The Next World War
 

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.

Re: The Next World War
 

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

Re: The Next World War
 

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.

Re: The Next World War
 

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.

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.

=====

Re: The Next World War
 

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.

Re: The Next World War
 

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.

Re: The Next World War
 

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?

=====

Re: The Next World War
 

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.

Re: The Next World War
 

Well a big thing with the US is that there are so damn many communications nets, and these days they're almost all encrypted and/or burst transmission, additionally the call signs and radio frequencies tend to change on a daily basis.

How the hell do you know which one to evesdrop on or jam?
If you try to scramble the thousands of frequencies the US is using at any given moment using some sort of blanket jamming you will almost invariably wind up jamming your own communications! The same applies to using some sort of EMP burst, you'd fry your own equipment as well.
Major communications links tend to use microwave or laser thus are pretty much impossible to jam or intercept.

Re: The Next World War
 

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.

=====

Re: The Next World War
 

[quote=shahadi;835521] 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.

Re: The Next World War
 

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.

=====

Re: The Next World War
 

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...

Re: The Next World War
 

[quote=jp10;835525]
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.

Re: The Next World War
 

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

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.

Re: The Next World War
 

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.

=====

Re: The Next World War
 

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...

Re: The Next World War
 

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…"

=====

Re: The Next World War
 

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.

Re: The Next World War
 

"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.

=====

Re: The Next World War
 

That "netted enterprise" assumes maximum use of and effect from the various systems. OK, you lose your ability to share info with everyone else, so your overall battlefield awareness is reduced (probably drastically). Does that make all your combat systems useless? By no means. Pilots can still spot and engage targets, artillery can still be called in via radio, etc.

We've had GPS for years, yet in the Marines at least we still train with, and use a map an compass because only a fool would assume you'll always have batteries and satellite links.

So yes, hacking and EMP will effect things, but it won't make everything useless.

Re: The Next World War
 

The effect of a successful hack say on the F-35s threat warning system is sufficient to doom that pilot. The microchips may have been enginnerred in a way to process a foe signal as a friend. Then, before the pilot can react or even if he or she does, the missile homes on the plane. Or, the hack chains a bank of microchips to signalthe missile, rendering the pilot doomed.

Now, imagine the subject unit is a command, control, and signal station say at brigade and the affected threat signal processors grant friend status to a foe. Bam. Now the various companies cannot share data and their effiency is horrible degraded. Havong a map and GPS does not tell a company commander where the enemy is.

The article covers such threats as a result of cyber warfare. We are not talking about EMPs jamming or any number of battlefield disruptions. The hack may have began during a simple maintenance of microchips in the threat proceesing system back state side.

=====

Re: The Next World War
 

I'm afraid you (like many people) have a rather inflated opinion of what's probable with hacking.

Let's assume the F-35 threat warning system is hacked ... OK ... a single raid is blown out of the air, totally destroyed. Guess what, the next raid that goes out doesn't use the same compromised system.

IFF systems are hardly new, they've been used in aircraft for years. That doesn't render the enemy aircraft invisible to visual identification or MPADs/AA-guns.

The military isn't incapable of operating without GPS and battlefield info sharing, just less efficient.

Re: The Next World War
 

That reply should not have been posted. A cursory review of thw subject would have stayed your hand from pressing the "submit reply."

I'll play along and bite.

What if it's not a raid but a CAP on fleet defense. The two F-35's are 125 km out from the battle group at angels 30k. The threat is processed as a friend, that false info is relayed to the ships below. Bam.

But in our game we'd be more concerned with the lost of command and control. Now, our commanders know the enemy is out there but it does not know composition or strength. Well, in "God" view the player knows composition, strength, and position. Let's imagine a battle where the commander (player) no longer has that information. Is it possible to do so. Maybe. Let's find out. The A0 unit is lost.

But let us say the scenario occurs in 1953 before modern battlefield situation awareness as we know it today, then what occasions "God" view.

It is refreshing our services are as technical as they are today. A kid needs 50 on his or her ASVAB for the Navy and USAF while the Marines and Army only a 30.

And, our leaders both civilian and military are acutely aware of the threats of cyber warfare rather than adopting a cavalier attitude to the issue. This is really big stuff.

I framed this thread around reducing "God" view to what an individual unit can see on the map with respect to cyber war fighting. But, I could have easily chosen to make case as a result of the technical ability of militaries over the decades; i.e scenarios set in Korea, etc. Similar to what we do with purchasing units where unit capabilities are bounded by the year that gear was in use, so might "God" view.

=====

Re: The Next World War
 

You're assuming your hackers have perfect battlefield intelligence and know the precise time and place to institute their hack. And also assuming the hack is 100% successful.

Re: The Next World War
 

It doesn't work that way. The "hack" is a programmed routine in one of hundreds of banks contained in one microchip. The routine is called when a particular signal is received. So, say the threat atenna picks up a signal from a Chinese missile, rather than processing the signal as a threat, the routine processes the signal as a friend. Or, the array of attennai chained together as a block emit a homeing signal.

Either way the so called "hack" does not require battlefield intelligence.

Now, the malware (routine) infected microchips are purchased by a maintenance sub contractor from legitimate firms. The sub contractor inserts the chips. Testing each chip would require a test across a very large spectrum of frquencies, not impossible to test for but the problem is to isolate as you can imagine that one frequency the adversary uses. We don't know that. In a war situation, the adversary would program it's planes and missiles to exploit the "hacked" chips.

=====

Re: The Next World War
 

So now you're assuming the manufacture of the chips used in a system was compromised in the first place and remained undetected?

Re: The Next World War
 

You should acquaint yourself with the subject matter. There's a lot of papers and several think tanks, and a number of authors have published books with the technical material covered in a Tom Clancy style (for easy reading by a lay person) available in the public domain. Check them out.

You might start with: "Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War" (Singer & Cole, Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, June 30, 2015)

=====

Re: The Next World War
 

I prefer science fiction to science fantasy.

Rather a large difference between probable and possible. ANYTHING is possible, if you want to go that route then there's no point debating it, just do it.

Re: The Next World War
 

If you wanted to simulate something like this or even diffrent command & control for diffrent time periods / countries you could resort to pen & paper & rough orders plus a command system.

Define points cost for specific actions
Platoon stops, advances in current direction, changes direction etc.
Squad does one of the above independently.
Possible extra cost if unit does not have radio.

Each Leader, platoon, company, HQ gets a certain number of command points that they can use to comand lower units.

Diffrent armies & timefrmes would have more or less command points for the leaders & so be more orless flexible. Could also make it important to protect Leaders, pinned lose a command point. Platoon Leader broken lets hope Company leader has points available otherwise using HQ points.

So you might want to give USA leaders more points than Russian leaders to simulate better training.
Germany vs France WWII same German leaders get more points than the French. If you also made giving a unit independant orders more expensive with no radio the French tank formations would end up acting like they did.

Still have your gods eye view but now you need to think, cant just send that unit right at a moments notice if you have used your points.
Can make as complex as you like perhaps include rallying a unit costs a point so tough choice, rally the unit or give another unit an independant order?
Calling in directing support could cost so FOOs can only direct so much. Would cos platoon leaders more than a FOO
HQ could call in direct free so any additional calls could be made by them if run put of points.

Does that make sense?

Re: The Next World War
 

I've used similar systems (a squad level game I had in the late 80's I no longer recall the name of) in the past and they can work fairly well to represent the initiative generally demonstrated at smaller tactical unit levels.

But to represent Command & Control? Maybe ...

It might work well if a military uses a centrally organized structure and deviation from "The Plan" is discouraged, i.e. the classic Soviet system, because because lower level commanders aren't taught, encouraged, or permitted to exercise independent judgement. But to assume all military organizations work that way couldn't be further from the truth. SAS, SEALs, Spetsnaz, and similar forces are expected to act based on their own judgement and assessment of the situation. A loss of links to higher command has zero effect on their ability to act, yes, it may well degrade (severely) their ability to act in the most efficient manner and time, but their ability to act ... not a whit.

I'm biased, always have been, I was a Jarhead, we're also taught to assess situations and act without waiting for orders. So I have a certain amount of difficulty comprehending not operating that way.

Re: The Next World War
 

I'd rather go the route of visibility restricted to an indivdual unit's view as the framework to build upon command & control.

=====

Re: The Next World War
 

How would that work you still see the overall picture so can react to it.

Re: The Next World War
 

You only see what your units see. If an enemy is in view of a unit you see it. If he is out of view you don't see it.

Similar to the T key, you can target what is in view.

=====

Re: The Next World War
 

Isn't that how it works now? or am I missing something?

Re: The Next World War
 

Say, a unit is spotted by your ATK helo...then it moves behind a building. On the next turn that unit behind the bldg is visible to you (that's "God view") while the helo can't see it or target it, but you the player can see it.

I envision visibility defined by what a unit can see. Then, when you select a unit that is what you, the player sees. This would be the framework.

If the scenario takes place say in 2015, and you are playing a dominant power, say the UK or USA, then you have "God view." But, if you are playing an insurgent group then you see only what your unit sees.

If you are playing a Viet Nam or Korean scenario, you only see what your unit sees.

You recon and scout assets are valuable are indispensable as they should be.

That's the "two cents" description.

=====

Re: The Next World War
 

I think that something like what the Combat Mission series will be a good alternative to that. Say, your unit moved in the vehicle range of the helo. Instead of that unit being visible wherever in ends the turn, a marker is placed in the hex (it will be either infantry or vehicle marker) the unit was spotted. That way you'll see where the unit passed, but not where it ended the turn. The markers will last until the end of the player's turn.

Re: The Next World War
 

Interesting...a visual aide.

=====

Re: The Next World War
 

I could code the game so that if you select Bill, then only the units known to Bill would show on the map, swap to Fred and only his contact list appears. Save games would then jump by 2000 bytes times 2000 to add an individual LOS list to all units, or thereabouts. We would then have to code in some fancy contact-passing rules so that Bill could eventually tell Fred about his contact #121, say faster if they were in the same platoon, and neither was suppressed, or whatever.

However, the player is free to jump around the units to his hearts content for as long as he feels is necessary to build up a picture. As he does so he will integrate each unit's displayed target list in his brain Mk 1.0. And then he will happily jump to Observer Pete, who has none of Fred's or Bill's targets in his LOS list (yet) and plot a bombardment on what looks like empty space to Pete when he is selected, but the player knows is occupied by Fritz in his Tiger.

Hence the simple model used by SP - once detected and in LOS, the target is available to everyone. No vast amount of extra saved data, no fancy target-passing rules. Because the player will effectively bypass all of that stuff. And the AI does too, because individual LOS lists would add layers of complexity, and its having a hard enough time as is.

Now if there was an option to turn it off and use the "one sees all sees" basic model then 95+% of end users would.

Same as the optional orders system of SP3 - 95%+ of end users never bothered to even switch it on. Which is why it never made it here, as the coding effort is not worth the hassle for what would be a niche option that just a few die-hard grognards would utilise. But I rather liked it, as it was a system that showed off the advantage of the Germans in 1940 vs say the French, with the Germans able to switch the target marker about much more readily than the staid French player, the latter therefore being more tied to his "grand battle plan" pre-laid out at the start. But 99% of end users just want to charge around the battlefield as they wish and blast stuff..

Re: The Next World War
 

I have to say the SP3 system sounds VERY appealing to me as well. :)

Re: The Next World War
 

Yes BUT as Andy said

and that still holds true now.....There's a cadre of players who what to pile complexity onto the game in the name of "realism" that would kill the interest in the game for the actual majority that DO play it and enjoy it as it is now and if a complex " fog of war" option was what the majority of players wanted we'd have heard about it a LOT more than we do

Re: The Next World War
 

Yep, and then if there was an orders system and commanders got special command points then the special nations would need compensation, i.e. more expensive leaders.

The game does not charge anything for leaders ATM. And that would get complaints from players that they were having to spend more for German platoons, companies etc, and the Soviets less, for a system they did not utilise.

Heck when I played 1/300 at national level in the 70s and 80s, one of the first things players lobbied for was not to have to buy night fighting gear since all competition battles were meeting engagements in good quality daylight. Only TI was charged for when we moved onto the TTG "Challenger" rules which allowed some visibility through smoke with them - I think the older WRG 1950+ rules did not even have thermals.

We dont enforce army lists either. Though some PBEM leagues have some sort of house rules as to what is gamey. One of my first competition games was WW2 and one player turned up with 99% off-map arty (which he did not have to buy models of!) and a FO team... next year, basic army lists were in play. (That happened in the early Warhammer nationals too - someone's entire army in year 1 was 1 (one) invisible dragon:eek: with no model required, he just plotted where it was on some paper. A very economic army, once again;) - and there were army lists in play the next year there too!)