The usual collection of brave fools and cynical experts. Role-playing elements in the Prussian Kriegsspiel.

by Jorit Wintjes

Introduction

As far as the general setup is concerned, few simulations as as powerful to depict the fog of war as the Prussian Kriegsspiel. With facilitators representing all levels of command subordinate to the participants, the latter often are confined to giving orders and hoping for the best, which is, of course entirely accurate and depicts both the isolation that comes with command and the crucial difference between command of units operating on the battlefield and the actual leadership of such units. As much as one might want to leave the command tent or bunker and join the fray, the Prussian Kriegsspiel simply does not allow its participants to follow in the footsteps of officers who, while displaying great personal bravery, effectively gave up their command function by joining the action. In doing so, the Kriegsspiel teaches an important lesson in that it confronts the participants with the necessity to trust subordinates to fulfil orders to the best of the latter’s capabilities.

Yet it is exactly at that point that the traditional Prussian Kriegsspiel introduces an artificiality that, while understandable, can potentially impair the learning experience quite seriously. While Kriegsspiel setup is designed to confront the participants with friction, this is usually understood as the friction caused by the imperfect processing of information by the participants. However, the latter’s decision-making process is not the only source of potential friction in the Prussian Kriegsspiel. A second important source is the work of the facilitators; orders can be misunderstood or simply mislaid, units can be moved into positions not intended by the participants, and general fatigue can result in facilitators working too slow, at least according to the perception of the participants. These issues are quite real, as anyone who has tried to run a Kriegsspiel in real-time over several hours can testify; and while facilitators always try to give their best to ensure a smooth running of the Kriegsspiel, there will invariably come a point when things begin to go sideways. Again, the feeling of suddenly losing control over what happens is probably far from alien to Kriegsspiel facilitators.

The facilitator conundrum - efficiency, impartiality, transparency and friction.

The impact such hickups in the facilitators’ performance can have on the overall learning experience are quite considerable. While participants are ready to accept the effects of friction caused by their own actions or the general fog of war, friction caused by mistakes made by the facilitators is generally seen as a “failure of the system”, and once this comes up in post-mortem discussions, claims that “we would have won but for the facilitators’ mistakes!” are usually not far away. This reaction is to a certain degree understandable, particularly in the context of a highly competitive simulation like the Prussian Kriegsspiel, and it goes without saying that a dysfunctional facilitating team will invariably result in an overall poor Kriegsspiel. As a result - and again, that is an experience any Kriegsspiel facilitator will share -, when facilitating a Prussian Kriegsspiel, one tries his level best to keep the Kriegsspiel going, taking great care not mix up, mislay or misinterpret orders, following the general rule that the better the facilitating team is working, the better the Kriegsspiel experience is for the participants.

There is a lot of truth in that statement. However, it is worth spending a few thoughts on the actual implications of certain tyoes of mistakes by the facilitators, and to remember who the facilitators actually represent and what they actually do. In the Prussian Kriegsspiel, the facilitators represent all levels of command below that of the participants; assuming the latter represent a divisional staff, then the facilitators represent brigade and battalion commanders, if the participants represent a battalion staff the facilitators will represent company commander etc. It is important to realize that the facilitators do not represent soldiers who simply follow commands; rather, they represent levels of command where decisions are made on the basis of orders received from higher up in the chain of command. These decisions are made by decision makers with different backgrounds and capabilities, and as a result the quality of their decisions - ie how far their decisions are actually conducive to executing the orders given by their superiors - will invariably vary. To put it simple, divisional orders may arrive at a brigade commander who is exceptionally competent, realizes what the overall objective is and acts on the orders in such a way that the intended result will be achieved - or they may arrive at a commander who is unimaginative and only of average competence and will in a crucial situation lack that bit of initiative that is required to achieve the results intended by the overall command. Looking at the military history of the past two centuries shows that not only the latter type of commander is far more likely to be found on the battlefield than the former, it also shows that unimaginative subordinates of average competence are not the worst one may have to face. Thus, orders may arrive at a brigade commander, who is a bumbling fool, or one who considers himself to be more competent than the divisional commander and therefore blatantly disregards his orders, or one who lies face down in a puddle of port, incapable of doing anything. For all these cases historical examples can be found, indeed, it is the actions of subordinates at least as much as the dedicision making process itself that is one of the main causes of friction in war.

Going back to the Kriegsspiel and its facilitators reveals a slightly uncomfortable fact: in trying to do their best, facilitators largely remove an impotant source of friction and fog-of-war; they essentially represent subordinates who are at their best and, crucially, always trying to execute any given order as quickly and as completely as possible. Which is, to put it bluntly, unrealistic. Of course, facilitators cannot arbitrarily disregard orders either, or vary in their performance, as that would raise questions about their impartiality, ultimately destroying the trust that is the basis for any facilitator-based simulation. Participants have to know what to expect from the facilitators, at least up to a certain point, and have to trust them not to favour one side or the other. A joke commonly included into pre-Kriegsspiel briefings is the remark that the facilitators usually don’t hate the participants unless they explicitly report so; it is all-important for successfully running a Prussian Kriegsspiel that all sides view facilitators as entirely neutral.

Introducing role-playing elements to the Kriegsspiel

Are facilitators therefore confined to represent ideal subordinates always trying their best? Well, yes and no. Obviously, facilitators will try hard to run a Kriegsspiel smoothly and without favouring one side or the other. But when it comes to the issue of representing subordinates, role-playing elements can come in handy to provide participants with at least some of the friction interaction with subordinates can cause, and do so in a more or less transparent manner raising no doubts about their impartiality. For the Meckel Kriegsspiel (for a brief description see here) the Conflict Simulation Group always includes very brief biographies of those decision makes the participiants would in reality interact with. Apart from the name information is provided on the military background, prior combat experience, capabilities or lack thereof, the individual character and his leadership abilities; the following two biographies from a recent Kriegsspiel can serve as examples:

Including biographical information in the briefing material serves two purposes: one, it allows the facilitators a certain latitude in how they execute orders. For example, someone described as an expert tactician might exploit an opportunity that in reality would be obvious to him but is not covered by his orders, while an officer known for being extremely aggressive but tactically average at best might launch a costly frontal attack against an entrenched enemy where a cautious officer might ask back. And two, it adds considerably to the workload of the participants, as they now have to consider the capabilities and limitations of their subordinates as well as the combat strength of their units when assigning missions - just as they would have to do in real life.

Advantages and Disadvantages

There are three advantages to this approach. First of all, it requires participants to closely read the briefing material, or things may develop in rather unplanned ways. To take but one example, in one of the Conflict Simulation Group’s recent Kriegsspiele, a team of participiants assigned a crucial defensive mission in a highly exposed position to a brigade commanded by someone characterized as a coward who was hated by his men. Unsurprisingly, already a weak enemy probing attack brought about a collapse of that position. The post-mortem revealed that the participants had skipped over the biographical information and just looked at the numbers. Their opponents had fared much better as they had assigned their most important mission to their most capable brigade commander, even going so far as beefing up his brigade at the expense of one led by a below average officer. Second, it has the potential to create considerable friction just as would be the case in real life and to divert the attention of the participants who not only have to follow the progress of their units but also interact with the egos of their subordinates who may be troublesome. In another recent Kriegsspiel an officer described as a well-connected know-all regularly sent complaints to his divisional commander, distracting participants in various situations where they would have rather focussed solely on the actual battle at hand. And finally, experience has shown that including biographical information considerably increases immersion for the participants as they can get the impression of interacting with actual individuals, provided, of course, the facilitators are up to impersonating the subordinates in question.

Which leads to the main drawback of including role-playing elements in a Prussian Kriegsspiel: it dramatically increases the workload of the facilitators, who in addition to just keeping track of movements and combat now have to play a role as well - or several, depending on the complexity of the scenario -, which may include not only acting according to the biography, but also writing reports in a specific style. To provide a slightly outlandish example, here are some reports of the French Foreign Legion officer mentioned above, taken from a recent Kriegsspiel run by the Conflict Simulation Group:

From 3FL: Zere is still a Kanone pointing at us. And Nein, ich will not lose my men in a second Camerone! Apropos Camerone. Will ze Zouaven irgendwann do samsing? Hammerman.

From 3FL: Alternativ, ze Zouaven COULD get zeir asses up and attack everywere BUT up ze Promenade… Hammerman.

From 3FFL: Zere are still enemies at ze Promenade and ze Zouaves are STILL not moving! How exactly shall ich link up wiz witch Marines? Ze British?!? Hammerman.

CPT Hammerman was clearly unhappy about both his chain of command and the performance of the unit he was to coordinate with, and expressed it in a heavily-accented voice.

The increase in workload caused by including role-playing elements in the Prussian Kriegsspiel extends to the preparation of the scenario; particularly in the case of larger scenarios, short biographies have to be provided in significant quantities, and there is the danger of including too many colorful characters, resulting in, as one regular participant once remarked it, a “collection of brave fools and cynical experts”. A last disadvantage deserves brief mention: in the case of historical scenarios sufficient information may be difficult to come by, particularly when it comes to lower-ranking officers.

Conclusion

However, despite the disadvantages outlined above the advantages of including role-playing elements significantly outweigh the disadvantages; they allow the facilitators to convey at least some of the friction arising from the different characters of subordinate commanders to the participants of a Kriegsspiel and help considerably in creating immersion which is crucial for the participants’ overall experience.

So for anyone facilitating a Prussian Kriegsspiel, incommodatng role-playing elements is well worth a try!