November 14, 2024

Keeping Xi and the Boom Out in Crisis in Korea

RockyMountainNavy, 14 August 2024

The two micro-wargames in Crisis in Korea offer commercial hobby wargames a unique insight into the world of analytic wargames. Unlike many commercial hobby wargames where combat or area control is figuratively (and literally) the name of the game, success in each micro-game of Crisis in Korea is measured by how well each side meets a policy goal framed in terms of the security and usage of nuclear weapons and third party intervention, or TPI.

You’re not going to take it

Loose Nukes is a micro-wargame exploring the challenges of tracking and securing nuclear devices scattered across North Korea. The game starts not with a North-South conflagration across the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) but with internal strife in North Korea. In Loose Nukes the civil strife in North Korea is assumed to place the security of nuclear items in doubt. Thus, both the US-ROK alliance and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) intervene in a contingency where both independently—and competitively—race to assure the safety of the DPRK1 nuclear stockpile. Of course, the only “safe” place for a nuclear device is your friendly side, eh? The assumption behind the game (and the victory conditions) is that the side securing the most nukes will have influence over the DPRK in the future and thus shape the next generation of that country in a manner suitable to the winning side. (Loose Nukes, p. 7)

IMG 5896
Loose Nukes setup…in under a minute (photo by RMN)

 

In Loose Nukes the PRC is clearly an intervening third-party player, but in an interesting wargame design twist they assume a major role of one side facing off in a race game against the US-ROK alliance. The DPRK—usually the “other side” in so many wargames—is represented in Loose Nukes as a “non-player character” which acts as a spoiler to the two player sides. As the designer’s notes state:

To win this game, players must prioritize and strategically apply limited resources and time. This broadly resembles the real-world problems and dilemmas that the countries will face should the DPRK suddenly descend into civil war. Players must make trade-offs and allocate resources efficiently to secure the most nuclear assets, while preventing the rebel DPRK faction from gaining control over the national nuclear enterprise. Each side has its advantages. The PRC boasts the benefits of proximity to several sites, while the US-ROK alliance benefits from a larger capacity of units. (Loose Nukes, p. 8)

 

No Xi or boom

KTO Crisis is in many ways a more conventional wargame with the standard two sides of the US-ROK alliance facing off against the DPRK. The objective of the game is to accumulate the most victory points, scored by possession of Capital nodes (Seoul or Pyongyang) and Peninsula nodes (other key locations) (KTO Crisis, p. 2). There is a way to automatically lose the game; every time the DPRK player uses a nuclear weapon a d6 is rolled and if the result is 4+ the game immediately ends with BOTH players losing (KTO Crisis, p. 4).

IMG 5897
Crisis or boom? You decide in KTO Crisis (photo by RMN)

 

Certain nodes on the map board for KTO Crisis have red die icons next to them. If a US-ROK Alliance Army stack enters one of these nodes, a d6 is rolled and compared to the icon value. If the d6 roll is equal to or greater than the icon value the PRC intervenes in the conflict…as a neutral party. Every time the PRC intervenes there are two possible PRC actions:

  1. “Place 2 DPRK Armies in the DPRK capital node. Roll 2d6 and eliminate a ROK Alliance Army in the triggering node for each roll of 5+.”
  2. “Place 4 PRC Armies (black) on both nodes with the Chinese flag symbol” (KTO Crisis, p. 5).

The PRC Intervention rules goes on to state, “At the end of the turn, these Armies fight any opposing Armies in their node – prioritizing the ROK Alliance first then DPRK if there are no ROK Alliance Armies.” The rule ends by noting, “The PRC Armies are neutral and not controlled by any player” (KTO Crisis, p. 5).

The designer’s notes help explain the design intent behind KTO Crisis, especially as it pertains to TPI:

KTO Crisis is a micro-wargame designed to highlight the fundamental challenges associated with any potential conflict on the Korean Peninsula. Within the wargame, the players must secure territory with finite armies, while avoiding nuclear escalation and third-party intervention. The gameplay emphasizes a precarious balance between securing a favorable end state, while managing strategic risk. (KTO Crisis, p. 5)

 

Why nukes and TPI?

Some gamers out there may look at Loose Nukes and KTO Crisis and question just how much of the important issues of nuclear weapons or TPI can be communicated in Crisis in Korea with its limited form factor. After all, a double-sided 8.5″ x 11″ map, 89 counters, and two digest-sized eight-page rule books can only deliver the most simple of models, right? Designer Sebastian Bae shares the design intent of these micro-wargames in the designer’s note for KTO Crisis where they write:

KTO Crisis also seeks to familiarize players with the utility and limitations of wargames. Wargames must scope their focus and abstract reality into simplified models. Wargames excel in highlighting the dynamic interaction between opposing minds, each adapting to one another’s actions. Thus, the result is less important than the process of acting, reacting, and adapting against an active opponent. Wargames do not predict the future, but help players understand complex issues. (KTO Crisis, p. 7)

 

“…the result is less important…”

More than a few commercial hobby wargamers will likely look at Bae’s statement that, “the result is less important” and declare him a gaming heretic. After all, is it not the goal of any game—even a wargame—to win? It is important to recognize, however, that Bae as a wargame practitioner designs games from a world view where winning is not the primary objective of a wargame.

In a 2023 report by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) that studied wargaming in the Department of Defense, the following definition of a wargame was presented: “Wargames—representations of conflict in which the game’s players make decisions and respond to the consequences of those decisions—are used widely across the Department of Defense (DOD) to provide insights on challenges and to inform decisions.” Further, the report stated, “Wargames are an analytic method that can provide valuable insights to complex problems and inform decisions about warfighting concepts, capabilities, and plans” (GAO, Defense Analysis: Additional Actions Could Enhance DOD’s Wargaming Efforts, GAO-23-105351, 24 Apr 2023. Accessed 21 Jul 2024 at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105351). The emphasis on decisions and insights is what a wargame practitioner focuses on, which commercial hobby wargamers can now likewise experience playing Crisis in Korea.

Screenshot 2024 08 03 at 8.56.40 AM
GAO, Defense Analysis: Additional Actions Could Enhance DOD’s Wargaming Efforts, GAO-23-105351, 2024 at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105351

 

Analytic wargaming for all

Crisis in Korea is, at heart, an analytic wargame. In their book The Craft of Wargaming: A Detailed Planning Guide for Defense Planners and Analysts, authors Col. Jeff Appleget, USA (Ret.), Col. Robert Burks, USA (Ret.), and Fred Cameron explain that:

The purpose of an analytical wargame is not to answer any specific question with a point solution. Analytical wargaming really begins to shine when it is used as a method for discovering the “topography of complex, wicked problems that involve human cognitive competitions in complex environments.” These wargames help planners and analysts gain insights into the true nature of the problem, focus their research questions, and, in many cases, support establishing hypotheses for additional research. (Appleget, et. al, p. 20)

Analytic wargames also differ from commercial hobby wargames, or what Appleget and team call “entertainment-focused wargames,” which are “intended for the entertainment or enjoyment of players” (Appleget, et. al, p. 15). In simple terms, analytic wargames are played to inform a topic whereas entertainment-focused wargames are played for fun. Rarely are the two genres of wargaming mixed like in Crisis in Korea.

IMG 5898
Appleget, J., Col. USA (Ret.), Col. Robert Burks, USA (Ret.), and Fred Cameron (2020) The Craft of Wargaming: A Detailed Planning Guide for Defense Planners and Analysts. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press.

 

As Bae notes, Loose Nukes and KTO Crisis both “abstract reality into simplified models.” In the designer’s notes for KTO Crisis they explain a bit more how that simplification relates to complexity:

Admittedly, KTO Crisis significantly simplifies a wide range of complex problem sets—such as conventional military operations, chemical and biological weapons, nuclear escalation, and strategic risk calculus. For instance, the red dice associated with specific nodes imperfectly represents the increasing risk of third-party intervention. Consider the historical precedent of PRC intervention in the Korean War in the 1950s. However, full-blown PRC intervention can be as dangerous and disadvantageous to the DPRK as it is to the ROK Alliance. Similarly, the ‘nuclear risk’ die roll associated with DPRK nuclear use underlines the real possibility for strategic nuclear escalation – particularly when the regime feels desperate and cornered (KTO Crisis, p. 5)

The micro-games in Crisis in Korea explore complex issues using a ruthlessly simplified model. While the depth of any “analysis” from playing Crisis in Korea is likewise simplified, the fact remains these simple models are nonetheless playable…and even entertaining.

 

Wicked simplicity

The two micro-wargames in Crisis in Korea offer commercial hobby wargamers insight into complex policy issues through the lens of a simplified model presented in an analytic wargame.
In Loose Nukes the goal is to avoid a nuclear catastrophe and secure the most nuclear materials in order to “inevitably benefit from an enhanced position of influence over the Korean Peninsula after the turmoil ends” (Loose Nukes, p. 7).
In KTO Crisis the goal superficially looks like a common wargame where one must secure territory but the more important challenge is to do so while avoiding nuclear war and full-blown intervention by the PRC.

Perhaps the greatest achievement, however, of Crisis in Korea is that it brings analytic and entertainment-focused wargaming together in a small, easy-to-learn and quick-to-play format that both informs and is fun to play.

IMG 5875

 


Thank you for visiting The Armchair Dragoons and mounting up with the Regiment of Strategy Gaming.
You also can find our regiment’s social media on MastodonFacebook, Twitter, YouTube, and even Threads.  (We have an Instagram page and it’s really just a placeholder & redirect to our articles.)
You can support The Armchair Dragoons through our Patreon, also, and find us at a variety of conventions and other events.
Feel free to talk back to us either in our discussion forum, or in the comments below.

Footnotes

  1. Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea

Tell us what you think!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: