Comments Off on All that’s left is the grading…
Posted by Rex Brynen on 12/04/2024
Today was the last day of my conflict simulation course at McGill, and as is POLI 452 tradition everyone’s game was on display before being submitted. Here’s a look at what I’ll be playing (and grading) over the next few weeks.
Black October explores strategic competition and conflict between Israel and Iran (and its allies/proxies). The game tracks political capital, resources, military capabilities, and US and global opinion. Cards are used either to play specific actions or an action chosen from a menu. The yellow cups are used to hide Iranian nuclear enrichment.
Breacher Up! examines platoon-level suburban operations. Fog of war is provided through blocks, dummy counters, and (uncleared) room tokens. They certainly won the prize for the largest map this year!
Men of Honor is a game about Sicilian mafia during the Mussolini era. Players (families) compete to control key industries during a time when the fascist state was clamping down on their activities. They can betray each other, even cooperate with the regime at times—but breaking Omertà (the mafia code of silence and code of honor) in this way can have severe consequences.
The meeples used to track honor, influence, and notoriety were a real find.
The Opium Wars is a two player game about Anglo-Chinese conflict in the mid-19th century. Britain wants to sell opium into China, to offset China’s trade surplus (in tea, china, and other products). The Qing Dynasty China isn’t so keen. However, China opium seizures or port closures may lead the British to use military force. Can China avoid “the century of humiliation”?
Take particular note of the hand-crafted opium bales, the traditional silver ingots, and the jars of tea.
Polymer Planet is a semicooperative game about plastic pollution. Players assume the role of Carol (CEO of a fashion company), Leo (an oil industry lobbyist), Patrick (a politician), Naomi (an environmental NGO activist), and Carla (the consumer). Each pursues certain goals, and their actions can various contribute to pollution (tracked with coloured bottle caps that accumulate in a central container) or help alleviate it. Can they find a solution that leaves everyone satisfied and saves the planet?
Red Tide explores a Chinese (PRC) invasion of Taiwan, focusing on how Taiwan were to fare were it to receive no support from allies. Chinese sealift capacity, the seizure of ports, and the damage suffered by those ports has a fundamental effect on how long Taiwan can hold out before defeat.
Wildfire! is a largely cooperative about wildfire management in Canada. The focus on the federal government, with players assuming the role of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), Public Safety Canada, or the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre. You’ll noticed the map coded for fire risk and environment, and the 3D printed stackable fires to indicate severity.
270! is a two player game about US presidential election campaigns. Players choose various campaign actions (targetable by state), including campaign visits, ad buys, social media, and fundraising. They also respond to current issues, and there’s a presidential debate minigame too. All actions are entered into a an Excel spreadsheet—hence all the laptops—which then determines their impact and updates a PowerPoint map and bar graph.
Comments Off on Two weeks to Connections North!
Posted by Rex Brynen on 03/02/2024
There are only two weeks to go until the Connections North professional (war)gaming conference, which will be held at McGill University in Montreal on February 17.
Comments Off on POLI 452, Winter 2024 edition
Posted by Rex Brynen on 01/02/2024
This term I am again teaching my POLI 452 (Conflict Simulation) course at McGill University. The course filled up quickly, with 40 upper-level undergraduate students eager enough to show up for an 0830 class in the winter. As usual, the class is evenly split between men and women.
The lecture topics we address include:
The history of wargaming
Principles of serious game design
Modelling conflict 1 (focus on military combat)
Modelling conflict 2 (focus on economic, political, and other issues and dynamics)
Components and design
Design caveats and pitfalls
Playtesting and rule-writing
Seminar, matrix, and negotiation games
Ethics of game design
(Serious) megagames and LARPs
Critical reflections
The material in these modules is assessed with three mid-term quizzes (5% of course grade each) and a final exam (25%).
GAP Gaming for Peace (peace operations/CIVPOL, digital)
Outbreak READY2: Thisland in Crisis (infectious disease preparedness and response, digital)
Finally, 35% of their course grade is based on a group conflict simulation (game) design project, which they undertake in groups of five students. The projects this year are:
1. American Presidential Elections
A game about US presidential election campaigns.
2. Mussolini and the Mafia
Competing mafia families maneuver to further their interests amidst the rise of the rise of fascism, WW2, and the Allied invasion of Sicily.
3. Opium Wars
A historical board game examining the Opium Wars between Britain and China (1839-1860), when Britain attempted to force opium imports on Qing Dynasty China.
4. Polymer Planet
A serious game about reducing plastic pollution, in which players assume the role of different stakeholders.
5. Red Tide
Examination of a possible Chinese (PRC) invasion of Taiwan (ROC), including US military support for the latter.
6. Regional conflict in the Middle East
A two player game of strategic rivalry and military confrontation between Iran (and its allies/proxies) and Israel.
7. Urban Combat
Modern platoon- or company-level combat in urban environments.
8. Wildfire!
A serious game examining the challenge of wildfire preparedness and response.
Although some classroom time is devoted to in-class development of these projects, most of it occurs outside class hours. I’m pleased that Dr. Ben Taylor (Defence Research and Development Canada) is again generously offering his time to assist with some of our “Game Lab” sessions.
Many of the groups will be presenting their initial game design concepts in a poster session at Connections North this year, so if you’re attending (February 17) you’ll have an opportunity to discuss their ideas—and offer some of your own!
I am very pleased to announce that preorders are now open for We Are Coming, Nineveh! a tactical/operational-level game of the Iraqi government campaign to liberate the western area of the city of Mosul from the forces of Daesh (ISIS) between 19 February and 9 July 2017. This was one of the largest and most difficult urban operations of the post-WWII era, and marked a major defeat for Daesh and its so-called “Islamic State.” The game should ship in March.
Regular readers of PAXsims will likely have been following the development of this game over the years. It started life in 2018 as one of three student projects in a small undergraduate seminar I ran on conflict simulation design at McGill University. That initial experimental seminar later became my current POLI 452 course on conflict simulation.
The driving force behind We Are Coming, Nineveh! (WACN) was Juliette Le Ménahèze, who at the time was writing her undergraduate thesis on the role of the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq and who later went on to a MSc in conflict studies at LSE and a career in security and development in the Middle East. She was joined by fellow student Harrison Brewer, who brought greater gaming experience to the mix and who has since gone on to a graduate degree and a career in urban planning.
The game was clearly good enough to be published, so Brian Train and I came on board to help them further develop and refine the design. Brian and I have known each other for four decades (!), having first met when we used to wargame together at the University of Victoria’s “Strategy and Tactics Club.”
The development and playtesting of the game has been detailed in several PAXsims posts.
Our playtesters—most of them hobby wargamers, but many of them military personnel or defence analysts too—were enthusiastic. Indeed, a pre-production copy of the game was evaluated by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (UK Ministry of Defence) to examine its insights into modern urban warfare.
We approached Nuts! Publishing to see whether they would be interested in publishing the game, and after they saw it they answered with a very enthusiastic yes. Although the process was slowed down by the COVID-19 pandemic, Florent Coupeau and his team have been an absolute pleasure to work with.
The Design of We Are Coming, Nineveh!
From the outset we wanted WACN to be accessible, playable by newcomers to wargaming and grognards alike. Consequently, we sought to keep the game uncluttered and intuitive, while retaining historical and military accuracy.
Extensive support from both a US-led international coalition and from neighbouring Iran—including weapons, ammunition, training, air strikes, intelligence, and more direct assistance—played a vital part in pushing back Daesh. However, it is worth remembering that over 99.9% of those who fought and died fighting the jihadist challenge in Iraq were members of the Iraqi security forces (ISF) as well as the Kurdish peshmerga (militia) of the Kurdistan Regional Government. Most of them were themselves Muslims. In examining the battle for West Mosul—and, we hope, honouring their sacrifice—this wargame very much focuses on the central role of the ISF.
The game uses area movement rather than some other system (such as hexes) for depicting terrain. The boundaries between the zones are largely drawn along larger roads or the edges of open (or dense) areas. In urban warfare, crossing roads exposes troops to enemy fire, and thus the geography of neighbourhoods and transportation routes tends to shape the spatial ebb and flow of battle. The resulting irregular jigsaw pattern also reflects the layout of actual urban neighbourhoods, and creates a situation where unsupported forces that penetrate too far too quickly are at risk of being cut off and destroyed.
Not all urban space is the same. Accordingly, each district is coded as to its urban density: open areas, medium-density areas, and the narrow streets and alleys of the Old City. This allows us to represent both the difficulty of fighting within dense urban neighborhoods (and the reasons why Daesh made its last stand where it did) as well as the military logic of the encircling tactics used by the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). Mechanized (9th Armoured Division) units cannot be used in the narrow alleyways of the Old City, leaving much of the fighting to be be done here—as in the actual battle—by Iraqi special forces of the Counter Terrorism Service “Golden Division.” Particular attention needs to be planning lines of attack and retreat, otherwise the ISF might soon suffer disruption as vehicles and personnel find themselves gridlocked in the urban space.
It took months for the ISF to recapture west Mosul. It often took several days, or more, to secure a single city block. Game turns themselves are two weeks long. In theory, however, one can drive from Mosul Airport (on the southern edge of the WACN game map) to the Republican Hospital (on the north edge of the map) in under half an hour—if the route is clear. A system of fast movement on primary roads was developed to represent this. If Daesh is not careful to deploy IEDs and blocking forces, they might find the ISF making rapid advances down major thoroughfares with mechanized forces—mirroring aspects of the battle, where columns of Iraqi Army units pushed onto the city to cut off Daesh from supply and retreat.
We Are Coming, Nineveh uses blocks for two primary reasons. First, they allow us to represent imperfect information, fog of war, and the difficulties of identifying and targeting enemy units within urban environments. A player is able to see the location of a number of enemy units, but not able to identify what these are. Some may not even be units at all, but rather “rumours” (representing poor or false intelligence). For the ISF, identifying and eliminating high level targets, such as the Daesh leader, arms caches, or an IED factory, can be a vital element of a successful operation.
Experience also shows that neophyte wargamers find blocks less fiddly to use than stacks of chits. Block rotations are easily used to record combat losses and attrition, with the number required to inflict damage on the enemy becoming higher as a unit declines in combat effectiveness.
WACN highlights the various tactics, weapons, and technologies that characterize modern, asymmetrical urban combat. Some of these, such as the use of UAVs and precision fires, are relatively new. Others, such as IEDs and mouseholing buildings, would have been completely familiar to soldiers at Stalingrad or any other major urban operation of the previous century. We also wanted to recognize the less visible but no less critical contribution that combat support, logistics, and training make.
This is achieved in the game through the use of Capability Cards. These allow Daesh and the ISF to customize their defensive and offensive strategies, and assure that—despite the constants of geography—no two wargames are alike, thereby contributing to the game’s replay value. In the months leading up to the battle, will Daesh invest its resources on recruiting more troops (Ashbal, Technicals, Mortars), or prepositioning other capabilities (such as Arms Caches and IED Factories)? Will it hunker down behind prepared positions (using Fortifications and Mouseholes), focus on disrupting ISF operations (using Snipers and Makeshift Drones), or assume a mobile defence of constant hit-and run attacks (with capabilities like Guerilla Training, Stay Behind Forces, and Tunnel Networks)? Should the ISF invest in additional training and Improved Logistics, or simply throw more personnel into the battle? How much of a role will intelligence play (HUMINT, EW/SIGINT, Improved ISR)? Will the ISF blast its way into the city with air and artillery support, or seek to minimize casualties and collateral damage (Rules of Engagement, Field Hospital, Humanitarian Assistance)? The game can be fought in the historical manner, with Iraqi forces advancing from the south to cut off the Old City and then capture it, but the ISF can also adopt other approaches—an earlier assault, flanking operations, or even major amphibious or heliborne insertions. All of these represent choices faced by the actual commanders on the ground.
If a player does not invest in a particular capability, it does not mean it is completely absent. It can be assumed there is always some air and artillery support, sniper fire, or fortifications present in the battle. Instead, investing in a Capability Card indicates that a special effort has been made to acquire and deploy additional assets of this type.
The various event cards used in WACN serve four different functions. Some introduce additional uncertainty into tactical operations. Others reward players for investing in certain capabilities. Still others are used to generate collateral damage effects from combat operations.
Finally, the cards are also used to immerse the player in some of the small-unit tactical decisions and even moral dilemmas faced by battlefield commanders. Military operations in heavily populated urban areas generate many difficult choices, and we wanted to make sure the game adequately conveyed these sorts of challenges.
The Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz famously said that war is a fundamentally political act, the “continuation of policy by other means.” In planning Operation We Are Coming, Nineveh, Iraqi political and military leaders had to consider the political goals and ramifications of tactical and strategic choices. What does it mean to “win” against Daesh? Is it enough to eliminate their immediate military capabilities—even if doing so leaves behind so much destruction that the local population grows even more alienated from Baghdad? How important is it to secure a rapid victory—thereby denying Daesh the grounds to boast about its prolonged resistance—if this increases the cost in ISF casualties?
Similarly, Daesh—like all insurgent movements, and especially one that sees itself religiously destined to triumph—was playing a long game. If it could not hold Mosul, it could project an image of strength and resilience and heroic martyrdom by lasting as long as possible. If it could further aggravate sectarian and political tensions in doing so, so much the better.
In order to represent these competing narratives of the battle, WACN uses a system of multiple victory conditions. Three different metrics are assessed: Time (how long it takes the ISF to clear West Mosul), Casualties (casualties suffered by the ISF), and CollateralDamage (civilian casualties and destruction caused by the operation, as well as political alienation of the local population). Before the battle begins, players choose which they will emphasize. They should then deploy capabilities and develop their tactical plans to support this.
It is even possible for the game to end without a clear victor. While the points score might favour one player, extreme outcomes on any of the three dimensions can give the other player the basis on which to claim a moral-political victory. The metrics can also be used to compare the players’ performance with the historical results obtained by the Iraqi Security Forces.
The game includes an option for solo play. Here the player assumes the role of the ISF, while Daesh deployment and actions are determined by a series of die rolls and card draws.
This current Winter 2022 term I am again teaching my POLI 452 (conflict simulation) undergradute course at McGill University, for what is the now the fifth year. The course examines not only wargaming, but also the design of serious games about other kinds of social and political conflict too. Last year I had to teach it online, because of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This year teaching has been largely in person this term, although the first few weeks were online due to the Omicron wave of the pandemic and many of the related activities are still virtual.
The course is full again this year, with 38 students registered. It is a very diverse and dedicated group. Some are keen gamers, but most registered because of their interest in conflict and conflict resolution. A majority of the class (64%) are women.
As you’ll see from the syllabus, the course consists of lectures, “game labs” (where we meet in smaller groups to discuss student projects), and an array of additional activities that earn “simulation activity credits”. The primary course texts are Philip Sabin’s Simulating War, and the UK Ministry of Defence Wargaming Handbook, supplemented by other readings and videos.
I don’t run games in class time. Rather, students are expected to earn “simulation activity credits” by attending a variety of games, guest speakers, outside conferences, and other activities, or by playing certain games at home and submitting a review. We started off the term with the zombie apocalypse—a very unserious miniatures game of post-apocalyptic survival played via Zoom, adapted to a serious purpose. Teams of students were given a fictional amount of money to “buy” weapons, equipment and training before the game. They then did their very best to survive the undead hordes. After this, they discussed how the game outcomes might lead them to revise their initial purchases.
In other words, it was used as a fun introduction to acquisitions and force development wargaming, in which a game is used to explore how defence investments might be made and what the consequences might be of acquiring different capabilities.
So far this term I have also run several other games:
Battle for Moscow (designed as an introduction to classic hex-and-chit/CRT wargaming)
The Hunters (a solo game of German WWII submarine warfare, used to illustrate how historical capabilities and tactics are built into charts and tables)
Nijmegen Assault (an umpired, “three map” wargame of the 82nd Airborne landings during Operation Market Garden during WWII, designed and run by Jim Wallman of Stone Paper Scissors)
This weekend we will also be playing The Village, a Discord-based negotiation and political influence game about a fictional United Nations peacekeeping operation, also designed and run by Jim Wallman. In this case, POLI 452 students will be acting as the Control team for my POLI 450 (Peacebuilding) course. I also plan to offer Shores of Tripoli and AReckoning of Vultures (a matrix game) in a few weeks, and a few others.
There are several mid-term quizzes for the course and a final exam. However, the single largest graded component is their game design project, developed in a team of 3-4 students. There are eleven such projects this year, all but one of them manual games:
Ukraine War. This project was proposed before the current Russian invasion, and has proven very timely for obvious reasons. It will address regular military operations, the role of protest and insurgency (especially as Russia occupies the country), and the role of diplomacy and external support.
Seven Sino States, examining the “Warring States” period (c. 475 to 221 BCE) in ancient China .
Siege. This is a cooperative game about critical incident response. The game addresses hostage negotiation, tactical operations, and overall incident command, with different players responsible for each.
Finding Refuge. In this game of forced displacement, players will be individuals and families seeking safety during the Syrian civil war, whether as refugees or internally displaced persons.
The Camp is another game about refugees, but in this case focussing on the challenges of refugee camp management.
The Blitz: A Mother’s Perspective. Unlike the others, this is not a manual boardgame, but rather a digital narrative choice (“choose your own adventure”) game. It will explore how lived experiences during the WWII London Blitz were affected by class, gender, and other factors.
On the Ground Journalism will explore the challenges of journalism in a war zone.
Pandemic Prevention looks at national readiness and response to a major infectious disease outbreak.
Water You Doing? is another environmental game, in this case looking at the “tragedy of the commons” dynamics in a fictional case of several lakeside towns that must balance economic development with environmental consequences.
In addition to submitting a completed game at the end of the term, students will also be submitting a development diary detailing background research, the design process, playtesting, and the revisions made.
An interim progress report is due next week. When the course is over and the projects are submitted in April, I’ll post additional details on what they’ve all accomplished.
With the game projects for my McGill University POLI 452 (Conflict Simulation) course due in a little over a week, I asked my students today what advice they would have for future students and other neophyte game designers. The comments they offered represent some pretty good suggestions for all game designers, no matter how experienced:
While thinking about including new aspects and rules to the game, we always need to think over whether it would complicate the game too much, or if it’s important enough to include it.
Be realistic in your ideas, keep it simple enough.
Be ready to change a lot of things all the time in the process.
Consult relevant people.
Make sure you have a clear idea of what you want to design and do your research.
Getting the map right is very important.
Playtest early!!!!!
Playtest as early as you can.
I was shocked at how many ideas never survived a practical playtest!
Playtest!
Map design balance is very important.
It’s important to pretest early to understand whether there are [game elements missing].
Playtest and feedback.
Don’t have too many die rolls.
Excel is a pain in the butt to work with [from a group developing an Excel-based fog of war system].
As regular readers of PAXsims may know, I teach an undergraduate course on conflict simulation each year at McGill University. You can find reports on previous editions of the course here (2018) and here and here (2019). In Winter 2020, of course, the pandemic hit part way through the term—forcing a quick shift to online teaching, and disrupting the various game design teams as many students left Montréal to head to homes elsewhere in Canada or around the world.
In 2021, POLI 452 has been redesigned for remote teaching—which poses certain challenges with something as “hands-on” as manual game design. The course is fully-enrolled again this year, with 44 students.
McGill discourages professors from offering long, passive, synchronous online lectures during the pandemic: they can be tedious for the students and can pose timezone problems for those living outside Canada. Instead, I’m prerecording a major lecture each week, then hosting a one-hour Zoom seminar later in the week to discuss it (which is recorded for students unable to attend). I’m also available seven days a week for individual or group consultation, via Zoom, offering students more flexibility than pre-pandemic office hours.
Students are expected to participate in a number of games to earn simulation activity credits. Usually these take place in person, but this year weekly sessions in Leacock 510 have been replaced with online games via Zoom, Vassal, and Tabletop Simulator. They can also earn credits by attending various online presentations and other events.
In the first month of class, the games we have played include the following:
Zombies! (tactical miniatures game, repurposed as a investment/resource allocation analysis game)
1812: Invasion of Canada (board game)
Shores of Tripoli (board game)
Unity of Command (digital game)
Delivering the Needle (online COVID-19 vaccine seminar game/TTX)
Refugee response (online roleplay/TTX)
…plus various GUWS and MORS presentations, McMUN (McGill model UN), campus and class speakers, and others. We will be playing AFTERSHOCK, Black Orchestra, Assassin’s Mace, a matrix game or two, and a few others later in the term, and quite a few POLI 452 students will be attending the Connections North conference on February 19-21. Sadly there will be no McGill megagame this year, which is usually integrated into the class as well.
Back in July, James Sterrett and his colleagues at the US Command and General Staff College offered some some useful advice on distributed wargaming. In the case of POLI 452, I am generally not having students play directly over TTS or Vassal. Instead, I have a technically-savvy student volunteer head up the Red team against my Blue, and the rest of the class joins one side or the other via Zoom (with Discord being used for communication between the two team leaders). In games with no hidden information I simply host the whole thing myself. Zoom works well, is largely intuitive, and the integration with our myCourses (BrightSpace) course support software is excellent.
In non-pandemic terms all POLI 452 students undertake a group game design project. It is challenging to design and playtest a game remotely, however, so this year they also have the option of writing an individual research paper instead. I expeced that most students would be cautious and opt for the more familiar research paper assignment. In fact, indicative of their enthusiasm (and probably in reaction to the isolation of a school year conducted online), over 80% of the class has expressed a preference for the game project. POLI 452 is a conflict simulation course, not a wargaming course, so the proposed topics range from military operations to various other forms of political, social, economic conflict:
Imperial succession struggles in the early Tang Dynasty
West African kingdoms in the 17-18th centuries
WWII German commerce raiding (1940-41)
The Tiananmen Square protests (1989)
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (1994-2020)
Second Libyan Civil War (2014-2020)
Chinese-Indian border conflict (contemporary)
Irregular migration to the United States (contemporary)
Democratic backsliding (contemporary)
Adaptation of low-carbon technology in the US auto industry (contemporary)
Conflict on the Korean Peninsula (near future)
Finally, there are the inevitable exams: three online quizzes (multiple choice or similar), plus a take-home final exam in April (short and long answers).
So far, I’m quite happy with it. The real challenge will be the game design projects this year—but students seem to be very keen, and I’ve endlessly reminded them about the need to do their research and develop a first playable prototype as soon as possible, so I’m hopeful this will work out well. I’ll let you know at the end of the term!
On Wednesday, January 20 the McGill Refugee Research Group will be hosting an online presentation by Matt Stevens (Lessons Learned Simulations and Training) entitled “What can learning games teach us about ethical refugee response?”
Matt will also be running an online refugee response simulation on Saturday, January 23.
For more information, consult the McGill Refugee Research Group website. Registration for the former is open to anyone. Registration for the latter is limited (with most places reserved for McGill University students and staff).
On February 15, McGill University hosted the annual CONNECTIONS NORTH interdisciplinary conference on conflict simulation and other professional/serious gaming. This was the fourth such conference—and the largest yet, with 79 registrants. Of these, over half were a mix of national security professionals, game designers, and researchers, and the remainder were university students (mainly from my POLI 452 Conflict Simulations course). Participants came from Canada and three other countries this year (US, Japan, Finland), and just over one-quarter were women. Some of the slide presentations are linked in the summaries below, and the full conference programme (and presenter biographies) can be found here.
Following weldoming remarks by Ben Taylor (Defence Research and Development Canada) we started off with a panel reviewing the past year or so in Canadian (war)gaming.
In the military domain, Scott Roach (Canadian Joint Warfare Centre) provided an overview of the work of the JWC’s small but growing wargaming section. This included joint wargaming (a series of a capability-based planning wargames, as well as games for the Canadian Joint Operations Command), joint experimentation (notably concerning information operations, electronic warfare, cyber, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance), and joint simulation (using KORA, MASA Sword, JCATS, and others). He noted that they hoped to expand their staff, establish a resource/data library, and move towards more digital gaming. Jonathan Evans (Canadian Army Simulation Centre) spoke about the work of CASC, together with Brian Philips (Calian). CASC is headquartered in Kingston, with distributed locations in CFB Gagetown, Valcartier, Petawawa, and Edmonton. It provides support to the Canadian Army (both digital simulation and tabletop and other exercises), as well as Canadian Joint Operations Command, the RCAF, and other organizations. The major activities of CASC include support for Divisional Simulation Centres, UNIFIED RESOLVE, the Army Operations Course and Canadian Army Command and Staff College, and the Army Experimentation Centre. He also provided an overview of current Canadian Army simulation capabilities: ABACUS, JCATS, and VBS3, linked together and to command and control systems through the Virtual Command and Control Interface (VCCI). Murray Dixson (Defence Research and Development Canada) presented on gaming force planning scenarios, reviewing the work that DRDC had done with the Joint Warfare Centre on capability-based planning. This took the form of five wargames conducted in the spring and summer of 2019 to support Department of National Defence strategic planning. Three of these were conducted as matrix games (stabilization, peace enforcement, and peer combat), one as a combination seminar and commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) game (humanitarian assistance), and one as a seminar game (domestic security and pandemic operations). He also discussed future work by DRDC’s Centre for Operational Research and Analysis (CORA), which includes continued support to strategic planning, as well as gaming for concept development and developing a DRDC wargaming community of interest.
In the foreign policy field, Anna Bretzlaff (Global Affairs Canada) discussed several games that GAC has run in recent years (on topics ranging from diplomacy in the South China Sea to global pandemics), as well as outreach efforts within GAC. The response within the department, she noted, had been very positive: this was clearly a foresight and analysis technique that officials wished to make use of. Finally, I added a few comments about gaming at McGill University, as well as some other PAXsims initiatives, including game development with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on the African Swine Fever threat.
Subsequent discussion addressed how to better connect up the various gaming initiatives and interests across the government of Canada.
After a coffee break (kindly supplied by local serious game developer Imaginetic), our next panel explored methodological reflections on wargaming.
Stephen Downes-Martin (US Naval War College) presented on reversal effects and wargames—part of his “malign wargames series” whereby he seeks to inoculate game designers and participants against game-distorting techniques. Here he argued that the outcome of a game could potentially be distorted to suit analytical or policy preferences at the outbrief and after-action review stage. One way of doing this, he suggested, was to use insights from psychological research into probability, risk assessment, and loss aversion. Framing game outcomes in different ways could subtly render options more or less appealing. Because of this, he suggested, just “playing the game” was not good enough. It was important to also be familiar with social science and psychology theories, discuss subjective likelihoods of success using “high” through “low” text scales, describe alternatives in terms of advantages and disadvantages, use both selection and pricing techniques when framing outcomes, use both gains and losses, and identify biases of participants. Next, Andy Lee (McGill University and DRDC) reviewed methods of adjudication in matrix and seminar games. His presentation was based on a review of the available wargaming literature, together with interviews with a range of practitioners. Multiple systems were assessed (umpired, weighted probabilities, probability, voting, consensus, rigid) and he offered an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of each. Finally, David Redpath (Canadian Joint Warfare Centre/BI-5 Inc.) offered extensive thoughts on refining wargame methods, focusing on four essential “problem” areas: fog of war and situational awareness, player level and expertise, and the orders they can give in the game; move/countermove and turn order; and who loses—and why. He argued that in all four of these areas, many hobby and professional games alike suffered from serious deficiencies. He then offered a series of suggestions and techniques whereby each might be addressed.
Following lunch, Tom Fisher (Imaginetic) chaired a session on gaming civilians in conflict. He briefly reviewed the enthusiasm for gaming techniques in evidence at the recent Humanitarian Networks and Partnerships Week in Geneva. Matt Stevens (Lessons Learned Simulations and Training) then talked about serious games for humanitarian capacity building, offering an overview of a current research project being undertaken by Save the Children, Lessons Learned Simulations and Training, Imaginetic, and Kaya. This research asks whether serious games contribute to training for local humanitarian aid workers, exploring the extent to which digital or in-person tabletop exercises prompt changes in behaviour and/or attitude. They are also examining the potential barriers to engagement with mobile-based and tabletop serious games as a learning tool, as well as the practical requirements necessary to roll-out mobile and/or tabletop serious games to learners working in an emergency setting. To do this, they have undertaken experimental workshops in Amman and Nairobi using both manual games (AFTERSHOCK, The Day My Life Froze) and digital games. Participants were very positive about the use of games for humanitarian training. Manual games were preferred by participants, but it is not yet clear which is the better learning tool. He also noted that “digital games cause digital problems” (interface, bandwidth, system incompatibilities, and so forth).
Patrick Robitaille (Laval University) then presented on the annual SimEx humanitarian field exercise organized by Laval University. He discussed how they challenge and assess participants, and changes they have made over time.
The keynote address at Connections North this year was provided by Yuna Wong (RAND), who spoke on “gaming and the unknowable future.” She addressed the challenges of gaming the future, and the difficulty game participants have in imagining the truly new. In the end, she suggested, we had to recognize that the futures we game are unlikely to come to pass in quite the way that we play them, although that does not invalidate games-based reflection and exploration.
Greatly enjoyed giving the keynote at the #ConnectionsNorth#wargaming conference at McGill University on February 15. There are many things to say about "Gaming and the Unknowable Future."
Our final panel of the day addressed an important and sensitive topic: expanding the community. It was chaired by Matt Caffrey (US Air Force Research Lab), the founder of the worldwide Connections conferences, and the man who has probably done more than anyone to build global networks amongst professional wargamers. Many of the presentations focused on the challenges facing a field that has historically been dominated by middle-aged (and increasingly older) white males drawn from the military and wargaming hobby. Yuna Wong highlighted her own experiences as a woman and visible minority whose background was in the social sciences, not hobby gaming: while many veterans in the field have been generous with their time and support, she said, all too often she still encounters subtle biases and presumptions. Brianna Proceviat (PAXsims)—who recent graduated from McGill University and who will soon be joining the wargaming team and the Canadian Joint warfare Centre—dressed in pink to ask the rhetorical question “what does a wargamer look like?” She highlighted how subtle gendered pressures during childhood (for example, steering young girls away from conflict-themed toys and games) could leave them having to catch up with male counterparts who had a different experience of childhood socialization. Matt Shoemaker (Temple University) explored the history and design of war games in relation to gender. Independent game designer Roberta Taylor then followed up by discussing a game that she and Matt are developing which depicts the final military conflict in the French conquest of the Kabyle region of Algeria (1854-1857). This will look at the dynamics and effects of war across the entire local (Amazigh) population, and will also reflect the key role played by resistance leader Lalla Fadhma N’Soumer.
The discussion that followed was especially interesting. Several conference participants noted that the wargaming hobby—which is, surveys suggest, is more than 98% male—has had trouble reaching out to younger and more diverse demographics. A few even detailed incidents of outright misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia in online (hobby) wargaming communities. Several students made the point that they would not have even been aware that wargaming—and especially professional wargaming—existed, had they not encountered it in the classroom or through events like Connections North or megagaming. A few noted the popularity of model UN (which takes place on an impressive scale these days: the annual McMUN at McGill University involves more than two thousand participants and X days of programming—all organized by students). Several experienced professional wargamers even went so far as to say the hobby was increasingly less important as a source of new talent for professional wargaming. What was needed, they suggested, were those with social sciences backgrounds, familiar with both POL-MIL issues and rigorous analytical methods.
And this the conference came to a close. As I was busy chairing sessions and otherwise conference organizing, I’m afraid that I never did get around to taking pictures. If you attended and had any to pass on, please send them on! Feel free to many comments below too.
The following day, February 16, was our annual McGill megagame. That was a separate event, but many participants stayed on for it. A report will follow shortly!
This event has now been postponed due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
In light of recent developments regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, including bans on travel and large assemblies, we regret to inform you that we are forced to postpone the PlayOn! colloquium until early October 2020. We understand that many of you have been preparing for this event for many months and the coordinators will be happy to assist with any inquiries you may have.
We will be sending further information within the coming weeks to propose a rescheduled date, and we hope that many of you will still be able to attend. Please expect that we will be able to extend the same offers for travel-related funding, and that the general organization and structure of the colloquium will remain intact.
McGill Library will be organizing a series of speakers and other events throughout 2020 on the topic of serious play. This includes a Play On! colloquium at McGill University on 13-15 May.
To meet the needs of students reared, nurtured, and cultivated by video games since childhood, as well as the needs of faculty instructing them, the McGill University Library seeks ways to support the increasing presence of Serious Play in higher education. Serious Play incorporates creativity, innovation and cooperation as the foundations of new forms of immersive, intellectual engagement. In addition, novel interactive strategies in education, information literacy, and instruction are emerging daily. As dynamic spaces that foster and reward intellectual curiosity, 21stcentury academic libraries can continue to be hubs of interdisciplinary collaborative experimentation by evolving to match the pedagogical demands of students educated in increasingly interactive and ‘playful’ environments.
Running throughout 2020, our program of events will bring together a cohort of interdisciplinary thinkers and industry leaders to convey best practices for academic research libraries in supporting Serious Play. Together, we will reach across disciplines to explore how play and games fit in the serious and goal-oriented adult world of the 21st century research library, and what services academic libraries can, could, and should offer.
You will find additional details and the full schedule here.
Do you feel the urge to save Atlantic Canada from the gravest threat in its history? Then you will want to participate in the ATLANTIC RIM megagame at McGill on Sunday, 16 February 2020.
Megagame tickets are discounted until January 1. After that, you’ll have to pay the regular admission price. Students receive an additional discount.
If you want to be assigned to the same team as a group of friends, email me everyone’s name and your role preferences after you have all purchased a ticket.
Registration is now open for the 2020 McGill megagame—ATLANTIC RIM.
A mysterious meteor shower has struck the Atlantic coast of North America. Many coastal communities, including parts of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, have been devastated by the resulting tsunami.
Police, fire departments, medical services, municipal workers, public utilities, Canadian Armed Forces personnel, and the Coast Guard are mobilizing to address the emergency. Roads are damaged. The electrical grid has been shattered. Hospitals are overwhelmed. Survivors are fleeing to safety.
Can local, provincial, and federal officials pull together to coordinate an effective response?
Will Atlantic Canada rise to the challenge?
…and are they prepared for the deadly peril that might now be lurking offshore?
ATLANTIC RIM will take place at McGill University in Montréal on Sunday, 16 February 2020. Further information and tickets can be obtained via Eventbrite (and they’re cheaper if you register before January 1!)
The 5th annual McGill megagame will be held at McGill University, Montréal on Sunday, 16 February 2020.
The 2020 McGill megagame will be ATLANTIC RIM.
A mysterious meteor shower has struck the Atlantic coast of North America. Many coastal communities, including parts of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, have been devastated by the resulting tsunami.
Police, fire departments, medical services, municipal workers, Canadian Armed Forces personnel, and the Coast Guard are mobilizing to address the emergency. Roads are damaged. The electrical grid has been shattered. Hospitals are overwhelmed. Survivors are fleeing to safety.
Can local, provincial, and federal officials coordinate an effective response?
Will Atlantic Canada rise to the challenge? And are they prepared for what might now be lurking in the Grand Banks?
Registration information will be posted to PAXsims in November/December.
Classes are now over for the Winter 2019 term at McGill University, and it is exam-and-grading season. I have also now had a chance to review the various projects produced in my conflict simulation course (POLI 422). There are many very interesting and well-executed game designs.
The course was supported this year by Dr. Ben Taylor from Defence Research and Development Canada. The students and I were very grateful for his assistance.
ADVANCED OPERATIONS
Advanced Operations is a two map blind/closed game of tactical urban operations at the platoon level. The map depicts an urban neighbourhood, including vantage points, doorways, fields of fire, street clutter, and multi-story buildings. The basic combat system is straight-forward, intuitive, and quite effective. The Blue player can equip themselves before a mission with a range of new technologies and capabilities in order to assess their impact on urban tactics, ranging from small drones to power-assisted armour to robots (all based on weapons in development of field-testing).
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
CARTEL
Cartel is a multi-player game examining the drug trade in Mexico, focusing on the era of large criminal syndicates. Players generate money through smuggling drugs from Central/South America into the United States and from other illegal activities. To move drugs through the country, however, they need to establish control and influence over a chain of key cities, and once the drugs have been delivered need to launder their illicit proceeds. The winner is the drug lord who amasses the most luxury items. However, be careful: as your notoriety grows, you become more of a target (and might even be arrested and extradited to the United States).
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
FALLEN REPUBLIC
Fallen Republic is a semi-cooperative game in which South Korea, the United States and China struggle to stabilize North Korea after the collapse of the communist regime there. To do so they need to provide security, deliver food and medical supplies to needy populations, build local public administration, restart the economy, and win local popular support. Asymmetrical and semi-secret victory conditions can make it difficult to cooperate, while a fourth player—Chaos, representing all the fog, friction, and wicked problems of stabilization operations —wins by preventing the others from achieving their objectives.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION
Intelligence Collection explores the ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, Reconnaissance) and HUMINT requirements of counterinsurgency campaigns. It is a three map closed game, meaning that players only know the location of their own assets and enemy assets they have detected. Various Red actions, such as training insurgents, bomb-making, and smuggling—all have detection probabilities attached, which in turn are affected by patrolling, HUMINT collection, and other Blue actions. Interrogation of captured insurgents may also reveal information, such as who recruited them or where they were trained.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
LITTLE GREEN MEN
Little Green Men examines the war in Ukraine, and Russian hybrid warfare. The game combines both map-based area movement/combat with card-based policy initiatives. Russia needs to be careful that it’ support for opposition forces doesn’t become too obvious, or it risks stepped-up NATO assistance to the Kiev government.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
MELTDOWN
As the Arctic ice slowly melts, Canada, the US, Russia, the Scandinavian countries, and China are faced with new challenges and threats. Should new oil, mining, and fisheries resources be exploited? How should this be balanced against environmental management? What are the implications of transpolar shipping? Meltdown is both competitive and semi-cooperative—at the end of the game, the more heavily the Arctic is being exploited, the larger the chance of ecological collapse. The game allows for players to collectively change the game rules during play, through the mechanism of the Arctic Council. The map mechanic is cool too—as the ice melts you remove blocs of it from the game board, revealing the now-accessible resources beneath.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
MISSION RECONSTRUCTION
Mosul has been liberated by ISIS control, and the Baghdad government must reconstruct the areas of northern and western Iraq ravaged by the extremist group. However, ISIS seeks to disrupt such efforts, mobilize new recruits, rebuild its forces, and undermine local security. In MISSION RECONSTRUCTION the two sides each select their actions from a menu of options each turn. Event cards may also produce other crises that must be resolved if the stability of the country and the legitimacy of the government is to be enhanced.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
This is the first time I’ve taught the course as a lecture course, with 31 students—last year it was run as a seminar with only nine, which gave me more opportunity to work with a smaller number of game projects. It is also ambitious to fit it all into one term—Phil Sabin’s former wargaming module at King’s College London was a full year graduate course. Nevertheless, I think things generally worked well.
This year the teams were groups of five. Next year I think I’ll reduce that to four. While larger teams means more human resources to work on game design and playtesting, it also aggravates coordination and communication problems. I’ll also introduce a system whereby student evaluate the relative contribution of other team members. I have never been fond of these since they can be abused, but I think it will be worthwhile on balance. While most groups worked well, there were a few that generated complaints that a member wasn’t pulling their weight.
Despite constant nagging from me that the teams needed to move rapidly to prototyping and hence playtesting, I think all but one of the groups wished they had started on their project earlier than they did. Indeed, some did not do so until shortly before their interim “status report” was due. Next year I’ll require two such reports, with one of them even earlier in the term.
Finally, I’m pleased to announce that the 2019 Defence Research and Development Canada wargame design award (awarded by DRDC to the best project in the class) went to the team that produced ADVANCED OPERATIONS. Well done!
This event has now been postponed due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
PAXsims 