Wargaming Small Wars (merged thread)

[ericmwalters]

Well, it looks like Joe Miranda and the boys are going to tackle simulating the COIN problem in a much bigger way. This new company, MODERN CONFLICT STUDIES GROUP (MCS Group) claims that:

Traditional defense paradigms have proven inadequate to analyze these threats because these paradigms emphasize force on force and attrition based modeling without adequate regard for terrorism, infowar, and insurgency.

Fourth Generation Warfare, with its emphasis on networking and advanced technologies, makes it difficult to predict when new conflicts will break out, and for conventional militaries to formulate counter-strategies. Current events in the Persian Gulf demonstrate how the Western Revolution in Military Affairs can be stymied by insurgents who fight using asymmetrical strategies and tactics. Simulations must address not only the period of conventional conflict in a war, but also the run-up prior to major military operations, and the post campaign occupation phase.

These challenges have not been adequately addressed by the existing simulations industry.

Until now.

Check out the new MODERN CONFLICT STUDIES GROUP website here. You can see some information about two games under development--both, interestingly enough--are board wargames. BATTLE FOR BAGHDAD is perhaps the most immediately interesting of the two and if the board is any indication, will be a hoot to play. However, ADVANCED MILLENIUM WARS looks very promising as a system, particularly in modeling how inadequate conventional military forces are in a COIN environment.

[jcustis]

Thanks, guys! I've used ATF before, but it doesn't quite meet the needs of this application. CCM certainly would, as what's needed is a lower-level tactical model. The new TDS sounds especially interesting. Of course, being with ROTC we're on a .edu and not .mil... I'll PM you with my info, Nichols, just before I put in the request. Thanks!

If by CCM you mean Close Combat Marine, I have that CD. I've been playing the CC series for some time now, and graduated to some of the mods that came out after Invasion Normandy.

You can have my copy of CCM if I can find it, but be forewarned, it is a terribly buggy release that shouldn't have been pushed out before it was play-tested better. when it works, it works well and models troop lift and airstrikes very well, but that may in fact be what causes the crashes.

ATF looks like a regeneration of a game that was out there many years ago. Can't put my finger on what it was titled, as I only downloaded the free version. PLs and OBJs look exactly the same though.

[ericmwalters]

JCUSTIS observed that:

ATF looks like a regeneration of a game that was out there many years ago. Can't put my finger on what it was titled, as I only downloaded the free version. PLs and OBJs look exactly the same though.

Bet it was BCT: COMMANDER, designed by the same Army officer and also offered by ProSim/Shrapnel games. BCT was the initial game which was refined over time into BCT: COMMANDER which was about as advanced as the initial engine design would allow. The designer then took the same design approach but bumped the scale down a notch--ATF is a much more flexible code...thus the other games in the series using that engine.

You can see BCT COMMANDER here.

If you are looking for the best tactical combat engine for that scale, ATF is hard to beat. To get a good idea of what play is like, check out the following AARs written by the designer, Pat Proctor:

"Synchronizing Fire and Maneuver: Death Valley Task Force Attack"

"Synchronizing Fire and Maneuver: Crash Hill Defense"

Again, these are straight up "battalion-bashing" contests...no subtleties of insurgency/counter-insurgency here!

[ericmwalters]

You knew we had to get here sooner or later. These games deal with strategic-level and campaign-level conflict in the war--I won't go into the tactical games on Vietnam because they deal so little with the problems of counterinsurgency in the way a small unit commander would have to address, particularly when dealing with civilians who may or may not be actual combatants (at worst) or so cautiously neutral that one cannot count on actual assistance (at best).

I'll start with the strategic scale simulations.

NO TRUMPETS NO DRUMS: AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT IN VIETNAM, 1965-75 was published in World Wide Wargamers (3W) house magazine, The Wargamer, in issue #22 in 1982. If you lay hands on a copy, it's worth picking up--just be prepared for the rather garish graphics and some hiccups with the game system. Despite these drawbacks, this is the most approachable game on the subject that enjoys wide exposure (as much as any single title on the Vietnam War does that!). The system is simple yet elegant and forces both the Allied Player and the Communist player to select strategies historically used. However, it's easy to forget the strategy one has selected when operations seem to offer immediate advantages/gains...which can eventually lead one into a strategic trap.

The game covers a good bit of Laos and Cambodia as well. Politics is heavily abstracted (as is the "Hearts and Minds" campaign of terrorism and bribery (NVA and VC) or goods and services (Allied) to control local populations). The game is overwhelmingly focused on the big unit war. Six scenarios cover the major highlights of the war and the campaign game running all ten years.

You can check out the components (wear dark sunglasses ) here.

The CONSIMWORLD discussion group on the game is here.

VIETNAM: 1965-1975, published in 1984 by Victory Games. Nick Karp's magnum opus on the war--easily fits into the "monstergame" category. Dense, insightful, frustrating and yet fun. Rich in operational-level detail for a strategic game. The rules are certainly focused on running operations in the field, but there's far more detail on this and other factors affective the war, such as pacification, VC mobilization and ARVN recruiting, national morale and committment levels (particularly affecting the US), South Vietnamese politics (to include mounting coups!), Strategic Bombing of North Vietnam, and more. Tactical gameplay includes limited intelligence, the ability of VC and NVA to slip away before the Allies join battle, VC political cadre, free-fire zones, Special Operations, and many different types of operations such as Search and Destroy, Clear and Secure, Holding and Patrol, and Security. Rules on airmobility and riverine operations complete the treatment. The scenarios are meaty but make one hanker for the behemoth campaign game. There is no other game like this one, but be ready to absorb the detail, face a long learning curve, and commit the time to master the both the system and the situation. The reward is well worth the effort--absorbing and engrossing.

View the game components here.

See all the many postings on the game in the CONSIMWORLD forum here.

INDOCHINA, a game on the most critical campaigns mounted by the French in the First Indochina War, is designed by the insightful Joseph Miranda and was published in 2002 in Strategy and Tactics magazine, Issue #209. This game is primarily a treatment of campaigning with little strategic influences or considerations that the players can affect. In all the three scenarios, the overall strategy is pretty much set--it's how the player executes the military campaigns that is important. Unlike many of Miranda's other designs, military action takes center stage, although there are healthy doses of random events and political considerations that do come into play to guide/constrain military action. There are even options for PRC and US military assistance and use of the Atomic Bomb--even the possibility (slim as it may be) that World War Three could be triggered is given its due. Graphically, the game is among the best ever published by S&T--the map and division/brigade/regimental sized pieces are beautifully rendered.

Check out the game components here.

Read the discussion on the game in the CONSIMWORLD forum here.

WINGED HORSE: THE VIETNAM WAR, 1965-1966. Finally, a game you can still obtain--it's recently published and available. Yet another Joe Miranda design, published in 2006 as a magazine game inside Strategy and Tactics Issue #239. Miranda designed this game to give both the Allied and Communist players insights into how both sides thought the war could be won through primarily military means in these years. Despite this, the communists fight very differently than their Allied counterparts, posing interesting problems and dilemmas for both players. As you'd expect in a Miranda game, there are enough wrinkles to keep the situation very interesting. Like INDOCHINA, the focus is primarily on the military problems, but politics does come into play as the Allied player can "broaden the war" into Laos and/or Cambodia! The 1st Cavalry Division (Air Mobile) gets special rules and treatment in the game--given the title, that's no surprise. The Allies can go and win anywhere they want, but they can't be everywhere all the time in sufficient force to win across the board, so that's where the communist player makes his plays. Thus, the game is all about keeping the other guy off-balance continuously, forcing reactions rather than allowing him pre-emptive action. The simulation is presented beautifully--again it's one of the most graphically attractive games in S&T history. Best of all, it enjoys one of the highest BoardGame Geek website ratings for a Vietnam War wargame.

See the game components here.

Consult the discussion forum on CONSIMWORLD here.

YEAR OF THE RAT. John Prados, a well-known game designer and published military history and security affairs author, cut his teeth on this design in the early days of Simulations Publications, Incorporated. This 1973 design has aged well, even for a magazine game (published in Strategy and Tactics Issue #35). Dealing with the 1972 Easter Offensive, this was one of the first board wargames to deal with "current events" in a commercial conflict simulation format. Long out of print, copies can still be had on E-bay and wargame convention auctions/collectors lists. The game focuses on the military situation with little to no attention paid to politics or other factors--it is a campaign-level situation and illustrates the asymmetrical differences of the opposing sides. In this the game was very successful and well-received. It still sees a good bit of play even today among Vietnam War die-hards.

Check out the game components here.

Read the comments about the game here.

SEALORDS: THE VIETNAM WAR IN THE MEKONG DELTA. Just published, this latest Miranda game in Strategy and Tactics Issue 243 is perhaps the first to model joint warfare (land, sea, and air) at this level in a counterinsurgency scenario. The three scenarios are case studies in riverine warfare as encompassed by the "South East Asia Lake, Ocean, Rivers, and Delta Strategy" (SEALORDS) campaign in the Delta: (1) GAME WARDEN, (2) TET, and (3) ZUMWALT TAKES COMMAND. Historically, the Allies did very well in the Delta and have the chance to do it in the game--despite this actual outcome in reality, it will be no cakewalk against a determined (and wily) communist player. Intelligence and logistics get their oft-neglected due which adds a great deal to the game, bereft as it is of the political aspects of insurgency/counterinsurgency given this scale. The graphics are not quite up to the excellent treatment of the other two recent Miranda designs above, but are pleasing enough and quite functional.

Check out the game components here.

See the reaction to the game at CONSIMWORLD forum here.

Okay...that's it...WHEW! Next time I'll look at strategic games covering that OTHER famous insurgency/counterinsurgency...the American War For Independence.

[BScully]

Just to add to ericmwalters post, ProSimCo has recently released a new tactical level simulation called Air Assault Task Force (AATF). While ATF and its follow-ons are more suited to armored warfare, AATF focuses on light infantry. The game has scenarios based on LZ XRay (I think...the we were soldiers battles), Mogadishu, and Operation Anaconda. It probably comes a bit closer to COIN type operations than ATF, but I wouldn't say it's there yet.

Here's a link to the website: http://www.prosimco.com/

There's a free demo available as well.

Take care,
Brian

[nichols]

If by CCM you mean Close Combat Marine, I have that CD. I've been playing the CC series for some time now, and graduated to some of the mods that came out after Invasion Normandy.

I'm guessing that you have 3.0 or 3.1. Atomic folded a couple of years ago, the mod community (Specifically CSO Simtek) took over the code. Version 4.0 is the NMCI tolerant version. 5.0 has the RAF 10 player capability. They are building a version of the CC-RAF for Sandhurst.

The AT & JTAC versions that are coming out have additional capabilites. There is separate AI for Blue, Host Nation, Opfor, Insurgent, and Civilian. Not high end AI but 180 dgrees from what the old CC - CCM series had. The picture was a screen capture of an ECP set up on the AT Beta drop.

While we were working with Atomic just about nothing was possible. The problem was that they never kept the same people between versions; CC 1, CC 2, CC 3 and so on. You may have noticed that CC 4 & 5 was probably easier to work with......the AI was turned off. This made its way into the CCM 3.0/3.1. We had no idea until CSO unscrewed it. The trend breaker that CCM was came from the Training Support Package that was installed on the computer when you loaded the game.

Ultimately I suggest you download the newest version from the TMSC, it's a different animal from what you had. Not a complete answer but much more capable.

[nichols]

it is a terribly buggy release that shouldn't have been pushed out before it was play-tested better.

This is why I'm asking for testers for the Tactical French

[jcustis]

Ultimately I suggest you download the newest version from the TMSC, it's a different animal from what you had. Not a complete answer but much more capable.

Hmmm. Tell me of this place where I might see these animals. (not sure what TMSC means)

[nichols]

www.usmc-tds-msc.com

I'm on Blackberry now, I'll go into detail tomorrow.

[ericmwalters]

Holy cats, that screen save NICHOLS posted is nothing like the CCM CD I've got (and probably the same one JCUSTIS has).

I'm apparently NOT authorized to download the games from the TMSC website even though I've got a login/password, so I'll work with Paul Nichols (NICHOLS) to figure out how to do that--will pass that gouge on.

Definitely not your grand-dad's CLOSE COMBAT MARINE from the looks of it. Hey, an ECP? A React Force? A holding area with Civilians? Cool...

[Steve Blair]

If by CCM you mean Close Combat Marine, I have that CD. I've been playing the CC series for some time now, and graduated to some of the mods that came out after Invasion Normandy.

You can have my copy of CCM if I can find it, but be forewarned, it is a terribly buggy release that shouldn't have been pushed out before it was play-tested better. when it works, it works well and models troop lift and airstrikes very well, but that may in fact be what causes the crashes.

ATF looks like a regeneration of a game that was out there many years ago. Can't put my finger on what it was titled, as I only downloaded the free version. PLs and OBJs look exactly the same though.

There are patches out for CCM if memory serves, and yes that's what I was talking about. I'm a big fan of the CC series as well, although my favorite is still CCIII (some outstanding mods out for this one, including World War I and Vietnam).

[nichols]

That is a screen capture from the Beta AT version. The first lesson that I learned was that 10 minutes to set up your barrier plan and forces aren't enough time.

I need to look at the contract, I think the final Gold version is due at the end of this month.

[nichols]

Here's what the AT version is being built to:

Leverage Close Combat Marines 5 (CCM5)

The contractor shall leverage previously developed capabilities for CCM5; the leveraged functionality is listed below:
• Mount/Dismount
• 5 X 5 Multiplayer
• After Action Review, all replay from single player to 5 X 5 shall be replayed via a mini video replay type console with events time stamped and fast forward/rewind etc available. This allows for total and accurate replay and AAR functions as well as the underlying CTA functions.
• Improved AI with all pathing, and morale issues fully functional Items in the code causing AI problems have either been removed or overhauled.
• The optimized base line code with defunct campaign layer now removed.
• Deployment problems have been fixed and are now far more flexible.
• Map issue limit (was limited to 25 maps in the original CCM) maps can be added up to the games total of 4GB of map files.
• Map elements and building coding has been changed to ensure much better accuracy and authenticity.

Close Combat Marines 5 (CCM5) Enhancements

The contractor shall provide the following enhancements:
• Free-Deploy – The ability to deploy on the map as with CC3. This allows for more flexibility when building scenarios.
• The addition of civilians, the Civilians shall be as a complete new third side with their own Artificial Intelligence characteristics.
• Three (3) deployment areas for Civilian, USMC and Insurgents (OPFOR).
• Scripting to allow for realistic Civilian behaviors shall be added to allow differing types of crowd movements.
• Pre-Deploy phase shall allow for deployment of sandbags, wire etc. (This will need extensive USMC input on man hours needed for this type of work and the sapping effect on overall tiredness and boost to morale etc.) Also needed is a list of relevant items. The pre-deploy phase shall pause all AI and scripting to allow for vulnerability assessment, placement of objects
• Making use of Terrain for pre-deployment via the scenario editors. Tie terrain to corresponding maps for planning fires, vulnerability assessments, and execution purposes.


Editors

The contractor shall develop editors which allow for placing units prior to, and during scenario creation. The editors shall have easy to use controls such as sliders, radio buttons, check boxes, and editable alpha numeric fields. Editors shall include:

• Unit Load Out Individual / Amour
• Morale state (obey orders, question orders, and disobey orders)
• Fatigue level (rested, winded, exhausted)
• Psychological state ( calm, worried, panic)
• Force Editor ( civilian, insurgent (OPFOR), USMC (BLUFOR)
• Insurgent AI - The very specific things that are not “normal” human behavior, such as shooting civilians, setting off bombs shall be included as part of the AI and AI editor.

Editable fields shall include:
Editable fields:
• Name
• Role
• Nationality
• Branch of Service
• Rank
• Head & Body armor levels
• Statistics: Physical & Mental stats, Combat skill levels
• Crewed Weapon
• Primary Weapon
• Secondary Weapon
• Grenades
• Load. (This is essentially the weight that each Marine is carrying. Load shall effect fatigue.

Team Editable fields:
• Team Name
• Team Type
• Full Name
• Nationality
• Miscellaneous Information (Value, Description, etc)
• Marine Slots 1 – 10 (Selected from list of created Marines)

Scenario Editor

The contractor shall develop a scenario editor with the following functionality:

Activity Editor: To task simulation generated avatars and objects in the simulation general operating parameters
Map Selection: Select the map on which the mission will be set.
Unit Placement: Designate deployment areas and place the units assigned to the mission on the map.
Trigger Placement: Triggers are a series of conditions and actions that can be assigned to a mission. When a trigger condition is met, then the action is performed. Triggers can help tailor the scenario to a particular storyline. The AI will also use triggers, especially map based triggers, as planning tools. The designer will select from a list of conditions and actions, or effects, to create a trigger.
Operational Settings: One of the many functions of the mission editor is the ability to specify initial deployment zones, hidden and revealed victory locations, and pre-plotted artillery strikes (if any), game time limit, engagement type, and other general option.
Number of Players: Specify the number of users to be supported in the designed mission.

Fog of War Specify the following games settings:
Always See the Enemy
Only See Enemy in User’s Line of Sight (LOS)
Fading Enemy if no longer in LOS (last known position)
See Enemy in Allied LOS
Units Always Obey Orders

Fire Support: Utilize proper fire support formats as pop-up windows when calling in indirect fires or close air support. The contractor shall provide the ability to run and adjust fire mission with single rounds. Have the computer force running of Fire Support Plan (FSP) through conclusion. Message To Observer (MTO), Record as target, Refine, End of Mission (RREMS), Battle Damage Assessment (BDA). Have the ability to put out a mark for Close Air Support (CAS) and send an adjustment to CAS as well as adjust off lead, specify what type of fire support missions, and quantity available.
Save Mission: Save the edited or newly created mission with a unique file name.
Load Mission: Load an existing mission and edit it in the Mission editor.
Observer Monitoring: The ability to monitor the entire game (all player positions) from a separate computer to facilitate debrief and identification of CTA points.

Non Lethal Weapons

The contractor shall develop new teams, weapons, psychological effects, artificial intelligence, and graphics to represent the use of non-lethal weapons. This shall facilitate the TDS’s ability to represent Operations Other Than War, and further the ability to train for actions appropriate for the Rules Of Engagement (ROE) established by the instructor. Below is a sample list of non-lethal weapons:
- M1012 12-Gauge Non-lethal Point Target Cartridge Round
- M84 Stun Grenade
- M5 Modular Crowd Control Munition
- M1006 Sponge Round (Point)
- M1029 40-Millimeter Crowd Dispersal Round (Area)
- Vehicle-Mounted Active Denial System (V-MADS)

Improvised Explosive Devices

The contractor shall provide the capability to place Package Type ,Vehicle-Borne, and Suicide Bomb type IED’s. This shall allow for specific or random placement of IED’s during scenario creation in single player or multiplayer scenarios. This shall facilitate the TDS’s ability to represent Operations Other Than War, and further the ability to train for actions appropriate for the Rules Of Engagement (ROE) established by the instructor.

Distributed Operations (DO)
The contractor shall provide the capability for distributed operations.
The DO shall consist of a meta-map and an underlying set of interlocking CCM maps as described below.

Do will contain the following:
1. Grid lines shall be incorporated into DO environments.
2. Meta-Map with geo typical terrain for the Mountain Warfare Training Centre Bridgeport and 29 Palms California, additional types of terrain/urban environments from Point Claire to West Africa are a training multiplier.
3. Meta Map controlled by “DO” Commander shall support, supporting fires. This will incorporate call for fire grid system.
4. Units appear only when LOS is established, same method as current friendly & OpFor but applied to all forces. This will also be used to train link up procedures.
5. Mini-map covers effective range of DO observation devices (about 2-4 kilometers)
6. Utilize proper fire support formats as pop-up windows when calling in indirect fires or close air support, including:
Provide the means for the student to access the supported training missions and types of indirect fire assets necessary for the execution of that training scenario.

First Transmission:
(1) Observer identification
(2) Warning order

Second Transmission:
(3) Target location

Third Transmission:
(4) Target description
(5) Method of engagement
(6) Method of fire and control

[Steve Blair]

Very impressive..../wipes drool away from mouth/

I can see this having lots of applications for many training purposes.

[nichols]

The last portion of the requirements talks about Distributed Operations. The attachment is a capture of the JTAC player. There can be 18 other players on three different 1x1 km maps within the map that you see. The guys on the tactical level maps request supporting arms, the JTAC working on the 1/50 map controls the support.

CCM has proven to be a good base for proofs of concepts. The public area of the Pentagon has a Marine kiosk that has been running 24/7 for the past three years. It has a modified version of CCM that allows for 2 or 3 decisions by the player....all controlled with a mouse. A good decision leads to nothing happening and the scenario plays out. A bad decision leads to CCN headlines along the lines of "Marines Fire on a Funeral Procession" or "hostilities between Marines and local Freedom Fighter."

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND.

CCM is not the catch all, it is just 1 TDS within the DVTE.

[pvebber]

A couple apologetically stream of concsiousness thoughts on this topic:

First on the DoD M&S conference last week.

The conference is young - I think this is the 2nd one, and the Army pretty much refused to play, but its still starting to pick up momentum. It had a good "serious games" related showing. Jon Compton and Joe Miranda of MCSG; Joe in his Hexagon Interactive hat with Cyberwar XXI and a derivative, and Doug Whatley and Walt Cheeks from Breakaway Ltd, John Tiller, and others were there. Shaun Wallace was at the DoD M&S conference last week in the demo room with CCM and other things - they have a lot great things in the works for it.

The old Air Force CADRE 'Connections' conference has been folded into it and Peter Perla of CNA, Barney Rubel, Dean of the Naval War College Center for Naval Warfare Studies. Matt Caffrey of AFRL and several other "heavy hitters" in the DoD wargaming community were there. I'm co-chair of a working group looking at educating and developing a cadre of either M&S savvy wargamers, of wargamer savvy M&S'ers or some combination...

I bring it up as a great place to meet and talk with a lot of the names you've brought up...at about 400 attendees listed in the broshure its small enough to get time to talk to folks, and but big enough to attract some "real people". It needs to grow a bit though, particularly the Connections wargaming track that topped out at about 60 all but 20 or 25 drifted off when the working groups started...

It had a very "game inclusive" feel to it - including a packed panel session on "leveraging gamaing technology" that was an excellent discussion of reasons why more and more of M&S is going to increasingly leverage aspects of gaming technology.

The sad part was the lack of participation from the Army, for what was purported to be reasons of "if there is no direct warfighter payoff the day after the conference, don't waste time on it" - a diasterous attitude that was had all but a few FCS guys (I guess well accepted not to have a pay-off to the warfighter for a while ) representing the Army.

My opinion is that the Army are not as well served by a "video-game" mentality when it comes to game technology as the more balanced approach taken by the USMC. "Wargaming" to understand the strategic, operational and tactical levels and the relationships between them are needed (the point of the leveraging of game techniques - not just technology - to provide context to broader M&S efforts). Anyway the Army seemed to want only to participate if venders showed up with Xbox 360 games to teach convoy, counter IED, and patrolling. Since there weren't - despite some significant successes with modest investment - they unfortunately passed...

BT...BT

On the original topic, tactical is great - and we need attention there, but in my mind the problem is the dearth of operational level (ie tying together strategic goals and tactical means) to really get our arms around "whats the point of winning the tactical game??"

Exploring that space is something I've been working off and on over the last few years icw some NWC efforts. The jist of a lot of complex systems stuff is that we (wargamers and those wargamers are trying to provide insight to) have some fundamental disconnects with what we expect to be true at the oparational level of war:

1) Linear, or at least analytically tractable relationships between casue and effect - the whole "metrics mania" that even Congress is getting into. Part of the snake-oil beig sold as "network-centric assement theory" applies only to 'complicated' not truley 'complex' systems, which differ fundamentally by the very fact that cause and effect are discernable in complicated systems, but are not in complex systems - there are two many feedback driven interactions to know where the output needle will swing when you "twiddle the dials".

2) The operational level is driven top down by strategy, not bottom up by tacitcs. Well "ought to be" - you can drive it bottom up, but evaluating "exit criterea until bells and whistles go off is not a 'strategy'.

3) Everybody nods their head up and done and intones "Ahhhhhhh, Boyd" when we hear about the domains of war beyond the physical, but yet everytime we sit down to play or design a game we want to look at a map and units. That is a necessary, but insufficient place to play...but what does a game in the cognitive or belief domain look like? and how do you merge it with the "regular wargame" to get something insightful out and not just a mismash of conflicting outputs when you "twiddle the dials"? We need to make about 20 clones of Joe Miranda's brain to get at this...

4) My personal hobby horse - how do you implement realistic C2 in such a game, if you every figgered it out? A ton has been done in C2 theory by folks like those at www.DoDCCRP.org and AIAA, but most of it is not amenable to inclusion in a game format. Is the answer "surrogate organizations" - guinea pig groups to experiment with? Thats been tried in several experiments at Navy Fleet commands, but we keep re-recording the same lessons.

While the tactical level needs a ton of work, there is little if anything going on at the operational level beyond a few things like CyberwarXXI a few rudimentary board games to get at these issues. I'm trying to help some of the wargaming dept folks a NWC with these issues, but we are just scratching the surface...

I've run out of steam - but hopefully there is some food for discussion in there...

[nichols]

Shaun Wallace was at the DoD M&S conference last week in the demo room with CCM and other things - they have a lot great things in the works for it.

Da bum didn't even stop by the house

He's the Mad Brit that we have been working with to unscrew CCM. He has a great family and extremely generous to the Corps.

He usually hangs out at the PM Trasys booth during I/ITSEC.

[nichols]

I may have thrown a couple of people off with the posts that I've done in this thread. I work as a direct support contractor to PM Trasys, the website hasn't been updated in over three years but it is still relevant:

http://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/tra...256D98004BC150

The S&T Section also is a Technology Development Agent for SOCOM.

I manage various projects for Trasys,I'm also the liason bubba for Technology Division TECOM since I'm in Quantico and Trasys is in Orlando.

[marct]

A friend of mine just sent me this link about attempts to organize a gaming convention in Iraq.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=322013

It may be worth having someone there to probe around.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

Interesting thread, Marc. Reminded me I need to look into rpg.net again (or maybe I don't...got enough going on now as it is... ).