In our last issue, Mr. Rice explained why we game and why the game may be lacking. Here he discusses one possible way around that. The "fog of war", is an important and perhaps decisive element of any battlefield. This "fog" is a combination of smoke, noise, limited vision, bad nights sleep, rotten food and bad communications and understandings. It roils around a battlefield. It is also, albeit necessarily, absent in the war game. The gamer excited as he (or more and more these days, she) may be, does not feel the pinch of imminent death. From his position on one side of the table he has a helicopter's eye view of the battlefield. Opponents are readily available for lunch and dinner.
I have written before on the unity (or more likely the 'disunity') of command that plagues all structures where order must flow. The most disunified game I know is Avalon Hill's Diplomacy where seven players follow one another or betray at will. Good game, but despite the maps of Europe, it does not reflect the reality of 1901. What, then, can the gamer expect to create/recreate on his mock battlefield in a two player game?
The answer is the one characteristic that is central to all organizations whether they be as big as the government of the United States or the village "nine". It is the allocation of resources. What makes wargaming interesting is that the player has a pretty good grip on those resources. He knows weapon ranges and effectiveness. He knows how fast troops can move and the effects of moving them too quickly. He knows how long they can fight/shoot without resupply. All he has to do is crunch the numbers. And once the numbers have been crunched, the fun begins.
The problem is that he learns to view warfare as a set of mathematical equations. What he never learns is that warfare is a process of give and take and fumbling around in the dark. My attitude towards two-player games is that the only really good ones are played under the sheets.
The multiplayer game changes the battle from a mere exercise in applied mathematics to one of hard decisions and the uncertainties of reality. Leadership and agenda-setting loom importantly in every move.
Imagine that you are playing Germany in The Rise and Decline of the Third Reich. As Hitler you have the complete obedience (if not complete skill) from your generals, but you still have to allocate your resources. North Africa has fallen, but you still have your hands full. You have ground commanders in France, Northern Europe, Italy, Yugoslavia and of course Romania. There are air commanders responsible to you but not to the ground commanders. There is a Grand Admiral chafing to do something , but he needs air cover out of France or Norway. You may even have an industrialist who needs planes, not submarines, to deflect the raids of US. and British strategic bombers. And don't forget -you can die. If enough of the other players decide that you can't handle the game, they can just walk up and put a bullet in your head. Then you get to go off and play DeGaulle.
With multiple players on both sides, the "play" that is, the rolling of the dice, can be done in minutes. But the plan, the intelligence of enemy buildups, your own buildups, deployments are less simplistic and more troublesome. Now someone wants to try something different that you may not think highly of but might work and the other players are clamoring for their own projects. Someone is going to get disappointed here.
Of course, the Allies don't have it any easier. The first question is "Who's in charge here?" Assuming that they can come to some sort of agreement on that not insignificant issue, the second question is "Where's here?" The Atlantic Alliance was no easy construction to build, and while there was trust at the highest level between the Prime Minister and the U. S. President, there were daggers drawn (and used) inside SHAEF. The concern is not just the relationship between Patton and Monty. If you drew the Polish card at the beginning, you might have one or two weak divisions that you can call your own. You need to be in the fight, but you can't afford casualties.
When the "soaking off" comes, can you persuade Monty or Alexander to lose a "4" to save your "2"? If you are playing a two player game, the answer is easy. Screw the Poles. I know they aren't going to get Poland back anyway thanks to perfect intelligence. They'll just be a problem after the war. However, if the Polish commander is a good friend and the loss of the division may put him out of the wargame, you as CINC SHAEF may have to tell the British field commander to lose the unit. Boy, won't that help your unity of command!
Imagine the confidence this will establish in your next order. Is the British general really doing the best he can in his advance of Caen, or is he nursing a grudge and hoping the Poles get chewed up. You decide. But make sure you decide right before you relieve him.
Multiplayer games may not help relieve the problem of perfect battlefield intelligence. After all its hard to lose track of where a unit is. Its also unlikely that you'll hope the weakening of your lines isn't noticed by the other side. On the other hand think of the new problems this causes for the overall commander when he has to make decisions and HOPE that his subordinates carry them out. Think of the "fog of war" when a subordinate isn't sure whether or not he'll be able to complete his mission because his commander may divert him from the direction he's heading. Multiplayer games can also help build leadership skills. Other than the ability to face death, (which can be simulated if you make the entrance fee high enough) leadership is a complex set of skills that can be learned and demonstrated. Bring your young players in at a low level and let them learn how to lead others, how to gain their trust, so that the next time they are field or sector commanders. Go for the multiplayer game. It's the only game worth playing.
Long time gamer Jonathan Rice hails from the great state of Maine.
Back to Cry Havoc #2 Table of Contents
Back to Cry Havoc List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1993 by David W. Tschanz.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com