Rex Brynen
McGill University
PAXsims
 How
useful is the terminology?
• hybrid war
• irregular war
• asymmetric warfare
• “grey zone”
• “ambiguous war”
 +ve: highlights
the broad spectrum and many
sub-types of armed conflict
 -ve: when was war ever NOT “hybrid”?
 Use
wargames to anticipate
and prepare for anticipated
irregular forms of conflict.
 Use wargames to promote
innovative thinking and
adaptability when
confronted with
unanticipated modes of
conflict.
 guerilla
warfare
 terrorism
 illicit arms supplies
 targeted killings
 political
subversion
 information
operations
 espionage
 forced
displacement
 humanitarian
suffering
 criminal
networks
 EW
and cyberwar
 OSINT
 Russia
(vs Ukraine)
 Russia (vs Georgia)
 AQ, ISIS (vs West)
 Hamas (vs Israel)
 Iran (vs GCC)
 etc.
 Allies
(vs Axis)
 UK (vs IRA)
 Canada (vs South
Africa)
 US, GCC (vs Syria)
 US (vs Nicaragua)
 Coalition (vs Libya)
 etc.
 Why
are you gaming? What is the question you
are trying to answer?
• everything else stems from that
“One thing a person cannot do, no matter
how rigorous his analysis or heroic his
imagination, is to draw up a list of the
things that would never occur to him.”
Thomas Schelling
 facilitation
techniques for encouraging
innovative thinking
• flatten hierarchy
• collect lots of ideas
• how do you reality test?
 Do
we devote enough time and attention
to identifying, developing, and
promoting game facilitation skills?
 Millennium
Challenge 2002
• Red develops innovative approaches (retired
Lt General Paul Van Riper)
• low-tech C3I
• swarm techniques, much of Blue’s fleet sunk
• White resets game, Van Riper walks out,
scandal erupts
 lessons
to be learned
 Rapid
Campaign Analysis
Toolset
• core rules with matrix-game like
system for innovation
 Massive
Multiplayer Online
War Game Leveraging the
Internet
• tweet-like ideas and gamification
 Traditionally
a wargame is developed and
playtested (and models may undergo V&V),
THEN it is deemed ready to develop insights.
 However, the development and playtest phase
may itself produce interesting findings and
ideas that need to be captured.
 Traditionally
a wargame is developed
• EITHER for training/education,
• OR for analysis.
 However, the
former might well generate
some of the latter.
• Can combining games decrease costs and increase use?
• Are trainees too stupid to generate useful insights?
 the megacities debate
 “Quick
and dirty” games with flexible
adjudication and avenues for innovation may
be especially valuable because they can be
played multiple times at a relatively low cost.
What is a reasonably
plausible case of “hybrid
warfare” that might face UK
defence planners in the
next 10 years?
 What irregular conflict
components would you
need to model in that case?

• How will model/game these?
• How will your game design
incorporate things you haven’t
thought of (but your players
have)?