Models of Models: The Symbiotic Relationship between Models and
Wargames
Vikram Mittal
1
, Jeffrey B. Demarest
1
, Kennon S. Gilliam
2
and Robert L. Page
2
1
Department of Systems Engineering, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, U.S.A.
2
Department of Strategic Wargaming, United States Army War College, Carlisle, PA, U.S.A.
Keywords: Wargames, Discrete Event Simulation, Decision Making.
Abstract: Military planning uses wargames to model the processes and decisions of an operation. As these operations
become increasingly complex, the wargames similarly become more complex. Complex wargames are
difficult to design and execute. As such, computer-based modeling and simulation can aid the wargame
development, ensuring smooth execution. In particular, computer-based modeling and simulation can develop
and validate the processes, determine initial conditions, evaluate the rules, and aid in validation. In turn, the
wargame can provide useful data that can be fed into detailed models that can provide quantitative analysis
to decision-makers.
1 INTRODUCTION
Complex problems require advanced problem solving
techniques, and the United States military has no
shortage of complex problems. Modern warfare
requires the analysis of military operations to account
for the size of modern militaries, the usage of
advanced technology, and the role of socio-political
factors. Issues that previously were solved through
simple logic now require advanced problem solving
and critical thinking to develop solutions. As such,
wargames—role played simulations of military
movements and processes—are commonly used to
evaluate strategies, tactics, and doctrine (Tolk, 2012).
In particular, table-top wargames have become an
increasingly useful tool for evaluating military
operations. Since table-top wargames are used for
aiding in critical military decisions, it is imperative
that they account for all the necessary components
and the associated interactions. To capture these
interactions, table-top wargames are typically built
using simple doctrine-based process models, which
can be emulated via computer simulations to help
inform the game planning and development. These
simple computer simulations allow a space for game
creators to quickly build, test, and adjust the game.
Though table-top wargames are powerful tools for
analysing complex processes, the results are typically
qualitative in nature. However, these qualitative
results can be used to drive a detailed computer
simulation to achieve the quantitative results required
by decision-makers. As shown in Figure 1, the
wargame and the initial simulation can remain
somewhat simplistic; they can then be combined to
produce a detailed simulation that captures the
necessary complexity of the military operation.
Hence a symbiotic relationship exists between
computer-based simulation and table-top wargames.
This paper explores this relationship further and
details this collaboration and its benefits via a recent
case study on the full mobilization of the US Army.
Figure 1: Increased complexity can be captured through the
combination of different modeling methods.
Level of Complexity
Level required
for understanding
processes
Level required
for decision
making
Mittal, V., Demarest, J., Gilliam, K. and Page, R.
Models of Models: The Symbiotic Relationship between Models and Wargames.
DOI: 10.5220/0006401502150223
In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications (SIMULTECH 2017), pages 215-223
ISBN: 978-989-758-265-3
Copyright © 2017 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
215
2 WARGAMING IN SUPPORT OF
MILITARY PLANNING
2.1 Military Wargames
A wargame is a simulation in which theories of
tactics, doctrine, and strategy can be evaluated by
means of a disciplined process with a set of rules and
steps. Wargames can be used at every level of
decision making from tactical through strategic. The
wargame process is well-defined in the US Army’s
Field Manual (FM) 6-0: Command and Staff
Organization and Operations where it is
recommended as a means for a commander to
evaluate a course of action for an operation (2016).
A common version of the wargame is a table-top
game because this can be created in any austere
operational environment. The table-top wargame
models the process flow onto a surface, on which
game players move markers in accordance with set
rules. The game is intended to be a simplified version
of a real operation, allowing for insight into the
processes. The goal of these wargames is to develop
innovative approaches and changes to tactics,
doctrine, and strategy (Perla, 2011).
Table-top wargames are a standard practice in the
initial phases of planning a tactical scenario,
operational maneuver, or strategic campaign. As the
scope of the game increases, the design of the game
becomes more complicated. If properly designed and
developed, a table-top game provides an environment
to achieve the wargame’s purpose, which could be
analytical, experiential, or educational.
2.2 Development of a Table-top
Wargame
Figure 2 shows a standard process for developing a
table-top wargame. This process is kept at a high level
such that it is applicable to a large range of different
table-top wargames, whether tactical or strategic.
The table-top wargame is intensive and requires
enormous effort to develop and execute (Mood,
1954). Prior to developing the game, a stakeholder
analysis must be conducted to identify the purpose,
scope, and objectives of the wargame.
Table-top wargames are based on processes which
require players to complete well-defined steps within
the context of a controlled scenario. As such, the next
step in game development is determining the
underlying processes. Often, understanding these
processes involves consulting with subject-matter
experts as well as referring to doctrine.
Figure 2: Steps for developing a table-top wargame.
After the processes are determined, the rules for
the game can be written. The rules are meant to reflect
real-world constraints and requirements, forcing the
players to act in a realistic manner. For example, if a
table-top wargame replicates an offensive operation,
the set of rules would include that tanks cannot go
through a minefield, dismounted troops can only
move 12 miles per day, and beachheads must be
established prior to landing forces.
With the rules in place, the initial conditions must
now be determined. The initial conditions are critical
in setting the length and complexity of the game. The
initial conditions for an offensive operation would
include parameters such as the composition and
disposition of friendly and enemy forces.
After the initial conditions are determined, the
rules need to be re-evaluated. In particular, it is
necessary to determine injects for the game. Injects
add a variable nature to the game, similar to “chance
cards” in Monopoly. An inject for an offensive
operation could include changes in weather patterns,
changes in political climate, and an enemy ambush.
The table-top wargame then undergoes test and
validation. During this phase, a summarized version
of the game is executed by subject matter experts to
ensure that the processes, rules, and initial conditions
reflect reality. Meanwhile, they must also ensure that
the game is still simple enough that it can be readily
played, as well as confirming it can be executed
within time constraints. They also validate that the
output of the table-top wargame will answer the
stakeholders’ needs.
2.3 Execution of a Wargame
After the table-top wargame is developed, the game
can be executed. First, the players are selected.
Typically, the players have expertise relative to the
role that they will be playing. For example, an
Stakeholderanalysis
toestablish
need/scope/goalof
wargame
Consultdoctrine/
expertstodetermine
processforwargame
Establish
wargamerules
Establishinitial
conditions
Testandvalidate
wargame
Receive
Stakeh older
Feedback
SIMULTECH 2017 - 7th International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications
216
intelligence officer would play the role of the enemy
in traditional force-on-force wargames because they
are the most familiar with enemy capabilities.
The game can be played for one or multiple
iterations. However, after each time it is played, it is
crucial that there be a period of facilitated discussion.
The facilitated discussion provides insight into both
the wargame and the larger operation.
When the game is played for multiple iterations,
changes can be made to the rules to allow for
increased variability. These modifications can be
based on recommendations by the game players and
be used to foster additional discussion.
3 COMPUTER-BASED
MODELING IN SUPPORT OF
MILITARY OPERATIONAL
PLANNING
3.1 Military Computer-based Models
Simulations
The military must address problems of both detailed
and dynamic complexity (Senge, 1990). Models
reduce this complexity for decision-makers and
clarify the decision space. A model is an abstract
representation of a system, and for very complex
military operations, a model simplifies the dynamic
interactions between its entities into a sequence of
events.
Models are developed throughout the military
decision making process. Initial models are
developed from doctrine and provide theoretical
insight on processes. Later models remove layers of
abstraction and add realism to produce quantitative
data and practical findings. As these models are
developed, they can be implemented through discrete
event simulations. A discrete-event simulation is one
in which events cause state changes to occur at
discrete points in time (Harrell et al., 2004).
The military heavily relies on computer-based
discrete-event simulations as a method of testing
tactics and strategies without the need for actual
hostilities. These simulations range from those aimed
at the tactical level such as the Infantry Warrior
Simulation, Virtual Battle Space, to the strategic level
such as the Conflict Modeling, Planning, and
Outcomes Experimentation Program (Tolk, 2012).
These simulations not only have a wide range of
scopes, but they also vary significantly in regards to
complexity. While simple simulations are excellent
for getting a better understanding of a military
process, more complex simulations are typically
needed for accurate decision making. However, as the
simulations get more complex, they require more
time and resources to develop.
While the military relies heavily on simulations to
support the military decision making process, these
simulations are typically separate from the
development of table-top wargames. However, the
use of a simple high-level model in a conjunction with
a wargame allows for a more expedient development
of a simulation detailed enough for decision makers.
3.2 Initial High-level Model
Development
The first step in analysing a system is to establish the
underlying concepts and place them into a simple
abstract model. This abstract model can take the form
of a simple block diagram model, which shows a
sequence of events and the conditions that must be
satisfied for an event to occur (Wilson et al., 2013). A
standard block model diagram is shown in Figure 3.
The overall process can have multiple parallel
pathways and recursions. Moreover, each event and
condition is tied to actors that influence that event.
The Army Design Methodology promotes the use
of these models in military planning and decision
making. These models are encouraged because
“seeing something drawn may help individuals think
through challenging problems, especially when
examining abstract concepts” (FM 6-0, 2016).
Block diagram models are used throughout
modern military doctrine. Standard military planning
involves “establishing objectives, devising lines of
operations, and lines of efforts” (FM 6-0, 2016). The
objectives are the events and conditions for a discrete-
event model; the lines of operations are the process
flow between those entities; and the lines of effort are
related to the actors. Typically, objectives are
combined in series or parallel, often with feedback, to
model complex operations.
After developing the process-flow through a
block diagram model, the next step is to identify the
high-level characteristics of the military units that
will be executing the processes. During this stage of
analysis, these units should be defined with enough
detail to test and evaluate the processes. However,
determining the full details for each unit would entail
a significant data collection effort that is not
necessary at this level. That is, units should be
representative though not necessarily accurate.
These block diagram models with notional units
can be readily implemented into a discrete event
simulation which models the flow of the units through
Models of Models: The Symbiotic Relationship between Models and Wargames
217
the designated processes. For example, the simulation
of an offensive operation would model the movement
of friendly and enemy units on the battlefield. These
computer-based simulations typically remain high-
level and are useful for studying interactions between
processes and identifying constraints.
Though these models can readily be built in
Microsoft Excel
®
or Matlab
®
, commercial discrete-
event packages are useful for the visualization of the
simulation. These software packages include
ProModel
®
, AnyLogic
®
, Simio
®
, and ExtendSim
®
.
These software packages allow for the definition of
entities, whether they are Soldiers or units, and the
processes that they must follow. Though the
interfaces are different, these packages output a
graphical depiction of the entities executing their
processes. This graphical output is useful for working
in collaboration with a table-top wargame.
Figure 3: Example of a Block Diagram Model.
3.3 Detailed Model Development
Though the initial models and the associated
simulations are useful for understanding the
underlying processes, decision-makers need
quantitative data to inform their decisions. Therefore,
more detailed simulations are built to generate that
data. The underlying models require a large effort to
collect the necessary information, build the model,
and validate the results (Morgan et al., 2017).
These models can be built upon the initial models
by removing layers of abstraction. Since military
doctrine only provides high-level descriptions of
processes, the model designer must translate those
processes into the real-world. To do so, the model
developer must account for additional constraints and
variables that doctrine does not include.
With the processes developed, the next step is to
better characterize the units that will be executing
these processes. The units must be representative of
the real-world units. In particular, the model designer
must determine what characteristics of each unit will
affect the unit’s ability to complete each process. This
level of detail can rapidly become very granular;
therefore, it is necessary to set the scope to a level that
can be achieved with the data that can be collected.
Often the required data is not available, and
assumptions must be made. These assumptions
increase the overall uncertainty of the results.
However, when properly documented, the
stakeholders can readily take these assumptions into
account when reviewing the results. Additionally, if
the assumptions are carefully parameterized, the
model can be readily used to perform a comparative
analysis between different courses of action.
While the assumptions consist of “known
unknowns” it is often useful to include the “unknown
unknowns,” commonly termed as the “fog of war.”
Though it is difficult to absolutely quantify these
“unknown unknowns,” they can be somewhat
accounted for through multiple runs and including
variability in the input.
As the amount of data increases in the model, the
associated simulation requires additional processing
power. To this end, the commercial discrete-event
simulation packages mentioned in Section 3.2 (e.g.
ProModel
®
) can provide the requisite computational
power. It is necessary to ensure that the simulation
package offers enough flexibility to fully define the
processes and constraints of the model.
4 THE ROLE OF
COLLABORATION
As the complexity of the model increases, the role of
collaboration between methods becomes increasingly
beneficial. In particular, the development of the table-
top wargame and the initial models can be done in
parallel such that the simulation replicates the game.
The simulation can then be used to develop and
validate the process, evaluate the rules, and determine
the initial conditions. This collaboration can lead to a
more expedient development of a detailed model.
4.1 Developing and Validating the
Process
The initial model requires that the events, constraints,
and actors be clearly laid out, as does the wargame.
Therefore, developing these processes in parallel for
both the model and the wargame allows for the
processes to be more clearly defined.
Additionally, the initial simulations require logic
to be entered that mimics the game players. By
Start
Event1
Event2
Event3
Event4
Event5
Event6
Condition
1
Condition
2
Event7
End
yes
yes
no
no
Actor1 Actor2Actor3
SIMULTECH 2017 - 7th International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications
218
requiring that the actions of the game players be
coded into the model, gaps in the process can be
readily identified.
Moreover, the model can reveal that certain
processes are unnecessary or inaccurate. For instance,
the overall process pulled from doctrine might
contain out-dated or tangential elements. Removing
these elements not only reduces the complexity but
also enhances the fidelity of the wargame.
Figure 4: Collaboration between block diagram models,
wargames, and discrete event models.
4.2 Determining Initial Conditions
The model aids in determining the initial conditions.
Without a computer model, the full implication for
many of the initial conditions can only be realized
through fully playing the game. The initial conditions
for a wargame must be set to avoid bottlenecks while
still requiring the game players to make key trade-off
decisions. Bottlenecks slow down the game play,
frustrating the game players; additionally, bottlenecks
force the players into following fixed processes,
stifling innovation (Tolk, 2015).
The simulation can be run numerous times to
optimize the initial conditions. These design
parameters can then be integrated into the table-top
wargame. As the wargame evolves, the simulation
can be rapidly upgraded and run to ensure that the
design parameters are still optimal.
4.3 Evaluate the Rules
The rules for a table-top wargame should be
representative of the real-world challenge that the
wargame is addressing. Additionally, it should foster
conversation, challenge the game players, and avoid
frustration. Most importantly, the rules must be clear.
The model builder is an excellent source of
feedback on the clarity of the rules. The wargame
architect provides the model builder with a copy of
the rules that would be provided to the game players.
The model builder then uses those rules as the
underlying logic for the simulation. The simulation
can then be displayed to the wargame architect to
validate that the model logic follows his intent.
Additionally, for the wargame to foster
innovation, the rules must be logical, allowing the
game-players to rapidly process the information and
introduce new methods. Similarly, logical rules are
necessary for building a model. As such, the model
builder provides feedback on the rules to the wargame
architect, ensuring that the rules are logical.
4.4 Wargame-simulation Verification
and Validation
Following the development of the wargame, it is
necessary to get the table-top wargame validated by
the stakeholders. The discrete-event simulation
provides two opportunities to aid in validation.
First, since the model was developed parallel to
the wargame, the process, rules, and initial conditions
all have been corroborated by both the wargame and
modeling teams. Though both the wargame and
modeling teams may not have subject matter
expertise, the two sets of teams can determine what
information is critical and needed to be confirmed.
Second, the simulation can show the actual flow
and operation of the table-top wargame in a media
that is conducive to the stakeholder. Stakeholders
often have limited time and they may not wish to play
the game in its entirety or explore every “what if”
scenario. As such, the stakeholder can simply watch
the simulation run an automated version of the game
to determine if it meets their needs.
Finally, the simulation can also model the
gameplay to determine if the game is biased towards
a particular outcome or set of outcomes. This gives
participants an equal opportunity to “win,” although
sometimes a biased outcome accurately replicates the
real world system.
4.5 The Role of Feedback
Table-top wargames typically output a summary of
findings. While inherently useful, the output can be
coupled with the simulation to create richer feedback
for the decision-maker. For example, if game players
are critical of certain assumptions made for the
wargame, these assumptions can be modified in the
simulation to perform a rapid sensitivity analysis.
Since the game players are typically subject
matter experts, the wargame itself is an excellent
source for information for the more detailed model. If
Complex
System
BlockDiagram
Model/
Simulation
Tabl eTop
Wargame
DiscreteEvent
Modelwith
Quantitative
Output
Models of Models: The Symbiotic Relationship between Models and Wargames
219
wargame information is to be fed into a model, it is
necessary to identify what information is essential
prior to the execution of the wargame. By doing so,
the wargame can be designed to ensure that the
wargame generates this information. Additionally,
the feedback between subject matter experts and the
simulation can be used to arbitrate when simulation
parameters based on policy are not realistic.
4.6 Wider Applicability
Use of simulations is not confined to development
and refinement of wargames for military applications.
Many boxed hobby wargames could benefit from the
iterative process laid out here. This could result in a
faster delivery to market of hobby games by speeding
up the validation and game play rules, especially the
concept of fairness and equal chance to win.
5 CASE STUDY: MOBILIZATION
OF THE FULL ARMY
The United States Army conducted a study to
determine the time required for a full mobilization of
the total Army, including the Active Army, Army
Reserve, and Army National Guard. A full
mobilization involves the simultaneous activation of
the Army’s reserve soldiers for an indefinite period of
time without increasing the total number of soldiers
(i.e., a draft is not implemented). The study was
commissioned to identify issues associated with a full
mobilization, which in turn are analysed to determine
opportunities to accelerate the process.
Numerous groups throughout the Army have
looked at the mobilization process. However, they
typically looked only at specific aspects instead of the
whole process. Therefore, the wargame team
determined a table-top wargame was most
appropriate for three reasons: 1) a lack of system data
to support a full simulation; 2) foster conversation
and interaction between participants from different
organizations; and 3) make the players feel and see
the consequences of their decisions.
5.1 The Mobilization Process
Many reserve units were deployed during the Global
War on Terror; however, these units underwent a
limited, deliberate mobilization, as compared to a full
mobilization. A full mobilization involves all units
competing for limited resources to achieve a high
level of readiness related to personnel, equipment,
and training. Not only are the reserve units competing
amongst themselves for these resources, they are also
competing with active duty units. The underlying
doctrine for a full mobilization is covered in Joint
Publication 4-05 (2014).
The reserve component consists of approximately
500,000 soldiers spread out among many units
throughout the United States. These units range from
small engineer detachments (~30 Soldiers) to large
infantry brigade combat teams (~3000 Soldiers). The
complications induced by unit dissimilarity are
increased by these units being distributed amongst the
Army National Guard and Army Reserves, which
have different mobilization policies.
When mobilized, reserve units report to home
station, their assigned base for training. Active duty
units are already at home station, and these bases are
spread out across the United States. Each unit has a
certain readiness level determined by its personnel,
equipment, and training levels. They are given
resources to increase their readiness levels in those
three categories; however, these resources are
somewhat limited, especially at home station.
Units move to other training sites to increase their
readiness levels. While small active duty units can
increase their training levels at Home Station, large
units are required to conduct collective training at the
Army’s three maneuver Combat Training Centers
(CTCs). Each CTC has limited capacity, and units
must often wait for their rotation at a CTC.
Reserve units can increase their training levels at
a Mobilization Force Generation Installation (MFGI),
where they get validated to deploy. Additionally, at
the MFGI, they will receive additional personnel and
equipment. All reserve units must move through the
MFGI during their mobilization process.
Additionally, reserve units can also use the CTCs to
increase their training levels, though they have a
lower priority than active duty units.
Once units are fully manned, trained, and
equipped, they move to the Port of Embarkation
(POE). At the POE, the units await for transportation
to their deployed location.
5.2 Block Diagram Model and
Wargame Setup
This set of processes was modelled in ProModel
®
to
create a simple discrete-event simulation. A
screenshot of the model is shown in Figure 5. The
table-top wargame followed a similar set of processes
with the board shown in Figure 6.
Active duty and reserve units are broken up by
component; they are further divided into large units
SIMULTECH 2017 - 7th International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications
220
(~brigade) and small units (~battalion). Each unit is
given a score between 0 and 3 for their manning,
equipment, and training levels. For a unit to deploy,
they must have a score of 3 in all the categories.
During each turn, manning and equipment points are
added to different locations (i.e., home station, MFGI,
CTC, POE), such that game players can allocate those
points to units at that location. Additionally, units at
a training site can receive training points.
The POE requests units to arrive in an order that
meets the deployment needs. These requests only
state whether they want a large or small unit and
whether that unit is active or reserve component. The
game players then select the units to fill these needs.
Each turn, there is a point penalty associated with
units being idle. Additionally, a penalty is associated
for deploying units out of order. The goal of the
wargame was to limit the number of turns required
while minimizing penalty points.
In November 2016, the table-top wargame was
played at the United States Army War College for
three different iterations. The first iteration was a
baseline game, allowing the wargame participants to
familiarize themselves with the rules. The second
iteration included additional constraints. The third
iteration allowed the participants to implement
changes that could speed up the mobilization process.
The goal of the game was to challenge the players
and to foster communication such that they discussed
innovative real-world strategies that could be
implemented to speed up the mobilization process.
Figure 5: Screenshot of the ProModel
®
simulation of the
basic mobilization process.
Figure 6: Screenshot of the surface used in the mobilization
table-top wargame.
5.3 Relationship between
Discrete-event Simulation and
Wargame
The table-top wargame and discrete-event simulation
were developed in parallel following an initial
workshop where a panel of subject matter experts
agreed upon a set mobilization process. The
simulation informed the table-top wargame and
helped set a number of the design parameters.
In particular, the intent was that the wargame
would take 18 turns, with each turn taking up to 10
minutes, for a total of 3 hours. The number of turns
required to complete the game were dependent on a
number of parameters to include the following:
Starting manning/equipping/training level
Capacities of different training centers
Manning and equipment points per turn
Output capacity of POE
The simulation was run multiple times across the
design space in order to fine tune the number of turns
to being between 16 and 20.
Figure 7 shows an example of this analysis; the
average output of the POE was varied to determine its
impact on the total number of turns. When the
average POE output was reduced below 6 units per
turn, a bottleneck occurs. Therefore, the average
output was set to be greater than 6 units per turn.
Additionally, the simulation identified design
issues with the wargame prior to execution. For
example, early versions of the wargame provided
personnel at the POE; however, no unit arriving at the
POE could accept additional personnel. If units had
below a score of 3 in personnel, they cannot achieve
the training score of 3 required to reach the POE.
Models of Models: The Symbiotic Relationship between Models and Wargames
221
Figure 7: Analysis on the impact of the output capacity of
the POE on the total number of turns for the wargame.
The successful replication of the table-top
wargame in a computer simulation allowed the game
designers to focus on the interaction of players and
achieve the purpose of the wargame. Wargame
designers were able to adjust inputs, anticipate
participant questions, and quickly adjust the rule set
because of the cooperation and iteration with
simulation developers. Participants also spent very
little time “fighting the game” because it was so well
fine-tuned.
Moreover, the simulation was run and shown to
many of the participants and stakeholders to allow
them to see the process being utilized by the
wargame. By doing so, they were able to validate the
process, rules, and initial conditions.
The scale of this table-top wargame was fairly
vast in that it incorporated the full Army, as opposed
to just select units. Wargames of this scale typically
take six to eight months to plan and fine-tune.
Developing the simulation in parallel to the table-top
wargame reduced this time to two months.
5.4 Wargame Outputs into a
Quantitative Model
The initial model and the table-top wargame created
the foundation for a more detailed simulation of the
full mobilization process. The updated model does
not generalize between units or locations; rather, it
models each individual unit, MFGI, CTC, and POE.
Additionally, the processes are decomposed to
identify opportunities for optimization. By removing
these layers of abstraction, the simulation allows
decision makers to make informed decisions on how
to enhance the mobilization process.
The table-top wargame provided significant
refinement into the model. For instance, the feedback
from the game players found that several of the
processes in the model were unnecessary.
Additionally, they identified several additional
constraints that play a major role in the mobilization
process, including the time to open new MFGIs,
back-ups at the POE, and limitations on
transportation resources. Beyond its validation value,
the table-top wargame itself was an ideal place to
make contacts that can provide critical data for the
model. Since many of the game players were subject
matter experts on an aspect of the mobilization
process, they ultimately had access to the raw data
that the detailed model needed.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Military planning uses table-top wargames as a
technique to model the processes and decisions of an
operation. Current and future military operations have
high levels of complexity, potentially leading to very
complex table-top wargames.
As table-top wargames become increasingly
complex, computer-based simulations can aid in
wargame development. In particular, they can
develop and validate the processes, determine initial
conditions, evaluate the rules, and aid in validation.
In turn, the wargame can provide useful data that can
be fed into detailed models that can provide
quantitative analysis to decision-makers. Simply put,
the relationship between computer-based simulation
and table-top wargames is symbiotic and the outputs
of this symbiosis are more efficient analysis,
enhanced insights and ultimately, better decisions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by the United States
Army War College’s Department of Strategic
Wargaming through the Department of the Army G1.
DISCLAIMER
The views expressed in this article are those of the
authors and do not reflect the official policy or
position of the Department of the Army, Department
of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
REFERENCES
Field Manual 6-0 (2016). Commander and Staff
Organization and Operations. Washington D.C.:
Headquarters, Department of the Army.
Harrell, C., Ghosh, B., Bowden, R. (2004). Simulation
Using ProModel. New York: McGraw-Hill.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
345678
Number of Turns for Game
Average Output Capacity of POE (Units / Turn)
Bottleneck exists
when POE output
capacity less than 6
SIMULTECH 2017 - 7th International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications
222
Joint Mobilization Planning (2014, February 21). Joint
Mobilization Planning. Washington D.C.: Joint Chief
of Staff.
Mood, A.M. (1954). War Gaming as a Technique of
Analysis. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
Morgan, J.S., Howick, S., Belton, V. (2017). “A toolkit of
designs for mixing Discrete Event Simulation and
System Dynamics.European Journal of Operational
Research. Vol 257.
Perla, P., McGrady, E.D. (2011). “Why Wargaming
Works.” Naval War College Review. Vol 65. No. 3.
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York:
Doubleday.
Tolk, A. (2012). Combat Modeling. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Wilson, P., Manhooth, H.A. (2013). Model-Based
Engineering for Complex Electronic Systems. Oxford,
UK: Newnes.
Models of Models: The Symbiotic Relationship between Models and Wargames
223