U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Research Report 1836 

Developing an Environment for Exploring Distributed 

Operations: A Wargaming Example 

William T. Holden, Jr., Matthew L. Smith, 

and Clair E. Conzelman 

Human Resources Research Organization 

Paul G. Smith 

Northrop Grumman Information Technology 

Carl W. Lickteig, and William R. Sanders 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

 

May 2005 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

A Directorate of the Department of the Army 

Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 

ZITA M. SIMUTIS 

 Director 

Research accomplished under contract 

for the Department of the Army 

Human Resources Research Organization 

Northrop Grumman Information Technology 

Technical review by 

Bob Siebert, 3d Squadron, 16th Cavalry Regiment 

 Fort Knox, Kentucky 

Billy L. Burnside, U.S. Army Research Institute 

NOTICES 

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Research Report has been made by ARI. 

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army 

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: DAPE-ARI-MS, 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926 

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Research Report may be destroyed when it is no longer

needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 

and Social Sciences. 

NOTE: The findings in this Research Report are not to be construed as an official 

department of the army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.
i 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy) 

 May 2005 

2. REPORT TYPE 

 Final 

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to) 

 March 2003 – February 2005 

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER 

 DASW01-99-D-0012 DO #23 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Developing an Environment for Exploring Distributed 

Operations: A Wargaming Example 5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

 0602785A 

5c. PROJECT NUMBER 

 A790 

5d. TASK NUMBER 

 211 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

William T. Holden, Jr., Matthew L. Smith, and Clair E. 

Conzelman, (Human Resources Research Organization); Paul 

G. Smith (Northrop Grumman Information Technology); Carl W. 

Lickteig, and William R. Sanders (U.S. Army Research Institute) 5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

Human Resources Research Northrop Grumman U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Organization (HumRRO) Information Technology Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) 

66 Canal Center Plaza 7575 Colshire Drive DAPE-ARI-IK 

Alexandria, VA 22314 McLean, VA 22102 2423 Morande Street 

 Fort Knox, KY 40121-5620 

 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 

 

10. MONITOR ACRONYM 

 ARI 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences 

ATTN: DAPE-ARI-IK 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Arlington, VA 22202-3926 

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER 

 Research Report 1836 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

Contracting Officer’s Representative and Subject Matter POC: Carl W. Lickteig 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): 

Requirements for Future Force operations indicate that planning and wargaming must transition from a collocated, 

sequential, and staff-centered process to one that is distributed, simultaneous, and commander-centered. The 

present research developed a course of action analysis (wargaming) environment for exploring the human 

performance requirements associated with distributed wargaming activities characteristic of Future Force 

operations. This report describes the design, development, and initial evaluation of the multi-echelon distributed 

wargaming exercises and simulation tools comprising the wargaming research environment. Key design features of 

the research environment are identified which serve to rapidly guide command groups through the Action-ReactionCounteraction wargaming cycle, minimizing the time required to orient participants to the tools, tasks, and 

background information necessary to wargaming. Four distributed wargaming exercises, including two Horizontal 

(Staff) and two Vertical (Command) exercises, were conducted with 20 Active Duty Officers – Majors and Captains. 

Results of the research provide a prototype example of an environment for distributed operations that can support 

Future Force research and training requirements. The results provide lessons learned for developing a distributed 

planning environment, including guidelines for the development of structured exercises, requirements for tools that 

facilitate collaboration, and measures for the assessment of wargaming performance. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

Wargaming Distributed Operations Future Force 

Command and Control Multi-Echelon Operations Human Performance 

Structured Exercises Collaborative Tools Measurement 

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 

16. REPORT 

 Unclassified 

17. ABSTRACT 

 Unclassified 

18. THIS PAGE 

 Unclassified 

19. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT 

 Unlimited

20. NUMBER 

 OF PAGES 

 113 

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

 (Name and Telephone Number) 

Ellen Kinzer 

Technical Publications 

Specialist 

703-602-8047 

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 
iii 

Research Report 1836 

Developing an Environment for Exploring Distributed 

Operations: A Wargaming Example 

William T. Holden, Jr., Matthew L. Smith, 

and Clair E. Conzelman 

Human Resources Research Organization 

Paul G. Smith 

Northrop Grumman Information Technology 

Carl W. Lickteig, and William R. Sanders 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

Armored Forces Research Unit 

Barbara Black, Chief 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926 

May 2005 

Army Project Number Personnel Performance and 

2O262785A790 Training Technology 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
iv 
FOREWORD 

Concept exploration and developmental research for the Army’s transformation to the 

Future Combat Systems (FCS) is a key concern of the U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI). As part of the effort, the Future Battlefield Conditions 

(FBC) Team of the Armored Forces Research Unit (AFRU) is conducting research to support the 

development of human performance measures required for FCS command and control (C2

). The 

FBC research supports work package (211) FUTURETRAIN and the Science and Technology 

Objective (STO) “Methods and Measures of Commander-Centric Training.” 

The objective of the present research was to develop a research environment to explore 

and assess the human performance requirements associated with the distributed nature of 

planning and wargaming anticipated in Future Force operations. This report describes the 

design, development, and initial evaluation of multi-echelon, distributed wargaming exercises 

and supporting tools comprising the research environment. Key design features of the research 

environment are identified which serve to guide command groups through the Action-ReactionCounteraction cycle of distributed wargaming. Design stressed the need for more efficient and 

effective methods to prepare and conduct wargaming as well as the need to collect objective 

measures of human performance essential to wargaming and mission success. 

The results of the research were briefed to members of the Armor School and training 

communities at Fort Knox including the Acting Director, Training, Doctrine, and Combat 

Development and Senior Instructor, Armor Captains’ Career Course (Distance Learning). In 

addition, the Armor Captain’s Career Course (Distance Learning) program at Fort Knox has 

requested and received the wargaming exercise materials for evaluation and possible 

incorporation into student training. 

 MICHELLE SAMS 

 Technical Director 

v 
vi 
DEVELOPING AN ENVIRONMENT FOR EXPLORING DISTRIBUTED OPERATIONS: 

A WARGAMING EXAMPLE 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Research Requirement: 

The U.S. Army’s Future Force will be required to perform command and control on-themove using the network-centric capabilities provided by Future Combat Systems (FCS). 

Planning will be conducted in a distributed manner using methods and tools that facilitate 

dispersed operations. More specifically, planning must transition from a co-located, sequential, 

and staff-centered process to one that is distributed, simultaneous, and commander-centered. 

This report describes the development of a research environment for exploring and assessing 

distributed planning. Wargaming was selected as the representative planning task for the 

research because it involves much more than data calculation and information sharing. 

Wargaming is a human activity essential to mission success that encompasses the broad goals of 

stimulating ideas, highlighting critical tasks, and providing insights otherwise difficult to achieve 

during planning. The research environment was designed to overcome a number of 

shortcomings that often complicate command and control research to include excessive time 

requirements, unstructured exercises without adequate training objectives, and performance 

outcomes that are difficult to assess. Such environments are needed to replicate the tasks, 

conditions, and standards of performance for Future Force evaluation and training requirements. 

Procedure: 

The research effort began with a review and analysis of wargaming to identify human 

roles and responsibilities with an emphasis on distributed planning for the Current and the Future 

Force. As a result, design of the wargaming exercises focused on the iterative Action-ReactionCounteraction cycle of wargaming that underscores human performance requirements. All 

exercises were set in a contemporary operating environment near the Caspian Sea and each 

exercise included five critical events within a proposed course of action (COA) based on the Box 

Technique of wargaming. A structured approach to exercise design was used to expedite the 

preparation and conduct of wargaming, to identify and control key tasks and conditions, and to 

develop objective measures as a basis for performance standards. At the same time, the design 

tried to provide an acceptable mix of structured versus free-play activity in wargaming. 

In essence, the design scripted key roles and responsibilities for the participants during

Action-Reaction phases that served as a basis for participants’ free-play discussion and 

collaboration during Counteraction. Scripting allowed the research team to embed potential 

problems or measurement “hooks” into the proposed friendly COA (as part of Action materials) 

and into probable enemy responses to the COA (as part of Reaction materials). The problems 

concerned potential shortcomings in synchronizing the COA across battlefield operating systems 

(BOS) as identified, discussed, and addressed by wargaming participants during Counteraction. 

In addition, a set of tools were developed to enable communication and collaboration among the 

physically dispersed members of the command group in a manner anticipated for the Future 

vii 
Force. The tools allowed participants to share text, graphics, and verbal communications during 

wargaming. Overall, four versions of a wargaming exercise with five critical events were 

designed to include Horizontal (Staff) and Vertical (Command) exercises for the Current and 

Future Force. 

Measures of wargaming outcomes were developed to assess changes made or requested 

to the COA by the participants during Counteraction, with a particular focus on the BOS 

synchronization problems embedded in the exercise. Related measures were developed to assess 

how well the distributed participants established a common understanding of their COA, 

including recall of scripted information during Action-Reaction as well as COA changes and 

refinements during Counteraction. In addition, more subjective surveys were developed to 

obtain participant response to the design of the distributed environment and particularly the 

wargaming exercises. Overall, four Current Force wargaming sessions with multiple events 

were conducted in the ARI mini-lab at Fort Knox. A total of 20 active duty officers served as 

participants, with five participants assigned to each of two Horizontal (Staff) and two Vertical 

(Command) wargaming exercises. 

Results: 

An objective measure of wargaming outcomes assessed whether participants identified, 

discussed, and made COA changes to the BOS problems embedded in the structured exercises. 

Across all exercises, 72% of the embedded BOS synchronization problems were identified, 67% 

of the identified problems were discussed, and 59% of the identified problems were addressed by 

changes made or requested to the COA. Another outcome measure assessed each command 

group’s common understanding based on their similar responses to multiple-choice questions 

about scripted and unscripted information related to their COA. Results indicated participants 

obtained a common understanding on many key aspects of the COA, such as position and reposition of friendly forces and adjustment to fire support plans. Across all exercises, the average 

agreement within each command group on the items assessed was 72%. 

Survey measures supported a formative evaluation by asking participants to assess key 

features of the research environment. Between 90-100% of all participants endorsed the research 

environment with respect to read-ahead materials, tool training and certification, tool utility, and 

background materials including scripted Action-Reaction roles and responsibilities. Of special 

interest, 85% of all participants reported the distributed wargaming methods developed were 

applicable to actual operational environments including training centers and warfare. In 

addition, participants provided constructive criticism for improving the distributed wargaming 

methods and overall research environment. 

In sum, the results indicate that the wargaming methods and measures developed 

represent a viable research environment for exploring and assessing distributed planning 

requirements for the Current and Future Force. The environment helped overcome key 

shortcomings that complicate command and control research including excessive time 

requirements, unstructured exercises without adequate training objectives, and performance 

outcomes that are difficult to assess. In particular, the results indicate that the investment made 

viii 
in structuring exercises is returned in measurement gain, and in findings that relate more directly 

to evaluation and training objectives. 

Utilization of Findings: 

The results of the research were briefed to members of the Armor School and training 

communities at Fort Knox including the Acting Director, Training, Doctrine, and Combat 

Development, and Senior Instructor, Armor Captain’s Career Course (Distance Learning). 

Methods and findings support development of the future research environments needed for 

distributed, simultaneous, and commander-centered planning in the Current and Future Force. 

The products of the research, including methods and measures for distributed wargaming, are 

documented in an Exercise Support Package (ESP) on compact disc available from ARI. The 

Armor Captain’s Career Course at Fort Knox has requested and received these distributed 

wargaming products for evaluation and potential use in officer training, particularly distance 

learning. 

ix 
x 

DEVELOPING AN ENVIRONMENT FOR EXPLORING DISTRIBUTED 

OPERATIONS: A WARGAMING EXAMPLE

CONTENTS

Page 

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1 

 Background.......................................................................................................................... 1 

 Wargaming........................................................................................................................... 2 

 Purpose and Objectives........................................................................................................ 4 

 

Method .......................................................................................................................................... 4 

 Structured Exercise Design and Development .................................................................... 5 

 Analysis of the Wargaming Process.............................................................................. 5 

 Structured Exercise Design............................................................................................ 7 

 Wargaming Materials..................................................................................................... 9 

 Research Environment and Collaborative Tools .................................................................11 

 Physical Setting..............................................................................................................11 

 User Collaborative Tools...............................................................................................12 

 Measures to Improve Wargaming........................................................................................15 

 Wargaming Outcome Measures.....................................................................................15 

 Formative Evaluation Assessments ...............................................................................17 

 Electronic Performance Recordings ..............................................................................18 

 Procedure .............................................................................................................................18 

Results...........................................................................................................................................20 

Outcome Measure Results ...................................................................................................20 

BOS Synchronization .....................................................................................................20 

 Common Understanding.................................................................................................21 

 

Formative Evaluation Results..............................................................................................22 

Final Survey Results.......................................................................................................22

 Electronic Performance Recordings............. ..............................................................23 

xi 
CONTENTS (continued)

Page 

Discussion.....................................................................................................................................24 

 Lessons Learned – Structured Exercises..............................................................................24

 Scripted and Free-Play Wargaming Phases...................................................................24 

 Realistic Task Conditions..............................................................................................25 

 Exercise Support Package..............................................................................................25 

 Horizontal and Vertical Exercises .................................................................................25 

 Lessons Learned – Collaborative Tools...............................................................................26

 Whiteboard Tool ............................................................................................................26 

 Collaborative Notepad ...................................................................................................27 

 Standing Operating Procedures......................................................................................28 

 Job Aids .........................................................................................................................28 

Lessons Learned – Measurement..................................................................................................28 

 Outcome Measures.........................................................................................................28 

 Process Measures...........................................................................................................29 

 Conclusions on Measurement........................................................................................30 

References.....................................................................................................................................31 

APPENDIX A Acronyms......................................................................................................... A-1 

B Sample Participant Preparation Materials: Horizontal (Staff) Exercise.......... B-1 

C Sample Participant Training/Certification Guide for TF Cdr: Horizontal 

 (Command) Exercise ................................................................................... C-1 

D Participant Job Aids: Horizontal (Staff) and Vertical (Command) 

 Exercises...................................................................................................... D-1 

E Participant Tactical Materials: Vertical (Command) Exercise........................ E-1 

F Sample Participant Wargame Execution Guide: Horizontal (Staff) 

 Exercise, Event 1 ....................................................................................... F-1 

G Sample Collaborative Solutions Rating Form: Horizontal (Staff) Exercise ... G-1 

H Sample Post-Event Surveys: Horizontal (Staff) Exercise............................... H-1 

I Final Survey: Horizontal (Staff) and Vertical (Command) Exercises............. I-1 

J Mini-Lab Set Up for Electronic Data Recordings............................................ J-1 

K Summary of Non-Contingent Observer Ratings of BOS Synchronization 

 by Exercise and Event.................................................................................. K-1 

L Final Survey Results by Exercise Session........................................................ L-1 

 M Read-Me File.................................................................................................... M-1 

xii 
CONTENTS (continued)

Page 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Materials Included in the Read-Ahead ..........................................................................10 

Table 2. Frequency and percentage of BOS synchronization indicators.....................................21 

Table 3. Percentage of Agreement Between Participants on Common Understanding Items.....22 

Table 4. Summary Results on formative evaluation of the research environment ......................23 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Evolution of the planning and wargaming process ...................................................... 3 

Figure 2. Box Technique for wargaming..................................................................................... 6 

Figure 3. The Action–Reaction–Counteraction cycle adapted for distributed wargaming ......... 6 

Figure 4. Primary participants for distributed wargaming........................................................... 8 

Figure 5. The Problem hooks for Events 1 and 2 from the Horizontal (Staff) exercise .............. 8 

Figure 6. Sample of tactical materials provided to participants...................................................11 

Figure 7. Physical layout of the ARI mini-lab used for distributed wargaming..........................12 

Figure 8. Collaborative Notepad application...............................................................................13 

Figure 9. Map, overlay and Whiteboard applications..................................................................14 

Figure 10. Reach Application used in distributed wargaming.....................................................14 

Figure 11. Example of a BOS Synchronization Rating Form .....................................................16 

Figure 12. Example of a Post-Event Survey................................................................................17 

Figure 13. Overview briefing slide for wargaming preparation ..................................................19 

xiii 
xiv 
DEVELOPING AN ENVIRONMENT FOR EXPLORING 

DISTRIBUTED OPERATIONS: A WARGAMING EXAMPLE 

Introduction 

The Army is preparing for a Future Force that will be more strategically responsive, 

deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, survivable, and sustainable across the full spectrum of 

military operations. The preparation entails a holistic revolution in doctrine, organizations, 

training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF)1

. Central to 

the Army’s ongoing transformation is the requirement for more distributed operations during the 

planning and execution phases of a mission. More specifically, planning must transition from a 

co-located, sequential, and staff-centered process to one that is distributed, simultaneous, and 

commander-centered. 

The goal of transforming to distributed planning raises a number of researchable issues. 

This report describes an effort to develop a research environment with methods and measures for 

exploring and assessing distributed planning. Wargaming was selected as the representative 

planning task for the research because it involves more than data calculation and information 

sharing. Wargaming is a human intensive activity with the goals of stimulating ideas, 

highlighting critical tasks, and providing insights otherwise difficult to achieve during planning. 

 Distributed and solidly structured planning exercises are prerequisite to establishing the 

tasks, conditions, and standards of performance for Future Force evaluation and training. The 

structure of an exercise can ensure realistic and representative planning problems are embedded 

as variable conditions that relate to tractable standards on the process and outcomes of 

wargaming for more effective evaluation and training. Structured exercises can also provide 

more efficient methods for planning and wargaming while stimulating realistic collaboration 

requirements. 

Background 

To facilitate and guide its movement towards the Future Force, the Army has established 

enabling transformation goals across the DOTMLPF spectrum. One such transformation goal 

concerns command and control (C2

) where transformation will be tied closely to development of

Future Combat Systems (FCS). Key aspects of the transformation anticipated for C2 are: 

• Battle command for the Future Force will be characterized by a single unitary battle 

command system, integrated throughout all functional areas. 

• The battle command system will maintain and share a common relevant operational 

picture (CROP) to enable visualization of the courses of action required to win a 

fight. 

• Planning methodologies that support distributed and collaborative interaction, along 

with decision support tools, will assist the commander and staff at each echelon in 

analyzing potential courses of action. The planning methodologies will allow the 

 

1

 Appendix A contains a list of all acronyms used in this report. 

1 
commander the option to rehearse plans with subordinate commanders and staff while 

dispersed and on the move. 

• The battle command system will include smart search engines and intelligent agents 

that mine, understand, analyze, fuse, and distribute data in support of planning and 

execution operations. 

• Training capabilities will be embedded into every Future Force C2 system, allowing 

leaders to train their units as combined arms teams using virtual and constructive 

tools. The embedded training will provide a full-task framework for planning, 

training, and rehearsals, and provide feedback on unit and Soldier performance. 

The transformation in C2 will rest heavily on the development of FCS to create an 

unprecedented alliance of humans and machines. The alliance will pervade the force,

particularly in the C2

 area where expectations about new paradigms are emerging. It is 

envisioned that the Future Force will have the capability to perform distributed planning, 

wargaming, and rehearsal while on the move. Supporting technologies will allow subordinate 

commanders and staffs to participate actively with their higher headquarters in streamlined 

planning and decision making processes in support of a collective course of action (COA). 

Wargaming 

Wargaming is a critical component of the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) 

that is undergoing a transformation, as depicted in Figure 1. The current wargaming process is 

conducted as a series of sequential steps by staff groups. It relies heavily on human memory and 

computation to visualize battlefield dynamics, share information, and make decisions. The 

current wargaming process will give way to parallel planning, and eventually to simultaneous 

planning in which actions will be completed across multiple echelons by command groups, 

commanders and staffs, enabled by collaborative tools such as the CROP, smart search engines, 

intelligent agents, and the use of extensive shared databases. In sum, wargaming “will change 

from a sequential, staff-centered, planning focused process to one that is simultaneous, 

commander-centered and execution focused” (Department of the Army [DA], 2003a, p. 5-29). 

In the Current Force, analysis of one or more COAs is conducted by wargaming (DA, 

1997). Wargaming is a disciplined process with rules and steps that attempt to visualize the flow 

of a battle. Wargaming relies heavily on doctrine, tactical judgment, and experience to carefully 

analyze interdependent mission, enemy, terrain, troops, time, and civilian (METT-TC) factors. 

When time permits, wargaming should assess each operational phase of a COA in a logical 

sequence. Wargaming stimulates ideas and insights, highlights critical tasks, and provides 

familiarity with tactical possibilities otherwise difficult to achieve. The value added by 

wargaming is aptly summarized as: “Wargaming is the most valuable step during COA analysis 

and comparison, and should be allocated more time than any other step” (DA, 1997, p. 5-16). A 

more detailed discussion of wargaming is provided by Heiden (1995). 

2 
 

Figure 1. Evolution of the planning and wargaming process. 

Serial Planning -- sequence of serial actions performed by staff

that occur in a pre-specified order to produce a 

coherent plan

Parallel Planning -- set of actions performed by staff and command

groups, some of which may occur in parallel,

to produce a coherent plan

Simultaneous Planning -- actions performed by staff and 

command groups, occurring 

sequentially and in parallel at 

multiple echelons to produce a 

coherent plan

Conventional wargaming tools and methods severely restrict the wargaming process. 

Conventional tool limitations include the time-consuming and error prone reliance on static 

paper maps, acetate graphics, posted symbol sets, and tabular formats such as a synchronization 

matrix. Such tool limitations force a heavy reliance on human memory and computation to 

visualize battlefield dynamics and to record and share conclusions. As a result, wargaming 

doctrine stresses that the commander or his executive officer must determine how much time can 

be committed to wargaming. Conventional method limitations include a centralized (versus 

distributed) and top-down, traditionally staff driven analysis of a COA. The top-down approach 

does not readily include simultaneous multi-echelon perspectives that might be provided by 

subordinate commanders and combatants. Rather it requires serial wargaming by subordinate 

commanders and combatants who must subsequently analyze their more specific COAs nested 

within the overarching COA. 

As the Army continues transformation to a digital force, the methods of wargaming will 

undergo iterative changes in concert with the new C2

 systems being fielded, tested, and 

integrated by Soldiers and leaders. The MDMP planning and wargaming methodologies will 

likely evolve to support geographically dispersed staff and command groups utilizing digital 

communications and collaborative tools to perform many functions currently completed face-toface. With workstations connected via tactical networks, all members of command and staff 

groups will be able to view the same digitally mapped terrain and to access data in the form of 

photographs, graphics, and possibly live video. Sketches and graphics will be modified, 

manipulated, and supplemented through the use of an animated Whiteboard capability. A 

Whiteboard should provide the ability to modify graphic control measures and other visual 

information in a real-time collaborative environment where changes are simultaneously seen by 

all participants. Other capabilities supporting commander and staff coordination will include: a 

3 
“reach” capability where personnel can access references and doctrinal manuals, a voice 

communications system, text messaging, video conferencing, and shared databases. 

Purpose and Objectives 

As an initial approach to addressing distributed planning by the Current and Future Force, 

ARI initiated exploratory research to address the fundamental question of how groups might 

perform planning activities, such as wargaming, in a distributed environment. The purpose of 

the present research was the development of a research environment employing structured 

simulation-based exercises to explore and assess the methods, tools, and measures necessary to 

facilitate distributed wargaming. Key aspects of the environment were structured wargaming 

exercises for distributed staff and command groups, collaborative tools, and a set of performance 

measures to assess wargaming. To meet the overall purpose of the research, the following 

objectives were addressed: 

• Design and develop a networked research environment for distributed wargaming that 

provides a CROP, an animated Whiteboard, and voice communications for visual and 

verbal collaboration. 

• Design and develop structured exercises to support the conduct of planning and 

wargaming in a simultaneous, collective, multi-echelon and distributed manner. The 

distributed exercises require planning between higher and lower echelons (vertical 

integration) and across the same echelon level (horizontal integration). Tailor the 

design to an audience in which three to eight participants located in at least three 

separate or distributed locations interact directly and accomplish tasks collectively. 

Include collaborative, interdependent tasks (i.e., the task requirements for each 

participant will depend on the work of the other participants).

• Design and develop measures to assess the effectiveness of distributed wargaming. 

Performance assessment must address the outcomes of distributed wargaming to 

identify whether participants successfully identify and address problems or conflicts 

within a COA. Conduct a formative evaluation to gather participant feedback on the 

research environment, particularly the wargaming exercises and measures developed. 

Method 

A research environment was required to explore distributed operations. Research issues 

and approaches associated with human-system integration for future command and control 

(Lickteig, et al., 2002) were considered in the design of the research environment, as well as the 

communication requirements for multi-echelon distributed leaders suggested by Graves et al. 

(2004). The research effort began with a review and analysis of wargaming to identify human 

roles and responsibilities with an emphasis on distributed planning for the Current and the Future 

Force. As a result, design of the wargaming exercises focused on the iterative Action-ReactionCounteraction cycle of wargaming that underscores human performance requirements. All 

exercises were set in a contemporary operating environment near the Caspian Sea and each 

exercise included five critical events within a proposed course of action (COA) based on the Box 

Technique of wargaming. 

4 
A structured approach to exercise design was used to expedite the preparation and 

conduct of wargaming, to identify and control key tasks and conditions, and to develop objective 

measures as a basis for performance standards. At the same time, the design tried to provide an 

acceptable mix of structured versus unstructured or free-play activity in participants’ wargaming. 

The exercises were employed in a series of four research sessions which examined distributed 

wargaming performance, and also served to formatively evaluate the research environment. 

Structured Exercise Design and Development 

Analysis of the Wargaming Process. Field Manual 101-5 (DA, 1997) describes a process 

for wargaming in which a commander and staff normally analyze several COAs using evaluation 

criteria that have been established prior to the start of the wargaming process. Decision criteria 

allow assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of one COA against another. In a situation 

with severe time constraints, the commander may direct the staff to wargame only one course of 

action. In addition, the commander may also direct the staff to wargame the COA against a 

single Enemy COA (ECOA) rather than completing a comparison using both the most likely 

ECOA and the most dangerous ECOA (DA, 1997). 

Typically the commander and staff must determine the wargaming technique that will be 

employed: Belt, Avenue-in-Depth, or Box. The Belt Technique is based on a sequential analysis 

of the events that are likely to occur for a COA. The Avenue-in-Depth Technique focuses on a 

single avenue of approach and is used primarily for offensive operations. The Box Technique is 

a detailed analysis of a critical area, such as an engagement area, and is most useful when time is 

limited. Figure 2 illustrates the key features of the Box Technique that was selected for the 

current research because it focuses on clearly identifiable critical events which were expected to 

provide a relatively firm basis for structuring the wargaming exercises. In addition, during an 

abbreviated planning process the commander and staff will normally use the Box Technique 

focusing on the most critical event first. As time permits, other events are normally analyzed 

based on the priority of the events as determined by the commander. 

At the heart of the wargaming process is an Action-Reaction-Counteraction cycle as 

shown in Figure 3. Action generally pertains to those activities initiated by the force on the 

offensive, the role played by wargaming participants in the current research. Reactions are the 

other side’s actions in response, the enemy’s role in the current research. Counteractions are the 

first side’s subsequent responses to the other side’s reactions. The sequence of Action-ReactionCounteraction is continued until a critical event is completed or the commander determines that 

he must use some other COA to accomplish the mission. 

5 
Figure 2. Box Technique for wargaming. 

Figure 3. The Action–Reaction–Counteraction cycle adapted for distributed wargaming. 

Typically, the friendly unit’s proposed actions are portrayed by the operations officer or 

by the commander of the unit. Other staff officers identify the combat support and combat 

service support assets, along with the necessary synchronization required to support the action. 

Typically, the friendly unit’s intelligence officer role-plays the enemy commander and tries to 

win the wargaming event for the enemy to ensure that the commander and staff fully address the 

enemy’s strengths and weaknesses. During Counteraction, the commander and staff generally 

review the Action and Reaction inputs in order to validate the COA or modify the COA to 

account for the operational problems or opportunities identified. 

Enemy Reaction

Friendly Action

Generates

Friendly Counteraction

Perform Additional Sequence Next 

Event

Assess the results,

make changes, and

confirm the flexibility

feasibility, and rationale

for the COA.

Generates

Scripted

Free-play

Enemy Enemy

Enemy

Event 1 Event 3 Event 5

Event 4

ll

Axis of Advance

Enemy Enemy

Enemy

Rationale for Box Technique 

Event 4 Event 2 -- Supports detailed analysis of 

a critical area 

-- Assumes unit able to handle 

other situations not analyzed 

Axis of Advance

-- Use when time is limited 

-- Allows prioritization of critical 

events versus serial analysis 

ll

6 
Notably, the Friendly Action and Enemy Reaction phases of the wargaming exercises 

developed for the present research were fully scripted. The participants read the scripted text to 

share key background information quickly and uniformly. Typically, much of this background 

information would have been developed by the staff prior to wargaming. 

The wargaming process has been used for many years in face-to-face settings where 

planning is conducted by the unit staff (i.e., horizontal planning). A research issue was to assess 

if more traditional methods, namely the Box Technique and the Action-Reaction-Counteraction 

cycle, might adapt to distributed wargaming. A related issue was to examine if traditional stafforiented methods might work for command group wargaming. 

Structured Exercise Design. To reflect the contemporary operational environment, the 

exercises were based on the Caspian Sea/Azerbaijan scenarios contained in the Unit of Action 

(UA) Operational and Organizational (O&O) Plan (DA, 2003b). Furthermore, the specific 

scenario “Rapid Advance to Enemy Center of Gravity” was selected for exercise development. 

A key initial design task was to identify and prepare supporting materials for a series of critical 

events within the scenario selected. Five critical events based on the Box Technique were 

identified for the wargaming exercise: 

• Task Force (TF) secures passage lane and conducts intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance (ISR) operations. 

• TF moves to the objective area. 

• TF isolates the objective.

• TF seizes key urban terrain/features. 

• TF executes key stability tasks. 

A combination of regular and asymmetric paramilitary forces was selected as the threat 

force for both Current and Future Force versions of the wargaming exercise. The Current Force 

versions reflect today’s Army’s operations and organization; the Future Force versions are 

network-centric, rely heavily on sensors and other robotic elements, and task organize units 

according to the UA O&O. 

The exercise was designed at the battalion level for the Current Force (i.e., a Battalion 

Task Force) and the Future Force (i.e., a Combined Arms Battalion). All versions of the exercise 

were designed for five primary and other alternate participants in Horizontal (Staff) and Vertical 

Command) conditions, as indicated in Figure 4. 

The next step in the design of the exercises was to identify a set of key problems to serve 

as “hooks” for performance measurement. One of the fundamental goals of wargaming is to 

make sure the various battlefield operating systems (BOSs) are synchronized. A simple example 

of synchronizing a BOS would be that fuel (Logistics BOS) is available to a maneuver unit 

(Maneuver BOS) when and where it is needed. Each of the five critical events was analyzed to 

identify and develop a representative set of BOS synchronization problems and trigger events 

that would indicate a lack of synchronization. 

7 
HORIZONTAL VERTICAL

(Staff) (Command)

CDR CDR

CURREN

T

 FORCE

XO S3

S1 S2 S3 S4 A Co B Co C Co

ADA Chem FSO SIG Attached Sct Plt Mrtr Plt Plt Ldrs ENG CSM

CDR CDR

FUTURE

 FORCE

XO S3

ISR MS BCP

Recon IN Co MCS

FE SIG

NLOS IN Co MCS CSM

HR

Figure 4. Primary participants for distributed wargaming (alternate participants shown in grayshaded boxes). Note. All acronyms are defined in Appendix A. 

 The trigger events were established during exercise design to specify what needed to 

happen for a problem hook to occur and how the exercise could be designed to make that 

happen. The hooks served as a basis for assessing wargaming outcomes, namely whether the 

group identified, discussed, and made or requested changes to the initially proposed COA. 

Examples of problem hooks for Events 1 and 2 from the Horizontal (Staff) exercise are shown in 

Figure 5. 

Hooks in Event 1 –TF secures passage lane and conducts ISR Ops

- Need to identify potential ambush sites

- Need fire support for scouts

- No casualty evacuation assets with sections

- Need retransmission capability for forward command post 

to control ISR operation at task force level

Hooks in Event 2 –TF moves to objective area

- Need to identify choke points on canal

- Need to support intelligence danger points

- Need to address canal crossing

- Need to secure soft assets

- Need fuel and repair before objective

Figure 5. The problem hooks for Events 1 and 2 from the Horizontal (Staff) exercise. 

8 
With the problem hooks specified, design and development focused on creating the 

specific exercise activities and resources for each primary participant to include maps, overlays 

and briefing materials. This included specifying the scripted actions and information required 

for each participant during the Action phase and for the surrogate threat commander during the 

Reaction phase. Four versions of the wargaming exercise with five critical events in each 

version were designed: Current Force - Horizontal (Staff), Current Force - Vertical (Command), 

Future Force - Horizontal (Staff), and Future Force - Vertical (Command). 

Notably, the wargaming sessions conducted for this research were limited to the Current 

Force versions, in large due to the emerging nature of Future Force organizations and operations. 

The Army’s transformation from the Current Force to the Future Force will be an iterative and 

extended process, a continuum of change not a discrete event or moment. Thus the research 

focused on more distributed and commander-centered wargaming by introducing these concepts 

into the Current Force versions of the wargaming exercise. While the Current Force does not 

presently conduct battalion level wargaming in a distributed and commander-centered manner, it 

is an essential proving ground for assessing and refining these concepts for the Future Force. As 

a result, all of the required wargaming materials, methods, and measures for the Current Force 

exercise versions were fully developed, as indicated in Appendix C. The Future Force exercise 

versions were only partially developed, as also indicated in Appendix C, to provide a transfer 

template for future evaluation and training efforts. 

To structure and expedite the wargaming exercise, much of the MDMP information and 

materials typically developed prior to wargaming were pre-scripted and provided to the 

participants as part of their Read-Ahead materials. As noted, scripting addressed the key roles 

and responsibilities of the participants during the Action-Reaction phases to provide a structured 

and more tractable basis for assessing participants’ free-play discussion and collaboration during 

the Counteraction phase, as illustrated in Figure 3. 

Wargaming Materials. The key materials developed to structure and support the 

wargaming sessions were identified as: Read-Ahead, In-Brief, Training/Certification, Job Aids, 

Task Force Update, Execution Guides, and Final Survey. 

The Read-Ahead materials listed in Table 1 were provided to each participant 

individually several days before their scheduled wargaming session. They were designed to 

provide information needed to understand the research goals and objectives and to familiarize 

them with the overall tactical situation within which the exercise events would be presented. The 

materials also provided a primer on the wargaming process. Appendix B contains a sample of 

preparation materials for a Horizontal (Staff) exercise. Materials used for the In-Brief were 

adapted from those provided for the Read-Ahead. The In-Brief provided participants with 

information on the operational scenario at the Task Force level and reviewed the key 

steps/products in the distributed wargaming process. Training/Certification materials and Job 

Aids (see Appendices D and E for examples) are described in greater detail in the Procedure 

section of the report. 

The Task Force Update provided the products of the MDMP that would normally be 

produced at the Battalion/Task Force level and were developed to set the operational stage for 

9 
the participants to conduct the wargaming exercise. A sample of Task Force Update materials is 

shown in Figure 7 which presents the Threat Overview - Current Situation update information. 

During each exercise tactical materials, such as map overlay graphics and Commander’s Critical 

Information Requirements, were provided to the participants through a simulated tactical internet 

tool to set the conditions for the Counteraction phase of wargaming. A detailed set of tactical 

materials used in the Vertical (Command) exercise is contained in Appendix F. The last element 

of the exercise session, the Final Survey, is described later in this section under the heading 

Measurement to Improve Wargaming Performance. 

Table 1 

Materials Included in the Read-Ahead 

Section 

Introduction 

 Purpose 

 Objective 

 Contents 

Wargaming 

 Definition 

Relationship to MDMP 

 Distributed wargaming process 

Distributed wargaming steps 

Exercise Overview 

 Wargaming exercise 

 Event descriptions 

Roles supported in exercise 

 Exercise tools/equipment 

Prior to exercise 

 During exercise 

 After exercise

Operational Scenario Extract 

 Strategic setting 

 Operational setting 

Higher headquarters commander’s intent and concept

Task Force commander’s initial guidance 

 Threat situation 

Additional operational materials 

An Execution Guide was developed for each participant for each of the five critical 

events for the Horizontal (Staff) and Vertical (Command) exercise versions. The Execution 

Guides provided guidance on the overall wargaming process and purpose, the scripted text for 

the Action-Reaction phases of the event, and additional guidance on conducting Counteraction 

and subsequently completing a critical event. A sample Execution Guide for one of the 

participants, the TF S2 (Intelligence Staff Officer), in the Horizontal (Staff) condition is included 

in Appendix G. 

In addition to providing basic tactical background information for the event, the primary 

purpose of the Execution Guide was to script the Action and Reaction phases of the wargaming. 

10 
The Execution Guide included specific and detailed scripts for each of the participants which 

could be read verbatim or paraphrased closely. The use of a script ensured that each group 

would enter the free-play portion of the event, the Counteraction phase, with the same task 

conditions. 

 

Threat Overview – Current Situation 

Figure 6. Sample of tactical materials provided to participants. 

Research Environment and Collaborative Tools 

Key components of the research environment included the physical setting and the set of 

collaborative tools developed for conducting distributed wargaming.

Physical Setting. The very nature of distributed operations requires that the participants 

be separated and that they communicate and interact using tools that support collaboration. 

Figure 8 presents an illustration of the physical setting designed and developed at the ARI minilab at Fort Knox to support distributed wargaming. The physical environment consisted of five 

identically configured workstations located in four rooms. Due to room constraints, two 

workstations were located in the same room with two of the participants (S2/A Co and S4/C Co) 

working in separate sections of the room. Each workstation consisted of a Pentium 4 computer 

running Red Hat Linux in a dual-monitor configuration. In addition, there was a master control 

room which included a workstation from which the threat commander/exercise controller could 

observe the exercise and provide scripted inputs. In addition, a separate control workstation was 

used to build and initialize the wargaming exercise and monitor wargaming activity. Each 

participant room contained a small, unobtrusive video camera focused on the workstation that 

FAA

BEAR

NK 

17 

xx

- The threat force attack was successful in

 seizing key ethnic urban areas inside Azerbaijan.

- The Threat force is currently defending and 

 consolidating their recent gains. 

- Ethnic terrorist and paramilitary forces are to be 

 conducting operations throughout the AO. 

- Expect NGOs and refugees in our AO. 

xx

11 
was used to record the actions of the participants and the displays on each workstation. In the 

room with two participant workstations, the camera was directed at the S2/A Co duty position;

the S4/C Co duty position workstation was not recorded. All camera feeds went to a single video 

recorder which supported the capture of the entire exercise on one system for simultaneous 

playback of four participants’ performance in a single quad-view display. 

8’ 11.5’

11.5’

14’

Room 27

8’

Room 29

11.5’

13’3”

Room 25

Room 28 Room 26

S3/S3 FSO/B Co

XO/CDR

S2/A Co

S4/C Co

Threat Commander

Exercise Controller

Horizontal/Vertical duty 

positions for wargaming

Computer Screen

Camera

Chair

Desk

Figure 7. Physical layout of the ARI mini-lab used for distributed wargaming. 

User Collaborative Tools. The user collaborative tools included the graphic interface and 

software applications required to complete the structured exercises. A determination of the types 

of applications and tools required was made based on FM 6-0 (DA, 2003a) and the U.S. Joint 

Forces Command Concept Primer for a Collaborative Information Environment (U.S. Joint 

Forces Command, 2003). The documents identified the tools and methods used to conduct 

wargaming in the Current Force when equipped with digital systems and also provided 

indications of similar but more advanced wargaming tools and methods anticipated for the 

Future Force. Key tool requirements were: the ability to send messages by voice and digital 

text; the ability to display and modify maps and overlays via a shared and animated Whiteboard; 

and the ability to access or reach electronic information files for supporting information. For the 

present research these requirements were met by adapting and developing the following tools 

and software applications: 

• Voice Communications – Hand-Held FM Radios. 

• Text Message Communications – Collaborative Notepad. 

• Whiteboard – Surrogate Command Control Communications and Computers (SC4). 

• Reach – Simulated Tactical Internet.

Voice communications between the participants were delivered using hand-held FM 

radios simulating the radio nets that exist in an operational environment. The radios were 

commercial, low-cost, FM transmit-and-receive voice communication devices. The text message 

communication capability was provided by the Collaborative Notepad application illustrated in 

12 
Figure 8. The notepad software simulated the anticipated operation of a future distributed 

environment by allowing participants to post and exchange text messages with other participants 

and with other personnel (e.g., surrogate staff members from higher headquarters) in real time 

without the need to submit information requests. Thus the notepad served both as a means of 

communication among the group doing the wargaming and between the group and other 

surrogate personnel supporting their efforts. 

Figure 8. Collaborative Notepad application. 

The animated Whiteboard capability with modifiable maps and overlays was provided by 

the SC4

 simulation software application obtained from the Unit of Action Maneuver Battle Lab 

(UAMBL) at Fort Knox and illustrated in Figure 9. The SC4

 is a dual screen application 

providing maps and overlays on one screen and tools to manipulate the maps and overlays on the 

second screen. The screen configuration for the SC4 application is user-configurable. However, 

for the wargaming exercises all users were configured with the tool screen on the left and map 

screen on the right. 

 The SC4

 application provided a CROP and allowed each participant to navigate on the 

terrain map, change map scale, and display or remove any of the overlays available for a given 

exercise. The left screen included tool buttons that provided the ability to “draw” on the various 

overlays thus allowing the participant to add graphic control measures and other symbols. It also 

included a button to access a conferencing capability that allowed participants to share their 

changes or additions to the maps and overlays in real-time. The SC4

 simulation software 

application was selected for these capabilities because it operated with the One Semi-Automated 

13 
Force (OneSAF) Test Bed (OTB) application. The SC4

 link to simulation provided the 

capability to display the movement of entities on the battlefield (e.g., friendly and enemy forces), 

including the potential of animating COAs in support of participants’ wargaming. 

Map Scale Menu

Figure 9. Map, overlay and Whiteboard applications. 

The ability to access various information sources was provided by the Reach Application 

which simulated a tactical internet, as illustrated in Figure 10. The application provided a login 

and simulated the ability of future systems to customize information based on the identity of the 

requestor. It also simulated the ability to reach anywhere on the tactical internet, although that 

capability was not employed in the exercises. The Reach Application was primarily used by the 

participants to access the TF Update. 

Select: Exercise date, role, 

and enter password

Click: Login Button

Figure 10. Reach Application used in distributed wargaming. 

Create/Edit Line Objects

Create/Edit Point Objects

Delete Objects

Overlay Editor

PVD Conference

Tactical Intranet– browser

Collaborative Notepad- browser East/West

Navigation Scrollbar

North/South

Navigation Scrollbar

Map Scale Menu

North/South

Navigation Scrollbar

Create/Edit Line Objects

Create/Edit Point Objects

Delete Objects

Overlay Editor

PVD Conference

Tactical Intranet– browser

Collaborative Notepad- browser East/West

Navigation Scrollbar

North/South

Navigation Scrollbar

PVD Conference

Overlay Editor

Delete Objects

Create/Edit Point Objects

Create/Edit Line Objects

Tactical Intranet– browser

Collaborative Notepad- browser East/West

Navigation Scrollbar

Map Scale Menu

14 
Measures to Improve Wargaming 

Measures were developed to assess wargaming outcomes and support the formative 

sess

the

her

de of 

Wargaming Outcome Measures. The ability of the group to identify synchronization 

ed

m shown in Figure 11 is from a Horizontal (Staff) exercise. 

the

ng

The BOS Synchronization rating categories are interdependent. In general, a wargaming 

ts,

The Post-Event Survey was designed to assess the ability of the group to develop a 

hat

remaining item assessed whether the participant knew what the group’s Counteraction change or 

evaluation of the methods, materials, and measures developed to create a research environment 

for distributed planning. The BOS Synchronization Rating Form was developed to estimate the

ability of the participant groups to identify, discuss, and make or request changes to BOS 

problems (hooks) embedded within the COA. The Post-Event Survey was developed to as

the ability of the group to develop a common understanding of the operational situation and 

COA for each exercise event. The participant group’s common understanding was based on

ability of group members to recognize factual information shared in the exercise and key 

decisions made by the group in refining the COA. The Final Survey was developed to gat

participant feedback for improving the methods, materials, and measures used to create a 

research environment for distributed planning. In addition, electronic recordings were ma

participant performance during all exercises and events including the Collaborative Notepad text

entries used to make and request changes to the COA. 

problems and modify the COA accordingly is an important purpose of wargaming. Each 

exercise event included multiple hooks – typically four to six – which represented embedd

BOS synchronization problems. The BOS Synchronization Rating Form for assessing this 

ability is illustrated in Figure 11. 

The synchronization rating for

For each event, the hooks or embedded BOS synchronization problems are listed in the column

labeled “Problem.” These represent specific points in the event where there was a lack of 

synchronization in the BOSs as a result of the Triggering Event listed in the second column. For 

each problem listed, observers rated whether the participant group identified the problem,

discussed the problem, and made or requested a change to the COA, by checking the 

corresponding columns on the form. Scoring for this instrument consisted of counting

number of times the problem related actions were checked for a given column and converti

that number to a percentage of the total hook problem items presented in the column. A sample 

BOS Synchronization Rating Form complete with rater instructions is included in Appendix H.

group will first identify a synchronization problem, then discuss it, and finally make or request a 

change to the COA. For the current research, the raters did not attempt to judge the adequacy of 

the group’s COA changes or requests, namely did they provide adequate solutions to the BOS 

problem. Assessing the adequacy of the group’s COA changes is recommended in future effor

but that may require raters with substantial military subject matter expertise.

common understanding of the operational situation based on their wargaming activity. A 

separate four-item Post-Event Survey was developed for each of the five critical events and

administered to each participant at the completion of the event. Three of the items required t

the participant recall scripted information shared among the participants during Action-Reaction 

phases of the event, such as threat location, threat disposition, and key terrain features. The 

15 
16 

Figure 11. Example of a BOS Synchronization Rating Form. 
requested change to the COA was for a key problem embedded in the event, such as the 

positioning and re-positioning of friendly forces, or changes to fire support. Estimates of the 

group’s common understanding were based on the extent of participant agreement on the four 

items. 

An example of a Post-Event Survey is provided in Figure 12. The Post-Event Surveys 

for the five events in the Current Force Horizontal (Staff) exercise are included in Appendix I. 

In this example, questions 1, 2, and 4 assessed participants’ recall of selected scripted 

information that should have been exchanged during Action-Reaction phases. Question 3 

assessed whether the participant recalled what, if any, COA change was made or requested by 

the group during Counteraction given “the prospect of increased enemy resistance against our 

ISR operations.” 

Survey – Event I (ISR Operations before TF Line of Departure [LD]) 

Please circle the one best answer that you agree with. 

1. What level of enemy resistance did the Intelligence Officer (S2) believe would be present in the Area 

of Operations at the beginning of the wargaming?

a. Armenian Regular Army forces would defend in place. 

b. Enemy conventional forces and paramilitary forces would withdraw, with only some resistance at

the objective area. 

c. There would be no real resistance to our operation. 

2. Which of the following is NOT a feature of terrain in our Area of Operations?

a. Canals with berms which may impede mobility. 

b. Dense forests which may hide enemy forces. 

c. Villages/urban which may provide cover/concealment for enemy forces. 

3. How did the group decide to respond to the prospect of increased enemy resistance against our ISR 

operations?

a. We added the mortar platoon to the scout platoon. 

b. We added the mortar platoon and some extra combat maneuver elements (more tank or Infa

Fighting Vehicle (IFV) platoons).

c. None of the above. 

4. What types of fire support are available to the scout platoon in this phase of the operation?

a. Field Artillery from our direct support (DS) battalion.

b. Close air support (CAS) from United States Air Force (USAF). 

c. Neither of the above. 

ntry

Figure 12. Example of a Post-Event Survey. 

Formative Evaluation Assessments. The Final Survey was developed to support the 

formative evaluation of the research environment, as documented in Appendix J. The Final 

Survey asked the participants to assess key features of the research environment includ eadahead materials, tool training and certification, tool utility, and background materials including 

scripted Action-Reaction roles and responsibilities. It also asked them to assess the applicability 

of the distributed wargaming methods developed to actual operational environments including 

field training centers and warfare. The Final Survey also included open-ended items to assess 

the best and least useful features of the wargaming process. 

ing r

17 
 Electronic Performance Recordings. Videotape recordings were made of particip

performance during each of the four wargaming sessions conducted to serve as a behavioral 

record of the wargaming process. The recordings automatically captured many key aspects of 

the warg

ants’

aming process including the sequence of behaviors supporting the exchange of verbal 

nd written information as well each participant’s contribution to the wargaming exercise. 

l

ming exercise sessions were conducted over a two week period – two sessions 

ach for the Horizontal (Staff) and Vertical (Commander) exercise conditions. Each session 

la ibed previously as illustrated in

F y Soldiers – one Major and four Captains –

assigned to the prim

p ci from

th Ar fficers were in their branch qualifying

p itio .

ovided to the participants at least two 

w i ering much of the same

m teri w experimental session. The Read-Ahead and 

In ri 13, orienting the

participan

ool familiarization information in a group 

se sio

workstatio ssigned to each participant provided supplementary 

assistance as required during the training/certification session which required approximately 40 

m arly use of the

S to f he materials used for training and 

ce tifi on collaborative tool use given 

to ac a d in Appendix E. 

by the participants using the collaborative tools, 

rimari ed

P

a

Electronic files on the collaborative tools used were also saved which included, for example, al

entries made on the Collaborative Notepad. An illustration of the mini-lab set-up for electronic

recordings is provided as Appendix K. 

Procedure 

Four warga

e

sted approximately four hours and followed the schedule descr

igure 6. Each session involved five active dut

ary participant roles identified in Figure 4 by experimental condition. The 

arti pants had a variety of backgrounds and experience levels. All but one had graduated

e mor Captain’s Career Course, and the field grade o

os ns

The Participant Read-Ahead materials were pr

ork ng days prior to their scheduled session. The exercise In-Brief cov

a al as conducted during the first hour of the

-B ef upported the exercise’s preparation objectives shown in Figure

ts to the purpose of the session and to their role in the process. 

s

Following the In-Brief, participants received t

s n followed by individual training and certification on the tools at their assigned 

n. A trainer/observer (T/O) a

inutes. Training also included several key group collaboration activities, particul

4 C ol or visually reviewing and revising the COA. T

r cation are provided in Appendix D, and the set of job aids

e h p rticipant is provide

The Task Force Update was conducted

p ly the simulated tactical internet, based on scripted materials. The information provid

was intended to bring all participants to a common level of understanding on supporting MDM

activities that formed the basis for the wargaming events that followed. 

18 
Figure 13. Overview briefing slide for wargaming preparation. 

Participants began wargaming their first critical event in the COA after approximately 90 

minutes of exercise preparation activities. During the Action-Reaction phases of the event, 

articip

lated

he proposed COA had been made or requested. 

he nex

At the conclusion of each critical event, the five participants in the wargaming group 

individually completed the Post-Event Survey designed to estimate their success in information 

sharing in the distributed environment. Following completion of each group’s final event, 

participants completed the Final Survey followed by a short out-brief. During each exercise

event, two observers completed the BOS Synchronization Rating Form for that event based on 

the wargaming discussions and activities observed. 

elopment of doctrine and Tactics, 

Techniques, and Procedures (TTP) for current and future distributed operations.

 improve your staff skills and to have some fun doing it.

First Hour Preparation

“Why and What”

• To be role players in tactical exercises designed to support research in

collaborative, distributed planning and wargaming.

• To help “drag the noodle” towards dev

Why are you here?

• To

What is expected of you?

• To step into the Military Decision Making Process - at the COA Analysis Step - and 

wargame one Friendly COA against one Threat COA while serving as a Battalion 

(Bn) Task Force primary staff officer and BOS representative. 

• To get into character - all your prep briefings have been put together for you - 

you need to initially buy into them - and change them as per the wargaming 

results.

• To develop fixes and recommendations to the COA.

p ants played their assigned roles following the scripts included in their execution guides. 

The T/Os were available at all times to provide any assistance in using the collaborative tools, 

but were instructed not to assist the participants in wargaming. Any participant questions re

to the wargaming itself were directed to the participant assigned to the TF leader role, either TF 

Commander for the Vertical (Command) condition or Executive Officer (XO) for the Horizontal

(Staff) condition. 

The free-play Counteraction phase was led by the TF leader and continued until the TF

leader determined that all essential changes to t

T t critical event commenced approximately five minutes later, after the mini-lab systems 

and tools were configured for the next critical event selected by the TF leader per the Box 

Technique for wargaming. The sequence and procedure of scripted Action-Reaction phases 

followed by free-play Counteraction was repeated for each remaining critical event completed 

during the four hours allotted for the session. 

19 
Results

The results document the current status on ARI’s effort to assess and refine m

measures for distributed wargaming and provide an empirical basis for improving wargam

efficiency and effectiveness. Notably, all results are regarded as preliminary due to the 

explora

ethods and 

ing 

h include: small sample 

size, first enting structured wargaming exercises, 

collabo igned to ad hoc staff and

comman ined based on

observer ratings on the BOS Synchronization Rati and participants’ agreement on PostEvent S e evaluation of the research

environment. Overall, three of the four participant groups completed three of the five critical 

eve he remaining group completed two critical events during the 

time allotted. 

Outcome

ided estimates of 

how well groups were able to respond to key s embedded in the 

proposed COA. This measure was based on the ratings made by two independent raters on 

particip wargaming. Three separate ratings were 

as a potential solution recorded, 

ed led to potential solutions in the form of changes made or requested to the 

tory nature of the research. Limitations in the present researc

assessment of a prototype method for pres

rat

d

ive tools that require further refinement, and participants ass

groups for wargaming. Results on wargaming outcomes were obta

ng Form

urvey items. The Final Survey supported formativ

nts during the time allotted. T

Measure Results

BOS Synchronization. The BOS Synchronization Rating Form prov

BOS synchronization problem

ant activity during the Counteraction phase of

made: was the problem hook identified; was it discussed; and w

namely a change or request to change the proposed COA? 

In analyzing the BOS synchronization data it is necessary to account for the fact that the

three ratings are not independent. Discussion and potential resolution of a synchronization 

problem are largely dependent on the group first identifying the problem. The lack of 

independence is reflected in the results reported by presenting the problems discussed and 

solutions recorded as a ratio or percentage of the problems identified. The results in Table 2 

indicate that on average, across both Horizontal and Vertical conditions, 72% of the BOS 

synchronization problems were identified, 85% of problems identified were discussed, and 76% 

of problems identifi

COA. These data suggest that participants recognized many of the problem hooks embedded in

each wargaming event, and routinely discussed and attempted to resolve the BOS problems they

identified. More detailed data on BOS synchronization ratings are provided in Appendix L. 

20 
Table 2 

Frequency and percentage of BOS synchronization indicators (contingent scoring) 

 

 BOS Synchronization Ratings

 Problem Problem COA Change

Horizontal (Staff) Exercise Identified Discussed Recorded 

 Exercise 1 

 Rater1 11/17 (65%) 11/11 (100%) 11/11 (100%) 

 Rater2 11/17 (65%) 11/11 (100%) 8/11 (73%) 

 Exercise 2 

 Rater1 10/14 (71%) 8/10 (80%) 5/10 (50%) 

Rater2 12/14 (86%) 9/12 (75%) 6/12 (50%) 

 Horizontal Exercise Mean 

Vertical (Command) Exercise

 72% 89% 68% 

 Vertical Exercise Mean 71% 81% 83% 

Exercise 3 

 Rater1 8/12 (67%) 8/8 (67%) 8/8 (67%) 

 Rater2 7/12 (58%) 7/7 (58%) NA 

 Exercise 4 

 Rater1 6/7 (86%) 6/6 (100%) 5/6 (83%) 

 Rater2 5/7 (71%) 5/5 (100%) 5/5 (100%) 

Total Mean 72% 85% 76% 

 

 Common Understanding. The Post-Event Survey consisted of four multiple-response

items to assess each group’s common understanding of their COA for the critical event just 

completed based on the scripted and free-play information exchanged during the event. For each

survey item, “agreement” was calculated based on the highest number of participants selecting 

the same response. If four of five participants selected the same response option, the agreement 

number was 4. The agreement numbers were summed across the four items in each Post-Event

Survey and divided by 20 (four items times five participants) to produce a percentage of 

agreement score for each event. Results on agreement by event and condition are shown in 

Table 3.

21 
Table 3 

Percentage of Agreement Between Participants on Common Understanding Items 

Exercise Common Understanding

Horizontal (Staff) Exercise 

 Exercise 1 

Event 1 85% 

Event 5 69% 

 76% 

Event 4 63% 

 Event 5 60% 

 Exercise 2 

Event 1 95% 

 Event 2 85% 

 Staff Exercise Mean

Vertical (Command) Exercise

Exercise 3

70%

Event 1 80% 

 Event 1 75% 

Event 2

 Event 4 75% 

 Exercise 4 

 Event 4 81% 

 Command Exercise Mean 76% 

Total Mean 76% 

Overall, the average agreement across events and experimental conditions was 76%. 

This finding provides some evidence that factual information and key group decisions were 

successfully shared through the collaborative activities during the event. The data also indicate 

that participants in the prototype Vertical (Command) condition performed as well as 

participants in the more traditional Horizontal (Staff) condition in developing a common 

understanding of their COA. Further refinement of measures on common understanding is 

ongoing and includes focusing on the free-play information exchanged during the Counteraction 

hase and assessing the accuracy of the participants’ understanding of their COA. 

ormative Evaluation Results 

Final Survey Results. The Final Survey completed by each participant at the end of each 

roup’s wargaming session consisted of six True/False items, as indicated in Table 4, and several 

pen-ended questions on the method and tools developed for distributed wargaming. Table 4 

ummarizes the True/False item results across the 20 participants; the complete results are 

ontained in Appendix M.

p

F

g

o

s

c

22 
Table 4

Summary results on formative evaluation of the research environment 

Final Survey Item Response 

True False 

The Read-Ahead materials helped me prepare for the exercise. 18 1 

The morning training session adequately prepared me to complete the exercise. 19 1 

The certification drill at the beginning was very helpful for using the workstation. 20 0 

I was able to use the workstation to access overlays and other information I 

rcise in a timely manner. 

18 2 

needed to complete the exe

The background materials provided were sufficient for completing the exercise. 18 2 

This method of wargaming could be used in actual operation (National Training 17 3 

Center (NTC), warfare, etc.). 

100% of all participants endorsed the research environment with 

r d. All but one participant had read the materials in the Read-Ahead 

p ed that they were helpful in completing the 

e ts agreed that the in-brief adequately prepared 

t ion drill helped them use the workstation. On 

the other hand, several commented that additional time for the training session might have 

p re able to use the workstation to access 

overlays and other inform sagreed cited the fact that the 

s work with multiple overlays. Ninety percent agreed 

t sufficient for completing the exercise, although the 

two dissenters indicated that th detailed enough. A number of 

ng that the collaboration tools would need 

ddition

M.

rked well.

nt would change in the wargaming process, participants suggested 

raphics. They suggested including better graphics themselves, 

earch

re of the participant groups. However, such recordings should 

utomatically capture many key aspects of the wargaming process including the sequence of 

Overall, between 90-

espect to the items assesse

ackage, and those who had read the materials agre

xercise session. Ninety-five percent of participan

hem for the exercise session and that the certificat

roved helpful. Ninety percent agreed that they we

ation in a timely manner. The two who di

ystem crashed, or that it was too difficult to

hat the background materials provided were

ey were insufficient or not 

comments (see Appendix M) were provided indicati

a al refinement. Of special interest, 85% of all participants reported the distributed 

wargaming methods developed were applicable to actual operational environments including 

field training centers and warfare. 

Results for the open-ended formative evaluation items are presented in Appendix

With regard to the question asking what additional tools would have made the wargaming

process more effective, two participants mentioned that real-time file sharing and the ability to

draw collaboratively would have been helpful. When asked what worked best about the 

wargaming process, several participants responded that the Collaborative Notepad wo

When asked what the participa

there should be a better use of g

better ways to change and share changes to the graphics, and the ability to animate the graphics 

to show the results of changes to a COA. 

Electronic Performance Recordings. Analysis of videotaped recordings is a labor 

intensive effort not performed for this report, in part due to the preliminary nature of the res

methods and the ad hoc natu

a

23 
behaviors supporting the exchange of verbal and written information as well as each participant’s 

ontribution to the wargaming exercise. Analysis of the electronic recordings will require a 

ingful categories of

ehavior that support performance assessment goals. In the interim, ARI has conducted limited 

analyses on selected recording s made on the Collaborative Notepad, to refine 

m thods for ongoing research on distributed wargaming. Future analyses of th rdi

m tes of collaborative perform

F erformance might be compared 

b

, sim neous d

c rch e ment was 

d mand and control 

e requirements, unstructured exercises without adequate 

aining

ent 

ve wargaming in distributed planning environments. These 

arly le

e

c

scoring taxonomy or framework to organize the observations into mean

b

s, primarily entrie

e e reco ngs

ight support the development of behaviorally-based estima ance. 

or example, alternative approaches to rating collaborative p

ased on observers’ ratings of pre-recorded wargaming exercises. 

Discussion 

The present effort developed a research environment for distributed

ommander-centered planning for the Current and Future Force. The resea

ulta

nviron

, an

esigned to overcome a number of shortcomings that often complicate com

research to include excessive tim

tr objectives, and performance outcomes that are difficult to assess. Such environments 

are needed to replicate the tasks, conditions, and standards of performance for Future Force 

evaluation and training requirement. 

The results reported are regarded as preliminary but promising indicators on the potential 

of the methods, materials, and measures developed for assessing distributed planning and 

wargaming in particular. The research approach was innovative in the design and developm

of structured and distributed wargaming exercises with built-in problem hooks to support 

measurement. Innovation extended to include not only conventional battalion staff wargaming 

but also multi-echelon wargaming among commanders at battalion and company echelons. 

In this section, lessons learned are provided based on the results obtained, observations

made, and the literature reviewed with respect to core components of the research environment.

The three core components addressed below are structured exercises for more efficient 

wargaming, collaborative tools to support distributed planning, and measures of outcomes and

process that can lead to more effecti

e ssons are provided as formative, not definitive, guidance for future efforts to explore and 

shape distributed operations. 

Lessons Learned – Structured Exercises

The structured exercise approach appeared to be an efficient method to focus participant 

efforts directly on the free-play Counteraction phase essential to wargaming. The structured 

exercise format allows the embedding of problem hooks in the designated COA to support the 

measurement required to make wargaming research and training more effective. 

Scripted and Free-Play Wargaming Phases. The structured design of the wargaming 

exercises and critical events was well received by the Active Duty participants. Design included

scripted Action and Reaction phases of wargaming to compress wargaming preparation, to 

provide repeated opportunities for practice and feedback, and to focus on the primary objectiv

24 
of wargaming – analyze and refine a COA. Free-play Counteraction targeted the human 

performance aspects of wargaming to stimulate ideas, highlight critical tasks, and provide 

insights otherwise difficult to achieve. A deliberate mix of scripted and free-play phases in 

exercise design is recommended to expedite distributed wargaming research. Key components 

of the structured exercise design included: 

• Designated COA with embedded problems in key areas like BOS synchronization. 

• Scripted Action and Reaction phases. 

• Free-play Counteraction phase. 

• Box Technique to focus wargaming on critical events. 

Realistic Task Conditions. Design stressed setting realistic task conditions in the 

aming to maintain operational tempo. 

• Require participants to prioritize critical events for wargaming given the time

tured

uide. The ESP was generally well received by the participants with 90-100% reporting the key 

ompon

Appendix C provides the Read Me file from the compact disc 

vailable from ARI to more precisely indicate the materials and exercise structure included in the 

Force ESPs although only partially developed, provide 

transfer template for future evaluation and training efforts. The Current Force ESPs used by 

• Distributed to the Armor School for consideration in the Armor Captain’s Career 

 the 

wargaming exercises. Notably, the operational setting and supporting materials appeared 

tactically sound and relevant to all of the Active Duty participants. Lessons learned and 

recommendations include: 

• Provide a Contemporary Operational Environment (COE), particularly Azerbaijan 

setting against an asymmetric threat with multi-national organizations. 

• Limit time to conduct warg

available, a realistic expectation given the Future Force goal or more responsive 

planning. 

Exercise Support Package. To support and expedite distributed wargaming, a struc

and relatively comprehensive Exercise Support Package (ESP) was developed. The ESP was 

comprised of the Read-Ahead, In-Brief, Training/Certification materials, and the Execution 

G

c ents of the ESP were acceptable. However, the participants and research team identified

shortcomings in the training and job aids needed, in large part to overcome the less than userfriendly nature of the collaborative tools used. 

As a result of the research, distributed wargaming ESPs for the Current Force and the 

Future Force are documented and available from ARI for adoption and/or adaptation in related 

exercise development efforts.

a

Distributed Wargaming ESP. The Future

a

participants in Horizontal and Vertical conditions were: 

• Described and partially documented in this report. 

• Fully documented and available from ARI on a compact disc. 

Course (Distance Learning) at Fort Knox. 

Horizontal and Vertical Exercises. Exercise design included an attempt to transform

traditional Horizontal (Staff) wargaming process to a Vertical (Command) process anticipated 

25 
for Future Force wargaming. As expected, there appeared to be several major differences

between the Horizontal and Vertical conditions. Overall, participants in the Horizontal con

seemed to proceed with less difficulty, probably because this condition is more typical of the

way wargaming is currently performed. 

dition

In contrast, some participants in the Vertical condition had difficulty adjusting to the 

concep n s

for vert l

y would subordinate

commanders have the opportunity to participate in wargaming. 

eemed 

ight use background information, from demographic surveys for 

example, to assign participants to duty positions and roles. 

In sum,

move to a e objectives

for dist u

Lessons Le

should attend to user-based requirements and 

g

ts 

easures. Unfortunately, procedures 

r usin W ning development. Numerous 

times th w ifficulties, 

particu ly

team to lim cal

elays and

t a d process of commander-centered wargaming. Lessons learned and recommendation

ica wargaming include: 

• Participants in the Vertical condition reported that rarel

• Participants in the Vertical condition stated commander-centered wargaming s

more like mission rehearsal. 

• Individual differences in wargaming experience undoubtedly affect performance. 

Future research m

 the findings underscore the need for more research and training to facilitate the Army’s

w rd commander-centered wargaming across echelons to meet Future Forc

rib ted operations.

arned – Collaborative Tools 

Overall, the participants considered the collaborative tools to be useful. However, 

technical shortcomings and a not-so-friendly user-interface limited participants’ efforts to 

understand and apply the collaborative tools as effectively as desired. The complexity of the 

tools also complicated researchers’ efforts to develop training and job aids for tool use. The 

intent of this section is to provide lessons learned and recommendations on the tool capabilities

required for distributed operations. The actual tools used by the participants for distributed 

wargaming are representative of current capabilities, but not state-of-the-art or future 

capabilities. Efforts to improve tool capability

issues, including those identified by the wargaming participants. Efforts to improve wargamin

should attend to current and foreseeable limitations in tool capability. 

 Whiteboard Tool. The animated Whiteboard tool was used to provide a dynamic visual 

medium for distributed collaboration. However, the Whiteboard tool obtained from the Unit of 

Action Maneuver Battle Lab was not user-friendly. This Whiteboard was selected because it 

was compatible with the Army’s virtual simulation program and because it provided participan

access to terrain-registered overlays and graphic control m

fo g hiteboards are relatively complex for users and trai

e argaming exercises were disrupted and delayed by Whiteboard technical d

lar when transitioning between critical events. These difficulties forced the research

it the Whiteboard’s link to simulation for the wargaming exercises to avoid techni

d risk.

Only abbreviated training on the Whiteboard was provided to the participants in an effort

to minimize their training burden and expedite their wargaming activity. However, the training

26 
provided may not have adequately reduced the complexity of using the Whiteboard. Train

can relieve design problems, but such training imposes a heavy burden on users and training 

development resources. A good example of such training is a set of Whiteboard “drills” 

developed to help military users start and

ing

conduct distributed conferences (Deatz, Green, 

olden, Throne, & Lickteig, 2000). Lessons learned and recommendations on Whiteboards 

clude

hiteboard-based conference sessions may be needed to 

expedite the start and conduct of collaborative sessions. This need should be based 

s 

hiteboard. 

ic 

laborative Notepad allowed participants to record 

BOS. many ways the Notepad appeared adequate 

t. It

e

rd 

Another reason may be 

OA, to complement the Notepad’s textual changes. 

H

in : 

• “Drills” for training W

on a review of Whiteboard tools and procedures in current and prototype C2 system

and commercial software. 

• An effective Telestrator tool is needed to help participants guide and track distributed

visual collaborations on the W

• Whiteboards that are not terrain-registered require participants to re-generate graph

overlays and drawings, a form of “swivel-chair integration” that costs time and 

resources when humans serve as copy machines.

• Whiteboards that are not simulation compatible limit the ability of participants to 

obtain objective simulation-based feedback on the feasibility of the proposed COA 

and the participants’ modifications to the COA. 

Collaborative Notepad. The Col

wargaming changes by duty position and In

for recording textual changes to the COA and requesting additional information and suppor

also allowed the commander or executive officer to delegate the recording task to either on

participant, or to share the recording task among participants. Participants in the Horizontal 

condition appeared more inclined to use the Notepad, perhaps because its BOS format more 

closely aligned to staff duty positions. 

Notably, participants in the Vertical (Command) condition verbalized as many BOS 

synchronization issues and changes as the Horizontal (Staff) participants, but they did not reco

as many in the Collaborative Notepad. Perhaps, the reason Vertical (Command) participants 

were not as conscientious about recording wargaming changes on the Collaborative Notepad is 

that commanders are less accustomed to this “secretarial” requirement.

that exercise design and training may not have adequately stressed that their Notepad entries 

were being notionally received and acted on by surrogate personnel. In sum, recommendations 

to improve the Collaborative Notepad are provided below with an emphasis on ensuring changes

to the COA are adequately documented: 

• Stress to the participants that the Notepad extends beyond the immediate wargaming

audience or primary participants. To reinforce this point, one or more surrogate 

participants might respond to participant requests for information or support. 

• Modify the Notepad interface to better ensure changes made to the COA are recorded. 

• Use the Whiteboard’s pictorial and graphic capabilities to visually record changes to 

the C

• Examine the utility of adding a voice recognition capability to the wargaming 

environment to minimize the requirement for note taking. 

27 
Standing Operating Procedures. Collaboration, like any form of collective performanc

generally benefits from Standing Operating Procedures (SOPs) (Graves et al., 2004). One 

example is the earlier recommendation for Whiteboard “drills” based on SOPs to train the

exacting procedures required to start and conduct collaborative sessions. A key example i

need for SOPs on display management to ensure a common view for visual collaboration. Al

the partic 2

e, 

often

s the

l

ipants had a common operational picture available somewhere on their C displays. 

owever, participants were required to repeatedly adjust their displays to maintain a common 

view of e nd

across even

The wargaming products developed for this effort included an SOP to help participants 

uniform

The display arts of information verbally conveyed by 

the part p

required. D ay

and stated, ns. In sum, the lessons learned 

include

• distributed operations. An SOP for 

display management and collaboration is proposed that verbally specifies map scale, 

ine more automated procedures for display management 

in support of distributed operations. 

Measures of performance were developed to assess the outcomes of wargaming. The 

outcom

participant OA.

Discussion es on

the pro s

Out aptured objective data 

directly l mmon

understand Form assessed how well 

H

th battlefield as the wargaming discussions shifted the locus of attention within a

ts.

ly adjust their C2

 displays as the terrain focus shifted during wargaming discussions. 

management SOP entailed three scripted p

ici ant who directed the shift in visual focus: map scale, map center, and overlays 

espite the use of the SOP, some participants still struggled to manage their displ

“say again” for a repeat of the display specificatio

: 

The SOPs are strongly recommended to facilitate

map center, and overlays required. 

• Visual collaboration often requires a common view. To facilitate distributed 

operations, C2 systems should be able to automatically generate a common view 

across participants to include map scale, map center, and overlays required. 

• Future research should determine if display management is an important but unmet 

requirement in the design and development of C2 systems. 

• Future research should exam

Job Aids. Overall, the job aids and training guides appeared useful to the Active Duty

participants. The graphic detail provided by these job aids for understanding and applying 

technology is an important component of an effective ESP. Shortcomings in these job aids 

centered primarily on the recurrent problem of providing a belated “training fix” to overcome

problems in human-centered design. 

Lessons Learned – Measurement

e measures assessed the actual changes made or requested to the COA as well as the 

s’ common understanding of key scripted and free-play information about their C

also addresses briefly the need for more objective and comprehensive measur

ces of wargaming. 

come Measures. The outcome measures appear to have c

re evant to some key wargaming objectives, namely BOS Synchronization and co

ing of the group’s COA. The BOS Synchronization Rating

28 
participants addressed synchronization issues embedded in the designated COA during 

wargaming. Given the relatively high level of observer agreement on BOS synchronization

method may yield relatively reliable estimates of wargaming outcomes in future efforts with 

intact groups and participants more experienced in wargaming. However, the measurement 

approach needs refinement to help the rater assess whether the COA changes made equate to 

successful solutions for the embedded BOS synchronization problem. 

The Post-Event Survey assessed the ability of the group to develop a common 

understanding o

, the

f the information exchanged during the wargaming and changes made to the 

OA. Results indicated participants obtained a common understanding on many scripted and 

nt 

ding are examples for obtaining more objective data on wargaming outcomes. Such 

ata is difficult to obtain on higher-order skills and it is often a neglected component in 

wargam

to improve

ing

ring counteraction and

Process Measures. Unfortunately, little direct data on the process of wargaming was 

ke 

orative performance might be compared based on 

bservers’ ratings of pre-recorded wargaming exercises. 

In hindsight, data obtained on the BOS synchronization issues that were identified and 

d

embers responsible for the observed actions and discussion. 

• Develop a measurement framework on the process of wargaming that assesses the 

C

free-play aspects of their COA, such as position and re-position of friendly forces and adjustme

to fire support plans. Further refinement of the common understanding measurement methods

are ongoing and include expanding the focus on free-play information exchanged during 

counteraction and assessing the accuracy of the participants’ understanding of their COA. 

Overall, the measures developed on BOS synchronization and the group’s common 

understan

d

ing. For both of these measures administration costs were minimal. Recommendations 

these two outcome measures include: 

• The BOS Synchronization Rating Form measure could be improved by includ

guidelines for what constitutes “group” discussion, and criteria for judging the 

“goodness” of COA change recommendations. 

• Measures related to common understanding could be improved by expanding the 

measure’s focus on the free-play information exchanged du

assessing the accuracy of the participants’ understanding of their COA. 

analyzed for this report. However, electronic recordings were made of participant performance

during all exercises and events, including the Collaborative Notepad text entries used to ma

and request changes to the COA. Future analyses of the recordings might support the 

development of behaviorally-based estimates of collaborative performance. For example, 

alternative approaches to rating collab

o

discussed might be categorized as wargaming process measures. The observer ratings were 

based on observable participant behaviors that relate to the process of sharing information an

collaborating. Recommendations to develop and refine wargaming process measures include: 

• Identify group m

frequency and types of information exchanged during wargaming. 

29 
 Conclusions on Measurement. A primary lesson learned is that the investment m

structured exercises is returned in measurement gain. Development of the BOS synchronization 

measure required that researchers proactively create and embed hooks and triggering events in

the wargaming exercise, as indicated in Figure 12. Similarly, the measure of participants’ 

common understanding required that researchers anticipate and develop multiple-choice

questionnaire items that assessed key information from scripted and free pl

ade in

to

ay phases of the

argaming exercise. 

e a

d to

d

perations.

w

Overall, the wargaming outcome and formative evaluation measures developed provid

limited but potentially powerful set of assessment tools to assess and improve distributed 

wargaming performance. An obvious, but often overlooked, recommendation is that future 

efforts maintain a complementary focus on both the process and outcomes of wargaming. 

Ongoing work by ARI is focused on combining theory, technology and the lessons learne

develop more reliable and valid measures of human performance for distributed planning an

o

30 
References 

Deatz, R. C., Green, K. A., Holden, W. T. Jr., Throne, M. H., & Lickteig, C. W. (2000). 

Refinement of prototype staff training and evaluation methods for future forces (ARI 

Research Report 1763). Alexandria, VA: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Beh

and Social Sciences. (ADA383380) 

avioral

epartment of the Army, Headquarters. (1997). Staff organization and operations (Field 

M

l of

onal and Organizational Plan Maneuver Unit of Action (TRADOC Pamphlet 523-3-

90 O&O, Change 2). Fort Monroe, VA: U. S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. 

Graves, C. R., Heiden, C. G., Jenkins, S. N., Flynn, M. R., Smith, P. G., Brown, S. H., & 

Shadrick, S. B. (2004). Multi-echelon distributed Army leader’s information support 

training (MEDALIST): Prototype development and recommendations for future research 

(ARI Research Report 1818). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Heiden, C. G. (1995). SIMWAR 2010: The need for simulations in the wargaming and 

rehearsal process (Monograph). Fort Leavenworth, KS: School of Advanced Military 

Studies, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. 

Lickteig, C. W., Sanders, W. R., Shadrick, S. B., Lussier, J. W., Holt, B. J., & Rainey, S. J. 

(2002). Human-system integration for future command and control: Identifying research 

issues and approaches (ARI Research Report 1792). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research 

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

U. S. Joint Forces Command. (2003). Joint Concept Development and Experimentation’s 

Concept Primer: Collaborative Information Environment (CIE). Author. 

D

anual 101-5). Washington, DC: Author. 

Department of the Army, Headquarters. (2003a). Mission command: Command and contro

Army Forces (Field Manual 6-0). Washington, DC: Author. 

Department of the Army, Headquarters. (2003b). The United States Army Objective Force 

Operati

31 
Appendix A 

ADA

AFR nit

RI U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

AVL e

Bn

OS Battlefield Operating System

C2

4

ISR Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

CAB

CAS

CAS

CAV

DR Commander

CMD

Co

OA Course of Action 

COP

CP

CRO

SM Command Sergeant Major 

DA Department of the Army

DOTMLPF Doctrine, Organizations, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, 

Personnel, and Facilities 

DS Direct Support 

ECOA Enemy Course of Action 

ENG Engineer 

ESP Exercise Support Package 

FBC Future Battlefield Conditions 

FBCB2 Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below 

FCS Future Combat Systems 

Acronyms 

Air Defense Artillery 

U Armored Forces Research U

A

AO Area of Operations 

B Armored Vehicle Launched Bridg

BCP Build and Sustain Combat Power 

Battalion

B

BRT Brigade Reconnaissance Team 

Command and Control 

C

 Reconnaissance 

Combined Arms Battalion 

Close Air Support 

EVAC Casualty Evacuation 

Cavalry

C

Chem Chemical Officer 

Command 

Company 

C

COE Contemporary Operational Environment 

Common Operational Picture 

Command Post 

P Common Relevant Operational Picture

C

CSS Combat Service Support 

A-1 
FE Fires and Effects 

FM Field Manual 

FS Fire Support 

SO Fire Support Officer 

V Infantry Fighting Vehicle 

ld

econnaissance 

D Line of Departure 

o stem

P rocess

, Troops, Time and Civilian 

erations for Distributed Planning

t

l Organization 

F

tional

PS Operations 

PL Ph

LT LDRS Platoon Leaders 

FI Request for Information 

F

FWD Forward 

HR Human Resources 

ID Identify 

IF

IN Infantry 

Intel Intelligence Officer

IPB Information Preparation of the Battlefie

ISR Intelligence, Surveillance, and R

L

LOC Line of Contact 

MCS M unted Combat Sy

MDM Military Decision Making P

Mech Mechanized

METT-TC Mission, Enemy, Terrain

MODP Multi-Echelon Op

MRTR Mortar 

MS Maneuver Support

NAI Named Area of Interes

NGO Non-Governmenta

NLOS Non-line of Sight 

NTC National Training Center 

OBJ Objective 

OneSA One Semi-Automated Force

O&O Operational and Organiza

O

OTB OneSAF Test Bed 

ase Line 

PLT Platoon 

P

PVD Plan View Display 

Recon Reconnaissance 

R

RPG Rocket Propelled Grenade 

S1 Personnel Officer

A-2 
S2 Intelligence Officer

Control Communications and Computers 

IG Signal Officer 

OP Standing Operating Procedures 

bjective

Point

TP Tactics, Techniques and Procedures 

er Battle Lab

er

S3 Operations Officer

S4 Logistics Officer

SC4 Surrogate Command

SCT Scout 

S

SOF Special Operations Forces 

S

SPT Support 

STO Science and Technology O

TF Task Force 

TI Tactical Intranet 

TM Team

T/O Trainer/Observers

TRP Target Reference

T

UA Unit of Action 

UAMBL Unit of Action Maneuv

USAF United States Air Force 

XO Executive Offic

A-3 
Appendix B 

Sample Participant Preparation Materials: 

Horizontal (Staff) Exercise 

B-1 
B-2 
B-3 
B-4 
B-5 
B-6 
B-7 
B-8 
B-9 
B-10 
B-11 
B-12 
B-13 
B-14 
B-15 
B-16 
B-17 
B-18 
B-19 
Appendix C 

Sample Participant Training/Certification Guide for TF Cdr: 

Horizontal (Command) Exercise 

C-1 
Multi-Echelon Operations for anning (MODP) – Participant

Training/Certification – ask Force Commander

Exercise/System Elements for Distributed Environment - MODP 

1. Voice Communications – Hand-held Radios 

2. Tactical Intranet – Web Browser 

3. Collaborative Notepad – Web Browser 

4. SC4 – Command and Control System 

SC4 Dual Screen Application and Exercise Tools 

Distributed Pl

T

Create/Edit Line Objects 

Create/Edit Point Objects 

Delete Objects 

Overlay Editor

PVD Conference 

Tactical Intranet – browser 

Collaborative Notepad - browser East/West 

Navigation Scrollbar 

North/South 

Navigation Scrollbar 

Map Scale Menu 

C-2 
Traini

. Voice Communications – Hand-held Radios 

ng/Certification Execution Guide – TF Cdr (Regular 6) 

A

Event Action Activity 

1. Voice 

Communications Perform radio check •

•

• If needed, power on the radio.

Verify or set to channel #1.

Prompt controller for radio check when 

channel is clear. 

B. Tactical Intranet (TI) and Collaborative Notepad – Web Browser 

Event Action Activity 

C-3 

Login to 

Tactical Intranet (TI) 

• Make (Tactical Intranet) web-browser active. 

• Click MODP Exercise dropdown and select 

today’s date. 

• Login b serID: TF Cdr

• Typ 1 (lower case). 

Click Login Button. 

y selecting U

e password: cdr111

•

Copy Specified Text 

• Click on 

and wait for slide to load. 

• Navigate to Slide 7 

• Select/highlight phrase next to Purpose

General Background Slides link 

starting with “To defeat...’’ and right-click 

copy. 

Send Message to group 

• Make Collaborative Notepad web-browser 

active. 

• Right-click paste “To defeat...” from above 

into the memo textbox. 

• Identify sender (TF Cdr) with the User 

dropdown. 

• Choose message type “Notes” with dropdown. 

• Click SEND button. 

1. Tactical 

Intranet and 

Collabor

Notepad 

Minimize Collaborative 

Notepad 

ize (DO NOT CLOSE) Collaborative 

Notepad window. 

ative

• Minim
C. SC4 – Map Navigation and Overlay Editing 

Event Action Activity 

1. SC4 – Map

• Select Map Scale and click 1:500,000. 

bjective (OBJ)

e east of OBJ). 

0. Map Scale and Re-center 

• Re-center map to include o

and 5 company icons (to th

• Select Map Scale and click 1:250,00

C. SC4 – continued

Event Action Activity 

Draw/label/edit overlay

raphics: Line/Circle

r

t (top 

Center.

atisfied, click DONE button. 

g

• Click Draw Line Objects button on 

toolbar. 

• Draw (by multi-click) a circle in you

designated color around the last uni

to bottom). 

• Type Reg 6 in the label textbox. 

• Select Label Location:

• Confirm: correct overlay, thickness,

color, label, and label position. 

• If s

2. SC4 – 

Drawing/Editi

Graphics 

ng

Draw/label/edit overlay

graphics: Line/Axis 

ance 

designated color, from designated 

e AXIS STRIKE in the label textbox. 

tion: Center.

d label position. 

• If satisfied, click DONE button. 

• Click Draw Line Objects button on 

toolbar. 

• Draw (by multi-click) an axis of adv

in your

unit to OBJ. 

• Typ

• Select Label Loca

• Confirm: correct overlay, thickness, 

color, label, an

C-4 
Draw/label/edit overlay

et 

Point Objects button on toolbar.

• Click Point d o choose type. 

• Select Gene select Target 

•

name, and color. 

If satisfied, click DONE button.

graphics: Point/CP or targ

reference point (TRP) 

• Click

ropdown t

ral for CP OR 

Reference Point for TRP.

• Type Reg 6 in Name textbox.

Click inside OBJ (map) to add the point.

• Confirm: correct overlay, point type, 

•

2. (cont.) SC4 – 

Drawing/Editing 

Graphics 

• Click File Menu.

• Select Save Overlay to File--> 

TRAINING.

• Append Filename with your call sign to 

read: TRAINING

• Click Ok to verlay.

Save Training Overlay

_Reg6

save your o

C. SC4 - continued

Event Action Activity 

3. PVD

e

Join PVD Conference 

s button to

nference. 

.

ate in PVD

Once PVD Conference is ended prepare for 

Task Force Update. 

Conferenc

• Upon onscreen prompt: Click Ye

Join plan view display (PVD) Co

• DO NOT USE APPLICATIONS UNTIL 

PROMPTED during PVD Conference

• Follow Voice Prompts to particip

Conference. 

•

C-5 
Appendix D 

Participant Job A s

ical (Com

id :

Horizontal (Staff) and Vert mand) Exercises 

D-1 
Tactical Internet – Web Browser Job Aid 

1. Web browser active window

• Login/password 

• Multiple Links to tactical 

documents 

2. Login to Tactical Intranet 

• Select your role/call sign 

from user dropdown 

• Type password: 

• call sign1111 (i.e., 

xo1111) 

• call sign is lower case 

• Click Login Button 

3. Open a document 

• Click on desired link 

• Slide Presentation 

Application will open 

D-2 
4. Navigate Slides as Needed 

Navigate with Page Up or 

Page Down keys 

rrent slide

• When finished either 

minimize slide window or 

close file and then 

minimize slide window 

• Will return to browser 

window (3. Open a 

document) 

•

• Navigate with 

Buttons/Tabs at bottom

left of the cu

D-3 
Collaborative Notepad – Web Browser Job Aid 

1. Web browser active window 

• down

ropdown

•

•

User (sender) drop

• Message type d

Memo textbox 

Message Areas with 

message links 

2. Send a message 

•

NOTE: Do not use 

apostrophes (single quote) 

or quotes in message 

Click Submit 

• Select desired message

type 

Type memo

•

•

3. Open message for editing 

• Click on desired message 

text link 

• New window will open to 

allow editing 

• Edit message as needed 

• Click on Update button 

• Window will close and a 

confirmation window will 

open. 

4. Update message confirmation 

• Click underlined text link 

to close window. 

D-4 
SC4 – C2 System – Dual Screen Job Aid 

1. SC4 control interface – Left Screen 

d Toolbar

ol.

• SC4 – Menus an

for Application Contr

2. SC4 – Map – Right Screen 

ys and unit

ntal scrollbars

(East/West). 

• SC4 – Map display; 

graphic overla

icons. 

• Re-center map by single

clicking arrows at ends of

vertical (North/South) and 

horizo

East arrow on horizontal 

scrollbar 

Line Objects 

Point Object

D-5 
3. SC4 – Menus and Toolbar 

 Edit Overlays button 

 Delete Objects button 

 Draw Point Object button 

 Draw Line Objects button 

Use these tools for 

objects. 

•

drawing, labeling, editing 

and deleting graphic

4. Draw Line Object Tool 

• Click this tool to draw 

new line objects. 

• Button click will open the 

Line Editor interface. 

Use the controls to change 

.

•

•

ne

ce.

• Confirm: Overlay, 

Thickness, Color, Label, 

• e (right screen)

to complete changes. 

•

line object properties

Draw a new line by multiclick on the SC4-Map

display (left screen). 

Select existing line object 

by single click on map 

line object – opens Li

Editor interfa

and Label Location. 

Click Don

D-6 
5. Draw Point Object Tool 

Click this tool to draw 

new point objects. 

Button click will open the 

e.

•

s. 

• ew point by

single click on the SC4-

Map display (right 

screen). 

• Select existing point 

object by single click on 

map point object – opens 

Point Editor interface 

• Confirm: Overlay, Point

type, Name, and Color. 

to

•

•

Point Editor interfac

Use the controls to change

point object propertie

Draw a n

• Click Done (left screen)

complete changes.

6. Delete Objects Tool 

• he

• e

een) to

• Click this tool to delete 

graphic objects. 

• Button click will open 

Delete Objects interface.

Single click object on t

SC4-Map display (right 

screen). 

Single-click will add larg

red X on object. 

• Click Done (left scr

complete delete. 

D-7 
7. Overlay Editor Tool 

l

e.

s

• current overlay 

xtbox

•

• Click this tool to contro

display of overlays.

• Button click will open 

Overlay Editor interfac

• Select overlays by name 

under Overlay Display. 

• Overlays will appear a

layers on map (right

screen). 

Name of

selection will be in te

under Overlay. 

Click Done (left screen) to

exit interface. 

D-8 
SC4 – PVD Conference Job Aid 

1. PVD Conference Session 

•

• ce

• ps to 

ll participants.

r

cipants.

• Click Start Session button 

to initiate conference. 

Click to initiate PVD 

conference session. 

PVD Conference interfa

will open. 

Select All under Grou

include a

• Or select individuals unde

Destinations to limit 

conference parti

• Choose/confirm correct 

Overlay.

2. Conference Prompt 

• Other participants will see 

prompt to join conference. 

• Others should select Yes to 

join PVD conference. 

D-9 
3. Notification of PVD Conference In Session

• Conference participants will 

see green Conference In 

Session notification box. 

4. Map display in PVD conference session 

Conference cursor shows 

graphics on the overlay in 

conference. 

• Other participants will see 

updated overlay as changes 

are completed. 

• Click Done and/or Update 

Overlay after drawing to 

update slide in conference. 

• Click End Session to end 

PVD conference. 

•

who is “in charge” of 

current slide. 

• Participant who is “in 

charge” can draw/edit 

Conference Cursor 

D-10 
Appendix E

Participant Tactical Materials: 

Vertical (Command) Exercise

E-1
PL Silver

Route Red

CP

TF 1

RP

RED

C

LD

LD

ATK

GOLD

II

X

AXIS STRIKE

A (+ Scts)

PL Bill

PL Bill

PL Joe

PL Joe

TF

NAI 2C

TF

NAI 2B

TF

NAI 2F

TF

NAI 2D

TF

NAI 2E

TF

NAI 2A

BCT

NAI 2k

TF

NAI 2G

2

2

3

3

Event I – TF Secures Passage Lane & Conducts ISR Operations

PL Silver

Route Red

CP

TF 1

RP

RED

LD

LD

ATK

GOLD

II

X

AXIS STRIKE

PL Bill

PL Bill

PL Joe

PL Joe

TF

NAI 2C

TF

NAI 2B

TF

NAI 2F

TF

NAI 2D

TF

NAI 2E

TF

NAI 2A

BCT

NAI 2k

TF

NAI 2G

2

2

3

3

Step 4a Event I - Friendly Situation 

H-Hour is when the main body of the Task Force 

crosses the LD. (LD is at 2100 hrs local)

It is now H-24 hours, The TF is located in FAA 

Bear, approx 100 kms northeast of CP TF 1, and is 

preparing for movement, passage of lines, and 

combat operations. It is above 90% readiness in 

both personnel and combat systems. 

• During this event, 2 Cavalry Regiment and the

BCT’s recon troop conduct operations on the

Tasks Force's left flank, and another TF from the

BCT is conducting operations on the TF Scts right

flank.

• Host nation forces are defending. They are also

securing Route Red and passage lane. 

• US Special Forces are collocated and working

with host nation forces.

•CP TF 1 is approximately 100 km south of the TF FAA Bear

• RP Red is approximately 20 km south of CP TF 1

• H- hour is the time the TF main body crosses the LD ( 2100 hrs local the night 

of the attack). The TF begins movement at H-8 hours.

E-2
PL Silver

Route Red

CP

C1

RP

RED

C

LD

LD

ATK

GOLD

II

X

AXIS STRIKE

A (+ Scts)

PL Bill

PL Bill

PL Joe

PL Joe

TF

NAI 2C

TF

NAI 2B

TF

NAI 2F

TF

NAI 2D

TF

NAI 2E

TF

NAI 2A

BCT

NAI 2k

TF

NAI 2G

2

2

3

3

•

Step 4a Event I -- Threat Situation 

After my stunning and overwhelmingly 

successful attack to liberate my ethnic 

brothers and sisters from their unjust and 

merciless persecution at the hands of the

Azerbaijani Dogs, I have decided to go onto 

the defensive so that I can consolidate my

gains and plan my next step. 

My main defensive forces are currently 

located in the urban areas vicinity your OBJ

TEXAS oriented to the NE.

I am conducting screening operations along 

my eastern flank vicinity your PL Joe. My

screen line consists of squad- sized OPs

arrayed in depth and equipped with a mixture

of conventional wheeled reconnaissance

vehicles and POV’s owned by my paramilitary forces. 

I have incorporated several “spring” 

(mobile) point ambushes as part of my

screening operations. My ambushes are

designed to destroy your reconnaissance 

assets.”

PL Silver

Route Red

CP

C1

RP

RED

C

LD

LD

ATK

GOLD

II

X

AXIS STRIKE

A (+ Scts)

PL Bill

PL Bill

PL Joe

PL Joe

TF

NAI 2C

TF

NAI 2B

TF

NAI 2F

TF

NAI 2D

TF

NAI 2E

TF

NAI 2A

BCT

NAI 2k

TF

NAI 2G

2

2

3

3

Step 4b. Event I Action – Intelligence BOS

• ATK Gold is approximately 120 km south of the FAA Horse.

• OBJ Texas is approximately 80 km west of ATK Gold

• There is a high level of uncertainty concerning the threat. 

3⁄4 We can expect distributed operations with squad- sized or 

smaller elements throughout the zone.

3⁄4 The threat is composed of a mix of conventional, 

irregulars, and mercenaries forces fighting side by side. 

3⁄4 He is capable of small arms fire, augmented with RPGs and 

some larger caliber fire (such as 2x23mm and 2x57mm). His 

indirect fires support is primarily mortars.

3⁄4 There is limited to no air threat. At best the threat is capable

of small unit helicopter operations. At largest platoon sized.

3⁄4 There is no conventional threat from chemical, nuclear or

bio weapons usage. Although if threat resorts to terrorist 

tactics, isolated incidents of chemical and bio weapons usage 

is possible.

3⁄4 The COP depicts last known and expected threat 

locations. The circled red areas designate the threats most

likely ambush sites – main roadway intersections that offer 

nearby covered and concealed positions. 

• No weather or terrain implications for this event

• No key or decisive terrain implications for this event 

E-3
PL Silver

Route Red

CP

C1

RP

RED

C

LD

LD

ATK

GOLD

II

X

AXIS STRIKE

A (+ Scts)

PL Bill

PL Joe

PL Bill

PL Joe

TF

NAI 2C

TF

NAI 2B

TF

NAI 2F

TF

NAI 2D

TF

NAI 2E

TF

NAI 2A

BCT

NAI 2k

TF

NAI 2G

2

2

3

3

• ATK Gold is approximately 120 km south of the FAA Horse.

• OBJ Texas is approximately 80 km west of ATK Gold

• What are the activities &

2 CR & 

disposition of threat

platoon and larger-sized

elements? Responsibility -

- Scouts confirm top-down

fed COP by observing into 

NAI’s to determine threat

activities and disposition.

developed? –

Responsibility -- Scouts

and top-down feed

intel/information .

• Any indications of Iranian 

cross-border activity? –

Responsibility --

Higher intel assets 

• What are the threat 

actions on contact and 

reactions as the situation is

Step 4b. Event I Action – Intelligence BOS

“PIR’s”

Silver

Route Red

CP

TF 1

RP

RED

C

LD

LD

ATK

GOLD

II

X

AXIS STRIKE

A (+ Scts)

PL Bill

PL Bill

PL Joe

PL Joe

TF

NAI 2C

TF

NAI 2B

TF

NAI 2F

TF

NAI 2D

TF

NAI 2E

TF

NAI 2A

BCT

NAI 2k

TF

NAI 2G

2

2

3

3

Step 4b Event I - Action - Maneuver BOS

“Planning Assumptions”

• Ethnic paramilitary forces are not

well trained or organized, and lack

the ability to conduct operations 

above platoon level. 

• Host nation civilians along Axis

Strike will not organize and 

violently oppose the TF advance or

sustainment.

• Armenian forces will execute their 

most likely COA -- Fight a delaying 

action, while avoiding decisive

combat.

E-4
Silver

Route Red

CP

TF 1

RP

RED

C

LD

LD

ATK

GOLD

II

X

AXIS STRIKE

A (+ Scts)

PL Bill

PL Bill

PL Joe

PL Joe

TF

NAI 2C

TF

NAI 2B

TF

NAI 2F

TF

NAI 2D

TF

NAI 2E

TF

NAI 2A

BCT

NAI 2k

TF

NAI 2G

2

2

3

3

Step 4b Event 1 - Action - Maneuver BOS “Maneuver & Fires Concept – Other BOS Considerations”

During this event elements of the TF move, secures passage lane, TM A conducts passage of lines,

and TM A conducts ISR operations to support the Task Force’s LD.

•Host nation forces, augmented with US special forces, currently control Route Red at least as far 

south as the passage lane. After that the host nation forces situation and the threat situation is

uncertain.

•The TF is located in FAA Bear and is preparing for movement and combat operations. The TF main

body begins movement at H-8 hours.

• At H-24 hours, Co Co moves along Route Red, links up with US Special Forces at CP TF 1,

coordinates passages with host nation forces, accepts handover of passage lane, and prepares to

assist passage of TF elements .

• TM A, plus the Scts depart AA NLT H-16 hrs to conduct zone reconnaissance and to perform ISR

tasking. TM A and the TF Scouts observe into NAIs at least one phase lines out from TF main body

movement to confirm or deny threat activities and dispositions. If no threat in NAI, elements move to

next assigned NAI.

• The TF main body is in FAA Bear – It begins movement at H-8 along Route Red, thru Passage Lane

Silver and Attack Position Gold to the LD.

• There are no US artillery fires, nor CAS, available to support securing the passage lanes and to

conduct ISR Ops– The BCT S3 says they are out of range or working higher priority missions .

TF S3 briefs the following--

• The TAC CP and MAIN are currently located in FAA. The TAC CP will move behind TM A. The main

will move with the main body.

• The TF has no ADA or Eng assets attached or in direct support.

•The BCT recon troop is conducting ISR operations on the Scts left flank. Another TF from the BCT is

conducting ISR operations on the TF Scts right flank.

Silver

Route Red

CP

TF 1

RP

RED

C

LD

LD

ATK

GOLD

II

X

AXIS STRIKE

A (+ Scts)

PL Bill

PL Bill

PL Joe

PL Joe

TF

NAI 2C

TF

NAI 2B

TF

NAI 2F

TF

NAI 2D

TF

NAI 2E

TF

NAI 2A

BCT

NAI 2k

TF

NAI 2G

2

2

3

3

Step 4b Event I - Action – Maneuver BOS

“ Decision Points for this Event”

Decision Points

Threat defending with more 

than platoon -sized elements

and with local support along 

Axis Strike or company –

sized element in OBJ Area –

Switch to COA based on 

threat defending in strength 

and depth 

Iranians intervene and 2 CR

unsuccessful – Switch to COA

based on having to defeat

Iranian forces 

2

3

E-5
Silver

Route Red

CP

TF1

RP

RED

C

LD

LD

ATK

GOLD

II

X

AXIS STRIKE

PL Bill

PL Bill

PL Joe

PL Joe

TF

NAI 2C

TF

NAI 2B

TF

NAI 2F

TF

NAI 2D

TF

NAI 2E

TF

NAI 2A

BCT

NAI 2k

TF

NAI 2G

2

2

3

3

C1

C2

C3

During this event, my company conducts movement, secures

a TF passage lane, and assists in the TF passage of lines.

•My XO will SP no later than H- 32 hrs to linkup with US Special Forces 

& host nation forces vicinity CP TF 1 to coordinate passage and 

passage lane handover. My XO will remain collocated with the host

nation forces CP for the passage of the Task Force. 

• My Company SP’s at H-24 hours and travels in column formation to

CP TF 1.

• From CP TF 1 to the RP, my company moves by staggered column -

traveling overwatch skirting the urban area west of RP Red

• After RP Red, my platoons move by bounds into BP’s C2, C3, and C1

to secure the Silver.

• I have created a “link-up & guide” element – my 1st Sgt and one Brad 

from each of the platoons - to assist with the passage of TM A and the

rest of the TF main body. My “link-up & guide” elements will:

• Secure CP TF 1

• Guide TM A and TF Main Body to the Release Point

• I have targets planned on all high speed avenues of approach towards 

our passage lane. 

• My concerns include the follow:

9 When, Where and from Whom am I going to get Class III? And 

just in case I have to fight how about Class V and VIII? 

9 How and from whom am I going to get Fire Support, other

than my mortars?

9 I am also concerned about maintaining connectivity and 

communications due to the extended ranges – I thinks its over 

100 ks?

9 This TF passage of lines mission is going to be a tough one for

me and my Team. It wasn’t one of our METL tasks, so its sort of

the first time we going to plan and execute it, and I am sort of

concerned that I or my folks don’t screw it up.

Step 4b Event I - Action – C Co Cdr 

“Securing the Passage Lanes and Assisting TF Passage”

BCT

NAI 2k

TF

NAI 2G

TF

NAI 2C

TF

NAI 2B

TF

NAI 2F

TF

NAI 2D

TF

NAI 2E

TF

NAI 2A

LD/LC

PL JOE

PL BILL

ll

2

2

3

3 ..

..

.. ..

..

Axis

Strike

ll

X

AT

G

K

old

PL JOE

PL BILL

Step 4b Event I - Action – TM A Cdr 

“Conduct of Zone Recon and ISR Tasks”

During this event, my team conducts movement, passage

of lines, and conducts reconnaissance and counterreconnaissance tasks.

• My Team SP’s at H-16 hours and travels in a company column 

along Route Red. I link up with the Co C guide element at CP TF 1

and use them to guide me to passage lane. After passing through

the lane and the attack position, my Team will conduct a zone recon 

along Axis Strike and execute ISR tasks to confirm COP and enable

rapid advance of the TF:

• The Scts, under control of Sct Plt Leader, will conduct a forceoriented zone recon along Axis Strike and observes NAI’s in zone. 

The recon tempo will be rapid. 

• My Tank and Bradley Platoons, under my control, will provide

overwatch for the lead Sct Sections. 

• I will maintain at least one phase line interval between my

reconnaissance efforts and the TF main body. I plan to bypass threat

defenders who I can’t immediately engage. 

• I have targeted all NAI’s and plan to use smoke and fires to aid in

movement through danger areas, to overcome threat defenders, and

to destroy threat recon elements 

• I will move with the center tank platoon. 

My concerns are about the same as Charlie Six’s:

9 When, Where and from Whom am I going to get Class III? 

And just in case I have to fight how about Class V and VIII? 

9 How and from whom am I going to get Fire Support?

9 I am also very concerned about maintaining connectivity

and communications due to the extended ranges – I thinks its

over 140 kms from the Task Force?

E-6
Silver

Route Red

CP

TF1

RP

RED

C

LD

LD

ATK

GOLD

II

X

AXIS STRIKE

PL Bill

PL Bill

PL Joe

PL Joe

TF

NAI 2C

TF

NAI 2B

TF

NAI 2F

TF

NAI 2D

TF

NAI 2E

TF

NAI 2A

BCT

NAI 2k

TF

NAI 2G

2

2

3

3

C1

C2

C3

•I have about 16 hours before my TM SP’s and begins to 

move on Route Red to the Passage Lane.

• I am conducting my pre-combat checks of individuals and 

equipment.

• I have insured my order and the TM Rehearsal has been

completed

• I am at 100 % personnel, but three of my combat systems, 

all tanks, are not fully mission capable.

• My 1st Sgt and XO tell me my TM’s equipment readiness is 

last in the TF and the FSB maintenance priority for parts 

and higher level support/repair.

Step 4b Event I - Action – TM B Cdr 

“Preparing for Movement”

Silver

Route Red

CP

TF1

RP

RED

C

LD

LD

ATK

GOLD

II

X

AXIS STRIKE

PL Bill

PL Bill

PL Joe

PL Joe

TF

NAI 2C

TF

NAI 2B

TF

NAI 2F

TF

NAI 2D

TF

NAI 2E

TF

NAI 2A

BCT

NAI 2k

TF

NAI 2G

2

2

3

3

C1

C2

C3

Step 5 Event I -- Threat Reaction

“TF Securing the Passage Lane”

My conventional reconnaissance elements are too far west to 

observe your movements and securing the passage lane.

But fortunately for me, a sympatric ethnic brother living in the urban

areas along Route Red and your Release Point has called me on his

cell phone and reported your C Company activities to me. 

For a small price from me, less than 5,000 Drams, my ethnic brother 

using both the local TV station and radio station has rallied nearly

500 of his family and friends ...men, women and children...and are

currently engaging in various mob tactics...rock throwing, small 

arms fire, blocking routes, making obscene and aggressive

gestures...directed at your platoons, crews and dismounts 

occupying positions C1 and C2. The mob is very upset that foreign 

military forces have invaded their neighborhood at night, destroying 

their yards and streets without coordination, permission, or

apparent compensation. 

Also my ethnic friend was able to alert the numerous media agencies

working in the area and the mobs actions in C1 and C2 make worldwide morning news to include videos of your light tanks breaking 

down walls, smashing into POV’s, and nearly running over women

and children as they attempt to occupy their positions and practice 

their repositioning drills in darkness.

E-7
BCT

NAI 2k

TF

NAI 2G

TF

NAI 2C

TF

NAI 2B

TF

NAI 2F

TF

NAI 2D

TF

NAI 2E

TF

NAI 2A

LD/LC

PL JOE

PL BILL

ll

2

2

3

3 ..

..

..

..

..

Axis

Strike

ll

X

Since it is daylight, my reconnaissance elements 

easily observe the movement and activities of your 

Scouts and their overwatching tanks sections: 

• I reported their activities, and I have selected two 

of my “spring” ambushes sites that provide me 

reverse slope shots, and called for indirect fires to 

support the execution of my ambush sites. 

• Upon your lightly armored Scouts entering my

kill zones, I executed ambush sites 1 and 2, 

engaging with direct fire weapon systems from 

reverse slope positions supported by mortar fires.

• I will use indirect fires to cover my withdrawal

from ambush sites into local urban areas.”

2

1

PL BILL

PL JOE

Step 5 Event I -- Threat Reaction

“TF Conducts ISR Operations”

PL Silver

Route Red

CP

C1

RP

RED

C

LD

LD

AT

GOLD

K

II

X

AXIS STRIKE

A (+ Scts)

PL Bill

PL Joe

Step 6 Event I -- TF Counteraction

PL Bill

PL Joe

TF

NAI 2C

TF

NAI 2B

TF

NAI 2F

TF

NAI 2D

TF

NAI 2E

TF

NAI 2A

BCT

NAI 2k

TF

NAI 2G

2

• Is this what we thought would 

happen?

If so, what do we do now? 

If not, how do we fix?

What do we do by BOS?

e COA still valid?

TF S2 

S3

 Co/Tm Cdrs

2

3

3

3⁄4

3⁄4

3⁄4

• Is th





Results of TF Action and Threat 

Reaction: As mediated by the TF Cdr

E-8
PL Silver

Route Red

CP

C1

RP

RED

C

LD

LD

ATK

GOLD

II

X

AXIS STRIKE

A (+ Scts)

PL Bill

PL Bill

PL Joe

PL Joe

TF

NAI 2C

TF

NAI 2B

TF

NAI 2F

TF

NAI 2D

TF

NAI 2E

TF

NAI 2A

BCT

NAI 2k

TF

NAI 2G

2

2

3

Steps 7 & 8 of the Wargame Proc

3

ess 

Step 7: TF Cdr deems COA feasi

Staff officers and Co/Tm Cdr’s record

ble or directs modifications to make it feasible. 

 results (update, modify or change COA) .

Step 8: TF Cdr decides if additi

If not, then:

– Continue with next event, or if a

– Summarize results and e

onal Action-Reaction-Counter Iterations are needed. 

ll events have been gamed, 

nds wargame

E-9
Appendix F 

Sample Participant Wargame Execution Guide:

Horizontal (Staff) Exercise, Event 1 

F-1
War Game 

Exercise

General 

Guidance 

Event I Wargame Execution Guide – TF S2 

The diagram below depicts Steps 4-8 of a modified wargaming process built 

upon the wargame process found in FM 5.0. In the execution guides, Step 4. 

Situation Updates and TF Actions and Step 5. Red Reaction are scripted out 

for each battle staff member so that a shared common vision of the operation 

can quickly be achieved without undue burden on the wargame participants. 

All scripts and support overlays/briefing slides needed for Steps 4 and 5 can 

be found in the Wargame Directory. Step 6, TF Counteraction is not 

scripted. The TF Counteraction Step is a freeplay TF XO-controlled 

discussion between of the TF staff members to see how feasible and flexible 

the COA is, to identify any gaps or weaknesses in the COA, and to make 

recommendation on how to remedy gaps and weaknesses. A key concern is 

to ensure the battlefield operating systems (BOSs) are synchronized 

throughout the event. Another key concern is the confirmation or 

identification of any decision that the TF Cdr has to make. All modifications 

to the COA, required follow-on actions, and decisions must be recorded and 

shared with the appropriate parties. 

T equencing,

proce ming a critical event.

It also includes staff briefing materials, discussion cues, and a 

player script used to quickly establish a shared common vision as 

each event is war gamed. Each player is provided a guide 

designed specifically for his position in the wargame and for the 

specific event being war gamed. 

he wargame execution guide provides detailed s

dures, and control guidance for warga

F-2
War Game 

Exercise

Specific 

Guidance 

For this exercise, you are the Task Force S2 (call sign Regular 2). 

articipants in the war game include the TF XO (Regular XO), the TF S3 

(Reg e Threat

omm

arga text

r cha nt,

ce-t vent

– TF )

P

ular 3), the TF S4 (Regular 4), the TF FSO (Regular 14), and th

ander. The exchange of information throughout Steps 4-8 of the 

me process will be by radio, digital overlay, or text messaging (free

t). Since you are simulating wargaming in a distributed environme

o-face coordination is not possible. The Event to be war gamed is E

conducts ISR Operations to Support the TF LD (see graphic below

C

w

o

fa

I

The following table expands on Steps 4-8 of the wargame process. The table 

provides sequence for the wargame and specific TF S2 actions that you are 

expected to accomplish to control and contribute to the war game exercise. 

The guide provides you with the means to update the staff and incorporate 

your specific BOS into the wargame. In order to facilitate your participation 

this distributed process, it is recommended that you indicate when they are 

finished with your briefing/input. 

F-3
War Game Step Action Activity 

Friendly

Situation 

Regular 3 briefs the Friendly Situation. STEP 4a. S

Stage. 

et the

Threat Situation The Threat Commander briefs the Threat Situation. 

Step 4b. TF Action Intelligence 

TF S2 briefs Intel Update for this event. First inform all to

post the Intel and Information Preparation of the 

Battlefield (IPB) overlays. Then brief the following: 

“There is a high level of uncertainty concerning the 

threat. 

 We can expect him to conduct distributed

operations with squad-sized or smaller elements

throughout our zone. 

 The threat is composed of a mix of conventional, 

irregulars, and mercenaries forces fighting side

by side. 

 He is capable of small arms fire, augmented with 

RPGs and some larger caliber fire (such as 

2x23mm and 2x57mm). His indirect fires support 

is primarily mortars. 

 There is limited to no air threat. At best the 

threat is capable of small element helicopter 

operations. At largest platoon sized. 

 There is no conventional threat from chemical, 

nuclear or bio weapons usage. Although if 

threat resorts to terrorist tactics, isolated

incidents of chemical and bio weapons usage is 

possible. 

 The COP depicts last known and expected

threat locations. The red dashed circles 

s –

ns for 

ations

for this event. 

designate the threats most likely ambush site

main roadway intersections that offer nearby

covered and concealed positions. 

 There are no weather or terrain implicatio

this event. 

 There are no key or decisive terrain implic

Regular 3 briefs Planning Assumptions Impacting this 

Event, the Maneuver BOS, and the Decision Points. 

Regular 3 will brief the engineer activities: 

Regular 14 briefs fire support.

Step 4b. TF Action

Maneuver 

Regular 4 briefs logistical aspects of this event. 

STEP 5 Reaction Threat reaction 

to TF maneuver 

Threat Commander briefs threat reaction to TF actions 

STEP 6 Intelligence Regular 2 briefs how the enemy reaction impacts the intel 

BOS, recommends changes, or confirms the COA. 

F-4
War Game Step Action Activity 

Maneuver

Regular 3 briefs how to aneuver in response to 

OA or 

adjust its m

the enemy’s reaction, and confirms the C

recommends changes to the COA. 

Fires Regular 14 briefs fires response and confirms the COA or 

recommends changes to the COA.

Coun

Combat Service 

Support (CSS) 

egular 4 briefs how logistics is affected.

ter-reaction 

R

STEP 7 

Record results 

Update the COA 

and sketch 

the

ade 

Regular 5 verifies that the RECORDER has recorded

critical elements of the wargame and any decisions m

for modifications or changes to the COA. 

STEP 8 

Complete wargame 

Decision to 

continue or 

terminate 

Exercise 1 war 

game. 

5, based on the discussion, will decide:

to re-run this event wargame and instruct the S3 to 

y t

R e this event’s results and go

xt event’s wargame and repeat the steps 

re

If this is the last event, direct that the wargame is 

concl

Regular

y

repeat the steps above, or,

o end this event’s analysis, and instruct the 

ECORDER to summariz

on to the ne

above. (Regular 3A summarizes this event wargame 

sults.)

uded, and d the following...

F-5
Appendix G

Sample Collaborative Sol

Horizontal (Staf

utions Rating Form: 

f) Exercise

G-1
MODP Assessment: Collaborative Solutions to Problems Identified in Wargaming

(instructions

on back)

Problem: Triggering Event: ID'd Problem Group Disc

bushes at canal crossings.

stile locals interfere with

ussed grade5

Intel: Need to deal with ambush sites. < Am =

Maneuver: Need security away from urban < Ho =

 area and local crowd control of routes. passage lane checkpoints in 

CSS: Need retrans or Fwd CP to control urban area. =

 ISR operation at TF level.

Intel: Need to ID crossing points on canals. < Canals flooded by enemy. =

Fire Spt: Need to support INTEL danger =

 points (more developed FS plan).

Mobility: Need to address canal crossing. =

CSS: Need to secure soft assets. < Raids on rear area inside AO. =

CSS: Need fuel & repair before objective. < Long moves require fuel/repairs. =

Fire Spt: Need a more developed fire support < Enemy can observe preparations =

 plan, especially with regards to smoke. for the assault and respond.

Intel: Need element detailed to observe low < Dead space behind the objective =

 ground behind objective to isolate it. allows enemy to avoid isolation.

Intel: Vulernable flanks endanger the forces < Enemy in hide positions on =

 trying to isolate the OBJ. flanks are capable of rear fires.

Intel: Need to ID decisive terrain for assault. < Enemy blows bridge and =

Fire Spt: Need to conceal approach. executes complex ambush. =

Intel: Need maneuver to dislocate en strength. < Assault goes into en strength. =

Mobility: Need to position mobility assets < Flooded canals inhibit easy =

 to assist assault/change assault lanes. assault into OBJ. =

Intel: Need to contact local SOF force to gain < Various local contacts are =

 intel on local centers of gravity (friend&en). made with offers and information.

Intel: Need an element dedicated to refugee < Refugee camp is haven for =

 camp control until higher can assume resp. anti-U.S. forces.

CSS: Need immediate aid to refugee camp. < Multiple civilian casualties, as =

 well as thirst and hunger.

CSS: Need to acquire materials. < Need to construct secure CPs. =

values from back:4

Grading Scale: cumulative score/grade: /

 2 = best solution arrived at no. of "0" scores: of = %

 1 = adequate solution, but not the best no. of "1" scores: of = %

 0 = not a viable solution no. of "2" scores: of = % no. of "3" scores: of = %

27Jan 2004

Instructions for the completion of the MODP Assessment Worksheet

1 General. Worksheet is to be completed during the progress of a MODP exercise by the evaluator/observer. Each event assessment should be

 completed before moving on to the next event, in order that information is fresh in the mind of the evaluator. Assessment is based upon how the group 

handles BOS syncronization problems uncovered during the wargame.

2 Level of Consideration Scoring: Check each level of BOS problem consideration that was performed by the players as the event unfolds. Add 

up these checks to the right, indicating a 0, 1, 2, or 3, based upon:

0 = the problem was never brought up at the group level (by voice or text transmissions)

1 = problem was id'd/acknowledged by the group (more than the original member who had information).

2 = problem was discussed by more than one person in the group.

3 = group created a solution for the problem, recording it for modification of the COA event being wargamed.

3 Cumulative Resolution Score: Add up all the resolution scores, to include any unprogrammed scores from the back of the form, and place the sum in 

 the box indicated.

4 Unprogramed problems: The group may spend time on problems not brought out specifically by the exercise materials. The group can still get credit

for this work. Describe the problem using the table below, and transfer results to the front of the form:

Problem: ID'd Problem Group Discussed grade

=

=

=

=

score/grade to transfer to front:

5 Problem Resolution GRADE: Rate the quality of the solution the group arrived at with a "2" if it was the best solution, a "1" if it was a viable solution, or

a "0" if it was clearly a solution that could not solve the problem. This is a subjective rating based upon the experience of the evaluator.

6 Percentage Assessment: Use this table to assess the percentage of problems that received a 0, 1, 2, or 3 level score.

E

v

e

n

t

1

E

v

e

n

t

2

Date:_______________ BOS'

Recorded Solution

score

Percentage Assessment:6

score3

given to BOS sync.2

E

v

e

n

t

3

E

v

e

n

t

5

E

v

e

n

t

4

Recorded Solution

s not syncronized with maneuver plan... Level of consideration

G-2
Appendix H 

Sample Post-Event Surveys: 

Horizontal (Staff) Exercise 

H-1
Survey – Event I (ISR Operations before TF LD)

(please circle the one best answer that you agree with) 

1. What level of enemy resistanc n the Area of Operations at

the beginning of the wargame?

a. Armenian Regular Army forces would efend in place. 

b. Enemy conventional forces and paramilitary forces would withdraw, with only some

resistance at the objective area. 

c. There would be no real resistance to our operation. 

2. Which of the following is NOT a feature of terrain in our Area of Operations?

a. Canals with berms which may impede mobility 

b. Dense forests which may hide enemy forces

c. Villages/urban which may provide cover/concealment for enemy forces 

3. How did the group decide to respond to the prospect of increased enemy resistance against our 

ISR operations?

a. We added the mortar platoon to the scout platoon. 

b. We added the mortar platoon and some extra combat maneuver elements (more tank or 

IFV platoons).

c. None of the above. 

4. What types of fire support are available to the scout platoon in this phase of the operation?

a. Field Artillery from our DS battalion.

b. CAS from USAF. 

c. Neither of the above. 

e did the S2 believe would be present i

d

Survey – Event II (Move along AXIS STRIKE) 

(please circle the one best answer that you agree with) 

5. What was the threat to the TF’s rear area once combat elements left the LD behind?

a. We may have bypassed some BRDMs from the Armenian Army reconnaissance 

element left behind. 

b. We expect the Iranian Army to attack north across the border into our rear area. 

c. Paramilitary forces hiding in the towns might emerge behind our combat elements to

attack our trains. 

6. Where was the threat ambushing our scouts?

a. In the villages. 

b. Crossing the canals. 

c. In the woods. 

7. How did we handle all the canals we were projected to cross along AXIS STRIKE?

a. We attached engineer assets to the lead element. 

b. We modified AXIS STRIKE to avoid some canals. 

c. We did neither of the above. 

8. How far behind the scouts/forward security element was the main body intended to travel?

a. One phase line.

b. Two phase lines. 

c. Eight hours. 

H-2
Survey – Event III (Isolating the Objective) 

(please circle the one best answer that you agree with) 

9. What element was tasked to observe the low ground behind the OBJ?

a. Scout Platoon. 

b. One of the maneuver companies.

c. None of the above. 

10. Ho e outside our boundaries as we 

neared the OBJ?

enemy fire positions on the flank, in

(from the southwest)?

c. ve. 

12. What does A Company do during this phase of the operation?

e Scout Platoon. 

w w re we going to prevent enemy fire into our flanks from

a. Use of mortar smoke only. 

b. A unit was designated to overwatch the potential

addition to use of smoke. 

c. None of the above. 

11. What unit is tasked to watch Birmay and any enemy advancing from that southern town

towards the OBJ

a. Scout Platoon. 

b. B Company. 

None of the abo

a. Covers the front and fixes the enemy by fire.

b. Moves to the north of the OBJ. 

c. Moves to support th

Survey – Event IV (Securing the Objective) 

(please circle the one best answer that you agree with)

13. Where was the center of enemy resistance?

14. Whe

a.

15. Who cal Special Operations Force team in town?

16. Wha a ne of contact (LOC) in our area of 

operat ons (A

a. The refugee camp. 

b. The police station. 

c. None of the above. 

re was enemy mortar fire coming from?

The police station. 

b. The town of Birmay. 

c. None of the above. 

was tasked to cont

a. Scout Platoon.

act the lo

b. One of the maneuver teams. 

c. None of the above. 

t w s the greatest threat to the CS

i O)?

S elements along our li

a. Enemy mortar fire. 

b. Enemy paramilitary raids. 

c. Friendly fire. 

H-3
Survey – Event V (Stability Operations) 

(please circle the one best answer that you agree with) 

17. What was the expected reaction of locals to U.S. securing of the objective?

. 

p of friendlies and hostiles. 

dly to our interests. 

ts.

19. Who mediate assistance to the refugee camp?

a. The S4 and trains were specifically tasked. 

20. Who as it to secure/monitor traffic coming across the bridge from Birmay?

b. Company B’s. 

a. They welcome U.S. forces

b. They are hostile to U.S. forces. 

c. They are a mixed grou

18. Was there a local leader friendly or hostile to U.S. interests?

a. He was frien

b. He was hostile to our interes

c. There was no local leader in the wargame. 

was tasked to provide im

b. Company B was specifically tasked. 

c. None of the above was tasked. 

se responsibility w

a. Scout Platoon’s. 

c. None of the above. 

H-4
Appendix I 

Final Survey: 

Horizontal (Staff) and Vertical (Command) Exercises 

I-1
Final Survey 

1. The Read-ahead materials helped prepare me for the exercise. 

 ______True 

 ______False 

______I did not read the material. 

2. The morning Training Session adequately prepared me to complete the exercise. 

 ______True 

 ______False 

 Explain:______________________________________________________________ 

3. The Certification Drill at the beginning was very helpful for using the workstation. 

 ______True 

 ______False 

 Explain:______________________________________________________________ 

4. I was able to use the workstation to access overlays and other information I needed to 

complete the exercise in a timely manner. 

 ______True 

 ______False 

 Explain:______________________________________________________________ 

5. The background materials provided were sufficient for completing the exercise. 

 ______True 

 ______False 

 Explain:______________________________________________________________ 

6. This method of wargaming could be used in actual operation (NTC, warfare, etc.) 

 ______True 

 ______False 

 Explain:______________________________________________________________ 

7. The tool we could have really used to make this wargaming process more effective is 

 ________________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________________ 

8. What I think worked best about this wargaming process is _______________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________________ 

9. What I would change in this wargaming process is ____________________________

I-2
Appendix J 

Mini-lab Set Up for Electronic Data Recordings 

J-1
Appendix K 

Summary o

 by Exercise and Event 

Horizontal (Staff)

f Non-Contingent Observer Ratings of BOS Synchronization 

Observer ratings of BOS synchronization

 Problem Problem Problem 

 Identified Discussed Resolved 

 Event 1 

Event 1 Rater1 4/4 (100%) 4/4 (100%) 4/4 (100%) 

Rater2 4/4 (100%) 4/4 (100%) 4/4 (100%) 

Event 4 Rater1 6/8 (75%) 6/8 (75%) 6/8 (75%) 

Rater2 6/8 (75%) 6/8 (75%) 3/8 (38%) 

Event 5 Rater1 1/5 (20%) 1/5 (20%) 1/5 (20%) 

Rater2 1/5 (20%) 1/5 (20%) 1/5 (20%) 

Combined Rater1 11/17 (65%) 11/17 (65%) 11/17 (65%) 

Rater2 11/17 (65%) 11/17 (65%) 8/17 (47%) 

 Exercise 2 

Event 1 Rater1 2/4 (50%) 1/4 (25%) 1/4 (25%) 

Rater2 2/4 (50%) 1/4 (25%) 1/4 (25%) 

Event 2 Rater1 5/5 (100%) 5/5 (100%) 3/5 (60%) 

Rater2 5/5 (100%) 3/5 (60%) 2/5 (40%) 

Event 5 Rater1 3/5 (60%) 2/5 (40%) 1/5 (20%) 

Rater2 5/5 (100%) 5/5 (100%) 3/5 (60%) 

Combined Rater1 10/14 (71%) 8/14 (57%) 5/14 (36%) 

Rater2 12/14 (86%) 9/14 (64%) 6/14 (43%) 

Vertical (Command)

 Exercise 3 

Event 1 Rater1 2/3 (67%) 2/3 (67%) 2/3 (67%) 

 Rater2 2/3 (67%) 2/3 (67%) * 

Event 2 Rater1 4/5 (80%) 4/5 (80%) 4/5 (80%) 

 Rater2 4/5 0%) 4/5 (80%) * 

Event 4 Rater1 2/4 (50%) 2/4 (50%) 2/4 (50%) 

 Rater2 1/4 5%) 1/4 (25%) * 

Combined Rater1 8/12 (67%) 8/12 (67%) 8/12 (67%) 

 Rater2 7/12 (58%) 7/12 (58%) * 

 Exercise 4 

Event 1 Rater1 3/3 (100%) 3/3 (100%) 3/3 (100%) 

Rater2 3/3 (100%) 3/3 (100%) 3/3 (100%) 

Event 4 Rater1 3/4 (75%) 3/4 (75%) 2/4 (50%) 

Rater2 2/4 (50%) 2/4 (50%) 2/4 (50%) 

Combined Rater1 6/7 (86%) 6/7 (86%) 5/7 (71%) 

Rater2 5/7 (71%) 5/7 (71%) 5/7 (71%) 

(8

(2

*Data were not available for this event.

K-1
Appendix L 

Final Survey Results by Exercise Session 

L-1
Final Survey Results for Horizontal (Staff)

Exercise Session 1 

Item Responses

Exercise:

1. The Read-ahead materials helped me prepare for the exercise. 5 True 

2. The morning training session adequately prepared me to complete the 

exercise. 

 - Ran through the scenario to give me a better understanding. 

 - I was able to effectively use the tools. 

5 True 

3. The certification drill at the beginning was very helpful for using the 

workstation. 

 - It taught the basics to successfully navigate the scenario. 

 - Afterwards I was able to do everything with minimal problems. 

5 True 

4. I was able to use the workstation to access overlays and other information 

I needed to complete the exercise in a timely manner. 

5 True 

5. The background materials provided were sufficient for completing the 

exercise. 

 - They were very helpful with keeping us on track. 

5 True 

6. This method of war gaming could be used in actual operation (NTC, 

warfare, etc.) 

 - Needs some upgrades, needs staff practice. 

 - It has technological limitations, though it is very effective.

 - It will be useful, but being on the ground will uncover potential hazards. 

5 True 

7. The tool we could have really used to make this war gaming more effective is: 

 - Having the ability to send and review files. 

 - Digital sends on info from other staff sections; a lot of info to digest over the radio. 

 - The scripts could have been more detailed for actions in maneuver. 

 - PVD conference. 

 - A little more time to get familiar with the computer. 

8. What I think worked best about this war gaming process is: 

 - Use of the chat tool allowed us to capture changes, issues and RFIs to the COA. 

 - Closed environment to focus staff work. 

 - The fact that it is distributed. This forces everyone to stay disciplined. 

 - Documented, info sharing on the chat feature. 

 - Quick to the point briefings from all staff members. 

9. What I would change in this war gaming process is: 

 - Possibly have the group do the process using only the chat tool. 

 - Process needs practice by the staff to be effective. 

 - More use of PVD to share concepts and updates during the process. 

 - Time per event. Fewer events or more time per event. 

 - More threat actions for us to develop COAs. 

Note: Number of participants per session = 5. 

L-2
Final Survey Results for Horizontal (Staff) Exercise: 

Exercise Session 2 

Item Responses

1. The Read-ahead materials helped me prepare for the exercise 

 - Caught on quickly with briefing. Gave me everything I needed to know

(comment from participant who did not read materials.) 

t

read 

4 True 

1 Did no

2. The morning training session adequately prepared me to complete the 5 True 

exercise. 

 - Could have used more hands on time. 

3. The certification drill at the beginning was very helpful for using the 5 True 

workstation. 

 - A bit too segmented; computer crashed. 

4. I was able to use the workstation to access overlays and other information 

I needed to complete the exercise in a timely manner. 

 - System crashes, flickering screen, non user friendly portion. 

- Overlays are easy to access.

1 False 

 - The assistant was invaluable in aiding this. 

4 True 

5. The background materials provided were sufficient for completing the

exercise. 2 False 

 - Not sure I used any background materials. 

 - Not nearly deep enough. 

3 True 

6. This method of wargaming could be used in actual operation (NTC, 

warfare, etc.) 

ce of this in this medium. 

4 True 

1 False 

 - But could be painful. Commo must work. One key to war game is group 

focus on same map, matrix, etc., and no assuran

 - I wouldn’t use this version...needs to be improved. 

 - Not with current software. 

7. The tool we could have really used to make this wargaming more effective is: 

uch better application. Force XXI Battle 

elp visualize the operation. 

ide.”

 - Someone dedicated to record recommendations. 

 - None. 

- Maneuver Support (MS) Net Meeting...m

Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) – all the icons are correct. 

 - Ability to animate during COA description to h

- A way to communicate with one individual “on the s

8. What I think worked best about this war gaming process is:

usly.

 - The record in the chat room. 

 - An external threat commander – not the S2. 

 - The script. 

 - Everyone has a computer and can add notes simultaneo

 - Easy to read overlays, chat tool. 

L-3
Final Survey Results for Horizontal (Staff) Exercise (continued):

Exercise Session 2 

Item 

9. What I would change in this wargaming process is: 

 - Would be easier to read staff updates than hear them over the radio, and t

questions and/or provide comments. One radio net limits

hen

side comments/discussions that 

.

every collaborator had so we could share 

ctive a

application needs a lot of work...see my tech’s comments. 

ation is possible – less technical friction.

o to

ask

limit contributions to wargaming. 

- Nothing

 - Have 15” x 15” digital whiteboards that

sketches quickly...until that happens, the manual wargaming is more effe

timely. Map

nd less

 - Expand the program so that true collabor

 - Have staff close enough together to be able to talk face-to-face if desired (d

be in same room.). 

n’t have

Note: Number of participants per session = 5.

L-4
Final Survey Results for Vertical (Command) Exercise: 

Exercise Session 3 

Item Responses

1. The Read-ahead materials helped me prepare for the exercise. 4 True 

1 False

2. The morning training session adequately prepared me to complete the 

exercise. 

4 True 

- A lot of information in a short period of time. 

1 False 

 - More training on the software may have allowed me to focus on MDMP 

data as opposed to figuring out computer software. 

3. The certification drill at the beginning was very helpful for using the 

workstation. 

 - Was well explained. 

5 True 

4. I was able to use the workstation to access overlays and other information 

needed to complete the exercise in a timely manner. 

5 True 

I

5. The background materials provided were sufficient for completing the

xercise.

 - Took the initial event to get used to it. 

5 True 

e

6. This method of wargaming could be used in actual operation (NTC, 

warfare, etc.) 

 - Has possibilities. 

 - I think we would have to have a lot of training to get anything out of this 

method of war gaming. 

 - Commander input in wargaming is important. 

4 True 

1 False 

7. The tool we could have really used to make this wargaming more effective is: 

 - Adequate tools, just takes time getting used to them. 

 - Somehow be able see the graphics in better detail without over cluttering everything. 

 - None. 

 - Pucksters to help draw in graphic control measures. 

8. What I think worked best about this wargaming process is: 

 - Counter/action discussion process. Opportunity for input from all players. 

 - Speed. 

 - Collaborative notepad was very useful. 

 - The information flow from the Battalion CDR to the Company CDRs. 

 - The collaborative notepad. 

9. What I would change in this wargaming process is: 

 - More initial practice, though event #1 did this. 

 - Make maneuver graphics animated as commanders brief their scheme. 

 - Graphics software. 

 - Nothing. 

 - Ability to change graphics/easier method. 

Note: Number of participants per session = 5. 

L-5
Final Survey Results for Vertical (Command) Exercise: 

Exercise Session 4 

Item Responses

1. The Read-ahead materials helped me prepare for the exercise. 5 True 

2. The morning training session adequately prepared me to complete the 

most part. It’s tough to fight a computer system you are not 

exercise. 

- For the

familiar with, but we managed. 

5 True 

3. The certification drill at the beginning was very helpful for using the 

workstation. 

 - Slightly confusing – helped on hindsight but initially confusing. 

 - Need more time to understand how the system works. 

.

5 True 

- Helped the issue of #2

 - Helped me find the correct buttons. 

4. I was able to use the workstation to access overlays and other information 

work off one overlay, it got too confusing on which overlay 

4 True 

I needed to complete the exercise in a timely manner. 

- Need to

someone was updating. 

1 False 

5. The background materials provided were sufficient for completing th

exercise. 

e 5 True 

6. This method of wargaming could be used in actual operation (NTC, 

the ability to make changes versus everything being 

- But somehow slow process; precise graphics may be difficult to draw. 

4 True 

warfare, etc.) 1 False 

 - I think the unit needs

written out for them. 

 - Could be...but not unpracticed. As a Command (CMD) Group, it may be 

best used for rehearsal, not wargame. As a staff, maybe.

7. The tool we could have really used to make this war gaming more effective is: 

icture (COP) feature

lines?

 - All computers operations – I like the Common Operational P

 - Better understanding of how the workstation works. 

- Contour

 - A hard copy map for reference. 

 - Message boards. 

8. What I think worked best about this wargaming process is: 

e building.

e we began. Brief on the situation and computer practice. 

elf = CDR’s ability to re-do graphics and show the group on-line. 

 - COP. 

 - Cross talk among the Soldiers and civilians in th

 - Real-time graphic updates. 

- The 1 hr. prep befor

Wargame its

 - Commo. 

L-6
Final Survey Results for Vertical (Command) Exercise (continued):

Exercise Session 4 

Item

9. What I would change in this wargaming process is: 

 - Better graphics maps – a way to declutter and still show the required in

- Allow

form

the units the ability to go through the entire wargaming process. 

n. It can get out of hand with mission plan changes. 

ation. 

 - Add times to message board; add message alerts. 

 - Force a time line for each tur

 - Nothing. 

Note: Number of participants per session = 5. 

L-7
Appendix M 

Read-Me File 

D PLANNING (MODP): 

d Future Force from

M ing 

m mplete 

rgaming materials, as described below. 

ODP Read Ahead material provides an 

verview of distributed wargaming concepts and training methodology relevant to both the 

Current Force and Future Force exercises. 

2. MULTI-ECHELON OPERATIONS FOR DISTRIBUTED PLANNING FOLDER

 a. CURRENT FORCE EXERCISES. The Current Force exercises (commanders and staff) 

each include a total of five events and their corresponding evaluation materials. The Current 

Force Commanders exercise is designed for the following participants: 

 - TF Cdr 

 - TF S3

 - Tm A Cdr

 - Tm B Cdr 

- Co C Cdr 

- Threat Cdr 

The Current Force Staff exercise is designed for the following participants: 

 - TF XO 

 - TF S3

- TF S1 & S4 

 - TF S2

 - TF FSO 

 - Threat Cdr 

 b. FUTURE FORCE EXERCISES. The Future Force exercises were designed to incorporate 

the task organizations and operational concepts presented in Objective Force White Paper and 

Chapters 3 and 4 of Chg 2 to TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-90 O&O Objective Force Operational & 

Organizational Plan for UA (30 June 2003). The operational scenario is based on UA vignettes 

from Annex F of Chg 2 to TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-90 O&O Objective Force Operational & 

Organizational Plan for UA (30 June 2003). The exercises strive to train commanders and staff 

as they are expected to operate in actual MDMPs – reinforcing commander and staff skills 

required to plan, analyze and make decisions concerning operations at the brigade and lower 

levels (UA and combined arms battalion [CAB]) in the Objective Force. 

MULTI-ECHELON OPERATIONS FOR DISTRIBUTE

A Wargaming Example

This CD contains distributed wargaming materials for the Current an

ODP. For the Current Force, the CD contains a complete set of distributed wargam

aterials, as described below. For the Future Force, however, the CD contains an inco

but useful starter set of distributed wa

1. MODP READ AHEAD MATERIAL. The M

o

M-1
The exercises address the key tacti f “See First, Act First, Understand First, 

and Finish Decisively.” These concepts lead Future forces to conduct operations characterized 

by developing situations out of contact; m ositions of advantage; engaging enemy 

forces

necessa

ll, a Maneuver and

t

ment worksheet and surveys are partially 

ticipants: 

 

r the Future Force Staff exercise is designed for the following 

mbat Power Officer 

Effects Officer

cal concepts o

aneuvering to p

beyond the range of their weapons; destroying them with precision fires and, when 

ry, by tactical assault at times and places of their choosing.

The Future Force exercises are designed around a Combined Arms Battalion (CAB). The

battalion includes a Reconnaissance Troop, a Non-Line of Sight (NLOS) Mortar Battery, two 

Mounted Combat System (MCS) Companies, and two Infantry Companies. The model for the

battalion staff addresses integrated Battlefield Operating Systems cells instead of staff sections

led by key staff officers. The staff cells include an Information Superiority Ce

Support Cell, a Fires and Effects Cell, and a Build Combat Power Cell. 

For the Future Force exercises (commanders and staff) only the materials for the firs

event in the scenario were developed. The assess

developed and limit their focus to the one event developed for the exercise. The one event 

developed for the Future Force Commanders exercise is designed for the following par

 - CAB Cdr 

- CAB Maneuver & Support Officer 

- Recon Troop Cdr 

- Two Infantry Co Cdrs 

- Threat Cdr

The one event developed fo

participants: 

 - CAB XO

- CAB Build Co

- CAB Information Superiority Officer 

- CAB Maneuver and Support Officer 

- CAB Fires and

 - Threat Cdr

M-2
 c. TRAINING MATERIALS. Training materials are provided to support both the Current 

Force and Future Force participants as outlined in the table below. 

Materials for 

Distributed Current Force - Current Force - Staff Future

Wargaming Exercise Commanders

Force - 

Commanders

Future Force – Staff 

Preparation Brief Complete Complete Complete Complete

Training Brief Complete Complete Complete Complete

Event I Execution 

Guide 

Complete Complete Complete Complete

Event II Execution

Guide 

Complete Complete Not Developed Not Developed 

Event III Execution Complete Complete Not Develop

Guide 

ed Not Developed 

Event IV Execution 

Guide 

Complete Complete Not Developed Not Developed 

Event V Execution 

Guide 

Complete Complete Not Developed Not Developed 

Assessment 

Worksheets 

Complete Complete Partial* Partial*

Participant Surveys Complete Complete Partial* Partial*

*The assessment worksheet and surveys are partially developed and limit their focus to the one 

event developed for the exercise. 

M-3
3. CURRENT FORCE - COMMANDERS EXERCISE FOLDER: This folder contains the 

execution guides for the five events contained in this exercise. Each event will have an 

xecution guide for the following participants: 

 - TF Cdr 

 - TF S3

A

Tm B Cdr 

Co C C

Threat Cdr 

XERCISE FOLDER: This folder contains the execution 

event d in this e ach eve exec r

g participants: 

- TF XO 

F S1 &

- TF S2

- TF S3

F FSO

T MATERIALS FOLDER: This folder contains the support 

materials used in preparing for and assessing execution of the Current Force Commanders and 

Staff exercises. 

 a. OVERVIEW & PREP BRIEFINGS FOLDER: The Readahead.ppt file is used to provide 

participants an overview of distributed wargaming and the MODP exercises. The Commanders 

Day.ppt and Staff Day.ppt files are used to in brief participants prior to execution of an exercise. 

 b. PARTICIPANT TRAINING & JOB AIDS FOLDER: This folder contains training 

materials and job aids to assist participants in becoming familiar with the operation of the voice

communications, Tactical Internet - web browser, Collaborative Notepad - web browser, and 

SC4-Command and Control System. 

 c. EXERCISE ASSESSMENT FOLDER: This folder contains the materials used to assess

participant actions during execution of the MODP exercises. The MODP Assessment 

System.doc file explains the worksheets and survey used in exercise assessment. Copies of the 

Assessment Worksheets for the Commanders and Staff exercise, MODP Survey Scoring, and 

Worksheet Tactical Tips are included as well. 

6. FUTURE FORCE - COMMANDERS EXERCISE FOLDER: This folder contains the 

execution guides for the first event provided for this exercise. Execution guides are provided for 

the following participants: 

 - CAB Cdr 

- CAB Maneuver & Support Officer 

e

- Tm Cdr

-

-

-

dr

4. CURRENT FORCE - STAFF E

guides for the five

the followin

s containe xercise. E nt will have an ution guide fo

- T S4

- T

 - Threat Cdr 

5. CURRENT FORCE - SUPPOR

M-4
- Recon Troop Cdr 

- Co C Cdr 

- Co D Cdr 

 - Threat Cdr

7. FUTURE FORCE - STAFF EXERCISE FOLDER: This folder contains the execution guides 

exercise. Execution guides are provided for the following 

- CAB Build Combat Power Officer 

& Effects Officer

RT MATERIALS FOLDER: This folder contains the support 

and assessing execution of the Future Force Commanders and 

INGS FOLDER: The Readahead.ppt file is used to provide 

ANT TRAINING & JOB AIDS FOLDER: This folder contains training 

ess

as well.

for the one event developed in this

participants: 

 - CAB XO 

- CAB Information Superiority Officer 

- CAB Maneuver & Support Officer 

- CAB Fires

 - Threat Cdr

8. FUTURE FORCE - SUPPO

materials used in preparing for

Staff exercises.

a. OVERVIEW & PREP BRIEF

participants on overview of distributed wargaming and the MODP exercises. The Commanders 

Day.ppt and Staff Day.ppt files are used to in brief participants prior to execution of an exercise.

b. PARTICIP

materials and job aids to assist participants in becoming familiar with the operation of the voice

communications, Tactical Internet - web browser, Collaborative Notepad - web browser, and 

SC4-Command and Control System. 

 c. EXERCISE ASSESSMENT FOLDER: This folder contains the materials used to ass

participant actions during execution of the MODP exercises. The MODP Assessment 

System.doc file explains the worksheets and survey used in exercise assessment. Copies of the 

Assessment Worksheets for the Commanders and Staff exercise, MODP Survey Scoring, and

Worksheet Tactical Tips are included

M-5