Read on Twitter
War is an extension of politics. But let’s be honest: wargames can also be extension of politics. So today we’ll talk about how to deliberately mislead with wargames. [1/8]
Let’s say you want to advance funding for a magical widget (MW). One way to mislead is to deliberately conflate the players learning how to play the game with the benefit from said MW. [2/8]
You do this innocuously enough: 1) Make sure the players haven’t seen the game before. 2) Run a “baseline” wargame with current CONOPS and equipment. 3) Give the blue cell the MW and rerun the game. 4) Attribute any blue improvement entirely to the MW. [3/8]
You are pretending that blue cell learning the game rules and system between their first and second time ever playing is due to the MW. This is misleading. You are also doing something just as intellectually dishonest with the red cell. [4/8]
How are you misleading with the red cell? In our setup, red only encounters the MW once before you declare victory. In real life, over time, red could come up with TTPs that negate the supposed benefit of your MW. [5/8]
Lesson from our simple example: You see the importance of players being comfortable with the game rules before you test ANYTHING. A best practice is to train your players on the game BEFORE you start testing things in the wargame for official results. [6/8]
Repeated game play by blue may also lead to new blue TTPs better suited to taking full advantage of the MW. It may also highlight weaknesses and areas for improvement. This is why iterated wargaming is another best practice. [7/8]
Another key lesson: Give red several attempts to play against your MW. They may adapt and find a way to defeat it in a way that had not occurred to you. Better you know this BEFORE you acquire and field it. [8/8]
