War Games in Modern Warfare

War is the practical field for testing combat doctrine and developing practical experience in the military domain. However, how can its theoretical foundations be developed without practical testing? For this reason, armies have consistently sought ways to test and develop their combat experience in war without engaging in actual combat, and war games have emerged as the closest alternative for practical field testing of theories and combat methods.

Some may associate the term “war game” with a specific, pre-planned strategy aimed at a particular and complex war, applicable solely by advanced nations in actual settings. Others may take a more dismissive view, equating the term to recreational sports. Despite these differing perceptions, the clear reality of war games is their necessity in modern warfare. But why are war games considered essential? To answer this question, it’s essential to understand the concept of war games.

The Concept of War Games

War games are defined as simulated military operations involving two or more conflicting forces that operate according to rules and methods to represent an actual or hypothetical situation. Such games can be conducted for training purposes, to test operational plans, or for research. They can be manual, conducted without electronic devices, or assisted by electronic computers, or solely reliant on computers. Most countries leveraging this technique regard it as a low-cost method for enabling military and political decision-makers to formulate rational budgets for defense and make decisions about the size and number of land, air, and naval forces. Additionally, they examine the experimental results of weapons under development and assess the viability of tactical methods designed for modern battlefields, along with evaluating the need to allocate financial resources for military research and developments.

Academics often refer to war games as “simulation” or “modeling.” In this context, it is noted that former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered in 1961 the change of the name of the war games agency in the U.S. Department of Defense to the Political/Military Simulation Agency. Both terms are defined as follows:

• Simulation: The representation of a system or part of a system or a model designed to exhibit behavior similar to that of the original system.
• Model: The representation of an entity or situation by something else that exhibits the attributes or characteristics of the original entity or situation.

Most military academies agree that war games are exercises without actual forces from both sides. War games differ from structural exercises in that the enemy’s actions are orchestrated in structural exercises by various command agencies, which must demonstrate their details. In a war game, both side leaders determine their actions, allowing each to focus on its operations and guiding the exercise as closely as possible according to both parties’ plans and orders. This creates a realistic perception of an actual enemy, situating the exercise within a realistic framework, which complicates the extraction of specific lessons due to the exercise’s dependence on the actions of the two sides.

Historical Background

The representation and simulation of battles through war games is an ancient practice, existing for centuries either for entertainment or as a means to train leaders to grasp the lessons of mobilization and mentally prepare for them. Historical records mention several ancient war games, such as the Chinese game “Weiqi,” dating back to around 3000 BC, the Japanese game “Shogi,” similar to chess, which was prevalent during King Hammurabi’s reign around 1842 BC, and the Indian game “Chaturanga,” considered a predecessor to modern chess, developed in India in the 7th century AD. Chess is described as embodying the concept of a match between two intelligent but creatively incomplete entities competing for victory, making it the oldest known war game. Other similar games emerged in that period, such as India’s “Raja” and Japan’s “Go,” though they did not match chess in sophistication.

By the 17th century, gaming concepts shifted towards more applicable phenomena based on prevailing military professions, leading to new games like military chess and figurine games. Military chess, a German invention, transformed chess into a board with over 1000 squares, incorporating military ranks such as general, major, colonel, and so on, representing military units along with the terrain, locations, and obstacles.

Officers learned the art of war through military chess, while kings and nobles utilized figurine games, employing small dolls made of gold and silver to represent soldiers and units, which later related to real battles based on the lessons learned in these games. Armies in the 17th century often comprised formations mirroring those used in military chess since everyone considered war an event governed by logical rules. A German tactical expert authored a book titled “Mathematical Systems for Implementing Mobilization and Warfare,” analyzing the rules for applying war games.

In 1848, the Prussians conducted their first strategic war game to simulate the upcoming war with Austria, which provided a solid foundation for their victory. Following the Prussian victory against France in 1870, worldwide attention shifted towards the importance of war games, leading the Japanese to initiate their war gaming, and the 1904 war significantly reflected this experience. The attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II also related to their war gaming, with losses aligning closely with the outcomes projected by the game, where the Japanese attack commander participated in the war game.

In 1939, German officers conducted the first political/military war game, involving representatives from the foreign office under the scenario of Germany facing an invasion from Poland. This exercise significantly contributed to the initial victories of the Germans in World War II. General Heinz Guderian, the innovator of Blitzkrieg warfare, noted that these campaigns had been practiced repeatedly as war games and map exercises at all levels, ensuring that commanders were fully aware of their primary tasks and potential challenges, allowing them to plan accordingly. When Guderian executed the invasion of France in 1940, he merely adjusted the dates and timings of orders initially issued during the war game, showcasing the direct applicability of their exercises.

Germany conducted another significant war game in November 1944 regarding the Battle of the Ardennes, where the Fifth Armored Army’s staff gathered to execute a defensive war game against potential American attacks. The final report stated, “The game had just begun when reports indicated a strong American assault in the Hertfen-Siemer area, a region that was meant to be included in the war game.” Subsequently, the game continued with the exception of leaders and command staffs of attacked units, utilizing real messages from the front as the basis for continuing the game instead of relying on hypothetical scenarios. After hours of gameplay, the war game manifested the actual threat, prompting players to deploy the army’s general reserve, the 116th Panzer Division, leading to orders for action.

German military concepts regarding war games did not receive appropriate respect from British command at the beginning of World War II due to the emergence of a new type of scientific war game, termed “Operations Research.” This concept encompassed various missions and tasks performed by teams of specialists in science and academia. Numerous tasks completed thus convinced military leaders that civilians could contribute to this field, resulting in the emergence of a new term post-war known as “Military Operations Research.” The British were aware of ongoing war games supervised by General Schlieffen from 1881 to 1906, refining his famous “spearhead” plan to occupy France, particularly the encirclement maneuver toward Paris. In 1905, the British conducted a war game predicting a German invasion of Belgium, discovering and addressing administrative challenges and mobilization when the war commenced, thereby confirming Germany’s breach of Belgian neutrality at the war’s outset.

The United States displayed delayed interest in war games, with some manifestations occurring during the American Civil War, though not reaching the level of European interest until World War II, coinciding with the first signs of the electronic computer. The University of Pennsylvania established the first electronic digital computer in 1946, which was used to calculate atomic bombing data to determine the best impact rate for such bombardments. By 1954, the Navy collaborated with Johns Hopkins University to execute a complex battle game using electronic computers, marking the first analytical war game, where computers resolved many military dilemmas and significantly accelerated war gaming, shifting its nature from tabletop exercises to theoretical frameworks and utilizing modeling techniques.

This transition enabled military players to incorporate other factors called “model designers” focused on analyzing phenomena. Between 1945 and 1967, the Rand Corporation employed models to analyze global threats and crises, categorizing the world by significance, concluding that the United States held the primary dominance, followed by the Soviet Union, with Lebanon ranked 71st and Nicaragua 89th. Rand strategists discovered that traditional military war gaming provided minimal useful lessons while emphasizing the need for new logical methods to address unconventional nuclear warfare. They recognized game theory as the best of these methodologies, developing mathematical tables for complex games accessible only to specialists in mathematics, which transitioned military war games into a new environment dominated by academics. A “Military Strategy and Force Assessment Game” was established in 1962, and by 1961, the Marine Corps formed a special organization supporting war games.

In a 1966 organizational study, it was noted that among 103 war games conducted by fifty organizations, only thirty were military war games. Interest in war games within the U.S. Department of Defense mirrored that of amateur enthusiasts, led by James F. Duncan, who produced war games on Indochina and naval battles in the Pacific in 1972, along with a 1983 game about the Gulf War. This game saw participation from fourteen different nations and utilized 910 pieces to represent military units across six tables, two books detailing game rules, and three maps. The scenarios addressed specific aspects of the Gulf War dilemma, with all scenarios requiring approximately 45 hours to complete.

Duncan produced over 300 war game simulations from historical battles in World War I and II, in addition to hypothetical battles. In the fall of 1980, the U.S. Department of Defense summoned Duncan, revealing all confidential information and requesting his involvement in developing a global strategic war game. This game remains in use at the National Defense University, allowing participants to analyze the strategic decisions of senior national leadership and field commanders across various theaters, including naval fleet operations across oceans. Several war games occurred in the White House attended by U.S. presidents, with none participating due to potential conflicts of interest. The most significant game in this context was “Ivy League,” with a brief report published in 1981. One outcome of the game was the integration of White House situation rooms with the command center via a transportation network called the “Global Military Command and Control System,” including a crisis game staged in 1983 concerning Gulf oil project invasions. This also involved addressing Iran’s challenges in light of the Imam Khomeini’s death and the resulting regional imbalance in preparations for the Gulf War, where many defense plans relied on projections from combat models relevant to operational theaters.

In August 1987, the “Scientific Defense Council” at the Naval War College convened to design an ideal electronic war game titled “Sam Plays Ivan,” characterized by complex scenarios that mandated a new type of war game blending human estimates and judgments with electronic computer modeling. It also showcased nuclear capabilities at all crisis and conflict levels, even during peacetime and the aftermath of nuclear conflict on a broad scale.

Classification of War Games

Armies have consistently sought methods to test and enhance their combat experience in warfare without engaging in it, making war games the closest alternative for practical field testing of theories and combat methods. War games are a means, not an end; thus, they serve as a systematic analysis utilized by headquarters and officers to examine their decisions and refine them toward reaching a logically acceptable final decision. War games can be classified by their purpose for teaching, research, or analysis, and this classification is not fixed; it varies based on the game’s objectives. Therefore, they can be categorized by purpose as follows:

1. Training War Games: Their primary objective is to equip players with the necessary experience for making correct decisions and managing and controlling units.
2. Analytical War Games: Such games do not provide definitive answers to specific questions but highlight weaknesses and strengths when examining a plan or strategy. They do not make prognostications but provide potential outcomes based on previously executed or examined actions, relying on examined events and reactions. Analytical war games can be divided into two categories:
   • Operational Analytical War Games: Pertaining to known or established doctrines, organization, equipment, use, and combat methodologies.
   • Research Analytical War Games: Addressing doctrines and future or planned ideas, organizational preparations, and environments regarding modernization and development.

Types of War Games

War games can be divided into four main types:

1. By the Type of Work Required for Study: Three subcategories encompass this type, each with its unique advantage:
   • Active Game: A maneuver application on the map after the initial opening, evolving as dictated by both sides while adjusting based on each force’s interventions, potentially executed through time-phased increments (allocating specific times for each action) or critical event-driven scenarios.
   • Lateral Analysis: Involves developing one or more sides under varying conditions to facilitate comparison.
   • Static Analysis: An in-depth examination of a military or organizational situation that is not reliant on time but rather on the situation at that specific time.
2. By the Number of Participating Parties: This division includes three categories:
   • One-Sided War Game:
     • Without Enemy Representation: Studying a dilemma without enemy intervention.
     • With Enemy Representation: Where control does not seek to win as an adversary but ensures game objectives or lessons are achieved.
   • Two-Sided War Games: Each side represents different sectors as outlined by the exercise.
   • Multi-Party War Games: Less frequent in military fields but common in political contexts, involving multiple factions, including allies and neutral parties.
3. By Intelligence Control: War games can be categorized based on intelligence management:
   • Open War Games: All players can access complete information on the other side’s plans and forces, thereby reducing personnel and time but lacking realism.
   • Closed War Games: Players receive only the amount of information potentially obtainable in actual war conditions, enhancing realism.
4. By Control Degree: This type comprises two categories:
   • Restricted War Games: They involve tighter management and control over the exercise, holding certain players accountable to reveal weaknesses and weak plans.
   • Free War Games: Minimal intervention with focus on evaluating and providing results based on activities.

Conclusion

War serves as the practical ground for testing combat doctrine and developing military experience. However, how can its theoretical foundations be expanded without practical field testing? For this reason, armies have consistently sought methods to improve their combat experiences through war games, emerging as the closest simulation for testing theories.

War games have taken on an independent role, serving as a catalyst in developing sciences that have even found applications in civilian sectors, such as Operations Research and political/economic war games. They have become a vast field for developing experiments across various scientific disciplines. Thus, war games have emerged prominently in military development, the essential arena for their creation and evolution, becoming intrinsic to field tests.

Given the extensive domains and purposes of war games, they take on various conventional forms, necessitating an exploration of their ideas and foundations for delving into their applications and maximizing their investment potential based on historical and experiential successes.

References

• “War Games: The Psychology and Physiology of Combat” by Leo Murray

• “Simulating War: Studying Conflict through Simulation Games” by Philip Sabin

• “The Art of Wargaming: A Guide for Professionals and Hobbyists” by Peter Perla

• “War Games and Their History: From Gladiator Games to Modern Combat Simulations” by Donald Featherstone

• “Red Team: How to Succeed by Thinking Like the Enemy” by Micah Zenko

• “War Gaming and Military Exercises: An Overview” by John Curry and Donald Featherstone

• “The Science of War Games: Modeling and Simulations in Military Training” by David M. Gabbard

• “Manual of War Gaming” by Francis J. McHugh

• “War Games: Inside the World of Military Exercises” by Tim Lister and Sebastian Meyer