banner

Rules

Use Free Kriegsspiel Rules

One definition says that Free Kriegsspiel is: "A mechanism where two opposing courses of action are explained to an Umpire who decides on which course will prevail, based on historical precedence, personal experience, reasoned debate and his own judgement. There are no rules to resolve battles..." So, it may seem simple: seminar war games are much like Free Kriegsspiel: no rules!

Putting it another way, there are three rules:

• Rule 1: See Rule #2.
• Rule 2: There are no rules other than these three.
• Rule 3: There is no Rule #3.

Well, actually, it is a bit more complicated! It may look like there are no rules, but there have to be some rules. Indeed, the rules are so complicated that they can hardly be written down. It comes down to the facilitator or umpire (or a control staff if the activity is large enough to require that) using their judgement to determine outcomes.

General War-Gaming Rules

• "War gamers need to— 
  • Remain objective, not allowing personality or their sense of 'what the commander wants' to influence them. They avoid defending a COA [Course of Action] just because they personally developed it. [Check your egos at the door.]
  • Record advantages and disadvantages of each COA accurately as they emerge.
  • Continually assess feasibility, acceptability, and suitability of each COA. If a COA fails any of these tests, they reject it.
  • Avoid drawing premature conclusions and gathering facts to support such conclusions.
  • Avoid comparing one COA with another during the war game. This occurs during COA comparison [another step later in the Military Decision Making Process]."
• Two additional points rules that the Field Manual indicates should be part of preparation for and conduct of war gaming are:
  • "List Assumptions": As development of the war game proceeds, a list of assumptions should be developed. "The commander and staff review previous assumptions for continued validity and necessity." The assumptions on the list (a living document) may be critical subsequently to determine if the war game results are still valid: a point may be reached where assumptions that previously seemed true are now patently false. Such circumstances may invalidate all results of a war game, or they may force a re-evaluation and adjustment with newly discovered gaps filled by military judgement, or they may warrant an ensuing war game with revised assumptions.
  • "List Known Critical Events and Decision Points": "Critical events are those that directly influence mission accomplishment. They include events that trigger significant actions or decisions (such as commitment of an enemy reserve), complicated actions requiring detailed study (such as a passage of lines), and essential tasks. The list of critical events includes major events from the unit’s current position through mission accomplishment." [Note: This list should be invaluable in developing a scenario; a well written scenario should guide participants through most of the critical events and decision points that can be anticipated.]

Rules of the Facilitator, Umpire, or Referee and the Control Staff

• The principal objective of the control staff should be to promote full and frank discussion, particularly over critical events and material relevant to decision points. Control staff includes the facilitator, but also specialist advisors, observers, liaison officers, and adjudicators, if the scale of the activity warrants them. Here are some tips (rules?) for the control staff:
• • Arrive prepared -- When feasible, engage  in preparation for the war game to develop an intimate familiarity with potential critical events and decision points, as well as the general background the participants will be using (e.g., the scenario). Then review the scenario and other background material before the war game begins.
  • Know the language -- In professional circles, jargon is rife, and this is particularly true in military circles. Be aware of elementary professional issues, e.g., sizes of units, levels of command, rules of engagement before the war game starts. If a point comes out that that is unfamiliar, ask for a brief explanation (keep it factual and specifically on what the unfamiliar term means). Do not proceed with debate on some important professional point if issues and debating points will be expressed in impenetrable jargon. Note that the credibility of a facilitator will decline quickly if participants conclude that he is out of his depth. Pretending to know obscure jargon will generally not help a facilitator gain credibility. Indeed many in the room will probably be relieved when the facilitator asks that jargon be defined in "layman's terms" -- not everyone knows everything.
  • Involve participants from the beginning -- If participants are not known to each other, have them introduce themselves and provide a summary of their interest in the war game. Consider scheduling some social event ("a meet and greet") to precede the start of the war game so participants can get to know one another in a low-stress situation.
  • Monitor time and apportion it wisely -- Generally a fixed amount of time will have been allocated to war game activity. Nonetheless participants may need some extra time to provide their contributions. Be wary of cutting off a participant with "Sorry, we're out of time" -- that will only make participants feel they are there merely for "cosmetic reasons", and will consequently suppress further debate. Keep a reserve of time (shorten coffee breaks or lunch breaks if necessary) so all participants feel they have time to make points they feel are important.
  • Draw in all participants to engage in discourse -- Solicit responses from those who seem reticent. Watch for nonverbal clues that participants who hardly participate still may have more to say, and then call upon them. If important constituencies have not been heard from, call upon them directly, e.g., if the "2 Shop" has not spoken up during a staff discussion with a view from the intelligence community, an important point of view is likely to be missing.
  • Listen -- Attend to the ideas and feelings of the participants. Note that there may be non-verbal clues to attitudes of participants. If participants feel their opinions do not count with the control staff (and non-verbal gestures are critical), they may cease to contribute -- "no one is listening anyway".
  • Encourage use of feedback mechanisms other than discourse when appropriate and in the interest of time -- Since time is usually in short supply, advise participants that they can pursue points in greater detail through other means, e.g., submitting to post-game interviews, filling in observer comment sheets. However, ensure that points that deserve rebuttal are placed in front of all of the participants during deliberations and not inadvertently hidden through submission in written comments later.
  • Observe -- Notice who is responding and who is left out, and ensure that all participants are engaged.
  • Encourage debate -- Introduce open-ended questions like 'What will be the consequences of…?' Or 'What can we do about...?' A question that can be answered with a simple 'yes'/'no', or 'black'/'white' will not accelerate debate. Do not let participants off with a 'yes/no' answer and ask them for reasons or for their assumptions that got to the 'yes/no' response.
  • Employ "branches and sequels" -- For branches, say something like: "now, let's wind back the clock and see what would happen if we had gone in a different direction". For sequels, challenge the participants with: "so, how would your opponent react to that, and how would the locals react, and what would your coalition partners do now, or the other governmental departments?"
  • Use silence from time to time -- Participants may need time to think about issues. Before introducing a new point, or when summarizing a previous discussion, or when about to ask a substantial question, announce you will soon be seeking their input. Then give the participants 'a pause to reflect' before recognizing or calling on them for that input. Some really big questions can be put out just before a break (coffee or lunch) so participants can mull over their reactions in full complexity before they are obliged to voice a response.
    
  • Rephrase questions or issues -- If participants don't respond well, try asking the question a different way or reframe an issue, perhaps with some evocative example.
  • Ask for examples and support for opinions -- Probe deeper than the initial response. The first response may have come without due consideration. For example, challenge participants with: "But why?"
  • Test consensus -- Be careful of premature consensus before an issue has been explored. Restate an incipient conclusion and ask if anyone has a different view. Some voting or social choice methods can determine where internal minority schools of thought may be hidden.
  • Summarize -- Provide a summary or conclusions as appropriate, at transition points during the discussion and at the end. Be prepared to have participants contradict the facilitator's summary -- they may have drawn conclusions or made interpretations that differ from those of a facilitator. Ask: "Did I get that right?" or "Does anyone see that differently?"
• At the conclusion of the discourse during active war gaming, ensure that participants know they can still follow up on points, e.g., with observer comment forms. Also remind senior leaders they may be asked to participate in an interview.
• After the discourse phase, run an after action review (AAR). Most military participants will be familiar with this process, and many civilian participants are growing more familiar with it. Many of the above points on the behaviour of control staff apply equally well to an AAR. Many aspects of the lessons learned process will also apply.

Areas Where Rules May Be Appropriate

While many aspects of seminar war games rely upon the facilitator's judgement, this may be augmented in various ways. The objective is to ensure that outcomes are more credible, and judgements less arbitrary.

Time, Distance, and Speed

For simple problems arithmetic formulas can be applied to relate time, distance, and speed. For more complex problems there may be packages like combat simulations or geographic information systems that can be applied.

Combat Results

Combat models and simulations have been developed over many decades to determine the results of combat. Most military operations research teams have access to these. Simulations like Janus, OneSAF, JCATS, and VBS2 can be used to predict the results of combat engagements.

Use of Planning Formulas

Logistics, speed of advance, convoy planning, flight planning, and casualties and medical treatment are just some areas where there may be planning formulas that can be used to predict outcomes.

Use of Lookup Tables

Use of Models, including Computer-based Models