Analysis of China/US conflict

[thewood1]

I have spent the last six months going over these scenarios and trying to build something plausible in Command using it. I have changed jobs recently so been extra busy and have made little progress in building something.

But the document is so good that I wanted to make sure it got broader exposure.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pu ... _RR392.pdf

[Gizzmoe]

Wow, that's an impressingly detailed document, thanks for sharing!

[thewood1]

There's fifty scenarios in there. Its hard to choose where to start. I am about 3/4 of the way done with a pre-combat scenario where its all about recon and dispersal. Its setting up for a follow on scenario of China attacking airbases in Taiwan, Philippines, and Japan. The next scenario is the air superiority fight. It will take along time to put these together.

[Gizzmoe]

To me that looks like waaaay too much work for a single person, it would be a good community project.

[thewood1]

I think if its taken as a scenario at a time, its not too bad. But each scenario would have to built in some detail. Just the recon scenario has taken me months of part-time wotk. I have rebuilt 5-6 times as new features get added to command.

[Gizzmoe]

But you don't actually want to use the numbers quoted in the documents, or do you? I mean, that would be some utterly massive scenarios. I just looked at Table 4.2 about the Taiwan scen, around 1000 aircraft on Chinese side alone...

[thewood1]

No...you have to be somewhat reasonable. You can focus on specific areas and battles. That is why I see 50 scenarios. Their scenarios are really a superset of scenarios I would consider reasonable.

[Rudd]

I was stuck on Chapter 3 forever...messing around with an attack on Kadena.

Now you brought this paper to my attention again, guess I know what I'm doing for the next month...[;)]

[mikkey]

Very interesting, thanks for sharing!

[cf_dallas]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I think if its taken as a scenario at a time, its not too bad. But each scenario would have to built in some detail. Just the recon scenario has taken me months of part-time wotk. I have rebuilt 5-6 times as new features get added to command.

This... I really envy the retirees and students on here. Work keeps interfering with scenario building time.

Though to be fair, so does my own distractibilty. I've got a half dozen good kernels of a scenario started, haven't finished many of them.

I never saw this article, will read in depth later. I had two pre conflict or early conflict China vs Asia/US scenarios I started, both intended to be from the PRC point of view.

One was a submarine surge, get your SS/SSNs into the Pacific undetected, past a US/ROK/Japan ASW screen. Lots of Lua for non-lethal intercepts and building tensions. I've got some of the mechanics worked out, ckfinite gave me done help with the scripting.

The other was a "Rapid Raptor" deployment, from the PRC side. I had most of the F22/tanker deployments built, but last summer when I worked on it there really want a point. Now that you can recon airfields, it's probably worth revisiting. Player would be responsible for finding (and targeting) the Raptor forward operating locations for missile strikes.

[thewood1]

Just to come back to the comment about scenario size. Someone just posted about a 9000 unit scenario not opening properly. Yes, you read that right...9000 units. I opened and looked at it and someone with serious OCD built that scenario. It has units all over the place that could not possibly participate in any conceivable timeframe. There is no reason to build a scenario like that and then complain that it won't run right. If you want that level of detail in a global war, you should be playing WITP.

Even with the scenarios in the Rand study, I can't even imagine a scenario with 2000 units. A 9000 unit scenario is just lazy scenario building or built by someone who just likes building and not playing. I'll paraphrase Mark Twain...If I had more time, I would have built a shorter scenario.

[magi]

thank you thewood for the extremely intriguing document... i have shared it with some of my friends.... i am also pleased and very interested to hear about the scenarios you are developing... as it is my alpha fascination in potential regional conflict...

lately ive been playing with Crimea River... it has almost a 3000 au count... my machine is a couple of years old... but with a couple of features off.. it runs pretty good... startlingly well really...

[poaw]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Just to come back to the comment about scenario size. Someone just posted about a 9000 unit scenario not opening properly. Yes, you read that right...9000 units. I opened and looked at it and someone with serious OCD built that scenario. It has units all over the place that could not possibly participate in any conceivable timeframe. There is no reason to build a scenario like that and then complain that it won't run right. If you want that level of detail in a global war, you should be playing WITP.

Even with the scenarios in the Rand study, I can't even imagine a scenario with 2000 units. A 9000 unit scenario is just lazy scenario building or built by someone who just likes building and not playing. I'll paraphrase Mark Twain...If I had more time, I would have built a shorter scenario.

I've been waiting for someone to make a modern/near future WITP (or Hearts of Iron) and at this point I'm kinda glad I haven't been holding my breath.

Anyway, the scenarios themselves wouldn't be that hard to make, although I think a coder would find it easier to automate the process of building them using Lua rather than a non-coder making all of them by hand.

[Dysta]

If thing goes extremely desperate, then I bet a large portion of Pacific and sea regions near China will becomes Uranium/Plutonium-filled exclusion zones.

Does that means any kind of conflict involved with US and China equals a war that have to use billion living beings as a currency to prove either side's supremacy? Again, I really wish not to find out in real life.

But I think either 2000, 9000, or even a million of units for this scenario still hardly to decide a perfect plan to win a war on either side, without triggering the global exchange of gamma rays.

[ETF]

ORIGINAL: poaw


I've been waiting for someone to make a modern/near future WITP (or Hearts of Iron) and at this point I'm kinda glad I haven't been holding my breath.

Anyway, the scenarios themselves wouldn't be that hard to make, although I think a coder would find it easier to automate the process of building them using Lua rather than a non-coder making all of them by hand.

Hearts of Iron IV has a hard release of June 6th FYI.....WITP/AE has to be one of the most interesting wargames I have ever seen/played. Love to see on in the modern age. Don't think the CPU power is there yet [8|]