The Blue Bar Returns!

[Battlefront.com]

Here's the point of CM as a military training tool:

1. Live combined arms exercises are uncommon and expensive. Therefore, there isn't much opportunity to get in field time before being deployed.

2. Commanders often times know a lot about a narrow range of options. This is in part due to limited experience being in the field commanding forces not usually under command. So a Rifle Company Commander might know how to move his infantry around, but does he know how to move around a platoon of tanks which is task assigned to him? Does a Tank Company Commander know what to do with a bunch of HMGs and grenade launchers?

3. Range of traditional training options are limited and highly scripted. Want to see what it's like to fight in thick fog and pouring rain in a thick forest with a mechanized force? Well, if the day for an exercise arrives and it's bright and sunny, with the fall foliage already dropped on the ground, then guess what the experience is? What about a situation where the Commander is tasked with taking an objective short staffed due to a last minute change of the Order of Battle? Or how about defending an objective with depleted and tired forces against a huge mechanized enemy force? So on and so forth.

4. Virtual training is CHEAP. End of story on that one

5. There best training regiment is one that keeps the decision makers thinking about tactics. Sitting around figuring out which rocks to paint might sound like a fantastic way to keep a leaders on their toes, but personally I have my doubts. I think they'd be better off playing any sort of tactical wargame, even an unrealistic one. A realistic one, with familiar equipment, should be better.

6. Working together is always a good thing to keep fresh. By having CoPlay a Company Commander and his Platoon Commanders can keep plugging away until working together to solve tactical problems is second nature to them. Playing against the senior NCOs would probably be a good idea. And the virtual aspect would allow something like a Rifle Company in one part of the country to play against their brothers in arms in a Rifle Company half way around the world.

7. Playing as the OPFOR helps understand where the strengths and weaknesses of both sides may lie. How many junior officers get to command "real" T-90s and employ AT-14s in mock combat in the field? It's the sort of thing all commanders should experience, don't you think?

Bottom line... when used in conjunction with traditional classroom and field exercises, something like CM (in the form the military has told us they want to see it become) would have a positive impact on tactical understanding and readiness compared to a training regiment without it. So no, CM isn't a replacement... it's a rather cheap accompaniment.

Steve

[GSX]

1. Live combined arms exercises are uncommon and expensive. Therefore, there isn't much opportunity to get in field time before being deployed.

True, but what would CM bring to this equation. One could argue that it would be OK for a tank to run straight through an infantry platoon from playing SF.

3. Range of traditional training options are limited and highly scripted. Want to see what it's like to fight in thick fog and pouring rain in a thick forest with a mechanized force? Well, if the day for an exercise arrives and it's bright and sunny, with the fall foliage already dropped on the ground, then guess what the experience is? What about a situation where the Commander is tasked with taking an objective short staffed due to a last minute change of the Order of Battle? Or how about defending an objective with depleted and tired forces against a huge mechanized enemy force? So on and so forth.

Very true, but on the day a commander has to do it for real will CM have taught him how to fight the Chinese? SF is all about Syrians after all. Also what will SF tell him about defending or attacking, the buildings in SF are not representative of real life, there are no civilians to worry about etc etc etc.

4. Virtual training is CHEAP. End of story on that one

Very true, but why would you spend all day in a classroom with SF when you can be out on the ground with your platoon, doing the moves in Real Terrain. If your not firing your weapons then actual training is cheaper than virtual for small infantry units. After all your still paying and feeding the men.

6. Working together is always a good thing to keep fresh. By having CoPlay a Company Commander and his Platoon Commanders can keep plugging away until working together to solve tactical problems is second nature to them. Playing against the senior NCOs would probably be a good idea. And the virtual aspect would allow something like a Rifle Company in one part of the country to play against their brothers in arms in a Rifle Company half way around the world.

Ideal world here, SF has no method of play like this. So SF could not be used to train like this now. Its the now were talking about and not then.

7. Playing as the OPFOR helps understand where the strengths and weaknesses of both sides may lie. How many junior officers get to command "real" T-90s and employ AT-14s in mock combat in the field? It's the sort of thing all commanders should experience, don't you think?

Very true, but wouldnt it be better to fight against the A team? Syria is not Russia or China.

I think SF has a long long way to go before it becomes mature enough to be a realistic training tool. It doesnt have so far to go to be a good wargame as its there already.

Its nice to have aspirations but from a real world military point of view I cant see us using something like CM for anything other than very very elementary stuff.

[Apocal]

Its nice to have aspirations but from a real world military point of view I cant see us using something like CM for anything other than very very elementary stuff.

Just curious, have you ever done this military thing for real?

At any rate what about options for things like larger maps? Is that something we could realistically see over the course of CMx2?

[Battlefront.com]

GSX,

I can see you have about as much imagination as the higher ups that have stood in the way of CM being used as a widespread training tool

OK for a tank to run straight through an infantry platoon from playing SF.

Of course there are limitations to any training. In the field there are so many precautions to prevent accidental injury and damage to equipment that you could make the same argument. Or argue that blanks and laser targeting systems in a MOUT situation are useless since they can't penetrate light cover and thin building walls. So if you think training has to be perfect in order to be useful, then I guess we should just put people in uniform and send them to the front and not waste their time and taxpayer money giving them imperfect training.

Very true, but on the day a commander has to do it for real will CM have taught him how to fight the Chinese? SF is all about Syrians after all. Also what will SF tell him about defending or attacking, the buildings in SF are not representative of real life, there are no civilians to worry about etc etc etc.

So you're saying that no training at all is better than an approximation? That seems rather... well... daft As for the forces simulated in CM:SF, they can be easily changed in the event the training course requires something else. However, I think it is more likely that US forces will find themselves fighting stuff that is similar to what Syria has than what China has.

BTW, few training situations in the US military, at least, involve civilians. So again, applying your black and white logic to all military training... very little of it is apparently useful in your eyes.

Very true, but why would you spend all day in a classroom with SF when you can be out on the ground with your platoon, doing the moves in Real Terrain. If your not firing your weapons then actual training is cheaper than virtual for small infantry units. After all your still paying and feeding the men.

Riiiiight... and how frequently can this happen in real life? How many different terrain opportunities are available to the unit in question? Compare real life to what can be done virtually. I can just see an infantry unit in Alaska out in the middle of 3m of snow and -20F temps and the Captain saying "now troops, imagine you're in Iraq and it is 120F and you're in the middle of endless hardpan soil".

Oh, and how frequently is that unit in Alaska going to work with a full combined arms force? Sure, going out and doing things like navigation and basic drill should be done, but that's what I said earlier about CM being an adjunct tool, not a be-all-end-all solution. Walking the same piece of training ground for the 50th time certainly isn't the be-all-end-all either.

Ideal world here, SF has no method of play like this. So SF could not be used to train like this now. Its the now were talking about and not then.

No, we're talking about what we could deliver to the military if they paid for it. As I said, the lack of CoOp play is a definite negative for them. But that doesn't mean CM:SF, as it is today, has no use in military classrooms. It does otherwise it wouldn't be used in them (even though the use currently is quite limited).

Very true, but wouldnt it be better to fight against the A team? Syria is not Russia or China.

The chances of soldiers in today's military going up against Russia or China are thankfully nil. One should train against a range of possible opponents, true enough, but the emphasis should be on the most likely scenario and not the least.

I think SF has a long long way to go before it becomes mature enough to be a realistic training tool. It doesnt have so far to go to be a good wargame as its there already.

Well, I disagree. Your arguments against CM in the classroom are rather weak and superficial. We actually had a contract drafted that would have used the vastly inferior CMx1 engine for a training tool, but OIF took away all the funding. It wasn't that much anyway, so we're kinda glad it fell through.

Its nice to have aspirations but from a real world military point of view I cant see us using something like CM for anything other than very very elementary stuff.

We have no aspirations, you have no imagination... I think that makes us even

Steve

[GSX]

We have no aspirations, you have no imagination... I think that makes us even

Cheers for the little insult there. I have plenty of imagination thank you. What you seem to lack is direction. Do you want a wagame or a military simulation?

The chances of soldiers in today's military going up against Russia or China are thankfully nil. One should train against a range of possible opponents, true enough, but the emphasis should be on the most likely scenario and not the least.

This is so wrong. You should not train for the last war or train to fight the B team, you train to fight the best team available so that you become better than them. However, if your going to deploy to an Op, then your pre-deployment training gets tailored to that specific Op.

OK, so Im a platoon commander and to try out my super powers of commanding a platoon I fire up CMSF as it is right now. My first instinct is to have a combined arms attack on the best forces using Russian equipment right now, which would be the Russians. I figure fighting them would be a challenge.

Nope, Im not geting this, I have to fight against the Syrians. Fine so I set up my little game, US Army Platoon attacks a Syrian dug in force in Trenches and buildings.

So what does CMSF teach me as I go through my scenario? It teaches me fire and movement. Not too bad at that. It teaches me not to expose any part of my armour until some infantry have spotted the enemy, pretty realistic there. It teaches me that the Syrians are total crap even when dug in, another decent representation.

In a nutshell, if you want to use CMSF to teach you about the real battlefield it really cant other than the basics above.

As a basic tool to give to squaddies to take home and have some basic classroom elements I already said it would do fine. As a more complicated tool that has all the bells and whistles dialled in its not going to work right now.

You dont even get basic infantry formations in CMSF right now, where the arrowhead, extended line or column etc. Infantry still use these you know, CMSF represents infantry movement very crudely (almost abstractly). 1-1 representation means that you should have some kind of formation choice.

CMSF does teach a basic rule though - plaster everything with HE and air and you will win the day.

Thats not to say I dont like it as a wargame - I do. But as a simulation its got a way to go yet.

[GSX]

Just curious, have you ever done this military thing for real?

Yes mate and still do.

[dan/california]

I think Steve has mentioned a number of times that many of the elements that would greatly improve the games usefulness as a training tool could be added rather easily if the resources that go with a government contract were made available. BFC just cannot afford to hire several extra programmers otherwise.

[Moon]

I haven't read this whole thread so sorry if this was mentioned before, but CMSF has actually been used in classroom exercises and training seminars already. I recall at least two classroom licenses that were purchased by various Army institutions, and there have been several instances of small unit commanders picking up several copies for their own training as well.

[GSX]

I haven't read this whole thread so sorry if this was mentioned before, but CMSF has actually been used in classroom exercises and training seminars already. I recall at least two classroom licenses that were purchased by various Army institutions, and there have been several instances of small unit commanders picking up several copies for their own training as well.

So what do they actually use it for? The basics or the whole combined Arms war fighting thing. The first it is eminently suitable for, the second, in my opinion, it isnt for a variety of reasons.

That however does not make it a bad game, on the contrary with V1.11 it is unique in the wargame genre and is fun to play, its just not a simulation of combat, approximation is much more apt.

[Falconander]

Just as a side note,

In a perfect world, units are trained and deployed where they have the best expertise and tactical knowledge. Stationed down in Panama, I had little fear of being deployed into a cold weather climate as there are other units more suitable for deployment there. So I never had to imagine being in the snow when trecking through the jungle.

But we practiced jungle warfare over and over again.

Up in Fort Lewis, we often had to train with 'miles' gear or at worse was without ammo from lack of funding. Other times we shot thousands of round into the air just to be sure we were issues the same amount of ammo next time around. So we had alot of training that was 'free'.

We started using simulators more towards the end but mainly mount type items nothing on the squad/platoon/company level.

The modeling of fear/morale is always going to be difficult and I would have to say hard to train on. The one thing is life that can hold true is that just when you expect someone to do something, they completely surpise you.

One of the worst attributes that the US military has is to underestimate the resolve of the enemy. Our over confidence has cost us some very painful lessons.

But yes, I can see some applications of this in the military and wargaming will always be a great pairing to actual hands on experience. It is applied knowledge at it best so I agree with you on that point.

Lastly, if you really think about things. Wargaming conditions us and our society for the acceptance of the condition of war. I have young sons and cousins who play wargames and not to trivialize things but they are more apt to go into the military and be prepared than those who do not play wargames. So I'd move to the point that we are being conditioned at an early age to take on a soldiers view.

The conspiracy part of me would say that the military and the game companies would one day in the near future share ideas on what attributes to focus on. I think we will see a blend of gaming/military controls as we continue to condition ourselved to the transition from civilian to military.

Lastly, way off the subject, but I wonder if there is any difference in battle field fatigue/ shell-shock or whatever for those who have been wargamers for a long time. Almost like a prepping....

[ASL Veteran]

GSX, giving CM "to the squaddies to play with" would be a complete waste of time because as a training tool for the individual infantryman it would be completely useless. Where it would have some value would be for Platoon commanders, Company commanders, Battalion commanders, and Brigade or Regimental commanders to sharpen their skills in coordinating with each other. I don't know what it's like in the other armies in the world, but in the US army on Fort Hood and in West Germany back in the day it was a relatively simple matter for individual platoon commanders to reserve some time on post and go out and do some maneuvers out in the wilds of Fort Hood. It was a little more complicated in West Germany because the training areas were more limited and you couldn't just drive out the front gate of whatever barracks area you were at, tie up the West German autobahn and back roads with columns of tanks and trucks a mile long, and go around messing up some German farmer's fields whenever you felt like it - at least if you didn't want mass demonstrations by po'd German civilian types . It was bad enough as it was with them slamming the door of the clubs in our faces all the time. Damn, I just wanted to drink a beer and talk to a hot German babe but nooooo - we don't serve your kind here lol. I think the haircut gave us away! I shudder to think of how bad it would be if we were out galavanting around chewing up everyone's fields all the time whenever we wanted to with no accountability to anyone. Getting any sort of training done while in West Germany was difficult and getting training for an entire battalion or even a brigade sized element was pretty rare to do because of both the limited space of the available training areas and due to the fact that what training areas were available were shared by all NATO nations so you had to take a ticket and wait in line if you wanted to use one.

On Fort Hood it was a little simpler to do, but even then getting an entire battalion or brigade out on maneuvers at once was pretty rare because if a brigade was out maneuvering in the wilds nobody else could be out there - both the 1st Cavalry Division and the 2d Armored Division were based there at the time. Getting an entire division out in the fields - I don't think that ever happened. So, in terms of real life boots on the ground, everyone spending time out in the field eating MREs, and having fun chewing up the Texas back country, that is generally going to be limited to platoon or maybe company sized training. Now, I believe it was once a year, we would send a larger sized element to the NTC but that was only one time a year and I don't remember what sized element it was - could have been Brigade but I'm not positive. I do know that we never sent more than a company sized ADA element out to support 1st Cavalry in any sort of maneuver so our companies would rotate out to NTC (usually only one company out of the battalion a year - if that). You also had all your attack helicopters buzzing around. Damn those tankers were always driving around full blast in the dead of night with no headlights on so I was more terrified of turning into tread juice than in following SOP and sleeping somewhere away from the vehicle. In case of air attack you don't want to be blowed up - but relative to a mythical pretend air attack, the danger of being crushed on the ground in your sleeping bag by some overzealous sleep deprived treadhead using night vision at midnight was probably a lot greater lol . Although I must admit that when I had the chance to drive the M157 it was quite the rush. Wow, the feeling of power driving around in something that big and heavy is a real experience.

I think the Co Play element is probably a deal breaker for use with the US Army as a training tool because if you can't get everyone from the butter bars to the birds in the game at the same time with each one commanding their own element it's just not going to be effective. You gotta figure that your birds are going to know basic maneuver tactics for larger formations or they wouldn't be birds, so just having your birds sit down in front of the computer to play CM probably wouldn't be very worthwhile. The trick is getting all your butter bars to get the job done within the heirarchy of whatever the battle plan is as passed down by your birds. With CM you can add an opposition element that's difficult to add when having your boys driving around in the fields. Probably the only time we ever had an actual OPFOR was when units rotated into the NTC. The problem with the NTC was that the entire army was rotating through it so only a few units had the opportunity to get real world training with boots on the ground vs a live opponent at the NTC at any particular time at the brigade or battalion level. Most of the time when maneuvering on Fort Hood itself it was more of a logistical exercise for the various commanders since there was no OPFOR. One time I drove around the XO in the old Chevy Blazer and all we did was drive to various locations to see if the Vulcans were properly camoflauged. Even when you got to go to the NTC the terrain was always the same so CM would add the random terrain element into the mix.

Now maybe it's different in the UK and over there you can just send out a Brigade sized armored formation with full on Brigade sized OPFOR to drive around out in the wilds of East Anglia for real boots on the ground training whenever you want to, but in the US Army there would definitely be some value that could be obtained for commanders in honing their skills coordinating their actions with other units against an active OPFOR in whatever terrain, scenario, or situation that a trainer may want to simulate. Your comment about cost though really makes me scratch my head. If you think field training doesn't cost anything extra then you haven't been paying attention. If your troops are sitting around in the barracks then all the vehicles are usually sitting around in the motor pool. I don't think there is a unit in the US Army that goes to battle totally on foot anymore - even in my day every unit had a whole raft full of vehicles of various sizes and shapes and when your main battle tank's gas mileage is measured in terms of GPM (Gallons Per Mile LOL) then just driving around is gonna cost you a little extra. Oh yeah, and usually we didn't eat MREs when sitting around in the barracks - we had a mess hall for that so yeah, the cost of food would be added into that. Truth be told though, there is no telling how old those MREs were. Most guys who were sergeant or above also lived off post so they wouldn't even eat all their meals in the mess hall. I'm sure some of our stuff dated from Vietnam. Some of the Deuce and a Halfs definitely were Vietnam vintage - we could even see bullet holes in a few!

[GSX]

ASL Veteran.

I hear you there.... I remember running about in Germany too back in the 80's and early 90's. Ah the good old days, when you knew your enemy and trained for Armageddon!

But I digress. I actually agree with what your saying except that if you gave CM to some squaddies they probably would benefit from it. I also fully understand that US and UK infantry training and ethos is very different (ive served for almost 10 of my 25 years with US forces in various places).

And its not different in the Uk, we are actually more limited than you are for large exercises (for big ones we go to BATUS in Canada).

My whole point is and was that SF as it is right now wouldnt be a training tool worth investing money in as it doesnt actually do anything other than highlight the basics. And you can do those basics in a football field if you want. Why waste any time indoors when your guys can run around getting fit doing them?

I wholeheartedy agree that higher commander can do the thinking stuff in a coplay situation, get a tanker to command the tanks and a JTAC to do air etc. But SF doesnt have coplay so its a rather moot point.

[stoex]

GSX.

I think you have some valid points about the limits of CMSF as a training tool in its current form.

OTOH, the way I understand what Steve is trying to tell you in response is that a lot of the things that CMSF would need to have to be an excellent training tool could be added if the resources for development were made available (mostly money for paying programmers besides Charles ), which as it stands they are currently not.

This is where the investment comes in - what is necessary to take CMSF to where it could be as a training tool is an initial investment via a contract with an interested military institution. After all, that is how investment works - you invest resources in advance and on a regular basis to get a specified result a little way down the road. You don't wait until someone happens to develop what you need by chance (and with the 'limited' resources available to, in this case, BFC, who cater to a small niche gaming market) and then buy it when it's all ready.

BFC can make stuff to order if someone orders it and pays for it in full. If nobody pays them in advance, they are forced to do the best they can and hope people (like you and me) will like the result. To go beyond the 'basics' of a military training tool, they need the military to give them specs and some money to do it with. As it is they have designed a game and not a training tool. And I for one am very greatful that civvies like me have a chance to use what they've created, 'cause it's a truckload of fun .

Northrop-Grummon didn't just go and develop the B-2 for the heck of it and then hoped they would be able to sell it to someone either .

Now, why the 'insert your nation of choice here' Army doesn't seem particularly interested in developing CMSF to its full potential as a training tool I don't know, since BFC do a heck of a job without support from people with a whopping big budget to spend on such stuff.

Summing up, I think you and Steve are both right here, it's just the Armies that don't get it .

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the other first hand experiences. I think they illustrate what appears to be the main difference between the way GSX is looking at CM and the way I'm looking at it (which is the way military trainers have opened my eyes to, BTW). And that is there are severe practical limitations on first hand training opportunities. Whether it's the unit that's stuck in the jungles learning jungle warfare and then being transfered to the Middle East, or a unit which has no budget to get out in more than platoon sized exercises without an OPFOR.

What CM can do is provide trainers with a low cost, easy to use, massively varied tool for certain aspects of combat training. It is no substitute for physical exercises, nor for more formal classroom type learning. Instead it is an adjunct to help round out the inherent deficiencies within existing military training regimes.

GSX,

Cheers for the little insult there. I have plenty of imagination thank you.

Sorry for the dig, but your way of thinking is the sort of problem our military advocates have run into. And that is current training opportunities are adequate and that a "game" isn't really of value, therefore something like CM doesn't have much to offer. We feel very confident, based on what military trainers have told us, that this is not so. And based on what others have added to this thread, I think it's pretty clear that the position you've taken is too... inflexible, I guess is a better word. Or perhaps unrealistic in terms of what budgets, local training grounds, time, opportunity to do full combined arms, etc. actually are capable of providing. Again, we have zero disagreement that CM is not a substitute for anything the military is already doing, rather it is something that can enhance what is already going on. And enhance it cheaply.

What you seem to lack is direction. Do you want a wagame or a military simulation?

We have solid direction... we already have a wargame based on a simulation of combat. This is different than something like Steel Panthers, which is a wargame through and through. This is the direction we are going in and that's not going to change, which is why certain things the military has already told us they want to see won't be going into the game unless they pay us to put it in. The money, as has been stated correctly by others above, would allow us to provide the military with something they want without interrupting our ability to keep focused on the commercial market.

BTW, it is the commercial market that we want as our core customer, not the military. Militaries are bureaucracies which can't be counted on beyond the terms of whatever the current contract is. The fact that there is a contract also means our creativity is capped and our control in direction therefore limited. The commercial market provides us with far more freedom and flexibility, it is far more reliable, and also more financially lucrative.

Which is to say we have a solid sense of direction

This is so wrong. You should not train for the last war or train to fight the B team, you train to fight the best team available so that you become better than them. However, if your going to deploy to an Op, then your pre-deployment training gets tailored to that specific Op.

That is my point. The next war, and the war after that, is likely to be a Syria setting and not going to war against China or Russia. Now, it's true that the next war might see better AT weaponry, improved vehicle weapons systems, etc. vs. what we have in the game now. That stuff is trivial to add because we made the engine capable of handling things right up to and including warfare on other planets.

So yes... train against the best of the best the OPFOR might have, but also train against what you're most likely going to run up against. Tankers in a head on war with Russia would not be fighting the same type of war as they would against an enemy that has few armored assets to utilize.

The great thing about something like CM is that both are equally easy to provide. Which underscores my point about the flexibility of something like CM. When a unit does a rare training exercise on a grand scale (like at Ft. Irwin) it's just one type of OPFOR in one type of terrain with a limited selection of combat situations. CM has no such limitations.

So what does CMSF teach me as I go through my scenario? It teaches me fire and movement. Not too bad at that. It teaches me not to expose any part of my armour until some infantry have spotted the enemy, pretty realistic there. It teaches me that the Syrians are total crap even when dug in, another decent representation.

In a nutshell, if you want to use CMSF to teach you about the real battlefield it really cant other than the basics above.

The basics are basic because they are the most important thing to get right, correct? So I don't mind the thought of CM being limited to just teaching the basics

My whole point is and was that SF as it is right now wouldnt be a training tool worth investing money in as it doesnt actually do anything other than highlight the basics. And you can do those basics in a football field if you want. Why waste any time indoors when your guys can run around getting fit doing them?

Again with the notion that there is a choice here... there isn't. Both are useful in their own ways. Going out on the football field with a platoon or even two can't do much more than reinforce some basic drills and concepts. CM can do far more than that in terms of the basics. And while going out to the same football pitch day after day after day introduces nothing new to the training regiment, carefully constructed training sessions with CM have endless opportunities.

When we were (almost) contracted to make a military trainer out of CMBO/BB there were a couple of things that the Colonels and Majors behind the push had in mind for it:

1. Learning how to use a wide variety of terrain to yield advantages. A football pitch isn't going to do that, the designated training area of a base isn't going to do that either.

2. Seeing how combined arms concepts work. Leading armor into an unscouted urban area without infantry support, for example. Or what artillery can do to your own forces if it is used too closely or not given time to have an effect. Things like that. Even CMBO was capable of this in a way most existing training opportunities can't.

3. Teaching junior level commanders how to handle their assets in various different environments in conjunction with the two things I already mentioned above. As stated, the opportunities to do this in real life are few in number and limited in scope. A Stryker Rifle Company commander at Ft. Lewis can't just call out a couple of Stryker MGS out of the motorpool whenever he wants, nor can he work with Abrams since they aren't anywhere to be found. So at the moment training opportunities for that Captain are practically confined to pencil and paper exercises.

4. Cooperative training (with CoPlay, which is basically a requirement for widespread military use). CM is designed to allow players to be stuck wearing a one primary hat. A Major could tell his Captains what to do and not have to click on any units, for example. Captains would then tell their Lieutenants what is expected of them, perhaps issuing some direct orders to units on their own. Lieutenants then would instruct the individual units on what to do. This would all be done with realistic relative knowledge of what the others are doing, just like in real life. Trainers could also screw up things like break C2 links between chains of command, cause delays in messages being transfered, give decision makers bogus intel, etc. All of this is very easy to add from a technical standpoint since the game is inherently designed to handle it. Our problem is we can't "afford" to do it just yet so the only way to get it done in the very near term is to have someone else pay for it.

Anyway... my point is that there has always been a lot of interest in CM (of all flavors) as a training tool by the guys who actually train junior to mid grade leadership. Even lower down than that, in fact. We were quite happy to learn that CMAK was used by members of the US Special Forces when they had down time during the initial operations in Afghanistan. As one member put it to us, it helped them keep their edge sharp along with other games (first person shooters).

Steve

[Tuomio]

The worst part of training simulation is, that the student might even enjoy or look forward to the upcoming classes. High spirits will undermine your position in higher hierarchy, because you are no longed feared but enjoyed. Army is like the police game good cop bad cop, where the good cop is ******* at the best. Stockholm syndrome comes to my mind.

Lower command = tactical level, higher command = strategical level. Not that many strategical aspects in CM. I would imagine best value at co-op play at company level with the relative intel that is offered by the new CM2 engine (is there any other simulation with such capability out there?). CMSF is a tactical simulation which is capable of providing very high quality of atmosphere.

IMO the moment you truly care if the immaterial pixels get deleted by arithmetical operations , is precious if you are trying to bring that experience to the real world.

[GSX]

Sorry for the dig, but your way of thinking is the sort of problem our military advocates have run into. And that is current training opportunities are adequate and that a "game" isn't really of value, therefore something like CM doesn't have much to offer. We feel very confident, based on what military trainers have told us, that this is not so. And based on what others have added to this thread, I think it's pretty clear that the position you've taken is too... inflexible, I guess is a better word. Or perhaps unrealistic in terms of what budgets, local training grounds, time, opportunity to do full combined arms, etc. actually are capable of providing. Again, we have zero disagreement that CM is not a substitute for anything the military is already doing, rather it is something that can enhance what is already going on. And enhance it cheaply.

The position Ive taken is merely from experience, the same experience Im sure that a lot of those military guys that you talk about have taken.

I can see why a classroom exercise using CM may be beneficial to junior leaders and even perhaps the squaddies. But at that level its usually a lot better to get on the ground and carry out your basic infantry drills, learn your trade and do the stuff that makes you a better soldier.

Now if all the things you allude to were in it, it would be a better experience, Tankers can control tanks and infantry can control infantry.

So we seem to be discussing two separate things right now, one is the current SF and the other is an ideal SF with CoPlay etc. Im sure Im just a dinosaur and the truth lies somewhere inbetween.

[Battlefront.com]

GSX,

I can see why a classroom exercise using CM may be beneficial to junior leaders and even perhaps the squaddies. But at that level its usually a lot better to get on the ground and carry out your basic infantry drills, learn your trade and do the stuff that makes you a better soldier.

In a perfect world, sure. But I'll say again... if you're in Alaska in the middle of January, how are you going to go out into the field and practice for desert warfare in any sort of meaningful way? Even if it were practical (i.e. not -40f) it would be limited. There are no tanks in Alaska, for example, and there is no organized and realistically equipped OPFOR to go up against. Which is why I keep saying, over and over again, that you're not looking at the inherent practical problems with getting out in the field, even on a very small and limiting way. So do it when you can, to the extent you can, and rely upon other training regimes to make up the difference. Even if it is just during months when the weather precludes certain things from happening.

So we seem to be discussing two separate things right now, one is the current SF and the other is an ideal SF with CoPlay etc. Im sure Im just a dinosaur and the truth lies somewhere inbetween.

SF could be used right now and it would be better than nothing. Just like the Special Forces guys that were playing Battlefield 2 while waiting for their next combat mission in Afghanistan... anything that can help keep a soldier on his toes is a good thing. And at $45 a pop (without bulk discounts) it's very cheap.

However, I would not expect any military to dump any money into purchasing site licenses without certain modifications. Those modifications would depend on what it was the military had in mind for its training needs. If the Italians are looking at CM:SF they would want Italian forces in the game at a minimum, for example. But it is likely that things like CoPlay would be pretty much a standard feature requirement. That's consistent with the feedback we've received from several militaries over many years.

Steve

[GSX]

if you're in Alaska in the middle of January, how are you going to go out into the field and practice for desert warfare

Your not, your going to go out and train for warfare, do the drills, get to know your men, get fit etc.

At the Platoon level soldering is about the act.

I understand where your coming from but I think that SF is not the right training aid right now for anything other than the basics..... however, if it did have Coplay its would be a much better tool for individual force commanders I totally agree there.

Argument over for me I think.

[JonS]

... if you're in Alaska in the middle of January, how are you going to go out into the field and practice for desert warfare in any sort of meaningful way? ...

A significant part of my prep for a tropical jungle deployment was conducted in a blizzard.

Which sucked.

And didn't make a whole lot of sense.

But we did it anyway.

Then again, platoon contact drills and IAs are the same, "regardless of season, weather, or terrain."

[Battlefront.com]

GSX,

Your not, your going to go out and train for warfare, do the drills, get to know your men, get fit etc.

At the Platoon level soldering is about the act.

True, but those are not the sorts of skills that CM:SF really has any relevance to. As I've been saying all along, no way can a computer sim replace real life basic skills training. What it can do is complement it. So go out in -40f temps with 3 feet of snow and be reminded what it is to be a solider, then come in side and learn something that couldn't possibly be learned when out there in the cold for whatever reason (equipment not available, terrain limitations, etc.).

I understand where your coming from but I think that SF is not the right training aid right now for anything other than the basics..... however, if it did have Coplay its would be a much better tool for individual force commanders I totally agree there.

CoPlay is definitely the main edge that CM:SF currently lacks from the military's perspective. It's also the most technically challenging of the sorts of stuff they would want added. The rest of it is mostly just routine time consuming stuff.

JonS,

And didn't make a whole lot of sense.

If you expected sense when you signed up for the military you obviously didn't have any to start with

Steve

[MikeyD]

About CM's value as a trainer, let's not underestimate how LITTLE a typical new army recruit comes in knowing. Simply familiarizing himself with weapon & vehicle names is a big benefit. Who here knew what a M1128 was until we started playing CMSF! And a raw recruit familiarizing himself with weapon ranges and proper use of terrain features - its basic stuff but when you're 18 years old fresh out your parent's home every little bit helps. They've recently reworked the old TOW missile controls from dials to pistol grips - to more resemble the video games that soldiers already are familiar with.

[Watch-man]

Everyone keeps talking about soldiers "training for the desert" without really having any understanding of what it means. Several posters - the ones with military experience - have hit the nail on the head when they accurately identify the fact that military drills remain the same regardless of the environment they are conducted in. Running, shooting, and performing tactical movements don't change because of the temperature or the weather.

Training to fight in particular environments is something you do in a classroom, largely. Winter or desert or tropical indoctrination is a relatively brief period done at the end of trade or combat training. You don't need special classes in "how to be cold" or "how to sweat" but you do need classes in hydration, dressing in layers, treating heat casualties, frostbite, etc. What you don't need is to "practice" running up hills in 110 degree heat just because it is hot outside and you want to get used to the desert. You climatize once you are on the ground, or in the pre-deployment phase. You don't do it a year before you even go because you simply want to know what it "feels like."

[Falconander]

I was doing some research annd thought I'd share. I did not think they would deploy to Iraq but they did and lost 53 of their own.

The 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division is the Army's newest Airborne unit. The "Spartan Brigade" was officially formed July 14, 2005, at Fort Richardson, Alaska. The Spartans became a part of Task Force Marne on April 23.

The Brigade is the first, new Airborne unit created in the U.S. Army since the end of World War II and is the only Airborne unit west of the Mississippi River.

Located on the outskirts of Anchorage, Alaska, the Spartan Brigade is a strategic asset to the Department of Defense’s Pacific Command. It provides a quick reaction force capable of deploying anywhere in the world in 18 hours or less.

The Spartan Brigade was formed with six battalions; 1st Battalion (Airborne), 501st Infantry, known as 1 Geronimo; 3 Battalion (Airborne), 509th Infantry, known as 3 Geronimo; 1st Squadron (Airborne), 40th Cavalry known as Denali; 2nd Battalion (Airborne), 377th Field Artillery, called Spartan Steel; 425th Brigade Special Troops Battalion, the Warrior Battalion and the 725th Brigade Support Battalion, the Centurions.

Since the Brigade was formed, the Spartans have conducted training missions all over the world. The Paratroopers have conducted parachute operations and mass attack airborne assaults on three different continents, in both hemispheres and at both, the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif., and the Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana.

In its first year, the Spartan Brigade conducted more than 10 Battalion sized and two Brigade sized field training exercises.

The Paratroopers of the Spartan Brigade have trained in the jungles of Thailand and the deserts of the Australian Outback and the American Southwest. They conducted operational training in -60 degree weather near the Arctic Circle and the 120 degree heat of the swamps of Louisiana, all in preparation for their deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In October 2006, less than a year after the Spartan Brigade was fully formed, it deployed to southern Iraq and took over operational control of the Babil, Karbala and An Najaf provinces.

The brigade returned from deployment in December 2007 after losing 53 of their paratroopers.

[Battlefront.com]

Watch-man,

Everyone keeps talking about soldiers "training for the desert" without really having any understanding of what it means. Several posters - the ones with military experience - have hit the nail on the head when they accurately identify the fact that military drills remain the same regardless of the environment they are conducted in. Running, shooting, and performing tactical movements don't change because of the temperature or the weather.

True, the skills used for those things does not change much (I would say that physically moving in snow is not the same as hardpan soil). But weather, temperature, available equipment, cover, terrain, etc. do change how those skills are used. For example, on a 60 degree day in flat, dry terrain a Mech Infantry Company would execute a completely different set of maneuvers compared to trying to move up the side of a mountain in 3' of snow. For example, having to dismount , moving in bounds with pauses for rest in order to avoid exhaustion, having to allow extra time for crew served weapons to be lugged along, not being able to easily resupply once committed to battle, etc. Then switch the OPFOR from a mech based force caught on the march with one that is using dense infantry screens from well prepared fighting positions. So on and so forth.

CM:SF is good at showing off these kinds of differences between environments and scenarios. It doesn't teach soldiers how to march, it doesn't teach them how to adjust their rucksacks, it doesn't teach them how to shoot straight after being awake for 30 hours. So as I keep saying, these two things are complementary and not mutually exclusive.

Training to fight in particular environments is something you do in a classroom, largely.

Which is exactly what CM:SF is... a classroom tool

Winter or desert or tropical indoctrination is a relatively brief period done at the end of trade or combat training. You don't need special classes in "how to be cold" or "how to sweat" but you do need classes in hydration, dressing in layers, treating heat casualties, frostbite, etc. What you don't need is to "practice" running up hills in 110 degree heat just because it is hot outside and you want to get used to the desert. You climatize once you are on the ground, or in the pre-deployment phase. You don't do it a year before you even go because you simply want to know what it "feels like."

Absolutely. But I'm sure the soldiers being in a 120 environment for the first time would appreciate their commanders already knowing that running 100m up a hill in full gear at 13:30 in full sunlight at 8,000 feet isn't going to go as well as running across the old familiar training ground back home Ft. Benning in the middle of May

Steve

[dan/california]

" But I'm sure the soldiers being in a 120 environment for the first time would appreciate their commanders already knowing that running 100m up a hill in full gear at 13:30 in full sunlight at 8,000 feet isn't going to go as well as running across the old familiar training ground back home Ft. Benning in the middle of May "

Since you brought it up, does CMSF adjust endurance at 2000 meter plus elevations? I used to work on ski lifts for a living and trust me, most people WHEEZE at 3000 meters plus.