GWS 2025: Why we wargame - a closer look

By Jon Freitag

In a previous post, I examined the top reasons for why we wargame as given by the survey results from Wargames, Soldiers, and Strategy's Great Wargaming Survey (GWS). As a refresher, the choices were:

• Creative and hobby aspects
• Fun and escapism
• Historical (or fictional background) interest
• Social connection and camaraderie
• Storytelling and narrative
• Strategic challenge and intellectual stimulation
• Training and education

When aggregating the Top 3 choices, the distributions of these top choices are illustrated in Figure 1 by counts and in Figure 2 by percentage of total.

These results show, in aggregate, how survey respondents selected their Top 3. Can the survey also offer up any additional insight into why these choices were selected? What if a handful of respondent traits and preferences are added into the mix? Will these additional inputs offer any interesting insights over a simple accounting in a popularity contest?

As seen in a number of previous analyses, we turn to multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) for answers to these questions.

From a long list of survey questions and respondent attributes from which to choose, only a handful of variables or traits are included to keep the graphical analysis manageable. After consideration, the following traits are included in the study.

First up is the main thesis. That is: Why We Wargame. Since those responses are lengthy, some recoding is necessary in order to not overcrowd the resulting MCA plot. The recoding is as follows:

• Creative and hobby aspects - "Creativity"
• Fun and escapism - "Fun"
• Historical (or fictional background) interest - "Background"
• Social connection and camaraderie - "Social"
• Storytelling and narrative - "Storytelling"
• Strategic challenge and intellectual stimulation - "Challenge"
• Training and education - "Education"

The other traits (and responses) under consideration are:

• Primary Interest with values of "Historical","Fantasy/Sci-Fi","Mixed".
• Gaming Group Size with values of "0 (solo)","01-04","05-09","10-15","16+".
• Game Venue with values of "At a game store","At home","At a club","Online".
• Competitive Gamer with values of "Non-Competitive","Competitive".

As a brief reminder, MCA graphs show patterns of association between categories (responses) of several categorical variables. In this case, we examine the choices for Why We Wargame with the four traits of Primary Interest, Group Size, Game Venue, and Competitive Gamer. Could other variables have been included? Sure. To keep the resulting plot readable, I limited the number of categorical variables to five. The resulting MCA plot is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 shows a readable spread of trait responses with just enough separation to see what is what graphically. Does this plot provide a useful tool for interpreting these results and how to interpret this plot? Let's give this plot a closer look.

Since Dimension 1 (horizontal, 83.9%) is the dominant contrast, points far right versus far left represent very different gaming contexts and preferences. Dimension 2 (vertical, 8.24%) adds a weaker secondary contrast (top vs bottom) that refines, but does not overturn, the main story from Dimension 1. To divine the main story, we can bifurcate the plot into a left (blue) and right (yellow) regions split down along the origin. See Figure 4.

Ignoring the attributes clustering along the origin for now, in the blue region, the top choices for why we wargame include Background, Education, and Storytelling. As Figure 4 shows, these choices are associated with gaming at home and either in small groups or solo. This group tends to hold a primary interest in historical wargaming.

For the yellow highlighted side of the plot, the top reason for wargaming is the social aspect of the hobby. Gamers on this side of the plot tend to focus on Fantasy/ Sci-Fi gaming in large groups at either game stores or clubs. They tend toward competition as well.

One interesting side-effect of MCA is that results can lead to interpretable and meaningful labeling of the dimension. For example, the classification of these categorical variables could suggest that the blue region denotes a reflective wargaming stance. The yellow region could be labeled as having a sociable stance. See Figure 5.

Now, what about the attributes clustering along the origin, in the middle? Being close to the origin means these categories are relatively average or weakly discriminating. These traits do not strongly define the main contrast between the blue and yellow regions. Here, within the red rectangle (see Figure 6 below), Fun, Creativity, and Challenge are common to both groups and styles of play. Mixed, Non-Competitive, and Online traits are found in both groups as well.

What can be said about the results of the MCA analysis? This exercise suggests that the choices we make for why we wargame can be associated to some of the traits that attract us to the hobby. Of course, correlation is a two-way street. If you are a solo historical wargamer, there is a tendency that storytelling, education, and historical background will hold more importance to why you wargame when compared against the Sociable group on the other side of the plot.

Remember that these results suggest relative tendencies. Do these tendencies hold true for you?