The goal is to create a variant of the SeaSparrow that can be used by the 12 nations in the NATO SeaSparrow Project Office consortium, or NSPO, according to the Navy Sources Sought notice. The deadline is Oct. 19.

The NSPO is looking for a weapon that can be employed against a wide variety of threats. The NSV SeaSparrow “should have capability against current and future threat classes spanning a variety of threat characteristics including velocity (low-speed to high-speed), altitude (sea skimming to high diver), maneuverability (non-maneuvering to high Gravitational (G)-Force maneuvers), and signatures,” the Navy said.

The NSV is also meant to defend the fleet against massed salvos of missiles and function despite jamming.

The weapon “should be able to work in complex natural, contested, Radio Frequency (RF), Electro-Optical (EO), and/or Infrared (IR) environments.”

“The missile should have the capability to discriminate and resolve between multiple closely spaced targets and provide threat-track measurements to support missile guidance, navigation and lethality functions,” the Sources Sought notice continues. “The missile should have the capability to handle threat countermeasures.”

The notice included a graphic that appeared to depict surface ships — including two aircraft carriers — being targeted by a dozen missiles and torpedoes, plus a hostile fixed-wing aircraft and a helicopter. The friendly ships appeared to be using active illumination to paint some threats, while the SeaSparrow used its on-board sensors to intercept others.

NSPO seeks a modular, open-source design that would give the U.S. government “maximum rights in technical data, computer software, and computer software documentation (including source code), design artifacts, and interface specifications.”

“This approach will simplify future upgrades, promote interoperability across consortium platforms, and outpace evolving threats,” the notice said.

The NSPO wants contractors who can provide a complete missile system, including airframe, propulsion, guidance and software. The missile should have no more than a 10-inch diameter and fit inside a Mark 41 vertical launch tube.

The Sources Sought notice emphasized that the missile and its technical data should be releasable to the entire NATO SEASPARROW Consortium: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and the U.S. Other users include Thailand and the United Arab Emirates.

The Block II RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow is currently manufactured by Raytheon, which doubled production to more than 350 missiles in 2025. Amid naval operations in the Persian Gulf, where Iran has launched numerous missiles and drones against dwindling stocks of U.S. and allied interceptors, future demand for short-range air defense weapons is likely to be brisk.

First fielded in 2004, the Evolved SeaSparrow is descended from the 1950s AIM-7 Sparrow radar-guided air-to-air missile.

Though the original Sparrow had a mixed combat record as an aerial combat weapon in the Vietnam War, the Evolved SeaSparrow was intended as a low-cost defense against anti-ship missiles, aircraft, helicopters and fast attack boats. The current version has an estimated range of around 30 miles.

The service sent out a request this week for manufacturing 133,014 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System, or GMLRS, rockets by 2034, according to the Army’s Sources Sought notice. Contractors have until Sept. 1 to submit white papers on plans to meet that quota.

The timeline calls for churning out 19,002 rockets per year from 2028 to 2034, with the first actual deliveries starting in February 2030.

“The scope of the contract includes production, tooling, engineering change proposals, and supporting activities of GMLRS rockets including unitary, alternative warhead (AW), and extended range (ER) rockets,” the notice said.

Current GMLRS manufacturer Lockheed Martin already announced last year that it is ramping up production capacity to 14,000 rockets annually. The Army’s new plan would require a nearly 36% increase in capacity on top of that.

“Submissions must outline the most efficient and cost-effective methods for achieving this production rate,” the Army noted. Army efforts to ramp up U.S. munitions production have stumbled, including a facility to manufacture components for 155mm shells that failed to produce any parts.

GMLRS rockets are launched from the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System armored vehicle. The munitions can also be fired from the smaller truck-mounted M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS.

The base version of GMLRS has a range of 70 kilometers, while the extended-range version can reach up to 150 kilometers.

Lockheed Martin had delivered 75,000 GMLRS rockets to the U.S. Army by 2024. But that still hasn’t satisfied demand for the munitions.

Originally designed as Cold War weapons to unleash massive firepower against a hypothetical Soviet attack on Europe, U.S. multiple rocket launchers became some of the stars of the war in Ukraine.

The M270, HIMARS and their GMLRS rockets have proved instrumental in enabling Ukrainian resistance to the Russian invasion. GMLRS rockets devastated targets such as command posts, supply depots and troop formations.

Ukraine even used HIMARS to hit a power plant inside Russia last September. However, heavy Russian jamming of the GPS guidance system in the rockets eventually compromised some effectiveness.

Between deliveries to Ukraine and a protracted conflict with Iran, U.S stockpiles of GMLRS and other guided munitions have been depleted. Replenishment, meanwhile, has been complicated by a shortage of rocket motors.

The goal is to create a family of drones that can “represent the full range of airborne threats, spanning from inexpensive ‘hobby drones’ to the most advanced adversary fighter and large-scale aircraft,” according to the Air Force’s Request for Information, which has a deadline of Sept. 28.

At the same time, the Air Force desires next-generation target drones that are so inexpensive and easy to manufacture that they can be “treated as attritable or expendable when required.”

As with drones and other new technologies, the Pentagon is turning to private industry for fresh ideas, “including commercial, modified commercial, dual-use, and non-developmental solutions,” the RFI said. “The government is particularly interested in non-traditional, commercially derived, or dual-use solutions that offer advantages in cost, scalability, and simplicity over legacy systems.”

The new target drones are expected to simulate a wide array of capabilities.

For fighters, the drones should have “supersonic capabilities (up to and exceeding Mach 1.6 at 40,000 feet), high-agility/high-G combat maneuvers, precise low-observable Radar Cross-section (RCS) profiles, multi-spectral Infrared (IR) signatures, active RF emissions, and integrated Electronic Attack (EA) capabilities,” according to the RFI.

To simulate C-130-sized multiengine aircraft, the focus is less on high performance and more on “matching the physical scale, slow subsonic flight envelopes, and propeller or turbofan propulsion characteristics of larger multi-engine aircraft. These platforms must prioritize representative physical volume, basic RF/IR emissions, and realistic radar returns to verify missile seeker guidance, and warhead lethality against large-frame targets.”

For even bigger aircraft, such as strategic bombers and AWACS planes, the key is “replicating the massive physical dimensions, multi-spectral thermal signatures, and heavy-aircraft radar strategic threats.”

To mimic big Group 5 unmanned aerial vehicles, the target drone should be capable of flying at 50,000 feet. For Group 3 and 4 UAVs, the targets should be capable of flying at Mach 0.5 to 0.8, and maneuver at 3 to 6 Gs. For small Group 1 and 2 drones, the targets should fly at speeds of less than 150 knots and be capable of drone-swarm operations.

Remote-controlled target drones have been used for nearly a century, including Britain’s Queen Bee — a converted Tiger Moth trainer — in the 1930s.

More recently, the U.S. Air Force has relied since 2007 on the subsonic — and subscale – BQM-167A. At 20 feet long and with a wingspan of 11 feet, it hardly resembles a 67-foot-long Chinese J-20 stealth fighter or a 108-foot-wide Chinese H6 bomber.

The Air Force also has the QF-16, a converted F-16 that can play the role of a full-sized target, such as a fourth-generation fighter. While a practical way to make use of retired jets, they aren’t meant to simulate fifth-generation stealth fighters or large aircraft, nor are they cheap enough to be expended in quantity.

At Camp Courtney and Kadena and Yokota Air Bases in Japan, investigators with the Defense Department Office of Inspector General found “visible corrosion, visible mold, visible fire damage, visible cracks on the building exterior and interior, visible concrete spalling and exposed rebar, water intrusion, lead‑based paint, asbestos‑containing material and inoperable communication connections.”

The findings came during an audit of Pacific Command infrastructure, during which IG investigators visited 11 PACOM bases in May 2025. They examined operations and communications infrastructure, as well as base housing.

Though the report is heavily redacted, the descriptions — and the photographs — show some structures on the verge of collapse, including two photos of homes at Kadena with crumbling ceilings and living room furniture strewn with debris.

“DoD officials told us that in some areas, falling debris — ranging from small fragments to large slabs — poses an ongoing risk to personnel safety,” the report states.

The audit was originally aimed at assessing the state of “mission-critical systems,” such as operations and communications infrastructure. Investigators determined that housing and water infrastructure are “critical to support the Service members in the USPACOM AOR as they complete their mission.” Their examination of those facilities revealed numerous problems.

Photos of a 50-year-old pier at Camp Courtney show corroded steel fenders and damaged concrete beams.

One Kadena building had eight inches of standing water on the roof, asbestos and cracked pillars and walls.

A Kadena aircraft hangar had holes in the walls.

A 50-year-old water pipe at Kadena had a 12-foot crack. Broken pipes at Kadena and Yokota have caused flooding and collapsed sidewalks.

At Kinser Tower base housing at Kadena, concrete damage has affected 544 homes, according to the IG.

Sebille Manor Housing at Kadena received 100 reports of mold, and dozens of Kadena residents were forced to move due to mold and concrete concerns.

DoD officials told IG investigators that “aging infrastructure, construction choices, or environmental conditions caused accelerated degradation.” In addition, facilities in Japan experience the effects of typhoons, earthquakes and tsunamis.

DoD officials also blamed the problems on a lack of funds and the high cost of services in places like Japan.

They said that while the Japanese government provides host-nation funding, often it can’t be used to fix infrastructure. Instead, these funds tend to be allocated to new construction, or to “broader strategic objectives, such as reducing the impact of U.S. forces on the people of Okinawa.”

The IG recommended that various base commanders in mainland Japan and Okinawa submit a list of priority repairs. But this raises some interservice issues. For example, Army officials said that while Fort Buckner is used only by Army units, the Marine Corps is the real property owner.

The IG also recommended that the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force — as well as the commanders of PACOM and U.S. Forces Japan — conduct a root-cause analysis of infrastructure problems and find funding to fix them. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of War for Infrastructure Modernization and Resilience concurred with the IG’s recommendations.

Dilapidated military facilities are not confined to the Pacific. A 2022 Government Accountability Office report estimated an infrastructure maintenance backlog of $137 million as of 2020. Housing on military bases in the United States has long been afflicted by issues like toxic mold.

Consequently, DARPA wants a hypersonic scramjet cruise missile that is capable of evading enemy interceptors.

“Future U.S. military operations face increasingly significant challenges from the rapid proliferation and advancement of highly capable Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS) by peer adversaries,” warned DARPA’s Request for Information, which is due October 6. “These systems threaten to restrict the operational freedom of U.S. forces and diminish the effectiveness of current stand-off strike capabilities.”

The Next Generation Hypersonic Cruise Missile, or NGHCM, aims to demonstrate that it is possible to develop a cruise missile that is both survivable and affordable enough to be manufactured in large quantities.

“This demonstrator must establish the foundation for a next-generation capability that delivers a revolutionary leap in operational performance—specifically in range, cruise speed, and/or altitude,” DARPA said. “DARPA strongly encourages responses to this RFI from non-traditional defense contractors and emerging technology developers.”

The RFI asks companies to address three “focus areas.” The first is the overall missile concept.

“How does the architecture balance advancements in foundational physical parameters (payload, range, speed, altitude) against other critical factors (e.g., midcourse maneuverability, signature, or platform capacity) to achieve a revolutionary leap in mission effectiveness and survivability?” the RFI asks.

The missile’s launch platform is another consideration. Potential options listed in the RFI include tactical fighters, external or internal mounts on heavy bombers, surface-based vertical launch systems, and “Heavy Ground-Launch / Strategic Defense Class” platforms that would “maximize the range/payload advantages of an airbreathing cruiser paradigm at larger scales.”

DARPA is also looking for a weapon that could be quickly fielded. Companies are asked to “identify an optimized, accelerated schedule to reach first flight for the major technical milestones and review gates, rather than relying on traditional, sluggish acquisition models.”

The second focus area involves demonstrating technologies such as “air-breathing propulsion systems, high energy density fuels, advanced booster technologies, high-temperature materials, thermal management solutions, and high-performance power generation/ actuation/fuel systems.”

The third focus area seeks innovative ways to test the missile quickly. While the RFI doesn’t specify technical parameters, it does note that testing should address “the ability to scale to different missions and distances from 250 nautical miles – 2000 nautical miles.”

The RFI does not specify a speed requirement, although hypersonic is defined as an object traveling faster than Mach 5.

DARPA also wants a hypersonic missile that can be tested without drawing too much attention.

“These concepts should advance the state-of-the-art for collecting critical flight test data allowing for rapid deployment and execution while providing fewer observable indicators of imminent testing,” the RFI said.

Russia has already fielded a hypersonic scramjet cruise missile in the form of the 3M22 Zircon.

Russia has launched Zircons at Ukraine, and Ukraine claims to have downed some of them with U.S.-made Patriot interceptors.

The goal is to “integrate a 50mm ammunition solution to effectively track, engage, and defeat Class 1, 2, and 3 UAS threats,” according to the Army’s Sources Sought notice. The deadline is Aug. 31.

While the notice from the Army’s Project Manager, Maneuver Ammunition Systems office does not provide any technical specifications, it signals the Army’s interest in a rapid-fire cannon for counter-UAS, or C-UAS, defense.

In particular, the Army will conduct a live-fire demonstration using Northrop Grumman’s XM913 Bushmaster 50mm chain gun, with companies supplying 50mm ammunition for testing.

Contractors are asked to provide “a detailed description of the company’s capabilities pertaining to C-UAS, proposed C-UAS system architecture, fire control/sensor integration, detailed draft test or demonstration plan, and how the platform will successfully employ the 50x228mm ammunition against the specified target set. In addition, the response shall provide a detailed, estimated timeline and schedule to design, integrate, and deliver a weapon system ready for a live-fire demonstration.”

The cannon is intended to destroy a broad range of drones, from Group 1 to Group 3. This includes tiny quadcopters all the way to medium-sized UAVs weighing up to 1,320 pounds and traveling at 250 knots.

Such drones have emerged as perhaps the biggest threat to armored vehicles, which have been largely driven off the front lines of the Ukraine war because of masses of UAVs.

The XM913 is slated to be the primary weapon on the XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle, which is intended to replace the M2 Bradley. In 2023, the Army awarded contracts to American Rheinmetall and General Dynamics Land Systems to develop prototypes for the XM30, formerly known as the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle.

The XM913 weighs 692 pounds and can fire single shots, bursts, or up to 200 rounds per minute. It will fire the XM1203 Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot with Trace, or APFSDS-T. More significant for targeting agile and fast drones, the XM913 will use the XM1204 High Explosive Airburst with Trace, or HEAB-T.

HEAB-T “will most likely be the standard ammunition, replacing the High Explosive (HE) ammunition in service today that relies solely on a point detonating fuze capability,” claimed a 2020 Army news release.

HEAB-T will use a programmable fuze with point detonate, point detonate delay and airburst modes.

“Today, a gunner uses high explosive rounds fired from the 25mm M242, and has to walk rounds into each target to achieve the desired effects,” the news release said. “With the HEAB-T, the gunner can depart from this type of engagement. By using airburst mode, the round will be programmed with range to the target — and other important factors — for maximum lethal effect with an order of magnitude fewer shots.”

While “flak” was once thought obsolete because of surface-to-air missiles, armies are turning to cannons and machine guns as cheaper alternatives to using $4 million missiles — or wearing out manned fighter jets — to destroy a $20,000 drone.

Ukraine has had some success in creating dense belts of short-range anti-aircraft cannons and mobile machine guns to stop Russian drones.

SensorMAX, developed by Lockheed Martin, uses AI and machine learning to analyze acoustic sensor data, update the sensor model — and then immediately transmit the updates over the air to anti-submarine warfare, or ASW, platforms.

During RIMPAC maneuvers near Hawaii, Navy MH-60R helicopters dropped sonobuoys, which fed data to SensorMAX. It in turn assisted the crews with target identification.

“Ground operators retrained SensorMAX’s models on new sounds in minutes, then transmitted AI-enhanced undersea intelligence OTA [over the air] using an encrypted data link directly back to the helicopter and the fleet,” according to a Lockheed Martin news release.

Lockheed described the system as the “Navy’s AI portable sonar expert.”

“Taking in subsurface acoustic data from a network of sensors, SensorMAX provides a continuous data stream to the aircrew and sends information to the ground station,” the company continued. “When a new target is identified, system operators label the identified noise signature, retrain the model on the new data and push a small update packet back to the aircrew.”

The system allows aircrews to manage up to eight simultaneous sonobuoy surveillance feeds, “doubling the capacity of legacy capabilities,” Lockheed said.

The company estimated that each retraining cycle for the model takes under five minutes.

SensorMAX integrates data from a variety of sensors, which makes it useful for air and ground operations as well as naval, according to Lockheed Martin.

“Lockheed Martin’s collaboration with FUSE Inc. enables secure, resilient software delivery to deployed aircraft, allowing SensorMAX’s trained AI models and mission software to be updated rapidly without interrupting operations,” the company said.

“By demonstrating platform-agnostic AI intelligence and classification, the future fleet can leverage any acoustic sensor to expand the protective ring around high-value assets and accelerating the ASW kill chain,” Lockheed Martin continued.

China is also integrating AI into ASW. Chinese media claimed last year that researchers had developed AI which evaluates data from multiple sources, including sonobuoys as well as data on water temperature and salinity.

The Next Generation C-sUAS Missile project comes as the U.S. and other nations are pursuing lasers, microwaves and other alternatives to kinetic anti-drone weapons, such as missiles and cannon, which are seen as too expensive and in short supply.

The Army wants to quickly develop an “extended-range, quick-response missile to defeat Group 2 and Group 3 small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS) threats,” according to the Army’s Sources Sought notice. The deadline is August 20.

The initial specifications are for a missile that can intercept a drone flying at 6 kilometers altitude, at a range of more than 16 kilometers. The ultimate goal is to destroy drones flying 8 kilometers high, at a range of more than 25 kilometers. Missile guidance would be via a radar seeker.

NGCM appears intended as a step up — but still compatible — with the Army’s Coyote C-UAS missile system.

“The Army is looking for NGCM to be produced and integrated into the existing Coyote Launch System to provide extended range, rapid launch time, and reduced time-to-target over current effectors,” the notice said.

The weapon is intended to stop Group 2 and 3 drones. Group 2 drones have a maximum gross takeoff weight of 21 to 55 pounds, fly below 3,500 feet and have a speed of less than 250 knots, according to the Department of Defense’s UAV classification system. This includes models such as Boeing’s ScanEagle. Group 3 drones, such as Insitu’s RQ-21 Blackjack, have a takeoff weight under 1,320 pounds and fly below 18,000 feet at a speed of less than 250 knots.

The NGCM missile should take less than five seconds to leave the launcher after the operator gives the fire command.

“The missile must be compatible with the Coyote Launcher with minimal to no modifications,” the notice said.

In addition, the missile must also fit with existing air defense systems, including the Sentinel A3/A4, LTAMDS and TPQ-53 radars.

The Army envisions the NGCM missile system in two versions. The fixed-site version would be equipped with a variety of sensors. A mobile version would be “mounted on tactical vehicles for employment at the halt and on-the-move, providing a scalable capability at the tactical edge.”

The Army is aiming for Technology Readiness Level 7 — prototype testing in the field — by the end of fiscal 2027. Contractors will need to have 50 missiles ready for operational assessment by the beginning of 2028.

Significantly, the Army desires missiles costing less than $150,000 apiece as part of a bulk purchase of 5,000 missiles. While that’s a bargain compared to a $4 million Patriot air-defense missile, critics may still question the economics: An Iranian Shahed-136 drone costs around $35,000.

That’s one reason for the drive to develop anti-drone lasers that, theoretically, cost only pennies per shot. On the other hand, missiles can function in bad weather that disrupts laser beams.

“The current industrial base has demonstrated significant challenges, including production delays, quality control issues, and critical obsolescence (i.e., diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages) across key engine components,” warned the Air Force’s Request for Information. The deadline is Aug. 28.

“The government will pursue a strategic competition requiring industry to innovate manufacturing and guarantee supply chain resiliency,” the RFI said.

The initiative comes as the Air Force struggles with its jet engines.

For example, F-35 fighter deliveries and upgrades have been delayed by engine issues, with a Government Accountability Office report noting last year that “the engine contractor is still not delivering engines to contract specifications after 20 years of production.”

Meanwhile, B-52 modernization has been stalled in part by engine issues that have raised costs by $3 billion and delayed initial operational capability by 15 months, according to GAO.

In turn, the Air Force is now embarking on a multiyear fighter engine procurement project that envisions more than 180 engines per year by 2034. The RFI specifically cites engines for the F-15EX and F-16.

The RFI promises “five foundational pillars designed to drive a paradigm shift in engine procurement and sustainment,” as the government shifts from “legacy procurement toward incentivizing industry-led technological evolution and capacity expansion.” These include “holding vendors accountable” for delivering new engines that are more capable, reliable and cheaper.

The Air Force will focus “on the total lifecycle cost of the engine, not just the initial purchase price.”

Contractors are also responsible for ensuring reliable supply chains.

“We will implement an acquisition strategy that prioritizes ease of maintenance and establishes a resilient, sustainable supply chain from day one,” the Air Force said. “This effort is designed to solve key fleet-level issues by requiring a newer engine with improved supportability.”

“The result is a streamlined logistics footprint that reduces downtime, lowers the burden on our maintainers, and ensures the continuous flow of parts and support to maximize flightline readiness.”

Ultimately, the question is whether the U.S. defense industrial base can deliver. The Air Force intends to “enforce stringent producibility requirements.”

“We will select a partner capable of scaling production to meet surge requirements, guaranteeing a steady and uninterrupted supply of engines for USAF/FMS [Foreign Military Sales] aircraft (e.g. F-15EX and F-16) programs,” the RFI reads.

Companies responding to the RFI are asked to provide a variety of details, such as a timeline for developing and manufacturing an engine. They should also specify “at what minimum volume your supply chain can justify private capital investments (such as facility expansion, tooling modernization, or advanced automation) and how those investments will structurally lower your long-term unit costs.”

With nations competing to obtain raw materials — and China restricting sales of rare earths — the Air Force wants to be certain manufacturers can find the raw materials they need.

“From your company’s market perspective, what are the primary raw material constraints (e.g., specialized titanium/nickel alloys) or manufacturing process bottlenecks (e.g., advanced casting or forging capacity) that pose the highest risk to scaling up fighter engine production?” the RFI asks.

But as America celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it is easy to forget that independence was not guaranteed. As they shivered at Valley Forge in the winter of 1778, George Washington and his troops would have scoffed at the notion that victory would come on a silver platter.

For the American Revolution to succeed, the colonists had to create an army. Whether the Continental Army was defeated on the battlefield — as it frequently was — mattered less. As long as the United Colonies could keep an army in the field, Britain would be forced to continue what seemed like a forever war.

“American Revolutionary War” is a computer wargame that depicts the battles of the American Revolution, or what the British call the War of American Independence.

With 148 scenarios, from small engagements like Hubbardton and Kettle Creek, to larger battles such as Princeton, Brandywine and Saratoga, American Revolutionary War is part of publisher Wargame Design Studio’s Musket & Pike series. These games depict warfare from the 15th through the 18th Centuries, an era where polearms were gradually replaced by gunpowder weapons, such as muskets.

By the 1770s, the pike had been replaced by the bayonet, and the primitive arquebus by more reliable flintlock muskets including Britain’s “Brown Bess.”

With a 114-page user manual, American Revolutionary War is not exactly casual entertainment. It is a highly detailed simulation not just of 18th Century European-style warfare — but also how difficult it was to conduct armies’ European-style warfare in the 18th Century North American wilderness.

The game depicts battles at the grand tactical scale, with battalions and companies of infantry, as well as batteries of artillery and the occasional horse soldier (cavalry was much rarer than the later Napoleonic and American Civil Wars). The American have Continental regulars and local militia, while the Crown fields a polyglot force of British regulars, German mercenaries, Loyalist troops and Native American allies.

These units maneuver across a 2-D hex-grid map of eastern North America in its pre-industrial glory. The terrain is studded with forests, fields, marshes and streams.

Units are rated for how many troops or guns they have, and their weaponry (musket, 3-pounder artillery, etc.). Most important is a quality rating from A to F, which affects combat proficiency and movement. The British regulars tend to be quality As and Bs, while the Continentals tend to be Cs and Ds, and the American militias Fs.

Players alternate taking their turns, with each turn representing about 15 minutes of real time. Each player conducts movement and fire combat, followed by a melee phase to resolve assaults. Combat inflicts casualties as well as “fatigue,” which saps morale and effectiveness until units break or rout.

Western battlefield tactics in the 18th and 19th Centuries centered on assuming the right formation in an era when troops fought shoulder to shoulder. Column formation was used to expedite movement, though at the cost of firepower and presenting a juicy target. When engaging in a firefight, infantry would assume line formation, standing in two or three ranks.

Units in line that move through rough terrain, or obstructions, such as walls, run the risk of becoming “disordered,” with movement and fire penalties. On the other hand, a densely packed column can take heavy casualties from enemy troops deployed in line. Dispersing troops into open order makes them less vulnerable to enemy fire, but penalizes them in melee.

One myth is that the conflict “was fought by the British in a strictly linear fashion, while the Americans were primarily in skirmish,” Mike Cox, designer of American Revolutionary War, told Military Times. Both sides were capable of assuming a variety of formations, though this presented challenges for under-trained Continentals.

“The Americans often tried to fight linearly, too,” added Cox. “It just didn’t often work out well.”

Particularly useful are the detachments of light infantry.

“Learning to master your light troops is extremely important,” Cox said. “When to deploy as skirmishers to delay or scout, or recall and use them to effectively melee to push back the enemy and take and hold ground.”

Command and control has always been the glue that binds armies, but especially so in the pre-radio era, when commanders personally led their troops.

American Revolutionary War features historical commanders, rated from A (George Washington) to F, that form chains of command in each army. Leaders can rally broken troops and provide morale bonuses, though they can also be felled by enemy fire.

“Keeping units in range of their leader and their leader in range of the next higher echelon makes an army work well,” Cox explained. American commanders will need to stay close to their militia: “Keeping them in command and preventing their disruption and breakdown is an art.”

One fascination of playing historical wargames is seeing how they model the little things. For example, the British Army’s Scottish Highlanders are given a bonus during melee combat “to reflect their impact on the minds of American troops, and their reputation for relishing close combat,” the game manual notes.

But ultimately, the question comes down to: How accurately does the game depict the battles that determined the fate of the American Revolution? And, how well does it capture the essences of a professional army versus a more amateur — but also more inspired — citizen army?

American Revolutionary War fares well on both questions.

The unit quality, morale and command systems model the capabilities of both sides, including how the Continental Army improved over time due to combat experience, as well as the tutelage of European instructors like Baron von Steuben.

“British forces are often outnumbered,” said Cox. “They need to learn to stretch their lines or get outflanked. They will usually have some high-quality troops and have the advantage of picking the point of attack.”

“The Americans usually have a high number of units. However, quality and strength can vary wildly. The Americans need to know when to give ground and when to hit hard.”

Perhaps what is most striking is the theater of war.

WDS has published almost 120 historical wargames that cover gigantic battles, such as Waterloo, Gettysburg, Kursk and the Battle of the Bulge. In these games, the maps are packed with masses of troops.

In American Revolutionary War, the maps are often big, while the armies are small. One can begin to appreciate how British soldiers and colonial settlers must have felt about fighting in a vast, untamed land.

As Americans mark the Declaration of Independence, this is a reminder of how far our nation has come.