• Home
  • Resources
    • Find Resources by Topic Tags
    • Cybersecurity Policy Chart
    • CSIAC Reports
    • Webinars
    • Podcasts
    • Cybersecurity Digest
    • Standards & Reference Docs
    • Journals
    • Certifications
    • Acronym DB
    • Cybersecurity Related Websites
  • Services
    • Free Technical Inquiry
    • CAT Program
    • Subject Matter Experts
    • Training
    • Contact
  • Community
    • Upcoming Events
    • Cybersecurity
    • Modeling & Simulation
    • Knowledge Management
    • Software Engineering
    • Cyber COI
  • About
    • About the CSIAC
    • The CSIAC Team
    • DTIC’s IAC Program
    • DTIC’s R&E Gateway
    • Inquiries & CAT’s
    • FAQ’s
    • DTIC STI Program
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Login / Register

CSIAC

Cyber Security and Information Systems Information Analysis Center

  • Resources
    • Find Resources by Topic Tags
    • Cybersecurity Policy Chart
    • CSIAC Reports
    • Webinars
    • Podcasts
    • Cybersecurity Digest
    • Standards & Reference Docs
    • Journals
    • Certifications
    • Acronym DB
    • Cybersecurity Websites
  • Services
    • Free Technical Inquiry
    • CAT Program
    • Subject Matter Experts
    • Training
    • Contact
  • Community
    • Upcoming Events
    • Cybersecurity
    • Modeling & Simulation
    • Knowledge Management
    • Software Engineering
    • Cyber COI
  • About
    • About the CSIAC
    • The CSIAC Team
    • DTIC’s IAC Program
    • DTIC’s R&E Gateway
    • Inquiries & CAT’s
    • FAQ’s
    • DTIC STI Program
  • Cybersecurity
  • Modeling & Simulation
  • Knowledge Management
  • Software Engineering
  • Cyber COI
/ Journal Issues / Modeling and Simulation Special Edition: Wargaming / Adjudication in Wargaming for Discovery

Adjudication in Wargaming for Discovery

Published in Journal of Cyber Security and Information Systems
Volume: 4 Number: 3 - Modeling and Simulation Special Edition: Wargaming

Author: Charles Turnitsa
Posted: 12/01/2016 | Leave a Comment

Introduction

Wargaming is currently a very important topic, due to the renewed interest in pursuing the activity within the US Department of Defense (US DoD), for the purposes of discovery and exploration of future courses of action. Wargaming itself is very closely related to simulation, especially simulation for military training and experimentation, however there are some important differences. An understanding of what it means to do wargaming for discovery, and also how adjudication (or evaluation of results) of the plans and events that unfold in such a wargame, is the topic of this article. It begins with an overview of what wargaming for discovery might be, based on definitions from literature and from practice, and continues with an overview of what and how adjudication is currently done within a variety of different systems. Finally, a proposed method that combines some of the strengths of existing adjudication methods with the particular needs for wargaming when it is done for discovery, is presented.

Wargaming

Wargaming is a particular activity, and although this issue of the Journal of Cyber Security & Information Systems, M&S Special Edition, is dedicated to the topic, for the purposes of this article, and a discussion of adjudication, it is worthwhile to begin with some discussion of defining the term. For the purposes of the discussion here, a wargame is an artificial replacement for conflict. It is an event experienced by the players and facilitators, but as such it is guided by rules for its execution, which exist to ensure that the participants make decisions and take actions that would be plausible. It is intended that the player roles will be by opposing human opponents, so that impediments to courses of action and plans are made with the highest degree of challenge. In so doing, the wargame is an excellent tool for exploration and discovery. This is true for new courses of action, new plans, understanding the weakness of existing plans, and other reasons. In order to evaluate the results of matching the plans and actions of each side against the other, the rules for the wargame must include mechanisms for adjudicating results when the players’ actions come into conflict with each other. Although this is the understanding of wargaming relied on for this article, it is by no means a new definition. The description of a wargame as a synthetic replacement for warfare, employing live players on both sides, was described well by Perla, “a warfare model or simulation that does not involve the operations of actual forces, in which the flow of events affects and is affected by decisions made during the course of those events by players representing the opposing sides” [1]. The concept of a wargame for discovery is described well by Wiggins1 [2]:

There are multiple reasons for the use of war games; discovery, examination of concepts, and even learning. The value of the war game is to create an enabling environment to achieve the desired objective(s). The benefits of a war game are numerous; however, for the most part they provide new ways of conceptualizing the problem, new courses of action, new elements of information needed for decisions, previously unknown relationships between aspects of a problem, understanding of the problem’s dynamics.

By this definition we see some commonality with, and some differences from, the body of simulators typically employed by the US DoD in its pursuit of Live-Virtual-Constructive (LVC) simulation. Such simulation is often, but not always, done for the purpose of training. Simulators that exist for the purpose of training work quite well with computer generated forces often (but again, not always) taking the role of red forces, allied forces, and civilian or non-aligned forces. Wargaming for the purposes of this article, works best with live human participants controlling the forces of the opposed sides within the game. LVC simulators also exist, and are used for, staff training where the generation of highly detailed data is a highly valued product of the simulation that results from their use. This data is often specifically for realistic and plausible stimulation of Command and Control (C2) devices that staff members will be training to use, in anticipation of actual operations. In the case of wargaming for discovery, such training is not the main goal. The stimulation of a C2 device is also not the goal. The main goals of wargaming for discovery are the devising, executing, and testing of courses of action against an enemy, in order to explore some military problem or proposed future situation. To that end, knowing whether a course of action is executing successfully, or not, and in which areas it is strong, or weak, is what must be conveyed.

Current users and advocates of computerized combat simulation might be surprised to find that many within the professional wargaming community endorse and continue to promote the execution of wargames through a strictly manual process. Such wargames take a number of different forms, but the main distinction is between a seminar wargame, and a tabletop wargame. The terms are not precise, and there is often overlap, but to understand (for the purposes of this article) what is meant by the two ideas, the following descriptions are provided.

A seminar wargame is one where a situation, usually of a military nature (but sometimes of an economic, geo-political, or combination of several of these), is presented to an audience, and then courses of action and their results are discussed in an open forum. Often those that are a mixture of military and other domains (usually political) are called Pol/Mil games (political-military). There is a referee staff that prepares and presents information to the participants that describes the background for the situation (which may, for instance, include fictional countries), and also the resources at hand for each of the participating factions. The starting point of the scenario is indicated, and then, through discussion and presentation of ideas, there is a conversation between the participants and the referee staff. Subject matter experts will evaluate the proposed ideas, and either accept them, or have counter ideas (either generated from themselves, or presented by an opposition force group of players). As the tempo of the game picks up, with proposal and counter proposal, the referee staff relies on their own subject matter expertise to evaluate the results of the player actions, and report back to them a description of the unfolding situation. This method for holding a wargame is extremely flexible, as the timeline can be moved backwards and forwards, and once a proposal is explored and discussed, it can be countered and changed, and then further discussion is made of the alternative. A seminar wargame has a “system” of rules – but they usually define such basic elements including what sides are participating, what the chances are of requesting support from an authority not represented in the game, amount of time allowed to participants to respond to the current situation, and so on. These rules are specifically designed for ease of execution and flexibility, without having to rely on a more formal system for evaluating casualties, or likelihood of success. That is provided through the expert knowledge of the referee staff.

A tabletop wargame is one that is more systematized than a seminar wargame, but perhaps slightly less flexible. It is one where the action of the military and/or political situation is represented on some sort of map, or grid, on a table top. Military units (or other focuses of resource and/or strength) are presented as game pieces (tokens, chits, military models, flags, etc.) that have a place on the tabletop map or grid. Maps and graphics might be employed in a seminar wargame, but typically the movement of forces, and the exertion of power (combat, political, etc.) is controlled by the subject matter experts supporting the referee staff. In a tabletop wargame, a system of rules (similar to those rules that a computerized simulation might employ, although somewhat less complex) is present that declares (for instance) that an armored unit may move so many spaces along a grid. Likewise, a tabletop wargame system will include rules for determining the results of conflict and/or tasks. This may be the removal or reduction of military forces, the expenditure of results, or the consumption of time to complete tasks. The flexibility in the system results from the fact that by simply counting back a few “turns” in the game, and resetting some of the game pieces, that replaying parts of the conflict with changes to plans or outcomes, is easily handled. A recent case for the continued strength and viability of tabletop wargaming was made by Philip Sabin, in a series of lectures at the German Armed Forces University, at Hamburg [6].

In contrast to both seminar and tabletop wargames, computerized combat simulators have the means to offer highly detailed results from conflict and the execution of tasks by units in the wargame. However, such detailed results come with the price of computerized combat simulators being much more complex to set up and run. Usually the individuals that have the expertise to facilitate, narrate, and execute a wargame are not the same that can operate the computerized systems – requiring additional staff, and frequently a large time and resource investment in ensuring that all the factors and data describing the game must be transformed into data products that the simulator can make use of. In the arenas of weapon systems experimentation (for acquisition, as an example), or for staff training – these investments are worth it, because of the high premium value of detailed results (and also the value of distributed simulators being coordinated and working together). But for wargames of discovery, the community of practice will as often as not find it more convenient to rely on a tabletop or seminar wargame.

Pages: Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5

Previous Article:
« Computer Assisted Military Wargaming: The SWIFT Wargame...
Next Article:
Cyber Science and Technology at the Army... »

Endnotes

  1. Wiggins also credits the phrase “they provide new ways of conceptualizing the problem, new courses of action, new elements of information needed for decisions, previously unknown relationships between aspects of a problem, understanding of the problem’s dynamics” to John Hughes, in a Strategic Studies Group Dissertation, from 1991.

References

  1. Perla, Peter. 1990. The Art of Wargaming: A Guide for Professionals and Hobbyists. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.
  2. Wiggins, Warren. 2013. “Adjudication in Game Design: An Introduction.” US Naval War College. Online at: https://www.usnwc.edu/Research---Gaming/War-Gaming/Documents/Publications/Articles.aspx last accessed, September, 2016.
  3. Wiggins, Warren. 2014. “Wargame Adjudication: Adjudication Styles.” US Naval War College. Online at: https://www.usnwc.edu/Research---Gaming/War-Gaming/Documents/Publications/Articles.aspx last accessed, September, 2016.
  4. Perla, Peter, Michael Markowitz, Christopher Weuve, Karin Duggan, and Leesa Woodard. 2002. Wargame-Creation Skills and the Wargame Construction Kit. Alexandria, VA: CAN Corporation. pp. 43-45.
  5. Brynen, Rex. 2016. “Matrix Games at the US Army War College.” PAXsims web publication. Online at https://paxsims.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/matrix-games-at-the-us-army-war-college/ last accessed, September, 2016.
  6. Sabin, Philip. 2015. “Simple Multi-Player Wargaming as an Educational Technique.” Angewandte Mathematik un Optimierung Seminar #17. Hamburg, Germany: Helmut Schmidt Universitat. Online at http://www.hsu-hh.de/am/index_eIfmVzZ3ZC5xUe1O.html last accessed, September, 2016.
  7. McHugh, Francis J. 1966. Fundamentals of War Gaming, 3rd Edition. Newport, RI: US Naval War College. pp. 3-31,32.
  8. Strickland, Jeffrey. 2011. Using Math to Defeat the Enemy: Combat Modeling for Simulation. Colorado Springs, CO: Lulu, Inc.
  9. Youngren, Mark and Warren Olson. 1994. Military Operations Research Analyst’s Handbook, Vol I and II. Alexandria, VA: Military Operations Research Society.
  10. Loper, Margaret and Charles Turnitsa. 2012. “History of Combat Modeling and Distributed Simulation,” in Engineering Principles of Combat Modeling and Distributed Simulation, Andreas Tolk, ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. pp. 335-336.
  11. Lanchester, Frederick. 1956. “Mathematics in Warfare,” in The World of Mathematics, Vol 4, J. Newman ed. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
  12. Taylor, James. 1983. Lanchester-Type Models of Warfare, Vol I and II. Arlington, VA: Military Applications Society.
  13. Epstein, Joshua. 1985. The Calculus of Conventional War: Dynamic Analysis without Lanchester Theory. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
  14. Dupuy, Trevor. 1990. Attrition: Forecasting Battle Casualties and Equipment Losses in Modern War. Fairfax, VA: Hero Books.
  15. Loper and Turnitsa, pp. 333-334.
  16. Hart, Liddell. 1967. Strategy, Second Revised Edition. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.
  17. Hart, pp. 348-349
  18. Osinga, Frans. 2006. Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Author

Charles Turnitsa
Charles Turnitsa
Charles Turnitsa is a member of GTRI's research faculty, working in the Information and Communications Laboratory. He has previously been involved in teaching and researching a variety of different topics related to information systems, system's engineering, computational science, and modeling and simulation. He has worked for over a decade on research efforts related to combat modeling, scientific modeling, and computational science. He has a bachelors of science degree in Computer Science, a master's degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering, and a PhD in Modeling and Simulation, from Old Dominion University. He has taught, and continues to teach courses in modeling and simulation, systems engineering, and computer science. In his spare time, he is a wargamer (since 1976), and is pursuing a graduate degree in history, studying classical and ancient period warfare.

Reader Interactions

Leave a Comment Cancel

You must be logged in to post a comment.

sidebar

Blog Sidebar

Featured Content

The DoD Cybersecurity Policy Chart

The DoD Cybersecurity Policy Chart

This chart captures the tremendous breadth of applicable policies, some of which many cybersecurity professionals may not even be aware, in a helpful organizational scheme.

View the Policy Chart

CSIAC Journal - Launching Innovation Through Medical Modeling and Simulation Technologies

CSIAC Journal Cover Volume 5 Number 4

This Special Edition of the Journal will provide a glimpse into current efforts to improve military medical training with simulation-based solutions.

Read the Journal

CSIAC Journal - Innovation Based Ecosystems

CSIAC Journal Cover Volume 5 Number 4

This issue of the Journal of Cyber Security & Information Systems explores how managing fast adoption modern-based system has more to do with understanding capabilities, interdependency between systems and effectively operating in the new paradigm than it has to do with differentiating product features.

Read the Journal

Recent Video Podcasts

  • What is DevOps? from a tools point of view Series: CSIAC Webinars
  • 5th Generation (5G) Technology Series: The CSIAC Podcast
  • Malvertising Explored Series: The CSIAC Podcast
  • Cybersecurity Arms Race – Modernizing the Arsenal Series: CSIAC Webinars
  • Cyber Situational Awareness Series: The CSIAC Podcast
View all Podcasts

Upcoming Events

Thu 28

BSides Columbus 2019

February 28 - March 1
Columbus OH
United States
Organizer: BSides Columbus
Mar 19

1st NATO – Industry Workshop on Autonomous Cyber Defence

March 19 @ 09:30 - 16:00 EDT
Cranfield Bedfordshire MK43 0AL
United Kingdom
Organizer: Cranfield University
View all Events

Recently Active Members

Profile picture of CSIACAdmin
Profile picture of sarapistor
Profile picture of awebb19
Profile picture of SChhom02
Profile picture of emuslic03
Profile picture of nd14
Profile picture of Parlad
Profile picture of lebanghart
Profile picture of Mathieu Schram
Profile picture of aedrgad
Profile picture of nrea13
Profile picture of scottrill10
Profile picture of jburkhart04
Profile picture of woo05
Profile picture of mselby08
Profile picture of jlewis05
Profile picture of mvansteenburg
Profile picture of arena17

Footer

CSIAC Products & Services

  • Free Technical Inquiry
  • Core Analysis Tasks (CATs)
  • Resources
  • Events Calendar
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Product Feedback Form

About CSIAC

The CSIAC is a DoD-sponsored Center of Excellence in the fields of Cybersecurity, Software Engineering, Modeling & Simulation, and Knowledge Management & Information Sharing.Learn More

Contact Us

Phone:800-214-7921
Email:info@csiac.org
Address:   266 Genesee St.
Utica, NY 13502
Send us a Message
ASD(R&E) LogoUS Department of Defense LogoDoD IACs LogoDTIC LogoTEMS Logo

Copyright 2018, Quanterion Solutions Incorporated

Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Accessibility Information

This website uses cookies to provide our services and to improve your experience. By using this site, you consent to the use of our cookies. To read more about the use of our site, please click "Read More". Otherwise, click "Dismiss" to hide this notice. Dismiss Read More