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

Future Force Demo United States Army Combined Arms Center

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

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

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

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

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 2015 ------------------

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 Email AAR file as homework to instructor Smart Tactics capabilities in development Cons Pending pilot assessment Email TLP Execute AAR Homework Class

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

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 Email 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 15-120 min duration United States Army Combined Arms Center

Enabling Experiential Education in CGSC Classrooms A Battle in Every Classroom

Back up slides

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 Email 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 15-120 min duration United States Army Combined Arms Center

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 Email AAR file as homework to instructor Smart Tactics capabilities in development Cons ***** Email TLP Execute AAR Homework Class Insert another screen shot Of a town DEMO

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

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

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

W330 Employ the BCT TLO ELO Key Content Assessment 701-AOW-2303 Action: Employ BCTs in Full spectrum operations. 701-AOW-2303-1 Action: Develop BCT Operations Order 701-AOW-2303-2 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%

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

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

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 15-120 minutes Examples: Future Force (force management and budgeting), Forward into Battle (RSOI)

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 15-120 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

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

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