Connections 2010-2018 Wargaming Conferences

**BayonetBrant** · 03-22-2010

AGENDA:

Tuesday, 23 March

1300-1700Optional Tutorials
History of Wargaming, Mr. Matt Caffrey, Col USAF (ret), AFRL
US National Defense 101, John Gresham, author

1730-1900Ice Breaker

Wednesday, 24 March

0800 – 0830Welcome from AFRL & Wright Brothers Institute

0850 – 1010Anticipating Military Tech Needs & Opportunities
Co-Chairs: Dr. Al Nofi, CNA & Lt Col Tim Schulteis, AF/A8XC

1030 – 1150Innovations in Military Wargaming
Co-Chairs: Dr. Tiller & Dr. William Lademan, Marine Corps Warfighting Lab

1150 – 1330Lunch speaker – Military Developments in 2009, John Gresham, author

1330 – 1450 Innovations in Civilian Wargaming
Co-Chairs: Brant Guillory & Major Mike Martin, US Army

1510 - 1630 Methods of Future Warfare Adjudication
Co-Chairs: Joe Miranda & Terry Christian, AFRL/XPTT

1700-2100 Open wargame play/demo (at Comfort Suites)

Thursday, 25 March

0800 – 0840Keynote Speaker: Matt Caffrey, Technology as an Element of Strategy

0900 – 1150Playtest Turn 1

1130 – 1330Demos/Lunch

1330 – 1540 Playtest Turn 2

1600 – 1700Working Groups:
Adjudication, Co-Chairs: Gov: Terry Christian, AFRL
Civ: Dr Peter Perla, CNA
Analysis, Co-Chairs: Gov: Ed Burge, AFRL
Civ: Mike Garrambone
Bicentennial WGing, Co-Chairs: Gov: Mark Montroll, NDU
Civ: Judd Walls, BAH
Edu: Steven “Flash” Gordon

1700 – 2000 Dinner by working group

Friday, 26 March

0820 – 0900Outcome of Turn 2 / Pilot Execution Feedback

0920 – 1020Working Groups Out Briefs
Adjudication,
Analysis,
Bicentennial of Wargaming

1040 – 1130 Connections “Hot Wash”

**Wargames Mark** · 03-25-2010

At my day-job, we have been trying to make things happen using the VBS2 system for computer gaming. Some of the senior retired folks are impressed. Me, not so much. However, with more time to make the game system more realistic in its portrayal of Soldiers, and with a system to support the conduct of non-combat tasks, it could go somewhere...eventually. Probably. Maybe. I guess...

**William F. Owen** · 03-25-2010

Originally Posted by Wargames Mark

At my day-job, we have been trying to make things happen using the VBS2 system for computer gaming. Some of the senior retired folks are impressed.

I have a proffessional developers edition of VBS2 on my system. It only works well with real humans behind it. The only combat simulation that does a better job than most soldiers is the orders based AI-system in Steel Beasts.

However, with more time to make the game system more realistic in its portrayal of Soldiers, and with a system to support the conduct of non-combat tasks, it could go somewhere...eventually. Probably. Maybe. I guess...

Do not hold your breath. Computer simulations are extremely capable, but very limited. They are not virtual training areas!
They are basically calculators, which spit out the right result, given the right problem.
They can teach and they can do some limited experimentation, but that is about it.
The simulation itself is usually very un-important compared to how and how many people can use it for a specific purpose.

**Wargames Mark** · 03-30-2010

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

I have a proffessional developers edition of VBS2 on my system. It only works well with real humans behind it. The only combat simulation that does a better job than most soldiers is the orders based AI-system in Steel Beasts.

Do not hold your breath. Computer simulations are extremely capable, but very limited. They are not virtual training areas!
They are basically calculators, which spit out the right result, given the right problem.
They can teach and they can do some limited experimentation, but that is about it.
The simulation itself is usually very un-important compared to how and how many people can use it for a specific purpose.

I think games can make great training tools. I just don't like VBS2 very much (or its little brother, VBS2 Lite).

To use commercial games as examples, I think I could do really good things with the poorly-named, but workable Combat Mission Strike Force, and also with older products like Close Combat (if equipped with a more robust scenario editor).

I think games are a good way to explain concepts and let the student figure out "what right looks like" before they go out in the box and train on it hands-on. (That hands-on training is a real requirement and I do not think that gaming can replace it. No way, no how.)

The problem with some games (like VBS2) is that they sometimes reward gaming-specific skills more than they do tactical skills and doctrinal knowledge. For example, some games place too much emphasis on deft manipulation of an interface. Trying to operate a weapon with a mouse is more difficult that doing it in real life. The use of expensive weapon-like controllers can make it a bit easier, but it's still not there.

If one is trying to instruct a Soldier to operate a particular weapon, then a simulator designed to support that specific training may be helpful (weaponeer). But, if one wants to train Soldiers to perform a battle drill, or to make sound decisions in response to a given event (say reacting to a near ambush) then you don't really need to worry about how good a shot the Soldier is. We should be able to set that aside and concentrate on whether they understand what actions should be carried out. Marksmanship skills can be developed elsewhere. Let them point the mouse close enough to a target to make it apparent to the computer that the Soldier wishes to engage that particular object when he left-clicks, and so be it. Don't score a miss because he isn't a gaming superchamp. All we need to know is if his decision to engage that target at that time is a sound decision given the situation. This seems to be lost on some of the commercial gaming companies trying to create content for the military.

When a game is too complex, it gets in the way of training. Simple interfaces are good.

**Chris jM** · 04-04-2010

Originally Posted by Wargames Mark

If one is trying to instruct a Soldier to operate a particular weapon, then a simulator designed to support that specific training may be helpful (weaponeer).

Agreed. It seems that the PC industry has got their foot in the door to military procurement and pushed down a number of 'simulators' that there was no need for in the first place. VBS, for one.

If the simulator uses real-life equipment to generate feedback (as you mentioned, a wpns simulator - JAV, TOW, etc right up to a/craft) I'm all for it. Indoor simulated ranges can have some utility with ROEs and initial weapons instruction, too. However, I'll argue that any military simulator requiring the use of a keyboard or mouse is nugatory.

Tactics games could be an exception, I guess. I've messed around with TACOPs, Combat Mission and Close Combat, but am still in split minds on their ability to add value to any professional military education program. That might be due to the fact that I would be shown up as a truly abysmal tactician if anyone were to observe me using those games, though.

**BayonetBrant** · 04-07-2010

It all depends on what you want to train. If the game is used as a stimulus to which you have to react, and you are training thought processes to be ingrained, then you can do a lot with the game that you'd be hard-pressed to do otherwise. This is especially true if the point is to work through staff processes and battle tracking. Any game can provide a suitable stimulus for that (ie, you don't need JANUS and 4 days of puckster training). If the game is intended to create some form of muscle memory effect, then yes, it needs to be much more tightly coupled to reality (Weaponeer).