Slitherine is looking for an “Assistant Producer – Hardcore Wargaming.”
As an Assistant Producer at Slitherine, you will have the opportunity to work with a range of teams on a varied roster of internal and external hardcore wargame projects, helping to ensure their success and maintaining the quality that they have become known for. You will have the support of producers and senior producers and the opportunity to mentor you and help you progress your career towards becoming a associate producer and beyond. This is a remote position available to anyone worldwide. This is an ideal role for someone trying to break in to the industry as no prior experience is required.
Further details can be found here. They are also currently looking for a Junior PR Manager.
The Telemus Group seeks a graduate student for a part-time paid internship between September 2022 and May 2023, with a commitment of 10-15 hours per week. Work may either be done remotely or at the Telemus Group office in McLean, VA. Intern residency in the greater Washington, DC area is looked on favorably, but not a requirement for strong candidates.
Additional details can be found below. The deadline for applications is September 15.
This is a full-time civilian position at the U.S. Army War College (USAWC) as provided under Title 10 USC 4021. Initial appointment will be for 6 months. The appointment may be renewed for up to one year in total. The position is structured for recently matriculated undergraduates with an interest in developing and teaching educational wargames for use in strategic-level education.
•Collaborate with professional strategic game developers and faculty to design, develop and teach custom strategic games in graduate-level curriculum and to inform senior leader decision making
•Collaborate with Department of Defense Officials to determine the scope and applicability of wargames as a technique for conducting research into issue of military strategic importance
•Serve as a member of a gaming team in teaching games in graduate-level education and in developing games that inform senior leader decision making
•Participate in wargames and workshops, and write and publish on matters of importance related to strategic wargaming
•Engage in internal and external service in support of institutional missions
•Support faculty in the execution of wargames
Conditions of Employment
•Appointment may be subject to a suitability or fitness determination, as determined by a completed background investigation.
•Must be able to obtain and maintain a SECRET security clearance.
Who May Apply: US Citizens
Full details at USAJobs at the link above. The competition closes on 4 August 2022.
“Wargames in the Pink Tower” (part two of a four part BBC miniseries on nuclear weapons and war) is about nuclear deterrence and the use of wargaming during the Cold War. The producers used parts of the audio recording of Thomas Schelling’s keynote to the Connections US 2014 Conference along with material from Fred Kaplan, Sir Lawrence Freedman, Sharon Ghamari-Tabrizi, Graham Allison, and Paul Bracken. A fascinating glimpse into how nuclear deterrence and wargaming is presented to the general public.
The Institute for Defense Analyses has released a new video in which Dan Chiu, Yuna Wong and Akar Bharadvaj discuss the value of wargaming—and the importance of innovation and diversity in wargame design.
The Military Operations Research Society will offer a short online course on gaming cyber and information operations from 30 August to 1 September 2023, taught by Ed McGrady. Further details and registration information are available at the link.
Games are tools that professionals can use to understand complex problems. Problems where there really is no good solution. Problems where there are two opposing sides. Problems of deterrence and belief.
Cyber security and information operations incorporate all of these challenges and more. But cyber games are often seen solely through the focus of computer-based games. Information operations games are thought to be too hard to execute and adjudicate. And while computer mediated exercises and games have a role in cyber preparedness, so do manual games that focus on organization, conceptualization, and experimentation. In this game design course, we will focus on building manual, professional, games designed to explore, train, or educate on issues surrounding cyber security and information operations.
MORS currently offers a one week certificate course in Cyber Game Design in collaboration with Virginia Tech. In this shortened version of the week long course we will focus on how to build the best cyber game for the sponsor’s objectives. We will also add information operations to the mix. Information operations are important to understand because they broaden the conflict landscape to include all types of information, not just information that flows on digital networks and their components.
Our framework for the class will be understanding the types of games that are available to us, and how they relate to gaming at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of cyber. What is the role of matrix games in cyber? How do we build realistic tactical games without becoming overwhelmed with detail? How do we build analytical tools for tactical adjudication of cyber games? How do we handle adjudication of social engineering or deception?
Gaming information operations will focus on practical tips and techniques for either building games that focus on information operations, or incorporating information operations into large game systems.
The class will consist of three primary sections: game design, gaming cyber security at the tactical operational, and strategic levels, and gaming information operations. As much as possible we will incorporate class exercises and engagements as part of the learning process.
A new online-first article in Simulation & Gaming by Kristy de Salas (University of Tasmania) et al should be required reading for all serious game designers. In it, she and her colleagues undertook a systematic review of the English-language literature on “gameful interventions to improve behaviour related to environmental outcomes” published between 2015 and 2020. Only original, peer-reviewed articles on digital games were included. With these criteria 52 relevant papers identified and assessed.
What did they find? The article is paywalled, so I’ll excerpt some key findings below.
Regarding the types and contexts of pro-environmental games being developed, our study identified that the environmentally oriented gameful interventions were split between those classifying themselves as gamification – the use of game elements within a non-entertainment context – and serious games – full games designed for a behavioural outcome. While both gamification and serious games aim to influence a player to achieve a desired behaviour, the processes to achieve this outcome are vastly different in gamification and serious games, and clarity in classifying these interventions is important (Coreaxis, 2020). For example, within an environmental context, the intention of serious games is to directly improve long-term pro-environmental behaviours in a target group, whereas gamification aims to alter the attitude of a player – for example, increasing a player’s motivation and engagement towards participating in a short-term pro-environmental activity (Aubert et al., 2018). It is not the intention of gamification to influence long-term behaviour directly.
In reviewing these insights, we learn that designers with desires towards longer-term behavioural outcomes may be relying on a gamification model in the hope of bringing about change, despite the increasingly large volume of literature reporting its failure as an effective long-term strategy (dating back to 2011) (Bogost, 2015). This is of concern, for if we design gameful interventions with inaccurate underlying assumptions (i.e. believing that gamification in itself will bring about long-term change), outcomes will likely be compromised.
…there was a distinct absence of behavioural model informed design, justification for the use of these specific intervention functions, and the assessment of their affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, safety and equity. This is of particular concern as intervention design theory tells us that it is important to consider these design elements in order to make effective choices about which intervention functions are most appropriate or have the best potential chance of success in bringing about change in a particular context (Michie, Hyder et al., 2011). This lack of reporting on the consideration and application of design theory in our reviewed studies mirrors the limitations identified in other studies (Akl et al., 2010; Alanne, 2016; Alessandra et al., 2019; Battistella & von Wangenheim, 2016; Bodnar et al., 2016; da Silva et al., 2019; Farcas & Szamoskozi, 2016; Hersh et al., 2018; Lämsä et al., 2018; Leal et al., 2018; Mora et al., 2017; Osatuyi et al., 2018). This further reinforces the call for more thorough articulation of the current state of design to ensure best-practice design is being employed to bring about the target change.
Of further concern was the apparent lack of any articulated exploration of the appropriateness of games to their target audience. Designers of these gameful interventions were following the example of others trying to improve environmental outcomes, with only half of the studies describing the inclusion of any specific selection of specific behaviour change techniques to the improvement of either the capability, the opportunity or the motivation of the target audience to achieve the target behaviour or to engage with a game as the delivery mechanism, as is recommended by intervention design theory (Michie, Hyder et al., 2011). Rather, designers’ perceptions of games being efficient and low-cost approaches to achieve pro-environmental outcomes were the driving force for the intervention design rather than being informed by their suitability for the target audience. This finding mirrors that found by others when games are introduced for behaviour change outcomes in various disciplines (see, for example, Sharifzadeh et al., 2020).
Only one of our reviewed studies included the subject-matter expertise of environmental scientists, and only three included the discipline expertise of behavioural intervention designers, with the majority being developed by technological experts. This style of design team composition is consistent with practice recorded in much technology-informed intervention design in which design is often given over to technical developers (Salah et al., 2014); however, it is counter to best-practice user-centred design practice that suggests the need for multidisciplinary expertise in design teams to support the development of useful and usable interventions and systems (Gurses & Xiao, 2006; O’Brien et al., 2003).
Interestingly, despite the technical focus of the majority of gameful intervention development teams as just described, our reviewed papers included little to describe the influences on, and practice of, the technical design process of the interventions. Consequently, comparisons cannot be drawn across the design methodologies of the studies.
The extent of our knowledge from these design descriptions is limited to an understanding that these interventions were designed as mobile and web-based games that included traditional games elements such as points, levels, loot, feedback and badges to incentivise players.
Our reviewed papers did not sufficiently report the reasoning for incorporating specific game elements and difficulties arise therefore in determining the impact of reported game elements on a conceptual level such as the difference between implementing tasks and challenges. This lack of design description inhibits our opportunities to identify those elements of games and their design that have direct impact of the achievement of the targeted behavioural outcomes, a finding that is mirrored by other authors calling for more description in design to better inform the future design decisions of others
A further limitation to gaining a comprehensive understanding of the usefulness of games to bring about pro-environmental behavioural change is that not all reviewed studies undertook an evaluation of their intervention.
For those studies that did include an evaluation of their gameful intervention, a range of outcomes were reported across them, with the largest single proportion (28%) of studies reporting a positive change in either the target behaviour or the achievement of participant motivation towards conducting the target behaviour, followed by equal studies indicating mixed results or no difference (28%).
Difficulties arise in attempts to understand the differences in these reported outcomes as these results are influenced by many factors, including the range of outcomes being measured (including effectiveness, ease of use and usefulness); the nature of the data being collected (including survey and questionnaires, player metrics and interviews) and the range of evaluation tools (including single experiments with no control conditions, randomised control trials, observational studies and focus groups…
In this article, 52 articles reporting on gameful interventions were reviewed to determine the scope of games to support pro-environmental outcomes, the design of these systems and the evaluation of these interventions towards supporting the needs of the target audience. Our review has identified a lack of comprehensive articulation of the behavioural design elements to guide the intervention, including an absence of information regarding the process undertaken to gain an understanding the target behaviour and audience; a lack of justification for the selection of intervention functions and a failure to substantiate the use of a game as an appropriate delivery mode for the intervention.
We further identified that the reviewed gameful intervention designs do not include (or at least fail to articulate) best-practice activities such as multidisciplinary team composition, user-centred design or iterative design and feedback. In fact, the papers yield very little insight into the technical development practices of these interventions.
The reports use a range of primary measures, data collection tools and data sources to report on the outcomes of their interventions. This heterogeneity further limits opportunities for comparison.
In conclusion, our review of these 52 articles reporting on pro-environment gameful interventions has highlighted that despite the reported full or partial achievement of the goals of the interventions across these reviewed articles, we cannot yet be convinced that gameful interventions included in this specific review
•have been designed according to best-practice intervention design – including practices to understand the existing behaviour and the likelihood of changing that behaviour;
• have been designed according to best-practice technology development – including multidisciplinary teams and user-centred design;
• have considered thoroughly why a game is the most suitable delivery mechanism for the intervention;
• have selected evidence-based behaviour change techniques and mapped those to specific game elements within the design to ensure these act as ‘active ingredients’ of the intervention and
• are being evaluated based on best practice and can therefore report confidently on evidence-based outcomes of short-term engagement (in gamification interventions) or long-term behaviour change (in serious game interventions.
We suggest that future articles on gameful interventions should present information regarding their intervention design, and justification for their design choices, both behaviourally and technologically. In doing so, future reports on gameful interventions can better contribute to our body of knowledge on best-practice intervention design and evaluation practices, further contributing to the successful adoption of such interventions and the achievement of positive behavioural outcomes.
It’s a quite scathing critique—and one, I am confident, that applies to almost all serious gaming, including professional wargaming. Only in medical simulation and gaming, I think, do we see somewhat greater attention to some of these issues.
I would add that the problem may be even deeper than this, because I’m not confident that all of the literature on gaming, learning, and behavioural change rests on especially strong theoretical foundations. All too often, when designers or researchers invoke a theoretical paradigm, it is little more than a typology weakly supported by empirical research (such as the oft-cited “learning styles”).
Wargame design has been described as a creative art with a science component. Identifying which parts of the design can be defined based on the sponsor’s objectives will free the designer to focus all their efforts on the creative components.
There are three one hour Game Lab sessions scheduled at the Connections US 2022 Wargaming Conference during which multiple parallel small groups will meet and discuss different questions or topics.
I will run a three part Game Lab on the question “How much of a professional wargame design can be defined by the sponsor’s objective?” broken into three sub questions, one question per one-hour facilitated discussion.
“What parts of the professional wargame design process can and should be routinized and what characteristics of the sponsor’s objectives should we seek to assist us in doing so?”
“What information in addition to the sponsor’s objectives do we need and how can this help define the design of the professional wargame?”
“What are the barriers to obtaining the information necessary to design a professional wargame and how can we overcome them?”
If you are registered to participate in the conference, you may come to any or all of the sessions.
Even if you are not coming to Connections, or are coming but choose to participate in other Game Labs, I invite you to provide your answers to each of the above sub questions via this form (click here or on the image). You may submit this form as often as you like, and I will ensure you receive a copy of the final report.
The Military Operations Research Society will be offering a three day online course on “gaming emergency response to disease” on 27-29 September 2022, featuring Roger Mason, Ed McGrady, and Pete Pellegrino.
In this three-day course we will focus on the application of professional games to the problems associated with disease response and will cover pandemic response games, both national and international. The objective throughout the course will be to identify unique or challenging aspects involved in designing games involving disease response.
Introduction: The Problem of Disease Response
Game Design Fundamentals
Ways to Apply Games to Disease Response
Basic Biology and Epidemiology in Games
Strategic, Operational, and Tactical Game Examples
Exercise: Nature or Nurture
Exercise: Building a Disease Response Game
Emergency Response Process
Disease and Emergency Response
Emergency Response Games
Exercise: Building Emergency Response Games
Exercise: Practicum and Discussion
More information and registration at the link above.
Influence, Inc. Curious Bird, 2022. Game designer: Amanda Warner. USD$11.99 via Steam and Humble, for Mac and PC.
As a political scientist, influence games have always interested me. Information management, message framing, propaganda and disinformation figured prominently in the Brynania peacebuilding simulation and in many of the megagames I’ve designed or helped run. Last year I was involved in several influence games being conducted by or for NATO members, variously swaying elections, undermining democracies, and supporting all sorts of nefarious activities as a leader of the Red team. Most of the matrix games I’ve been involved in—whether exploring the war against ISIS or the dangers of African Swine Fever—have had messgaing and influence as a central game dynamic. Even as I write this review, I’m involved in two game design projects that have information as a central elements: the second phase of the READY project on infectious disease response (which will focus, in part on, risk communication and community engagement), and a newsgathering simulation for CNN Academy.
I’m also impressed with Amanda Warner’s work as a game designer. For those reasons, I was excited to play her latest game, Influence, Inc.
In Influence, Inc. you are a senior executive in advertising/social media firm, seeking to influence public perceptions to support your clients. Some of this is quite benign, for example adding clout to a new product launch. Some of it is a little more dubious, like helping public figures recover from scandals. And some of it is downright nefarious, working for political leaders and governments to defame opponents, undermine (or support) popular protests, and influence elections—often covertly, in a way that provides your client with a degree of plausible deniability. It’s all very Madison Avenue meets Cambridge Analytica.
To do all this, you have access to a network of social media accounts (“online persona” or bots) to insert and signal-boost messages. You can use your team to turn boring press releases and other information into potentially viral content and memes. You can target social media advertising at selected demographics. On the darker side, your “compromiser” can dig up dirt on selected targets, and you can leak information to various media outlets if you would prefer to insert it into the public domain through an intermediary.
Throughout, you’ll have access to information on what content is trending, opinion polling, and the status of petitions. The objective of the game is to earn as much money as possible by accepting and completing contracts within specified periods of time. Be careful which contracts you accept, however, or you might be messaging against yourself!
I though Influence, Inc. was lively, witty, and addressed key elements of modern influence operations and social/media ecosystems. Anyone designing an influence game—including manual ones—would be well advised to play it for inspiration.
I also see the game having potential instructional value as a homework “play” assignment for courses on the media or modern information technology. My only caveat here is that, despite a tutorial mode that explains game controls and options as they become available, some students will feel overwhelmed by the plethora of information, choices, and interface options presented to them—despite everything you hear about Gen-Z “digital natives,” a quite significant proportion of contemporary students still struggle when asked to play an unfamiliar game. Here, I recommend you explain the main interface items in class before sending them off to play it at home. You should also urge students to make liberal use of the pause button to stop the clock as they decide what to do. In the longer term, an instructional guide addressing core game components and interface, key assumptions and game dynamics, and debrief questions to consider after the game is over would be very useful.
Give it a try yourself!
No shadowy foreign interests, bots, media leaks, or covert funding were involved in the writing of this review.
Over the past decade or so there has been growing attention the value of wargaming in professional military education (for example, here and here and here and here and here and here, among many others). Sebastian Bae has already contributed a great deal to these debates, including as Chair for the Connections US 2021 “Wargaming for education” working group. This edited volume further advances the discussion. What’s more, it is available for free online.
Forging Wargamers consists of an introduction and conclusion by the editor, plus nine chapters by various professional wargamers. The core challenge is highlighted at the outset by Bae:
…wargames have proliferated and evolved into the robust commercial game industry and a vibrant professional wargaming field focused on analysis and education.7
But this begs the question: How does one become a wargamer, whether as a player, sponsor, analyst, or designer?
When most professional wargamers are asked how they enter the field of designing or using wargames for the study of conflict, most if not all will sheepishly offer some form of, “I stumbled into it.” This author counts themselves among the ranks who serendipitously wandered onto the path of the war- gamer. Unfortunately, the prevalence of wargamers produced by convenient accidents is not a rarity but a consequence of there being no formal system to produce them. The absence of an established talent pipeline for wargaming—whether as participants, sponsors, analysts, or designers—risks making the wargaming field increasingly small and insular. Within the military, wargaming experience among officers is principally constrained to resident professional military education (PME) and select assignments directly engaged with wargaming as part of the analytical cycle. For the enlisted force, wargaming is tragically a rare commodity largely constrained to enterprising individuals’ use of commercial wargames and tactical decision games (TDGs) for unit-based training.8 The current wargaming enterprise remains piecemeal and disjointed at best; small islands of excellence tangentially connected to one another.
Each of the authors addresses one or more of three major themes: cultivating wargamers, applying wargaming for education, and educating external stakeholders on the value of wargaming. Some provide case studies of how wargames have been used in PME. Others address the challenge of developing the next generation of military wargamers, the skills required, and the synergies between professional wargaming and commercial/hobby game designers. Several authors address how best to institutionalize an expanded role for educational wargaming, building a constituency that will sustain it on an ongoing basis. The various contributions are thoughtful and well-informed.
In the conclusion, Bae highlights the urgency of all this:
The question of developing wargaming expertise is not a sterile academic inquiry, but a pressing imperative with potentially dire consequences. The wargaming community is rapidly approaching an inflection point, where titans of the field are steadily retiring, and the subsequent generation is struggling to fill the void. Meanwhile, even within the Department of Defense (DOD), wargaming remains hampered by misconceptions, prejudices, and a lack of understanding of wargaming’s utility and limitations.
As he notes, there is much to be done. However, Forging Wargamers is undoubtedly an important step in the right direction.
Can decision-making styles impact victory and defeat in armed conflicts? To answer the question of whether decision-making styles are linked to the victories and defeats of individual tacticians, this study utilizes five general decision-making styles: Rational, Intuitive, Dependent, Avoidant and Spontaneous. The aim of this study is to examine whether one or several of the general decision-making styles (GDMS) have an impact on tactical outcomes in wargames. A total of 104 officers and academics participated in the study. The study’s foremost conclusion is that the Dependent style is significantly connected to defeat in the wargame’s dueling set up.
The participants were 104 officers from the Swedish Defence University in Stockholm and in the Swedish Armed Forces (Skövde Garrison), ranging in rank from Lieutenant to Colonel. The study found little relationship between decision-making styles and wargame outcomes except in the case of the “dependent” style.
The Dependent decision-making style is typified by individuals who seek advice and guidance from others prior to making important decisions. This style adversely impacts the capacity for innovative behavior and creativity for the same reason as the Rational decision-making style. The Dependent decision style is also affiliated with a reduced ability to complete a thought process (e.g., a decision-making process) without being distracted by irrelevant thoughts. Individuals with a Dependent decision style tend to desire to solve quandaries rather than avoid them, although they also have a tendency to doubt their own ability to find a solution.10 A study by Alacreu-Crespo et al. pos- ited that the Dependent decision style is strongly associated with the need for emo- tional and instrumental support. The Dependent decision style encompasses individuals with socially open and constructive natures, as well as passive and anxious individuals.11
The author goes on to conclude:
One reasonable interpretation is that an individual with a Dependent decision-making style requires more tactics at their disposal and more time to make good decisions. If the individual’s decision-making style is regarded partly as acquired and habitual behavior, and identified when an individual is confronted with a decision situation, we can assume that practical training would reduce a tactician’s need for time and external support. Furthermore, studies should be conducted on how a group of tacticians would manage against another group of tacticians in the corresponding circumstances. It seems reasonable to suggest that decision-style tests be used as a tool for increased self-awareness among military officers, although it is probably too soon to use decision-style tests as a recruit- ment tool.
Finally, we can now pose the question: what practical benefits can we derive from the insight that the Dependent decision-making style adversely impacts the outcome of a dynamic, complex and high-pace environment? The simple answer is that tacticians with a Dependent decision-making style should not have first-call responsibility for making quick decisions during battle, or there would be a risk that decisions are made too slowly in relation to an opponent. However, the study does not indicate whether tacticians with a Dependent decision-making style will function positively or negatively as a member of the group, e.g., staff member, under extreme stress with incomplete decision data.
My thanks to the Ruddy Nice team for the opportunity to deliver this briefing remotely to the 2022 UK Defence Simulation Education & Training conference. In the briefing I show how the simplistic scoring mechanism commonly used by many civilian and military organizations in their decision matrices and more complex decision support tools simply does not make sense — being a linear scalarization function — and explain why that function must instead be concave up. Then, and only then, will your decision matrix satisfy the minimum reasonableness requirement.
A workshop on War, Memory & Games in the Romance-Speaking World will take place on 14-15 July, organized by Dr. Daniela Kuschel (University of Mannheim). Speakers will include Dr. Phil Sabin. Contact the organizer to attend virtually.
A storm is brewing. Thousands of gamers are working to upend traditional models of training, education, and analysis in government and defense. This grassroots movement has developed across several countries, under a joint venture—Fight Club International—within which civilian and military gamers are experimenting with commercial technologies to demonstrate what they can do for national security challenges. But while technology is at the core of this initiative, its more fundamental purpose is to change culture—no easy feat in military organizations, with their characteristic deep sense of history and layers of entrenched bureaucracy.
A common obstacle to introducing transformational technology is the imagination of the user—or, put differently, the willingness of the user to be genuinely imaginative. Early testing with Fight Club, in a constructive simulation called Combat Mission, showed that civilian gamers with no military training outperformed military officers with years of experience. The military gamers were constrained in their thinking and clung dogmatically to doctrine. They discovered, to their frustration, that their speed of decision-making was lacking against gamers with greater intuition and skill.
The piece is an enthusiastic care for greater inclusion of wargames in professional military education—a point with which all of us at PAXsims would agree.
On a methodological note, however, one needs to be careful not to put excessive emphasis on civilian gamers beating non-gaming officers in wargames. Certainly, games test tactical analysis and insight. However, they also test familiarity with interface, rules/algorithms, and other quirks of the simulation. No matter how engaging the graphics, they’re usually quite different from actual command. Indeed, as Sherry Turkle and her colleagues pointed out more than a decade ago, as simulations become more realistic-looking there’s a risk we overlook the important ways in which they depart from reality. I know that some recent experimental work has been done on diversity in wargaming, which among other things assessed the strategic performance of “gamers” as opposed to neophytes and subject matter experts—as soon as that report is available, we’ll share it here at PAXsims.