%20Registeredv2.png)
INTRODUCTION
This is a distributed Analytical Wargaming Exercise hosted by Fight Club International. Designed for defense professionals, analysts, and students of strategy, this module offers a low-friction environment to test operational concepts. Unlike traditional real-time simulation, this format isolates the decision-making process from the mechanics of execution. Participants are invited to analyze a tactical problem, formulate a Course of Action (COA), and receive data-driven feedback on the consequences of their command logic.
This exercise is also a proof of concept. One of Fight Club's objectives is to lower the barrier of entry to professional wargaming, making it accessible without sacrificing analytical rigor. This scenario is our first step: a self-contained, asynchronous format designed to let you engage at your own pace, from anywhere. We're testing the model as much as you're testing your COA.
This exercise is individual. Time commitment is about an hour.
THE SCENARIO
Context: Baltic Theater | A2/AD Environment
Task: Defense of Critical Infrastructure (Site Sentinel / AN-TPY-2)
Threat: Multi-axis saturation strike (Ballistic, Cruise, UAV, Fixed Wing)
Intelligence indicates an imminent adversarial strike on Gotland. Your objective is to preserve the integrity of the ballistic missile defense radar for a 6-hour window against superior numbers.
To do so, you will make decisions across several planning domains: positioning ISR and AWACS assets, selecting and configuring ground-based air defense systems, building a simplified Air Tasking Order for your fighter element, and defining weapons employment doctrine. The problem is not just what to defend with, but how to layer your defense and where to accept risk.
THE FORMAT: OPERATIONAL DECISION GAME (ODG)
Participants do not engage in real-time unit control. Instead, you act as the Task Force Commander during the planning phase. Your submission has two components. First, a series of structured operational decisions — selected through the interface — that define your defensive posture. These are translated directly into the simulation for adjudication. Second, a free-text Commander's Intent where you articulate your reasoning, priorities, and risk calculus. This is where you explain why you configured your defense the way you did — and it's what elevates the exercise from a multiple-choice test to an actual planning problem.
You will not observe the execution in real time. The scenario is then adjudicated via Command PE (Professional Edition), a physics-based simulation engine used by defense organizations for operational analysis. Your command logic is tested against validated threat models, not abstract dice rolls.
COMMAND DECISIONS
You must submit orders covering five critical operational dilemmas:
-
IAMD Architecture: Prioritize kinetic point defense against either high-performance cruise missiles (Long Range) or saturation drone swarms (High Capacity).
-
ISR Orbit & Focus: Allocate strategic sensors to gain early warning on specific threat axes, trading off coverage for fidelity.
-
C2 Survivability: Balance AWACS radar coverage against vulnerability. Choose between a forward screen (maximum detection) or a rear-guard orbit (asset preservation).
-
Sustainment Logic: Define the operational risk for Tanker assets. Push fuel forward to increase fighter time-on-station or keep HVAA (High Value Airborne Assets) in a secure rear area.
-
Force Allocation: Configure the fighter sweep. Determine loadouts (BVR vs. Multi-role), sensor emissions policy (EMCON), and patrol sectors.
OUTPUT
Upon execution, participants receive a detailed After Action Review (AAR) containing:
-
Timeline of significant events.
-
Kill-chain efficiency analysis.
-
Evaluation of command decisions against the actual threat vector.
A note on timelines: Adjudication is not automated — each submission is processed and reviewed individually. Expect the AAR to take days, not hours. This is deliberate: we prioritize analytical depth over speed.
A note on method: We are actively exploring the use of Large Language Models and AI-assisted tools in the adjudication and AAR generation process. This is experimental. Part of what we're learning with this exercise is where AI adds genuine analytical value to wargaming and where it doesn't. Your participation feeds directly into that research.
PARTICIPATE
This exercise is open to registered Fight Club International members. If you're already a member, access the exercise [here]. If you're not a member yet, registration takes two minutes