3 ms·
> I always do wonder how realistic these war games actually are? > They (at least the war games that are public) always assume at least one or both sides are n
by dragontamer 3y ago
> I always do wonder how realistic these war games actually are?
> They (at least the war games that are public) always assume at least one or both sides are near 100% competent with their systems.
Uhhh... that's not a wargame.
A wargame is when you send actual commanders into the actual field, with their actual troops, and roleplay a scenario.
Yeah, there's walkie talkies that go back to HQ where the top-level generals are rolling dice saying "That unit, you got shot, pretend you're dead", and such, but war-games are a scenario to test your generals, admirals, and chain of command. And often times, require physical movement of the lowest level troops.
----------
But at a minimum, you're testing the commander's reaction times in these scenarios.
- Retric 3y agoThose kind of war games are extremely expensive. More often it’s run like Age of Empires, just with modern units and 3rd party judges.
- dragontamer 3y agoI presume that when its a big "X loses in Wargame!!!" stories that go around the press... they're at least choosing the expensive wargames, as you'd put it. Like, I know that F22 fighters actually flew and were being tested vs RADAR systems in a recent wargame. Obviously no one shot anyone, but its not exactly cheap to run this equipment. Still, its good roleplay / practice for the pilot (and their commanders and crew), so its absolutely worthwhile. Even if the whole wargame ends up being an unrealistic piece of crap, its still worth excersizing / practicing / drilling the fundamentals