PAXsims

Conflict simulation, peacebuilding, and development

Category Archives: simulation and gaming publications

GMS Journal for Medical Education: Using AFTERSHOCK to teach about disaster medicine

The latest issue of the GMS Journal for Medical Education 35, 4 (2018) contains an article by Simon Drees, Karin Geffert and myself on “Crisis on the game board – a novel approach to teach medical students about disaster medicine,” in which we discuss the use of AFTERSHOCK: A Humanitarian Crisis Game to teach German medical students about humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

The result of the workshops’ evaluation was very positive. A large majority of participants was overall satisfied with the event and all its components. Almost all participants found the level of difficulty to be appropriate. This is consistent with the findings of other AFTERSHOCK participant surveys, which we outlined in the project description [7], [8], [9], [10]. Although participants in these workshops came from very different contexts (WHO, military), they gave similarly positive ratings regarding their overall satisfaction, the level of complexity and the design of the game. The low-to-medium level of prior knowledge in our survey represents the sort of target audience for which AFTERSHOCK was designed. We saw very engaged participants during the workshops, with small group sizes and enough time for a proper introduction and debriefing being crucial to success. We disagree with the suggestion to distribute the rules beforehand or to perform a “test-run”. Experience in other settings mentioned above suggests that this is not necessarily very helpful: when players are provided the rules in advance they may feel a need to fully master them in advance. Introducing elements of the game as they become relevant during game play appears to work much better. Moreover, a limited degree of initial player confusion and uncertainty is also a valuable teaching tool: the immediate aftermath of a disaster, after all, is also characterized by uncertainty and limited information. Oral and written feedback also highlighted the importance of embedding the simulation within a more extensive course on disaster medicine to complement it with more theoretical background knowledge. Although we are confident that we achieved our main goal of providing our participants with a basic understanding of disaster medicine and humanitarian aid, especially regarding its complexities in practice, we agree with this assessment. It is also consistent with the scholarship on serious games, which stresses both the importance of integrating various course elements and value of debriefing sessions, which serve to highlight and contextualize games-based learning [11].

Conclusion

Board games such as “AFTERSHOCK: A Humanitarian Crisis Game” are well-suited tools to simulate the complexity of humanitarian assistance. They provide opportunities to apply theoretical knowledge about disaster medicine in practice while experiencing the challenges of a dynamic environment. This and their high acceptance rate among students makes them suitable for use in medical education. To ensure long term learning, simulations should always be accompanied by theoretical coursework and effective debriefing.

GMS Journal for Medical Education is the official journal of the Gesellschaft für Medizinische Ausbildung (German Association for Medical Education). You can find the English version of the article here, and the German version here. AFTERSHOCK is available from The Game Crafter (although at the time of posting they are waiting on some components to arrive before they can fill new orders).

Will to fight

Back in July, we mentioned Ben Connable’s presentation on “the will to fight” at the Connections US wargaming conference. Now we are pleased to post links to the two recently-released RAND studies on the military will to fight (Connable et al, 2018) and national will to fight (McNerney et al, 2018):

x1537447779761.jpg.pagespeed.ic.mrO8JdPXvH.jpgWill to fight may be the single most important factor in war. The U.S. military accepts this premise: War is a human contest of opposing, independent wills. The purpose of using force is to bend and break adversary will. But this fundamental concept is poorly integrated into practice. The United States and its allies incur steep costs when they fail to place will to fight at the fore, when they misinterpret will to fight because it is ill-defined, or when they ignore it entirely. This report defines will to fight and describes its importance to the outcomes of wars. It gives the U.S. and allied militaries a way to better integrate will to fight into doctrine, planning, training, education, intelligence analysis, and military adviser assessments. It provides (1) a flexible, scalable model of will to fight that can be applied to any ground combat unit and (2) an experimental simulation model.

x1537447770588.jpg.pagespeed.ic.-2B1VyhWWt.jpgWhat drives some governments to persevere in war at any price while others choose to stop fighting? It is often less-tangible political and economic variables, rather than raw military power, that ultimately determine national will to fight. In this analysis, the authors explore how these variables strengthen or weaken a government’s determination to conduct sustained military operations, even when the expectation of success decreases or the need for significant political, economic, and military sacrifices increases.

This report is part of a broader RAND Arroyo Center effort to help U.S. leaders better understand and influence will to fight at both the national level and the tactical and operational levels. It presents findings and recommendations based on a wide-ranging literature review, a series of interviews, 15 case studies (including deep dives into conflicts involving the Korean Peninsula and Russia), and reviews of relevant modeling and war-gaming.

The authors propose an exploratory model of 15 variables that can be tailored and applied to a wide set of conflict scenarios and drive a much-needed dialogue among analysts conducting threat assessments, contingency plans, war games, and other efforts that require an evaluation of how future conflicts might unfold. The recommendations should provide insights into how leaders can influence will to fight in both allies and adversaries.

The former study in particular examines the way in which wargames do or do not model “will to fight,” and suggests some key lessons for future wargame design:

Adding will to fight changes combat simulation outcomes

  • Most U.S. military war games and simulations either do not include will to fight or include only minor proxies of it.
  • However, the simulated runs performed for this report showed that adding will-to-fight factors always changes combat outcomes and, in some cases, outcomes are significantly different.

Recommendations 

  • U.S. Army and Joint Force should adopt a universal definition and model of will to fight.
  • Include will to fight in all holistic estimates of ground combat effectiveness.
  • War games and simulations of combat should include will to fight.

Review: The Pentagon’s Urban COIN Wargame (1966)

John Curry, ed., The Pentagon’s Urban COIN Wargame (1966) (History of Wargaming Project, 2018). 100pp. £12.95pb.

pentagonurbancoincover.gifIn this volume John Curry has republished the rules of URB-COIN, an urban counter-insurgency game designed by Abt Associates for the Advanced Research Projects Agency (US Department of Defense) in the mid-1960s—and a very quirky game it is too. Set in a generic city in a generic country, it combines find-the-secret-players mechanics (such as found in games like Werewolf or Secret Hitler) with the large-scale interaction of a megagame. Players represent government officials, police, and ordinary citizens (upper class bankers and lawyers; middle class managers and shopkeepers; and lower class clerks, waiters, utility workers, railway employees, and the unemployed). Some of the government employees and ordinary citizens are secret insurgents as well, while others are secret police agents. Each player has a certain amount of money and white (population) chips, and some players also have blue (police) chips or red (arms and bombs) chips. Play is continuous, with every 20 minutes representing a “day,”

URB-COIN was one of a series of POL-MIL wargames developed for ARPA at this time, including AGILE-COIN (a rural insurgency game) and POLITICA. These games had some value for training and encouraging critical reflection on issues of insurgency/counter-insurgency, but cannot really be thought of as sophisticated analytical tools, and never saw widespread use. In a January 1966 playtest of URB-COIN at the US Air Force Academy, 60% of participants rated it “better” than other training techniques, with the greatest value being the exploration “alternative tactical and strategic approaches.”

The Abt Associates report on URB-COIN can be found (for free) here, via the Defense Technical Information Center. The History of Wargaming Project publication is essentially a reprint of that same report, together with a foreword, a brief discussion of other counterinsurgency games, and a bibliography.

The STRIKE! Battlegroup Tactical Wargame

STRIKE is a wargame developed at the UK Defence Science and Technology Laboratory for the British Army, to enable them to examine novel tactical concepts to use with the UK’s new Strike brigade. The following piece was shared with PAXsims by STRIKE’s chief developer, Mike Young.


The British Army is being equipped with a new generation of fighting vehicles that will provide the core combat elements within the new Strike Brigades.  The vehicles are an 8 wheeled infantry transport platform known as the Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (“MIV”) and a family of vehicles based around the AJAX platform.  The British Army was keen to understand how the Strike Brigade would perform on the battlefield so commissioned a series of manual wargames to examine their operational effectiveness.  I facilitated at these wargames and produced the STRIKE! wargame as a result.

strike1.png

STRIKE! is a detailed tactical level game, based around one inch square counters each representing a platoon of 3 or 4 vehicles. There are counters to represent all the fighting elements of the Strike Brigade as well as an Armoured Infantry Brigade on the Blue side, and a full mechanised brigade and an airborne battalion on the Red side.  The game also represents helicopter and engineering assets and, if required, has an alternative Red ORBAT with less sophisticated equipment.  Three large hex maps of different terrain types have been produced to go with the game along with a scenario booklet, enabling many different tactical situations to be examined.  The hexes on the map represent an area 500 metres across, and each game turn represents half an hour of real time.

The counters display a unit ID, movement, firepower and protection details.  A detailed set of rules is provided, although after a PowerPoint brief  the players were able play the game using a single A4 quick reference sheet to calculate combat results.

The reaction to the game was extremely positive and enthusiastic, with all six copies of the game being eagerly received by the customer.

As the customer said:

It is absolutely AWESOME. I am so pleased. They had it manufactured professionally and have written fantastically clear rules, crib cards, notes, ORBAT sheets etc. They have missed nothing. Thank you very much indeed for organising the project. This is going to be hugely helpful for the Brigade and I hope that we will be able to spread the word across the Armoured Infantry Brigades too.

Capt H J B Jordan LG | SO3 Experimentation | STRIKE Experimentation Group

We expect the British Army to make great use of this new analytical game that Dstl has developed, and look forward to designing and facilitating many more wargames with them in the future.

strike2.png

DRDC: Investigating wargaming and capability based planning

p806080_A1bcover.jpg

Back in January, Murray Dixson and Fred Ma at Defence Research and Development Canada published a valuable paper entitled An Investigation into Wargaming Methods to Enhance Capability Based Planning. This is a summary of a DRDC project in which “Several wargaming methods are investigated as possible ways to enhance the Capability Based Planning (CBP) process in the areas of capability requirements identification and force planning scenario validation”

The concept behind the methodology was to begin the exploration of wargaming methods with several game styles chosen based on the knowledge and experience of the SPORT [Strategic Planning Operational Research Team] staff, and in parallel, build familiarity over the period of the work with wargaming methods through literature reviews and exposure to the wargaming community. The relevant wargaming community exists primarily amongst the five eyes allies through forums such as (but not limited to) the “Connections” wargaming conferences and the Military Operations Research Society (MORS) workshops and conferences [16][17].

The knowledge gained from the literature and the wargaming community influenced possible adjustments to the methods chosen as the explorations proceeded. There was an implicit feedback loop in place where the knowledge and experience gained from each game iteration was used to decide on the next steps of the testing which involved either running more iterations of the game or choosing another game type.

Ideally, the methodology was intended to include these elements:

  1. Try out several game styles to see if any had any particular advantages for CBP in terms of the issues observed and discussed in the previous section
  2. Run several iterations of each game style to generate some (limited) statistics from which informative or indicative trends might emerge
  3. Run multiple game iterations with different groups of players to try and obtain a broader range of inputs and experiences with playing the games
  4. Compare the wargame outputs to those from the JCPTs [Joint Capability Planning Team] and draw conclusions about whether the wargaming methods tested showed any potential benefit for addressing the issues discussed earlier with CBP

The games used in the study included ISIS Crisis and several other matrix games; the Rapid Campaign Assessment Toolset (RCAT, developed by the UK Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and Cranfield University); and PAXsims’ very own AFTERSHOCK: A Humanitarian Crisis Game. It should be noted, of course, that  these were not necessarily designed to support Capability Based Planning—rather, DRDC was playtesting them for more basic insight as to whether a particular sort of game approach might contribute to capability requirements identification and force planning scenario validation.

DRDCCBP.png

The study’s conclusions were as follows:

In this work, we explored several wargaming techniques as a way to mitigate some of the concerns and observations originating from previous cycles of CBP. There was concern that the capability analyses in Phase 2 could become too narrowly focussed and that the planning scenarios may not be adequately validated before the JCPT capability analysis. The properties of table top wargames lend themselves to addressing problems like this because they immerse players in the scenario in a way not possible by simply reading a scenario narrative from a document. The resulting experiential learning provides a richer experience for the player, which translates into a more holistically encompassing view and understanding of the key elements of the scenario.

We therefore investigated the potential of tabletop wargames to enhance the identification of capabilities under CBP and to act as a scenario validation mechanism. We developed a hypothesis that wargaming would enhance capability identification through the broader understanding of the scenario and also through a better understanding of the driving factors therein.

The number of game styles and trials was limited, as was the range of backgrounds of the players that were able to participate. Nonetheless, three styles of game (a traditional tabletop game (RCAT), matrix games and a commercial game) were examined, and nine trials spread across them were run.

From the limited data, we saw clear indications that playing the games would be an effective way of checking the consistency and believability of a scenario, thus providing a validation mechanism.

The data indicated that by playing the games, players felt that they had a better sense of the key drivers of the scenarios. We interpreted that finding to be an indication that wargaming, through the concept of experiential learning, could provide JCPT members with a broader understanding of an FDS which logically should reduce the risk of them becoming too narrowly focussed in their capability assessments. However, the results were assessed as inconclusive with respect to the application of wargaming to directly identifying capability needs. A key contributor to this result was that we were not able to test a game that was properly designed for that purpose, as there wasn’t enough time and people to do a best-practices “design-test-run” game development cycle.

Although the time and personnel resource constraints did not allow for testing additional game styles or running more iterations, it was clear that the game styles tested are feasible and reasonable choices for future use, given the levels of resources that are available now and that are expected in the future. Similarly, it was not possible to conduct a comparison of the utility of the wargaming method with that of the current CBP model, which employs the OPP; hence, this too remains an open question.

At the level of granularity of strategic planning, tabletop wargaming has potential as a supporting element of scenario design and qualitative analysis. It brings together the knowledge embedded in the game design with the knowledge of participants (players, facilitators/adjudicators, control personnel) in order to explore plausible courses of events resulting from decisions made from the perspectives of the various roles. It can reveal nuances that are not obvious from scenario descriptions alone, and can illuminate relevant and driving factors associated with a scenario. It is not a method to statistically characterise selectively defined quantifications for a scenario.

To summarise the findings above, although the data from our trials is rather limited, we believe that there is evidence to support the hypothesis that wargaming can improve scenario validation. However, we judge the data to be inconclusive on whether it would improve capability identification.

Organising wargames always requires time and people resources. The amount is dictated by the scale and complexity of the game. The present work demonstrated that games suitable for the tasks in this project are feasible within our resource constraints. However, obtaining players on an ongoing basis, new or not, can present a challenge for which senior leadership support will be needed if it is to be met. Despite these challenges, a reasonable selection of game styles and scenarios was explored in this work and we had success (albeit limited) with bringing in players with diverse backgrounds.

A strength of wargaming is that game styles can be highly varied to suit different purposes, e.g., exploring plausible outcomes, scenario validation, familiarising planners with driving factors and training. In our trials, wargaming illuminated the dynamics that drive a scenario, uncovered logical inconsistencies (applicable to scenario validation), and sometimes revealed an unanticipated course of events. Applying wargaming to scenario validation should improve scenario design, while the insights into the driving factors would inform JCPT analyses, e.g., formulation of CoAs, required capabilities, MoC assessments, and capability delivery options.

In the end, this work revealed that none of the game designs trialled were optimally suited for explicit identification of capabilities. In the designs trialled, capability requirements were mostly implied by player CoAs and would have to be explicitly identified via a post hoc analysis. Although the Baseline matrix game did explicitly ask players about capability requirements, the ones identified were, in our view, not significantly different from those observed from a JCPT analysis; hence, the game design would need changes to guide players toward more innovative ideas.

We note that capabilities at tiers 2 and 3 in the JCF are defined to be generic, technology-independent, and thus enduring. Hence, it may be uncommon to identify wholly new capability requirements at that level, though any that are identified would certainly be informative. We expect that these would likely arise from an unanticipated course of events and/or CoAs. In contrast to tiers 2 and 3 capabilities, we noticed that players often thought in terms of, and identified, finer grain capabilities more readily (i.e., those tied to specific technologies, platforms, or assets), along with circumstantial factors that determine what capabilities make sense, at least in part.

Based on the limitations experienced in executing our wargames, it is possible that identification of CoAs and capabilities can be improved by mixing players from diverse backgrounds to enhance synergy, e.g., including relevant geopolitical expertise, operational experience, and futurist backgrounds. More open-ended games, e.g., Matrix style, have the flexibility to leverage the greater knowledge and ideas. In view of the challenges in obtaining players, this could be treated as an ideal to capitalise on, if it can be realised, and if it makes sense for the particular CBP phase in which a wargame is conducted.

The Matrix Games Handbook now available

IMG_0031.jpgThe History of Wargaming Project has just published The Matrix Games Handbook: Professional Applications from Education to Analysis and Wargaming. Edited by John Curry, Chris Engle, and Peter Perla, the 303 page volume is packed with matrix gaming goodness:

Section 1: The History of Matrix Games.

  • The Early Days of Matrix Games in the UK by Bob Cordery
  • The American History of Matrix Games by Chris Engle.
  • The Rise of Professional Matrix Games by Tim Price.

Section 2: Practical Advice

  • Running Matrix Games by Tim Price
  • Checklist by Tim Price
  • Sample Game: Baltic Challenge: NATO and Russian posturing in the Baltic Sea
  • The Australian Perspective by Todd Mason

Section 3: The Theory of Matrix Games

  • Walking in the Dark: An Allegory of Knowledge by Chris Engle
  • The Intellectual Underpinnings of Matrix Games by Chris Engle
  • Verbal Algorithms and the Human Machine by Chris Engle
  • Emerging Themes from the Matrix Game Based Narrative Methodology by John Curry

Section 4: Matrix Games and Education

  • Gaming Multi-Agency Responses by Helen Mitchard
  • Using Matrix Games in the Classroom by Dorian Love.
  • Effective Learning at the Swedish Defence University by Johan Elg
  • Language Training by Neal Durando
  • Reflections on Military Language Training by Jose Anibal Ortiz Manrique

Section 5: The Professional Application of Matrix Games

  • Gaming the Wars of the Future by Chris Engle
  • Operations Research Tools by Ben Taylor
  • Building Boyd Snowmobiles: Matrix Games as a Creative Catalyst for Developing Innovative Technology by Paul Vebber.
  • ISIS Crisis: Using a Matrix Game to Explore Contemporary Conflict by Rex Brynen

The Matrix Game handbook sells for £14.95, and is available from the History of Wargaming Project website.

 

Mason: The history and future of wargaming

Roger Mason has an article on “Wargaming: It’s History and Future” in the Journal of Intelligence, Security, and Public Affairs 20, 2 (2018).

Wargames have captured the imagination of persons seeking a competitive edge over their opponents. For over a thousand years people have used games to analyze problems, develop solutions, and train problem solvers. This paper reviews critical developments and innovations in the history of wargames. Wargames provide an opportunity to test hypotheses, offer alternatives, solve problems, and stimulate innovation. Wargames continue to offer opportunities to understand pos- sible future states and develop compatible decision models

LECMgt-Logo-with-text-x2.png

You’ll find the full piece here.

You can find more of Roger’s thoughts on wargaming, threat assessment, security training, and crisis management at his LECMgt blog.

Review: World Politics Simulations in a Global Information Age

Hemda Ben-Yehuda, Luba Levin-Banchik, Channan Naveh, World Politics Simulations in a Global Information Age (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2015). 181pp + index. USD$45.95.

9780472052769.jpgThis book discusses the value of simulations in the teaching of international relations, and then offers guidance on how to run them. In Part 1, the focus is on pedagogical value of simulation, the various types of simulations available, and the factors to be considered in designing or selecting one. Part 2 focuses on running a simulation: how to prepare students, preparation of briefing materials, and processes and procedures that might be used. Part 3 looks at student feedback and instructor debriefing, as well as course assessment. In Part 4 the book turns its attention to “the future of world politics simulation.”

The book is very much built around the authors’ preferred type of simulation, a hybrid approach combining both face-to-face and digital interaction, the latter conducted via Facebook, email, or similar means. This is indeed a powerful approach, and one that I’ve been using for two decades in the annual Brynania peacebuilding simulation at McGill University, as well as in some serious policy simulations. It has much to recommend it.

Since the focus of World Politics Simulations in a Global Information Age is on negotiation simulations and international conflict, it invites comparisons with Natasha Gill’s Inside the Box: Using Integrative Simulations to Teach Conflict, Negotiation and Mediation, which was also published in 2015 and was previously reviewed at PAXsims.  It might also be compared with Mark Carnes’ Minds on Fire: How Role-Immersion Games Transform College (2014).

Ben-Yehuda and her colleagues makes much more effort to relate simulation use to the teaching of international relations than either of the other two (although, in fairness, Carnes’ book is really about using role-play simulations in the teaching of history and the humanities). World Politics Simulations is, however, often a rather more laborious read than the other two, lacking the lively style of Carnes in particular. Gill also does a better job at addressing some of the issues that arise in a simulation, and different methods for handling them. All three volumes are very much describing on their own preferred model, and do not fully address other approaches, materials, software, and resources. Finally, the Gill volume is by far the cheapest of the three, since it is available as a free download.

Overall, this is a welcome contribution to the growing literature on the use of simulations in the political science classroom.

Simulation & Gaming (April 2018)

sgbar

The latest issue of Simulation & Gaming 49, 2 (April 2018) is now available.

Editorial
Articles

 

Simulation articles in the Journal of Political Science Education

JPSE.jpgThe latest issue of the Journal of Political Science Education 13, 3 (2017) contains several simulations-related articles:

Pursuing Ideology with Statecraft

Hayden Smith and Niall Michelsen

Utilizing a web-based simulation Statecraft, we explore the relative influence of ideology (realism and idealism) on student behavior and learning. By placing students into ideologically cohesive groups, we are able to demonstrate the effect of their ideology on the goals they pursue and identify the constraints imposed on the system by the behavior of groups as well.

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Methods? Methodological Games and Role Play

Nina Kollars and Amanda M. Rosen

In terms of gamification within political science, some fields—particularly international relations and American politics—have received more attention than others. One of the most underserved parts of the discipline is research methods; a course that, coincidentally, is frequently cited as one that instructors hate to teach and students hate to take. Given the well-documented merits of games in promoting student engagement and the key role of methods as a building block to student understanding of political science, this article attempts to rectify this oversight by introducing three games—Zendo, Murder Mystery, and the Archeologist’s Quandary— geared at teaching key concepts and approaches in research methods.

There is No Debriefing Without Prior Briefing: Writing a Briefing Memo as a Preparatory Activity to Make the Most of the Pedagogical Potential of Simulations

Vincent Druliolle

Simulations are traditionally divided into three phases, namely preparation, interaction, and debriefing. This article argues that the first phase has been neglected. The preparation phase is indeed widely seen as necessary but merely instrumental to the interaction phase of simulations rather than as a self-contained activity that may also provide an opportunity to make the most of their pedagogical potential. This article explains how writing a briefing memo to prepare a simulation challenges this taken-for-granted view. After outlining the reasons why I asked the students of my Introduction to International Relations module to write a briefing memo about the conflict in South Sudan in preparation for a simulation of the negotiation of a peace agreement, the article explains how it can be used to generate a stimulating class discussion. It then emphasizes how the three phases of the simulation fruitfully complement each other and allow teachers to go beyond the instrumentalist conception of the preparatory phase. Finally, the conclusion reflects about the “portability” (Kollars and Rosen 2016) of the briefing-negotiation-debriefing format outlined in this article.

MORS: Validity and utility of wargaming

 

Stephen Downes-Martin (organizer and chair of Working Group 2 at the October 2017 Military Operations Research Society special meeting on wargaming) has passed on to PAXsims the group’s extensive (173 page) report on the Validity and Utility of Wargaming  (pdf). It is an outstanding piece of work, and should be essential reading for anyone working in the field. I’ll certainly be assigning it as required reading in my small conflict simulation design seminar next term.

Validity and Utility of Wargaming Working Group Report Final rev.jpg

In part because of the structure of the MORS working groups, the report tends to devote more attention to game design and execution than it does to game analysis and interpretation. One of the interesting issues to arise out of the DIRE STRAITS experiment in September, however, was that different groups of analysts can both assess the validity/utility of a game differently, and draw different sets of lessons from the same wargame event.

Building on the excellent work of Stephen and his WG2 team, this is a challenge that I hope to explore more fully at the Connections US wargaming conference in July 2018—conditional, of course, on acceptance of my presentation proposal!

Rubel: Wargame rules as intellectual catalysts

Phalanx 50-3The most recent (September 2017) issue of the Military Operations Research Society’s Phalanx contains a thoughtful piece by CAPT Robert (Barney) Rubel on the role that wargame rules and adjudication can play in encouraging—or stifling—creative thought:

One of the more trite phrases one hears today is the injunction to “think out of the box.” The intent of the phrase is to stimulate creative thinking; to come up with ideas that perhaps do not conform to existing frameworks. This, of course, is easier said than done, the attempt to do so being akin to trying to make a list of things you would never think of. There are any number of individual and group techniques that have been developed to facilitate the process of brainstorming, but perhaps overlooked in the literature is the potential for wargame rules to act as catalysts for out-of-the-box thinking.

The subtle, nonintuitive, and perhaps threatening information and ideas that can emanate from a game can be termed “whispers.” Games often produce more information than their designers intended or expected, often equivocal and open to interpretation. When that threatens organizational equities, ears are deadened to the whispers. Game sponsors, players, umpires, and even analysts are almost never objective about their games, so it requires an appreciation of how novel thinking can emerge from a game in order to take the steps necessary to achieve sufficient objectivity to detect the whispers (Rubel 2006).

You’ll find the full piece here.

 

Review: The Confrontation Analysis Handbook

Review of: John Curry and Mike Young, The Confrontation Analysis Handbook: How to Resolve Confrontations by Eliminating Dilemmas, Innovations in Wargaming series (History of Wargaming Project, 2017). 92pp. £14.95 pb.

confrontationanalysiscover.gif

Confrontation analysis an approach to the study of conflict, and the conduct of (largely non-kinetic) operations, first developed by Nigel Howard. It treats such issues as a series of linked confrontations, and offers a structured methodology for understanding and resolving these. In this handy volume, Mike Young and John Curry offer an overview of the technique, and show its application to a range of issues: the Bosnian conflict (1995), the Iranian nuclear program (2000-15), the Eurozone crisis (2011), the Libyan Civil War (2011) and Arab Spring, and future tensions in the South China Sea.

Confrontation analysis appears to be a useful technique for enabling participants to identify differences and disputes between conflicting parties, map out their preference structures and key obstacles, and identify ways of resolving these dilemmas. In this sense it overlaps the categories of both “(war)game” and scenario analysis. A skilled facilitator would appear to be essential, one that not only understands confrontation analysis well, but who can also help participants frame their insights and perspectives in a way in way that fits with the requirements of the technique. Even if one does not fully adapt the approach, it is also easy to see how aspects of it might be used to clarify differences in BOGSAT discussions or as a sort of auxilliary non-kinetic dispute resolution/adjudication method in more kinetic games.

confrontation analysis 2.jpg

The approach also be used in conjunction with a deck of MaGCK estimative probability cards when one wishes to quickly canvass a group for their assessment of how likely an action is to succeed.

Review: Modern Crises Scenarios for Matrix Wargames

John Curry and Tim Price, Modern Crises Scenarios for Matrix WargamesHistory of Wargaming Project, 2017. 126pp.  £13.95

morematrixgamescover.gif
This volume—by the ever-prolific John Curry of the History of Wargaming Project, and the always-elusive “Tim Price,” international man of mystery—offers several modern-era scenarios suitable for matrix games. Following a brief introduction to the matrix game method, the scenarios included in the volume are:

  • Baltic Challenge (NATO-Russian posturing in the Baltic Sea)
  • Mare Nostrum (NATO-Russian posturing in the Black Sea and eastern Mediterranean)
  • Nine Dash Line (incidents in the South China Sea)
  • Election in Centralia (an election in a “fictional” developed country with a two-party democracy featuring a with a bicameral legislature, a presidential system with an electoral college, and subject to Russian cyber-meddling…)
  • DPRK (conflict on the Korean Peninsula)
  • De Valera’s War (Irish neutrality during WWII)

In each case a scenario overview and background is provided, together with briefings for each player. Sample counters (available for download) are also provided.

Altogether this is a useful example of the many ways that matrix games can be used to explore complex conflicts. The scenarios would also all work great with MaGCK: The Matrix Game Construction Kit, which will be formally unveiled at Connections UK 2017—just a week and a half from now!

UK MoD: Wargaming Handbook

DCDC_Doctrine_UK_Wargaming

The Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre of the UK Ministry of Defence has just issued their new 98 page Wargaming Handbook—and it is available as a free download.

In the preface, the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff notes:

Wargaming is a powerful tool. I am convinced that it can deliver better understanding and critical thinking, foresight, genuinely informed decision-making and innovation. Sir John Chilcot’s report highlighted
these very themes. I have also been struck by how important wargaming is becoming among many of our allies and partners. It allows those involved to experiment and learn from their experiences in a ‘safe-to-fail’ environment.

I wish to reinvigorate wargaming in Defence to restore it as part of our DNA. Historically the UK military was accomplished at wargaming but this culture has largely been lost. Where it exists, it is ad hoc and uncoordinated, with demand outstripping existing expertise. We must seek to regenerate this culture and the associated skills among our people – military and civilian alike – at all levels and in all areas of our business. This effort requires everyone’s participation and encouragement, but particularly at senior levels.

The Wargaming Handbook is the first publication of its type in Defence. It is an important element of this initiative and a key resource for us all. I commend it to you.

The Handbook contains chapters on:

  • Introducing wargaming (Chapter 1)
  • Wargaming fundamentals (Chapter 2)
  • Wargaming types, variants and contexts (Chapter 3)
  • Wargaming process (Chapter 4)

…plus annexes on “Applying wargaming to Defence problems” and “Further reading and information.” It is extremely instructive reading, and will certainly be a seminal resource in the professional wargaming community for many years to come.

PAXsims gets a few mentions too!

%d bloggers like this: