Five Wargames Every Force Design Process Needs

Key Takeaways

• Marine Corps launched 20+ wargames for Force Design 2030.
• No formal wargaming sequence exists across DoD.
• Five-phase framework adds discipline to force planning.
• Early phases identify problems before solutions, reducing waste.
• Joint J8 leads effort to standardize wargaming methodology.

Summary

In 2019 Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger mandated a force‑planning push that placed wargaming at its core, executing more than 20 major games to shape Force Design 2030. The effort highlighted a gap: the Department of Defense lacks a codified, sequenced process for using games to inform force design. Ambler, Nix, and Reese propose a five‑phase wargaming framework that aligns problem discovery, concept testing, gap analysis, capability definition, and solution selection. Institutionalizing this sequence would bring traceability, discipline, and better integration with other analytical tools across the services.

Pulse Analysis

The modern security environment demands that the U.S. military anticipate threats decades ahead, yet traditional force‑design cycles often rely on ad‑hoc simulations. Berger’s 2019 Commandant’s Planning Guidance marked a turning point, directing the Marine Corps to embed wargaming into its strategic roadmap. By conducting over twenty large‑scale exercises, the service uncovered both the potential of games to surface hidden challenges and the systemic weakness of lacking a unified methodology. This realization resonates across the Department of Defense, where disparate services still operate with fragmented game‑planning practices, risking inconsistent assumptions and duplicated effort.

The proposed five‑phase framework offers a disciplined pathway through the "cycle of research" championed by Peter Perla. Phase 1 asks whether a future problem exists, using strategic foresight to map emerging operational environments. Phase 2 tests existing or nascent concepts against that problem, while Phase 3 pinpoints capability gaps in current force structures. Phase 4 translates those gaps into concrete requirements, and Phase 5 evaluates material and non‑material solutions through design‑thinking lenses. By sequencing games this way, planners can trace each decision back to its analytical roots, ensuring that technology choices are driven by operational need rather than availability.

Adopting this framework at the joint level could reshape acquisition pipelines and reduce wasteful procurement. When problems are clearly defined before solutions are entertained, the likelihood of investing in premature or misaligned systems drops dramatically. The Joint Staff J8, already tasked with replacing the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, is positioned to champion a standardized taxonomy and training regime for wargamers. Institutionalizing the five‑phase approach would embed mission‑engineering principles into the heart of force design, delivering a more agile, cost‑effective, and strategically coherent military for the next decade.