Author Topic: Why the Pentagon Should Use Command Ops  (Read 2697 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DicedT

  • Viking
  • ****
  • Posts: 445


Offline jomni

  • Crossbowman
  • *
  • Posts: 5105
Re: Why the Pentagon Should Use Command Ops
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2012, 08:52:08 AM »
Modern Wars aren't fought like WWII anymore.

Offline DicedT

  • Viking
  • ****
  • Posts: 445
Re: Why the Pentagon Should Use Command Ops
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2012, 09:48:42 AM »
Nothing to do with fighting modern wars. It's about TRAINING to fight for modern wars, which means a computer simulation with a good AI and interface.

Command Ops could be adapted to simulate 21st Century warfare. Think about it. Despite the technological changes between 1944 and 2012, armies - even the U.S. - still have issues with command and control. Orders are delayed. Subordinate commanders don't always do what they're supposed to. These are all factors that Command Ops simulates well, and they're just as valid now as they were then.

Michael


Offline ArizonaTank

  • Man-at-Arms
  • *****
  • Posts: 1087
Re: Why the Pentagon Should Use Command Ops
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2012, 12:09:38 PM »
Nothing to do with fighting modern wars. It's about TRAINING to fight for modern wars, which means a computer simulation with a good AI and interface.

Command Ops could be adapted to simulate 21st Century warfare. Think about it. Despite the technological changes between 1944 and 2012, armies - even the U.S. - still have issues with command and control. Orders are delayed. Subordinate commanders don't always do what they're supposed to. These are all factors that Command Ops simulates well, and they're just as valid now as they were then.

Michael

Having played and seen a few "Pentagon" wargames myself, I think the point of the article is that Command Ops comes very close to the layout, methodology and feel of the "professional" games.  I don't think the author is suggesting that Command Ops actually be used.  The battlefield has progressed so far in the last 70 years that only the general flow of combat, and the use of combined arms is the same.  It would be like WWII officers using a wargame of the Franco-Prussian War to learn from.

The closest commercial game to a professional one that I have seen was Patriot by Three-sizty Pacific; although not very fun as a game.   HPS Simulations sells a game called Decisive Action, that looks to have it all, and talks the talk as far a professional military pedegree is concerned, but I have not played it yet.  Honorable mention would go to Air Assault Task Force by Shrapnel games, that I have played.
"Outlined against a blue-gray October sky, the Four Horsemen rode again. In dramatic lore they are known as Famine, Pestilence, Destruction and Death. These are only aliases. Their real names are Stuhldreher, Miller, Crowley and Layden."   Grantland Rice, New York Herald Tribune, October 18th, 1924. 

Notre Dame wins at Army, 13 - 7, Oct. 18, 1924

Notre Dame undefeated 1924
Coach: Knute Rockne

Offline DicedT

  • Viking
  • ****
  • Posts: 445
Re: Why the Pentagon Should Use Command Ops
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2012, 12:40:47 PM »
ArizonaTank summed it up perfectly. The problem with a lot of the military's own computer sims (I'm talking about the higher-level, 2-D designs) is that they're ugly, or fiddly, or require humans to control the OPFOR because the AI is too dumb. What's unique about Command Ops is that it captures the feel of real military simulations, and does it in a playable and reasonably attractive format. It's too bad the U.S. military has turned it down. I think taxpayers would be getting a lot more bang for the buck out of Command Ops than some of the other mil sims I've seen.

Michael

Offline bayonetbrant

  • Chief Arrogance Mitigator
  • Administrator
  • Musketeer
  • *
  • Posts: 32969
  • Loitering With Intent
Re: Why the Pentagon Should Use Command Ops
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2012, 12:49:00 PM »
Orders are delayed. Subordinate commanders don't always do what they're supposed to.

Oh c'mon Mike!  You know our subordinates are the perfect soldiers who never have morale problems, always follow orders exactly, never mess up the graphics on their maps, or get lost, or lose radio contact, or... or... or...


It's too bad the U.S. military has turned it down. I think taxpayers would be getting a lot more bang for the buck out of Command Ops than some of the other mil sims I've seen.

Hey, if it's not a 3D FPS in real-time, then TCM-Gaming doesn't want to waste their time on it.  After all, they're the "experts" right?  I mean, they wouldn't have been assigned to TCM-Gaming if they didn't have all the answers, so how dare we question the judgment of using VBS2 to train company commanders while 80-odd other guys play along for the training value of one captain?
The key to surviving this site is to not say something which ends up as someone's tag line - Steelgrave

"their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights'...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure." Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Offline DicedT

  • Viking
  • ****
  • Posts: 445
Re: Why the Pentagon Should Use Command Ops
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2012, 01:23:27 PM »
U.S. military gaming is run by people who don't like games. Does this happen in other areas? Is the 82nd Airborne run by people who don't like jumping out of airplanes? Is the Armor Corps run by people who don't like tanks?

Michael

Offline James Sterrett

  • Order of the Square Button
  • Equites
  • *
  • Posts: 235
Re: Why the Pentagon Should Use Command Ops
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2012, 06:34:54 PM »
I work on the simulations division of the Army's Command & General Staff College, and we have been trying since 2004 to get money spent to turn Panther's game engine into a modern-era engine for our use.  We've repeatedly shown it to tactics instructors who respond that they would *love*  to have that modern-era version in use in their classrooms in order to educate our officers better.  "Other agencies" such as those Mike refers to have at times been instrumental in blocking that effort (sometimes the trouble's been closer to home).  Now budget cuts are a killer as well.  Who, me, bitter?  Well....    Yes.