See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330117550

The Four Critical Elements of Analytic Wargame Design

Article · December 2018

CITATIONS READS
0 2,029

1 author:

Brian Wade
US Army
8 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ballistic and cruise missile weaponeering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brian Wade on 07 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PROFESSIONAL FEATURE

The Four Critical Elements

of
Analytic Wargame Design

T
LTC Brian Wade, Strategic Wargaming Division, Center for Army Analysis brian.m.wade.mil@mail.mil
he Department of Defense
(DoD) has enjoyed a
reinvigoration of wargaming
as a result of the previous
Deputy Secretary of Defense’s
memorandum directing that
organizations look to wargames to
explore strategies and challenges
(Work, 2015). This has led to an increase
in the demand for wargames; however,
this increased demand could lead
to inaccurate insights because each
wargame must be uniquely designed
to address the specific questions being
asked (Bartels, 2016). Just as there is
not a single computer simulation for all
military questions, there is not a single
wargame for all military problems.

Wargames are best used to solve

unstructured problems where human
decision making is central to the
issue being addressed (Rubel, 2006).
The unstructured nature of the
problems that wargames address
makes wargame design a weakly
structured process. There is not a
stringent methodology for wargame
design, but there are guides and rules
of thumb that wargame developers
use to help ensure that the wargame
answers the analytical questions of the
game sponsor.a This article is meant
to augment these guides for new
wargame designers by emphasizing
four design elements that are critical to
a wargame’s success. Once the four
critical elements are crafted to address
the study questions, all other game
elements naturally flow from them.
Figure 1. Wargame elements.
The Critical Wargame
Elements
The four critical parts of a wargame
that must be properly designed
to meet the sponsor’s analytical
questions are:
• the players
• the scenario
• the rule set
• the adjudication method
The final game design will encompass
a larger list of game elements, but
these four parts form the core of
a wargame and must be carefully
crafted for the analytical wargame to
achieve its intended purposes. All of
these parts are necessary to address
the study questions, and answering
those questions is the primary
purpose of an analytic wargame.
These elements combine to form a
three-legged stool supporting the
players and providing the foundation
for the game. The players are the heart
of the game since the wargame only
exists in the minds of those players.
The scenario is the background and
context that the wargame takes
place within. The rule set describes

18 PHALANX – DECEMBER 2018


how players interact with each other
within the game scenario, and the
adjudication method expresses the
outcome of those interactions.
As Figure 1 shows, each aspect of
a wargame interacts with the others
during the conduct of the game
and must be properly designed so
all four contribute to answering the
study questions.
All analysis starts with defining the
problem and objectives. The study
questions are typically difficult to
specify at the start of the wargame
design process; however, these
must be adequately articulated,
understood, and agreed upon by the
wargame sponsor or the wargame
stands little chance of being a
successful tool for the sponsor. The
challenge of adequately identifying
and bounding the study questions is
not unique to wargames but rather a
central aspect of all analysis. This is
the hardest, but most important, step
in the creation of a wargame.
The Players
Once the study questions are
established, the wargame designer
should consider the players. These
are the people who will participate in
the wargame and whose knowledge
and expertise define the universe of
the possible for any action, decision,
or insight that occurs during the
course of the wargame.b The conflict
and actions of the wargame only
exist in the collective mind of these
participants. Any map, computer
display, or icon involved in the
wargame serve only to help form
a common understanding of the
situation. If the correct participants
are not involved, then the wargame
will not be successful, regardless
of how well the other elements are
designed. The wargame participants
should also be familiar, but not
necessarily experts, on the issues
the wargame is addressing. They
should also be invested in the game’s
outcome so they actively compete
against each other to meet their
own game objectives. In analytic
wargaming, entertainment is not
the primary purpose, but must still
be considered to get maximum
engagement from the participants.
The Scenario
The next critical element that must
be considered is the scenario. The
scenario structures the game by
giving the players the background
of events that took place before the
wargame, explaining the current
situation, assigning each player’s
objectives, and describing the
resources that each player controls.
The background and current situation
should be detailed enough to help
place the players within the context
of the game, but must be focused on
the research questions. A well-crafted
scenario with detail focused on the
research objectives will help the
players “live” the wargame and bring
everyone to a common understanding
of the situation that is being crafted
for them.c
The most important item in the
scenario are the goals or objectives
of each player within the game. A
wargame is effective because it
focuses on human decision making
in a competitive and sequential
environment. An effective wargame
places players in competition in order
to accomplish their own individual
goals. As with the determination of
resources allocated to each player,
the goals should directly relate to the
wargame’s overall study questions.
Another key aspect of the scenario
that is particularly important to
DoD wargames is the level of war
in which the wargame will take
PHALANX – DECEMBER 2018 19
PROFESSIONAL FEATURE
place, generally determined as the
tactical, operational, or strategic
level. In general, tactical effects drive
operational insights and operational
effects drive strategic insights. Study
questions will direct which level of war
is appropriate and will help bound the
geographic space of the wargame.
The level of war is also an input into
the level of aggregation for the various
units that will be represented in the
wargame. Again, the study questions
are the touchstone of all wargame
design questions, and the level of
aggregation should be directed by the
study questions. Additionally, the level
of aggregation does not need to be
constant for all entities in the game.
For example, suppose a sponsor
wishes to examine the deterrence
value of a new ground weapon system
against an enemy’s decision to
escalate a conflict. The wargame might
take place at the operational level and
examine the entire theater at once. In
this wargame, the designer might want
to explicitly represent the units with this
new weapon system at the company
or battalion level, but all other
operational, logistical, and support
units might be aggregated to brigade
or higher level, or implicitly represented
through rules and not as entities in the
wargame. However, if the objective
was to understand the vulnerabilities
of the new weapons system’s logistics
requirements and the actions an
enemy force could take to affect these
logistics, then the wargame designer
would want to individually represent
the logistics elements in the game and
the operational units, including the
units with the new weapon system.
The level of aggregation is also
affected by the real-world resource
limitations of executing the wargame.
Such resource limitations include
the number of players, the time to
prepare the game, and the time to
PROFESSIONAL FEATURE
play the game. The more units that
each player must control will increase
the burden both on the players to
control the units and on the game
facilitator to track and adjudicate the
interactions in the game. Too much
complexity can distract the players
from concentrating on the research
questions. As Albert Einstein so
eloquently stated about models,
“everything should be made as
simple as possible, but not simpler.”
(Calaprice, 2010).
The Rule Set
The rule set dictates the overarching
structure of the game. It consists of
elements such as the turn sequence,
the order of events, the possible
actions that the different units can
and cannot do, and how players
communicate their chosen actions.
This is similar to the instructions
for a board game. In the game
of Monopoly, the rule set is the
instructions for how to buy property,
the layout of the board, how to move
the playing pieces, and when each
player must pay other players. The
rule set defines how and when players
interact with each other. Therefore, the
rule set needs to be crafted with the
analysis questions in mind to ensure
that the game interactions cause the
players to evaluate these questions
over the course of the wargame. Care
must also be taken to ensure that
the rule set does not overly constrain
the players. Rule sets must allow the
players to exercise their creativity,
and allow each side the opportunity
to achieve victory and use their own
initiative in pursuit of that victory.
Returning to the earlier examples of
two wargames for a new weapon
system, one to examine the logistics
vulnerabilities and the other to
examine the impact of the new
weapon system on the threat’s
decision making. In the logistics
20 PHALANX – DECEMBER 2018
game, the rule set would have to
specify the amount of supply that is
consumed for different actions, the
options for how to resupply a unit in
need, and the options available to
the opponent to interdict that supply
flow. In the wargame to understand
the impacts of a new weapon system
on an enemy’s decision making,
the wargame rule set would require
specifications for how to position
and employ the new system before
hostilities, how one side could reveal
knowledge about the capabilities of
the system to the other side, and how
that new system could be employed
in combat.
A wargame designer can almost never
anticipate everything a player in the
game may want to do, especially
since wargames are replicating
unlimited human actions on a dynamic
battlefield. To this end, the wargame
designer should rely on an impartial
referee who can hear all reasons why
an action should or should not be
allowed and decide if and how an
action would be included in the game.
A formal rule set differentiates a
wargame from a facilitated group
discussion. A wargame examines the
consequences of human decision
making along a sequence of events
where each player commits to a
specific action and that action affects
both that player’s and the other
players’ future decisions. The rule
set facilitates this linear sequence of
events and defines how the players
interact. Facilitated group discussions
are not bound by linearity but rather
emphasize the free exchange of ideas
that seek to explore the full breadth
of possibilities. Both are valuable and
important aspects of analysis, but one
should not be confused with the other.
The Adjudication Method
While the rule set provides the
structure for when and where
interactions can occur in the game,
the results of those interactions are
handled by the adjudication method.
Adjudication fosters the sequential
nature of the wargame and the
compounding effects of decisions
over time. Returning to the game of
Monopoly, adjudication includes the
dice that dictate how far a piece can
move, the property values of the cards
that indicate how much you must pay
other players, and the chance cards.
In combat wargames, adjudication
typically focuses on how combat
losses or system effectiveness are
changed by kinetic or nonkinetic
actions. The rule set specifies how
and when each game element can
affect the other and the adjudication
method specifies the degree or
amount of that effect.
The adjudication method is separate
from the rule set because a single rule
set could use different adjudication
methods in the same game or in
different games depending on the
research objectives and the resources
available. The game of Monopoly
could be modified so that the value of
each property was based on historical
data of different property types
at different geographic locations.
Likewise, the property value could
also be based on player negotiations
or discussions. In these examples,
the rule set or structure of the game
has not changed, but the way the
interactions are resolved has changed.
The appropriate type of adjudication is
based on the analytical rigor required
by the research objectives and the
amount of resources available.
In his book on wargaming, Peter Perla
describes wargames as categorized
into two different styles based on
their adjudication method: seminar
games and system games (Perla,
1990). Seminar games rely on players

or referees discussing outcomes
and agreeing on the one most likely
to occur.d System games rely on a
predetermined mathematical method
typically based on probabilities.e
For a system game, the adjudication
method is a predetermined list of
events that could happen due to
interactions specified in the rule set
and a directed method of choosing
which of those outcomes actually
happened. This is typically done
by assigning probabilities to each
outcome and then randomly choosing
one based on those probabilities.
In seminar games, the adjudication
method is a discussion between the
players or external subject matter
experts (SMEs), typically resulting
in a list of reasons why or why not
an event would be successful.
The participants then agree on the
outcome or the external SME renders
a verdict. Structure can be added
to these methods by arraying the
reasons why an event would or would
not be successful into a matrix and
then conducting a random draw using
probabilities based on the number of
reasons in each category.f
The analytical rigor of the outcomes
of interactions in a wargame is
strongly correlated to the analytical
rigor of the adjudication method.
The adjudication method must be
adjusted to account for the level of
detail and confidence that is required
in the results by the analytical
questions and also by the resources
available to develop the adjudication
method. Additionally, the designer
should note that player decisions in
the wargame will be shaped by the
outcome of interactions so care must
be taken to ensure that they do not
bias the players in a way that will
negatively impact the analysis.
For all wargames there is a tradeoff
between three competing demands
of the adjudication method:
flexibility, detail, and the amount of
resources required. The flexibility
of an adjudication method is its
ability to assess the outcome of the
many different actions that could
occur in a game and its ability to
assess outcomes that were not
previously conceived before the
game begins. Detail is the specificity
and accuracy of the action’s effect.
The resources required are the
time, data, computational power,
and manpower required before and
during the wargame to determine the
outcome of actions.
The type of adjudication method
required for a particular wargame is
based on a compromise between
these competing aspects. In general,
the more detailed the rule set and
adjudication strategy, the greater
the level of detail in the insights and
confidence in the outcome of the
wargame. However, this increased
detail requires more resources to
develop. Most wargames choose
to sacrifice detail and fidelity for
increased speed and flexibility. It is
also for this reason that most wargame
Figure 2. Wargame adjudication method’s analytic rigor tradeoffs.
PHALANX – DECEMBER 2018 21
PROFESSIONAL FEATURE
analysts agree that the analytic value
of the wargame is more about insights
from the players than from the actual
outcome of the game. The increased
detail required to fully explore the
outcome of interactions is usually more
appropriate for follow-on computer
simulations. Sacrificing detail for speed
in the adjudication method allows the
game to progress through combat
without becoming bogged down
in the details of each engagement;
however, the actual requirements of
the adjudication method depend on
the study questions.
Some of the most common
adjudication methods are agreement
among players, SME assessment,
correlation or interpolation of historical
trends, and experimental cause and
effect.g Agreement among players is
the quintessential seminar-style game
adjudication method and was detailed
earlier. SME assessment removes
some potential bias that the players
could inject by having the result of
actions determined by one or more
neutral third-party experts who are
not playing in the game. Correlation
or interpolation of historical trends
determines the outcomes of actions
PROFESSIONAL FEATURE
based on examples from history.
When using this method, care must
be taken to ensure that the conditions
of the historical example closely
match those in the game. For cases
where the conditions are different,
a SME assessment or a discussion
among the players can be used to
modify the results of the historical
analysis. Finally, experimental cause
and effect relies on physical testing or
computerized modeling to determine
the outcome. To save time during
game play, many times this analysis
is done beforehand using a full
factorial or partial factorial design
of experiments and then tables or
equations are developed to determine
the outcome. Figure 2 (previous
page) summarizes these adjudication
methods, tradeoffs between
them, and style based on Perla’s
description.
Conclusions
Designing an analytic wargame is an
art; however, if the players, scenario,
rule set, and adjudication method are
properly selected and designed based
on the study questions, then the
wargame stands a better chance of
successfully meeting the analytical
needs of the sponsor. Once the four
critical elements of a wargame are
developed, other enabling tools such
as displays or maps, a digital interface,
calculators, and player situational
awareness aids can be added to
improve the players’ experience with
the wargame. These additional
elements, though, only help facilitate
the operation of the wargame; the four
critical elements are what ensure the
wargame focuses on the analysis and
study questions. Career Press.
Notes
a
The most commonly used guides for
wargame design are Perla (1990) and
Sabin (2014). Shorter but excellent
overviews of wargames are also
22 PHALANX – DECEMBER 2018
View publication stats
available from Pournelle (2017) and
Rubel (2006).
b
An excellent resource that discusses
the players and how to select and
organize them is available in chapter 7
of Giland (2009).
c
A good overview of scenario design
is available from McCreight (2013).
d
Games where referees decide on
the outcome of actions based on their
professional judgment are sometimes
referred to as free Kriegsspiel in
homage to an exemplar wargame of
the early 1800s.
e
Games that are adjudicated with
predetermined equations or tables
are sometimes referred to as rigid
Kriegsspiel.
f
This adjudication method is
sometimes referred to as matrix style.
g
This list is not an all-inclusive set
of adjudication methods, but is
only meant to represent possible
benchmarks along an increasing scale
of fidelity and detail.
References
Calaprice, Alice. 2010. The Ultimate
Quotable Einstein. Princeton
University Press.
Bartels, Elizabeth. 2016.
Getting the Most Out of Your
Wargame: Practical Advice For
Decision-Makers, War on the
Rocks (January 26). https://
warontherocks.com/2016/01/
getting-the-most-out-of-your-
wargame-practical-advice-for-
decision-makers/.
Giland, Benjamin. 2009. Business
War Games: How Large, Small,
and New Companies Can Vastly
Improve Their Strategies and
Outmaneuver the Competition.
McCreight, R. 2013. Scenario
Development: Using Geopolitical
Wargames and Strategic
Simulations. Environmental
Systems & Decisions, Vol 33,
No 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10669-012-9426-1.
Perla, Peter P. 1990. The Art
of Wargaming: A Guide for
Professionals and Hobbyists.
Naval Institute Press.
Pettyjohn, Stacie L., and
Shlapak, David A. 2016.
Gaming the System: Obstacles
to Reinvigorating Defense
Wargaming, War on the
Rocks (February 18). https://
warontherocks.com/2016/02/
gaming-the-system-obstacles-
to-reinvigorating-defense-
wargaming.
Pournelle, Phillip E. 2017. Designing
Wargames for the Analytic
Purpose, Phalanx, Vol 50, 48–53.
Rubel, Robert C. 2006. The
Epistemology of War Gaming,
Naval War College Review, Vol 59,
No 2, 108–128.
Sabin, Philip. 2014. Simulating
War: Studying Conflict through
Simulation Games. Bloomsbury
Academic.
Work, Robert. 2015. Wargaming
and Innovation. Department of
Defense. Washington DC.
About the Author
Lieutenant Colonel Brian Wade is an
Army aviation officer in the functional
area 49 (Operations Research and
Systems Analysis—ORSA). While
at the Center for Army Analysis, in
the campaign wargaming division
and later the strategic wargaming
division, he developed, directed,
umpired, and participated in many
wargames at the operational and
strategic levels of war for different
Combatant Commands, Army Service
Component Commands, and other
Department of Defense agencies.