Wednesday 9 November 2022

Big Little Wars: Post 9 - Asymmetrical Battles of Tomorrow 2

Here's the second post describing what makes this game different from all the other wargames out there. The near future setting of Big Little Wars is one where technology is unevenly distributed. A reflection of the current situation here on Earth, projected onto the future.

The Gate Walker stories are set in a universe where alien civilizations millions of years ahead of us exist.

In some sense, the setting hearkens back to the warfare between mismatched forces of the colonial period. Except now, the boot is now on the other foot.

The game's rules must allow battles between asymmetrical forces.

This is opposite to what most conventional science fiction wargames try to do. The biggest franchises rules are for competitions between two player. Battles between nominally equally balanced armies, facing each other to see who wins.

Instead, Big Little Wars aims to provide rules to make playing unbalanced battles fun.

The emphasis being on the need to play to a force's strengths to achieve the scenario goal. Games where it is possible for both players to win or lose. The outcome of games creating stories for the reasons the battles were fought.

I stole this idea from role-playing games.

So, one step to achieving this is to focus on command and control. I originally intended to label these as different tech levels.

However, feedback suggests this name conveys engineering and weapons, which it sort of does. And, that's not the whole story of how technological sophistication is a force multiplier. Rather, my thoughts are that technology improves the ability to command and thereby control a force.

So, the four different levels are based on the ability to integrate technology to leverage command and control of a force.

    •    Command Level 1: Early to mid 20th Century (approximately circa 1920 to 1980).
    •    Command Level 2: Late 20th to early/mid 21st Century (approximately1980 to 2040).
    •    Command Level 3: Late 21st Century (starting circa 2040 to 2100).
    •    Command Level 4: Advanced alien technologies (specific to the alien force).

Let me expand that snapshot and my assumptions

Command Level 1 

My assumption is that this is the natural outcome of industrialized warfare (sorry, I'm working from  a data-set of one, so assumptions have to be made).

We see this transition from traditional first-generation warfare, maneuver of line and column, change when faced with machine guns and indirect fire. This led to what is called, second-generation war of fire and maneuver.

Command Level 2

This covers the developments that come from improved technology and training.

The transition from forces maneuvering to face each other, to wars of outmaneuvering the enemy, so called third-generational warfare.

Command Level 3

I've taken the liberty of disconnecting this assumption from the military theory of generational warfare.

This is the idea of a connected battlefield; warfare as an internet of things. Whether this will realistically be the case is another matter, but the war in Ukraine gives us a glimpse of war where a drone can be sent to deliver a package to an enemy soldier that will ruin his day.

Command Level 4

Is a catchall term for what comes next. A civilization where technology, psychology, and society have advanced so far that  it's like looking into a singularity, where all within is hidden.

Or, if you prefer,:

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” 
– Arthur C. Clarke
In Big Little Wars, command level four will be reserved for aliens, or for settings that fall outside of the Gate Walker universe.

So, while I may not be planning on writing any scenario books involving giant super robots, or Kaiju that doesn't mean the the rules can't be used in such settings.

They're just not settings I'm expending my time on.

18 comments:

  1. Interesting- I like the different Command Level- be interested to see what you put in lvl 3.

    Cheers,

    Pete.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh boy, do I have mechanics for this, yes I do! It's all in the details: flexible options for commanders.

      Delete
  2. I'll strongly suggest to rebalance that levels.
    Because, for example there "mid 20th Century (approximately circa 1920 to 1980)." several paradigmal shifts happened.
    First to Tanks appear on a battlefield.
    Then supersonics and nukes.
    Then electronic warfare and rocket systems
    Then space communication and reconessance.
    To point a few.
    That all are damn big changes.

    Depending on your need... split it into two tiers for very least.
    First I'd call Guerilla level -- where things like machine guns, armored vehicles can be accessible and supposedly used and controlled by a mere militia.
    And Professional army -- which have access to air and artilery support, or even can direct a Nuke use. ;-)
    Well... it can be added to all levels for conceptual balance. ;-)
    That possibly could generate more deapth -- how professional army of 20th century can fight with guerillas... but with 21th century weapon.
    Or... to make totally separate axis -- level of advancement/professionality.

    While second is pretty much homogenous. I'd say from 1990 till 2030 only one big thing was added -- Stealth. But it was not that big even. Just a couple of flashy operations. How it would help to win a war, or even more-less big battle...

    \\Command Level 2

    Basicly... that is about adding Internet as backbone of military operations.

    \\Command Level 3

    I would suggest "drone swarms" as main tactical addition.

    \\Command Level 4

    Well. That is depicted in that movie "Screachers". Or in Lem's "Unbeatable" -- distributed machines self-evolution.
    Or... in Harry Harrison's DeathWorld. Where whole planet becomes "enemy" producing more and more deadly organisms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No; because... this is exactly the opposite of the command and control game mechanic I'm working on; not a technology tech level paradigm, which has been done to death in SF wargaming.

      Delete
    2. I think my previous answer was too abrupt. Clearly, I haven't made my point with enough clarity, so let me quote myself:

      "Rather, my thoughts are that technology improves the ability to command and thereby control a force."

      It's that line (taken from the piece above), encapsulates my intent. The fancy technology and advances are for nought if the ability to issues commands, and control them aren't there.


      Delete
    3. Then... my imagined axis of guerilla/rookie/seasoned/profy might be much clother to your levels, and not orthogonal to em at all?

      Hmm... it is interesting question -- what changes in military tactics happened, so far.

      In WW1 it was clear. From lines and coloumns on the field, to "lines and coloumns" in trenches.
      But appearance of tanks broken it.
      But still, it could be retrofitted as return of "mounted cavalery".
      But, aviation disrupted it yet again.
      Several times:
      diving bombers and "shturmoviks",
      then nuke-carriers and carpet-bombers
      then "smart" rockets
      then drones
      and now it comes close and close to idea of man-less swarming drones paradigm.

      But same time it was balanced with anti-air capabilities... to the level of Denial of Access.
      So... it looks like eliminate itself.

      Naval battles landscape changed significantly too... because of air dominance.
      But it can be ignored too, if it about terrain battles only.

      So... what was added on a terrain battlefield?
      Tactics of "hunting groups", probably.
      That futher developed into spec-ops groups.

      Am I closer with my understanding now?

      Delete
    4. Closer, but A Game of Drones, whilst a great title, would not be much of a game; or at least not interesting for a game where half the fun is putting toy soldiers down on the tabletop.

      Delete
    5. Well... nobody knows what that "game of drones" will be about.
      So, that is exact point where "adv. tech as magic" can be inserted. ;-)
      And nobody will fuss bout it. Only years, or decades in ever after. When some actual experience will be generated.
      So, could I allow to my imagination to go wild for a while... on that topic?

      Delete
  3. It is a very interesting way of looking at it Ashley.
    If I am understanding correctly. Examples
    Level 1 (WW1 command by telephone and runners) You can have one plan per 2-3 days Operationally or 1 per day tactically
    Level 2 (WW2 command by radio) You can have one plan per day Operationally or 1 every 6 hours tactically
    Level 3 (WW3 command by internet) You can have 2-3 plans per day Operationally and 1 every 2 hours tactically
    Level 4 (Advanced civilisation command by thinking? ) You can have unlimited plans.

    This would provide a great game where the lower techs had heaps of soldiers/units while the higher techs proportionally less. Can the current French Army deal with the WW1 German Army Schlieffen Plan? 😊

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wouldn't it be tedious micto-manmagment... this way?

      Delete
    2. Just different activation rolls.

      Delete
    3. Ben; I hadn't looked at it quite like that but, I like the cut of your jib. With caveats, it's a game of toy soldiers that doesn't run as long as the planning takes, that nails the idea.

      I've already given some thought to how this impacts the scenarios, but now I will have to think of how this can be folded into the campaigns?

      Delete
  4. At first glance, I wasn't sure about the breakdown for the first command level but upon further thought I like your breakdown when considered in the scope of the multiple centuries you're covering. Yes, it's lumping biplanes with early F-15s but ultimately it's still airplanes using largely kinetic weapons and analog electronics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. Red Baron and Top Gun... they are just the same. ;-P

      Delete
    2. Yes, it's very coarse, but focusing on command and control makes the rules different from all the other SF sets out on the market.

      Delete
    3. Sorry.
      It seems I'm lacking some wargaming trivia to understand that refs. :-(

      Delete
    4. It seems so, but in the bigger scheme of things (life, the universe, and everything) it doesn't matter.

      Delete
    5. :-)
      Is this a ref to D.Adams?

      Delete