Models of Models: The Symbiotic Relationship between Models and

Wargames

Vikram Mittal

, Jeffrey B. Demarest

, Kennon S. Gilliam

and Robert L. Page

Department of Systems Engineering, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, U.S.A.

Department of Strategic Wargaming, United States Army War College, Carlisle, PA, U.S.A.

Keywords: Wargames, Discrete Event Simulation, Decision Making.

Abstract: Military planning uses wargames to model the processes and decisions of an operation. As these operations

become increasingly complex, the wargames similarly become more complex. Complex wargames are

difficult to design and execute. As such, computer-based modeling and simulation can aid the wargame

development, ensuring smooth execution. In particular, computer-based modeling and simulation can develop

and validate the processes, determine initial conditions, evaluate the rules, and aid in validation. In turn, the

wargame can provide useful data that can be fed into detailed models that can provide quantitative analysis

to decision-makers.

1 INTRODUCTION

Complex problems require advanced problem solving

techniques, and the United States military has no

shortage of complex problems. Modern warfare

requires the analysis of military operations to account

for the size of modern militaries, the usage of

advanced technology, and the role of socio-political

factors. Issues that previously were solved through

simple logic now require advanced problem solving

and critical thinking to develop solutions. As such,

wargames—role played simulations of military

movements and processes—are commonly used to

evaluate strategies, tactics, and doctrine (Tolk, 2012).

In particular, table-top wargames have become an

increasingly useful tool for evaluating military

operations. Since table-top wargames are used for

aiding in critical military decisions, it is imperative

that they account for all the necessary components

and the associated interactions. To capture these

interactions, table-top wargames are typically built

using simple doctrine-based process models, which

can be emulated via computer simulations to help

inform the game planning and development. These

simple computer simulations allow a space for game

creators to quickly build, test, and adjust the game.

Though table-top wargames are powerful tools for

analysing complex processes, the results are typically

qualitative in nature. However, these qualitative

results can be used to drive a detailed computer

simulation to achieve the quantitative results required

by decision-makers. As shown in Figure 1, the

wargame and the initial simulation can remain

somewhat simplistic; they can then be combined to

produce a detailed simulation that captures the

necessary complexity of the military operation.

Hence a symbiotic relationship exists between

computer-based simulation and table-top wargames.

This paper explores this relationship further and

details this collaboration and its benefits via a recent

case study on the full mobilization of the US Army.

Figure 1: Increased complexity can be captured through the

combination of different modeling methods.

Level of Complexity

Level required

for understanding

processes

Level required

for decision

making

Mittal, V., Demarest, J., Gilliam, K. and Page, R.

Models of Models: The Symbiotic Relationship between Models and Wargames.

DOI: 10.5220/0006401502150223

In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications (SIMULTECH 2017), pages 215-223

ISBN: 978-989-758-265-3

215

2 WARGAMING IN SUPPORT OF

MILITARY PLANNING

2.1 Military Wargames

A wargame is a simulation in which theories of

tactics, doctrine, and strategy can be evaluated by

means of a disciplined process with a set of rules and

steps. Wargames can be used at every level of

decision making from tactical through strategic. The

wargame process is well-defined in the US Army’s

Field Manual (FM) 6-0: Command and Staff

Organization and Operations where it is

recommended as a means for a commander to

evaluate a course of action for an operation (2016).

A common version of the wargame is a table-top

game because this can be created in any austere

operational environment. The table-top wargame

models the process flow onto a surface, on which

game players move markers in accordance with set

rules. The game is intended to be a simplified version

of a real operation, allowing for insight into the

processes. The goal of these wargames is to develop

innovative approaches and changes to tactics,

doctrine, and strategy (Perla, 2011).

Table-top wargames are a standard practice in the

initial phases of planning a tactical scenario,

operational maneuver, or strategic campaign. As the

scope of the game increases, the design of the game

becomes more complicated. If properly designed and

developed, a table-top game provides an environment

to achieve the wargame’s purpose, which could be

analytical, experiential, or educational.

2.2 Development of a Table-top

Wargame

Figure 2 shows a standard process for developing a

table-top wargame. This process is kept at a high level

such that it is applicable to a large range of different

table-top wargames, whether tactical or strategic.

The table-top wargame is intensive and requires

enormous effort to develop and execute (Mood,

1954). Prior to developing the game, a stakeholder

analysis must be conducted to identify the purpose,

scope, and objectives of the wargame.

Table-top wargames are based on processes which

require players to complete well-defined steps within

the context of a controlled scenario. As such, the next

step in game development is determining the

underlying processes. Often, understanding these

processes involves consulting with subject-matter

experts as well as referring to doctrine.

Figure 2: Steps for developing a table-top wargame.

After the processes are determined, the rules for

the game can be written. The rules are meant to reflect

real-world constraints and requirements, forcing the

players to act in a realistic manner. For example, if a

table-top wargame replicates an offensive operation,

the set of rules would include that tanks cannot go

through a minefield, dismounted troops can only

move 12 miles per day, and beachheads must be

established prior to landing forces.

With the rules in place, the initial conditions must

now be determined. The initial conditions are critical

in setting the length and complexity of the game. The

initial conditions for an offensive operation would

include parameters such as the composition and

disposition of friendly and enemy forces.

After the initial conditions are determined, the

rules need to be re-evaluated. In particular, it is

necessary to determine injects for the game. Injects

add a variable nature to the game, similar to “chance

cards” in Monopoly. An inject for an offensive

operation could include changes in weather patterns,

changes in political climate, and an enemy ambush.

The table-top wargame then undergoes test and

validation. During this phase, a summarized version

of the game is executed by subject matter experts to

ensure that the processes, rules, and initial conditions

reflect reality. Meanwhile, they must also ensure that

the game is still simple enough that it can be readily

played, as well as confirming it can be executed

within time constraints. They also validate that the

output of the table-top wargame will answer the

stakeholders’ needs.

2.3 Execution of a Wargame

After the table-top wargame is developed, the game

can be executed. First, the players are selected.

Typically, the players have expertise relative to the

role that they will be playing. For example, an

Stakeholderanalysis

toestablish

need/scope/goalof

wargame

Consultdoctrine/

expertstodetermine

processforwargame

Establish

wargamerules

Establishinitial

conditions

Testandvalidate

wargame

Receive

Stakeh older

Feedback

SIMULTECH 2017 - 7th International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications

216

intelligence officer would play the role of the enemy

in traditional force-on-force wargames because they

are the most familiar with enemy capabilities.

The game can be played for one or multiple

iterations. However, after each time it is played, it is

crucial that there be a period of facilitated discussion.

The facilitated discussion provides insight into both

the wargame and the larger operation.

When the game is played for multiple iterations,

changes can be made to the rules to allow for

increased variability. These modifications can be

based on recommendations by the game players and

be used to foster additional discussion.

3 COMPUTER-BASED

MODELING IN SUPPORT OF

MILITARY OPERATIONAL

PLANNING

3.1 Military Computer-based Models

Simulations

The military must address problems of both detailed

and dynamic complexity (Senge, 1990). Models

reduce this complexity for decision-makers and

clarify the decision space. A model is an abstract

representation of a system, and for very complex

military operations, a model simplifies the dynamic

interactions between its entities into a sequence of

events.

Models are developed throughout the military

decision making process. Initial models are

developed from doctrine and provide theoretical

insight on processes. Later models remove layers of

abstraction and add realism to produce quantitative

data and practical findings. As these models are

developed, they can be implemented through discrete

event simulations. A discrete-event simulation is one

in which events cause state changes to occur at

discrete points in time (Harrell et al., 2004).

The military heavily relies on computer-based

discrete-event simulations as a method of testing

tactics and strategies without the need for actual

hostilities. These simulations range from those aimed

at the tactical level such as the Infantry Warrior

Simulation, Virtual Battle Space, to the strategic level

such as the Conflict Modeling, Planning, and

Outcomes Experimentation Program (Tolk, 2012).

These simulations not only have a wide range of

scopes, but they also vary significantly in regards to

complexity. While simple simulations are excellent

for getting a better understanding of a military

process, more complex simulations are typically

needed for accurate decision making. However, as the

simulations get more complex, they require more

time and resources to develop.

While the military relies heavily on simulations to

support the military decision making process, these

simulations are typically separate from the

development of table-top wargames. However, the

use of a simple high-level model in a conjunction with

a wargame allows for a more expedient development

of a simulation detailed enough for decision makers.

3.2 Initial High-level Model

Development

The first step in analysing a system is to establish the

underlying concepts and place them into a simple

abstract model. This abstract model can take the form

of a simple block diagram model, which shows a

sequence of events and the conditions that must be

satisfied for an event to occur (Wilson et al., 2013). A

standard block model diagram is shown in Figure 3.

The overall process can have multiple parallel

pathways and recursions. Moreover, each event and

condition is tied to actors that influence that event.

The Army Design Methodology promotes the use

of these models in military planning and decision

making. These models are encouraged because

“seeing something drawn may help individuals think

through challenging problems, especially when

examining abstract concepts” (FM 6-0, 2016).

Block diagram models are used throughout

modern military doctrine. Standard military planning

involves “establishing objectives, devising lines of

operations, and lines of efforts” (FM 6-0, 2016). The

objectives are the events and conditions for a discrete-

event model; the lines of operations are the process

flow between those entities; and the lines of effort are

related to the actors. Typically, objectives are

combined in series or parallel, often with feedback, to

model complex operations.

After developing the process-flow through a

block diagram model, the next step is to identify the

high-level characteristics of the military units that

will be executing the processes. During this stage of

analysis, these units should be defined with enough

detail to test and evaluate the processes. However,

determining the full details for each unit would entail

a significant data collection effort that is not

necessary at this level. That is, units should be

representative though not necessarily accurate.

These block diagram models with notional units

can be readily implemented into a discrete event

simulation which models the flow of the units through

Models of Models: The Symbiotic Relationship between Models and Wargames

217

the designated processes. For example, the simulation

of an offensive operation would model the movement

of friendly and enemy units on the battlefield. These

computer-based simulations typically remain high-

level and are useful for studying interactions between

processes and identifying constraints.

Though these models can readily be built in

Microsoft Excel

or Matlab

, commercial discrete-

event packages are useful for the visualization of the

simulation. These software packages include

ProModel

, AnyLogic

, Simio

, and ExtendSim

These software packages allow for the definition of

entities, whether they are Soldiers or units, and the

processes that they must follow. Though the

interfaces are different, these packages output a

graphical depiction of the entities executing their

processes. This graphical output is useful for working

in collaboration with a table-top wargame.

Figure 3: Example of a Block Diagram Model.

3.3 Detailed Model Development

Though the initial models and the associated

simulations are useful for understanding the

underlying processes, decision-makers need

quantitative data to inform their decisions. Therefore,

more detailed simulations are built to generate that

data. The underlying models require a large effort to

collect the necessary information, build the model,

and validate the results (Morgan et al., 2017).

These models can be built upon the initial models

by removing layers of abstraction. Since military

doctrine only provides high-level descriptions of

processes, the model designer must translate those

processes into the real-world. To do so, the model

developer must account for additional constraints and

variables that doctrine does not include.

With the processes developed, the next step is to

better characterize the units that will be executing

these processes. The units must be representative of

the real-world units. In particular, the model designer

must determine what characteristics of each unit will

affect the unit’s ability to complete each process. This

level of detail can rapidly become very granular;

therefore, it is necessary to set the scope to a level that

can be achieved with the data that can be collected.

Often the required data is not available, and

assumptions must be made. These assumptions

increase the overall uncertainty of the results.

However, when properly documented, the

stakeholders can readily take these assumptions into

account when reviewing the results. Additionally, if

the assumptions are carefully parameterized, the

model can be readily used to perform a comparative

analysis between different courses of action.

While the assumptions consist of “known

unknowns” it is often useful to include the “unknown

unknowns,” commonly termed as the “fog of war.”

Though it is difficult to absolutely quantify these

“unknown unknowns,” they can be somewhat

accounted for through multiple runs and including

variability in the input.

As the amount of data increases in the model, the

associated simulation requires additional processing

power. To this end, the commercial discrete-event

simulation packages mentioned in Section 3.2 (e.g.

ProModel

) can provide the requisite computational

power. It is necessary to ensure that the simulation

package offers enough flexibility to fully define the

processes and constraints of the model.

4 THE ROLE OF

COLLABORATION

As the complexity of the model increases, the role of

collaboration between methods becomes increasingly

beneficial. In particular, the development of the table-

top wargame and the initial models can be done in

parallel such that the simulation replicates the game.

The simulation can then be used to develop and

validate the process, evaluate the rules, and determine

the initial conditions. This collaboration can lead to a

more expedient development of a detailed model.

4.1 Developing and Validating the

Process

The initial model requires that the events, constraints,

and actors be clearly laid out, as does the wargame.

Therefore, developing these processes in parallel for

both the model and the wargame allows for the

processes to be more clearly defined.

Additionally, the initial simulations require logic

to be entered that mimics the game players. By

Start

Event1

Event2

Event3

Event4

Event5

Event6

Condition

Event7

End

yes

Actor1 Actor2Actor3

SIMULTECH 2017 - 7th International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications

218

requiring that the actions of the game players be

coded into the model, gaps in the process can be

readily identified.

Moreover, the model can reveal that certain

processes are unnecessary or inaccurate. For instance,

the overall process pulled from doctrine might

contain out-dated or tangential elements. Removing

these elements not only reduces the complexity but

also enhances the fidelity of the wargame.

Figure 4: Collaboration between block diagram models,

wargames, and discrete event models.

4.2 Determining Initial Conditions

The model aids in determining the initial conditions.

Without a computer model, the full implication for

many of the initial conditions can only be realized

through fully playing the game. The initial conditions

for a wargame must be set to avoid bottlenecks while

still requiring the game players to make key trade-off

decisions. Bottlenecks slow down the game play,

frustrating the game players; additionally, bottlenecks

force the players into following fixed processes,

stifling innovation (Tolk, 2015).

The simulation can be run numerous times to

optimize the initial conditions. These design

parameters can then be integrated into the table-top

wargame. As the wargame evolves, the simulation

can be rapidly upgraded and run to ensure that the

design parameters are still optimal.

4.3 Evaluate the Rules

The rules for a table-top wargame should be

representative of the real-world challenge that the

wargame is addressing. Additionally, it should foster

conversation, challenge the game players, and avoid

frustration. Most importantly, the rules must be clear.

The model builder is an excellent source of

feedback on the clarity of the rules. The wargame

architect provides the model builder with a copy of

the rules that would be provided to the game players.

The model builder then uses those rules as the

underlying logic for the simulation. The simulation

can then be displayed to the wargame architect to

validate that the model logic follows his intent.

Additionally, for the wargame to foster

innovation, the rules must be logical, allowing the

game-players to rapidly process the information and

introduce new methods. Similarly, logical rules are

necessary for building a model. As such, the model

builder provides feedback on the rules to the wargame

architect, ensuring that the rules are logical.

4.4 Wargame-simulation Verification

and Validation

Following the development of the wargame, it is

necessary to get the table-top wargame validated by

the stakeholders. The discrete-event simulation

provides two opportunities to aid in validation.

First, since the model was developed parallel to

the wargame, the process, rules, and initial conditions

all have been corroborated by both the wargame and

modeling teams. Though both the wargame and

modeling teams may not have subject matter

expertise, the two sets of teams can determine what

information is critical and needed to be confirmed.

Second, the simulation can show the actual flow

and operation of the table-top wargame in a media

that is conducive to the stakeholder. Stakeholders

often have limited time and they may not wish to play

the game in its entirety or explore every “what if”

scenario. As such, the stakeholder can simply watch

the simulation run an automated version of the game

to determine if it meets their needs.

Finally, the simulation can also model the

gameplay to determine if the game is biased towards

a particular outcome or set of outcomes. This gives

participants an equal opportunity to “win,” although

sometimes a biased outcome accurately replicates the

real world system.

4.5 The Role of Feedback

Table-top wargames typically output a summary of

findings. While inherently useful, the output can be

coupled with the simulation to create richer feedback

for the decision-maker. For example, if game players

are critical of certain assumptions made for the

wargame, these assumptions can be modified in the

simulation to perform a rapid sensitivity analysis.

Since the game players are typically subject

matter experts, the wargame itself is an excellent

source for information for the more detailed model. If

Complex

System

BlockDiagram

Model/

Simulation

Tabl e‐Top 

Wargame

DiscreteEvent

Modelwith

Quantitative

Output

Models of Models: The Symbiotic Relationship between Models and Wargames

219

wargame information is to be fed into a model, it is

necessary to identify what information is essential

prior to the execution of the wargame. By doing so,

the wargame can be designed to ensure that the

wargame generates this information. Additionally,

the feedback between subject matter experts and the

simulation can be used to arbitrate when simulation

parameters based on policy are not realistic.

4.6 Wider Applicability

Use of simulations is not confined to development

and refinement of wargames for military applications.

Many boxed hobby wargames could benefit from the

iterative process laid out here. This could result in a

faster delivery to market of hobby games by speeding

up the validation and game play rules, especially the

concept of fairness and equal chance to win.

5 CASE STUDY: MOBILIZATION

OF THE FULL ARMY

The United States Army conducted a study to

determine the time required for a full mobilization of

the total Army, including the Active Army, Army

Reserve, and Army National Guard. A full

mobilization involves the simultaneous activation of

the Army’s reserve soldiers for an indefinite period of

time without increasing the total number of soldiers

(i.e., a draft is not implemented). The study was

commissioned to identify issues associated with a full

mobilization, which in turn are analysed to determine

opportunities to accelerate the process.

Numerous groups throughout the Army have

looked at the mobilization process. However, they

typically looked only at specific aspects instead of the

whole process. Therefore, the wargame team

determined a table-top wargame was most

appropriate for three reasons: 1) a lack of system data

to support a full simulation; 2) foster conversation

and interaction between participants from different

organizations; and 3) make the players feel and see

the consequences of their decisions.

5.1 The Mobilization Process

Many reserve units were deployed during the Global

War on Terror; however, these units underwent a

limited, deliberate mobilization, as compared to a full

mobilization. A full mobilization involves all units

competing for limited resources to achieve a high

level of readiness related to personnel, equipment,

and training. Not only are the reserve units competing

amongst themselves for these resources, they are also

competing with active duty units. The underlying

doctrine for a full mobilization is covered in Joint

Publication 4-05 (2014).

The reserve component consists of approximately

500,000 soldiers spread out among many units

throughout the United States. These units range from

small engineer detachments (~30 Soldiers) to large

infantry brigade combat teams (~3000 Soldiers). The

complications induced by unit dissimilarity are

increased by these units being distributed amongst the

Army National Guard and Army Reserves, which

have different mobilization policies.

When mobilized, reserve units report to home

station, their assigned base for training. Active duty

units are already at home station, and these bases are

spread out across the United States. Each unit has a

certain readiness level determined by its personnel,

equipment, and training levels. They are given

resources to increase their readiness levels in those

three categories; however, these resources are

somewhat limited, especially at home station.

Units move to other training sites to increase their

readiness levels. While small active duty units can

increase their training levels at Home Station, large

units are required to conduct collective training at the

Army’s three maneuver Combat Training Centers

(CTCs). Each CTC has limited capacity, and units

must often wait for their rotation at a CTC.

Reserve units can increase their training levels at

a Mobilization Force Generation Installation (MFGI),

where they get validated to deploy. Additionally, at

the MFGI, they will receive additional personnel and

equipment. All reserve units must move through the

MFGI during their mobilization process.

Additionally, reserve units can also use the CTCs to

increase their training levels, though they have a

lower priority than active duty units.

Once units are fully manned, trained, and

equipped, they move to the Port of Embarkation

(POE). At the POE, the units await for transportation

to their deployed location.

5.2 Block Diagram Model and

Wargame Setup

This set of processes was modelled in ProModel

create a simple discrete-event simulation. A

screenshot of the model is shown in Figure 5. The

table-top wargame followed a similar set of processes

with the board shown in Figure 6.

Active duty and reserve units are broken up by

component; they are further divided into large units

SIMULTECH 2017 - 7th International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications

220

(~brigade) and small units (~battalion). Each unit is

given a score between 0 and 3 for their manning,

equipment, and training levels. For a unit to deploy,

they must have a score of 3 in all the categories.

During each turn, manning and equipment points are

added to different locations (i.e., home station, MFGI,

CTC, POE), such that game players can allocate those

points to units at that location. Additionally, units at

a training site can receive training points.

The POE requests units to arrive in an order that

meets the deployment needs. These requests only

state whether they want a large or small unit and

whether that unit is active or reserve component. The

game players then select the units to fill these needs.

Each turn, there is a point penalty associated with

units being idle. Additionally, a penalty is associated

for deploying units out of order. The goal of the

wargame was to limit the number of turns required

while minimizing penalty points.

In November 2016, the table-top wargame was

played at the United States Army War College for

three different iterations. The first iteration was a

baseline game, allowing the wargame participants to

familiarize themselves with the rules. The second

iteration included additional constraints. The third

iteration allowed the participants to implement

changes that could speed up the mobilization process.

The goal of the game was to challenge the players

and to foster communication such that they discussed

innovative real-world strategies that could be

implemented to speed up the mobilization process.

Figure 5: Screenshot of the ProModel

simulation of the

basic mobilization process.

Figure 6: Screenshot of the surface used in the mobilization

table-top wargame.

5.3 Relationship between

Discrete-event Simulation and

Wargame

The table-top wargame and discrete-event simulation

were developed in parallel following an initial

workshop where a panel of subject matter experts

agreed upon a set mobilization process. The

simulation informed the table-top wargame and

helped set a number of the design parameters.

In particular, the intent was that the wargame

would take 18 turns, with each turn taking up to 10

minutes, for a total of 3 hours. The number of turns

required to complete the game were dependent on a

number of parameters to include the following:

 Starting manning/equipping/training level

 Capacities of different training centers

 Manning and equipment points per turn

 Output capacity of POE

The simulation was run multiple times across the

design space in order to fine tune the number of turns

to being between 16 and 20.

Figure 7 shows an example of this analysis; the

average output of the POE was varied to determine its

impact on the total number of turns. When the

average POE output was reduced below 6 units per

turn, a bottleneck occurs. Therefore, the average

output was set to be greater than 6 units per turn.

Additionally, the simulation identified design

issues with the wargame prior to execution. For

example, early versions of the wargame provided

personnel at the POE; however, no unit arriving at the

POE could accept additional personnel. If units had

below a score of 3 in personnel, they cannot achieve

the training score of 3 required to reach the POE.

Models of Models: The Symbiotic Relationship between Models and Wargames

221

Figure 7: Analysis on the impact of the output capacity of

the POE on the total number of turns for the wargame.

The successful replication of the table-top

wargame in a computer simulation allowed the game

designers to focus on the interaction of players and

achieve the purpose of the wargame. Wargame

designers were able to adjust inputs, anticipate

participant questions, and quickly adjust the rule set

because of the cooperation and iteration with

simulation developers. Participants also spent very

little time “fighting the game” because it was so well

fine-tuned.

Moreover, the simulation was run and shown to

many of the participants and stakeholders to allow

them to see the process being utilized by the

wargame. By doing so, they were able to validate the

process, rules, and initial conditions.

The scale of this table-top wargame was fairly

vast in that it incorporated the full Army, as opposed

to just select units. Wargames of this scale typically

take six to eight months to plan and fine-tune.

Developing the simulation in parallel to the table-top

wargame reduced this time to two months.

5.4 Wargame Outputs into a

Quantitative Model

The initial model and the table-top wargame created

the foundation for a more detailed simulation of the

full mobilization process. The updated model does

not generalize between units or locations; rather, it

models each individual unit, MFGI, CTC, and POE.

Additionally, the processes are decomposed to

identify opportunities for optimization. By removing

these layers of abstraction, the simulation allows

decision makers to make informed decisions on how

to enhance the mobilization process.

The table-top wargame provided significant

refinement into the model. For instance, the feedback

from the game players found that several of the

processes in the model were unnecessary.

Additionally, they identified several additional

constraints that play a major role in the mobilization

process, including the time to open new MFGIs,

back-ups at the POE, and limitations on

transportation resources. Beyond its validation value,

the table-top wargame itself was an ideal place to

make contacts that can provide critical data for the

model. Since many of the game players were subject

matter experts on an aspect of the mobilization

process, they ultimately had access to the raw data

that the detailed model needed.

6 CONCLUSIONS

Military planning uses table-top wargames as a

technique to model the processes and decisions of an

operation. Current and future military operations have

high levels of complexity, potentially leading to very

complex table-top wargames.

As table-top wargames become increasingly

complex, computer-based simulations can aid in

wargame development. In particular, they can

develop and validate the processes, determine initial

conditions, evaluate the rules, and aid in validation.

In turn, the wargame can provide useful data that can

be fed into detailed models that can provide

quantitative analysis to decision-makers. Simply put,

the relationship between computer-based simulation

and table-top wargames is symbiotic and the outputs

of this symbiosis are more efficient analysis,

enhanced insights and ultimately, better decisions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported by the United States

Army War College’s Department of Strategic

Wargaming through the Department of the Army G1.

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed in this article are those of the

authors and do not reflect the official policy or

position of the Department of the Army, Department

of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

REFERENCES

Field Manual 6-0 (2016). Commander and Staff

Organization and Operations. Washington D.C.:

Headquarters, Department of the Army.

Harrell, C., Ghosh, B., Bowden, R. (2004). Simulation

Using ProModel. New York: McGraw-Hill.

345678

Number of Turns for Game

Average Output Capacity of POE (Units / Turn)

Bottleneck exists

when POE output

capacity less than 6

SIMULTECH 2017 - 7th International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications

222

Joint Mobilization Planning (2014, February 21). Joint

Mobilization Planning. Washington D.C.: Joint Chief

of Staff.

Mood, A.M. (1954). War Gaming as a Technique of

Analysis. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

Morgan, J.S., Howick, S., Belton, V. (2017). “A toolkit of

designs for mixing Discrete Event Simulation and

System Dynamics.” European Journal of Operational

Research. Vol 257.

Perla, P., McGrady, E.D. (2011). “Why Wargaming

Works.” Naval War College Review. Vol 65. No. 3.

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York:

Doubleday.

Tolk, A. (2012). Combat Modeling. Hoboken, NJ: John

Wiley & Sons.

Wilson, P., Manhooth, H.A. (2013). Model-Based

Engineering for Complex Electronic Systems. Oxford,

UK: Newnes.

Models of Models: The Symbiotic Relationship between Models and Wargames

223