Using SF as a training tool.

[GSX]

Recent discussions in the Blue bar thread got me thinking about what could be done to improve SF as a training tool for the military. I have already stated that it can be used as a very basic tool right now, fire and movement, fixing and flanking etc.

To make it a more effective tool however I suggest the following.

1. Improve the infantry movement orders.

a. Include squad formations such as extended line, column, arrowhead etc. Right now you get a loose gaggle or at best a couple of lines.

b. Represent Squad pairs fire and movement in assault. Not particularly essential, but representative. One guy fires the other moves and vice versa.

2. Improve infantry ability to fight in urban areas.

a. This would include building entry. As it stands right now infantry can only enter by a door, Id like to see them go in via a window as well. Perhaps even use a ladder to get to an upper floor and then fight top down.

b. SF infantry cant climb a 12 foot wall, in reality this is very possible. Let them bunt each other over that wall.

c. We have 1-1 representation but we could have 1-1 orders where you could detail a squad member or two to go back and get more ammo from that vehicle 20 yards to the rear rather than have the whole squad do it.

d. The ability for close quarters hand to hand fighting, I think its abstracted right now but with 1-1 it should be live action.

e. Vehicle exit could be tweaked to run or assault directly. Right now the guys exit, lie down for a few secs and then move off. The ability to run straight for a designated area would be a good addition.

f. Casualties. I like the way the medical aid works right now but it would be good to have the option of assigning 1 or 2 guys to take your casualties back a bit. This would show the dilemma between leaving casualties lying there and reducing your combat power or diminishing your squad temporarily to benefit your injured. The Infantry model is mostly keep going in real life and let the medic do the casualty. So a nice addition may be a medic or two. This is a minor one as I think its represented OK right now.

3. Tracked vehicles.

a. As it stands right now a Tank or APC cannot cross a 3 foot wall. This means that you unrealistically either have to blast the wall or get caught up in unrealistic choke points.

4. Air Support.

a. I like the Air support in the main, however the weapon moddeling doesnt reflect RL. For starters an aircraft will usually be carrying various air to ground weapons, LGB, Rockets, Brimstone, etc, etc. This should be reflected instead of Heavy, medium and light weapons. If an ac is carrying 2 LGB and the JTAC can see the target, then the LGB should not miss (a pilot shouldnt drop if there is target ambiguity) 95% of the time. A pilot should say something like 'I have 2 Paveway 3, a 20mm gun and can stay with you for 40 minutes'.

b. Air support can also be told that anything beyond point A is deemed hostile and be left to get on with it. JTAC to ac, 'we are south of the river, any enemy you see North attack'.

Just some thoughts on how to make SF a more effective training tool, and possibly a more realistic wargame.

[Apocal]

The ones I can think of:

Dynamic mine detection. Running around with the idea that your troops will never be able to detect mines is negative training IMO. We have a lot mine detection gear out there and some of it even works!

More types of obstacles and realistic breaching equilpment. Combat engineering has gotten a short shrift (at least over here in the States) because our Super Bowl of training is entirely engineer-unfriendly. It's one of those things we probably don't train enough at, speaking at the tactical level.

Possibly stretching the design a bit to function as a call-for-fire trainer?

[MikeyD]

I think Steve has said else that he's more than willing to do all that and more. All he needs is for the DoD to give him a check for several million dollars to hire a bunch more programmers, with a guaranteee of a fat Pentagon contract at the end.

[stoex]

MikeyD - I posted some words to that effect in the Blue Bar thread where this discussion started not 20 minutes ago. Hadn't seen this thread yet, silly me .

OTOH, if anyone ever does send along that check, I think Steve, Charles and the rest of BFC (including all the other programmers they hire using said check) might be inclined to work on adding the things that the guy with the check wants and not worry too much about what people post here .

If I ever have that kind of money, I'll be glad to send it along to BFC, but I know I'll just order the Syrian Sniperette on the horse-drawn motorcycle with the mine-dog in the sidecar. And I'll want the horse to be a Lipizzaner, and the dog to be my neighbor's stupid barking mutt. And I'd want a lot of mines .

[BFCElvis]

Hi GSX,

A couple of things about some of your requests:

1

a. That would be cool. Can't think of how it would worked having to give that optional oder in RT but would love to see it tried.

b. Unless I am not understanding you correctly it already works as you are asking for. When the Assault order is issues one team in the squad advances while the others provide cover, then the covering guys advance while the first tomove provide cover. etc..until the destination is reached.

2

a. I am not sure how this it done in real life so maybe anIraq vet can chime in. If movies and TV shows represent real life then soldiers enter through doors. If in Fallujiah (sp) or something guys went in through whatever opening they could find then CMSF should model this too. The game knows where the windows are as well as the doors so you would think it would be doable.

b. Again do soldiers do this in real life battle situations? If they do it should be added. We all know the can help each other over high walls the question would be do they do it in a combat situation?

c. You can do this now (may be a 1.11 thing). If you break off a team (2 or 3 guys) and send them back for ammo they will get it and when they rejoin the sqaud they distribute to everyone in the squad evenly.

d. I'm not sure it is even abstracted. But boy is it needed and will be more important in WW2.

e. I am happy with the exit movement and it feels like it should to me. Guys come out and hit the ground providing cover until everyone is out of the transport and then theygo about their movement (assault or quick might want to be the exit order you issue for the closest effect to what you are looking for).

f. Sounds like a good idea but for me it would only be minor. If we ask the real world guys they will probably tell you that youdrag your buddy out of harms way. That being said I could live with or without it.

3

a. Can/do tanks and APCs do that in real battle? If so then you're right and it should be in CMSF. I'm not a programmer but it doesn;t sound like too hard of a thing to do.

4

a. I have no idea.

b. I'll have to play around with it but I think area fire air support may already model this. Area target the large area you want and the air support will fire at the enemy units it sees in that area. I am pretty sure that when area fire is selected it doesn't just randomlydrop stuff in the "area".

Anyone know about some of these real battle situation questions?

[M1A1TC]

MICLIC, Smoke Pot M113, Mine plows/rollers on vehicles, Concertina wire, HESCO barriers, improved infantry MOUT techniques, short range anti-air assets

[MikeyD]

I recall way way waaay back before the Beta even started there was talk that MICLIC was on BFC's list for inclusion in CMSF. But it doesn't take much imagination to picture Charles gasping at the amount of single-use coding that would've had to be written to get a properly working line charge into the game. If only DoD would just fork over that million for them to hire those extra programmers

[M1A1TC]

I just want to throw a MICLIC charge down a block and watch the fireworks

[Combatintman]

The key question is what is your training audience? There are many games or simulations out there - but as a starter for 10 - all this ladder stuff - I accept the realism point but will having it sell it?

[Battlefront.com]

The intended purpose is, of course, very important for any training tool. Are you trying to familiarize junior officers with combined arms training in any environment or a specific environment? Is it to train mid level officers in command and control aspects in combat, "march" logistics? Are FAC/JTACs learning how to do their job, are FISTs looking for exact protocols for their duties?

The more focused the training requirements are, the easier it is for us to make it suit the needs of the trainer. For example, we could fairly easily do a really low level nuts and bolts artillery fire simulation in a fairly short period of time. But if someone instead wanted to have detailed COIN Ops interaction with civilians... way more time (definitely doable, though).

Aside from the practicality of delivering features a military client requests, the applicability to commercial use is quite important. If the only thing the military wanted was CoPlay, with no other changes, it would be costly for us to produce but pretty straight forward. It would also near 100% applicable to a commercial release, which would in turn lower our costs, which in turn would lower the price to the client. If they didn't want it in the public domain, at all and in any form, well... then the price goes way up

So everything is relative, but in theory everything is also doable provided the incentives are correct.

Steve

[C'Rogers]

I think that there needs to be a concept change for this to be more of a training tool. One of the things Steve has said is they are not going to waste the time to code things that would be very rarely used For example ladders, they would have to not only code the reasons a player would want to use a ladder, but the many reasons they wouldn't.

However for a training tool I think it would help to have such things in. 'I know poor trainiee, you thought going in the window would keep you off the streets. But it took a lot longer and the men weren't able to defend themselves.' As a game though, they would probably just be annoying micro elements.

[GSX]

Double post.

[GSX]

I think Steve has said else that he's more than willing to do all that and more. All he needs is for the DoD to give him a check for several million dollars to hire a bunch more programmers, with a guaranteee of a fat Pentagon contract at the end.

Are you honestly saying that the reason a tank cannot cross a 3 foot wall is that they cant afford to code it in?

[C'Rogers]

If I read that right, you want to make money and your not bothered from whom. Youd prefer the US Taxpayer to GIVE you that money to develop something rather than taking the risk that you can deliver what they actually want (by taking the risk and hiring some new staff).

It isn't like BFC is rolling around in piles of money. Who says they even have the money for such a long development cycle? Years from now the budget might be frozen and they'll be hanging onto a product that they can't sell. Maybe after the product is done there is just one critical feature missing that contacts had said would be important, suddenly was. There are a lot of things that could happen between today and by the time the game is finished.

Their current approach makes a lot more sense for a small developer. Continually improve the engine through gradual releases. They can keep going back to the military with improved versions and say 'do you see value in this yet?' If they do they can have a talk, if not BFC still has a viable business.

If they went straight for military they would be putting all their eggs in one basket. They took enough of a risk trying to make money off of selling wargames.

Edit: My reply was to GSX but I no longer see the relevant post here.

[Watch-man]

The U.S. Army already has access to extremely sophisticated electronic trainers for artillery observers and tank crews, so there is no need to purchase such things from a software company run by two civilians with no military experience. And it is hard to imagine the necessity for having a software package in which soldiers interact with civilians when the easiest thing in the world is to run those kinds of drills on an exercise field with no special equipment necessary, with Iraq and Afghanistan veterans on hand to provide counsel and interaction.

C'Rogers makes an excellent point about providing more 'stuff' than is necessary if one wants a valuable training aid, if only to provide candidates with the ability to do things the wrong way. With the emphasis on real time in CM:ShF and the need for a pared down command menu, that can't be a reality, unless you start making multiple function commands i.e. your fire command turns into a Ladder command when you're within 1 metre of a wall or something.

[C'Rogers]

And it is hard to imagine the necessity for having a software package in which soldiers interact with civilians when the easiest thing in the world is to run those kinds of drills on an exercise field with no special equipment necessary, with Iraq and Afghanistan veterans on hand to provide counsel and interaction.

I think the more we have the discussion the more this will come up. I'd like to nip it in the bud, but I doubt it will work.

I don't think Steve is remotely saying CM:SF is a replacement. But how often can soldiers be put out for a field drill vs. being sat at a computer?

Let me make a sports comparison. Certainly in any sport the number one training you want your guys to do is be out in the field. Replicate real life scenario as nearly as possible. But any team that did that as its only training would be at a disadvantage. You want to have guys look at video, discuss strategy, discuss the opponent. You do this both because constant physical training is expensive, but also because you want the players to have a larger picture of the game.

I think there are similar benefits to the military. Will CM:SF yield some kind of super-soldier, of course not. Is it even better than other alternative classroom/electronic teaching methods, I have no idea. But getting soldiers to think strategically in a variety of scenarios should be a benefit (whether it is using computer pixels or moving chess pieces). Now the exact degree of benefit is hard to say. But it is a cheap (relatively) alternative that provides a tactical realistic (again, relatively) picture of a few certain types of military engagements.

[Combatintman]

Back to the training audience thing - as Steve said - if you want to train Pl and Coy level commanders in combined arms tactics CMSF is pretty much ready to go as is. If you want to have ladders then you need something more in the FPS genre (Armed Assault or its military variant VBS-2. Horses for courses as they say.

[Apocal]

The U.S. Army already has access to extremely sophisticated electronic trainers for artillery observers and tank crews, so there is no need to purchase such things from a software company run by two civilians with no military experience.

Have you used the Conduct of Fire trainer? Do you realize how much "yeah you can get away with that here, but don't try that **** in combat" there is behind any training utilizing CoF? And don't get me started on the convoy trainer, God, don't get me started on that. I could go on for hours on how cocked up that thing is. The executive summary: imagine Humvees and five tons on ice, shooting Nintendo laser guns at bad guys who will not die, even after you grow frustrated and start running them over with your 720-spinning Humvee. If I hadn't had a few experienced MPs around to show me The One True Path Of Convoy Protection, I'd have walked away from that traing believing A) there is no point to firing after being ambushed, as your fire will be ridiculously ineffective and clearing the kill zone should be as cautiously as possible, lest you have vehicular accident.

No comment on any call for fire trainers, I've never seen it, though it wouldn't surpise me if one already exists.

MILES... the most common form of cheating I saw was people positioning themselves close to machine guns and having their weapons effectively becoming MGs themselves. There wasn't much light concealment on the field I trained on (possibly intentionally), so that wasn't as prevalent as I've been told it is.

Million dollars trainers don't necessarily equate to million dollar training.

Of course, that's why I mentioned a more enhanced combat engineering sim. Combat engineering gets overlooked and outright shafted, but it could be a critical advantage in any terrain that isn't a pool-table flat desert devoid of chokepoints. A lot of maneuver commanders don't really understand what it brings to the table as opposed to something like an Abrams tank or an Apache and combat engineers spend much of their time "selling" their capabilities to Staff. It's also expensive to go out on live show-and-tells. So that would seem to be a perfect niche for a reasonably accurate simulation.

[GSX]

It isn't like BFC is rolling around in piles of money. Who says they even have the money for such a long development cycle? Years from now the budget might be frozen and they'll be hanging onto a product that they can't sell. Maybe after the product is done there is just one critical feature missing that contacts had said would be important, suddenly was. There are a lot of things that could happen between today and by the time the game is finished.

Their current approach makes a lot more sense for a small developer. Continually improve the engine through gradual releases. They can keep going back to the military with improved versions and say 'do you see value in this yet?' If they do they can have a talk, if not BFC still has a viable business.

If they went straight for military they would be putting all their eggs in one basket. They took enough of a risk trying to make money off of selling wargames.

Edit: My reply was to GSX but I no longer see the relevant post here.

Sorry I realised what I was saying was pretty much what you stated there before you stated it, you were too quick!

[GSX]

I still think that as it stand right now SF doesnt really enhance the training of the units that Sf is focused on, thats basically platoon combat. I get it that you can play the game in different terrain (desert) form where your unit may be stationed.

But the bottom line is that if your guys can do the basics in 12 foot of snow well, then they are going to be just as good in a flat Desert or other type of terrain. If you already train in the harshest conditions and do the basics well, then your going to find it easier when you get to the less difficult terrain.

Plus before you deploy you will get more specific training tailored to the role that you will carry out.

As it stands right now SF wont really teach you much about combined arms co-operation. Im not saying that it cant or wont in the future, just that right now it does not provide more than a basic framework.

For starters it may have 1-1 graphic representation but it does not have 1-1 control over the infantry, which means individual soldiers seem to be treated just the same as CM-1, except I can see them.

[dan/california]

For a training sim, as opposed to a game CMSF's primary utility actually seems to lie at the company too battalion level. It would require adding coplay. But given that it would be an extremely effective method for improving communications and team work for everyone from platoon sergeants up. especially when you account for infinite variability and realistic fog of war. Platoon level field exercises are orders of magnitude easier to set up than battalion level ones.

You might try loading a large scenario with ironman rules and pondering how little info most of the platoon commanders have. If they had to get everything else over the com-net I am fairly sure most of them would find it good practice. Almost no one plays the game that way because it is a bloody pain when you have to issue orders to so many units, but a training sim has different goals and more than one person to issue said orders.

The battalion commander could always make them practice their letter writing if he didn't think they were taking it seriously.

[Battlefront.com]

As we've been told by people in the military and in companies that regularly contract with them... getting a military contract is like being struck by lighting. It would be foolish of us to make any features for CM:SF that were applicable only to military training purposes without some assurance that we would be compensated for those features. CoPlay is not one of them, BTW, since CoPlay would be a big thing for commercial players. Our problem is that we have limited development resources and CoPlay isn't something we can do right now.

As a platoon training tool I think CM:SF as it is right now isn't bad, but it's not the optimal level for it. Company to battalion is where it has the most to offer. In theory we could go up to a brigade, complete with logistics tail, if that's what a military client wanted.

The best use, reinforced by insiders, is for practice in command and control from battalion level to platoon level. A battalion would plug in its LTs, CPTs, and MAJs into their real world slots within the game and communicate with each other using actual or simulated military com gear. For example, we could do up a pretty damned good FBCB2 simulation within CM, or the users could use existing FBCB2 training systems. Real radios or simulated radios also would be used.

In a formal setting the trainers would be grading the students on how well they stuck to protocols as well as how their forces did in achieving objectives. Trainers would be playing OPFOR and, if present, Civilians. Features would be made available for the trainers to do things like break C2 links between various people and see how that was worked around. Or they could deliberately pass along disinformation and watch how it was handled. So on and so forth. Detailed AAR tools would allow the trainers to highlight what went right and wrong, showing it from the other side's perspective, etc.

In a non formal setting it would simply offer a means of practice. Once set up the biggest logistics hassle would be getting everybody together at one time. Getting the session up and running itself would take literally minutes. Same with shutting it down. The overhead for the lab running the trainer would be tiny compared to the ones I've seen at Redstone, Ft. Knox, and West Point. Which brings up another point...

We should keep in mind that officers don't appear out of thin air. At some point they are completely uneducated (many NCOs would argue that it remains that way until they retire ) and therefore a tool like CM may be especially useful in those early times when the more specific training hasn't started yet or isn't available at the time/place.

Steve

[Thomm]

Regarding Co-play: it would be a great intermediate feature to have some friendly units behave according to their own AI plans.

This way, one could support an AI infantry assault with a platoon of Abrams, e.g.

Or a QRF could be sent out to rescue friendlies from a location not known exactly due to FOW.

This would need very little new code, I would presume.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Combatintman]

Steve,

Absolutely on the nail - the - place I work at right now has a commercial sysytem which when I first used it - was bloody good for what we wanted it to do - it still does it but unfortunately the world has changed - I spend most of my time on exercise now arranging stuff offline and we are moving back to what I used to know as map tiles (i.e. going back from a simulation to playing ASL - yet the contract is still being paid.). On top of that there is only one bloke on the contracting staff that is really interested in the whole piece - he is going to showcase screenshots from Steel Beasts as a solution to some of the things wae are trying to do - he's right to do so even though it ain't the right solution for the training audience - we don't need that we need CMSF in its current form but with civilians being modelled.