Wargaming is a structured analytical and educational tool used across defence organisations to explore military problems, test plans, train decision-makers, and generate insight — without the cost or risk of real operations.
A wargame is "a simulation, by whatever means, of a military operation involving two or more opposing forces, using rules, data, and procedures designed to depict an actual or assumed real-life situation" — US DoD, Joint Publication 5-0, Joint Planning (2020). NATO's Allied Command Transformation defines it as a "decision-making exercise representing a conflict or operation" used for planning, analysis, or education.
| Activity | Purpose | Adversarial? | Live Forces? | Wargame? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wargame | Explore conflict, test decisions | ✔ Yes (red/blue) | ✗ No | ✔ Yes |
| Exercise (FTX/CPX) | Train units, validate procedures | Partial | Often yes | ✗ No |
| Simulation | Model a system or process | Optional | ✗ No | Partial |
| Modelling & Analysis (M&A) | Quantitative performance assessment | Optional | ✗ No | ✗ No |
| Staff Ride | Learn from historical battles | Historical | ✗ No | ✗ No |
| Red Teaming | Adversarial perspective analysis | ✔ Yes | ✗ No | Partial |
The modern wargame traces to Kriegsspiel (War Game), developed by Prussian officer Georg von Reisswitz Jr. in 1824 and adopted by the Prussian Army. Its institutionalisation is credited with contributing to Prussian operational success in 1866 and 1870. The Japanese Imperial Navy used tabletop wargames to plan the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941. The US Naval War College has conducted wargames continuously since 1887. [1][2]
Wargames are classified by purpose, representation method, and degree of human–computer interaction. Understanding typology is essential for selecting the correct format for a given problem set.
A structured discussion-based format where participants explore a scenario without formal moves, adjudication rules, or scoring. Facilitated by a moderator. Highest human bandwidth; lowest structural rigour. Ideal for concept exploration, policy-level problem framing, and multi-stakeholder engagement (military, government, industry).
• High participant count feasible
• Excellent for surfacing assumptions and mental models
• Flexible — can pivot based on discussion
• No specialised software required
• Dominated by senior voices (rank bias)
• Difficult to replicate or control for variables
• Less useful for quantitative data generation
• Groupthink risk without skilled facilitation
Strategic policy workshops · Inter-agency coordination exercises · Futures and horizon-scanning seminars · Early-stage doctrine development · Executive decision-maker sensitisation
A turn-based format using maps, counters, or physical/digital boards. Opposing teams (Blue Force, Red Force) submit moves that are formally adjudicated by a Control cell (White Cell / EXCON). Results are communicated and a new game state established. Provides structured adversarial interaction with moderate data fidelity. [4]
• Formal move/counter-move record
• Moderate fidelity without heavy IT infrastructure
• Adaptable to tactical, operational, or strategic levels
• Builds shared situational understanding in teams
• Time-intensive for full campaign games
• Limited dynamic environment representation
• Participant bias toward tactical over operational thinking
• Replication across iterations is laborious
Campaign planning analysis · Staff officer training · Operational planning MDMP step 5 wargaming · Joint task force coordination · Concept validation against red force
Uses simulation software to automate adjudication, track game state, model physics/logistics, and generate after-action data. Ranges from constructive simulation (all entities simulated) to human-in-the-loop hybrids. Examples include JCATS, OneSAF, COMBATXXI (US), JTLS (NATO), and CASPIAN. [5][6]
• Rich quantitative data generation
• Replicable runs for statistical analysis
• Can model thousands of entities simultaneously
• Integrates terrain, weather, logistics, EW effects
• Model fidelity creates false confidence
• "Black-box" adjudication reduces transparency
• Limited cognitive/human decision fidelity
• Scenario setup time can be weeks
Force structure analysis · Acquisition requirements testing · Brigade/division-level training exercises · Intelligence community threat modelling · M&S validation and verification
| Criterion | Seminar | Tabletop | Computer-Assisted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Setup Time | Days | Weeks | Months |
| Cost | Low | Moderate | High–Very High |
| Data Fidelity | Low | Moderate | High |
| Human Insight | Highest | High | Moderate |
| Adversarial Rigour | Low | Moderate–High | Highest |
| Reproducibility | Low | Moderate | High |
| Participants Required | 5–100+ | 10–60 | 10–500+ |
Defining clear objectives before design begins is the single most critical determinant of wargame success. This module also covers cost bands by format, the interleaving cadence across levels of war, and the KPIs, Measures of Performance and Measures of Effectiveness applicable at each level.
RAND guidance states that "the most common reason wargames fail is that sponsors and designers do not agree on objectives before design begins." Every subsequent design decision — scenario, format, adjudication, data collection — flows from the objective statement. [3][25]
- 🟠Demonstrate proficiency in TLP and MDMP at company through brigade level, including OPORD and FRAGORD production under time pressure.
- 🟠Apply combined arms integration across manoeuvre, fires, aviation, engineer, and sustainment during a simulated engagement sequence.
- 🟠Analyse adversary TTPs to develop effective COAs and identify tactical friction points, including EW, terrain, and time-distance factors.
- 🟠Evaluate suppression, attrition, and C2 degradation effects on unit performance using structured wargame turn analysis.
- 🔵Apply Joint Operational Planning and Operational Design to develop campaign plans linking tactical actions to strategic objectives.[15]
- 🔵Evaluate joint force integration across domains (land, maritime, air, space, cyber) within a joint operations area.
- 🔵Assess sustainment requirements, identify culminating points, and construct a JIPOE to locate adversary CoGs and critical vulnerabilities.
- 🔵Construct a Synchronisation Matrix and identify CCIRs to support decision-making throughout a multi-phase campaign.
- 🟣Evaluate the relationship between national policy, strategic objectives, and military strategy — and the tensions arising between them.[23]
- 🟣Apply DIME and PMESII-PT frameworks to multi-domain strategic problem sets, assessing instrument interaction and sequencing.
- 🟣Analyse deterrence theory, escalation dynamics, and crisis management principles in a competitive strategic environment.[10]
- 🟣Evaluate alliance cohesion, coalition communication, and the impact of emerging technologies on strategic competition and escalation risk.
KPI (Key Performance Indicator): a metric tracking whether the wargame programme is being delivered to standard — quality and process. MOP (Measure of Performance): confirms a task was executed correctly — the how well. MOE (Measure of Effectiveness): assesses whether the desired outcome was achieved — the did it work. KPIs and MOPs are assessed during and immediately after the game; MOEs are assessed days to months later through follow-on evaluation.[38]
| Metric | Type | Description / Question Answered | Collection Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| OPORD issuance time | MOP | Time from mission receipt to complete OPORD brief — threshold vs. objective standard. | Observer stopwatch / game record |
| Combined arms synchronisation score | MOP | % of fire support requests correctly formatted, deconflicted, and timed within the turn sequence. | EXCON adjudication log |
| Friction identification rate | KPI | Number of distinct friction points surfaced and documented per wargame turn — proxy for analytical depth. | Observer cell notes |
| COA quality rating | MOP | SME panel assessment (1–5) of COA logic, task-purpose linkage, and risk identification before execution. | Pre-game COA brief assessment |
| Casualty exchange ratio (CER) | MOP | Blue:Red attrition ratio — measures combat effectiveness of the plan as adjudicated. | Constructive sim output / adjudication table |
| Objective seizure rate | MOE | % of assigned objectives achieved within planned time and resource constraints — did the plan work? | Game outcome vs. plan comparison |
| Decision speed under pressure | MOE | Time to issue FRAGORD following unexpected OPFOR action — measures adaptability, not just planning. | Observer timing / game record |
| Post-game proficiency assessment | MOE | Written or practical assessment 30–90 days post-wargame to test retention of TLP/MDMP skills. | Follow-on evaluation / field exercise |
| Lesson capture rate | KPI | % of identified friction points converted to documented, actionable lessons with assigned owners within 48 hrs. | AAR report audit |
| Metric | Type | Description / Question Answered | Collection Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Campaign phase transition accuracy | MOP | % of phase transitions executed when planned decision criteria were met — tests operational design validity. | Synchro matrix vs. game record |
| JIPOE accuracy index | MOP | Proportion of OPFOR actions that fell within the range of predicted adversary COAs — measures intelligence quality. | Post-game JIPOE vs. OPFOR actual |
| Joint synchronisation error rate | KPI | Number of component deconfliction failures, fratricide events, or missed windows per 24-hour game turn. | EXCON adjudication log |
| Sustainment culmination distance | MOP | Days of advance before logistics failure forces operational pause — measures plan's sustainment depth. | Logistics cell / simulation data |
| Lines of effort progress rate | MOE | % achievement of LOE objectives per campaign phase — did the operational approach generate conditions for strategic success? | Game state assessment vs. LOE plan |
| CCIR fulfilment rate | KPI | % of Commander's Critical Information Requirements answered within the required decision window. | J2 decision support log |
| Multi-domain effect integration | MOP | Observer-rated quality of space, cyber, IO, and kinetic effect synchronisation within each operational turn. | SME observer panel scoring |
| Operational end state achievement | MOE | Whether the operational end state conditions (not just objectives) were established at campaign termination. | Game outcome vs. CONOPS end state |
| Doctrine gap identification | MOE | Number of doctrinal gaps, capability shortfalls, or TTP inadequacies surfaced and formally documented. | EXCON after-action report |
| Metric | Type | Description / Question Answered | Collection Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assumption surfacing rate | KPI | Number of previously unstated strategic assumptions identified, challenged, and documented per game day. | Facilitator observation log |
| Escalation threshold mapping | MOP | Extent to which participant moves tested and located red-line thresholds on the escalation ladder — qualitative completeness rating. | Facilitator / analyst scoring |
| DIME instrument balance | MOP | Distribution of player moves across Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic levers — flags over-reliance on military options. | Move log categorisation analysis |
| Alliance cohesion index | MOE | Degree to which allied/coalition participants maintained unified positions vs. fragmented under pressure — qualitative panel rating. | Observer cell / game transcript analysis |
| Deterrence stability assessment | MOE | Did the game's deterrence posture prevent escalation to the next threshold? Assessed against pre-defined stability criteria. | Post-game analyst review vs. endgame state |
| Policy recommendation actionability | KPI | % of wargame-derived recommendations that are specific, attributable, and feasible — avoids vague "enhance cooperation" outputs. | Sponsor review of final report |
| Adversary model accuracy | MOP | Post-game SME panel assessment of how well the Red Cell's behaviour matched known adversary doctrine, intent, and decision calculus. | Red Cell debrief vs. doctrine review |
| Strategic end state achievement | MOE | Whether the wargame-tested strategy generated the conditions for achieving the stated political end state. | End-game adjudication vs. CONOPS end state |
| Sponsor integration of findings | MOE | % of wargame recommendations incorporated into doctrine, posture, or planning documents within 180 days — ultimate institutional impact measure. | 6-month follow-up review with sponsor |
Strategic wargames explore national-level policy decisions, grand strategy, deterrence, escalation dynamics, and the intersection of military, diplomatic, economic, and informational instruments of power.
At the strategic level, the wargame is not about tactics or even campaigns — it is about policy choices and their second- and third-order effects. Military action is one of many levers. The premium is on surfacing assumptions about adversary decision-making, alliance dynamics, and escalation thresholds. [9]
| Game / Series | Institution | Focus | Format |
|---|---|---|---|
| Global War Game | US Naval War College (since 1979) | US strategic posture, force structure, alliances | Seminar / Tabletop hybrid |
| Unified Quest | US Army ARCIC / TRADOC | Future Army operating concepts | Exploratory / CD&E |
| Prominent Hunt | US Joint Staff J7 | Joint warfighting concept exploration | Tabletop / Computer-assisted |
| Hedgemaze | RAND Corporation | Pacific deterrence, escalation management | Matrix game |
| NATO Crisis Management Exercise (CMX) | NATO HQ | Alliance decision procedures under Article 5 | Seminar / TTX |
| Connections UK | King's College London / UK MoD | Professional military education wargaming | Multi-format conference |
| Global Strategic Game | UK DCDC / Shrivenham | UK strategic futures and defence planning | Seminar / Tabletop |
Developed by Chris Engle (1991) and refined for professional military education by PAXSIMS, matrix games replace fixed rules with structured argumentation. Players state: (1) an action they wish to take; (2) reasons it succeeds; (3) reasons it might fail. A facilitator or dice adjudicates probability. This approach excels at capturing political-military interactions and is increasingly used at strategic PME institutions. [11]
Operational wargames examine campaign-level planning and execution, spanning joint force activities across a joint operations area (JOA) over days to months of simulated time.
| System | Developer / Sponsor | Level | Key Capability |
|---|---|---|---|
| JTLS-GO | Rolands & Associates / US EUCOM | Operational–Strategic | Joint Theatre Level Simulation with air, land, sea, logistics |
| JSIMS | US DoD | Joint Operational | Retired; Joint Simulation System — reference for successor architectures |
| SWIFT | UK MoD / Dstl | Operational | Synthetic Warfighting Integration and Feature Testbed |
| CASPIAN | NATO ACT | Operational–Strategic | NATO's primary wargame tool for alliance-level exercises |
| PAXSIMS Games | McGill Univ / NPS | Operational | Open-source matrix games for professional military education |
| Operational Wargame System | US Army TRADOC | Division–Corps | Brigade-resolution land operations; successor to Janus/CASTFOREM |
Tactical wargames operate at the battalion-to-brigade level (and below), examining force-on-force engagements, unit tactics, and the direct application of combat power to achieve local objectives.
Combat Power: manoeuvre elements, fires (organic and supporting), aviation, engineer, and sustainment. Terrain Analysis: observation and fields of fire, avenues of approach, key and decisive terrain, obstacles, cover and concealment (OAKOC). Suppression & Attrition: hit probability, kill probability, casualty rates. Command & Control: communications range, command echelon limits, effects of degraded C2. EW & Obscuration: jamming, smoke, deception.
| Format | Description | Used By | Example Tool |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sand Table | Physical terrain model with unit markers. Traditional but high cognitive engagement. | Platoon–battalion | Physical model |
| Map Wargame | 1:50,000 map with unit counters. Standard for company–brigade staff exercise. | Company–brigade | Paper / JMAPS |
| COMBATXXI | US Army entity-level constructive simulation for BCT and below experimentation. | Brigade | COMBATXXI (ARL) |
| VBS3/VBS4 | Virtual Battlespace — 3D immersive dismounted/mounted simulation for individual–platoon. | Individual–platoon | Bohemia Interactive Simulations |
| Steel Beasts Pro | Armoured vehicle crew simulator with high-fidelity vehicle models for combined arms. | Crew–squadron | eSim Games |
US Army Field Manual FM 6-0, Commander and Staff Organization and Operations (2016) codifies the step-5 wargame as a mandatory planning step. NATO's AJP-5 Allied Joint Doctrine for the Planning of Operations (2019) provides the equivalent allied framework. [7][8]
Good wargame design is a structured craft. RAND's "Wargaming Handbook" and the UK DCDC "Wargaming Handbook" both identify design as the primary determinant of wargame quality and analytical validity.
Adjudication is the process by which game moves are evaluated and outcomes determined. It is the engine of any wargame — its validity determines whether the game produces useful insight or misleading artefacts.
| Method | Mechanism | Transparency | Speed | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expert Judgement | SME panel evaluates moves and assigns outcomes based on professional experience | High (reasoning visible) | Fast–Moderate | Seminar / exploratory games |
| Deterministic Rules | Fixed combat tables (Lanchester-based or historical data) produce deterministic outcomes | High | Fast | Training games requiring consistency |
| Probabilistic Rules | Dice or random number generators introduce stochastic outcomes based on weighted tables | High | Moderate | Tactical tabletop games; teaching friction |
| Computer Simulation | Engagement-level models compute outcomes from physics and performance parameters | Low (black box) | Fast (automated) | Analytical games requiring data fidelity |
| Structured Argumentation | Matrix game: action + reasons scored for likelihood by control cell | Very High | Slow–Moderate | Political-military / strategic games |
| Hybrid | SME judgement frames; simulation provides quantitative backup data; dice introduces friction | Moderate | Moderate | Operational-level multi-domain games |
Frederick Lanchester (1916) derived two differential equation models still used in modern wargame adjudication engines. [13]
dB/dt = -b · R dR/dt = -r · BWhere B, R = strength; b, r = attrition coefficients. Combat power proportional to numbers only.
dB/dt = -b · R dR/dt = -r · B²Combat power proportional to numbers squared. Concentration of force is exponentially advantageous.
All adjudication methods carry embedded assumptions. Simulation models encode the biases of their developers. SME panels reflect the dominant doctrinal school. Probabilistic tables are calibrated to historical data that may not generalise. Designers must explicitly document adjudication assumptions and present them as caveats to findings. [3]
The After-Action Review (AAR) is where wargame value is extracted. A poorly conducted AAR can waste the entire investment; a rigorous AAR can produce insights beyond what the game designers anticipated.
• Protect participant candour — no rank privilege in the AAR
• Use the game record as ground truth, not memory
• Focus on decisions and decision processes, not personalities
• Capture lessons in writing before participants depart
• Distinguish between player skill gaps and game design flaws
• Focus exclusively on failures — reinforce what worked
• Confuse game outcome with real-world prediction
• Skip the AAR due to time pressure — this is the deliverable
• Allow adjudication disputes to consume the session
• Mix analytical AAR with training AAR in the same session
Executive Summary (1 page): key findings, recommendations.
Background: sponsor, objective, classification.
Methodology: format, scenario, adjudication, limitations, caveats.
Game Narrative: major decision points, key moves, turning points.
Findings: structured, evidenced, prioritised.
Recommendations: specific, actionable, resource-aware.
Annexes: game materials, scenario, data tables, participant list.
Structured digital AAR forms for each level of war. Entries persist locally and aggregate into cross-level insights — revealing recurring friction themes across wargaming events.
A global network of government, academic, and think-tank institutions advance wargaming theory and practice. This map covers the principal centres across the Americas, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and the Middle East.
Foundational works in wargaming theory, design, and professional military education. Listed by reference number as used in this guide.
All works cited are either publicly available or declassified. Classified references are excluded from this training guide. For access to restricted sources, consult your formation J7/G7 directorate.