PAXsims

Conflict simulation, peacebuilding, and development

Simulation NATO Trilemma: Strategic Direction South

ss-750x390.jpg

The NATO Civil-Military Center of Excellence has issued a report, written by Natalia Wojtowicz, on their NATO Trilemma: Strategic Direction South (SDS) simulation.

TIME The starting point of the simulation was year 2018. The simulation proceeds in turns. Average duration of 4-players iteration is approximately 60 minutes.

SPACE The board represented the SDS/MENA region and the risk level of particular area. There are three categories (see picture below), marked as high risk (RED), medium risk (YELLOW) and low risk (GREEN). This distinction also dictates possible actions of the participants.

PARTICIPANTS This simulation is designed for 2-4 players. The participants have to assume the role of a decision-maker in the region. They will choose between possible actions and try to balance the strategy in three aspects: security, development and population.

MODEL A successful strategy requires a balance between security, development and population. This means, that all actions affect the three elements, providing the view on effects in military, civilian and local perspective.

The general goal is to improve security and development in the region while simultaneously achieving the acceptance of the local population. This goal is supported by resources available to the participants and action which can be undertaken by paying the indicated price.

MAIN FACTORS Improvements are tracked by a scale, ranging from 0 to 10. All participants are starting the simulation at point 0 and can move up the scales. Population is a special scale, which affects the effects of the actions. If the population is not accepting the player, the action remains without effect. In case of neutral attitude, the effect is normal. If the player manages to become recognized as friendly to the population, the effects of improvement are doubled.

WINNING The winning player has to achieve 15 points on two scales in any combination – for example 10 security and 5 infrastructure.

RESOURCES To play an action card, participants have three resources to use: funding (money), personnel and supplies. Those are the costs of possible actions and improvements. To receive more resources, participants have to come back to the Headquarters.

You can read the full report here (pdf). There is also an overview available on the CCOE website.

hg.jpg

Save the dates: CONNECTIONS NORTH 2019 (and McGill Megagame)

CONNECTIONS NORTH

PAXsims is pleased to announce the dates for the 2019 CONNECTIONS NORTH professional wargaming conference, as well as the 2019 McGill Megagame.

CONNECTIONS NORTH: Saturday, 16 February 2019

McGill Megagame: Sunday, 17 February 2019

Both events will be held at McGill University, in Montréal.

A call for papers for CONNECTIONS NORTH will be issued closer to the date, and registration information will be posted here in the fall.

The megagame will be APOCALYPSE NORTH, an game of emergency response, national survival, and federal-provincial politics during a zombie armageddon. (We are also referring to it as Bon Zombi/Bad Zombie, for the Canadian cinephiles amongst you). In keeping with post-G7 world, Canada will face undead threat from across its southern border. While the scenario will be very fictional (we hope), the emergency management/aid to civil powers elements of the game will be realistic—and challenging.

Wargaming and wartime tactical training in the Royal Canadian Navy

176_original.jpg

Lieutenant Carol Hendry (kneeling at right) and WRCNS colleagues plotting positions during a tactical wargame, 1944. Royal Canadian Navy

We at PAXsims have been enthusiastically following the work that Paul Strong and Sally Davis have been doing at the UK Defence Science and Technology Laboratory in uncovering the story of the Western Approaches Tactical Unit—one of the most outstanding examples of wargaming for training and analytical purposes during World War Two.

Now Sally has come up with something else equally interesting: the existence of a similar tactical training unit in the Royal Canadian Navy. The story comes from Carol Duffus (née Hendry), a former officer in the Women’s Royal Canadian Naval Service (WRCNS), via The Memory Project:

My name is Carol Duffus, formerly Hendry. I was born in Toronto, September 25th, 1918. I did finally get called up in March of 1943. So, I stayed in until September 1945. Then I served as a WREN. We were called WRENS. The British women in the navy were called WRENS too and we took that name on only we called ourselves WRENs with a C, WRCNS, Women’s Royal Canadian Naval Service. And we were associated with the navy. In Britain, it wasn’t so, they were a separate unit.

And then after a while, a position came free in the training office, a staff officer training was leaving, and so I took over at the staff officer training. And turned into the person who arranged training for the crews of any of the ships that came in, escort ships, when they needed training and tactical work or action stations or signaling or gunnery. I assigned the training in that job to, to anyone who needed it. So that was kind of interesting too. It was a good job.

The tactical table was to teach the tactics to the escort vessels when they were taking a convoy across the Atlantic. And it was six of the WREN officers took over a on a, well the tactical table wasn’t really a table, it was more like a, sort of a gym floor. Only, it had a wall all the way around it, about a little bit above a waist level. And the WRENS, who were taking over, whenever the escorts went out, there were six taking a convoy across. So we had representatives from six escort vessels there on, on the other side of a wall, they couldn’t see us, but we could look over at them. So each of us was assigned a ship. And each ship in this escort group would send their captain and their navigating officer and the signals man up. And they would sit on the other side of the wall, they couldn’t see what we were doing up on the table. And each of us was assigned a ship so they would give us the instructions that that ship would take, in so many periods of time. It was a tactical game that was, given to the escorts, in this case, a game, a tactical game where they were taking a convoy across. There would be one at the head of the convoy and one at the stern. And then there would be one stationed on each quarter of the convoy. And they were to protect the convoy from submarine attacks.

So it was a game played, it was sort of set and they would give them situations and it was all plotted out on the table by, by the WRENS who were doing the plotting on the table. It was all marked off in sections and we would chalk everything down as they’d tell us. Each of us would have one ship. They would instruct us what that ship was to do and we would plot it on the table, which was really the floor. We were down on our hands and knees for that.

And so they would play the game as situations arose, in this imaginary game that would happen. Perhaps it would be announced that there was a submarine sighted somewhere or someone had seen a, a ship blow up, so they knew a submarine had done that. These were all just cases that might happen, that was the game.

So we were, we were given these little chits every two minutes or so from our ship, each one of us had their ship and we would plot it on this tactical table. And this would go on for perhaps an hour, maybe two, as the situation arose and the uh, training commander would be there giving the instructions.

So at the end of the game, all the people who were doing the plotting, the captains and so on, came up on the table and they would see what they had done. And the training commander, who would review the whole situation, would see what had been done over the whole period of time by us plotting their instructions to us, as they would say, I’m going, you know, a certain degree for so, for so long and we would plot that.

So it was all laid down in chalk and when the game was over, everybody would come up on the table and then the whole thing would be criticized by the training commander. He would say to each of them, now, in this case, perhaps it would have been better if you had done this or that and so on. So it was very, it was a good educational tool and tactics, and they learned a lot that way I think.

And you often hear about women looking, being looked down on because they were women, doing a certain job. But I never, never, never felt that, ever. I was treated with tremendous respect and, and knowledge of what I was doing. And so you know, I, I think that was probably why I advanced to the staff officer training because I was respected and that I knew what I was doing and why I was there. So it was, it was fine. I had no problem at all being a woman.

An awful lot of people don’t know what the women did in the services during the war. And I think they should have a little more publicity because if it weren’t for what they did, a lot of things would not have been done. So I felt that I was able to do something useful. That was good and I think there are an awful lot of other women too who did useful things and they would never probably be recognized for what they did. I’d like to have people know that they did serve, they were very important.

You can hear the audio of the interview at the link above. Carol passed away on May 5, 2012

177_original.jpg

Lieutenant Carol Hendry (standing) during a tactical game, 1944. Slacks were only worn on the job due to the the amount of time spent on the floor. Royal Canadian Navy

Clade X pandemic simulation

Twilley-PandemicSimulation-CladeX.jpg

In The New Yorker, Nicola Twilley reports on a pandemic simulation conducted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security last month:

I was in the ballroom of the Mandarin Oriental in Washington, D.C., when the worst pandemic since the 1918 Spanish flu broke out. On cable news, there were reports of four hundred confirmed cases, mostly clustered in Frankfurt, Germany, but with infected individuals reported as far afield as Tokyo, Kabul, and Caracas. Brow furrowed, eyes widened, the anchorwoman’s tone was urgent as she described the spread of a new type of parainfluenza virus, called Clade X. Transmitted through inhalation, it left the infected contagious but otherwise unaffected for up to week before killing more than ten per cent of its victims.

In the ballroom with me, seated around a U-shaped table under glittering chandeliers, were ten senior political figures, an ad-hoc working group convened at the President’s request. The situation looked bad. At Ramstein Air Base, in southwest Germany, three U.S. service members were critically ill, and three infected Venezuelans warned that the outbreak there was much worse than authorities were admitting. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a vaccine would likely take more than a year to develop. Meanwhile, Australia, China, and South Africa had already imposed travel restrictions on flights from Germany and Venezuela. A bipartisan group of senators was calling for a similar travel ban; a recent poll had suggested that sixty-five per cent of the public supported them. “What should our priorities be?” the national-security adviser asked.

Clade X turned out to be an engineered bioweapon, combining the virulence of Nipah virus with parainfluenza’s ease of transmission. It had been intentionally released by A Brighter Dawn, a fictitious group modelled on the Japanese doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo, which carried out the sarin-gas attacks in the Tokyo subway system, in 1995. A Brighter Dawn’s stated goal was to reduce the world’s population to pre-industrial levels. By the end of the day, which represented twenty months in the simulation, they had managed to kill a perfectly respectable hundred and fifty million people….

Her account of the simulation highlights the way in which technocratic responses to the pandemic threat ran headlong into popular attitudes, social media rumours, and misconceptions, and the resulting politics of it all. She also notes some of the complications created by unclear lines of responsibility and leadership, a federal political system, and—in the US case—a private healthcare system that may emphasize profit margin over collective response to a major national and international health emergency. Finally, the simulation pointed to planning and preparations that could be undertaken now to lessen the impact of such an event in the future, were it ever to occur.

A much fuller account of the scenario is available at the John Hopkins School of Public Health’s Global Health Now website.

You can find additional reports on the Clade X simulation here too:

h/t Brian Philips

 

Review: World Politics Simulations in a Global Information Age

Hemda Ben-Yehuda, Luba Levin-Banchik, Channan Naveh, World Politics Simulations in a Global Information Age (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2015). 181pp + index. USD$45.95.

9780472052769.jpgThis book discusses the value of simulations in the teaching of international relations, and then offers guidance on how to run them. In Part 1, the focus is on pedagogical value of simulation, the various types of simulations available, and the factors to be considered in designing or selecting one. Part 2 focuses on running a simulation: how to prepare students, preparation of briefing materials, and processes and procedures that might be used. Part 3 looks at student feedback and instructor debriefing, as well as course assessment. In Part 4 the book turns its attention to “the future of world politics simulation.”

The book is very much built around the authors’ preferred type of simulation, a hybrid approach combining both face-to-face and digital interaction, the latter conducted via Facebook, email, or similar means. This is indeed a powerful approach, and one that I’ve been using for two decades in the annual Brynania peacebuilding simulation at McGill University, as well as in some serious policy simulations. It has much to recommend it.

Since the focus of World Politics Simulations in a Global Information Age is on negotiation simulations and international conflict, it invites comparisons with Natasha Gill’s Inside the Box: Using Integrative Simulations to Teach Conflict, Negotiation and Mediation, which was also published in 2015 and was previously reviewed at PAXsims.  It might also be compared with Mark Carnes’ Minds on Fire: How Role-Immersion Games Transform College (2014).

Ben-Yehuda and her colleagues makes much more effort to relate simulation use to the teaching of international relations than either of the other two (although, in fairness, Carnes’ book is really about using role-play simulations in the teaching of history and the humanities). World Politics Simulations is, however, often a rather more laborious read than the other two, lacking the lively style of Carnes in particular. Gill also does a better job at addressing some of the issues that arise in a simulation, and different methods for handling them. All three volumes are very much describing on their own preferred model, and do not fully address other approaches, materials, software, and resources. Finally, the Gill volume is by far the cheapest of the three, since it is available as a free download.

Overall, this is a welcome contribution to the growing literature on the use of simulations in the political science classroom.

Gaming for Peace conference (Dublin, January 2019)

GAP.jpg

A Gaming for Peace conference will be held at Trinity College, Dublin on 10-11 January 2019.

Project background

GAP is an EU H2020 funded project which is developing a curriculum of soft skills derived from interviews with experienced military, police and civilian peacekeeping personnel, and the state of the art in peacekeeping relevant soft skills and serious games.  GAP is embedding a selection of peacekeeping relevant soft skills in a digital role-playing game with in-game assessment. The key soft skills are: gender awareness, cultural competency, communication, cooperation, decision-making and stress management.  In-game assessment is reported in individual ‘skills passports’ for players, and the learning metrics have been standardized against international benchmarks. The GAP module (curriculum and game) provides an inexpensive, accessible to all, standardized training in soft skills for peacekeeping and is at the cutting edge of State of the Art in the domains of training for peacekeeping,curriculum development, soft skills, assessment, game design and soft skills standardization.

Call for papers

We invite academic/research/policy papers from researchers from academic institutions, international organizations, training institutes for militaries, police and civilian humanitarian workers, policy institutes, and game designers, in each of the domains and at the intersection of these domains to participate in a conference that is designed to bring together key thinkers from all these domains to share relevant research, network and brainstorm for future innovative collaboration such as GAP.

Key topics:

  • training for peacekeeping
  • curriculum development
  • soft skills
  • assessment
  • serious games design
  • soft skills standardisation
  • training for military, police, NGOs
  • peace education

Abstract submission(400 words):  by July 31st 2018 to [GamingforPeace@tcd.ie]

Notification of accepted authors: September 1st, 2018.

September 30th: Full programme available.
November 30th: Close of registration. Please register at: [link not yet available]

2019: A selection of presentations at the conference will be invited to submit full papers for publication in an edited book volume after the conference.

The conference will also host demonstrations of the GAP game, and special events to bring together key personnel in this area.

GAP-pic.png

Connections UK conference registration now open

connectionsuk

The Connections UK 2018 conference for wargaming professionals will be held at King’s College London on Tuesday 4 – Thursday 6 September.

Registration is open. Go to the KCL eStore website and register now! Registration closes on Friday 24 August.

Purpose. The purpose of Connections UK is to advance and sustain the art, science and application of wargaming. We help to achieve this by bringing the wargaming community together to share best practice and network. Responding to your feedback, this year we will go into greater depth than previously, with more “how to” rather than “we did this…”

Duration. The conference will last three days. Tuesday 4 September will feature a concurrent megagame and a day-long Introduction to Wargaming Course for newcomers. This is an ‘either/or’ choice, although you simply sign up for Day 1 when you register. The main conference is on Wednesday 5 and Thursday 6 September. You can pay separately for Day 1 and Days 2 & 3—see below.

Programme. The latest programme is available on the Connections UK web site at http://professionalwargaming.co.uk/  Events and plenary topics include:

  • Key note address by Volko Ruhnke: Wargames and systems thinking.
  • Megagame.
  • Introduction to Wargaming Course.
  • Wargame design plenary:
    • Dilemmas and trade-offs in wargame design.
    • Game design as a form of journalism.
    • Working within design constraints.
  • Wargame development plenary:
    • Developing the KCL Crisis Simulation.
    • Developing an Arctic High North nested games family.
    • Model calibration.
  • Wargame execution plenary:
    • Play as pedagogy.
    • Business wargaming case study: ‘Cheese, butter & milk powder.’
    • Empowering Defense wargaming through automation.
  • Wargaming validation plenary:
    • Selecting, playing and assessing a COTS wargame (A Distant Plain).
    • Wargaming and reality: a case study of the Ukraine conflict 2014 – present.
  • Wargame refinement plenary:
    • Creating and sharing best practice.
    • Lessons learned from recent MOD wargames.
  • Analysis plenary:
    • US/DoD analysis: best and worst practice.
    • Designing analytical wargames with a view to successful data capture, management and analysis.
    • In the eye of the beholder? Cognitive challenges in wargame analysis.
    • SPECULAR STRIKE experimentation analysis.
  • Games fair: two sessions, as usual.
  • Facilitation workshop: a hands-on breakout session.
  • Automation tools: stands and demonstrations.

Cost. Costs are unchanged from last year (and the year before!). Connections UK is non-profit; it is a service to the wargaming community. Charges are as small as possible, sufficient to cover food, venue hire and whatever minimal administration is required. All food and refreshments are included. The Introduction to Wargaming/megagame day has been costed separately from the main conference days:

  • Introduction to Wargaming/megagame: £60.
  • Main Days: £135.

Location. The location will be Kings College London Strand Campus. Directions are on the KCL eStore web site at the ‘Location’ tab.

Accommodation. Finding accommodation is an individual’s responsibility, but there are two Connections UK-specific deals to be aware of. The Strand Palace offers reduced rates for Connections UK delegates (£150 per night depending on room type), and KCL has cheap and cheerful student accommodation available (£59 per night). Details and links are on the KCL eStore web site at the “More Info” tab, and don’t forget to quote “King’s College London” when booking.

Points of contact and further information. Consult the Connections UK website http://www.professionalwargaming.co.uk/ for programme updates and contents of former conferences (it is a wonderful resource). Please send general questions to graham@lbsconsultancy.co.uk and detailed queries concerning registration or administration to Bisi Olulode at olabisi.olulode@kcl.ac.uk

Privacy. As a non-profit, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) does not affect us that much. There is a privacy statement on the home page of the Connections UK website.

17-P1000898.jpg17-P1000427.jpg

 

Matrix games for student learning at the US Army War College

The following article was contributed to PAXsims by Lieutenant Colonel Joe Chretien and Major Abe Goepfert of the Strategic Simulations Division (SSD), Center for Strategic Leadership, US Army War College. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US Government.


 

Matrix Games at the US Army War College

At the US Army War College (USAWC), the use of matrix games falls into three categories. The first category is lesson reinforcement.  In this category, the goal is to reinforce the key concepts of historical, current, or future potential conflicts.  As an example, the USAWC resident course ran four simultaneous games for the European Region Study Program (RSP) to explore a future Baltic scenario based on a NATO isolation of Kaliningrad.

USAWC1.png

Figure 1: DDE SCS poster.

The second category is games for familiarization.  Familiarization can include a region, actor, situation, or problem.  A great example of a familiarization game was conducted at the University of Richmond in April 2017.  The USAWC Strategic Simulations Division (SSD) ran a Syrian-based matrix game where five teams split into multiple factions. In the University of Richmond game, there were only four teams.  However, each team consisted of multiple nations, organizations, or factions (15 individual team entities).  Each student (15) received a role on a team and had to create their own narratives for their individual piece of the team.  The narrative had to include a summary of who they were, who they aligned with, who they could not align with, and their goals and objectives. Interestingly, one of the teams disassociated itself from one of its own factions (represented by a student) as a show of faith to one of the major powers in the area.

The last category of a USAWC matrix game is a capstone, or course-culminating, event.  The culminating matrix game takes the USAWC year-long program of study and uses a matrix-type game to evaluate the progress of each individual student.  This article will focus on the culminating game conducted for the Department of Distant Education (DDE), second-year resident course (SRC) Course in July 2017 (Figure 1, DDE SCS poster).

The Start of Something Big

A matrix game is a low-overhead (low cost/easy setup), facilitated, multi-player, role-playing game. Games are argument-based. Players weigh arguments and counter-arguments then propose an action. Success or failure of that action depends, primarily, on the strength of a player’s argument. The use of dice in the game introduces the elements of risk.

The material, time, and personnel required to run a matrix game is relatively low compared to a large, constructive simulation exercise. Matrix Games only require a written scenario with analog map and counters for execution. Play requires a facilitator, a subject matter expert, and 4-6 players or 4-6 teamsof players.  A play session typically lasts 2-3 hours, but playing time can be tailored to meet learning outcomes (LO).

Matrix-type games are easy to learn and quick to play. Of particular value to faculty, matrix-type games can be played without constraints and with an open-ended format.  Some constraints could include a scripted non-thinking opposition, limited actions for teams, or even preordained results.  An open-ended format allows players to explore any action if it can be tied to team objectives or goals.  It also allows the gameplay to dictate the scenario as it moves forward. Through two years of using the matrix model for experiential learning, SSD staff have observed that participants are always fully engaged and retain more information than through regular seminar-based instruction. The matrix game format forces participants to articulate actions or arguments orally while also having to make decisions more quickly than normal.

It was because of their proven value as an experiential learning tool that, in October of 2016, faculty from the (DDE), U.S. Army War College approached members of the college’s Strategic Simulation Division (SSD), with the idea of using a matrix game as a culminating exercise for the DDE second-year resident course (SRC), Class of 2017. The SRC consisted of 23 seminars comprised of over 250 senior US military officers, Department of Defense Civilians, and international military officers that spent two weeks of residency at Carlisle, PA prior to graduation.  The DDE faculty were looking for a capstone exercise that tied in all the lessons learned and had the students demonstrate knowledge of the elements of national power, synthesize information, and develop and deliver compelling oral arguments.  A matrix game is the perfect tool, and SSD took on the task of developing and delivering that learning event.

The Greatest Number of Matrix Games Played, at One Location, in a Single Day

The initial discussion, more of a “back of a napkin” analysis of requirements, included three initial courses of action (COA) for the exercise.  The three COAs were:

  1. Mega Game – One large matrix game that includes all 23 seminars in the same game.
  2. Discreet Game (A) – 23 seminars playing their own individual games on the same day.
  3. Discreet Game (B) – 12 seminars playing on day 1; the remaining 11 seminars playing on day 2.

A brief description and analysis of the COAs follow:

  • COA 1: The least resource intensive and the COA that provides the least amount of individual student interaction. Each student would be assigned a role within a select team (i.e. a student on the Chinese team could be assigned as the economic advisor) and would only provide arguments if the action required an argument from that specific role.  The danger in games this large is that some of the participants provide no input to the game.  As a result, those students would not have had the same learning experience as others and could receive a poor evaluation.
  • COA 2: The most resource intensive; would require twenty-three (23) facilitators in separate rooms, as well as twenty-three (23) copies of the game. During concept development and initial planning, SSD had two trained Matrix Game facilitators and DDE had none.  In retrospect, DDE would not be able to provide any facilitators for the game anyway because the faculty would be observing the student interactions. However, this COA had the potential to provide each seminar a discreet game that would keep the teams to 2-3 players each.  Therefore, each student could participate actively in the game while being monitored by their faculty instructor (FI).
  • COA 3: Moderately resource intensive and would require only twelve (12) facilitators and rooms, as well as twelve (12) copies of the game.For CSL, this was more advantageous because of limited resources available for the game.

DDE faculty selected COA 2 because they did not have the scheduling flexibility to break the exercise into two days.  To alleviate some resource concerns, Root Hall, the main academic building at Carlisle Barracks, opened 11 seminar rooms for the execution portion of the exercise.

Wargame Development

SSD’s formal role was to develop and execute a South China Sea (SCS) Wargame during the Second Resident Course (SRC) 21 July 2017 as a capstone event for the two-year Distance Education Program (DEP). The wargame’s purpose was to exercise and assess the students’ ability to take a strategic approach to solving complex problems in a South China Sea setting.  The standards were that the students use the South China Sea Matrix Game to articulate oral arguments for furthering the goals and objectives of their assigned country team. The students would also have to demonstrate knowledge and synthesize elements of national power and operational design learned during their 2-years of instruction. Finally, during this game, students would practice creative and critical thinking while demonstrating negotiation skills at the strategic level in accordance with national interests and goals.

Army simulations officers are trained to tease out requirements before concluding how a “game” should look and feel. Form will follow function – meaning that game design is based on desired learning outcomes.   The game, theoretically, will provide the tool for the faculty to evaluate the learning based on the LOs.

For the purposes of the SRC culminating exercise, three primary and one secondary LO were identified.  The first primary LO was to apply strategic and operational art to develop strategies and plans that employ the military instrument of power in pursuit of national policy aims.  The second primary LO was to think critically and creatively in addressing national security issues at the strategic level.  The last primary LO was to communicate clearly, persuasively, and candidly.  The secondary LO was to demonstrate as a proof of concept the viability for future DDE use of this wargame method. With the COA chosen and LOs well defined, SSD officially accepted the request and began formal planning.

Planning the Event

In the US Army, during a normal planning process, lead agencies/ organizations follow a standardized Joint Exercise Life Cycle (JELC) per TRADOC Regulation 71-20, Concept Development, Capabilities Determination, and Capabilities Integration that outlines an in-depth timeline that begins 180 days prior to the execution of a required event (Figure 2, DDE SCS JELC). For this event, SSD had the entire 180 days to conduct planning and coordination that included hosting multiple conferences, meeting critical milestones, conducting planning-team deep-dives with the DDE operations team, setting up the venue, conducting rehearsals, and executing the event. In this particular planning cycle, SSD conducted three planning conferences with their DDE counterparts and CSL support personnel, Additionally, multiple progress meetings were conducted with the U.S. Army War College Commandant, Deputy Commandant, and the director of CSL.

USAWC3.png

Figure 2: DDE SCS JELC.

As with every planned event, there were critical milestones that enabled the planning to move forward.  The first milestone was to produce a South China Sea Matrix game that was capable of meeting each of the three primary learning outcomes.  The six main parts of a Matrix game are the scenario, teams, team narratives, map, special rules, and game pieces.   Slightly ahead of schedule, all elements of the matrix game were agreed upon and a copy of the game was created and used for playtesting.  The initial playtest, internal to SSD and DDE, met all three LOs and validated the matrix game as the proper tool.  The playtest also led to some minor changes to the scenario, map, gameplay, and counters. More playtesting was conducted, particularly with Harrisburg University and the National Defense University (NDU).

The second milestone was to train, at a minimum, twenty-three facilitators.  The facilitator training took place over two months at various locations.  The first training session was conducted at Harrisburg University (HU).  SSD trained three facilitators at the Harrisburg University main campus. Two of those three served as official facilitators during the wargame.  This training also served as a playtest event. All the game’s final changes resulted from finally playing the game with a mix of faculty (HU), students (HU), and trained facilitators (SSD).

The training at NDU provided the opportunity for wargame experts to play and to train on the game. Of the more than ten NDU players in the game, six trained as facilitators and subsequently supported the DDE event.

The final training session took place at the Army War College three days before the event. SSD set up a round robin training program and successfully trained sixteen more facilitators.  In total, SSD trained over 25 facilitators for the event to allow for the eventuality of someone not being able to participate on game day (which happened).

USAWC2.png

Figure 3: DDE SCS map.

The third milestone was to create “How to Play Matrix Games” videos.  This task included writing scripts, getting actors (SSD interns), coordinating with the AWC audiovisual team, reserving a room, filming the videos, and providing assistance for the editing of the videos.  This task had to be completed in time for the DDE Class of 2017 to watch the videos before execution of the wargame.  The videos were completed ahead of schedule and were used for two other SSD supported events.

The fourth, and last, milestone was to build twenty-three South China Sea Matrix games.  This was very labor-intensive and took a full week to complete.  Without the help of four interns, this milestone could have required much more time from the SSD team and could have thrown the timeline off.  Each South China Sea matrix game consisted of the following:

  1. Large 35’x45’ map of the South China Sea (Figure 3, DDE SCS Map).
  2. Team folders (five player teams and a control team) that included scenario, individualized team narratives, matrix “how to” sheets, and mini-maps.
  3. Counters: Each packet included “chits” or “counters” that represented a national element of power (Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic).  The players used the counters to mark spots on the map where an action took place.
  4. Supplies:  Each team received a pen, note pad, and post it notes pads to capture notes, to plan actions, and to communicate with other teams.
  5. Other items:Each player received a country-team name tag to provide visual delineation of team composition.  Each facilitator and SME had nametags to differentiate themselves from the students.  Additionally, SSD created seminar tags that hung on individual game doors, Collins Hall and Root Hall room diagram posters, and agenda posters.

 

Rehearsal, Training, and Cross-coordinated Wargame Events 

The key to successful execution is nearly always dependent on the work put in prior to execution.  The week prior to execution was packed with walkthroughs, rehearsals, facilitation training, and wargame support for DDE SRC electives. Two SRC electives used board games/ Matrix games as the main tool to execute their lesson plans.  One of the electives used a South China Sea board game where students role-played one of six teams to meet goals or objectives based on a set scenario.  While this game did not have the same mechanics of a matrix game, it did introduce the students to the South China Sea region and forced them into negotiations. The second senior seminar used a matrix game and an SSD developed Kaliningrad scenario.

USAWC4.png

Figure 4: Panel Discussion>

In addition to the above events, CSL sponsored a wargame panel featuring four highly experienced wargame professionals who discussed “innovative ways to include wargames in the classroom.”  At the end of the wargame panel, the experts led participants through some wargames currently used at their institutions. (Figure 4, Panel Discussion).

Conclusion

A matrix-type game is not a suitable tool to meet all learning outcomes.  Matrix game observations and outputs are qualitative versus quantitative, and that makes it hard to gauge results.  Matrix games are also highly dependent on the skill of the facilitator for success. It is not the tool, rather matrix-type games are tool for faculty to use to meet learning outcomes.

From a planning and execution standpoint, this event was very successful. At the end of the wargame, over 300 students had received more than six-hours of hands-on experiential training and evaluation.  The planning conducted between SSD and DDE was very detailed, but leadership was not swamped with minutia.  Wargame sponsors do not always provide enough time to plan for the event. DDE, however, came to SSD with enough lead time so that the full JELC timeline was available to plan, to prepare, and to execute the event. Additionally, AWC, CSL, and DDE fully supported the event and provided resources to ensure its success.  This included the funding of facilitators and subject matter experts from outside organization.  Of course, every wargame or large event has areas that are very successful and areas that need refinement.  As successful as this game was, lessons were learned and have been applied to games used in resident courses at the Army War College.

Lieutenant Colonel Joe Chretien
Major Abe Goepfert

 

Simulation and gaming miscellany, 27 May 2018

wordle280518.png

PAXsims is pleased to offer some recent items on conflict simulation and serious (and not-so-serious) games that may be of interest to our readers.

Know of anything we might include? Pass it on!

PAXsims

viking-ar-farg-570x358.png

The Viking 18 peacekeeping exercise took place on 16-26 April 2018 at sites in Brazil, Bulgaria, Finland, Ireland, Serbia and Sweden. Organized annually by the Swedish Armed Forces and the Folke Bernadotte Academy, this year it included 2,500 participants from 50 countries and 35 organizations.

The exercise blog can be found here. In addition, there is a report on the Brazilian part of the exercise at Dialogo. The scenario is presented in the video above.

viking18.png

PAXsims

940.gif

The War Room at the US Army War College features an article by Brad Hardy on “The Art of Gaming, Strategic Edition,” in which he talks about use of the board game  Diplomacy in the Basic Strategic Arts Program.

To teach negotiation skills, the BSAP faculty looked for a teaching tool which went beyond the well-worn methods of assigned readings and briefings, and toward a more hands-on instructional approach. It found a solution in Diplomacy, a board game.

BSAP uses Diplomacy in two phases over the first half of the course. The first phase takes a methodical approach to introducing the game’s mechanics. Although Diplomacy enjoys a decades-long history, it is unfamiliar to most BSAP students – few know the rules and fewer still are active players. Fortunately, the rules are simple and the game is easy to learn. Following a turn-a-week familiarization, students take on a full day exercise in the second phase of the course.

BSAP will continue to use Diplomacy in the course curriculum, as a practical application of strategic concepts being studied. Future classes may see a more contemporary game map aligned to one (or all) of the competitive regions named in the 2018 National Defense Strategy, such as the Indo-Pacific region, Europe, or the Middle East. Other iterations may seek to employ an economic component too, as an element of national power.

Regardless of any future modifications to the program, its persistent theme is that gaming is a useful method for educating Army strategists, and also possibly an even broader audience. Other Army schools, such as the Command and General Staff College, have already started to use simple gaming in their instruction. Diplomacy’s open-endedness and minimal rule sets offer enough flexibility for it to serve as a tool in any number of curricula across the military’s mid-grade staff and senior service colleges. With a bit of imagination and an emphasis on realistic objectives, playing at strategy could very well help military planners win at wars.

Previously at PAXsims, David Romano has also pointed to the teaching value of Diplomacy and other board games. One concern I have always had, however, concerns the hyper-realist and very transactional nature of such games, which tend to both mischaracterize alliance behaviour as highly fluid, and overstate war as an instrument of contemporary foreign policy.

PAXsims

PS.png

The latest issue of PS: Political Science & Politics 51, 2 (April 2018)contains two article on simulations—one by Dick Carpenter and Joshua Dunn on simulating the effects of campaign finance laws in the classroom, and a second by Elizabeth Mendenhall and Tarek Tutunji on “Teaching Critical Understandings of Realism through Historical War Simulations.” Interestingly, this latter piece addresses some of the concerns I raised above regarding the portrayal of realist international theory in games, describing the development and testing of a game design that offers a deeper and potentially more critical perspective.

This article presents a simple modular simulation for teaching the advantages and limitations of Realist theory in an introductory international relations course. The advantages of this simulation include low preparation time, minimal resource requirements, and ease of integration with existing curricula. The game design is built around Kenneth Waltz’s “three-image” framework for analyzing international politics, in a way that increases scenario complexity but not game difficulty. The article describes the full simulation process, from game design and implementation through debriefing and assessment. Two historical simulations were conducted: the first helped students to understand Realism and the second helped them to see its limitations. The article concludes with a discussion of the results of a voluntary, anonymous postgame survey that is intended to assess achievement of our learning objective.

PAXsims

At the Active Learning in Political Science blog, Amanda Rosen discusses Model Diplomacy, a series of US National Security Council simulations put out by the Council on Foreign Relations.

Each case includes a primer on the NSC, an extensive briefing on the case itself (the history and context, as well as a specific crisis scenario for the NSC to resolve), and additional videos and reading for follow-up research. Optional assessments are built into the system with rubrics, templates, and examples. These include short answer quizzes on the NSC and case primers, and position memos and policy review memos (the president turns in a presidential directive instead of a memo). There are also student and instructor manuals, a quick start guide, a guide for the supplementary UNSC simulation, and an overview of the NSC roles. These resources are very helpful in helping you and the students prepare for the simulation.

You can assign students specific roles in the NSC or leave them all as ‘general advisors’.  There are only about 14 roles built into the system, but you can customize new ones.  I would recommend assigning roles–they end up learning more about a particular agency and are in some cases forced to represent viewpoints other than their own.  It also ensures that a wide range of considerations–political, economic, diplomatic, legal, etc–are represented during the simulation.

The system is user-friendly.  You sign up as an instructor, pick your case (I let my students vote), and then have the system send email invites the students to register.  Once they do, you can assign them roles, which are then sent automatically to the students. The simulation is designed to be completed in a face-to-face classroom, but would easily work in an online environment either synchronously or asynchronously via message boards or social media.

If you want to learn more about Model Diplomacy, head to their website (linked at the start of the post).  There’s also an entire series of interviews with other instructors that have used the simulation–check out the most recent one with Dr. Craig Albert of Augusta University–that link contains links to the other interviews in the series.

PAXsims

A recent report on a terrorism exercise held late last year in Switzerland has revealed some serious deficiencies:

A simulation of terrorist acts that included a hostage situation at the United Nations, an attack on a railway station and a potential nuclear radioactive leak revealed lack of coordination at the federal government level.

The complex scenario was carried out on November 16 last year to test the response of the federal government, as well as the cantons of Geneva and Bern. The government was confronted with a potential radioactive leak at the Mühleberg nuclear power station in canton Bern, a terrorist attack at the Eaux-Vives station in Geneva causing numerous deaths and injuries, and a hostage situation at the Geneva headquarters of the United Nations.

The report on the reaction of the authorities was released this week and revealed by the Swiss national broadcaster RTS. Results were very mixed, according to the report published by the Federal Chancellery. The report says there was a lack of coordination among all participants, mainly due to the lack of an overall understanding of the situation. Over-reliance on unreliable information and confusion stemming from different versions of events resulted in “ambiguities and uncertainties”. It also took seven hours for the Federal Council’s crisis response group to be set up and to meet, causing significant delays in decision-making.

The report also notes a lack of communication between the federal government and the canton of Geneva, which led to misunderstandings and delays. The document says there were problems of understaffing in some teams and some staff members who did not know what to do in the situation.

The report lists ten recommendations. In particular, it urges the authorities to rethink the organisation of crisis management at federal level and to clarify certain processes and responsibilities. The implementation of these recommendations will be reviewed in 2019 in a new exercise.

PAXsims

x1495316894312.jpg.pagespeed.ic.HKIdho5to3.jpgThe_Defence_of_Duffer's_Drift_cover.jpg

Last year, RAND published Dominating Duffer’s Domain: Lessons for the US Army Information Operations Practitioner.

As you might expect, it is modelled after the classic 1904 book by Major General Sir Ernest Dunlop Swinton, Defence of Duffer’s Drift.PAXsims

Registration is open for the 2018 annual conference of the North American Simulation and Gaming Association, to be held on 16-19 October in Rochester, NY.

image.png

PAXsims

Chris Engle, the inventor of matrix gaming, has put up a new web page of free hobby matrix games. You’ll find it here

Engle.png

PAXsimsIn the “better late than never on PAXsims” category, Tom Mouat has noticed that the November 2016 issue of Cyber Security and Information Systems Information Analysis Center (CSIAC) Journal was devoted to wargaming.

PAXsims

Last but by certainly not least, we’re pleased to announce that three new (volunteer) research associates will be joining PAXsims for the duration of the year: Harrison Brewer, Kia Kouyoumjian, and Juliette Le Ménahèze. All three were members of my conflict simulation seminarlast term at McGill University: Harrison and Juliette worked on a tactical wargame of Iraqi urban operations in Mosul, while Kia was part of the team that designed a game about mass atrocity during the Darfur war in Sudan. You can see their handiwork here.

New Yorker Radio Hour: Rolling the Dice in a Battle with Russia

Radio-Hour-135-War-Games-4x3.jpg

The New Yorker Radio Hour features an excellent 15 minute audio report by Simon Parker on “Rolling the Dice in a Battle with Russia.”  He starts by discussing the Western Approaches Tactical Unit with PAXsim’s very own Tom Mouat (Defence Academy of the UK), and wargaming with David Shlapak (RAND). The report ends up with an account of a matrix game at the Defence Academy exploring contemporary Russian policy.

The complexity of world events can’t be modelled by a flow chart or even the most sophisticated algorithms. Instead, military officers, diplomats, and policy analysts sometimes turn to an old but sophisticated set of tools: war games. Simon Parkin writes for The New Yorker on gaming, and he recently observed officials playing what’s known as a matrix game led by Major Tom Mouat, an expert on war games, at the Defense Academy of the United Kingdom. Parkin describes Mouat’s game as being a cross between Dungeons & Dragons, Risk, and a rap battle. On the day of the game play, Britain had expelled Russian diplomats in retaliation for the poisoning of a former Russian spy on British soil, and the game focussed on trying to predict and contain Putin’s response.

Using MaGCK to evaluate tactical challenges

The following article was written for PAXsims by Paul Strong, Stuart Vagg, Richard Perkins, and Major Tom Mouat. It is published under public release identifier DSTL/PUB108778.


 

Since the release of MaGCK (including the Matrix Game Construction Kit and associated resources)it has been used to support a range of analytical games at the UK’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) and the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, including the evaluation of strategic scenarios, tactical vignettes, and projects looking at thematic challenges.

The strength of  the MaGCK resource pack pack lies in the discussions created by the matrix game process. Unlike other approaches, disagreements during MaGCK games often unlock deeper insights and usually facilitate the overall narrative. On numerous occasions, we found that the process highlighted potential emergent trends far earlier than we would expect when using more conventional approaches. The process is also highly flexible and the associated materials can easily be adapted to fit a wide range of scenarios and challenges. A major selling point was that it only required limited time, resources, and space to design and set up a series of games. In all of the studies where the process was utilised, we have found that the narrative-based exploratory gameplay that MaGCK enables can be used to highlight the sort of contextualised evidence that is sometimes difficult to obtain in a conventional structured wargame or a purely discussion-based event.

slide-3_o.jpg

MaGCK in use at an earlier matrix game design session at Dstl.

Players in a matrix game make decisions as if they are in the roles specified in the scenario. This variant of ‘role-playing’ creates context-relevant dynamic interactions between both allies and adversaries and can be used to explore the wider implications of player decisions. The process rewards players who frame and articulate both arguments and counter-arguments to achieve their objectives (a combination of their proposed action and the intended result) in the context of the role they are playing. These arguments are then used as the basis for an adjudication process based upon the quality of the claims made by the players that contributed to the discussion. The process is a very effective approach for exploring human factors in political and strategic decision-making.

Matrix Game ExampleEDITED.png

Matrix gaming tactical challenges.

The basic matrix game process in a two faction game (each faction including several players) would be as follows: The Overall Mission Narrative sets the conditions for each Narrative Challenge. The Blue player outlines their Intent – i.e. how they will overcome or exploit the situation (outlining the general arguments that support their intent) and the Effect they hope to create. This is considered by the adjudicator and, if not countered by Red, may be approved without further consideration. If the adjudicator believes that these arguments need to be explored further (or Red claims they can be countered) the Matrix approach is used. If this occurs, the Blue Player sets out a number of concise Arguments that show that their approach will achieve the objectives set out in their intent. Red then sets out a number of counter-arguments (both using their own capabilities and by highlighting real-world problems that might emerge) that provide reasons why Blue’s intent will fail. All other attendees are also encouraged to suggest either positive or negative factors, and to note any contextual issues that may influence the outcome.

Blue is then allowed to suggest appropriate mitigations that might counter Red’s arguments. The adjudicator then considers and scores the arguments of both sides – either deciding an outcome immediately or rolling dice (with a bonus for the team that presented a superior argument) to derive a stochastic result. These assumptions are recorded and the narrative continues with the new situation establishing the starting conditions. Once the adjudication is complete, the next challenge in the narrative is described and the wargame continues (the challenges do not alternate between the players – the narrative may require one side to address a series of issues before initiative is passed to the other team).

A multi-faction game (as used in political scenarios) would follow a similar process but the player actions would go ‘around the table’ in a set order (as required by the scenario context).

Unlike a general seminar discussion, both the arguments presented in the earliest turns and the outcomes decided by the adjudicator can and will be exploited by adversaries! The key to the success of the process is the adversarial interaction between the players within the framework of an evolving narrative.

In contrast to a conventional structured wargame (such as “free” kriegsspiel), where there are tables defining probable outcomes for each encounter, the players provide the tactical and technical detail that enables adjudication to proceed. This is a vital factor when the purpose of the game is to elicit insight into a force structure or challenge.

MG1.png

For example:

BLUE INTENTI will order Police Unit A to occupy the bridge

EFFECT OF INTENDED ACTION: A check point will be established that will block movement across the bridge.

BLUE ARGUMENTS (pros):

  1. Police are nearby.
  2. A checkpoint can easily be established and the bridge blocked with vehicles if necessary.
  3. (etc.)

RED ARGUMENTS (cons):

  1. Police unit A is known to be corrupt (smuggling will thrive).
  2. The police are unlikely to stand firm if attacked and the vehicles could be removed in minutes
  3. (etc.)

BLUE MITIGATIONS:

  1. Mentoring team attached to Police Unit A
  2. (etc.)

ADJUDICATION:

  1. Where the arguments (in the context of the scenario) clearly favour one faction, the adjudicator can opt to allow the narrative to continue.
  2. Where there is no clear winner or the advantage is marginal, dice can be rolled to decide the outcome.

Examples of analytical Matrix games at Dstl

Future force concepts

Dstl were asked to evaluate a potential future force concept intended for consideration by the UK military (the Royal Marines Lead Commando Group). The concept used a combination of emerging technologies to facilitate an innovative approach to warfighting across a range of scenarios.

While many force evaluation exercises have tended to select from a menu of technologies and then try to understand how they might be used at the broad scenario level, the approach used for the Lead Commando Group (LCG) tested the current force and an agreed future force against a series of illustrative tactical vignettes (each set within an approved scenario). The narrative of each vignette was designed to stress each force and highlight a series of plausible ‘left and right of arc’ challenges that the LCG might have to overcome.  Some were based upon the current threat while others looked at how potential adversaries might exploit similar technologies and systems.  These Matrix games were run with the intention of fully investigating the potential strengths and weaknesses of each force, as well as establishing a finalised Scheme of Manoeuvre for subsequent combat modelling. This would then allow Dstl to identify insights on which of the future concept’s key capabilities could and should be integrated into the current force.

The narrative only covered the general background and wider operational objectives of the Blue force and their adversaries (conventional and irregular). This enabled the decisions of both Red and Blue to influence the evolving narrative. The pro-argument / counter-argument / adjudication approach enabled the concept to continuously evolve as it faced new challenges. Thus strengthening the concept and identifying areas where more detailed analysis might need to be conducted.

The matrix game approach proved to be a powerful tool for exploring capability. The argument/counter-argument approach rapidly identified issues and opportunities that could be explored by more detailed simulations and the discussion enabled the players to review a number of specific requirements and capabilities that might need to be adapted or developed. We found that two Blue and two Red players, with 2 or 3 neutral (but appropriately qualified) observers, was about the right mix with both sides using the discussion to develop their ideas and consider the wider implications of their chosen force design. The only negative remark about the process is that the players always wanted more time for discussion!

Security case study

Dstl were also asked to review a security-based case study. We were asked to look at the planning challenges for an adversary intending to attack a known strategic target so that an appropriately detailed and plausible narrative could be run through more detailed simulations.

The huge benefit of the matrix game approach is that we could tailor the discussion to key issues and explore a range of options for representing various real-life security counter-measures. For example, the security threat level was assumed to constrain Red’s freedom of manoeuvre but that it could not be sustained for extended periods unless it was localised. Understandably, Red adjusted their strategy to minimise any increase in threat level (and quickly developed a healthy level of paranoia about Blue knowledge and capabilities) so this simple mechanism helped to heighten the realism of the game.

The narrative looked at each phase of Red’s plan, from smuggling in weapons and personnel, establishing a safe-house in the target city to setting the conditions for the final attack. The adjudicator used the arguments and counter-arguments to review each phase and to indicate to the Blue players their perception of the level of threat, and the probable targets they needed to watch or secure. The game process encouraged players to lay the foundations for future success by planning for contingencies and the discussions on how these options might develop enabled us to identify a number of useful indicators and warnings for real-life security scenarios.

Overall Insights

  • The matrix game approach is a powerful tool for eliciting subject matter expert insight on complex questions. The process is fast flowing and highly flexible; enabling the group to highlight emerging issues and exchange views on both scenario specific and general challenges, and to evaluate potential mitigations.
  • “Matrix Game Style Resolution” can easily be inserted into conventional games. Anything that isn’t explicitly covered by clear rules and verified tables can be handled by a matrix game style discussion/argument.
  • We recommend using between five and nine people (including subject matter experts). You need enough players for a wide-ranging discussion to emerge naturally as the narrative unfolds.
  • A decent sized room with a large map is vital. In addition, the importance of providing food and drink should not be underestimated – too many breaks (or discomfort) can undermine immersion and break the flow of information exchange.
  • The best way to learn how to adjudicate a game is to take part in a couple of matrix games and watch how an experienced adjudicator facilitates a narrative. The core challenges are subject matter awareness (expertise is useful but not essential) and the ability to maintain narrative momentum.
  • Players quickly recognise that strong arguments help them achieve objectives and the astute ones also realise they can cunningly lay the foundations for future success.
  • While more effort may be required to provide analytically rigorous quantitative data from a matrix game, it is an efficient and cost-effective process for generating qualitative output which can then be subjected to quantitative analysis. It can also be used to identify the key areas where the next phase of detailed analysis needs to be concentrated.
  • The concepts being tested need to be more than a single technology. We found that the capabilities of a coherent system (including basic tactics, techniques, and procedures) were easier to articulate and evaluate.
  • Each system needs a champion. The advantage of a champion is that they understand the system (often playing a key role in its development) and will thus be keen to explore its potential. We were extremely lucky with our concept champions as they were both enthused about their concepts and keen to debate their merits.
  • The champion needs to be open-minded and happy to hear counter-arguments. While you want someone who is keen to develop and then defend their concept, you don’t want someone who will become defensive or angry.
  • The Adversary (Red) team need to be highly experienced in the area you want to examine. The optimum is to have an established critical thinker (to play the adversary and to introduce plausible reasons for friction) and at least one subject matter expert (to ensure that the challenge of each vignette or mission is both appropriate and realistic).
  • It is best to test your new concept against a current threat first. This ensures that Red fully understands the concept being tested and they are therefore better equipped to develop a plausible version (or counter) for the mission adversary. This approach also enables the concept champion to identify and correct fundamental issues (the kind that would naturally emerge as the concept develops) before the more challenging scenarios are explored.
  • The process requires at least a day to review each vignette as most games will require at least six turns to establish a coherent narrative.

Matrix gaming is a powerful narrative-based analytical approach that we found both useful and engaging/immersive. Tactical challenges are often difficult to quantify in look-up tables and we found that these complex questions can be more fully explored through Matrix game-based discussion and argument in the context of a tailored scenario.

Iranian Ambition matrix game

morestriketargets1205.jpg

From the ever-prolific Tim Price comes yet another matrix game scenario: Iranian Ambition (pdf).

Iranian Ambition.jpgThe ongoing crisis between Israel and Iran escalated when Israeli jets struck dozens of Iranian targets in neighbouring Syria recently. The strikes came after a rocket attack against Israeli forces in the Golan Heights, which the Israeli military said was from Iranian forces. Israel retaliated and destroyed “nearly all” of Iran’s military infrastructure in Syria, according to Israel’s defence minister, Avigdor Lieberman.

It should be noted that much of the Golan Heights are Syrian territory but have been under Israeli military occupation since 1967. The Syrian Government in Damascus also asserts that, as a sovereign country, it has a clear right in international law to host forces from Iran or any other country if it so wishes

The package is  includes basic briefing materials, an introduction to playing matrix games, and a print-and-play map and counters.

Those who wish to develop and play matrix games might also be interested in the Matrix Game Construction Kit (MaGCK), developed by PAXsims with the support of the UK Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl).

 

MaGCK

Gaming Terror: Some thoughts on designing Divided Land

The following piece has been written for PAXsims by Terry Martin.


 

09ps6ozbzucw-ybkxwd7zg.jpgDivided Land is a megagame set in Palestine during 1947, the turbulent last year of the British Mandate, just before the involvement of the United Nations, and the subsequent declaration of the State of Israel and the ensuing conflicts. The game has been played in Sweden and in the UK.

In this article I will examine the original development concept, the thoughts and dynamics of the design process as it developed, and some comments on how the game actually played out in both countries. Finally, I will give some personal conclusions on how it worked and on the implications of gaming a situation which still has a lot of relevance today, and which still arouses passion and partisan emotions.

Background

I have studied Middle East history and politics since my undergraduate days at Oxford and all the games I have written have been set in that part of the world, ranging from the Crusades up to the 1973 war. But 1945 to 1948 has always had a special fascination for me. It was a period that profoundly affected the world as we know it today. It saw the birth of the modern states of Israel and the beginning of what we see today as the ‘Palestinian problem’. It was the formative period for the Arab League as well as the United Nations – and in many ways it saw the birth of modern urban terrorism. It always seemed to me to be an ideal period for my sort of gaming – a complex and enjoyable game exploring one of the ‘what if….’ questions of history.

Back in the 1990’s I wrote a committee game on this subject, with six players and one control umpire. I wrote in the briefing:

this is primarily a game about politics, and about the search for a solution to the troubles of that region of the Middle East for which Great Britain had assumed responsibility since December 9th, 1917, when General Allenby’s troops received the surrender of Jerusalem from the defending Turkish forces.

The game consists of teams representing different interests in the region. It starts in March 1947. On February 14th Ernest Bevin has announced Great Britain’s intention of laying down the Mandate and referring the Palestine problem to the fledgling United Nations, who will have the theoretical power to impose a solution if one cannot be found beforehand.

In the months before the end of the Mandate there is a frantic jockeying for position and influence, in a final attempt to force a solution before the problem is thrown to the new and unknown international organisation.

The game had six players, representing the British Foreign Office, British Chiefs of Staff, Arab League, United States, Jewish Agency, and Jewish extremists.It was a very freeform game with all the players being given the same overall objectives:

  • a settlement of the Palestine problem that fulfils your own personal objectives and yet is accepted by all other parties. This would mean that the United Nations doesn’t have to get
  • if you can’t achieve a settlement then you must have the most persuasive plan to put to the United Nations. If this plan is to recommend partition, then you must include your proposals for partition on a map.
  • Players also need to plan on how they are going to handle (now and in future) the possibility/probability of no solution being found, even by the UN

There were 5 phases to that 1990’s game

  1. Reading your briefing and decidingwhat your ideal plan would be.
  2. Negotiations with other players and other actions as time progresses. Negotiation can be secret or open; only the British home team has the authority to call an official round-the-table conference, although they can’t enforce attendance
  3. Preparation of a presentation to the United Nations (represented by the Control Umpire) This can be by individual players or several players
  4. Adjudication by the United Nations and deciding on your reactions.
  5. Final actions/decisions depending on outcome of 4.

The game was moderately successful as a small committee game – but of course it oversimplified an intensely complicated situation and for years I toyed with the idea of expanding it to encompass not only the political complexities within all the various interested parties but also the effect of the terrorist (freedom fighters?) activities on the ground. So I decided to expand the idea into a multi-player megagame.

Design challenges: Political

My first design objective was to expand the political side of the game to reflect the fact that within all the involved parties (British, Jewish, Arab, and American) there was disagreement as to what the ideal solution to Palestine would be. In London the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office were involved in a turf war over who led the search for a solution, and even within the Ministries there were differing opinions as to what that solution should be.

In the US the State Department was at odds with the White House while lobbyists for both sides tried to apply pressure. The Arab League was riven by internal dissension, particularly the hereditary feud between the Hashemites of Transjordan and Iraq, and the House of Saud. Even the Jewish community within Palestine (the Yishuv) was split between the activists’ faction led by David Ben-Gurion and the moderates under Chaim Weizmann – not to mention the extremist terrorist organisations outside the normal political channels, Irgun,and Lehi (or the Stern Gang as the British called it).

My solution to this challenge was to have multi-player teams of around three players each but no team briefs. Instead all players represented actual historical figures and received individual briefs outlining their own personal feelings and objectives. In this way I hoped for sub games within each team that would reflect some of the internal disagreements and squabbles that made finding a solution so difficult in reality.

Design challenges: Operational

The second challenge I faced was that events on the ground often influenced political efforts to come up with agreements, so I needed teams to have an ability to take actions that would have effects, not just on the player teams but also on public opinion in their various communities.

The approach I took was to introduce an operational element into the game. Most teams would have a limited number of defined Action Cards of which they could play a limited number each turn. Some actions were distinctly political. As an example, the British High Commissioner’s cards allowed him to:

  • Declare Full Martial Law
  • Declare Partial Martial Law
  • Suspend Habeas Corpus
  • Suspend the Jewish Agency
  • Close the banks
  • Evacuate civilians

As another example, the Jewish Agency could play the following cards

  • “open” immigration (e.g. like Exodus)
  • Secret immigration
  • Civil disobedience
  • General strike
  • Denounce Terrorists
  • Suppress Terrorists
  • In extreme circumstances they could also play a “Declaration of State of Israel” card – in which case they also had to decide a policy on Forced Displacement (many thanks to Rex Brynen for that suggestion when he kindly reviewed the game design for me!)

Some of the other teams were issued with more military Action Cards. For example, the GOC Palestine had the following possible actions:

  • Aggressive arms searches against settlements or towns
  • Sweeps through an area, including objectives of arresting suspect individuals
  • Demolition of suspect properties
  • Aggressive Roadblocks
  • Aggressive Beach patrolling
  • Confining troops to barracks. (Sadly but understandably, sometimes discipline cracked under the constant stress of terrorist attacks and atrocities. If the GOC was concerned that one or more units are going to over react to provocation he had this option to confine it/them to barracks until they had calmed down.)

Military teams also had Force Counters representing the resources open to them. Their chances of success for an action would be affected by the resources they allocated to the actions. In the case of the British GOC Palestine, his brief stated:

Although you have around 100,000 men under your command, your resources are continually under strain. Men need to be rested, rotated, and trained; buildings and infrastructure need to be protected. So a lot of your forces are not usually available to you for field operations, and nor are your forces large enough for some of the operations others (especially the Chiefs of Staff) would like you to take on.

Once you have decided upon an operation, your Divisional Generals must allocate forces to that action. This means putting Force Counters with the Action Card and Pro Forma when your forces mount an action.

The Pro Formas referred to had to be filled in with specific objectives and location of the action proposed.

DL1.png

Gaming terror (1)

DL2.pngProducing action cards for the more conventional forces was relatively easy but I had to consider actions for the irregular and terrorist teams involved. On the Jewish side this meant the underground paramilitary forces of the Haganah and Palmach, as well asthe terroristIrgun. (I had decided not to play Lehifor reasons I discuss later).  On the Arab side it meant the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and his so called Arab Army of Salvation. In the end I gave them Action Cards that reflected their differing philosophies and historical actions. For example, the Haganah could mount a Sabotage action or a reprisal Raid on an Arab village but would not act against any civilian targets. Irgun on the other hand could take any of the following actions:

  • Sabotage
  • Ambush/Mine
  • Kidnapping
  • Bombing
  • Bank robbery
  • Raid on Arabs
  • Assassination

 

Results of actions on the map and public opinion

The results of actions taken on the main map depended on forces committed and some simple rules on chances of success. Die rolls represented random factors and plain old luck. Map control umpires would also use their intelligence and common sense to determine likely real outcomes. But the real significance of the results of actions would be their effect on public opinion in the relative communities. This was to be reflected in Trackers for the British, Americans and Yishuv. I decided that Arab trackers would be less necessary since the Arab states involved were much more autocratic and rarely reacted to public opinion until there were riots in the streets!

The real purpose of the trackers was to make players consider what the reactions to their actions might be amongst other players and world opinion. Players would need to keep very aware of that tracker, since if it reached critical levels, there would be consequences, which they would only discover when such a level was reached.

For example, if Jewish Public opinion is moving against extremism and becoming more optimistic of a settlement, the tracker will reflect this. Support for Irgun in the community will diminish, and they will become more liable to betrayal to the British. Another example; if British public opinion becomes increasingly against Government policy, morale amongst British troops in Palestine will suffer and all their actions become less effective. (Excerpt from Game Handbook.)

Research and sources

Having resolved the basic design philosophy to my own satisfaction, I realised that I had committed myself to two things

  • A lot more knowledge of the issues as seen by less famous but still important people in 1947
  • Writing over 50 individual briefs including what I was calling my ‘fall backs’

Both realisations meant much more research, which raised a design issue of its own. There are three main research sources open to any investigator, all of which raised some issues.

The first source was official and semi-official documents and papers. The clear majority of these are straightforward records and cannot be challenged for bias (e.g. Cabinet Minutes of the British Government) but there were language problems with some Jewish and Arab sources, although the official papers of the Jewish Agency were available in English.

My second main source was the memoirs and papers of many of the participants in the events of the times. It was here that any student of the period – and myself as a game designer – had to be aware of, and be prepared to discount, the inevitable bias of people recounting events as they reflected their own views and self-interest. In some cases, this was actually helpful in fleshing out a person’s character and views, making it easier to digest them into a succinct briefing for the player who would be taking on that character in the game. For example, the memoirs of Viscount Montgomery, CIGS at the time. His attitude to the Jewish community and his belief in overt military solutions come through very clearly.

Where bias was not helpful at all was in examining the motives and actions of the Jewish and Arab terror groups and their effects upon the communities they lived in. For example, The Revolt by Menachem Begin is a justification of all Irgun’s actions, but has very little on the opposition to Irgun within the Yishuv.

My third area of research was secondary sources, the various books and articles on the period, both published and on the net. A student of the period is continually reminded that the Palestine problem is still very much a live issue, with many authors having diametrically opposed views and interpretations on not just why things happened, but on whether they happened at all. This is particularly – and not unexpectedly – true of material one finds on the Internet, although there also some real gems of discovery there as well. In the end I found myself using the Washington Post’s Watergate test of trusting nothing that I could not confirm from two other sources. I gravitated increasingly towards a small core of secondary material that I trusted for accuracy of narrative and the objectivity of the writer’s own assessments.

Final roles

In the end I decided on a final player list as follows

TEAM ROLE
 
BRITISH (London)  
Foreign Office  
Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin
Permanent Under Secretary Sir Orme Sargent
Mid-East Desk Harold Beeley
   
Colonial Office  
Sec. of State for the Colonies Arthur Creech Jones
Permanent Under Secretary Sir George Gater
Eastern Department Douglas Harris
   
Chiefs of Staff  
CIGS Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery
First Sea Lord Admiral Sir John Cunningham
Air Air Chief Marshall Arthur Tedder
   
   
BRITISH (Palestine)  
High Commissioner General Alan Cunningham
Secretary Harold Gurney
Chief Justice Sir William Fitzgerald
   
GOC General Gordon Macmillan
6th Airborne Major general James Cassels
1st Inf Div. Lt. General Richard Gale
Intelligence Colonel C.R.W. Norman
   
JEWISH  
Jewish agency  
Activists  
Chairman David Ben Gurion
Head Political Dept Moshe Sharret
Histadrut Pinhas Lavon
Member Executive Golda Meir
   
Haganah Yaakov Dori
Palmach Yigal Allon
   
Moderates  
Leader Chaim Weizmann
Assistant Eliezer Kaplan
Diplomat Abba Eban
   
Irgun  
Leader Menachem Begin
Assistant Chaim Landau
 USA rep  Hillel Kook
   
ARAB  
Arab League  
Sec general Azzam Pasha
Assistant Musa Alami
   
Egypt  
King Farouk
PM Nokrashy Pasha
   
Saudi  
King Ibn Saud
Son Feisal
   
Mufti  
Mufti Amin al-Husseini
  Jamal al-Husseini
   
Transjordan  
King Abdullah
Adviser Awni Abd al-Hadi
Arab Legion Glubb Pasha
   
USA  
White House  
President Harry Truman
Counsellor Clark Clifford
   
State Department  
Sec State General George Marshall
Deputy for Mid-East George Kennon
   
Press 2 players

I chose this final cast list to reflect the varying individual views within each team, since I believed that a totally united USA team, for example, would not reflect the complexities of the time. I also reasoned that differing opinions within most of the teams would allow the development of interesting ‘sub-games’.

My approach in developing each individual brief was to impart enough information about the character to allow the player to immerse him/herself in the role but not so much that they were forced into slavishly replaying what their character had done in reality. I also thought that supplying pictures of the people involved could be helpful to players in identifying with their characters.

DLroles.png

I also had to consider how much information the players needed to make the game meaningful and successful. Obviously, a base knowledge of both background and the issues involved was essential, but at the same time I did not want to overwhelm the players with so much information that they would either be confused or simply not read the material!

The solution decided on was to keep the personal briefings to a minimum (about 3 pages), include the basic information in Appendices to the Game Handbook, and supply a further background document (Characters and Glossary) for those players who were minded to read it. I made sure that all briefing materials went out at least three weeks before the game, and I also supplied a limited bibliography to a couple of players who asked for more information.

What if….

During the final thinking through of the design process I needed to consider two matters that might impact on the playing of the game on the day.

What if players got killed?

At this time in the Middle East assassination was not as uncommon as we might hope and indeed both the Jewish and Arab terrorist teams had Assassination Action Cards that they could play.

DL6.png

I had to acknowledge that player characters might indeed be killed – both Abdullah and Henry Gurney were in fact assassinated, although not during this year. I made the chances of assassinating a major figure quite slim, but possible. As designer I had to consider how to recycle those players into the game after their unfortunate demise. This meant writing several ‘fall back’ player briefs which would only be used if an assassination succeeded. As it happened, in both the Swedish and London games, attempts were made to assassinate the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. In one case he could not be found by the hit squad; in the other he was grievously wounded but survived to preach a fatwa against all Jews!

What if war broke out?

As mentioned above, if pushed into a corner, and provided that certain conditions were met, the Jewish Agency could in the game declare unilaterally the State of Israel. This would almost inevitably lead to open warfare between the Arab nations and the new Jewish state. Unlikely as I thought this might be, I had to be prepared for it. I decided I would need to produce a simple combat system, as well as forces counters. This was not actually too difficult as I used the actual Orders of Battle from 1948 when of course war did occur. In the event this never happened, although it came close in the London game, but as the game designer I felt rather reassured that I was ready for it if it did happen.


 

The actual games

This article is not intended to be an after-action report on either of the games, but perhaps some observations are of interest.

Sweden

I first tested the game with a small group of inexperienced but enthusiastic megagamers in Malmo. This helped me immensely with development and fine tuning of a lot of game elements, and the key players from there kindly consented to be my control team when I came to put on the full game in Stockholm.

I was faced with two issues in the Swedish games. The first was that virtually nobody had ever played a historical megagame before, although we did have some experienced LARP and boardgame players. The second I had half anticipated but was still slightly surprised by. Sweden is a culture in which compromise and consensus is deep rooted, and indeed emphasised in school Civics classes. As one player wrote to me after the game “The British have very different cultures from Swedes when it comes to turn taking. Today’s younger Swedes are brought up in a social system that ‘enforces and reinforces’ every person’s right to be heard, everyone’s right to be involved in a decision and the focus on group consensus is extremely strong.”  This resulted in a much greater search for compromise than I believe could ever have happened in reality. Having anticipated this to some extent, I had decided not to play Lehi (Stern gang) in the game, so that if Irgun turned out to be too compromising, or indeed peace seeking, Control could input into the game actual terrorist actions.

This seemed to achieve its objectives as perhaps the following extract from the Ben Gurion player’s AAR illustrates… “I had changed the subject to the question of the Mufti and had just held what I think was an effective little speech about the injustice of the Arabs, when Control opens the door and reads out a list of three atrocities, all committed by Jews. I was quite relieved when Moshe Sharett a moment later came, panic in his voice, and demanded that I go to the map, as all hell was breaking loose. I would have been humiliated, had the conference continued.”

DL7.png

The Arab League in negotiations (picture credit: Richard Moreau).

The final result of the Swedish game was an agreed partition between the Jews and Arab states, with the Jewish Agency gaining British support by suppressing Irgun quite ruthlessly and successfully (three successive very lucky die rolls!). The Arab players were quite pleased with themselves until they heard of the rioting by mobs of fellahin on the streets of Damascus and Cairo.

UK

Putting on the UK game was made simpler in that the player pool had many more experienced megagamers, many of whom I knew, which made casting much easier. The game ran more smoothly with far less need for direct intervention by the Control team. The final result again was an agreed partition into two separate states in Palestine and a surprisingly generously sized Jewish state.

DL8.png

The UK game (picture credit: Caroline Martin).

Jewish suspicion of the Arab generosity was quite justified, as there actually existed a secret treaty amongst the Arab states saying that as soon as the British had withdrawn, the Arab armies would immediately invade.

The resulting war would have been interesting to observe, since the Haganah/Palmach players had spent most of the game quietly and successfully transforming their forces from a semi organised paramilitary force into a regular army ready to mobilise at a moment’s notice. They even had a war plan ready to go.

DLmaps.png

The partition agreement and Jewish war plan from the UK game.

 

Some final thoughts

Gaming live issues

You candesign a game about 1947 without being accused of bias but you need to be very careful. There were definitely some in Sweden who were uncomfortable with the thought of turning such a turbulent and still live issue into a ‘game’. From my point of view though, it worked. I think most players not only enjoyed Divided Land as a game, but some also were given cause to think.

Gaming in different countries

There are certainly cultural differences between Sweden and the UK in how they regard international relations and issues. Sweden has a long and mostly honourable tradition of neutrality and searching for ends to international disputes by negotiation and compromise. This was evident to me in the game, and indeed in their reactions to successful negotiations being derailed by seemingly irrational acts of terror on the ground.

Operational and political

Despite the extra work for a designer in adding an operational element to the game, with actions on a map, I am convinced that this worked, and made the game much more ‘real’. Having the operational game also led to 30-minute action turns, which helped to add structure to a long day’s play.

Gaming terror (2)

From the moment I conceived this game I had been concerned that finding players willing to commit acts of terror and even atrocities might be difficult. I was quite wrong. It seems (encouragingly to designers like myself) that with the right briefings players are quite willing to suspend their own moralities and try to play as their characters did in fact behave. I do wonder though whether time would affect this attitude. Could we find players to play IRA gunmen or Bosnian Serb warlords, or indeed in my own field of study could we find players able to play the Phalange militiamen entering the Shatila refugee camp in 1982. I do wonder…

Terry Martin

Gaming the strike on Syria?

syria-missile-air-strike-chemical-weapons-damascus-trump-assad-putin.jpg

On 14 April 2018, US, French, and British military forces launched missiles against Syria, in response to a chemical weapon attack by the Asad regime against the rebel-held town of Douma a week earlier. This followed a pattern of repeated use of chemical weapons by the Syrian military, despite a previous US retaliatory attack in 2017. Three sites, all associated with the regime’s chemical weapons programme, were hit.

Douma.png

This led Graham Longley-Brown to ask whether the British government had conducted a wargame of the proposed attack before carrying it out:

  1. Did anyone wargame the geo-political situation? Were expert players and decision-makers engaged to represent Syria, Russia, Iran, China, The Arab nations et al to elicit plausible reactions and risks, various categories of ‘unknowns’, and maybe even a Black Swan or two circling just out of sight… Having just re-read Tom Schelling’s Zones of Control chapter ‘Red vs Blue’, it struck me that something at the pol-mil level along the lines of his games would have delivered significant benefits to our decision-makers, both in terms of an enhanced understanding of the situation and their actual decision-making process.

  2. If no wargaming occurred, why not? The answer to that question might shed light on the attitudes to wargaming within the MOD, despite the recent success of the second VCDS Wargame. There was time to put some combination of matrix/seminar game on the table, possibly informed by M&S and/or other wargame results. Rex Brynen suggested that even a well-facilitated and well-moderated BOGSAT would have been useful. There was time to design and play such games, either in parallel, in sequence, or both. While not quite a cycle of research, some sort of triangulation or cross-pollination would have reinforced insights arising and shaped more detailed analysis. This would all have been TBD during whatever rapid design process would have been implemented. If no gaming occurred because ‘it takes too long to develop these games’, do we need to have a bank of Schelling/matrix-like games developed for identified trouble-spots and waiting to be pulled off the shelf? This along with a wargaming ‘rapid response team’ to tweak these and then facilitate rapid gaming?

  3. If wargaming did occur, did someone in the MOD reach for a phone and speed-dial ‘wargamers’?  If ‘yes’, who was at the other end of the speed dial number? It should be (certainly include) Dstl’s Wargaming Team and Tom Mouat. Did this happen, and is the process formalised? If not, why not? Did the call recipients respond by putting a series of appropriate games on the table within hours (Mark Herman-like)? Was Dstl involved? If not, why not? Crucially, what lessons were identified with the process of rapidly designing and executing a wargame, and how will these be captured and turned into lessons learned?

  4. Did anyone model the attack in detail? It would have taken Jeremy Smith about 2 minutes to ‘RCAT’ this using open source data, playing tunes with variables such as Russian SAMs engaging or not engaging and different permutations on Syrian AD. I suspect this would have been insightful. However, computerised sims would have been far more important. Were any used?

  5. Finally, how might the non-MOD professional wargaming community (e.g. Cranfield) get hold of classified data from the attacks to further validate their sims? We have previously used open source data from real-world examples such as Mosul and Sirte – before, during and after those events – to validate and refine our irregular warfare RCAT models. Doing the same with near-peer, peer and peer + adversaries in a high-intensity warfighting context, will become increasingly important. What AD engaged? What was the success rate of the missiles launched? What are the BDA results? How was targeting conducted, and how effective was it? What Collateral Damage was caused? Etc. If the results are too highly classified to release then we are missing the opportunity to improve the simulations we all espouse the utility of and use for actual Defence planning. Access to real-world data such as this is crucial. Let’s hope examples remain rare, but we should leverage them when they occur.

Any such wargame would have been classified, so there’s a chance we wouldn’t know. However the consensus among UK wargamers was that no, they probably didn’t. Should they have?

One experienced UK wargamer replied:

I’ve had a think about this (with some help) and we need to be careful. There is no way we will get the great and the good to spend half a day away, in the middle of a crisis, to play a wargame.

We need them to play wargames regularly to get an appreciation of what wargames offer, but in a crisis we need a parallel process to run alongside the crisis planning. It needs someone with a trusted ear to the commander (VCDS?) who heads off and gets us lot together and then reports back with what we found…

We then need somewhere we can do that, at the right classification, that is available (like the JFC Battlelab).

As for validating our sims – I think I’m looking at a higher level (the Pol/Mil implications or the crisis and subsequent reactions, rather than the detail of the military action), so I’m less worried about building a better mousetrap, as getting insights to the commander.

The important observation here was that crisis wargaming might not (for reasons on time, among other things) be a central part of the process, but it could be a useful adjunct. To do that, however, there has to be an existing on-call capability to design, populate, run, and assess a game—quickly enough that it can raise issues for planners to consider, and with a solid enough track record that any such inputs were welcomed by planners and decision-makers. One experienced observer questioned whether the UK would ever be in a position to deploy a wargaming team quickly enough to support this sort of compressed decision-making cycle.

My own response was that this might be a case where digital simulation and modelling would be far more useful than manual games, since much hinges on the interaction of really technical variables (topography and radar shadow generated by the Anti-Lebanon mountain range, the exact placement of Syrian and Russian EW and target acquisition radars, SAM effectiveness against low flying targets amid considerable ground-clutter, and the hit (Ph) and kill (Pk) probabilities of Tomahawk/JASSM/Storm Shadow/SCAMP, and so forth).

Regarding the political dimensions of the attack, I may be a wargamer but I am not convinced this would best be explored in a wargame at all. Instead, based on my own experience, a  well-moderated BOGSAT (bunch of guys/gals sitting around a table) might work better, Much would depend, of course, on the BOGAT form, the expertise at the table, and the skill of the facilitator. It is also possible that a relatively quick wargame might provide input into those discussions, something we had previously noted in our various matrix games of the counter-ISIS campaign in Iraq.

For what it is worth regarding the attack itself, I think the target set was way too narrow, and that the regime was genuinely pleasantly surprised that so little of so little value was hit: a research facility and a few bunkers. No key regime assets or capabilities were struck. None of the units or facilities involved in the Douma attack were attacked. Nothing that signals any significant cost to Asad was destroyed—indeed, the regime secured the Douma area and almost all the Damascus suburbs in the meantime. One American contributor to the discussion similarly noted “The aparent dearth of notable results makes me suspect that no one cared over much about militarily effective action but rather focused on ‘doing something’ that looked like ‘punishing Assad’ without risking a serious confrontation with [Russia]” A wargame might have brought all that out, but so too would a half hour conversation with a reasonably competent Syria analyst.

An experienced American wargamer commented that if the strike had been wargamed, the most useful insights might be in the area of coordination and process:

The real war-game here is the inter-coalition coordination of the strikes, how the C3, legalities, and permissions worked, and how the planning process leading up to the strikes would work across the different coalition partners.  Who was in charge?  How was the coordination done (NATO or multi-lateral)?  What C3 systems were used and how did they interoperate?  How did authorization flow and deconfliction occur?  The technical side of the strikes is, as I believe someone said, pretty much physics and targeteering, which affects C3 but is not necessarily an interesting game in itself.  I’m sure there have been many games done that look at coalition strike C3 in both a NATO and a multi-/bi-lateral context amongst the countries involved.  That gaming probably informed some of the experiences and decisions of the officers making the call as to how to organized the event.

Further thoughts are welcomed in the comments section.

Ex SEA LION CADET at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst

The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst is the home of the British Army Officer and the initial training ground for officers of the British Army, be they Regular or Reserve, Direct Entrant, Late Entrant or Professionally Qualified.  It is ranked as one of the best centres of leadership in the World.  Its famous motto is “Serve to Lead.”

Captain EC Farren was, until recently, an instructor at the Academy, overseeing the injured cadets of “Lucknow” Platoon.  His remit was to help the cadets under his charge recover as soon as practicable, so they could re-join the Regular Commissioning Course.  Much of his work is focused on the cadets’ physical state, but he must also try to keep their military skills and minds sharp in the process.  As a 2009 Masters graduate of King’s College London, Captain Farren studied under Prof. P Sabin (Simulating War) and has carried his experiences of Phil’s conflict simulation course with him into the Regular Army.  He appeared at Connections 2015 to discuss wargaming (link) in officer training and subsequently delivered an update (link) on examples used in his battalion in 2016.  Since June 2016 he has instructed at the prestigious British military academy in Camberley and has sought to utilise wargaming to enhance the education of young officers.  The extract below is from an article submitted to Sandhurst’s Wish Stream journal covering his platoon’s involvement in a Battlefield Study of Operation Sea Lion.  


 

Anyone who has participated in Ex NORMANDY SCHOLAR can attest to the innate value of a battlefield study to an aspiring Army officer. There is something about standing on the battlefield that concentrates the mind and gives one an appreciation from the combatant’s perspective that no amount of book study can mirror.  In previous years Lucknow platoon has been able to tag along with the Reg CC on Ex NORMANDY SCHOLAR, but sadly this was discontinued due to funding restrictions.  Undeterred, it was with a sense of optimism and trepidation that I approached Faraday Hall back at the end of 2017 to discuss running a bespoke battlefield study for Lucknow Platoon.

Knowing that I had minimal resources (in the end one War Studies Lecturer, one weapons expert and a minibus) I hit upon the idea of using the planned September 1940 German invasion of BritainUnternehmen Seelöwe  or Operation SEALION— as the subject for the battlefield study.  Geographically confined to the Kentish/Sussex coast, the stands would be within easy striking distance from Sandhurst.  It also offered a variety of tactical actions for study; air landing, seaborne assault, combined arms manoeuvre, opposed obstacle crossings and urban warfare.  Also, because the operation did not progress beyond the planning stage, it gave the staff and cadets greater freedom to offer their opinions and arguments rather than being constrained by ‘what actually happened’.  The study would run over two days, the first being classroom-based and the second being centred around three stands in Kent.

Day 1

Starting in Faraday Hall (a nice break from Lucknow lines) Dr Klaus Schmider started by covering the strategic context of Operation SEALION, and state of the two belligerent’s militaries in the summer of 1940.  QMSI Lawson kindly provided a variety of WW2 small arms from the Central Armoury and gave the cadets an excellent hands on feel for the weapons of the period.  The cadets learnt about the weapon mix of light machine guns, sub machine guns and rifles that comprised the infantry sections of both armies. The cadets then divided into two groups representing the German and British High Commands. They had around two hours to research and then formulate a back brief of 15 minutes covering the following key themes:

  1. What are the strategic and operational objectives for your side?
  2. What forces were assembled/available by your side and their relative strengths and weaknesses?
  3. What are the terrain/environmental factors that will/may influence the operation?
  4. What do you believe the operational main effort is, why and is it sufficiently resourced?
  5. What amendments would you make to the plan and why?

The highlight of the afternoon was a tabletop wargame—one with a nostalgic nod to the 1974 wargame run by senior war studies lecturers at the Academy. Thankfully for the cadets, our variant was much simpler and could be completed in the space of around two hours rather than the week it took for the 1974 wargame to run its course. Two wargames were run by splitting the OKW and GHQ teams in half and assigning them to separate rooms. Cadets role played various Army Group, Luftwaffe/RAF and CinC commanders to add a team dynamic.

Sealion74.png

The 1974 Operation SEALION game at Sandhurst.

Sealion1.png

Staff and cadets pose for a reconstruction of the 1974 picture. (Image obscured for privacy).

 

In both wargames the Germans were able to consolidate their initial landing zones after overcoming the British forces stationed on the south coast.  However, as German reinforcements dried up and British reserves poured onto the map the Wehrmacht teams struggled to push further inland.  The key cities of Dover and Brighton became contested battlegrounds in both wargames.  In wargame one the Germans achieved a ‘victory’ as defined by the rules of the wargame by seizing Dover and Brighton – with significant British forces arrayed between them and the next objective, London.  In wargame two the British managed to launch a sizeable counterattack into Brighton before the Germans took Dover, thus denying them a victory. In this wargame though, the British had nothing left to throw at the Germans should they go for London.  The cadets found the wargame was an excellent way to illustrate the research they had conducted during the day and gave them a wider, strategic overview of the operation before they went into the detail of stands on the second day.  The day concluded with the cadets breaking down into their respective groups for the three stands and conducting research and preparation for the field element on the Saturday.

sealion3.png

SEALION wargame 1 (left) showing a German victory, and wargame 2 (right) showing a British victory.

Day 2

An early start saw the cadets and staff head off to Kent for the first stand at Hawkinge.

sealion4.png

We were fortunate enough to be able to stand within the original airfield’s perimeter, albeit now largely parcelled up into various private estates. The teams did an excellent job of discussing the importance of Hawkinge to both the RAF and Luftwaffe and the problems inherent with air landings.

 

sealion5.png

Stand 1 Hawkinge on the original airfield site (now just a field). The cadets managed to find the original defence plans (right). (Image obscured for privacy.)

Next we moved to St Mary’s Bay, now doused in glorious sunshine, to discuss a potential sea landing.  The sea wall has been significantly heightened since 1940, and the towns of St Mary’s and Dymchurch have sprawled but the groynes and sands were much alike to the era of study.  The teams discussed the problems of fighting inshore through obstacle belts and having to clear the two urban areas of defending territorial and regular battalions.

Stand 3 at Bilsington covered opposed obstacle crossings over the Royal Military Canal.  The cadets researched and discovered a 1940s era pillbox that made the stand come to life.  After much discussion there emerged consensus that the Germans would struggle to cross the canal and therefore the Romney Marsh area would become a giant kill sack for British artillery.

sealion6.png

Stand 2 (left) at Dymchurch St. Mary’s Bay and Stand 3 (right) at Bilsington on the Royal Military Canal. The cadest researched and found a genuine WWII-era pillbox in the background. (Image obscured for privacy.)

Feedback from the cadets was broadly positive, despite having to work on a sacred Saturday!  They really enjoyed being given the responsibility for running the stands themselves which they all agreed kept them more engaged than if it had been entirely staff led.  The Faraday Hall element was judged at being concise and to the point, and covering the most important subjects rather than a huge series of lectures.  Naturally the cadets wanted more time to plan the stands, and would have liked to study at the lower tactical level (Coy-) rather than the divisional level.  Hopefully the exercise has reinforced the benefits of battlefield studies to the cadets of Lucknow platoon and generated support for a successive exercise next term (maybe even outside of the UK!)

%d bloggers like this: