CNA: After the wargame

In the third part of their wargaming trilogy, the CNA Talks podcast explores data collection and analysis in professional wargames:

In part three of our occasional series on wargaming, CNA’s chief wargame designer Jeremy Sepinsky returns, accompanied by Robin Mays, research analyst for CNA’s Gaming and Integration program, to discuss how they analyze the results of a CNA Wargame. Jeremy starts by describing the “hotwash” discussion that occurs immediately after a wargame concludes, and what insights participants often take away. Throughout this episode, Jeremy and Robin describe the type of information note takers record during a wargame, and how that data gets used in the final analysis. Using examples from actual wargames about logistics, medical evacuation and disaster relief, they explain how analysis reveals insights not readily apparent to those who played the game.

The link above also contains links to Parts 1 and 2.

Also, for those interested in game analysis, be sure to read the results of our DIRE STRAITS experiment on how analysts can influence (or bias) analysis.

The SIGNAL-to-noise ratio

At the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Heather Wuest offers some thoughts on the SIGNAL wargame-based research project on deterrence. We have previously mentioned some concerns about playability, and she expresses a similar view:

In an era where I can play complex dungeon crawlers on my iPhone, I was expecting more from the online version of SIGNAL (Strategic Interaction Game between Nuclear Armed Lands), the Project on Nuclear Gaming’s experimental wargame. In terms of playability, SIGNAL’s first big problem is the tutorial; it’s long and confusing. Second, you need to be matched with two other people on the server to play, but when I tried, no one else was playing. Admins are working around this problem by offering “Open Play Windows,” where they hope to have people online and waiting for you to play. But these windows all take place within in the 9-to-5 workday during the week, and SIGNAL just isn’t fun enough to risk getting fired over.

Don’t get me wrong; I was and am still excited about this game. SIGNAL was designed to collect data from as many people as possible, to study strategic interaction in wargaming scenarios. As a nuclear nerd, I found the implications for deterrence theory to be fascinating. Nuclear deterrence is hard to study because when it works, nothing happens, and it is difficult to identify exactly why nothing happened. When talking about nuclear weapons, the act of successfully deterring someone means that in the end, they didn’t nuke you. Not getting nuked is good, but hard to study because you can never be certain that the enemy intended to nuke you in the first place or what specific action or inaction or combination of both led the enemy to come to the decision that allowed your continued existence.

Anyway, I was excited for SIGNAL because it promised a game where people could practice nuclear deterrence, an experience practiced before only by armchair philosophers (like me) and policymakers. The game offers an environment in which data on decisions can be recorded and studied to grow academic understanding of how deterrence works and, hopefully, to be used later to help humans get better at not making nuclear war.

But the game does have playability problems. After making it through the tutorial (which I rage quit once, when my browser froze because I tried to nuke someone, apparently an unanticipated player action at that juncture), I quickly realized that I needed two other players if I were to play the game. Browsing the Open Play Windows, I found none scheduled for times when I was free to play, so I whipped out my short list of reliable and pliable friends to recruit some fellow wargamers. I will be honest; SIGNAL was a harder sell than I was expecting. After bribery (pizza and beer) and much whining as I helped speed them through the tutorial, we were ready to play.

I don’t know what this observation has to say about my friends or me, but gameplay went something like this: After we realized that one of the players did not have nuclear capabilities, that player got nuked, repeatedly, because it was an easy way to deny him/her resources. In the game, a nuke costs the same amount of money as a conventional missile, but predictably does a lot more damage. Once the poor, non-nuclear soul was shoved to the resource sidelines, the two remaining players duked it out over resources on the map. Game scoring is complicated, but having more resources makes more options available to you. The game lasts five rounds, so we just operated under the rule that he who has the most resources at the end of the fifth round wins. I am not sure that back end data collection got much of academic use out of our first couple rounds.

As the night wore on, and we better understood the advantages and disadvantages designated to each player at the start of the game, SIGNAL switched from an exercise in nuking to an exercise in avoiding being nuked. But it took quite some time to reach that deterrence focus….

h/t Stephen Downes-Martin

Trade War matrix game

From the ever-productive and ever-mysterious mind of Tim Price, PAXsims is pleased to present another matrix game plucked from the media headlines: Trade War.

Since January 22, 2018, China and the United States have been engaged in a trade war involving the mutual placement of tariffs. However, the roots of this dispute go much further back. In the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump pledged to fix China’s “long-time abuse of the broken international system and unfair practices”. In April 2018, the United States filed a request for consultation to the World Trade Organization to investigate whether China was violating any intellectual property rights.

Among other things, the US accuses China of currency manipulation, espionage and unfair trade practices which disadvantage US firms. Trump has sought to link the trade dispute to other issues of concern including Taiwan and the One China policy.

China is known for taking a long view. Back in 1986, Deng Xiao Peng established “Program 863,” a sort of academy of sciences and technologies charged with closing the scientific gap between China and the world’s advanced economies in a short period of time. The 863 program and its institutional derivatives not only sponsored actual research, they also promoted the acquisition of advanced technologies from other countries with little distinction asto whether it was obtained legally or illegally. Some have argued that the more recent “Made in China 2025” issimply an updated version of this, encouraging and rewarding corporations and private individuals to obtain technology on its behalf.

The New York Times is quoted as saying: Big American companies fiercely protect their intellectual property and trade secrets, fearful of giving an edge to rivals. But they have little choice in China—and Washington is looking on with alarm. To gain access to the Chinese market, American companies are being forced to transfer technology, create joint ventures, lower prices and aid homegrown players. Those efforts form the backbone of President XiJinping’s ambitious plan to ensure that China’s companies, military and government dominate core areas oftechnology like artificial intelligence and semiconductors.

China is increasingly challenging norms and existing power structures; seeking to shape the facts on the ground to benefit China and allow it freedom of manoeuvre. This is occurring on multiple fronts, including:

• • Technology Dominance
  • International Law
  • Military Superiority
  • Spheres of Influence
  • Information control
  • International norms

The growing tension between the US and China, as they increasingly compete across multiple fronts, has stressed the UK policy position, which has maintained twin goals of being open to China and Chinese investment whilemaintaining the ‘Special Relationship’ with the US.

The Huawei issue has brought this to a head. Although successful internationally, Huawei has faced difficulties in some markets, due to cybersecurity allegations — primarily from the United States government — that Huawei’s infrastructure equipment may enable surveillance by the Chinese government. Especially with the development of 5G wireless networks (which China has aggressively promoted), there have been calls from the U.S. to prevent use of products by Huawei or fellow Chinese telecom ZTE by the U.S. or its allies.

In the game players assume the roles of:

• US government
• Chinese government
• UK government
• Russia
• Western firms
• Chinese technology industry

You’ll find everything you need to play here.

You will also find a great many other matrix game resources at PAXsims. If you wish to design and play your own matrix games, you might find the Matrix Game Construction Kit (MGCK) of use—it was designed by PAXsims with the support the UK Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl).