Wargaming Small Wars (merged thread)

[Steve Blair]

I've done (and am doing) some work on this sort of thing, but mostly from the non-government standpoint (although I am working on one locally in relation to my ROTC work that may become formal at our Det at least).

Based on this experience as well as many years in the hobby, I tend to think that the best model is a free-play exercise with a control cell and a number of opposing teams. The control cell works as an encounter resolution system, information control point, and general game manager. We do a four team operational air warfare map exercise here every spring (it's too short, but it does give our cadets a taste of planning), and having free play and a control cell allows for many variations. I'm working on one now that will involve both Army and Air Force cadets and cover some aspects of small wars (mainly in a small theater conflict environment).

On the hobby level this is hard to model without computers, since one of the key aspects needs to be intelligence (or lack thereof) and political activity. Board games, IMO, don't model this very well because they ARE board games with unit counters and such. I'm not a huge fan of card-driven games, although they may possibly be able to simulate some aspects of small wars. The RPG framework could be very useful for small wars simulations, since most of their systems deal with interaction and influence on a personal level.

I can't speak much to the computer side of this, since my design experience has been in the paper realm. I do tend to see computers more useful as tools (information management and dissemination) than I do as actual gaming engines (mainly due to AI limitations...but again my experience here is limited).

[marct]

Bloodtree Rebellion by Game Designers Workshop back in the early 1980's was a quite decent boardgame in the small wars genre. The problems of having the physical counters on the board were worked around by having two values for each piece - one "overt" one "covert" - i.e. the counters lied. If you can find a copy, it's worth looking at.

Marc

[ericmwalters]

Most of what I've seen in board wargaming--such as GDW's excellent science fiction game BLOODTREE REBELLION--has been portraying Small Wars at the strategic level of war. I'll review a good many of them in this particular thread and would encourage others to do the same. What is daunting is that there are few that show the prospects and problems of Small Wars at the operational and tactical levels--beyond those "shoot 'em up" force-on-force showdowns that gamers all love.

For example, were one to survey SPI's old GRUNT and SEARCH AND DESTROY games, there's not a lot of incentive to hold back on the violence in the scenarios. Even Mark Walker's recent game on tactical combat in Vietnam, LOCK 'N LOAD, is pretty similar in that vein.

The only game I can recall that rewarded a "controlled violence" approach was a computer game that was done by the Air Force in the late 1990s. It dealt with the defense of Tuzla airfield and provided all the "toys" (i.e., weapons of war) for the player to go out and bash guerrillas outside the wire. And bash those guerrillas the player usually did, only leading to more mortar attacks on the airfield and the loss of the game. Only when the MP and PYSOPS units were used in conjunction with operations to help/gain intelligence within the urban population in the city proper could the insurgency be best addressed...but most players never stuck with the game long enough to learn this. Slick...and I wish it was still available.

[Steve Blair]

Bloodtree Rebellion by Game Designers Workshop back in the early 1980's was a quite decent boardgame in the small wars genre. The problems of having the physical counters on the board were worked around by having two values for each piece - one "overt" one "covert" - i.e. the counters lied. If you can find a copy, it's worth looking at.

Marc

Yeah, I've seen other games that do this as well. There was an AH Napoleonic game (Struggle of Nations, I think it was) that had generic unit counters, with all the nifty stuff hidden away on a strength table. Downtown does something similar with the air war over North Vietnam.

Though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, I still feel that the best way to game a small wars setting is either through a modified RPG-type system or something using teams and a control element (double blind, if you will).

Honestly I wish more was being done with this stuff. I think people underestimate how valuable a training aid a good game can be.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

Yeah, I've seen other games that do this as well. There was an AH Napoleonic game (Struggle of Nations, I think it was) that had generic unit counters, with all the nifty stuff hidden away on a strength table. Downtown does something similar with the air war over North Vietnam.

GDW was using those as well. It works rather nicely at the strategic level, but Eric's point about the operational and tactical level limits is a good one.

Though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, I still feel that the best way to game a small wars setting is either through a modified RPG-type system or something using teams and a control element (double blind, if you will).

Years ago, I was involved with a year long game using GDWs Europa series melded in with Squad Leader. The game itself lasted for about a year (we only played about 6-12 hours per week), and we had several umpires. Most of us were also game designers or, at the minimum, DMs. What we ended up doing was sing Europa for the strat level, SL for the base tactical, and then created any other rules we wanted on the fly (90% vote to agree on new "rules"). When the actual "war broke out", it was 1942 and centered around a civil war inside NAZI Germany (Wehrmacht vs. SS).

I think a modified RPG system would work well, if it was integrated into a strat level game that included international IO as well.

Honestly I wish more was being done with this stuff. I think people underestimate how valuable a training aid a good game can be.

It's market driven . It might well be worth the military contacting one or more companies to act as design agents in a manner similar to te micro-armor deal from the late 70's, early 80's.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

I agree about strategic level IO stuff, as well as models to deal with other international events and actions. I also agree with the limitations of a counter-driven game when it comes to the operational and especially tactical level with small wars stuff. That's why the transition to an RPG-type framework is so important (IMO, anyhow).

[sullygoarmy]

I spent a short time at the Warrior Preparation Center in Germany, USAREUR's sim center. There was a simulation called Spectre, which tried to simulate some Spec-Ops missions. Not sure what ever came of it.

I'd like to see some Small Wars/COIN simulations similar to the close combat series of games...down at the squad and platoon level. Instead of artillery stirkes (unless in southern Baghdad... ), substitute a MEDCAP, or school building project or some other public works program. Teach guys how to do population control, issue ID cards and number houses to seperate the sheep from the wolves. And make it real time so the nintendo generation stays interested in it.

[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.