1. MDMP-M Step 3: Course of Action Analysis & Gaming
Reference: MNF SOP Version 3.1
MDMP-M Step 3:
Course of Action Analysis & Gaming
Multinational Planning Augmentation Team
Mobile Training Team (MPAT MTT)
07 December 2017

2. Purpose Define Course of Action (COA) Analysis
Discuss COA Analysis as part of the Crisis Action Planning (CAP) Process
Enumerate associated task steps
Identify products resulting from COA analysis
Reference
Multinational Force Standing Operating Procedures (MNF SOP)
The purpose of this block is to teach ways to analyze courses of action, or COAs.
A COA is a broad statement of possible ways (operations) and means (forces) by which the MNF might achieve the operational (military) end state of the assigned mission.
We will discuss where course of action analysis falls in the crisis action planning, or CAP, process and some key planning concepts to keep in mind as you analyze COAs. The majority of this brief will cover the 8 task steps to analyzing operational-level COAs.
COA Analysis can also be referred to as “war gaming”. 2

3. MDMP-M Steps
We are in Step #3, COA Analysis and Gaming, having completed the initial COA briefs to the MNF Commander.
As in all of the steps in the MDMP Multinational context, during COA Analysis and Gaming, the planners will continue to refer to an refine the Commander’s Appreciation and Operational Design. 3

4. COA Analysis
The purpose of COA analysis is to improve the proposed plan
It consists of evaluating each proposed friendly COA against:
The Commander’s Guidance & Intent
Threat capabilities & potential actions/reactions of the enemy’s most likely & most dangerous COAs
It serves to help obtain ideas & insights into each COA
It serves to identify advantages & disadvantages of each COA
COA Analysis is a conscious attempt to visualize the flow of the operation. The process is a step-by-step comparison of each individual COA against both the Commander’s Guidance and the C2/Intel-developed most likely and most dangerous enemy/adversary/threat COAs.
This type of analysis is intended to stimulate thought about the operation so the staff will obtain ideas and insights that otherwise might not have occurred.
In short, it serves to identify advantages and disadvantages of each proposed COA by determining the plan’s effectiveness against threat/adversary COAs 4

5. COA Analysis/War Gaming Conditions
Starting Conditions
MNF Commander has approved/refined Operational Design
Commander has approved proposed COAs for further development
Ending Conditions
Separate gaming for each COA has been recorded
MNF comparison criteria for next stage is established
Staff has a better understanding of the various methods and means by which the mission may be accomplished
Going into this stage, initial COAs have been briefed and prepared by refinement by previous refinements in the Commander’s Operational Design.
At the end of this stage, each COA has been gamed and the results recorded.
In addition, the MNF staff has developed criteria for COA Comparison – the next stage.
In general, COA Analysis and Gaming allows the entire staff to acquire a better grasp of the various ways to accomplish the Commander’s intent and for success in the assigned operational mission.
The steps in COA Analysis will allow planners include a synchronization matrix for each COA that identifies tasks and force requirements. 5

6. COA Analysis Steps Organize Gather Tools Conduct Analysis Gaming
Prepare
Conduct
Output
Record / Display Results
Identify Advantages and Disadvantages
Prepare for Comparison
COA Analysis and Gaming is a step-by-step process. By performing the analysis and gaming steps, the Commander and planners can arrive at a shared and deeper understanding of how the COA achieves the operational military objectives and the military end-state conditions.
By better understanding the details of each COA and the ways they each affect the operational environment, comparison of them is facilitated. 6

7. Right people, right resources
Step One: Organize
Coalition Planning Group (CPG) organizes for gaming
Intelligence Directorate (C2) establishes a red cell that, from the adversary point of view:
Pursues threat elements
Presents threat elements
Selected staff estimates requested based on situation
COA Analysis and Gaming is about having the “right people and the right resources.”
The commander will set the parameters for COA war-gaming by indicating (based on time constraints) which COAs and which enemy COAs are deemed most important for analysis.
The OPTs, staff directorate representatives and any MNF stakeholders should be available in order to round out the process of thinking through the COA.
Right people, right resources 7

8. Step Two: Gather the Tools
Commander’s Guidance
Friendly COAs
Most probable & most dangerous enemy COAs
Combined operations area reference
Representation of friendly force distribution and probable threats
Representation of environmental/civil conditions
Synchronization Matrix
Action-Reaction/Threat Consequence - Counteraction Matrix
Identify, list, and review existing limitations
Staff Estimates
The CPG’s toolset includes the Commander’s guidance and the friendly COAs that will be analyzed, including the COA statements and sketches.
The team gathers a representation of the operational area, such as maps and overlays, digital displays, representations of airspace, sea surface and subsurface areas, littoral areas.
They depict friendly force dispositions and capabilities and probable threats and consider all assigned, OPCON, TACON and supporting forces and assets that are available for direct employment or in support of the operation.
The team will show the environmental and civil conditions which exist and that impact on the military operation. During visualization of the COA’s unfolding, the planners develop the synchronization matrix and action-reaction/consequence-counteraction matrix for the analyze and assess task step.
Finally, the CPG identifies, lists and reviews the existing and inherent support relationships and limitations –or constraints and restraints- imposed by higher headquarters. 8

9. Step Three: Conduct Analysis
The CPG works through each friendly COA with a view to revealing the following:
Lines of Operation, Decisive Points (DPs), Support Effects for each DP
Commander’s Decision Points
Capability/task organization adjustments
Critical data for COA execution
High value actions
Deployment, sustainment and IO insights
Time estimate to reach mission success / termination criteria
Ideas for maintaining MNF reserves
Risk Assessment
Branch / Sequel possibilities
Advantages & Disadvantages
Revised CCIRs
Operational Design element revisions
The Analysis is focused on seeking multiple facets of an operation based on a proposed COA. These factors include:
1. Lines of Operations (LOO), Decisive Points (DP) and Support Effects (SE) for each DP in the Operational Design.
2. Potential Commander’s Decision Points (not Decisive Points)
3. Capability and task organization adjustments
4. Critical data/information required for analysis or COA execution
5. High value actions – cooperation/coordination, targets, objectives
6. Deployment insights
7. Sustainment insights
8. IO insights
9. Times estimates for each mission success criterion or for termination criteria
10. MNF reserve insights
11. Risk assessment (re: Commander’s intent), desires and undesired effects, overall environment
12. Branches and sequels
13. Advantages and disadvantages (for each separate COA – not in comparison COA to COA)
14. Revised CCIRs
15. Other potential Operational Design element revisions
Critical events are those essential specified or implied tasks, the completion of which is required for mission accomplishment and which, in the judgment of the war-gamer, require detailed analysis.
Decision points identify (time and space) decisions that the commander must make to ensure timely execution of our plan to achieve the desired effects of the operation.
Critical events and decision points can often be anticipated before analysis, during early steps of COA development. 9

10. Level of detail of gaming is subject to time constraints
Step Four: Gaming
Gaming itself is an extension of the analysis
The goal is to provide the Commander, National Command Elements from MNF nations, MNF Component Commanders, and MNF staff an in-depth analysis of each proposed COA
It is an attempt to visualize the flow of the operation using a series of critical events as milestones
Specified or implied tasks required for mission success
Assessed using an action – reaction – counteraction matrix
Gaming itself is a means of extending and deepening the Analysis performed immediate beforehand. It focuses on providing a visual and rational analysis of each COA in order to provide the Force Commander, participating nations’ NCEs, MNF component commanders and MNF staffs the most in-depth analysis possible. The results of gaming will allow each of these players a means to expand insights into each COA’s possible effectiveness in terms of the military objectives.
The visualization includes operation flow, MNF strengths and dispositions, threat capabilities, AO characteristics and other aspects of the operational environment.
It uses an action-reaction-counter-action method of examining friendly and threat interaction (a matrix is provided in the next slide) for each critical event.
Level of detail of gaming is subject to time constraints 10

11. Gaming One: Prepare Participants gather
CPG planners & MNF Component Commander’s planner representatives
Red Cell
Staff members involved in each COA development
Gaming controller & recorders
Gather tools (including friendly forces and threat elements)
List critical events
Determine threat COA to oppose
Select gaming method
Select recording method
The initial step in the gaming itself is the same as in the Analysis. It is critical to have the right people in the process. Thus, the CPG and MNF component commanders’ planner representatives are the core group. They are augmented in a final gaming session by the Commander and Component Commanders in an overview analysis that allows the Commander to comment.
The Red Cell plays in this part of Analysis. It is tasked with aggressively representing the threat elements’ points of view, particularly regarding action – reaction – counteraction phases. The Red Cell may be augmented by SMEs from across the staff. The Red cell will play from decision points it has developed in relation to friendly COAs in order to portray adversary reactions to friendly actions.
Staff members who were integral to the COA development will augment the friendly side.
A gaming controller both adjudicates and records to the process. The Controller is also augmented by recorders for action-reaction-counteraction phases.
With participants tagged, the gamers gather tools. These tools are, in sum, the same ones used in the Analysis phase, including geographical depictions of the AO, commander’s guidance and other information on civil conditions and environmental characteristics.
The team will list critical events to be gamed and agree upon which threat COA the proposed COA will be held against.
Selecting the gaming method is dependent on resources, technical and staff expertise (some considerations will be highlighted in the next slide).
Selecting the recording method depends on whether the staff intends to use the gaming to identify pertinent data for a given time period or to synchronize the COA over various parameters. Gaming worksheets are the method used for the former and Synchronization matrices for the latter (an example of each will appear in following slides). 11

12. Gaming One: Select Method
Deliberate Timeline Analysis
Task force actions in time sequence
Operational Phasing Framework
Functional Area/Component actions by operation phase
Critical Event Analysis
Specific critical events that represent essence of each COA
Measures of effectiveness may be incorporated
Combination
The method of war-gaming depends upon time and other resources available, staff expertise, and the desired degree of resolution.
In the deliberate timeline analysis technique, the staff and functional area representatives methodically consider the task force actions day by day or in discrete blocks of time. This is the most thorough method of war-gaming.
For the operational phasing technique, the staff and functional area representatives identify significant actions and requirements for functional areas and components, by each phase of the operation.
In the critical events technique, the key staff and functional area representatives focus on specific critical events that encompass the essence of each course of action. If time is particularly limited, they may focus on the one key critical event of each COA. (may incorporate MOE)

13. Gaming One: Worksheet & Matrix13

14. Gaming Two: Game and Assess
The war game process should identify gaps in a COA as well as visualize the flow of operations
Recording results provides database for building or modifying COAs, task organization, synchronization, operational concepts, and follow-on detailed planning
Critical Events
Specified of implied tasks required for mission success
Assessed using the Action-Reaction-Counteraction matrix
War-gaming is a deliberate and methodical effort to describe the CTF actions in time and space from a perspective of operational phases or critical events. The CTF commander and his staff visualize the flow of the operation, the stated friendly strengths and dispositions, probable threats, and probable COAs through the area of operations.
The war-gaming team should carry analysis at least two echelons down.
Most often the gaming is organized along a series of critical events, determined to capture the essence of how the COA is expected to unfold.
Critical events are those essential specified or implied tasks, the completion of which is required for mission accomplishment and which, in the judgment of the war-gamer, require detailed analysis.
It is critical to capture the dynamics of the operation through a series of “action-consequence-counteraction” sequences. During this process the staff is trying to capture the key elements that collectively define the synchronization of the operation.
Key items that we are analyzing and assessing for both CTF and components are specific tasks, task organization, command relationships, synchronization of movement and maneuver with operational firepower, decision points and intelligence requirements related to major events, and identification of operational branches and sequels. 14

15. Action/Reaction/Counteraction
Gaming Two:
Action/Reaction/Counteraction
ACTION
REACTION /
CONSEQUENCE
COUNTERACTION
MNF provides medical care at IDP camps
IDP population at camps swells, increasing rates of disease.
Modify TPFDD to allow MNF to provide more shelter and prioritize medical care
Prepare to secure evacuation site at # 3
Rebels kidnap several evacuees in vicinity of site #3
Conduct evacuation at site #2
The “action-reaction/threat consequence-counteraction” technique is a tool to force staff to think through each action and enemy reaction/threat consequences, and how the COA may have to be modified. It notes advantages, weaknesses of, and necessary improvements to the course of action.
Normally, a C3/5 rep identifies the initial friendly action; C2 rep helps identify the enemy reaction or for HA/DR the threat consequences. 15

16. Gaming Three: Output Governing Factors Potential Decision Points
Illuminate the planning elements (operational design, problem framework, operational objectives, etc.) essential for mission success
Provide a basis for COA refinement
Potential Decision Points
Potential Branches & Sequels
Refined COAs
Advantages & Disadvantages
The gaming steps will result in several sets of ideas/products. In general, they will be present on the matrices used to record actions and synchronization.
The most important output is the set of governing factors. Governing factors are aspects of the situation (including externally imposed factors) that the Force Commander deems critical to mission success. Governing factors are related to operational design elements, the problem framework, operational military objectives and conditions that support attainment of the end-state. Identifying the governing factors will shed light on possible COA refinement.
Alongside the Commander-identified governing factors, gaming will identify Decision Points and more branch and sequel opportunities and, most importantly, illuninate advantages and disadvantages of each COA that are used in the final stages of analysis and in later COA comparison. 16

17. Record and Display Results
Step Five:
Record and Display Results
Disseminating the war gaming results allows:
Modification of task organization
Adaptation of plans and orders
Synchronization of activity
Techniques
Narrative technique (sentence form, very detailed but very time consuming)
Sketch and note technique (brief notes concerning critical locations or tasks)
Synchronization matrix
Critical event
Highlight advantages & disadvantages
After gaming, the CPG will provide data to the staff and planners to build/modify task organization, plans and order and to synchronize activity.
It provides the staff with a record of strengths and weaknesses for the comparison of course of action. It also provides a good basis for future CTF mission rehearsals.
There are multiple ways to record and publish these results.
The narrative technique describes in sentence form the visualization of the operation in sequence. It provides extensive detail and clarity. It provides a large volume of information and is the more time consuming technique.
The sketch and note technique uses brief notes concerning critical locations or tasks. The notes may refer to specific locations on a map or may relate to general considerations covering broad areas. Notes may be made on maps, war-game worksheets, or on a synchronization matrix.
The teams can simply provide their synchronization matrices or critical event work-sheets as their results if they are clear and sufficiently detailed for the Commander’s required depth.
Overall, the most important factor in these results is the emergence of advantages and disadvantages for each COA. 17

18. Step Five: Synchronization Matrix
One tool to record the results of war-gaming and to synchronize the COA over a number of different parameters is a synchronization matrix. The matrix depicts the time of the event and the probable threat against which the course of action is being war-gamed. It reflects the contributions of the components and the functional areas. 18 18

19. Step Six: Advantages & Disadvantages COA 1 Advantages Disadvantages
- Rapid delivery
- Meets critical needs
Modifications 1. Assign national forces by sector
2. Lead nation provides robust communications
through LNOs
- Rough integration of forces
- Rough transition
- Complex organization
- Not flexible
- Adequate force protection
The most important set of results from war-gaming is the listing of advantages and disadvantages of the course of action. This information will be used later in the process to compare COAs even though at this point, the CPG does not compare the COAs against each other. This comparison for advantages and disadvantages regards the COA and the threat.
The identification of advantages and disadvantages leads to modifications to the COA to minimize the disadvantages. The modifications may also apply to other courses of action.
The suggestion of modifications should keep in mind the fact that COAs still need to be distinguishable one from the other. 19

20. Step Seven: Prepare for Comparison Deployment requirements
Synchronization requirements
Estimate of the duration of critical events as well as the operation as a whole
Required support from outside of the MNF
Requirements for logistic support
Clear picture of command relationships
Branches and sequels
Areas of high interest for reconnaissance and surveillance
Identification of component tasks
Identify high value targets
Task organization requirements
Gaming results should be subject to the same sets of analytical elements as the COA was subject to in Step Three: Analysis. The items in this slide are a restatement of those elements. The analysis results can be presented to the Commander formally or informally as the situation dictates. However, the CPG should solicit remarks from the NCEs of each nation participating in the MNF as well as from MNF component commanders (formally or informally.
This preparation is intended to offer a framework within which the Commander will outline his comparison criteria although the CPG may draft a set of recommended comparison criteria. These criteria will capture the key military planning factors that support mission success. 20

21. COA Analysis Steps Organize Gather Tools Conduct Analysis Gaming
Prepare
Conduct
Output
Record / Display Results
Identify Advantages and Disadvantages
Prepare for Comparison 21

22. End-state – Know where you are headed!
COA Analysis Summary
Determine the effectiveness of each friendly COA on the most probable & most dangerous enemy COA or threat situation
Conduct this analysis in an orderly fashion
By time phasing
Geographic location
Critical events
Consider the potential actions of subordinates two echelons down
Consider crisis termination issues
ENDSTATE – KNOW WHERE YOU ARE HEADED
End-state – Know where you are headed! 22

23. MDMP-M Steps
Having gamed each proposed COA against the threat COAs, it is time to begin comparing each COA against the others. 23

24. Discussion