Game Lab Report Connections 2015 Marc Gacy Paul

Game Lab Report Connections 2015 Marc Gacy Paul Vebber Special thanks to Sean Brady Lee Ann Rutledge

Game Lab Games • A 2 ADventure • Anti-Access/Area-Denial (A 2 AD) warfighting situations • Physical boardgame • Board, counters, map, cards • Concepts • Hiders vs Finders • Firing Effectively First • Counter-Command Control (C-C 2) • 1993 Missile Budget • Spreadsheet-based simulation • Cut national expenditure on missiles in half • Teach the cause and effect process of missile types, target values and tradeoffs • Learn to justify difficult decisions

2 A AD - Does the game work? • Does it accurately represent Anti. Access/Area-Denial (A 2 AD) ? • Does it address concepts? • Does it require relevant knowledge? • How could it be better? • Also… • Play the game! • Play the game and collect impressions • Just because you don’t see the point you were ranting about during the game lab doesn’t mean it’s not there • We’ve captured every piece of paper written with game comments during the game

“Just write up the notes” • Why was I given the honor of doing this presentation? • These are the observations collected during the Game Lab session • Thanks Paul!

The good… • Engaging • Players were uniformly interested in learning the game and curious about rules and tactics. • Even when rules were not clear there was little frustration evident. • There was much interest in the command control attack cards and the various options. • Thought provoking • Many thoughts of how units relate to real world systems • Definite correlation with tactics and gameplay options • Promoted strategy/concept discussions – Center of mass etc.

The good… (continued) • Integral planning process • Players like the implementation of planning and of attacks on the enemy planning cycle. • This was described as a weakness in many other games and a strength in this one. • Relevant • Having even one player with actual experience playing the game at the table improved the learning curve substantially • Emergent behaviors • How teams divided responsibilities had an effect on play style and team strengths • Cluster by function vs. cluster by geography

The bad… (Conceptual) • Limited Strategy for Blue team • Drive to single point • “If it takes this long to figure out, what does my sponsor gain? ” • Confusion about scale and what is true representation of units • Some perceived imbalance • Revealing and spotting are key to winning or losing • Opinion colored by dice rolls – too random? • Players unsure if the (slow) speed of progress is due to • Not knowing rules • Not understanding rules • Confusion between per turn and per round rules • When to reveal and when/why to hide • Some felt high rolls should be desirable. “A point of Gaming Theology, not Game Design”

The bad… (Visual) • Oblong board was a sticking point • Some confusion • Some alternatives • Cluster of units on board • Hard to differentiate • Hard to keep track • How do you ID a damaged target? • Does it persist? • Cards covered OODA track • Forget bonuses/penalties • Cards face down most of the time • Need to refer to sheet all of the time – Improve look/info on card • Card images may “focus” attention on one specific type of scenario • South China Sea

The ugly… (not really, but I couldn’t resist) • Not enough time to truly assess the utility, correctness and balance due to the level of detail and unique rules • Difficult to tell how much of a hindrance this might be • Varying target audience • Generally positive impression • Players were in consensus that the game had promise and was worth further development • Put values from card on a table that references the cards • Makes it easy to do a comparison across capabilities and to make changes/variants quickly, without having to reprint cards “Paul is on to something” The answer to the question “Can I modify it to do _______ is… YES!”

1993 Missile Budget • Spreadsheet-based simulation • Hidden calculations • Cut cost of missiles in half • Teach the cause and effect process of missile types, target values and tradeoffs • Learn to justify difficult decisions • Often done with Air Force, Navy and Army to demonstrate different priorities

Analyzing the simulation • Group 1 • “Game Labbing” it. • What really is the purpose of the game? • Budget justification/understanding of issues raised • How would you fullfill that purpose? • Try a version w/o spreadsheet • Let them come up with their own numbers first • Is 1993 as a setting really helpful? • Add risk ratios. • in over an hour they hadn’t entered a single piece of data on the spreadsheet • Group 2 • Work with existing system • How you would best use the existing spreadsheet/model? • Original intent of budget justification • Demonstrate that M&S can’t tell you everything • Use it for COA analysis • Highlight how important data may be hidden/not adequately addressed • E. g. missile types interchangeable?