Developed by the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory and the Naval Surface Warfare Dahlgren Division, DTCS leverages the Iridium low-earth orbiting satellite constellation to provide on-the-move, over-the-horizon, beyond line-of-sight voice and position location information without the need for local ground infrastructure. This capability will likely provide an unprecedented level of situational awareness for disadvantaged personnel traveling deep into the Arctic Circle to perform missions such as search-and-rescue, maritime patrols, and disaster relief. To ensure fleet proficiency, new techniques and procedures should be adopted, reflected in the U.S. Navy’s Arctic Maritime Response Force Concept of Operation (CONOP), and subsequently practiced in joint exercises such as Operation Nanook and Northern Eagle. However, developing this proficiency is heavily dependent on Commandant Commanders adopting and integrating this capability into a broader joint Arctic strategy – a strategy that has yet to be defined. DTCS is the most significant tactical communications improvement in the Arctic to date.

This demonstration showed how the U.S. Navy can effectively leverage commercial space systems to command and control forces in the Arctic region. The ability to conduct satellite surveillance in the Arctic using High Resolution Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) also remains a significant capability gap for maritime forces. Combining SAR with automatic identification system (AIS) data may provide the navies and coast guards of the eight Arctic states improved maritime domain awareness – perhaps another area which the U.S. Navy can leverage industry and mark another significant milestone in developing greater Arctic capabilities and capacity.

Applying Creswell’s model to the development of research question in gaming, the following are some general principles that may assist you in writing broad, qualitative research questions:

a) Ask one or two central questions followed by five to seven sub questions. The several sub questions follow each general central question; the sub questions help narrow the focus of the game and bound the problem you’re exploring.

b) The central question(s) and subsidiary questions should be grounded from the game’s purpose, objectives and related literature (military documents, scholarly articles, etc.).

c) Begin the research questions with the words what or how to convey an open and emerging research and game design.

d) Expect the research questions to evolve over the course of the game in a manner consistent with the assumptions of an emerging game design.

e) Use open ended questions, without reference to the literature or theory. However, in a game where you’re examining specific polices, plans or strategies, or using a document to generate specific hypothesis, it may be appropriate to cite or use this document as part of your research question. For example, one may consider a central research question to be, "Based on the existing Fleet CONOPS, what are the gaps that limit the Navy’s ability to sustain maritime operations in the Caribbean? The specific mission sets outlined in the CONOPS, which are then applied in the game, is your independent variable, and the gaps that preclude you from accomplishing those missions is your dependent variable.

Your independent variables are those that almost certainly cause, influence, or affect outcomes. Your dependent variables are those that depend on the independent variable; they are the outcomes or results of the influence of the independent variables. We may have intervening or mediating variables that stand between the independent and dependent variable (Creswell, 2009). These could be viewed as other factors that may also influence an outcome.  

Once we are equipped with the research questions and hypotheses, we will then be prepared to apply the appropriate model of gaming to a project (e.g. one-sided, one and a half sided, and two sided), develop the data collection instruments, and prepare the scenario and game products.

With an approach grounded in learning from the game participants, the literature review is used to frame the problem in the introduction of the game report. This provides a useful backdrop for the reader or sponsor of the problems or issues leading up to the need for the game. Periodically, the literature is often broken out towards the end of the game report, where it is used to compare and contrast with the results that emerged from game play.  However, when a grounded theory or phenomenological study is employed, such as in the case of the Navy Irregular Challenges Game (October 2010), the literature is less often used to set the stage for the game.

The literature review enables the research team to identify the gaps in knowledge that are worthy of future study, challenge current ideas in the field and acquire an accepted theory and apply to a specific area being explored in a game. The review of related literature assist in bounding the scope of the problem, developing the research questions, and understanding the various perspectives garnered from the game’s sponsor. Quite often the most practical and useful application of a games findings occurs when those new insights and ideas can be applied and examined to future games, such as in serial gaming. Between the inner war years, the War Gaming Department was successful in building upon many of the previous games executed, which in turn, assisted in identifying the growing naval threat in the pacific.

When a deductive approach is applied to gaming, such as in the case of the MDA Operational Game (July 2010), the literature review helps provide a source for the focus of the research, which included the development of the games objectives, research questions and hypothesis. Conversely, if a game favors more toward an inductive approach, as it did in the Global Maritime Partnerships Game (October 2010), the analysis team will begin with the collection and analysis of data, ‘a process that leads to questions that are then addressed through engagement with the literature’ (Gray, 2009).

The other component of a literature review that has yet to be mentioned focuses on research methods. The DCAP will discuss not only the research design, approaches and tools used for that particular game, but also for other studies and games and the academic sources used to justify the use of them.

Because many of the issues that interested parties ask us to explore involve qualitative issues and data (e.g., decision-making processes) war games rarely allow for inferential analysis. In other words, war games are not predictive; we cannot make generalizations beyond the data about how future players might respond to the problem at hand. The participants or players are often hand selected making it nearly impossible to use a random sample. That is why a significant focus in gaming is placed in the methodology (e.g. methods, tools and techniques) used.

In gaming, the initial process of inquiry usually starts at the Concept Development Conference or CDC.  From an analytical perspective, this is the most important planning meeting that occurs through the gaming process. Normally this is the first time the game sponsor and war gaming faculty meet to discuss the perceived stressors and challenges encountered.  Following Pete Pellegrino’s Purpose-Method-End State structure discussed in his latest blog entry will enable the game sponsor and war gaming faculty zero in on the specific objective and motivating factors for using gaming as a tool to explore these issues. This event sets the foundation for the reminder of the gaming process and helps define the problem and narrow the scope of the research down so that an analytical game can be developed. In order for a game to answer a sponsor’s problem(s), analysis must drive the design from the very beginning.

The development of the objectives is an art in itself. One problem solving technique used during the CDC is a technique called the ‘5 Why Drill Down’. This technique breaks down fairly complex problems into progressively smaller parts. Using this technique helps the sponsor identify the root causes of problems or incidents faced. When walking away from a successful CDC, both the game sponsor and War Gaming faculty should have a clear and common understanding of the specific problems leading to this game, any recommended literature or resources available about the research problem and deficiencies in the literature about the problem. From there the game’s purpose (e.g. why are we conducting this study - analytical, experiential, both) and objectives (e.g. clearly defined result) are finally formulated along with a good understanding of the sponsors hypothesis or assumptions brought into the game. At this point, potential participants or players can be identified. Saving this towards the end enables both the sponsor and gaming team to identify WHO really fits within the context of this game and WHY. 

Once the purpose and objectives are developed and agreed upon by the sponsor and the War Gaming Department, an overarching research question (1-2) and subsidiary questions (5-7) are developed.  The research design can be qualitative, quantitative or mixed depending on the purpose and questions developed. Going through this rigorous yet sometimes cumbersome process assures that that the subsequent game design fits according to the analytical framing and research design. 

(1) An outgrowth of the sponsor’s problem statement (i.e. why he wants a game),

(2) The driver for game design, and

(3) The successful outcome of the game (i.e. end state),  

Then how do multiple objectives fit the design logic? The tendency is to mistake methods for objectives, which explains why so many games end up with multiple “objectives,” most of which are verb based. “Explore the implication…” or “Identify shortfalls…” or “Review operational plans…” etc. 

Using a Purpose-Method-End State structure, you can see how you could have multiple METHODS, but there can only be one END STATE (objective). How do you want the participants or the state of the project to be different at the end of the event? One question to ask a sponsor is “This event will be a success if…” to get at an end state type objective. You’ll need a way to know if you actually achieved the objective, so it should be specific and measurable, otherwise how will you know if your game did what is was supposed to do?  

War gaming is much more than “hosting a war” and sending out invites - “You’re Invited to a War Game (bring your own order of battle).” Without a clear objective, you might as well throw some plastic army men, model ships and toy planes into a shoe box, shake it up, and ‘hope’ something interesting happens to justify the travel and per diem expense.  While you’re at it, toss in a Buzz Lightyear figure and your favorite Godzilla toy, because without a solid objective, Godzilla is just as likely to produce “something interesting” as anything else. 

After dumping the contents of your war game box back out onto the table, everyone will “see” what they want to see amongst the pile of toys. Like Ouija boards and horoscopes, everyone will be able to claim that the war game has validated their preferred outcome, even if they’re analytic opposites.  

This “throw a war together” approach is too often the default. It becomes more and more about creating the virtual environment, and less and less about why you’re trying to create the environment in the first place. You can see the potential problem when you have toys lying around, and for lack of a better approach, feel compelled to toss them into play.  

The objective is the game’s foundation. Bad foundations seldom lead to good outcomes!

After reflecting on our conversations throughout the week, I quickly grasped the significant short fall in capabilities and resources that the T&T Navy faces to effectively address the narcotics problem both within territorial and international waters. CDR Pritchard discussed, narcotics trafficking in the context of “not just a T&T problem, but a regional problem,” and that a collaborative regional approach is needed to address this issue. Many of the catalysts to instability within T&T, such as poverty, corruption, resource scarcity, and transnational criminality, parallel many of the same issues encountered by countries who participated in the Global Maritime Partnerships (GMP) Game last month at the Naval War College. CDR Pritchard also discussed one of T&T’s most recent initiatives, a Joint Operations Center, which brings in local, state & federal authorities, military branches, along with international partners under one roof to collaborate and share information and intelligence.

During our visit to the house of parliament we had the opportunity to sit in on a live session where members of parliament debated the purchase of three Operational Patrol Vessels (OPV) to support the counternarcotics mission of the T&T Coast Guard. Listening to arguments on both sides, it was obvious that the strategies to address narcotics trafficking differed among political leadership. One side discussed the need to need to purchase these vessels to mitigate narco traffickers at sea, prior to getting to the shores. While the opposition proffered that the narcotics problem is a land problem and additional resources should be dedicated to such efforts. Similarly, during the GMP game, the Central American player cell noted that it is much more effective to address narcotics trafficking at sea, rather than tackling the problem at its root cause because of the high levels of corruption within there respective governments. My visit to T&T was an eye-opening experience that solidified the importance of engaging with our international partners on issues of common concern and the need to explore, through gaming and research, ways which the global maritime community can address these challenges.  

The web works for a variety of reasons; along with being able to show the connection to the objective, it keeps all the factors in a delicate balance. The factors of the greatest importance resident in the smallest central portion of web, while those of lesser importance are located out in the broader areas of the web’s periphery. Like the spider, our participants are able then to concentrate on the convergence of elements at the center of our investigation, vice crawling over the entire web wasting precious time jumping from factor to factor.  

Once constructed, the web is stable. If new factors are to now be added to the web, they must be carefully analyzed to see if and where they connect. If sufficient connections cannot be found, the new factor should be allowed to fall away. Forcing any factor into the web without sufficient understanding of it role risks tangling the entire structure and leaving the chances of a successful game, seminar or workshop in tatters. The smart spider scurries away at this point!

Says Salvatore of Copernicus, “This is a world that’s believable, it’s gorgeous, it makes sense. It’s full of beauty and danger and adventure.”

This gaming world is a fantasy world, which the team at 38 Studios must create from scratch. For 38 Studio’s game to be a financial success, they must create a gaming world which is so compelling that subscribers are willing to “pay to play.” This is the ultimate constructive design process – the blank canvas. For anything to be in this world, it must be added to the game.

Professional war games, on the other hand, are often designed from the deconstructive (or distillation/abstraction) process. Given that we already have a ‘real’ world with environment, orders of battle, culture, societies, etc., we are often faced with the challenge of what to remove in order to accommodate limitations of time, space and resources while still meeting our educational or research based gaming objectives.

The need to construct a compelling world, therefore, can be overlooked in the professional game design process. Yet it is no less important to the success of the professional game. While players may not pay a subscription fee, for many war game participants it still costs in terms of travel budgets and perhaps more importantly time away from primary duties. 

I once had a game sponsor say that he didn’t particularly care about engaging the players, because “they come and play because they’re told to.” True in the case of military officers, but the quality of play will be greatly diminished if the players’ level of engagement simply consists of showing up, and are more worried about moving up their flight home than what is going on in the game.

In the end, our professional games are no more or less ‘real’ than fantasy games – a game is a game. I know of fantasy gamers who were more genuinely distraught over the death of a single online character than players of “serious” war games were over the loss of hundreds of soldiers and civilians. In the latter case a certain level of engagement was clearly missing. 

Your players are the heart of your game. No players, no heart, no game. Creating an engaging world for those players, both the real physical environment they inhabit during the game, and the artificial environment in which they play, is crucial to getting the results you’re hoping for.   

To be fair, Pong was a phenomenon in its day. But why? To understand that, hopefully these degree programs include elements fundamental to game design – any game, not just computer games  – why people play games, the nature of competition vs. cooperation, the concept of flow, the psychology of decision-making under stress, reward and penalty, etc.   That part apparently isn’t nearly as exciting as virtual reality, augmented environments and iPhone apps. But without those fundamentals, what you get is a computer game programmer, not necessarily a game designer.   There’s a reason those previously mentioned games have survived for hundreds or thousands of years, whereas the drawer under the family gaming console is littered with forgotten game cartridges from last year.          

My issue with this story can be summed up by changing the title to this post to “War Gaming and Models & Simulation – It’s All the Same Thing, Right?” In other words, the tendency to see technology as the ends rather than a means to an end. Not that gaming is the ends, either. Gaming, using a board and tokens, playing cards, computer, ball and bat, or just our imaginations can be a powerful learning and discovery tool. At the Naval War College, gaming is used to examine a wide range of pol-mil problems: deterrence, cyber-threats, irregular warfare, conventional conflict, counter-proliferation, future maritime strategy…all with technology no more complex than desktop computers running Microsoft Office.

By focusing on the latest technology, we tend to overlook the most powerful gaming system that’s been around for millions of years – the human mind.