Quote Originally Posted by Redleg7 View Post
When I ran Decisive Action exercises at CGSC the students would always complain that one aspect or another wasn't "realistic" and I would tell them "No crap Sherlock it's a freakin game". My COL showed us a slide with the following quote:

All models are wrong; some models are useful.
-- generally attributed to the statistician George Box

We get pushback in regards to realism all the time. For what we are doing close enough is good enough. My question to those officers would be did you learn something useful? It's really up to the instructor to manage those expectations up front. A lot of pushback comes from "professional" modeling and sims types who have a hard time wrapping their minds around abstractions. Anyone who has played a boardgame will understand abstractions. If you look at the big sims I'd say that all of them model at the individual entity level or close to it. JWARS, WARSIM, JCATS, BBS, JANUS, etc are all entity level.
One of the things I've been wondering about lately is whether advances in computational power, AI, and interface have diminished this made this problem, or made it greater.

On the one hand, we can make both the game interface and the opponent AI much more sophisticated than ever before. Driven by the multi-billion dollar commercial gaming industry, this continues to develop by leaps and bounds.

On the other hand, when simulations look like simulations (as with any board game), users can also more easily recognize--and potentially consider and debate--the assumptions that are built into the game design. That's less likely to occur, I think, as the sophistication of a computer game increases.

Whether this matter depends to some extent on what we're modelling. If it is straight force-on-force, the physics and Pks and so forth have been well understood by the OR folks for years. When we get into social dynamics—so essential to most COIN/stabilization scenarios—its all rather more indeterminate. In those cases, I think there's a real danger of increasingly sophisticated simulations passing off as "fact" what is essentially not very well understood.

This is an argument that one sometimes hears in the physical and design sciences--that for all its remarkable contributions, for example, CAD has also come at a cost in the quality of architectural production. (For those who are interested in the critique, see Sherry Turkle's Simulation and its Discontents). As we develop increasingly sophisticated COIN simulations, and try to capture the complex political behaviour of actors with derived rules or algorithms, there any risk of the same sort of problems?

I don't have a firm position on the issue, but i do think its an interesting set of questions...