Follow Me Tactical Decision Game

[William F. Owen]

I took the "Training with PC Based Simulations" elective at CGSC in APR-MAY. We were introduced to everything from FPSs, through small unit stuff (Follow Me, TACOPS and Steel Beasts) to large unit level sims (DA, etc).

Each sim has its uses and limitations. As long as you understand the sim, and use it to train appropriate training objectives, they are great tools.

I am a huge fan of PC Based Simulations for training. They are great tools, and need to be far better understood.

I find it very strange that some Officers who have used them for fun have actually said to me, "Oh they're not realistic. What we get trained to do for real, does not work in the game." - no really! I have had that said to me twice!!!

[huskerguy7]

I am a huge fan of PC Based Simulations for training. They are great tools, and need to be far better understood.

I find it very strange that some Officers who have used them for fun have actually said to me, "Oh they're not realistic. What we get trained to do for real, does not work in the game." - no really! I have had that said to me twice!!!

Matrix Games produces alot of "realistic" PC based simulations. Their best deal with naval command, but their infantry ones have been well received.

[Redleg7]

I am a huge fan of PC Based Simulations for training. They are great tools, and need to be far better understood.

I find it very strange that some Officers who have used them for fun have actually said to me, "Oh they're not realistic. What we get trained to do for real, does not work in the game." - no really! I have had that said to me twice!!!

I've been a gamer for a long time starting with Avalon Hill's Panzer Blitz.

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.

[William F. Owen]

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.

Concur. It is actually better to switch it around and say, "Do tactics that work in the game, work for real - within the limits of the model?" - and then, "do things known to work for real" then work in the game.
What games expose is "faith based tactics," not proven to work on operations.

[Rex Brynen]

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...

[Redleg7]

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.


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

In regards to COIN we have a variety of references, histories, to use as a baseline. The game itself would have to be flexible enough to "tweak" as we apply current lessons learned. And finally it's up to the instructor or proponents of the model to provide any disclaimers in regards to the modeling.

I think a smaller game with narrower learning objectives is very doable.

[Rex Brynen]

In regards to COIN we have a variety of references, histories, to use as a baseline. The game itself would have to be flexible enough to "tweak" as we apply current lessons learned. And finally it's up to the instructor or proponents of the model to provide any disclaimers in regards to the modeling.

I think a smaller game with narrower learning objectives is very doable.

I think what could be interesting would be to randomize some of the baseline social relationships, so that a player/student would be encouraged to ask the right questions, rather than blindly copy historical approaches that were themselves highly contextually dependent.

Take, for example, the relationship between unemployment levels and support for insurgency. In some conflicts the relationship is positive (unemployment creates grievances and makes it easier for insurgents to hire guns), in some cases there is no relationship at all, and in a few cases the relationship is actually negative (employment generates resources which are funnelled to the insurgents). Similarly, tribes and tribal leaders are very important in some places--and not in others.

A truly effective COIN game would encourage the participant to map the human terrain and be wary of cookie-cutter approaches. However, that is a bit of a departure for game designers--who have tended to work with unchanging physics models in the game engine. Still, it could be quite easily done.

[Redleg7]

I think what could be interesting would be to randomize some of the baseline social relationships, so that a player/student would be encouraged to ask the right questions, rather than blindly copy historical approaches that were themselves highly contextually dependent.

Take, for example, the relationship between unemployment levels and support for insurgency. In some conflicts the relationship is positive (unemployment creates grievances and makes it easier for insurgents to hire guns), in some cases there is no relationship at all, and in a few cases the relationship is actually negative (employment generates resources which are funnelled to the insurgents). Similarly, tribes and tribal leaders are very important in some places--and not in others.

A truly effective COIN game would encourage the participant to map the human terrain and be wary of cookie-cutter approaches. However, that is a bit of a departure for game designers--who have tended to work with unchanging physics models in the game engine. Still, it could be quite easily done.

Something along the lines of a COIN SimCity.

[Rex Brynen]

Something along the lines of a COIN SimCity.

That's what UrbanSim appears to be. I haven't played around with the software, but I would be worried if it somehow universalized (say) Fallujah as the model for all urban COIN everywhere always.

[TAH]

I've been a gamer for a long time starting with Avalon Hill's Panzer Blitz.

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.

My only iisue/concern with games/sims like DA is the abstraction of realative combat power and the % losses.

Why not factor the % lost into a number of systems/soldiers/vehicles? Its a f'ing computer! Its good at keeping track. Then the Loggies folks could get their heads around the number of "runners" to keep in the fight and the number of ones to repair/replace.

Agree completly with the observation its all about commander/instructor support/buy-in. Without, the game/sim will fail.