PAXsims

Conflict simulation, peacebuilding, and development

AFTERSHOCK and MaGCK availability from The Game Crafter

TGClogo_circle_400x400.jpgFrom time to time, The Game Crafter runs short on some game components for AFTERSHOCK: A Humanitarian Crisis Game or the Matrix Game Construction Kit. If so, click the “email me when I can buy” button on the TGC order page to be notified when the game is shipping once again.

In the case of AFTERSHOCK, an alternative components version is also available. This is exactly the same game, but with slightly different pieces. It’s just as good at the original—game play is not affected by the substitutions.

If you are absolutely desperate for a copy, email me—I often have a few copies in reserve.

 

 

WATU wargame at Western Approaches war museum, September 8

IMG_8941.JPG

On Saturday,  8 September 2018, volunteers from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, the Royal Navy Maritime Warfare Centre, and PAXsims will be at the Western Approaches museum in Liverpool to recreate a WWII convoy escort wargame, of the sort conducted by the Western Approaches Tactical Unit.

This will be a unique opportunity to see the gaming techniques that helped turn the tide of the Battle of the Atlantic—and to honour the work of Captain Gilbert Roberts and the women and men of WATU. Hope to see you there!

2018 WATU WAM Poster 2.1

 

Simulation & Gaming (August 2018)

sgbar

The latest issue of Simulation & Gaming 49, 4 (August 2018) is now available:

Editorial
Articles
Ready-To-Use-Simulation

Connections US 2018 report

8622978636_1612735a07_o.jpg

This year’s Connections US professional wargaming conference—the 26th since the series began—was held at National Defense University on July 17-20. It was the largest meeting yet, with some 280 or so registered, and around 210 attendees. Amongst those registered for the conference were several students (Keiko Ivinson, Kia Kouyoumjian, Jason Li, Caroline  Wesley) from my game design seminar at McGill University this past term, and some of them will be posting their own perceptions to PAXsims in the newr future.

The conference started off with a welcome from Vice Admiral Fritz Roegge, the President of National Defense University. He discussed the use of gaming for education and outreach at NDU, notably through the activities of the Center for Applied Strategic Learning. Later, COL Voris W. McBurnette, the Director of CASL, also welcomed the group and said a little more about the work of the Center.

This was followed with a general presentation by Matt Caffrey (Air Force Research Laboratory) on wargaming. He argued for the utility of wargaming, offering a brief overview of defence wargaming in the US and elsewhere and historical examples of when and where wargaming had made a clear difference. He then went on to define key elements of wargaming.

The conference next split into a choice of conference sessions—I attended a session on wargaming counterinsurgency, by Brian Train (slides). Brian noted the relative paucity of commercial wargame designs exploring insurgency and irregular warfare, despite this being the most common form of armed conflict since WWII. He also noted the ways in which counterinsurgency game designs typically differ from wargames about more conventional kinetic operations.

“Conventional” wargame “Irregular” wargame
binary, zero-sum opposition multiple though frictional points of view/ factions
ordered situations chaotic and nonlinear game states
rigid treatments of time, space and force flexible, malleable scales, non-representational units
symmetry of information, methods and objectives asymmetry of these

After lunch, fellow PAXsims coeditor Tom Mouat (Defence Academy of the UK) and I offered a seminar session on matrix gaming (slides). We provided an overview of the technique and had two games set up (ISIS CRISIS and HIGH NORTH) to illustrate game processes and take a few sample actions.

The rest of the afternoon was devoted to game demonstrations. In addition to having AFTERSHOCK: A Humanitarian Crisis Game and the Matrix Game Construction Kit on display, Brian and I also showed off We Are Coming, Nineveh!, an operational-level game of the 2017 battle for West Mosul, which we are developing with my former students Juliette Le Ménahèze and Harrison Brewer.

Day 2 started with a keynote presentation by John Lillard on US naval wargaming during the interwar period, drawing upon his book on the topic. He highlighted how lessons were learned from both regular wargaming at the Naval War College and the fleet exercises. Games were either STRAT (chart), TAC (board), or QR (quick reactions). Games either focused against a superior (Red/UK) in opponent in the Atlantic, or a weaker (Orange/Japan) opponent in the Pacific. The opposing side was always played by students, as well as Blue. John took us through a series of game vignettes from the 1920s and 1930s, showing how the games addressed new issues and innovations, including air and submarine assets, amphibious operations, logistics, and allied operations. The games included such experiments as different approach routes, formations, amphibious operations, anti-submarine escorts, airships, chemical warfare, floating drydocks, and converted (cruisers, merchantmen) aircraft carriers.

IMG_9972.JPG

John Lillard discussing interwar wargaming at the US Naval War College.

After a coffee break, attention turned to game design. Goor Tsalalyachin (Dado Center, IDF General Staff) offered an overview of strategic wargaming in the Israeli Defence Force. He emphasized the need to move beyond simplistic, two-dimensional thought. In the IDF, wargames are used for critical decision support and knowledge development, as well as training—often involving personnel at the most senior levels. He highlighted the dynamic and changing nature of the strategic environment (which demands a constantly agile conceptual/operational design process), and the value of wargames in developing and challenging new ideas and concepts. The method he described was largely that of a two-move seminar game. In many cases, I suspect, this produces structured scenario discussion rather than a great deal of iterative gaming.

Becca Wasser (RAND/Georgetown) and Stacie Pettyjohn (RAND/Johns Hopkins) addressed this issue in their presentation on “Beyond the BOGSAT: the case for structured strategic games.” Becca argued that despite the reinvigoration of wargaming, POL-MIL gaming has somewhat languished, in part due to the “squishiness” of the political dimension. Given this, it could be useful to add greater structure to such games by drawing from design features of some commercial games. Unstructured games can tend to opinion-discussion, rather than making choices with consequences. Stacie suggested that too many designers default to free-form seminar games, which end up being non-game BOGSATs or low-quality games. The latter involve unfocused team deliberations, hasty decisions, and an abundance of semi-relevant background materials that are often ignored by players.  Game validity excessively depends on ad hoc, undocumented “expert” adjudication. Seminar games are thus often overly dependent on players and experts, adjudication is based on unexpressed, undocumented mental models, and games are difficult to replicate. They also produce too few innovative ideas.

Stacie suggested drawing upon commercial game mechanisms, pointing to Brian Train’s game designs and PAXsims’ very own AFTERSHOCK as good examples, as well as the Countering ISIL game developed by RAND (based on a design first prototyped at a MORS wargaming workshop). There are, she noted, challenges to developing such games, such as the up-front challenge of producing game models and rules. Such games often do not scale well to large audiences. They might also face problems of acceptability (with strategic boardgames looking too “gamey”).

IMG_9975.JPG

Becca and Stacey discuss adding more structure to strategic games.

Frans Kleyheeg (TNO) presented on “gaming and VR technology as a game changer,” noting the utility of virtual simulation for both wargaming and design development/experimentation.

Subsequent discussion explored issues of communication and information in games, the use of formal planning tools, and what to do about indecisive players.

After lunch it was time for the Connections Game Lab. Essentially, this consisted of a series of topical issues, questions, or design challenges which had been identified based on input before the conference. Each of these was assigned a table and facilitator where they could be discussed more fully. I led a session on gaming unpredictable adversaries (and allies), which touched on the sources of unpredictability (is the behaviour genuinely pathological and irrational, or does apparent unpredictability simply stem from inadequate information and models?), as well as why and how this might be embedded in a game design. My thoughts on the topic can be found in an earlier piece at The Strategy Bridge, as well as my presentation last year at Dstl.

I also attended a very useful session on wargaming mass atrocity, where we discussed how and why this might be undertaken. I mentioned the work that Kia and Keiko are doing on gaming the Darfur conflict, the purpose of which is to teach about the logic of mass atrocity as well as possible mechanisms for mitigation and prevention. A session later in the conference focused on wargaming and the analysis of human decision-making. Participants noted that not only can games be used to examine human factors and decision-making dynamics, but also that understanding (and manipulation of these through structure, information, and player engagement) is essential to good game design.

Back to panel presentations in the main auditorium, Hyong Lee (NDU) talked about “educating future cyber strategists through wargaming.” He talked about several different cyber games they have used at NDU and elsewhere. He identified several challenges: an excessive sponsor focus on technical solutions (when there may be useful no tech/low tech solutions); incorporating technology issues at a strategic level; gaming the non-technical effects of cyberattacks (political impact, etc.); and gaming the “shaping” (left-of-boom) phase of cyber.

Phillip Reiman (USAF) and Colby Sullins (USAF) discussed the training of attorneys in strategic decision-making through gaming. Rush to Judgment is a boardgame they developed to train Air Force lawyers on moving cases through to resolution using the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. They found the game improved knowledge but also underscored to participants the challenges involved in dispute resolution.

IMG_9978.JPG

Who knew that military contracting dispute resolution could be so fun?

Finally, Patrick Schoof (US Army National Simulation Centre) presented on “Battle for Atropia: Army Division Level Wargaming.” Battle for Atropia is a 45 minute-hex-based wargame inspired by Battle for Moscow. The design for this then sparked a request for an enlarged and revised version, Land Power, for classroom use. The game uses 6 hour turns, with command points limiting activity, and a card system for enablers and supports.

Asked what surprises they had encountered, panelists noted the importance of playtesting, and the surprising directions players sometimes take a game (especially in a matrix game). One audience question raised the issue of information flows in games. There was also discussion of assessing educational utility.

The evening was Connections game night, with an opportunity to play in a variety of games. I ran a game of Reckoning of Vultures, from the Matrix Game Construction Kit.

Thursday began with a panel on “perspectives and tools.” My presentation was the first up, on “In the Eye of the Beholder? Cognitive Challenges in Wargame Analysis” (slides), based on the DIRE STRAITS experiment at the Connections UK 2017 wargaming conference. In this, we asked three separate analytical teams to provide independent assessments of game methodology and findings. Their finds were quite divergent—suggesting that wargame analysis might depend as much on the analysts as the game. I went on to suggest ways of addressing this, including red teaming game analysis and attention to cognitive bias training.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

David Ross (US Air Force Research Lab) discussed the challenges of effectively integrating emerging technologies into wargames He noted that it is not enough to simply present the technology to participants—it helps to also highlight how it operates as a system, interacts with other systems, and to suggest some preliminary concept of employment.

Ben Connable (RAND) made an excellent presentation on “The Will to Fight: Adding Brutal Realism to the Military’s Games and Simulations.” The emphasis here was not on immersive realism, but rather the modelling of willpower, morale, and cohesion effects. He noted that commercial/hobby wargames generally do a much better job of representing morale effects on battle performance than military wargames, where this key psychological aspect is often completely ignored—resulting in units fighting to the death or failing to react to battlefield events or context. Together with colleagues at RAND, they are in the process of developing models that can represent willpower effects in both strategic and tactical/operational levels. He mentioned the Close Combat series of the digital games as one of their inspirations for their own modelling. In later comments I also pointed to This War of Mine as doing a superb job of representing morale and psychological factors, albeit in a game about civilian survival rather than war-fighting.

After the morning coffee break, attention turned to the importance of narrative in wargame. Anja van der Hulst (TNO) made a presentation on wargaming hybrid warfare, in which she warned about the excessive assumptions of rationality and strategic behavior in most games. Anja noted the importance of grievance in conflict and emphasized that this has an emotional as well as rational or material component. Emotional reactions tend to be less rational/strategic, and anger and humiliation can be a powerful driver of behavior. She discussed how she had explored such issues in a variety of game settings, including a modified version of the Baltic Challenge matrix game.

J. Furman Daniel III (Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University) presented on “fiction as a wargame.” His research (with Paul Musgrave) found that fiction has measurable impact on policymakers and hence policy. He explained this, in part , with reference to Peter Perla and ED McGrady’s narrative-based argument on why wargaming works. He also suggested that fiction can help wargamers better design games that engage participants, and is a useful way of encouraging reflection and analysis.

John Derosa (George Mason) and Lauren Kinney (George Mason) explored narrative analysis of wargaming, based on an experiment that they conducted at the 83rdMORS Symposium, where they performed actant analysis of three parallel games of Drive on Metz. Their findings focused such issues as tactical vs strategic preoccupations, more active or passive approaches to the enemy, and differences in inter-group dynamics.

Last year, Connections presented its first lifetime achievement award to Peter Perla for his important contributions to the art of wargaming. This year, Connections founder Matt Caffrey was the well-deserved recipient of this honour, which came complete with a banana-trophy. (Last year, late arrival of the trophy had forced the organizers to present Peter with a banana instead).

IMG_9979.JPG

Matt receives his award, with a picture of last year’s award ceremony in the background.

Working Group sessions followed next. I took part in the group on in-stride adjudication, defined as “adjudication performed simultaneously with play over a period of hours or days.”

It was quickly evident that experience with in-stride adjudication varied widely, in terms of resource availability, time and decision pressures, and (of course) game purposes.  In-stride adjudication is a key part of many of my own games, including the Brynania peace operations game as well as most megagames. Matrix gaming also involves another type of in-stride adjudication.

There were eight presentations, based on eleven short papers that had been written for the session before the conference. Among these was a very good presentation on “player perspectives” by Jason Li, developed from ideas discussed earlier in the year by members of the McGill student team.

My own written piece represented a few hastily-written reflections, but I departed from these in my verbal comments, and instead focused on the notion of adjudicators as both game technicians and theatre directors. In the former capacity they are responsible for making sure the game runs smoothly and stays on-course to achieve its objectives. In the latter capacity they are responsible for keeping the players engaged in the game narrative—maintaining the immersive illusion of a fictional or “what if” universe. It is important not to “break the fourth wall” by having players think more about adjudication than the emerging narrative and the embedded choices it presents.

This issue of directness (or indirectness), intensity, and social dynamics of interaction between players adjudicators—and the impact of these on trust, buy-in, and potential player alienation/grievance—emerged as a frequent theme during the subsequent discussions at my working group table.

The final day of the conference featured a terrific keynote address by Volke Ruhnke on “(War)gaming for complexity.” He started by noting the differences between complicated phenomenon and complex phenomenon. Warfare (and politics) falls into the latter category. Forecasting the latter is difficult because of systemic shocks and other non-linear effects. Model-building—purposeful (but inevitably imperfect) simplification—is essential to understanding and forecasting. If you construct a dynamic model, you can then see how the system might behave under differing circumstances.  Constructing a model also provides an opportunity to see what might be missing, and assists in moving from analysis to synthesis of many interacting parts.

Volko also discussed the impact of diversity (and the “wisdom of crowds”) on analysis. External model-building (and hence game design) provides a mechanism for explaining and synthesizing implicit mental models. He used the CIA training game Kingpin (a game about high value targeting) to show how a collaborative process of game design helped to identify gaps in, and facilitate refinement of, the underlying model. Modelling also forces you to make decisions about what is causally important.

IMG_9989.JPG

Volko says many clever things about games and analytical modelling, with an image of the Kingpin game in the background.

 

He compared various modelling approaches (graphic, role-play, manual gaming, computational) across five criteria (ease of use, accessibility to the underlying model, dynamism, iteration, and granularity). Each approach has different strengths and weaknesses. Computational modelling , for example, is powerful, but it may be difficult to understand and assess the underlying (largely black-boxed) model.

For game designers, he emphasized the importance of keeping game designs simple, warned against falling in love (too quickly) with your game model, and you ought to be prepared to combine modelling media. For educators, he noted that it teaching systems thinking requires teaching models. Students, he noted, make great playtesters—and you should invite student critique. For analysts, you might want to pre-coordinate (and illustrate) your models. Feel free to tabletop it—it is a relatively cheap way to explore model. Everyone should consider their mix of both approaches and talent/participants (“diversity is your friend”).

In the subsequent Q&A period, Volke noted the value of teaching game-making. Building the game (even if you don’t get to running the game) can produce valuable insight into issues.

Working Group reports followed, for which I wrote down notes as quickly as I could:

  • The wargaming in education group offered a variety of insights:
    • Regarding cyber education, the group noted that cyber information is often (unnecessarily) classified or highly technical—both of which impede accessibility and hence broader education. While technical experts are best supported by existing resources, managers/policymakers and those working on general purpose games/scenarios are less well served.
    • Looking at wargaming with technology, it was noted that education “does not have deep pockets.” Transparency can be an issue in computer games. Web-based games have advantages in development and accessibility.
    • On the topic of gaming, education, and low-intensity conflict, it was noted that there are several interesting current games at NDU, NPS, and elsewhere. Several gaps and shortcomings were noted, including information operations, cultural misunderstanding, and the existence of ineffective games and exercises. Finally, the group asked how willing we are to game these issues (especially with political or cultural sensitivities). They noted that less structured games (like matrix games) may be especially useful for low-intensity and hybrid warfare topics.
    • The working group offered some thoughts on teaching game design. The noted the value of having students play a game (perhaps even a bad game) and suggest modifications, and generally encouraging critical game play. A “petting zoo” approach can be useful in quickly demonstrating different game mechanisms and approaches.
    • Finally, there was brief mention of CWAR—Collaboration for Wargames in Academics Research—a best practices and information sharing group for those within the Department of Defense and US government. The contact person for this is Scott Chambers (NDU).
  • The working group on linking game purpose to game design was based on PhD dissertation working currently being conducted by Ellie Bartels (RAND) on analytical and discovery games. She noted that attention tended to focus on the topic of a game and game design/format, but there was usually less attention to how to link these two. Her draft framework suggests that the information generated can be fitted into four general archetypes: understanding the problem; structured comparison; innovation; and evaluation. Each type, she suggested, are differentiated by several distinguishing characteristics. The working group tried applying her framework to hypothetical games, to assess its utility in aiding a designer. She noted the challenges posed by differing understanding of terminology (validity, verification, confidence, etc.) across the community.
  • The report from the working group on in-stride game adjudication summarized the process we had used, invited additional feedback on the papers, and encouraged the submission of post-conference reflections too. Revised papers and synthesized analysis from the working group session will be available online (via PAXsims) later in August. Watch this space for further details.
  • The working group on wargaming as a catalyst for innovation was the final one to report. It started by noting the erosion of America’s (military, economic, and technological) edge, and the dynamics of competitive innovation in warfare. This group also had several formal papers/presentations to spark discussion (eventually to be posted on the Connections website). Wargames can expose hidden assumptions and provide a forum for trying new ideas. Difficult gaming challenges may help to force innovation by players. They noted the need to make games flexible and user-friendly. There is a need to bring more cognitive diversity to bear on problems (“not just middle-aged white guys”). There is also a need for more rigour in some areas. More use might be made of alternative political futures. (There was a lot more here too, but I could only type so quickly as the brief-back slides flashed by!)

The final session was a conference hot-wash. Connections 2018 had been flawlessly organized, and there had been a great many very valuable presentations, so feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Some of the audience comments and suggestions included:

  • Game lab feedback and reflections are welcome and will be included in the online conference proceedings. I thought the small, participant-suggested, topic-oriented game lab sessions had worked very well.
  • More time for game demonstrations/play.
  • How best to engage students and early career professionals, especially outside the military?
  • Hosting a panel of wargame consumers/clients, to better understand their perspectives.
  • There is now a Connections US Facebook page.

Before the conference closed for a year, I also reminded everyone of the Connnections conferences to come over the next year:

Connections North will be held at McGill University in Montreal on 16 February 2019, so that everyone can enjoy our balmy winter weather.

37313550_10214079505674696_2664115278236876800_o.jpg

WWII convoy escort game: The RAN version

nepal-01-1.jpg

HMAS Nepal

From the Royal Australian Navy archives comes this September 1943 summary of a “convoy escort” game,” apparently based on the work of the Western Approaches Tactical Unit in the UK:

The convoy escort game described below has been designed to exercise Commanding Officers of Escort Vessels and their teams in dealing with attacks on convoys. It has been played successfully in England and is recommended as an interesting and valuable means in improving efficiency and team work of convoy escorts.

The game can be played either in a ship or ashore, being organised on a day when several ships are in harbour.

You’ll find a transcription of the brief instructions here (courtesy of Sally Davis, who has also kindly removed the former WWII classification markings so that they won’t cause problems with government firewalls).

What is not not made clear is how adjudication is undertaken—that is, how target spotting or the effects of torpedo attacks or depth charges were determined.So far there is no evidence of dice or other stochastic methods being used in the WATU game, so it all may have been free kriegsspiel dependant on the judgment of expert umpires.

If you come across any information on WATU wargaming, do pass it on!

h/t Sally Davis

Simulation and gaming miscellany, 13 July 2018

wordle13-718.png

PAXsims is pleased to present a number of items on conflict simulation and serious (and not-so-serious) gaming that may be of interest to our readers.

PAXsims

The Connections US professional wargaming conference will be held at National Defense University on 17-20 July. Several of the PAXsims team will be there. We will have AFTERSHOCK: A Humanitarian Crisis Game and the Matrix Game Construction Kit (MaGCK) on display during the games demonstrations, and there will also be an opportunity to play We Are Coming, Nineveh! (The Battle for West Mosul, February-July 2017) or to discuss other games that are in development. Be sure to say hello!

If you miss us at Connections UK, members of the PAXsims team will also be at Connections UK in September, the Serious Games Forum (Paris) in December, and/or Connections North in February.

PAXsims

GettyImages-996209950.jpg

The “NATO Engages” public outreach component of the recent NATO summit in Brussels features an audience-participation simulation/seminar game/discussion on cybersecurity:

Cyber Crisis Simulation

Ambassador Sorin Ducaru , Special Adviser , Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace
Carmen Gonsalves , Head of International Cyber Policy Department , Kingdom of the Netherlands; Co-chair, Global Forum on Cyber Expertise
Tanel Sepp, Head of the Cyber Policy Department, Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Estonia
Moderator: Diana Kelley , Cybersecurity Field Chief Technology Officer , Microsoft

Concerns about cyber security have skyrocketed as governments, economies, and societies increasingly depend on the internet and digital technologies. The increasing number of cyber-attacks also places new pressures on top of long-existing coordination difficulties when EU and NATO countries find themselves in need to respond to a cyber-driven crisis. The scope and sophistication of modern cyber-attacks require quick, interoperable responses throughout all strategic and logistical layers, from the political leaderships to civil services to the private sector. The objectives of this cyber exercise will be to highlight challenges in decision-making and response procedures when facing a crisis situation caused by a cyber-attack; to identify what capabilities help the decision-making process and multi-stakeholder intelligence sharing; and to improve cyber awareness among the participants as well as highlighting lessons learned and best cyber practices. A panel of practitioners will be asked to respond in real-time to a realistic cyber crisis scenario unfolding in a fictional country. The audience will be asked to play an active role during this exercise by commenting and voting on the most convincing response options presented by the panelists as the crisis scenario evolves.

There is no word yet if the next NATO summit will include a simulation of diplomatic chaos within the alliance sparked by the unpredictable leader of a major NATO country.

PAXsims

FPWS Overview Brief (20180531).jpg

While on the subject of NATO, are you looking for an overview of the recent Supreme Allied Command Transformation urbanization wargame final planning workshop? Well, we’ve got that!

PAXsims

Still more NATO stuff: Simon Fraser University recently conducted its 2018 NATO Field School and Simulation.

The SFU-NATO Field School and Simulation program is a 12 credit intensive upper-level Political Science course that combines coursework with experiential learning. The program will be open to universities across Canada and provides the opportunity for students to observe and engage military personnel, policy advisors and diplomats in their workplace. This includes visiting and embedded experts from the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces, NATO and academia, as well as high-level briefings at NATO HQ, SHAPE, and the Canadian Delegation to the European Union.

The cohort will attend familiarization visits at Canadian Armed Forces bases in Western Canada, then travel to NATO HQ in Belgium for a week of briefings by NATO officials. At the NATO Defense College (NDC) in Rome, the cohort will do four days of a professionally run NATO-simulation (NMDX) with NDC mentors and Senior Course curriculum. The 2018 field school will also visit the Canadian Battlegroup in Latvia, and NATO’s Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence in Riga.

Details regarding the 2019 programme will be posted later to the SFU webpage.

PAXsims

The Australian Army professional development website The Cove features a recently-posted paper by Callum Muntz entitled “Gamification: Press ‘START’ to Begin.”

Gamification uses proven techniques to influence human behaviour, is used by big businesses the world over, and is an ever-growing industry (Pickard 2017). Most military training is dull, dry, and uninteresting – but it doesn’t have to be so. Gamification can be used to enhance the Army’s training, and should become a consideration in the Systems Approach to Defence Learning (SADL). Yu-Kai Chou’s Octalysis model could be considered a worthy starting point for improving Army training with Gamification.

Elsewhere at the website, you’ will also find a quick decision exercise, Takistan Ambush.

QDE-Smart-Soldier-52-Takistan-ambush-Optimised.jpg

 

PAXsims

Crashing.png

At Medium, “Oscar’ uses the Matrix Game Construction Kit and a repurposed game board from Labyrinth to produce Crashing the Gates: An Ad-Hoc “Wargame” Scenario About Migration.

PAXsims

 

WATU in the war diaries of A.F.C. Layard

large_000000-2.jpg

The Western Approaches Tactical Unit, Liverpool. The wardroom crest appears to have been taken from the WWI-era S-class destroyer HMS Tactician. During WWII, a T-class submarine sailed under that name, using a different crest (depicting a chess Knight) but the same motto (“checkmate”).

 

PAXsims has been closely following the research being done by Paul Strong and Sally Davis on the Western Approaches Tactical Unit, the pioneering group of (predominately female) RN/WRNS wargamers led by Captain Gilbert Roberts who played such a major role in developing anti-submarine tactics and training naval officers during World War Two.

The latest account comes from Commanding Canadians: The Second World War Diaries of A.F.C. Layard, edited by Michael Whitby and published by the University of British Columbia Press in 2005 (footnotes have been removed below for clarity). Commander A.F.C. Layard was a Royal Navy officer who was assigned to the Royal Canadian Navy for much of the war. He first attended the tactical school in September 1943:

Monday, 6 September 1943 – Liverpool

Arrived at Lime Street at about 0700. No taxis but eventually got a lift from a Wren in a small navy van to H.M.S. Mersey where after some difficulty I got a cabin and some breakfast. Apparently I ought to have asked for accommodation.

At about 0730 I went to Derby House and saw Gardner, who has been put ashore on account of deafness, and fixed up that I should take passage out to Canada in an escort leader that gives me a few days leave after this course. I then walked to the cathedral and found there was a special 4th war anniversary service at 1100, which I attended. A great many people there. F.O.I.C. [flag officer in command] read some prayers, an Air Marshal read the lesson, and the Bishop of Wilkesley preached a good sermon. Among the hymns we sang was “John Brown’s Body,” which was somewhat unusual. Back to the Mersey for lunch. This is really a T124 training depot with a certain amount of spare officers’ accommodation. In the p.m. I read and slept in my cabin. Put a call through to J. at 1900, which eventually I got through at 2000. The accommodation here is pretty seedy, but I suppose good enough. Nice sunny day.

Monday, 6 September 1943 – Liverpool

After breakfast I checked in at Derby House at 0900 for the Tactical Course. There are some 25 of us ranging from myself, the only Commander, down to Mids. R.N.V.R. Scott Thomas18 is one of us. The Director is Capt. Roberts, 33 who is a v. good lecturer but v. theatrical and, of course, would like you to know that he was 75% responsible for the recent defeat of the U-boat in the N. Atlantic. He’s probably right and is certainly thought very highly of here. The Deputy, Jerry Cousins, shouts while he lectures so that you are quite stunned. We had a certain number of lectures, and we began the first game where I am S.O. of the escort. I immediately began to feel woolly and helpless, but much as I dislike displaying my ineptitude I’m sure this course is going to be first class value. We lunched at the Derby House canteen and who should Scott and I meet there but Air Commodore Ragg who we knew in the Vivacious days at Kyrenia in Cyprus as a Flight Lt. After packing up at 1700 I went to Liver Building about pay and travelling expenses, and then Scott and I had early supper at the Mersey and then went out to a cinema and saw some mediocre sort of film.

Tuesday, 7 September 1943 – Liverpool

A lecture and then two hours of the game, which came to an end at lunch time. With a good deal of help from the staff I managed alright as S.O. G.N. Brewer was in the bar at Derby House having just had the Egret sunk under him by the new German gliding homing bomb. Sounds most unpleasant. Raymond Blagg was also there, and he took me across to a sandwich bar close by for lunch. In the p.m. more lectures and a summing up of the game. Went to the Derby House canteen for tea and then returned to the Western Approaches Tactical Unit and spent about ¾ hour reading A.C.I.s [Atlantic Convoy Instructions] and thinking about the night attack game we play tomorrow when I am S.O. again of the syndicate.

Back to Derby House and called on Commodore Russell who is Chief of Staff. He greeted me with “What have you done to be sent out there?” which seems to imply it is a God awful job. Collected Gardner from his office and brought him back to the Mersey for drinks and dinner. He, Scott, and Marjoribanks sat talking afterwards.

Wednesday, 8 September 1943 – Liverpool

After a bit of preliminary discussion we started in on a night encounter exercise. I was S.O. of our syndicate and had Eardley Wilmott for Staff Officer. Lunch at the canteen and then on with the game until about 1500 when it was summed up. My side didn’t do too badly. We then had a short lecture followed by a demonstration on the board of the sort of search operation that support groups are carrying out in the Bay of Biscay, and finally Roberts gave us a few remarks on the new German weapon, the glider bomb. Scott and I went back to the Mersey and shifted and at 1800 it was announced that Italy had surrendered unconditionally. Grand news. Scott and I then went to Derby House and met Ragg and his wife in the Senior Officer’s Lounge where we had drinks. There were all the big shots. The A.O.C. [air officer commanding] (Slatter), another Air Commodore, F.O.I.C. (Ritchie), and the Chief of Staff, Russell. Finally the Raggs took Scott and me off to the Bear’s Paw for dinner. He is an extremely nice chap, but she is developing into the typical senior officer’s wife. They have no children, which is probably her trouble. We walked back to the Mersey where we said goodbyes, and Scott told me the tale of his disappointment at being passed over after all the high ups had more or less told him he was a cinch for it.

Thursday, 9 September 1943 – Liverpool

I think one way or another I had a bit too much booze last night and my brain is feeling a bit woolly. On arrival at the Tactical School we were first shown the layout of the big and final game, which covers a period from an hour before sunset to sometime at night. There are 2 convoys, a carrier, and a support group. I am S.O. escort of our convoy. We then withdrew and decided on our policy, what the support group should do, and what the aircraft should do, etc., and then at about 1000 we started the game. I didn’t have very much to do, but there was a flood of signals and a lot of plotting to do. Chavasse and I were bidden to lunch by the C. in C., Admiral Sir Max Horton, at Derby House. Some Captain who was also there told Chavasse he had just been awarded the D.S.O. for some convoy fight which he had conducted successfully some months ago. The conversation at lunch consisted of the C. in C. pumping Chavasse about his new B.D.E. rather late. We stopped at about 1630, by which time in the game it was practically dark. Scott and I had tea at the Canteen, and then I returned to the Mersey and shifted and listened to the 1800 news. We have made another large scale landing near Naples. In spite of the Armistice we are still meeting fierce opposition from the Germans who are now estimated to have 18-20 divisions in the country. Walked to the Adelphi where I met Raymond and Venetia, and they gave me dinner. They have found a house up here and so will be leaving Little Orchard for good very shortly. Sad.

Friday, 10 September 1943 – Liverpool

A beastly hot day when Liverpool looks its very worst. At the Tactical School we carried on with our game, which today became a night encounter. I didn’t have a great deal to do as S.O. of my convoy owing to the brilliant way in which Chavasse’s support group rode off the U-boats. We finished at about 1600, and then we were taken down to the Plotting Room at Derby House and shown around. Scott and I then had tea in the Canteen and then I walked back to the Mersey and shifted and then went back to Derby House, called for Gardner, and we both caught a train to Crosby. Hector Radford who came out for a short trip with us in the Broke had asked us to drinks and supper. It turned out to be quite a big party because in addition to ourselves and Radford’s three sisters, there was an R.N.V.R. 2 striper, the old “pilot” on D’s staff and his wife, a naval padre, and three small children. We had a terrific supper. The table before we started looked rather like the food advertisements in American magazines. Quite a good party. Gardner and I caught the 11:16 back to Liverpool. The news from Italy seems confused, but the Germans seem to be fighting us and the Italians and they claim to have sunk an Italian battleship which was trying to escape from Spezia.

Saturday, 11 September 1943 – Liverpool/Prinsted

I got up early and did my packing before breakfast. It was pouring with rain when I walked to the Tactical School. The whole forenoon was spent summing up the big game, which was most interesting, and at 1200 we broke up. A first class course for which Roberts deserves full marks. Went to Derby House and had several at the bar before having lunch. I then went to the Exchange Station and after waiting some time managed to get a taxi, which I shared with 3 other people who agreed to go to the Mersey and pick up my gear and then go to the Lime Street Station. I caught the 1400 train to London and was lucky to get a seat as the train was crammed before it left. Got to Euston just before 1900 and so went to the station restaurant and had dinner and then got a taxi to Waterloo and caught the 8:45 to Havant. Joan met me there with the car, thank God, at 2215 and we drove home. A hot muggy day.

Layard attended a second WATU course in December 2013:

Monday, 13 December 1943 – In the air/Liverpool

We touched down at Prestwick [Scotland] at about 0830 after a 9½ hours’ trip. I couldn’t have been more comfortable. After checking up papers, customs, etc., I had a shave and a wash and then some breakfast. Didn’t feel a bit hungry. I tried to fly on to Liverpool but as there was nothing going I was taken to Kilmarnock station in a car and I caught a 1030 train to Liverpool. There was a heavy frost all over the country and I had a long cold wait at Carlisle. Eventually got to Liverpool (Exchange Station) at about 1700 and took a room at the Exchange Hotel. Feeling rather sorry for myself. Perhaps the height and the oxygen is something to do with it. I rang up J. soon after 1800, but as I didn’t know my plans we couldn’t decide whether or not she should come up. Turned in early.

Tuesday, 14 December 1943 – Liverpool

Feeling very much better I’m glad to say. I went along to the Tactical School and reported to Roberts just before 0900. At 1200 after a lecture the rest of the course went to finish off the first makee train game, and so as I had missed the start yesterday I went over to Derby House and saw the Chief of Staff – MacIntyre. I thought perhaps I could do a bit of the course and also do a bit of discussion with other support group S.O.s, but there don’t seem to be any support groups in just now. Lunched at the Derby House officers’ canteen and saw Gardner and his wife – now a 3rd officer Ciphering Wren. In the p.m. we had more lectures and a short plotting exercise, after which I went to Liver Building and made some enquiries about ration cards and warrants. Back to the Exchange and rang up J. again, who said she was coming up tomorrow – whoopee!!! At lunch time I met Smitty in the Bar. He has left Whaley and is now Fleet Gunnery Officer up here with an acting brass hat. He came to dinner with me at the Exchange and we had a long chat. He told me Peter Knight had been killed in Sicily a few months ago. I am sorry. Poor Bob Knight!!

Wednesday, 15 December 1943 – Liverpool

Clocked in at the school at 0900 and after our lecture we started a night battle game. I was bidden to lunch with the C. in C. with a 2½ striper, a 2 striper R.N.R., and a French naval officer who are all doing the course. C. in C. was very affable. Went on with the game in the p.m., summing up, and had one more lecture. I went back to the hotel and shifted and then went along to Lime Street Station to meet J’s train due at 6:30. It was ½ hour late and when it came in no J. Met Ragg at the station also waiting to meet his wife on the London train due 7:10, which I now imagine J. is catching. This train is known to be hours late and so we adjourned to the new British Officers Club at the Adelphi and had some drinks. It is a very nice place. As the transportation office was keeping Ragg in touch and there was plenty of time I went back to the Hotel for dinner. Then I got a telephone call from the station, and eventually I found J. waiting for me there at about 2115 having arrived by some unknown train. Anyway we eventually got back to the Hotel and I got J. some sandwiches and drinks in our room. We had a tremendous chat and it was lovely to see her again.

Thursday, 16 December 1943 – Liverpool

I went to school at 0900 and for about 1½ hours we had preliminary discussions and preparations for the big day and night game and then we started to play it. I am in command of one of the support groups, which is about the most interesting command, and have a chief of staff to help me in the plotting. At lunch time met J. at the State Restaurant, but we had to wait such a long time for a table that I had to dash back to my battle before I’d really finished. There was a great deal of activity on the board in the p.m. Went back to the Hotel and met J. for a late tea and at 1830 the Gardners came and had drinks with us. They are a nice couple. Sat about in the lounge before going to bed. This is infinitely more pleasant to stay at than the Adelphi.

Friday, 17 December 1943 – Liverpool

J. caught the 10:00 train to London as she had promised to be home for Gillian’s breaking up play. My battle raged all day on the table and finally came to an end at about 1600. Very good value and I think I didn’t disgrace myself. I had some tea at Derby House and then rang up S.C.N.O. London from Gardner’s office and had a talk with the Signal Officer about one or two W/T points. I went back to the hotel and shifted then after almost ½ hour’s wait I caught a tram out to the other side of the town and went to dinner with Speak and his wife. He was with me in Firedrake as a Sub R.N.V.R. He is now a Lieut. His wife is American and very pleasant. They gave me a lot of whisky and got me talking much too much, with the result that I missed the last tram and it took me the best part of an hour to walk back to the Hotel.

Saturday, 18 December 1943 – Liverpool/London

Roberts took the whole of the forenoon summing up our game. He is extremely good and it was most interesting. I had an early lunch at the Derby House canteen and then went back to the hotel and tried to get a taxi. After waiting as long as I dared I finally walked with my suit case to Lime Street station and caught the 2:00 train to London. Six of us from the course had reserved a carriage. It was terribly slow and we were 2½ hours late at Euston arriving at 2045. That meant I missed the 10:45 to Havant, so I went to the Euston Hotel and rang up J. to say I couldn’t get down and then rang up Lillian to ask if she could give me a bed. Had some sandwiches at the hotel and then tubed to Earl’s Court and walked to the Robinsons’ House where I was given a camp bed in the drawing room.

large_000000.jpg

For more PAXsims coverage of WATU, see the blog posts here. The WATU pictures here are from the photo archives of the Imperial War Museum.

large_000000-1.jpg

Plans are underway to recreate a WATU wargame at the Western Approaches museum in Liverpool in early September. Stay tuned for for further details!

 

Avoiding the “resource curse” in Petronia

petronia-postcard.jpeg

Extractive industries can be an important part of the economy in developing countries, providing substantial export earnings and employment. However, oil and other mineral wealth can also come at a cost: royalties can be siphoned off by corruption; mineral rights might be allocated through murky processes, mired with bribery and other illicit influence; exports might cause overvaluation of the national currency (“Dutch disease”), stunting other industries; environmental degradation might be overlooked; and state revenues may be used to finance repression and patronage politics (“rentierism”), dimming the prospects for democracy. Collectively this is often referred to as the resource curse.

The National Governance Resource Institute has created an online educational game to explore these issues: Petronia.

NRGI is proud to announce the arrival of Petronia, an interactive online course unlike any other in the resource governance field, where learners can “play” at influencing resource governance outcomes in a simulated context.

More than any other NRGI resource to date, Petronia makes learning about resource governance fun and interactive with dynamic animations and a close focus on learning through roleplaying and gamification. It is ideal for online learners with limited background in the field, but a desire to understand key issues.

The course explores the policy challenges in the Republic of Petronia, a fictional developing country that has made a potentially game-changing oil discovery. Learners join a team of experts deployed to advise the country’s policy-makers in a series of missions exploring different aspects of resource governance over time. Learners build their knowledge of the technical issues while developing an understanding of the different perspectives and complex trade-offs of managing resource wealth for development.

Learners not only think and reflect about policy choices in Petronia, they can also “do” by consulting stakeholders, analyzing government and international data, and developing recommendations with their team. We hope this “serious gaming” aspect will appeal to both adult and youth learners alike.

In the game, the newly-elected President of Petronia and her team of advisors must decide how to address current and future development of the oil sector. Much of it is “click and be told information or be given things to read” variety, which is then followed by periodic quizzes. Players get few (if any) chances to make meaningful choices that impact game play, so it’s all rather more like an instructional video than a game, with a lot of clicking things/sliding things/reading along the way. That will work with some audiences, but I suspect that others (many university students, most development professionals) will find it a somewhat fiddly and time-consuming way of accessing information and insight.

In this regard, I think that Mission Zhobia (previously reviewed at PAXsims) did a better job of harnessing the strengths of a game-based approach to development education. Still, the National Governance Resource Institute are to be praised for their innovative effort. The supporting materials in the simulation are also very good, and players will learn much if they read them.

You’ll find an article on Petronia here, from the The Economist.

h/t Rory Aylward

Serious Games Forum 2018 (Paris)

SGF.jpg

On 3 December 2018 the École Militarie (Paris) will host a Serious Games Forum, devoted  to the use of wargames and other serious games in the defence, civil, and research domains. Think of it as Connections France.

intervenants1.png

You’ll find further details at the Serious Games Network France website.

War Plan Tangerine

Warplan Tangerine.jpg

From the ever-prolific Tim Price comes yet another matrix game, War Plan Tangerine. In this, the government of the UK must prepare for the impending state visit of the rather unpopular President of the Generic Senior Ally.


This is, of course, a COMPLETELY FICTIONAL scenario. Any resemblance between the President of the GSA and any current world leader is ENTIRELY COINCIDENTAL.


 

The scenario allows for six players or teams:

  • UK Government
  • Police and Emergency Services
  • Generic Senior Ally (GSA) Government
  • Anti-POTGSA Activists
  • Pro-POTGSA and UK Alt-Right Supporters
  • UK Media

You’ll find the scenario details and player briefings here. Maps and counters are included, as is a short introduction to matrix gaming. The scenario is, of course, fully compatible with the Matrix Game Construction Kit.

MaGCK

Personally, if I were playing it I would either use two competing teams of activists (one more militant than the other), or allow the activists to make an immediate bonus move every time another player rolls a double (thus reflecting the tendency of the President of the GSA to say or tweet inflammatory things at sensitive moments).

 

Simulation NATO Trilemma: Strategic Direction South

ss-750x390.jpg

The NATO Civil-Military Center of Excellence has issued a report, written by Natalia Wojtowicz, on their NATO Trilemma: Strategic Direction South (SDS) simulation.

TIME The starting point of the simulation was year 2018. The simulation proceeds in turns. Average duration of 4-players iteration is approximately 60 minutes.

SPACE The board represented the SDS/MENA region and the risk level of particular area. There are three categories (see picture below), marked as high risk (RED), medium risk (YELLOW) and low risk (GREEN). This distinction also dictates possible actions of the participants.

PARTICIPANTS This simulation is designed for 2-4 players. The participants have to assume the role of a decision-maker in the region. They will choose between possible actions and try to balance the strategy in three aspects: security, development and population.

MODEL A successful strategy requires a balance between security, development and population. This means, that all actions affect the three elements, providing the view on effects in military, civilian and local perspective.

The general goal is to improve security and development in the region while simultaneously achieving the acceptance of the local population. This goal is supported by resources available to the participants and action which can be undertaken by paying the indicated price.

MAIN FACTORS Improvements are tracked by a scale, ranging from 0 to 10. All participants are starting the simulation at point 0 and can move up the scales. Population is a special scale, which affects the effects of the actions. If the population is not accepting the player, the action remains without effect. In case of neutral attitude, the effect is normal. If the player manages to become recognized as friendly to the population, the effects of improvement are doubled.

WINNING The winning player has to achieve 15 points on two scales in any combination – for example 10 security and 5 infrastructure.

RESOURCES To play an action card, participants have three resources to use: funding (money), personnel and supplies. Those are the costs of possible actions and improvements. To receive more resources, participants have to come back to the Headquarters.

You can read the full report here (pdf). There is also an overview available on the CCOE website.

hg.jpg

Save the dates: CONNECTIONS NORTH 2019 (and McGill Megagame)

CONNECTIONS NORTH

PAXsims is pleased to announce the dates for the 2019 CONNECTIONS NORTH professional wargaming conference, as well as the 2019 McGill Megagame.

CONNECTIONS NORTH: Saturday, 16 February 2019

McGill Megagame: Sunday, 17 February 2019

Both events will be held at McGill University, in Montréal.

A call for papers for CONNECTIONS NORTH will be issued closer to the date, and registration information will be posted here in the fall.

The megagame will be APOCALYPSE NORTH, an game of emergency response, national survival, and federal-provincial politics during a zombie armageddon. (We are also referring to it as Bon Zombi/Bad Zombie, for the Canadian cinephiles amongst you). In keeping with post-G7 world, Canada will face undead threat from across its southern border. While the scenario will be very fictional (we hope), the emergency management/aid to civil powers elements of the game will be realistic—and challenging.

Wargaming and wartime tactical training in the Royal Canadian Navy

176_original.jpg

Lieutenant Carol Hendry (kneeling at right) and WRCNS colleagues plotting positions during a tactical wargame, 1944. Royal Canadian Navy

We at PAXsims have been enthusiastically following the work that Paul Strong and Sally Davis have been doing at the UK Defence Science and Technology Laboratory in uncovering the story of the Western Approaches Tactical Unit—one of the most outstanding examples of wargaming for training and analytical purposes during World War Two.

Now Sally has come up with something else equally interesting: the existence of a similar tactical training unit in the Royal Canadian Navy. The story comes from Carol Duffus (née Hendry), a former officer in the Women’s Royal Canadian Naval Service (WRCNS), via The Memory Project:

My name is Carol Duffus, formerly Hendry. I was born in Toronto, September 25th, 1918. I did finally get called up in March of 1943. So, I stayed in until September 1945. Then I served as a WREN. We were called WRENS. The British women in the navy were called WRENS too and we took that name on only we called ourselves WRENs with a C, WRCNS, Women’s Royal Canadian Naval Service. And we were associated with the navy. In Britain, it wasn’t so, they were a separate unit.

And then after a while, a position came free in the training office, a staff officer training was leaving, and so I took over at the staff officer training. And turned into the person who arranged training for the crews of any of the ships that came in, escort ships, when they needed training and tactical work or action stations or signaling or gunnery. I assigned the training in that job to, to anyone who needed it. So that was kind of interesting too. It was a good job.

The tactical table was to teach the tactics to the escort vessels when they were taking a convoy across the Atlantic. And it was six of the WREN officers took over a on a, well the tactical table wasn’t really a table, it was more like a, sort of a gym floor. Only, it had a wall all the way around it, about a little bit above a waist level. And the WRENS, who were taking over, whenever the escorts went out, there were six taking a convoy across. So we had representatives from six escort vessels there on, on the other side of a wall, they couldn’t see us, but we could look over at them. So each of us was assigned a ship. And each ship in this escort group would send their captain and their navigating officer and the signals man up. And they would sit on the other side of the wall, they couldn’t see what we were doing up on the table. And each of us was assigned a ship so they would give us the instructions that that ship would take, in so many periods of time. It was a tactical game that was, given to the escorts, in this case, a game, a tactical game where they were taking a convoy across. There would be one at the head of the convoy and one at the stern. And then there would be one stationed on each quarter of the convoy. And they were to protect the convoy from submarine attacks.

So it was a game played, it was sort of set and they would give them situations and it was all plotted out on the table by, by the WRENS who were doing the plotting on the table. It was all marked off in sections and we would chalk everything down as they’d tell us. Each of us would have one ship. They would instruct us what that ship was to do and we would plot it on the table, which was really the floor. We were down on our hands and knees for that.

And so they would play the game as situations arose, in this imaginary game that would happen. Perhaps it would be announced that there was a submarine sighted somewhere or someone had seen a, a ship blow up, so they knew a submarine had done that. These were all just cases that might happen, that was the game.

So we were, we were given these little chits every two minutes or so from our ship, each one of us had their ship and we would plot it on this tactical table. And this would go on for perhaps an hour, maybe two, as the situation arose and the uh, training commander would be there giving the instructions.

So at the end of the game, all the people who were doing the plotting, the captains and so on, came up on the table and they would see what they had done. And the training commander, who would review the whole situation, would see what had been done over the whole period of time by us plotting their instructions to us, as they would say, I’m going, you know, a certain degree for so, for so long and we would plot that.

So it was all laid down in chalk and when the game was over, everybody would come up on the table and then the whole thing would be criticized by the training commander. He would say to each of them, now, in this case, perhaps it would have been better if you had done this or that and so on. So it was very, it was a good educational tool and tactics, and they learned a lot that way I think.

And you often hear about women looking, being looked down on because they were women, doing a certain job. But I never, never, never felt that, ever. I was treated with tremendous respect and, and knowledge of what I was doing. And so you know, I, I think that was probably why I advanced to the staff officer training because I was respected and that I knew what I was doing and why I was there. So it was, it was fine. I had no problem at all being a woman.

An awful lot of people don’t know what the women did in the services during the war. And I think they should have a little more publicity because if it weren’t for what they did, a lot of things would not have been done. So I felt that I was able to do something useful. That was good and I think there are an awful lot of other women too who did useful things and they would never probably be recognized for what they did. I’d like to have people know that they did serve, they were very important.

You can hear the audio of the interview at the link above. Carol passed away on May 5, 2012

177_original.jpg

Lieutenant Carol Hendry (standing) during a tactical game, 1944. Slacks were only worn on the job due to the the amount of time spent on the floor. Royal Canadian Navy

Clade X pandemic simulation

Twilley-PandemicSimulation-CladeX.jpg

In The New Yorker, Nicola Twilley reports on a pandemic simulation conducted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security last month:

I was in the ballroom of the Mandarin Oriental in Washington, D.C., when the worst pandemic since the 1918 Spanish flu broke out. On cable news, there were reports of four hundred confirmed cases, mostly clustered in Frankfurt, Germany, but with infected individuals reported as far afield as Tokyo, Kabul, and Caracas. Brow furrowed, eyes widened, the anchorwoman’s tone was urgent as she described the spread of a new type of parainfluenza virus, called Clade X. Transmitted through inhalation, it left the infected contagious but otherwise unaffected for up to week before killing more than ten per cent of its victims.

In the ballroom with me, seated around a U-shaped table under glittering chandeliers, were ten senior political figures, an ad-hoc working group convened at the President’s request. The situation looked bad. At Ramstein Air Base, in southwest Germany, three U.S. service members were critically ill, and three infected Venezuelans warned that the outbreak there was much worse than authorities were admitting. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a vaccine would likely take more than a year to develop. Meanwhile, Australia, China, and South Africa had already imposed travel restrictions on flights from Germany and Venezuela. A bipartisan group of senators was calling for a similar travel ban; a recent poll had suggested that sixty-five per cent of the public supported them. “What should our priorities be?” the national-security adviser asked.

Clade X turned out to be an engineered bioweapon, combining the virulence of Nipah virus with parainfluenza’s ease of transmission. It had been intentionally released by A Brighter Dawn, a fictitious group modelled on the Japanese doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo, which carried out the sarin-gas attacks in the Tokyo subway system, in 1995. A Brighter Dawn’s stated goal was to reduce the world’s population to pre-industrial levels. By the end of the day, which represented twenty months in the simulation, they had managed to kill a perfectly respectable hundred and fifty million people….

Her account of the simulation highlights the way in which technocratic responses to the pandemic threat ran headlong into popular attitudes, social media rumours, and misconceptions, and the resulting politics of it all. She also notes some of the complications created by unclear lines of responsibility and leadership, a federal political system, and—in the US case—a private healthcare system that may emphasize profit margin over collective response to a major national and international health emergency. Finally, the simulation pointed to planning and preparations that could be undertaken now to lessen the impact of such an event in the future, were it ever to occur.

A much fuller account of the scenario is available at the John Hopkins School of Public Health’s Global Health Now website.

You can find additional reports on the Clade X simulation here too:

h/t Brian Philips

 

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.

%d bloggers like this: