PAXsims is devoted to peace, conflict, humanitarian, and development simulations and serious games for education, training, and policy analysis.
If you wish to be notified when new material is posted here, use the “subscribe by email” option below.
Relevant comments are welcomed.
PAXsims operates on a non-profit basis. You can donate to support our activities via Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/PAXsims
Join 3,536 other subscribers
Recent Posts
- Simulation & Gaming (June 2024)
- Fight Club International: The Readiness Micro-Game
- Scholarship opportunity for women interested in wargaming
- Using digital outbreak simulations in academic settings
- GPPI: Gaming the Political Economy of Conflict
- Wargamer Job at NDU
- Registration for Connections US 2024 now open
- Connections UK 2024
- All that’s left is the grading…
- Wargaming the effects of a Trump presidency on NATO
Top Posts
- Wargaming the effects of a Trump presidency on NATO
- Fight Club International: The Readiness Micro-Game
- About PAXsims
- Holographic Tabletop Gaming
- Simulation & Gaming (June 2024)
- Scholarship opportunity for women interested in wargaming
- Derby House Principles
- McGill megagame
- AFTERSHOCK
- Ace of Aces: or, why you should Do Maths as a game designer
Categories
- call for papers
- conferences
- courses
- crowd-sourcing
- forthcoming games and simulations
- gaming vignettes
- job opportunities/positions vacant
- latest links
- methodology
- not-so-serious
- playtesters needed
- reader survey
- request for proposals
- scholarships and fellowships
- simulation and game reports
- simulation and game reviews
- simulation and gaming debacles
- simulation and gaming history
- simulation and gaming ideas
- simulation and gaming journals
- simulation and gaming materials
- simulation and gaming miscellany
- simulation and gaming news
- simulation and gaming publications
- simulation and gaming software
Archives
Associations
- Australian Defence Force Wargaming Group
- Connections Netherlands
- Connections North (Canada)
- Connections Oz (Australiasia)
- Connections UK
- Connections US
- Georgetown University Wargaming Society
- International Game Developers Association
- International Simulation and Gaming Association
- MORS Wargaming Community of Practice
- North American Simulation and Gaming Association
- SAGSET
- Serious Games Network – France
- Simulations Interoperability Standards Organization
- UK Fight Club
- USA Fight Club Wargaming Group
- Women's Wargaming Network
- Zenobia Award
Institutions (public and commercial)
- Advanced Disaster, Emergency and Rapid Response Simulation
- Booz Allen Hamilton—experiential analytics
- BreakAway—serious games
- Brian Train-game designs
- Civic Mirror
- CNAS Gaming Lab
- ConSimWorld
- Decisive Point
- Fabulsi—online roleplay simulations
- Fiery Dragon Productions
- Fletcher School/Tufts University—SIMULEX
- Fort Circle Games
- GamePolitics
- History of Wargaming Project
- Imaginetic
- Kings College London—Kings Wargaming Network
- LBS – Professional Wargaming
- LECMgt
- McGill Model UN
- MCS Group
- MegaGame Makers
- MODSIM World conference
- Naval Postgraduate School—MOVES Institute
- NDU—Center for Applied Strategic Learning
- Nusbacher & Associates
- Nuts! Publishing
- Peacemaker Game
- Persuasive Games
- PlanPolitik
- RAND Center for Gaming
- Serious Games Interactive
- Slitherine Software
- Statecraft
- Stone Paper Scissors
- Strategy and Tactics Press
- Track4
- Utrecht Institute for Crisis and Conflict Simulation
- Valens Global
- Wargaming Connection
- Wikistrat blog
- World Peace Game Foundation
Journals and Publications
- Battles Magazine
- C3i Magazine
- Eludamos: Journal of Computer Game Culture
- GAME: The Italian Journal of Game Studies
- International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations
- International Journal of Role-Playing
- Military Training & Simulation
- Sciences du jeu
- Simulation & Gaming
- The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation
- Training & Simulation Journal
- Virtual Training & Simulation News
Simulations and Games
- Active Learning in Political Science
- Barnard College—Reacting to the Past
- Best Delegate
- Beyond Intractability—Exercises and Simulations
- BoardGameGeek
- Class Wargames
- Columbia American History Online—classroom simulations
- Community Organizing Toolkit—game
- ConSimWorld
- CRISP: Crisis Simulation for Peace
- CUNY Games Network
- Darfur is Dying—game
- Economics Network—classroom experiments and games
- Emergency Capacity Building project — simulation resources
- EuroWarGames
- Game Design Concepts
- Game Theory .net
- Gameful
- Games & Social Networks in Education
- Games for Change
- GeoGame
- Giant Battling Robots
- Global Justice Game
- Grog News
- Guns, Dice, Butter
- Ian Bogost
- ICT for Peacebuilding
- Journal of Virtual Worlds Research
- Little Wars
- Ludic Futurism
- Ludology
- Mike Cosgrove—wargame design class
- MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program—simulation materials
- MSSV
- National Center for Simulation
- National Security Decision-Making game
- No Game Survives…
- North American Simulation and Gaming Association
- Oil Shockwave Simulation
- Pax Warrior
- Pervasive Games: Theory and Design
- Play the Past
- Play Think Learn
- Purple Pawn
- Serious Games at Work
- Serious Games Network France
- Strategikon (French)
- Technoculture, Art, and Games
- Terra Nova (Simulation + Society + Play)
- The Cove: Wargaming
- The Forge Wargaming Series
- The Ludologist
- The Open-Ended Machine
- Tiltfactor
- Tom Mouat's wargames page
- Trans-Atlantic Consortium for European Union Studies & Simulations
- United States Institute for Peace—Simulations
- University of Maryland—ICONS Project
- US Army—Modelling and Simulation
- USC—Institute for Creative Technologies
- Wargame_[space]
- Web Grognards
- Zones of Influence
Going into the Afghan Provincial Reconstruction game, I had very little idea of what to expect (though the pretzels and the carrot sticks were a nice welcoming touch). By the end of the simulation, I found myself disappointed we had “won” so quickly and achieved “reconstruction” in merely a few hours – I was looking forward to the full eight rounds of the game, despite the volatility one feels as a player and participant. Alas, whether it was luck or the generally cooperative environment we had created for the duration of the game, the country of Afghanistan was stable once again and we learned a few valuable lessons along the way.
First, the obvious: as everyone mentioned, coordination is extremely difficult. Yet it’s equally important to remember that it is not impossible, so somehow we managed to muddle through the various crises that came up. I thought it was very realistic of the game to force the players (whether NGO, government, or NATO) to go back to the national leader and beg for as many resources as they could give us each round. By having an uneven number of “chips”, we knew that the resources could not be split evenly every round and had to use our bartering skills to convince our boss that our province really needed that police force or the development project. At the end of the day, it really was up to the leader to make the final decision. I found myself having to make do with very few resources one round and seeing my colleagues in the other provinces accomplish twice the number of projects I was, yet other rounds I was the one getting a favorable share of resources and could play catch up.
The various provincial and national crises did their job in making us constantly frustrated and feeling like our entire effort was in the hands of some volatile force that could be benevolent or destructive on whim. At first, I felt crushed as I saw my hard-bargained-for resources taken away by the Taliban, a warlord, or corruption reports, but as each round went on I began to expect that the most I could hope for was a “two steps forward, one step back” and pray it wasn’t “one step forward, two steps back”. In the later rounds, as I began building more projects, I was expecting that bad things would happen and learned to be somewhat at peace with it. I imagine in the real world, even the most idealistic NGO worker, diplomat, or NATO delegate gets used to knowing that what you build today might get torn down tomorrow. It’s honestly extremely frustrating, but it was obvious everyone was in the same situation, which made things a little bit easier to handle.
I also think an important factor was that our provincial team actually got along very well, and even in the span of a few short rounds we had created a kind of mutual trust relationship between us, so that both times NATO had intelligence about what the next provincial crisis would be, she shared it with us and we were able to plan ahead as a group. When the NGO had one extra chip one round she couldn’t use, she gave it to the government to build one more project instead of stocking it up for the next round (which might have been a more favorable plan from her perspective). Each round we interacted, we were “brought together” a little more, and cooperation was a little bit easier. I’ve also heard this to be true of the diplomatic/development world, that sometimes knowing or having a good relationship with ambassador “x” or the head of NGO “y” enables you to get things done faster and that personal relationships, not just official ones between institutional figures, do matter. At the same time, if a relationship gets off to a bad start, that can impede many projects on the ground as well.
The point Professor Brynen made about the Taliban was also important: if the Taliban were to be an actual player in the game who would be constantly trying to erode our influence or destroy our projects, it would make the experience much more realistic. During the game, when our province had a Taliban crisis, I felt more like it was just another “external force” (i.e. another random card drawn from the deck) we had to deal with by throwing resources and security cards at it, but having an actual Taliban player who is more versatile in his actions and is an occurring force throughout the game would probably be a better simulator of what the Afghanistan environment is actually like.
Finally, another suggestion (though I do not know how feasible it would be to incorporate) would be to have some way for the national government leader to channel some of the money into his own pockets when he so wished. Corruption played a part in the game only when the “UN Corruption report” came out (or so the card said), and thus the government was given less resources that particular round. Again, that felt like as if it was something entirely external and as if our government didn’t really have anything to do with it – it was just something that happened to us. Everyone knows, however, what a huge part corruption plays in politics in Afghanistan (start typing “Karzai” into google, and one of the first suggestions that comes up is “karzai corruption”, after which you will get five million hits….). I felt like in the game, my boss (the president) was far too caring and concerned, and I could see that each round he was really trying to be fair to all three provinces. I did not experience any frustration whatsoever that he might be keeping some of the resources for himself, or that he had a special relationship with a particular province and was favoring them heavily for whatever reason. Since corruption and patronage/favoritism are common frustrations in developing countries, this mechanism would be a neat addition to the game, and would definitely change the dynamic between the players. (Especially if the national NATO leader heard rumours of the president stealing resources… then they might not have been as helpful or generous as they ended up being!).
Overall, an amazingly fun and instructive experience. Thank you so much for the opportunity!
In the Afghan Provincial Reconstruction game, I was the World Church United/NGO actor in one of the provinces. Here are my reflections:
1. I was surprised that I felt more attached to my province than other NGO actors. Initially, I expected to coordinate with my NGO group by taking turns completing our projects. However, as the game progressed, it felt as though I was competing with other NGO actors for resources and I foremost wanted to improve the conditions in my province. The government, NATO, and I were strategic in completing our projects. For example, when I had one small green chip left, instead of starting a new project, I gave it to the government because it needed one more chip to complete a project.
2. I did not expect the government and NATO to be so helpful. NATO basically dealt with the major crises in our province, such as getting rid of the Taliban and the Warlords, and providing additional influence for the Maliks. NATO also shared Intel information with us because misery loves company and then the three of us could come up with a plan to deal with the next major disaster.
3. The actors in my province were good at exaggerating our problems. At some points I felt that other provinces had worse problems, such as a hostage crisis, but we tried to make our problems sound even graver in order to get more resources from the national level. I think this reflects real life.
4. Everyone was polite and nice. In reality, I think people would be more competitive and less calm.
5. The game would be more dramatic if the Taliban and Warlords were real people involved in the game as opposed being represented by chips. They could strategically cause havoc as opposed to it being left to chance. They could also take an actor hostage. It would be interesting to see who buys you back – your group or your province.
Overall, it was a very fun game!
Thanks for the comments, Alex! (And you too, Skip.)
I was one of the 12 students who participated in the Afghan Provincial Reconstruction game last Saturday and believe that the game was a success! Although I felt that this game might not be completely realistic (in that there was too much transparency than what is found in real life), I believe that it was very useful, because it highlighted some of the key challenges to reconstruction in Afghanistan and the game’s lessons can be carried over to other countries going through reconstructive phases.
I believe that this game accurately highlighted how difficult coordination is. Not only did you have to coordinate with people within your particular sector (whether it be the World Church Organization, NATO or the Afghanistan Government), but you also had to coordinate with other members within your province. Although there were only 12 players in the game, coordination was still difficult to manage and often deliberation between each round lasted much longer than the time that was allotted. Thus, despite the fact that there were only 12 players, coordination was still a challenge. Now, imagine how hard it is when you have hundreds of actors vying for important resources and have to answer to different constituencies in an area undergoing reconstruction. The more actors that are involved in the coordination effort, the harder coordination actually becomes.
Although, in an ideal world, it is easy to prescribe a “game plan” allocating where different resources may go and at what time at the beginning of the reconstruction period, the game plan is not so easily followed. As this game highlighted, allocating resources is not as easy as one might expect. This is especially the case, because of events outside of the coordinators’ control (such as the rise of the Taliban or the capturing of civilians by rebel forces), which greatly influence who gets the resources and when. Although at the beginning of the game, my sector tried to have a game plan as to how the resources would be distributed between each province through the different rounds of the game, the plan was not followed, because of unforeseen events. In particular, one province would be particularly hard hit with a crisis and thus, needed more resources than the other provinces in order to get rid of the problem. The crises needed to be addressed immediately, not just to ensure peace within that particular province, but the country as a whole. Therefore, I believe that a good takeaway from this game is that all actors should be prepared for things that are out of their control and to try to create a back-up plan, or set aside specific resources if possible, for events that are not planned.
As I mentioned earlier, you not only have to coordinate with members within your particular sector, but also with the other members of your province. Personally, I felt that it was sometimes easier to coordinate with the different actors in my province than with the other representatives of my sector in the two other provinces in the game setting (though this was not necessarily the case for the other two provinces). I felt that after a particular round of the game, the different members of my province and I would tell each other which resources we were each going to get from our sector and how they would be used in order to counteract whichever crisis hit our province at a given time. The other members of my province and I also traded resources in order to finish specific tasks to enhance security. We really did work together not just for the benefit of the particular sector that we were representing, but also for the benefit of our province as a whole. I believe that this is particularly important and different sectors should realize that although it is necessary for them to gather individual resources, it is also important to work with other sectors, so that the country can benefit as a whole.
I do believe that there was maybe too much transparency in the game than what occurs in real life. For example, all of the sectors could see which resources each province had at any given time and therefore, it was easier to try to distribute resources between the three provinces between rounds. I think that it would be interesting to see what would have happened if the players from each province were not able to see what the other provinces had accomplished on their board until after the money had been distributed from the head personnel in each category (WCO, NATO and Afghan Government).
All in all, I thought that this was a very well-designed and interesting game. Some things that I learned from this game were that: (1) coordination is not as easy as some may assume, (2) it is essential to try to increase communication between different sectors and to work with the different players in your particular province, and (3) the different sectors should be prepared for unforeseen events. I definitely think that more students should play this game, because it was not only informative, but fun!
Congratulations on this Run! I do hope some of your students post their comments here. Those can be very insightful.
I’ve had the pleasure of seeing the Afghan Provincial Reconstruction game run at USIP and NDU, and I’ve always been impressed by it. Very glad to see it is played in Universities. I hope that takes off and more schools incorporate it into their curriculum.
Thanks for doing the run, especially an Saturday, and thank you more for letting us know about it!