We are pleased to feature this report on the One Belt, One Road matrix game developed by COL Jerry Hall. The report below was written by Ryan Carragher, a Boston College student, ROTC member, and intern at the US Army War College. We are grateful to Jerry for sharing the complete set of rules and to LTC Joseph Chretien (US Army War College) for passing all of this on to us.
“One Belt, One Road” (OBOR-MG), a new matrix game developed by Colonel (COL) Jerry Hall, United States Army, focuses on China’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) plan for trade expansion and growth. The game is a six-player game, with teams of China, Russia, India, the European Union, the United States, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). With China’s influence expanding, it is up to the other teams to either determine how to counter China, or find a way to grow with them. The game’s scenario begins in the present day and advances three to five years each round, which replicates China’s end goal of completing OBOR by 2050.
COL Jerry Hall discussing the rules of OBOR-MG
The goals and objectives of OBOR-MG are to explore where China’s OBOR plan may take the world over the course of the next few decades, to expose players to the growth of China through trade, and to force players to think of ways that China can be countered. Within the context of the game, agreed upon trade routes must be invested in to be established, and new trade routes can be planned and opened. More directly, the game requires players to use their National Elements of Power (DIME-Diplomacy, Information, Military, and Economic) to exert influence throughout the globe. In doing so, the game requires players to manage multiple different mechanisms of foreign relations. This forces players to expand their thinking at the strategic level. Military leaders playing must consider the diplomatic, economic and information alternatives, while other government officials playing the game must consider the military options as well. This aspect of the game allows it to accomplish its objective of being an effective tool for strategy development and analysis, to test different courses of action, to determine potential U.S. national interests, and to explore potential outcomes of China’s trade expansion. The OBOR-MG game is extremely versatile in its intended audience. Indeed, it is a useful tool for not only military leaders and organizations but also civilian leaders to test and expand strategic plans as well as for students studying any of the countries and regions involved.
The game was built using lessons learned from past matrix games developed at the Center for Strategic Leadership at the U.S. Army War College. COL Hall recognized the need for a matrix game revolving around China’s planned growth in order to better educate students and leaders on how the future can be handled. Furthermore, he thought it was vital to include all aspects of the National Elements of Power, as had been done in previous matrix games, such as the South China Sea and Kaliningrad.
A new design element in this game comes in the form of each player having multiple chits (moves for each element of power) per turn. This allows for a more accurate representation of each player countries’ strengths in individual fields. For example, China begins the game with three economic chits, and one chit for Diplomacy, Military, and Information. This is indicative of the enormous amount of investment China is dedicating to the development of trade routes in order to advance its growth. The United States begins with two diplomacy, military, and economic chits, as well as one information chit. This shows the fact that the United States has diplomatic and military power in the region, but is not investing as much as China.
One of the trackers in OBOR-MG used to track open corridors.
OBOR-MG goes one step further in allowing each payer to play a chit in response to another player’s move, directly after the player makes the move. This allows other players to modify the dice roll by opposing the action with their pieces and making the roll more difficult, or by supporting it and therefore lessening the required role. By adding this facet to the game, COL Hall made OBOR-MG a more realistic test of foreign policy, as players must manage their elements of power in the most effective way possible and have the ability to respond to opponents’ actions in real time. In the game’s development stages, COL Hall also refined the mechanism by which countries gain economic chits. Emphasizing the economic value of the trade routes, countries through which the route travels, upon the route’s completion, increase the number of economic chits they receive at the beginning of each round. Countries that invest in the routes but are not located along them receive an increase in influence in the region of their investment. This aspect of the game’s development is vital, as it accurately recreates the incentive for competing powers to invest in spots that will not show immediate economic gains but will further their long term goals.
OBOR-MG was play-tested extensively by the Strategic Simulations Division at the Center for Strategic Leadership. This play testing recognized the value of players’ ability to make multiple moves and respond to their opponents. It also brought about minor changes in the numbers of chits given to each player at the start of the game. For example, China’s economic chits at the start were reduced from four to three, and the United States’ was increased from one to two. These small changes were made to make the game as reflective of the real world situation as possible. The play testing also shed light on areas in which the game could expand due to players’ actions. For example, the European Union and ASEAN can now develop military chits by working with other players or by establishing a military force through “big” actions – projects that may take multiple turns or chits to accomplish. This rule allows for players to greatly expand the possibilities of what they can do, but in a way that reflects potential real-world developments. With this ability, players are now more capable of testing potential strategies by different countries.
Playtesting the game.
China’s “One Belt One Road” plan has the potential to drastically change the economic world and world power balance, if it is as successful as China expects it to be by 2050. This game has the potential to provide the United States and its global partners a road map on how best to counter China, or how to join them. COL Hall’s OBOR-MG provides a well-developed platform for leaders to test new strategies and for enterprising students to learn about the future of trade, power, and global politics.
In this decision game, you play either a Joint Task Force (JTF) tasked to seize a lodgment in Lebanon or a Lebanese Hezbollah unit tasked to defend the area. The game is designed to help you think through 21st century Joint Forcible Entry (JFEO). Get creative and experiment with Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUMT), seeing where you could either use an optionally-manned vehicle or add a new unmanned system (but think cheap and off-the-shelve vice exquisite and expensive Terminators).
You can propose a Course of Action as either Red or Blue, and submit it to the scenario designer (Benjamin MJensen, Marine Corps University). There is no system for action/response, however—rather, the puzzle is an opportunity to propose different offensive and defensive COAs and then consider how they might interact.
Non-military folks may find the scenario briefing rather military-jargon-heavy. There’s also some key human terrain stuff that isn’t in the briefing package, but an alert Blue commander should probably ask about:
The local population would likely be very hostile to US intervention (the area is overwhelmingly Shi’ite, and Hizbullah and its Amal allies typically win 90%+ of the Tyre vote in Lebanese elections).
There are also about 50,000 Palestinian refugees in three UNRWA camps in the area, who are unlikely to be happy to see American intervention.
Mobile phone access and usage is ubiquitous. Barring efforts to disrupt this, pretty much all US movement will be quickly reported (even at sea, given that Tyre is a fishing port).
If the Lebanese police assets mentioned in the BLUE briefing are local cops, they’re probably close to Hizbullah. If they’re (non-Shiite) Lebanese ISF forces from elsewhere, they’ll have limited support from the locals and even less motivation to take risks.
These will NOT be part of MaGCK, the forthcoming Matrix Game Construction Kit that Tim Fisher, Tom Mouat, and I are working on—for we are all very serious gamers, and would never do anything like that.
Nonetheless, Tom Fisher obviously has too much graphic design time on his hands, and we thought these might be of use for those of you involved in political-military gaming of current or future crises. The image is formatted to Avery 5410 1″ removable stickers, and you should print from the pdf file here.
We may update them, of course, if the forthcoming UK election goes the other way.
A few days ago The Strategy Bridge posted the first of what will be a continuing series of wargames:
The Next War series on The Strategy Bridge publishes decision games designed to help military professionals visualize and describe the changing character of war and warfare. The games all consist of the same format:
An overarching situation and objective
An assessment of the enemy in terms of their disposition and composition
A space to articulate how players would approach the situation in terms of a central idea, necessary capabilities, and spatial and temporal dimensions (e.g. deep, close, security or shaping, decisive, etc.)
A course of action (COA) graphic and narrative
The games are designed to be short thought experiments that fit easily into training schedules. Individuals should take no more than one hour to complete the game and then one hour to compare results with other players in a group setting. These games can be used by military professionals in tactical units, from battalion to brigade, as well as on larger staffs to practice operational art and define new theories of victory. The wargames are experiments in which professionals can test their ideas (i.e. COAs = hypotheses) and identify candidates for further concept and capability development. By exchanging findings with the larger military professional network, practitioners crowdsource military innovation.
The first in the series, entitled Kaliningrad Fires, outlines a scenario in which US and Lithuanian forces are preparing to meet an imminent Russian invasion:
In this decision game, you are the lead elements of a NATO force sent to stop a Russian force from securing key terrain in the opening stages of a conventional fight. The game is designed to assist players in thinking through how to use fires in the defense to disrupt an adversary. You should assume the lead echelon of the advancing Russian force is just that, the lead echelon and likely to be followed by a larger force.
Following a stand-off with Lithuania regarding shipping tariffs between Kaliningrad and Belarus, Russia began mobilizing forces along the border between Kaliningrad and Lithuania. Initial NATO intelligence estimates suggest that Russia will cross the international border and attempt to secure a land bridge between Kaliningrad and Belarus, south of the Neman River, in 96 hours (D+0). The majority of their forces will secure Lithuanian highways A7 and A16, with additional forces guarding north and south of the route.
1/325 IN, B/1/82 AV, and 2/319 FAR (82d) were conducting operation IRON SENTINEL in Poland with other NATO units when Russia began its mobilization, and was re-tasked to fly to Lithuania and assist the Lithuanian Iron Wolf Brigade in defending Lithuania against a Russian attack. The remainder of 2/82, as well as 1/319 FAR and 3/319 FAR, are scheduled to fly in to Kaunas International Airport (1) NLT D-2. 2 CAV (Germany) will begin arriving on D+1 at the rate of one squadron per day.
It’s a great initiative, and I wish them every success with it.
…however, it isn’t really a wargame at all.
Rather, Kaliningrad Fires is a tactical problem, in which one reads the scenario and then develops a possible solution, possibly discussing it with others and comparing ideas afterwards. That can be very useful, but it lacks any sort of dynamic interaction with an adaptive opponent. It certainly isn’t a course of action (COA) wargame: as Graham Longley-Brown has (repeatedly and vociferously) noted, for a COA wargame to be a wargame it must be adversarial, and ideally conducted under some form of time pressure that reflects the real-life constraints on decision-making.
The scenario devotes much attention to the role of a new artillery system deployed by the (future) US side:
2/319 FA is outfitted with the Army’s newest system, the Advanced Artillery System, firing the Artillery Delivered Swarm System (ADSS).
Each of the [artillery] battalion’s 6 platoons has 8 HMMWVs (4 with howitzers, 4 with ammunition). 7 of the 8 are autonomously piloted and operated, slaved to the actions of the platoon leader’s vehicle.
The puzzle is clearly intended to address how this system might be employed:
How would you integrate a Manned-Unmanned Teaming artillery swarm with attack aviation and ground units assuming hasty defensive positions?
That’s fair enough: it is perfectly legitimate to ask how deployment of a new weapon system might affect battlefield dynamics, and to use both problem sets and actual wargames to explore its tactical employment.
However, to do that one really needs a lot more information. The tactical description says almost nothing about the entire Lithuanian mechanized infantry brigade that is also part of BLUE: no TOE (table of organization or equipment) is provided, nor any notion of how the Lithuanians would like to defend their country, or the degree of interoperability between US and Lithuanian forces. There’s also no discussion of BLUE air assets, or whether the Russians will enjoy temporary local air superiority in the opening stages of their assault. To my mind, those are all rather important considerations. It’s a bit like asking how the British Expeditionary Force should fight the Germans in 1940 using their newfangled 18/25pdr field artillery with little reference to French capabilities, no discussion of air control, and no reference to French plans.
The mysterious “Tim Price” is at it again, quickly putting together a matrix game that explores the growing tensions in the Korean peninsula. At this link you will find rules, a map, and markers/assets/counters. The game involves six players:
The game components even include Twitter indicators, allowing you to deploy the formidable 140 character rhetorical broadsides of the US president.
While the rules describe how a matrix game operates, if you have never seen one in action the concept of a freeform narrative game in which the participants make up the rules as they go along through discussion and assignment of weighted probabilities might seem a bit strange. As in most matrix games, players are free to take any plausible action they wish simply by describing: (1) the action they wish to take; (2) the effect this would have if successful; and (3) arguments why the action might succeed. Other players then add other arguments for and against success. Each solid argument is used as die roll modifier, dice are rolled, the action and its effects are adjudicated—and it is then the next player’s turn.
And there’s still more on wargaming at the Strategy Bridge! Today it is Benjamin Jensen (Marine Corps University) on “#Wargaming the Changing Character of Competition and Conflict” —and it’s not so much an article as it is an invitation to readers to participate in a series of collaborative online wargames over the coming year:
Over the next year, as a part of an ongoing series on #wargaming, we will return to Moltke’s vision of a series of map exercises that illuminate the changing character of war and, in the process, help the military professional develop new theories of victory. Every month #wargaming will feature a vision of the next war by publishing a campaign-level decision game. These short, seminar-style games are designed to help national security professionals think about multinational campaigns and major operations possible, but not necessarily probable, in the near future. These modern map exercises can be played individually similar to a tactical decision game, or used by a group to discuss military strategy and practice.
The games in this series will be take the form of short, seminar games that can be conducted by collaborative networks of individuals sharing their ideas or in small groups. The games will establish a scenario and available forces. Based on this initial data, readers can discuss military options, possible adversary countermoves, and the resulting cascading effects. These discussions provide a vehicle for the national security professional to visualize and describe the changing character of war.
A recent visit to the Netherlands by one of the PAXsims editors led to the development of Terror in Tilberg, a matrix game exploring the possible impact of a terror attack in the run up to that country’s 2017 elections.
The players in the game are as follows:
local jihadists (“Hofstadt Network”)
Right wing neo-Nazis (“New Thule”)
Dutch Emergency Services
The results of one game were as follows:
On occasions both the Islamic Terrorists and the Right-Wing Terrorists were perfectly happy with their opponent’s actions
The Coalition Government often found itself arguing against its own political interests.
The Security Services were very good at reacting to an attack afterwards, but felt unable to act proactively without legislation and techniques that put them against the Liberal policies of the Government.
Geert Wilders found himself at odds with a significant proportion of the Right-Wing terrorist actions.
The upshot of the game was that Geert Wilders won the most seats, but failed to secure an overall majority (only just) and the other political parties refused to join him in a coalition. It was a close-run thing, but the Netherlands remained a liberal democracy.
You’ll find the scenario description and game materials here (.pdf). To play it, you’ll need some general familiarity with matrix games.
During our recent War in Binni megagame, we encountered an issue that often arises in POL-MIL games: we were missing part of the UN Security Council. In this case, all five veto-wielding permanent (P5) members were represented by players: China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States. Of the ten rotating non-permanent members, however, we only had two actually represented by players: Nigeria and Guinea.
Members of the UN Security Council check the latest news from Binni via the live Global News Network Twitter feed.
One way of dealing with this is to simply reduce the size of the Security Council, and the changing the real-world UNSC voting roles (nine affirmative votes and no P5 vetoes) to something proportional to the size of the group. This is the way I do things in the Brynania peacebuilding simulation, for example.
In this case, however, we wanted more for the various UN ambassadors to do during the game, and we also wanted to highlight that even the powerful P5 members need broader support for anything to happen. Consequently the non-player members of the Security Council were represented by cards. Each card listed the issues that mattered to that country. When one of those issues was addressed well in a statement by a UN ambassador, the UN Control team would dice to see whether the card (and that state’s vote) would pass to the ambassador concerned. To reflect existing global alliances and relationships, some non-played countries were more easily influenced by some than others.
In addition, at the start of each turn the various UN ambassadors could secretly use influence cards and foreign aid funds in an attempt to obtain a die roll bonus when attemping to secure non-player country votes.
I was a little worried that the mechanism might result in a stilted debate process whereby UN ambassadors made speeches, stopped to await a die roll by Control, then continued. That, however, didn’t happen. On the contrary, UNSC debates were lively and fluid.
Members of the UN Security Council debate the war in Binni.
You’ll find the materials here, should you wish to modify them for use in your own game:
It has been a busy month, and as a consequence we are a bit behind on updates. So here (at last) is the latest issue of simulations and gaming miscellany, filled with items on serious and not-so-serious gaming that may be of interest to PAXsims readers.
James Sterrett suggested material for this latest edition.
It’s a written training manual given interactive life, and it’s the brainchild of a group of informatics students at the Halifax school.
Developed over three semesters by 11 students, the game is set to be tested with peacekeepers in the field as part of training offered by Dalhousie’s Romeo Dallaire Child Soldier Initiative.
Josh Boyter, who works with the Dallaire initiative, said the game is designed so it can be deployed in some of the most difficult hotspots around the world without having to utilize the Internet or wireless connections.
“This game can sit on a USB key,” said Boyter.
“It’s all locally based, so as long as they have a browser on their laptop . . . the game won’t break. It’s purely designed to be as robust as possible.”
Boyter said his organization plans to give the game to the first child protection adviser to be attached to an African Union peacekeeping mission. The adviser will use it to help train soldiers and police.
“We are really excited to see how it actually is going to help in terms of our ultimate mission, which is to end the use of child soldiers,” he said.
The game presents a range of scenarios and roles in which child soldiers could be encountered, including as spies or even suicide bombers. Each scenario presents a list of choices for dealing with the child soldier and the game user is ultimately told whether those choices are right or wrong.
Ars Technica reports on an effort in Berlin to use boardgames to bring newly-arrived refugees and Germans closer together:
At the shelter I frequent most, a children’s worker named Robin spends many afternoons playing games with the kids. He teaches them the German classic Mensch, Ärgere Dich Nicht, a best-selling variant of Parcheesi. It has become one of their favorites.
My friend Karin, who publishes games for businesses, wants to donate some games for the refugees. She gives me black-and-white Parcheesi boards that can be colored in by the children, and we pick out various colors of pawns and dice to include with each board.
When I pull out the game boards at the shelter the following week, the children enjoy choosing their pawns. Then they get right to work, adding color to their boards with the markers and colored pencils I bring with me. When finished, they cannot believe that the games are theirs to keep. I assure them that they are—and suddenly find myself in the middle of a group hug.
Later, I ask my friend Thorsten—who works for the large Berlin publisher who makes Mensch Ärgere Dich Nicht—if the company would be able to donate any games as Christmas presents for the children. He packs a large box, which I supplement with a few extra chess sets and some games that designer Néstor sent me. My family joins me in wrapping and distributing them.
This happens on a very special night, as the refugees are finally moving to “container apartments” after a full year of bunk beds and bedsheet partitions in a converted indoor basketball court. We are invited to share food and join in a dance, and the children’s eyes light up when they receive a game of their very own.
But the gifts are more than just games. They are reminders of the times we shared together every week over the past year, and the promise of more to come.
Our four work groups, i.e. patient safety, medical technologies, global health, and pervasive learning, have come together, and with outputs from the youth innovation and costs of innovation panel, produced a series of high quality manuscripts. These will be published in a special issue of BMJ Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning, to be publicly launched at the Mar 29 event.
We are extremely pleased to have Dr. Russell Gruen, Director of the Nanyang Institute of Technology in Health and Medicine in Singapore, Dr. Nick Sevdalis, Editor-in-Chief of BMJ Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning, and Ms. Katrine Kirk, Danish Patient Safety Champion, join us in Montreal for the event. We also have the pleasure of hosting Assistant Deputy Minister Marie-Josée Blais, Ministry of Economy, Science and Innovation, Province of Quebec, as well as many of the original invitees to the May 2016 event, to encourage and propagate further discussion, dissemination and implementation of the simnovate mission.
The event commences at 1:30pm, with a series of keynotes, panel sessions and discussions, followed by a cocktail reception for networking and further follow-up.
Polygon recently reported on UNESCO’s interest in the power of gaming to promote empathy, understanding, and positive social change:
For lots of gamers, the power of the medium is its ability to place us in the shoes of other people, making tough choices that we’d otherwise never need to contemplate.
But how does that message of power and opportunity spread outwards, away from the mostly indie games that address serious issues, and the relatively small number of people who celebrate these noble efforts?
He’s also the author of a new report commissioned by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) which seeks to find ways in which games can be used to foster empathy and understanding around the world. The report was commissioned by UNESCO subsidiary the Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace.
“Perspective-taking helps negotiate social complexities, diminish biases, improve inter-group attitudes, and encourage a view of outgroups as more self-like,” states the report. “The potential to positively impact attitudes with digital games is not only rooted in their ability to grant perspective, but also in their potency as instruments of persuasion.”
“If you read the literature on conflict resolution, perspective-taking is very important in order to reconcile opposing points of view,” says Darvasi. “It’s difficult to have empathy if you can’t put yourself into somebody else’s perspective. Video games allow you to assume perspectives in an embodied form.
“When you watch the news or a documentary, you might not feel connected to the issue. But video games immerse you in the action. Your actions have consequences within the game and therefore there’s a greater emotional and cognitive investment.”
Donald Trump’s Challenge : play as the new chief executive of the United States and strive to keep your campaign promises on issues such as reducing the tax burden, stimulating the economy or the fight against illegal immigration… all while avoiding bankrupting the nation and maintaining your approval ratings with the end goal of being reelected for a second term in 202
War in Syria and Iraq 2017 : play as one or several warring factions in the new conflict map configuration updated as of the beginning of 2017 and strive to emerge victorious or put an end to hostilities. NB : the conflict scenarios from the beginning of 2016 will still be playable.
Gross National Happiness : improve the quality of life for your people by implementing reforms and try to raise your country’s global ranking.
French Election 2017 : play as one of the candidates in the French national elections or even the current chief of state and run a campaign, manage your budget, establish your campaign platform, participate in debates and try to get elected (or reelected) to the highest office.
Before you all ask, PAXsims has no information on whether the update includes dubious connections with Russian intelligence, immigration and refugee bans, “fake news”, bizarre press conferences, arguments over the size of crowds on the Mall, or turmoil in the National Security Council.
In early January, a not-exactly-secret ICONS simulation was mentioned in the New York Times article on US support for the Baltic states:
The intelligence also informs planning in Washington. In October, the military’s Joint Staff conducted a three-day confidential simulation exercise involving four possible situations in Latvia in which Russia used drones, cyberwarfare and media manipulation.
We’re told the event wasn’t classified at all, simply held under Chatham House Rules.
In March 2017 Hollandspiele will be releasing two Brian Train wargames-in-one:
Ukrainian Crisis will be much the same as the PnP version available now here, except that the Resource cards will be chits (they can’t print up that many cards), the game length is increased to 9 turns and there are a few extra units, for variety and to fill up the counter sheet.
Even better, this will be half of a two-game package… the other game will be the mini-game The Little War, on the brief Slovak-Hungarian border war of March 1939! This one uses only 30 counters and a deck of ordinary playing cards to drive the action. I designed this one last year.
A recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association Neurology by Janina Krell-Roesch, Prashanthi Vemuri, and Anna Pink suggests that playing games can significantly reduce the risk of new-onset mild cognitive impairment:
Question Does engaging in a mentally stimulating activity in old age associate with neurocognitive function?
Findings In this population-based cohort study, 1929 cognitively normal participants 70 years or older were followed for approximately 4 years. The following activities were associated with significant decreased risk of new-onset mild cognitive impairment: computer use, craft activities, social activities, and playing games.
Meaning Engaging in a mentally stimulating activity even in late life may decrease the risk of mild cognitive impairment.
Recently Brant Guillory at GrogHeads interviewed James Sterrett of the US Army Command & General Staff College about how hobby wargaming is making its way (back) into professional military ranks. You’ll find the whole thing here.
The grimdark, battle-hardened warriors are known for their martial prowess – but wearing the skins of dead animals doesn’t take any skill.
Indeed, nothing on the bloody battlefields of Warhammer’s conflict-ravaged universe could match the terrible reality that foxes, minks, rabbits, and other living beings experience at the hands of the fur trade. Those killed for their fur typically first endure a bleak life inside a tiny, filthy wire cage before being electrocuted, drowned, or even skinned alive. Or they may be in the wild, minding their own business, when they get caught in a horrific bone-crushing steel-jaw trap – often languishing for days before eventually dying from starvation, dehydration, or blood loss.
PETA has written to Games Workshop CEO Kevin Rountree asking that the leading British miniature war-gaming brand ban “fur” garments from all Warhammer characters. While we appreciate that they are fictional, draping them in what looks like a replica of a dead animal sends the message that wearing fur is acceptable – when, in fact, it has no more place in 2017 than it would in the year 40,000.
This, of course, provoked much outrage, sarcasm, derision, mirth, and discussion among Warhammer players.
…which, PETA later admitted, was kind of what they were aiming for:
We’re laughing, too! For the cost of a postage stamp, our website has received record traffic – and the people who were prompted to visit our site by this story can’t have missed the prominently featured eyewitness footage showing that animals in real life are electrocuted, drowned, and sometimes even skinned alive for their fur.
Here’s a little secret: we know that Warhammer characters are fictional, and we’re not losing sleep worrying about what Leman Russ or the other miniatures are “wearing”. We are, however, lying awake at night thinking of ways to make people aware that real animals who are raised for their fur, skin, or flesh are suffering every day. We’ll sleep a little more easily tonight knowing that we’ve managed to get nearly a quarter of a million people (and counting!) to visit PETA.org.uk in the days since we sent our letter, because – whatever their reason for doing so – they’ll now know more about the cruelty behind fur.
So by all means, have a laugh at this campaign – you can even laugh at us – but please remember that the fur industry is a living hell for animals. If that bothers you, and it should, please share our fur exposés with your friends and family.
Well played, PETA, well played.
Last but certainly not least, PAXsims is very pleased to report that we’ve now had more that 500,000 page views and 200,000 visitors to the website. We’re also well on track to making 2017 our best year ever. Many thanks to our readers and contributors to making it possible!
The ever-prolific Tom Mouat has completed the design of another matrix game, this time devoted to strategic jockeying by Russia, NATO, and others in the Black Sea and eastern Mediterranean:
President Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin has sought to reverse the post-Cold War era transformations during which Russia lost its satellites, withdrew militarily from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), forfeited its regional predominance, and curtailed its international power projection. Moscow’s primary strategic objective under the Putin presidency is to create a Eurasian bloc of states under predominant Russian influence that will necessitate containing, undermining and reversing NATO influence throughout eastern Europe. Even where it cannot pressure or entice its neighbours to integrate in the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Kremlin attempts to neutralize nearby capitals by preventing them from moving into Western institutions, particularly NATO and the European Union (EU).
In this strategic context, Russia’s supremacy in the Black Sea becomes critical for restoring its east European and Eurasian dominion, as well as projecting power toward the Mediterranean and Middle East. Its offensives in and around the Black Sea are part of a larger anti-NATO strategy in which naval forces play a significant and growing role. Russia is using the Black Sea as a more advantageous method of revisionism than extensive land conquests. Control of ports and sea lanes delivers several benefits: it prevents NATO from projecting sufficient security for its Black Sea members; deters the intervention of littoral states on behalf of vulnerable neighbours; threatens to choke the trade and energy routes of states not in compliance with Russia’s national ambitions; and gives Moscow an enhanced ability to exploit fossil fuels in maritime locations.
All of this assumes particular significance, of course, against the backdrop of Russian deployment of its (rather dilapitated) aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsovto support combat operations in Syria, reports that NATO is again playing hide-and-seek with Russian attack submarines in the Med (and vice-versa), continued conflict in the Ukraine, political uncertainty in Turkey, the regional migrant crisis, and the growing value of eastern Mediterranean oil and gas deposits.
The actors represented in the game include the US, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, Cyprus, and the UK, and turns represent around 2-4 weeks. Rules, counters, and maps are included, and can be downloaded from here (pdf).
Computers continue to revolutionize modern warfare, not the least of when it comes to putting battle plans to the test. Devise the scenario, feed it into the computer and out spews detailed estimates of risk, supply consumption and more.
But as it turns out, that there’s nothing like pitting humans against humans – at least to get the kinks out of a plan to begin with.
Indeed, Pentagon leaders right up to the deputy secretary of defense are using a house-built Army board game – complete with outcome tables and standard dice – to spot the flaws in battle plans before crunching the numbers with modern computing. Just as manned aircraft and drones can team to form a highly effective partnership, computer models linked to board games can bring out the best qualities of both.
The Army calls its board game C-WAM – short for the Center for Army Analysis Wargaming Analysis Model. Games pit (friendly) Blue versus (enemy) Red forces and results are fed into the Joint Integrated Contingency Model (JICM), a powerful computer simulation that analyzes plans and calculates losses and supply consumption.
First developed eight years ago, C-WAM is increasingly popular and has been used by Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, a well-known vigorous advocate for analytical wargaming as well as the Joint Staff, multiple Combatant Commands (COCOMs) including Pacific (PACOM) and European (EUROCOM) commands, and other major component commands, such as U.S. Pacific Fleet and Pacific Air Forces and U.S. Air Forces Europe.
The game has also been used to test potential effectiveness of new weapons during the acquisition process.
“Demand is far outstripping our capacity at this point,” says C-WAM creator Daniel Mahoney III, a campaign analyst for Center for Army Analysis at Fort Belvoir, Va. “We turn people down now for wargaming requests.”
Understanding the Game
Physically, C-WAM consists of a tabletop map typically about five-feet long and four-feet wide. Players maneuver their pieces (representing brigades) across the map, just like in any other tabletop game. The digital Battle Tracker– a simple computer database — rolls digital dice and tracks losses, supplies and so on. If they prefer, players may also choose to use conventional physical dice.
The Blue and Red teams are each led by a commander-in-chief and supported by ground, air and naval commanders. A White Cell umpire, supported by a few more people to run the Battle Tracker, oversees the game as it plays out. …
What’s more, Michael has gone a step further, and obtained a copy of the C-WAM rule book. You’ll find it here.
This detailed April 2016 presentation on C-WAM by Daniel Mahoney to the MORS wargaming community of practice may also be of interest.
The following game was developed by PAXsims associator editor Tom Mouat.
Nine-dash Line is a game of regional competition and cooperation in the South China Sea. It uses a matrix game mechanism, an approach we’ve discussed extensively here at PAXsims. The game’s title, of course, refers to China’s maritime and territorial claims in the area.
The game was developed for two reasons: The first was to generate a contemporary game in a regional potential flashpoint that I hadn’t done before; and the second was to get some understanding of the region prior to a visit to the Defence Academy by a senior Vietnamese delegation. As has been discussed before, the act of designing a game generates a greater understanding of the situation even before the players are included. This was no exception as I was surprised just how little I knew (despite participating in an FPDA exercise a few years ago).
We ran the game recently and, since it was set in the contemporary situation, the US Presidential election featured part way through the game. We diced for the result with a 58% chance of a Clinton victory (able to be modified by arguments) with the result that she won a clear victory. It will be interesting to see if this matrix game was accurate in this respect in November.
This game featured a number of random event cards, which worked well with the players, but we elected to modify the narrative and effect of the cards as best met the situation of the individual circumstances at the time. For example, in a previous turn the USA had successfully argued for an oil survey vessel operating in support of the Philippines Government and in the following turn the “Oil Discovery!” Card came up. This was too good an opportunity to miss, so the USA was permitted an additional argument to determine the extent of the oil discovery.
We also elected to try the idea of providing a more general background briefing for the players and requiring them to identify their own objectives over the coming months of game play.
The game went as follows:
Turn 1: A typhoon hit the area of the Spratly Islands and the coast of the Philippines, with considerable destruction and loss of life. China deployed naval ships to the area, supported by a Malaysian hospital ship and a repair vessel. The US Navy also carried out humanitarian assistance along the Philippines Coast, but the Philippine President took the opportunity to attack drug operations in coastal cities. The Vietnam Government successfully invited the Russian Navy for joint exercises off Cam Ranh Bay and Taiwan dispatched a repair ship to their lone outpost in the Spratly Islands.
Turn 2: There was a dispute between Pilipino fishermen and Taiwan resulting in damage to the Pilipino vessel, cut nets, and serious injury to one of the crew. The Taiwan Government quickly defused the situation by escorting the vessel away from Taiwanese claimed waters and paying compensation to the owners. The Russian / Vietnamese joint exercise was a great success and was accompanied by a political initiative to increase Russian involvement in Cam Hanh Bay. Chinese and US Navy submarines shadowed the exercise, gaining valuable intelligence. The Philippines took advantage of Chinese efforts being concentrated on the Vietnamese and the ongoing repair efforts in the Spratly Islands, to re-establish a lighthouse in Scarborough Shoal.
Turn 3: The Taiwan government was embarrassed by their repair vessel running aground in spectacular fashion, in the glare of media attention, near Taiping Island. Efforts to rescue the ship were a fiasco and their standing in international media was something of a joke. Clinton won the US election convincingly and took the opportunity to sponsor oil survey ships in Filipino waters in an effort to improve relations even more with the Philippines President. At this point Malaysia took the chance (with clandestine help from the Chinese) to launch a cyber-attack on the Vietnamese and Soviet exercise. This was spectacularly successful, knocking out both nations’ air defence radar systems for an extended period, but there were unforeseen second-order effects that impacted on the US submarine and civilian shipping navigation systems. China attempted to covertly establish some deep ocean facilities for their submarine force north of the Spratly Islands.
Turn 4: Oil was discovered by the US survey vessels and the value of Filipino investments rose sharply with the news. Chinese and Vietnamese survey ships closed in on the area (carefully outside the 200nm Philippines exclusive economic zone), but the Vietnamese ship had technical problems and had to turn back. Taiwan finally manage to repair the Taiping Island facility. The Malaysians had embedded in the code of their cyber-attack subtle and sophisticated hints that the origin of the attack was the Philippines. This was successful with the Vietnamese and Russians, but the US NSA was more cautious in apportioning blame. The US Navy located and identified all of the Chinese deep ocean facilities.
Turn 5: Media attention switched to Germany where a hacking attack on one of Europe’s largest healthcare insurance providers leaked the confidential medical records of some 2.7 million European citizens. With events escalating in the area and Russian involvement, the USA called an international summit to discuss the crisis and we ended the game there.
The game was a lot of fun and easy to adjudicate. Sadly, we were playing without any detailed expertise in the area, but nevertheless we felt that it had helped us to begin to understand the geography, capabilities and issues of the region, and was valuable educationally.
PAXsims associate editor Tom Mouat recently put the finishing touches on BOMBER!, a quick and simple game intended to “promote discussion about military bombing, asymmetric warfare, political ideals, deception and ethical/humanitarian behaviour.”
This game is designed to be played with small groups of students, preferably 3 per side in each group, as a classroom activity taking no more than 45 minutes, followed by a post-game discussion taking another 45 minutes. The game itself is relatively simple and is based on a modified version of the children’s game “Battleships” so should be easily accessible to students.
You’ll find all the necessary materials at the link above.
Paddy Griffith—military historian, lecturer at the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, hobbyist, and founding member of Wargame Developments— was an influential figure in the evolution of British wargaming. In this volume, John Curry and his History of Wargaming Project have collected together materials from two counterinsurgency (COIN) simulations that Griffith developed in the late 1970s, as well as the outline of the main components of a live action exercise. Prolific COIN wargame designer Brian Train provides a Foreword to the collection, placing the wargames in the broader context of developments in counter-insurgency doctrine and practice.
If the first game, LONGREACH VILLAGE (1980), looks rather like a fictionalized British Army and Royal Ulster Constabulary hunting for an IRA active service unit in a Northern Ireland border village—well, that’s hardly surprising, for such was the counterinsurgency challenge that would be faced by young British officers at the time. Today, when most insurgencies and COIN wargames alike involve underdeveloped and failed states, it may all seem of marginal relevance. After all, this is not a setting where there are major impediments of poverty, language, or cultural understanding. Instead the background materials outline the milkman’s daily routine, the opening hours of the pubs, banks, and shops, and details of the local farmers’ market. However, in doing so the game provides an outstanding example of the sort pattern-of-life analysis that underpins local intelligence collection and tactical patrolling in almost all peacekeeping, COIN, counter-terrorism, and stabilization operations. This is something that—with the notable exception of Jim Wallman’s BARWICK GREEN game—is almost completely absent from modern wargames on the topic , which focus instead on either local armed clashes or larger-scale operational and strategic issues. Is Mr. X acting suspiciously, or is he they simply eccentric? Is a meeting in the pub a benign collection of friends, or a plot in progress? Where can you best position an OP to observe civilian (and possible insurgent) activity without being spotted? Where should vehicle checkpoints be established? What sorts of information should you be collecting? Who might be hoarding precursors for IEDs and other weapons, and how would you know?
The border village of Longreach.
The wargame is largely played by having the Security Force and Red Cell players allocate personnel to missions, schedule their various activities, and plot their locations or routes, with the umpire then adjudicating the outcomes. The book also contains some brief suggestions for resolving some activities on the tabletop. Supporting materials include a map of the village, background information on the villagers, a list of daily routine activities, as well as the assets available to the Security Forces and Red Cell.
The second COIN exercise is SUMMER IN ORANGELAND, which envisages possible terrorist activity by the “People’s Liberation Army” in the fictional town of Dodgem-on-Sea. Any resemblance here to IRA cells (or perhaps 1970s era leftist terrorists) operating in the mainland UK would not be coincidental. In this case the primary government actor is the local police force which, in addition to dealing with a possible terrorist cell, also has to cope with a busy schedule of other challenges: planning and security for the summer carnival, a football final, a concert, gold bullion shipments, and even a royal visit. The terrorists—some of whom have decidedly Irish surnames—must plan and execute a plot before they are discovered. In typical Paddy Griffith fashion, there are a few curveballs and eccentricities to keep the players on their toes.
The final exercise, GREEN HACKLE, is a series of live-action tactical vignettes to be carried out over three days by approximately 250 Sandhurst cadets operating in a mock-up village training area. The book contains a list of scripted events, plus some photographs.
Altogether, this slim volume provides fascinating insight into British counterinsurgency training in the 1970s and early 1980s. Moreover, the first two games highlight key challenges of tactical intelligence and analysis that remain highly relevant to contemporary COIN, counter-terrorism, peacekeeping, and stabilization operations. They are easily adapted or modified for classroom use, or could provide the inspiration for similar sorts of wargames set in other, rather different, political and cultural contexts.