Connections UK 2017: Day 3

The programme for the day was as follows:

• 8.45am – 09.00am: Arrivals and coffee.
• 9.00am – 10.15am: Plenary 4: Wargaming in education.
• 10.20am – 11.05am: Plenary 5: Simulating the intangible.
• 11.05am – 11.30am: Drinks break.
• 11.30am – 12.30pm: Plenary 6: Wargaming design and analysis.
• 12.30pm – 1.30pm: Lunch.
• 1.30pm – 1.45pm: Breakout introduction.
• 1.45pm – 3.00pm: Breakout.
• 3.00pm – 3.15pm: Drinks break.
• 3.15pm – 4.15pm: Breakout back briefs and discussion.
• 4.15pm – 4.30pm: Closing remarks.

Another relatively early start, but by 9.00am the lecture theatre was full of lively and enthusiastic attendees.

Session 4: Wargaming in Education
This session was chaired by Professor Phil Sabin (Department of War Studies, King's College, London), and the contributions were made by:

• Mauro Faina, who talked about the use of wargaming in an Italian school to give students a better understanding of certain historical events, to help expand their command of the English language, and to develop their self-confidence and leadership qualities. It was of particular interest to note that he used commercial games ('Wings of War' and Richard Borg's 'Command & Colors: Ancients') and that the use of the word 'war' when describing the activities undertaken could be problematic.

• Paul Howarth (Story Living Games), who explained how he used gaming in schools to enhance the ability of younger pupils to work together, to take responsibility, to understand human inter-action, and to communicate. It was interesting to note that he sees little or no gender-bias amongst the pupils he games with until they reached a certain age, at which point the split between boys and girls begins to grow. He also identified how games could meet some of the goals that schools are trying to achieve.

• David Manley (Naval Authority Group Ship Division) and Dr Nick Bradbeer (University College, London), who described the use of wargaming by warship design students to assess their ship designs
• Dr Richard Barbrook (Politics Department, University of Westminster), who described how the organisation 'Class Wargames' evolved from the work of Guy Debord and his 'The Game of War'

Session 5: Simulating the Intangible
This session was chaired by Dr Aggie Hirst (International Relations, King's College, London), and the contributions were made by:

• Colonel (rt) Jeff Appleget and Colonel (rt) Rob Burks (US Naval Postgraduate School), who expanded upon their work modelling the human terrain
• Anja van der Hulst (Netherlands Research Organisation, TNO) and Major Tom Mouat, who talked about the use of Matrix and Seminar Games as a means to try to model the intangible.

Session 6: Wargaming Design and Analysis
This session was chaired by Brian Train, and the contributions were made by:

• Jim Wallman (Past Perspectives) and Professor Rex Brynen (McGill University), who discussed the strengths and weaknesses of Megagames

• Erik Nordstrand (Swedish Defence Research Agency, FOI), who described the quite wide-spread use of wargaming in various elements of the Swedish armed forces, including military training courses
• Ivanka Barzashka (King's College, London), who examined the development of a strategic decision-making game about anti-missile defences

After lunch we returned to the lecture theatre to be briefed about the afternoon's 'Breakout' session. The topic ('The High North' (Arctic)) had been requested by the DCDC, and we were asked if it would be possible to concentrate out game design efforts on this or 'Failed Cities', 'Extreme Weather', 'Human Augmentation', 'Surveillance', 'Drones & Robots', and 'Corruption & Money'. Once briefed, we were split into groups and adjourned to our respective breakout rooms with our facilitators.

Breakout Session
I was very lucky in that I was allocated to the group being facilitated by Tom Mouat ...

... and that included Brian Train.

The group was split into three syndicates, each of which had to develop the basic outline of a game design. These would then be voted on, and the best would be submitted to the conference as a potential game to take place at Connections UK 2018. Our group came up with a game that examined the impact of a new northern route from Europe to Asia via the Russian Arctic on the indigenous tribes who currently occupy the area. Would they confederate to protect their existing, fragile culture ... or would they use the fact that they controlled the coastline to extract revenue (pilotage, piracy, tolls etc.) from users? Would the Russian Federation seek to stop them if they did, and what would the UN, NGOs and other governments do in these circumstances?

The end design was called 'Aurora Borealis: Fire and Light in the North', and it was selected by a narrow vote to be presented to the conference as a potential game for inclusion in the 2018 conference programme. (It is worth noting that the other two designs proposed by the other syndicates in our group were both worthy of going forward, and having to make a choice was somewhat invidious.)

The basic design for the syndicate's 'Aurora Borealis' game.

The breakout sessions ended in time for us to return to the lecture theatre to listen to the game designs that the other groups had set down, and after listening to them, I felt that 'Aurora Borealis' was one of the better and more adventurous designs that was proposed.

The conference then ended with a few closing remarks from Colin Marston and the other organisers, and the date for Connections UK 2018 were confirmed as being 4th to 6th September 2018.