data saturation on in future combat Was:rules "inspiration"

Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote: As I said, I don't really question whether
sufficiently advanced

> technology can do it. I am questioning whether the *human crew*

I think this can be addressed as a function of crew quality. The short answer
to your question is yes, most of the time you do. (if you are reasonably
good). This is a function of situational awareness. (Not your sensor's but
your brains). Re: the situation in flight sims, I play air warrior and
warbirds online (plus EF2000 and a lot of modern sims to.)and have
participated in dozens of online scenario missions (not the general arena free
for all) with up to 250 other flyers. My involvement ranging from a newby who
was totally overwhelmed by everything and couldn't even remember that my damn
gear was still down (my first scenario mission!) to a squadron commander,
navigating, communicating, and shepherding a dozen fighters, while escorting
bombers and keeping tabs of the strategic situation while still flying my
aircraft and working with my wingman in a dogfight. It can be done with
training and practice. That's what we pay our professionals to train for and
master.

Mikko brings up an excellent point that having all this sensor data does not
bring you automatic "situational awareness". This is purely my opinion, but I
believe that with all this newfangled sensor equipment ever for today (esp.
JSTARs and the digital battlefield project), you have battalion, brigade, and
division commanders, that have so much data at their finger tips, that most of
them get bogged down telling this or that company commander what he should be
doing to fight his own company instead of concentrating on their appropriate
level of command. This was a big problem in Desert Storm.

In special operations, we're there has always been a lot more sensor and state
of the art communications gear available, commanders have long had to deal
with these problems. Especially on mission the high priority where you could
have commanders of the highest level plugged into the net. It's extremely
frustrating. I can tell you that on some missions it was a matter of SOP to
not report data or report erroneous data in particular regarding our exact
where abouts. (Though a certain amount of that goes back to mistrusting the
security of the data link). Especially on long missions dealing with other
countries we had to balance what's right with what our commanders wanted us to
do so they would stay out of hot water with their uppers. So most teams failed
to report a lot of their activities in order that no one would monkey with
them.

I could see it in the future, (Mikko's worst nightmare coming to pass). A GEV
company is engaging enemy forces. The digital battlefield is wired directly
into the BC command vehicle. While the GEV company is hotly engaged, the BC
sees a juicier target being ignored because there's some pesky infantry tank
killer teams trying to ambush them. He starts flooding the company comanders
with orders on how to fight his company. Something gets ignored. The company
commander has to pull his mind off the fight to argue with the BC. Something
is missed, and people get killed. This happens al lot today, there's no reason
why it won't happen in the future with even greater data saturation.

Unless of course, we sit back and think on the problems as we have done for
others on this list. <g>

> I know I don't. I tend to go for the first thing in my sights, unless

Also that's why there's ususally two sets of eyes (at least) looking for
targets on an IFV or tank. In an M1, the commander can override a gunners
control if he sees anything more pressing. Usually he desigantes the target
area and even the targets of the gunner to hit. Once he hands of these targtes
to the gunner, he goescak to scanning through his own dispaly. If the gunner
is firing at a BMP at 1000 meters and all the
sudden the TC sees a T-90 pop up at 1200 meters with the muzzle pointed
right at him. He can override the gun, swing it on to target and even fire it
himself if he has to.

> On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Los wrote:

While we agree on most things, let me stress one point:

> I think this can be addressed as a function of crew quality. The short

*Always*. Not most of the time. Not even 99% of the time. Always. *Most
optimal*. Not pretty good choice. Not one of many nearly equals. Most optimal.

Out of an arbitrarily high number of choices.

One could argue that sophisticated battle computer could evaluate threats,
highlight the best choices etc. -- but then we really need to think: If
your systems are this good, what the heck do you need a human crew for? All
but the most experienced crews are going to pick the computer's choice nr.1
anyway. Even the vets might do it, if that's what kept them alive long enough
to get veteran.

There are many unknown factors on a real battlefield. There are unknown
factors on a miniatures table. Unknowns contribute to "fog of war", which I
think is good for atmosphere.

While these factors are admittedly *not* always the same, *I* think it is
preferably to retain those onboard unknowns in place of the battlefield
ones, instead of allowing players to stop action, pre-determine onboard
unknowns and then add extra rules to simulate the battlefield ones.

> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Los wrote:

Sorry but your original post was at work and I'm at home now so I'm missing
something. Are you saying that crews ALWAYs chhose the right traget? I thought
you were saying the exact opposite?

> Out of an arbitrarily high number of choices.
If
> your systems are this good, what the heck do you need a human crew

I agree...

> While these factors are admittedly *not* always the same, *I* think it

I agree 100%. I hate when I guy measures everything oiutto teh umpteempth
degree and then takes an hour to make his move. War is not nor will ever be
about a "sure thing". Neither should a wargame (IMO)

> Los <los@cris.com> wrote:
If you dislike this practise (like me), let the fellow measure
everything, but with a -1 dice type penalty to fire control for each
measurement. Five measurements: -5 die type fire control. This simulates
the crew inside their vehicles laser rangefinding several targets.
    And to promote quicker play, how about a +1 dice type bonus to fire
control for determination of a unit's target in less than about 30 seconds?
This bonus promotes quick reactions.

Andrew Martin

> Los wrote:
I would hate to have someone watch the clock that closely. And several
measurements are common. If you apply such a penalty, you may want to make it
a penalty for measuring from the same unit to more than 2 units.

  Or
I am sure that someone has mentioned this, but you may want to get a chess
clock to time each player's turn. And apply a penalty if one player has used
time equal to double his opponet's time. Another at tripple and so on. Have
this rule start on the 4th round of play (This prevents a player from making
an extremly quick turn on the first round
and demanding the other player take a penalty. I know mini-maxers that
would try this).

> On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Brian Bell wrote:

> I am sure that someone has mentioned this, but you may want to get a

Probably better to use the chess clock to time turns total cumulatively, and
give a bonus to one player for, say, every full 5 minutes less he uses.

> I know mini-maxers that would try this).

I wouldn't exactly call that minmaxing, but I understand this may seem like
old hackers resenting crackers being called hackers.