Comments Off on Fight Club International: The Readiness Micro-Game
Posted by Rex Brynen on 09/05/2024
The following item was written for PAXsims by Maj Ed Farren (British Army), currently on exchange and working in Canadian Army HQ in Ottawa as a planner.
The cover art which tries to convey the multi-service approach to military operations.
What is the game about?
The game is about managing the military readiness of a fictional global power, Freedonia, over an extended period of time without losing political support, breaking the morale of the military or blowing the budget.
Who are the player(s) representing?
In the single player version the player is the head of the Joint Chiefs of the Freedonian Military. In the multiplayer version each player takes the role of a service chief (Army, Navy, Air Force).
How do the players win?
A better question would be, “how do the players lose” because much like real life this is a game of not losing as opposed to winning. The game ends if any one of three values on the game track reaches the ‘0’ space. These are Political Support which is negatively by not meeting operational commitments; Budget Reserve which is negatively affected by overspending in the force preparation cycle; Military Morale which is negatively affected by extending units in theatres, fast tracking them into another training cycle. If the player(s) manage to keep these values above ‘0’ by the end of the tenth game turn then they have ‘won’. The scale of their ‘victory’ is the combined value of all three tracks at the end.
In a multiplayer game the incentives change. The team as a whole still loses together in the method already described. However, a single service can ‘win’ by coming out on top versus the other two. This is based on the amount of their force they have managed to modernise and how much is not in reserve or storage at the end of the game. This can create a fair amount of competition and interservice rivalry – just like in real life!
What are the components
The game consists of a simple abstract playing area with 6 small boxes around a large central box representing Freedonia. There are a number of markers that sit on various tracks but otherwise there are 23 units (8 Army Brigades; 6 Air Force Wings; 6 Naval Squadrons; and 3 SOF Task Groups. Whilst in real life the size of these forces varies (a brigade is much larger than an Air Wing) they are all worth one ‘Op Value Point’ in the game. Having recently investigated the data for work reasons, the equipment cost of the Army is one tenth that of the Air Force which is one tenth that of the Navy so the counter sizes correlate. Some units are required for certain theatres (like having a Naval Squadron for counter piracy) but can’t be used in others (like Peacekeeping). The true value of military units comes when units of different services are combined in the same theatre or ‘chained’ as Joint or Multi Domain task forces. This creates greater Op Value than having multiple units of the same type as the forces are compliment each others strengths and mitigating each others’ weaknesses (or so goes the theory). Units are also able to be modernized with the latest technology which is a bit of a side quest within the main game. After a recent playtest it was decided to have a marker depicting the progress of the adversary Great Power
The theatres abstractly model countries where troops are deployed to. These are not strictly speaking enemy countries but places in the world where military effect is required. The game makes a binary distinction here between green and red bordered theatres. Green theatres are considered generally benign and tend to have lower Op Value requirements. Crucially two of the theatres start at level 0 meaning no troops are required. The Red theatres are unbenign and generally require a higher Op Value. The red theatres also do not reset their values like the green ones do, unless the player has overmatch (representing successful deterrence and the adversary de-escalating).
The game playing space which uses an abstraction rather than an accurate map. Being able to remove unnecessary ‘detail’ is a vital skill in game design.
What choices do the player(s) make?
The player(s) choose what units to prepare and deploy to operational theatres, what units to place in reserve or storage and whether to extend or fastrack units which causes negative morale. This all sounds very obvious, and I can hear people asking “where is the challenge?” A couple of turns in the player is likely to find they have too many tasks and need to start tasking risk on either their political support, their budget reserve or the morale of their troops. The turn structure is such that player(s) have already made their decision about what to force generate before the next turn’s operational requirements are known. This is a key point in the term ‘Readiness’ – having something ready to use that you do not have a pre-planned use for in case of an emergent threat or crisis. Much of the time having units ready will be a waste of resources. Alternatively the wrong type of unit could be ready, such as an Air Force Wing for Homeland Defence. Of course the easy answer is to have a balanced mix of all unit types but that will be very wasteful. One answer to this is to start putting units into reserve or storage which then frees up cash for force preparation. It does, however, mean that there are fewer units in the cycle to be used. If you wanted easy decisions then this isn’t’ the game for you! Finally there is a pressing need to modernise the force whilst achieving all of the above. At some point in the game the Great Power the player is trying to deter will start fielding modernised forces in increasing quantity and they must match or exceed this to maintain credible deterrence.
Additional rules add more dilemmas to the mix such as a ‘fate table’ to introduce random events (none of them good), alternative starting theatres (anyone for a never-ending Counter Insurgency Campaign); political prioritisation; and new ‘super systems’ that are powerful but eat up twice the budget.
Why did you make the game?
My day job currently has a large focus on readiness: reporting it, measuring it, assuring it and so on. The word Readiness has a troubled meaning (just look at these articles on War on the Rocks). I liken it to the use of the word ‘inconceivable’ in the Prince’s Bride; people keep using the word but they mean very different things when they say it. This can also spread to the metrics, tools and processes which are used to measure readiness. There is a constant tension between objective measurements (numbers of people, working equipment, supplies etc) and the subjective (how soon can they react, how effective can they fight). Within the same headquarters there can be competing interpretations of readiness and forceful disagreements over “what the data means”. Check out this WOTR article by Brad Carson and Morgan Plummer for more examples.
How it can feel in a military headquarters when someone mentions ‘Readiness’
This is not a conventional ‘wargame’ where red and blue physically interact and take pieces off the board. It is more akin to a puzzle game with an automated adversary. Both the Blue political level and Red opposing side are abstracted within a single D6 roll once a turn to determine if a theatre changes its threat value. “But why has it changed?” some might cry, well this is a great point for a discussion on hypothetical what ifs or research into recent past events to see what has occurred that could be relevant to the game. For example the latest Israeli-Gaza conflict has emboldened Iran (represented by the Rogue Regional Power Theatre in the game). Sometimes it is better to model the effect rather than the cause and leave players to come up with the best narrative that fits the bill.
Did you research or refer to any existing games to make this?
Part of the reason this game came about was because of the dearth of existing material on the subject. Most games are concerned with fighting from tactical to strategic level and not managed readiness in peacetime. The closest I example I have is called Logistic Command which has a Cold War themed competition to maintain military capability and the balance of power until the end of the game.
Who is the game for?
There wasn’t really an intended audience but this game is probably not that attractive to hardened grognards looking for some hex and counter action. It is purposefully simplifying what is a professionally complex problem worked on by thousands of military and government officials with multi billion dollar budgets every day. I would say this game is well suited to expose lay people to the concept of military readiness such as junior officers and politicians, academics and journalists who might confuse a military’s size with it’s ability to conduct activity.
Perhaps the game’s enduring utility is exposing the hard choices and trade-offs between morale, money, and operational effectiveness (aka single service interests) that are being wrestled with daily in various offices in national capitals. An observation is that most Defence Policies have a clear prioritisation of tasks which translate into military strategy but when a crisis emerges that prioritisation is rarely referred to. Instead, there is a tendency to chase headlines and promote activity ass the outcome rather than activity to achieve an outcome. Try playing the game with a copy of your nation’s published defence policy and make your judgements with reference to how that document, and then look at the last 2 years of military related news and see if it tallies up.
How do you see this game being expanded?
I definitely think there is room to expand the game but that would probably involve a whole new build – the current version is good enough as an intro game Reskinning the game to a specific flavour is fairly easy – I have already done this for Sebastian Bae’s Indo-Pacific Microgame series. If I was asked to make a more detailed version these are the changes I would explore:
Expand the unit types within services such as types of Brigade for the Army, ISR/Strike/Transport aircraft for the Air Force; Carrier, Surface, Sub-surface for the Navy. This would further exacerbate any unique ‘one and done’ capabilities if an enduring commitment is required.
Make the game map an actual map of the world with spaces for various deployments. These areas could then draw threats from a deck of cards which provide more background context and more specific force requirements and have specific penalties for failure.
Have ‘country profiles’ with different service sizes and unit mixes (see above). For example the United Kingdom is going to have a different profile to Germany or Poland. This can help explore the context of a ‘land power’ vs a ‘sea power’.
Make the game oppositional by creating a Red ‘mirror image’ where they try to generate military capabilities but possibly using a different system such as conscription, mercenaries and use of proxies.
Add a more detailed political layer with elections, policy changes, funding variations and investment/disinvestment decisions to create even more stress on the long term planning requirements.
How do people play the game?
Firstly, they need to head to Analogue Games | Fight Club Intl. (fightclubinternational.org) and then sign up to join the Club before they can get access to the print and play files. There is also a Tabletop Simulator build (as with all our analogue games) so they can skip the printing and sticking and get straight into it.
Comments Off on Scholarship opportunity for women interested in wargaming
Posted by Rex Brynen on 02/05/2024
The Women’s Wargaming Network is excited to announce their collaboration with the Military Operations Research Society (MORS) to fund the entrance of one individual to attend the MORS Certificate in Wargaming, a five-day online synchronous course designed to enhance analyst capability and knowledge in multiple aspects of professional games, including research, design, development, execution, analysis, and reporting. This event will take place online, June 3-June 7 from 0800-1600 EST.
Candidates applying for this opportunity must showcase the following:
Relevant Experience: Must be at least 18 years old and interested in professional gaming. Candidates must demonstrate an entry level understanding/ interest of the industry and its dynamics. We are looking for candidates who otherwise would not be able to participate in this course. If you are currently employed by someone who would be open to registering you for this course, you are not considered eligible for this opportunity. You do not need to have any formal education or work experience in gaming, professional wargaming, military, or government experience. We encourage people from non-traditional backgrounds with an interest in working in wargaming or pivoting to wargaming to apply.
Passion for Gaming: Looking for candidates who demonstrate a genuine passion for gaming and a desire to contribute to the industry’s growth and innovation. Candidates must make themselves completely available for the entire course to receive a Certificate of Wargaming from MORS.
Diversity and Inclusion: As this opportunity is provided by the Women’s Wargaming Network, we are looking to bolster diversity among the wargaming community to foster a rich exchange of perspectives and ideas. We encourage applications from candidates of diverse backgrounds, experiences, and identities, especially women or non-binary candidates.
Instruction for Application: Using the selection criteria above, please submit a short essay (less than 300 words) on what your future plans related to the industry are and how this opportunity would support those ends. In addition, please submit your CV. For more information on wargaming, please refer to the list of suggested readings on the MORS Certificate in Wargaming page. Please submit all materials to: admin@womenswargaming.org by May 15, 2025 5 PM PST.
For those of you interested in helping us raise scholarship funds to send more women to wargaming opportunities, please consider making a donation here.
Comments Off on Using digital outbreak simulations in academic settings
Posted by Rex Brynen on 01/05/2024
The Johns Hopkins Center for Humanitarian Health (CHH) is holding a virtual information session on how digital infectious disease outbreak simulations can be used in academic settings.
Virtual Outbreak READY! Information Session for Academic Institutions
Outbreak READY!and Outbreak READY 2!: Thisland in Crisis are innovative digital outbreak simulations aimed at improving the capacity of practitioners to prepare for and respond to large-scale infectious disease outbreaks in humanitarian settings. Created as part of the READY Initiative, a global consortium led by Save the Children, the Outbreak READY! simulations bring the complex nature of outbreak response in humanitarian settings to life and provide a novel way for learners to test their skills and knowledge in a “safe,” virtual environment.
While the simulations were initially created for NGOs, an increasing number of academic institutions have successfully used the simulations in their classrooms. Since the first simulation launched in 2021, institutions including Harvard University, Yale University, Columbia University, McGill University, the University of Geneva, the Prasanna School of Public Health, and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health have used one or both simulations to advance their students’ learning.
To support the increasing number of universities reaching out about how they may incorporate the simulations into their classrooms, we are hosting a virtual information session on Wednesday, May 15th, 09:00-10:00 ET. This session will provide an overview of the simulations and feature professors who have used the simulations in their classrooms.
Please register using the link below. We also invite you to share this invitation with colleagues who may be interested in attending.
How do economic factors shape the dynamics of violent crises? To launch and sustain their fighting, conflict actors rely on financial resources and access to physical supplies; economic motives may themselves also be an important driver of violence. There is no lack of academic research describing these dynamics, nor of practice-oriented frameworks for grasping how they play out in a given conflict context. Yet there remains a very large step between better contextual understandings and being able to anticipate the concrete consequences of an external intervention.
This is a significant challenge for policymakers as they consider intervening in the political economy of a crisis setting. They have a range of interventions at their disposal, from sanctions regimes to fostering peace-positive investments. But the complexity of conflicts means it is crucial to think through the possible impacts – and unintended consequences – of any potential intervention. This project explored how simulation games can serve as a valuable tool for conducting forward-looking analysis in such contexts. It positioned simulation games at the intersection of political economy analysis and serious games methodologies.
The project’s final publication offers a practical toolbox for developing simulation games tailored to analyzing political economy interventions in stabilization settings, including a step-by-step process and a menu of potential design choices. While these apply to a broad range of settings and themes, the discussion also draws on the project team’s experiences in designing a game on conflict dynamics in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
The report is an extremely useful contribution to the literature on confict simulation. You will find both a summary of their work and a link to the full (49pp) report at the link above.
Comments Off on Wargamer Job at NDU
Posted by mcgradye on 22/04/2024
NDU has opened a job for a “Senior Wargaming Fellow” on USA Jobs. If you are a US citizen, have enough experience to be considered “senior,” and either have the qualifications, or are willing to ignore the rather odd set of qualifications (AI, online game design), then you might want to consider applying. I personally think CASL is a good group, and NDU would not be a bad place to work. If you are interested in advancing your career, I’d check it out. https://www.usajobs.gov/job/787587600
Comments Off on Registration for Connections US 2024 now open
Posted by Rex Brynen on 22/04/2024
An update from Timothy Wilkie and the Connections US team.
On behalf of conference founder and co-chair Matt Caffrey and the rest of the Connections organizing team, I am pleased to announce that registration for Connections 2024 is now open! This year’s conference will be hosted by the U.S. Army War College at the Army Heritage and Education Center in Carlisle, PA, June 25-27. This conference is held at the unclassified level and is open to all members of the professional wargaming community, from military to government to academic to commercial hobbyist to contractor to private sector. We especially welcome our international participants.
The day before the conference begins, the Army War College will be hosting a series of classified wargame briefings on Carlisle Barracks. The classified event is open to all U.S. citizens with a SECRET clearance. The form linked below will register you for the unclassified conference June 25-27, and will collect your contact information to receive additional information about the classified session on June 24 if you indicate your interest.
The above link is to a Google Form, which sometimes are difficult to access from some military networks. If you have problems viewing or completing the form at work, please try from a personal device at home.
We have an exceptional program lined up this year and will be posting the conference agenda to the website soon. We are pleased to announce our two keynote speakers: John Nagl and Tom Mouat. The rest of the program consists of panels, seminars, game demos and playtests, small-group workshops, and more!
Since 1993, the Connections conference has brought together practitioners with a professional interest in wargaming from all elements of the wargaming field. Please help us expand our reach even further by passing this registration information along to those you think might be interested.
Comments Off on Connections UK 2024
Posted by Rex Brynen on 16/04/2024
An update from Graham Longley-Brown and the Connections UK team.
The Connections UK 2024 conference for wargaming professionals will take place Tuesday 10 to Thursday 12 September 2024 at Brunel University in Uxbridge, just to the west of London and five miles from Heathrow airport. Tickets will go live in mid-June and are likely to be in high demand. We’ll send more content details presently, but the main themes and sessions are outlined below.
The Connections UK mission remains ‘to advance and preserve the art, science and application of wargaming’. The two main themes this year are: engaging academia; and helping to improve methods, models and tools that contribute to better wargaming.
Connections UK 2024 will feature:
An Introduction to Wargaming course on Day 1.
A half-day icebreaker on the morning of Day 1.
A stream on wargaming in academia.
Practitioner-level workshops and seminars to improve methods, models and tools that contribute to better wargaming.
A stream on wargaming deterrence, escalation and de-escalation.
A stream on wargaming deception.
A stream on gaming social complexity, which will include the use of artificial intelligence to support wargaming.
Games Fairs on the afternoons of Days 2 and 3. See note below regarding entries.
The inaugural Peter Perla Commemorative talk, featuring Phil Sabin and David Banks talking respectively to the growth and future of wargaming.
Social gaming on the evenings of Days 1 and 2.
Semi-organised networking events during the evening social gaming.
Sessions designed to help the next generation of wargamers.
Hands-on workshops exploring topics such as microgames, a ‘game jam’ and a designers’ clinic.
Connections UK follows the week after the Wargaming in NATO (WIN) conference 2 – 4 September at the University of the German Armed Forces in Hamburg, Germany.
Connections (US) is 25 – 27 June at the Army Heritage and Education Center (AHEC) in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Comments Off on All that’s left is the grading…
Posted by Rex Brynen on 12/04/2024
Today was the last day of my conflict simulation course at McGill, and as is POLI 452 tradition everyone’s game was on display before being submitted. Here’s a look at what I’ll be playing (and grading) over the next few weeks.
Black October explores strategic competition and conflict between Israel and Iran (and its allies/proxies). The game tracks political capital, resources, military capabilities, and US and global opinion. Cards are used either to play specific actions or an action chosen from a menu. The yellow cups are used to hide Iranian nuclear enrichment.
Breacher Up! examines platoon-level suburban operations. Fog of war is provided through blocks, dummy counters, and (uncleared) room tokens. They certainly won the prize for the largest map this year!
Men of Honor is a game about Sicilian mafia during the Mussolini era. Players (families) compete to control key industries during a time when the fascist state was clamping down on their activities. They can betray each other, even cooperate with the regime at times—but breaking Omertà (the mafia code of silence and code of honor) in this way can have severe consequences.
The meeples used to track honor, influence, and notoriety were a real find.
The Opium Wars is a two player game about Anglo-Chinese conflict in the mid-19th century. Britain wants to sell opium into China, to offset China’s trade surplus (in tea, china, and other products). The Qing Dynasty China isn’t so keen. However, China opium seizures or port closures may lead the British to use military force. Can China avoid “the century of humiliation”?
Take particular note of the hand-crafted opium bales, the traditional silver ingots, and the jars of tea.
Polymer Planet is a semicooperative game about plastic pollution. Players assume the role of Carol (CEO of a fashion company), Leo (an oil industry lobbyist), Patrick (a politician), Naomi (an environmental NGO activist), and Carla (the consumer). Each pursues certain goals, and their actions can various contribute to pollution (tracked with coloured bottle caps that accumulate in a central container) or help alleviate it. Can they find a solution that leaves everyone satisfied and saves the planet?
Red Tide explores a Chinese (PRC) invasion of Taiwan, focusing on how Taiwan were to fare were it to receive no support from allies. Chinese sealift capacity, the seizure of ports, and the damage suffered by those ports has a fundamental effect on how long Taiwan can hold out before defeat.
Wildfire! is a largely cooperative about wildfire management in Canada. The focus on the federal government, with players assuming the role of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), Public Safety Canada, or the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre. You’ll noticed the map coded for fire risk and environment, and the 3D printed stackable fires to indicate severity.
270! is a two player game about US presidential election campaigns. Players choose various campaign actions (targetable by state), including campaign visits, ad buys, social media, and fundraising. They also respond to current issues, and there’s a presidential debate minigame too. All actions are entered into a an Excel spreadsheet—hence all the laptops—which then determines their impact and updates a PowerPoint map and bar graph.
Comments Off on Wargaming the effects of a Trump presidency on NATO
Posted by Rex Brynen on 11/04/2024
This article was written for PAXsims by Finley Grimble. He is a former wargamer and strategy advisor to the UK Government having worked at theCabinet Office, Ministry of Defence and Foreign Office. He particularly focused on NATO defence and foreign policy, Russia-Ukraine strategy, China-Taiwan policy, the US-UK security relationship, and wargames for the 4* National Security Council Officials (highest officials decision-making body in UK). He can be contacted via email or LinkedIn.
Donald Trump threatened to withdraw from NATO during his first term based on the idea that the US should not be defending Europe, whilst the Europeans under-invest in their own defence by spending less than the NATO agreed 2%. He has continued to do so in the run up to the 2024 elections. With specialists in defence, intelligence, foreign and security policy hailing from several NATO countries, we conducted a wargame to explore the following questions:
How might a Trump administration go about leaving NATO and/or getting all Allies to pay 2% GDP on defence?
What are the immediate consequences of the United States leaving Euro-Atlantic security to Europe?
What are the broader global consequences for the United States?
Wargame Format
The wargame commenced on a successful Trump Inauguration Day: January 1, 2025, and running for two years into the presidency. All 32 NATO members, Ukraine, and Russia were represented by participants. These countries with ‘dedicated representation’ were given time to:
Develop a strategy.
Negotiate with allies to cohere strategy.
Negotiate with adversarial countries.
Take a series of military, diplomatic, economic, and intelligence actions for a turn that represented two months.
Any military actions were then carried out using an operational wargame map with bounded adjudication rules. This ran as a minor facet of the wider geo-political wargame to establish correlation of forces and battlefield situations.
Once these phases had occurred, the non-military actions were freely adjudicated by a ‘wargame control team’, then the next turn would begin with a new set of starting conditions based on the outcomes of the previous intertwining actions.
Within the wargame control team adjudicating the turn outcomes, China, Taiwan, South Korea, North Korea, Australia, Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran were represented through injects. They were not given a dedicated representative to play a full role in the wargame. We chose to represent these key non-Euro-Atlantic countries as to:
Gain their perceptions on Trump’s NATO policy.
Prevent Euro-Atlantic Security developing in an unrealistic vacuum.
Adjudication and representation of all countries was performed by specialists in defence, intelligence, foreign and security policy to provide realistic strategies, policies, actions and perceptions by all countries represented.
Key Takeaways
A turn-by-turn report on how the game developed can be found in the pdf attached to the end of article. Key takeaways from the wargame were:
The US fully exiting NATO is not realistic given the National Defense Authorization Act for the fiscal year 2024 is in place – The legislation states “The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur or pursuant to an Act of Congress.” Achieving this in the senate was considered highly unlikely by participants.
Despite Trump taking tangible steps to reduce the US commitment to defending Europe, Russia’s demands in Ukraine prevent it from realistically attacking a NATO Member.
If the US reduces its role in European security, it will likely damage investors’ sentiment throughout the continent, especially in Eastern Europe, thus damaging these state’s economies.
A US reduction in support to Ukraine makes the task of resisting Russia almost unfeasible, given Europe’s inability to adequately support Ukraine with what it needs.
A US policy of frustrating NATO has the potential to cause the alliance to collapse, with EU as a candidate for eventually replacing NATO’s ultimate function – defending Europe from Russia.
Trump’s proposed policies of punishment towards NATO will likely force Allies to spend more.
Nineveh was first designed by Julliette and Harrison for my conflict simulation course. Neither had designed a wargame before. I don’t think Juliette had ever played one before either, but she was writing her Honours thesis on Iraqi security force operations against Daesh. Harrison had played some wargames and was interested in urban warfare. While Brian Train and I later came on board later to help them develop a solo module and refine the project for eventual publishing, the game design is very much theirs: the movement and combat systems, the capability and event card system, and the victory metrics.
The winner of each Charles Adams Award is decided by public ballot, which is now open at https://forms.gle/SCPjWvDp7abnc9Ty5. Voting closes at midnight (ET) on May 13. There are lots of great games to vote for in many categories.
Comments Off on Assises Françaises d’Étude du Wargaming (29-30 April)
Posted by Rex Brynen on 08/04/2024
Institut d’études de stratégie et de défense (IESD) will be holding the first ever Assises Françaises d’Étude du Wargaming (AFEW) on 29-30 April 2024, at the University Jean Moulin Lyon 3.
Le regain d’intérêt pour l’objet et sa méthode est majeur en France : l’objectif de cette rencontre est de lancer une dynamique de réflexion collective sur le wargaming, afin de poser les bases collaboratives d’un réseau d’échanges, et favoriser la connaissance des travaux de chacun des acteurs de cette sphère de réflexion, de connaissance et d’action.L’événement est construit sur la base d’une structure double :
Avec des sessions de conférences permettant d’aborder tour à tour l’objet du wargaming, via sa méthodologie, ses processus de création, ses acteurs structurants (quel lien entre concepteurs et end-users, militaires et civils ?) ainsi que ses usages diversifiés, en mettant l’ensemble de ces enjeux en perspective de manière historique et critique.
Les fin d’après-midis seront pour leurs parts consacrées à la pratique, au travers de la présentation de wargames professionnels par leurs créateurs, l’occasion d’échanger sur les objectifs, processus de création et cadres d’emploi.
Full details and a registration link can be found here.
On X, LCOL Cole Petersen adds some additional detail on how it is working out (read the full thread).
Bn officers conducted urban ops planning and wargame PD today using a system (QUICK) designed by Brian Train and adapted for the Bn/Bde level. We had five games going at once so everyone was involved. 1/6https://t.co/YCgTKOWsZQ
PAXsims 