This paper proposes a comprehensive research program for determining the epistemological foundations of analytic wargaming. Wargaming has been used in military, government, and private sectors for decades, with tens of millions of dollars spent annually on it. In light of the changing strategic circumstances of the twenty-first century, it has only become more popular. However, the epistemological foundations of the method are poorly understood. Many professional wargamers contend that wargaming is an “art” and thus unable to be systemically evaluated. Recent work by a small coterie of international relations scholars has contended that wargaming can be reconciled with social science, typically by evaluating wargaming according to experimental standards. However, this solution strips wargames of most of their unique features and cannot explain why some of the most prominent wargames in history produced meaningful results. In this paper, I argue that in the attempt to better understand wargaming’s epistemology, scholars should begin by recognizing the prominent features of wargames and research each of these to determine if and how wargames produce rigorous knowledge. In making this argument, I identify five distinct “methodological machineries” of wargaming—the recurring processes through which wargames may produce knowledge—that distinguish wargaming from other social science methods: (i) they are representative, (ii) they feature consequential decisions made by human players, (iii) they are adjudicated, (iv) they are immersive, and (v) they are bespoke designs. I show how each of these machineries offers potential opportunities and dangers in the production of knowledge through the method of wargaming. In outlining these distinct features, I offer a clear and viable research program for epistemologists of wargaming.

中文翻译：

---

兵棋推演的方法论机制：发现兵棋推演认识论基础的路径

本文提出了一个综合研究计划，用于确定分析兵棋推演的认识论基础。兵棋推演已在军事、政府和私营部门使用了数十年，每年花费数千万美元。鉴于二十世纪战略环境的变化，它只会变得更加流行。然而，人们对该方法的认识论基础知之甚少。许多专业兵棋推演者认为兵棋推演是一门“艺术”，因此无法进行系统评估。一小群国际关系学者最近的研究认为，兵棋推演可以与社会科学相协调，通常是根据实验标准评估兵棋推演。然而，这种解决方案剥夺了兵棋推演的大部分独特功能，并且无法解释为什么历史上一些最著名的兵棋推演产生了有意义的结果。在本文中，我认为，为了更好地理解兵棋推演的认识论，学者们应该首先认识兵棋推演的突出特征，并研究其中的每一个特征，以确定兵棋推演是否以及如何产生严格的知识。在提出这一论点时，我确定了兵棋推演的五种不同的“方法论机制”（兵棋推演可以产生知识的重复过程），它们将兵棋推演与其他社会科学方法区分开来：（i）它们具有代表性，（ii）它们以做出的相应决策为特征由人类玩家进行，（iii）它们是被裁决的，（iv）它们是身临其境的，（v）它们是定制设计的。我展示了这些机器如何通过兵棋推演的方法在知识生产中提供潜在的机会和危险。在概述这些独特特征时，我为兵棋推演认识论者提供了一个清晰且可行的研究计划。