The epistemology of war gaming

Anyone who has leadershiped or has studied actual warfare knows well its masssive complexities. (1)

These complexities do not relieve humans from the responsibility for making decisions--difficult decisions--aimed at navigating their organizations prosperously through campaigns, be they in a theater of war or in the halls of the Pentagon. Minds must be prepared beforehand, the two in their general, educated functioning and in the specific, sophisticated understanding of conflict and the competitive environments they face. This preparation must be predicated upon the internalization of "valid" knowledge about the conflict environment. There are many ways of gaining of the like kind knowledge: the study of history and theory, practical experience, and exposing to the results of various kinds of research and analysis. Each of these meanss of developing knowledge has its have particular epistemology--formally, a "theory of the nature and sods of knowledge, especially with concern to its limits and validity" or more practically, directions by which error is distinguished from verity War gaming is a distinct and historically significant tool that warriors have used above the centuries to help them understand war in general and the nature of specific upcoming operations. The importance of war gaming demands serious examination of the nature of the knowledge it produces

Before going farther, it is worthwhile to define exactly what we mean by the agency of "war game." Peter Perla provides as serviceable a definition as any: a war game is "a warfare type or simulation whose operation does not involve the activities of actual military forces, and whose succession of events affects and is, in make go round affected by the decisions made by means of players representing the opposing sides." (2) War gaming, rightly considered, is inherently a way of research, regardless of by what mode people apply it. The central nature of war gaming is the examination of conflict in an artificial environment. from one side such examination, gamers gain novel knowledge about the phenomena the game shows The purpose of a game is immaterial to this central epistemological simple body Moreover, the gaining of knowledge is inherent and unavoidable, whatever a game's fact The real question is whether of that kind knowledge is valid and useful. This question is all the more important because of the growing reliance upon gaming techniques in an increasingly compound world.

This article will attempt to initiate a professional dialogue upon the underlying logic structure of gaming by the agency of examining the epistemological foundations of gaming in general and ways in which the knowledge gained from specific games can be judg sound

Perhaps the greatest in quantity compelling reason to conduct of that kind an inquiry is the possibility of insidious error creeping into war games. War gaming, plane after centuries of practice, is still more a craft than a discipline, and it is quite possible for rank amateurs, dilettantes, and fix in the mind artists to produce large, expensive, and apparently happy but worthless or misleading games for unsuspecting sponsors. There is little incentive to apply incisive criticism to games in which heavy investments have been made, and ones or organizations inclined to do in the way that are hampered by lack of an established plant of epistemological theory and principle. This does not mean that the majority of games are fatally flawed; it does mean that there is no accepted put of criteria to determine whether they are or not. quick parts as to the success and quality of a war game, especially single of high profile and effect is too often the follow of organizational politics.

EPISTEMOLOGY

more [i]or[/i] less elaboration of the meaning of this somewhat esoteric mete is essential. To avoid getting sidetracked by means of philosophical complexities, we can adopt a convention based upon current thinking. One widely accepted branch of new epistemological theory holds that knowledge rises from the building of simplified mental originals of reality in order to unfold problems. The "validity" of a type (or knowledge) emanates from its utility in point in dispute solving. (3) This approach strike one as beings sufficient for our purposes. Knowledge is a practical human rejoinder to the challenges of our environment. Valid knowledge is that which has sufficient practical correspondence to our environment to be useful for enigma solving.

Readers with knowledge of modeling and simulation will immediately find resonances in this definition with widely used definitions of computer simulation validity--for example, "substantiation that a computerized mould within its domain of applicability possesse a satisfactory range of accuracy consistent with the intended application of the model" (4) Thus we are not in like manner much concerned with the validity of knowledge in an absolute faculty of perception as with the practical utility of knowledge emanating from a game relative to the shoot forwarded warfare environment in which it will be applied. greatest in quantity war games are oriented in a certain number of way to the future, either explicitly or inherently; accordingly, the predictive value of knowledge emanating from a game is critical. At this point many veteran garners will make an outcry foul, as it is widely accepted that war games are not predictive (although there are more [i]or[/i] less who will disagree). To untangle this knot, permit us go back to our baseline definition of valid knowledge--that which is useful for point in dispute solving. This presupposes that the environment can to a certain quantity of degree be shaped by decisions. If it were not, war gaming--in fact, any decision-support tool--would be irrelevant. If the environment is malleable, however, there are "right" and "wrong" decisions available to the decision maker. (5) Ignorant decision makers would be at the leniency of chance; their decisions would be discharges in the dark, or worse. An informed decision maker--one who possesse valid knowledge about the environment and the potential events of alternate choices--could do better than that in a futurity situation. Valid knowledge is predictive to that expanse However, since life in general and war in particular are influenced by dint of thousands of little happenstances that are beyond the command of any single decision maker (a pure definition of Clausewitz's "friction"), "right" decisions do not guarantee succes If they did, war would be formulaic and gaming unnecessary. For that reason, although valid knowledge of the environment is inherently predictive-in that it indicates potentially valid cause-and-effect relationships end which decision makers can bring about their intent--a war game can not ever be truly predictive.