<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<META content='"MSHTML 4.71.1712.3"' name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000><FONT size=3>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.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000><FONT size=3>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.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000><FONT size=3></FONT></FONT><FONT
size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>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".</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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".</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Gilli</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><B>-----Original Message-----</B><BR><B>From:
</B>Adam Harrison <<A
href="mailto:hookshot@star-telegram.com">hookshot@star-telegram.com</A>><BR><B>To:
</B><A href="mailto:elfsea@ansteorra.org">elfsea@ansteorra.org</A> <<A
href="mailto:elfsea@ansteorra.org">elfsea@ansteorra.org</A>><BR><B>Date:
</B>Thursday, March 23, 2000 9:52 PM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: ES - seige
assault strategy<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>How do you resolve simulated conflicts at Ft
Hood?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-Bjorn</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A href="mailto:gilli@seacove.net" title=gilli@seacove.net>Bob
Dewart</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
href="mailto:elfsea@ansteorra.org"
title=elfsea@ansteorra.org>elfsea@ansteorra.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 23, 2000 8:31
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: ES - seige assault
strategy</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000><FONT size=3>Greetings and Hi
There,</FONT></FONT><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000><FONT size=3></FONT></FONT><FONT
size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="" size=3>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="" size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Gilli</DIV>
<DIV>Instructor III Corps Battle Simulation Center, Fort Hood,
Texas. :)</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>