text: Planning
  Table 4-2. Course of action development (continued)
  MDMP Sub-
  Inputs IO Officer Actions IO Officer Outputs
  Step
  6 December 2016 FM 3-13 4-25
  AOC
  poleveD
  stnemetatS
  dna
  sehctekS
   COA statement  Submit input for each COA  Input for each COA
  statement and sketch to G- statement and sketch  A scheme of IO and
  3 (S-3)
  objectives for each  Scheme of IO and
  COA  Prepare scheme statement sketches for each COA,
  and sketch for each COA stating the most
  important objectives
  COA course of action IO information operations IPB intelligence preparation of the
  EEFI essential element of friendly IPB intelligence preparation of the battlefield
  information battlefield OPSEC operations security
  HPT high-payoff target IRC information-related capability
  COURSE OF ACTION ANALYSIS AND WAR-GAMING
  4-111. COA analysis (war-gaming) enables commanders and staffs to identify difficulties or coordination
  problems as well as probable consequences of planned actions for each COA being considered. It helps them
  think through the tentative plan. War-gaming is a disciplined process that staffs use to envision the flow of
  battle. Its purpose is to stimulate ideas and provide insights that might not otherwise be discovered. Effective
  war-gaming allows the staff to test each COA, identify its strengths and weaknesses, and alter it if necessary.
  During war-gaming, new hazards may be identified, the risk associated with them assessed, and controls
  established. OPSEC measures and other risk control measures are also evaluated.
  4-112. War-gaming helps the IO officer synchronize IRC operations and helps the staff integrate IO into
  the overall operation. During the war game, the IO officer addresses how each IRC contributes to the scheme
  of IO for that COA and its associated time lines, critical events, and decision points. The IO officer revises
  the schemes of IO as needed during war-gaming.
  4-113. The IO officer uses the synchronization matrices and worksheets for each COA as scripts for the
  war game. The IRCs are synchronized with each other and with the concepts of operations for the different
  COAs. To the extent possible, the IO officer also includes planned counter-actions to anticipated threat
  reactions.
  4-114. During preparation for war-gaming, the IO officer gives the G-2 (S-2) likely threat information-
  related actions and reactions to friendly IO, to include possible threat responses in the information
  environment to friendly operations. The IO officer also continues to provide input to the G-2 (S-2) for HPT
  development and selection.
  4-115. Before beginning the war game, staff planners develop criteria to evaluate the effectiveness and
  efficiency of each COA during COA comparison. These criteria are listed in paragraph 3c of the IO running
  estimate and become the outline for the COA analysis in paragraph 4. The IO officer develops the criteria for
  evaluating the schemes of IO. Using IO-specific criteria allows the IO officer to explain the advantages and
  disadvantages of each COA. Evaluation criteria that may help discriminate among various COAs could
  include:
  * Lead time required for implementation.
  * The number of decision points that require support.
  * The cost of achieving an IO objective versus the expected benefits.
  * The risk to friendly assets posed by threat information activities.
  4-116. During war-gaming the IO officer participates in the action-reaction-counteraction process. For
  example, the action may be patrols designed to enforce curfew; the threat reaction is messaging accusing
  U.S. forces of causing damage and casualties; the counteraction is assigning combat camera to document
  U.S. force patrols and interactions with the indigenous population and incorporating the documentation with