1. Bringing Educational Games to the Classroom
Command and General Staff College
Agenda:
Future Force – Concrete Experience
Design & Development
Use Case Examples / Results of P/D/I
Demonstration of CGSC’s Simulation Tools
Decisive Action
Crucible of Command
Why use Experiential Games in Classroom
CGSC’s Vision for classroom simulations
United States Army Combined Arms Center

2. Future Force Demo
United States Army Combined Arms Center

3. Design Concepts
Students input their plans Subordinates execute to standard Realism is not always useful
United States Army Combined Arms Center

4. Development Concepts Design Framework:
Purpose, Decisions, Interactions
Focus design on educational objectives:
Student decisions’ essential dilemmas
Ruthless abstraction:
Eliminate unnecessary detail
United States Army Combined Arms Center

5. Division Exercise Configuration
OPEN Partition
CLOSED Partition
Exercise Cells
Hallway
PLANS
CFLCC / JTF / DoS
OPFOR
WHITE CELL
SUST
INTEL
MNVR & MVMT
FIRES
PROT MC
CofS
HICON
BLUFOR
X X
MAIN 4
16x
ILE Section – 64 Students
Division Staff – 47 students
(only uses CPoF and BCS3)
HICON – 4 students
(only uses CPoF)
BLUEFOR – 8 students
(4 hours sim training)
White Cell / Host – 2 students
(12 hrs Cr + 12hrs Hw = 24 hours sim training)
OPFOR – 3 students
United States Army Combined Arms Center

6. Decisive Action Pros Basic Facts Easy to learn
Works on any Windows-based system
Easy link to CPOF through XML Overlay
Easy scenario development/changes
Cons
Needs more reports
Basic Facts
Staff-Centric, Division & Corps MCO
Tracks battalions and higher
Turn-Based (2 hour turns)
Multiplayer or single-player
Abstracted Combat

7. Why Execution Matters for Army Learning Model
CGSC’s experiential learning process uses execution to ensure that
students practice decisions as commanders and key staff officers
The three categories of classroom exercises:
Visualization: Examine problems and discuss solutions (examples: “What Now, Ranger”, USMC Tactical Decision Games)
Planning-Centric: Requires the student to organize the battlefield through functions, tasks, and resources over time. Ends with a written product ( example OPORD).
Execution-Centric: Requires students to gain situational awareness during mission execution. Students must analyze the unfolding situation, decide what changes must be made, and then execute that decision.
Supports Army Learning Model

8. Crucible of Command Email TLP Execute AAR Homework Class Basic Facts
Company level tactics
Tracks entities, maneuvers platoons
Continuous time (pauseable)
Multiplayer or single-player
High intensity combat
Pros
Easy to learn
Easy map/scenario creation and adjustment
Low-overhead
AAR playback
AAR file as homework to instructor
Smart Tactics capabilities in development
Cons
Pending pilot assessment
TLP
Execute
AAR
Homework
Class

9. CGSC DLDC’s Vision for Classroom Simulations
Transform the way we train adaptive leaders and teams by facilitating the deliberate practice of key cognitive skills anytime and anyplace
Close the gap between textbook (crawl) and fieldwork (Run) using experiential learning
Each student engaged in making relevant decisions
Simulations everywhere like textbooks Simulations used routinely to gain and maintain cognitive skills
Recognize that intuitional learning environment is different
United States Army Combined Arms Center

10. Current Simulations in use at CGSC
Decisive Action (ILE Division Level Exercise)
Staff-centric, turn based MCO
Stimulates Mission Command Workstation (CPOF)
Drives ILE O399 in all staff groups
UrbanSIM (SCP TCDP, ILE Elective)
BCT & Bn commander-centric Stability Operations
Elusive Victory (ILE BCT Level Exercise)
Staff-centric, turn-based Stability Operations
Piloted as driver for ILE 0499
Crucible of Command (Captain’s Career Course)
Commander / Leader Centric
Battalion and Company tactics
AAR file as homework to instructor
Decisive Action Brigade Level (Captain’s Career Course)
Staff-centric, turn based MCO, Brigade and Battalion
Stimulates Mission Command Workstation (CPOF)
Bite-Sized Games (Concrete Experience drivers)
Future Force; Forward into Battle; Fuelling the Force
5-10 minutes to learn; Individual/small group execution
min duration
United States Army Combined Arms Center

11. Enabling Experiential Education in CGSC Classrooms
A Battle in Every Classroom

12. Back up slides

13. Current Simulations in use at CGSC
Decisive Action (ILE Division Level Exercise)
Staff-centric, turn based MCO
Stimulates Mission Command Workstation (CPOF)
Drives ILE O399 in all staff groups
UrbanSIM (SCP TCDP, ILE Elective)
BCT & Bn commander-centric Stability Operations
Elusive Victory (ILE BCT Level Exercise)
Staff-centric, turn-based Stability Operations
Piloted as driver for ILE 0499
Crucible of Command (Captain’s Career Course)
Commander / Leader Centric
Battalion and Company tactics
AAR file as homework to instructor
Decisive Action Brigade Level (Captain’s Career Course)
Staff-centric, turn based MCO, Brigade and Battalion
Stimulates Mission Command Workstation (CPOF)
Bite-Sized Games (Concrete Experience drivers)
Future Force; Forward into Battle; Fuelling the Force
5-10 minutes to learn; Individual/small group execution
min duration
United States Army Combined Arms Center

14. Follow Me Email TLP Execute AAR Homework Class
Basic Facts
Company & lower tactics
Tracks entities, maneuvers by team/squad
Continuous time (pauseable)
Multiplayer or single-player
High intensity combat
Pros
Easy to learn
Easy map/scenario creation and adjustment
Low-overhead
AAR playback
AAR file as homework to instructor
Smart Tactics capabilities in development
Cons
*****
TLP
Execute
AAR
Homework
Class
Insert another screen shot
Of a town
DEMO

15. UrbanSim Pros Cons Basic Facts Commander-centric Stability Ops
Developed for BN CO training at SCP
Current scenarios are designed for BN
Environment modeled with leaders, tribes, areas, and key infrastructure buildings
Pros
Easy to learn
Includes background and support videos and text for scenarios
Models second and third order effects in stability ops environment
Cons
Difficult to create scenarios
No run-time instructor injects or editing
Each scenario has limited potential for repeated use

16. Elusive Victory Pros Cons Basic Facts Staff-centric Stability Ops
Designed for battalion/brigade echelon
Environment modeled with leaders,
areas, and abstract infrastructure
One week turns
Very limited C4I stimulation
Pros
Powerful run time editing/inject tools
Simple model is predictable for instructor
Includes full scenario editing tools
Cons
Software is still in development
Model is not complete

17. Command Post on Web / Defense Connect on Line
Basic Facts
Distance Learning map exercise environment
CPoW provides dynamic COP of data from simulation
CPoW uses Google Maps for terrain data:
no installation
DCO allows video/audio/text communications and file sharing
Pros
Easy to learn
Enables exercise participation for dL
CPoW works with standard web browser
Cons
Requires Sims Team to process (will be automated soon; target June 2010)
Internet connectivity can go down
DEMO

18. W330 Employ the BCT TLO ELO Key Content Assessment 701-AOW-2303
Action: Employ BCTs in Full spectrum operations.
701-AOW
Action: Develop BCT Operations Order
701-AOW
Action: Develop FRAGOs based on changes in the tactical situation
BCT MDMP in a stability environment.
BCT development of Lines of Operations.
BCT Synchronization of Warfighting functions
BCT Rapid Decision and Synchronization Process.
BCT Irregular Warfare Challenges
Individual Commander’s Intent 15%
Group BCT OPORD Brief 15%
Group BCT FRAGO briefs (RDSP) 15%
Individual staff performance 15%
Student
MB 41% LB 6%
Fac measure LO brief 84%/intent 75%

19. reorg the staff if needed
Position
Name
WFF
Deputy Cdr
J-Dawg C2
Red Team
Dennis S2
Steve
ISR
Asst S2
Naeem
Hedderwick (IN) S3
Ken
Mov/Man
Asst S3
Forsth (AR)
Kirk
Protection
FSO
Ben
Fires
Asst FSO
Young (FA)
Non-Lethal - CA
Brady
Non-Lethal - IO
Reeve (EN)
Isaac S4
Syd
Sust S1
Jason
Red Cell
Monica
N/A
The Deputy Commander
has the authority to
reorg the staff if needed

20. Building Experiential Tools for our Classrooms
Discussion Points
Tool Selection / Design Process: Purpose / Decisions / Interactions
Step 1 – Purpose: Define educational outcomes (TLO & ELO)
Step 2 – Decisions: What student actions are evaluated by the instructor?
Step 3 – Interactions: What the simulation does that creates the decision environment
Step 4 – Identify limitations: time, space, equipment, manpower
Step 5 – THEN select or build the tool that creates the environment, that creates the decisions, that drives the learning
Concept – build the tools for the task, don’t bend the task to the tool
Concept – the tool doesn’t define the outcome
Considerations for Low Overhead Tools
Able to operate on classroom computers
Able to train student “puckers” < 1/10th of lesson duration
LVC IA compliance and Federation capability create unnecessary overhead
Slide 5

21. Bite-Sized Games Pros Basic Facts Learn in <10 minutes
Works on any Windows-based system in gov inventory
Cheap, fast, good enough
Cons
Targeted abstractions limit flexibility and range of use (inherent tradeoff for focus & ease of use)
Basic Facts
Highly focused standalone sims
Targeted on specific courses
Extremely abstract to focus on key decisions
Individual/small group execution
Execution takes minutes
Examples: Future Force (force management and budgeting), Forward into Battle (RSOI)

22. Simulations at the Command & General Staff College
Commander-centric
Small group/individual execution
<1 hour to learn
More abstracted
Focus on decisions
Staff-centric
Section/Staff Group execution
<4 hours to learn
More detailed
Drives staff process and decisions
Bite-Sized Games
Concrete Experience drivers
5-10 minutes to learn
Individual/small group execution
Last minutes
The Long War
Future Force
RSOI
Fuel Distribution
Road March Game?
The Somme Game?
1930s Navy Game?
Joint Fires Game?
Leadership Games?
MCO
FSO
Command
Ops
Decisive Action
IW simulations turn out to be either MCO
with SASO flavor or SASO with MCO flavor
depending on the desired timescale
and primary interactions IW
Stability
Ops
UrbanSim
Elusive Victory
United States Army Combined Arms Center

23. Agenda – How To Deliver Experiential Education
Why Experiential Games in the Classroom
CGSC’s Vision
Concept of Development
Use Case Examples / Results of P/D/I
Demonstration of CGSC’s Simulation Tools
Decisive Action
Future Force (Bite Size Game)
Crucible of Command
United States Army Combined Arms Center

24. CGSC - Enabling Experiential Education in ILE Classrooms
Vision - A Battle in Every Classroom