This is coolbert:
Within the context of war games as that term understood: Blue = Friendly. Red = Aggressor.
And as extracted from a previous blog entry:
"War games as conducted by the German General Staff under the command of von Schlieffen were 'manipulated' and 'doctored' in the worse sense of those words?"
From a conversation with an acknowledged authority in such matters as war games we have some observations:
"This is true of most war games. The Red Forces (the enemy) have to lose in order to boost morale of the side creating the war games, as well as to train the officers in the local army to deal with the tactics and plans for their war. It is almost never designed to be an equal contest--Red HAS to lose."
"It is never really a 'game in the normal win-lose style thought of in real games; Red is supposed to lose, period."
"A significant point about the Blue v. Red war gaming is that when there is a unique confluence of open minded and confident leadership in the command portion of that army, coupled with the maverick officers in the Red Forces who reveal real weaknesses in strategies or tactics, then indeed the war games may lead to major changes in either or both strategy and tactics. The US military has fortunately been able to have that confluence a few times, but not often."
"A few times, but not often." And I imagine for everyone else it has been and is now the same way, even with von Schlieffen.