miniature figure scales and wargaming COIN
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 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" 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
I would go for 1/72 but it is my sole opinion
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.
CASL Roundtable on Innovations in Strategic Gaming forum
Cross-posted from PaxSims, on behalf of the folks at the Center for Applied Strategic Learning, NDU:
Quote:
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 to request an invitation.
Tonkin: Upcoming Title on Indochina War
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
NDU Roundtable on Strategic Gaming (24/5)
NDU Roundtable on Strategic Gaming (May 24)
Quote:
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).
post-Iraq/Afghanistan simulation and wargaming requirements
From the Simulation & Training Journal, 25 August 2011 (by yours truly).
Quote:
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.
New Issue of TSJ: Article on Wargaming Irregular Warfare
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
starts...
Quote:
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
Wargaming the occupation of an embassy?
Infanteer,
You asked, I emphasis the later part:
Quote:
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?
Getting serious about video games
Hat tip to Lowy Institute Thomas Ricks in a short article:http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts...YVjJ54.twitter
“Getting serious about video games”—and some caveats
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davidbfpo
And some thoughts on the piece at PAXsims.
Afghan Provincial Reconstruction game
I ran some student volunteers through a stabilization game today that worked quite well:
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.