请选择 进入手机版 | 继续访问电脑版
设为首页收藏本站

汉山

 找回密码
 立即注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

搜索
热搜: 活动 交友 discuz
查看: 1340|回复: 7

标标巨献:兵棋推演系统史话(图文并茂)

[复制链接]

2043

主题

4920

帖子

3万

积分

版主

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

积分
31640
发表于 2016-5-7 12:52:47 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
原创翻译、配图:标标

翻译者的话:

近日里发生的Alpha Go完胜围棋世界冠军李世石事件标志着围棋等模拟战争的兵棋推演游戏已经进入了人工智能时代,战争博弈进入了人工智能时代,这时来译介这篇介绍兵棋推演类战争游戏史话的长文对于论坛里想成为智库型军迷的网友别有意义。其中包含的一些基本原则对于理解当今的热点,如朝鲜半岛问题、ISIS问题、俄罗斯重返欧洲与中东等西方传统势力范围等均有裨益。

阅读本文之前,我们来看一则震撼的军事科技报道。

解放军兵棋系统总师:美军攻伊准确推演震撼中国

导演战争的“魔术师”——记国防大学战略战役兵棋系统总设计师胡晓峰少将

当今世界,“让战斗首先在计算机上打响”成为各国军队的共识。计算机兵棋推演,以其反映战争对抗性和不确定性的特点,创造了一个逼真的战略战役指挥训练环境——

■许森 罗金沐 张强

这是一场没有硝烟的演习——

演习大厅里,号令声此起彼伏,指挥着前方部队;大屏幕上,陆海空联合作战,沉着迎击来犯敌人;计算机上,各要素实时显现,兵力调动紧张有序……演习结束,某师师长擦擦头上的汗,连说“过瘾”,“这次演习极大地发挥了指战员的主观能动性,使演习不再像‘演戏’,这样的训练真解渴!”

支撑演习的是国防大学信息作战与指挥训练教研部副主任、博士生导师胡晓峰少将所带团队研发的战略战役兵棋系统。

当今世界,“让战斗首先在计算机上打响”成为各国军队的共识。计算机兵棋推演,以其反映战争对抗性和不确定性的特点,创造了一个逼真的战略战役指挥训练环境,被誉为导演战争的“魔术师”。胡晓峰,就是这么一位赋予魔术师“魔法”的人。

让指挥官不再“纸上谈兵”

身材魁梧、走路快、说话快,一副军人派头。若不是鼻梁上架着的眼镜,记者险些把胡晓峰当作一位指挥千军万马的将军。实际上,他也确实指挥着“千军万马”,只不过这些“兵马”都是计算机模拟出来的,是具有真实数据支撑的代码。

1997年,在国防科技大学研究信息系统和多媒体技术的胡晓峰被一纸调令调到国防大学。过去的20年里,他所从事的一切工作都与计算机有关。然而,这纸调令让他的人生彻底发生了转变。由于战役指挥训练模拟系统研发的需要,当时已在军内外信息系统界小有名气的胡晓峰被上级看中,希望他能去国防大学主持这项研究。



常言道,人过三十不学艺,而胡晓峰当时已经40岁。选择去国防大学,就意味着放弃自己的学术专长,放弃长期的研究积累,放弃稳妥的发展前景,一切从头开始。面对“半路出家”的抉择,他一度很矛盾,但最终还是服从上级命令,投身到这次全新创业中去。

胡晓峰是恢复高考后的第一批军校大学生,先是学数学,大三时成为钱学森所创立的国防科技大学系统工程与数学系的首批30名学员之一。也正因如此,系统工程的理念从一开始就被应用到这套系统的研发中。

几年的艰苦攻关,胡晓峰带领团队研发了国内规模最大的诸军兵种联合作战“砺剑”系列战役指挥训练模拟系统。随后,这套系统在某军区进行的战区级别网上战役演习中大显身手,而这是全军的第一次,受到参演指战员的高度评价。

小试牛刀后,胡晓峰没有闲着。他知道,战略演习一直是发达国家最注重的演习,也是进行战略决策的重要依据,而战争模拟不可能没有战略模拟。然而长期以来,由于缺乏相应技术手段,我军一直没有开展战略演习,战略演习一度是“纸上谈兵”,严重制约了战略训练水平的提高。

可是战略涉及到政治、经济、军事等一系列问题,计算机怎么模拟?很多人想不通,就连有些领导也觉得这是“天方夜谭”,甚至当众提出批评。回到办公室,胡晓峰满含委屈,可是责任心逼着他重新站了起来,“我一定要把系统做好!”

2002年,胡晓峰带领团队在危机预测预警系统研究中,试图找到“武力打击与民意升降”关系的经验公式,但却碰了壁。他意识到,战略系统与一般的仿真系统最大的不同是采用的方法论不同。战争系统是复杂系统,不能用传统的还原论和拉普拉斯决定论的方法去研究,而必须从复杂系统论的角度进行研究,这就必须从研究战争的基础科学理论入手。随后,他提出了“作战实验体系”和“战争工程:走向信息时代的战争方法学”等原创性观点和理论,引起学术界的强烈反响。

让官兵从实验室中学习战争

一声令下,图文声并茂的危机情况显示在演练学员眼前。学员们分别充当各方政治、外交、军事、经济等领导机构中的角色,虚拟新闻连续生成,综合态势瞬息万变,文电信息接踵而至,在一片紧张气氛中,学员们沉着应对,激烈地研讨,充分利用系统快速决策……

这是2006年国防大学实施国内首次战略对抗演习时的场景。

这次演习应用的,就是胡晓峰带领团队用复杂系统论方法成功研制的“决胜”系列战略模拟系统。同时,他们还创建了“沉浸式”多方对抗战略演习模式,将钱学森的“综合集成研讨厅”思想在战略决策训练中进行了成功实践。截至2012年,他们共组织战略对抗演习20余次,累计近千名省部级、正军职以上高级干部和知名专家参加,完成国家重大战略问题研究性推演,并向中央上报多份战略咨询报告。



随后,在上级机关的支持下,胡晓峰团队建成了一个具有战争高层模拟特征,满足战略决策模拟、危机模拟、诸军兵种联合作战模拟、武器装备体系对抗模拟需要的,我军第一个战争模拟实验室。最终,“战争模拟实验室工程”项目获得国家科技进步奖二等奖、军队科技进步奖一等奖等奖项。

在新军事变革的今天,“从实验室中学习战争”、“从未来中学习战争”成为时代发展的潮流。

曾经,我军各个军兵种,乃至各个军事院校的模拟训练实验室都在各自为政,“村村点火,户户冒烟”,严重制约了全军联合信息化指挥训练。1999年,胡晓峰向总部建议,把各个实验室联合起来,开发统一的训练信息系统,受到上级肯定。随后,他受总参谋部委托担任“某信息化训练工程”总师组长和全军实验室建设专家组长。

几年时间里,他提出训练工程“始于技术、成于管理”的思想,创新全军“作战(联合)实验室”概念,设计了按军兵种专业分工来构建“训练工程标准、网络化资源服务和基础平台建设”三位一体的作战实验管理体系,规划了全军联合训练工程建设路线图,建成了覆盖全军的作战训练实验室群和第一个全军网上演习导控中心。在此期间,他还组织完成了我军第一个大型军事概念模型体系工程,仅文本就有15卷23册1400万字,使我国成为世界上能够全面完成大规模军事概念建模工程的少数几个国家之一。

2007年,全军信息化训练建设工程——“某信息化训练工程”项目,再次获得国家科技进步奖二等奖、军队科技进步奖一等奖。

打造“推演战争”的先进平台

10年后,胡晓峰依然记得那个震撼心灵的战例——

一场激烈的“战争”,在卡塔尔多哈郊外大漠中悄然展开。然而,这并不是一场真枪实弹的较量,而是美军利用兵棋系统举行的“内窥03”演习,彩排“打伊倒萨”作战预案。尤为让人震撼的是,这次演习的最终结果和几个月后美军进攻伊拉克,并取得胜利的方式和结果几乎完全一致!

与此同时,我军之前所研发的模拟训练系统由于考虑人的主观能动作用较少以及对战争经验总结不够,经常出现可信度不高和战训不一致等问题。

2007年,经军委总部批准,战略战役兵棋系统建设工程正式启动,胡晓峰任总设计师。

创新的最大敌人往往是自己。一连几天,胡晓峰彻夜未眠,反复思考应采用何种技术路线,并一次次将总体方案推倒重来。经过慎重考虑,他拿定主意,“从拿破仑军队横扫欧洲,到毛泽东四渡赤水出神入化,都体现了军事家高超的指挥艺术。因此,战争模拟必须突出人的核心作用,研发兵棋系统决不能在原有系统上重复开发,必须走出一条新的道路出来!”

50岁,正是“知天命”之年,胡晓峰又开始了全新的创业!

研发计算机兵棋系统,缺经验、缺数据,现有资料少到只有一本书和几份报告。对此,很多人并不看好,“兵棋太难了,你们搞不出什么新东西”。一些团队成员来后不久就中途退出,有的新调入人员明确表示不想到与兵棋有关的教研室。

面对种种质疑,胡晓峰没有退缩。

为使兵棋系统尽快推向部队,他带着大家和部队指挥员一起反复摸索,白天试推试演,晚上加班加点修改程序。从兵棋立项到投入运用,他们先后经历了十多个军事设计与技术实现的大关,哪一关过不去,系统都可能夭折。而每一个大关,他们都经历了无数次失败,一遍遍测试、修正、反复,甚至全部推倒重来。

在他的带领下,团队先后完成几百类军事规则模型的设计,研制了几十个战略战役兵棋演习分系统,编写代码上千万行,完成了上千万条作战数据的搜集整理,创造了多种新型教学训练演习模式,初步构建起了我军兵棋理论、技术和运用体系,开创了我军作战训练模拟的崭新局面。最终,“战略战役兵棋系统及配套设施建设”通过评审鉴定,专家给予高度评价。




胡晓峰(后排左二)与团队在演习大厅(科学报 段文君摄)




2043

主题

4920

帖子

3万

积分

版主

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

积分
31640
 楼主| 发表于 2016-5-7 12:55:58 | 显示全部楼层
Let’s Play War
兵棋系统--让我们来玩战争游戏
Could war games replace the real thing?
战争游戏能够取代现实的战争吗?
BY JONATHON KEATS
ILLUSTRATION BY BRIAN STAUFFER
SEPTEMBER 24, 2015
作者Jonathon Keats是一位艺术家,实证哲学家,居住在三藩市及意大利北部。他写了六本书,获得过2010年美国图书馆联合会的Sophie Brody奖章。他也在伯克利美术馆以及Wellcome 基金会展出他的艺术作品。本文缩写源自“你属于宇宙:巴克敏斯特·富勒和未来,将于2016年四月由牛津大学出版社出



In the spring of 1964, as fighting escalated in Vietnam, several dozen Americans gathered to play a game. They were some of the most powerful men in Washington: the director of Central Intelligence, the Army chief of staff, the national security advisor, and the head of the Strategic Air Command. Senior officials from the State Department and the Navy were also on hand.
1964年春天,正值越南冲突不断升级中,一群美国人均在一起玩了个游戏。他们都是华盛顿最有权势的男人:中情局CIA的头儿,陆军总司令,总统国家安全事务助理,以及空军战略司令部的头儿,美国国务院以及海军部的高级官员们也在此列。
Players were divided into two teams, red and blue, representing the Cold War superpowers. The teams operated out of separate rooms in the Pentagon, role-playing confrontation in Southeast Asia, simulated in a neutral command center. Receiving each team’s orders, the command center’s experts modeled the blue and red moves, and issued mock intelligence reports in response. Reports reflected the evolving conflict, but the intelligence was intentionally distorted to replicate the fog of war. After days of playing out different scenarios, the war gamers reached the conclusion that civilians in the United States and the rest of the world would vocally protest an American bombing offensive.
玩家们分成两队,红队和蓝队,代表冷战中的两个超级大国(美国和苏联)。两队人马在五角大楼互相隔离的房间内作业,面向东南亚危机进行角色扮演,模拟一个中立的指挥中心。每当接到各队的指令,指挥中心的专家们就移动标志性的蓝棋和红棋,并且发布相应的模拟军情报告。报告反映的是冲突的演进,但情报是加以扭曲的,以复原出雾里看花的战争氛围。经过数天里不同的情境模拟(沙盘推演),战争玩家们得出结论,美国公民们以及其他国家将会强烈抗议美国的干涉性轰炸。

The need to anticipate the dynamics of conflict increased as the U.S. Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in August of 1964, effectively declaring war on North Vietnam. So another war game was played.1 The objective was to play out the situation in Southeast Asia six months in the future. After ruling out an American nuclear attack, the teams role-played their way to a quagmire, in which the North Vietnamese countered every U.S. move in spite of lives lost and ruined infrastructure. The games forecast political crisis in the U.S., with no plausible path to American military victory. For the second time in a year, war games proved prescient, and also futile, as the government insisted on letting tragedy play out for real.
当1964年8月美国国会通过了“北部湾事件决议”后,实际上已对北越宣战,则更加迫切需要能够预估冲突的动态趋势。因此又玩开了另一个战争游戏。此次的目标旨在推演出未来6个月的东南亚局势。在排除美国进行核打击的情形后,角色扮演的各队都陷入了泥潭,北越(越共)士兵们与美国军人们到处打遭遇战,不惜牺牲生命,摧毁基础设施。这些推演预言了美国的政治危机,并没有合理的路径将美军引向胜利。这是战争推演游戏一年中第二次证出先见之明,但也是徒劳无用的,因为政府坚持让现实的悲剧发生了。

Buckminster Fuller foresaw the consequences of American intervention in Vietnam without the help of a military simulation. A professional visionary, Fuller was a self-made engineer-architect-inventor whose interests spanned from mathematics to philosophy. Born in Massachusetts in 1895, Fuller devoted his life to making “the world work for 100 percent of humanity, in the shortest possible time, through spontaneous cooperation, without ecological offense or the disadvantage of anyone.”
巴克敏斯特·富勒在即使没有军事情景模拟推演游戏系统的辅助情形下依然预见到了美国在越南进行干预的后果。他是一位职业梦想家,一位自学成才的工程师-建筑师-发明家,他的兴趣涵盖从数学到哲学的广大领域。他于1895年生于麻省(马赛诸塞州),毕生致力于:“让世界以百分之百符合人性地运转,在尽可能短的时间内,通过自发合作实现,并且应该是对于生态无侵害,对于他人无害处的。”
译者注释:巴克敏斯特·富勒(Richard Buckminster Fuller,1895年7月12日-1983年7月1日),自学成才的美国哲学家、建筑师及发明家 。他被称为无害的怪物,与爱迪生、特斯拉等著名发明家齐名。富勒发表超过30本书,发明和普及的词汇,他还开发了众多的发明,主要是建筑设计,最著名的是在球型屋顶。半个世纪以前富勒就设计了一天能造好的“超轻大厦”、能潜水也能飞的汽车、拯救城市的“金刚罩”……他在1967年蒙特利尔世博会上把美国馆变成富勒球,使得轻质圆形穹顶今天风靡世界,他提倡的低碳概念启发了科学家并最终获得诺贝尔奖-“富勒球”中蕴含的哲学理念的影响力则超越了建筑领域。富勒用六边形和少量五边形创造出的“宇宙中最有效率”的造型让三位化学家深受启发,让他们假定含有60个碳原子的簇“C60”包含有12个五边形和20个六边形,每个角上有一个碳原子,这样的碳簇球与足球的形状相同。他们称这样的新碳球C60为“巴克敏斯特富勒烯”。随后,三位化学家从这个假设入手进行论证和实验,最终凭借相关发现获得了1996年的诺贝尔化学奖。。富勒烯也是其形状类似富勒的球型屋顶而得名。 富勒博士是唯一被哈佛大学退学两次的学生,他更被后世敬授了几十种荣誉头衔,诸如工程师、科学家、哲学家、销售者、实践者、投资者、先知、诗人等。确实他在许多领域里都扮演了人类先驱的角色,同时获颁四十八个荣誉博士学位证书,亦拥有二十六项非常重要的世界专利与发明。
他的头很大,身高不到1.6米,两条腿还不一样长。这令他感到很忧郁:“我是大自然的畸形现象,是个与社会格格不入的人。”他拒绝接受别人的思想和规则,他的家族是一个古老的家族,从1760年以来,这个家族所有的男丁都是哈佛大学毕业的。富勒也不例外地进入了哈佛大学,但是刚刚读了半年就因为偷拿学费去花天酒地而被除了名。那年秋季,富勒再次注册入学,不久之后,第二次遭到除名,他认为他的时间用于有趣的事物比学习更好。他
自我要求除非能对所说的每一句话负责,否则不再开口,以此强逼自己回到能够了解自己想法的原点。他不愿浪费一分一秒的时间,连睡眠习惯都变得像某些动物一样,每隔六小时睡半小时,致力于思考。他不再满足于别人的看法、信条和理论,更誓言要应用自己的发明经验,解决地球上每个人生活上的问题。
巴克敏斯特.富勒说:人类能够通过有计划地、聪明地使用自然资源来永远地满足人类自己的食和住。他这样的想法使得他人怀疑富勒是外星人。
富勒于1983年在他87岁时去逝,在他漫长的一生中,他论述了关于技术与人类生存的思想。他称这种思想为“dymaxion”(最大限度利用能源的,以最少结构提供最大强度的),这个词来源于三个单词:Dynamic,意思是动力,Maximum,意思是最多、最大,还有ion,是一个原子或是一个电极中一组原子。


富勒博士的三条法则:

法则一:你服务的人越多,你的效能就会越大!也就是说,一个人的价值,在于你服务的人数。

法则二:就是法则本身是透过决定来呈现的。换言之,如果法则不转化成行动力,是无法让他人感受到的。

法则三:一本为复数,且最低为二。世间万物,都有它的两面性。当一件事情你无法理解它的时候,不是它不好,只是因为你无法去理解它。所以,任何一件事情的发生都代表另外一件事在它的背后!


Courtesy of the Estate of R. Buckminster Fuller
向巴克敏斯特.富勒的遗产致敬
Keats_BR-1-BUCKY
GAMING PEACE: Buckminister Fuller, at the head of the table, leads a seminar on his World Game in New York City in 1969. His Dymaxion map on the wall behind him envisions all the continents on Earth as a single island in a sea, underscoring the world population’s interdependence.
Courtesy of the Estate of R. Buckminster Fuller
推演和平的游戏:1969年的纽约城,巴克敏斯特.富勒坐在桌子的一头,主持了一次有关他的和平推演游戏的讨论会。他身后的墙壁上挂着一张他发明的dymaxion世界地图,该图创造性地把地球上所有的大陆视为连成一片的、却忽视了全球人口相互依存性的一片海中之岛。







2043

主题

4920

帖子

3万

积分

版主

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

积分
31640
 楼主| 发表于 2016-5-7 12:57:37 | 显示全部楼层
译者注释:
富勒的这个理念来源于17世纪英国著名的玄学派诗人、牧师约翰多恩一首著名的哲理诗。海明威借用的约翰邓恩的这首诗中一句,给他著名的战地小说取名为【丧钟为谁而鸣?】。
约翰邓恩是牧师,这句话曾是他的布道词。《没有人是一座孤岛》——约翰·多恩


No Man Is An Island

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

John Donne


没有人是一座孤岛,
可以自全。
每个人都是大陆的一片,
整体的一部分。
如果海水冲掉一块,
欧洲就减小,
如同一个海岬失掉一角,
如同你的朋友或者你自己的领地失掉一块
任何人的死亡都是我的损失,
因为我是人类的一员,
因此 不要问丧钟为谁而鸣,
它就为你而鸣。










2043

主题

4920

帖子

3万

积分

版主

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

积分
31640
 楼主| 发表于 2016-5-7 13:00:09 | 显示全部楼层





As the Vietnam conflict spiraled out of control, Fuller had a solution. His idea was simple: Instead of playing secret war games deep inside the Pentagon, the United States should host a world peace game out in the open. The concept was an elaboration on his proposal to build a geoscope inside the U.S. Pavilion of the 1964 World’s Fair. An animated Dymaxion world map would show all the resources on the planet, as well as all human and natural activity, from troop deployment to ocean currents.2 On this map, the world’s leaders and citizens of all nations would be invited to publicly wage peace. He cast the world game as a political system, a completely democratic alternative to voting in which people collectively played out potential solutions to shared problems.
当越南冲突曲线上升以至于失去控制时候,富勒找到了一种解决方案。他的想法很简单:与其在五角大楼内玩帷幕后秘密地玩战争游戏,美国倒不如公开组织一次世界和平推演游戏。他为这个概念精心设计了一个详尽的方案,他为1964年世界博览会美国馆设计建造了一个潜望镜(译者注释:后来他在1967年蒙特利尔世博会上把美国馆变成富勒球,使得轻质圆形穹顶今天风靡世界,他把这个20楼层高的巨大的轻型建筑自称为“潜望镜”),一张动态的dymaxion世界地图上标明了我们居住的行星上所有的资源,以及人类与自然的活动,从军队部署到洋流的运动,无所不包。就着这幅地图,全球的首脑与各国公民们都可以应邀来公开推演世界和平问题。他把世界的博弈游戏视为一种政治化的系统,人民可以通过投票方式以完全民主的二元选择方式集体来制定出共同关注的问题之潜在解决方案。


“The objective of the game would be to explore for ways to make it possible。 for anybody and everybody in the human family to enjoy the total earth without any human interfering with any other human and without any human gaining advantage at the expense of another,” Fuller wrote. “To win the World Game everybody must be made physically successful. Everybody must win.”
“这个博弈游戏的目标是寻找可能的途径令人类大家庭里每个人或者任何人都能乐居在地球,不妨害其他人,而且任何人获取利益都不以损害他人为代价”富勒写道,“全球博弈的完胜即每个人实际上都成功,每个人都必须赢。”

Fuller’s world game was a means of achieving “desovereignization,” the importance of which he illustrated with a vivid military metaphor. “We have today, in fact, 150 supreme admirals and only one ship—Spaceship Earth,” he wrote. “We have the 150 admirals in their 150 staterooms each trying to run their respective stateroom as if it were a separate ship.” Those supreme admirals embodied geopolitics for Fuller. His world game was presented as an alternative to their warring.
富勒的世界博弈是一整套达到“无暴君治理”的方法,他以一种生动的军事比喻阐述了其重要性。“今天我们事实上已经有了150个海军上将(比喻150个国家政府),但却只有一艘船----一艘名叫地球的太空船,”他这样写道,“我们拥有的150位海军上将在他们的150个特等舱内各自为政仿佛这150个特等舱都各为一艘独立的船。”这些海军上将对于富勒而言就象征着地缘政治。他的世界博弈游戏代表着一种对于他们的好战策略的一种替代。

World games, Fuller insisted, were a remedy for war because they were the antithesis of war games, and an antidote to “zero-sum” game theory, a system in which conflicts were modeled mathematically to rationally determine the optimal strategy for winning. Fuller got his idea all the way to Capitol Hill. “Game theory,” he informed the Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations in 1969, “is employed by all the powerful nations today in their computerized reconnoitering in scientific anticipation of hypothetical World Wars III, IV, and V.” The theory of war gaming, he said, “which holds that ultimately one side or the other must die, either by war or starvation, is invalid.” The U.S. government rejected Fuller’s plan. The Pentagon-funded RAND Corporation called his writings and Senate testimony “a potpourri of pitchmanship for an ill-conceived computer-based game” that would “retard real progress in the field.”
富勒坚持世界博弈游戏是对战争的救赎,因为它们是战争游戏的对立面,也是对“零和”博弈理论的纠正,一个将冲突用数学建模的系统,以便通过合理推导确定赢面的最优化策略。富勒把他的思想一路带到国会山。“博弈论,”1969年他面对参议院外交关系委员会宣称,“如今被所有强势国家用于建立计算机化的侦测系统以便以科学方式预测假想中的第三,四,五次世界大战。” 战争博弈论,他说,“它最终支持的是单方面胜利,换句话说,其他各方都必死无疑,以战争或饥馑的方式实现,这是不义的。”然而美国政府驳回了富勒的企划。五角大楼建立的智库兰德公司称他的著述以及在参议院的陈辞为“为病态思维的计算机游戏而乱炖出的淘金时代的杂烩”并将“延迟这个领域的真实进展”。
Yet for all the good reasons that Fuller and RAND had to be wary of each other, their differences were never as zero-sum as they professed. In the years since the Cold War, the relationship between games of war and peace has grown more nuanced, and intertwined in today’s computer game industry. As the maverick inventor envisioned, multi-user war games, networked across the globe, could allow the world to play for peace.
至此富勒和兰德公司各有好的理由相互提防,他们的分歧从来不是他们宣称的那样是零和的。自冷战以来的年月里,战争与和平博弈游戏之间的关系变得越来越微妙,并且胶着于今日的电脑产业。正如这位大牛的发明家所预见的,已然通过网络遍及全球的多用户界面的战争推演游戏(译者注:比如本人喜欢的“红色警戒”系列、“魔兽世界”等),其实也可用让全球玩家进行和平博弈推演。



At the same time, the world has arguably grown more unstable. A nuclear-fueled standoff between two superpowers has been replaced by the unpredictable violence of myriad terrorist factions from the Taliban to ISIS. The impotence of the U.S. military as a counterforce—despite trillions of dollars in spending—shows the limits of conventional strategic and tactical thinking. In 2014 and 2015, the Atlantic Council, a think tank devoted to international affairs, conducted ISIS war games that concluded the terrorist organization is essentially impervious to U.S. forces. World peace is more elusive than ever.
与此同时,这世界也可以说日益变得不稳定。当年美苏两个超级大国的核对峙被代之以多如恒河沙数的无数恐怖主义集团无法预测的暴行,从塔利班到ISIS伊斯兰圣战组织都有。作为一种震慑抗衡力量,美国武装的软弱无力,彰显了其传统的战略战术思维的局限性,尽管花费了亿万兆的美元。

Gaming new ways to reduce conflict has never been more urgent. Success will require all of the wisdom that can be drawn from war games over time. It will also take something that the 1964 war games so obviously lacked: the willpower to act on what gaming can teach.
力求推演出新的方法论以减少冲突从来没有象今天这样迫切。成功需要来源于一切久经考验的战争推演游戏的智慧。同时也表明了1964年那一系列战争博弈游戏显然缺乏的某种要素:按照推演所教进行行动实践的意志力。

2043

主题

4920

帖子

3万

积分

版主

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

积分
31640
 楼主| 发表于 2016-5-7 13:05:41 | 显示全部楼层
War games are as ancient as gaming, and as primordial as war. Some of the most archaic games from China and Greece, such as weiqi and petteia, modeled the tactical movement of soldiers. And chess, the ultimate game of strategy, is a direct forerunner to the Pentagon’s Cold War simulations.
战争博弈游戏与博弈本身一样古老,与战争本身一样原生态。最著名的古代博弈游戏源自中国和希腊,例如中国的围棋和古希腊的木马计棋petteia,模拟了军人的战术动作。而国际象棋,最高级的策略游戏,是五角大楼里那冷战模拟游戏们的嫡系鼻祖。
围棋

隋代陶制棋盘




古希腊的木马计棋petteia








而国际象棋,最高级的策略游戏,是五角大楼里那冷战模拟游戏们的嫡系鼻祖。


In its ancient Indian form, chess was called chaturanga. The game was played with markers signifying infantry, chariots, horses, and elephants, all overseen by pieces representing a vizier and monarch. Winning required the destruction of the opposing army or the capture of the king, much the same as in real battle at the time. While the game became less martial in outward appearance as it spread to Persia, China, and Europe, military men seem not to have been distracted by queens and bishops. The game provided mental training for commanders ranging from William the Conqueror to Tamerlane.
国际象棋在古印度梵语中的名字叫chaturanga,意思是“四部军”,参照的是笈多帝国划分军队的方式。游戏中下的棋子分别代表步兵、战车、骑兵和象军,都在象征着统帅和君主的高级棋子的督导下。赢局需要摧毁对手的军队或者生擒对方的王,完全类似当时真实的战役情形。随着国际象棋传播到波斯,中国,又传到欧洲,它逐渐变得不那么尚武了,但军人们似乎依然没有被女王王后们和主教们干扰。这种游戏为统帅们提供了思维训练的途径,从中获益者众多,包括征服者威廉与帖木儿。

However, traditional chess, even when played with chariots and elephants, had obvious differences from battle. The opposing armies of chessmen were completely identical and the terrain was perfectly uniform, making the conflict artificially symmetrical. Both sides also had total knowledge of the entire battlefield, including all enemy positions. Orders were implausibly orderly, carried out instantaneously as each player politely took his turn. And there were no external factors akin to disease or storms. Chess was a closed system. Chaos and chance were eliminated.
然而,即使有战车和象军的传统国际象棋玩法也与实际的战役有显著差别。对垒的双边棋手的队形是对等的,而且棋盘是均一完美的,人为地造成一种具备对称性的冲突。双方都对整个战场(棋盘)大致了解,包括所有“敌军”的位置。命令难以置信地被有条不紊地及时执行,因为每个棋手都礼貌地按序出子。也没有其他的外因如风暴和疾病来干扰对弈。则国际象棋是一个封闭的体系。混沌(紊乱)和偶然都被排除在外。



This level of abstraction had obvious advantages. The purity of chess allowed players to focus on the grand challenge of anticipating an opponent’s behavior while upsetting the opponent’s expectations. But since strategic choices were never so stark in war, the most a commander could expect from chess was sharpened intellect, and there was always the threat that a young warrior would misunderstand what was being simulated and expect troops to obey as placidly as chess pieces.
这种抽象方式具备显著的优势。国际象棋的纯粹性使得对弈者能专注于大的挑战以便预估对手的行为并且扰乱对手的期望。不过既然在实际战争中策略抉择并不这么刻板,则统帅们希望从国际象棋中尽量汲取敏锐的智能,但也总是存在着年轻的战士误解了推演结果的风险以至于不能象棋子那样安分守己地服从命令。

Beginning in the 17th century, European military strategists considered ways in which to make chess conform more closely to real fighting so that chess could provide more well-rounded training. At first it was just a matter of enlarging the battlefield and making armies more varied with markers representing cavalry, artillery, and infantry. By the 18th century, the squares of the game board came to represent different kinds of terrain, either by varying their color or by transferring the grid onto a regional map. Rules were written to vary the speed at which troops advanced, based on whether they were on horse or foot, and whether they were crossing meadows or scaling mountains. Players were responsible for rudimentary logistics, ensuring there were supply lines to keep soldiers fed.
17世纪初,欧洲的战略家们开始思索更加近似于实际战役的国际象棋(兵棋)玩法,如此棋局可以提供更加完满的训练。起初只是扩大了战场(棋盘),使得军种更加多样化包括代表了骑兵、炮兵和步兵的棋子。到18世纪时,棋盘上开始划分出不同的地形,用不同的颜色标记,或者把格子形的棋盘转换成一张比例地图。部队行军速度的差别被写入规则中,取决于它们是步兵还是骑兵,是过草地还是翻越高山。对弈者必须对基本的后勤负责,确保补给线畅通以满足指战员们的供给。

战斗从此将不能在不杀伤人的情况下被精确的模仿。这迫使战略家们开始寻找更抽象的方式为战争做准备。


1650年
国际象棋爱好者以国际象棋的原型为基础,在现代德国所在的地区发展出越来越精密的战场策略游戏。到18世纪晚期,军事领导人对此产生了注意。

2043

主题

4920

帖子

3万

积分

版主

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

积分
31640
 楼主| 发表于 2016-5-7 13:13:20 | 显示全部楼层
17世纪初,欧洲的战略家们开始思索更加近似于实际战役的国际象棋(兵棋)玩法,如此棋局可以提供更加完满的训练。起初只是扩大了战场(棋盘),使得军种更加多样化包括代表了骑兵、炮兵和步兵的棋子。到18世纪时,棋盘上开始划分出不同的地形,用不同的颜色标记,或者把格子形的棋盘转换成一张比例地图。部队行军速度的差别被写入规则中,取决于它们是步兵还是骑兵,是过草地还是翻越高山。对弈者必须对基本的后勤负责,确保补给线畅通以满足指战员们的供给。

But that was just the beginning. The full transformation from chess to war games occurred in the 19th century, when a Prussian lieutenant named Georg von Reisswitz layered in aspects of a sandbox game invented by his father. The elder Reisswitz’s game was played with ranks of toy soldiers engaged in mock combat, where the outcomes of ambushes and battles were decided by dice. (The results of each dice throw were tallied according to real battlefield statistics, specifying the range of casualties to be expected in any given scenario.) The young lieutenant replaced his father’s sandbox battlefield with a flat topographic map, across which markers representing companies and units could be advanced at the rate permitted by the terrain. As in real warfare, neither side had total knowledge of the conflict. Each played on a separate board, with an umpire making his way back and forth. Rules derived from battlefield experience determined how much the umpire allowed each side to see of the opposition. Those rules also guided the dice-thrown results of combat. The game was known as kriegsspiel.
但这只是开了个头。从国际象棋蜕变为现代军事游戏的兵棋推演,发生在19世纪初,普鲁士陆军中尉乔治·冯·莱斯维茨改进了他父亲发明的一种沙盘游戏,分出不同的层次。老莱斯维茨的游戏是由不同军衔的玩具兵们参与以模仿战斗而伏击或对阵的结果都由骰子来决定。(每次掷出骰子的结果都按照真实的战地策略被记入分数,以表明任何一种给定的部署方案都有一定的伤亡减员区间),年轻的中尉用一张比例地图代替了他父亲用过的战场沙盘,代表不同的连队和战斗群的棋子在其上对垒,其行军速度取决于地形。犹如在真实的战争里,双方都不了解冲突的全部情形。各方都有一块飞地,每走一步都有一个裁判(第三方)做出仲裁决定其下一步是前进还是后退。游戏规则起源与战场经验,可以让裁判决定各方对对手的了解程度。这些规则也引导了掷骰子博弈的结果。这款军事游以“德国兵棋”之名闻于世。






Germany used war games to invent the blitzkrieg, Japan to occupy Pacific island outposts, and the U.S. to distinguish the Marine Corps.
德国人用兵棋推演游戏发明了“闪电战,日本用兵棋推演占领了太平洋的前哨岛屿,美国则用它训练出卓越的海军陆战队。




The verisimilitude of kriegsspiel impressed Karl von Muffling, the Prussian chief of staff, when Reisswitz demonstrated his game in 1824. Muffling placed an article in the Prussian military weekly asserting that kriegsspiel balanced the “frivolous demands of a game” with the “serious business of war,” and had game boards dispatched to every regiment. Thirteen years later, Muffling’s successor, Helmuth von Moltke, promoted kriegsspiel even more, making the game central to officer training by periodically bringing the whole War College out to the Prussian border in order to game hypothetical enemy invasions. The game would be played on a map corresponding to the surrounding landscape. Precise data for each maneuver would be collected by marching the local garrison through the formations on the game board. On this basis, Moltke not only provided training but also supplied tactical plans for the garrison in case of actual invasion.
1824年莱斯维茨演示了他的兵棋推演游戏,其逼真性令普鲁士总参谋长冯·米夫林元帅印象深刻。冯·米夫林在普鲁士军事周刊上发表了一篇文章,断定兵棋以“严肃的战争事务”对冲了“游戏中无关紧要的需要”,并且把推演棋盘分发到每个团。13年后,冯·米夫林的后任,赫尔姆斯 冯 莫德克,进一步推广了兵棋推演,使得其被载入官方训练条例的科目中,他把整个参谋本部(普鲁士总参谋部)带到普鲁士边境以模拟博弈出假想的敌军入侵情况。两支队伍在一张比例地图上面对面对垒。以穿越棋盘上不同区域的方式模拟当地驻军的部署,如此每次机动的精确数据就被收集起来。在此基础上, 莫德克不仅提供了训练条令,而且为卫戍部队提供了敌军入侵实际情形下的战术条令。





Yet as the realism of kriegsspiel increased, the rules governing it—and the effort of playing it—threatened to overwhelm war gaming. Partly this was a practical issue: The more time required to set up and play out a scenario, the smaller the number of scenarios that could be explored. But there was also the deeper risk that greater verisimilitude would paradoxically make gameplay less relevant. It was the opposite of the issue with chess, where the lessons learned were universal yet abstract. In kriegsspiel, the lessons were often so concrete as to be sui generis. And even if the perfect occasion arose for applying a war-gamed tactic, the complexity of kriegsspiel made it difficult to determine whether the results were biased by how the rules interacted.
随着兵棋推演的实用性不断增强,驾驭它的规则以及它产生的效用,几乎完胜战争博弈游戏。但它也存在着深层次的风险,即逼真度越大,其与棋局的关联性就越小。它也不同于下国际象棋,后者训练科目甚至更加抽象。兵棋推演的科目是具体的、自成一格的。尽管它是进行精密的战场策略推演游戏,“德国兵棋”的复杂性使得它难以确定结果是否因为规则间相互作用方式而存在着偏差。

In 1876, one of Moltke’s officers, Colonel Julius von Verdy du Vernois, proposed an alternative: Replace the rules with the judgment of experienced umpires. “Free war games,” as they were known, could be played in two adjoining rooms with nothing more than a pair of topographical maps and two sets of markers. The umpire passed back and forth between teams, collecting orders and providing intelligence. Instead of using charts, players used their instinct to estimate how fast troops could advance, and the outcomes of battles were decided—without dice or casualty tables—at the umpire’s own discretion.
This arrangement made the games fast like actual warfare, and the umpire knew the reason for his decisions, which meant he could help players to understand the outcome at any level of abstraction. The game was a prelude to discussion. Though Reisswitz-style games continued to be played, Verdy’s influence was profound. His free kriegsspiel established a continuum from rigidity to openness, just as Reisswitz’s rigid kriegsspiel established a continuum from abstraction to realism.
1876年莫德克手下的军官,少校参谋Julius von Verdy du Vernois, 提出一种备用方案:以有经验的裁判的判断替换掉这些规则。“自由的战争博弈游戏”,以此得名,可以在两个比邻房间里进行对垒,只需要两份一模一样的比例地图以及两套一模一样的兵棋。裁判在两队之间来回奔波,收集指令,提供情报。对垒者以直觉而不是以图表去估算部队行军速度,并且由裁判自己判定战役的结果,不需要用骰子或伤亡减员报表。
这种编排令推演与实际的战争同步进行,且裁判知道自己判定的理由,这意味着他可以帮助对垒的玩家们以各种抽象方式去理解结果。
推演是讨论的前提。尽管一直被称为“莱斯维茨兵棋”,但Verdy少校的改良影响深远。他的自由兵棋建立了一个由僵化到开放的连续的推演体系,而莱斯维茨的僵化的兵棋则确立了一个从抽象到具象的连续的推演体系。



Games could be configured at any point along these two axes, optimized according to what the commander wished to achieve. And as war-gaming developed, expectations increased. Games could be used for training officers, building camaraderie, identifying leaders, understanding enemies, anticipating conflicts, inventing tactics, testing strategies, predicting outcomes. In the United States, where kriegsspiel was imported in 1887, one of the first questions was logistical. The Naval War College gamed different scenarios to determine whether fuel supplies for battleships should be shifted from coal to oil. The games indicated that a switchover would be advantageous. The Navy did it, fortuitously modernizing their fleet in time for World War I.
推演可以配置在上述这两个轴的任何节点上,按照指挥员期望达到的意愿进行优化。随着战争模拟推演游戏的发展,预期效益也在增长。
这类游戏可以用来训练军官,建立战友情谊,甄选指挥员,理解敌方的意图,预见冲突,发明战术,测试战略,预期结果。
1887年德国兵棋被引进美国。首要触及的是后勤问题。美国海军军事学院推演了不同的方案,以确定战舰的燃料补给应该采用煤还是油。推演的结果显示快速换能将是有利的。海军照着做了,意外地使得他们的军舰及时地现代化,赶上了第一次世界大战。

In Europe, kriegsspiel was widely used to develop strategies for ground war. Given Prussian tradition—and German delusions of grandeur—Germany was especially active, developing whole file cabinets of battle plans. One of the most promising played out the invasions of Holland and Belgium in order to quash the French army before the British could assist. The game determined that Germany would triumph against France as long as ammunition could be rapidly replenished. For this purpose, Germany built the world’s first motorized supply battalions, deployed in 1914. And the plan might have worked brilliantly, if the only players had been the German and French armies. But the German kriegsspiel failed to factor in the pride of Belgian civilians, who proved ready and able saboteurs—even of their own railroads—upsetting German momentum. Even more catastrophic, the game left out diplomacy which, by way of alliances, brought America into the war—and not on the side of the Reich.
在欧洲,德国兵棋广泛用于发展基础战略。德国人从普鲁士那里继承了好大喜功的传统,德国尤其活跃,制定了一揽子战争计划。其中最有前途的是制定出入侵荷兰和比利时的计划以在英军增援前碾压法军军力。推演显示只要弹药能够被快速填装补充,则德国在对法作战中全胜。为了这个目标,德国建立了世界上第一支摩托化补给大队,于1914年开始部署。只要博弈双方是德军和法军,这项方案就战绩辉煌。但是德国兵棋推演没有顾及骄傲的比利时人民的影响因素,后者已经被证实是能干的突击队,即使对自家铁路也毫不手软,可以扰乱德国的攻势。更具毁灭性的是,推演得出了一种部署,美国将加入同盟国,介入战争,而不是站在第三帝国一边。
The defeat of Germany in World War I suggested the need for another dimension in war games: a axis. Depending on the circumstances, war games needed to model the non-military implications of military actions, and to do so from the local to the global scale. Only when all three axes were properly accounted for could a game function meaningfully. And the appropriate level of abstraction, openness, and inclusiveness were different for every situation and every purpose.
德国在一战中的战败表明在战争推演博弈中还需要考虑另一个维度:社会政治轴。战争推演必须依照环境为军事行动的非军事内涵建模,而且将此从本土推及全球。只有当三个轴都被正确地估算后,推演才可能真正有意义。而且依照不同的局面,不同的目标适当程度地变更抽象性、开放性以及包容性。
Keats_BR-1-kriegsspiel
WORLD OF WARCRAFT, OLD SCHOOL: Games got serious with kriegsspiel (German for war game), designed by a Prussian lieutenant. Each side advanced troops at a rate permitted by a certain terrain. Rules were derived from real battlefield experiences; the game became central to real military training.Courtesy of Look and Learn
致敬致意战车世界,老式学派:
采用普鲁士中尉设计的德国兵棋令军事推演变得严肃。对垒各方依照地形允许的速度部署部队。兵棋推演规则起源于真实的战场经验;兵棋推演由此进入真正的军事训练条令。

All the major militaries gamed at multiple levels in the interwar period, with varied results. Germany successfully used war games to invent the blitzkrieg, Japan gamed the maneuvers their navy would later use to occupy Pacific island outposts, and the U.S. gamed the amphibious tactics that distinguished the Marine Corps. But games delving into politics were more treacherous. Free games played by Germany in the early ’30s—in which participants included diplomats, industrialists, and journalists—failed even to protect the Weimar Republic from internal collapse.
在战时,大型的军事推演都是多方参与的,产生出多种可变的结果。德国成功地应用战争推演发明了闪电战,日本在战棋游戏中玩出了他们的海军将占领太平洋前哨岛屿这一部署前景,美国推演出令海军陆战队变得卓越的两栖战术。但对于政治的推演则更为波谲云诡。德国人在1930年代搞了所谓自由博弈的的推演----参加者包括外交官,工业家和记者,却不能保护魏玛共和国从内部崩溃。

In Japan, the Total War Research Institute held political-military games in 1941 that simulated the political interests and military power of countries including the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and America. The games correctly predicted a Japanese defeat of England in the Far East, incorrectly anticipated a German victory over the U.S.S.R., and utterly discounted the resolve of the United States. Certainly there was no premonition of how political conditions in Nazi Germany would give America the scientific brainpower behind the Manhattan Project, ultimately leading to the atomic bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The predictive aims of the 1941 games ended in colossal failure. However, the real problem had less to do with game mechanics or faulty data than the belief that any global interplay of cause and effect could be decisively modeled.
在日本,战争总动员研究机构在1941年进行了政治推演以模拟包括苏联,大不列颠,和美国在内各国的政治利益与国家军力。推演准确预示日本将在远东地区打败英国,却不准确地预示德国将完胜苏联,而且彻底地忽视了美国的决心。当时肯定没有预兆昭示纳粹德国的政治环境将使美国在曼哈顿计划(原子弹建造计划)之后获得许多一流的科学头脑,并终将导致美国在长崎和广岛投放原子弹。1941年的推演终结于异常巨大的失败中。然而,现实问题很少采用推演机制,或者说缺损的数据可以被明确地建模,但对于全球交互作用效应的必然信念却无法建模。
Arguably the United States used war games most effectively in World War II because the U.S. military was most attentive to their limitations. A post-war assessment by Admiral Chester Nimitz provides some insight into the American approach. “The war with Japan had been [enacted] in the game room here by so many people in so many different ways that nothing that happened during the war was a surprise—absolutely nothing except the Kamikaze,” he said. In other words, the U.S. wasn’t presuming to predict the future—to simulate geopolitics fraught with unknown unknowns—but rather was creating a vast database of short-term hypotheticals, an industrial-strength version of what Helmuth von Moltke once attempted in Prussia. American gaming explored the problem space of war in the ’40s, and the games produced heuristics, or rules of thumb. The only limitation was the American military imagination, which was simply too American to conceive of Japanese suicide missions.
也就是说,美国的战争推演在第二次世界大战时候做得最有效因为美军非常在意自己的局限性。海军上将尼米兹的战后评语使得我们得以洞察美国的途径。
“在这里,与日本的战争在作战室里有许多人参与推演,以如此多的不同方式,因为战争中一切皆有可能,没有令人吃惊的事---除了自杀式的神风特攻队员绝对属于例外,”他说道。
换句话说,美国不会想当然地预测未来----模拟地缘政治充满着不可知之不可知--但怎么都好过建立一个短期假设的巨大数据库,即赫尔姆斯 冯 莫德克在普鲁士所为的工业进阶版。1940年代美国的推演探索了战争问题的范畴,这些推演产生了启示,或者经验法则。唯一的局限在于美国的军事构想,过于美国化以至于无法理解日本的自杀式攻击。
This exploratory approach was carried forward into the Cold War, reinforced by the circumstances of nuclear armament. The fundamental problem faced by both the U.S. and Soviet militaries in the 1950s and ’60s was aptly summed up by the RAND physicist Herman Kahn.3 When his expertise was questioned by military officials, he’d retort, “How many thermonuclear wars have you fought recently?”
这个解释途径是面向冷战展开的,并且由核军备环境强化背书。1950年代和1960年代,美苏双方军事上面临的根本问题由兰德公司的物理学家 Herman Kahn进行了适当的小结。当他的专业资质遭受军官们的质疑时候,他反唇相讥,“您最近打过多少次热核武器战争?”




The nuclear era was entirely unprecedented, and one wrong decision could cause the end of civilization. There was an urgent need to explore absolutely every eventuality while acknowledging that many eventualities couldn’t possibly be foreseen. The Pentagon gamely simulated Joseph Stalin’s sudden death and a Soviet first strike on Inauguration Day, role-played by mid-level military and government officials. The purpose of this free gaming was to develop intuitions: Since a good model would need to account for everything in the world—given that nuclear war was inherently global—good models were all but unbuildable. Instead the Pentagon opted for many inadequate simulations and gave low credence to any of them. In the words of one Navy analyst, gaming was a “training device for aiding intuitional development.” RAND referred to it as “anticipatory experience.”
核子时代是史无前例的,一个错误的决定就可能导致文明的终结。绝对是迫切需要探索每一种不测之事的可能性,并且要认识到许多的不测是不可预见的。(不怕一万,只怕万一)。五角大楼推演模拟了斯大林的突然死亡以及在新领导人就职当天前苏联的第一次罢工,由中层的政府官员和军官进行角色扮演。这次自由博弈推演的目的是发展直觉:既然一个好的模型可以解释世上万物--假定核战争必然是全球化的----好的模型尽管可以阐释万物却是无法构建万物的。
相反,五角大楼倾向于许多非充分条件下的模拟推演,对其中任何一种都赋予较低的可信度。以海军军情分析者的话说是,推演是“帮助直觉发展的训练装置”,兰德公司将其命名为“提早发生的经验”。
Yet inevitably American government and military leaders wanted to master the Cold War. They sought victory over communism. Advances in computing stoked that ambition, as did progress in game theory as a model for non-zero sum games.
尽管如此,美国政府和军事首脑依然不可避免地企图掌控冷战。他们渴求战胜共产主义的胜利。计算机科学的进步更加振奋了这种野心,例如在博弈论领域非零和博弈模式取得的一些进展。

Robert F. Kennedy saw games as an alternative to political debate in which all interests could role-play their way to civil rights.
罗伯特. 肯尼迪把模拟推演视为政治辩论的备用或替代方法,其中的各个利益关联方都可以按照他们对于公民权的理解进行角色扮演。



2043

主题

4920

帖子

3万

积分

版主

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

积分
31640
 楼主| 发表于 2016-5-7 13:16:34 | 显示全部楼层
Around 1954, RAND analysts began to consider how the book, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, by mathematician John von Neumann and economist Oskar Morgenstern, could be applied to warfare. (The book attempted to establish economics as an exact science by modeling economic scenarios as multi-player games.) RAND started by mathematically modeling campaigns from World War II, working out how opposing armies should have acted. If fighting tactics from the past could be optimized, then why not future planning for nuclear engagement?
大约在1954年,兰德公司的分析师们开始讨论博弈论与经济行为的著作内容能否被用于战争,作者是数学家冯·诺依曼及经济学家奥斯卡·摩根斯特恩。(那本书尝试通过对经济纲领进行建模的方式把经济学确立为一种精确的科学,也是一种多重玩家的博弈)。兰德公司发源于第二次世界大战时候的数学建模运动,力求计算出敌军的行为逻辑。如果以往的战术可以被优化,那为何不可以用于未来的核应用规划呢?



In 1960, Harvard economist Thomas Schelling explored the possibility in a book called The Strategy of Conflict. His book took up von Neumann and Morgenstern’s non-zero-sum games, showing that in an age of mutually assured destruction, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. could both win, with no risk of loss, if only they exercised mutual restraint.4 This was an excellent solution, except there was no obvious way to apply it: neither a framework for trust nor the political will to see the adversary benefit. The level of abstraction at which game theory was viable made the most compelling conclusions practically irrelevant. In that sense, it was like chess.
1960年哈佛大学的经济学家:托马斯·克罗姆比·谢林在他的著作里探索这种可能性,那本书的名字是“冲突中的策略”。他的书采用了数学家冯·诺依曼及经济学家奥斯卡·摩根斯特恩的非零和博弈理论,揭示了在有可能互相毁灭的时代,美国和苏联也可双赢,没有失落的风险,只要他们尝试双边克制。这是一种非常好的解决办法,只是找不出应用它的途径:既没有信任的框架也没有愿意看见对手利益的政治意愿。博弈论的抽象程度是具备可行性的,可以令其引人注目的结论实际上无关乎实践。从那看来,它类似国际象棋。


At about the same time that Schelling published his book, the U.S. military acquired a computer devoted to war gaming. Installed at the Naval War College at a cost of $10 million, the Naval Electronic War Simulator had no game theory in it. Rather the machine was a sort of electromechanical umpire, managing data and calculating dice-throws for role-playing games. Later versions had a similar function, though one side or both might be played by the computer itself, allowing the gaming process to be greatly accelerated. Countless games could be played, countless options considered, countless outcomes recorded. If game theory was the non plus ultra of chess-like abstraction, these computerized simulations were the ultimate extreme of kriegsspiel: resolutely concrete and vulnerable to programming biases.
几乎在谢林出书同时,美国军方获得了一种用于战争模拟推演的计算机。它造价1000玩美元,安装在美国海军军事学院的校园,不过海军的海军电子战事模拟装置却没有配置博弈论。这台机器相当于一种电子装置的裁判,计算着角色扮演游戏中掷骰子的胜算,管理着数据。后来的升级版功能类似,一方或双方都可以与计算机本身进行博弈游戏,使得博弈进程大大加速。无数的博弈游戏都可以进行,无数的选择都可以考虑,无数种结果被记录下来。如果博弈论不是加强版的国际象棋式的抽象思维,这些计算机化的情境模拟推演就是德国军棋的终极版;实实在在而且易受到编程偏差的影响。

For strategic purposes, game theory was too vague and computer simulations were too specific. The most versatile and insightful technique remained the oldest still in use: the 19th-century free war games of Julius von Verdy du Vernois.5
对于战略目标而已,博弈论太模糊而计算机模拟太特异。最具普遍性和洞察力的技巧保留了迄今依然在运用的最古老的方法:19世纪由德国参谋本部军官Julius von Verdy du Vernois建立的自由战争博弈模拟法。

If only they could provide more than heuristics. (Legitimate skepticism about their predictive value may partly explain why gaming had so little sway over American policy in Vietnam.) An early intimation of what free war games could become was suggested by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy in 1963. After playing a politico-military game organized by Schelling, Kennedy inquired about gaming a resolution to racial inequality in the South: an alternative to political debate in which all interests could role-play their way to civil rights.
只有他们能在启发之外再提供一些线索(对于它们的预计价值的合理怀疑主义可部分地解释为什么博弈推演结果对于美国1964年在越南的政策影响微乎其微)。
对于自由战争模拟推演游戏存在的局限性的早期阐释见于美国已故司法部长,肯尼迪总统之弟罗伯特肯尼迪1963年的讲话。在参加了谢林组织的政治-军事模拟推演后,这位肯尼迪要求对于南方的种族歧视决议进行模拟推演:作为政治辩论的替代或备用途径,让所有利益相关方按照他们各自对于公民权的理解进行角色扮演。


The idea was abandoned following President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, but a permutation arose in 1970, when Lincoln Bloomfield, a political scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, traveled to Moscow. As a guest of the Soviet government, Bloomfield orchestrated a simulation where Soviet, American, and Israeli officials unofficially war-gamed a hypothetical Middle East conflict akin to the Six-Day War. Bloomfield intentionally scrambled their positions. The pro-Arab Soviets played Israel, and the anti-Soviet Israelis and Americans played the Soviet Union. In these topsy-turvy circumstances, the Soviet “Israelis” surprised everyone by developing a policy of moderation.
由于肯尼迪总统被暗杀,这个主意被废弃了,但在1970年出现了它的置换版,麻省理工学院MIT的政治学家布伦菲尔(Lincoln Bloomfield)到访莫斯科。作为苏联政府的客人,布伦菲尔犹如指挥管弦乐队般地组织起一场由苏联、美国、以色列的官员们参与的有关假想的、类似六日战争的中东战争的模拟推演。布伦菲尔故意分散打乱他们的位置。亲阿拉伯的苏联人扮演以色列,反苏的以色列人和美国人扮演苏联。在这种颠三倒四的情境里,苏联版的“以色列”令人惊奇地发展出中立政策。


2043

主题

4920

帖子

3万

积分

版主

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

积分
31640
 楼主| 发表于 2016-5-7 13:22:06 | 显示全部楼层
In 1953, a former soldier named Charles Roberts designed a simple war game for civilians. Tactics was played on the map of a fictitious landscape. Akin to Reisswitz’s kriegsspiel, there were tables to calculate casualties and counters to represent battalions. The self-published game sold well enough for Roberts to found a company, Avalon Hill, which launched the recreational war-gaming industry.6
1953年,前士兵Charles Roberts为美国公民设计了一种简单的战争模拟推演系统。在一张等高线绘制比例地图上玩各自的战术。类似于莱斯维茨的德国兵棋,有一些计算伤亡减员的表格和代表部队的筹码。这个自发游戏卖得相当好,Charles Roberts很快就建起自己的公司Avalon Hill,一家再造战争模拟游戏业的元老企业。

Will Wright started playing Avalon Hill war games as a teenager in the 1970s. A decade later, as personal computers became commonplace, he decided to program a game of his own. Raid on Bungling Bay didn’t appear as cerebral as the Avalon board games he’d played. On the surface, it was a first-person shooter embedded in a flight simulator. But Wright had incorporated a sort of military-industrial realism, where the targets chosen by a player impacted enemy capabilities. The way to win was not to develop better reflexes, but to intuit the dynamics of weapons manufacturing and supply chains.
1970年代,青少年时期的Will Wright 开始成为Avalon Hill玩家。10年后,个人计算机得以普及,他决定自己编程写一个游戏。海湾奇袭并不象他玩过的那些Avalon Hill公司游戏那么健脑益智。表面上看它是第一个基于飞行模拟器的个人射击游戏。但他在其中引入了军工产业的现实情境,玩家对于目标的选择将影响敌军的军力。赢的方法是不去建立更好的回流,而是去直觉武器制造和供应链的动态变化。

Wright’s next game dispensed with reflexes entirely. In SimCity, the player was mayor of a make-believe municipality, responsible for managing the urban dynamics of sustenance and growth. Crucially, there was no preordained goal. The player set personal standards of what the city should become and strove to make the sim conform to that vision. As in any real city, it wasn’t easy. (Attract companies by lowering taxes and the decline in social services may raise crime rates, driving away business.) The deep causal loops that made kriegsspiel so compelling were brought into the civilian realm, introduced to a single-player context where the conflict was internal. SimCity’s urban scaffolding could support endless variations: Like kriegsspiel, it was not a specific game but a logical framework for gaming. Wright has described it as a “possibility space,” in which a player becomes the game’s designer, and the design of a game is a design for society.
Will Wright 的下一款游戏完全免去了回路。在这款SimCity里,玩家是一座有公信力的直辖市的市长,负责管理城郊农作物的生长与食物链。关键是,没有预定目标。玩家可以建立城市发展的个人标准,并且努力使得情境模拟遵循这个观点。在任何一座现实城市里,这可不容易。(通过降税吸引公司,而社会服务的萧条将增加犯罪率,驱散各种生意)深层的因果环路令德国兵棋推演系统如此引人注目,也可用于公民世界,在内部冲突中引入单一玩家背景。 SimCity的架构可以支持无巧能够的变化:象德国兵棋,它不是特定游戏只是一个模拟推演的系统。Wright形容它是“可能性的空间”,其中玩家成为了游戏的设计者,而模拟设计也是一种社会设计。
SimCity and Wright’s later creations—so-called “God games,” including SimEarth and Spore—provide a link between the tensions of war games and the intentions of Fuller’s world game. They were ludic platforms for utopian experimentation, and they foreshadowed one dimension of how Fuller’s vision could be brought into the present.
SimCity 和Wright后来的发明--所谓“上帝游戏”,包含有Sim土壤和孢子----在战争模拟推演游戏的张力与富勒的世界模拟推演游戏的意图之间构筑了一种联系。都是些乌托邦试验的好玩的平台,它们预示了富勒梦想中的一维可以在现实里呈现。


Keats_BR-1-Tactics
WAR FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY: Tactics, created by a soldier named Charles Roberts in 1953, is likely the first mass-market war game. It contained tables for casualties and counters to represent battalions. Roberts started a company, Avalon Hill, that launched the commercial war-game industry.Tactics via The Strong
整个家族的战争模拟推演:战术,是由Charles Roberts这个前士兵在1953年写的一个游戏,也是第一个大众战争模拟推演游戏。它包括了伤亡减员表格以及代表不同部队的筹码。Charles Roberts很快就建起自己的公司Avalon Hill,一家再造商业性战争模拟游戏业的元老企业。

Museum of Play
游戏博物馆:
Another dimension was emerging around the same time that Wright was transitioning from Avalon Hill to Bungling Bay. At the University of Essex in 1978, two students, Roy Trubshaw and Richard Bartle, programmed a multiplayer adventure game for the campus computer network. The text-based role-playing game was the first of its kind, a sort of Dungeons & Dragons quest open to anybody who logged onto the mainframe. Trubshaw and Bartle called their creation Multi-User Dungeon, or MUD, a name that became the moniker for a whole genre of network-based adventure games, especially once the Internet networked everyone.
正当Wright从 Avalon Hill 转向海湾奇袭Bungling Bay时,另外一种维度出现了。1978年埃塞克斯大学两个学生,Roy Trubshaw和 Richard Bartle, 编写了有一个多玩家冒险游戏,放在校园网上。这是第一款背景角色扮演游戏,一种类似 龙与地下城开放给所有人登录其官网主机玩的游戏。他们称自己的发明为多用户地下城MUD,也是所有这里互联网冒险游戏的别称。

As advances in computing passed from the military to the commercial sector, the MUDs that followed Multi-User Dungeon evolved from text-based interaction to graphic exploration. These online environments invited discovery and conquest. Players could collaborate or compete. They could build together or kill each other. Eventually these modes of online engagement drifted apart. The collaborative impulse led to virtual worlds, including Second Life, populated by player-controlled avatars that keep house, socialize, and dabble in virtual sex. The competitive drive resulted in massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) such as EverQuest and World of Warcraft, in which avatars go to battle and collect loot.
当计算机科学的进步从军用惠及到商业层面, MUDs 游戏已经从文字交互演变为图形交互。这类在线游戏鼓吹发现和征服。玩家可竞争可合作。他们既可以一起建设,也可以互杀互害。最终这种模式会从网上的运作转入现实。合作的冲动带入了虚拟世界,包括第二次生命,由玩家控制的 虚拟替身们繁衍出来,他们看房子,社交,以虚拟性别相互嬉戏。竞争的打击导致大规模多用户在线游戏(MMOs)的出现,例如EverQuest 和 World of Warcraft战舰世界,虚拟替身们交战、收集战利品。




The number of people who participate in virtual worlds and MMOs is staggering. At its peak, Second Life hosted 800,000 inhabitants—nearly the number of people living in San Francisco—and World of Warcraft reached a peak population of 12 million. Another massively popular genre—one more pertinent to promoting peace—is the God game genre. (Wright’s titles alone have sold 180 million copies.)7
参与MMOs虚拟世界的玩家数量令人惊奇。高峰期二次元生活里有800,000个居住者-----近似三藩市居民的总数-----战舰世界里最多时候虚拟人口1200万。另外一种超大型网络流行游戏----更加中肯地促进和平,即上帝的游戏风尚the God game genre. (Wright’s 卖出了1亿8千万个拷贝.)
Fuller wasn’t ambitious enough. The act of gaming must make peace in its own right.
富勒的雄心与此相比,小巫见大巫。推演必须按照它自己的权益达到和平。


But God games have never fit the massive multiplayer format, since the premise of a God game is omnipotence, which logically cannot be shared. Electronic Arts, the publisher of SimCity, tried to split the difference with an online multiplayer re-release in 2013. (Cities remained autonomous, but could trade and collaborate on “great works.”) The awkward combination of antithetical genres quite naturally provoked a backlash. SimCity cannot become what it was never meant to be. What’s needed instead are games designed from the start to allow a massive multiplicity of players to interact in open-ended possibility spaces.
但是上帝的游戏风尚the God game genre这款游戏并不是超大型多用户界面形式的,它的前提是上帝的博弈推演是全能的,逻辑上是不能分享的。电子艺术,SimCity的发布者,试图在2013年细分在线多玩家游戏市场。(城市依然自治,但禁止贸易以及合作大型工程)。矛盾对立面的尴尬组合自然会引发强烈反对。
SimCity变得面目全非。现在我们需要设计出允许海量多重身份玩家在开放的终端虚拟空间里交互的游戏。

Crucially, these virtual worlds would not be neutral backdrops in the vein of Second Life. Like SimCity and war games, they’d be logically rigorous and internally consistent. There’d be causality and consequences, and there’d be tension, drawn out by constraints such as limited resources and time pressure. Also like SimCity and war games, these virtual worlds would be simplified, model worlds with deliberate and explicit compromises tailored to the topics being gamed. There could be many permutations, so that none inadvertently becomes authoritative. The only real guideline for setting variables would be to adjust them to breed what Wright has described as “life at the edge of chaos.”
关键是,这些虚拟世界并不是二次元生活里的中立的背景。例如SimCity与战争模拟推演游戏,逻辑严苛,内部自洽。那里肯定会有意外伤亡与后果,也会有紧张,强制性的萧条例如资源有限或时间压力。这些虚拟世界都是被简化的,模式化的世界,有着深思熟虑的、明确的妥协以适应游戏主题。有着许多替代方式,没有人可以随意就成为权威。唯一的改变参数的真实方针就是调整它们以伺服Wright所言的“在混沌紊乱边缘的生命”。
W
ithin these worlds, scenarios could be played out by the massive multiplicity of globally networked gamers. Players wouldn’t need to be designated red or blue, but could simply be themselves, self-organizing into larger factions as happens in many MMOs. Scenarios could be crises and opportunities. Imagine a global financial meltdown that destroys the value of all government-issued currencies, provoking the United Nations to issue a “globo” as an emergency unit of exchange. Would the globo be adopted, or would private currencies quash it? And what would be the consequences as the economy got rebuilt? A single universal currency might be a stabilizing force, binding the economic interests of people and nations, or it could be destabilizing on account of its scale and complexity. It could promote peace or provoke war. Games allowing players to collaborate and compete their way out of crisis would serve as crowdsourced simulations, each different, none decisive, all informative.
在这些虚拟世界里,各种方案可以由全球在线玩家共同推演制定。玩家不必扮演红军或蓝军,只需要做自己,在许多MMOs里都可以自组织更大的团队。方案里机遇与危机并存。到底是采用全球化通则,还是用个人主义碾压它?经济重建的后果如何?单一的全球硬通货币流通到底是否是一种维稳力量,把个人与国家的经济利益联结在一起,或者因为它的体量与复杂性而成为不稳定因素?它到底是促进战争还是和平?推演游戏使得玩家可以在合作也可以竞争地走出危机,犹如一种众筹模式的模拟,互不相同,没有确定答案,一切信息皆是透明的。
As the number of players increased through the evolution of world gaming, the outcomes of these games would inform an increasingly large proportion of the planet. At a certain stage, if the numbers became great enough, gameplay would verge on reality—and even merge into reality—because players would collectively accumulate sufficient anticipatory experience to play their part in the real world more wisely. Whole aspects of game-generated infrastructure—such as in-game non-governmental organizations and businesses—could be readily exported since the essential relationships would have already been built. Games would also serve as richly informative polls, revealing public opinion to politicians.
随着游戏推演的进展,玩家数量增长,游戏的结果又可以吸引这个星球上更多的人参与。在一个给定的舞台,足够多的参与人数会使得虚拟推演近似于现实--甚至可以与现实世界交互----因为玩家可以将在虚拟世界获得的“提前获得的经验”用于现实世界。推演产生的基础设施、形而上的方方面面,例如虚拟的非政府组织NGO和商家---也可为现实所参照,因为其中的基本关系是相似的。这类推演游戏也是一种信息丰富的在线民意调查,可以向政治家揭示出公众观点。

Or they could play a more direct goal in governance. One of Fuller’s ideas—that gaming could serve as an alternative to voting—could potentially be realized with a plurality of people gaming national and global eventualities. For any given issue, different proposals could be gamed in parallel. As some games collapsed, gamers would be able to join more viable games until the most gameable proposal was played through by all. That game would be a surrogate ballot, the majority position within the game serving as a legislatively or diplomatically binding decision. Provided that citizens consented from the start, it would be fully compatible with democratic principles—and could break the gridlock undermining modern democracies.
甚至他们可以玩出更直接的治理目标。富勒的观点之一-----情境模拟推演是投票的一种替代途径,可以被公众意识到用于推演模拟国家或全球的不测事件,这样对于每一个问题,都可以同时推演出不同的方案。即使有些推演模拟崩溃了,玩家还可以加入到更具活力的虚拟情境世界里直到找出最佳或最可能方案。虚拟推演游戏也可以成为一种代理表决的民意测验,游戏里的位置可以代表司法或外交决策者的座位。假定公民们一致同意开始,即全然地以民主原则相互包容---也可能打破现代民主制度的僵局。
When Fuller presented the world game as a method of reckoning how to achieve world peace, he wasn’t ambitious enough. The act of gaming must make peace in its own right. Operating at the scale of reality, the game that everybody wins must build our future world.

当富勒阐释虚拟推演可以成为达到世界和平的一种处置方法时,他的野心还不够大。虚拟推演肯定可以按照其自己的正义达到和平。如果现实里也按照这种人人为我,我为人人的完胜游戏规则行事,我们必将能够建设好未来世界。

Jonathon Keats is a writer, artist, and experimental philosopher based in San Francisco and Northern Italy. He is the author of six books, including The Book of the Unknown, awarded the American Library Association’s Sophie Brody Medal in 2010. His art has been exhibited at institutions ranging from the Berkeley Art Museum to the Wellcome Collection. This essay is adapted from You Belong to the Universe: Buckminster Fuller and the Future, which will be published by Oxford University Press in April, 2016.
作者Jonathon Keats是一位艺术家,实证哲学家,居住在三藩市及意大利北部。他写了六本书,获得过2010年美国图书馆联合会的Sophie Brody奖章。他也在伯克利美术馆以及Wellcome 基金会展出他的艺术作品。本文缩写源自“你属于宇宙:巴克敏斯特·富勒和未来,将于2016年四月由牛津大学出版社出版”。

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

Archiver|手机版|小黑屋|汉山网    

GMT-5, 2019-6-17 00:01 , Processed in 0.122793 second(s), 23 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.2

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表