<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marko A. Hofmann</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tobias LEHMANN</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">On Simulation-based Wargaming: Comparison of Two Different Methodological Approaches</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Information &amp; Security: An International Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Assumption-based Planning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Intuition-based Decision-making</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Operational Wargaming</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">simulation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tactical Wargaming</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wargaming</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">22</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">64-72</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Wargaming has been neglected within the German Forces for almost fifty years. Only within the last two years, two so-called &amp;ldquo;Leitfaden&amp;rdquo; (codes of best practice) have been developed. The first one, elaborated by members of the General Staff Academy, is intended for operational wargaming and fully rests on the tradi&amp;shy;tional analytical comparison of different Courses of Action (CoA). Own and enemy CoAs are played against each other on the foundation of a game between two staff groups. Within this paradigm, simulations are used as evaluation tools. The rea&amp;shy;soning is based on the premise that simulation systems are valid representations of reality. A successful simulation run is considered a corroboration of a particular course of action. The second &amp;ldquo;Leitfaden,&amp;rdquo; developed at the University of the Fed&amp;shy;eral Armed Forces, is intended for so-called &amp;ldquo;tactical wargaming.&amp;rdquo; The two central concepts of this approach are intuition-based decision-making and assumption-based planning. The core rationale of this method is that all military planning and decision making is liable to what is called the &amp;ldquo;fog of war.&amp;rdquo; The irresolvable unpre&amp;shy;dictability of future developments in all military operations is considered an insur&amp;shy;mountable obstacle to all analytical approaches. This approach rests on the claim that pattern recognition and mental simulation of these patterns are the most valu&amp;shy;able cognitive functions of expert decision makers. Within this paradigm, simula&amp;shy;tions are used to support creativity, enhance imagination and trigger self-critical thinking. Simulation systems of complex systems are not necessarily regarded to be valid. This article discusses the pros and cons of the two approaches (&amp;ldquo;Leitfaden&amp;rdquo;) from both theoretical and practical perspective.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record></records></xml>