Wargaming Small Wars (merged thread)

[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.

[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.