A Riper of a Challenge – GMT’s Next War: Iran

RockyMountainNavy, 30 October 2024

Making a wargame about modern warfare is fraught with danger. Many time players want to “play” the game to discover “lessons learned” about current policy issues. The pace of change in military affairs, however, seemingly (inevitably?) advances faster than a wargame design and publication cycle. Such is the challenge faced by designer Mitchell Land and Next War: Iran, the latest game in the Next War series from GMT Games. The wargame, published in late 2024, meets the “currency” challenge in some respects but falls short in others.

Next War: Iran by Mitchell Land from GMT Games (2024) is the sixth game in the Next War series. What sets Next War: Iran apart from previous games in the series is not the rules but the setting. As one should expect from the sixth wargame in a series, the rules themselves are rather well developed. Next War: Iran is truly unique and worthy of your investment because, unlike other games in the series, the Allied Player (the U.S. and its allies) is the one who attacks the Non-Allied Player (Iran and proxies with possible support from Russia or the People’s Republic of China – PRC). That reversal of attacker-defender roles sets Next War: Iran apart from the rest of the series and makes the game interesting instead of being just an “as expected” next game in an otherwise well-tested and proven series.

click images to enlarge

 “Are we the baddies?”

Here is how GMT Games describes Next War: Iran on their website:

The Middle East has long been a hobgoblin for foreign powers and, as much as Afghanistan, also a graveyard of empires. Sitting squarely astride ancient trade routes and with the added impetus of the world’s addiction to oil, the area has been a hot spot for centuries.

Now, with the old regime teetering and losing its grip, Iran makes a bid for forcing the West to recognize its complete sovereignty and control over its own affairs by striking at the one thing they care about: the flow of oil. Mining the Straits of Hormuz and declaring it closed to all traffic, Iran defies the world. The US, and perhaps some of its allies, takes action to re-open the straits and get the black gold flowing to the world again.

Next War: Iran is the sixth game in the Next War series. It is unique in the series in that the Allied player has to do the attacking while the non-Allied player attempts to defend its territory against neo-imperial oppression. With a long logistical tail, few true allies in the region, and the menace of Iran’s A2AD capabilities, re-opening the Straits is a tall order. (Publisher’s Blurb)

 

 

This is how designer Mitchell Land describes the unique character of Next War: Iran in the Designer’s Notes:

As always in the Series, I like to make sure that each game offers some interesting or unique nuances to offset any potential cookie-cutter feel, i.e., oh, it is another game in the system that plays just like those other games in the system just with new units and a different map. In Next War: Iran, there are several interesting new things. This will be the first time that the Allies are, technically, the “aggressor” in the sense that they start as the Initiative player. There is one slight twist, of course, in that, in this case, the non-Initiative player is setting the timing of the conflict. Admittedly, it is a small thing, but it provides players a chance to see what happens when the Allies start out on the offensive. (Next War: Iran, Game Specific Rulebook, 19.0 Designer’s Notes)

 

Lean Monster

Technically, the contents of Next War: Iran are not much different than other games in the series. The two 22” x 34” map sheets are like other games except they lay out end-to-end meaning a 5-foot table is too short for the full map. The 48-page Standard and Advanced Series Rulebook and the 36-page Game Specific Rulebook are of the same size as other games. The four countersheets with 768 counters is a bit lighter than other games but overall the game has the look and feel of a ‘mini-monster’ title.

 

While the box of Next War: Iran may have the heft of a mini-monster (4 pounds to ship) and is a table hog like a mini-monster (better have a 4’ x 6’—or larger—table for the main map and secondary tableaus) the actual scenarios feel smaller. The scenarios very likely seem smaller because, unlike other games in the series, Allied forces start off-map. The set-up reflects the need for the Allied player to “make an entry” onto the board to execute their mission or campaign.

 

Advance by default

Veteran Next War players know that each game in the series has two modes of play; the Standard Series Rules (SSR) and the Advanced Series Rules (ASR). Next War: Iran, like every other game in the series, also has Game Specific Rules (GSR) that “tailor” each game to their particular setting. Another relevant feature of the Next War game rules is that the air and naval rules in the SSR are rather generic. The ASR, on the other hand, features robust air and naval rules. What it comes down to is level of rules complexity the players are willing to accept in the name of increased “realism.” Naval and air combat in the ASR is not only more complex to play, but the “realistic” narrative it builds is consummately more “realistic.”

The Game Specific Rules (GSR) for Next War: Iran features several new rules, but not so many that learning the game is unmanageable. As the Game Specific Rules explain:

1.3 Game Play Guidance

For players, both old and new, here are some new concepts and mechanics introduced in Next War: Iran with which you should become familiar: Petroleum Facilities [GSR 2.7], the Iranian Patrol Boat Tracks [GSR 5.5.2], and A2/AD, i.e., Naval SSMs [GSR 5.5.3]. Players should familiarize themselves with these rules as they are fundamental to understand for both sides. Some smaller nuances I would like to call your attention to are the island of Qeshm and its Crossing Arrow [GSR 2.6], Iranian Interservice Rivalry [GSR 3.1 & 7.2], the special rules around mining and clearing the Strait of Hormuz [GSR 5.5.5], and the USMC MEU HQs [GSR 3.4].” (GSR 1.3)

A major difference in Next War: Iran from other games in the Next War series is that the Advanced Series rule 28.0 UN Resolutions is not used and instead players will use new rules for Intervention found in GSR 17.2.1 Intervention Level Determination, GSR 17.2.3 Intervention Level UN Mod, and GSR 17.3.2 Intervention Levels (where GSR 17.2.2 and GSR 17.3.1 are is unknown).

 

Straits of War

The scenario design in Next War: Iran calls on the Allied player to make entry onto the map with air units supporting naval units often protecting and transporting ground forces. Those scenarios can certainly be played with the Standard Series Rules and the “basic” air and naval game. Three Standard Scenarios are offered; two four-turn scenarios with vey limited objectives and the Standard Campaign Game taking 16 turns.

 

The use of the Advanced Series Rules in Next War: Iran offers an opportunity to more deeply explore the challenges of the Allied forces breaking into Iran or their given target zone. For that reason alone the Advanced Series Rules will likely become the default rules used. To do otherwise is to gloss over the seriousness of the challenges the Allied player will face making entry into Iran. The game ships with four Advanced Scenarios each of 16 game turns.

 

Next War…or Last?

Players seeking to use Next War: Iran to explore modern warfare will very likely find the game a mixed message. On one hand, the game offers explorations of the effect of small boat swarms (GSR 5.5.2 Iranian Patrol Boats) and naval surface-to-surface missiles (GSR 5.5.3 IRI A2/AD). The impact of small Iranian submarines (GSR 5.5.4 Submarine Sortie) and mining of restricted waters (GSR 5.5.5 Mining) deliver interesting tactical challenges. For wargaming gear heads there is also many new and interesting pieces of kit depicted in the game; USN or USMC F-35C squadrons, Iranian nuclear weapons, and even intervention by the PRC with advanced stealth fighters.

 

The impact of unmanned aerial systems (UAS), aka “drones,” and unmanned surface vessels (USV) are not specifically called out in Next War: Iran. If one squints hard enough you might be able to see USVs as part of the Patrol Boat rules but, well, not really. Here I do not blame designer Mitchell Land or developer Ralph Shelton with a miss; the reality is that the use of drones in combat has changed at an incredible pace that clearly is “inside the loop” of the time it took the designer, developer, and publisher to get Next War: Iran into print. The lack of drones or USV does not invalidate possible uses of Next War: Iran as the core game is still a model worthy of study; it just needs some further updating. I feel moderately confident that the next Special Supplement will (should?) have some special rules for UAS and UAV … I hope.

 

 

Challenge of the millennium

Intentionally or not, players can use Next War: Iran to replay—in a fashion—the infamous U.S. Department of Defense Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC ’02) wargame. MC ’02 is infamous for the victory of the Red side led by U.S. Marine Corps General Paul Van Riper.

Here is how the wargame was described in a flattering 2003 Proceedings article:

Millennium Challenge 2002 was the largest joint field experiment ever conducted. More than 13,500 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and members of the interagency community participated in an integrated test that employed simulated and live forces nationwide. It was the result of a deliberate, comprehensive process that comprised numerous concept development workshops, war games, and limited objective experiments involving the various partners. This process developed the necessary technical architecture, trained participants in required concepts, tactics, techniques, and procedures, and enhanced planning for the execution of military operations in a complex and realistic scenario. (March 2003 Proceedings Vol. 129/3/1,201)

 

Not long after the game ended, however, controversy over the results went public:

In August [2002], the Defense Department completed a major war game, Millennium Challenge 2002. Although details of the game were not revealed officially, some interesting ones leaked. The object of the game was to test new concepts of network-centric warfare. The venue was Iran, but the opposing regime was acting, apparently, more like that of Iraq. The choice of venue hardly reflected current political thinking, because the game had been in preparation for at least two years. Iran probably was chosen because, unlike Iraq, it stressed naval as well as ground forces. The opposing commander was retired Marine Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper. The major leaks about the game were about how well General van Riper was able to use his conventional forces to defeat the futuristic forces he faced. Although General Van Riper was said to have out-thought his opponents, ultimately the U.S. force won. It is a matter of contention whether the game was scripted to make this outcome inevitable. According to some reports, General Van Riper withdrew as opposition commander in protest against what he saw as a determination to rig the game. (October 2002 Proceedings Vol. 128/10/1,196)

In a 2015 article for War on the Rocks, a more complete version of the events of Millennium Challenge 2002 were revealed:

At the start of MC ’02, to fulfill the forced-entry requirement, blue issued red an eight-point ultimatum, of which the final point was surrender. Red team leader Van Riper knew his country’s political leadership could not accept this, which he believed would lead the blue forces to directly intervene. Since the George W. Bush administration had recently announced the “preemption doctrine,” Van Riper decided that as soon as a U.S. Navy carrier battle group steamed into the Gulf, he would “preempt the preemptors” and strike first. Once U.S. forces were within range, Van Riper’s forces unleashed a barrage of missiles from ground-based launchers, commercial ships, and planes flying low and without radio communications to reduce their radar signature. Simultaneously, swarms of speedboats loaded with explosives launched kamikaze attacks. The carrier battle group’s Aegis radar system — which tracks and attempts to intercept incoming missiles — was quickly overwhelmed, and 19 U.S. ships were sunk, including the carrier, several cruisers, and five amphibious ships. “The whole thing was over in five, maybe ten minutes,” Van Riper said.

The red team had struck a devastating blow against the blue team. The impact of the OPFOR’s ability to render a U.S. carrier battle group — the centerpiece of the U.S. Navy — militarily worthless stunned most of the MC ’02 participants. Van Riper described the mood as “an eerie silence. Like people didn’t really know what to do next.” Blue team leader Bell admitted that the OPFOR had “sunk my damn navy,” and had inflicted “an extremely high rate of attrition, and a disaster, from which we all learned a great lesson.” (Zenko, M. (2015) “Millennium Challenge: The Real Story of a Corrupted Military Exercise and its Legacy’” War on the Rocks; November 5, 2015 – accessed 25 October 2024)

 

As Land discusses in the Designer’s Notes for Next War: Iran, the goal of Millennium Challenge 2002 is pretty much what the game is designed to show:

Of course, that leads to another interesting point about the game is that the Allies are equipment heavy and boots light for the most part. In other words, there are not a ton of ground forces, but they eventually bring an impressive array of missiles and aircraft to bear on the problem. The Allies’ primary goal will be to figure out how to dispose of the A2AD threat of the Iranian Naval SSMs most efficiently while preparing the battlefield for the eventual air, airmobile, and amphibious landings to get what boots they do have on the ground to seize strategically vital territory. (19.0 Designer’s Notes)

 

 

Land appears to be channeling their inner Van Riper in Next War: Iran when they write:

In all scenarios, the non-Allied player must conduct the war knowing that his adversary outclasses, and, in the air, will eventually out-muscle him. He will have to make judicious use of the few assets he does have at his disposal, including a deadly rain of ballistic missiles as well as a much larger ground force. The latter becomes important as the scenarios pre-suppose that the Allies must have boots on the ground to effect any kind of victory. (19.0 Designer’s Notes)

Do YOU have what it takes to be—or beat—General Van Riper? Find out in Next War: Iran.

 

 

 

---

Thank you for visiting the Regiment of Strategy Gaming and riding with The Armchair Dragoons.
Rather than list a bunch of social media links, the easiest thing to do is to check out our LinkTree, which connects you to all of our various locales around the web.
You can also support The Armchair Dragoons through our Patreon, and find us at a variety of conventions and other events.
Feel free to talk back to us either in our discussion forum, or in the comments below.