"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.

My scenario planning does not consider the higher level economics. It does consider my economics with regard to what miniatures I have, what I can reasonably proxy and most importantly if it fits into my transport requirements.

My rule for any game is that the entire kit must fit in one (1) blue IKEA bag as I am simply not carrying any more than that to a game and I'm not making two trips to my truck to load or unload.

Fitzovich, Clearly you have not yet discovered the One True Scale (1/144). Minimal size but not Fiddley, storage is not a problem (well not transporting it, if you have hundreds of vehicles then storage at base is a problem, .

The primary 'economic considerations' that go into my scenario planning are the ones my personal wallet complains about! LOL!

But seriously, at the scale I play at it isn't really much of a consideration. I mean, maybe if I ever play Finland I have to deal with the fact that I'm not going to have many high end tanks, and that the ones I do have are mainly early war captured Soviet vehicles with a couple of T34s/KV-1s tossed in. Maybe.

For an ultramodern game, it's the same. I use 15mm/6mm models so $$ isn't a huge consideration for tactical level infantry/armored combat. Well, maybe there's a limit on a certain type of guided munition, or perhaps there are only a handful of F35s available and command might not wish to commit them to such a low level engagement.

To me what you're talking about is on the Strategic level to maybe Operational level. Now you're worried about whether or not to toss a Patriot interceptor at a $20,000 USD FPV drone that MIGHT be going after a rather expensive radar/early warning site. Then you argue out victory points and stuff- "Yeah, you saved the $5 USD billion radar, but you chucked 8 Patriot interceptors at them. The bad guys spent… $20,000 USD on the attack, so SUCCESS to the attackers! Major victory!"

Tgunner Any operation is under some level of strategic background. Clearly you recognise the issues and so I assume you settle them as part of your scenarios, at least that is what you appear to be saying.

Again over time the costs of real scale 1/144 stuff makes it less of a burden to have lots of options, giving freedom in choosing forces is not wallet controled to any significant level, but by what scenario you want to play, not what you can afford.

I suggest Economy of Effort might suit your question.

Wiki – Principles of War

The ten UK principles:

- Selection and Maintenance of the Aim:
A single, unambiguous aim is the keystone of successful military operations. Selection and maintenance of the aim is regarded as the master principle of war.

- Maintenance of Morale:
Morale is a positive state of mind derived from inspired political and military leadership, a shared sense of purpose and values, well-being, perceptions of worth and group cohesion.

- Offensive Action:
Offensive action is the practical way in which a commander seeks to gain advantage, sustain momentum and seize the initiative.

- Security:
Security is the provision and maintenance of an operating environment that affords the necessary freedom of action, when and where required, to achieve objectives.

- Surprise:
Surprise is the consequence of shock and confusion induced by the deliberate or incidental introduction of the unexpected.

- Concentration of Force:
Concentration of force involves the decisive, synchronized application of superior fighting power (conceptual, physical, and moral) to realize intended effects, when and where required.

- Economy of Effort:
Economy of effort is the judicious exploitation of manpower, materiel and time in relation to the achievement of objectives.

- Flexibility:
The ability to change readily to meet new circumstances – comprises agility, responsiveness, resilience, acuity and adaptability.

- Cooperation:
Cooperation entails the incorporation of teamwork and a sharing of dangers, burdens, risks and opportunities in every aspect of warfare.

- Sustainability:
To sustain a force is to generate the means by which its fighting power and freedom of action are maintained.

France has this one:

- Economy of means:
Proper distribution and use of assets in order to obtain the best ratio of capabilities vs. effects in order to achieve the assigned goal.

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

Ah, I misunderstood.

I will occasionally include scenario victory conditions which include not losing particular assets, but they are more based on operational necessity than how much they cost in the first place.

My general experience is that if you give a wargamer a weapons system, they will use it, even NBC weapons, unless there are some scenario/VP constraints.

Stoppage

Economy of means:
Proper distribution and use of assets in order to obtain the best ratio of capabilities vs. effects in order to achieve the assigned goal.

Its that balance and how do folk address it.

Martin some wargamers don't read the briefings, they only get to play once. Give me some die and let me kill "stuff" are not personaly players I want to engage, nothing wrong, with it but I don't see games that way and have no wish to play like that. So my scenarios don't cater for that audience.

UshCha, 🤣

actually I game in many scales 28mm for Skirmish and smaller scales for most everything else. 1/144 is limited to my Wings of Glory WWI aircraft. No matter what the scenario all the gear must fit into one IKEA bag and set up from the car must be within 15 minutes. I'm in the travel light and be ready school of GMing, Those that don't I feel do a disservice to their players.

@mr

Get down with the cool kids:

TMP – ABC, NBC, CBRN, etc