Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
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.