"Are wargames rules writers more knowledgeable about war?" Topic

In my opinion, the two are not necessarily…

Short answer – No.

Jim

no, but good ones understand systems and how they relate. The Best also work in historical detail to those systems

No. What The Colonel said.

Now, Saber 6 has a good point too.

I remember when I came back from a Iraq as a Company Commander, my point of view as a gamer was much different from when I was a Staff Monkey at Battalion…

And I had an "easy" time of it too.

Funny how that works.

Now, I just play 18th century stuff.

Eric

No, they are not.

No more or less then authors who write books about war.

Probably not as knowledgeable as military historians. But, historians are often not good game designers.

than whom?

man on the Clapham omnibus – probably

veterans – probably not

I don't see how you can give a blanket 'no' to this. Some are. Some are (gasp!) veterans.

Case in point: Brigadier Peter Young, author of 'Charge!'.

Don Featherstone – was a tankie in WWII.

Whether that made his naval rules more accurate I'm not at all sure.

….than whom?

Everything is relative.

Joking, right?

Not always.

Pray tell – what does 'knowledgeable about war' mean ?

Ain't no one around today who has any direct knowledge
or experience of war from the mid-19th C on back.

Not many left who have direct knowledge or experience of
WWI/WWII/Banana Wars, etc.

Sometimes.
But they are almost always more knowledgeable than the players think.

Are they knowledgeable about war? To some degree.

Are they MORE knowledgeable because they are rule writers? Probably.

Ed M. – I bet 80% of war is the same today as it's been for the last 200 years.

I bet 80% of war is the same today as it's been for the last 200 years.

Sword fighters, no matter the period or language, talk about tempo and measure. You want to fight at your measure, and inside the other guy's tempo.

In today's parlance, that's "at your range" and "inside the other guy's OODA loop." The rest is just detail.

As for the original question -- the answer is "not necessarily". My thought is the best designers need to know just enough about war to make it interesting, and more about how game mechanics interact.

And, yeah, I've hit the point where I play sci-fi when I want to play moderns.

I would say no.
There is a big difference between theory and actual combat.
The very fact we are talking about rules that suggest that war can be broken down into a sets of possible outcomes based upon tables and random chance is theory.

The Prussian General Helmuth von Moltke (the Elder)had two statements covering planning and real combat that could be extended to War by Rules: "No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main strength" (or "no plan survives contact with the enemy,") and "Strategy is a system of expedients."

Surely it depends on which individual rule writer we are talking about?

More importantly it depends on the level of combat you are thinking about. I know some vets. I have had some play in my tactical/skirmish WWII games. They were infantry vets and readily undersood the concepts presented. How much better would they create rules maneuvering Divisions and or Corps of which they had zero experience? How about in earlier periods of history? Everything is relative.

Thanks,

John

It depends what you actually mean, 'more knowledgeable' than whom and what about?

We all have personal experience which varies from one individual to the next. Ones own experience of violent conflict does not necessarily translate into an innate understanding of warfare over the last three thousand years although it may well translate into an understanding of how human beings and organisations operate under conditions of extreme stress.

An academic understanding of warfare from both a historical and a modelling/simulation perspective requires study. This is more a question of time and stamina than anything else.

So, in some cases e.g. a Professor of Military History is going to 'know' more about warfare than a 21 year old 2nd Lt, but their experience of it may be very different.

The answer to the OP is therefore 'it depends'.

"The Prussian General Helmuth von Moltke "

Von Moltke said a lot of things, including my favourite quote "Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified"

The point he was making was that late ninetenth century generals could influence the outcome of engagements, but principally through the initial layout and concept of operations. His experience of the APW where his 'subordinates' ignored, misinterpreted or went out of their way to disobey his orders somewhat coloured his judgement on the ability of Generals to control battles once they started.

This isn't really very different to Clausewitz who regarded forces committed as out of control, the General could only influence the deployment of reserves. If you don't have any reserves in the first place….

On the tabletop this tends to make for somewhat unsatisfactory games for the more control freak kind of player.

I will pre-emt Midpoint, and note that in most cases it would be helpful if they had a basic grasp of statistics and probability first.

they should need a good knowedge of military history, but a knowledge of war itself is only really relevant for skirmish level gaming.

above that level and it is tactics and outcomes which you need, not experience as a soldier, and that is what anyone living today would consider a knowledge of war.

amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics, soldiers discuss experiences – or something like that.

This depends on what we mean by "knowledge".

If OFM is referring to basic infantry tactics then knowledge is hardly necessary – all you would pick up is that infantry work is hot, heavy and most of the time you've no idea what's going on. Ok, so you can move a section from A to B, lay down fire in a particular area and know how to reload an SA80, or whatever….so what? That's doesn't really help with wargames rules.

At company and battalion level, (e.g. G2 or G3) – that experience helps a bit more I would suggest and as the wiser comments have noted its more to do with deployment, logistics and planning. Again not much help to wargames rules – many wargamers seem bored rigid by these aspects. Try getting a wargamer to mark a pre-game deployment map!!

Isn't it more to do with a good knowledge and understanding of military history (and yes that can certainly be assisted by previous military service) and, more importantly, how one transfers or perhaps more correctly "translates" that understanding/knowledge into a set of rules.

DB

What Martin Rapier said.

Actually the ones I know personally are extremely knowledgeable and do 'know their stuff'. Including some of the top writers of fantasy rules – it would be a mistake to assume that because they write for fantasy they don't know their history.

I'm a little less convinced by some of the more recent and more derivative arrivals (but I don't know them so how would I be able to judge?): case not proven

Phil

I think there is a need to understand 'mechanical' and also the reaction of the average soldier to combat. All too often with our helicopter view we forget just how circumscribed the perception is of the average soldier. The sheer confusion and noise of combat as an experience would be very useful. An understanding of how difficult it is to get ordinary people to do extaordinary things. Maybe even an insight into how much the reality differs from the movies. (There was a very nice piece on TMP about pacing out one hundred yards and seeing just how far this was..)

I think anyone who has had some experience of realising all battles are fought in bad weather, uphill at the junction of four maps, and that everyone on your own side is out to kill you, let alone the enemy, and that what to you seems obvious, is absolutely not for the next man along.. would write better rules.

I don't think they know more about war than veterans. At least those that haven't been there and done that.
I hope they've studyed the subject carefully.

Interestingly, some players seem to get their sense of "how things were" from the rules they play, so it makes sense that they imbue rules writers with more legitimacy than some of the respondents here.

No.

Yes

In the 1970's, when the "Ideal" war games rules were as long as possible, printed in the most ridiculously small fonts, and could have as many as 17 SEPARATE STEPS to firing one shot ("Tanktics"), and all the uncertainty/surprise/drama processed out of the game (Napoleonics rules being possibly the worst offenders), these rules were not written by combat veterans.

On the other hand, the frequently despised games ("beer & pretzels") of Featherstone and Brom came from men who saw years of severe combat at the front. They were also highly innovative in game mechanics which were "simple," but never "simplistic."

There's a lesson in here for those who want to look for it.

TVAG

I think they tend to be more knowledgeable about the period they are writing rules for. All rules are a compromise and in order to make that compromise you must know enough about your subject to know what compromises you can make. It is impossible to recreate real warfare on the tabletop so you have to know what HAS to be included and what can be ignored. Imagine the kind of rules your buddy would write about a period of which he only had general knowledge.

If you say that war is horror on an unconscionable level then you have a pretty good grasp (knowledge) of what war is.

I bet 80% of war is the same today as it's been for the last 200 years.

The methods might be different but the effect would be the same. We still use the teachings of Sun Tzu at the various military academies. So I'd agree with the above statement.

Veterans are almost certainly knowledgeable about war. Wargamers too if they take the time to do the proper research. In this day and age though? Probably not.

To answer the question as originaly framed:

More so than otherwise, apart from the exceptions and where prohibited by law.

This follows ineluctably from the general principle that "The higher, the fewer."

Of course, a horse that asks an ill-formed question is worth five in a bush.

All the best,

John.

I stand pre-empted.

John (OFM) you wound that up and let it go.

Most writers grew up watching tv shows, reading comic books and novels. Some were RPG players.

Which means they probably know more than the typical person.

The original question leaves it open as to who they are to be compared against so I've interpreted it as the average person. For sure, almost everyone who's tried to write a set of rules about warfare is more knowledgeable than the average person.

Does it mean they know what it really feels like to have someone shoot at you? Not a chance.