reviewed, probably because of that "brigade level" requirement. Still, the choice of Sid Meier Gettysburg over the BG series is perverse, it is not nearly as good a game system. PacWar, for its day, was another fine game (lousy interface though - Jeff McBride would cringe). In the realm of older games, the V4Victory series wasn't bad either, especially the Russian one. Had a few kinks in the supply system but otherwise was a fine game. TOAW remains a disappointment to me. All the relevant factors are not at the player's fingertips, even to know let alone to manipulate. That detracts very significantly from the strategy aspect of it. The designer thought that telling units which place to go was the "strategy" part, but gets it quite wrong. The whole phasing system of TOAW puts the premium on feel for how hard to push when, and the determining issue (supply) is flat hidden. Like playing chess with your own queen and rooks hidden and on random squares - it just does not work as a game. There is also a definite "mosnter" tendency on the part of scenario designers for it, including one extra level of detail below what the scale of any given battle ought to be, resulting in monster stacks the interface doesn't handle well, etc. The idea was promising and the research that went into some aspects of it impressive, and it is a very flexible game system. But the game design aspects of it are broken, and no amount of supposed "realism" or "detail" can make up for that. Game designers often forget their job description, that is the underlying problem. They think they are historians (TOAW), or movie directors (SM Getty), and drop the ball. The folks here haven't, and that is why CM and TacOps are successful games. One man's opinions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 11, 2001 Author Share Posted January 11, 2001 Same here. Stars! just got a bit tedious after a while. Although I could only hope to find more games that get "tedious" after 3-4 years of playing them! I imagine I might get back into one SN comes out, but my time is so much more limited now that I got married, had a kid, etc., etc. The problem I had with TOAW was that when teh game first came out, supply was extremely simplistic and non-intuitive. Then people complained about that, so Kroger put in a more complex supply model, but did not really do anything to the interface to let the player see what it was doing and how his actions effected supply. I have been mesing around with the re-released Grigsby games. WiR is pretty good, so is PacWar. PacWar is just a bit too much though. I am never sure if I am supposed to care about 60% of what the interface is telling me. Interested in a PBEM/TCPIP game of CM? Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Panic Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Quick, someone send West Point a couple of comp copies of CM. ------------------ Two Rules to Live By: 1. Never Get Out of the Boat. 2. Charlie Doesn't Surf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterk Posted January 12, 2001 Share Posted January 12, 2001 Great post. I second that proposal. Get that guy to review CM! p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts