Scenario workspace / World map
MISSILES is a country-scale simulation platform for testing defense posture, optimizing attack plans, and evaluating outcome quality against cost. You can model launchers, air defenses, EW jammers, anti-drone doctrine, and synchronized target waves in one scenario.
Place offense launchers and layered defense systems on the map. You can deploy interceptor-based defenses, anti-drone gun systems, EW jammers, and location-based target areas, including country-level distributions.
Open Build → PROTECT AN AREA to draw a box or polygon, select allowed supplier countries and defense roles, enter a procurement budget, and set soft spending targets. The planner uses reviewed catalog capabilities to create a deterministic layered proposal without changing the current workspace.
Review proposed systems, launcher counts, locations, costs, role spending, threat-specific coverage, EW effects, and defensive depth. Coverage values are planning estimates rather than interception guarantees. Deployment adds the plan to the current working map. After deployment, the named boundary remains visible and is included in normal deployment saves.
Create targets manually or auto-generate them by country or custom area. Assign launch timing patterns, spread salvos, and test different strike packages to compare operational outcomes.
When saving or updating a deployment, keep Include targets enabled to store the current target positions, launcher assignments, and launch times. Loading the deployment restores those targets and remaps them to the restored launcher IDs. Turn the switch off only when you intentionally want a platform-only deployment.
The engine calculates flight paths, detection and interception opportunities, anti-drone engagement priority, and EW jamming effects. This enables realistic comparisons across missile, drone, bomb, and artillery attacks.
Simulation reports provide launched, hit, intercepted, and jammed outcomes, plus success rate, total attack spend, and money burnt on ineffective attacks. This supports go/no-go decisions on whether a strike plan is worth executing.
Attack optimization in MISSILES focuses on maximizing target effects while minimizing non-productive expenditure. You can compare multiple strike plans and select the one with the best operational and economic profile.
Distribute targets across launchers to avoid overconcentration. Balance long-range assets and specialized ammo types to maintain sustained pressure and improve hit probability across the wave.
Adjust launch timing to test synchronized arrival versus staggered waves. This helps identify the point where defense layers are stressed and where additional shots become diminishing returns.
Use country, box, or polygon area selection to model campaign-scale target sets. This supports realistic attack planning beyond single-point engagements.
Use simulation reports to compare success rate, total cost, and money burnt. If additional salvos increase spend without increasing effect, you can reject that plan before execution.
Simulation reports translate scenario outcomes into measurable decision signals. They help planners answer one core question: does this attack profile produce enough effect to justify its cost?
Core outcome metrics include launched, hit, intercepted, and jammed. Combined with success rate, they show whether a plan is operationally effective against the modeled defense posture.
Reports separate missiles, drones, artillery, and bombs. For each type, you can compare launched volume, achieved hits, defensive disruption, and remaining inefficiency.
Total cost shows attack spend. Money burnt reflects expenditure that did not result in successful hits. This is the fastest indicator of waste in a scenario.
A plan may produce tactical hits while still failing financially. Use success and spend together: a high burn-to-hit ratio signals poor strategy and supports rejection or redesign.
Area Defense Planner coverage is a geographic planning estimate. It does not predict interception success. Deploy the proposed defenses and run a simulation to measure actual modeled detections, interceptions, jams, ammunition use, and cost outcomes.
MISSILES supports planning workflows where geography, saturation, and layered defense interactions matter. These use cases help teams evaluate effectiveness and cost before committing operations.
Model country-wide defense layouts, then run mixed incoming threats to locate weak sectors, delayed response zones, and overcommitted interceptors.
Draw a region that may cross borders, restrict procurement to explicitly approved suppliers, and balance Anti-air, Anti-drone, and Jammer spending. Compare the generated planning preview before replacing the current workspace.
Simulate multi-axis launches with synchronized arrival times. Compare competing plans to identify which one delivers required effects with lower attack spend.
Evaluate anti-drone-first behavior against drone-heavy waves. Measure when gun-first doctrine reduces expensive interceptor usage and improves campaign cost profile.
Test jammer coverage and probability effects against drone and missile threats. Validate whether EW investment changes mission outcomes enough to justify deployment cost.
Use report metrics, especially success rate and money burnt, to determine if an operation is economically and operationally viable.
MISSILES includes electronic warfare jamming as a dedicated defense layer. EW systems can disrupt incoming threats and change both tactical outcomes and cost curves in country-scale scenarios.
When a target enters jammer range, jamming probability is evaluated per engagement. Successful jamming is treated as a mission kill for that threat, altering downstream interception demand.
Drone and missile interactions are modeled differently, allowing planners to test realistic doctrine tradeoffs. EW can reduce pressure on interceptor inventories when placed effectively.
By comparing scenarios with and without EW, teams can measure if jammer investment reduces money burnt and increases campaign efficiency.
The Area Defense Planner keeps GNSS, datalink, communications, radar, and drone-related EW coverage separate. A jammer receives planning credit only for reviewed effects it supports, preventing a large EW circle from being presented as universal protection.
MISSILES models anti-drone doctrine with engagement sequencing that prioritizes anti-drone systems first. This allows realistic testing of low-cost interception before expensive anti-air interceptor release.
When anti-drone-first mode is active, the first anti-drone platform along the drone path engages first. Other systems engage only after the drone exits the first platform engagement window.
Gun-first doctrine can preserve anti-air interceptor inventory for non-drone threats. Use scenario comparisons to measure inventory efficiency and mission resilience.
The Area Defense Planner can assign procurement spending to the Anti-drone role while retaining every selected system's real capabilities. It uses reviewed drone-interception and anti-drone gun ranges rather than unrelated maximum ranges, and multifunction systems are purchased only once.
Simulation reports quantify hit, intercepted, and jammed outcomes with spend metrics, so planners can test whether anti-drone doctrine lowers money burnt and improves net effect.
PROTECT AN AREA creates a deterministic, budget-constrained defense proposal for a user-drawn region. The protected area is only a label and polygon: it is not resolved to a country, and no domestic supplier is added automatically.
Every supplier must be selected explicitly. The supplier list contains only countries represented by reviewed defense platforms in the current catalog. Joint systems are eligible when either participating supplier is selected. For example, a France-Italy system may be considered when France or Italy is allowed.
Anti-air remains threat-aware across aircraft, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, hypersonic threats, bombs, artillery, and other missiles. Anti-drone uses reviewed drone-interception or counter-UAV gun capabilities. EW coverage remains separate for GNSS, datalink, communications, radar, and drone-related effects.
A multifunction system has one assigned spending role but keeps all of its reviewed capabilities in the coverage analysis. It is purchased and charged only once.
Role percentages are soft spending targets. The planner must remain within the total budget and represent every selected role, but it may deviate from the requested split to produce a useful plan. After broad coverage and capability diversity, it adds meaningful capacity and resilience toward at least 90% budget utilization when the selected catalog supports it. Preview explains when catalog limits or remaining funds prevent further useful purchases.
The planner combines uniform land points with weighted cities, security and military-related sites, military transport infrastructure, and civilian transport infrastructure. Population weighting is capped so one large city cannot dominate the whole plan.
It first seeks new weighted geographic coverage, then improves capability and layer diversity, and finally adds launcher depth at important locations when new placements offer little additional coverage.
The preview shows temporary markers and capability-specific range layers, requested and actual spending, selected systems, launcher counts, geographic and priority-site coverage, threat-class coverage, EW-effect coverage, and points protected by multiple sites. Preview generation does not alter platforms, defenses, camps, targets, or saved deployments.
Deployment requires explicit confirmation. The server independently revalidates the polygon, suppliers, roles, templates, launcher limits, coordinates, and authoritative costs before making changes. A successful deployment adds the new area and defenses to the current workspace; existing platforms, defenses, camps, targets, and protected areas remain.
The insertion is atomic: if validation or insertion fails, the transaction rolls back and the existing workspace remains intact. A loaded deployment remains linked and is marked modified so Update Loaded can save the addition.
The named protected-area boundary is saved automatically with the active workspace. Signed-in users keep it under their Google account; guests keep it for their current browser session. The purple boundary is visible by default and can be shown or hidden from Layers → Protected areas.
Layers → Protected areas lists every area with its current linked count, outside count, and authoritative procurement spend. There is no application limit on how many areas may be added, including overlapping areas. Hovering the map label shows current spend; use Zoom or Details to inspect an area, Edit to rename or redraw that specific area, Delete to remove its boundary, or Protect another area to keep building the workspace.
Select the boundary to review current procurement spend, geographic, priority-site, capability, and layer-depth estimates. Moving, editing, or deleting a linked defense refreshes these estimates. A boundary does not automatically move with its defenses, but its name and polygon can be edited at any time. A linked system outside it is clearly identified and still contributes wherever its reviewed range reaches planning points inside the area.
When manually placed air defenses are inside a boundary, Update Area appears. It adds those systems without removing prior links. A defense may support multiple overlapping protected areas.
Deleting a protected area removes only that area and its defense relationships. The linked defense platforms remain in the workspace and may be attached to another area later.
Normal deployment Save and Update operations include protected areas. Loading, combining, copying, or sharing a deployment restores the named boundaries and their links to generated defenses.