Читать книгу Simulation and Wargaming - Группа авторов - Страница 4

1 Chapter 4Figure 1 A portfolio of methods and tools (all can be seen as M&S).Figure 2 An idealized system view of theory, modeling, and experimentation....Figure 3 Model‐test‐model paradigm for using human gaming.Figure 4 A precedent: the RAND strategy assessment system.Figure 5 A highly simplified pol‐mil model.Figure 6 Multilevel factor tree assessment of options.Figure 7 Features of even a “Simple” cognitive model considering pre‐emption...Figure 8 Modeling the military value of a pre‐emptive option.Figure 9 Postulated damage data from red attacks. Note: the notional values ...

2 Chapter 5Figure 1 Illustrating stage‐wise experimentation through a decision tree (He...Figure 2 Event development in an exercise consists of constant communication...Figure 3 A structure for transforming a CAE into an ACAW for experimentation...Figure 4 Incorporating design of experiments in JTLS (Hernandez et al. 2018)...Figure 5 Attributes of military experiment related to CAW.

3 Chapter 6Figure 1 Simple excerpt from a campaign planning concept (course of action –...Figure 2 MCA package class layers.Figure 3 Visualization Layer Classes.Figure 4 Graphical model of an analyzed conflict situation.Figure 5 The illustration of functions f, g (positive or negative influences...Figure 6 The sample analysis of conflict escalation.

4 Chapter 7Figure 1 Potential iterative process combining analytical processes.Figure 2 Objectives should drive analysis.Figure 3 Porter’s five forces diagram.Figure 4 Porter’s four corner’s analysis.Figure 5 Comparing common features across multiple wargames improves confide...Figure 6 Iterating across alternative futures increases confidence in result...Figure 7 Potential cycle of research.Figure 8 “Pyramid” of models.Figure 9 An assessment of a strategic option.Figure 10 TOWS strategic alternatives matrix.Figure 11 An assessment of a strategic option.Figure 12 Using strengths to maximize opportunities assessment.Figure 13 Using weaknesses to take advantage of opportunities assessment.Figure 14 Using strengths to minimize threats assessment.Figure 15 Using weakneses to avoid threats assessment.

5 Chapter 8Figure 8.1 Peter Perla’s Cycle of Research (Perla, Chapter 9).Figure 8.2 General categories of wargames (Pournelle, “Designing Wargames fo...Figure 8.3 The continuum of wargaming (Pournelle, “Designing Wargames for th...

6 Chapter 9Figure 1 The Military Decision Making Process (MDMP).Figure 2 A course of action (COA) sketch.Figure 3 A synchronization matrix.Figure 4 COA sketched in SWAP.

7 Chapter 10Figure 10.1 Joint publication (JP) 3–12: “5 D”cyber effects.Figure 10.2 Cyber Attack Network Simulation (CANS) architecture.Figure 10.3 Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) event sequence.Figure 10.4 AFSIM Warlock operator‐in‐the‐loop custom interface (sample).Figure 10.5 Digitizing the wargaming battlefield through simulation.Figure 10.6 Sample multi‐domain operations (MDO) scenario.

8 Chapter 11Figure 1 A solution to a test instance. (a) Map with two UAV trajectories (h...Figure 2 The playfield with its hex tiles. (a) Player view; dark tiles = no‐...

9 Chapter 12Figure 1 Cycle of Research.Figure 2 The wargaming abstraction spectrum.Figure 3 Virtual sailboat in SecondLife™.Figure 4 Athena, Greek Goddess of Wisdom.Figure 5 Elgin Marbles strategy game board.Figure 6 Subhunter gameboard.Figure 7 Virtual World operational wargaming toolkit.Figure 8 Game space fidelity across the live virtual constructive continuum....

10 Chapter 13Figure 1 Spectrum of visualizations.Figure 2 Example custom dashboard.Figure 3 I2V elicitation process.Figure 4 Development approach.Figure 5 Strategic planning example.Figure 6 Budget visualization example.Figure 7 Risk visualization example.Figure 8 SEAL at the MITRE Corporation McLean, VA Campus.Figure 9 SEAL A/V grid concept.Figure 10 Enterprise model integration with I2V.Figure 11 Visualization community of practice.

11 Chapter 14Figure 1 A simple context diagram of the MCO.Figure 2 Actor versus Metric.Figure 3 Knowledge of warfare.Figure 4 Old‐style “Waterfall” modeling diagram.Figure 5 Modified requirements and design stages.Figure 6 Ontology‐based M&S software design.Figure 7 Reducing actors Step 1.Figure 8 Reducing Actors Step 2.Figure 9 Complex stocks‐and‐flows relationship.Figure 10 Environment‐oriented stocks‐and‐flows class.Figure 11 Model design diagram.

12 Chapter 15Figure 15.1 Engagement behavior.Figure 15.2 Footprint analysis design interface.Figure 15.3 Parallel footprint scenario deployment.Figure 15.4 Operating area scenario deployment.Figure 15.5 Defended area scenario deployment.Figure 15.6 Air defense scenario.