Wargaming Small Wars (merged thread)

[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...

[ericmwalters]

I thought I'd provide brief summaries/overviews of two strategic board wargames on Queen Boudicca's rebellion against the Romans in Britain. One is entitled HELL HATH NO FURY and was published as a magazine game in World Wide Wargamer's (3W) magazine, THE WARGAMER (issue #39). The other is DRUID: BOUDICCA'S REBELLION, 61 A.D. published by West End Games. Both came out in the same year--1984. Both have been long out of print, but if you are interested in this era or the strategic problems ancient-era counterinsurgency entails, you might be able to snare a copy at wargame convention auctions or on Ebay.

In both games, the Roman player has to defeat the Queen's uniting of the Briton tribes to overthrow Rome's rule. The rebellion started because Boudicca's huband, king of the Iceni tribe, died and left a portion of his wealth to the Roman emperor Nero and the rest to his two daughters in the hopes that Rome would respect the independence of the Briton tribes even within Roman occupied Britain. His wishes were not respected as the Roman tax machine was set into motion--Boudicca was whipped and her two daughters raped when she complained about this. She and her followers went on the war path and were eventually defeated by Paulinus through "making Britain a desert and calling it peace."

Both games pose primarily military problems for both sides. Politics is not really a factor, although Boudicca must get neutral tribes to join her side (usually through a die roll once certain conditions are met).

Graphically, DRUID is by far the more attractive package. HELL HATH NO FURY (HHNF) neverthess enjoys a dedicated following desipte its somewhat bare bones presentation.

In HHNF, Boudicca is often torn between the two ways she can win--either defeat the Roman leions in battle (a tactical victory won with rippling strategic effects) OR through raising enough tribes fast enough that Briton rebellion success is inevitable over time. Quite the puzzle as the former requires setting a trap for a risk-prone (or unwary) Roman to step in...the latter can be difficult given that few tribes are with Boudicca at start and both her and Paulinus are going after the rest. Of course, the Romans don't start with all their forces, so there is a window of opportunity for Boudicca to act decisively before getting overwhelmed. Playing with the variable tribe activation requirements reduces the chess-like nature of the game and introduces a much better portrayal of Boudicca's dilemmas and risks.

DRUID is much more wild and wooly, particularly given the unit activation rules, possibilities for Roman forced marches, interception of movements by the opposing player, and--best of all--limited intelligence when playing with the Hidden Deployment and Movement optional rule, benefitting Boudicca.

Both games contain a bit of system chrome that provide period flavor, but neither game is very complex when playing the situation. Players focus on the board situation and not the rules.

There's nothing out there in the board wargaming regime other than these two games, although rumor has it that AGAINST ALL ODDS magazine may be considering a game on the same topic. While the political aspects of Small Wars takes a back seat to the military problems, the differences in the military forces, capabilities, and strategies are well represented in these two games. I'd recommend either.

You can find out more information on these games on the web:

For a look at the components for HELL HATH NO FURY, check out the game at Boardgame Geek's website here.

For a look at the components for DRUID, see the photos at Boardgame Geek's website here.

For discussions of rules, gameplay, and other aspects of both games, the CONSIMWORLD FORUM on both games can be found here.

[ericmwalters]

The best board wargame I've ever played on the strategic problems of insurgency and counterinsurgency is NICARAGUA!, published as a magazine game in Strategy and Tactics #120, way back in 1988. The designer, Joe Miranda, convinced many with this game that he was the best in the business when it came to portraying unconventional warfare situations--and he still is today with no rival anywhere on the horizon.

NICARAGUA! contains three scenarios--the first on the "Foco Insurgency" when anti-Somoza insurgents tried to take over the government in the 1960s and early 1970s; the second on the downfall of Somoza in 1977-1981; the last on American-backed Contras attempting to bring down the Sandanista government from 1982-1985.

What sets this game apart from nearly all the others is the attention paid to political aspects of insurgency/counterinsurgency. Leaders are rated in terms of military AND political abilities, and national will is covered for both the government and rebel sides, affecting their political capabilities. Foreign Aid, Foreign intervention, Martial Law, and relationships between the espoused regime and rebel political system (e.g., Marxism-Leninism, Social Democracy, Liberal Democracy, Oligarchy) and the various Social Classes (Somocistas, Middle Class, Workers, Peasants, Intellectuals, the Church, Indians) and external players (the US, USSR, and the rest of Latin America) will affect the National Will. Political Warfare, Intelligence, Repression, Terrorism, and the more conventional tools of violence all get their due.

Joe is considering adapting this system to the Iraq situation today--we can only hope that he does (and please encourage him on the CONSIMWORLD discussion forum!).

You can see the components of NICARAGUA! at Boardgame Geek here.

Find the NICARAGUA! discussion thread in the CONSIMWORLD forum here.

[ericmwalters]

I'm summarizing three games on the Afghan insurgencies against the British in the late 19th Century and against the Soviets in the late 20th Century.

THE FIRST AFGHAN WAR, designed by the venerable Joseph Miranda, was published in Strategy and Tactics magazine Issue #179 in 1996 and is, unfortunately, out of print. It has two scenarios covering the initial British invasion ("March To Kabul") and the eventual withdrawal ("Rebellion and Retribution"). Gameplay revolves around morale, politics, and Random Events. Rules cover atrocities, British "Fair Play," Baluchi political aspirations, and Afghan desertions. Tactically, the British are unsurpassed but often find themselves in strategically (and operationally) untenable positions in the second scenario. This game showcases how easy it is to conquer Afghanistan and how hard it is to hold it.

To view the components of this game, check it out here.

ASIA CROSSROADS a.k.a. THE GREAT GAME, also by Mr. Miranda, was published in Strategy and Tactics magazine Issue #216 in 2003 and is also out of print. Here, the emphasis is less on the insurgency/counterinsurgency aspects and more on the intrigues that the powers surrounding Afghanistan exerted on this particular conflict. Rules cover intelligence and the fog of war, agents/spies, massacres of civilians, international financing of such "cabinet wars," and political negotiations. Russia and Britain vie for control of Afghanistan...to say nothing of the aspirations of the Afghans and other regional players!

To view the components of this game, check it out here.

To follow discussions on the game, consult the CONSIMWORLD discussion forum here.

HOLY WAR: AFGHANISTAN moves forward a hundred years or so to the Soviet invasion and occupation of the country. This is yet again another Miranda design, published in the pages of Strategy and Tactics magazine Issue #147 in 1991. As with most of Miranda's designs on such subjects, military considerations/aspects take second place to political ones. HOLY WAR is no different. We see rules for popular support, political control and military occupation, Soviet policy, Fog of War, Cross-Border operations, intelligence, defections/subversion, troop reliability, and the Jirga Loya. The games has six scenarios covering the various phases of the war to include one hypothetical situation dealing with a Soviet advance to the Persian Gulf.

For a look at the game components, check it out here.

To follow gamer discussions on this out-of-print title, look here.