How the Gamification of the Battlefield Is Reshaping War

Orbis Journal | Lionel Beehner, Oleksii Poltorakov

Unmanned aerial and ground systems achieved a tactical milestone in June 2025 when Ukraine’s 3rd Assault Brigade captured a Russian position entirely without infantry. This operational evolution highlights how commercial video game mechanics increasingly shape modern warfare across competing military doctrines. In August 2024, the Ukrainian Ministry of Digital Transformation formalised this trajectory by introducing the Army of Drones Bonus program.

The digital framework awards operators verified ePoints via the Brave1 marketplace—allocating 40 points for destroying a tank and 120 points for capturing personnel—to incentivise specific battlefield actions. In contrast, American MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper strike programs rely on remote operators in Nevada to industrialise targeted killing at a distance. Meanwhile, Russia’s Rubicon system couples financial rewards directly to strike video confirmation. The trend introduces severe moral hazards. Synthesising these models reveals an unresolved structural question regarding whether gamified incentivisation ultimately enhances tactical efficiency or systematically degrades civil-military norms.

Comment

Integrating algorithmic point allocation into combat management, as seen in Ukraine's Brave1 procurement ecosystem, shifts targeting authority from traditional staff officers to software-driven metric pipelines. By tying weapon resupply directly to verified video documentation, the Army of Drones Bonus program embeds tactical feedback loops into software interfaces rather than formal military reporting chains. This algorithmic validation alters frontline command dynamics by prioritising quantifiable engagement metrics over qualitative tactical positioning.

A consequential downstream effect of this digital integration emerges within tactical battle damage assessment and ammunition distribution. Units operating under the Brave1 framework risk shaping strike selection around high-point assets like armoured vehicles rather than less quantifiable tactical priorities. Consequently, the reliance on ePoint scores for hardware replenishment threatens to detach frontline expenditure choices from battalion-level operational fires planning.

Strategic Question for Discussion

Which carries greater weight when scaling decentralized strike networks—the efficiency gains of automated allocation systems like Brave1, or the risk that ePoint incentive structures distort battalion-level operational priorities?

The available evidence points toward automated platforms like Brave1 accelerating immediate procurement cycles for frontline units, providing a clear tactical edge in high-attrition drone warfare. However, the reliance on video-confirmed ePoint metrics creates an inherent structural bias toward visually striking targets over less quantifiable electronic warfare systems. My assessment is that while digital gamification sustains rapid tactical adaptation, it inevitably complicates centralized fire coordination across larger formations.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

Read the original article