First thoughts on CM:SF & modern warfare

[Scott B]

I have to admit I'd not paid much attention to the CM forums in a great while and was completely caught off guard when this big announcement was made. While I was initially hostile, I'm quickly coming around. (At the moment, my biggest problem is with the cheesy name, which is unworthy of the otherwise more cleverly named CM series.)

This isn't CM to me - CM was a hobby. Stryker brigades, Army Transformation and modern warfare, though - that's my job, which I've had both personal and professional interest in since the first bits of information on the IBCT became publicly available. Having wrapped my head around this game concept, I'm potentially far more enthusiastic about this project than any possible game short of the CMX2 version of CMBB.

To get it right, I have some suggestions based on recent conflicts involving the U.S. military and some general thoughts on the series.

1. A very smart man named Steve Biddle works at the Army War College and directed a study on OIF called Iraq and the Future of Warfare. In contrast to the excellent study he did on Afghanistan with a similar name, the rumor is the Army didn't care for the implications of his findings in the Iraq study and classified it (it's unknown by me at least how much if any this study contributed to On Point), such that all we really have to go on are this presentation on its findings, and his testimony to the House Armed Services Committee (online here).

Among other things, Biddle argues that the severely uneven casualty ratios between U.S. forces and Iraqis is due to synergy between troop quality and technological advantage - neither one by itself being enough to explain the difference. I'd extend that to suggest that, as per Biddle's book, Military Power, those militaries who've not mastered what he calls the modern system of force employment (or what any longtime CM player has learned through the school of hard knocks) are likely to be crushed when faced by those that have.

2. One of my criticisms of the CMX1 series was that despite all the attention to detail in terms of military systems and technical data, I never felt that it offered an authentic vision of command. I understand that this wasn't really the intent, but I'm going to put this out anyway. What I'd like to see attempted is for the series to finally leap beyond its tabletop wargame roots and do a few things we've never seen before in a game.

The way I see it, the more we can make the player think like and perform as an actual commander, the more authentic CM:SF will be. We have a unique opportunity to do this, what with the Iraq war as a resource. I'm under the impression that the new game will include a more true representation of a chain of command above the platoon level, which I think will be quite helpful. To that I'd like to add things that represent pre-battle events, to include unit SOPs, rehearsals, battle plans, and pre-battle reconnaissance. Make us worry a little more about fuel and ammo levels across the company, attached fire support, and that sort of thing, and a little less about exactly where to place each vehicle in a platoon. Building authentic national behavior into the game should be a priority, in my opinion - best case, let us mod it.

3. While war by definition is organized violence for a political purpose, most modern engagements are going to have a significantly more pronounced political aspect than most battles in WWII did. Scenario designers must have far greater ability to designate victory objectives and game parameters than has previously been the case. I don't know what the plans are for civilians in the game - I personally think we can kind of work around them by doing things like putting down restricted firing areas and the like where artillery and CAS may not be employed. But if this game is true to life, the American player should have additional pressures upon him other than simply killing the enemy and limiting his own casualties. Every battle shouldn't be the bridge over the Euphrates at Najaf. Sometimes it's just a matter of killing the enemy, and sometimes it's more a matter of time pressure/inability to use certain weapons/etc.

I've a bit more I want to add when I have more time, but this is a start. I'll be making an effort to participate more here.

Scott

[Affentitten]

Interesting link out to the presentation, Scott. I hope no-one gets a chance to dredge that up because of some over-arrogant calamity in years to come.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Scott B:

The way I see it, the more we can make the player think like and perform as an actual commander, the more authentic CM:SF will be. We have a unique opportunity to do this, what with the Iraq war as a resource. I'm under the impression that the new game will include a more true representation of a chain of command above the platoon level, which I think will be quite helpful. To that I'd like to add things that represent pre-battle events, to include unit SOPs, rehearsals, battle plans, and pre-battle reconnaissance. Make us worry a little more about fuel and ammo levels across the company, attached fire support, and that sort of thing, and a little less about exactly where to place each vehicle in a platoon. Building authentic national behavior into the game should be a priority, in my opinion - best case, let us mod it.

You want a command simulator, not a tactical wargame.

Incidentally, would the company commander in a US Stryker company worry about fuel and ammo - or would his First Sergeant/quartermaster sergeant (whatever it is called in the US Army) really be the one watching out for that stuff? If the latter, then why include that burden on the player who is ostensibly a company commander?

[Scott B]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You want a command simulator, not a tactical wargame.

I think I want a mix of the two; I do want to be making more appropriate level decisions and less micromanaging where each squad goes on a turn-to-turn basis. But a real command simulator would be more like a role playing game than Combat Mission, I would imagine.

Incidentally, would the company commander in a US Stryker company worry about fuel and ammo - or would his First Sergeant/quartermaster sergeant (whatever it is called in the US Army) really be the one watching out for that stuff? If the latter, then why include that burden on the player who is ostensibly a company commander?

I was pretty careful how I worded that, specifically thinking about this criticism. Company commanders don't necessarily think about this in detail, but insofar as it affects the mission, they do.

The specifics don't really concern me so much as the broader criticism I have of wargames. A good friend of mine once pointed out that one flaw in John Boyd's OODA loop idea when applied to ground combat was that it concentrates all its attention on decision making and trivializes execution. I think that the same criticism can fairly be made against wargames; CM is better than most, but I like the idea of greater friction in the game.

I think most of the ideas I suggested above in the section you quoted would serve to put a little more emphasis on the whole "no plan survives first contact with the enemy" dilemma every commander faces. So that's the broad intent - I'm less concerned with the details and more with that basic idea.

Scott

[Michael Dorosh]

You want the commander worrying less about which squad goes where - I can understand that; his platoon leaders should be doing that.

What then, would you see him worrying about? By him I mean the player and his real life counterpart, the company commander.

Perhaps one way of adding this 'friction' is to simulate the passage of orders; this was discussed in depth not long ago; many of us put forward suggstions - such as one example of mine (I think) where you click on a unit and only see what they see; others suggested giving up control of some friendly forces to the AI, only allowing orders to be given to units if in command and communication (meaning runner, if your radio is down), that kind of thing.

Is that what you were thinking of also?

[Battlefront.com]

Hello Scott,

Yeah, we've been thinking along these lines for years now. CMx2, and CM:SF in particular, is a move towards a more command orientated game. Not like the type of command level game advocated by many here in the past. We still think that type of game isn't fun and/or realistic, so we're not going there. Instead, what we are seeing is a game system that puts many HUMAN players in control of various parts of the battlefield. Unlike so many other games, the empahsis will not be on 1st person shooting skills. Unlike so many other games, the scenarios fought in will look and act like real battlefield situations instead of a big frag fest to see whose Clan can rack up the biggest kill score.

CMx2 is designed with this stuff in mind. The scope and scale of the person's interaction can vary from small scope (say in command of a platoon) all the way to larger scale (say in command of a battalion). We've got quite a ways to go before we can offer such a product, but we are working at it by taking off bite sized pieces of the larger project.

Ironically there is a thread floating around on this Forum saying what a bad thing it would be if we got military funding. Although we are absolutely not making any plans on obtaining such funding (we know far too much about contracting with the Gov't to think otherwise ), we wouldn't turn down an offer compatiable with our commercial interests. I said "ironically" earlier because if the military wants this type of game, and drives a Brinks truck over to our HQ, well... guess what gamers would get a hold of a lot quicker than they otherwise would? And yes, they would get something like this and not just the DoD. For us to exclude our commercial market (that means you guys in case you didn't know , we'd need several Brinks trucks. And I bet we'd still figure out how to keep you guys in the loop. We can be clever sometimes ya know

Anyway, my late night rambling here is simply to say that we are moving towards a more RPG/Commander style of play without going the FPS/RTS route. This is something that will happen over a period of many years unless something puts the spurs to us (and puts a bunch of carrots in front of our noses). Since we aren't expecting anything dramatic to happen, we'll keep plugging along and being quite happy to do so.

Steve

P.S. Rehersals are something I originally had on the slate for CM:SF, BTW. Unfortunately, one too many things to do this time around.

[track]

In my humble opinion CMx1 was about managing individual squads, teams , guns and vehicles. It is not an authentic command simulation.

[aka_tom_w]

Great post Scott!!

Excellent reply by Steve as well.

Perhaps this thread deserves a sticky to the top of the forum as well?

-tom w

[RMC]

Originally posted by Scott B:

While I was initially hostile, I'm quickly coming around. (At the moment, my biggest problem is with the cheesy name, which is unworthy of the otherwise more cleverly named CM series.

No one liked Combat Mission when it was announced either. They should have called it Strike Force since that was the new doctrine being worked on in TRADOC when Shinseki diverted everything to IBCT and OF.

Make us worry a little more about fuel and ammo levels across the company, attached fire support, and that sort of thing, and a little less about exactly where to place each vehicle in a platoon.

In theory I am all for this. I'd rather give mission-type order to organizational elements of my choosing as opposed to specific orders to each individual vehicle, squad and team. Doing this is contingent on getting the tactical AI smart enough with some sort of player SOP input and configurable battle drills or as hinted at by Steve a sort of massively multiplayer experience in which there are multiple players on each side.

The MMP option would probably be the easier to achieve in the near term, but I shudder to think about the dynamics of "command" amongst a bunch of old, cranky grognards. I, for instance, would not accept orders from Dorosh, unless the mission was a raid on a warehouse full of post-war imitation Kragenspiegel.

Another thing about this modern setting is that with the Stryker digital network, BFC no longer has any reason not to give the player the coveted Roster, even one with lots of command functionality built in.

[Scott B]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You want the commander worrying less about which squad goes where - I can understand that; his platoon leaders should be doing that.

What then, would you see him worrying about? By him I mean the player and his real life counterpart, the company commander.

For the purposes of gameplay I'd wrap up the roles of fire support officer and commander into the player's role. So the player (assuming company team level) is coordinating direct fire and maneuver by platoons plus company level attachments and coordinating indirect fires and CAS from battalion and higher. If we're going to buy in to the RMA debate even a little there will need to be commander control of RSTA assets, to include UAVs. I'd like there to be the possiblity of more nuts-and-bolts things like ammo or fuel resupply and/or cross-levelling, especially since now we're also apparently talking about vehicle reliability.

Perhaps one way of adding this 'friction' is to simulate the passage of orders; this was discussed in depth not long ago; many of us put forward suggstions - such as one example of mine (I think) where you click on a unit and only see what they see; others suggested giving up control of some friendly forces to the AI, only allowing orders to be given to units if in command and communication (meaning runner, if your radio is down), that kind of thing.

Is that what you were thinking of also?

This is actually a better way of doing what I was thinking - I think what you're describing implies basically a qualitative difference in methods of communication. It's not just a matter of sending a runner over or using a radio anymore. On the Syrian side you'd have a number of commo means - signals like flares, lights, and noises; and direct communication via runners, landlines, radios, and possibly cell phones. (Wireless communications are subject to threat by anyone fighting Americans.)

On the U.S. side it's not just radios but a basic tactical internet. This entire system was designed with the idea of permitting "borg spotting" in real life - that's the basis for network centric warfare in a nutshell. My understanding is it's great for keeping track of friendly units, but achieving what the Army calls sensor fusion is tough and still has a ways to go.

I'm actually a bit conflicted about how to deal with advanced U.S. recon ability. On the one hand, it's a fundamental part of how the Stryker brigade's expected to operate. On the other hand, I'm a skeptic about the extent to which we can overcome these problems. As I've written previously, I think this is going to be a huge problem even for the Future Force, to say nothing of the SBCTs. Discussing this very topic, a contact of mine explained that despite all this attention to sensors and target acquisition, in OIF at the brigade level and below amounted to "World War II-style movements to contact." (That's a verbatim quote.) When our guys went into Baghdad for the first "Thunder Run," it was with zero intelligence on enemy positions and strength. The exact message from the S2 to the commander the night before was a shrug and the comment, "whole lot of bad guys."

Steve,

I'm encouraged by your comments. Not to be negative, because I love the CM series of games, but the clinical wargame aspect of the game was, in my opinion, one of the reasons why I burnt out on them. One of the things I'm really interested in is not just vehicles and systems and squads, but actual behavioral differences between sides. Again, Steven Biddle's Military Power is a good example. Theoretically one should be able to build army-specific characteristics into the game so that they're always present.

A good example would be an old trick I had in table-top wargaming where I'd be refereeing an early war Eastern Front scenario. If I had a mixed combined-arms force on each side, I would give the two German players mixed combined arms forces each with tank, infantry and artillery assets, while I'd assign the three Russians to homogeneous forces - one gets the tank brigade, the other two get rifle regiments. Although the rules are more or less the same, the effect would still be pronounced - we'd see historical results, even when the Russians were played by capable gamers.

It might require some subtlety, but this is the kind of thing I strive for when thinking about game design. Dalem's pretty familiar with my thoughts along these lines, although perhaps not as familiar as he should be - I think I owe him an e-mail on this from a while back...

Scott

[MikeyD]

My thoughts on CM:SF and modern war is this:

As gameplay, the opening phase of an assymetric assault doesn't sound all that appealing. You roll forward and kill everything in your path. As recent history has shown, though, its the next phase that's more challenging - the small unit cat-and-mouse games, with nobody being quite sure who's the cat and who's the mouse.

I recall one N. Vietnamese officer say something along the line that fighting the U.S. Army was like fighting an elephant. You can tell when he's coming from far off. You're able to outmaneuver him and harrass him with ease. But if he does manage to catch hold of you he's going to crush you.

If we're limited to a Stryker Brigade vs well trained troops the initial phase of the battle's going to be much less assymetric. It make me wonder how much precision weaponry is going to be included, without making the game unplayable (nothing but 2000 lb. laser bombs for instance). Whether its a Stryker Brigade or a Hvy tank division being fielded, the second cat-and-mouse phase of the battle still sounds like material for a decent wargame.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Scott B:

Dalem's pretty familiar with my thoughts along these lines, although perhaps not as familiar as he should be - I think I owe him an e-mail on this from a while back...

Scott

Indeed you do sir.

-dale

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Scott B:

[snips]

1. A very smart man named Steve Biddle works at the Army War College and directed a study on OIF called Iraq and the Future of Warfare. In contrast to the excellent study he did on Afghanistan with a similar name, the rumor is the Army didn't care for the implications of his findings in the Iraq study and classified it (it's unknown by me at least how much if any this study contributed to On Point), such that all we really have to go on are this presentation on its findings, and his testimony to the House Armed Services Committee (online here).

Among other things, Biddle argues that the severely uneven casualty ratios between U.S. forces and Iraqis is due to synergy between troop quality and technological advantage - neither one by itself being enough to explain the difference. I'd extend that to suggest that, as per Biddle's book, Military Power, those militaries who've not mastered what he calls the modern system of force employment (or what any longtime CM player has learned through the school of hard knocks) are likely to be crushed when faced by those that have.[snips]

I'd just like to chip in to urge anyone interested in modern warfare who hasn't read Biddle's "Military Power" to take a look at it; he presents his argument very convincingly, and is refreshingly open about any possible defects in his line of argument (which is in any case very much stronger than that of most military pundits).

I can understand why his views might not be popular with the upper reaches of the US military establishment, though; he does a pretty thorough demolition job on the "revolution in military affairs" nonsense that has been a staple of US (and British) defence procurement for the past ten years or more.

All the best,

John.

[Scott B]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

I can understand why his views might not be popular with the upper reaches of the US military establishment, though; he does a pretty thorough demolition job on the "revolution in military affairs" nonsense that has been a staple of US (and British) defence procurement for the past ten years or more.

With its central role in the creation of the Stryker brigade, the RMA idea and what the BTS guys think of it is intricately linked to how the game will play. This probably worth starting a separate thread on.

Scott