Showing posts with label Readers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Readers. Show all posts
16 October 2012
Sound Off! Bring a Friend!
Your mission today is to sound off somewhere else! Tell a friend about GrogNews and bring them over to contribute some comments on our little corner of the blogosphere. Introduce them below in the comments and welcome them the finest little oddball military site out there.
By: Brant
21 September 2012
Random Friday Wargaming - You Make The Call!
What games are you planning to play this weekend?
By: Brant
By: Brant
Labels:
Friday Wargaming,
Readers
10 September 2012
GrogHeads is Down, Thanks to Anonymous
GoDaddy, the online host for GrogHeads, is down right now and Anonymous is claiming responsibility.
By: Brant
GoDaddy, the domain registrar and Web hosting company, is down, perhaps taking millions of websites down as a result.
"Status Alert: Hey, all. We're aware of the trouble people are having with our site. We're working on it," @GoDaddy tweeted Monday.
While GoDaddy.com's site is up and running, websites hosted by the company are still experiencing outages.
TechCrunch reports that GoDaddy email addresses are down, as well. The blog suggests customers concerned with that their site has been affected can check online status at Down For Everyone Or Just Me.
A quick call to the company's customer service line resulted in a voice message stating that the company is aware of issues involving several services, including web hosting and emails. The company suggest following its Twitter page for updates.
Twitter accounts claiming to be associated with the hacking group Anonymous claimed responsibility for the attack.
"Basically, every GoDaddy site on the planet just crashed," @TibitXimer tweeted.
"#TangoDown - godaddy.com," @AnonOpsLegion tweeted Monday, claiming that the Twitter account @AnonymousOwn3r was responsible for the breach. "TangoDown" is the term that Anonymous generally uses to signify that a website is down.
By: Brant
24 July 2012
Check out ACIG.org
Rex just told me about Air Combat Information Group's website. Tons of interesting and useful stuff here. Go check it out and talk about your favorites down below.
By: Brant
By: Brant
12 July 2012
Revisiting the C2E2
A long time ago (mid-2010) we introduced the GrogNews C2E2 as the start of an engine for rapidly playing out real-world situations. It sort of withered on the vine for a while as real life got in the way, but a string of recent discussions here has brought it back into play as a concept.
Now, the actual nuts-and-bolts of creating/playing the scenarios will have to wait for a little while until we can get the technology caught up, but it's time to get a lot of jumbled and disjointed thoughts into the blog here and let you guys have at them in dissecting their usefulness and relevance, as well as their playability.
Originally we were looking at:
So here's how we're changing this up, and how they might interact with each other.
First off, kinetic factors are dropping to 2:
COMBAT- how well do you fight
REACT(ion)- how quickly do you get to the fight and how quickly do you get inside your opponents' decision cycles. Is this just another way to describe "initiative"? Maybe. But he who reacts best doesn't always act first. It may be that a decisively better C2 system gives you the ability to let the other guy start acting, and then you react to it once you see what he's doing.
We're also adding a non-unit-specific factor: MISSION. Based on what you've tasked the unit to do, they may perform in different ways. While KIN / N-K is an obvious distinction, there are certain types of units that should have certain types of missions, and within certain types of terrain, that might (as a part of the mission profile specs) affect adjustments to their factors.
Support factors aren't changing much
AREA: The space(s) in which you can project your combat power. This plus your reaction allows you to determine the ground you can cover in an operational/tactical sense.
DEPLOY: What does it take to move your unit somewhere else? Think of this as a strategic level movement factor.
LOG: What does it take to keep your unit in the field? This can apply in many ways. It may take a full log cost to redeploy your unit to another location. It may take a full log cost to conduct a full kinetic operation. It may not take any log cost to sit still for a turn within certain boundaries. This one will have to interact with your lines of supply, as well as the "friendliness" of the local environment. Log support is going to be higher for US guys in Uzbekistan than in Kuwait.
Non-kinetic factors:
This one's taken up the most thought, and is still not to the true level of fidelity it should be, but in the interest of playability, we're throwing out a basic rock-paper-scissors model that should cover many of the key concepts, as well as provide some basic meaningful interaction between them.
I/O --> Governance --> Security --> I/O
I/O, the information operations, covers the media, the local mosque preaching to the flock, the home-made flyers handed out, the al-Jazeera broadcasts, and the urban legends of man-eating badgers let loose by the occupying forces. It's the stories told over the pig roast at the cartel wedding and the parent showing the kid the olive grove that once belonged to the great-great-great grandfather.
GOV(ernance)is a continuum, in which units might be rated positive or negatively, as they may contribute to better stability and control of the area, or may contribute to anarchy and lawlessness. Religious militias may seek to stabilize an area, even if their agenda is not in line with the national government. Anti-IMF protesters seeking to loot electronics shops while dodging tear gas and riot police are not contributing to any form of stability.
SEC(urity) is the ways and means of enforcing governance, but fighting corruption, protecting capital investments, and maintaining a safe and hospitable atmosphere for the local population.
Now, I'm not even going to pretend that this is an accurate model of how the real world works. My real question is this: "Are we close enough to start looking at how to model real-world events within a common framework (game rules) without instantly throwing up our hands and screaming about how hopeless this is?"
Some interactions that need to be addressed:
Combat is a mixture of
CBT + TERRAIN = how well can you fight/defend in that area
REACT + the mission you're given = how likely you are to hit something in that area, and how hard you might hit it to roll back into CBT + TERR math
REACT + AREA = who acts first/last, and when are casualties assesed
LOG + DEPLOY = cost and time to move from place to place
Map will need some hex-based areas to cover the operational actions and REACT and AREA factors, with some key strategic centerpoints that provide the LOG / DEPLOY costs to move between and maintain presence.
Some unit types:
- Heavy / Light combat units, with perhaps some different ratings on the N-K factors based on their sourcing. For instance, most US Nat'l Guard units have a lot of pretty useful N-K skills that aren't going to be accounted for in their official KIN missions.
- Civil Support units: PRTs, construction engineers, police, legal assets, trainers, etc. that can all offer significant N-K pluses, with just enough KIN factors to protect themselves.
- SF/SAS/CDO/Chuck Norris: Very low log costs, but very high REACT/AREA values, and CBT almost never affected by terrain. Other than some I/O value, probably not terribly useful in N-K functions.
- (Need a label for) opposition/protest leadership that are capable of organizing protests, demonstrations, strikes, social media events, traditional media events, and the occasional total out-of-control throwdown bar mitzvah jams. These guys can play total havoc with all sorts of N-K factors, and force KIN units to operate in a realm where they really don't belong.
How will the overall model work together? We need some way of tracking the local civilian 'mood' and support for the different sides, through political organized, governance, levels of I/O, etc. We also need a way to keep track of the body count, and what thresholds of dead units start to trigger counter-actions from the dead units' families. How do you know what true effects you have on the local areas, and how do you assess it, and how do you establish the longevity of the effects?
When military forces deploy to a tsunami zone, what are they bringing with them in terms on N-K factors, and how well does that play in affecting the local perception of them? How does training units in certain aspects change what their performance can be on the ground? If you plus up an infantry brigade with a variety of N-K assets and training, are they really more effective on the ground in N-K roles, or have you just degraded their KIN capabilities instead?
Look, this is a lot to digest, and until I can mock up some maps / counters it's hard to visualize. But I also need to think hard about how to track the influences of these unit actions, and the missions they can be assigned, on the local population, that needs to be measured somehow.
By: Brant
Now, the actual nuts-and-bolts of creating/playing the scenarios will have to wait for a little while until we can get the technology caught up, but it's time to get a lot of jumbled and disjointed thoughts into the blog here and let you guys have at them in dissecting their usefulness and relevance, as well as their playability.
Originally we were looking at:
4 kinetic factors
- Attack: ability to go kill stuff
- Defense: ability to not get killed
- Support: ability to help someone else kill stuff
- Reaction: How quickly can you project over your area of influence? Think of this + Area of Effects = movement + range, but not quite exactly.
Some non-kinetic factors:
Need some sort of multi-faceted system that is more detailed that DIME, though that’s not a bad base to start with. For game purposes, I would like to simplify it to some form of “rock-paper-scissors” mechanic, with a rough cut perhaps being:
local influence/tolerance -> economic/security support -> information ops -> local influence/tolerance
And the support factors, that would apply regardless of mission type:
- Area: How much of a footprint can you influence when you're on the ground. This + reaction determines how quickly you can act, from how far away.
- Deployability: when talking about power projection from some home station or strategic mobility, there will need to be some rating of how quickly someone can move their Area of Effects.
- Logistical Support: at the strategic/operational level, what does it take to keep that unit in the field. One mechanic I do want to experiment with is potentially tying this to current news-tracking polls showing support for varying operations/policies so that as national support for something goes down, the ability to sustain long/large deployments also goes down, and can change scenarios from week to week.
So here's how we're changing this up, and how they might interact with each other.
First off, kinetic factors are dropping to 2:
COMBAT- how well do you fight
REACT(ion)- how quickly do you get to the fight and how quickly do you get inside your opponents' decision cycles. Is this just another way to describe "initiative"? Maybe. But he who reacts best doesn't always act first. It may be that a decisively better C2 system gives you the ability to let the other guy start acting, and then you react to it once you see what he's doing.
We're also adding a non-unit-specific factor: MISSION. Based on what you've tasked the unit to do, they may perform in different ways. While KIN / N-K is an obvious distinction, there are certain types of units that should have certain types of missions, and within certain types of terrain, that might (as a part of the mission profile specs) affect adjustments to their factors.
Support factors aren't changing much
AREA: The space(s) in which you can project your combat power. This plus your reaction allows you to determine the ground you can cover in an operational/tactical sense.
DEPLOY: What does it take to move your unit somewhere else? Think of this as a strategic level movement factor.
LOG: What does it take to keep your unit in the field? This can apply in many ways. It may take a full log cost to redeploy your unit to another location. It may take a full log cost to conduct a full kinetic operation. It may not take any log cost to sit still for a turn within certain boundaries. This one will have to interact with your lines of supply, as well as the "friendliness" of the local environment. Log support is going to be higher for US guys in Uzbekistan than in Kuwait.
Non-kinetic factors:
This one's taken up the most thought, and is still not to the true level of fidelity it should be, but in the interest of playability, we're throwing out a basic rock-paper-scissors model that should cover many of the key concepts, as well as provide some basic meaningful interaction between them.
I/O --> Governance --> Security --> I/O
I/O, the information operations, covers the media, the local mosque preaching to the flock, the home-made flyers handed out, the al-Jazeera broadcasts, and the urban legends of man-eating badgers let loose by the occupying forces. It's the stories told over the pig roast at the cartel wedding and the parent showing the kid the olive grove that once belonged to the great-great-great grandfather.
GOV(ernance)is a continuum, in which units might be rated positive or negatively, as they may contribute to better stability and control of the area, or may contribute to anarchy and lawlessness. Religious militias may seek to stabilize an area, even if their agenda is not in line with the national government. Anti-IMF protesters seeking to loot electronics shops while dodging tear gas and riot police are not contributing to any form of stability.
SEC(urity) is the ways and means of enforcing governance, but fighting corruption, protecting capital investments, and maintaining a safe and hospitable atmosphere for the local population.
Now, I'm not even going to pretend that this is an accurate model of how the real world works. My real question is this: "Are we close enough to start looking at how to model real-world events within a common framework (game rules) without instantly throwing up our hands and screaming about how hopeless this is?"
Some interactions that need to be addressed:
Combat is a mixture of
CBT + TERRAIN = how well can you fight/defend in that area
REACT + the mission you're given = how likely you are to hit something in that area, and how hard you might hit it to roll back into CBT + TERR math
REACT + AREA = who acts first/last, and when are casualties assesed
LOG + DEPLOY = cost and time to move from place to place
Map will need some hex-based areas to cover the operational actions and REACT and AREA factors, with some key strategic centerpoints that provide the LOG / DEPLOY costs to move between and maintain presence.
Some unit types:
- Heavy / Light combat units, with perhaps some different ratings on the N-K factors based on their sourcing. For instance, most US Nat'l Guard units have a lot of pretty useful N-K skills that aren't going to be accounted for in their official KIN missions.
- Civil Support units: PRTs, construction engineers, police, legal assets, trainers, etc. that can all offer significant N-K pluses, with just enough KIN factors to protect themselves.
- SF/SAS/CDO/Chuck Norris: Very low log costs, but very high REACT/AREA values, and CBT almost never affected by terrain. Other than some I/O value, probably not terribly useful in N-K functions.
- (Need a label for) opposition/protest leadership that are capable of organizing protests, demonstrations, strikes, social media events, traditional media events, and the occasional total out-of-control throwdown bar mitzvah jams. These guys can play total havoc with all sorts of N-K factors, and force KIN units to operate in a realm where they really don't belong.
How will the overall model work together? We need some way of tracking the local civilian 'mood' and support for the different sides, through political organized, governance, levels of I/O, etc. We also need a way to keep track of the body count, and what thresholds of dead units start to trigger counter-actions from the dead units' families. How do you know what true effects you have on the local areas, and how do you assess it, and how do you establish the longevity of the effects?
When military forces deploy to a tsunami zone, what are they bringing with them in terms on N-K factors, and how well does that play in affecting the local perception of them? How does training units in certain aspects change what their performance can be on the ground? If you plus up an infantry brigade with a variety of N-K assets and training, are they really more effective on the ground in N-K roles, or have you just degraded their KIN capabilities instead?
Look, this is a lot to digest, and until I can mock up some maps / counters it's hard to visualize. But I also need to think hard about how to track the influences of these unit actions, and the missions they can be assigned, on the local population, that needs to be measured somehow.
By: Brant
Labels:
C2E2,
Readers,
Wargame Design
08 May 2012
Sound Off! Sounding Off!
Do we keep this feature running, even though the topics may get more and more esoteric?
Or do we punt now while we're ahead and try to find something else to keep you engaged?
Sound off below!
By: Brant
03 May 2012
100,000!
Holy crap, people!
While we weren't looking, y'all pushed us over 100,000 US visitors! Woot, woot!
THANK YOU
By: Brant
While we weren't looking, y'all pushed us over 100,000 US visitors! Woot, woot!
THANK YOU
By: Brant
31 January 2012
Sound Off! Comments On Sounding Off!
So we've got 52 of these-here "Sound Off!" thingees under our belt now.
What do y'all think? Do we keep "Sound Off!" going? Or is it time to punt it for something else new?
I like it! I love it! I want more of it!
It's old! It's tired! It's time to be retired!
Sound off below!
By: Brant
What do y'all think? Do we keep "Sound Off!" going? Or is it time to punt it for something else new?
I like it! I love it! I want more of it!
It's old! It's tired! It's time to be retired!
Sound off below!
By: Brant
09 January 2012
Off-Topic: WotC Announces New Edition of D&D Coming
Look, we know there's a lot of other types of gaming out there, and RPGs aren't just things that insurgents shoot at people. We're not going to become a fantasy gaming blog, but we did want to take a minute and point people towards some good articles about the upcoming edition "revision" of the venerable Dungeons & Dragons franchise.
If you want to be a part of "Charting the Course for D&D", visit the Official Home Page at WotC.
The New York Times considered the news fit to print.
So did Forbes.
Critical hits has not one, but two good articles about it.
There's a nice long - and rambling, natch - thread over at ENWorld, the pseudo-sorta-unofficial RPG HQ online.
The Escapist magazine is always good source of gaming info, and I'm not just saying that because they know how to recognize true genius.
But hey, if CNN.com thinks it's important, who are we to argue?
By: Brant
If you want to be a part of "Charting the Course for D&D", visit the Official Home Page at WotC.
The New York Times considered the news fit to print.
So did Forbes.
Critical hits has not one, but two good articles about it.
There's a nice long - and rambling, natch - thread over at ENWorld, the pseudo-sorta-unofficial RPG HQ online.
The Escapist magazine is always good source of gaming info, and I'm not just saying that because they know how to recognize true genius.
But hey, if CNN.com thinks it's important, who are we to argue?
By: Brant
01 January 2012
Happy New Year!
The Staff at GrogNews wishes all of you a very happy New Year!
And wishes the ACC would show up for bowl games just once....
By: The Staff
And wishes the ACC would show up for bowl games just once....
By: The Staff
Labels:
Anniversary,
Blog,
Readers
25 December 2011
24 November 2011
07 November 2011
Looking for Some Suggestions from Readers
Happy Monday everyone!
We're looking for some suggestions for the left-side newsfeeds. We've got a few over there that run the 3-5 most recent articles, and we're ready to start rotating a few. Give us some of your suggestions - what should we look to rotate in?
The preference is something that updates at least daily, if not several times/day. We definitely don't want some of the once-a-month sort of blogs out there.
Suggestions below!
By: Brant
We're looking for some suggestions for the left-side newsfeeds. We've got a few over there that run the 3-5 most recent articles, and we're ready to start rotating a few. Give us some of your suggestions - what should we look to rotate in?
The preference is something that updates at least daily, if not several times/day. We definitely don't want some of the once-a-month sort of blogs out there.
Suggestions below!
By: Brant
28 October 2011
The Growing Ball of Frustration
Soooo... Michael Peck writes an excellent article about wargaming irregular warfare for the new issue of Training & Simulation Journal. Being as it's about, y'know, wargaming, and is pretty topical based on current events, it seems like it would be a big deal.
Now, we covered it here at GN for all those reasons. And, let's face it - I'm in the article talking about a project I worked on.
But outside the obvious interest here at GN, there are plenty of other online communities that might find this to be an interesting topic worthy of discussion, no? So let's do a quick run-through, eh?
Small Wars Council, the discussion boards of the Small Wars Journal - thread started by me, zero replies.
Wargamer.com - thread started by me, one reply, discussing nothing at all.
Not one, but four separate, distinct, individual places at ConSimWorld, and the only reply is me, to Peck.
The only reply at Social.ConsimWorld? Not any sort of useful comment, just a link pointing people to a group on the site that has had 1 post in 2 years.
Did anyone pick it up at Armchair General? Nope. Gamesquad? You know better. Matrix Games? Squat. Even Dunnigan's milgames mailing list on Yahoo had 1 mention (from Peck) and 1 reply (from me).
So tell me, dear readers - if the central communities of wargaming respond to such an important article with a collective yawn, is there much point in continuing any of these discussions? If the rest of the wargaming world gives a solidly-consolidated non-shit about this, why bother continuing to engender discussions about these topics?
In other words - if no one gives a flying crap in the middle of the internet wargaming speakeasies, why bother continuing to bang the drum around here at GrogNews, the tiny little outpost that everyone just ignores anyway?
By: Brant
Now, we covered it here at GN for all those reasons. And, let's face it - I'm in the article talking about a project I worked on.
But outside the obvious interest here at GN, there are plenty of other online communities that might find this to be an interesting topic worthy of discussion, no? So let's do a quick run-through, eh?
Small Wars Council, the discussion boards of the Small Wars Journal - thread started by me, zero replies.
Wargamer.com - thread started by me, one reply, discussing nothing at all.
Not one, but four separate, distinct, individual places at ConSimWorld, and the only reply is me, to Peck.
The only reply at Social.ConsimWorld? Not any sort of useful comment, just a link pointing people to a group on the site that has had 1 post in 2 years.
Did anyone pick it up at Armchair General? Nope. Gamesquad? You know better. Matrix Games? Squat. Even Dunnigan's milgames mailing list on Yahoo had 1 mention (from Peck) and 1 reply (from me).
So tell me, dear readers - if the central communities of wargaming respond to such an important article with a collective yawn, is there much point in continuing any of these discussions? If the rest of the wargaming world gives a solidly-consolidated non-shit about this, why bother continuing to engender discussions about these topics?
In other words - if no one gives a flying crap in the middle of the internet wargaming speakeasies, why bother continuing to bang the drum around here at GrogNews, the tiny little outpost that everyone just ignores anyway?
By: Brant
11 October 2011
Fix the Game: Risk
If you were going to make changes to the rules of Risk - without adding any components - what would you change to make it less of "hordes of armies" game and more of a nuanced wargame?
Look for some ideas from GrogNews to be gathered under their own new tab soon. Why Risk? Because that's a game that every wargamer has played, can easily find a copy of, and can easily use to teach new players about wargames. And frankly, because that just about any other military game out there (looking at you, Stratego), it needs lots - lots of help.
By: Brant
Look for some ideas from GrogNews to be gathered under their own new tab soon. Why Risk? Because that's a game that every wargamer has played, can easily find a copy of, and can easily use to teach new players about wargames. And frankly, because that just about any other military game out there (looking at you, Stratego), it needs lots - lots of help.
By: Brant
Labels:
Readers,
Wargame Design
14 September 2011
Lend a Marine a Hand
Tomas is the son of a retired Gunny who now pays the bills getting serious training games in the hands of Marines headed downrange. He's been fighting cancer for a few years now, and has become one of the best fundraisers for cancer research in the NoVa area.
If you can spare a few shekels, you can't find a better cause than trying to help beat childhood cancer. Help him out with a donation if you can. The Grogs would greatly appreciate it.
By: Brant
If you can spare a few shekels, you can't find a better cause than trying to help beat childhood cancer. Help him out with a donation if you can. The Grogs would greatly appreciate it.
By: Brant
11 July 2011
Updating the News Feeds
If you check out our left-hand sidebar, you'll see a few new news feeds. We've swapped out some stuff, and have added Giant Battling Robots, about the math/stats of games, and the War on Terror News, which updates all day long with a bunch of different articles.
Still looking for some suggestions to maybe rotate a few others :)
By: Brant
Still looking for some suggestions to maybe rotate a few others :)
By: Brant
07 July 2011
Sound Off! GrogNews News Feeds
Hey everyone -
It's about time we cycle the feeds on the left column of the website here. Does anyone have any suggestions about which feeds they'd like to see highlighted? Which they'd like to see scaled back?
Which ones do you read regularly and find yourselves drawn to?
Which ones stay on "ignore"?
Sound off below :)
By: Brant
It's about time we cycle the feeds on the left column of the website here. Does anyone have any suggestions about which feeds they'd like to see highlighted? Which they'd like to see scaled back?
Which ones do you read regularly and find yourselves drawn to?
Which ones stay on "ignore"?
Sound off below :)
By: Brant
05 July 2011
Sound Off! Service Time!
When / where / how did you serve your country? And no, it didn't have to be in uniform.
Sound off in the comments!
By: Brant
Sound off in the comments!
By: Brant
15 June 2011
GameTalk - Alt-History
What are the best alt-history games/storylines out there? Are you a fan of Crimson Skies? How about Gear Krieg? Mississippi Banzai, anyone?
Nominate your own faves!
By: Brant
Nominate your own faves!
By: Brant
Labels:
GameTalk,
Readers,
Wargame Design
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

