Battle lengths: MBT versus real life
 

Reading battle AARs, it seems real company size engagements take several hours. In MBT though the typical battle is only about an hour. I'm curious, would a scenario designer need to set the turn limit to around 500 to simulate a real historical engagement?

Most MBT battles involve aggressively laying down brief suppression fire then immediately running at the enemy with maneuver elements. This is fine gameplay-wise, I'm just not sure if it's historical. In reality infantry units seem to have a lot more time available to advance cautiously.

Re: Battle lengths: MBT versus real life
 

We allow players to change game length before the game starts, if you think you need more time...... use that option.

Simple


Don

Re: Battle lengths: MBT versus real life
 

But I don't have the super hacking skills needed to throw turn limits into the triple digits Don. I was just asking your professional military opinion as to whether a company level engagement would take 60-90 minutes (20-30 MBT turns) in real life. Maybe 73 Easting style guns blazing tank charges, but not an infantry fight.

Guess I should have posted in the scenario forum, my fault.

Re: Battle lengths: MBT versus real life
 

90 turns is the hard coded limit and any "super hacking skills" isn't going to change that.

If YOU want a slow paced game add more turns..... not everyone does that's why we added the option to do so

Don

Re: Battle lengths: MBT versus real life
 

Alright, that's fine. Zerg rush tactics work with infantry too.

Re: Battle lengths: MBT versus real life
 

IF this is an issue for you the solution is to play smaller point games on smaller maps with game turns set to max and take all the time you like but there are quite a number of things in the game that are linked to "magic numbers" around 98 and 99 and that's why 90 is max turns


Don

Re: Battle lengths: MBT versus real life
 

Just decide to yourself how much "dead time" each game turn should represent and mutiply by that in your head.

Real life has plenty of "stand by to stand by" time when "nothing is happening" that would be a total bore to actually have to play through. Its a game and not a simulation after all!.

In especial - you are the "player god" hovering over the battlefield with your helicopter eye view, with the ability to move each and every unit in perfect synch.

Real life just is not like that. Imagine - in real life, you are a scoutmaster and you are meeting your team at a busy mainline station to go off for a camping trip. Then imagine the gods eye view of that in a gamed version.

In real life - you are wondering where the heck platform 14B is, since you have never been to that station before and is it the train parked in front or the 2 car one one behind?. In a wargame the "objective" is marked with a cute symbol on your 100% accurate station map. And the objective flips flag if the enemy takes it even if you have no reconnaissance assets with "eyes on" it. Plus, in most of these computer wargames - your objectives are the same ones as the enemy. Totally unrealistic.

In real life - you lead your gaggle of scouts off to where you think the train is. If Little Johnny wanders off to the newsagent stand, you may not realise till (if) you do a head count. In a wargame, he will be "on map" and on the "roster" shown as "wandering" status most likely. And you control each and every little boy scout's movements as the player-god. If a pedestrian joggles them you know about it right away and can stop the guys and sort it out rather than little Billy losing sight of the pack and being lost. Or scout Joe thinking he knows best and getting on totally the wrong train etc.

If real life was a wargame, then we would not need traffic lights, since each car would be magically moved exactly the right number of hexes at exactly the right interval, avoiding all others.

Most dead time is of the "Where are you, callsign Alpha Bravo 23?" variety... And AB23 is currently off the radio net, standing at the (wrong) crossroads while Lt Snuffy tries his map reading skills and heads off to Alpaville instead of Bravoville in complete 100% confidence (until the enemy half way to there ambush his platoon). And of course the first you as the commander will hear of this is when (if) Lt Snuffy reports in on the radio, and since he thinks he is on the rad to Alphaville (when he is on the road to Bravoville) then you will send the reserves to support him half way to Alphaville of course. The reserve commander will eventually report no sign of Lt Snuffy's lads where he was expected, and so the confusion of reality goes on. Unlike a helicopter-view wargame.

The only way to model that is a sort of "command post" wargame where you are limited to your head shed, with a map updated by your AI with radio situation reports as they trickle in, and radio reports (which may not be 100% accurate). What you would not have is the "tabletop wargame" experience where you can see every piece on a map, and drive them yourself, getting immediate 100% accurate status reports for every unit on a roster and seeing them shoot and miss. (Not unless you drove your HQ land-rover to the particular bit of the battlefield where the fire-fight was happening, and you would only get the number of sabot rounds that panther ASD345 held, by your avatar's "climbing aboard" it).

There is zero market for those in the "civvy" market since it is not perceived as "fun". Such a game might interest someone who has for example spent some time in his local Territorial Army unit, and so knows that POV is far more realistic. Civvies want the Hollywood or "battle chess" experience rather than the realistic staff command model.

Therefore if you think that 35 turns game would have taken a realistic 5 hours in real life - call it so in your head. We are not going to model blokes having a crafty ciggy break etc.

It doesn't bother me that much. Thanks for the idea however.

:rofl:

So essentially, MBT combat mechanics- shooting, sighting, accuracy, etc- are accurate once you've actually contacted the enemy and confirmed where they are, the game design just smooths over the operational difficulties that make real warfare so slow when getting to that point.

Glad I've never been in a war. It sounds like an MBT game where your units go under AI control every other five turns and head off in a random direction.

So the gist is that time limits have to be kept under 5,000 turns to make a workable game. Thanks for the post, really clears it up in concrete terms.

That would be a submarket of the "tactical turn based wargame market" SPMBT has already cornered. As a matter of fact I have never, ever seen the sort of command post exercise type of game you described. The closest thing is what I have heard of (not tried) people playing Avalon Hill games by phone, relaying orders through a game master who is the only one with the board. It might be amusing though. You could probably get the same effect playing MBT with copious amounts of gin.

Re: Battle lengths: MBT versus real life
 

These guys did run some command post exercise type games back in the 80s from what I recall reading in "Battle" magazine etc:
http://www.wargamedevelopments.org/index.htm Should be something about it in the back copies of their "Nugget" magazine?.

The military does that sort of thing on a regular basis - just use the command post radio vehicles without the need for everybody else to go out and about. Tests HQ procedures without expending fuel, digging up Farmer Giles fields etc.

Re: Battle lengths: MBT versus real life
 

Well,essentialy it's your plum to pick what kind of engagment you prefer.
Say you want a large battle with mostly infantry then you should use more turns,on the heavy armour side with all the CM and MRLs maybe shorter.
Use the pref. to dail up or down abilities.
Scatter the Vh's or group them,place them set and the values on objectives to suit.
Air or no air,the posibilites go on.
There is no problem on deciding turns when playing the AI because it's all up to you.
This what makes this a fine wargame, the multiple endless ways you can set it up.
Pbem play is a diffrent matter of course.

Re: Battle lengths: MBT versus real life
 

Interesting magazine, I think I'll download a few.

Spot on. With a few buddies I could run a command post ex myself. MBT just has better graphics.

It really is a comprehensive tactical wargame with easy scenario and OOB design, surprised the US Army never bought a few copies.

Re: Battle lengths: MBT versus real life
 

Yeah, we call them TAAS, which a Greek acronym for Tactical Excersise Without Troops.

Regarding the topic, the best solution is to use your imagination. I find that game fascinating even though it's older than the first time I've used a computer because I'm generally a person with imagination and you can make in your mind how the situation really developed. You can imagine that the time simulated in turns is the "active" type, that means it doesnt include the time your grunts are sitting in the foxhole thinking about boobs to escape the grim reality their living...

Re: Battle lengths: MBT versus real life
 

Modern MBT battles play a lot quicker than say a WWII game due to the greater accuracy & lethality of the weapons, unsupported infantry vs infantry battles can still drag on like they should.

Where it differs from real life is recon & command & control. You dont spend several hours trying to gather info & getting in place before an attack & nobody gets lost on the way,
You also instantly react to the info on the battlefield so can move to intercept immediatly instead of wasting time carrying out your original orders only to be told to head back to where you were

Re: Battle lengths: MBT versus real life
 

Like with Mobhack's post that's exactly the kind of answer I was looking for. At first I thought that MBT might vastly overestimate the accuracy and lethality of infantry weapons. But from this thread I get the impression that US infantry squads really do have a 50% chance of hit per volley against Al Qaedas in open terrain and the scenarios just play fast because there isn't any command and control dead time.

Re: Battle lengths: MBT versus real life
 

Thats why modern armies are trying to turn the battlefield into a wargame with drones & cameras on parachutes launched by infantry to aid recon & "Battle Nets" passing info instantly to allow instant response.
If reports are to be believed Merkava's can plot the point of origin of incoming fire in nanoseconds & send the info to the other tanks in its company a moment later. A computer decides which tanks are best positioned to engage that are not engaged already & starts swinging the turret on target.
You want to be a hero?

Re: Battle lengths: MBT versus real life
 

An excellent thread! Here is one way to skin the 99 turn cat...

Create a second scenario that is based on the last turn of the first. It is a little laborious - you have to make a notation of where your units are, and the enemy units. You may need the scenario editor to inflict losses on various units, and adjust morale (if a unit is routing, etc.), and ammo available, etc. Not a perfect solution, but at least it's something. If you don't want to know everything about the disposition of the enemy forces, just note your own forces, and send the saved turn to a friend so he can complete the scenario inputting the enemy data. Again...labor intensive. But it is one imperfect way to go in terms of lengthening a battle beyond 99 turns, so to speak.

For me? I am VERY comfortable with the 99 turn limit, as most of my games don't really go much past 30 turns. And I really like the God-like, all-seeing helicopter-eye-view (and corresponding immediate access to data) that SP MBT offers!

Re: Battle lengths: MBT versus real life
 

Modern combat goes in fits and starts. It is entirely possible to spend an entire battle doing nothing, because there is no action in your area and command doesn't dare move you.

ALL armies are subject to hurry up and wait. I remember being ordered to board lorries (This was back in the mid 70's,) ordered to debus and go back into formations, ordered to board lorries again, sitting and waiting in the lorries out of my mind with desire for a smoke, then being ordered to debus again and go back to quarters. All this took some hours.

It is entirely possible to march all day, patrol all day all night and while fighting is going on elsewhere and never catch spoor of the enemy.

troopie

Re: Battle lengths: MBT versus real life
 

You'd probably have to fundamentally change the game mechanics to simulate that. WinSPMBT is like a highly coordinated specops operation on company/battalion scale.

SPIII sort of attempted to simulate this by implementing an "orders" mechanism where a given unit can only perform so many different actions in a turn.

Re: Battle lengths: MBT versus real life
 

It all becomes a case of do you want a quickfire game or a more realistic one where you only have partial control.
Example & cant remember which hill this battle was over but USA (I think) making an infantry night attack on a major hill during WWII.

There were 3 hills & units were supposed to advance using gullies streams & the edges of woods as landmarks to aid navigation as well as help hide them from the German sentries.

One unit was supposed to make a diversionary raid on one of the secondary hills hopefully drawing off defenders. The main force would then launch an attack on the main hill.

The diversionary attack never happened so after waiting as long as they dared past the time it was suppossed to start the main force launched its attack without it.
They were having a tough time of it when the diversionery force suddenly appeared from behind the Germans basically encircling them & turned the tide.

The diversionary force had got lost & ended up aiming for & attacking the wrong hill several hours behind schedule. However they had complete surprise as they had got so lost they avoided all the German sentries!!!

Turns out they couldnt have planned it much better if the diversionary force had arrived 10-15mins earlier would have been a near perfect assault.

Re: Battle lengths: MBT versus real life
 

Good example. Coordination would probably be especially hard at night and with poor radios. Unless you were just doing a frontal charge.