On the use of weapons... Networked warriors

[flamingknives]

One of the major buzzwords of this decade for new capabilities is "network-enabled", and there is little doubt that the US military is right up there at the front of this. But what difference would this make on the battlefields of cyber-Syria?

In the real world, the aim of networked troops, vehicles and weapons is to provide the kind of "God's eye view" that we see in most modern wargames, such as the Combat Mission series. So what benefit do we gain by having a heavily networked force? The Syrian player has the same view-point, so what difference is there liable to be? Networked troops fall into the grey area of combat modelling outside of weapons statistics and TsO&E.

At the minimum, the US force would probably have less command delay, if CMX2 uses that mechanic, and possibly allow improved assisted spotting (chances of a unit being spotted by one unit being spotted by another). Additionally, the effects of networking also includes looser formations (due to personal radios) and improved morale - you know where your mates are.

The difficulty in modelling, IMHO, is to make it realistic in terms of the advantage it provides as a force multiplier (getting the right coefficient, if you will), when the other side has an unrealistic advantage. If the standard state of Command and Control (C&C) is 1, then the CM level is, say, 5, how do you limit the Syrians downwards and the US forces upwards without unrealistically giving the US troops super morale or ninja spotting, or turning the Syrians into bumbling cowards with white sticks?

On the tactical side, networking should make it easier to disperse your forces in space, but bring them together in terms of firepower at the desired point of effect. Reaction to the unexpected would be increased in terms of speed and co-ordinated effect, so you can do more with less, cover more ground and be less vulnerable to incoming fire, due to the increased dispersion and faster reaction times in terms of locating enemy shooters.

[Peter Cairns]

flamingknives,

I think the key thing would be command delays. If we assume that it's 10 sec for veterans but 30 sec for conscripts, then standard US v Syrian would be like that, make the US just respond faster to commands.

That seems the simplest way to do it.

As for the game I think the best would be to keep it that simple, and that 's where if it's not to much, the beauty of CM lies, because it comes down how the players make the best of what they have.

The US has speed of response and mobility, but might not have the most firepower on hand immediately, but they can deploy and can bring it to bear fromon and off board sources.

What the player has to do is use it effectively and that could well be a lot harder to do than many people think.

For the Syrian player it's about accepting your limitations, and not trying to out fight the US player.

If I had Volksgrenadiers against the 82nd Airborne I wouldn't try going head to head with them in a manouvering battle, I'd dig in and try to let them get in close and hit them before they saw me.

As to attacking That will be really hard for the Syrian player and I suspect it would be a case of KISS...

Keep it Simple Stupid.

Bring as much firepower as you can to bear as quickly as possible in the easiest most direct way while avoiding anything that involves complex manouvers or coordination over a large area. keep it tight and focused and try to get in close, as if you stand off the US off board assets will pulverise you.

Given C&C, troop quality, and moral expect to take heavy casualties as amatter of course.

Peter.

[flamingknives]

Peter,

I don't think that a simple command delay would be sufficient to model the network advantage. In CMX1 terms, what it might do is to bump the effective experience level up - better morale, better application of firepower, better dispersion and therefore use of cover (stealth and survivability). It also ought to improve spotting.

[Los]

If you want a way to simulate a real advantage then limit the Syrian commander to FPS or 2d map view only.

[Peter Cairns]

Given relative spotting we could see you limited to views from units within Command, which might be a similar thing.

Peter.

[C'Rogers]

For limiting the commanders view of the battle I think it is important to remember that the game is a tactical simulator, not a command simulator (to my understanding of BFC goals), thus the player gets a certain amount of unrealistic knowledge.

As for networking, I wonder how the game engine will view it for a total standpoint, not just US vs. Syrian for the next upcoming game, but how the engine will be made to handle future things on this issue (ie WWII).

So I guess the issue has to look up as what advantages do a 'networked' unit have against a unit with radios, and what advantages do they have against a unit using more delayed communication.

The most obvious is that the more communication the quicker order times could happen. Secondly 'borg' spotting should be more allowed the more networked, but this also depends on whether BFC can solve the Borg issue.

The second thing would be the list of ideas mentioned by Knives. Overall networked units would be more efficient. How you apply that to the game without a major change I don't know. I think networking would improve a lot of things a little bit. They would probably have better morale for example, but when the bullets are flying by would it be a significant bonus vs. a simple radio unit?

So to answer the original question, it would make a significant difference in battle. But that would be over many different issues that it would be difficult to model.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

information overload is not good for initiative oriented combat (note i am not talking recon info). if BFC is going to simulate communications assets i would expect every received bit of information to cause the given HQ unit to be in "processing information" state for a good number of seconds.