Force multipliers in modern combat

[bayonetbrant]

It's easy enough to throw the armor, infantry, aviation, and even engineers on the map, but what's the best way to account for all those 'other' things that matter on the modern battlefield - electronic warfare (not just jamming but also detection), ground-sensing radar, counterbattery radar, chemical detection, FASCAM - without overly bogging down the game?


I get that many of those assets seems a little unnecessary given the nature of most wargames where you can see the entire enemy OOB as soon as you crack shrink on the box, but identifying (and targeting!) enemy C2 elements becomes a major focus of the intel fight for many units, and a lot of those detection tools will trigger particular decision points for commanders on the ground.


Are these separate card-play elements?  Do you need a double-blind game to make this relevant?  Without appropriate subsystems, is it worth even trying to implement (ex - orders delay in an arty call for fire, unless the arty is firing based on a counter-battery detection)?

[bayonetbrant]

bump

[BanzaiCat]

You're talking BCT Commander there, but it's been years since I tried that game/reviewed it for WG.

It's obvious that most board games that simulate battle are a balance between playability and realism. Usually the latter is sacrificed in favor of the former, otherwise you'll be playing ASL. 

[mirth]

Modern Spearhead (minis rules) does the best job of modeling these things that I've found in a reasonably playable rule set. Most of the 'bogging down' comes from players not being familiar with how the equipment works or how the rules work for their use in the game. The best way to introduce them into a game is to pick scenarios with just 1-2 elements. Once you've learned how those work, you can move on to other stuff.
Personally, I like the "chrome" using EW or special munitions makes for a more interesting game than just having AFVs and infantry beat up on each other.

[trailrunner]

It's easy enough to throw the armor, infantry, aviation, and even engineers on the map, but what's the best way to account for all those 'other' things that matter on the modern battlefield - electronic warfare (not just jamming but also detection), ground-sensing radar, counterbattery radar, chemical detection, FASCAM - without overly bogging down the game?

This is a pretty general question, so I don't know if you have a particular game system in mind.  In a higher-level game, I'd assume these would be embedded in the attack and defense factors.  In a lower-level game, the effects could be modeled individually, although with some abstraction through DRMs or column shifts.  EW could be modeled as either reducing the effectiveness of the enemy's ability to attack (e.g., jamming), or it could increase your ability to attack (e.g., intel).  I'm not sure what "ground-sensing radar" is.  Counterbattery radar - improves the effectiveness on your arty against his because you know better where his arty is located.  Chem detection - decreases the effectiveness of his chem attack because you could button up or bug out before the attack.  Not sure what FASCAM is. 

[bayonetbrant]

You're talking BCT Commander there, but it's been years since I tried that game/reviewed it for WG.

This one? 


https://www.armchairdragoons.com/articles/reviews/classic-reviews-bct-commander/

[bayonetbrant]

Not sure what FASCAM is.

family of scatterable mines


artillery-delivered minefields

[mirth]

Not sure what FASCAM is.

Artillery deployed mines.

*ninja'd by brant

[BanzaiCat]

You're talking BCT Commander there, but it's been years since I tried that game/reviewed it for WG.

This one? 


https://www.armchairdragoons.com/articles/reviews/classic-reviews-bct-commander/

Yes, THAT one

[Staggerwing]

  I'm not sure what "ground-sensing radar" is. 

Is this part of minefield detection? Or maybe underground tunnel detection?

[trailrunner]

  I'm not sure what "ground-sensing radar" is. 

Is this part of minefield detection? Or maybe underground tunnel detection?

Yeah, I thought of several things it could be.  It could be TF/TA - terrain following/terrain avoidance.  It could be ground mapping, to see the ground through the trees.  When I worked for the Army I worked on some minefield detections systems (e.g., the robotized version of the Husky), but those were very slow and not sure it would be very interesting in a wargame, so I sort of discounted that.

[bayonetbrant]

I'm not sure what "ground-sensing radar" is.

MI asset that picks up vibrations on the ground from large groups of vehicles.  Can't always tell composition, but can give reasonable estimate of density, direction, and speed.  The problem with GSRs is that the need to be forward of your lines for max effect, which makes them tough to secure, and tough to recover if they need to fall back.

[Bison]

Dummy counters could be a mechanism to provide hidden information. The use of enablers could be modeled in several ways but it’d depend on what you are trying to do. A friend designed a game using basically a player aid card to allocate enabler counters to the attached to the unit. So the unit the enabler was attached to gain the benefit. A bit of book keeping but didn’t clog up the board with extra chit clutter.

[bayonetbrant]

Dummy counters could be a mechanism to provide hidden information. The use of enablers could be modeled in several ways but it’d depend on what you are trying to do. A friend designed a game using basically a player aid card to allocate enabler counters to the attached to the unit. So the unit the enabler was attached to gain the benefit. A bit of book keeping but didn’t clog up the board with extra chit clutter.

That's not a bad idea. I would be curious to actually see it in action if you got any photos somewhere

[Bison]

I’ll ask my friend if he has any next time I talk to him. He was trying to model enablers like MPs for route security and UAVs for ISR.