First impressions here please

[IronManBeta]

ORIGINAL: CoffeeMug

Group hug!

CM

Aw, shucks, I really appreciate the thought. I enjoy doing this stuff and just wish I could do more and better. This live feedback business is wonderfully motivating to the developer and is a real strength for Matrix.

Thanks, Rob.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Hi Rob,
Thanks for taking time answering questions. Greatly appreciated.

ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall
Driving the AI. The map is divided up into 12 sectors and each is rated (or not) for VPs for clearing or occupying. This has a really, really big impact on the AI and where it wants to send it's forces! Study this (Staff Summary F6, yes I know those little numbers are hard to read) before the game starts and you will get a huge hint on what the AI will try to do.

Exactly! Any "experiment" I do is carried out considering this objective sectors.

I'm not sure which scenario you played but I hope that the AI went into your original deployment area because there were VPs to be had there. It would have had some very general knowledge of where the center of gravity of your forces started and there is a secondary chance that it went there just because it was feeling hungry still.

My deployment area had no points for neither NATO or WP. It looked like it just went there because it was my deployment area and I should be there. It could have pushed from the objective sector out to three neighbor sectors but it chose my deployment area. No complains, I liked it.

The basic premise of this particular WW3 game is that it was a very short, go for broke, and devil take the hindmost war. Every hour counted and every general had to do his utmost to win it before time was up. Just sitting around was not an option!

I will never complain about the aggressiveness of the AI.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Hi Mike,

ORIGINAL: Mike_w
From what I understand, MAnuever warfare is the evolution of airland battle. It is about reinforcing success and striking where the enemy isn't to sew confusion and force an enemy out of his planned route/fighting position. By forcing him to redeploy to face a force behind him, he becomes exposed. I just wonder when this was implemented..and if I am right.

I maybe wrong, but I think that the AirLand Battle adopted elements of the so-called "maneuver warfare", which in turn was the current doctrine of the USMC way time before. BTW, from the incomplete landscape a tactics junkie can assemble from just reading books, it looks like the Marines have been always obsessed with figuring out ways to fight and win with their limited budget. History says they have succeeded, and the "brain work" behind their doctrine just fascinates me.
In his book "The Art of Maneuver: Maneuver Warfare Theory and AirLand Battle", Robert Leonhard makes a controversial analysis on how only some elements of the Maneuver Warfare Theory were adopted in the AirLand Battle doctrine, leaving other very important elements out. Many references are made in that book on how the AirLand Battle doctrine is heavily influenced by the Cold War.

Chelco, if you Tbird or anyone knows, I'm interested as this would apply to the tactical element in this game.

I think this game has just the perfect scale to depict maneuver warfare. If you take a look at the examples and tactical excercises in the last pages of "Maneuver Warfare Handbook" (by William Lind), you will find that the decisions you take to solve these excercises are the same type of decisions you take in FPG.
Cheers,

[Tbird3]

ORIGINAL: Mike_w

Tbird3,
It seems that the current doctrine of Maneuver warfare is more applicable to the lower tacticl levels than Air/land battle. My question is, although this doctrine emerged in the late 80's, was it implemented at all by 1989? I know that it reached its "perfection" in Op. Enduring Freedom but would it be realistic to have an AI that practiced it in 1989? (if it was even possible to program). I know that the USMC was indoctrinating there junior officers and NCO's in this concept at that time...

Hmmm....we are getting at some convoluted issues and points here. Maneuver warfare is a generic phrase which I have a bit of heartburn. The concept of maneuver warfare as I have studied it is based on gaps and surfaces. The intent is that you want to bypass surfaces (enemy forces) and find the gaps (where the enemy ain't [:D]). Wow, what an original concept! This translates into what is called reconnassiance pull (maneuver warfare) versus attrition warfare (find the enemy and just grind him down). Personally I think this is mostly babble that cannot be clearly applied across the spectrum of warfare. Additionally, for every "historical example" of justifiying this concept there is another one justifying attritional warfare. IMHO a military leader must have the flexibility to recognize situations where one or the other is applicable. Remember die hard Manueverist love to use the WWII wehrmacht as the shining example of manuever warfare specialists and unless I am mistaken, they lost the war. [:-]

The other issue with these concepts is that at what level of warfare do they apply? I argue that there is no "silver bullet" when it comes to war. Additionally, the general concepts that apply to war are ancient and in some ways unchanging. Do you ever wonder why military leaders continue to read the "art of war"? How can one argue with the concept of combined arms? Wow, if I combine and sychronize my archers and cav with my legions I can generate more combat power than with them separately. I think that is how Alexander, Julius Caeser, and other great tactical generals have won on the battlefield. Guess what? On the modern tactical battlefield you still want to do the same thing. The phrase we use is that we want to get every dog into the fight. I want to combine/ synchronzie my tanks, my infantry, my mortars, my artillery, my engineers and my air support so that the enemy will have deal with them simualtaneously.

Going back to airland battle doctrine and manuever babble. Remember Doctrine is a guideline not some holy writ which must be followed in all circumstances. Although generally the WP was much more inclined to follow their doctrine. Air land battle was driven by experiences from WWII and the Arab Israeli wars. The US ARMY was trying to figure out how to stop the Red Horde in Europe. The first Doctrine adopted was called Active Defense. This concept basically said that we will defend but if given an opportunity we will counter attack to disrupt the WP operations. It tended to focus more at the lower level of operational and tactical level. As stated in my previous post Air land battle doctrine was the next step. It pushed for defeating/disrupting the WP throughout the depth of battlefield and was much more aggressive in not just defending but attacking whenever the conditions were set to support offensive operations. Air land battle was adopted in 1982 and was completely embedded in the US Army by 1989.

Okay enough ranting. Bottomline, there is no manuever doctrine adopted by the US Army. You have the general principles of war such as mass, unity of command, surprise etc. that apply across the entire spectrum of war, Strategic, Operational, and tactical. Then you have doctrine which currently is a hybrid of Air Land Battle doctrine. Doctrine further narrows down your method of fighting war. Doctrine tends to focuse at strategic and operational levels of war. After doctrine you have tactics or as the Armys says tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). TTPs are specifics of how you win an engagement. Engagements are merely battles of relatively short duration at the division and below level.

I hope this stirs up a bit of discussion or controversy. vs [>:]

Regards

Tbird3

[gsol69]

I understand the dilemma of mixed units not allowing a clear icon silhouette choice, maybe you could consider a future project to create a WWII Panzerblitz type simulation, using your FPG engine with tweaks to handle WWII confrontations. Just a thought.

Thanks for the quick response to the silhouette issue. Nice job on the product.

Go get 'em Rob!

[Mike_w]

Remember die hard Manueverist love to use the WWII wehrmacht as the shining example of manuever warfare specialists and unless I am mistaken, they lost the war.

True, but at a tactical level, both the U.S. and the Soviets adopted the "Blitzkrieg" style of warfare by 1942. Although operationally, attrition seemed to be the method.

Interesting, although I know that thhe USMC takes their "manuever warfare" seriously. The concepts (tactical) are taught down to the junior NCO level for small unit activity. It was interesting to watch in IRaq; although when you bypass large concentrations of the enemy to strike at his center of gravity(Baghdad) and force him to react (the essence of the doctrine) you risk the enemy just staying where they are and screwing with YOUR rear lines (see najaf and Falluja.)

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Hi Tbird3,

I hope this stirs up a bit of discussion or controversy.

You betcha!

... Maneuver warfare is a generic phrase which I have a bit of heartburn. The concept of maneuver warfare as I have studied it is based on gaps and surfaces. The intent is that you want to bypass surfaces (enemy forces) and find the gaps (where the enemy ain't [:D]). Wow, what an original concept!

Gaps and surfaces is just one of the so-called "filters" of the theory maneuverists advocate. As any axiomatic phrase, considering it outside the theory will certainly lead you into a reductio ad absurdum.

This translates into what is called reconnassiance pull (maneuver warfare) versus attrition warfare (find the enemy and just grind him down). Personally I think this is mostly babble that cannot be clearly applied across the spectrum of warfare.

It is Recon-pull vs. Orders-pull, two different things.

Additionally, for every "historical example" of justifiying this concept there is another one justifying attritional warfare.

Which historic example justifies attritional warfare? What happens when you are outnumbered? How do you attrit the enemy when you are outnumbered, outgunned and even worse, outmaneuvered?

IMHO a military leader must have the flexibility to recognize situations where one or the other is applicable.

You talk like maneuver warfare or attrition warfare are options a commander has in the battlefield.

Remember die hard Manueverist love to use the WWII wehrmacht as the shining example of manuever warfare specialists and unless I am mistaken, they lost the war. [:-]

Any country that takes the strategic decision to conquer the whole Europe and Russia is bound to defeat. Those strategic mistakes cannot be patched by tactical or operational wisdom.

The other issue with these concepts is that at what level of warfare do they apply? I argue that there is no "silver bullet" when it comes to war.

Maneuver warfare applies to the tactical and operational level of war. There is no silver bullet in armed conflict. You will never find "recipes" on how to conduct an attack in any maneuverist treatise because the emphasis is on a set of mind you must have on how to defeat the enemy.

Additionally, the general concepts that apply to war are ancient and in some ways unchanging. Do you ever wonder why military leaders continue to read the "art of war"? How can one argue with the concept of combined arms? Wow, if I combine and sychronize my archers and cav with my legions I can generate more combat power than with them separately. I think that is how Alexander, Julius Caeser, and other great tactical generals have won on the battlefield. Guess what? On the modern tactical battlefield you still want to do the same thing. The phrase we use is that we want to get every dog into the fight. I want to combine/ synchronzie my tanks, my infantry, my mortars, my artillery, my engineers and my air support so that the enemy will have deal with them simualtaneously.

Moltke, Lidell-Hart, Boyd or Lind didn't invent nothing new. They just gathered the elements and put them together.
Nobody argues that combined arms is a good thing. Pitty it doesn't work very well in present-day Iraq.

[Mike_w]

Moltke, Lidell-Hart, Boyd or Lind didn't invent nothing new. They just gathered the elements and put them together.
Nobody argues that combined arms is a good thing. Pitty it doesn't work very well in present-day Iraq.

Interesting discussion Chelco, although I will just say that combined arms and maneuver warfare worked extraordinarily well in Iraq when we were facing a conventional force. It simply won't work against a fluid guerilla force ( of course, you did say "present day Iraq")[:)]. Logistics, as always, was an issue.

Great post ....

[General Confusion]

ORIGINAL: Chelco

Hi Mike, I agree with you. Air/Land Battle doctrine was born after the Cold War.
As for the AI, I have seen it to do some nice things:
1) When commanding WP, it deploys in groups, each one corresponding to each battalion.
2) In AI vs AI games, I have seen it to encircle enemy forces
3) Is very aggressive (sometimes a good attack is the best defense)
However, these nice aspects are overshadowed by negatives:
a) The AI happily positions its companys in an open field which is overlooked by several hills around. A formula for disaster.
b) On the attack, it brings its firepower in a piecemeal manner. You almost can forget about the value of flanking the AI while counterattacking.
c) The AI as WP: recon assets too forward in comparison to the main force.

Cheers,

Hi I just bought this game and played the tutorials and the first British scenario - Tank Rush. Overall I like it and can see mastering the subtleties around manoevre is the key.

I won that fairly easily as the AI didnt really mass its forces very well and devoted its artillery to trying to wipe out my HQ unit. I could deal with each T-80 company one at a time.

It tried an outflank with a BMP company which was wiped off by the Striker platoon and one Challenger unit.

Think it is more fun against a human player. Overall I like it.

I used my Harriers to wipe their HQ.

[Nemesis]

I got the game few days ago (thank $DEITY for Digital Download, since I haven't seen the game available in retail). And I have played a bit. My impressions:

1. The UI is VERY intuitive! I didn't read the manual at all before I started playing.I had no problems getting aquinted with the system. I was moving and attacking in 5 mintues when the scenario started .

2. I love the graphics! Why hasn't this type of graphics been though of before?

3. I have only played against the AI so far. I played the tutorials as NATO, and they were pretty easy to win. I'm currently playing "Soviet Alamo" as WP, and things are a bit more interesting. Now, I'm still a newbie in this game (which might explain some things), but that was a bit more challening that the tutorials . NATO has been able to cause some damage to my units and they seriously managed to push my defences back. But, thanks to stroke of luck, I had a quite a sizeable force outside the main battle area. I managed to use that force for an effective counterattack on NATO's left flank. Their main attack is currently collapsing due to the attack on their flank, and I'm actually counterattacking them head-on. Their main force (well, I assume it's their main force) is being crushed between the anvil of my flanking-attack, and the hammer of my head-on assault. I think I'm on my way to victory, and I'm enjoying every moment of it ! Even though it's just a game versus the AI, it would have made a good AAR. The battle has been very interesting IMO.

4. I think there could be a bit more scenarios in the game. While the scenarios will take some time to get through, more scenarios would be nice .

All in all, I can highly recommend the game to anyone! 5/5 stars!

[Tbird3]

ORIGINAL: Chelco

Hi Tbird3,

I hope this stirs up a bit of discussion or controversy.

You betcha!

I love a good debate......sorry about the late response. The audacity of people letting work get in the way of their wargaming! Okay my issue with Maneuver warfare is that people tout it as something new and something different. This can't be further from the truth. The concepts that are addressed in maneuver theory are merely strategic, operational, and tactical concepts that have been around for ages and trained and taught at about every military course since the romans. It is not some new method which was recently invented that has turned the US Military Machine into some kind of wonder force. Furthermore, I argue that there are times when attritional warfare is either more effective or more importantly the only method to use.

... Maneuver warfare is a generic phrase which I have a bit of heartburn. The concept of maneuver warfare as I have studied it is based on gaps and surfaces. The intent is that you want to bypass surfaces (enemy forces) and find the gaps (where the enemy ain't [:D]). Wow, what an original concept!

Gaps and surfaces is just one of the so-called "filters" of the theory maneuverists advocate. As any axiomatic phrase, considering it outside the theory will certainly lead you into a reductio ad absurdum.

This translates into what is called reconnassiance pull (maneuver warfare) versus attrition warfare (find the enemy and just grind him down). Personally I think this is mostly babble that cannot be clearly applied across the spectrum of warfare.

It is Recon-pull vs. Orders-pull, two different things.

Chelco, I stand corrected on this remark to a certain extent. You are correct about recon pull vs orders. However, what I was getting at by this remark is comparision of maneuver warfare vs attrition warfare. There has been some kind of historical backlash that tries to imply that the US Army just recently learned how to fight and win wars effectively. The typical assertion of manueverist is that the US Army historically only fought attritionally in the past and has just recently adopted this new theory of effectively waging war.[&:]

Additionally, for every "historical example" of justifiying this concept there is another one justifying attritional warfare.

Which historic example justifies attritional warfare? What happens when you are outnumbered? How do you attrit the enemy when you are outnumbered, outgunned and even worse, outmaneuvered?

General Grants Wilderness campaign is one of the first that come to mind. WWI might be another one...oops, we can do the indirect approach and hit Turkey maybe? Oh, thats right, they tried that.....I believe it was Galipoli? What do you do when outmaneuvered, outfought, outgunned? You die in glory or you surrender.[;)] When you go down this trail I have to ask several questions. What level of war are we talking about? Strategically? Operationally? Tactical? Because the answer is simple. It depends!

Lets look at it for a second. Desert Storm I, a great example of maneuver warfare! The "hail mary", "the left hook", and on and on. In reality it was generally a good application of the doctrine of airland battle. Airland battle was formally established in the US Army in 1982. If you look at what the MEF did in DS I you can in no way convince me that they were conducting maneuver warfare. The literally attacked into the teeth of the defense of Iraqi's. I believe that this attritional warfare at it's best, servicing enemy target arrays as necessary. However, from the 3rd Army's and CENTCOM's point of view they were conducting a penetration attack to initially fix the Iraqi army to facilitate VII and XVIII corps to conduct an envelopment of the Iraqi forces in and near Kuwait. Now, when you look at what VII corps did upon meeting the Iraqi Republican Guard Divisions you can't really call it manuever warfare either because it basically consisted of putting four armored divisions online and blasting their way through the enemy forces. So my arguement is that it just flatout depends on what your trying to accomplish is what will drive your course of action.

IMHO a military leader must have the flexibility to recognize situations where one or the other is applicable.

You talk like maneuver warfare or attrition warfare are options a commander has in the battlefield.

Absolutely! See above. A good commander is going to try to set the conditions for victory. It might be through manuever or might be through direct application of massive combat power at a selected location.

Remember die hard Manueverist love to use the WWII wehrmacht as the shining example of manuever warfare specialists and unless I am mistaken, they lost the war. [:-]

Any country that takes the strategic decision to conquer the whole Europe and Russia is bound to defeat. Those strategic mistakes cannot be patched by tactical or operational wisdom.

Hey, the Germans eventually lost at the strategic, operational, and yest the tactical level. You have to win starting at the bottom up in order to achieve victory.

The other issue with these concepts is that at what level of warfare do they apply? I argue that there is no "silver bullet" when it comes to war.

Maneuver warfare applies to the tactical and operational level of war. There is no silver bullet in armed conflict. You will never find "recipes" on how to conduct an attack in any maneuverist treatise because the emphasis is on a set of mind you must have on how to defeat the enemy.

I believe this was my original arguement that you need to be flexible and not have a specific mindset. Additionally, maneuverist never quite completely tell you how to win but often than not how not win (read attrition).

Additionally, the general concepts that apply to war are ancient and in some ways unchanging. Do you ever wonder why military leaders continue to read the "art of war"? How can one argue with the concept of combined arms? Wow, if I combine and sychronize my archers and cav with my legions I can generate more combat power than with them separately. I think that is how Alexander, Julius Caeser, and other great tactical generals have won on the battlefield. Guess what? On the modern tactical battlefield you still want to do the same thing. The phrase we use is that we want to get every dog into the fight. I want to combine/ synchronzie my tanks, my infantry, my mortars, my artillery, my engineers and my air support so that the enemy will have deal with them simualtaneously.

Moltke, Lidell-Hart, Boyd or Lind didn't invent nothing new. They just gathered the elements and put them together.
Nobody argues that combined arms is a good thing. Pitty it doesn't work very well in present-day Iraq.

Who said that it isn't working in Iraq now? I tell you with the utmost confidence that it is being used very effectively. The conditions have merely changed and there is no "quick" solution to fight that is going on there now.


I love this. I hope they don't run us out of here!

Regards,

TBird3

[Mike_w]

I'm not even going to try to go blow to blow with Chelco and Tbird3 on the details of maneuver warfare. [&o]

My original comment was just that maneuver warfare is NOT the same as Air/LAnd Battle. Maneuever warfare may have existed long ago, but it doesn't seem to have been indoctrinated and implemented until well after Boyd. Desert Storm was not maneuver warfare, it was AirLAND battle. I'm not even convinded "Blitzkrieg" was true maneuver warfare as the purpose was not really to get inside the decision cycle (or OODA) but to simply encircle.

Concerning Grant, and Monty, I think this is one of your main points, at the operational level, attrition was the name of the game; however, with few exceptions such as Cold Harbor, Grant relied much more on maneuever then his predecessors which led to his tactical successes. Grants plan was to continually engage the Army of Virginia so as to wear it down ( While Sherman marched thru the rear). He was very aware however, that the Army of the Potomac would not tolerate any more disasterous defeats such as Fredericksburg where the tactics were attritional as well.

No real point to my post
I will just reiterate that the Second Iraq conflict showed what a proffessional force trained in Modern maneuver warfare can do to conventional armies still fighting with Soviet/WWII tactics. I'm not sure any military force could have adapted to the situation as quickly as the coalition forces moved. Many Iraqi units simply found themselves bypassed, and when they reacted by pulling out of defensive positions to re-position, they were exposed....and destroyed.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Wow Tbird3! Nice discussion.
I need time to answer since now I am at my work.
Cheers,

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Ey Tbird3!
I am posting this maybe too prematurely and unedited because it is likely that we will be asked to move out to other forum/thread. So forgive if memory fails me in my writing.
I am convinced that maneuver warfare is sometimes like saliva: it's in everybody's mouth but not many know what exactly is! Not that I claim that I know it. Neither I claim you don't know about it. However, pro and con arguments regarding maneuver warfare have been made popular by people with less than perfect knowledge of what the thing is about. The damaging effect of these popular arguments is as collosal as the one produced by creationists who misinterpret scientific evidence that proves that evolution is real and is happening right now.
Maneuver warfare is not the same as "fire and maneuver", the common and useful tactical principle the US Army painfully learned in WWII. Maneuver warfare is not simply just moving your forces to punch a hole in the enemy line, outflank, or envelop the enemy.

A simple outline of maneuver warfare as I understand it
1) OODA loops (observation, orientation, decision, action). The cycles a fighter pilot takes when engaged in aerial combat, as described by John Boyd, can be extended to commanders in the battlefield.
Implications:
a) if your OODA loops are shorter than the ones of you enemy you will force him to shorten his, a thing he may not be able to do. You have to master the art of shorten the OODA loops in your command structure.
b) if your OODA loops are short and your actions adequate you will force your enemy to take wrong decisions and it will not fight as an organized force anymore.

2) Surfaces and gaps
a) You take advantage of the enemy's gaps, avoid/bypass his strengths and struck into the rear areas to disrupt his cohesion and ability to fight.

3) Point of main effort (schwerpunkt)
a) All units under your command must support the schwerpunkt. All unit commanders under your command must understand which is the schwerpunkt and how to take tactical decisions that support it. A schwerpunkt is not a terrain piece but rather a portion of your forces you commit as the force that will cause the collapse of the enemy's ability to fight as a coherent force (the enemy's center of gravity).

4) Mission type orders.
a) The orders you impart have to be short and must tell exactly what your intentions are in terms of the "big picture". Say goodbye to this kind of orders: "take hill 128 by attacking with your company using the cover of the woods here". Say hello to this: "the schwerpunkt coys will likely be threatened by enemy fire at hill 128. Deny the enemy the ability to fire from that hill". Your subordinate knows what you want because he knows why you want it. Granted he may take the cover of the mentioned woods and take hill 128, but he could also position his forces yielding the enemy position at hill 128 useless, forcing him to evacuate that hill. Commanders under your command have to be given the freedom to act on the spot and take decisions of actions they think will likely help the schwerpunkt. Your goal is to create a highly decentralized force and accept the apparent chaos of not knowing exactly where some of your insubordinates are.

Now certainly, points 1) to 4) are not new. Not an argument there. "Maneuver warfare is not new. It probaly dates from the first time a caveman surprised an enemy from behind instead of meeting him club-to-club. The first clear case in recorded history was the battle of Leuctra in 371 B.C." This is an exact quote of W. Lind's "Maneuver Warfare Handbook". Maneuver warfare is not a new way to fight (generals had used it since long time ago) but a series of principles that try to capture the essence of previous successes. So I will not argue more (in fact I never said that) with the "this is not new" concept.

There has been some kind of historical backlash that tries to imply that the US Army just recently learned how to fight and win wars effectively. The typical assertion of manueverist is that the US Army historically only fought attritionally in the past and has just recently adopted this new theory of effectively waging war.

I don't belong to the camp of people who thinks that the US Army learnt to fight modern wars recently. I don't believe that the US Army was transformed to the mean war machine of today because of maneuver warfare.

When you go down this trail I have to ask several questions. What level of war are we talking about? Strategically? Operationally? Tactical?

Operationally and tactically.

General Grants Wilderness campaign is one of the first that come to mind. WWI might be another one...oops, we can do the indirect approach and hit Turkey maybe? Oh, thats right, they tried that.....I believe it was Galipoli?

The American Civil War was the painful realization that the days of those Napoleonic decisive battles (the single battles that decided the fate of an entire war) were totally over. Years of bloody and indecisive battles. That's what we want for a model of waging war?
The same applies for WWI. Galipoli was a costly battle too.

Lets look at it for a second. Desert Storm I, a great example of maneuver warfare! The "hail mary", "the left hook", and on and on. In reality it was generally a good application of the doctrine of airland battle. Airland battle was formally established in the US Army in 1982. If you look at what the MEF did in DS I you can in no way convince me that they were conducting maneuver warfare. The literally attacked into the teeth of the defense of Iraqi's. I believe that this attritional warfare at it's best, servicing enemy target arrays as necessary. However, from the 3rd Army's and CENTCOM's point of view they were conducting a penetration attack to initially fix the Iraqi army to facilitate VII and XVIII corps to conduct an envelopment of the Iraqi forces in and near Kuwait. Now, when you look at what VII corps did upon meeting the Iraqi Republican Guard Divisions you can't really call it manuever warfare either because it basically consisted of putting four armored divisions online and blasting their way through the enemy forces. So my arguement is that it just flatout depends on what your trying to accomplish is what will drive your course of action.

The two wars against the Iraqi Army were fought with the upmost profesionalism by the Coalition forces. However, the operational and tactical errors commited by the Iraqis were so gross that ANYTHING would have worked.

Absolutely! See above. A good commander is going to try to set the conditions for victory. It might be through manuever or might be through direct application of massive combat power at a selected location.

And if that selected location is the enemy's center of gravity, voila, you are a maneuverist!

Hey, the Germans eventually lost at the strategic, operational, and yest the tactical level. You have to win starting at the bottom up in order to achieve victory.

Granted, but the German Army was carrying out operational and tactical orders from a lunatic that shot (or forced to suicide) his best generals.

Additionally, maneuverist never quite completely tell you how to win but often than not how not win (read attrition).

BTW, how would you define attrition warfare?

Who said that it isn't working in Iraq now? I tell you with the utmost confidence that it is being used very effectively. The conditions have merely changed and there is no "quick" solution to fight that is going on there now.

Do you really think that the present-day US Army is going to beat sustained guerrilla operations in urban environments?

Cheers,

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Just wanted to add this tiny thing before I get asked to shut up by the moderators.
The Marines teaching maneuver warfare to their officers: in the game "Close Combat Marines" you get briefed, jump into action and you notice that the victory flags are not visible. They removed them because they don't like the player to focus on pieces of terrain as objectives.
Cheers,

[Mike_w]

Chelco, assuming that the doctrine now is manuever warfare (whateevr that is) when was it adopted to replace Airland battle?

Do you really think that the present-day US Army is going to beat sustained guerrilla operations in urban environments?

Look at Falluja. Once you have the intelligence, conventional force can be very effective when the Guerrilla force is isolated. Underated battle IMHO. Knocked out their center of gravity and the insurgency hasn't been the same since....

The idea is to keep them from being able to sustain it by constanty staying on offense and being "fluid"
will it work? who knows.....

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Ey Mike!
AirLandBattle has some elements of maneuver warfare. However, some people have criticized that doctrine saying it doesn't include some important things of it.
Regarding Falluja. Yes, that's right. It was a victory for the Coalition. An important factor is that the insurgents didn't have anywhere to go.
Cheers,

[leastonh1]

Hi,

Having bought the game today, and just completed the first tutorial I thought I'd share my initial thoughts [:)]

This is written from the perspective of a Novice/Intermediate wargamer:
Interface: The whole gui is laid out nicely and everything appears to be in a logical place. The menu systems work well and are simple to understand. One very nice touch is the ability to switch the display over to the left. As a left hander, this is a welcome addition and makes a big difference to my enjoyment of the game. Thanks for that!
Two things I would like to change: Firstly, the way the map scrolls. I'd prefer to be able to use the arrow keys. It's a little irritating to see the map move every time I moved my mouse over to the menu area. It just feels a bit awkward to me. The second thing is that the game may be windowed, but it still stays on top (at least it does on Windows2k). I have to alt-tab to switch to other programs. Having said that, I'm just lazy so it's not that big a deal having to use the keys.

Graphics: The graphics are good by wargame standards and the painted map is excellent. I had some reservations about the grid layout when I first saw screenshots of the game, but this does work surprisingly well. Yep, I'm happy.

Sound: Not a lot to say. Standard gunfire and explosions. We don't buy these games for the sound, so I don't have an opinion either way really.

Gameplay: Fantastic. What can I say? It's every bit as good as all the reviews said it would be. It's obviously deep enough to satisfy all but the Grognards, but amazingly easy to learn how to play too. You aren't bogged down with pages of unit statistics and the micromanagement is minimal. The wego feature is fairly new to me and takes a bit of getting used to, yet it does manage create tension. For this game I think it works much better than igo-ugo. I haven't played enough to judge the AI yet, but it moved differently to the prediction in the tutorial docs and would have surprised me if I'd had fow switched on. Plus, the lack of any scripting is always good in my book and increases replayability. Once I've gotten used to the game and mechanics, I'll probably try my hand at pbem <gulp>. I sincerely hope Matrix will consider a map editor at some point as I think this is needed by definition and severely limits the scenario editor.

Documentation: I had no problem understanding anything written in the tutorial and it all made sense immediately. It was a gentle learning curve. That's a new experience! Many wargames require a lot of reading before you get your feet wet. Not so with this game. I just plunged in and followed the tutorial. I have read a few of the other sections in the manual and they all look to be written in plain English. Again, excellent.

Overall: This has to be one of the most approacheable and enjoyable wargames I've played in many years. It really is very easy to play and a newcomer to wargames would feel very much at home almost immediately. Minor criticisms aside, I'd have to give this game 9/10. Well done Matrix!

Jim

[IronManBeta]

Thank you Jim, "approachable" is exactly what we were looking for. Doubtless we will lose a bit of that adding new features and such for the grognards, but with any luck it will still remain approachable for a long time to come.

Cheers, Rob.

[Cpt. Canuck]

I said that I would buy it and I did.

Had a little problem with downloading the game, but I think it was a problem with DR. Problem cleared up on its own.

I have played the tutorials and the Soviet Tank Rush scenario from both sides.

Initial impression is I like it, can't wait to get experience against the AI and start some PBEMs. Good job Rob and crew.

I had some questions around artillery, radio usage and group orders, but I think they have already been addressed earlier in this thread.

One question though. I understand the decisions around infantry and don't want to get into the whole leg infantry issue. But, how do I tell if the mech. infantry is dismounted (thus able to use there dismounted weapons) and could I advance on a position with the infantry dismounted?

Some comments on the Soviet Tank Rush scenario. If I understand the Staff Overview and Summary properly, there are two areas (4 & 8) on the east side of the map for which NATO forces could recieve 100 Victory Points each. I am not an expert but, to me that would be like the division commander saying I want you to take your understrength battalion and not only stop the attacking regiment but I want you take some objectives 10 kms behind the lines. I think this may be why the AI tends to attack when it controls the B&Rs. Also the Mission briefing says "D" company is available for the battle but they don't appear in the OOB for the B&R. I think this is a typo.