"Bias. Wargaming and you." Topic
28 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Wargaming in General Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase ArticleHow does coverbinding work?
Featured Workbench ArticleExploring picture generation using artificial intelligence.
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
Weasel | 22 Sep 2014 9:53 a.m. PST |
Bias in wargames can take many forms: A particular view of history, a slant towards one army or the other (Napoleonic French, WW2 Germans) or flavour text giving one army or faction more positive and heroic descriptions than another. What bias have you encountered that bothered you? If you're a writer/designer/pro-nerd, what bias do you recognize in your own work? Do you have philosophies you try to stick by that could be recognized as biased? My own takes on it and my philosophies for stuff I write:
1: I try to avoid jingoism and glorification. 2: Try to be somewhat sensitive to the fact that everyone comes from a different perspective. 3: No one historically thought they were the villains and people probably don't give a hoot about my stupid opinions. 4: Army ratings are stupid. 5: I sneak in a few extra soviets for the illustrations when no one is looking. 6: War is fundamentally horrible. Try to handle it with some respect. |
M C MonkeyDew | 22 Sep 2014 10:27 a.m. PST |
"Bias" is an interesting word. Google tells me that bias is "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair." Taking that apart: "prejudice in favor of or against one thing" is simply making a choice. I choose to use d6 instead of other dice. The second part is more vexing: "usually in a way that is considered to be unfair". As an author I do not think I have been deliberately unfair and have to wonder why someone writing wargames rules would be. Presumably any claim of bias in terms of slighting one thing in favor of another "in a way that is considered to be unfair" must come from an external source. |
Stryderg | 22 Sep 2014 10:51 a.m. PST |
I'm biased against people who believe fairness is a real thing. Especially when their definition of 'fair' differs from mine. |
doug redshirt | 22 Sep 2014 11:20 a.m. PST |
Any WWI games that has the BEF as the best army in 1914. So far from the truth. I actually rate them between the French and Belgians to be honest. |
Some Chicken | 22 Sep 2014 11:53 a.m. PST |
Well swap "AEF" for "BEF" and change the year to 1918 and the rest of the post sums it up for me! |
OSchmidt | 22 Sep 2014 12:11 p.m. PST |
Dear Weasel To answer your post. I must deal with my own bias' first. They are as I see them. 1.War Games has nothing to do with War. It has only a nodding acquaintance with history. This leads me to the general bias that ticks me off that anyone who says different is trying to sell you a bill of goods. This usually has somewhere in it the belief that they are an undiscovered military genius, a Cindernapoleon. I too think that I am an undiscovered military genius. But I don't believe it. Actually I know I couldn't lead a corporals guard across a ditch. 2.Wargames is a simple pleasurable past-time hobby with a huge craft -handiwork attached to it. I leave aside those things engaged in by nations and used with or instead of maneuvers. Nothing is proved in War Games, nothing is verified, it's all a working out of the prejudices and bias' of the rules writer. It's an excuse for friends to get together, laugh, joke, have a good time, get sozzled and have fun. It's not ending world hunger, rocket science, or a cure for cancer. This bias on my part leads me to a bias against all rule systems that have, like Napoleonics- "All French are +2>." 3. You learn NOTHING from war games. You learn from books which deal with real history, and what you get from games is simply the prejudices of the rules writer as to what he has put into the rules and what he has left out. The only thing you CAN learn from war games (hopefully) is how to be gracious, affable, and friendly in a social situation. Note I said hopefully. 4. War is utterly horrible. I hate it, I despise it. It does no one any good, and it only smashes lives, the environment, is a great waste of money and causes oceans of tears to fall into that great, deep dark sea of human misery. Nothing good comes out of it. I am not a pacifist however, and I believe this is a fallen world with many evil men who will scruple at nothing to smash their fellow men's lives, and these evil people must be battled and fought even by the use of the most terrible means which they would not scruple to use against us. Therfore -- war. This bias makes me hostile to revisionist and what-If history all of which tend to glorify and tantalize alternative possibilities with an allure they do not deserve. It's why I do most of my stuff in Imagi-Nations and ridiculous ones at that. I know that those ridiculous people will not do the moral evils the REAL ridiculous people did. 5. We are all in his hobby for fun. No one purposely does a bad job. They usually do the best they can. Therefore one of my pet peeves or bias' is against people who denigrate the modeling efforts or paint jobs of others. Everyone puts on the best they can or can afford. We have a handi-craft hobby many of which are highly talented in, others- not so much, but on the table top all paint jobs are equal. 7. "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not." I have a bias against people who do not like kids in war games. Kids are the life blood of the game. They have excitement and imagination that makes them eager to play and eager to enjoy. I often feel guilty for being like a vampire, gaining enjoyment and energy from being with young people. Children and young people have the energy and staminia in their furnaces where our own are banking low. Want to get energized in the hobby again – play with young kids, and realize you were once like them, and you can be again. 8. "Do not oppress the stranger and the soujourner in your midst, for you were once a stranger in the land of Egypt." I have a bias against people taking advantage of the newbie" in the group. People who use every bit of sharp practice on the new guy to win and take advantage of him. Like Children, such new people must be cherished, embraced, brought into the hobby and encouraged. People who say "we only want experienced gamers" or "we like the club the way it was." I have no patience with. It's a contradiction of my previous bias against people who don't want to be social or sociable. 9. When it comes to games I am a complete nominalist. I reject totally that the form and identity of this tank, that soldier, that unit has any connection to the real unit in history that it depicts. It is merely an object to which have been attached certain mathematical values pertinent ONLY to the game and meaningfull ONLY within the game. If I use Tiger Tanks as stand-in's for Mark III tanks in a game of Afrika corps, so long as they have the mathematical values for Mark III tanks, everything is fine. Actually as it's only a game, I don't even care if you use the values for Tiger Tanks. It's only a game. It's up to you to jiggle the values, game, situations. 10. All Simulations everywhere, any-time are frauds. Simulation is a buzz-word used by illusionists to make you think their rules are more accurate than other peoples rules. You can no more simulate war than you can love. |
Weasel | 22 Sep 2014 12:22 p.m. PST |
Oschmidt – sounds like sensible principles :) |
etotheipi | 22 Sep 2014 12:55 p.m. PST |
Oschmidt – sounds like sensible principles :) Funny, I thought it sounded like what he said it was … a list of his personal biases. A rather absolutist one, centered around his personal favourite type of wargame … "Imagi-Nations and ridiculous ones at that". For the record, the last wargame I ran yesterday at work (not leisure) was a simulation, was rocket science, based on a large amount of objective historical data, and we did learn something. This bit, however,
You learn NOTHING from war games. You learn from books which deal with real history, and what you get from games is simply the prejudices of the rules writer as to what he has put into the rules and what he has left out. is pretty funny. what you get from books is simply the prejudices of the historian as to what he has put into the text and what he has left out There, I fixed it for you. :) |
Weasel | 22 Sep 2014 1:17 p.m. PST |
Etotheipi – He has clearly defined ideas about his games, which informs what he creates. Seems sensible to me. They aren't mine and likely aren't yours, but he's aware of them. Make sense?
|
Green Tiger | 22 Sep 2014 1:27 p.m. PST |
I know this isn't the question but with regard to oscmidts comment that you learn nothing from wargames. I find wargaming is one of the best ways to visualize the progress of a historic battle. Also almost every armybin the world uses wargaming of some kind as an aid to strategy training for their officers. I know the games we play aren't really comparable but they are still wargames. |
OSchmidt | 22 Sep 2014 1:43 p.m. PST |
Etothepi and Green Tiger Weasel asked about Bias'. I told you mine fairly and forthrightly. I know my bias' and I know the mind set I play them under. Can you say the same? I also noted that I am speaking ONLY of the recreational wargame, NOT games run by the military for national defense. It is purely for personal pleasure. As such there is a completely different ethic and taxonomy and teleology to it. As for my principles being absolutist-- yup! They are. Gathered in a lifetime of experience in the world and in the hobby. You may not like them, but then-- we are talking about bias' aren't we. It's not Imagi-Nations only- You can play any game you want, historical or not. I prefer them simply because we can then concentrate on the game, rather than the delusions of historical minutia.
The game is a game and that is it. Nothing more. |
ubercommando | 22 Sep 2014 3:04 p.m. PST |
Over the many years I've been gaming I've encountered all kinds of biases people have: These rules are better than those, those rules are no good, I won't play this game because it doesn't have a rule for X, or the board is incorrect, or it rates these troops as elite when they were not, or they don't include this army and so on. It can get to the point where the hobby no longer defines itself by what it does, rather than what people involved do not want to do. I'm by nature quite a positive person which means I'll play pretty much anything that's put in front of me. There are exceptions but I can count them on the fingers of one hand (Rapid Fire and Napoleon's Battles have never given me a satisfying gaming experience). However, it's the biases of others that can ruin things (such as making the French way too powerful in Napoleon's Battles). Sometimes, when making some house rules to apply to a game, I try to strip out the more overt biases the designers have put in (I went back and changed things for infantry in WRG 1925-1950 because it was obvious that a rules set designed by tankies was guilty of treating infantry with contempt). While I don't think I'm too biased, I do have preferences which function as mild biases I suppose: I like my WW2 and modern games to have a 1=1 figure and vehicle ratio (I'm not a big fan of operational level WW2 games…I have boardgames that fulfil that function) and my Napoleonic units to be at battalion level but other than that I'll go along with the flow and I put up with the biases of others for the sake of a harmonious club atmosphere. Life's too short to be having heated debates about the quality of the Middle Guard. |
John Leahy | 22 Sep 2014 8:59 p.m. PST |
I would humbly suggest that wargames can provide some insight into various historical conflicts. Some probably better than others. Do they make it feel like real warfare? Nope. But they can provide players some insights at various levels of command/play. I once read that to get a true feel for combat you'd need to be cold, hungry have little sleep while standing in a hole partially filled with water while playing. Thanks, John |
Glengarry5 | 22 Sep 2014 9:48 p.m. PST |
I was always bothered by the assumption that Russian infantry in the Napoleonic wars were primitive brained robots incapable of operating in skirmish order, even jager regiments. It wasn't until recently that I read that I was right all along and the Russians could skirmish and that even the militia was expected to field skirmishers! |
etotheipi | 22 Sep 2014 9:59 p.m. PST |
He has clearly defined ideas about his games, which informs what he creates. Seems sensible to me.They aren't mine and likely aren't yours, but he's aware of them. I told you mine fairly and forthrightly. I know my bias' and I know the mind set I play them under. Can you say the same? I am pretty sure I in no way said OSchmidt wasn't entitled to his opinions. But I still reserve the right to disagree with the absolutist positions. I noticed OSchmidt didn't defend what I considered to be a gross (and rather emphatic) overgeneralization that NOTHING is learned from wargames, and also that learning from books was somehow not limited by the same issues of inclusion and omission. To add to his contradiction of the NOTHING that can be learned from wargames (how to be gracious, affable, and friendly in a social situation), I would say you could learn strategy, how the effects of actions carry forward in time, the danger (and uncomeliness) of analysis paralysis, cooperation, when to trust others and when not to, how to make risk managed decision, the relative effects of speed and range on combat, the advantages of C2 or intel, and … well … a thousand other things. Wargames run by nations as a part of their defense strategy (and others run by governmental organizations, like Police, for other operations analysis purposes which you omitted, but I would assume you would actually include in your exclusion) are not the only ones from which people can learn. Educational institutions, at all levels, are probably the largest group that use wargames for instruction and research/investigation. Corporations also do so as well as individuals. I think this misconception that the only domains in which wargames operate are purely personal recreation and nation-state military training/analysis is one of your (unacknowledged) biases. As far as my own, I like to think that I am aware of most of them, but acknowledging the existence of bias blind spot, wouldn't assert that I know all my own biases. Incidentally, BBS is something that I am aware of a non-military project using wargaming, and other modalities, to mitigate. |
Early morning writer | 22 Sep 2014 10:05 p.m. PST |
relating to OScmidt's #7: this past Saturday I was touring a model railroad exhibit and watching a young boy about four and his extraordinary excitement waiting to see the train come out of a tunnel, running from one aisle to another. My comment to his mom, " I may not look it but I'm excited as he is." Few things in life are better than retaining, as best we can, the unabashed and fresh joy of a child. It is easy for me to find with trains. Not so easy to find amongst wargamers. I can find it at home by myself when I sit back and admire a freshly painted and complete unit (has nothing to do with the quality of the paint job – NOTHING!) or a new piece of terrain but always seems more elusive around gamers. Though not impossible, we have a pretty cool group locally. |
Weasel | 22 Sep 2014 11:02 p.m. PST |
Sure, I wasn't assigning you any motives. This is kind of the point of the discussion though: If the author is clear about their goals and views, then you have a much better chance of judging whether their game is going to be of value to you and how. Same reason I think games should outline their design principles somewhere in the rules. |
ochoin | 23 Sep 2014 2:54 a.m. PST |
"1: I try to avoid jingoism and glorification" I don't want to make ridiculous claims for wargaming as some sort of social panacea but I do think the opportunity to take both sides in an historical conflict enables one to gain a measure of balance. I've never met a Zulu in person nor travelled to South Africa but the process of reading, researching, creating a Zulu army & gaming the conflict (as British or Zulu player) has afforded me some insight into the historical warrior culture. Again, I wouldn't want to get carried away but: cognoscere est intelligere. |
Martin Rapier | 23 Sep 2014 3:45 a.m. PST |
" I once read that to get a true feel for combat you'd need to be cold, hungry have little sleep while standing in a hole partially filled with water while playing." Clausewitz observed much the same thing about the performance of armies in the field vs performance on exercises. The 'privations of war' have a huge influence on what is actually achievable. I would humbly submit that I disagree with the assertion that nothing can be learned from wargames, or any sort of gaming. It would make all those disaster planning exercises we do a little pointless, and I am sure Guderian would agree that it was a complete waste of time wargaming the Meuse crossings beforehand so all he had to do was change the dates on the orders for the real thing. 'Bias' is an interesting one. If there is statistical proof that e.g. weapons in anti tank mounts generate 2.5 times as many kills as the identical weapons in AFV mounts, are we wrong to rate 2 AT guns as equivalent in firepower to five tanks? If the summary of fifty 1944 battalion sized tank vs tank engagements indicates that the Germans had a roughly 20% edge in combat outcomes, are we wrong to give the Germans +1? You can take issue with the source data and analysis of course, which is one of the fun things with historical research. Especially when the 'historical data' consists of a few pot shards and accounts written hundreds of years after the event. Rating troops is of course fraught with difficulty, all you can really do is look out the outcomes and extrapolate the relative combat effectiveness. However if 25,000 Frenchmen beat 40,000 Austrians, are the French really 1.5 times as good as the Austrians, or is it all down to the Corsican Ogre being worth 40,000 men on the battlefield:) |
Weasel | 23 Sep 2014 9:07 a.m. PST |
Martin – Maybe they just rolled well that day? :) If there's real-world evidence to support a given rating, then it's not really bias. I'd say a bias would be granting bonuses out of proportion to real-world results or from personal preference or ideology. Even the French-Panzer-Grenadier-Old-Roman-Guard-Marines lost battles after all. For troop ratings its very problematic though since in some cases, we're basing it off only a few encounters, particularly as you go back in time. Did they actually shoot more accurately or did their commander put them in positions where their fire would matter more? (see any discussion on Italians in WW2 pretty much). That's before getting into straight up mythology as well. |
Clays Russians | 23 Sep 2014 11:38 a.m. PST |
War, horrible hellish thing, what got to me most was the smell, if you know what I mean then my point ends here, I love toy soldiers and intend to play with mine until I keel over by a well timed stroke, relighting Perryville or the Alma River. Otto seems to have valid points,…… That's fine, no game tho, will EVER replicate that feeling of fumbling for a fresh magazine while under fire….. |
Clays Russians | 23 Sep 2014 11:39 a.m. PST |
BTW, I really dig Imperial Russians from any period from GNW to 1850. |
etotheipi | 23 Sep 2014 12:26 p.m. PST |
" I once read that to get a true feel for combat you'd need to be cold, hungry have little sleep while standing in a hole partially filled with water while playing." As a Surface Warfare Officer in the US Navy I don't remember any of that from combat … :) we're basing it off only a few encounters This is one of the biggest challenges, and in wargaming, I think it is related to a cognitive bias called Fundamental Attribution Error. FAE is when you attribute things to disposition in some cases and situation in others without a well-defined rationale for the choice. The classic exemplar for FAE is you tripped because you are a klutz (disposition) and I tripped in the same spot because the sidewalk is in bad repair (situation). In most real world situations, outcomes are actually effected by a complex interaction of a large number of both dispositional and situational factors. When developing games, I consider the stats (quantification of individual unit performance) and the scenario (context that influences how decisions are made) separately. That doesn't mean that I necessarily feel I have the "perfect" balance … just that I am aware of those things when I put stuff together. Related to that topic and what is in or out of a scenario, I once got negative feedback on a Tannenburg 1914 scenario because I didn't put enough detail into the combat statistics, which explicitly wasn't the point of the game. |
Weasel | 23 Sep 2014 1:19 p.m. PST |
Interesting and appreciate your post Etotheipi (btw, what the balls does your screen name mean?) Your comment about your scenario might bring up reader bias as well. Your reviewer seems to have expected something other than what he/she was told they were getting and decided to stick by what they wanted despite maybe not being reasonable. |
etotheipi | 23 Sep 2014 2:00 p.m. PST |
what the balls does your screen name mean? E to the i pi? My online identity is stolen. It's actually Euler's Identity. It's related to my game LLC, Irrational Number Line Games as it has two (important) irrational numbers (transcendental ones, to boot) in it. But I like to think of it like this. Depending on my mood, it is pronounced "the negative one". :) reader bias As a writer, I can only state my goal and describe my approach to that goal. I wrestle with how and how often to describe my rationale. I try to figure out where and when it would help. F'r'ex, I doubt that six pages of non-parametric discrete analysis of the dice patterns would help (or convince) anyone of anything. But in the Allenstein scenario above, I describe what effects and issues the game is designed to address, and leave both sides with the same combat stats for their units. |
(Phil Dutre) | 23 Sep 2014 2:01 p.m. PST |
I think there is an inherent bias in many wargaming rules. Many rulesets are inspired based on the historical record ( and throw in some movies) written by western historians. Especially in e.g. Colonial warfare, I doubt that a ruleset written from a point of view of the Zulus would result in the same game as a ruleset written from the point of view of the British. That is not to say the result of a game would be different. But the bias is hidden in the game mechanics and the way the game is structured. |
OSchmidt | 24 Sep 2014 11:55 a.m. PST |
Dear Phil But Phil, is that important? Agreed to your points for the sake of argument but let me make the following caveats. 1. IN WARGAMES (that is the recreational form we engage in, regardless of the "bias" of the histories wouldn't the game have to come up with the same results? That is in any battle the results TEND to produce the historical result. For example, Regardless of the point of view, the results of Ulundi should be achievable and likely? That is IF you are going to assert that you "can learn history from games." On the other hand if you produce a game where magical incarnations and charms an protect the warriors from bullets or destroy the British at a distance, then that certainly doesn't match historty. For my own self, and my "absolutist bias'" a game like that would be no problem. Remember, as a nominalist it doesn't matter what values you attach to the objects we call soldiers, the game is the game is the game. But if you are going to be a realist about it, then yes the values have to match and therefore the results in the game, regardless of the bias of the players or designers should be able to produce the historical result. We can argue as etiothepi does on the bias of historians, but that's an irrelevant argument. His argument is valid only in academia or in determining the "narrative" of history and irrelevant to a game, where we can do what we wish. Thus Monopoly is in no way a realistic depiction of the real-estate business, nor the game of "Life" of Life. You are correct there is bias in many wargaming rules (as there is in history) but one mans bias is anothers truth, and while this may be important in history or in the narrative, in games it's another story. Remember I 'm not making the argument from realism. But if you ARE going to make that argument, then in the need to justify the "bias'" of a specific set of rules you have to justify the "bias'" of the historical books backing it up, and once you touch that rhird rail--… But the question in this whole thread as Weasel pennid it, isn't really a justification or refutation of history and that isn't really bias. Bias really is something more like an "unjustified opinion" or believing in something that is obviously not true… no? |
etotheipi | 24 Sep 2014 12:40 p.m. PST |
For my own self, and my "absolutist bias'" a game like that would be no problem. Remember, as a nominalist it doesn't matter what values you attach to the objects we call soldiers, the game is the game is the game. There is a difference between "I am not interested in learning anything from a wargame" and "You learn NOTHING from war games". Regardless of the point of view, the results of Ulundi should be achievable and likely? Achievable? Certainly. Likely? Not necessarily. The fact that something happened doesn't mean it was the most likely outcome of the situation. We can argue as etiothepi does on the bias of historians I didn't argue anything about the bias of historians. I simply pointed out the contradiction in your assertion that wargames are influenced by what the designers put in or don't and that books are therefore inherently better. I asserted that books are subject to the same flaw you attribute to wargames. That is neither an argument about the bias of historians or an assertion about realism in wargames. Bias really is something more like an "unjustified opinion" or believing in something that is obviously not true Completely agree. That's why I thought it was relevant to point out the bias in your statement "You learn NOTHING from war games". It appeared to me to be based in your preference for silly ImagiNations. Nothing wrong with that. I simply didn't agree that your preference for not wanting to learn from wargames meant that nobody else can learn anything from them. |
|