Introduction

Wargames have long been acknowledged as valuable experiential learning tools that expose their players to decision making and the uncertainty of dealing with adaptive and aggressive adversaries, competitors, allies, and other stakeholders in the battlespace. Wargames also provide a kinaesthetic, storytelling, or roleplaying environment that can result in high levels of engagement, debate, and learning that supports the development of professional mastery.

Wargames can model the impact of friction[1] and resulting risks, challenging their players’ plans, decision making, and consequence management. Players can grapple with complex problems in an environment where their actions feel real but have no real-world consequences – often described as a ‘safe-to-fail environment’. In a learning environment wargames allow players to take an active role in their learning and generate interest and enthusiasm about the subject matter.

This article discusses some of the considerations concerning how to select and utilise recreational wargames for educational purposes. The selected game may be one of the board wargames detailed on the Army Battle Lab’s Professional Gaming list (See the previous Cove article – The Army Battle Lab's Professional Gaming List 2025 | The Cove), a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) recreational wargame, or a table-top miniatures wargame.

Recreational Wargames

There are numerous commercially available “hobby” games produced for recreational purposes that focus on specific historical military events as well as geopolitical themes. They can range from tactical to strategic level, solitaire through to multi-player and multi-sided, use hex-map and cardboard counters or tabletop miniatures with model terrain; all with varying levels of abstraction or fidelity and resulting simplicity or complexity. Some complex games are inaccessible for inexperienced players but offer an opportunity to a military recreational player familiar with hobby games to teach others how they may be used in the workplace. COTS recreational wargames require no design effort and when chosen carefully can be effective learning aids that can be used to support military training and education. Examples exist of these games being incorporated into the curriculum at command and staff colleges and war colleges around the world, including at the Australian War College.

It should be noted that COTS recreational games differ to professional or serious wargames. A recreational wargame is one that is played for enjoyment rather than for a vocation, often in a competitive context; a professional or serious wargame is normally designed specifically for educational or analytical purposes rather than for recreational outcomes. Examples of serious games include those developed by the Army Battle Lab and currently in use at the Royal Military College – Duntroon and on the officer foundation training courses at the Land Warfare Centre.

Selecting the right game

This is often a difficult task given the wide range of choices and considerations, especially when undertaken by someone with limited experience playing recreational wargames. There are literally hundreds of commercial board wargames and wargame rules for miniature games available; however, not all of them will be suitable, so selecting the ‘right game’ can be quite a challenge for novice and expert alike. The following sections discuss various considerations when selecting an analogue wargame for PME.

Aim and Objectives. Once the decision has been made that a wargame is the suitable tool to achieve the desired PME outcomes, the game sponsor[2] or facilitator must determine the purpose of the wargame. This helps to define the rational for the game and what it is intended to achieve. For example: “The wargame is to provide the players with an understanding of the capabilities of the current and future Australian Combat Brigade against a peer and near-peer opposing force operating in a littoral environment”. This aim should be supported by specific objectives expanding on the purpose of the wargame; these may be linked to specific learning objectives. For example: “to determine new tactics, techniques, and procedures given the introduction of future capabilities”, or “to determine the value proposition offered by new capabilities compared to current capabilities”, or “to practice post H hour decision making in a complex operating environment”, or “to gain an understanding of the complexities of littoral manoeuvre and the conduct of amphibious operations”. Defining the purpose and objectives assists the facilitator to select a suitable game with an appropriate theme and context that will support the achievement of the desired learning.

Participant Expectations. The participants – the players (the learners); wargame facilitators including subject matter experts, training establishment instructors, or coaches; the game designer; wargame support staff; and observers or onlookers – may all have different expectations of what they want or what they will do during the wargame. Their personal biases, backgrounds, subject matter expertise, experiences, knowledge, previous wargame experience, confidence in wargaming, learning requirements, and what they think of games more generally will all impact on game selection. These factors should be taken into account and given appropriate weight when selecting a suitable wargame. There is little need to select a complex board wargame about modern air combat if a simple abstract game using miniatures on a model room floor will do. Participant expectations may need careful moderation by the facilitator to ensure they get the most out of the selected game while understanding the reason why it was used, its utility, and its constraints and limitations.

Game Structure. The form of any wargame is strongly affected by its structure. This goes beyond the rules, or game mechanics, and includes the relationship between the players and the game itself. In recreational games, whether a board game or miniatures game, there are normally only two players; they both know and apply a set of rigid rules, and can therefore verify that the rules are used correctly. The players can also see all the counters or miniatures laid out on the playing surface and can oversee everything that happens in the game. ‘Open’ games of this type are designed to maximise the possibilities for competitive play between the two players regardless of their "competitive spirit". It is the game structure that places two people in a competitive relationship with each other, and tends to minimise any vagueness or "subjectivity" in the rules. When inexperienced participants are playing a wargame with a minimum of structure and a lack of rigid rules individual bias can be introduced leading to disagreement between players that can derail the learning outcomes. Such forms of play benefit from the employment of a game controller or umpire. When playing a ‘Closed’ game where the players have a limited degree of situational awareness due to the game structure an independent umpire oversees game play, controls the information available to the players, and adjudicates the game outcomes and assists in resolving disputes. This removes the burden of controlling the game from the players and allows the natural creation of friction and uncertainty.

Board Games versus Miniature Games. Commercial board wargames are usually map based ‘open’ games, played using a map with a superimposed grid to regulate movement, cardboard counters representing force elements in the game scenario, and rigid rules. Miniature wargames are played on a three dimensional terrain model or ‘sand table’ similar in concept to a mud model, with three dimensional representations of the opposing forces (referred to as miniatures). Miniature wargames are normally played as ‘open’ games as well, with the players looming over the table with omnipresence, seeing all. However, some miniature wargame rules do use special game mechanics to introduce friction, fog-of-war, and uncertainty.

• Board wargames. These offer the advantage of being cheap, flexible, readily portable, quick to set-up and pull-down, and have limited overheads. However board games are not always suitable for use with multiple players, normally offer a single theme or general setting that limits their utility, often use rigid[3] adjudication, can contain distracting “chrome”[4], and may abstract key elements in the game design impacting on achievement of the desired learning.
• Miniature wargames. These tend to be more immersive and visually stimulating than board games, offering a tactile experience for the players, and tend to appeal to soldiers and NCOs more than board games do. The three dimensional terrain can also enhance visualisation of the operating environment if modelled realistically. Miniature wargames also offer greater flexibility as a “tool kit” which can be used to replicate different scenarios and settings, offering greater flexibility than single themed board wargames. However miniature wargames have higher overheads than board games. They require more effort to assemble, construct, and paint the required terrain and miniatures. The miniatures can also be expensive. Miniature wargames require more space and time to set-up and pull down and can be harder to replicate if multiple games are needed, due to the quantity of resources required. They can also be viewed by the uninformed as childish or “playing with toy soldiers”, devaluing their learning outcomes and utility.

Chance and Dice. Very little in war is certain, merely probable. While wargames can represent complex problems they cannot account for every factor that may impact events modelled in the game. In a PME wargame it is the player decisions that are of greatest importance. However, the simplified version of Moltke the Elder’s observation – “No plan survives contact with the enemy” – illustrates the uncertainty of war that should be present in serious wargames. Wargames should generate a range of results dictated by player decisions and the variable outcomes expected in the real world. These are often determined through some form of the application of a game mechanic using random number generation, often by rolling a die or dice. Some players are uncomfortable with this approach and may deride the wargame as simply a game of chance. However, it needs to be understood that such mechanics introduce uncertainty and are a representation of friction or risk often present in the real world that must be confronted by the players. Some wargames use other methods to generate uncertainty including drawing event cards, pulling chits to determine outcomes, or using random number tables. All offer a method of introducing friction into the wargame.

Complexity. Wargame complexity can span from simple abstract models to highly complex simulations. While complex recreational board wargames such as Avalon Hill’s Squad Leader series can provide an excellent cardboard simulation of squad level combat during World War Two, not everyone is going to want to invest their time and energy to learn such a complex game in order to achieve the desired learning outcomes, especially for a one-off PME activity. The level of acceptable complexity can be driven by the degree of fidelity required to develop player confidence in game outcomes, but it is also influenced by player wargaming experience, the time available to play the game, and availability of player support and game facilitation. The chosen problem for the wargame must also be pitched at the learner’s level of understanding or professional mastery. This can be done by careful consideration of the training audience, defining the learning outcomes to be achieved by playing the game, and selecting or preparing a suitable scenario that supports these requirements and the level of the learner’s insight and knowledge.

Player Role and degree of Command. A wargame can be used to provide the players an opportunity to practice decision making, appreciate risk, and understand competition and adversarial thinking. However, some commercial-off-the-shelf wargames may not allow a player to make decisions that they could make in the real world, as the game designer has abstracted these elements out of the game. A game could have the player making decisions that would normally be made by a subordinate or a superior, given the player’s role in the game, that do not model doctrinal practice. There is limited utility in using a historical wargame for example, where the player is cast in the role of a Napoleonic-era brigade commander but is in fact a JNCO looking to experience the challenges of small team leadership and making decisions in a modern tactical setting, even if playing the game was fun. In the author’s opinion the player should not be concerned about elements more than two down within the player’s chain of command, given the player’s role and command focus. This aligns with doctrinal thinking. If the player is in the role of a battlegroup commander he or she should not be making game decisions about selecting the nature of ammunition being employed by a troop of tanks for example, but rather the delivery of the desired effect at the right time and place – the game should abstract the tank crew selection of the correct ammunition to deliver the effect.

Using historical themed recreational wargames. When using a historically themed wargame players explore the history of the event, battle, or campaign and its associated challenges and dilemmas. Historically themed wargames can be used to explore “what if” situations and gain insights into the events by playing a suitable game. For example, what if Germany had attempted Operation Sea Lion, the plan to invade the United Kingdom, in the spring of 1940 – would they have succeeded? What were the critical requirements for this operation? Why did the Germans ultimately choose not to invade? The answers to these questions may be arrived at by the players through playing a suitable wargame which enhances their understanding through the gaming experience itself, in a way that for some can’t be replicated by attending lectures, conducting research, and writing papers. If for example you wanted junior infantry officers to have a better understanding of the tactical challenges facing a commanding officer of a light infantry battalion forced to attack an unknown larger force, then selecting a COTS historical game such as Multi-Man Publishing’s Goose Green – a recreational manual hex and counter wargame about the 2nd Parachute Regiment’s multi-phased, silent-then-noisy night attack on the Goose Green settlement during the 1982 Falklands War – may be the right game to consider.

Web Resources. A search of the internet will produce a myriad of resources that can help the inexperienced with game selection. Many wargame manufacturers offer free down-loadable copies of their game rules as well as other resources such as reviews. There are also hobbyists that include reviews of games as well as videos of examples of gameplay, helping to illustrate the game’s theme, mechanics and complexity. One of the best sites is Board Game Geek (https://boardgamegeek.com) an online forum for board gaming hobbyists and a game database that holds reviews, images, and videos for over 125,600 different tabletop games. It also includes complexity ratings and various resources that can be downloaded. These types of web resources may assist in finding a suitable COTS wargame to support PME outcomes.

Facilitation Considerations

Time. The facilitator needs to consider how much time is available and how much time is required to set-up the game, teach the players the rules, play the game, conduct a game debrief or After Action Review (AAR), and then pack-up. A good guide for the amount of time required for a PME wargame is around three hours, although wargames can go much long than this (considered a three to five day Command Post Exercise). Allow about 15 minutes to brief the participants and explain what is going to happen and how to play the game, a further two hours to play the game, and 45 minutes for the AAR. The time required for set-up and take-down also needs to be considered; this will be dependent on the type of game, number of participants, etc. While it is not always necessarily to complete a wargame, sufficient time needs to be allocated to ensure all the players can complete at least three or four “game-turns” or rounds of play. This enables an increased understanding of the game’s rules and mechanics, the implementation of the players’ plans, and the opportunity to observe their opponent’s reactions to the actions they took. Additionally, this will provide enough time for the players to experience the challenges that have been incorporated into the design of the game.

Conduct. The conduct of a wargaming activity can be broken down into three phases: preparation, conduct, and review. Prior to commencing gameplay the facilitator has to ensure that there is a suitable venue. It should be large enough to accommodate all the players and set up in such a manner that it supports gameplay. The wargame materials, such as maps, counters, miniatures, rules, etc are available. And finally that the participants are ready to commence play. This includes delivery of suitable briefings that cover session administration, the theme of the game, the game scenario, what the players and participants are expected to do during the game, and how to play the game. On completion of play there should be an opportunity to review the game. This allows players and participants to reflect on the game, consider what was good and what was bad, whether the game achieved its aim, and what could be done to improve the next iteration of the game.

Game Environment. Wargames should take place in an environment where players feel comfortable dynamically engaging with the game scenario. The game should be realistic and create an immersive experience where players are encouraged to freely interact with each other and the game materials. To accomplish this, facilitators need to carefully prepare their players for the wargame and their assigned roles. This is especially true for wargaming novices, who may not fully understand their roles and the game material. This is further exacerbated when there is an assessment of their performance during the wargame, which can create perverse incentives for competition and magnify any existing personality issues.

Learning and teaching the Rules. Just as learners have different learning styles, players will have different ways of learning how to play a game. Some may find reading and understanding a dense rule book straightforward while others may struggle. If the players have not played the selected wargame before then they will have to learn any applicable rules. This implies that the facilitator should teach them the rules, so it is important that the facilitator has a good understanding of the selected wargame rules and its mechanics. There are a few ways this can be done:

• Read the Rules! This seems obvious, but it is easy to forget rules over time so the facilitator(s) should familiarise themselves with the game rules prior to the gaming session. Many boardgame manufacturers provide copies of their wargame rules via the world wide web which can be downloaded at no cost.
• The facilitator should consider providing a copy of the rules to the players prior to the game so they can read into the game themselves. Also consider the provision of a shortened rule guide or player aide-memoire that emphasises the key rules or elements of play.
• Use available tools and aids such as watching game video tutorials on gaming web sites (e.g.: Board Game Geek) or the game manufacturers web site. Game video tutorials often provide an overview of the flow of the game as well as examples of game mechanics. These are very useful in understanding the game’s printed rules.
• Conduct a playthrough of the game prior to introducing it to the training audience, and at a minimum the facilitator should read the rules themselves. While learning the game the facilitator should try to understand the flow of the game, the game turn sequence, movement, and combat mechanics. The facilitator should note the areas where they had difficulties as these may also prove a stumbling block for the players.
• Take an iterative approach to teaching the rules to new players by introducing increasing complexity once the players are familiar with the basic game. Many commercial games take this approach with the rules broken into “basic” or “introductory” rules, then “standard” rules, and finally “advanced”’ rules with additional rules or more complex game mechanics being added to each subsequent version of the rules.

Player Bias. The facilitator should account for rank and relative skillsets in the player group, as players may expect to be assigned to roles or teams based on seniority and may use that seniority to push a particular agenda over lower-ranking peers. Having players who try to pull rank or create hierarchies that raise the inputs of some players over others inhibits the overall educational experience. So, it is important to consider how to level the playing field. Consider conducting the activity in civilian attire or removing rank insignia. While these may seem incongruous, such steps can go a long way towards fostering the educational environment needed for the players to learn from a wargame. Unless rank is strictly necessary in the context of the game, it is better to find ways to set the players on an equal footing, whether that is done through changes to protocol or carefully monitoring of discussions and game play to ensure all the players are heard.

Drawing out lessons. A facilitator can draw out observations, insights, and lessons in support of the learning outcomes during the conduct of the game and during a period of reflection after the game. This can be done by posing questions to the players, encouraging discussion and participation. Care needs to be exercised when interrupting gameplay; however, to ensure it does not negatively impact the flow of the game. Using breaks between play, dictated by the game’s rules and procedures, to pose questions or draw out observations from the players, works best. Examples of the type of questions a facilitator could consider asking during the course of a wargame aimed to promote discussion and further analysis by the players may include:

• What are the risks at this point? Is there a risk to your mission? How can the risks be mitigated?
• What happens if losses during an event are higher than expected, or if there is difficulty completing a task?
• What other assets or combat multipliers can be used to undertake a task or mitigate a risk?
• What are the weather, light, and terrain impacts? What is the key and decisive terrain?
• What is the enemy thinking at this point? What is their next decision?
• What are the enemy reserves and triggers for commitment?
• What combat multipliers might the enemy bring into play?
• How does something impact decisions? What new information requirements does this generate?
• Where are casualties right now? Where are the supply convoys (coming and going)?
• What events in the area of interest have an impact and need to be tracked? How does higher headquarters see the fight at this point?

This list is potentially endless.

Reflection. On completion of the wargame it is important to allow a period of reflection for the players. This can be facilitated by an instructor, observer/trainer, coach, or another learned colleague using the After Action Review process or conducted as a guided discussion that focuses on the learning outcomes identified by the session organiser as well as more general thoughts from the players regarding the game. This allows them to think about what went well and what went wrong, how to improve their future performance, and what they would like to see in future wargames. Players should be encouraged to reflect on their plan and their decision-making process as the game unfolded. They should be able to identify alternate approaches that they could employ in subsequent iterations. Another benefit is by giving them an opportunity to provide feedback to the facilitator or instructor, players know that their concerns and input have been heard and may be acted upon in the future. This is invaluable for helping participants appreciate the value of wargaming, as well as identifying areas where the wargame needs to be adjusted for future use. This reflection is a key outcome of the wargame enabling learning and helping to improve future learning delivery.

Consider all points of view. When conducting an AAR or guided discussion after a PME wargame the facilitator must ensure that everyone’s point of view is considered. Rank should be left at the door and superiors should not be allowed to dominate discussions as the participants may not realise all the potential insights generated by the wargame. The facilitator must establish the right expectations and create the appropriate atmosphere. Everyone should be comfortable participating and sharing their thoughts. This shouldn’t be a personal performance session. Rather, it’s a time for open and honest discussions that lead to collective learning and self-improvement.

Conclusion

Military wargaming is about human decision making and providing information to make better-informed decisions. It is a decision making technique that provides structured but intellectually liberating safe-to-fail environments to help explore what works (winning/succeeding) and what does not (losing/failing), typically at low cost with minimal risk. They can be a valuable learning tool when employed correctly. Selection of the right wargame and knowing how to facilitate a wargame for PME is critical to the successful achievement of the wargame’s purpose and objectives.