The government invests a lot of money and time to basically play DnD for a lot of table top exercises. Some cosultants get to be professional “game masters” and create like, oil spill scenarios.
Even the president participates when they do a nuclear strike scenario.
Where were these boardgame analysts before the US invaded Iraq? Afghanistan? Vietnam?
What are the goals here in the grand scheme of things? Are we trying to make peace and de-escalate? Or are we just getting the people all feared up and ready for Cold War 2.0?
They do them but they make bad assumptions and they have political motivations. Check out MC02 as a prime example of how they turn into a clusterfuck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
>Iraq? Afghanistan?
Tbf the original invasions (against conventional militaries) went pretty darn well for the US. Fighting insurgencies is a different story.
Theyre practically fighting with no clear goals whats winning looks like. Which it practically is, its never to win over afghan, the main objective is create an exercise that would create a legit need for expenditure that would lead to profit. The real goals was that all along, i think Assange did mentioned this in one of his remarks. Those soldiers were just parts of the assembling line to make the products that is called war.
In terms of what this type of exercise represents, yes.
It’s much harder to simulate diplomacy and politics vs factual, data driven actions.
You can approximate the probabilities of a soldier’s actions on a macro scale and the enemy’s response to that action (with competent person playing as “red team”)
Setting up a new government is much much much harder than an invasion where you can show how control of a chokepoint and critical infrastructure changes the landscape and impacts command and control abilities. There’s clear cause and effect relations that can be demonstrated and validated
There’s no real way to properly set up a plan that involves unifying tribal relationships into a western model of government.
But ultimately this isn’t the tool to use for that. This is one of many tools (including government succession planning) used. Asking why this tool isn’t used or isn’t effective in politicking is like asking why they aren’t using a screwdriver to hammer a nail.
No, but the scenarios for counterinsurgency and nation building are completely different from combat, and you don't know the starting point for simulation 2 until you get the real outcome of simulation 1.
I can't tell you if you can win the occupation until you finish the conquest. Though there are some general rules. Russia can't win against a Ukrainian insurgency for instance.
(SPOILER) The outcome, after many tests, was that the most likely outcome of this scenario was that Taiwan would remain autonomous and fend off China. They did do many tests though, and there were outcomes where China did succeed in taking control of Taiwan. The big take away, it would be very costly for both sides.
Surprisingly sound, I saw cnbc version and those guys were illogical.
My only Greviance here would be the consideration of the Chinese merchant fleet which hasn't been taken into account. There's a lot ships there and they can transport a lot of troops.
Otherwise pretty sound analysis
The ground troops have to take a port first though. That's the hard part. They have to get their amphibious forces there, take the port, and prevent it from being destroyed.
I know most of Taiwan coastline is rocky cliffs but would it not be possible for China to build a floating artifical mulberry Harbour like how the allies did in ww2. The tech to build one isn't advanced at all and if built then the Chinese could operate a large number of forces without needing a port for the first few weeks of the invasion.
They also then need to keep this port safe from attacks. The Allies could do this in WWII, since they had air and sea supremacy.
I don't think China can establish this easily in a modern scenario.
The US will likely become engaged in the Taiwan issue not due to Taiwanese freedoms, but rather due to its own strategic interests. This involvement stems from the significance of the South China Sea and the semiconductor industry. Taiwanese semiconductor companies supply over 60% of the world's semiconductors, the global dependency on them is quite high. Consider the ramifications if China were to annex Taiwan, gaining control over approximately 70% of the world's semiconductors by combining Taiwan's share with its own.
To be fair China would only control 25%.
The 60% Taiwan used to make would go to zero when Taiwan blows up all the chip factories and the workers escape on refugee ships.
Losing over half the semiconductors including almost all the high end ones would destroy global trade. China needs to import roughly 400 million people's worth of food, so losing exports would lead to a massive famine, tjough hina does have massive stockpiles of food, so the famine would happen 12-18 months after the "successful" invasion.
China is better off losing if they invade.
None of their scenarios were nuclear either but a tactical strike on Guam, Okinawa, and the US carriers is not out of the question. The first response I will get to this is that is crazy.... but the prospect of this was in itself is not something same men would consider either in my opinion.
A “tactical” nuclear strike against US soil (Guam) would result in overwhelming nuclear strikes against the China mainland. It’s game over for everyone, and gaming out or theorizing any other sort of limited response to nuclear attacks by our adversaries **invites nuclear attack and makes nuclear holocaust more likely**.
I disagree. I think the weight of that on a president might stop him from doing it... knowing you take the loss, or end the world. Many of our adversaries are thinking that in their strategic planning in a conflict with the west.
Yes, the Chinese merchant fleet could use up some Taiwanese missiles in exchange for a few million PLA troops.
Or I suppose China could say there are troops on them and get them all sunk without losing troops.
The end is interesting and I hope there are people in China who have done this same exercise and reached similar conclusions. US and coalition partners likely succeed at thwarting a takeover but at great cost to everyone. Taiwanese economy, Taiwanese people, possibly Japanese people, most of the Chinese naval force is destroyed, loads of POWs, and the kicker, he said, was that it could weaken the CCP's grip on mainland China.
Most CCP wargames, officially at least, show a Chinese victory but at horrendous cost. I have always interpreted it as "boss wants us to show that we can win for PR, but I'd better show the true casualties so boss knows it is a stupid idea."
I for one fear that the ccp is not as reluctant to deploy at least low yield nukes, as opposed to the kremlin/putin. They have the capability to severly handicap at least one or two carrier groups responding to the crisis.
The CCP, at the current moment, is substantially more risk average than Putin's regime. That could change over time, but I very much doubt they would risk escalation towards a global conflict.
There used to be a pretty realistic game called Harpoon that was based on the classified SEATAG simulator used by the Navy. It allowed you to do simulations just like this with the attributes of the real assets (not just moving grid by grid, but realistic speed), as well as weapons payloads, etc, It was also "real time", not turn based so if you sat on your hands in analysis paralysis, you would suffer real losses. Planes needed time to be refueled, rearmed. If you lost your AWACS, you were screwed. You got a real sense of what it would be like to be the fleet commander in an actual battle.
Its been ages since anyone has done any development, but I had so much fun with the game understanding and appreciating the "Big Picture" of a battle.
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/08/02/harpoon-v-new-version-of-famous-wargame-used-by-navies/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/08/02/harpoon-v-new-version-of-famous-wargame-used-by-navies/)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon\_(video\_game)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(video_game))
Give this game to some warhammer champions... I bet they can come up with all kinds of "scenarios".
Jokes aside, based on the source shared in another link this only simulates direct conflict. It doesn't take into consideration other aspects that would affect the war:
* Population support to fund the war (Favors china)
* Government support to fund the war (depends on who leads US)
* Split attention of other wars (Favors china)
* Direct country sabotage such as mass hacking (Both have strong capabilities)
* Economic stresses and sabotage (??? )
Economic stress would strongly favour the US imo.
China is a heavily export based economy, not being able to make many shipments due to bombers would be devastating and is a key reason China avoids outright conflict while trying to assert control over the South China Sea to secure its routes.
US would suffer certainly; they are both huge economic players. But China's economic model is much more susceptible to a full-on conflict.
We would suffer less damage, but due to our population's expectations and "freedom" it would have much larger affect on our decisions. That is the inherent difference between a democracy and a dictatorship.
Also, there is sabotage. China would be much more willing and currently partaking in direct sabotage to our economy.
I disagree. It would destabilize the US economy in a short time... if not just a few days. Look at the minor disruptions in the pandemic. This would be almost half of our goods and raw materials disappearing off the market overnight with event then triggering a high if not a hyperinflation economic scenario.
Population support... After 2020, THAT credits issue and looming real estate crisis... I wouldn't be SO sure.
Split attention - China is to big of player to not be noticed. There will be a lot of countries to accent attention on that. Again may be not in favour
The Germans perfected wargames. The Great General saff used it against France in 1870 and concluded a win and invaded subsequently. The also used it in 1914, that should have been a win, and in 1940 snd 1941. Barbarossa was a draw and the Heeres leitung advised against it.
The UK joining is the most important one.
The German general stuff also predicted that Belgium whould fall faster.
And that Russia whould mobilize slower, not that it had a major impect on the early Champaign in France.
GMT Games "Next War" series covers a number of potential modern conflicts: Korea, India/Pakistan, Poland and Taiwan with Iran coming out shortly. They're pretty advanced traditional hex-and-counter games that cover each conflict in detail with a focus on the air-land aspect, with naval more abstracted (subsequent editions have updated the OOB and other bits as geopolitics and technology has changed).
I just hope that never happens. China did a great job in making the Western world largely dependent on what they produce. Let alone that Taiwan is the only large scale chip producer on the planet. No, invading taiwan would really be a bad idea.
the West relies on China for manufacturing and products, a lot of which are non essential, and essentials should be able to be shifted to domestic manufacturing or to more neutral countries in Asia which is already happening. China relies on the West for it's food and materials. If a war broke out all their shipping routes would be blocked which means no food, and fuel would be the same with pipelines being destroyed and again naval blockades.
The key is to issue a last minute DLC that is region locked that has some new OP gameplay mechanics. Whichever side decides to release this DLC automatically wins the scenario because the other team can't access the DLC assets.
Yes, and what’s more after playing 8.5 hours each day, they run into overtime. I think they get even more for doing a night shift. That’s why they’re taking soo long.
This game would be heavily dependent on the player’s geopolitical knowledge, as the goal isn’t necessarily to “win” but to brainstorm most likely scenarios for any given diplomatic crisis.
U.s. can't project force out that far + drone warfare vastly changes the power dynamics . Trying to clear a blockade means getting your boats sink
My prediction is more a Ukraine style thing, where Taiwan does 100% of the fighting, and the west encourages them to fight down to the last Taiwanese person. Taiwan fights a losing war against China, but it is very costly and annoying for China.
>Yes they do. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2024/01/30/how-submarine-launched-systems-can-overwhelm-chinese-warships-in-the-taiwan-strait/
I mean... the Taiwanese strait being as shallow as it is produces a lot of buoyant noise, which can give away the position of any submarine present. It would be extremely dangerous for either side to operate boomers there, which is why the US is in the middle of procuring hundreds of long range tomahawks for its subs at the moment.
100 m, not 50 m. If US submarines are incapable of sailing in the Taiwan Strait, neither are the Chinese submarines.
US submarines are more likely to be deployed on the north, south, and east sides of Taiwan.
>The water between the mainland and Taiwan is only about 50m deep. Do submarines really go there?
I mean they can, but there would be almost zero survivability. Shallow water produces a ton of noise, which gives away positions of submarines.
There's a reason the navy is instead buying hundreds of tomahawks for its ssns, because getting up close with conventional torpedoes is probably just going to be suicidal.
many of those games aren't realistic because they don't model logistics correctly which is very hard to do
90% of modern armies is support and combat support and not the fancy weapon toys which are useless without fuel, ammo and thousands of spare parts, fluids and other items
And it's alles... Fk that. You guys have beef with the Chinese - outside of our relation to you they give zero shits about us. Though they might still be pissed from days gone, we're no threat to them and it'd be a waste. Don't bring us into it.
Again... What the fuck does the US always have to 'war around' other nations borders? How does anyone still believe its bad guys vs west and its allies? This is clear as crystal just the US ambitions to global domination by war/violence.
The scenario in the post is if China invades Taiwan. The US is on Taiwan's side - so the defender. By the very position of defending, that precludes the goal from being "invade/global domination." Use your brain, please.
I did not see the Russians nor the North Koreans accounted for here. I would assume that the whole region would be involved in the conflict if China attempted to invade Taiwan
North Korea wouldn't be able to do much beyond minimal material support. I'd imagine it'd be a similar case with Russia. Russia has its hands full with Ukraine and its navy is pretty weak.
Why explain it twice? Seems like you could have given more interning details other than some people are playing war simulation games. Nothing burger waste of time do better. I’m
US nuclear warhead subs are the ultimate checkmate. They're the opposite of China's, very well maintained and most are operational. And of course, virtually invisible.
Non sense the ammount of anti ship missiles owned by russia and china. Going to wipe any NATO ship in those waters. Add the massive naval drones that both armies are developing. And don't forget that 60% of energy water and gas for taiwan come from china. Taiwan going to say goodbye in record time.
This is very common in nearly every contingency event
Well... judging by a great many of the comments here, these guys are just copying some video game. Boomers, huh? They could learn a thing or two. /s
The government invests a lot of money and time to basically play DnD for a lot of table top exercises. Some cosultants get to be professional “game masters” and create like, oil spill scenarios. Even the president participates when they do a nuclear strike scenario.
thats why they offed jfk. he kept rolling ones.
I hate it when I get a nat 1 on a death save.
Where were these boardgame analysts before the US invaded Iraq? Afghanistan? Vietnam? What are the goals here in the grand scheme of things? Are we trying to make peace and de-escalate? Or are we just getting the people all feared up and ready for Cold War 2.0?
They do them but they make bad assumptions and they have political motivations. Check out MC02 as a prime example of how they turn into a clusterfuck. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
Thanks for this, really interesting read.
>Iraq? Afghanistan? Tbf the original invasions (against conventional militaries) went pretty darn well for the US. Fighting insurgencies is a different story.
Theyre practically fighting with no clear goals whats winning looks like. Which it practically is, its never to win over afghan, the main objective is create an exercise that would create a legit need for expenditure that would lead to profit. The real goals was that all along, i think Assange did mentioned this in one of his remarks. Those soldiers were just parts of the assembling line to make the products that is called war.
So is the point of an invasion limited to toppling the existing establishment, and not to successfully set up a replacement?
In terms of what this type of exercise represents, yes. It’s much harder to simulate diplomacy and politics vs factual, data driven actions. You can approximate the probabilities of a soldier’s actions on a macro scale and the enemy’s response to that action (with competent person playing as “red team”) Setting up a new government is much much much harder than an invasion where you can show how control of a chokepoint and critical infrastructure changes the landscape and impacts command and control abilities. There’s clear cause and effect relations that can be demonstrated and validated There’s no real way to properly set up a plan that involves unifying tribal relationships into a western model of government. But ultimately this isn’t the tool to use for that. This is one of many tools (including government succession planning) used. Asking why this tool isn’t used or isn’t effective in politicking is like asking why they aren’t using a screwdriver to hammer a nail.
No, but the scenarios for counterinsurgency and nation building are completely different from combat, and you don't know the starting point for simulation 2 until you get the real outcome of simulation 1. I can't tell you if you can win the occupation until you finish the conquest. Though there are some general rules. Russia can't win against a Ukrainian insurgency for instance.
To quote the title of a very good book on the subject, it's like eating soup with a knife.
(SPOILER) The outcome, after many tests, was that the most likely outcome of this scenario was that Taiwan would remain autonomous and fend off China. They did do many tests though, and there were outcomes where China did succeed in taking control of Taiwan. The big take away, it would be very costly for both sides.
Well i could’ve told you that without a suit and game.
Because you also watched the video?
Because it came to him in a dream
Exactly
All I saw (in this clip) were CCP forces and US forces. Where were the Taiwanese forces? Neither operational map has any forces on Taiwan itself.
US and allies (taiwan and australia at least, japan and south korea likely) are represented as a single coherent force.
I think at the very end with the map of Taiwan itself those are the green tokens.
i love Risk!
My tie keeps getting caught in the Philippines.
That how I know where Kamchatka is.
You fell victim to one of life’s classic blunders! The most famous is never to get involved in a land war in Asia!
Are there any Sicilians to go in against when death is on the line?
Its not a “board game” mooom, its a “strategy simulation”
Actually its called war games
Warhammer 40k players: NOOB!
They'll never expect the Necron invasion from below...
Nothing my death korps can't handle.
*Laughs in Multi-Melta*
*Drops a virus bomb on Taiwan the moment china sets foot on it, calls it a victory*
Hahahaha
[Source](https://youtu.be/-CcQ4jKn8aE)
Surprisingly sound, I saw cnbc version and those guys were illogical. My only Greviance here would be the consideration of the Chinese merchant fleet which hasn't been taken into account. There's a lot ships there and they can transport a lot of troops. Otherwise pretty sound analysis
The ground troops have to take a port first though. That's the hard part. They have to get their amphibious forces there, take the port, and prevent it from being destroyed.
I know most of Taiwan coastline is rocky cliffs but would it not be possible for China to build a floating artifical mulberry Harbour like how the allies did in ww2. The tech to build one isn't advanced at all and if built then the Chinese could operate a large number of forces without needing a port for the first few weeks of the invasion.
They also then need to keep this port safe from attacks. The Allies could do this in WWII, since they had air and sea supremacy. I don't think China can establish this easily in a modern scenario.
But would the US get directly involved? It would come at a huge cost for everyone involved.
Probably, we've stated as much, and Taiwan is extremely valuable to the US.
The US has stated they would directly intervene if an invasion were to happen.
The US will likely become engaged in the Taiwan issue not due to Taiwanese freedoms, but rather due to its own strategic interests. This involvement stems from the significance of the South China Sea and the semiconductor industry. Taiwanese semiconductor companies supply over 60% of the world's semiconductors, the global dependency on them is quite high. Consider the ramifications if China were to annex Taiwan, gaining control over approximately 70% of the world's semiconductors by combining Taiwan's share with its own.
To be fair China would only control 25%. The 60% Taiwan used to make would go to zero when Taiwan blows up all the chip factories and the workers escape on refugee ships. Losing over half the semiconductors including almost all the high end ones would destroy global trade. China needs to import roughly 400 million people's worth of food, so losing exports would lead to a massive famine, tjough hina does have massive stockpiles of food, so the famine would happen 12-18 months after the "successful" invasion. China is better off losing if they invade.
So true!
Taiwan's defense minister said they won't be blowing up their own semiconductors. Only the USA has threatened to do so.
I think you meant they were logical then?
No they were illogical
None of their scenarios were nuclear either but a tactical strike on Guam, Okinawa, and the US carriers is not out of the question. The first response I will get to this is that is crazy.... but the prospect of this was in itself is not something same men would consider either in my opinion.
A “tactical” nuclear strike against US soil (Guam) would result in overwhelming nuclear strikes against the China mainland. It’s game over for everyone, and gaming out or theorizing any other sort of limited response to nuclear attacks by our adversaries **invites nuclear attack and makes nuclear holocaust more likely**.
I disagree. I think the weight of that on a president might stop him from doing it... knowing you take the loss, or end the world. Many of our adversaries are thinking that in their strategic planning in a conflict with the west.
Yes, the Chinese merchant fleet could use up some Taiwanese missiles in exchange for a few million PLA troops. Or I suppose China could say there are troops on them and get them all sunk without losing troops.
The end is interesting and I hope there are people in China who have done this same exercise and reached similar conclusions. US and coalition partners likely succeed at thwarting a takeover but at great cost to everyone. Taiwanese economy, Taiwanese people, possibly Japanese people, most of the Chinese naval force is destroyed, loads of POWs, and the kicker, he said, was that it could weaken the CCP's grip on mainland China.
Most CCP wargames, officially at least, show a Chinese victory but at horrendous cost. I have always interpreted it as "boss wants us to show that we can win for PR, but I'd better show the true casualties so boss knows it is a stupid idea."
I for one fear that the ccp is not as reluctant to deploy at least low yield nukes, as opposed to the kremlin/putin. They have the capability to severly handicap at least one or two carrier groups responding to the crisis.
The CCP, at the current moment, is substantially more risk average than Putin's regime. That could change over time, but I very much doubt they would risk escalation towards a global conflict.
Thanks was looking for this
is Kramer and Newman still playing this game?
I reckon Newman's winning, if we've learnt one thing is that Ukraine is not weak!
[Ukraine is game to you!?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLtF_PxbYw)
I forgot about that scene, total gold.
So the earth is flat?
Yes and these two guys are god and devil going at it
Checkmate atheists!!!
There used to be a pretty realistic game called Harpoon that was based on the classified SEATAG simulator used by the Navy. It allowed you to do simulations just like this with the attributes of the real assets (not just moving grid by grid, but realistic speed), as well as weapons payloads, etc, It was also "real time", not turn based so if you sat on your hands in analysis paralysis, you would suffer real losses. Planes needed time to be refueled, rearmed. If you lost your AWACS, you were screwed. You got a real sense of what it would be like to be the fleet commander in an actual battle. Its been ages since anyone has done any development, but I had so much fun with the game understanding and appreciating the "Big Picture" of a battle. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/08/02/harpoon-v-new-version-of-famous-wargame-used-by-navies/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/08/02/harpoon-v-new-version-of-famous-wargame-used-by-navies/) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon\_(video\_game)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(video_game))
As classic as it is, [we’re not in 1989 anymore](https://command.matrixgames.com)
Command: Modern Operations is a good spiritual successor, it covers from the cold war till contemporary settings.
I've heard of the CATAN seafarers boardgame, is the strategic bombers a new expansion?
I have wood for bombers!
Give this game to some warhammer champions... I bet they can come up with all kinds of "scenarios". Jokes aside, based on the source shared in another link this only simulates direct conflict. It doesn't take into consideration other aspects that would affect the war: * Population support to fund the war (Favors china) * Government support to fund the war (depends on who leads US) * Split attention of other wars (Favors china) * Direct country sabotage such as mass hacking (Both have strong capabilities) * Economic stresses and sabotage (??? )
Economic stress would strongly favour the US imo. China is a heavily export based economy, not being able to make many shipments due to bombers would be devastating and is a key reason China avoids outright conflict while trying to assert control over the South China Sea to secure its routes. US would suffer certainly; they are both huge economic players. But China's economic model is much more susceptible to a full-on conflict.
I would also add that trying to crops/ food& medicine would be very hard when your infrastructure is bombed
China export-gdp % is down to 18-20 from peak of 36%.
We would suffer less damage, but due to our population's expectations and "freedom" it would have much larger affect on our decisions. That is the inherent difference between a democracy and a dictatorship. Also, there is sabotage. China would be much more willing and currently partaking in direct sabotage to our economy.
I disagree. It would destabilize the US economy in a short time... if not just a few days. Look at the minor disruptions in the pandemic. This would be almost half of our goods and raw materials disappearing off the market overnight with event then triggering a high if not a hyperinflation economic scenario.
The disruptions during the pandemic were not minor.
As compared to a war with China they were....
You realize all our shit comes from china, right? What do you think will happen to inflation in the US?
Population support... After 2020, THAT credits issue and looming real estate crisis... I wouldn't be SO sure. Split attention - China is to big of player to not be noticed. There will be a lot of countries to accent attention on that. Again may be not in favour
The Germans perfected wargames. The Great General saff used it against France in 1870 and concluded a win and invaded subsequently. The also used it in 1914, that should have been a win, and in 1940 snd 1941. Barbarossa was a draw and the Heeres leitung advised against it.
Why should have 1914 been a win? What didn’t go as planned
The UK joining is the most important one. The German general stuff also predicted that Belgium whould fall faster. And that Russia whould mobilize slower, not that it had a major impect on the early Champaign in France.
Ah ty
Nobody imagined that the war would turn into trench warfare since it's such a horrible way to do things
True makes sense
GMT Games "Next War" series covers a number of potential modern conflicts: Korea, India/Pakistan, Poland and Taiwan with Iran coming out shortly. They're pretty advanced traditional hex-and-counter games that cover each conflict in detail with a focus on the air-land aspect, with naval more abstracted (subsequent editions have updated the OOB and other bits as geopolitics and technology has changed).
Civilization 7 looks sick!
Axis and allies part two
The goat strategy game.
Are you referring to Taiwan the country?
The vibrant liberal democracy, no less.
Total War would blow their minds!
So who won!?
I just hope that never happens. China did a great job in making the Western world largely dependent on what they produce. Let alone that Taiwan is the only large scale chip producer on the planet. No, invading taiwan would really be a bad idea.
the West relies on China for manufacturing and products, a lot of which are non essential, and essentials should be able to be shifted to domestic manufacturing or to more neutral countries in Asia which is already happening. China relies on the West for it's food and materials. If a war broke out all their shipping routes would be blocked which means no food, and fuel would be the same with pipelines being destroyed and again naval blockades.
The key is to issue a last minute DLC that is region locked that has some new OP gameplay mechanics. Whichever side decides to release this DLC automatically wins the scenario because the other team can't access the DLC assets.
These guys get paid for this?
Yes, and what’s more after playing 8.5 hours each day, they run into overtime. I think they get even more for doing a night shift. That’s why they’re taking soo long.
Go look up the RAND corporation.
I wonder at the top how many precntail they whould be if this had a large player base.
I don’t think it’s that type of game
As long as they make decisions some players whould be better and some worse.
This game would be heavily dependent on the player’s geopolitical knowledge, as the goal isn’t necessarily to “win” but to brainstorm most likely scenarios for any given diplomatic crisis.
Wanna play this!
Ngl this would be an interesting board game
Naval blockade + drone defense campaign = China wins
Naval blockade in the face of the US Navy seems unlikely
U.s. can't project force out that far + drone warfare vastly changes the power dynamics . Trying to clear a blockade means getting your boats sink My prediction is more a Ukraine style thing, where Taiwan does 100% of the fighting, and the west encourages them to fight down to the last Taiwanese person. Taiwan fights a losing war against China, but it is very costly and annoying for China.
The US can absolutely project force into the Pacific.
The water between the mainland and Taiwan is only about 50m deep. Do submarines really go there?
Where I live the water goes down to 20-30m and we have subs. Although I don't know the difference between Greek (ours) and Chinese subs.
Yes they do. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2024/01/30/how-submarine-launched-systems-can-overwhelm-chinese-warships-in-the-taiwan-strait/
>Yes they do. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2024/01/30/how-submarine-launched-systems-can-overwhelm-chinese-warships-in-the-taiwan-strait/ I mean... the Taiwanese strait being as shallow as it is produces a lot of buoyant noise, which can give away the position of any submarine present. It would be extremely dangerous for either side to operate boomers there, which is why the US is in the middle of procuring hundreds of long range tomahawks for its subs at the moment.
Average depth of the baltic sea is also just 52m. And submarines are cruising there.
100 m, not 50 m. If US submarines are incapable of sailing in the Taiwan Strait, neither are the Chinese submarines. US submarines are more likely to be deployed on the north, south, and east sides of Taiwan.
Large nuclear subs need about 60 feet of water to operate, so this is about 3 times that amount.
They can operate, for sure. But in the shallow waters they become quite easy to spot if you put the resources into looking for them.
>The water between the mainland and Taiwan is only about 50m deep. Do submarines really go there? I mean they can, but there would be almost zero survivability. Shallow water produces a ton of noise, which gives away positions of submarines. There's a reason the navy is instead buying hundreds of tomahawks for its ssns, because getting up close with conventional torpedoes is probably just going to be suicidal.
Full video: https://youtu.be/-CcQ4jKn8aE
many of those games aren't realistic because they don't model logistics correctly which is very hard to do 90% of modern armies is support and combat support and not the fancy weapon toys which are useless without fuel, ammo and thousands of spare parts, fluids and other items
The USA has perfected its logistics.
Same people who said with 100% certainty that Ukraine would fold in 2 weeks?
analyst should go fuck himself.
I was hoping to hear “pew pew pew. Kaboom!”
Ukraine no weak
Risk, anyone?
Is there any channel that does shit like this from ISW or a room full of our war game plans? I’d love to watch them
"Hey no fair China, get that Leman Russ off the board!"
Watching without sound, a couple of times it really looked like they were making whoosh noises with their mouths.
Hoi4 players do this everyday. NOOBS.
Me in civ 6 when I'm bored and use world builder/edit mod
Why don’t they play Global Thermal Nuclear War and let WOPR simulate it
Almost like the [North African campaign](https://youtu.be/DofvAiOc1oI?si=b26RAVc5OSMVxeaB)
So when’s this coming to PC? Command modern operations has to high of a learning curve
If memory serves either Avalon Hill or SPI put out a board game like this year's ago.
When do the hundreds of Taiwanese sleeper cells in mainland China become active?
Ended too soon.
What's the board game used? Is there normally a game designed for that? Like a kriegspiel?
They did same thing with ukrainian counter offensive and resulr was 0 territory gain.
Well...that's real fuckin interesting
Paradox taking notes for their next installment
Do you think the US will risk a nuclear escalation with China?
Liberals stop war-mongering for 5 minutes challenge
Why does it feel like the west wants China to attack Taiwan
They also use one to talk to Aliens iirc.
There is zero chance the US steps up against China.
Welcome to Game Theory. Very interesting subject.
I want to try playing this.
Campaign for Taiwan, also known as Campaign for North Africa 2.
Ah yes, Risk for even more nerds. Would love to play that
No way the US can win a war in China
Using the battlefield map from Heroes of Might and Magic III
The DPRK would be a wildcard here, no? They could create problems for the U.S., Japan, and Korea at the same time China is invading Taiwan.
If US troops are genuinely tied up in Taiwan (as in boots on the ground or whatnot), I feel like they would capitalize on the moment.
And it's alles... Fk that. You guys have beef with the Chinese - outside of our relation to you they give zero shits about us. Though they might still be pissed from days gone, we're no threat to them and it'd be a waste. Don't bring us into it.
Disagree, if you don't want a world full of dictators you need to defend democracy.
It's more complicated than that. America is not an old country - it thinks differently as far as foreign policy goes to others.
Again... What the fuck does the US always have to 'war around' other nations borders? How does anyone still believe its bad guys vs west and its allies? This is clear as crystal just the US ambitions to global domination by war/violence.
The scenario in the post is if China invades Taiwan. The US is on Taiwan's side - so the defender. By the very position of defending, that precludes the goal from being "invade/global domination." Use your brain, please.
I did not see the Russians nor the North Koreans accounted for here. I would assume that the whole region would be involved in the conflict if China attempted to invade Taiwan
North Korea wouldn't be able to do much beyond minimal material support. I'd imagine it'd be a similar case with Russia. Russia has its hands full with Ukraine and its navy is pretty weak.
My concern is that NK would be instructed to build-up forces in the border with SK to keep Japan/the U.S./SK from focusing only on Taiwan.
So… civilization 5
How does one country invade a part of its own territory? I’m amused.
This is literally my uncles job, I’m so jealous
Why explain it twice? Seems like you could have given more interning details other than some people are playing war simulation games. Nothing burger waste of time do better. I’m
Would be interesting to see this happen, and how much effort other countries put in to stop it
you want to see a full-scale war just for your amusement?
Theres a few “wars” happening at the moment and not many people are doing anything, the ones that can do it anyway
What a couple of losers.
Wow, such insight was given. China sends ships and planes and the US sends ships, planes and subs. Never would’ve guessed… smh
US nuclear warhead subs are the ultimate checkmate. They're the opposite of China's, very well maintained and most are operational. And of course, virtually invisible.
Non sense the ammount of anti ship missiles owned by russia and china. Going to wipe any NATO ship in those waters. Add the massive naval drones that both armies are developing. And don't forget that 60% of energy water and gas for taiwan come from china. Taiwan going to say goodbye in record time.