Simultaing the effects of Rules of Engagement and play balance

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Often I have read of US, UK forces etc having to operate according to fairly severe Rules of Engagement in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. It strikes me that they would likely have to do the same in the Syrian campaign depicted in CMSF. As well as the usual schools, hospitals, mosques and similar there would also be sites of great historical or cultural value such as the Citadel of Aleppo that might also have to be covered by ROE. Something similar did happen during the Iraq campaign with limitations on actions that could be undertaken around anceint archeological sites such as Ur and Babylon so it could be argued that historical precedent exists,

It strikes me that the Preserve objective instruction would be a great tool for simulating this with heavy victory point penalties incured in the event that Coalition Forces cuase damage. Of course, the Syrian side would be aware of this but would incur no penalty if the sites are damaged. The Syrians of course would be able to exploit the Coalition ROE by taking up positions in and around such sites thereby forcing a choice between using heavy weapons (risking damage or destruction of such sites) or incurrring higher casualties. This could often be linked to a scenario requirement that Coalition casualties are kept low simulating public opinion at home being negatively influenced by increasing casualties and potentially damage to valuable sites, higher casualties among Syrian civilians etc.

Could make for some very difficult choices for Coalition players and some very interesting scenarios based around these issues.

Luke

[Apocal]

My personal opinion here: in practice it winds up feeling "unfair" because some briefings are overly broad and there is no real feedback as to what you can do when, in mission. In real life, they are fairly explicit: Do NOT hit the kiddy pool. Do NOT breach the walls of the toy factory. Do NOT use 120mm or TOWs.

Then there is back and forth when it comes to grey areas, like taking fire from an orphanage and you want to know if it's cool to can extinguish fire with fires or you gotta go with boots and utes to do it the Hard Way.

While actually in mission, especially real time, you tend to forget about stuff like that and then you get a big "EPIC FAIL" because you destroyed all 1001 preserve objectives in the town.

Plus some scenario designers are just mean with it, giving you like two batteries of artillery, a division of helos and a section of Hornets, then putting every single muj in the "DONT DESTROY THIS" location.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Lots of scenarios do in fact use this technique. I've seen it used well, and I've seen it used poorly, as per Apocal's examples.

[MikeyD]

I haven't tried this, but I hear some scenarios assign Red side points for 'destroying' certain structures. Its not that Red is supposed to attack, but that Blue isn't. Blue knocks down that building with a 2000 lb bomb and Red side gets a whopping big points bonus for it.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Good points raised by Apocal and F.M. Blucher. In scenario design terms it would be important to be explicit regarding any scenario ROE in the briefing as commanders would be made well aware of thier real liife ROE, Of course, if someone does not read their briefing carefully that is their fault :-) Consequences sould be made clear (eg damage to the mosque could result in negative press coverage particularly in the Arab World and in our own media and may further antagonise the local population leading to increased support for the insurgents)

It is important, as APocal sugggests, not to go OTT with this as following your ROE should be only one of the scenario aims. Others might be keeping Coalition casualties low, capturing terrain and destroying enemy forces. A good scenario with ROE should probably have a tension between these competing aims. As long as you do not set ROE penalties too high the Coaltion player should still win even if he breaks his ROE.

It is mean of scenario designers to put enemy forces in restricted ROE areas but this is often what their real life counterparts do. Given the technological disparity that can often exist between Coalition and Syrian forces this could be a useful scenario balancing tool making for a most challenging game for both sides if used effectively

[Clavicula_Nox]

During the invasion, the ROE is likely to be fairly non-existent. Very few places, like hospitals and possibly mosques, would be off-limits. Even those restrictions could be lifted as the situation dictates.

[Apocal]

During the invasion, the ROE is likely to be fairly non-existent. Very few places, like hospitals and possibly mosques, would be off-limits. Even those restrictions could be lifted as the situation dictates.

Considering how Iraq's security infrastracture turned out, I don't think we'll ever get that sort of free-reign again. For better or worse. It would be nice if there were triggers that could simulate modifications to ROE depending on circumstances, but as long as it's upfront and employed reasonably, the it's not a terrible idea.

[Combatintman]

During the invasion, the ROE is likely to be fairly non-existent. Very few places, like hospitals and possibly mosques, would be off-limits. Even those restrictions could be lifted as the situation dictates.

Absolutely not true - the Geneva Convention quite rightly prevails here. Enemy forces in the vicinity of such places can be engaged but the principle of proportionality MUST apply.

[Combatintman]

During the invasion, the ROE is likely to be fairly non-existent. Very few places, like hospitals and possibly mosques, would be off-limits. Even those restrictions could be lifted as the situation dictates.

Absolutely not true - the Geneva Convention quite rightly prevails here. Enemy forces in the vicinity of such places can be engaged but the principle of proportionality MUST apply.

Bottom line in the contemporary environment - even if you could justify the above it would be very rare to do so ... just not worth it and morally wrong. The morally wrong thing is the most important aspect here.

[Apocal]

Absolutely not true - the Geneva Convention quite rightly prevails here. Enemy forces in the vicinity of such places can be engaged but the principle of proportionality MUST apply.

That doesn't contradict anything he said. And GC does not say what you are implying it does here.

Bottom line in the contemporary environment - even if you could justify the above it would be very rare to do so ... just not worth it and morally wrong. The morally wrong thing is the most important aspect here.

While I'm treading the OT line here, how is it wrong for us to destroy a hospital or mosque being used as fighting position anymore so than a trenchline being used as a fighting position?

Morally, the question is debatable, largely at an individual level, but legally the answer is clear: it isn't. Locations entitled to special protection are only favored as long as those special protections are not exploited by one side. At that point, all special protection ceases and it falls under the category of military objectives defined in Art. 52.

Nothing in the applicable article of the Geneva Convention says anything regarding proportionality. In fact, the word 'proportionality' is not even found within the Geneva Convention at all. The applicable article of Geneva says merely warning must be given and a reasonable time allowed for departure of combatants. After which time, if they have not left and made clear their departure, it becomes a military objective.

And rightly so. To band about terms like 'proportionality' and such would encourage the use of protected locations as fighting positions in as much as such a location would provide combatants protection from hostile action. Protection is protection, whether physical or pseudo-moral. We expect combatants to utilize the former and ensure, as much as possible, that non-combatants have a monopoly on the latter.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Some more very good points raised here. Given the scenario background NATO and the US would have an excellent case for fighting a "Just War" but such a war must be fought in a "Just" manner in order to keep the moral high ground as far as it is possible to do so. Commanders do not just have to worry about the Geneva Convention. They also need to worry about the press, some of whom are only too happy to have a field day over a destroyed hospital etc which does not make your side look too good. Even given the background to our hypothetical Syrian war at least some press and international criticism would be likely in regard to perceived unneccessary collatoral damage

I agree, opponents not bound by legal and moral scruples could, and probably often do, exploit those who do have such scruples. Reading accounts of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan the interpretation of ROE is often a difficult question for commanders on the ground at all levels which is why it might well be realistic to have restrictions applying in oarticular scenarios, particularly in urban areas. In the open country you are much more likely to have a free fire zone where ROE are either not in force or are much mnore relaxed.

In circumstances where the enemy is firing from a hospital, mosque, school etc it would be reasonable to return fire as Apocal suggests. However, as Combatintmen suggests the Geneva Convention and other international laws and morality probably will still apply meanng that response to such fire should still be proportional. Using small arms fire, LAW weapons and tank machine guns would definately be proportional but tank main guns might not be. Using air and artillery to pulverise the defenders within the building and therefore inflicting major collatoral damage to the premises probably isn't. On the other hand if the enemy have tanks around the building using tank main guns and ATGMs would likely be acceptable but air and artillery might be iffy unless you use SMART munitions but even that risks damage.

However, in game terms, you are the commander and you have to make the same judgement as your real world counterpart regarding the proportionality of force you use in a specific situation and accept the consequences of your decision. There is nothing to stop you,the gamer/commander from deciding to change or ignore the ROE although the consequenes of doing so in terms of victory points penalties should at least make you think about your decision.

In regard to the decison about whether ROE should be included and, if so, how severe they should be this is up to the scenario designer although he should clearly indicate what the ROE is in the scenario briefing as commanders are told in advance. The enemy may well have a fair idea of what the ROE as well but perhaps may have a little less detail.

[LongLeftFlank]

Well the entire premise of the game is based on Syrian-sponsored terrorists committing a WMD outrage so awful and terrifying that it causes America and its NATO allies, including Turkey, to put aside all their emotional baggage over Iraq et al., and stomp on Syria.

And just as happened in 2002, with the Twin Towers still smoking rubble, when the US basically carpet-bombed the Taliban out of Afghanistan nobody in the West, press included, did much other than cheer. Even the massacre of several hundred Taliban prisoners during a failed uprising (in which a CIA operative was killed, probably while administering some of those 'enhanced' interrogation techniques everyone was later so shocked - shocked to learn about) didn't elicit much comment.

Even by the controversial invasion of Iraq in 2003 when the media had returned to its default US military = baby killers mode, outrage was still fairly muted when Coalition airpower leveled a number of civilian targets while trying to whack Saddam and his entourage.

Rules of engagement for an advancing army facing a ruthless, comparatively well-armed and dug in force are a lot looser than for an occupying army facing insurgents or terrorists. And CMSF has no interest in modeling the occupation phase, BFC has said again and again.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

That is true although it is also true that in the Helmand Campaign it has often been the case that fairly severe ROE have been in force at certain times. I suspect the same coule be true in Iraq, even during the initial invasion phase. Remember that the British in particular did not go charging into Basra. The Americans also did not want to cause to many casualties in the Shi;ite South and even in Central Iraq and Baghdad there was still an element of restriction as evidenced by the incident at the Palestine Hotel which was mistakenly engaged contrary to the ROE,

In the case of Syria it might well be that the Coalition forces would not want large numbers of civillian casualties in urban areas, particularly with the world press covering the invasion as it certainly would be. Then there are parts of Syrai where there are valuable archeological sites or cultural monuments which NATO forces would not want to damage. Again there is precedent for this in the two Gulf Wars with protection being given to the archeological site of Babylon.

If the circumstances of a tactical situation required more restrictive ROE then they would be applied even in the circumstances of the background scenario. It is up to you if you are designing a scenario to decide whether or not the situation requires ROE and, if they do, how restrictive they should be.

For instance, if you are fighting in Damascus you probably would not want the Grand Mosque destroyed as this might lead to a severe anti US backlash in the Islamic world for very obvious reasons. Likewise, if you are fighting in Aleppo you would want to preserve the Citadel as this is a famous tourist attraction. In both cities you would not want to inflict massive civilian casualties or destroy the infrastructure which you, as the occupying power might well be required to repair. In these circumstances you would likely want to restrict what your forces are allowed to do in a way that you would not if you were in the open desert.

Having to follow ROE could actually make the game more interesting and balanced. For instance a US HBCT against T55s backed by infantry with RPGs in an urban would norrmaly be an uninteresting walkover but if there are severe penalties restricting use of airpower, artillery and even tank main guns the scenario becomes much more interesting as you would have to deploy infantry much more and dig the ememy out the hard way with rifle and grenade. To make things even more interesting you would have a dense civillian population and units of irregulars assisting regular Syrian forces. This would show why a pitched battle for somewhere like Damascus has the potential to be a Stalingrad, rather like the similar fears about Baghdad