PDA

View Full Version : Red Teaming Iraq



SWJED
01-19-2007, 09:58 AM
Military Planners in Iraq May Soon be Seeing 'Red' (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-redteam19jan19,0,6237784.story?coll=la-home-headlines) - 19 January LA Times by Julian Barnes.


While the Bush administration is reworking its overall strategy in Iraq, military leaders in Baghdad are searching for new ways to improve the decisions and choices they make closer to the ground.

The U.S. military has sent to Iraq a five-person team of dedicated skeptics, known in military jargon as a "red team." In a war known for its missteps and unanticipated results, the team will be assigned to review, and question, military operations.

It will attempt to predict how enemies will react to various missions and what the unintended consequences might be. Such teams have been used on an ad-hoc basis to critique specific battle plans. But this team is the first to work full time as devil's advocates, and is the first headed by officers trained as designated skeptics by Ft. Leavenworth's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies...

jonSlack
01-19-2007, 01:57 PM
The success of this program will depend on the quality of the officers who complete the course and become members of the red-teams.

I would hope that CGSC and above are picking their most promising students and assigning them to receive the training and serve on a red-team after they complete their current level of military education.

However, I worry what will happen if the selection of personnel is left to discretion of the units instead and the mission is not given the priority it deserves by the leadership and results in the selection of less than ideal candidates.

You cannot train someone to be intelligent, they are or they aren't; you need to identify and train the intelligent.

Steve Blair
01-19-2007, 02:34 PM
I really hope this isn't another rubber stamp like the AF's 'emphasis' on foreign language in ROTC.

The Army in particular and the US military in general has a long history of ignoring the environment they are fighting in, at least in terms of human terrain and the nuances found on the ground that are not directly related to physical climate and terrain. If we're going to succeed in Iraq and the next small war, this is a trend that we have to break. I must be a natural Red Cell guy, though, because I'm skeptical of the military's ability (at least with the current generation of leaders) to break this cycle. For every Mattis and Patraeus we have there are 10-20 other star-wearers who don't have a clue.

SWJED
01-19-2007, 03:15 PM
There are a couple keys to success here - one (as mentioned) is the quality / expertise of the Red Team - the other is whether or not the powers to be accept the outcomes of Red Teaming if it tears apart their A++ oplan.

selil
01-19-2007, 04:27 PM
They don't need specific military officers. They need members from this group like marct and Tom Odom playing the Iraqi side of the equation. Non-linear, outside of the box thinking, that doesn't put some junior officer telling a BTN commander "you suck".

slapout9
01-19-2007, 04:47 PM
Gang leaders,drug dealers, organized crime leaders, captured insurgent leaders would be better, then it would not be a game so much as a simulation of what would really happen based on real world TTP's as opposed to just fault finding with the plan.

SSG Rock
01-19-2007, 07:19 PM
I worked with Greg Fontenot on the OIFSG out of Fort Leavenworth. I just emailed him about the Red Team, they would fall under his directorate. I agree that it is of the utmost importance that we send quality individuals to Iraq on this mission. They could be SAMS Grads, CGSC, or graduates of the Red Team training they have just stood up out here at CAC. Greg is out of pocket for awhile so I didn't get a reply.

marct
01-19-2007, 07:46 PM
They don't need specific military officers. They need members from this group like marct and Tom Odom playing the Iraqi side of the equation. Non-linear, outside of the box thinking, that doesn't put some junior officer telling a BTN commander "you suck".

Well, it's nice to know that you think I think like an insurgent :D If I were going to play an insurgent, it would definitely have to be Hasan al-Sabah :rolleyes:


Gang leaders,drug dealers, organized crime leaders, captured insurgent leaders would be better, then it would not be a game so much as a simulation of what would really happen based on real world TTP's as opposed to just fault finding with the plan.

Slapout, you're right in saying hat these would be really good people to game this out. Maybe a sentence reduction for some of the ones already in custody? (Gotti in Iraq - the ante-penultimate Solution!).

On a more serious note, I actually think that it would be a good idea to include non-military people in the red teams. I'd say "make sure their's an Anthropologist on the teams", but I can only think of 4 Anthropologists who would a) go and b) not totally frak it up <sigh>.

Marc

Marc

slapout9
01-19-2007, 08:17 PM
marct, I was very serious. I have never seen or heard of it done in a COIN type war game, but the FBI has several War projects on terrorism/counter-terrorism that are doing exactly that. The moment you begin to "train" a red team or use "normal" people you have lost that enemy mindset in my opinion. That is why LE spends so much time interviewing actual criminals of all types, their thought processes are completely different. Which is also why captured insurgent leaders that would cooperate (for money or amnesty) would be extremely valuable. My experience with bad people of all types is once they are caught and decide to cooperate they talk their heads off just to show how good they are and how easily they think they can beat the US.

You and Tom Odom would be better on our side in thinking up ways to counter them. My 2 cents anyway.

marct
01-19-2007, 08:30 PM
marct, I was very serious. I have never seen or heard of it done in a COIN type war game, but the FBI has several War projects on terrorism/counter-terrorism that are doing exactly that. The moment you begin to "train" a red team or use "normal" people you have lost that enemy mindset in my opinion. That is why LE spends so much time interviewing actual criminals of all types, their thought processes are completely different. Which is also why captured insurgent leaders that would cooperate (for money or amnesty) would be extremely valuable. My experience with bad people of all types is once they are caught and decide to cooperate they talk their heads off just to show how good they are and how easily they think they can beat the US.

You and Tom Odom would be better on our side in thinking up ways to counter them. My 2 cents anyway.

Thanks <wry grin>. Actually, I do agree with you on the whole. I think that if we could get ex-insurgent leaders to act as simulators they would be best. Personally, I would love to be part of a team with Tom (and you and a few others here) that worked out counter strategies. I'll admit that I could put my mind into creating an "insurgent persona". My wife would hate it, and I would go nuts and have to have an armed guard/jailer, but I could do it. I think Tom could as well. Still, why bother if actual insurgents are available?

Marc

slapout9
01-19-2007, 08:38 PM
marc,your to nice and normal and decent to even try something like that, and so or the other folks on SWC that should be on the team (Tom,Jedburgh,JC,RTK,Rob Thorton and others especially SWJED and Grand Visier). In the end "decency" will be our edge if we do it right, if you need to kill them then do it clean, no psycho stuff. But out weakness will be counter measures, but we could shine if we put our minds to it. No need for decent folks to got to very dark places like our enemy lives in, just hire the real thing and learn how to beat it.

marct
01-19-2007, 08:55 PM
marc,your to nice and normal and decent to even try something like that, and so or the other folks on SWC that should be on the team (Tom,Jedburgh,JC,RTK,Rob Thorton and others especially SWJED and Grand Visier). In the end "decency" will be our edge if we do it right, if you need to kill them then do it clean, no psycho stuff. But out weakness will be counter measures, but we could shine if we put our minds to it. No need for decent folks to got to very dark places like our enemy lives in, just hire the real thing and learn how to beat it.

Well, quoth he quoting another great American philosopher, "you don't know me very well" (Bugs Bunny).

Slapout, thanks for the vote of confidence <wry grin>. Sometime, we'll sit down over beers and discuss the concept of "nice". You are absolutely right that, in the end, "decency" will be what wins this for us. BTW, I'd add you to that impromptu team list :).

As for going into "very dark places", I've been there, as have many other people in the council. I don't think that it is going into the dark that is the problem - it's how we deal with coming into the light afterwards. All of us have seen things that would turn the stomachs of "civilians" (yeah, I know, I'm not military. Let me just say that one cannot research modern Witchcraft without running into stuff that is "beyond the pale".). It's how we deal with it, and our "selves" that is the key to why we will win.

Marc

slapout9
01-19-2007, 08:57 PM
Very True! Gotta go-Later folks

Rob Thornton
01-20-2007, 08:40 AM
Back in the bgining of this thread it was brought up that part of the effectiveness of such a team would be tied to how receptive the audience was to results. This mad me think first of the debate about Van Ripper and Millenium Challenge. Red Teams are often associated with experimentation, I think this is different. In an article written by a former boss (COL Bob Brown), he said he'd had his BDE (1/25th) come up with a "devious bastard" to play red during "war gaming". This guys was selected because he had big enough fingers to poke with. This was not the 2 because the 2 has competing agendas - and this was more of a manuever kid of function.

I wonder though - will the Red Team get the first "turn" (back to the simulation speak), or do they look at it different?

I think the red Team has to consider it from more then just the tactical or operational perspective. They may have to begin somewhere with a quasi-strategic context that considers the political, relgious, petro-economics, criminal, cultural aspects of what the different players are trying to accomplish, then have some other folks on their team look at the resources they have to execute the tactics which would help realize it. Even amongst the tactical players - you are going to have to inject some friction - beause not all of these folks want the same things, or even realize they might be being manipulated.

If you take a dozen guys with roughly the same background and belief systems and put them on a team - they are going to achieve a kind of natural synchronization - and they probably won't even know it. They will bond in a sort of way, and they will lose some of their objectivity. They will bring a order from something that is closer to chaos at the tactical level (my opinnion). Sometimes things change here and we say the AIF has figured out how to defeat something we're doing, but then it turns out that somebody left, or somebody (AIF) got taken out of the equation, or there was a supply or distribution plan that caused them to change, or a rift, or any number of other things.

Sometimes I think I see something coming because I see it on the local news carried in from national or regional, and I say, some smart AIF guy is going to try a variation of that, and it happens - but I can't say for sure how he decided to do that - did he see it on the news, was it a natural migration of TTP or is there somebody new in town?

There has to be more to the composition of the Red Team then just skeptics, and there has to be analysis of the red action that applies to the context of the situation. I think any group when put into an environmental box will develop a level of bias. I think its not nearly as important that they be skeptics as it is that they are objective, self - analytic and within reason argumentative about their "role's" interests. This will have to be a talented group - the observation about co-opting former actors would be a pretty good bench mark - but if that is not acheivable, it might still be better to go outside the military and retired contractor community. How about buisness men that have experience in cut-throat economics, bring in a priest or two who might be familiar with papal maneuvering, a former congressman or lobbyist, a lawyer, a doctor, an insurance broker, a real estate agent, a detective, a convicted white collar type, people who if placed in different conditions will adapt and not roll over- resourceful people who can make use of things provide them in the context of advancing their cause.

Oh- and give them a shelf life that considers what happens if they bond too close - once that's over you have a unified movement - if the Insurgency ever develops into that I guess it would be OK, but right now I'd say no (unless you want multiple teams) - or you could occassionally inject new elements into their role - i.e. if external factors start to pressure a particular faction, then the person representing that faction needs to incorporate it as it changes his decision process. I'd also ask if you absolutely have to bring them Iraq to do it? Maybe some, maybe none, maybe part at a time.

marct
01-21-2007, 03:57 PM
Hi Rob,

Sorry about the short response yesterday.

I think that what we are looking at here is an attempt to institute what the Dominicans and other Orders used to call the Advocatus Diaboli (Devil's Advocate) role. In many of the Orders, the person fulfilling the role was granted a form of immunity for anything they said while in that role - similar to Canada's Auditor General.

At an institutional level, part of the problem lies in the intersection between those who are institutionally acceptable, usually measured by previous experience within the institution, and perceptual capability of thinking outside of the institution. Let me put it another way, a good, experienced SGT can spot holes in an LTs plans easily, but the way they would spot holes is based on their experience within the institution. This is a matter of an "expert" criticizing someone with less skills, and it's not what a Red Team or Devil's Advocate should be doing.

Historically, the Devil's Advocate role should be held by someone who knows some or most of the institutional experience base, but can shift to another experience base. This is why your suggestions for "buisness men that have experience in cut-throat economics, bring in a priest or two who might be familiar with papal maneuvering, a former congressman or lobbyist, a lawyer, a doctor, an insurance broker, a real estate agent, a detective, a convicted white collar type," makes a lot of sense, especially if they have served a term or been involved in an analogous institution.

But will this be enough? Honestly, I think that Red Teams are a part of a step towards a solution, but they don't go far enough. All a Red Team can do is explain "why" something didn't work and generate new options inside the institutional matrix. So, how to get beyond that?

Well, to start with, take an organizational matrix that is already familiar but not curently in use: let's say the old OSS :eek:. Seperate them out, institutionally, and use them as the institutional base for the Red Teams. Recruit people to work for them on a part-time, distributed basis as well as a full time basis. In addition to the type of people you've mentioned, I would add in hackers, cyberpunks, moderate Muslim clerics, magicians, Anthropologists, game designers, development specialists, systems analysts, web designers, etc.

Use the 'net to advantage. When I mentioned a "distributed basis" I was refering to the type of interactions that we have here. No one is getting paid for their time on this board, but there are a lot of good ideas generated. Can this be leveraged for a "new" institution? Probably.

Marc

Merv Benson
01-21-2007, 04:57 PM
It is fairly common in major litigation battles for large firms to get attorney's to play the devil's advocate role to probe for weakness and help prepare rebuttal arguments. It is almost always done in cases argued before the Supreme Court. It is very helpful in preparing for those contest.

Rob Thornton
01-21-2007, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Merv Benson:

It is fairly common in major litigation battles for large firms to get attorney's to play the devil's advocate role to probe for weakness and help prepare rebuttal arguments. It is almost always done in cases argued before the Supreme Court. It is very helpful in preparing for those contest.

From Marc:

But will this be enough? Honestly, I think that Red Teams are a part of a step towards a solution, but they don't go far enough. All a Red Team can do is explain "why" something didn't work and generate new options inside the institutional matrix. So, how to get beyond that?

What if once the initial composition of the Red Team was decided -

something like -
This will have to be a talented group - the observation about co-opting former actors would be a pretty good bench mark - but if that is not acheivable, it might still be better to go outside the military and retired contractor community. How about buisness men that have experience in cut-throat economics, bring in a priest or two who might be familiar with papal maneuvering, a former congressman or lobbyist, a lawyer, a doctor, an insurance broker, a real estate agent, a detective, a convicted white collar type, people who if placed in different conditions will adapt and not roll over- resourceful people who can make use of things provide them in the context of advancing their cause.

They then had a "Green Team" who helped advise the Blue on how to counter, mitigate, prevent. Since we are talking about Asymetric enemy actions and responses - it might be good to have Asymetric counters from people who are outside both the Blue and the Red. Blue and Red will both develop bias - it is a natural tendency to fall in love with aspects of your plan or the whole plan.

It may also be worth considering augmentation of the teams with Iraqis or as close as you can get. Many US professionals might need some "environmental stimulus" type of mood music to help them slip into the role. Even if this is only for a HQs inside the Green Zone - you still have to consider how big to make it if you want it to be responsive and agile - its a trade between having what you need and getting it in time to make a difference.

marct
01-21-2007, 06:22 PM
They then had a "Green Team" who helped advise the Blue on how to counter, mitigate, prevent. Since we are talking about Asymetric enemy actions and responses - it might be good to have Asymetric counters from people who are outside both the Blue and the Red. Blue and Red will both develop bias - it is a natural tendency to fall in love with aspects of your plan or the whole plan.

It may also be worth considering augmentation of the teams with Iraqis or as close as you can get. Many US professionals might need some "environmental stimulus" type of mood music to help them slip into the role. Even if this is only for a HQs inside the Green Zone - you still have to consider how big to make it if you want it to be responsive and agile - its a trade between having what you need and getting it in time to make a difference.

Hmmm, could work. There's an idea floating around that I don't want to post - I'll PM you.

Marc

SWJED
01-21-2007, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Merv Benson:

They then had a "Green Team" who helped advise the Blue on how to counter, mitigate, prevent. Since we are talking about Asymetric enemy actions and responses - it might be good to have Asymetric counters from people who are outside both the Blue and the Red. Blue and Red will both develop bias - it is a natural tendency to fall in love with aspects of your plan or the whole plan.

It may also be worth considering augmentation of the teams with Iraqis or as close as you can get. Many US professionals might need some "environmental stimulus" type of mood music to help them slip into the role. Even if this is only for a HQs inside the Green Zone - you still have to consider how big to make it if you want it to be responsive and agile - its a trade between having what you need and getting it in time to make a difference.

I'm a big fan of 'green teaming' - we had a green cell in Joint Urban Warrior 04 and 05. JUW 06 was not a 'traditional' wargame but we included green expertise during our seminars and working group sessions. Our green cell was composed of subject matter experts who injected the perspectives of the local population, host nation government, the news media, regional and international official organizations and non-governmental organizations - plus others. While not perfect - we had to use surrogates when a particular expertise was not available for example - it added a dynamic that exists in the 'real world' and one we had to capture at JUW. Of note, we would let green interact with red and there were some in the green cell who were supporting or otherwise sympathic to red. Blue had to figure that out...

marct
01-21-2007, 07:57 PM
What do you folks think about the idea of a "Grey Team"? Their sole responsability would be to help, or hinder, either side based solely on their own self interests. Just to make it even more "realistic", let the grey team split into as many factions as they want at any point in time.

Marc

Steve Blair
01-22-2007, 02:17 PM
Serious gamers, especially folks who've been serving as game masters for some time, would also be good to put in this role. We're used to thinking on the fly, bringing in different things to hinder, confuse, or kill off (depending on our moods, of course...:) ) our players.

Seriously, a good GM has to be able to immerse himself at least partway into any role that's thrown at him. Gamers from the early to mid 1980s are especially good at this, IMO, since the computer crutch wasn't developed yet. Even a computer gamer isn't going to be as good at the sort of non-linear thinking that we're talking about here. Computer games tend to act (and react) in certain patterns, while a good RPG never really did.

To properly game or test a situation, you need someone who's actively trying to break it, someone wandering around throwing spanners in the works, and a group that's actually trying to follow the plan. In a decent RPG, the GM takes on the role of both the random chance and the person actively trying to break the plans of his players (within the framework of the game and certain conventions, of course). You would certainly get a lot of "non-school" solutions from such people.

goesh
01-22-2007, 02:27 PM
should be included on the team - some career NCO preferably who hates the system but will work for a reduced sentence and nice perks during the operation.

marct
01-22-2007, 02:29 PM
Seriously, a good GM has to be able to immerse himself at least partway into any role that's thrown at him. Gamers from the early to mid 1980s are especially good at this, IMO, since the computer crutch wasn't developed yet. Even a computer gamer isn't going to be as good at the sort of non-linear thinking that we're talking about here. Computer games tend to act (and react) in certain patterns, while a good RPG never really did.

Hi Steve,

I would certainly agree with that. What would be even better would be tro try and recruit some of the GMs who served as alpha test play-testers.

Marc

Steve Blair
01-22-2007, 02:41 PM
Marc,

There are a fair number of them out there. I'd also suggest going after those who have "home-brewed" rules systems, since they have experience reworking existing systems to fit a game environment or scenario (a friend and I did this with the core Rolemaster rules to get them to fit a world I'd created...we ended up redoing almost the entire character development system and skills systems). Such folks are used to getting the most out of existing systems, as well as finding flaws and holes in same.

marct
01-22-2007, 02:53 PM
There are a fair number of them out there. I'd also suggest going after those who have "home-brewed" rules systems, since they have experience reworking existing systems to fit a game environment or scenario (a friend and I did this with the core Rolemaster rules to get them to fit a world I'd created...we ended up redoing almost the entire character development system and skills systems). Such folks are used to getting the most out of existing systems, as well as finding flaws and holes in same.

Steve,

I'd agree with that. I used to work with a team like that for the VSG material. The last game I was involved in up here, the entire group was like that. I think that we had, collectively, something like 15-20 game publication credits plus innumerable home-grown systems.

The key is always a combination of adaptability and the ability to spot holes in a system that you can manipulate to your advantage. Of course, if all else fails, you just twist the system up in knots :eek:

Marc

jcustis
01-22-2007, 05:51 PM
What do you folks think about the idea of a "Grey Team"? Their sole responsability would be to help, or hinder, either side based solely on their own self interests. Just to make it even more "realistic", let the grey team split into as many factions as they want at any point in time.

Without a doubt, "grey team" elements are critical, because that is exactly what the bulk of the Iraqi population is going right now, laying low and coming out of survival mode every now and then to advance specific interests.

Until such time that effective security for the popluation is the norm, we will always have "grey actors", and therefore need members to represent their interests and the way they drift with the prevailing winds.

Powerful sheiks with financial interests, clergy, lower-level mandarins, etc., could be represented fairly easily within most wargame constructs. One of the spin-off benefits is that their actions could contribute to the "white noise" events that increase the complexity and keep the Blue Team running ragged.

selil
01-23-2007, 05:07 AM
I like the guys I've met from groups like "Blackwater Tactical" but wouldn't they also be "grey" teams? They use resources, have different agendas, and can create tension and hostility by their actions. How do you represent that in an excercise?

120mm
01-23-2007, 10:11 AM
should be included on the team - some career NCO preferably who hates the system but will work for a reduced sentence and nice perks during the operation.

+1 on the "Brig Rat". This almost always improves the breed. I had several in my CAV Troop, and this was a win-win. You saved the "rat" and improved the organization at the same time.

I write "White Noise" for a living and the biggest problem with this is breaking it down into small enough pieces to give it value. I'm convinced that in 4GW, a competent RPG from pre-computer times would make a decent General.

Steve Blair
01-23-2007, 02:03 PM
I like the guys I've met from groups like "Blackwater Tactical" but wouldn't they also be "grey" teams? They use resources, have different agendas, and can create tension and hostility by their actions. How do you represent that in an excercise?

Very simple if it's an RPG-based tabletop exercise. These guys would be represented by a separate team, already briefed on their own goals, or as a group run by the GM who had their own agenda and would act according to it. This would, for a good GM, be very easy to simulate.

Steve Blair
01-23-2007, 02:09 PM
+1 on the "Brig Rat". This almost always improves the breed. I had several in my CAV Troop, and this was a win-win. You saved the "rat" and improved the organization at the same time.

I write "White Noise" for a living and the biggest problem with this is breaking it down into small enough pieces to give it value. I'm convinced that in 4GW, a competent RPG from pre-computer times would make a decent General.

Agree completely, 120mm. You can do a great deal with the older games, including modifying them to suit your needs. Brig Rats are naturals at the "white noise" and "wrench in the machine" things, stuff that you need to accurately simulate what folks will encounter in the field. That's one of the beauties of a good RPG system: it allows you to add in just about anything you want. It does require good control staff, but that can be "grown" fairly easily with some time and effort. I've known lots of servicemembers who game...often they just need a little encouragement to come out in the open.

Rob Thornton
01-23-2007, 02:50 PM
I'd writen Marc on a PM that I thought a war contractor could play a "grey" guy since they are sort of in that mindset anyway, but I would not have the contractor play a contractor - your not going to hear a guys admitting he's overcharging for something he's really doing:D, they may be greedy, but they are not stupid. However, you could learn allot about a contractor by having him play a sheik, or vice versa:rolleyes:

selil
01-23-2007, 04:13 PM
I'm trying to get my mind around how to make a computer simulation game like being discussed happen. In the interest of disclosure I'm in charge of standing up a computer gaming simulation academic program (engine design not graphics) at my university in that thing called spare time.

In a couple of ways I hear that computers actually cause problems with the "play" of the game. However I would suggest that they can draw in a larger group of people and hide the identities of adversaries from the players allowing for more personality to emerge and a larger base of talent to be involved.

I hear a role playing game or real time strategy game where there are roles instead of sides would be a good idea. For example a game like Age of Empires 3 the player has control of all roles on his side of the game (builders, warriors, priests, etc..). A benefit would be to have individual players able to play the roles, and then have sides defined by the players conduct. Multiple players could play the same role thereby replicating reality further in the decision/political space.

Following the theme the computer could play the populace and sway them back and forth based on cultural elements defined for a variety of populations. The populace patriotism/jingoism (or lack of support) then would be a feedback to things like funding and sustainability variables for the players. Population variations could be broken up into segments and rule base definitions created to show how when one neighborhood is bombed or damaged (hit points for buildings!) things get rebuilt quickly but in other neighborhoods things don't get fixed showing societal decay.

The definable roles in this type of construct could be nearly limitless, and the number of sides could quite large too. It would require coordination between the coalitions to play well, but the computer could take over roles not currently being played. To make it interesting military actions and campaigns could be played with commanders giving orders, and the chain of command enacting what they think those orders are giving semi-realism to the concept of the players.

As an example of role play you could insert a special ops team into an ongoing game play without others knowing and see what the impact would be.

I'm sure in the pantheon of military technology something much better than this likely already exists, as it seems quite easy to do.

Rob Thornton
01-23-2007, 08:21 PM
Selil,
I've had some opportunity to work with some pretty powerful simulations in the last job I was in. We also did MAPEXs and used other tools to answer certain questions. While computer sims have some utility in answering certain questons, I'm not a big believer in them answering "people" questions based off of what I've seen. This may not be the right adjective, but I've always thought of them as too "flat". People often make decisions off of perceptions which trigger emotions - they anticipate things far off in the future based not only on what they see analytically, but what they wish to see, or what they wish not to see. I've seen programmers adjust this variable and that, but the key word in that is "adjust".
Running computer sims where physical properties can be plugged in and the "knowns" in the equation decrease the probability of error saves time, but trying to assign values to arbitrarily when the number of players is on the increase is more in the realm of HAL (it was HAL wasn't it?). There is a grail out there of intuitive planning aids that seek to reduce the cognitive requirements on planners (there was a great paper of Cognitive Readiness by RAND I think).
Since COIN is mostly about people, I'm more in favor of using people to flesh out action/reaction/counter action/counter - counter cycles. Even though a computer may be able to run the simulation many more times - I'm still going to have to have somebody change the variables, and somebody to sift through it to tell me what it means, then convince me why I shold trust their interpretation. My experience with computer sims when dealing with people and decisions is that the data ends up meaning whatever the analyst wants it to mean. I prefer the more "messy" people solution:D

Regards, Rob

marct
01-23-2007, 08:27 PM
You know, I've been mulling this over for a couple of days now, and I have a feeling that the best type of sim would actually be a virtual universe that mimics a specific operational environment. Think of it as Second Life on steroids with COIN thrown in. Now THAT type of game, I would definately be interested in testing :D

Marc

RTK
01-23-2007, 08:35 PM
You know, I've been mulling this over for a couple of days now, and I have a feeling that the best type of sim would actually be a virtual universe that mimics a specific operational environment. Think of it as Second Life on steroids with COIN thrown in. Now THAT type of game, I would definately be interested in testing :D

Marc

You'd have to come to grips with the fact that some 12 year old with no life could probably kick your butt online within three days though....:D

marct
01-23-2007, 08:42 PM
You'd have to come to grips with the fact that some 12 year old with no life could probably kick your butt online within three days though....:D

And this is differerent from reality???:eek:

Sure, why not - if they can, then let's recruit them.

Marc

Stan
01-23-2007, 08:49 PM
The success of this program will depend on the quality of the officers who complete the course and become members of the red-teams.


JonSlack said it best (OK, my abysmal opinion again)

I've been paying much attention to Rob over the last two weeks. He has his hands full.

The so-called Red Team would enter say Africa at the airport and reality would abruptly kick you in the behind.

Hope they are ready.

Rob Thornton
01-23-2007, 08:55 PM
If you have never been in one you are indeed fortunate - they suck - well literally - they suck enough electricity to run a large village or small city - certainly a neighborhood. They suck enough $$$ to outft an IA BDE for a year. They requre lots of people and embody the acronym - SLICC - Self Licking Ice Cream Cone. I would not wish them on my worst enemy:p The antics that go on in them are akin to Monty Python meets the Osbourns. Blach!

Steve Blair
01-23-2007, 09:02 PM
You know, I've been mulling this over for a couple of days now, and I have a feeling that the best type of sim would actually be a virtual universe that mimics a specific operational environment. Think of it as Second Life on steroids with COIN thrown in. Now THAT type of game, I would definately be interested in testing :D

Marc

This is what I was looking at with the MUD suggestion, although there are more sophisticated models on the market these days like SL and others. The point is to use the computer environment as a medium for interaction, and not a "hack point" for those who want to cheat the system.

marct
01-23-2007, 09:04 PM
This is what I was looking at with the MUD suggestion, although there are more sophisticated models on the market these days like SL and others. The point is to use the computer environment as a medium for interaction, and not a "hack point" for those who want to cheat the system.

Okay - so, what's the delay? :D

Actually, do you think the owners of Second Life would rent / lease the engine code?

Marc

Rob Thornton
01-23-2007, 09:04 PM
Stan,
You know this is what I do to wind down the day - it keeps me in touch with what happens outside my patch here, and organizes some thoughts - but I just looked at the clock and its time to call it quits - probably wake up in a bit anyway.
Regards all - Rob

selil
01-23-2007, 09:15 PM
Okay - so, what's the delay? :D

Actually, do you think the owners of Second Life would rent / lease the engine code?

Marc


The answer to that is yes... Several of the engines are actually limited or fully open source.

marct
01-23-2007, 09:17 PM
The answer to that is yes... Several of the engines are actually limited or fully open source.

I didn't know that! Have you thought about putting something like that together? You mentioned that you had a commitment to do something along those lines at your school.

Marc

Steve Blair
01-23-2007, 09:55 PM
They had commented (the SL folks) that some parts of the game would be made open source, if I recall (BBC story I saw a couple of weeks back). There may also be some open source stuff out there as well that would work. Not sure, because I don't mess with the online stuff at all.

selil
01-24-2007, 05:31 AM
It looks like Linden Labs (second life developers) have open sourced the client software (http://lindenlab.com/press/releases/01_08_07). There are a lot of resources about developing for the tool here (http://secondlife.com/developers/)

ETA: I emailed their development team and asked if they'd ever even considered this type of application.

marct
01-24-2007, 01:07 PM
It looks like Linden Labs (second life developers) have open sourced the client software (http://lindenlab.com/press/releases/01_08_07). There are a lot of resources about developing for the tool here (http://secondlife.com/developers/)

ETA: I emailed their development team and asked if they'd ever even considered this type of application.

Interesting. I was checking out the price of islands, and it certainly isn't prohibitive :).

Marc