About the CSIAC

As one of three DoD Information Analysis Centers (IACs), sponsored by the Defense Technical Information Center
(DTIC), CSIAC is the Center of Excellence in Cyber Security and Information Systems. CSIAC fulfills the Scientific
and Technical Information (STI) needs of the Research and Development (R&D) and acquisition communities. This
is accomplished by providing access to the vast knowledge repositories of existing STI as well as conducting novel
core analysis tasks (CATs) to address current, customer focused technological shortfalls.

Our Mission WHAT WE OFFER Products

CSIAC is chartered to leverage the best practices We provide expert technical advice and ▶ State-of-the-Art Reports (SOARs)
and expertise from government, industry, and assistance to our user community. CSIAC is a ▶ Technical Journals (Quarterly)
academia in order to promote technology competitively procured, single award contract. ▶ Cybersecurity Digest (Semimonthly)
domain awareness and solve the most critically The CSIAC contract vehicle has Indefinite ▶ RMF A&A Information
challenging scientific and technical (S&T) Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) provisions
▶ Critical Reviews and Technology
problems in the following areas: that allow us to rapidly respond to our users’ Assessments (CR/TAs)
▶ Cybersecurity and Information Assurance most important needs and requirements.
▶ Analytical Tools and Techniques
▶ Software Engineering Custom solutions are delivered by executing ▶ Webinars & Podcasts
▶ Modeling and Simulation user defined and funded CAT projects. ▶ Handbooks and Data Books
▶ Knowledge Management/Information Sharing ▶ DoD Cybersecurity Policy Chart
Core Services
▶ Technical Inquiries: up to 4 hours free Core Analysis Tasks (CATs)
▶ Extended Inquiries: 5 - 24 hours ▶ Customer tailored R&D efforts performed
The primary activities focus on the collection, ▶ Search and Summary Inquiries to solve specific user defined problems
analysis, synthesis, processing, production ▶ STI Searches of DTIC and other repositories ▶ Funded Studies - $500K ceiling
and dissemination of Scientific and Technical
▶ Workshops and Training Classes ▶ Duration - 12 month maximum
Information (STI).
▶ Subject Matter Expert (SME) ▶ Lead time - on contract within
Registry and Referrals as few as 6-8 weeks
Our Vision ▶ Risk Management Framework
(RMF) Assessment & Authorization
The goal of CSIAC is to facilitate the
advancement of technological innovations
(A&A) Assistance and Training Contact Information
and developments. This is achieved by ▶ Community of Interest (COI) 100 Seymour Rd.
and Practice Support Suite C102
conducting gap analyses and proactively
performing research efforts to fill the voids ▶ Document Hosting and Blog Spaces Utica, NY 13502
in the knowledge bases that are vital to our ▶ Agile & Responsive Solutions to 1 (800) 214-7921
nation. CSIAC provides access to a wealth emerging trends/threats
[email protected]
of STI along with expert guidance in order to
improve our strategic capabilities. /DoD_CSIAC

/CSIAC

/CSIAC

2 CSIAC is operated by Quanterion Solutions Inc and sponsored by the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)
100 Seymour Rd. Suite C102 Utica, NY 13502 | 1 (800) 214-7921 | [email protected] | https://www.csiac.org
 ABOUT THE JOURNAL OF CYBER SECURITY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION
The Journal of Cyber Security and Information Systems is published quarterly
by the Cyber Security and Information Systems Information Analysis Center (CSIAC).
JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD The CSIAC is a DoD sponsored Information Analysis Center (IAC), administratively
managed by the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). The CSIAC is
RODERICK A. NETTLES technically managed by Air Force Research Laboratory in Rome, NY and operated
Managing Editor by Quanterion Solutions Incorporated in Utica, NY.
Quanterion Solutions, CSIAC

SHELLEY HOWARD Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade
Graphic Designer name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply
Quanterion Solutions, CSIAC its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or
the CSIAC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily
DR. GARY W. ALLEN
Consultant state or reflect those of the United States Government or the CSIAC, and shall not
be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
MR. CARLIN (CHIP) CARPENTER
N72, Simulation Engineer
US Fleet Forces Command ARTICLE REPRODUCTION
COLONEL JOSEPH NOLAN Images and information presented in these articles may be reproduced as long as the
U.S. Army Center for Army Analysis (CAA) following message is noted:

DR. MARK GALLAGHER “This article was originally published in the Journal of Cyber Security and
Technical Director
Information Systems Vol.4, No 3”
U.S. Air Force A9

DR. STEVE “FLASH” GORDON In addition to this print message, we ask that you notify CSIAC regarding any document
GTRI Orlando Manager that references any article appearing in the CSIAC Journal.
GTARC STOC II PM Georgia Tech TEREC
Director Requests for copies of the referenced journal may be submitted to the following address:

MR. FRED HARTMAN Cyber Security and Information Systems

Research Staff Member (RSM) 100 Seymour Road
Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) Utica, NY 13502-1348
DR. AMY HENNINGER Phone: 800-214-7921
Research Staff Member (RSM) Fax: 315-732-3261
Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) E-mail: [email protected]
MR. JOHN S. MOORE An archive of past newsletters is available at https://journal.csiac.org.
Director
Navy Modeling and Simulation Office Distribution Statement
DASN (RDT&E) Unclassified and Unlimited
MR. ANGEL SAN JOSE MARTIN
Section Head
M&S Coordination NATO Headquarters SACT

MR. ROY SCRUDDER Journal of Cyber Security and Information Systems

Program Manager
Applied Research Laboratories
Modeling & Simulation Special Edition
University of Texas, Austin November 2016
DR. JOHN A. SOKOLOWSKI
Executive Director
— IN THIS ISSUE —
Virginia Modeling, Analysis
and Simulation Center Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������4
Associate Professor
Department of Modeling, Simulation and M&S Support to Wargaming����������������������������������������������������������������������8
Visualization Engineering
Old Dominion University Air Force Research Laboratory Innovation���������������������������������������������12
MR. BRETT TELFORD Wargaming at the Naval Postgraduate School���������������������������������������18
Marine Corps
M&S Management Office
Computer Assisted Military Wargaming:The SWIFT Wargame Tool������24
MR. WILLIAM TUCKER
President Simulationist U.S., Inc. Adjudication in Wargaming for Discovery�����������������������������������������������28

WWW.CSIAC.ORG | 3
NOVEMBER 2016  |  CSIAC JOURNAL OF CYBER SECURITY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Introduction
Greetings,
Welcome to this special modeling and simulation (M&S) edition of the
Journal of Cyber Security & Information Systems, published by the Cyber
Security & Information Systems Information Analysis Center (CSIAC).
This edition focuses on wargaming, a key cylinder of the Department of
Defense’s (DoD’s) innovative engine.

4
 Introduction

T he Department wants to employ wargaming to develop new

concepts which can integrate new capabilities,enrich programmatic
and acquisition decision processes, and inform discussions on
Wargaming Alignment Group (DWAG), providing wargaming
incentives, and publishing a monthly wargaming report. The
wargaming repository (wargaming.osd.smil.mil) was created
departmental strategies. In a February 2015 memo, Deputy Secretary by Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Cost Assessment
of Defense (DepSecDef ), and Program Evaluation
Robert Work writes that “Revitalizing Wargaming is Necessary (CAPE) to provide the
he expects wargames to wargaming community of
“pursue an innovative third to be Prepared for Future Wars” practice with a centralized
offset strategy, avoid operational and technological surprise, and hub for sharing of information as well as identifying number of
make the best use of our limited resources.” Most important the wargames conducted (including upcoming games), capabilities,
DepSecDef wants to “wargame the kinds of challenges that cross capacity, cost, and insights gained. The repository provides an
COCOM responsibilities in order to better address threats that interactive database of wargames, as well as points of contact
would benefit from a more global strategic perspective.” Over and listing of support tools. To keep the repository current, in a
the past year, the Department has encouraged more wargaming December 2015 memo, the DepSecDef and Vice Chairman of
by hosting two wargaming summits, executing the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS), Gen. Paul Selva, directed all
the senior leader wargaming series, organizations to “Update the wargaming repository monthly with
developing the wargaming future wargames and tabletop exercises, as well as executed games to
repository, forming include insights.” The repository allows users to post files including
the Defense wargame final reports, tools, and data. Users can also comment
on wargames to help the community understand the value of the
insights. The wargaming repository currently contains over 550
wargames, 260 organizations and 212 support tools.

In his May 2015 memo (“Wargaming Summit

Way Ahead”), the DepSecDef formed
the DWAG to “better link wargames
with senior leader priorities, with
a strong focus on information
dissemination.” In addition
to these tasks, the DWAG
assists the wargaming
principle Q uad-
Chairs (CAPE,
Policy, Office
of Net

WWW.CSIAC.ORG | 5
NOVEMBER 2016  |  CSIAC JOURNAL OF CYBER SECURITY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Assessment, and JS-J8) with administrative and organization why funding is required, including the Department cost/benefit.
functions and acts as a conduit between the Department and the Second quarter, 2017 wargaming incentive fund requests are due
wargaming enterprise. The DWAG meets every two weeks and by November 28th, 2016.
members include representatives from COCOMs, Services, NGB,
JS-J7, JS-J4, OSD-AT&L, OSD-CAPE, OSD-Policy, Office of At the Wargaming Summit II, Gen Selva stated “wargames
Net Assessment, and Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. must be games of consequence and the way to make games of
consequence is to have senior leaders involved.” To help address
As part of the Department’s wargaming efforts to institutionalize this concern the Department created a wargaming monthly
wargaming and better integrate wargaming results with report. The report is populated directly from the repository, and
budget development, the DepSecDef created a $10M per year its intent is to inform senior leaders of upcoming wargames
wargaming incentive fund. This fund incentivizes strategic and and events, provide insights from past wargames, and provide
programmatic wargames that address Department priorities. repository summary statistics. The report is sent directly to
The DepSecDef February 2015 memo stated, “Wargaming, in Department 4-star level leadership, which places additional
concert with operational analysis, and experimentation, cannot emphasis on organizations to keep the repository updated.
stand apart from the budget process.” Understanding, wargames
serve many purposes and vary in purpose, design, size, and scope;
the incentive funds intent is to incentivize programmatic and
strategic games that provide senior level insights. The incentives
aren’t meant to supplement current wargames, but rather to
expand wargames to address Department priorities and gaps
across regions, Services, and COCOMs. The current criteria for
wargaming incentive funds include:

(1) Addresses senior leader priorities

(2) Potential for programmatic/strategic insight
(3) Innovative concepts/capabilities
(4) Topical coverage gap
(5) Historical quality of game insights
(6) Crosscutting
(7) Incentive fund return on investment (ROI) and
postgame assessment
The cycle of innovation consists of the interaction of analysis,
Although, the Department emphasizes strategic and programmatic modeling and simulation, wargaming, and demonstrations/
games, this is not meant to curtail other types of games. To exercises. Used together they enable the Department to think
request incentive funding, simply create an upcoming wargame outside the box and provide decision space for senior leaders. In the
in the repository with all fields completely filled in; then check December 2015 “War on the Rocks” article, entitled, “Revitalizing
the box for incentive funding and provide specific rationale on Wargaming is Necessary to be Prepared for Future Wars,” the

6
 Introduction – CON'T

DepSecDef and VCJCS stated: “Wargame results are neither

shared laterally across the defense enterprise nor up the chain to ABOUT THE AUTHOR
influence senior level decision-making.” Over the past year the
Department has developed the wargaming repository, Defense COL Mark Gorak leads the OSD-CAPE wargaming team, and
Wargaming Alignment Group (DWAG), incentives, and a monthly manages senior wargame analysts and contractors charged
report to better enable both lateral and horizontal information
with implementing DepSecDef priorities and better connecting
sharing. The Department focus on wargaming is welcomed
news to the professional wargaming community; however, this wargaming with the DoD planning, programming, and budgeting
renewed attention also demands results. The Department believes process. He is a principle member of the Defense Wargaming
wargaming is an avenue for innovation through strategic and Alignment Group and serves as OSD-CAPE lead for the
programmatic insights and now the wargaming community must wargaming quad-chair council of colonels. He coordinates and
produce. The days of completing a wargame outbrief and calling leads excursion wargames, manages the wargaming repository,
it good are over. The community must show its worth and be part
implements policies, training and funding to improve the quality
of the cycle of innovation by producing actionable insights. The
Department has provided the structure and resources, and now the of wargames and directs OSD wargaming conferences.
wargaming community must showcase its capabilities.
His previous assignments include the US Army manpower
analysis agency where he served as a senior analyst; Army
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are those of the author,
and are not necessarily representative of those of the Office of the Staff Headquarters G-1 as branch chief for military personnel
Secretary of Defense or the Department of Defense. program and budget branch responsible for program and
execution of military pay; headquarters United States Military
Entrance Processing Command where he served as lead
analyst; and command of Charlie Company 228th theater
aviation company. He served as deputy J5 in Iraq with Joint
Task Force-Iraq (JTF-I) evaluating US force presence and
conducting theater assessments. In addition to his military
assignments, Mark chaired the manpower working group for
the Military Operations Research Society (MORS) for three
years, and is a six-sigma black belt. He earned an electrical
engineering degree from Marquette University, applied
mathematics master’s degree from Naval Post Graduate
School, and a Master of Science in national resource strategy
from Eisenhower School, National Defense University.

WWW.CSIAC.ORG | 7
NOVEMBER 2016  |  CSIAC JOURNAL OF CYBER SECURITY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

M&S Support to Wargaming

By: John Lawson III

Contractor supporting I f you deal in computer models and simulations (M&S), and you aim to support wargaming,
you need to understand what type of wargame you are supporting, and you need to understand
the wargame’s purpose. This article is about understanding those two aspects of M&S support
Marine Corps M&S Office
to wargaming: wargame type and wargame purpose.

The first thing you need to do is think of wargaming along a spectrum.

One end is more qualitative and subjective. As you move toward this end of the wargaming
spectrum, M&S will have a supporting role, a peripheral role, or no role at all.

The spectrum’s other end is more quantitative and objective. As you move in this direction, M&S
will have a valuable role, a central role, or it may even be the wargame’s heart and soul.

"Wargames It is possible to spend a lot of time arguing over whether a wargame should be run by a traditional
wargamer, a numbers-oriented analyst, or some combination of the two. If you are an M&S person,
will produce you do not need to worry about that debate. No matter who is running a wargame, it should not
be you. You are responsible for a tool or a set of tools supporting a wargame that someone else
unimaginative, devised and that someone else will run.

inside-the-box In addition to the different types of wargames, there are different purposes for wargames. A
wargame’s purpose might involve training, education, experimentation, analysis, or any number of
thinking" other concerns. The important thing for an M&S person supporting a wargame is to understand
the wargame at hand. If it is a decision-making wargame to help senior leaders think through a
current crisis, tailor your M&S support to those specific circumstances. If it is a training wargame
designed to train numerous battalion staffs over the next several years, tailor your M&S support
to those specific circumstances.

Do not let M&S support to wargaming become an entrenched, encumbered, monolithic process.
Do not let M&S support to wargaming degenerate into off-the-rack, cookie-cutter “solutions.”
Wargames are supposed to provide insight into unpredictable topics. If M&S support to wargames
gets rigid and highly predictable, then M&S support to wargames will produce unimaginative,
inside-the-box thinking. At that point, a successful wargame would be successful despite M&S
support, rather than because of it.

Before going any further, it is probably a good idea to define computer models, computer
simulations, and wargames. The definitions are deliberately loose, as the purpose of this article is
to promote conceptual thinking rather than pedantic hair-splitting.

8
 M&S Support to Wargaming

We will treat a computer model as an algorithm coded into a the M&S support will be. For just a little while, do not think about
representation. It could be a representation of a vehicle, a weapons how the mechanics of the wargame will look, and do not think about
system, a unit of troops, a group of refugees, or any number of how to plug M&S into the wargame.
other entities.
Instead, think about why someone would ask for the wargame.
We will treat a computer simulation as one or more models Remind yourself that whoever asked for the wargame almost
representing behavior over time. To use the examples above, a certainly is not a wargamer or an M&S specialist. Whoever asked
simulation might show how a vehicle with a weapons system for the wargame undoubtedly has much larger fish to fry.
would attack a unit of troops while trying to avoid harming a
group of refugees. The simulation would probably be multi- Writing from the perspective of the Marine Corps M&S Office,
faceted, which means it would probably illustrate additional it is easiest for us to illustrate the point we are trying to make by
considerations, such as how much fuel the vehicle would use using Marine examples, but the ideas are the same, whether you are
and how the refugees might behave if they found themselves in the Navy, the Air Force, the Army, the Office of the Secretary of
on the edge of combat. Defense, or whatever.

We will treat a wargame as a representation of conflict in which Right now, in the Marine Corps, one of the most important calls
the decisions people make are central to the wargame’s outcome. for wargaming comes from the process we refer to as the Marine
Corps Capabilities Based Assessment (MC CBA) which in the
Wargaming has enjoyed a much higher end produces the Marine Corps Enterprise
profile over the past two years, starting "Reinvigorated Integration Plan (MCEIP). So, in this
with a memo from then-Secretar y of example, when we talk about wargaming
Defense Chuck Hagel. In 2014, he called wargaming and M&S support to wargaming, everything
for a “reinvigorated wargaming effort” that needs to map back to the MC CBA process
will “develop and test alternative ways of effort that will and the MCEIP.
achieving our strategic objectives.”
develop and test Again, this is just an example. We are not
In 2015, the call for improved wargaming saying MC CBA is the only activity in the
intensified when Deputy Secretary of Defense alternative ways of Marine Corps requiring wargame support.
Bob Work wrote a memo saying wargaming And we certainly are not saying MC CBA is
has “atrophied.”To better think about concepts, achieving our the only activity in DoD requiring wargame
capabilities, and plans, Deputy Secretary Work support. But if you have a good example of
wrote, it will be necessary “to reinvigorate, strategic something requiring wargame support, it
institutionalize, and systematize wargaming is much easier to think about what M&S
across the Department.” objectives.” support to the wargame should look like.

Shortly after releasing his memo, Deputy Secretary Work gave a The context of MC CBA helps underscore the fact that wargaming
speech in which he emphasized the relationship between better is not an end in itself. Wargaming exists to serve something larger
wargaming and keeping up with change. Technologies change faster (and M&S also exists to serve something larger).
than they used to change; challenges arise more quickly; and our
collection of adversaries is wider and more diverse. Wargaming, he Before going any further, it is probably a good idea to restate this
said, can “spur innovation” and “provide a mechanism for addressing article’s main thesis: The key to successfully using M&S in support of
emerging challenges.” wargaming is to remain keenly aware of the wargame’s type and purpose.

At this point, the best way to think about wargaming and M&S Having said all that, consider M&S, wargaming, and the MC CBA.
is to temporarily stop thinking about wargaming and M&S. The
Department of Defense (DoD) is an enormous sprawl which In the Planning, Programming, Budgeting & Execution (PPBE)
contains very big organizations which contain big sub-organizations process, MC CBA is part of the first “P,” which is to say it is the
which contain somewhat big sub-sub-organizations, etc., etc., etc. Planning part of the process. The goal, which is important to the
The end result of all that enormity is a legion of specialists and sub- Marine Corps as a service, involves reconciling future-focused
specialists who are so absorbed in the details of their work that they strategic guidance with the integrated development of capabilities
lose track of the larger goals. for a given Program Objective Memorandum (POM) cycle. To
put all of that in layman’s terms, the recommendations the Marine
So, to reiterate, the best way to think about wargaming and M&S Corps makes to the Secretary of Defense about spending money
is to temporarily stop thinking about wargaming and M&S. For need to make sense for the present and for the future.
just a little while, do not think about what the wargame is or what

WWW.CSIAC.ORG | 9
NOVEMBER 2016  |  CSIAC JOURNAL OF CYBER SECURITY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

In the big picture, MC CBA helps the Marine Corps be smart about concepts of operations, authorized strength levels, and the previous
expenditures, and it helps the Marine Corps think within the time edition of the Marine Corps Capabilities List (MCCL). A new,
constraints of DoD budget cycles. updated MCCL, by the way, is the output of this phase.

Wargaming support to MC CBA needs to subordinate itself to those The bottom line for Phase II is capability requirements. So any
POM forces, which are both significant and largely inflexible. In wargaming during or preceding Phase II should have that purpose in
turn, M&S support to wargaming needs to accommodate wargaming mind. And the type of wargaming should match that purpose, too. If
goals. In this type of situation, specialists cannot behave like prima you have a really good training war game, that probably will not do you
donnas. They need to get with the program – or more accurately, much good here, as the name of the game is capability requirements.
they need to get with the Program Objective Memorandum. You probably want something more analytical in a situation like this.

The MC CBA process is conducted in five phases, and the first Again, to keep beating the drum, the two things to remember with
phase is guidance development and the POM Capabilities Based M&S support to wargaming are knowing the wargame’s purpose
Assessment (CBA) Wargame. The guidance to be used during and knowing the wargame’s type.
the MC CBA will be developed here and the
guidance will have a direct influence on the
wargame. "Ensure that Moving on to Phase III of the MC CBA process,
we encounter gap analysis. This phase also lasts

So, if wargames are going to matter, and if M&S capability three months. One input for this phase is the
aforementioned MCCL, i.e., the capabilities list.
support to wargames is going to matter, the
customer’s concerns need to shape the wargames requirements Other inputs include the current programmed
force, integrated priority lists from Marine
and the M&S support. The biennial Marine
Corps CBA Wargame must ensure that capability align with the Corps Force commanders, and the previous year’s
Marine Corps Gap List (MCGL). An updated
requirements align with the Commandant’s
strategic goals for 10 years down the road. Commandant’s MCGL, by the way, is the output of Phase III.

Preparation for this biennial wargame runs for

11 months, and the wargame itself occurs in strategic goals As you can see, whether wargaming precedes
this phase or occurs in this phase, the focus is
September.
for 10 years on tighter thinking that addresses gaps between
capabilities and requirements. Accordingly,
If you want to use M&S to support the biennial
Marine Corps CBA Wargame, you need to keep down the road" wargaming and any related M&S need to be
more focused in order to affect this phase.
that schedule in mind, and you need to remember
that your customer is emphasizing capability requirements. Even if Whether it is MC CBA wargaming or other wargaming, if the
you are not directly involved in the Marine Corps CBA Wargame, customer’s purpose is coming more clearly into focus, wargaming is
you could support inputs to the wargame. In other words, you could more likely to get away from painting broad strokes, which means
support a smaller wargame that supports the larger wargame. That there could be greater attention to detail, which means M&S might
could include assessing operating environments, assisting with have an opportunity to crunch numbers or grind through details.
experiments, examining concepts, etc.
As MC CBA moves to Phase IV, the process centers on solutions
Again, the point of this article is not to celebrate the MC CBA analysis. This three-month phase draws from a number of inputs,
process as a wargamer’s be-all, end-all. Many, many wargamers most notably wargaming.
could have successful careers without getting anywhere near the
MC CBA process. But the point of this article is to emphasize the The purpose of Phase IV is to mitigate or eliminate capability gaps.
importance of knowing what type of wargame you are supporting The gaps could be anywhere across the gamut of military affairs,
and what that wargame’s purpose is. which is to say, anywhere across the gamut of DOTMLPF-P:
Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and
If you are supporting a customer working budget issues, if your Education, Personnel, Facilities and Policy.
customer is on a rigid timeline, and if your customer is crafting
recommendations that are or will become quantitative, then all of Because there is a wide variety of purposes in this phase, there could
those considerations need to shape how you support a wargame. be many types of wargames to support those purposes – conceptual
games, data-crunching games, and games in which there is a balance
Continuing with our MC CBA example, it helps to know what between the players, the M&S inputs, and the M&S outputs.
happens after the wargame. After the Marine Corps CBA Wargame
comes Phase II in the MC CBA process, which is capabilities Phase IV generates the Marine Corps Solutions Development
analysis. This phase, which lasts three months, involves identifying Directive (MCSDD), which feeds Phase V, the final phase of MC
and refining capability requirements, along with the associated tasks, CBA. This three-month phase draws on many materials, including
conditions, and standards. Inputs for this phase include scenarios, the products from Phases II, III, and IV: MCCL, MCGL, and

10
 M&S Support to Wargaming  –  CON'T

MCSDD. Phase V, and with it, the MC CBA process, conclude

with the Marine Corps Capabilities Investment Plan (MCCIP)
Open Invitations
If it seemed a little distracting to examine M&S support to wargaming
through the prism of a process such as MC CBA, think for a Journals/Webinars/SME Network
moment about typical discussions on wargaming. Most discussions
about wargaming – never mind M&S support to wargaming – are
alarmingly removed from discussions of utility. Most discussions
about wargaming (and most discussions about M&S) are discussions CSIAC offers free webinars on
in which the specialized means to an end becomes an end in itself. a regular basis with experts
in the technical subject areas
Far too many discussions about wargaming (and far too many
discussions about M&S) are bureaucracy’s equivalent to parlor of Cybersecurity, Software
discussions about art for art’s sake. You hear far too little about what Engineering, Modeling & Simulation,
DoD or a particular service achieved, but you hear more than you and Knowledge Management/
ever wanted to hear about how some wargamers or M&S experts
really wowed their colleagues at some event five or 10 years back. Information Sharing.

The thing is, M&S support to wargames is not something we should

be doing for the benefit of people like us – analysts, wargamers, CSIAC also maintains a network
M&S experts, and such. Anyone involved with M&S support to of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
wargames needs to orient on the CUSTOMER!
in their four primary domains
What are the customer’s purposes? What type of M&S support of technical responsibility. The
for a wargame would advance those purposes? What levels of time, SMEs participate in a variety of
money, and customer patience are available for the wargame and
whatever M&S support goes with it?
activities they are interested in
and provide support to the CSIAC
If reinvigorated wargaming is supposed to spur innovation and help user community.
DoD keep up with emerging challenges, then we need to work
backward from that goal. This is not the time to justify ourselves
and talk about what a great job we think we have been doing. We CSIAC maintains open invitations
need to be talking about the customer’s purposes, and we need to
be talking about the type of support that promptly addresses those for guest speakers and authors as
purposes. And the metric for success should probably be something contributors to their webinars and
like this: The customer comes back to us in the near future and asks journals.  CSIAC is also interested
for more. Much more.
in identifying more qualified
candidates to join their existing
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
SME network.  If you’re interested,
John Lawson III is a contractor who supports the Marine please visit the CSIAC website
Corps M&S Management Office. Before that, he was a contractor (CSIAC.org) or send an email to
serving several Air Force entities as an analyst. He has spent
[email protected] for more information. 
more than a decade monitoring commercial game technology
and its potential utility for military analysis and military M&S. In
the 1990s, he was a newspaper reporter, mainly for The Tampa
Tribune; he is also the author of Tom Landry and Bill Walsh: How
two coaching legends took championship football from the Packer
Sweep to Brady vs. Manning. Lawson served in the Marine Corps
Reserve for nine years and reached the rank of staff sergeant.
He has a B.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of
Maryland; a B.A. from Washington & Lee University for a double https://www.csiac.org/
major in history and English; and an M.A. from the University of
Florida in mass communications.

WWW.CSIAC.ORG | 11
 NOVEMBER 2016  |  CSIAC JOURNAL OF CYBER SECURITY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Air Force Research Laboratory Innovation

Pushing the Envelope in Analytical Wargaming

By: Jaime J. Bestard INTRODUCTION: The Air Force Research Laboratory has taken steps to
Plans and Programs Engineer, revitalize wargaming across its Enterprise to evaluate the military utility
Strategic Planning and of innovative technology concepts in combat. The integration of Modeling
Transformation Division
and Simulation (M&S) to improve the analytical rigor of wargames is a
Plans and Programs Directorate, fundamental part of this effort. In a period of growing strategic challenges
Headquarters Air Force and increased fiscal pressure, analytical wargames offer a unique
Research Laboratory opportunity to evaluate the multi-dimensional capabilities of advanced
technologies and overcome technology stovepipes. Concerns on how
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio
to operate freely in the primary Air Force domains (i.e., air, space and
cyberspace), exploit big data, integrate autonomy, and provide Air Force
and Department of Defense leadership with seamless command and
control solutions are some of the many issues that can be explored through
analytical wargames. Moreover, participation in analytical wargames offers
Defense professionals a unique and synergistic opportunity to explore the
realm of the possible with advanced technologies while sharpening their
operational and strategic thinking skills.

Background

In February 2015, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Robert O. Work, issued a memorandum
to “revitalize” wargaming across the Department of Defense in light of the Defense Innovation
Initiative (Third Offset Strategy). In his missive Mr. Work acknowledged that “wargames spur
innovation” and “can potentially make the difference between wise and unwise investment
trajectories and make our forces more successful in future conflicts”. This guidance, coupled with
Air Force M&S initiatives in support of strategic developmental planning and experimentation,
led the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Corporate Board to decide, in August 2015, to
manage wargaming at the Enterprise level by:

ii Establishing a Wargaming Working Group and a corresponding governance structure,

ii Creating a vetted AFRL Concept Portfolio,
ii Forming a cadre of wargaming technologists,
ii Promoting the use of M&S in support of wargames.

12
 Air Force Research Laboratory Innovation

Since then, the AFRL Enterprise has established a portfolio of operations (CONOPS) and employment (CONEMP) and
of technologies that support the Third Offset Strategy in the tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP). Wargames (military
primary Air Force domains. In May 2016, the AFRL conducted a simulations) test warfare theories and human decision-making
workshop to establish a baseline of its M&S capabilities supporting and are perceived as useful in the development and evaluation of
wargames. This initiative led to a general understanding of existing doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership, personnel
tools available to the Enterprise with the potential to influence and facilities (DOTMLPF) solutions.
wargame outcomes. With
this in mind, the AFRL war-
gaming staff has a vision to "Evaluate improved performance Traditional wargames have
not depended on science
incorporate M&S products
into game preparation, play, and develop concepts of operations and technology (S&T) to
support military decision
adjudication and analysis
and provide an analytical (CONOPS) and employment m a k e r s . H o w e v e r, t h e
integration of S&T and
foundation to our wargame
outcomes. Most recently, (CONEMP) and tactics, techniques skillsets to facilitate data
exploitation (e.g., operations
in August 2016, the AFRL
conducted the first of a and procedures (TTPs)." research, science and
engineering) are the core
series of events titled Futures of analytical wargames and
Analytical Science and Technology (FAST) wargames with an facilitate the gaming process while making these powerful tools
emphasis on advanced technology concepts operating in an anti- more interactive. Such integration will improve an environment
access/area denial (A2AD) environment. This event had multiple often seen as the realm of historians, political scientists, and military
objectives, among which was the integration of M&S products into officers with little formal analytical training and awareness of
different stages in the wargame process (e.g., concept development, emerging technologies. These improvements will not only increase
scenario design, game play and adjudication, and post-game analyses). the quality of wargames and their products, but will facilitate data-
driven exploration of military utility for new and integrated S&T
concepts. The AFRL Enterprise benefits from analytical game
Models, Simulations and Wargames play through feedback of adequate requirements and insights into
potential CONEMP for augmenting the strategic, operational,
Wargames are powerful tools to explore problems where humans and tactical capabilities of advanced technologies.
must make decisions in challenging situations and generate possible
solutions. Wargames offer structured and rigorous environments
where participants can evaluate strategies, concepts of operations, Advancing the AFRL Wargaming Enterprise
and technologies across the different levels of war to identify key
limiting factors and expose innovative options. For an Enterprise Wargames follow a pattern that can be divided into three primary
charged with the scientific and technical innovation of the United phases (i.e., design, execution, and reporting) all supplemented
States Air Force, wargames offer an exceptional resource for with relevant training (see Figure 1). The AFRL provides general
informing strategic investment decisions. wargaming training to its personnel on an ad hoc basis. As the
Laboratory moves toward a planned wargaming battle rhythm,
Models offer Defense professionals with abstract representations additional training will have to be tailored to the different
of future technologies that can improve warfighting capabilities. participants in upcoming events (e.g., blue and red players,
These representations can help understand how a weapons system adjudicators, analysts, concept developers).
will be transported, its payload capacity, the technologies it uses
to operate effectively, and the processes necessary to execute its Game design is a critical factor of wargaming and it can be roughly
mission. Simulations are the representation of the behavior or distributed into two efforts heavily influenced by M&S, i.e.,
characteristics of one system through the use of another system, concept development and game planning. Concept development
typically a computer program designed for the purpose. M&S in AFRL is carried out by scientists and engineers familiar with
offer opportunities to constructively test a system or system of advanced technologies of game-changing potential that could be
systems and its behavior without conducting live trials. M&S operational by the game epoch. Concept development relies on
also provides the option of varying system characteristics, such accurate models from the physics and engineering technology levels
as adding performance attributes for new technologies into the through associated subsystem and system levels. These models are
simulation and evaluating the utility at various levels of play. used to describe system performance1 through simulations at the
Virtual M&S includes humans in the loop integrated with engagement and mission levels. Furthermore, the results of mission
mathematical M&S and allows operators “seeing” the constructive level simulations along the kill-chain2 are essential to an analytical
picture of war to interact with it, using new technologies within a
scenario to evaluate improved performance and develop concepts 1 e.g., speed, range, weight, fuel capacity, payload
2 e.g., PS – probability of survival, PK – probability of kill, PK|H – probability of
kill given a hit

WWW.CSIAC.ORG | 13
NOVEMBER 2016  |  CSIAC JOURNAL OF CYBER SECURITY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Figure 1. AFRL – Analytical Wargaming Framework

adjudication environment. These simulations rely on notional not be closely familiar with. In order to augment player cognitive
concepts of operations (CONOPS) that can be challenged and abilities, decision-support systems and optimization tools can
improved through wargaming. be further developed and integrated into the wargame. These
tools can harvest M&S data and provide support to players with
When operating within the structure established by the Deputy valuable information packaged for easy reference for their planned
Secretary of Defense in February 2015, most advanced technologies courses of action. Throughout adjudication, available mission
developed in AFRL should be explored in long-term wargames and campaign simulation outputs should be used to minimize
(i.e., beyond 15 years). Game planning should be carried out in subjective judgements and to augment the capacity of adjudicators
close collaboration with stakeholders and independent of concept to assess game outcomes effectively and on schedule.
developers to avoid game plans that provide unfair advantages
to blue technologies. Nonetheless, game planning efforts should Finally, after the game execution phase is concluded, adjudicators,
consider available M&S capabilities and products. The scenario planners, and analysts must parse through newly created game
development effort should take into consideration the technologies data and produce a comprehensive assessment report of the event.
that both blue and red forces will have available in the epoch of M&S again plays a critical role during and after this reporting
interest and examine support requirements as best they can. Models phase with visualization capabilities and game exploitation
of existing technologies provide a baseline populating the scenario tools to conduct analysis on plays that were executed in the
environment on both sides for game play3. Adjudication planning game. M&S allows analysts to conduct operations research on
must take into account available results from past engagement the event, and helps record analytical decisions from the initial
simulations and, time permitting, may require additional analyses game design phases.
to minimize subjective decisions during the wargame. Game
support planning focuses on capabilities that will facilitate game
execution and should consider the availability of mission and Capabilities for Enterprise Wargaming
campaign simulations and the time it takes to produce results for
analytical adjudication. The AFRL has been an active user and developer of M&S tools
in support of its technological innovation mission. Some of
Game execution consists of two distinct efforts that can be these tools, spanning the levels of M&S in the widely-known
significantly improved with M&S, i.e., game play and adjudication. military pyramid, have supported past wargames (see Figure 2).
During game play, players are usually pressed for time and can In addition, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR)
be overwhelmed with data on advanced technologies they may is conducting basic research for the AFRL in optimization, game
theory, artificial intelligence, and data analytics research with the
3 The Threat Modeling and Analysis Program (TMAP) offers authoritative (Intel- potential to impact the execution of future wargames.
ligence Community) threat models derived from all-source intelligence; models are
built in the MATLAB/Simulink environment

14
 Air Force Research Laboratory Innovation  –  CON'T

has been used during concept development to provide “danger

close” biological effects estimates through the application of
standards and dose-response models at common high-energy laser
wavelengths. The Directed Energy Weapon Decision Support Tool
(DEW-DST) has also been used during concept development
to simulate skin damage and repel behavior in millimeter-wave
engagements. Finally, the Laser Hazard Assessment Software
(LHAZ) and the Radio Frequency Hazard Assessment
Software (RFHAZ) have provided analysis tools during concept
development for basic laser/radio frequency quantification,
protection requirements, and hazard classification.

The Directed Energy Directorate conducts engagement

simulations during the game design phase. The Dynamic Aim-
Figure 2. Military M&S pyramid point Laser Engagement (DALE) provides the optimal aim-point
selection for a laser weapon and a target response to incident laser
irradiance, aim-point vulnerability, and selection of aim-point
Simulations used by the AFRL at the engineering level are for the shortest time to kill. The Directed Energy Directorate
numerous and mainly applied for technology development (e.g., uses a tool to determine the infrared (IR) characteristics of
computer-aided engineering, finite element analysis). Of these, targets by providing signatures in three bands in a 360-degree
there is one M&S capability that should be exploited to advance bubble around the system at varying settings (e.g., throttle,
wargame quality. The Threat Modeling and Analysis Program altitude). The Directorate has also used a tool in adjudication
(TMAP) is an initiative that offers authoritative threat models, planning to assess directed energy bio-effects. A version of
predicting system characteristics and performance capabilities. this tool has been modified to support concept development
This capability can improve game design by providing analytical and integrated into the Endgame Framework environment
support to scenario development, adjudication planning, and red and IWEA to evaluate combined directed energy and kinetic
system descriptions. The projected addition of artificial intelligence engagements. This tool has also been used for real-time directed
to the M&S environment will also improve energy collateral hazard analysis, providing
simulation utility as models “self-learn” during the laser shooter an estimate of effects on
an engagement and optimize established "Improve entities surrounding a target. The Joint
courses of action accordingly. Radio-frequency Effect Model ( JREM) has
simulation utility been used to build lethality tables for High
At the engagement level there have been Power Electromagnetic (HPEM) weapons,
several AFRL opportunities to evaluate the as models “self- supporting adjudication planning, and to
integration of M&S into future wargames. The conduct sensitivity analyses to determine
Munitions Directorate has used the Endgame learn” during key target elements to engage. Finally,
Framework environment to quantify the the Directed Energy Directorate has used
effects of munition blasts and fragments an engagement a collection of scaling laws and assorted
against the fault-tree of system components support routines, Scaling for High Energy
in target models to provide probability of and optimize Laser and Relay Engagement (SHaRE), to
kill (P K ). Endgame Framework modules calculate laser beam metrics and irradiance
coupled with the Integrated Environment established distributions for engagements.
for Weapons Analysis (IWEA) are used to
quantify kinetic (blast and fragmentation) courses While M&S options as we move higher in
and directed energy munition effectiveness the pyramid begin to consolidate, AFRL
against ground targets. Finally, the Munitions of action" has explored multiple opportunities at the
Directorate uses a six-degree-of-freedom (6 mission level. The Sensors Directorate has
DOF) MATLAB/Simulink architecture titled Engagement- used its Global Positioning System (GPS) Interference and
Level Visually Intuitive Simulation (ELVIS) to visualize Navigation Tool (GIANT) to determine the effectiveness of
engagements using an assembly of modules. navigation systems in challenging A2AD environments. GIANT
simulates GPS control, space and user segments for a broad range
The 711th Human Performance Wing has used various simulations of GPS user-equipment within a mission scenario environment
for assessing directed energy bio-effects during wargames. The in order to examine “system-of-systems” performance. This tool,
High Energy Laser Scatter from Targets (HELCAT) simulation coupled with optimization and decision-support technologies,

WWW.CSIAC.ORG | 15
NOVEMBER 2016  |  CSIAC JOURNAL OF CYBER SECURITY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

offers an opportunity for players to plan their courses of action multiple platforms. The Modern Air Combat Environment
effectively and for adjudicators to provide objective assessments (MACE), a physics-based, many-on-many simulation and threat
of navigation system performance in contested environments. environment with a large order of battle, is ideally suited for both
standalone mission rehearsal and distributed mission simulation.
The Aerospace Vehicles Directorate is a key contributor to The Next Generation Threat System (NGTS) has been used
AFRL modeling, simulation and analysis capability. RQ leads to model enemy and friendly aircraft, ground units, ships and
the development and maturation of the Advanced Framework submarines, associated weapons, sensors, and subsystems. The
for Simulation Integration and Modeling (AFSIM). AFSIM is Space Simulation Generator (SSG) has provided space orders
the M&S framework mandated by the AFRL commander for of battle for exercises and training events. Finally, the Directed
integrated technology/multi domain mission level modeling and Energy Directorate has used the eXpert Common Immersive
simulation. AFSIM allows rapid scenario composability from Theater Environment (XCITE), a virtual battlespace software
engineering to mission level simulations and can be used for tool, combining high-fidelity Electronic Attack/Electronic
both constructive and virtual simulations. The AFSIM framework Warfare (EA/EW ), energy-based aerodynamics, physics-based
provides a flexible agent modeling architecture supporting radar modeling, threat, and theater force models with robust
subsurface to space warfighting domains. AFSIM provides command and control capability.
a realistic, perception-based representation of systems with
tracking, correlation and fusion algorithms which can be linked Though much of the M&S required for technology research,
to other simulations via distributed interactive simulations (DIS) development, test and evaluation occurs at the physics,
or high-level architectures (HLA). The framework employs an engineering and engagement levels, the AFRL must also
integrated development environment and visualization tool that assess military utility at the campaign level. The Munitions
can be exploited to support multi-domain wargame scenarios. Directorate uses the Synthetic Theater Operations Research
The Air Force Studies, Analyses and Assessments Directorate Model (STORM) to study the effects of a given set of
(AF/A9) and the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center munitions on the length and cost of a military campaign.
Simulation and Analysis Facility (AFLCMC/SIMAF) are active The Aerospace Vehicles Directorate uses the Analysis of
stakeholders of the AFSIM framework, supporting compatibility Mobility Platform (AMP), a United States Transportation
and extending the capability to the campaign level. The Munitions Command (USTRANSCOM) model, to represent end-to-end
Directorate also uses AFSIM for weapon fly-out and survivability deployments and quantify operational energy requirements. This
estimates in mission-level simulations. last federation of tools consists of a Model for Inter-theater
Deployment by Air & Sea (MIDAS), the Enhanced Logistics
The Directed Energy Directorate has used the Reconfigurable Intra-theater Support Tool (ELIST), the Capability Analysis
Tactical Operations Simulator (RTOS), a modular, high-fidelity, and Modeling for Energy Logistics (CAMEL) and the AMP
soldier-in-the-loop, real-time distributed interactive simulation Port Analysis (AMP – PAT). Finally, the Aerospace Vehicles
and high-level architecture compliant computer simulation, to Directorate also uses the Command, Control, Communications,
support analyses of tactical data link interfaces during game Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
play. The Air Warfare Simulation (AWSIM), the approved Air (C4ISR) Space and Missile Operations Simulator (COSMOS),
Force model for full spectrum air warfare operations training a flexible system-of-systems model suite representing space,
and experimentation, has been used to support the definition air, ground, surface, subsurface systems with ISR, weapons,
and laydown of friendly, hostile, and neutral assets in a synthetic communications, cyber, survivability functions.
warzone where players can then control their forces. Big Tac, a
flexible, high-fidelity threat environment capable of presenting a The integration of analytical capabilities (see Figures 1 and 3) into
combination of air threats and ground based air defense threats, future wargames enables AFRL to probe the military utility of
has been used to enhance immersion of players in a synthetic emerging technologies and offers an opportunity to evaluate their
combat environment. The Directorate uses a stand-alone virtual impact on the battlespace and how they can augment the total force
(man-in-the-loop) simulation station designed to operate as to improve its effectiveness. To facilitate integration, the AFRL
an airborne asset, simulating either an E-3 Airborne Warning wargaming staff is also exploring the use of commercial off-the-
and Control System (AWACS) or E-8 Joint Surveillance and shelf (COTS) tools that offer large-scale flexibility ranging from
Target Attack Radar System ( JSTARS) or both. This tool can detailed models to advanced, near real-time, mission and campaign
be potentially integrated into future wargames involving these simulations. The exploration focuses on tools with readily-available
platforms. The Extended Air Defense Simulation (EADSIM) databases that address the capabilities and limitations of a variety
is a many-on-many simulation of combined air, missile and of war fighting assets within the full range of military operations.
space warfare. It is uniquely capable of modeling platforms Once an overarching tool has been identified as the foundation for
at a high level of detail and simulating the interaction among AFRL war-gaming, a common data format will be established for

16
 Air Force Research Laboratory Innovation  –  CON'T

the exchange of information with other models and simulations. REFERENCES

This approach will avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, allowing [1] Ball, Robert E. 2003. The Fundamentals of Aircraft Combat Surviv-
ability Analysis and Design. American Institute of Aeronautics and
existing M&S tools to continue supporting their primary missions,
Astronautics, Inc.
while adding analytical rigor to advanced technology wargames.
These analytical wargames will inform future Air Force and AFRL [2] Davis, Paul K., and Amy Henninger. 2007. Analysis, Analysis Prac-
tices, and Implications for Modeling and Simulation. Occasional
investment decisions. Paper, Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
[3] Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics. 2009. DoD Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Verification,
Validation, and Accreditation (VV&A). Instruction, Department of
Defense.
[4] Work, Robert O. 2015. War on the Rocks. December 8. http://
warontherocks.com/2015/12/revitalizing-wargaming-is-necessary-
to-be-prepared-for-future-wars/.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jaime J. Bestard is a Plans and Programs Engineer with the

Figure 3. AFRL – M&S Capabilities in Support of Wargaming
Strategic Planning and Transformation Division, Headquarters AFRL. As
a Plans and Programs Engineer, Mr. Bestard supports the development
of options for the AFRL analytical agenda. He directly supports the
Conclusions AFRL future warfare analysis activities spanning wargaming and M&S.
Mr. Bestard participates in war-gaming efforts from initial planning
Analytical wargaming will help establish a foundation for
and preparation through game execution and application of results to
investment decisions at appropriate levels of risk. Our national
defense relies heavily on the success of our most advanced shape AFRL Science and Technology (S&T) Strategy.
technologies in combat. Innovation is a key element of surprise
in our strategic planning efforts. The Department of Defense Mr. Bestard graduated from the University of Florida in 2006 with
continuously encourages innovative thinking and informed a Master of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering, beginning
risk management. The Air Force and its scientific and technical his civilian career with the Air Force as a survivability engineer and
innovation Enterprise are working toward a reinvigorated
managing numerous research, development, test and evaluation
analytical wargaming capability. To support this objective, the
AFRL is working to leverage its M&S used for technology projects to ensure aerospace systems can persevere in combat. To
development and apply it to augment wargame rigor. Analytical accomplish his mission he led initiatives with international partners
wargames will help bridge the traditional gaps between the to develop and standardize vulnerability analysis tools under the
operational and the scientific and technical communities when auspices of The Technical Cooperation Program (TTCP). Mr. Bestard
exploring the realm of the possible using advanced technology was also a participant in the Engineer and Scientist Exchange
concepts. Air Force leadership and AFRL strategic development
Program (ESEP) from 2013 to 2015 embedded in the Italian General
planners will have increased confidence when making investment
decisions in this fiscally constrained and increasingly complex Secretariat of Defence and National Armaments Directorate. In this
geopolitical environment. role, Mr. Bestard participated in policy development, as exemplified
by the preparation of a Strategic Research Agenda geared toward
emerging technologies to address operational capability gaps and by
the shaping of the Italian position on research and development to
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are those of the author support the European Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).
and are not necessarily representative of those of the United States
He also conducted a study on robotics and nanotechnology for the
Air Force or the Department of Defense.
Italian Military Centre for Strategic Studies (CeMiSS) commissioned by
the Financial Planning Department of the Italian Army General Staff.
Mr. Bestard has completed Air Command and Staff College (ACSC)
and is Level III Engineering certified in the Acquisition Professional
Development Program (APDP).

WWW.CSIAC.ORG | 17
NOVEMBER 2016  |  CSIAC JOURNAL OF CYBER SECURITY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Wargaming at the Naval

Postgraduate School

By: Jeff Appleget, INTRODUCTION: The United States Department of Defense (DoD) and
Fred Cameron, the military services have employed wargaming for well over a century
Rob E. Burks, to prepare for war and other operations. The Naval War College first
and Jeff Kline employed naval wargames in the late 19th century at the tactical and
strategic levels. During the period between world wars, Plan Orange
wargaming at the Naval War College was a key contributor to the
strategic plan that led to the defeat of the Japanese Empire in 1945.
Since that conflict, wargaming techniques have become widespread
within U.S. organizations and throughout the world.

A fter a recent period of quiescence, there is a resurgence of interest in wargaming by DoD.

The Naval Postgraduate School has a long history of teaching wargaming, starting with a
partnership to share course materials and naval simulations with the Naval War College in the
mid-1980s. NPS education and research wargaming activities on campus have resulted in the
execution of over 50 wargames in the past five years. These wargames are conducted as part of
resident wargaming courses and other on-campus workshops and events in direct support of DON,
DoD, major command sponsors and allies and other international partners, as well as separate
wargames to support technical research. Today, wargaming activities of all types can be found in
many of the NPS curricula and outreach activities around the globe.

In 2014, a need to bring higher visibility and synergy to the myriad of wargaming activities
at NPS resulted in the formation of the Wargaming Activity Hub. The Hub’s mission is to
leverage wargaming to conduct high quality education, analysis, and research in support of
the Naval Postgraduate School’s mission, to prepare future leaders, and help shape and form
key decisions on the future of the Department of Defense (DoD). The Wargaming Activity
Hub’s purpose is to support and contribute to the Naval Postgraduate School’s educational
and research mission and provide a wargaming and simulation environment to assist DoD
leaders in their mission to develop new strategies and concepts across all levels of warfare
to counter emerging adversary capabilities and complement ongoing field experimentation
activities for the rapid testing and fielding of new technologies.

While it would be impossible to detail all NPS wargaming activities, there are several that provide
support to DoD and defense partner organizations by leveraging educational opportunities
for NPS students and faculty and provide a flavor of the range of wargaming support at NPS.

18
 Wargaming at the Naval Postgraduate School

NPS On-Campus Wargaming Activities ECCO has developed multiple strategic games including concepts
focused on Asymmetric Warfare, Terrorism Finance, Social
Warfare Innovation Workshops Network Analysis, Cyber, Counter Insurgency, and Countering
Terrorist Ideologies.
Originally sponsored by the Navy Warfare Development Command
and the Consortium for Robots and Unmanned Systems Education MMOWGLI
and Research (CRUSER), the Warfare Innovation Workshops have
kicked off the NPS Warfare Innovation Continuum since 2010. The MMOWGLI project was originally sponsored by the Office
of Naval Research (ONR) for the United States Navy. The goal of
The NPS Warfare Innovation Workshop uses seminar wargaming the project is to explore the potential of a Massively Multiplayer
techniques and design thinking for NPS officers and system Online War Game Leveraging the Internet (MMOWGLI),
command engineers to consider how they would design with a variety of themes, to expand engagement in military and
and/or employ new capabilities in hostile non-military strategy development for
environments. How players employ forces and complex geopolitical problems. The platform
view risk are assessed with a programmed force "Facilitates thinking is designed to support large numbers of
and again with a force with new technologies distributed global players working together
included. Innovative employment of new about terrorism on idea generation and action planning, with
technologies from the synergy between an eye towards surfacing innovative outlier
early- to mid-career officers and early career and combating strategies. Several dozen games, workshops
engineers have been the basis for Navy and courses have used the MMOWGLI
system design and concept development like terrorism issues platform.
the Advanced Undersea Warfare Systems
(AUWS), undersea docking stations, air and provides an Red Teaming and Red Celling
UAV swarms, and distributed fleet. The ideas
generated from the Warfare Innovation effective framework The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Workshops are further developed in the Research and Development, Department
year-long Warfare Innovation Continuum, a for discussing of Energy, the Commander Naval Surface
NPS federation of classes, capstone projects, Forces, and the S tate of California
theses, and research work usually involving related concepts" are four past sponsors of red teaming
400 faculty, students and sponsors. and red celling activities at the Naval
Postgraduate School. Leveraging the operational experience
Global ECCO and technical education of NPS students, these classified
efforts focus on technical red teaming future systems and
Global ECCO’s (Education Community Collaboration Online) or red celling emerging blue concept of operations. These
mission is to build and strengthen the Combating Terrorism activities employ wargaming techniques to frame the
Fellowship Program’s (CTFP) global alumni network of Combating students’ perspective of defeating blue systems and result
Terrorism experts and practitioners through innovative and engaging in recommendations to increase blue system resiliency or
technologies and techniques that both enable and encourage modifications to Blue concepts.
collaborative partnership between individuals, nations, organizations,
and cultures. At NPS, Global
ECCO has utilized computer and Resident courses
web-based technologies to develop
engaging strategic games to educate For students taking degree
players about counter-terrorism programs at NPS, there are several
tactics. The strategic games teach wargaming courses to choose from.
the methods and mindsets of Within the Operations Research
terrorist tactics as well as how to Department, there is a basic course
contend with them as opponents on applications of wargaming as
face off against each other in a well as a follow-on advanced course.
virtual online environment. This Within the Defense Analysis
strategic gaming environment Department, there are courses that
facilitates thinking about terrorism provide students with a deeper
and combating terrorism issues and understanding of the analytical
provides an effective framework for value of wargaming and historical
discussing related concepts. Global Warfare Innovation Workshop participants discuss technological wargaming. These NPS courses
solutions for employment.

WWW.CSIAC.ORG | 19
NOVEMBER 2016  |  CSIAC JOURNAL OF CYBER SECURITY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

stress the contribution of wargaming to decision

making and problem solving. Students learn how
wargames must be developed and analyzed to
provide high quality material for evidence-based
decision making, whether in dealing with current
operations, in exploring and evaluating options for
acquisition projects, or for developing new concepts
and doctrine. Beyond the courses specifically on
wargaming, there are numerous NPS courses on
tools related to analytical wargaming, for example
computer-based simulation, data collection and
analysis, and statistics.

Wargaming Applications

The Naval Postgraduate School has taught the

Wargaming Applications course in the Operations
Research Department for well over three decades.
This 11-week course for NPS resident students
focuses on analytic wargaming, which is a wargame
designed to collect and analyze information from
wargame play, with results that either feed directly Fred Cameron facilitates the Zefra seminar wargame with NPS resident students as part of the
into a decision, or are used to develop other analytic Wargaming Applications course.
products. The course is a mixture of lecture and
hands-on practical exercises designed to develop
student wargaming knowledge and skills. Since
2009, the course has integrated external DoD or
defense partner organizations into the fabric of
the course. By the third week of the course, the
students have been introduced to their sponsor,
and they partner with the sponsor to begin the
design process of the wargame that the students will
produce for the sponsor. After the completion of
formal instruction and the Wargaming Apprentice
Certification Exam during the sixth week, the
student teams focus solely on designing, developing,
executing, and analyzing their sponsor’s wargame.
This capstone wargaming project, conducted for
the sponsor during NPS “Wargaming Week,”
serves as the students’ final exam. While most of
the wargaming sponsors have come from DoD
organizations, several sponsors have been from allied
or partner nations. Additionally, defense industry
partners have also sponsored NPS wargames. The
course is offered in the fall and spring quarters, and The Russian Hybrid Threat wargaming players contemplate the first scenario in the Arctic
during NPS “Wargaming Week”
three to four sponsored wargames are designed,
developed, executed and analyzed per student Advanced Wargaming Applications
section, one section in the fall, two in spring.
The Advanced Wargaming Applications course student teams
Recent sponsors include the U.S. Navy’s N-96 examining the create a military modeling application for an external Defense
Distributed Lethality concept, U.S. Special Operations Command sponsor and/or an NPS Faculty advisor that will examine
J-3 (International) exploring the implications of a Russian hybrid sponsor/advisor approved issues with more focus and depth
threat in the Arctic, and U.S. Central Command seeking a better than the initial Wargaming Applications course permitted.
understanding of the implications of Shia Militia Groups employed While that wargame was a complete, playable wargame, the
against ISIS in Iraq. time restrictions of the course didn’t allow for the design

20
 Wargaming at the Naval Postgraduate School  –  CON'T

and development of advanced adjudication, data

collection, or analysis tools and techniques, or the
analysis of their output. The concept of this course
is to start with a Wargaming Applications wargame
or a suitable capstone project or thesis proposal
that provides a functioning framework where these
modeling techniques can be designed, developed,
integrated and then used to generate output to be
analyzed and documented for the sponsor/advisor
as the final course project deliverables. For our
defense sponsors, this provides an opportunity
for student teams to continue to work on their
wargame for a second, consecutive quarter.

This course was offered for the first time in the fall
quarter of 2016 and has two student team successes
including Remote Advise and Assist and High-Arctic
thesis projects for the Defense Analysis curriculum.
Indonesian Navy students tackle a difficult South China Sea scenario in the
Basic Analytic Wargaming MTT course
Mobile Training Team Courses

Since 2011, NPS faculty have gone on the road

to deliver wargaming education. This is provided
to organizations that want to establish an organic
wargaming capability or that are expanding their
existing wargaming capacity.

Basic Analytic Wargaming Mobile Training Team

(MTT) Course

NPS offers a five-day Basic Analytic Wargaming

Course to defense partners at their home station. The
course provides hands-on experience with designing,
developing, executing, and analyzing a wargame.
This course is a compressed version of the 11-week
resident course described above. The sponsoring
organization provides the wargaming topic that
will be the focus for the students. The course is then
Playing Risk spurs a lively debate on tactics among Counter-Terrorism
oriented on mentoring the students’ development students in Dushanbe, Tajikistan
of a wargame that is then executed by the students
themselves on the last day of the course. Like the Operations using the Peace Support Operations Model (PSOM)
resident course, this course is a mixture of lectures and practical developed by the United Kingdom’s Defence Science and
exercises, with even more emphasis on practice. The course was Technology Laboratory. A wargaming research and development
first conducted for the Canadian Forces Aerospace Warfare workshop was provided to Lockheed Martin Space Systems through
Centre, and was followed by courses for U.S. Strategic Command, a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) in
Indonesian Navy, U.S. Central Command, and the Australian 2012. A five day Wargaming and Combat Modeling for Counter-
government’s Defence Science and Technology Group. terrorism course was designed and delivered in 2014 for Tajikistan
government and military students.
Non-standard MTT Courses and Workshops

A custom-designed course is created when a sponsor has a unique Way Ahead

wargaming requirement. In 2011, a five day Peacegaming course
was designed and conducted for the Kazakhstan Army in order to The NPS resident Wargaming Applications course is currently
assess the Kazakh Army students’ knowledge of U.N. Peacekeeping working on four sponsored wargames this fall. Global SOF Force

WWW.CSIAC.ORG | 21
NOVEMBER 2016  |  CSIAC JOURNAL OF CYBER SECURITY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Structure (SOCOM J-3I), Countering Transnational Organizations for a group of 12-16 students who have demonstrated proficiency
(SOCCENT), Iranian Threat Network (SOCCENT) and Theater in the basic analytic wargaming fundamentals as assessed by BAWF
Anti-Submarine Warfare (U.S. Navy) wargames are currently in Phase I. A prototype of the BAWF I system will be completed by
development and will be completed and played for their sponsors September 2017.
in December 2016.
Under sponsorship of CRUSER, the Warfare Innovation Workshops
NPS is currently developing a classified wargaming workshop will continue to kick off the Warfare Innovation Continuum each
to support CENTCOM’s newly formed Wargaming Cell with September. The value to NPS students are an emersion in design
a delivery date in the winter of 2017. CENTCOM is currently thinking, conflict assessment, and being exposed to potential thesis
pursuing a long-term relationship with NPS that will include research topics. CRUSER will continue to mine this activity to seed
recurring Basic Analytic Wargaming MTT courses, periodic research funds into unmanned systems.
Advanced Analytic Wargaming courses, and consulting on
CENTCOM wargames as needed. Global ECCO is currently working on updating several of its
previously developed strategic games to better support specific
Several Basic Analytic Wargaming MTT courses may be delivered sponsor requirements. In addition, future strategic games include
in 2017. Potential sponsors include NAVAIR (China Lake), Joint efforts addressing the issues of boarder security and countering
Experimentation (Australian Defence Force), U.S. European weapons of mass destruction proliferation.
Command, and NATO. The New Zealand Defence Force is
considering a course in the FY 18-19 timeframe. The NPS MMOWGLI team is currently developing a game in
support of the NPS Littoral Operations Center to better understand
Some sponsors of the NPS Basic Analytic Wargaming course the dynamic interactions of the U.S. Navy with allies and partners
have asked for a two or three-day course that focuses on advanced in the South China Sea.
analytic techniques. NPS is developing a proposal for such a course
in response to Australia’s DST-Group’s request.
Conclusion
Under an OSD Wargaming Education Initiative, NPS will develop
an automated education and assessment system that will permit a NPS continues to provide analytical wargaming education to its
lower-cost, time-saving delivery of wargaming skills to DoD, allied students and to DoD and defense partner organizations around
and partner organizations. The vision is to take the existing NPS the world. Wargaming sponsors continue to benefit from wargames
Basic Analytic Wargaming MTT course and develop a two-phased created and analysis conducted by NPS student wargaming teams,
wargaming course (Basic Analytic Wargaming Fundamentals and NPS continues to enhance its students’ professional development
(BAWF) Phases I and II) that will be less resource intensive yet still by providing opportunities to work with joint and service sponsors
provide a high-quality wargaming course for DoD, allied and partner on operational warfighter requirements and analyses worldwide.
organizations. Basic Analytic Wargaming Fundamentals (BAWF) Our joint, service, and international defense partners benefit from
Phase I will provide the means to acquire and assess basic analytic NPS educational expertise and engagement through our MTT
wargaming fundamentals education that students learn on their outreach, building stronger defense partnerships in a dynamic
own without live instruction through a web-based asynchronous security environment. NPS stands ready to support DoD, its allies,
education and assessment website. BAWF Phase II will be a three- and its partners through our operationally-experienced multiservice
day, hands-on, instructor-led practical exercise-based MTT course and multinational student body and our world-class faculty.

22
 Wargaming at the Naval Postgraduate School  –  CON'T

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr. Jeff Appleget is a retired Army Colonel who served as an Artilleryman and Operations Research analyst in his 30-year Army career. He teaches
the Wargaming Analysis, Combat Modeling, and Advanced Wargaming Applications courses at NPS. He also teaches week-long Basic Analytic
Wargaming Mobile Training Team (MTT) courses, with the most recent offering conducted in Adelaide, Australia for DST-Group (the Australian
Government’s Defence Science and Technology organization). He is the Joint Warfare Analysis Center (JWAC) Chair of Applied Operations Research
at NPS. His research interests include Irregular Warfare and Stability Operations modeling, Amphibious Operations modeling, Wargaming, Combat
Modeling, and Integer Programming. He was a member of the NATO SAS-091 Specialist Team (2012 Research and Technology Organization Scientific
Achievement Award winner) that developed metrics to support decisions for the transition of responsibilities from ISAF to the Afghanistan Government.
His other major awards include the Richard W. Hamming Faculty Award for Interdisciplinary Achievement (2016), Army Modeling and Simulation Office
Analysis Award (2011), Dr. Wilbur B. Payne Memorial Award for Excellence in Analysis (1991 and 2003), Simulation and Modeling for Acquisition,
Requirements, and Training (SMART) Award (2001 and 2003), and 1990 Concepts Analysis Agency Director’s Award for Excellence. He served on the
Military Operations Research Society (MORS) Board of Directors from 2000-2004.

Mr. Fred Cameron joined the Canadian Department of National Defence in 1974 upon graduation in mathematics from Dalhousie University in
Halifax, Nova Scotia. He recently retired after more than 35 years as an operational research analyst. He has since been appointed a scientist emeritus
by the Centre for Operational Research and Analysis in Ottawa. During his career, Mr. Cameron provided operational research for all three Canadian
military services. From 1976 to 1978 he supported NORAD in its North American air defence mission. He then spent three years in the Netherlands
with NATO, with a focus on air operations in the European theatre. From 1983 to 1988 he led the OR team in Victoria, British Columbia supporting
Canada’s west-coast navy, and had close collaboration with analysts at US Third Fleet on naval operations in the northern Pacific. His introduction to
army problems came in 1988 with assignment to the Directorate of Land Operational Research in Ottawa. From 1998 he led an OR team in Kingston,
Ontario dealing with future concepts for the Canadian Army. Mr. Cameron deployed to Macedonia and Kosovo in 1999 to provide OR support to the
Commander of the Canadian Contingent in KFOR. Mr. Cameron has been an advisory director of the Military Operations Research Society since 2009.

Dr. Robert E. Burks, Jr. is a Senior Lecturer in the Defense Analysis Department of the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS). He
holds a Ph.D. in Operations Research form the Air Force Institute of Technology and a M.S. in Operations Research from the Florida
Institute of Technology and a bachelor’s degree in Aerospace Engineering from the United States Military Academy. He is a retired
logistics Army Colonel with more than thirty years of military experience in leadership, advanced analytics management and logistics
operations who served as an Army Operations Research analyst at the Naval Postgraduate School, TRADOC Analysis Center, United
States Military Academy, and the United States Army Recruiting Command. He has led multiple analytical study teams responsible
for Army Transformation (organizational change) issues and his work includes applying analytical methods to develop solutions for
complex problems in support of the Combined Arms Support Command, the Army’s sustainment think tank and premier sustainment
learning institution. In addition, he has served as the technical expert on studies involving deployment, equipping, manning, training,
and logistics operations of military forces in multiple theaters of operation. He currently teaches the Modeling for Decision Making and
Statistics Courses at NPS. His research interests include Irregular Warfare and Stability Operations modeling, Information Operations
modeling, Wargaming and Agent Based Modeling and Simulation. His recent major awards include the Military Leadership Award
(2013), Joint Service Warfare Award (2013), Military Operations Research Journal Award (2011) for developing analytical methods for
solving the Theater Distribution Problem, and the Omar Bradley Fellowship for the Study of Mathematical Sciences (2011).

CAPT Jeff Kline, USN (ret) is a retired naval officer with 26 years of service, two ship commands, and time as a naval analyst in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense. Jeff is currently a Professor of Practice in the Operations Research department and holds the Naval
Postgraduate School‘s Chair of Systems Engineering Analysis. He teaches Joint Campaign Analysis, executive risk assessment and
coordinates maritime security education programs offered at NPS. Jeff supports applied analytical research in maritime operations
and security, theater ballistic missile defense, and future force composition studies. He has served on several U.S. Naval Study
Board Committees. His NPS faculty awards include the Superior Civilian Service Medal, 2011 Institute for Operations Research
and Management Science (INFORMS) Award for Teaching of OR Practice, 2009 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Homeland Security Award, 2007 Hamming Award for interdisciplinary research, 2007 Wayne E. Meyers Award for Excellence in
Systems Engineering Research, and the 2005 Northrop Grumman Award for Excellence in Systems Engineering. He is a member of the
Military Operations Research Society and the Institute for Operations Research and Management Science.

WWW.CSIAC.ORG | 23
NOVEMBER 2016  |  CSIAC JOURNAL OF CYBER SECURITY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Computer Assisted Military

Wargaming: The SWIFT Wargame Tool

By: William Ellerbe,

Karl Selke, T he Standard Wargame Integration Facilitation Toolkit (SWIFT), an Office of the Secretary
of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (OSD CAPE) product, provides
a computer environment that supports Department of Defense (DoD) wargaming. SWIFT
and Michael Ottenberg complements, but does not substitute for good wargaming practices. Deputy Secretary of
Defense Robert Work has called for the reinvigoration of wargaming in the Department of
Defense.1 Wargames require careful attention in their application and execution to maximize
their utility. As in all walks of life, computer assistance in the areas of wargame design,
visualization, adjudication, and analysis would be useful to facilitate DoD wargaming. Several
tools are available to support commercial games, but are inadequate to support the full range
“A dynamic of professional wargames within the DoD.

representation What is a wargame? Peter Perla defines wargaming “as a dynamic representation of conflict
or competition in a synthetic environment, in which people make decisions and respond to
of conflict or the consequences of those decisions.”2 Wargames explore the decision process of the players
and provide an immersive environment to think about the issues in question. Wargames
competition results are often what the players take with them when they leave. In other cases, wargames
are used to support a larger analytic process where the burden on data capture is more
in a synthetic significant. The scale of wargames takes the form of small numbers of participants examining
political-military issues in a seminar setting with limited adjudication. Other wargames
environment, include a large number of participants examining detailed military issues involving rigid,
complex adjudication of combat results. The purpose of the game is akin to the learning
in which objectives, such as new insights into a problem, further testing of a concept or hypothesis,
or even for socialization of ideas and issues.
people make
As with any method of inquiry, wargames have a number of inherent limitations. Wargames are
decisions and rarely repeatable, may be resource intensive, and are difficult to design. Wargames with complicated
rulesets or system games are often time-consuming to execute and record. Similarly, seminar
respond to the games with human adjudication face both dynamic visualization and player move recordation
challenges as these processes struggle to keep pace with the social interactions. Moreover, as the
consequences of resolution and scale of the wargames increase, they are hard to record and even harder to analyze.
Computer aids should assist in reducing these burdens in DoD games through providing benefits
those decisions.” in visualization, recordation, adjudication, sharing, and collaboration.

1 Work, Robert. (DepSecDef Memo Feb 9, 2015) Wargaming and Innovation

2 http://www.mors.org/Events/Special-Meetings/Wargaming

24
 Computer Assisted Military Wargaming: The SWIFT Wargame Tool

SWIFT supports professional turn-based games from several

perspectives: sponsor, developer, player, adjudicator, and analyst.
For the game sponsor, SWIFT offers resource efficiency by shifting
software development dollars from the “medium” to the actual design
or particular game-specific features. Additionally, the wargame is
preserved for re-use, modification, presentation, and sharing (think
SWIFT as Microsoft Excel for wargamers).

For the game designer and developer, SWIFT not only provides
a computer medium for wargaming but it, like most computer
environments, enforces a design clarity and common language that
is always desired on gaming projects. Games are described and
designed in terms of their meta-components: participants, actors,
resources, actions, game spaces, turns, and adjudicators (See Figure
2 for complete list). All game meta-components have attributes that
Figure 1. Development Engines can be manipulated to suit the requirements of the game design. The
time required to instantiate a game in SWIFT depends upon the
What does it take to accomplish this? Thankfully, the private sector game design. It takes days, not weeks to build a manual game that
has been vanquishing the foe of computer inaccessibility. We need utilizes SWIFT’s visualization and recording capabilities. Days to
look no further than Android that allows incredible customization weeks are required to instantiate semi-automated/fully-automated
on our phones and tablets. In software and analytic domains, games depending upon level of complexity.
development environments have flourished providing order of
magnitude advances in productivity for analysts and programmers.
Cross-platform gaming engines are the norm in the commercial
world shifting the burden from technology implementation to
artistic expression. Even the much smaller commercial wargaming
domain has led to several gaming engines used for playing games
online or through email by providing a customizable digital game
board and pieces (Figure 1). The OSD CAPE solution to this
design inaccessibility problem is the Standard Wargame Integration
Facilitation Toolkit (SWIFT). SWIFT is a software environment
used to build, play, and analyze turn-based wargames conducted
primarily for analytic purposes.3 SWIFT provides a toolkit to enable
integration of visualization, wargame rules, human and computer- Scenario depicted is purely notional and used for illustrative purposes only.

based adjudicators into a multi-player turn-based wargame to

facilitate testing, execution, and analysis.

Figure 3. SWIFT Visualization

For the game player, SWIFT supports visualization and efficient

game play. SWIFT is an intuitive, appealing mechanism to learn
once and rely on that training to play multiple different types
of games shifting the training to the game rules rather than the
tool navigation. SWIFT overlays situational awareness, actors,
and actions on any map/image resource to include Google
Earth’s .kml files (See Figure 3). While players have an enhanced
common operating picture (COP) that they can filter in any
number of ways, game controllers can implement the fog of war
and information hiding by limiting player perception. Although
Figure 2. SWIFT Meta-Components as a Common Language game design can rely upon intermediaries (“pucksters”) between
players and the software, we found that players intuitively pick
up the point and click interface and have frequently done away
3 rn-based games are typically games where players play in a sequential order or with the intermediaries within less than 15 minutes of play.
simultaneously plan their moves with actual execution occurring during the end of Millennials tend to pick it up with ease.
turn adjudication phase.

WWW.CSIAC.ORG | 25
NOVEMBER 2016  |  CSIAC JOURNAL OF CYBER SECURITY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Figure 4. SWIFT Adjudication Approaches

SWIFT’s general concept for the adjudication process is shown be supported in a single instance of SWIF T as players play
in Figure 4. For the game adjudicator, SWIFT captures the in different theaters and/or echelons. SWIF T tracks changes
suggested outcomes of an unconstrained number of adjudicators caused by each of the actions and adjudications allowing
(human or computer) and presents those outcomes for ground traceability and understanding during post-wargame reviews
truth selection. SWIFT supports a wide variety of manual and and analysis. Additionally, SWIF T games can be played
automated adjudication types. It also permits the use of several in a local or distributed environment. Using SWIF T in a
different adjudicators for the same phenomenology and permits distributed design creates a dependency on the network
the White Cell to choose the most appropriate or a combination supporting the game, but even in local games the quality
of the adjudicator results for the game turn. SWIFT supports of the computers, projectors, and room layout are relevant
the game analyst by providing a consistent, transparent data factors. Infrastructure issues should not be underestimated!
structure and a game engine to support stochastic analysis of Regard less, the successful application of the SWIF T
model-adjudicated games. Its use of structured input/output environment to a wargame implementation depends upon
data facilitates inductive analysis techniques. SWIF T has a the wargame design and the specific requirements of the
playback and other after-action features that support post computer medium. SWIF T is not intended to compensate for
game analysis. SWIFT can import and export most data to/ poor planning and there are many circumstances and designs
from Excel for analysis and game development. Ease of use was where it may provide limited to negative value.
a key design consideration.
We have encountered several questions when discussing SWIFT:
As previously mentioned, SWIF T supports a vast variety
of turn-based games from ver y structured games with ii What are SWIFT’s technical characteristics? Is it easily
significant numbers of game pieces and rules to turn-based available for use by a DoD organization? SWIFT is GOTS
seminars where managing temporal, spatial, and behavioral software written in the Java programing language. All data
complexity is a key element of game facilitation. Game play is stored via XML. SWIFT has been used at all levels of
can be a series of sequential or simultaneous player moves classification to support COCOM, Service, and OSD games.
depending upon game requirements. Multi-level games can ii How long does it take to set-up a game? It depends … how

26
 Computer Assisted Military Wargaming: The SWIFT Wargame Tool   –  CON'T

complex is the game design? SWIFT can be instantiated to

support simple visualization within several days. Games with ABOUT THE AUTHORS
complicated designs characterized by multiple adjudicators
or extensive orders of battle can take weeks. A key question William Ellerbe, Senior Architect and Software Solution
when considering automation is what requires automation
Engineer with AT&T Global Business Solutions, supports the
and what can be left as manual processes. When the question
being examined lends itself to modeling and simulation Office of Secretary Defense Cost Assessment and Program
approaches rather than a wargame, use the technique or tool Evaluation (OSD CAPE) by designing analytic solutions to
more suited to the problem. SWIFT was designed to interact support their mission. Mr. Ellerbe has designed, developed
with other tools, but not replace them. Wargames are best and deployed innovative solutions in areas such as modeling
for examining very complex, wicked problems where the and simulation, wargaming and force structures analysis to
conditions change and the relationships among the elements
support the development and evaluation of defense program
are unclear. Difficult but highly structured problems are best
examined using the appropriate modeling tools. alternatives. The tools are written in several different languages
ii How long does it take to run through a game turn? It ranging from JAVA to Microsoft VB, VBA and C#. Solutions are
depends… how complex is the game design? Learning a leveraged and agile enabling flexibility and reuse. Mr. Ellerbe is
complicated game tends to far exceed the time it takes to learn the senior developer supporting the development of OSD CAPE’s
how to move actors and make actions in SWIFT. Standard Wargame integration and Facilitation Tool (SWIFT). Mr.
ii How scalable is the tool? This question has a complicated
Ellerbe may be reached at [email protected].
answer. SWIFT can support many game objects (we have
instantiated orders of battle up to several thousand units).
Note that SWIFT tool has some optimization for speed but Karl Selke, Program Manager and Analyst with Group W
it can be a challenge. Inc., supports organizations across DoD by developing tools
and methods to gain insights into the complexity of irregular
SWIFT is a powerful tool for designing, executing, and analyzing warfare and other irregular challenges. Combining an analyst’s
wargames, but it is not the entire answer for supporting DoD perspective with significant academic training in operations
wargames. SWIFT is a wargame support tool that allows DoD
research, computational social science, and international
professionals to build aspects of their game into a computing
environment without a software developer present. It is not a relations, he led the development of OSD/CAPE’s Standard
shrink-wrapped wargame, but an engine for wargaming. It is Wargame Integration and Facilitation Tool (SWIFT) to become
not a model, simulation or artificial intelligence application even a functional resource within the Department. Mr. Selke is
though all three have been considered as sources of adjudication pursuing a PhD degree at George Mason University, focusing his
or computer-based opponents. SWIFT requires humans are still research on the integration of computational social science and
required to be in the loop. Secondly, it can’t capture data at the
wargaming. He can be reached at [email protected].
speed of thought and there is no voice-to-text. Many so-called
wargames involve discussions (many at the same time in the same
room). SWIFT or even a handwritten note-taker is not going Michael Ottenberg, Booz Allen Hamilton, is an analyst in
to have the capacity to record every element of conversation. support of the OSD CAPE Simulation and Analysis Center
However, if you have an experienced facilitator, who pauses and Wargame Team where he designs and executes tactical,
emphasizes the key points, you should be able to record the key operational, and strategic wargames for analytic purposes. He
actions and results in SWIFT.
also chairs the Military Operations Research Society Wargame
Third, SWIFT is not a map/GIS application such as Google Community of Practice. Mr. Ottenberg is the analyst lead for
Earth. SWIFT can import Google Earth data and look just like the use of Standard Wargame Integration and Facilitation
Google Earth but without the 3D. In fact, it adds the ability to Tool (SWIFT) within OSD CAPE. He can be reached at
move objects around while capturing their new location and [email protected].
path. It also can capture the player’s intent. Many groups are
using Google Earth for their COP; however, they have to capture
intent and move data in a spreadsheet, then combine everyone’s
data and create a new COP in Google Earth. SWIFT integrates
all these steps. Finally, and most importantly, SWIFT is not a
substitute for a good game design. You can create a bad game
design in SWIFT, just as you can write a bad book using a word
processing application. SWIFT simply provides a tool for you
to write the Shakespeare.

WWW.CSIAC.ORG | 27
NOVEMBER 2016  |  CSIAC JOURNAL OF CYBER SECURITY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Adjudication in Wargaming
for Discovery

Charles Turnitsa, PhD INTRODUCTION: Wargaming is currently a very important topic,

Georgia Tech Research Institute due to the renewed interest in pursuing the activity within the US
Department of Defense (US DoD), for the purposes of discovery and
Information and
Communications Laboratory 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
“A warfare overview of what and how adjudication is currently done within a variety
model or of different systems. Finally, a proposed method that combines some
of the strengths of existing adjudication methods with the particular
simulation needs for wargaming when it is done for discovery, is presented.
that does not
involve the Wargaming

operations of 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,
actual forces" 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

28
 Adjudication in Wargaming for Discovery

for this article, it is by no means a new definition. The description execution of wargames through a strictly manual process. Such
of a wargame as a synthetic replacement for warfare, employing wargames take a number of different forms, but the main distinction
live players on both sides, was described well by Perla, “a warfare is between a seminar wargame, and a tabletop wargame. The terms
model or simulation that does not involve the operations of actual are not precise, and there is often overlap, but to understand (for
forces, in which the flow of events affects and is affected by decisions the purposes of this article) what is meant by the two ideas, the
made during the course of those events by players representing following descriptions are provided.
the opposing sides” [1]. The concept of a wargame for discovery is
described well by Wiggins1 [2]: A seminar wargame is one where a situation, usually of a military
nature (but sometimes of an economic, geo-political, or combination
There are multiple reasons for the use of war of several of these), is presented to an audience, and then courses of
games; discovery, examination of concepts, action and their results are discussed in an open forum. Often those
and even learning. The value of the war that are a mixture of military and other domains (usually political) are
game is to create an enabling environment to called Pol/Mil games (political-military). There is a referee staff that
achieve the desired objective(s). The benefits prepares and presents information to the participants that describes
of a war game are numerous; however, for the background for the situation (which may, for instance, include
the most part they provide new ways of fictional countries), and also the resources at hand for each of the
conceptualizing the problem, new courses participating factions. The starting point of the scenario is indicated,
of action, new elements of information and then, through discussion and presentation of ideas, there is a
needed for decisions, previously unknown conversation between the participants and the referee staff. Subject
relationships between aspects of a problem, matter experts will evaluate the proposed ideas, and either accept
understanding of the problem’s dynamics. them, or have counter ideas (either generated from themselves, or
presented by an opposition force group of players). As the tempo of
By this definition we see some commonality with, and some the game picks up, with proposal and counter proposal, the referee
differences from, the body of simulators typically employed by staff relies on their own subject matter expertise to evaluate the results
the US DoD in its pursuit of Live-Virtual-Constructive (LVC) of the player actions, and report back to them a description of the
simulation. Such simulation is often, but not always, done for the unfolding situation. This method for holding a wargame is extremely
purpose of training. Simulators that exist for flexible, as the timeline can be moved backwards
the purpose of training work quite well with "Live human and forwards, and once a proposal is explored and
computer generated forces often (but again, not discussed, it can be countered and changed, and
always) taking the role of red forces, allied forces, participants then further discussion is made of the alternative.
and civilian or non-aligned forces. Wargaming A seminar wargame has a “system” of rules – but
for the purposes of this article, works best with controlling the they usually define such basic elements including
live human participants controlling the forces what sides are participating, what the chances
of the opposed sides within the game. LVC forces of the are of requesting support from an authority not
simulators also exist, and are used for, staff represented in the game, amount of time allowed
training where the generation of highly detailed opposed sides to participants to respond to the current situation,
data is a highly valued product of the simulation and so on. These rules are specifically designed for
that results from their use. This data is often within the game" ease of execution and flexibility, without having
specifically for realistic and plausible stimulation to rely on a more formal system for evaluating
of Command and Control (C2) devices that staff members will be casualties, or likelihood of success. That is provided through the expert
training to use, in anticipation of actual operations. In the case of knowledge of the referee staff.
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 A tabletop wargame is one that is more systematized than a seminar
wargaming for discovery are the devising, executing, and testing of wargame, but perhaps slightly less flexible. It is one where the action
courses of action against an enemy, in order to explore some military of the military and/or political situation is represented on some
problem or proposed future situation. To that end, knowing whether sort of map, or grid, on a table top. Military units (or other focuses
a course of action is executing successfully, or not, and in which areas of resource and/or strength) are presented as game pieces (tokens,
it is strong, or weak, is what must be conveyed. chits, military models, flags, etc.) that have a place on the tabletop
map or grid. Maps and graphics might be employed in a seminar
Current users and advocates of computerized combat simulation wargame, but typically the movement of forces, and the exertion of
might be surprised to find that many within the professional power (combat, political, etc.) is controlled by the subject matter
wargaming community endorse and continue to promote the experts supporting the referee staff. In a tabletop wargame, a system
of rules (similar to those rules that a computerized simulation might
1 Wiggins also credits the phrase “they provide new ways of conceptualizing the employ, although somewhat less complex) is present that declares
problem, new courses of action, new elements of information needed for decisions,
previously unknown relationships between aspects of a problem, understanding of
(for instance) that an armored unit may move so many spaces along
the problem’s dynamics” to John Hughes, in a Strategic Studies Group Dissertation,
from 1991.
WWW.CSIAC.ORG | 29
NOVEMBER 2016  |  CSIAC JOURNAL OF CYBER SECURITY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

a grid. Likewise, a tabletop wargame system will include rules for of the player situations, along with all the other details. This is
determining the results of conflict and/or tasks. This may be the referred to as adjudication. The similarity of the wargame tempo
removal or reduction of military forces, the expenditure of results, (observe, orient to a desired outcome, decide on a course of action,
or the consumption of time to complete tasks. The flexibility in the execute that course of action) is similar to the operational concept
system results from the fact that by simply counting back a few of the OODA loop – observe, orient, decide and act. The OODA
“turns” in the game, and resetting some of the game pieces, that loop was devised, originally, by USAF Colonel John Boyd, and an
replaying parts of the conflict with changes to plans or outcomes, is in depth discussion of some of his presentations that explained
easily handled. A recent case for the continued strength and viability the idea is in Osinga [18]. It is commented on, in relationship
of tabletop wargaming was made by Philip Sabin, in a series of to wargaming, by Perla [4].
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 Figure 1-Player action loop in a wargame
worth it, because of the high premium value
of detailed results (and also the value of distributed simulators Adjudication is the examination of the resources committed,
being coordinated and working together). But for wargames of and actions proposed, that result from the decisions (Figure 1)
discovery, the community of practice will as often as not find it more that players in the game make. Those resources and actions are
convenient to rely on a tabletop or seminar wargame. then compared against those of the opponent, with consideration
given to space and time in the combat environment, as well as
the situation within the environment. Then results are generated.
Adjudication Such results can be a description of whether or not a course of
action succeeds, or more commonly, the results for small parts
For a wargame to fulfill its role as an activity where discovery of an overall course of action. These results can be an indication
can take place, the participants must be allowed to try different of loss of resources, or attrition, when conflict occurs. Equally,
courses of action within the artificial environment that the they can be the indication of whether or not a planned for
wargame presents. Then those courses of action must be evaluated activity succeeds (such as a movement action, or a combat
(according to a method, that is part of the game “system”), in engineering action). An adjudication system will typically not
order to determine the likelihood of success they might or indicate whether or not a particular course of action is succeeding,
might not have against an opposing course of action. This is the but it will determine the tangible, knowable effects that result
essential tempo of a wargame – the game presents a situation to from player decisions. It is then up to the player, or a referee,
the player, the player studies that situation and selects a desired to interpret those effects, and (as in actual operations) compare
future state to achieve, decides on a course of action that he/she them to expected results, to see if a course of action is performing
believes will result in that future state, and executes that course as intended. It is always possible, again as in actual operations,
of action within the game. The game responds (based on input that both sides in a conflict, when given the range of effects that
from other players, the environment, game systems controlling result from their decisions will either both consider their plans to
non-player factions, etc.) by adjudicating the opposing actions, be succeeding, or both failing. In some wargames, a referee will
and presenting a new situation. The chief task of the game system, make a pronouncement one way or another, although in discovery
whether it is an analog system for a tabletop or seminar wargame, wargames there is often value in allowing the players to only
or a computerized system, is the ability to evaluate the results react to what they know, and interpret, from the game situation.

30
 Adjudication in Wargaming for Discovery  –  CON'T

Types of Adjudication the referee staff are much more meaningful, in terms of describing
success or failure, than an attrition report. The weakness of free
There are a number of different ways in which to divide up the many attrition, compared to rigid attrition, is that it is first a very much
types of adjudication. This article will consider three different ways time and labor intensive proposition for the referee staff, and second,
to categorize or describe an adjudication method. First, adjudication very much open to opinion and bias on the part of the referees.
can vary widely based on the amount of input the referee staff has
into the process, versus the input from the defined game system. Semi-Rigid Adjudication: In the spectrum between fully rigid
Second, adjudication can vary based on how much a stochastic games, and free games, there is the idea of a semi-rigid adjudication.
element can influence the results. Third, adjudication varies widely This attempts to combine the strengths of both previous types, by
with the level of focus of a particular wargame. These three different allowing a formally defined game system to be used by a referee
ways of dividing up the various methods and types all begin from staff, in order to generate unbiased data-driven results, but still allow
the perspective of looking at adjudication of force-on-force warfare for the strength that results from having an informed and flexible
(whether it is ground, air, sea, or some combination). Similar divisions referee staff that can adapt to situations outside the scope of the
could apply to adjudication when it is applicable to other domains game system. The weakness here is that the time constraints of free
within a wargame, based on the principles described here (Table 1). adjudication still apply to the referee staff, and they introduce even
more delays because now the staff must also be concerned about
Adjudication Type Dimension Applied To data inputs, and output generation from the system.
Rigid Adjudication Formal vs Informal
Semi-Rigid Adjudication Formal vs Informal
Open Adjudication: Open Adjudication is a method for determining
the outcome of conflict through a conversation approach, where the
Free Adjudication Formal vs Informal
participants are able to describe and defend their own actions, and
Open Adjudication Formal vs Informal talk through, as a group, the relative strengths and weaknesses of
Deterministic Stochastic Element the competing methods. While this might be very useful in certain
Stochastic Stochastic Element situations, in order to have the participants discuss and investigate
Entity Level Level of Resolution
the potentials within the different proposed and executed actions,
it takes on the time management weakness of free adjudication
Aggregated Level Level of Resolution
that applies to the referee staff, and exacerbates it by applying the
Table 1- Adjudication Types, and the division they belong to same weakness to the entire set of participants. A variation of this
is a Matrix game. The matrix game is a concept invented by Chris
The first look at the taxonomy of adjudication is a way to differentiate Engle, and has all conflict adjudication done by the participants
per the formality of the system (formal vs. informal). That is, between constructing verbal arguments why their actions should succeed.
adjudication where the game system is the final word from other cases, The opposition then produces verbal reasons why the arguments
where the referee staff has more of a capacity for subjective input are invalid. Once this is done, the referee assigns a probability of
into the process. The names for these types come from Wiggins [3]. success, and after a dice toss, the results are announced. These types
of game have been done at the US Army War College and elsewhere
Rigid Adjudication: An adjudication method where the game [5], and are a way to systematize the Open Adjudication method of
system (whether it is a manual process or a computer process) is relying on discussion and argument to adjudicate actions.
the final word, can be termed a rigid adjudication method. Many
hobby wargames (specifically board games and computer games) The second axis in the taxonomy of adjudication methods presented
employ this method, which allows them to be played without a here lies in the degree of stochastic methods that are presence in
referee. In such a case, the results of the game system are applied, the method. This can range from almost no randomness in the
in all situations. These types of adjudication are (if the system works case of a deterministic system, to a situation where there is heavy
well) fast, because they work without requiring the analysis and input dependence on stochastic influence to the processes employed in
of the referee staff, but only if they can get input reasonably quickly the adjudication method. These may be applied to either the rigid
(given the real-world time constraints of hosting a wargame), and or semi-rigid adjudication methods described above. They do not
produce output reasonably quickly. apply to a loose adjudication method, since no system is relied on
in such a case.
Free Adjudication: The other end of the spectrum from rigid
adjudication is that of free adjudication. Here, the referee staff Deterministic: In the case of a deterministic technique, what is
observes the decisions and executed actions of the players, and typically done is that there is some a priori evaluation of the likely
through analysis and subject matter expertise, are able to determine events to occur within the game design, and for each, a most likely
results, and describe them to the players (in essence, creating the next result is described. These deterministic results are then relied on
situation in the wargame, for the players to react to). The strength of during adjudication. McHugh refers to a deterministic system as an
free adjudication is that it can cover situations that a game system “expected value” system [7], and it captures the concept of anticipation
does not predict (and so, cannot adjudicate), and that the results of of the event occurring, and the a priori assigning of an outcome to

WWW.CSIAC.ORG | 31
NOVEMBER 2016  |  CSIAC JOURNAL OF CYBER SECURITY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

that event. An example of this sort of technique could be seen when computer game, the lowest aggregation is down to the individual
looking at gunfire tables, for instance. If a naval gun is capable of firing entity, or individual combat platform. Adjudication of combat effects
100 rounds in a certain period of time, and it is determined that a .25 at this point revolve around determining the situation of the entities
chance of each round might strike the target, then damage could be involved in a combat engagement, and then determining the results
adjudicated based on 25 of the rounds hitting. There are some more of that engagement at the single entity level. Typically, this involves
complex permutations of this idea, based on a variety of different some game system that evaluates each entity’s chances of scoring a
situations and the application of different methods from statistics and hit, and then evaluating the results of that hit.
operations research, but the results are generated without resorting
to any sort of random number generation. Adjudication at this level of resolution might be useful, especially,
for a tactical decision game, but may prove to be too expensive, in
Stochastic: The opposite of deterministic is non-deterministic, terms of compute time and data requirements, for wargames of
such as a system where instead of having the outcome of a discovery – unless they are of operations at a very low level. Details
particular situation being predefined (deterministic), it allows for on the methods involved, however, are well covered in Strickland
the introduction of a stochastic factor (a random range of possible [8] and earlier in Youngren [9]. Methods presented there are very
results). This is a random factor that is introduced for many good well suited for computerized methods of adjudication, because of the
reasons. When introduced, it is usually applied to a likely range of number of non-trivial calculations that have to be performed for even
outcomes, which may be part of a formula, or could be in a lookup a small engagement. It is worth noting that the non-professional
table. The reasons for the random-ness that a stochastic value domain of wargaming is rife with very good systems for adjudicating
introduces can be simplified to the fact that no model, regardless of small scale, or skirmish, engagements at an entity level that result in
how complicated or forward thinking, can account for all variables plausible results, very useful for discovery wargaming in a tabletop
that may exist in actual operations. The introduction of the random environment when small units are involved in an engagement. The
factor accounts for the fact that the decision maker (player) equally mechanisms are still related to individual determination of chances
cannot account for all variableness in operations. to hit, and the effects of a hit, to determine the combat results at
an entity by entity rate, but they are typically modeled in such a
The third axis in the taxonomy of adjudication that is given here way that they are able to be performed at a reasonable human pace,
is the difference resulting from the level of focus, or resolution, rather than at a digital, or computer pace. The history of combat
of the wargame. The many possible different applications of the modeling, once it took on a life of its own as a pursuit for the non-
term wargame, and wargame system, could apply to different professional, led (for instance) to the invention and explosion of table
levels of focus, even when we are considering the adjudication of top roleplaying games, which feature a wide variety of detailed rules
combat actions. It would be possible, in a tactical decision game, for determining many aspects of encounters between small groups
for instance, to focus on small units and adjudicate at the level of of individuals, vehicles, and weapon systems [10].
individual soldiers and vehicles (referred to as entity level, in the
LVC simulation community), or to focus on large formations of Aggregated: The complement to entity level combat modeling
troops, at the brigade level, or even higher, for a regional or global for adjudication, although the difference resides along a gradual
theater of operations. While the already mentioned differences of the spectrum, is aggregated level combat modeling. This is adjudication
first two axes of the taxonomy of adjudication apply here (they may of combat actions, so that a determination can be made as to
both be rigid, or free; they may both be deterministic, or stochastic), the value of an operation, at an aggregated level of combatants.
the interpretation of each of those other differences is also affected Typically, this might correspond to military organizational units
by the level of focus. Very coarsely, this axis will look at only two (battalions, brigades, task forces), but there are also models that
differences, entity level and aggregated level. take into account the aggregated strength of all units and forces
within a single operation, or line of operations, within a campaign.
Entity Level: Many simulators in the LVC world have sought to It is possible, using some of the methods of adjudication described
introduce greater fidelity into training and analysis by representing below, to work out a campaign based on the entire strength of one
combat effects, and adjudicating the results of combat actions, at side’s military vs the other.
lower and lower levels (in terms of unit aggregation), which results
in higher resolution. In fact, the two factors are typically at odds What is lost in aggregated methods, is that the higher the
with each other – great aggregation of units means (necessarily) aggregation (i.e. – the larger the group of combat operatives you
more abstraction, and lower resolution in the presentation of detail consider in your evaluation of military operations), the more you
of combat effects and operations. It is beyond the scope of this have to abstract out details. With reasonably small formations, such
article to describe the many differences, strengths and weaknesses as companies or battalions, what gets lost is the idea of the individual.
between low resolution combat models, and high resolution combat It is not known what each platform or soldier is doing, but that is
models – but both exist, and within appropriate bounds, both could the point of aggregated combat modeling – you don’t have to know.
be (and are) used for adjudication, depending on the focus of the The abstraction takes all those factors into account, and then the
game in question. Typically, without resorting to a physics based results of opposed combat actions are generated by the game system.
model that might serve a high resolution first person shooter type This might involve a computerized method, or a manual tabletop

32
 Adjudication in Wargaming for Discovery  –  CON'T

method. It might involve calculations involving a stochastic element, that are quite suitable for tabletop and seminar wargames. Classic
or might be based on expected values only, and be deterministic. But methods, such as the dice driven combat results table, have been
the individual action, and to some extent, individual level results, are around for many decades, and in some forms, go back to the original
abstracted out. As the levels of aggregation get larger and larger (for data driven combat tables from the Von Reisswitz Kriegsspiel [15].
instance, at the level of a brigade, corps, joint task force, or higher) In the case of the original tables for the Kriegsspiel (in several
even more detail gets abstracted away. In many respects, this is permutations), this was not dice driven, but fell into the category
ideal for wargames of discovery, as the abstracted details may not of a deterministic method, using expected values for attrition over
be needed for the evaluation of courses of action, or determining a time period (at that time, for instance, the number of casualties
best case (or novel) responses to particular strategic options. What resulting from musketry at a certain range, and over a certain
is important, is to understand the results of the combat action, and period of engagement). The more typical modern version, such as
the costs (in terms of time, results, and unanticipated consequences). those originally devised by, and promoted by Charles Roberts for
the Avalon Hill Game Company. In that form, the combat results
The means by which aggregated combat is evaluated is done in table takes into account the difference between two forces, expressed
several ways. By far, for the computerized wargame, one of the (usually) as a ratio of force, and then a dice roll introduces variation
more popular methods is the Lanchester Equation, first devised by in results (attrition, retreat, disruption of command, etc). More
Lanchester [11] for studying the effects of air warfare during the modern examples include many variations and additional introduced
First World War, but also ably reported on, and described in depth factors that reflect a wide variety of different operational engagement
by Taylor [12]. This is a mathematical algorithm that compares possibilities. The strength of such methods for tabletop or seminar
the two bodies of combatants involved in an operation, and by wargames is immediately apparent – they can be executed with
applying certain factors, can determine the levels of attrition that relative ease, and in games of discovery where ad hoc reconfiguration
each suffer and inflict, over a series of time steps. This (in many of an encounter may be needed to explore alternatives on the fly, such
ways) is ideal for a wargame, as it presents the cost of operations methods are easy to recalculate and reapply. With a more detailed,
(in terms of attrition to each side) over time, giving the players a and more nuanced computerized model the results are much finer
chance to respond and introduce new decisions and actions. The in detail, and may produce much deeper results other than simply
shortcomings of Lanchester are chiefly two. First is that it involves attrition and disruption, but at the price of not being as flexible,
a series of mathematical formulations that, unless computerized, is and of course, requiring that the digital equipment be supported
extremely time consuming, and may slow down the adjudication staff (including operation, data support, etc.).
to an unforgivable pace. The second is that the factors mentioned
are extremely difficult to get right, and may have many situational
variations, which are difficult to predict and prepare ahead of time. Hybrid Adjudication

Lanchester; however, is not the only answer to aggregated combat The three different divisions described, that can be used to divide
modeling for adjudication. Two other mathematical methods up adjudication methods, each have a variety of strengths and
are worth mentioning, that have been developed in response to weaknesses. In each case the different options are suggested
Lanchester, and they are Epstein [13] and Dupuy [14]. Epstein by necessity, often, rather than by choice. In cases where there
is very much an attempt by computer modeler Joshua Epstein to are desirable strengths in the option not adopted, this means
address shortcomings in applying Lanchester to extremely mobile that possible benefits are being missed in discovery wargames.
warfare (such as a situation with extremely efficient methods of An example is in the area of computerized wargame systems,
movement and mobilization, as would occur with modern nation as compared to a wargame system that is designed to support
states, during the Cold War, when he wrote his book). It is an attempt a tabletop event. In a tabletop event, it is more likely that a
at introducing fixes to Lanchester, but in doing so increments along less rigid adjudication method might be chosen, also that the
with many improvements/changes until it is actually a different complexity of the system will be kept manageable, so more likely
system. Dupuy introduces a system whereby different types and that a higher level of aggregation will exist in the adjudication
qualities of units have a different point value, rather than being based method. In a computerized event, it is more likely that the whole
on manpower, such as Lanchester, and then introduces methods for event is more rigid (including adjudication) because of the needs
determining attrition and effectiveness based on those point values. of the digital system. This includes data modeling before the
Again, it is aggregated combat, and the mathematics involved benefit event, having a data driven system running on the computer, and
greatly from computerization, but it allows for rapid assembly of supported by technical staff. But it also means that the computer
the factors involved, by having data dictionaries with lookup tables is able to calculate much more detailed result, giving more data
for the typical units and unit types that might be encountered in to the players (a curse and a blessing) about the adjudication as
a campaign. Such flexibility is very useful for discovery wargames. it unfolds. In looking at these two what-if types of events, there
are both limitations and benefits that arise in each.
Finally, it should be mentioned that in the non-professional world
of wargaming, or hobby wargaming, that there are many different A design is possible that uses aspects of several different methods
methods for adjudicating aggregated combat using techniques combined, to take advantage of different solution sets to the

WWW.CSIAC.ORG | 33
NOVEMBER 2016  |  CSIAC JOURNAL OF CYBER SECURITY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

adjudication problem, providing a maximized set of strengths. had role-controlled access to information (such that red players
Technology alone is likely not to be the answer to an improved could call up information about status of red units, but only
system, however it might provide some measure of control limited information about blue units, for instance).
over negative aspects that could keep different techniques from
combining. For instance, if a system that could combine the Both of these mentioned designs are in the early development
flexibility of a tabletop system (simple in-stride execution of stage at Georgia Tech Research Institute. It is likely, with
attrition/outcomes generation, ease of restructuring operations to the renewed interest in wargaming, that there are others in
allow flexible investigation of alternatives, minimal requirement development elsewhere.
of technical support during event, etc.), with the values of a
computerized system (detailed results, available to any members Conclusion
of the wargaming event that are desired, quickly perform complex
calculations, etc.) it is not likely that proponents of either style Adjudication is at the heart of a wargaming system. If wargaming, as
of adjudication would have cause to complain. distinct from combat modeling or simulation, is to allow for players
applying decisions to control forces engaged in operations against
One such example could be a game system that mimicked a each other, then the ability to judge which set of decisions, and
tabletop wargame, but was enabled on a large digital, touch which course of action, results in victory is key to the wargaming
monitor. A course of action for military units could be entered, event. There are, for many good reasons, a wide variety of different
with typical information for a contingency plan (when units adjudication methods and approaches available, each of which
arrive, what movement orders they will follow, lines of operation, come with different strengths and weaknesses. Several of these
lines of communication, and so forth), but as the time of the different methods have been examined here, especially with regards
wargame unfolds, a player would be able to interact with the touch to evaluating the outcome of combat operations (notably between
screen, either to retrieve information, or to enter alternatives. A land systems, but equally applicable for naval and air operations).
referee would be able to, by touch and drag, modify a situation
that the game produces. It would allow for a wide variety of The introduction of a hybrid adjudication method is discussed,
different adjudication methods, including being more, or less, that takes the approach and basic interaction benefits from using a
rigid. It would allow for executing operations (operational plans, tabletop system, but applies modern ubiquitous technology platforms
contingency plans, tactical decision games, etc.) such that units to allow the introduction of digital adjudication methods into a
could be given a course of action, but interrupting or modifying flexible tabletop environment. Such a system can leverage technology
that course of action could be done directly by a player. Combat and lessons learned from the LVC simulation community, from
modeling could include a method that produces a range of likely the non-professional hobby wargaming community, and from the
results, and then a stochastic determination of which to apply existing professional wargaming adjudication community of practice.
would come into play, or a referee staff in a less rigid, more open
style wargame could choose which of a number of different Methods of adjudication that were not discussed in this article are
results would apply in a situation. Increased flexibility would those many areas of a conflict that exist, outside direct kinetic combat
be if the referee staff could choose to accept, modify, or ignore interaction, but still part of operations. These include the various
results from a combat encounter. other domains of the operational environment (political, economic,
social, etc.) as well as the acquiring, movement, and expenditure
Further, consider a situation where several such tables, each of resources and the impact of effects on both the civilian society
mimicking the interactions with a tabletop wargame, were and the environment. As those other domains are important to
networked, so that the display on each could have fog of war operations, and operational success or failure can involve one or
introduced by the control/networking mechanism – so that many of those domains, adjudication methods that address them
information available to one set of players using a table, might are equally important, but were not discussed (because of space) in
not be available to another set of players. It begins to sound like this article.
a distributed simulation system used in many different LVC
events, but the amount of detail and interaction is purposely Finally, the one thing that was also not discussed, except touched
kept below a threshold, to ensure ease of use, and maximum on very briefly in the description of what adjudication involves, is
flexibility, without requiring technical staff. the fact that adjudication is much more than just counting attrition,
and evaluating how long in an encounter a unit is likely to remain
Another example could be an actual tabletop system, where combat viable. Attrition involves the whole reason for an operation,
military unit markers (game pieces) would have recognizable or a course of action. A commander in an operation, much as a
codes (such as QR codes) that a smart phone or tablet could player in a wargame, is given some sense of what he/she is fighting
recognize, and allow a referee to snapshot a situation, draw a for. Also, some sense of what the enemy may (or may not) be
boundary around the units to be considered, and the digital fighting for. In comparing those two, the commander will (in his
adjudication system would calculate the results, and information assessment of the situation) try to determine what the operational
would be stored, to be retrievable by anyone with a tablet, who goals, and operational strength of the enemy force are. From this,

34
 Adjudication in Wargaming for Discovery  –  CON'T

com/2016/02/09/matrix-games-at-the-us-army-war-college/ last
the commander will then decide what the defeat mechanism is accessed, September, 2016.
that will keep the enemy from achieving their goal. A plan (course
[6] Sabin, Philip. 2015. “Simple Multi-Player Wargaming as an Edu-
of action) is then devised that will keep the enemy from achieving cational Technique.” Angewandte Mathematik un Optimierung
their goal, by triggering the defeat mechanism. In his great work Seminar #17. Hamburg, Germany: Helmut Schmidt Universitat.
on military and national strategy [16], B.H. Liddell Hart expressed Online at http://www.hsu-hh.de/am/index_eIfmVzZ3ZC5xUe1O.
this as The Indirect Approach. By that, he draws the distinction of html last accessed, September, 2016.
a good plan as one which minimizes the enemy’s strength, while [7] McHugh, Francis J. 1966. Fundamentals of War Gaming, 3rd
striking at what will cause the enemy to fail. This is typically not Edition. Newport, RI: US Naval War College. pp. 3-31,32.
a fight of attrition. In fact, Liddell Hart’s eight axioms of how to [8] Strickland, Jeffrey. 2011. Using Math to Defeat the Enemy: Com-
engage in a campaign against an enemy, would definitely seek to bat Modeling for Simulation. Colorado Springs, CO: Lulu, Inc.
avoid attrition, and emphasis flexibility of thinking, and constant [9] Youngren, Mark and Warren Olson. 1994. Military Operations Re-
adaptation to unfolding events [17]. search Analyst’s Handbook, Vol I and II. Alexandria, VA: Military
Operations Research Society.
ii Adjust your end to your means [10] Loper, Margaret and Charles Turnitsa. 2012. “History of Combat
ii Keep your object always in mind Modeling and Distributed Simulation,” in Engineering Principles
ii Choose the line (or course) of least expectation of Combat Modeling and Distributed Simulation, Andreas Tolk,
ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. pp. 335-336.
ii Exploit the line of least resistance
ii Take a line of operation which offers alternative objectives [11] Lanchester, Frederick. 1956. “Mathematics in Warfare,” in The
World of Mathematics, Vol 4, J. Newman ed. New York, NY:
ii Ensure that both plan and dispositions are Simon and Schuster.
flexible – adaptable to circumstances
ii [12] Taylor, James. 1983. Lanchester-Type Models of Warfare, Vol I
Do not throw your weight into a stroke
and II. Arlington, VA: Military Applications Society.
whilst your opponent is on guard
ii [13] Epstein, Joshua. 1985. The Calculus of Conventional War:
Do not renew an attack along the same line (or
Dynamic Analysis without Lanchester Theory. Washington, DC:
in the same form) after it has once failed Brookings Institute.
[14] Dupuy, Trevor. 1990. Attrition: Forecasting Battle Casualties and
Having an adjudication system that can assess whether or not a Equipment Losses in Modern War. Fairfax, VA: Hero Books.
player has (correctly) identified a plausible goal for his/her enemy,
[15] Loper and Turnitsa, pp. 333-334.
and a plausible definition of the defeat mechanism that must be
attained, in order to keep that enemy from achieving their goals [16] Hart, Liddell. 1967. Strategy, Second Revised Edition. New York,
NY: Praeger Publishers.
is probably beyond what could be accomplished within a game
system. The complexity of such an undertaking is just too high. And [17] Hart, pp. 348-349
if it could be understood, the maxims of achieving that, especially [18] Osinga, Frans. 2006. Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic
as Liddell Hart and others have described, and has been taught Theory of John Boyd. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
in military thought for decades, is likely to be too complex for a
game system to evaluate. So, until that time, whatever systems for
adjudication of actions (sensing, moving, fighting, and so forth)
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
might exist, the interpretation of those actions will still require a
human adjudication staff. But the tools to help that human staff can, Charles Turnitsa is a member of GTRI's research faculty,
and should, be constantly considered for improvement. working in the Information and Communications Laboratory.
He has previously been involved in teaching and researching
REFERENCES
[1] Perla, Peter. 1990. The Art of Wargaming: A Guide for Profes- a variety of different topics related to information systems,
sionals and Hobbyists. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. system's engineering, computational science, and modeling
[2] Wiggins, Warren. 2013. “Adjudication in Game Design: An Intro- and simulation. He has worked for over a decade on research
duction.” US Naval War College. Online at: https://www.usnwc.
efforts related to combat modeling, scientific modeling, and
edu/Research---Gaming/War-Gaming/Documents/Publications/
Articles.aspx last accessed, September, 2016. computational science. He has a bachelors of science degree
[3] Wiggins, Warren. 2014. “Wargame Adjudication: Adjudication in Computer Science, a master's degree in Electrical and
Styles.” US Naval War College. Online at: https://www.usnwc. Computer Engineering, and a PhD in Modeling and Simulation,
edu/Research---Gaming/War-Gaming/Documents/Publications/
Articles.aspx last accessed, September, 2016.
from Old Dominion University. He has taught, and continues
[4] Perla, Peter, Michael Markowitz, Christopher Weuve, Karin Dug-
to teach courses in modeling and simulation, systems
gan, and Leesa Woodard. 2002. Wargame-Creation Skills and engineering, and computer science. In his spare time, he is a
the Wargame Construction Kit. Alexandria, VA: CAN Corpora- wargamer (since 1976), and is pursuing a graduate degree in
tion. pp. 43-45.
history, studying classical and ancient period warfare.
[5] Brynen, Rex. 2016. “Matrix Games at the US Army War College.”
PAXsims web publication. Online at https://paxsims.wordpress.

WWW.CSIAC.ORG | 35
Cyber Security and Information Systems PRSRT STD
Information Analysis Center U.S. Postage
PAID
100 Seymour Road Permit #566
Suite C-102 UTICA, NY
Utica, NY 13502
Return Service Requested