By Matt Underwood The Ukrainian conflict is undeniably a tragedy, a brutal reality unfolding in the 21st century. Yet, amidst the horrors of war, a fascinating application of game theory and data science has emerged, sparking both interest and controversy. This isn’t necessarily “gamifying” the war, but rather a sophisticated attempt to quantify the abstract value of inflicted damage and incentivize efficiency.
The core of this system revolves around assigning point values to various combat actions and targets. Destroying a tank earns a regiment 40 points, while eliminating a soldier nets 12. Capturing a Russian soldier alive, a challenging feat, is rewarded with a substantial 120 points. These point values aren’t arbitrary; they reflect the strategic importance and difficulty of each action. More points translate to greater effectiveness, potentially due to superior tactics, advanced equipment, or a favorable operational environment.
This data-driven approach allows the Ukrainian military to analyze which units are performing most effectively. By recognizing the actions that yield the greatest results, they can make informed decisions. Successful tactics can be implemented across multiple units, while high-performing teams gain access to better equipment through an internal weapons store. The system, overseen by the Ministry of Digital Transformation, is built to give better resources to those who use them best.
It’s understandable how this could be seen as a sensitive issue. Human lives are, in effect, being translated into points. This digital twist on traditional rewards, such as medals, provides an instant-gratification system where winning is plowed back into the war effort. The argument for this approach is that it keeps troops energized, particularly considering the immense psychological toll of witnessing violence through live video feeds.
As the war progresses, the point values are adapted to keep pace with evolving strategies. In the early days of the competition, a Russian soldier’s death might have been worth only two points. However, the value was later raised to six points and then doubled again, reflecting how important it is to take out individual soldiers.
This evolving system is designed to incentivize the destruction of Russian equipment and personnel. Destroying a Russian multiple-launch rocket system can bring up to 70 points. Given the devastating capabilities of modern weaponry, these points help Ukraine effectively counter those assets.
The Ukrainian military has also expanded the system to reward other areas. Points can be earned for using robotic ground vehicles on logistics missions, detecting Russian equipment with reconnaissance drones, and destroying targets using AI-guided systems. This reflects a commitment to technological innovation and the continuous development of more efficient war-fighting methods.
The concept of “gamifying” war is certainly not without its critics. Concerns about dehumanization are valid, especially in a conflict already characterized by unimaginable violence. However, proponents argue that what’s truly inhumane is starting a full-scale war in the 21st century, and that the point system is a necessary evil, providing an extra motivation.
The war in Ukraine continues to evolve and change. It is proving to be a real-time test of modern war strategies, and these innovations, born out of necessity, have implications that extend far beyond this conflict. Chess, a time-honored simulation of war, has always assigned point values to the pieces. The application of game theory, in this context, is simply a logical extension of that principle.