tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post626557127418576952..comments2024-03-28T03:10:23.679-07:00Comments on Polemarch: Some Discourses of WargamingThe Polemarchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-2588313521945757242011-02-18T07:04:34.502-08:002011-02-18T07:04:34.502-08:00Ah yes, asymmetric warfare, that was a term I was ...Ah yes, asymmetric warfare, that was a term I was grasping for. <br /><br />In the light of the considerations recently about fairness, it would seem that professionals make battles as asymmetric as possible, while wargamers make them symmetric. <br /><br />Any you are quite right. This can only be handeled by changing the victory conditions. In other words, changing the meaning of winning.<br /><br />Thanks.The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-39847964613339578312011-02-17T16:45:57.789-08:002011-02-17T16:45:57.789-08:00Just catching up with some recent blogs and saw th...Just catching up with some recent blogs and saw the old conundrum of what to do in wargames about "asymetric" warfare. Quite simply as a horse and musket gamer this is one of the periods great attractions (at least European games) since the problem doesn't arise!<br /><br />However, having an interest in other periods it's something that's bothered me for a long time. The only way to make games with very different army cultures more "realistic" is to take a leaf out of the RPG fraternity's book and have victory conditions for each side which don't necessarily involve the annihilation of the opposing army. So you can win and lose at the same time!nundankethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12895608927860103442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-69179002115929192142011-01-27T01:26:17.286-08:002011-01-27T01:26:17.286-08:00Mmmm.
I think this a nub of some of the problems....Mmmm.<br /><br />I think this a nub of some of the problems. we don't do 'real war', but we can't completely make it up, or wargaming becomes meaningless.<br /><br />Thanks.The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-525191162784560242011-01-25T11:54:50.424-08:002011-01-25T11:54:50.424-08:00"Perhaps we need to separate the ideas of rea..."Perhaps we need to separate the ideas of real war and wargames. "<br /><br />We need to do this for lots of good reasons-and yet we need to link the ideas as well (or the games become entirely abstract...)<br /><br />'Sometimes a bit unfair' might be a good place to start thinking about the compromise, maybe?<br /><br />RegardsJWHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01637785437909299947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-27481629810509573522011-01-25T00:57:13.220-08:002011-01-25T00:57:13.220-08:00Well, each of these could be a post or several in ...Well, each of these could be a post or several in itself. And probably will be!<br /><br />1. Often, of course, places were put to siege to tempt field armies out to fight. Nothing is ever simple.<br /><br />2. Hm. I suspect the French might argue that Hollywood films are a clash of relative strengths of cultures. Which is why the French intellegensia don't like them...<br /><br />3. Perhaps we need to separate the ideas of real war and wargames. <br /><br />4. It is certainly true that it is difficult to design rules where there is a huge disparity in the sides. I shudder to think how colonial rules writers manage.The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-15844096295319091862011-01-23T05:41:18.751-08:002011-01-23T05:41:18.751-08:001. Yes, punitive expeditions and raiding. sometim...1. Yes, punitive expeditions and raiding. sometimes a person may be the objective - the monarch/pretender. More widely, it is arguable that from the Napoleonic period onwards, the field army has been the main objective because only its defeat can decisively end the conflict.<br /><br />2. Not arguing that war isn't a cultural activity, just unusual in the way it can be 'tested' against other cultures. The battlefield may give a measure of objectivity about the reltive strengths of different cultures of warfare.<br /><br />Your example of importance is a good one - and maybe 'we hobbyists' went down the wrong pathway of 'wargames' rather than 'battlegames'<br /><br />3. Yes. To refer to your more recent post, the discourses of wargaming seem to indicate that 'both sides should have a chance', whereas real warfare does not necessarily reflect that.<br /><br />4. For some periods and wars the design of H2H games - when the two adversaries are organized and fight entirely differently, where their cultures of warfare have no similarities - is a real difficulty. The temptation to make an 'ancients' army more 'Roman' must be ever-present for rules writers to enable it to be controlled in a more recognizably 'wargames' way.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />JohnJWHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01637785437909299947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-31736292229810022962011-01-18T00:44:51.823-08:002011-01-18T00:44:51.823-08:00Hi,
Yes, there did land up being quite a bit pack...Hi,<br /><br />Yes, there did land up being quite a bit packed into that one. It didn't quite go where I expected, but I let it go...<br /><br />1. I think I agree with you about the taking and holding territory thing (I was trying to provoke a bit), but the problem is that I can't think of a good example of a war where that wasn't the objective. Maybe some of the colonial punitive expeditions?<br /><br />2. My point is certainly the latter, that we should model wars on their own terms, not by some arbitrary yardstick. I'm not so sure about your first point. To some extent war is a cultural activity, and it is possible to lose a war and win the peace (the Boers, for example). So here is a question I intend to explore here: which was the more important, Agincourt or the Treaty of Troyes?<br /><br />3.I think you are right that professionals don't want to fight on equal terms and wargamers do. Is that because of concepts of fairness in games?<br /><br />4. Yes, counter-insurgency is one of those ongoing problems across history. The Romans managed some quite good counterinsurgency warfare, even without air power. On the other hand, when it went wrong it went wrong very badly. I'm not sure how we can manage to wargame this sort of thing. the only alternative to your idea I can think of is role-playing with the players as the insurgents.<br /><br />Thanks for that. so many questions, so little time to think about them!<br /><br />RegardsThe Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-7592490767195050352011-01-17T09:21:09.641-08:002011-01-17T09:21:09.641-08:00Wow - there's a lot of stuff packed into that ...Wow - there's a lot of stuff packed into that post!<br /><br />A few things pop out while I think about all of that more fully:<br /><br />1. I'm not sure that "the most important part of any real war is the capture and holding of territory" is always true - it rather depends on the period, specifically how easy it was in any given period for the besieger to take a fortified town. I take the point that a lot of wargaming does focus on the 'big battle' with a Napoleonic-type way, which might not be really appropriate.<br /><br />2. War isn't a cultural activity like most others - it is 'boxing not ballet dancing' - that is, there are relatively empirical, measurable ways to decide what 'works' and what is 'best'. Defeat in battle and war is relatively easy to see compared to the 'value' of other differing cultural activities. However, if your point is that it might be more interesting to make specific games about inter-Aztec or Warring State period Chinese than to basically 'measure them' against 4thC Visigoths and then play games with the same rules you really designed for Adrianopole, I hear you! <br /><br />3. I translate the 'Professionals study logistics' quotation into wargames terms by thinking that the point of most military activity is to set the conditions to fight a 'very unbalanced scenario' - which would not neccessarily make a good tactical wargame.<br /><br />4. I think that a lot of your piece is an extension of your doubts about 'Greek Generalship - the lack thereof' in one of your previous posts. The tactical and strategic problems facing Afghan fighters are very different from those facing CF troops and generals.<br /><br />A good example of this would be the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe struggle. AFAIK there was just no real equivalent to anything higher than a Platoon Commander on the ZANU/ZAPU etc. side in terms of tactical direction, and their performance in these tactical battles was often very poor. But that wasn't what the struggle was about. A good game of this should reflect what there tactical objectives were - staying alive, recruiting, causing damage, terrorizing and then escaping. Probably the only way to combine this with the roles played by Rhodesian military commanders is in an umpired 'kriegspiel'-type game.<br /><br />Just a few thoughts, I might post some more when I've finished really digesting your post!<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />JohnJWHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01637785437909299947noreply@blogger.com