What CM does.... Game vs Sim

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

What exactly does CM simulate, then?

It simulates force-on-force direct-fire armour and infantry combat at the unit and sub-unit level. It does it rather well, too.

It's true that there are lots of things it doesn't model well, and plenty of others that it doesn't model at all. This, however, is true of all simulations, without exception.

Not providing a decent model of C2 is a complaint that can be levelled against most professional simulation models, as well as CM. While it means that the entities in these simulations spend their time doing completely different things from what their real-life counterparts would be doing, it does nothing to alter the fact that they are simulations.

All the best,

John.

[Moon]

One of the main challenges on the battlefield (applies to modern battlefields as much as any other time periods if you ask me) is without a doubt proper communication. But not ALL challenges on the battlefield are ONLY about communication.

First you need to know a thing or two about sound tactics, THEN you need to figure out the communications aspects. No doubt that, while doing the latter, some of the things that look good in theory will reveal their shortcomings. Not all the things that people are winning CM games with can be applied to a real field problem.

But while communications aspects are mainly practical problems, the first step is and remains the theory - the sound tactical solution of a field problem.

This is where CM certainly provides a virtual lab that, as far as I know, does not exist anywhere else (current military sims included; but I have to admit that I don't know too many details about many of them, so I might plainly be wrong).

Martin

[Chelco]

Furthermore, people who design very complicated, technical simulations are happy when their work renders AN answer to a given question. THE answer to a question about a non-linear, dynamic system like the battlefield is beyond reach for any simulation.

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Moon:

Not all the things that people are winning CM games with can be applied to a real field problem.

This is really a good point. CM is no substitute for real battle planning experience. It might also be said to come down to styles of playing. The best players do actually consider casualties and don't play with units as though they are expendable...even so real life military tactics often plan on losing numerous casualties: delaying actions, rear-gaurd, wave assaults, etc.

Real life doesn't have a nice neat scoring system at the end of the battle. So the real test of how good a "lab" CM is might be how well CM-honed tactics would work in real life WW-II as a hypothetical.

[Chelco]

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

Real life doesn't have a nice neat scoring system at the end of the battle. So the real test of how good a "lab" CM is might be how well CM-honed tactics would work in real life WW-II as a hypothetical.

Hi Sarge,

We know that certain tactical situations work in CM as in real life: frontal assaults to unsupressed fortified positions, moving tanks in close terrain without infantry support and many other tactical blunders I am an specialist in doing over and over again.

You mean tactics at a slightly superior level? Like which objectives should be taken by which type of weapon system?

Cheers,

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Chelco:

You mean tactics at a slightly superior level? Like which objectives should be taken by which type of weapon system?

Cheers,

I mean tactics at the Regimental, Battalion, and possibly Company level. What books I've read indicate that most main attacks used only a reinforced battalion at the vanguard (notably German and USA OoBs). Even Division attacks seem to have been planned with the lead battalion as its primary cutting edge.

CM-sized maps and scenarios lend themselves very well to this size engagement. Th battalion commander could say: A and B company advance in echelon west-to-east in approaching the objective. C company will advance while securing the A and B company's left flank. D companies heavy weapons will be deployed forward with A company. Battalion reserve will be elements of B company's 2nd platoon along with the battalion HQ element. 2 platoons of tanks will arrive as reinforcements.

THEN....play it out in CM...maybe it will work...maybe not. But seeing this in CM action would exactly teach the company commander's their role in the battle plan. It might teach what quantity and type of planned reinforcements will be needed to follow up the attack. It might also teach the we need another company to protect the right flank!!

[ May 21, 2004, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[SoDak]

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SoDak:

If we CM fanatics admit that real life tactics tend to work best in most CM situations, then how can that not be an advantagous education to bring to real life WW-II battlefield planning??

I speak primarily of planning. Like Battalion or Regimental S3 staff.

-Sarge

.........

See Michaels post, simple as that. In addition, you are completely ignoring the most important factor in such a scenario; the human one.

Bit different than telling a bunch of bytes what to do, etc.

Michael seems to be picking over the meaning of "simulation" but I get the main point.

However, if your perspective is completely right then why does the modern (and historical) army wargame at all!!?? See:

http://www.nps.navy.mil/or/or-courses/WargamingDS.htm

A quote from above:

Wargaming allows us to maximize combat power at key points on the battlefield by synchronizing all combat elements. It enables us to better anticipate battlefield events and focus efforts on key enemy actions and high payoff targets. The most important outcome of wargaming, however, comes as the staff achieves a common vision of the battlefield. Each staff member knows the plan and his role in achieving success.

How is this different from what I describe??

I'm talking BATTLE-PLANNING here. Clearly, the oft-discussed "borg spotting" in CM does not simulate real-world WW-II battle outcomes. But analyzing the outcome of wargaming in the military has been critical to real life battlefield success....I'd venture to say it would be a decisive advantage on the WW-II battlefield given roughly equal opposing forces. </font>

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by SoDak:

Lol, actual military, using "wargames", have just a tad bit more on the ball than playing the game

Years of training, actual experience, etc. come to mind. In other words, the game is a very small part of their resume.

No way, as the original poster that I replied to said, could one of us civies, via this game, jump to a battalion, etc. command staff.

Well, maybe as an orderly

Do you have any idea how little training the average USA officer got in battle tactics before being pushed into the WW-II fray?? Hell, we are talking about citizen soldiers for the most part. At least Germany had a Staff College that it sent select officers too. I'm not sure of the USA equivelant but really...do you think most USA LTs knew their way around a battlefield at first??

Maybe I assign too much value to CM experience. But you assign to much value to the draftee/volunteer experience when it comes to tactical knowledge.

[Andreas]

The German staff college was only for future staff officers. Truppendienst (field service/grade?) officers did not need to go to it, AFAIK. With these (like everyone else), later in the war, training got progressively worse.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Moon:

One of the main challenges on the battlefield (applies to modern battlefields as much as any other time periods if you ask me) is without a doubt proper communication. But not ALL challenges on the battlefield are ONLY about communication.

First you need to know a thing or two about sound tactics, THEN you need to figure out the communications aspects. No doubt that, while doing the latter, some of the things that look good in theory will reveal their shortcomings. Not all the things that people are winning CM games with can be applied to a real field problem.

But while communications aspects are mainly practical problems, the first step is and remains the theory - the sound tactical solution of a field problem.

This is where CM certainly provides a virtual lab that, as far as I know, does not exist anywhere else (current military sims included; but I have to admit that I don't know too many details about many of them, so I might plainly be wrong).

Martin

There is also the matter of personality, leadership, charisma - all these things are important in a combat leader, and not relevant at all to a game of CM.

[SoDak]

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SoDak:

Lol, actual military, using "wargames", have just a tad bit more on the ball than playing the game

Years of training, actual experience, etc. come to mind. In other words, the game is a very small part of their resume.

No way, as the original poster that I replied to said, could one of us civies, via this game, jump to a battalion, etc. command staff.

Well, maybe as an orderly

Do you have any idea how little training the average USA officer got in battle tactics before being pushed into the WW-II fray?? Hell, we are talking about citizen soldiers for the most part. At least Germany had a Staff College that it sent select officers too. I'm not sure of the USA equivelant but really...do you think most USA LTs knew their way around a battlefield at first??

Maybe I assign too much value to CM experience. But you assign to much value to the draftee/volunteer experience when it comes to tactical knowledge. </font>

[SoDak]

Originally posted by SoDak:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SoDak:

Lol, actual military, using "wargames", have just a tad bit more on the ball than playing the game

Years of training, actual experience, etc. come to mind. In other words, the game is a very small part of their resume.

No way, as the original poster that I replied to said, could one of us civies, via this game, jump to a battalion, etc. command staff.

Well, maybe as an orderly

Do you have any idea how little training the average USA officer got in battle tactics before being pushed into the WW-II fray?? Hell, we are talking about citizen soldiers for the most part. At least Germany had a Staff College that it sent select officers too. I'm not sure of the USA equivelant but really...do you think most USA LTs knew their way around a battlefield at first??

Maybe I assign too much value to CM experience. But you assign to much value to the draftee/volunteer experience when it comes to tactical knowledge. </font>

[SoDak]

Originally posted by Moon:

One of the main challenges on the battlefield (applies to modern battlefields as much as any other time periods if you ask me) is without a doubt proper communication. But not ALL challenges on the battlefield are ONLY about communication.

First you need to know a thing or two about sound tactics, THEN you need to figure out the communications aspects. No doubt that, while doing the latter, some of the things that look good in theory will reveal their shortcomings. Not all the things that people are winning CM games with can be applied to a real field problem.

But while communications aspects are mainly practical problems, the first step is and remains the theory - the sound tactical solution of a field problem.

This is where CM certainly provides a virtual lab that, as far as I know, does not exist anywhere else (current military sims included; but I have to admit that I don't know too many details about many of them, so I might plainly be wrong).

Martin

Current military sims are night and day in comparison to civilian ones, even ones that have a civilian equivalent.

Totally different level of complexity, features, etc.

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by SoDak:

First, a lt level command wasn't what was mentioned; battalion/regt. was.

I said battalion S3 staff. Not the actual S3. Not the battalion command. Not commanding anything at all. The S3 staff often has non-comms even. Though the S3 is an officer.

Second, regarding US officers, the answer is West Point, among other schools.

According to this:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/ETO-OB/ETOOB-TOC.htm

There where 50+ USA divisions in Europe 1945. How many battalions?? How many are battalions are staffed by officers from West Point??

The history of the US Army is ripe with instances of good and bad US officers (even Generals) who did not come from West Point.

Next, how you came up with "you assign to much value to the draftee, etc." out of what I said to attribute that to me is a mystery.

No offense. You suggest that the "civie" is vastly underqualified compared to the long-trained WW-II staff officer. I suggest that the length of the war plus the large numbers of divisions fielded meant in practice that the difference between "civie" and officer was about 3 months training.

BTW, please stop with the rollie-eyes. My daughter drives me nuts with this.... :eek:

I'd suggest to quit reading books, especially Ambrose stuff, and use common sense instead.

You assume too much. Nobody mentioned Stephen Ambrose here. What I have read has been PRIMARILY written by officers and footsoldiers in their own words. German, Russian, American.

Personally, I think the entire thing is a fun and interesting hypothetical. But some guys don't like to give any lee-way for this kind of "what-if".

-Sarge

[jrcar]

Simulation: A method for implementing a model over time.

Model: A physical, mathematical, or otherwise logical representation of a system, entity, phenomenon, or process.

US DOD (and Australian) definitions.

Note there is NO quality statement applied to these definitions, that is up to the end user to define using a Verification, Validation and Accreditation approach. A toy soldier is a model, playing with one is a simulation, wether the result is valid or not depends on the question you are trying to answer(Does a man fit into the back of a model of a truck? Is a question you could answer with this kind of model/simulation).

Yes there is night and day between "Military" Sims and commercial ones. No mil sim that I know of models sound contact, and almost none model "human factors". CM does a creditable job of both those. But CM doesn't do things that some mil sims can. You ues the right tool for the job.

CM is not a procedureal trainer (like JANUS, JSAF etc). It is possibly a tactical trainer(yet to be properly tested) and a great education tool (which is what we are using it for).

Most simulations are used to help guide judgments of what is possible or probable, and what is not. Human judgement must still be applied to the results.

Cheers

Rob

Australian Defence Simulation Office

[Sarge Saunders]

Let me add a couple more points. First, I am not saying crap like "I Rulez at Castle Wolfenstein so I'm ready for the SAS!" We are talking about CM which requires tactical skill to win against opponents who have some tactical skill. In this way, it breeds just the sort of thinking needed to plan a winning battle.

Second, if this were only a game my statements would be ridiculous. But of course it isn't just a game. The enlightened among us here know that CM is a_way_of_life .

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by SoDak:

[snips]

Current military sims are night and day in comparison to civilian ones, even ones that have a civilian equivalent.

Totally different level of complexity, features, etc.

No, wrong.

In several cases I know of they are the same product.

"Official" military simulations are not necessarily any better than "civilian" ones (although nearly all are written by civilians -- serving regular officers tend not to have the time or skill to write simulations). As an example in the CM domain, "official" simulations have been very poor at modelling suppression effects, many military simulations having for years not shown them at all; "civilian" games have had at least some model of suppression since the days when Panzerblitz was new.

All the best,

John.

[Lawyer]

Grog Dorosh is correct, IMO. CM is a game. A very addictive game and the only one I've ever really enjoyed. But it's still a game with a lot of flexibility and realistic considerations for the players. BTS has always reminded people that it's a game whenever the Serous Grogs got too far into the "how many flakes fly around a turret when a shell doesn't penetrate" thing.

Simulations are the really good flight sims like IL-2. They try to recreate the actual feel of flying the plane and fighting, even when it isn't fun. I tried them, but it all got too involved trying to manipulate a vast number of controls on a keyboard in real time. Learning to fly a real sim is like having another job. Some serious sim fanatics actually build cockpits in their basements to sit in while playing the game, just to feel more realistic. There was also a WWII German tank sim game (Panzer Commander??) a few years ago that never really caught on.

Sims are greatly limited by the 2-D computer screen environment, whereas a game like CM is not. In real life, a pilot can twist his head, have peripheral vision, feel physical forces, and such to control his plane and weapons, but computer flight sims can't do that. So it never felt real to me and I gave up on them after trying several. Well, I also gave up mainly because I was no good at all. hehehe....

Also, I've saved a ton of money from not having to upgrade to the hottest graphics and computer power to play a complicated resource-hog flight sim once in a while. My ephiphany came when I realized that I was using my third $4,000 computer as a fancy Gameboy. So I bought an X-Box to handle that side of life.

I know CM is a game because I can at least win about half the time, and I have plenty of time between moves to drink a beer. Hmmm... Is that a realistic simulation of war or just a game?

Anyway, I agree with Dorosh on this one. I'll send him a bill later for my Excellent Legal Support.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Lawyer:

Grog Dorosh is correct, IMO. CM is a game.

Nobody's denying that it's a game. Some, however, are attempting to deny that it is a simulation. "Game" and "simulation" are not disjoint categories.

Originally posted by Lawyer:

Simulations are the really good flight sims like IL-2.

A huge number of things are included under the class of simulations. You seem to limit your usage of the term solely to flight simulation software run on general PC hardware. That does not even cover all flight simulators: For many of them,

Originally posted by Lawyer:

[snips]In real life, a pilot can twist his head, have peripheral vision, feel physical forces, and such to control his plane and weapons, but computer flight sims can't do that.

...the above is not true.

Originally posted by Lawyer:

I know CM is a game because I can at least win about half the time, and I have plenty of time between moves to drink a beer. Hmmm... Is that a realistic simulation of war or just a game?

If I felt inclined to do so, I'm sure I could drink beer while running a high-fidelity hydrocode modelling shaped-charge penetrator formation. Would that mean that the simulation was not "realistic", whatever you mean by that?

All the best,

John.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

"official" simulations have been very poor at modelling suppression effects, many military simulations having for years not shown them at all; "civilian" games have had at least some model of suppression since the days when Panzerblitz was new.

There was an interesting article that was linked to a while ago on that very subject. The military seems to dislike that unpredictability.

[Lawyer]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lawyer:

[snips]In real life, a pilot can twist his head, have peripheral vision, feel physical forces, and such to control his plane and weapons, but computer flight sims can't do that.

...the above is not true.</font>

[Andrew H.]

Being Jesuitical...

CM is not a "sim" even though it simulates a lot of things really well. My idea of a "sim" - and I think that this is what MD is getting at - is a game that puts the player in a certain role where he makes the same decisions or takes the same acts as a person who would have that role in real life. According to this definition, varioius flight-sims are "sims" because they put you in the (extremely tedious) position of pilot; the same would be true of Pz Cmdr.

By contrast, while CM (IMO) accurately simulates how certain battles with certain forces would play out (with allowances, of course,), the player isn't simulating any particular real life role.

Another point - sometimes people will call very realistic games "simulations" because they are impressed with the quality and accuracy of the game and feel like "game" is not a serious enough term to describe the sophisticated playing experience. I think this is akin to people in the 70's calling science fiction "speculative fiction" in part to suggest that the genre is more serious than "science fiction" would suggest. But this was just wordplay; there is very good science fiction and very bad speculative fiction - the label doesn't really matter. The same is true with the word "game" - there are simple ones and sophisticated ones and good ones and bad ones - but they're all games, and there's no real reason to try and buff them up by calling them something else.

(IL-2 is a game and a sim; sim is the genre, just as wargame of fps are other genres of games. Just to be clear).

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Lawyer:

[snips]

Yes, it is true. And factual too.

No, wrong.

You may perhaps not be aware of the existence of such flight simulators, but they have been around for a while longer than PCs.

http://www.aeroflot.ru/eng/company.asp?ob_no=800&tr_no=2071

...has a picture of one. Why do you think it's mounted the way it is? Right, to jiggle the flight deck crew about.

All the best,

John.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

Being Jesuitical...

CM is not a "sim" even though it simulates a lot of things really well. My idea of a "sim" - and I think that this is what MD is getting at - is a game that puts the player in a certain role where he makes the same decisions or takes the same acts as a person who would have that role in real life.

OK, fine, it is always possible to rectify an erroneous statement by changing the definition of key words to mean something different from the accepted definition (was Humpty Dumpty a Jesuit?). But the term I have always heard used for a game that casts the player in the role of an individual is a "role-playing game" or a "first-person shooter". I certainly agree that CM is neither an RPG nor an FPS. It is also clear that CM was not, until recently, a military training game. But there is nothing about casting the player in an individual role implied in any definition of "simulation" I have heard until now.

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

By contrast, while CM (IMO) accurately simulates how certain battles with certain forces would play out (with allowances, of course,), the player isn't simulating any particular real life role.

But players don't simulate, simulations simulate.

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

Another point - sometimes people will call very realistic games "simulations" because they are impressed with the quality and accuracy of the game and feel like "game" is not a serious enough term to describe the sophisticated playing experience. [snips]

Yes, but such people are generally unaware either of the elements of simulation as a discipline, the accepted meanings of the words they are using, or the extremely problematic nature of the term "realistic" when applied to simulation. They would probably think that "realism vs. playability" was a genuine dichotomy worthy of discussion, and start shouting "The main thing is to have a good game" when the discussion started slipping away from them. Such people have been making life miserable at wargames clubs up and down the country at least since the 1970s. They are just worried that people will laugh at them because they are playing with toy soldiers. Well, that's what we're doing.

All the best,

John.

[SoDak]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SoDak:

[snips]

Current military sims are night and day in comparison to civilian ones, even ones that have a civilian equivalent.

Totally different level of complexity, features, etc.

No, wrong.

In several cases I know of they are the same product.

"Official" military simulations are not necessarily any better than "civilian" ones (although nearly all are written by civilians -- serving regular officers tend not to have the time or skill to write simulations). As an example in the CM domain, "official" simulations have been very poor at modelling suppression effects, many military simulations having for years not shown them at all; "civilian" games have had at least some model of suppression since the days when Panzerblitz was new.

All the best,

John. </font>