The Development of Wargaming and Constructive

Training
Introduction The military staff system was developed by
Prussia and France in the late eighteenth
Modern constructive training systems are century. In France, its staff system was
based upon the theory of wargaming. designed by Pierre Alexander Berthier, during
Although wargames can be said to have his time as Napoleon’s Chief of Staff in Italy in
originated in China over two millennia ago, 1896. His book on the subject recoded the
the first formal application for training roles and responsibilities of HQ staff and this
military commanders and staff did not take publication was eventually translated into
place until the early nineteenth century with English, German, Russian and Spanish. So with
the arrival of Kriegsspiel and its associated the staff system developed, the focus then
Staff Ride in Prussia. turned to training the commanders and those
appointed to staff positions.
Today, wargames have been supplemented by
computer-based constructive simulation for The idea behind wargaming was to prepare
command and staff training as well as a host military staff to conduct the battle. Such
of other roles. It is vital to understand that processes provided an element of training as
wargames/Staff Rides are still conducted and well as developing Courses of Action (COA),
provide a valuable training and educational decision making skills, validating doctrine and
role. Frequently, wargaming and constructive preparing for unforeseen actions by the
training can be combined, as is the case in the enemy – the so-called ‘what ifs’.
UK with Exercise Joint Venture.
In 1811, the development of the ‘first true
There are scores of different constructive wargame’ was undertaken by Baron Georg
training systems on the market. The majority Leopold von Reiswitz, a Prussian Army officer.
are designed to train at the theatre, corps, Known as Kriegsspiel (wargame), the table-top
divisional, brigade and battalion levels and exercise featured a gridded board onto which
most have their roots in the 1980s. This paper 3D geographical features, military units and
will discuss the challenges presented by such buildings were placed. Movements were
systems, in particular the growing need for dictated by throwing dice and the chance
flexibility, intuitive interaction and entity factor as to which number appeared
fidelity. replicated Clausewitz’s ‘friction of war’.
This White Paper will conclude by looking at Von Reiswitz’s Kriegsspiel proved popular and
the MASA SWORD product and how it was a major factor in Prussia’s success in the
presents users with a possible solution for Franco-Prussian war (1870-71) and the earlier
constructive command and staff training. Austro-Prussian war (1866). Variants of
Kriegsspiel were adopted by the UK (1872),
The Development of the Wargame Italy (1873), France (1874) and Russia (1875).ii
The theoretical concept of wargaming dates The development of command and staff
back over 2,000 years and can be witnessed in training systems and the role of the staff in
the development of board games such as war was soon adopted in the US. The US
chess. Chinese military tactician, Sun Tzu Army’s Captain Roger Fitch wrote Estimating
famously wrote that the military commander Tactical Situations and Publishing Field Orders
should; ‘Know the enemy, know yourself; your in 1909. Portions of Fitch’s book were used to
victory will never be endangered. Know the create US Army’s first Field Service
ground, know the weather; your victory will Regulations (FSR) manual and this led to the
then be total.’i maturation of the US Army’s staff system.

1
One of the supporting components to the successor, the constructive training system,
Prussian Army’s Kriegsspiel method of training can provide both a training and educational
staff officers was the Staff Ride. This has been function. This is an important distinction and
described by Gardiner as follows: has implications for the procurement of such
systems. For example, if an army requires a
‘A staff ride differs from a guided battlefield new constructive training system to
tour in that it is an educational technique for undertake command and staff training,
studying leadership, decisions taken and doctrinal development and decision making
whether alternatives could have been skills at the Brigade or Battalion level, the
employed; and it requires active participation, constructive training solution that is chosen
where each group member assumes the role must have the flexibility to undertake the
of a participant in the battle, and he is roles for which is has been procured.
questioned by the others as to the view on
what occurred on the battlefield.’iii In the twentieth century, command and staff
training was undertaken using the Command
In many ways, the Staff Ride is similar to the Post Exercise (CPX). Again, such exercises are
Tactical Exercise Without Troops (TEWT) still conducted. The aim of the CPX was to
where, normally junior officers, learn tactical train command post staff and commanders
deployment and the effects of terrain and using a Master Events List (MEL) that
going. Tactical challenges are set on real generated certain events at set times.
ground and officers are tasked with deploying
Commanders and staff had to react to these
fictional assets accordingly and then
events and were monitored by a large number
defending their deployments to the Directing
of DS who recorded and assessed their actions
Staff (DS). according to an agreed doctrine that was
The Kriegsspiel or wargame, along with its normally contained in FSR or an operations
associated Staff Ride component, provided manual.
both training and education for staff officers Clearly, the older form of CPX lacked flexibility
and commanders. It is worth considering the
and was proscriptive in nature. That said,
difference between the two processes.
before the introduction of computers, such
Kline describes training as emphasising, ‘the exercises were valuable and served a purpose.
psychomotor domain of learning. Training
that is done in the cognitive domain is Digital Developments
generally at the knowledge level and lower The next phase in the development of staff
part of the comprehension level…education officers came with the application of
on the other hand, teaches a minimum of computer technology to the wargame. This
psychomotor skills. It concentrates instead on initially occurred in the US with the RAND
the cognitive domain, especially the higher Corporation in the 1960s although these
cognitive levels…’iv systems were mainly used for doctrinal
In essence, training is a closed loop process development. As processing power,
where everything is undertaken in an miniaturisation and the appearance of
approved manner such that the same result is artificial intelligence (AI) wargaming has taken
achieved at the end of the process. This is on a different hue that has led to a
often referred to as behaviourist learning. proliferation of computer-based command
and staff training systems that are now in use
In comparison, education is an open system of around the world.
continuous learning whereby, ‘right answers
and ways of doing things often do not exist in One of today’s major challenges in speaking of
education – only better or worse ones.’v the wargame process is one of definition. The
following two definitions underscore this
These are important differences and it can be issue.
seen therefore that a wargame, and its

2
‘What is a wargame? A wargame is an Before looking at constructive training in
attempt to get a jump on the future by more detail, it is worth highlighting that this
obtaining a better understanding of the past. computer-based training system has not
A wargame is a combination of game, history, totally replaced all aspects of wargaming or
and science. It is glorified chess. A wargame for that matter, the CPX. In the UK for
usually combines a map, playing pieces example, that nation’s Joint Venture series of
representing historical personages or military exercises are designed to train a theatre level
units, and a set of rules telling you what you staff system. Most of the exercise is
can or cannot do with them. The object of any conducted as a conventional Command Post
wargame is to enable the player to re-create a Exercise (CPX) using actual Battle
specific event and more important to be able Management Systems (BMS), paper maps and
to explore what might have been if the player communications equipment. Minimal use is
decides to do things differently.’vi made of a constructive training system to
provide ‘red force’ inputs.
Robel has a more relevant military view.
‘The most widely used US Army wargames are Constructive Training
called Constructive Simulations, and include Considerations
JANUS (not an acronym), the
There are a number of considerations that
Brigade/Battalion Battle Simulation (BBS), and
have to be taken into account when selecting
the Corps Battle Simulation (CBS). JANUS is
a constructive training system. As described
used most for company to Brigade Training,
above, constructive training systems are
BBS for Battalion and Brigade Training, and
usually designed to undertake a specific
CBS for Division and Corps Training. These are
training task; for example, the US Joint
the most widely used simulations for training
Theatre Level Simulation (JTLS) is designed for
in the Army today, although others are
theatre-level operations, CBS for Corps and
available. Finally, there are the emerging
Divisional level simulation as well as BBS and
simulations like WARSIM or OneSAF.’vii
JANUS for Brigade/Battalion training.
Constructive simulation may be defined as
Such systems present a number of challenges.
follows: ‘a constructive simulation includes
Most started their development in the early
simulated people operating simulated
1980s and nearly all systems were created for
systems. Real people stimulate (make inputs)
use by the US Department of Defense (DoD).
to such simulations, but are not involved in
In many ways, these early systems have been
determining the outcomes. A constructive
unable to take advantage of modern
simulation is a computer programme. For
developments to processing technology and
example, a military user may input data
software developments such as AI and are
instructing a unit to move and to engage an
doctrinally tied to US DoD Tactics, Techniques
enemy target. The constructive simulation
and Procedures (TTP).
determines the speed of movement, the
effect of the engagement with the enemy and Due to the use of older operating systems and
any battle damage that may occur.’viii architectures, further development is difficult.
More modern designs make use of improved
It is worth noting that the different
hardware and software architectures and
constructive training systems used by the US
‘technical refresh’ is designed into the system
Department of Defense (DoD), including
from the outset to ensure that such
WARSIM, OneSAF and Joint Land Component
constructive training systems remain at the
Constructive Training Capability (JLCCTC), all
forefront of technical development and truly
have different functions in terms of what level
reflect current TTP.
of unit or formation they are designed to
provide training for. At present, there is no The other benefit of modern constructive
‘one size fits all’ as far as constructive training training systems is their scalability. The ability
is concerned. to upgrade or add items such as a logistic,

3
cyber warfare or CBRN capability provide One key component of the modern
increased flexibility and maintain the constructive training system is its fidelity. This
relevance of the training system for its user fidelity applies to entities (such as vehicles,
audience. weapons and units), terrain, infrastructure
(such as roads, urban construction and canals)
Another consideration with older and weather effects. With modern systems
constructive training systems is the such as SWORD, the parameters of the
manpower required to script and conduct entities can be readily changed through drop
exercises is often considerable. With military down menus or users can simply undertake
manpower always at a premium, users must exercises with SWORD’s out-of-the-box
factor in this resource commitment before content.
selecting a constructive training system for
procurement. One example, from the New This content includes predefined military units
Zealand Defence Force, shows that in 2007 (infantry, armour, artillery, engineering,
the Army ran its Exercise Suman Warrior using aviation, logistic forces for example), public
the JANUS constructive training system. The safety and security (police, firefighters and
exercise required 55 operators, all of which ambulances), asymmetric threats (terrorists,
required a two-week pre-exercise training militias or unruly crowds) government agents
course. and civilians (NGOs or refugees). Hundreds of
missions and scenarios can be created and
In Exercise Suman Warrior 2014, JANUS as
trained for.
well as OneSAF and Joint Semi Automated
Forces (JSAF) systems, had been replaced by Observations on MASA SWORD
MASA SWORD. Pre-exercise training was cut
to a matter of days through the use of a web- As well as the technological advantages of
delivered e-learning package and SWORD’s SWORD that have been briefly described
more intuitive Human Machine Interface above, the development of the product has
(HMI) meant that the manning level was frequently been undertaken hand in glove
reduced by 66%. In addition, the hardware with the system’s military customers. These
needed to support the exercise was military customers can be found in 13
significantly reduced.ix countries across the globe where SWORD is
used to train command and staff personnel at
Modern constructive training systems such as the Divisional down to Company levels.
SWORD, provide a degree of flexibility that is
completely missing from older systems that This close working relationship with the
have been designed to train specific military customer has led to a development roadmap
formations. In Peru for example, Colonel that sees customer feedback implemented in
(Retd) Guillermo Ortiz Hervera, the Officer regular update releases of SWORD several
Commanding at the country’s Tactical Training times a year. This ensures that all users have
Centre (CETAC) has said that the Peruvian the latest version at all times.
Army, ‘adopted a modern constructive
A SWORD server can be installed in less than
training system [SWORD] to train at all levels
15 minutes, allowing its users to focus on
for a spectrum of different scenarios that
actual training rather than wasting time with
include conventional warfare, anti-terrorist
unnecessary software complexity issues. A
operations and disaster management.’x
powerful web--based administration tool
‘SWORD also allows us to plan, prepare and allows remote trainees to access exercises
validate courses of action that we might want and scenarios. SWORD can also run on a
to undertake in the future,’ said Ortiz Hervera. standard laptop. With its modern and intuitive
‘Such plans were devised for the impact of El Graphical User Interface (GUI), trainees can
Nino in November 2015 when the country become proficient with the system in a matter
was hit very hard.’ of hours.

4
With a previously described ‘out-of-the-box’ it has been integrated with OSPREY to provide
content set, SWORD also includes a simulation constructive command post training from
server, a gaming client, a timeline, tools for company to division level. SWORD is also
scenario preparation, terrain generation, used in the TACTIC research programme in
physical and decisional models adaptation, France to integrate C2 system using the NATO
After-Action Review (AAR), a self-training standard Battle Management Language
module and a web--based interface to (BML). SWORD has also been linked to serious
manage distributed exercises. Together, these games engines such as VBS 3 to provide
attributes make SWORD one of the most virtual representation of units and for AAR..
capable, flexible and efficient constructive
training systems available anywhere in the Conclusion
world.
In conclusion it can be seen that ever since
SWORD can represent high-fidelity ground the staff system was developed in France and
forces immersed in highly realistic joint forces Germany in the late eighteenth century, the
or coalition scenarios, through the use of military was aware that it needed a system to
detailed physical models and advanced train its commanders and staff. Initially, this
interoperability features. Platoons and system was the Kriegsspiel or wargame and
companies in SWORD are intelligent and this approach was adopted by most military
autonomous. They can receive operational forces around the world.
orders and execute them without additional
This wargame approach is still used, and
input from the operators, while adapting their
alongside the Staff Ride and TEWT, provides
behaviour accordingly as the situation
an excellent training and educational tool.
evolves. Such a level of fidelity on combat
Such an approach has limitations and such
actions, the operations of battalions, brigades,
training has been supplemented by the CPX
army divisions and higher, provides
and more latterly, computer-based
commanders and their staff with remarkably
constructive training systems.
reliable simulation exercises that are lacking
in competitor systems. Not all constructive training systems are the
same and many lack flexibility, contain low-
In addition, everything in SWORD can be
fidelity entities, need high levels of
customized to match the user’s actual
maintenance and call upon large numbers of
equipment and doctrine: from vehicle speeds,
personnel to use the systems in command and
weapon system performance and sensor
staff exercises.
accuracy, through unit composition, basic
loads and logistics systems, to unit TTPs and The new generation of constructive training
types of mission. systems exemplified by SWORD, address the
shortcomings of earlier systems by providing a
SWORD is not just a stand-alone constructive
flexible, high-fidelity and intuitive approach to
training system. The product has been
the command and staff training challenges
adopted by several companies, including
that confront armies around the world.
Saab, Systematic and RUAG, the latter where

i
Sun Tzu. The Art of War, translated by Griffiths, Samuel (Oxford: OUP, 1963)
ii
Tolk, Andreas. Engineering Principles of Combat Modeling and Distributed Simulation (Hoboken: Wiley, 2012)
iii
Gardiner, Ivor. ‘Wargaming: An Overlooked Educational Tool’ in British Army Review, No.165, Winter 2016.
iv
Kline, John. ‘Education and Training: Some Differences’ in Air University Review January-February 1985.
vvv
Ibid.
vi
Stanley, Bruce. Wargames, Training, and Decision Making. Increasing the Experience of Army Leaders (Fort
Leavenworth: USACGSC, 2000)
vii
Robel, Michael. The Difference Between Military & Civilian Wargames. Accessed at
https://www.strategypage.com/wargames/articles/wargame_articles_2004919231.asp on 03 July 2016.

5
viii
US DoD Simulation Glossary (December 2010)
ix
Nash, Trevor. ‘New Zealand Defence Force Mission Command Training School’ in Military Training &
Simulation News, Vol.17, Issue 1, 2015.
x
Col. Ortiz Hervera to author at MASA User Group Conference, Saumur, France, 30 March 2016.