Posts made by Redleg13A

@rjpeters70:

Ok, thanks. � Like I said, I was asking the question honestly. � It does seem like there are some concepts that can be applied to the tactical. �

But COIN/stability ops isn’t small wars stuff. � It’s nation building, and I can’t imagine the U.S. getting involved in another Phase IV/V nation building activity anytime soon (apart from a collapse of DPRK). � And I’m not even talking about cyber wars stuff, I’m talking about large scale conventional war, potentially with a nuclear-armed adversary. � That to me is the biggest security challenge facing the US in the 2020-2030 timeframe. � That doesn’t mean that I’m jumping ship on the trigger pullers–it means the trigger pullers go back to the forefront of operations, and the snake-eaters go back to their more traditional role.

“Then that LT is out there all alone, under trained, under equipped, utterly ignorant of his/her surroundings because the enemy decided to not fight our fight. I’m preparing them for that moment. I think if they can understand the complexities involved in COIN/Stability/ low-medium intensity conflict…everything else will come easy.” � Ok, back down, take it easy, and breathe. � Let’s not turn this into the lone ROTC-instructor versus the SCMR/CAPE/OSD. � No one is trying to make trigger pullers undertrained or underequipped because we don’t think we’ll be sending men into battle, because UAVs and the boys at Ft. Meade will be doing the fighting for us. � That’s a strawman argument to which no one actually subscribes.

What people are doing is reposturing the force to fight a different kind of war than the ones we’ve fought for the past decade and a half. � So, in such a light, what do we want the force to achieve? � For what ends? � What’s the best way to posture the force, given national objectives and budgetary requirements. � Things like the DPG try to address those issues head on and in an intellectually honest way. �

And if you think an 02 being prepared for a COIN operational environment makes him prepared to deal with anything–then how will COIN prepare him for say, episodic nuclear use by adversary within their own theater? � Because if you can answer that one, then my hat is off to you sir.

You’ll have to forgive me for soapboxing it up…I do that sometimes, no harm no foul.

Not just COIN, but stability ops i.e. peace keeping or the enforcement of NATO/UN treaties such as the Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo etc, example. None of them nation building but with a very real chance to break out into a small intensity conflict.

I’m not necessarily convinced that high intensity conflict in on the US foreign policy horizon. Sure, there is a threat of it, as there has always been. Yet, I really think if we go to war with, say, a country like China or Russia it won’t be on the order of WWII. I don’t think either would risk a war with us which would seriously damage their economic growth that they’ve both managed to achieve through a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. That’s assuming we still manage to operate on the world stage and don’t implode on ourselves due to being spent into the ground trying to keep up with the Jone’s in the military and global market.

As for the nuclear question about that LT dealing with a nuclear strike in their battle space…that’s all 10 level skill sets that every soldier trains on anyways. As far as I know, responding to a CBRN threat is still a soldiers common skill task and that LT would follow his units SOP/TTP’s in dealing with that specific threat. Besides, if the balloon ever went up and you were witness to a mushroom cloud growing over your position…it’s really a matter of time before you and 95% of your contingent are dead anyways. You’re simply postponing the inevitable until fresh bodies can move forward to continue the fight.

The point about COIN/stability ops preparing for most types of situations is because of the nuances involved that aren’t necessarily experienced in HIC. Soldiers can go from direct action TIC’s, to giving out soccer balls to kids, to evacuating wounded from an IED, to conducting a KLE all within an afternoon. Those same LT’s also will be usually operating autonomously in their own AO’s, making their own targeting packages, vetting their own sources, and co-ordinating dialogue between the local population and their own mission objectives…while remaining vigilant to ensure force protection and fighting the enemy actions all at the same time. That LT is more of a surgeons tool in this regard.

Whereas if the fight is high intensity (I think the battle of Fallujah is a good example of a high intensity fight even though the war itself wasn’t) your mission as an LT is pretty straight forward. Kill the enemy, take your objectives. Support by fire, maneuver. Co-ordinate assets, set the conditions, repeat. Violence of action, violence of action, violence of action…That LT is more of a sledgehammer…

That’s the point I was trying to make.

@rjpeters70:

And Redleg, my comment is really less pointed at you, and more at those on these boards (not going to name names) who seem to think that because they play a lot of A and A, they would have known the correct thing to do in World War II, or could have done a better job of it, if they were simply made warlord of a particular campaign, that’s all.

Understood, and that’s where my training as a historian comes in. Objectivity is the key here and they need to be able to understand that. Besides, if they start to exhibit the symptoms of hubris I will quickly do the sharp shooter rhetorical questions that will punch holes in their hubris logic! lol

I’m trying to convey that wisdom and maturity isn’t knowing everything…it is realizing how much you DON’T know…

@rjpeters70:

"There are fundamental concepts that work from the squad all the way up to the Army level that can be displayed through this game."� Which ones?� Honest question.� I’m just not sure what concepts could be learned from A and A that can be transferred to the platoon/company level.

"As a matter of fact, just this last weekend I playtested a concept using Flames of War as a base for being a commander in an operation. A Marine friend of mine shot me an WARNO/OPORD 2 days before the “operation” with a map he made displaying my “battle space”. He then took “recon” photos of the surrounding terrain and of a village I was to defend against an opponent that vastly outnumbered me. I deployed my forces through either Facebook instant message or text while they updated via the same devices, rolled the die, moved the individual pieces, and acted the part of squad leaders/ platoon leaders when reporting. I had a time limit to make decisions based off the intelligence I had on hand. My opponent was 400 miles away doing the same thing with his force simultaneously to me. It worked out brilliantly."� That’s great.� There’s real learning opportunities there for ROTC members.� But that’s not A and A.

"In today’s current COIN/stability operations type setting, a platoons or even a teams actions can very much have strategic consequences."� Except we will not be doing large-scale COIN/stability operations for at least another decade.� The NSS and JOC make that clear.� A2AD fights will be far more central to our national posture.

"THAT’S the training value of it. Not to mention it is going to develop the portion of their brains that causes them to execute good judgement and being able to foresee 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order effects to the decisions they make."� Possibly, but wouldn’t chess do the same thing?

I guess for me, I’d much rather my 01s and 02s be focused on the tactical and developing leadership qualities.� By 03, start learning about the actual things that make our military successful (logistics and an empowered NCO corps).� By 04, doing staff work.� 05, learning the Joint world and operational art.�

I just think that 18-22 year old ROTC folks need to focus on the tactical, because that’s their job.� The game you described sounds like a good way to do that.� I’m a proponent of games, so long as game designs are linked up to specific learning objectives.

How about, in the absence of orders a ANY decision is almost always better than no decision.

Having a reserve for exploiting local success or for shoring up hard hit portions of the line is pretty freaking useful.

The enemy has a say no matter if I’m a TL or 4 star.

I have to account for the unknown and anticipate my enemies strategies.

Timing and surprise are crucial to success and can compensate for many initial disadvantages.

Does it make sense to attack a position if it will become untenable once taken?

Or how about just asking the question “Does it all add up?” or “does this make sense?”

I can create teaching points out of these off the top of my head by using Axis and Allies and I’m not going to overwhelm them with all the details necessary to be proficients at all the Battle Drills or everything the is going to be covered in FM 3-21.8 or learning the very complicated rules necessary to play a game like FoW. I have to build up to it in order to garner interest so the cadets will trust that when I’m doing something they’re not familiar with, it’s going to be worth them giving up their Friday night.

If you think COIN or Stability operations are dead…well, I think you may be off base there a bit. The US has a real bad habit of assuming the enemy is going to comply with us wanting to break their Army in a Fulda gap type setting and it’s just not going to happen that way. More wars that we’ve fought have been the small, obscure, ugly wars by far. At this moment is seems the Army is purging its institutional knowledge that has been gained over the last 13 years just like it did after Vietnam. A2AD is a concept we have and will continue to employ no matter what i.e. that whole cold war thing we did for half a century. Same thing in Iraq after the 1st Gulf war with the NFZ etc.  I’m referring to the shooting type of war or the occupation type war…they aren’t going away and even before 9/11 we were heavily involved in them.

Seems everyone wants to be the first to jump ship on the grunts and gravitate towards the “cyber war” or “drone war” or “insert fancy gizmo that’s going to replace the grunts”…and it never happens. Then that LT is out there all alone, under trained, under equipped, utterly ignorant of his/her surroundings because the enemy decided to not fight our fight. I’m preparing them for that moment. I think if they can understand the complexities involved in COIN/Stability/ low-medium intensity conflict…everything else will come easy.

@rjpeters70:

A and A is at best a game of grand strategy.  It has zero operational or tactical utility.  Hence, I’m not sure why you’d use it for ROTC guys, who will be doing tactical stuff for well over the first decade of their career.  They won’t even start to think about operational stuff until they are 05s at the earliest.

Most of the games/exercises I run are at the strategy to grand strategy level.  I am going to an operational to strategy level game in Newport in a couple months.  We’ll have Blue, Green, Red, Orange, Yellow, and White (control) cells all playing in separate rooms over five days.  About a hundred of us.  Kind of excited, as the most complex game I’ve played is a forty person, three cell game over three days.

But for ROTC?  A and A is borderline useless as a training tool.  Fun?  Yes.  Educational?  No.

I think you’re absolutely wrong in your assessment on the training value of using this as a training tool.

These kids are first year cadets, it’s about the concepts, not the strategy. There are fundamental concepts that work from the squad all the way up to the Army level that can be displayed through this game. Also, If you had read the rest of the thread, you would have seen that over time, I plan on scaling back the scope of the games to the point where they’re working at a platoon/company.

As a matter of fact, just this last weekend I playtested a concept using Flames of War as a base for being a commander in an operation. A Marine friend of mine shot me an WARNO/OPORD 2 days before the “operation” with a map he made displaying my “battle space”. He then took “recon” photos of the surrounding terrain and of a village I was to defend against an opponent that vastly outnumbered me. I deployed my forces through either Facebook instant message or text while they updated via the same devices, rolled the die, moved the individual pieces, and acted the part of squad leaders/ platoon leaders when reporting. I had a time limit to make decisions based off the intelligence I had on hand. My opponent was 400 miles away doing the same thing with his force simultaneously to me. It worked out brilliantly.

Eventually I’m going to work this all out. My concept is that if they see where they fall in the big picture, then it will become easier to understand the consequences of the decisions they’ll make as platoon leaders/ company commanders. In today’s current COIN/stability operations type setting, a platoons or even a teams actions can very much have strategic consequences. THAT’S the training value of it. Not to mention it is going to develop the portion of their brains that causes them to execute good judgement and being able to foresee 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order effects to the decisions they make. Let’s face it, how much practice does an 18 year old kid have at making good judgement calls? It’s a learned behavior that needs to be exercised just like anything else. 1st year curriculum for ROTC is not going to give that to them. This way, I can ask those questions about what their thought process is while at the same time give them tidbits on how it matters at the company level.

OK, so I’ve had 2 sessions since last time I posted about this and there is definitely some progress being made. I had 15 cadets show up on both occasions (over 1/3 of my class!) and they were definitely into the game.

One specific example of a teaching point was when one of the cadets playing Russia decided to put all of his troops he could along the border with Germany before being attacked. I asked if he was sure he wanted to do that and he replied “of course”. So, knowing what would happen I let it play out…which it did as expected. Germany smashed through that line and all of a sudden he had virtually nothing between Eastern Poland and Moscow. At that point I stopped the game for a few minutes and asked everyone what they thought and asked the cadets specifically what he learned…Needless to say, the hamster wheels were burning some midnight oil!

They are also learning about “forecasting” as well. We all know you have to buy your units up front before the combat phase and I witnessed some very interesting buys…or even lack of buys and their consequences as well. After 2 rounds I stopped the gameplay for a minute and talked to them about the duties and responsibilities of being an Executive Officer in a Company or Battalion and that being able to forecast needed supplies, equipment, maintenance schedules etc was crucial for the successful operation of whatever contingent one is working in. Then I explained that when you’re buying your units at the beginning of your turn, that’s essentially what you’re doing. Lightbulbs seemed to go off simultaneously and I started to see much wiser purchases in line with whatever their national/coalition objectives were.

The UK lost his entire fleet around the Isles so decided to buy nothing but Strategic bombers for turns 1-3. He basically just committed himself to bombing the industrial centers in West Germany and Paris which really created a headache for the German player as he got further into the USSR.

The Japanese player was not aggressive at all and only attacked into Russia on turn 1 with a very small force and was actually repelled causing long term consequences for him throughout the duration of the game. He quickly found himself out of position and facing a much stronger China since they had essentially 2 full turns of building infantry to bulk up their defenses.

I think many of them now realize that there needs to be a balance of aggressiveness and caution in order to maximize their effects on their opponents. After I explained that if the enemy is reacting to you as opposed to the other way around it allows you more tactical/strategic flexibility and denies it to a large degree to your opponents.

I think in the in a couple of weeks once these players have a full understanding of the game mechanics and a better grasp on key concepts I’m going to introduce a fog of war. I’m will buy another game board and have the axis play on one and the allies play on the other(in another room or in a divided room). They will only be able to see enemy units in provinces adjacent to ones they own with units in it. That way they will not be able to see what units their opponents buy, or where large enemy formations are unless they border the province where they’re located. I think this will really cause them to have to think about what they’re doing and also try to anticipate what their opponents will do…as we say in the Army “the enemy has a say!”.

More to follow in the next couple of days.

I’m so utterly awed and jealous of the awesomeness of all these painted pieces that I simply want to spend all my weekends doing the same to my stuff.

I think it’s about time I dusted off some of my old Dragon/Tamaya brand models to get some practice in. It’s decided, I’m gonna paint my Global 1940 set!

I’m very impressed by the detail in all of the pictures I see. I bet these customizations really add to the game!

It takes me back to my military modeling days. When I was a teenager I would spend countless hours painting 1/72-1/35 scale miniatures to build military dioramas. I even did one for my Senior project in high school where I made a diorama of the US Special Forces camp at Lang Vei being overrun by PT-76 tanks and NVA in 1-35 scale…

Maybe when my kids get a little older I can start the hobby back up and practice on my Axis and Allies pieces since they look (the infantry at least) about the same size as 1/72 scale.

@221B:

It seems clear to me that the choice of theatre depends on what one would hope to accomplish.

If I were seeking glory (assuming I would survive the conflict), as a citizen of the USA I would select Normandy, or maybe Bastogne.

If I were seeking to help enact victory (assuming my presence could somehow do this such), probably I would choose one of the turning points of the war.  The naval battle of Midway or Guadalcanal would be tempting…but I under this assumption I would choose the battle of Wake Island because it was possible for a US victory.  Had this happened, a naval turning point 6 months earlier than the battle of Midway, I presume the Pacific war could have ended 6 month sooner…though of course the necessary surrender of Japan might still have required the A-bomb.

If I were seeking to survive the war, I would definitely want something like the US coast guard defending the Panama canal.  Nice and quiet with no casualties.

You should be careful about using the word glory and war in the same sentence. They don’t belong together. There is nothing glorious about combat in the least. Just pain, misery, death, and loss…even to the “winner” if there is such a thing.

Eisenhower had a conniption fit about the whole thing, believing it to be absurd to not use them and managed to get them to the guns by the time of the bulge. They were so devastating to the Germans, many formations were on the brink of mutiny because they were afraid to leave their dugouts and bunkers for fear of being cut down.

I’ve observed (and adjusted) these fuzes in action in real world operations and they are simply devastating…

Least desirable

I think being a Russian infantryman fighting in the winter war would have been just terrible conditions.

Followed closely by being a marine left to fend for myself on Guadalcanal for several months.
(Or pelelieu for that matter)
Honorable mention would be a german infantryman in dec of 41 outside Moscow…not only are you miserable, but you can actually see the kremlin…and that’s the closest you’ll ever get.

Most “desirable”

Being a TD crewman under Creighton Abrams

Or being a grunt with either the US 1st or 3rd infantry divisions since I’ve actually served in combat with those units already. Good, solid regular grunt infantry divisions. Nothing fancy, just guts and a lot of combat experience.

Honorable mention would be a Brit fighter pilot during the Battle of Britain.

The M40 was not only more accurate and had better range, it also had a much more responsive FDC. This means its’ response time to any requested fires was much better and the better radio equipment of the US means they’re not reliant on a wire ( that can be severed)to transmit the call for fires.

If there is one thing the US was and is good at, it’s artillery. The german soldier may not have been impressed by US tanks or US infantrymen…but they were absolutely terrified of our forward observers and forward air control aircraft because of our artillery. Something to keep in mind.

Oh, and the US had variable time fuzes (proximity)…which the Germans considered criminal due to their effectiveness.

@Der:

@KurtGodel7:

The role of the Western democracies in hindering the German Army should not be underestimated.

IMO the Western powers should have left Germany alone. Hitler did not want to fight England or the USA. His quarrel was with communism in the East and international jewry. But it was all about economics. England saw Germany as the “upstart kid” in Europe getting too successful and competing against their long established world trade empire.  Once England had a pretense to declare war, they were determined to destroy Germany and bring the USA in to help. Churchill rejected all of Hitler’s offers of peace. This is why the allies were still smashing German cities and starting firestorms long after it was thought necessary- they wanted to kill as many citizens as possible to eliminate their competition in the world market. In doing so Germany was completely crushed and communism was allowed to dominate much of Europe.

So, your implication is that the western allies should have foregone entering the war because supposedly hitler didn’t want war with Britain or the US? (Mein Kamph makes it abundantly clear his plans for Britain and the US)If he didn’t want to fight the USA then why did he declare war on it? What was the US supposed to do after Germany declared war…sit on their hands? Hitler and his cronies were bad dudes no matter which way you cut it. They needed to be taken out. Furthermore, the western allies had every right to prosecute a war on Germany not even counting the atrocities that were committed. Once the atrocities became known, how could anyone consciously think there was not complicity at the very highest levels?

The most affected areas of the allied bomber campaign was western Germany…the area NOT occupied by the communists…and also the area that received massive influxes of aid, money, and infrastructure repair from the Marshall plan. Your logic is “the allies were trying to keep the Germans down so they could spend billions on them later eventually becoming one of the worlds strongest economies?” I’m not sure that’s sound logic.

Let’s not get into revisionist history too much and stick with the facts. The nazi ideology was not only anti Semitic, but anti anything but german essentially. Remember, 5 million of the 11 million killed in the holocaust were NOT Jews but " undesirables". He didn’t just hate communism and Jews but Slavs as well. This was quite evident by SS treatment of the Slav civilians when they were doing the “noble” duty of murdering them once the fighting had moved ahead. The war in the east became a war of annihilation BECAUSE of the brutality of the occupying Germans. Fluff it up all you want, they needed to go.

I’m going to go with a guy not on the list, Col. Aaron Bank. This type of mission sounds right up his alley…

I think I’d give space for time and counter attack opportunities with the Russian offensive in Jan of 41. Essentially, fighting delaying actions to allow the Russian offensive to peter out while at the same time shortening my supply line and preserving my “punching power” for a counter offensive, creating a salient for their large army formations. Then I would hit the flanks of that salient to surround the Army group while my tanks and supply trains can move on the permafrost before it melts in the spring and bogs everything down. With Moscow still being threatened, I imagine the Russian high command would be forced to displace forces in both the North and the South to protect their capital giving breathing room to my forces on those fronts to make advances in time for a summer offensive that can kick off at a much greater strategic advantage.

If that’s not possible I would go after Leningrad to cut off the lend lease aid that really kicked into high gear during 1942 and it would also free up those formations to be used elsewhere for either a beefing up of the Afrika corps as well as a push south into the Caucuses.

@CWO:

@Redleg13A:

I have a lot of devil dog buddies and whenever they start talking “hoorah” and patting each other on the back with how great they are I like to point out that the Marine Corps may win battles…but the Army wins wars!

Here’s an anecdote along the same lines that I mentioned in an earlier discussion:

Back during the First Gulf War, I saw a news item on television in which a reporter spoke (on separate occasions) to a guy from the US Marines and a guy from the US Army.  When he asked the leatherneck why he was in the USMC rather than the Army, the guy answered (as I recall) “Well, I think the Army is kind of ordinary, and I think of myself as somebody who’s more than just ordinary.”  When he later asked the GI why he was in the Army rather than the Marines, the soldier answered, “I know some guys who are in the Marines and they’re all crazy.”

LOL, and that’s basically the crux of it. Marines revolve their lives around their Marine identities it seems. For instance, you’ll see MANY more Marines/former Marines wearing their respective Marine shirts, hats, jackets, license plates, etc than you will for soldiers. I think it is great that devil dogs are proud of their service and want everyone to know it. At the same time, I believe soldiers are just as proud, they just don’t feel the compulsion to let everyone around them know how proud they are. I think soldiers simply prefer the quiet professionals approach.

@Gargantua:

I haven’t played conquest of the empire since someone tried to stab me (for real) over the game.

Needless to say, it was the hottest day of the year, and some idiot convinced us to play outside.  Fortunately for the “acquaintance” that attacked me.  I accept his excuse that it was “the sun”.

Now that’s a good game!

I can usually tell the quality of a game based off of angry people get!

@aequitas:

The USMC has/had so much to offer during WW II. so that I think it could have been sent to one or even more of the above mentioned objectives in strenght of two Battalions.

No they are not only supposed to conduct amphibious assaults against fortified targets, they are also regarded as an elite force for very tough assignments, which they are expected to achieve successfully as mentioned before.

_“On November 10, 1775, the Continental Congress approved the resolution to establish two battalions of Marines able to fight for independence at sea and on shore. This date marks the official formation of the Continental Marines.”

1st Commandant: Major Samuel Nicholas (1775-1783)_

Just give them a Target, they will take care of it!

Like Pelelieu right?

Pretty sure they fought side by side with the US Army throughout most of the Pacific theater. There was VERY few solo jarhead operations in the Pacific. Not to mention the US Army shouldered fully about 2/3 of the groundpounder requirements for the entirety of the Pacific theater. The Army too, was conducting amphib operations simultaneously and in more frequent numbers ON TOP OF ALL the amphip landings in the ETO.

I love jarheads, worked heavily with them on my 1st and 2nd combat tours in Iraq in and around Fallujah/Ramadi back in 03-04-05. Even occasionally wear a 1st MAR Div combat patch on my right shoulder to pay homage to the times I was attached to some of their formations. At the same time, they have VERY GOOD PR and if there were Marines present, you can be assured they got a majority of the press out of it.

Landing on Omaha was about as bloody of an amphibious landing as one could expect and the Army still accomplished the mission. I’m not sure the Marines would have much more to add than what was already accomplished by 1 ID and 29 ID on that beach head.

I have a lot of devil dog buddies and whenever they start talking “hoorah” and patting each other on the back with how great they are I like to point out that the Marine Corps may win battles…but the Army wins wars!

Just got the numbers of those who say they’re going to participate this Friday. I have 39 cadets in my MS 1 class and about 20 of them plan on attending. I may pick up stragglers from the other MS levels but this looks promising. I had 5 last Friday, so it seems the word has gotten out!

The unfortunate thing is that I have to do this on my and theirs “off the clock” times. I start at 1700 and go until completion or until midnight, whichever comes first. I know I likely won’t get beyond turns 3-4 doing of these game with that time frame. But, what I am doing is letting them make their mistakes or successes, annotating every move by every player, then afterwards having an AAR type open format to critique/analyze/ recommend each players gameplay. It’ll be student led with me directing the conversations to teaching points that fall in line with strategic/military principles.

Hopefully with this, I can lay a foundation for them to build off of so they can start understanding big picture concepts. As I scale it down over time they should be able to really grasp their roles as PLs in the grand scheme of things and how their presence, decisions, successes, and failures can ripple all the way up to the strategic level. They may be young, but I think if that can sink in, they’ll take their oath of office and duties and responsibilities much more seriously.

@CWO:

@Redleg13A:

As an aside, I had my first additional instruction class was last Friday and one of the cadets lamented after playing 1940 Global for a few turns “Wow, I have a whole new appreciation for generals, they have to think about a lot of sh*t!”

Very eloquently put.  I recall that Perla’s book says something about this subject; if I remember correctly, he says that officers who run professional wargame sometimes have reservations about letting lower-level officers play higher-level ones in wargames, for fear that they’ll become so enthusiatic about the higher-ranked job that they’ll lose their motivation to do their real lower-level job.

LOL, noted. Of course, any good PSG is going to make that LT understand their necessity and DO their freaking job.

Also, I plan on going over the tedious stuff too, simply because their is certainly a gap between commissioning sources, the school house, and then operational units. I’ll try to cover things like CONOPs, range planning, SI inventories, effectively forecasting and utilizing a training calendar, being an IO, counselings/NCOERs, services/dispatches, additional duties etc…all the ankle biter stuff that normal LTs have no idea about and learn through blunt force trauma at their units. I’d prefer to get these students ready before hand, instead of setting them up for a sink or swim situation.

The way I see it, they have 4 years to prepare themselves to become officers…they need to take ownership and do whatever they can to get themselves ready. Not just be spoon fed crap from guys like me.

@CWO:

@Redleg13A:

Secondly, I want them to see that the enemy isn’t going to play their game. So playing against human, thinking, opponents has value I think.

Third, I want them to have to work together and come up with a plan as “alliances” (or for my purposes, team members) in order to defeat their opponents.

One method you should consider to accomplish these goals is to play A&A using a two-room/two-board set-up, or some other kind of rule variant that allows for the partial hiding of information from the players.� The general idea is that you have a board in one room for use by the Allied team and a second board in a second room for the Axis team, with you serving as the referee / go-between.� The purpose of this arrangement is to temporarily hide from each side information about the composition and location of the enemy’s forces (for example: what new units he bought and where he placed them).� Conventional A&A games have the defect (from a military simulation point of view) of being “open” games in which both sides always have perfectly complete and accurate information about the enemy’s dispositions.� This is not only unrealistic, it also makes deception and surprise – two vitally important force multipliers in real warfare – impossible to achieve. Hiding information would fit with your goal of teaching your students that the enemy isn’t going to play their game.� The two-room set-up would also contribute to your goal of teaching them to work as a team as part of a multi-nation alliance, whose discussions are kept secret from the opposing alliance (and vice-versa, since their discussions remain secret too).�

You read my mind. That’s in the works for the future actually.

Once they get the strategy thing down, I’m actually going to start incrementally bringing their understanding down each echelon so they can really get an understanding of their place in the scheme of things. A good buddy of mine and I are planning on doing the “room” idea instead it is going to be through skype and with flames of war. They’ll get a map, an OPORD, a few “UAV” photos from above, and few “scout” photos on or near their mission objective. Each player will act as a PL with one acting as the CO. I’ll be the acting “BC” and as the OCT. My buddies 400 miles away have the game in front of them and will strictly just move the pieces(all these buddies are prior service NCO’s with combat experience and a VERY good understanding not only operational level competencies but these games as well). The cadets will be required to fulfill their mission objectives with incomplete information, in a “fog of war”, against thinking opponents.

Now, this is at least 6 months down the road. From now to then I’ll just gradually build them up to the point where they can start grasping the “big” picture through basic strategy up through advanced strategy. From there We’ll see what happens.

As an aside, I had my first additional instruction class was last Friday and one of the cadets lamented after playing 1940 Global for a few turns “Wow, I have a whole new appreciation for generals, they have to think about a lot of sh*t!”