Command problem ..Achilles, game theory..

[danstudentvcc]

Achilles analysis of game turn length in the preceeding thread raises
the question of how successful can game theory analysis be. At issue
is can it be used to raise player interest and excitement?
The answer is usally yes.
Read the following sample of game theory. If you can account for most
possible results an answer should come to mind. If you use assumptions
further strategies can be derived and hence applied in similar situations.
This is a common problem in Command and Control oriented games.
Two Soviet bombers fly one behind the other; only one carries a nuke.
The Americans have only one interceptor capable of reaching them before
they reach the city target. The interceptor has only one effective shot/pass.
If the interceptor targets the lead bomber the bomber directly behind it
opens fire on the interceptor first. If the interceptor survives he then gets his
shots on the lead bomber. The second bomber is then free to fly on to
the target - nuking it if he is carrying one. If the interceptor targets the second bomber, then the first Soviet bomber flies onto the city target - nuking it if he has one - while the 2nd bomber/interceptor shots are resolved.[note without a 3rd bomber, first fire against
the interceptor is not possible].
Whatever the interceptor shoots at, he kills. The 2nd Soviet bomber does not
have a great kill rate. So the interceptor may survive any enounter of first fire.

So what would you do?

:crosseye:Steel Panthers poses a similar problem in reverse slope battles involving tanks.
Long shots have low probabilities. Yet waiting too long allows a numerically
superior enemy to engage in close quarter fighting. All close-in fighting results
in greater loses than a stand-off fight would have achieved.
Yet shooting the front targets after llowing them to close results in a greater chance of being spotted.

:OHNO:Life is tough while in command non?

danstudentvcc

 

[Davich]

Used to be:
The bomber using Counter Measures and air to air missles was the non nuke carrying bomber. However, in the real world I would not classify the CM ship as 'weak'. It would most probably give a good account of itself considering it would carry a broad range of CMs and weapons.

In the current scheme of things I wouldn't know if this would still hold true.

 

[danstudentvcc]

Used to be:
The bomber using Counter Measures and air to air missles was the non nuke carrying bomber. However, in the real world I would not classify the CM ship as 'weak'. It would most probably give a good account of itself considering it would carry a broad range of CMs and weapons.

In the current scheme of things I wouldn't know if this would still hold true.

Hello Davitch! I don't have a turn on me so i hope this time I got it right and sent it to the right address the other day that is. [Just a coupla days ago I accidently sent out a turn on an email forward from my own email location-I honestly don't know how anyone could play-out a turn that way .. ]

So you read the problem :surprise: my reaction while reading it in a book by the RAND corporation was . Trying to figure it was even :nuts: 'er.

BUt this much I got ..
Hmmm.

I don't recall reading that Soviet bombers had good fire control systems; only that they could carry powerful electronic equipment like radar; radios; and simple electronic counter measures.

Although I would agree that a bomber that acts as an air mobile AA-gun base [missiles later on in the cold war] would not be a good choice for a strategic bomber with a nuke. Simply put you can't do both efficiently.

But if I was the Soviet wing commander and I knew the Americans would not target the lead-spitting[missile shooting] 2nd in formation bomber choosing instead the first one on the premise it would carry the nukes and be watched[protected]by the 2nd; then I would probably switch the nuke to it instead anyway since a leading lead-spitting bomber could cause the nuke carrying 2nd bomber to receive collateral damage - of course any bomber that dives or turns to the target and away from the interceptor is just begging to be shot up as it would clearly be carrying the nuke.

But then a lower ranking ambitious politburo pilot type [In the US that would be a National Guard pilot who becomes President just like his Navy Pilot father before him did] would astutely start rambling on like ..

But if they know that we know and they act on that "what we know" then it would only simplfy accurately guessing which is carrying the nuke then; but because we know that they know that we know that they know we will be more accurate: then the nuke would go back to the first. Of course sucn mental gymnastics are required of any senator to President in the US or the Soviet Union as in like fashion they can then discredit any bumbling media -types or oppositional government types. Yet a choice has to be made even if we know what the other knows! So they then go out and change it messing up all game mechanics and game theory foundational problems to boot.

But that would mean a change of doctrine; maybe even gulagging the previous official policy advisors!! [But then again we know ..] Good dawd imagine if they were democrats making good choices!!

If the nuke doesn't go back to the 2nd bomber then both are committed to improving the bomber as AA-gun platform. So then the US pilots will face a hellish barrage of missiles and lead while coming in to get a 100% shot off. Since neither side stops the progress of their weapons fire control systems that means that the non-politburo wing commander would be condemning their nuking-success rate since it would be tied into the 2nd bomber's gun-missle-pilot accuracy [weather too].

So how does a Soviet bomber get to the target quickly while being protected by a 2nd gun sling/missile toting brethren? Since this seems to be the only way to keep each other and their own junior officers guessing as to what is the truth anyways?!!

It's too bad this is so lose to real-life. With radar shadows; the jet-stream and other diversions - a US interceptor could conceivably face such a dilemma where the lives of millions depend on a close approach to get the 100% hit-to-kill on the nuking bomber. Even if it means that after the lock he gets a killing hit against himself.

So does anyone know what they teach the pilots about such situations?



danstudentvcc