Why the Military Needs to Play More Boardgames

bayonetbrant · July 12, 2013, 05:37:23 AM

https://medium.com/smart-war/4daf4895c0fe

QuoteWhy the Military Needs to Start Playing Boardgames
In the face of budget cuts, manual simulations may help the military stay sharp

Military wargames are supposed to be the cheaper alternative to live training exercises, but government-wide budget cuts in the United States and uncertainty caused by dysfunction in Washington means even simulations are facing the axe. In an era of budget austerity — the kind that even the Department of Defense can't resist — creative solutions will be necessary to lower defense costs without hampering capabilities.

Computer-based wargames like the U.S. Army's Warfighters' Simulation (WARSIM) are appealing because they are cheaper than live training, but the technical expertise required to develop and run them still represent a significant cost. In a Defense News article, Col. Tony Krogh of the National Simulations Center says "some of the most expensive contractors we have" are the technicians who run the computer systems for simulations. The U.S. military is looking for ways to cut even these costs, such as through implementing the Army Low Overhead Training Toolkit (ALOTT) and regional simulation centers. It should go even further by considering alternative providers and experimenting with low-cost, versatile manual platforms.

Defense contractors are not the only ones capable of developing useful military simulations. Panther Games, for example, is well-known for its excellent wargames and Command Ops engine. Given the tighter budgets that recreational game developers work with, especially in a niche market like serious wargames, they are capable of developing simulations that are more cost-effective than those offered by major defense contractors. True, game developers do not work under the same simulation constraints as contractors — after all, they seek to entertain consumers rather than train warfighters — but this can easily be mitigated. For example, military liaisons can help commercial wargame developers design realistic mechanics and simulation models that reflect the experience of warfighters at various levels of command. Game developers can adjust to meet the needs of the military faster than defense contractors can acquire the wealth of technical knowledge and experience with complex, detailed games necessary to develop low-cost wargames with short development cycles.

more at the link

GJK · July 12, 2013, 06:28:25 AM

So should we refer to board(war)games as "manual platform" now?

bayonetbrant · July 12, 2013, 07:18:00 AM

that's what a bunch of academics have adopted b/c of Phil Sabin's book on tabletop wargames. He refers to them as "manual" b/c you're handling everything yourself rather than having the computer do it.

GJK · July 12, 2013, 07:32:00 AM

I'll have to look for a copy of that book. And how sad is it that the US military can't afford to train in the physical environment and now can't afford the programmers to keep up training in the virtual one. How about this: they get professors on staff and start harvesting recruits in an MOS that consists of application design and programming? Don't we do this already? I don't know, I've been out of the service for many, many years now.

bayonetbrant · July 12, 2013, 07:39:50 AM

There's a lot, LOT more to it than that, and I'm sure James Sterrett & Paul Nichols will be happy to jump in on this subject.

In short, the Army doesn't want to pay their own people to code games. They'll contract that out. However, the discussion of "games" brings up all sorts of challenges
-- how detailed do the "games" need to be?
-- what level of support are needed to run them based on their complexity?
-- who owns the actual game resources, scheduling, etc?
-- how to move contracts from company to company if someone underperforms?

and many more

GJK · July 12, 2013, 07:57:07 AM

There's all kinds of support role MOS's in the military. If (suddenly) the military finds that it can't afford to outsource the programming and all that entails, then I think that they should at least look at the option of bringing all of that "in house". IMHO.

bayonetbrant · July 12, 2013, 07:59:40 AM

Quote from: GJK on July 12, 2013, 07:57:07 AM
There's all kinds of support role MOS's in the military. If (suddenly) the military finds that it can't afford to outsource the programming and all that entails, then I think that they should at least look at the option of bringing all of that "in house". IMHO.

not with the post-GWOT reductions in force... anything that (a) cuts into foxhole strength, and (b) potentially adds to the long-term commitments of retirements / health care / VA costs / etc will be pushed over to contractors. Those contractors might be more expensive for the 3 years they're on the job, but not for the other 17 years and beyond that they're no longer being paid by the gov't.

GJK · July 12, 2013, 08:03:49 AM

Well then we just need the Huns to kick up another world war in Europe again so that we can start ramping up wartime production of men, material and computer/board wargames. Damnit!

ArizonaTank · July 12, 2013, 02:30:20 PM

The Govt. did have some great "manual" games in the 80s and 90s.

My favorite was a hex based game called "logwar". Basically WW3 in Europe, against the Soviets, but the players only worried about the rear area conflict. So how to keep the front line supplied despite SPETSNAZ, chemical short range missile attacks, and occasional Su-25 run on a supply depot or truck convoy.

James Sterrett · July 12, 2013, 09:30:03 PM

Quote from: ArizonaTank on July 12, 2013, 02:30:20 PM
The Govt. did have some great "manual" games in the 80s and 90s.

My favorite was a hex based game called "logwar". Basically WW3 in Europe, against the Soviets, but the players only worried about the rear area conflict. So how to keep the front line supplied despite SPETSNAZ, chemical short range missile attacks, and occasional Su-25 run on a supply depot or truck convoy.

Have any idea where that could be found? It wasn't Logistics Command (pdf of rules (all I have) attached), was it?

ArizonaTank · July 12, 2013, 11:17:41 PM

Quote from: James Sterrett on July 12, 2013, 09:30:03 PM
Quote from: ArizonaTank on July 12, 2013, 02:30:20 PM
The Govt. did have some great "manual" games in the 80s and 90s.

My favorite was a hex based game called "logwar". Basically WW3 in Europe, against the Soviets, but the players only worried about the rear area conflict. So how to keep the front line supplied despite SPETSNAZ, chemical short range missile attacks, and occasional Su-25 run on a supply depot or truck convoy.

Have any idea where that could be found? It wasn't Logistics Command (pdf of rules (all I have) attached), was it?

No I don't know where it would be. Pretty certain it was called "Logwar" and had a hex based map. The attached rules don't seem to be hex based. I played it in the late-eighties at Ft. Eustis TOAC it was part of the curriculum then.