Real and Simulated Wars

ArmA 2 Operation Arrowhead - Named Area of Interest "Viking" - An Inconvenient Combat Outpost

2012-01-23T23:33:00.003-05:00

As part of the impending NATO invasion, my Czech team of special forces is tasked with developing ground truth intelligence plus organizing and training Takistani rebel forces in a location centered around a dilapidated enemy air force base (NAI Viking) of the Takistani Air Force.

The Takistani Army has increased its presence in the region and now they are putting pressure against the rebel forces. A reinforced company enemy force has been deployed and the works on combat outposts around the airbase are increasing. The combat outpost pictured above, north of the airbase overlooks the main avenues of approach to the airbase and is looking good for a baptism of fire.

This entry just to show you some pics of the (built from scratch with the editor) combat outpost before we try to blow it into oblivion ...

A closer look at the combat outpost, looking southwest. The airbase is in the far background.

The southern side of the bunker has premium line of sight/fields of fire. The valley in the background is where the airbase is located.

A heavy machine gun position in one of the tips of the combat outpost.

The northern side of the combat outpost is a bit less optimal in terms of fields of fire/line of sight. Lots of dead ground.

The Takistani Army is relying on patrols to cover the deficiencies of the northern side of the combat outpost.

An inside view of the bunkers pointing north.

Another inside view of the combat outpost. Many bag fences to protect personnel from indirect fire shells falling inside the facilities.

Czech special forces personnel marching towards a training session for the rebels.

Cheers,

Combat Mission Battle for Normandy - Yet Another, Final Note on Combat Functions/Services and Weapon Systems

2012-01-22T10:14:00.003-05:00

This is a continuation of a continuation ... I know, it's getting messy. This entry just to wrap it up, I promise. :)

The final push towards the intersection objective. 1st, 2nd and 3rd platoons moving on one side of the main road connecting the town entrance and the final objective. One tank platoon awaiting for some of the fields of fire pointing towards the road being cleared.

The armored infantry that arrived as reinforcements: too many men to cramp into the map. Did I mention that I lost one halftrack on the left flank? I just left all the armored infantry alone back in the line of departure.

This farmhouse behind the hedges is the farmhouse at objective intersection. The dirt/smoke cloud is from a German AT gun firing from the other side of the objective.

With the main road (mostly) clear of enemy infantry, the lead tank moves towards objective intersection. This tank had to rely on heavy suppressive fire in order to move against a German AT gun located at the objective.

The final and exciting moments of this scenario. All significant real estate taken by the US troop. The only seemingly opposition is from a hedge at the very edge of the map. A handful of Germans stubbornly defend this last stand. In the foreground, a German officer fires his pistol at the US troops in the house behind the hedge. Under the cover of smoke and the fire of its coax gun, a Sherman tank almost rams the AT gun.

I arrived at the objective intersection using an approach road that I didn't want (the main road) with just two squads of infantry and two tanks. The approach had to be through the main road because I had no more engineers support (all demo charges used up). The US infantry squads were at the edge of morale collapse: even the slightest enemy fire would pin them down. No mortar support (ran out of ammo), no MG support (re-supplying the MGs not completed on time because I corralled/bogged two supply trucks in a hedgerow line back in the town entrance). Fortunately, the two tanks' crews had no second thoughts on smacking the last German stand.

Cheers,

Tigers Unleashed (HPS Simulations) - Review

2012-01-22T00:34:00.001-05:00

A detailed, high fidelity simulation of WWII land combat … Are you ready for the real deal?

At the time of this writing, HPS Simulations’ Tigers Unleashed (TU) is the most detailed WWII tactical land combat simulation out there. This simulation is data heavy, versatile, highly scaleable and offers an enormous range for customization of weapon systems. A greatly improved offshoot of the Point of Attack 2 simulation, TU's topic is tactical combat in Poland (1939) and the Soviet Union (1941-1942).

Tigers Unleashed is a simulation of tactical combat with 100 meter hexagons and 1 minute simultaneously resolved turns (WEGO). In most scenarios, the unit counters represent platoons of tanks and platoons of infantry. Although the units counters consolidate a group of individual real life fighting platforms, it is possible to split those counters into subunits. The included scenarios feature fighting forces that range from companies to demi-brigades. The maps are in the range of 5 square kilometers in size and adequate for the scale of the forces deployed in them. The longest scenarios run for 60 minutes of simulated time.

Each scenario can be played from either side, hotseat or against the computer. There is also an option to play by e-mail, which unfortunately I didn't have time to test. Once the scenario is loaded, the player is given the option to choose the so-called "expert level" (this affects how much data is shown to the player, fog of war restrictions, ability to select ammo for close air and indirect fire support, and ability to combine/break down units) and the fog of war level (ranging from all units visible to complete fog of war including the player's units not always visible - AKA friendly fog of war).

Graphically, the maps in Tigers Unleashed look decent but they don't compare to other more flashy war games out there. The graphics can be moded easily, though. Moving around the map is a bit cumbersome with the default settings (there is an option to modify the responsiveness of the user's scrolling at the edge of the map). There are three levels of zoom for which the player has to click either the zoom in or zoom out button and then click on the map. The movement of units is plotted by clicking the movement orders mode button, which opens a windows that allows the player to select many options including the type of path (direct, best for speed, best for tactical movement, etc) and standard operation procedures (SOP, or what the reaction of the unit will be under fire, after taking a casualty or after being suppressed). After the player has plotted all movement for his units, hitting the next turn button will put the engine in action to resolve movement and fire for both forces in the map. A combat report window appears and in it the player can read how the events unfold. Each turn is solved in 4 phases, each one including movement, spotting, indirect fire, direct fire, movement and fire of air units (not necessarily in that order). Animations on the map are also shown in the form of lines connecting the firing unit and its target. The sound of guns for each firing weapon is part of the animations. The pace at which the combat report mission writes data can be adjusted by the player. I have mine to write the data quite fast but I can always go back and read through the report if needed. According to posts in discussion forums elsewhere, the long duration of the turn resolution has been an issue for some players. I have managed to keep the duration of the turn resolution within reasonable limits (an average of 70 seconds in the biggest scenarios) by tuning the fire and spotting calculations at mid to low fidelity and by getting rid of animations and sounds.

There is an enormous amount of things going on under the hood of Tigers Unleashed. The amount of detail in this simulation is astonishing. For example, spotting is affected not only by distance, terrain, atmospheric conditions and smoke as one would suspect in an hex-based war game. Factors like relative angle and individual buildings between the units are computed by the engine. Weapons details go down to the weight of each round and armor penetration is calculated taking armor slope into account. The simulation is completely open in terms of data: you don't like the muzzle velocity of this or that round? Change it! There is an editor for that included.

When the simultaneous turn resolution ends, the player starts over plotting new movement and fire orders. If higher levels of fog of war have been chosen, the orders may get delayed for units that may have stepped out of the command range or units that have lost communications and are out of visual range. If a unit has no radio communications available, it may take 15 minutes of simulated combat to reach that unit via a messenger. So watch out for those reaction orders or SOPs you give to your units: that's what they will do when you are not watching or when you can't reach them with fresh orders.

The pace of tactical combat is painfully realistic. For starters, getting your forces sorted out for an assault takes sweat and time. The assault itself will take a good chunk of time too as units get suppressed, fatigued or just start to conserve ammunition. Such combat friction and slow pace of events, although a delectable bite for the realism hungry grognard, sometimes doesn't pair well with the relatively short duration of the scenarios (60 minutes tops).

Tigers Unleashed includes a scenario editor that the player can use to start an scenario from scratch. The interface of this scenario editor is straightforward and offers countless options. One of the steps of scenario creation is quite revealing about the computer opponent: the game the computer will play against the player depends on the choices of the player for the quality of the leaders (tactical, command, order execution skills), and the type of stance (limited attack, attack, defense, delaying action) given to the forces under the control of the computer. This means that the strengths and weaknesses of the computer opponent do extend beyond mere fire and movement. It's great to have a computer opponent that can be programmed into a given fighting style and with an overall tactical mission. After all selections have been made for the computer opponent, the simulation engine automatically compiles an AI file, which is similar to a tactical template that takes into account the terrain and the objectives of the scenario. The computer opponent itself makes a reasonable OPFOR, but the shortness of the scenarios' time span frequently gets in the way of both sides' schemes of maneuver. In the case of the user generated scenarios, this caveat can be removed by choosing a longer scenario duration.

Another scenario editing tool in Tigers Unleashed is a geomorphic map creator that can be used to join smaller maps (called tiles) into bigger ones. I haven't dabbled too much into this part of the simulation, but I read elsewhere that map creation for Tigers Unleashed is far less convoluted than it was for Point of Attack 2. Time to dig up my copy of Aide de Camp!

The general impression of playing around with Tigers Unleashed is that the simulation engine doesn't like to be bothered with abstractions and with interacting with the user. The lack of abstractions is understandable and the main reason of existence of the simulation, but the enormous amount of data may result in some unwanted clog ups in the form of long processing times in scenarios featuring more than one battalion and C++ exceptions when the user ventures off the beaten path of the most frequently clicked forms. With my copy of the simulation patched to the current version, the C++ exceptions are rare and far less frequent than the ones I experienced with Point of Attack 2. As for the user interaction part, the developers have done a great effort to present information to the player by the use of standard Windows forms. There is a lot of information to browse while playing a typical scenario, and sometimes the most needed information is spread across several windows or tabs. For example, a composite infantry platoon that is presented as one icon is actually composed of several units (command, radioman, LMGs and infantry itself) and to access the information corresponding to each unit, one has to right click the icon, access the unit information window and keep clicking OK in that window until the relevant subunit's window is presented. In this information window, the field that shows the amount of men that the unit has occupies the same amount of real estate than the one that shows their altitude above ground level, or the one that shows their competence level. Given that Tigers Unleashed uses standard Windows forms, sometimes I wonder if it would be possible to have a customizable toolbar or a windows form where the player can consolidate information of his choosing. This simulation is complex, the variables and information are in high supply and different minds digest information differently. So here is my vote for a custom information window or toolbar!

Tigers Unleashed is a unique simulation that has no rival in its depth, expanse and ab initio computation of land warfare. Such unique features come at the price of some quirks here and there, but don't let the tree hide the forest. As any other in depth simulation there is a moderate learning curve for the player, mainly to get acquainted with the amount of data that the engine can handle and where to find it. But once the climb is over, the joys of commanding troops in such a detailed battlefield will put any previous pain in the rear mirror.

Cheers,

ArmA 2 Operation Arrowhead - Bunkers with Improved Frontal Cover

2012-01-20T20:31:00.000-05:00

Do you remember this old entry, where I was complaining about the lack of frontal cover in the stock bunkers? Well, it doesn't look pretty, but it is doable.

Side by side comparison of the stock bunker (left) and the modified bunker (right) with more frontal cover. I went a bit loco and added overhead cover to the modified bunker too.

The trick is to add a sandbag fence with the editor, and raise its vertical position by editing the initialization code as shown below.

In the editor, place a sandbag fence and in the initialization field add the code shown above. The last number (0.9) is the height that you want the object to be.

The bunker as seen from outside.

An interior view of the modified bunker.

I've got into this because I'm editing a mission with a combat outpost ... Coming soon.

Cheers,

Combat Mission Battle for Normandy - More Notes on Combat Functions/Services and Weapon Systems

2012-01-15T15:08:00.000-05:00

This a continuation of a previous entry. The topic is how this Combat Mission scenario took me out of a cozy tactical mind frame of just simple fire and maneuver.

Germans hiding in ambush within a French village. Come on! Like the hedgerows were not hard enough to take these out from ...

The scenario: Bloody Dawn, by one of the great scenario designers Field Marshal Blucher
The game: Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

Spoiler Alert! Do not read if you are still going to play this scenario against the computer.

The battle was fought and won, but the butcher's bill was way too high. In the map below, this is the scheme of fire, maneuver and tactical missions I used.

The battle as it was fought. I have a typo: the three infantry platoons in the map are not from company A but from company F.

I don't run my virtual wars by checklists, but I should keep this list in mind while I make plans.

Command and control
Intelligence
Maneuver Units
Fire Support Units
Mobility
Combat Service Support

This is a list of all the types of combat services/functions and weapon systems in a battlefield. There is actually one more (air defense), but since in this scenario there is no air support for either side I will just omit it. A good battle plan should ensure that all of the above are available and working together towards the success of the mission.

In my opinion, besides remembering all these, the tricky part is putting them together into a working force. The hedgerow/bocage terrain of this scenario has one important effect on that because it produces isolation (i.e. two task groups can't support each other that easily). So, first bump in the road to success was to split the weapons company's assets in half between the right and left flank forces. There went command and control of the weapons company ...

Highlights of the 3rd Platoon's (Left Flank) Initial Assault Towards the Town's Entrance

Intelligence: two scouts from the 3rd Platoon were sent into the open field on the left flank. They spotted an enemy contact that was thoroughly suppressed with fire support units (next screen shot). This is a combat patrol mission that no scout in real life would accept (going through an open field in front of a likely enemy position), but I had no other choice. The main road leading into the town entrance offered cover and concealment but it was useless to completely observe the objective/enemy position. Fortunately, the scouts could report back on a likely enemy position (grey icon question mark in the background) without suffering any casualties.

Fire support: the scouts shown above were not defenseless. A mortar and medium machine gun team provided fire support from a bend in the hedgerow line that had a direct LOS into the northern edge of the town entrance.

Fire support and maneuver units working together: men from the 3rd Platoon make it into the open field in front of the town entrance objective. Note the tracers impacting in the suspected enemy position in the background. The smoke puffs are from mortar fire.

Fire support units' main liability was their missions forcing them to stay put for relatively long periods of time. A mortar team (foreground) witnesses an enemy indirect fire round impacting right into the MMG team (explosion in the background). No survivors.

Mobility: men from the 3rd Platoon gain a foothold in the town entrance objective after an engineer team blew a hole in the hedgerow line. Note the position of the breach, hidden from enemy observation and fire by a building.

Highlights of the1st and 2nd Platoon's (Right Flank) Initial Attack Towards the Depth of the Enemy Defenses

Fire Support is not the exclusive realm of pure fire support units. 1st Platoon (right flank) found the first hedgerow line deserted and used it as a massive fire support position including a mortar and a machine gun team.

Fire Support. An engineers team dashes forward, a few yards from a German defensive line that was completely suppressed by the units shown in the previous screenshot. Their objective is to open a breach in the hedgerow line at the left flank of the Germans.

Mobility. A modest breach in the hedgerows, opened by the engineers, will be used to outflank the enemy position.

SITREP. The German's left flank is now open. US support units (heavy and medium machine guns plus a mortar) oriented towards the center of the battlefield found German forces including an AT gun overlooking the town entrance objective. The German defensive line is now completely exposed! In the right side of the screenshot, 2nd Platoon is preparing to advance towards the intersection objective.

Caught with their pants down and forced to fight on a reversed front, the Germans put an stubborn resistance. The firefight lasted longer than what I wished for. Even two heavy and one light US machine guns couldn't deal with the numerous German men. Without their respective HQ teams nearby (due to the massive force splitting of H Company's assets), the machine gunners' fire slacked in and out. Command and Control! My mortar team fired a few rounds at them but ran out of ammo. Ammunition didn't find its way to them for the rest of the battle (how do you replenish ammo for mortar teams anyway? Combat Service Support!).

The great equalizer. Armored forces arrive at the battlefield and after negotiating the close terrain they help to terminate the Germans shown in the screenshot above. Because these tanks have not hedgerow cutters, they needed a breach in the hedgerows to accomplish this (mobility, again). The MG teams in the background now can get a respite.

SITREP. The town entrance is clear but needs to be secured (note remnant German forces, grey icons, nearby). With the complete elimination of the German defensive line overlooking the town entrance (now occupied by US troops, backed up by a tank platoon in the open field), that's an easy task. The half-track mounted troops were committed in our left flank and unfortunately one half-track was lost to an AT gun shooting from the depth of the battlefield through a keyhole in the hedgerows. Note the 2nd Platoon's progress (far background near the intersection objective).

More is coming, stay tuned.

Cheers,

Mius '43 (John Tiller Software) - Soviet Phalanges Pushing Forward

2012-01-14T20:31:00.000-05:00

In ancient warfare, the Greek hoplites deployed in tight formations called phalanges, which were eight or more ranks deep. The usefulness on the rear ranks is still a matter of scholarly debate, but many now believe that the rear ranks had a role beyond replenishing casualties in the front ranks. The "physical pushing match" school of thought believes that the rear ranks exerted so much pressure on the front ranks that the resulting shock action of the phalanx was, at least partially, a physical push forward.

I'm enjoying John Tiller's free demo for the Panzer Campaigns series. You can ask for it in this webpage. I recommend this fantastic graphics mod for a more complete enjoyment.

The demo features the Soviet offensive in the river Mius in July 1943. I'm not new to commanding a whole Soviet WWII front in an offensive against prepared German defenses. But I'm not getting any better!

The Soviets had a penchant for precise calculations of the attacker/defender ratios and as a result, many breakthroughs were concentrated in narrow spaces so to overwhelm the enemy. While playing this scenario today, I've got some of the infantry divisions tasked with the initial breakthrough entangled in bunker-busting and stopped cold in their tracks. The follow up units that were to exploit the breakthrough couldn't move forward for a hasty support (you can't stack that many units in a single hex).

17 July 1943. The Soviet South Front (brown counters) opens an offensive against the German Sixth Army (grey counters). A: the 34th Guards Rifle Division (purple inner counter color) has broken the German defense line but is stopped by stubborn defenders fighting from prepared positions. B: the follow and assume formation, 32nd Tank Guards Brigade (green inner counter color) can't move forward due to stacking limitations. B: the 40th Guards Rifle Division (light green inner counter color) fared way better than its southern neighbor division and has opened a wider gap, penetrated deeper and is expanding the bridgehead. D: the 13th Guards Mechanized Brigade advancing to expand the bridge head. E: follow up units moving towards the front.

In the example above, the 34th Guards Rifle Division/32nd Tank Guards Brigade phalanx has only one way and that is forward into the meat grinder at the tip of the riflemen battalions. At the scale of this fight, men don't just drop dead under their shields like in the ancient world. Fresher troops can't jump over them. The fatigue, morale and firepower of the men at the front drops in the span of several hours, not minutes. Packed in high density formations, there is neither a way to move the combat-depleted men to the rear nor a way to move new troops forward. It's a macabre calculus, but the men at the tip of the spear are now more worth dead than alive.

Cheers,

Achtung Panzer Operation Star - Volokonovka 1942 - The Breeze of Summer and the Smell of Burnt Tank Hulls

2012-01-13T20:18:00.001-05:00

Graviteam is on fire, fellows. After the release of the second installment in the highly acclaimed Achtung Panzer series (Operation Star), it's DLC after DLC and there is no other choice but to enjoy.

Volokonovka 1942 is new DLC to be released on 15Jan12. It's a new area of operations, with campaigns and missions during the summer of 1942.

Here are some screenshots of a quick battle where I fed Soviet tanks into the teeth of a German tank company defending in a reverse slope. The body and burnt hulls count was not pretty.

I have a policy of trusting a lot in tank commander's whose names remind me of happy hour. :)

The tactical map. Note the interface, identical to Steel Armor's.

One of the German tanks moving uphill to meet us.

Binocular's view from the Soviet side: hit in the turret accomplished nothing, though.

Sooner than later, the German tanks fired back at us with not surprising results.

One of the Soviet tanks trying to find an assailable flank of the German formation, only to blunder straight into an extended enemy front.

Cheers,

France '14 (HPS Simulations) - 20th Century Firepower, 19th Century Tactical Mobility

2012-01-11T07:05:00.000-05:00

If you are about to start playing France '14, I'd recommend getting a good stomach for high casualties and lots of patience for your operations timetable.

The German XII Corps (grey counters at the right) advances towards Dinant. It's 8 o'clock of 22 August 1914.

These armies can kill wholesale, you just have to give them time to deploy.

For example, the screenshot above is from the Charleroi scenario (a fine scenario that deals with the fascinating story of a French army that found itself too extended forward). In a tiny corner of that scenario, Germany's XII Corps is advancing west towards Dinant. Deploying to attack this French position is challenging enough because the meandering Meuse river, the forested areas and that creek that cuts the axis of attack in half. But the most formidable obstacle is deploying my forces for the attack.

Fire support: MG company. It took me 4 hours of simulated time to move this unit towards the attack position and it will take another 2 hours of simulated time to deploy it.

Fire support: field gun and field howitzer. 6 hours to move forward (including time for my own gaffe) and two hours to deploy.

In the case of the field howitzer shown above, the fire missions are solved at the end of the turn, simulating the confusing early era of indirect fire support.

Concentrating enough firepower for an attack takes a lot of time, and the most important lesson would be "thou shalt not deploy your forces in vain".

Cheers,

Tigers Unleashed (HPS Simulations) - Gameplay Notes - What Killed Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251? The Blog Goes Into Battlefield Forensics!

2012-01-09T22:09:00.000-05:00

In my latest entry, one of my German halftracks (SdKfz 251) was dispatched by an enemy 7.62 mm SMG firing from a wooded hill.

Bug? Oddball?

7.62 mm PPD SMG vs. German halftrack. Plot of detection time vs. distance in the sandbox mode.

Tigers Unleashed has a so-called "sandbox" mode in which the user can choose a firing unit and a target. The sandbox mode then shows the data for shots being fired from the firing unit and taking into consideration the distance, terrain, illumination, shadowing, even the angle of both units.

The accuracy of the Russian SMG at 188 m (yellow line, this is the distance between the firing unit and the target) is pretty decent. One can expect the German halftrack being hit with every other round of the Russian SMG.

The probability of kill is less than 1%. Note how the most exposed to fire area of the halftrack is the hull's top (46% of the total target area). This is because the firing unit is at a height of 10 meters and the target is at a height of 5 meters (see left info panel).

The damage probability is abysmally low. This is likely due to the low penetration of the 7.62 mm round into the armor of the halftrack.

The sandbox mode can also display the penetration data. In this case, showing the penetration of the 7.62 mm round into the armor of the halftrack which in the simulation is solid steel. Note how you can even plot graphs of penetration vs range for angled armor (here displayed at angle 0, because I'm just lazy).

The armor data for the target halftrack shows non-penetrable steel at all sides of the vehicle, except off course on the top, where there is no armor.

Taken altogether the data presented above allows me to conclude that I can't conclude nothing. :)

Seriously speaking, given the lack of penetration of the 7.62 mm round on the armor of the halftrack, the kill of the halftrack could have actually been a kill of the crew by rounds that entered through the top of the vehicle. This is something that BilH suggested in a comment to the original blog entry. However, the kill probability when a round hits the top of the vehicle is the same than the kill probability of one that hits the side of the vehicle. This is a bit odd.

I'm running the combat simulation with the combat resolution screen set to very low detail so to speed up the process. Now I am wondering that if I would have been more patient, the details of the kill would have been presented in such screen.

Cheers,

Combat Mission Battle for Normandy - A Note on Combat Functions/Services and Weapon Systems

2012-01-09T00:35:00.000-05:00

After an intense week at work, I decided to relax with a Combat Mission scenario. It was an unusually warm winter Saturday morning in the US east coast ...

Half and hour later, my son found me in the war room (AKA my home office), all twisted in my armchair, cursing at the monitor, the coffee and Argentine pastries untouched and put well out the way.

The scenario: Bloody Dawn, by one of the great scenario designers Field Marshal Blucher
The game: Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

Spoiler Alert! Do not read if you are still going to play this scenario against the computer.

It is now evident that I've grown too comfortable of assuming that all Combat Mission scenarios will be about the classical move-strike-protect simple formula. Move your troops towards contact, fix and flank. At most worrying about your fire support weapons and keeping HQ units close to their troops. Meh! Wrong!

Let me start with a description of the scenario. I'm in command of two infantry companies of the 119th IR securing one village north of St. Lo. Reinforcements (one armored infantry company and two demi-platoon of tanks) to arrive later. Defending is one company of German infantry supporting two or three AT guns.

A 3D view of the scenario. Shaded blue and purple, the deployment are of my units (green floating icons). The objectives are shaded yellow (town entrance) and bright green (intersection).

Notice the terrain? Hedgerows everywhere. A nightmare for mutual support between maneuver units! Every fight is so compartmentalized that every maneuver group needs to be self-sufficient.

The following map shows roughly how the fight went. I avoided an initial frontal, road bound assault on the objectives and I leaned on my right flank with two platoons attacking west of the town in order to gain enough flanking fire positions to support the other platoon clearing the town's entrance and to gain enough depth within the enemy defensive scheme so to maneuver forces for the final assault on the intersection. The final assault on the intersection objective was achieved by close cooperation between the infantry units and the tank reinforcements.

The battle as it was fought. I have a typo: the three infantry platoons in the map are not from company A but from company F.

I will be posting more detailed descriptions and screen shots about certain parts of the fight in a later entry.

But before that, a bit about all the combat functions, weapon systems and services that I rarely think of in an integrated form:

Command and control
Intelligence
Maneuver Units
Fire Support Units
Mobility
Combat Service Support

This scenario had me on the edge because alas, I am always missing something from the list.

Cheers,

Steel Armor Blaze of War Features Both Sim and Wargame Traits

2012-01-05T07:00:00.001-05:00

This entry is about something I forgot to mention before: in Steel Armor there is a turn-based interface where you can maneuver your tanks and troops pretty much in the way that we have seen in the beloved Achtung Panzer war games.

If as the result of your (or your enemies') maneuvers there is a contact there will be a tactical combat which is automatically resolved by the computer (tactical combat not involving your own tanks) or is fought by you in the 3D-tank-sim mode.

In the following screen shots, an Angolan Civil War scenario that I started playing last night.

Scenario selection interface in Steel Armor. In each theater of operations you will fight more than one tactical battle, off course.

This is the turn based interface. Own forces can be moved by the player in this square-based map. Urgent memo: Alegre is going to get it ...

This is a map view of an ongoing, 3D-battle. Note the interface in the right of the screen shot: you can command any of the forces and give them orders (move, defend, assault, modify formation).

Outside view of my T-62 rushing to support the troops in the far background. Note the red icons, exactly like in Achtung Panzer.

The only thing missing is a free roaming camera during the 3D battles ... Or good documentation to find the key combo for that camera ... :)

Cheers,

Tigers Unleashed (HPS Simulations) - Gameplay Notes - Close Combat at Position 877

2012-01-02T00:56:00.000-05:00

Moving men under fire and detached from their leaders is a battle in itself.

The status of my only platoon of PzGr. and their waypoints. Note how they are heavily suppressed (window on top, status tab, current levels group).

This is a continuation of the previous entry where I edited a battle from scratch. Quick refresh: a company-sized team of German PzIVs and PzGr. against a computer controlled Soviet infantry battalion reinforced with a company of AT guns. I have my PzGr. ready to take a foothold in the first enemy position. Do I?

The PzGr. platoon stalling due to suppression ... Unacceptable. I check and double check that the LMG group is targeting the Soviets.

The targeting window. When in this mode, the map is shadowed to show which positions can be targeted by the chosen unit.

Gah! I even have a tank platoon targeting this enemy position. I move the halftracks forward in a bid for fire superiority.

Unfortunately, one of the halftracks is destroyed by 7.62mm fire (see combat phase report window) (?!)

The four remaining halftracks (selected unit within greay box) panic and move out of danger.

Right when the halftracks were pulling back, the PzGr. platoon gains a foothold in the wooded area. Close combat ensues and the troopers emerge victorious. Note how one of the tank platoons has returned to their previous position after taking a loss some 10 minutes before (two hexes west of the grey square).

The command, control and communications link with the PzGr. platoon is in a sorry state. Highlighted in the staff officers window, the command delay of the PzGr. platoon is around 13 minutes, and they can only be reached by messenger.

I bring the LMG group, the command group, the radioman and the rest of the PzGr. platoon to the same hex and consolidate them into a composite unit. This is basically reversing what I have done before.

After consolidating into a composite unit, radio contact is recovered and the command delay significantly decreases.

The path ahead for the consolidated PzGr. unit: 500 meters through the light woods.

Cheers,

Red Orchestra 2 - Random Tactical Observations on the Lone Warriors

2012-01-01T17:56:00.003-05:00

More Red Orchestra 2, fellows ... I've got the bug in me now ...

These entries are written with a tongue in cheek spirit. I am no expert in online first person shooters and I get killed a lot. I am not criticizing, just trying to entice a healthy discussion. All screenshots in this entry from a multiplayer server I joined, got killed enough to be sent into the bleachers of shame and spectating. All online nicknames have been covered to protect the innocent.

I added "Lone Warrior" to the title of this entry with a bit of bitterness. The very little online I played before was Call of Duty with the Wargamer.com guys (back when Jim Zabeck was at the helm) and ArmA with the guys at SimHQ. In the majority of the games I joined there, we never went out alone, the least would be a buddy team. But I digress, in RO2 everybody is running and shooting by themselves. I can relate, the developers of RO2 had given us a big excuse to run like headless chickens with those objectives that need to be taken within four minutes ...

# 1 - Master of Disguise

There is a guy under that bush, and he dispatched 3 unsuspecting human players. Note the bot (Fritz09, computer controlled) German soldier roaming down the street, totally oblivious to the tactical bush.

# 2 - Is OK to be prone

In the virtual multiplayer world of gun and run, the prone position is pretty much disliked like high pings or aiming lags. The closer to mother earth, the least your ability to aim to your flanks or rear. This human Soviet submachine gunner below used the prone position but placed himself where it was impossible to be silhouetted against the background. Shadows and clutter are your friend.

This poor German soldier didn't notice the Soviet submachine gunner lying prone in the shadows of that house.

Seconds later, the inevitable death.

# 3 - You hear the shots, but are you listening?

Like any other form of human exchange, firefights have a language. I'm not sure about it's grammar, but its words are easy to understand. The most basic "march to the sound of the guns" is perhaps the better understood use of information based on just the bangs in the distance. The frequency of shooting, the type of guns, the use (or not) of grenades are always telling you something.

However, there are more subtle words that cross the battlefield at subsonic speeds: the movement and subsequent success/demise of your fellow soldiers.

Two human players enter a destroyed house and take cover in the (only thing left standing) chimney stack. The one in the left falls to Soviet rifle fire from the background. The one in the right notices this and takes cover immediately.

Unfortunately, the surviving human player decides to peek through the same spot as his fellow fallen soldier. Chances are that whoever killed your friend will have a great field of fire on his position, so avoid it.

# 4 - Great use of cover will not make your gun or aim any better

This human player made perfect use of cover. He peeked at corners taking very small new bites of field of fire at a time.

A great use of cover. This human player scans the terrain ahead before moving out.

The same human player taking out Soviet players attempting to cross the street. Notice how he can manage his field of fire by moving in and out the house's wall.

This was a great shootout. The same human player mastered the use of cover and positioned himself so he would see only the rightmost window of the green-roofed building (arrow). Unfortunately his submachine pistol was no match for the Soviet rifle.

Cheers,

Steel Armor Blaze of War - Soviet Combined Arms in Afghanistan

2012-01-01T09:13:00.000-05:00

The game: Steel Armor Blaze of War
The scenario: quick battle, T-62 platoon (player) supporting armored infantry platoon vs mujahideen infantry (computer). The Soviet-Afghan War.

Armor, the decisive maneuver formation to be used in mass against NATO's best. Here used in penny packets against these barely fed fanatics. I am in command of a T-62 tank platoon, supporting Soviet infantry forces in a sweep operation.

View from the commander's position. The loader is visibly focused.

It was to be the quintessential cake walk. The enemy may have some anti-tank weapons, but it was infantry ... And the terrain was open.

Our comrade infantry men were in front of us and quickly got into contact. Our fire support can't be delivered through them, so I steered my platoon to the right in order to gain an open field of fire against the enemy positions in front of our infantry.

The view from the gunner's sights. Two BMPs and our infantry (red dots) still block our field of fire against the enemy in the far background. We are moving to the right at full speed.

Now with a clear field of fire, shooting everything we have. We could barely see the enemy.

Our fellow infantry men (red dots in the distance) moved very swiftly and it was hard to keep a good angle to support them with fire. In this image, we were starting to steer into a path parallel to the infantry's axis of attack. But it was too late, we are now too separated from them.

The quick battle ended too fast (I forgot to extend the duration during the set up) and despite heavy infantry casualties, we scored a victory. The following screenshots are from the detailed AAR.

The mujahideen had prepared trenches for this desperate defense in the open. Note some of them moving forward from their positions.

This BMP has been shot at by low caliber weapons and survived. The one in the background is a different story. Note the mujahideen HMG in the left.

This was a catastrophic loss. Could not find out what took out this BMP.

Cheers,

Steel Beasts ProPE V2.64 -Tank-borne Smoke Grenades, Soviet Style

2011-12-29T22:18:00.000-05:00

There is this interesting thread at SteelBeasts.com about the T-72M1. The part about the relatively high distance that the smoke grenades are thrown from the tank caught my attention.

In that thread, a couple of fellow virtual tankers pointed out that in Soviet tanks the smoke grenades are thrown so forward (compared to their Western counterparts) in order to assist in the offensive. Just after the preparatory artillery barrage, the T-72s emerge from cover and dash towards the enemy, throwing smoke forward to gain a couple of hundred meters of closing ...

I had the opportunity to command a company of T-72M1s in a hasty attack against a town defended by a company of Bradley M2s IFVs. Smoke served us well ...

I was in command of the advance guard company of a tank battalion. We were to remove a small bump in the road so the battalion could keep its advance towards its objective. A company of Bradley M2A2 IFVs was about to start its defense preparations within a town in our path.

Tactical situation. My forces are the blue ones. The town where the enemy is located is about 2 km wide. Note the TRPs (black crosses in the enemy-held town). An artillery preparation is mandatory.

The main threat to our tanks are the anti-tank missiles of the Bradleys. Fortunately, we are equipped with latest generation smoke grenades that can block their IR imaging systems.

1st platoon moving up, seconds before deploying into combat formation.

Due to the nature of the terrain in front of the town, our attack ended up leaning heavily on our left flank. The road in our left flank provided a covered approach into the town. In this image, 1st platoon moves forward while an indirect fire mission (grey smoke in the backgroung) falls onto the enemy position.

The last push forward. 1st platoon closes into the town immediately after the indirect fire mission is over. Note how they are using smoke to cover their advance (white clouds in front of the tanks).

I kept my tanks at a healthy distance from the town to avoid fire from dismounts hidden within the houses. We were able to destroy 9 (out of 12) Bradleys to the loss of 3 T72M1s. The majority of enemy destroyed vehicles were in the southwest and middle parts of the town. Although we never intended to completely clear the town (i.e. including hidden dismounts), we needed to destroy all the enemy vehicles remaining in the northeast.

We started moving in bounds, parallel to the axis of the town, with my commander tank in the lead. More indirect fire missions were called on the suspected enemy positions.

That artillery fire (grey smoke) definitively didn't help to find out the remaining enemy vehicles. Here is one target as seen from my tank. I'm unbuttoned and looking through the binoculars.

Now here is the fun part. See how the Bradley in the image above is behind a slight elevation in the terrain? This meant that in order to hit it, I would have to drive my tank ahead. In this case, that driving distance was some 40 meters or so. As I moved the tank forward, I immediately came under fire from my right flank. There was another enemy vehicle watching my tank.

I aimed the turret to the right and deployed two rounds of smoke grenades, which fell some 80 meters away from my position and covered a wide arc (white puffs in this image). This screen allowed me to totally ignore the threat on my right and move back and forward with impunity to engage the target in front of me. In this screenshot, one round goes into the target within the town.

If this would have been an Abrams tank, the smoke screen would have been too close to my position and my freedom to move forward would have been significantly decreased. It's pure geometry, the closer to the peeping sights you place a wall, the less they can see you.

Cheers,

DCS Black Shark 2 - Canon Shooting with Translational Drift

2011-12-28T14:39:00.000-05:00

I haven't abandoned the virtual skies ... But most of the flying these last days has been practice.

The Ka-50 is a fantastic weapons platform once you get past a point where you fly without thinking of it. The demands of situational awareness, target acquisition and weapons delivery are high and I have become too dependent on doing everything from a hover. It is not rare for me to get sucked into my own downwash when I am engaging from a hover and instinctively floor the collective to duck into cover.

In a previous entry I mentioned how I am now preferring to perform cannon runs with forward speed. Translational lift can save my butt if I get my engines busted and need to autorotate into safety.

But flying head on into an AAA system is not kosher either. The Shilka has a radar targeting system and is deadly if your attack is sloppy.

In this entry I am engaging a Shilka with the cannon, closing in but not flying straight into it.

I've just acquired a Shilka with the Shkval (left window). Range is 4 kilometers, too large compared to the recommended cannon employment range (2 km)

Left cyclic, right pedal. The Ka-50 flies (almost) southbound but the nose stays (almost) west. Note the flight path in the moving map (ABRIS, right panel, flight path is the black line coming out of waypoint 1). I am closing and the range is now 3.4 km. My speed is around 70 km/h.

Range is now good for starting shooting. The Shilka shoots a couple of bursts but they all pass through my right. Target destroyed. Note my flight path and nose position in the moving map (right panel). My speed in 108 km/h.

External view. The flight path goes straight from the viewer's point of view to the background.

There are some quirks into this shooting method. One is that it requires a steady control of the pedals so the the nose of the helicopter stays aligned with the target (the cannon has some very tight gimbal limits). Second, the pilot has to keep a close eye on the terrain on his sides (in my case it was the hills on my left).

Cheers,

Close Air Support Video - The Real Deal

2011-12-28T11:52:00.000-05:00

This video brought to my attention by blog reader BO. Thanks!

Those of you who fly DCS A-10C will be able to figure out the tactical situation from seeing the targeting pod video. Note the background shooting in the radio chat from the tactical air controller. Scary stuff.

Cheers,

ArmA 2 BAF - Are Grenades the Modern Bayonets?

2011-12-27T18:56:00.000-05:00

I'm in a strange tactical land, folks. I'm reading Paddy Griffith's Forward into Battle and it's quite a journey of critical reading. Griffith gets very controversial in this book. His main point is about how virtually every major decisive victory in military history can be attributed to shock action. Napoleonic massed volley fire? Just to wear down the enemy and then deliver the (only thing decisive) bayonet charge.

I'm not of the intellectual stature to challenge anything that I'm reading, but it looks to me that close combat is the last option in modern combat. Killing the enemy from the distance with superior firepower looks like an SOP nowadays.

Enough digression. Griffith mentions in several parts of the book that the cold steel of the bayonet has been replaced by the hand grenade. I confess that when I am in virtual combat, grenades are the least thing in my mind. So here is this entry, to reinforce the habit of safe close combat.

A British infantry section on a dismounted patrol. No vehicles near, no indirect fire support, just the organic weapons of the section. Walking down the patrol route the section comes under insurgent fire from its left flank.

Well drilled reactions pay off. The shooter is quickly dispatched, but more insurgents are suspected to be in the walled campground ahead.

A fire support element (marksman and two LMGs) is left behind while the assault team (all the rest of the section) advances ahead.

The assault team reaches the walls of the nearest campground. Buddy teams cover two intersecting walls.

Every effort is made to determine if there are insurgents inside the campground. In this image, an infantryman steps on a dirt mound to peek inside the walls. No contact, though.

Finding out if the insurgents are within the walls had to be done the old way. From a healthy distance, a British soldier slowly moves away from the wall, keeping a close eye in the opening. Contact!

The assault team then proceeds to toss grenades inside the campground. A total of 8 grenades are aimed at the middle, nearby the walls and to wall breaks/entrances. It's more or less blind fragging.

A last peek before storming in. One insurgent dead confirmed.

Aftermath: three insurgents taken out from the campground.

It all turned out better than what I thought. The blind tossing worked so well that I wonder about the kill radius of the hand grenades used. In real life, one would have been very concerned about civilians.

But I don't think that what is shown above is what actually Griffith was writing about. There was no shock, just a mini-indirect fire of sorts. Next time, I should try the grenade tossing followed by the storming ... Like a SWAT team! :)

Cheers,

Tigers Unleashed (HPS Simulations) - Gameplay Notes - Opening Moves

2011-12-27T01:04:00.000-05:00

The opening moves of this battle left me completely humbled by the friction and subtleties of command.

This is a continuation of the previous entry where I edited a battle from scratch. Quick refresh: a company-sized team of German PzIVs and PzGr. against a computer controlled Soviet infantry battalion reinforced with a company of AT guns.

The battle is unfolding and the simulation is showing more data that I can shake a mouse at, but that window that displays my tactical shortcomings is painfully missing.

I want to start this entry with the importance of reviewing your troops before going into battle. Not only what is their composition in men and weapons, but also how the chain of command is sorted.

There is plenty of data to go through and you may be a bit overwhelmed. Just make sure that the weapons systems are what you think they are and that their numbers are what you expect. These are two unit information windows for a platoon of PzIVs. This platoon has 5 tanks: note how that information is shown in the left window in a very tiny field named "quantity".

The German infantry unit is a so-called "composite" unit (many units consolidated into a bigger unit). In this case, you can cycle through all the units within a composite unit. In the screenshot above, all LMGs of the platoon are a single unit.

Reviewing your troops is very important for mechanized units. The infantry composite unit mentioned above has 5 halftracks, and you need to check if the troopers are mounted in their transport or not. In my case I had to load the infantry into the halftracks. Unfortunately, the simulation doesn't show the loading status in the icons on the map, and it's not rare to have a full platoon of mechanized infantry (including transports) crawling at 5 km/h just because all the infantry is (unknown to the player) dismounted.

Loading is relatively simple. Click the unit, click the transport and then click the "Load Group" button. The simulation takes care of all the details like the transport capacity and others.

To establish contact with the enemy, I wanted to move my troops forward in a way that would leave them in a very good position to attack the first objective.

Opening moves (the squares are the ordered moved paths for my units). A, establish a support/attack by fire position with a platoon of MkIVs, oriented towards the objective (not shown in the map, northeast of A). B, this is hill with a light woods patch where enemy troops were reported by the intelligence officer. I am sending a platoon of MkIVs and the (mounted) PzGr. platoon to the village labeled "C". They are to establish contact, develop the situation and determine if the wooded patch is a good approach for a future attack on the objective.

My forces are rolling out. Note how the PzGr. platoon (highlighted with a grey square) is behind a PzIV platoon. This is because the PzGr. platoon took one minute and a half to load into their transports.

The simulation is WEGO turn-based (both sides deliver their orders and the turn is resolved for both sides at the same time). In this screenshot, the turn resolution is moving and the events are shown in the side window. The tanks have received fire from the wooded area that I highlighted B (two screenshots above). As you can see, my MkIVs are shooting back! :)

Now that the bullets are flying, it's a good time to talk about manual targeting. Your troops will automatically fire once in contact or fire back when fired upon. It all depends on the SOPs that the player sets for the unit. However, the player can manually adjust the targets of a unit. In this screenshot, I am making sure that the tank platoon (unit surrounded by a black box) is targeting the position where we received fire from. Note the shaded out areas in the map. These are locations that can't be targeted by this unit.

But actually, something worries me more than targeting. The mounted PzGren platoon is slacking to reach the their forward position. They have received enemy fire and now they are struggling even to change formations. A quick check of their communications status reveals that they are out of radio contact. Super!

A couple of windows showing the status of my PzGren platoon (with the black box in the map). Top left: communications status, all units are in radio contact but the PzGren platoon who can be reached only by messenger. Bottom right: movement commands, I ordered the platoon to alter its original path and they will, just after some 6 minutes of delay! "Dly:389" in the light blue info field of the bottom right window means this unit will have 389 seconds of delay before starting to execute your orders. Yikes!

If the only way to reach the PzGren platoon is by messenger, I better move the task force HQ unit way close to them. Command from the front, they say ... Well, not so easy in my case. My task force HQ unit stopped moving forward after a couple of hundred meters. It took me a little while to find out why the task force HQ was not moving forward: in the SOP settings, I checked a field that says "Keep HQ Units behind", or something like that.

With the task force HQ unit near the real action, the delays of the PzGren unit decreased significantly. In the screenshot below, I've ordered them to dismount ("uld" in the info panel, bottom right).

The PzGren platoon (selected, black box) is dismounted. Now they can be reached by visual signals from the task force HQ unit which is shown in this map some 400 meters north west.

In the previous screenshot, I am sure you noticed red icons and burning wrecks located east of the village where I am deploying the PzGr. platoon. The tanks are putting a good amount of fire against transports and the occasional AT gun at several positions in the map. I'm so absorbed with the PzGr. platoon that, as far as I don't loose a tank, I just let the engagements go their way.

And now, having dismounted my PzGren. platoon, the moment of foolishness that I regret. I wanted to clear the wooded patch with my infantry and I thought that the best way to do this is to have as much fire support as I could muster. So I decide to split the infantry platoon into a command group (radioman and platoon command team), a fire support group (all LMGs) and an assault group (24 grenadiers).

Mixing, matching and messing with the composite units dialog window. You can do pretty much whatever you want, but watch out for your command structure.

I can't blame the simulation engine for what I have done. My most critical mistake was to keep the command group in the village while leaving the fire support and assault groups to themselves.

When it rains, it pours. While dealing with all these command issues, we suffer our first tank loss. A tank in the platoon that was occupying an attack by fire position overlooking the objective is destroyed by a Soviet AT gun. As per SOP the rest of the tank platoon retreats into cover.

The grey box is the southern extreme of the objective village. After taking a loss, the tank platoon west of the grey box puts a hill between itself and the incoming fire.

I can only hope that the assault on the wooded patch goes well.

The assault group (24 grenadiers, highlighted with a black box) and their movement path (grey squares linked by a grey line). Their communications status is by visual signals, and their delay to implement any orders is around 4 minutes. The fire support group (LMGs, unit icon has a question mark) is still moving out of the village to support the assault. I also have a tank platoon in a fire support role. It is located south east of the assault group.

Stay tuned. More is coming up.

Cheers,

Red Orchestra 2 - Mexican Standoff with the Involuntary TeamKiller

2011-12-26T12:51:00.002-05:00

No matter how big the claim of being realistic, tactical or [put your favorite euphemism here], for the most part the multiplayer experience in mainstream first person shooters (FPS) is just a bar brawl with guns. Which is a pity in the case of Red Orchestra 2, because there is very solid stuff in it.

Prompted by a very positive review by Michael Peck at the Training and Simulation Journal, I installed my copy of Red Orchestra 2 and went right into the hell of urban combat.

Stalingrad, 1942 ... Here I come.

I joined one of these multiplayer servers that looked like for grown ups. There are few, it looks. If you have recommendations, let me know.

The visuals in Red Orchestra 2 are good but not as impressive as other mainstream FPSs. Right now all I care for is good environment for urban warfare and as seen here, the game delivers the goods.

I was playing as the Russians in one server (I can't remember if it was the 82th airborne) and I got team killed twice (head shot) by a guy who was either a moron or a very good shot with an easy trigger. Seconds later my second death I re-spawned just behind him. He sees me but moves on nonetheless. He didn't shoot, so it looked like his previous marksmanship towards my head was accidental but I can't be sure (I've seen my share of weirdos online). I stick to him like one of those latrine flies. He carries on through a dilapidated building. Then we reach a room which external wall has been ripped open by a huge shell. The guy positions himself towards the open terrain ahead, a meter behind a fraction of wall that was left untouched. He is tactically proficient, I see. I'm some 6 meters behind him, standing with my submachine pistol aimed just a feet above his head, but at the open terrain in the distance. I'm messing with the guy. He turns and sees my gun aimed in his direction and he raises his at me. I shoot at some German troopers coming towards us through the open terrain. The fellow team killer must have not believed how I could miss him from such a short range but after a fraction of a second it sinks on him that I was not shooting at him. The enemy fire pinging in the wall behind me must have helped too. We both take cover and take out three Germans.

It was a great gaming moment, with an obscure fratricide theme that pairs so well the brutality of the Stalingrad urban combat scenario. I owe the screenshots of this occurrence, because I obviously didn't have the spare time to hit the right key. To make it up, a few screenshots of the same game session.

Getting ready to move into the open. There are troops out there, I see movement all over the place. But I can't ID them as friendly or foe.

Too vulnerable: a square surrounded by tall buildings from where snipers would have a heyday.

A wonderful keyhole that ended up being useless. Move on, comrade!

Cheers,

Tigers Unleashed (HPS Simulations) - Gameplay Notes - Starting a Battle from Scratch

2011-12-22T00:57:00.001-05:00

Tigers Unleashed ships with some 34 tactical scenarios covering the invasion of Poland and the first two years of the invasion of the Soviet Union. There is also a battle making utility that allows you to pick a map, opposing forces and play that scenario.

I'm simplifying things, because the level of detail and available options in Tigers Unleashed is just incredible. Here is an scenario I built from scratch. Nothing too thrilling, just to get my hands dirty with this great simulation.

The process of creating an scenario from scratch is straightforward. All I have to do is follow a series of steps which are shown in a clickeable window named "scenario creation checklits". First step is to set the expert level of the player: this is how detailed in options and information I want the scenario to be. I choose level 3 (expert). The next step is to enter general scenario information (briefing and the option to have a picture shown in the main menu).

Next, I am asked to choose which map I want to fight this battle on. There is a little hiccup in the file structure of the simulation: by default I was offered just four maps, but actually in the GeoBuilder folder there are plenty of other maps to choose from.

The clickeable window in the left allows you to go backwards if you missed or changed your mind about a previous step.

I'm going to play as the Germans (attacker) and let the computer handle the Soviets (defender). I brought down the amount of obstacles and mines for the defenders. I also gave them an unlimited amount of improved positions.

Next step, blue force selection. Options are anything from whole divisions to single platoons. I choose a company-sized team of 2 platoons of MkIVs and one platoon of panzer grenadiers. I gave the Russians an infantry battalion reinforced with two AT gun companies.

I could have chosen troops for the flanks, or even change how much of the map would be considered flank terrain. In this case I just left the flanks empty. There is also an option to assign different types of leaders to each formation. These leaders vary in their capabilities like their effectiveness to transmit orders, among others.

Next stop is compiling an AI template for the scenario. Here is the window of the options available for both sides. After choosing, it's number crunching done by the computer.

Now placing my available units in the blue set up area. Of humble size but of high spirit my command is for today.

I left the computer to place the red units, but you can choose to modify the computer's choices if you want to.

Ready to go now. Some Soviet units are shown in the map (red icons): this is because I allowed a moderate amount of intelligence to be available at the scenario start. This level of enemy intelligence can be adjusted during the previous steps of the scenario building process. The type of intelligence (humint, aerial or ground reconnaissance) available can be modified too.

Cheers,

Combat Mission Battle for Normandy - Tactics Video Series from Armchair General

2011-12-21T07:22:00.003-05:00

The second episode is up at the Armchair General website, gents. This time a frontal attack over a bridge!

This video series is by Lt. Col. (ret) Jeffrey Paulding, game editor at Armchair General.

Cheers,

It's the Man, Not the Machine

2011-12-17T01:25:00.000-05:00

Sorting out pics we took with my brother during his visit from Spain I found these of the Supermarine Spitfire HF at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC.

We read about these beautiful birds, we memorize their performance, we fly them in virtual skies, yet I wonder how many of us appreciate how humble and fragile these machines actually were.

Cheers,

Unity of Command - Review

2011-12-16T16:45:00.000-05:00

Let me paraphrase the opening paragraph of a professional game reviewer elsewhere. Before I got Unity of Command, I made the mistake of glancing at a few screen shots. They worried me. Those unit's busts instead of NATO icons, the barren interface lacking recognizable buttons for all things sacred in hardcore war gaming, the list of unit's stats shorter than my bank savings account deposit records. Oh no, it's going to be one of those games isn't it? One of those "spiritual successors" trying to bank on the genius of designers of great things we grew up and moved on from? One of those generic turns and hexes "war game light" clones that keep sprouting like mushrooms on a rainy day?

Unity of Command (UoC from here), turned out to be neither. A lean, fast and fulfilling operational level war game with a computer opponent that will hurt your martial ego and keep you in the edge of your seat to the very last turn is the best way to describe it.

This review does not include a detailed description of game features that I think is important for your decision of buying this game or not. Please take a look at my AAR for a closer look of such game features: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5. Thanks!

Unity of Command can be played in two modes. The first mode is playing individual scenarios, each of which cover one of the major combat operations by the German Army Group South and the Soviet Southwestern Front from May 1942 to February 1943. Each one of the 17 individual scenarios is playable from one, pre-determined side only.

The second mode is the so-called campaign that features a series of linked individual scenarios that are fought in different geographical areas. The path forward for the campaign is branched giving the player the option to choose the next scenario depending the score achieved in the previous one. The scoring in each scenario is calculated adding up points achieved by taking scenario-specific objectives within a certain period of time. Neither side scores points for the destruction of enemy formations. The emphasis in buying real estate at the right time, rather than in the destruction of the enemy may find you sometimes as the master of the battlefield but short of those movement points to get to an objective held by that lone depleted enemy formation. Victory with a certain amount of score points is absolutely necessary to advance from one scenario into the next one. There is no continuity between each scenario of the campaign in terms of troops (that division you lost in one scenario may re-appear in the next one) or time (all the minor operations between each scenario of the campaign are not featured). Game play-wise the only thing moving along with the player from scenario to scenario is the capability to tap into combat support units, reinforcements for depleted units or new units altogether. This capability is featured by a numeric index named "prestige" and is acquired based in the score obtained in the campaign scenarios. There are two campaigns, one German and one Soviet, off course.

In the scenarios, each individual icon/bust represents a division (German side) or a corps (Russian side). The strength of each unit is represented by steps, which can be active or suppressed. The number of steps is modified by combat and the suppression state of those steps is modified by combat and supply state. There are special steps which represent combat support units (artillery, reconnaissance, anti-tank, anti-air etc). Combat is resolved using a more or less typical combat results table (CRT) and the odds of combat are clearly presented to the player making it very easy to figure out if an attack is worth to try or not. Depending on weather, terrain, armor and combat support units, the attacker and the defender get better or worse odds.The combat system works well in most cases but when it comes to infantry vs infantry combat, it's difficult to punch a hole in the enemy line without air support or a massive reinforcement of combat support units. It is not possible to attack from multiple hexes either, but in the big picture, the combat/operations outcomes appear reasonable. By the way, the player can tap into combat support units by spending his "prestige" points. There is no headquarters units or any type of command and control mechanism in the game, so the player is free to arrange and re-arrange formations at his liking. Many times I found myself unconsciously keeping some German units together for specific tasks like holding a flank, forcing a penetration or sealing an encirclement. Under a closer inspection, those "groups" ended up looking a lot like corps.

The scenarios play as other I-GO-U-GO turn based games, which each turn representing two weeks of simulated combat and terrain is divided 20 km wide hexagons. Terrain types are very simple (clear, forest mountain, swamp and cities) and they affect the movement of the units. Movement through rivers is possible for any type of unit, yet it takes all the unit's movement capability for a turn. It is off course better to move units through the (very few) major bridges available in each scenario.

The supply system in UoC is simple, easy to both understand and visualize. Units out of supply will eventually loss their capability to perform combat operations so the player is advised to keep a very close eye on his forces logistics before and during the operations. The relatively low developed railroads in the theater of operations means that both sides will be stretched thin for supplies and that the fights for railroad lines will be ferocious.

The map, unit icons and all other optional information in UoC looks a lot like an infographic from a newspaper or a magazine. The graphics deliver just enough eye candy to be pleasant and look like a game from the 21st century without being overdone. The maps are clean and the unit icons show almost all the information needed for making decisions. A lot has been written in discussion boards about how good the interface of UoC is. My tongue in cheek take is: what interface? Really, one of the great achievements of this game is to deliver a great war gaming experience without having to too much to click.

One final paragraph about the computer opponent (AKA AI). This is one of the best computer opponents I played against. In discussion boards elsewhere, the developers' s made no secret that the game may appear simple in some aspects, the scenarios smaller than in other monster games, but they wanted to make sure the computer opponent could cope with all the same variables the human player does. In such venue, UoC doesn't feature fog of war (all enemy units are visible to each side) because the developers couldn't get the computer opponent to deal accordingly with uncertainty (no sh!t guys, information theory is quite a difficult b!tch to deal with). The computer opponent is great both in offensive and defensive operations. It will cut your forces from supply, retreat to better defensive positions, relocate entire armies to threatened sectors and pretty much succeed almost every time in ruining your best concocted plans. The painful anticipation that I get when I hit that "next turn" button that unleashes the computer opponent has become addictive by now.

The death of quality computer war gaming was called more than once in the past ten years. I don't know if such a dramatic event will ever happen, but here is what I find most noteworthy about how things changed: there is a growing gap between light, military-themed games and highly detailed simulations of war. This is particularly striking in games depicting warfare at the operational and strategic levels. On the one hand we have the "caricatures of warfare", with moving parts that look very cool and rules that are easy to learn but combined in a game play experience that ends up being just garbage-in, garbage-out. On the other hand, war games so complex and demanding that you basically need to quit your life for two weeks to complete a scenario. Trapped in the middle of these two ends is the player who wants to have a war gaming experience with a minimum of historical verisimilitude, a job and a family at the same time.

Along comes Unity of Command, a game that invents no new war gaming parts or rules but mingles some of them into a masterpiece of playability, visual appeal, accessibility, challenge and historical edutainment value.

There was something dying in the war gaming world after all, right in between the buffoonery of the simple and the elitism of the complex. It was called clever game design ... And now it appears to be alive and kicking.

Cheers,

Pat Proctor in National Public Radio

2011-12-16T07:27:00.000-05:00

What a surprise yesterday when I heard Michel Martin say in her program Tell Me More that Pat Proctor was her guest. Pat has published Task Force Patriot and the End of Combat Operations in Iraq and is finishing his Ph.D. studies in military history. You may know him from the ProSimCo line of tactical games.

Pat's blog is in our blogroll, down below in the side bar.

Cheers,