We wanted to know: What’s the worst thing that could happen to our country during the presidential election? President Trump has broken countless norms and ignored countless laws during his time in office, and while my colleagues and I at the Transition Integrity Project didn’t want to lie awake at night contemplating the ways the American experiment could fail, we realized that identifying the most serious risks to our democracy might be the best way to avert a November disaster. So we built a series of war games, sought out some of the most accomplished Republicans, Democrats, civil servants, media experts, pollsters and strategists around, and asked them to imagine what they’d do in a range of election and transition scenarios.
With the exception of the “big Biden win” scenario, each of our exercises reached the brink of catastrophe, with massive disinformation campaigns, violence in the streets and a constitutional impasse. In two scenarios (“Trump win” and “extended uncertainty”) there was still no agreement on the winner by Inauguration Day, and no consensus on which candidate should be assumed to have the ability to issue binding commands to the military or receive the nuclear codes. In the “narrow Biden win” scenario, Trump refused to leave office and was ultimately escorted out by the Secret Service — but only after pardoning himself and his family and burning incriminating documents.
For obvious reasons, we couldn’t ask Trump or Biden — or their campaign aides — to play themselves in these exercises, so we did the next best thing: We recruited participants with similar backgrounds. On the GOP side, our “players” included former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, conservative commentator Bill Kristol and former Kentucky secretary of state Trey Grayson. On the Democratic side, participants included John Podesta, chair of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and a top White House adviser to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama; Donna Brazile, the campaign chair for Al Gore’s 2000 presidential run; and Jennifer Granholm, former governor of Michigan. Other participants included political strategists, journalists, polling experts, tech and social media experts, and former career officials from the intelligence community, the Justice Department, the military and the Department of Homeland Security.
It is all rather dire stuff, although Brooks ends on a hopdeful note:
But there’s some good news: This kind of exercise doesn’t predict the future. In fact, war-gaming seeks to forecast all the things that could go wrong — precisely to prevent them from happening in real life. And if the Transition Integrity Project’s exercises highlighted various bleak possibilities, they also suggested some ways we might, as a nation, avoid democratic collapse.
For more on the games, see the full Transitions Integrity Project report archived here.
For current poll aggregation and modelling of the US presidential campaign, PAXsims readers may find the following resources useful.
Current (3 September) election prediction from FiveThirtyEight. For the the most recent version, go here.
Current (3 September) election prediction from The Economist. For the the most recent version, go here.
Event 201 was one of dozens of simulations and evaluations over the past two decades that have highlighted the risks of a pandemic and identified gaps in the ability of governments and organizations around the world to respond.
The exercises anticipated several failures that have played out in the management of COVID-19, including leaky travel bans, medical-equipment shortages, massive disorganization, misinformation and a scramble for vaccines. But the scenarios didn’t anticipate some of the problems that have plagued the pandemic response, such as a shortfall of diagnostic tests, and world leaders who reject the advice of public-health specialists.
Most strikingly, biosecurity researchers didn’t predict that the United States would be among the hardest-hit countries. On the contrary, last year, leaders in the field ranked the United States top in the Global Health Security Index, which graded 195 countries in terms of how well prepared they were to fight outbreaks, on the basis of more than 100 factors. President Donald Trump even held up a copy of the report during a White House briefing on 27 February, declaring: “We’re rated number one.” As he spoke, SARS-CoV-2 was already spreading undetected across the country.
Now, as COVID-19 cases in the United States surpass 4 million, with more than 150,000 deaths, the country has proved itself to be one of the most dysfunctional. Morhard and other biosecurity specialists are asking what went wrong — why did dozens of simulations, evaluations and white papers fail to predict or defend against the colossal missteps taken in the world’s wealthiest nation? By contrast, some countries that hadn’t ranked nearly so high in evaluations, such as Vietnam, executed swift, cohesive responses.
The scenarios still hold lessons for how to curb this pandemic, and for how to respond better next time. Deadly pandemics are inevitable, says Tom Frieden, a former director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “What’s not inevitable is that we will continue to be so underprepared.”
Part of the answer, as the title of their article suggests, is Donald Trump:
Confusion emerged in most pandemic simulations, but none explored the consequences of a White House sidelining its own public-health agency. Perhaps they should have, suggests a scientist who has worked in the US public-health system for decades and asked to remain anonymous because they did not have permission to speak to the press. “You need gas in the engine and the brakes to work, but if the driver doesn’t want to use the car, you’re not going anywhere,” the scientist says.
However, they also note that—regardless of who occupies the presidency—institutions also failed to respond to insights and warnings that emerged from many of these games.
Perhaps the biggest limitation of simulation exercises was that they didn’t actually drive policymakers to prioritize and fund improvements to the public-health system. Morrison now questions whether it’s even possible to do that through simulations alone, or whether people must experience an epidemic at first hand.
Comments Off on Transition Integrity Project: Preventing a disrupted presidential election and transition
Posted by Rex Brynen on 04/08/2020
As previously mentioned at PAXsims, the Transitions Integrity Project has conducted a series of matrix games on what could go wrong in the 2020 US election and a subsequent presidential transition. The games have been covered by the Washington Post, Boston Globe, NPR, The Atlantic, and elsewhere.
In June 2020 the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) convened a bipartisan group of over 100 current and former senior government and campaign leaders and other experts in a series of 2020 election crisis sce- nario planning exercises. The results of all four table-top exercises were alarming. We assess with a high degree of likelihood that November’s elections will be marked by a chaotic legal and political landscape. We also assess that the President Trump is likely to contest the result by both legal and extra-legal means, in an attempt to hold onto power. Recent events, including the President’s own unwillingness to commit to abiding by the results of the election, the Attorney General’s embrace of the President’s groundless electoral fraud claims, and the unprecedented deployment of federal agents to put down leftwing protests, underscore the extreme lengths to which President Trump may be willing to go in order to stay in office.
In this report, TIP explains the basis for our assessment. Our findings are bolstered by the historical expe- rience of Bush v. Gore (2000) and other U.S. electoral dysfunctions. The closest analogy may be the elec- tion of 1876, a time of extreme partisanship and rampant disenfranchisement, where multiple states proffered competing slates of electors, and the election was only resolved through a grand political bargain days before Inauguration—one that traded an end to Reconstruction for electoral peace and resulted in a century of Jim Crow, leaving deep wounds that are far from healed today.
The full report from those games is now available (pdf):
The Center for a New American Security has posted the video of their recent wargame of a future militarized crisis in the East China Sea. Each turn, members of the audience chose from among the options presented by CNAS experts, who then gamed the results.
The post-game session included not only the scenario and East Asia security issues, but there also a discussion (at 1:46:35) on the value of diversity in serious gaming.
The following was written for PAXsims by Dr. James Sterrett, Directorate of Simulation Education (DSE), U. S. Army University.
The Directorate of Simulation Education (DSE) at the Command and General Staff College (CGSC), U.S. Army University spent mid-March through early June 2020 to prepare for, and then to conduct or support, three elective courses online using commercial wargames. This article outlines our key lessons learned, and then discusses some details of what we did.
In total, the class events we ran totaled 10 different games, each running from 2.5 to 8 hours, each preceded by at least one 3 hour preparation session. In addition, many of these involved numerous internal trainup sessions with each game, plus many trial runs of many games to assess their suitability for use, or in testing VASSAL modules we built for some of these games. For around 9 weeks, from 30 March through 2 June, we averaged one 3-hour online wargame session a day, for testing, preparation, or classes.
We ran wargames for 3 different courses:
Bitter Woods for the Art of War Scholars Program (2x 4 hour classes)
Aftershock for the Defense Support to Civil Authorities elective (1x 3 hour class)
Eight games for History in Action, which we teach in collaboration with the Department of Military History. (8x 3 hour classes)
Top lesson 1: Online wargaming works, but it’s harder than live. Compared to running wargames live, it requires more manpower, time, effort, and technology from both students and faculty.
Top lesson 2: Success requires scaffolding. Don’t assume students are ready with their technology or that they understand the online engine. Plan for on-call tech support during every class. Plan to explicitly teach both the online engine, and the game itself in that engine.
This is the most surprising outcome to us. Several of us had prior experience with VASSAL and were not very fond of it; we are now converts. VASSAL proved to be simple, reliable, effective, and made lower demands on computing horsepower and networks – and it is free. In addition, it was an easier and more powerful tool to make new game modules for.
(Read the detailed section for a more nuanced view of some of the other options.)
Test your tools in online classroom settings before committing to them.
Our initial impressions of tools were frequently overturned after gaining more extensive experience with them in testing.
Ease of use beats flashy presentation.
The more you can minimize the friction of using the online game tool, the more effort you can put elsewhere. This is why VASSAL became, unexpectedly, our favorite application.
Running a wargame online needs more manpower than running the same game live.
Running wargames live, a skilled facilitator can sometimes run 2 or 3 games. Online, you must have one facilitator per game. When teaching the game, you must have one person doing the instruction while another monitors a chat window for questions and puts them to the instructor at appropriate moments.
In addition, we found we needed to have a separate person as dedicated on-call tech support, every time. Although a few classes did not turn out to need tech support, most did, and dedicated tech support meant that the game facilitators could keep the games running while the students with tech problems got helped.
Running a wargame online requires a higher level of skill across the facilitators than running the same games live in one room.
Running wargames live in one room, one person can be the expert whom the others can rapidly turn to for help. Running online, everyone is necessarily in separate rooms, and even with side-channel communications, the question and answer interchange is much slower. Each facilitator needs to be an expert.
Keeping the game moving is harder online due to the limited communications.
Live, you can see what students are doing. You usually know who is thinking, who is confused and needs help, who is done making a move. Online, you usually have no idea. Is the student silent because they are thinking? Confused and lost? Conferring with their partner? Done but forgot to announce it? Done, and announced it, but failed to activate their microphone or had some technical issue? When do you break in to ask, possibly breaking their concentration and creating more friction?
Everything takes longer online.
Your game is hostage to hardware issues beyond your control.
A bad internet day makes for a bad class day. Students come with widely varying degrees of computer savvy. They also come with widely varying quality of equipment. We had one student whose computer was a low-powered laptop around a decade old, which created frequent technical issues. Another used a Surface tablet, which had no direct technical issues, but the small screen caused usability problems.
Ideally, each participant should have least 2 large monitors.
A reasonably modern computer, preferably with at least one large monitor, and, ideally, with two or more large monitors, definitely worked best. Multiple monitors enabled placing documentation and chat windows on one screen while placing the main game map on the other.
Those with only one monitor, especially if on a small screen, found themselves constantly paging between windows and struggling to manage limited screen space.
Some students and faculty took to using a high definition TV as a second monitor, which worked well.
Technology in More Detail
Ideally, we would have done extensive R&D into both a wargame engine and into a communications solution. However, we rapidly determined that Blackboard, which the Army already had on contract, provided a communications system that was both sufficient for our purposes and that students already knew how to use. While not perfect (the interface for splitting students into small groups can be a pain to use), Blackboard worked well for us. Specific features we came to rely on:
The ability to break students into breakout groups, and to have instructors move easily between breakout groups. Each breakout group was one game. Also, we could easily recall all the breakout groups into one room when it came time to return to group discussion.
Screen sharing to assist in teaching the games. While the shared screens were sometimes very fuzzy (which we worked around by zooming in when details were important), the shared screen allowed us to direct people’s attention to the item currently under discussion. In a perfect world, the game engine itself would provide a means of directing attention.
Multiple chat lines: Direct 1 to 1 chat, alongside breakout room chat, alongside group discussion chat, all at the same time. The major feature we wanted, and did not have, was a direct chat line between any subset of people without creating a new breakout room – so that 3 or 4 people on the same side could coordinate their strategy and tactics, for example. We worked around this by having students use their cell phones.
We spent several weeks testing online game engines, both for running games and our ability to modify or create new games.
As noted above, several of us had prior experience with VASSAL and did not have a high opinion of it. However, those opinions were based on the state of VASSAL in the later 1990s, when it was relatively new. VASSAL has improved a lot in the last 20 years, and those improvements are a great credit to its volunteer coding team.
VASSAL is not the prettiest or slickest engine out there. However, it had several decisive advantages:
Highly reliable, it worked on all the equipment students brought into the classes.
Free, while every other solution required either the instructors, or everyone, to buy software.
Easier for students to learn than other systems.
It was significantly easier for our team to make new or modified modules in VASSAL than in other systems.
Presented the widest variety of ready-to-go games relevant to our courses.
Because it is built from the ground up to support wargames, VASSAL’s standard interaction set is tailored to supporting wargames. The other engines seemed, to us, to have standard interactions best suited to running Euro games or role-playing games (which those other engines chase because those are much larger markets!)
VASSAL doesn’t enforce the rules. We thought this would be a weakness, but when the computer enforces the rules, it prevents the facilitator from fixing mistakes – and with first-time players, it’s very handy to let the facilitator see and do anything they want.
Two key workarounds we used with VASSAL:
Normally only one player can join a specific role. However, if everyone who is going to join that role does so simultaneously, you can pack many players into one role, permitting a small team of students to play the same side while maintaining fog of war. Note that this feature is not officially supported.
Most modules that had fog of war also included a “Solo” player who could see everything, so we used this as a facilitator role. We modified the Triumph & Tragedy module to include this as well. Without the ability to see through the fog of war, the facilitator cannot effectively answer questions and solve problems.
Tabletopia was our initial favorite, with a slick interface and great presentation. Our favorite feature is the ability to see the “hands” of the other players, which makes it really easy to direct attention – “Look at the Blue Hand”. Tabletopia is browser-driven and thus is platform independent, which is a great plus. It is also the only way to play 1944: Race to the Rhine online, which we very much wanted to include in our history course.
However, Tabletopia also had some problems. Running a multiplayer game requires that at least one player has a paid account ($9.99/month), and the Terms of Service for game creation included language that we were wary of. In testing, it was much more difficult to make a new game in Tabletopia than in VASSAL, and essentially impossible to modify an existing game we had not made. We could not figure out how to enforce fog of war in a blocks game in Tabletopia.
The great surprise came when we used it in class. We expected students would find the interface simple. However, students found Tabletopia confusing to use and said they preferred VASSAL. Students with weaker computer hardware or slower internet connections found Tabletopia crashed or refused to start.
While we may use Tabletopia again in order to use the excellent Race to the Rhine, we also know we need to figure out how to work through its issues first.
Tabletop Simulator (TTS) has a very large following, but we wound up bouncing off it. The large number of possible interactions means it also has a large number of controls and possible customizations. We found it confusing, and the physics model got in the way of ease of use as pieces bumped into each other. A friend who likes it admitted it takes at least 10 hours to get comfortable with TTS, which is longer than we can afford to spend for classes. In addition to these issues, TTS is a $20 purchase.
Roll20 is built to support role-playing games. Unlike the other options mentioned here, Roll20 includes fairly robust voice and chat communications. It’s reasonably simple to set up a new game in Roll20 as well.
Roll20 fared well in initial testing, and thus became a strong candidate for running Matrix games. However, in full testing, its communications fell apart under the load of around a dozen people. In addition, we ran into significant issues with allocating permissions to move pieces; as far as we could tell, players needed to join so they were known to the game room, then leave, so the GM could make permissions changes, then rejoin, which seemed like an overly complex dance to go through under time pressure in a class with students.
We suspect that our inexperience with the tool is key in some of these problems and intend to retest Roll20 in the summer. In addition, we know of others who have used Microsoft Teams and Google Sheets to run Matrix games.
No Computer Games – Why?
We avoided computer games for several reasons:
Students would need to buy them, and potentially need to buy many games for one class.
Many games of interest run on only a subset of student computers (only Windows, or only high-end Windows computers, for example).
Each computer game has its own interface to learn, on top of learning the game system, increasing the training overhead needed to get to the learning for the class; this is particularly an issue for our history class.
In many cases, understanding the games’ models is an essential component to learning the wider lessons of the class. In our experience, this is harder to do with computer games, whose models are obscured in comparison to manual games. (This is the price paid for the computer doing the heavy lifting of the model; the payoff of the computer is that it does that work.)
We are not adamantly opposed to computer wargames; we use them in our Simulations Lab during live instruction, and are investigating using them in some courses this fall in DL. However, in the short timeframe we had, the above complications were sufficient to rule them out.
Teaching the Games
In all cases, we learned that it works best to:
Provide a 15 minute introduction to the game at the end of the prior class. Students won’t learn the game from this but the overview helps them learn better from the rules and videos in step 2.
Provide the rules and tutorials as homework. YouTube tutorials were very popular with students, when they existed. Students will not learn the game from these but they will come armed to steps 3 and 4 with a better framework.
Provide a practice session. We routinely ran a practice session the afternoon before class. These lasted 3 hours (the same duration as the class) and included the full teaching script plus playing the game. We warned students that this was partly internal trainup, so they knew to be patient with periodic digressions as we worked out unexpected wrinkles. Because they actually play the game, students learn the game in these. If you control the groups, distribute the students who came to the Practice session across the class day student groups. As time went on, we learned to have internal trainup sessions before the official Practice session, so that our people were ready to run a game on their own in the Practice session.
Teach the game at the beginning of class. We find it always helps to begin by identifying the sides and their victory conditions, because you can tie all the game mechanics in the game back to them.
We establish up front that we will not teach all the details of the game, and thus many of these will pop up as they become relevant. We try to warn people if they are going to hit a special case, and if somebody winds up in a bad position because of a rule not previously explained, we will try to come to a reasonably fair adjustment so they are not unfairly punished by an unknown rule.
Doing all this requires facilitators who are experts on the game, as noted earlier.
We find that putting students into pairs on a given side works well in most cases. Two will tend to plan together, each can compensate for the places where the other finds things confusing, and provide moral support where one sometimes feels confused and alone. Three on a team, however, sometimes means one gets left out.
Teaching the Courses
Bitter Woods for the Art of War Scholars Program
The Art of War Scholars Program is a highly select group of CGSC students who engage in a wider-ranging and academically more rigorous course of study, focused on studying the art of warfighting through a combination of seminars and research focused on the operational and strategic military history of the past century. Each student must write a thesis in the CGSC Master’s of Military Art and Science program.
Dr. Dean A. Nowowiejski, the instructor for the Art of War Scholars Program, wanted the wargame to do three things: introduce the students to wargaming, introduce the terrain of the Battle of the Bulge to students for a follow-on virtual staff ride, and to examine the dilemmas facing the Allied forces in reducing the Bulge.
To support this, we need a game simple enough for new wargamers to play effectively, that covered the Bulge in enough detail to gain an appreciation for the terrain and forces involved, and that could be made to start later in the battle in order to cover the reduction of the Bulge.
We selected Bitter Woods for having the best balance of both a simple system (using only the basic rules) and the ability to run the Battle of the Bulge into January 1945. The runners-up were GMT’s Ardennes ‘44 and MMP’s Ardennes. Ardennes ’44 is more complex and Ardennes is out of print, the latter being a key criterion when we made the selection in January 2020 and expected to run the event live.
In order to highlight the dilemmas in reducing the Bulge, we created a scenario that began on 27 December 1944, and also modified the existing Bitter Woods 22 December ’44 start point to cover the entire map, both accomplished with assistance from LTC William Nance, PhD, of the CGSC Department of Military History. After testing both of these, we concluded that the dilemmas showed up best on 22 December, as Patton’s forces begin to arrive. This start point also made a better set of dilemmas for the Germans, as their offensive is not out of steam on 22 December, leaving them with difficult choices about how to protect their flanks while aiming for victory. We divided the twelve students into three separate game groups that executed simultaneously. We had teams of 2 on each side in each game, and each team was split between a northern and a southern command.
Dr. Nowowiejski told us that the Art of War Scholars students would be prepared, and he proved correct. This group of top-flight students, all very comfortable with technology, had no technical issues. In addition, while we ran the game, LTC William Nance moved through the 3 game rooms, offering both historical commentary and acting as the high command for both sides to ping students with questions about their plans in order to ground those in the wider concerns of their historical counterparts. This left Dr. Nowowiejski free to circulate through the groups, observe the students, and discuss wider points with them.
Dr. Nowowiejski had students discuss their plans and operational assessments with the entire class at the end of each of the two 4 hour classes, for a mid-point and final AAR. As the students in the various Allied and German teams uncorked radically different plans, this provided a chance to compare possible courses of action and outcomes for both sides. Students did find they had more units than they could easily control, but this produced useful discussions on the difficulty of integrating tactics into operations. Overall, Dr. Nowowiejski judged the event “very successful” and hopes to have us run it, live or on VASSAL, next year.
Aftershock for the Homeland Security Planner’s Elective
We have run Aftershock in person several times in the past for Clay Easterling and Joseph Krebs’ Department of Joint & Multinational Operations Homeland Security Planner elective course. Much of the course examines higher level legal and policy issues. Playing Aftershock in the middle breaks this up, and also serves as a reminder of the practical impact of the plans and policies they are discussing. Students regularly name it their favorite part of the course. Now we needed to run it electronically…!
No computer version of Aftershock existed. The designers, Dr. Rex Brynen and Thomas Fisher, readily granted us permission to create a version in VASSAL, and Curt Pangracs of DSE spent around two weeks creating and testing the module in time for the course.
There were 33 students in this elective, divided into pairs for each of the 4 teams in the game, making a total of 4 games run in parallel. Four of us from DSE ran the games, while a fifth stood by for technical support, ensuring the two instructors could circulate between the three sessions to observe and discuss.
We knew that this course tended to have a solid proportion of officers with low levels of experience with computers. Because of this, we set the Aftershock module up with two participant roles: the Facilitator, who controlled everything on the board; and the Observers, who could not change anything, but could see everything and call up the supporting documentation. This matched the way we often run the game in person, where the facilitator can keep the game moving by running the board and presenting the players with the next decision. We figured that with some of the students being less technical, making the students Observers would allow them to concentrate on making decisions instead of trying to puzzle out how to make the game execute their intended course of action.
We had far more technical issues than we expected, possibly because the larger number of students – nearly three times the number in any of our other groups – meant there were more opportunities for problems. As a result, in each of the four games, the facilitators wound up using the backup plan of streaming their VASSAL screen of Aftershock out to some of the students who could not otherwise see the VASSAL screen. This is far from ideal, as those students reliant on the stream could not control the view, and the Blackboard shared screen is often fuzzy, but it was better than not seeing the screen at all.
Despite the technical issues, students found the exercise very useful, and the instructors named it “a highlight of the course”. As one student wrote in their AAR, “Finally a time at CGSC where we are truly talking with one another to get something done and seeing the results of our decision”.
However, a key lesson here is that the event would have gone a lot more smoothly if we had conducted a readiness check at the end of the prior class session, just to make sure that everybody had VASSAL installed, could load the Aftershock module, and could join the online session – and then to help those who could not, so their troubles were fixed before the main event.
History in Action is a joint elective taught by DSE and the Department of Military History, run with the aim of teaching military history through wargaming, and also teaching a better understanding of wargaming through learning the history. Knowledge of history should inform both playing and assessing the game. Equally, playing the game should help better understand the history; while wargaming can’t let you walk a mile in someone’s shoes, it can let you walk ten feet in their socks. In prior years, DSE’s partner in this class was Dr. Greg Hospodor, but he moved away and we now partner with Dr. Jonathan Abel, and were also assisted by LTC William Nance, PhD, when he was available.
To be selected for this course, a game has to pass all of these tests:
It has to be a good game – fun is the hook, though it isn’t the point.
It has to be available for our use (some that pass the other criteria are out of print, or, for online, have no online implementation).
We have to be able to teach and run it within the 3 hour class time while leaving time for discussion.
It must be dripping with history. It has to highlight unique aspects of the historical event it covers, so it both helps teach that history directly, and further helps teach when compared to the other games in the course. This tends to rule out many less complex games because they wind up being functionally generic. For example, if the game system doesn’t help drive home the difference between commanding World War 2 armor divisions and Napoleonic cavalry divisions, or treats the employment of the Roman manipular legion as little different from that of the Macedonian phalanx, then it doesn’t drive the learning we are looking for.
While in past years we tried to sequence the games according to a theme or timeline or the scale of the actions, our test sessions in early April convinced us that we should sequence the games in order of probable complexity to students. While we began with the list of games we use when teaching the course live, but some of them were not available online, while others we would like to use were. We used, in order:
Battle for Moscow (The 1941 drive on Moscow)
Napoleon 1806 (The Jena/Auerstadt campaign)
1944: Race to the Rhine (The Allied drive across France, with a logistics focus)
Drive on Paris (Schlieffen Plan and Plan XVII in 1914)
Strike of the Eagle (1920 Soviet-Polish War)
Triumph & Tragedy (The struggle for Europe, 1936-1945)
Fire in the Lake (Vietnam War)
Nevsky (Teutonic Knights vs Novogord Rus in 1240-1242)
In each 3 hour class, we began by teaching the game, then we ran it in parallel student groups until there were 45 minutes remaining. The next 30 minutes or so were spent in discussions, and the final 15 minutes or so were spent introducing the next game in the class. Between classes, students were assigned material on the history behind the next game, rulebooks and tutorials to learn the next game, and a graded AAR sheet to fill out on the game just played. The AAR sheet asks for paragraph-length answers to these questions:
What was your plan/COA going into the game?
How did your plan/COA work?
How did the game illustrate the specific contextual elements of the period?
Was the game effective in conveying these contextual elements? How or how not?
What did you learn about warfare in the game’s time period? What surprised you?
What specific lessons can you draw from this game to apply to the future?
We were very pleased with student learning in the class. Student AAR papers were full of observations on things they had learned about history, about wargaming, and that they could carry forward to future assignments. As one student wrote in their end-of-course feedback, “more than anything the course provided context and examples that I can use in the future when explaining the challenges at the operational level of warfare”. Success! However, we did have to overcome various issues along the way.
We intentionally began with Battle for Moscow, the simplest game, to ensure we could also teach VASSAL in the same class. This generally paid off, as subsequent games utilized, at most, a few more features of VASSAL each time, and thus the learning curve was well controlled and students seemed comfortable with VASSAL most of the time. This process worked poorly when we jumped to Tabletopia for Race to the Rhine in class session 3, and then back to VASSAL for session 4 and beyond. Some of our issues with Tabletopia likely stem from our assumption that its interface was easy enough to need little direct training, and to the ways in which it is different from VASSAL. Equally, we had a slight uptick in trouble with the VASSAL interface in class session 4, perhaps because the students had been out of touch with it for a time.
We began inviting students to our internal prep sessions once we realized they might be able to attend. Students who had the time to attend these were normally much better versed in the game than their peers. We, in turn, had to recall that those unable to attend the optional prep session should be assumed to have a good reason! We also learned to spread the students who attended the prep sessions across the student groups. Arranging the student teams ahead of time, and publishing them for students, also helped, as some student teams would strategize ahead of the class.
This course charted the middle ground in the level of technical issues. All the students were comfortable with technology, but some had poor internet connections or weak computers, including the roughly ten year old laptop mentioned earlier. This led to those students losing connection to VASSAL or Blackboard. When using Tabletopia, weaker internet connections and weaker computers completely failed. Just as we all have learned that internet meetings go better when everybody turns off their video feed, opting for systems, such as VASSAL, that made less intensive use of network and computing power proved better in practice.
Online wargaming works, but it is more effort than live, because:
Test your technology thoroughly and ensure you have support on hand to run it.
Running wargames online will require a higher level of expertise from all of your facilitators, of technology and the games.
Running wargames online will require more preparation from students, both in learning the game and ensuring their technology is ready.
BoardGameGeek (description) and VASSAL (module) links for all the games mentioned:
The following article was written for PAXsims by Ben Taylor (Defence Research and Development Canada) and Benjamin Williams (Professeur des Universités, IAE & CleRMa, Université Clermont Auvergne). The views expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the official policy or position of any agency, organization, employer or company.
The authors met through a workshop on Wargaming the Pandemic hosted by the King’s Wargaming Network that was held 1-2 April 2020. BW gave a presentation in which he set out an idea for a matrix game on the COVID-19 crisis that could be supported by quantitative epidemiological and economic models. BT had previous experience with matrix games and offered to collaborate on the idea. This project is therefore itself a product of the COVID-19 crisis as the authors are unlikely to have met or to have found a common project to work on without it.
We decided from the outset that we wanted to design a game that tackled the COVID-19 crisis in a country from the point after the initial lock-down measures had flattened the curve. This phase would require a balancing act by political leaders as they face challenges on three axes: economic, social and healthcare. We termed these the three frontlines of the battle against COVID-19. Our aim was for a game that would sensitise decision-makers to issues that they might face and one in which choices would be constrained by the cross-coupling between the frontlines; for example that returning people to work in offices would likely increase the rate of infection, or that a renewed lock-down would lead to public discontent. We also wanted to introduce some quantitative models to help elaborate upon the consequences of player actions.
We also decided that we did not want to build a detailed game around a specific country. Rather we wanted a tool that could be customised to any country. That required the game to have a generic framework to which national specific details could be added. For development purposes we settled upon the fictitious country of Bretonia which has a government structure like Canada and the economy of France. Our generic framework envisaged four players to represent key elements of the country; the national government, the lower tier governments, the business sector and the public health system. A fifth player, termed “The Crisis”, represents all other domestic groups, external actors and anything else that could happen to challenge the other players’ efforts. An example of the customisation necessary comes from different national approaches to healthcare funding. In Canada healthcare is a provincial responsibility, whereas in France it is mainly funded by the national government through the social security system. This difference would have to be represented in the roles and responsibilities of the two government players.
One of the first steps in designing the game was to develop an influence diagram that showed how various parts of the economy, business, government finances, social attitudes, the healthcare system and the pandemic itself are connected. This provided the reassurance that everything that we wanted to be in scope was captured. The model also provided insight to where knock-on effects (positive or negative) might be felt, which would provide for consistent adjudication.
We also built a dashboard that displays selected metrics grouped across the three front lines, a macroeconomic model, a model of the infection and fatalities and a slide deck for displaying new stories each turn. This latter part of the game was developed to provide some humour, some cultural flavour and to allow attention to be drawn to specific sectors of the economy. We also prepared a number of bad news stories to be injected if any of the economic or social metrics approached worrying levels.
Many design issues common to matrix games apply equally to this game. Among those that we encountered are:
The advantages of having players who have played matrix games before.
The need for subject matter experts to support adjudication if the results are to be realistic.
The challenges for players to switch between role-playing and becoming engaged participants in adjudicating arguments.
Whether the players should be left to solve the basic problem of opening the economy without triggering a spike in infections, or to subject them to additional external challenges, and in the latter whether it is best to script the injects or to have them occur randomly (the answer of course is “it depends”).
The balancing act between allowing players to discuss the proposed actions in detail and curtailing discussion in order to speed up the game.
The game has been run twice with participants from Europe and Canada using a video conference link with supporting text chat facility, a Google slides deck to share news stories, and Google sheets to share the dashboard of metrics and to provide an online tool to capture the participants’ assessments of the likelihood of success of proposed actions. This setup worked very well and participants felt that they could communicate with each other and access the information that was required. There was agreement that the game largely felt right, but that play was slow. The supporting quantitative models were not used extensively. In particular the epidemiological model implemented according to formulation drawn from the literature produced counter-intuitive results and proved impossible to fit to the observed progress of the outbreak in Canada. This placed a particular burden upon the adjudicator to determine how to adjust the dashboard in response to player actions.
Our next objective will be to design a discussion-based game without the matrix structure in order to compare the utility of the two gaming techniques in addressing the management of the COVID-19 crisis.
In March 2018 I ran an three day urban protest crisis game in support of an academic conference on urban conflict.
During that game, the hardline Minister of the Interior ordered protesters cleared and activists arrested from outside a historic church in the center of the capital. Outside policing experts (in the game, a UN CIVPOL advisor played a real life senior Italian Carabinieri officer) advised against this, warning it would only inflame tensions. The Mayor of the capital opposed the move too. The national government nevertheless mobilized military forces and cleared the square in front of the church. Local authorities and many religious leaders condemned the move and sought to have the troops withdrawn.
What starts with the enemy sinking three of your amphibious assault ships, and ends with a toddler interrupting the outbrief to a three-star general? A successful wargame in the age of COVID-19.
When the Marine Corps Command and Staff College was forced to shift from in-person instruction to a distance-learning model in response to the outbreak, the faculty and staff were confident that we could make our seminars work. We were not so sanguine about the execution of our capstone exercise, Pacific Challenge X. The scale and complexity of running a 250-odd person wargame, remotely, seemed daunting, indeed.
The results exceeded even our highest expectations. What was thought to be a threat to execution turned out to be an incredible opportunity. The distributed virtual medium actually increased participation from a host of different agencies and stakeholders, who otherwise would not have been able to support the event. And the natural friction created by the distributed online format, to our pleasant surprise, increased realism.
Given the realization that disaggregation is not only possible but, in many ways, better, future exercises will capitalize on the insights of this event.
The article makes several interesting points, including this one:
The natural friction created by the distributed online format, to our pleasant surprise, increased realism. Students playing the role of headquarters staff officers could not simply walk next door to discuss targeting or collection with colleagues. The framework forced the students to communicate via various digital media to collaborate and produce products.
I made much the same point to a major humanitarian organization recently, in a discussion on how to shift some of their simulation-based training to a distributed, online environment.
Tim Price has been kind enough to pass on this report from a recent play of the Flattening the Curve matrix game.
Last night I managed to get 11 volunteers together to play a distributed version of the Flattening the Curve matrix game over Zoom. It was an interesting and frustrating experience, but I thought it might be worthwhile sharing it with you.
We used Zoom for the video chat. We felt it was very important to be able to speak and see each other and Zoom has a simple and intuitive mosaic screen setup that is particularly useful for the Facilitator. The surround to the image is highlighted to show the current speaker, interrupters are shown with a highlighted line under them, and their names appear under their faces (really very useful indeed). Of particular interest for running a Matrix Game, it is possible to sent private messages to named individuals using the chat function in the application. It was also stable for the 3hrs we played.
We used Google Slides for the game map (see here). With the map itself as the background image and a number of counters imported as images onto the map (and left outside the slide boundary), so everyone could see and collaboratively move the counters if necessary. It is useful to duplicate the last slide for every turn, so you have a record of the map after each turn, and that also allows a run through at the end as an After Action Review.
Finally, we used Mentimeter to be able to carry out the “Estimative Probability” method of adjudication.
When using Estimative Probability players or teams are asked to assess the chances of success of an argument, and these are aggregated to reveal the “Crowd Sourced” chance of success. In analytical games, this provides potentially valuable insight into how participants rate the chances of a particular course of action. Following discussion, players select the option on the Mentimeter slide which, in their view, best represents the probability of the argument’s success. These are displayed immediately to the Facilitator, but not to the players, so it is using hidden voting. It is generally felt that this is a more accurate method to leverage the work on Crowd Sourcing, as well as making the resulting probability more accessible and acceptable to the participants. The terms on the slide also reflected those commonly used in the intelligence community.
The advantage with Mentimeter over other poll and voting systems is that it is free, feedback is instant, and you can use a single slide for all the Matrix Arguments, because you can re-set the results each time. Of course, if you want to have a record of the results, you will have to buy the upgraded version, or save a screenshot each turn (which is a pain).
Running the Game
As is normally the case with video conferences, we had the usual difficulties getting everyone onto the Zoom, with sensible names displayed instead of “Owner’s iPad”, so the start was a little delayed. I had put out a Loom video with a short introduction about Matrix Games, but inevitably a few of the players hadn’t been able to view it, so we were delayed starting as I had to explain how the game would play.
As the game went on, I modified the map (based on some helpful collaboration with TNO in the Netherlands), to make it easier to follow. The revised map is here:
The game played perfectly well, but at a slower pace that if it had been face to face, and it was certainly more tiring for me as the Facilitator. The inter-turn negotiation between team members and other teams was carried out using Whatsapp: and Whatsapp Web so was private to the other players.
We were time limited and were only able to have 11 participants in the end – but it was mainly a trial to see if running a Matrix Game remotely is at all possible. We got a few insights from the game, one of which I will share – as we all go into working from home full-time and are switching to remote working, we end up downloading all sorts of software and applications that we would never have normally dealt with. This increases the threat surface for cyber-attacks by an order of magnitude, so correct digital hygiene is going to be as important as washing your hands.
Following the game, we quickly did a couple of polls, hopefully better informed by the experience of the game:
Each participant was asked to give me their MOST IMPORTANT thing that would happen over the next month (please note the definition of “thing” was left deliberately vague so the players could decide for themselves what it meant).
They were then asked to vote on which of these was the MOST LIKELY thing to happen.
Next, each participant was asked to give me their MOST IMPORTANT long-term consequence of Coronavirus.
They were then asked to vote on which of these was the MOST LIKELY thing to happen.
It is possible to run a Matrix Game remotely, but it is very tiring for the Facilitator and takes much longer than you thought it would.
The right choice of technology can make a real difference – so mandated standards and corporate choices may well have an impact on the experience. This means that practicing, as I was, while waiting for the corporate roll out of their platform of choice might end up especially frustrating, when I am unable to do something that I know a free app on the internet will let me. But downloading all those free apps and trying them out could be dangerous, because the bad guys are definitely out to get you…
Last week, (simulated) federal and provincial officials and members of the PAXsims team met in a top secret nuclear bunker outside Ottawa to respond to the grave threat of global pandemic. This wasn’t COVID-19, however, or even African Swine Fever. This was the zombie apocalypse.
Mobilization Control arrives with a plentiful supply of coffee.
Let me start by saying that the Diefenbunker Museum may well be the most awesome place on the entire planet to run a game. The bunker is big—with four underground floors and three hundred rooms, it was designed to withstand a 5 megaton nuclear detonation 1.1 miles away and thereafter support 535 civilian and military personnel for a month or more. The place is also remarkably intact, filled with 1960s-80s decor and equipment from its days as CFB (Canadian Forces Base) Carp. The Prime Minister’s bed, for example, is the original. If you are ever in the Ottawa area, make sure you visit!
We even had a red telephone.
We utilized large parts of the 300 level, including the War Cabinet Room, the Emergency Government Situation Centre, the Military Information Centre, the Prime Minister’s Office and Suite, the CBC studios, and various other offices. The staff were extremely helpful and even let us use the bunker’s PA system to make game announcements. Players also had access to other areas of the complex and ate lunch in the cafeteria there.
Briefing the players.
The game started with a briefing—appropriately enough, in the Military Information Centre. There had been a strange rash of unexplained attacks in Atlanta, home to the Centers for Disease Control. These soon started to spread across the United States. As violence grew, thousands of fearful Americans sought refuge in Canada.
Players consult the national map. Picture credit: Madeline Johnson.
The Windsor (left) and Niagara (right) maps. Picture credit: Matt Stevens.
Some of those refugees were infected, however. Other zombies crossed the border or washed ashore. Very soon, southern Ontario found itself under attack from growing hordes of undead.
Things begin to deteriorate in the Niagara area. Picture credit: Madeline Johnson.
The Windsor map. Several Tim Hortons doughnut stores in the Windsor area have been closed, underscoring the severity of the crisis. Picture credit: Madeline Johnson.
The federal government quickly declared a national state of emergency. Military units were mobilized, as were additional civilian resources. The US Embassy offered what help it could, and some American police and military units fled to Canada and joined the fight.
Federal officials meet.
No Canadian crisis would be complete with constitutional complications, of course. However, federal-provincial cooperation was generally excellent.
The Prime Minister and Premier of Ontario meet, as a CBC reporter lurks in the background.
Military mobilization underway. Picture credit: Matt Stevens.
Unfortunately, at one key point Ottawa was left undefended. It was soon infected, forcing the cabinet to go into lockdown.
Ottawa under siege! Picture credit: Madeline Johnson.
The Prime Minister, who had been making a speech to the nation, was trapped at the Ottawa CBC studios until evacuated by RCMP helicopter. Shortly thereafter, RCMP and Ontario Provincial Police teams liberated the capital.
The Prime Minister communicates with the cabinet by walkie talkie while awaiting rescue.
Things looked bad in Québec too, with much of the province overrun.
Zombies enter Montreal. Picture credit: Madeline Johnson.
Fortunately the situation there was soon addressed by units from the 2e Division du Canada out of CFB Valcartier. Later, some of these units travelled south to assist Vermont and New York National Guard units in establishing a safe zone around Burlington.
In Ontario, much of initial burden of dealing withe the zombie hordes fell on police. Those in Windsor were especially effective. Later they were reinforced by local Canadian Armed Forces reservists and regular units from CFB Petawawa.
Federal, provincial, and local officials consult.
The Prime Minister discusses the crisis with Canada’s First Nations.
Casualties mount. Hospitals like these would soon find themselves overstretched.
Medical and scientific professionals were key to fighting the zombie virus pandemic.
Much of southwest Ontario is being overrun. Picture credit: Madeline Johnson.
Rumours swirled that the Tim Hortons doughnut chain was somehow responsible for the apocalypse, and their headquarters was raided in a joint RCMP-OPP operation. It turned out, however, that they were a secret zombie-fighting organization.
Tim Hortons is raided by police. Picture credit: Matt Stevens.
All of our map controllers and zombiemeisters possessed first-class pointing skills.
First Nations leaders provided another critical part of the puzzle, revealing that the zombie virus was endemic to North America, and had been responsible for past outbreaks in pre-colonial times. This information, together with technical assistance from the World Health Organization, allowed the Public Health Agency of Canada to first develop more effective treatment protocols and later a vaccine. With this, the tide began to turn. Canada would be saved!
Scientists and health ministers and others celebrate the discovery of a vaccine.
The Prime Minister holds a press conference announcing the discovery of the vaccine.
It was a terrific day—perhaps the most fun I’ve ever had at a megagame. We look forward to holding additional events there once the (current, real world) pandemic is under control.
To contribute to global efforts against the COVOD-19 pandemic, please consider making a contribution to the World Health Organization’s COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund. For each comment left below PAXsims will make an additional contribution.
While there is widespread recognition of global health failures when it comes to infectious disease outbreaks, there is little discussion on how policy-makers and global health organizations can learn to better prepare and respond. Serious games provide an underutilized tool to promote learning and innovation around global health crises. In order to explore the potential of Serious Games as a policy learning tool, Global Affairs Canada, in collaboration with the Department of National Defense and academic partners, developed and implemented a matrix game aimed at prompting critical reflection and gender-based analysis on infectious disease outbreak preparedness and response. This commentary, written by the core development team, reflects on the process and outcomes of the gaming exercise, which we believe will be of interest to others hoping to promote innovative thinking and learning around global health policy and crisis response, as well as the application of serious games more broadly.
Participants reported, through discussions and a post-game survey, that they felt the game was reflective of real-world decision-making and priority-setting challenges during a crisis. They reflected on the challenges that emerge around global health co-operation and outbreak preparedness, particularly noting the importance of learning to work with private actors. While participants only sporadically applied gender-based analysis or considered the social determinants of health during the game, post-game discussions led to reflection on the ways in which equity concerns are put aside during a crisis scenario and on why this happens, offering critical learning opportunities.
Matrix games provide opportunities for policy-makers and health professionals to experience the challenges of global health co-operation, test ideas and explore how biases, such as those around gender, influence policy-making and implementation. Due to their flexibility, adaptability and accessibility, serious games offer a potentially powerful learning tool for global health policy-makers and practitioners.
A post-game survey indicated that participants were generally impressed by the utility of matrix games in foreign policy planning and development in general, and for thinking about how Global Affairs Canada might respond to a global pandemic in particular.
By playing the game, participants felt they better understood the issues and challenges involved, with regard to both global health and security issues and gender-based analysis.
For another recent game on the value of matrix games in exploring pandemic preparedness, see our report on Gaming African Swine Fever.
Policy points indicated the capacity of government agencies to deal with the challenge. In this game, additional resources were soon requested from cabinet.
Recently I spent an afternoon gaming real-life response plans for an emerging global pandemic. This wasn’t COVID-19, however. This was African Swine Fever (ASF).
African Swine Fever is a very frightening pathogen—if you’re a pig or a pork producer. It is 2-3x more contagious than SARS-CoV-2 (the COVID-19 virus), and perhaps 50 times more lethal (with a 95%+ fatality rate). It can remain infectious in feces and soil for a couple of weeks and in pork products for months. While it poses no direct health threats to humans, it has lead to the deaths of tens of millions of animals. Indeed, by some estimates up to one-quarter of all pigs in the world might die from the disease or associated “depopulation” (culling of potentially infected stock). For Canada, potential losses could run to many billions of dollars.
My involvement in this project started in late November, when the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) called to ask whether I might develop a game that could help in policy development and biosecurity preparedness. It was one of the most thoughtful discussions I’ve ever had with a game sponsor: AAFC immediately understood what a game could (and could not) do, the value of crowd-sourcing from diverse perspectives, and the necessary linkages to other analytic methods. Moreover, AAFC was fast in following up. Within days, a team led by Amanda Stamplecoskie and Michael Donohue was in touch, and by mid-December we had developed a prototype. This was playtested early in January. AAFC was extremely prompt in responding to requests for data, and indeed pretty much everything else.
Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba are the main pork-producing provinces in Canada. The small pink and white stickers represent hog farming and meat processing, while the larger blue and red tokens indicate the volume of international and interprovincial trade in live hogs.
We decided to do this as a four-sided matrix game, with players (or teams of players) representing the federalgovernment, the provinces, pork producers, and pork processors. To represent limited policy capacity, taking an action required spending three “policy points” from a stockpile. In the case of the federal government, this stockpile was subdivided into AAFC, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), and other government departments, while the provincial policy capacity was subdivided into the “infected” and uninfected provinces. Policy points had to be spent from the appropriate pool, and only replenished slowly. Other players could add an additional policy point to represent support for an initiative, but everyone needed to be wary of exhausting their resources. At the end of the round, the federal government could opt to take a second action. The provinces could also do this, but only once during the game. Finally, when all of the regular players had finished their turns, a fifth player—”markets and mishaps“—could take an action, reflecting the response of local and international markets, public opinion, political repercussions, or things going wrong.
The game is played on a map depicting Canada, with pink stickers marking areas of hog production. Each represents 200,000 pigs, which gives you an idea how big the Canadian pork industry is, especially in Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba. Major pork processing facilities are also indicated. Removable tokens indicate the weekly volume of hog exports to the US as well as inter-provincial movement.
In this scenario, an ASF infection at a meat processing plant in Fargo, ND was quickly traced back to a farm in southern Manitoba. The border was immediately closed to hogs, and CFIA imposed control ones around the affected farms.
Using a matrix game approach made the game easy to learn and play, as well as easy to modify. Adjudication was done via probability polling, whereby all players were asked for an estimate of how likely an action was to succeed, and percentage dice were then rolled against the median probability. This had the advantage of highlighting areas of analytical consensus (when similar probabilities were offered by all participants) and analytical divergence (where players disagreed markedly on the odds of success, thus pointing to areas where further information or analytical follow-up might be required).
Players contemplate their next move. Senior department officials were highly engaged in moving the game project forward.
Particularly impressive was the fact that AAFC not only worked with me to develop the game very quickly, but also developed the internal capability to run and modify it—running five games internally over the next six weeks or so, involving a diverse group of players and expertise. While common themes came up in all of the games, they also differed significant ways. Even more important, each game saw players discover insights, whether this be new perspectives, the need for new analysis, or learning about aspects of a potential epidemic outside of their normal areas of expertise or responsibility.
All in all, it was an extremely productive, rewarding, and enjoyable experience. Quite beyond it’s usefulness to AAFC, moreover, the whole thing was a model of how policy game development should be done.
On October 5, the Ottawa Megagames group took advantage of the presence of Ben Moores at a nearby NATO operations research and analysis conference to run his game of the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88), Undeniable Victory. Ben has previously discussed the design of the game back in 2017 here at PAXsims. This time, two PAXsims editors—myself and Tom Fisher—would assume the roles of Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein respectively. About three dozen people participated in the event. How did it all go?
Ben Moores (right) briefs Saddam/Tom Fisher (left).
Well, from the Iranian point of view, very well indeed.
In Undeniable Victory, the role of a Supreme Leader is as much a Control team function as a player role—you are there to keep your team informed and engaged, and make sure everyone is participating effectively in the game. Undeniable Victory has internal factionalism built into it (in the Iranian case, we were subdivided into radical, conservatives, and moderates), and that certainly played a role. However, in Tehran we generally agreed that defence of the Islamic Revolution and victory over Iraq was more important than factional infighting, so it tended to be rather muted —with the exception of one notable plot within military ranks that resulted in a few executions.
Saddam Hussein strikes a defiant pose.
Our strategy was a two pronged one: an offensive in the south (designed to hamper Iraqi oil exports and try to safeguard our own), a simultaneous offensive in the north (aimed at interrupting Iraqi oil production and exports from its northern oilfields), while simply holding and delaying in the centre. In support of our southern strategy our navy was to maintain a tight blockade against Iraqi shipping in the Gulf. In support of the northern campaign, we provided support to the restive Iraqi Kurds, and focused diplomatic efforts on Syria in an effort to block Iraqi oil exports via that country.
Fighting is intense on the Southern front.
In the south, the fighting was intense—we made only limited headway, and suffered heavy losses, but it was enough. Our navy generally did very well, although it did sink a Saudi tanker by mistake. A bigger failure came when Iraqi forces were able to launch a daring amphibious raid against Iran’s Kharg Island export facilities. The cabinet had warned the General Staff of this possibility, and ordered that appropriate precautions be taken. When it was clear they had not, heads had to roll: there was a shake-up of both the cabinet and the upper ranks of the military.
The Central Sector early in the game.
In the Central sector, Iraqi forces made substantial progress, and might eventually threaten key infrastructure and Tehran itself. We were confident, however, that a combination of Revolutionary Guard militia and strategic depth could blunt their attack.
The Iranian cabinet at work.
In the north, our Kurdish strategy and military campaign went far better than expected, in part due to impressive military performance by the Kurdish peshmerga. (The Kurds would later get a little too ambitious and start making demands of us too, but nothing we felt we couldn’t handle.) When General James Devine, commander of the northern front (and an Iran expert in real life), reported that he had captured Mosul and “there is nothing between me and Baghdad” we were first incredulous. Surely it was a trap? But he assured us it wasn’t, and we authorized a major thrust towards the Iraqi capital.
Iranian commanders (left), Chief of Staff (centre), and Minister of Defence (right) discuss strategy. The latter two would later be demoted and sent to the front.
Meanwhile, cities on both sides had suffered from missile and air attacks, and our economy and oil sector was beginning to suffer serious attrition too. Things were far worse for the Iraq, however, since we had cut off almost all their oil export routes. War is indeed the conduct of political economy by other means.
General Devine (left) chortles as he sees an open road to Baghdad.
With the Kurds in full revolt, Iranian troops bearing down on Baghdad, and the Iraqi budget in shambles, elements with the Iraqi cabinet secretly asked our price to end hostilities. We were clear: a full withdrawal from Iranian territory and substantial war reparations. Not long after, a coup took place, Saddam Hussein was executed, and Iraq sued for peace.
The Iraqi cabinet discusses the deteriorating situation.
There would be no “drinking poison” this time around (the phrase Khomeini used to describe the stalemated end of the actual war, in which up a million people may have died). Instead, the Revolution had achieved a historic, if costly, victory.
More Iranian cabinet discussions.
As for the game itself, it was extremely well organized by Ottawa megagames. With the exception of some hiccups in the military procurement and foreign loan procedures, everything flowed smoothly. Only a few of the participants were experienced wargamers, yet Undeniable Victory successfully delivered a realistic strategic replay of the conflict.
The next Ottawa megagame will be Apocalypse North on 7 March 2020:
The United States is descending into chaos as it is overrun by mindless undead abominations. Can Canada survive the murderous zombie menace from the south? Can municipal, provincial and federal governments overcome their differences in time?
Approximately fifty participants will assume the roles of federal and provincial politicians, military commanders, local mayors, police and fire chiefs, public health officials, scientists, community leaders, the media, and even local franchisees of a national doughnut chain in this MegaGame of zombie armageddon and Canadian politics.
APOCALYPSE NORTH is a non-profit activity organized by PAXsims in conjuction with Ottawa MegaGames and the Diefenbunker, Canada’s Cold War Museum.
Despite its global advantages, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)’s current deterrent posture in the Baltic states is militarily weak and generally questionable. A Russian invasion there would almost surely capture some or all of those states’ capital cities within a few days, presenting NATO with a fait accompli. The United States is currently considering tailored deterrence strategies, including options to use nuclear weapons to deter Russian aggression in the Baltic states. This report examines what role nonstrategic nuclear weapons could play in deterring such an invasion. As part of that analysis, the authors review relevant deterrence theory and current NATO and Russian nuclear and conventional force postures in Europe. They draw on wargame exercises and qualitative modeling to characterize the potential outcomes if NATO, Russia, or both employ nonstrategic nuclear weapons during a war in the Baltic states. The authors then discuss implications for using such weapons to deter a Russian invasion. The insights derived from the research highlight the reality that, even if NATO makes significant efforts to modernize its nonstrategic nuclear weapons, it would have much stronger military incentives to end a future war than Russia would. That is, Russia would still enjoy escalation dominance.
Daniel Sutliff (Medina County Community Response Team and Ohio Military Reserve) contributed the following report to PAXsims.
I controlled an AFTERSHOCK game for the Medina County EMA (Emergency Management Agency) leadership team. It went very well – it was my first time as a controller so I had to refer to the rules multiple times (especially logistics/infrastructure related).
Lesson learned – I had scanned in the District and Calendar cards so I could use them for play (keep the originals nice), so I plan on writing a few of the key points on the images & reprinting for play.
The team got the flow of things after the first turn. One player in particular got the sequence of play pretty quickly and was giving the rest advice on the impact of the sequence on their planning.
They became pretty worried about losing supplies when districts were resolved with unmet needs. I think they focused too much on transferring supplies between each other for a “mass” transfer and not getting the supplies to the districts. Finally, one of the players said “I don’t think supplies are doing any good sitting in warehouses – we need to get them to the field and take the risk”.
One individual never really understood the “randomness” of the Event-cards and why only one district at time is resolved (generally) – she thought districts should be resolved continually in some manner. Randomness is part of disasters was my only reply. If you have another way of explaining it …
After 2-3 turns they were getting the idea to start the infrastructure build-up.
One interesting sequence happened. I think the second Emergency card in District 5 was to be resolved (needs unmet). All the remaining cards (4-5?) were all special cards: fire, measles, cholera, etc. The game had gone on long enough every one understood the mechanisms and basically realized that essentially what happened was the district was completely devastated with essentially no survivors. So we just stood there for a few moments in silence and mild shock about the potential for such a result —then laugher, “oh well at least we don’t have to worry about sending supplies to District 5”.
Around Week 2, the flow started to turn around and districts were started to be successful resolved. This was because the players drew co-ordination cards that allowed district resolution of choice.
We had only gotten to Weeks 3-4 turn, when I had to leave. It took 2-1/2 hours to get to that point (including the initial briefing and overview). As the flow was really moving, I think we could have finished it in another 30 minutes.
The 1st few turns I let them proceed at a slower rate. After all these were EMA professionals – they actually spent significant amount of time relating the process and sequence to real Incident Command System/National Incident Management System (ICS/NIMS) concepts. For example, the turns became operational periods, the Cluster Meetings became Unified Command, etc.
As I was packing up, they asked “when can we play again?”. Those four want to become better acquainted with the rules and concepts so they can “win”. Even early during this first play, one individual indicated they wanted to “win” and another said “I don’t care, as long as the country recovers”. One player finally noted that if more than two players were in Media Outreach, no one gets Operations Points. He then added a third team deliberately to prevent the other two from getting OPs. (And he did it with a mischievous grin!). I told them that real-life groups might take similar attitudes!
In addition, the leadership wants to adapt the game to use ICS forms (perhaps 201,202, 210/211 for teams, 214, 215 for keeping track of supplies, etc). We figured that would take an 8-hour day, but hey!
My next opportunity to run a game is for the OHMR (Ohio Military Reserve) command leadership courses (mainly Officer candidates and 2LTs!) This is in preparation for using the game as the MEMS (Military Emergency Management Specialist ) practicum for the BELT (Basic Enlisted Level Training), which should be in January and a continuing usage.