SeaQueen
Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007 From: Washington D.C. Status: offline
|
Build the scoring system around the scenario's goal, and the acceptable level of risk for accomplishing that goal. Suppose the goal for a scenario is to destroy a deeply buried chemical weapons manufacturing plant. The plant site consists of several hardened underground facilities, some above ground facilities, several tunnel entrances, a generator and a transformer. Those are my targets. For destroying those I will award points. Typically I think of point values in terms of fraction of the job done, so everything in my world is on a 100 point scale. 100 points = 100% of the job done, 50 point = 50%, etc. Everything within that schema doesn't have to be weighted equally. Maybe collapsing the hardened underground facilities is worth more than striking the entrances. In that case, the underground facilities would count for more than the entrances. The acceptable level of risk statement is more complicated. It might say something like, "Loose no more than 15% of all tactical aircraft, and no high value airborne assets." If you lose more than 15% of all tactical aircraft, I might subtract 25 points, and if you lose a HVAA you might lose 75 points. It doesn't matter, every scenario is different. If the scenario is fundamentally defensive in nature (e.g. protecting an airbase), I might flip it the other way around, where you START at 100 points, and then lose points as the bad guys destroy the assets you're attempting to defend. You might also lose points for exceeding the acceptable level of risk for various assets. That's how I think about scoring. I hope this helps. I typically discourage people from just giving points for destroying things and losing them for losing things, because my observation is that it tends to make scores kind of meaningless. They become arbitrarily weighted reflections of the loss exchange ratio, and that's probably not the best way to think about how a scenario works. I know it's not how any real military operation works. If you use a schema like I suggest, it means if you can accomplish the scenario goal without killing anything off the target list, then more power to you. That's usually not the most successful coarse of action, but it's certainly a possible one. That makes electronic warfare, stealth, avoidance and deception more important, because you don't want to engage with anything you don't have to.
< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 4/19/2021 2:30:03 AM >
|