I just wanted to add some closing thoughts on the Milsim test game held last week-end.
First, this type of game has so much more depth and complexity than a normal scenario game that focuses on running missions and holding bases for points.
The mix of a points based system with end game objectives provides greater strategy and tactical flavor.
Constructs such as medics, casualty classes (KIA vs WIA), limited ammo, and ammo re-supply all add additional factors that must be taken consideration. For example, we used our ammo supplies at more than twice the rate as the Green team. This could have been a factor later in the game if we had run out of paint.
Also, preserving your force throughout the day with planned rest breaks and time to eat. Admittedly, I over looked this during the game and may have put more stress on our side than was needed. Our recon team took time for chow on their own and did it in a tactical fashion. Great job Dave!
In the real world it is the side that controls the objective at the end of the day that usually wins the battle. (Note, in Vietnam the US could win tactical engagements but lose the battle because at the end of the day the NVA and Viet Cong held the ground that had just been contested). However, the quality of a win can be determined by the number of KIA’s and points for terrain held accrued. How you do it sometimes matters!
As I reflect on how the game went I can now see multiple tactical approaches that could have been used. In the end I opted for a very inelegant bull rush approach that resulted in high casualties even though we achieved our tactical objectives for the game in the end. This was inefficient given both sides were evenly matched.
Also, this game opens up the option of tactical withdrawal since the game has an end game objective in mind. You don’t have to just keep banging over the same ground over and over again.
In fact, our Pickett’s charge had the effect of a tactical withdrawal since almost all of our players left the field before our final attack. This had to have created some uncertainty on the part of the green team as to where we would attack next since there were multiple avenues of attack. It also allowed us to effectively mass our combat power on one part of the field out of sight of the opposition.
I really enjoyed being a tactical leader even though it is a lot of work. In fact I enjoyed it as much as shooting paint. This won’t surprise those who know that I really enjoy real time tactical games such as World Conflict or Company of Heroes. There is a big difference between overrunning and opposition position on a computer screen and doing it for real in the woods! Let’s just say there is a greater level of visceral satisfaction when rounds are whizzing by your head!
Some final thoughts. This game does require a lot of pre-game coordination. First, all players a given side must agree to the command structure and the rules under which it will operate. Simple things like leaving the field or breaking for lunch need to be discussed. Second in game supplies and equipment need to be discussed. Also, tactical requirements must be thought through. Will we use mines? How will we clear a mine field or destroy a structure like a bridge.
Also, unlike a typical scenario game this was a continuous play event where events were very fluid. The coming and goings of squads and individuals can have a big impact. In a normal scenario game people come and go onto the field as they please. While this sometimes will impact the game it is accepted by all that people come and go as they please. In the milsim context this has to be worked out in advance and everyone has to be in agreement or confusion and potentially bad feelings will follow.
Finally, communication is key! Everyone has to understand what the game objectives are, what the over all scheme of maneuver is, and make sure that they are communicating during the game.
First, this type of game has so much more depth and complexity than a normal scenario game that focuses on running missions and holding bases for points.
The mix of a points based system with end game objectives provides greater strategy and tactical flavor.
Constructs such as medics, casualty classes (KIA vs WIA), limited ammo, and ammo re-supply all add additional factors that must be taken consideration. For example, we used our ammo supplies at more than twice the rate as the Green team. This could have been a factor later in the game if we had run out of paint.
Also, preserving your force throughout the day with planned rest breaks and time to eat. Admittedly, I over looked this during the game and may have put more stress on our side than was needed. Our recon team took time for chow on their own and did it in a tactical fashion. Great job Dave!
In the real world it is the side that controls the objective at the end of the day that usually wins the battle. (Note, in Vietnam the US could win tactical engagements but lose the battle because at the end of the day the NVA and Viet Cong held the ground that had just been contested). However, the quality of a win can be determined by the number of KIA’s and points for terrain held accrued. How you do it sometimes matters!
As I reflect on how the game went I can now see multiple tactical approaches that could have been used. In the end I opted for a very inelegant bull rush approach that resulted in high casualties even though we achieved our tactical objectives for the game in the end. This was inefficient given both sides were evenly matched.
Also, this game opens up the option of tactical withdrawal since the game has an end game objective in mind. You don’t have to just keep banging over the same ground over and over again.
In fact, our Pickett’s charge had the effect of a tactical withdrawal since almost all of our players left the field before our final attack. This had to have created some uncertainty on the part of the green team as to where we would attack next since there were multiple avenues of attack. It also allowed us to effectively mass our combat power on one part of the field out of sight of the opposition.
I really enjoyed being a tactical leader even though it is a lot of work. In fact I enjoyed it as much as shooting paint. This won’t surprise those who know that I really enjoy real time tactical games such as World Conflict or Company of Heroes. There is a big difference between overrunning and opposition position on a computer screen and doing it for real in the woods! Let’s just say there is a greater level of visceral satisfaction when rounds are whizzing by your head!
Some final thoughts. This game does require a lot of pre-game coordination. First, all players a given side must agree to the command structure and the rules under which it will operate. Simple things like leaving the field or breaking for lunch need to be discussed. Second in game supplies and equipment need to be discussed. Also, tactical requirements must be thought through. Will we use mines? How will we clear a mine field or destroy a structure like a bridge.
Also, unlike a typical scenario game this was a continuous play event where events were very fluid. The coming and goings of squads and individuals can have a big impact. In a normal scenario game people come and go onto the field as they please. While this sometimes will impact the game it is accepted by all that people come and go as they please. In the milsim context this has to be worked out in advance and everyone has to be in agreement or confusion and potentially bad feelings will follow.
Finally, communication is key! Everyone has to understand what the game objectives are, what the over all scheme of maneuver is, and make sure that they are communicating during the game.
In my last post I forgot to thank Doug and Archon for supporting this event. THANKS !
No comments:
Post a Comment