1. Course of Action Analysis (MDMP)
Good morning/afternoon/evening.
My name is . I am from the US PACIFIC COMMAND Training & Exercises Directorate (J7). (I am representing the multinational planning augmentation team (MPAT) secretariat.)
I would like to say a few words about the MPAT program.
Multinational Planning Augmentation Team (MPAT)
13 Feb 08

2. Agenda
Understand how to wargame Courses of Action (COAs) and prepare for the COA comparison and selection

3. Steps in the process 1
Higher Commander’s Warning Order, Operation Plan or Order
Receipt of Mission 2 7
Orders
Development
Mission
Analysis
Commander’s Operation
Plan or Order 3
COA Approval 6
COA Dev
You are here
COA Comparison
COA Analysis 4 5

4. COA Analysis Inputs Process Outputs Wargamed COAs Commander’s
Updated Synch Matrix
List of critical events and decision points
Branches & Sequels identified
Updated Information Requirements
Commander’s
Designated COAs for wargaming
Wargaming guidance
Evaluation criteria
Synch matrix
Updated Facts & assumptions
Gather the tools
Refine staff estimates and estimates of supportability
Prepare COA wargame brief
Refine OPE products
List all friendly forces
List assumptions
List known critical events & decision points
Determine evaluation criteria
Select wargame method
Select method to record & display results
Conduct COA wargame

5. What is wargaming?
A simulation of the COA to gain understanding of friendly and enemy COAs or environment
Helps determine advantages and disadvantages of each COA
Helps to synchronize actions in time and space in each COA
Identifies refinements to each COA
Identifies branch plans for each COA

6. The Process Organize the team Prepare products for the wargame
Establish ground rules
Establish priorities for wargame
Conduct wargame using a consistent method and enemy COA or environment
Record results

7. This allows you to compare results under the same conditions
Consistency
Wargame each COA against the same enemy COA or environmental situation
Use the same wargaming technique with each COA
Use the same facilitator to wargame each COA
This allows you to compare results
under the same conditions

8. COA Sketch and Narrative
Each COA should have:
“cartoon” sketch of the planned actions
narrative describing the operation in chronological order
Type of operation
Main and supporting efforts
Scheme of Maneuver
Priority of Fire or Support (if applicable)
Reserve
Can describe in terms of deep, close, and rear or decisive, shaping, and supporting

9. Example #3
CTF conducts peace enforcement operations in support of the Boise Accords along the Tierra Del Oro (TDO)-Sonora border. Phase I CTF moves into AO and establishes bases in TDO to support Phase II. Phase II CTF establishes no-fly zone and zone of separation along the the border area. Phase III CTF conducts transition to UN PKF. Phase IV CTF redeploys through established bases in TDO.

10. Methods Box Avenue in Depth Belt List of Critical Events 2 1 3
Box – good for a small localized area or function. Uses less time (potentially). Could use for the “most critical of critical events”.
Avenue in Depth – good for testing the COA along a geographic corridor or the Main Effort line of advance
Belt – Good to test multiple actions that should occur in the same time frame or across a geographic front
List of Critical Events – The sequential list of events deemed to be the most important aspects of an operation. Failure in one event could cause failure in the entire operation. Different from avenue in depth in that it can touch on many different areas (functionally or geographically) across a given time span. Usually the method of choice for JTF operations.

11. Techniques
Action / Reaction / Counter Action
Synchronization Matrix

12. Action/Reaction/Counteraction
/CONSEQUENCE
ACTION
COUNTERACTION
Temporary solution becomes permanent
-Identify broken infrastructure to Min. of Trans.
-Follow up before dismantling military bridge
Replace wrecked
Bridge with
Military bridge
This is another format for sketch and note.
1. The “action-reaction/threat consequence-counteraction” technique is an excellent tool to force us to think through each action and enemy reaction/threat consequences, and how the COA may have to be modified. It notes advantages, weaknesses of, and necessary improvements to the course of action.
2. Normally, a C3 or C5 representative identifies the initial friendly action. The staff identifies the full range of operational actions that comprise the initial action.
3. A C2 rep helps identify the enemy reaction or for HA/DR the threat consequences.
4. The staff then determines the counteraction in all areas. The counteraction can begin the sequence again as a new action, or a separate new action can begin the sequence.
-Limit camp size
-Build camps near known population centers
-Explain short duration of camps to IDPs
Additional people move to IDP locations seeking food
Provide Aid to IDPs

13. Simplified Sync Matrix
ACTOR
EVENT
COMMENT
EVENT
COMMENT
EVENT
COMMENT
EVENT
COMMENT
MINT
MND
MEF
1. Here is an example of a simplified synchronization matrix.
2. Events can be numbered or given short names. Comments can include the following:
-- Identification as critical event
-- Possible branch ideas
-- Key weaknesses
-- Additional requirements such as forces or logistics
3. The forces shown under the Actor column are only an example. The matrix that we actually use should include any components or organizations that help define the event.
MFAIC

14. Lessons Learned
Identify events/locations and enemy capabilities first.
Component LNO involvement in COA dev will assist in better COA analysis + parallel planning
Analyze the end state and transitions.
Don’t get caught in detailed analysis of one aspect at the expense of the entire COA. Watch time constraint.
Wargame two levels down but do not turn this into a prescription for component planning.
During the COA analysis, the staff must not compare friendly COAs. The COAs should be analyzed against the enemy’s COAs or the environment.
Here are some of the lessons learned from recent exercises.
Identify key events, locations and enemy capabilities first.
Component LNOs can assist in providing expertise in force employment in COA dev to maintain feasibility. Continued involvement during Wargaming will assist in component supporting plans as well as enhance overall parallel and collaborative planning.
Analyze the end state and transitions. This is perhaps the most often overlooked step in course of action development, yet it is an essential part of the planning process.
Don’t get caught in detailed analysis and forget time constraints. Keep to “big picture”.
5. Our purpose during analysis is to identify COA advantages and disadvantages, and not prescribe specific component counteractions. This is where the staff estimates will come into play. Use them to assist in analyzing our COAs.
6. Finally, during the analysis process, we are not comparing COAs to each other, but rather we are analyzing them against the enemy’s COA, or most probable threat.

15. Smarter not Harder
The “facilitator” is the referee – mind the clock. Allocate time for each critical event and stick to your schedule!!
RECORD, RECORD, RECORD
Identify problems, fix them later
Come prepared
Worksheets pre filled out – as much as possible
“Draft” Synch matrix
Did you adhere to higher commander’s intent?
Know that the Wargame will modify your COA!!! Embrace the changes.
The selection of the facilitator is critical to a successful wargame. He is the referee. He needs to be impartial and focused on COMPLETING the wargame. Some time planning with regard to the wargame will go a long way towards success.
Figure out a recording method and write down the results AS YOU GO. The recorder must be somebody who understands the plan – not a job for a seaman apprentice.
Avoid the temptation to go down each rabbit hole as it opens up. Identify a problem with the plan. If the force laydown and the plan does not address a particular enemy reaction then WRITE IT DOWN and FIX IT LATER. FINISH THE WARGAME.
Come prepared. You should not do a wargame with blank sheets of paper. You can but it is about as fun as eating broken glass.
Ask yourself at the end of the wargame whether or not you met your commander’s intent. If not, you know that your COA needs some serious work. It may not be suitable.
No matter what happens, no COA survives unscathed. Don’t fall in love with the plan. Focus on mission accomplishment. Wargaming provides you with a better plan.

16. Discussion

17. Wargaming Guidance
Test the COA with 60,000 IDPs at Kampong Thom and 40,000 IDPs at Prey Veng.
Use conditions worse than the 2000 flood levels as the threat environment.
Use List of Critical Events as the method
COA 1 – Events are: RGC response to Kampong Thom (Main Effort), RGC response to Prey Veng, Arrival of ASEAN/MPAT support to Sihanoukville and Phnom Penh.
COA 2 – Events are: RGC response to Prey Veng (Main Effort), RGC response to Kampong Thom, Arrival of ASEAN/MPAT support to Phnom Penh.

18. Wargaming Guidance
If time allows, consider the impact on RGC response if the bridges on NH6 just south of the town of Kampong Thom have been destroyed by the floods, and the highway is flooded between Stoeng, Kampong Thom and Phnom Penh