I am looking for a game who would have the hardware, troops and terrain graphics definition of CMBN, TOW2, CMRT, Panzer Command and Close Combat with maps big enough to practice MW.

Arma, IF44, SBProPE do not cut it for that type of fundamental combined arm tactics, as I experienced in the past.

Games like Command OPS: Battles from the bulge, Highway to the Reich and Battles for Greece, are great but the graphic definition was mediocre.

Anyone has any ideas?...

I'm not aware of any of the fidelity of CM style games with twice the scope. Once you get to that size it's not very effective to graphically represent everything.

Short of Steel Beasts I'm afraid I don't know

I have been looking for a true combined arms simulation for a long time myself.
SB meets most of your criteria big maps, hardware but lacks CAS. (with the exception of gunships)
Its a while away but SB is due a big upgrade/update sometime next year.
Esim are the opposite of DCS who tend to give to much information to early,
With esim you mite get the odd snippet of information. But wont get the full content to near its release date.
But I have a gut feeling combined arms is going to be given a major upgrade in the next release.

Speaking of DCS, why not Combined Arms? Heck, it was on sale for only $6 the other day which is a complete steal for what you get.

What's your main point of contention?

Thank you Marko. I need maps big enough to have surfaces and gaps. The only games I haven't tried so far are "Combat mission Afghanistan" and "Combat mission black sea" and HPS "Decisive Action" and "Point of Attack-2".

@Toonces: DCS does not work for what I am looking for. I had DCS for years and was never satisfied.

Ssnake,

I don't have a point of disagreement.

I am looking for something very specific that deals within the core of MW. I actually think we had a conversation(exchanging e-mail) one year ago regarding maps and missions for SBproPE and different type of licenses, which overlapped on that subject. I even supplied samples of maps that were confused for US Army magazine vignettes.

I am still looking for the same thing.

I have many email conversations, impossible to remember them all. Anyway, I wasn't so much after "agreement" or "disagreement" about a specific simulation. It's that I might not yet understand what it is that you're looking for. Maybe what you want doesn't exist, but for a qualified statement I first need to understand what the perceived deficits of the simulations are that you mentioned.
What's the tactical (operational?) scope of the combat action that you want to simulate. What terrain size do you expect. Is everything to be handled by a single person. Real-time, or faster than that, or turn based? Desired level of fidelity for simulation results (procedures, too?).

Maybe Battle Command. You'd have to push someone for more scenarios though. It's an impressive engine but needs more scenarios at this point. Actual terrain and LOS data puts it closer to CM and SBproPE than the hex-based wargames.

As far as simulating the OODA loop I think Flashpoint: Red Storm is impressive. Your turn resolution varies with external factors like EW, command unit readiness, range and availability etc. Basically, all other things remaining the same, the more you're getting hammered, the longer you have to wait until you can give new orders and the longer it will take for your orders to get out to the troops.

Nothing graphically impressive, but 'hammering' troops - and striking rear echelon units - has a tangible operational payoff beyond mere attrition.


Also, Graviteam Tactics games (like Operation Star) are similar to CM in mechanics but what I've seen was on a much larger scale. Maps were absolutely huge. I was kind of overwhelmed though, frankly, and didn't dive in.

Ssnake,

What I want exist but at such levels of complexity and real technology that a market does not exist, outside certain training circles of the DOD.

However, at a WWII level of complexity and technology it might. I won't tell you what I don't want, but tell you what I am looking for:

I want to be able to practice Flaechen & Luenkentaktik (fluids surfaces and gaps).
I want to be able to practice Auftragstaktic (Mission Tactics). You know the anecdote from Prince Frederick Charles: "The King made you a major because he thought you were smart enough to know when not to obey orders".
I want to // // // Scwherpunkt (a main effort).
I want // // // // Angrieffsziel (The aiming point, physical end towards which the efforts are directed). Important concept especially when the enemy is mobile.
I // // // // the concept of reserve (1/3, 2/3).
I // // // // the concept of "Timing": duration, velocity, frequency, sequencing, delaying, surprising.

Then a game where responsibility is rewarded, not accountability.

Finally, no restraint to movement.

Possibility to inspect the terrain myself, hence the need of a good graphic definition.

The concept is WWII MW at a Regimental level, Colonel or Brigadier General with a STAFF. Alone with AI against another player with AI staff, or against AI, or with a staff of player against another player and his staff of players.

Turn based would be fine.

Finally a map size: a third of France would do, especially the North, North-Western part see map attached, roughly 500 miles over 500 miles. Besides, France is not a classified territory.

So if you have any ideas, they are welcomed, even if their scope is smaller than what I am looking for.

Map links:

Download link: http://www.4shared.com/photo/RKzlknlcba/ALLIED_INVASION_and_GERMAN_DIS.html

Direct link: http://www.4shared.com/download/RKzlknlcba/ALLIED_INVASION_and_GERMAN_DIS.bmp?lgfp=3000

Amaroq,

You have great ideas. I will inspect those games and in some cases re-inspect them, as new ideas came up reading your post.

Thank you

Let us know what you conclude. Looking at that map you linked I'm inclined to say only C:MANO offers the combination of huge geographical scale and high tactical resolution, but in CMANO you'd be running the land warfare aspect at a relatively high level of abstraction. Land units are classed as 'facilities' and move like ships. They do seem to take terrain into account for movement speed, but that's about it.

Depending on what you're after that may be enough though. It's funny actually how CMANO would probably need just a little nudge to become a pretty crazy 'General Warfare' sim.

Well, I have CMANO since their inception, and it did not really do it for me in asw.

I am interested by your description of Flashpoint: Red Storm, taking place in Germany in the 80's.

Then I am thinking about revisiting Achtung Panzer Kharkov 1943 and Operation Star. And I am also waiting for Ssnake input.

Do you have any insight on CM Black Sea?

Finding this post very interesting Gunnyhighway.
How knowledgeable are you with the SB map/mission editor I would say its possible to create what your looking for using both.
As for cold war era AFV's I think it would be hard to beat SB. its a dam shame you don't have access to the military version of SB The Maps are huge so I am told.

Thank you Marko.

That was one of the subject brought up a year ago in the conversation with Ssnake, but to no avail.

The pedestrian version map/mission editor does not allow to create terrain. I would have to ask a third person to design for me something I could do myself at lower cost. Areas of the world that I covered on foot or bicycle and that I remember so well. It is kept under tight control.

I am still looking for alternatives.

Panzer Corps or Unity of Command?

Not much in-depth, but it's pretty much a brushed-up CMSF (I mean that in a good way). Maps can get big but not big enough for what you're after IMO. Combined arms yes, but not really maneuver warfare. I mean, the key concepts are there, but the scale is probably on the small side.

Generally I'd say the concept of 'victory points' for geographical areas can be detrimental to the more fluid and relative viewpoint of meneuver warfare as I understand it. Depending on where the enemy goes, certain areas would become more or less valuable. E.g. if the enemy is hunkered down in a town, securing his resupply axis is much more valuable than if he has retreated from the town, at which point that resupply axis is just another piece of land.

Thanks Amaroq.

I really appreciate in the dialog, your understanding of the maneuver warfare dimension.

That is a rare commodity those days.

Apocalypse 31,

I liked Panzer corps or more accurately Panzer General when it came out some 10 years ago. It was a nice surprise at the time for PC gamers. Its successor does not do it for me today.

Unity of Command, was able to illustrate one of the many problems the Germans encountered in Russia, which was the difficulty to secure abundant communication lines, especially since they did not secure the support of the civilian population everywhere and for very long. It also does illustrate the importance of timing in combat. It does not explain the reasons why it is so important to secure that time dimension, but it does it anyhow. The combination of those two factors in an indie game was a surprise. It is also a pleasant introduction to gamers whishing to enlarge the scope of their historical perception of a conflict.

But it still does not do it for me.

Highway,

I am interested in the same sorts of things. I have been experimenting with ArmA2's & Iron Front's high command system, with my own personal tweaks ( as well as the Nice Boat Tank Damage System http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?84673-Nice_Boat-Tank-Damage-System ) that far increases the realism of the stock armour, even if it is still not at Steel Beasts standards. In the case of ArmA2, I have made a more or less useable US Army Combined Arms Battalion, while for Iron Front, I have been making rather more rag-tag German Kampfgruppen and Soviet units of varying strength. I have also made a command camera that sort of works.



I have tried to implement everything from company team formations to my own supporting fires systems to things that just make the stock HC system more useable and flexible.

Finally, I have found a rather limited but interesting command sim called March to Baghdad: Decision at Talil Air Base. It's free!

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/marchtobaghdad

It's based on the Air Assault Task Force engine, and should be good for a few play throughs at least.

Its a shame that BI never fixed the HC system, or expanded on it.

Unfortunately, I find ArmA too frustrating to play as an RTS - I wish they would do more to shape it as an RTS.

Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising has a much better HC system.

Are you talking about ArmA3 in ZEUS mode or that ArmA2 RTS mod? ZEUS isn't too shabby considering the complexity of the engine IMO. And they just kind of threw that in

No, I was referring to using HC mode to control units.

That is interesting JMcK-S.

Thank you for the address, I downloaded it and will try it.

I forgot about "Schrapnels", good reminder.

Nice Insert!

Amaroq,

With the possibility to observe the battlefield due to the adjunction of google earth by matrix, this game starts to really interest me. I actually just bought it.

The review from Armchair-General is not bad either.

Wow, I didn't see that. That is really cool.

It's here, for anybody interested:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3441322

Hope you like the game. I'm not really into hex gaming otherwise, I find it too far removed somehow, like chess. But FPRS has an immediacy to it and does enough micromanaging on it's own.

I've been looking at TOAW3 too but then I read in the manual to remember to move your units off frozen lakes and rivers before spring comes or you might lose them when the ice melts... Not the kind of challenge I'm looking for.

Amaroq,

That sounds very realistic.

I read that a Kommandir Tanka ask his driver to put the gear in neutral as their KV-1 was breaking the ice of a lake right before jumping out. The next day the crew came back with another tank and a new battery and towed the KV out of the lake and used it 6 hours later. Only in Russia in WWII!...

Source: Krysov Vasiliy. Panzer Destroyer : Memoirs of a Red Army Tank Commander."Samokhodki ѵ boyu: Batareya, ogon!" Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military Book Ltd. 2010. ISBN 978-1-84415-595-12.

So what game do you play right now?...You seem to be on the sharp edge of Pro-Mil-Sim.

Gunny,

I'm sorry to say that I don't think the game (an operational level wargame) you're looking for exists - or if it does, it's old and hex based. I'd like a game in that vein too, hexless at the brigade to corps level. I think the only thing that may have come close is one of the most famous vaporware wargames of all time - Road to Moscow.

http://spong.com/game/screens/11014997/Road-to-Moscow-PC/8592

Absolutely realistic, but not what I want to be bothered with as a theater commander. If the guy gets himself stuck on an ice floe, he better not try to cast it as my fault. Actually, he'd better show up with a tow-cable and fix it before I even hear about it.


Nah, I'm really just getting into this level of abstraction. I have little 'leisure time' these days and I'm usually pretty mentally exhausted by the time I get home so I like something that's not as frantic as the sims I used to play but still grips me like, say, ArmA3. I need entertainment value and tactical challenge even if I end up always losing (as I often do). So far I've been rather disappointed with what I found, at least outside of the WW2 sim genre, which is just not my thing.

SBproPE has been hard to beat, overall. Flashpoint: Red Storm really clicked too. Battle Command should be great when they add the AI but right now you need to play against a human opponent for a challenge and I don't have time for that. I'm loving Combat Mission Black Sea overall but it's a bit of a chore to micromanage all those units in bigger scenarios.

One sim I've been trying to figure out is Point of Attack 2. It's old but I remember it was buggy when it came out. The bugs have apparently been ironed out, but there's not much info out there and I kind of dropped my blind-purchase card on Battle Command already.

Helfish6,

The "Road to Moscow" game from vaporware seems to have been canceled of difficult or close to impossible to find, it is from 1999.

There is another game called "Frontline : Road to Moscow" that seems as per the posts I have read in Matrix forum, like a game rewarding by-passing strong points labeled as secondary objectives. Very much on sync with maneuver warfare. Yet on another hand it seems to be a basic game @ $9.99 for beginners.

How can you have a copy of the 1999 "Road to Moscow"?

No, "vaporware" means it was never actually released. It's my Holy Grail of gaming, which means I'll probably never see a game like it.

lol!...Roger that!

Actually you can find it on HPS games and it is POA 2.5 now.

I am getting into it to check the limits.

http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/Products/POA2/POA2b.html

However, if you like casual, it might feels like working a full time job in the beginning!...

I didn't see these mentioned but may be worthy of your intended goals of maneuver.... though a more simplified game style.

http://www.johntillersoftware.com/ModernCampaigns.html

Wow! I totally forgot all about that title. Please provide some feedback on what you think of this. I like the more advanced weaponry it offers.

Yeah, I bought it yesterday right after I posted, lol. I'd been following it for a long time after it came out but initial reports were kind of negative so I held back. Now it seems patched up and working fine but there's no info beyond the rather sparse description on the website. No videos, no AARs, nothing to show how all that modelling and data it obviously contains actually plays out and the one forum I found gave a new meaning to 'low activity'.

Back when it first came out it sounded like there was so much modelled that a lot of people were getting a sort of 'butterfly effect', where things they didn't know were even there were influencing gameplay and creating frustrating experiences. I played the tutorial last night and find it actually pretty accessible so far. I did get my HQ tanks inexplicably constantly firing on their own advancing subordinate platoons though. Not sure what was up with that.

I'd be interested to hear what you think. Without doubt it has great technical depth.

Strykerpsg,

John Tyler have been around for a long time. I played some of his games like "Eagle Strike", "The Proud and The Few" which are in the squad battle series and others in the Panzer battle series. They are all hexes based. I have a hard time making them work on my win 7 64bit. They worked fine on Win98.

I'll have to try the more recent ones, conceived for more up to date O/S

Amaroq,

Right now I am battling windows that don't close and freeze the operation of the game. It is frustrating. I placed a support call.

Again, it might have to do with the way the upgrade overrun existing files and my operating system, that might not play well with the intended operating system of the game.

Some of those games, make a lot of sense to me, yet they were conceived for win98 up to XP and I run a Win7 64 bit.

Yeah... I'm on windows 8 and it runs ok mostly, but it hangs when I scroll to scenario 11 in the load menu. Don't know what the issue is. I'm also not getting a 'Current Location Window' in game for some reason. If I use the keyboard shortcut it flashes briefly but disappears. Otherwise it's just not there. Those are the only two real issues so far though.

Also, the fully zoomed out view is obviously designed for ancient hardware. The map typically only occupies about 15% of my 1920x1080 screen and is barely usable which leaves you with two usable zoom levels. I'm sure it looked great on a VGA monitor though...




Another thing... I couln't find any third party scenarios and the game only includes twelve. Anybody know where to find some more?

Definitely needs more of this :



Battle Commands needs that AI they're working on though, so there are no perfect solutions at this point, but I'm confident BC will get there sooner rather than later, while POA2 doesn't look like we should expect much beyond what it is now...

The US Army?

Yeah.. . 12 scenarios after about as many years is quite a feat. The fact that you have to buy the map editor from hps for another 30 bucks may have been a factor. Not a very smart move when you're not planning on providing much content yourself...

Odd, with all the attention to detail under the hood you'd think this would have been the goto land combat wargame of the last decade. If this wasn't, what was?

What I understood, is that we are playing the civy version. There is a military one and if you prove them that you belong to US DoD, you might have access to more.

Also you can contact their support and ask for more scenarios, as they might direct you to more.

I solve my window problem, so I will be able to experience the beast.

lol!...That looks a little more professional I'd say!

Not too impressed by POA2 so far honestly. The smaller scenarios I've looked at were on the simplistic side (three technicals attack an airfield... I hosed them with the .50s and that was that I guess). A lot of this (most?) could probably be simulated better in Combat Mission or Steel Beasts Pro PE nowdays.

It's also really slow going, even on today's computers. I feel for the guys that tried this 10 years ago.

I'll try it some more tomorrow.

Between the post of James McKenzie-Smith and Apocalypse31, I was reminded that VBS2 and VBS3 might do a better HC job that their commercial counterpart Arma 2 and 3. I'll have to visit that possibility too.

Possibly, but I doubt any improvements are worth the price of admission. ArmA3 is moving ahead in leaps and bounds right now. Not sure about VBS.

Honestly, considering the interface, control and simulation limitations one is willing to put up with for older titles like POA2 - it would only be fair to apply similar latitude to other titles. One tends to judge something more harshly when it is almost there but not quite than when it has very obvious shortcomings that most likely won't be addressed.

E.g., as I said, I haven't seen anything so far in POA2 that I didn't feel could be simulated more realistically and especially more fluidly in CMBS or SBproPE. There's something odd about simulating individual two round bursts of .50cal but to only use a terrain tile approximation of the fact that the target might be in a building. Or having to do your own fiddling to find LOS to the target. In ArmA3 or SBproPE, a courtyard wall is a courtyard wall. Hull down is hull down (CM still can't do that on its own due to engine limitations). You say 'move to contact' and the unit will, and then look for suitable cover on its own. In POA2, the technical and eight infantry (with an RPG, no less) hiding in the residential area was just a matter of rolling the die often enough. They were at a huge tactical advantage but it didn't play out, I assume because that tactical advantage was only approximated.

So far in my shortlist it's Steel Beasts Pro PE, Combat Mission Shock Force and (especially) Black Sea, Flashpoint: Red Storm, ArmA3, Battle Command (within its current limitations of no maneuver AI), CMANO (within the scope of its simulation). They all have their shortcomings but usually still manage to suspend my disbelief for the full duration of a game.

I already swallowed the cost of VBS2 and 3 a while ago, so it would be sad if I would not try. I have huge maps for VBS2.

I agree with you about the dynamic of failing close to the goal. It represents such a frustration that people will judge that action more severely and provides lengthy comments about it, hoping the developers to read the comments and adjust.

I will also try Arma3 in that perspective.

I saw the AAR in SimHQ for the first mission of CMBS, and I felt it was a corridor fight. The player did not have a choice. The comments from that player were that he did not even know he was fighting a recon unit. There is no choice for pitting force against force or force against weakness. I did not see surfaces and gaps, mission tactics; it was not even a main effort that the player could have chosen. It did not feel like MW to me.

Let me give you a classic example of a mission tactics: A senior commander wants to get his units across a bridge. And issue a mission order to a junior: your role is to find the nearest bridge and secure it. The junior get to the nearest bridge site to find out the bridge is destroyed. The junior does not wait, does not stop, does not cry on the horn, but keeps moving and find the nearest ford. Inform briefly the senior he found the ford and starts to secure it. He secures it by surveying the vicinity, visit a farm at 5km where enemy observers could be observing and neutralize them, he keeps reckoning and find a truck park that he destroys, find an artillery site 20 km away that he destroys. The tempo is kept high, communication to a minimum, no micromanagement from above, the ford is secured, and then the junior reports briefly to the senior.

In a game, you would have arrows, labels for primary objectives, secondary objectives, etc, etc and a corridor so you would not get lost. That would not be simulation of MW but pre-chewed baby food. I could understand that first missions orders could be obviously explained so the player would get the concept. Then the future missions as the player evolve in the game, would be like verbal orders. The players would have to exercise initiative and responsibility instead of accountability. The rules and the flexibility, adaptability are in the training the officers received, not physical limitations imposed by a developer to simulate an exercise at the shooting range.

So what would allow that dynamic?...VBS/Arma2,3 with big maps. SBproPE, maybe and I'll have to try again. Flashpoint: Red Storm, don't know it well enough, but what I have seen so far is encouraging. Battle Command I have to get into it to know, and I will .

PS: Battle Command seems to be a MP game instead of a single mission game. When I know it well enough, we could confront our perspectives.

I'm totally with you on that and it's exactly what I've been looking for as well. Hence my critique of a simplistic 'victory points' scoring. It creates a sort of 'touchdown'-mentality that is just wrong.

I'm not sure about CMBS. The smaller maps can indeed be rigid, but the larger ones are pretty flexible. I haven't played it much yet, but there's a 'Defense in Depth' scenario (Hold the Line) that played out very realistically, defense in depth being basically the flipside of MW, I'm sure there are matching MW scenario somewhere. IIRC, CMBS does a similar 'victory extrapolation' calculation to FP:RS, not requiring you to physically sit on every victory zone to claim it.

One thing I've found with the CM series is that the turn-based mode seems to (at least with me) enforce a sort of chess mentality of cautious, well-reasoned little steps. For CMBS now I switched to real-time (and pausing the game to give more complex orders) and I find myself reacting more sloppily but also more flexibly and dynamically. The overall gameplay experience feels more immediate to me that way and I'm more inclined to exploit an opportunity rather than consolidate, consolidate, consolidate. Sometimes it's how you play it, not what you play.

VBS 3 Personal Edition is free for current owners of VBS 2 PE.

Kramer,

Hahaha!...Nice try!

But I had to buy VBS2.

So the cost without an "S" for both was paid by me a while ago!...

I agree with you about the touch down mentality. It is widely understood by the public at large because every kid played and understood tactical team-games such as (in Europe) Rugby and (in the US) Football. In one hand, there is less to clarify by gaming companies. Besides, history books debate endlessly about attrition warfare, because this has been for the most part of our history our way of waging wars. MW is not new, but remains the exception: Leuctra in 371 BC, Cannae in 216 BC. In the American Civil war with Chattanooga, Vicksburg, the Jackson's valley campaign; Stormtroop tactics in 1918; WWII Blitzkrieg then the Yom Kippur War in 73. In the other hand, war of attrition is very costly to both sides.

Regarding CMBS, I am going to have to bite the bullet and buy CMBS to experience it. They might start to satisfy both Attritionist and Maneuverist.

What you describe in your approach is the Observe Orient Decide Act loop, which generate flexibility and fast adaptability. True it is how you play, and how you play is how you think or how you were trained to think, because Human beings don't do what they don't know, they just do what they know!.

I was looking at the AAR in the After Action Report of SimHQ, and watched some video of deployment with SBproPE in accelerated time, and it is how it is played:

D/L link: http://www.4shared.com/video/fD6xICX3ce/Post40678352.html

Direct Link: http://www.4shared.com/download/fD6xICX3ce/Post40678352.mp4?lgfp=3000

Look at how the reds and the blue moves. Because it is accelerated, it is easy to catch.

Much - if not all - of what you describe would be possible with SB Pro PE. I was under the impression though that you wanted to go beyond the realm of tactics and rather dabble at the operational level, something that SB Pro cannot deliver (at least not without relying on a large number of players (100+) in a multi-day session). If you were happy to segmentize your operation into vignette style individual missions, I suppose that SB Pro could make you happy. Heck, you can even link them to mission trees in an "Operations" state machine. It's not perfect yet, but it's a start.

I fully concur with the mentioned "touch-down" mentality. We added scoring to SB Pro PE's mission editor because many people simply expect this kind of feedback, but it's completely optional. Leave it, if you think that it is detrimental to the learning effect (I mean, in real life there is no "mission complete" message magically appearing in your view (and if it does, consider a case of schizophrenia or other form of hallucination). Sometimes you don't know if you "won", or what looked like a win turns out to be the seed of defeat in hindsight. Typically however you just know that you accomplished your goals by looking at the situation, so you can just as well quit all by yourself.

When we started the development of Steel Beasts we considered an "ultra-realism mode" where as a sentry post you might have to scan some landscape the entire night without anything of relevance happening. But that doesn't make for good entertainment value, and it's also not a very good learning experience. At best, it "builds character" (the universal codeword for anything that is decidedly un-fun, painful, or otherwise ungratifying).

In SB Pro you could very well seed the entire landscape with all kinds of enemy units that simply follow their own mission with no regard to the player's actions, and then simply let the player loose to find his way through all this. The problem with that approach is of course that there is non guarantee that they player can succeed at all (there's none in real combat either) and that it probably involves long stretches of the player sitting still and observing the area which CAN be suspenseful but usually is considered boring by most people.
Some o our users have been saying that SB Pro gives back whatever you invest into it. The more you look at what the mission editor can do, the more you'll find how flexible it is and that with a bit of creativity you can accomplish a lot more than what one might initially expect. That's not to say that SB Pro can do everything; there's no real first person shooter mode and in its current form low level infantry action is probably still lacking. There are clearly better solutions for that. But you can easily suspend yourself from crew positions in the vehicles at all and rather lead your forces from the map, or from the platoon leader's unbuttoned perspective at most. Of course this all is closer to the platoon and company level than to battalion/brigade level action (well, if you want the entirety of northern France in a single map and mission we're already at corps level; a fascinating area of its own, but your chosen example of securing a bridge or fording site certainly suggests something much smaller).

Steel Beasts is designed to support the reinforced company level as the maximum that a single player can handle with some adequacy under real-time conditions (fewer units are typically better however). Several players can handle a battalion scale scenario (see the current "Finland 2019" thread in the AAR forum) if they know what they are doing. With the classroom version of SB Pro and a decent LAN/WAN infrastructure brigade level exercises with 150 and more players have already been demonstrated to be practical. But that requires more manpower and a larger infrastructure than even an ambitious private enthusiast can probably organize.

Thank you Ssnake for this honest assessment.

But I feel I am limited by the existing maps size. Can I create new big maps and import them as I would see fit to let MW scenarios develop?

The bridge example was to illustrate a concept of Mission tactics and the latitude given to accelerate fluidity for the output of a mission, not to illustrate the scope of a regimental action.

Well, I am not a "Genius of War" so MW researched and pushed with 6 tank platoons under my responsibility should be enough to keep me busy to plan. Yet does the AI would understand what a mission tactics is? Flaechen & Luenkentaktik are? A scwherpunkt? An Angrieffsziel? A sense of timing? (Those terms are explained in the beginning of the thread). If I run a recon screen, what the AI does if they find a gap?

A recon screen is not a specialized recon force, but light fast vehicles temporarily attributed ahead of your main force to search for gaps in enemy lines. When found, the recon screen transmits the info to the main force and move forward through the gap while the main force intent is to follow. The object is a fast exploitation of the enemy's weakness at low cost since there is no breaching involved.

Because I don't want to have to script to a recon screen where the gap is, at what time it materializes and for how long. Then, where to go and at what speed, to disturb communication lines and destroy some mobile HQ 50 km behind enemy lines to dislocate the enemy's will to fight!

Are there enough air assets available for close air support on call? I know the artillery is there, but what about the air?

I don't want to be in a tank pushing arrows or manning a joystick. Besides, MW does not allow me to micromanage platoons, but to trust the training of their officers. I know it is a concept you understand, but does SBproPE understand it as it stands in its civilian version?

Does the Classroom version can allow me to push the limits so I can use SPproPE as a MW research lab without much human players involved?

I will assume that SBproPE, was somehow at least in its civilian version designed for Attritionist, is there a way for Maneuverist to use your game?...

Let me describe something I put together in Arma3 and see if it's something that would scratch your itch.

I used the ALiVE (Advanced Light Infantry Virtual Environment, I think?) mod. Using it, you can automatically populate the entire map with enemy forces (composed of whatever you want them to be - motorized, armored, light infantry, SOF, mix, of platoon, company, battalion size, etc.). IIRC you can even check a box to enable enemy convoys. The friendly AI forces (generated by the mod) and the enemy AI forces fight a battle of control over the entire map over towns, bases, and cities. Bigger towns are more important, and have more enemy defenders.

In the mission I made (in about an hour) I was controlling a mech company team. Two Arma3 Leopard 2A7 (or whatever the game calls them) tanks as my HQ section, then a platoon of Leopards and two platoons of motorized infantry in Pandurs. A company train, with a recovery vehicle, ambulance, ammo truck and fuel truck were also included. I had control over all of them through Arma3's High Command.

It played well. The scenario was to expand a battalion-sized beachhead. I commanded the mech company assigned to the AI-controlled light infantry battalion, so I'd react to any enemy armor encountered and provided direct fire support as needed. Getting a little bored with the slow infantry, I punched deep into the island and took some towns myself.

It was fun, but the lack of fine control over your High Command subordinate platoons could be frustrating - you can basically only give them way points and hope they get there. It works fine 80% of the time, but sometimes you want that fine control - or to tell the infantry to disembark. Usually they only do when they come under fire.

I've also made a company-sized Russian BMD airborne company insurgency (clearing hostile grid squares and looking for intel to generate leads to target enemy munitions caches) mission with the ALiVE mod, so it's very flexible once you know how to use it.

No. It's one of the distinct differences between the classroom version and the Personal Edition.
To be honest though, I have a hard time imagining a scenario that plays out in under three hours where you realistically NEED more than 22 x 22 square kilometers of terrain for a scenario that puts a reinforced company under the player's control (other than a road march, that is). There's plenty of adjacent space to simulate the actions of neighboring units, giving you a battle space that may be up to five times as large as what would normally be assigned to a company, even if you are not in the center of the enemy's attention in a high intensity combat situation.
Assuming a depth of the initial starting positions of three kilometers (again, ample for a company sized task force) that leaves 19km of depth for forward or retrograde movement if you move in a cardinal direction, and 26 km if you move diagonally.

Still not enough?
Rather than creating a square map, pick one that is longer than it is wide. As long as you stay within the 484km² limit, that's perfectly fine. There you have a 10 x 48km² playground.

Still not enough?
Go off-map. Just because the terrain beyond the mapped areas is not mapped it doesn't mean that there is none. You can easily push with your forces beyond the border of a map. It gets repeated 32,767 times in each direction, giving you a world size in excess of 520 trillion square kilometers, which is more than a million times the surface of the earth (including the oceans).
Admittedly, only a tiny portion of that is accessible under practical considerations (the limit of what the map screen's zoom scale and panning limit can still display). But it's more than what is shown in the map view, and it eliminates secure flanks - one of my pet peeves in most games as it is an almost irresistible incentive for the player to creep along the map edges simply because you need not worry about forces beyond the edge of the world. In SB Pro, there is no edge.


In and of itself, nothing.
Remember, SB Pro is designed as a training tool, and most instructors like to have control over what's happening in order to concentrate on the day's lesson rather than an a series of free-wheeling, unstructured free-for-all battles. The "AI" in Steel Beasts deals with the micromanagement of the units, not with any tactical decision. That is something that the mission designer must do.
Admittedly this makes it much easier to shape the scenario in a way that leaves the initiative to the player rather than the computer. So, maybe the player gets to probe for gaps in the computer's recon screen, and then to commit his attack force? Or you have two human-controlled parties fighting each other.
Given sufficient discipline to keep your ambitions in check, at least on a small scale you can script the enemy's behavior in a way to mimic these elements however. In theory that's also be possible for larger formations, but it quickly becomes impractical. However, there are examples. In our scenario "Heroes of Hohenfels" (HoH pt 1) the player is in control of a tank platoon reinforcing a mech company in a defense in depth against a regimental attack (BTR heavy) seeking to secure the flank of a division's attack in a different direction. The terrain sort of naturally splits the attacking regiment into two lanes of attack, one of which sends a BTR battalion into the kill sack of a tank company (the right neighbor). Open space, mine obstacles ... the BTR battalion doesn't stand a chance. If you look at it in the mission editor you will however see that the follow-on forces will reach a decision point to go left or right, and the condition is to reinforce success.
Consequently the player will have to defend against two BTR battalions with "just" the RAG in their support.
(Side note, the scenario has been proven to be winnable, but it's probably impossible without calling for at least some of the reserves, and here the timing of that decision is a key element).
I'd say that as far as scripting complexity is concerned, it probably represents the upper limit of what's still practical. But it does illustrate that the enemy is probing in strength, then making a decision based on the combat results, and the player must not only be good with his shooting and ammunition management and the timing of moving from one battle posiiton to another, he must also get the timing right to call up reserves, and to make a correct assessment of how many of these reserves he wants to claim from a limited pool.

Understood, but Steel Beasts could deliver that only if you are willing to put the player into the active role. Also, depending on how many units you are trying to squeeze through the gap that you discovered, you might learn a bit about the capacity of a road network.


There's rotary wing support, and you can call for a limited number of bomb strikes which however are abstracted (two 500lb bombs that appear out of the blue sky (you could rationalize it as a JDAM strike from maximum standoff range)). You get up to 15 of them. This is assumed to be the number of sorties that make it successfully through a possible air defense screen.
The question is how complex you want your missions to be, really. If you want air assets you also need to implement air defense, and to manage it. If you want large spaces, you need to deal with traffic management. You need to deal with supply management. At which point do you lose the audience in your attempt to illustrate a certain concept?
It's better to step back a bit and to say "Okay, this and this would normally be there, but we are ignoring it so we can concentrate on the following aspects: (...)"


In SB Pro, you don't have to. Stick with the external observer's position and the map view.


You want a mind-reading interface. I know of no game that could deliver it, at least not without severe abstractions. Maybe you should develop such a game. If you can pull it off, I'd buy it. Seriously, the day that robots can perform maneuver warfare in an effective manner, mankind is probably f*cked. In Steel Beasts you are the master of a zombie army. They do what you tell them, but not necessarily what you want them to do. They will NOT seize the initiative. That's what humans are for. Start, or join a virtual unit. Assemble with like-minded players and run your scenarios. In most Steel Beasts sessions, from what I hear, few players are keen to assume the role of the commanding officer. There's a career opportunity for you.


Steel Beasts is not intended to promote attrition warfare by design. Admittedly, it is what many people use it for because attrition is the Michael Bay way to deliver entertainment. But it doesn't HAVE to be like this. Steel Beasts is the kind of game that I always wanted to have, within the constraints of real life, and what technology allows for. I've been raised as an armor officer in the Bundeswehr with Auftragstaktik and in the traditions of maneuver warfare.
But as much as there is a trade, a craft behind it that can be honed with some repetition of similar tasks in similar situations, I have come to the conclusion that Auftragstaktik is primarily a matter of leadership values, of an army's (and a country's political) corporate culture. Do you have an atmosphere that rewards taking the initiative and tolerates occasional failure? Or do you have a "zero defects" mentality that permeates all levels of command? You can't have both, and given the choice, sub par leaders will always prefer control over freedom because they are mortified by the prospect of anything going wrong.
That aspect can never be covered by simulation. Arguably it's the more important aspect.
Be it as it may be, there is no true intelligence in "A.I.". I only know artificial stupidity. You can of course try and set up rules in an agent-based concept and the simply let them loose. That rarely results in a satisfying experience at the medium tactical level. It can work in first person shooters at the squad level, and it's starting to work again beyond the battalion level. But in between human brains are the by far superior tools for decision making, and the technology simply isn't there (or at least I haven't heard of it yet) that would allow computer-generated forces at the platoon and company level to make sensible decisions with foresight, under the constraints of an incomplete situational picture, and to stick to decisions with consequence. THAT part that you're dreaming about, it doesn't exist.

"attrition is the Michael Bay way to deliver entertainment"

Thanks for your elaborations, Ssnake. They pretty much mirror my own assessment. Despite some caveats, Steel Beasts Pro PE has been one of the most convincing command-'rides' so far. It simulates great detail and allows for nuanced control if you want, but the unit AI is 'smart' enough that you can stick to the map view and they usually won't to something colossally stupid (except maybe occasionally sink themselves in some pond, but I've seen real people do that too). If the scenario designer is adept at 'programming' the AI with the various available route conditions, it can get very fluid. But it's a lot of work.

Ssnake,

Great post, you make sense. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel and it is not a T-72 coming at me!!!

I am in!

BTW, I like you last quote of the post

How can I buy the classroom version?

Please, PM me for details.

Sincerely,

Gunnyhighway,

You may want to check out BCT Commander from ProSim and LTC Pat Proctor . It's an older title for sure but may be what you are looking for. There is also a DEMO you can try out.

Combatsim.com Review:
http://www.combatsim.com/memb123/htm/2002/05/bct/

ProSim Product Page:
http://www.prosimco.com/patch.htm#manual

Agreed, and I am not adept at programing, so I have twice the amount of work cut out for me!....

But, I've got to do it!

It's export-controlled, so we don't sell it to private individuals I'm afraid to say. If you represent an organization, feel free to email me (my forum name here @eSimGames.com)

But you have an office in California!

Not half bad, really. How does BCT relate to ATF? They seem to indicate that ATF and AATF are further developments of the BCT engine but they sure changed up the control scheme. AATF only offers buttons, where BCT and ATF still offered right-click and buttons.

Sure, but that's no longer from where we send out the software. As it happens the software is being exported from Germany under German export control laws these days.

Hellfish6,

Where do you find that mod?

Scratch that I found it.

I must repeat some wisdom Teut said to me when I made a similar comment, about something else.

"be carefull looking under the hood. You might not be satisified with just playing"

Could you be more specific?...I am not certain to have understood the analogy Brit44'Aldo'.

I think he means that you may end up doing more scenario designing than playing, once you've developed a taste for it.

Well, I think I will be more observing and writing about it than making scenarios and playing them. The goal being to study and report. The problem with your scenarios, is that you know what is going to develop. Besides, since you script both sides, there is no real surprise effect unless the program is bugged, and surprise becomes frustrations.

But certainly 7 years ago, that was the case Britt, I enjoyed scripting the few I made for Arma2 and VBS2.

Yes, that is what I ment

Well, more news from the POA2 front. Turn resolution on more complex scenarios is... wow. It's been puttering along for probably 15 minutes now and I'm on pulse two of three on my second turn overall. Taking potshots at each other from 3km out, starting positions, no movement. It's not even complex yet.

I gather this can be influenced somewhat by tweaking the LOS, targeting and other resolutions in preferences, but the irritating thing is that behind all this, the CPU usage is averaging 12 percent, RAM usage is 98MB.

To be fair, I'm using a lot of AI because I'm on novice, but 20 minutes for turn resolution (turn 4) on an i7@3.4 GHz... ouch.

Which mission are you playing Amaroq?

Scenario 1, "Defense in Sector" (Hagenbüchach / Tuchenbach).

Blue has
2 rifle platoons,
1 tank platoon
1 flight of A-10s

red is a motor rifle battalion, i.e.
6 rifle platoons
1 recon Plt
1 grenade launcher Plt
1 ATGM Plt
1 mortar plt

Pretty rudimentary I'd say, but it takes about five minutes just to work out the target list.

It seems very dependent on the force sizes. In Scenario 10 the first turn took five minutes, but ENY forces are only company sized. In Scenario 12 red is battalion-sized again and the first turn took about 10 minutes. That's long but only half as long as Scenario 1, so something might be buggy with Scenario 1.

Still, in Scenario 12 it's 10 minutes to go through one minute of actual time. I'm afraid no amount of detail can make up for the sheer boredom of that.



Small scenarios like the terrorist airport attack and the tutorial worked much faster, but for that kind of engagement size I don't feel POA2 is the right format. I know ArmA3 would have made that airport map a serious challenge even with no special scripting, while in POA2 I wasn't sure where any challenge at all was supposed to be. Maybe if you play as the terrorists or if at least a human opponent plays the terrorists and you need to keep all the civilians alive. - That would be quite a challenge (but again, probably more satisfactorily and realistically played in ArmA3).

I am gonna start writing MW scenarios that I will be studying in SBproPE!...

I made up my mind!...

Thank you all for bringing up suggestions!...I appreciated them!

I'm currently working on a new SB scenario.
I know it will bring the software to it's boarders, but a few years agao a similar scenario (defence of a blue BN size CT against a MechRifle Rgt(+) ) worked ok. And it even worked in Coop play with nearly 40 players.
I'd didn't try it in the 3.002 version...my PC was down to 8 FPS just in single player :-(

With the code improvements since 3.025, I'm hopeful big size scenarios will work again.




I modified the Kursk area map a bit. My plan is to let BLUE (players side) defend against an enemy MechInfBrig (BMP-3 and T-90's).
The big taks is to skript red's attack. so far I figured out 3-4 possible CoA for Red to take the Airport and the Railway node.(RED is comming from the south)

Map is wide enough to allow for some "manouvering"

What you have to assume is that you got the enemy intent right from the start. I mean it is not realy possible to script it in a way: "Is the airport realy his opbjective? or are they going somewhere else?"

It has to do with the codes, but also the PC technology and the amount of RAM. Playing from a laptop is not always the best alternative when you have a choice.

The PC technology certainly improved, and windows today does not limit the ram as it did in WinXP.

Yeah, I think this is the problem of this whole MW thing: That the tactical challenge slides up one command level when this happens and is suddenly out of the scope of the simulation.

Like here, even if you did script the enemy to possibly choose to go around the airport and take it a week later after it is sealed off, the decision to react to this plan would lie one or more levels above the command level you're actually playing in this game. The commander that you're playing could do nothing other than relay his observation up the chain of command that apparently the attacking force is sidestepping the airport. He is stuck with his mission of defending the airport until he is told otherwise (similarities to current events are coincidental (or not)).

But still, if the simulation is big enough, there will be an element of MW available one level below the highest command level represented in the game and that unit will have a higher command level to report to that will have to decide how to react such a situation, presenting the player with that MW challenge.

So in a sense, it's also a matter of keeping focus. There's always a bigger picture, there's always some higher echelon that needs to make bigger calls. What's important is that the game being played is sufficiently 'large' to allow those units represented a flexible plan of action.

Ronin_GE and Amaroq, I would push it and simplify it by asking:

What is the Auftragstaktik?

What is the Angriffsziel?

MW is not about moving tanks on a map to reach a better shooting position on the enemy, which is attrition warfare. MW is about pitting force against weakness.

The two Germans terms are explained in the beginning of the thread.

Yeah, but my point is that you need to focus on realizing those concepts on the level that is simulated and not be bothered by the fact that there is a higher level where these challenges seem to materialize even more clearly.

I'm sure it can be done on the scale of Steel Beasts and I'm looking forward to what you come up with Gunnyhighway!

There is a common weakness in the "Auftragstaktik" nowadays. That is that many commanding officers think that it only applies to their level and above...while anybody down should do as they are f***ing told.

Auftragstaktik is true for ALL levels of command, from fire team to corps. The main thing when you try to apply it is at the start. You have a given situation, and get a your orders. You analyze these orders(or better tasks) and then ask one question: Wesentliche Lageänderung?
I.e.: Has the situation changed in a way that renders these orders invalid.=>or the boss knew what I know now, he would have given that order.
From my experience, it is extremely difficult to tweak a situation in a way that the student realizes: yes, there is a major change in situation...I have to make a completely new plan.

And for the second part: How do I strip down the task given to me, into taks for my subordinate units.
In all task form I know the task is given with a litte "suffix": "...um zu..." or in the anglo-saxon world: "IOT"==> you simply have to look how your units can achieve the "IOT" in the best way.

Angriffziel when I may (freely)cite from HDv 100 series: the aim of an attack is to take ground, or destroy enemy forces (or both).

Just an example: you give a BN the task to attack/take ground feature X and then hold it for 48 hours IOT secure left flank of own brigades attack.

This can mean: go there push the enemy out, then dig in and hold ground.
But this can also mean: Go there, push the enemy out...but you see an chance to exploit the gap you just pushed in and continue to attack

But ok, I where I want to get next with the scenario I'm working on. Is to get the player to figure out where RED has put their main effort.
The map in 20km wide, when you set against that how wide a bridgade is in attack...you see there is enough room to get your'vs'enemy main effort wrong or right.
The second things is, I wand to let the situation developed in a way that the player has to decide how to use his reserve. Reenforce own units? Block enemy breakthrough? Or, if all went well, counterattack?

I don't wish to antagonize you Ronin_GE nor Amaroq, but if you answer those questions you know what to do. Besides, this is a thread about MW, so MW deontology is the code.

Mission tactics: the Red subordinate must be informed of what is the output desired by the Red commander in order to achieve it with a high degree of initiative and a higher tempo than the enemy to keep the initiative. So what is the output desired by the Red commander Ronin_GE? Prevent the blue from using the airport to land re-enforcement??...to evacuate from that airport?...Prevent the blue force from existing?...Why the heck do you want the REDS to take that airport?????...you have to explain the Red commander desired output!!! The tactic of the mission, is to rely on subordinates to carry out the mission. That allows the subordinates to make decision faster than the enemy and appropriate to the mission, so the enemy which relegate decision to higher levels, will have a response which will come too late for execution.

The Red subordinate has the latitude to attack, defend or withdraw within the scope of the mission assignment, and depending upon his decision, will select his own aiming points or Angriffziel: The physical end toward which the red effort is directed. Moreover, those Angriffziel changes as the situation develop. As long as no mission tactics is defined, the subordinate cannot have an Angriffziel!

Attacking the Airport and taking the railway knot does not mean anything to me. What is the bigger picture?

Think in the following terms: Your Father, Uncle, Brothers, Friends, Wife and Children are members of that Red Force. Are you going to risk the life of your love ones into pitting force against force to a head on charge on that airport?...

A word about reserve: 1/3 2/3. You reserve should be 2/3 of your force, and only be used to bring the coup de grace to the enemy. The last strikes that will make you win. However, being MW, those concepts are very flexible since they are supposed to fit the immediate needs toward victory, not toward defeat.

And I can't say more, because I don't know that map, the forces at play, the big pictures, which forces use MW, both of them?...one of them?

It is scripted anyway, so anything you script is supposed to happen the way you wish it would happen. Build up a delayed response within the force that does not use MW, and that would already be a first step to illustrate MW.

I think we're just approaching the same common ground from different sides.

I think what Ronin_GE means is exactly what you say here:

Me, I was on a far more superficial level. I just meant that one should not be frustrated that you can't reflect the broad strokes in a simulation of limited scope when you can just superimpose them on whatever you can simulate.

As you say: Why the airport? If you can give some broader MW context to that, you suddenly can simulate MW even with a limited scope of simulation.

It is a pincer movement then! ...I agree with you!

Ok, I had to google deontology, as the translator only spit out: Deontologie.



When simulating something, I think one should stay within the scope of the scenario.
You should add "one level above" but not more. Otherwise it come to: Why have that war in the 1st place.
You are right, in my statement i did not give a reason why to attack or hold the airport. And this is necessary for blue or red to define the "parameters" of the scenario. And would decide weather it was a "win" or not. If I don't give a broader context: blue could hold the airport but be reduced to 25%? Red takes the airport but losses 50% and blue unit are able to fall back in order?...noone cares unless the mission states something different. For that mapsize and with the limitations of the software I can only go to company/Bn level. The higher level can be somewhat included with "commanders intent" in the OPORD.

You're right, I have to think "from the commanders intent" on.
When making the plan for RED I must striktly have the desired output in mind. So I can set diffent endresults the require diffenent CoA for the attacking force.
=> take terrain X/Y NLT time...
=> destroy /neutralize enemy forces in the area of...
=> hold the taken terrain till...
=> after attack be ready for *kind of operation* NLT.
Therefor giving RED "a guideline" in which way and speed to attack or what kind of losses are aceptable.

As for the scripting itself.
To develop the scenario for RED I'd have to deploy recon, evtualy recon in force IOT identify the blue main effort.
The depending on the red guideline=> bind blue and bypass, bind blue and flank attack or bind blue and cut them off.
These are options that can be handled with the game logic and a "few" zones, conditions and event triggers. If I'd want more sophistication, I must have red crewed by human players.


edit: just one Thing: 2/3s of your force as a reserve is pretty exessive. What tactical level are you talking about?

There are a lot of answers like that in MW: It depends upon the circumstances!

Sorry, that is the best answer I could come up with!...The less the enemy sees your force on the field, the less he knows what you are doing. Your reserve could be deployed somewhere it is not needed. But one third on your force is exposed to combat friction and two thirds in reserve ready to exploit some opportunities. So no, it is not excessive to me. But, it could for someone else!...It was not excessive for Napoleon....It is an economic principle!...You realize 2/3 of you sales figures with 1/3 of your clientele. 2/3 of your sales is realized by 1/3 of your sales force, etc, etc...

what level?..any!...u could have a fire team of six men, and use 2 to do a job, while 4 others would be on stand by, close by, ready to support.

Ok, maybe we are talking about a diffent idea/definition of "reserve"?

Usually school of thought see the reserve as a formation not tasked with any other mission, apart from the stadart "24/7" tasks:liasion, security, observation...to name a few.

You could argue that a company advancing in wedge formation has 2/3 rds of its strength in reserve. While realy the two "side platoons" are already commited to f.e. securing the flanks.

Of course it is nice to have 2/3 of your force as reserve, it massively increases your flexibility.
But you can only realy afford that, if you are very very superior to your enemy. Both in terms of numbers and intel.

In all field-EX, CP-EX, Map-EX and operations I ever took part in reserves where between 1/4 to maximum 1/2 of the own force. With 1/2 beeing a rare case(f.e. attack with 2xcompany abreast, 2 following)
The point is that you need to put the oposition under enough preasure to force them to make mistakes...and in that process spot the gap and weaknesses where you can deploy your reserve to some benefit.

As in that process plan: 1st you need to knock a hole into the enemy plan=>then get inside their planning cycle while they try to fix it.
Your initial commitment needs to be big enough to knock that hole. Then your reserve needs to be free of any other task (ungebunden) so they can jump in fast enough, before OPFOR can react.

Before talking about anything else, did you run a critical operational vulnerability analysis of your enemy's resources and how to meet them?

Forget school of thought!...This is the realm of MW!...Besides a lot of countries have a different definition of MW.

You want me to cite the USMC MCDP1?...Chances are, you won't agree with their definition of MW, and the USMC don't even apply it.

If you don't like 1/2 2/3 then don't do it, it is a guideline. Do what you think fits the big picture.

Run your operation 10 times and see what you get as a ratio.

Then, let the results decides what could have been improved!

Ronin_GE, what is your callsign in the SBPproPE forum?

Shot fired at SB.com...

Du you need back up?...

Paul, stop with all the big words!

and for fun I will drop the keep it simple card:

"No captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of the enemy.
Horatio Nelson

and that other one, "never mind maneuvers, just go at them"

Hammer,

This is how I feel right now: http://www.4shared.com/music/GdRstPTdce/inthit.html

LOL!