KG_Jag
05-30-2007, 01:22 PM
This one addresses unconventional, asymmetrical warfare [sigh!] covered in the first game to be released using the CM x 2 engine. Here is the first part of the entry (I need to put it in two posts because of the number of pictures):
Posted by: Battlefront .com5/30/2007Even though Combat Mission Shock Force is focussing on a future hypothetical conventional war, it would not be complete without the inclusion of some basic elements of unconventional warfare. It is an unfortunate fact that the lines between conventional and unconventional warfare are blurring today. Partly due to the strength of the western forces in the area of conventional warfare, unconventional methods are more and more the big equalizer for the opposing force.
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED01.jpg
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED02.jpg
As game designers the challenge for us is to add the various elements of unconventional warfare, such as IEDs (improvised explosive devices) or spies, in a realistic way, while preventing them from unbalancing the rest of the simulation. The imbalance could swing either way – if not powerful enough, unconventional elements might be a mere nuisance, only adding micromanagement for both players without any real purpose. If too powerful, players might be tempted to overuse unconventional tactics, thus pushing the limits on what the game is designed to simulate. And that is a conventional warfare setting with an unconventional component, not the other way around.
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED03.jpg
One of the strengths of unconventional fighters (Uncon for short) is that they blend with the noncombatants and choose where and when to fight deliberately. This creates a problem for us, as designers, since a direct simulation would require us simulating such things as cultural habits, economic activity, traffic, daily civilian activities, thousands of autonomous “entities” (i.e. people), etc. You don’t have to be a game designer to see that this is actually more work than the military side of the simulation! Even then - due to the vary nature of playing a wargame scenario players will tend to be much more suspicious than in real life, making it unrealistically difficult for Uncons to blend with the crowd; while at the same time the repercussions for unrealistic actions (such as shooting civilians on mere suspicion) cannot be enforced in a realistic way in a game.
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED04.jpg
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED05.jpg
The solution we came up with simulates unconventional warfare in a highly abstracted way. Civilians are not represented at all in any direct sense, removing all the years of work it would take to simulate them. Instead, unconventional units are simply hidden from the US player until his units have reason to “suspect” there is a hostile unit, at which point it is spotted and targetable. In game terms, some units have a “stealth rating” that other units lack.
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED06.jpg
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED07.jpg
There are five basic types of Uncons in the game: transports (civilian vehicles used as transport), Technicals (civilian vehicles with mounted heavy weapons), Fighters (mercenaries and guerrilla soldiers), Combatants (ad hoc civilians picking up a weapon) and Specialists. Out of those, only Specialists (Spies, IEDs, and VIEDs) are “stealthy”. All of the others are not attempting to remain hidden, since they carry visible weapons and/or unitforms or special clothing, and for them the normal spotting rules apply.
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED08.jpg
Spies are unarmed informants. They have no weapons and their sole purpose is to be the “eyes and ears” for the Syrian player. IEDs are stationary roadside bombs, varying in both size and type (wire, radio, cell phone), which are detonated by an armed Uncon triggerman. VIEDs are cars packed with explosives, driven by a suicide bomber and usually accompanied by a spy directing the driver and designating targets.
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED09.jpg
The “stealth” rules apply to all Specialists except for the triggermen, who are armed. By default, Specialists are invisible to the US side at the beginning of a mission. This has nothing to do with line of sight calculations. The Specialist unit could be in plain view of US forces, and would still be invisible to the US player. For them to get spotted a Specialist must do something “suspicious”.
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED10.jpg
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED11.jpg
The Syrian player is able to move Specialists as he would any other units, though what is done, how, and where has a direct impact on the “stealth” of the Uncon unit. Think of it this way… as a soldier, would you be suspicious of a civilian crawling behind a wall? How about a taxi driving through the open desert towards your positions? Units engaging in questionable behaviour like this are more likely to be spotted than if they were doing something less suspicious. For example, walking down a road in plain sight would be the most normal thing in the world, and would therefore not lead to a stealth reduction. A car driving along a road at a normal speed would not generally be seen as a threat. However, the closer the Specialists get to US forces, the less likely they will remain hidden. This is a conventional war setting, so any civilians approaching military units would be viewed with heightened suspicion.
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/VIED1.jpg
Here's the link:
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/Blogfront/tabid/55/EntryID/81/Default.aspx
Posted by: Battlefront .com5/30/2007Even though Combat Mission Shock Force is focussing on a future hypothetical conventional war, it would not be complete without the inclusion of some basic elements of unconventional warfare. It is an unfortunate fact that the lines between conventional and unconventional warfare are blurring today. Partly due to the strength of the western forces in the area of conventional warfare, unconventional methods are more and more the big equalizer for the opposing force.
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED01.jpg
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED02.jpg
As game designers the challenge for us is to add the various elements of unconventional warfare, such as IEDs (improvised explosive devices) or spies, in a realistic way, while preventing them from unbalancing the rest of the simulation. The imbalance could swing either way – if not powerful enough, unconventional elements might be a mere nuisance, only adding micromanagement for both players without any real purpose. If too powerful, players might be tempted to overuse unconventional tactics, thus pushing the limits on what the game is designed to simulate. And that is a conventional warfare setting with an unconventional component, not the other way around.
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED03.jpg
One of the strengths of unconventional fighters (Uncon for short) is that they blend with the noncombatants and choose where and when to fight deliberately. This creates a problem for us, as designers, since a direct simulation would require us simulating such things as cultural habits, economic activity, traffic, daily civilian activities, thousands of autonomous “entities” (i.e. people), etc. You don’t have to be a game designer to see that this is actually more work than the military side of the simulation! Even then - due to the vary nature of playing a wargame scenario players will tend to be much more suspicious than in real life, making it unrealistically difficult for Uncons to blend with the crowd; while at the same time the repercussions for unrealistic actions (such as shooting civilians on mere suspicion) cannot be enforced in a realistic way in a game.
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED04.jpg
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED05.jpg
The solution we came up with simulates unconventional warfare in a highly abstracted way. Civilians are not represented at all in any direct sense, removing all the years of work it would take to simulate them. Instead, unconventional units are simply hidden from the US player until his units have reason to “suspect” there is a hostile unit, at which point it is spotted and targetable. In game terms, some units have a “stealth rating” that other units lack.
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED06.jpg
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED07.jpg
There are five basic types of Uncons in the game: transports (civilian vehicles used as transport), Technicals (civilian vehicles with mounted heavy weapons), Fighters (mercenaries and guerrilla soldiers), Combatants (ad hoc civilians picking up a weapon) and Specialists. Out of those, only Specialists (Spies, IEDs, and VIEDs) are “stealthy”. All of the others are not attempting to remain hidden, since they carry visible weapons and/or unitforms or special clothing, and for them the normal spotting rules apply.
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED08.jpg
Spies are unarmed informants. They have no weapons and their sole purpose is to be the “eyes and ears” for the Syrian player. IEDs are stationary roadside bombs, varying in both size and type (wire, radio, cell phone), which are detonated by an armed Uncon triggerman. VIEDs are cars packed with explosives, driven by a suicide bomber and usually accompanied by a spy directing the driver and designating targets.
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED09.jpg
The “stealth” rules apply to all Specialists except for the triggermen, who are armed. By default, Specialists are invisible to the US side at the beginning of a mission. This has nothing to do with line of sight calculations. The Specialist unit could be in plain view of US forces, and would still be invisible to the US player. For them to get spotted a Specialist must do something “suspicious”.
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED10.jpg
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/IED11.jpg
The Syrian player is able to move Specialists as he would any other units, though what is done, how, and where has a direct impact on the “stealth” of the Uncon unit. Think of it this way… as a soldier, would you be suspicious of a civilian crawling behind a wall? How about a taxi driving through the open desert towards your positions? Units engaging in questionable behaviour like this are more likely to be spotted than if they were doing something less suspicious. For example, walking down a road in plain sight would be the most normal thing in the world, and would therefore not lead to a stealth reduction. A car driving along a road at a normal speed would not generally be seen as a threat. However, the closer the Specialists get to US forces, the less likely they will remain hidden. This is a conventional war setting, so any civilians approaching military units would be viewed with heightened suspicion.
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/portals/0/IED/VIED1.jpg
Here's the link:
http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/Blogfront/tabid/55/EntryID/81/Default.aspx