War-Gaming Insurgency

[Steve Blair]

Both theories are valid, but fall victim to "Black Swans" pretty easily, but that doesn't disqualify their utility.

However, have played a lot of strategy games in the past, especially ones like the "Civilization" series and derivatives therof (space conquest, etc). Almost all feature a negotiation/alliance model for trade and security. However, I have yet to find one that looks like real-world relations for war decisions, even though most are based in rational choice theory. People aren't that mathematical/logical in the real world, and coding of the social/environmental/internal political constraints seems to be the missing factor - but the hardest to quantify.

And that's one reason I tend to go back to the freeplay RPG style. It's about the only way you can really capture the rather unique elements that go into some human decision-making. Strategy games can capture this to a degree, but some of the better versions I've seen have been "house rules" built for things like Risk and the like. A robust RPG framework with computer aid (for resolution of some tasks like development and local infrastructure issues) still strikes me as the best way to go, although it would also be the most intensive in terms of manpower (training, white cell, and so on).

[Rex Brynen]

And that's one reason I tend to go back to the freeplay RPG style. It's about the only way you can really capture the rather unique elements that go into some human decision-making. Strategy games can capture this to a degree, but some of the better versions I've seen have been "house rules" built for things like Risk and the like. A robust RPG framework with computer aid (for resolution of some tasks like development and local infrastructure issues) still strikes me as the best way to go, although it would also be the most intensive in terms of manpower (training, white cell, and so on).

I absolutely agree—there is so much that unexpectedly crops up in a COIN or peace operation setting that a hard-coded computer simulator just couldn't handle, but which an experienced White Cell can easily deal with.

A case in point, from my own classroom simulation:

One year, the UNICEF player put together an integrated child/maternal health initiative for our fictional war-torn country. She was a very bright international development student, had done her homework, and frankly did an excellent job. Because donor funds were limited, she decided to target its initial application to those areas with the highest infant mortality rates.

The program was to be conducted in conjunction with local NGOs, and those local NGOs also offered a family planning component. Because of the nature of our simulated civil war, infant mortality rates were highest in the southern areas (where the war was largely being fought). Those areas were predominately inhabited by Zaharians, a secessionist ethnic minority.

The ethnic insurgents in those areas, who were in sensitive peace negotiations with the government through UN channels at the time, immediately condemned the UNICEF program as a "UN sponsored eugenics program intended to lower the Zaharian birth-rate." They complained bitterly that most of the areas being targeted had a Zaharian majority. A few insurgent units even went so far as to detain UNICEF and UNDP workers ("to protect them from the righteous wrath of the people," of course).

This was all a cynical ploy to increase pressure on the UN SRSG in the negotiations—right down to the organization of noisy demonstration by diaspora supporters outside UN headquarters in NY ("Peace, yes! Eugenics, no!") It worked wonders, as the SRSG started to press the government for concessions to mollify the angry Zaharians, and pressed other UN agencies to offer increased humanitarian and development assistance in the south.

The UN folks were released a week or so later. The SRSG read the riot act to the UN aid agencies, and insisted on a new structure for UN coordination that would increase political oversight. The UN agencies grumbled. The peace negotiations continued.

That particular intersection of ethnic demographic politics, peace negotiations, development assistance, and internal UN dynamics has only happened that one year out of the ten or so that I've run the sim. It was hugely instructive for the students, illustrating my constant lectures on 'all aid is political" in a way my lectures never could. More to the point here, it seems to me doubtful that an AI-based computer simulation would have been able to anticipate, capture, and moderate it as effectively.

The problem with an RPG or frei kriegspiel approach is that it is very dependent on experienced moderators—its not just something you can ship off to folks for local training.

[Steve Blair]

The problem with an RPG or frei kriegspiel approach is that it is very dependent on experienced moderators—its not just something you can ship off to folks for local training.

Quite so, but that's an issue I'd much rather deal with than an incomplete or broken computer model. However, it might just be possible to have a central white cell and conduct remote training via one of the online gaming models out there (text based might work best, as then folks would focus on the scenario and not the pretty pictures).

[Rex Brynen]

Quite so, but that's an issue I'd much rather deal with than an incomplete or broken computer model. However, it might just be possible to have a central white cell and conduct remote training via one of the online gaming models out there (text based might work best, as then folks would focus on the scenario and not the pretty pictures).

You can also try to combine a primarily rules-based system (either computer-based or otherwise) with a moderator, to develop a system that is both nuanced but can possibly be provided to others as a training kit.

As I understand it, the World Bank's Carana simulation (which explores budget and development prioritization in a fictitious post-conflict country) works this way: part of it looks a bit like a customizable card game (you have limited allocated resources, and an broad array of semi-fixed policy choices), but the presence of a human moderator allows the participants to think outside the box, develop alternative approaches, represent otherwise unrepresented actors and issues, etc. One could easily adapt the approach to focus on, say, the operations of a PRT instead of cabinet-level decisions. The key part of the process is the debate, coalition-building, shared analysis, coordination, etc. among players, in which a traditional pen-and-paper RPG excels.

Maybe, if time ever allows, we could put together something, at least as proof-of-concept.

[Rex Brynen]

This might be of interest, from the Modeling and Simulation Builder for Everyone (mōsbē) software package:

BreakAway has developed tools and editors to enable the scripting of human emotion and behaviors, group and alliance affiliations, and demographic characteristics to the population of a simulated environment. This technology enables a user to assess the overall political, social, economic, and military situation in detail; select and prioritize objectives; plan appropriate strategy and tactics to achieve those objectives; and respond appropriately and effectively adversarial actions to achieve desired end conditions.

The "Force More Powerful" simulation that they showcase on the website has similarities with the mac game Republic: the Revolution (which I happened to pick up for $5 in a bargain bin recently). I sure hope its more stable, runs faster, and has a better interface, though...

EDIT:

There seems to be a whole range of materials on A Force More Powerful, which you'll find here and here.

[selil]

I can do some pretty heavy AI programming with an out of the box ready engine, but from my research the last few week I have found that may be a bad. For the war game I'm considering removing technology is a good idea. I want to figure out the thinking strategies and techniques. So removing crutches or covers is important. In one of the books I recently read (I'm on book 7 of war gaming), the author said chess can be played by a computer, but all you know is the computer knows the rules. Kind of made me think.

I'm slightly stoned on game theory right now...

[BayonetBrant]

For training purposes, the problem with having human arbiters in an exercise is that the lessons that should be learned by the losing team will inevitably be dismissed as arbiter-bias... I've seen that waaaaay too often.

[AmericanPride]

I'm not saying this can't all be done, but good Lord that's a huge task from a game-design perspective, before you ever start writing a single line of code. No matter how good your code is, if the underlying game-mechanics aren't wired tight, the game will fail as a training tool.

Good points. My intent is to enable 'kits', which will enable users to define scenarios (factions, units, actions, and effects) according to their needs. There will be base ratings for each category, and how they interact with one another will remain the same, but the relative value of each will differ according to the estimates of the users (established prior to starting a session). So while a faction will always have units that conduct actions that have effects, the types, scopes, and capabilities of those units, actions, and effects will differ. The number and types (determined by the actions available) of units will determine the extent of a faction's capability. So if a faction is an armor company, its units (and their available actions) will reflect that, and the user will be restrained to those choices. Similarly, if a faction is a terrorist organization, its units (and their available actions) will also reflect that, and the user will be constrained to a different combination of choices. Large or small, regular or irregular. Ultimately both are governed by the same operating principles. I think it will help clarify what choices are available, and which are most likely, in particular conditions.

I just don't think a simulation wargame can account for the human-centric complexity of a COIN/Stability environment. Perhaps with a real-live Red Team, immersed in the thought/thinking context of the host, but predicting second and third order effects of human interaction has remained near-impossible.

That is why I do not intend to program an AI. A permanent Red Team is a good idea, but part of my sell for this program is that it will be light on resources. If used as a war-gaming tool, I imagine the S2 section running the opfor and providing the estimates for the impact of effects in the particular AO.

I would label this simulation as a "strategic RPG". Users will roleplay different factions, but will be making decisions toward the accomplishment of particular aims.