July 27, 2026.

 

Two weeks ago I explored the history of Tactical Decision Games (TDGs), tracing their evolution from Moltke’s Tactical Problems in the nineteenth century to the work of John Schmitt and the U.S. Marine Corps. That history raises an important question: Why have Tactical Decision Games endured for more than a century? The answer isn’t that they teach tactics. It’s that they develop judgment.

Knowledge and judgment are related, but they are not the same thing. Knowledge tells us what happened. Judgment helps us decide what to do when we don’t know what will happen next. That’s why Tactical Decision Games remain so powerful. A good TDG places us in the role of a commander facing a difficult decision with incomplete information, limited time and competing priorities. There is rarely a perfect answer. Instead, we must weigh risks, identify opportunities, make assumptions and commit to a course of action. Just as importantly, we must explain why.

That discussion is often where the real learning begins. Listening to other participants reveals that intelligent people can examine the same situation and arrive at different conclusions. Some identify opportunities we overlooked. Others expose assumptions we didn’t realize we were making. Still others challenge our understanding of terrain, timing or the enemy. Judgment develops not simply by making decisions, but by reflecting on them.

One of the greatest strengths of Tactical Decision Games is that they are inexpensive, accessible and scalable. They can be conducted in a classroom, a unit conference room, around a kitchen table or increasingly with the assistance of artificial intelligence. They require imagination more than technology. Most importantly, they allow us to practice something that real commanders rarely have the opportunity to do: Make difficult decisions. Reflect on them. Then do it again.

No educational method develops every aspect of judgment. Historical battle studies, Matrix Games, staff rides, Decision-Forcing Cases and Kriegsspiel each contribute something different. That is one of the central ideas behind Art of Command. Different methods develop different dimensions of judgment.

Over the coming months, the Command Learning Series will explore several of those methods and how each contributes to better decision-making under uncertainty.

Because ultimately, the objective is not to master a game. It is to become a better thinker, a better decision-maker and ultimately, a better leader.

Image credit: Composite graphic created by the author using the covers of Moltke’s Tactical Problems (1894), What Now, Lieutenant? (1975), and Mastering Tactics by John F. Schmitt, with AI-assisted design.