"Economic considerations in scenario planning" Topic

What if any economic influences do you consider in your scenarios, if any? The sort of things I mean includes, but is not limited to, are high(ish) value assets deployed that may need may only be eliminated by the opposition deploying possibly similar or more expensive assets to remove them?
Take our current scenario done in late 1985, the Russians have a BRM-1K With ground surveillance radar. This is quite expensive but probably nothing compared to the cost of an Air strike using an Anti-radiation Missile. The HARM 88 came in late 85. So to launch it requires a fighter or the like costing vastly more than the BRM -1K, the missile probably cost more than the target. Launching a fighter involves cast both the use in a rare resource and a significant risk it could be lost due to enemy action.
So in our situation there is a decision to be made as to whether the background to the scenario justifies that level of resource, for either the attacker or the defender. In particular what if the defender is using the BRM not only to help in the attack but as bait to take out a fighter deployed on its own or tie up lots of airborne resources to lower risk a full SED mission but tie up even more scarce resources, which may be an advantage to the Russians for the relatively low coat of a BRM-1k.
In our scenario we considered that the risk/cost to the enemy in taking out the BRM was too high to be worth it so unless it could be taken out by more basic means it would not be challenged. Plus there were limited points at which it could be useful so again not a good risk reward balance. Hence it will be unchallenged.
So do you make these decisions within a scenario, or provide a risk resource option that could lose the scenario, by losing a fighter and a HARM missile for no gain? Or dependant on your bias, decide that both sides have unrealistic levels of resource available that means whatever the risk resources are available at all times.

I don't consider that. When I make scenarios, the assumption is that higher level command has deemed this enough of a priority for (in your example) the fighter and HARM88 to be provided.

The other option is that command hasn't decided it is worth it and some junior officer has seen an opening to take out the radar and is going to do so.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but if I am going to game it then it needs to be important in the grand scheme or represent an interesting alternative like a junior officer potentially biting off more than he can chew.

Isn't all of that figured out beforehand? If the assets are in the scenario, they have been approved. Decision points involve more than just the cost of the asset.

I tend to agree with both answers. Also, is the economic potential for damage caused by the deployment of the ground radar a justification for a HARM strike. What about a barrage or MLRS instead?

I just don't think that ignoring an enemy asset because of potential cost is how it would be viewed. How about patriot v drones? Hardly cost effective unless you start to postulate on the potential damage a drone might cause…..

It's beyond my pay grade by several levels.

Tbh the real life cost of using an aircraft to destroy anything is insane,, more so if deployed from a carrier, or using a Milan to destroy a bunker or a Javelin to take out a technical. The guys on the ground don't care about stuff like that though, they just use what is to hand. The vast expenditure of systems and munitions is what keeps the military industrial complex going.

79thPA, It's the sort of thing decided, at least by me, as a boundary condition for a scenario. but it is a consideration for me in writing a plausible scenario.

smithsco, interesting approach, we tend to play scenarios where the action is not pivital, so support is more limited. All our actions araimed at bighting off more than we can chew, its part of the fun but not pivital. It shows we have fundamantally diffrent approaches at the very basic level, about what we want to produce and whAlkaways an interesting learning experience.

korsun0, The BRDM is only short range and it would need to be dectected by something. If it could be detected electronically a simple Artillery strike would kill it, but it meeds an MLRS and an airbourne radar with no more important issues to be available.

Martin Rapier Your comment really covers my last sentence. However now timing of the destruction (or loss of a fighter and failure to destroy) now becomes a deciding factors and, for me makes the scenario less interesting by being more complex, but perfectly arguably no less plausible.

This thread is about what you do not what is right or wrong, just how folk approach the issue in scenario terms.