5 ms·

A Re-Purposed Tactical Decision Game

102 points by fagnerbrack 4y ago

rdl 4y ago
For me (never served in the military, but ran a contracting company operating in war zones for 5-10 years) 1: Priorities: (a) Secure the town at all costs (not strictly "at all costs", but I believe commander's intent is to have a base of supply, and the water source is critical). Mission success is primary here, but I'm not 100% that "secure the town" is the only way. (e) Figure out how to accomplish mission without a fight. (c) Minimize friendly casualties The journalist is secondary. We would never violate laws of armed conflict, and the journalist is a grown ass man who is knowingly in the war zone, so any risk is on him. My career is secondary. I'm uncertain there's a reason to fight the town militia. Ideally I'd go in myself with interpreter and small PSD (with a QRF ready) to negotiate with village elders and get their support. It's their town; we'd happily pay for access, and base outside the town. Maybe upgrade their water/infra too. Town isn't where I'd want to fight from, anyway, just need to to be safe. My logistics point would be terrain based. 2) ConOps to include: b) Approach on the road in daylight k) Occupy hill west of town as base of fire l) Occupy an overwatch position on the hill south of town m) Halt a vehicle heading into town and have them escort you (Basically, set something up overtly to suppress the town IFF it becomes hostile, and if available, conduct surveillance/recon of the town before entry, but then go in overtly and without much drama.) Apparently that was the secondary option "chosen by a significant minority of experts, particularly those with Special Forces experience."
- CMDBob 4y ago
  I read through, and I (someone with no military experience) came to a pretty much identical conclusion. No point fighting if the objective can be secured with diplomacy. Granted, you always have to be ready for a fight, so having overwatch is paramount. But yeah, going for a hearts and minds approach seems the most sensible way of completing the objective with a minimum of fuss, given the situation presented.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    Same here. The tactical options feel like a red herring: because up front the big detail is that the town, and the militia, are not necessarily hostile - though individual members might be. So top priority really is avoiding a fight at all: particularly because your only long range options (the mortars) are going to wipe the town out entirely, and likely lead to having to fight door to door through the two objective structures in the first place.
- bearmode 4y ago
  No experience here, but I came to the exact same conclusions you did. Avoid fights where possible, but be prepared for them if they happen. And presumably you'd think the enemy forces were large enough already, there's no reason to add another couple hundred.
yccs27 4y ago
Definitely click "Compare with the experts" at the end, which presents two different choices with their rationales.
ollybee 4y ago
The UK Military wargaming handbook is an interesting read : https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/641040/doctrine_uk_wargaming_handbook.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
chrisseaton 4y ago
> at all costs People don’t talk like this in the military. You’re never doing something ‘at all costs’. First you’re always bound by the laws of armed conflict, and second you always want to give yourself the mental option of backing out and achieving your objective another way. The town is a means to another end. If you expend all your resources getting the town and have nothing left for the actual objective then you’ve achieved nothing. But if you like this kind of problem - it’s the same format as the entrance tests for the British Army https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AOSB-Practice-Planning-Exercise-2006-08.pdf https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute.com/wp-content/uplo... but they do it without the multiple choice.
- once_inc 4y ago
  As a non-combatant with zero knowledge of military tactics, I'm glad you mention this. I stumbled over this phrase and it made me feel like it was specifically worded to catch unaware participants to the game. Glad to see 'at all costs' isn't a thing in the military.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    > Glad to see 'at all costs' isn't a thing in the military. Well I'd be wary of making that conclusion based on 1 anonymous comment on hn. Especially since news that come to public often contradict that view.
    - rdl 4y ago
      The GP isn't "anonymous", he's a relatively well known field grade officer in the British military who has posted about his experiences publicly before.
  - omginternets 4y ago
    When I was in basic, we were routinely told "discretion is what separates the professional soldier from the thug".
  - narag 4y ago
Cola2265 4y ago
UncleEntity 4y ago
They don’t say if the local militia is hostile in general or just if you try to seize their water source. Which, IMHO, is very critical information to know. One way you could just roll into town, toss the kids some MREs, and tell the townsfolk your mission is to secure the water supply from the enemy and what do they need because they probably have supply issues and really do need stuff. Option B is to have one platoon plus mortars and heavy weapons set up a base of fire while the other two platoons conduct an unmounted assault. That’s how the paratroopers would do it at least. Like the first gulf war, we were attached to a French armored battalion and they didn’t roll up on the Iraqis guns blazing but gave them a chance to surrender which they happily did. I mean, if anyone knows about surrendering… —edit— Oh, I forgot about the size of the local militia. Assaulting a fortified position with that many defenders is at the very least a battalion sized operation especially in an urban environment. And you’re going to take a lot of casualties. Sending a company to do it is virtually impossible if they want to fight.
- donw 4y ago
  Exactly. Most units have access to cash as well. A small stack of bennies and some candies for the kids would do wonders if the town isn’t hostile.
- the_af 4y ago
  > They don’t say if the local militia is hostile in general or just if you try to seize their water source. [...] Which, IMHO, is very critical information to know. I think the point of the exercise is to see what your assumptions are. They ask for your decisions and assumptions. If it's all spelled out for you, what's the point of the challenge? They do say this about the milita (quoting verbatim): - "The local population is of the same ethnic group as both the enemy and the host nation." - "From experience, you know that each oasis has a small militia force consisting of the adult males of the settlement [...] the fighting skills of these outfits vary greatly but most will fight tenaciously to defend their homes and crops." I think the last sentence emphasizes that if you choose to use force, you are in for tenacious resistance and casualties are to be expected. They'll defend their village if they feel threatened. I think this is all you need to know in order to base your assumptions for this wargaming exercise. In fact, this is what the second group, the people with special forces experience, based their answers on. The way I read the article, military people without special forces training usually choose a tactically sound plan that will almost certainly result in casualties on at least one side.
PeterisP 4y ago
The first proposed solution would make much more sense if you actually had overwhelming force for an assault - however, if you've got a hundred or so fighters and the potential opposition is "between 200-250 strong" among 2000 civilians, then no matter what victory-enabling superiority you may have, winning a firefight like that won't minimize friendly casualties or "collateral damage", which were the stated goal of all the experts, so you fail at your goals even if you win the fight. If you have the exact same scenario but for a smaller oasis with five times less population and militia (but you still having the full company), then the conclusions would be different.
- the_af 4y ago
  Even if you have overwhelming force there can still be casualties, especially if the local militia are slow to realize the fight is hopeless. Which can happen, especially if you take them by surprise. The locals will surely take casualties. With zero casualties for the occupying force, this may still be a negative result. Now you've made enemies of the locals, and the word will spread. Assuming your goal is not to become an oppressor you may have hurt your cause by going gung-ho into the village, even if tactically you succeeded.
donw 4y ago
Proper orders include things like “why are we securing this objective”. Really hard to make good choices unless you understand the next-level goal. Also: is the town hostile? Friendly? Unknown? Disposition kinda matters.
- the_af 4y ago
  They do explain why you're securing this objective: you are providing security for a mobile logistics force, which needs to secure Oasis because: > "[...] the logistics commander plans to move in that direction and establish a forward supply point at Oasis, some 40 kilometers north but still several kilometers south of the front" Making assumptions about the town's disposition is part of the challenge; if they spelled it out for you, then what's the point? These are the data points they give you: - "Irregular enemy forces mounted on small trucks and equipped with heavy machine guns are known to operate in the area." - "The local population is of the same ethnic group as both the enemy and the host nation." - "From experience, you know that each oasis has a small militia force consisting of the adult males of the settlement [...] the fighting skills of these outfits vary greatly but most will fight tenaciously to defend their homes and crops." You don't need to know anything else in order to think some assumptions and create a corresponding plan.
  - donw 4y ago
    Okay, missing the objective in my quick read-though is on me. Still, the only real answer to this is: "Gather intelligence on the disposition of Oasis. If hostile, establish order of battle and engage. Otherwise, establish friendly relations and secure in cooperation with local leadership." Immediately jumping to combat is how you get more insurgents, not less.
    - the_af 4y ago
      > Immediately jumping to combat is how you get more insurgents, not less. Totally agreed, and in fact if you read the opinion of the experts (at the end of the exercise), the minority group comprised of people with Special Forces experience agreed with you.
mLuby 4y ago
> We first presented this scenario before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, when most military officers were thinking in terms of conventional combat [seizing the town]. We suspect that after two decades of irregular warfare, the minority approach described here [of negotiating with local leaders] might be more prevalent today. Most games only let players do the former: shoot till the enemy HP is depleted. Would love to see more development along the second path that isn't just dialog trees: where the enemy's morale is depleted.
- the_af 4y ago
  > where the enemy's morale is depleted Do note in option B of this scenario there are no enemies and nobody's morale gets depleted. The commander makes choices so as to avoid turning local villagers into enemies. I would totally like to see this kind of scenarios in "consumer" wargames, and I totally agree with you they are disappointingly about depleting hitpoints or whatever. They are shooters (or their RTS equivalents) rather than thinking wargames.
Zarkonnen 4y ago
Secret option X: Reconsider your life choices and how they have led you to be part of an imperial occupying force.
digitallyfree 4y ago
FYI the site also has a second TDG exercise that is worth trying if you like this kind of stuff. https://www.shadowboxtraining.com/news/2021/06/02/enemy-in-the-assembly-area/ https://www.shadowboxtraining.com/news/2021/06/02/enemy-in-t...

102 points by fagnerbrack 4y ago

rdl 4y ago

For me (never served in the military, but ran a contracting company operating in war zones for 5-10 years) 1: Priorities: (a) Secure the town at all costs (not strictly "at all costs", but I believe commander's intent is to have a base of supply, and the water source is critical). Mission success is primary here, but I'm not 100% that "secure the town" is the only way. (e) Figure out how to accomplish mission without a fight. (c) Minimize friendly casualties The journalist is secondary. We would never violate laws of armed conflict, and the journalist is a grown ass man who is knowingly in the war zone, so any risk is on him. My career is secondary. I'm uncertain there's a reason to fight the town militia. Ideally I'd go in myself with interpreter and small PSD (with a QRF ready) to negotiate with village elders and get their support. It's their town; we'd happily pay for access, and base outside the town. Maybe upgrade their water/infra too. Town isn't where I'd want to fight from, anyway, just need to to be safe. My logistics point would be terrain based. 2) ConOps to include: b) Approach on the road in daylight k) Occupy hill west of town as base of fire l) Occupy an overwatch position on the hill south of town m) Halt a vehicle heading into town and have them escort you (Basically, set something up overtly to suppress the town IFF it becomes hostile, and if available, conduct surveillance/recon of the town before entry, but then go in overtly and without much drama.) Apparently that was the secondary option "chosen by a significant minority of experts, particularly those with Special Forces experience."

CMDBob 4y ago
I read through, and I (someone with no military experience) came to a pretty much identical conclusion. No point fighting if the objective can be secured with diplomacy. Granted, you always have to be ready for a fight, so having overwatch is paramount. But yeah, going for a hearts and minds approach seems the most sensible way of completing the objective with a minimum of fuss, given the situation presented.
- XorNot 4y ago
  Same here. The tactical options feel like a red herring: because up front the big detail is that the town, and the militia, are not necessarily hostile - though individual members might be. So top priority really is avoiding a fight at all: particularly because your only long range options (the mortars) are going to wipe the town out entirely, and likely lead to having to fight door to door through the two objective structures in the first place.
bearmode 4y ago
No experience here, but I came to the exact same conclusions you did. Avoid fights where possible, but be prepared for them if they happen. And presumably you'd think the enemy forces were large enough already, there's no reason to add another couple hundred.

yccs27 4y ago

Definitely click "Compare with the experts" at the end, which presents two different choices with their rationales.

ollybee 4y ago

The UK Military wargaming handbook is an interesting read : https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/641040/doctrine_uk_wargaming_handbook.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

chrisseaton 4y ago

> at all costs People don’t talk like this in the military. You’re never doing something ‘at all costs’. First you’re always bound by the laws of armed conflict, and second you always want to give yourself the mental option of backing out and achieving your objective another way. The town is a means to another end. If you expend all your resources getting the town and have nothing left for the actual objective then you’ve achieved nothing. But if you like this kind of problem - it’s the same format as the entrance tests for the British Army https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AOSB-Practice-Planning-Exercise-2006-08.pdf https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute.com/wp-content/uplo... but they do it without the multiple choice.

once_inc 4y ago
As a non-combatant with zero knowledge of military tactics, I'm glad you mention this. I stumbled over this phrase and it made me feel like it was specifically worded to catch unaware participants to the game. Glad to see 'at all costs' isn't a thing in the military.
- andrepd 4y ago
  > Glad to see 'at all costs' isn't a thing in the military. Well I'd be wary of making that conclusion based on 1 anonymous comment on hn. Especially since news that come to public often contradict that view.
  - rdl 4y ago
    The GP isn't "anonymous", he's a relatively well known field grade officer in the British military who has posted about his experiences publicly before.
- omginternets 4y ago
  When I was in basic, we were routinely told "discretion is what separates the professional soldier from the thug".
- narag 4y ago

Cola2265 4y ago

UncleEntity 4y ago

They don’t say if the local militia is hostile in general or just if you try to seize their water source. Which, IMHO, is very critical information to know. One way you could just roll into town, toss the kids some MREs, and tell the townsfolk your mission is to secure the water supply from the enemy and what do they need because they probably have supply issues and really do need stuff. Option B is to have one platoon plus mortars and heavy weapons set up a base of fire while the other two platoons conduct an unmounted assault. That’s how the paratroopers would do it at least. Like the first gulf war, we were attached to a French armored battalion and they didn’t roll up on the Iraqis guns blazing but gave them a chance to surrender which they happily did. I mean, if anyone knows about surrendering… —edit— Oh, I forgot about the size of the local militia. Assaulting a fortified position with that many defenders is at the very least a battalion sized operation especially in an urban environment. And you’re going to take a lot of casualties. Sending a company to do it is virtually impossible if they want to fight.

donw 4y ago
Exactly. Most units have access to cash as well. A small stack of bennies and some candies for the kids would do wonders if the town isn’t hostile.
the_af 4y ago
> They don’t say if the local militia is hostile in general or just if you try to seize their water source. [...] Which, IMHO, is very critical information to know. I think the point of the exercise is to see what your assumptions are. They ask for your decisions and assumptions. If it's all spelled out for you, what's the point of the challenge? They do say this about the milita (quoting verbatim): - "The local population is of the same ethnic group as both the enemy and the host nation." - "From experience, you know that each oasis has a small militia force consisting of the adult males of the settlement [...] the fighting skills of these outfits vary greatly but most will fight tenaciously to defend their homes and crops." I think the last sentence emphasizes that if you choose to use force, you are in for tenacious resistance and casualties are to be expected. They'll defend their village if they feel threatened. I think this is all you need to know in order to base your assumptions for this wargaming exercise. In fact, this is what the second group, the people with special forces experience, based their answers on. The way I read the article, military people without special forces training usually choose a tactically sound plan that will almost certainly result in casualties on at least one side.

PeterisP 4y ago

The first proposed solution would make much more sense if you actually had overwhelming force for an assault - however, if you've got a hundred or so fighters and the potential opposition is "between 200-250 strong" among 2000 civilians, then no matter what victory-enabling superiority you may have, winning a firefight like that won't minimize friendly casualties or "collateral damage", which were the stated goal of all the experts, so you fail at your goals even if you win the fight. If you have the exact same scenario but for a smaller oasis with five times less population and militia (but you still having the full company), then the conclusions would be different.

the_af 4y ago
Even if you have overwhelming force there can still be casualties, especially if the local militia are slow to realize the fight is hopeless. Which can happen, especially if you take them by surprise. The locals will surely take casualties. With zero casualties for the occupying force, this may still be a negative result. Now you've made enemies of the locals, and the word will spread. Assuming your goal is not to become an oppressor you may have hurt your cause by going gung-ho into the village, even if tactically you succeeded.

donw 4y ago

Proper orders include things like “why are we securing this objective”. Really hard to make good choices unless you understand the next-level goal. Also: is the town hostile? Friendly? Unknown? Disposition kinda matters.

the_af 4y ago
They do explain why you're securing this objective: you are providing security for a mobile logistics force, which needs to secure Oasis because: > "[...] the logistics commander plans to move in that direction and establish a forward supply point at Oasis, some 40 kilometers north but still several kilometers south of the front" Making assumptions about the town's disposition is part of the challenge; if they spelled it out for you, then what's the point? These are the data points they give you: - "Irregular enemy forces mounted on small trucks and equipped with heavy machine guns are known to operate in the area." - "The local population is of the same ethnic group as both the enemy and the host nation." - "From experience, you know that each oasis has a small militia force consisting of the adult males of the settlement [...] the fighting skills of these outfits vary greatly but most will fight tenaciously to defend their homes and crops." You don't need to know anything else in order to think some assumptions and create a corresponding plan.
- donw 4y ago
  Okay, missing the objective in my quick read-though is on me. Still, the only real answer to this is: "Gather intelligence on the disposition of Oasis. If hostile, establish order of battle and engage. Otherwise, establish friendly relations and secure in cooperation with local leadership." Immediately jumping to combat is how you get more insurgents, not less.
  - the_af 4y ago
    > Immediately jumping to combat is how you get more insurgents, not less. Totally agreed, and in fact if you read the opinion of the experts (at the end of the exercise), the minority group comprised of people with Special Forces experience agreed with you.

mLuby 4y ago

> We first presented this scenario before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, when most military officers were thinking in terms of conventional combat [seizing the town]. We suspect that after two decades of irregular warfare, the minority approach described here [of negotiating with local leaders] might be more prevalent today. Most games only let players do the former: shoot till the enemy HP is depleted. Would love to see more development along the second path that isn't just dialog trees: where the enemy's morale is depleted.

the_af 4y ago
> where the enemy's morale is depleted Do note in option B of this scenario there are no enemies and nobody's morale gets depleted. The commander makes choices so as to avoid turning local villagers into enemies. I would totally like to see this kind of scenarios in "consumer" wargames, and I totally agree with you they are disappointingly about depleting hitpoints or whatever. They are shooters (or their RTS equivalents) rather than thinking wargames.

Zarkonnen 4y ago

Secret option X: Reconsider your life choices and how they have led you to be part of an imperial occupying force.

digitallyfree 4y ago

FYI the site also has a second TDG exercise that is worth trying if you like this kind of stuff. https://www.shadowboxtraining.com/news/2021/06/02/enemy-in-the-assembly-area/ https://www.shadowboxtraining.com/news/2021/06/02/enemy-in-t...