Moreover, players, observers, and report readers frequently don’t understand the specifics of cyber or wargaming very well. Experts in cyberspace are often not experts in wargaming, and vice versa. The problem is that both cyberspace and wargaming are fraught with technical and infrastructural perplexities. Every person participating in and facilitating the game controls a piece of the game’s outcome. This is doubly so with respect to its cyber form. Wargaming places human players into complex and uncertain environments, and asks them to make choices in a steadily unfolding scenario of the designer’s choosing. For veteran wargame designers, managing the game toward its desired end state is a matter of balancing art and science. This is particularly because wargame designers are not omnipotent, they rely upon the cooperative spirit of experts across the broad range of military and civilian practitioners. Wargaming is seeing a resurgence in popularity among future warfighting thinkers. National security and defense professionals have long utilized wargames to better understand hypothetical conflict scenarios. With conflict in the cyber domain becoming a more prominent piece in wargames in the national security community, this issue brief seeks to identify the common pathologies, or potential pitfalls, of cyber wargaming. It argues that the inherent turbulence of the cyber domain and segmented knowledge about cyber weapons negatively affect three components of cyber wargaming: the scenario development, the data usability, and the cross-participant comprehensibility. The brief offers some initial solutions to these problems, but, ultimately, the purpose of identifying pathologies is to prepare designers to meet these challenges in each unique design.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |