Battle of Jutland Centennial #2

The Naval War College put on the truly historical Jutland game – using a version of the actual 1916 war College rules. Over at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, as the kickoff game in our Historic Naval Battles series, we put on a more “Beer and Pretzels” version. Soft pretzels were actually available from the Subway next to the “collaboration center”  we used to hold the game. Usually used as a classroom for 40+ people – this space had maybe 20 x 50 ft of usable floor space, allowing the use of a 300yds per inch and 8 turns per hour game scale.

Jutland setup

We had NUWC’s Chief Staff Officer CDR Pete Rodgers playing the role of ADM Scheer leading the High Seas Fleet. John Ackerman, one of our resident Engineer gamers, took the role of Jellico. We had about 15 players all told, each commanding a squadron of 4-8 capital ships and/or light ship formations. A lesson learned in hindsight from Pete Pelligrino over at NWC, was to give players a “Forward” command and a “Rear” command – this would have avoided the unfortunate circumstance that half the players took most of the game getting to the battle. Despite only having the opportunity to get a few licks in (if any) before we reached out collective culmination point – about 3 hours of game play following an hour of setup and rules explanation – the proverbial good time was had by all.

We used graphics from the out of print Jutland game blown up to about 4 inches long. That gave about a 1/2400 scale top down view and at the same time, at 1200 yds ground scale, took up about 600ft of ship with 500yrds for and aft. So a line of ships had 1000yds spacing  – a bit far perhaps, but not bad.

The counter dimensions were driven by the choice to use 3/16s balsa (which came in 4 in widths and 3ft lengths) for bases to which the ship graphics were affixed to  with “mod-page” fixative. This worked out really well resulting in ships that were easily handled, with the advantage of being able to record hits and torpedo salvo use with ball-tipped stick pins stuck into the balsa bases

The light cruiser and destroyer formations were similarly 1200 yrds long, but about 600 yrds wide – a bit tight for typical 2-3 CLs and 4-5 DDs, but not terrible given the limit of the number of pieces of balsa stock available at the local Micheal’s craft store. They were the source of all the other materials or the game ringing in at under $40 using a 30% off coupon courtesy of my daughter the master crafter of the family!Ship CounterWe used pipe cleaners bent into the desired path of ship movement to give orders and facilitate the movement of the ships along on the floor. To represent the time delays associated with command and control of the period, the players “gave orders” for the next turn, ten executed orders for this turn. This was a bit problematic when quarters became close – as it became difficult to avoid fudging by players who put their “orders” out after others. If we had it to be done other, we would have just had the players draw the desired pass on a yellow sticky placed near the formation. The rules have been updated to reflect that.  Using white pipe-cleaners gave a nice impression of “wakes” when seen from a distance – though also in reverse as the pipe-cleaners were placed out ahead of the counters as “orders” as well.

Giving ordersIn typical fashion we used range sticks, but as Home Depot apparently no longer make dowels longer than 3ft, Michaels came through with a bundle of decorative bamboo rods, a bit under half an inch in diameter and about 80in (24,000 scale yards) long. These worked perfectly – light weight and just stiff enough not to bend when held out. With range marks every 10 inches to 50in and every 5 after that (as effectiveness dropped off and negative DRMs to fire quickly accrue) it was quick and easier to judge distances.

Range sticksThe intention was to use cotton both for “laid smoke” and “firing smoke” but it was apparent that indicating smoke for every firing would delay things far more than it was worth, so that was cast aside and stricken from the rules. To keep things moving, each squadron fired together at an enemy squadron, totaling the firepower points from the Jutland counters. Each firepower point amounted to a roll of a d10 – with a “0” (10) required for a hit. Learning my lesson from the Okinawa game – with typical squadron firepower factors in excess of 20 to over 30 – I made a firepower table that aggregated the distribution of expected results and reduced any firing to a single d10. I stole the idea from the SPI Dreadnought game that “off the table” (i.e. greater than 9) results dramatically escalated hits – while “less than 0” rolls (typically at long range) dropped rapidly to zero.

This wide range of variation for a given firepower range depending on DRMs was a stark contrast to the NWC 1916 rules were fire did set amounts of damage with no die roll. Both have advantages and disadvantages the historical pedigree of the NWC rules being a perfect match for a scholarly recreation. For “beer and pretzel” gaming I thought a wide range from “something’s wrong with our bloody ships” to “finding the range on the first shot”. Indeed, there were several “runs of luck” each way at critical points in the battle that saw that saw players letting their virtual captains what they thought in no uncertain terms.

berating poor performanceOr matter-of-factly pointing out “oh look, I rolled ANOTHER 9” (Its gotta be the uniform!)

another 9Damage was indicated with stickpins (those with a yellow ball end were cheapest…) and an orange “belch of flame” to indicate “took damage this turn” for later DRMs. Battle cruier vulnerability to big gun fire was taken into acaount with a special die roll when a BC was hit and fired in the same turn. Germans exploded on snake eyes, while the more vulnerable British did so on a 2 or 3. Demonstrating the historical accuracy of the rules, 2 British BCs exploded, right on cue (though one was already little more than a hole in the ocean when it did so). This was indicated with a small pile of belched flame.

BC explodes(Yes this was the result of one of those “9”s…)

All told we made good progress getting through the entire Battlecruiser engagement and a few shots from the main bodies at long range) 14 turns or a an hour and 45min in 3 hours of game play. I made the rookie umpiring mistake of not letting the players do more of their own combat resolution. No matter how much you say you are not – its always SOOOO easy to get drawn in when the action gets hot and heavy and the players get competitive and want an “authoritative” ruling!

midst of battle“No, I think its really half an inch closer so I get the +2 DRM for range less than 6yds, don’t you?”

The Destroyers and Light cruisers of the Battle Cruiser force lay smoke and the Heavies speed around it to engage at close range. The German destroyer force uses the smoke to cover a quick approach and use the smoke to cover a turn of its own to break contact and speed toward the Main Body of he Grand Fleet and delay it.BC action nears culmination

Meanwhile the High Seas Fleet deliberately closes. In hindsight had they closed at full speed they might have gotten their licks in on the British Battle Cruisers. The swirling battle of flank and out-flank almost resulted in a “180” flipping the field.The British Light Cruiser squadrons and DD’s lay smoke for the Battle Cruisers (who survived) to retire behind.

Germans making a deliberate approach

Meanwhile the British Armored Cruisers and 5th Battle Squadron hot their heels, stress test their boilers to get o the fray. It gets orders to heave hard to starboard to meet the German Destroyers when they emerge from behind the smoke.

Vanguard of the Grand Fleet engages

Our photographer had to leave about that time, the battle went on about another 30 minutes after that, the result ending up pretty much as you would expect – the British battle cruisers got mauled – 2 exploded and 2 others lost, but the Germans lost a lot of destroyers in the process of torpedo attacks to finis them off. The British armored cruisers came around the smoke screen as it dissipates and ran right into the line of German pre-dreadnoughts. Neither had the firepower to do a lot , but German torpedobooten got some lucky licks in and forced the British to turn away. The Pre-dreadnoughts were than mauled themselves by the British Light Cruisers. The High Seas Fleet then approached, formed a massive line and  headed to the right in the above picture. The Grand fleet was approaching in 4 columns, and started to mass that direction as well. The German Destroyers continued to the right, but the High Seas fleet doubled back to the left (the smoke was gone by then).

As the game ended it was looking like a near run thing whether the High Sea Fleet maneuver would have been able to race around and get past the Grand Fleet before it could be brought to battle or darkness fell. The remaining British Battle cruisers and Light Cruiser squadrons, together with the 5th Battle Squadron had a decent chance of intercepting, but could it have taken the pounding of going against the entire German Fleet? Would the Brits have succumbed to the temptation to throw their individual Battle Squadrons piecemeal to attrite the Germans – risking defeat in detail themselves?

The debate was not resolved!

Endgame discussion

In case you missed the link in the midst of the above, the “print and play” package of rules and graphics is available here. Note that the graphics are from the out of print Avalon Hill Jutland game – copyrighted material at one point, but I’m not sure who owns copyright. They are used here without profit for educational purposes.

Posted in Community Development, Educational, History | 5 Comments

Connections 2016 Registration Open

This blog had its origins in the Connections Interdisciplinary Wargaming Conference, an annual event which is held each summer to bring together practitioners from every segment of the wargaming community to share with and learn from one another.  To read some earlier posts about previous Connections conferences and related activities, hit the “Connections conference” tag below.

Registration for Connections 2016 is now open!  The conference will be held August 9-12 at Maxwell AFB in Montgomery, AL, hosted by the LeMay Center Wargaming Institute.  This year’s theme is: “Advancing Wargaming as a Catalyst for Innovation.”

Keynotes, speaker panels, game demos, working groups, and a workshop component called the Game Lab will provide a wide-ranging experience for Connections attendees.

More information, including the current draft of the agenda, is available at the Connections website.  If you are interested in presenting at Connections, or displaying a poster or running a game demonstration, the registration page on the website also has a link to a Call for Papers, Posters, and Demos.

Posted in Community Development, Connections conference | 1 Comment

GrogHeads Reviews Zones of Control: Perspectives on Wargaming

GrogHeads Reviews Zones of Control: Perspectives on Wargaming

excerpt

“Do you need to buy this book?” is the ultimate question.  Unless you’re a single-track wargamer, who eats, sleeps, breathes, and lives & dies with one type of game – tabletop hex & counter, or digital FPS – there’s going to be more than enough reading to keep your interest.

zoc-splash

Posted in Community Development, General Games | Leave a comment

Wargaming the Centennial of the Battle of Jutland

This was sent out Wednesday on the Society of Daisy yahoo group (bunch of older recreational wargamers more into imagi-nations…).  IIRC, the original tile floor was in the building next to the ENEWS site, was covered with picnic tables and had a coke machine behind the speaker…  Would have loved to have been there for this game!

05/11/2016

Posted in I was too lazy to categorize this post | Leave a comment

The Battle to Teach Wargaming

In a War on the Rocks piece a couple of weeks ago Dr. Jim Lacy  recounts the travails and successes of using wargaming as a teaching tool in his Marine Corps War College classes. It caused a bit of a dust up over on National Interest. It resonated with me as I was in a similar sort of situation a couple of weeks ago, teaching a group of 30+ scientists, engineers and analysts about wargaming, decision-making and naval operations. It seemed in the cat-herding of all of it that I was living Dr. Lacy’s quote:

Then, the big day arrived … and I failed miserably.

Well, thankfully the students didn’t seem to notice too much… While I set the bar a fair bit too high for both they and myself, most were having too much fun to notice I was whirling like dervish from table to table answering questions tearing out what little hair I have left, having insufficiently prepared them.  I even had two gentlemen from the Army War College attending to see what this “NUWC” place was doing teaching a class in wargaming?

Well, as a “Warfare Center” NUWC (Naval Undersea Warfare Center – sister to the Naval Surface Warfare Center) has broad responsibility within the Navy connecting the Science and Technology (S&T) community, the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) community, the Acquisition Community and the In-service Engineering Agent (ISEA) communities all to the Fleet.  We even have a nice Bridge logo appropriate to all that:

nuwc_bridge

So with all that stuff going on to support the Fleet, we must be WAAAY to busy to be playing games, right? Well, argued I, if they are the right kind of games, then maybe we should MAKE time to play them if we are serious about thinking more creatively so as to get programs “across the bridge” more effectively. If the desire is to explore how technologies can be combined in new ways “building Boyd snowmobiles” yellow sticky drills and brainstorming sessions only go so far. Pitting  capabilities against each other in an operational context to see what the advantages and disadvantages provides more comprehensive insights than discussing options alone.

The idea to teach scientists, engineers and analysts about the Fleet they are supporting by teaching them to play wargames has gained traction and is one of the lines of effort in the NAVSEA Warfare center’s Fleet Engagement Community of Practice. Those efforts will hopefully complement the re-invigoration of wargaming in traditional in traditional venues and help “democratize” wargaming other places where it can provide opportunities tho think more deeply about warfighting challenges and how to address them. “High Density Learning” to go along with efforts focusing on “High Velocity Learning”.

So now enters hubris.

Connection’s game lab last year was my first attempt to teach a large group of people a wargame. I tried to make what I thought was a simple game. Simple for someone who knew what “a complicated game” was (e.g. GMT’s A World at War or Avalon Hill/MMP “Advanced Squad Leader”). The result was my A2ADventure game derived from the little “SubHunt” game I did for “Bring your Child to Work Day” at NUWC several years ago. If I could teach SubHunt to 7 -12 year olds in about 15 minues, I thought I could teach A2ADventure to a group of folks at a wargame conference in an hour. So I gave myself 90 minutes. Which was a good thing because as often happens at conferences, I lost have to time to things running late. So now, flustered and off my game, I tried to teach the game in 45 minutes. It was a LOOONG 45 minutes. A good many people seemed intrigued and I had a 3 hour timeslot the next day for actual gameplay, so I was hopeful. To make a long story shor, I had about 40 people engaged with the game, with 8 or 10 really whooping it up. A lot of tables didn’t know where to start and hadn’t really been able to get much further than “talk about what they might do if they got around to played the game”. Which is fine, that is about as far as 80% of “professional wargames” ever get. It pointed out to me a vital point to remember teaching non-wargamers about wargames:

Familiar with the rules doesn’t mean familiarity with what you do with the pieces to win!

Knowing the rules and knowing what to do with that information in the context of competition are two different things and BOTH need to be taught to new players. Having observed that issue rear its head at Connections, I of course took that into account in my new course! Well, not so much…

So now enters a bad memory as well as hubris.

As often happens when we desire to do great things and accomplish worthy deeds, or otherwise get all liquored up about something cool, we forget to remember what we did the last time. Or at least I did. Obviously. I figured I could do pretty much the same thing I did for Connections, and having learned from that experience, would do better this time. However, intervention from the rest of my day job and life in general meant my plan for using 3 games to illustrate points over 3 days got pretty compressed. I had already delayed the course once, and in hindsight should have again to be better prepared. Interest can wax and wane precipitously, and I felt I needed to get something “out there” to get the ball rolling. I pressed on. I had put together 20 odd copies of the A2ADventure game for connections, 4 copies each of 3 games didn’t sound that daunting, and I had some printing support from our graphics department this time. I forgot that the issue at Connections was not the physical components, but communicating to the players what to do with them. Again its not just giving them the rules, but insight into the strategizing process – thinking through how to accomplish an objective in the game, given the constraints of the rules.Walking through the game can help, but compounding my bad decision-making was the excitement with which I learned there were over 30 people who had signed up for the 16 slots in the course. Obviously that is great – run the course once and get the bugs out, then run the course again. Well, thought I, having a larger group see how many others interested in gaming there were, and of course secure in my knowledge of how much I learned at Connections, I said “sure”. Dopey me.

Once more into the breech…

The title of the course is “Wargaming, Naval operations, and Decision-making. Dr. Stephen Downes-Martin handled most of the “…and decision-making” while I endeavored to give an overview of wargaming, operational art and how the current navy operates. The basic syllabus was “death by powerpoint” in the morning – followed by a gaming session all afternoon. The general flow was to talk about “strategy games” in general – not “strategic level of war” on Day 1. Dr. Downes Martin the covered “what does it mean to be a professional wargamerDay 2 covered military operations in general (including a bit on the difference between the “complex” and the “complicated” in theory) and an introduction to “operational art” using slides from a US Naval War College brief – trying to get at the “what do you do with the pieces” in an operational level wargame. Then the 3rd day a bit of recap followed by a brief on the U.S. Navy and how it operates. Not connecting the lectures closely enough with teaching about associated game mechanics left many students scratching their heads. Most noodled their way through.

The games I used for the afternoon “practical” sessions were:

Day 1 “Seapowers” designed by the Center for Naval Analyses (Peter Perla and Al Nofi, developed by Chris Weuve and Mike Markowitz – many thanks to Dr. Perla for giving me permission to share it!) for the (now disestablishing) Chief of Naval Operation’s Strategic Studies Group back in 2000. It puts players in the position of developing a Fleet for one of four Great Powers (Great Britain, France, Germany, and the US) from 1875 to WWI. This period saw arguably the greatest confluence of naval innovations in naval history – from sailing ships with steam engines, to the super-dreadnought battleship in some 40 years. Players must balance building an extant fleet, with developing technology for an improved Fleet – within the context of the type of naval warfare (Sea Control, Sea Denial, Littoral Defense, or Commerce Raiding) the country’s national strategy calls for.

Day 2 I used a game on the Leyte campaign using components from GMT’s “A World at War” enlarged and mounted on foamcore. The game used a “bucket of dice” approach not unlike “Victory in the Pacific” and used pennies as “logistics tokens” (Q: gee where can I get high quality generic metal disks to use as tokens for cheap? A: Any Bank!). A used this operation at the behest of friends form the Army War College distance learning department. The idea was that the game started with a “planning phase” wherein the players collaborated on a “sketch course of action” for the first 2 weeks of operations – in particular where they were moving their logistics tokens.The US player moved first. The Japanese player watched and decided when to try and intercept US airstrikes or ship movements. Rolling a d6 less than the range in hexes to the intercept point triggered a successful intercept. I’m still updating the rules based on what amounted to a very productive play test session. I declared success when, upon telling everyone they could leave, most stayed to finish turns or to tell other groups their “war stories”.

This really brought home he connection of gaming as “narrative creation” with the story-telling afterward demonstrating new knowledge, and reinforcing lessons about the historical outcome. “The Japanese were just screwed – they have no logistics and the US had all those Task Forces”. responded to with “But if we would have worked together like we planned, we woulda wrecked the invasion force, you had to go all “Halsey” on us and send the land-based air after the US carriers!” “Well ya, they woulda shredded your heavy BB group if I hadn’t – I wasn’t going leave you hanging like Marines at Guadalcanal!”

And back and forth…! This even with a two and a half inch firehose of knowledge thrown at them and generally grouping around in the dark asking questions, which as they were answered, demonstrated some points Dr. Downes-Martin likes to make about indications that students are gaining proficiency with the rules, starting with asking questions about “how do I do (xxx)?” rather than “what can a (xxx) unit do?” indicating they have moved from trying to understand the rules, to strategizing about what the rules let them do (or don’t). When they start proposing new rules they have moved tot eh next level and the advanced level is achieved when they start trying to cheat (or catch one another cheating! (or at least catching them innocently not following the rules correctly.

Had I done a better job connecting the “operational art” slides to game mechanics, this day would have gone a LOT smoother. Fixing that oversight is one of the first things I’m going to fix for “round 2”. Connecting the “theory of combat” and “operational art”lessons directly to specific game mechanics is vital to getting non-gamers up to speed on how the theory and practice relate that I’m embarrassed not to have thought through its importance…twice now…

The third days game is an offshoot of the A2ADventure game to demonstrate current day fleet operations to show the capabilities and limitations of the ships and aircraft discussed in the “Introduction to Naval Forces” that is part of the day 3 package. I will be bringing this game back to Connections this year, at least as a demo, if not as part of the Game lab or game night. More on that as I further refine it this summer!

The “big takeaways” from all this are:

Do gaming stuff with interested non-gamers…even if you worry its not “soup yet”! – I hemmed and hawed for over 2 years all together “talking about doing a class” and kept convincing myself “it wasn’t ready”. Well, what it needed to “be ready” would never have become apparent to me had I not taken the risk and “just done it”.

Directly integrate “teaching the theory” with “teaching the game”. Splitting it into “theory in the morning” and “gaming in the afternoon” would have worked much better as “teach a little, game a little” throughout the day.

Use ringers – I assumed too much I would get more “actual gamers” to help herd cats. I got a lot more “interested non-gamers” than I expected! Had I arranged to have at least 4 experienced gamers in the class – 1 per game table – there wold have been much less frustrations at my inability to be in 4 places at the same time.

Start VERY simple. Using the SubHunt game in the initial “teach a little, game a little” would have gotten the right gears turning in peoples heads faster regarding “abstraction layers” and how you represent causes and effects by nesting the causes in nested game mechanics.

Reach out after you have events! We followed up the course with a management level “after action report” to let the bosses who let their personnel attend the course know what went on, what they got out of it and were honest about difficulties and specifics about how we would improve it the next time. Most importantly entice them into GOING THEMSELVES at least at some point in the future. A 1 day “executive level” course is in the works for that.

Don’t be afraid to Share!!!! Am I happy with the materials I used in the course – no – they could be SOOOO much better if I had unlimited “white space” in my workday, and more spare time at home. But I set a deadline, I did the best I could in that limited time and I’m more than happy to share that and get your feedback for improvement. Constantly refining to make it “more ready” but never pulling the trigger delayed my inordinately and I could have pulled off this course 1 year and a half ago and now have 3 sessions under belt rather than 1. Hopefully I can get a “virtual class” worth of comments from all  y’all!

One of the things I gave out to the class was my Bibliography for Naval Wargamers. I’m looking fro recommended additions (or deletions – much of what is there is from Amazon recommendations, so not entirely vetted, with the exception of the “asterisked” entries which I either have myself or wee recommended by other. The complete package of references and course material (including the things specifically linked to above) is available here. And I will try not leave 6 months between posts again! My Wargamer, Analyst, and Warfighter have been sitting in that bar far too long! I will try to move them along!

So there you have it! Let me know what you think!

 

 

Posted in Community Development, Game Implementation | 6 Comments

Connections Wargaming Conference Panel Announcements

Dr. Stephen Downes-Martin has put out a request for panel members for the panel he is chairing with Dr. David Banks. Rex Brynan has posted the announcement here at PaxSims.

The announcement for the panel I am chairing is below:

Wargames as a catalyst for innovation – Only if non-gamers are convinced of their usefulness!

Connections this year is taking on the topic of how wargaming can support changing the behavior of a target social system within the military. That is the essential characteristic of an “innovation” – adopters within a social system changing their behavior. Everett Rogers, in his seminal work “Diffusion of Innovations” characterizes the essential metric of innovation success as the percentage of the target social system whose behavior the innovation is aimed at changing, adopt it. The more “innovative” the element introduced, the faster the rate of adoption.

One of the panels at this year’s Connections deals with how wargaming can discover “failure modes” of a concept. Testing concepts – in essence hypotheses about how to synthesize capabilities to achieve an objective – is rigorously done when one attempts to collect falsifying evidence. The accumulation of confirming evidence of the hypothesis does not “prove it”, rather the lack of evidence DIS-proving it is what lends credence to its perceived advantage when implemented.

Another panel addresses developing wargamers who can change how other wargamers wargame – producing wargaming innovation and advancing the state of the art of wargaming.

In both cases, more wargaming must be done in more places, using a wider variety of wargame techniques and tools to “matter”.

There are however, only a very few places in the military where wargaming is performed and only part of that capacity is used to test concepts, and even fewer devote significant resources to “advancing the state of the art” of wargaming. For wargaming to truly impact the rate of adoption of other innovations, it must be perceived as an “innovation” in and of itself and “diffuse” more pervasively through military social systems. More correctly “re-perceived” as one, since it has gone through several cycles of adoption and abandonment.
Gamers “get it” having repeatedly experienced the “a-ha” moment when patterns observed over many games are perceived in a novel way suggesting a new hypothesis explaining “why” certain observations might have been caused. Being comfortable with abstract representations greatly simplifying a complex system into understandable chunks, gamers are comfortable thinking in terms less rigorous than induction and deduction, rather by “abduction” of the form:

The surprising fact, F, is observed.

BUT, if Hypothesis H were true, F would follow as a matter of course.

HENCE, there is a reason to suspect H is true and thus subject H to experimental scrutiny.

There is obviously much more to it than that, abductive insight being but one example of the means by which wargaming can contribute to the process of innovation. The question is, how does wargaming “diffuse” institutionally to create the plethora of venues and wide range of “wargame tools” required to permeate a sufficient body of adopters to achieve the desired goal of “catalytic” impact on other innovative concepts.

Discussion related to “Enhancing the Diffusion of Wargaming as an Innovation” is the theme of Panel 3 at this year’s Connections. Questions for prospective panelists to consider include:

  1. How do we design wargames more likely to overcome individual and organizational barriers to adoption? Particularly those related to cultural aversion to the value of “play” and “games”, together with the predilection to assume that “more abstract, lower fidelity” tools based on  “qualitative and subjective” assessments are less valuable – if not counter-productive – compared to “less abstract, higher fidelity” and “physics-based” tools.
  1. How do we employ wargames in a manner that more readily engages non-gamers in participating in the flow of “constructing the narrative” wherein the “a-ha” moments happen? Is there a difference if participants are from technical vice operational communities?
  1. How do we more effectively capture those insights and communicate them to those who did not participate in the game experience?
  1. How do we encourage and incentivize “adopters” to institutionalize wargaming and the “cycle of research” it is a part of within their social networks?

The above is not all-inclusive and those with other perspectives on the subject topic are encouraged to suggest alternative questions to address. The format will be the same as the other panels with 3 panelists, each having 20min to present their views, followed by 30 minutes of group discussion and Q&A. If you are interested in participating please submit an abstract of your remarks BEFORE FRIDAY JUNE 24th to:

paul.w.vebber@navy.mil

I will notify the selectees by Friday July 1st and ask the selectees to provide a powerpoint presentation – with detailed talking points on the notes pages of each slide – to the email above by Friday July 22nd.

If you are interested in participating on one of the other panels, please contact Timothy Wilke at timothy.wilkie@ndu.edu

Posted in Connections conference | Leave a comment

Connections North

ConnectionsNorth.jpg

Connections North, a one day mini-conference on professional wargaming, will be held in Ottawa on Monday, 22 February 2016. Additional details can be found at PAXsims.

Posted in Connections conference, I was too lazy to categorize this post | Leave a comment