Table Of ContentWargaming Strategic Linkage
Peter P. Perla • Michael C. Markowitz
CRM D0019256.A2/Final
January 2009
20090219290
CNA
ANALYSIS & SOLUTIONS
Approved for distribution: January 2009
ituJrtf C*£
Keith M. Costa, Director
Expeditionary Systems and Support Team
Advanced Technology & Systems Analysis
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.
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED.
Copies of this document can be obtained through the Defense Technical Information Center at www.dtic.mil
or contact CNA Document Control and Distribution Section at 703-824-2123.
Copyright © 2009 CNA
Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
OMB No. 0704-0188
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports
(0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway. Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)
Final
1-2009
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
NOO014-05-D-050O
Wargaming Strategic Linkage
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
0605154N
5d. PROJECT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S)
R0148
Perla, Peter, P.
5e. TASK NUMBER
Markowitz, Michael, C.
4639
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
REPORT NUMBER
Center for Naval Analyses
D0019256.A2
4825 Mark Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22311
10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Naval War College
Center for Naval Warfare Studies
11. SPONSOR/MONITORS REPORT
686 Cushing Rd
NUMBER(S)
Newport RI 02841-1207
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT
The War Gaming Department (WGD) of the Naval War College (NWC) asked CNA to identify key game-design issues and to
develop recommendations for more effectively representing the linkage between the strategic, operational/strategic, and operational
levels of war, especially as applied to future Navy Title X Global War Games (GWG). We researched existing wargame systems and
interviewed leading wargaming practitioners, both in government and in industry, to learn how others have conducted multi-level
games in the past and to discuss their ideas about how to improve techniques in the future. We synthesized our research and
experience into specific recommendations for the design of a game structure and processes that the NWC could use as a starting point
for designing future GWGs.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
Wargaming, Multi-Level, Strategic, Operational, Tactical, Game Design, Global War Game, Adjudication
17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER
19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:
OF
ABSTRACT
Knowledge Center/Rhea Stone
b. ABSTRACT
a. REPORT c. THIS PAGE
PAGES
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code!
SAR
V U
U
124
703-824-2110
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)
Prescribed by ANSI Sid Z39.18
Contents
Summary I
What's the problem? 1
What we did I
What we learned 2
Most important challenges 2
Main insights 2
What we recommend 3
Setting the stage 5
Originating idea 6
Our approach 7
The challenges 8
Organizing our ideas 9
Time and decision processes 11
OODA loops and decision waves II
The multi-game approach 17
High then low 17
Low then high 19
The melded game approach 20
Time and the game clock 21
Telescoping time 22
Common time 23
Time jumps 26
Hybrid concepts 28
Multi-venue and asynchronous games 28
Stop-action games 30
Building the structure 33
Players: levels and echelons of command 33
Control: directors, pucksters, and facilitators 35
Connecting players and control 36
The "player sandwich" 38
The "Pellegrino cross" 42
A way out? 44
Some structural schematics 47
Overall generic game structure 48
A close-up on the player box 51
Defining the dynamics 57
Decisions and information 57
Players and Control 58
A basic postulate for multi-level gaming 62
A basic implementation structure 63
Crucial dynamics: planning, adjudication, and assessment 65
Aggregation applied to the game engine 69
Key conclusions about game dynamics 76
Speculation about the future 79
Are the "levels of war" giving way to newer concepts? ... 79
Games without moves? 80
Dynamic control for future gaming? 81
How are dynamics changing? 82
Who should interact with the game engine? 84
What might technology contribute? 87
Use of AI technologies 87
Immersive learning environments (ILES) 89
Other technologies 91
Some cautions 93
Conclusions and recommendations 95
Critical insights 95
Start with a melded seminar game 97
Use time-step, move-based play 98
Use decision waves to integrate a next-event sequence
ofplay 99
Use collaborative control 100
Use aggregated models and pre-adjudication of
events 101
Use realistic information flows for all sides 101
Recommended framework for the Global War Game ... 103
Bibliography 107
List of figures 113
List of tables 115
in
This page intentionally left blank.
IV
Summary
What's the problem?
Currently, there is no consensus and no established methodology at
the Naval War College (NWC) about how to conduct wargames that
link the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of war—what we call
multi-level wargaming. This is a real problem today because those
three levels of war are linked in complex ways, especially in the cur-
rent global environment. The War Gaming Department (WGD) of
the NWC is looking for ideas that will help improve the way it designs
and produces wargames that cut across those levels of war more effi-
ciently and effectively than heretofore. The NWC asked CNA to iden-
tify key game-design issues and to develop some recommendations
for more effectively representing the linkage between the strategic,
operational/strategic, and operational levels of war, especially as
applied to future Navy Title X Global War Games (GWG).
What we did
Our approach had three main components. First, we based our
research on the project team's first-hand experience with wargaming,
as both game designers and game analysts. Second, we researched
existing wargame systems and interviewed leading wargaming practi-
tioners, both in government and in industry. This allowed us to learn
how others have conducted multi-level games in the past and to dis-
cuss their ideas about how to improve techniques in the future.
Third, we synthesized our research and experience into specific rec-
ommendations for the design of a game structure and processes that
the NWC could use as a starting point for designing future GWGs.
1. See the bibliography for a compendium of research papers and game
designs by the authors of this paper.
What we learned
Designing a successful wargame is a specialized skill. Designing suc-
cessful multi-level wargames poses its own set of specific challenges.
The wealth of experience of current practitioners points to some
basic insights about how to meet those challenges.
Most important challenges
We concluded that the most important challenges to more efficient
multi-level game designs are in three interrelated aspects of design.
• Representing the flow of time and decision processes at differ-
ent levels of war and different echelons of command
• Building an organizational structure that efficiently integrates
players and Control
• Defining dynamics of the flow of game play to give the players
greater freedom to identify creative decision options and
explore their possible outcomes and effects without demand-
ing large numbers of personnel to manage.
Main insights
The WGD should adopt the following practices in its future multi-
level game designs:
• Start with a melded seminar game
• Use time-step, move-based play
• Use decision waves to integrate a next-event sequence of play
• Use collaborative control
• Use aggregated models and pre-adjudication of events
• Use realistic information flows for all sides.
2. Peter P. Perla, Michael C. Markowitz, et al. Wargame-Creation Skills and the
Wargame Construction Kit, Dec 2004 (CNA Research Memorandum
D0007042.A3/Final).
What we recommend
CNA recommends that the Wargaming Department of the Naval War
College use the prototypical structural design presented in figure 1 as
the starting point for its design of the next Navy Title X Global War
Game. The key elements of this recommended design are:
•
Strategic players, supported by an overall Game Director and a
Director of Assessment, address the overall strategic situation
and specify their assessments, objectives, and intent in closed
planning and open adjudication and assessment sessions. Stra-
tegic players provide assessments, objectives, and intent to their
operational-level subordinate players, as well as to any Control-
played operational entities, using procedures and documenta-
tion as close as possible to those used in the real world (for
example, warning, alert, and execute orders).
•
Operational-level players, supported as needed by Facilitators
managed by the Director of Assessment, also work in a closed
planning/open adjudication environment. They respond to
tasking from strategic players to develop operational plans, and
provide direction and final operational execution orders to the
subordinate tactical-level players using procedures and docu-
mentation as close as possible to those used in the real world.
Tactical players work in collaborative control structure with the
game pucksters managed by the Director of Adjudication. Tac-
tical-level players embody their own closed planning/open
adjudication environment, agreeing on game outcomes based
on a game engine scoped and scaled to provide the necessary
balance of detail and aggregation to achieve the goals of the
game.
•
Feedback of game events and outcomes generally occurs
through communications from one level or echelon of the play-
ers to another. (Control facilitates this communication process
but does not directly intercede in it except in specific and
exceptional circumstances). Information availability and flow
are based on the same level of detailed representation of real-
world capabilities available to all sides.
