Scenario Builders: How will the Ukraine War affect future scenarios?

[thewood1]

When I was on my IADS kick, I found this particular article helpful in understanding the different aspects of air defense, and specifically IADS. As a layman with some experience in CMO, I found it the right balance in terminology to inform the design of the scenarios I was playing with.

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/wha ... se-system/

Its a couple years old, but was brand new when I was going through my IADS obsession.

[BDukes]

Confirmation that game environments are generally too perfect. CMO does much of the tech right but kill chain too efficient.

At least in the case of the Russian and Ukrainian SAMs, the way people typically represent the IADS in their scenarios is probably not the best. The tendency is to avoid using LUA to add mobility and smarter decision making about when they choose to emit. That has the effect of raising the number of shots they fire (since they're effectively always in a firing mode) because it neglects the potential that they might be in various other modes (e.g. moving to another firing position, or setting up) and unable to fire. It also tends to make them more vulnerable because it makes them easily located using appropriate ELINT sensors, including satellites, U-2, or RJs. There's also a tendency to neglect the air surveillance and C3 portions of the IADS. The ASV portion exists to provide a picture when the SAMs aren't emitting (those only want to emit when they're almost ready to shoot). The C3 portions of the IADS make it possible to sometimes "clip the kill chain" or at least delay it if the appropriate C3 node is located and destroyed. Eliminating the various C3 nodes forces portions of the IADS to react in ways that might not be to their advantage, for example, relying on their own acquisition or battle management radars for a picture instead of the air surveillance nodes. That reduces their reaction time, so now longer OODA forces might not be able to shoot so much. Unfortunately, due to the way CMO represents communications networks, even if you use LUA, though, it doesn't matter. They're still going to get the track if there's other sensors. There needs to be a more explicit way of defining communications networks.

Agreed and hopefully, the devs see and process. In practice instead of implementing every nut and bolt thing, it could be easier just to be able to quantify it into the existing Boyd variable. (Lua input for civ please). Getting and sorting the detail-level stuff would yield something by the time we're back in diapers.

My own personal struggle is what Wood hits on above. I appreciate Lua but don't want to spend a billion hours working it out every scenario. Smart play is to build out a library/framework I and others can reuse. The smarter play is to not be a sucker and give it away to somebody who will make $$ off it and never really contribute to growing it for the community (thus returning value). This is nobody's fault but just the world we're now in.

I can think of a few rubber-meets-road things as far as implementation. With pro, you can add unique datalinks which change this a bit. Looks from public posts ground units are different as well.

IIRC we've got two hierarchy levels to work with (demonstrated in Lightning Strikes Scenario). I think that is still true.
Add a specific side for system components (ex SA-21 Battery Side, Big Bird Radar/BM Side)
During movement drop comms between allied sides with most systems or a specific range or jamming level. Add lua things to model comms hits and other ways to detect these systems.
Any shoot and fire logic that is above the basic. There are likely tons

Not sure we'll ever know what happened in Ukraine unless Ukraine wins, the RU government goes plop and the warfighters start writing.

Mike

[thewood1]

My take away from my playing around with IADS is not get hung up on the details. Design for effect is almost a must. Otherwise you'll get so wound up in the details of each data link, comm channel, etc. that you'll never learn anything.

My tactical take aways on the impact of an IADS with perfect linkage and a broken one with comms and data links compromised is in the following:

1) WRAs become completely messed up and the leveling of missile resources across the attackers becomes very inefficient. Too many missiles on one target and not enough on others.
2) Coordinated EMCOM becomes impossible with comms down. Everyone has to go to local control on radars and now the jig is up on locations. At that point, an attacker can slowly disassemble the air defense at leisure.

After spending weeks trying to design the IADS in detail and trying to account for every rivet, I realized that if I designed for the above two major impacts, I was well over 90% of the way there. The initial very detailed approach was all drive through lua. But the design for effect used events, zones, out-of-comms (with a little lua), and side/posture changing to get almost exactly the same effect.

[thewood1]

Just to give some game-level aproaches to the two impacts above:

1) I use different missions for each major SAM site. One as a part of the IADS and then one with local control. The WRAs are completely different in each and sometimes I also change the ROEs.
2) Same here. I adjust the EMCOMs for in comms and out.

Using missions as the template for a fully operating IADS and degraded one, when combined with side switching and some lua for out of comms, you can create very believable IADS battles.

[boogabooga]

As to the OP,

Perhaps future scenarios don't need as many two page scenario briefings outlining the hypothetical political context as the scenario's background. "Country A has launched a quasi-surprise attack on country B because of nationalism and narcissism on the part of the head of state" should do just as well and seems perfectly "realistic" to me.

[wyskass]

As to the OP,

Perhaps future scenarios don't need as many two page scenario briefings outlining the hypothetical political context as the scenario's background. "Country A has launched a quasi-surprise attack on country B because of nationalism and narcissism on the part of the head of state" should do just as well and seems perfectly "realistic" to me.

Kill all the red marks on the map, with your blue marks.

[thewood1]

Maybe this answers the question.

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/stat ... 5660552193

[maverick3320]

I've thought a little about this over the past couple days.

Given the quite surprising underperformance of Russian Military Forces in this last critical week of the Ukraine Invasion, I wanted to ask:

How will this lackluster performance affect future scenarios depicting the (Modern) Russians from a designer's perspective?

Can you please share what was your expectation in terms of terrain gain, losses, cities taken, K/D ratios, weapons performance, etc here (per day, per week)?
Can you please share also how many Ukranian systems, vehicles, forces were lost? I find hard to find any information on that.

And, finally, if it is not too much to ask, please compare that to similar historical combats in similar terrain/weather.

I would be genuinely very interested to understand the background of your professional statement.

Best regards

Not my "professional" statement, but most of the "professionals" seem to be saying the same thing as OP. There is no such thing as a perfect comparison in terms of weather, K/D ratios, etc and most people are able to realize that and yet also believe that the Russian military has underperformed.

Not sure why you find this offensive.

[wyskass]

Not sure why you find this offensive.

Tiag is apparently a fan of the Russian military, and isn't willing to accept the facts that they suck, mostly due to following stupid orders. They are good at shelling schools and hospitals though, so maybe incorporate more hospital and school targets into scenarios involving Russians for bonus points. When you demonstrate your great new aircraft and tanks, but only have 3 deployed, it's just sales marketing and building fear to compensate for little actual capability and not affording needed training. Russian pilots have barely enough training hours to maintain basic flying proficiency, let alone combined arms for CAS in denied airspace within their own SAM area.

He's just lashing out at anyone critical, by pretending to be about facts and expertise, but is just an angry prick who's primary skill is sarcasm. I'd suggest expert level research as Tiag asks for as his counter argument not be expected on a forum for a game. Maybe he doesn't realize what forum he's on or has taken his fantasy too far.