
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
- Government Matters: Wong on wargaming at the Department of Defense
- Sepinsky: Rigorous wargames vs effective wargaming
- Connections: on the power of empathy
- IDA endorses the Derby House Principles on diversity and inclusion in professional wargaming
- But we don’t treat women or minorities any different here!
- Wong and Heath: Is the (US) Department of Defense making enough progress in wargaming?
- Army University wargaming tournament, 15 March
- Simulation and gaming publications, January-February 2021
- Simulation and gaming miscellany, 14 February 2021
- Liberating Mosul (solo edition)
Top Posts
- Play with us however you roll: combat wheelchair rules for D&D 5e
- Connections: on the power of empathy
- The personalities of miniature wargame players
- Connections North
- But we don’t treat women or minorities any different here!
- About PAXsims
- Derby House Principles
- Government Matters: Wong on wargaming at the Department of Defense
- COVID Buster : An Epidemic Crisis Management Game
- Matrix games at the US Army War College
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
- 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
Active Learning in Political Science
- Benefits of Student Reflection 01/03/2021
- Hello again 23/02/2021
Ludic Futurism
- Strategist, 2000 26/02/2021
- The Uses of Simple Games 19/02/2021
Wargaming Connections
- Dragoons Assembly 2020 convention 30/06/2020
- Wargaming Podcasts (redux) 27/03/2020
PAXsims editors on Twitter
My TweetsConnections conferences
Journals & Periodicals
- Battles Magazine
- C3i Magazine
- Eludamos: Journal of Computer Game Culture
- GAME: The Italian Journal of Game Studies
- Games and Culture
- International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations
- International Journal of Role-Playing
- Sciences du jeu
- Simulation & Gaming
- The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation
- Training & Simulation Journal
- Virtual Training & Simulation News
Web Resources: fragile and conflict-affected countries
- Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation
- Current Intelligence
- International Alert
- International Peace Institute
- OECD DAC—Development Effectiveness in Fragile States
- PRIO (International Peace Research Institute)
- Small Wars Journal
- UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations
- UN Peacekeeping Resource Hub
- UNDP—Crisis Prevention and Recovery
- US Army—Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute
- World Bank—Conflict and Development blog
- World Bank—Fragile and Conflict-Affected Countries
- World Bank—World Development Report 2011
Web Resources: games and simulation
- Active Learning in Political Science
- Barnard College—Reacting to the Past
- Best Delegate
- Beyond Intractability—Exercises and Simulations
- BoardGameGeek
- ChangeGamer
- Class Wargames
- Columbia American History Online—classroom simulations
- Community Organizing Toolkit—game
- Connections Australia
- 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
- Fletcher School/Tufts University—SIMULEX
- Game Design Concepts
- Game Theory .net
- Gameful
- Games & Social Networks in Education
- Games for Change
- Games for Educators
- GeoGame
- Giant Battling Robots
- Global Justice Game
- Grog News
- Guns, Dice, Butter
- History of Wargaming Project
- Ian Bogost
- ICT for Peacebuilding
- International Game Developers Association
- Journal of Virtual Worlds Research
- Kings College London—Conflict Simulation
- Little Wars
- Ludic Futurism
- Ludology
- McGill Model UN
- McGill University—Brynania simulation
- Mike Cosgrove—wargame design class
- MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program—simulation materials
- MODSIM World conference
- MORS Wargaming Community of Practice
- MSSV
- MUNmatters
- National Center for Simulation
- National Security Decision-Making game
- Naval Postgraduate School—MOVES Institute
- NDU—Center for Applied Strategic Learning
- 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
- Reality is Broken
- Red Team Journal
- SAGSET
- Serious Games at Work
- Serious Games Network France
- Simulations Interactivity Standards Organization
- Strategikon (French)
- Technoculture, Art, and Games
- Terra Nova (Simulation + Society + Play)
- The Cove: Wargaming
- 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
- University of Michigan ICS: Arab-Israeli Conflict Simulation
- US Army—Modelling and Simulation
- USC—Institute for Creative Technologies
- Utrecht Institute for Crisis and Conflict Simulation
- Wargame_[space]
- Wargaming Connection
- Web Grognards
- World Bank—EduTech
- World Peace Game Foundation
- Zones of Influence
Web Resources: games and simulation (commercial)
- Booz Allen Hamilton—wargames and exercises
- BreakAway—serious games
- Brian Train-game designs
- Civic Mirror
- ConSimWorld
- Decisive Point
- Fabulsi—online roleplay simulations
- Fiery Dragon Productions
- GamePolitics
- LECMgt
- MCS Group
- MegaGame Makers
- Military Training & Simulation
- Peacemaker Game
- Persuasive Games
- PlanPolitik
- RAND Center for Gaming
- Sea Change Simulations
- Serious Games Interactive
- Statecraft
- Strategy and Tactics Press
- Track4
- Wikistrat blog
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).