"Nerds with a Drive for Violence" Topic

I didn't see this come up yet, but I also didn't look very carefully: link

I love how there is this insinuation that tabletop simulations are a novel new invention, only made possible by 3d printing technology.

We have got to get better at promotion!

They also have a chain of command, a known organizational identity, and full-time PR people.

I'm having a hard time believing the author isn't aware of any commercial wargames other than D&D to compare this to? Or does he think the readers will only know of that one?

I also got no sense of how the game plays. Dice, yes, but what else? And how is this different from other wargames, aside from being apparently cheap?

I read this as something that is intended to make people think at a higher level in their occupation not a wargame as we who are heavily involved with the genre would see it.

Enhance your calm and read it again, Flashman. The author says they've been doing this for a hundred years. (You bet your Dunn-Kempf set they have: I was painting microarmor for my assistant S-3 in the 80's.) And he specifically mentions the "golden age" beginning in the 1970's and lasting 20 years.

The article says 3D printing has made it easier for people to produce their own games, which is different, but probably true. The notion of buying figures one place, rules somewhere else but modifying them, and custom dice from a third source to produce your own game is evidently outside his thinking. But that seems to be true of a number of miniature wargamers today, let alone newspeople.

Better than nothing.

The difference between the game discussed in the article, is that it is an RPG based on RW equipment, situations, and protocols, designed to teach young/novice officers and NCO's, rudimentary lessons, in a safe environment, where a mistake won't result in RW deaths, or other bad situations arising from the students' mistakes and miscalculations.

The D&D reference is appropriate: D&D is a man-to-man game, which can accommodate any scenario. The espoused wargame the article discusses is basically an RPG depicting man-for-man characters, using 3D miniatures, and vehicles, on a one-for-one scale. The D&D reference is absolutely appropriate.

In RPG sessions, people learn many tactical techniques -- some as simple as, "No one ever looks up…" In an old WW II commando movie, Americans climb a ladder on a German building, with Guards lighting a cigarette just beneath them, and they never looked up… The players can experience dire situations when interacting with unscrupulous people who lie to their faces (insurgents stalling while reinforcements travel, with heavy weapons, towards their location), without loss of equipment, suffering casualties, or hostages being taken, in the RW.

Think about it. Re-read the article, viewing the game discussed not as a miniatures war game, but rather as a military RPG where the Game Master throws the players into complex situations, with full miniatures and terrain, to make the RPG session as real, as tactical, as possible. I think it is brilliant!

Imagine throwing some Junior Officers, and NCO's, into a Blackhawk Down situation, and letting them deal with it, on the tabletop, with full mini's and terrain.

Corporal, you've lost your CO, and your Sr. NCO! You are in charge! Your enemies are firing at you! You must assume command. What are your orders?

I think the article will be abundantly more clear with a second reading, with this perspective in mind. Cheers!

I can agree with that assessment— lack of clarity on the author's part, honestly. It's possible that I (and others) have been thrown by the term "wargame," which we take to means something more strategic and broadly tactical in scope, rather than focusing on each player as a 1-to-1 participant. Yes, the latter idea is a solid way to go, and can teach someone many practical things in a safe environment. (And tags with something a former Marine officer once told me about a similar training exercise that had him sweating the proverbial bullets— and it only consisted of him and some others getting yelled at with conflicting statements and having to make on-the-spot decisions.)

Do we have any recent or serving Marines who can comment on any experience with the "game" in the article?

A kind word for the USMC. They like to promote a certain image. But watch the conduct and not the image. They had reading lists for officers when the Army was hazy on such notions, and when I had occasions to interact with the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, they were focused on sensible requirements and were realistic about capacity and time frames. One of the best officers I ever worked under--very far under--was one of their products. So I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on these matters.