I view the essays as para-historical entertainment from someone who contemplates the board waiting to find an opponent.
Welcome to the forum and try the game online. It’s much more interesting than writing and speculating about the game. :wink:
And here’s what it looks like “on the ground”
That is really cool. Wish they had that around when I went to the military academy in 1980. Flames of war is a better game designed for the experiment your using the chain of command.
Thanks for the pictures and the descriptions. Out of curiosity, what kind of feedback did you get from your students on the enjoyability and learning value of these exercises? Were there any notable “Aha!” moments in which you saw sudden-insight lightbulbs lighting up above some of the students?
The feedback was overwhelmingly positive and they had a fantastic time throughout the whole process.
There were MANY “aha!” moments throughout the process. The scenerio I demonstrated on here was one of them. The NVA player had basically a perfect set up to lure the Americans into their prepared defenses and then destroy them in detail by overrunning their landing zones once the Americans were ambushed away from their LZs. The NVA commander had fantastic luck on the first turn and had an entire NVA company show up right at the southern drop zone. Instead of waiting to deploy them when they could be supported better by their other forces he attacked immediately and did in fact overrun the LZ…for a while… He then got tunnel vision and decided to attack all around the Americans because they seemed on the “brink” of being overwhelmed. The problem was that as they moved closer to the LZ’s they had to move out of the protection of the jungle and move into the more open elephant grass…which is a problem since the Americans can, at that point, employ massive supporting arms WHILE they maintain an open supply lines close to their LZ. He basically gave all his advantages of sitting and waiting it out, fighting the Americans on his terms and attacked prematurely to overrun the LZs, opening up himself to massive firepower by fighting on the Americans terms.
On a previous one they learned that if you leave orders to be interpreted, then you should probably expect interpreted results from your subordinates. This scenario was an airborne drop in Sicily where they Americans needed to secure a town so that reinforcing units from the beachhead can link up and move on. The American commander wasn’t clear on where he wanted his drop zones to be, so his sticks got badly scattered all over the board. He got lucky and had a sherman platoon show up the first turn available and issued an order for them to move up to help the airborne troops. In the mass of information that they sent to the “referees” (their platoon leaders) that order either got overlooked or ignored. A turn later they figured out that their tanks weren’t in the right spot and they wanted me to have the referee move them to where they should since they did in fact issue the order…my reply was “Did you check to make sure your order was followed?”…crickets…my next question was “Do you think that when a unit is in contact the radios might get a bit busy?”…crickets…then finally “What’s your job as a leader?”…crickets…they realized that in the real world things get confusing very quickly and getting everyone on the same page is quite difficult…They never made that mistake again.
There’s all kinds of examples I have of these types of incidents and the great thing about all this is that most of the cadets that participate are first year cadets…and the ones who come every week are now outperforming not only the other “firsties” but many of the 2nd and even 3rd year cadets…It’s all starting to “click” on the hows and whys!
I’m migrating to the 2nd year cadet instructor position which means I get to keep the guys, for the most part, that I had last year. Also, I’m working towards having this instruction block streamlined into the curriculum at my program because it appears to be quite effective.
I plan on trying to get some participation from the Captains career course at Ft Sill to not only see where our holes are in the instruction, but also to validate the training. We have an ambitious plan this year, but with all the changes in cadet command, I imagine we might be able to get some official support to make this type of instruction more prevalent in an official capacity at my university.
@Cow:
Try playing Battlefield 4 competitively. It is pretty bad for Joes that have PTSD as the gunshots are realistic and the combat experience is relatively similar.
Good for squad based tactics against an equal size equally equipped squad. America is not always going to be picking on little guys forever. Personally I would never fight the Russians in a war unless the Russians declared it themselves, trust Putin more than Obama, trusted Putin more than Bush 10 years ago, nothing changed.
No….no it’s not. At least not my combat experience anyways which includes the battles of Baghdad and the second battle of Fallujah…the FoW allows for a company sized or more fight. Battlefield can’t simulate lack of logistics, enemy capturing your intel, or you as a leader only working with part of the picture from a map. You can’t use pre planned fires, co-ordinate close air support, or ensure each platoon stays on line to prevent gaps where the enemy can slip through.
Picking on little guys…seems to work just fine for them, if anything we will be fighting “little guys” for the foreseeable future. We’ve been doing it since we started this country. Ever since we’ve had an army there’s been some LT with his platoon all by themselves in the middle of nowhere tasked with doing a job that a battalion should be doing…the formula for success in a big war at the company level is pretty cut and dry. The formula for success in a “little guy” war is much more elusive because it requires finesse, study, and surgical precision direct action.
Read the whole thread.
You drove?…that’s it? Where were you at?
Global is an introduction. It is good to show basic concepts. I had the first year cadets last year. After a few games of that we go down to the operational level with vignettes and a decision making process under a time standard. Then we go to the tactical level with the flames of war which has been modified to fit our needs. We’ve incorporated the troop leading procedures into each “battle” along with preplanned fires, mlcoa/mdcoa, commanders intent, terrain analysis, battle tracking, 9 line medevac/uxo, salt reports, and a living breathing opponent in real time. Oh, and they can’t see their pieces and they have to estimate the enemies location based off of subordinate leaders reports. Then, the consequences of the battle they’re fighting will be felt 2 weeks later when they have to fight the next one. That’s what we are working with in a nutshell.
When did this become a discussion about the validity of the state? You’re the one who took the first shit. Not me. I don’t owe you an answer anyways. It likely wouldn’t matter the answer I give. I sense a bit of tea party rhetoric with your comments about the necessity of a civil war and enthusiasm for firearms. Saying this is a police state is a bit of a stretch. Wanting a civil war tells me you haven’t experienced how terrible combat really is. The thought of my children having to experience the things I have is simply unacceptable.
I started the thread in global almost a year ago when I was new to the forum as well as new as an instructor . I started with global as evidenced by the pictures I posted of my cadets playing the game. I modified it over time thinking those that gave me good feedback and advice or showed genuine interest would like to know what was happening. You’re taking its place in the global section a little too hard. Why did you hijack the thread? What was the purpose of that? The moderators didn’t think it needed to move so what made you think it was your responsibility to kill it? Perhaps you’re omniscient and we are just ignorant of that fact. It was certainly a dick move. Explain it to me? Wearing your ideology and beliefs on your sleeve is never usually productive.
Also, when and where were you stationed if I may ask? And when did you got to benning for osut if you were an 11B first…
I believe the military will also allow the rich and joyful to join. Part of being in a free country. Redleg13A was discussing G40 in the G40 forum and I see no harm or foul. I am looking forward to more of his posts.
Today was not a good day for DESU in the year 1945?
Perhaps I should post all of the PMs he sent also. Mr cow claims to be a veteran and is apparently really angry with me for being in the military. I have reported many of his posts to the moderators so they can see that he is simply trying to derail this thread and is admittedly trying to troll me. I thought there were repercussions for that kind of conduct on this forum …am I wrong? I thought that part of the agreement that every member signs is that we won’t be discriminatory towards other members. Cow is clearly breaking that term of use…so, where are the mods I ask?
To mr cow, you never served. Claiming to be a veteran when you’re not one is illegal and there is a new fervor in the US to catch these phonies. You’re not nearly as anonymous as you think you are…
I didn’t realize we were enemies…
Enough now Cow.
Years ago chess was the G40 of it’s day. A beginners guide to analysis. Much as G40 lends itself. It could be used by any military instructor of any nation. And on a side note these United States are the freest states in the world for the individual. You can’t beat it anywhere. This nation of United States is the “shake-n-bake” of nation building. If all nations followed the rule book we follow, might find that militaries are no longer needed but be prepared for possible interplanetary encounters. So G40 will still be useful in planting seeds or new conscripts.