
PAXsims is devoted to peace, conflict, humanitarian, and development simulations and serious games for education, training, and policy analysis.
If you wish to be notified when new material is posted here, simply use the RSS feed or “email subscription” features below.
Relevant comments are welcomed.
PAXsims operates on a non-profit basis. You can donate to support our activities via Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/PAXsims
Recent Posts
- MCU: Gaming the war in Ukraine, continued
- UK Fight Club parent-daughter wargaming night
- Sepinsky and Bae: Wargaming is about the process, not the result
- Sally Davis wins UK MoD award for work on diversity and inclusion in professional wargaming
- Connections Online 2022
- Reflections on gaming not-Ukraine
- 16th NATO Operations Research and Analysis conference
- Simulation and gaming miscellany, 25 March 2022
- KWN: Kuehn on wargame assessment (April 13)
- Simulation & Gaming (April 2022)
Top Posts
- Reflections on gaming not-Ukraine
- MCU: Gaming the war in Ukraine, continued
- The personalities of miniature wargame players
- Gaming the crisis in the Ukraine
- The wargaming Wrens of the Western Approaches Tactical Unit
- Wargaming an invasion of Taiwan
- The STRIKE! Battlegroup Tactical Wargame
- Review: Matrix Games for Modern Wargaming
- AFTERSHOCK
- Russian Logistics for the Invasion of Ukraine
Categories
- call for papers
- conferences
- courses
- crowd-sourcing
- forthcoming games and simulations
- gaming vignettes
- job opportunities/positions vacant
- latest links
- methodology
- not-so-serious
- reader survey
- request for proposals
- scholarships and fellowships
- simulation and game reports
- simulation and game reviews
- simulation and gaming debacles
- simulation and gaming history
- simulation and gaming ideas
- simulation and gaming journals
- simulation and gaming materials
- simulation and gaming miscellany
- simulation and gaming news
- simulation and gaming publications
- simulation and gaming software
- Soviet
Archives
Associations
- Australian Defence Force Wargaming Group
- Connections Netherlands
- Connections North (Canada)
- Connections Oz (Australiasia)
- Connections UK
- Connections US
- Georgetown University Wargaming Society
- International Game Developers Association
- International Simulation and Gaming Association
- MORS Wargaming Community of Practice
- North American Simulation and Gaming Association
- SAGSET
- Serious Games Network – France
- Simulations Interoperability Standards Organization
- UK Fight Club
- USA Fight Club Wargaming Group
- Women's Wargaming Network
- Zenobia Award
Institutions (public and commercial)
- Advanced Disaster, Emergency and Rapid Response Simulation
- Booz Allen Hamilton—experiential analytics
- BreakAway—serious games
- Brian Train-game designs
- Civic Mirror
- CNAS Gaming Lab
- ConSimWorld
- Decisive Point
- Fabulsi—online roleplay simulations
- Fiery Dragon Productions
- Fletcher School/Tufts University—SIMULEX
- Fort Circle Games
- GamePolitics
- History of Wargaming Project
- Imaginetic
- Kings College London—Kings Wargaming Network
- LBS – Professional Wargaming
- LECMgt
- McGill Model UN
- MCS Group
- MegaGame Makers
- MODSIM World conference
- Naval Postgraduate School—MOVES Institute
- NDU—Center for Applied Strategic Learning
- Nusbacher & Associates
- Nuts! Publishing
- Peacemaker Game
- Persuasive Games
- PlanPolitik
- RAND Center for Gaming
- Serious Games Interactive
- Slitherine Software
- Statecraft
- Stone Paper Scissors
- Strategy and Tactics Press
- Track4
- Utrecht Institute for Crisis and Conflict Simulation
- Valens Global
- Wargaming Connection
- Wikistrat blog
- World Peace Game Foundation
Journals and Publications
- Battles Magazine
- C3i Magazine
- Eludamos: Journal of Computer Game Culture
- GAME: The Italian Journal of Game Studies
- International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations
- International Journal of Role-Playing
- Military Training & Simulation
- Sciences du jeu
- Simulation & Gaming
- The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation
- Training & Simulation Journal
- Virtual Training & Simulation News
Simulations and Games
- Active Learning in Political Science
- Barnard College—Reacting to the Past
- Best Delegate
- Beyond Intractability—Exercises and Simulations
- BoardGameGeek
- Class Wargames
- Columbia American History Online—classroom simulations
- Community Organizing Toolkit—game
- ConSimWorld
- CRISP: Crisis Simulation for Peace
- CUNY Games Network
- Darfur is Dying—game
- Economics Network—classroom experiments and games
- Emergency Capacity Building project — simulation resources
- EuroWarGames
- Game Design Concepts
- Game Theory .net
- Gameful
- Games & Social Networks in Education
- Games for Change
- GeoGame
- Giant Battling Robots
- Global Justice Game
- Grog News
- Guns, Dice, Butter
- Ian Bogost
- ICT for Peacebuilding
- Journal of Virtual Worlds Research
- Little Wars
- Ludic Futurism
- Ludology
- Mike Cosgrove—wargame design class
- MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program—simulation materials
- MSSV
- National Center for Simulation
- National Security Decision-Making game
- No Game Survives…
- North American Simulation and Gaming Association
- Oil Shockwave Simulation
- Pax Warrior
- Pervasive Games: Theory and Design
- Play the Past
- Play Think Learn
- Purple Pawn
- Serious Games at Work
- Serious Games Network France
- Strategikon (French)
- Technoculture, Art, and Games
- Terra Nova (Simulation + Society + Play)
- The Cove: Wargaming
- The Forge Wargaming Series
- The Ludologist
- The Open-Ended Machine
- Tiltfactor
- Tom Mouat's wargames page
- Trans-Atlantic Consortium for European Union Studies & Simulations
- United States Institute for Peace—Simulations
- University of Maryland—ICONS Project
- US Army—Modelling and Simulation
- USC—Institute for Creative Technologies
- Wargame_[space]
- Web Grognards
- Zones of Influence


Perhaps the reason why ” there are far more games on a Soviet invasion of West Germany that never happened than a Communist assault on South Korea that actually did.” is because the latter is a ‘battle’ of philosophies, values and culture’ whereas the former would have been a battle of economics and military strategy.
As various game designers of human interaction games [ see for example Gary Shirts and Dick Duke] have shown it is far harder to ‘game’ culture and there is an enduring uncertainty of the outcomes that does not easily lend itself to more numerically driven military strategising.
It seems to me there are several interesting game-able nuclear issues here, as part of a broader war-game:
1) As I suggested earlier, an allied player has to worry whether certain types of attacks against DPRK infrastructure might trigger DPRK escalation. Imagine every airstrike against Pyongyang came with a 3% chance of a North Korean nuclear response–would you attack targets around Pyongyang at all, or err on the side of caution?
2) Does NK really get pulverized after nuclear first use? Lets say it nukes a ROK port–but keeps a half dozen nukes in reserve, threatening to use them against Seoul (or Tokyo). What would the appropriate allied retaliatory strategy be?
3) Because the DPRK is likely reliant on air delivery of its weapons, and the allies are likely to rapidly establish air dominance, North Korea faces a potential use-the-or-lose-them trade-off in war.
4) Similarly, any attempt to use some of its nukes run the risks of the strike being intercepted: the DPRK loses one of its small stockpile, while the world recognizes the attempt from the now radioactive wreckage of a Su-25. Equally (like its first test) its weapon might fizzle, thereby undercutting the perceived threat of its nuclear deterrence.
Is NK nukes a topic that not even Brian Train could turn into a game? If NK has nukes, they would be a limited number for a limited number of delivery platforms. Either they would reach Seoul or Tokyo, or they wouldn’t. Don’t think an missile defense game would be interesting. Seems to me this would be a political game where the game basically ends if negotiations fail and NK launches (and is immediately pulverized), or a military game where the goal is to destroy Pyongyang’s WMD before they can launch them.
Michael
Iron Dome is intended to provide a very localized defence against artillery rockets, etc–it isn’t intended for use against ballistic missiles or aircraft. South Korea doesn’t really have much missile defence capability yet, although it is working on it. the US does have some ABM capability (PAC-3s and Aegis) in theatre.
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2012/04/30/2012043000826.html
However, as noted earlier, the DPRK probably doesn’t (yet) have a nuclear warhead small enough to fit on a missile, so any delivery would likely be by aircraft.
Are people working in these ‘Iron Dome’ defense systems into these? I think that could be one of the most destabilizing technologies. Right before the S. Koreans flip the on switch, the North will have tremendous incentive to act.
(BTW, I do hope the South gets a good iron dome, just that it is put in quickly and silently.)
It depends to a large extent on what one assumes about the size and effectiveness of the DPRK nuclear arsenal, as well as when and how it uses them. The Arms Control Wonk piece I linked above suggests that if North Korea’s nukes are as bad as their two tests suggest, they would have surprisingly little effect even used against port facilities. On the other hand, more and better nukes would be more effective at damaging transport nodes, destroying key military airfields, or striking at troop concentrations.
Strategically, DPRK nukes might deter certain allied actions (raids against Pyongyang, Japan’s willingness to support North Korea, etc). Indeed, one could imagine a rather good game dynamic (a bit like Twilight Struggle) where certain allied actions increase the risk of an unpredictable DPRK leadership escalating to a nuclear option.
I agree–plenty of interesting wargaming potential!
I didn’t address NK using nukes because it wouldn’t really be war – more like a spasm – and there isn’t much to game there. Unless you’re paying Missile Command (one of my favorites, even I can’t make it past the first five rounds). But there is fertile wargaming ground here, with big-war force-on-force, asymmetric warfare, etc.
Michael