Thread 64108705

How valuable are Eugen Systems games as tools for understanding modern warfare and the strategy behind it?

Not very, to be accessible to more casual military enthusiast audiences alot has to be simplified, abstracted and dumbed down. Its not a mark against the game necessarily, but you'll want to look elsewhere for games with more educational value.

>>64108748
>alot has to be simplified, abstracted and dumbed down
Anything in particular stand out to you?

At first I thought it had no value versus professional wargames, but the static battlefield where maneuver was dangerous lest a torrent of fire support delete your pushes, and "cheese tactics that were prevalent in Airland Battle and Red Dragon were utterly vindicated by the Ukraine conflict.

>>64108770
instant control and instant intelligence. even the current RTS-like meta in Ukraine is far from a wargame match in terms of how much you can observe and how solid centralized command can be.

>>64108705 (OP)
Here's a game where you command and take reports only over a radio. I have no idea if it's any good but it's worth a look to get that sort of experience.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1011610/Radio_General/

>>64108705 (OP)
they are toys
games remotely resembling actual training tools are:
CM
flashpoint campaigns
command series
sea power

just get combat mission instead

>>64108809
>sending a massive wave of airborne special forces troops around the map edge to kill their home-objective command vehicles and seize their FOBs
It's all so obvious in hindsight. The difference is that it actually works for me.

>>64108770
Air combat is a prettu easy one, everything from energy state, notching, emissions control and so forth just gets reduced down to "missile has 70% hit chance, plane has 20% ECM rating". For a more detailed comparison, contrast how you utilize artillery in the Combat Mission series.

In CM, the process is significantly more detailed. Firstly, you don't typically order artillery via the unit itself, but through a requesting unit. What units can access fire support assets depend on national and unit doctrine - whereas in Shock Force (2010s NATO/Syrian conflict) an American rifle squad can call for the company mortars, their Syrian counterparts both can't (they lack squad level radios) and arent authorized to (they need at least a platoon HQ to make that call). Once that call is made, then comes a delay as the artillery unit makes the needed preparations, before they fire off spotting/ranging shots. How accurate the strike will be depends largely on how well the requesting unit can observe the spotting shells - if they're able to see them clearly and calmly, then they can walk the fire onto the target. If they cant, theyre inexperienced or pinned down, then the resulting artillery fire could be well off target. And now that shells are flying, the speed of fire may degrade as the unit goes from a maximum rate of fire to a sustained rate. As a result of all of this, using artillery takes planning and effort to get good results out of, otherwise you end up with inaccurate fire landing 10 minutes after you needed it.

Meanwhile in Wargame, the only nuance is if any unit has LoS to the aim point at the moment you click target.

>>64108705 (OP)
Despite the simplifications anons have already elaborated on, I still stand behind it's effectiveness as a training tool for junior Army officers. It's also useful to an officer of a different service who'd like to better understand how the Army fights, to enhance combined arms support or engage hostiles through insight into how they think. It's detailed enough to teach a canny student how to "read the tide of battle", so long as the limitations of gameplay assumptions like "no mine warfare" and "limited ISR" are evaluated and acknowledged.

The biggest point in favor of Eugen Systems is the 10v10 multiplayer. Real battles are fought by teams of subordinate commanders, not two generals micromanaging every individual tank. Human opponents are also far less predictable - many wargame AI are absurdly simple behind the scenes and/or cheaters with an IQ handicap. Human players also run the gamut of skill and personality - lessons like "winners don't waste time being prima donnas to the other company commanders, even if they're bad ones" and "How to coordinate with someone who barely speaks English" are useful for junior officers. Less of a problem now than these have been historically in western armies, but the behavior of the Russian Ground Forces circa 2022 very strongly resembled REDFOR on their way to a "Serious Defeat"; anything which reinforces the importance of good intra-command relations will improve combat effectiveness.

For non-army officers, Eugen titles are deep enough to teach/reinforce actionable lessons about how the service fights. Intel too delayed to effectively strike those MLRS command wants dead? Fuck up their supply FOB or task someone who can, it's much easier to locate and often predictably placed at the nearest road junction. SAM concentration too high? Artillery can do SEAD/DEAD too. Enemy air as strong as you are, limiting sorties/inflicting high attrition? Coordinate with the AA defense battalion to bait them into a SAM trap.

>>64108908
Given the GLA-tier army of Russia, I guess you can add C&C Generals.

>>64108705 (OP)
Are these the games that have a modern warfare magazine? The mag is dope it has great maps and gets into partisan shit and africa and asia... I've wondered about those since the gaming threads with RtW and that bomber one. Also the space one was good too thanks mods for letting it stay.

>>64108905
I can scream at my computer in a rage just fine on /k thank you.

>>64108705 (OP)
>>64109612
Four particular lessons it can teach:
- the value of small-unit infiltration - recon, SF
- the substantial value of locating and assassinating command teams, and not being predictable with your own
- the substantial value of smoke screens (and by extension, radio jamming and other forms of disruption and suppression)
- how to identify likely logistic/repair centers for recon or blind fires, and why it's important to balance logistic efficiency with the fact that routine activity will get people killed.

>>64108705 (OP)
ruse remains the best real time strategy game that is playable with a controller at couch distance
proof me wrong
you cannot

>>64109708
This has been memed often, but there are some great lessons here for ambitious officers of a 2nd/3rd rate world power. Command may not allow / can't finance real unscripted training, but you can coordinate recreational gamenights (and semi-realistic decks/ OoB) with fellow platoon/company COs, to build rapport and avoid basic errors like "tank columns blind fast-moving down roads".

i think it's decent. it's not autism-grade, but it gives a good introduction while being fun.

>>64108705 (OP)
Not really because it has no prepared defensive positions. No mines, no trenches, no nothing

>>64110155
The pace of cold-war (Fulda scenario) mechanized meeting engagements the franchise models wouldn't allow much of that past the border fortifications, but it is a severe limitation for simulating other scenarios.

One game I think does a really good job of hammering in the importance of intel is Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance. While it's not realistic in the setting it depicts, the intel is great. In most RTS games, either fog of war is impenetrable, and you don't have realistic aircraft that move fast and can scout, so basically you just accept not knowing, or there's no fog of war and you see everything.

In SupCom, there's fog of war, but you can also see enemy presence through radar (land & air units) and sonar (naval units) - but you don't see which units they are, just whether they're land, naval, air, or structure. If you had direct vision on them, their identification is tracked through the fog of war as long as their radar signature is never lost (due to moving out, under stealth, or a power grid interruption on your end). You can get direct vision in a variety of ways, but this includes scout aircraft, which are cheap, fast-moving, and disposable. It's worth making and sending these out regularly because this lets you tune your strategy to what the enemy is doing and react to longer-term threats in development. It's likewise worth intercepting the enemy's spy planes if you're able, so he can't just counter whatever you're working on.

Some units have radar jamming that creates a bunch of false signatures near them, so you can mislead the enemy as to how much force you have in an area if he doesn't actively scout. Some units/buildings have stealth fields that prevent radar from showing them, so if an area is not patrolled they can be used to quietly set up camp in an area the enemy isn't expecting an attack from - and by that same token it's worth periodically patrolling your own area with spy planes just in case.

>>64110391
Eugen simulates an era where devices like ground surveillance radar and persistent ISR were in it's infancy, but anything post-90s would absolutely benefit from features like those (or earlier, if the topic is naval/air warfare centric). In my limited experience, Nebulous: Fleet Command does a good job of adapting similar concepts to a multiplayer game.

>>64108809
Correct and it teaches you the value of actually having supply lines
These are basic battlefield 101 things but I guess Putin only played to get his first minute Spetsnaz helo rushes in

>>64108908
Combat Missions aren't because the spotting in nu-CM is so fucked and it doesn't simulate AA or anything like that
Older Combat Missions are good but take place in a WW2 environment and still don't have supply lines or anything

>>64108959
Artillery is pretty much only the relevant detail CM has - I guess night fighting equipment is another, however
In SF or SF2 you could easily have an American reinforced company delete vastly larger Syrian formations after dark

>>64110391
Game doesn't have to be realistic to teach you important concepts.
SupCom for example has surprisingly good naval combat because it highlights the importance of screen ships if only to intercept incoming enemy fire to protect your capital ships thus T1 is still important with naval all the way up to late game.
SupCom also does allow you to focus on implementing real life strategies and visualize them happening in real time so even if the units are not realistic the strategies being used are.

>>64108908
Here's a lecture from a USMC officer talking about some of the games one of their wargaming groups play. Flashpoint Campaigns: Southern Storm, WarPlan, CMANO, some sims I've never heard of, and CM. Various things:
https://youtu.be/BM1_bgUQ744

This is interesting:
https://www.fightclubinternational.org/

>>64111395
Or this is a specific Marine Corps college that plays around with these games. "Marine Corps' Wargaming Cloud"

>>64108705 (OP)
Wargame very much predicted the future.

>>64111395
>>64111406
Ex-flashpoint dev here, this was probably one of the coolest things I ever remember seeing. Some of the Marines' top brass playing around with content I made gives me a feeling I can't really describe.

If you're an autist like I was you'll fall in love with it immediately, give it a try. They got more in the pipeline but progress is slow since a lot of them are juggling IRL shit or second jobs.

>>64111406
shit, I remember Marine Doom from waaaaaay back in the stone age that was encouraged to be installed on government computers until every Sargent Major shat a fucking brick because duty was playing vidya games at 0200 instead of being miserable like they're supposed to be.

>>64112618
I haven't played it, but I'll give it a look. I liked the TOAW series. My brother also plays these games and I don't think he's given it a shot...

Man, I have no idea where to even start with this stuff and respect you anons who have encyclopediac knowledge. I just want to semi-simulate dumb 'what if' wars of various types but am not smart enough to spend years learning war things.

>>64108770
>>64108705 (OP)
Maps are way to small, and there's no logistics simulation. So not very useful.

>>64115941
Start small, classic RTS and 4x games like Age of Empires, Age of Mythology, or Civ are simple fun but also contain relatively detailed plain-english descriptions of each unit, nation etc.
All it takes is some curiosity and a click to start reading about your favorites. In no way realistic simulations, but they ignited my passion for such subjects and poured the foundation.

>>64116016
they do simulate logistics but inaccurately. in wargame you get requisition on clock ticks by holding victory points whereas IRL you get requisition by killing enemy soldiers which gives you points to spend in the equipment store

the most accurate simulation of battlefield logistics was therefore the CoD killstreak system

Eugen Systems really need to stop fucking around and make a R.U.S.E. II

This seems like a good thread to ask, do anons know any titles that do include a robust combat engineering layer? Enlisted and Battlebit have some in very arcadey form. Constructing, surmounting or breaching obstacles, entrenching, deploying mines, maybe even driving a dozer or JCB HMEE? Nothing has tickled me quite like watching from a bush as both OPFOR tank spawns drive one after another into a ditch I dug to protect the objective's flank route, completely immobilize themselves and then suicide.

WARNO has taught me that no matter how bad you feel about it, you'll eventually use the worse/cheapest unit as a tripwire to warn you of incoming attacks while you focus on another part of the theatre. Now I have to make sure that I'm worth more than the average grunt in case I'm ever mobilized

>>64116163
It isn't how civilized people are supposed to fight wars but it's 100% how the Ukraine war plays out

>>64116213
that's exactly how every army fights. what exactly do you think a "screen" or a "picket line" does when an enemy attack occurs? what is an "advance to contact" or "reconnaisance in force"? what happens to the point man when making contact?

competent armies use screens, pickets, outposts etc to force the enemy to reveal themselves early. armies that do not get bushwhacked

>>64118297
You have a point there but I only take issue with the word "cheapest"
Technically it be like that but only Russians and Russian-adjacent peoples think like that