Wargaming Small Wars (merged thread)

[Wargames Mark]

You'll also find some discussion of UrbanSim, as well as links to some additional material on it, here.

Good site you have!

[John]

All -

Thank you for the comments thus far. I am looking at the tactical level wargame, not unlike the MDMP that we currently use. My questioning is not based on a "game" or "sim", but the thought process required to understand competitors, tribes, etc. Further, I am not convinced, based on personal experience, that one can completely understand every effect on the battlefield. Nor am I attempting to develop a product to predict the future. However, I do propose that TTPs, good practices, in conjunction with current business models can provide an estimate of actions, reactions and counteractions.

I envision input from HTTs, PRTs, and others that provide insight and perspective to a unit's battlespace.

I understand John Nagle's comments that humans are involved and we cannot completely predict their actions. I concur, but submit we can do a better job of understanding trends, causes, and effects.

Regards

John

[Stan]

My questioning is not based on a "game" or "sim", but the thought process required to understand competitors, tribes, etc. Further, I am not convinced, based on personal experience, that one can completely understand every effect on the battlefield.

I envision input from HTTs, PRTs, and others that provide insight and perspective to a unit's battlespace.

Regards

John

John,
Just my blind 2 cents, but a simulator or game cannot replicate the thought process of life on the ground. Only experience will provide the upper hand and even that's not a guarantee I'm willing to bet on.

You're on the right track in my opinion - There are many other players out there that we tend to ignore when it comes to fully understanding the playing field. I learned more from a bunch of mixed up expats in the bush than any other pre-deployment training program.

Regards, Stan

[Rex Brynen]

My questioning is not based on a "game" or "sim", but the thought process required to understand competitors, tribes, etc. Further, I am not convinced, based on personal experience, that one can completely understand every effect on the battlefield. Nor am I attempting to develop a product to predict the future. However, I do propose that TTPs, good practices, in conjunction with current business models can provide an estimate of actions, reactions and counteractions.

I think this is the right approach to take. I would, however, be wary of excessively privileging the notion of "best practices" (which may be highly contextually dependent)--indeed, this is one of my concerns about UrbanSim, in that it potentially generalizes from one set of COIN experiences that may not travel well to other environments. (Then again, I haven't seen the actual simulator, only read the literature on it.)

Key, I think, is encouraging people to think about what questions they need to ask, what kind of dynamics they need to be alert for, and what kind of operational/economic/political/normative trade-offs they are likely to face.

Finally, we need to prewarn people in a sophisticated way about "worst practices"--that is, situations where well-intentioned actors make mistakes due to organizational pathologies, cultural baggage, inappropriate or unresponsive SOPs, etc. I've often found that my own students end up repeating many of the mistakes they've already read about--which provides a valuable opportunity to discuss how and why they did so.

[Eden]

All -

Thank you for the comments thus far. I am looking at the tactical level wargame, not unlike the MDMP that we currently use. My questioning is not based on a "game" or "sim", but the thought process required to understand competitors, tribes, etc. Further, I am not convinced, based on personal experience, that one can completely understand every effect on the battlefield. Nor am I attempting to develop a product to predict the future. However, I do propose that TTPs, good practices, in conjunction with current business models can provide an estimate of actions, reactions and counteractions.

As someone who went through this process as a planner bound for Afghanistan in 2006, I can give you some insights - mostly negative 'cause I screwed up, but leavened a little in hindsight. I understand you are talking wargame not in the sense most of the posters in this thread have taken it, but in the Army planning sense of marathon sessions with some poor unfortunate posted at a matrix chart to fill out tiny boxes. The only good thing about them is that they were too boring for the generals to attend, so actual work does get done.

First, you can't expect the same level of fidelity you learn to strive for when planning a river crossing on the north German plains - you won't come away with "TF 1-23 LD 210330 at PP 1 & 2" or "Activate Branch Plan B if 3rd TA retains 75% of combat power". Second, it is much easier to talk yourself into things when wargaming counterinsurgency or nation-building, either out of ignorance or wishful thinking - or most likely both. "Yeah, if we kill or capture Mullah Omar the local elders will agree to promote recruitment for the ANSF" may sound reasonable, but it reflects an inappropriately linear faith in cause-and-effect that just doesn't hold when dealing with human hearts in a hideously complex operating environment.

You can't really wargame operations because in this environment they are spread out over months, not days, and because they are subject to incredible ethical, social, political, economic, and, yes, military stresses. They can also be radically affected by things that would normally be insignificant in a conventional setting: the death of a particular individual, the crash of a helicopter, an enterprising reporter, a phone call from a politician (or his brother-in-law), a case of collateral damage or fratricide.

You can and should wargame concepts of operations. Say you want to stop infiltration over the international border. You can wargame the concept fairly easily, along with the bad guys' likely reaction, possible counter-reactions, counter-counter-reactions, etc. You won't come away with details that will help in the day-to-day grind, but you can emerge with the following:

A rough idea of the problems that will crop up
A vague notion of the resources required for various levels of success
A primitive understanding of the political, social, and economic influences at work
A draft list of possible indicators and barely adequate measures of effectiveness/progress
A lot of blank spaces in your understanding and situational awareness that various staff weenies can go away to try to fill in

In other words, it is a brainstorming session with a modicum of discipline applied through adherence to normal wargaming procedures. Helpful, but not a silver bullet. It is really easy to allow it to focus directly on staff processes; try to avoid that as it will give the illusion of solutions without preparing you to face the messy realities on the ground.

One last word - get some real experts to role play during the wargame. Best solution would be to get guys currently on the ground, but that won't happen. Indigenous personnel, guys with past experience, academics, State guys, NGO reps, smart-ass captains who think they are smarter than every field-grade they ever met - these are the guys you want in the room, particularly on the 'red' team.

[marct]

All really excellent points, Eden. I'd like to elaborate on your last one:

One last word - get some real experts to role play during the wargame. Best solution would be to get guys currently on the ground, but that won't happen. Indigenous personnel, guys with past experience, academics, State guys, NGO reps, smart-ass captains who think they are smarter than every field-grade they ever met - these are the guys you want in the room, particularly on the 'red' team.

There's two extrapolations that should be made here. First off, don't stick with Red and Blue teams; add in multiple additional teams, at a minimum add in one "team" for each lineage operating in the area, one for NGO's in the area, and one for the "press". On this "press" point, set up your game rules such that the press team gets points for "sensational" stories that make the administration and/or the military look "bad". That's not always the case by any means, but it's a factor to consider.

Second point, in addition to the types of people Eden suggested, get some precocious 12 year olds (a younger, more smart ass version of the CPTs Eden suggested), plus some old style, RPG gamers (preferably old DMs of the frakin' sneaky variety) who know a bit about current operations.

One final point, make sure that you have an umpire / ref who is not military. This is, actually, crucial - you want someone who can think totally outside of the doctrinal box. Personally, I'd suggest Rex !

[Ken White]

Also add a couple of sharp SFC/MSG types to your Red Team -- go for SFCs at a minimum because most have no problem speaking truth to power. Stop at MSG because they have not yet learned to make all their answers politically palatable. The NCOs will play dirty, even most CPTs will not.

[Steve Blair]

And be sure to get outsiders to play press and local interest groups. They're going to give you the most innovative and/or irritating performances, which is just what you need in that role. They'll be best able to shake up your regular participants and give them situations that won't be "in the book." Marc's comments are especially valid here.

[Hacksaw]

Thanks for writing what I was supposing I was going to have to (until of course I read your post)...

Rule one of MDMP: Understand the problem, if you don't, don't worry you will continue to return to Mission Analysis until you do...

Rule two of MDMP: If you come away with a shared understanding of the problem, the process largely served its purpose... because you can then develop...

(head node to Eden)

A rough idea of the problems that will crop up
A vague notion of the resources required for various levels of success
A primitive understanding of the political, social, and economic influences at work
A draft list of possible indicators and barely adequate measures of effectiveness/progress
A lot of blank spaces in your understanding and situational awareness that various staff weenies can go away to try to fill in

I think the intellectual discord John senses is that we have plenty of senior officers who just want a series of decision points and 3 x 5 cards handed to them at the end of the process as opposed to being an active participant at specific points in the process...

Live well and row