This article covers the results of my 5-year Study on Cooperation and Coordination in Wargaming Joint Command Scenarios. 'Mis research was sponsored by the Center for Provocative Wargaming after a thought-provoking meeting where one of the prominent and distinguished members proclaimed the following. "More than 2 wargamers can never agree to and execute a plan of battle. Furthermore, more times than not even 2 wargamers cannot agree to and execute a plan of battle. It is a waste of gaming time to even hold a strategy meeting before playing because it never accomplishes any useful results!" Being from the school of miniature gamers who always hold a sacred pre-battle conference or war council, these words were very disturbing. In fact, a council of war meeting being a waste of time sounded like pure blasphemy, but being an open-minded researcher, I volunteered to lead an objective study in this highly controversial area. I was somewhat concerned however that the research might lead to some disturbing truths about wargamers. This effort was preliminarily conducted from a distance, acutely observing the interaction amongst gamers, while the later effort was conduct first hand, front and center, as an active participant. I will first summarize the results of the observations. Of all the games surveyed, over 90% held a prebattle conference to discuss strategy. Amazingly, in about one third of these conferences the commanders failed to reach a consensus. Bring up almost any period in the history of warfare and standing around any wargaming table you will find at least 3 or 4 self-proclaimed experts in the period. Surely these leamed wargames will also understand the important lessons history has taught us about Generals cooperating and coordinating with each other. The uncountable battles lost by Commanders going off doing their own thing without regards to the overall battle plan must surely be part of their vast knowledge base. Apparently human nature is such that these same lessons must be leamed over and over again. Most of conferences I observed which reached. a consensus adopted what I refer to as the "Universal Battle Plan". If you are not aquainted with the Universal Battle Plan it goes something like this, "You kill'em over there where you are and I'll kill 'em over here where I am." This seems to be the one plan that a large group of miniatures gamers can agree upon. Who could disagree with such a simple and straightforward plan! Furthermore, there are dozens of battles set-up at every convention I attend with troops lined up elbow-to-elbow, 3 ranks deep, from table edge-to-edge where the universal battle plan is sensibly and almost exclusively used. As a member of the Center for Provocative Wargamers, I had set a higher standard and was looking for a more sophisticated plan of battle and a higher level of true cooperation and coordination between commanders and could not accept the Universal Battle Plan as the only choice. As a final observation from this phase I would like to report that any battleplan that included the word "wait" was doomed to failure. Miniature gamers are men of action and waiting does not agree well with such men. This maybe partly caused by everyone having an experience of commanding the reinforcements and having to wait until turn 5 for them to artive (which tums out to be a 5-hour wait). It seemed any commander with "wait" as part of the orders would wait no longer than the time between when the light turns green and the guy behind you beeps his horn (or about 2 milliseconds for the scientific minded readers). While these results seem to support the uncooperative supposition about wargamers, it was time to take to the field and try to prove otherwise, firsthand. With raw determination and courage I was certain I could forge a consensus amongst commanders using diplomatic skill and logical arguments. These field results will be reported as case studies. Case Study I: "Greeks at Sea" I looked out from the bow of my Athenian Trireme, one in a long line of Greek Alliance Ships, across the calm sea at another long line of Phoenician Ships. The Phoenicians were master seaman and can turn their ships on a Roman penny but we had them outnumbered 3 to 2. We held a war council and worked out a simple battle plan amongst the 6 commanders. It took careful negotiation and discussion but we reach a consensus that we would move slow and stay together. Make sure the poorer crews were not left behind, turn the entire line at once to face the Phoenicians and take advantage of our superior numbers against their superior seamanship. Us Greeks might not be the best seamen but we know how to work together! Well, I think we can work together even through historically we have never been able to agree on anything. We do have a number of very young and inexperienced captains on some of the ships but surely they will follow the battleplan that everyone agreed with. I commanded the rowers to row easy, don't get worn out before we engage, make a steady and slow turn to starboard and stay with the other ships. Having completed our turn I looked to port. Wait, where are those Greek ships going! Why haven't they turned? I looked to starboard. There was one other captain close by who had also executed the battleplan who was also looking around wondering where the rest of the fleet was going. We looked at each other and we both knew it was up to us to carry the day. We both cried out "ramming speed" and charged into the Phoenician line catching them unprepared for the charge of a small detachment of the Greek Fleet. This caused the Phoenician fleet to go through all kinds of fancy maneuvers and contortions, which eventually led to the demise of the Phoenicians when the rest of the Greek fleet showed up. Post Game Analysis: During a pre-battle conference I was able to get an agreement from all 6 players, who did not know each other, on a plan of battle. The plan was simple and had a sound bas is but on the very first turn of the game most of the players were off doing their own thing and basically ignored the plan. Somewhere I had overlooked a key factor in the process. On the plus side, one of the events from this battle was what I refer to as "local cooperation and coordination" amongst players. While the global battle plan fell apart the first turn, I was able to form an ad hoc local battle plan with an adjacent commander and we successfully executed the plan. I had also observed this many times in the observation phase of this study where Commanders in close proximity to each other regularly agree on a local battle plan and execute it. Maybe players feel somewhat more committed to a one-on-one agreement and have more buy-in than with the group conference. Case Study II: Battle of Three Bobs The Battle of Three Bobs occurred at a moving-away party for Bob Hurst, who had more than one friend also named Bob. The Civil War battle featured 4 Commanders on each side, all close friends. The Union Side, consisting of Bob Hurst, Wally Simon, Bob Wiltrout, and Jim Butters. We quickly adopted the Universal Battle Plan to the best that I could tell. The Confederate Side consisting of Terry Sirk, Bob and Cleo (Husband and wife team), and myself huddled in our battle conference where I proposed the following plan. "I propose we deceive the enemy into believing we will advance across a broad front then, quickly shift positions, taking all the troops from three commands, and make an overwhelming bayonet charge on one flank. There would be no stopping to fire, just a headfirst all-out charge. The target of this juggernaut should be none other than the hardcharging take-no-prisoners Jim Butters who will no doubtingly be coming at us full speed." It called for the forth player to play a defensive role. His orders were simply 'hold the line'. Not the kind of orders a man of action wants to hear or is likely to follow. Nonetheless, Terry Sirk volunteered to 'hold the line' and would command a sparse line of troops spanning most of the front and we would leave the artillery behind under his command because 'The Crush Butters plan' called a bayonet charge. There would be no time for the artillery to unlimber and fire if they advanced with the charge. Bob ' and Cleo agreed to line up in the center of the field and then when I gave the signal they would swing to the flank and go in with the masses. This was a bold plan that required close cooperation from all players. It was agreed upon with very little opposition. It required some waiting and gave one player a defensive role. Could it be executed or was this another "Greeks at Sea" battle plan that would fall apart the first turn? There were a couple of key differences in this battle. First, the Commanders were all friends, as oppose to strangers in the "Greeks at Sea" battle. Second, we had a husband and wife, who are best buddies, soul mates and all that Certainly a husband and wife team will be able to work together. The battle plan was possible because the game mechanics allowed the Commander-in-chief to choose the Sequence of Actions, listed on action cards, for their side. Play of cards alternated between sides. The Union side had the initiative and selected cards in the following order: Move, Move, Fire, Move, Fire, Morale Check, Rally. As Commander-in-chief, I selected the order of the 7 action cards for the first bound as follows: Fire, Morale Check, Rally, Fire, Move, Move, Move. (Melees occurred after each move card.) The first two cards told us that Union was coming at us full speed and no sooner had they fired their first volley that messages started coming in from the other commanders that they wanted to fight back, go get'm, let'm have it. I sent back calming messages, "our time is coming, wait just a little longer, remember the "'Crush Butters' Plan". I have no doubt that the plan would have fallen apart but for another key factor. As commander-in-chief, I controlled the card sequence. I was not going to play a move card until the end of the bound. Finally, at card 5 we had all our move cards left and the Union side had none. As I played three move cards in a row the Union Commanders serenely watched as our entire line shifted, heading towards the flank where Jim Butters commanded. On the third move card the first line crashed home. Jim, who is use to a tough fight, repulsed the first wave at the end of the first bound. We won the initiative on the second bound and started with another move card where the second wave of troops charged into Jim Butters' line. Again the attack was repulsed but with more losses and opening some holes. Jim sent an urgent message to Headquarters requesting help. The tranquility at the Union Headquarters was no more but it was too late. Our second card was another move card which saw the third wave of fresh troops charge into Jim Butters' line. This time Jim's lines were completely overwhelmed. His entire command was in rout. Cries went out along Jim's line that they "had been betrayed". "The CIC is incompetent". This broke the spirit of Union Side and they threw in the towel half way through the second bound. Post Game Analysis: With all Potomac Wargamers in the game, a consensus was easily reached in both pregame battle conferences. Even though they had moments of doubt, Bob, Cleo, and Terry, all executed the battle plan when the time came. I guess they felt that they had gotten through the hard part, i.e. the waiting part, they might as well follow through with the rest of the plan. This was a case of four friends cooperating and coordinating to execute a complex battleplan. However, what about strangers playing together for the first time? This question is answered in Case Study III. Case Study III: Rebels on the Mississippi The Yankees were preparing to make a run up the Mississippi but us Rebels were determined to stop them. We made our defenses where there were two deep narrow channels and one shallow channel, which we had mined and surrounded with forts. We also had 3 ironclads and a few two-man torpedo boats waiting to stop them. While we were waiting for them Yankees, I was surveying the terrain thinking, fonnulating a plan. Yes, the terrain was ideal, the key elements were all there. This was a perfect battle for a defensive tactic I like to call the "Ring of Fire Defense". All I had to do was convince the other Rebels of the brilliance of the plan and we would surely stop them Yanks. The terrain is shown on the following figure. I decided to start with a little one-on-one conferencing to set the groundwork for a consensus amongst all the Rebels. I approached the adjacent commander (who commanded the lead fort) and started outlining my plan. It called for the fort gunners to hide, lay low" and wait (the dreaded word "wait" that usually dooms any battle plan) for the lead Yankee ships to pass right by, right under the fort. Then spring out and lay on heavy fire at point blank range just when all the ironclads and other forts open fire at the lead ship. A ring of overwhelming point-blank fire would surround the lead ship from three sides. After the first ship was disabled all the fire would then switch to the second ship in line and so on until the Yankees were stopped cold. My hands were waving and the excitement of the great Confederate victory I was projecting was grand. His response to all this was that he had written the rules we were using and my plan would never work because while the gunners might hide and protect themselves the Yankees would blast the fort and destroy all the guns. I was not deterred by this minor setback in my plans because someone who writes the rules doesn't necessarily know how to play them best) I silently countered. I organized a council of war with the other three commanders (I left out the 'Rebel who would not hide' having already gotten his response) and convinced them of the "Ring of Fire" plan. They all agreed that it sounded like a good plan and were willing to go along. I commanded one of the ironclads and a few fort guns. The battle opened with the Yankees fleet exchanging gunfire with the 'Rebel who would not hide'. In no time flat most of his gunners were killed while only a few of his guns were destroyed. I could feel the other Rebels were getting anxious. They were ready to sail out and confront the Yankee fleet but, every time I would whisper to them remember the 'Ring of Fire'. Then the 'Rebel who would not hide' had a change of heart, kind of like in "How the Grinch Stole Christmas". His remaining few gunners ran for shelter leaving their guns. The Yankees saw this, got into line, and started sailing up one of the deep channels. As the lead ships reached the critical point the entire Confederate force opened fire on them. The Yankees had sailed right into the trap. Even the 'Rebel who would not hide' commanded his gunners to spring out and fire on the lead ship with their remaining guns. Suddenly, one of the lead ships sank and the second ship had an ammunition explosion, which killed all of the gunners. The Yankees felt committed, there was no turning back, they kept on coming in line and each was destroyed as it entered the Ring of Fire. By the end of this slaughter every Yankee ship was sunk compared to one of our ironclads and both torpedo boats. Post Game Analysis: While the one-on-one effort failed completely I was still able to form an agreement amongst four out of five commanders in a pregame conference. A number of times the other commanders were ready to abandon the battle plan however, having a catchy name for the plan allowed me to reel them back into the fold. The conclusion from this battle is that every battle plan needs a name. One that preferably reminds everyone what they are supposed to do. Referring back to Case Study I, we probably should have named the plan, 'United we stand, divided we fall' or 'Greeks in a Line' to get better cooperation. Summary In summary, this study found that most miniature gamers are content to push some figures around and roll some dice. They are not really interested in developing and executing any fancy battle plans. They are sometimes willing to go along with someone who has - k battle plan j . a plan of action. It did find examples of players agreeing to a battle plan in a conference but then executing their own completely different personal battle plan on game turn 1. This study also found that 100% of the observed married couples whom wargame together were good at cooperating. (Of course the sample space of this category was small.) It also found that it is much harder to get a group of strangers to work together than a group of friends but it is often possible to work out a local battle plan with strangers. Finally, it's nice to have friends to game with. Back to PW Review October 1998 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1998 Wally Simon This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com