PAXsims is devoted to peace, conflict, humanitarian, and development simulations and serious games for education, training, and policy analysis.
If you wish to be notified when new material is posted here, use the “subscribe by email” option below.
Relevant comments are welcomed.
PAXsims operates on a non-profit basis. You can donate to support our activities via Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/PAXsims
Join 3,538 other subscribers
Recent Posts
- Simulation & Gaming (June 2024)
- Fight Club International: The Readiness Micro-Game
- Scholarship opportunity for women interested in wargaming
- Using digital outbreak simulations in academic settings
- GPPI: Gaming the Political Economy of Conflict
- Wargamer Job at NDU
- Registration for Connections US 2024 now open
- Connections UK 2024
- All that’s left is the grading…
- Wargaming the effects of a Trump presidency on NATO
Top Posts
- The wargaming Wrens of the Western Approaches Tactical Unit
- Wargaming the effects of a Trump presidency on NATO
- Ace of Aces: or, why you should Do Maths as a game designer
- Fight Club International: The Readiness Micro-Game
- The National Security Decision Making Game
- North of the Ibar River: A Kosovo matrix game
- Engle: A short history of matrix games
- MaGCK
- Derby House Principles
- WATU Wargame Report 2023
Categories
- call for papers
- conferences
- courses
- crowd-sourcing
- forthcoming games and simulations
- gaming vignettes
- job opportunities/positions vacant
- latest links
- methodology
- not-so-serious
- playtesters needed
- reader survey
- request for proposals
- scholarships and fellowships
- simulation and game reports
- simulation and game reviews
- simulation and gaming debacles
- simulation and gaming history
- simulation and gaming ideas
- simulation and gaming journals
- simulation and gaming materials
- simulation and gaming miscellany
- simulation and gaming news
- simulation and gaming publications
- simulation and gaming software
Archives
Associations
- Australian Defence Force Wargaming Group
- Connections Netherlands
- Connections North (Canada)
- Connections Oz (Australiasia)
- Connections UK
- Connections US
- Georgetown University Wargaming Society
- International Game Developers Association
- International Simulation and Gaming Association
- MORS Wargaming Community of Practice
- North American Simulation and Gaming Association
- SAGSET
- Serious Games Network – France
- Simulations Interoperability Standards Organization
- UK Fight Club
- USA Fight Club Wargaming Group
- Women's Wargaming Network
- Zenobia Award
Institutions (public and commercial)
- Advanced Disaster, Emergency and Rapid Response Simulation
- Booz Allen Hamilton—experiential analytics
- BreakAway—serious games
- Brian Train-game designs
- Civic Mirror
- CNAS Gaming Lab
- ConSimWorld
- Decisive Point
- Fabulsi—online roleplay simulations
- Fiery Dragon Productions
- Fletcher School/Tufts University—SIMULEX
- Fort Circle Games
- GamePolitics
- History of Wargaming Project
- Imaginetic
- Kings College London—Kings Wargaming Network
- LBS – Professional Wargaming
- LECMgt
- McGill Model UN
- MCS Group
- MegaGame Makers
- MODSIM World conference
- Naval Postgraduate School—MOVES Institute
- NDU—Center for Applied Strategic Learning
- Nusbacher & Associates
- Nuts! Publishing
- Peacemaker Game
- Persuasive Games
- PlanPolitik
- RAND Center for Gaming
- Serious Games Interactive
- Slitherine Software
- Statecraft
- Stone Paper Scissors
- Strategy and Tactics Press
- Track4
- Utrecht Institute for Crisis and Conflict Simulation
- Valens Global
- Wargaming Connection
- Wikistrat blog
- World Peace Game Foundation
Journals and Publications
- Battles Magazine
- C3i Magazine
- Eludamos: Journal of Computer Game Culture
- GAME: The Italian Journal of Game Studies
- International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations
- International Journal of Role-Playing
- Military Training & Simulation
- Sciences du jeu
- Simulation & Gaming
- The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation
- Training & Simulation Journal
- Virtual Training & Simulation News
Simulations and Games
- Active Learning in Political Science
- Barnard College—Reacting to the Past
- Best Delegate
- Beyond Intractability—Exercises and Simulations
- BoardGameGeek
- Class Wargames
- Columbia American History Online—classroom simulations
- Community Organizing Toolkit—game
- ConSimWorld
- CRISP: Crisis Simulation for Peace
- CUNY Games Network
- Darfur is Dying—game
- Economics Network—classroom experiments and games
- Emergency Capacity Building project — simulation resources
- EuroWarGames
- Game Design Concepts
- Game Theory .net
- Gameful
- Games & Social Networks in Education
- Games for Change
- GeoGame
- Giant Battling Robots
- Global Justice Game
- Grog News
- Guns, Dice, Butter
- Ian Bogost
- ICT for Peacebuilding
- Journal of Virtual Worlds Research
- Little Wars
- Ludic Futurism
- Ludology
- Mike Cosgrove—wargame design class
- MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program—simulation materials
- MSSV
- National Center for Simulation
- National Security Decision-Making game
- No Game Survives…
- North American Simulation and Gaming Association
- Oil Shockwave Simulation
- Pax Warrior
- Pervasive Games: Theory and Design
- Play the Past
- Play Think Learn
- Purple Pawn
- Serious Games at Work
- Serious Games Network France
- Strategikon (French)
- Technoculture, Art, and Games
- Terra Nova (Simulation + Society + Play)
- The Cove: Wargaming
- The Forge Wargaming Series
- The Ludologist
- The Open-Ended Machine
- Tiltfactor
- Tom Mouat's wargames page
- Trans-Atlantic Consortium for European Union Studies & Simulations
- United States Institute for Peace—Simulations
- University of Maryland—ICONS Project
- US Army—Modelling and Simulation
- USC—Institute for Creative Technologies
- Wargame_[space]
- Web Grognards
- Zones of Influence
@Tim Smith Thank you for your thoughtful response. To emphasize a point where we appear to diverge:
An analytical wargame, that is, a wargame that is used for research purposes, involves primary data collection from human subjects. Analytical gaming activities are subject to research ethics clearance from an appropriate body.
Universities have their own research ethics committees (called Institutional Review Boards in the United States). Government agencies do too. For example, the UK Ministry of Defence has MODREC, which reviews gaming activities across the MOD: https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/ministry-of-defence-research-ethics-committees
Educational games are not subject to such formal requirements, but as my colleague Dr David Banks should be subject to increased ethical scrutiny. See his talk and further discussion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hDbk7uW-CE
While I think there should always be evaluation as far as relevance to reality and efficiency/productivity of the game( system)s, I think “free” wargaming not chained by academic restrictions (or distorted by reigning academic ideology) should continue to be the way to go.
Academic degrees, protocols, and hierarchy do not guarantee relevant creativity, and there is justified suspicion they can handicap that.
Ivanka Barzashka, Managing Director of the King’s College Wargaming Network, offers a proposal that touches upon both academic and ethical standards, two important issue areas that must be distinguished clearly. Academic standards uphold principles of scientific validity — soundness of evidence and data combined with logical coherence in inference and theory. The second set of ethical standards provides protections for individual subjects of typically psychological or medical research, many of whom are students or private citizens. In the U.S. this effort is associated with the Belmont Report on human-subjects research and its enforcement by university ‘Institutional Review Boards’; other nations have similar policies and committees.
Defense and other applications of modelling, simulation, and analysis (with wargaming as an important, distinct form of M&S) do require sound scientific standards and the ethical conduct of evidenced-based research. They do not, however, treat the human participants as the subjects of the research, any more than any other form of scientific/academic research treats the researchers and support staff as the subjects of their own research. Wargaming involves humans in a more visible way than other forms of defense decision-support, but the participants are not the subjects.
Barzashka is right, on the other hand, to emphasize scientific standards. The effectiveness of defense planning and decision is a function of the knowledge gained through the supporting wargaming, M&S, and analysis, which in turn is a function of the extent to which these uphold methodological and broader scientific standards. These processes do need a renewed infusion of scientific rigor and methodological modernization, of the kind undertaken during World War II and thereafter. These standards have eroded even while extensive methodological modernization has occurred outside the organizations tasked with defense decision support. These tend, in the U.S. at least, to retain increasingly obsolete methodology, methods and processes employing, for instance, stovepiped, tools-centric techniques in a complex era that demands and offers cross-stovepipe, multimethod integration principles and practices; discrete-event simulation models in an age that demands and offers system-dynamic and agent-based models; frequency-based statistics in an age that demands and offers Bayesian learning, and unvalidated ‘free Kriegsspiel’ wargame models (if we can call them that) that lack rigor, in an age that demands and offers extremely low-cost, rigorous, validated models for ready defense use.
Some conceptual clarification might help us scope out the optimal way ahead, starting with the multiple meanings of the noun ‘game’ and the specificity of the prefix ‘war’. First the prefix: a wargame, per se, is a game on warfare at the strategic, operational or tactical levels (conventional, unconventional; air, land, sea; historical or current, etc. — many applications). And ‘game’ refers, rather ambiguously, either to the rules, algorithms, mechanics and data values (basically, the causal architecture) of a game design or, alternatively, to events in which the game is being played. The former is an ‘object’, if you will, the latter a process employing the object.
A wargame ‘object’ is a model, in manual/paper or computerized/digital form, that depicts the warfare phenomena of interest, a model itself being a reduction of theory to manipulable and therefore rationally/empirically testable form (as ‘well-formed formulae’). By contrast, the wargame process or event involves the use of that model for certain purposes: e.g., analysis, education/training, entertainment. Whichever the use, ‘playing’ or otherwise implementing/running the model over time is simulation: participants ‘role-play’ (simulate) real-world decision-makers fulfilling specified command roles.
‘Analytic’ (decision-support) wargaming plays a unique role in defense research, serving as an integrated analytico-synthetic method that adds substantial value in the ‘problem structuring’ phase of a sound multimethod research paradigm/programme, in which ‘analysis’ (e.g., operational research), game theory, and computational M&S all can and should play vital, distinct and interdependent roles. Wargaming, done properly (that is, using low-cost, validated models) facilitates the isolation and manipulation of causal variables, the discernment of pattern in complex phenomena, the formulation of hypotheses, and initial sensitivity testing to weight the variables and prioritize the hypotheses for subsequent in-depth testing using computational and quantitative tools and techniques (and note that OR and M&S are no less ‘human-directed’ than is live gameplay; it’s just hidden behind the curtain: every command decision and behavior enacted by a roleplayer in live and virtual simulation is coded by a software engineer in constructive, computational models; the main difference being that the former infuses domain expertise in the behavioral representations). Following Peter Perla, defense wargamers refer to this spiral learning process as the ‘cycle of research’ (Argyris & Schön speak similarly of ‘double-loop learning’ in organizational development).
Thus ‘analytic’ wargaming is concerned not so much with the behavior of individual participants as with cause-and-effect in the external, objective domain of interest. Wargaming engages domain experts in the initial modelling of the warfare problem. Expert domain theoreticians design the model and extend its range of application. Testing for internal coherence (‘verification’, in M&S speak) is performed internally, then expert domain practitioners participate to subject the model to tests of external validity (‘validation’) and then participate in wargame events that employ the model to explore the decision space in the domain being represented, with a view toward substantive discovery.
The model creates situations that drive decision-making, especially if implemented (‘played’ in simulation) by competent domain experts (rational actors), whether civilian or military. That is, consistent with the range of variability/uncertainty inherent in the situation being modelled, a valid model will bound the range of ‘player’ choice in all the various decision points and their tactical details. Over the course of a limited and generally manageable series of simulation executions (with the aforementioned low-cost, validated model), different sets of competent role-players will trend toward a consistent pattern of statistically normative outcomes (‘expected values’). This is particularly the case in stable environments such as, for instance, land warfare between the late Napoleonic era and World War I or again in late World War II, naval surface warfare between heavily armored warships, and long-term attritional campaigns such as conventional strategic bombing and naval guerres de course.
The model, therefore, is the predominant governing factor, through its algorithmic relations among variables and its quantification schema (magnitudes of the variables’ values). The domain expertise/competence of the human participants will vary, of course, but that is not what analytico-synthetic wargaming, conducted as a phase in decision-support of defense planning or policy, examines. Brilliant or incompetent participant decision-making might be noted but is not the source of research findings.
In fact, the entire value of wargaming in the paradigm/programme/cycle lies in the model and the warfare outcomes it demonstrates in given scenarios (initial conditions). What are the rough-order-of-magnitude (‘ROM’) sensitivities between causes and effects (independent and dependent variables); where do spikes, inflections and cascades occur and diminishing marginal utilities follow? What variation in force quantities and combat qualities count most and least? How do these relate to ‘ROM’ costs in the national defense program or to logistical consumption rates in the forward area in a future war?
There would appear to be no role for Belmont/IRB intrusion in this realm, where paid defense professionals design and implement wargames as part of their jobs and no after-action reports critique their performance or behavior.
Things are a bit different in educational/training wargaming, a dimension of defense preparedness more akin to the academic educational (vice research) mission. But here students are graded on their individual performance and team contributions through wargame lab projects and associated in-class drills just as they are on papers and objective tests. It is just another form of graded coursework. Thus nor is there a role for Belmont/IRB intrusion here (Rex Brynen commented in the recent Connections USA conference that Canadian policy, as one exemplar, exempts in-class materials and work from such oversight).
Were a researcher to propose research into student performance in coursework (of any nature), or into human performance in any activity, then the human subjects would properly deserve IRB oversight. But that would seem the main and perhaps the only kind of research in which such protections are warranted or appropriate.
Finally, with regard to a third, very prominent domain of wargaming, Stephen Downes-Martin and Robert Rubel have written persuasively on the epistemological, evidential and ethical pitfalls encountered in the large-scale ‘Title X’ wargame events hosted by US DoD/service colleges/universities. We might be right to train our gaze here. These events, however, are somewhat unique. They are neither rigorously scientific nor rigorously pedagogical. They do not directly, formally inform analysis for procurement or policy planning nor do they directly teach students warfare principles/practices. But they do shape perceptions and assessments in defense leadership ranks and must therefore be as epistemologically sound as practicable. It might be time to subject them to a searching methodological evaluation with a view toward a fresh infusion of scientific rigor.
These large-scale, high-level wargame events do not employ validated simulation models. They do not entirely replicate the wargaming performed at the US Naval War College (and the German Kriegsakademie) prior to the Second World War nor that in the Royal Navy’s Western Approaches Tactical Unit (WATU) during the war. It’s not clear they fully replicate the practices the US Navy undertook in its vigorous wargaming and fleet exercise program in the 1970s-80s. In all of these, the warfare models were more or less rigorous, as validated by empirical data and real-world testing as conditions allowed, and implementation, and hence testing, was repeated on numerous occasions for validation and assessment purposes. Yet today’s simulation-gaming environment, manual and computational, permits substantially higher levels of scientific validity than anything achieved in previous eras of pre-war wargaming, warranting a through review of practices in high-level defense wargaming.
But at that, it’s still conducted by paid defense professionals functioning not as private personalities but rather as anonymous rational actors. What it requires is philosophical governance, not bureaucratic and legal. And this is true of wargaming across the board, not only in professional institutions, but perhaps even, with the aforementioned exception of research into the behavior of living human subjects, in academic research and pedagogy as well. Given concerns raised in academe concerning threats to academic freedom posed by widespread zeal and rigidity in IRB rulings (see for instance the following statement by the American Association of University Professors: Research on Human Subjects: Academic Freedom and the Institutional Review Board, https://www.aaup.org/report/research-human-subjects-academic-freedom-and-institutional-review-board), other research institutions might be advised to cast a wary eye toward contemporary university practices. Where the stakes of research are high, today’s university ethics policies and practices might serve more as a warning than as a beacon.