Gaming and Small Wars Education
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.
Computer Assisted Training and Education
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
...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...
How do we model Complexity?
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.
Small Wars, Simulations, and Gaming
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. J. Dougherty
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.
Algerian War board wargame in development
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.
Commercial Small Wars Wargames--Mostly Strategic
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.
The ideal Small Wars online game--multi-team RPG?
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?
Board Wargames on Boudicca's Rebellion, 61 A.D.
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.
For a look at the components for DRUID, see the photos at Boardgame Geek's website here.
For discussions of rules, gameplay, and other aspects of both games, the CONSIMWORLD FORUM on both games can be found here.
Best Strategic Board Wargame on Insurgency & COIN
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.
Find the NICARAGUA! discussion thread in the CONSIMWORLD forum here.
Games on modern Afghan Wars
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.
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.
To follow discussions on the game, consult the CONSIMWORLD discussion forum here.
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.
To follow gamer discussions on this out-of-print title, look here.
Games on the Second Boer War
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.
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. 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.
To read the discussions on this game--to include some phenomenal After Action comments and more photos of a game in progress, check here.
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.
French COIN in Mexico, 1862-1867
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.
Discussions on the game can be found on CONSIMWORLD forum here.