Manual War Gaming Methods and Joint Operation Planning

Introduction to Manual War Gaming

The American military frequently employs manual war gaming methods as key analytical techniques. War gaming itself provides situational models that can reveal ideal decision-making processes and illuminate the pros and cons of potential courses of action. Conflict situations are generally framed in scientific or mathematical terms, offering clues for troop maneuvering, combat situations, and taking into account situational or interpersonal variables. Despite tremendous and helpful advancements in technology, manual war gaming remains a core component of military preparedness. Manual war gaming methods enable the conceptualization of skills and resources possessed in light of the realities on the field. Moreover, manual war games provide a transparent, accessible means for visualization.

The three primary manual war gaming methods are deliberate timeline analysis, operational phasing, and critical events/sequence of essential tasks. Each of these three methods presents distinct advantages and disadvantages, and their use depends largely on situational constraints.

Three Manual War Gaming Methods

Deliberate timeline analysis provides a structured means of war gaming that is sequential and chronological in nature. Actions and considerations are evaluated on a moment-to-moment or day-to-day basis, allowing for a more thorough analysis than the other two war gaming methods. Deliberate timeline analysis allows for the visualization of action according to linear time, and is especially helpful when long-range planning is called for or when simultaneous action is warranted. It also takes into account the differential needs of commanders working on specific units. However, deliberate timeline analysis does not necessarily account for issues related to chance, and can be more time- and resource-intensive than the other two methods.

Operational phasing is a method of course of action (COA) analysis that identifies elements in each operation, including major points of control and constraint. The actions that may be required by each unit—according to its resources and functionalities—are taken into account. While operational phasing permits a complex analysis of the situation, it can be relatively narrow in focus compared to the other two methods.

Critical events/sequence of essential tasks provides one of the best methods of manual war gaming. Like the other two methods, it can offer a relatively fast and effective means of event analysis and effectively simulates variables. The initial causal factors may also be taken into account, as are resource capacities. Planners and strategists are able to envision their adaptation capabilities when faced with enemy surprises. Given the importance of adaptation and the inevitability of chance, war gamers are better prepared to analyze what tasks may be required in each situation.

The following table summarizes the key characteristics of each method:

Deliberate Timeline Analysis — What it does: sequencing, chronology, synchronous/asynchronous planning. Advantages: differential needs assessment; long-range or short-range tactical planning. Disadvantages: time-consuming.

Operational Phasing — What it does: provides a framework that includes the main actions or needs of each unit and their causal variables. Advantages: analysis of points of constraint; detailed phasing analysis; well-suited for complex situations. Disadvantages: narrow focus.

Critical Events/Sequence of Essential Tasks — What it does: highlights core issues and variables, causal issues and capacities, and illuminates strengths and weaknesses. Advantages: takes into account multiple variables; flexible. Disadvantages: few disadvantages; ideally enhanced by simultaneous use of other war gaming methods.

The Joint Operation Planning Process (JOPP)

The Joint Operation Planning Process (JOPP) includes several core steps, the understanding of which can enhance the effectiveness of the entire planning procedure. The steps are logical, grounded in core theories including game theory, and can tremendously aid in the process of analysis. The JOPP also illustrates how various parties and players can and should interact in order to address a problem or arrive at an ideal solution.

There are seven major steps in the JOPP: initiation, mission analysis, course of action (COA) development, COA analysis and war gaming, COA comparison, COA approval, and plan or order development. Generally these steps flow chronologically, but there may be overlap or elimination of a few steps depending on the nature of the situation. Although mistakes and challenges may arise at each of these junctions, staff may find COA approval the most difficult due to the real political and ideological constraints on the decision-making process.

Compared with the other steps of JOPP, COA approval is the stage at which collaboration and cooperation become most critical. The initiation step is relatively straightforward, as all parties share common concerns and goals. Mission analysis takes place in a brainstorming environment where analysis rarely evokes conflict or confrontation. Other steps require collaboration and cooperation, but none to the degree of the approval process. For example, at step two—COA development—planners take into account multiple inputs from commanders and receive guidance. However, approval and order development require actual decisions that can lead to conflict that had not yet arisen in the earlier stages of JOPP.

Step six, COA approval, draws on the commander's mission and vision, which could contrast with other simultaneous operations. For this reason, COA approval can be difficult for staff. Participants in the JOPP need to keep in mind how the process works, remain cognizant of the bigger picture, and be reminded of the overarching values and goals of the mission. Other steps will also give rise to questions and concerns. For instance, step three COA development involves detailed assessments of enemy strengths and weaknesses, and COA analysis during the war gaming step allows for refinement of the plan. Step four includes decision-making through comparison of options. However, the transitional phase—moving from analysis to approval—is especially difficult because it signals the end of the gaming stage and the beginning of implementation.

Conclusion

The JOPP is a thorough, systematic, and time-honored system of analysis involving several interdependent steps. Each step presents the planning team with particular challenges, but the approval process may be the most difficult due to the political and social variables that arise. During this stage, it is critical to remain aware of the overarching goals, values, and intent of the entire campaign. Similarly, the six phases of a military campaign—from initial situation development through the transfer of civil authority—represent a structured and disciplined approach to military operations, one that demands careful coordination, adaptability, and clear criteria for each transition and termination point.

References

Department of Military Strategy, Planning, and Operations (2008). U.S. Army War College. Retrieved from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army-usawc/campaign_planning_primer.pdf

Joint Operation Planning (2011, August). Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp5_0.pdf