Why the Military Needs to Start Playing Boardgames
In the face of budget cuts, manual simulations may help the military stay sharp
Military wargames are supposed to be the cheaper alternative to live training exercises, but government-wide budget cuts in the United States and uncertainty caused by dysfunction in Washington means even simulations are facing the axe. In an era of budget austerity — the kind that even the Department of Defense can’t resist — creative solutions will be necessary to lower defense costs without hampering capabilities.
Computer-based wargames like the U.S. Army’s Warfighters’ Simulation (WARSIM) are appealing because they are cheaper than live training, but the technical expertise required to develop and run them still represent a significant cost. In a Defense News article, Col. Tony Krogh of the National Simulations Center says “some of the most expensive contractors we have” are the technicians who run the computer systems for simulations. The U.S. military is looking for ways to cut even these costs, such as through implementing the Army Low Overhead Training Toolkit (ALOTT) and regional simulation centers. It should go even further by considering alternative providers and experimenting with low-cost, versatile manual platforms.
Defense contractors are not the only ones capable of developing useful military simulations. Panther Games, for example, is well-known for its excellent wargames and Command Ops engine. Given the tighter budgets that recreational game developers work with, especially in a niche market like serious wargames, they are capable of developing simulations that are more cost-effective than those offered by major defense contractors. True, game developers do not work under the same simulation constraints as contractors — after all, they seek to entertain consumers rather than train warfighters — but this can easily be mitigated. For example, military liaisons can help commercial wargame developers design realistic mechanics and simulation models that reflect the experience of warfighters at various levels of command. Game developers can adjust to meet the needs of the military faster than defense contractors can acquire the wealth of technical knowledge and experience with complex, detailed games necessary to develop low-cost wargames with short development cycles.
While computer-based simulations are undoubtedly useful, the military should also consider adopting manual simulations to complement them. One glance at a manual or tabletop wargame is often enough to convince the average person that they cannot be taken seriously, but a long history of serious wargame designers and academics starting with James Dunnigan has argued otherwise. More recently, Philip Sabin, a professor at King’s College London who offers a Conflict Simulation course for War Studies Master’s students, argues that with the right techniques, wargames are a valuable tool for understanding the complexities of conflict dynamics. (His book, Simulating War, makes a compelling case.) While it is true that computer simulations allow for far richer detail and depth (just take a look at any of Paradox Interactive’s incredibly complex grand strategy games for a good example), manual simulations provide a different experience with their own set of unique advantages.
First,no computer simulation can compete with the cost of a manual one, primarily because of the technical hurdles involved in developing the former. With enough research and creativity, just about anyone can design a manual simulation by simply creating a set of rules. The materials necessary for running a manual simulation can be printed on an office laser printer. When Professor Sabin’s Conflict Simulation students hand in their own simulation projects, they simply glue printed paper on cardboard. Professionally-produced materials are not much more expensive than that. The specialized technical and programming skills required to create even basic computer simulations with impenetrable user interfaces inherently limits the pool of potential designers and guarantees a higher development cost. These specialized skills are further necessary in the playtesting phase of development; whereas anyone can fix a problem with a manual game by tweaking a rule, debugging program code is a bit more involved. Intimately linked with the higher cost of computer simulations is the significantly longer development cycle, which always seems to be longer for military customers.
Second, manual simulations have the major advantage of accessibility. Players understand all the mechanics of a manual game because they have to; they are the “computers” that run the game, after all. This aids the military’s purpose in using simulations in the first place: training, in this case through understanding how simulation outcomes came about. Computer simulations can be designed to be transparent, but the complexity that can be a boon for some purposes is a hindrance when it comes to having players understand exactly what is going on under the hood. Diagnosing why a strategy failed in a computer simulation requires that the programmers ensure the game produces adequate human-readable logs or that users have expert knowledge of every aspect of the program (neither condition is likely to be fulfilled). Simplicity in manual games is achieved by abstracting ancillary elements through game mechanics. True, you cannot manually model logistics, weather, terrain, morale, and the fog of war and still run a simulation within a reasonable window of time, but a manual simulation only needs to realistically model the elements relevant to its narrow purpose. For example, examining divisional command dynamics does not require modeling in fine detail how a fire team receives an adequate supply of MREs and water. By reducing the variables involved, a manual simulation is made more comprehensible to its participants, aiding in discussion and analysis of the outcomes.
Manual simulations by necessity have to be developed for narrow purposes; you’ll never have a tabletop game that can replace or approach the same level of complexity as WARSIM, which is used for training at the battalion level and higher. But that is not the purpose of manual simulations, just as WARSIM is not necessary if you want to have a simple thought experiment about maneuver or force-to-space ratios. Manual simulations should be implemented alongside expensive, technical products to provide cheaper solutions for the U.S. military’s simpler range of training needs. Trying to build all-encompassing, one-size-fits-all computer simulations will only lead to ballooning costs and a wargame that a good portion of its users will find frustratingly useless. Simple training, proof of concepts, thought experiments, and tactical demonstrations are perfect areas for manual simulations.
The beauty of a manual ruleset is that it’s written in plain language; if you disagree on the mechanics, all you need is a pencil to propose an alternative rule and test it. As an added benefit, the military won’t need pricey contractors to show them how to design or run manual simulations. Wargame enthusiasts undoubtedly have a presence within the military’s ranks, and as I've seen from my time at the War Studies Department at King’s College London, there are plenty of academic and hobby wargame designers with the expertise necessary to consult with the military.
