4 ms·

Basically, the low-tech commander "hacked" the wargame by using his forces effectively in unexpected ways. The USA invasion force cheated by bringing dead force

Basically, the low-tech commander "hacked" the wargame by using his forces effectively in unexpected ways. The USA invasion force cheated by bringing dead forces back to life (respawning?!) and forcing the enemy to do what they were "meant to". If only it were that easy in real life.

randallsquared 14y ago
I've read that many of the operations Red "performed" worked only by fiat. Motorcycle messengers delivered messages without fail and instantaneously, cruise missiles were mounted on boats which in real life would be arguably too small to support them, etc.
- kaoD 14y ago
  The point here is that he was successful recognizing valuable vectors of attack. Red did a great job using his most valuable resources.
  - talmand 14y ago
    But the comment suggests that some of the vectors of attack were essentially impossible. One could dream up several possible ways to attack a superior force but that doesn't mean they would all actually work.
    - kaoD 14y ago
      Who cares? It's an abstraction. Blue should've used his best bets just like in real life. Both were aware of the rules.
      - talmand 14y ago
        Well, if we're allowed to use methods that are essentially impossible; then in my fabricated arsenal for our simulation I have a weapon that destroys all resources of the opposing force and places all their personnel in a location of my choosing with the push of a big, red button. After all, who cares if our simulation attempts to simulate realistic conditions?
        kaoD 14y ago
        You're implying Red controlled the simulation. He didn't. Red just took advantage of it (just like we take advantage of real life mechanics). The one who's to blame is whoever built the simulation, not Red for using it. Are atomic bombs cheating? Because they're ridiculously powerful. They must be a bug in simulation, right? :P > I have a weapon that destroys all resources of the opposing force That's the atomic bomb.
        talmand 14y ago
        Regardless of who controlled the simulation, if it aims to simulate reality then you simply cannot use unrealistic tactics as that destroys the purpose of the simulation. The blame belongs to the person who was in control of the simulation and didn't enforce basic rules established by reality. If we're not enforcing reality in this type of simulation then the outcome of said simulation is pointless and indicates nothing about military readiness nor doctrine. Use of nuclear weapons would not be considered cheating in this case simply because they exist. The discussion about nuclear weapons was whether they would prove to be a deterrence or not, not whether they could be used. And since you left out the second part of my fabricated weapon spec, I have to point out I wasn't speaking of nuclear weapons as they don't magically relocate the enemy personnel to a location of my choosing. But you knew that right?
        kaoD 14y ago
        Okay, you win, rigging the outcome is a better simulation.
        talmand 14y ago
        Okay, you win, enforcing reality will now be known as rigging the outcome.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  Got a source? I'd love to read more about it.
  - randallsquared 14y ago
    No, I would, too, but virtually all I know I got from questionable sources like reddit comments. :/
psionski 14y ago
How the Serbs shot down a stealth fighter - http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/europe/041199kosovo-stealth.html http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/europe/041199kosov... . Apparently their radars were too low-tech to NOT detect it :)
- talmand 14y ago
  I see no indication their radar was that low-tech. From what I read it seemed more a success of human intel and capability versus any technology. The thing is with planes, if you can see it then you can likely shoot it down.
  - psionski 14y ago
    I couldn't find a good article in English, the one I pasted was very poor on details. Here is a Google translation (sorry) of a Bulgarian website - http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpan.bg%2Fview_article-6-9985-V-Syrbiq-otbelqzaha-tyrzhestveno-godishninata-ot-svalqneto-na-nevidimiq-F-117.html http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&... . The plane was on their screen the whole time. That's their radar - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-18_radar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-18_radar , it has been in use since the '70s, the latest ones manufactured during 1984. P.S. The translation says "you downloaded 'stealth'" in one place. Believe me, they mean "you took down 'stealth'". It's not one of those "you wouldn't download a stealth bomber" things. P.P.S. What does the standard say, if I start using apostrophes in a paragraph because the quote contains double quotes in it, should I use apostrophes for all my quotes or could I just switch back to double quotes?
    - talmand 14y ago
      Old doesn't necessarily mean low-tech. A quote inside a quote uses single quotes. A quote inside a quote that's inside a quote goes back to double quotes. If that's what you're asking. He said, "You said, 'My friend said, "Hello World!"'." Thankfully that doesn't happen too often.

randallsquared 14y ago

I've read that many of the operations Red "performed" worked only by fiat. Motorcycle messengers delivered messages without fail and instantaneously, cruise missiles were mounted on boats which in real life would be arguably too small to support them, etc.

kaoD 14y ago
The point here is that he was successful recognizing valuable vectors of attack. Red did a great job using his most valuable resources.
- talmand 14y ago
  But the comment suggests that some of the vectors of attack were essentially impossible. One could dream up several possible ways to attack a superior force but that doesn't mean they would all actually work.
  - kaoD 14y ago
    Who cares? It's an abstraction. Blue should've used his best bets just like in real life. Both were aware of the rules.
    - talmand 14y ago
      Well, if we're allowed to use methods that are essentially impossible; then in my fabricated arsenal for our simulation I have a weapon that destroys all resources of the opposing force and places all their personnel in a location of my choosing with the push of a big, red button. After all, who cares if our simulation attempts to simulate realistic conditions?
      - kaoD 14y ago
        You're implying Red controlled the simulation. He didn't. Red just took advantage of it (just like we take advantage of real life mechanics). The one who's to blame is whoever built the simulation, not Red for using it. Are atomic bombs cheating? Because they're ridiculously powerful. They must be a bug in simulation, right? :P > I have a weapon that destroys all resources of the opposing force That's the atomic bomb.
        talmand 14y ago
        Regardless of who controlled the simulation, if it aims to simulate reality then you simply cannot use unrealistic tactics as that destroys the purpose of the simulation. The blame belongs to the person who was in control of the simulation and didn't enforce basic rules established by reality. If we're not enforcing reality in this type of simulation then the outcome of said simulation is pointless and indicates nothing about military readiness nor doctrine. Use of nuclear weapons would not be considered cheating in this case simply because they exist. The discussion about nuclear weapons was whether they would prove to be a deterrence or not, not whether they could be used. And since you left out the second part of my fabricated weapon spec, I have to point out I wasn't speaking of nuclear weapons as they don't magically relocate the enemy personnel to a location of my choosing. But you knew that right?
        kaoD 14y ago
        Okay, you win, rigging the outcome is a better simulation.
        talmand 14y ago
        Okay, you win, enforcing reality will now be known as rigging the outcome.
fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
Got a source? I'd love to read more about it.
- randallsquared 14y ago
  No, I would, too, but virtually all I know I got from questionable sources like reddit comments. :/

psionski 14y ago

How the Serbs shot down a stealth fighter - http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/europe/041199kosovo-stealth.html http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/europe/041199kosov... . Apparently their radars were too low-tech to NOT detect it :)

talmand 14y ago
I see no indication their radar was that low-tech. From what I read it seemed more a success of human intel and capability versus any technology. The thing is with planes, if you can see it then you can likely shoot it down.
- psionski 14y ago
  I couldn't find a good article in English, the one I pasted was very poor on details. Here is a Google translation (sorry) of a Bulgarian website - http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpan.bg%2Fview_article-6-9985-V-Syrbiq-otbelqzaha-tyrzhestveno-godishninata-ot-svalqneto-na-nevidimiq-F-117.html http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&... . The plane was on their screen the whole time. That's their radar - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-18_radar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-18_radar , it has been in use since the '70s, the latest ones manufactured during 1984. P.S. The translation says "you downloaded 'stealth'" in one place. Believe me, they mean "you took down 'stealth'". It's not one of those "you wouldn't download a stealth bomber" things. P.P.S. What does the standard say, if I start using apostrophes in a paragraph because the quote contains double quotes in it, should I use apostrophes for all my quotes or could I just switch back to double quotes?
  - talmand 14y ago
    Old doesn't necessarily mean low-tech. A quote inside a quote uses single quotes. A quote inside a quote that's inside a quote goes back to double quotes. If that's what you're asking. He said, "You said, 'My friend said, "Hello World!"'." Thankfully that doesn't happen too often.