In an era defined by asymmetric threats, urban sprawl, and rapidly evolving technologies, the modern battlefield defies predictability. Traditional training paradigms, built around fixed-room layouts, static targets, and rehearsed checklists, offer little preparation for the fluid, non-linear interactions that define real combat. When a squad encounters moving civilians, unexpected weather shifts, or an adaptive enemy, the scripted drills that looked so polished in the training yard can dissolve into confusion. We need a new lens that captures the battlefield’s inherent complexity and teaches soldiers to thrive within it, rather than simply survive.
This article proposes viewing small-unit actions as dynamic systems—self-organizing networks of friendly elements, opposing forces, and terrain constraints that continuously co-adapt. Drawing on cutting-edge research from ecological psychology and ecological dynamics, we explore how fighters and teams develop combat dexterity by perceiving and exploiting evolving affordances, operating at the brink of stability to seize fleeting advantages. By examining foundational studies, Krabben et al.’s analysis of interpersonal synergy in combat sports and Sánchez-García’s Constraints-Led Approach to combat motor literacy, we outline a roadmap for training that transcends rote drills and paper targets, forging units that can sense, shape, and master the living system of war.
The Problem with Traditional Training
Modern military training has long relied on compartmentalized skill development: flat ranges and paper targets for marksmanship, sterile rooms for CQB, and live-fire exercises with unrealistic constraints and conditions. While these methods build muscle memory and procedural familiarity, they strip away the very elements, movement, unpredictability, and environmental feedback, that soldiers must navigate in real combat. By extracting and isolating skills from their context and environment we inadvertently teach troops to react to idealized scenarios rather than adapt to the fluid, interdependent challenges of the battlefield. The result is a force adept at checking boxes but ill-prepared when real-world complexity introduces friction, surprise, or rapidly shifting objectives.
Real-world engagements rarely unfold according to script. Civilians move unpredictably, terrain features constrain and channel movement, and adversaries exploit every opportunity. Static SOPs and rote drills cannot capture the nonlinearity of these interactions. A soldier trained to clear a room under lab conditions, without any type of furniture, mouseholes and an OPFOR made out of paper that doesn’t move and act like a real human, may freeze when unpredictable building setups, moving shadows, and an unseen enemy complicate the task. Likewise, hitting a paper silhouette at a fixed distance does nothing to prepare them for a target darting behind cover or returning fire. To cultivate true battlefield resilience, training must embrace complexity rather than hide from it.
Ecological Psychology offers a way out of the conondrum.
Foundations in Ecological Psychology
Ecological psychology, pioneered by James J. Gibson, upends the traditional “inside-the-head” model of perception. Rather than passively gathering raw sensory data and processing it through cognitive schemas, Gibson argued that organisms directly perceive what he called “affordances”—action possibilities inherent in the environment relative to their own capabilities. For example, a low wall affords cover to a prone rifleman, whereas an untrained individual who is not familiar with military operations might just see an obstacle. Perception and action form a continuous loop, where every movement reshapes the information available and every new cue immediately informs the next action.
In a combat context, this organism–environment coupling means soldiers don’t first decide “I must flank” and then search for a path; they perceive a gap in enemy sectors and move through it seamlessly. Terrain, weather, and enemy posture provide ongoing streams of information that soldiers exploit to guide decisions in real time. When we train with paper targets or sterile rooms, we break this crucial coupling. Soldiers learn to shoot or move in a vacuum, missing out on the tacit, perception-driven skills that allow them to sense and seize opportunities under pressure.
Ecological Dynamics Meets Warfare
Ecological dynamics marries Gibson’s direct-perception framework with the mathematics of dynamical systems to explain how coordinated behaviors emerge from the interactions of agents and their environment. In this view, combat is not a sequence of discrete decisions but a self-organizing process: small-unit maneuvers, enemy reactions, and terrain constraints continually reshape one another. Rather than commanding every move from the top down, effective teams exploit these interactions so that adaptive solutions “bubble up” from local interactions—much like birds in a murmuration adjust in real time without a designated leader dictating each turn.
Key concepts from dynamical-systems theory illuminate why and how this happens. Emergence describes how complex squad-level behaviors, fire-and-movement tempos, bounding overwatch patterns, arise without explicit scripting. Order parameters (for instance, the spacing between elements of a fire team) capture the system’s global state in a handful of variables. Metastability refers to operating at the edge of these stable patterns—close enough to maintain cohesion but free to shift rapidly when a new affordance appears. And brinkmanship is the practiced skill of pushing systems to the brink of instability, drawing the enemy out of their comfort zone, without tipping into chaos. Training that embeds these principles readies units to sense, shape, and capitalize on the dynamic interplay of forces in combat.
Kai Krabben and colleagues’ review article “Combat as an Interpersonal Synergy: An Ecological Dynamics Approach to Combat Sports” (Krabben et al., 2019) applies this lens to one-on-one fighting. They show that two opponents form an interpersonal synergy—a unified dynamic system in which each athlete’s perceptions and actions are inseparable from those of the other. Fighters co-adapt their distance, timing, and rhythm, moving between stable states (safe, predictable exchanges) and meta-stable zones (high-risk, high-reward opportunities). Experts demonstrate brinkmanship by operating at the edge of stability to unbalance their opponent without losing control.
Building on this, Raúl Sánchez-García’s paper “Initiation to Combat Sports from the Perspective of Ecological Dynamics: the Constraints-Led Approach” (Sánchez-García, 2025) introduces combat motor literacy and combat dexterity. Sánchez-García argues that rather than drilling fixed techniques, trainees should develop dexterity by solving real-time motor problems under shifting constraints. He shows that the Constraints-Led Approach (CLA), by systematically manipulates organismic (athlete capability, stress), task (goals, rules), and environmental (terrain, visibility) constraints through modified games and scenario-based drills, enables the development of these abilities. This process channels learning toward functional, adaptive responses, precisely the emergent, metastable behaviors that ecological dynamics describes.
Just as fighters self-organize and co-adapt within these coupled constraints, small units, whether fire teams or squads, can be trained as dynamic systems. By treating each element (individuals, enemy force, terrain) as a coupled subsystem, instructors can design exercises that naturally generate stability shifts, force brinkmanship, and cultivate collective dexterity. For example, running force-on-force drills in varied terrain with shifting objectives and opponent tactics creates a living system in which teams learn to perceive emerging affordances, exploit meta-stable zones, and co-create advantageous dynamics, mirroring the principles identified by Krabben et al. and Sánchez-García.
Mapping the Battlefield as Coupled Systems
To understand combat through the lens of ecological dynamics, we can conceptualize the battlefield as three interdependent systems: the friendly unit, the enemy unit, and the terrain. Each behaves as a dynamic system with its own internal variables, unit cohesion and communication for friendly forces; tactics, morale, and adaptability for the enemy; cover, sightlines, and mobility corridors for terrain, to just mention a few. However, these systems do not operate in isolation. Movements by the friendly unit alter terrain affordances (opening or closing fields of fire), which in turn change the enemy’s tactical options. Likewise, the enemy’s maneuvers reshape the friendly unit’s constraints, forcing adjustments in formation, fire-and-movement rhythm, or rule-of-engagement interpretation.
This triadic coupling creates a constantly shifting “stability landscape.” Certain configurations, like a well-coordinated bounding overwatch in broken terrain, represent stable attractors, offering predictable control. Conversely, meta-stable zones emerge where affordances fluctuate rapidly: an undefended ridge line in fading light or an urban intersection with multiple blind approaches. These are the high-payoff, high-risk states that Sánchez-García’s and Krabben et al.’s work highlights. Training that mirrors these coupled dynamics, by running multi-directional force-on-force in realistic terrain, varying visibility and objectives, and employing adaptive opposing forces, immerses units in the very system they must master, cultivating the perception–action coupling and brinkmanship that underpin true combat dexterity.
What We're Missing Today
Despite the inherently dynamic nature of combat, most military training remains shackled to static drills and rote standard operating procedures. Trainees rehearse isolated movement patterns in controlled environments, rooms with fixed layouts, lanes of fire with unmoving targets, and checklists designed for predictability. This fragmentation divorces learning from the continuous interplay of constraints that defines real engagements. Without coupling skills under varied environmental pressures, soldiers lack the perceptual calibration to detect emerging affordances or recognize when a stable pattern has shifted into a meta-stable, exploitable state.
Furthermore, reliance on paper targets epitomizes this disconnect. Shooting at 2D silhouettes fails to replicate the spatial-temporal coupling of a live adversary: targets don’t seek cover, feint movement, or alter tactics in response to incoming fire. As a result, shooters develop a “point-and-shoot” mindset that neglects critical variables such as terrain affordances, timing, and opponent adaptability. When faced with an agile, thinking adversary in complex terrain, they find themselves unprepared to perceive shifting opportunities and constraints, precisely the skills that ecological dynamics research by Krabben et al. and Sánchez-García demonstrates are essential for high-level performance.
Designing Real-World-Representative Training
To bridge the gap between theory and practice, training must faithfully reproduce the coupled dynamics of the battlefield. Begin by scripting exercises around realistic opposing forces: role-players who employ genuine tactics, concealment, and deception rather than static pre-planned lanes. Pair these adaptive enemies with authentic terrain constraints, urban mock villages, wooded areas, variable weather simulations, to ensure that trainees must continuously recalibrate their perception of cover, sightlines, and movement corridors. By deliberately manipulating task objectives mid-exercise, such as shifting from offensive assault to casualty evacuation or introducing civilian interaction scenarios, planners inject the task constraints that force teams to discover new, context-driven solutions.
Next, integrate core skills under controlled uncertainty. Instead of isolated drills, combine them in high-tempo, stress-inducing scenarios—night operations with limited visibility, communication blackouts, and randomized equipment failures. Such exercises leverage metastability: trainees operate at the edge of stable patterns, where small perturbations (e.g., an unexpected enemy flanking) open affordances for creative adaptation. Finally, employ the Constraints-Led Approach in AARs: debrief not only “what went wrong” but analyze how organismic (fatigue, stress), environmental (terrain, weather), and task (changing objectives) constraints interacted to shape outcomes. This systemic lens turns every exercise into a learning engine for combat dexterity.
Measuring Success Beyond Checklists
Traditional metrics, rounds on target, time to clear a room, SOP compliance, capture only narrow aspects of performance. To assess true combat dexterity, training programs must adopt adaptability metrics that reflect dynamic-system principles. Track response times to unplanned changes (e.g., how quickly a team reconfigures after an unexpected enemy maneuver), successful exploitation of affordances (instances where trainees recognize and use new cover or approach angles), and moments of brinkmanship (calculated risks taken at the edge of stability that yield tactical advantage). Use video analysis and team feedback to map these events onto the shifting stability landscape, identifying which constraints trainees mastered and where breakdowns occurred.
In AARs, shift the focus from “Did they follow the drill?” to “How did they shape the engagement’s dynamics?” Encourage teams to diagram order-parameter changes, such as unit separation or fire-and-movement tempo, during critical moments. Discuss how environmental, organismic, and task constraints combined to create opportunities or barriers. This systemic after-action lens not only highlights areas for technical refinement but also cultivates a mindset attuned to perceiving and influencing dynamic interactions, solidifying the principles outlined by Krabben et al. and Sánchez-García in measurable, actionable terms.
Conclusion
Combat, at its core, is a dynamic dance of coupled systems—friendly units, opposing forces, and terrain entwined in a continual flow of perception and action. The ecological-dynamics research of Krabben et al. and the Constraints-Led Approach championed by Sánchez-García provide a powerful blueprint: build combat motor literacy through intentional manipulation of constraints, cultivate interpersonal and inter-unit synergies, and train brinkmanship at the edge of stability. By designing exercises that mirror real-world complexity, employing authentic enemies and terrain, integrating skills under uncertainty, and measuring adaptability over rote compliance, we forge forces not just technically proficient but dynamically resilient. It’s time to move beyond static drills and paper targets—embrace the battlefield as a living system, and train to master its ever-shifting landscape.
