ES - seige assault strategy

Thu Mar 23 20:36:28 PST 2000

First thing we do is determine the commander's "training objectives., or what he wants to get out  of it.  Then, who is the training audiance, or who is getting trained.  Then, given the type of terrain the commander wants to fight on we supply a enemy to go against him.  Now the interesting thing about manual simulations is you can stop them at any time and talk about "why" something happened the way it did.  Then redo it with very little down time.  Because it's a learning experience, a "I don't know" is an exceptable answer.

To replicate a unit that's trying not so much to kill the other guy as it is trying to delay him, a perry or perry delay rule could be used to replicate that.  This would of course be based on the amount of time or unit activity points that each "turn" repersents.

It all depends on how detailed you want to get. Also, what would your training objectives be?  It's not as easy as the broad brush, "take the castle".

When I'm running a manual simulation for a army unit, I know what the Commander wants and how the OPFOR (Opposing Forces) will act according to the Doctrine of that particular enemy.  Then, based on the proficency level of the unit (unit personnel are constantly changing and thus having to relearn things on a regular bases) I'll determine how hard the enemy will fight.  There's no training value in "poof you're dead".

Gilli
-----Original Message-----
    From: Adam Harrison <hookshot at star-telegram.com>
    To: elfsea at ansteorra.org <elfsea at ansteorra.org>
    Date: Thursday, March 23, 2000 9:52 PM
    Subject: Re: ES - seige assault strategy

    Well, as far as minature gaming goes, I've been playing some of the more futuristic type games for quite some time now, I'm just now getting into historical mini games.

    Games Workshop has a new historical/fantasy game out called "warmaster" that is supposed to include rules for runners sending orders to units.  if the runner doesn't make it, the unit doesn't get the change in orders...  I haven't seen the rules so I can't vouch for thier usefulness, however most of the games I play involve luck just as much as tactical skill.  I'd say if we do simulations, we should try limiting the dice rolling as much as possible.  perhaps give each unit a 50/50 chance of surviving an engagement, possibly giving bonuses to trained units such as the Arthurian Company.  Something would also have to be in there about a unit staying alive and holding off an enemy unit.  what I mean there is some way to simulate the Arthurians holding over 60 men for some period of time.  we knew we would be wiped out, the trick was to stay alive for so long.  We didn't kill the 60, we just held them up.

    How do you resolve simulated conflicts at Ft Hood?

    All of my "armies" are futuristic at this point, but I can get some highly detailed minis pretty easily, it would just cost a bit.  I'm thinking single color plastic toy "knights" are in order here...

    On a seige engine note, I've been spending some time working on a feasable design for the arrowgeddon and I think I have one.  It involves 4 removable "cartriges" of 21 arrows each, one bow(unspecified poundage probably 35-40), and a superstructure around the bow.  Each shot would fire 84 arrows.  The reason for using a bow instead of a springloaded plate is that there would be no way to measure the "poundage" on a spring plate, and therefore marshals would not be able to check the speed(and force) of the arrows and thus would not be able to determine the safety of the device... Also by using a bow, you can apply force to the arrows for a much greater period than with the plate, thus more range.  The blueprints for the design are a tad more complicated than described above, but they're not impossible to build.  Once school gets out I'll have time to build one of these things and we'll see what it can do.  A word of caution though, if ABB's(anti bounce back devices) are required next year this design will need some serious re-working, as would any other I have thought of for launching a large number of arrows in one shot.

    Estimated cost for this guy is around $150-200 in materials or so.  that would not include extra cartridges(which would be needed if we want to fire this thing with any amount of speed).  That also would not include arrows, which we would need at least 420-588 to have an effective engine for an entire battle.(think about it folks, that's not that many shots.... 5-7 if my math skills are correct)

    Anyways that's what's been running through my head when I haven't been thinking Calculus and haven't been thinking of a certain someone who I met at war who happened to call me last night...

    -Bjorn

    ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Bob Dewart 
        To: elfsea at ansteorra.org 
        Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 8:31 PM
        Subject: Re: ES - seige assault strategy

        Greetings and Hi There, 

        Simulations!! I love it!!  That's my real world business with the US Army.  Command post exercises they are called.  They allow the leaders to learn what to do without wasting the troops time.

        Depending on how much you want to spend on the set up, it could be very simple, quit fancy or somewhere in between.  Indiviual soldiers could be used or perhaps blocks of wood to repesent formations.

        Does anyone up there play miniatures such as ancients?  If so, they will have ready made armys you might be able to use to train with.  There are several  sets of "rules" on the market that are pretty good you could use.  Or you could come up with your own.

        Please let me know if I could be of a help in this matter.  It's what I do for a living.  I even have my own training aids.

        Gilli
        Instructor III Corps Battle Simulation Center, Fort Hood, Texas.  :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ansteorra.org/pipermail/elfsea-ansteorra.org/attachments/20000323/cb3ff367/attachment-0008.htm>