Thread by @SebastianBae

Everyone is talking about the @CSIS #Taiwan wargame. So let me share some thoughts as a #wargame designer and analyst on how to "interrogate" a wargame. Context is key. A thread 🧵. 1/x bloomberg.com/news/articles/…

I will caveat everything that follows with the fact that I did not participate (due to conflicting schedules) and have not seen it played so I will only discuss what I have read in various articles and have heard from first person accounts. 2/x

In terms of design, there are promising signs to this wargame. The iterative approach, the expertise of players, and the fact it takes an unclassified approach to inform the public. All good signs. 👍 I am looking forward to the final report to dive into the details. 3/x

But there are important disclaimers/caveats for wargames in general that the casual consumer/reader should keep in mind. First, the numbers of fighters, missiles, etc are less important than the WHY behind player decisions. Games are not predictive. 4/x

Games excel in exploring the logic, perceptions, and rationale of players on why they pursue a specific action or another. Games focus on the HUMAN element of decision making. The numbers of ships sunk is less important than the reason of HOW and WHY they were sunk. 5/x

With that said, games like all models whether in a game or in a computer simulation, has assumptions that should be dissected and analysed. This is NOT necessarily a bad thing -- just something to keep in mind. Focus + scope will naturally force assumptions. 6/x

Using my own Littoral Commander as an example, there are assumptions baked into the rules about the efficiency of IAMD, shot calculus, and completely ignores "morale" of units. All games compromise on some aspects, this is required for simplification. 7/x

The important part is to make sure the consumer -- whether analyst, policymaker, or player -- understands these said assumptions. This is why designer journals or reports that detail them are critical. Example below from the forthcoming journal for Littoral Commander. 8/x

So do NOT be hasty in judgement about this wargame - good or bad - until you read the final report. Wait until you can dive into the details of adjudication + assumptions. More importantly, it will hopefully place the gameplay into context and help understand the WHY + HOW. 9/x

And when the report is out - consider these questions. What was the purpose of the game? Who were the players? What were the assumptions? How did the design shape gameplay? What other supporting evidence supports the game's insights? How were actions adjudicated? 10/x

There are also other professional wargames exploring future conflicts, including Taiwan. My own Littoral Commander was sent to USMC units in 2020 and near commerical release. And the USMC's (by Tim Barrick) OWS wargame has several modules since 2019. 11/x

Lastly, I will leave you with this.

"War-gaming is about the process, not the result—and analyzing that process is what will allow the U.S. military to turn losing into winning."

THE END. 🧵
foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/03/tai…