The scenarios in many early war games were generally used to set the scene for some tactical problem. Military units were deployed on maps and naval units on charts. Objectives were clear, say to seize high ground or to engage enemy ships. From that point two sides would go at it.
The General Situation and the Special Situation
Dating back to the Prussian wargaming procedures of the early 19th century, the initial conditions for a new war game were set by giving the general situation and, for each of the players, their special situation. Games were generally between two players, although each player might have a staff for assistance. Following Prussian traditions the players were known as RED and BLUE; the colours were not meant to denote a “good side” or a “bad side”. They were simply used as a means to tell the two sides apart.
General Situation. As described by McHugh, the general situation “contains the background and general information that would be known to both contestants in a similar real-world environment”. Thus the general situation would include terrain and weather and some understanding of the both player’s intentions and capabilities, as much as these were common knowledge. Not included in the general situation would be information that would not be readily available, say details on the strength or location of troops.
Special Situation. According to McHugh: “The special situation for each side explains the conflict situation from the point of view of that side”. In application, the special situation for one player is not shared with the other player, and vice versa. Thus, the special situation might include the orders given to a player by a superior commander, since these would normally be kept secret from the opponent. It might also include intelligence material on the opponent, such as intentions and strength; although this intelligence may be inaccurate or contradictory, just as real intelligence may be.
The Term Scenario
McHugh in his report on wargaming at the U.S. Naval War College (1966) acknowledges that the term scenario was starting to be used, in addition to or as a replacement for “general situation”. A bit earlier (1950s) the RAND Corporation started using wargaming in many studies conducted for the U.S. Department of Defense (a practice that has continued to the present).
The RAND Corporation claims some credit for introducing the term scenarios into defence planning:
RAND pioneered the use of alternative futures (also called scenarios) to envision a wider range of plausible futures. Among the key figures here [at RAND] were Herman Kahn and Olaf Helmer (who developed the now-famous Delphi technique to help bring experts to consensus). The scenario methods have subsequently become a standard feature of national security planning and advanced business planning. [p. 48]
Between 1948 and 1960 Herman Kahn published many papers at RAND including topics on wargaming and on scenario planning. Most of his major works included scenarios to challenge readers to think about consequences.
Since the 1960s many organizations have used scenarios. Some like Royal Dutch Shell use scenario-based thinking (without wargaming) and many, especially in the defence realm, use scenarios to provide the context for wargaming.