PAXsims

Conflict simulation, peacebuilding, and development

Simulation and gaming miscellany, 27 May 2024

Comments Off on Simulation and gaming miscellany, 27 May 2024 Posted by on 27/05/2024

PAXsims is pleased to present some recent items on conflict simulation and serious (and not-so-serious) gaming that may be of interest to our readers. Aaron Danis suggested some of the material included in this latest edition.

The French Ministry of the Armed Forces has released a slick video extolling the virtues of wargaming.

We at PAXsims were pleased to see both We Are Coming, Nineveh! and the Matrix Game Construction Kit make an appearance—mashed up together, no less!

The Leibniz ScienceCampus Annual Conference 2024 in cooperation with Working Group on Military Forces and Violence of the Bundeswehr Centre for Military History and Social Sciences will be hosting a conference on “Playing War: Simulations, Games, Exercises, and the Representations of Military Force and Violence” at the University of Regensburg on 27-29 November 2024.

(Military) Operations: What understanding of warfighting etc. form play- and rulebooks? How does the state perform its “enemy”? What impact does playing war have on ‘real’ conflicts and operations?

Practice: How are war games played? What continuities and changes can be observed in the practices of playing war games? How do war games represent force and violence, and what practices of representation are evident in their portrayal?

Environment: Under what conditions is war played? What are the infrastructures? What could be said about the material culture of playing war?

Design: How are conflict, war, and combat modeled? What informs these processes? What about “playing peace”?

Knowledge: How and what kind of knowledge shapes play? How and what kind of games produce knowledge?

Technology: How does technology enable specific forms of wargaming? What is the significance of (perhaps future) military technology?

While the call for paper proposals is now closed, you can find additional details on the conference here.

At the US Naval Institute, Ryan Martinson discusses Chinese PLA “blue-teaming” and its implications for the development of Chinese strategy and doctrine.

The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has embraced wargaming with an almost religious zeal. PLAN leaders vigorously promote the use of wargaming methods throughout the service. They have studied wargaming’s many potential advantages, from helping the PLAN overcome its lack of recent combat experience to shedding light on how to employ its new weapons and platforms to maximum effect—and they want more.1

Despite its enthusiasm for conflict simulation, the PLAN is also keenly aware of wargaming’s limitations. Service leaders know that, to be effective, games must accurately represent the behavior of the putative adversary—“Blue” in PLA parlance. Since foreign militaries conceal their capabilities, plans, and doctrines, simulating Blue is no easy task. The PLAN confronted this challenge by building a corps of experts dedicated to studying China’s potential enemies to play them in wargames with as much fidelity as possible. This organization, the “Blue Team Center” (蓝军中心), is located at the Naval Command College in Nanjing, Jiangsu.2 

The Blue Team Center is small and little known but has an outsized impact on how the PLAN thinks about future conflict. The insights it generates guide the judgments PLAN commanders make, with decisions about peacetime plans, training, doctrine, research, and procurement. And the PLAN expects that, in wartime, these insights will ultimately translate into success on the battlefield. 

Understanding this mysterious organization is essential to the U.S. Navy’s efforts to deter or defeat Beijing’s aggression in the western Pacific. 

Wargaming collaboration between U.S. and Brazilian Army Command and General Staff Colleges is examined by Richard McConnell (US Army, Retired) and Cleber Simões, Roney Magno de Sousa, Thiago Caron da Silva (Brazilian Army) in an article at Military Review.

This article is the culmination of this U.S. and Brazilian partnership. It captures descriptions of military-planning thinking patterns that effectively employ wargaming, visualization, and exceptional information identification. Researchers explored a scientific method-like approach to military planning, drawing parallels between the two. The wargaming laboratory can aid military planners to scientifically examine the viability of their plans before real-world testing. Recommendations will be proposed for potential wargaming options to improve planning and the scientific-like thinking that supports it.

A brief literature review at the end of this article includes a discussion of the history of the scientific method and its connection to military planning. These sources specifically discuss the scientific thinking at the foundation of military planning. The U.S. military has a history of wargaming that is uneven, which is cited in the wargaming study. At times, wargaming during the military decision-making process is either skipped or given short shrift. Therefore, improvement of wargaming is a focus in many of the combat training center reports on lessons learned. The Brazilian army has a similar history with wargaming, and its leaders are interested in improving wargaming for their army. This collaboration is an attempt to address the need for improved wargaming for the U.S. and Brazilian armies through improved educational approaches.

A recent article by Lewis Griffin and Nicholas Riggs describes a matrix game in which one of the players was—unbeknownst to the others—an AI.

Matrix Games are a type of unconstrained wargame used by planners to explore scenarios. Players propose actions, and give arguments and counterarguments for their success. An umpire, assisted by dice rolls modified according to the offered arguments, adjudicates the outcome of each action. A recent online play of the Matrix Game QuAI Sera Sera had six players, representing social, national and economic powers, and one player representing ADA, a recently escaped AGI [Artificial General Intelligence]. Unknown to the six human players, ADA was played by OpenAI’s GPT-4 with a human operator serving as bidirectional interface between it and the game. GPT-4 demonstrated confident and competent game play; initiating and responding to private communications with other players and choosing interesting actions well supported by argument. We reproduce the transcript of the interaction with GPT-4 as it is briefed, plays, and debriefed.

PAXsims tried its own (much less rigorous) experiment like this a few months ago—you can read about that attempt here.

Back in January, RAND published a the fourth volume of their Understanding the Limits of Artificial Intelligence for Warfighters report, with a focus of wargames. We missed it at the time, so here it is now if you haven’t seen it.

In the 2010s, rapid progress in artificial intelligence (AI) for game-playing inspired intense interest in the possible benefits of the technology for playing wargames. Advocates suggested that AI might make wargames more effective or make it possible to apply wargames to novel problems. This report presents an assessment of the limits to applying AI technologies to wargaming and opportunities for future investments to productively employ AI in wargames.

To do this, a taxonomy of wargames by type or purpose (systems exploration, innovation, alternative conditions, and evaluation) and by time-phased task (preparing, playing, adjudicating, and interpreting) was specified. These frameworks are used to assess the technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness of applying AI to various aspects of a given type of wargame under particular conditions.

This report is the fourth in a five-volume series addressing how AI could be employed to assist warfighters in four distinct areas: cybersecurity, predictive maintenance, wargames, and mission planning. It is aimed at those with an interest in wargaming, the history of AI use in wargames, and the application of AI more generally.

Some recent wargaming podcasts:

Wargaming has surged in popularity in recent years, drawing substantial financial backing from militaries, governments and the private sector alike. But what are wargames and how are they being used within the defence industry to navigate present and future conflicts?

In this episode, Dr David Banks, Lecturer in Wargaming and co-director of King’s Wargaming Network at King’s College London, guides us through the complex world of wargaming and its different applications. He talks us through some of the wargames he has created and how the method is likely to evolve with emerging technologies.

Andrew Reddie is an Associate Research Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and the founder and faculty director of the Berkeley Risk and Security Lab. Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien spoke with Andrew about wargaming as a tool to manage risk from war to climate—and beyond.

The Harvard Humanitarian Initiative held their most recent annual Humanitarian Response Simulation last month.

This year’s participants included 110 students from more than 26 countries who were enrolled in HHI’s Humanitarian Response Intensive Course or Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s International Humanitarian Response II course (GHP 518).

Students were divided into 18 teams representing nongovernmental organizations. They put what they’d learned in the classroom into practice as they worked together throughout the weekend to respond to a simulated complex disaster and conflict scenario. More than 160 volunteers role-played refugees, government officials, and others who responders would likely encounter in the field.

The Middlebury Institute of International Studies reports on its recent International Strategic Crisis Negotiation Exercise.

U.S. Army War College recently provided them a great opportunity to apply diplomacy best practices to a hypothetical international crisis through a weekend-long simulation held on campus.

“As a student of international trade, our usual negotiations never reach outside the scope of commerce,” said Felix Naim MAIT ’25, one of two students who conducted their negotiation sessions in Chinese. “This simulation was beneficial for me in that it exposed me to just how escalated an international conflict can become, especially when tied to land and resources.”

The 29 participants included students and faculty from the Middlebury Institute, the Defense Language Institute (DLI), the Naval War College (NWC) at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), and San Jose State University (SJSU). …

This year’s ISCNE scenario focused on the current challenges in the South China Sea, where multiple nations, including China and the U.S., are competing for influence. Participants were organized into country teams that represented nations with a stake in the issues at hand.  …

Each delegation met to strategize based on the scenario parameters, and the representatives of the delegations negotiated with their counterparts from other nations toward a mutually agreeable resolution. Multiple strategy and negotiation sessions played out over the three-day exercise, with initial briefings supplemented by new information—and twists—as the exercise progressed. The exercise provided students with opportunities for public speaking, working in a team, understanding group dynamics, and leadership skills. Students provided consecutive interpretation in Chinese for the negotiations and simultaneous interpretation in French and Chinese for the opening and closing sessions.

Near Peer Simulations offers a free, online wargaming course. Look for details at their website, or watch the course videos on YouTube.

The Long Game Project offers a free Foundational Tabletop Exercising Certification online course, by David Epstein. You can find it here.

If you missed Connections Online 2024 wargaming conference, all of the recordings can be found at the Armchair Dragoons YouTube channel.

simulation and gaming miscellany

Assises Françaises d’Etude du Wargaming — a report

Comments Off on Assises Françaises d’Etude du Wargaming — a report Posted by on 26/05/2024

The following report was written for PAXsims by Thibault Fouillet and Malo Cornuaille.

Wargames continue to grow in popularity, and after disappearing from the strategic debate in France for over forty years, they are now part of the buzzwords. However, their professional practice remains scattered throughout France, and publications on the subject are rare, especially when compared to the mass of Anglo-Saxon productions. The Assises Françaises d’Etude du Wargaming was the first step in addressing these issues.  

« What are we talking about? »   

Interest of conducting a Wargaming Conference 

When we look at the research events dedicated to wargaming across the Atlantic, we are struck by both their number and their regularity. Making wargames thus amounts not only to creating games but also to thinking about their use in the service of professional objectives (training, prospective studies, planning assistance, concept tests, etc.), and therefore implies research dedicated to their development and to the understanding of this methodological object. 

The Assises Françaises d’Etude du Wargaming was built for a similar purpose. The aim is to be able to treat wargaming in France as a discipline, i.e. an object of research with its concepts, methods, debates, and theoretical frameworks, but also its practices and their analysis. A point of view unanimously recognized but which did not have a framework of expression in France, and above all a point of convergence between the various professionals (theorists and practitioners), civilian and military. 

The ambition of this event was to offer a meeting point for the major actors in France in the field of wargaming, but also and above all to be able to deal in depth with this object, which explains the format of the Assises and not only of a thematic conference. 

A major event with an international dimension 

To do this, it was necessary to be able to bring together the main players in professional wargaming in France, but also to be able to conduct reference debates on all the structuring themes. The event, built over two days, wanted to meet these objectives through an ambitious program presenting six thematic round tables and two keynotes concluding each day. Wargaming is also a practical methodology, and these days of theoretical debates were followed by dynamic demonstrations presenting civilian and military wargame creations. 

The debates, although focused on the French vision of wargaming, included foreign speakers, above all European, but also American, to develop a community of interest between their practices and ours. 

Report on the exchanges: methodological debates and study of employment within the French armed forces.

The introductory remarks and the introduction of the round tables provided an initial definition of wargaming and wargaming, and the inclusion of the latter in the framework of academic research and the field of strategic studies. If war is not a game, understanding it through the game and in particular its methodological use is an undeniable asset for understanding its determinants, adapting training processes or enriching the practical methodologies of prospective studies. 

Day One: Wargaming as a Methodology

In addition to the introductory remarks, the round tables of the first day focused on the object and study of its transdisciplinary theoretical framework. 

The first reflections focused on the history and methodology of wargaming, insisting on the difference between the medium (the wargame) and its methodological use (wargaming), the latter being in essence what makes wargames a professional job and not a simple hobby. The interests and limits were also mentioned, recalling the formidable tool of training and understanding that wargaming is, while insisting on design biases and the danger of making it a prophetic tool when on the contrary it only aims to question. Finally, these theoretical dimensions have been applied to the case study of the military nuclear fact and the evolution of the contribution of wargaming in this regard during the Cold War and now in the “third nuclear age”.  

A second-round table dealt with strategic culture from the perspective of wargaming. The aim was to detect the influence of an actor’s strategic culture on the use of wargaming and its institutional position, through two presentations, that of Lieutenant-Colonel Augustin Lefort, trainee at the Ecole de Guerre and president of the newly established wargame committee, and Mark Joergensen, wargamer at the Royal Danish Defence College. Subsequently, an analysis was presented, this time on the question of the existence of strategic cultures within wargaming itself, with the study of its global diffusion and decentrated cases, such as its use in China. 

Subsequently, a third-round table raised the transdisciplinary nature of wargaming, through its use in management sciences or through the prism of political science. It was also an opportunity to discuss the relationship between wargaming and artificial intelligence, on the contributions of the latter in the creation, conduct, but especially the analysis of wargames. 

To conclude, the day ended with a Keynote by Captain Louis M. McGray, Vice President of the Wargaming Chair at the US Naval War College, on the use of wargaming in strategic thinking and officer training in the US Navy. A presentation that allows us to compare French and American practices on the subject. 

Day Two: typologies of wargaming and case study in the French armed forces 

For its part, the second day of this first edition of the Assises Françaises d’Etude du Wargaming focused on the practical dimensions of making and using professional wargames. 

The first-round table presented alternative approaches to wargaming, such as their non-military use in the management of uncertainty and national crises, as well as a focus on the importance of storytelling and other means of realizing scenarios (scenario method, brainstorming). The challenge is to demonstrate the plurality of the use of wargaming but also its complementarity with the other tools of prospective and practical studies. 

The second-round table returned to the historical heart of the use of professional wargames by opening the first part of the thematic case study of this edition of the conference: military wargaming. It was then a question of taking an interest in their use in the context of the production of doctrines and strategic thinking. Interventions by the three armies (land, air, sea) presented the place and role of wargames in these institutions in France. The final intervention of this round table, on the constitution of multi-domain wargames, demonstrated the complexity of this type of modeling and to identify the reality of multi-domain operations in the construction and analysis of wargames. 

Concluding this cycle of round tables, the last presented the second part of military wargaming through its use in technical-industrial studies and developments. Through reflections on innovation cycles, Colonel Sébastien de Peyret presented the challenges of wargames and their use in the context of wargames. This presentation was complemented by feedback from Naval Group’s Naval Innovation Hub on their use of wargames in technological foresight and their industrial constraints. 

At the end of this second day, and more generally of this edition of the conference, a keynote presented the French vision of wargaming as a way forward with many challenges, capable of meeting them, in particular because of a community of professionals in the process of being formed. 

Lessons learned and posterity of this first edition. 

A successful founding act.  

This first edition of the conference is undeniably a success. With more than eighty attendees, the objectives of bringing together the various French professional actors on the subject, and of holding a reference event on the study of this methodological object, have been fulfilled. 

Thus, the hoped-for convergence of wargaming actors in France and their participation in transdisciplinary studies on the theoretical frameworks, methods and practices of this object have indeed taken place. The hoped-for founding act has been achieved, and it is now a question of ensuring its sustainability. 

After the Assises: a sustainability process has begun.  

In this respect, two ways of continuation have already been instituted. 

The first, which aims to ensure the institutional sustainability of these meetings, and like the disciplines mentioned above (sociology and political science), is embodied in the creation – currently underway – of the French Association for the Study of Wargaming, led by the founders of the conferences and whose operation and content will be ensured by an extended scientific committee, made up of the major actors in wargaming in France. Designed in a multidisciplinary composition, linking civilians as well as military, academics, private and public actors, this association, and its scientific committee will be intended to prepare the next editions of the conference but also to bring the French wargaming community to life thanks to the point of convergence thus created. 

The second way of sustainability is the creation of a reference French publication on wargaming. Extending the presentations and debates of the conference, enriched with publications resulting from a call for papers, they will have to establish a frame of reference after each edition of the conference. The first step of this ambition will be concretized next September with the publication of a double issue of the journal Stratégique dedicated to this subject, offering more than twenty scientific articles on wargaming. 

In the end, a founding act was taken. The French wargaming community has converged to conduct a multidisciplinary study on its subject and produce a reference French reflection. The first step to undeniable success, it is now a question of consolidating it, through regular events but also structuring publications. Let’s bet that this challenge will be met. 

conferences

MORS Journal of Wargaming

Comments Off on MORS Journal of Wargaming Posted by on 24/05/2024

The Military Operations Research Society’s new Journal of Wargaming has published its first edition! You’ll find authors, articles, and abstracts below.

WARGAME DESIGN: ADDRESSING THE TRILEMMA 

Ruby E. Booth and Andrew W. Reddie 

Policymakers often want the very best data with which to make decisions, particularly when concerned with questions of national and international security. But what happens when data are not available, or when the data are cluttered with confounds often present in realworld conflicts? In those instances, analysts have come to rely on synthetic data-generating processes, turning to modeling and simulation tools and survey experiments among other methods. In contexts where empirical data are limited, wargames are quickly becoming an important method for both exploring and analyzing competition and cooperation in an increasingly complex international context. In this work, the authors examine the design decisions associated with using analytical wargaming methods. 

UTILIZING AI IN JAPANESE DEFENSE WARGAMING AND POLICY SIMULATION: A CASE FOR AN ALLIED APPROACH TO DEALING WITH COMMON ADVERSARIES 

Hiroyasu Akutsu 

Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have presented Japanese defense and security institutions responsible for manual wargaming and policy simulation with several interesting challenges and opportunities. A major benefit of AI is that it accelerates innovation in both commercial and defense industries. There are two downsides to this that must be handled to gain the benefits of AI. First are the physical, psychological, and resource stresses imposed on staff in the relevant institutions. The second challenge occurs when the speed of innovation outpaces the decision cycle time of the institutional leadership responsible for research and development investments, policy development, strategic planning, and coordinating with other government branches and allies and partners. The risk is that decisions to take advantage of AI innovations are made hurriedly and poorly or are made at the bureaucratically established schedule and fail 

to take best advantage of AI-based innovations. This article argues that Japan should first realize that both the common adversaries and security partners are trying to introduce AI and that Japan should proactively work particularly with the United States in taking advantage of the potential benefits of AI through wargaming. To do so, Japan has to properly embed wargaming within institutions and the cycle of research processes used by them. This is not easy but will improve institutional decision making and wargaming with other institutions nationally and with allies internationally, especially when Japan’s security environment has increasingly been deteriorating in the face of the rising military challenges including North Korea, China, and Russia. 

INDIVIDUALS VERSUS GROUP DECISION MAKING: SIMULATING THE REAL WORLD 

Julie George and Sarah Kreps 

Do group dynamics impact the aggregation of individual preferences and if so, in what ways? Drawing on decision theory, the authors advance hypotheses about the moderating effects of groups away from the extremes and the escalatory preferences of men versus women. To test the hypotheses, the authors develop a three-person crisis simulation game in which participants respond with degrees of escalation—no escalation, low escalation, or high escalation. Their crisis simulation included 180 participants in 60 different groups. The simulation leverages a hypothetical scenario concerning contested territory between two states. 

Overall, the authors find that both individuals and groups favor the moderate option of low escalation. However, they find that more than 13% of individuals’ preferences diverge from the group outcomes. They also find that female participants were less likely to choose aggressive strategies than their male counterparts. Furthermore, the authors observe that groups with a designated leader had more variance than those without, with greater likelihood of choosing both no escalation and high escalation than those without a designated leader. 

The authors also conduct a follow-up study with 36 participants in 12 groups with a vignette that includes more choice to investigate whether tendency toward the middle option was an artifact of their design. They find that participants still do not skew to the extremes but moderate to lower levels of escalation. 

Their analyses underscore the impact of majority rule, gender dynamics, and the moderating effect of group dynamics in the context of crisis behavior and decision making, and the aggregation of individual preferences in realworld crisis escalation scenarios. 

THE ROYAL NAVY’S FIRST WARGAMES, 1900– 1915 

Toby Ewin

This article summarizes what is known of the official wargames designed and played by Royal Navy officers before and during the First World War. It describes the origin and evolution of the Royal Navy’s wargame rules, changes reflecting both the advance of naval technology and the understanding of its use, and including the adoption of a free Kriegsspiel approach to gunnery in wartime games; the games’ prominent role in the Royal Naval War College’s pre-1914 courses (involving many officers who would see prominent war service); 

and instances of the games being played at a naval base, and in wartime in the Grand and Battlecruiser Fleets and in a cruiser squadron. It also indicates where more detailed information can be found. 

THE GETTYSBURG CAMPAIGN AND INSIGHTS INTO MULTI-BLIND GAMING 

D. Sean Barnett 

This paper presents a large, distributed, multi-blind game of the American Civil War Gettysburg campaign to demonstrate the utility of multi-blind (closed) wargames in capturing the effects of limited information on military operations. It also demonstrates how certain details of military operations, such as logistics and communications, can be implemented in an operational game and how they can sometimes have an outsized impact on game events. The paper describes the development of the game, to include the representation of important historical Civil War military capabilities, and it summarizes the play of the game in a Gettysburg campaign. The paper aims to show that limited information has significant impacts on commander (player) decision making and that capturing those effects is important to representing military operations within a wargame. It aims to show further that even in the 21st century, with modern sensor and communications technology, commanders’access to information can still be limited and thus multi-blind wargaming remains valuable for producing useful insights into modern combat dynamics. 

simulation and gaming journals ,

Wargaming Handbuch der Bundeswehr

Comments Off on Wargaming Handbuch der Bundeswehr Posted by on 22/05/2024

The Wargaming Handbuch der Bundeswehr (2004) is available as a free digital download.

The handbook was prepared by the Bundeswehr Doctrine Center in coordination with the Bundeswehr Command and Staff College, the Bundeswehr Planning Office (Wargaming Sub-Working Group), the Center for Leadership and Civic Education (Zentrum Innere Führung), and the Center for Intelligence and Security Studies at the Bundeswehr University Munich, and others.

simulation and gaming publications

Simulation & Gaming (June 2024)

Comments Off on Simulation & Gaming (June 2024) Posted by on 13/05/2024

Simulation & Gaming 55, 3 (June 2024)—a special issue on “Gamification for Sustainable Development”—is now available.

Editorial

  • Gamification for Sustainable Development 
    • Agnessa Spanellis, J. Tuomas Harviainen, Daniel Fernández Galeote, and Mattia Thibault

Special Issue Articles

  • Live and Let Die – Battle Stories of Gamified Sustainable Consumption App Creators 
    • Georgina Guillen and Juho Hamari
  • Gamification and Sustainable Water Use: The Case of the BLUTUBE Educational Program 
    • Roberto Di Paoloand Veronica Pizziol
  • Studying the Use of Virtual Reality Learning Environments to Engage School Children in Safe Cycling Education 
    • Jaakko Vuorio

Editorial

  • Making a Better Future Using Simulation and Gaming 
    • Marlies P. Schijven and Toshiko Kikkawa

Review

  • Integrating Biofeedback and Artificial Intelligence into eXtended Reality Training Scenarios: A Systematic Literature Review 
    • Karen L. Blackmore, Shamus P. Smith, Jacqueline D. Bailey, and Benjamin Krynski

Research Articles

  • Openness to Experience and Player Satisfaction in a Simulation Game 
    • Vinod Dumblekar, Suresh Paul Antony, and Upinder Dhar
  • Predictive Factors for Difficulty in Simulation Methodology in Teacher Education 
    • M. Laura Angelini, Roberta Diamanti, and Remedios Aguilar-Moya
  • High School Students’ Motivation to Learn Climate Change Science through Educational Computer Games 
    • Metin Besalti and Glenn Gordon Smith

Original Article

  • Gamified Intervention for Health Promotion of Families in Child Health Clinics — A Cluster Randomised Trial 
    • Laura Selänne, Miko Pasanen, Funda Aslan, and Anni Pakarinen

simulation and gaming journals

Fight Club International: The Readiness Micro-Game

Comments Off on Fight Club International: The Readiness Micro-Game Posted by on 09/05/2024

The following item was written for PAXsims by Maj Ed Farren (British Army), currently on exchange and working in Canadian Army HQ in Ottawa as a planner.

The cover art which tries to convey the multi-service approach to military operations.

What is the game about?

The game is about managing the military readiness of a fictional global power, Freedonia, over an extended period of time without losing political support, breaking the morale of the military or blowing the budget.

Who are the player(s) representing?

In the single player version the player is the head of the Joint Chiefs of the Freedonian Military. In the multiplayer version each player takes the role of a service chief (Army, Navy, Air Force). 

How do the players win?

A better question would be, “how do the players lose” because much like real life this is a game of not losing as opposed to winning. The game ends if any one of three values on the game track reaches the ‘0’ space. These are Political Support which is negatively by not meeting operational commitments; Budget Reserve which is negatively affected by overspending in the force preparation cycle; Military Morale which is negatively affected by extending units in theatres, fast tracking them into another training cycle. If the player(s) manage to keep these values above ‘0’ by the end of the tenth game turn then they have ‘won’. The scale of their ‘victory’ is the combined value of all three tracks at the end.

In a multiplayer game the incentives change. The team as a whole still loses together in the method already described. However, a single service can ‘win’ by coming out on top versus the other two. This is based on the amount of their force they have managed to modernise and how much is not in reserve or storage at the end of the game. This can create a fair amount of competition and interservice rivalry – just like in real life! 

What are the components

The game consists of a simple abstract playing area with 6 small boxes around a large central box representing Freedonia. There are a number of markers that sit on various tracks but otherwise there are 23 units (8 Army Brigades; 6 Air Force Wings; 6 Naval Squadrons; and 3 SOF Task Groups. Whilst in real life the size of these forces varies (a brigade is much larger than an Air Wing) they are all worth one ‘Op Value Point’ in the game. Having recently investigated the data for work reasons, the equipment cost of the Army is one tenth that of the Air Force which is one tenth that of the Navy so the counter sizes correlate. Some units are required for certain theatres (like having a Naval Squadron for counter piracy) but can’t be used in others (like Peacekeeping). The true value of military units comes when units of different services are combined in the same theatre or ‘chained’ as Joint or Multi Domain task forces. This creates greater Op Value than having multiple units of the same type as the forces are compliment each others strengths and mitigating each others’ weaknesses (or so goes the theory). Units are also able to be modernized with the latest technology which is a bit of a side quest within the main game. After a recent playtest it was decided to have a marker depicting the progress of the adversary Great Power

The theatres abstractly model countries where troops are deployed to. These are not strictly speaking enemy countries but places in the world where military effect is required. The game makes a binary distinction here between green and red bordered theatres. Green theatres are considered generally benign and tend to have lower Op Value requirements. Crucially two of the theatres start at level 0 meaning no troops are required. The Red theatres are unbenign and generally require a higher Op Value. The red theatres also do not reset their values like the green ones do, unless the player has overmatch (representing successful deterrence and the adversary de-escalating).

The game playing space which uses an abstraction rather than an accurate map. Being able to remove unnecessary ‘detail’ is a vital skill in game design.

What choices do the player(s) make?

The player(s) choose what units to prepare and deploy to operational theatres, what units to place in reserve or storage and whether to extend or fastrack units which causes negative morale. This all sounds very obvious, and I can hear people asking “where is the challenge?” A couple of turns in the player is likely to find they have too many tasks and need to start tasking risk on either their political support, their budget reserve or the morale of their troops. The turn structure is such that player(s) have already made their decision about what to force generate before the next turn’s operational requirements are known. This is a key point in the term ‘Readiness’ – having something ready to use that you do not have a pre-planned use for in case of an emergent threat or crisis. Much of the time having units ready will be a waste of resources. Alternatively the wrong type of unit could be ready, such as an Air Force Wing for Homeland Defence. Of course the easy answer is to have a balanced mix of all unit types but that will be very wasteful. One answer to this is to start putting units into reserve or storage which then frees up cash for force preparation. It does, however, mean that there are fewer units in the cycle to be used. If you wanted easy decisions then this isn’t’ the game for you! Finally there is a pressing need to modernise the force whilst achieving all of the above. At some point in the game the Great Power the player is trying to deter will start fielding modernised forces in increasing quantity and they must match or exceed this to maintain credible deterrence.

Additional rules add more dilemmas to the mix such as a ‘fate table’ to introduce random events (none of them good), alternative starting theatres (anyone for a never-ending Counter Insurgency Campaign); political prioritisation; and new ‘super systems’ that are powerful but eat up twice the budget. 

Why did you make the game?

My day job currently has a large focus on readiness: reporting it, measuring it, assuring it and so on. The word Readiness has a troubled meaning (just look at these articles on War on the Rocks). I liken it to the use of the word ‘inconceivable’ in the Prince’s Bride; people keep using the word but they mean very different things when they say it. This can also spread to the metrics, tools and processes which are used to measure readiness. There is a constant tension between objective measurements (numbers of people, working equipment, supplies etc) and the subjective (how soon can they react, how effective can they fight). Within the same headquarters there can be competing interpretations of readiness and forceful disagreements over “what the data means”. Check out this WOTR article by Brad Carson and Morgan Plummer for more examples.

How it can feel in a military headquarters when someone mentions ‘Readiness’

This is not a conventional ‘wargame’ where red and blue physically interact and take pieces off the board. It is more akin to a puzzle game with an automated adversary. Both the Blue political level and Red opposing side are abstracted within a single D6 roll once a turn to determine if a theatre changes its threat value. “But why has it changed?” some might cry, well this is a great point for a discussion on hypothetical what ifs or research into recent past events to see what has occurred that could be relevant to the game. For example the latest Israeli-Gaza conflict has emboldened Iran (represented by the Rogue Regional Power Theatre in the game). Sometimes it is better to model the effect rather than the cause and leave players to come up with the best narrative that fits the bill. 

Did you research or refer to any existing games to make this?

Part of the reason this game came about was because of the dearth of existing material on the subject. Most games are concerned with fighting from tactical to strategic level and not managed readiness in peacetime. The closest I example I have is called Logistic Command which has a Cold War themed competition to maintain military capability and the balance of power until the end of the game.

Who is the game for?

There wasn’t really an intended audience but this game is probably not that attractive to hardened grognards looking for some hex and counter action. It is purposefully simplifying what is a professionally complex problem worked on by thousands of military and government officials with multi billion dollar budgets every day. I would say this game is well suited to expose lay people to the concept of military readiness such as junior officers and politicians, academics and journalists who might confuse a military’s size with it’s ability to conduct activity. 

Perhaps the game’s enduring utility is exposing the hard choices and trade-offs between morale, money, and operational effectiveness (aka single service interests) that are being wrestled with daily in various offices in national capitals. An observation is that most Defence Policies have a clear prioritisation of tasks which translate into military strategy but when a crisis emerges that prioritisation is rarely referred to. Instead, there is a tendency to chase headlines and promote activity ass the outcome rather than activity to achieve an outcome. Try playing the game with a copy of your nation’s published defence policy and make your judgements with reference to how that document, and then look at the last 2 years of military related news and see if it tallies up.

How do you see this game being expanded?

I definitely think there is room to expand the game but that would probably involve a whole new build – the current version is good enough as an intro game Reskinning the game to a specific flavour is fairly easy – I have already done this for Sebastian Bae’s Indo-Pacific Microgame series. If I was asked to make a more detailed version these are the changes I would explore:

  • Expand the unit types within services such as types of Brigade for the Army, ISR/Strike/Transport aircraft for the Air Force; Carrier, Surface, Sub-surface for the Navy. This would further exacerbate any unique ‘one and done’ capabilities if an enduring commitment is required.
  • Make the game map an actual map of the world with spaces for various deployments. These areas could then draw threats from a deck of cards which provide more background context and more specific force requirements and have specific penalties for failure. 
  • Have ‘country profiles’ with different service sizes and unit mixes (see above). For example the United Kingdom is going to have a different profile to Germany or Poland. This can help explore the context of a ‘land power’ vs a ‘sea power’.
  • Make the game oppositional by creating a Red ‘mirror image’ where they try to generate military capabilities but possibly using a different system such as conscription, mercenaries and use of proxies.
  • Add a more detailed political layer with elections, policy changes, funding variations and investment/disinvestment decisions to create even more stress on the long term planning requirements.

How do people play the game?

Firstly, they need to head to Analogue Games | Fight Club Intl. (fightclubinternational.org) and then sign up to join the Club before they can get access to the print and play files. There is also a Tabletop Simulator build (as with all our analogue games) so they can skip the printing and sticking and get straight into it.

simulation and gaming materials

Scholarship opportunity for women interested in wargaming

Comments Off on Scholarship opportunity for women interested in wargaming Posted by on 02/05/2024


The Women’s Wargaming Network is excited to announce their collaboration with the Military Operations Research Society (MORS) to fund the entrance of one individual to attend the MORS Certificate in Wargaming, a five-day online synchronous course designed to enhance analyst capability and knowledge in multiple aspects of professional games, including research, design, development, execution, analysis, and reporting. This event will take place online, June 3-June 7 from 0800-1600 EST.

Candidates applying for this opportunity must showcase the following:

Relevant Experience: Must be at least 18 years old and interested in professional gaming. Candidates must demonstrate an entry level understanding/ interest of the industry and its dynamics. We are looking for candidates who otherwise would not be able to participate in this course. If you are currently employed by someone who would be open to registering you for this course, you are not considered eligible for this opportunity. You do not need to have any formal education or work experience in gaming, professional wargaming, military, or government experience. We encourage people from non-traditional backgrounds with an interest in working in wargaming or pivoting to wargaming to apply.

Passion for Gaming: Looking for candidates who demonstrate a genuine passion for gaming and a desire to contribute to the industry’s growth and innovation. Candidates must make themselves completely available for the entire course to receive a Certificate of Wargaming from MORS.

Diversity and Inclusion: As this opportunity is provided by the Women’s Wargaming Network, we are looking to bolster diversity among the wargaming community to foster a rich exchange of perspectives and ideas. We encourage applications from candidates of diverse backgrounds, experiences, and identities, especially women or non-binary candidates.

Instruction for Application: Using the selection criteria above, please submit a short essay (less than 300 words) on what your future plans related to the industry are and how this opportunity would support those ends. In addition, please submit your CV. For more information on wargaming, please refer to the list of suggested readings on the MORS Certificate in Wargaming page.
Please submit all materials to: admin@womenswargaming.org by May 15, 2025 5 PM PST.

For those of you interested in helping us raise scholarship funds to send more women to wargaming opportunities, please consider making a donation here.

Yuna Wong

simulation and gaming news ,

Using digital outbreak simulations in academic settings

Comments Off on Using digital outbreak simulations in academic settings Posted by on 01/05/2024

The Johns Hopkins Center for Humanitarian Health (CHH) is holding a virtual information session on how digital infectious disease outbreak simulations can be used in academic settings. 

Virtual Outbreak READY! Information Session for Academic Institutions

May 15th, 09:00-10:00 ET

Click here to register

Outbreak READY! and Outbreak READY 2!: Thisland in Crisis are innovative digital outbreak simulations aimed at improving the capacity of practitioners to prepare for and respond to large-scale infectious disease outbreaks in humanitarian settings. Created as part of the READY Initiative, a global consortium led by Save the Children, the Outbreak READY! simulations bring the complex nature of outbreak response in humanitarian settings to life and provide a novel way for learners to test their skills and knowledge in a “safe,” virtual environment.

While the simulations were initially created for NGOs, an increasing number of academic institutions have successfully used the simulations in their classrooms. Since the first simulation launched in 2021, ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​institutions including Harvard University, Yale University, Columbia University, McGill University, the University of Geneva, the Prasanna School of Public Health, and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health have used one or both simulations to advance their students’ learning. 

To support the increasing number of universities reaching out about how they may incorporate the simulations into their classrooms, we are hosting a virtual information session on Wednesday, May 15th, 09:00-10:00 ET. This session will provide an overview of the simulations and feature professors who have used the simulations in their classrooms. 

Please register using the link below. We also invite you to share this invitation with colleagues who may be interested in attending. 

https://savechildren.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_lRMcw4dITj28dxbk1hFDcQ

We look forward to seeing you!

simulation and gaming ideas

GPPI: Gaming the Political Economy of Conflict

Comments Off on GPPI: Gaming the Political Economy of Conflict Posted by on 25/04/2024

The Global Public Policy Institute has issued a new report on gaming the political economy conflict.

How do economic factors shape the dynamics of violent crises? To launch and sustain their fighting, conflict actors rely on financial resources and access to physical supplies; economic motives may themselves also be an important driver of violence. There is no lack of academic research describing these dynamics, nor of practice-oriented frameworks for grasping how they play out in a given conflict context. Yet there remains a very large step between better contextual understandings and being able to anticipate the concrete consequences of an external intervention. 

This is a significant challenge for policymakers as they consider intervening in the political economy of a crisis setting. They have a range of interventions at their disposal, from sanctions regimes to fostering peace-positive investments. But the complexity of conflicts means it is crucial to think through the possible impacts – and unintended consequences – of any potential intervention. This project explored how simulation games can serve as a valuable tool for conducting forward-looking analysis in such contexts. It positioned simulation games at the intersection of political economy analysis and serious games methodologies. 

The project’s final publication offers a practical toolbox for developing simulation games tailored to analyzing political economy interventions in stabilization settings, including a step-by-step process and a menu of potential design choices. While these apply to a broad range of settings and themes, the discussion also draws on the project team’s experiences in designing a game on conflict dynamics in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

The report is an extremely useful contribution to the literature on confict simulation. You will find both a summary of their work and a link to the full (49pp) report at the link above.

simulation and game reports, simulation and gaming ideas ,

Wargamer Job at NDU

Comments Off on Wargamer Job at NDU Posted by on 22/04/2024

NDU has opened a job for a “Senior Wargaming Fellow” on USA Jobs. If you are a US citizen, have enough experience to be considered “senior,” and either have the qualifications, or are willing to ignore the rather odd set of qualifications (AI, online game design), then you might want to consider applying. I personally think CASL is a good group, and NDU would not be a bad place to work. If you are interested in advancing your career, I’d check it out. https://www.usajobs.gov/job/787587600

simulation and gaming news

Registration for Connections US 2024 now open

Comments Off on Registration for Connections US 2024 now open Posted by on 22/04/2024

An update from Timothy Wilkie and the Connections US team.

On behalf of conference founder and co-chair Matt Caffrey and the rest of the Connections organizing team, I am pleased to announce that registration for Connections 2024 is now open!  This year’s conference will be hosted by the U.S. Army War College at the Army Heritage and Education Center in Carlisle, PA, June 25-27.  This conference is held at the unclassified level and is open to all members of the professional wargaming community, from military to government to academic to commercial hobbyist to contractor to private sector.  We especially welcome our international participants.

The day before the conference begins, the Army War College will be hosting a series of classified wargame briefings on Carlisle Barracks.  The classified event is open to all U.S. citizens with a SECRET clearance.  The form linked below will register you for the unclassified conference June 25-27, and will collect your contact information to receive additional information about the classified session on June 24 if you indicate your interest.

Please follow the link below to the registration form:
https://forms.gle/LvxNjdW8SCSxC4CK9

The above link is to a Google Form, which sometimes are difficult to access from some military networks.  If you have problems viewing or completing the form at work, please try from a personal device at home.

More information is available at the Connections website:
https://connections-wargaming.com/registration-and-logistics/

We have an exceptional program lined up this year and will be posting the conference agenda to the website soon.  We are pleased to announce our two keynote speakers: John Nagl and Tom Mouat.  The rest of the program consists of panels, seminars, game demos and playtests, small-group workshops, and more!

Since 1993, the Connections conference has brought together practitioners with a professional interest in wargaming from all elements of the wargaming field.  Please help us expand our reach even further by passing this registration information along to those you think might be interested.

conferences, simulation and gaming news

Connections UK 2024

Comments Off on Connections UK 2024 Posted by on 16/04/2024

An update from Graham Longley-Brown and the Connections UK team.

The Connections UK 2024 conference for wargaming professionals will take place Tuesday 10 to Thursday 12 September 2024 at Brunel University in Uxbridge, just to the west of London and five miles from Heathrow airport. Tickets will go live in mid-June and are likely to be in high demand. We’ll send more content details presently, but the main themes and sessions are outlined below.

The Connections UK mission remains ‘to advance and preserve the art, science and application of wargaming’. The two main themes this year are: engaging academia; and helping to improve methods, models and tools that contribute to better wargaming.

Connections UK 2024 will feature:

  • An Introduction to Wargaming course on Day 1.
  • A half-day icebreaker on the morning of Day 1.
  • A stream on wargaming in academia.
  • Practitioner-level workshops and seminars to improve methods, models and tools that contribute to better wargaming.
  • A stream on wargaming deterrence, escalation and de-escalation.
  • A stream on wargaming deception.
  • A stream on gaming social complexity, which will include the use of artificial intelligence to support wargaming.
  • Games Fairs on the afternoons of Days 2 and 3. See note below regarding entries.
  • The inaugural Peter Perla Commemorative talk, featuring Phil Sabin and David Banks talking respectively to the growth and future of wargaming.
  • Social gaming on the evenings of Days 1 and 2.
  • Semi-organised networking events during the evening social gaming.
  • Sessions designed to help the next generation of wargamers.
  • Hands-on workshops exploring topics such as microgames, a ‘game jam’ and a designers’ clinic.
  • And lots more!

Games Fairs entries. We are introducing criteria for showing a game. Please click the link at https://www.professionalwargaming.co.uk/GamesFair.html for these criteria and entry submission form.

Connections UK follows the week after the Wargaming in NATO (WIN) conference 2 – 4 September at the University of the German Armed Forces in Hamburg, Germany.

Connections (US) is 25 – 27 June at the Army Heritage and Education Center (AHEC) in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

We look forward to seeing you in September!

conferences

All that’s left is the grading…

Comments Off on All that’s left is the grading… Posted by 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.

forthcoming games and simulations, simulation and game reports, simulation and gaming news ,

Wargaming the effects of a Trump presidency on NATO

Comments Off on Wargaming the effects of a Trump presidency on NATO Posted by on 11/04/2024

This article was written for PAXsims by Finley Grimble. He is a former wargamer and strategy advisor to the UK Government having worked at the Cabinet Office, Ministry of Defence and Foreign Office. He particularly focused on NATO defence and foreign policy, Russia-Ukraine strategy, China-Taiwan policy, the US-UK security relationship, and wargames for the 4* National Security Council Officials (highest officials decision-making body in UK). He can be contacted via email  or LinkedIn.

Donald Trump threatened to withdraw from NATO during his first term based on the idea that the US should not be defending Europe, whilst the Europeans under-invest in their own defence by spending less than the NATO agreed 2%. He has continued to do so in the run up to the 2024 elections. With specialists in defence, intelligence, foreign and security policy hailing from several NATO countries, we conducted a wargame to explore the following questions: 

  • How might a Trump administration go about leaving NATO and/or getting all Allies to pay 2% GDP on defence?
  • What are the immediate consequences of the United States leaving Euro-Atlantic security to Europe?
  • What are the broader global consequences for the United States?


Wargame Format

The wargame commenced on a successful Trump Inauguration Day: January 1, 2025, and running for two years into the presidency. All 32 NATO members, Ukraine, and Russia were represented by participants. These countries with ‘dedicated representation’ were given time to: 

  1. Develop a strategy.
  2. Negotiate with allies to cohere strategy.
  3. Negotiate with adversarial countries.
  4. Take a series of military, diplomatic, economic, and intelligence actions for a turn that represented two months. 
  5. Any military actions were then carried out using an operational wargame map with bounded adjudication rules. This ran as a minor facet of the wider geo-political wargame to establish correlation of forces and battlefield situations.

Once these phases had occurred, the non-military actions were freely adjudicated by a ‘wargame control team’, then the next turn would begin with a new set of starting conditions based on the outcomes of the previous intertwining actions.

Within the wargame control team adjudicating the turn outcomes, China, Taiwan, South Korea, North Korea, Australia, Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran were represented through injects. They were not given a dedicated representative to play a full role in the wargame. We chose to represent these key non-Euro-Atlantic countries as to: 

  • Gain their perceptions on Trump’s NATO policy. 
  • Prevent Euro-Atlantic Security developing in an unrealistic vacuum.

Adjudication and representation of all countries was performed by specialists in defence, intelligence, foreign and security policy to provide realistic strategies, policies, actions and perceptions by all countries represented.

Key Takeaways 

A turn-by-turn report on how the game developed can be found in the pdf attached to the end of article. Key takeaways from the wargame were:

  • The US fully exiting NATO is not realistic given the National Defense Authorization Act for the fiscal year 2024 is in place – The legislation states “The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur or pursuant to an Act of Congress.” Achieving this in the senate was considered highly unlikely by participants. 
  • Despite Trump taking tangible steps to reduce the US commitment to defending Europe, Russia’s demands in Ukraine prevent it from realistically attacking a NATO Member.
  • If the US reduces its role in European security, it will likely damage investors’ sentiment throughout the continent, especially in Eastern Europe, thus damaging these state’s economies.
  • A US reduction in support to Ukraine makes the task of resisting Russia almost unfeasible, given Europe’s inability to adequately support Ukraine with what it needs.
  • A US policy of frustrating NATO has the potential to cause the alliance to collapse, with EU as a candidate for eventually replacing NATO’s ultimate function – defending Europe from Russia.
  • Trump’s proposed policies of punishment towards NATO will likely force Allies to spend more.

wargaming-a-trump-presidencyDownload
simulation and game reports , ,

Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation (April 2024)

Comments Off on Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation (April 2024) Posted by on 11/04/2024

The latest issue of the Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation 21, 2 (April 2024) is now available (paywalled).

Editorial

  • A look back at the past 44 years of live virtual and constructive (LVC) simulation and lessons for cyberspace LVC 
    • Michael G. Lilienthal

Methodology

  • Wargaming the use of intermediate force capabilities in the gray zone 
    • Kyle D Christensen and Peter Dobias
  • Fog, friction, and control in organized conflict: punctuated transitions to instability 
    • Rodrick Wallace
  • Supporting shipboard helicopter flight testing with simulation and metrics for predicting pilot workload
    • Perry Comeau, Alanna Wall, Eric Thornhill, Sean McTavish, and Richard Lee
  • An experimental intervention to investigate user perceptions of computer versus manual board wargame
    • Jeremy Smith, Trevor Ringrose, and Stephen Barker

Applications

  • Detection and defense of cyberattacks on the machine learning control of robotic systems 
    • George W Clark, Jr, Todd R Andel, J Todd McDonald, Tom Johnsten, and Tom Thomas
  • Verification, validation, and accreditation for models and simulations in the Australian defence context: a review 
    • Kerryn R Owen and Ripon K Chakrabortty
  • Simulation analysis of applicant scheduling and processing alternatives at a military entrance processing station 
    • Phillip M LaCasse, Lance E Champagne, and Jonathan M Escamilla

Technology

  • Simulation of the attack helicopter Mil Mi-24 conducting anti-surface air operations in support of a battalion task group 
    • Zbyšek Korecki, Tomas Hoika, Jiří Ulvr, Miroslav Janošek, and Matuš Grega
simulation and gaming publications

← Older posts