PDA

View Full Version : Wargaming Small Wars (merged thread)



Pages : [1] 2

Steve Blair
10-04-2005, 02:57 PM
Moderator's Note

I have merged seven threads today( 30th June 2014), which all refer to wargaming and small wars. A couple of threads refer to major wars: South China Sea and Iraq - so have been left alone (end).


Given the trend towards using computers and other simulations for training, what's the general opinion regarding these systems and Small Wars?

I would tend to think that networked free play games would be the best option here; with one side taking the role of the insurgents and the other being the force tasked with suppressing their activities. It would be harder to model the activities of civilians and political entities, although I suspect that a third team could be factored in to take that role.

The important thing here would be the interface framework and possibly some of the modeling involved with the AI. Provided this could be worked out, I would think that this would be a valuable and cost-effective way to conduct initial SW training and possibly some advanced activities as well.

Tc2642
10-05-2005, 06:29 PM
Just a thought but does the US army use Flashpoint as a tool for battlefield tactics?

Steve Blair
10-05-2005, 08:04 PM
Just a thought but does the US army use Flashpoint as a tool for battlefield tactics?

I'm not sure...but for the training to be effective I would think that certain of the scripted methods or "school solutions" would need to be thrown out the proverbial window. Small Wars are anything but scripted, and exposure to the differences found in them are essential, and at all ranks. As has been pointed out before, SW are often (if not always) more political than military. Tactics are necessary, but they need to be wedded to good IO/Psyops methods and a parallel (in many cases) political structure.

Computers offer an outstanding platform for this type of training, if it's run correctly and allowed to take its "natural" course.

DDilegge
10-05-2005, 09:49 PM
...for the training to be effective I would think that certain of the scripted methods or "school solutions" would need to be thrown out the proverbial window. Small Wars are anything but scripted...

Computers offer an outstanding platform for this type of training, if it's run correctly and allowed to take its "natural" course.

I agree with much of what I think you mean. Computer aided Small Wars M&S for training, PME, planning and analysis is (and will remain) imperfect at best.

That said, we learned (USMC) during urban operations field experimentation prior to OIF that while you cannot expose our small unit (and higher for that matter) leaders to the exact scenario they may face - you can most certainly expose them to situations that force them to think "out-of-the-box" thus enabling a mind-set that expects the unexpected as a natural course in the conduct of urban and other Small Wars related operations.

No rocket scientist here - maybe someone can figure out how to provide M&S and other computer assisted aid for the items I mentioned above...

Steve Blair
10-05-2005, 10:01 PM
You may be able to get into a certain level of freeplay using CCM, but another venue to look at is the online gaming community. There may be avenues worth exploring among the varied MUSH/MUDs out there, as well as the MMORG community. The key is being able to create unexpected scenarios using the input of multiple "player groups," such as one representing insurgents, some taking on the role of local power groups (and just locals caught in the middle), and then the 'good guys.'

Any time you can interject a 'third party' into the mix it creates for a more realistic training opportunity. Computers provide a framework for this to happen, as well as the virtual environment.

This isn't a really technical answer, and I'm sorry I can't provide platform examples for what I'm talking about. Within the traditional face to face gaming community it's easier to create non-scripted situations. The key with computers may well be to stop looking for a single shot solution and look instead at how a computer could provide a framework (a 'world,' if you will) where various groups could interact. There would be a starting scenario, of course, but what happened from there could be determined by players with a minimum of umpire/controller oversight and random "acts of God and politics."

Martin
10-10-2005, 04:17 PM
Here comes a stick...
I think you need to further define purpose.

There are fundamental limits to what can be achieved in a computer simulation (CS from now on). The input system (mouse, keyboard, etc) limits what is possible to learn as far as actions go, such as shoot, move, communicate - speaking of root learning.

When you simulate a world, you are restricted in what you'll allow to happen in that world. There's a lot of specific programming going into this. That means that whatever solutions people care to come up with, the framework for them has actually really been figured out before. Same thing with threats. The negative side is that the incorporation of new possible actions are not extremely easy to add on, even if developers and users/Soldiers would have direct contact.


Example: A number of insurgents are in a safe house, lacking resources and weaponry. A sweep is long over due and one day a man walks up to the house and says that the Americans know that they have a safe house there. It's a two-story building, so the insurgents sharpen punji sticks, put feces on them (yah, familiar) and fit them under a stair case, which they tamper with to make unstable. Then they leave. As coalition forces sweep the house, they move up the stairs and fall through onto the sticks.

It is such flexibility in situations that is severely limited in CS.

Another problem is scope. Geographically, this is becoming easier as computers become more powerful. On the other hand, an insurgency, based on my little knowledge, seems to depend on social interaction for not only opinion, but also levels of cooperation or resistance, support, etc. Add to this everyone and everything involved in constructing methods for infiltration, evasion, escape - complete networks of people with various levels of resources that need to be able to assess at least local situations and based on that choose to perhaps hide a few days more, or a few hours.
AI is not at a level that can flexibly and realistically handle that today. It does bring us to the next limitation, which is time.

Insurgency is unfolding under a long duration of time, during which insurgents often design their attacks to be suprising. Narrowing of time span restricts this. It also puts a limit on the social processes that are unfolding. Relationships develop bit by bit and if the simulation were to be conducted in a compressed time frame it would be difficult to solve it by having SME:s suggesting reactions to the populace, nevermind how the Soldiers would gauge it.

And with relationships and intelligence comes a feel for interpreting people, and interacting. Emotions, both positive for persuasion and compassion for the father of a child lost, and fear as allied forces move out of an AO and insurgents move in, those feelings don't come along as well when described in ones and zeros.

All the people involved, with AI unable to fill the gap, if you're going to hire them, isn't a role play or FTX better fitted? I think you risk trying to use a tool for which it isn't fit for, where it isn't yet needed because of it's lack of capabilities.

I like what Major Strickland proposed in another thread.

I don't believe this to be God's given truth, but it is a pretty realistic view of what is not possible today. Written for you to tear to shreds, or to see another perspective.

Martin

Steve Blair
10-10-2005, 04:28 PM
I actually have no problem with a free-ranging role play (hereafter RP), and think it would be a better tool for most instances. However, I have also seen a knee-jerk reaction against such proposals ("What? D&D here?") so chose to frame the issue as a computer simulation. You could, I think, use the computer model to simulate certain larger-scale activities or as a "super calculator" for the RP.

I'm not overly familiar with the practice side of military gaming, so I don't know how much use they make of major RP-type activites. Frankly, based on my own experience, I can see a number of very dynamic and viable ways they could use such RP (even a text-based MUSH type environment as opposed to graphics-heavy first shooters or tactical models) to simulate this environment. With such systems and settings it is very easy to model dynamic environments. You could use the CS side to model resulting firefights or combat actions, while keeping the rest in the human realm.

GorTex6
10-13-2005, 09:42 PM
Just a thought but does the US army use Flashpoint as a tool for battlefield tactics?

The army may not use it but one of my fellow NCOs used it to experiment, practice and develop TTPs for guntruck crews, prepairing for deployment. He found a desert map and set up the weapons and vehicles to match our MTOE. Using a WiFi router, we networked about 12-15 personal laptops in six different barracks rooms. In each room was an assigned gun crew with two laptops. The gunner had his own laptop for a turret view, the driver had his own laptop with a drivers view, and the TC stood over the driver with a talkabout radio. We even had one of the rooms designated as Opfor. We would use command detonated satchel charges in place of IEDs and emplace snipers along the routes. If anything it was good for building communications within the crews. The TCs were able to get accustomed to sending their report formats over the radio. It was alot of fun! But like all good ideas it was shot down.

(sorry for the rant)

Hansmeister
10-13-2005, 11:38 PM
I actually have no problem with a free-ranging role play (hereafter RP), and think it would be a better tool for most instances. However, I have also seen a knee-jerk reaction against such proposals ("What? D&D here?") so chose to frame the issue as a computer simulation. You could, I think, use the computer model to simulate certain larger-scale activities or as a "super calculator" for the RP.

I'm not overly familiar with the practice side of military gaming, so I don't know how much use they make of major RP-type activites. Frankly, based on my own experience, I can see a number of very dynamic and viable ways they could use such RP (even a text-based MUSH type environment as opposed to graphics-heavy first shooters or tactical models) to simulate this environment. With such systems and settings it is very easy to model dynamic environments. You could use the CS side to model resulting firefights or combat actions, while keeping the rest in the human realm.

RP is the only way to go on this because irregular warfare is too unpredictable for a computer simulation. It is the ability of insurgents to continuously adapt their tactics to their enemy that makes it impossible to model via cs.

aktarian
10-14-2005, 08:24 AM
I think problem is predicting how other side will react and then fitting that in your "game". Assume it's early 2003 and you want to prepare program for troops that will be stationed in Iraq after the war (the war hasn't started yet).

What will situation be like after Saddam is toppled? Who will be your friends and who your enemies? What methods will they use? Which way will population swing? And many, many more

The biggest problem is human behaviour. You simply can't reduce it to mathematical formula that will neatly fit into computer program. People act irrationaly, people act on different impulses than you expected, peopel work on different set of values etc.

I agree that computer programs are valuable for certain task, which are more or less mechanical and don't work on many variables. Say convoy escort. However certain task can't be simulated by computer. Say checkpoint duty.

Steve Blair
10-14-2005, 01:27 PM
I think problem is predicting how other side will react and then fitting that in your "game". Assume it's early 2003 and you want to prepare program for troops that will be stationed in Iraq after the war (the war hasn't started yet).

What will situation be like after Saddam is toppled? Who will be your friends and who your enemies? What methods will they use? Which way will population swing? And many, many more

The biggest problem is human behaviour. You simply can't reduce it to mathematical formula that will neatly fit into computer program. People act irrationaly, people act on different impulses than you expected, peopel work on different set of values etc.

I agree that computer programs are valuable for certain task, which are more or less mechanical and don't work on many variables. Say convoy escort. However certain task can't be simulated by computer. Say checkpoint duty.

That's why you use traditional RP techniques, and bring out the computers for modeling combat. Computers are a tool to facilitate the game, and not the game itself.

Strickland
10-14-2005, 01:45 PM
I have two problems with gaming solutions and events such as Millenium Challenge and Urban Resolve. First, they are expensive, and in a battle of limited reosurces, eat up tremendous sums of money that could be used for less "whiz-bang" things like seminars, books, training videos, and staff rides with police-officers during community policing intiatives. Second, the outcomes and "findings" of these events are usually within the realm of the "i knew that entering the game" and make these events worthless. Clausewitz spoke of events that tried to replicate military actions being less than useful due to the lack of "fricition" present.

Steve Blair
10-14-2005, 02:18 PM
This is why people need to reach for new solutions when gaming.

If you use a role-playing framework it is very easy to add in friction. A tabletop game isn't going to eat up the kind of money you're talking about and will always expose people to new things. They are also interactive by nature, which makes them more valuable than seminars or training videos.

People who haven't had much RP experience often underestimate the usefulness of the method, IMO. Properly managed, it's a very open environment that will allow all sides to learn something new.

aktarian
10-14-2005, 02:42 PM
That's why you use traditional RP techniques, and bring out the computers for modeling combat. Computers are a tool to facilitate the game, and not the game itself.

I understand what you are saying but you'll still have troubles with "rules" and even model itself. You do something and rules say you win. Fine, but in real life it might not work that way. Specially when you are dealing with nonconventional war/terrorism.

Plus you can really calculate reactions. Let's say you kill some number of enemy. Will rest surrender or raise those killed into martyrs and fight even more fiercly? If you create jobs for locals will this help you with creating image that you really have their best interests at heart or will workers be targeted and jobs themselves used to spy on you?

So you can write rules "If you do this this happens." Well, in real life it might not.

It might work if other side is played by somebody who has experience in such conflicts and if rules are flexible.

Steve Blair
10-14-2005, 03:04 PM
With RP that's exactly what I'm talking about. You have a controller or group of controllers and then a number of teams taking the role of various sides within the game (insurgents, military forces, civilians, relief organizations, and so on). You could use computer systems to handle some of the paperwork and interaction, but the bulk of the effort would be in the hands of people. Rules within RP deal with methods of interaction, not the interaction itself. The game itself would be based on a time model, with results tabulated at the end of that time.

I personally have designed RP rules systems and done extensive modifications on existing systems. Such systems can and do work well for 'modeling' these kind of events. What is needed mainly is a flexible mindset and the willingness to use computers as calculators and mechanical helpers and not the main basis for the game.

aktarian
10-15-2005, 10:18 AM
That would work. But the purpose of "game" shouldn't be "victory" but rather indentifying procedures that work and don't work.

Steve Blair
10-16-2005, 08:51 PM
That is precisely what RP does. You take a situation and game it through variables and events until you reach the end of the scenario time limit.

M. J. Dougherty
10-18-2005, 03:34 AM
I recently watched an Art of War episode where they used a simulation of crowd behavior in a congested environment to illustrated the flow of battle at Agincourt and why the French suffered such high casualties compared to the English.

I am wondering if the same models of complex human behavior can be applied to the equally complex behavior of insurgents in a complex operational environment? Contemporary insurgent capabilities to dynamically adapt and change course make them much less predictable than conventional military forces or state actors. But f we could model certain influences (economic self interest, political attitudes, fear, Maslow's heirarchy) could we not find some variable to influence behavior.

GatorLHA2
10-18-2005, 03:00 PM
I recently watched an Art of War episode where they used a simulation of crowd behavior in a congested environment to illustrated the flow of battle at Agincourt and why the French suffered such high casualties compared to the English.

I am wondering if the same models of complex human behavior can be applied to the equally complex behavior of insurgents in a complex operational environment? Contemporary insurgent capabilities to dynamically adapt and change course make them much less predictable than conventional military forces or state actors. But f we could model certain influences (economic self interest, political attitudes, fear, Maslow's heirarchy) could we not find some variable to influence behavior.

There are ongoing attempts to do this. The problem is that these models of crowd behavior work well only for confined time-limited situations where the individuals in the model are physically restrained and only have limited choices.

In an insurgency, it is not always the direct responses of the people that matter, it is the second, third and forth order reactions between people directly and indirectly impacted by events. Current attempts to model these interactions assume that people can only react in a specific number of ways and leave no room for innovation, imagination or individual initiative. These models give the false impression that one can predict second and third order effects.

Wm. T. Sherman had it right when he made the comment about the rigid Kriegspiel style of wargaming and said that "Men are not Blocks of Wood". He knew from direct experience that you can not accurately predict how well a leader will lead or how hard a body of troops will fight nor can you predict how the cowardly or heroic actions of any one individual or small group at a crucial moment can change the course of a battle. Many Civil War board games have this random factor in the rules and provide good lessons for just how hard it was to conduct combat operations and to control units in the U.S. War of Rebellion.

You could possibly use these computer models to explore actions and reactions in a clearly defined event such as an ambush but not for the entire theater. The course of an insurgency is influenced by millions of human interactions to the second, third or more order, combined with the initiative of know leaders and the spontaneous initiative of previously unknown individuals that often arise in such situations and determine the course of the insurgency.

sabers8th
11-11-2005, 07:47 PM
I am not familiar with Flashpoint what is it?

Martin
11-12-2005, 02:09 PM
A civilian computer game: http://www.codemasters.com/flashpoint/

Martin

Tc2642
11-25-2005, 06:57 PM
Anyone else heard of this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4460082.stm

DDilegge
11-26-2005, 02:25 AM
Info and download can be found here (http://www.goarmy.com/aarmy/index.jsp) and the official game website can be found here (http://www.americasarmy.com/).

ericmwalters
05-02-2007, 08:26 PM
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
05-02-2007, 08:50 PM
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
05-02-2007, 09:19 PM
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
05-02-2007, 11:53 PM
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
05-03-2007, 12:37 PM
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
05-03-2007, 12:50 PM
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
05-03-2007, 01:11 PM
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
05-03-2007, 01:42 PM
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
05-03-2007, 02:39 PM
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
05-03-2007, 06:43 PM
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
05-03-2007, 08:54 PM
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
05-04-2007, 12:57 PM
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
05-04-2007, 03:07 PM
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
05-04-2007, 03:13 PM
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
05-04-2007, 03:22 PM
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
05-04-2007, 03:41 PM
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
05-05-2007, 05:58 PM
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
05-05-2007, 06:25 PM
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
05-14-2007, 01:31 AM
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
05-14-2007, 01:54 AM
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
05-14-2007, 02:07 AM
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
05-14-2007, 03:15 AM
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
05-14-2007, 03:16 AM
This slide is our roadmap.

nichols
05-14-2007, 03:19 AM
Systems that are part of the Master M&S Plan

nichols
05-14-2007, 03:29 AM
The tool set for the DVTE

nichols
05-14-2007, 03:31 AM
The Infantry Tool Kit

nichols
05-14-2007, 03:34 AM
The DVTE Suite consists of

nichols
05-14-2007, 03:36 AM
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
05-14-2007, 04:06 AM
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
05-14-2007, 04:22 PM
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
05-14-2007, 04:26 PM
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
05-14-2007, 04:45 PM
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
05-14-2007, 04:55 PM
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
05-14-2007, 05:05 PM
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
05-14-2007, 05:09 PM
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
05-14-2007, 05:10 PM
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
05-14-2007, 08:24 PM
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
05-14-2007, 08:42 PM
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
05-14-2007, 10:29 PM
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
05-14-2007, 11:58 PM
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
05-15-2007, 01:08 AM
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
05-15-2007, 01:18 AM
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
05-15-2007, 02:30 AM
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
05-15-2007, 02:33 AM
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
05-15-2007, 02:41 AM
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
05-15-2007, 03:14 AM
www.usmc-tds-msc.com

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

ericmwalters
05-15-2007, 12:40 PM
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
05-15-2007, 01:13 PM
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
05-15-2007, 05:40 PM
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
05-15-2007, 05:53 PM
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
05-15-2007, 05:57 PM
Very impressive..../wipes drool away from mouth/

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

nichols
05-15-2007, 06:44 PM
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
05-15-2007, 07:46 PM
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
05-16-2007, 02:14 AM
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
05-16-2007, 02:23 AM
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
05-17-2007, 01:16 PM
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
05-17-2007, 01:37 PM
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
05-25-2007, 07:12 PM
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
05-25-2007, 07:19 PM
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
06-06-2007, 12:53 PM
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
06-27-2007, 05:22 PM
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?

SWJED
08-12-2007, 01:22 PM
Colonel Gary Anderson on Wargaming Iraq (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/08/colonel-gary-anderson-on-warga/) - SWJ Blog - video interview of Col Anderson on the Charlie Rose show.

Dominique R. Poirier
08-12-2007, 11:48 PM
This Colonel seems to be a prepossessing person.

By the way, is there any department within the DoD which would be in charge of selecting and training officers publicly expressing themselves about current issues and else; so as to treat the Army's image with care, I mean?

SWJED
08-13-2007, 12:06 AM
This Colonel seems to be a prepossessing person.

By the way, is there any department within the DoD which would be in charge of selecting and training officers publicly expressing themselves about current issues and else; so as to treat the Army's image with care, I mean?

...he is retired so he is his own person, he is highly respected within and out of DoD, he has served from Vietnam through Iraq to inlude Somalia, Sri Lanka and Lebanon, and he is a colleague and a friend of mine. I'd do some homework before attacking the person and not the message. Message - fair game - personal attacks - off limits here. Thank you.

Rob Thornton
08-13-2007, 12:34 AM
By the way, is there any department within the DoD which would be in charge of selecting and training officers publicly expressing themselves about current issues and else; so as to treat the Army's image with care, I mean?

Dominique, I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Although the institution that is the Army could be considered an entity, we tend to view the U.S. Army as the people who serve in it. This may be very different from other states (the nation types) in which an Army or other military branch might have had been its own sort of political body. Since around the late 1700s :), we've had the same constitution, albeit with a few ammendments. I think we're a culture apart in that regard - meaning the circumstances of that have created some uniqueness to our military culture. That is why the chiefs are sworn to give their best military advice to the government and not just a sole branch, and also why we take oath to the Constitution, and not a party or sitting president (although he is in our chain of command).

OK - that was the long answer. The short answer is no, and I think if we did adopt a sort of political education we'd quickly move to the shallow end of the gene pool and drown in blue blood.

Hope that helps - Regards, Rob

Dominique R. Poirier
08-13-2007, 12:35 AM
I am sorry if you felt offended in some way by my comment, and I sincerely regret it.

It intended to be a critic, as you rightly assumed; but on the form, not the content which I do not question at all, indeed.

It all comes from my professional experience in communication, a middle in which one uses to be highly sensitive about the form which exerts tremendous influence upon image.
This applies to politics and to public services too and, as in the realm of communication for private companies, this factor is as much influential as the content of the discourse.
In the history of politics, many very good candidates lost just because they lacked and neglected training and experience in public speeches before a camera.

However, I do not regret my remark since I consider that it is of no service not to warn when such problem occurs; quite on the contrary.

I have once read somewhere that Napoleon 1st would have said (I quote in substance from recollection): “Never warn an enemy who he is doing a mistake.”

Sincerely,

Dominique R. Poirier
08-13-2007, 12:54 AM
By the way, and still in order to make my talk constructive, the best example of the good way of expressing oneself before a camera I have ever seen while talking about the U.S. Army in particular and the DoD in general is this of Colin Powell who does it with mastery.

Although it’s a personal opinion about which, I concede, not everyone may agree with, it’s a professional opinion nonetheless.

Rob Thornton
08-13-2007, 01:07 AM
Dominique,
I believe there are several different expectations to public discourse. Often those of an admistration, while thoughtful, are constrained to "staying on message". Col Anderson was engaging in a different type of discourse. As a guest without an admistration's agenda, he has the intellectual freedom to discuss things in a more give and take way. I just watched it and think he did us a world of good on several different levels by discussing key issues (many of which we discuss here). By doing so he raises questions and provides insights that many of us beleive are critical to both the health of the Armed Services, and their ability to carry out policy objectives in the post 9/11 world. This was not a FOX Sunday with Chris Wallace where we hear political themes and talking points aired, but a very informative type of Q&A that provides the context required to have serious public debate.
Hope that helps, Rob

Steve Blair
08-13-2007, 02:07 PM
Dominique,

I can see where to an extent you might consider Anderson's presentation prepossessing, but it's also important to remember that he comes from a branch that actually values speaking your mind. A quick browse through the pages of the Marine Corps Gazette as compared to, say, Field Artillery may show you some strong differences in presentation and dialog. He's a product of his environment to a degree, just as Powell was of his.

Personally, I found his presentation refreshing as compared to the soft-shoe act often put on by folks like Powell (I should also mention that I'm not a huge fan of the former secretary) or the babble put forward by Franks and others. He's looking at and talking about things that need to be brought forward.

Anderson may look a bit wooden in front of a camera, but he's also not a politician. Powell is and was.

If you just listen to the audio (as I'm doing while typing this) he comes across quite well. But I also find his presentation refreshing. Listening to other military types talk, I have to keep the BS filter and translator running full blast. With Anderson you don't have to, and that's a major plus.

Rex Brynen
09-18-2007, 03:04 AM
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
09-18-2007, 02:48 PM
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
10-10-2007, 08:27 PM
Any of you folks going to the MORS Wargaming and Analysis conference next week?

Steve Blair
10-10-2007, 08:45 PM
I should be so lucky....

Rob Thornton
10-10-2007, 09:02 PM
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
10-10-2007, 09:20 PM
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
10-10-2007, 11:26 PM
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
10-11-2007, 01:40 AM
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
10-11-2007, 01:45 AM
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
10-11-2007, 02:11 AM
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
10-11-2007, 02:23 AM
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
10-11-2007, 04:56 AM
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
10-13-2007, 06:01 PM
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
10-13-2007, 07:03 PM
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
01-23-2008, 12:54 AM
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
05-09-2008, 06:49 AM
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
05-09-2008, 02:25 PM
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
05-09-2008, 04:12 PM
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
05-09-2008, 05:59 PM
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
05-10-2008, 02:52 AM
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

BayonetBrant
09-16-2008, 07:43 PM
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_167/5248-The-Thinking-Man-s-Warfare

PART 1 of 2


The Thinking Man's Warfare

by Rob Zacny ('http://escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view/Rob Zacny'), 16 Sep 2008 12:48
issue_167

For the past seven years in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States and its allies have fought irregular enemies who eschew traditional military confrontation in favor of asymmetric tactics. These wars have been costly, painful and, consequently, highly controversial, both within the military and among the public at large. More than most other areas of popular culture, videogames have demonstrated awareness of their historical moment, as the plethora of military shooters and dystopian plotlines can attest. But thus far, games have avoided engaging the real-life issues to which they are responding.

BayonetBrant
09-16-2008, 07:49 PM
Sorry - didn't mean to break the rules about posting entire articles... :o

Tom Odom
09-16-2008, 07:51 PM
Sorry - didn't mean to break the rules about posting entire articles... :o

no apologies needed

Beelzebubalicious
09-16-2008, 10:03 PM
I'd like to see someone game the interagency collaboration process, perhaps in a PRT like setting in Iraq. the scenario - you are assigned to lead/manage a PRT in Iraq and here's your team, AOR and objective - Get 'er done!

CR6
09-17-2008, 01:18 AM
That would be a complex wargame with a lot of competing agendas. A lot more than a binary action, reaction, counteraction.

jonSlack
09-17-2008, 01:51 AM
That would be a complex wargame with a lot of competing agendas. A lot more than a binary action, reaction, counteraction.

Perhaps it is time to move from wargames to war-MMORPGs.

BayonetBrant
09-17-2008, 02:19 AM
Perhaps it is time to move from wargames to war-MMORPGs.

Yes... but how do you keep everyone 'in character'?

William F. Owen
09-17-2008, 07:56 AM
I've played "wargames" since I can remember, but I have a slight issue with the idea of a "game". In combat, you can have winners and losers. The end states are easy to define and the limits can be pretty well understood. The "game" analogy works and is de-facto professional education

The issue here I suggest is with "Simulations". Simulations have limits, and as I see many limits to what "gaming" can contribute to the human and social side of the issue we call COIN.

Trying to "game COIN" might be like trying to "simulate" marriage just using an inflatable sheep. The lack of realistic responses would show up pretty quickly!

sullygoarmy
09-17-2008, 12:07 PM
Trying to "game COIN" might be like trying to "simulate" marriage just using an inflatable sheep. The lack of realistic responses would show up pretty quickly!


I won't touch the inflatable sheep comment but in terms of simulating marriage, isn't that what 2nd Life is supposed to do? I've never tried it but read plenty about people who literally have a simulated marriage online. Personally one real one is enough for me...I'd rather hunt "tangos" if I'm playing online.

Along that thought process, however, is using something like a 2nd life simulation to mirror COIN. You can replicate every type of personality in a known AO, have events from a car bombing to an election drive and best of all, you can run this over a looooong period of time. For example: you know your unit is deploying somewhere next year. You have an idea of the AO (always subject to change of course). About a year out, you inject your key leaders into this 2nd Life environment. Even an hour a day whether from work or the house over the course of a year would help them build up a huge knowledge base based on actual people, locations and events. If kids sitting at home on a Saturday night can design these types of environments, why can't STRICOM and the military?

May be worth a look. Thoughts?

JT Clark
09-17-2008, 12:46 PM
The recent COIN Leaders seminar at the CAC Ft Leavenworth was a great intro to how actual ground-up intel can (and should) be used to model complex COIN scenarios. Combined with a knowledge of basic insurgent strategy it is then relatively straightforward to forecast likely insurgent actions and come up with pro-active rather than reactive strategy on all fronts- military, social, economic and political. Gaming such scenarios was an eye-opener to all that attended.

On a side note, counter-strike and ghost recon fans out there might be interested to see that Hezbollah has their own version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Force

The interplay between globalization, media, and insurgency is always fascinating...

Entropy
09-17-2008, 12:50 PM
I've been a "gamer" all my life, beginning with military board games and going right up through MMORPG's (World of Warcraft being the most recent). I agree with Wilf that "simulation" is probably a more accurate term, though I would suggest "model," at least for certain types of "games."

Like any simulation or model, there are limits to what it can do and there are some things that simply can't be modeled/simulated very accurately. In my experience, those un-modelables are often the human and leadership factors. I think we're all in agreement that those human factors are preeminent in insurgency/COIN, so for that reason alone I think games/models/simulations will have less utility in COIN than, say, naval warfare. In other words, it's easier to simulate hardware than it is to simulate people.

JT Clark
09-17-2008, 12:55 PM
Couldn't agree more. It is definitely possible using some basic modelling techniques however to ID the various stakeholders in a COIN scenario and predict their most likely courses of action.

BayonetBrant
09-17-2008, 01:33 PM
I think one of these days I'm going to have to write an article about "Game" v "sim" and their best uses in training/learning - already did a bunch of this for my dissertation... I just need to cut it down to a consumable size.

Rex Brynen
09-17-2008, 01:39 PM
It is not that difficult to simulate a COIN/peace operations setting in a human-moderated role-playing game, given the flexibility and large number of variables that an RPG allows one to include. (I'm more dubious about electronic ones at present, since player options are starkly limited and there is to much temptation to metagame the AI system.) You can also fairly easily scale for the scope of the exercise, number of participants, presumed level of experience. As I've posted in other threads, I've run them for both large numbers (120) of students and smaller numbers (30) of senior officials/negotiators/technical experts. The real challenge is preparing an adequate amount of appropriate background information and briefing notes, and making sure that the proper dynamic starts among the players early on.

The World Bank has started used a heavily modified version of UN DPKO's mythical "Carana" setting for training mid-level officials on aid operations in conflict-affected countries. It focuses on determining national policy priorities with a diverse group of stakeholders.

(Very advanced heads up—I'll be in DC at some point this fall giving an in-house talk at the World Bank on the use of simulations in education and capacity-building. PM for details.)

nichols
09-17-2008, 03:37 PM
Something that needs to be watched is that when a moderator controls certain aspects of the 'COIN' delivery, you get the moderator's unintentional view of COIN. Not sure if that makes sense, I try this: If I was moderating, no matter how much I studied the assignment there were life experiences that I have had that would influence my decision making process.

I' thinking that a base line AI of an area that is editable by the end user would probably be a good thing.

You have orders conduct a NEO in Bangui, the intel bubbas update the AI with current culture issues and you begin the mission rehearsal......

Rex Brynen
09-17-2008, 04:48 PM
Something that needs to be watched is that when a moderator controls certain aspects of the 'COIN' delivery, you get the moderator's unintentional view of COIN.

Yes, absolutely--every sim has a great deal of assumptions built into both it and the way it is controlled/run/adjudicated.

A second and related issue is the importance of participants not feeling that their are being maneuvered by the Sim Gods towards some predetermined route and outcome—and how to balance this with the desire by the designer and control team to impart particular lessons (when it is being used in a training or educational capacity).

defense linguistics
09-17-2008, 05:21 PM
See Brian Train's Algeria (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/11293). I think that the simulations and games communities have been so dominated by mathematics-based thinking that language based approaches to the problem have been neglected. Chris Engle's Matrix Games seem promising in this regard. The "End State Problem" is indicative of this. Properly writing desired end states is always a linguistic task. "Victories" and outcomes are ultimately defined in langauge. Perhaps games used to the end of better understanding COIN should be accordingly language-based.

Rex Brynen
09-17-2008, 06:19 PM
I think that the simulations and games communities have been so dominated by mathematics-based thinking that language based approaches to the problem have been neglected.

Given the number of people with RPG backgrounds (myself included), I'm not convinced that this is entirely the case. Most good RPG campaigns are almost entirely language based, despite the use of mathematical systems for combat resolution.

It may be that clients, however, like to see heavily rules-based simulation systems. They also tend to be more "portable", since they don't rely so heavily on the skills of a sim moderator.

(Yes, I almost said DM.)

AmericanPride
09-17-2008, 07:45 PM
I imagine that a sandbox model would be the most approrpriate for a COIN simulation. My friends and I are having similar issues in developing a simulation for the Dune universe as there are many political and economic models, some of which contradict. The solution I've found is to give the players a wide variety of options with specified effects and the let player find their own goal(s) and path(s) to that goal. Alternatively, modelling a specific theory of insurgency should alleviate some of those problems by providing the framework in which to measure and define action.

Beelzebubalicious
09-17-2008, 08:41 PM
posted in wrong string. ignore

Beelzebubalicious
09-17-2008, 10:29 PM
Anyone know about this simulation run out of Purdue University (http://www.purdue.edu/acsl/abstract/march10_06.html):


The Sentient World Simulation project (SWS) is to be based on SEAS. The ultimate goal envisioned by Alok R. Chaturvedi on March 10, 2006 was for SWS to be a "continuously running, continually updated mirror model of the real world that can be used to predict and evaluate future events and courses of action. SWS will react to actual events that occur anywhere in the world and incorporate newly sensed data from the real world. [...] As the models influence each other and the shared synthetic environment, behaviors and trends emerge in the synthetic world as they do in the real world. Analysis can be performed on the trends in the synthetic world to validate alternate worldviews. [...] Information can be easily displayed and readily transitioned from one focus to another using detailed modeling, such as engineering level modeling, to aggregated strategic, theater, or campaign-level modeling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_Environment_for_Analysis_and_Simulations

nichols
09-18-2008, 02:26 AM
Anyone know about this simulation run out of Purdue University (http://www.purdue.edu/acsl/abstract/march10_06.html):


Talked a little about it here:

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=28363&postcount=73

We still want to make this happen. We have a ROM for modeling the 17 areas of the CMRS.....it appears funding is available....just haven't figured out how to get it right now.

I'm thinking probably around end of first quarter we might be able to move forward.

Eden
09-18-2008, 12:34 PM
I am very skeptical about the utility of gaming COIN at an operational level for several reasons.

1. The complexity of the COIN environment makes model-building extremely difficult. It is also very hard to filter out pre-conceived notions and false assumptions brought to the table by modelers or participants.

2. The 'lessons' and 'principles' from previous COIN operations are rarely transferable - I believe that every COIN op is unique to a far greater extent than more conventional operations.

3. For high-fidelity you would need a very large number of participants, which can be unmanageable, or some very sophisiticated software capable of simulating the COIN environment for a small number of players. The latter does not exist.

4. COIN is slooooooooow. Things develop over months or years. The number one difficulty is figuring out whether you are being successful or not, and why. It requires patience, perseverence, and downright mulishness. You can't game that with people, and we don't have the software to realistically game it using computers.

Now, I think you can usefully game COIN at the tactical level, i.e., to practice specific tasks. But anything above that...well, I would be very suspicious of any 'insights gained' or 'lessons learned'. I think the participants would be better off spending the time readin books and studying history.

sullygoarmy
09-18-2008, 01:14 PM
I go back to my 2nd Life Idea. Building a COIN environment in a 2nd Life world is very doable in my opinion. Imagine a brand new 2LT who spend a few hours a week for a year walking around, talking to and training for the environment he will be operating in once deployed? Your role players all have characters in 2d Life, learn the nuiances about the actual leadership from those currently in theater and simulate those characteristics.

IMHO, success is getting that leader a better understanding of the environment he/she is about to enter. There does not need to be a "win" in the game, or even an endstate...just like real life. The goal is to educate and get leaders used to having to deal with an environment that hasn't changed in a century and will barely change while that leader is there.

Personally, I'm more interested in the immersion experience a good simulation can provide for leadership than I am building a better game.

Steve Blair
09-18-2008, 02:58 PM
I am very skeptical about the utility of gaming COIN at an operational level for several reasons.

1. The complexity of the COIN environment makes model-building extremely difficult. It is also very hard to filter out pre-conceived notions and false assumptions brought to the table by modelers or participants.

2. The 'lessons' and 'principles' from previous COIN operations are rarely transferable - I believe that every COIN op is unique to a far greater extent than more conventional operations.

3. For high-fidelity you would need a very large number of participants, which can be unmanageable, or some very sophisiticated software capable of simulating the COIN environment for a small number of players. The latter does not exist.

4. COIN is slooooooooow. Things develop over months or years. The number one difficulty is figuring out whether you are being successful or not, and why. It requires patience, perseverence, and downright mulishness. You can't game that with people, and we don't have the software to realistically game it using computers.

Now, I think you can usefully game COIN at the tactical level, i.e., to practice specific tasks. But anything above that...well, I would be very suspicious of any 'insights gained' or 'lessons learned'. I think the participants would be better off spending the time readin books and studying history.

Pretty much everything you tagged out here can also be a problem if you just read books and study history without the proper background and training in the discipline. All history is subject to bias, and without a proper program it is very easy to develop a self-selected reading program that just reinforces what a person already "knows" is true.

Within the gaming community (both online and offline) there are numerous examples (not counting Warcraft and other pay for play MMORGs) of games carrying on for years...often with the same participants. You can actually game some pretty grinding, extended episodes, often with politics involved and some social planning/engineering. The RPG community (though much-maligned by some in other circles) would actually have a great deal to offer in terms of frameworks, methods, and procedures for this sort of extended gaming. It also allows you to simulate things that HAVEN'T happened yet.

Will there be some bias? Sure. But I also contend that there always is bias where people are involved...be it in the structure of simulation mechanics, programming of AI, and so on. There's also bias in the real world. A good control team can minimize bias, or develop mechanics to cover some of the aspects of the simulation that might be more vulnerable to bias.

To me the COIN environment is something that just begs for an RPG-type approach. I can't see systems having the same impact.

William F. Owen
09-18-2008, 03:10 PM
errr... Seriously, can we do this? Is it possible for SWC to run a "simulation." We all might learn a lot. Dunno how on earth it would work. My guess is that Mister R Brynen might usefully add something.

- and I have my own inflatable sheep!

Ken White
09-18-2008, 03:25 PM
--or depths. I am seriously not touching that sheep... :D

AmericanPride
09-18-2008, 03:36 PM
Eden,

While you bring up sound objections, I disagree that they make gaming COIN impossibly difficult. Games have reached a point of creativity and depth that most things, given the proper focus by developers and interest by gamers, can be simulated.


1. The complexity of the COIN environment makes model-building extremely difficult. It is also very hard to filter out pre-conceived notions and false assumptions brought to the table by modelers or participants.

I think this can be addressed in one of two ways. The first is by using a sand-box mode for the game, which is an extremely popular model. Europa Universalis 2, Hearts of Iron, Victoria, and Geo-Political Simulator are a few examples of complex games played sand-box style. In EU2, the player guides the development of a one of several hundred countries over the course of 400 years, managing its political, economic, social, and military progress as well as balancing the ethnic, religious, resource conflicts within and without the state. GPS, in constrast, places the player in the executive seat of a modern state where he must manage every conceivable aspect of running the nation, including managing the different personalities leading political parties, the military, interest groups, religions, minorities, the media and so on. Both games are real time, with Eu2 running day-by-day and GPS hour-by-hour. Because there are so many options, the player can really take any approach he likes; so different models of politics, economics, etc can at least be simplisticly modelled by the course the player charts. The second option is to build a game that models a specific theory of insurgency. AGEOD's American Civil War, for example, is very detailed in its application and so many concepts and strategies which may be useful in generic strategy games can be severely punishing to the player. For example, in most basic strategy games, the player who attacks first usually wins. in AGEOD's ACW, the design emphasizes operational tempo as opposed to speed. I'm generally in favor of the sand-box design -- the more freedom of action given to players, the more ingeniunity you will see out of them.


2. The 'lessons' and 'principles' from previous COIN operations are rarely transferable - I believe that every COIN op is unique to a far greater extent than more conventional operations.

This would have to be inherent in the game's design. In a sand-box model, the player can apply his own principles and learn his own lessons. That could realistically change from session to session depending on what course the player is pursuing. In a specific model, the designers would have to working with a specific set of lessons already in mind.


3. For high-fidelity you would need a very large number of participants, which can be unmanageable, or some very sophisiticated software capable of simulating the COIN environment for a small number of players. The latter does not exist.

Not necessarily. EU2 and GPS have hundreds of autonomous simulataneously operating participants. EU2 can also run good-sized (16+ players) games. There are several online-browser based RPGs, such as Star Wars Combine, which are even larger. SWC not only drops the player as a single character in the middle of the entire Star Wars universe, it also runs in minute-by-minute real time. The game has been operating for 10+ years now with some of the original players and organizations still active.


4. COIN is slooooooooow. Things develop over months or years. The number one difficulty is figuring out whether you are being successful or not, and why. It requires patience, perseverence, and downright mulishness. You can't game that with people, and we don't have the software to realistically game it using computers.

See above. Most games, such as EU2 and GPS, also provide the option of controlling the speed, though not necessarily the pace, of the game.

Just my 2 cents as one from the gaming generation. :)

AmericanPride
09-18-2008, 03:39 PM
errr... Seriously, can we do this? Is it possible for SWC to run a "simulation."

It's certainly possible from a programming/development side. This model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_text-based_role-playing_game) or this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_based_game) (admittedly with more development time) I think would be very effective. Some games are also a mix of the two, using basic coding to augment the will of the controlling game administrators.

William F. Owen
09-18-2008, 03:51 PM
. I am seriously not touching that sheep... :D

Good. You can get your own!

Eden
09-18-2008, 05:06 PM
Let me set aside my skepticism for a moment. Assuming anybody asked me for my input on a proposed "COIN simulator" useful for training, say, captains through colonels, I would tell them this:

"First, don't try to sell me on the virtues of EU2, HOI, etc. I've played those and others like them. While they are deep as games, they are paper thin as simulators. Playing EU2 constantly for a year won't make you Metternich or Marlbourogh. It only makes you an expert at playing EU2.

"Second, from a practical perspective, the idea of having somebody enter the simulation four hours a week for a year to be trained seems a little weak. That would be, oh, 208 hours of immersion, or roughly 8 days on the ground if continuity is maintained. In other words, not very long in the COIN world. And how would continuity be maintained for the individual if the simulation is an on-going affair like WOW or 2nd Life? If you want more of their time, then you really begin to impact their duties and training in the real world. I guess I'm trying to visualize the practical aspect of this from a training perspective. Soldiers in a COIN op don't just wander around the world - they have units to lead and bosses to respond to. If one of their platoon leaders is also a real person, how do you ensure the two are in the sim at the same time? I could go on and on but won't. You may consider it nitpicking, but if some of you are interested in getting the armed forces to commit to such a game, you need to be prepared to integrate it into their real-world training requirements. Frankly, I would prefer to be able to drop people into the game for a week or two weeks at a time, with the ability to accelerate time so that they can experience 4-6 months of game-time.

"Third, I agree that there doesn't need to be 'victory conditions', only some means of comparing start-state to end-state. More than that, the cause-effect linkages need to be nebulous so that participants can't learn 'the system'. In other words, NPC reactions should be unpredictable within a certain range of outcomes. Perhaps the 'rules' should change at random intervals. We want to ensure that it doesn't teach the participants that there is a 'right way' or any such thing as a 'silver bullet' in COIN.

"Fourth, how do I monitor their progress and give them feedback? Frankly, I don't trust the idea that they will pick up lessons or insights on their own. I need some way of having 'the trainer' or 'the mentor' either in the sim or able to teach outside the sim. In WOW, if you never get past Level 2, nobody cares; I can't see investing time and money in your game if you can't guarantee the participants will become Level 60 Paladins.

"I am assuming the vast majority of entities in the game will be 'bots. Are we talking about a single, continuing universe to play in? Or will their be a number of separate 'zones' or 'instances'? If so, how do we monitor each separate zone and populate it with role-players? How do we ensure that the game world doesn't gradually morph into an environment not conducive to our training objectives?

"I don't mean to be discouraging. I'll concede that you can create a useful simulator. I remain skeptical that something like Battlefield 1942 or 2nd Life:Insurgent! is a practical tool that the armed forces can incorporate into its training regimen. You would have to convince TRADOC or JFCOM that investing 10% of an individual's training time over the course of a year, while maintaining the server farm/staff/role players/physical plant required, will result in a discernible improvement in performance."

Rex Brynen
09-18-2008, 05:23 PM
Good. You can get your own!

No comment (http://www.muttonbone.com/).

Steve Blair
09-18-2008, 05:44 PM
"Second, from a practical perspective, the idea of having somebody enter the simulation four hours a week for a year to be trained seems a little weak. That would be, oh, 208 hours of immersion, or roughly 8 days on the ground if continuity is maintained. In other words, not very long in the COIN world. And how would continuity be maintained for the individual if the simulation is an on-going affair like WOW or 2nd Life? If you want more of their time, then you really begin to impact their duties and training in the real world. I guess I'm trying to visualize the practical aspect of this from a training perspective. Soldiers in a COIN op don't just wander around the world - they have units to lead and bosses to respond to. If one of their platoon leaders is also a real person, how do you ensure the two are in the sim at the same time? I could go on and on but won't. You may consider it nitpicking, but if some of you are interested in getting the armed forces to commit to such a game, you need to be prepared to integrate it into their real-world training requirements. Frankly, I would prefer to be able to drop people into the game for a week or two weeks at a time, with the ability to accelerate time so that they can experience 4-6 months of game-time.

This is not especially hard to deal with. Time compression is a pretty normal thing in the non-WOW type games. It's also pretty easy to model units. My framework would also be a moderated free-play style game, with as many teams as possible represented by real people making non-programmed decisions within the framework of the game.

If you break away from the WOW model (which is actually a latecomer to this sort of thing) you'll find environments that are much more structured. These are usually MUSHes or something similar (text-based as opposed to graphics-based). I also have yet to be convinced that you couldn't run some sort of COIN simulation with a set of teams and a White Cell functioning to moderate region interaction and deal with action results.

If you don't believe such a thing can work, that's fine. But I would also suggest that you're missing some very interesting training opportunities in the process.

AmericanPride
09-18-2008, 06:08 PM
"First, don't try to sell me on the virtues of EU2, HOI, etc. I've played those and others like them. While they are deep as games, they are paper thin as simulators. Playing EU2 constantly for a year won't make you Metternich or Marlbourogh. It only makes you an expert at playing EU2.


Point taken. I only aimed to assert that complex games modelling different theories of power, war, or what-have-you simultaneously are possible. Of course the specifics will take on a different shape in a COIN simulation -- the level of depth and complexity necessary is nonetheless attainable. Some kind of balance between "game" and "simulator" is necessary -- too strict of a simulation will not provide, in my opinion, sufficient flexibility to explore possibilities and contingencies. Too much of a game will, of course, push the realism envelope into absurdities.


Frankly, I would prefer to be able to drop people into the game for a week or two weeks at a time, with the ability to accelerate time so that they can experience 4-6 months of game-time.

That seems like a practical suggestion, given the training intent of a COIN simulator.


More than that, the cause-effect linkages need to be nebulous so that participants can't learn 'the system'. In other words, NPC reactions should be unpredictable within a certain range of outcomes. Perhaps the 'rules' should change at random intervals. We want to ensure that it doesn't teach the participants that there is a 'right way' or any such thing as a 'silver bullet' in COIN.

Having unknown variables which are difficult, or impossible, to know would provide, I think, a layer of unpredictability. GPS, for example, lets you know the basic personality traits of key leaders, but there's no certainity that Person A will, for example, accept a bribe, or having accepted it, do what was requested of them; or having rejected it, leak it to the media. I don't think a wild variable need be as dramatic or fundamental as "rule-changing", as it is possible for the program to roll a die so-to-speak.


Fourth, how do I monitor their progress and give them feedback? Frankly, I don't trust the idea that they will pick up lessons or insights on their own. I need some way of having 'the trainer' or 'the mentor' either in the sim or able to teach outside the sim.

Point taken. I should have specified my original comment or worded it differently. My mistake. Players shouldn't, of course, learn in isolation; I meant to say that players can learn different things dependent on what course they pursue provided its in a sand-box type simulation. The lessons will come out afterwards to when the players/trainers explain why the end-state looks the way it does, and whether that's desirable or not. Modelling a specific theory of insurgency will only tell players that the other models of insurgencies are invalid.


I am assuming the vast majority of entities in the game will be 'bots. Are we talking about a single, continuing universe to play in? Or will their be a number of separate 'zones' or 'instances'? If so, how do we monitor each separate zone and populate it with role-players? How do we ensure that the game world doesn't gradually morph into an environment not conducive to our training objectives?

Valid questions and I think that would depend on the model of simulation being used in the first place and practical considerations of who will be particpating, how many of them, and for how long. Some games have gazillions of bots, some have a few handful doing menial undecisive tasks, and some have none at all. I would imagine that the option to tailor these kinds of variables to the particular training objectives desired would be the most effective.

Question: do you think Operation Flashpoint is a realistic, useful combat simulator?

AmericanPride
09-18-2008, 07:05 PM
If I were tasked with designing a COIN simulator, this is what it would look like:

1) Sand-box mode: an established framework to define player interaction, simulating a country similar to the Arab states; preferably a browser based system to mitigate admin bias, but a text-based game would be effective also.

2) Each player would control a faction; there would be kinds of factions: political, paramilitary, and conventional military. Factions would be measured a credibility variable. More on that later. Factions would have a prescribed set of policies/causes which can be changed at great cost to credibility.

3) Each faction type would have unique options and units. Player action would take place through these units. There would be many unit types with different capabilities, but each will be measured by common variables such as loyalty, leadership, religion, ethnicity, etc. This would allow for a wide combination of units (i.e. a US military faction and native military faction would share an Infantry unit type, but with different variables for them) and different kinds of interactions. This also allows factions to take on various shapes as the game develops. Some units could also be made available/unavailable depending upon a faction's policy/causes. Units can be killed, captured, turned, etc. Better units cans be recruited/assigned/purchased with higher credibility.

4) There would be one country divided into regions, each region with different population elements defined by similar variables as units. This would make it more difficult for Faction X to operate in Region Y if it does not share with it a common identity. However, this can be mitigated (or exasperated) by a faction's credibility rating. The greater the differences between factions and the population, the more credibility is required to operate effectively. Each region will also have a prescribed set of "wants" similar to a faction's causes/policies.

5) Holding local and national government positions (through units) would give factions more options; i.e. guiding infrastructure projects, lawmaking, etc. These options will also have an impact on a faction's credibility.

6) If two or more player actions contradict (i.e. how to use a common resource or defining local policy), the decision always rules in favor of the unit with more (fire)power (for better or for worse).

7) Game runs in real-time. No pauses. No time to think unless the player was able to create sufficient space and privilege for himself. Game ends when active players agree to call it quits.

BayonetBrant
09-18-2008, 07:18 PM
If I were tasked with designing a COIN simulator, this is what it would look like:

(snip)


You might want to include some succes criteria and/or goals for each faction. Are they all after "control of population" or are they after something different? Maybe they're after 'removal of another faction' or 'control of a certain area' or 'resource'...

You need to define success criteria/victory conditions FIRST and then look at the capabilities available to accomplish it for that group. And it wouldn't be the first time a group tried to accomplish something completely outside its capabilities...

AmericanPride
09-18-2008, 07:35 PM
You might want to include some succes criteria and/or goals for each faction. Are they all after "control of population" or are they after something different? Maybe they're after 'removal of another faction' or 'control of a certain area' or 'resource'.

That would be measured by the prescribed policies/causes. Depending on the intent of the simulation (training or otherwise), the player can define them upon joining, or the game gods can define them (or a mix of both). The player would then be free to shape his faction however he thinks is most effective for fulfilling the cause(s).

EDIT: Over the next couple of days, I'm going to start learning PHP. A basic COIN simulator will be an interesting project down the road.

Ron Humphrey
09-18-2008, 10:54 PM
If I were tasked with designing a COIN simulator, this is what it would look like:

1) Sand-box mode: an established framework to define player interaction, simulating a country similar to the Arab states; preferably a browser based system to mitigate admin bias, but a text-based game would be effective also.

2) Each player would control a faction; there would be kinds of factions: political, paramilitary, and conventional military. Factions would be measured a credibility variable. More on that later. Factions would have a prescribed set of policies/causes which can be changed at great cost to credibility.

3) Each faction type would have unique options and units. Player action would take place through these units. There would be many unit types with different capabilities, but each will be measured by common variables such as loyalty, leadership, religion, ethnicity, etc. This would allow for a wide combination of units (i.e. a US military faction and native military faction would share an Infantry unit type, but with different variables for them) and different kinds of interactions. This also allows factions to take on various shapes as the game develops. Some units could also be made available/unavailable depending upon a faction's policy/causes. Units can be killed, captured, turned, etc. Better units cans be recruited/assigned/purchased with higher credibility.

4) There would be one country divided into regions, each region with different population elements defined by similar variables as units. This would make it more difficult for Faction X to operate in Region Y if it does not share with it a common identity. However, this can be mitigated (or exasperated) by a faction's credibility rating. The greater the differences between factions and the population, the more credibility is required to operate effectively. Each region will also have a prescribed set of "wants" similar to a faction's causes/policies.

5) Holding local and national government positions (through units) would give factions more options; i.e. guiding infrastructure projects, lawmaking, etc. These options will also have an impact on a faction's credibility.

6) If two or more player actions contradict (i.e. how to use a common resource or defining local policy), the decision always rules in favor of the unit with more (fire)power (for better or for worse).

7) Game runs in real-time. No pauses. No time to think unless the player was able to create sufficient space and privilege for himself. Game ends when active players agree to call it quits.


The majority of these reflect a particular application that my former place of employ was trying out. They are a reasonable way of approaching the issue and offer a lot of good developmental steps towards an even more in depth program. The ultimate goal would be that it should be able to be small enough for smaller groups to work yet be able to expand in scope and detail to the point at which some of the products would be able to interact with existing training systems.

Et All: I would think there are enough simulations of everything from economy, to peace negoatiations to admit that such a thing is definately doable. The very fact that it needs to avoid silver bullets makes it more so.
I think the real questions are the following.

Is it affordable? (not only in the sense of cost but also in consideration of is it worth it)

Who should build it? (this really would determine whether what you get is what you need. Way too many issues with those building it having a somewhat biased approach on whats important vs whats extra. This however is probably unavoidable)

AmericanPride
09-18-2008, 11:02 PM
The majority of these reflect a particular application that my former place of employ was trying out. They are a reasonable way of approaching the issue and offer a lot of good developmental steps towards an even more in depth program.

That's interesting because the points I outlined constitute the framework my buddies and I are using to build a simulation of the Dune universe. We're building the game using PHP coding which apparently can do anything. It's cheap (but not so easy).


Is it affordable? (not only in the sense of cost but also in consideration of is it worth it)

I've always wondered what makes military simulators expensive (off-hand, I read somewhere that to operate a carrier in a simulation runs up to a million dollars a day). That's absurd. Is most of the cost in the hardware? I've found very sophisicated online simulators that are very cheap to make and operate.

nichols
09-19-2008, 01:49 AM
It appears that there is a mis-perception about simulations in regards to small unit training.

The large simulations are generally expensive because there is a hugh contractor tail that is needed to support an exercise.

Games that you buy off the self at Walmart do not meet requirements for training.

Current thread in getting military small unit simulations is buying/developing editors that allow the end user to change the game.

Open APIs to allow third party AI insertion without having to go back to the original game developer.

Currently the Corps is fielding DVTE suites (32 laptops per suite) to each battalion.

While doing a neo op with an off the shelf AI package will effect the outcome of the scenario.......placing a system in the hands of the small unit that can be adjusted as needed will end up being part of the change over with the advanced party from the replacement unit.

The ability to modify the AI to meet current situations on the ground with the ability to take pictures of individuals and put them in game; think about the effect this would have had if we were doing that since 2003.

9 Innings at Quantico touches on the DIME aspects.

We are much closer than some think we are to getting a COIN sim.

Current draft infantry T & R Manual specifically call for simulation use to the point where it gets crp ratings.

Gen Mattis is driving JFCOM full blown into the sim world, I get reps from JFCOM & NATO attending progress review meetings. Hell, I briefed MGen Skare (Swedish) two Fridays ago on what we're doing.

Ultimately Gen Mattis wants a holodeck; yes, it is getting funded but it's gunna take some time:p

nichols
09-19-2008, 01:52 AM
Portions of the last brief that I gave.

Ken White
09-19-2008, 01:56 AM
for the update...

nichols
09-19-2008, 01:56 AM
More slides

nichols
09-19-2008, 02:01 AM
The slide with ALTS is an example of where we are plugging in a differnet company's voice/speech recognizer/culture AI into VBS-2 via an open API.

Now the Marines have to talk to the avatar...just imagine it talking to a native that doesn't understand english (I was trying to go the Dr Doolittle theme song foute....but I ran out of steam:o).

William F. Owen
09-19-2008, 06:06 AM
Huge fan of VBS-2. I actually have a copy of the ADF version. It is an incredibly powerful and flexible tool.

It is also an excellent way to teach Company and Platoon Tactical Doctrine, and show that some stuff just doesn't work!

davidbfpo
09-19-2008, 07:13 AM
Are there simulations / games that could be used for counter-terrorism training?

I am aware of paper-based simulation exercises, principally to show outsiders (opinion formers, community leaders etc) how a CT operation works by "hands-on" learning. Used in London and Lancashire, possibly elsewhere.

In-house training is sparse and gaming unheard of. A pity as UK CT has inceased in size rapidly and it's learning by doing.

davidbfpo

Jason Port
09-19-2008, 03:43 PM
As you can see from Mr. Nichol's slides and from reading others works on this subject, we as a nation are not too far away from a technology and tactical perspective. We have the lessons learned, and the tech is not too far off. We simply are not good at the political side of this -

1. The knowledge and the data - We have smart people working around the country on this topic and we have the data from the current operations which could be used to create a real time left seat right seat (Pull all of the combat events for the game AO up to 24 hours ago and use them in the sim)

2. We have the models - There are smart folks around the country who have already modeled these pieces. They were built for similar programs and need to be extended.

3. Systems facilitated engagements to minimize player count - With time compression, white teams who play multiple roles and system applied parameters against their character performance, we could achieve effectiveness without an army of white team players. e.g this one OC runs 10 insurgent cells, but the system applies factors for leadership, tactics, etc.

4. Language-based issues - There are translation systems today which need extension to make this succeed, but this is critical. While conducting field interrogation in Bosnia, my translator failed to convey my tone, which results in no intel. Big impact on the outcome. But we are not that far away from making this part of the sim, but it must include understanding of the tonality of the speaker as well as the language itself.

5. Mixture of math and chaos - 2nd Life brings some value in this way as I believe it applies a little of the math and a little of the interpersonal dynamic to the equation. Unlike Marriage, when you respond off the cuff, the sim marriage allows you to put on your best or worst face. We need to eliminate playing the sim how we think it should be played and play it first how we would really play it in real life. Then, learn from where we made mistakes. This is not about getting virtual tail in a virtual bar.

6. Another author mentioned targeting the CPT and above. However, most of COIN is at CPT and below in the near term, and that is a key area to address in these sims. The Marine Corps really gets the fact that their Squad Leader is a key player in COIN and is clearly investing in it.

HOWEVER, politics is killing us. As a systems developer, I have seen no less than four Requests for Proposal for similar games and simulations, all by different agencies (and I haven't even looked at Dept. of State or USAID.) In turn we are spending a ton of money, which this auspicious group could in fact develop the requirements for over a few beers, and some war stories.

Because we cannot seem to cross lines, we are missing a crucial aspect which hasn't been discussed here at all - the impact of the global community on COIN, and how we "game" this into the Sim. What impact does the Asian World Bank play? Department of State? If you are the military sim developer, you might forget to include these in the day-to-day operation of the Squad Leader, until they build a factory where you wanted to build a soccer field. Or until the DoS rep mis-speaks and tells the tribal leader that the guys daughter looks like a hairless goat.

I submit at the end of the day, the factors you all have pointed out should be consumed into a white paper and submitted into the hands of the nearest congressperson, for endorsement and funding, under the Executive branch directly, so as to remove the interagency domain protection shenanagans.

JT Clark
09-21-2008, 09:50 AM
If there was one thing that everyone at the recent COIN Leaders seminar took away, it was that the COIN CoG, IPB and ops planning processes can be modelled and gamed with only a few MS Word and Excel based tools.

I don't necessarily disagree that sims might have their place and should be investigated, but they aren't necessary to the fundamentals.

Rex Brynen
09-21-2008, 03:15 PM
Because we cannot seem to cross lines, we are missing a crucial aspect which hasn't been discussed here at all - the impact of the global community on COIN, and how we "game" this into the Sim. What impact does the Asian World Bank play? Department of State? If you are the military sim developer, you might forget to include these in the day-to-day operation of the Squad Leader, until they build a factory where you wanted to build a soccer field. Or until the DoS rep mis-speaks and tells the tribal leader that the guys daughter looks like a hairless goat.

While harder to do in an AI-based electronic sim, this is relatively easy to do as part of a human-moderated RPG. One can imagine a scenario, for example, in which you're a company commander tasked with an AOR that includes several potential development and reconstruction project. In addition to maintaining security in your corner of Swjitsan, you and the local PRT (or whoever) need to:

1) Work out local aid priorities

Who do you ask? There is a local village council, but it is dominated by members of certain clans/families, and steers you towards projects that favour their group.
Certain subaltern groups (women, for example) also aren't represented in local government, yet have a better idea of day-to-day needs (health, education, water, waste disposal).
The Swjistani central government has other ideas on priorities, some sensible others motivated by politics of rent-seeking opportunities.
Aid agencies and NGOs have other ideas, based on what it is the usually do, or based on their own needs assessment data. Moreover, some of the available money is locked into particular budget envelopes, and all of it has different time-frames, bidding, and reporting requirements.
Non-USG agencies have a significant portion of the potential cash.



2) Who executes? Many of the local contractors and corrupt, and many are linked to particular clans and political factions.

3) Rebuilding the school seems one of the clearer priorities, but there are problems.

The old principal has local support, but was associated with the old authoritarian regime. He is also brother of the police chief.
Principal appointed by central government is skilled and qualified, but belongs to other ethnic/religious group.
Local conservatives rail against coeducation... yet it is far more cost effective than rebuilding two separate schools. Curriculum proves politically divisive.
The central government wishes to use the school to service children in outlying villages, but there is local opposition to bringing in kids from other ethnic/religious groups. Some outlying villages in someone else's AOR.


4) Reconstruction projects become priority targets for insurgents, both politically and military. You could easily integrate some electronic SIMs at this point, having participants convey aid personnel, guard the new facilities against attacks, etc.

5) Etc, etc.

Beelzebubalicious
09-22-2008, 02:23 AM
Taking Jason's point about politics, how about taking this out of the political realm (if that is, indeed, possible) and putting it in to nuetral hands or territory? It could involve representatives, those who leave their uniforms at the door, of the major agencies, but not high level bureaucrats, but experienced, field people. I like Rex's idea - focus on the issues and scenarios, not the particular style, methodology, etc. Just what works.

Would this be possible?

If so, I can offer a potential nuetral party.

Ron Humphrey
09-22-2008, 02:33 AM
Taking Jason's point about politics, how about taking this out of the political realm (if that is, indeed, possible) and putting it in to nuetral hands or territory? It could involve representatives, those who leave their uniforms at the door, of the major agencies, but not high level bureaucrats, but experienced, field people. I like Rex's idea - focus on the issues and scenarios, not the particular style, methodology, etc. Just what works.

Would this be possible?

If so, I can offer a potential nuetral party.

I think the major problem you run into is that regardless of who builds what it has to be able to play nice with a whole bunch of existing programs all of which tie in with rice bowls and who don't all always like to share for reasons which are somewhat understandable if not necessarily helpful:(

120mm
09-24-2008, 03:59 PM
While harder to do in an AI-based electronic sim, this is relatively easy to do as part of a human-moderated RPG.

Pet peeve of mine: A war-gamer friend and I once did the math, and determined that we could do Warfighter-type exercises as a human-moderated RPG with 1/3 to 1/2 the personnel and 1/4 th emoney as state of the art circa 1998.

To a great extent, imo, sims don't save any money and are a net time-waster compared to creative human-driven equivalents.

But they look cool, don't they?

Rex Brynen
09-24-2008, 04:50 PM
Pet peeve of mine: A war-gamer friend and I once did the math, and determined that we could do Warfighter-type exercises as a human-moderated RPG with 1/3 to 1/2 the personnel and 1/4 th emoney as state of the art circa 1998.

To a great extent, imo, sims don't save any money and are a net time-waster compared to creative human-driven equivalents.

But they look cool, don't they?

In fairness to electronic SIMs, they don't require a skilled moderator, and hence are more easily utilized in diverse settings. They are also excellent at kinetic/physics modeling. I don't think the AI and social interaction components can get anywhere near the sophistication of a skilled human-moderated RPG, however.

120mm
09-24-2008, 05:55 PM
I'm wondering the cost differential of one skilled RPG moderator versus the veritable ARMY of skilled computer geeks we now require to run a system that breaks down every few hours....

The key, I think, would be to run something like a hybrid system, where a moderator is given a basic script/game-plan, and uses a computer system to do the complex kinetic calculations outcomes and even certain sequels, within limits

Kind of like a Dungeon Master with electronic dice.

Steve Blair
09-24-2008, 06:20 PM
This is actually done to a degree in some varieties of online games (MUSHs, for example).

For a more complex scenario, a panel of moderators (White Cell) would be workable as well. It would most likely be cheaper than the fully programmed alternatives, and more flexible and 'realistic' as well.

Rex Brynen
09-24-2008, 06:23 PM
Kind of like a Dungeon Master with electronic dice.

Can I play a halfling rogue?

BayonetBrant
09-24-2008, 07:08 PM
Of course, the major challenge with a human arbiter instead of the computer is that the unit who's ass is getting kicked will default to the excuse of "That idiot running the exercise didn't give us credit for the # of (fill in the blank) that we should've had! If we had that this would all be different!"

It's the same reason we don't use false positives in the intel training - it allows the unit to have a built-in excuse to ignore the lessons they should've learned.

If you've got the computer to point to and say "you fired 20 shots and 11 hit" the unit doesn't argue as much as they would if there was a 'DM' saying the same thing.

Steve Blair
09-24-2008, 07:19 PM
Of course, the major challenge with a human arbiter instead of the computer is that the unit who's ass is getting kicked will default to the excuse of "That idiot running the exercise didn't give us credit for the # of (fill in the blank) that we should've had! If we had that this would all be different!"

It's the same reason we don't use false positives in the intel training - it allows the unit to have a built-in excuse to ignore the lessons they should've learned.

If you've got the computer to point to and say "you fired 20 shots and 11 hit" the unit doesn't argue as much as they would if there was a 'DM' saying the same thing.

I would agree IF all that was being modeled were kinetic results (and even then people have been known to accuse the AI of 'cheating' on the results...often with some degree of accuracy depending on the model). But with COIN you have a variety of human factors that I don't think can be accurately modeled using computer systems. As I've said before (and others have echoed) a combined system may be the best way (using the computer for 'combat results'). But at the end of the day I really think you do need a human control element, or at least a majority of humans involved on all teams and minimal AI.

Rex Brynen
09-24-2008, 07:54 PM
If you've got the computer to point to and say "you fired 20 shots and 11 hit" the unit doesn't argue as much as they would if there was a 'DM' saying the same thing.

This is undoubtedly a problem--the belief among participants that outcomes were being decided by moderator biases and not by their own actions.

In my experience, most of this can be resolved by a combination of effective moderating (which requires some skill and experience, hence the difficulty of using a RPG format as a generally-disseminated training tool) and good post-simulation debriefing. It is often the case that what participants attribute at first to moderator bias is actually due to their own lack of information ("You didn't realize the police chief was the brother of the school principal? That's why the police were unenthusiastic about guarding the school after the principal had been fired and replaced with an outsider.")

I also wouldn't underestimate similar problems in electronic simulations ("I would have killed that BMP if my mouse hadn't stuck/if the physics modeling was more accurate/if I had been able to hear it like I could in real life").

All this discussion has me wanting to work on one...

120mm
09-29-2008, 03:03 PM
This is undoubtedly a problem--the belief among participants that outcomes were being decided by moderator biases and not by their own actions.

In my experience, most of this can be resolved by a combination of effective moderating (which requires some skill and experience, hence the difficulty of using a RPG format as a generally-disseminated training tool) and good post-simulation debriefing. It is often the case that what participants attribute at first to moderator bias is actually due to their own lack of information ("You didn't realize the police chief was the brother of the school principal? That's why the police were unenthusiastic about guarding the school after the principal had been fired and replaced with an outsider.")

I also wouldn't underestimate similar problems in electronic simulations ("I would have killed that BMP if my mouse hadn't stuck/if the physics modeling was more accurate/if I had been able to hear it like I could in real life").

All this discussion has me wanting to work on one...

Excellent points. As a recon guy in a former life, I used to be greatly frustrated by the lack of ability to be properly "modelled" in any of the computer games.

I was restricted to, at first, maneuvering my Troops as a single icon, and then some computer wank did me the "favor" of "allowing" me, to obviously great inconvenience to himself and the replication, to maneuver Platoon icons.

And then my Division commander chewed butt for the CAV not seeing anything, and getting killed right away....:confused:

I think with any kind of simulation, it's more about testing systems and staffs than achieving some kind of net result at the end, anyway, just because all of the variables at play.

AmericanPride
09-29-2008, 04:14 PM
I do not think a COIN simulator is viable at the tactical level because a COIN simulation is inherently political. Many have already mentioned the obvious problems in modelling the complex relationships in a COIN environment. A fully simulated tactical COIN simulator would be simplistic at best, which is a problem with nearly all games which attempt to model any kind of political environment. I think this kind of simulation would be best utilitzed as a staff tool at battalion or higher. Using the model I suggested earlier (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=56884&postcount=35), the S3 and S2 could take their traditional roles (Blue Force and OpFor, respectively), the S5 as the most influential civilian demographic in the AO, the S9 (if available) as any agencies in the AO, and the S4 possibly as other friendly forces in the AO (if any). Since there's likely to be multiple OpFor and civilian groups, people can be pulled from the S2 and S5 sections (or the other remaining sections) as necessary. All the while, the S6 can make sure the simulator is functioning properly since there'd be little need for any kind of moderator. The system wouldn't require anything more than someone knowledgeable in a common programming language (PHP, C++, etc) and access to the internet.

Further Note: All of this could be made available through a master site (even AKO), where the staffs can enter and play their respective scenarios, using a basic options menu common to any game to design the desired scenario. My inspirations for this idea were this game (http://phpdiplomacy.net/index.php) and this one (http://www.swcombine.com/community/features.php). The first one uses PHP to model the classic Diplomacy board game (no moderator necessary) and hosts hundreds of simultaneous games; the second models the whole of the Star Wars universe; of course, that kind of scale is not necessary for COIN purposes. Both of these are free to the users.

Silento
11-03-2008, 06:51 PM
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

bongotastic
12-16-2009, 03:18 PM
Hi, I've been putting together a site with links to a range of topics on modern wargaming and wargame design. The assymetric and red teaming are two things that I'd like to expand on. Feel free to check it out and suggest new source of information that isn't there.

Cheers,

http://sites.google.com/site/bongotastic/

bongotastic

John
01-16-2010, 08:46 PM
I am currently in CGSC and a SAMS selectee. Deployment experience and now the word of academics has led me to believe the Army no longer has a viable model for wargaming for stabilization / counter-insurgent operations. The linear process is no longer feasible given the number of variables, threats, competitors, etc. (i.e. action, reaction, counteraction is a thing of the past).

I am beginning my thesis research in this area of wargaming. Specifically looking at a model that provides an idea of what questions should be looked at. Honestly, I am not convinced that wargaming is feasible given the complexity of influences along a given LOE.

Thoughts and perspective would be appreciated.

Cheers
John

jcustis
01-16-2010, 10:08 PM
You've probably already seen his posts if you conducted any degree of forum searches, but I recommend that you might want to talk with member Nichols first and foremost.

Rex Brynen
01-16-2010, 10:52 PM
I am beginning my thesis research in this area of wargaming. Specifically looking at a model that provides an idea of what questions should be looked at. Honestly, I am not convinced that wargaming is feasible given the complexity of influences along a given LOE.

Thoughts and perspective would be appreciated.


I think, as a first step, one needs to think about what one is wargaming, and why.

Is it for purposes of training? In that case, a well designed wargame can highlight operational complexities, and identify the sorts of questions, issues, and challenges that COIN and stability operations present. (On the other hand, if it implies to much clarity about this, I think it sends all the wrong signals.)

Is it for the purpose of operations planning? Here I'm much more dubious, although one can imagine wargame designs that help to identify possible responses by insurgents and others.

William F. Owen
01-17-2010, 06:08 AM
I am currently in CGSC and a SAMS selectee. Deployment experience and now the word of academics has led me to believe the Army no longer has a viable model for wargaming for stabilization / counter-insurgent operations. The linear process is no longer feasible given the number of variables, threats, competitors, etc. (i.e. action, reaction, counteraction is a thing of the past).
Warfare has never been linear, and the number of variable is quantifiable. This is just irregular warfare as opposed to regular warfare. You merely have to replicate the Ends, Ways and Means in a form that delivers the product you want. FIGHTING Irregulars is not very different from Fighting Regulars. War gaming really only works at the tactical level, so I suggest that is the limit of your enquiry.


I am beginning my thesis research in this area of wargaming. Specifically looking at a model that provides an idea of what questions should be looked at. Honestly, I am not convinced that wargaming is feasible given the complexity of influences along a given LOE.

Do you mean "gaming" or simulation? What is the exam question? ( see REX ) Warfare today is no more complex than it was 3,000 years ago. If you assume it is, you've just backed yourself into a corner.
Killing bad folks = gets points. Killing civilians = loosing points.
Irregular warfare generally requires greater discrimination in order to support the Policy = do not kill civilians.

Actually there are at least two PC based simulations that already account for this, - and do it pretty well.

Bill Moore
01-17-2010, 03:33 PM
John,

Sounds like an interesting project, but perhaps being too long in the tooth I remain a skeptic of any attempt to seriously replicate a stability operation. However, I still think a game could be useful in introducing multiple variables that a commander/leader will have to consider ranging from security to economic development to developing peace arrangements between different warring factions.

Ideally any game developed would allow the integration of key players from the interagency, NGOs, PVOs, multi-national partners; and portray a complicated/complex environment such as Bosnia, Somalia, etc. At the same time following Wilf's focus at the tactical level, we should be able to scale it down to the tactical level by focusing on particular military missions such a security operations, providing humanitarian assistance, etc. I don't think the tactical piece of the game is that hard. We actually played games like this during the 90's focused on Peace Operations that are a form of Stability Operation, so you don't have to reinvent the wheel.

I agree with Wilf that war isn't more complicated now than it was in WWI or during the Vietnam conflict, but simply that the environmental variables have changed. We're not worried so much about conducting operations that may cross the red line anymore resulting in superpowers slinging nukes at one another. Now we're more concerned about misstepping, thus allowing or causing pockets of instability to expand and destabilize entire regions. This is a strategic level consideration that will define your limitations at the tactical level. For the gamers at the tactical level you're given a mission, your limitations, an environment, and then you play the game and see what ideas it generates.

BayonetBrant
01-18-2010, 02:42 PM
First things first, go find Dr James Sterrett on the sims team down in the basement of the L&C bldg, and have a long conversation with him. He's the wargaming guru down there, and has a great wealth of experience that can (at least) help point you toward some great resources. While you're there, ask him what the difference is between a "game" and a "sim" and see how long it takes him to ask "did Brant put you up to this?"

Second, and more to you direct area of interest - you need to ask what the point of the wargame is within the context you're observing. Part of what comes out of the MDMP wargame is the identification of key decision points, and the CCIRs that drive those DPs. Regardless of "linear" or not, that output is still relevant, significant, and useful.

MDMP wargaming for COIN is still branches, sequels, and FRAGOs, just much more divergent than before, and may require more nebulous descriptors than we've had in the past - especially at higher echelons where you increase the involvement of participants not under military control (DoS, USAID, etc). You're branches and sequels are no longer "what if they attack the flank" but now "what if they start bombing day-care centers".


However, let me also say that you can NOT throw out the 'conventional' type of MCMP wargaming any more than you can throw out the 'conventional' maneuver plan or 'conventional' combat doctrine of the US military. No other gov't agency in the US 'owns' warfare the way DoD does. Lots of people have a stake in COIN/nation-building, like DoS, DoJ, USDA, CIA, USAID, etc. Only one owns conventional warfighting, and if we don't do it, there's no backup plan.

Surferbeetle
01-18-2010, 04:24 PM
I am currently in CGSC and a SAMS selectee. Deployment experience and now the word of academics has led me to believe the Army no longer has a viable model for wargaming for stabilization / counter-insurgent operations. The linear process is no longer feasible given the number of variables, threats, competitors, etc. (i.e. action, reaction, counteraction is a thing of the past).

I am beginning my thesis research in this area of wargaming. Specifically looking at a model that provides an idea of what questions should be looked at. Honestly, I am not convinced that wargaming is feasible given the complexity of influences along a given LOE.

Thoughts and perspective would be appreciated.

Hi John,

Simulations and models are pretty powerful tools as long as we keep in mind that they are simplifying and incomplete representations of reality (perhaps comparable to Bertrand Russell's table (http://www.thatphilosophywebsite.com/Texts/russell_problems_of_philosophy_chap1.html)).

SWC threads How to Win (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=6226&highlight=model) and Mathematics of War (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=7250&highlight=mathematics+war) have some interesting points on the why's and how's of simulations. These post's (here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=72720&postcount=101) and here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=89643&postcount=77)) on concepts examined by others have sparked some thoughts.

I enjoy making simple models in excel (on occasion I also use mathcad & mathematica but it's rare) for engineering work and financial modeling. I enjoyed using the commercial simulations offered to us in mba school, and sometimes work with HEC-RAS (http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/) while dabbling with HEC-HMS (http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-hms/), Arcview (http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcview/index.html) and AutoCAD Civil 3D (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/pc/index?siteID=123112&id=3566722).

This (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=67807&postcount=88) is a thesis that I am exploring here at SWC. (Since that post I am presently defining War as being composed of various TTP, or warfare types, i.e. Conventional warfare, COIN warfare, etc. and have not changed my views that the nature of war is constant throughout these TTP).

The Jan/Feb 2010 edition of the Atlantic discusses military simulations in the article SimCity Baghdad (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/201001/military-simulate) by Brian Mockenhaupt.


Lieutenant Colonels Matthew Moore and Kevin Mindak repaired the airport, the bus terminal, and the water-treatment plant. They silenced three insurgent groups and won the support of many in Al-Hamra’. But the mayor, Anwar Sadiq, still spoke out against the U.S. Army battalion stationed in his town.

Steve

Wargames Mark
01-18-2010, 05:21 PM
These might be of interest:

UrbanSim
(http://ict.usc.edu/projects/urbansim/)
Deep Green (http://www.darpa.mil/ipto/Programs/dg/dg.asp)

I have been thinking about doing something very similar to the UrbanSim concept, but as a commercial product, and reflecting my own particular view of network defeat.

With regard to the Deep Green concept, anyone interested in it might also be interested in the subject of genetic algorithms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm) (also, see the Robby the Robot examples on the net, such as this one (http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~mm/ArtificialIntelligenceFall2008/Homework/Homework6.pdf). Read about GAs recently in Complexity: A Guided Tour (http://books.google.com/books?id=sSgzHayrDBsC&lpg=PP1&dq=complexity%20a%20guided%20tour&lr=&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=&f=false)).

Rex Brynen
01-19-2010, 01:14 AM
These might be of interest:

UrbanSim
(http://ict.usc.edu/projects/urbansim/)

You'll also find some discussion of UrbanSim, as well as links to some additional material on it, here (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/simcity-meets-urban-coin-operations/).

Wargames Mark
01-19-2010, 02:03 AM
You'll also find some discussion of UrbanSim, as well as links to some additional material on it, here (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/simcity-meets-urban-coin-operations/).

Good site you have!

John
01-20-2010, 05:23 PM
All -

Thank you for the comments thus far. I am looking at the tactical level wargame, not unlike the MDMP that we currently use. My questioning is not based on a "game" or "sim", but the thought process required to understand competitors, tribes, etc. Further, I am not convinced, based on personal experience, that one can completely understand every effect on the battlefield. Nor am I attempting to develop a product to predict the future. However, I do propose that TTPs, good practices, in conjunction with current business models can provide an estimate of actions, reactions and counteractions.

I envision input from HTTs, PRTs, and others that provide insight and perspective to a unit's battlespace.

I understand John Nagle's comments that humans are involved and we cannot completely predict their actions. I concur, but submit we can do a better job of understanding trends, causes, and effects.

Regards

John

Stan
01-20-2010, 05:47 PM
My questioning is not based on a "game" or "sim", but the thought process required to understand competitors, tribes, etc. Further, I am not convinced, based on personal experience, that one can completely understand every effect on the battlefield.

I envision input from HTTs, PRTs, and others that provide insight and perspective to a unit's battlespace.

Regards

John

John,
Just my blind 2 cents, but a simulator or game cannot replicate the thought process of life on the ground. Only experience will provide the upper hand and even that's not a guarantee I'm willing to bet on.

You're on the right track in my opinion - There are many other players out there that we tend to ignore when it comes to fully understanding the playing field. I learned more from a bunch of mixed up expats in the bush than any other pre-deployment training program.

Regards, Stan

Rex Brynen
01-20-2010, 08:02 PM
My questioning is not based on a "game" or "sim", but the thought process required to understand competitors, tribes, etc. Further, I am not convinced, based on personal experience, that one can completely understand every effect on the battlefield. Nor am I attempting to develop a product to predict the future. However, I do propose that TTPs, good practices, in conjunction with current business models can provide an estimate of actions, reactions and counteractions.

I think this is the right approach to take. I would, however, be wary of excessively privileging the notion of "best practices" (which may be highly contextually dependent)--indeed, this is one of my concerns about UrbanSim, in that it potentially generalizes from one set of COIN experiences that may not travel well to other environments. (Then again, I haven't seen the actual simulator, only read the literature on it.)

Key, I think, is encouraging people to think about what questions they need to ask, what kind of dynamics they need to be alert for, and what kind of operational/economic/political/normative trade-offs they are likely to face.

Finally, we need to prewarn people in a sophisticated way about "worst practices"--that is, situations where well-intentioned actors make mistakes due to organizational pathologies, cultural baggage, inappropriate or unresponsive SOPs, etc. I've often found that my own students end up repeating many of the mistakes they've already read about--which provides a valuable opportunity to discuss how and why they did so.

Eden
01-20-2010, 08:31 PM
All -

Thank you for the comments thus far. I am looking at the tactical level wargame, not unlike the MDMP that we currently use. My questioning is not based on a "game" or "sim", but the thought process required to understand competitors, tribes, etc. Further, I am not convinced, based on personal experience, that one can completely understand every effect on the battlefield. Nor am I attempting to develop a product to predict the future. However, I do propose that TTPs, good practices, in conjunction with current business models can provide an estimate of actions, reactions and counteractions.

As someone who went through this process as a planner bound for Afghanistan in 2006, I can give you some insights - mostly negative 'cause I screwed up, but leavened a little in hindsight. I understand you are talking wargame not in the sense most of the posters in this thread have taken it, but in the Army planning sense of marathon sessions with some poor unfortunate posted at a matrix chart to fill out tiny boxes. The only good thing about them is that they were too boring for the generals to attend, so actual work does get done.

First, you can't expect the same level of fidelity you learn to strive for when planning a river crossing on the north German plains - you won't come away with "TF 1-23 LD 210330 at PP 1 & 2" or "Activate Branch Plan B if 3rd TA retains 75% of combat power". Second, it is much easier to talk yourself into things when wargaming counterinsurgency or nation-building, either out of ignorance or wishful thinking - or most likely both. "Yeah, if we kill or capture Mullah Omar the local elders will agree to promote recruitment for the ANSF" may sound reasonable, but it reflects an inappropriately linear faith in cause-and-effect that just doesn't hold when dealing with human hearts in a hideously complex operating environment.

You can't really wargame operations because in this environment they are spread out over months, not days, and because they are subject to incredible ethical, social, political, economic, and, yes, military stresses. They can also be radically affected by things that would normally be insignificant in a conventional setting: the death of a particular individual, the crash of a helicopter, an enterprising reporter, a phone call from a politician (or his brother-in-law), a case of collateral damage or fratricide.

You can and should wargame concepts of operations. Say you want to stop infiltration over the international border. You can wargame the concept fairly easily, along with the bad guys' likely reaction, possible counter-reactions, counter-counter-reactions, etc. You won't come away with details that will help in the day-to-day grind, but you can emerge with the following:

A rough idea of the problems that will crop up
A vague notion of the resources required for various levels of success
A primitive understanding of the political, social, and economic influences at work
A draft list of possible indicators and barely adequate measures of effectiveness/progress
A lot of blank spaces in your understanding and situational awareness that various staff weenies can go away to try to fill in

In other words, it is a brainstorming session with a modicum of discipline applied through adherence to normal wargaming procedures. Helpful, but not a silver bullet. It is really easy to allow it to focus directly on staff processes; try to avoid that as it will give the illusion of solutions without preparing you to face the messy realities on the ground.

One last word - get some real experts to role play during the wargame. Best solution would be to get guys currently on the ground, but that won't happen. Indigenous personnel, guys with past experience, academics, State guys, NGO reps, smart-ass captains who think they are smarter than every field-grade they ever met - these are the guys you want in the room, particularly on the 'red' team.

marct
01-20-2010, 08:49 PM
All really excellent points, Eden. I'd like to elaborate on your last one:


One last word - get some real experts to role play during the wargame. Best solution would be to get guys currently on the ground, but that won't happen. Indigenous personnel, guys with past experience, academics, State guys, NGO reps, smart-ass captains who think they are smarter than every field-grade they ever met - these are the guys you want in the room, particularly on the 'red' team.

There's two extrapolations that should be made here. First off, don't stick with Red and Blue teams; add in multiple additional teams, at a minimum add in one "team" for each lineage operating in the area, one for NGO's in the area, and one for the "press". On this "press" point, set up your game rules such that the press team gets points for "sensational" stories that make the administration and/or the military look "bad". That's not always the case by any means, but it's a factor to consider.

Second point, in addition to the types of people Eden suggested, get some precocious 12 year olds (a younger, more smart ass version of the CPTs Eden suggested), plus some old style, RPG gamers (preferably old DMs of the frakin' sneaky variety) who know a bit about current operations.

One final point, make sure that you have an umpire / ref who is not military. This is, actually, crucial - you want someone who can think totally outside of the doctrinal box. Personally, I'd suggest Rex :D!

Ken White
01-20-2010, 10:07 PM
Also add a couple of sharp SFC/MSG types to your Red Team -- go for SFCs at a minimum because most have no problem speaking truth to power. Stop at MSG because they have not yet learned to make all their answers politically palatable. The NCOs will play dirty, even most CPTs will not. ;)

Steve Blair
01-20-2010, 10:10 PM
And be sure to get outsiders to play press and local interest groups. They're going to give you the most innovative and/or irritating performances, which is just what you need in that role. They'll be best able to shake up your regular participants and give them situations that won't be "in the book." Marc's comments are especially valid here.

Hacksaw
01-20-2010, 10:15 PM
Thanks for writing what I was supposing I was going to have to (until of course I read your post)...

Rule one of MDMP: Understand the problem, if you don't, don't worry you will continue to return to Mission Analysis until you do...

Rule two of MDMP: If you come away with a shared understanding of the problem, the process largely served its purpose... because you can then develop...

(head node to Eden)

A rough idea of the problems that will crop up
A vague notion of the resources required for various levels of success
A primitive understanding of the political, social, and economic influences at work
A draft list of possible indicators and barely adequate measures of effectiveness/progress
A lot of blank spaces in your understanding and situational awareness that various staff weenies can go away to try to fill in

I think the intellectual discord John senses is that we have plenty of senior officers who just want a series of decision points and 3 x 5 cards handed to them at the end of the process as opposed to being an active participant at specific points in the process...

Live well and row

Duckhunter
01-20-2010, 10:25 PM
Warfare has never been linear, and the number of variable is quantifiable. This is just irregular warfare as opposed to regular warfare. You merely have to replicate the Ends, Ways and Means in a form that delivers the product you want. FIGHTING Irregulars is not very different from Fighting Regulars. War gaming really only works at the tactical level, so I suggest that is the limit of your enquiry.

Do you mean "gaming" or simulation? What is the exam question? ( see REX ) Warfare today is no more complex than it was 3,000 years ago. If you assume it is, you've just backed yourself into a corner. Killing bad folks = gets points. Killing civilians = loosing points.
Irregular warfare generally requires greater discrimination in order to support the Policy = do not kill civilians.


I admit that I am new to this blog; however, I would like to respectfully disagree with Mr. Owen. I will start by saying that I am a current Army field-grade officer and CGSC student. Also, I have read many posts by Mr. Owen, and I find his comments to be largely lucid, intelligent, and well-said. Nonetheless, I feel obligated to disagree on many points in his post.

At first glance, there is nothing shocking (or shockingly wrong) with Mr. Owen's comments. However, as I read them more deeply, I think those comments are made without an appreciation for the complexity of a counter-insurgency.

First of all, he contends that
Warfare has never been linear.Many historians argue that linear warfare was the norm until 1939, when the German blitzkrieg defeated Poland and essentially altered the nature of combat. This strategy (coined "third generation warfare" by the United States in 1989) focused on maneuver, speed, surprise, and synchronization to overwhelm the enemy. So, historically speaking, warfare was ENTIRELY linear before 1939.

When Mr. Owen states that
"Killing bad folks = gets points. Killing civilians = lossing [sic] points I can't help but cringe a little. Clearly, killing civilians on a regular basis is not going to win any friends among the local population. However, "killing bad folks" is an oversimplification that borders on intellectual arrogance. First of all, how does one define "bad?" While this seems like an absurd question, there are countless levels of "bad," and not all of them should be solved with lethal fire. In many cases, it is actually preferrable to leverage lower-level criminals, insurgents, etc., as a way to glean more information about the higher-tier individuals. This is a fairly common practice in poorly-acted crime shows, but the fact is that it works on the ground in places like Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. So, no..."killing bad folks" does not necessarily get points. In some cases, the losses grotesquely outweigh the gains.

Finally, I take issue with the claim that
Warfare today is no more complex than it was 3,000 years ago. If you assume it is, you've just backed yourself into a corner. I'm certain that every generation of veterans believe -and justifiably so, in my opinion- that they are fighting a different kind of war. But at no other time in history have the lines between tactical, operational, and strategic warfare been so blurred. The actions of a few Soldiers on the ground can produce second and third-order effects that immediately impact upon national strategy. A good, albeit overused example, is the Abu Graib scandal. The level of complexity that young men and women deal with while deployed is significant, as are the repurcussions of their actions. The slightest mistake is leveraged in the information age by insugents looking to capitalize from the fog of war. As the first conflict since the explosion of the Internet, the War on Terror makes headlines, across the globe, within minutes. That burden is heaped on the shoulders of young officers, NCOs, and enlisted personel. I think, in response to Mr. Owen's claims, that if you assume warfare today is the same as it was for the Doughboys of WWI, then you have, in fact, backed yourself into a corner.

I apologize for rambling. Again, I respect 99% of what Mr. Owen says. However, I did feel the need to voice a different opinion on this one post. Thank you for listening.

William F. Owen
01-21-2010, 07:13 AM
Nonetheless, I feel obligated to disagree on many points in his post.
...and you are obligated. T'is why you are here!

First of all, he contends that Many historians argue that linear warfare was the norm until 1939, when the German blitzkrieg defeated Poland and essentially altered the nature of combat. This strategy (coined "third generation warfare" by the United States in 1989) focused on maneuver, speed, surprise, and synchronization to overwhelm the enemy. So, historically speaking, warfare was ENTIRELY linear before 1939.
Which historians? So the Greek Persian Wars were linear? Hannibal's campaign against Rome was linear? Wellington's campaign in Spain? The Spanish conquest of South America? The English Civil War? The US Civil War? ...and what does "linear" mean anyway? The first common and enduring use of the phrase "Front lines" - in Theatre terms - appears in WW1. It was never used in the same context before that.
There never was anything called "Blitzkrieg". It's baby talk, and the Germans never used the word. German operations in 1939 were based on tactical doctrine written in 1922/3 and that in turn developed from the Artillery Tactics of WW1 - often wrongly coined "Stormtrooper."

However, "killing bad folks" is an oversimplification that borders on intellectual arrogance. First of all, how does one define "bad?" While this seems like an absurd question, there are countless levels of "bad," and not all of them should be solved with lethal fire.
Killing the folks who oppose your policy is why you fight. "Bad" means exactly that. Warfare is about the breaking of will, via violence. All else is diplomacy.
Warfare requires killing. Killing is instrumental, so must be applied against the right people for the right reasons. Who you need to kill is why you have intelligence. FIND, FIX, STRIKE, and EXPLOIT works in all warfare, regardless of the enemy or the policy - and even Galula could not avoid that fact - he just couldn't admit it!

But at no other time in history have the lines between tactical, operational, and strategic warfare been so blurred.
Why are they blurred? What do you not understand?
a.) There is not an "operational level of war." There is tactics and strategy.
b.) Operations are those things an army does to ensure tactical action occurs in the time and place best suited to the political aims required.

The actions of a few Soldiers on the ground can produce second and third-order effects that immediately impact upon national strategy.
I submit winning the Battle of Waterloo (tactical action of a "few soldiers") had strategic effect!
300 Spartans did the same (in myth anyway).
5-10 Bombs dropped by 5-10 men, won the Battle of Midway.
One U-boat captain sinking the Lusitania provided the US with a pretext for War.

A good, albeit overused example, is the Abu Graib scandal. Explain the actual strategic out come of Abu Graib? Give me facts. What did it actually change?

The level of complexity that young men and women deal with while deployed is significant, as are the repurcussions of their actions. The slightest mistake is leveraged in the information age by insugents looking to capitalize from the fog of war. How is this new? WW1 was started by one assassination. What about a mistake by Nuke Boat driver in the Cold War?

As the first conflict since the explosion of the Internet, the War on Terror makes headlines, across the globe, within minutes. That burden is heaped on the shoulders of young officers, NCOs, and enlisted personel. No it isn't. This is a myth. - and the internet and conflict existed well before 2001! War on terror? War on an abstract noun? It may be more complicated because Presidents do no understand the instrumental nature of strategy.

I apologize for rambling. Again, I respect 99% of what Mr. Owen says. However, I did feel the need to voice a different opinion on this one post. Thank you for listening.
No apology required. First call me Wilf and second, voice away.
-Point is, you seem to have brought into all the comforting myths of modern warfare that forgives folks not studying military history both in breadth and in depth. It is incredibly arrogant of the modern generation to assume they have it tougher or more complex.
It is simply without evidence. Confusion born of ignorance (no offence intended) does not mean "complex." Warfare has always been about the most complex human affair on the planet.
Loosing on Iwo Jima or Okinawa would almost certainly have had far greater strategic consequences than defeat/withdrawal in both Iraq or Afghanistan.
Washington loosing his entire Army in one administrative river crossing at Trenton would have had similar effect.

ScottDC
01-21-2010, 01:21 PM
I'm new here, and will apologize in advance for any faux pas I might commit. After reading John's post, I got to thinking about models generated by the nature of stability and conflict, and was just wondering what everyone thought about the possibility of changing the "rules" of wargaming by changing (expanding) some of the underlying assumptions. For instance, what if stability happens on a spectrum, with the US on one end of that spectrum and a destabilized county-in-conflict on the other.

There have to be factors responsible for the stability of this country (although they may be hard for us to spot because we live here), that the other country is lacking. What if conflict itself were not the driver here, but was a symptom of the underlying issue. That is, what if lack of conflict is not evidence of stability.

Could a wargame in which conflict is one outcome/phenomenon (one that requires a response) include non-military variables, such as economic factors, governance factors,etc (I have a few ideas on this but will withhold them for the sake of brevity).

Could such a wargame create a more meaningful and holistic set of variables and shorten or make more effective any military solution?

Is it still a wargame if war isn't the reason for conducting the game?

Scott
student, naval war college

marct
01-21-2010, 01:55 PM
Hi Scott,

Welcome aboard. If you can, could you toss up a bit of a "Hi, this is me" post over on this thread (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=1441)? Knowing some of people's backgrounds makes things much easier in an online forum ;)?


I'm new here, and will apologize in advance for any faux pas I might commit. After reading John's post, I got to thinking about models generated by the nature of stability and conflict, and was just wondering what everyone thought about the possibility of changing the "rules" of wargaming by changing (expanding) some of the underlying assumptions. For instance, what if stability happens on a spectrum, with the US on one end of that spectrum and a destabilized county-in-conflict on the other.

Well, I would argue that "stability" is actually a collection of different factors that are all along continua. For example, resource distribution is one factor that can be looked at as a key component of what we broadly call "stability", but that system has several parts or sub-systems - cultural (how it SHOULD be done), social (how it IS done), and infrastructural (how do they do that?). No individual nation state is perfect by any stretch of the imagination (consider health care in the US as an example....).


There have to be factors responsible for the stability of this country (although they may be hard for us to spot because we live here), that the other country is lacking. What if conflict itself were not the driver here, but was a symptom of the underlying issue. That is, what if lack of conflict is not evidence of stability.

This is going to sound a bit harsh, but the idea that stability = -conflict is, IMHO, a ridiculous ideologically driven illusion that comes from a completely insane (in the technical sense of privileging ideas over reality) view of the world in general and the concept of "stability" in particular. First off, none of the G20 are "stable" countries; we are all in moderately stable vectors of socio-cultural change, but we are not "stable". The associated idea that "stable" just means "no conflict" is also silly, since all G20 countries, which are supposedly "stable", have conflict both internally and externally. This conflict may, or may not, be what most people would call warfare, but it is there.


Could a wargame in which conflict is one outcome/phenomenon (one that requires a response) include non-military variables, such as economic factors, governance factors,etc (I have a few ideas on this but will withhold them for the sake of brevity).

Could such a wargame create a more meaningful and holistic set of variables and shorten or make more effective any military solution?

Is it still a wargame if war isn't the reason for conducting the game?

The short answer, at least IMO, is Yes to all. Most of the older wargames, both board and RPG, included so-called "non-military" factors, usually via something related to production systems. I used to spend a lot of time playing (and running and designing) these types of games, and most were not solely "military".

Were a lot of the current games fall apart is, IMHO, they rely on sets of assumptions that are just wonky. I remember sitting in a session talking about designing a COIN game where the designers admitted that their game could not allow tactics that have been around for 30 years. Most of the modern games I have seen suffer from serious cases of what Freud called "projection"; the designers, or the organizations they worked for, projected their assumptions about "reality" into the operational rules of the game. Reminded me of stories my godfather used to tell me about the British generals he had to deal with at the start of WW I who kept pushing for more cavalry!

marct
01-21-2010, 02:46 PM
Hi Duckhunter,

Welcome aboard. If you get a chance, you should intrioduce yourself a bit more over here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=1441).


At first glance, there is nothing shocking (or shockingly wrong) with Mr. Owen's comments. However, as I read them more deeply, I think those comments are made without an appreciation for the complexity of a counter-insurgency.

First of all, he contends that Many historians argue that linear warfare was the norm until 1939, when the German blitzkrieg defeated Poland and essentially altered the nature of combat. This strategy (coined "third generation warfare" by the United States in 1989) focused on maneuver, speed, surprise, and synchronization to overwhelm the enemy. So, historically speaking, warfare was ENTIRELY linear before 1939.

Well, Wilf and I have had our go arounds, but I have to agree with him on this point. Let me just raise three examples that demolish the silly idea that maneuver warfare is something "new":


the M'aryanni explosion in ~1850 bce
the Barracks Emperors period (3rd century) in Rome
the Mongol wars of Gengis

In the first example, we have a volkeswanderung that started around 2100 bce or so, went over the caucuses and resettled in the lake Van area. After a couple of hundred years of hiring out as mercenaries ("sutu" in the terms of the time), they decided to take over pretty much everything from what is now Iraq to Egypt - and succeeded. Why? Simple; six spoked, light chariots with bow and spear. They could, and did, annihilate every "conventional" military they went up against.

In the second example, a lot of the "revolts" were semi-spontaneous expressions of what we would now (inaccurately) call "nationalism" (e.g. Palmyra under Zenobia). What we actually have, at least from what we can get out of the archaeology and the records, is an ongoing, multi-sided civil war with spontaneous tribal insurgencies breaking out for about 80 years. Totally freakin' messy, and driven, in part, by the development of some fairly sophisticated cultural engineering technology in the 1st century ce which made it easier for local generals and leaders to revolt. All in all, and incredibly "fluid" situation which makes Iraq and Afghanistan look like a model of "stability" and predictability.

The third example, the Mongols under Gengis, is pretty well know. I would have to say that, given the technology available in the 12th century, being able to co-ordinate the movements of 100k+ men over a 200+ mile front, moving upwards of 60 miles a day over a wide variety of terrain just isn't "linear warfare".


When Mr. Owen states that I can't help but cringe a little. Clearly, killing civilians on a regular basis is not going to win any friends among the local population. However, "killing bad folks" is an oversimplification that borders on intellectual arrogance. First of all, how does one define "bad?" While this seems like an absurd question, there are countless levels of "bad," and not all of them should be solved with lethal fire. In many cases, it is actually preferrable to leverage lower-level criminals, insurgents, etc., as a way to glean more information about the higher-tier individuals. This is a fairly common practice in poorly-acted crime shows, but the fact is that it works on the ground in places like Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. So, no..."killing bad folks" does not necessarily get points. In some cases, the losses grotesquely outweigh the gains.

That is a point, but it also highlights one of the problems with ongoing discussions. Everyone, and this does seem to be a species "habit", tends to create verbal shorthands, and Wilfs "bad folks" is one such.


Finally, I take issue with the claim that I'm certain that every generation of veterans believe -and justifiably so, in my opinion- that they are fighting a different kind of war.

Different in specifics, maybe, but hardly different in its nature. I don't know if you ever talked with anyone who fought in both WW I and WW II, but the ones I have talked with would talk about both the similarities and the differences.


But at no other time in history have the lines between tactical, operational, and strategic warfare been so blurred. The actions of a few Soldiers on the ground can produce second and third-order effects that immediately impact upon national strategy.

Exactly the same thing happened, albeit with a lower speed of propagation, in the Barracks Emperors period, in the 5th century resettlement of the Goths (which lead to Adrianople; another great maneuver warfare example), and in the Wars of the Roses in England.


A good, albeit overused example, is the Abu Graib scandal. The level of complexity that young men and women deal with while deployed is significant, as are the repurcussions of their actions. The slightest mistake is leveraged in the information age by insugents looking to capitalize from the fog of war. As the first conflict since the explosion of the Internet, the War on Terror makes headlines, across the globe, within minutes. That burden is heaped on the shoulders of young officers, NCOs, and enlisted personel.

What the 'net changed was the velocity and volume of information that can be spread. It also shifted the dominant mode of communications from a centralized, state-supporting, broadcast technology model to an interactive analog technology model (cf, by way of example, The Soft Edge (http://www.amazon.com/Soft-Edge-Natural-Information-Revolution/dp/0415197724/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264083740&sr=8-1) by Paul Levinson). This was a change in "rate", not "kind" similar to the shift brought about by moving from an 8 spoked chariot to a 6 spoked chariot. What is "different" about the spread of the 'net is that the information war, as an area of operations, is now highly interactive and capable of supporting major combat operations without relying on a major infrastructural investment. This change is piggy-backed on to the previous state from Vietnam where you still have a fairly widespread, broadcast capability that can be manipulated. If you want some of the precursors to this, look at the Great Bauermkrieg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauernkrieg) in the 16th century with the spread of inexpensive printing presses coupled with the development of the Thurn und Taxis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurn-und-Taxis-Post) mail system (originally Imperial couriers, then a post system).


I think, in response to Mr. Owen's claims, that if you assume warfare today is the same as it was for the Doughboys of WWI, then you have, in fact, backed yourself into a corner.

Well, I've never talked with any of the Doughboys, just some of the folks who were in it from the start :wry: (and do you know why they were called Doughboys :D?).

Leaving that aside, you could, and I have, talked with people who were in WW I from different regiments, and the war wasn't "the same" for them. You are getting caught up in a logical fallacy that says if the experience was different then the "nature" of the event must be different. The problem with that, however, is that experience is individual while "nature" is a group property surround an entire event-space. this means that in order to get a better handle on the "nature" of an event-space interaction, you need to look at the structural factors that limit and condition that event-space.

Certainly there will be differences, and a lot of those differences are "caused" (don't get me started on why that is in quotes ;)) by changes in the socio-cultural technology available and in use.


I apologize for rambling. Again, I respect 99% of what Mr. Owen says. However, I did feel the need to voice a different opinion on this one post. Thank you for listening.

No need to apologize :D!

There are a couple of rather neat cultural memes that operates here: "attack the message, not the messenger" and "agree to disagree". This can definitely lead to "lively" discussions!

Cheers,

Marc

ps. apologies for the tight focus on changing technology; I'm in the process of prepping a course on the interaction of technology and warfare, so my brain is more than a little focused that way at the moment.

Rex Brynen
06-13-2010, 12:25 AM
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
06-23-2010, 01:10 PM
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
06-23-2010, 03:12 PM
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
06-23-2010, 04:01 PM
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
06-23-2010, 04:05 PM
, 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
06-23-2010, 04:40 PM
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
06-23-2010, 05:28 PM
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
06-23-2010, 06:31 PM
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
06-23-2010, 07:41 PM
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
06-23-2010, 07:47 PM
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
07-06-2010, 01:07 PM
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
07-06-2010, 11:43 PM
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
07-07-2010, 12:20 AM
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
08-05-2010, 04:57 PM
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
08-05-2010, 04:59 PM
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
08-14-2010, 09:25 PM
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
08-15-2010, 11:11 AM
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
08-16-2010, 02:54 PM
http://www.ambushalleygames.com/

Steve Blair
08-16-2010, 03:50 PM
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
08-16-2010, 05:43 PM
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
08-16-2010, 05:58 PM
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
08-18-2010, 02:27 PM
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
08-18-2010, 03:53 PM
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
08-18-2010, 04:00 PM
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
12-17-2010, 03:27 PM
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
12-19-2010, 05:51 AM
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
04-24-2011, 12:45 PM
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
04-24-2011, 03:19 PM
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
04-24-2011, 05:59 PM
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
05-12-2011, 07:05 PM
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
05-19-2011, 02:41 PM
^ 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
05-21-2011, 03:40 PM
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
06-30-2011, 02:19 PM
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
07-01-2011, 04:03 PM
^ I'll see you there! :)

The Olive Sword
07-11-2011, 12:18 AM
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
08-05-2011, 11:42 PM
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
08-31-2011, 06:10 PM
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/).

BayonetBrant
10-27-2011, 12:30 PM
Veteran journalist Michael Peck has a new article about wargaming / simulating irregular warfare, including COIN and other small wars.


Firmer ground: How the U.S. Army is teaching tough-to-simulate COIN and irregular warfare (http://tsjonline.com/story.php?F=7681050)

starts...


Counterinsurgency, vast and nebulous, has long been intellectual quicksand for the defense modeling and simulation community. But the sands may be firming up.
“Frankly, the best modelers in the Army were uncertain what could be accomplished and at what pace, in the face of many new and different challenges to the modeling of military operations in [irregular warfare],” said Garry Lambert, director of the U.S. Training and Doctrine Command Analysis Center (TRAC) at White Sands Missile Range, N.M.
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.


Much, much more at the link

BayonetBrant
10-28-2011, 02:14 PM
ah well... I should've known better

pvebber
10-31-2011, 09:32 PM
Brant,

Don't get discouraged. There is only so much time to comment on things and I this case I think Mike hit most of the points in his article. Though a few things continue to go unchallenged at our peril...(more later).

Changing peoples attitude and belief systems (what is often the object of the stuff we recently have been lumping togeter as "COIN") is not an easy task. In the case of simulations and COIN, you have a case of Simulation community (owners of a very nice set of woodworking tools) being told that this weekend, they have to entertain their 3 young grand-daughters who want their friends to come over. Totally outside their wheelhouse. But gosh darn it if they are not going to have the best weekend building birdhouses, and learning to use tools.


“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.”

Not able to proedict outcomes. Really? I'm shocked...SHOCKED!

The crux of the issue is that Combined Arms warfare has been a very determinsitic and mechanistic discipline. Moving large military units, supplying them in the field, applying their firepower, and assessing the results were subject to encapsulation in mathematics that gave a sence of predictabily (those pesky outliers always gummed up the REAL execution, but IN THEORY we knew what was going on...)

Now we have moved from the realm of turning the crank on a really complicated machine, to one of trying to convince people to change their mind, to accept new - to them radical - ideas about how to live. The closest thing to a theory for that is Everett Rodgers theory of Diffusion of Innovation.

And unfortunately it is a descriptive, not a prescriptive theory. It tells you the relationships between elements and effects, but there is no math associated with it that lets you predict what will happen in a given situation.

So this group (the M&S crowd) that has really nice tools for building things, has to look beyond their toolset if they are going to succeed in entertaing their grand-daughters all weekend. One which they are sure they can accomplish by employing their tried and true tools.


“We were able to show when there were additional civil affairs teams, the presence of those teams changed what tasks the company commander chose to conduct,” Lambert said. “Company commanders did less kinetic events. It wasn’t how they were thinking in the beginning, but they changed because the civil affairs teams were talking to them, and convinced them to use a softer approach. This changed the number of kinetic actions that took place. And those that did take place, they were getting better information, more pinpoint targeting, and less collateral damage.”

WOW! So if someone has only guns and experts in using guns, they use guns all the time, but if you give them alternatives to guns, and experts in the alternatives, those get added to the mix. $6million dollars of simulation engine to figure that out???

You bring home the new table saw to build those birdhouses, and the girls all start playing in the box it came in... They just don't appreciate the creative building process...


Another exercise is planned this year to test the effects of adding company intelligence support teams.

3 guesses what the outcome of THAT is going to be...

Is this stuff really that significant? Is this really the best we can do? Do we REALLY believe that we are going to come up with simulations that can predict outcomes of efforts to get people to give up generations of cultural baggage and "come into the 21st century"? Can these guys predict how many times tears will erupt in the midst of a weekend alone with the grand-kids??? Might they have to look beyond building birdhouses?


"If we’re talking about how a foot patrol in Baghdad affects how the populations view their government and the insurgents, I’ve got no idea how to model that.”

And anybody who says they do have a bridge they are selling too. ITs not rational, its not measuable, its constantly changing and challenges the basic tenets of what it means to "model" something (i.e to represent it in simplified form so the behavior of the actual system can be understood.)

How do you do that when it is part of a truely complex system that cannot be simplified without losing the salient behavioral characteristics?


“As we get out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and start looking toward Africa, what we would love to do is to prevent any sort of armed intervention from being necessary, by understanding the way those populations are reacting and maybe getting in on the ground floor to help them be more stable,” Appleget said. “We are not going to forecast irregular wars happening in Africa. But what we understand from [irregular warfare] is that it’s all about the population. We’ll get a sense of those populations, how they change over time, and how they react to different stimuli.”

That assumes that is an overall governing ruleset that allows these dynamics to be characterised. From everything we know, there aren't. Read Rodgers Diffusion of information and how simple things like getting people to use a source of clean water work when you add in all the cultural baggage.



“Most interesting to me is how this will play out with senior leaders,” Lambert said. “They are used to the kind of results we portrayed in the past, the combat simulations where you get X percent of goodness via metrics like the number of threats killed. It will be interesting to see how they respond to these softer assertions where we say, ‘If you put five more civil affairs teams in, it changes how company commanders conduct operations.’”

“Our senior leaders were spoiled by the way we did combat modeling. We came up with numbers that they could use to support acquisition decisions. Then we became involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, and DoD said, ‘OK, where are my models? You’ve been at this for six months. What’s taking you so long?’ Ignoring the fact that our physics-based combat models took years and years to develop, and if you look under the hood, they’re not perfect, either.”

Gee, so our stabs at the "easy problem" were not really as good as we sold them to be... We oversold past capability and now are reaping what we have sown.

Maybe instead of trying to make fun out of building birdhouses, it might be better to build a doll house and play with them iinstead. Maybe instead of trying to model and predict what will happen when we perform COIN actions, or to imply that if we train people to perform those activities to a strict enough Measure of Performance, then we will get favorable results.

Maybe we should find ways to educate those we send out to diffuse new ideas with an appreciation of what they are up against? Is a tool that tells me that a given cours of action is better than another 60% of the time, rather than 50-50 REALLY that helpful. Will saying I used it protect my career if i follow it and happen to have the 40% come up 4 or 5 times in a row?

Don't pound people over the head that using the tools is going to get happy results. Teach them to be creative, adaptive and flexible and reward them for taking chances and following their instincts rather than relying on models and sims to give them the right answer.


“The best you’re going to do is get insights and give senior leaders a kind of probability space of different outcomes if they do this or that.”

How about educating leaders to be make decisions under uncertainty based on developing relationships, following their intuition and a basic moral compass, you know, like we all do in "real life" when it comes to our families, friends and collegues? Who would base thier actions in these relationships on a "decision tool" somebody told them they should use?

Rather than relying on a simulation-based decision aid whose only saving grace is that by declaring it "officially correct" one never has to worry about risk to their career if they do what it recommends.

Secure from Rant Stations ;)

Ken White
11-01-2011, 01:36 AM
The crux of the issue is that Combined Arms warfare has been a very determinsitic and mechanistic discipline. Moving large military units, supplying them in the field, applying their firepower, and assessing the results were subject to encapsulation in mathematics that gave a sence of predictabily (those pesky outliers always gummed up the REAL execution, but IN THEORY we knew what was going on...).The basic problem is that combined arms warfare has NEVER been deterministic or mechanistic. You're correct in saying they were subject to encapsulation in something -- I'm not totally sure it was all math... -- and that fatal error gave a false perception, not a sense, of predictability.

It's an art, not a science and every attempt by the US Army -- more than any other organization -- to try to make it into a 'science' has failed and will continue to do so.
Now we have moved from the realm of turning the crank on a really complicated machine, to one of trying to convince people to change their mind, to accept new - to them radical - ideas about how to live. The closest thing to a theory for that is Everett Rodgers theory of Diffusion of Innovation.Heh. Got that right. This will likely have even less success than 'organizing' combined arms warfare...:D

Warfare, all warfare, is a human endeavor. Attempts to remove or enumerate the human factor are not going to succeed. There are few things more fun than matching wits with a reasonably well matched opponent in a tactical effort, real or exercise but it will always be a close thing. You can stack the deck but that stacking consists of finding guys with great instincts and intuitions. You're not going to do it with matrices or numbers (with apologies to Trevor Dupuy and friends...). I've been told by those who should know that's correct but you can get close.

That only counts in horseshoes...

Infanteer
11-05-2011, 03:01 PM
I've seen difficulties at Staff College arise out of trying to wargame an irregular conflict during the planning phase.

While the computer program sounds interesting, what we need is a easy to apply formula that can allow a simple wargame/chalk talk over a map to assess how are actions of friendly/irregular enemy forces play in such a theater. The simple model of action/reaction/counter-reaction with the assessment of dead tanks and helicopters just doesn't really fit. How do I wargame children throwing rocks at tanks or a the occupation of an embassy?

davidbfpo
11-05-2011, 04:27 PM
Infanteer,

You asked, I emphasis the later part:
How do I wargame children throwing rocks at tanks or a the occupation of an embassy?

Might be worth asking the RCMP / Foreign Affairs about an occupation, as a few years ago diplomatic premises featured in a number of violent incidents. Not likely to be a war game, I would expect a panel discussion though.

Perhaps our USMC members can comment?

davidbfpo
01-12-2012, 10:44 AM
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
01-13-2012, 04:24 PM
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
01-13-2012, 06:07 PM
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
02-13-2012, 08:27 PM
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
03-04-2012, 01:35 AM
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
03-26-2012, 06:13 PM
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
03-26-2012, 10:01 PM
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
04-07-2012, 07:00 PM
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
04-08-2012, 02:37 PM
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!