Adjudication in matrix games

A Game Lab session at the recent Connections US wargaming conference examined the different methods of adjudicating the outcomes of arguments put forward in matrix games,  with an eye to examining which methods might be preferred more than others in different circumstances.

The current guidance for assessing arguments in Matrix Games, contained in the MaGCK User Guide[1] is as follows:

Consensus. Some players prefer to reach agreement on the most likely outcome of the declared ACTION. This can work well in highly cooperative games but can be more difficult to implement in cases where actors have conflicting or opposing goals.

Umpired. Once PROs and CONs have been identified it might be left up to an umpire (or White Cell or Control group) to determine what happens. This has the advantage that the game outcomes can be aligned with research or doctrine, or nudged along a path that maximizes their educational value. It can also be useful when the players themselves have only limited knowledge of the game subject matter. However, having a third party determine success and failure can make the game seem rather scripted. If players may attribute the outcome of the game to obtuse or heavy-handed umpiring rather than to their own decisions and interaction with their fellow participants then much of its value may be lost.

Weighted Probabilities. This system of adjudication places a great deal of emphasis on the arguments put forward by the players, while introducing the element of chance. It is slightly more complicated than the previous systems. There is also risk that some professional audiences may recoil at the sight of dice—associating these more with children’s games than serious conflict simulation and gaming[2]. In this system 2 six-sided dice are used, with a score of 7 or more being required to succeed, with each strong and credible PRO argument counting as a +1 dice roll modifier, and each strong and credible CON counting as a -1, with especially high or low results representing more extreme outcomes. This also provides a “narrative bias” to the game as a score of 7 is actually a 58.3% chance of success and helps contribute to the evolving story.

Voting. The success and outcome of actions can be determined by a vote among participants. This can either be a straight majority vote, or the odds of an ACTION can be assessed by the distribution of votes. In the latter case, if 75% of participants think an action might succeed, then it has a 75% chance of success, and percentile dice or some other form of random number generation is used to determine this. Alternatively, players can each be asked to assess the chances of success, and these can be averaged. In analytical games, this provides potentially valuable insight into how participants rate the chances of a particular course of action. Voting systems do risk players metagaming, however—that is, voting not based on their honest assessment of the ACTION and its chances of success, but rather to affect the probability assigned to it to advantage themselves within the game.

Mean/Median Probability. Alternatively, players or teams can each be asked to assess the chances of success, and these can be averaged. In analytical games, this provides potentially valuable insight into how participants rate the chances of a particular course of action. Although not included in MaGCK, there is an add-on set of estimative probability cards which can be used for this purpose. Following discussion, players or teams simply select the card from their hand that, in their view, best represents the probability of an ACTION’s success. These are then averaged (whether by calculating the mathematical mean of all cards played, or by using the value of the median card), and percentage dice are used to determine success or failure.

Discussion

The most popular method for assessment is that of using Weighted Probabilities as this reflects the early widespread use of matrix games in the hobby community. As a method, it is inherently understood by anyone with any familiarity with games and is relatively easy to explain for those without. It is fast and provides the adjudicator more licence in influencing the pace of the game to ensure it doesn’t get bogged down in excessive debate.

The main concern from those present in the Game Lab session in Connections US 2018, was that this, and all the alternatives above, failed to specifically address to one of the academic underpinnings of matrix games, that of crowdsourcing[3] the results.

Based on Surowiecki’s popular book, there are a number of elements required to form a “wise crowd”:
Description

Criteria
Diversity of opinion	Each person should have private information even if it’s just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts.
Independence	People’s opinions aren’t determined by the opinions of those around them.
Decentralization	People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge.
Aggregation	Some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision.

As the MaGCK User Guide already covers crowdsourcing ideas from diverse participants[4], it was felt that the element of aggregation would be best served by the use of Estimative Probability cards[5]. These are available from the Game Crafter, but  a set of print-and-play cards can be found here that have the same utility. It was generally felt that this was a more accurate method to leverage the work on crowdsourcing, as well as making the resulting probability more accessible and acceptable to the participants. The terms on the cards also reflect those commonly used in the intelligence community[6]. It also follows that the participants in the Estimative Probability method should be from all those present and not just be limited to the specific roles in the matrix game.

Oinas-Kukkonen has made a number of conjectures based on Surowiecki’s work[7], asserting that “too much communication can make the group as a whole less intelligent,” which we can address by the encouraging relatively quick moves, and the intention to avoid too much detailed debate following a player’s argument. This means the game can have a reasonable number of moves, requiring that the participants to have to live with the consequences of their actions made earlier in the game. I would suggest at least six moves, to allow for two cycles of Action-Reaction-Counter Action by the players. I would therefore recommend, at least for high level policy and analytical games, that the Estimative Probability method is used in future.

The procedure should be, following the arguments, to have all participants with their own deck of cards, and assess the probability of success independently and without discussion. They should then all reveal them simultaneously to the facilitator for adjudication. My preference would be to select the MODE or the MEDIAN of the results, rather than the MEAN as it is quicker and avoids lengthy arithmetic. Excessive outliers can then be discussed quickly.

It should be noted that, when using percentage dice to determine the final result, it is usually best to be consistent in expressing exactly what the dice roll is for (the success of the argument) and what score is needed with participants who are not gamers (e.g. “A 70% chance of success, which is a score on the dice between 1 and 70”). There is evidence that participants perceive “a 70% chance of success” differently to “a 30% chance of failure” despite their mathematical equivalence[8], so consistency in expression is advised.

---

[1] MaGCK User Guide at https://www.thegamecrafter.com/games/pdf-only-magck-matrix-game-construction-kit-user-guide

[2] Edwards, Nicholas. 2014. What Considerations Exist in the Design of the Elements of Chance and Uncertainty in Wargames Utilised for Educational and Training Purposes? MA thesis, Department of War Studies. King’s College London.

[3] Surowiecki, James. 2004. The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations. Doubleday.

[4] 1.0 Introduction to Matrix Gaming, in MaGCK User Guide, 2017, p7.

[5] MaGCK Estimative Probability Cards at https://www.thegamecrafter.com/games/magck-deck-1.

[6] Sherman Kent, 1964. “Words of Estimative Probability,” Studies in Intelligence (Fall), via CIA website.

[7] Oinas-Kukkonen, Harri (2008). Network analysis and crowds of people as sources of new organisational knowledge. In A. Koohang et al. (eds), Knowledge Management: Theoretical Foundation. Informing Science Press, pp. 173-189.

[8] Hohle, Sigrid Møyner & Teigen, Karl Halvor. More than 50% or Less than 70% Chance: Pragmatic Implications of Single‐Bound Probability Estimates. 2017. Behavioural Decision Making, Volume31, Issue1, pp 138-150.

Mason: The history and future of wargaming

Roger Mason has an article on “Wargaming: It’s History and Future” in the Journal of Intelligence, Security, and Public Affairs 20, 2 (2018).

Wargames have captured the imagination of persons seeking a competitive edge over their opponents. For over a thousand years people have used games to analyze problems, develop solutions, and train problem solvers. This paper reviews critical developments and innovations in the history of wargames. Wargames provide an opportunity to test hypotheses, offer alternatives, solve problems, and stimulate innovation. Wargames continue to offer opportunities to understand pos- sible future states and develop compatible decision models

You’ll find the full piece here.

You can find more of Roger’s thoughts on wargaming, threat assessment, security training, and crisis management at his LECMgt blog.

Crisis in South East Europe 2023

Back in May, the Centre for Science and Security Studies at King’s College London published a Crisis in South East Europe 2023 scenario for use in wargames, table-top exercises and classroom simulations (link).

The scenario was designed to provide a means through which to think through the potential impact of disruptive technologies, such as missile defence, on any future integrated conflict involving NATO and Russia and, by direct implication, on strategic stability in Europe and the evolution of the wider international security environment. Importantly, the scenario also provides the basis for a more general consideration of how crises and integrated, all-domain conflict between NATO and Russia could potentially evolve in southeast Europe.

The southeast Europe scenario was the second of two scenarios developed by Ivanka Barzashka for a project examining how missile defences may affect nuclear deterrence and stability in the evolving strategic environment. Project adviser Ivan Oelrich and King’s doctoral researchers Johan Elg and Marion Messmer contributed to the scenario’s intelligence reports. The project was funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York under its initiative to explore disruptive technologies and nuclear stability.

The scenarios key assumptions are:

1. By 2023, the United States, Russia and NATO have all acknowledged a new era of strategic competition involving major powers.
2. Global economic growth has enabled increases in defence spending and military modernisation.
3. Six years of “America first” have produced intended results in the form of improved military readiness and morale, and new military capabilities for both the US and its allies.
4. Russia has pursued a course consistent with its current security strategy and military doctrine and has met its stated armaments targets.
5. NATO has continued to adapt and strengthen deterrence and defence against Russia beyond the 2016 Warsaw Summit decisions.
6. Ukraine has continued on a pro-Western path and has modernised its military, resulting in a renewed ambition to regain control of “occupied territories”.
7. Turkey has had an ambivalent relationship with the West: support for NATO, opposition toward specific NATO member policies and closer cooperation with Russia.
8. New advanced conventional capabilities, cyber offence and counter-space weapons have been fielded by all sides.
9. The US, NATO and Russia have made no major changes to nuclear capabilities beyond current plans, but the INF Treaty and New START are no longer in play.
10. The US and NATO seek protection against Russian cruise and ballistic missile threats to Europe and make progress in deploying those capabilities.

Including in the package are briefing and background materials for the United States, NATO, and Russian teams. The scenario package does not provide rules or procedures for running the scenario—that is up to you.

h/t Ivanka Barzashka

 

UPDATE: Need a map so you can run this as a matrix game, using the Matrix Game Construction Kit? Tom Mouat has kindly provided one for the Ukraine (pdf):

A tiled version can be found here.

Review: GridlockED

GridlockED. The Game Crafter, 2018. Project leader: Teresa Chan. $89.99.

Back in 2016 PAXsims reviewed Healthy Heart Hospital, a rather tongue-in-cheek hobby boardgame about managing staff and treating patients in a for-profit hospital. GridlockED is also about patient management in a busy hospital, but with a rather more serious purpose. Developed by a team of faculty members, researchers, and students at the Division of Emergency Medicine at McMaster University, it is designed to teach medical students and others serious lessons about triage, patient flow, and treatment. This article from the journal Academic Medicine explains the thinking behind the game.

The goal of the game is to survive 8 turns and accumulate 500 points (from admitting and discharging patients) without suffering more than two patient safety adverse events. A number of patient cards are drawn randomly each turn. Each present a patient’s symptoms, and the medical steps necessary to address these so that they can be sent home or admitted for ongoing treatment. CTAS (Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale) Category 1 and 2 patients must be stabilized quickly before additional examination or treatment can occur. CTAS 3-5 patients can wait in the Waiting Room until staff and appropriate beds are available. The patient descriptions are excellent—we certainly learned a great deal about emergency room procedures.

The players start with a four nurses, a doctor, resident, radiologist, and consultant. Points can be expended on additional staff or beds as ward upgrades. Random events in the patient deck through unexpected challenges (for example, a needle-stick injury to a staff member) and the occasional bonus (such as a grateful former patient bringing treats!).

The game includes the main game board and waiting room; patient, event, and staff cards; dry erase markers; and staff pawns—all very nicely produced. A brief quickstart guide explains some key game procedures, and an online video (below) provides a longer introduction.

The absence of a comprehensive rule set was our only major quibble with the game. The printed guide omits some key information, and it is awkward to advance through the video in search of a rule explanation which may or may not be there. We had a few specific questions:

Must a staff member complete all their actions before another staff member may act? Or can you switch back and forth between staff until all staff actions have been expended? (They may swap back and forth.)

When rolling for additional patients on some turns, do you simply add d6 patients to the base number indicated? (Yes, just add the score of the die.)

When spending an action to move a patient, must the nurse token move with the patient? (No, just move the patient.)

Card E15 mentions a “Observation Zone,” which doesn’t exist on the game board. (This should read “Intermediate Zone.”)

The video seems to show the players with 300 points on Turn 1. Do they start with some points? (No they don’t—the video is a little ambiguous.)

However, as you can see from the answers above, Teresa and the GridlockED team were quick in responding to our email queries—clearly they are used to dealing with emergencies. Revised rules are in the works, and will appear in a future version of the game.

All-in-all, GridlockED has much to offer as a pedagogical tool for medical training. It also nicely illustrates how a relatively simple board game can be used to explore practical real-world challenges.

 

 

We Are Coming, Nineveh!

We Are Coming, Nineveh! is a tactical/operational-level game of the Iraqi government campaign to liberate the western area of the city of Mosul from the forces of Daesh between 19 February and 9 July 2017. This was one of the largest and most difficult urban operations of the post-WWII era, and marked a major defeat for Daesh and its so-called “Islamic State.”

The game was first designed by (PAXsims research associates) Juliette Le Ménahèze and Harrison Brewer as their project for a conflict simulation design course at McGill University. Subsequently, (renowned counter-insurgency game designer) Brian Train and (PAXsims senior editor and Middle East scholar) Rex Brynen joined the team too. A commercial publisher has already expressed strong interest, and we plan to have a final prototype of the game to them by the end of 2018.

The zonal map depicts the major areas of west Mosul, including the densely-built Old City where Daesh forces made their last stand. Units each represent 100 or so Daesh fighters, or and battalion-sized units of the Iraqi Army, Ministry of the Interior, and elite Counter-Terrorism Service (CTS). Cards are used to indicate defensive preparations, air and indirect fire support, special weapons, and various other capabilities. Each turn represents approximately two weeks of gruelling combat.

The use of blocks maintains uncertainty and the “fog of war.” The game combines a simple, intuitive, but highly effective system for movement and combat with a number of innovative game elements:

• Before the operation starts, players choose a number of special capability cards—reflecting their planning and preparations for this long-awaited battle. Should Iraqi government forces deploy large amounts of air and artillery support, or might this cause excessive destruction in Iraq’s second largest city? Should they bring in additional ground forces, or invest in better training for those they have? What about the volunteer Shi’ite militias of the Popular Mobilization Forces—will these be used in the largely Sunni city? Will Daesh invest in more and larger improvised explosive devices? Will they pre-position bomb factories and arms caches, or perhaps a media production facility to publicize their accomplishments? What surprises might they have in store: home-made drones, primitive chemical weapons, or a network of tunnels under the city? No two games will be the same.
• During each turn, event cards can be triggered at any time by either player. Some of these indicate the growing collateral damage done to the city and its people. Others generate tactical vignettes. Troops can get lost in the maze of small streets, communications can break down, and commanders can be faced with difficult moral and operational choices.
• Unlike most wargames where there is a single measure for victory or loss, We Are Coming Nineveh assesses three key aspectsof the campaign: the speed at which the operation is completed, the casualties suffered by Iraqi government forces, and the collateral damage done to Mosul. One might outperform the historical case, capturing the Old City faster—but at a terrible civilian cost.

The game is thus able to combine low complexity (and hence be accessible to even neophyte wargamers) with a rich and detailed treatment of this important battle. A typical game lasts approximately 3 hours.

Playtesting the current version of the game, with a revised map, event, and capability cards. Units of the Iraqi Army’s 9th division (brown) have advanced to the west (right above), cutting off the remaining supply route for Daesh. The latter has largely retreated to the Old City, where the narrow alleys and dense urban terrain offers tactical advantages. To the south (top), Daesh veterans have counterattacked, throwing back some Federal Police and Emergency Response Division troops in disarray. Meanwhile, elite Counter-Terrorism Service (CTS) forces prepare to advance into the Old City itself. A Daesh IED factory there provides a constant supply of Improvised Explosive Devices for the defenders, while a prepositioned Arms  Cache has reduced the effects of supply lines being severed. Coalition air and artillery support has been important in supporting the Iraqi advance so far, but is unlikely to be available for fire support missions in heavily-populated urban areas.

 

Supporting PAXsims

PAXsims is a volunteer, non-profit project. We do have a few expenses from time to time, however—Wordpress hosting, the CONNECTIONS NORTH annual conference, and support for various PAXsims gaming projects.

Some regular readers have asked how they can help, so we have set up a Patreon page where you can now make a small monthly donation. Any funds received will go to supporting our work on conflict simulation and serious gaming—and the creation of more great content on the website.

Lindybeige on WATU

Nikolas Lloyd—better known as popular military historian Lindybeige on YouTube—has produce a video on the important wargaming of the Western Approaches Tactical Unit during WWII.

Here on PAXsims you can read Paul Strong’s paper on WATU, as well as about the WATU wargame recreation that we will be conducting (with Dstl and the Royal Navy Maritime Warfare Centre) at the Western Approaches museum in Liverpool on September 8.

h/t Peter Perla

AFTERSHOCK and MaGCK availability from The Game Crafter

From time to time, The Game Crafter runs short on some game components for AFTERSHOCK: A Humanitarian Crisis Game or the Matrix Game Construction Kit. If so, click the “email me when I can buy” button on the TGC order page to be notified when the game is shipping once again.

In the case of AFTERSHOCK, an alternative components version is also available. This is exactly the same game, but with slightly different pieces. It’s just as good at the original—game play is not affected by the substitutions.

If you are absolutely desperate for a copy, email me—I often have a few copies in reserve.

 

 

WATU wargame at Western Approaches war museum, September 8

On Saturday,  8 September 2018, volunteers from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, the Royal Navy Maritime Warfare Centre, and PAXsims will be at the Western Approaches museum in Liverpool to recreate a WWII convoy escort wargame, of the sort conducted by the Western Approaches Tactical Unit.

Almost besides ourselves with excitement about an exciting event being staged at WA on September 8th – keep you diary free pic.twitter.com/3VbJ0TR0Vh

— Western Approaches HQ (@WestApproaches) July 18, 2018

This will be a unique opportunity to see the gaming techniques that helped turn the tide of the Battle of the Atlantic—and to honour the work of Captain Gilbert Roberts and the women and men of WATU. Hope to see you there!

 

Simulation & Gaming (August 2018)

The latest issue of Simulation & Gaming 49, 4 (August 2018) is now available:

Editorial

• Serious Games Are Not All Serious
  • Timothy C. Clapper

Articles

• Integrating a Serious Game Into Case-Based Learning
  • Tracie M. Addy, Derek Dube, Catherine Croft, Jonathan O. Nardolilli, Orville C. Paynter, Michelle L. Hutchings, Michael J. Honsberger, and Philip M. Reeves
• Comparing Serious Games and Educational Simulations: Effects on Enjoyment, Deep Thinking, Interest and Cognitive Learning Gains
  • Nina Imlig-Iten and Dominik Petko

Ready-To-Use-Simulation

• MEDIUS: A Serious Game for Autistic Children Based on Decision System
  • Kinane Daouadji Amina and Bendella Fatima
• Games Ready to Use: A Serious Game for Teaching Natural Risk Management
  • Franck Taillandier and Carole Adam

Connections US 2018 report

This year’s Connections US professional wargaming conference—the 26th since the series began—was held at National Defense University on July 17-20. It was the largest meeting yet, with some 280 or so registered, and around 210 attendees. Amongst those registered for the conference were several students (Keiko Ivinson, Kia Kouyoumjian, Jason Li, Caroline  Wesley) from my game design seminar at McGill University this past term, and some of them will be posting their own perceptions to PAXsims in the near future.

The conference started off with a welcome from Vice Admiral Fritz Roegge, the President of National Defense University. He discussed the use of gaming for education and outreach at NDU, notably through the activities of the Center for Applied Strategic Learning. Later, COL Voris W. McBurnette, the Director of CASL, also welcomed the group and said a little more about the work of the Center.

This was followed with a general presentation by Matt Caffrey (Air Force Research Laboratory) on wargaming. He argued for the utility of wargaming, offering a brief overview of defence wargaming in the US and elsewhere and historical examples of when and where wargaming had made a clear difference. He then went on to define key elements of wargaming.

The conference next split into a choice of conference sessions—I attended a session on wargaming counterinsurgency, by Brian Train (slides). Brian noted the relative paucity of commercial wargame designs exploring insurgency and irregular warfare, despite this being the most common form of armed conflict since WWII. He also noted the ways in which counterinsurgency game designs typically differ from wargames about more conventional kinetic operations.

“Conventional” wargame	“Irregular” wargame
binary, zero-sum opposition	multiple though frictional points of view/ factions
ordered situations	chaotic and nonlinear game states
rigid treatments of time, space and force	flexible, malleable scales, non-representational units
symmetry of information, methods and objectives	asymmetry of these

After lunch, fellow PAXsims coeditor Tom Mouat (Defence Academy of the UK) and I offered a seminar session on matrix gaming (slides). We provided an overview of the technique and had two games set up (ISIS CRISIS and HIGH NORTH) to illustrate game processes and take a few sample actions.

The rest of the afternoon was devoted to game demonstrations. In addition to having AFTERSHOCK: A Humanitarian Crisis Game and the Matrix Game Construction Kit on display, Brian and I also showed off We Are Coming, Nineveh!, an operational-level game of the 2017 battle for West Mosul, which we are developing with my former students Juliette Le Ménahèze and Harrison Brewer.

Day 2 started with a keynote presentation by John Lillard on US naval wargaming during the interwar period, drawing upon his book on the topic. He highlighted how lessons were learned from both regular wargaming at the Naval War College and the fleet exercises. Games were either STRAT (chart), TAC (board), or QR (quick reactions). Games either focused against a superior (Red/UK) in opponent in the Atlantic, or a weaker (Orange/Japan) opponent in the Pacific. The opposing side was always played by students, as well as Blue. John took us through a series of game vignettes from the 1920s and 1930s, showing how the games addressed new issues and innovations, including air and submarine assets, amphibious operations, logistics, and allied operations. The games included such experiments as different approach routes, formations, amphibious operations, anti-submarine escorts, airships, chemical warfare, floating drydocks, and converted (cruisers, merchantmen) aircraft carriers.

John Lillard discussing interwar wargaming at the US Naval War College.

After a coffee break, attention turned to game design. Goor Tsalalyachin (Dado Center, IDF General Staff) offered an overview of strategic wargaming in the Israeli Defence Force. He emphasized the need to move beyond simplistic, two-dimensional thought. In the IDF, wargames are used for critical decision support and knowledge development, as well as training—often involving personnel at the most senior levels. He highlighted the dynamic and changing nature of the strategic environment (which demands a constantly agile conceptual/operational design process), and the value of wargames in developing and challenging new ideas and concepts. The method he described was largely that of a two-move seminar game. In many cases, I suspect, this produces structured scenario discussion rather than a great deal of iterative gaming.

Becca Wasser (RAND/Georgetown) and Stacie Pettyjohn (RAND/Johns Hopkins) addressed this issue in their presentation on “Beyond the BOGSAT: the case for structured strategic games.” Becca argued that despite the reinvigoration of wargaming, POL-MIL gaming has somewhat languished, in part due to the “squishiness” of the political dimension. Given this, it could be useful to add greater structure to such games by drawing from design features of some commercial games. Unstructured games can tend to opinion-discussion, rather than making choices with consequences. Stacie suggested that too many designers default to free-form seminar games, which end up being non-game BOGSATs or low-quality games. The latter involve unfocused team deliberations, hasty decisions, and an abundance of semi-relevant background materials that are often ignored by players.  Game validity excessively depends on ad hoc, undocumented “expert” adjudication. Seminar games are thus often overly dependent on players and experts, adjudication is based on unexpressed, undocumented mental models, and games are difficult to replicate. They also produce too few innovative ideas.

Stacie suggested drawing upon commercial game mechanisms, pointing to Brian Train’s game designs and PAXsims’ very own AFTERSHOCK as good examples, as well as the Countering ISIL game developed by RAND (based on a design first prototyped at a MORS wargaming workshop). There are, she noted, challenges to developing such games, such as the up-front challenge of producing game models and rules. Such games often do not scale well to large audiences. They might also face problems of acceptability (with strategic boardgames looking too “gamey”).

Becca and Stacey discuss adding more structure to strategic games.

Frans Kleyheeg (TNO) presented on “gaming and VR technology as a game changer,” noting the utility of virtual simulation for both wargaming and design development/experimentation.

Subsequent discussion explored issues of communication and information in games, the use of formal planning tools, and what to do about indecisive players.

After lunch it was time for the Connections Game Lab. Essentially, this consisted of a series of topical issues, questions, or design challenges which had been identified based on input before the conference. Each of these was assigned a table and facilitator where they could be discussed more fully. I led a session on gaming unpredictable adversaries (and allies), which touched on the sources of unpredictability (is the behaviour genuinely pathological and irrational, or does apparent unpredictability simply stem from inadequate information and models?), as well as why and how this might be embedded in a game design. My thoughts on the topic can be found in an earlier piece at The Strategy Bridge, as well as my presentation last year at Dstl.

I also attended a very useful session on wargaming mass atrocity, where we discussed how and why this might be undertaken. I mentioned the work that Kia and Keiko are doing on gaming the Darfur conflict, the purpose of which is to teach about the logic of mass atrocity as well as possible mechanisms for mitigation and prevention. A session later in the conference focused on wargaming and the analysis of human decision-making. Participants noted that not only can games be used to examine human factors and decision-making dynamics, but also that understanding (and manipulation of these through structure, information, and player engagement) is essential to good game design.

Back to panel presentations in the main auditorium, Hyong Lee (NDU) talked about “educating future cyber strategists through wargaming.” He talked about several different cyber games they have used at NDU and elsewhere. He identified several challenges: an excessive sponsor focus on technical solutions (when there may be useful no tech/low tech solutions); incorporating technology issues at a strategic level; gaming the non-technical effects of cyberattacks (political impact, etc.); and gaming the “shaping” (left-of-boom) phase of cyber.

Phillip Reiman (USAF) and Colby Sullins (USAF) discussed the training of attorneys in strategic decision-making through gaming. Rush to Judgment is a boardgame they developed to train Air Force lawyers on moving cases through to resolution using the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. They found the game improved knowledge but also underscored to participants the challenges involved in dispute resolution.

Who knew that military contracting dispute resolution could be so fun?

Finally, Patrick Schoof (US Army National Simulation Centre) presented on “Battle for Atropia: Army Division Level Wargaming.” Battle for Atropia is a 45 minute-hex-based wargame inspired by Battle for Moscow. The design for this then sparked a request for an enlarged and revised version, Land Power, for classroom use. The game uses 6 hour turns, with command points limiting activity, and a card system for enablers and supports.

Asked what surprises they had encountered, panelists noted the importance of playtesting, and the surprising directions players sometimes take a game (especially in a matrix game). One audience question raised the issue of information flows in games. There was also discussion of assessing educational utility.

The evening was Connections game night, with an opportunity to play in a variety of games. I ran a game of Reckoning of Vultures, from the Matrix Game Construction Kit.

Thursday began with a panel on “perspectives and tools.” My presentation was the first up, on “In the Eye of the Beholder? Cognitive Challenges in Wargame Analysis” (slides), based on the DIRE STRAITS experiment at the Connections UK 2017 wargaming conference. In this, we asked three separate analytical teams to provide independent assessments of game methodology and findings. Their finds were quite divergent—suggesting that wargame analysis might depend as much on the analysts as the game. I went on to suggest ways of addressing this, including red teaming game analysis and attention to cognitive bias training.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

David Ross (US Air Force Research Lab) discussed the challenges of effectively integrating emerging technologies into wargames He noted that it is not enough to simply present the technology to participants—it helps to also highlight how it operates as a system, interacts with other systems, and to suggest some preliminary concept of employment.

Ben Connable (RAND) made an excellent presentation on “The Will to Fight: Adding Brutal Realism to the Military’s Games and Simulations.” The emphasis here was not on immersive realism, but rather the modelling of willpower, morale, and cohesion effects. He noted that commercial/hobby wargames generally do a much better job of representing morale effects on battle performance than military wargames, where this key psychological aspect is often completely ignored—resulting in units fighting to the death or failing to react to battlefield events or context. Together with colleagues at RAND, they are in the process of developing models that can represent willpower effects in both strategic and tactical/operational levels. He mentioned the Close Combat series of the digital games as one of their inspirations for their own modelling. In later comments I also pointed to This War of Mine as doing a superb job of representing morale and psychological factors, albeit in a game about civilian survival rather than war-fighting.

After the morning coffee break, attention turned to the importance of narrative in wargame. Anja van der Hulst (TNO) made a presentation on wargaming hybrid warfare, in which she warned about the excessive assumptions of rationality and strategic behavior in most games. Anja noted the importance of grievance in conflict and emphasized that this has an emotional as well as rational or material component. Emotional reactions tend to be less rational/strategic, and anger and humiliation can be a powerful driver of behavior. She discussed how she had explored such issues in a variety of game settings, including a modified version of the Baltic Challenge matrix game.

J. Furman Daniel III (Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University) presented on “fiction as a wargame.” His research (with Paul Musgrave) found that fiction has measurable impact on policymakers and hence policy. He explained this, in part , with reference to Peter Perla and ED McGrady’s narrative-based argument on why wargaming works. He also suggested that fiction can help wargamers better design games that engage participants, and is a useful way of encouraging reflection and analysis.

John Derosa (George Mason) and Lauren Kinney (George Mason) explored narrative analysis of wargaming, based on an experiment that they conducted at the 83^rdMORS Symposium, where they performed actant analysis of three parallel games of Drive on Metz. Their findings focused such issues as tactical vs strategic preoccupations, more active or passive approaches to the enemy, and differences in inter-group dynamics.

Last year, Connections presented its first lifetime achievement award to Peter Perla for his important contributions to the art of wargaming. This year, Connections founder Matt Caffrey was the well-deserved recipient of this honour, which came complete with a banana-trophy. (Last year, late arrival of the trophy had forced the organizers to present Peter with a banana instead).

Matt receives his award, with a picture of last year’s award ceremony in the background.

Working Group sessions followed next. I took part in the group on in-stride adjudication, defined as “adjudication performed simultaneously with play over a period of hours or days.”

It was quickly evident that experience with in-stride adjudication varied widely, in terms of resource availability, time and decision pressures, and (of course) game purposes.  In-stride adjudication is a key part of many of my own games, including the Brynania peace operations game as well as most megagames. Matrix gaming also involves another type of in-stride adjudication.

There were eight presentations, based on eleven short papers that had been written for the session before the conference. Among these was a very good presentation on “player perspectives” by Jason Li, developed from ideas discussed earlier in the year by members of the McGill student team.

My own written piece represented a few hastily-written reflections, but I departed from these in my verbal comments, and instead focused on the notion of adjudicators as both game technicians and theatre directors. In the former capacity they are responsible for making sure the game runs smoothly and stays on-course to achieve its objectives. In the latter capacity they are responsible for keeping the players engaged in the game narrative—maintaining the immersive illusion of a fictional or “what if” universe. It is important not to “break the fourth wall” by having players think more about adjudication than the emerging narrative and the embedded choices it presents.

This issue of directness (or indirectness), intensity, and social dynamics of interaction between players adjudicators—and the impact of these on trust, buy-in, and potential player alienation/grievance—emerged as a frequent theme during the subsequent discussions at my working group table.

The final day of the conference featured a terrific keynote address by Volke Ruhnke on “(War)gaming for complexity.” He started by noting the differences between complicated phenomenon and complex phenomenon. Warfare (and politics) falls into the latter category. Forecasting the latter is difficult because of systemic shocks and other non-linear effects. Model-building—purposeful (but inevitably imperfect) simplification—is essential to understanding and forecasting. If you construct a dynamic model, you can then see how the system might behave under differing circumstances.  Constructing a model also provides an opportunity to see what might be missing, and assists in moving from analysis to synthesis of many interacting parts.

Volko also discussed the impact of diversity (and the “wisdom of crowds”) on analysis. External model-building (and hence game design) provides a mechanism for explaining and synthesizing implicit mental models. He used the CIA training game Kingpin (a game about high value targeting) to show how a collaborative process of game design helped to identify gaps in, and facilitate refinement of, the underlying model. Modelling also forces you to make decisions about what is causally important.

Volko says many clever things about games and analytical modelling, with an image of the Kingpin game in the background.

 

He compared various modelling approaches (graphic, role-play, manual gaming, computational) across five criteria (ease of use, accessibility to the underlying model, dynamism, iteration, and granularity). Each approach has different strengths and weaknesses. Computational modelling , for example, is powerful, but it may be difficult to understand and assess the underlying (largely black-boxed) model.

For game designers, he emphasized the importance of keeping game designs simple, warned against falling in love (too quickly) with your game model, and you ought to be prepared to combine modelling media. For educators, he noted that it teaching systems thinking requires teaching models. Students, he noted, make great playtesters—and you should invite student critique. For analysts, you might want to pre-coordinate (and illustrate) your models. Feel free to tabletop it—it is a relatively cheap way to explore model. Everyone should consider their mix of both approaches and talent/participants (“diversity is your friend”).

In the subsequent Q&A period, Volke noted the value of teaching game-making. Building the game (even if you don’t get to running the game) can produce valuable insight into issues.

Working Group reports followed, for which I wrote down notes as quickly as I could:

• The wargaming in education group offered a variety of insights:
  • Regarding cyber education, the group noted that cyber information is often (unnecessarily) classified or highly technical—both of which impede accessibility and hence broader education. While technical experts are best supported by existing resources, managers/policymakers and those working on general purpose games/scenarios are less well served.
  • Looking at wargaming with technology, it was noted that education “does not have deep pockets.” Transparency can be an issue in computer games. Web-based games have advantages in development and accessibility.
  • On the topic of gaming, education, and low-intensity conflict, it was noted that there are several interesting current games at NDU, NPS, and elsewhere. Several gaps and shortcomings were noted, including information operations, cultural misunderstanding, and the existence of ineffective games and exercises. Finally, the group asked how willing we are to game these issues (especially with political or cultural sensitivities). They noted that less structured games (like matrix games) may be especially useful for low-intensity and hybrid warfare topics.
  • The working group offered some thoughts on teaching game design. The noted the value of having students play a game (perhaps even a bad game) and suggest modifications, and generally encouraging critical game play. A “petting zoo” approach can be useful in quickly demonstrating different game mechanisms and approaches.
  • Finally, there was brief mention of CWAR—Collaboration for Wargames in Academics Research—a best practices and information sharing group for those within the Department of Defense and US government. The contact person for this is Scott Chambers (NDU).
• The working group on linking game purpose to game design was based on PhD dissertation working currently being conducted by Ellie Bartels (RAND) on analytical and discovery games. She noted that attention tended to focus on the topic of a game and game design/format, but there was usually less attention to how to link these two. Her draft framework suggests that the information generated can be fitted into four general archetypes: understanding the problem; structured comparison; innovation; and evaluation. Each type, she suggested, are differentiated by several distinguishing characteristics. The working group tried applying her framework to hypothetical games, to assess its utility in aiding a designer. She noted the challenges posed by differing understanding of terminology (validity, verification, confidence, etc.) across the community.
• The report from the working group on in-stride game adjudication summarized the process we had used, invited additional feedback on the papers, and encouraged the submission of post-conference reflections too. Revised papers and synthesized analysis from the working group session will be available online (via PAXsims) later in August. Watch this space for further details.
• The working group on wargaming as a catalyst for innovation was the final one to report. It started by noting the erosion of America’s (military, economic, and technological) edge, and the dynamics of competitive innovation in warfare. This group also had several formal papers/presentations to spark discussion (eventually to be posted on the Connections website). Wargames can expose hidden assumptions and provide a forum for trying new ideas. Difficult gaming challenges may help to force innovation by players. They noted the need to make games flexible and user-friendly. There is a need to bring more cognitive diversity to bear on problems (“not just middle-aged white guys”). There is also a need for more rigour in some areas. More use might be made of alternative political futures. (There was a lot more here too, but I could only type so quickly as the brief-back slides flashed by!)

The final session was a conference hot-wash. Connections 2018 had been flawlessly organized, and there had been a great many very valuable presentations, so feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Some of the audience comments and suggestions included:

• Game lab feedback and reflections are welcome and will be included in the online conference proceedings. I thought the small, participant-suggested, topic-oriented game lab sessions had worked very well.
• More time for game demonstrations/play.
• How best to engage students and early career professionals, especially outside the military?
• Hosting a panel of wargame consumers/clients, to better understand their perspectives.
• There is now a Connections US Facebook page.

Before the conference closed for a year, I also reminded everyone of the Connnections conferences to come over the next year:

• Connections UK will be held on 4-6 September at King’s College London
• Connections Netherlands will be held on 1-2 October
• The Serious Games Forum will be held at École Militaire, Paris on 3 December
• Connections Australasia is usually held in mid-December (although there has been no announcement yet for 2018).

Connections North will be held at McGill University in Montreal on 16 February 2019, so that everyone can enjoy our balmy winter weather.

WWII convoy escort game: The RAN version

HMAS Nepal

From the Royal Australian Navy archives comes this September 1943 summary of a “convoy escort” game,” apparently based on the work of the Western Approaches Tactical Unit in the UK:

The convoy escort game described below has been designed to exercise Commanding Officers of Escort Vessels and their teams in dealing with attacks on convoys. It has been played successfully in England and is recommended as an interesting and valuable means in improving efficiency and team work of convoy escorts.

The game can be played either in a ship or ashore, being organised on a day when several ships are in harbour.

You’ll find a transcription of the brief instructions here (courtesy of Sally Davis, who has also kindly removed the former WWII classification markings so that they won’t cause problems with government firewalls).

What is not not made clear is how adjudication is undertaken—that is, how target spotting or the effects of torpedo attacks or depth charges were determined.So far there is no evidence of dice or other stochastic methods being used in the WATU game, so it all may have been free kriegsspiel dependant on the judgment of expert umpires.

If you come across any information on WATU wargaming, do pass it on!

h/t Sally Davis

Simulation and gaming miscellany, 13 July 2018

PAXsims is pleased to present a number of items on conflict simulation and serious (and not-so-serious) gaming that may be of interest to our readers.

The Connections US professional wargaming conference will be held at National Defense University on 17-20 July. Several of the PAXsims team will be there. We will have AFTERSHOCK: A Humanitarian Crisis Game and the Matrix Game Construction Kit (MaGCK) on display during the games demonstrations, and there will also be an opportunity to play We Are Coming, Nineveh! (The Battle for West Mosul, February-July 2017) or to discuss other games that are in development. Be sure to say hello!

If you miss us at Connections UK, members of the PAXsims team will also be at Connections UK in September, the Serious Games Forum (Paris) in December, and/or Connections North in February.

The “NATO Engages” public outreach component of the recent NATO summit in Brussels features an audience-participation simulation/seminar game/discussion on cybersecurity:

Cyber Crisis Simulation

Ambassador Sorin Ducaru , Special Adviser , Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace
Carmen Gonsalves , Head of International Cyber Policy Department , Kingdom of the Netherlands; Co-chair, Global Forum on Cyber Expertise
Tanel Sepp, Head of the Cyber Policy Department, Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Estonia
Moderator: Diana Kelley , Cybersecurity Field Chief Technology Officer , Microsoft

Concerns about cyber security have skyrocketed as governments, economies, and societies increasingly depend on the internet and digital technologies. The increasing number of cyber-attacks also places new pressures on top of long-existing coordination difficulties when EU and NATO countries find themselves in need to respond to a cyber-driven crisis. The scope and sophistication of modern cyber-attacks require quick, interoperable responses throughout all strategic and logistical layers, from the political leaderships to civil services to the private sector. The objectives of this cyber exercise will be to highlight challenges in decision-making and response procedures when facing a crisis situation caused by a cyber-attack; to identify what capabilities help the decision-making process and multi-stakeholder intelligence sharing; and to improve cyber awareness among the participants as well as highlighting lessons learned and best cyber practices. A panel of practitioners will be asked to respond in real-time to a realistic cyber crisis scenario unfolding in a fictional country. The audience will be asked to play an active role during this exercise by commenting and voting on the most convincing response options presented by the panelists as the crisis scenario evolves.

There is no word yet if the next NATO summit will include a simulation of diplomatic chaos within the alliance sparked by the unpredictable leader of a major NATO country.

While on the subject of NATO, are you looking for an overview of the recent Supreme Allied Command Transformation urbanization wargame final planning workshop? Well, we’ve got that!

Still more NATO stuff: Simon Fraser University recently conducted its 2018 NATO Field School and Simulation.

The SFU-NATO Field School and Simulation program is a 12 credit intensive upper-level Political Science course that combines coursework with experiential learning. The program will be open to universities across Canada and provides the opportunity for students to observe and engage military personnel, policy advisors and diplomats in their workplace. This includes visiting and embedded experts from the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces, NATO and academia, as well as high-level briefings at NATO HQ, SHAPE, and the Canadian Delegation to the European Union.

The cohort will attend familiarization visits at Canadian Armed Forces bases in Western Canada, then travel to NATO HQ in Belgium for a week of briefings by NATO officials. At the NATO Defense College (NDC) in Rome, the cohort will do four days of a professionally run NATO-simulation (NMDX) with NDC mentors and Senior Course curriculum. The 2018 field school will also visit the Canadian Battlegroup in Latvia, and NATO’s Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence in Riga.

Details regarding the 2019 programme will be posted later to the SFU webpage.

The Australian Army professional development website The Cove features a recently-posted paper by Callum Muntz entitled “Gamification: Press ‘START’ to Begin.”

Gamification uses proven techniques to influence human behaviour, is used by big businesses the world over, and is an ever-growing industry (Pickard 2017). Most military training is dull, dry, and uninteresting – but it doesn’t have to be so. Gamification can be used to enhance the Army’s training, and should become a consideration in the Systems Approach to Defence Learning (SADL). Yu-Kai Chou’s Octalysis model could be considered a worthy starting point for improving Army training with Gamification.

Elsewhere at the website, you’ will also find a quick decision exercise, Takistan Ambush.

 

At Medium, “Oscar’ uses the Matrix Game Construction Kit and a repurposed game board from Labyrinth to produce Crashing the Gates: An Ad-Hoc “Wargame” Scenario About Migration.

 

WATU in the war diaries of A.F.C. Layard

The Western Approaches Tactical Unit, Liverpool. The wardroom crest appears to have been taken from the WWI-era S-class destroyer HMS Tactician. During WWII, a T-class submarine sailed under that name, using a different crest (depicting a chess Knight) but the same motto (“checkmate”).

 

PAXsims has been closely following the research being done by Paul Strong and Sally Davis on the Western Approaches Tactical Unit, the pioneering group of (predominately female) RN/WRNS wargamers led by Captain Gilbert Roberts who played such a major role in developing anti-submarine tactics and training naval officers during World War Two.

The latest account comes from Commanding Canadians: The Second World War Diaries of A.F.C. Layard, edited by Michael Whitby and published by the University of British Columbia Press in 2005 (footnotes have been removed below for clarity). Commander A.F.C. Layard was a Royal Navy officer who was assigned to the Royal Canadian Navy for much of the war. He first attended the tactical school in September 1943:

Monday, 6 September 1943 – Liverpool

Arrived at Lime Street at about 0700. No taxis but eventually got a lift from a Wren in a small navy van to H.M.S. Mersey where after some difficulty I got a cabin and some breakfast. Apparently I ought to have asked for accommodation.

At about 0730 I went to Derby House and saw Gardner, who has been put ashore on account of deafness, and fixed up that I should take passage out to Canada in an escort leader that gives me a few days leave after this course. I then walked to the cathedral and found there was a special 4th war anniversary service at 1100, which I attended. A great many people there. F.O.I.C. [flag officer in command] read some prayers, an Air Marshal read the lesson, and the Bishop of Wilkesley preached a good sermon. Among the hymns we sang was “John Brown’s Body,” which was somewhat unusual. Back to the Mersey for lunch. This is really a T124 training depot with a certain amount of spare officers’ accommodation. In the p.m. I read and slept in my cabin. Put a call through to J. at 1900, which eventually I got through at 2000. The accommodation here is pretty seedy, but I suppose good enough. Nice sunny day.

Monday, 6 September 1943 – Liverpool

After breakfast I checked in at Derby House at 0900 for the Tactical Course. There are some 25 of us ranging from myself, the only Commander, down to Mids. R.N.V.R. Scott Thomas18 is one of us. The Director is Capt. Roberts, 33 who is a v. good lecturer but v. theatrical and, of course, would like you to know that he was 75% responsible for the recent defeat of the U-boat in the N. Atlantic. He’s probably right and is certainly thought very highly of here. The Deputy, Jerry Cousins, shouts while he lectures so that you are quite stunned. We had a certain number of lectures, and we began the first game where I am S.O. of the escort. I immediately began to feel woolly and helpless, but much as I dislike displaying my ineptitude I’m sure this course is going to be first class value. We lunched at the Derby House canteen and who should Scott and I meet there but Air Commodore Ragg who we knew in the Vivacious days at Kyrenia in Cyprus as a Flight Lt. After packing up at 1700 I went to Liver Building about pay and travelling expenses, and then Scott and I had early supper at the Mersey and then went out to a cinema and saw some mediocre sort of film.

Tuesday, 7 September 1943 – Liverpool

A lecture and then two hours of the game, which came to an end at lunch time. With a good deal of help from the staff I managed alright as S.O. G.N. Brewer was in the bar at Derby House having just had the Egret sunk under him by the new German gliding homing bomb. Sounds most unpleasant. Raymond Blagg was also there, and he took me across to a sandwich bar close by for lunch. In the p.m. more lectures and a summing up of the game. Went to the Derby House canteen for tea and then returned to the Western Approaches Tactical Unit and spent about ¾ hour reading A.C.I.s [Atlantic Convoy Instructions] and thinking about the night attack game we play tomorrow when I am S.O. again of the syndicate.

Back to Derby House and called on Commodore Russell who is Chief of Staff. He greeted me with “What have you done to be sent out there?” which seems to imply it is a God awful job. Collected Gardner from his office and brought him back to the Mersey for drinks and dinner. He, Scott, and Marjoribanks sat talking afterwards.

Wednesday, 8 September 1943 – Liverpool

After a bit of preliminary discussion we started in on a night encounter exercise. I was S.O. of our syndicate and had Eardley Wilmott for Staff Officer. Lunch at the canteen and then on with the game until about 1500 when it was summed up. My side didn’t do too badly. We then had a short lecture followed by a demonstration on the board of the sort of search operation that support groups are carrying out in the Bay of Biscay, and finally Roberts gave us a few remarks on the new German weapon, the glider bomb. Scott and I went back to the Mersey and shifted and at 1800 it was announced that Italy had surrendered unconditionally. Grand news. Scott and I then went to Derby House and met Ragg and his wife in the Senior Officer’s Lounge where we had drinks. There were all the big shots. The A.O.C. [air officer commanding] (Slatter), another Air Commodore, F.O.I.C. (Ritchie), and the Chief of Staff, Russell. Finally the Raggs took Scott and me off to the Bear’s Paw for dinner. He is an extremely nice chap, but she is developing into the typical senior officer’s wife. They have no children, which is probably her trouble. We walked back to the Mersey where we said goodbyes, and Scott told me the tale of his disappointment at being passed over after all the high ups had more or less told him he was a cinch for it.

Thursday, 9 September 1943 – Liverpool

I think one way or another I had a bit too much booze last night and my brain is feeling a bit woolly. On arrival at the Tactical School we were first shown the layout of the big and final game, which covers a period from an hour before sunset to sometime at night. There are 2 convoys, a carrier, and a support group. I am S.O. escort of our convoy. We then withdrew and decided on our policy, what the support group should do, and what the aircraft should do, etc., and then at about 1000 we started the game. I didn’t have very much to do, but there was a flood of signals and a lot of plotting to do. Chavasse and I were bidden to lunch by the C. in C., Admiral Sir Max Horton, at Derby House. Some Captain who was also there told Chavasse he had just been awarded the D.S.O. for some convoy fight which he had conducted successfully some months ago. The conversation at lunch consisted of the C. in C. pumping Chavasse about his new B.D.E. rather late. We stopped at about 1630, by which time in the game it was practically dark. Scott and I had tea at the Canteen, and then I returned to the Mersey and shifted and listened to the 1800 news. We have made another large scale landing near Naples. In spite of the Armistice we are still meeting fierce opposition from the Germans who are now estimated to have 18-20 divisions in the country. Walked to the Adelphi where I met Raymond and Venetia, and they gave me dinner. They have found a house up here and so will be leaving Little Orchard for good very shortly. Sad.

Friday, 10 September 1943 – Liverpool

A beastly hot day when Liverpool looks its very worst. At the Tactical School we carried on with our game, which today became a night encounter. I didn’t have a great deal to do as S.O. of my convoy owing to the brilliant way in which Chavasse’s support group rode off the U-boats. We finished at about 1600, and then we were taken down to the Plotting Room at Derby House and shown around. Scott and I then had tea in the Canteen and then I walked back to the Mersey and shifted and then went back to Derby House, called for Gardner, and we both caught a train to Crosby. Hector Radford who came out for a short trip with us in the Broke had asked us to drinks and supper. It turned out to be quite a big party because in addition to ourselves and Radford’s three sisters, there was an R.N.V.R. 2 striper, the old “pilot” on D’s staff and his wife, a naval padre, and three small children. We had a terrific supper. The table before we started looked rather like the food advertisements in American magazines. Quite a good party. Gardner and I caught the 11:16 back to Liverpool. The news from Italy seems confused, but the Germans seem to be fighting us and the Italians and they claim to have sunk an Italian battleship which was trying to escape from Spezia.

Saturday, 11 September 1943 – Liverpool/Prinsted

I got up early and did my packing before breakfast. It was pouring with rain when I walked to the Tactical School. The whole forenoon was spent summing up the big game, which was most interesting, and at 1200 we broke up. A first class course for which Roberts deserves full marks. Went to Derby House and had several at the bar before having lunch. I then went to the Exchange Station and after waiting some time managed to get a taxi, which I shared with 3 other people who agreed to go to the Mersey and pick up my gear and then go to the Lime Street Station. I caught the 1400 train to London and was lucky to get a seat as the train was crammed before it left. Got to Euston just before 1900 and so went to the station restaurant and had dinner and then got a taxi to Waterloo and caught the 8:45 to Havant. Joan met me there with the car, thank God, at 2215 and we drove home. A hot muggy day.

Layard attended a second WATU course in December 2013:

Monday, 13 December 1943 – In the air/Liverpool

We touched down at Prestwick [Scotland] at about 0830 after a 9½ hours’ trip. I couldn’t have been more comfortable. After checking up papers, customs, etc., I had a shave and a wash and then some breakfast. Didn’t feel a bit hungry. I tried to fly on to Liverpool but as there was nothing going I was taken to Kilmarnock station in a car and I caught a 1030 train to Liverpool. There was a heavy frost all over the country and I had a long cold wait at Carlisle. Eventually got to Liverpool (Exchange Station) at about 1700 and took a room at the Exchange Hotel. Feeling rather sorry for myself. Perhaps the height and the oxygen is something to do with it. I rang up J. soon after 1800, but as I didn’t know my plans we couldn’t decide whether or not she should come up. Turned in early.

Tuesday, 14 December 1943 – Liverpool

Feeling very much better I’m glad to say. I went along to the Tactical School and reported to Roberts just before 0900. At 1200 after a lecture the rest of the course went to finish off the first makee train game, and so as I had missed the start yesterday I went over to Derby House and saw the Chief of Staff – MacIntyre. I thought perhaps I could do a bit of the course and also do a bit of discussion with other support group S.O.s, but there don’t seem to be any support groups in just now. Lunched at the Derby House officers’ canteen and saw Gardner and his wife – now a 3rd officer Ciphering Wren. In the p.m. we had more lectures and a short plotting exercise, after which I went to Liver Building and made some enquiries about ration cards and warrants. Back to the Exchange and rang up J. again, who said she was coming up tomorrow – whoopee!!! At lunch time I met Smitty in the Bar. He has left Whaley and is now Fleet Gunnery Officer up here with an acting brass hat. He came to dinner with me at the Exchange and we had a long chat. He told me Peter Knight had been killed in Sicily a few months ago. I am sorry. Poor Bob Knight!!

Wednesday, 15 December 1943 – Liverpool

Clocked in at the school at 0900 and after our lecture we started a night battle game. I was bidden to lunch with the C. in C. with a 2½ striper, a 2 striper R.N.R., and a French naval officer who are all doing the course. C. in C. was very affable. Went on with the game in the p.m., summing up, and had one more lecture. I went back to the hotel and shifted and then went along to Lime Street Station to meet J’s train due at 6:30. It was ½ hour late and when it came in no J. Met Ragg at the station also waiting to meet his wife on the London train due 7:10, which I now imagine J. is catching. This train is known to be hours late and so we adjourned to the new British Officers Club at the Adelphi and had some drinks. It is a very nice place. As the transportation office was keeping Ragg in touch and there was plenty of time I went back to the Hotel for dinner. Then I got a telephone call from the station, and eventually I found J. waiting for me there at about 2115 having arrived by some unknown train. Anyway we eventually got back to the Hotel and I got J. some sandwiches and drinks in our room. We had a tremendous chat and it was lovely to see her again.

Thursday, 16 December 1943 – Liverpool

I went to school at 0900 and for about 1½ hours we had preliminary discussions and preparations for the big day and night game and then we started to play it. I am in command of one of the support groups, which is about the most interesting command, and have a chief of staff to help me in the plotting. At lunch time met J. at the State Restaurant, but we had to wait such a long time for a table that I had to dash back to my battle before I’d really finished. There was a great deal of activity on the board in the p.m. Went back to the Hotel and met J. for a late tea and at 1830 the Gardners came and had drinks with us. They are a nice couple. Sat about in the lounge before going to bed. This is infinitely more pleasant to stay at than the Adelphi.

Friday, 17 December 1943 – Liverpool

J. caught the 10:00 train to London as she had promised to be home for Gillian’s breaking up play. My battle raged all day on the table and finally came to an end at about 1600. Very good value and I think I didn’t disgrace myself. I had some tea at Derby House and then rang up S.C.N.O. London from Gardner’s office and had a talk with the Signal Officer about one or two W/T points. I went back to the hotel and shifted then after almost ½ hour’s wait I caught a tram out to the other side of the town and went to dinner with Speak and his wife. He was with me in Firedrake as a Sub R.N.V.R. He is now a Lieut. His wife is American and very pleasant. They gave me a lot of whisky and got me talking much too much, with the result that I missed the last tram and it took me the best part of an hour to walk back to the Hotel.

Saturday, 18 December 1943 – Liverpool/London

Roberts took the whole of the forenoon summing up our game. He is extremely good and it was most interesting. I had an early lunch at the Derby House canteen and then went back to the hotel and tried to get a taxi. After waiting as long as I dared I finally walked with my suit case to Lime Street station and caught the 2:00 train to London. Six of us from the course had reserved a carriage. It was terribly slow and we were 2½ hours late at Euston arriving at 2045. That meant I missed the 10:45 to Havant, so I went to the Euston Hotel and rang up J. to say I couldn’t get down and then rang up Lillian to ask if she could give me a bed. Had some sandwiches at the hotel and then tubed to Earl’s Court and walked to the Robinsons’ House where I was given a camp bed in the drawing room.

For more PAXsims coverage of WATU, see the blog posts here. The WATU pictures here are from the photo archives of the Imperial War Museum.

Plans are underway to recreate a WATU wargame at the Western Approaches museum in Liverpool in early September. Stay tuned for for further details!

Hoping this will be coming to WA in September !

— Western Approaches HQ (@WestApproaches) June 29, 2018

 

Avoiding the “resource curse” in Petronia

Extractive industries can be an important part of the economy in developing countries, providing substantial export earnings and employment. However, oil and other mineral wealth can also come at a cost: royalties can be siphoned off by corruption; mineral rights might be allocated through murky processes, mired with bribery and other illicit influence; exports might cause overvaluation of the national currency (“Dutch disease”), stunting other industries; environmental degradation might be overlooked; and state revenues may be used to finance repression and patronage politics (“rentierism”), dimming the prospects for democracy. Collectively this is often referred to as the resource curse.

The National Governance Resource Institute has created an online educational game to explore these issues: Petronia.

NRGI is proud to announce the arrival of Petronia, an interactive online course unlike any other in the resource governance field, where learners can “play” at influencing resource governance outcomes in a simulated context.

More than any other NRGI resource to date, Petronia makes learning about resource governance fun and interactive with dynamic animations and a close focus on learning through roleplaying and gamification. It is ideal for online learners with limited background in the field, but a desire to understand key issues.

The course explores the policy challenges in the Republic of Petronia, a fictional developing country that has made a potentially game-changing oil discovery. Learners join a team of experts deployed to advise the country’s policy-makers in a series of missions exploring different aspects of resource governance over time. Learners build their knowledge of the technical issues while developing an understanding of the different perspectives and complex trade-offs of managing resource wealth for development.

Learners not only think and reflect about policy choices in Petronia, they can also “do” by consulting stakeholders, analyzing government and international data, and developing recommendations with their team. We hope this “serious gaming” aspect will appeal to both adult and youth learners alike.

In the game, the newly-elected President of Petronia and her team of advisors must decide how to address current and future development of the oil sector. Much of it is “click and be told information or be given things to read” variety, which is then followed by periodic quizzes. Players get few (if any) chances to make meaningful choices that impact game play, so it’s all rather more like an instructional video than a game, with a lot of clicking things/sliding things/reading along the way. That will work with some audiences, but I suspect that others (many university students, most development professionals) will find it a somewhat fiddly and time-consuming way of accessing information and insight.

In this regard, I think that Mission Zhobia (previously reviewed at PAXsims) did a better job of harnessing the strengths of a game-based approach to development education. Still, the National Governance Resource Institute are to be praised for their innovative effort. The supporting materials in the simulation are also very good, and players will learn much if they read them.

You’ll find an article on Petronia here, from the The Economist.

h/t Rory Aylward