Recent information on this subject of wargaming mentioned, various dimensions for consideration, including, operations research, simulations and modeling.

To continue very briefly with this overall topic and historical developments, there are a couple of additional thoughts which should like to mention in terms of wargaming. Other than actual field exercises or problems, operational research as opposed to systems theory and systems analysis, seems or has been used most extensively in considering questions and issues of a tactical character. Systems analysis and theory, on the other hand, have been in the main concerned with strategy. This division of focus and purposes has had its own historical expressions and results; the systems aspects not being of concern here but reserved for separate discussions.

Concerning the operational research foci, generally of tactical concerns, there is one area to wargaming which was not mentioned in specific; this of game theory.

Game theory has some history to it. Game theory is concerned with what Luce and Riaffa call, “the modern mathematical approach to interest conflict.”[1] Defined thus, the theory of games can be understood to have the following characteristics:

First, the purpose of game theory is two fold. It is “to formulate mathematically complete principles that will specify what is rational behavior in certain kinds of social situations and on the basis of such principles, to isolate general characteristics of that behavior”.[2] In these terms, game theory is a method of analysis and for selection of the best courses to action for given situations determined.

Second, game theory requires structuring based on 3 assumptions. A-Game theory assumes possible outcomes of given situations are well specified and that each individual has a consistent pattern of preferences among various outcomes. Individual desire is assumed to be for preferred outcomes; thus behavior becomes or is a problem in maximizing expected utility.

B-Variables controlling outcomes are well specified. One can then characterize precisely all possible variables and values that may be assumed for a given situation. More practically, the rules of the game are clear and well understood.

C-Each player is assumed to know the preference patterns of other players. Rational behavior, defined as complete knowledge and maximization of action is thus, essential to the model or game theory. Without this behavior, uncertainty makes the game extremely more complex and may even invalidate the model as presented.

A third major character to game theory relates to the sources and origins of the concept; its history. Game theory is a direct development of the work by Von Neumann and Morgenstern, in their classic work, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. The book points outs clearly those kinds of problems to which game theory is most applicable. These are problems in bargaining in conflict situations[based mainly on economic studies] parlor games and problems in military strategy.

R.C. Snyder, historically, presented his case for game theory having its strongest bond with political science in the areas of concern that focus upon decisions, decision making and conflict. Snyder turns his attention to two areas; relations between Presidents and Congress and in Foreign Affairs.[3]

Finally, game theory offers major concepts for conducting applications to problems. These are strategy, payoffs, rules of the game, information structure and coalitions. These basic building blocs to models, specify general characteristics to operational game situations and make analysis possible of conflict in terms of strategies, methods and goals. In so doing, there are several limitations and values of importance: Limitations– Lack of empirical data against which model can be checked. Lack of completeness in given model, limiting it in terms of data that can be checked. Assumptions about conflict situations, thereby ignoring other situations Very restricted definition of rational behavior[drawn in main from economics]

Values– As pedagogic device, offers a different way to conceptualize problems and/or knowledge. Suggests other areas in which fruitful research might take place or be carried forward. Shows limitations to knowledge in certain areas; thus, by asking question, challenge can be given to others to think about answers.

These brief thoughts about game theory, are somewhat representative of game theory’s earlier history. Since the publications were presented, a considerable body of literature and work has developed during preceding decades. Quite possibly, there are reports and publications which contain applications of operations research from Vietnam for example, though this author has not followed research of this type. Also, operations research was used during WW II that may prove of historical interests.

Undoubtedly, later developments in mathematics, statistical theory, probability theory and computer modeling have produced works and studies crossed with these earlier concerns. It is to more recent publications, which this author has not followed, greater contributions and uses may be available in applications, for game theory, to wargaming. My own thought, from this subject, turns to a known game sold commercially and capable of being played with pencil and paper…..that of Battleship.

In this simple two person or more game, each person draws up a grid of squares; locates a battleship somewhere upon their gird of squares, without revealing the location to other players. Then each player takes turns, indicating a grid square number to their opponent; if the grid number holds the battleship, the player so finds another’s Battleship, thus sinking the opponents battleship. During a very brief period, the chance to play this game with a former Marine Colonel**, who served on Gen. Lewis Walt’s staff in Vietnam took place; while on assignment under the Colonel’s participation in evaluation of bid contracts by shipbuilders, for the “new” Navy-Marine LHA ship type.

This Landing, Helicopter Assault ship became one Navy-Marine Corps mainstay during this past 30 years, on active service with the Fleet; though its success would not be attributable to our little two person game for a few brief weeks as participants, along with a team of Navy-Marine Corps personnel numbering 2000 persons, detailed to evaluate contractor bids to build LHA ships, never before known in US Naval and Marine history.***

Wyatt Reader

footnotes: 1—–Duncan R. Luce & Howard Riaffa; Games and Decisions, J. Wiley & Sons, NY 1957; especially Chptr. One.

2—-Ibid. pp.2-3

3—-R.C. Snyder, :Game Theory and the Analysis of Political Behavior” in Rosenau, International Politics and Foreign Policy, Glenco Free Press, NY, 1961, pp.381-390.

Biblio: Also see–Marin Shubik, Readings in Game Theory and Political Behavior, Doubleday, NY 1954, intro, chptrs. 1 and 4.

** The Colonel, a career officer. upon leaving the Marines, accepted faculty appointment to teach mathmatics, at North Carolina, around 1969.

***Litton Industries subsequently was awarded the contract bid to build nine LHA’s for the Navy at its Pascagoula, Mississippi. As recalled, the shipyard was an entirely new facility built to develop the LHA and demonstrate a new method of shipbuilding; modular construction of ships……..a first in Naval history. The LHA-1 became the USS Tarawa and the LHA-5 was named USS Peliliu; after two of many Naval actions, in the Pacific, during WW II. The original contract called for 18 or 20 ships[from memory] and was reduced to 9 ships for Marine Corps. uses, due to increased cost per ship from the initial bid estimate submitted for evaluation by Navy/MarCorps.