Unit cohesion and game dynamics

[Jinef 2]

If you haven't guessed what I am on about from the title, I am wanting to investigate how military units in real life stick together to stay alive, and how in the virtual world sticking together will put you at a disadvantage.

For example, imagine a game in ArmA, where you have 20 people fighting each other, 10v10. They are given rough infomation on where the enemy starts and they start together, however if side A tries to stick together and fight as one, side B will win almost always.

Side A is just a blob of targets, unable to use concealment as well as side B and unable to react effectively against multi-directional attacks that come from side B all around them.

The cliche image that comes to mind is that side A is the British redcoats in the American Revolution, and side B is the American rebels. The redcoats march around in lines wearing bright red while the rebels sneak through the trees.

So why do players always take up side B behaviour. In reality I am sure there is a fear of solitude on the battlefield, however that doesn't exist in the virtual world as there is no fear. Maybe real life soldiers would be much more effective if technology could equip them to operate alone, in groups.

I hear that in VBS training they seem to have some super-soldier syndrome, with tactics being used that simply wouldn't be considered in real life out of the fear of one's life. I wonder if they have implemented anything to remove the super soldier feel.

I am a bit tired atm, so this post probably doesn't make much sense. I would like to gather some thoughts on this and hopefully find a way to encourage unit cohesion, for realism's sake.

[Sosna 0]

This is a very good point. I've always wondered about it since playing OFP in player-versus-player games (usually capture and hold).

Why does pvp gaming usually result in "lone wolf" activity versus squad-based? It must be more effective, otherwise players would not do it. What I don't know is why. What is the difference between reality and ofp/arma in this aspect.

I'm looking foreward to other's insight.

[Heatseeker 0]

Thats simple, Arma is just a game .

Players will focus on the 2 most important things:

1- to kill.

2- to survive.

To use teamtactics you have to look at your teamates to know where they are and where you should position yourself, etc. The time and concentration it takes to do this is enough for you to miss mr. bad guy, who will be 100% focused on the 2 most important things..

This is partial, there are many other things to consider but.. .

[max power 21]

In real life, you actually fear dying.. so you rely on your fellow soldiers for all kinds of support.  I don't think that war is so mobile as it is in ArmA.  I think it is a rare thing for everyone to split up and put them in a situation where they will surely die on purpose just to kill 3 or so badguys.  By and large, people just don't have the balls to be left out there, stark and alone, facing such a mass of enemy soldiers.  Soldiers also have artillery, jets, and other support to do the walking for them.  I'm not sure that you have an unrestrained 10 v 10 maneover war over a field as flat as a soccer pitch in real life. I think that almost everybody would die in that scenario, all other things being equal (like one side didn't run away, successfully or otherwise). AFAIK, small unit engagements are almost always hit and run.  If they get bumped, they maneover and rarely fight through.  It's too dangerous.

[The_Captain 0]

I have a hunch about this issue:

Combat density in arma PvP is pretty low. You might have a total of 20 players fighting in a 500x500m sector, much much lower than in traditional "army vs. army" combat.

In a large scale & high density battle, straying from your comrades means facing unknown dangers, and your chances of survival are arguably higher is you stick with your fellow soldiers. In arma, with low troop density, sticking with fellow soldiers means that you're more visible: enemies that spot your comrades will likely spot and kill you as well. By moving individually, you minimize the chances of detection and thus death, in the short term. Since the combat density is low, it's easy for individual players to hide, and much harder for small groups to remain undetected. In addition, individual players have an easier time ambushing small groups of enemy players if the individual stays undetected.

Also, small unit techniques are hard to execute effectively without training and proper tactics. Such techniques, combined with good communication, would likely make small units more powerful than an individual in combat.

I think an increase in battlefield density would encourage players to group together. In 5v5 or 10v10 games over a large area, players will tend to split up.

Plus, 30 second respawn timers in PvP maps encourage players to run off on their own instead of waiting to join a group of players, ensuring it's hard to form a small group and go into combat together (and even if you do, individual players will pick you off until only individuals remain).

My thoughts.

[0311 0]

Hmm, good question.

I have never really played much "online" war games although it definitely seems like it would be fun. Most of my experience with games are done in singleplayer type mode.

Anyhow being that this is my actual profession I will say the reason Marines use teams and squads in real life is because it WORKS. I honestly don't fully understand your question. How would a professionally organized squad be easier to kill than a few lone players?

Think about it. Would you rather have only yourself and maybe 1 or 2 other guys with you in an ambush, or would you rather have the firepower of a whole squad with you? All those guys with you should be able to eliminate a few select enemies pretty quick.

I imagine that the reason most players get killed using team tactics is because they just simply don't know real life tactics/strategy, OR they are restricted by limitations of the game. Not to mention that your field of vision is severely restricted in most video games. Are you making sure you and your squad/team are using enough dispersion?

Honestly I have not really seen many games where if tactics and strategy are professionally employed, they would not succeed.

I dunno dude, it's late right now but if you have any specific questions just ask.

[0311 0]

Ok, I just reread your question.

I have a few more comments. In your example you stated that side A would be a blob of targets vulnerable and exposed while side B kills them using tactics and enveloping side A.

This example re-enforces my previous theory. Video game players simply don't understand real combat tactics and maneuvers.

In real life, a squad of grunts don't simply move as one massive blob. It's not like you think, we use individual movements, individual cover and concealment, and ALOT of dispersion between individual Marines. Often enough so that to the untrained observer it appears that there is only 1 lone Marine out there while in actuality there is a whole squad out there hidden and moving in sync with eachother.

There have been numerous occasions with my own squad where I have not been able to even see the Marines in the formation next to myself due to dispersion and individual movement through the terrain. I just know where they are due to intense training, understanding of tactical conditions, and heightened situational awareness.

It flows in real life.

[ArmaVidz 0]

Perhaps we could get some of those RL tactics posted then?

[Second 0]

About lone wolfing in real life.

Many truly great RL soldiers have been lone wolfs when they needs to, like taking out trench held by enemy. Others are just extraweight for them so they stay in firesupport to freeze and diturbe enemy, while this "fearless" one clears the trench with his SMG. he might had someone tossing the grenades but not all times (fellow kight had fled)

Close combat quide wrote after ww2 or during ww2 also told that soldier might need to rise from his foxhole and start moving activelly when enemy is about to (or has already) broke to formation. This is also what many veterans tells: Green troops stayed their foxholes and shot at enemy, while many experienced men jumped from their foxhole or part of trench and attacked at enemy even before enemy reached defence line and saved the situation (enemy was hard to drive away if it already had seized even few firing positions from defencer). Also saying that: "It's always the best who gets killed" telling that they are doing quite dangerous feats.

But ofcourse these things happens only rarely as mostly this same individual is working with his fellows. He just has eye for battlefield (or he will be dead) and courage to move away from his unit and work alone.

That was just thing i wanted to bring up, it might not have anything to do with question at hand in this topic. So to ArmA:

Most player have relatively lot skills and they are fearless and liking what they do. This makes them uber-shooters, capable to cause few casualities in short moment (dependent of situation and terrain). Ofcourse this thing is bad for "organized" unit as they usually don't act optimally, like usually too many is moving at same time, being visible and shootable... They most likely are a bit overconfident about their greatness against lone wolfs. And if one loner can pin them down, then there will be lots of lone wolfs comming at them from random directions... All of them having taste of virtual blood, knowing the area very well and being skillful shooters and having lots of experince about combat in ArmA.

I'd say that if battles would get larger then organized mass would get much better. I tend to think that there's too much space per single man... Going to calculations: When looking at area which company of infantry will attack (atleast in theory) one can see that it's not much, only about 1000 meters wide for bit 130 men (and those 130 men are using only 500 meters), where about 1/3 is in reserves. so lets say that there are 7 meters of combat zone for one guy in that (i pulled that 7 meter out from my hat, but it should be close)...

Now how much is there space for one man in Standart Arma match? I tend to think that area is about as wide as in my company expample, but only 10-20 guys are using it! So they are having much more space (about 7-13 times more). I'd say that setting favors lone wolfs, they have space to work independetly and under their own imagination and desires. If they had less space per man, they would be in deeper trouble as there is no room for their imagination. Meanwhile organized unit can fill the space more (closer to amount which standart military tactics rely on).

Well this is just thing that crossed to my mind... Can't tell is that the actual reason for it. There are something else also, but right now i'm short of the time.

[Rambo-16AAB 0]

so to test the theory, a 200 v 200 player server would be required and it ould need to be full all of the time.

This wouldnt actually help. Take novalogics Joint operations, it had 200 player servers and loanwofling and idiots wandering off with the last helicopter on there own because they didnt want to walk were rife. When a side did gell and worked together, they steamrollered over the opposition ( then the oppsition crie CHEAT and leave the server...... )

Our squad practices real life tctics, always hase done, always will do. The tactics work as long as those trying to use them have the self controll to maintain it & the accompaning communications, if not then it will fall on its arse very quickly. The only time this will come into its own is playing against other like minded players.

[Daniel 0]

Agreed. If a coop map doesnt have respawn, you really give a crap about getting shot. Especially if it means you're going to have to sit out for the next hour or so. Combat drill training with fireteams and sections helps knit you together too. Having an NCO barking orders at you always helps.

And you need to fight a like minded force. Not so much tactically but in a 'what they want to get out of the game' sort of sense.

[-23rd-_2Lt_Griff 0]

That might be a bit to ambitious.

200 v 200 no matter what the server is gonna cause some problems.

But I like where this is going! How about we organise say 50 v 50 but in a closed combat environment.

Say 1 position 1 defends.

If we have some pre designated squad leaders and one overall commander on each side this should be quite easy to do.

I think it would be important though to limit the 'heavy' weapons. By this I really mean AFV's and IFV's. As they can tip the balance to much in ArmA.

The more simple it is, the easier I think it could be to do.

Infantry Only

Default Weapons and Kit (no addons)

Simple map with decent scripts

Some civi spectators filming it to review afterwards.

Ooooo sexy time!

[baddo 0]

If one wants to have a look at how a flexible small army fights an inflexible large army, then one might want to take a look at the Winter War. In short, the Red Army was in many battles defeated by a small, much more flexible army, the FDF. It has been said on many occasions that it was exactly the inflexibility of the Soviets which caused them so huge losses in battles which should have been, as they expected, walks-in-the-park for them, when taking into notice their huge materialistic advantage.

If you follow the link I provided above, you will find plenty of reading which will explain what happened. I think the Winter War shows very well how throwing a large group of soldiers with clear materialistic advantage blindly into battles with inflexible orders can result in a major disaster.

I think similar disasters happen in OFP & ArmA sessions too. If you put a large group of players together, and tell them to stay in a tight formation and tell them they will get shot by their own officers if they don't obey orders, a disaster is coming in-game too I think. Some organization is needed but you must allow your soldiers to use their own common sense. I believe that in the Red Army the common sense of the regular soldiers was suppressed.

[Daniel 0]

Absolutely. The only thing is, working as a team might not always the best option in ArmA, but it's always the most fun. Which is why I try to make and play scenarios that benefit fireteams.

[Jinef 2]

in OFP, we played a scenario called Stopped Convoy. I designed it to do just what you guys are saying.

It was approximately 600m by 300m playing area, consisting of a village in open ground, and a stopped convoy about 400 metres outside the village. The scenario was that the convoy had run over a IED or some such thing, and the marines inside suspected the baddies were in the village, which of course they were. The baddies could not leave the village as they had a virtual interest in defending it.

So, you had 20-30 US marines using fire and movement to get across the open ground to kill 5-10 insurgents in the village. The result was that the marines did stick together, and alternate movement, albeit clumsily.

So yeah, I reached the same conclusion as you. However I had to make the environment *very* simple and the objective very simple in order to be able to get 20-30 public players all pointing in the same direction. If you make the environment any more complex, then I think you will see that one breakaway from the formation will wreak havoc.

[InqWiper 0]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_the_best_sniper_in_World_War_2

Lone wolf tactics seem to work quite well IRL.

What would the war in Iraq look like if all insurgents just formed a massive formation and tried to face the americans head on?

Remember that T72 formation that faced the M1A2 formation head on? Remember that lone T72 that was dug into the ground and managed to take out an abrams from the side while it was rounding up POWs?

IEDs and carbombs are pretty much the biggest problem in Iraq atm are they not? IEDs and carbombs are used by very small groups or a single guy and not large formations correct?

A single guy with a roadside bomb versus a convoy consisting of 3 fully loaded hummers. Which side would you rather not be on? Good luck finding the guy who triggers the bomb.

[Second 0]

In short, the Red Army was in many battles defeated by a small, much more flexible army, the FDF. It has been said on many occasions that it was exactly the inflexibility of the Soviets which caused them so huge losses in battles which should have been, as they expected, walks-in-the-park for them, when taking into notice their huge materialistic advantage.

Basically this was problem for almost ALL southern countries. Their tactics was basically a linear one. While Finland's terrain forced (and still does) to use forces in deep formations and it also forced officers to trust their subleaders as leader couldn't see a thing. When others armies might have mentality that leader knows and see always what is happening.

One cheer difference:

1. Generally speaking European battle ended to charge while having lots of different phases before that.

2. In Finland battle just started at charge.

This puts all armies at disadvantage who trains to fight in some specific location, same would apply to finns in open plains. [Germans had same difficulties at start in Northern Finland, while soviet border troops were very tough nuts to crack at -41 when they were delaying finns. Ofcourse Germans too learned to fight in that kind terrain over the years.]

Wolf H. Halsti was a wise man

Back to topic:

I'm not saying that organized team wouldn't be superiour, in that my last post. I've been usually with loners and playing as loner (aka loser ). And i can tell when my side is facing organized clan or team. Usually they are dominating the game, but respawn after 30-60 secs gives loners a change to come back fighting. Many times organized clan has been pressing hard, but yet not managing to overcome loners complitely (aka score a point etc.), as loners are forced to create (even coherent! defenceline. Mostly this has been in games where there are lots of players in small area.

But yeah there are times when i've been able to take an advantage of their organizated fighting style and make them pay for it dearly. In other words i find spot which they like to use and start to shoot them there...

[-Snafu- 77]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_the_best_sniper_in_World_War_2

Lone wolf tactics seem to work quite well IRL.

What would the war in Iraq look like if all insurgents just formed a massive formation and tried to face the americans head on?

The insurgents would all be slotted if they tried to fight conventionlly. But the fact is they can't. They don't have the resources available to do such a thing. I'm sure if they had divisons of well equipped infantry, tanks and an air force to challenge coalition air supremacy they would fight conventionally. What they are trying to do is wear the Coalition forces down over a long period. Which is all they can really do with what they have. Just like in Vietnam.

[0311 0]

Since when does real life tactics mean getting all troops in one mass formation?? That is a surefire way to get everyone killed.

IRL it is told over all throughout to keep individual men far from eachother, diffused throughout the landscape. Having all your men walking near eachother is not necessarily teamwork and will only make them vulnerable.

Yes, a lone gunman or small group can inflict heavy casualties in an ambush against a larger squad of troops, but That is where reaction drills and IA drills come into play. Plus a small group or individuals wouln't be able to hold out against a much larger one most of the time unless they are very well protected/entrenched.

Yes, things such as IEDs and booby traps are very effective and minimizes alot of risk for the bomber. .. unfortunately.

Rules of combat are never strict, they change constantly, they bend with the situation.

[ryankaplan 1]

I dont think it has much to do with fear.

Mark my words armchair general words: once the common soldier reaches the level of intelligence and communication ability we get out of teamspeak on the battlefield, the biggest tactical unit will be a 4 man team, broken into 2 man teams.

Its all about communication. in real life, those 10 individual men dont have a fakin clue what the others are doing, while the two or three conservatively spaced fireteams work together, know where their own team mates are, and also share intelligence about the enemy.

In ofp/arma, the 10 rambos are sharing positions of enemy, their own positions, and most likely are still led by a commander nicely hidden in a bush with perfect radio comms, communicating through teamspeak and the map. Now, the 10 guys who are sticking to a squad formation also have the same advantages of perfect comms and the uber-map-computer interface, so why do they lose?

"Basicly...."

1)The singular men are harder to spot. The 10 shutzengrup members are a larger blob, easier to spot.

2)The 10 rambos are most likely covering a larger area, and get better information about the battlefield, whether they try or not.

3)The 10 singular men, know they wont win a firefight, so they use more reserved tactics of hiding and covering smaller arcs, while a squad leader is unlikely to order to 'Dig in', when he's got 10 men versus 1, in his mind.

[Second 0]

"Basicly...."

1)The singular men are harder to spot. The 10 shutzengrup members are a larger blob, easier to spot.

2)The 10 rambos are most likely covering a larger area, and get better information about the battlefield, whether they try or not.

3)The 10 singular men, know they wont win a firefight, so they use more reserved tactics of hiding and covering smaller arcs, while a squad leader is unlikely to order to 'Dig in', when he's got 10 men versus 1, in his mind.

Your predication of better comms enabling more indepence and enchanced cooperation is right and it's already happening. I'm not sure will fireteam be BIGGEST tactical unit in future. But i think we think tactics in general to be different things... I've bumped to it earlier. Corrently platoon, but usually company is smallest tactcal unit, and better comms in the long run might make teams to be smallest tactical units. While division, brigade, combat-unit (sort of batallion and half, not sure about english name) are biggest tactical units. That's how i see word 'tactical unit'.

And to ArmA:

Basic problem in loner games is that loner truly are loners. Only thing visible in Chat is "LOL noob!" and map remains as blank as it was at start of the mission. If i ask about teamspeak no-one says a word. Basically only way to know that someone has made contact to enemy are gunshots and maybe even reports of "12 o'clock, enemy man, 400"... Or mabe i've been playing in wrong company?

What you describe seems to be awfully lot organized team, using "unconventional" or high-tech ways

[0311 0]

I dont think it has much to do with fear.

Mark my words armchair general words: once the common soldier reaches the level of intelligence and communication ability we get out of teamspeak on the battlefield, the biggest tactical unit will be a 4 man team, broken into 2 man teams.

Its all about communication. in real life, those 10 individual men dont have a fakin clue what the others are doing, while the two or three conservatively spaced fireteams work together, know where their own team mates are, and also share intelligence about the enemy.

In ofp/arma, the 10 rambos are sharing positions of enemy, their own positions, and most likely are still led by a commander nicely hidden in a bush with perfect radio comms, communicating through teamspeak and the map. Now, the 10 guys who are sticking to a squad formation also have the same advantages of perfect comms and the uber-map-computer interface, so why do they lose?

"Basicly...."

1)The singular men are harder to spot. The 10 shutzengrup members are a larger blob, easier to spot.

2)The 10 rambos are most likely covering a larger area, and get better information about the battlefield, whether they try or not.

3)The 10 singular men, know they wont win a firefight, so they use more reserved tactics of hiding and covering smaller arcs, while a squad leader is unlikely to order to 'Dig in', when he's got 10 men versus 1, in his mind.

Dude, you havn't got a clue about how things are run in real life.

Do you honestly believe that a squad of 10 Marines have "no clue" what eachother are doing? We know exactly what we are doing with NO comm AND almost ZILCH visibility.

The level and intensity of training that individual Infantry Marines go through in order to be able to coordinate and maneuver together would make your head pop off.

You seem to think we're all a gaggle of morons with guns rushing through a battlefield shooting at everything. If that were the case I would wonder how we ever made it this far as a nation.

Yea, it's nice if we had good comm all the time, but we don't and the training we go through allows us a certain type of situational awareness that none of you understand.

Marines are foremost riflemen, and the very fundamentals of training boil down to individual action and movement. Any grunt on the battlefield is able to care for, defend, and maneuver himself if he were to become isolated or cut off, blind.

TTPs(tactics, techniques, and procedures) are hammered in at the individual level, and built up from there.

Seriously, don't assume you know anything about this profession because most of you seem completely oblivious.

[Daniel 0]

Just ignoring real life things like perception of your surroundings for a second, and focusing on whats possible in OFP/ArmA:

Say you want to move a section of 8 men across a given battlefield. Split them into 2 fireteams of 4. The section still moves as one, seperate to other sections in the platoon (depending on the size of the force), but can flank, bound and fall back as a pair.

Get squad members to buddy up. The NCO with the medic, gunners and AT with their ammo bearers, that sort of thing. That way, everyone has someone watching out for them. The idea of getting people to watch each others backs is very important, especially given your reduced perception in ArmA as opposed to real life.

Moving as pairs, either as buddys, fireteams, sections, etc is extremely flexible and efficient. More important than the formation of the men itself.

In my humble armchair general opinion.  

[andersson 285]

@0311

Mark my words armchair general words:

As I read it ryankaplan is talking about gaming, which is one part of the discussion and question.

[0311 0]

Daniel @ Dec. 09 2007,22:15)]Just ignoring real life things like perception of your surroundings for a second, and focusing on whats possible in OFP/ArmA:

Say you want to move a section of 8 men across a given battlefield. Split them into 2 fireteams of 4. The section still moves as one, seperate to other sections in the platoon (depending on the size of the force), but can flank, bound and fall back as a pair.

Get squad members to buddy up. The NCO with the medic, gunners and AT with their ammo bearers, that sort of thing. That way, everyone has someone watching out for them. The idea of getting people to watch each others backs is very important, especially given your reduced perception in ArmA as opposed to real life.

Moving as pairs, either as buddys, fireteams, sections, etc is extremely flexible and efficient. More important than the formation of the men itself.

In my humble armchair general opinion.

This is a good statement. This technique would probably transfer well into a video game environment as well, and it does well IRL too.

I don't know much about video games, but a bud of mine showed me a game called Battlefield2. The characters ingame are small enough to allow a large field of view, and this game would make good use of strategic/tactical gameplay.

Has anyone here tried it?

@Ryankaplan, sorry but I just couln't help but take offense at your statement.