Saturday 14 October 2017

Method in Wargaming

I am sure I have mentioned before my sins, which must be manifold and are, I dare say, still racking up nicely on the heavenly mileometer associated with my name. For them, as hopefully some sort of penance, I have been reading about method. This started off as reading about theological method but has kind of broadened. Now, I am thinking about method in general and whether there might be such a beast as a method in wargaming. If there is I shall consider that there might also be a method in theology.

I shall now issue my standard disclaimer for these musings triggered off by half of my occupation at present: no Bible bashing will occur in the words below, nor indeed in the thinking, as hopefully will be explained in the next paragraph or so.

About half of my occupation is doing fairly silly things with reading stuff around education, theology, science and philosophy. I am not going to explain why here (I give myself 1000 words, give or take, and it would take too many of them), but I do, and I drop across stuff which I think is interesting to wargaming from time to time. One such was, for those of you with long memories, a canter through the ethics of wargaming. The present issue is concerned with method.

The case in point, which has issued in this wail of despair, is a book called ‘Method in Theology’ by a Canadian chap called Bernard Lonergan. Lonergan details how he thinks theology should be done. there is little or no theological content in the book, just a method. He divides theological method into eight ‘functional specialties’, namely Research, Interpretation, History, Dialectic, Foundations, Doctrines, Systematics and Communications. Each, he suggests, is a necessary component of the doing of theology, rather than the content thereof.

Now, one of the criticisms of Lonergan’s method is that is far too general. Most subjects, it is suggested, could have their methods divided into the same eight specialties. This is not, perhaps, entirely surprising, as Lonergan seems to have based his ideas about theological method on an analogy with scientific method. As Alan Chalmers remarks towards the beginning of ‘What is this thing called science?’, every other subject seems to want to describe itself as a science – hence we obtain social science, historical science and of course economics, the dismal science.

Given this generality, I started to wonder whether wargaming, which after all sits somewhere between history, politics and social science, so it might be fair game for a method. On the other hand, not all that many practicing scientists or theologians actually worry about whether they have a worked out, explicit method at all. They are too busy doing stuff to bother. The same could well be the case for wargamers.

So, to begin at the beginning, with Research. Lonergan has in mind here the sorts of academic research, perhaps archaeology, which goes alongside learning in seminars and lectures. But I do not think we need to be limited to that. After all, a good deal of research revolves around what other people write. Thus reading a magazine, blog or book would count. The wargamer has a bright idea: I shall create a sixteenth century Tibetan army. (The example is so bizarre that I suspect that no-one, except me, has one. I was, in all honesty, slightly surprised that I had one as well).

Having decided on that, the wargamer then has to do some more digging around suitable figures, rules and, possibly, the history of Tibet. Then the stage of interpretation looms. ‘Given what I have found out, what does it mean?’ Will this figure be suitable for a sixteenth century Tibetan cavalryman? Which rules should I use? Who did the Tibetans fight? (For any period of history before the formation of the modern nation state, the answer to that question is usually ‘themselves, mostly’).

History might then come into play, as the wargamer’s analysis spreads to the formation of Tibetan armies, their enemies, how the Mongolian hordes and Chinese interacted with them and so on. As I mentioned recently, wargaming can take one into some odd corners. What did Tibetan houses look like? How did the Temples function? When did prayer flags come in? The methodical wargamer may well pose these questions and many more.

Next up is dialectics, or arguing. It is quite likely that at least two different interpretations will have been found. Perhaps, in my case, two entirely different histories of Tibet have been found, one maybe more Chinese influence, the other by the ‘free Tibet’ sorts of people. The wargamer has to decide which strand they will come down upon.We also note that wargaming can lead the wargamer into some modern politically sensitive areas.  For a less contentious dialectic, two manufacturers might have totally opposing views as to the nature of Tibetan super-heavy cavalry.

The decisions made at the dialectic stage will inform the rest of the project, and thus constitute the foundations specialty. The wargamer convinces themselves of the correctness of their interpretation, model choice and so on. The doctrines stage is, of course, related to the choice of rules, and that is informed by the assumed tactics and army make up that the wargamer has chosen. This, we decide, is how these wargames will be fought.

Next up is the systematic stage. This involves solving any confusion and dispute that the different doctrines decided upon will throw us. The decisions might be around, say, the effectiveness of Chinese musketry in the sixteenth century as opposed to Tibetan foot archery and horse archers. This is a synthesis that only the wargamer (or rules writer, if any rule writer has actually considered this place and period specifically) can decide upon. Similarly (or, rather, differently) these is that sinking moment when you realise that your chosen models and chosen base size do not fit together. Not for nothing is systematics linked back to interpretation.

Finally, there is communications. You take photographs of your shiny new army and post them.  You post blog reports of your victories over the enemy. You analyse your mistakes, or the limitations of the rules.


And finally, of course, you read about another period / place / battle / army, and the whole cycle kicks off again….

15 comments:

  1. That all sounds about right to me!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Madness in method. Makes me glad I am not, or rather am no longer, a Wargamologian.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem with developing a method it seems, is that you the find many non-methodlogists actually doing stuff. it is so frustrating!

      Delete
  3. I use methods a little at work and can see how Lonergan's 8 groups could really apply to anything! I am not sure how much formalisation would stick in the wargaming community; but maybe there is someone somewhere that may enjoy applying them (or someone else's methods) to wargaming and writing quite a bit on it. I would possibly even read it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a corrective I am now reading Feyerabend's against Method, with its slogan "anything goes". Sounds more likely for a general wargame method...

      Delete
  4. I read a summary and concluding chapter online. I can only say a) "interesting" and b) it takes all sorts to make up the world.

    Maybe for gaming it is more pertinent than scientific methods. Maybe not but "anything goes" certainly sounds like a wargaming slogan!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Both a) and b) are agreed. Feyerabend is interesting but controversial. Plus, having spent half the book talking about Galileo, he's now switched to Archaic Greek art.

      Nearly as big a switch in period as most wargamers manage on a weekly basis.

      Delete
  5. Feyerband?! I thought it was Cole Porter.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is he not just describing a process that many follow, rather than defining a methodology (regardless of what he claims)? Looking at the list, I find myself thinking that it is substantially similar to the process many use in developing research, even when not actively following a formal methodology. On a side note, even those that eschew formal methodology are applying one to their work. It's a bit like theory that way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think he is, except that his ordering is a lot more rigid than most people undertake. It seems to me that he is defining theological method by analogy with scientific method, and that it is essentially a synonym for 'how people think', at least when we are trying to think things through.

      As to the side note: yes. Having no method is itself a method. It just may not be that helpful....

      Delete
    2. So, is he suggesting that this order should be rigidly followed? I'm not even sure how that would work when you are likely to have to revisit earlier stages of the process to answer questions that crop up in later ones. Does he allow for the iterative nature of research in his writing? I may have to start a new gaming fad just so that I can test the methodology out.

      Delete
    3. It is sort of rigid. He admits some linkages between otherwise not adjacent specialties, but otherwise it seems pretty rigid.

      To be fair he is conceptualising something that is supposed to be interdisciplinary and with significant numbers of people at work on a project. In the arts I don't think that happens.

      The idea is that the communications of one cycle (books, monographs, papers etc) forms part of the data for the research of the next cycle. I don't think that works either....

      Delete
    4. Ah well, it's interesting to think about at least; always useful to consider the structure and flow of one's work.

      Upon re-reading the post, I am struck by the idea that dialectics might well happen within the game, when competing interpretations of the rules are encountered.

      Delete
    5. Nice idea. Dialectics as rules interpretation would work. A game might also be in communications, I suppose.

      Delete