“The scenario isn’t the problem. Your assumptions are.”

Over the last two decades, we’ve seen a powerful rise in interest around crisis simulations, especially at board and C-suite level. And for good reason: in a world where polycrisis is the norm, leaders want to know they can respond with coherence under pressure.

But here’s the problem.

Most “wargames” run at senior level are polite, overly structured, and fundamentally unrealistic. They're not preparing leaders for the real thing. They’re reinforcing dangerous habits.

At Oakas, we’ve designed and delivered simulations for multinationals, governments, and NGOs in over 20 countries. We’ve seen what works and what doesn’t. And in this piece, we break down the most common pitfalls we see in board-level wargames, and how to avoid them.

1. They rehearse a known problem, not a dynamic threat

Too many simulations start with something predictable:

“You’ve had a data breach. Media are asking questions. What do you say?”

But real crises are messy, layered, and ambiguous. The first email doesn’t say “You’ve had a breach.” It says “Something strange just happened.” Then things spiral.

Better approach:
Design scenarios that evolve. That throw new inputs halfway through. That test leaders' ability to reprioritise and reframe, not just follow a checklist.

2. They isolate departments instead of integrating them

It’s common to see boards simulate a scenario as a comms issue, or an operational issue, or a legal issue.

But in reality, it’s always all of them.

A cyber incident isn’t just IT’s problem. It’s a reputational, regulatory, operational and investor-facing challenge.

Better approach:
Involve multiple teams and force them to make decisions in tension with each other. That’s when real issues surface: who gets heard, who gets blocked, who delays.

3. They go too easy

Out of politeness or fear of embarrassment, many simulations are too “safe.”
The scenario’s contained. The questions are fair. No one interrupts. Everyone gets time to think.

But real crises are messy. They escalate. The media leak something you didn’t expect. An internal source contradicts your statement. Regulators ask questions during your town hall.

Better approach:
Design friction into the simulation. Include a wildcard actor. Leak partial data. Add pressure. Simulate chaos — not consensus.

4. They forget about time pressure

In real crises, you don’t have two hours to debate strategy. You have 30 minutes to decide what to say, who to say it to, and what to do if you’re wrong.

Simulations that allow long discussions miss the opportunity to train decision-making under compression.

Better approach:
Introduce real-time constraints. Use countdowns. Cut conversations short. Make decisions stick.

5. They avoid the post-mortem

The simulation ends. Everyone says “That was interesting.” And then they leave.

Wrong.

The real value comes after the session in the debrief; the unpacking, the confrontation with blind spots, bottlenecks, and ego.

Better approach:
Run a structured debrief. Use facilitators. Let teams self-reflect and receive hard feedback. Ask the uncomfortable questions:

• Who made the decision?

• Who should have been in the room?

• What assumptions broke down?

• Where did time get lost?

What Great Crisis Wargames Look Like

Here’s what we build into every Oakas simulation:

✔️ Cross-functional participation
✔️ Real-time pressure and ambiguity
✔️ Scenario evolution (including curveballs)
✔️ Multi-domain tension (comms vs. legal vs. ops)
✔️ A brutally honest debrief

And most importantly:
We simulate the system not the individual.

Because in a real crisis, it’s not the person who fails. It’s the system they’re part of.

Final Word

If you’re running a simulation just to “tick the box,” it might make your team feel good but it won’t make them ready.

If you want to know how your team actually performs under pressure, we can help.

→ Talk to us about running a custom simulation
→ See how leading teams build resilience