Seeking Feedback

This quote comes from the introduction of the Naval War College Review Summer 2011 article Why Wargaming Works (PDF) by Peter P. Perla and ED McGrady. The entire article is worth reading, and as someone who has an actual occupational history in professional gaming and the gaming industry - the content of this article has been swimming around in my mind for months.

Wargaming has a long history as an important tool for military training, education, and research.1 In its broader application to nonmilitary conflict situations (see, for example, the recent books Wargaming for Leaders and Business War Games), the technique is increasing in popularity, particularly among businesses seeking strategic advantages.2 (As a result, we will sometimes use the terms “wargaming” and “gaming” interchangeably; in the latter case, however, we mean what is called “serious gaming,” not the more general sense, like gambling.)3 Despite that history and popularity, however, wargaming’s record of success is uneven. Some games seemto succeed very well in preparing important decision makers for real-world environments in which they later find themselves. A prime example is the U.S.Navy’s series of games during the 1920s and 1930s, which helped train the commanders who won the Second World War in the Pacific. Other games do not do so well; for example, the game played by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in July 2004 did not seem to help that agency respond effectively to Hurricane Katrina’s landfall only two years later.

The reasons for the successes and failures of wargames of all types are as varied as the games themselves. Sometimes success stems from particular circumstances of subject matter and participants; sometimes failure flows from poor design or faulty facts. When it works, wargaming can appear almost magical in its power to inform and instruct; when it doesn’t work, it can appear almost childish in its oversimplifications and abstractions.

I've never - at any point over the last 4+ years - considered the blog publishing format as a viable platform for conducting a wargame. Today, I'm not so sure. I'm wondering if perhaps similar results towards provoking ideas can be achieved anyway. It is entirely possible if I attempt to write a wargame scenario on ID, I will look and feel childish, but I can't be certain without trying.

I observed with great interest the recent Crowdsourcing of ideas by CDR Chris Rawley. The original question produced well over a hundred insightful (and some not quite as insightful) comments. Even the follow up was interesting, if anything to see our own inherent biases.

One of the things I enjoy most about ID is the back and forth nature of this format that I enjoy when interacting with the readers. On many of the subjects I discuss here - the audience is often the expert, and I'm simply an informed non-expert who continues to get smarter and smarter through your insights, your feedbacks, and the experiences you share with me. While a lot of that feedback does happen in email, it also happens in the comments quite frequently.

The active participation of this community suggests to me there is a lot to be gained from more crowdsouring approaches on the blog. Before I act on it though, I'll get your opinion.

Did you find Chris's experiment valuable and worth the time, or a waste of time? Do you think we should try things like that more often? Do you believe posing wargame scenarios using this crowdsourcing model would be worth your time? Do you have any suggestions or ideas you'd like to add on this topic?

I appreciate the feedback.