Counter-insurgency games and campaigns.

[Jim Webster]

I’ve spent much of my ‘wargaming life’ tinkering with counter-insurgency, both games and campaigns. So this is more a discussion, what needs to be in, what is important and what isn’t.

 

Don’t fear, there’s nothing definitive, it may take another lifetime to get it right 😉

Counter-insurgency games and campaigns.

 

https://jimssfnovelsandwargamerules.wordpress.com/

[Whirlwind]

It is a really interesting post (and subject).  The perennial wargame problem of commanding at several levels simultaneously is even more of a risk/temptation than in a normal battle game, as well as it being tricky to get the scaling correct.

[Jim Webster]

Whirlwind wrote:

It is a really interesting post (and subject). The perennial wargame problem of commanding at several levels simultaneously is even more of a risk/temptation than in a normal battle game, as well as it being tricky to get the scaling correct.

 

I agree entirely, if it was easy, we’d have done it by now 🙂

https://jimssfnovelsandwargamerules.wordpress.com/

[Whirlwind]

I think one very interesting case is dealing with Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.  Most of the tactical action as traditionally understood is pretty one-sided…but the insurgents eventually won.  It is full of interest at all levels though, but linking the “campaign” to tactical actions – how to do it? Or is it better to focus on a company of RLI or a large platoon of ZANU and make the actions of the other side system-generated and play an entirely separate military-political campaign game.

Perhaps one of the better theatres to campaign in might be Ireland 1920-21, where quite small (and rare) tactical actions seemed to shift the dial of public and political opinion quite a lot.

I am also really interested in developing adequate systems for Cyberpunk/Shadowrun-type scenarios: how to calibrate the effect of our industrial-espionage mercenaries on mega-corporation and national/regional governments and vice-versa so there is a link, but neither too strong or too weak.

[Jim Webster]

Whirlwind wrote:

I think one very interesting case is dealing with Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Most of the tactical action as traditionally understood is pretty one-sided…but the insurgents eventually won. It is full of interest at all levels though, but linking the “campaign” to tactical actions – how to do it? Or is it better to focus on a company of RLI or a large platoon of ZANU and make the actions of the other side system-generated and play an entirely separate military-political campaign game. Perhaps one of the better theatres to campaign in might be Ireland 1920-21, where quite small (and rare) tactical actions seemed to shift the dial of public and political opinion quite a lot. I am also really interested in developing adequate systems for Cyberpunk/Shadowrun-type scenarios: how to calibrate the effect of our industrial-espionage mercenaries on mega-corporation and national/regional governments and vice-versa so there is a link, but neither too strong or too weak.

 

I think that for Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, perhaps like Algeria, you could follow a unit, but run a military political game in the background. Your actions would feed into the military political game (so your victories might give a minor boost. But, for example, your much televised blockade breaking run to get supplies to a hospital or whatever might get more points. If you have a Nguyen Ngoc Loan moment, it’s a big negative.
Military political will feed back into your table games, you could find yourself getting fewer replacements, less fuel for vehicles or aircraft, that sort of thing, as the situation got stickier.

The Irish example is an interesting one and is an interesting example of a small contained theatre

https://jimssfnovelsandwargamerules.wordpress.com/

[Guy Farrish]

Insurgencies are a fascinating subject. I’m not sure how tractable they are to gaming. Bits of them may well be, although that belief may be a result of profound misunderstanding. The tactical/shooty bits aren’t difficult.

It’s the tie in with operational level and strategic/political aims that are problematic.

As Whirlwind said, you can win the tactical engagements but lose the war.

In some/many cases even your tactical exchanges won’t be particularly gamable.

If your insurgents are sensible they won’t stand around and engage in firefights. They’ll explode an ied, fire an rpg, maybe shoot off a few rounds and disappear. And claim a major victory. In a terror mode they won’t even attack your military targets. They’ll bomb and murder civilians, government admin and at a pinch police.

Maybe the best way of gaming that is by an abstract local/regional patrol/security resource allocation game that interacts with Terrorist monthly plans – with a pay off matrix of the two strategies (if a physical patrol and a concerted insurgent attack meet, then you could game it on the table, otherwise it’s a book keeping exercise for local control/hearts and minds and enforcement of boring legal stuff like fines, licence checks and tax collection).

Results of that local/regional game could feed into a game of the national situation which, on the basis of those results, would change plans for local regional actions e.g. more or less aggressive military and police plans. Somewhere resource allocation from Government would have to be considered. A high patrol tempo with visibility on the streets and increased exercise of admin functions might require more boots on the ground and if Govt. hasn’t got the cash or will because of lack of public support… well you are going to vulnerable to more losses and or public belief as you back down.

Some insurgencies are more vigorous than others and can blur into full blown civil war/insurrection. Tactical games are probably more like normal wargames here.

Political level – what is the level of ‘acceptable violence’? (Sorry Reggie but it’s a phrase that rings down the decades).

Are there any outside parties?

How do you assess public reaction to your tactical actions.

How are your media relations?

Do you care what the UN thinks?

Can you afford not to?

How is your economy?

Corruption? What corruption?

Who do you depend on for help when the going gets tough?

Human Rights? Bulwark of your body politic or a shroud for losers?

Where are insurgent supplies coming from?

How are your intel services?

Probably worth having a look at Kilcullen’s Ecosystem (I’m sure you already know it: it’s on the Wikipedia insurgency page).

I suspect you can’t get all this in one game easily (maybe a WD Megagame would work – need a lot of people in discrete teams).

Do you think you can win outright? And what would that look like?

[Jim Webster]

Kilcullen’s Ecosystem and the three pillars are useful for making sure you’ve included ‘everything’
But yes, the megagame would be ‘comparatively’ simple. What would be fun is to have a bunch of gung ho wargamers who just wanted to get figures on the table and shoot things as the military with more ‘restrained’ individuals doing the more political stuff (and picking up the pieces)

 

A lot of nice ideas to chew over thanks, but your questions show how difficult to set in a ‘real’ place. Corruption, human rights, who you can rely on, and outside parties, can all be a bit subjective. But still vital to include, otherwise we can pacify the revolt by crucifying 6000 captured rebels, one every thirty yards, from Capua to Rome

Thanks

https://jimssfnovelsandwargamerules.wordpress.com/

[Guy Farrish]

Jim Webster wrote:

What would be fun is to have a bunch of gung ho wargamers who just wanted to get figures on the table and shoot things as the military, with more ‘restrained’ individuals doing the more political stuff (and picking up the pieces)

What might be even more interesting would be to have the ‘restrained’ individuals playing the shooty end of things very carefully, with due regard to the ROE and UN Humanitarian directives, with the gung ho types in the [insert political assembly of choice] screaming for some action and results for the upcoming election campaign.

[Note from the Minister/Senator: Oh and on the crucifixion thing – love the ‘can do’ approach, but do you think it sends the right message about the use of natural resources in the current environmental crisis? 6,000? That’s a lot of deforestation.

And maybe not ‘rebels’ – glamorises them a bit. Try ‘Striking entertainment sector operatives’, downplay it a bit?]

[Jim Webster]

Guy Farrish wrote:

Jim Webster wrote:

What would be fun is to have a bunch of gung ho wargamers who just wanted to get figures on the table and shoot things as the military, with more ‘restrained’ individuals doing the more political stuff (and picking up the pieces)

What might be even more interesting would be to have the ‘restrained’ individuals playing the shooty end of things very carefully, with due regard to the ROE and UN Humanitarian directives, with the gung ho types in the [insert political assembly of choice] screaming for some action and results for the upcoming election campaign. [Note from the Minister/Senator: Oh and on the crucifixion thing – love the ‘can do’ approach, but do you think it sends the right message about the use of natural resources in the current environmental crisis? 6,000? That’s a lot of deforestation. And maybe not ‘rebels’ – glamorises them a bit. Try ‘Striking entertainment sector operatives’, downplay it a bit?]

One of the joys of government is that it is never quite as monolithic as it often appears.

I think Perun’s discussion of various factional forces in Russia today is salutory

But then there were all sorts of ‘private armies’ and militias in South Vietnam as well

As factions within government jockey for influence, interesting things happen

 

 

https://jimssfnovelsandwargamerules.wordpress.com/

[Author]

Posts