Wargaming Small Wars (merged thread)

[DDilegge]

...for the training to be effective I would think that certain of the scripted methods or "school solutions" would need to be thrown out the proverbial window. Small Wars are anything but scripted...

Computers offer an outstanding platform for this type of training, if it's run correctly and allowed to take its "natural" course.

I agree with much of what I think you mean. Computer aided Small Wars M&S for training, PME, planning and analysis is (and will remain) imperfect at best.

That said, we learned (USMC) during urban operations field experimentation prior to OIF that while you cannot expose our small unit (and higher for that matter) leaders to the exact scenario they may face - you can most certainly expose them to situations that force them to think "out-of-the-box" thus enabling a mind-set that expects the unexpected as a natural course in the conduct of urban and other Small Wars related operations.

No rocket scientist here - maybe someone can figure out how to provide M&S and other computer assisted aid for the items I mentioned above...

[Steve Blair]

You may be able to get into a certain level of freeplay using CCM, but another venue to look at is the online gaming community. There may be avenues worth exploring among the varied MUSH/MUDs out there, as well as the MMORG community. The key is being able to create unexpected scenarios using the input of multiple "player groups," such as one representing insurgents, some taking on the role of local power groups (and just locals caught in the middle), and then the 'good guys.'

Any time you can interject a 'third party' into the mix it creates for a more realistic training opportunity. Computers provide a framework for this to happen, as well as the virtual environment.

This isn't a really technical answer, and I'm sorry I can't provide platform examples for what I'm talking about. Within the traditional face to face gaming community it's easier to create non-scripted situations. The key with computers may well be to stop looking for a single shot solution and look instead at how a computer could provide a framework (a 'world,' if you will) where various groups could interact. There would be a starting scenario, of course, but what happened from there could be determined by players with a minimum of umpire/controller oversight and random "acts of God and politics."

[Martin]

Here comes a stick...
I think you need to further define purpose.

There are fundamental limits to what can be achieved in a computer simulation (CS from now on). The input system (mouse, keyboard, etc) limits what is possible to learn as far as actions go, such as shoot, move, communicate - speaking of root learning.

When you simulate a world, you are restricted in what you'll allow to happen in that world. There's a lot of specific programming going into this. That means that whatever solutions people care to come up with, the framework for them has actually really been figured out before. Same thing with threats. The negative side is that the incorporation of new possible actions are not extremely easy to add on, even if developers and users/Soldiers would have direct contact.

Example: A number of insurgents are in a safe house, lacking resources and weaponry. A sweep is long over due and one day a man walks up to the house and says that the Americans know that they have a safe house there. It's a two-story building, so the insurgents sharpen punji sticks, put feces on them (yah, familiar) and fit them under a stair case, which they tamper with to make unstable. Then they leave. As coalition forces sweep the house, they move up the stairs and fall through onto the sticks.

It is such flexibility in situations that is severely limited in CS.

Another problem is scope. Geographically, this is becoming easier as computers become more powerful. On the other hand, an insurgency, based on my little knowledge, seems to depend on social interaction for not only opinion, but also levels of cooperation or resistance, support, etc. Add to this everyone and everything involved in constructing methods for infiltration, evasion, escape - complete networks of people with various levels of resources that need to be able to assess at least local situations and based on that choose to perhaps hide a few days more, or a few hours.
AI is not at a level that can flexibly and realistically handle that today. It does bring us to the next limitation, which is time.

Insurgency is unfolding under a long duration of time, during which insurgents often design their attacks to be suprising. Narrowing of time span restricts this. It also puts a limit on the social processes that are unfolding. Relationships develop bit by bit and if the simulation were to be conducted in a compressed time frame it would be difficult to solve it by having SME:s suggesting reactions to the populace, nevermind how the Soldiers would gauge it.

And with relationships and intelligence comes a feel for interpreting people, and interacting. Emotions, both positive for persuasion and compassion for the father of a child lost, and fear as allied forces move out of an AO and insurgents move in, those feelings don't come along as well when described in ones and zeros.

All the people involved, with AI unable to fill the gap, if you're going to hire them, isn't a role play or FTX better fitted? I think you risk trying to use a tool for which it isn't fit for, where it isn't yet needed because of it's lack of capabilities.

I like what Major Strickland proposed in another thread.

I don't believe this to be God's given truth, but it is a pretty realistic view of what is not possible today. Written for you to tear to shreds, or to see another perspective.

Martin

[Steve Blair]

I actually have no problem with a free-ranging role play (hereafter RP), and think it would be a better tool for most instances. However, I have also seen a knee-jerk reaction against such proposals ("What? D&D here?") so chose to frame the issue as a computer simulation. You could, I think, use the computer model to simulate certain larger-scale activities or as a "super calculator" for the RP.

I'm not overly familiar with the practice side of military gaming, so I don't know how much use they make of major RP-type activites. Frankly, based on my own experience, I can see a number of very dynamic and viable ways they could use such RP (even a text-based MUSH type environment as opposed to graphics-heavy first shooters or tactical models) to simulate this environment. With such systems and settings it is very easy to model dynamic environments. You could use the CS side to model resulting firefights or combat actions, while keeping the rest in the human realm.

[Hansmeister]

I actually have no problem with a free-ranging role play (hereafter RP), and think it would be a better tool for most instances. However, I have also seen a knee-jerk reaction against such proposals ("What? D&D here?") so chose to frame the issue as a computer simulation. You could, I think, use the computer model to simulate certain larger-scale activities or as a "super calculator" for the RP.

I'm not overly familiar with the practice side of military gaming, so I don't know how much use they make of major RP-type activites. Frankly, based on my own experience, I can see a number of very dynamic and viable ways they could use such RP (even a text-based MUSH type environment as opposed to graphics-heavy first shooters or tactical models) to simulate this environment. With such systems and settings it is very easy to model dynamic environments. You could use the CS side to model resulting firefights or combat actions, while keeping the rest in the human realm.

RP is the only way to go on this because irregular warfare is too unpredictable for a computer simulation. It is the ability of insurgents to continuously adapt their tactics to their enemy that makes it impossible to model via cs.

[aktarian]

I think problem is predicting how other side will react and then fitting that in your "game". Assume it's early 2003 and you want to prepare program for troops that will be stationed in Iraq after the war (the war hasn't started yet).

What will situation be like after Saddam is toppled? Who will be your friends and who your enemies? What methods will they use? Which way will population swing? And many, many more

The biggest problem is human behaviour. You simply can't reduce it to mathematical formula that will neatly fit into computer program. People act irrationaly, people act on different impulses than you expected, peopel work on different set of values etc.

I agree that computer programs are valuable for certain task, which are more or less mechanical and don't work on many variables. Say convoy escort. However certain task can't be simulated by computer. Say checkpoint duty.

[Steve Blair]

I think problem is predicting how other side will react and then fitting that in your "game". Assume it's early 2003 and you want to prepare program for troops that will be stationed in Iraq after the war (the war hasn't started yet).

What will situation be like after Saddam is toppled? Who will be your friends and who your enemies? What methods will they use? Which way will population swing? And many, many more

The biggest problem is human behaviour. You simply can't reduce it to mathematical formula that will neatly fit into computer program. People act irrationaly, people act on different impulses than you expected, peopel work on different set of values etc.

I agree that computer programs are valuable for certain task, which are more or less mechanical and don't work on many variables. Say convoy escort. However certain task can't be simulated by computer. Say checkpoint duty.

That's why you use traditional RP techniques, and bring out the computers for modeling combat. Computers are a tool to facilitate the game, and not the game itself.