Wargaming Small Wars

[ericmwalters]

I'd like to open discussion on various successful ways that wargaming Small Wars can help in training and education. This can run the gamut from government-sponsored wargaming exercises to commercial efforts--role playing, board wargames, and computer games. What seemed to work? Why? What didn't seem to work and why didn't it? Share your thoughts, ideas, comments, critiques, and--perhaps most of all--wargaming recommendations.

[ericmwalters]

Khyber Pass wargame company has announced a new game under development on the French counterinsurgency campaign in Algeria. Tentatively titled ICI, C'EST LA FRANCE! this game will cover the entire war from 1954 to 1962 at the strategic level. Khyber Pass Games is asking for pledges so they can resource the development and production of this conflict simulation. As one would expect, a great deal of effort is going into modeling the political aspects of the situation.

The pledge price is $32.00 as of this writing; when published, the game will retail for $40.00.

View the details here. (http://mysite.verizon.net/rjlein/khyberpass/id41.html)

[Steve Blair]

I've done (and am doing) some work on this sort of thing, but mostly from the non-government standpoint (although I am working on one locally in relation to my ROTC work that may become formal at our Det at least).

Based on this experience as well as many years in the hobby, I tend to think that the best model is a free-play exercise with a control cell and a number of opposing teams. The control cell works as an encounter resolution system, information control point, and general game manager. We do a four team operational air warfare map exercise here every spring (it's too short, but it does give our cadets a taste of planning), and having free play and a control cell allows for many variations. I'm working on one now that will involve both Army and Air Force cadets and cover some aspects of small wars (mainly in a small theater conflict environment).

On the hobby level this is hard to model without computers, since one of the key aspects needs to be intelligence (or lack thereof) and political activity. Board games, IMO, don't model this very well because they ARE board games with unit counters and such. I'm not a huge fan of card-driven games, although they may possibly be able to simulate some aspects of small wars. The RPG framework could be very useful for small wars simulations, since most of their systems deal with interaction and influence on a personal level.

I can't speak much to the computer side of this, since my design experience has been in the paper realm. I do tend to see computers more useful as tools (information management and dissemination) than I do as actual gaming engines (mainly due to AI limitations...but again my experience here is limited).

[marct]

Bloodtree Rebellion by Game Designers Workshop back in the early 1980's was a quite decent boardgame in the small wars genre. The problems of having the physical counters on the board were worked around by having two values for each piece - one "overt" one "covert" - i.e. the counters lied. If you can find a copy, it's worth looking at.

Marc

[ericmwalters]

Most of what I've seen in board wargaming--such as GDW's excellent science fiction game BLOODTREE REBELLION--has been portraying Small Wars at the strategic level of war. I'll review a good many of them in this particular thread and would encourage others to do the same. What is daunting is that there are few that show the prospects and problems of Small Wars at the operational and tactical levels--beyond those "shoot 'em up" force-on-force showdowns that gamers all love.

For example, were one to survey SPI's old GRUNT and SEARCH AND DESTROY games, there's not a lot of incentive to hold back on the violence in the scenarios. Even Mark Walker's recent game on tactical combat in Vietnam, LOCK 'N LOAD, is pretty similar in that vein.

The only game I can recall that rewarded a "controlled violence" approach was a computer game that was done by the Air Force in the late 1990s. It dealt with the defense of Tuzla airfield and provided all the "toys" (i.e., weapons of war) for the player to go out and bash guerrillas outside the wire. And bash those guerrillas the player usually did, only leading to more mortar attacks on the airfield and the loss of the game. Only when the MP and PYSOPS units were used in conjunction with operations to help/gain intelligence within the urban population in the city proper could the insurgency be best addressed...but most players never stuck with the game long enough to learn this. Slick...and I wish it was still available.

[Steve Blair]

Bloodtree Rebellion by Game Designers Workshop back in the early 1980's was a quite decent boardgame in the small wars genre. The problems of having the physical counters on the board were worked around by having two values for each piece - one "overt" one "covert" - i.e. the counters lied. If you can find a copy, it's worth looking at.

Marc

Yeah, I've seen other games that do this as well. There was an AH Napoleonic game (Struggle of Nations, I think it was) that had generic unit counters, with all the nifty stuff hidden away on a strength table. Downtown does something similar with the air war over North Vietnam.

Though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, I still feel that the best way to game a small wars setting is either through a modified RPG-type system or something using teams and a control element (double blind, if you will).

Honestly I wish more was being done with this stuff. I think people underestimate how valuable a training aid a good game can be.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

Yeah, I've seen other games that do this as well. There was an AH Napoleonic game (Struggle of Nations, I think it was) that had generic unit counters, with all the nifty stuff hidden away on a strength table. Downtown does something similar with the air war over North Vietnam.

GDW was using those as well. It works rather nicely at the strategic level, but Eric's point about the operational and tactical level limits is a good one.

Though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, I still feel that the best way to game a small wars setting is either through a modified RPG-type system or something using teams and a control element (double blind, if you will).

Years ago, I was involved with a year long game using GDWs Europa series melded in with Squad Leader. The game itself lasted for about a year (we only played about 6-12 hours per week), and we had several umpires. Most of us were also game designers or, at the minimum, DMs. What we ended up doing was sing Europa for the strat level, SL for the base tactical, and then created any other rules we wanted on the fly (90% vote to agree on new "rules"). When the actual "war broke out", it was 1942 and centered around a civil war inside NAZI Germany (Wehrmacht vs. SS).

I think a modified RPG system would work well, if it was integrated into a strat level game that included international IO as well.

Honestly I wish more was being done with this stuff. I think people underestimate how valuable a training aid a good game can be.

It's market driven :wry:. It might well be worth the military contacting one or more companies to act as design agents in a manner similar to te micro-armor deal from the late 70's, early 80's.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

I agree about strategic level IO stuff, as well as models to deal with other international events and actions. I also agree with the limitations of a counter-driven game when it comes to the operational and especially tactical level with small wars stuff. That's why the transition to an RPG-type framework is so important (IMO, anyhow).

[sullygoarmy]

I spent a short time at the Warrior Preparation Center in Germany, USAREUR's sim center. There was a simulation called Spectre, which tried to simulate some Spec-Ops missions. Not sure what ever came of it.

I'd like to see some Small Wars/COIN simulations similar to the close combat series of games...down at the squad and platoon level. Instead of artillery stirkes (unless in southern Baghdad...:p ), substitute a MEDCAP, or school building project or some other public works program. Teach guys how to do population control, issue ID cards and number houses to seperate the sheep from the wolves. And make it real time so the nintendo generation stays interested in it.

[Steve Blair]

We've had good luck here getting the "Nintendo Generation" hooked on map-based wargames. For most of them it's something very new and different, and the prospect of squaring off against their fellow cadets is an added bonus.

We're looking now at ways to open the exercise up to more Detachments via electronic orders, and I plan to push the combined arms one the same way. The combined arms exercise is really open to small wars-style stuff, and I may actually push it that way once it gets fully developed.

[ericmwalters]

All of these comments are great...and lead me to imagine an online "map-based" game with some sort of umpire and teams representing not just two sides but many sides--all with different objectives. Indeed, perhaps there would be two sets of victory conditions for each player...one for his/her team and one "personal" victory condition that may make life interesting for the team in executing their plans.

I particularly like games where each player/team has a unique set of victory conditions instead of the "zero-sum" kinds of conditions we usually see. Sure, there has to be built in conflict potential to replicate life in a Small Wars environment, but a great many different agendas in play adds a richness and complexity that only good (and large) RPG campaigns can achieve.

The advantage of an umpire in an online game is that the whole problem of intelligence/counterintelligence is brought into play...creating possibilities for deception, deceit, and a whole host of other effects.

The closest I've ever come to such an experience was in a college TRAVELLER campaign. GDW's TRAVELLER was a sci-fi role playing system--something like Dungeon and Dragons goes to space, but much richer in some ways, particularly when starting a character (they already had a certain amount of skills/history that the player rolled up prior to play). Given that the movie STAR WARS was relatively recent, a whole genre of "Rebels versus the Empire" gaming ran rampant--evidenced in such games as BATTLEFLEET MARS (SPI), FREEDOM IN THE GALAXY (SPI/AH), IMPERIUM (GDW) and others. In our TRAVELLER campaign, we faced the same kinds of problems as sci-fi characters in a Star Wars-like universe...we were all rebels or characters sympathetic to the rebellion...but who could we trust and who could we not trust? When was it appropriate to take on the minions of the Empire and when was it best to run away to fight another day? I can only wonder what it would have been like to have characters playing the various minions of the Empire trying to run down the Rebellion...we never played that way, however.

Our problems and solutions in that campaign were inspired by sci-fi books and movies, but imagine what could have been possible had a fair amount of insurgency and counterinsurgency theory--coupled with dynamic social, political, and economic drivers--been incorporated (even if only crudely) into the game?

[Steve Blair]

Our framework actually assigns each of the four teams different military and political goals. It's set up so that there are two coalitions fighting each other, but each country has its own set of goals (some of which do conflict, creating some coalition tension).

I'm firmly in favor of the umpire/White Cell concept for a couple of reasons. Perhaps the biggest is that it takes omniscient intelligence out of action. Players only know what their collection efforts achieve, and the only "true picture" is kept by White Cell.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

Our framework actually assigns each of the four teams different military and political goals. It's set up so that there are two coalitions fighting each other, but each country has its own set of goals (some of which do conflict, creating some coalition tension).

I'm firmly in favor of the umpire/White Cell concept for a couple of reasons. Perhaps the biggest is that it takes omniscient intelligence out of action. Players only know what their collection efforts achieve, and the only "true picture" is kept by White Cell.

The base set up sounds good, but why are you continuing with the State as player fiction and only with 4 teams? Personally, I think that it is important to get at least 10-15 teams running, only 3-5 would be "States" while the rest would be non-state actors.

Do you remember a game called Kingmaker? You might get some good ideas from that one. Also, AH came out with one whose name slips my mind that was a more advanced version - multi-state, multi-faction and really nasty politics. The other thing you need is one or more really sneaky, nasty and, above all else, creative game master.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

We use the state actors in what we're doing here because the teams are representing the air component commanders (and land for the joint version) for their particular countries. It has more to do with ROTC limitations than any real desire on my part to cap the game in this way.

Personally I'd love to branch it out and have insurgent, non-state (NGOs) and terrorist teams. Believe me, I do have a nasty GM streak and love doing things like that. But even a stripped-down exercise like we're doing has been something of a hard sell. I'm just glad they're even looking at things like this now.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

We use the state actors in what we're doing here because the teams are representing the air component commanders (and land for the joint version) for their particular countries. It has more to do with ROTC limitations than any real desire on my part to cap the game in this way.

Personally I'd love to branch it out and have insurgent, non-state (NGOs) and terrorist teams. Believe me, I do have a nasty GM streak and love doing things like that. But even a stripped-down exercise like we're doing has been something of a hard sell. I'm just glad they're even looking at things like this now.

Okay, that's somewhat scary :wry:. Hmmm, okay this will sound a touch strange, but why not create a 4th year course in the "History of Military Strategy: Theory and Practice" and use games of various periods as the period "test"? I had something like this in one of my 2nd year classes on 19th century European history and we were offered an "option" of playing Diplomacy one weekend for extra credit.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

Hi Steve,



Okay, that's somewhat scary :wry:. Hmmm, okay this will sound a touch strange, but why not create a 4th year course in the "History of Military Strategy: Theory and Practice" and use games of various periods as the period "test"? I had something like this in one of my 2nd year classes on 19th century European history and we were offered an "option" of playing Diplomacy one weekend for extra credit.

Marc

Actually I'm using the pretext of a campaign/joint planning course to get the big exercise into the mix at all. The university I'm at doesn't deal with military history (the one course is part of the Army ROTC program, is taught by one of their cadre, and ignored by most of the school), so I have to take what I can get. That said, I'm always looking at ways to expand and develop the thing, and may yet find other applications for it.

I'm just glad I have them doing SOME exercises. Prior to this all they did was learn the Air Force Song and how airpower won the war...:D

[ericmwalters]

I thought I'd provide brief summaries/overviews of two strategic board wargames on Queen Boudicca's rebellion against the Romans in Britain. One is entitled HELL HATH NO FURY and was published as a magazine game in World Wide Wargamer's (3W) magazine, THE WARGAMER (issue #39). The other is DRUID: BOUDICCA'S REBELLION, 61 A.D. published by West End Games. Both came out in the same year--1984. Both have been long out of print, but if you are interested in this era or the strategic problems ancient-era counterinsurgency entails, you might be able to snare a copy at wargame convention auctions or on Ebay.

In both games, the Roman player has to defeat the Queen's uniting of the Briton tribes to overthrow Rome's rule. The rebellion started because Boudicca's huband, king of the Iceni tribe, died and left a portion of his wealth to the Roman emperor Nero and the rest to his two daughters in the hopes that Rome would respect the independence of the Briton tribes even within Roman occupied Britain. His wishes were not respected as the Roman tax machine was set into motion--Boudicca was whipped and her two daughters raped when she complained about this. She and her followers went on the war path and were eventually defeated by Paulinus through "making Britain a desert and calling it peace."

Both games pose primarily military problems for both sides. Politics is not really a factor, although Boudicca must get neutral tribes to join her side (usually through a die roll once certain conditions are met).

Graphically, DRUID is by far the more attractive package. HELL HATH NO FURY (HHNF) neverthess enjoys a dedicated following desipte its somewhat bare bones presentation.

In HHNF, Boudicca is often torn between the two ways she can win--either defeat the Roman leions in battle (a tactical victory won with rippling strategic effects) OR through raising enough tribes fast enough that Briton rebellion success is inevitable over time. Quite the puzzle as the former requires setting a trap for a risk-prone (or unwary) Roman to step in...the latter can be difficult given that few tribes are with Boudicca at start and both her and Paulinus are going after the rest. Of course, the Romans don't start with all their forces, so there is a window of opportunity for Boudicca to act decisively before getting overwhelmed. Playing with the variable tribe activation requirements reduces the chess-like nature of the game and introduces a much better portrayal of Boudicca's dilemmas and risks.

DRUID is much more wild and wooly, particularly given the unit activation rules, possibilities for Roman forced marches, interception of movements by the opposing player, and--best of all--limited intelligence when playing with the Hidden Deployment and Movement optional rule, benefitting Boudicca.

Both games contain a bit of system chrome that provide period flavor, but neither game is very complex when playing the situation. Players focus on the board situation and not the rules.

There's nothing out there in the board wargaming regime other than these two games, although rumor has it that AGAINST ALL ODDS magazine may be considering a game on the same topic. While the political aspects of Small Wars takes a back seat to the military problems, the differences in the military forces, capabilities, and strategies are well represented in these two games. I'd recommend either.

You can find out more information on these games on the web:

For a look at the components for HELL HATH NO FURY, check out the game at Boardgame Geek's website here. (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/5923)

For a look at the components for DRUID, see the photos at Boardgame Geek's website here (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/5038).

For discussions of rules, gameplay, and other aspects of both games, the CONSIMWORLD FORUM on both games can be found here (http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?50@70.1jFlcEFYXPe.2@.1dcdfa13).

[ericmwalters]

The best board wargame I've ever played on the strategic problems of insurgency and counterinsurgency is NICARAGUA!, published as a magazine game in Strategy and Tactics #120, way back in 1988. The designer, Joe Miranda, convinced many with this game that he was the best in the business when it came to portraying unconventional warfare situations--and he still is today with no rival anywhere on the horizon.

NICARAGUA! contains three scenarios--the first on the "Foco Insurgency" when anti-Somoza insurgents tried to take over the government in the 1960s and early 1970s; the second on the downfall of Somoza in 1977-1981; the last on American-backed Contras attempting to bring down the Sandanista government from 1982-1985.

What sets this game apart from nearly all the others is the attention paid to political aspects of insurgency/counterinsurgency. Leaders are rated in terms of military AND political abilities, and national will is covered for both the government and rebel sides, affecting their political capabilities. Foreign Aid, Foreign intervention, Martial Law, and relationships between the espoused regime and rebel political system (e.g., Marxism-Leninism, Social Democracy, Liberal Democracy, Oligarchy) and the various Social Classes (Somocistas, Middle Class, Workers, Peasants, Intellectuals, the Church, Indians) and external players (the US, USSR, and the rest of Latin America) will affect the National Will. Political Warfare, Intelligence, Repression, Terrorism, and the more conventional tools of violence all get their due.

Joe is considering adapting this system to the Iraq situation today--we can only hope that he does (and please encourage him on the CONSIMWORLD discussion forum!).

You can see the components of NICARAGUA! at Boardgame Geek here (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/7058).

Find the NICARAGUA! discussion thread in the CONSIMWORLD forum here (http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?50@70.1jFlcEFYXPe.10@.1dd08e60).

[ericmwalters]

I'm summarizing three games on the Afghan insurgencies against the British in the late 19th Century and against the Soviets in the late 20th Century.

THE FIRST AFGHAN WAR, designed by the venerable Joseph Miranda, was published in Strategy and Tactics magazine Issue #179 in 1996 and is, unfortunately, out of print. It has two scenarios covering the initial British invasion ("March To Kabul") and the eventual withdrawal ("Rebellion and Retribution"). Gameplay revolves around morale, politics, and Random Events. Rules cover atrocities, British "Fair Play," Baluchi political aspirations, and Afghan desertions. Tactically, the British are unsurpassed but often find themselves in strategically (and operationally) untenable positions in the second scenario. This game showcases how easy it is to conquer Afghanistan and how hard it is to hold it.

To view the components of this game, check it out here. (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/10264)

ASIA CROSSROADS a.k.a. THE GREAT GAME, also by Mr. Miranda, was published in Strategy and Tactics magazine Issue #216 in 2003 and is also out of print. Here, the emphasis is less on the insurgency/counterinsurgency aspects and more on the intrigues that the powers surrounding Afghanistan exerted on this particular conflict. Rules cover intelligence and the fog of war, agents/spies, massacres of civilians, international financing of such "cabinet wars," and political negotiations. Russia and Britain vie for control of Afghanistan...to say nothing of the aspirations of the Afghans and other regional players!

To view the components of this game, check it out here (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/7040).

To follow discussions on the game, consult the CONSIMWORLD discussion forum here. (http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?50@966.DMc5cevdYkM.6@.1dcdf7bb)

HOLY WAR: AFGHANISTAN moves forward a hundred years or so to the Soviet invasion and occupation of the country. This is yet again another Miranda design, published in the pages of Strategy and Tactics magazine Issue #147 in 1991. As with most of Miranda's designs on such subjects, military considerations/aspects take second place to political ones. HOLY WAR is no different. We see rules for popular support, political control and military occupation, Soviet policy, Fog of War, Cross-Border operations, intelligence, defections/subversion, troop reliability, and the Jirga Loya. The games has six scenarios covering the various phases of the war to include one hypothetical situation dealing with a Soviet advance to the Persian Gulf.

For a look at the game components, check it out here (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/708).

To follow gamer discussions on this out-of-print title, look here. (http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?50@489.NMbfcp8gYlQ.6@.ee6fa4d)

[ericmwalters]

Here I'll summarize the prominent games covering the British victory in the Second Boer War:

BOER WAR is a magazine game published in Strategy and Tactics Issue 205 in 2001 and, unfortunately, no longer available. Joe Miranda takes his considerable talents to south Africa and covers this war from 1899-1902 at the operational level. While there is considerable attention paid to the operational art of war at this level, as in most Miranda designs there is a good bit of coverage on political aspects and intelligence--this game is no different. Rules cover Guerrillas, British tactical inefficiency, British "Harsh Measures," political reconciliation, political events/aspects of operations, and national morale. Of course, there's a good sprinkling of Random Events to keep both players on their toes. The game imparts a good bit of flavor and increases understanding of this complex conflict.

Game components can be viewed here (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/8516).

Against the Odds magazine #13 featured BITTEREINDER: THE SECOND ANGLO-BOER WAR, 1899-1902, adapted from a popular Desk-Top Publishing title of the same name. This issue (and game) can still be had by contacting the publisher here (http://www.atomagazine.com/game_13.html). This area-movement game rewards patient deliberate British boa-constrictor like operations that choke off the Boer commandos from their sources of support and rob them of their ease of movement. The Boer player hopes to make the most of his initial/opening advantages and then outlast the British player, hoping to goad him into making rash mistakes. While this game does not have the color of Miranda's titles, it does address the problem of opposing morale states/national commitment and the impact of atrocities/"barbarism" well enough.

To view the game components, go here (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/10589).

To read the discussions on this game--to include some phenomenal After Action comments and more photos of a game in progress, check here (http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?50@489.NMbfcp8gYlQ.10@.1dcedd16).

If I had to choose between one or the other, I'd have to take BITTEREINDER. Both are worthy of your attention, particularly given the subject.

[ericmwalters]

In 2006, Against the Odds magazine published CACTUS THRONE: THE MEXICAN WAR OF 1862-1867 in Issue 15, designed by Andy Nunez. Louis Napoleon decided to take advantage of American involvement in its Civil War to violate the Monroe Doctrine and place his puppet Emperor, Maximilian, on the throne of Mexico. Of course, many Mexicans took issue with this and the Republican Army opposed the French invaders. Here was where the French Foreign Legion suffered its celebrated defeat at Camerone.

This game primarily is one of military conflict--politics is not a large player here. You'll definitely want to play with Random Events "special rules" to inject more uncertainty/politics into the situation. Most interesting are the variants postulating a Confederate victory in the northern hemisphere and the influence of General Joe Shelby, CSA, and his brigade in the war. The aged Santa Anna can even make a reappearance to suport the Republican Army.

While the game doesn't provide a lot of insight into the political-military inter-relationships of insurgency/counter-insurgency warfare, the situation is an unusual one and deserves a bit of attention. The designer thoughtfully includes a good reading list in the rulebook.

Issues are still available through Against The Odds magazine here (http://www.atomagazine.com/game_15.html).

Discussions on the game can be found on CONSIMWORLD forum here (http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?50@648.fMQ6cMt3Yk2.0@.1dd094bb).

[nichols]

I was asleep for this, I'll add slides from the last symposium that we had.

This first one is from a MEU deplyed right now.

[nichols]

This slide is our roadmap.

[nichols]

Systems that are part of the Master M&S Plan

[nichols]

The tool set for the DVTE

[nichols]

The Infantry Tool Kit

[nichols]

The DVTE Suite consists of

[nichols]

I need to get a photo editor for this computer, the above attachments were the only once that didn't go over the 97m limit:mad:

[nichols]

The above info is pretty much what's out there now in the Fleet. An effort that we are working on is a FPS; VBS-2/VTK.

The VBS-2, out of the box with the LVC game engine links up with JSAF. The VTK portion of it was driven off of a Cognitive Task Analysis that we conducted with FAST. Two other efforts that will begin after we get the VTK is third party AI plug-ins, specifically Barry's work:

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~barryg/sg.html

Following that we want to put the culture language ability that Tactical Language Training Systems delivers. This is all pretty much small scale, the big drive for sims is going to be what comes out of the Infantry Skills Simulation Work Group (ISSWG) which will determine where we go next in our quest for the Squad Immersive Training Environment (holodeck is the goal).

[ericmwalters]

NICHOLS shared some slides on M&S architectures/tools being worked on in Quantico...of course, I have questions--

How do I get copies of ITK software? Going to the TECOM website gave me no clues on how to do this. Am particularly interested in getting CCM, TACOPS, and MAGTF XXI, although if the other software is available, I'd love to get those as well. I've got a military mailing adress and/or get up to MCCDC from time to time...let me know how I can lay hands on these.

Do these games come with RFS already established so we can network them on NMCI NIPRNET? If not, I've got commercial networks/boxes in the office space I can leverage...it's just that I don't have a lot of them.

I do have some curriculum for TACOPS, by the way, to teach MCPP/IPB. Used to do that with version 2.1.2 way back when. The curriculum development was a cooperative effort between Center For Naval Analyses and Ground Intelligence Office Course instructors at the Navy-Marine Intelligence Training Center when we did this back in 1999/2000....

[Steve Blair]

I've used TACOPS as well, but I've been interested (with no luck) in getting my hands on CCM to use with the ROTC course that I'm developing dealing with joint campaign planning. I preferred the CC game engine to TACOPS, and it would work better for simulating some of the small unit action that we're bound to need (the actual map exercise runs on a battalion+ level).

[ericmwalters]

Don't know how many can follow the technical jargon in the slides that NICHOLS posted--I'm very familiar with some of the C4 systems and simulations, dimly aware of others, and completely clueless on the rest. But I did not sense anything that spoke to scenario/situation design when DVTE is fielded that pertains to the trickier aspects of COIN. Hearken back to SULLYGOARMY's comment in Feb 2007 when he said in this thread:

I'd like to see some Small Wars/COIN simulations similar to the close combat series of games...down at the squad and platoon level. Instead of artillery stirkes (unless in southern Baghdad... ), substitute a MEDCAP, or school building project or some other public works program. Teach guys how to do population control, issue ID cards and number houses to seperate the sheep from the wolves. And make it real time so the nintendo generation stays interested in it.

We've seen a bit of this in the Tactical Iraqi software package--not to this degree, of course. I'd hope to portray some difficult tactical decisions at this level that are the essence of the dilemmas COIN poses.

I know the commercial world isn't taking on any of this--at least right now. Is someone in the Army or Marine Corps doing this?

[nichols]

I do have some curriculum for TACOPS, by the way, to teach MCPP/IPB. Used to do that with version 2.1.2 way back when. The curriculum development was a cooperative effort between Center For Naval Analyses and Ground Intelligence Office Course instructors at the Navy-Marine Intelligence Training Center when we did this back in 1999/2000....

Sir, We need the curriculm for TacOps as soon as possible, that is one TDS that is lacking current use requirements.

I see that you have registered on the TacOps portion of the TMSC website, you can get MAGTF XXI and CCM there also but you need to register on all sites within the domain.

These three TDS will work on NMCI machines.....but they are NMCI tolerant only. They will work on NMCI computers on the same LAN ie Quantico vs Quantico but not Quantico vs Lejeune. We haven't officially put them into the NMCI system.

Please let me know the next time that you are up here, we'll get a full blown demo at TechDiv.

[nichols]

I know the commercial world isn't taking on any of this--at least right now. Is someone in the Army or Marine Corps doing this?

Sir, The Corps is doing it with the VBS-2/VTK. We have gotten to the point where the out of the box games don't cut it. The VTK has three levels of editors;

End User, out of the box where you change out OOB and limited psycological aspects of the AI.

Sim Lab/DVTE, Plug in third party AI to drive the opfor pull in NGA data.

TECOM/TRASYS, GUI editor to create a whole new game.

We had the Tactical Language people create an Arabic version of VBS-2 specifically for Div School to train coalition forces in Iraq. Ultimately the requirement is to get the culture engine capabilites into VBS so that we can do kinetic and non-kinetic rehearsals.

Additionally DARPA/SOCOM is working on the Real World simulation.

[ericmwalters]

STEVE BLAIR wrote:

I've used TACOPS as well, but I've been interested (with no luck) in getting my hands on CCM to use with the ROTC course that I'm developing dealing with joint campaign planning. I preferred the CC game engine to TACOPS, and it would work better for simulating some of the small unit action that we're bound to need (the actual map exercise runs on a battalion+ level).

You may have better results using Shrapnel Games/ProSim's ARMORED TASK FORCE/RAGING TIGER games to simulate battalion-level actions with the requisite level of detail. Not much for COIN, mind you, but I think these are the slickest games for their scales I've yet seen.

You can find ARMORED TASK FORCE here (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/prosim/atf/1.htm).

You can find RAGING TIGER here (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/prosim/Raging_Tiger/1.htm).

If you want a historical situation, there's also a game using the same engine on the Falklands War here (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/prosim/falklands_82/1.htm).

Mind you, these don't have the fidelity that CLOSE COMBAT has, but then again you can't run a battalion very well in that application, either! The tactical aspects are far, far better than in TACOPS--the terrain is very realistic in comparison. The downside is that the learning curve is a long one--these games are graduate schools in tactics.

Of course, there's always POINT OF ATTACK 2, which you can get for free from the USAF, but it needs a lot of processing power to run...plus you may need their patches, depending....

See the HPS website here (http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/POA2/POA2b.html) and write Dr. Barker at the e-mail for the USAF POC to get the game and patches for .mil users...

[nichols]

I've used TACOPS as well, but I've been interested (with no luck) in getting my hands on CCM

Steve, go to:

http://www.usmc-tds-msc.com/

Request access, it will eventually make it to my inbox and I'll pass to the webmaster to authorize.

They are delivering a new version of that TDS that takes it out of the blue on red type play. It now has civilians both good and bad, host nation forces, and end user trigger editors.

[Steve Blair]

Thanks, guys! I've used ATF before, but it doesn't quite meet the needs of this application. CCM certainly would, as what's needed is a lower-level tactical model. The new TDS sounds especially interesting. Of course, being with ROTC we're on a .edu and not .mil... I'll PM you with my info, Nichols, just before I put in the request. Thanks!

[ericmwalters]

Well, it looks like Joe Miranda and the boys are going to tackle simulating the COIN problem in a much bigger way. This new company, MODERN CONFLICT STUDIES GROUP (MCS Group) claims that:

Traditional defense paradigms have proven inadequate to analyze these threats because these paradigms emphasize force on force and attrition based modeling without adequate regard for terrorism, infowar, and insurgency.

Fourth Generation Warfare, with its emphasis on networking and advanced technologies, makes it difficult to predict when new conflicts will break out, and for conventional militaries to formulate counter-strategies. Current events in the Persian Gulf demonstrate how the Western Revolution in Military Affairs can be stymied by insurgents who fight using asymmetrical strategies and tactics. Simulations must address not only the period of conventional conflict in a war, but also the run-up prior to major military operations, and the post campaign occupation phase.

These challenges have not been adequately addressed by the existing simulations industry.

Until now.

Check out the new MODERN CONFLICT STUDIES GROUP website here (http://mcsgroup.org/index.html). You can see some information about two games under development--both, interestingly enough--are board wargames. BATTLE FOR BAGHDAD (http://mcsgroup.org/BatBag.html)is perhaps the most immediately interesting of the two and if the board is any indication, will be a hoot to play. However, ADVANCED MILLENIUM WARS (http://mcsgroup.org/AMW.html)looks very promising as a system, particularly in modeling how inadequate conventional military forces are in a COIN environment.

[jcustis]

Thanks, guys! I've used ATF before, but it doesn't quite meet the needs of this application. CCM certainly would, as what's needed is a lower-level tactical model. The new TDS sounds especially interesting. Of course, being with ROTC we're on a .edu and not .mil... I'll PM you with my info, Nichols, just before I put in the request. Thanks!

If by CCM you mean Close Combat Marine, I have that CD. I've been playing the CC series for some time now, and graduated to some of the mods that came out after Invasion Normandy.

You can have my copy of CCM if I can find it, but be forewarned, it is a terribly buggy release that shouldn't have been pushed out before it was play-tested better. when it works, it works well and models troop lift and airstrikes very well, but that may in fact be what causes the crashes.

ATF looks like a regeneration of a game that was out there many years ago. Can't put my finger on what it was titled, as I only downloaded the free version. PLs and OBJs look exactly the same though.

[ericmwalters]

JCUSTIS observed that:

ATF looks like a regeneration of a game that was out there many years ago. Can't put my finger on what it was titled, as I only downloaded the free version. PLs and OBJs look exactly the same though.

Bet it was BCT: COMMANDER, designed by the same Army officer and also offered by ProSim/Shrapnel games. BCT was the initial game which was refined over time into BCT: COMMANDER which was about as advanced as the initial engine design would allow. The designer then took the same design approach but bumped the scale down a notch--ATF is a much more flexible code...thus the other games in the series using that engine.

You can see BCT COMMANDER here (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/prosim/bct_commander/1.htm).

If you are looking for the best tactical combat engine for that scale, ATF is hard to beat. To get a good idea of what play is like, check out the following AARs written by the designer, Pat Proctor:

"Synchronizing Fire and Maneuver: Death Valley Task Force Attack" (http://www.warfarehq.com/page_left_column.php?content=article_disp&p=169&page=1&cat=33)

"Synchronizing Fire and Maneuver: Crash Hill Defense" (http://www.warfarehq.com/page_left_column.php?content=article_disp&p=170&page=1&cat=33)

Again, these are straight up "battalion-bashing" contests...no subtleties of insurgency/counter-insurgency here!

[ericmwalters]

You knew we had to get here sooner or later. These games deal with strategic-level and campaign-level conflict in the war--I won't go into the tactical games on Vietnam because they deal so little with the problems of counterinsurgency in the way a small unit commander would have to address, particularly when dealing with civilians who may or may not be actual combatants (at worst) or so cautiously neutral that one cannot count on actual assistance (at best).

I'll start with the strategic scale simulations.

NO TRUMPETS NO DRUMS: AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT IN VIETNAM, 1965-75 was published in World Wide Wargamers (3W) house magazine, The Wargamer, in issue #22 in 1982. If you lay hands on a copy, it's worth picking up--just be prepared for the rather garish graphics and some hiccups with the game system. Despite these drawbacks, this is the most approachable game on the subject that enjoys wide exposure (as much as any single title on the Vietnam War does that!). The system is simple yet elegant and forces both the Allied Player and the Communist player to select strategies historically used. However, it's easy to forget the strategy one has selected when operations seem to offer immediate advantages/gains...which can eventually lead one into a strategic trap.

The game covers a good bit of Laos and Cambodia as well. Politics is heavily abstracted (as is the "Hearts and Minds" campaign of terrorism and bribery (NVA and VC) or goods and services (Allied) to control local populations). The game is overwhelmingly focused on the big unit war. Six scenarios cover the major highlights of the war and the campaign game running all ten years.

You can check out the components (wear dark sunglasses ) here (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/16271).

The CONSIMWORLD discussion group on the game is here (http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?50@499.nYtAcudtYzp.7@.ee700ce).

VIETNAM: 1965-1975, published in 1984 by Victory Games. Nick Karp's magnum opus on the war--easily fits into the "monstergame" category. Dense, insightful, frustrating and yet fun. Rich in operational-level detail for a strategic game. The rules are certainly focused on running operations in the field, but there's far more detail on this and other factors affective the war, such as pacification, VC mobilization and ARVN recruiting, national morale and committment levels (particularly affecting the US), South Vietnamese politics (to include mounting coups!), Strategic Bombing of North Vietnam, and more. Tactical gameplay includes limited intelligence, the ability of VC and NVA to slip away before the Allies join battle, VC political cadre, free-fire zones, Special Operations, and many different types of operations such as Search and Destroy, Clear and Secure, Holding and Patrol, and Security. Rules on airmobility and riverine operations complete the treatment. The scenarios are meaty but make one hanker for the behemoth campaign game. There is no other game like this one, but be ready to absorb the detail, face a long learning curve, and commit the time to master the both the system and the situation. The reward is well worth the effort--absorbing and engrossing.

View the game components here (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/5620).

See all the many postings on the game in the CONSIMWORLD forum here (http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?50@499.nYtAcudtYzp.7@.ee6d0d3).

INDOCHINA, a game on the most critical campaigns mounted by the French in the First Indochina War, is designed by the insightful Joseph Miranda and was published in 2002 in Strategy and Tactics magazine, Issue #209. This game is primarily a treatment of campaigning with little strategic influences or considerations that the players can affect. In all the three scenarios, the overall strategy is pretty much set--it's how the player executes the military campaigns that is important. Unlike many of Miranda's other designs, military action takes center stage, although there are healthy doses of random events and political considerations that do come into play to guide/constrain military action. There are even options for PRC and US military assistance and use of the Atomic Bomb--even the possibility (slim as it may be) that World War Three could be triggered is given its due. Graphically, the game is among the best ever published by S&T--the map and division/brigade/regimental sized pieces are beautifully rendered.

Check out the game components here (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/9121).

Read the discussion on the game in the CONSIMWORLD forum here (http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?50@499.nYtAcudtYzp.7@.ee6f38f).

WINGED HORSE: THE VIETNAM WAR, 1965-1966. Finally, a game you can still obtain--it's recently published and available. Yet another Joe Miranda design, published in 2006 as a magazine game inside Strategy and Tactics Issue #239. Miranda designed this game to give both the Allied and Communist players insights into how both sides thought the war could be won through primarily military means in these years. Despite this, the communists fight very differently than their Allied counterparts, posing interesting problems and dilemmas for both players. As you'd expect in a Miranda game, there are enough wrinkles to keep the situation very interesting. Like INDOCHINA, the focus is primarily on the military problems, but politics does come into play as the Allied player can "broaden the war" into Laos and/or Cambodia! The 1st Cavalry Division (Air Mobile) gets special rules and treatment in the game--given the title, that's no surprise. The Allies can go and win anywhere they want, but they can't be everywhere all the time in sufficient force to win across the board, so that's where the communist player makes his plays. Thus, the game is all about keeping the other guy off-balance continuously, forcing reactions rather than allowing him pre-emptive action. The simulation is presented beautifully--again it's one of the most graphically attractive games in S&T history. Best of all, it enjoys one of the highest BoardGame Geek website ratings for a Vietnam War wargame.

See the game components here (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/22297).

Consult the discussion forum on CONSIMWORLD here. (http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?50@499.nYtAcudtYzp.7@.1dd14ad7)

YEAR OF THE RAT. John Prados, a well-known game designer and published military history and security affairs author, cut his teeth on this design in the early days of Simulations Publications, Incorporated. This 1973 design has aged well, even for a magazine game (published in Strategy and Tactics Issue #35). Dealing with the 1972 Easter Offensive, this was one of the first board wargames to deal with "current events" in a commercial conflict simulation format. Long out of print, copies can still be had on E-bay and wargame convention auctions/collectors lists. The game focuses on the military situation with little to no attention paid to politics or other factors--it is a campaign-level situation and illustrates the asymmetrical differences of the opposing sides. In this the game was very successful and well-received. It still sees a good bit of play even today among Vietnam War die-hards.

Check out the game components here (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/9961).

Read the comments about the game here (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/9961).

SEALORDS: THE VIETNAM WAR IN THE MEKONG DELTA. Just published, this latest Miranda game in Strategy and Tactics Issue 243 is perhaps the first to model joint warfare (land, sea, and air) at this level in a counterinsurgency scenario. The three scenarios are case studies in riverine warfare as encompassed by the "South East Asia Lake, Ocean, Rivers, and Delta Strategy" (SEALORDS) campaign in the Delta: (1) GAME WARDEN, (2) TET, and (3) ZUMWALT TAKES COMMAND. Historically, the Allies did very well in the Delta and have the chance to do it in the game--despite this actual outcome in reality, it will be no cakewalk against a determined (and wily) communist player. Intelligence and logistics get their oft-neglected due which adds a great deal to the game, bereft as it is of the political aspects of insurgency/counterinsurgency given this scale. The graphics are not quite up to the excellent treatment of the other two recent Miranda designs above, but are pleasing enough and quite functional.

Check out the game components here (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/25994).

See the reaction to the game at CONSIMWORLD forum here (http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?50@499.nYtAcudtYzp.7@.1dd0d9e7).

Okay...that's it...WHEW! Next time I'll look at strategic games covering that OTHER famous insurgency/counterinsurgency...the American War For Independence.

[BScully]

Just to add to ericmwalters post, ProSimCo has recently released a new tactical level simulation called Air Assault Task Force (AATF). While ATF and its follow-ons are more suited to armored warfare, AATF focuses on light infantry. The game has scenarios based on LZ XRay (I think...the we were soldiers battles), Mogadishu, and Operation Anaconda. It probably comes a bit closer to COIN type operations than ATF, but I wouldn't say it's there yet.

Here's a link to the website: http://www.prosimco.com/

There's a free demo available as well.

Take care,
Brian

[nichols]

If by CCM you mean Close Combat Marine, I have that CD. I've been playing the CC series for some time now, and graduated to some of the mods that came out after Invasion Normandy.

I'm guessing that you have 3.0 or 3.1. Atomic folded a couple of years ago, the mod community (Specifically CSO Simtek) took over the code. Version 4.0 is the NMCI tolerant version. 5.0 has the RAF 10 player capability. They are building a version of the CC-RAF for Sandhurst.

The AT & JTAC versions that are coming out have additional capabilites. There is separate AI for Blue, Host Nation, Opfor, Insurgent, and Civilian. Not high end AI but 180 dgrees from what the old CC - CCM series had. The picture was a screen capture of an ECP set up on the AT Beta drop.

While we were working with Atomic just about nothing was possible. The problem was that they never kept the same people between versions; CC 1, CC 2, CC 3 and so on. You may have noticed that CC 4 & 5 was probably easier to work with......the AI was turned off. This made its way into the CCM 3.0/3.1. We had no idea until CSO unscrewed it. The trend breaker that CCM was came from the Training Support Package that was installed on the computer when you loaded the game.

Ultimately I suggest you download the newest version from the TMSC, it's a different animal from what you had. Not a complete answer but much more capable.

[nichols]

it is a terribly buggy release that shouldn't have been pushed out before it was play-tested better.

This is why I'm asking for testers for the Tactical French;)

[jcustis]

Ultimately I suggest you download the newest version from the TMSC, it's a different animal from what you had. Not a complete answer but much more capable.

Hmmm. Tell me of this place where I might see these animals. (not sure what TMSC means)

[nichols]

www.usmc-tds-msc.com

I'm on Blackberry now, I'll go into detail tomorrow.

[ericmwalters]

Holy cats, that screen save NICHOLS posted is nothing like the CCM CD I've got (and probably the same one JCUSTIS has).

I'm apparently NOT authorized to download the games from the TMSC website even though I've got a login/password, so I'll work with Paul Nichols (NICHOLS) to figure out how to do that--will pass that gouge on.

Definitely not your grand-dad's CLOSE COMBAT MARINE from the looks of it. Hey, an ECP? A React Force? A holding area with Civilians? Cool...

[Steve Blair]

If by CCM you mean Close Combat Marine, I have that CD. I've been playing the CC series for some time now, and graduated to some of the mods that came out after Invasion Normandy.

You can have my copy of CCM if I can find it, but be forewarned, it is a terribly buggy release that shouldn't have been pushed out before it was play-tested better. when it works, it works well and models troop lift and airstrikes very well, but that may in fact be what causes the crashes.

ATF looks like a regeneration of a game that was out there many years ago. Can't put my finger on what it was titled, as I only downloaded the free version. PLs and OBJs look exactly the same though.

There are patches out for CCM if memory serves, and yes that's what I was talking about. I'm a big fan of the CC series as well, although my favorite is still CCIII (some outstanding mods out for this one, including World War I and Vietnam).

[nichols]

That is a screen capture from the Beta AT version. The first lesson that I learned was that 10 minutes to set up your barrier plan and forces aren't enough time.:(

I need to look at the contract, I think the final Gold version is due at the end of this month.

[nichols]

Here's what the AT version is being built to:

Leverage Close Combat Marines 5 (CCM5)

The contractor shall leverage previously developed capabilities for CCM5; the leveraged functionality is listed below:
• Mount/Dismount
• 5 X 5 Multiplayer
• After Action Review, all replay from single player to 5 X 5 shall be replayed via a mini video replay type console with events time stamped and fast forward/rewind etc available. This allows for total and accurate replay and AAR functions as well as the underlying CTA functions.
• Improved AI with all pathing, and morale issues fully functional Items in the code causing AI problems have either been removed or overhauled.
• The optimized base line code with defunct campaign layer now removed.
• Deployment problems have been fixed and are now far more flexible.
• Map issue limit (was limited to 25 maps in the original CCM) maps can be added up to the games total of 4GB of map files.
• Map elements and building coding has been changed to ensure much better accuracy and authenticity.

Close Combat Marines 5 (CCM5) Enhancements

The contractor shall provide the following enhancements:
• Free-Deploy – The ability to deploy on the map as with CC3. This allows for more flexibility when building scenarios.
• The addition of civilians, the Civilians shall be as a complete new third side with their own Artificial Intelligence characteristics.
• Three (3) deployment areas for Civilian, USMC and Insurgents (OPFOR).
• Scripting to allow for realistic Civilian behaviors shall be added to allow differing types of crowd movements.
• Pre-Deploy phase shall allow for deployment of sandbags, wire etc. (This will need extensive USMC input on man hours needed for this type of work and the sapping effect on overall tiredness and boost to morale etc.) Also needed is a list of relevant items. The pre-deploy phase shall pause all AI and scripting to allow for vulnerability assessment, placement of objects
• Making use of Terrain for pre-deployment via the scenario editors. Tie terrain to corresponding maps for planning fires, vulnerability assessments, and execution purposes.


Editors

The contractor shall develop editors which allow for placing units prior to, and during scenario creation. The editors shall have easy to use controls such as sliders, radio buttons, check boxes, and editable alpha numeric fields. Editors shall include:

• Unit Load Out Individual / Amour
• Morale state (obey orders, question orders, and disobey orders)
• Fatigue level (rested, winded, exhausted)
• Psychological state ( calm, worried, panic)
• Force Editor ( civilian, insurgent (OPFOR), USMC (BLUFOR)
• Insurgent AI - The very specific things that are not “normal” human behavior, such as shooting civilians, setting off bombs shall be included as part of the AI and AI editor.

Editable fields shall include:
Editable fields:
• Name
• Role
• Nationality
• Branch of Service
• Rank
• Head & Body armor levels
• Statistics: Physical & Mental stats, Combat skill levels
• Crewed Weapon
• Primary Weapon
• Secondary Weapon
• Grenades
• Load. (This is essentially the weight that each Marine is carrying. Load shall effect fatigue.

Team Editable fields:
• Team Name
• Team Type
• Full Name
• Nationality
• Miscellaneous Information (Value, Description, etc)
• Marine Slots 1 – 10 (Selected from list of created Marines)

Scenario Editor

The contractor shall develop a scenario editor with the following functionality:

Activity Editor: To task simulation generated avatars and objects in the simulation general operating parameters
Map Selection: Select the map on which the mission will be set.
Unit Placement: Designate deployment areas and place the units assigned to the mission on the map.
Trigger Placement: Triggers are a series of conditions and actions that can be assigned to a mission. When a trigger condition is met, then the action is performed. Triggers can help tailor the scenario to a particular storyline. The AI will also use triggers, especially map based triggers, as planning tools. The designer will select from a list of conditions and actions, or effects, to create a trigger.
Operational Settings: One of the many functions of the mission editor is the ability to specify initial deployment zones, hidden and revealed victory locations, and pre-plotted artillery strikes (if any), game time limit, engagement type, and other general option.
Number of Players: Specify the number of users to be supported in the designed mission.

Fog of War Specify the following games settings:
Always See the Enemy
Only See Enemy in User’s Line of Sight (LOS)
Fading Enemy if no longer in LOS (last known position)
See Enemy in Allied LOS
Units Always Obey Orders

Fire Support: Utilize proper fire support formats as pop-up windows when calling in indirect fires or close air support. The contractor shall provide the ability to run and adjust fire mission with single rounds. Have the computer force running of Fire Support Plan (FSP) through conclusion. Message To Observer (MTO), Record as target, Refine, End of Mission (RREMS), Battle Damage Assessment (BDA). Have the ability to put out a mark for Close Air Support (CAS) and send an adjustment to CAS as well as adjust off lead, specify what type of fire support missions, and quantity available.
Save Mission: Save the edited or newly created mission with a unique file name.
Load Mission: Load an existing mission and edit it in the Mission editor.
Observer Monitoring: The ability to monitor the entire game (all player positions) from a separate computer to facilitate debrief and identification of CTA points.

Non Lethal Weapons

The contractor shall develop new teams, weapons, psychological effects, artificial intelligence, and graphics to represent the use of non-lethal weapons. This shall facilitate the TDS’s ability to represent Operations Other Than War, and further the ability to train for actions appropriate for the Rules Of Engagement (ROE) established by the instructor. Below is a sample list of non-lethal weapons:
- M1012 12-Gauge Non-lethal Point Target Cartridge Round
- M84 Stun Grenade
- M5 Modular Crowd Control Munition
- M1006 Sponge Round (Point)
- M1029 40-Millimeter Crowd Dispersal Round (Area)
- Vehicle-Mounted Active Denial System (V-MADS)

Improvised Explosive Devices

The contractor shall provide the capability to place Package Type ,Vehicle-Borne, and Suicide Bomb type IED’s. This shall allow for specific or random placement of IED’s during scenario creation in single player or multiplayer scenarios. This shall facilitate the TDS’s ability to represent Operations Other Than War, and further the ability to train for actions appropriate for the Rules Of Engagement (ROE) established by the instructor.

Distributed Operations (DO)
The contractor shall provide the capability for distributed operations.
The DO shall consist of a meta-map and an underlying set of interlocking CCM maps as described below.

Do will contain the following:
1. Grid lines shall be incorporated into DO environments.
2. Meta-Map with geo typical terrain for the Mountain Warfare Training Centre Bridgeport and 29 Palms California, additional types of terrain/urban environments from Point Claire to West Africa are a training multiplier.
3. Meta Map controlled by “DO” Commander shall support, supporting fires. This will incorporate call for fire grid system.
4. Units appear only when LOS is established, same method as current friendly & OpFor but applied to all forces. This will also be used to train link up procedures.
5. Mini-map covers effective range of DO observation devices (about 2-4 kilometers)
6. Utilize proper fire support formats as pop-up windows when calling in indirect fires or close air support, including:
Provide the means for the student to access the supported training missions and types of indirect fire assets necessary for the execution of that training scenario.

First Transmission:
(1) Observer identification
(2) Warning order

Second Transmission:
(3) Target location

Third Transmission:
(4) Target description
(5) Method of engagement
(6) Method of fire and control

[Steve Blair]

Very impressive..../wipes drool away from mouth/

I can see this having lots of applications for many training purposes.

[nichols]

The last portion of the requirements talks about Distributed Operations. The attachment is a capture of the JTAC player. There can be 18 other players on three different 1x1 km maps within the map that you see. The guys on the tactical level maps request supporting arms, the JTAC working on the 1/50 map controls the support.

CCM has proven to be a good base for proofs of concepts. The public area of the Pentagon has a Marine kiosk that has been running 24/7 for the past three years. It has a modified version of CCM that allows for 2 or 3 decisions by the player....all controlled with a mouse. A good decision leads to nothing happening and the scenario plays out. A bad decision leads to CCN headlines along the lines of "Marines Fire on a Funeral Procession" or "hostilities between Marines and local Freedom Fighter."

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND.

CCM is not the catch all, it is just 1 TDS within the DVTE.

[pvebber]

A couple apologetically stream of concsiousness thoughts on this topic:

First on the DoD M&S conference last week.

The conference is young - I think this is the 2nd one, and the Army pretty much refused to play, but its still starting to pick up momentum. It had a good "serious games" related showing. Jon Compton and Joe Miranda of MCSG; Joe in his Hexagon Interactive hat with Cyberwar XXI and a derivative, and Doug Whatley and Walt Cheeks from Breakaway Ltd, John Tiller, and others were there. Shaun Wallace was at the DoD M&S conference last week in the demo room with CCM and other things - they have a lot great things in the works for it.

The old Air Force CADRE 'Connections' conference has been folded into it and Peter Perla of CNA, Barney Rubel, Dean of the Naval War College Center for Naval Warfare Studies. Matt Caffrey of AFRL and several other "heavy hitters" in the DoD wargaming community were there. I'm co-chair of a working group looking at educating and developing a cadre of either M&S savvy wargamers, of wargamer savvy M&S'ers or some combination...

I bring it up as a great place to meet and talk with a lot of the names you've brought up...at about 400 attendees listed in the broshure its small enough to get time to talk to folks, and but big enough to attract some "real people". It needs to grow a bit though, particularly the Connections wargaming track that topped out at about 60 all but 20 or 25 drifted off when the working groups started...

It had a very "game inclusive" feel to it - including a packed panel session on "leveraging gamaing technology" that was an excellent discussion of reasons why more and more of M&S is going to increasingly leverage aspects of gaming technology.

The sad part was the lack of participation from the Army, for what was purported to be reasons of "if there is no direct warfighter payoff the day after the conference, don't waste time on it" - a diasterous attitude that was had all but a few FCS guys (I guess well accepted not to have a pay-off to the warfighter for a while ;) ) representing the Army.

My opinion is that the Army are not as well served by a "video-game" mentality when it comes to game technology as the more balanced approach taken by the USMC. "Wargaming" to understand the strategic, operational and tactical levels and the relationships between them are needed (the point of the leveraging of game techniques - not just technology - to provide context to broader M&S efforts). Anyway the Army seemed to want only to participate if venders showed up with Xbox 360 games to teach convoy, counter IED, and patrolling. Since there weren't - despite some significant successes with modest investment - they unfortunately passed...

BT...BT

On the original topic, tactical is great - and we need attention there, but in my mind the problem is the dearth of operational level (ie tying together strategic goals and tactical means) to really get our arms around "whats the point of winning the tactical game??"

Exploring that space is something I've been working off and on over the last few years icw some NWC efforts. The jist of a lot of complex systems stuff is that we (wargamers and those wargamers are trying to provide insight to) have some fundamental disconnects with what we expect to be true at the oparational level of war:

1) Linear, or at least analytically tractable relationships between casue and effect - the whole "metrics mania" that even Congress is getting into. Part of the snake-oil beig sold as "network-centric assement theory" applies only to 'complicated' not truley 'complex' systems, which differ fundamentally by the very fact that cause and effect are discernable in complicated systems, but are not in complex systems - there are two many feedback driven interactions to know where the output needle will swing when you "twiddle the dials".

2) The operational level is driven top down by strategy, not bottom up by tacitcs. Well "ought to be" - you can drive it bottom up, but evaluating "exit criterea until bells and whistles go off is not a 'strategy'.

3) Everybody nods their head up and done and intones "Ahhhhhhh, Boyd" when we hear about the domains of war beyond the physical, but yet everytime we sit down to play or design a game we want to look at a map and units. That is a necessary, but insufficient place to play...but what does a game in the cognitive or belief domain look like? and how do you merge it with the "regular wargame" to get something insightful out and not just a mismash of conflicting outputs when you "twiddle the dials"? We need to make about 20 clones of Joe Miranda's brain to get at this...

4) My personal hobby horse - how do you implement realistic C2 in such a game, if you every figgered it out? A ton has been done in C2 theory by folks like those at www.DoDCCRP.org and AIAA, but most of it is not amenable to inclusion in a game format. Is the answer "surrogate organizations" - guinea pig groups to experiment with? Thats been tried in several experiments at Navy Fleet commands, but we keep re-recording the same lessons.

While the tactical level needs a ton of work, there is little if anything going on at the operational level beyond a few things like CyberwarXXI a few rudimentary board games to get at these issues. I'm trying to help some of the wargaming dept folks a NWC with these issues, but we are just scratching the surface...

I've run out of steam - but hopefully there is some food for discussion in there...

[nichols]

Shaun Wallace was at the DoD M&S conference last week in the demo room with CCM and other things - they have a lot great things in the works for it.

Da bum didn't even stop by the house:(

He's the Mad Brit that we have been working with to unscrew CCM. He has a great family and extremely generous to the Corps.:)

He usually hangs out at the PM Trasys booth during I/ITSEC.

[nichols]

I may have thrown a couple of people off with the posts that I've done in this thread. I work as a direct support contractor to PM Trasys, the website hasn't been updated in over three years but it is still relevant:

http://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/trasys/trasysweb.nsf/All/8CF29ED228AC82C185256D98004BC150

The S&T Section also is a Technology Development Agent for SOCOM.

I manage various projects for Trasys,I'm also the liason bubba for Technology Division TECOM since I'm in Quantico and Trasys is in Orlando.

[marct]

A friend of mine just sent me this link about attempts to organize a gaming convention in Iraq.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=322013

It may be worth having someone there to probe around.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

Interesting thread, Marc. Reminded me I need to look into rpg.net again (or maybe I don't...got enough going on now as it is...:( ).

[ericmwalters]

PVEBBER makes a lot of interesting observations and comments which deserve some responses, so I thought I'd take a stab at some of them. He writes:

1) Linear, or at least analytically tractable relationships between cause and effect - the whole "metrics mania" that even Congress is getting into. Part of the snake-oil being sold as "network-centric assement theory" applies only to 'complicated' not truly 'complex' systems, which differ fundamentally by the very fact that cause and effect are discernable in complicated systems, but are not in complex systems - there are two many feedback driven interactions to know where the output needle will swing when you "twiddle the dials."
I see a lot of this--the idea being that we can use wargaming to forecast outcomes in very complex, messy situations and use them as a way to "test" or "validate" commander courses of action. Lots of money is being poured into such efforts, and I am not convinced that such are based in solid theoretical foundations, as PVEBBER writes of above.

Usually when I run across such simulations being used for these purposes, I immediate want to dive into the algorithms to see if it's indeed a complicated versus complex system that is being simulated. If it's the former, then it's easy to attack the simulation design. If it's the latter and somebody is trying to prove that it can validate courses of action, then I start asking how many "runs" were done and with what differences in variables...a good complex system will usually have wildly different outcomes even with the same variables. Typically when somebody is trying to peddle this kind of system, they've only done one run for the buyer who is golly gee so impressed with this latest technology.

[ericmwalters]

PVEBBER writes about the typical situation in wargaming--at least from what we see in the DoD world:

2) The operational level is driven top down by strategy, not bottom up by tactics. Well "ought to be" - you can drive it bottom up, but evaluating "exit criteria until bells and whistles go off is not a 'strategy'.
Unfortunately, most of the theater wargames I've been involved with do exactly what PVEBBER complains of in his second sentence. I'm personally convinced that not many DoD wargame/scenario designers, military officers, and the contractors who support them are not very conversant in strategy as a subject. While it is taught in various command and staff colleges and war colleges, lessons learned there are rarely reflected in exercises run in the operating forces. Most exercises are really tactical evolutions--it's rare to even see campaigning practiced well, mostly because of the lack of time. CPX evolutions normally are run in "real time" with no time compression, so one hour of exercise time equals one hour of real time. Thus, wars are won or lost in a week or two...because that's all the time we have to exercise. Training objectives are overwhelmingly tactical/procedural, so the entire scenario is skewed to achieve those goals. Unfortunately, we learn a lot that we shouldn't learn in such evolutions...

[nichols]

Going to the TECOM website gave me no clues on how to do this.

Sir,

TechDiv's website is here:

https://www.intranet.tecom.usmc.mil/sites/techdiv/default.aspx

You need to have your CAC certs on the computer to view the site.

[ericmwalters]

As long promised, here are some capsule summaries of games on the American War for Independence. All tend to focus on the purely military aspects of the conflict, with little of the economic or truly political strategic threads which were important considerations in the real war. Nevertheless, such games are worth playing for insights into classic insurgency/counterinsurgency from a military standpoint.

1776 (The Avalon Hill Game Company, 1974). For many years this was the only popular wargame on the topic, rivalled only by SPI's American Revolution game. While there are a number of scenarios covering some of the famous campaigns, these are only "training wheels" for the campaign game covering the entire war--this takes quite a long time for two players to complete as each turn covers a month. The British and Tory Militias seem to have the edge until the Loyalist player realizes he has a great deal of terrain to occupy which tends to negate his numerical superiority; while the Rebel Militia and tiny Continental Army (victim of Winter Attrition in the northern states) are small, they tend to be a bit more nimble inland and can evade most Crown sweeps to fall upon smaller outposts. The Americans receive a good boost when the French show up--particularly with the French fleet which complicates British maneuvers up and down the coastline. The focus on the system is on operations and strategy and is designed to force the players to aim for maximum militia recruitment for their particular side from quarter to quarter. Tactical cards add a bit of color and uncertainty--to say nothing of time--to resolving combats, and create good bit of tension. The leader variant available online is recommended to spice up the game even further. Despite gracefully aging, 1776 could do with a second edition incorporating more "Miranda-esque" considerations on politics and economics. Still, it's recommended if you can find a copy.

You can take a gander at the components here (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/3312).

You can follow the CONSIMWORLD FORUM discussions on the game here. (http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?50@519.vZrhcVUO6He.5@.ee6cdd5)

American Revolution (Simulations Publications, 1972). While an early area movement game, this simulation plays much faster than 1776 and covers the war at the primarily strategic level. Operational/campaigning aspects are heavily abstracted when compared to the Avalon Hill game. While good in its day, other games (notably We The People and Liberty) would seem to have eclipsed it given the scale. Best wrinkle in the game are the victory conditions for the American Player--to bring in the French and to win the game, various numbers of clear victories in battle must be won.

Check out the game components here (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/8803).

Read up on the CONSIMWORLD FORUM discussions here (http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?50@519.vZrhcVUO6He.5@.ee6fdfd).

13: The Colonies In Revolt (Simulations Publications, Incorporated, 1985). This is perhaps the only serious rival to 1776 as of this writing. While the map is something of a graphical disaster, this Strategy and Tactics magazine game (Issue #104) is a hidden gem. Leadership is covered and the game plays faster than 1776, although perhaps not fast enough compared to other available titles. The emphasis here is on strategic decisionmaking but the operational-level is nevertheless covered adequately enough.

Game components can be seen here (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/6022).

Discussion about the game is available here. (http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?50@519.vZrhcVUO6He.5@.1dcfdc23)

We The People (Avalon Hill Game Company, 1994). Probably the most fun and most accessible wargame on the War for American Independence ever made. Quick play combined with an emphasis on card driven event/activation mechanics and political control of colonies make for a tense, exciting experience that nevertheless captures the essentials of the war. This was the title that provided the foundation for the current trend in Card Driven Games (CDGs) that include popular titles such as For The People, Wilderness War, Paths Of Glory, and many others. Some may have difficulty describing this game as a pure wargame compared to some of its brethren on this list, but a wargame it definitely is. Most definitely focused on the strategic level, with campaigning concerns heavily abstracted. Still a favorite at game conventions and tournaments, attesting to its interest level and replayability. Most recommended.

You can look at the components here (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/620).

You can read about what people say about the game here (http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?50@519.vZrhcVUO6He.5@.ee6d252).

Liberty: The American Revolution (Columbia Games, 2003) Another in its series of block games, this recent title plays quickly and--as does Columbia's other titles--provides some tension in its limited intelligence aspects. For quick play and excitement, it rivals (but does not supplant) We The People. As with that title, the focus is on the strategic aspects of the war. While the game has cards, it lacks the color that cardplay provides in the Avalon Hill work. Nevertheless, it's a good replication of the problems and prospects of the purely military applications in insurgency/counterinsurgency at that level--and in simulating the psychological pressures of the commanders involved (e.g., both players constantly think they are losing)--it perhaps has no peer.

Look at the game components here. (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/6719)

Follow what people have to say about the game here (http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?50@519.vZrhcVUO6He.5@.ee6f06a).

As a nod to the 2006 and 2007 Revolutionary War Wargame Convention (RevCon) champion--Dr. Donald Hanle, currently a professor of Asymmetric Warfare at the National Defense Intelligence College--I'd like to mention that both We The People and Liberty are played at that tournament venue, usually in conjuction with PrezCon in Charlottesville, Virginia. Don also has an excellent book entitled Terrorism: The New Face of Warfare; I say this so that you won't be discouraged by the primarily military aspects of the American War for Independence covered by these games. Perhaps someday Joe Miranda or another enterprising designer will do justice to the full political, economic, and informational complexity of that war. Any takers?

[Rex Brynen]

Some years ago, when I started teaching a couple of courses in peacebuilding (one undergraduate, one a graduate seminar), I ran into the problem of how to get beyond the reading materials to highlight the "fog of war/peace operations"--issues of negotiation, CIMIC, donor coordination, peacekeeping, challenges refugee repatriation, development, information shortfalls and overload, etc (and particularly the highly political and sensitive nature of these interlinked tasks).

To address this, I started running a civil war simulation over several days, in which students played the role of the local government, various opposition/insurgent groups, donors, diplomats, NGOs, the press, UN agencies, peacekeeping contingents, etc. It was more or less a free kriegspiel, with minimal rules and actions subject to CONTROL's adjudication of effect. The SIM starts with a deliberate hurting stalemate, with no actor easily able to gain military supremacy so as to encourage negotiations (and to prevent it from degenerating into a giant game of RISK).

The class has now grown (to about 120), the simulation has stretched (to 12+ hours a day for a full week), conducted face-to-face, by email, telephone, SMS, podcasts, and over IM and VoIP connections. This covers 7 months of simulated peace operation (1 hour = 1 day). Its not unusual for enthusiastic students to put in 18 hours a day during SIM week (yes, we simulate burnout too!)

The downside is that this involves me monitoring about 10-11,000 emails over this period (I live in my basement in front of my mac that week).

The upside is that its become enormously complex and dynamic, nicely simulating the complexity of war-to-peace transitions. Over the years students have also contributed a rich historical background: in addition to their briefing papers, there are fake CIA Factbook entries, fake newspaper articles, songs set in the simulation universe, fake BBC video reports, even a fake e-Bay page and a regional soccer league. There is also quite a campus oral tradition about it too (including ethnic cuisines, regional accents, sayings, and gender relations), creating a fairly vibrant cultural "universe" within which peace negotiations, PKO deployment, aid activities, etc. take place There is also quite bit of Pythonesque humour that arises in the course of a SIM, which might seem odd to military wargame practitioners, but in my view is important to engage student interest for 7 straight days during what is often the busiest time of the year.

If anyone is interested, they'll find last year's simulation website here (http://www.brynania.net/).

[Steve Blair]

This is the sort of thing that I've been working on/toward for some time, and I think it's really the best way to simulate the complexities of Small Wars. You really HAVE to involve people, since the randomness they're capable of is very difficult currently to simulate.

[pvebber]

Any of you folks going to the MORS Wargaming and Analysis conference next week?

[Steve Blair]

I should be so lucky....

[Rob Thornton]

Rex, that is a very cool web site and idea! I don't think I've heard of anything like it before done like you have it laid out.

Shek might be interested in this for one of his classes. I can see good utility for this across the PME - I like it because the numbers of people almost guarantee complexity and the problems with getting people to accommodate other views. It could be about brokering peace, dealing with a HN bureaucracy, getting tribes to work together, etc. Doing it over a full week allows people to come around - or at least to better understand each other's position. Do an AAR (a "what did we learn") at the end of it about each other, ourselves and the process and you have some "how" to learn about people and their interests stuff going on.

You should consider doing a paper on this for the SWJ - and discuss how the process evolves.

Best, Rob

[Rank amateur]

Rex, I have three questions, which I couldn't find answers to on the website, though I may have just missed the correct links.


Are the students more likely to reach agreement under lots of pressure, or if someone comes in and relieves the pressure?

Are they more likely to come to agreement if there's no fighting, or if they've bloodied each other a little?

What can we learn from these experiments? (Feel free to point me to someone's thesis. There's no reason you should do all the work.;))

[jcustis]

To add to what Rob said, this looks like an excellent and rich simulation that would have a lot of relevance for NGOs that are deploying teams to a mission environment. Have you seen any such interest from that quarter?

I'm involved in training delivered by the Humanitarain Distance Learning Center out of Australia (Security Management), and something like this would make for a great practical exercise among students who are on the long study track towards certification.

That has to be a huge effort. Kudos on it.

[Rex Brynen]

Rex, I have three questions, which I couldn't find answers to on the website, though I may have just missed the correct links.


Are the students more likely to reach agreement under lots of pressure, or if someone comes in and relieves the pressure?

Are they more likely to come to agreement if there's no fighting, or if they've bloodied each other a little?

What can we learn from these experiments? (Feel free to point me to someone's thesis. There's no reason you should do all the work.;))

The military part of the simulation is designed to be a hurting stalemate from the start, with no one actor able to achieve an easy victory on the battlefield. Usually it takes a day or two before they fully realize this, though--and it is not unusual to get hardliner vs softliner splits emerging early on within the government and the various insurgent groups. It is rare that an agreement is reached without some fighting during simulation week, and poorly-framed agreements usually break down anyway.

It is, of course, not intended to be a military simulation (I have lots of experience with those on the hobby side, but this is really about other issues). I sometimes have to restrain the passions of students with military experience who want me to draw up detailed tactical maps of a country that doesn't exist.

After a few days of jockeying, the government often tries to negotiate a partial peace with one of the main combatants, to allow them to concentrate on the others. It is a useful lesson in the fact that peace negotiations and agreements can be as much about gaining operational or strategic advantage as gaining peace.

On the rebel side, meanwhile, they're often trying to hold an anti-government coalition together while fundamentally mistrusting each other. It can go in very different directions at this point.

The simulation is in a vaguely African setting overall, as evident from the weak economy and military, the poor transportation system, conflict diamonds, and the limited levels of international engagement. It is not considered a US vital interest, so the Marine BLT potentially available to the US team (if it does anything at all) is usually limited to evacuations of foreign nationals or offshore backstopping of a UN or other multilateral PKO. One of the things I really have to do in the class is highlight that, in the real world, only limited numbers of forces are ever likely to be available for peace operations, only under certain conditions, and that external actors have much less leverage over civil wars than is commonly thought. They all seem to think you service guys are omnipotent ;)

On a side note, I've run the SIM some years when the US team is all Americans, and the French team is all from France. That can be fun, as I know Tom and Stan can attest from their real adventures in central Africa!

As for broader lessons, it is largely a teaching device, intended to demonstrate things I've lectured on in the classroom during the previous 10 weeks. Usually students manage to reproduce (without any interference from me) all sort of real life problems of coordination, unintended consequences, fog of war/peace, UN Security Council paralysis, national rivalries, military vs UN vs NGO worldviews, etc.

To give one of my favourite examples: one year the UNICEF team did a ton of research, and put together a technically outstanding maternal/child health care project, complete with a family planning component. It was great work, and they managed to get enough donor funds to launch the project in several districts. They did a needs assessment, and decided to launch the project in the areas of greatest need, in the south. It all seemed routine enough, so they didn't consult very closely with the UN SRSG, who in any case was tied up in sensitive negotiations.

The main ethnic rebel group then learned that UNICEF was introducing family planning only in the south--that is, the home base of their "Zaharian" ethnic group. In a civil war that is in large parts about demographics, this was seen as highly threatening--and so the rebels started kidnapping UN staff in response to what they termed the "UN eugenics program." Of course, cynically, the fact that they had found an issue to beat the SRSG over the head with was far from inconsequential. The net result was a severely distraught UNICEF player, and a UN mediator that had to bend over backwards to calm supposed Zaharian fury.

As Rob suggests, they do after action reports/debriefs/lessons learned post-SIM. We may play around this year with embedding a social psychology experiment in part of the SIM--but I can't provide details lest I prewarn my web-browsing students ;)

[Rex Brynen]

To add to what Rob said, this looks like an excellent and rich simulation that would have a lot of relevance for NGOs that are deploying teams to a mission environment. Have you seen any such interest from that quarter?

No, although a fairly large number of students who take the course go on to work in this area (and generally find the SIM useful).

It would be interesting to see if the rather offbeat, and sometimes rather dark, humour would work off campus (although its very much the kind of humour that we all use for survival when working in conflict zones).

[Rank amateur]

It is rare that an agreement is reached without some fighting

I have an idealogical axe to grind here, but doesn't that suggest that - under certain circumstances - you can't have peace, until you first have a war?

[Rex Brynen]

I have an idealogical axe to grind here, but doesn't that suggest that - under certain circumstances - you can't have peace, until you first have a war?

No, I don't think that's the lesson they take away. I certainly hope not!

The simulation starts in the midst of a protracted civil war, at a potential peacebuilding moment. Given that students haven't "lived" the previous years of war, its only natural that many test the parameters a bit to see if they can achieve an easy win through armed force.

The way the SIM is set up, they can't--after all, that's why its been a protracted civil war to begin with--no easy winners.

[nichols]

Here's what's going on now with JSAF down at JFCOM. We are also looking at incorporating aspects of PMFserv into a first person shooter that already links up with JSAF through a HLA link.

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~npelecha/Pelechano_V_CROWDS05.pdf

[jcustis]

Rex,

What is the chance that an outsider could somehow monitor the goings-on the next time that you run the simulation? I am considerably interested in the world of NGO behavior, especially as it applies to personal security protocol, and I think something like this sim would greatly increase my depth of overall NGO/humanitarian knowledge.

[Rex Brynen]

Rex,

What is the chance that an outsider could somehow monitor the goings-on the next time that you run the simulation? I am considerably interested in the world of NGO behavior, especially as it applies to personal security protocol, and I think something like this sim would greatly increase my depth of overall NGO/humanitarian knowledge.

.....PM sent.....

[ltmurnau]

I am new to SWC but I have been designing manual simulation games on irregular warfare generally for a number of years. (Rex, I don't know if you remember me, but we used to play tabletop games at UVic back in the 1980s.)

I'm uncomfortable tooting my own horn, but I thought I would list some of the more applicable ones I've done:

Tupamaro - about the Tupamaro urban guerrillas in Uruguay, 1968-72.

Shining Path - for two players. About the Sendero Luminoso guerrillas in Peru, 1980-???.

Somalia - about the UN intervention there.

Green Beret - on the military situation in the Central Highlands of Vietnam in 1964-5.

Battle of Seattle: A mini-game inspired by the anti-WTO riots in Seattle November 30 - December 3, 1999.

Algeria: On the 1954-62 French colonial struggle, a slightly altered version of this was used by the Counterinsurgency working group at the recent MORS conference on Irregular Warfare.

Greek Civil War: On the 1947-49 civil war, which was actually the third and final act of a conflict that began in 1941. One of the few times a Communist-inspired insurgency was beaten by a Western government.

Here is a link to fuller descriptions of these and other designs: http://islandnet.com/~ltmurnau/text/mygames.htm

Thanks,

[Stevely]

Here's what's going on now with JSAF down at JFCOM. We are also looking at incorporating aspects of PMFserv into a first person shooter that already links up with JSAF through a HLA link.

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~npelecha/Pelechano_V_CROWDS05.pdf

I hate to talk down our own products, but I am deeply skeptical of the utility of the "non-kinetic" models being developed here (=JFCOM) and elsewhere, like SEAS and JNEM. Creating a complex, social environment that reacts to a training audience's actions in simulation in realistic ways, is not just beyond the technology as it exists today, I don't think we understand that sort of thing mathematically well enough to model it to the degree where it could be a useful interactive training tool. Maybe it is not even possible?

"Simulation-driven exercise" (as opposed to MSEL-driven exercises) is the latest craze and is supposed to be the fruit of increasingly sophisticated behavioral modeling, but I don't think we'll see the day. Automated red/white/gray forces might work at a very tactical level (like maybe in VBS2), but at a larger scale it gets too complicated, too quickly. I am also concerned we're barking up the wrong tree if we think we can reduce complex social, cultural and political contexts and interactions to something calculable. I know the adage "all simulations are wrong, but some are useful," but improperly used simulation can also be counterproductive, because it can teach the wrong lessons and/ or breed false confidence in the assumptions underlying the models.

Simulation is excellent for creating simulated physical reality that allows training where it would otherwise be impossible or impractical in a completely live setting, but falls far short of simulating human reality.

EDIT: it is nice to see this discussed on SWC

[Ron Humphrey]

I hate to talk down our own products, but I am deeply skeptical of the utility of the "non-kinetic" models being developed here (=JFCOM) and elsewhere, like SEAS and JNEM. Creating a complex, social environment that reacts to a training audience's actions in simulation in realistic ways, is not just beyond the technology as it exists today, I don't think we understand that sort of thing mathematically well enough to model it to the degree where it could be a useful interactive training tool. Maybe it is not even possible?


Which is one reason that design should be more focused on what the audience needs to learn, then on what the sim needs to be able to replicate.



"Simulation-driven exercise" (as opposed to MSEL-driven exercises) is the latest craze and is supposed to be the fruit of increasingly sophisticated behavioral modeling, but I don't think we'll see the day. Automated red/white/gray forces might work at a very tactical level (like maybe in VBS2), but at a larger scale it gets too complicated, too quickly. I am also concerned we're barking up the wrong tree if we think we can reduce complex social, cultural and political contexts and interactions to something calculable. I know the adage "all simulations are wrong, but some are useful," but improperly used simulation can also be counterproductive, because it can teach the wrong lessons and/ or breed false confidence in the assumptions underlying the models.

Defining the scope of a programs capabilities to replicate reality would seem to always be a losing proposition. That said should the main concern with any simulation meant for training be not to replicate reality so much as to have the ability to create in those who use it a similar decision making requirement to that which they will experience in real life.

Much like raising our own children there is too often IMHO the habit of providing direction rather than guidance. By that I mean we tell them what to and what not to do in circumstances as they arrive. This may be effective in preparing them for much of what they will face but it leaves out a key component of learning. By providing solutions we infer a lack of necessity to prepare for that which is different or unplanned for. They may make the right decisions when they see similar things but when it comes down to something completely different what tools have we actually provided them with for effectively making the right choices on their own.

Yes, I realize we're talking about adults here but in order to honestly do our best to provide good tools we must be willing to recognize that which we may not like too. To often adults tend to follow the same pattern of looking for the answers rather than seeking out how to find the answers and as such there is often a repetition of bad answers since those were the ones most readily available. Precedent may be a good thing in some constructs but over all they tend to negatively reinforce bad habits just as much as they help. There is a difference between principles and prescriptions and if we don't make a concerted effort to delineate between them we will continue to fail in efforts to provide workable tools for decision making.

In relation to things becoming too complicated as the training audience gets larger, I simply ask that we consider this. Anything whole is made up of it's parts. If you can train the parts with relative efficiency why does it not follow that training the whole would be any more difficult since each of those parts still have the main requirements to fill which you train at the smaller scale.

This is what I think those who seek to teach how to think rather than what to think really are trying to get at and personally I can't see what the problem is with that.




Simulation is excellent for creating simulated physical reality that allows training where it would otherwise be impossible or impractical in a completely live setting, but falls far short of simulating human reality.

As I said true enough, just keep in mind what the learning objective actually is.;)

[nichols]

Which is one reason that design should be more focused on what the audience needs to learn, then on what the sim needs to be able to replicate.

This is exactly what we are doing. The requirements from TECOM are based off of Cognitive Task Analysis and T&R standards based training.

About 5 years ago we would get a sim and 'fit' it into training, today the sim has to fit the training requirement.

The drive behind that AI is for mission rehearsal on the tactical level (VBS-2 & DARPA's Real World).

[jcustis]

I just sat through a tech div brief at the Combined OAG, and that prompted me to find and download the FO sim and CAPT. Interesting tools, although there has to be a better way of navigating to a single point on the portal, and downloading one zip file that has everything. It seemed like files were saved haphazardly.

[nichols]

I just sat through a tech div brief at the Combined OAG, and that prompted me to find and download the FO sim and CAPT. Interesting tools, although there has to be a better way of navigating to a single point on the portal, and downloading one zip file that has everything. It seemed like files were saved haphazardly.

I've had a strange 'task organized' three weeks. I pulled booth babe duties on Monday for the OAG (black Trasys shirt). That Friday was booth babe duties at HMX-1 hangar for the Congressional Staffers. The week before that my boss decided to take me out of my swim lane and throw me into a completely different swimming pool. I attended a Hybrid War wargame, I ended up in Col Walters group. I was kinda hoping that he would post something in here. I pushed to get rid of the yellow footprints in bootcamp:eek:

Referencing your comment on the portal, no excuses, we need to dedicate manpower to that. We have been running it haphazardly since we took it out of the .com domain. The Tactical Language site is running pretty smoothly but, it is .com.

If you find some time pop an email to Maj Mcdonough JP, Capt Dmochowski, and myself (paul.nichols.ctr@usmc.mil). TechDiv and Trasys are getting ready for the summer PCS moves so the sooner you get this in....the better.

S/F

Paul

[Silento]

I've used TACOPS as well, but I've been interested (with no luck) in getting my hands on CCM to use with the ROTC course that I'm developing dealing with joint campaign planning. I preferred the CC game engine to TACOPS, and it would work better for simulating some of the small unit action that we're bound to need (the actual map exercise runs on a battalion+ level).

Interesting.

We are using (partially) TACOPS currently in a SADR CITY MOUT MBX (http://www.opcon.org/SadrCity/), check the "MOUT in TACOPS" icon to the left.

This said, I am still recruiting (MBX just resumed after summer pause).

FWIW,

Silento

>> EDIT: Added players guide link:
http://www.opcon.org/SadrCity/BLUE/SadrCityPlayersGuide.pdf

[Rex Brynen]

We've started adding a series of reviews of insurgency/counterinsurgency/contemporary civil war boardgames at PaxSims (http://paxsims.wordpress.com). You'll find the first two here:

Liberia: Descent into Hell (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2010/05/15/review-liberia-descent-into-hell/) (2008)
Battle For Baghdad (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2010/06/13/review-battle-for-baghdad/) (2009)

While you can typically find many more reviews in places like BoardGameGeek (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/), we focus on the potential usefulness of such games in education and professional training settings. Comments welcomed!

[AdamG]

I searched the thread to find any prior reference, but it's with a certain sense of irony that I find no mention of H.G. Wells' LITTLE WARS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Wars

Little Wars is a set of rules for playing with toy soldiers, written by H. G. Wells in 1913. Its full title is Little Wars: a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty and for that more intelligent sort of girl who likes boys' games and books.

See also
http://books.google.com/books?id=M9dshxV-T0cC&dq=HG-Wells+Small-Wars&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=JwciTLjlGMGAlAfvnYnNBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

[M-A Lagrange]

wargaming "tiny wars"

http://micromutants.canalblog.com/tag/nouvelle%20armee%20micro%20mutants/p10-0.html

Over simplistic? May be but at least the very first funy wargame I played.(And I love wargames boards, roll the dices, pushing the fig and watch the face of the adversary is much funier than talking to a geek in a mic behind a computer...):D

[Rex Brynen]

Over simplistic? May be but at least the very first funy wargame I played.

I think that's the simulation model they may have used to initially prepare for Phase IV operations in Iraq... :eek:

[William F. Owen]

, we focus on the potential usefulness of such games in education and professional training settings. Comments welcomed!
What is the "peacemaking" thing that they speak of? Is this another word for Victory or Surrender? :D

[Rex Brynen]

What is the "peacemaking" thing that they speak of? Is this another word for Victory or Surrender? :D

Wilf, you would like the Liberia game (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2010/05/15/review-liberia-descent-into-hell/) we reviewed earlier on PaxSims--in it ECOMOG steals cars, feuds with the UN, keeps randomly shuffling force commanders, and has a "heavy firepower" option that is quite effective but costs you politically for what the rules term "embarrassing civilian casualties." That's quite apart for the rules for hostages, transvestites, lobbying Monrovia prostitutes, looting the national library, US evangelicals, naive Scandinavian aid workers, cannibalism, the Butt Naked brigade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Blahyi), etc. (the list goes on).

M-A, we've just done a review of a wargame of the Algerian war of independence, Ici, c'est la France (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/review-ici-cest-la-france/). Great game (and historical simulation), although it takes a long time to play through the full campaign. We'll be doing a review of another Algerian wargame as soon as I can find time to play it.

[M-A Lagrange]

Rex:
Are you talking about that one?
ALGERIA
http://www.reservoir-jeux.com/wargames/divers/algeria.php
Just saw it on my favorite dealer website.

I use to know another wargame on Bien Dien Phu, but I this is the only one I could find recently.
Advanced Tobruk System : combats tactiques en Indochine
http://www.agorajeux.com/684-ats-dien-bien-phu.html

Have no idea if it’s good or not. (It’s the last they have. Must not have been a hit).

I also think that this one is perfect for small wars wargaming:
ALL THINGS ZOMBIE
Each counter represents one survivor or one zombie. You choose your star, your “mini-me” if you will, and arm him or her with one of four weapon types. But you’re not alone as you then recruit a few other survivors to form your group.
Then it’s off to explore a beautifully detailed map representing deserted cities, suburbs, and rural areas. But are they really deserted? Not if you count the zombies, the seemingly endless hordes of zombies. But soon you realize that the zombies may be the least of your worries as you run into other survivors. Are they friendly or hostile? Well, the game mechanics determine that. With luck you can recruit them to use in future games. But sometimes it spins out of control
HTTP://WWW.AGORAJEUX.COM/JEUX-DE-SOCIETE-EN-VO/1945-ALL-THINGS-ZOMBIE.HTML

Unfortunately, I do not have much time and also opponent where I usualy spend my days...

[Rex Brynen]

Rex:
Are you talking about that one?
ALGERIA
http://www.reservoir-jeux.com/wargames/divers/algeria.php
Just saw it on my favorite dealer website.

That's the one. Brian Train--who sometimes posts here at SWC--is the designer.

[M-A Lagrange]

Having been working in Liberia “after” the war and before the second one and the final push for peace, I find a little frustrating (I did not play it) that such game is limited to 2 players. Reality was may be not more complex but had several players (at least 4) as Samuel Doe died in the beginning of the war and Taylor’s forces split in various small groups. Also you had several independent groups who entered in the game after this.
I also would be less reluctant than you on the horrific side. After all, for teaching purposes, I prefer to use something that would shock the nice and cute hearts.
Saying so, I found this interesting as it gives an opportunity to simulate real modern conflicts as they are.
Cannibalism was not limited to Liberia, was somehow popular in DRC; taking and selling hostages was a common shared game in Chechnya; resources based motivation is common to almost all modern wars; attacking refugees camps is a daily practice in Darfur…
I would say it is refreshing that board games actually can transcript what small wars are.

Finally, game must have an end and taking Abuja as the end of Liberia war is one option. But reality has shown that it was not the real end of the conflict which erupted once again in 2003.
Also, what seem to be missing are the diamond, rubber and iron companies which were funding the warlords. They did have a role in the war and the “peace” that followed. But as you said in your review, it is a complex context and war to resume in a game.

A game based on resource control (industrial plants and illegal market) and/or services delivery (through NGO and UN agencies and donors funds) on the soft side and troops’ deployment (that includes also violence over civilian to feed them, peacekeepers in safe places...) and sabotages (understand looting, terror… all the panoply) on the hard side would also be interesting. And Liberia may provide an interesting context for such base. Or DRC… Especially as they give opportunities to simulate real small wars which were somehow simple as less known.

By the way, Gen Bud naked was one of my favorite crazy men. But the Taylor boys I met were definitively as crazy as it seems they are simulated.

Will be a hell to find it in France (just forget it in Sudan) but I’ll test it with pleasure, listening some Luckydub, drinking dirty cane juice and smoking AK gunpowder mixed with weed… Just to feel at home. :D

[AdamG]

Wilf, you would like the Liberia game (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2010/05/15/review-liberia-descent-into-hell/) we reviewed earlier on PaxSims--in it ECOMOG steals cars, feuds with the UN, keeps randomly shuffling force commanders, and has a "heavy firepower" option that is quite effective but costs you politically for what the rules term "embarrassing civilian casualties." That's quite apart for the rules for hostages, transvestites, lobbying Monrovia prostitutes, looting the national library, US evangelicals, naive Scandinavian aid workers, cannibalism, the Butt Naked brigade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Blahyi), etc. (the list goes on).
.

That's brilliant!

[slapout9]

Wasn't sure where to put this but it shows some advantages of board games. This one a BP oil spill board game:eek: for told the possibility of our present disaster.



http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/07/06/4621357-bp-board-game-foreshadows-gulf-disaster?Gt1=43001

[Wargames Mark]

That's the one. Brian Train--who sometimes posts here at SWC--is the designer.

I played a few of Brian Train's games. Liked them all.

One day, I'll have my AIR-based (Adobe Flash for desktop) counterinsurgency game ready to sell. I think it will be well-received.

I've thought about doing one that lets the player take the side of the insurgent, but I'm not crazy about trying to sell that (future) version to the entertainment market.

[Rex Brynen]

I played a few of Brian Train's games. Liked them all.

We've now reviewed it (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/review-algeria/). Good game, and a good COIN simulation. He's currently working on a multiplayer variant, based on the same game system, that looks at COIN operations in Kandahar.

[Brian Train]

M-A Lagrange, les regles, cartes etc. pour jouer ma jeu Algeria sont disponibles en francais a:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/51637/algerie-pdf

Merci,

[Brian Train]

Thanks Wargames Mark, it's nice to meet a player.
I'd like to know about your thoughts on making a game in Adobe Flash - I've been thinking about using VASSAL for the same purpose. A gaming friend has constructed VASSAL modules for my Tupamaro, Shining Path, and Algeria games (available at www.vassalengine.com).

[Rex Brynen]

Warning: geeky wargaming posting ahead.

I'm playing around with the idea using a wargame to illustrate the basics of small unit warfare as an ancillary element of a course next year. (This probably falls into the category of "ideas I'll be too busy to follow up on," but there it is.) I could go with a computer simulation... but there are certain challenges in teaching from that in a group. I could go with a boardgame, but they're rather dry, abstract, complicated, and non-visual for non-gamers. The third option (assuming it doesn't fall into the trap of "my prof plays with toy soldiers") is to use a miniatures-based wargame, which allows you to lecture as the game progresses (to a small group at least).

The question is, however, what scale?

Hobby wargamers largely game COIN/IW operations (http://www.ambushalleygames.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/soa_aa_aar1.pdf) in 15mm, 20mm ("Airfix" or 1/72) or 25/28mm scales. Even though the ground scale of the rules need not equal the visual scale of the figures, for aesthetic reasons you are confined to 3-4 city blocks (or equivalent) at most, meaning that the tactical decisions involved are not much more than "do I go left through those building, or right around those?"

You can also wargame this is 1/285 (or, in the UK, 1/300) "microarmour (http://www.microarmor.com/images/MK1%27s%20Battle2/target10.html)" scale. With the ground scales used in most rulesets, a 4x8" table will give you something like 2.5 x 5 km of simulated battlefield, which allows you to get much more in to approach routes, overwatch positions, blocking forces, IED placement, etc. On the down side, infantry are so small as to almost be invisible (although depicted as fire teams with several figures to a "base", they're still very useable).

Of course, the fourth option is to do what I do now, and just lecture from powerpoint. That might actually be the most effective of all (although arguably considerably less fun for the students). :D

[M-A Lagrange]

Playing a lot (when I am at home) whith 25/28mm scale, I would say that it’s not the best scale for what you attend to do. This scale goes really fine and is extremely visual and friendly used but 3 or 4 blocks means a very large board: around 2x2 metres. This in the idea that you have 4 blocks with let say 3 to 4 buildings per sides.
I would rather recommend that scale for a village position with a 1x1 m board and something like 5 to 6 houses and 1 mosque/church… Plus some surrounding country area.

For what you plan, the 1/72 scale seems the most adapted. Also it will be the cheapest option. You will be able to create your building easily with cookies boxes and beer canes (eat and drink first :D) and vehicles are easy to find. Toy cars (matchbox or other brand) for civilian vehicles and miniatures from Heller or Airfix (or any other brand) military vehicles but you will probably have to assemble them.

It is extremely visual and shows well (if you have veteran with you) what does work on paper and not in reality. There is always a crazy angle you find in miniature that basically is blind in reality just because there is a tree, a civilian, a donkey or some garbage some where…

The pb you may find with the 1/72 scale is that players cannot really “see” what the soldiers can see. With a 25/28mm scale, it’s easier for the players to jump in the suite of the “combatant”. This because figurines in 1/72 are too small so you do not necessarily pictures the head of a guy above a wall.
The good point with that scale is that you can find easily civilians by going to the small train section. That you cannot find in 25/28mm (or more difficult).

Also, do not forget, those games are time consuming. Average 30 min/player/turn. With the 1/72 scale you can move a lot more figurines in the same amount of time.

The best would be 10 or 15 mm but it’s a hell to find and it’s definitively not made for neophytes. The visual effect works on large scale operation where you play a division.

[BayonetBrant]

http://www.ambushalleygames.com/

[Steve Blair]

You also might be able to modify Warhammer 40k or standard Warhammer to work for this. Lots of terrain and such out there, and the miniatures are of a good size as well.

[Brian Train]

I would say that doing something with miniatures would probably be more satisfying to the students, from a tacticle and visual viewpoint. Making up some simple terrain would not be hard, and I think 1/72 scale would be easiest to find miniatures cheaply, in plastic (there are British outfits like Irregular Miniatures who do ranges of unusual figures in metal, of different scales, that would fill the bill for you but they are more expensive and would need to be painted).

I once made a demonstration-size game of my "Battle of Seattle" riot game (http://www.islandnet.com/~ltmurnau/text/gamescen.htm) with a large homemade paper map and two or three bags of "policemen" figures I got from a dollar store. They were about 54mm size, I used the figures as-was for "Authority" forces (reinforced with a few other dollar-store soldiers for National Guardsmen) and my little son and I had fun painting up and making small signs for the "Protestors". The latter needed a bit of surgery with a craft knife - cutting off pistols and holsters, changing police caps into Mohawks with Sculpey etc. - but it didn't take long.

As for rules sets, I've been looking into the Peter Pig "Rules for the Common Man" series, specifically a set called "AK-47 Republic". It's designed for playing out brushfire wars, is fairly simple and the rulebook and website has a lot of advice and hints on making scenarios and scenery. (Oh yes, and Peter Pig makes all kinds of miniatures for these conflicts too). (http://www.peterpig.co.uk/rules.htm)
(review of first edition, set was revised last year: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/98616/review-of-ak-47-republic)

The problem with many urban games, as you and M-A pointed out above, is that you get too tactical and then you lose all the flavour of the conflict - it's just one kind of infantry facing off against another in an alley somewhere. You do need to step back a bit and AK-47 does allow for this. I'd recommend it.

[Rex Brynen]

You also might be able to modify Warhammer 40k or standard Warhammer to work for this. Lots of terrain and such out there, and the miniatures are of a good size as well.

Believe it or not, my Warhammer 40k Orks are already modelled on the West Side Boys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Side_Boys). However, what shreds of credibility I still have would vanish if I put those in front of a class.

[M-A Lagrange]

While searching for wargame board material to play with a Yemeni officer who is rotting in the same hole than me, I found that game: Breaking news

I did not play it but thought it could be interesting as this game seems to integrate the media dimension (have to read the rules in depth).
Believe can be an interesting teaching material for 1st course/introduction to media management on operation field.
Especially as the scenarios are mainly focussed on counter terrorist/swat operations with civilian population involved.
http://www.dadiepiombo.com/bnrules.html


For those like me who are stuck far from nice little plastic angry warriors ( I do miss my WH40K and LoTR in the field), I found that game: Iraki Roads.
The very good point of it is that everything is available for paper soldiers. Just have to download your squad, vehicules... print it and play.
http://www.iraqiroads.de.tl/
(Tips: adverts and pop up are very, VERY annoying on that site)

[Rex Brynen]

I did not play it but thought it could be interesting as this game seems to integrate the media dimension (have to read the rules in depth).
Believe can be an interesting teaching material for 1st course/introduction to media management on operation field.
Especially as the scenarios are mainly focussed on counter terrorist/swat operations with civilian population involved.
http://www.dadiepiombo.com/bnrules.html

I've seen those.

Phil Barker, of Wargames Research Group fame (arguably the best rules-writer in the business, ever) has been working on a set of modern company-level COIN-type rules for the past few years. I'm not sure I like the dice system, but they otherwise look excellent. You'll find them here (http://www.wargamesresearchgroup.net/) (at the bottom of his page, as a .doc file).

[pvebber]

I think this site may have been brought up in the past, but a great resource for classroom wargames is:

http://www.juniorgeneral.org/

Simple, rules, that can be modified easily, and easy to make components.

Pete Pelligino, a contributer to the site, has used the simple rules to run "cocktail party games" on the parque dance floor at the O-Club here in Newport to commemorate Trafalgar, Midway and Tsushima.

[Rex Brynen]

Cross-posted from PaxSims (http://paxsims.wordpress.com), on behalf of the folks at the Center for Applied Strategic Learning, NDU:
(http://www.ndu.edu/casl/)
Regular readers of PaxSims will have seen the occasional posts about a series of roundtable events at National Defense University (NDU) on the subject of strategic gaming, hosted by the Center for Applied Strategic Learning (CASL). The goal has been to create a regular forum for practitioners and scholars to exchange ideas and compare notes about issues relating to game design, the use of games for analytical and teaching purposes, and interesting projects in the field. CASL is pleased to announce that our quarterly series of in-person roundtables will now have an affiliated online component, the Strategic Gaming Roundtable group site at APAN (All Partners Access Network).

The site is intended to be a place to continue conversation from the quarterly meetings, as well as a place to discuss gaming experiences, works in progress, and the state of the field. We hope that the new site will further advance our goals of getting to know and building lasting professional connections between gamers.

If you have a professional or academic interest in strategic gaming (or in simulation of peace and conflict issues, as Rex likes to say) we hope you will join the conversation. Please email Tim Wilkie (mailto:timothy.wilkie@ndu.edu) to request an invitation.

[Rex Brynen]

GMT Games recently brought out a GWOT boardgame, Labyrinth: The Global War on Terror, 2001- (http://www.gmtgames.com/p-294-labyrinth.aspx).

It has generally great reviews at BoardGameGeek (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/62227/labyrinth-the-war-on-terror), although there has been some thoughtful criticism of its portrayals and assumptions (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/594871/flawed-simulation-of-a-conflict-thats-difficult-to). Obviously it is a hobby wargame not a serious/professional one, but I thought it was interesting (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/review-labyrinth/).

[Rex Brynen]

I recently played (and reviewed) the boardgame Hearts and Minds (Vietnam, 1965-75) (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/review-hearts-and-minds-vietnam-1965-75/). It is a solid effort with very playable game mechanics, although I didn't find it especially engaging.

While the victory conditions are largely political (US casualties and NVA/VC successes generate "hawk/dove points" that determine the game winner), although these political outcomes are largely achieved through military force.

That left me wondering--if one was asked to design a strategic (10 year) simulation of the Vietnam conflict, would would be the essential dynamics that the game mechanics would need to capture?

[Misterhawk]

Kim Kanger, who designed the well received Ici, c'est la France! The Algerian War of Independence 1954-62 has a new title available for pre-order on the French Experience in Vietnam.

http://www.legionwargames.com/legion_tonkin.html

[Rex Brynen]

Kim Kanger, who designed the well received Ici, c'est la France! The Algerian War of Independence 1954-62 has a new title available for pre-order on the French Experience in Vietnam.

Yes--I already have Ici (good game), and have Tonkin on preorder.

[Rex Brynen]

NDU Roundtable on Strategic Gaming (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/ndu-roundtable-on-strategic-gaming-245/) (May 24)

The National Defense University’s Center for Applied Strategic Learning (CASL) is pleased to announce the seventh in its quarterly series of discussions with gaming practitioners on May 24. The Roundtable on Strategic Gaming will be held at the beautiful new United States Institute of Peace building at 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC.

The CASL roundtable brings together gamers from the research, policy, defense, and academic communities in order to generate a professional dialogue in our field about issues relating to game design, the use of games for analytical and teaching purposes, and interesting projects in the field. Each roundtable invites a few speakers to present short, informal talks on some aspect of strategic-level games to spark discussion among the group.

In the forthcoming session, speakers will discuss some of the ways in which gaming has been applied to peace and conflict issues. Peace and conflict studies often address areas (such as counterinsurgency, post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction, humanitarian intervention, and crisis management) that are persistent challenges in the defense world as well. Given that, there will be something of interest/use to everyone in the gaming community in the presentations and the discussion that follows. In addition, we hope to use the roundtable discussion to gather input on what elements would be important to include in an introductory book on the development of games on peace and conflict issues. The book will be a project of USIP Press and represents a collaboration between USIP, NDU, and McGill University. Whether you are a longtime gamer or a newcomer to the field, your input on the book project will be extremely helpful.

Please note that attendance is by invitation only, and limited to those with professional interest in the issues to be explored. To obtain an invitation, please contact Tim Wilkie (NDU), Skip Cole (USIP), or Rex Brynen (McGill University).

[BayonetBrant]

^ yeah - and I'm going to be Dallas that day! (ugh!)

I was hoping the next one would be further into June instead of before Memorial Day. The nerve of CASL - not coordinating with my personal schedule! :P

[Rex Brynen]

Michael Peck (Training & Simulation Journal) on the US military and "serious games" (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/michael-peck-on-the-military-and-serious-games/) :

For those who don’t know, I’m U.S. Editor of Training & Simulation Journal, a wargamer since age 12, and probably the defense journalist who most focuses on games and simulations.

I thought I’d start with a few lessons I’ve learned about the military and serious games:

1. Serious games need serious reasons. When it comes to games, missiles, or any other military item, the first question I’ve learned to ask is, “What need or requirement does it fulfill?” Because that is exactly what the Pentagon will ask. The people in the military who are in charge of games frequently don’t play games for fun. The military also procures games in the same way that it procures tanks, rifles and boots. Serious games don’t have political clout; no Senator is going to throw a filibuster because a few geeks in a basement office didn’t get a $500,000 contract. I’ve met a lot of people with great ideas for games on topics like counterinsurgency. Bringing those ideas to fruition may be a little easier if it’s a specialized simulation for a select audience, like a military staff college. But a game for all the privates and sergeants and lieutenants? Not going to happen without a requirement, with all the bureaucracy therein. Gamers and bureaucracy mix as harmoniously as dogs and cats. But that’s how the system works.

...

[Rex Brynen]

Online registration is now open for the Connections 2011 interdisciplinary wargaming conference in (1-4 August 2011, National Defense University, Washington DC):

Connections is the only national conference dedicated specifically to wargaming. Since 1993 Connections has worked to advance the art, science and application of wargaming by bringing together all elements of the field (military, commercial and academic) so participants can exchange info on achievements, best practices and needs.

2011 is the 200th anniversary of modern wargaming. See Wargaming. In keeping with this anniversary the theme of Connections 2011 is “The Next 200 Years of Wargaming - Expanding Our Scope.” Connections 2011 will explore how wargaming can evolve to effectively explore; science & technology alternatives, optimizing tooth and tail mix, as well as orchestrating all of government responses. We will explore this theme through keynotes, four panels, three working groups, demos and a play test. .... Still, many believe the most valuable element of Connections is the chance to meet leaders from across the spectrum of wargaming.

Connections is open to all contributors to the field of wargaming; military, government, defense contractor, academic, and recreational. While not open to those who purely enjoy wargames, Connections does define “contributor” broadly and welcomes everyone from the most senior director to the newly assigned lieutenant, the wargame publisher to the play tester.

Full information can be found here (http://connections-wargaming.com/).

[BayonetBrant]

^ I'll see you there! :)

[The Olive Sword]

I haven't finished reading through this thread yet, so I'm not sure if this particular war game has been mentioned yet or not. If so, it's probably worth a 2nd mention:

http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/Products/DA/decisive_action.html

I've been using this just to gain a better understanding of what goes into corps level operations. From what I've seen this is the only commercially available game where proper organization is a must. A lot of core doctrine principles also transfer directly to the game. Plus, there's immense strategic depth having to manage moral, op tempo, logistics, recon, PSYOPs, and EW to go along with the fundamentals.

I think it's a good piece of software for civilians and professionals alike. I believe it was used at the Army General Staff College for a couple of years even.

I'm sure some of you guys should find it interesting and useful, and if you ever need a civilian to beat up on, let me know. :)

[Rex Brynen]

The Connections 2011 (http://www.connections-wargaming.com/) interdisciplinary wargaming conference was recently held at NDU.

Connections is the only national conference dedicated specifically to wargaming. Since 1993 Connections has worked to advance the art, science and application of wargaming by bringing together all elements of the field (military, commercial and academic) so participants can exchange info on achievements, best practices and needs.

As might be expected, there was much discussion of things COIN.

The agenda is available at the link above. Brant live-blogged the proceedings during the event at Grog News (http://grognews.blogspot.com/search/label/Connections), and I have an after action review at PAXsims (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/connections-2011-aar/).

Side note: Andean Abyss (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/91080/andean-abyss) (still in development) seems likely to emerge as my favourite COIN-themed commercial wargame to date.

[Rex Brynen]

From the Simulation & Training Journal (http://www.tsjonline.com/story.php?F=7011187), 25 August 2011 (by yours truly).

Preparing for an era of uncertainty
As the U.S. military leaves Afghanistan and places less emphasis on COIN operations, how will it prepare for the next unpredictable conflict?


The reduction of U.S. combat forces in Afghanistan certainly does not mark the end of the counterinsurgency (COIN) mission there. However, it does signal a need to think about how military training and simulation requirements might change in the coming decade. With U.S. and NATO forces likely to face unexpected opponents operating in unexpected ways in unfamiliar settings, simulation-based training needs to emphasize creativity and adaptability, as well as hone more conventional skills.

...

Part of the answer is to shift training from its current mission-determined preoccupations with COIN to more generic, full-spectrum war-fighting skills that are likely to be useful in a variety of settings. A second requirement, however, is to also develop training and simulation assets that encourage the kind of critical thinking and flexibility that will allow military personnel to adapt quickly to a range of inherently unpredictable mission requirements.

Here, a certain paradox presents itself. While few in the military would reject the importance of critical thinking skills, military training systems are not always designed to truly encourage them. Training (including simulation-based training) is often about standardization, not original and out-of-the-box thinking. It revolves around doctrine, even though the very notion of prepackaged, doctrinally based solutions may reinforce the dysfunctional tendency to use cookie-cutter approaches in very different operational contexts. Training may suggest there are right and wrong ways of achieving a desired solution, when those on the ground may actually find themselves faced with a difficult series of “least worst” trade-offs where definitive outcomes are elusive. Post-Cold War missions often pose complex moral and political choices, where it is far from clear what the right thing to do is.

What are the implications for simulation design? A number of possible considerations can be identified, many of which stress the value of integrating uncertainty into the training process.

Training and simulation materials ought to be designed to encourage students to ask the right questions, not to impart unvarying “right answers.” Post-simulation debriefing should place at least as much emphasis on how participants decided upon a course of action (and what assumptions were embedded in this) as on the course of action itself....

Comments welcomed here or at PAXsims (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/preparing-for-an-era-of-uncertainty-military-training-and-simulation/).

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Lowy Institute Thomas Ricks in a short article:http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/10/getting_serious_about_video_games#.TwybCYVjJ54.twi tter

[BayonetBrant]

http://tsjonline.com/story.php?F=7681050

Steve Goodwin, director of the strategy and operations division of National Defense University’s Center for Applied Strategic Learning, echoes Lambert’s assessment.

“The exercise community has not generally been successful in developing COIN models and simulations that can predict outcomes with a reasonable degree of confidence,” he said. “This is particularly true of games looking at complex contingencies, where psychological and social lines of operation, such as information operations and political negotiation, are hard to capture in mathematical models.”

But in just the past few years, the mood has changed. Don’t call it optimism. Call it realism, a sense of what is possible and what isn’t. Irregular warfare models and simulations are coming. But if you’re hoping for a computer program to tell you how to beat the Taliban, don’t hold your breath.

further down the article...

Another example is Gemstone, a strategic simulation for senior leaders that was developed at the Center for Applied Strategic Learning at National Defense University (NDU).

“Most COIN sims and games have existed at the operational level and lower,” said Guillory, who co-designed Gemstone. “Their focus was on the guys in the field. How does the grunt talk to people? How does he avoid pissing people off? We have also done OK with battalion and brigade staffs. What we haven’t done is look at the strategic-level thinkers that are putting out policy, allocating resources, money and time over the course of two, three, 10 years. If I’m going to put a lot of budget into governance, or infrastructure, or military development, will it pay off for me in five years? We don’t game those things very well, if at all.”

Gemstone is essentially a BOGSAT (bunch of guys sitting around a table) seminar-style game, backed up by computer adjudication. Originally designed to orient new students at NCU’s College of International Security Affairs, the game puts players in senior central government roles in a nation beset by insurgency. Last year, the game was set in Colombia, and Colombian officials participated. A subsequent exercise in September centered on the Philippines.

Gemstone divides a country into provinces or states. Players allocate resources such as troops, police and economic funding. Their decisions are fed into the computerized adjudication model, and the results are displayed as color-coded outcomes on a scale of red to green. The simulation is expressly designed to incorporate Field Manual 3-24, the Army’s COIN doctrine.

“Elements of the doctrine include the game’s focus on lines of operation, including service provision, governance, perceived security, information operations and economic development,” said NDU’s Goodwin. “There is a lot of emphasis on gaining an understanding of how the parts feed into the whole in 3-24.”

[Rex Brynen]

Hat tip to Lowy Institute Thomas Ricks in a short article:http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/10/getting_serious_about_video_games#.TwybCYVjJ54.twi tter

And some thoughts on the piece at PAXsims (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/getting-serious-about-video-games-and-some-caveats/).

[AdamG]

The Vietnamese take on 'Call Of Duty'. Can their brand of tactical simulations be far behind?

Anybody with a computer can slay virtual terrorists, storm troopers or kamikaze pilots.

Now videogamers can play the role of Ho Chi Minh's communist forces as they rout French colonists in a blood-spattered shoot'em-up.

Developed by Hanoi-based Emobi Games, "7554" is an example of how Vietnamese entrepreneurs are setting their sights on creating their own brands, instead of doing piece work for foreign companies. That can help them avoid falling into the so-called middle-income trap afflicting many emerging-market businesses.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203436904577151011200588958.html

http://www.emobigames.vn/EN/Games/7554.html

http://www.marketwatch.com/video/asset/a-gamer-take-on-ho-chi-minh-the-videogame/9F7CD9D4-D027-4C4E-AC1C-5B7EBAFA69BA

[Rex Brynen]

I ran some student volunteers through a stabilization game today that worked quite well:

Afghan Provincial Reconstruction game (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/the-afghan-provincial-reconstruction-game/)

It certainly isn't a high fidelity (or even medium fidelity) simulation of Afghanistan by any stretch, and has relatively little to say about the kinetic end of things. However it does do a nice job of representing the challenges of security and development in conflict-affected states in an easily playable package, especially as they related to issues of resource allocation, donor coordination, and the importance building local community support.

[Rex Brynen]

Philip Sabin (a military historian at King's College London) recently published an excellent book on the use of wargames for education, research, and policy development: Simulating War: Studying Conflict Through Simulation Games (http://www.continuumbooks.com/books/detail.aspx?BookId=134266&SubjectId=974&Subject2Id=1262) (London: Continuum, 2012).

While the book is heavy on his own experiences at KCL using boardgames, it is nevertheless an excellent read (and certainly the best academic wargaming book since Peter Perla's The Art of Wargaming). You'll find my own review of it at PAXsims. (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/review-sabin-simulating-war/)

[Steve Blair]

Great review, Rex! I'd seen mention of this in the solitaire rules Sabin developed for the game Nightfighter and was curious. Guess I'll be adding it to my list now.

[AmericanPride]

I'm currently designing a board game simulation of the Afghan War. I'm about done with the rule book and am developing the supporting appendices (i.e. cards and effects, etc) this week. The idea is to depict the three-way strategy tango between the US/ISAF, GIRoA, and the Taliban. When I have a more completee product (hopefully by next week), I intend to showcase it here to elicit some feedback and commentary to make it more realistic.

[Rex Brynen]

I'm currently designing a board game simulation of the Afghan War. I'm about done with the rule book and am developing the supporting appendices (i.e. cards and effects, etc) this week. The idea is to depict the three-way strategy tango between the US/ISAF, GIRoA, and the Taliban. When I have a more completee product (hopefully by next week), I intend to showcase it here to elicit some feedback and commentary to make it more realistic.

We'll look forward to it!

[AmericanPride]

I figure I might as well share the concept while I hammer out the remaining details. I intend to set up a quick website or forum in the near future to help facilitate play testing. If anyone is interested in helping develop the project (or just play testing for the fun of it), please PM me.

Anyway, The Long War: Afghanistan 2001 - 2016 is a strategic simulation of the War in Afghanistan allowing players to control the US (and NATO/ISAF), GIRoA, or the Taliban (and its affiliated networks). Players must pursue distinct victory conditions by the end of 2016 while contending with the complexities of a protracted small war in a fourth world state. The game board will depict Afghanistan's 34 provinces, four of its major cities, eight Pakistani border provinces, and AFG's northern and western neighbors. Each province has a terrain, weather, stability, and development modifier.

Turns represent six months of time, starting in Fall 2001 and ending in Fall 2016. There are fixed events tied to some turns, such as US Presidential Elections, that affect game rules for that turn.

Each side has a respective opinion rating measured 0 - 100 that is at the core of the player's objectives. Not only are they tied to victory conditions, but the rating also affects the number of available actions in a turn as well as how many cards that can be drawn at the end of a turn. There is also a fourth rating to measure international interest in the conflict.

Each side also has unique rules, policies, cards, and units. Policies are overarching strategies that affect which cards are available (i.e. counter-terrorism vs counter-insurgency). Because each card also has a condition that must be met (often tied to the type of unit in a province), there is a direct connection between policy decisions, force structure, and tactical/operational decisions. Policies can be changed at will but at considerable cost to oneself, or under specific conditions at no cost (i.e. after an election for a US player).

During a turn, a player may conduct a certain amount of actions. These actions may be with a specific unit (each unit has its own mission type, and mobility and survivability ratings), which have minimal affects on the big picture, or with an operational card, which represent tactical and operational decisions (such as a "Night Raid") and have a slightly larger impact. However, besides their immediate effects, cards also have counter-actions and unintended consequences. Counter-actions are designated operational cards in another player's deck that can be played out of turn in immediate response to a played card (both operational and strategic). Counter-actions can be played until players decide to quit using them or until the card hand is exhausted. Cards can also have unintended consequences, which is determined by a die roll and have a negative impact on either the player himself or another player. For example, the "Night Raid" card might be effective in removing Taliban pieces from the board, but it also reduces GIRoA legitimacy. Legitimacy is further damaged if "civilian casualties" occur. The playing of the card can prompt the GIRoA player to use the "Denounce Civilian Casualties" card as a counter-action, which repairs GIRoA legitimacy to some extent but at the cost of US domestic opinion.

Players can also play one strategic card during a turn, which has a greater impact on the game or even game mechanics. It may significantly improve ratings across the board, or it might suspend the use of another player's advantage. These reflect larger political decisions that shape the battlefield on its edges. The US can play a "Political Pressure on Pakistan" card to reduce Taliban unit survivability across the board in Pakistani provinces (making them more vulnerable to some US operational cards). Like operational cards, these too have a counteraction and unintended consequence. But they are more severe -- the UI to the US card mentioned above is the low-risk of prompting a military coup that jealously guards its sovereignty, resulting in the revocation of the US in using some cards.

Lastly, victory conditions are "complex". That is, they are not necessarily dependent on the success or failure of the other players, which can result in any combination of players "winning", or none winning at all. For example, the US and GIRoA share a common victory condition in measuring GIRoA legitimacy, but the necessary number is different, giving some space for tension (and exploitation by a shrewd Taliban player).

There are a host of other details, such as US force caps and deployment schedules and Taliban key leaders, but I'll leave that for later in the conversation. The intent is to capture the complexity of decision-making, with its constant change in opportunities and dangers, while trying to stay focused on the light at the end of the tunnel and keeping the other players at arms length. The US could crush the Taliban militarily, but at what cost to GIRoA? And what would it cost and how long would it take for the US to shift policies? Can GIRoA afford to forgo development to focus on security and stability? And what strategy can the Taliban implement to exploit the narrow but deep differences in its two adversaries?

[AmericanPride]

A few updates:

- I decided to add ethnicity as a major game play factor. I am still considering how this will influence the basic ruleset since I want to avoid the RPG-like model of different groups have people having inherently different advantages (or disadvantages). With that in mind, ethnicity will be probably be abstract and relational.

- Key Leaders will be a central element for each side, who will have unique leaders (i.e. commanders, diplomats, aid workers, etc) that represent different parts of the institutional effort. I am still working out how this look precisely, though they will be extensively tied into policies, cards, and actions. Having key leaders in the wrong place at the wrong time (and using the wrong policy and units) will have an incredibly negative impact on the player's strategy implementation to reflect bureaucratic resistance and the necessity of political buy-in by supporting agencies.

- Although using real-world military designations would add some flavor to the game, I decided against it so players focus instead on the operational and strategic options made available by the use of some types of units in lieu of others. So Army light infantry brigades, special operations forces, and paramilitaries, among others, will all be abstracted (though at a future date I may change this, as I see opportunities to add another dimension to strategy here).

- Lastly, I am looking at scrapping the hard end date of Fall 2016 to something more gradual. An array of conditions will likely trigger an "End-Game", which will use a series of fixed events to move the game towards a conclusion. Right now, this might be when a faction achieves its victory conditions in any turn, which will trigger a set series of events to allow for the other players to grab what's left; i.e. the US might achieve its objectives earlier than anticipated, triggering a gradual US drawdown, encouraging GIRoA and the Taliban to redouble efforts in a set amount of time. This is still under consideration so any feedback is welcome.

[Steve Blair]

I honestly don't see how you could model something like this without using ethnicity in some way. Personally, I'd be inclined to base it more along the lines of a negative interaction modifier if local groups aren't of the same ethnicity. It's not so much giving one ethnic group a bonus as it is modeling the difficulty often present when it comes to getting two different groups to work together or trust each other. The modifier could be negated over time (possibly by steps taken by the outside nation), or it could actually be enhanced (due to a number of factors).

[AmericanPride]

I honestly don't see how you could model something like this without using ethnicity in some way. Personally, I'd be inclined to base it more along the lines of a negative interaction modifier if local groups aren't of the same ethnicity. It's not so much giving one ethnic group a bonus as it is modeling the difficulty often present when it comes to getting two different groups to work together or trust each other. The modifier could be negated over time (possibly by steps taken by the outside nation), or it could actually be enhanced (due to a number of factors).

That is what I am leaning towards right now. Some background: there will be operational leaders (people in the field) and policy leaders (people in Washington, Kabul, or Quetta, etc). Anyway, operational leaders will have an ethnicity trait that will influence their effectiveness in different provinces, all of which will have a fixed ethnicity assigned to it. So, the US, GIRoA, and Taliban will all face this challenge.

[Steve Blair]

Of course, ethnicity is a fairly fluid thing, and could be modeled down to tribal affiliation if necessary (although it sounds like at the level you're talking about this would be a touch too micro). I'd be tempted to take it one step further and have ethnicity and "outsider" status modifiers, with "outsider" (or whatever) applying to US/Western folks (with a higher negative, at least at first) and then the internal ethnic considerations. Over time, one player could work to lessen the "outsider" penalties (although they'd likely never go away completely).

[AmericanPride]

I think I'm simply going to have US leaders labelled with "American" ethnicity, with a few and far between exceptions among some of the diplomatic, aid, and contractor staff. I don't know yet what the penalty will be, however. I'm thinking a penalty in unit/leader survivability and an increase chance for the UI of a played card in that province.

[Rex Brynen]

What's the intended audience? Is the boardgame for hobbyists, educational uses, or other purposes?

Mike Markowitz's presentation at the NDU gaming roundtable today was about developing an operational-level Afghanistan boardgame for the TRADOC Analysis Center (that also interfaced with tactical, digital sims). The audio and slides may be up later at NDU CASL, but you'll find some detail in Brant's live blog of the event at Grog News (http://grognews.blogspot.ca/2012/04/liveblogging-casl-strategic-wargaming.html) (and a little discussion at PAXsims (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/ndu-casl-roundtable-and-talk-with-thoughts-from-a-virtual-lurker/) too).

[AmericanPride]

What's the intended audience? Is the boardgame for hobbyists, educational uses, or other purposes?

Mike Markowitz's presentation at the NDU gaming roundtable today was about developing an operational-level Afghanistan boardgame for the TRADOC Analysis Center (that also interfaced with tactical, digital sims). The audio and slides may be up later at NDU CASL, but you'll find some detail in Brant's live blog of the event at Grog News (http://grognews.blogspot.ca/2012/04/liveblogging-casl-strategic-wargaming.html) (and a little discussion at PAXsims (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/ndu-casl-roundtable-and-talk-with-thoughts-from-a-virtual-lurker/) too).

Thanks for sharing the links. I'm of the general opinion that context determines everything, and so my focus is on developing a strategic-policy level game. I have not thought much about the audience, though it's definitely not the way families are going to want to spend their Friday nights.

[BayonetBrant]

http://tsjonline.com/story.php?F=7681050


just an update, the corrected link is

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120201/TSJ02/302010011/Firmer-Ground

since TSJOnline rearranged all their content

[Rex Brynen]

Thanks for sharing the links. I'm of the general opinion that context determines everything, and so my focus is on developing a strategic-policy level game. I have not thought much about the audience, though it's definitely not the way families are going to want to spend their Friday nights.

Brant is the one with the commercial wargame experience here, but my advice would be start with the audience--everything else flows from that. Who is going to play it? Hobbyists/boardgamers? Professionals/policy types?

[Steve Blair]

Brant is the one with the commercial wargame experience here, but my advice would be start with the audience--everything else flows from that. Who is going to play it? Hobbyists/boardgamers? Professionals/policy types?

I've dabbled some (not to Brant's degree to be sure) and can only strongly second this comment. Audience is everything. A game intended for a casual audience can have much less detail than one intended for a professional audience. Context is important, don't get me wrong, but your audience determines the amount of detail you put into that context.

[BayonetBrant]

I've started a page at GrogNews to collect info on COIN wargaming

I've love input from folks on articles / links that should be there.

Thanks!

http://grognews.blogspot.com/p/coin-wargaming.html

[AmericanPride]

Thanks for the advice everyone. I started the game design with what I would consider enjoyable; so I assume a professional/academic audience. I intend to let the play-test phase determine the level of detail.

[Rex Brynen]

These two forthcoming wargaming talks at the Center for Applied Strategic Learning (http://casl.dodlive.mil/), National Defense University may be of interest to some folks (although neither is about "small wars"):

2 May 2012: "Nuclear Wargaming," Dr. Tim Moench (Air Force Global Strike Command Wargaming and Strategic Studies), Dr. Chris Yeaw (Air Force Global Strike Command Chief Scientist), and John Harris (Air Force Concepts, Strategy, and Wargaming Division)

More details here (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/ndu-nuclear-wargaming-252012/).

9 May 2012: "The Continuing Merits of Manual Wargaming," Professor Philip Sabin (Kings College London)

More details here (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/ndu-phil-sabin-on-the-continuing-merits-of-manual-wargaming-952012/).


If (like me) you're not in the DC area, the presentations will also be streamed online.

[BayonetBrant]

Thanks for the advice everyone. I started the game design with what I would consider enjoyable; so I assume a professional/academic audience. I intend to let the play-test phase determine the level of detail.

Check out the developer diaries over at GrogHeads

http://grogheads.com/dev-longwar1.html

http://grogheads.com/dev-longwar2.html

[Rex Brynen]

What more could you ask for? Volko Ruhnke (who designed the terrorism/counterterrorism board game Labyrinth (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/review-labyrinth/)) AND Brian Train (whose Algeria (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/review-algeria/) wargame is the basis for game designs used at DoD, CIA, and elsewhere) are collaborating on a wargame of contemporary insurgency and counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. I'm certainly looking forward to this...

COIN in Afghanistan: A Distant Plain (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2012/07/07/coin-in-afghanistan-a-distant-plain/).

The game is in early development and play test at the moment--hopefully it will be out next year.

[Rex Brynen]

An update on the Connections 2012 interdisciplinary wargaming conference (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/the-connections-2012-gamelab-challenge/) at PAXsims, with celebrity endorsements from Napoleon Bonaparte and Winston Churchill.

[BayonetBrant]

discussion of an ongoing project for rapid-prototyping and development of scenarios for current events

warning: a lot of wargame assumptions made of the reader

http://grognews.blogspot.com/2012/07/revisiting-c2e2.html

excerpt
How will the overall model work together? We need some way of tracking the local civilian 'mood' and support for the different sides, through political organized, governance, levels of I/O, etc. We also need a way to keep track of the body count, and what thresholds of dead units start to trigger counter-actions from the dead units' families. How do you know what true effects you have on the local areas, and how do you assess it, and how do you establish the longevity of the effects?

When military forces deploy to a tsunami zone, what are they bringing with them in terms on N-K factors, and how well does that play in affecting the local perception of them? How does training units in certain aspects change what their performance can be on the ground? If you plus up an infantry brigade with a variety of N-K assets and training, are they really more effective on the ground in N-K roles, or have you just degraded their KIN capabilities instead?

comments welcome!

[Rex Brynen]

The annual Connections 2012 interdisciplinary wargaming conference wrapped up yesterday at NDU, with more than one hundred professional wargamers, government and commercial wargame designers, scholars, and other analysts in attendance.

Various AARs on the event are linked via the Wargaming Connection blog (http://wargamingcommunity.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/connections-2012-aars/).

[BayonetBrant]

What more could you ask for? Volko Ruhnke (who designed the terrorism/counterterrorism board game Labyrinth (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/review-labyrinth/)) AND Brian Train (whose Algeria (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/review-algeria/) wargame is the basis for game designs used at DoD, CIA, and elsewhere) are collaborating on a wargame of contemporary insurgency and counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. I'm certainly looking forward to this...

COIN in Afghanistan: A Distant Plain (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2012/07/07/coin-in-afghanistan-a-distant-plain/).

The game is in early development and play test at the moment--hopefully it will be out next year.

Interviews with the designers here
part 1: http://grogheads.com/int-adp1.html
part 2: http://grogheads.com/int-adp2.html

some great background info from the guys on how the game has developed.

[Rex Brynen]

Recently I gave one of my McGill University political science classes the option of writing an interactive story (written using Inklewriter (http://www.inklestudios.com/inklewriter)) rather than submitting a conventional research paper. Since the course in question examines peacebuilding and civil conflict, not surprisingly all four "adventures" are set amongst civil wars: in the first you must negotiate humanitarian access with armed groups; in the second you have demobilize ex-combatants, in the third you must survive the Syrian civil war, and in the forth you need to maintain the security of a camp for the internally displaced in northern DR Congo.

All four games are described, and can be played, via PAXsims:

http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/student-interactive-simulation-writing-in-political-science/

If you have any words of encouragement for the students concerned, feel free to post a comment on the blog

[jcustis]

I vaguely remember a similar discussion about student projects like this a couple years or more ago. If this was you Rex, good on ya for trying to work the practical into the theoretical. This recent venture is a rad idea as well. :D