"Do Veterans Make Better Wargamers?" Topic

Is there something about combat experience that makes a person better at the wargaming table?

hmm this presupposes Wargaming has some basis in reality?

Yes and no.

It's the blind men and elephant thing.

A veteran can add a lot where his personal experience is concerned at the level of combat where he actually served. No so much at other levels of command or combat.

I have a couple artillery officers (one army and one naval) in one of my regular groups. They know artillery and artillery procedures inside and out. Very helpful when writing rules and scenarios. But when it comes to playing rules written by others . . . it can be a very long day sometimes. Their criticisms are fair and unfortunately the rules are not easily jogged to bring them into line with 'reality' short of a major overhaul.

But when it comes down to actual game play . . . the veteran is not particularly 'better' than a well read 'civilian' that is able to extrapolate tactics from his reading.

mjc

Well, we have the head of our nation's armed forces in our wargaming group, and the games I've seen him in he certainly plays with much more professional planning of tactics than the rest of us who are all non-military.

I can honestly say that my military service did nothing to improve my wargaming skillz.

Having seen vets both young and old, combat and services, wartime and peacetime come and go in our gaming group I can say

Yes and no. Some have been good wargamers and I think their skills were enhanced by their experience. Others not so much. Combat experience seems to give a specific set of insights AND prejudices as to how wargames should play out and how rules should work. I do think the level of play factor is true: combat experience seems to give good insight at the level of combat they experienced.

But how much of all of this is due to their experience or due to their inherent skills at wargaming I will never know, or at least not be able to quantify.

I have seen some combat vets be very very poor at translating their intrinsic understanding of tactics and battlefield tactical reflexes to the game table. Simply by not just doing what their normal tactical intuition would tell them. Maybe the fact that wargames are played using a closed mathematical system of rules that is strictly defined doesn't lend itself well to doing something that is instinctual or so honed as to be second nature on the battlefield in actual combat.

Having vets in a wargaming club or at wargame events is always very cool though and makes for great discussions of all things wargaming related. I have learned a lot not just about warfare, but about rules writing as well.

No matter how much experience one has nothing can stop you rolling 1s and 2s when your opponent is rolling 5s and 6s, 26 years has not helped my die rolling!

Tally Ho!

Meh.

Depends on the perod surely? would serving in the modern armed forces make you any better at understanding say Mongol tactics of the 13th century or a 16th century swiss army? I wouldn't have thought so.

Playing a squad/platoon based modern game then I could see being a veteran would help for sure. When it comes to fantasy I wouldn't have thought so.

The principles apply, regardless of venue, genre or tactical/operational/strategic level of play.

Knowledge of how the games rules work are key to winning, not real life experience, it is a game with its own rules, not real life.

I would like to see Napoleon beat me at tribal wars, great military man he may have been, he does not know how to make a full on nuke and do milisecond trains…

Just as modern day generals would lose to me at my own rules for modern conflicts if handguns could disable tanks..

Its all about the rules of the game, don't know the rules and you can't know the outcomes of the things you do.

The principles apply, regardless of venue, genre or tactical/operational/strategic level of play

Are you saying that modern day wargames use the world war one method of walking toward the enemy letting them shoot at you in the open?
Or that knowledge of world war two assaults will help you win at naval games?
Or that in modern wargames you can rely on your battle wizard to summon the dragon of death to help you win?

I maintain that you need to know the rules of a game to stand a good chance of winning.
They are games and have rules that are not the same as real life.

Having played with current and ex forces I have heard many of them exclaim "that would not happen in real life" during a game because of rules limitations.
I do not doubt them, but games are just that..

I have been slightly alarmed at the complete lack of any tactical acumen whatsoever by one particular fairly senior currently serving officer who plays with us occasionally, but as he often likes to point out, that isn't really what fighting wars is about, not the sorts of things he does anyway. He is very good at logistics though, and provides decisive leadership.

OTOH I've had a platoon CO do an extremely professional job in games which involve commanding a modern infantry platoon. Rather unsurprising really.

I only ever war-gamed with a couple of military veterans.

But I can certainly say that veterans made the best game play experts ever when I was researching my convoy games. Brilliant. Everything that can happen in the games came from veterans, or if done via research, was agreed by veterans to be correct. There are a couple of things that I actually played down a little for fear wargamers would never believe it. But after consultation reinstated them. Ships catching fire by accident, cargo shifting, and other things.

Younger wargamers of today need to be putting on record the experiences of Vietnam vets and those of the wars since. That should become the base upon which games and rules are built.

Fourteen posts, and no-one has asked Bill the only important question; what do you mean by "better"?

In my opinion, that must mean someone who is enjoyable to play against, win or lose. I can't see that military service has any bearing on that. I've layer RPGs with an ex-TA man and a guy who put in several years in the merchant navy. I can't say the games were greatly improved by the interminable anecdotes.

Are you saying that modern day wargames use the world war one method of walking toward the enemy letting them shoot at you in the open?

Not in the slightest. Your examples suggest tactics or doctrine, not principles. The principles guide or suggest doctrine and tactics but are otherwise universal. They are reflected in Sun Tzu's writings.

The principles of warfare, as understood by NATO, are Mass, Objective, Offensive, Security, Economy of Force, Maneuver, Unity of Command, Speed and Simplicity. In college I wrote a paper using the principles of warfare as a lens to view Caesar's Gallic Wars. Not surprisingly, he violated the principles only rarely (by his own admission).

A good friend of mine, who reads TMP and shall remain nameless, also wrote a paper, more as a thought exercise to apply the principles to wargaming. His examples were across all genres and multiple operational levels. I fear I may have deleted my copy of this.

Your commentary on rules is spot on, but is not really a part of the discussion. It rolls into an understanding of the operational environment, not unlike knowledge and application of the laws of land warfare or rules of engagement, status of forces agreements, weapons capabilities, etc.

I think it depends more on what the Vet actually did in the military. I know Vets who cover the whole spectrum of gaming skills. The ones with some background in tactics and planning reflect that in their play. Those who's backgrounds involved some type of support function like being a mechanic usually don't demonstrate any particular tactical skills not learned on the gaming table.

Of course Napoleon himself had bad days when the dice were against him.

The principles of warfare, as understood by NATO, are Mass, Objective, Offensive, Security, Economy of Force, Maneuver, Unity of Command, Speed and Simplicity

But if the rules do not reflect this then what value is the experience for making the player better at the game?

Edited my post above in parallel to your reply. Please see above for answer.

Its all about the rules of the game, don't know the rules and you can't know the outcomes of the things you do.

How about asking 'does application of real world experience show up flaws in rules?'. In other words, if a veteran playing a wargame uses his knowledge of platoon level tactics in a suitable game and is soundly thrashed by a player with no combat experience but a deep knowledge of the rules, does this make it a poor rule set (bad dice rolls notwithstanding)?

Is the perfect rule set the one that allows the tactically sound player to have equal footing with the one that has a deep knowledge of the rules?

Being a veteran will not help gaming skills but vets usually have good stories to tell around the table

Your commentary on rules is spot on, but is not really a part of the discussion. It rolls into an understanding of the operational environment, not unlike knowledge and application of the laws of land warfare or rules of engagement, status of forces agreements, weapons capabilities, etc

We must agree to disagree then.
As I fail to see how someone who does not know the rules of a game will be better than someone who does.

You may have played card games in your life but your experience in card games will not help you win "The Angel Barracks daft card game".
I am an expert and you have never played it…

GoodWood poses a good counter question though.
One I would like to discuss with him away from TMP if he wishes?

mail@angelbarracks.co.uk

Is the perfect rule set the one that allows the tactically sound player to have equal footing with the one that has a deep knowledge of the rules?

I like this premise.
It will enable a good player of the rules to do well.
BUT not as well as a person of equal rules knowledge and tactics knowledge and experience.

Yes I was in a unit that the test score to qualify was one of the lowest in the Army. Left and right was difficult enough. As they all deployed they receive Vet status but as a whole they barely qualified on a range.

Rules knowledge defeat real world knowledge every time?

Gracias,

Glenn

No matter how much experience one has nothing can stop you rolling 1s and 2s when your opponent is rolling 5s and 6s, 26 years has not helped my die rolling!

But knowing that the veteran can kill you with a glance does tend to encourage you to let him get away with rerolling the occasional 1 or 2… you know, wookies and arms and all that…

Service helped my tactical thinking but never helped my dice rolling…

We must agree to disagree then.

I think you're looking at this from a different angle than the OP. I gather your presumption of the question assumes a vet is walking in off the street with no prior knowledge of a particular game.

I think the OP means all other things being equal, is the vet granted particular insight that equates to a greater opportunity of success at the table over a non-vet?

I don't know. Depends on the vet. Our experience is not equal.

I think the OP means all other things being equal, is the vet granted particular insight that equates to a greater opportunity of success at the table over a non-vet?

Only if the rules let him use his knowledge.
If the rules do not allow him to use his knowledge then it is of no use, his experience.

Let us assume Napoleon is playing a Napoleonic game, the rules make no distinction between formations.
His knowledge of which formation to use in the real world is worthless in this game..
They also make no distinction between morale of troops.
His old guard are just as likely to run as some raw recruits, so he cant rely on them to be steadfast.

That is my point.
You need to be able to apply your experience in a game for it to be of use.
If the rules do not let you use your experience then having it is no bonus and thus having it will make you no better than someone without..

Only if the rules let him use his knowledge.

You're still assuming Napoleon doesn't know that formations are useless within the context of the rules or that morale is not modeled in the rules.

I'm still assuming his understanding of how to apply the principles of warfare within the context of the game rules may give him an edge, all other things being equal. (Within the context of your example of Napoleon being our vet at the game table.)

IF he knows the formations are essentially useless and IF he knows that morale is not modeled, he will be fine. If he doesn't, he may be screwed. If his opponent is in the same boat as far as a mis-understanding of the rules are concerned, he will probably recover from the shattering of his assumptions quicker than the non-Napoleon.

Again, though I think you are making assumptions that are not supported by the OP.

Also, my above presumptions only work if we're talking about Napoleon.

If the above is the case, what advantage does his VET status actually give him?

(Not being mean.)
Help me see your point!

:)

OR… just had a thought.. do you mean things like choke points on the table that are not rules specific but will effect play?

OR… just had a thought.. do you mean things like choke points on the table that are not rules specific but will effect play?

Yes, exactly. His understanding of the principle of Maneuver includes a knowledge of terrain analysis, enabling him to see obstacles, key terrain, observation and fields of fire, cover and concealment and avenues of approach. Thus, using your example of choke points, he is able to "see" the battle unfolding as he and his opponent make their moves.

His being a vet has to do with applying the principles on a daily basis, an experience he would most likely not receive as an instructor at the artillery school. Or as a butcher, baker or candlestick maker.

It is not impossible to gain this insight without having served, but it is much more likely to be gained through service than not.

Does every vet share this particular set of insights? No. Just as every vet has not experienced what I have. Although I have a knowledge of the principles, I have not had the opportunity to practice them on a regular basis. If I have practiced them, it was not in a holistic, synergistic way. That is a skill set reserved for maneuver Battalion Commanders and their staffs and above.

Veteran status does not automatically confer increased skill on a gaming table. However, I wager it would increase the likelihood of increased skill.

The recruiter told me that the USMC would help my dice rolling. I'm still waiting for that to start.

I'd say my personal library has helped more than my service.

We have a written game of chess played by Napoleon. And i would say, that his military knowledge (am i allowed to call it genius) is also visible in his playing style. He is not the world best chess player, but his aggressiveness, his insight into complex situations and his willingness to win is visual in that game IMO.

Well, I've played modern tactical games with trained soldiers. They certainly outperformed me -- with suggests that the rules represented modern warfare reasonably well and their training was doing some good.

Outside of period, no different from anyone else.

Nope. These are games, not actual simulations.

‌ anyone??????
One of the best tactical minds I know, was that way before he went in the service. According to his dad he was talking about
artillery tactics at age 6 with an artillery officer.
I don't know that service has changed or improved him in any way.
My time in has improved my logistics skills if anything.

I have been fortunate enough to have veterans as players from roleplaying to miniature skirmish and grand battles(boardgame and miniature). They always inject a realworld view of some aspect of the hobby from their experiences, good or bad. I find them more disciplined and great help with rules-clarity debates as they stress the intent of the rule instead of the letter.

Don't I wish! I still lose a lot…it certainly hasn't helped me.

The Army had a school at Fort Huachuca for us USAF weather folks that supported them. We did terrain walks, were introduced to Army organization and ended with microarmor battle. Terrain walks were good, the organization I had down cold from militray history interest and I beat the pants off the other team in the microarmor battle.
My interest in history and tactics helped me as an officer even though I was not a combat troop and never recieved fire.
As a wargamer I suffer from the McClellan flaw. I am chary of taking casualties even of my leaden troops

If the rule set permits the application of the experience possessed then yes, it would probably be reflected in the result. If it is too rigid, or too slow, then real time thinking may not be able to fit wtihin the contstraints and permit the application of said knowledge…..

having said that, I've played games with 2 Ruperts who both sadly displayed a distinct lack of basic, non-period specific tactical acumen….little thngs like open flanks, not scouting terrain, nothing important mind.

Depends on the vet.

The only advantage I generally have over my non-veteran opponents is in the volume and variety of profanity I can produce when I consistently make the worst rolls possible. ;)

Seriously, though, I know some vets who are able to apply their training and experience to their advantage and others who just lose themselves in the game and do whatever seems fun or cool to them, whether it's tactically sound or not.

- Shawn.

depends on the rules set, and if they pay off when using real world tactics. things like
cover and LOS, volume of fire and pinning, angles of fire, flanking movement, forced movement…etc. need to be covered.

then yes there is more of a chance experience will help.

Yes and no. Remember that not everyone who served in the military was combat arms. Over all I would say the veterans I have gamed with have better understanding of the military arts and science. Hell I even have a degree in it! I still roll 1s when I need 6s from time to time. There is a lot to be said about Lucky Generals, Napoleon said so. Let's not forget that Donald Featherstone was a WWII Veteran who was the only man not killed in the defensive position he was in when it was hit by a direct hit.

VR
James Mattes

In my experience, it depends on the the type of service, the type of game, and above all on the type of person.

However, I've introduced people with advanced degrees in theoretical math and game theory to wargaming … and THOSE guys are hell on wheels!

I've gamed with 3 infantry officers who've recently served in Iraq/Afghanistan, and an equal number from Navy/Air Force who have never been deployed outside the US.

The infantry officers are/were consistently able/willing to keep their heads about them when things go to pot, and always seem to follow a fairly simple basic plan. The Navy/AF guys are more likely to say "Aw f#ck it" and go all in on a spur-of-the-mooment attack, or to fail their personal morale check when the dice fail them, etc.

Some caveats –
1) Most importantly, I'm not looking to bash a service. I'm just relating what I've seen from some guys I've personally gamed with.
2) The games in question have all been ground games, usually WWII. Maybe that makes a difference. Would the infantry guys have a more devil-may-care attitude with planes and boats? Maybe, dunno. Would the AF guy be more cautious with his bombers than with his tanks? Again, dunno.
3) Among the many non-vets that I game with, there are those that play careful skillful games, and those that certainly do not. So maybe the vet/non-vet thing doesn't matter.

Just what I've seen from my own little corner of the world.

So many variables. No doubt some vets do better at some wargames. Whether enough do to be statistically significant is uncertain, and might only mean that the wargaming mindset gravitates to the military as a career.

IMHO an ideal game system rewards knowledge of the rules but not anything else players bring to the table. This is hard to achieve of course, and players who have, or claim to have, real world knowledge will sometimes rationalize poor performance by claiming the game isn't realistic.

A near-ideal game system rewards players who have real-world familiarity with whatever the game represents. Many game designers shoot for this target because if you can claim a real life tactician, or student of military history, picked up the game and did better, you can claim the mechanics produce realistic play. Many players like, or say they like, this kind of game because when they win they feel like little Casesars or Napoleans or what have you. The downside is since real life is convoluted, these games often are too, so they are hard to pick up and play.

A poor game design uses arbitrary or downright capricious mechanics to impose an artificial uncertainty rationalized as realism, that rewards players from backgrounds irrelevant to knowledge of rules, tactics, or history. A classic example is one where ranges are estimated by eye and players are penalized for mis-estimation by missing shots or wasting movement. A carpenter makes an excellent player at this kind of game, better than a squad leader or rules memorizer or military historian.

short answer is no.
Veterans do make better citizens though.