"How would you represent cyberwar in your games?" Topic

A few odd figures that were finished off while preparing others to be sent away for painting.

link

Interesting professional analysis of the social media firestorm around the shooting in Minnsesota of a protester by a federal agent. This is not to judge the event itself, but the USE of the event by US adversaries and trolls as a social media weapon to inflame internal US tensions.

In short -- at least 1/3rd of social media interactions on this, and no doubt other events, are with "Inauthentic Actors" -- either an adversary's cyberwar team or other actor using AI/bots and people managing multiple inauthentic accounts.

At what level do you represent this? Can you do this only at a strategic wargame level? Could a hostile actor hack social media tools used by adversary troops to spread disinformation from "normal" but vocal troop grumbling to rumors of collapse, defeat, etc? Could this be a game phase before a tabletop battle that results in morale penalties?

YouTube link

Interesting professional analysis of the social media firestorm around the shooting in Minnsesota of a protester by a federal agent. This is not to judge the event itself, but the USE of the event by US adversaries and trolls as a social media weapon to inflame internal US tensions.

In short -- at least 1/3rd of social media interactions on this, and no doubt other events, are with "Inauthentic Actors" -- either an adversary's cyberwar team or other actor using AI/bots and people managing multiple inauthentic accounts.

At what level do you represent this? Can you do this only at a strategic wargame level? Could a hostile actor hack social media tools used by adversary troops to spread disinformation from "normal" but vocal troop grumbling to rumors of collapse, defeat, etc? Could this be a game phase before a tabletop battle that results in morale penalties?

YouTube link

Well that went wrong somewhere.

LOL!

At the table top level this would likely devolve into some manifestation of jamming, or hacking networks to enhance targeting.

IIRC, early in the Ukraine War the Russian coms system failed. Russians broke into cellphone stores and activated the devices to communicate at the tactical level. But, the phones were operating thru the Ukrainian cell towers and service provides so their communications were totally compromised. Before the Russians caught on, the Ukrainians were using the device's cell signals for targeting.

Back in the 1970s I was the S4 of the First Infantry Division MI CEWI battalion. So the question becomes what is the level being simulated and the era.

We had one company HQ that recoded G2 staff, Simulations Center/OPFOR staff. We had photo analysis staff and detached staff that were counted as present even when they were gone.

One company consisted of the Ground Surveillance Radar platoons.
One company consisted on counter Intelligence platoons with APCs with broadcast disks and high peered radio receivers.
So are you at a tactical level or operational.

One of the questions we looked to answer in my WOILE class last autumn, was how cyber and AI could be modelled for both MDMP and WARFIGHTER exercises, since those are the most common touch points for staffs.

I don't think there was a real consensus, except for the idea that cyber is where the new battlefield will be and that AI will play a major, if currently ill-defined (for the non-secret world, anyway) role.

The Cyber WO in my Small Group had a LOT of good stuff to share, but the challenge was how to apply it at the proper level and to the desired end state.

I don't think there is a really good answer YET. At least that I know of, or at least, one that I know I can share publicly. Not that I am "that guy", I am certainly not. But the folks who are "in the know" tell me that's what they are seeing.

Eric

Turn off the overhead lights in game room….. then hand out pencils and paper.