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:
Printable View
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:
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).
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....
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).
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:
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.Quote:
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.
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, 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.
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.
STEVE BLAIR wrote:
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.Quote:
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 can find ARMORED TASK FORCE here.
You can find RAGING TIGER here.
If you want a historical situation, there's also a game using the same engine on the Falklands War here.
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 and write Dr. Barker at the e-mail for the USAF POC to get the game and patches for .mil users...
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.
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!
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:
Check out the new MODERN CONFLICT STUDIES GROUP website here. You can see some information about two games under development--both, interestingly enough--are board wargames. BATTLE FOR BAGHDAD 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 looks very promising as a system, particularly in modeling how inadequate conventional military forces are in a COIN environment.Quote:
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.
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.
JCUSTIS observed that:
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.Quote:
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.
You can see BCT COMMANDER here.
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"
"Synchronizing Fire and Maneuver: Crash Hill Defense"
Again, these are straight up "battalion-bashing" contests...no subtleties of insurgency/counter-insurgency here!
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.
The CONSIMWORLD discussion group on the game is here.
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.
See all the many postings on the game in the CONSIMWORLD forum here.
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.
Read the discussion on the game in the CONSIMWORLD forum here.
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.
Consult the discussion forum on CONSIMWORLD here.
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.
Read the comments about the game here.
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.
See the reaction to the game at CONSIMWORLD forum here.
Okay...that's it...WHEW! Next time I'll look at strategic games covering that OTHER famous insurgency/counterinsurgency...the American War For Independence.
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
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.
Hmmm. Tell me of this place where I might see these animals. (not sure what TMSC means)Quote:
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.
www.usmc-tds-msc.com
I'm on Blackberry now, I'll go into detail tomorrow.
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...
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.
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 Users 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 TDSs 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 IEDs. This shall allow for specific or random placement of IEDs during scenario creation in single player or multiplayer scenarios. This shall facilitate the TDSs 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
Very impressive..../wipes drool away from mouth/
I can see this having lots of applications for many training purposes.
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.
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...
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/tra...256D98004BC150
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.
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
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...:( ).
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:
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.Quote:
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."
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.
PVEBBER writes about the typical situation in wargaming--at least from what we see in the DoD world:
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...Quote:
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'.
Sir,
TechDiv's website is here:
https://www.intranet.tecom.usmc.mil/...v/default.aspx
You need to have your CAC certs on the computer to view the site.
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.
You can follow the CONSIMWORLD FORUM discussions on the game here.
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.
Read up on the CONSIMWORLD FORUM discussions here.
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.
Discussion about the game is available here.
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.
You can read about what people say about the game here.
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.
Follow what people have to say about the game here.
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?
Colonel Gary Anderson on Wargaming Iraq - SWJ Blog - video interview of Col Anderson on the Charlie Rose show.
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.
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).Quote:
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?
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
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,
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 its a personal opinion about which, I concede, not everyone may agree with, its a professional opinion nonetheless.
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
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.
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.
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.
Any of you folks going to the MORS Wargaming and Analysis conference next week?
I should be so lucky....
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
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.;))
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.
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 ;)