"Luck Versus Chutzpah" Topic

No, it's not the name of Howard Whitehouse's new ruleset (though it should be)…

So, rather than saying a game "depends on luck", I have usually looked at it as a game "rewards high-risk high-reward" strategies. Or, as they said back in the day, "Fortune favors the Bold". (Which should also be the title of a set of Whitehouse rules…)

This year is the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Tannenberg in the Eastern Front at the beginning of of WWI. Two parts of the main German strategy at the beginning of the war were:

* Play the Odds – Send an overwhelming force to the Western Front for a quick victory.

* Take a Risk – Leave the 8th Army by itself to stave off a vastly numerically superior Russian force.

One of those strategies paid off, the other … not so much.

Play the odds is the preferred tactic of former peacetime career officers, and leaders of coalitions.

Take a risk-is preferred by very successful battle commanders and desperate fools.

The first will insure a long and deadly war, and a comfortable retirement.

The second will lead to historical fame, and the envy of people who play the odds, who will get you when peacetime comes, if you aren't already dead.

Wargames are similar. Play the odds leads to really long games, and attritional success.

Take a chance leads to quick games, and win or lose-you buy the drinks afterwards. If you win, it was the dice, not skill or risk taking courage, if you lose, you were a fool, so you must buy.

wrong

Anything specific, or just the whole universe is "wrong"?

Don't quibble Etotheipi , the man has declared all before on the thread as being wrong. He is obviously earnest in his belief and cannot possibly be wrong. Please bow before his incisive declaration ( and lack of a sense of humor). This sort of definitive statement, if accepted, could greatly shorten threads on TMP.

Everything you stated in your post is wrong, backwards even. So I'm hardly surprised at your reply.

Right!

Unlike Dan 055 I shall qualify.

It is true that the guy that plays the odds will have long but boring games. However, the crafty risk taker will be able to take advantage of the methodical gamer. Often the guy that plays the odds is also short sighted on the more qualitative strategies.

While playing a massed battle game, a friend of mine (who is analytical) started to make a move to attack a unit's flank. He then discovered that his move could not be made in 1 turn so he decided against it. There is still value in threatening an enemy with a flank move. Some times it is a powerful move. It does require thinking ahead several moves. Risk takers will often also think outside the box.

Thanks for the comments.

I'm not sure that just playing the odds is as dull as it is being portrayed. Playing the odds with a strategy that thinks several moves ahead and uses deception to try to draw the enemy into a vulnerable position can be very exciting as well.

So, I think both styles of play have their benefits, though I agree with the comments that they are different types of engagement by the player in the game.

God knows when I get to play Somali Warband #3, I play them like a bunch of untrained idiots with automatic weapons who have seen too much television and movie violence.

YMMV and EATHPIW (everything above this post is wrong).

I thought the post was off base enough that I wanted to show my disagreement. But since short answers seem to be an offence…

I totally disagree that closing your eyes and taking a chance has any chance of turning out well. The truly successful generals are those who know their craft and plan carefully. Since suprise is such an important element of tactical planning, chosing something unexpected – and then PLANING to make sure it works, has the greatest chance of success. This is not the same thing.

Claiming "playing the odds" is a losers policy means you don't know how real war works.

Which means I also have to disagree with This Joker. If I outnumber you 3 to 1 on one section of the battlefield and simply charge, creating an quick, intense and exciting game – how does this create a long and boring one?

I totally disagree that closing your eyes and taking a chance

I don't think anyone said, "close you eyes and take a chance".

The example of leaving the 8th Army behind to secure the Eastern Front was a deliberate act of a high-risk strategy. It's success required a lot of luck. The Germans ended up with several significant tactical advantages that combined to lead to the success of the strategy. But really only one of them was predictable (the Russians would slow when they ran out of rail transport), and that one alone wasn't sufficient to allow the Germans to rout them.

Claiming "playing the odds" is a losers policy

Again, I'm not sure how you get that from my post. From the title on, the OP is about contrasting the view of people who play low-odds strategies in wargames as "lucky" with that as "risk takers".

I'm afraid earnestness often seems to miss a bit of whimsy. That's rather like playing the odds often misses opportunities. Often the apparent odds are not what they are perceived.

McClellan thought he was outnumbered in every battle…..he wasn't.

Eisenhower, leading a coalition, opted for a broad front, a play the odds strategy (which eventually won) versus the pleas of Patton, or, for that matter, Monty that wanted to try a bolder stroke. Patton had some success in this regard, Monty did not at Arnhem.

Custer was rewarded for his Brashness in the ACW, and died of it at Little Big Horn.

Napoleon flourished on bold strokes flummoxing by the numbers types such as General Mack.

Grant and Sherman certainly were not by the numbers guys and took great risks and succeeded.

Real war works in a lot of different ways. Planning is always wise, but planners have a tendency to become plodders, which is why great generals who plan well, but also are prepared to take risks and step out side the safe zone are rare, and career officers patiently pushing papers and guarding against failure more than looking for victory, are so common.

As in any business or career there are always a lot more people playing what they perceive to be the safe odds, than there are creative, risk takers, with good planning skills that step outside the box.

The greatest threat to a military force is usually peacetime, and the degradation of command abilities, and the rise of "administrators" who are good socializers, and know how to manage up. Whenever a war starts the first six months is usually spent getting rid of those guys, and finding the type of officer that can accept risk.

That Viet Nam, and to some extent the extended mash-up in Iraq after the initial take-over, were so awful may be largely traced to this. See Thomas J. Ricks, "The Generals".

To judge by most wargame rules, until fairly recently, many a wargamer was a better accountant, and paper pusher, not to mention rules lawyer and, certainly, risk adverse to the extreme. (" No attack! I can't get to 3-1 on the CRT!")

Custer was rewarded for his Brashness in the ACW, and died of it at Little Big Horn.

This is my new favourite military history quote.

many a wargamer was a better accountant, and paper pusher, not to mention rules lawyer

This is one of the things I like about my QILS rules. It is easy to get a general feel for the odds, but hard to know them for certain. And there's only like a (two-sided) page of rules.