Wargaming Small Wars (merged thread)

[120mm]

I'm wondering the cost differential of one skilled RPG moderator versus the veritable ARMY of skilled computer geeks we now require to run a system that breaks down every few hours....

The key, I think, would be to run something like a hybrid system, where a moderator is given a basic script/game-plan, and uses a computer system to do the complex kinetic calculations outcomes and even certain sequels, within limits

Kind of like a Dungeon Master with electronic dice.

[Steve Blair]

This is actually done to a degree in some varieties of online games (MUSHs, for example).

For a more complex scenario, a panel of moderators (White Cell) would be workable as well. It would most likely be cheaper than the fully programmed alternatives, and more flexible and 'realistic' as well.

[Rex Brynen]

Kind of like a Dungeon Master with electronic dice.

Can I play a halfling rogue?

[BayonetBrant]

Of course, the major challenge with a human arbiter instead of the computer is that the unit who's ass is getting kicked will default to the excuse of "That idiot running the exercise didn't give us credit for the # of (fill in the blank) that we should've had! If we had that this would all be different!"

It's the same reason we don't use false positives in the intel training - it allows the unit to have a built-in excuse to ignore the lessons they should've learned.

If you've got the computer to point to and say "you fired 20 shots and 11 hit" the unit doesn't argue as much as they would if there was a 'DM' saying the same thing.

[Steve Blair]

Of course, the major challenge with a human arbiter instead of the computer is that the unit who's ass is getting kicked will default to the excuse of "That idiot running the exercise didn't give us credit for the # of (fill in the blank) that we should've had! If we had that this would all be different!"

It's the same reason we don't use false positives in the intel training - it allows the unit to have a built-in excuse to ignore the lessons they should've learned.

If you've got the computer to point to and say "you fired 20 shots and 11 hit" the unit doesn't argue as much as they would if there was a 'DM' saying the same thing.

I would agree IF all that was being modeled were kinetic results (and even then people have been known to accuse the AI of 'cheating' on the results...often with some degree of accuracy depending on the model). But with COIN you have a variety of human factors that I don't think can be accurately modeled using computer systems. As I've said before (and others have echoed) a combined system may be the best way (using the computer for 'combat results'). But at the end of the day I really think you do need a human control element, or at least a majority of humans involved on all teams and minimal AI.

[Rex Brynen]

If you've got the computer to point to and say "you fired 20 shots and 11 hit" the unit doesn't argue as much as they would if there was a 'DM' saying the same thing.

This is undoubtedly a problem--the belief among participants that outcomes were being decided by moderator biases and not by their own actions.

In my experience, most of this can be resolved by a combination of effective moderating (which requires some skill and experience, hence the difficulty of using a RPG format as a generally-disseminated training tool) and good post-simulation debriefing. It is often the case that what participants attribute at first to moderator bias is actually due to their own lack of information ("You didn't realize the police chief was the brother of the school principal? That's why the police were unenthusiastic about guarding the school after the principal had been fired and replaced with an outsider.")

I also wouldn't underestimate similar problems in electronic simulations ("I would have killed that BMP if my mouse hadn't stuck/if the physics modeling was more accurate/if I had been able to hear it like I could in real life").

All this discussion has me wanting to work on one...

[120mm]

This is undoubtedly a problem--the belief among participants that outcomes were being decided by moderator biases and not by their own actions.

In my experience, most of this can be resolved by a combination of effective moderating (which requires some skill and experience, hence the difficulty of using a RPG format as a generally-disseminated training tool) and good post-simulation debriefing. It is often the case that what participants attribute at first to moderator bias is actually due to their own lack of information ("You didn't realize the police chief was the brother of the school principal? That's why the police were unenthusiastic about guarding the school after the principal had been fired and replaced with an outsider.")

I also wouldn't underestimate similar problems in electronic simulations ("I would have killed that BMP if my mouse hadn't stuck/if the physics modeling was more accurate/if I had been able to hear it like I could in real life").

All this discussion has me wanting to work on one...

Excellent points. As a recon guy in a former life, I used to be greatly frustrated by the lack of ability to be properly "modelled" in any of the computer games.

I was restricted to, at first, maneuvering my Troops as a single icon, and then some computer wank did me the "favor" of "allowing" me, to obviously great inconvenience to himself and the replication, to maneuver Platoon icons.

And then my Division commander chewed butt for the CAV not seeing anything, and getting killed right away....

I think with any kind of simulation, it's more about testing systems and staffs than achieving some kind of net result at the end, anyway, just because all of the variables at play.

[AmericanPride]

I do not think a COIN simulator is viable at the tactical level because a COIN simulation is inherently political. Many have already mentioned the obvious problems in modelling the complex relationships in a COIN environment. A fully simulated tactical COIN simulator would be simplistic at best, which is a problem with nearly all games which attempt to model any kind of political environment. I think this kind of simulation would be best utilitzed as a staff tool at battalion or higher. Using the model I suggested earlier, the S3 and S2 could take their traditional roles (Blue Force and OpFor, respectively), the S5 as the most influential civilian demographic in the AO, the S9 (if available) as any agencies in the AO, and the S4 possibly as other friendly forces in the AO (if any). Since there's likely to be multiple OpFor and civilian groups, people can be pulled from the S2 and S5 sections (or the other remaining sections) as necessary. All the while, the S6 can make sure the simulator is functioning properly since there'd be little need for any kind of moderator. The system wouldn't require anything more than someone knowledgeable in a common programming language (PHP, C++, etc) and access to the internet.

Further Note: All of this could be made available through a master site (even AKO), where the staffs can enter and play their respective scenarios, using a basic options menu common to any game to design the desired scenario. My inspirations for this idea were this game and this one. The first one uses PHP to model the classic Diplomacy board game (no moderator necessary) and hosts hundreds of simultaneous games; the second models the whole of the Star Wars universe; of course, that kind of scale is not necessary for COIN purposes. Both of these are free to the users.

[davidbfpo]

I have merged seven threads today, which all refer to wargaming and small wars. A couple of threads refer to major wars: South China Sea and Iraq - so have been left alone.