i would like to see the planning involved in the overall simulation! its really interesting using the mix modal simulation to test out modern combat theory. very nice video
I really enjoy what Fight Club does, but I'm not sure how using Combat Mission (ultra-tactical level) can be a proof of concept for a Corps level asset that is responsible for answering Priority Information Requirements for the Corps commander. I'm not sure what this video is showing related to CORPS recon. I'm not sure what a firefight is going to tell you about the Corps Recon concept. I don't think CM is the right simulation to prove this concept.
As my 2 bob's worth: I agree. I think the issue here regards what assumptions are being made and the parameters being presented ( which seem completely arbitrary) I might be well off the mark here, but I assume one could just as easily deem the entire red-held village to be a grid square amenable to saturation by CAS/ ADO. The tactical map seems to show a clear demarcation between who holds what. So I say: change the assumption about the inability of CAS to ID targets and smash the right ( ?eastern) side of this village. Let's assume that the BLUFOR recce troops have the abilitiy to direct the CAS. Result? A smashing victory for BLUFOR and proof of concept. What's the difference? Answer= the assumptions built into the simulation by the referees.....with absolutely no change...? Have I missed something here?
i wonder how bad those nato officers react to their tanks and soldiers being blind AF. oh wait, my tanks and soldiers are blind because I play the recreational version of combat mission kek
i would like to see the planning involved in the overall simulation! its really interesting using the mix modal simulation to test out modern combat theory. very nice video
Great to talk about this concept with you guys at DSET!
I really enjoy what Fight Club does, but I'm not sure how using Combat Mission (ultra-tactical level) can be a proof of concept for a Corps level asset that is responsible for answering Priority Information Requirements for the Corps commander.
I'm not sure what this video is showing related to CORPS recon.
I'm not sure what a firefight is going to tell you about the Corps Recon concept. I don't think CM is the right simulation to prove this concept.
As my 2 bob's worth: I agree. I think the issue here regards what assumptions are being made and the parameters being presented ( which seem completely arbitrary)
I might be well off the mark here, but I assume one could just as easily deem the entire red-held village to be a grid square amenable to saturation by CAS/ ADO. The tactical map seems to show a clear demarcation between who holds what. So I say: change the assumption about the inability of CAS to ID targets and smash the right ( ?eastern) side of this village. Let's assume that the BLUFOR recce troops have the abilitiy to direct the CAS.
Result? A smashing victory for BLUFOR and proof of concept. What's the difference? Answer= the assumptions built into the simulation by the referees.....with absolutely no change...? Have I missed something here?
dude!! thank you for the vid
great video!
i wonder how bad those nato officers react to their tanks and soldiers being blind AF. oh wait, my tanks and soldiers are blind because I play the recreational version of combat mission kek
Hi Dom
What is "Modern War Pro"? Cant' find anything on it