Simulation and Wargaming Potential with Caution Simulation and

Simulation and Wargaming Potential with Caution

Simulation and Wargaming Potential with Caution Charles Turnitsa, Ph. D Regent University

Introduction Definition/Terms Agenda Dangers Benefits Indirect Benefits Ongoing Work

Introduction • Who am I? • Education (BS, MS, Ph. D & BA, MA) • Background in M&S (scientific and military) • Background in Wargaming (Professional and Hobby) • Where do I work? (Regent University; GTRI) • What is this presentation about? • There is a divide between Simulation and Wargaming • Important to know differences – but there is also room for overlap • Some success we have had • Possibilities in moving forward A beginning is a very delicate time.

Definition/Terms • These aren’t pulled directly from any of the published sources but are an amalgam of the ones I find influential and useful when talking with a DOD sponsor. • These might not be the definitions you would use, which is why I put them here – so you can see where I am coming from in my discussion. Please let me know (my email is in the slides later on) if you have any profound differences with my definitions. . . The bird is the word.

Definitions (1) • Wargaming is a cognitive act, where a player participates in a (typically) military scenario, against a thinking opponent, in order to observe an unfolding scenario, make and implement decisions about how to best react to that scenario, and receive feedback based on their own, and their opponent’s decisions. In this use case Wargaming is used for. . . Education Learning about some problem area or way ahead Evaluation Testing a path ahead, or course of action, against an adversary Enlightenment Seeking to understand how an adversary will respond to a situation Experience Have the players experience the decisionmaking process, and see the results

Definitions (2) • Scenario • This is the description of the situation, setting, and basic narrative of the game, it includes (roughly) four components – environment, participants, timeline, and context • Wargame System • For a wargamer to receive feedback from the game, their decisions have to be executed/adjudicated by *something* - that is the game system. A system of rules controlling the allowable actions, and designed to produce results that affect the game • Combat Modeling • Combat modeling is a special type of modeling of combat interactions and combat activities that form the basis for the wargame system. It is also used for operations research, the development of combat simulators, and controlling training events.

Definitions (3) • Simulation • This term refers to the act of simulating something – in our case, a ‘scenario’ usually used to describe some military affair (but could be economic, social, etc. ) The simulation is the event of planning, preparing, executing, and analyzing the referent (thing) being simulated – this includes a wargame. It may be done with a computer simulator. • Simulator, Computer Simulator • Technically, any system or device that is used to enable a simulation (see above). However, for most practical purposes the term refers to digital automata – computers, etc. • LVC • Live, Virtual, and Constructive – the term that the US Military (and much of NATO, PFP, etc. ) use to refer to the broader capability to simulate military affairs – for training, analysis, evaluation, planning, etc – sometimes also included to describe Wargaming (but not by wargamers? )

Definitions (4) • Wargame • The actual wargame itself (compliant with earlier definitions of wargaming and wargaming event) – which requires three parts. . . Conceptually: The same This could be an Analog System Or it could be a Simulator Wargame System Scenario Participants Infrastructure • • Environment Participants Context Timing Development costs explode This can become a WHOLE lot more complicated

Dangers: Simulation for Wargaming Purposes • There are many Benefits of Wargaming • However, in almost all cases, it is often important to know why and how results in the wargame are derived at. With Friends like these. . .

Benefits of Wargaming • Insight to why things happen • Cognitive – what information presented itself to the player, so that they chose a certain action? • Systems – how is the interaction of competing systems playing out? How do different platforms, organizations, sensors, shooters, kill chains, etc. – interact? • Reaction to the Unknown – Reflective warfare, Clausewitz-ian friction • Evaluation • Why or why not will a certain course of action, or plan, succeed? • What is the (apparent, or not) best response that my adversary can make? • Many others

Dangers (1) • Direct Dangers of using a Simulator • Black Box – it is often not known how or why certain decisions are made, and which parameters (algorithms, considerations) are used to derive results (example: floating infantry) • Pre-anticipated behaviors – often specific behaviors are assumed by the constructive generators of behaviors and activity within a simulator. Perhaps those are not the behaviors that a player wants in a situation?

Dangers (2) • Indirect Dangers of using a Simulator • Cost – Often the resources of owning and operating a simulator are well beyond that of a wargaming organization. Most of the current batch available to DOD were developed during the past 20+ years for training, when training budgets were often lush. . . • Interface barrier – The player must be able either operate the simulation system, or be conversant enough with what needs to be told to a staff member, if they are translating actions (plans) into simulated events. . .

Dangers (3) • Data (when the scenario is being developed)

Benefits: Simulation for Wargaming Purposes • There are still many incredibly strong benefits of using computer simulation • A few a listed on the next few slides I come to bury Caesar, not to Praise him.

Do all dangers apply universally? Caveat Many of the dangers listed in the previous section are organization specific – some will have the resources needed, some will repeat the same scenarios (with minor tweaks) many times, so the data problems are buried. Often, actions will be based on doctrinal activities and execution styles (so normal black box adjudication is okay). The list was meant to capture the potential hazards, not necessary those that are universal – the same is true of the following list of benefits.

Benefits (1) • Size of the Scenario • Computer simulators are able to keep track of many, many more units than a human being – enabling scenarios to be much larger (either in terms of playbox, or in terms of depth or resolution of units presented – this may or may not be a benefit, based on the game and sponsor) • Details – the number of data elements and parameters that contribute to defining the unit can go up (and often does) a huge amount – part of this is because much more can be done, and part is because the computer requires much more detail in order to simulate activity

Benefits (2) • Speed and Timing • A computer simulator can calculate and present information from combat adjudication much, much faster than a human adjudication group. Nothing surprising there – if the computer-generated results are acceptable. • Near real time (or even faster than real time) play is possible. While this is often lauded as a benefit for staff training, it is not clear that this is a benefit for wargaming (exploring cognitive load and decision making under stress would certainly include this, however). • Distribution • Space and time are not a problem, when all parts of a simulated wargame can be spread to different computers, or even (in the case of non-real time) delayed in entry, to allow for time differences

Indirect Benefits: How can M&S indirectly help Wargaming • Many of the techniques and technologies developed for typical LVC simulation may be of use to the wargamer, especially as the art and science of wargaming is being asked to step up more into the digital age (q: should it? ) • What follows is a list of some of those techniques – there are (no doubt) more than can be touched on here. (more on that in a minute) Every rascal is not a thief, but every thief is a rascal.

Indirect Benefits (1) • Visualization • Many of the visualization techniques can be borrowed to replace or augment a typical tabletop (boardgame) type view (limited domain of interest; distributed visualization; touch interface, etc. ) • Distribution • Mentioned previously – distribution is a direct feature of using simulators. However the many distributed techniques developed over the years can be applied to a technology enabled tabletop or analog wargame – withing going full simulator-driven

Indirect Benefits (2) • Pre-Simulation (and post-simulation) • Results of anticipated COAs can be pre-simulated. Simulation can be used in defining, designing, and developing a wargame. Simulation can be used as an important tool in the post–event analysis of data. • Computer Games • Rather than fully grown LVC constructive simulators, what about computer games that are lightweight simulators – such as Flashpoint or Command (especially Command PE)? Some of the same problems remain, but a good number of them are mollified at least.

Digital Tools and Wargaming

Tool Example: Wargaming Touch Table Interface • Touch table developed by GTRI, in partnership with USMC Wargaming Division – PI, Chuck Turnitsa • Designed to present a touch table version of a tabletop game map and pieces • Pieces still moved by Humans Adjudication still done by referees However – coordinating between different wargame cells is now MUCH faster (almost instant) Makes game run much faster and smoother Allows incorporation of many other digital tools Distributed Cells – each has a table • Architecture can attack to several different underlying Game Engines or Game Systems User Interface

Ongoing Work • Simulation and Wargaming Study Group • Active study group, looking at different aspects of the relationship between Simulation and Wargaming • Sponsored by SISO (Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization) – however, participation is open to anyone (Academic, Government, Industry, and International) • Distributed Wargaming Working Group • Being head by Darold Davis, with members of the MORS COP, SISO S&W group, GUWS, etc • Looking at best practices, research ideas, requirements – etc. for Distributed Wargaming • Plan is to produce a publication

Thank You Correspondence, or questions about ongoing work (including information about SISO or the Distributed Wargaming Working Group) – please don’t hesitate to email cturnitsa@gmail. com