Wargaming Small Wars (merged thread)

[AmericanPride]

A few updates:

- I decided to add ethnicity as a major game play factor. I am still considering how this will influence the basic ruleset since I want to avoid the RPG-like model of different groups have people having inherently different advantages (or disadvantages). With that in mind, ethnicity will be probably be abstract and relational.

- Key Leaders will be a central element for each side, who will have unique leaders (i.e. commanders, diplomats, aid workers, etc) that represent different parts of the institutional effort. I am still working out how this look precisely, though they will be extensively tied into policies, cards, and actions. Having key leaders in the wrong place at the wrong time (and using the wrong policy and units) will have an incredibly negative impact on the player's strategy implementation to reflect bureaucratic resistance and the necessity of political buy-in by supporting agencies.

- Although using real-world military designations would add some flavor to the game, I decided against it so players focus instead on the operational and strategic options made available by the use of some types of units in lieu of others. So Army light infantry brigades, special operations forces, and paramilitaries, among others, will all be abstracted (though at a future date I may change this, as I see opportunities to add another dimension to strategy here).

- Lastly, I am looking at scrapping the hard end date of Fall 2016 to something more gradual. An array of conditions will likely trigger an "End-Game", which will use a series of fixed events to move the game towards a conclusion. Right now, this might be when a faction achieves its victory conditions in any turn, which will trigger a set series of events to allow for the other players to grab what's left; i.e. the US might achieve its objectives earlier than anticipated, triggering a gradual US drawdown, encouraging GIRoA and the Taliban to redouble efforts in a set amount of time. This is still under consideration so any feedback is welcome.

[Steve Blair]

I honestly don't see how you could model something like this without using ethnicity in some way. Personally, I'd be inclined to base it more along the lines of a negative interaction modifier if local groups aren't of the same ethnicity. It's not so much giving one ethnic group a bonus as it is modeling the difficulty often present when it comes to getting two different groups to work together or trust each other. The modifier could be negated over time (possibly by steps taken by the outside nation), or it could actually be enhanced (due to a number of factors).

[AmericanPride]

I honestly don't see how you could model something like this without using ethnicity in some way. Personally, I'd be inclined to base it more along the lines of a negative interaction modifier if local groups aren't of the same ethnicity. It's not so much giving one ethnic group a bonus as it is modeling the difficulty often present when it comes to getting two different groups to work together or trust each other. The modifier could be negated over time (possibly by steps taken by the outside nation), or it could actually be enhanced (due to a number of factors).

That is what I am leaning towards right now. Some background: there will be operational leaders (people in the field) and policy leaders (people in Washington, Kabul, or Quetta, etc). Anyway, operational leaders will have an ethnicity trait that will influence their effectiveness in different provinces, all of which will have a fixed ethnicity assigned to it. So, the US, GIRoA, and Taliban will all face this challenge.

[Steve Blair]

Of course, ethnicity is a fairly fluid thing, and could be modeled down to tribal affiliation if necessary (although it sounds like at the level you're talking about this would be a touch too micro). I'd be tempted to take it one step further and have ethnicity and "outsider" status modifiers, with "outsider" (or whatever) applying to US/Western folks (with a higher negative, at least at first) and then the internal ethnic considerations. Over time, one player could work to lessen the "outsider" penalties (although they'd likely never go away completely).

[AmericanPride]

I think I'm simply going to have US leaders labelled with "American" ethnicity, with a few and far between exceptions among some of the diplomatic, aid, and contractor staff. I don't know yet what the penalty will be, however. I'm thinking a penalty in unit/leader survivability and an increase chance for the UI of a played card in that province.

[Rex Brynen]

What's the intended audience? Is the boardgame for hobbyists, educational uses, or other purposes?

Mike Markowitz's presentation at the NDU gaming roundtable today was about developing an operational-level Afghanistan boardgame for the TRADOC Analysis Center (that also interfaced with tactical, digital sims). The audio and slides may be up later at NDU CASL, but you'll find some detail in Brant's live blog of the event at Grog News (and a little discussion at PAXsims too).

[AmericanPride]

What's the intended audience? Is the boardgame for hobbyists, educational uses, or other purposes?

Mike Markowitz's presentation at the NDU gaming roundtable today was about developing an operational-level Afghanistan boardgame for the TRADOC Analysis Center (that also interfaced with tactical, digital sims). The audio and slides may be up later at NDU CASL, but you'll find some detail in Brant's live blog of the event at Grog News (and a little discussion at PAXsims too).

Thanks for sharing the links. I'm of the general opinion that context determines everything, and so my focus is on developing a strategic-policy level game. I have not thought much about the audience, though it's definitely not the way families are going to want to spend their Friday nights.