Wargames and AnalysisOver the years, I have tried to refine my definition of a wargame. With the help of colleagues in the community, I have come to my current definition: Show
The keywords in this definition are “people” and “decisions.” A wargame is an experiment in human interaction. Without human players, there may be a model, but there is no game. A true wargame is best used to investigate the decision processes of its players, what they believe that leads to those decisions, and how those processes interact; it is not well suited to the calculation of outcomes of physical events – such calculations, when they occur, are inputs to the game, not outputs. In addition, I like to define “wargaming” as:
Analysis in my context is essentially operations research (OR). As defined by two of its founding fathers in the United States, Phil Morse and George Kimball, OR is “a scientific method of providing [decision makers] with a quantitative basis for decisions” (Morse & Kimball, 1946). Here, the key words are “scientific” and “quantitative.” Because the field of analysis has grown so large and diverse (including under its aegis systems analysis, operations analysis, and even at times engineering and policy assessment), many other definitions have been proposed. In a textbook written for use at the U.S. Naval Academy, Daniel Wagner and his co-authors proposed this “more thorough modern definition”:
Two broadly distinguishable approaches came into existence to advise different kinds of decision makers who must address decisions that require them to think about an unknown – and sometimes unknowable – future. Those decision makers may be “operators,” in the process of carrying out real actions against real enemies (or preparing for that real possibility); or they may be government bureaucrats concerned more about how to allocate funds in the next budget – whether to buy systems and forces for future operations or to balance support for current operations with investments in future technology. Operations research typically relies on real data from actual operations to identify alternatives and recommend changes in tactics (and perhaps in technology) that should help to improve the performance of those operations. Systems analysis, on the other hand, was created during the McNamara era in the U.S. Department of Defense to serve as a lingua franca using precise terminology of costs and benefits (and later supplemented by mathematical models) to build a shared paradigm for mustering and evaluating evidence, and to facilitate the formation of a consensus on issues not subject to the harsh tests and dictates of real-world performance data. Wargaming is not analysis in the same sense as operations research (OR) and systems analysis (SA). Unlike OR and SA it is not so much about the reductionist disassembling of problems into their component and quantitative parts. Instead, it is about the holistic integration of problems and the human beings who have to confront and act to overcome them. Wargames are not, themselves, predictive, but they can be used to help wargamers predict – not to tell the future with certainty, or even measurable probability, but rather by showing us the range of possibilities. In a presentation given at the Connections Conference in Baltimore several years ago, Professor Robert “Barney” Rubel of the Naval War College described this idea in terms of wargaming as being “indicative” – of the potentials inherent in situations and of the hidden relationships that a game, especially a series of related games – can help us discern. Here is where most of the classic forms of modeling and simulation fall down. They cannot forecast outcomes that are not already embedded in the underlying mathematical constructs of the model or simulation. At best, such techniques pick apart and illuminate outcomes that are consequences of what we already know well enough to embed in the models. They do not, in fact, generate new knowledge, even though they can reveal the sometimes complicated, overlooked, and surprising consequences of old knowledge. Wargaming is a far better tool for going beyond old knowledge and exploring unforeseen consequences. This power of gaming to illuminate dark corners of future possibilities makes it especially important in light of the concept of the Black Swan. Popularized by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book of 2007 named for the phenomenon, a Black Swan is an event with three defining characteristics: It is unpredictable; it has massive impact on the course of events; after the fact, we can convince ourselves that we could have foreseen it if only we had been more astute. Black Swans became connected to the infamous concept of “unknown unknowns” described by the former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (and, by the way, expressed first in my own work in 1990!). Wargames can be an effective tool for exploring Black Swans and other such off-axis paths toward the future because what is possible in a wargame when played most productively goes beyond what is possible in a closed model. In a wargame, one or more working human brains are engaged in conflict with others, and those brains generate a wealth of ideas that go beyond those created by modelers working in more static environments. Wargames frequently help us identify where and how we can make improvements to what we plan or do, and one of the most important of those improvements lies in learning how to adapt to change. We can see this highlighted in the use of wargaming by the United States Naval War College during the interwar period of the 1920s and 1930s. An important – if not perhaps the most important – outcome of that long series of games was that the students and future leaders of the wartime Navy learned adaptive techniques. In a famous letter to the President of the Naval War College after the war, Admiral Chester Nimitz stated: “The enemy of our games was always – Japan – and the courses were so thorough that after the start of WWII – nothing that happened in the Pacific was strange or unexpected.” (Nimitz, 1965). During an earlier address given to the NWC student body on 10 Oct 1960, Nimitz highlighted the central role the NWC wargames had played in that preparation (Nimitz, 1960):
What was really important about those NWC wargames was not that they gamed out all the various actions that the Japanese would ultimately take during the war. What was really important was the planning – particularly the logistics planning – which the students had been required to do as part of their course work to prepare for the games (Nimitz, 1965). In addition, those officers who would ultimately lead the U.S. Navy during that conflict had had to adapt to changes in how the Japanese systems modeled in the games worked, in the tactics the different players used, and in the relative effectiveness of weapons as represented by changing model inputs. But by changing assumptions from game to game and year to year, the students had been forced to learn how to discover crucial facts and adapt to them, not only to specific events, but also in general terms. Another of Professor Rubel’s examples from the interwar period was the development of the U.S. Navy’s carrier doctrine and capability. The wargames at Newport showed Admiral Reeves, War College president at the time, the importance of putting large numbers of aircraft over the enemy fleet in short periods of time. But the operational doctrine used by the Navy’s experimental carrier, USS Langley, limited her to operating only about a dozen aircraft at a time. Reeves passed the game’s insights to Admiral Moffet, chief of Naval Aviation, and Moffet arranged for Reeves to take command of Langley. Very quickly, Reeves and his team developed the combination of arresting gear and crash barrier, which allowed Langley to operate more than 50 aircraft at a time. Thus, one of the crucial steps toward developing the carrier techniques that helped win the war in the Pacific can trace its lineage to Naval War College gaming. By communicating the results of those games effectively to the key decision makers, the games and Reeves’s experiments helped Moffet shape the future. The history of wargaming is full of examples like those above. Wargames create the opportunity for analysts, operators, and decision makers to have synthetic experience of rare events so that they may become more open to considering them in their thinking, operating, and planning. But just as reality limits our view of possibilities by our limited real experiences, a single wargame can also produce a “cognitive lock” on the specific events of that game. Participants may become just as vulnerable to overestimating the likelihood of the occurrence of game (or game-like) events in the real world, because of the immediacy of the gaming experience. This danger argues for a broader and more formal application of wargaming to decision making, one that operates in full partnership with modeling and simulation as part of the analyst’s and educator’s toolkit. It is only by incorporating wargaming as an equal partner with operations research and systems analysis, exercise experience, and historical study that we can exploit to the fullest the capabilities of all of those resources in our quest to learn, adapt, and avoid the pitfalls of a complex and uncertain future. Real wargaming is about neither the unverifiable quantification of computer models of future warfare nor the insubstantial pontification of subject-matter experts prognosticating about an unpredictable future. Real wargaming is about the conflict of human wills confronting each other in a dynamic decision-making environment. There is a place for technology in supporting that clash of wills, but electrons are not always the most useful technology to apply. We wargamers have understood this from the earliest days of chess and Go, of the von Reisswitz Kriegsspiel, and the Naval War College’s interwar gaming program. The instrumentality is not the game. The game takes place in the minds of the players. Human players, intensely seeking ways to out-think and outplay the guys across the table or in the other room. It is that human dynamic – and the competition, conversation, and contemplation it creates – which is our most powerful and promising source of education, inspiration and innovation. These sorts of games – what I call learning games – are all about change. Changing knowledge, changing thinking, changing intuition. Changing players, designers, analysts, and sponsors. Learning Games Change PeopleThe essence of games is found in their basic nature. They are about people making decisions in the context of competition or conflict, usually with other people. All the while plagued by uncertainty and complexity. Just like real life. Like real life, wargames can help us learn important things about uncertainty.
Over the years after I first proposed these four “whats,” my thinking led me back to an even older point, one that I have heard attributed to Abraham Lincoln in the dark days of the Civil War. “It ain’t what you don’t know that will get you; it’s what you know that ain’t so.” Wargames, as life, will highlight these delusions when your opponent takes advantage of your mistaken beliefs. As Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling famously quipped, there is one thing that you cannot do, no matter how educated and smart you are, and that’s to make a list of every idea that never occurred to you. Or even one such idea. As a simple – and in some ways silly – personal example, I have been a player of tactical wargames virtually all my adult life. I never felt that I was a very good player; when playing a live opponent, I frequently found myself at a loss for what to do. Then during a CNA project several years ago, I was leading a team to help a USMC colonel adapt wargaming to teaching young Marine Corps intelligence officers to experience that what they had learned of the process for intelligence preparation of the battle space (IPB) could be useful to a tactical commander. The learning experts on my team adapted the real-life process to the situation embodied in a tactical computer game. When I saw this, I suddenly realized that my failure as a tactical gamer stemmed from my laziness in doing that sort of IPB for the games I played. I had never considered that this intelligence process would actually help me play better. One of my favorite professional books is The Logic of Failure, written by the German psychologist Dietrich Dörner (1997). I could build an entire presentation about this wonderful, insightful book alone. But let me focus on only a couple of his main points. At heart, Dörner argues convincingly that human reason, largely adapted to the relatively simple – if dangerous – world of our earliest ancestors, needs help dealing with the enormous complexity and uncertainties of our 21st century environment. Humans don’t handle such complex and uncertain situations well, especially when under time pressures and when things are changing dynamically. Games create opportunities for learners to think and reflect about such situations – with guidance from other players, observers, and analysts. In Dörner’s view, games help teach learners how to adapt “common sense” to complex situations. How to see shapes in time, to react appropriately in dynamic environments. The more opportunity you have to learn just how you normally think in such an environment, and how you need to evolve the ways you think to deal with it, the better and faster your decision making can become. Wargames and Professional Military EducationMilitary environments, especially combat environments, qualify in all of Dörner’s criteria for stressing human decision-making to the utmost. Complex, uncertain, constantly changing. For these reasons, wargaming is critical to helping military professionals learn their profession, and has been doing so for centuries. Indeed, we are only three years away from the 200th anniversary of one of the seminal moments in professional wargaming, the von Reisswitz Kriegsspiel of 1824. The idea of using wargames as part of professional military education may have begun with chess, which seems to have originated in India in the 6th century. Even earlier was the Chinese game of Go, which was probably played as part of strategic education by nobles and generals as far back as 4000 years ago. Today’s modern wargaming applications in professional military education, or PME, may best be described as originating with the Prussian Army’s use of the von Reisswitz Kriegsspiel starting in 1824. For a translation of von Reisswitz’s original rules, see Leeson (1983). The Reisswitz KriegsspielI like to describe the trigger event in terms derived from a report by one of the very participants in the event, a man responsible in many ways for a rebirth of interest in the Kriegsspiel in the 1980s. Imagine the scene. The Chief of Staff on the Prussian Army, Generalfeldmarschall Friedrich Karl Ferdinand Freiherr von Müffling, was “invited” by the King to “take the briefing” by a young artillery lieutenant, Georg Heinrich Rudolf Johann von Reisswitz, son of a prominent war Councilor. More importantly, for our story, he was friendly with the crown princes Wilhelm and Frederick Wilhelm, both of whom would later become king. Royal patronage being what it was, the General – probably reluctantly – arrived in the briefing room and was perhaps surprised to see tables laid with topographical maps – a relatively new technology – and with several metal blocks, dividers, and other paraphernalia. As described by General Dannhuer, Reisswitz’s friend and accomplice in the briefing, the scene unfolded as follows.
The General was true to his word (Müffling, 1824). It is worth quoting here from the circular Müffling sent to army following his introduction to Reisssitz’s Kriegsspiel:
Here indeed are the key perceptions that still today underlie the necessary characteristics of wargames for professional military education:
These perceptions and characteristics came to be recognized and implemented repeatedly – with more or less success – over the ensuing decades and centuries. Particularly for me with my background in naval analyses, I was deeply impressed by the use of wargaming by the United States Naval War College (USNWC) between WWI and WWII, as described earlier. But it is even more helpful to return to the origins of the NWC’s use of gaming, as initiated and practiced by William McCarty Little, Captain, USN.
McCarty Little and the U.S. Naval War CollegeThe Naval War College began to use wargaming as part of its teaching curriculum in the early 1900s under the inspiration and direction of Lieutenant, later Captain, William McCarty Little, USN. I have already written and spoken much about McCarty Little; here I would like to elaborate on his work and its relevance for PME – and allow him to speak largely for himself. McCarty Little’s perception of the similarities and differences of war and games deeply influenced his work at Newport. A critical element in the play of the War College games – and one that distinguished them from other contemporary map maneuvers and tactical rides as used by the United States Army and others – was what Little himself described as “the existence of the enemy, a live, vigorous enemy in the next room waiting feverishly to take advantage of any of our mistakes, ever ready to puncture any visionary scheme, to haul us down to earth.” (McCarty Little, 1912). Little recognized that this opportunity to pit one intellect and will against another was an essential element in the education of a naval officer. Indeed, some of the War College’s staff came to see the wargames as even more valuable than fleet maneuvers (Spector, 1977). McCarty Little worked hard helping the Naval War College manage the period of transition in naval affairs during the early 1900s. He was instrumental in persuading the navy to adopt the “military planning process,” then known as the “applicatory system.” This system
McCarty Little argued that “it is the war game [sic] that had led to the adoption of the system,” and that it was “the game [that] sought the method and not the method that sought the game.” (McCarty Little, 1912). McCarty Little saw the indispensable value for officers in developing what he called mental muscle memory. He argued that the object of wargaming “is to afford a practice field for the acquirement of skill and experience in the conduct or direction of war, and an experimental and trial ground for the testing of strategic and tactical plans.” In his important 1912 article he wrote the key tenets of his ideas:
Finally, he articulated his key argument about mental muscle memory:
Francis McHugh, one of McCarty Little’s true descendants in his dedication to both gaming and the Naval War College, summarizes McCarty Littles role in Newport gaming:
Except for one short period, McCarty Little remained at the College until his death in 1915. Throughout his War College career, he concentrated on wargaming. “His knowledge, experience, and enthusiasm made possible the orderly development of gaming at the college; his continuous service and prestige insured such development. He seems to have been the world’s first professional war gamer” (McHugh, 1964). McCarty Little’s philosophy of focused, repeated wargaming remained the heart of the Naval War College’s program of professional education after WWI. Indeed – as described earlier here, and as it has become more widely known in the past 20 years – wargaming framed and drove the U.S. Navy’s officer education in Newport during those crucial interwar years. The War College emphasized the teaching of decision-making, not of which decisions should be made. The goal of their education was to provide officers an adaptable process they could employ in a range of circumstances and, just as importantly, to teach them confidence in their own decision-making abilities. As described in John Lillard’s 2016 analysis of the interwar War College games, Playing War, those officers who taught, played the games, and learned during those years transformed the U.S. Navy’s tactics, strategy, and technology. During the 1920s and 1930s they succeeded in using the War College experience as “research laboratory for every detail of naval warfare.” Most importantly, they infected the entire fleet with these new ideas through a process Lillard describes as “cyclic osmosis.” Important and promising officers such as Chester Nimitz and Raymond Spruance took their war college experience with them when they returned to the fleet. Once there, they saw the way the fleet really worked and how the ideas they had developed in Newport worked or could be applied in the real world. Many such officers then cycled back to the war college to become instructors in their turn, bringing with them the latest developments from the fleet and learning new ideas – as well as teaching them. And so the cycle continued, with the most important ideas permeating the key elements of the fleet that would go to war in 1941. A Way Ahead?So. What can we learn from all the history of wargaming, of which I have barely scratched the surface here? As regards professional military education, I would suggest that the framework espoused by William McCarty Little – and especially as practiced at the NWC during the 1920s and 30s – should become the model. Not only for wargaming itself, but also for the use of wargaming to structure the framework for PME. To integrate the inspiration, instruction, and application of the key knowledge and habits of mind – the mental muscle memory – required to operate effectively in the real world and to demonstrate those characteristics in the game, whatever form that may take. Allow me to tell another personal story. Back at one of the early Connections-UK Conferences, I had a brief conversation with the well-known British wargamer Charles Vasey. He commented that “you wargamers” – apparently meaning us professional wargamers – needed some pithy statements to capture the attention of military and political leaders. He then asked me an odd question: had I ever seen The Muppet Movie? He described a scene in which Kermit the Frog, marionette star of the movie, was standing nervously in a bar full of rough characters. One of these characters approached Kermit and introduced himself. “My name is Spike. I eat frogs.” Talk about a pithy statement guaranteed to get the attention of his listener! So Charles continued with some suggested statements for wargamers. I was so impressed I wrote them down on the back of my business card. And promptly lost it! When I asked Charles what he had said, we couldn’t recall the exact words. But over the intervening years, I believe I have recaptured the main points.
In these ways, wargames create synthetic experience – especially of Dörner’s process of identifying shapes in time – and hence McCarty Little’s (1912) mental muscle memory. By giving military and political decision makers a range of such experiences, as Matt Caffrey is wont to say, wargames save lives. If we in NATO and the West are to identify the Black Swans lurking in the ever more dangerous and uncertain future – in time to avoid them or even profit from them – we need to sharpen, deepen, and expand our use of wargames in conjunction with OR, SA, exercises, history and real-world experience to educate and enlighten our current and future leaders. I would like to end this introduction with the words I used in my kickoff talk for the King’s College London Wargaming Network nearly three years ago. We of the current generation of wargamers need to pass on the torch to the next generation of wargamers. We old guys are nearing the end of our combat effectiveness. Before we retire from the field, we need to encourage more younger students to study wargaming, as Professor Phil Sabin had done at King’s before he retired a couple of years ago. The Wargaming community and the security establishment it serves need to create more programs that incorporate wargaming in PME as well as programs designed specifically for professional education about wargaming, for both the military and civilian members of the community. And finally, senior leaders need to lead. Specifically, they can embrace my concluding three Ps:
We need leaders to play in more games, to experience for themselves the insights they themselves teach and learn during the games; to take those insights to heart as they exercise their own mental muscles to detect and respond to the evolving shapes in time of our future security challenges. And, finally, we need to keep the intellectual and experiential channels open for further exploration of what wargames can and should do in times of great uncertainty and rapid change. This special issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies responds to the latter imperative by dedicating a number of essays to the issue of wargaming, both in Norway and beyond. To quote Charles Vasey one last time, it is my hope that the reader will find them both entertaining, engaging, and enlightening. Which of the following is considered to be the birth of distributed simulation?Distributed simulation first appeared in the 1960s with the development of a two-player interactive computer game. In the 1980s, the DARPA SIMNET program created the first virtual world for military training by networking combat simulators.
What is chiefly responsible for displaying colors and sizes?The occipital lobe is one of the four major lobes in the mammalian brain. The occipital lobe is mainly responsible for interpreting the visual world around the body, such as the shape, color, and location of an object.
What type of simulation places users in the central role by implementing?Clinical virtual simulation is the recreation of reality depicted on a computer screen, and it involves real people operating simulated systems. It is a type of simulation that places people in a central role through the exercising of their decision-making, motor control, and communication skills [11].
What is the role of the Army Capabilities Integration Center Arcic quizlet?What is the role of the Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC)? It develops and executes the Army's Concept, Development, and Experimentation (CDE) plan (ACDEP).
|