Might wargaming be another instance where “Anything you can do, AI can do better”?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55578/jdso.2509.006Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence, AI, Wargame, Wargaming, Thought Experiment, Cognitive ModelAbstract
This paper offers a pragmatic ‘epistemology of wargaming’ that views wargames as immersive ‘thought experiments’. In such experiments, the human players involved use their experiential, empirical, and theoretical knowledge – together with whatever cognitive models they are able to deploy, or develop anew – to generate a conceptual, operational understanding of the adversarial scenario in which they are immersed; and exploit this understanding to craft tactical decisions that are designed to optimise the likelihood they will achieve their strategic objectives. From this perspective, contemporary interest in the use of ‘AI’-enabled tools to augment the validity of wargaming outputs – where these outputs constitute the decisions players make and the insights such decisions reveal – might most purposefully focus on: the design and implementation of wargames (to strengthen the architecture these provide to support immersive decision-making); and the analysis of players’ decisions (to better understand the cognitive models these involve and reflect). This is because, as long as the principal objectives of wargaming are to assess and enhance the decision-making capabilities of human players and human personnel, ‘AI’-enabled applications can only ever play a supporting role (albeit a potentially invaluable one) in the design, presentation, implementation, and analysis of wargames.
References
1. Kimball, R., & Emmet, L. (2001). The Complete Lyrics of Irving Berlin. Alfred A Knopf; New York, NY: 560pp. ISBN 0679419438.
2. By “military wargaming” we include all ‘serious’ and ‘professional’ wargames. 3,4.
3. UK MoD. (2017). Wargaming Handbook. Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre, Ministry of Defence; MoD Shrivenham, UK: Archived here.
4. Smith, R. D. (2009). Military Simulation and Serious Games: Where We Came From and Where We Are Going. Modelbenders LLC; Oviedo, FL: ISBN 0982304064.
5. Hirst, A. (2022). States of play: Evaluating the renaissance in US military wargaming. Critical Military Studies, 8: 1-21. DOI: 10.1080/23337486.2019.1707497.
6. Brynen, R. (2020). Virtual paradox: How digital war has reinvigorated analogue wargaming. Digital War, 1: 138-43. DOI: 0.1057/s42984-020-00004-z.
7. Reddie, A. W., Goldblum, B. L., Lakkaraju, K., Reinhardt, J., Nacht, M., & Epifanovskaya, L. (2018). Next-generation wargames. Science, 362: 1362-4. DOI: 10.1126/science.aav2135.
8. Vinsel, L. (2023). Don't get distracted by the hype around generative AI. MIT Sloan Management Review, 64, 1-3. Archived here.
9. By “ersatz data” we mean “substitute data”; though not necessarily “inferior” copies of ‘real-world’ or ‘naturally occurring’ data. See the definition provided by Oxford Languages.10
10. Oxford Languages. (2023). Ersatz (noun). Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, Oxford UK. DOI: 10.1093/OED/6781769285. archived here.
11. Griffin, L. D., Kleinberg, B., Mozes, M., Mai, K. T., Vau, M., Caldwell, M., & Marvor-Parker, A. (2023). Susceptibility to influence of large language models. arXiv, 2303.06074, 1-24. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.06074.
12. Burtell, M., & Woodside, T. (2023). Artificial influence: An analysis of AI-driven persuasion. arXiv, 2303.08721, 1-8. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.08721.
13. Goodman, J., Risi, S., & Lucas, S. (2023). AI and wargaming. arXiv, 2009.08922, 1-53. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2009.08922.
14. Moon, J., Lee, U., Koh, J., Jeong, Y., Lee, Y., Byun, G., & Lim, J. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence in educational game design: Nuanced challenges, design implications, and future research. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 30, 447-59. DOI: 10.1007/s10758-024-09756-z.
15. Werning, S. (2024). Generative AI and the technological imaginary of game design. Chapter 4 in:Lesage F, Terren M (Eds.), Creative Tools and the Softwarization of Cultural Production. Cham: Springer Nature, Zurich, CH: 67-90pp. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-45693-0_4.
16. Korsah, A. (2025). The Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Game Development: A Scoping Review. Thesis, Faculty of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, University of Oulu, FI: 47pp. Archived here.
17. Oliveira, C. V., & Rito, P. N. (2024). Enhancing player experience through generative artificial intelligence: Custom interaction in game design. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 2324, 259-268. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-81713-7_18.
18. Knack, A., & Powell, R. (2023). Artificial Intelligence in Wargaming: An evidence-based assessment of AI applications. Centre for Emerging Technology and Security, Alan Turing Institute; London, UK. June, 1-58pp. Archived here.
19. Butt, A. J., Butt, N. A., Mazhar, A., Khattak, Z., & Sheikh, J. A. (2013). The SOAR of cognitive architectures. Proceedings of the International Conference on Current Trends in Information Technology; Dubai, UAE: 135-142pp. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1273.7926.
20. Landers, R. N., & Marin, S. (2021). Theory and technology in organizational psychology: A review of technology integration paradigms and their effects on the validity of theory. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 21, 235-58. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-060843.
21. Mouat, T. (2017). Wargaming 101. Connections UK 2017 Conference; Kings College London, UK. 5-7 September, 1-44pp. Archived here.
22. Mouat, T. (2017). Introduction to Wargaming Pre-Reading. Connections UK 2017 Conference; Kings College London, UK. 5-7 September, 1-26pp. Archived here.
23. Perla, P. (2008). Wargaming for the Future. 2008 DoD Modeling and Simulation Conference; Orlando, Florida. 10-14 March, 1-12pp. Archived here.
24. Brown, J. R., & Fehige, Y. (2020). Thought experiments. In: Zalta EN and Nodelman U (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter. ISSN 1095-5054. Archived here.
25. Rubel, R. C. (2006). The epistemology of war gaming. Naval War College Review, 59, 108-28. Archived here.
26. Wallace, R. (2018). Carl von Clausewitz, the Fog-of-War, and the AI Revolution: The Real World is not a Game of Go. Springer Briefs in Applied Sciences and Technology, Computational Intelligence, Springer Verlag; Berlin, DE. 101pp. ISBN: 978-3-319-74632-6.
27. Naveed Uddin, M. (2019). Cognitive science and artificial intelligence: Simulating the human mind and its complexity. Cognitive Computation and Systems, 1: 113-6. DOI: 10.1049/ccs.2019.0022.
28. Yang, S., Barlow, M., Townsend, T., Liu, X., Samarasinghe, D., Lakshika, E., Moy, G., Lynar, T., & Turnbull, B. (2023). Reinforcement learning agents playing ticket to ride: A complex imperfect information board game with delayed rewards. IEEE Access, 11, 60737-57. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3287100.
29. Whang, S. E., Roh, Y., Song, H., & Lee, J. G. (2023). Data collection and quality challenges in deep learning: A data-centric AI perspective. International Journal on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), 32, 791-813. DOI: 10.1007/s00778-022-00775-9.
30. Czichon, R. (2021). Umělá Inteligence a Autorské Právo [Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law]. Thesis, Faculty of Law, Charles University; Prague, CZ. 73pp. Archived here.
31. Liu, J., Snodgrass, S., Khalifa, A., Risi, S., Yannakakis, G. N., & Togelius, J. (2021). Deep learning for procedural content generation. Neural Computing and Applications, 33, 19-37. DOI: 10.1007/s00521-020-05383.
32. Beukman, M., Cleghorn, C. W., & James, S. (2022). Procedural content generation using neuroevolution and novelty search for diverse video game levels. Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Boston, MA. 9-13 July, 17pp. Archived here.
33. Viertl, R. (2011). Statistical Methods for Fuzzy Data. John Wiley & Sons, Inc; Toronto, CA. 268pp. ISBN: 978-0-470-69945-4.
34. von Benzon, N., & O’Sullivan, K. (2021). Analyzing messy data. Chapter 27 in: von Benzon N, Holton M, Wilkinson C and Wilkinson S (Eds.), Creative Methods for Human Geographers. SAGE Publications Ltd; Newbury Park, CA, USA. 432pp. ISBN: 9781526496973.
35. Maghsoodi, AI. (2025). MOJO: Multi-LLM Optimised Joint Objective generative artificial intelligence for multi-criteria decision analysis framework. Social Science Research Network, 5362201, 33pp. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5362198.
36. Svoboda, I., & Lande, D. (2024). AI agents in multi-criteria decision analysis: Automating the analytic hierarchy process with large language models. Social Science Research Network, 5069656, 29pp. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5069656.
37. Landgrebe, J., & Smith, B. (2019). There is no general AI: Why Turing machines cannot pass the Turing test. arXiv, 1906.05833, 1-44. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1906.05833.
Downloads
Published
Data Availability Statement
Data supporting this study are included within the article.
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 George Ellison, Andrew Shepherd (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.