And in stepping back and analyzing what happened after a game was over, they might see what factors really mattered, and how the players\u2019 choices influenced each other. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the 1920s and 1930s, the U.S. Navy used war games to design military plans against potential adversaries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
By the time World War II arrived, Adm. Chester Nimitz observed, the conflict \u201chad been reenacted <\/a>in the game rooms at the Naval War College by so many people and in so many different ways, that nothing happened during the war that was a surprise \u2026 absolutely nothing except the kamikaze tactics toward the end of the war.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n War gaming continues to offer opportunities for scholars to better understand security dynamics<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A growing cadre of experts have turned to war games to show how a Russian invasion of the Baltics <\/a>might play out or how a shift to robotic warfare<\/a> might lead to fewer military crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In my own research<\/a>, I have used war games to better understand and prepare for what are sometimes called \u201clow-frequency, multi-factor\u201d events \u2013 security scenarios that have lots of variables but have rarely, or never, happened, such as a full-scale cyber-conflict between the U.S. and China. <\/p>\n\n\n\n War games are useful intellectual aids because they force players to make decisions under pressure<\/a>. While people may intellectually understand a problem, gaming forces them to think even harder. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As the Nobel Prize-winning economist Thomas Schelling put it<\/a>, \u201cone thing a person cannot do, no matter how rigorous his analysis or heroic his imagination, is to draw up a list of things that would never occur to him.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n By facing off against opponents over a well-designed war game, people can come to see how political and military structures interact<\/a> and appreciate the trade-offs and complications that come with making decisions in a competitive environmen<\/a>t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With this in mind, I present some of my favorite war games. They not only are gripping to play but also offer players a window into some core elements of modern security politics. They are rated for players, time and complexity (where \u201cMonopoly\u201d would score a 1 out of 5).<\/p>\n\n\n\n I have no financial or professional relationships with any of the game publishers listed; these games are just personal favorites.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Asymmetric warfare \u2013 \u2018Washington\u2019s War\u2019<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n 2 players, 2-3 hours, complexity: 2.5<\/p>\n\n\n\n Wars between big global powers and smaller nations don\u2019t always go the way planners expect. For instance, the Trump administration has decided to take a very hard line with Iran<\/a>, and there is an increased possibility of war<\/a>. But assuming the U.S. goliath would automatically win underestimates the advantages that invaded states have<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In \u201cWashington\u2019s War<\/a>,\u201d the British player has a large army and purse, and the ability to bludgeon almost any colonist on the board \u2013 if only he could engage them. The problem is that the colonial player can move across the board like a fish through water and needs to do less to win. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWashington\u2019s War<\/a>\u201d shows that warfare is fundamentally about domestic and international political support, and that given the right leadership and hit-and-run tactics, smaller players can run out the clock and prevail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nuclear brinkmanship \u2013 \u201813 Days\u2019<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n 2 players, 45 minutes, complexity: 2<\/p>\n\n\n\n Continued U.S. concerns about North Korean<\/a> and Russian threats<\/a> mean that the terror of nuclear annihilation sadly remains present. But this threat is also puzzling. Considering the suicidal damage<\/a> of a full exchange, how can anyone make believable threats <\/a>with nuclear weapons? <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c13 Days<\/a>\u201d offers a window into this process<\/a>. Playing the role of either the USSR or the U.S. during the Cuban Missile Crisis<\/a>, players attempt to take control of the political, military and media situation and emerge with the most prestige at the end of three rounds. But beware! Overplay your hand in any of the three areas without holding back, and you may go over the brink into full nuclear war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Modern infantry combat \u2013 \u2018Combat Commander: Europe\u2019<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n 1-2 players, 2-4 hours, complexity: 4<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although set during World War II, this game gives the player an insight into the chaos of tactical combat. Taking the role of U.S., Soviet or German commanders leading units of about 120 soldiers, players draw cards and play them to maneuver and engage their squads of men. Although the presentation is a little dry, \u201cCombat Commander: Europe<\/a>\u201d has many features of modern warfare<\/a>: suppression fire, mortars, snipers, machine gun nests, smoke, artillery call-ins and command confusion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Nimitz-Guam.tif_.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/war-games.jpg.jpg\")