"Wargaming: The Challenges of Preconceptions" Topic

"Imagine that inevitable moment, usually with a mug or a glass in hand, that someone I've just met asks me what I do for a living. It used to be so simple. "Oh, I'm in the army", I'd say, listening out for any excuse to talk enthusiastically and at length about tanks in my interrogator's reply. Now, though, I have to think a bit harder, largely about how patient I'm feeling. Because when they hear I work in wargaming, everybody brings their bias. Whether they just can't see the value or are entertained by the notion of adults playing games at work (particularly with polyhedral dice), it's very rare to meet someone who accepts the idea at face value. And the reasons why are all about preconceptions…"

Main page

link

Armand

One wonders why it is important what others think? I have been in this hobby as an enthusiast, a game retailer and worked with the industry trade association over the last five decades. I assure you that the only opinions of others that matter are the ones that any of us allow to matter. It is not necessary for me to have the approval or understanding of anyone to justify or enjoy my hobbies.

Anyone who asks me, I tell them I play with toy soldiers. Let them think what they will. After they get over the shock, and ask me further questions, then I elaborate on the subject.

but I'm not quite cynical enough to believe that most managers are more interested in their own reputation than in the success of their organisation.

This flows quite naturally from the statement that the author doesn't have much experience in the business sphere. Unless you're a small business (in which case you're an entreprenuer or an owner) in business there is often not direct and simple correlation between performance of a manager and organizational success. The fact that we perpetuate this myth further entrenches the fear of being "shown" to be less than perfect.

[My organization] is successful, therefore, I am good at [my job]. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

This is part of the overall pathology of resistance to change (as opposed to the pathology of changing for change's sake). I'm not drowning right now so I don't need to learn to swim.

As with many "innovative" business solutions, there is often a perception that wargaming is something of a dark art, only to be practiced by an anointed few and within strict rules and limitations. Well, it's really not. Yes, there are some real Master Craftsmen (so far, the vast majority are men, but that's changing) out there with decades of expertise, but most businesses don't need an exquisitely crafted masterpiece

Back from worrying over words (are we afraid to say we will crush or even kill the competition?), I would love to talk to the author about upping the ante and wargaming cyber as one of the tools in your job.

In the cyber realm, you actually do need a "red team" with some exotic knowledge. But, in the spirit of looking the wrong way about things, it's not really the deep technical knowledge of IT; it's knowledge of criminal business processes. It's basically the same as the author discusses the need to understand a competitor's business process. Criminals are a type of competitor in your business space.

It's really the same in the military environment. The details of the specific technologies involved are not of no value, but it is of less value than understanding your adversary's intent to subvert your mission. Just like kinetic engagement, your enemy's weapons and munitions are important, but you should focus most of your time engaging their strategy and tactics.

What Doug MSC said made me think. Are the props that many of us use for gaming really "toy soldiers"? When I think of that term it calls to mind the plastic Marx sets that I used to get back in the 1960's when I was a kid (yes – dating myself I know). What I game with now are different somehow to my mind. I see them as highly detailed and researched historical models very distinct from the solid blue, brown, green, grey, etc toy soldiers that I used to play with. Then I decided to look up the official definition of "toy" and found this: "an object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something." The key word seeming to me to be "child". Are we just old children?
Interested to hear what others think.

Thanks.

Armand

Your figures may be 'highly detailed and researched historical models' but when you wargame, you are playing a game with them and their role in the game is exactly the same as if they were plastic Army Men or the lead Britain's soldiers used by HG Wells – they show arm of service, strength, formation and which side they are on. So, IMHO, they are 'toys'.

Why does the dictionary think only children have 'toys'?

As the article points out, the game is about the decisions. It is not about the artifacts you use to track and display the state of the situation being modeled. Even if we are on the miniatures page.

The miniatures and terrain are a part of the experience of wargaming, just like the game is, the meta-game is, and the player interactions other than playing the game.

But, if you have simple decisions, you have a simple game. If you have complex decisions, you have a complex game. If you have insightful decisions you have an insightful game. If you have enjoyable decisions you have an enjoyable game. And so on.

Almost no game has only one type of decision by any aspect you want to assess. Many aspects have high subjectivity.

The concern the author talks about is no different than the surface evaluation of any other hobby. Bill Cosby's take on golf comes to mind (though that is intentionally satirical).

never had a problem with anyone when I tell them I play wargames( ussually dumbed down to TOY SOLDIERS), and work in the business, Ive ran a business for 40 years. The hobby served me well when I was younger I was shy, but I decided to do a talk at school on my hobby – wargaming, I discovered that girls are very interested, boosting my confidence and found lots of simlar interested minds. But in answer to the people trying to distance themselves from the term toy soldiers, thats what they are, highly detailed adult toys – stop trying to hide the truth

stop trying to hide the truth

I reject the idea that there is "the" truth about wargaming.

That said, I call my hobby "My Dollies". I had a friend whose friend's boyfriend didn't like her playing Warhammer. So he packed up her Empire troops in a box and labeled it "WAR DOLLS" as a pejorative. She caved. Not the decision I would have suggested – fore relationship reasons before wargaming reasons. But the upshot is I know how the box was labelled because my friend gave me her dolls. For free. Thirty two of them painted at a better standard than I do.

So now I play with my dollies and buy new dollies, etc. The mini storage room upstairs is the "dolly room".

That said, sometimes I play games. Sometimes I engage in strategic contests with others. Sometimes I work through the dynamics of a situation of interest. Sometimes I drink.

@ Tango01

The army doesn't like wargaming because it does not produce the Directing Staff result. Someone once made the mistake of allowing me to be part of a red force in a Battlegroup Trainer at Catterick. It took just five minutes to screw Blue force completely and then two minutes for the WO1 running red force to come and tell me to back off and let them win.

A few months later on a command post regimental signals exercise they did it again. I manufactured a complete Motor Rifle division before I was sent to lie in the grass on sentry while my SSM tried desperately to get them into the next squadrons area. They in turn were so pissed off that next year the training major was forced to produce a script for red force and a very low level cushy number it was too.

Not sure whose army that is.

Having a few decades of experience designing, building, and running (also, participating in) wargames for military analysis and training purposes I can tell you it is professionally frustrating and a waste of the taxpayers' money when an OPFOR person goes off script.

You just paid $200 USD for your kid to attend a two-day baseball hit-field-and-run clinic this weekend. The coach decides we're going to line up in two sides in the infield and play dodgeball with the baseballs for eight hours both days.

Now, being able to dodge a baseball thrown at you is a useful skill. But it's not the one you, the customer, paid for. And it doesn't really contribute significantly to the skills that are supposed to be trained. Also, baseballs aren't the right equipment for dodgeball, so it ends up not being really good training for dodgeball, either. And the mound in the middle isn't really designed for dodgeball activities, nor is the diamond sized or marked well to adjudicate various rules of play. Still, the players can play dodgeball and the coach can referee the game and come up with a final score.

To the uninitiated I play "Toy Soldiers", they have there pre-concieved ideas of what that is and I leave them to it and move on. The alternative is to explain and watch there eyes glaze over like many folk when confronted by an achedemic issue, no gain for either side.

To be fair I am no diffrent, sombody mentions watching Football and my eyes glaze over instantly and go on to my preconcieved ideas of whay watching football invoklves.

@ eteothipi

You are confusing the military with some sort of private enterprise organisation that has to satisfy a customer. Despite what politicians try and kid themselves, the military only has to satisfy itself until a real war starts.

Again, don't know what military you are talking about.

"The military" is not one thing. Operational commands get limited dollars that are earmarked for training (if you believe there is no civilian oversight over how that is spent, I can refer you to about 1K pages of accountability reports on that from the US DoD from FY21). They use those dollars to buy training from other parts of the military, corporations, and other parts of the government.

So in my analogy, the operational commands who set the standards for and pay for the training. The customer. The training commands get paid for and provide that training as a service.

The organizations that build and field training events don't write the scenarios. That is a long, involved process between the operational commands and the training commands, exactly the same as if a first responder organization were contracting for a simulation from a corporation or a business were contracting for one from another business.

There are some cases where a training command may own a scenario that is used for a wargame; qualification exercises. In that case, the customer is a superior to both the operational command being trained and training command providing the event.

@etotheipi

I'd politely suggest that you're confusing action with effective action and that as part of the problem you are choosing to look at the trees and not the forest.

I would politely suggest that you have never worked with the people who are in charge of the training commands, are the customers of the training commands, the GAO and various OIG that audit training, and the legislators (but mostly their staffers) who aske pointed questions about what is going on with the money.

You seem to be looking at the roots of one tree and calling it a forest. You pointed out specific actions taken by you and your immediate bosses. You have not addressed the big picture, how what you did was a better fit for the objectives of the exercise.

The military's last defence, if you haven't been there you can't understand. Many many years ago I remember a set of 'rules' written on my bosses research lab door. The one that struck me was "It is always the guy who just walks in and knows nothing about your work who will spot the blatantly obvious mistake you've all missed".

Put in another context [I'm assuming you're familiar with communication theory] the 'real' military is neither the military you think you are, nor the military I think you are, but it is quite possible that I can see some parts of the 'real' that you can/have not.

Well, you've only described one portion of one bit of one person's view the use of wargames for military. I have offered the broader number of views.

Through the last couple of decades, I have continually learned things about what is going on. Through the last couple of decades, I have seen things change.

The bit you described, I have seen and I pointed out how the view you gave was the narrow, parochial one. And your response has been ad hominem arguments instead of actually addressing the issues raised.

The statement you give is presented as an absolute and universal. Occasionally someone with a fresh view can help shed light on problems that are hidden by a parochial view such as the one you gave for the wargame. It's actually rare, however if you would like someone who just talks in and knows nothing about your surgery, the brakes on your car, your investments, your taxes, etc, to give direction to the professionals in charge, have at it.

The key to that advice is to keep an open mind and listen to other views instead of rejecting opinions that don't match yours.

Yes Sir! Merry christmas and good night