by injecting “points of precision” into play, which then merge with and act as an informing substrate for decision … the universal requirement in any wargame. In other words, analytical methods can inform imagination with a precision designed to influence but not direct decision in game play.
The benefit of a wargame supported by analytical methods that provide points of departure and situational precision as the basis for decision is the production of informed and defensible insights that can shape and direct subsequent efforts in a concept or combat development sequence. There is no analytical methodology by which the outcomes of the inherently human activity of play can be transitioned into a rigid accuracy. But then war is an inherently human activity that only rarely adheres to the requirements of scientific law and rigidity in war rarely produces brilliance or success. The key to understanding the benefit of the incorporation of analytical methods into wargaming is that, while sharper and more focused insight can be expected as outcomes, one learns that knowledge does not have to be quantifiable in order to be defensible. This informed combination of the analytic science of the necessary with the wargaming art of the possible promises to provide a foundation for the objective substantiation and justification for the resources and programs required for future military success.
Conclusion
These viewpoints show that wargaming and simulation both play important roles in the development and evaluation of new concepts, tactics, techniques, and procedures in complex defense situations. The support seems to be more complementary than competitive.
As a rule, the role of the simulation focuses mainly in the quantitative sphere, reliable presentation of computable effects in a situated synthetic environment for the wargamers and provide the results in immersive form to them. The immersion can be in the form of virtual or augmented reality presentation of the battle sphere, but also in form of intuitive representation of results. The latter may also help the wargamer to evaluate alternative courses of action in their decision cycles. The role of the wargamer is more in the qualitative realm. Humans provide the creativity needed to come up with truly innovative solutions when confronted with complexity, uncertainty, and vagueness of new situations. They make the decision in multidimensional, multi‐scope, and multi‐resolution solution space. It seems to be obvious that a tighter connection will likely provide a better support. What conceptual and technical methods are useful to support this is a topic of ongoing research.
In this prologue we raise questions about what simulations can provide to enable better wargames, what wargamers need from simulationists to help them be more creative and innovative, and what is needed to generate better aligned compositions and tools. The authors of the various book chapters, which are making up this compendium, address these challenges as well as ideas how to better cope with them. There are many facets and viewpoints reflected in the contributions, providing the basis for more discussions, research, and hopefully many practical applications of solution contributions in the future.
1 An Introduction to Wargaming and Modeling and Simulation
Jeffrey Appleget
Naval Postgraduate School, Montrey, CA, USA
Introduction
Nations have long utilized simulations of combat to help understand how to better man, train, equip, and employ forces in preparation for future combat operations. These force generation, force structure, and force design decisions are often informed by simulating combat against potential adversaries in projected future scenarios, and then analyzing the simulation results to determine the necessary future investments to ensure the force is prepared to meet these potential adversaries. This book will discuss the current practitioner use of both wargames that investigate the human decision‐making processes and computer simulations that investigate the quantifiable aspects of combat. Our goal is to provide the reader a better understanding of how each tool brings unique qualities and attributes to bear on the assessment of the phenomenology of combat that allows our senior leaders to make better informed decisions.
Terminology
There are many different types of combat simulations that exist today, and in order to have a fruitful discussion we will need to adopt a standard lexicon. The first step in developing this lexicon is to define the terms “model,” “simulation,” and “wargaming.” A model is “a physical, mathematical, or otherwise logical representation of a system, entity, phenomenon, or process.”1 A simulation is “a method for implementing a model over time.”2 A wargame is “a representation of conflict or competition in which people make decisions and respond to the consequences of those decisions.”3 Often in today’s Department of Defense (DoD), the term “simulation” implies that all the models that comprise the simulation are instantiated in executable computer code, and because of that, most wargames are not thought of or referred to as “simulations.” From this point forward, when we use the term “simulation” it will refer exclusively to computer‐hosted closed‐loop combat simulations, and thus will not include wargames.
Combat simulations are categorized by the amount of human interaction required, the use of probabilistic processes and the level of war they represent. Combat simulations that require periodic human decisions are called “Human‐in‐the‐Loop” or H‐I‐T‐L simulations, and these are often used as computer‐hosted wargames, with human commanders or command and staff teams making the necessary decisions. Closed‐loop simulations have totally automated the human decision‐making processes in computer code and can simulate hours, days, weeks, or months of combat without any human intervention during the simulation’s execution. Simulations that will produce the same output for a fixed set of input parameters are deterministic, while simulations that have one or more probabilistic parameters whose value will be determined during the simulation’s execution using a random number seed are stochastic, which are sometimes referred to as “Monte Carlo” simulations. Simulations are also segregated by the level of war that they represent. A strategic simulation will represent an entire campaign, such as the European or Pacific theaters of war during World War II. An operational simulation will represent a specific operation that is part of a campaign, and a tactical simulation will represent some portion of an operation. In most cases, the higher the level of war, the more abstract the models of the simulation are. Most tactical simulations represent each weapon system and soldier of a unit and are called entity simulations. Many strategic simulations represent entire units, such as a company, battalion, or brigade, by aggregating the weapons systems and soldiers of a unit, and treating the unit as a single object with attributes derived by combining the attributes of the unit’s entities into a single value that represents some combat capability of the unit. In ground combat simulations, the single value assigned to such a unit is often called the “combat power” of the unit. These simulations are predictably called aggregate simulations.
Wargames are categorized by the purpose of the wargame, the manner in which players are engaged and the amount of information provided to players. There are three widely recognized purposes for defense wargames: analytic, educational, and experiential. Educational and experiential wargames seek to impart knowledge or experience, respectively, to its players. In other words, these wargames produce better educated or more experienced players. Analytic wargames are designed to address an objective and a set of issues that the wargame’s sponsor provides. The products of an analytic wargame are findings that address the sponsor’s objective and issues. Wargames are also categorized by the method that the players interact. Players are engaged directly in a seminar wargame and the facilitator of the wargame usually adjudicates any player