"Wargaming psychology" Topic

Has anyone noted wargamers who seem to slip into character?

I'll start with an example …

A very large Napoleonic game with 4 players a side. We'll call the sides Red and Blue. No names or specifics to avoid embarrassment.

Historically, Blue should have won, but didn't due to serious errors on the day.

Before the game starts, the Blue team discuss their strategy. They are the attackers and have the advantage of hindsight. They formulate a plan.

However, when it comes to laying out the figures, Blue-Leader (whose every word must be obeyed) discards the agreed plan and proceeds as things were on the day, on the grounds that 'we'll win anyway' (This is exactly what was said, historically!).

The Blue attack goes in and is destroyed in exactly the same as it was historically. Blue-Leader won't listen and continues to reinforce failure.

On the Blue flank however, the player there uses sound tactics and common sense (noticeably absent on the day), to crush the Red flank. Blue can roll up the entire Red line with ease. He has the opportunity to reverse not only the course of history, but the entire course of European history.

He pleads for artillery and masses of reserve cavalry, both of which sit idle. But is refused.

By this time, Blue-Leader is really channelling his historical namesake, refusing to listen and blaming the weather, the sun, the moon, just about anything as Blue goes down to defeat.

What's the point of refights anyway, unless you depart from what happened?

I suppose if you get the wrong result off the same plan, you have a problem with your rules.

My mama always used to say "stupid is as stupid does …"

War would be very different if always waged dispassionately, logically, and analytically, but overconfidence, insecurity and self-interest influence every battle and campaign. Wargaming is no different.

War is the province of chance, etc, etc, etc,—Clausewitz

Years ago we were playing a Napoleonic "engagement campaign" making moves on a map until contact, There were three Allied armies, Russian, Prussian, and Austrians vs Napoleon and the French ==1813-1814. I controlled the Austrian forces and was voted supreme commander.
I gave express orders to the other two allied commanders to NOT engage until we had all united on the map.
To make a long story short --A French force came upon my rear guard --that I believed to be just an advance guard or small corp. I engaged, I engaged more, I engaged more --things heated up and we had a wee of a battle raging -- at what I thought was a chance to give a slight bloody nose to the enemy????
Not until Napoleon showed up on the opposite ridge with the entire guard, full heavy cavalry reserve, and the entire French army did I become aware of my major blunder!!!!
I was damnably mauled ---- just in trying to disengage took severe losses !!
In the end we were sorely beaten and to this day I am blamed (rightfully so)for this loss.
Great fun it was though and it gives you a sense of getting battle lust?

Russ Dunaway

I used to read in Ye Olde Courier about gamers who were shunned and banned because they didn't follow the standard tactical doctrine for their army at that time.
That puzzled me. How else does doctrine evolve?
Luckily, I wasn't in one of those groups. The kind of group that would give you a quiz to see if you were worthy. A typical question would be "What does Stellenbosched mean?"
That would have put me off gaming for certain.

My experience with wargamers has been the opposite. To me they seem to usually reflect their own personality rather the historical character they are playing on the wargame table. Maybe I just haven't ran into the Blue Leader yet.

As a person who usually plays French and usually looses its refreshing to hear that other French players have lost, even if not so religiously as myself.

Damnedably mauled, I know it well. But I like the battle lust thing.

And by the way, most of my French figures, who are usually on the receiving end of these damnedable maulings, are Old Glory 15s. Many years and many fun games with them, (damnedable maulings not withstanding), for which I thank you very much Mr. Dunaway!

John

"Playing in character" when asked to is fine.
But there are/were many like this, to whom winning is everything and no hint of emotional success consoles them; left them in the dust years ago.
Many a games rule 'system' promoted such behaviour, again left in the dirt.

I used to run big multiplayer ACW games a lot. I deliberately assigned players to specific commands/sectors/roles based on personality traits, to help engineer the course of events I wanted. This only works with gaming comrades of long association, but it really does work, much better than victory conditions or orders or briefings.

I used to play with a guy that channeled George McClellan. He would take forever to assemble his troops on the table in just the perfect formation to attack. As soon as he got hit he would hunker down and demand more troops.

Problem was he did this no matter what era we were playing, not just ACW.

I remember a WWII game I was in (back in the late 70s maybe, using 1st edition WRG 1925 – 50. The CinCs were in different rooms and we could phone (or radio), I can't remember which. We had a British infantry company and some supporting armour. I was in command of the Company's Universal Carrier platoon.

My orders were to occupy a hill and wait for further orders. I thought, "screw that, that hill will definitely be a target for an artillery barrage." So I took my carriers around behind the hill and advanced up to hide behind a wood. The hill was duly struck by a pre-planned artillery bombardment. I was then ordered to move off the hill. I had made the 'right' choice but I've always had a pang of guilt that I didn't follow my orders so I sort of undermined the set up of the game.

Cheers,
John

Probably should have been "Wargamer psychology"- as it's not the 'hobbies' fault, but the perpetrators of it.
d