Return to PWP

In 2004, the commercial wargame Decisive Action was used in Australia for a military exercise. Here is an informal report from one of the people running the exercise. Lots of useful tips for anyone running similar exercises.

-----

This year I ran an exercise at the Australian Defence College for the Army Command and Staff Course.

My main limitations were:

Number of computers to run DA on (10)
Number of decent sized rooms available (9)
Number of students to keep occupied (80)
Number of support staff to run the exercise (1.5, me and some help)
Level of student training on DA 


The aim of the exercise was to educate officers on conventional warfare at the Brigade and Divisional staff level. In particular to fight a plan against a thinking enemy, rat her than a TEWT.

This was not a procedural exercise, although all orders were to be sent as FRAGO's and SITREPS were to be sent between HQ's. This was not tightly enforced.


We ran two exercise concurrently, putting two different Blue plans against two different Red plans. I had one machines acting as a server for each games (total 2 machines).

Blue side were three Brigade HQ's and a Divisional HQ, each with a computer as data input and situational awareness tool. These were fed to video projectors that displayed onto the wall. A syndicate of about 10 students made up each HQ. The icons on the map ended up being task organized battlegroup (Bn) size with some coy sized icons.

Red were a single syndicate of 10 people per game with a single computer for orders and situational awareness. They commanded a Corps. Red used icons of Bde and Bn strength.


The scenario covered most of central Victoria, an area of a bout 300x200KM using a 1:250k map as a backdrop.


We executed two simulation hours of combat each real hour, with 6-7 turns per day, giving us 12-14 hours of play per 7-8 hours working day.

This format was successful, although there were problems with DA. This was mainly due to the "object count" that includes all icons and graphics in the game. As the number of graphics increased DA started to fall over. Once I edited out the graphics to minimize the objects in the game DA became stable.

I found that I was able to bring up DA in a networked mode in about 5 mins. I was busy running both games, managing both servers, but I still had time to give advise on game mechanics to the students. 

It was the first time I had run an exercise using DA, even in practice I only had 3-4 computers up for a couple of turns. As usual IT issues were the biggest headache, the original computers supplied, though fine for single player use, couldn't handle network use.



What Worked?

DA worked well, the students and staff were very happy, in particular it was far better than last year which used a manual process.

The video projectors onto the wall, stopped people crowding the computer.

The After Action Review, very important to do it right.



What didn't work?

Red had too much to do, needed a proper chain of command.

Using DA's graphics for planning, this overloaded the updates and killed the system. Students used paper maps for planning.




How would I do it better?

I would try to have HQ teams of 4-5 (Commander, Int, Ops, Plans, Log).

I would try to run 3-4 games in parallel (but need more staff, really 3 to do it.).

Red should have a proper chain (ie Div and Corps staff).

I would run the scenario again, after giving the students time to replan. 

Again this exercise was not procedural, it was designed to let the students execute their plan against a thinking enemy in a HQ like setting. The students all thought it was very worthwhile, and learned a lot of things that really aren't on the curriculum, but important never the less (like
expecting the unexpected).