YouTube Transcript:
Wargaming and Design Thinking with Yuna Wong

Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.

Video Transcript

Video Summary

Summary

Core Theme

This content discusses the application of design thinking principles to the development of war games, using the RAND Corporation's board game "Hegemony" as a case study, and explores the broader implications for war game design and professional development.

so much sebastian um uh

glad to be here thank you all for

joining us

um today um so today

so tell me when you tell me when you

start the recording or did you already

start it

we're already started sorry i did like

the mom thing i'm like are we are we

recording yet right

um so thank you all for coming uh it's i

think this will be

i hope this will be fun for you as fun

for me as it is for you today i'm going

to be thinking

talking about applying design thinking

to war game design

especially we're going to use the

example of hegemony

so hegemony is going to be rand's first commercially

commercially

available board game mike linnick is also

also

on and he was the lead game designer for that

that

so it we went with his design and you'll

we'll talk about that in a little bit

so i think it's very salient though to

talk about design thinking

because game design is as you might

expect right

literally a design problem so here was

what we're going to talk about today

you know some of the some background

about the specific war game

and then we're going to do a little bit

of introduction of what is design

thinking and so like you know why apply

design thinking to our game design

that might seem like an obvious question

but you know we might as well go over it

the elements of design thinking and then

you know

we'll run you through the examples and

then some conclusions

so this the our example that we're going

to use

is a game called hegemony so rand

corporation has

has you know games available especially

from the 50s you'll find them on boardgamegeek.com

boardgamegeek.com

they have published the rules on i think

a few a few different

games um but um if you look at their

it's a written

a report written up about the game and

the game rolls but not necessarily

boxed up so hegemony is going to be

produced and then for sale on the rand website

website

with manuals so this hegemony the commercial

commercial

backs game is a version of the game

a version of the game that supported the

2018 national defense strategy

so there the sponsor came to us in 2017

and they wanted a new board game and

the requirements were that it would feature

feature

live players for russia china around

north korea and have some terrorists in

the game

and have several rounds playable in half

a day

and um we um also they wanted to

use that to support the strategy writing

teams for the national defense

strategy and to see how different test strategies

strategies

potentially played out in an environment so

i under my slides i say we have um three

weeks to working prototype

we actually had six weeks to show it

before we showed it to the sponsor

but obviously we wanted sort of various

prototypes beforehand

before you show it to the sponsor right

you actually want to have some in-house prototypes

prototypes

so in the result of all of that um so we had

had

six weeks before we had to show the

uh version of the prototype that we came

up with to the sponsor

and so the result was hegemony

so why apply design thinking to board

game design right

this seems kind of obvious it's a design problem

problem

uh right and it was you know these are

the things we had to do with to create a

new game that fit the sponsors need

we had a constrained amount of time we

actually did this with a team that had not

not

necessarily worked together before and

we did it with a team that had not

designed a board game before

or a war game before so i think all of

us on the team are

familiar with war games had had

different roles in war games

but we had actually not designed one so

um i think this was a process that

really helped us so

why also do we want to talk about

using design thinking for war game

design i think part of this is the

debate that's going on

about what background is necessary to

do become a war gamer and especially war

game design right so

within war gaming at the top of the

pyramid really

is war game designer right that's the

role that many people aspire to

that's sort of treated as the most

prestigious that's treated as the

sort of the pinnacle of you know what

you want to sort of do in a war gaming

right like if you're in the military

you're going to be combat arms right

like you don't want to be logistic

you're going to be combat arms right

and then if you know if you're a war

game staff you're going to be like the

designer right that's that's

sort of set up as the the

what you aspire to um so a lot of debate

with the community right so traditionally

traditionally

or i don't even know how traditionally

right in

the past few decades the way people

oftentimes got into professional

wargaming especially in national security

security

particularly in defense is that they

grew up with a number of

board commercial board games and their

youth they played spi games they played

avalon hill games

and then they used they so they had a

knowledge of commercial game mechanics

when they switched over to doing war

games for dod

so i think when i first came to my first

connections roaring

game conference in 2011 um and i

i've told this story before so i was

watching i was there like watching

i'm watching and like they're a bunch of

middle-aged men rolling dice

with baseball caps and you know with

like miniature figures

right and i suddenly had this feeling

that these were my people and i had come

home right this is where i belonged

i didn't know it right that but this was

my flavor of geek and this is where i belong

belong

so i'm like well these are my people

like how do i become

one which was not a trivial thing to ask

right when you're in your mid

30s right so i couldn't go back in time and

and

spend my youth playing games right i did

like the

good like asian daughter thing and did a

lot of like studying in high school and

avoided um dungeons and dragons because

i thought i would like it so much i

would never come out

the irony is i i would actually have

used that like that would actually be

useful for me in my work now

like not physics right not ap physics

like forget that there was

there was no point to that right i've

never had to use maxwell's equations

in real life right so um you know

don't conform rebel a little right do

what you're actually interested in you

won't regret it

but you know right so this is a

non-trivial problem for the community

because right now

we are actually in the middle of a

demographic shift where many of

the people who grew up that way and were

uh professional wargamers are now retiring

retiring

and then you had sort of gen x and then

right by my generation where for us

board games sort of disappeared

at some point in our childhood and we

were the first nintendo generation um

right so cover you know

we our experience with gaming is not

these hex-based

uh board games so um so like

you know is it possible to become do war

game design without that experience i

think we're gonna have to

do it going forward because we don't

really have much of a choice but right but

but

this whole idea of using design thinking

i think shows that you can do it and not necessarily

necessarily

have you know have done you spent your

childhood that way right there

we because we do need other sort of

pathways into word game design

and i think the whole thing of sort of

by just practice right nobody sat down

and say and

said only people who spent their entire adolescence

adolescence

with spi games can become defense

professional wargamers

but human beings infer all sorts of

roles and norms

from just the things that are and if you

you know only draw from one subset of

people anyway

right like that's not enough because

we're at a point where we need many more ideas

ideas

so i'll take if there are any questions

so far i'll take them

you know we don't have any questions

right now so you can keep going okay

great so i'm going to run a video

called design on design thinking and

this is a youtube video so

i know we're going to be recorded so

this will be recorded and then put back

on youtube

design thinking is a five-step process

to come up with meaningful ideas that

solve real problems for a particular

group of people

the process is taught in top design and

business schools around the world

it has brought many businesses lots of

happy customers

and helped entrepreneurs from all around

the world to solve problems with

innovative new solutions [Music]

[Music]

step one empathize the purpose of step one

one

is to conduct interviews that give you

an idea about what people

really care about we need to empathize

with the situation

for example if you want to help old

people you might find that they want to

keep the ability to walk around

in your conversations they might share

with you different ways they can do that

later into the interview you'll want to

dig a little deeper

look for personal stories or situations

where things became difficult

ideally you redo the process with many

step two define the problem looking at

the interviews

you can now understand the actual needs

that people are trying to fulfill with

certain activities

one way to do that is to underline the

verbs or activities that the people

mentioned when talking about their problems

problems

like going for a walk meeting old

friends for tea

or simply going grocery shopping around

the corner store

you might realize it's not so much about

going out

but more about staying in touch after

your analysis

formulate a problem statement some

elderly are afraid to be lonely

they want to stay connected [Music]

[Music]

step 3 ideate

now focus only on the problem statement

and come up with ideas that solve the problem

problem

the point is not to get a perfect idea

but rather to come up with many ideas

like unique virtual reality experiences

senior friendly hoverboards or a

modified pushcart

whatever it is sketch up your best ideas

and show them to the people you are

trying to help so you can get their feedback

step 4 prototype now take a moment to

reflect on what you have

learned from your conversations about

the different ideas

ask yourself how does your idea fit in

the context of people's actual lives

your solution could be a combination of

a new idea

and what is already being used then

connect the dots

sketch up your final solution and go

build a real prototype that's just good

enough to be tested [Music]

[Music]

step 5 test now test your prototype with

actual users don't defend your idea in

case people don't like it

the point is to learn what works and

what didn't so any feedback is great

then go back to ideation or prototyping

and apply your learning

repeat the process until you have a

prototype that works and solves the real problem

problem

now you are ready to change the world or

to experience design thinking first hand

do the free virtual design thinking

crash course from stanford's d-school

right now you will learn to design a new

gift-giving experience

find the link and the guide for

facilitators in the description below

after you are done share your experience

and gift idea in the comments

to learn more about creative and

critical thinking

check out our other sprouts videos and

if you want to support our channel

great so um i'm gonna assume there are

no questions so far on the video

yes okay actually actually sebastian

were there any questions on that video

no not so far okay great great we're gonna

gonna

just breeze through this uh uh briefing then

then

so right here are the uh

some steps and then the specific

design thinking material i think we used

i pulled it down

from one of mit's edx.org classes

it was that one was sort of design

thinking for educators

but like they're going to be very

similar descriptions of this

and and for those of you who are old

enough to remember

design thinking really hit the popular

consciousness in the

1990s when a company called ideo

presented about how that's how they do

product design

on an episode of nightline and that's

the point from which you know right

there was there was a burst of books

there was a burst of interest

um you know i think that i think their

website crashed

um you know do they have a website no is

that is that like

like a historical right back in the 90s

right but i think that was a that was a time

time

when this idea really took off so if you

also google

ideo you'll also find a lot of material on

on design thinking and i think we should

properly credit

their their role in this so the first

step is to empathize which is to

understand the user's problem

and you saw in the video how the people

were watching the users right potent the

the target audience of users and looking at

how they did things so this is where

i think sometimes um right this is why sometimes

sometimes

focus groups for product design may not

be so successful

this is the argument that's made that

people um

don't necessarily can't necessarily

articulate what it is that they actually

need so in the first step a lot of

sometimes they'll even try to teach you

sort of ethnographic methods to do this

first step which

is trying to really understand the

user's perspective so the

more you understand the user's

perspective and their needs

or their latent needs or even things

they can't really quite verbalize or articulate

articulate

the better your product and the better

your design will be

because it really the idea is really to

be user centric

and then the second is to define the

problem right you can define it in

different ways and again you saw in the

video if the problem

you're trying to solve is socialization

rather than mobility

you can see how that can lead to very

different ideas about how to address

that problem

and then the next step is id8 which is

to come up with

many ideas so you could also say that this

this

is sort of sometimes people talk about

divergent thinking

where the the purpose is not to

critique ideas it's just to come up with

them right so if you try to combine

evaluation or critique with idea

generation you don't

actually really do so well so you

separate out those steps

and just come up with ideas and then the

next part is to prototype

and then some of the mit materials we

pulled down they have sort of concrete exercises

exercises

right like sketch out your idea

storyboard your idea so

you know fold up a piece of paper into

six and then in each panel

sort of draw a little scene about how

you expect

someone to interact with your design and then

then

come up with a paper prototype so the

advice is for example

if you're coming up with an ipad application

application

right do a little sketch of it on paper

and then cut it out and then

pretend to interact with it even though

you feel kind of cheesy doing it

go to the prototypes early

like before you feel that you're already

go ahead and

try to do some of those prototypes right

and then the next step

is test we'll test out the prototype

show it to someone who is a user or a

stand-in for

the user and just get the response and

then the idea

that's central to design thinking is this

this

iteration like you repeat the prototype

test prototype test loop

right often and you what you will find

is the more often you do this

iterative loop the better your product or

the better your design will become the

better it will fit

the user's needs the better the more

chances for feedback and the more

chances for improvement

and the final step is reflect like

reflect with your team how you did

why you thought you were successful were

there some things that were

not quite successful or you know what

you know it's very interesting sometimes

to talk about well why

what did we think were the elements that

made a particular

project or design successful so empathize

empathize

so the the you know after we reflected right

right

so the the real strength i think in the

team we had together

was that um they had all

many of them had worked as action

officers in the pentagon

so mike spiritus my clinic john yarchak steve

steve

desell they had had no

action officer jobs at the pentagon so

the audience

this the strategy

right team writers the strategy uh

writers were great action officers at

the pentagon

and they had had our design team

had held many of the actual positions

from the people

who were in the sponsor's office or who were

were

going to be coming in and playing the

game so they had a really good

sense of what problems they were facing

what types of decisions

what some of their limitations were how

they would be approaching things

and so we really had a number of

insiders in a sense so there are many

sort of methods where they they

encourage you to have at least

one member of your team with an

insider's perspective

i think i think like almost our entire

team except for me

right like had the pentagon action

officer perspective

and i had i'd i'd had like a quantico

action officer perspective before so

um i mean chronic i mean quantico will

tell you they're really different from

the pentagon but you know there's some

commonality there in

some of the types of things you might

understand um

so they had the team had spent actually

years understanding some of the problems

that the uh people who were coming to

the war game

were going to have and i think that was

a that was a real strength of ours

um actually uh can are there any

you know one of the questions that we

have is could you please elaborate

on why and how focused groups would be

different from the interviews in step one

one

i i think yeah i don't wanna i may be

over making that point but i think the

focus is first step one is when you can

to observe people

going about the activities you want to

try to design around

um you know so there can you know observing

observing

it seems to be right so so observing

as they go about trying to do their

tasks may give you insights that people

cannot necessarily verbalize

um so the thing about focus groups also

can be

people's opinions can be swayed by each other

other

um you know so i i think there are a

number of stories about how

products like do well in focus groups but

but

somehow they've they sort of missed the

mark and you know so i think

that's just that idea that if where you

can you want to observe them

because again they can't always tell you

what it is that they need and i think

the real insights in product design

have come from the times when someone gave

gave

produced something that you didn't

actually realize you needed right like

the iphone

right if you had run a focus group and

said what do you need

in a cell phone i don't know that

the focus group would have given you the

iphone right but that was sort of steve

jobs great insight in in sort of in

anticipating sort of what people

actually needed in terms of

functionality that they actually couldn't

couldn't

verbalize so i hope that starts to

answer the question

although i'm probably speaking outside

my expertise when i talk about that

you know we have another question here

it says at what point are

points in the process of designing a war

game are people splitting apart to come

up with ideas

experiment and iterate versus coming together

together

to put coming together for a final game

slash prototype or is it a lot of group

meetings to make sure all the parts are

working together along the way

so we're we should split it up into

several stages

so we even had sort of a research phase

where we

played a bunch of core board games just

so we would have a common understanding

of game mechanics

and like one of the vice presidents

walked in on us and we were like no no

we're working really

we're working but um so the the prototype

prototype

is the design phase of get

right there are actually many design

phases in this

there's not just one design phase like

one major design phases what is the key

dynamic what is it what are the key

mechanics no

no and then um when you and then development

development

is different like so once you decide i'm

in a major number of things

you have to um right we think the pieces

are going to move this way okay well

someone needs to do the physical pieces

okay someone needs to

get the rules down someone needs to get

the cards right someone needs to do

talk about how data collection is going

to work so that is a lot of development

um although you also have to design

aspects of like data collection

and how for things right so i would say

that design is sort of the master plan

of how things are going to work but like

all the nuts and bolts of how practically

practically

you're going to do things and to finish products

products

that is development but all of these

pieces have to

sort of iterate as you'll as you'll see

as we describe it

okay so um defining the problem so for

war games

i think defining the problem you could

say it as

what are the decisions that the people

coming into the war game are going to be

able to make

right so we you know we white boarded a

number of things right

they can make decisions about posture

right that's sort of where your forces

are in the world because they make can

make decisions about readiness right

how much are you going to sort of spend

and to

increase readiness of your forces versus

you're going to do some other things

with the money

right so you could do pro modernization

you could do

uh uh for structure make your structure larger

larger

you could do you know modernize things

so invest in more advanced capabilities

particularly in certain areas

but we had to narrow down the list

before we could think about ideas about

how a game could work

what are the decisions that people need

to be making

so third is id8 which is just to come up

with a number of ideas

so each member of the team

went and came up with

um an initial idea for the game so in a

very initial prototype

i think we could sort of cobble together

you know

various things and it did not have to be

complete right so the idea behind this

prototype test product prototype test

loop is

get to a prototype and and sort of

try to show it even before you think

it's complete

so without having to have the entire

game or

or anything right or just the main ideas

we came back and shared our ideas with

the rest of the group

and then so here are the prototypes here

some of our sketches

right we had a whiteboard ideas and then

storyboarding right this is the okay

what what exactly do you expect people

to do when they come to the game

right um this was this was interesting

because um it actually for me for example

example

helped i'm like oh yeah they would be

confused at this point or they would

need this or they'd be distracted

it didn't necessarily feed directly into

the the

board game the ward game it's the game

system itself but i thought it was good

a good reminder in in terms of thinking

about the user experience of someone who

is a professional action officer and i

was told you have to go like play a game

like in front of other people um what

some of maybe

the concerns or some of the things that

they'd be thinking about have

so if you want to talk up think about

designing the entire experience

um and walking people through things is

actually i think what is actually a good

uh thing to do good exercise so another

thing is paper prototype right so

we um split up and we came back and we

showed each other

like sort of prototype like very

prototypical game materials

so on the left you have um this it looks

like a spreadsheet

but that is hegemony's like ultrasound

photo right this is the one

this is what mike linnick came up with um

actually is i can't see in the chat but

i'd wonder if michael nick would be

willing to say anything about this mike

i'm going to put you on the spot and ask

before you can mute myself what do you

want me to talk about so could you

could you explain the you know the the

chart on the left

without sort of going into the whole

process of of how we got to there um

this is what what you

was really talking about was just sort

of a first sketch paper prototype of

a tracking sheet that would allow us to see

see

how different players in the game

what their current status was across a

variety of different kinds of things and

ultimately nothing in here uh

really looks at all like what the final

product came out to be

but we knew we needed a tracker um we

sort of knew the kinds of things we

needed to track

we knew the players that we had to track

it for so i'll just

kind of say that um and then it sort of

translated into the more

um advanced printed copies you see in

the photo which themselves then migrated later

later

into a much different um

look as we you know as we did this

prototyping and got the feedback

um we made some things parts of the game

much simpler

really sort of um abstracted a lot that

we had originally

decided to make discrete and then once

we'd gotten about as abstract as we could

could

we got feedback that they needed a

little bit more

discrete er representation

of strategic decisions in certain areas

and so we went back the other way but

but in ways that we hadn't anticipated

when we started so i'll just stop there

because i'm not sure if i stayed on the

track you wanted me to say

stay on oh that was great thanks so so

much mike

um and then like it just going back to

this slide like this other picture right

that was like i think that was like my

attempt at the prototype so we had like

four different like initial prototypes

and we all of us agreed that mike linux

was the best

right so then we decided to flesh out

mike linux

prototype but that's that's how we were

addressing the steps in the design

thinking process like id8 come up with

many ideas

and then you know try to test and then

we showed our prototypes to

uh mike spiritus who um

was right the he he really was the the

project lead and he had

been working in osce policy so was our

stand-in for the sponsor

so he didn't um offer any game ideas right

right

he didn't offer any prototype ideas so

he wasn't invested in any um

so we got feedback from him i think he

didn't like

any of ours i think he said no no no no

um fix this fix this and he got in the

plane and he left us for a few weeks

uh but that's very important right this

is is the idea people talk about is fail fast

fast

right so for example you can spend a lot

of time

talking to someone about what you're

going to do and then they nod violently

because it all sounds fine

but the moment you show him some the

person something like what i showed in the

the

the color picture right which is yeah

and then they're going to be different

boards like there's going to be a cent

combo or

there'll be a south come board and the

person will be like no that doesn't work

like that's not

going to work in this case and you will

know before you went down that path

too far so this is why i think

especially with something like war games

because there can be

one of the benefits of war games is that

can be many visuals if you can just sort of

mock up something and say we think that

you know people will split up into rooms

and then they'll talk and then they'll

come back and this is what

you know this is some of the things that

i might be uh interacting with

the person you know someone who you know

is going to be a user or the sponsor can

immediately say like

uh no like you can't for this reasons or

no that's that's really not going to

work or you know

you know i said this but you know now

that i think about it now that i see

what you're trying to do like

i don't i think this we should go in

this other direction or whatnot

so you need feedback early and these

mock-ups really help

you have that conversation as early as possible

possible

so test right um

i think this is just what i went over

was you know the our team lead was a

stand-in for the sponsor he wasn't

involved in developing an idea and gave

early course to correction

so this is this is where we where we

started okay so then we had another

round of prototyping

um and then we so we took mike lynn's

initial ideas and then we

did another round of prototypes right

and then we tried

without having the full game system

fleshed out

tried to go through it again right and

said well this is how

notionally we think it would work so

without having all the details yet we

think of something about right because

they go oh look there's something like

we need

you need at least a budget tracker and

you need some sort of

cards right you need like event cards

and we think this is how it look

right so you start having that that conversation

conversation

um so for example our

our this was our game map for our test game

game

one of our test games but we did rounds

of this we had

and then once we developed a full

prototype we had a test game with the team

team

then we had a test internal rand test

game with

randites who had not been part of it at

all and were

um new to it so they could give us

feedback and then we had

um and then we showed the sponsor

so it was another test because they they

they wanted to see it before

you know uh you know implementing the game

game

with with re with the strategy writing

teams so

um this was the visual map that we sort

of cobbled together for the test

so you see this uh prototype design it's

prototype test protect

test loop that you start actually doing

this with other people

on other parts of the game so for

example on the game map

yvonne crane was the artist who came up

with the ultimate map

and you'll see a lot of her work in the

box game of hegemony

but you know we showed her this right like

like we need but like it has to be like

this but like you know not ugly right

so and then we iterated the different

game materials

with her because we realized we needed

different types of functionality as this

whole process went on and as people

started playing the game

um we had event cards we had domestic

event cards

we had different options for the

different countries we started iterating

those right the russia cards with people

who were russia subject matter experts

and the china cards were the china

subject matter experts and they'd come

back and goes

i think you know i think you need more

economic sort of options here for china

or um you know they'd give us feedback

so we started out with very generic

cards for all of the other countries in

the game

and you know because of you know they would

would

play in the game and then they'd give us

feedback and look at the cards like that

was actually another design

a prototype test loop another design

look that we had going so

so for the final prototype right this is what

what

the visual of the visual materials look

like and you see

like the more you sort of design and

iterate on that

especially as you're using it so

fortunately we ran hegemony over

a dozen times i'm going to say something

like 17

but possibly more of of actually with

the strategy teams

so even before that right we had the

test run with the sponsor

when they gave us feedback they had the

sponsor asked us to do

train a series of training games with

the teams who are going to be playing

which i thought was a great idea and it

gets around one of these

problems where people come to the game

and the first

rate several parts or you know i don't

know how much time is like they don't understand

understand

the game system and they're trying to

figure that out

but in this game this case because they

had come to the

the training games they had some sense

of how the system already worked so they could

could

focus a little bit better on their

candidate strategy

and implementing their candidate

strategy in the game

so i'm going to ask if there are any

questions at this point

hey you know we have lots of questions

um let me

read them out to you one at a time the

first one from the

from the early part portion is how do

you feel your experience at quantico

versus the pentagon shaped how you

approach this game design

um i don't know that it really

you know the thing about how i think

that the thing i

appreciate about my experience as i was

an operations research analyst

for the marines for six years in

quantico and i was the methodology lead on

a joint study for them on irregular

warfare and the thing i

always really appreciated about the

marines were that they were willing to

take risks and they're willing to do

things outside of whatever

whatever conventional wisdom is so it's actually

actually

it's actually easy it's easier to talk

marines into doing something by the way

because they're they're game um i think

having been in that kind of environment

for six years where people are just not

afraid to do

things where there isn't necessary

orthodoxy that people worry about so much

much

i think that also translated into in

even in research

even in project work even in doing

something like design think applying

design thinking

to hegemony right you're just not

um so risk averse or afraid to take any

kind of risks

you're actually um used to

prototyping you're used to trying to do

things differently

uh because you know the thing about the

marine corps is that culture

always borrows from others because

they are the smallest service i guess

besides the space force now they used to

be the smallest service

and and we're not kind of coast guard

either sorry okay

they're the fourth smallest service

right in the u.s military so they never

they don't have the kind of pockets of

as the army or the navy

so they're always looking to adapt other

people what other people have developed

for their own purposes

and if you think about even in research

if you think about even in national

security work right i mean you know

there's a whole debate about

innovation right so innovation oftentimes

oftentimes

is about looking at something that

someone did in another

area and simply using it in your area

and that's actually the easiest way to innovate

innovate

and steve jobs talks about how he

you know he's he was saying at one point

people who are innovative

you know don't think of themselves that

way for them it was just

obvious that you would apply it in this

way and i think

that um culture of the marine corps is

something i do

appreciate not all organizations have a culture

culture

where where it's like well look around

check what's

see what someone else has that you might

be able to leverage because you won't

necessarily be able to have the

resources to do it

from a completely blank slate of your own

own

so that's i think part of the

organizational culture

that would be consistent with saying

well design thinking is something that

people use in

product design in animation right pixar

uses it in animation the way they manage

um their movies is they assume a

prototype test loop

many iterations where the team will be

given feedback on what doesn't work

because they assume that there's no way

you could get it right the first time

that you just have to have many cycles

of this for feedback and they use the

example of how in toy story evidently

woody was like a jerk at first and you

know no one like really liked him so like

but you had to give the team many

chances for feedback and many chances to

sort of

fix what was in a sense not working um

so i think i the the marine corps sort

of flexibility

and rather rather than saying i have a

checklist i will die on it

and you know that it doesn't go with the

way we're used to doing things like i

really appreciate

i really appreciated that so another

question sorry i realized like there

you said there are many other questions

uh so first

as a former marine i can testify to yuna's

yuna's

persuasive skills of convincing me to do things

things

the next question is did the design take

into account the rapid change in

technology and politics

how did the team plan for this change

well um so the technology the return on

technology is

accelerated in the game so for example

you may not

in the real world you may not see a

return on some type of military

technology investments for several years

or a decade or longer

but we didn't have that kind of uh

option in the game

so you get sort of rewards rewards in it

in a sense by being able to modernize

your forces

a little bit faster so that was one way

we tried to incorporate technological change

change

we also had something called a national

tech level

so countries could invest in

trying to increase their overall

national technological capabilities

and we had different rules for who were

faster followers than

others so the united states started off

with technological lead

overall so like if your your military

technology can't

outpace your national drug technology

level that was the idea

and china was a fast follower but i

think i wrote in the rules that if the

united states ever fell behind they

would be the fastest follower of all

and different countries had different

roles so we did try to do that

um the second part about the political aspects

aspects

uh we tried to have cards that had a

variety of domestic

and international events and part of

um right what part of what does not come

in the box board game right is

is uh are the study team um

sometimes the sponsor wanted a world of

a certain type right

different types of challenges you could

characterize the world in a different

way and then so we

pulled up the cards and sort of had

those events

um happen so you could you could do it

that way

like so the card the event cards

themselves constitute

it once put once you put them together

is a scenario

or a type of environment and so we tried

to handle

different political aspects that way and

there was over several games

variation on the sort of political

environment the united states would be facing

facing

okay great next question at what point

uh do you encourage or force people to

consider project constraints

if you do this before slash during ideation

ideation

you make foreclosed innovation

suggestions if you wait until

after ideation your team may spend too

much of their

time concerning approaches that aren't

actually feasible how do you go about this

this

yes great question right it's i really

appreciate that question

so one of the things you want to get to

as fast as possible are constraints

so um so when people also ask me

to do workshops or tabletop exercises or

other things

i ask them you know what are the

constraints like can you tell me how

many people can you tell me if you ca

you only have two days or if you only

have three days

or this has to be four hours or 20

people or is it two people right like as

as the reason for nailing those things

down as many of the hard constraints as possible

possible

is those will help you drop out

things that are not feasible right so if

someone says

okay it's going to be four hours and

that's all the time we're going to have

that will cut out like 98 of your options

options

right so you can focus on it so

this is where you do have to get a sense

of what really are the constraints

and and and firm them up as fast as possible

possible

the other thing that's but i appreciate

the question because sometimes you

didn't realize some things were

constrained because in some cases

the sponsors thought one thing like like

actually generally believe something and

then something happens

right um you know i feel for all the

people who had to switch from

regular games to virtual games with

covet 19 right because

well kind of some things did happen um

another thing that was very interesting

to me

in terms of how difficult that question

can be of like what how much room do you

can you

can you leave open is what we started

seeing in

with hegemony uh the the when it was

supporting the nds was sometimes as

the teams got better at playing the game

they began to

do more actions more complicated actions

and they began to ask for new features

so game play never actually really sped up

because people would actually try to do

more complicated things

they would articulate things that were

much more complicated

they would articulate a new level of

detail right

that maybe people they had not been able

to articulate when they were just trying

to sort of

you know get more comfortable with the

game system there was one time

when we were going to start the game and

in the morning

the sponsor asked for the ability to

have partners and allies anywhere across

the world so that was a new feature

that we sort of had to put in on the fly

that morning so so that i think to try

to answer the question

nail down the hard constraints as fast

as possible um

but um you know you know the constraints

will sort of drop out what's feasible

but things

things do change sometimes people look

at and go hey

that actually gives me another idea that

i could use this for or could you add this

this

and then so you're you know you'll just

have to

to go with it i don't know that there

are any hard guidelines

about you know when do you cut off good ideas

ideas

um i think i also am

always loath to and i will err on the

side of

not wanting to cut off good ideas

because even if you can't use them for

this game

maybe you can use them for another game

right i think it's good for people to

have ideas

and even if it doesn't work out in this

one you don't want to discourage people

right you always want to say you always

want to try to understand why they're

suggesting something

and and appreciate the the

that idea and the value of that idea

um because sometimes right

also the thing about i think i read a

good really great book about

innovation is what's it called by michael

michael

strage um but it the whole premise of

that book was

you can tell how an organization

innovates by how they manage their prototypes

prototypes

so i think one of the takeaways right

this if you have no prototypes

you're actually not innovating right

you're just repurposing things you've

already done

and maybe tweaking it so you want

so i i personally try to have different ideas

ideas

at different stages um and this will

just be like methodology for studies even

even

so i'll have maybe ideas for oh you

could actually apply

that wouldn't wouldn't that be

interesting if you could apply this

right approach to that problem right

um and then you have another say set

where you

right then that's one set where you have

the idea for and the next one you

like have your friends over and then you

inflicted on them um

thanks sebastian for being a guinea pig

in the past right like you try out a

different method on friends and then you

take it to

a conference and you organize you know a

volunteer conference that's free right

so there are no real expectations and

then you run it on a group and then you

because you try it out

and then um you rent it out on another

group and

you and you see how it worked and you

think about it and then like you can

finally like for a paying sponsor

serious sponsor who

who has has needs something like you've already

already

prototyped tested prototype tested

actually several times

before even you you get to that stage so

you don't want to

and and we're resource limited right but

even if you're a resource limited you

want to encourage people to keep that

idea in mind

and look for ways to sort of develop it

if they can

it's okay another long answer so another question

question

so you know uh just to make sure that

you get through your presentation we

have lots of questions so

how about you keep going and then we'll

circle back to the questions

okay great so right this was i think we

cover i covered this before there are several

several

rounds of testing so the more rounds of

testing you can do by the way

the better it will be um

and one thing is the team just becomes

much more practiced at things

so even the team begins to be able to

handle more and more complex

tasks as essentially this practice

trains them

and then even if right even on the the

the note taker

side you know at first you know there's

like a

you can do a dry run or a walk through

and say well this is you should

you know you'll have to do this at this

point yeah who is taking care of that

right you workouts roles and

responsibilities and then you

run it right and then you run it a few

times in these different

various levels of testing and then

everyone starts to be able to they're

better at their job

things go more smoothly they actually

people realize more things that they can

improve about the process

even with note-taking even with sort of

proctoring even with sort of

um just running running things

people all become better um the

in our in our cases right some of the

subject matter experts right the more they

they

participate in the game the better they

became right and then the better the

experience for the strategy ready teams

who came through

um and then you have you know even from

the sponsor's office

as they're helping us be the guinea pigs

right so

so i so i think at a minimum like one of the

the

lessons i went from this and which i

also applied

to the nato military game which was the

stress test of nato's first

military strategy ever in 2019 like

yes we got through the cold war without

a formal you know military strategy but

maybe life was simpler back then and you

just had to stop him at the football gap

and he didn't like need a strategy

military strategy to tell you that

but um but i digress um right so you

want a dry run

you want to walk through the sponsor you

know you you wanna as a team walk

through what's gonna happen you wanna do

it with a sponsor

you ask the sponsor for guinea pigs to

run it

because every time like you will like

your rate of improvement on on a number of

um aspects of the game will just

increase exponentially even if

between runs so i you really should do this

this

um you know that's that's all i can say

but again right the this learning

process never really stops so we did

write something like 17 games and then

you could just see how much more sophisticated

sophisticated

if the people were coming back for a

repeat right

um how much more sophisticated they were

getting in the game you could see

how much more sophisticated the uh

the subject matter experts were becoming um

and then right we would incorporate feedback

feedback

so the game system it's i mean aspects

of the

not the game system but the way maybe like

you should get required for this or

maybe there should be more cards for

china like this

um like it was improving so the entire time

time

i think it was getting it was getting

better because of this this this sort of

prototype test prototype test would

actually never really stop because we

kept incorporating feedback and people

kept getting better at the game not just

the team but also the players

so why do we think we were successful so

anytime you do

like a project you should reflect on

what you think

went well what you think could have been

better addressed

why you think things work right because

these are always valuable lessons for

next time

again i think one of our key factors for

success was just

um the experience of the team and having

had the pentagon jobs and really

understanding from an insider's perspective

perspective

what some of the decisions the decisions

that would have to be made and i think

that really

lend a lot of credibility so this is

what i would say so oftentimes people

talk about pathways into wargaming

and a lot of times the focus is on game

mechanics and game design but

i take the position that a lot of

domain expertise and some knowledge of

game mechanics

right gets you to the professional

gaming experience that's the most useful

the game mechanics themselves need not

be very complex

uh people who are actual actually in

in policy or government or the military

don't actually really have time

or patience to learn some of these it really

really

intricate hex encounter games in the

commercial world

um right campaign for north africa right

like forget it right

but if you give them the opportunity to

interact with a lot of domain expertise

right that's what they find useful so it isn't

isn't

your knowledge of arcane game mechanics

you'll like

know some but understanding

that context in the professional context

and the

professional domain is is going to be

much more significant

also several rounds of testing

essentially the prototype test per type

test loop

just invaluable i would say right um

and then access to regional expertise

and a graphic designer i think

really also did make what we were doing

important so the regional expertise was

really a critical part of the game

and then interac iterating with them on their

their

the player cards for their country

having them do

out briefs pretending like they're the

dia officer

saying oh looks like there are

indications that like iran might be

might be doing these types of things and

then having them

play the country in the game and then in

in the um

in the hot wash right the

the sponsor or the pentagon rank team would

would

be able to ask like well why did like

you play around like that or why did like

why did you have china react that way in

in the game and then i think that was also

also

um very valuable and also i think having um

yvonne crane ends up their graphic

designers are artists i mean

um she just beautiful work so i think

that was that was also good

okay so conclusion i think i've said

this already the

domain knowledge right professional

domain knowledge

the the way you become more valuable and

the way you can have opportunities

um in wargaming is you you have to be

you know you have to understand you know

become a national security expert right

and have some knowledge of gaming

mechanics and remember not everything

has to be hex encounter

games right if you have a background in

something like model um that's also very valuable

valuable

right um and and for certain domain

other so for certain domains and types

of expertise that's

the the more obvious choice or a type of

game than

some of the hex encounter games if you

know people are very intimidated by the

hex encounter games

um but don't don't think that that's the

end all in be

all but you know think about your own

domain and become an expert and then you

can add

some gaming knowledge and then you

probably can apply it to your area already

already

okay so i think that was it

so yes we'll um take more questions

so you know we have lots of questions

about some of the game mechanics

um so mike mike linek uh i want to

invite him to talk about some of the

abstractions and why you guys simplify

the game the way you did

mike um sure yeah i've been following

and i know you couldn't because she was

talking i've been following the chat so

a couple things um a lot of you are

asking like you know how do you deal

with mdo

or how did you deal with like the

possibility for new technologies and stuff

stuff

and and the answer is one of the

early design decisions was to abstract

away from all of that

and the reason for that is because those

become gopher holes down which the

entire team wants to go

and you start losing the whole purpose

of the game and so

we abstracted those discussions out of

the game

by creating something that was called

force factors or combat factors

and by creating sort of critical

technology c4isr

or air missile defense or something like

that and we

we specifically decided that we weren't

going to get into the specifics of what

that looked like

c4 isr mbo falls under that we weren't

going to say

what you developed we were just going to

give you a chance to develop a more functional

functional

c4 isr so we abstracted above

all of that for the purpose of this game

because for this game

whether it was mbo or something else was

irrelevant what

what mattered was how did strategy

uh get affected by better command and

control or worse command and control

and so um you know in this game we've

got force factors we don't have ships we

don't have planes we don't have infantry or

or whatever we do have as a special

capability like a

c44 isr we added in soft so

um that was one of the things we did and

in my original prototype i didn't do

that so that was one of the areas where

we abstracted up because

in the prototyping process we found out

that those became

distractors from the game having those

kinds of discussions

um but going in the other direction for example

example

um when we first prototyped the game

in the original design each country

could basically do about six things

and it's the six things that countries

do they could invest in their national

tech level they could invest

in a specific technology they could

invest in modernizing their force

in growing their force those are four

cards right there that's what i'm going

to do this turn

and then they could do a sort of

conventional military operation or a

gray on military operation

and maybe we would split those last two

cards into

against the u.s ally and partner or

against a non-us ally and partner

and that was it and the idea was that

the subject matter experts that were

going to play each of

iran iraq north korea and

russia would make up the back story

behind that

and what we found was that that didn't

satisfy people

that um that what they wanted

was a more scripted uh

car set of cards so that's where these

huge decks of all these different kinds

of events came in

what we found when we did that which we

didn't expect when we started to

was with the six cards that we started

with or specifically the two or four

cards that

that involved conflict um because of the

way we did conflict resolution we had a

very narrow

range of potential conflict outcomes and

because our

conflict outcomes are card specific

uh by proliferating the number of cards

we could proliferate the number of

combat outcomes

and so it became a much more flexible

and interesting game that way

so i just kind of wanted to throw that

out there um because there's a lot of

questions about abstraction and a lot of

questions about these discrete things and

and

like i said what we found was that in

the prototyping when we found

areas that became real distractions

where it was like how do we create all

these special rules to do

deal with it we just abstracted above it

and sat and said what's the root

what's the root issue and can we just

represent the root issue without getting

into the details

uh but then in other places where where

we found

um the details mattered uh and we could

incorporate them without fundamentally

changing the game

we actually did it in that direction so

i'll shut up there and

let youna chime in or see what other

questions come up

oh i want to footstomp your point that

this was not an operational level game

right a lot of people's hearts really

are at the operational level

a lot of people's experiences are at the

operational level right practically

how many people do global strategy right

not very many

right they're much especially if you

actually are like

you know an action officer or a military

officer um

you're not doing you know at that

national level decision making

although this was sort of dod level

decision making um

uh because we didn't have like

diplomatic options and things for the

players just the military options but um

you have to remember the constraints of

the game

which is playable several rounds four

adversaries with

live people playing the adversaries in

four hours

like you're not going to be able to go through any details that

through any details that are worth it if you're looking at um

are worth it if you're looking at um multi-domain operations and that's your

multi-domain operations and that's your question

question like but you would need an operational

like but you would need an operational level game to deal with those details

level game to deal with those details and the level of decision making that

and the level of decision making that multi-domain operations would be

multi-domain operations would be concerned

concerned with but in this case the sponsor wanted

with but in this case the sponsor wanted to talk about wanted a conversation to

to talk about wanted a conversation to generate a conversation about things

generate a conversation about things like

like were you was china deterred in this case

were you was china deterred in this case right and that wasn't going to be the

right and that wasn't going to be the operational level details and so you did

operational level details and so you did have to push players up to stay at the

have to push players up to stay at the sort of strategic

sort of strategic also it can be it is difficult

also it can be it is difficult for players to play more than one level

for players to play more than one level i don't recommend you ever

i don't recommend you ever try it just pick one level and force

try it just pick one level and force them to stay at that level and don't let

them to stay at that level and don't let them go

them go down to to the level of detail even when

down to to the level of detail even when we

we played the game though and it was

played the game though and it was supposed to be strategic level

supposed to be strategic level sometimes there'd be lots of arguing

sometimes there'd be lots of arguing with the adjudicators

with the adjudicators about operational level details but that

about operational level details but that wasn't the point of the game

wasn't the point of the game and then you know we did have to push

and then you know we did have to push people up

so more questions so you know one of the questions sir

questions sir that i'm blending together is that what

that i'm blending together is that what games or

games or uh experiences did you draw inspiration

uh experiences did you draw inspiration from particularly

from particularly some of the questions that were asked

some of the questions that were asked were what kind of games did you play

were what kind of games did you play test

test uh as you guys were creating this or

uh as you guys were creating this or were there mechanics that were drawn

were there mechanics that were drawn from other games that you have designed

from other games that you have designed in the past or commercial games

in the past or commercial games i i think as a team we looked at

i i think as a team we looked at some of the we looked at i think andy

some of the we looked at i think andy and abyss

and abyss um do you guys still have one of my game

um do you guys still have one of my game sebastian

sebastian um the world war ii games

um the world war ii games no okay uh i can't remember the game now

no okay uh i can't remember the game now it's triumphant tragedy is the one you

it's triumphant tragedy is the one you can see yes yes

can see yes yes yes but like we we looked at those um

yes but like we we looked at those um but and in terms of what eventually made

but and in terms of what eventually made it into the game i don't know that we

it into the game i don't know that we can draw a straight line

can draw a straight line unless mike you have a you actually did

unless mike you have a you actually did have like a straight line from a game

have like a straight line from a game into the you know so into your first

into the you know so into your first prototype

i i did not have a specific game that i was drawing on in this case um

was drawing on in this case um you mentioned that we spent the day and

you mentioned that we spent the day and we had a vice president walk in just

we had a vice president walk in just playing

playing all these different board games and she

all these different board games and she talked about some of them it was my

talked about some of them it was my first experience with some of these card

first experience with some of these card driven games

driven games and i was really intrigued by that

and i was really intrigued by that um what i wanted what

um what i wanted what what was in my mind was if we were doing

what was in my mind was if we were doing a seminar war game

a seminar war game which we didn't want to do but if we

which we didn't want to do but if we were going to do a seminar war game what

were going to do a seminar war game what would sort of be the

would sort of be the the key ways that we would um

the key ways that we would um stimulate people in the seminar war game

stimulate people in the seminar war game to get the kind of discussion we wanted

to get the kind of discussion we wanted and how could i turn that into something

and how could i turn that into something else and the card driven

else and the card driven process seems to me to be the best way

process seems to me to be the best way to do that

to do that and so i guess that's probably the best

and so i guess that's probably the best derivation i can give you

derivation i can give you in terms of how i thought through it i i

in terms of how i thought through it i i think

think now that i think about i think the

now that i think about i think the reason i had so many cards and was

reason i had so many cards and was focused on so many cards in my

focused on so many cards in my first prototype that we didn't which we

first prototype that we didn't which we didn't take further

didn't take further um was because i had played quarter

um was because i had played quarter master general

master general so like peter pearl i brought it over to

so like peter pearl i brought it over to my house one time for game day and i

my house one time for game day and i just find it to be really fun

just find it to be really fun um so my when when i play it with my

um so my when when i play it with my fiancee he always lets me be germany

fiancee he always lets me be germany like that's how you know like someone

like that's how you know like someone loves you they always let you be germany

loves you they always let you be germany in world war two

in world war two so i'm like i think i could do it i

so i'm like i think i could do it i think i could like destroy the soviet

think i could like destroy the soviet union

union right um but i i was also really

right um but i i was also really intrigued by

intrigued by in that game how there were a number of

in that game how there were a number of events that were

events that were driven by the cards so i really

driven by the cards so i really liked that feature i will say in terms

liked that feature i will say in terms of game

of game mechanics i know i i said don't worry so

mechanics i know i i said don't worry so much about the

much about the game mechanics but recently one mechanic

game mechanics but recently one mechanic i've been really

i've been really become really really interested in and

become really really interested in and wonder if i could ever fit it into

wonder if i could ever fit it into something

something is this a game called

is this a game called dice forge on amazon and you

dice forge on amazon and you buy you upgrade the faces of your die

buy you upgrade the faces of your die so in a sense it's a deck building game

so in a sense it's a deck building game but rather than holding your upgraded

but rather than holding your upgraded abilities as

abilities as cards in your hand you you rep

cards in your hand you you rep you swap out the die faces and you roll

you swap out the die faces and you roll the dice with your upgraded

the dice with your upgraded uh dice so like you're literally loading

uh dice so like you're literally loading your own dice so i think that

your own dice so i think that is actually very interesting is there

is actually very interesting is there another question

another question oh we have lots um so one of the things

oh we have lots um so one of the things was

was what was the effect of having influence

what was the effect of having influence points did people try to break the

points did people try to break the system or become fixated on the

system or become fixated on the quantifiable win

quantifiable win about influence points yes so some

about influence points yes so some people got very excited about the

people got very excited about the influence points

influence points um and the sponsor herself kept saying

um and the sponsor herself kept saying don't worry so much about it like

don't worry so much about it like do what you would in the real life and i

do what you would in the real life and i i think people were though

i think people were though were professionals especially like

were professionals especially like people who were

people who were playing the the adversaries like

playing the the adversaries like they were playing the adversaries as

they were playing the adversaries as they thought

they thought they would behave and as they thought

they would behave and as they thought they would perceive the situation

they would perceive the situation not necessarily like the point trackers

not necessarily like the point trackers but like i think some of the pentagon

but like i think some of the pentagon action officers got really

action officers got really really into the into the points

really into the into the points i want to jump on that if i can just for

i want to jump on that if i can just for a second so so

a second so so nobody was happy with influence points

nobody was happy with influence points they were my idea and i'm going to

they were my idea and i'm going to defend them for a second

defend them for a second the first one was just from a

the first one was just from a psychological perspective and you can

psychological perspective and you can talk about this probably better than i

talk about this probably better than i can

can there has to be victory conditions you

there has to be victory conditions you know at least

know at least to get players invested in the game they

to get players invested in the game they have to have some way

have to have some way of at least mentally thinking am i doing

of at least mentally thinking am i doing well am i do or am i doing poorly

well am i do or am i doing poorly and um i really didn't want the game to

and um i really didn't want the game to be about winning

be about winning battles because it's about a game about

battles because it's about a game about strategy

strategy and so at the end of the day again sort

and so at the end of the day again sort of going back to first principles

of going back to first principles what is it that we are trying to do with

what is it that we are trying to do with this military power

this military power well what we're trying to do is to

well what we're trying to do is to retain sort of freedom of action for

retain sort of freedom of action for this country to do the kinds of things

this country to do the kinds of things on the international

on the international stage that it wants to do that it

stage that it wants to do that it determines to be in

determines to be in its best influence and and we prefer to

its best influence and and we prefer to do that

do that by soft power or by using hard power

by soft power or by using hard power without having to go

without having to go to war or combat and so i just

to war or combat and so i just abstracted that

abstracted that as influence nobody's happy with it

as influence nobody's happy with it nobody's come up with a better

nobody's come up with a better answer than that but at the end of the

answer than that but at the end of the day

day um we felt and i still do feel that

um we felt and i still do feel that for people to get emotionally invested

for people to get emotionally invested in a game and you want that because

in a game and you want that because that's how learning happens and this was

that's how learning happens and this was a game about learning this wasn't a game

a game about learning this wasn't a game about

about entertainment um but for that learning

entertainment um but for that learning to happen for that emotional investment

to happen for that emotional investment you had to give them

you had to give them a set of victory conditions you had to

a set of victory conditions you had to give them some way of measuring

give them some way of measuring their progress and yeah some people went

their progress and yeah some people went too far and got into it and thought the

too far and got into it and thought the game was all about winning the game and

game was all about winning the game and not about learning about strategy

not about learning about strategy but but overall my experience in running

but but overall my experience in running this game is that the vast majority of

this game is that the vast majority of people

people are able to understand that distinction

are able to understand that distinction i i do have to add that osd cape figured

i i do have to add that osd cape figured out a way to completely gain the budget

out a way to completely gain the budget so we had to change the rules after the

so we had to change the rules after the first time that they played

first time that they played but i guess that's good i guess it means

but i guess that's good i guess it means that they're good at their job hopefully

that they're good at their job hopefully um

um i i will i do think that the specific

i i will i do think that the specific population of

population of military action officers from the

military action officers from the pentagon will definitely want to win

pentagon will definitely want to win things

things i think i have seen people in my dining

i think i have seen people in my dining room play games without any regard to

room play games without any regard to victory conditions

victory conditions that is also interesting um and i had to

that is also interesting um and i had to mike i had to explain that

mike i had to explain that influence points were not real to

influence points were not real to lawyers who are looking at

lawyers who are looking at whether or not us publishing rain

whether or not us publishing rain publishing the game gives away

publishing the game gives away any kind of like secret brand research

any kind of like secret brand research and like

and like there's no such thing as influence

there's no such thing as influence points like we we made this up like

points like we we made this up like we can't give away like you know it's

we can't give away like you know it's just made up

just made up okay but next question one i'm not

okay but next question one i'm not surprised that osd kate broke our game

surprised that osd kate broke our game for a bit

for a bit the next question is were the range of

the next question is were the range of event cards set up with a certain range

event cards set up with a certain range of probability of occurring i.e

of probability of occurring i.e political events that mirrored real

political events that mirrored real history frequency or were they looking

history frequency or were they looking forward

forward and leaning forward in terms of

and leaning forward in terms of anticipating the future

anticipating the future so we intended to try to lean forward

so we intended to try to lean forward but i found that my imagination is not

but i found that my imagination is not what i wish it could be and sometimes we

what i wish it could be and sometimes we just had to borrow from past

just had to borrow from past events um but we did not

events um but we did not assign probabilities and and mike

assign probabilities and and mike spiritus

spiritus in particular laid out the event cards

in particular laid out the event cards consistent sometimes with what

consistent sometimes with what the environment the the sponsor wanted

the environment the the sponsor wanted to create for that particular

to create for that particular game so you could make a number of

game so you could make a number of things right um

things right um i shouldn't go into the details but um

i shouldn't go into the details but um right you you just use them as different

right you you just use them as different sort of like keys on a keyboard

sort of like keys on a keyboard and you can play a different tune and

and you can play a different tune and you can flavor

you can flavor an environment in a different way like

an environment in a different way like make it challenging in certain ways

make it challenging in certain ways or for some countries or for others and

or for some countries or for others and and that's

and that's the purpose of the cards really and it

the purpose of the cards really and it wasn't really based on probability

wasn't really based on probability i mean in the commercial game right you

i mean in the commercial game right you could do either right you could just

could do either right you could just randomly draw them

randomly draw them you can create your own right events um

you can create your own right events um because the game is

because the game is a little bit frozen in time for in 2017

a little bit frozen in time for in 2017 or you could um stack them in a sense

or you could um stack them in a sense especially if you're doing this playing

especially if you're doing this playing the game with graduate students

the game with graduate students to so that they have to confront a

to so that they have to confront a certain type of world

certain type of world yeah i'll just jump on that again and i

yeah i'll just jump on that again and i apologize uh if i'm doing this too much

apologize uh if i'm doing this too much but

but the again the understanding the purpose

the again the understanding the purpose of the game was to stress

of the game was to stress test strategies it was to allow osd to

test strategies it was to allow osd to develop a strategy

develop a strategy and for us to stress test it for them

and for us to stress test it for them and part of the stress test is handing

and part of the stress test is handing them the unexpected

them the unexpected and they could decide whether they

and they could decide whether they thought that the card we threw at them

thought that the card we threw at them was so unlikely that they were going to

was so unlikely that they were going to discount it

discount it or that it was reasonably enough likely

or that it was reasonably enough likely that

that that it should be part of the stress and

that it should be part of the stress and the game was designed so those could be

the game was designed so those could be completely random

completely random injects or they could be completely

injects or they could be completely scripted

scripted or the white cell and this actually

or the white cell and this actually happened where the

happened where the the sponsor herself would be sitting

the sponsor herself would be sitting with us and saying

with us and saying i like where this particular iteration

i like where this particular iteration is going but i want to throw this kind

is going but i want to throw this kind of a curveball at them and see what

of a curveball at them and see what happens and so

happens and so again this wide variety of decks allowed

again this wide variety of decks allowed us

us to do that um and our basic

to do that um and our basic idea was if if it makes sense that it

idea was if if it makes sense that it might happen build a card for it

might happen build a card for it whether we use the card or not we'll be

whether we use the card or not we'll be situation dependent

situation dependent and that was sort of the approach yes

and that was sort of the approach yes and then if

and then if if any of you are ever in this position

if any of you are ever in this position where you essentially have to create a

where you essentially have to create a scenario

scenario from cards um i know what

from cards um i know what we tried to do was if there was a

we tried to do was if there was a strategy

strategy that the pentagon actually the pentagon

that the pentagon actually the pentagon writing team was trying to

writing team was trying to play in the game you put out the events

play in the game you put out the events that would actually really

that would actually really test that would actually try to um

test that would actually try to um challenge it so

challenge it so you know try to to to break it try to

you know try to to to break it try to see if the

see if the team will break discipline give them

team will break discipline give them really

really unsavory options if they're going to

unsavory options if they're going to keep to their strategy and

keep to their strategy and because that's also stress testing it

because that's also stress testing it okay next question

okay next question so the next question is sort of a blend

so the next question is sort of a blend of some questions put together

of some questions put together is how

is how how did you approach an abductivity

how did you approach an abductivity in the game in terms of is this game

in the game in terms of is this game able to be adapted to other

able to be adapted to other uh strategies in the future for example

uh strategies in the future for example the future force design

the future force design and other strategy documents that may

and other strategy documents that may come out in the future

come out in the future i think it would be the wrong game for

i think it would be the wrong game for future force design

future force design i think it's at the wrong level for it

i think it's at the wrong level for it to

to to to do that i think if you wanted to

to to do that i think if you wanted to have another updated

have another updated national defense strategy in a few years

national defense strategy in a few years you could update the cards

you could update the cards many of the cards you could have

many of the cards you could have different starting conditions

different starting conditions you could have maybe um right you could

you could have maybe um right you could vary

vary countries budgets so you can

countries budgets so you can you know we have some recommended

you know we have some recommended budgets or there's some rules for

budgets or there's some rules for budgets but

budgets but nothing to say that certain countries

nothing to say that certain countries you just might not keep increasing their

you just might not keep increasing their budget every time or certain countries

budget every time or certain countries you might not be reducing their sort of

you might not be reducing their sort of military budget

military budget um so i mean i think the basic game with

um so i mean i think the basic game with adaptations

adaptations could be helpful for the next next

could be helpful for the next next national defense strategy but it won't

national defense strategy but it won't it won't be helpful for many of these

it won't be helpful for many of these maybe service level concepts even

maybe service level concepts even capstone concepts because this is just

capstone concepts because this is just not an operational level game

so this next question comes from mike dunn is can you talk to

dunn is can you talk to about having somebody not part of the

about having somebody not part of the original design team

original design team occasionally take a look at the design

occasionally take a look at the design provide an outsider's perspective

provide an outsider's perspective what uh what pitfalls did this uh head

what uh what pitfalls did this uh head off if any

so so rand has a quality assurance process which we really tested because

process which we really tested because they were not used to board games

they were not used to board games right um they're used to

right um they're used to reports so it definitely tested it

reports so it definitely tested it in terms of um having people

in terms of um having people not familiar with the game look at it i

not familiar with the game look at it i think

think the better reviewers were people who at

the better reviewers were people who at least saw the game or got to run through

least saw the game or got to run through it or actually were

it or actually were players as subject matter experts and

players as subject matter experts and gave us feedback on the game

gave us feedback on the game so that was good i think it'd be too

so that was good i think it'd be too difficult for someone just to read

difficult for someone just to read a description of the report or a report

a description of the report or a report that came out of game play or even just

that came out of game play or even just look at the rules

look at the rules well maybe if you just look at the rules

well maybe if you just look at the rules but um and the cards to really get a

but um and the cards to really get a sense of how

sense of how things are going along i think something

things are going along i think something we also

we also did so when we um

did so when we um applied for funding to make hegemony a

applied for funding to make hegemony a boxed

boxed game we said this should be

game we said this should be of value to graduate students of

of value to graduate students of national defense policy and also to war

national defense policy and also to war colleges and other sort of students of

colleges and other sort of students of strategy and so they tested

strategy and so they tested our theory and we had to send it over to

our theory and we had to send it over to the party-ran

the party-ran graduate school and we sent it over to

graduate school and we sent it over to one of the professors there stephen

one of the professors there stephen popper who had never heard of the game

popper who had never heard of the game right had definitely not been part of it

right had definitely not been part of it he's never heard of it and then

he's never heard of it and then with with just the manuals and the

with with just the manuals and the pieces

pieces and he ran it with his graduate students

and he ran it with his graduate students so

so that was like they got no help from us

that was like they got no help from us that was part one of the conditions and

that was part one of the conditions and then they gave us also some excellent

then they gave us also some excellent feedback

feedback because i think it was different when

because i think it was different when someone else had to run it that i think

someone else had to run it that i think as

as the team who created it we were

the team who created it we were naturally able to smooth some things out

naturally able to smooth some things out that i think

that i think became more evident when someone else

became more evident when someone else had to do it so i think

had to do it so i think i think if you can get over some of the

i think if you can get over some of the pitfalls of just the cold start

pitfalls of just the cold start um it can be very helpful but yes i

um it can be very helpful but yes i think someone needs to

think someone needs to have some interest at least in gaming

have some interest at least in gaming and to at least learn it and and things

and to at least learn it and and things like that

like that i don't know the next question is uh was

i don't know the next question is uh was this intended as a commercial product

this intended as a commercial product from the start

from the start or did you adapt it after you finished

or did you adapt it after you finished your project if so how did that impact

your project if so how did that impact design decisions

design decisions if not how did that impact design

if not how did that impact design changes once the commercial

changes once the commercial option was available so it was not

option was available so it was not intended as a commercial game at the

intended as a commercial game at the beginning

beginning i think it was definitely to support the

i think it was definitely to support the national defense strategy

national defense strategy and then we realized that we could at

and then we realized that we could at least send it to

least send it to that more college students at least

that more college students at least would be interested and then

would be interested and then we're like well and we think georgetown

we're like well and we think georgetown students would be interested

students would be interested too so the the basic game though did not

too so the the basic game though did not change like the way it differs from a

change like the way it differs from a regular commercial board game is it's

regular commercial board game is it's not balanced

not balanced a lot of decisions are heavy for there

a lot of decisions are heavy for there are a lot more decisions that the u.s

are a lot more decisions that the u.s player has to make it's a very u.s

player has to make it's a very u.s department of defense centric

department of defense centric game everyone does have different

game everyone does have different victory conditions but probably the

victory conditions but probably the players who get the most out of the game

players who get the most out of the game are the united states and maybe china um

are the united states and maybe china um because

because uh you know just i think they they have

uh you know just i think they they have the with the card decks

the with the card decks china can pursue soft power or hard

china can pursue soft power or hard power strategies

power strategies um i think if you if we really wanted to

um i think if you if we really wanted to make it a commercial

make it a commercial game room and really not so

game room and really not so focused so much on the educational

focused so much on the educational national security educational aspects of

national security educational aspects of it

it right you would give the us player fewer

right you would give the us player fewer options you would try to give everyone

options you would try to give everyone an equal chance to win

an equal chance to win but they don't have an equal chance of

but they don't have an equal chance of sort of winning or meeting their victory

sort of winning or meeting their victory conditions

conditions it's much harder to do if you're north

it's much harder to do if you're north korea or iran than if you're the united

korea or iran than if you're the united states

states or eu the eu um so it's not balanced in

or eu the eu um so it's not balanced in that regard and

that regard and and people it's it's not equally fun for

and people it's it's not equally fun for everyone

you know the next question is sort of a interesting insider

interesting insider look at the pentagon is that the

look at the pentagon is that the sec-deaf who was a fan of rock drills

sec-deaf who was a fan of rock drills and simulations and more gaming get a

and simulations and more gaming get a briefing on the hedge enemy and its

briefing on the hedge enemy and its value in contributing a development of

value in contributing a development of the nds

the nds i don't think that he did um i think

i don't think that he did um i think once i went up to a talk afterwards

once i went up to a talk afterwards asked bob work would he be interested in

asked bob work would he be interested in seeing our game this is after it was all

seeing our game this is after it was all run and he said yes but i think

run and he said yes but i think we never got back to him partly because

we never got back to him partly because we're still in the process of publishing

we're still in the process of publishing it

it but no we know we never got to um

but no we know we never got to um see if secretary mattis heard anything

see if secretary mattis heard anything about it

about it so the next question is how do you deal

so the next question is how do you deal with known unknowns like breakthroughs

with known unknowns like breakthroughs and tech like ai quantum

and tech like ai quantum the internet of things and hypersonics

the internet of things and hypersonics and more which may or may not occur

and more which may or may not occur but if they do they have tremendous

but if they do they have tremendous impact um i think this is particularly

impact um i think this is particularly interesting in terms of the

interesting in terms of the cards that you guys created and the

cards that you guys created and the range of things how did you guys

range of things how did you guys go about that so i think they're sort of

go about that so i think they're sort of subsumed under things like the national

subsumed under things like the national tech level

tech level if you increase your national tech level

if you increase your national tech level you can have more

you can have more military sort of net more

military sort of net more technologically advanced

technologically advanced forces which gives you slightly better

forces which gives you slightly better combat outcomes in certain cases

combat outcomes in certain cases and it makes each um sort of force

and it makes each um sort of force factor sort of more

factor sort of more valuable in term if you actually need to

valuable in term if you actually need to ever roll the die for

ever roll the die for combat so it's not in that

combat so it's not in that a.i did this it's you had a series of

a.i did this it's you had a series of technological investments that proved to

technological investments that proved to be successful

be successful and the ultimate effect is that you were

and the ultimate effect is that you were more combat effective with the same type

more combat effective with the same type of forces

of forces but you also have to pay to not only

but you also have to pay to not only develop the technology you have to pay

develop the technology you have to pay to upgrade the forces

to upgrade the forces and you to modernize them right you have

and you to modernize them right you have to pay more the more of them you want to

to pay more the more of them you want to modernize

modernize and then you have to pay for readiness

and then you have to pay for readiness because those are some of the trade-offs

because those are some of the trade-offs so

so you know i think there were some things

you know i think there were some things like you could have um

like you could have um you know there's some critical

you know there's some critical capabilities like um

capabilities like um uh integrated air and missile defenses

uh integrated air and missile defenses that you could invest in

that you could invest in and say that they're more capable

and say that they're more capable and that could matter in certain um

and that could matter in certain um combat situations

combat situations but like it was all rolled up into the

but like it was all rolled up into the effect which is you're just more capable

effect which is you're just more capable in that area and we did not

in that area and we did not try to comment on any specific

try to comment on any specific technology which is why i think this

technology which is why i think this game system with upgraded events right

game system with upgraded events right in different starting conditions

in different starting conditions could still be okay to use in several

could still be okay to use in several years

mike did you want to weigh in on any of these

so yeah that that was one of the comments which caused me to talk about

comments which caused me to talk about abstractions we just abstracted away

abstractions we just abstracted away from that

from that you you bought you know at the end of

you you bought you know at the end of the day

the day um those all are within families of

um those all are within families of capabilities

capabilities and so we just abstracted up to the

and so we just abstracted up to the families of capabilities that we thought

families of capabilities that we thought were the critical ones

were the critical ones and and if there's a new family of

and and if there's a new family of capabilities that you think is important

capabilities that you think is important it's relatively easy to add it into the

it's relatively easy to add it into the game

game um you know it's it's not trivial

um you know it's it's not trivial but it's not it doesn't fundamentally

but it's not it doesn't fundamentally change the game the game is flexible

change the game the game is flexible enough that

enough that that if we decide that uh

that if we decide that uh the iamd soft c4 isr

the iamd soft c4 isr and long range fires are not a

and long range fires are not a sufficient basket

sufficient basket of abstract capabilities to represent

of abstract capabilities to represent what we're trying to represent

what we're trying to represent create a fifth one and then it's just a

create a fifth one and then it's just a question of going going through the

question of going going through the cards and figuring out

cards and figuring out what kinds of cards what kinds of events

what kinds of cards what kinds of events does that capability most likely

does that capability most likely influence and how yeah

influence and how yeah and and then you can put it in there uh

and and then you can put it in there uh but yeah so that's my thought and and

but yeah so that's my thought and and that reminds me of a point that sean

that reminds me of a point that sean barnett was making at last year's

barnett was making at last year's connections

connections because we had for game lab we had a

because we had for game lab we had a group talking about

group talking about ai and war games and i think his comment

ai and war games and i think his comment was well just

was well just like where in the game does it affect it

like where in the game does it affect it right does it

right does it make it more survivable does it increase

make it more survivable does it increase whatever like what

whatever like what what is the rule set what does it change

what is the rule set what does it change what in the adjudication does it

what in the adjudication does it actually

actually change right because you have to be able

change right because you have to be able to translate that

to translate that technology into the combat effectiveness

technology into the combat effectiveness in some way

in some way so i think that's a very interesting

so i think that's a very interesting exercise you'd say well okay

exercise you'd say well okay okay you have ai what right what does

okay you have ai what right what does that do

that do does it not actually do anything right

does it not actually do anything right um can you

um can you not really practically see any effect i

not really practically see any effect i think or do you

think or do you see an effect but of what type so such

see an effect but of what type so such that you would have to

that you would have to change any of the game roles i think

change any of the game roles i think that's an interesting exercise

that's an interesting exercise okay the next question

this is an interesting question is in terms of design thinking is

terms of design thinking is during their prototyping uh prototyping

during their prototyping uh prototyping and testing phase what metrics did you

and testing phase what metrics did you use for descending

use for descending whether the game design or design

whether the game design or design decision made the game better or for

decision made the game better or for worse

worse i don't know that we used metrics but

i don't know that we used metrics but you we had to see the reactions of the

you we had to see the reactions of the people trying to play the game

people trying to play the game right there's also always a trade-off in

right there's also always a trade-off in playability and trying to pack in lots

playability and trying to pack in lots of details

of details in a professional setting you can

in a professional setting you can offload some of the

offload some of the detail and the number crunching with

detail and the number crunching with someone in the blue team who could just

someone in the blue team who could just assist in something like

assist in something like tracking the readiness bill and that

tracking the readiness bill and that that it had been paid

that it had been paid right for blue but you had to

right for blue but you had to you just had to get feedback from the

you just had to get feedback from the sponsor from the players

sponsor from the players from the um from the uh

from the um from the uh area experts the regional experts

area experts the regional experts playing the countries as to

playing the countries as to is it realistic right are there some

is it realistic right are there some things that are game artifacts are there

things that are game artifacts are there some things that

some things that give you very interesting options that

give you very interesting options that you think that in real life it's

you think that in real life it's important for people to investigate

important for people to investigate i think it was less metric but it was

i think it was less metric but it was more is it generating the right type of

more is it generating the right type of conversations about

conversations about national defense strategy was really the

national defense strategy was really the thing we were trying to look at

thing we were trying to look at yeah i really want to double down on

yeah i really want to double down on that the

that the the again given for what we were doing

the again given for what we were doing the game but but even since then

the game but but even since then using the game pedagogically so i've

using the game pedagogically so i've used it to teach

used it to teach since then um the metric

since then um the metric was the quality of the discourse that

was the quality of the discourse that you heard amongst the players if

you heard amongst the players if what you changed or what you included

what you changed or what you included caused them to talk differently

caused them to talk differently and by differently i mean in a way that

and by differently i mean in a way that was what you were hoping to create in

was what you were hoping to create in terms of discussion and thought process

terms of discussion and thought process and whatever then it was a good one if

and whatever then it was a good one if it caused them to think

it caused them to think talk poorly and in this case i'll define

talk poorly and in this case i'll define poorly ads about how do i game this

poorly ads about how do i game this you know how do i how do i take

you know how do i how do i take advantage of this rule

advantage of this rule or something like that then maybe we

or something like that then maybe we didn't need to put that kind of a change

didn't need to put that kind of a change in but

in but but it all for me was really

but it all for me was really you could hear what people were talking

you could hear what people were talking about and if they were talking about

about and if they were talking about strategy because of what we did

strategy because of what we did then it was a good change if they were

then it was a good change if they were talking about game rules because of what

talking about game rules because of what we did

we did there's probably a bad change

there's probably a bad change and you want to talk up and then you can

and you want to talk up and then you can also watch

also watch affect right um we have

affect right um we have you know so this this could be a whole

you know so this this could be a whole other

other topic and presentation and talk about

topic and presentation and talk about like

like how do we how do what what sort of even

how do we how do what what sort of even observable variables do we look for

observable variables do we look for right from a social science perspective

right from a social science perspective as to whether or not a game is a good

as to whether or not a game is a good game

game right we have hypotheses about story

right we have hypotheses about story living we have hypotheses

living we have hypotheses about engagement we have hypotheses

about engagement we have hypotheses about learning

about learning right so what does that look like in

right so what does that look like in terms of observable variables

terms of observable variables one of the things might be affect right

one of the things might be affect right like to

like to to the extent to which people are

to the extent to which people are emotionally sort of engaged in the game

emotionally sort of engaged in the game um one time the feedback from

um one time the feedback from someone from the sponsor's office was

someone from the sponsor's office was that um

that um right that i mean like emotional

right that i mean like emotional investment you know one time

investment you know one time one of our subject matter experts

one of our subject matter experts started yelling

started yelling at the us right um it's always great

at the us right um it's always great when people start yelling at each other

when people start yelling at each other right you're like that's thinking

right you're like that's thinking they're engaged right like yes affects

they're engaged right like yes affects right you know yeah you've engaged their

right you know yeah you've engaged their affect right those are those

affect right those are those that's the more sort of clinical term

that's the more sort of clinical term for it i think but

for it i think but um you can look at the level of

um you can look at the level of engagement and there are a lot of

engagement and there are a lot of non-verbal cues as well

non-verbal cues as well we've really not formalized any kind of

we've really not formalized any kind of research on this

research on this in terms of these types of variables in

in terms of these types of variables in terms of these type of

terms of these type of social and cognitive constructs and the

social and cognitive constructs and the the extent to which

the extent to which they could be observable if we ever

they could be observable if we ever wanted to study these things

wanted to study these things as part of measuring success in a game

as part of measuring success in a game but i believe

but i believe all that work it could be done because

all that work it could be done because we

we it all those things sort of in terms of

it all those things sort of in terms of research approaches exist

research approaches exist so this is sort of uh uh going away from

so this is sort of uh uh going away from the

the questions about the game uh per se but

questions about the game uh per se but this question that was brought up in the

this question that was brought up in the chat it was

chat it was how do you address the perception that

how do you address the perception that gaming is just white and male

gaming is just white and male i know this issue close to your heart so

i know this issue close to your heart so i wanted to bring it up

well it is large i mean war gaming is largely white and male i i don't

is largely white and male i i don't know that that's a fact anyone can deny

know that that's a fact anyone can deny i think um the the question

i think um the the question now is um because women do want to get

now is um because women do want to get into sort of professional wargaming

into sort of professional wargaming right

right um right we have to talk about entry

um right we have to talk about entry into the field

into the field um you know people always talk about

um you know people always talk about well diversity gets you more ideas and

well diversity gets you more ideas and perspectives but they don't actually

perspectives but they don't actually believe it

believe it right um we have you know and then if

right um we have you know and then if you if you talk up

you if you talk up if you if you have certain set or

if you if you have certain set or traditional pathways

traditional pathways into dod wargaming was through

into dod wargaming was through operational hex encounter hobby gaming

operational hex encounter hobby gaming i don't know how many women

i don't know how many women do that um i think i think

do that um i think i think very small number right um uh but you

very small number right um uh but you know the the problem is

know the the problem is you really need more ideas right we need

you really need more ideas right we need ideas from a number of different

ideas from a number of different disciplines and the ones that have

disciplines and the ones that have traditionally dominated

traditionally dominated dod word gaming right it'll be like

dod word gaming right it'll be like operations research it'll be the hobby

operations research it'll be the hobby gamers it'll be military planning it'll

gamers it'll be military planning it'll be political scientists

be political scientists but in the in the previous question when

but in the in the previous question when i talk about

i talk about if you want to talk about wargame

if you want to talk about wargame effectiveness and operationalizing

effectiveness and operationalizing variables and constructs of interest

variables and constructs of interest and gathering observable data on things

and gathering observable data on things right in

right in a lot of the um the social you know the

a lot of the um the social you know the cognitive and other aspects you need to

cognitive and other aspects you need to look at different disciplines and the

look at different disciplines and the ones that they already

ones that they already have come from you know most social

have come from you know most social sciences

sciences most social science phds in the united

most social science phds in the united states are now women

states are now women and then there are a lot of military

and then there are a lot of military psychologists

psychologists um military psychology is even more

um military psychology is even more institutionalized

institutionalized with dod than the operations research

with dod than the operations research community where the operations military

community where the operations military operations research community

operations research community talks about its relationship with dod

talks about its relationship with dod from world war one

from world war one but but

it dates back to world war i'm sorry operations research decided

operations research decided world war ii right modern psychology

world war ii right modern psychology right traces its roots back

right traces its roots back its modern rise to world war one when

its modern rise to world war one when the department of defense needed help

the department of defense needed help i guess they weren't the department of

i guess they weren't the department of defense then were they sorry the

defense then were they sorry the department of war i needed help on how

department of war i needed help on how to match people with different jobs

to match people with different jobs and right so that's the problem that

and right so that's the problem that they had and

they had and and coming out of world war ii i think

and coming out of world war ii i think one in every four

one in every four psychologists in the united states who

psychologists in the united states who were members of the american

were members of the american psychological association

psychological association identified as military psychologists but

identified as military psychologists but we are sort of missing all of those

we are sort of missing all of those disciplines and all the the theories

disciplines and all the the theories about

about you know basically gaming and learning

you know basically gaming and learning and things in play

and things in play really even from developmental um

really even from developmental um psychology that we could be using

psychology that we could be using to become more professional in

to become more professional in understanding what's going on in the

understanding what's going on in the games

games and that's a that's a problem it's not

and that's a that's a problem it's not easily solved

easily solved i think this is a whole different

i think this is a whole different conversation for another time though

conversation for another time though i mean there's so much to talk about

i mean there's so much to talk about here i don't even actually know where to

here i don't even actually know where to start and i'm gonna just

start and i'm gonna just start randomly going around in circles

start randomly going around in circles but yes

but yes it is um white and male

it is um white and male um you know i mean it's not to say that

um you know i mean it's not to say that white men are bad right they

white men are bad right they all my mentors in wargaming have been

all my mentors in wargaming have been white white men

white white men right but um you know women do want to

right but um you know women do want to get into that and even within women

get into that and even within women right i'm personally sad to see

right i'm personally sad to see sometimes how

sometimes how when there's a focus on women in

when there's a focus on women in wargaming right somehow the minority

wargaming right somehow the minority women like

women like are left out are not invited or not

are left out are not invited or not thought

thought of because they also want to get in but

of because they also want to get in but they have i think you know

they have i think you know you have sort of two sets of barriers to

you have sort of two sets of barriers to sometimes trying to enter

sometimes trying to enter even be noticed being offered

even be noticed being offered opportunities being mentored and i think

opportunities being mentored and i think that personally makes

that personally makes makes makes me sad um uh mike did

makes makes me sad um uh mike did did you want to weigh on this at all or

did you want to weigh on this at all or um or or

um or or would you prefer to skip this question

would you prefer to skip this question i'm a large white

i'm a large white old man so i'm not sure

old man so i'm not sure i i will tell you that um yeah so

i i will tell you that um yeah so growing up playing avalon hill games and

growing up playing avalon hill games and then

then you know all the stuff that came after

you know all the stuff that came after it i did not encounter

it i did not encounter a lot of people of color nor did i

a lot of people of color nor did i encounter a lot of women

encounter a lot of women uh doing that my experience though

uh doing that my experience though in designing and gaming as an adult is

in designing and gaming as an adult is completely different

completely different so i mean at rand at least we have a

so i mean at rand at least we have a huge

huge uh and diverse group of people doing war

uh and diverse group of people doing war gaming

gaming uh that aren't white or male

uh that aren't white or male and i think that they've brought a

and i think that they've brought a tremendous amount

tremendous amount to the to the um

to the to the um furtherance of gaming at rand and i

furtherance of gaming at rand and i think they've brought some really useful

think they've brought some really useful perspectives

perspectives uh to uh to what i've seen of games at

uh to uh to what i've seen of games at rand so i don't know if that's helpful

rand so i don't know if that's helpful or not

or not but sebastian did you have any comments

but sebastian did you have any comments um so just two uh one is that

um so just two uh one is that diversity in war gaming or gaming in

diversity in war gaming or gaming in general both professionally and

general both professionally and commercially is a

commercially is a hot topic now and there is a lot of

hot topic now and there is a lot of progress in the commercial field as much

progress in the commercial field as much as it is in the professional field

as it is in the professional field the needle is moving so it's in a

the needle is moving so it's in a positive way um sort of like what yoona

positive way um sort of like what yoona said some of my

said some of my uh colleagues that rand who you know i

uh colleagues that rand who you know i mean

mean are women actually there are probably 50

are women actually there are probably 50 50 split

50 split at the world gaming community at rand

at the world gaming community at rand nowadays

nowadays in terms of women and men uh but more so

in terms of women and men uh but more so the conversation on the commercial side

the conversation on the commercial side is really

is really fascinating to me in terms of game

fascinating to me in terms of game designers who are designing games for

designers who are designing games for women and for

women and for for young women to get into gaming

for young women to get into gaming the group out of holland spiel who is a

the group out of holland spiel who is a commercial gamer

commercial gamer company they've had interesting

company they've had interesting conversations online

conversations online about not only how do you make it

about not only how do you make it accessible but how do we as publishers

accessible but how do we as publishers and designers

and designers make uh prepare or seat for them to be

make uh prepare or seat for them to be welcome at our table to play

welcome at our table to play i think that's a very fascinating notion

i think that's a very fascinating notion um

um and the second point is you know can you

and the second point is you know can you talk a little bit more about your

talk a little bit more about your initiative about women in the wargaming

initiative about women in the wargaming network you're starting

network you're starting yes so these are one of the many things

yes so these are one of the many things i'm behind on

i'm behind on right but um uh we are trying to launch

right but um uh we are trying to launch the women's wargaming network at

the women's wargaming network at connections this year

connections this year and the purpose is going to be to give

and the purpose is going to be to give uh women

uh women more networking and mentorship

more networking and mentorship opportunities and professional wargaming

opportunities and professional wargaming um i do have to

um i do have to there are a number of people who are

there are a number of people who are interested

interested i do have to sort of get my own house in

i do have to sort of get my own house in order and and

order and and and think a little bit more about this

and think a little bit more about this i've gotten

i've gotten questions um you know about like what is

questions um you know about like what is it going to look like

it going to look like what is the organizational structure um

what is the organizational structure um so those are all things i think

so those are all things i think we're trying to work out uh but

we're trying to work out uh but i think there is um i think that

i think there is um i think that i think this is something that um we we

i think this is something that um we we do want to do

do want to do um i will say even though even as women

um i will say even though even as women enter

enter the field of war gaming uh right so

the field of war gaming uh right so another traditional way of entering war

another traditional way of entering war gaming is through combat models and

gaming is through combat models and simulations

simulations or through as a military planner

or through as a military planner particularly right in combat arms but

particularly right in combat arms but neither in

neither in modeling simulation nor in combat arms

modeling simulation nor in combat arms right are there a lot of women

but i think we don't have to be limit ourselves to really those traditional

ourselves to really those traditional approaches

approaches um and but even within like gaming teams

um and but even within like gaming teams right

right like what roles do women do like are

like what roles do women do like are they just the note takers and not the

they just the note takers and not the designers right are they

designers right are they do they just make announcements but they

do they just make announcements but they don't adjudicate right are they set up

don't adjudicate right are they set up as

as hosts but not as experts and i think

hosts but not as experts and i think those are all things that women want to

those are all things that women want to be part of and

be part of and um want to be forward leaning on and are

um want to be forward leaning on and are are things that i think we i hope

are things that i think we i hope will will be making progress on

okay so sort of uh sort of circling back to the game topic in the sense of

to the game topic in the sense of we talked about hegemony in terms of a

we talked about hegemony in terms of a lot of context of pme and education and

lot of context of pme and education and being used to grad students

being used to grad students so can you guys uh both you and mike

so can you guys uh both you and mike discuss about what was your sort of key

discuss about what was your sort of key audience that you're designing this game

audience that you're designing this game for but also how you see this being

for but also how you see this being applied in the classroom at the

applied in the classroom at the university level both in the civilian

university level both in the civilian and the pme world

and the pme world mike why don't you start with this since

mike why don't you start with this since you sort of

you sort of teach a version of it already

sure um so um we didn't have uh publication approval

we didn't have uh publication approval for this yet

for this yet but a friend of mine was very interested

but a friend of mine was very interested in trying to

in trying to to teach this and so so let me talk a

to teach this and so so let me talk a little bit about

little bit about in my mind what the strength of the game

in my mind what the strength of the game is

is um and we've been talking about how do

um and we've been talking about how do you teach people to think at that

you teach people to think at that strategic level

strategic level and not to keep having wanting to dive

and not to keep having wanting to dive down into the operational level

down into the operational level and so most people who work

and so most people who work in strategy

in strategy um if you ask them

um if you ask them what what kind of trades are involved

what what kind of trades are involved in strategy they're gonna talk about

in strategy they're gonna talk about a variety of things which which

a variety of things which which ultimately are important but they're

ultimately are important but they're campaign specific kinds of things

campaign specific kinds of things when you're talking about sort of the

when you're talking about sort of the dod strategy my baseline

dod strategy my baseline philosophy that underpins the way i

philosophy that underpins the way i teach this and why i use it to teach

teach this and why i use it to teach is that at the end of the day secretary

is that at the end of the day secretary of defense has the opportunity to

of defense has the opportunity to influence

influence four things at the highest abstract

four things at the highest abstract level

level the size of the military the readiness

the size of the military the readiness of the military

of the military the modernization path of the military

the modernization path of the military and the posture and employment of it

and the posture and employment of it and every dollar dod spends goes into

and every dollar dod spends goes into one of those four things and this game

one of those four things and this game was built

was built around forcing people to to confront

around forcing people to to confront trades between those

trades between those because there's not enough budget to buy

because there's not enough budget to buy everything you want to do in all of

everything you want to do in all of those

those and so the whole sort of pedagogical

and so the whole sort of pedagogical purpose of the game from my perspective

purpose of the game from my perspective was to teach people to think about

was to teach people to think about strategy in terms of those kinds of

strategy in terms of those kinds of trades

trades if if i really need to and want to

if if i really need to and want to confront something happening in the real

confront something happening in the real world today

world today um it's going to consume resources and

um it's going to consume resources and within the constraint of my strategy am

within the constraint of my strategy am i willing to to mortgage

i willing to to mortgage resources that i had planned to use for

resources that i had planned to use for future readiness

future readiness for modernization for for whatever

for modernization for for whatever um to to accomplish that task today is

um to to accomplish that task today is it worth the diversion

it worth the diversion or or alternatively um will i have

or or alternatively um will i have regret

regret five turns from now when i failed to

five turns from now when i failed to invest in modernization because i got

invest in modernization because i got tied up in what i now realize might have

tied up in what i now realize might have been a marginal

been a marginal regional contingency and i'm not

regional contingency and i'm not prepared for

prepared for the bigger confrontation that's going to

the bigger confrontation that's going to come because

come because of my lack of modernization and

of my lack of modernization and preparedness and stuff so

preparedness and stuff so it really is how do you get them to have

it really is how do you get them to have these really good discussions about

these really good discussions about trading between those four

trading between those four sort of investment buckets um and so

that's what we designed into the game and

and um just by way of background for those

um just by way of background for those of you who don't know anything at all

of you who don't know anything at all about me

about me i was the guy that was running the

i was the guy that was running the army's analysis on how

army's analysis on how big or how small the army could shrink

big or how small the army could shrink uh

uh after the iraq war um during all the

after the iraq war um during all the budget crisis stuff so

budget crisis stuff so you know there were um

discussions of the army growing from 579 000 or 69 000 to as low

000 or 69 000 to as low as 350 000 active component active

as 350 000 active component active regular army soldiers um and ultimately

regular army soldiers um and ultimately of course it

of course it settled out at about 475 and then

settled out at about 475 and then climbed back up but

climbed back up but but i was involved in all of those

but i was involved in all of those discussions within

discussions within dod where those were the trades we were

dod where those were the trades we were having that was the discussion we were

having that was the discussion we were having if i

having if i don't cut for structure am i going to

don't cut for structure am i going to lose um

lose um modernization if i pay for modernization

modernization if i pay for modernization how can i

how can i uh sustain readiness how much can i cut

uh sustain readiness how much can i cut in readiness and still

in readiness and still do that as i reduce force posture or for

do that as i reduce force posture or for structure

structure where does the residual force get

where does the residual force get postured and why

postured and why and so all of those discussions in the

and so all of those discussions in the pentagon that was the background that

pentagon that was the background that led me to

led me to the way um i created the original design

the way um i created the original design for this game and why i thought

for this game and why i thought that was what osd needed in terms of

that was what osd needed in terms of talking about strategy

talking about strategy um in terms of using in the classroom so

um in terms of using in the classroom so we took a

we took a i i created sort of an abstract version

i i created sort of an abstract version of this and

of this and and i see about three different ways you

and i see about three different ways you could use it in a classroom

could use it in a classroom where you're trying to teach public

where you're trying to teach public policy

policy uh for national offense or

uh for national offense or as my friend asked me to do teaching

as my friend asked me to do teaching army

army civilian strategist so the army has a

civilian strategist so the army has a group of civilians who who will fall in

group of civilians who who will fall in a job category called strategist

a job category called strategist uh similar to their military strategist

uh similar to their military strategist but they don't have the same opportunity

but they don't have the same opportunity for pme

for pme and the military strategists do so the

and the military strategists do so the army contracts with my friends company

army contracts with my friends company to do that and she asked me to come in

to do that and she asked me to come in and teach this kind of strategy to them

and teach this kind of strategy to them as sort of a way to get them grounded in

as sort of a way to get them grounded in this strategic discussion

this strategic discussion um and so we ran for them what i do

um and so we ran for them what i do is um i run three teams simultaneously

is um i run three teams simultaneously instead of running one team

instead of running one team through three iterations of the game i

through three iterations of the game i run three teams through one iteration of

run three teams through one iteration of the game

the game and so they all get to see each other

and so they all get to see each other strategy playing out and

strategy playing out and and i what i do is i have each of the

and i what i do is i have each of the students

students independently write out a strategy for

independently write out a strategy for the department of defense for the next

the department of defense for the next five to ten years

five to ten years where they have to talk about their

where they have to talk about their relative priorities between those four

relative priorities between those four budget

budget areas and they have to talk about what

areas and they have to talk about what they're trying to accomplish in the

they're trying to accomplish in the world so

world so basically a very bare bones national

basically a very bare bones national security strategy

security strategy and then i sort them into teams

and then i sort them into teams based on people who exhibited similar

based on people who exhibited similar kinds

kinds of choices in their strategic document

of choices in their strategic document and so i usually get one team where it's

and so i usually get one team where it's all about china and i usually get one

all about china and i usually get one team where it's all about modernization

team where it's all about modernization and i usually get one team

and i usually get one team uh which is all of the others you know

uh which is all of the others you know um it's all about all the lesser

um it's all about all the lesser included stuff

included stuff and uh they all get the same world i

and uh they all get the same world i don't do different

don't do different player cards or or uh i'm sorry i don't

player cards or or uh i'm sorry i don't do different

do different national or international event cards

national or international event cards for each team i do one set of event

for each team i do one set of event cards

cards um and in some cases teams are very

um and in some cases teams are very happy

happy and in others they're upset and it

and in others they're upset and it changes around you could do that

changes around you could do that in a graduate school class you could do

in a graduate school class you could do that in an undergraduate class you could

that in an undergraduate class you could also

also um do the full-blown hegemony

um do the full-blown hegemony um and since you don't have subject

um and since you don't have subject matter expertise you could assign

matter expertise you could assign students the job in the first part of

students the job in the first part of the semester to do some research

the semester to do some research that allows them to play a russia or

that allows them to play a russia or north korea or

north korea or or in iran um they can share

or in iran um they can share discussions again i think asking them to

discussions again i think asking them to sort of develop the strategy

sort of develop the strategy and then giving them a chance to play it

and then giving them a chance to play it and maybe to play it in two or three

and maybe to play it in two or three different roles

different roles is a way to do it um you could do it

is a way to do it um you could do it um just the way we did it for osd if you

um just the way we did it for osd if you can get

can get um your school to allow you to do like

um your school to allow you to do like a weekend course where instead of

a weekend course where instead of meeting for two hours

meeting for two hours once a week or three hours once a week

once a week or three hours once a week you get them to agree that you're gonna

you get them to agree that you're gonna do like four saturday sessions for five

do like four saturday sessions for five hours each

hours each or something like that just to fit the

or something like that just to fit the time in so there's a lot of flexibility

time in so there's a lot of flexibility in how to do it but at the end of the

in how to do it but at the end of the day

day that was sort of my learning objectives

that was sort of my learning objectives and that's how i use it and

and that's how i use it and i'm not sure if that answered the

i'm not sure if that answered the question but that's my answer

question but that's my answer and i would also add that i think it

and i would also add that i think it could be helpful

could be helpful to graduate students who are

to graduate students who are civilians with no exposure to dod

civilians with no exposure to dod because sometimes half the battle

because sometimes half the battle is just terminology or basic concepts

is just terminology or basic concepts so you know the the civ mill divide

so you know the the civ mill divide starts early

starts early right it starts at college right we have

right it starts at college right we have um a military that sometimes goes to

um a military that sometimes goes to dod undergrad right if you don't go to

dod undergrad right if you don't go to russia you go to the

russia you go to the service academies and in some cases have

service academies and in some cases have their own graduate programs

their own graduate programs and and we the civilians men because we

and and we the civilians men because we have civil

have civil civilian control of the military in the

civilian control of the military in the united states right who are going to be

united states right who are going to be making

making very senior decisions their their

very senior decisions their their education about things like

education about things like international policy about

international policy about um how to think about these things

um how to think about these things diverges very early and they read

diverges very early and they read different things

different things so um right i have a master's in

so um right i have a master's in political science from columbia

political science from columbia university

university and also i went through um expeditionary

and also i went through um expeditionary warfare school

warfare school which is like the um captain's level

which is like the um captain's level course and

course and right it's not it's like they never they

right it's not it's like they never they don't understand that the other

don't understand that the other exists i think um so the

exists i think um so the the lack of a shared understanding from

the lack of a shared understanding from your early 20s and how

your early 20s and how that education even that grad you know

that education even that grad you know that education diverges about these

that education diverges about these things

things um doesn't really help anyone in the

um doesn't really help anyone in the long run

long run uh but maybe uh right just learning some

uh but maybe uh right just learning some things like what is right you have to

things like what is right you have to make trade-offs between readiness and

make trade-offs between readiness and modernization oh

modernization oh what is modernization right some of

what is modernization right some of those basic things maybe

those basic things maybe um maybe can help people who have no

um maybe can help people who have no background in the military

background in the military one of my other motives for trying to

one of my other motives for trying to publish hegemony

publish hegemony and we spent a lot of time right trying

and we spent a lot of time right trying to do this a lot of time on our own

to do this a lot of time on our own to get this out is uh

to get this out is uh i'm concerned about the war gaming

i'm concerned about the war gaming community in the long run

community in the long run because we don't publish games right

because we don't publish games right there are game reports

there are game reports there are there's you know like legends

there are there's you know like legends and myth about games right there's

and myth about games right there's advocacy about games

advocacy about games but the actual games themselves are

but the actual games themselves are rarely published and available

rarely published and available and what happens is i fear what's going

and what happens is i fear what's going to happen

to happen uh right because interest in wargaming

uh right because interest in wargaming especially in natural security is

especially in natural security is episodic

episodic or or periodic i should say maybe that's

or or periodic i should say maybe that's a better word

a better word um you know you know like sebastian and

um you know you know like sebastian and i

i wrote um this this report

wrote um this this report next generation wargaming for the marine

next generation wargaming for the marine corps

corps and and part of that we documented a

and and part of that we documented a number of

number of wargaming centers and their tools and

wargaming centers and their tools and then after the report came out

then after the report came out i saw this book the bomb in the computer

i saw this book the bomb in the computer where someone had essentially

where someone had essentially 50 years ago written up what was

50 years ago written up what was happening in the defense wargaming

happening in the defense wargaming committee at the time

committee at the time and i realized how much of that has just

and i realized how much of that has just been lost and have no record of it

been lost and have no record of it so i think it's very critical for us to

so i think it's very critical for us to publish

publish games not just have to have

games not just have to have reports about games and their results

reports about games and their results and their insights

and their insights in a classified repository that most

in a classified repository that most people cannot get to

people cannot get to and certainly may not exist in in

and certainly may not exist in in another 50 years after

another 50 years after everyone who has knowledge of these

everyone who has knowledge of these events have retired

events have retired but to publish the game so that someone

but to publish the game so that someone later can pick it up and go oh this is

later can pick it up and go oh this is what

what this is what the war game looked like

this is what the war game looked like and use that potentially as a starting

and use that potentially as a starting point if they're gonna have to address

point if they're gonna have to address some of the same

some of the same things um i think i i recently ran into

things um i think i i recently ran into uh the you know games that logistics

uh the you know games that logistics games that ran

games that ran had run in the 1950s that they had

had run in the 1950s that they had written up the rules

written up the rules and they're in the published reports

and they're in the published reports that are on the internet and i'm like

that are on the internet and i'm like that's

that's that's very handy to know but as

that's very handy to know but as knowledge transfer i think as a

knowledge transfer i think as a community we do

community we do a very poor job of this but it's too

a very poor job of this but it's too our detriment in the long run so one of

our detriment in the long run so one of the big motivations for me personally

the big motivations for me personally was to

was to have hegemony out there so that the next

have hegemony out there so that the next time we need something like this

time we need something like this someone could at least look at it as

someone could at least look at it as reference and not have to start from

reference and not have to start from scratch

uh some next questions is um do you guys have any plans to digitize

have any plans to digitize hegemony in terms of making a vassal

hegemony in terms of making a vassal module or tabletop simulator

module or tabletop simulator or tabletopia no

is there a reason why um just the amount of unpaid work and hours

just the amount of unpaid work and hours of my life

of my life to get to just the board game which is

to get to just the board game which is not yet out

not yet out you know maybe i'll feel differently in

you know maybe i'll feel differently in later but uh

later but uh you know i don't you know but mia maybe

you know i don't you know but mia maybe mike wants to answer that question

mike wants to answer that question differently mike

differently mike like i'm leaving iran so mike do you

like i'm leaving iran so mike do you have plans to try to

have plans to try to make this a board game a computer game

make this a board game a computer game um

um i i've kicked around i've talked with

i i've kicked around i've talked with some of our colleagues a little bit

some of our colleagues a little bit about

about what that might look like

what that might look like um and so it's never going to be

um and so it's never going to be like a computer game you know i think

like a computer game you know i think the way most of us think of a

the way most of us think of a a as a computer game but but in an

a as a computer game but but in an era of covid um trying to think through

era of covid um trying to think through how

how we could uh digitize

we could uh digitize some of the artifacts and some of the

some of the artifacts and some of the trackers

trackers and then use zoom to set some of the

and then use zoom to set some of the discussion

discussion i mean so yeah i've thought through it i

i mean so yeah i've thought through it i don't have funding to do it i don't know

don't have funding to do it i don't know if it's something i'll choose to do on

if it's something i'll choose to do on my own

my own um what i'd offer is i don't think

um what i'd offer is i don't think it is difficult just laborious

it is difficult just laborious you know to do um and i think that

you know to do um and i think that once it gets done you know it opens up

once it gets done you know it opens up some additional opportunities that we

some additional opportunities that we haven't really

haven't really taken advantage of uh it's just a

taken advantage of uh it's just a question of finding the time now that

question of finding the time now that i'm just an adjunct maybe i'll

i'm just an adjunct maybe i'll do it in my spare time we'll see

do it in my spare time we'll see you'll you'll never get away from

you'll you'll never get away from hegemony mike

yes another question so the next questions

questions sorry i just love that uh that question

sorry i just love that uh that question and the responses

and the responses um so do you think that student learning

um so do you think that student learning outcomes differ depending on the

outcomes differ depending on the countries they play in terms of uh

countries they play in terms of uh one table uh playing it all together

i mean i'm sorry um do you mean that will you have a different experience if

will you have a different experience if you play a different country or

you play a different country or is that you mind so right for instance

is that you mind so right for instance like when you

like when you when we run hegemony down at the crew

when we run hegemony down at the crew lack center uh

lack center uh we talked about how the u.s is sort of

we talked about how the u.s is sort of the focus of the training and then if

the focus of the training and then if you play north korea or iran

you play north korea or iran you have a different training experience

you have a different training experience maybe mike and you can elaborate that

maybe mike and you can elaborate that for the audience

for the audience i i think some of the feedback from our

i i think some of the feedback from our test

test with the party around graduate school

with the party around graduate school was that other players could get

was that other players could get something out of

something out of it i think you know china has a couple

it i think you know china has a couple of different real

of different real really different strategies and i think

really different strategies and i think the

the player for china even the real games

player for china even the real games seem to get something out of it as well

seem to get something out of it as well i'm not sure that then i think

i'm not sure that then i think i think the practice of coming up to

i think the practice of coming up to speed

speed on north korean foreign policy to play

on north korean foreign policy to play it in the game

it in the game might be um the best learning aspect for

might be um the best learning aspect for for north korea and hegemony if you're

for north korea and hegemony if you're doing it doing this with students

doing it doing this with students i think they i think having to learn

i think they i think having to learn around positions

around positions even to explain some of their cards

even to explain some of their cards actually i think

actually i think if you didn't know a lot about iran and

if you didn't know a lot about iran and had to like research like hey what is

had to like research like hey what is what why do they have this card um i

what why do they have this card um i think actually could be

think actually could be actually could be valuable excuse me

actually could be valuable excuse me actually could be valuable

actually could be valuable and i think for i think i guess for

and i think for i think i guess for russia

russia i think um you know i'd you know

i think um you know i'd you know i don't know i don't know about i don't

i don't know i don't know about i don't know about russia i don't know enough to

know about russia i don't know enough to to say but i think it you know

to say but i think it you know and i think maybe the european union

and i think maybe the european union um for you to have to be able to play it

um for you to have to be able to play it like just to come up to speed on

like just to come up to speed on how many different countries have

how many different countries have different positions on things and

different positions on things and therefore

therefore how the debate might be as to whether or

how the debate might be as to whether or not the european union might support

not the european union might support something the united states is doing i

something the united states is doing i think

think if you um set that up you know could

if you um set that up you know could produce

produce a good learning objective you know

a good learning objective you know outcomes in in students

so i guess one of the last questions would be what is the timeline for the

would be what is the timeline for the release of this amazing game from ran

release of this amazing game from ran so i think this week they are finalizing

so i think this week they are finalizing the box art and then we have to send the

the box art and then we have to send the order to

order to the game crafter and it depends on

the game crafter and it depends on so gamecrafter is the vendor that rand

so gamecrafter is the vendor that rand is using

is using [Music]

[Music] but it depends on their queue their

but it depends on their queue their production queue and they were shut down

production queue and they were shut down for a while because of kobit 19.

for a while because of kobit 19. um i don't think we can afford to pay

um i don't think we can afford to pay the double price to move bump it up to

the double price to move bump it up to the top

the top the front of the queue we have done that

the front of the queue we have done that with some of the prototypes because we

with some of the prototypes because we really wanted it the process to go along

really wanted it the process to go along but it will i think really ultimately

but it will i think really ultimately depend on the game crafter's queue

depend on the game crafter's queue and our last question will be to both

and our last question will be to both you and mike is

you and mike is when are you going to run this for

when are you going to run this for georgetown

georgetown i thought i think mike was volunteered

i thought i think mike was volunteered for this weren't you mike

for this weren't you mike so um for those of you guys who know sue

so um for those of you guys who know sue bryant

bryant um she and i have been talking and i

um she and i have been talking and i think she's got

think she's got tentative approval uh

tentative approval uh to run this

to run this or the light version of it as part of

or the light version of it as part of of course she's going to teach either

of course she's going to teach either well

well at this point i don't think it's going

at this point i don't think it's going to happen this fall so potentially we

to happen this fall so potentially we could be teaching it in the spring

could be teaching it in the spring um sue's been working on it she's a big

um sue's been working on it she's a big big proponent of this

big proponent of this um and we'll see

um and we'll see how that works um

more to follow so for those who don't know my linek is not only

know my linek is not only a adjunct that ran but he also is an

a adjunct that ran but he also is an address at georgetown teaching of course

address at georgetown teaching of course uh are you still teaching the counter

uh are you still teaching the counter insurgency course mike

insurgency course mike so uh i don't know if they're gonna ask

so uh i don't know if they're gonna ask me to teach it again

me to teach it again um in the spring which is when it's

um in the spring which is when it's taught so

taught so we haven't gotten that far i'm teaching

we haven't gotten that far i'm teaching uh 501

uh 501 uh this fall

i will also be adjuncting at georgetown in the fall

in the fall i guess like if you work at rand it's

i guess like if you work at rand it's like a requirement that you adjunct at

like a requirement that you adjunct at georgetown i think this is what i've

georgetown i think this is what i've i've inferred from the rules uh or

i've inferred from the rules uh or inferred from the behavior

inferred from the behavior so i'll be teaching a class on

so i'll be teaching a class on artificial intelligence and

artificial intelligence and international policy and i'm thinking of

international policy and i'm thinking of reworking everything to make it more

reworking everything to make it more engaging by adding a war game

engaging by adding a war game well thank you yuna uh and mike we got

well thank you yuna uh and mike we got two for one uh guest speakers for today

two for one uh guest speakers for today um i have a couple announcements

um i have a couple announcements related to goose i will be presenting

related to goose i will be presenting for

for um the cyberwar roundtable on july 26 on

um the cyberwar roundtable on july 26 on goose

goose as well as for the dragoons assembly uh

as well as for the dragoons assembly uh from july 31st august 1st the links are

from july 31st august 1st the links are in the chat

in the chat and i'll also include them in our

and i'll also include them in our youtube video um but but

youtube video um but but everyone please thank mike linek and you

everyone please thank mike linek and you know wong for their wonderful

know wong for their wonderful presentation thank you guys again and we

presentation thank you guys again and we look forward to have you guys run

look forward to have you guys run hegemony for georgetown

hegemony for georgetown thank you

Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps

Paste YouTube URL

Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.

Add to Chrome — Free

Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube TranscriptPreparing your results…

YouTube Transcript:Wargaming and Design Thinking with Yuna Wong

Video Transcript

Summary

Core Theme

Paste YouTube URL

Transcript Extraction Form

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube Transcript:
Wargaming and Design Thinking with Yuna Wong