"Do Veterans Make Better Wargamers?" Topic

"Veterans do make better citizens though."

Sure; after all, it's only the other land-owning males born from two proven citizens who you can really count on to stand by you both in the phalanx and in the general assembly.

Oh, wait! That wasn't a trick ancient history question?

Cheers,

Christopher "the second-rate citizen"

I don't know that it makes us better or worse gamers.

My experience has been that being a combat vet leaves me very short of patience with near current day land combat games for battalion and below that don't align with my experience and thus make no sense.

I will suffer through one, but won't be back for more.

It really appals me that some of the most popular games fall into that catagory.

Veterans do make better citizens though.

That is a joke right?

I agree with CATenWolde
I regularly play against a maths professor and he is with out a doubt the best I've ever played against.

Do property tycoons make better monopoly players?

As far as enthusiasm and participation. I'd say yes, as the percentages show more veterans choose wargaming for a hobby then other pursuits.
As far as game play, I have no idea. Except in my case which would be a resounding no. My rep at the local clubs is as an a-hole.

It seems to me that there are several discrete cases to consider:

1. Assuming that two players are handed a wargame that neither one has played before, and that one is a veteran, does the veteran have an advantage?

2. Assuming that two players are handed a wargame where both are equally expert in the rules, and one is a veteran, does the veteran have an advantage?

I'd say that in these two cases the veteran may have an advantage but it would depend upon his service role, not the scope of the wargame. For example, helicopter pilots (especially gunship pilots) have great terrain appreciation. Every one I've ever fought against could identify avenues of approach every single time; now, whether the could marshal their forces to defend them was another issue. Staff officers are great at understanding force multipliers -- how to combine disparate elements to achieve synergistic effect, but may not be so hot on tactical principles. And so on. But the key is to apply those things to the wargame context; i.e., fit them into how the rules work.

It doesn't matter if the rules reward Maneuver, Mass, Offense, Objective, Security, Surprise, Simplicity, Economy of Force, Unity of Command (the accepted Principles of War). What matters is that the player knows how the game treats those things and plans and executes appropriately. Many staff officers I've played against are very good at those things, and it doesn't matter the period or the genre or the level.

Now, all that being said, the key is not combat experience but rather analytical experience under pressure. Military people are good at that, whether they're combat arms or not. BUT, engineers are equally good at understanding problems and contexts. Statisticians are equally good at determining courses of action based on risk-reward ratios. Historians, amateur and professional, are equally good at predicting outcomes based on known precedents, as they can be applied in the rules context.

No, the only place a vet might have an advantage in either of these two cases is if the game models (not simulates) real world behavior and rewards correct application of those behaviors by the player, and the vet has experience in the analysis of those behaviors.

3. Assuming that an experienced wargamer, a veritable expert in a particular ruleset, is pitted against a military veteran who either doesn't know those rules, or is not as intimately familiar with those rules, does the vet have an advantage because of his military experience?

Frankly, anyone who takes that tack is blowing smoke. If you're a rules expert, you're going to beat those who aren't, regardless of their other experience. But that wasn't the intent, I think, of the original question.

I think the intent was, all other things being equal, does a military vet have an advantage over a non-military opponent?

If you want to argue the point under any other conditions than that (i.e., the first two cases with all other things being equal), you're blowing smoke or have some other axe to grind.

My personal opinion about the correct answer is that the vet has no more advantage than any other discipline would accrue (does an historian have an advantage over a non-historian? does a mathematician have an advantage over a non-mathematician? etc.).

At the risk of high-jacking the thread:

Veterans do make better citizens though.

I don't know that they make better citizens but they do have a proven track record; consult Heinlein for the reasons (the book, not the movie).

A friend from Germany now deserted and gone to Fort Huachuca was a devil combining job and hobby during computer simulated exercises constantly thrashing the staff!

On the other hand I ran a game with the British pushing out of a Normandy bridgehead. The ex Cavalry Officer I put in charge of the British conducted the most cautious advance in the world compared to the rather rash Ex Royal Signals Officer!

Tally Ho!

I don't know that they make better citizens but they do have a proven track record; consult Heinlein for the reasons (the book, not the movie).

Wait, they made a movie out of "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls"?

"Do Veterans Make Better Wargamers?"

On average, probably, in that vets are more likely to be competent wargamers.

I'm much less certain they provide a better game experience as opponents, however. People are people, and being a Vet doesn't stop someone from being a right old at the table.

I would agree that superior abstract reasoning might be one of the best advantages a wargamer can have.

That said, I'm not sure military service does anything for abstract reasoning even when that quality would be of considerable value in their combat role.

It kills me as to how many military pilots tend to think in two dimensions these days. They leave the three dimensional stuff to the on board computers. [not a universal statement but applies to individuals I have known]

mjc

The short answer is, "No."

Unless someone is a veteran of the Peloponnesian war, the Seven Years War, maybe Qadesh then a recent veteran is likely to have just as much knowledge of these conflicts as anyone else.

Furthermore, there is nothing that would make a veteran of any war more adept at understanding the statistics and probabilities necessary to to abstract historical research into a playable game than anyone else.

While the contributions that combat veterans have made in real life are invaluable, their experiences are unique. Testimonials, while useful when compiled with many others, cannot, by htemselves, be substituted for real reasearch.

Now the opinion above talks about the usefulness of a verteran in the creation of a game, the question is whether veterans make better wargamers, not game designers.

I don't see why the would be any better at playing games than anyone else. If you are talking about games about contemporary conflicts (tactics, etc.) maybe. But would they understand how to use chariots or a testudo in a historical manner.

I suppose one might ask whether tall people make better wargamers…well, yes, because they can reach further across a large table…

Unless someone is a veteran of the Peloponnesian war, the Seven Years War, maybe Qadesh then a recent veteran is likely to have just as much knowledge of these conflicts as anyone else.

And from that, as a general axiom, I can then infer that no 0one now living could possibly be adept at geometry because none of us lived in the time of Pythagoras?

Or that none of us can handle analytic geometry because none of us lived in the time of Descartes?

What? Those are principles that anyone can learn? You mean like the principles of war? Those nine things mentioned many times above that have applied to warfare whether land, air, or sea? Whether ancient or modern? Whether at the soldier level or the general level?

Those same principles that apply to aspects of police work, economics, politics?

Think about Warhammer. Do you ever try overwhelming your opponent at a particular point, whether it is by figures that have multiple attacks or higher hit scores? That's the principle of Mass.

Doo you try to get the opponent into a vulnerable position, whether by breaking his line, overlapping on a flank, or making a flank march? That's Maneuver.

How many times do Dwarves win by occupying table quarters? How many times are shooty armies put into disarray by flyers that get into their rear? That's Offense -- going onto the attack to win.

If you play scenario games, do you wipe out the last enemy figure only to find out that you lost because you didn't meet your victory conditions? That's Objective (or, in this case, failure to keep the Objective in mind).

And all the other principles apply the same way, at all levels and in all contexts. Only the specific rules change. Learning how to apply those principles in different contexts is what soldiers do. The fact that a player was not present at Kadesh or the Alamo or Bastogne has nothing to with whether or not he can use those principles to apply the tools at his command effectively.

Lots of other folks can do it too -- mathematicians, from the point of view of calculating odds and cost/benefit ratios, historians from the point of view of using historical precedents, students of military arts from the point of view of applying theory, etc.

But to say that someone must have fought at Waterloo in order to derive any benefit from their real-world experience when fighting a Waterloo wargame is disingenous at best, insulting at worst.

And from that, as a general axiom, I can then infer that no 0one now living could possibly be adept at geometry because none of us lived in the time of Pythagoras?

Perhaps I was misunderstood. The point is exactly that anyone can have as much knowledge of military principles in use during those periods, not that no one can. Here, I'll quote myself so you don't have to go looking for it and you can read it again:

Unless someone is a veteran of the Peloponnesian war, the Seven Years War, maybe Qadesh then a recent veteran is likely to have just as much knowledge of these conflicts as anyone else.

Then you procede to argue the very same point that I did. Perhaps I should have been more clear…or perhaps you should have read a little more s-l-o-w-l-y and not formed an opinion so quickly…

So, you see, I said quite the contrary to what you seem to think I did. In fact, I'm sort of mystified how you arrived at,

But to say that someone must have fought at Waterloo in order to derive any benefit from their real-world experience when fighting a Waterloo wargame is disingenous at best, insulting at worst.

I think it's important to read the original question. It didn't ask about military service or training. It specifically asked if COMBAT experience made someone better at the gaming table.

I think the answer is easy – NO.

The question being argued by most people in the thread seems to be does military service give you an advantage. That is also an easy answer – MAYBE.

I have played a vet who was a pilot (in the Vietnam war) using Check Your Six rules for WWII flying over the Mediterranean Sea in early war biplanes (Brits vs. Italians). He thrashed us. He shot down plane after plane. We were beginners learning the rules, and it was my impression that this vet knew the rules better than us as well. In that case, being a vet pilot seemed to have helped.

Not a vet, but I used to take sailplane lessons, and one powered flight lesson.

Playing the old Ace of Aces game, I was a very dangerous opponent in a way never duplicated in any other games.

Perhaps it was because I could envision the maneuvers. Others assumed a stall had something to do with the engine while I had stalled a sailplane that had no engine, etc.

The fellow talked about above's main advantage may have been having flown a plane rather than his veteran status.

Then you procede to argue the very same point that I did. Perhaps I should have been more clear…or perhaps you should have read a little more s-l-o-w-l-y and not formed an opinion so quickly…

No, I don't think I'm arguing to the same conclusion as you.

I think you were saying that military experience gives no greater understanding of an ancient battle, for example, than anyone else might have.

Perhaps that, as stated is true, providing the person put in the necessary time studying. The point that I'm trying to make is that all other things being equal; i.e., no outside study, no disparity in rules knowledge, etc., the vet may have an advantage because the principles that he learned have applicability across all time periods, all modes of combat, all levels of organization. A subtle distinction, to be sure because the vet would had to have learned those principles and thought about them; and, then, would have had to apply them to the wargame. And therein is the advantage over someone who has not been exposed to those principles.

If I've misunderstood again, please do say so.

Now, the more interesting question, and performance to watch, would be two players with equal familiarity at novice level with a set of rules, one player with academic study of warfare under his belt, the other a military veteran with combat planning under his belt. Which would have the advantage?

It's all a bunch of moose muss, anyway.

A soldier doesn't learn tactics in fire-fight. A soldier learns tactics before the battle. There is nothing preventing anyone from learning the same thing. Military historians, whether professional or avocational, do so with some regularity.

So what, exactly, would a veteran bring to the table that would help him/her play a game? Perhaps only a litle less surprise when their plan doesn't survive first contact with the enemy. (i.e. FUBAR when the $h!T hits the fan)

It's not about tactics. It's about principles. Reread my exchange with angelbarracks to see my point.

Or put more eloquently, jizbrand's exchange with you.

Like I just said, "moose muss."

Interesting replies, but I still say no. The leading of men into combat in the real world has very little to do with pushing miniatures around a table where the only wildcards are the dice. Common nomenclature is about it imo.

Is the reverse true? Does being a wargamer make you a better soldier? Without a doubt, no.

Does being a coach make a person a better Madden player? I've sat there a million times telling my DE on the screen to read the OT, but he never does…and I swear if my small forward in NCAA BBall doesn't start reading the defender for his cuts I'm going to bench him.

You game a game, you live life, different fish altogether.

Other professions that might make good wargamers:
Mathematicians, gamblers, economists.

IMHO, our games don't simulate actual combat enough to give real soldiers a real advantage.

"Does being a wargamer make you a better soldier? Without a doubt, no."

Although wargamers frequently understand the overall situation, i.e. the importance of combined arms and how things function in an interrelated fashion, better than many veterans who have a focused view of only their small part of the military machine.

I was once given a tour around a navy ship by a petty officer who worked in engineering. He pointed at the Phalanx gun systems and said (seriously) that those were where the heat-seeking missiles were launched to destroy enemy aircraft.

Bill..shame on you! LMAO

No..not unless its where you were.

One of my first memorable convention games was a TSATF game. No clue to rule, scale, etc…Taking in account every spot of brush, folds and dips in the ground..and confidant that everything we learned and even the hard way would work…didn't! Sad thing is that I shared that with my then 13 year old son. talk about embarrasing!

I was way too cautious in my early games and taking casualties hit hard until an old Marine platoon sergeant made a statement during the game

" THESE ARE TOY SOLDIERS! THIS IS A GAME. "

took me a while to realize that…afterwards..

study the history books..and just play..dont be cautious.

I believe so. Especially those whom reached Field Grade and above.

If a Veteran – ie. someone with some sort of formal military training – doesn't make a better player than someone who has not got any formal military training, then I would suggest there is something missing from the rules you are using.
My 'acid-test' of a set of rules is that if my bimbo girlfriend has as much chance of winning as a serving infantry officer, then I've got little interest in playing them.

As others have said, however, many wargames rules make so little attempt at replicating reality (and are so based on luck) that when playing these, a veteran has no more chance of winning than anyone else who can throw a die.

So basically, I think someone with formal military training SHOULD make a better wargamer, and if he doesn't, have a look at the rules you are using.

Of course, each to their own.

BullDog69 your definition of vetern

someone with some sort of formal military training

is not exactly the same as Bill asked about

Is there something about combat experience

Now these days in North America it's getting hard to find a trained soldier who does not have combat experience. In the 70's, when I started gaming, extremely well trained and practiced officers who had never actually seen combat were not unusual in Canada.

The officers I player against, as I said earlier, were very good at moderns – knew the weapons, knew the terrain, knew how to make it work. Handed me my head. But go back to Napoleonics and the aspects of their training that were applicable to military problems across all technologies and cultures were no more useful to them than the reading I had done myself were to me -- based on the fact that we were evenly matched. Which seems reasonable to me; if we were still teaching our officers how to choose between column, line and square and the best moment for the cavalry to charge I would worry about the curriculum at RMC.

Lentulus

Fair point, and I should perhaps have stressed that my comments were primarily directed at wargames of 'modern' (ie. Boer War onwards) warfare.

I've been pondering this question since I saw it. I'm a USAF vet but no combat experiance. I've enjoyed war games since I was a kid and a love of military history. So my conclusion is wargaming sent me to the military. Lentulus's point might make the question are veterans better tacticians
and maybe thats splitting hairs a bit. maybe

Lentulus – It might be harder to find someone who hasn't been deployed but someone who has actually seen combat is still pretty rare.