By Jeremiah Monk
INTRODUCTION
Military wargaming has long been a cornerstone of training and strategic evaluation. Traditionally, however, military wargames have been predominantly linear, tactically focused, and often artificially scripted. These traditional wargames are excellent at drilling individuals in specific skills, perfecting tactics, and testing specific operational-level actions, but they fall short when it comes to evaluating complex strategic questions, especially those related to deterrence and broader national power. In an era where geopolitical environments are becoming increasingly unpredictable and where gray-zone threats are the new norm, the traditional approach to wargaming does not suffice. Military organizations must evolve beyond tactical games to fully appreciate, explore, and test strategic alternatives.
TRADITIONAL WARGAMING: LINEAR, TACTICAL, AND SCRIPTED
The conventional approach to wargaming in the military has primarily been focused on the tactical level—usually involving straightforward battles and operational scenarios. These games tend to have a linear progression, with pre-determined decision points and known outcomes. Scenarios often start from a tactical conflict, simulate actions and reactions, and end once a set condition has been met, such as the defeat of an enemy force or the achievement of a tactical objective.
This traditional method of wargaming is primarily driven by a desire for predictability and control. The scripted nature allows for a high degree of fidelity in modeling tactical engagements, but it often comes at the cost of spontaneity and creativity. As a result, players are more concerned with executing specific orders and tactics than with exploring broader strategic options. This creates an artificial environment that assumes success if the script is followed—a paradigm which hardly represents the uncertainty of real-world scenarios.
Additionally, traditional games are often averse to failure. When training emphasizes only successful outcomes, participants can become risk-averse and reluctant to think creatively or challenge conventional wisdom. Such an approach does not prepare military leaders to think on their feet or adapt to fast-changing environments where success is uncertain.
THE CHALLENGE OF STRATEGY AND DETERRENCE IN WARGAMING
The limitations of traditional wargaming become particularly evident when applied to the context of strategic planning and deterrence. The 2022 National Defense Strategy (NDS) places the maintenance of deterrence as its top priority, but the current wargaming culture within military organizations often fails to rigorously test or validate deterrence strategies. Instead, military wargames typically prepare participants for actions after deterrence has failed. There is a significant gap in examining how different strategic postures might impact an adversary’s calculus, and in evaluating the effectiveness of different deterrence measures.
To effectively maintain and strengthen deterrence, it is essential for military leaders to understand the perspectives, motivations, and constraints of adversaries. Unfortunately, the tactical focus of traditional wargames tends to emphasize force-on-force engagements rather than exploring how threats, demonstrations of resolve, and broader instruments of national power influence adversaries’ decision-making. To rectify this shortcoming, military organizations need to incorporate a broader approach that incorporates the complex dynamics of geopolitics, alliances, and all instruments of national power—not just the military aspect.
EXPANDING THE SCOPE: STRATEGIC-LEVEL SERIOUS GAMES
To overcome the limitations of traditional wargaming, military organizations should turn to strategic-level serious games that are designed to explore and evaluate the full spectrum of national power. These games should be comprehensive, adaptable, and able to incorporate the complexity and ambiguity inherent in real-world conflicts. Several types of games could be utilized to address these needs:
1. Whole-of-Government Strategic Games
These games are designed to encompass all elements of national power: diplomatic, informational, military, and economic (DIME). Players represent not only military actors but also other key stakeholders, such as diplomats, intelligence agencies, and economic policymakers. This approach allows participants to appreciate how each element of national power interacts with the others and how a coordinated approach can create strategic effects greater than the sum of its parts.
In these games, participants make decisions that extend far beyond battlefield maneuvers—such as negotiating alliances, shaping international perceptions, and managing economic sanctions. This provides an opportunity to test how different strategies for deterrence might play out in practice and helps players gain insight into how adversaries might respond to various types of pressure.
2. Adversary Perspective and Red Teaming Games
One of the keys to successful deterrence is understanding the mindset of potential adversaries. Adversary perspective games and red teaming exercises put players in the role of opposing forces, challenging them to think as adversaries would. This approach can provide valuable insights into what actions may or may not be perceived as credible deterrents.
Red teaming, in particular, can be used to stress-test existing deterrence strategies by evaluating them from the adversary's point of view. This process often highlights vulnerabilities and reveals opportunities for improvement that would not be apparent in traditional wargames, where the emphasis is on how "friendly" forces will respond to a threat rather than on how an adversary will interpret or react to friendly actions.
3. Iterative and Replayable Scenario-Based Games
One major limitation of traditional wargames is that they are often played once, with outcomes predetermined by scripted scenarios. However, iterative gaming—where the same scenario is played multiple times with different strategies—offers a powerful tool for understanding complex dynamics and learning from failure.
Replayable strategic games allow participants to test different approaches in the same scenario, gaining insights into what works and what doesn’t. For example, one iteration might focus on a diplomatic-heavy approach to deterrence, while another could emphasize military posturing. This approach allows players to see the second- and third-order effects of different decisions, fostering a deeper understanding of the intricacies of strategic interactions. It also allows participants to experience and learn from failure—a critical aspect of mastering strategy.
4. Incorporating Uncertainty and Ambiguity
A key feature of real-world strategic environments is the presence of uncertainty and ambiguity. To better prepare leaders, strategic-level wargames should incorporate incomplete information, unexpected events, and the fog of war. This can be achieved through “free play” mechanisms, where adversary actions are not pre-scripted but instead determined by human players or artificial intelligence. By embracing uncertainty, participants are challenged to think creatively, adapt to new information, and make decisions with limited knowledge—all essential skills for effective strategic leadership.
THE ROLE OF FAILURE IN STRATEGIC WARGAMING
A notable drawback of traditional wargaming is the reluctance to allow failure. Games are often designed in such a way that success is almost guaranteed if players follow the prescribed steps. However, failure is one of the most powerful learning tools, particularly in the realm of strategy. The experience of failing and reflecting on the causes of failure leads to a greater understanding of risk, encourages innovation, and fosters resilience.
By designing wargames that allow—and even encourage—failure, military organizations can cultivate a culture of learning and experimentation. This is especially important when exploring deterrence strategies, where understanding why certain approaches fail is as important as understanding why others succeed. Allowing failure in wargames helps leaders prepare for situations in which deterrence does not work as intended and equips them with the skills to adapt quickly to a rapidly evolving crisis.
APPLYING LESSONS TO DETERRENCE: EVALUATING STRATEGIC POSTURES
While the NDS places a strong emphasis on deterrence, military wargaming has traditionally focused on what to do after deterrence fails. To bridge this gap, wargames should be explicitly designed to explore and evaluate different deterrence postures. Such games should consider a range of scenarios—from full-scale military threats to hybrid and gray-zone activities—and should evaluate how different strategic actions impact adversary decision-making.
For instance, a game might simulate a scenario in which a regional adversary is considering aggression against a neighboring country. Players representing national leaders must decide how to use diplomatic signaling, military deployments, and economic sanctions to dissuade aggression. The adversary’s response could be determined by a red team, and the game could be iterated to determine which combination of actions is most effective at deterring the threat.
Additionally, games should explore the implications of deterrence failure—how to recover, re-establish credibility, and prevent further escalation. By focusing on the totality of deterrence, including the political, psychological, and informational aspects, wargames can provide a more comprehensive understanding of how to maintain peace and stability.
THE FUTURE OF WARGAMING: RECOMMENDATIONS
To ensure military organizations are adequately prepared for the strategic challenges of the 21st century, several changes should be made to how wargames are designed and implemented:
Shift the Focus from Tactics to Strategy: Wargames should place greater emphasis on strategic decision-making rather than just tactical execution. This includes exploring political, economic, and social dynamics alongside military options.
Adopt a Whole-of-Government Approach: Strategic games should involve not only military personnel but also representatives from diplomatic, intelligence, and economic spheres to better reflect the complexities of national power.
Incorporate Iterative Play and Encourage Failure: By allowing multiple playthroughs of the same scenario with different strategies, participants can gain a deeper understanding of cause-and-effect relationships. Failure should be viewed as a learning opportunity rather than a negative outcome.
Embrace Complexity and Uncertainty: Games should incorporate incomplete information, unexpected developments, and unpredictable adversary actions. This will help participants learn to adapt to the types of ambiguity they are likely to face in real-world crises.
Use Red Teaming to Test Deterrence: Games should include robust red teaming to evaluate the effectiveness of deterrence strategies from an adversary’s perspective. This will help identify vulnerabilities and areas where deterrence postures may need to be strengthened.
CONCLUSION
The challenges of modern warfare require a rethinking of traditional military wargaming practices. The linear, tactically focused, and scripted nature of conventional wargames is ill-suited to the complexity and ambiguity of the current strategic environment. Military organizations must embrace new approaches to wargaming that prioritize strategic thinking, allow for comprehensive exploration of deterrence, and incorporate all elements of national power. By adopting serious games that foster creativity, encourage experimentation, and embrace the possibility of failure, military leaders can gain the insights needed to develop effective strategies for deterrence and beyond. Preparing for the full spectrum of challenges—before deterrence fails—will ensure that the military is better positioned to address the intricacies of modern conflict, maintain stability, and achieve national security objectives in an increasingly unpredictable world.
Comentarios