Why the most accurate war games might be played by hand
In short: Modern warfare is often modeled by powerful computers, but the most nuanced simulations still rely on human umpires. From Prussian board games to high-stakes political modeling, the goal isn't just to predict a victory, but to understand the messy, human imponderables of crisis management that algorithms often miss.
Military simulations, or war games, serve as laboratories for testing theories of warfare without actual hostilities. While many people associate these with high-tech software, the field spans a vast spectrum. At one end are full-scale field exercises, which provide the most reliable data through direct observation but are often prohibitively expensive or ethically impossible—such as testing attrition by killing one's own troops. At the other end are abstract computerized models that can run thousands of iterations to generate statistical probabilities of success.
A significant middle ground exists in manual and computer-assisted simulations. The Prussian game Kriegsspiel, appearing around 1811, is a primary ancestor of modern wargaming. It eventually split into two styles: 'rigid' and 'free.' Rigid Kriegsspiel followed strict rules derived from historical battles, making it verifiable but potentially stifling creativity. Free Kriegsspiel relied on human umpires to interpret situations, allowing for more creative thinking but introducing subjectivity, as different umpires might adjudicate the same event differently. This tension between verifiable data and human intuition remains a core debate in military modeling today.
Modern institutions like the Rand Corporation use manual simulations like SAFE (Strategic And Force Evaluation) to model complex political-military factors. In these scenarios, teams are sequestered in separate rooms, representing 'Blue' and 'Red' forces, while an independent director (or 'Control') relays moves and adjudicates outcomes. These are often heuristic, meaning they are designed to stimulate research and problem-solving rather than provide a single empirical answer. They prioritize understanding the decision-making process and the 'what if?' of a crisis over reaching a definitive conclusion.
Opens the Intellect+ feed with this card first. Swipe up for the next one.
Sources
- Summary by Intellect · source: Military simulation
To cite this card, link to https://intellectplus.co.uk/app/wars-military-simulation.
How we source, check and correct cards: Editorial standards.
General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.
Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?
Related
More in Ancient & biblical wars · More in Wars & Conflicts · Latest · A–Z · All topics
