Wishlist: The Next World War

[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.

=====

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by shahadi

It is not traditional EW jamming as such. The trick is a hack into the network, not jam it.

In 2009 the US established a cyber command, we already have EW schools in the services, so why a cyber command.

Cyberspace is about information as warfare and applications and pieces of hardware as weapons.

Iran just didn't jam that drone signal, they took control and landed it.

Israel and the US didn't jam Iranian centrifuges, they infected the network, that's cyber warfare. It was called Stuxnet.

The attacker does not have to know frequencies once he has infected the network.

But, in our game is what I am concerned about. How to simulate cyber warfare consequences on the map, or how to reduce the "God" view. Simple.

jp10 brought forward an interesting suggestions. I don't how to design a scenario limited the player to use waypoints. But, it was most thoughtful idea.

And, that's a major function of this forum, to share and ask what if, how could, what if. In a civil way.

=====

Not saying 'cyber warfare' is not important but it is, and can only be, 95%+ strategic and it really has next to no tactical applications, at present, so far as I'm aware. 'Infecting' a military coms network, on the battlefield, would be rather difficult, to say the least. As Suhiir said, jamming or disrupting a major Western forces coms, more than partially, would be very, very, difficult.

On the other hand Western Forces have got very good at listening in to our enemies especially all those strictly 'non-peer' types talked about elsewhere. Also it is one thing that UK forces are especially good at, I am happy to say. And, of course hearing what your enemy is saying is often much better than jamming them...

[IronDuke99]

[quote=jp10;835525]

Originally Posted by shahadi

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.

I suspect, at least at the moment, that that sort of almost 1918 style warfare (a closer match than 1862 to my mind) might be the lot of a enemy of a major Western force rather than the Western force itself, and, to be fair, the Russians and Chinese have something more like the manpower and area weapons to, maybe, make it work.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

Not saying 'cyber warfare' is not important but it is, and can only be, 95%+ strategic and it really has next to no tactical applications ...

Exactly.
And since WinSPMBT is a tactical game ...

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

I suspect, at least at the moment, that that sort of almost 1918 style warfare (a closer match than 1862 to my mind) might be the lot of a enemy of a major Western force rather than the Western force itself, and, to be fair, the Russians and Chinese have something more like the manpower and area weapons to, maybe, make it work.

Actually more like late WW II/Korea/early Vietnam. At that time radio com below company-to-battalion level was rare and most vehicle-to-vehicle/aircraft-to-aircraft comm would be almost totally unaffected even if their ability to access GPS and share battlefield info was somehow knocked out.

For game purposes just use the scenario editor to remove everyone's radios ... walla .. less "god view" ... you can't call in accurate artillery/air as you have no spotters.

[shahadi]

Meaning.

That since the middle of the twentieth century, commanders have had real-time "God" views of a battle?

I think not.

My inquiry is how to reduce "God" view of the map in our game, even if you say, we will always have it because of x,y,or z that does not mean a non-peer, if you will insurgent group has that "God" view of the battle.

Then designing a scenario where the player is that insurgent force what explanation do we have for a meager Taliban group commander having "God" view of the map?

Or, say we want to author a Korean war scenario, what explains either side having "God" view of the map?

If a player can see a unit on the map he can have a FO or her A0 call in fires. Radio or no, the player has "God" view.

Ever try to target a unit that you can see but is out of that firing unit's vision. We know what happens. Then, I suggest a player only see what his selected unit can see.

If we move to the 21st century we may explain "God" view in many ways from persistent drone coverage, satellite, or a J-Star providing battle management assist to the ground commander.

=====

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by shahadi

Meaning.

That since the middle of the twentieth century, commanders have had real-time "God" views of a battle?

I think not.

My inquiry is how to reduce "God" view of the map in our game, even if you say, we will always have it because of x,y,or z that does not mean a non-peer, if you will insurgent group has that "God" view of the battle.

Then designing a scenario where the player is that insurgent force what explanation do we have for a meager Taliban group commander having "God" view of the map?

Or, say we want to author a Korean war scenario, what explains either side having "God" view of the map?

If we move to the 21st century we may explain "God" view in many ways from persistent drone coverage, satellite, or a J-Star providing battle management assist to the ground commander.

=====

Firstly, as the gentleman at the top say, this is a game, not a simulation. Wargames suffer from this view thing, this game perhaps less than many others.

Secondly, since at least the early 1980's a major Western Army will have had artillery, air support, individual fighting vehicles and infantry down to platoon level on a radio net. Even the British Army, long notorious for relatively poor front line coms (outside the Royal Artillery) got it, more or less, mostly, sorted by about that time.

Thirdly, sure put some sort of inhibition on, a generally, really low tech side, although in the case of types like the Taliban or 'IS' their real problem is that what they say to each other can often be heard by the good guys.

As an aside I used to 'know' in an internet sense, a former USAF officer who helped design the high tech 'battle control room' type stuff one can see in a film like 'Black Hawk Down' (2001) and that was about an action set in 1993 that was actually not all that well supported...

[shahadi]

Regarding this topic, as not much interest has been generated and it may seem as only three maybe four guys have posted,

Kenny Rogers said it oh so well:
"You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run…"

=====

[Suhiir]

Unless you play a double blind wargame you're always going to suffer from a certain amount of "god view" as was pointed out.

Given the game mechanics you need to "be creative" ...
Make it a night scenario, give all the high-tech side units varying levels of night vision and the low-tech side nada. That way you get asymmetric sighting in the game.

[shahadi]

"The Air Force is working closely with industry partners to strengthen cybersecurity for larger service platforms such as an F-22 or F-35 fighters."

"We have to understand that today's weapons systems are not operating in isolation. They are operating as part of a netted enterprise. Each weapons system will interface with a broader DOD network..."

"While increased interoperability among networks, weapons and platforms vastly expedites combat efficacy in a wide range of scenarios, Ballenger emphasized that greater connectivity can also increase vulnerability to malicious penetration and server attacks, (my emphasis) among other problems."

Read the article here: http://www.scout.com/military/warrio...-protects-f-22.

It is a great read.

=====