A&A as a training tool for ROTC cadets

Hello all, I’m currently an ROTC Instructor at a university and am also an avid gamer. I’ve been playing military strategy board games for years and am truly convinced it has helped me as an Army officer to developed key tactical/strategic concepts of warfare. Plus, it’s a helluva lot of fun!

To the point of my post. As an instructor I’m offering “additional instruction” to any of my cadets who are interested in not only playing the game (global 1940 2nd ed), but also to develope their ability to foresee and understand the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order effects to the decisions they make. Not to mention key concepts like massing, diversion/feint, logistics/supply, staying power, timing, holding actions etc…essentially all the key things that I think would be useful for an actual military commander to know while putting it in a format that is going to get a typical 18-19 year old cadet to participate.

I’m wondering if anyone has done anything like this before and if they have what were some of the things they did to maximize the limited amount of time they had with their “students”? I’m also planning on incorporating games like flames of war, conquest of the empire, and perhaps a game a friend of mine and I created in college based off of the medieval time period. Ideas anyone?

@CWO:

I recommend Peter Perla’s book “The Art of Wargaming: A Guide for Professionals and Hobbyists”.  As the title indicates, it covers both hobby wargaming and professional wargaming (the latter meaning wargaming as a military training tool).  He looks at the history of wargaming and at the theoretical considerations that go into designing wargames.

For your purposes, you’ll find particularly valuable his discussion of wargaming levels.  These range from the higher-level strategic games (in which the players represent the national command authorities of the opposing sides) to the lower-level tactical games which operate down to the level of individual squads.  Obviously, the instructional purpose of professional games will vary greatly depending on the level of the game and the level of the players.  A related point is that the higher you go in game levels, the more the processes involved are abstracted because the forces being represented are larger and larger.  A tactical game might resolve combat by simulating the process of individual weapons being fired at individual targets.  A strategic-level game, depicting whole army groups, might resolve combat by simply comparing overall force ratios in a very abstract way – so the modeling involved is very different.

For your students, by the way, intermediate-level operational games (which tend to depict even in a theatre of war) might be a good choice for some of what you describe in your list (for instance logistics).

Keep in mind that hobby wargames, even though they can be very big and complex from a mechanical point of view, still tend to be very simplistic (from the point of view of a professional soldier) at simulating warfare.  I’ve heard the argument, for example, that the comparison which can be made between Axis and Allies and professional wargames is the same comparison which can be made between the classic board game Monopoly and the kind of university-level business simulation games which are sometimes played as exercises in Masters of Business Administration programs.  Hobby wargames are primarily designed to be fun to play, with any lessons learned about warfare being treated as a bonus; professional wargames are intended to be teaching tools (or in some cases planning tools to test new concepts and strategies), with no aim of being fun.  This isn’t to say that a hobby wargame can’t be used professionally to teach useful things to military students, but the limitations of these games have to be kept firmly in mind.

Anyway, good luck with your project and, as I said at the beginning, do check out Perla’s book.

I very much agree with the entirety of your post. I plan on having a range of experiences, from say A&A to games like flames of war which are more tactical platoon/company level fights.

I’m trying to get a few things out of this which may be a bit ambitious, but I’d sure like to try.

First, I want them to grasp the basic concepts of military type operations. I’m working with mostly college freshmen here so these kids are very limited in that science.

Secondly, I want them to see that the enemy isn’t going to play their game. So playing against human, thinking, opponents has value I think.

Third, I want them to have to work together and come up with a plan as “alliances” (or for my purposes, team members) in order to defeat their opponents.

Fourth, I want them to exercise their brains, these games I think cause players to have to be able to use multiple facets of their intelligence which translates into judgement calls. I think developing things like good judgement and weighing ones options are a pretty important character traits to have as a leader in the Army.

Finally, I’m hoping I can spark an interest in some of them with history, military science, and operational art. I don’t want to have to spoon feed them. I want them to take their own initiative and find out their own answers…and I can just nudge them in the right direction.

I can’t simulate combat in any real sense, but I’m hoping I can get them to start thinking about their roles as future LTs. Whether it is high intensity or COIN, I think the things I’m trying to instill should help either way.

Thanks for the feedback everyone and I’d sure like to hear even more thoughts on it.

@wittmann:

You might be right YG.
Cannot remember how many Division heads were at that war games conference in Rennes, but I am sure one died trying to return, if not two. Think it was a 7th Army do, not solely Marcks 84 xxx.
Will have to check who died. Think it may have been the commander of the 711 Static Division.
Rommel was celebrating his birthday in Germany! The Allies really got lucky there.

No disrespect to your thread and original post meant Redleg13A

No offense taken.

A few things on your conversation though…

1. The war was pretty much over by the time of d-day.

2. Soldiers don’t fight 24/7 throughout the duration of a war.

3. The german high command actively condoned participation in such events because they were good for officer development as well as socializing among the officer ranks.

4. Even if it DID cost them the war, so what? That’s a good thing right?

During the little down time I had during my combat deployments I played poker and sometimes strategy war games, does that mean I helped lose the war in Iraq? If you believe that, well, I’ve got some beachfront property to sell you in Arizona! Lol

Let us keep these things in perspective, one shouldn’t assume these officers knew the time and place of where d-day would occur for if they did I’m positive they would have forgone the games and fought the war.

@munchie19:

As a new Lt. in the Marine Corps and having just gone through the training and avid player of AA, I don’t really think the board game isn’t the greatest wargaming tool. I would recommend playing the miniatures for both the land and sea. I think there are more strategical, operational, and tactical decisions to be made. There is a variety of units with different abilities. The game play is differentbut requires a better understanding of the enemy’s abilities and how to exploit those weaknesses.

Not even as an introduction?…remember, these kids are in the crawl phase and are 4 years from being LTs. What’s your branch if I may ask?

@munchie19:

That’s true about it being an introductory game. I am in the Marine Corps. Maybe as the cadets advance in their understanding of tactics and strategy, but I still would recommend the miniatures game for more advanced cadets.

I know you’re Marine Corps, what I meant was specific branch, like IN, AR, FA etc…

@CWO:

@Redleg13A:

Secondly, I want them to see that the enemy isn’t going to play their game. So playing against human, thinking, opponents has value I think.

Third, I want them to have to work together and come up with a plan as “alliances” (or for my purposes, team members) in order to defeat their opponents.

One method you should consider to accomplish these goals is to play A&A using a two-room/two-board set-up, or some other kind of rule variant that allows for the partial hiding of information from the players.� The general idea is that you have a board in one room for use by the Allied team and a second board in a second room for the Axis team, with you serving as the referee / go-between.� The purpose of this arrangement is to temporarily hide from each side information about the composition and location of the enemy’s forces (for example: what new units he bought and where he placed them).� Conventional A&A games have the defect (from a military simulation point of view) of being “open” games in which both sides always have perfectly complete and accurate information about the enemy’s dispositions.� This is not only unrealistic, it also makes deception and surprise – two vitally important force multipliers in real warfare – impossible to achieve. Hiding information would fit with your goal of teaching your students that the enemy isn’t going to play their game.� The two-room set-up would also contribute to your goal of teaching them to work as a team as part of a multi-nation alliance, whose discussions are kept secret from the opposing alliance (and vice-versa, since their discussions remain secret too).�

You read my mind. That’s in the works for the future actually.

Once they get the strategy thing down, I’m actually going to start incrementally bringing their understanding down each echelon so they can really get an understanding of their place in the scheme of things. A good buddy of mine and I are planning on doing the “room” idea instead it is going to be through skype and with flames of war. They’ll get a map, an OPORD, a few “UAV” photos from above, and few “scout” photos on or near their mission objective. Each player will act as a PL with one acting as the CO. I’ll be the acting “BC” and as the OCT. My buddies 400 miles away have the game in front of them and will strictly just move the pieces(all these buddies are prior service NCO’s with combat experience and a VERY good understanding not only operational level competencies but these games as well). The cadets will be required to fulfill their mission objectives with incomplete information, in a “fog of war”, against thinking opponents.

Now, this is at least 6 months down the road. From now to then I’ll just gradually build them up to the point where they can start grasping the “big” picture through basic strategy up through advanced strategy. From there We’ll see what happens.

As an aside, I had my first additional instruction class was last Friday and one of the cadets lamented after playing 1940 Global for a few turns “Wow, I have a whole new appreciation for generals, they have to think about a lot of sh*t!”

@CWO:

@Redleg13A:

As an aside, I had my first additional instruction class was last Friday and one of the cadets lamented after playing 1940 Global for a few turns “Wow, I have a whole new appreciation for generals, they have to think about a lot of sh*t!”

Very eloquently put.  I recall that Perla’s book says something about this subject; if I remember correctly, he says that officers who run professional wargame sometimes have reservations about letting lower-level officers play higher-level ones in wargames, for fear that they’ll become so enthusiatic about the higher-ranked job that they’ll lose their motivation to do their real lower-level job.

LOL, noted. Of course, any good PSG is going to make that LT understand their necessity and DO their freaking job.

Also, I plan on going over the tedious stuff too, simply because their is certainly a gap between commissioning sources, the school house, and then operational units. I’ll try to cover things like CONOPs, range planning, SI inventories, effectively forecasting and utilizing a training calendar, being an IO, counselings/NCOERs, services/dispatches, additional duties etc…all the ankle biter stuff that normal LTs have no idea about and learn through blunt force trauma at their units. I’d prefer to get these students ready before hand, instead of setting them up for a sink or swim situation.

The way I see it, they have 4 years to prepare themselves to become officers…they need to take ownership and do whatever they can to get themselves ready. Not just be spoon fed crap from guys like me.