> a successful wargame is about as strong evidence as you can get Having direct experience with wargames, I have to disagree with this. Wargames are weak evide

> a successful wargame is about as strong evidence as you can get Having direct experience with wargames, I have to disagree with this. Wargames are weak evidence that too often lead people to draw unwarranted conclusions from an n of 1. The adjudication of moves by blue and red teams by the white cell is more arbitrary than not, and white cell adjudicators will often rule in ways that continue to present dilemmas for the players for the purpose of extending the experiential utility of the game. Those adjudication decisions are not strictly (nor could they be) representative of reality. Doing a well-run wargame is very difficult, and doing a sufficient number of them simultaneously in order to test a hypothesis (with an n greater than even 1-2) is almost never done. Wargames are more experiential and exploratory, they do not generate anything close to evidence.