Fair statement? Russia's database needs a complete update

[thewood1]

I'm pretty sure there is a base level proficiency set for each side. The unit level overrides that. Its been a while since I played with it, but thats what I remember. I think that side level can be changed through lua with a relatively simple statement. That would allow an event set up by the designer to change the OODA. It could be set up for a special command assigned to a key to do it also.

[BeirutDude]

I'm pretty sure there is a base level proficiency set for each side. The unit level overrides that. Its been a while since I played with it, but thats what I remember. I think that side level can be changed through lua with a relatively simple statement. That would allow an event set up by the designer to change the OODA. It could be set up for a special command assigned to a key to do it also.

That is correct, you can set a base side Proficiency in the Side Doctrine. That is actually my starting point, and maybe Russia might start as Regular and NATO Veteran. Then I go the extra distance and adjust the unit proficiency so they are more like real military units with variable skills even within a sub-unit.

[FrancoisX5]

I almost always set Russian proficiency lower than Western units.

And that is a reason I don’t play any of your propositions.
I crave for balance and fun, not the bad guys always lose because I don’t like them.

[SunlitZelkova]

I almost always set Russian proficiency lower than Western units.

And that is a reason I don’t play any of your propositions.
I crave for balance and fun, not the bad guys always lose because I don’t like them.

Obviously, too each his own as to how they play, but I thought I’d comment that this isn’t entirely the case with BeirutDude’s scenario design decisions. USSR/Russia and China up until very recently were all conscript based militaries with low levels of training compared to NATO.

In the case of China some steps have been taken to professionalize the military and make it a more attractive career option so as to lessen reliance on conscription, while training levels have increased. An example of this is the intense air ops aboard the Liaoning recently off Okinawa.

That said, @BeirutDude I recommend delving a little deeper into training and so on instead of blanket assumptions for every formation and unit. For example, we know now from veteran’s anecdotes and declassified information about the Soviet DA (Long Range Aviation) that the Tu-95 crews were the cream of the crop because of the importance of their mission. A Guards unit/formation may consist of more experienced airmen/sailors than a standard one, and so on.

I'm pretty sure there is a base level proficiency set for each side. The unit level overrides that. Its been a while since I played with it, but thats what I remember. I think that side level can be changed through lua with a relatively simple statement. That would allow an event set up by the designer to change the OODA. It could be set up for a special command assigned to a key to do it also.

That is correct, you can set a base side Proficiency in the Side Doctrine. That is actually my starting point, and maybe Russia might start as Regular and NATO Veteran. Then I go the extra distance and adjust the unit proficiency so they are more like real military units with variable skills even within a sub-unit.

Interesting. As you mentioned, you set facilities like airfield units to Novice. Why do you do this instead of leaving it at the base value?

These facilities have no Proficiency affected functions I think.

[BeirutDude]

I almost always set Russian proficiency lower than Western units.

And that is a reason I don’t play any of your propositions.
I crave for balance and fun, not the bad guys always lose because I don’t like them.

I just call them as I see them. I'm sorry you would have a very hard time convincing me the Russian army in the Ukraine is the equivalent of most Western forces. I'm sorry you don't enjoy my scenarios but as has been pointed out, to each their own.

[BeirutDude]

That said, @BeirutDude I recommend delving a little deeper into training and so on instead of blanket assumptions for every formation and unit. For example, we know now from veteran’s anecdotes and declassified information about the Soviet DA (Long Range Aviation) that the Tu-95 crews were the cream of the crop because of the importance of their mission. A Guards unit/formation may consist of more experienced airmen/sailors than a standard one, and so on.

Of course I would rate a Guards, VDV or Spetznatz unit above a BTG/Cat B division. I certainly didn't get into every detail of how I set proficiency. Conversely an American National Guard unit of the 1970s wouldn't be rated as high as a Soviet Airborne Division. However, looking at national militaries, I don't rate the Soviets and Russians from the cold war or today as the peer of a well trained Western Force.

Interesting. As you mentioned, you set facilities like airfield units to Novice. Why do you do this instead of leaving it at the base value?

These facilities have no Proficiency affected functions I think.

As to facilities, making them a Novice (Blue) just makes them easier to differentiate in the OOB from aircraft. I know at a glance if it is a base facility component vs. aircraft/active unit (as long as the aircraft isn't a novice). It's that simple.

[thewood1]

IMHO it just confirms that the russians are crazy. Well, many of them at least

Fuck you, a representative of a "superior" race. Shove your guesses about our losses up your ass because it's no different than your head. What's there, what's there - shit.

Probably good to quote this just to document the weird dynamic of some people getting hung up on severe nationalism and how it reflects in their discussion in the game. They usually keep it a little more subtle and more focused on their favorite super-weapon in the db discussions, but it sometimes becomes blatant.

[BeirutDude]

So back to the discussion at hand.

A designer will always have to make a value judgement as to the training, national policies/morale/training/commitment/ unit training, etc. I do not design "Game Scenarios" for people to have fun, I attempt to design simulations of what I feel are real world issues with the real world training and commitment to the forces. Now, you may agree or disagree with my decisions but in the final analysis it is my scenario to design and your choice as to whether you play it or not. There are a large number of people who don't play my designs, that's fine. There appear to be a number of people who enjoy my designs, that great if they do. Bottom line is my pay is the same whether you kick sand on them or love them! I don't design scenarios to be "fun," I certainly do not design them to be "Balanced," I look for a real world challenge/situation and design based on that. If the forces are peers or near peer, then great, but that rarely happens. I would not rate the Ukraine's forces above Russia, but I certainly wouldn't rate either as the peers of the U.S., U.K., PRC, Canada, Australia. I'm not sure about Germany anymore, but if this were a Cold War scenario I would rate West Germany's Bundeswehr Divisions above a regular Soviet Union Cat A division. Now maybe a GDR Armored Division and Soviet Guards Armored might be close to peers (although I would rate the GDR a bit higher even there).

My Rating proficiency

1. What is the National/Side Proficiency. Some stop there but again you're going to really work to hard to convince me all of the major powers are peers. Period comes in, certainly the U.S. Army of 1979 is not nearly as proficient as that same army in 1985!
2. What is the Operational unit, is it better trained than the National Level?
3. What about sub-units do they have SOF assigned, certainly SOF assigned to a National Guard unit should be more proficient.
4. Are all pilots equal in a unit? I don't think so, hence the terms "Nugget" and "Ace!" So there must be some variance in proficiency within even a squadron to account for the veterans or aces who have been flying for years and been through "Top Gun" vs. the newbie who has just been assigned to the squadron right out of flight school.

Hope this clears up my thoughts on the issue, others may vary, that's cool. Again, nobody has to play someone else's scenario if that's not their thing. If you want to have fun, there are plenty of folks building "fun" and "balanced" game scenarios, just not me. If you play mine I think you would find many, not all, to be challenging, but hey build your own and share them, I like to play other's scenarios and since I'm really not designing anymore I'll be happy to play yours.

[SunlitZelkova]

That said, @BeirutDude I recommend delving a little deeper into training and so on instead of blanket assumptions for every formation and unit. For example, we know now from veteran’s anecdotes and declassified information about the Soviet DA (Long Range Aviation) that the Tu-95 crews were the cream of the crop because of the importance of their mission. A Guards unit/formation may consist of more experienced airmen/sailors than a standard one, and so on.

Of course I would rate a Guards, VDV or Spetznatz unit above a BTG/Cat B division. I certainly didn't get into every detail of how I set proficiency. Conversely an American National Guard unit of the 1970s wouldn't be rated as high as a Soviet Airborne Division. However, looking at national militaries, I don't rate the Soviets and Russians from the cold war or today as the peer of a well trained Western Force.

Interesting. As you mentioned, you set facilities like airfield units to Novice. Why do you do this instead of leaving it at the base value?

These facilities have no Proficiency affected functions I think.

As to facilities, making them a Novice (Blue) just makes them easier to differentiate in the OOB from aircraft. I know at a glance if it is a base facility component vs. aircraft/active unit (as long as the aircraft isn't a novice). It's that simple.

To be clear, I was asking out of curiosity, not criticism or hate.

The thing about the Guards units and so on was also meant as a mere “offering”, not a demand. All meant in a polite manner, not criticism or hate. It was also not meant as a “belittling” or whatever. When I play scenarios I rarely glance at the proficiency so I wasn’t really aware of anyone’s design decisions until now. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

I hadn’t thought of how it would affect the OOB. Thanks for the tip!

So back to the discussion at hand.

A designer will always have to make a value judgement as to the training, national policies/morale/training/commitment/ unit training, etc. I do not design "Game Scenarios" for people to have fun, I attempt to design simulations of what I feel are real world issues with the real world training and commitment to the forces. Now, you may agree or disagree with my decisions but in the final analysis it is my scenario to design and your choice as to whether you play it or not. There are a large number of people who don't play my designs, that's fine. There appear to be a number of people who enjoy my designs, that great if they do. Bottom line is my pay is the same whether you kick sand on them or love them! I don't design scenarios to be "fun," I certainly do not design them to be "Balanced," I look for a real world challenge/situation and design based on that. If the forces are peers or near peer, then great, but that rarely happens. I would not rate the Ukraine's forces above Russia, but I certainly wouldn't rate either as the peers of the U.S., U.K., PRC, Canada, Australia. I'm not sure about Germany anymore, but if this were a Cold War scenario I would rate West Germany's Bundeswehr Divisions above a regular Soviet Union Cat A division. Now maybe a GDR Armored Division and Soviet Guards Armored might be close to peers (although I would rate the GDR a bit higher even there).

My Rating proficiency

1. What is the National/Side Proficiency. Some stop there but again you're going to really work to hard to convince me all of the major powers are peers. Period comes in, certainly the U.S. Army of 1979 is not nearly as proficient as that same army in 1985!
2. What is the Operational unit, is it better trained than the National Level?
3. What about sub-units do they have SOF assigned, certainly SOF assigned to a National Guard unit should be more proficient.
4. Are all pilots equal in a unit? I don't think so, hence the terms "Nugget" and "Ace!" So there must be some variance in proficiency within even a squadron to account for the veterans or aces who have been flying for years and been through "Top Gun" vs. the newbie who has just been assigned to the squadron right out of flight school.

Hope this clears up my thoughts on the issue, others may vary, that's cool. Again, nobody has to play someone else's scenario if that's not their thing. If you want to have fun, there are plenty of folks building "fun" and "balanced" game scenarios, just not me. If you play mine I think you would find many, not all, to be challenging, but hey build your own and share them, I like to play other's scenarios and since I'm really not designing anymore I'll be happy to play yours.

Also good info. This seems like a good standard that novice scenario designers wishing for some guidance on proficiency could look too if they wish to have a bit more realism*. It seems like there have been quite a few questions about scenario designing on the forum recently compared to the past.

*Or opinionated realism or whatever it should be called so as not to offend anyone.

[BeirutDude]

Sorry if I came off sharp, I didn't take any offense or anything. To be honest I have a lot going on these days and little time to write and QC a message. I live in a small coastal cottage with three women and two dogs, so I'm usually trying to get something out before the next thing goes on around me.

[gregb41352]

3 women and 2 dogs.....it's a wonder you get anything done

And I happen to enjoy your scenarios more than most.
To each his own indeed.

[SAM2FRANCIS]

Sorry, I am late to the party.

I am just so giddy over just how terrible a conventional fighting force Russia has that I giggle to myself sometimes. As a conventional army, they are 3rd tier.

Being a baby boomer American, what can I say?

Hmm.

I think you've underestimated the Ukrainian military. Ukraine has had NATO training and Western weapons flowing in for eight years. The Russian weapons they've got are good too.

It's all very lethal stuff.

And I think their invading force was 150,000 men, tops? So that's not even near the 3:1 traditional force ratio an attacker is supposed to have. I think they're outnumbered, no? At least in men. Yet they're getting the job done seems. The Russians are winning.

Sure, mistakes get made. Things don't go the way they're supposed to. But that's true in every war. Probably even more so in this war as this is the first modern war where both sides use the latest and greatest stuff on a large scale.

So everyone is learning here too.

[SeaQueen]

Is something in the works to bring their game capabilities more in line with demonstrated reality?

Keep in mind, Command, for the most part, doesn't really model doctrine. The database is just a reflection of the hardware. If a force is poorly trained, makes bad decisions, makes decisions slowly when it does make decisions, and fails to take advantage of whatever hardware it has (for better and worse), then they could have the greatest equipment in the world and underperform expectations.

So... is it that the equipment is bad, or the employment decision making was bad?

Tactics and doctrine are for the player to decide. The Russians in Ukraine made a lot of bad decisions in the tactical employment of their forces. It doesn't make their equipment inherently worse than it's represented in the db, it makes the officers planning and directing them worse. It makes the sailors, soldiers and airmen employing them worse. That's not a database issue, that's a game play or scenario design issue.

[Ataraxzy]

We have all been watching the same thing for months now. Russia has clearly under-performed in every aspect on the battlefield. Navy? Embarrassed. Ground Forces? Very poorly managed at best. Air Force? Cannot gain superiority against a weaker foe...for over 3 months!

Is something in the works to bring their game capabilities more in line with demonstrated reality?

The 1st, 2nd, 5th and 4124th Rules of War:

You are not immune to propaganda, even after taking into account the effects of propaganda.

Where are you getting your information from? If you're not coming from a place of knowledge of Intelligence (in the professional, battlefield information sense), and you're not, people high enough in the Intelligence game to actually know these things have better things to do, and access to better simulations than C:MO, then you're getting your information from sources that

1. Are actively discriminatory against Russian aggression (this isn't a bad thing, it's merely a comment on reality)
2. Are asked, frequently, by Intelligence, other Departments and the Executive to mute or modify stories for a variety of reasons, including resolution of sources, timing of offensives, allowance for investigations and many, many more.
3. Are Capitalist, like everyone in this conflict, and therefore have a bottom-line they need to monitor - "Russia is winning decisively!" stories simply do not and will not sell. A bit of an unusual analysis, but absolutely necessary: if you miss the forest for the trees, you're going to get so lost you end up on the wrong planet, let alone missing your target.
4. What does sell? "Russians are using GPS systems from Garmin!" "The Ghost of Kyev is an amazing pilot!" "Drones blast Russian Tanks!" and so on. Think carefully about these.
   1. The first? So what? It's not like that's important. It's clever, actually. Russia has GLONASS, an equivalent, equally accurate system. Further, combat pilots do not actually use GPS in actual combat: they're trained to expect the signals environment to be caustic enough that the weak GPS signals from satellites 16 1/2 thousand miles up are either completely overwhelmed or spoofed into uselessness. US warplanes use inertial navigation and "tapes" loaded into the ship as part of the take-off checklist, then connect to a secure information network that includes aircraft and other non-air units like seagoing vessels, ground stations and other space vessels. GPS is used as a sanity check, if it's used at all. The USG handed out the fine-accuracy decryption key in 2000.
   2. The second was thoroughly debunked like most of those inane morale boosting stories.
   3. And the final one... so what? If you counted Every. Single. Event. Reported. then eliminated only obvious duplicates, then trebled the number to account for unreported events, you wouldn't put the smallest dent in the Russian war machine.

There are two, and only two, ways you can monitor the actual state of the war:

1. Look at an up-to-date territory map, from a US source and a Russian source at the same time.
2. Count how many "morale stories" there are. The more there are, the worse it's going. The more end up being outright lies, the faster it's getting worse.

That's it. The first tells you how the war is going. The second tells you how "your side" feels about how the war is going. That'll give you what you need to know to determine how the war will be going in the near future. Anything else is a Weatherman telling you how the weather's going to be a year from now: absolutely impossible. You're certainly not going to be getting information from Russian sources. Finally, remember, you've been trained to imagine Russian sources as mere propaganda puppets for the State, which the people of Russia are equally convinced is true about your sources. You both are right.

The 1st Rule of War always applies. You need to adjust your estimations of Russian effectiveness VASTLY upward. And you'll still be underestimating.

Sam Francis' statement from the 30th is correct, Ukraine has had access to NATO training and weapons for near a decade and also has access to Russian weapons, and yet:

And I think their invading force was 150,000 men, tops? So that's not even near the 3:1 traditional force ratio an attacker is supposed to have. I think they're outnumbered, no? At least in men. Yet they're getting the job done seems. The Russians are winning.

The Russians are winning.

Are they winning decisively? Probably not, but that's relatively unimportant, winning is winning.

[bsq]

The 1st Rule of War always applies. You need to adjust your estimations of Russian effectiveness VASTLY upward. And you'll still be underestimating.

You need a phase shift, 180 degrees should just about do it.

The Russians are winning.

In his head, in the Duma, in the state controlled press. Everywhere else they lost when they failed to take Kyiv within the first few days and the reported decapitation events did not occur (or were thwarted). Now they dont seem to have a plan, apart from shell, shell, shell, shell, shell.

This is a grind now, no one will win, there may be a status quo, but all talk of Russian advances have now disapeared and all that is being talked about (on both sides mind you - although the truth from Russians often gets deleted before it has lived too long in the public domain) is how effective HIMARS is (although you can subsitute any proper PGM in that case).
Dont forget we had years trying very hard not to cause collateral damage in Afghan, spent billions on it, would have lost in any event as we were being bled dry of Dollars/Euros/Pounds by the cost of munitions which do what they say on the tin.

The Russians on the other hand see collateral as inevitable and, if called out, deny everything. Worked in Afghan for them. Worked in Grozny, Worked in Syria - those were easy, there was no western press corps, no real western interest (until CW was used). Now though the world is looking on and truly for all their 'vaunted' prowess they are awful and are being seen to be awful (in a professional and competence sense, you draw your own conclusion about the morals of what they are doing and have done).

[Gizzmoe]

Sam Francis' statement from the 30th is correct, Ukraine has had access to NATO training and weapons for near a decade and also has access to Russian weapons, and yet:

And I think their invading force was 150,000 men, tops? So that's not even near the 3:1 traditional force ratio an attacker is supposed to have. I think they're outnumbered, no? At least in men. Yet they're getting the job done seems. The Russians are winning.

The Russians are winning.

Are they winning decisively? Probably not, but that's relatively unimportant, winning is winning.

What's the definition of Winning in this case? Would Winning require that the Ukrainians accept the Russian Win and let them keep the areas uncontested? If the Ukrainians don't accept that and the Russians manage to win by taking the eastern and southern regions they want, plus a connection to Moldova, which would take while, they would be left with an even more horrible logistical nightmare than it already is, they would have a roughly 1500 km of frontline, mixed with some hostile population, partisans and arty/counter-attacks and such. That's going to be a tough and very costly "win" for Russia in the long run...

[Gizzmoe]

Dont forget we had years trying very hard not to cause collateral damage in Afghan, spent billions on it, would have lost in any event as we were being bled dry of Dollars/Euros/Pounds by the cost of munitions which do what they say on the tin.

The Russians on the other hand see collateral as inevitable and, if called out, deny everything. Worked in Afghan for them. Worked in Grozny, Worked in Syria - those were easy, there was no western press corps

I assume what you are saying in general is: It would be totally awesome to only use smart ammo that has very little collateral damage in battle, but it is simply not financially (or otherwise) feasable/sustainable in larger-scale ops, thus the use of brute force by Dumb ammo and the inevitable civ casualties has to be accepted to be successful in the long run. If that's what you are saying I am totally with you

[Ataraxzy]

You need a phase shift, 180 degrees should just about do it.
...
In his head, in the Duma, in the state controlled press. Everywhere else they lost when they failed to take Kyiv within the first few days and the reported decapitation events did not occur (or were thwarted). Now they dont seem to have a plan, apart from shell, shell, shell, shell, shell.

Suffice to say, this is exactly what I was warning against. Not trying to insult you, but: Section D. Read it again. There's a reason I put it in there. This is a pitch perfect example of the 1st Rule of War in action:

You are not immune to propaganda, even after taking into account the effects of propaganda.

This is a grind now, no one will win,

Untrue. Russia may not get everything it says it wanted, but Russia never was going to get that with only 150k men. To a smart planner, that's "giving the OPFOR an out that saves face and allows us to keep what we really wanted." Hint: look at oil fields and pipelines, as well as culturally Russian areas, and Ukraine won't be joining NATO. Russia has almost everything it needs now, already. Everything else is gravy. Right now, they're busy costing Ukraine (and NATO, for that matter) more than Russia is spending and taking territory they have the option of giving back, at a price that they decide.

there may be a status quo,

Yes, that favors Russia.

...(B)ut all talk of Russian advances have now disappeared and all that is being talked about (on both sides mind you - although the truth from Russians often gets deleted before it has lived too long in the public domain) is how effective HIMARS is (although you can substitute any proper PGM in that case).

Yes. You'll notice that exact pattern in nearly all modern warfare: it takes several weeks to months for the surprised party to become combat effective (and it's a good measure of just how shitty your OPFOR is in the time it takes for them to become so. Ukraine took ages). What we're seeing now that they are combat effective is NOT talk of counter-offensive, but mere holding actions, at best. Russia is still taking territory. This is bad, really bad if you're rooting for Ukraine. (NOTE: I'm not rooting for either side. I'm not a Capitalist, nor do I approve of colonialism, in any of its myriad guises. Russia shouldn't be doing what it's doing, and NATO shouldn't have provoked Russia into doing what it's doing. Provocation is a perfectly reasonable legal defense, one that US propaganda outlets conveniently ignore. Here in the US, the legal term we use is Assault. Russia asked them to stop, repeatedly. They were ignored. Actions have consequences and ignoring the actions 'your side' took to demonize the other side is, yet again, an example of The 1st Rule of Warfare.)

Don't forget we had years trying very hard not to cause collateral damage in Afghan, spent billions on it, would have lost in any event as we were being bled dry of Dollars/Euros/Pounds by the cost of munitions which do what they say on the tin.

The Russians on the other hand see collateral as inevitable and, if called out, deny everything. Worked in Afghan for them. Worked in Grozny, Worked in Syria - those were easy, there was no western press corps, no real western interest (until CW was used).

If you'd lived through WWII, making sure the Nazis didn't win, with inferior materiel and nothing but unbelievably brave young men to throw into a meat grinder, you'd have exactly the same attitude. The Russians also have no problem with use of tactical nuclear weapons, especially at sea. NATO has very, VERY few tac nukes. It's a rather large hole in their doctrine that the Russians (and the Chinese, for that matter) will exploit mercilessly if there's ever a non-proxy conflict.

Now though the world is looking on and truly for all their 'vaunted' prowess they are awful and are being seen to be awful (in a professional and competence sense, you draw your own conclusion about the morals of what they are doing and have done).

LOL, repeat after me:
You are not immune to propaganda, even after taking into account the effects of propaganda.

This is merely the first combat that the West has cared about, because of oil, because of nuclear weapons placement and because Russia is making the Nazi's mistake: colonizing white people. Germany in 1939 didn't do anything different or more awful than what the British Empire did in India, or the Dutch did in the DEI, the US did to Native Americans or France to the people of Sub-Saharan Africa, they just did it to white people next door. Churchill is directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Indians through brutal executions, torture and starvation. Just like Hitler. But British Indians were poor, non-white, and far away, so nobody gave a shit, then or now: People still quote W.C. like he's some kind of hero instead of exactly the same kind of raging bigot that Hitler was, just to people not so close by. The British and the US dropped bombs on innocent German non-combatants in cities... deliberately. The US atomized the innocent citizens of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. You think they won't hesitate to do it again? The only thing stopping them is a lack of a war big enough to justify it.

Again, propaganda works, even after you take into account the effects of propaganda. It's a powerful drug, one you don't even know you're taking.

In war, the only people who win are the propagandists.

[Ataraxzy]

I assume what you are saying in general is: It would be totally awesome to only use smart ammo that has very little collateral damage in battle, but it is simply not financially (or otherwise) feasable/sustainable in larger-scale ops, thus the use of brute force by Dumb ammo and the inevitable civ casualties has to be accepted to be successful in the long run. If that's what you are saying I am totally with you

Russia uses very few 'smart' weapons anyway. The vast majority of their air-to-ground arsenal are dumb bombs.

[Gizzmoe]

Russia uses very few 'smart' weapons anyway. The vast majority of their air-to-ground arsenal are dumb bombs.

Yes, and we know that the lack of smart weapons is a major problem for them.