Wargaming Small Wars (merged thread)

[Steve Blair]

We've had good luck here getting the "Nintendo Generation" hooked on map-based wargames. For most of them it's something very new and different, and the prospect of squaring off against their fellow cadets is an added bonus.

We're looking now at ways to open the exercise up to more Detachments via electronic orders, and I plan to push the combined arms one the same way. The combined arms exercise is really open to small wars-style stuff, and I may actually push it that way once it gets fully developed.

[ericmwalters]

All of these comments are great...and lead me to imagine an online "map-based" game with some sort of umpire and teams representing not just two sides but many sides--all with different objectives. Indeed, perhaps there would be two sets of victory conditions for each player...one for his/her team and one "personal" victory condition that may make life interesting for the team in executing their plans.

I particularly like games where each player/team has a unique set of victory conditions instead of the "zero-sum" kinds of conditions we usually see. Sure, there has to be built in conflict potential to replicate life in a Small Wars environment, but a great many different agendas in play adds a richness and complexity that only good (and large) RPG campaigns can achieve.

The advantage of an umpire in an online game is that the whole problem of intelligence/counterintelligence is brought into play...creating possibilities for deception, deceit, and a whole host of other effects.

The closest I've ever come to such an experience was in a college TRAVELLER campaign. GDW's TRAVELLER was a sci-fi role playing system--something like Dungeon and Dragons goes to space, but much richer in some ways, particularly when starting a character (they already had a certain amount of skills/history that the player rolled up prior to play). Given that the movie STAR WARS was relatively recent, a whole genre of "Rebels versus the Empire" gaming ran rampant--evidenced in such games as BATTLEFLEET MARS (SPI), FREEDOM IN THE GALAXY (SPI/AH), IMPERIUM (GDW) and others. In our TRAVELLER campaign, we faced the same kinds of problems as sci-fi characters in a Star Wars-like universe...we were all rebels or characters sympathetic to the rebellion...but who could we trust and who could we not trust? When was it appropriate to take on the minions of the Empire and when was it best to run away to fight another day? I can only wonder what it would have been like to have characters playing the various minions of the Empire trying to run down the Rebellion...we never played that way, however.

Our problems and solutions in that campaign were inspired by sci-fi books and movies, but imagine what could have been possible had a fair amount of insurgency and counterinsurgency theory--coupled with dynamic social, political, and economic drivers--been incorporated (even if only crudely) into the game?

[Steve Blair]

Our framework actually assigns each of the four teams different military and political goals. It's set up so that there are two coalitions fighting each other, but each country has its own set of goals (some of which do conflict, creating some coalition tension).

I'm firmly in favor of the umpire/White Cell concept for a couple of reasons. Perhaps the biggest is that it takes omniscient intelligence out of action. Players only know what their collection efforts achieve, and the only "true picture" is kept by White Cell.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

Our framework actually assigns each of the four teams different military and political goals. It's set up so that there are two coalitions fighting each other, but each country has its own set of goals (some of which do conflict, creating some coalition tension).

I'm firmly in favor of the umpire/White Cell concept for a couple of reasons. Perhaps the biggest is that it takes omniscient intelligence out of action. Players only know what their collection efforts achieve, and the only "true picture" is kept by White Cell.

The base set up sounds good, but why are you continuing with the State as player fiction and only with 4 teams? Personally, I think that it is important to get at least 10-15 teams running, only 3-5 would be "States" while the rest would be non-state actors.

Do you remember a game called Kingmaker? You might get some good ideas from that one. Also, AH came out with one whose name slips my mind that was a more advanced version - multi-state, multi-faction and really nasty politics. The other thing you need is one or more really sneaky, nasty and, above all else, creative game master.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

We use the state actors in what we're doing here because the teams are representing the air component commanders (and land for the joint version) for their particular countries. It has more to do with ROTC limitations than any real desire on my part to cap the game in this way.

Personally I'd love to branch it out and have insurgent, non-state (NGOs) and terrorist teams. Believe me, I do have a nasty GM streak and love doing things like that. But even a stripped-down exercise like we're doing has been something of a hard sell. I'm just glad they're even looking at things like this now.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

We use the state actors in what we're doing here because the teams are representing the air component commanders (and land for the joint version) for their particular countries. It has more to do with ROTC limitations than any real desire on my part to cap the game in this way.

Personally I'd love to branch it out and have insurgent, non-state (NGOs) and terrorist teams. Believe me, I do have a nasty GM streak and love doing things like that. But even a stripped-down exercise like we're doing has been something of a hard sell. I'm just glad they're even looking at things like this now.

Okay, that's somewhat scary . Hmmm, okay this will sound a touch strange, but why not create a 4th year course in the "History of Military Strategy: Theory and Practice" and use games of various periods as the period "test"? I had something like this in one of my 2nd year classes on 19th century European history and we were offered an "option" of playing Diplomacy one weekend for extra credit.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

Hi Steve,



Okay, that's somewhat scary . Hmmm, okay this will sound a touch strange, but why not create a 4th year course in the "History of Military Strategy: Theory and Practice" and use games of various periods as the period "test"? I had something like this in one of my 2nd year classes on 19th century European history and we were offered an "option" of playing Diplomacy one weekend for extra credit.

Marc

Actually I'm using the pretext of a campaign/joint planning course to get the big exercise into the mix at all. The university I'm at doesn't deal with military history (the one course is part of the Army ROTC program, is taught by one of their cadre, and ignored by most of the school), so I have to take what I can get. That said, I'm always looking at ways to expand and develop the thing, and may yet find other applications for it.

I'm just glad I have them doing SOME exercises. Prior to this all they did was learn the Air Force Song and how airpower won the war...