Going waaaaay back in the archives here (try 7 freakin' years!) for the original set of designer's noted I wrote for a website that is now a mere shell of itself.
Warfighter 101 System
Greetings! This is my first stab at writing out my developer’s notes for any of my game designs, so bear with me a bit here.
The Warfighter 101 system came into being the in spring of 2001. I was a wage slave looking for something I could play on weekends with a few of my wargame-loving buddies in the National Guard. With summer fast approaching in South Carolina, we needed an entertaining indoor pursuit. All of us had played wargames throughout our youth, but had stepped away from the hobby over the years. It turns out that none of us left wargaming because of time, money, or availability of opponents. We simply couldn’t find a game we enjoyed playing. We had knocked around some games of Squad Leader and PanzerBlitz/PanzerLeader but we really wanted to play games with a modern theme to them. We tried MBT, and even though we are/were all armor officers, we just couldn’t stomach the system; it didn’t move fast enough for us.
much more after the jump!
Showing posts with label Battle Lab. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Battle Lab. Show all posts
10 March 2012
01 March 2012
Battle Lab: Games and Sims for Training and Learning
This might be one of my favorite topics (as evidenced by the bibliography on this site as well) and was the subject of much of my academic work, as well.
This article was originally published in Battles magazine #3, and was cited in Dr Sabin's book Simulating War.
Dr James Sterrett (of the US Army CGSC) has previously offered his thoughts on the topic, as well.
Games and Sims for Training and Learning
This is a favorite topic of mine, and the Origins War College has hosted several panels over the last few years devoted specifically to the basic topic of “What is a game and what is a sim, and what can we do with them?”
In the world of military training, games and simulations have developed over the years from map exercises to elaborate digital virtual reality exercises. In many cases, the tools developed for training have come from commercial products, or were later converted into commercial products, and thus the wargaming community has the opportunity to poke, prod, and play with comparable tools to those used to train soldiers and sailors around the globe. As the world has gone digital, many of these tools and toys have moved away from tabletops and into computer monitors, but the underlying heart – the game engine – is still of great interest to gamers.
Mapping the conceptual terrain bounded by games-simulations-exercises is more than just an intellectual exercise, as it allows us all to establish a common conceptual framework and vocabulary for the future discussion of the utility of these games and sims. It also allows to discuss with more specificity our exact likes and dislikes, and level of comfort with the features and processes, and the underlying mechanisms that make them go.
When describing the use of games for training and learning purposes, there are several concepts that must first be understood, and their meanings agreed upon, before the best use of games and simulations can determined.
This article was originally published in Battles magazine #3, and was cited in Dr Sabin's book Simulating War.
Dr James Sterrett (of the US Army CGSC) has previously offered his thoughts on the topic, as well.
Games and Sims for Training and Learning
This is a favorite topic of mine, and the Origins War College has hosted several panels over the last few years devoted specifically to the basic topic of “What is a game and what is a sim, and what can we do with them?”
In the world of military training, games and simulations have developed over the years from map exercises to elaborate digital virtual reality exercises. In many cases, the tools developed for training have come from commercial products, or were later converted into commercial products, and thus the wargaming community has the opportunity to poke, prod, and play with comparable tools to those used to train soldiers and sailors around the globe. As the world has gone digital, many of these tools and toys have moved away from tabletops and into computer monitors, but the underlying heart – the game engine – is still of great interest to gamers.
Mapping the conceptual terrain bounded by games-simulations-exercises is more than just an intellectual exercise, as it allows us all to establish a common conceptual framework and vocabulary for the future discussion of the utility of these games and sims. It also allows to discuss with more specificity our exact likes and dislikes, and level of comfort with the features and processes, and the underlying mechanisms that make them go.
When describing the use of games for training and learning purposes, there are several concepts that must first be understood, and their meanings agreed upon, before the best use of games and simulations can determined.
much, much more - including graphics! - after the jump
25 February 2012
Battle Lab: Your First Convention
Continuing our series of articles being reprinted from elsewhere, here's one that originally appeared in the now-sadly-defunct Scrye, talking about what to expect out of your first game convention.
Your first convention
Planning
Conventions can be a great way to get your game in front of your audience. The high concentration of gamers and the foot traffic in the exhibit hall make for a target-rich environment for a new company. If you're looking to spread the word about yourself, setting up shop at a convention is a great way to do it.
The first question you really need to ask is “Why are we going to the convention?” Are you focusing on selling product? Building some buzz around your company? Trying to meet people and show off your game for another company to pick you up? If you don’t go into the show with a solid definition of success, you won’t have much of a measuring stick to gauge your overall investment in time and effort.
One of your next decisions needs to be "which convention?" Staying close to home, or with a friend, can cut down the overall cost. If a local convention is not an option, then try to shoot for a convention whose major events are closest to your core products. GenCon is a heavy RPG show; Origins is a role-playing and board-gaming mix, with some card events for good measure. There are many smaller, local cons as well, and they are often willing to offer booth space to a company at a low rate.
Get your deposits in as soon as possible. The difference in cost can be dramatic. As an example, at Origins 2006, a booth cost $555 if paid by January 10, but went up to $671 if paid at the end of March. For a new company, the $120 difference might make or break your first show.
Finally, you need to decide on your booth crew. Drafting a friend is a cheap way to man your booth. But you need to make sure that folks working your booth are as well-versed in your product as you are. Remember, the customer doesn’t know that your buddy is just here for the free convention; the customer sees a representative of your company behind the table.
much more after the jump!
Your first convention
Planning
Conventions can be a great way to get your game in front of your audience. The high concentration of gamers and the foot traffic in the exhibit hall make for a target-rich environment for a new company. If you're looking to spread the word about yourself, setting up shop at a convention is a great way to do it.
The first question you really need to ask is “Why are we going to the convention?” Are you focusing on selling product? Building some buzz around your company? Trying to meet people and show off your game for another company to pick you up? If you don’t go into the show with a solid definition of success, you won’t have much of a measuring stick to gauge your overall investment in time and effort.
One of your next decisions needs to be "which convention?" Staying close to home, or with a friend, can cut down the overall cost. If a local convention is not an option, then try to shoot for a convention whose major events are closest to your core products. GenCon is a heavy RPG show; Origins is a role-playing and board-gaming mix, with some card events for good measure. There are many smaller, local cons as well, and they are often willing to offer booth space to a company at a low rate.
Get your deposits in as soon as possible. The difference in cost can be dramatic. As an example, at Origins 2006, a booth cost $555 if paid by January 10, but went up to $671 if paid at the end of March. For a new company, the $120 difference might make or break your first show.
Finally, you need to decide on your booth crew. Drafting a friend is a cheap way to man your booth. But you need to make sure that folks working your booth are as well-versed in your product as you are. Remember, the customer doesn’t know that your buddy is just here for the free convention; the customer sees a representative of your company behind the table.
much more after the jump!
06 November 2011
More Thoughts on Tactical Intel and Wargaming
Expanding on one of the ideas discussed in yesterday's article...
In the tactical world, we have several different tools we use to ensure that we get the right data at the right time.
One of the key methods involves the use of map graphics. We use transparent overlays on standard-size military maps (1:50k) and use graphics to indicate enemy actions: locations of units, routes for movement, places we expect them to attack or defend, etc.
For every operation we draw at least two sets of these graphics. The first is the most likely course of action, based on our knowledge of how the enemy fights. That knowledge may come from doctrine, observed behavior, or (best of all) an inside source. The second course of action is usually what we call the "most dangerous" and is based on what we think the enemy would do if they had perfect knowledge of us and our plans.
as always, click to enlarge the images
Once we have two sets of graphics drawn out, we take the two overlays and lay them one on top of the other. This lets us visualize where the differences/similarities are between the courses of action. Where the COAs diverge are areas that we need to target with some form of observation, to try and identify which course of action the enemy is pursuing. In a time-constrained environment, these graphics will often become the basis of our own plan, where the divergent points become the focus of recon efforts, and the similarities become target reference points or engagement areas, since we expect the enemy to appear there regardless of COA.
as always, click to enlarge the images
Once we've identified where we need to look, the next step is to identify when we need to look there, since some information is time-specific. When I say "look" I don't just mean literally "a guy on a hillside with binoculars and a radio." It can be a variety of sensors: ground surveillance radar, JSTARS, UAVs, counter-battery radars, or other sensors. We determine when we need to have what type of coverage based on (a) what we are looking for, and (b) how easy we can get the appropriate sensors in place. Sometimes the best we get is a satellite overflight from the NRO, but we have to take what we can get.
In the end, we have our list of Named Areas of Interest (NAIs) and what indicators we are looking for there. Then we assign at least 2 sets of sensors to each. Some may be duplicative; some may only be backup measures. The commander may also give us some guidance on his priorities, and require that we have three or even four sets of eyes on certain things, if they're deemed critical. Based on what we find in each of the NAIs, the commander may trigger certain actions among our forces to react to the new info.
Depending on the amount of time available to (a) plan and (b) execute, we may develop more than two COAs, but we virtually always develop at least 2. We may also alter the amount of analysis we do during the mission of before the mission. NAIs are often based on analysis conducted before the mission, where we project certain indicators and the meaning of those indicators. If the indicators are triggered, then that adds to the overall picture we can confirm/deny.
This is pretty specialized, I know. But it's also pretty important, and we practice/refine/rehearse this a lot.
Here's some random annoying guy explaining all of this, using graphics that look awfully similar to what's up above.
By: Brant
In the tactical world, we have several different tools we use to ensure that we get the right data at the right time.
One of the key methods involves the use of map graphics. We use transparent overlays on standard-size military maps (1:50k) and use graphics to indicate enemy actions: locations of units, routes for movement, places we expect them to attack or defend, etc.
For every operation we draw at least two sets of these graphics. The first is the most likely course of action, based on our knowledge of how the enemy fights. That knowledge may come from doctrine, observed behavior, or (best of all) an inside source. The second course of action is usually what we call the "most dangerous" and is based on what we think the enemy would do if they had perfect knowledge of us and our plans.
Enemy COA 1 | Enemy COA 2 |
Once we have two sets of graphics drawn out, we take the two overlays and lay them one on top of the other. This lets us visualize where the differences/similarities are between the courses of action. Where the COAs diverge are areas that we need to target with some form of observation, to try and identify which course of action the enemy is pursuing. In a time-constrained environment, these graphics will often become the basis of our own plan, where the divergent points become the focus of recon efforts, and the similarities become target reference points or engagement areas, since we expect the enemy to appear there regardless of COA.
NAIs - Where to look for differences | Targeting/Engagement Areas - Where you expect to find the enemy |
Once we've identified where we need to look, the next step is to identify when we need to look there, since some information is time-specific. When I say "look" I don't just mean literally "a guy on a hillside with binoculars and a radio." It can be a variety of sensors: ground surveillance radar, JSTARS, UAVs, counter-battery radars, or other sensors. We determine when we need to have what type of coverage based on (a) what we are looking for, and (b) how easy we can get the appropriate sensors in place. Sometimes the best we get is a satellite overflight from the NRO, but we have to take what we can get.
In the end, we have our list of Named Areas of Interest (NAIs) and what indicators we are looking for there. Then we assign at least 2 sets of sensors to each. Some may be duplicative; some may only be backup measures. The commander may also give us some guidance on his priorities, and require that we have three or even four sets of eyes on certain things, if they're deemed critical. Based on what we find in each of the NAIs, the commander may trigger certain actions among our forces to react to the new info.
Depending on the amount of time available to (a) plan and (b) execute, we may develop more than two COAs, but we virtually always develop at least 2. We may also alter the amount of analysis we do during the mission of before the mission. NAIs are often based on analysis conducted before the mission, where we project certain indicators and the meaning of those indicators. If the indicators are triggered, then that adds to the overall picture we can confirm/deny.
This is pretty specialized, I know. But it's also pretty important, and we practice/refine/rehearse this a lot.
Here's some random annoying guy explaining all of this, using graphics that look awfully similar to what's up above.
By: Brant
05 November 2011
Battle Lab: Recon and Wargaming
this was originally published over at Wargamer.com, but after their site reboot, most of the links/graphics are broken, so we're republishing it here
Integrating Tactical Intelligence into Board Wargaming
What is Intelligence? What is Tactical Intelligence?
Intel is critical information needed to make decisions; that information is currently unknown, or known but likely to change. Tactical intelligence is specific to the battlespace in which a commander operates, and is needed to make decisions of a direct military nature, involving the employment of battlefield operating systems to accomplish his mission.
For example, a commander may not know the strength of the enemy's force at all - a situation common in naval combat. In this case, he is dealing with a "pure" unknown. In another case, he may be familiar with the enemy's initial strength, but following attrition for maintenance and expected harassment and interdiction firesH&I fires, it can be expected that the enemy will hit the commander’s main defensive belt at something less than full strength, but the exact strength is uncertain.
Another common occurrence in reality, but rare in games (especially historical ones because of the way that scenarios are designed), a commander might have a fairly complete enemy order of battle – and his reconnaissance may even have eyes on the enemy – but he has no idea what the enemy objective is.
In any case, that commander has information about the enemy that he needs. That information is intelligence. It's often developed through inference, and it's rarely an exact science. Based on what can be seen, what does that tell us about the enemy's strength, intentions, and capabilities? Based on what is known, what can be extrapolated?
These are the challenges that commanders face in a real-world intelligence development environment.
much, much more, including some sample scenarios, after the jump
Integrating Tactical Intelligence into Board Wargaming
What is Intelligence? What is Tactical Intelligence?
Intel is critical information needed to make decisions; that information is currently unknown, or known but likely to change. Tactical intelligence is specific to the battlespace in which a commander operates, and is needed to make decisions of a direct military nature, involving the employment of battlefield operating systems to accomplish his mission.
For example, a commander may not know the strength of the enemy's force at all - a situation common in naval combat. In this case, he is dealing with a "pure" unknown. In another case, he may be familiar with the enemy's initial strength, but following attrition for maintenance and expected harassment and interdiction firesH&I fires, it can be expected that the enemy will hit the commander’s main defensive belt at something less than full strength, but the exact strength is uncertain.
Another common occurrence in reality, but rare in games (especially historical ones because of the way that scenarios are designed), a commander might have a fairly complete enemy order of battle – and his reconnaissance may even have eyes on the enemy – but he has no idea what the enemy objective is.
In any case, that commander has information about the enemy that he needs. That information is intelligence. It's often developed through inference, and it's rarely an exact science. Based on what can be seen, what does that tell us about the enemy's strength, intentions, and capabilities? Based on what is known, what can be extrapolated?
These are the challenges that commanders face in a real-world intelligence development environment.
much, much more, including some sample scenarios, after the jump
21 August 2011
Battle Lab: Sequencing the Fight
Another older reprint from a few years ago.
First, a player has to determine where the decisive point on the battlefield likely will be. In some cases, that decisive point is in the instructions: "Seize the city of Bugtussle from the enemy." In other cases, it requires some predictive analysis to know where the enemy is headed, especially if the mission is kill bad guys.
In some cases, sequencing is easy, especially in games where the player can control what units set up in specific locations. In other cases, it can be difficult, especially if some of the sequencing is designated for the player, such as reinforcements that are mandated to appear on certain turns.
As always, the examples discussed below follow some general US doctrinal principles, but are not bound by US doctrinal terms. Also, although these principles apply to other types of games (naval, air, etc) the examples focus on ground combat, since that's what I know best.
Hell, if it was easy, everyone would do it.
more after the jump! (click the article header for the full article)
Sequencing the fight, AKA Backwards Planning
What is Sequencing?
Sequencing is the process of arranging units on the battlefield such that a commander (or gamer) creates favorable matchups for his forces at the critical points on the battlefield. While this sounds simple enough in theory, the truth is that it can be difficult in practice for a variety of reasons.First, a player has to determine where the decisive point on the battlefield likely will be. In some cases, that decisive point is in the instructions: "Seize the city of Bugtussle from the enemy." In other cases, it requires some predictive analysis to know where the enemy is headed, especially if the mission is kill bad guys.
In some cases, sequencing is easy, especially in games where the player can control what units set up in specific locations. In other cases, it can be difficult, especially if some of the sequencing is designated for the player, such as reinforcements that are mandated to appear on certain turns.
As always, the examples discussed below follow some general US doctrinal principles, but are not bound by US doctrinal terms. Also, although these principles apply to other types of games (naval, air, etc) the examples focus on ground combat, since that's what I know best.
OK, so what?
Hell, if it was easy, everyone would do it.
more after the jump! (click the article header for the full article)
18 June 2011
Battle Lab: Fog of War(Gaming)
Originally published at The Wargamer
“Fog of War is the state of affairs on the battlefield (or pertaining to it) that is beyond a commander's knowledge. For example, a commander may have a unit which has achieved a specific objective, but the commander is unaware of it due to the fact not having been relayed back to him. A second example may be that a specific objective may house an enemy commander's HQ but that knowledge is withheld for whatever reason; in terms of conditions on the battlefield may appear to be an irrelevant objective or one that seems a dangerous, undefined, or irrelevant mission.”
“the enemy's course of action is unknown and/or unconfirmed.”
“Fog of War refers to the confusion and lack of certainty a commander faces while making decisions on how to conduct a battle or war. Since modern war occurs over an area too large for a single commander to view, they rely on information from various sources to develop a mental model of what is occurring. They make their judgment and issue orders based on what they believe is occurring. Lack of information, wrong information, late information, all contribute to create an imperfect perception of what is occurring. This disconnect between what the commander thinks is occurring and what actually is occurring is referred to as the Fog of War.”
“The Fog of War is the lack of certainty in regard to the intent and composition of the enemy.”
“It is summed up as uncertainty based on lack of knowledge.”
“The Fog of War is that period of uncertainty from when the Enemy's intentions are surmised and the enemy's actions are known.”
“All the things everyone doesn't know for sure during an armed conflict.”
So, generally, the “fog of war” is the lack of perfect situational awareness that comes about naturally as a result of actions on the battlefield. Of course it can be present in varying degrees – it is never either “on” or “off”. Curiously enough, the US Army and Marine Corps have no official definitions in their field manuals defining operational terms and graphics.
When examining the issues around “fog of war” however, how can we apply the problems, and their potential solutions, to boardgaming. This is one area in which our computer-gaming brethren have our butts kicked. Computer models can integrate a variety of fog of war effects, in large part because the computer can hide or reveal as much or as little as the programmers desire. It’s much harder to hid information when it’s all printed on a counter in front of you.
more after the jump! (click the article header for the full article)
The Fog of War(gaming)
What is the Fog of War?
If ask 10 different people, you’ll get 10 different answers. In fact, I did just that, and here are some excerpts:“Fog of War is the state of affairs on the battlefield (or pertaining to it) that is beyond a commander's knowledge. For example, a commander may have a unit which has achieved a specific objective, but the commander is unaware of it due to the fact not having been relayed back to him. A second example may be that a specific objective may house an enemy commander's HQ but that knowledge is withheld for whatever reason; in terms of conditions on the battlefield may appear to be an irrelevant objective or one that seems a dangerous, undefined, or irrelevant mission.”
“the enemy's course of action is unknown and/or unconfirmed.”
“Fog of War refers to the confusion and lack of certainty a commander faces while making decisions on how to conduct a battle or war. Since modern war occurs over an area too large for a single commander to view, they rely on information from various sources to develop a mental model of what is occurring. They make their judgment and issue orders based on what they believe is occurring. Lack of information, wrong information, late information, all contribute to create an imperfect perception of what is occurring. This disconnect between what the commander thinks is occurring and what actually is occurring is referred to as the Fog of War.”
“The Fog of War is the lack of certainty in regard to the intent and composition of the enemy.”
“It is summed up as uncertainty based on lack of knowledge.”
“The Fog of War is that period of uncertainty from when the Enemy's intentions are surmised and the enemy's actions are known.”
“All the things everyone doesn't know for sure during an armed conflict.”
So, generally, the “fog of war” is the lack of perfect situational awareness that comes about naturally as a result of actions on the battlefield. Of course it can be present in varying degrees – it is never either “on” or “off”. Curiously enough, the US Army and Marine Corps have no official definitions in their field manuals defining operational terms and graphics.
When examining the issues around “fog of war” however, how can we apply the problems, and their potential solutions, to boardgaming. This is one area in which our computer-gaming brethren have our butts kicked. Computer models can integrate a variety of fog of war effects, in large part because the computer can hide or reveal as much or as little as the programmers desire. It’s much harder to hid information when it’s all printed on a counter in front of you.
more after the jump! (click the article header for the full article)
31 May 2011
Battle Lab: Logistics
Originally published in Battles Magazine #1, and republished by The Wargamer. This was due to run yesterday - and most of the reprints will hit on Mondays - but we pushed this one b/c of Memorial Day.
++++++++++++++++++
Here’s a logic puzzle for you.
You have 4 snakes that have to get through a maze. They each have a destination, but there are only 3 start points and only 3 endpoints. Oh, and the routes through the maze cross in several places, which means you have to sequence your snakes through the maze. And by the way, there is a certain sequence the snakes need to depart and arrive.
Does your head hurt yet? What if we started putting some obstacles in the maze? How about if the snakes stop off for a bite to eat? What if we start including snakes going the other direction, too? Some passageways are too small for some snakes, do you route them through those pathways to free up space for other snakes even if the smaller ones now take longer to get where they’re going?
Welcome to the world of military logistics planning. As you can see, it’s a very intricate dance, and – quite honestly – a lousy game. There’s a limited amount of “oogah oogah grunt grunt” appeal to convoy route planning and sequencing, especially when compared against main battle tanks killing targets at 3500m, and infantry bayonet charges into the teeth of the enemy line.
more after the jump! (click the article header for the full article)
++++++++++++++++++
Here’s a logic puzzle for you.
You have 4 snakes that have to get through a maze. They each have a destination, but there are only 3 start points and only 3 endpoints. Oh, and the routes through the maze cross in several places, which means you have to sequence your snakes through the maze. And by the way, there is a certain sequence the snakes need to depart and arrive.
Does your head hurt yet? What if we started putting some obstacles in the maze? How about if the snakes stop off for a bite to eat? What if we start including snakes going the other direction, too? Some passageways are too small for some snakes, do you route them through those pathways to free up space for other snakes even if the smaller ones now take longer to get where they’re going?
Welcome to the world of military logistics planning. As you can see, it’s a very intricate dance, and – quite honestly – a lousy game. There’s a limited amount of “oogah oogah grunt grunt” appeal to convoy route planning and sequencing, especially when compared against main battle tanks killing targets at 3500m, and infantry bayonet charges into the teeth of the enemy line.
more after the jump! (click the article header for the full article)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
