Wishlist: The Next World War

[shahadi]

In our game we are missing an increasingly urgent aspect of the next major clash between peer armies, and I do not intend to talk about nuclear, but cyberspace warfare.

We've talked about jamming and other tank defense systems, but imagine if the scope of the attack affected comms, brought down navigation systems, and shutdown electronic fire systems akin to a battlefield EMP attack.

Infantry companies not knowing where they are, drones grounded, fire guidance systems retarded. Then ships, planes, and ground combat groups cannot communicate with each other.

The armed services have to teach basic celestial (sea & sky) and land navigation else risk units not being able to coordinate with each other.

A country with a highly skilled IT force, then could mount credible opposition to a dominant power, even rising from near-peer to peer status.

Tehran taking control of a US drone in December of 2011 comes to mind of a near-peer exhibiting peer characteristics viz cyberspace war fighting.

It would be interesting to mod a scenario reflecting the impact of cyber war in our game.

As an example, game visibility reduced to showing only what an individual unit can see, no other red units visible on the map.

[IronDuke99]

"Wishlist: The Next World War"
You did that on purpose, humour right?

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

"Wishlist: The Next World War"
You did that on purpose, humour right?

No way am I wishing a world war.

Just trying to spark interest in a way of reducing the "God view" aspect of our game.

For example, if we could model the game in way that the only view of red units are those units seen by the selected blue unit's view.

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Well ... radio communication has been a staple of modern armies since WW II (and to some extent during) and so far while people can mess with each others communications they can't shut them down entirely.

I strongly suspect the same would apply to "Cyberwar". As always to people without sufficient technical knowledge (or interest in obtaining it) make worst case assumptions.

There are many articles and papers floating around the public domain talking about cyber warfare of various hues, it's consequences and ramifications for the military services.

Especially after Iran took control of a drone in 2011 and most recently, "monitored" the carrier Truman in the Persian gulf.

To deny or downgrade the emergence of cyber warfare is a mistake.

And I think in future scenarios we could incorporate some consequences of cyber war into our game.

This guy has a great take on what the services are doing right now: http://www.wearethemighty.com/articl...-world-war-iii.

=====

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by shahadi

There are many articles and papers floating around the public domain talking about cyber warfare of various hues, it's consequences and ramifications for the military services.

Especially after Iran took control of a drone in 2011 and most recently, "monitored" the carrier Truman in the Persian gulf.

To deny or downgrade the emergence of cyber warfare is a mistake.

When you're dealing with "could" vice "has" (and even then more often then not) you're always going to be able to find documentation to support whatever you wish. Even at the last minute some of the folks actually involved in the atomic bomb project thought it would be a dud, others thought it would destroy the entire Earth.

Having worked as a programmer during the Y2K scare (aircraft were going to fall out of the sky, the entire world economy would collapse, etc. etc.) and being fairly familiar with networking (tho I'm by no means a Net Admin) I have no doubt at all there WILL be some problems. But I have serious doubts the entire system is as vulnerable as many people seem to think.

Sure someone can occasionally bring down a drone (I'm actually surprised it took as long as it did), or monitor communications ... you may recall Enigma during WW II ... and various other things. All this will disrupt, not bring down, modern communication systems. And only an idiot assumes the system won't be disrupted to some extent.

[Suhiir]

Well ... radio communication has been a staple of modern armies since WW II (and to some extent during) and so far while people can mess with each others communications they can't shut them down entirely.

I strongly suspect the same would apply to "Cyberwar". As always to people without sufficient technical knowledge (or interest in obtaining it) make worst case assumptions.

[jp10]

The overall 'God' view is not that implausible if you consider you are supposed to be BN or BDE level commander. What is unrealistic is the ability to quickly 'reach' down to squad level and take action on something known to another unit that would be operating on a different comm net.
If you want to simulate a 'more realistic' C&C situation, use the game function to make way points for your subordinate (below A0) formations and turn them over to the AI. Limit yourself to only changing the way points every three turns (6-9 minutes simulated RL time).
For a battle simulating an EW environment, turning the units over to AI and increasing the 'turn control delay' could simulate EW C&C effects.

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by jp10

For a battle simulating an EW environment, turning the units over to AI and increasing the 'turn control delay' could simulate EW C&C effects.

Interesting. What has been your results when simulating EW effects?

I'm thinking with an analog radio, a platoon leader is making a sit rep with his location, but his company CO cannot see that platoon because a Chinese EW squad is active jamming the nets.

So, in the game, the player cannot see that platoon on the map. If he selects from the Unit menu he can only see what the selected unit view is.

I would want to retain movement control rather than hand off to the AI. But, so what is your experience with simulating EW effects & CC?

=====

[IronDuke99]

I strongly suspect Suhiir is right about this stuff.

Electronic warfare is hardly new and, like all things in war, the advantage goes back and forward between defence and offense. There is a big difference between effectively jamming more or less regular Ukrainian troops and say The USMC.

The US in particular still has a good lead over potential enemies in technology terms. Also I strongly suspect that operational security would mean we did not hear about any real threats in this regard, rather than threats the military wants to make sure it can mostly counter, and has the money/technology it needs to do so. Call me a cynic if you like.

[jp10]

[quote=shahadi;835521]

Interesting. What has been your results when simulating EW effects?

The main simulation effect is more on operational planning, you make your plan (set the paths for the formation) turn them over to AI and run three turns only controlling the units that would be directly an attached asset to A0. No matter what the units encounter you only change paths every three turns so your tactical plan needs to be more old school, keeps unit frontages and distances between elements more mutually supportive, keep a reserve for each formation (no path no AI but you only keep them following the lead elements).
Actually, in a heavily EW degraded environment units just fall back on the old tactics of marching towards the sounds of the guns. Warfare 1862 style with assault rifles.

[shahadi]

Yeah. I like it. Got it.

Any ideas how to author a scenario where the player is restricted to movement along waypoints.

I could see players voluntarily doing only waypoint movement.

Fascinating.

Thanks jp10.

=====