Game or History?
Phil Dutre
Hi all,
I was thinking about the following (again ;-) lately:
When we as wargamers try to 'rationalize' wargaming, we usually
tend to say it's about the study of military history, about military
thinking and tactics, about studying uniforms, about getting a better
view on history etc. Much less we say it's just about the toy soldiers
and the games.
My question now is whether this is a valid argument to use, and
to what extent this is just wishful thinking?
Sure, most of us do read about military history, and like to study
campaigns and uniforms and all that, but do the games give us any
additional insight that we didn't get from books?
From my own experience, I would say the games provide little to
none additional insights. The games are fun, and they are slightly
based on military events that really took place, I'm not denying
that, but do they really teach us something more that we didn't
already know from just reading the books?
After playing many games, I'm not sure about this. Suppose you discover
how to do a good flank march in a game, or how to deploy a good
defensive line? How do you know this is valid military knowledge, or
just a good gaming tactic? In other words, how do you know that the
game portrays reality? Most game designers will claim their game
is based on realistic data and events, but I have a harder and harder
time believing it.
I've done a small stint in the army myself (armoured infantry platoon
commander), and the things I remember from those days are not the
clever tactical deployments, but rather the improvisation I had
to use when I lost radio-contact with one of my sections and didn't have
a clue about where they were, or when my Company Commander was shouting
over the radio where the f**k I was (while I tought I was perfectly
where I was supposed to be), or when some stupid guy in Bn HQ was
transmitting coordinates using yesterday's deciphering key, or when
one of the APC was stuck in the mud, or just the adrenalin that hits you
when you're storming a beach... none of the games on a wargaming
table have actually given me the same sort of 'experience'.
So ... are our games just games, do we pretend they're something more,
or are they really something more?
Phil
--
Philip Dutre
Computer Graphics Group -- Department of Computer Science -- K.U.Leuven
Email: ph...@cs.kuleuven.ac.be
Office Phone: +32 16 32 76 67
Web: http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~phil/
Tony Charles
I was once interviwed on the Radio, and as part of the interview (can't
remember the question that got me onto it), pointed out that even the deck
of cards was originally created to represent military forces/political
power. The Joker represents a peasant revolt.
So just lay back, and enjoy the game.
Phil Dutre <ph...@cs.kuleuven.ac.be> wrote in message
news:3C57FAE7...@cs.kuleuven.ac.be...
Martin J Blow
more,
> or are they really something more?
>
> Phil
>
Nope - just games. Nothing more.
But the reading, dreaming, painting, planning, scheming before the
game and the drinking, knoshing, grinning or whining after the game is
entirely the point of the operation.
IMHO, of course.
MJB
Mr. Tin's Miniature Painting Workshop:
http://members.blueskyweb.net/mrt...@blueskyweb.net/
Dan D. Cyr
a game. Unless someone is bleeding, it is a game. Can be very real, as in
military simulations (like a round of SERE in the service), use paint ball
guns, or a hot and fast round of RISK, but these are all still a game.
Reality is when people are hurt, and killed. A game is when everyone can
laugh at the end, and walk away. Anyone who thinks that by "playing" a
game, is somehow now in shape for military action (physically or mentally),
has real tactical, or operational knowledge and skill, is just fooling
themselves.
Historical miniature gamers (i.e., this news group) are people interested in
history, enjoy painting, and like to "game". They may be more interested in
the history, or the painting, or the game, but if they play, they are
playing.
I never apoligize to anyone for my hobby, but then I also never pretend that
it is more than it appears. Toy soldiers on fake terrain. A game. More
colorful than cards, and more exciting (and social I hope) than cross
stitch, but still just a game.
Dan Cyr
Phil Dutre wrote:
> Hi all,
<<large snip>>
TLTuohy
>or are they really something more?
Games. In a limited way, such as demos at schools, they can be used as tools
for teaching history but in terms of actually giving us insight into the
realities of military history or actual warfare, ain't no way.
LT
DYE4MINIS
>>or are they really something more?
For some, they are more than just games. While they will never be "realistic"
in terms of human suffering and the true carnage of war, they can provide
insights into understanding the who, what, when, where and why's of warfare.
Such games have helped me in my miliatry career by making it easier to look at
"situations" and develop contingency plans. It helped me develop a "frame of
mind" for problem solving that has stuck with me after my military retirement,
10 years ago.
Like anything else, we get out of the hobby what we are willing to put into it.
(Just wish I had more time to play and enjoy the "games"!)
Best,
Tom Dye
GFI
GFI/Minifigs: www.minifigs.com (303)361-6465
Attactix:Bi...@attactix.com (303)699-3349
Makers of Minifigs to the Americas!
Gerald P. Illies
Can't say that I agree with the general opinion(with the exception of
Mr. Dye). I get a lot more out of playing Johnny Reb III then I get out of
Yatzee. I must admit that a lot of the game is the visual "eye candy", to
which I am a voluntary addict. Just the same I know people who are great at
Yatzee, and yet would never be competitive in a miniatures event.
Most gamers never think to evaluate a game after it has been completed.
When I review a recent defeat in my mind(a form of mental torture that only
sound minds can bare, which is one reason I am about 80% insane), I try to
comprehend my tactical blunders, rather than what *rule* I could have used
to my advantage. Now, I can't say that I am experienced commander, but I
have had my victories(wins are harder to evaluate, since no one wants to fix
something that isn't broken), and I am confident that my evaluations have at
the very least given me something interesting to think about while I spend
the day painting figs. :0)
Gerald P. Illies
www.minis-market.com
Pockets
>
>
> I was thinking about the following (again ;-) lately:
> When we as wargamers try to 'rationalize' wargaming, we usually
> tend to say it's about the study of military history, about military
> thinking and tactics, about studying uniforms, about getting a better
> view on history etc. Much less we say it's just about the toy soldiers
> and the games.
>
Well for my money:-
I like history.
I like solving a problem.
I like gadgets, taking them apart and putting them back together.
I find painting therputic.
I like mental challenges no matter how bad i am at them ;)
I like the pub we play in, and its a bit differnt than watching the
eastenders omnibus edition of a sunday arvo. I also like a jaw and a jar
with me mates.
wargaming lets me combine all of those and more. Don't matter that i'm
useless at it ;)
Yes its just a game. A game informed and inspired by the history. The
History adds colour, yet is not essential.
TLTuohy
>When I review a recent defeat in my mind(a form of mental torture that only
>sound minds can bare, which is one reason I am about 80% insane), I try to
>comprehend my tactical blunders, rather than what *rule* I could have used
>to my advantage
Now, my experience has been completely different. We *always* evaluate our
games, not in terms of the rules, but in terms of tactical possibilities. The
point I tried to make in my original reply is that this may well give me an
idea of what tactics to try next on the tabletop but I do not feel that it
gives me any further insight into the reality of war. Perhaps this is derived
from the fact that the largest group of men I ever led in combat was a squad
and the units I prefer to command on the tabletop are battalions but I don't
think that's the whole of it. Utlimately, my troops are just little chunks of
lead and what I do with them is just a game - a prettier game than Yahtzee, to
be sure, but still just a game.
LT
MltryHstrn
Sorry guys but there is no great mystery here. Our hobby - any hobby for that
matter - is unique to the hobbyist. For some it is the extension of dominance
and ego. For others, it the opportunity to engage in good humored social
interaction. Personally, my hobby has changed mightily from gaming encounters
every Friday night to a more private and solitary collecting and painting
activity.
Hobbies should be no more or less than what they actually are - diversions .
More than that they are obsessions, less than that they take on the importance
and significance of doodling. IMHO, of course.
Jerry
Brady Severns
>
> Hi all,
>
> I was thinking about the following (again ;-) lately:
> When we as wargamers try to 'rationalize' wargaming, we usually
> tend to say it's about the study of military history, about military
> thinking and tactics, about studying uniforms, about getting a better
> view on history etc. Much less we say it's just about the toy soldiers
> and the games.
>
> My question now is whether this is a valid argument to use, and
> to what extent this is just wishful thinking?
>
> or are they really something more?
Just games.
I think we learn most in double-blind games. If moderated, double-blind
games were held where players made decisions based on what real
commanders would base decisions on, then I think a great deal could be
learned. More if, before executing orders, they would have to follow
procedures and adhere to doctrine the way many commanders would have to.
I think the benefit of most wargames are the lessons learned preparing
for a battle and when things go wrong or off plan. In our table-top
games, it's remarkable how slavishly obedient and dependable our lead
and plastic armies are. Even when they break morale, we can often chose
which way they will run and sometimes how far.
Anymore, however, I learn from history books and play the games for
entertainment. Like watching a movie. Playability first, "realism"
(whatever that is on a tabletop) a long second.
Brady
NJH
> I like history.
> I like solving a problem.
> I like gadgets, taking them apart and putting them back together.
> I find painting therputic.
> I like mental challenges no matter how bad i am at them ;)
> I like the pub we play in,
> and its a bit differnt than watching the eastenders omnibus edition....
*NJH: "Are You Being Served," "Red Dwarf," "Blackadder," "Mr Bean,"
"Rising Damp," "Faulty Towers," "Born to the Manor," "Good Neighbors,"
"Yes, Minister," "anything with Dawn French," and even "Blakes Seven"
(despite the really lame ending) are all programing I understand and
enjoy, but the "Eastenders" completely eludes me. I just can't get my
mind around it.
> I also like a jaw and a jar with me mates.
*NJH: I thought that was the whole purpose of the gaming.:)
> wargaming lets me combine all of those and more. Don't matter that i'm
> useless at it ;)
*NJH: At any given time, half the hobby are losers.;)
> Yes its just a game. A game informed and inspired by the history. The
> History adds colour, yet is not essential.
*NJH: For me it's all about the history. The gaming is just a plus.
Cheers
NJH
Tom Ball kiva
Some simulations/games can and are used in the training role to provide
decision makers with an understanding of the issues and decisions they might
face in a potential real world situation. REFORGER used to provide a whole
slew of training to the particapants, but most of it was on the logistics of
large troop movements and formation maneuver. I doubt that anyone below
battalion staff or company command really got much out of it.
Several years ago Frank Chadwick and others in central Illinois lead a
series of "games" that were called Command Con. these were large multi-day
games that covered such things as the US Civil War Battle of the Wilderness
and another time all of Operation Market Garden. The games existed on
several levels: tactical, operational and strategic. People had to work at a
level of command based on their assignment. For some that meant move troops
directly, for others it was directing those guys at the first level and for
some others it was coordinate the general support that those guys at both
those lower levels needed. I would posit that people performing at the upper
two of those three levels could and did gain some insights to the issues
relating to the command functions they performed.
Other games/exercises can be used for individual or squad skills
reinforcement. When I was on active duty I doubt I could count how many
times did we do break contact drills. I used to hate the live fire - fire
and maneuver exercises, but when you needed that stuff and it was nearly
instinctive the practice it did save lives in the real world.
Other simulations/games can be used to provide individuals or teams with
experience in performing tasks that will be required of them in real world
situations. Follow this link for one good example
http://www.ets-news.com/usnavy.htm
Since I get to do both today, Navy training and hobby gaming I'm pretty
confident when I say that in my experience most folks in the hobby setting
don't enjoy the games that are closer to the type most useful for military
training.
--
V/R
Tom
"Phil Dutre" <ph...@cs.kuleuven.ac.be> wrote in message
news:3C57FAE7...@cs.kuleuven.ac.be...
>
Gerald P. Illies
Dear LT,
I would have to agree with you 100%. I must admit that I never really
consider my tabletop troops to be humans. There is a key distinction in
that respect. I must also admit that I would probably never get my full
retirement if I was shot as a result of a tabletop failure(although the
verbal barrage can do some damage to my ego:0).
Gerald P. Illies
www.minis-market.com
TLTuohy wrote in message <20020130165724...@mb-de.aol.com>...
Tim Marshall
>
> *NJH: At any given time, half the hobby are losers.;)
Depends on the victory conditions 8)
--
Tim - http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "DittoooOOO?" - Ditto
Avatar
:
: I've done a small stint in the army myself (armoured infantry platoon
: commander), and the things I remember from those days are not the
: clever tactical deployments, but rather the improvisation I had
: to use when I lost radio-contact with one of my sections and didn't have
: a clue about where they were, or when my Company Commander was shouting
: over the radio where the f**k I was (while I tought I was perfectly
: where I was supposed to be), or when some stupid guy in Bn HQ was
: transmitting coordinates using yesterday's deciphering key, or when
: one of the APC was stuck in the mud, or just the adrenalin that hits you
: when you're storming a beach... none of the games on a wargaming
: table have actually given me the same sort of 'experience'.
This is one area where games really fall down. It is just next to
impossible to impose a "fog of war" on players playing in a game that
effectively simulates the vagries of command interpretation. I've seen it
done in a wonderfully effective manner at con games where judges act as
impartial order relayers who relay the orders dispatched by messenger
leaving a sub-commander to interpret the order without a discussion to
clear up confusions with the overall commander unless sending missives
back and forth, meanwhile wasting valuable maneuvering time.
Unfortunately this is just not possible for two friends getting together
to play a game. It makes gaming pretty difficult if you have to not only
have your opponent, but a team of sub commanders and judges just to play a
single game. Some games have tried to simulate this, but haven't come
close because the person giving the orders is the same one carrying them
out as a sub commander. The only ones that work in a pseudo way are those
where a table is used to determine if the unit obeys as ordered, stays in
place, or moves in some random direction. The big problem there, though,
is that it is totally random (hence the work in a pseudo way comment).
: So ... are our games just games, do we pretend they're something more,
: or are they really something more?
Our games are just that, games. At the same time they are more than that
in different ways. They are a gateway to history and lead people into
further investigation and the period they are playing. They can be a
useful teaching tool to bring something like the Civil War to life when
demoed for school students. They can also be excellent tools for teaching
problem solving and thinking on your feet. I've met very few gamers who
were totally indicisive in their lives (RPGs, wargames, what have you).
They tend to be better at thinking on their feet from years around a
table, delving in dungeons and who knows whatever environments they've
found themselves thrust in.
So even though they are just games in a sense, they do go beyond that to
become something more. Of course that doesn't change the fact that they
are games...:)
Avatar
Ty Beard
news:fYxYPFS7RSkOZY...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:53:43 +0100, Phil Dutre
> <ph...@cs.kuleuven.ac.be> wrote:
>
> >So ... are our games just games, do we pretend they're something more,
> >or are they really something more?
> >
> >Phil
>
Um, judging from the posts so far, it seems that the great majority of those
who responded agree with you that its more about gaming than about history.
Myself, I like a wargame to be *fun* and vaguely accurate in its outcomes.
So yes, it's a game to me. But I like those games to have plenty of
historical trappings.
--Ty Beard
Quid Veritas
participants. Hooked a MD on this hobby once and he would comment how
he spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about the games (had
played 4-5 at that point). Now most folks won't admit it but I think
more than a few have had this hobby come between them and relationships
with wives, girl friends and pets.
mjc
Martin Rapier
{snip}
> So ... are our games just games, do we pretend they're something more,
> or are they really something more?
Umm, well, they are just games, however they are quite complex games & in
some cases can recreate certain aspects of real warfare, but as in all
models of reality other aspects are abstracted or ignored.
Cheers
Martin
Andy O'Neill
<m.ra...@shef.ac.uk> writes
>Umm, well, they are just games, however they are quite complex games & in
>some cases can recreate certain aspects of real warfare, but as in all
>models of reality other aspects are abstracted or ignored.
This would also include those models of reality the result of an
individual's perception.
One persons view of the world being different to the next and all that.
Whooaaaa.
Getting a bit deep for (ref)usenet there.
But you can play a game and think it worked out like someone had no plan
at all and then he has some other reason he lost at the end.
Mind you, another explanation these are weak excuses the geeezer uses to
explain losing.
Andy O'Neill
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Andy O'Neill
>This is one area where games really fall down. It is just next to
>impossible to impose a "fog of war" on players playing in a game that
>effectively simulates the vagries of command interpretation.
IMO, To be exact, this is one area where SOME games fall down on.
A number of rule systems attempt to incorporate the mistakes
misunderstandings and friction in command control.
Most do this with a system of order-modes ( Move, assault, deploy etc ).
You have to make a roll to switch and there are +- factors which allow
well trained and flexible troops to change mode easy, give not so
flexible problems if the enemy is not obliging enough to just stand
there and comply with the original plan.
WRG moderns was, I think, the earliest to do this... now you have tac
ww2 and others.
Systems like piquet do this a slightly different way but with the cards
meaning shit can happen.
I've used systems where you can fail the roll and end up on a different
order state if unlucky....
Then there's DBM which says that you don't really need to know the
details of most difficulties, just so long as movement is random and
some over-enthusiastic troops can go haring off... complex plans are
punished and breaking up an attack has a huge effect.
Other systems say that so long as you got a variable move under fire and
get a benefit from ideal use of commanders then that's enough
For something approaching fog of war on a skirmish, the club's split
board games do a pretty good job. With multiple players per side,
players can just do dumb things and misunderstand pre-game plans anyhow.
You can't see the enemy until their figures are sighted which adds a
huge element of suspense.
Also means people can become over-confident and often then get punished.
Computer games can do the lot, but most players want control and are
frustrated by units doing the wrong thing. Having to actually write
detailed orders is also a bit tedious.
Andy O'Neill
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Martin Rapier
news:tL7GgIAV7nW8Ewsg@l-
{snip}
> One persons view of the world being different to the next and all that.
> Getting a bit deep for (ref)usenet there.
Perhaps alt.philisophy?
> But you can play a game and think it worked out like someone had no plan
> at all and then he has some other reason he lost at the end.
Yes. One problem some players have with my games is that I tend to be a bit
of scale magpie, hopping from 1:1 skirmish one week up to Army level 1 base
= 1 regiment stuff the next, which means they can find it very hard to
visualise the relationships between the groundscale and the toys, which in
turn means they sometimes make fundamental errors. One week that shiny
Panther can fire right across the table, next week it has physically crash
into its opponent!
> Mind you, another explanation these are weak excuses the geeezer uses to
> explain losing.
Oh yes, but they are more likely to come back if they have achieved at least
something. I generally give each team multiple objectives these days,
varying in difficulty, and on occasion they have been known to include
things like 'die gloriously in hand to hand combat' or 'speak with a silly
accent', although many players don't need much prompting to do the latter.
Cheers
Martin
Andy O'Neill
<m.ra...@shef.ac.uk> writes
>Yes. One problem some players have with my games is that I tend to be a bit
>of scale magpie, hopping from 1:1 skirmish one week up to Army level 1 base
>= 1 regiment stuff the next, which means they can find it very hard to
>visualise the relationships between the groundscale and the toys, which in
>turn means they sometimes make fundamental errors. One week that shiny
>Panther can fire right across the table, next week it has physically crash
>into its opponent!
The cynic in me is thinking that maybe some players just don't listen to
the pre-game blurb.
Doh!
I was almost forgetting that new years resolution.....
The quiet seductive whisperings of the dark side..... calling..... must
r e s i s t.....
I definitely know some people listen to the explanation of a game.
At least 2.
Of course, if they want the same type of game every week, they could
always run one themselves.
On a more kind of thread linked sorta subject thingy..
There's a book "War Games" by Thomas B Allen. It's about proper
military wargames and the history of em.
I found interesting, although that was on history.
Andy O'Neill
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Martin J Blow
"Quid Veritas" <quidv...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3C5A49A3...@netscape.net...
> I would agree obsession accounts for a percentage of the hobby
> participants.
D...uhhhh... ya' think?
Let's not forget to add to your list: compulsion.
How many of your hobby purchases are: order with great eagerness, wait
impatiently for the mailman or UPS driver, tear open the box with
great anticipation, inspect the desired goodies, repack, toss into a
storage bin "until you can get around to it"...
repeat as many times as your bank account allows.
LOL!
> Hooked a MD on this hobby once and he would comment how
> he spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about the games (had
> played 4-5 at that point).
You hooked me when I was but a callow youth of twenty. You bought the
first nappy figures I ever painted for money.
I expect you'll rot in hell for all the harm you've done...
<grin>
> Now most folks won't admit it but I think
> more than a few have had this hobby come between them and
relationships
> with wives, girl friends and pets.
>
> mjc
>
ANY serious, passionate interest beyond work and family can be like
that IMHO. My folks have been married for 48 years - and the only
time I ever heard my Mom threaten divorce was when my Dad wouldn't
give-up running a TRAP LINE in the middle of a Montana winter! And he
was out-of-work (he was an electrician) at the time and we needed the
money the beaver, mink, fox and raccoon pelts were bringing-in!
Go figure...
NJH
> more than a few have had this hobby come between them and relationships
> with wives, girl friends and pets.
> mjc
not getting drunk, I'm not gambling away our money, I'm not doing
drugs, I'm not a smoker, and I'm not doing anything dangerous. She
doesn't worry about other women (I became invisible to women under 40
about ten years ago). She views it as a win-win situation. I'm not
incapacitated by the hobby so I can do all the things she wants done
inside/outside the house. And, she knows exactly where she can find me
to do all those little things around the house. Of course, she has
absolutely no interest in the hobby, but she doesn't care that I do
either.
I also know several fine gamers and rather decent fellows who have had
to give up gaming because the significant other says it's stupid and
infantile. I cannot understand that thinking. Isn't that the first
step on the domestic abuse spiral, keeping people from their friends?
Just some thoughts.
Cheers
NJH
j.knudsen
A surprising number of you have responded that these
little diversions of ours are "just a game", which shows a
lack of imagination surprising in those who participate in
such an imaginative hobby.
Pat answer. Too easy. And . . . wrong.
Some of you seem to have made the assumption that the
original question made it a choice between being "just a
game" and being "real war". I didn't read it that way, but it
doesn't take much imagination to see that, while any
wargame provides no more than a distant echo of real
battle, the absence of smoke, blood and death doesn't
preclude the possibility of it being more than "just a
game".
Let's consider, as an example, the Battlefield Map; how
many of us, in the midst of some detailed and turgid
narrative of battle, have turned to a map of the event for
clarification, and found just that? Yet, is not the map "just
a picture"? It contains no smoke, no blood, no death; it is
merely ink on paper and shares little or nothing with the
event which it depicts. Just a picture, nothing more?
Perusers of military history invariably recognize that maps
are useful tools for understanding past event (though their
usefulness varies). Their utility depends upon several
factors:
a) the quality of the information used to construct the map
b)the clarity with which the map presents this information,
and
c) the ability of the user to absorb and make use of said
information.
Now, substitute the word "wargame" for "map" in these
points and it becomes clear that, like a map, a wargame
can also be a useful tool for understanding past events,
even though it falls far short of reproducing the reality of
those events. In fact, it is in all ways potentially superior
to the venerable Battlefield Map as a study tool. (More on
that subject at another time, perhaps).
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with just kicking
back and enjoying the game (I do this myself, most of the
time), but let's not be blind to their greater potential. That
some wargames seem to have little value beyond the
enjoyment of the game is traceable to the fact that they
were designed to be little else (see points a and b above).
If a wargame design contains a wealth of lucidly presented
historical information, however, and is still accused of
being "just a game", then we must look to point c for the
explanation.
The implements of carpentry can be used to create a fine
piece of furniture, or a doghouse; a brush can be used to
create a still-life painting, or a yard sale sign. It depends
on what the user wants and needs. Like all tools, whether
intellectual, artistic, or mechanical, a wargame's utility
depends on its intrinsic qualities as well as on the skill and
purpose of the one who wields them.
Regards,
Jeff
NJH
board by leading with their slowest unit. They learned a valuable
war-fighting lesson. Basically "Get there first, with the most."
Fortunately it was only a game or a lot of people would have died
uselessly and pointlessly.
Cheers
NJH
Dan D. Cyr
middle age men who enjoy "playing" a game. Each gets his own jollies
out of the "game", but it is still just a game.
Dan
THOMAS DAY
I've gotten a rush in some games due to what was happening and have had
others be affected by the games as well.
Running your forces off the field due to an enemy breakthrough on your
flank.
Holding the line with pieces of units to do it with.
Having your division go all over the place regardless of the plans you
had laid out because the brigades are in the hands of others and all you
can do is effect what your figure is next to.
One man new to miniatures was running a Corps and came unglued due to
the lack of structure and fast pace of a Simultanious move game lft to
go outside and four turns later at almost a yell complained that it was
too confusing ( he was an engineer by trade.)
It depends on if you can get into the game or not. Like taking on a
character in acting. You become what you are doing. The less you
restrict players with arbitrary " play the period " edicts and "I know
how you are suppose to act, so do it my way" the more the players can
get into the game, the more command problems for the higher ups and the
more reality and possibility of getting a rush becomes.
Tom
FAX NUMBER (253) 399-8626
SIMULATION SATURDAY
Will Be December 1, 2001
SPRING MANEUVERS 2002
FEBRUARY 22 & 23, 2002
Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas
http://community.webtv.net/LIMBERRIDER/SPRINGMANEUVERS
j.knudsen
> Oh, please. It a game involving miniatures of some sort, and mostly
> middle age men who enjoy "playing" a game. Each gets his own jollies
> out of the "game", but it is still just a game.
>
> Dan
Dan,
Do not presume to tell me that I cannot paint a landscape
with my brush, simply because you can only paint yard sale
signs with yours. While it is possible that every wargame you
have been involved in was designed for the purpose of getting
"mostly middle aged men" (and when did THAT become an
issue?) their "jollies", it is not necessarily so that every
wargame is that and nothing more.
I was trying to open your eyes to other possibilities; I suggest
you consider the map analogy more carefully. However, if
you prefer to just "play games", then play on, my friend; that
is all you will be doing until you either get a new brush, or
learn how to use the one you've got in a new way.
Regards,
Jeff
Andy O'Neill
<djcoa...@aol.com> writes
>I also know several fine gamers and rather decent fellows who have had
>to give up gaming because the significant other says it's stupid and
>infantile. I cannot understand that thinking. Isn't that the first
>step on the domestic abuse spiral, keeping people from their friends?
Run, don't walk, away from someone insists your hobby is pathetically
childish.
You're looking at the tip of a big cold iceberg and if you look over the
side of the bow, yep, on your relation-ship it says "Titanic".
"Don't make a mess all over the living room" is a reasonable request.
"You must not spend your leisure time on that hobby" is only reasonable
if you apply feminine logic of the most self centred variety.
Wargaming is cheap compared to what most men do and a lot more girl-
friendly... which seems to become increasingly work-around-house
orientated.
I know football supporters spend 70 or 80 quid on home game saturdays.
15 pints of beer, a curry, match ticket and taxis....
Plus a train ticket for away games.
Or... travel, maybe membership fees and a couple pints of beer.
40 quids figures you play with week after week.
Andy O'Neill
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/index.htm
TLTuohy
>others be affected by the games as well.
I get a rush from taking a kayak through whitewater. I derive enjoyment from a
Sunday afternoon pushing lead figures with the guys.
LT
TLTuohy
>you consider the map analogy more carefully.
The problem with the map analogy is that it doesn't hold up. A map is a static
display of quantifiable data; a wargame is not. Using a map to learn something
about any event falls under the heading of "research".
A game, on the other hand, is both dynamic and introduces some non-quantifiable
variables which were not in all likelihood present at the original event, the
200-foot general with 20-20 hindsight being perhaps the best example. This
being the case, it strikes me as unlikely that a player will gain any valid
insight into an historical event using the average wargame as a tool.
Several people have raised the point that games can provide general experience
in decision-making and so forth, which I suspect is a valid point. Still, you
can derive the same lesson from any number of other activities that don't
require such a huge investment in lead and Doritos 8>)
LT
Dan D. Cyr
"look, ma, my table terrain looks like real terrain, my rules recreate life to an exact, etc.". The "I
don't play with toy soldiers, I'm an adult." Get a grip.
Miniatures are toys, regardless of scale (meaning 2 mm to GI Joes). When a participant (note I'll let
you keep your fantasy, and not call you a "gamer" or "player") experiences (note that I did not say
"play") his/her military simulation (just for you, not a game), he/she is drawing cards, rolling dice, or
some other form of random number generation, and if he/she really works hard at it, he/she will have
mastered a set of ...dare I say it...yes, rules.
You can be a historical buff, a painter, a reader, a social animal, a collector, a gamer, or any and all
combinations, but you are still just some guy/gal playing a game, pushing painted (I hope) miniatures
around a game table, hopefully with other people for the social part of it, and having a good time.
Pray note, being middle aged is not a bad thing...we all get there sooner or later if we are lucky.
However, the average historical miniature war gamer is not young, is not a member of a minority in this
country (the US), is male, most likely has a college degree (or attended college), is in the upper half
of the income brackets, and has not been in the service. What is wrong with that? We play games, other
guys have bass boats (or trophies if they are really silly).
It is a game for the vast majority of people in the hobby, not a practice session for junior and senior
officers.
Interestingly, when I drag out my old Ft. Knox set of the US Armor School's "rules" for micro armor
gaming, people in the hobby run in all directions. The "rules" are hard, difficult to master, and most
of all, not fun. And, when you are done playing a session, it still does not prepare one to climb on
board a M60A3 (see, I'm dating myself), and command a platoon in the field.
Enjoy your games, and the hobby, and stop trying to be elitist. Leave that to the Bridge players.
Oh, yes, in regards to the brush and painting terrain you mention, mine is painted green with wall paint
and covered with fake grass. Your's?
Dan
j.knudsen
>The problem with the map analogy is that it doesn't hold up.
>A map is a static display of quantifiable data; a wargame is
>not. . . A game, on the other hand, is both dynamic and
>introduces some non-quantifiable variables which were not in
>all likelihood present at the original event,
Here you have identified the very reason why maps do not
illustrate battles very well; they are static, while nothing in
battle is. The very idea that map data is any more quantifiable
than any other historical information . . . well, let's just say that
after reading a couple accounts of the same battle as told by
participants from either side, followed by a few later
reconstructions by analytical or revisionist historians, the little
matter of which unit was where at what time doesn't seem
anything like quantifiable any more. Maps of the same event
by different cartographers usually differ, and sometimes
contradict each other.
What a simulation or dynamic reconstruction is especially
good at is variables, since it can illustrate a process, while a
map cannot (a series of maps can hint at it, but only in a very
clunky way; something which occurred over a period of time
can only be reconstructed with any fidelity by something that
also has a time element). But if a simulation includes
"non-quantifiable variables which were not in all likelihood
present at the original event", then that would indicate a failure
on the part of the designer, and not a shortcoming inherent in
the format.
>the 200-foot general with 20-20 hindsight being perhaps the
>best example.
If you are playing a wargame where both generals can see the
entire battlefield, and know exactly what the situation is (and
was, historically) then you ARE just playing a game. That's
not what battles were like (well, most battles after the demise
of linear tactics, anyway) and any game which intends to
simulate a historical situation must deal with this, and do it
well.
>This being the case, it strikes me as unlikely that a player
>will gain any valid insight into an historical event using the
>average wargame as a tool.
This is absolutely true. And, as I believe I stated before, "the
average wargame" is not designed to be used in gaining valid
insights in historical events; it is designed to do what it does,
which is provide an entertainment with historical flavor in a bit
of competitive framework.
My point was not that the existing, run-of-the-mill wargame
would make a good study tool, but that the wargame format
has incredible potential (precisely because of its dynamics and
ability to integrate multiple factors and their spatial and
temporal relationships), to be designed in such a way that it
will do just that.
That it hasn't been done this way outside of military or
think-tank circles is attributable to an almost total lack of
demand; most wargamers don't want to explore an historical
situation any deeper than is necessary to find out how big the
battalions were and what color to decorate the little lead guys.
When something like an exhaustive study has been done, it
usually ends up something like as big as a dictionary (and less
readable), and the potential lessons are lost through a lack of
focus. This, again, is a design failure and not a flaw in the
format.
Regards,
Jeff
TLTuohy
>situation any deeper than is necessary to find out how big the
>battalions were and what color to decorate the little lead guys.
And that statement right there proves my point, I think. The original question
wasn't whether wargames have the potential to be study tools, it was whether
those of us who play wargames right now - today - view them as such. We don't.
We play games.
LT
Craftybstd
Speak for yourself, don't presume to speak for everybody (or even the majority,
for that matter.) The group I game with is split about 50-50; half of us only
play to play games, the other half do extensive research and study in an
attempt to learn.
The correct answer to the original question is "yes". Some people only game.
Others use the game to supplement their study and research.
Russ Craft
Gerald P. Illies
I can understand what Tom is saying. I have had that experience before,
especially when I am in a new group of people and I hope to prove that I
have something to add to the battle. We just finished a WWII 12mm(I love
these little figs) battle in which the Americans(I am technically the
Russians, but I will fight with evil capitalists if the end result serves
the greater good of old-hag Russia) were flanking a building with their
great & powerful M4A3 Sherman, driving tall and proud with stars emblazoned
on the hull & turret. It was at that moment that a treacherous, villain
pulled his Mark IV panzer around a bend and leveled his aiming receptacle at
the bosom of our beloved Tommy cooker. By golly, the feeling begins to rush
through you that your poor American infantry are going to perish without
that Sherman, considering that all they really have to throw at the Panzer
is rifle grenades. The fate of the whole battlle depended on one To Hit
roll, in fact the fate of free nations as a whole may well be decided by
that same fate that has been so harsh to me in times past. Needless to say,
my heart was pounding.
Gerald P. Illies
www.minis-market.com
P.S. Oh, I almost forgot. The Panzer missed. The rest is in the history
books.
TLTuohy wrote in message <20020202114226...@mb-ck.aol.com>...
TLTuohy
>Speak for yourself, don't presume to speak for everybody (or even the
>majority,
>for that matter.) The group I game with is split about 50-50; half of us
>only
>play to play games, the other half do extensive research and study in an
>attempt to learn.
In this particular case, the majority opinion seems to be with me but I'll let
that go.
I do a bit of research myself, attendant to a degree in military history and 40
years of interest in the field. One of the conclusions I have reached is that
you won't learn anything substantive about war from wargames. You may learn a
great deal during the course of researching a specific
period/army/campaign/battle and you may apply that to whatever game you are
playing but the games themselves are just games.
I enjoy the research as much as I enjoy the gaming but I don't delude myself
into thinking that the games, rather than the research, are the source of any
knowledge I may have on the subject.
Of course, the original question was what we *think* we are doing, rather than
what we are actually accomplishing, so I suppose any answer is essentially
correct, as long as the respondent actually believes it.
LT
Naturally, my answer is *more* correct but that's a different story 8>)
TLTuohy
>roll, in fact the fate of free nations as a whole may well be decided by
>that same fate that has been so harsh to me in times past. Needless to say,
>my heart was pounding.
I just can't envision getting that worked up about a die roll unless I was
trying to make six the hard way and there was money on the table. To each his
own, I guess 8>)
LT
Craftybstd
>I do a bit of research myself, attendant to a degree in military history and
>40
>years of interest in the field. One of the conclusions I have reached is that
>you won't learn anything substantive about war from wargames. You may learn a
>great deal during the course of
>researching a specific
>period/army/campaign/battle and you may apply that to whatever game you are
>playing but the games themselves are just games.
You seem to be concentrating only on the actual playing of the game, and
ignoring (or not counting) all the time spent researching the battles to set up
the game. Or the invariable discussion that occurs after the game about "what
really happened". That's all part of the game, imo.
Russ Craft
Tom Bryant
Well LT you've got to admit there is definitely a thrill associated
with the hobby and a well played game otherwise why would we do it? I
have felt a great deal of exhilaration from a good win, especially when
I shouldn't be able to win. That said, I have also experienced the same
feeling at watching a sunrise, or sunset or accomplishing something new
and at the time seemingly difficult. OK maybe the emotion is not as DEEP
but hey I still feel it gaming and that is part of the reason I do it. I
sure as hell don't waste my time and effort on a hobby where a "Good
show old chap" and golf claps are the only excitement I receive from it.
YEs I get some excitement from my gaming hobby and I'm not ashamed to
admit it. It's part of the fun blast it. I know there are folks that get
their thrills form extreme nude bungee jumping over cacti too. I'm not
one of 'em. I enjoy the camaraderie and fun of a gaming table as much as
I enjoy target shooting wand watching the Saturday night fights with my
friends. I get a thrill from all of these activities. Maybe I'm just a
said and easily amused fool.
Tom Bryant
President, HMGS-GL
Tim Marshall
>
> years of interest in the field. One of the conclusions I have reached is that
> you won't learn anything substantive about war from wargames. You may learn a
> great deal during the course of researching a specific
> period/army/campaign/battle and you may apply that to whatever game you are
> playing but the games themselves are just games.
The reason you (and I) don't learn anything from wargames is because
you've learned it already in your research.
In the past number of months, I've been introducing a large number of
people to historical gaming (specifically WWII & Crossfire). The very
first thing I always say and keep emphasizing is that our group is "a
bunch of adults playing games with toy soldiers", so, yes, I view the
game as a game.
However, all other things being equal (ie, simplicity of play), you
surely can't tell me that you'd enjoy a game where a simple roll of a
die with a 4-6 being a kill is more enjoyable as a *wargame*? That
playing a game which does not reward a player for trying to use proper
tactics (tank-infantry or cavalry-infantry cooperation) is as satisfying
as playing a game where sending a tank into a town without infantry is
suicide? You cannot tell me you've silently or out loud, when playing a
new set of rules for the first time, not come to the conclusion that
some of the rules might be stupidly unrealistic or that the game played
the way you feel the battle might have been fought?
SO therefore, in addition to telling new recruits that wargaming is
about "playing with toy soldiers" and that "it gives us something to do
with the models after we've taken the time and pain to make and paint
them", I also tell them something else. Although it's a game, we try to
make the game such that players will try to do with their pieces what a
competent comander would have done for the appropriate period.
Again I say, you or I don't learn anything about the tactics of the
periods we enjoy most because we've researched it. But what about folks
who haven't really researched it? I'll give you two examples that tell
me your contention about not learning anything might be a bit short
sighted.
After (and still) being a WWII gamer most of my wargaming life, our
group here took an interest in and began playing ACW about 5 years ago.
As is typical in our bunch of friends, one guy took the task of bring
the ACW to us on his own (I supply most of the WWII stuff, another
fellow supplies ancients, etc, etc). Thus, other than some basic
history that did not get into regimental and lower type tactics, I did
no research on this period. We played for a while and gradually, with
the rules that we used, I got into the habit of advancing with my lead
troops in skirmish, follow on troops packed more closely in line. WHen
we closed and a lot of fire was going on, I'd fire a line and have them
retire past another loaded line so they could shoot and so on. Not too
long ago, a fellow moved here and joined our group. He is a real horse
and musket era fellow and when we played our ACW games told us about how
the tactics we were using were historical and of other things we later
tried to do. So I learned a bit through playing wargames.
My next example is the group of fellows I've been recruiting lately.
These fellows really enjoy playing Crossfire and have learned an awful
lot. Many of them have a passing knowledge of WWII and later tank and
infantry tactics, some more in-depth than others. The ones with the
lesser knowledge have learned quite a bit about tank infantry
cooperation and the more "learned" ones have all remarked how neat it is
too see such tactics actually illustrated by the wargames.
Not learn anything from wargames? See the above. Also it depends how
you set up a scenario. This time last weekend, I was running two
monster WWII games (left and right flanks of an overall deliberate
attack) for the officers from a reserve unit for their training weekend
(I didn't have any modern stuff, but I modified a few things such as
allowing engineers to have giant vipers, more relaiable radio contact,
etc). The objective of the exercise was to have the officers go through
what the military calls "battle procedure", ie, the planning that goes
into launching an attack or planning a defense. As well, have them
react to situations that throw plans awry. The attackers performed a
recce at night, made a plan, including an artillery fire plan, allocated
forces, including setting up a reserve. The defenders had to make an
obstacle plan, artillery fire plan, etc.
After the game which raged all weekend, we sat for several hours doing
what I'm sure you've done and what is always one of my favourite events,
and analysed what happened. It was neat seeing the commanding officer
rag out some of his captains for being too timid on one flank.
Anyway, yes, I always view our games as games. But I don't spend hours
making tanks and troops and terrain just so we can play something that
makes no sense when compared to what actually happened.
And I don't see anything elitist about wanting my games to force me to
make decisions or use my toys (yup, they are toys, although my wife, an
artist, likes to call them "works of art") as they would have been
used. No, I don't think my games are perfectly accurate simulations,
but are more a representation of a specific aspect of warfare, that
aspect being dictated by the rules I use.
--
Tim - http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "DittoooOOO?" - Ditto
Tim Marshall
>
> I get a rush from taking a kayak through whitewater. I derive enjoyment from a
> Sunday afternoon pushing lead figures with the guys.
I get a rush when my sea kayak is within 10' of a humpback whale coming
out to vent (thankfully not breaching....ow!).
The biggest rush I ever had (excluding losing my virginity) was my first
parachute jump.
But I also get a rush, when I've let my Virginians right flank get
exposed to a UNion artillery battery and the Union player rolls crap,
giving me a chance to run amuck, when the odds dictated I be shredded.
There are many times when our group yells and cheers down in my
basement. I've had our next door neighbours ask us what the heck was
going on (when we first moved in) and my wife always tells me which of
us she heard the loudest after the game.
Frankly, the fellows in this thread who seem to be doing everything they
can with an attitute similar to the Victorian view on sex to dismiss
wargaming are no better than anyone who claims wargames are an exact
reality science.... 8)
TLTuohy
>ignoring (or not counting) all the time spent researching the battles to set
>up the game.
Exactamundo. The questions was about games, not research, and I think I have
already addressed the question of research as opposed to gaming.
> Or the invariable discussion that occurs after the game about "what
>really happened". That's all part of the game, imo.
Well, on that we differ, at least to a point. The post-game discussion (what
one of my brothers dubbed the "braggadocio et recriminatio" phase) may well
include discussion of the actual events, but it isn't mandatory and is hardly
inevitable.
Research is research. Discussion is discussion. Gaming is gaming. Regardless of
how much time I spent researching the units, terrain, etc, for a scenario, the
moment the first lead miniature hits the table all bets are off. What follows
bears no resemblance to the actual event except in the broadest terms and,
while I may have learned a good deal about the event during my research and may
learn more while discussing it afterwards (if this happens), I will learn
nothing substantive about the event by pushing toy soldiers around and rolling
dice.
Mind you, I don't deny that doing research for a game may lead people down some
historical back alleys they might not ordinarily traverse, so in that sense the
overall gaming milieu may present an unusual learning experience but it's still
the research, not the actual pushing of lead, rolling of dice, and consuming of
junk food that does it.
LT
TLTuohy
>I enjoy target shooting wand watching the Saturday night fights with my
>friends. I get a thrill from all of these activities. Maybe I'm just a
>said and easily amused fool.
Tom, nobody ever said you were easily amused 8>)
In fact, you hit the nail right on the head, I think. The social aspect of
gaming is, in my mind, as important as the game itself, and I enjoy hanging
with my geeky buds as much as I enjoy anything else I do.
The term "rush", though, connotes for me an emotional response a little
stronger than gaming would normally invoke. As I said earlier, I enjoy gaming
(quite a lot or I wouldn't do it) but I would get a "rush" from running
whitewater in a kayak - or extreme nude bungee-jumping over cacti 8>)
Ever tried that, by the way? The experience is ... indescribable.
LT
TLTuohy
>surely can't tell me that you'd enjoy a game where a simple roll of a
>die with a 4-6 being a kill is more enjoyable as a *wargame*?
>That
>playing a game which does not reward a player for trying to use proper
>tactics (tank-infantry or cavalry-infantry cooperation) is as satisfying
>as playing a game where sending a tank into a town without infantry is
>suicide?
>You cannot tell me you've silently or out loud, when playing a
>new set of rules for the first time, not come to the conclusion that
>some of the rules might be stupidly unrealistic or that the game played
>the way you feel the battle might have been fought?
I cannot tell you that because I never said (or implied) any of it. In any
event, that has nothing to do with the nature of gaming as an activity and
everything to do with the nature of wargame rules. Whether the rules are exact
down to the last detail or are more the "Roll 1D6 - high roll wins - British
add 1" variety is immaterial to the discussion.
For the rest, you make some valid points. I am prepared to modify my position
to accomodate the idea that, assuming the rules actively reward effective
period tactics (and not all of them do, as I am sure we are both aware), that
it is possible to gain a basic grasp of what the effective period tactics were.
As a learning experience, I'm not sure this compares favorablly with even the
most basic research.
And, to build from your own example, the first ACW rules I ever used ( a
commercial set by a well-known designer) were wildly ahistorical and rewarded
tactics utterly inappropriate to the period. If I learned how to succeed in
this game, what would I have really learned?
I tend not to view military training exercises, even if conducted as a
conventional civilian wargame, as falling into the same category as what we are
discussing. If you specifically set out to use the game as a training tool,
especially for training people who should already be conversant with the
tactical and strategic concepts (i.e., who have done the research), you can
probably do it, although I suspect that it would only succeed in presenting the
broadest aspects of actual warfare accurately.
Example: a hypothetical 2LT orders his platoon to cross a road and take up a
new position. They have 1.5 hours to do it. In a game with 15-minutes turns the
platoon will cross the road in 1 turn. In real life, they will take 1.5 hours,
both because there is no sense of urgency in the order and because the men will
know that the order will be changed when they're in the middle of the road
anyway.
So what happens when enemy armor comes down the road? In the game, the platoon
is in position. In real life, they are caught out of position and squashed like
bugs.
What did our 2LT learn from the game, then?
Okay, I know it's a fairly bogus example, although based in any number of
real-life experiences.
>And I don't see anything elitist about wanting my games to force me to
>make decisions or use my toy
Neither do I. In any event, the question of wargaming as an elitist hobby has
already been done to death.
>No, I don't think my games are perfectly accurate simulations,
>but are more a representation of a specific aspect of warfare, that
>aspect being dictated by the rules I use.
And that is really one of my several points: the quality of the representation
being dictated by the rules we use. Most rules are a very fragile vessel in
which to rest any expectation that what you are looking at is a representation
of history and not thinly-disguised Chinese checkers. Which takes me back to
the beginning of this message.
LT
TLTuohy
>can with an attitute similar to the Victorian view on sex to dismiss
>wargaming are no better than anyone who claims wargames are an exact
>reality science.... 8)
I don't think my attitude towards gaming is any more Victorian than my attitude
towards sex. I am just bemused by those who see to think that one is as
enjoyable as the other 8>)
LT
Dan D. Cyr
where this view fail, or clash with those who beleive that this is just a hobby
rather than something more, is that most of the particants don't really have a clue
as to what they are really doing on the table top other than having fun.
I have yet to met anyone who "plays" horse and musket games (my favorite period)
who is an excellent horse rider, and can charge his horse in a mass for several
hundred yards over rough and unknown terrain, or who has ever attempted to manuver
his horse under command in mass (having watched the British guard in Hyde Park, I
was struck dumb by the practice needed). A discussion I had with Dean West a few
years ago at the SYW Con was a better example in its own way. Dean had just moved
to the country and was walking around the country guessing distances, and then
measuring them. He was surprised to see how far off his "eye" was, and how much of
the terrain was invisiable to him until he walked over it. Real life vs. a game.
Outside of a few enactors I know, and even they may not have done this, I don't
know anyone who has marched in mass formation for some distance, and then fired 30
rounds as fast as they can. I am only picking on the H&M crowd, but how many
gamers have worn full armor, manuevered in formation, and fought with hand weapons
for a few hours as a Roman or Greek infantryman?
Reading is not doing. Reading is a mental trip if you have the imagination, but it
is still not the same as actual experience. Some one may read many books on brain
surgery, and even practice it on a computer, but I still don't consider them to
have done anything that would allow them to claim that they are surgeons. They are
having fun, but I say we don't give them a licience (smile).
You mention that your games force you to use real tactics, and learn. I agree (to
a limited extent), but I don't think that you are claiming that the artifical
terrain on your table, and your mile high observation and unlimited historical
knowledge have taught you how to manage a combat force in that period?
It is a game. A great game, a fun game, etc., but a game. It may even be a very
limited training device, but how to measure, what are the controls?
There is nothing wrong with pretending that our games are recreations of battles,
but nothing on the table top is real. The TO&E are not exact (beyond a century or
so back), we argue about the color of uniforms (but not how they wore and fit), we
have huge arguments about marching speeds (but don't get a few hundred gamers
together at a con and try to drill them to see what the answers are), we create
beautiful terrain (that is out of scale and is created to suit us, the gamers, not
to fit the figures), etc.
None of that takes away from the excitement, and enjoyment of playing a game.
However, I suggest this, if anyone out there thinks that their games are meant to
teach them real lessons, lets set up a game like this:
You bring your favorite army and I'll bring mine (not bloodly likely), and the
standard set of rules for that period.
Everytime one of us takes a casualty, the opposing player gets to take a hammer and
smash that figure or unit.
Now, that would make every decision exciting, and we'd really get to learn
something (smile).
Dan
Tim Marshall wrote:
<<Large snip of well thought and reasoned writing that I mostly agree with>>
TLTuohy
>hammer and
>smash that figure or unit.
>
I actually witnessed a game like that once. It was between two players who
detested each other beyond reason and yet, God know why, continued to play
against each other for years. It might well have been one of the least pleasant
gaming experiences of my life, except that all of the witnesses disliked them
both, so we enjoyed the spectacle immensely.
Looking back on their subsequent behavior, I don't think either of them learned
anything from the experience 8>)
LT
John Secker
<ph...@cs.kuleuven.ac.be> writes
>
>Hi all,
>
>
>I was thinking about the following (again ;-) lately:
>When we as wargamers try to 'rationalize' wargaming, we usually
>tend to say it's about the study of military history, about military
>thinking and tactics, about studying uniforms, about getting a better
>view on history etc. Much less we say it's just about the toy soldiers
>and the games.
>
>My question now is whether this is a valid argument to use, and
>to what extent this is just wishful thinking?
>
My view would be that I learn a huge amount about history through the
hobby, through the books and magazines I read, mostly. I don't think
that actually playing the games teaches all that much - you may well
feel that you know more about the difficulty of manoeuvring troops or
coordinating a flank march, but this is really an artefact of the rules
and those factors which the writers thought important.
--
John Secker
Raygun1966
and difficulties in leading troops in war. Plus it sucks when you lose one of
your favorite guys. I hope someone is documenting all of the very interesting
discussions I have seen in this newgroup over the years. Just my 2 cents.
Ray
Raygun1966
www.soldiersintime.com
Dan D. Cyr
and done myself, I am damn glad that I get to take my miniatures home each time I
play, and not have to dump the "losses".
Dan (who loves to paint little soldiers) Cyr
Dan D. Cyr
teach one something, but the game (while fun) really only teach one how to
play a particular set of rules.
Dan
Andy O'Neill
<knu...@ameritech.net> writes
>Here you have identified the very reason why maps do not
>illustrate battles very well; they are static, while nothing in
>battle is.
Often, they are also based on rather dodgy info.
If you looked at a map of Hastings, you might actually be looking at the
wrong place for the battle of 1066 and the bank of the official site
there was much steeper anyhow.
There's a WotR battle marked on most maps at what many modern historians
agree is definitely the wrong site.... They're less sure where it
actually took place though.
Even if you get the right place, accounts on even modern battles differ
considerably and those little neat blocks you see on wargame orientated
maps might well not have been where they reckon.
<<>>
>What a simulation or dynamic reconstruction is especially
>good at is variables
What tabletop wargames are mostly bad at is including all the variables.
They can, at best, roughly approximate the authors bias on how real
battles worked.
Andy O'Neill
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Avatar
:
: roll, in fact the fate of free nations as a whole may well be decided by
: that same fate that has been so harsh to me in times past. Needless to say,
: my heart was pounding.
The only thing that can get me that pumped up for a roll of the dice is
standing at a craps table in Atlantic City or Las Vegas. Surviving and
winning a war game just don't come close to the rush of winning large
amounts of cash...;)
Avatar
Tom Bryant
Nope, not that I'd want to. Thanks for the clarification BTW. I just
get a little fed up with the idea that "You guys CAN't enjoy THAT hobby.
Mine is SO MUCH MORE FUN!" Ok, maybe to you it is. I'm sure there are a
lot of guys out there who love football that dearly and will sit down
and get drunk watching games on the TV and call that fun. Whatever
floats you boat, just don't tell me what I enjoy isn't fun, or as fun as
what you do. I'll be the judge of that.
I can understand where you come from and have to agree with you on the
different scale of intensity of emotion as it relates to each
experience. One thing I'd like to do this summer if I get the chance is
to head up to the UP and find my grandfathers birthplace up in copper
country. I'd also like to swim just once in Lake Superior, just to say I
did. I about a third of a mile from Lake Michigan so one of the joys is
to walk outside and hear the roar of the lake over the dunes. It's also
exciting to watch the fall and winter storms break over the beach.
Anyone who has ever had the chance to see the green waters of the lake
frozen into wave forms can't help but be moved. Same for watching the
sunsets, or hiking in the hills. One of these days I'd like to do some
skydiving though. That has always seemed like fun to me. The same thing
for open cockpit flying. My real dream airplane is a Grumman Duck, if I
could ever find one. That would be a treat for fishing too.
Tom Bryant
President, HMGS-GL
THOMAS DAY
Yeah, Kayaks are nice but, it depends on the degree that you involve
yourself.
I also got a Rush in having to jump off a limber that was doing a
"Action Front" at a gallop at a re-enactment. Going about 60 degrees up,
hitting the ground to have a inverted Mtn. Howitzer graze across your
back with the barrel can get you excited too.
For my money, if you can' get to the point of involvement in the game
where you can get that excited you're probably in the wrong hobby.
Tom
FAX NUMBER (253) 399-8626
SIMULATION SATURDAY
Will Be December 1, 2001
SPRING MANEUVERS 2002
FEBRUARY 22 & 23, 2002
Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas
http://community.webtv.net/LIMBERRIDER/SPRINGMANEUVERS
Pete Panzeri
> > do the games give us any additional insight that we didn't get from
books?
> From my own experience, I would say the games provide little to none
additional insights.
Cadet Lalinde and about a thousand others would probably say your "own
experiece" is pretty lame.
see belwo:
AAR "Operation Balkan Storm"
From 1 APR 99 to 7 MAY 99, our USMA Prep class, and members of the
Historical Miniatures Gaming Society reenacted the current world crisis in
the Balkan Region. All participants of "Operation Balkan Storm" assumed
roles as either world leaders, figureheads to countries in alliance with
Serbia, ambassadors/liaisons, and military commanders for NATO, KLA, and
Serbian forces. When culminated the activity with a minitures wargame of a
NATO Invasion of Kosovo.
This event had three purposes, improve research, briefing, and writing
skills using current news sources and old information regarding the
persistent problem in the Balkan area. Familiarize students with the
historical worth of the Balkan area by comparing the current crisis to
similar situations of the past. Use this operation as a learning tool for
leadership, professional development, and team work.
Chronological Order of Events for "Operation Balkan Storm"
During the battle portion of the operation, I commanded the United States
Army V Corps and the 4th Infantry Division. My tasks were to successfully
maneuver the V Corps into an offensive position in the Kosovo region, repel
Serbian aggression, and maintain a defensive position along the northern
Kosovo border. The V Corps arrived in Croatia along the port town of Pula,
where it headed to its forward staging area of Osijek near the
Croatia/Serbia border. Upon receiving new orders, rail-headed back into
the town of Trieste to replenish supplies. From there, the V Corps
proceeded to railhead along the coastline into Italy. The V Corps arrived
in Brindisi, Italy, where it joined the United States Marine Corps in an
amphibious assault towards Durres, Albania. From there, the V Corps
spearheaded into Kosovo where it combated Serbian forces.
The V Corps proved to be the most effective force in the operation to
liberate the area with its concentrated artillery strikes and direct fire
from all tank elements. The V Corps annihilated Serbian elements in Prizen,
and then it cleared out the capital city of Pristina. With Pristina
secure, the V Corps spread out into division size elements and secured the
northern border of Kosovo.
All other NATO elements aggressed Serbian stragglers and secured the
remaining borders of the Kosovo region. Serbia suffered heavy casualties
compared to NATO's minimal losses. Events leading up to the battle include
extreme research on the Balkan region, extensive briefings on past and
present military, social, and political conditions, and political
communications via email. Events after the battle include operation
debriefings, more political email, and further study comparing the Kosovo
crisis to conflicts such as the Battles of Agincourt and Gettysburg.
Lessons learned from "Operation Balkan Storm"
This project allowed me to expand my knowledge of military history
through hours of extensive research and oral briefs. I also gained the
experience of coordinating large operations by working as a team with
members of my class. Without the use of teamwork, "Operation Balkan Storm"
would have been a total failure.
This project also gave me a better understanding for leadership. I
learned how important the unity of command is in military operations. I
also learned the value of good leadership. All NATO and anti-Serbian
forces possessed excellent leaders who had an understanding of the mission
and its objectives. All Serbian forces possessed leaders who were either
dictatorial or radical in nature. As a commander in the operation, I had
to adapt to such irate individuals. This ties into the leadership trait of
being able to adapt to unexpected circumstances.
Equally important, I learned how the Dynamics of Combat Power, the
Principles of War, and METT-T (mission, equipment, terrain, time, troops)
play a part in planning strategic combat operations. In attacking Serbian
forces, I had to ensure that I provided the adequate firepower, supplies,
and reinforcements to my troops. I also had to establish my avenues of
approach, alternate routes, possible ambush sites, and perimeters of
defense. I now have an understanding for all three levels of planning,
Strategic, Operational, and Tactical, and how their roles fit accordingly to
various size elements.
I recommend further projects similar in nature to "Operation Balkan Storm."
I feel that the experience gained improved my abilities to research and to
handle large amounts of responsibility. I feel that this project is purely
beneficial to my future as an Army officer.
Conclusion
"Operation Balkan Storm" was a great project because it provided valuable
lessons that I will be able to apply later in life. Although tedious at
times, I do feel that this project benefited not only me, but my fellow
students also. I think that future projects of this nature can help
students learn more about leadership and individual responsibility. Perhaps
future coordination with the Directorate of Military Training may provide
more students the opportunity to take part in these mock wars, aiding them
in becoming more militarily prepared for the challenges of West Point.
Cadet Andres Lalinde
Pete Panzeri
> > tend to say it's about the study of military history, about military
> > thinking and tactics, about studying uniforms, about getting a better
> > view on history etc. Much less we say it's just about the toy soldiers
and the games.
> > My question now is whether this is a valid argument to use, and
> > to what extent this is just wishful thinking?
I followed this thread before, and saw some truly insightful (and some
remarkably IGNORANT responses too!)
I'll let my own answer come from some of my students' comments who (West
Point Cadets, and Army Infantry, and MI Officers) who "played" historical
Miniatures Wargames as a BIG part of their professional development for
everything from Military Tactics, Leadership and Communications skills to
Military History. Sure war-gaming is fun. So is the real thing for some
people, but please don't disclaim it's value just because you don't see it
yourself.
MAJ Pete Panzeri
US Army, Infantry
WWII CRETE AAR Robertson, M.
During the Invasion of Crete Conference held February 5th-7th I learned
many things about the World War II Battle, that I had not learned from any
of my previous history classes.
I learned from the pre-war game briefings that Germany was very organized
which was surprising considering that historically the Germans had little
time for organization. The Germans had a precise plan for capturing the
airfields on Crete, where they would be able to keep supplying soldiers and
supplies. This proved beneficial in contrast to the less organized British
whose supply lines were not helping their troops. The British could not
hold the Germans back and lost everything in the process of battle. The
last lesson I learned by being an intelligence controller for the conference
was that there are a lot of communications that were done. The chaos
involved with communications can make the difference in keeping troops
informed and protected. Professionally this taught me to have a precise
plan, good communications, and most importantly organization when entering
the battle.
>-----------------------<
Cadet N. PERKINS 11 Mar 98
I, CAPT. French, was Second in Command in Major Reno's Battalion of the 7th
Cavalry. We served under LTC Custer during the 1876 Plains Wars and the
infamous Battle of the Little Big Horn. Our Battalion Mission was to
advance towards the enemy camp from downstream of the Little Big Horn River
and lure the hostiles into battle. We got our Battle. We attempted to
capture their herd of horses; however, some of the warriors fired upon us,
killing one soldier and wounding another. This action forced Reno to fall
back and withdraw. We again tried the same technique as the rest of the
regiment, under Custer, advanced from the north of our position. They were
trying to assume an effective offensive position atop the ridge. As we
repositioned, the hostiles charged us and fired again. I then became a
casualty of war. The Battalion fell back again after losing more men. MAJ
Reno retreated, escaping death like the coward he was.
I learned more form this one period of wargaming this battle than I did from
all of the Books, articles and videos combined. I'd seen computer and board
wargames before, but it took this terrain board and miniatures to show me in
3D exactly where everything happened, and the "wargame mechanics" to show me
exactly HOW it happened, and my own interaction to teach me what could have
happened. Rather than hearing peoples opinions of what happened at the
Battle of the Little Big Horn, I became a part of what happened, and it
became a part of me. I will remember these lessons for the rest of my
Military Career.
>-----------------------<
Mogadishu AAR Reyes, Alfredo
On February 22, 1999, Major Panzeri's class wargamed the battle of
Mogadishu, Somalia of 1993. The wargame simulated the same drop sites but
from then on cadet candidates decided what plan of action to take. I played
SFC Howe who was in charge of the second relief convoy
and the quick reaction force. Although the qrf was not involved, I entered
the second relief force. By the end of the battle, I was in route to rescue
c/c Woodward, playing Captain Miller. After rescuing Woodward, I would have
then rescued the soldiers at the next helicopter crash site but the time was
cut short. The wargame was a great experience, showing me the great
necessity for relief forces to save lives.
>-----------------------<
Mogadishu AAR Tavares, Jesus A. Jr.
My name is Yabu Dahe, my role was a fighter in the Somalia army. The
Americans were dropping in and so we attacked, that was the whole plan. The
Americans opened fire on us and we retreated. After the arrival of more
Somalia's and RPG's, we advanced. We shot down two Blackhawks and wounded 7
of the Americans and stopped a vehicle in the convoy. Lessons learned are
that if you know the enemy, you can hurt him BAD!
>-----------------------<
Mogadishu AAR Lalinde, Andres
During the wargame of the battle in Mogadishu, Somalia, I played the role of
LTC Danny McKnight, the Ranger vehicle convoy commander. My mission was to
retrieve the Rangers and Delta commandos who had captured Aidid's
militiamen. I began my convoy in the afternoon, navigating through narrow
streets filled with many vendors and civilians. I encountered a roadblock,
but I managed to break through it. The next time I moved, I encountered
another roadblock. This time, I was unable to break through. As a result,
Somalis shot my vehicle (the lead vehicle) and wounded me in the process.
My second in command took over the mission and continued the charge. Along
the way, I loaded myself into another vehicle and headed for the medevac
site. One of my lieutenants detached himself from the original convoy to
pick up some wounded soldiers and later joined the second relief convoy.
Then I died.
The PERSONAL lesson I learned from this wargame was that I should not have b
een the lead vehicle for the convoy. Perhaps being in the center of the
convoy would have given me a better command position. This would enable me
to keep in contact with both parts of the element (front and rear), and it
would have given me better protection against the Somalis.
Mogadishu AAR Melvin, J
On February 22, 1999, at 0930 until 1130, Maj. Panzeri's Military History
class re-enacted the battle at Mogadishu. The purpose of the event was to
show how the battle went and what changes could have happened.
Unfortunately, I did not enter at the start of the war game. I came in the
middle of the game. I took the place of Colonel Danny McKnight, who was
head of the convoy and died during an attack by the Somalians. During my
time as chief of the convoy, we went through several road blocks and killed
many Somalians. However, several of my men were hit by Somalian fire. Our
main mission was to help attain the injured U.S. soldiers and take them to
safety. Throughout the mission we received word to change our mission and
to go help the soldiers who crashed in the second helicopter.
From this war game, I have learned how hard it is to convoy in the streets
of Mogadishu and how radio communication can fail at any moment. Even
though we had fire power, we could not shoot at the Somalians because they
had civilians for protection. This event showed me how stressful simple
operations can be (much less real ones!) and how following the rules of war
is difficult during an actual war. The wargame also helped show me the
importance of communication and equipment needed during war.
>-----------------------<
Mogadishu AAR Kirk, J.
I was second lieutenant Kirk who led the first relief convoy into the
battle of Mogadishu on October 3, 1993 in the heart of the Bakara Market. I
knew I would have a great mission in hand when I was ordered to enter the
heaviest armored territory in the city of
Mogadishu. My mission was to recover the casualties of one of the UH-60
Blackhawk's collision. LTC Harrel ordered me to capture the U.S. Soldiers
and release fire on those Somalians who surrounded the crashed Blackhawk.
Fortunately, I killed several Somalians on my first attempt, and overcame
both roadblocks in my way. After recovering the U.S.
casualties, I attempted to break through a roadblock ahead to catch up with
the primary convoy. LTC Harrel changed his mind on going to the first
convoy, due to the number of Somalians. Instead, I was ordered to turn
around and find relief. Before leaving I released fire and
successfully began to head out of the heart of the battle. Lessons I
learned included to not underestimate the enemy and to react promptly to an
order given. Also, before follow-through in a mission I need to ensure a
backup plan. Overall, the battle of Mogadishu had lessons learned among me
and my leaders.
>-----------------------<
Mogadishu AAR Woodward, Jason
I am Captain Miller, the Commander of the Delta detachment that was
responsible for securing the Somali clansmen in the target house. We
inserted by 4 MH-6 "Little Birds" on the road directly in front of the
target house. We secured the building and detained all the occupants of the
building. The Rangers then spotted the relief convoy coming down the road.
We moved our prisoners to the convoy and placed them in the back of a
five-ton truck. A Blackhawk helicopter was then shot down to the west of
our position. In concert with a squad of Rangers we moved to the site and
secured the crew. My detachment suffered no casualties in this operation.
I learned that speed and violence of action are essential in a combat
environment. I also learned never to underestimate your opponents no matter
how inexperienced or untrained they may appear.
>----------------------<
Mogadishu AAR Preciado, Luis E.
I, Sgt Yurek was given the mission to support a search and seizure
operation conducted by a company of Delta Force. I was to lead one of four
chalks to a corner of the target building and provide security around the
perimeter. The operation began with many misfortunes, beginning with when
we missed our drop point when repelling from a UH-60. It only got worse
when a PFC tragically dropped to the ground. Missing our drop point and
caring for a wounded soldier, I ordered my men to seek cover in a building
that was located near the target building. Somalis quickly began to arrive
and suppress us with fire from inside the building as we waited for the
relief convoy. Once the convoy arrived, our wounded soldier was uploaded
and our objective was to escort the convoy. My chalk soon began to take
hits and the game was over. My chalk was successful at killing many of the
overwhelming Somalis. Attack helicopters provided a lot of relief during
the whole operation. I learned that missions do not always go according to
plan and that the A-H helicopters are very effective to control wild crowds.
>-----------------------<
Mogadishu AAR Rosnick, Mitchell
While participating in the in class wargaming of the Battle of Mogadishu, I
served as MSG Fales. My primary role in this capacity involved my leading a
chopper-born reaction force whose mission was to assist anyone in need. The
primary concern was on any "blackhawk down" scenarios which meant the crash
of any NATO helicopter.
During the course of the battle, several helicopters were shot down by the
Somali combatants with rocket propelled grenades. Upon learning of the
first helicopter being shot down, my reaction team immediately flew to the
crash site and "fast roped" into the area. This maneuver was very fast and
assisted by removing the injured crew from the helicopter while rappelling
the Somali forces attacking the position. My highly trained soldiers
unleashed mass fire with tremendous accuracy, which killed numerous small
groups of Somalis and caused the retreat of many others.
Having secured the area, I coordinated with convoy leader codename Kirk who
ensured that vehicles were at our position relatively quickly. As the
convoy arrived, Somali troops once again began to assault our position.
Having loaded the wounded soldiers and aircrew into the Hum-V, My soldiers
manned the Mach-19 automatic grenade launchers and .50 caliber weapons
mounted on top of the convoy vehicles and once again inflicted heavy
casualties on the Somali aggressors. The Somali forces once again displaced
which allowed the convoy to leave the area. My mission was a complete
success as I rescued the downed soldiers, inflicted death and destruction on
Somali forces, and enabled the successful evacuation of the convoy.
>-----------------------<
Mogadishu AAR Rupp, David
I am LTC Harrel. As mission commander for the combined forces effort in
Mogadishu, Somalia, I established our goals, set the forces in place, and
ordered their movements through the streets of Somalia. The goal was to
capture Somali warlords in downtown Mogadishu. Four ranger chalks posted at
the intersection while the delta force troops captured the warlords. A
convoy led by LTC McKnight was to pick up all troops and evacuate them from
the area while helicopters provided overhead fire. The delta force and
rangers achieved their mission with great success. The convoy ran into road
blocks, but finally made it through to the rangers while losing LTC McKnight
to a Somali bullet. In the meantime, I sent two additional convoys to
retrieve the passengers from the two fallen helicopters. The delta force
and SSG Everman's chalk went to secure one helicopter while MSG Flails
secured the other area. The battle ended with both areas secured and two of
the three convoys returning to base. Mission accomplished! I learned that
communication and visual reports are vital to success. Being in charge, I
didn't have visual sight of Mogadishu. I had to rely on my subordinates.
Perspectives of the battle field changed with each report and each
commander. I had to gather all of the information and attempt to
distinguish what was really happening on the battle field. This showed me
how difficult it is to make command decisions by depending on reports from
people lower in the chain of command.
>-----------------------<
Chris Spatola 12 Mar 98
In a two hour war game experience, conducted to enhance better understanding
of the United States/Somali conflict of 1993, I played Major General William
Garrison. In order to provide a realistic perspective, I was positioned in
front of a television screen, which was hooked up to a video camera filming
the game board, and was in charge of commanding Task Force Ranger from that
position. Though I was never in danger of dying, many of the decisions I
made either saved the lives of my soldiers, or resulted in deaths.
I primarily consulted with Lt. Col. Harrel on tactical and maneuver
procedures. My main responsibility was the three Blackhawk helicopters that
were used in the game. The helicopters had the greatest maneuverability of
anything else on the board. This was advantageous for picking up wounded
troops, but in this particular war game, it was advantageous for killing
Somali fighters. For a majority of the two hour war gaming session, our
Blackhawks were positioned in the north end of the board, their purpose
being to fend off a heavy attack of Somalis. In fact, many of the eventual
450 Somali deaths came as a result of Blackhawk fire. Moreover, one of the
Blackhawks was successful in extracting a number of wounded Rangers.
TLTuohy
apparently my hopes have been dashed. Oh well.
Let us perform a simple exercise here. For the phrase "game organized and
executed as a training exercise for professional military officers" let us
substitute the word "apples", while for the phrase "game organized and executed
as an evening's entertainment by a bunch of Mountain Dew-swilling,
Dorito-munching perpetual adolescents" let us substitute the word "oranges".
Now, let us do a comparison.
Then, having failed to derive any useful information from this comparison, let
us give it a rest.
LT
Tim Marshall
>
> I followed this thread before, and saw some truly insightful (and some
> remarkably IGNORANT responses too!)
>
> I'll let my own answer come from some of my students' comments who (West
> Point Cadets, and Army Infantry, and MI Officers) who "played" historical
> Miniatures Wargames as a BIG part of their professional development
On the same subject, I ran a weekend exercise this past January for
officers of a reserve engineer unit. I'd been asked to provide
something that would allow participants to practice "battle procedure"
(the intensive planning and reasoning behind planning any operation that
many folks don't appreciate) and to provide some tough tactical
problems.
After the games were over, there was considerable discussion, much of
which was based the CO's assertion that the exercise proved a particular
sore point that he has with overall doctrine in the Canadian Army.
I used WWII models with a few "modern" additions such as a towed Giant
Viper. Although more than 50 years out of date, the basics of the game
still reflected the fundamentals of modern day tactics. There's a game
report on my site (address below) under the WWII section as "Operation
Cyber Sapper".
nukday
TLTuohy wrote:
Let us use the term "informed citizens of a participatory
democracy" for either catagory. It passes the test.
Seems like the old saying - if the facts don't fit the theory,
throw the facts out.
TLTuohy
Mine, which I had thought was pretty obvious, is this: the original question
dealt with how we, as gamers, view the games we play. A large number, myself
included, seem to view them as games and nothing more. The opposing view, that
wargames are a valuable tool for teaching military history and theory, seems to
me to be largely espoused by people who are involved in training military
officers. I do not believe any useful comparison can be made between wargames
for recreation played by middle-aged men in their basements and wargames, even
using identical rules, etc, played by professional officers or
officers-in-training with the express purpose of exploring various aspects of
military theory.
Is this unclear?
PMSA00
>included, seem to view them as games and nothing more. The opposing view,
>that
>wargames are a valuable tool for teaching military history and theory, seems
>to
>me to be largely espoused by people who are involved in training military
>officers. I do not believe any useful comparison can be made between wargames
>for recreation played by middle-aged men in their basements and wargames,
>even
>using identical rules, etc, played by professional officers or
>officers-in-training with the express purpose of exploring various aspects of
>military theory.
>
I'm not quite sure why you categorize gamers as one or the other. It seems to
me that a number of wargamers are ex-military. Do they not bring their former
professional knowledge with them to the table, even if they are no longer
training? Also, it seems to me that a number of non-militay gamers are
well-versed in tactical knowledge, at least in a book sense. Does this only
count if you learn your tactics at West Point or somewhere similar?
Personally, I play because I like the collecting and research. And I play
colonials because the fraternity of gamers that like this area seems, on a
whole, much less caught up in classifying everything and everyone they come
across into categories. They seem, generally to like a cinematic feel to
offset what realism they attempt to obatin. To each their own.
Paulonious
TLTuohy
>I'm not quite sure why you categorize gamers as one or the other
I am not categorizing gamers as anything. I am merely trying to make the point
that there is a difference in intent, concept, design, and execution between
games played for recreation and those used as training devices, even if the
basic rules, etc, are the same, and that this difference renders comparisons
between the two meaningless when this comparison is used as the basis for an
argument before or against the idea that wargames are just games.
> It seems to
>me that a number of wargamers are ex-military. Do they not bring their
>former
>professional knowledge with them to the table, even if they are no longer
>training?
As to military experience, well, I gamed for ten years before I heard my first
shot fired in anger and I did not find anything I had done on the gaming table
of any use whatsoever when it came time to pull the trigger. Your mileage may
vary.
By the same token, my military experience would be of most value in gaming if I
limited myself to those games in which I commanded a small unit of combat
engineers. It is of marginal use at best when, as is my preference, I command a
British armored brigade in 1944. Again, your mileage may vary.
>I play because I like the collecting and research.
As do I. The operative term is "play". I do research so I can play; I do not
view the play as a form of research. So, to get back to the original question,
I consider what I do a game.
My opinion, neither more nor less right then anyone else's.
LT
Andrea Novin
1971. We played you guys in miniatures. Yes, the experience is good. The most
important things that made the games learning experiences were, firstly, we
played against the clock; this established some physcological pressure.
Secondly, we has a judging group with the ability to interpret; This gave
realistic responses, and allowed blind gaming which provided the fog of war. And
finally, we had teams of mixed experiences, located in different rooms, which
provided enough nodes for thousands of communications screw ups. Your SNAFU, our
FUBAR.
The learning experience was at the debriefing by the judges.
Pete Panzeri
"TLTuohy" <tlt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020405235910...@mb-bj.aol.com...
> Let us perform a simple exercise here. For the phrase "game organized and
> executed as a training exercise for professional military officers" let us
> substitute the word "apples", while for the phrase "game organized and
executed
> as an evening's entertainment by a bunch of Mountain Dew-swilling,
> Dorito-munching perpetual adolescents" let us substitute the word
"oranges".
I guess you failed to read Cadet Lalinde's account ...
1. Cadets and Solders are BOTH
a. Professional military, and
b. >"Mountain Dew-swilling, Dorito-munching perpetual adolescents"
(Especially the Cadets)
2. Much of this activity was done in a "CLUB" setting during "recreation
time" for fun .. that happened also to help.
3. Then training benefit could never have happened were it not for the
RECREATIONAL GAMERS who had some gaming expertise to provide for those
learning.
So, unless the ORANGES can be used for APPLE SEEDS your failed comparison is
pretty lame.
Baring all else, the Decision making process alone from "recreational"
gaming is invaluable to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
For those who don't? well, I guess you can't be helped.
pfp
Pete Panzeri
> Okay, apparently I'm STILL not making myself clear, so let's try again.
Oh! OK! NOW you are making yourself clear ...
> As to military experience, well, I gamed for ten years before I heard my
first
> shot fired in anger and I did not find anything I had done on the gaming
table
> of any use whatsoever when it came time to pull the trigger.
You didn't get it .. so there is nothing to be got.
Silly me.
All those professionl wargamers who also play for fun, and all those silly
people wasting their time (and having FUN) by playing wargames and learning
something must be stopped immediately!
:)
pfp
TLTuohy
cadets to have them or are they required to march inlockstep with your personal
mode of thought? My opinion is that what I do on the gaming table is a game and
nothing more. My personal experience seems to bear this out. I am terribly
sorry that this does not agree with your view of the world but there isn't much
I can do about it.
Are you done insulting me now? Can we get back to discussing gaming?
LT
Tom Bryant
So what you are REALLY saying is that we shouldn't use games as a
teaching tool to explain to high school and middle school students how a
battle or war was fought then? Thank you I'll never make that mistake!
:-) I understand precisely what you are saying about a "game" and about
a "simulation" however why can't the "amateur " run games that are both
entertaining and informative? Are the two mutually exclusive? I am
getting the distinct impression from you and some of the others that
there is no value to this hobby to the amateur, non-military player
other than fun (not knocking that, that is a valuable thing in itself).
Admittedly the Saturday afternoon scrap at the local club is generally
(please not generally) going to be more devote to fun than "serious"
study of any kind. On the other hand the semi annual con game or club
bashfest might include a historically accurate (or pitifully pathetic,
in the eyes of some here apparently) scenario for play. However a fairly
good understanding of the history involved is important. For example,
there is a reason why you wouldn't see the Bismarck shelling British
positions in Ceylon in 1942. Is it a fun alternate history exercise?
sure. Realistic? probably not. Or imagine seeing Russian troops
attacking the French in 1798. Not quite accurate, but would it be an
interesting battle? I'm sure it could be. In order to make either the
"fantasy" or "realistic" battle work a degree of knowledge is necessary.
In the previous thread somebody mentioned how games cannot accurately
reflect history, just the author's personal bias for or against certain
things, or for certain design elements or concepts.
That said, it is not impossible to design game systems that can
relatively accurately reflect what happened historically. Also it is not
impossible for a referee to design a scenario and modify rules to
accurately (within reason of course) what went on on a battlefield. It
all depends on how much time and effort they want to expend on it. Also,
to say that "You can't learn from historical wargames" is a dangerous
and fallacious concept. This is a medium that can spark people to look
into history to "see what really happened" not just what their high
school teacher, mommy, or whoever else taught them. It is a spark on the
tinder of the mind, so to speak, that can ignite the fire of further
exploration and inquiry. In order for that to happen the people running
the games have to be knowledgeable about what went on, to the best of
their ability and be able to translate this into the game. Are they
going to be 100% accurate, no. Only those that participated know what
really went on, and then it's only from their limited perspective.
Ultimately gaming can be an excellent learning tool for
non-professionals interested in history. It takes some degree of care,
but it an be done. Part of the reason I do this, and everyone else I
know of is not because of a deep love of history per se, but because we
both enjoy history and the idea that we might be able to do better than
some great (or not-so-great) commander in history. That is all part of
the fun of this hobby.
Tom Bryant
President, HMGS-GL
TLTuohy
be used as a teaching tool. I have, on the other hand, continually pointed out
that the use of games specifically conceived as teaching tools as examples to
support the argument that games in general provide some understanding of war is
specious.
>So what you are REALLY saying is that we shouldn't use games as a
>teaching tool to explain to high school and middle school students how a
>battle or war was fought then
So, what's wrong with doing something just because it's fun. The original
question, which seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle, asked for personal
opinions and I gave mine, which is that I personally do not attempt to
rationalize my playing of wargames by portraying it as a some sort of
educational exercise, largely because it ain't.
>I am
>getting the distinct impression from you and some of the others that
>there is no value to this hobby to the amateur, non-military player
>other than fun (not knocking that, that is a valuable thing in itself).
I don't believe I ever said that either. However, I have gamed with a large
number of people, some of them professional military, over the past 40+ years
who felt that they had learned something substantive about war, as opposed to
military history, from gaming and that concept is even more dangerous and
fallacious. Anyone who thinks that skills developed on a tabletop somehow
qualify him to lead men in battle or advise the people who do is living in a
dreamworld.
>Also,
>to say that "You can't learn from historical wargames" is a dangerous
>and fallacious concept.
Well, sure, but you need to know first something about the history. So, the
question here is which comes first, the history or the game? I don't play games
to study history, I study history because I play games. And, I might add, of
the people I know who began gaming because they'd seen or taken part in a demo
game, including those set up specifically as educational experiences, it was
the game, not the history, that attracted them.
>Part of the reason I do this, and everyone else I
>know of is not because of a deep love of history per se, but because we
>both enjoy history and the idea that we might be able to do better than
>some great (or not-so-great) commander in history.
As always, my opinion.
LT
NJH
> I have, on the other hand, continually pointed out
> that the use of games specifically conceived as teaching tools as examples to
> support the argument that games in general provide some understanding of war
> is specious.
> I personally do not attempt to
> rationalize my playing of wargames by portraying it as a some sort of
> educational exercise, largely because it ain't.
> However, I have gamed with a large
> number of people, some of them professional military, over the past 40+ years
> who felt that they had learned something substantive about war, as opposed to
> military history, from gaming and that concept is even more dangerous and
> fallacious. Anyone who thinks that skills developed on a tabletop somehow
> qualify him to lead men in battle or advise the people who do is living in a
> As always, my opinion.
> LT
hostilities, I'd say our games probably have little to no value.
However, they can be beneficial in the following instances:
1. A training device to create an awareness of the vagaries of
weather.
2. A training device to create an awareness of supply and logistics.
3. A training device to create an awareness of the need to consider
time, space, and terrain in one's plans.
4. A training device to create an awareness of the need to plan
carefully and develop plans that have flexibility.
5. A training device to create an awareness of the fact that the plans
of the belligerents are mutually exclusive.
6. A training device to create an awareness of the fact nothing ever
goes according to plan.
Hopefully, no one is foolish enough to think that just because he/she
is successful on the table top he/she can now lead armed forces. But
then I seriously doubt that's why anyone plays. One can achieve some
limited understanding of the difficulties that faced the historical
commanders. However, simulating the nausea, the fear, the anger, the
frustration, the nerve lacerating omnipresent sense of mortal danger
is not possible.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers
NJH
Tim Marshall
>
> *NJH: As a training device for leadership under the stress of
> hostilities, I'd say our games probably have little to no value.
> However, they can be beneficial in the following instances:
//SNIP//
I could not have said it better.
It all depends on how you approach the game. Of course, those of us who
are beer/mountain dew/diet coke swilling dudes looking for fun won't
look at it this way and that's perfectly OK. But, the exercise of
looking at the table (evaluating the ground or "COPPED") and making a
plan (an estimate), while it might not imitate exactly a real life
exercise (although it depends on the rules used and how the scenario has
been developed) at least approximates it.
And no, just because we might be good, expert, even, wargamers, that
doesn't give any indication of how well each of us might do in real life
military planning.
TLTuohy
>weather.
I have yet to see a set of commercial rules (or home-rolled ones, for that
matter) that accurately recreate the effect on troops of -15 cold or 100+ heat.
Granted, you might get an idea of what it's like trying to move tanks in mud
-well, no you won't, actually, because all that happens in most games is you
move slower - but not what happens when your infantry freezes to death waiting
for the tanks to arrive.
>2. A training device to create an awareness of supply and logistics.
Again, I've never been in a game where logistics were handled in any
enlightening way, both because nobody writes realistic supply rules and because
my experience has been that gamers don't want to be bothered with them. Result:
your vehicles don't run out of fuel and your grunts don't run out of ammo.
>3. A training device to create an awareness of the need to consider
>time, space, and terrain in one's plans.
Granted, although (I always have an "although", don't I?) the perspective of
the 200-foot general can give you an unrealistic feel for the terrain and time
and space don't necessarily function in a game as they do in real life. Let's
face it, most games don't operate in real time or with a ground scale that is
accurate for the miniatures. Perhaps you can get a vague sort of approximation
but that's about it.
>4. A training device to create an awareness of the need to plan
>carefully and develop plans that have flexibility.
Also granted, although 8>) I suspect that "Plans? We doan need no steenking
plan!" is a fairly common battlecry in most groups.
>5. A training device to create an awareness of the fact that the plans
>of the belligerents are mutually exclusive.
Ah, but are they? If your orders are to take the town and mine are to abandon
it, we can execute our respective plans with no conflict at all. Makes for a
lousy game but it happens in real life. Your training there is limited to
circumstances in which the belligerents' goals are also mutually exclusive.
>6. A training device to create an awareness of the fact nothing ever
>goes according to plan.
Anybody who needs to play games to figure that one out doesn't live on the same
planet I do 8>)
>Hopefully, no one is foolish enough to think that just because he/she
>is successful on the table top he/she can now lead armed forces.
Unfortunately, I have gamed with a number of people who seemed to be convinced
of that very thing and some of them were military. One of the great joys of my
life is that I never had to serve with any of them.
>But
>then I seriously doubt that's why anyone plays.
Aha! What I said way back when! Vindicatus sum!!
Silent Bob swings down from the balcony and smashes the @#$% out of the
question and LT dances on the ruins!!!
Well, anyway, I agree.
> One can achieve some
>limited understanding of the difficulties that faced the historical
>commanders. However, simulating the nausea, the fear, the anger, the
>frustration, the nerve lacerating omnipresent sense of mortal danger
>is not possible.
>Just some thoughts.
>Cheers
>NJH
Good thoughts.
LT
Bob Jones
> *NJH: As a training device for leadership under the stress of
> hostilities, I'd say our games probably have little to no value.
> However, they can be beneficial in the following instances:
> 1. A training device to create an awareness of the vagaries of
> weather.
BJ: Most recreational miniature rules have no meaningful weather rules
> 2. A training device to create an awareness of supply and logistics.
BJ: Most recreational miniature rules are strongly tactical with
little or no logistical decision making.
> 3. A training device to create an awareness of the need to consider
> time, space, and terrain in one's plans.
BJ: Varies wildly from set to set. One man's hillock is another's
Everest!
> 4. A training device to create an awareness of the need to plan
> carefully and develop plans that have flexibility.
BJ: But always within the limits of the rules-novel solutions are
almost impossible.
> 5. A training device to create an awareness of the fact that the plans
> of the belligerents are mutually exclusive.
BJ: Hmmmm...seems that that might be obvious even without a game.
> 6. A training device to create an awareness of the fact nothing ever
> goes according to plan.
BJ: Many rules would seem to teach just the opposite. No mutinies,
unexpected delays, or surprises...just bad die rolling on occasion.
No responsibility for decisions just "bad" luck with the dice.
Recreational miniature rules sets teach very little about historical
warfare-other than the most obvious truisms-Horse are faster than
foot, artillery can be nasty, etc. Not much better than sending
newbies off to see a Hollywood war film. Almost perfectly analogous,
in fact. Perhaps a bit more arcane military terminology and
quasi-scholarly attention to menaingless details-but pretty much just
entertainment at core.
I really wonder about people that find it necessary to instill the
hobby with a higher purpose-must be that ol' protestant ethic - If it
feels good pretend its educational!
BJ
Tom Bryant
TLTuohy wrote:
>
> Back to the beginning, one more time. At no point have I said that games can't
> be used as a teaching tool. I have, on the other hand, continually pointed out
> that the use of games specifically conceived as teaching tools as examples to
> support the argument that games in general provide some understanding of war is
> specious.
>
> >So what you are REALLY saying is that we shouldn't use games as a
> >teaching tool to explain to high school and middle school students how a
> >battle or war was fought then
>
> So, what's wrong with doing something just because it's fun. The original
> question, which seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle, asked for personal
> opinions and I gave mine, which is that I personally do not attempt to
> rationalize my playing of wargames by portraying it as a some sort of
> educational exercise, largely because it ain't.
There is nothing wrong with doing things for Fun. However that
doesn't mean that one can't learn in the process. Part of the problem I
have with the "It's just a Game" position is that it seems to preclude
the possibility to learn from a game, or gather some insight on how
battles were fought.
> >I am
> >getting the distinct impression from you and some of the others that
> >there is no value to this hobby to the amateur, non-military player
> >other than fun (not knocking that, that is a valuable thing in itself).
>
> I don't believe I ever said that either. However, I have gamed with a large
> number of people, some of them professional military, over the past 40+ years
> who felt that they had learned something substantive about war, as opposed to
> military history, from gaming and that concept is even more dangerous and
> fallacious. Anyone who thinks that skills developed on a tabletop somehow
> qualify him to lead men in battle or advise the people who do is living in a
> dreamworld.
No, but just as you can simulate the mechanics of a truss or beam
mathematically before you "cut metal" the same can be said for the
gaming table. The important thing to recognize is where the simulation
or model ends and reality begins. This goes in engineering and in
military simulation as well. There have been a number of spectacular and
noted engineering failures because somebody didn't consider "x"
important in their design calculations or they didn't factor this or
that in properly. The same thing holds true for gaming. No "military
simulation" whether it is a simple one page set of rules for the
tabletop, or running RED FLAG, TOP GUN, or the battles at the NTC. There
are elements that can be extracted from these experiences that are
important teaching tools, but ultimately the best teacher is experience.
Training and simulation is good, experience is better. Part of my
interest in history in in the WHYS of history, not just the WHATS. WHy
did that war, campaign, battle come to be? Is there some bit of
knowledge to be gained from it? What is it? Why didn't General So-and-So
use a flank march instead of charging the center? It's part of my
interest in engineering too. How does this thing work, how can I improve
it?
> >Also,
> >to say that "You can't learn from historical wargames" is a dangerous
> >and fallacious concept.
>
> Well, sure, but you need to know first something about the history. So, the
> question here is which comes first, the history or the game? I don't play games
> to study history, I study history because I play games. And, I might add, of
> the people I know who began gaming because they'd seen or taken part in a demo
> game, including those set up specifically as educational experiences, it was
> the game, not the history, that attracted them.
>
> >Part of the reason I do this, and everyone else I
> >know of is not because of a deep love of history per se, but because we
> >both enjoy history and the idea that we might be able to do better than
> >some great (or not-so-great) commander in history.
>
> As always, my opinion.
>
> LT
No complaints there LT. I've always had an interest in military
history, but my gaming experience has given me a chance to "Monday
morning quarterback" a great battle. I don't deny the fun of gaming. But
I also don't want the impression given that, "This is a fun hobby only.
It's trite and not worth really doing if you want to learn anything."
Historical miniatures gaming has the potential of being both fun and to
some degree educational. I've heard some kid's call it "serious fun" and
I couldn't agree with them more. One of the requisites of this hobby is
that you begin to dig into the history to find out why some battle was
fought the way it was, not just the force list printed up in the fluff
of White Dwarf for you Space Marine" army vs. the "zombie thingies from
the planet Kruton." It actually requires you to dig up some information
on what happened and why. In the process you begin to see if the
author(s) of the game did their homework in the design process as well.
LT, I hope I have not come off as too abusive. I apologize most
sincerely to you and anyone else so offended on this list. I understand
and respect your position. I also agree with vast portions of it. I just
don't want folks to think that "Fun" is all its good for, and that
learning is nonexistent in the game. True, you get out of it what you
put into it, but then again that's true of life as well.
Tom Bryant
President, HMGS-GL
Andy O'Neill
<djcoa...@aol.com> writes
>Hopefully, no one is foolish enough to think that just because he/she
>is successful on the table top he/she can now lead armed forces. But
>then I seriously doubt that's why anyone plays.
Doh!
Here was me planning on recruiting a few squads of elite commandoes and
taking over the world.
You mean that wouldn't work?
Andy O'Neill
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Andrea Novin
or playability. The professionals (of which I was once one) come down on the side
of accuracy. Accurate games can be used as simulations and teaching tools. Lay
players come down on the side of playability. It should be fun. Because of the
[seemingly] impossibility of having both, it seems never shall the twain meet. This
is why there is an impossibily large number of rulesets. There is even a larger
number of local modifications to these rule sets.
I personally believe the two can only be rectified by campaign gaming. Then all of
those master gamers, who through everything into gaining a point winning objective,
will have to be more reasonable, when they run out of manpower prior to the final
battle.
Eric K.
Andrea Novin wrote:
> I personally believe the two can only be rectified by campaign gaming. Then all of
> those master gamers, who through everything into gaining a point winning objective,
> will have to be more reasonable, when they run out of manpower prior to the final
> battle.
That's a very keen observation. My most (only?) educational gaming
experience was the "V for Victory" series (computer game), where you
really have to pay close attention to logistics, weather, manpower, road
nets, etc.
NJH
> djcoa...@aol.com (NJH) wrote in message news:<
> > *NJH: As a training device for leadership under the stress of
> > hostilities, I'd say our games probably have little to no value.
> > However, they can be beneficial in the following instances:
> > 1. A training device to create an awareness of the vagaries of
> > weather.
> BJ: Most recreational miniature rules have no meaningful weather rules
pushed my little lead laddies through fog, rain, night, blizzards, and
sandstorms.
> > 2. A training device to create an awareness of supply and logistics.
> BJ: Most recreational miniature rules are strongly tactical with
> little or no logistical decision making.
*NJH: Don't blame the rules entirely, this can be accommodated in by a
well designed scenario. The GM can limit the ammunition supply a unit
carries into the firing line and the GM can easily create tactical
lines of supply or develop a simple mechanism for resupply. In FnF the
artillery just limbers up and moves away from the enemy to resupply.
Supply difficulties need not be intensive or overelaborate.
> > 3. A training device to create an awareness of the need to consider
> > time, space, and terrain in one's plans.
> BJ: Varies wildly from set to set. One man's hillock is another's
> Everest!
*NJH: Exactly. That's why I don't always provide the antagonists with
accurate data about the table top. Sometimes my guests are surprised
to see a hill appear or disappear, the woods are heavier or lighter
than reported, streams are dry or unpassable depending upon the
season. WYSIWYG is great for the human-computer interface, but the
200' tall commander should have his/her life complicated a bit.
> > 4. A training device to create an awareness of the need to plan
> > carefully and develop plans that have flexibility.
> BJ: But always within the limits of the rules-novel solutions are
> almost impossible.
*NJH: I apologize, but I cannot understand the point you are trying to
make. How do the rules limit the creative thinking of the antagonists?
If you want to charge headlong right up the middle, why can't you? If
you want to hold the middle and attack the flanks, why not? How and
when to use the reserves is always a commander's choice. But, if you
mean we can't strap a four pounder to the back of Big Al and make him
selfpropelled artillery then I would understand rules constraints.
> > 5. A training device to create an awareness of the fact that the plans
> > of the belligerents are mutually exclusive.
> BJ: Hmmmm...seems that that might be obvious even without a game.
*NJH: Never underestimate the ability of the obvious to elude
reasonable intelligent educated people. It was obvious to wargamers
that a flanking movement in Desert Storm was the answer, but to the
press and most Americans it was a stroke of genius, a great addition
to the annals of military thinking. Something is only obvious if one
can see it.
> > 6. A training device to create an awareness of the fact nothing ever
> > goes according to plan.
> BJ: Many rules would seem to teach just the opposite. No mutinies,
> unexpected delays, or surprises...just bad die rolling on occasion.
> No responsibility for decisions just "bad" luck with the dice.
*NJH: Scenario design (special events) can provide these pleasant
little surprises. There is no mandate that our table top adventures
have to be linear. There are many paths to victory and enlightenment.
> Recreational miniature rules sets teach very little about historical
> warfare-other than the most obvious truisms-Horse are faster than
> foot, artillery can be nasty, etc.
*NJH: In the rules set Imperialism, Zulus on foot are faster than
light horse. As for artillery being nasty, that depends upon the era,
and what you mean by nasty. "Artillery can be nasty" is a paradigm not
a truism. The Sun rises in the East is a truism. People make Bull Run
impassable (except at fords) because they think it is, having had an
opportunity to walk up and down Bull Run during the various seasons
I'd never make it impassable during the Summer. Is an impassable Bull
Run a truism, a paradigm, good research, or bad research?
> Not much better than sending newbies off to see a Hollywood war film.
*NJH: And I thought we were trying to sell the newbie on the idea that
our hobby was far more entertaining and satisfying than two hours
eating Goobers.
> Perhaps a bit more arcane military terminology
*NJH: If you are going to discuss an historical event intelligently or
present an historically accurate table top game, it helps if you
understand the language of the discourse community of that era.
Remember, there is a difference between a rifle and a gun (one is for
killing and one is for fun).
> and quasi-scholarly attention to menaingless details-but pretty much just
> entertainment at core.
*NJH: Dang, and I thought research was necessary to present a good
game. Wait, isn't that "quasi-scholarly attention to menaingless
details" at the core of painting historically accurate figures? If
not, then why the heck am I spending my time buying and painting lead?
Why can't I just use rubber toy soldiers from 7/11 and achieve the
same level of accuracy and entertainment?
> I really wonder about people that find it necessary to instill the
> hobby with a higher purpose-must be that ol' protestant ethic - If it
> feels good pretend its educational!
*NJH: Why wonder and worry about it? If others have a sense of
nobility regarding their hobby, how does that cause harm or impair
enjoyment?
There are many of us in this hobby who have served in or are serving
in military armed forces. If you've "seen the Elephant and heared the
Owl" then you truly know what can be gleaned from a table top
exercise.
Our games could also be viewed as three dimensional visualizations. We
all know that visualization is a valid technique used by athletes at
all levels to prepare for a game or a set piece play. Why can't
military thinkers, theorists, and hobbyists do the same thing?
Speaking as a lifelong Protestant Catholic, I've never encountered
that particular ethic. I was always taught that education was good
because it had intrinsic value.
NJH
> >1. A training device to create an awareness of the vagaries of
> >weather.
> I have yet to see a set of commercial rules (or home-rolled ones, for that
> matter) that accurately recreate the effect on troops of -15 cold or 100+
*NJH: An "awareness of" the effects of being cold is not the same as
standing post in the 15 degree dark with a wind chill factor of minus
15 degrees. To be aware of the effects of frost bite, one need not
endure frozen digits.
> >2. A training device to create an awareness of supply and logistics.
> Again, I've never been in a game where logistics were handled in any
> enlightening way, both because nobody writes realistic supply rules and
> because my experience has been that gamers don't want to be bothered with
> them. Result: your vehicles don't run out of fuel and your grunts don't run
> out of ammo.
> >3. A training device to create an awareness of the need to consider
> >time, space, and terrain in one's plans.
> Granted, although (I always have an "although", don't I?) the perspective of
> the 200-foot general can give you an unrealistic feel for the terrain and time
> and space don't necessarily function in a game as they do in real life. Let's
> face it, most games don't operate in real time or with a ground scale that is
> accurate for the miniatures. Perhaps you can get a vague sort of approximation
> but that's about it.
> >4. A training device to create an awareness of the need to plan
> >carefully and develop plans that have flexibility.
> Also granted, although 8>) I suspect that "Plans? We doan need no steenking
> plan!" is a fairly common battlecry in most groups.
*NJH: Absolutely my favorite battlecry, especially when playing
Colonials.
> >5. A training device to create an awareness of the fact that the plans
> >of the belligerents are mutually exclusive.
> Ah, but are they? If your orders are to take the town and mine are to abandon
> it, we can execute our respective plans with no conflict at all. Makes for a
> lousy game but it happens in real life. Your training there is limited to
> circumstances in which the belligerents' goals are also mutually exclusive.
*NJH: Good point. I was thinking strategically, each wants to defeat
the other. Tactically speaking, your scenario could happen. That's a
function of scenario design and the GM needs to establish zero-sum
victory conditions, regardless of the opposing forces game objectives.
> >6. A training device to create an awareness of the fact nothing ever
> >goes according to plan.
> Anybody who needs to play games to figure that one out doesn't live on the
> same planet I do 8>)
*NJH: Thanks for the confirmation.
> >Hopefully, no one is foolish enough to think that just because he/she
> >is successful on the table top he/she can now lead armed forces.
> Unfortunately, I have gamed with a number of people who seemed to be convinced
> of that very thing and some of them were military. One of the great joys of my
> life is that I never had to serve with any of them.
*NJH: Mine also.
Andrea Novin
efficiency.
Shawn Fisher
> >1. A training device to create an awareness of the vagaries of
> >weather.
>
> I have yet to see a set of commercial rules (or home-rolled ones, for that
> matter) that accurately recreate the effect on troops of -15 cold or 100+
heat.
> Granted, you might get an idea of what it's like trying to move tanks in
mud
> -well, no you won't, actually, because all that happens in most games is
you
> move slower - but not what happens when your infantry freezes to death
waiting
> for the tanks to arrive.
For that you need a roleplaying game. Go see:
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/ww2/handofsteel/ (yes, I wrote that
one)
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/ww2/
> >2. A training device to create an awareness of supply and logistics.
>
> Again, I've never been in a game where logistics were handled in any
> enlightening way, both because nobody writes realistic supply rules and
because
> my experience has been that gamers don't want to be bothered with them.
Result:
> your vehicles don't run out of fuel and your grunts don't run out of ammo.
I've got a set of homegrown rules that tries to do just that:
http://seventeen.freeservers.com/sable/GURPS%20Company%20Attack.doc
> >3. A training device to create an awareness of the need to consider
> >time, space, and terrain in one's plans.
>
> Granted, although (I always have an "although", don't I?) the perspective
of
> the 200-foot general can give you an unrealistic feel for the terrain and
time
> and space don't necessarily function in a game as they do in real life.
Let's
> face it, most games don't operate in real time or with a ground scale that
is
> accurate for the miniatures. Perhaps you can get a vague sort of
approximation
> but that's about it.
That's possible in real time computer games--which the military is using,
including first person shooters and flight sims.
While probably not accurate for tabletop wargames, it's the same thing
"real" military wargames use. No replacement for field problems, but it does
give an approximation.
> >Hopefully, no one is foolish enough to think that just because he/she
> >is successful on the table top he/she can now lead armed forces.
The problem is that there is little more than given to REAL leaders. As a
former soldier, and current law enforcement trainer, simulation is about ALL
that one can do to prepare for combat. Facilities and money dictate how
close to real life that simulation can be. Many governmental emergency
management teams do ALL their training on tabletop games.
Last spring I had the opportunity to train with the local national guard
infantry unit. Two of us were ex-infantry guys, and the other five were just
out of shape paintball players. We had were attacked by an understrength
company. We caused 50% casualties on one attack, and 100% on the second
(without losing a single man at that), although we did lose a few people to
friendly fire.
An active duty observer from the 82nd was stunned. We used red paintballs,
and the pics from the event that guard photographer made showed the
story--all head and chest hits, clumps of men dripping red laying besides
each other. The medics came in and carried out the wounded, treating the
"wounds" wherever they appeared.
People say paintball is not war, but I say neither is miles gear, and
paintballs HURT, and show you where you fouled up. That's essence of a
wargame, to "play war" and learn from mistakes. Perhaps I play differently
than some of you, but I've always tried for realism.
Shawn A. Fisher
safi...@swbell.net
-----------------------------------------------------
"Greater love has no one than this,
that he lay down his life for his friends."
--John 15:13
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother."
--Shakespeare, Henry V, Act IV, Scene 3
TLTuohy
as training tools because that is not why I play.
>For that you need a roleplaying game. Go see:
>http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/ww2/handofsteel/ (yes, I wrote that
>one)
>http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/ww2/
>
I'll take a look. Hopefully, I'll be pleasantly surprised 8>)
>I've got a set of homegrown rules that tries to do just that:
>http://seventeen.freeservers.com/sable/GURPS%20Company%20Attack.doc
Once again, this isn't what I do. I play tabletop games with miniature soldiers
for my own enjoyment.
>That's possible in real time computer games--which the military is using,
>including first person shooters and flight sims.
>While probably not accurate for tabletop wargames, it's the same thing
>"real" military wargames use. No
>replacement for field problems, but it does
>give an approximation.
>
I won't quote the rest of the message, as it's rather long, but the problem is,
every suggestion you make would require that I personally everything about the
way in which I approach my hobby, in order to involve myself in some sort of
training which I neither need nor want. Nor do I see paintball, exercises using
MILES gear, or -as I have said repeatedly in past messages - anything designed
for the training of any sort of professionals as germane to the discussion.
Sorry.
LT
TLTuohy
the effects of weather on military operations, largely because they tend to be
far too cut and dried. The truth of the matter is that weather systems are
chaotic and what they cause is chaos. The standard "half movement in the snow -
half visibility is the rain - morale down 1 for no SPF45 sunscreen in the
desert" type rules don't even begin to cover the territory.
>*NJH: An "awareness of" the effects of being cold is not the same as
>standing post in the 15 degree dark with a wind chill factor of minus
>15 degrees. To be aware of the effects of frost bite, one need not
>endure frozen digits.
I agree completely but my experience has been that most people want to get on
with blowing up the toy tanks and don't want to be bothered with their ammo
supply.
>*NJH: Doesn't mean it can't/shouldn't be done.
>
I'm not sure you can even gain a meaningful awareness of the way terrain
effects real operations on a tabletop where a. all but the most prominent
features are missing and b. not even Mount Everest can really keep you from
seeing what ever you want to see.
>*NJH: Remember, "awareness of" is not real experience.
Confirmation of what? That plans don't work or that we don't live on the same
planet? (I have my own; Dad made it for me 8>)
>*NJH: Thanks for the confirmation.
My opinion, as usual.
LT
Shawn Fisher
games
> as training tools because that is not why I play.
Oh. Hmm. I must have misread your statments. I thought you were espousing
the belief that no amount of wargaming would improve military strategy,
leadership or ability, or I suppose I was thinking, that you were saying
that there was no comparison on wargames and "real" military training.
This is a common enough "pro" talk that I hear in my profession.
> >For that you need a roleplaying game. Go see:
> >http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/ww2/handofsteel/ (yes, I wrote that
> >one)
> >http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/ww2/
> >
> I'll take a look. Hopefully, I'll be pleasantly surprised 8>)
I hope you will be. Let me know if you like it.
> >I've got a set of homegrown rules that tries to do just that:
> >http://seventeen.freeservers.com/sable/GURPS%20Company%20Attack.doc
>
> Once again, this isn't what I do. I play tabletop games with miniature
soldiers
> for my own enjoyment.
This is a set of miniature rules that I enjoy. What's different here?
> >That's possible in real time computer games--which the military is using,
> >including first person shooters and flight sims.
> >While probably not accurate for tabletop wargames, it's the same thing
> >"real" military wargames use. No
> >replacement for field problems, but it does
> >give an approximation.
> >
>
> I won't quote the rest of the message, as it's rather long, but the
problem is,
> every suggestion you make would require that I personally everything about
the
> way in which I approach my hobby, in order to involve myself in some sort
of
> training which I neither need nor want.
Well, if you ever get to sharp end, you'll want every edge you can get,
hobby derived or not.
My time in Panama and Honduras was spent wishing I'd trained more, and happy
that had eagerly done what training I had been given.
> Nor do I see paintball, exercises using
> MILES gear, or -as I have said repeatedly in past messages - anything
designed
> for the training of any sort of professionals as germane to the
discussion.
> Sorry.
I guess I've missed some posts here. Please, pardon me for butting in.
Shawn A. Fisher
safi...@swbell.net
-----------------------------------------------------
"Greater love has no one than this,
that he lay down his life for his friends."
--John 15:13
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother."
--Shakespeare, Henry V, Act IV, Scene 3
TLTuohy
demonstrate how far the conversation has drifted.
From Phil Dutre:
"When we as wargamers try to 'rationalize' wargaming, we usually tend to say
it's about the study of military history, about military thinking and tactics,
about studying uniforms, about getting a better
view on history etc. Much less we say it's just about the toy soldiers and the
games.
My question now is whether this is a valid argument to use, and to what extent
this is just wishful thinking?"
My understanding of this question is that it pertains to the excuses we use to
explain why we push little lead men around a table, not whether wargaming can
be a valid training tool.
Much of the ensuing discussion has centered on the use of gaming in training
military officers, getting high-school students interested in history, etc.,
which are fine examples of what you can do if you specifically set out to teach
something but have nothing to do with the original question at all. Hence my
remarks about paintball and MILES gear.
Truth be told, I don't believe that wargaming pursued as a hobby really teaches
you anything about war. It may support an interest in military history but then
you get into one of those chicken/egg questions: do you game to study history
or do you study history to game? There may not even be any connection at all. I
had a heart attack a couple of years ago and didn't game for over a year and my
interest in history continued unabated.
I've been on the sharp end, by the way. The ten years of gaming I had done
prior to arriving taught me nothing that was of any use when I got there but
then, that wasn't why I gamed to begin with.
Please don't apologize for butting in. It's an open forum and everyone has a
right to be heard. Of course, my opinions have recently been passed into
Federal law but anyone else's are still weclome 8>)
LT
TLTuohy
>demonstrate how far the conversation has drifted.
>
Although all of my messages are, of course, Universal Truths and thus
accessible (and mandatory) for everyone, this message is actual a reply to
Shawn Fisher. Sorry, Shawn, I started out quoting the relevant parts of your
message but they seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle.
LT
NJH
> >*NJH: Thanks for the confirmation.
> Confirmation of what? That plans don't work or that we don't live on the same
> planet? (I have my own; Dad made it for me 8>)
could take credit for being clever and witty, I would, but I can't. I
meant confirmation that plans don't work.
As for being on the same planet or a sane planet, I'd venture that
most R.G.M.H. gamers have their own planet. The ones that don't - they
probably live on their own continent.;)
For better or for worse our games are in the same business as
Hollywood, for a few precious hours we try to suspend disbelief and
forget the real world. We just want to have fun. Especially when I'm
playing colonials, I don't care which side I play, give me "Crack
Troops" or give me "Crap Troops." I'm there to game and to have fun.
NJH
> Of course, my opinions have recently been passed into
> Federal law but anyone else's are still weclome 8>)
> LT
BTW-The UN is going to use several of my rather keen insights
regarding the human condition as a means to bring the world together
in peace and harmony.:)
Cheers
NJH
TLTuohy
>> Federal law but anyone else's are still weclome 8>)
>> LT
Fortunately, it was only my opinions and not my spelling 8>)
LT
* Cynic - A blackguard whose defective vision allows him to see things only as
* they really are, not as they should be. * Ambrose Bierce said it, I believe
it, and * that does it.
Andrea Novin
etc. is just a bonus. That is, unless you use it as a simulation. A simulation of
flying an airplane is fun, and is used as a teaching tool. Some computer flight
simulators are approved by the FAA as training aids. Their advantage is that you
practice emergencies without actually risking your life. Therefore their use is
life saving. But put a couple of guns in the picture, and you are back to fun. I
have heard it said, that this whole industry is just a plot by the USAF to develop
future fighter jocks.
Games throughout history are fun with a purpose. Girls playing with dolls a
preacticing/learning to mother children when they grow up. Boys playing with
guns/knives are practicing for defending the hearth. Ages ago war games were
mandatory practice with the long bow, jousting in armor, or army maneuvers. The
relative peacefulness of today has removed this imperative, so fun is all that is
left.
TLTuohy
>Wargaming is fun. The fact that, if one wants, it can be used to teach
>history,
>etc. is just a bonus.
Right in one! You have just summed up very succinctly what I have been saying
with a great deal of excess verbiage.
With that, I rest my case. Forever 8>)
LT
mike willegal
qualities required to succeed in life or war. It doesn't take much leadership
to push some lead around a table or even to get a handfull of folks
to agree on a common strategy for an hour or two. Things get a whole
lot more difficult when you have to lead folks day in and day out for
months or years at a time.
So, my view is that these games will not do much for your leadership
abilities, but you can learn alot about the possibilities
of war and technology (the mechanics of war). The fact is that leadership
is far more critical than the mechanics of war, which is what we learn in these games.
So the games are useful, but only too a limited extent.
Regards,
Mike Willegal
TLTuohy wrote:
--
Visit Mike's Hobby Homepage at...
http://home.att.net/~mike.webpage/home.htm
Tim Marshall
>
> I think it may be time to re-state the original question, if only to
> demonstrate how far the conversation has drifted.
>
> From Phil Dutre:
>
> "When we as wargamers try to 'rationalize' wargaming, we usually tend to say
> it's about the study of military history, about military thinking and tactics,
> about studying uniforms, about getting a better
> view on history etc. Much less we say it's just about the toy soldiers and the
> games.
> My question now is whether this is a valid argument to use, and to what extent
> this is just wishful thinking?"
First and foremost, for non-military people, it's about playing with toy
soldiers and TANKS (lord, I don't know why you folks who play other
genres, even bother! 8) ). Whether you're in iot for the love of
playing and/or doing something with the models you have so painstakingly
detailled is part of this.
Second, it's about wanting the game to reflect at least some aspects of
what the models were used for, understanding the limitations playing
with models present. This is where the arguments about "these rules are
dumb!" "how unrealistic!" come in. Some folks want to go really far in
this respect (I did when i was younger, maybe this is an age thing! 8) )
and make the game a simulation. In any event, there is the desire to at
least approximate some aspect of the reality from which your models are
modelled after. Discussions about game mechanics, fog of war, etc, fall
in here.
I think one and two above are common to us all. The third aspect is one
I truly believe can be applied to some folks, depending on how they
design scenarios, if they do any planning, etc. And that is to
illustrate some of the processes that go on in preparing for and
planning real battles. Of course, there are many of us who say "to heck
with that, let's just pile on the troops and drive forward, who cares
what happens until it happens" and that's fine too.
For me, all three aspects apply and when i set up scenarios for my
friends, I take special pains to try and incorporate number 3. However,
much to my frustration, most (not all) of my buddies are of the sort Mr
Tulhoy has illustrated... 8)
Personally, I *always* descibe my hobby to new comers (as I do in a
yearly IPMS show where I always have a table) as "adults playing with
toys". Pure and simple. Everything else comes after that fact.
--
Tim Marshall
Manager, Work Control http://www.mun.ca/facman/v4/
Memorial University, St. John's
Newfoundland & Labrador, Canada
Andy O'Neill
<tmar...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca> writes
>First and foremost, for non-military people, it's about playing with toy
>soldiers and TANKS (lord, I don't know why you folks who play other
>genres, even bother! 8) ).
misunderstanding and thinking he means toy tanks as well....
His club owns a Hetzer, yep the real deal.
> Whether you're in iot for the love of
>playing and/or doing something with the models you have so painstakingly
>detailled is part of this.
And riding around in a cool tank?
>Second, it's about wanting the game to reflect at least some aspects of
>what the models were used for, understanding the limitations playing
>with models present. This is where the arguments about "these rules are
>dumb!" "how unrealistic!" come in. Some folks want to go really far in
>this respect (I did when i was younger, maybe this is an age thing! 8) )
>and make the game a simulation.
I think it's lack of experience (or perhaps wisdom) makes one imagine
it's a good thing to have loads of detailed mechanics in a rule set.
The basic mistake is to think:
Loads of rules = more realism.
Whereas they just mean more tedium.
IMO, this is partly why logistics are not popular with players.
It's just too dull to incorporate supply mechanisms beyond the
superficial. You may as well be simulating a trucking/railroad
operation.
>In any event, there is the desire to at
>least approximate some aspect of the reality from which your models are
>modelled after. Discussions about game mechanics, fog of war, etc, fall
>in here.
>
>I think one and two above are common to us all. The third aspect is one
>I truly believe can be applied to some folks, depending on how they
>design scenarios, if they do any planning, etc. And that is to
>illustrate some of the processes that go on in preparing for and
>planning real battles. Of course, there are many of us who say "to heck
>with that, let's just pile on the troops and drive forward, who cares
>what happens until it happens" and that's fine too.
The problem with your finely tuned scenario is that there's always too
many or too few players turn up.
Or Jimmy wants to be on a particular side as he ALWAYS plays Russian...
The last game I ran was Tac ww2.
The guy played the defence couldn't be arsed drawing the map for hidden
deployment so he just stuck everything on table...
Then he gave up part way into the game because he couldn't take on a
particular few tanks (elefants actually) the attacker had.... as the
attacker could see what forces he had and where they were.
I think, as Martin said, it can be very difficult to find the sort of
players one wants if playing games with any level of sophistication.
>
>For me, all three aspects apply and when i set up scenarios for my
>friends, I take special pains to try and incorporate number 3. However,
>much to my frustration, most (not all) of my buddies are of the sort Mr
>Tulhoy has illustrated... 8)
>
>Personally, I *always* descibe my hobby to new comers (as I do in a
>yearly IPMS show where I always have a table) as "adults playing with
>toys". Pure and simple. Everything else comes after that fact.
I describe it as a social experience.
It's marginally more intellectual than watching the footy, definitely a
lot cheaper than going to every match.
Andy O'Neill
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/index.htm