wargame creation skills and the wargame construction kit

8/9/2019 Wargame Creation Skills and the Wargame Construction Kit

1/116

4825 Mark Center Drive • Alexandria, Virginia 22311-1850

CRM D0007042.A1/Final

October 2002

Wargame-Creation Skills and the

Wargame Construction Kit

Peter P. Perla

Michael C. Markowitz

Christopher Weuve

Karin DugganLeesa Woodard


2/116

This document represents the best opinion of CNA at the time of issue.It does not necessarily represent the opinion of the Department of the Navy.

Distribution limited to DOD agencies. Specific authority: N00014-00-D-0700.For copies of this document call: CNA Document Control and Distribution Section at 703-824-2123.

Copyright© 2002 The CNA Corporation

Approved for distribution:

Dr. Peter P. PerlaDirector for Interactive Research ProductsOffice of the Senior Vice President for Research


3/116

i

Contents

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Purpose and approa ch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Orga nization of the paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Developing wargame-creation skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Train ing prog rams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Learn ing, skills, an d expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Identifying skills to be learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Exper tise: the levels of skill perfo rma nce . . . . . . . 21

Learn ing at differen t levels of expertise . . . . . . . . 25

The NWC elective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Overview of the course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Skills an alysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

The Wargame Construction Kit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

The WCK con cept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Design philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Ba sic con cepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Warga me failure mod es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

U sing the WCK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Playing the game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Building new scenar ios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Ch an ging the gam e system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Expan ding the skills-ba sed method ology . . . . . . . . . . 49Co mputer izing the WCK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

A wargam ing capab ility matu rity mod el? . . . . . . . . . . 54

Appendix: The Wargame Construction Kit. . . . . . . . . . . . 57


4/116

ii

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

List of tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111


5/116

1

Summary

The U .S. Naval War Co llege (NWC) is developin g an elective course

on wargam ing th eory and pra ctice, the first session o f which will be in

the Fall of 2002. This course is designed to elicit ideas for the a dvan ce-

ment o f the a rt an d science of wargaming, par ticularly elements of

wargaming th at a dd ress current o perational prob lems.

The NWC a sked CNA to support their d evelopmen t of this course by

analyzing the skills important for creating wargames, and comparingtho se skills to th e train ing con tent o f the elective course. In a dd ition,

they asked us to develop a wargame construction kit for use in the

course. This kit was inten ded to provide stud ents with a b aseline a nd

framework for practical exploration of the processes of creating

wargames.

Our analysis of the skills associated with the creation of wargames

iden tified six critica l skills.

Perspective

• Interpretation

• Research

• Analysis

• Creativity

• Asking q uestions.

We also characterized th e different levels of skills that wargame cre-

ators might possess. Simply described, these are:

• Introductory: Novices in the field frequently base their work

heavily on existing games. They are mainly concerned with

mod ifying th e values of th e para meters and variab les associated

with earlier ga mes.


6/116

2

• Intermediate: Journeymen in the field still base their work on

existing ga mes, but begin to m ake modifications to th e systems

and componen ts of earlier games, and to the interconn ections

between the parameters and variables.

• Advanced: Experts in the field frequently start from scratch

when th ey appr oach a g aming project. The master practitioner

will first examine the g aming top ic with a sense of how best to

represent it, focusing only later on the details of the represen-

tation, and on th e balance between old an d n ew techniqu es to

incorporate into the game.

The NWC elective is designed primarily for the novice in the field of

wargame creation, but it touches also on the intermediate level of

skill. It ad dresses the ad van ced level to a much lesser exten t—not sur-prisingly for a survey course like this. The elective addresses the full

ran ge of tasks and skills associated with warga me crea tion, using a

mixture of lecture, classroo m activity (much of which is built aro und

the use of th e WCK to con struct a n in-class wargam e), a nd indepen-

dent research projects. The projects seem especially important.

Although they do n ot req uire the students to create a com plete war-

game—indeed, such a task would be impractical—the projects do

help tie togeth er the ind ividua l tasks of wargam e creation , and “fill in

the blanks” a ssociated with some of the less obvious elements of the

process.

The Warga me Co nstruction Kit, which we include in this paper, has

the potential to play a useful role in the exploration of wargame

con cepts an d how to implemen t them pra ctically. We designed th e

WCK as an operation al-level (that is, focused on a ca mpa ign or the-

ater) distillation . A distillation has more detail and surface fidelity to

the real world than an abstract game, but does not represent the

deta iled processes of reality to the same extent o r dep th a s what m ight

be classes simulation . Nevertheless, the WCK does have somewhat

more detail than other games to which the term distillation has beenapplied.

Tha t said, the WCK is by no m ean s a com pletely finished an d h ighly

polished system—though it is a workable one. Indeed, any problems

or issues the players and instructors may have with the way we


7/116

3

designed the system, although not intentional on our part, do have

the benefit o f serving to highligh t d iscussions of ga me-design an d

developmen t issues that will prove helpful to meeting the objectives

of the course.

As presented her e, the WCK is a ta bletop , paper-an d-card bo ard

gam e. We explored th e prospects for using co mmer cially available

software to crea te a co mputer-based, on -line version o f th e game for

possible use with distributed team s of players. We con cluded tha t

such a project is possible, but th at th e time an d expen se of carr ying it

out demand careful consideration. Simpler and less expensive alter-

na tives may provide a high propo rtion of th e value of such a system a t

a fra ction o f its cost.


8/116


9/116

5

Introduction

The NWC's role as the DON Title X wargaming activity requires the

Warga ming D epartment (WG D) at th e NWC to in vestigate ad van ces

in art and science of wargaming that might provide ad vances in ana l-

ysis of operational problems, doctrine, planning, future force devel-

opmen t, or t ran sforma tional opportun ities. The NWC seeks to build

on the wargaming foun dation and operational an alysis developed by

CNA. CNA's work in warga ming an d opera tiona l an alysis provides a

uniquely independent and objective intellectual foundation fordeveloping an educational an d research a ctivity to expan d the state

of art an d science of wargaming applied to current importan t opera-

tional problems.

Purpose and approach

CNA’s research and development efforts focused on ad van cing the

state of th e art a nd science of wargaming, pa rticularly on beginning

to understand how to teach the skills associated with creating war-

gam es. We have chosen to use th e word creating rather than the more

frequently used term designing , because there is more to the art a nd

science of creating a wargame than design alone. O ur goal in this

research was to develop generally applicable concepts and methods

that go beyond th e usual scope of current approa ches to introd ucing

militar y pro fessionals to gam e-design a s a ta sk an d process. Design is

centra l to the crea tion of a wargam e, but linking d esign to o bjectives,

reality, players, an d m ean s is essential if th e gam e is to b e more than

an intellectual curiosity.

CNA worked with the WG D’s researchers an d o ther members of th eWG D’s research team to help develop this elective. We focused o n the

task of tea ching students how to design a nd develop a warga me. We

considered this process from the ini t ia l iden ti f icat ion o f gam e

objectives with a poten tial spon sor, thro ugh research , design , testing,


10/116

6

execution, and analysis of the game. The WGD’s planned approach

for th e course is based o n a comb ination o f case study an d practical

exercise. The stud ents will learn the vario us aspects of employing war-

gam es by actually carrying ou t a conden sed fo rm of th e process.

To tha t en d, C NA assisted with developing such a course in th e fol-

lowing ways:

• We assisted with the creation of a read ing list for the course,

and with the creation of oth er course materials embodying key

concepts, including a d iscussion o f failure mod es for wargames.

• We analyzed th e skill-sets req uired for warga me pra ctition ers,

in order to h elp create th e fina l syllabus to tea ch tho se skills.

• We designed a nd prod uced a tab letop, two-sided, distillation-style “wargame construction kit.” This kit embodies a system to

represent terrain, forces, sensors, and command and control

systems, and will serve as the foundation for the students to

explore the concepts associated with game design. It will also

g ive the m a s t a r t ing po in t to d e ve lo p a wo rk ing g a m e -

assessment system for a wide variety of game types and scenar-

ios.

• We conducted a prelimina ry evaluat ion o f the level of effort

required to develop and extend this tabletop system to a web-ba sed ga me system . We exa min ed com mer cial-off -th e-shelf

authoring software to assess the requirements for creating a

version of the construction kit’s game system that would be

capab le of suppo rting in ternet-based play of th e gam es devel-

oped with tha t system.

Organization of the paper

The remaind er of th is paper consists of four m ain sections.

In the first section , we dra w heavily from ear lier CNA research to d is-

cuss some basic concepts underlying the development of training

pro gra ms. We con sider t he b asic notion of skill and skill level, an d

describe our a pproa ch to skills-ba sed a nalysis. We then a pply tha t


11/116

7

approach to analyzing the skills associated with wargame design,

focusing on identifying cri tical skil ls .

The second section takes a close look at the syllabus for the NWC’s

elective course as it existed at the en d of o ur research. We examine

the syllabus for th e course and use our an alytical appro ach to extr act

a d escription of th e skills th e syllabus seems to fo cus on teach ing . We

then compare those skills to the sets we derived in the previous sec-

tion, to id entify insights tha t might improve the d esign of th e course.

The third section of the paper provides an overview of our wargame

constructio n kit ( WCK). It discusses the b asic concept of t he WCK,

the d esign philosophy, and our recommend ations for ho w to use the

WCK to help teach critical wargame-design skills. The full documen-

tation of th e WCK is provided in th e appendix.

Finally, we conclude the paper with a discussion of possible future

directions for this work, including the possibility of using commer-

cially available software to convert th e paper version of th e WCK into

a com puter-ba sed version t ha t would suppo rt on -l ine play by

distribu ted players and t eam s. We also br iefly d iscuss the possibility of

developing a capa bilities maturity model for creat ing warga mes.


12/116


13/116

9

Developing wargame-creation skills

In this section of the paper, we will outline much of the theoretical

framework for our a pproach to exploring the process of training and

education in the art and science of wargame creation. First, we

consider some of th e ideas that form the foun dation for an y training

prog ram . Then we probe th e nature of skills, th e levels of expert ise in

their application, a nd the process of learning them. Through out th is

discussion , we apply the bro ad prin ciples to the specific skills involved

in the creation of wargames, and we characterize the specific skilllevels we id entified. Thro ugh th is process, we id entify what we

consider to be the cri ti cal skil ls of wargame creation.

Training programs

The process of developing a training program can be described

simply in terms of the following steps:

• Identify required skills.

• Identify the training form ats or media th at permit acq uisition

of specific skills.

• Seq uence the individual training opportun ities into a n o verall

program of instruction.1

1. This characterization is taken from CNA Research Memoran dum

(CRM) D0000563.A2, Integrating Wargaming into the NM ITC Curri culum:

Background and Analyti c Methodology , by William D. Brobst and Alan C.

Brown, July 2000, p.8.


14/116

10

To d evelop the a ctual instructiona l material to support a learnin g

process, the fo llowing steps provide a g ood star ting po int:2

• Ana lyze the requirements for learn ing.

— Describe tasks.

— Perform task analysis for instructional design.

— Perform learning analysis.

— Derive external conditions for learning.

• Select media fo r instruction.

— Assess the instructional situation.

— Consider learning effectiveness of media.

• Design instruction for learning.

G agne defines an internal learning process of eight steps, and he

associates instructiona l events with each step.

2. From Brobst and Brown (2000), based on Robert M. Gagne. The Condi-

tions of L earn ing and Theory of I nstruction . New York: Ho lt, Rhineh art, a nd

Winsto n, 1985.

Table 1. Gagne’s model for designing instruction for learning (from Brobst and Brown)

Steps in the learning process Supporting instructional events

Attention: alertness Gain attention

Expectancy Inform learning objective and activate motivation

Retrieval from working memory Stimulate recall of prior knowledge

Selective perception Present stimulus materials

Encoding: entry into long-term memory storage Provide learning guidance

Responding Elicit performance

Reinforcement Provide feedback and assess performance

Cueing retrieval Enhance retention and transfer


15/116

11

The D epartment of Defense provides specific guidance for th e devel-

opment of military training progra ms.3 The DoD systems appro ach is

similar in structure to G agn e’s mod el. Table 2, taken from Bro bst and

Brown, summarizes these steps.

These processes provide gu idelines for how to apply our research into

the skills associated with warga me d esign to th e task of developing a

tra ining curriculum f or teach ing such skills. The NWC elective, while

not exactly a training prog ram in and of itself, may be considered a

survey course designed to introduce students to the broad field. Assuch, it would do well to to uch o n a s man y of the various elements of

3. Department o f Defense, MIL-STD-1379D, Military Standard: Military

Trai ni ng Programs , December 1990.

Table 2. DoD steps in systems approach to developing military training programs

Step Sub-step

Analyze mission and job Determine specific inventory of tasks, knowledge, and skillsrequired to perform missionIdentify tasks, knowledge, and skills requiring trainingDetermine number, type, and skills of personnel required tosupport performance requirements

Design training based on analysis results Convert tasks into learning objectives

Sequence trainingPrepare course outlinesSelect mediaPlan for trainee evaluationConstruct written/performance testsIdentify facility and resource requirements

Develop training based on the design Develop lesson plansDevelop trainee materialsDevelop mediaDevelop other training materialsReview developed materials for technical and doctrinalaccuracy

Implement developed training program Conduct validated and approved training programManage validated and approved training program

Evaluate implemented training program Evaluate accuracy and effectiveness of the training programUse evaluation feedback to modify existing program as nec-essary


16/116

12

such a training program as feasible within its constraints of time and

resources.

To help fo cus those limited resources on key elements of the learning

program, it is useful to summarize some of the key insights derived

from CNA’s earlier research into this subject. Again, turning to

Bro bst and Bro wn, we can summar ize much of C NA’s earlier research

on training progra ms in straightforward t erms:

• Trainin g progra ms are designed to support opera tiona l

requirements.

• Operation al requirements can be broken down into th eir com-

pon ent skills.

• Trainin g pro gram s can use a variety of tra ining forma ts ormedia.

• Within a training pro gram, th e use of a particular training for-

mats or media should be based on their ability to permit the

acquisition of specific required skills.

• The learning process entails developing proficiency in per-

form ing th ose compon ent skills, as well as recogn izing the co n-

nection s between ind ividua l skills, an d, as a r esult, d eveloping

expertise in supporting the operational req uirement.4

With th is theo retical ba ckground , we turn next to a discussion of skills

in gen eral an d skills specifically related to warg ame d esign a nd devel-

opment.

Learning, skills, and expertise

The sequen cing and structuring of any training program revolves

around the process of developing skills . Based on earlier CNA

research 5 in to th is process, we will discuss:

• Iden tifying skills to be learn ed

4. Taken from Brobst and B rown (2000), pp. 21-22.

5. The th eoretical discussion in th is section is largely based on Brobst and

Br own (2000), pp. 16-17.


17/116

13

• Chara cterizing levels of skills perform an ce an d expertise

• Learning at different levels of skill performance, from novice

through expert.

Identifying skills to be learned

One of th e first steps in developing a ny training course or pro gram o f

instruction is to ident ify the skills you are tr ying to t each. In the m ili-

tar y environ ment , many train ing prog ram s begin th is process by iden -

t i fy ing the opera t iona l requirements the t ra in ing program is

attempting to meet. In this case, we first must determine the “opera-

tiona l requirement s” for d esigning an d pro ducing warga mes. We

derive th ese req uirements by examining the existing literature,

particularly some o f th e req uired read ings already identified for th ecourse.

Sources for determining required skills

Our p rincipal sources for th is an alysis are as follows:

• In a series of books published in the 1970s,6 Richard D. Duke

proposed a general construct for thinking about the use of

what h e called “gam ing-simulations” in training , education ,

and research. D uke, a pro fessor o f urban planning , focused

much of h is attention o n gam ing as a communications tool—alanguage of its very own, in fact—for exploring social interac-

tion in an increasingly complex world. His work includes an

extraordin arily deta iled breakdown o f the ta sks associated with

creating and using gam es.

• During the 1970s and 1980s, James F. Dunnigan was the pub-

lisher and creative engine for a company called Simulations

Publications, Incorporated (SPI) and its flagship magazine,

Strategy & Tacti cs . SPI was one of the industry leaders in the

6. Richa rd D . Duke . Gaming: The Future’s Language . New York: Joh n Wiley

& Sons, 1974. Cath y S. G reenblat and Richard D. D uke. Gaming-Simula-

tion: Rat ional e, Design, and Appl icati ons . New Yor k: John Wiley & Son s,

1975. Richard D . Duke and Cat hy S. Green blat. Game-Generati ng Games:

A Tri logy of Games for Community and Classroom . Beverly H ills: Sage P ubli-

cations, 1979.


18/116

14

niche hobby of board wargaming, and Dunnigan has been

called the hobby’s high priest. Dunnigan articulated many of

the ideas that dr ove his and SPI’s approach to th e design of war-

gam es in two bo oks published dur ing th ose periods.7

• One hobbyist who grew up during the heyday of board war-

gam es in th e late 1960s and 1970s went on to b ecome a defen se

analyst (and one of the authors of this paper). After several

years of working with U .S. Navy wargam es an d o ther an alytical

efforts, Peter Perla synth esized some o f the in sights from both

hobby and DoD wargaming into a h and book applicable for

both audiences.8

Steps in the process of creating a game

Each of these sources describes, in more or less detail, a series of

steps, or tasks, associated with the creation of g ames in genera l or war-

games in particular. Not surprisingly, perhaps, Dunnigan and Perla

ha ve similar views on these tasks, as shown her e:

7. Th e st aff of Strategy & Tacti cs magazine. Wargame Design . New Yor k:

Hippocrene Books, 1977. James F. Dunnigan. The Complete Wargames

Handbook: How to Play, Design, and Find Them . New Yor k: William Morrow

an d Co mpan y, In c., 1980.

8. Peter P. Perla . The Ar t of Wargaming . Annapolis: Naval Institute Press,

1990.

Table 3. Dunnigan’s and Perla’s steps in wargame creation

Dunnigan, 1980 Perla, 1990

Concept development Specify objectives

Research Identify players, roles, and decisionsIntegration Collect information the players will need to make

decisions

Flesh out the prototype Devise tools to make the game work

First draft of rules Document the result of the effort

Game development Validate models, data, and scenario

Blind testing Play testing, preplay, and blind testing

Editing Preparing the final rules

Production Execution of the game

Feedback Feedback and analysis


19/116

15

These processes do n ot track precisely in pa rallel, but th e d ifferences

are primarily in emphasis, based on the different target markets for

the end result: the hob by gamer or th e DoD sponsor.

Duke’s process, on the oth er han d, is far mo re generic and far more

more deta iled.

At its extreme, Duke’s process is embodied in a large wheel-like

display to emphasize the connectedness of the various pieces. As a

stand ard outline, it would run t o a tota l of 628 lines. (The ga me-

design pro cess alone r uns to 154 lines.) Tab le 4 summa rizes on ly the

upper levels of the breakdown. Each column outlines one of the

three main subd ivisions: design, con struction , and use.

Tasks derived from the processes

Perla and Duke both explicitly point out th e need for d ocumentation

throughout the course of the project. This attitude stems from their

environ ment , in which the game creator is no t self-spon soring—

instead, the game is being created for some customer oth er tha n th e

prospective ga me pla yers, usually, to help t ha t customer explore

some issue or communicate some message. Dunnigan’s emphasis is

more d irectly commercial. H is custom er is the purcha ser an d p layer

of h is game, an d th e main o bjective is to create a game tha t poten tial

customers will purchase.

Nevertheless, we see similarities in the three approaches.

In a ll three, there is always a goa l or objective to orien t an d fo cus the

creative effort. This goal may be as simple as selling many copies of a

commercial boardgam e, or as complex as helping DoD comman ds to

develop national strategy or operational concepts.

Underlying the effort to create a game to meet those objectives is

some version o f reality that the game must someh ow captur e. The

reality may be historical, it may be curren t, it ma ybe speculative, or itmay even b e fan tastic. To con struct th is reality, the g am e creato rs

must dig d eeply, into the historical record , current reality, or their

own imaginations to identify what is important, what is critical, and

what is not relevant to th e world they intend to present to their play-

ers. This investigato ry research an d d evelopment of a par ticular poin t


20/116

16

Table 4. Duke’s game creation process (from Duke, 1974)

Design Construction Use

Determine conceptual map Pre-player Ethics

• Generate conceptual map • Set up project management • Designer related (public vs. pri-vate domain, copyright, royalties)-Define game objectives -Schedule tasks • User related-Define game message -Establish administration -Designer to participant

• Express verbally and graphi-cally

-Budget -Operator to participant

-Overview schematic -Hire personnel -Designer to operator

-Tables • Establish order of processingthrough accounting system

Dissemination

-Flow charts • Build components • Design appropriate packaging• Conceptual map vs. reality? -Define explicit output from

accounting system

• Distribute the game

• Ascertain appropriate levelof abstraction for intendedcommunication purposes

-Role descriptions -Distribute the package

Game design implementationof conceptual map

-Models -Train operators

• Does concept report expressconceptual map adequately

• Assemble components -Maintain the game over time

• Express the synthesis ver-bally and graphically

-Trial test Use standard system to classifygame (e.g., Dewey Decimal)

-Use appropriate graphics -Adjust Use standard description and evalu-ation form

-Synthesis of words • Data-Outline game construction -Data loading

• Determine the form eachgame component will take

-Store data

• Review game design in lightof the conceptual map

-Establish storage plan

-Collect data

-Establish acquisition plan

• Calibrate models-Rough tuning

-Fine tuning

With player

• Test run critique-Play at least 10 times

-Adjust material, forms, etc.

-Check validity of construct

-Check players’ response


21/116

17

of view abo ut reality provides the foun da tion fo r the gam e creators to

build the world in which their players must operate a nd in which the

situation s that a rise must be intern ally consistent .

To help the creato rs depict th is world dynamically, and to groun d th e

players in it, the g ame d esigner m ust create n ew—or d raw upo n exist-

ing—tools. Typically, th ese too ls take the form o f d ata tha t d escribe

the world, and models that represent ho w the world works and how

the players may influence it. Collecting data and building models is

sometimes incorrectly thought to be the totality of game creation. It

represents an essential, but incomplete, part of the entire process—

one n ot to be overlooked, but a lso on e not to be o veremphasized.

The the components of the game thus must derive from the game’s

objectives. They must be built to specification s derived from tho r-

ough research an d a na lysis. They must be linked to th e way the play-

ers will use them to make decisions and perceive the effects their

decisions have on the world o f th e gam e. They must also be tested.

All three of o ur sources agree o n the need for testing. Testing is, of

course, an integral pa rt of game d evelopment. In a dd ition, b lind test-

ing (testing of an essentially finished form of the game by players

unfamiliar with the game’s development process), is explicitly men-

tioned by name in Dunnigan’s and Perla’s books, and is implied

stron gly in Duke’s description of th e f inal s tage of the designpro cess—the test run critiq ue. To con d uct successful testing pro -

grams, the ga me creators an d t esters must be unblinking in th eir

ho nest assessment o f ho w the game is function ing. The tests sho uld

be structured to strain the system to th e breaking poin t, not merely to

be a dry run o f the simplest path through the ga me’s created world.

Thus, wargame creat ors must be ab le to forg e links between a nd

among the objectives, reality, tools, and players. The skill level of the

game creators can be judged by their ability both to build th e individ-

ual links and t o test their creation to en sure tha t:

• All elements of the game work well to represent the game-

world ’s reality.


22/116

18

• They allow the players to make the decisions necessary to

achieve the game’s objectives.

• No one link is so much weaker than the others tha t the players’

perspectives become unbalanced and unproductive.

Comb ining an d expanding on the p rocess descriptions given a bove,

we define a synthesized outline for the process of wargame creation.

This outline will serve as the basis for our subsequent assessment of

both the critical skills involved in creating warga mes and also for the

skill content of th e elective course. Tab le 5 presents this outline in

terms of th e major tasks and a brief description of th e content of

each.

It is interesting to compare t he pro cess of wargame creation we

define in table 5 to th e steps of the D oD systems approa ch for devel-

oping tra ining program s as shown in table 2. Tab le 6 summa rizes this

comparison. Our process for wargame creation corresponds closely

to the major steps for developing training.

Six critical skills of wargame creation

Based on the research sketched out above, our analysis of that infor-

mation, and our o wn experience in th e processes of creating war-

games, we have identified what we believe to be six cri ti cal skil ls that

cut a cross the entire process:

• Perspective

• Interpretation

• Research

• Analysis

• Creativity

• Asking q uestions.


23/116

19

Table 5. Process for wargame creation

Task Description

Develop the concept Determine suitability of wargaming for problem

Identify what information and insight the wargamemight provide

Specify objectives Define the overall purpose of the game

Define specific, achievable objectives

Sort goals into those associated with research, edu-cation, problem solving, and training

Do basic research Identify the necessary primary and supporting play-ers, their game roles, and the decisions they willhave to make to achieve the objectives

Identify the information the players will need tomake informed decisions and the sources for thatinformation

Gather the information into the game data base

Integrate design elements Identify the elements of information necessary todefine the critical path of the game

Identify, explore, and define the interconnected-ness of the basic information, key player decisions,and possible outcomes of the decisions

Prototype the design Devise the necessary tools (models and proce-dures) to represent the dynamics of the situation

Build the physical components and materials

Produce a first draft Summarize the results of the design process

Develop the game Test mechanics and procedures for full functional-

ity under the full range of circumstancesValidate models, data, and scenarios based on his-torical data or available prospective analysis

Assess how well the entire package reflects realityand the critical elements defined during the inte-gration stage

Make any necessary adjustments

Do blind testing Test the game using players unfamiliar with thedesign and development process

Stress the system and procedures, identify prob-lems, and implement corrections

Edit the game Prepare corrected and refined documentation ofdesign, procedures, data, models, and other gamematerials

Produce the game Produce final version of game materials

Carry out the game with actual players

Analyze the game Collect and analyze feedback on game play

Analyze play and document insights on substance


24/116

20

Perspective enco mpasses a b roa d view of th e overall subject matter t he

game must address, and the specific objectives the game must meet

within th at context. It a lso includes the practical appreciation for

what it will take to accomplish these objectives, including managing

the entire effort and producing th e physical realization of th e game

and the play of it. Within those two bookends, perspective helps

ensure that the definition of the players’ positions and the decisions

they are called upo n to make in the game will create the o pportunity

for the game to m eet its objectives.

Interpretation cuts across the entire spectrum o f activities in creat ing awargame. The creato r must interpret a wide variety of info rmation

and experience, from working with the sponsor to identify the true

objectives of th e effort, through und erstand ing th e real import of

data a nd informa tion on the design an d play of the game, to dra wing

insight s from th e play of th e game.

Research is, of cour se, a fun da mental skill. It involves both und erstan d-

ing what you need to know to create the game, an d identifying how

and where you can learn it. Historical games rely on documentary

research. Contemporary games combine such documentary researchwith more operationally oriented research. The ability to look for

true prima ry sources, tho se tha t can reveal wha t really ha ppened an d

why, is at the hear t of th is skill. All too frequent ly, time an d practical

constraints may limit the range of such research. Nevertheless, the

more the wargam e creator can learn about th e reality the game world

Table 6. Comparison of wargame-creation process to DoD training-development process

DoD Process (from table 2) Wargame-creation process (from table 5)

Analyze mission and job Develop the concept

Specify objectivesDesign training based on analysis results Do basic research

Integrate design elementsPrototype the designProduce a first draft

Develop training based on the design Develop the gameDo blind testingEdit the game

Implement developed training program Produce the game

Evaluate implemented training program Analyze the game


25/116

21

must reflect, the sharper that reality will appear to the players, and

the mo re faithfu l their reaction s to it will be.

Analysis must go ha nd -in-ha nd with research . Facts alone are seldom

enoug h b ecause facts tend to b e sl ippery. O ne source’s fact is

another’s rumor, and both may stem from deliberate falsification in

an older source. The better the wargame creator’s ability to analyze

data and information from the variety of sources acquired through

research, the more likely it is for the game to be as accurate a repre-

sentation of its chosen reality as it is possible to be.

Creativity is one o f th e mo st impo rtan t o f th ese critical skills. It is also

the most difficult to chara cterize. At th e most practical level, the war-

gam e creator must be ab le to devise game mechan ics tha t implement

the ideas developed throughout the earlier stages of design in a way

that can be und erstood by the players and can be used th e operators

of the game—game directors, facilitators, rules, computers, or what-

ever persons an d mechan isms mon itor an d ena ble the players to play

the game. At the broadest level, creativity underlies the entire pro-

cess, which is one o f th e very reason s we ha ve cho sen to ch ara cterize

the process as game creation . In essence, the game must embody a

world that does not actually exist, and the game’s creator must liter-

ally create that world.

In our experience, one of the most important processes involved incarrying o ut a ll of th ese critical skills is asking questi ons . Indeed, the art

of questioning, particularly the knack of asking the right question at

the righ t time, is so funda mental to successful wargame creatio n th at

it may rate the term meta-skill . As you will see later, the form of ques-

tions that game creators ask is one of the indictors of their level of

skill.

Expertise: the levels of skill performance

Previous CNA research9

into the subject of expertise, tho ugh f ocusedon tactical an d o perational tasks associated with combat and military

9. See Brobst and B rown (2000), pp. 18-20.


26/116

22

intelligence, has identified three distinct levels of expertise. These

levels apply to the creators of wargames very well.

• Introductory , where th e focus is on perfo rming ind ividua l skills,

and supporting training is designed to specify individual mea-

sures for each skill

• Intermediate , where the focus is on connecting the individual

skills within th e context o f the mission, an d supporting tra ining

is designed to specify cri t ica l mission skil ls (a s tra in ing

objectives) and relationa l performa nce measures that help to

estab lish the connection s between the critical skills

• Advanced , where the focus is on tactical mastery, applying

mission skills as required in th e tactical environment , an d sup-

porting tra ining is designed to teach th e tactical concepts that

cont rol th e employment of skills.

A common progression of a hobby wargame designer shows how

these levels of expertise develop and manifest themselves. The

description below does not necessarily reflect the course of any one

individual, but is based on the experience of the auth ors and ton

much anecdo tal evidence.

The introductory level

The novice game designer (the more apt term for this limited per-

spective of h obb y warga ming) usually begins as a pla yer—a con sumer

rath er tha n a pro ducer of wargames. At some point, h owever, the

consumer becomes a critic, an d the critic becomes a designer.

In most cases, the first game such a no vice designer creates is ba sed

heavily on some existing game or game system. “If only they had

included the effects of morale on the ability of the Old Guard to

brea k Wellingto n’s line a t Waterloo , th is gam e would b e much more

realistic.” And so it b egins. The no vice takes an existing gam e an d cre-

ates a variant of it. He retains most of th e componen ts and the game

system b ut a dd s, subtra cts, or ch an ges som e th ings. Typically, th e

und erlying reason for creating a variant is a d isagreement with th e

original designer about what was important in the actual historical

campaign or battle, or a desire to streamline some of the rules and

pla y system s.


27/116

23

Alternatively, a designer at the introductory skill level may take an

existin g ga me system—un it-, tim e-, a nd ma p-scale; ba sic ru les and

combat procedures; and perhaps even the same combat resolution

data and mechanics—and apply it to a new but similar historical

situation. For example, a game system designed to represent the

fighting a t Waterloo may be readily adapted to simulate th e battle of

Borodino.

The no vice can use the existing gam e system to d efine th e variab les

and procedures he will use in his variant or new game. One of the

easiest ways to characterize this stage of expertise development is

through the kinds of questions the designer is probably asking him-

self. At hear t, th ey ask, “Wha t should I use for the values of th e system

variables?”

The intermediate level

After d esigning his first warga me, th e novice designer may try it out

amon g his friend s and learn from th eir reactions. Incorporating h is

experience and new ideas based on research a nd analysis, the no vice

may begin the tran sition to journeyman status. He probab ly now h as

increased h is familiarity with multiple gam e systems, and ha s sorted

thin gs out accord ing to his own tastes. For exam ple, he ma y like the

combat system of on e game a nd the comma nd system of a noth er. But

he ma y also feel that n o on e has quite man aged to integrate logisticseffectively into the game.

So he ta kes on the next level. To his practical experience o f tweaking

an d m od ifying existing system variables, he ma y begin to con nect th e

dots. He sees how the command, movement, and combat systems of

different games can interact to produce new and better representa-

tions of h is own views of how th e ba ttles went. Within the cont ext of

existing techniques, he begins to see new applications and combina-

tions.

At th is level, the developing ga me d esigner ma y take a baseline system

but apply it to an entirely new situation in a new way. Instead of

modeling Napoleonic comba t, he may ada pt a Napoleonic system to

represent th e fight ing in the American Civil War. This may require

him to replace the method of resolving fire combat, because of the


28/116

24

chan ge in weapon s performance an d tactics over the intervening 45

years. Or he may decide that, in fact, d espite the impro vements in the

performan ce of individual weapons, battlefield performan ce of large

formation s of musket-armed infantr y cha nged only a little, and the

real factor of critical impo rtan ce was the relative lack of tra ining a nd

experience of the troops.

Now instead of simply changing the values of the systems variables,

the journeyman designer also begins to change their interconnec-

tions. He do es more a nd deeper research an d an alysis, and as a result

changes his perspective on what was important. He begins to inter-

pret what he reads with greater insight, distinguishing between what

is likely to be an hon est statement o f what h appened and what is more

likely to be post-war apologias .

The q uestions he a sks himself also begin to chan ge. Now the empha -

sis is on transformation and integration. “What can I change about

this system to make it better reflect my view of the world?”

The advanced level

As pointed out in Brobst and Brown, “The behavior of individuals

with a grea t dea l of experience (i.e., experts) in a variety of dom ains,

from med icine to chess to fighter pilots, ha s been compared to th at

of b eginners (i.e., no vices). ... O ne element of expertise is tha t expe-

rienced d ecision -ma kers in a variety of do ma ins ... ma ke de cisions

very differently from novices.”10

As our fictiona l game d esigner progresses, th e deta ils of m an y games

systems form the backdro p for n ew thoug ht processes. He h as a much

greater base of experience of things that worked an d th ings that did

not. Even more importantly, he is beginning to understand why he

10. Brob st an d B rown ( 2000), p. 19. Add itional references they give to

important research into these topics include: K. Anders Ericsson and

Jacqui Smith (eds.). Toward a General Theory of Experti se: Prospects and L im-

i ts . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991; Alexander Kotov.

Thin k L ike a Grandmaster . D allas: Ch ess Digest, 1971; Ro ger W. Schvan -

eveldt et al. Structures of Memory for Criti cal Fli ght In formation , June 1982

(Air Force Human Resources laboratory AFHRL-TP-81-46).


29/116

25

feels that th ey did or d id n ot work. From copying, then modifying, th e

expert game d esigner ha s advanced to creating.

At this level, the designer frequently starts to create a game from

scratch. The idea for a n ew topic and a new approach to representing

it on th e game board (or even more rad ically, without a game bo ard)

comes first. He may draw upon his experience to sort through some

options for representing th e factors he has now d ecided to focus on,

but it is the rea lity an d h is interpretation of it tha t comes first, no t the

mecha nics. At its core, th e game is fresh an d new, despite the use of

some classical elements (the ubiquitous and iniquitous hexagonal

grid bein g perha ps the best example) a nd tried -an d-true ba sic

mechanics. There is a fresh twist, a new perspective, an innovative

mechanic.

The d esigner con tinues to a sk himself the o ld q uestions. But t he

order is reversed. Elements of old systems and values of system vari-

ables will still have to be ch osen, but t he a nswers to the q uestions are

dictated by the new—and first—question the designer asks himself,

“H ow do I represent th is situation to m y satisfaction?”

Learning at different levels of expertise

“Trainin g n eeds to support learn ing a t ea ch level of skill perfor-

man ce, from no vice through expert. Many training programs add ressthe introductory level of per forman ce, focusing on teaching ind ivid-

ua l skills.” 11 This, of co urse, is no t surpr ising. The introd ucto ry skills

form th e found ation for a ny progress a learner can make. In add ition,

the n ovice learn er is seldom expected to d o mo re tha n th e very basic

tasks.

In a field such as wargame creation, with its complex mix of art and

science, research and creativity, practitioners who strive to develop

their expert ise con tinua lly learn new skills and new approa ches. This

is similar in ma ny ways to the situat ion of strike-fighter a ircrew studied

11. Brobst and B rown (2000), p. 20.


30/116

26

by Brobst and Brown in some ea rlier work.12 They summarized the

results of this analysis in the 2000 paper already cited.

[O ]nly a fraction of th e complete set of skills required for a

mission was expected fro m n ugget aviators. More experi-enced aviators on the mission performed the remainder,

such a s plan nin g an d decision -ma king skills. Ther efor e, the

overall training pro gram fo r all aviators needed t o con sider

both initial acquisition of individual skills and periodic

maintena nce o r refresher training of p reviously learned

skills.

Training progra ms also a dd ress the mo re ad van ced levels of

skill perfo rman ce, con sidering linking skills within the con-

text of t he m ission and using ta ctical concepts to guide skill

employment. However, we found that learning by individu-

als at tho se mor e ad van ced levels of skill per for ma nce is also

not well understood.13

The NWC elective course is to be a broa d overview of warga ming an d

its uses. Thus, we will con fine our at tent ion to tr aining at the n ovice,

an d p ossibly int ermed iate, levels. We will speculate on tra ining fo r

ad vanced expertise at th e end o f this paper.

12. CNA Research Memoran dum (CRM) 96-128, F/A-18 Ai rcrew Task Identi - fication and Analysis , by W. D. Bro bst and A. C. Brown, FOU O, D ecember

1996 and CNA Research Memorandum (CRM) 96-129, Developing Mea-

sures of Performance for F/ A-18 Ai rcrew Ski l ls by W. D. Bro bst an d A. C.

Bro wn, FOU O, D ecember 1996.

13. Brob st an d B rown ( 2000), pp. 20-21.


31/116

27

The NWC elective

Armed with our assessment of the skills important for creating war-

games, we can n ow exam ine th e det ails of the NWC elective itself. To

do so, we will use th e d raft syllabus for the course, as it exists at th e

time th is paper is being written. We will compa re th e syllabus and the

skills it addresses with our analysis of the skills of wargame creation

presented in th e preceding section, to ident ify any insights that migh t

improve the design of th e course.

Overview of the course

The overall objective of the elective course, as described in the d raft

syllabus, is to p rovide th e stud ents with a n in trod uction to “th e

essential intellectual d iscipline th at und erpins the th eory an d prac-

tice of wargamin g.”14 The learn ing goa ls are to help students become

capable of:

• Tran slating research an d d ecision req uirements into gam e

design

• Judging th e validity an d q uality of a given gam e design an d exe-

cution

• Judging the applicability of various models and simulations to

a given warga me design

• Designing a schem e for capturing ga me results

• Critically interpreting gam e results

• Recognizing strength s and weaknesses of ga me repo rts.

14. The various quotations and detailed d escriptions of the course are

taken fro m th e on -line course description po sted o n t he WG D Warga m-

ing Elective portal as of 30 September 2002. The URL for this page is

h t t p s : / / n w c p o r t a l . n w c . n a v y . m i l / w a r d / e l 5 9 9 / L i s t s / P r o -

posed%20Syllabus/barneys%20view.htm


32/116

28

The co urse com prises ten th ree-h our session s. These session s are

envisioned to be a mix of lectures, d iscussions, case stud ies, an d in-

class exercises. In ad dition , the students will be assigned to prod uce

an appro priate ga me design to d eal with o ne of a set of specific topics.

This practical exercise in wargam e creat ion is cast in t erms of a task-

ing from a sponsor, which the students must address. Their tasking

will require them to:

• Determine how wargaming can contribute to answering the

question, including the number of games and the expected

knowledge to be ga ined.

• Determine the type of wargame(s) to be played and their

structure, including assessment methodology and role of com-

puters.

• Determine who should be the players.

• Describe ho w game collection an d an alysis will be cond ucted.

• Pro vide ra tiona les for a ll design d ecisions.

The propo sed topics for th e exercise include:

1. What is the impact of projected defense on global aircraft car-

rier opera tions?

2. Ho w should global maritime intercept policy be structured?

3. Should high-speed combatan ts be attached to ba ttle groups or

operated a s independ ent squadr ons?

4. Of wha t utility is an afloat C -130 base to b attle group an d

MPF(F) opera tions?

5. What is the most effective mix of mann ed and unma nn ed plat-

form s for strike op eration s?

6. What is the proper composition fo r an expeditionary strikegroup for coun ter-terror o peration s?

7. What is the opt imum Navy ISR mix in th e joint con text to sup-

por t time-sensitive strike opera tion s?


33/116

29

8. Wha t set of rules of en gagemen t best suppo rt time-sensitive

strike operations?

9. Which capabilities ha ve the highest “pa yoff” in assured a ccess

operations?

10. H ow should th e USN counter small boat swarm operations?

11. What is the optimal mix of n ational capab ilities (sea a nd air lift,

preposi t ionin g af loat a nd on land) for s tra tegic mobil i ty,

deployability, and sustainability?

12. Wha t is the b est ta sking m etho d fo r service and joint ISR assets?

The course is thus an amb itious attem pt to provide stud ents with both

the th eoretical background and und erstand ing they will need to

apply wargaming techniques to solve problems, and the practical

experience of facing a realistic situation th at a wargame creator m ay

well confront and dealing with that situation by applying the lessons

they ha ve just learn ed.

Table 7 presents the complete outline of the ten sessions of the

course. It describes the objectives of the sessions and provides some

additional background discussion. This table contains the basic data

we use to an alyze th e set o f skills the course is designed to teach , using

the framework we constructed in the preceding section.


34/116

30

Table 7. Outline syllabus for NWC elective course on wargaming

Session Objectives Discussion

1. Course Introduction

and the Nature of War-gaming

• Acquaint students with fac-

ulty and each other• Establish detailed understand-ing of course flow and require-ments

• Acquaint students with NWCwargaming capabilities

• Establish a common under-standing of terms and basicconcepts

This course will employ active learning

techniques such as case studies, exercises,and seminar discussions. For these tech-niques to be effective, the class and facultymust have a firm basis for interaction, andan accurate set of mutual expectations.

This session will establish class familiaritywith each other, with the basic terms andconcepts of wargaming, and with the his-tory, philosophy and capabilities of theNaval War College Wargaming Depart-ment. Note that this session will introducethe Wargame Construction Kit. Studentswill use this kit to build an in-class war-

game that they will play later in the course. Teams will be assigned to different aspectsof the game. The class will devote 30 min-utes of each session to a discussion of thedevelopment of this game.

2. Why Wargame? • Understand the relationshipsbetween gaming and otherforms of analysis

• Understand the nature ofindeterminacy and its impacton analysis and wargaming

• Understand the characteris-tics of wargames that makethem useful for supportingdecision making

• Recognize the kinds of prob-lems that are suitable for war-gaming

Aside from entertainment and education,wargames are primarily used to support,either directly or indirectly, military deci-sion making. However, wargames are not apanacea for finding the solution to a prob-lem. To arrive at a quality decision, thenature and structure of a problem must bediscerned and the appropriate decisionsupport technique applied. Wargaming isonly one of a number of decision supporttools that can be used, and it is importantto understand when its use is appropriate,along with its benefits and limitations. Thissession will explore the nature of militaryproblems, the particular characteristics ofwargames, and how they can be used tobest advantage in problem solving anddecision support. In-class cases will beanalyzed.

3. The Structure and

Elements of Gaming

• Enhance student understand-

ing of how wargames work• Establish a basis for critiquingwargames

• Provide knowledge necessaryto engage in wargame designand analysis

Wargames have a well-defined internal

structure that must be understood in orderto be able to judge the quality of a particu-lar game. Moreover, understanding of gamedynamics is necessary to effectively linkobjectives to game design. This session willfocus on the general mechanics of war-games and the principles underpinningtheir design and execution.


35/116

31

4. Analyzing Wargames • Develop understanding of

wargame data collection andanalysis techniques and princi-ples

Wargames constitute, in a sense, artificial

military history. Players live an experience,and how they react to that experience,through their plans and decisions, can pro-vide useful insight for both educational andresearch purposes. However, extractingvalid insights and lessons from gamesrequires careful planning to ensure thatcritical information is captured during thegame, and that only supportable conclu-sions are drawn from this data. Too often,valuable information is lost due to a defec-tive collection process and unsupportableconclusions are drawn. This session will

address basic principles of collection andanalysis.

5. Modeling and Simu-lation

• Understand the intellectualunderpinnings of models andsimulations used to supportwargaming

• Understand how computermodels are used to supportwargaming

6. Wargame Design • Understand the process andprinciples of game design• Be able to link game design to

problem definition

The success of a wargame is principallyinfluenced by the quality of its design. Thissession will examine the major principles

of game design and students will work onrefining the design of the in-class wargame.

7. Playing Red • Understand the relative bene-fits and limitations of one-sided and two-sided games• Understand the impacts andimplication of free-play Redteams• Understand the requirementsof playing Red

Most wargames involve opposition bysome agency. Red is the conventionalname for the opponent to the principalplayers in a wargame, and can consist ofeither simulated opposition by means ofumpires or a computerized opponent, or aset of opposing players who are free, invarying degrees, to select their own coursesof action. How Red is portrayed and playedhas a profound impact on the dynamics ofgame design and play.

8. Wargame Play I • Execute the tabletop gamedesigned by the seminar

• Gain experience with gameplay

This session will be the first of two in whichstudents will play the game they havedesigned.

Table 7. Outline syllabus for NWC elective course on wargaming (continued)



36/116

32

Skills analysis

In Tab le 5, we developed a task list for warg ame crea tion b ased on o ur

an alysis of the existing sources. To re itera te, th is list ident ified eleven

bro ad tasks.

1. Develop the concept.

2. Specify objectives.

3. Do basic research.

4. Integrate the design elements.

5. Prototype the design.

6. Produce a f irst draft .

7. Develop the game.

8. Do blind testing.

9. Edit the game.

10. Produce the game.

11. Analyze the game.

9. Wargame Play II • Execute the tabletop game

designed by the seminar• Gain experience with gameplay

This session will be the second of two in

which students will play the game theyhave designed.

10. Wargame HotWash and Course WrapUp

• Extract lessons learned fromthe in-class wargame projectand synthesize the learningachieved in the course

An effective hot wash session is critical tothe success of most wargames. In this ses-sion we will review the events of the in-class game with the objective of extractinglessons learned within the game contextand conducting a critique of the design andexecution of the game itself. Class mem-bers will draw on their learning throughoutthe course to contribute to the discussion.

Table 7. Outline syllabus for NWC elective course on wargaming (continued)



37/116

33

To a na lyze th e skills con ten t o f th e NWC elective course, our first step

is to associate these 11tasks with the learning objectives defined in

table 7. We do th is in table 8.

From th is analysis we see that, a t least at this broa d level, the co urse

plans to touch on the fu ll range o f tasks an d a ssociated skills. In some

cases, however, virtually the only means of addressing the tasks is

through the med ium of the class project to develop a warga me design

to meet some hypothetical sponsor’s needs. The project itself, of

course, gives the players a taste of the entire process at some level of

detail.

Perhaps the task that seems to receive the least amount of emphasis

in the syllabus is tha t of condu cting ba sic research . Ind eed, the course

objective we placed in this category—”Understand the process and

principles of game design”—is likely to touch on the research issue

on ly lightly. G iven the experien ce of the prospective stud ents, it is rea-

sona ble to a ssume th at they have funda menta l skills in con ducting

such research in general terms. However, research to support game

design and development may have unique characteristics, and it is

aga in likely tha t on ly the co urse project will expose the stud ents to th e

need for such skills.

Another observation that we can make based on this analysis is that

there appears to be little formal structure in the course for teachingthe skills associated with testing games and game systems. The use of

the Warga me C onstruction Kit a nd the in-class gaming of sessions 8

and 9 are the primary elements of the course tha t touch on testing.

In our experience, the lack of adequate testing is the single biggest

contributing fa ctor to wargame failures.

This is a ma jor prob lem in Do D ga ming. Warga mes often h ave to be

created quickly, and pract itioners seldom d evote eno ugh t ime to test-

ing and refining their games. Experienced designers may be able toget by with limited testing, bu t the novice and even th e intermed iate-

level designer usually canno t—at least no t witho ut th e risk of serious

problems.


38/116

34

Table 8. Sorting of syllabus objectives by game-creation tasks

Task Syllabus objective (Session #)

1. Develop the concept • Understand the relationships between gaming and other forms

of analysis (2)• Understand the nature of indeterminacy and its impact onanalysis and wargaming (2)• Recognize the kinds of problems that are suitable for wargam-ing (2)• Enhance student understanding of how wargames work (3)• Understand the relative benefits and limitations of one-sidedand two-sided games (7)

2. Specify objectives • Understand the characteristics of wargames that make themuseful for supporting decision making (2)

• Be able to link game design to problem definition (6)3. Do asic research • Understand the process and principles of game design (6)4. Integrate design elements

•Provide knowledge necessary to engage in wargame design

and analysis (3)• Understand the process and principles of game design (6)• Be able to link game design to problem definition (6)• Understand the impacts and implication of free-play Redteams (7)

• Understand the requirements of playing Red (7)5. Prototype the design • Understand the intellectual underpinnings of models and sim-

ulations used to support wargaming (5)

• Understand how computer models are used to support war-gaming (5)

• Understand the process and principles of game design (6)6. Produce a first draft • Course projecta

7. Develop the game • Establish a basis for critiquing wargames (3)• Execute the tabletop game designed by the seminar (8 and 9)• Gain experience with game play (8 and 9)

8. Do blind testing • Execute the tabletop game designed by the seminar (8 and 9)• Gain experience with game play (8 and 9)

9. Edit the game • Course projecta

10. Produce the game • Course projecta

11. Analyze the game • Develop understanding of wargame data collection and analy-sis techniques and principles (4)

• Extract lessons learned from the in-class wargame project andsynthesize the learning achieved in the course (10)

a The course project provides practical experience with all elements of the process, but is the primarymeans of exposing students to this task.


39/116

35

The way the course deals with the question of modeling, so funda-

mental to the core of game design, is not well described in the sylla-

bus. At th e time of this writing, th e session dea ling with mo deling

centers around a guest speaker and associated discussion. Once

again, the experience base of the students may well include more

formal courses in the kind of modeling associated with operations

research an d systems ana lysis in D oD. A bro ader con cept of mod els—

which includes the entire game under that rubric, as well as the sup-

port ing topic-specific models that may support p lay—may be a useful

addition to the discussion.

In terms of the five critical skills—perspective, interpretation,

research , a na lysis, an d creativity—we can ma ke essentia lly the sam e

commen ts as above. The course syllabus touches on all of the critical

skills to one degree or an oth er. In part icular, th e early sessions con-

centra te hea vily on helping players develop a coherent perspective on

gaming a nd its application, as well as on how to deal with the n eeds

of sponsors. The use of g uest speakers, case studies, an d class d iscus-

sion will exercise and sharpen interpretive and analytical skills.

Research and analysis seem to receive less, or at least less obvious,

attention, b ut will come to the fore in the course projects and the in-

class gaming and discussion. The scope for creating new concepts

and new game mechanics is also tied tightly to the projects and the

discussions of the WCK.

Our overa ll conclusion from th e prelimin ary skills-ba sed an alysis we

ha ve been ab le to cond uct in the time available to us is tha t the course

as described is well focused for the introductory level of wargame

creation . It will also have value for pr actitioners making the tran sition

from introd uctory to intermed iate skill levels. The m ore d ifficult tra n-

sition from intermediate to advanced levels of expertise remains

elusive, in practice as well as in trainin g an d ed ucation prog rams.


40/116


41/116

37

The Wargame Construction Kit

This section of t he p aper provides an o verview of o ur Warga me

Construction Kit (WCK). It discusses the basic concept of the WCK,

the d esign philosophy, and our recommend ations for ho w to use the

WCK to help teach critical wargame-design skills. The full documen-

tation of th e WCK is provided in th e appendix.

The WCK concept

The idea o f a wargame construction kit can be traced in one form or

another all the way back to the origins of what we would consider

modern wargaming. The underlying idea is for such a kit to provide

the basic framework and fundamental concepts for a game system

that individual users can adapt to represent situations of interest to

them.

To a ssist with the NWC’s elective course, we designed a nd pro duced

a tab letop, two-sided , d istillation -style “ wargam e con struction kit.”

This kit embodies a system to represent terrain, forces, sensors, com-man d an d con trol systems, an d ot her aspects of mod ern war fare. We

created the WCK to provide a found ation for the stud ents in th e elec-

tive course to explore the concepts associated with game design. It

will also give them a starting point to develop a working game-

assessment system for a wide variety of game types and scenarios.

Each of the adjectives used above to describe the WCK has specific

implications for the creation and use of the prod uct. First, it is a ta ble-

top game system. Tha t is, it is played on a t abletop , using, in this case,

paper or ca rdb oard compo nen ts. It is two-sided. That is, it is inten dedas a competitive game between o pposing players, either ind ividua ls or

teams. It is a distillation -style game. Tha t is, it red uces real-world pro b-

lems an d entities into a simplified representation focused o n a few

prom inent elements of that real-world environ ment. (O ne way of dis-

tinguishing d istillation s from abstraction s is tha t real-world lan guag e


42/116

38

and concepts can be used to describe situations, actions, and out-

comes in a d istillation without a lot of men tal gymna stics.)15

On e of o ur principal goa ls in creating the WCK was to pro vide th e

instructors of the elective course with a train ing to ol they could u se to

give the studen ts some practical experience in d esigning warga mes at

the introd uctory and intermed iate levels of skill. U sing the WCK as a

basis, the studen ts could m od ify the values of th e para meters and vari-

ables includ ed in the WCK to represent d ifferent situatio ns or differ-

ent views of wha t is import an t in a military confron tation . They could

also use th e WCK as the game ad judication “en gine” in seminar-style

gam es they might d evelop dur ing th e course.

Design philosophyThe WCK is an o perat iona l-level gam e system, a da ptab le to a n otion al

or a ctual geogr aph ic theater o f opera tions. The design ob jective is to

provide a flexible, consistent, and simple set of mechanics for war-

gaming contempora ry and near-term con flicts (out to about 2015),

with emphasis on joint comman d and control. Players—or teams—

typically take the role of national command, or theater, army, fleet,

or air force comman ders, depend ing on the scenario. Land units rep-

resent d ivisions, brigades, an d some specialized regimen ts (or batta l-

ions). Naval units represent individua l subma rines, carrier battlegroups, and task forces or flotillas of smaller vessels. Air units repre-

sent sorties generated by a gr oup, wing, or squad ron, which are gen-

erally based “ off-boa rd ” (fo r simplicity, un less the scenar io d esigner

need s to represent airb ases).

Basic concepts

First, as the na me implies, the Warga me Co nstruction Kit is a tool fo r

constructing wargames. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it's

15. For a more complete discussion of th e concepts of abstraction s, distilla-

tions, an d simulations as applied to wargames, see CNA Research Mem-

orandum (CRM) D0006277.A1, Game-Based Experimentati on for Research

in Command and Control and Shared Si tuati onal Awareness , by Peter P.

Per la, Micha el Markowitz, and C hr istop her Weuve, May 2002.


43/116

39

an example of how wargames are constructed. To th at end , we made

an extra effort to incorporate extensive design notes into the rules.

These notes discuss the various trad eoffs we mad e during th e gam e-

developmen t pro cess, ho w the various parts of th e design affect ea ch

other (every decision has at least the potential to affect every other

decision) , and ( ho pefully) pro vide insigh t to those who are using the

kit to design t heir own g ames.

We or igin ally con ceived o f th is WCK as a d istillatio n-style system . In

the event, it h as crept ever farther along the con tinuum from a d istil-

lation to a simulation, probably more so than we originally envi-

sioned. This process, too, is part of the educational value of the

WCK—it is far easier to add more and more detail (also known as

“d irt”) to the system in th e nam e of realism than it is to design elegant

solution s to keep the d etail low but the realism h igh. Nevertheless, we

have tried to avoid the temptation to add special capabilities, special

factor s, more t ables, an d m ore d ie rolls to a ccoun t explicitly for every

exception, or specia l interest , or h idden agend a th at might be

injected d uring the creation of the game.

The system is designed to be played a s a ta bletop g ame a nd as such it

embodies man y of the traditional concepts of board wargame design.

The playing surface is a map, over which a stylized grid is imposed to

help regulate movement and combat. Unlike the vast majority of

board wargames, however, that grid is not necessarily an hexagonal

field, but presumably uses irregularly shaped areas to represent the

terrain . (We say “presumably,” b ecause the users of th e WCK are cer-

tainly free to use hexagons, squares, or any other type of system to

perform th e same function.)

We also assume tha t milita ry units and ca pabilities will usually be rep-

resented by flat playing pieces (as opposed to miniature vehicles,

ships an d a ircraf t). Typically th ese pieces (tr ad ition ally kno wn as

coun ters) are constructed o f cardboa rd o f various sha pes an d sizes to

suit the circumstances. The playing pieces for the WCK illustrate the

type of unit or capability they represent along with certain alphanu-

meric values that encod e th eir iden ti t ies an d capa bil i t ies. We

designed th e stand ard format for the playing pieces so th at th ey

would have no more th an a single number a nd a single letter on every

unit (a side from a ny unit identification).


44/116

40

Combat and other interactions are mediated by a set of rules and

charts. Random numbers are provided by the roll of dice of various

types an d n umb ers, typically the classic six-side d d ice or th e mor e

exotic ten -sided dice. To the extent we were able, we limited the use

of complex charts and tried to keep things clean. The basic combat

system, for example, uses only a simple, two-column chart.

Wargame failure modes

During the design and development of the WCK, we tried to remain

conscious of the primary modes of failure for wargames. A wargame

can fail to achieve its objectives in several ways. The major failure

mod es are:

• Bad research.

• Bad design.

• Bad development.

Bad research

A game can fail by being techn ically or historically inaccurate. This is

essentially a failure of research. Errors of fact ( wrong O rder o f Bat tle,

incorrect terrain) are relatively easy to spot and correct. Errors of

an alysis (com bat or mo vement dyna mics tha t fail to reflect real ph ys-

ical or h uman limits, game pro cesses that ignore or d istort logistic

constraints) are h arder to iden tify, an d will often req uire rethinking

a design.

Warg amer s typically delight in end less bickering over th e relat ive

capab ilities of various weapon s, platfo rms, and sensors, an d precisely

how th ese are q uantified an d modeled in games. They often neglect

the h ard work of trying to und erstand the system-level interaction s of

military forces in conflict. A good game should provide insight into

com mand an d con tro l processes of decision-makers. The “G od 's-eye

view” of mo st tableto p wargam es (per fect kno wledge of your o wn and

the enemy’s situation ) do es no t auto matically prod uce a fata lly flawed

model of the fog of war. It does demand creative design, however, to

force players to deal with uncertainties analogous to those faced by

the real-world com man ders—tha t is, uncertainties that result fro m


45/116

41

incomplete intelligence and imperfect communications. An accurate

game helps players develop valid insights: it rewards historically or

do ctrinally correct tactics, an d punishes their o pposite. The really dif-

ficult part is to en sure it d oes that while still allowing the players some

scope for creative and ima ginative solutions to th e prob lems they con-

front without allowing them to stray into the realms of fantasy and

delusion.

Bad design

A wargame can simply be unplayable, because of contradictory or

missing rules, unworkable mechanics, or—most commonly—exces-

sive com plexity for the available time an d pat ience of the players. As

mentioned earlier, game designers are often tempted to add com-

plexity (special cases, int ricate g raph ics, elabo rat e pro cesses) t oexhibit th eir ma stery of the subject. Because reality is infinitely com-

plex, a gam e that a spires to “ simulate” or m od el reality is driven—in

the d esigner's mind —toward a proliferation of com plexity. The result

can be that the players spend more time trying to understand and

carry out a set of rules and pro cedures than they spend making th e

actual decisions those rules and procedures exist to implement.

Game developers try to counteract this tendency by “adding simplic-

ity.” Good wargame rules are well written—as in William Strunk's

classic d efinition:

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no

unn ecessary words, a para graph no unn ecessary senten ces,

for the same reason tha t a drawing should ha ve no un neces-

sary lines and a m achin e no unn ecessary parts. This requires

not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he

avoid a ll detail and treat h is subjects on ly in ou tline, but th at

every word tell.16

A goo d design is like a g ood lesson plan . After playing th e gam e, the

players should have learned something. If the game fails to teach, or

teaches invalid lessons, then the designer failed to meet th e ob jec-

tives.

16. William Strun k, Jr. an d E.B . White. The Elements of Style, 3rd ed . New Yor k:

Macmillan, 1979, p. xiv.


46/116

42

Bad development

A game can also fail by not being fun to play. Gamers often use the

term “f idd ly” to d escribe game mechan ics that are needlessly cumber-

some, counterintuitive, or excessively burdensome to players' short-term memory. The engineering term “kludge” comes to mind here:

Kludge ( prono unced KLOO dzh) is an awkward or clumsy

(but at least temporarily effective) solution to a pro gram-

ming or hardware design or implementation problem.

According to Eric Raymond, the term is indirectly derived

from the German klug mean ing clever. Raymond considers

“kludge” an incorrect spelling of kluge , a term of the 1940s

with th e same gen eral mean ing an d po ssibly inspired by the

Kluge paper feeder, a “fiendishly complex assortment of

cams, belts, and linkages...devilishly difficult to repair...but

oh , so clever!” 17

Wha t players experience a s “not fun” is typically the result of ina de-

qu ate development. “Ga me development” is the common term for a

process somewhat akin to editing. But development encompasses a

wider variety of activities. Essentially, development takes the good

ideas in a d esign an d ma gnifies them —and it takes the bad id eas in a

design and eliminates, or at least minimizes, them. A well-developed

game is polished; its rough edges have been filed off through exten-

sive testing with a variety of players. A well-developed game is intui-

tive; it works the way players expect it to work, events flow smoothly,processes are logical, an d the rules explain th ings clearly.

Our o verall success in avoiding the worst o f th ese failure m od es will

on ly be judged by the users of the WCK. To th e extent t ha t pro blems

remain in th e system, h owever, the students may benefit from the t ask

of trying to correct them an d improve the utility and accuracy of the

system. The next section outlines some of the other uses we envision

the WCK serving for the elective course.

17. http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci212446,00.html


47/116

43

Using the WCK

When we began this study, the pr imary purpose and projected use for

the WCK was to provide a system to represent key elements of a mili-

tar y campaign in a relatively straigh tforward a nd easily implemented

game forma t. It was to serve as the found ation fo r the students of the

elective course to explore the art and science of wargame design by

expanding on the basic WCK to produce their own scenarios to rep-

resent specific campa igns, and varian t rules to mod ify the values and

con cepts presented in th e basic WCK. We also envisioned the possi-

bility that the WCK could provide the students with the basis for

developing a working g am e-assessmen t system for a wide variety of

game types and scenarios, particularly to support the play of high-

level seminar games.

As we developed the WCK, our thinking about h ow it could be used

effectively coalesced in to three b road catego ries:

• Playing the ga me.

• Building new scenario s.

• Cha nging the ga me system.

Playing the game

Most wargamers and wargame designers believe that to design war-

gam es well one must first be ab le to play games—altho ugh n ot n eces-

sarily to play them well (indeed, it is rare tha t a t op-no tch d esigner is

also a first-ra te player).

“P lay” appears to be an inna te instinct for social-mam mal predato rs,

such as orcas (killer whales) and humans (killer monkeys). Play

evolved as rehearsal and practice of survival skills. Sports are play in

the locomotor domain; games (as wargamers understand the term)

wargame creation skills and the wargame construction kit

Documents