
Simulation and Wargaming
Description
Alles über E-Books | Antworten auf Fragen rund um E-Books, Kopierschutz und Dateiformate finden Sie in unserem Info- & Hilfebereich.
Based on the insights of experts in both domains, Simulation and Wargaming comprehensively explores the intersection between computer simulation and wargaming. This book shows how the practice of wargaming can be augmented and provide more detail-oriented insights using computer simulation, particularly as the complexity of military operations and the need for computational decision aids increases.
The distinguished authors have hit upon two practical areas that have tremendous applications to share with one another but do not seem to be aware of that fact. The book includes insights into:
* The application of the data-driven speed inherent to computer simulation to wargames
* The application of the insight and analysis gained from wargames to computer simulation
* The areas of concern raised by the combination of these two disparate yet related fields
* New research and application opportunities emerging from the intersection
Addressing professionals in the wargaming, modeling, and simulation industries, as well as decision makers and organizational leaders involved with wargaming and simulation, Simulation and Wargaming offers a multifaceted and insightful read and provides the foundation for future interdisciplinary progress in both domains.
More details
Other editions
Additional editions


Persons
Charles Turnitsa, PhD, is the head of the Computer Engineering program for Regent University. He has been a wargamer for over 40 years, and continues to do professional research in areas such as wargaming, data interoperability, and modeling and simulation.
Curtis Blais, PhD, is a member of the research faculty in the Naval Postgraduate School's Modeling, Virtual Environments, and Simulation (MOVES) Institute. He has over 47 years of experience in modeling and simulation development, application, and education, and actively contributes to development of international standards in modeling and simulation.
Andreas Tolk, PhD, is Chief Scientist for Complex Systems Modeling at the MITRE Corporation, His contributions have been recognized by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) as well as the Society for Modeling and Simulation (SCS) with distinguished contribution awards. He is a senior member of IEEE and ACM and a Fellow of SCS.
Content
Foreword xv
Preface xxiii
List of Contributors xxv
Author Biography xxix
Prologue xli
Part I Introduction 1
1 An Introduction to Wargaming and Modeling and Simulation 3 Jeffrey Appleget
Introduction 3
Terminology 3
An Abbreviated History of Wargames and Simulations 5
Wargames and Computer-Based Combat Simulations: From the Cold War to Today 6
Wargames Today 10
Simulations Today 13
Introduction 13
Simulation Types 13
Aggregate Simulations 13
Entity Simulations 14
Simulations and Prediction 14
Standard Assumptions 14
Data 15
Simulating the Reality of Combat 16
The Capability and Capacity of Modern Computing to Represent Combat 16
Finite Size 17
Number of Pieces/Entities 17
Terrain 18
Rules 18
Movement 18
Attack 19
Adjudication 19
Victory Conditions 19
Summary 20
Campaign
Analysis 20
Conclusion 21
Part II Historical Context 23
2 A School for War - A Brief History of the Prussian Kriegsspiel 25 Jorit Wintjes
Introduction 25
Kriegsspiel Prehistory 29
A School for War - the Prussian Kriegsspiel 36
The Prussian Kriegsspiel 1824/28 - 1862 42
The Golden Age - 1862 to c. 1875 46
The Changing Kriegsspiel - c. 1875 to 1914 50
Kriegsspiel Beyond Borders - 1871 to 1914 54
Conclusion 59
3 Using Combat Models for Wargaming 65 Joseph M. Saur
The Nature of Combat Models 67
Europe's Plan to Simulate the Entire Planet 77
China Exclusive: China's "Magic Cube" Computer Unlocks the Future 77
A Model to Predict War 78
Afghanistan Stability/COIN Dynamics - Security 79
The Nature of Wargames 81
The Players - Who Might Be Involved? 85
The CRT - How Do We Adjudicate Political, Economic, Information and Other Non-Kinetic Actions? How DO WE ADJUDICATE KINETIC INTERACTIONS (Which, in This Case, We Hope Do Not Occur!)? 86
Organizational Behaviors 88
Issue in Wargames (and Combat Models) 89
Yyyyn 90
Part III Wargaming and Operations Research 91
4 An Analysis-Centric View of Wargaming, Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis 93 Paul K. Davis
Background and Structure 93
Relationships, Definitions, and Distinctions 94
Different Purposes for Wargaming 94
Backdrop 94
A Common Critique of M&S 94
Humans and M&S 98
Distinctions 98
A Model-Game-Model Paradigm 100
The Core Idea 100
Can Human Gaming Truly Serve as "Testing"? 101
Case Study: Deterrence and Stability on the Korean Peninsula 103
Background 103
Model Building 104
Ideal Methods and Practical Expedients 104
Modernizing the Escalation Ladder 106
Cognitive Decision Models 108
Top-Level Structure 109
Lower Level Structure 109
Designing and Executing a Human Game 111
Reflections and Conclusions 114
Implications for Simulation 117
5 Wargaming, Automation, and Military Experimentation to Quantitatively and Qualitatively Inform Decision-Making 123 Jan Hodicky and Alejandro Hernandez
Introduction 123
Military Methods to Knowledge Discovery 124
Technology: Knowledge Enablers 126
Wargaming Automation Challenges in M&S Perspective 128
Wargaming Relation to M&S 128
Wargaming Elements 129
Constructive Simulation Building Blocks 131
Wargaming Elements Not Supported by Constructive Simulation 131
Challenges to Combined Methodologies for Knowledge Discovery 132
Constructive Simulation Constrains in the Context of Automation and Wargaming 133
Stage- Wise Experimentation in CAW 139
A Progression of Mixed Methods to Grand Innovation 139
A Complete Application of ACAW and SWE for Future Capability Insights 144
Computer- Assisted Wargaming Classification 148
Conclusion 151
6 Simulation and Artificial Intelligence Methods for Wargames: Case Study - "European Thread" 157 Andrzej Najgebauer, Slawomir Wojciechowski, Ryszard Antkiewicz, and Dariusz Pierzchala
Introduction 157
Assumptions and Research Tools 159
Modeling of Complex Activities 161
Network Model of Complex Activities 161
The MCA Software Package for Wargaming 166
Wargame - Course of Action Evaluation 169
Assumptions 169
Situation 170
Model of Operation 173
A Collection of Values of the Function h(g) 173
Deterrence Phase 175
Parameters Value - Deterrence Phase 175
COA Evaluation 179
Summary 180
7 Combining Wargaming and Simulation Analysis 183 Mark Sisson
Introduction 183
Current Efforts Underway 184
Methodology 185
Frameworks or Schemas to Support Portfolios 186
Comparability 188
Emergence 190
Triangulation 190
Exercises 191
Artificial Intelligence 192
Wargames 193
Computer Simulation Models 194
Mathematical Models 195
Experimentation 196
Building Portfolios 196
Conclusion 199
8 The Use of M&S and Wargaming to Address Wicked Problems 203 Phillip Pournelle
Why Are We Doing This? 205
Framing the Problem 207
M&S Support to Wargames 212
Pathologies and How to Avoid Them 213
Combining Wargaming and M&S 219
Part IV Wargaming and Concept Developing and Testing 223
9 Simulation Support to Wargaming for Tactical Operations Planning 225 Karsten Brathen, Rikke Amilde Seehuus, and Ole Martin Mevassvik
Introduction 225
Operational Planning and Wargaming 226
What are the Benefits of Simulation Support to COA Wargaming? 231
Principles of Technology Support to Wargaming for Operations Planning 232
Enabling Technologies 234
Models 235
System Implementation 237
SWAP 238
SWAP Experiment 241
Conclusion and Way Forward 243
10 Simulation-Based Cyber Wargaming 249 Ambrose Kam
Motivation and Overview 249
Introduction 250
Cyber Simulation 253
Mission Analysis Tool 258
Wargames 261
Commercial Wargames 265
Future Work 267
Summary 269
11 Using Computer-Generated Virtual Realities, Operations Research, and Board Games for Conflict Simulations 273 Armin Fügenschuh, Sönke Marahrens, Leonie Marguerite Johannsmann, Sandra Matuszewski, Daniel Müllenstedt, and Johannes Schmidt
Introduction 273
Public Software (C:MA/NO) 275
User- Tailored Software (VBS3) 277
Artificial Intelligence for Solving Tactical Planning Problems 278
Wargaming Support 282
Conclusion 285
Part V Emerging Technologies 289
12 Virtual Worlds and the Cycle of Research: Enhancing Information Flow Between Simulationists and Wargamers 291 Paul Vebber and Steven Aguiar
The Cycle of Research as a Communications Framework 293
Bridging the Wargaming - Simulation Gap 297
Virtual World Beginnings 299
Elgin Marbles - An Analytic Game 301
Analytical vs. Narrative Games 303
Virtual Worlds as a Virtual Reality 307
Operational Wargames 308
Distributed LVC Wargames 312
The Future 315
13 Visualization Support to Strategic Decision-Making 317 Richard J. Haberlin and Ernest H. Page
Introduction 317
Impact/Capabilities 318
Strategic Planning 318
Acquisitions 318
Spectrum of Visualizations 319
Interactive Visualizations 320
Commercial Interactive Data Visualization 320
Custom Data and Analytics Visualization 320
Methodology 322
Model Elicitation 322
Framework 323
Considerations 323
Data 324
Analytic Tools 324
Colors of Money 324
Courses of Action 325
Model Construction 325
Strategic 326
Budget 327
Risk Identification and Mitigation 328
Example: The MITRE Simulation, Experimentation and Analytics Lab (SEAL) 329
Audio Visual Support 329
Multi-Level Security 331
Enterprise Integration 331
Community of Practice 332
Summary 333
14 Using an Ontology to Design a Wargame/Simulation System 335 Dean S. Hartley, III
Motivation and Overview 335
Introduction 336
A Modern Conflict Ontology 337
An Introduction to the MCO 337
Actors 338
Objects 339
Actions 340
Metrics or State Variables 342
MCO Examples 343
Provenance of the MCO 346
Knowledge of Warfare 346
Knowledge of OOTWs 346
Modeling Issues 347
Precursor Ontologies 348
Early Versions of the MCO 349
Creating a Simulation/Wargame from the Ontology 349
Model Building Steps 350
Moving from the Ontology to the Conceptual Model 352
Building Block Concept 354
Agendas and Implicit Metric Models 356
Theoretical Metric Models 357
VV&A 358
Constructing the Scenario 361
Model Infrastructure 361
Conclusion 362
15 Agent-Driven End Game Analysis for Air Defense 367 M. Fatih Hocaogl¿ u
Motivation and Overview 367
Introduction 367
Related Studies 369
Agent- Directed Simulation and AdSiF 371
AdSiF: Agent Driven Simulation Framework 373
End Game Agent 374
Command and Control Agent 374
C2 Architecture and Information Sharing 379
Target Evaluation 379
Fire Decision 380
Fire Doctrine 381
Decision-Level Data Fusion 382
Aims and Performance Measurement 384
Types of End Game Analysis 388
Footprint Analysis 390
Operating Area 394
Defended Area Analysis 395
Scenario View 397
Online Analysis and Scenario Replication Design 397
An Air Defense Scenario: Scenario View 398
Discussions 402
Epilogue 407
Index 411
Foreword
Reiner K. Huber
I was pleased to receive, and gladly accepted, the invitation to contribute the foreword to the timely book "Wargaming and Simulation" dedicated to Stuart Starr. I have known Stuart since the 1970s when we met at many professional and project meetings and discussions on transatlantic defense issues related, among others, to modeling and simulations in the context of assessment studies to support military and political decision-makers during the Cold War and the decade thereafter. The product of the last project in which both of us participated actively, from 2000 to 2003, was a revised version of the Code of Best Practice for C2 Assessment1 that NATO had laid out in a technical report in 1999. Considering this report "a framework for thinking about the changing nature of war gaming," Stuart developed a highly interesting paper on how the sophisticated tools of collaboration technology emerging may revolutionize wargaming.2
Wargaming and simulation accompanied my professional life as a military OR/SA analyst and an academic teacher in one way or another. It began with an episode of what wargamers want from OR models, which are on the heart of simulation. I was a junior OR analyst and captain of the German Air Force (GAF) Reserve when, in the mid-1960s, I was called up for a wargame by the Air Staff in the Defense Ministry. It was the first time I participated in a two-sided map display manual wargame for estimating success and losses to be expected in counter-air operations against well-defended Warsaw Pact (WP) airbases. Most of the players were fighter bomber pilots, some of them with WW 2 combat experience, and GAF air defense-officers familiar with the WP's air defense capabilities. OR analysts of the Air OR Group of IABG3 followed the players' mission plans calculating the attack aircraft lost and the damage caused to the targets using the respective mathematical models taken from IABG's air war model.4 Never have I forgotten the disputes between players and OR analysts. The blue players considered the target damage calculated as too low and the loss of their air sorties as too high. In the midst of the game they suggested that the analysts manipulate the "critical" inputs of the assessment models so that the outputs would be closer to their judgment. Not surprisingly, the analysts rejected the suggestion arguing that rather than manipulating the game halfway, to improve its results for Blue, it would make more sense to end the game and, thereafter, revisit its data and the assumptions underlying the assessment models. That is what we did.
On the basis of the air war model the Air OR group then developed, together with the military advisory group associated with IABG's Study Division, an interactive wargame that was successfully tested within a high-level planning exercise of the GAF in 1970. In 1972 I became head of IABG's System Studies Division that included OR/SA support for all three service branches of the Bundeswehr. In a discussion with STC's Andreas Mortensen5, about the upcoming issue of modeling in support of overall force capability assessment, we agreed that the most difficult and least documented aspect of military OR/SA seems to be the land war. Thus we felt that a scientific conference on land battle systems modeling would not only contribute to a better understanding of the implications of different modeling approaches, but also help preclude undesirable redundancy through better familiarity with models available elsewhere.
The Special Program Panel of Systems Science of the NATO Scientific Affairs Division6 accepted and funded, together with the German Ministry of Defense, my proposal to organize, together with my co-chairmen, Lynn F. Jones of the UK's Royal Armaments Research and Development Establishment and Egil Reine of the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, the scientific conference on "Modeling Land Battle Systems for Military Planning" held at the War Gaming Center of IABG7 in Ottobrunn, Germany, 26-30 August 1974. The keynote address of the Deputy Under Secretary of the US Army for Operations Research Dr. Wilbur Payne began with the following statement:
As we are less and less able to rely on historical European combat data and as we see more and more the necessity of evaluating issues in large contexts, gaming and simulation emerge perhaps as the only tools able to organize large quantities of information and discipline our thinking and communication about them.8
While not having strong opinions on some methodological aspects of the problem of modeling land battle systems, Dr. Payne expressed strong opinions on certain problems that require more attention than we have given in the past. From the point of view of a senior member of the profession9, and a bureaucrat involved in trying to use the results of research to generate defense programs and convince others that the programs are worthy of support, he pointed out some of these problems such as (1) identifying radical changes in the general structures of combat; (2) interactions between weapon system development and tactics development; (3) the issue of "quality versus quantity" in the weapon systems design and selection, and (4) developing estimates of combat losses. He believed that all of these imply basic and extensive improvements in both modeling techniques and how models are used. Thus, he proposed to discuss these key problems "to get a better idea of the direction we should take to improve the ability of our models to handle these four problems."
In the context of the problems listed by Payne, a constructive assessment technique in form of force on force models would be appropriate such as, for example, changing the structure and tactics of defense forces to improve their deterrent capability. This was exactly the idea of a group of German political scientists and retired military officers who proposed, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, that Germany's all-active armored defense forces be supplemented by reactive forces thus improving the chance that an eventual attack by WP forces could be stopped at the demarcation line, between East and West, without NATO having to employ nuclear weapons.10 The sometimes bitter debates between the retired military members of the group and their active peers in the Ministry of Defense, on the pros and cons of the group's proposals, were characterized by arguments based mostly on military judgement rather than analysis.
Therefore, together with my colleague Prof. Hans Hofmann of the Institute of Applied Systems and Operations Research (IASFOR) at the Bundeswehr University in Munich11, we initiated a project to take a look at the arguments of both sides on the basis of the outcomes of battle simulations involving 12 reactive defense options of four categories12 using the Monte Carlo-type model BASIS. In cooperation with the military authors of the options, this model was developed by Hofmann and his research assistants over a period of three years, accounting, in great detail, all essential interactions affecting the dynamics and outcome of ground battles, for the simulation of battles between battalion-sized German ground forces defending against a sequence of regimental-sized Soviet attacking forces supported by organic and higher level fire support on both sides. More than 500 battle simulation experiments were conducted in different type of terrain and visibility to generate sufficient data for a detailed analysis of each of the 12 reactive options.13
The results were discussed at a Workshop with international experts organized by the German Strategy Forum on "Long-Term Development of NATO's Forward Defense," held 2-4 December, 1984, in Bad Godesberg/Bonn. The overall conclusion of the analysis suggested that properly equipped and trained reactive defense forces being available on short notice might be an effective and efficient tool to absorb the initial attack by fighting, at the demarcation line, an attrition-oriented delaying battle thus providing the time for the active defenses to deploy at the points of the enemy's main thrusts and for counterattacks into the enemy's exposed flanks. The main reason why the Bundeswehr and its NATO partners did not consider following up the options investigated by IASFOR was that restructuring the all-active forces, deployed at the time, in the Central Region close to the demarcation line, would involve some time of conventional weakness and strategic risk considering the strategic situation in the 1970s and 1980s. However, given today's strategic situation between NATO and Russia, it seems that NATO partners in the East might well revisit some of the reactive options investigated by IASFOR for their territorial defense forces.
Comparing the proceedings14 of the follow-on conference held in Brussels under the aegis of Panel 7 of the Defense Research Group (DRG)15 - eight years later - with the proceedings of the conference in Ottobrunn (see footnote 8), both published by Plenum Press, the number of papers that addressed inter-active and computer simulation models had increased by 36% and their average length of papers by 60% suggesting that battle simulation modeling had expanded and intensified significantly in the eight years between the two conferences.16 And this expansion went on with the...
System requirements
File format: ePUB
Copy protection: Adobe-DRM (Digital Rights Management)
System requirements:
- Computer (Windows; MacOS X; Linux): Install the free reader Adobe Digital Editions prior to download (see eBook Help).
- Tablet/smartphone (Android; iOS): Install the free app Adobe Digital Editions or the app PocketBook before downloading (see eBook Help).
- E-reader: Bookeen, Kobo, Pocketbook, Sony, Tolino and many more (not Kindle).
The file format ePub works well for novels and non-fiction books – i.e., „flowing” text without complex layout. On an e-reader or smartphone, line and page breaks automatically adjust to fit the small displays.
This eBook uses Adobe-DRM, a „hard” copy protection. If the necessary requirements are not met, unfortunately you will not be able to open the eBook. You will therefore need to prepare your reading hardware before downloading.
Please note: We strongly recommend that you authorise using your personal Adobe ID after installation of any reading software.
For more information, see our ebook Help page.