4 ms·

This pretty much sounds like the scenario used, successfully, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millen

by mxvzr 10y ago

This pretty much sounds like the scenario used, successfully, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

throwanem 10y ago
Very much so, yes. Unfortunately, in a real conflict, you can't just "refloat" your sunk ships and rewrite the game so that the good guys win.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  But, would that tactic really have worked or was it just exploiting some less-tested close-battle rules that didn't actually represent reality? As in, those tiny torpedo-boats are incredibly flimsy and a CIWS fires a lot of bullets. When they wrote the rules did they just arbitrarily assign a carrier a certain number of attacks per round? Because four attacks doing d100 damage aren't like one-hundred attacks doing d4 damage... If a real carrier group would have survived the attack then they should change the rules.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    It doesn't matter how many holes a CIWS can put into a torpedo boat. Once the cruise missiles are in the air, destroying their launch platforms counts for nothing. And it was the cruise missile attack that ruined the carrier strike group as an effective fighting force.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      There were a few phases of the battle. There was also a wave of suicide attacks by small boats, and that's what I was referring to. The cruise-missiles seem slightly more reasonable for overwhelming defenses. The closing speed makes the difference. Which is also complicated for the little boats on the probably rough open seas where they'd encounter the carrier group. Carrier groups travel in miles-wide formations. Even if your first warning was your support-ships getting hit you'd still have minutes to react to the incoming threats. Time to get multiple aircraft up, set the guns to the right mode for targeting ships, etc. It sounds like its the result of arbitrary rules letting you to attack someone by moving into their hex, etc. I don't think you'd get this result with a real-world battle exercise, where soldiers had to drive the boats tens of miles off-coast in radio silence for a coordinated attack on a hyper-aware enemy.
- pinaceae 10y ago
  this wargame was equivalent of Hopplites killing Tanks in Civilization. abuse of broken game mechanics. motorcycle couriers operating at light speed, little boats carrying huge missiles, etc. but a great internet legend, brought up over and over again.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Do you have a cite? I've seen a lot of different sources take the perspective I describe on MC '02, and it's easy to support from the JFCOM final report (see e.g. pages 59-60). I would be very interested in evaluating a substantive claim that, rather than van Riper's surprise attack being outside the scope of the wargame but entirely plausible and effective all the same, a retired general with no personal stake in the outcome of the game nonetheless cheated in order to try to make it come out the way he wanted, despite that it'd be trivially obvious he'd done so.

by mxvzr 10y ago

This pretty much sounds like the scenario used, successfully, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

throwanem 10y ago

Very much so, yes. Unfortunately, in a real conflict, you can't just "refloat" your sunk ships and rewrite the game so that the good guys win.

EdHominem 10y ago
But, would that tactic really have worked or was it just exploiting some less-tested close-battle rules that didn't actually represent reality? As in, those tiny torpedo-boats are incredibly flimsy and a CIWS fires a lot of bullets. When they wrote the rules did they just arbitrarily assign a carrier a certain number of attacks per round? Because four attacks doing d100 damage aren't like one-hundred attacks doing d4 damage... If a real carrier group would have survived the attack then they should change the rules.
- throwanem 10y ago
  It doesn't matter how many holes a CIWS can put into a torpedo boat. Once the cruise missiles are in the air, destroying their launch platforms counts for nothing. And it was the cruise missile attack that ruined the carrier strike group as an effective fighting force.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    There were a few phases of the battle. There was also a wave of suicide attacks by small boats, and that's what I was referring to. The cruise-missiles seem slightly more reasonable for overwhelming defenses. The closing speed makes the difference. Which is also complicated for the little boats on the probably rough open seas where they'd encounter the carrier group. Carrier groups travel in miles-wide formations. Even if your first warning was your support-ships getting hit you'd still have minutes to react to the incoming threats. Time to get multiple aircraft up, set the guns to the right mode for targeting ships, etc. It sounds like its the result of arbitrary rules letting you to attack someone by moving into their hex, etc. I don't think you'd get this result with a real-world battle exercise, where soldiers had to drive the boats tens of miles off-coast in radio silence for a coordinated attack on a hyper-aware enemy.
pinaceae 10y ago
this wargame was equivalent of Hopplites killing Tanks in Civilization. abuse of broken game mechanics. motorcycle couriers operating at light speed, little boats carrying huge missiles, etc. but a great internet legend, brought up over and over again.
- throwanem 10y ago
  Do you have a cite? I've seen a lot of different sources take the perspective I describe on MC '02, and it's easy to support from the JFCOM final report (see e.g. pages 59-60). I would be very interested in evaluating a substantive claim that, rather than van Riper's surprise attack being outside the scope of the wargame but entirely plausible and effective all the same, a retired general with no personal stake in the outcome of the game nonetheless cheated in order to try to make it come out the way he wanted, despite that it'd be trivially obvious he'd done so.