in color but identical otherwise. The chess board is two‐dimensional, that is the 64 squares all occupy the same plane. The modern battlefield whether it be the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan, Korea, or Iran; the open and rolling terrain of the North German Plain; or the deserts of Iraq and Kuwait is a three‐dimensional terrain: mountains, hills, plains, and valleys. That terrain is broken up by water: rivers, streams, lakes, swamps. There can be vegetation and man‐made objects that sit on top of the terrain. The terrain and these objects, unlike the chess board, change over time. Rain and snow change the trafficability of the terrain for combat systems, and it can be different for different types of systems (wheeled versus tracked and dismounted infantry). The terrain can be deformed by digging trenches, building obstacles, and explosions. Vegetation can change over time – a deciduous forest has much better lines of sight after the trees have dropped their leaves. Man‐made objects can be rubbled or destroyed. For the time being, we will ignore the airspace above the terrain, but fixed and rotary wing aircraft, manned and unmanned, are an integral part of modern ground combat, given the weather permits. And if we do represent aircraft, we cannot forget that rounds fired from artillery and mortars do share the same airspace as aircraft.
Rules
Let us now consider rules. For ease of understanding and simplicity, we will only cover the major rules for movement, attack, adjudication, and victory conditions.
Movement
The movement rules of chess are fairly straightforward: each of the six pieces has unique movement rules. Moves are alternated between the two players, that is one player moves, and that move is observed and then analyzed by the opponent before the opponent moves. There is really no time–distance factor in a chess move, only one piece can be moved in a turn, and it must conform to the movement rules for that given piece. In a move, the more mobile pieces (queen, bishop, rook) can move from one end of the board to the other, while the king is limited to one square per move. If we considered chess as a wargame, it would be an open wargame, all information is available to all players.
Ground combat systems’ movement is dictated by the terrain and the objects that rest on the terrain. As in chess, the different weapon systems have different movement “rules.” Tanks and other tracked vehicles are better in open and rolling terrain, and struggle in mountainous and forested terrain. Wheeled vehicles move well on roads and can move well in open and rolling terrain if it is firm, that is, not impacted by weather or torn up by tracked vehicles. Dismounted infantrymen can go almost anywhere, but not very quickly. All movement may also be modified by a commander’s orders. Units may be ordered to stop at a certain point or to proceed until a given objective has been accomplished. Movement in a ground combat environment can be simultaneous and almost constant. Unlike chess, there are no discrete, alternating moves – movement is fluid and nearly nonstop. The observation of one side’s moves by the other depends on the sensors deployed to observe, and observations may be mitigated or obscured by deception as well as environmental effects.
Attack
In chess, an opponent’s piece can be attacked if it occupies a space that the attacker can move one of its pieces to using the proscribed move for the attacking piece.
In ground combat, a system must first acquire an opponent’s system before attacking. Unlike chess, where all pieces are seen by both sides and all possible attacks can be easily identified, combat systems have to find an enemy entity before attacking. Once that entity is acquired, it can then be attacked. The acquisition process can be from the attacking system, from a third party, or from a combination of systems on the battlefield. A tank or an infantryman typically acquires its own targets to attack, where indirect fire assets such as attack aircraft, mortars, and artillery usually attack targets that have been identified by another entity on the battlefield. Once it is decided, a system will engage a target, there may be different attack mechanisms that can be employed and must be specified. Systems often have more than one weapon. A tank has a main gun and a coaxial machine gun. An infantry fighting vehicle has a 25‐mm chain gun and an anti‐tank missile. An infantryman has a rifle, grenades, and a bayonet. A tank’s main gun has different types of main gun ammunition for different purposes.
Adjudication
In chess, if the piece is attacked, the adjudication is simple: it is removed from the board, in essence destroyed. It does not matter what the two pieces are, a lowly pawn can attack and destroy an opponent’s pawn or its queen. In ground combat, systems can be removed from the battlefield if destroyed, but systems can also be damaged (or wounded for human “systems”). A damaged system may still be able to move and/or fire, so the amount of damage and remaining functionality of the system must be determined. Damage can be cumulative, so a damaged system can be subsequently destroyed if attacked again, depending on the attacking system and the damage that it can deliver. Damaged systems can also be repaired and returned to the battlefield depending upon the amount of damage sustained and the availability of resources needed to repair the system.
Victory Conditions
A chess game ends when a player’s king is in check and under attack by the opponent and cannot move to a space where it is safe from attack on the next move. In ground combat, victory conditions are highly dependent on the objectives of the combatants. Each side may have a “breakpoint” designated, that is, lose no more than x percent of your force executing this mission. Usually an attacker has a goal that either has to do with seizing terrain or destroying an enemy formation. A defender may have the goal of retaining the terrain it defends, inflicting a certain amount of damage to the attacker before yielding the terrain, or delaying the attacker for a length of time before yielding the terrain. Note that the objectives of attacker and defender may both be met (seize terrain and inflict a certain amount of damage before yielding terrain).
Summary
Today’s closed‐loop combat simulations are useful for assessing the goodness of adding capability to a formation through use of scientific method‐like process for comparison. They cannot predict future outcomes of battle. They are tremendously more complex than chess or Go. The complex decision calculus a battlefield commander goes through that results in forces maneuvering and attacking is greatly simplified to IF‐THEN types of decisions. In summary, closed‐loop combat simulations are good at comparing different force options given the assumptions and simplifications are known and acceptable.
Campaign Analysis
In other literature, you will be able to find comparisons of wargames and computer‐based combat simulations with lists of attributes and an assessment of which of the two tools is “better” vis‐à‐vis a particular attribute. This is a false dichotomy. Wargames and combat simulations are two different tools that are designed to produce two very different types of outputs. Wargames are used to investigate the human decision‐making process and are not the primary tool to be used for making quantitative assessments or comparisons. Combat simulations are used to quantify the differences in forces, often using the scientific method process, but have little utility to investigate the human decision‐making processes. Professional analytic agencies have recognized the utility of both tools and have often used a combination of tools to produce a more thorough and complete study of the phenomena of combat. This process can be described as “campaign analysis.” The process of designing a campaign analysis is described by Kline, Hughes, and Otte:
The campaign’s objectives come from direction provided by political and military leadership at the national level. Derivation of a concept of operations to achieve those objectives, and metrics to measure their achievement, is done in collaboration with the commander and his staff. Assumptions are agreed to and provide a bound on the analytical study.37
Once the goals of the campaign are thoroughly understood by all through a series of interactions