
PAXsims is devoted to peace, conflict, humanitarian, and development simulations and serious games for education, training, and policy analysis.
If you wish to be notified when new material is posted here, use the “subscribe by email” option below.
Relevant comments are welcomed.
PAXsims operates on a non-profit basis. You can donate to support our activities via Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/PAXsims
Join 7,740 other subscribers
Recent Posts
- Simulation & Gaming (April 2023)
- WACN game design video
- Breakthrough: Arctic Albatros demos (Toronto, March 23 and 24)
- Simulation and gaming miscellany, 21 March 2023
- Connections North 2023 registration open
- Holographic Tabletop Gaming
- NATO wargame design challenge
- Forthcoming MORS wargaming courses
- Elizabeth Joslyn joins PAXsims as a Research Associate
- Votes for Women: Growing (war)gaming with new themes
Top Posts
Categories
- call for papers
- conferences
- courses
- crowd-sourcing
- forthcoming games and simulations
- gaming vignettes
- job opportunities/positions vacant
- latest links
- methodology
- not-so-serious
- playtesters needed
- reader survey
- request for proposals
- scholarships and fellowships
- simulation and game reports
- simulation and game reviews
- simulation and gaming debacles
- simulation and gaming history
- simulation and gaming ideas
- simulation and gaming journals
- simulation and gaming materials
- simulation and gaming miscellany
- simulation and gaming news
- simulation and gaming publications
- simulation and gaming software
Archives
Associations
- Australian Defence Force Wargaming Group
- Connections Netherlands
- Connections North (Canada)
- Connections Oz (Australiasia)
- Connections UK
- Connections US
- Georgetown University Wargaming Society
- International Game Developers Association
- International Simulation and Gaming Association
- MORS Wargaming Community of Practice
- North American Simulation and Gaming Association
- SAGSET
- Serious Games Network – France
- Simulations Interoperability Standards Organization
- UK Fight Club
- USA Fight Club Wargaming Group
- Women's Wargaming Network
- Zenobia Award
Institutions (public and commercial)
- Advanced Disaster, Emergency and Rapid Response Simulation
- Booz Allen Hamilton—experiential analytics
- BreakAway—serious games
- Brian Train-game designs
- Civic Mirror
- CNAS Gaming Lab
- ConSimWorld
- Decisive Point
- Fabulsi—online roleplay simulations
- Fiery Dragon Productions
- Fletcher School/Tufts University—SIMULEX
- Fort Circle Games
- GamePolitics
- History of Wargaming Project
- Imaginetic
- Kings College London—Kings Wargaming Network
- LBS – Professional Wargaming
- LECMgt
- McGill Model UN
- MCS Group
- MegaGame Makers
- MODSIM World conference
- Naval Postgraduate School—MOVES Institute
- NDU—Center for Applied Strategic Learning
- Nusbacher & Associates
- Nuts! Publishing
- Peacemaker Game
- Persuasive Games
- PlanPolitik
- RAND Center for Gaming
- Serious Games Interactive
- Slitherine Software
- Statecraft
- Stone Paper Scissors
- Strategy and Tactics Press
- Track4
- Utrecht Institute for Crisis and Conflict Simulation
- Valens Global
- Wargaming Connection
- Wikistrat blog
- World Peace Game Foundation
Journals and Publications
- Battles Magazine
- C3i Magazine
- Eludamos: Journal of Computer Game Culture
- GAME: The Italian Journal of Game Studies
- International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations
- International Journal of Role-Playing
- Military Training & Simulation
- Sciences du jeu
- Simulation & Gaming
- The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation
- Training & Simulation Journal
- Virtual Training & Simulation News
Simulations and Games
- Active Learning in Political Science
- Barnard College—Reacting to the Past
- Best Delegate
- Beyond Intractability—Exercises and Simulations
- BoardGameGeek
- Class Wargames
- Columbia American History Online—classroom simulations
- Community Organizing Toolkit—game
- ConSimWorld
- CRISP: Crisis Simulation for Peace
- CUNY Games Network
- Darfur is Dying—game
- Economics Network—classroom experiments and games
- Emergency Capacity Building project — simulation resources
- EuroWarGames
- Game Design Concepts
- Game Theory .net
- Gameful
- Games & Social Networks in Education
- Games for Change
- GeoGame
- Giant Battling Robots
- Global Justice Game
- Grog News
- Guns, Dice, Butter
- Ian Bogost
- ICT for Peacebuilding
- Journal of Virtual Worlds Research
- Little Wars
- Ludic Futurism
- Ludology
- Mike Cosgrove—wargame design class
- MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program—simulation materials
- MSSV
- National Center for Simulation
- National Security Decision-Making game
- No Game Survives…
- North American Simulation and Gaming Association
- Oil Shockwave Simulation
- Pax Warrior
- Pervasive Games: Theory and Design
- Play the Past
- Play Think Learn
- Purple Pawn
- Serious Games at Work
- Serious Games Network France
- Strategikon (French)
- Technoculture, Art, and Games
- Terra Nova (Simulation + Society + Play)
- The Cove: Wargaming
- The Forge Wargaming Series
- The Ludologist
- The Open-Ended Machine
- Tiltfactor
- Tom Mouat's wargames page
- Trans-Atlantic Consortium for European Union Studies & Simulations
- United States Institute for Peace—Simulations
- University of Maryland—ICONS Project
- US Army—Modelling and Simulation
- USC—Institute for Creative Technologies
- Wargame_[space]
- Web Grognards
- Zones of Influence
John: That’s an excellent point (or, more accurately, series of points). While part of my motivation in dividing the three analytical teams the way I did was practical (easier collaboration), I did also want some methodological, political, and other variation between them. If quite different teams had produced similar reports, that would have provided strong evidence that there isn’t a potential “eye of the beholder” problem. The fact that they did come to somewhat different conclusions, I think, points to the need to more fully consider the ways in which the analysis process may frame/tilt/spin/filter the lessons learned from a game.
Assuming for a moment that Steve Downes-Martin has now spent so long in leftpondia that he can now be accounted as culturally American rather than British, I think this experiment may demonstrate something I find interesting but which is quite different from what you were looking for. What I have in mind is the very considerable cultural difference in practice between UK and US defence analysis. I have seen this in approaches to simulation modelling, particularly validation of simulation models, and in OR generally, and it also somewhat corresponds to the leftpondia/rightpondia differences in what is meant by “systems engineering”.
At risk of making a grossly over-simplified generalisation (which as a rightpondian analyst I cheerfully accept), US OR practice is firmly rooted in the ideas of “hard” science, numerical evidence, and perhaps even logical positivism. UK OR practice takes a much softer, interpretive view. In the light of this, and taking megagaming as a pretty “soft” method, it makes perfect sense to me (as both post-hoc rationalisation and confirmation bias say it should) that it was the American team who concluded that no firm conclusions could be drawn. I am not quite sure (having forgotten to calibrate my prejudices beforehand) whether I expected the Euro team to be mid-way between UK and US practice, or the UK to be mid-way between US and Euro, but that is probably because I am not sufficiently aware of what goes on the other side of the ditch (as distinct from the pond).
I notice that all the teams mentioned “insufficient subject knowledge”. Isn’t one of the motivations for doing this sort of exercise to provide, if not subject knowledge itself, at least a hunger for it in the participants? I’ll bet several thousand pounds of somebody else’s money that the participants came away from the experience *wanting* to know more about the geopolitical situation being modelled, even if they didn’t actually increase their knowledge (and I’d bet a small anount of my own money that most of them did). Rightpondian (though not so much lefpondian) OR practice puts a fair amount of emphasis on the use of “soft” methods as PSMs, which in this case means Problem-Structuring Methods, rather than Platoon Serjeant-Majors. Perhaps the world is not yet ready for them, but I think we could do with a few more ISMs, or “Ignorance-Structuring Methods” — and I think wargames are a great method for getting people to realise just how much they don’t know about a subject. It certainly works for me.
To my acute embarrassment, the two things I would most advise reading to back up my view about the usefulness of the “soft” approach to simulation/OR/wargaming/analysis, which I describe as the dominant rightpondian mode, are both written by Americans: Russell Ackoff’s “The Future of OR is Past” address to the OR society, and Charles Blilie’s book “The Promise and Limits of Computer Simulation”. Well, a prophet is always without honour in his own land. And we gave them Steven Downes-Martin.
Whoops, I see that he was (now that I’ve taken the time to read the full reports!).
I’ll admit that I and the others on my team were often diverted by the DPRK subgame, and it did lead to a bit of tension between me (as Dear Leader) and one or another of my satraps I was constrained by the rules to punish. They were all quite intelligent and effective in their roles and I didn’t want to have to pick one to be punished each turn. And as you know, only one tried to unseat me via the Central Committee process; I think it might have been different if the players had had different temperaments.
Our outbursts of clapping, and our snarky press releases and tweets, were of course Information Ops and done not so much in the vein of “hey, look at us” but rather because it was about all we had to offer each turn against constant American and American-puppet pressure and aggression, while we worked on other projects (e.g. the SSBN with new, improved screen doors and the rockoon that could have been used against the American satellite network).
Thank you for this; very interesting – even if I don’t remember seeing a brain floating in a jar participating in the game; perhaps it was in the White House room.
You need to enlist that Downes-Martin character for his thoughts on this (unless he was on Team USA already).