Wargames Sg

[Deandra Uleman]

GAOidentified 13 common quality principles DOD organizations use to guide their wargaming. DOD has collaborative wargame forums, information systems, and some education related to wargames. However, GAO found that there are barriers to accessing wargame data, information on upcoming wargames is not shared, and the services have not developed standard education and qualifications for wargamers. Addressing these issues would enhance the effectiveness of DOD's wargaming efforts.

Wargames are an analytic method that can provide valuable insights to complex problems and inform decisions about warfighting concepts, capabilities, and plans. DOD credits wargames with making key contributions to military planning for pivotal operations in the Pacific during World War II. In 2015, DOD began an initiative to reinvigorate wargaming in line with the strategic shift to prepare for near-peer power competition. GAO was asked to review DOD's use of analytic wargames. This report examines: (1) the scope of DOD's wargaming activities; (2) DOD's use of internal and external wargame providers; and (3) the extent to which DOD ensures wargame quality.

GAO analyzed wargame data for fiscal years 2017 through 2021; relevant DOD guidance and documentation; and leading practices for wargame quality. GAO also observed wargames and interviewed wargaming officials from DOD and external wargame providers.

GAO is making 10 recommendations to DOD, including to assess the use of internal and external wargame providers; develop effective approaches for managing wargame data and sharing information about upcoming wargames; and evaluate the costs and benefits of developing standard wargaming education and qualifications. DOD concurred with our recommendations.

"A wargame (also war game) is a strategy game that deals with military operations of various types" ( ). However many wargames cover political and strategic choices. They can simulate historical, fantasy, near future or science fiction themes.

A wargame can be played on a board with counters, with cards or/and with miniature figures.

I am glad I followed a different path and now make games that have very different aims. But I am still avidly curious about wargaming. I stop by the massive miniatures-ridden battle scenes at GenCon to see tabletop armageddons that would make H. G. Wells envious. I am interested in historical, sci-fi, fantasy, and even hypothetical conflict simulations and have attended wargame role-playing groups and conferences.

The nuclear plant attack scenario makes it clear that whatever we think of wargaming, such games are always tied to highly imagined scenarios and speculative events, and are therefore, at best, powerful fictions. This is their strength, and also the root of their problem.

We are only as brilliant as the tool sets we have; as the old adage goes, if one has a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. Surgeons, for example, tend to see answers to health problems through the lens of surgery. Likewise, soldiers are trained using wargames. Wargaming is about negotiating power, about systems modeling, about strategy. The scenarios we provide in our games, and the possible outcomes we permit, show us the ways in which we are capable of thinking. Thus, if we train our military primarily on two-sided, violence-based conflict scenarios with one winner, we will tend to frame most conflicts as such, and similarly, we will create circumstances that mirror that training, leading to unresolvable contemporary situations and an out-of-date military.

Alternate wargames express the different ways we might begin to see contemporary global challenges, incorporating different modes of problem solving, aesthetics, and nonviolent conflict resolution. It is possible not only to teach such principles, but also to practice them and enact them in our games, making these principles available and repeatable to a wider audience. Such alternative chess examples may provide perhaps the only real solutions that are humane, civilized, and sustainable.

I have not played many wargames in which players literally stop conflict by having a moving aesthetic experience that changes their worldview. I have not played a wargame in which the public acts as a real player in the game, and surprises the powers-that-be with an effective pacifist move. Our models for wargames need to continue to evolve using unusual, creative solutions to problem solving. For example, perhaps games could model negotiations on urban violence and crime with the highly unorthodox and creative strategies used by Antanas Mockus Šivickas, former mayor of Bogot, Colombia.

We must look to transcend old conflict models, or we risk perpetuating the damaging myth that there are limited ways of resolving conflicts. If games in some way are a practice for the real world, for rehearsing a way of thinking, we are ill-prepared to solve conflicts in creative ways given the current state of the art that wargaming offers.

I have recently read an old letter from Richard Berg that appeared in a wargame magazine (I cannot seem to find which one) where he really criticized the introductory-level wargame. I will share that letter with you so you can get where I am coming from a bit when I write this piece.

I think that he has some good points but also some that miss the mark. I think that introductory-level wargames are not going to ever replace our more deep and detailed conflict simulations but are intended to reach a more broad audience than just the rabid history enthusiast who wants to see if he can do better than Rommel in North Africa or if Monty can beat Patton to Salerno. In this edition of The Love/Hate Relationship, I will take a look at what I love about introductory-level wargames and also what I hate!

I always enjoy the overall approachability of introductory-level wargames. Typically the rules are fairly standard and the basic wargaming concepts of supply, zones of control, movement and terrain are all modeled well. This basic format creates a formula that new players can feel comfortable with and carry from game to game. I have played some really interesting and engaging introductory-level wargames. Here I will share a few of those experiences with you as I make some more points.

One of the first introductory-level wargames that I really enjoyed was Hundred Days 20 by Victory Point Games. Hundred Days 20 is an introductory-level Napoleonic Wargame that utilizes the Napoleonic 20 System (commonly referred to as Nappy 20), an innovative, quick playing small format wargaming system designed by Joseph Miranda. The hallmark of the system is low unit density (less than 20 counters on the map), medium weight complexity and fast playing turns with some twists. The system provides for interesting operational level maneuvers that set up dramatic battles and cavalry engagements. The system also includes random event cards and night game turns, which provides some additional obstacles to deal with that simulate conditions that affected both sides greatly during the historical campaign. This brings up one of the points that I love about introductory-level wargames, namely low counter density. The game is named for its less than 20 counters on the map and really does a great job with just those few counters. But, low counter density is a good thing in an introductory-level wargame as it really allows the players to focus not so much on balancing their precarious stacks of half a dozen counters but in actually planning their attacks. By being able to see their units quickly and what is arrayed against them, the player can quickly and readily make meaningful decisions about how best to go about doing what they need to do. As opposed to hunching over those large stacks desperately searching for a few more Combat Factors to get to the next odds column on the CRT. This keeps the game play moving along and Hundred Days 20 did this very well and created some palpable tension as we were trying to break through with our limited units and push ahead.

The next thing you need to understand is the makeup of the dice. The dice are 6-sided dice but they only have 2 results on each die, a NATO symbol for Infantry and one for Armor. The other 4 sides on the die are blank. Yeah, you read that right, a 6-sided die with only 2 results. There are lots of opportunities for those dice to roll nothing for you and that is both a blessing and curse as you want them to roll well for you but not for your opponent as each combat is simultaneous and both sides get to attack.

One other thing that I dislike about introductory-level wargames is that sometimes the games are just too simple and this leads to a lack of replayability. These games often come with a limited number of scenarios or gameplay variations, which can further exacerbate the problem of replayability. Once players have experienced all the included scenarios, they may find little incentive to revisit the game. I like the way that Worthington Publishing has tackled this problem in a few of their introductory-level wargames such as Dunkirk: France 1940 designed by Doug Bryant. Dunkirk: France 1940 is a very basic introductory-level wargame that included some alternative victory conditions in the form of cards. Early in the design process, Doug found that his game was fairly repetitive in that the same objectives were frequently the targets for the Germans. Coming up with the German Strategy Cards (which, in effect, allow the German player to pick their own Victory Conditions at the start of the game) provided variety for the German player, as well as providing an additional layer of suspense, as the Allied player will not know for certain until the end of the game what specific strategy the German player was pursuing.

I hope that you enjoyed my look at the introductory-level wargame. I think that introductory is sometimes seen as a dirty word in some circles in our hobby, and I get the reasons for the opinion, but introductory-level wargames are a needed part of our hobby. They have a place at the table and can be used to bring in new initiates to the order. If used properly and taught well. I want to see our hobby continue to grow and will do my part to do that the way that I see best.

3a8082e126