Modern Ukraine Scenario

[Camstick]

Has anyone got a modern Ukraine scenario, maybe 2014?

[JamesHunt]

Nothing so far it seems

[jc4751]

Would be interesting to see a scenario covering a NATO-Russian war, with modern boundaries and troops. I know there is always some distaste around that, but the study of conflict via simulation is of considerable value, both for understanding from an academic point of view but also raising awareness and public understanding.

[golden delicious]

Would be interesting to see a scenario covering a NATO-Russian war, with modern boundaries and troops. I know there is always some distaste around that, but the study of conflict via simulation is of considerable value, both for understanding from an academic point of view but also raising awareness and public understanding.

The trouble is that we really don't have enough information to make such a scenario about a current conflict. Yes, you can probably put together a TO&E for a Russian mechanised brigade or whatever, but all the other innumerable factors that go into scenario design are unknowns because these conflicts haven't played out.

Designing a scenario which, as you suggest, can contribute to our understanding of conflict, requires testing the design against real-world outcomes. Absent those outcomes you can't test the design decisions and it's at most an educated guess. You can make a fun game- which is a fine thing in its own right- but I don't think you can truly simulate the conflict.

[Zovs]

Some data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... of_Ukraine

https://kresy.pl/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/1-24.png

[jc4751]

Would be interesting to see a scenario covering a NATO-Russian war, with modern boundaries and troops. I know there is always some distaste around that, but the study of conflict via simulation is of considerable value, both for understanding from an academic point of view but also raising awareness and public understanding.

The trouble is that we really don't have enough information to make such a scenario about a current conflict. Yes, you can probably put together a TO&E for a Russian mechanised brigade or whatever, but all the other innumerable factors that go into scenario design are unknowns because these conflicts haven't played out.

Designing a scenario which, as you suggest, can contribute to our understanding of conflict, requires testing the design against real-world outcomes. Absent those outcomes you can't test the design decisions and it's at most an educated guess. You can make a fun game- which is a fine thing in its own right- but I don't think you can truly simulate the conflict.

This is true, although the same issues crop up with games based on historical fact. I'd point to the many WW2 games which have been created that all suffer from the same issue of trying to find the balance between giving players freedom to change history, but of also making the historical outcome possible. Was it likely that the war played out the way it did? Was the historical outcome an anomaly, and thus it becomes hard to design a game which can lead to a historical outcome? Does confirmation bias alter the design of games in such a way that they become design for effect, regardless of how hard a designer tries to make a game that is free of that bias?

Those are not rhetorical questions, but things which need to be answered in a design. In other words, the starting point of any conflict becomes the "base case," or "starting node" or whatever language makes sense. From there, the conflict travels a path of almost infinite possibility and outcome, as long as it's consistent. Example - should a Pacific War game include the possibility of striking the oil storage facilities during a Pearl Harbor raid? The Japanese certainly could have done that, and it would make sense to include it as a player option, but I can't recall games which allow this as an option over simply striking ships at port and hoping for the best.

(another branching point could have been Anglo-American relations, where Churchill had never become PM or had died of the flu in North Africa, and a person less keen to work with the Americans could have become PM in his stead)

Of course, that puts an additional burden on the designer, especially any game which relies somewhat on scripted events. It becomes a branching point that must be handled in its own right, or at least handled in such a way that the results can be merged into the game engine or scenario. Assume that an engine does not model fuel availability, but relies on a simple movement value calculation. This would mean that you would need to introduce a special rule to handle oil facilities being destroyed. On the other hand, if you have an engine that does take into account fuel supply, then such an option is much more easily modeled.

In the specific case of a NATO-Russia war with modern boundaries, you are correct in that a simulation cannot specifically predict the outcome of a conflict, though I think could derive a useful approximation. Part of that would obviously be the political unity of NATO nations, the will to commit to a war, and how well the alliance would hold together. On the other side, Russia is not as unified politically as, say, the Soviet Union was under Stalin. Troop performance, it's hard to say. On paper, the Russians should be inferior to NATO nations, but those things don't always play out the way people expect them to. So, then, you being with two/four things to be modeled (NATO unity/Russian stability, NATO force effectiveness/Russian force effectiveness) as a starting case. If those are modeled correctly, at least the inputs into the engine have a reasonable starting point.

I suppose that the end goal for scenario design is whether or not the outcome seems plausible to the players. A drive to the Atlantic by Pact forces in the 80s would be plausible. A drive to the Atlantic by Russia in 2022, not so much. Question then is what does seem plausible, given the pieces in play?

This is a good discussion.

[JamesHunt]

Despite what was already stated in the previous great post about the challenge of claiming to properly simulate previous conflicts, this "we have not enough solid data to be accurate" goes almost contrary to the nature of real wargames.

It is one of the most important aspects of professional/military wargames to run scenarios on ongoing or ht/future conflicts and compare them with real world results - if they happen - in order to (re-)evaluate their decision making and all other factors on what made the outcome to deviate or to match. And before the "real deals have way more intel than us" argument is brought up... no that is not granted. Especially in modern wars OSINT has become an important aspect of INT as it allows every computer savy person or wargamer to engage in INT gathering. Some of these "amateurs" outperforming professional INT services and/or the data ends up being utilized by these sevices.

There are CMO scens that build entire Russian OOBs out of OSINT. Should be clear to every somewhat intelligent person here that such data or a TOAW scen on an ongoing conflict is not accurately potraying the reality. Again which you can question to some lesser extent for almost all historical wargaming aswell as information on past conflicts is subject to bias, fog of war, and other factors aswell. Despite this most wargames neglect to simulate vital aspect of tactical or operational warfare such as C2 challenges, political/relationship influence, and many othes of that make commanding much more than pushing counters over a map. Thus the term "simulation" could be debated for 99% of the historical wargames out there alike.

No matter if the OOB/TOE/starting situation/outcome reflects what the world might find out later after a conflict, it is still exciting and informative for players and scen designers to run wargames on these situations for the stated reasons.

[sPzAbt653]

I would guess that military organizations around the globe do actively conduct 'wargames' in order give themselves an idea of possible outcomes. That is what we do here at TOAW! So if reasonable OOB's and TO&E's are possible, then we can make a map and add in some basic parameters such as:

Russian superiority of numbers.
Russian low moral/proficiency.
Russian low supply.
Russian low equipment replacements.

Ukranian small forces.
Ukranian high moral/proficiency.
Ukranian high supply.
Ukranian high equipment replacements.

Victory Conditions based on what we know now of the conduct of the campaign, and extrapolations:
A Russian quick smash and grab of at least three major population centers.
Failing this, occupying at least six major population centers before sanctions render the invading force ineffective.
Failing this, keeping NATO from overrunning European Russia.

As a Scenario Designer, I am interested if anyone has anything to bring to dinner.

[cathar1244]

As a Scenario Designer, I am interested if anyone has anything to bring to dinner.

This site has daily updates. Situation maps aren't bad, have to read the "detailed" report and click on the attachment at the bottom to get the maps in large format.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgr ... ct-updates

No idea about the Ukrainian troops.

Cheers

[fulcrum28]

As far as I know, Russian army is grouped into Combined Arms (CA) armies, each one composed of 18 or 20 basic Tactical Battalions of 800~1000 men (~100 squads). So a basic unit for a simulation can be battalion unit or company unit with combined unit types such as tanks, AT units and mechanized infantry etc. I don't have idea either on the OOB and basic size Ukranian units either. I do remember there was a scenario based on the Second Chechen war for TOAWIII, and it was battalion level is I recall correctly.

[golden delicious]

I would guess that military organizations around the globe do actively conduct 'wargames' in order give themselves an idea of possible outcomes.

If anything reinforces my point. I'm sure Russia wargamed this invasion. That doesn't seem to have worked out too well for them does it? Apart from anything else, how do you get the Russian player to assume there'll be no resistance on turn 1?

Russian low moral/proficiency.
Russian low supply.
Russian low equipment replacements.

But do we know these things? It's been a couple of weeks of fighting and much of what we "know" is in fact hearsay or extrapolation.

By all means make a scenario. Just don't get too carried away with ideas about simulation.

[Graymane]

I think modelling this would be very difficult. You can model the OOBs, but how do you model the far more wide-ranging political and military things going on? I realize events would be used, but I can't see how to model it very well outside the obvious. Some kind of triggers for NATO coming in at various levels, nuclear prospects, air space considerations, etc. I guess sanctions might have something to do with the supply network.

But the biggest considerations are how to model the tactical aspects of the war which, at this point, seems to be shelling humanitarian corridors, water, sewer, power production, hospitals, schools, civilian buildings, and terror bombing in general. How do you model that? There is very little combat per se of force on force and what little there is, is generally the Russians getting the snot knocked out of them any time they leave the road network. Because of that, the Russians have resorted to more and more brutal tactics. Most of the engagements seem to be squad-level. I don't see how to model that in this game?

Maybe for those events, you would somehow model if units are too close to urban areas for too many turns? Or if combat happens in an urban hex? I don't know the game well enough. I'm thinking this might be better modelled by a lower level tactical game maybe?

The most shocking part of this campaign, given my own training in the 80s, is how truly inept the Russian forces are (of course we can model that). They are unskilled, unmotivated, untrained, unsupplied, and uncoordinated. Hard to ever see units like these rolling across Europe in the 80s. You would think the lessons of Napolean and Hitler and winter campaigns (even late ones) would have sunk into someone like Putin.

[Zovs]

I think its too early to tell.

There is much disinformation on both sides. I have access to both Ukrainian and Russian sources. They both are saying the same thing, (Russia is crushing the Nazi Ukrainians or the freedom loving Ukrainian are crushing the Russian hordes).

I don't think any sane leader would unleash strategic nukes and I don't think Putin is crazy, power hungry but not crazy. I don't think the Russians will even launch tactical nukes.

So I do agree modeling this would be impossible right now with TOAW IV.

[sPzAbt653]

Lots of good initial ideas and questions here so far. I'm getting more interested. I'm working on securing a map so we don't have to make one, although it will need some effort to make it 2022 instead of 1945

Most of the engagements seem to be squad-level. I don't see how to model that in this game?

Remember that the basic TOAW Combat Resolution is Tactical, so while your point is very valid in a simulation that spans hundreds of kilometers but combat takes place in small tactical areas, the results can still be valid.

[golden delicious]

Lots of good initial ideas and questions here so far. I'm getting more interested. I'm working on securing a map so we don't have to make one, although it will need some effort to make it 2022 instead of 1945

Most of the engagements seem to be squad-level. I don't see how to model that in this game?

Remember that the basic TOAW Combat Resolution is Tactical, so while your point is very valid in a simulation that spans hundreds of kilometers but combat takes place in small tactical areas, the results can still be valid.

I would suggest because of the large size of the theatre and the small size of the forces involved, it would be more viable to put out a more operational scenario, which would get less bogged down in political / humanitarian considerations which don't factor in TOAW and struggle less dealing with extremely low unit density, which TOAW does not handle well.

I'm thinking 2.5km/hex covering the immediate area around Kiev and north to the border. This gives a map of (very roughly) 40x80 hexes which won't swallow up the units involved, but where the players will nevertheless feel that the outcome of the war is in their hands.

[cathar1244]

Some OOB information here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_ ... of_Ukraine

Cheers

[Zovs]

Erik posted these excellent links.


https://www.scmglobe.com/russian-logist ... Q2Y8nOnLzI

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgr ... t-march-14

https://warontherocks.com/2022/03/the-w ... s-ukraine/

[sPzAbt653]

I'm thinking 2.5km/hex covering the immediate area around Kiev and north to the border.

That's a reasonable scope. But I'm going to start with the Grand Solution - WWIII. Finland to Turkey, Urals to Germany/Italy. Once I see how unrealistic that might be, I'll start scaling it back.

[Graymane]

I'm thinking 2.5km/hex covering the immediate area around Kiev and north to the border.

That's a reasonable scope. But I'm going to start with the Grand Solution - WWIII. Finland to Turkey, Urals to Germany/Italy. Once I see how unrealistic that might be, I'll start scaling it back.

Nothing like dreaming big!

[sPzAbt653]

It's easier to build then delete than it is to build then add!

For those interested, development of this one will be continued here:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 5&t=381073