Cuchulainn | 15 Aug 2014 4:30 a.m. PST |
I seem to recall a clip in the movie Midway, at least I'm pretty sure it's that film, which has the Japanese playing a wargame based on the forthcoming battle. This got me wondering just how much complexity is in a "real" wargame, ie a wargame run by the military to try to guage the outcome of a planned operation? I find most modern (not modern era) rules boring, tedious, humourless and horribly complicated! So would the military go for something like those, or would they opt for a much simplier system? I'm sure there are people here who will have taken part in wargames when serving in the armed forces. |
MajorB | 15 Aug 2014 4:36 a.m. PST |
You can find out for yourself here. There are several military wargame rules available. link |
epturner | 15 Aug 2014 4:45 a.m. PST |
Depends. The complexity and level of the operation make a difference. Are you doing a detailed COA analysis? They can be just as painful as WRG 7th edition. Or not. I just finished P Res AOC at the Canadian Army Command and Staff College and the process for our exercises was no different than many other wargames I've played. And there was always one or two people you just wanted to strangle… Eric |
David Manley | 15 Aug 2014 4:55 a.m. PST |
I've been involved in writing and taking part in a few. They range from absurdly simple to mind blowingly complex, immense fun to tedious, two player to large teams. So as diverse as our own recreational types :) |
Martin Rapier | 15 Aug 2014 5:08 a.m. PST |
As above, there is a huge variation, from mind bogglingly complex to very simple. One of my pals who did (and still does) get paid to do this stuff for real wrote a set of rules to run Divisional scale CPX type games for BAOR on two sides of A4. For when the computer broke, which was quite often. One thing they are notable for is a complete absence of movement rules, as everyone knew how long it took to move a battle group from point X to point Y. One advantage of playing with trained officer and staffs. The manual rules also didn't allow officers who were CompSci graduates to unlock the tactical nuclear weapons, unlike the computer simulation. Lots of interesting ideas in military games, and for many you really don't need a huge staff of assistant umpires to assist. |
Lou from BSM | 15 Aug 2014 5:11 a.m. PST |
As David said…. from simple to God awful In my active duty days (Navy Submariner) we would constantly engage in war games that ranged anywhere from 1:1 Hunter-Killer scenarios to multi unit, multi national events. The most simple involved us putting out to sea and staging in a small area of water with orders to intercept and engage anything that ventured into our box. Another event was so complex that by the time it was all said and done, the charts looked like a two year old went crazy with an etch-a-sketch. |
Frederick | 15 Aug 2014 5:47 a.m. PST |
Agreed that real wargames run a wide spectrum – and the military are not the only ones who run them. There is a small but brisk industry in the DC area "wargaming" for industry, which really involves developing simulations to evaluate different corporate strategies One of the most interesting ones I am aware of was the "Dark Winter" exercise simulating a bioterrorist attack on the US homeland – it went totally off the rails |
Dynaman8789 | 15 Aug 2014 6:40 a.m. PST |
Some of our Commercial board games are (or were) military games as well. Tac Air from Avalon Hill was one. Steel Beasts (computer sim) is in use with some countries as a simulator. There is at least one other one I forgot… |
etotheipi | 15 Aug 2014 7:39 a.m. PST |
Agree with the above. Also, the simple ones are the most complex ones (you have to actually think) and the complex ones are the simplest ones (lots of stuff constrained). YMMV |
OSchmidt | 15 Aug 2014 8:24 a.m. PST |
Dear Etotheipi Agreed. It works both ways in recreational war games or "real" war games, that is war games by people who make war. Complex games really form nothing more than the "walls of the maze" into which the mice (gamers) are pitched to try and find the piece of cheese. There's only one way through, and either the mice get it or they don't but it really winds up being just a tale told by the rules. Complex games tend to be governed by what you know. That is know of the rules. Simple games on the other hand are far more complex because to continue the metaphor, you don't even know if there IS a piece of cheese to be gotten, or if you are in a maze at all, and what the paths are. Further you are unconstrained by the rules so therefore you throw much of the course of action and the choices on the players, not only to make the choices but to come up with the choices on their own! You wouldn't believe how ingenious people can be when they have to. |
Rudysnelson | 15 Aug 2014 8:51 a.m. PST |
As a military/ Army officer, I engaged in a lot of 'Wargames' during the 1970s and 1980s. I am referring to staff wargames rather than tactical excercises which combat units were required to conduct once a year and many times prior to the tests in preporation of the ARTEP test. Individual soldiers also participated in numerous skill proficiency tests. At the battalion and Brigade levels there were a number of combined map and tactical tests. All of these were real time tests so could drag out for several days when the use of supplies and replacement factors were used. The games were scripted with pre-determined winners to force specific units to conduct various operations including field re-supply, advances. withdrawals and position consolidation after a tactical HQ location change. At the Division and Corp level there were a number of excercises conducted on an annual basis as well. I was assigned to the First Cavalry division which was mainly used as a concept testing division (DRS). In fact for several years, we had one brigade with 4 tanks per platoon in its Armor battalions (3rd) ; one brigade had 3 tanks per platoon and one had the traditional 5 tanks per platoon. At the end of the tests the 2nd Brigade was disbanded and its tanks used to fill the slots in the 3rd Brigade. How detailed were they? Very, as I said initial actions were often based on real time with later spcific situations may have time telescope scenarios /prompts used. |
Dye4minis | 15 Aug 2014 9:29 a.m. PST |
I've participated in about 30 iterations of a Command Post Exercise/ Computer Assisted Exercise (CPX/CAX) and they can be really an awesome training tool to test Battalion and Brigade Staffs. We used the old Janius system with workstations. They can also have some fun/humorus times as well! To hide in plain sight an IED, we used an icon of a red cow (red for "unfriendlies") that displayed "IED" on it's side! You could only see it if you questioned why a cow would appear on your screen in any other color but orange (for "unknown"). We had one set of computers that had a flaw in a particular vehicle. When you loaded up the VERA with troops, there was always one icon that just would not mount up- yet, the count loaded included him. When the loaded VERA moved, this little icon of a soldier seemed to run along side of his truck! We used to look forward to who got Sgt, Schnell! I sue would like to see someday a H-Con with a working Janius system up and running and a few guys running a scenario, complete with role players and scenario injects for the average gamer! I think we would see a whole new series of rules come out for miniature games! The difficulties of command and control has never really been addressed in any game I have played for miniatures. The time it takes to get subordinate units to move/act in the age of radios is not very quick….so imagine what it must have been like in the age of horses? Best Tom |
COL Scott ret | 15 Aug 2014 10:37 a.m. PST |
Like several others who have clearly beaten me to the LD I ahve been involved in multiple Wargames (Tactical Exercises Without Troops) as well as multiple field exercises where the troops get out and react to the orders and the OPFOR (Oposing Force). From battalion to army level, there are big differences as you would expect. Most have been computer simulations, although I have also seen miniatures and paper and map exercises. Other than force on force field exercises the main reasons are to practice command and control or plan an operation. As a matter of fact the term "wargaming" in the military usually refers to validating which of several concepts would work best to accomplish the mission given. It always seemed to me that not everyone had as much fun with military wargames as I did. And they do seem to regularly demonstrate how difficult it is to make something hapen fast on the battlefield. A standard rule of thumb that is taught is to give your subordinates 2/3 of the time remaining to allow them to read, understand, digest, and issue an order to their subordinates. Who have to have time to prepare and perhaps even to issue orders to lower levels. Time is the biggest tool and everything takes time because Soldiers lives are at stake. That being said while I did enjoy the military wargames the ones that really model command and control would be less than fun to most civilians becasue of the inevitable delay from concept to execution. Non-military gamers seem to want to think and execute every action immediately with no lag time, and as this is hobby not career that is fine. |
Pedrobear | 15 Aug 2014 4:01 p.m. PST |
My favourite military wargame anecdote… About 20 years ago our military had a rather detailed computer simulation that allowed you to go down to the individual infantryman and his equipment. Someone found that that an infantryman's LOS actually extended from his equipment too. The result is that the "gamers" started having their infantrymen lay the equipment down along the roads so they can cover a larger area: helmets. weapons, clothing… You basically had naked men running around the countryside. |
Dynaman8789 | 16 Aug 2014 5:52 a.m. PST |
Pedro – since the idea was for them to learn something, cheating in that manner could be considered there "LOS". (sorry, been reading the Master and Commander book series lately and it features bad puns from time to time) |
etotheipi | 16 Aug 2014 4:32 p.m. PST |
cheating in that manner Sometimes it is hard to get all the players to keep their heads in the game. In a naval wargame with ships underway, the reality and requirements of safe navigation, ensuring communications, avoiding random boats and aircraft that wander through the area, routine maintenance including logistics, running the engineering plant, the commander being responsible for the safety of both the ships playing good guys and bad guys, and the possibility of actual non-participant observers (as well as dozens of other routine activities) tends to draw peoples' attention to the real world rather than the posited one. |