Wargaming?

Often, people associate wargaming with playing computer games and the culture with which that activity is associated. Some may even recall the 1983 film, Wargames (Goldberg, 1983), in response to hearing the term "wargames" - a film in which the main character, David Lightman (played by Matthew Broderick), hacks into a government nuclear control supercomputer. Lightman uses his access to run a computer simulation - believing he is simply playing a game - but the computer cannot distinguish between a simulation and reality and attempts to alert and engage America's nuclear arsenal against the Soviet Union.

So, popular culture is at least one source from which the uninitiated come by their knowledge and perception of what wargaming is. Often that perception is tied to the idea that a wargame is necessarily a computer simulation of some aspect of the real world for the purpose of determining possible outcomes of an adversarial engagement. The players on opposing sides input commands into a computer that then simulates through time the consequences of these multiple decisions by human players and then spits out an outcome that reflects what ostensibly would happen in reality.

Certainly, these perceptions are founded in some truth - wargames often make use of computer technology and they are useful in adjudicating player inputs. But this is a small part of what constitutes wargaming in general. In reality computers, audiovisual equipment, marker boards, game boards, etc., are simply examples of instrumentation. Wargames are actually human decision-making exercises; in effect a wargame takes place in the minds of the wargame participants. Once the purpose of a wargame and its other parameters are determined, the instrumentation can then be decided.

A wargame can take place using "sticky notes" and a whiteboard. And such a game can be as effective (and more so in many cases) than one using a bank of computers and specialized, expensive software. It may also be the case that simple supplies such as paper and pencil may be insufficient for a wargame that really needs high-fidelity computer software. The goal of the wargame and the intended audience should drive the discussion on the appropriate tools. A strategic-level wargame involving senior decision makers may be best negotiated using very simple tools that allow the wargamers to efficiently discuss command relationships and operating authorities - that could be a prime candidate for a "sticky note-and-whiteboard" wargame. On the other hand, pitting a futuristic fighter jet against an adversary's current and projected fleet of aircraft where flight dynamics become important in tactical engagements, a computer would be very handy.

Another aspect of wargames that one should understand is that they do not necessarily deliver answers, and that is okay. Often, the value of a wargame is the understanding of a situation they allow and the quality of the questions they generate. Renowned wargaming expert Peter Perla (1990) put it this way: "It is this very lack of certainty, however, that makes wargaming so important. We may never know the right answers, but gaming can sometimes help us learn to ask the right questions" (p. 34).

Hidden in the Perla citation above is a critical phrase that is very important in wargaming: "lack of certainty." The power of a wargame derives from the allowance for randomness in the inputs to a wargame itself - randomness that reasonably could happen in the real world and to which wargamers will respond with equivalent randomness. This creates the ability to simulate the real world as closely as possible; therefore, the outputs of the wargame will more closely mirror reality, and the value of the wargame is naturally greater than another game in which there is no randomness. At last, we come to a possible definition for a wargame - one based on Perla's 1990 work, but originating from LBS Consultancy in the United Kingdom:

"Adversarial by nature, wargaming is a representation of military activities, using rules, data, and procedures, not involving actual military forces, and in which the flow of events is affected by, and in turn affects, decisions made during the course of those events by players acting for the actors, factions, factors and frictions pertinent to those military activities" (LBS Consultancy, n.d.).

One can argue about the definition, and certainly, the practice of wargaming has been applied to non-military activities, but the essence of wargaming is captured in the definition above. Notice that the definition pays no attention to instrumentation - the use or non-use of computers or boards or game pieces. However, human decision making, which essentially injects random inputs into a wargame, is central to the definition. We usually cannot predict with certainty what actions the players in a wargame will take, and that leads to interesting results and deeper questions and understanding of difficult situations.

There is so much more to be said about wargaming, but this initial discussion, I hope, will serve as a starting point. We welcome inputs and look forward to the opportunity to help others treat their various scenarios of interest - to tease out important questions from the field on how best to deploy forces, or the most effective doctrine with respect to offensive counter air missions, or the best way to organize cyber forces, and any number of national security issues. Thank you in advance for contributing and moving this discussion forward.

References:

Goldberg, L., (Producer), & Badham, J. (Director). (1983). Wargames [Motion picture]. United States: MGM/UA

      Entertainment company.

LBS Consultancy. (n.d.). What is wargaming? Retrieved from

      http://lbsconsultancy.co.uk/our-approach/what-is-it/

Perla, P. P. (1990). The art of wargaming. Annapolis, MD: United States Naval Institute.