Putting things into perspective

[DWReese]

I've been playing war games since the 1970s. Like many, I had my subscription to S&T (SPI) back in the day and I (still) have every one of those magazines/games for an entire two decade period. Most have never even been played as I always purchased the boxed version of the ones that I really liked.

One day a friend and I were playing a strategic level game and I remember having to turn over one of my counters. My friend informed me that my 1000-man counter was now only worth 500-men. A light suddenly went on for both of us. We were stuck on the fact that 500 men had just died. How would that affect unit morale? How would the leaders deal with that? We then had a brief conversation about war games. We discussed leadership, morale, etc. At that time, most of the games had barely even touched on those subjects.

After playing that game, we started seeking more operational or tactical level games. We were thrilled when Firefight came out because you had individual tanks. City Fight followed where you had individual men using specific weapons. It suddenly became a lot more fun than just flipping a counter over and announcing that 500 men had just died.

On the seas, CA, Task Force and Frigate still used the flipped counter concept. Shortly thereafter, though, came Fighting Sail which actually differentiated hull hits and sail hits. Suddenly the game was more than just rendering a ship 50 percent destroyed or completely destroyed.

Things were really getting good when Larry Bond's Harpoon came out. Sure the board version was virtually unplayable except on a ship-on-ship level, but it introduced specific weapons, their limitations, and malfunctions. We had come a long way in just one decade or so. Things were definitely more realistic than before.

So, how does this relate to our game now? Well, I was recently playing the LIVE: Sunrise Surprise scenario and the game (as many have mentioned) usually starts off with a huge air-to-air battle. (It is exciting to play.) After the air-to-air battle, the survivors always limp back to their bases and the dead crash into the sea. The result of what happened, however, is that even if they survived they are out of the scenario for long periods of time to re-arm, re-fuel, and rest, etc.. So, what did it really accomplish? You didn't gain any thing. Both sides lost men and planes, but you actually acquired nothing. You didn't capture anything. If the idea was to just thin-the-herd, then I guess that it is okay, but from a humanitarian point of view, it didn't really accomplish much. It was essentially the same as flipping the counter over to its other side.

So, when I replayed the scenario, I adopted a different approach. The other side would still send up some of their their fighters, but there wasn't really anything for them to shoot at as I kept most of mine grounded, or near the base. So, all eventually had to land and re-arm, which took them out of the fight for hours. It essentially accomplished the same thing without a loss of manpower or equipment.

I've found that the scenarios seemed to be much more realistic, at least to me, when you look at it from the perspective of what are we trying to accomplish, and how can we do that with the least amount of risk and expenditures? Planes, ships, and weapons are expensive. Some missiles cost $1M a piece. Would countries really fire them off like firecrackers without a reasonable expectation of success, or without an actual goal?

SeaQueen recently referenced my official request for the game to institute the ability to tow a disabled ship. I understand the point of view regarding the scope of the game, but at the same time there have been many conflicts that have started because of the acts of a few select people who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Often, because of their actions they literally fell into the pages of our history books. The leaders of many countries have often been responsible for sending many troops to their deaths because of the leader's own ego.

I am only throwing these thoughts out here to give you something to think about before you participate in your next conflict. Putting things into perspective only adds to the game. It's so much better than sending 60 pilots (along with their planes) to their deaths, and it is infinitely better than flipping over a counter signifying the deaths of 500 troops.

BTW, my friend is now the chair of the History Department at a major US university, so I guess that our time spent with S&T (SPI) really did help him in his career. <lol>

Doug

[Gunner98]

I sometimes feel that the scenarios where not a single shot is fired - or very few - are the most rewarding. Sure the massive electronic blood baths are exiting and fun, but achieving your objectives with minimal engagement can be quite satisfying.

Interesting subject.

B

[DWReese]

Gunner98,

I have always been very partial to smaller-sized scenarios because of the reasons that you sited. In fact, the Silent Service scenarios is the first set that I know of where more emphasis is placed on mission accomplishment by performing some task as opposed to actually destroying something. That method of play can be just as riveting.

Ironically, your massive Northern Fury scenarios are so detailed and interesting that they occupied about three straight months of my life. Haha. BTW, I'm still waiting for your book to come out.

Take care.

Doug

[BDukes]

Hmmm. As you know my english not great but does this mean DWReese like or not like scenario[&:] Seem like it I ate something I didn't know what was DWReese?

Cool your friend collage professors like me though!

[DWReese]

I was just using the Kuril Sunrise scenario as an example since it was the last one that I played. I like the scenario just fine. It is smaller than most LIVE scenarios, and that is good. In fact, I'm still playing around with it while studying the various satellite capabilities.

The point that I was trying to make was that killing and destroying everything in sight is not necessarily the objective in these scenarios. Destroying the convoy of ships is the mission. Having an air war may, or may not, be in the best interest of attaining that goal. If it is, then have at it. If not, then focus on what absolutely NEEDS to be done to accomplish your mission. Sometimes it might mean shooting down all of the planes in the sky, and sometimes it might be better to wait for the half that were in the air to land before beginning such an endeavor.

Doug

[BDukes]

Ok yes I understand now. THANK!

[kevinkins]

Nice essay Doug. Thanks for posting. As you know, I like smaller scenarios and occasionally design them for the community. Right now I am slowly putting a series of tactical vignettes together using second trier combatants about 5-10 years out. Having the scenario in the near future allows for the nation to "purchase" a limited number modern platforms from USA/China/Russia etc.. The mix of modern and old equipment in interesting to plan around. Choosing which "hot spot" to simulate and the specific mission to be accomplished is half the fun.

Kevin

[DWReese]

Kevin,

Thanks for the compliment.

I enjoy playing your scaled-down versions of warfare for the reasons that I sited in my post. They seem to be a little more manageable, while still offering a challenge to the game player.

I know that you like making scenarios with UAVs. Certainly, the depth of the oceans and the use of UUVs is one new challenge for scenario designers (such as yourself), as is the use of satellites (which I have been mentioning in another thread).

Please keep those scenarios coming. WE all love them!

Doug

[HalfLifeExpert]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

I sometimes feel that the scenarios where not a single shot is fired - or very few - are the most rewarding. Sure the massive electronic blood baths are exiting and fun, but achieving your objectives with minimal engagement can be quite satisfying.

Interesting subject.

B

I agree, I really would like to see more scenarios focused on tense standoffs and maneuvering leading up to hostilities, like intercepting and warning aircraft, maneuvering ships aggressively in a show of force. As I've said before, I would love to see the expansion of such options in the mechanics, especially with the ability to have a situation where no hostilities have happened, but I can fire warning shots across another ship's bow or issue a verbal warning via radio.

I have really enjoyed playing on both sides of such a situation (i.e. being ether the force that is enforcing a political decision or the force that is intentionally challenging the enforcement of that decision)

[AlphaSierra]

Amen Brother!

As the NWPL custodian aboard ship I checked out Harpoon to the junior officers, great teaching tool.

EVERY scenario I build or play my very first thought is to get everyone back safe. This appears to be unconventional to many here.

Perhaps this "unconventional" approach is why I win?

[AlphaSierra]

I like your approach...

Sometimes the most aggressive thing a ship can do is be very hard to find?

[SeaQueen]

Well, I was recently playing the LIVE: Sunrise Surprise scenario and the game (as many have mentioned) usually starts off with a huge air-to-air battle. (It is exciting to play.) After the air-to-air battle, the survivors always limp back to their bases and the dead crash into the sea. The result of what happened, however, is that even if they survived they are out of the scenario for long periods of time to re-arm, re-fuel, and rest, etc.. So, what did it really accomplish? You didn't gain any thing. Both sides lost men and planes, but you actually acquired nothing. You didn't capture anything. If the idea was to just thin-the-herd, then I guess that it is okay, but from a humanitarian point of view, it didn't really accomplish much. It was essentially the same as flipping the counter over to its other side.

Air battles, by their nature, don't capture territory. That's what land wars are for.

I don't like a lot of scenarios because they strike me as pointless for exactly the reasons you described. It's not really clear what the battle the scenario depicts was intended to accomplish. When you're asking men and women to risk their lives, there has to be a reason or eventually they won't do it anymore. A lot of scenarios are badly designed because they don't adequately capture the reasons people are fighting.

I think some of that has to do with a lack of military experience or knowledge. They don't have an adequate vision of war planning, independent of what they've seen in movies or in novels. As a result, they see the cool airplanes and ships, but they aren't really clear what the operational and strategic contexts they get employed in, and so it's hard for them to justify a given battle. Air and naval battles seem to be particularly prone to pointlessness. They're technology driven, and since they don't capture territory, people without experience in the air and naval realms don't know what kinds of jobs the different platforms perform in a war or how they should be employed together. To a certain extent, that's exactly the way many people like it. Those scenarios tend to revolve around, "We're attacking this country, because they did something bad," or "This country is attacking here because they're bad." The only time I've ever seen a really clear strategic, operational and tactical rational depicted in the public domain was Tom Clancy's novel Red Storm Rising. I read it once as a kid, and didn't fully get it. Now, as an adult, I think I've appreciated it more for its overarching vision of the war, and less for its depiction of the military technology of the time. Each tactical vignette in that novel has a very clear operational goal, and the war has a strategic goal. There was a point to the battles.

Interestingly, I kind of suspect the same lack of an understanding of air and naval power, the context in which it might be employed, and the kinds of things it can accomplish, infects a lot of politicians as well. The result is a lot of real life air campaigns where a lot of airplanes are shot down and a targets hit, but the results are sort of pointless. Most of the time these campaigns are brief, thankfully.

[DWReese]

Sarah,

I agree with everything that you said.

That's kind of how I see the South China Sea situation and the game's associated LIVE scenario on the subject. A naval standoff, for obvious reasons, develops. China wants to claim the islands as their own property, and the other nations dispute that, thereby sending ships to intentionally violate what China claims to be theirs. As far as the conflict goes, you have an apparent one right before your eyes.

But, as is depicted in the scenario that we play, each side bloodies the nose of the other, and then each side then eventually limps back to their own bases back at their own mainland. Neither the winner (if there is one), or the loser actually sticks around to remain in the area where the battle occurred. Both set out for their bases which are hundreds of miles away. To that, you can easily see why some would question the purpose of this action. The egos of each side set this situation up, and the end result was that people died (at least at this point in a likely scenario) for no real defined reason. The objective wasn't really clear.

Sure the Chinese could currently say that they now occupy the islands until someone comes and pushed them out. But, that's not really what the scenario (or the situation) is about at this point. For the moment it seems to be a tolerated act simply because no one wants to challenge it. Should it even be challenged? If so, then by what degree?

I can see China arming the islands with SSMs and SAMs, and then the situation will be almost impossible to overcome unless there is an all-out attack on each of them. Afterward, each side will again go back to their bases to recuperate.

I could also see that several Seal teams could probably overtake each one of the islands with a much less-involved effort than a large bombing campaign, followed by an invasion. But, even if the SEAL teams were successful, they wouldn't stick around. Who from the claiming nations would want to be exiled to go and live/exist on an island where the Chinese were forced off, just to say that we now occupy it? That may be worse than being sent to Siberia.

So, you wonder. What exactly is the defined problem, and what exactly is it that you are trying to accomplish before any actual blood is spilled?

It's interesting discussion material.

Doug

[BDukes]

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

Well, I was recently playing the LIVE: Sunrise Surprise scenario and the game (as many have mentioned) usually starts off with a huge air-to-air battle. (It is exciting to play.) After the air-to-air battle, the survivors always limp back to their bases and the dead crash into the sea. The result of what happened, however, is that even if they survived they are out of the scenario for long periods of time to re-arm, re-fuel, and rest, etc.. So, what did it really accomplish? You didn't gain any thing. Both sides lost men and planes, but you actually acquired nothing. You didn't capture anything. If the idea was to just thin-the-herd, then I guess that it is okay, but from a humanitarian point of view, it didn't really accomplish much. It was essentially the same as flipping the counter over to its other side.

Air battles, by their nature, don't capture territory. That's what land wars are for.

I don't like a lot of scenarios because they strike me as pointless for exactly the reasons you described. It's not really clear what the battle the scenario depicts was intended to accomplish. When you're asking men and women to risk their lives, there has to be a reason or eventually they won't do it anymore. A lot of scenarios are badly designed because they don't adequately capture the reasons people are fighting.

I think some of that has to do with a lack of military experience or knowledge. They don't have an adequate vision of war planning, independent of what they've seen in movies or in novels. As a result, they see the cool airplanes and ships, but they aren't really clear what the operational and strategic contexts they get employed in, and so it's hard for them to justify a given battle. Air and naval battles seem to be particularly prone to pointlessness. They're technology driven, and since they don't capture territory, people without experience in the air and naval realms don't know what kinds of jobs the different platforms perform in a war or how they should be employed together. To a certain extent, that's exactly the way many people like it. Those scenarios tend to revolve around, "We're attacking this country, because they did something bad," or "This country is attacking here because they're bad." The only time I've ever seen a really clear strategic, operational and tactical rational depicted in the public domain was Tom Clancy's novel Red Storm Rising. I read it once as a kid, and didn't fully get it. Now, as an adult, I think I've appreciated it more for its overarching vision of the war, and less for its depiction of the military technology of the time. Each tactical vignette in that novel has a very clear operational goal, and the war has a strategic goal. There was a point to the battles.

Interestingly, I kind of suspect the same lack of an understanding of air and naval power, the context in which it might be employed, and the kinds of things it can accomplish, infects a lot of politicians as well. The result is a lot of real life air campaigns where a lot of airplanes are shot down and a targets hit, but the results are sort of pointless. Most of the time these campaigns are brief, thankfully.

Hopefully one day the scenario community will live up to yours expectations

[BDukes]

ORIGINAL: DWReese

Sarah,

I agree with everything that you said.

That's kind of how I see the South China Sea situation and the game's associated LIVE scenario on the subject. A naval standoff, for obvious reasons, develops. China wants to claim the islands as their own property, and the other nations dispute that, thereby sending ships to intentionally violate what China claims to be theirs. As far as the conflict goes, you have an apparent one right before your eyes.

But, as is depicted in the scenario that we play, each side bloodies the nose of the other, and then each side then eventually limps back to their own bases back at their own mainland. Neither the winner (if there is one), or the loser actually sticks around to remain in the area where the battle occurred. Both set out for their bases which are hundreds of miles away. To that, you can easily see why some would question the purpose of this action. The egos of each side set this situation up, and the end result was that people died (at least at this point in a likely scenario) for no real defined reason. The objective wasn't really clear.

Sure the Chinese could currently say that they now occupy the islands until someone comes and pushed them out. But, that's not really what the scenario (or the situation) is about at this point. For the moment it seems to be a tolerated act simply because no one wants to challenge it. Should it even be challenged? If so, then by what degree?

I can see China arming the islands with SSMs and SAMs, and then the situation will be almost impossible to overcome unless there is an all-out attack on each of them. Afterward, each side will again go back to their bases to recuperate.

I could also see that several Seal teams could probably overtake each one of the islands with a much less-involved effort than a large bombing campaign, followed by an invasion. But, even if the SEAL teams were successful, they wouldn't stick around. Who from the claiming nations would want to be exiled to go and live/exist on an island where the Chinese were forced off, just to say that we now occupy it? That may be worse than being sent to Siberia.

So, you wonder. What exactly is the defined problem, and what exactly is it that you are trying to accomplish before any actual blood is spilled?

It's interesting discussion material.

Doug

So what. They went home.

You peoples act like if things aren't done the way you think or match your view of reality its wrong. I do not agree with this. I think you need to remember this is video game and if you don't like there is an editor. Take energy you use to compain and write elaborate snake pieces and apply towards scenario builds. Perhaps then people respond to you DReese.

These people's aren't paid to be analyst but to make fun scenario to play. I bet if we sees the dollars it would support that they are mostly successful. Do you doubt this?

Please enjoy games and not playing with community. This forum is very dead compared to others places and starting to see why. It is very negative do to a few people for past years or so.

Thank!

[Sharana]

The way I see it is "war is a continuation of politics by other means". Meaning the military action is the "hard power" that you apply when the "soft power" in form of economical, diplomatic and military pressure fails to accomplish specific political goal that is usually economical or rarely ideological (gone are the times when personal vendettas were enough to start a war).

CMANO is a tool that can simulate the "what if" scenarios as they don't happen in the real life and most of them demonstrate exactly why the same thing isn't happening IRL too - it's pointless as usually the effort and losses are not worth the potential gain. CMANO isn't political simulator where you can try to simulate the "soft power" and naturally people use it to simulate applying the "hard power" which rarely happens IRL as it's pointless from practical point of view. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

So, when I replayed the scenario, I adopted a different approach. The other side would still send up some of their their fighters, but there wasn't really anything for them to shoot at as I kept most of mine grounded, or near the base. So, all eventually had to land and re-arm, which took them out of the fight for hours. It essentially accomplished the same thing without a loss of manpower or equipment.

Yet that is absolutely game related. What if those planes aren't scripted (you knowing their exact purpose during the fog of war) to just hang out there and go back if no targets are found - what if that is strike package that can harm the mainland and as commander you are just bound to intercept it as far away from the mainland as possible resulting in the aerial bloodbath you are trying to avoid? Because if it was a strike you could get your planes destroyed on the ground while the pilots play poker waiting for the bad guys to f**k off, so that they can do their strike later on without opposition

[DWReese]

Interesting points.

Please check out my AAR on this scenario using this tactic which I will post shortly.

Doug

[SeaQueen]

I haven't played through the Community scenarios depicting the SCS scenario you described. I enjoyed some of the Chains of War scenarios, although sometimes I think they could be better if they were broken into a two or three separate scenarios. When people are trying to look at near future scenarios depicting real life places like the SCS, part of the difficulty is understanding the policy positions of the nations in conflict, and what their political goals are. Then there's the next level down, though, which in my mind, is where the disconnect is. That's translating political/policy goals into target lists. In fairness, that's actually a common problem in real life air campaigns. It's easy to pick stuff to blow up, the real question is, does it really support what you're trying to do?

In a good Command scenario, you're basically either attacking something or defending something. So what are the relevant targets that a nation might attack or defend in support of advancing their political goals? Why would I attack an airbase, as opposed to a carrier strike group, as opposed to a POL storage facility, as opposed to a C2 facility, as opposed to a chemical weapons storage facility? Any of those might have anywhere between a few dozen and a few hundred aimpoints. They might be co-located (e.g. a chemical weapons storage facility located at an airbase). How is attacking or defending that target different? I also think sometimes when people do pick targets they pick too many targets. Then you end up with the problem of the scenario trying to do too much.

I actually think there's lots of good sources for getting scenario ideas, though. I really like the Next War series, which is a table-top operational level game. Command is too down in the weeds for the questions that game looks at (which is operational/strategic), but it's interesting to read the background material for their scenarios and then pick a more narrowly focused target set which supports an operational goal, and then build around it. Another good source for ideas is Modern Warfare magazine, which also typically focuses on the operational and strategic level (but not always) and then you can do a "deep dive" into attacking or defending some more narrowly defined target.

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: Sharana
CMANO is a tool that can simulate the "what if" scenarios as they don't happen in the real life and most of them demonstrate exactly why the same thing isn't happening IRL too - it's pointless as usually the effort and losses are not worth the potential gain. CMANO isn't political simulator where you can try to simulate the "soft power" and naturally people use it to simulate applying the "hard power" which rarely happens IRL as it's pointless from practical point of view. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

This is true. I'd go further than that and say that Command doesn't even really simulate "hard power." That's a little bit too abstract for Command, because it suggests that it simulates how political outcomes might be geared to military violence. Really, Command simulates one thing; the kill chain. Command is about connecting sensors to shooters and making something go "boom."

In a good Command scenario, all the political and broader operational stuff helps shape the scenario, and helps decide things like: What are the targets I'm trying to destroy (if any)? What am I trying to protect and why is it important? What is the enemy trying to attack? What forces are available? Where are there no-nav zones? Are there things I DO NOT want to strike? Can I use nuclear weapons? What airbases can I use? When might nuclear weapons come into play? How much time do I have? What does "winning" look like? What does "losing" look like?

Yet that is absolutely game related. What if those planes aren't scripted (you knowing their exact purpose during the fog of war) to just hang out there and go back if no targets are found - what if that is strike package that can harm the mainland and as commander you are just bound to intercept it as far away from the mainland as possible resulting in the aerial bloodbath you are trying to avoid? Because if it was a strike you could get your planes destroyed on the ground while the pilots play poker waiting for the bad guys to f**k off, so that they can do their strike later on without opposition

Some of this might be bad scenario design stemming from a lack of understanding. Flooding an area with fighters makes no sense unless there's a bomber train right behind them, or you're attacking them, and you flew right into their defensive patrols. If the scenario maybe had a better sense of what the forces in conflict were trying to do at that particular moment in the war, and represented it better in terms of scoring conditions, there might be a more realistic outcome for sitting on the ground and waiting (e.g. the strikers come along behind them and either strike your base, or something else you care about, and you lose the game).

[DWReese]

I agree with everything that you said.

BTW, the scenario that I was referring to was the LIVE: Spratly Spat. It's fun.

Doug