This was my rant over in the "modern wargaming" discussion over at BoardGameGeek
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
{soapbox}
The problem with "modern" is that a lot of people use "modern" to refer to anything "after Vietnam".
While much of the "major" hardware has remained the same since the mid-80s (M1s, M2s, M109s) there's a lot that's been swapped out and only appeared in the Cold-War-goes-hot-Fulda-Gap conflicts at the very end of the divided Germany, or later (MLRS, AH64s, Strykers, up-gunned/-armored HMMWVs, armed OH-6s etc). Additionally, while the equipment might seem very similar, there's a lot of difference between an '84 M1 slick and the latest M1A2-SEP variants.
Most of all, though, the doctrine, not to mention the MTOEs, are completely different.
We used to have heavy brigades of 3 line battalions, each of 4 line companies, with the mech inf BNs also sporting a E CO with M901 ITVs. Each Brigade had enough line companies to field 2 fully task-Org'ed battalions and still have a sizable reserve.
Today, under the revamped BDE structure, we're down to 2 line BNs, plus a RSTA that's got nowhere near the firepower of a non-divisional CAV SQN. We've pushed the divisional assets down to the brigades - DIVARTY HQ and DISCOM HQ now gutted, MI and SIG COs at the MDE level - and with new assets like UAVs and satellite recon, our targeting has gotten crazy good.
So just because a game like Assault has M1s, and we're still using M1s does not mean that Assault = current ops. Or even close.
Here's another way to look at it. In 1985, looking back 30 years, you were looking at the end of the Korean War. Think about all the changes in doctrine, equipment, manning, etc (for those of you in the know, DOTMPLF) from the end of Korea to 1985.
Now roll forward another 30 years. Are we really trying to convince ourselves that just because there's still some tracked animal called an "M1" rolling around that we've made no advances in DOTMPLF since 1985 that would necessitate treating the wargames differently?
Are we really going to consider everything post-Vietnam (1975 - today) in the same "modern" bucket? From about 1600 onward, you're hard-pressed to find any 40-year period in which warfare is so static that you've got interchangeable forces from the start of that 40-year period to the end of it.
But we're trying to tell ourselves that everything from 1975 to today is essentially the same thing? Really?
Look, the Cold-War-goes-hot scenarios were a blast to play and a blessing that they never game to pass. I was in Germany from 83-88, so those games hit real close to home for me. But they're not contemporary. They're 'modern' only in relation to the grand scope of military history, but they're not 'modern' in the sense that Fire Team, or Team Yankee, or Red Star White Star, or Assault, or World At War, or MechWar '77 are in any way interchangeable with today's forces in today's conflict under today's DOTMPLF in today's warfighting environment.
{/soapbox}
thoughts from the Grognut gallery?
Good points, well thought out and makes a lot of sense. Get much in the way of responses from over there?
Sticking to WW2 is modern enough for me. :D
Seriously though, other than a good, operational level Vietnam game such as the Victory Games one from 1983 or COIN games like Andean Abyss and Fire in the Lake I've never been able to muster up interest in any war games post WW2.
Plenty of interest in earlier periods, though.
Quote from: Steelgrave on June 21, 2015, 07:29:00 PM
Good points, well thought out and makes a lot of sense. Get much in the way of responses from over there?
I cross-posted it here about 30 seconds after I put it up there. So nothing yet. But since it's BGG, I'm expecting buckets of vitriol, stupidity, ad hominem attacks, and thread derailments.
All excellent points. The First Gulf War is as far back from today as WW2 was from when I was born, during Vietnam. Hell, the invasion of Afghanistan is fourteen years ago. Think about how much has changed in terms of technology, how companies are organized, and just society in general in fourteen years. Sure, the military is more conservative about change than Silicon Valley, for example, but today that means things see dramatic change maybe every 18 months in the military versus two to three months on the technology company side.
Its silly to think that the vehicles, weapons, and doctrine employed at 73 Easting are the same as today, or were the same as 1970s era NATO. I like Assault as much as the next guy, but it's a historical wargame as much as Wellington's Victory is.
A really "modern" game would play very, very differently than Assualt, for all the reason you cited. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be too many actual modern board games yet...
I think its about context and putting them into their respective buckets.
WW@ was a vastly different depending on geography and time. The German invasion of France was very different from the German Defense of it in 1944 with new equipment etc. Yet it is all lumped as WW2. Modern to me is anything that has the elements of todays wars.
Tactics evolve, equipment changes Lethality increases exponentially but at the end of the day it still require command, control and faster decision making than anything that existed pre Korean war.
Con
Quote from: Ubercat on June 21, 2015, 07:41:28 PM
Sticking to WW2 is modern enough for me. :D
While I don't share Ubercat's sentiment, I do think it points to a major reason so many still classify the late Cold War era as "modern".
Those same people have probably focused very heavily on WW2 and don't often wander too far past it (or even before in some cases). So their use of the designation "modern warfare" is less detailed and made in wider sweeps.
We consider Flashpoint Campaigns to be "Cold War". Sadly, most companies and websites lump post '45 into Modern. Need to get them to change as well or get use to Modern covering a lot of ground. :coolsmiley:
Tentatively, I agree with you. In fact I can think of little reason not to.
Still, wondering what you were responding to...
Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 21, 2015, 07:25:07 PM
thoughts from the Grognut gallery?
Yeah, modern would be call the good old air force, plan to clean up after just about everything is broken. ^-^
Brant, can you post a link to the BGG forum you posted that within?
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1378071/modern-tactical-combat-bct-and-cab/page/1
Thanks, Barth!
Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 21, 2015, 07:48:12 PM
But since it's BGG, I'm expecting buckets of vitriol, stupidity, ad hominem attacks, and thread derailments.
If you want, we can give you all that here too :P
Mirth! Back from the barf-brink, eh?
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on June 22, 2015, 08:52:24 AM
Mirth! Back from the barf-brink, eh?
Sorta. Dragged my sorry ass to work. Still trying to figure out why.
Quote from: mirth on June 22, 2015, 09:15:08 AM
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on June 22, 2015, 08:52:24 AM
Mirth! Back from the barf-brink, eh?
Sorta. Dragged my sorry ass to work. Still trying to figure out why.
This yer weekend Mirth?
(https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/heres-to-the-weekend-cheers-37-photos-371.gif?w=600&h=294)
Well I grow up in the 70's/ 80's and the equipment around then wasn't what was used in Gulf War 1. Then add that equipment changed a lot from Gulf War 1 to Gulf War 2. ;)
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on June 21, 2015, 10:30:21 PM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 21, 2015, 07:25:07 PM
thoughts from the Grognut gallery?
Yeah, modern would be call the good old air force, plan to clean up after just about everything is broken. ^-^
Yeah, 'cuz that worked
really well in Kosovo...
Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 22, 2015, 10:11:37 AM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on June 21, 2015, 10:30:21 PM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 21, 2015, 07:25:07 PM
thoughts from the Grognut gallery?
Yeah, modern would be call the good old air force, plan to clean up after just about everything is broken. ^-^
Yeah, 'cuz that worked really well in Kosovo...
ualties and losses
Kosovo Liberation Army 1,500 insurgents killed (according to the KLA)[23]
United States 2 non-combat deaths[24]
United States 3 soldiers captured[25]
United States Two aircraft shot down[26][27]
United States Two AH-64 Apaches and a AV-8B Harrier crashed[28]
United States Three aircraft damaged[29][30]
NATO 47 UAVs shot down[31]
France Unknown number of DGSE officers killed[32] Caused by KLA:
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia More than 300 soldiers killed according to Yugoslav Army[33]
Caused by NATO:
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 1,031–1,200 killed[a]
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 14 tanks destroyed[38]
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 18 APCs destroyed[39]
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 20 artillery pieces destroyed[39]
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 121 aircraft and helicopters destroyed[40]
How does that compare to nato casualty ratios in Afghanistan? 3 US soldiers captured, 2 planes shot down vs 35,000 dead.
Casualties and losses
Coalition:
Dead: 3,486 (all causes)
2,807 (hostile causes)
(United States: 2,356, United Kingdom: 453, Canada: 158, France: 88, Germany: 57, Italy: 53, Others: 321)[13]
Wounded: 22,773 (United States: 19,950, United Kingdom: 2,188, Canada: 635)[14][15][16]
Contractors:
Dead: 1,582[17][18]
Wounded: 15,000+[17][18]
Afghan Security Forces:
16,013+ killed[19][20]
Afghan Northern Alliance:
200 killed[21][22][23][24]
Total killed: 20,743+
Is somebody using the #winning measure of success?
What was the tonnage of bombs dropped in Kosovo / numbers of sorties flown / extent of the air war to kill
QuoteFederal Republic of Yugoslavia 14 tanks destroyed[38]
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 18 APCs destroyed[39]
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 20 artillery pieces destroyed[39]
Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 22, 2015, 11:34:46 AM
What was the tonnage of bombs dropped in Kosovo / numbers of sorties flown / extent of the air war to kill
QuoteFederal Republic of Yugoslavia 14 tanks destroyed[38]
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 18 APCs destroyed[39]
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 20 artillery pieces destroyed[39]
Given the two extremes of air war vs ground war, what do you think is the max sorties, bombs per nato soldier life to spend? Personally I think a US citizen is worth a hell of a lot of jet fuel spent.
Of course there is some optimal combination of methods given achieving goals while countering enemy operations.
The point being that "modern warfare" is not "blow the shit out of things with airpower and send in the grunts to clean up the mess" because airpower BDA is consistently over-rated and over-stated.
More to the point, the strategic level is cost (not all monetary) to the country, to achieve an aim. What was the cost in world political power of a groung war like both Afghanistan wars USSR, modern, vietnam, current Ukraine cost for Russia, etc?
Despite the moaning of the press, Kosovo probably had a light prestige, political, economic cost to nato countries. The other wars have been devastating to national prestige, international cooperation, human suffering of winning troops, economic cost, etc.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 22, 2015, 03:03:44 PM
because airpower BDA is consistently over-rated and over-stated.
Not just a problem of modern warfare.
If you look at the " modern" hybrid war russia is using, a lot is intelligence operations, cyber, local political agitation, to soften areas before siezing security control of the area with troops. Other countries will respond to this breaking of international norms with the same.
At some point Russia will have to take more territory to win prestige at home or walk away in failure. They may bet that Ukraine will walk away in failure first. They will still have to deal with long term repercussions to interations with other nations. Trust is much faster lost than gained. In the long term the costs will far outweigh any benefit of territory to such a big nation.
In summary I dont really think a wargame that only deals with military matters is useful for understanding these situations. You far more need a political, economic and country simulation.
Excellent thread - would've made a great gametalk question. Here's what I'm thinking: in general, you are smarter than your average wargaming bear. I like to think that I'm well edumacated on most things military, but I admit lotsa ignorance about new and emerging OOB's, etc. So while I think I inherently understand that re-arranging type, size and availability of battlefield assets would have tremendous impact on the strategic side to how a set-piece force may respond to a threat, I really couldn't speak to what that re-org looks like vis-a-vis US, Russian, Chinese, Israeli, etc perspectives.
When it comes to game-play, these issues are relevant at certain levels (grand strategy); at another level (company, squad or mano-a-mano) they may be largely irrelevant. Means...if I am playing a game about theatre-wide conflict, and everytime I pull a Div out of reserve it has an impact on my nation's political will, then perhaps these questions are important. I say "perhaps" because I most often assume that wargames of every scale exist in a silo-ed vacuum where the realities of time, space, political, social and cultural reality are somewhat or absolutely abstract. So success is most often measured in units lost / ground gained / VP's earned, etc; diplomacy, domestic politics or socio-economic impact have little or no effect. So if I need to send 12 combat battalions into battle, does it really make I difference if I send 3 units of 4 battalions, or 4 of 3, or 2 of 6, or even 1 of 12? Only a few games (mostly large-scale computer stuff, like perhaps Civilization where democracies revolt if you send in to many units) bother to model this stuff. Most games - even the grand-strategic ones, just want you to blow sh*t up in some way shape or form.
So, perhaps the real issue is "at a certain level, in a certain kind of game, which certain kinds of mechanics and victory condition influences" these matters are important. But for my part, I tend to spend most of my gaming time down and dirty behind a barricade, rolling for hits with a Somali RPG team against a Blackhawk.
Yours in gaming,
Jack Nastyface
Personally, since I play mostly tactical stuff, I admit to general ignorance about these kinds of gaming concerns.
in the context of the original reply over on the other site, the discussion was around wargaming with the current / modern orders of battle for the US under the "BCT" organization that is currently in use.
several people replied that the OP should just "adapt" any of the myriad "Cold War" games and call it 'close enough'
My reply is that it is obviously not nearly 'close enough' given the evolution of warfare over 30+ years and that "modern"<>"modern"
So what gives you the heartburn? Are you thinking that the TO&E/ORBATS aren't being shown correctly? That the equipment evolution in their own time frames? The fact that the equipment has evolved over the years with new tactics and equipment levels all together?
Good Hunting.
MR
Trying to use a Cold War MTOE to 'approximate' a current US MTOE barely works for just swapping out tank platoons - 4 M1s then, 4 M1s now. But there's no recognition of the relative differences between those old 105mm M1 slicks from the 80s and the current 120mm M1A2 SEPs in their targeting, engagement capabilities (especially the TC's independent sight), or information sharing. There's no update to the kinds of information the BN scouts can provide - assuming the game ever portrays the scouts correctly (this has been a looooooooooong time heartburn for me and was discussed on at least one GrogCast). There's no update to the assets that have been pushed all the way down to BN / BDE level, such as the MI and EN COs that provide the brigade with an organic capability they used to have to ask the DIV for. Those MI COs have the UAVs, which are a HUGE recon advantage that Cold War-era brigades don't have. The changes in equipment in the MTR PLTs - much faster fire computers and larger calibers - are never reflected in the games because everyone just forgets that the mortars even exist.
The shoot-and-scoot capability of the M109A6s make a HUGE difference in survivability for the cannons that older M109s never had, but you've got to accurately portray their distribution and mobility on the map somehow.
We haven't even talked about Strykers yet.
Just swapping out 4-tank M1 platoons from today for aa 'comparable' counter from Assault is like trying to swap out a Korean-war era infantry platoon counter for one from Red Star White Star. They're both infantry, right? Hardly.
When you are discussing hard factors, thermal sights, 120mmSB vs 105mm rifled, those are things that can be shown in games pretty easily. The tank platoon with 4 tanks in it at any given time will be tremendously difficult to show the soft factors, such as the sharing of information, the TC's independent sight, etc. How do you propose that this be done?
Good Hunting.
MR