Matrix Games have been around long enough now that they are beginning to get into peoples thinking about what games are about. I don't think this has been well thought out yet, but here is an offering of how MGs might change wargames in the future. MAINSTREAM GAMES In the 1950s and 60s the basic mind set of mainstream games was laid down. As Bob Jones commented in MWAN 56, most new games are reviving ideas that have been tried out before (in the 60s or early 70s). The basics of gaming are that 1. players have units (either of figures or cardboard counters) that they can move like people move pawns in a game of chess. There are limitations on movement, but not a limitation on whither the men will follow orders. 2. Combat is generally controlled by rolled dice and tables. It is based loosely on a probability curve of what a "normal" combat is like a certain odds. There are tons of specific rules that modify this approach, but most games still abide by these limitations without much thought. The idea is that wargames are based on probability, which is based on scientific "reality." But I'm not certain that I believe that. Why? Because, I've noticed that those gamers that trust in probability (or to put it in English - luck), tend to lose and be laughed at by their more number oriented brethren who only attack when it is a sure thing. In fact, I've seen such people (and done it myself more than a few times) count out the force totals exactly so as to get an almost certain win. And oh how these players whine when their sure things occasionally go wrong! Instead of probability, most wargames seem to be based on certainty. Yes, I have to roll a die to see if I win, but I know pretty much the outcome before I roll. The same is true of moving units up and ordering them to attack. Wargames naturally destroy the fog of war, since one knows exactly where one's men are, exactly how well they can attack, and that they will carry out orders given them. This is a obvious influence of chess on the way games are played. All these elements are fine to have and do produce games that work and which are fun. But aren't there limits? If outcomes really are certain, then why play the game? It is nice to have a little bit of uncertainty. Games usually do the element best by games of maneuver. Games like "Tactics II" and "Napoleon's Battles" are varied by where the players move their men. Just like a game of chess does. But it seems to me that this is not the way generals think about war. Nor is it the way us civilians really solve problems in our own life. POSSIBILITY VS PROBABILITY The dictionary of philosophy describes probability by pointing out that It comes from counting how many times two events have happened before and looking at the ratio. So if rolling a 6 on 1d6 happens 6 times out of 36 rolls (6:36 - 1:6) so we say it has a 16% chance of happening. But they also make it clear that probability can not be applied to individual cases since too many extraneous factors get in the way. I don't see it quite the same way. It seems rather that the reason why probability does not apply to individuals is that by It's nature, probability can't predict original/new events. Consider the following examples ... 1. A young man get out of school. He has never had a job before in his life. What is the probability that he will get a job? Add to this that he is a very hard worker, made straight A grades, is a WASP, and likes people. Can you know? Or better yet, can HE know? Or does it really depend on what he does with the advantages he has? 2. This time the young man is a high school drop out. He drinks like a fish and has schizophrenia. What is the probability that he will feel satisfied with his life? Now add on to that that he goes to AA, decides to stop drinking, and begins to work of taking care of his illness. Can he know what the likelihood of his having a good life? What is a good life anyway? Both of the guys in the example have problems. Both can be measured against their respective subsets in the population at large. But whither they actually succeed in their goals is determined by the possibilities they make in their own lives. So WASPy Eddie and crazy Freddie might both do well if they take advantage of the possibilities in their lives. This might be a great accomplishment for Freddie since he has the dice loaded against him. But maybe Eddie is worse off since he is likely to be more aware of all the real problems standing in his way (no experience, too young, no contacts, etc). Back to Battle Now switch back to a general planning a battle in a tent. He knows that his men are as ready as they are going to get. What's more he knows that the enemy are trying to take a vital position (which if lost would greatly weaken his men) so he decides to fight. He knows he has a possibility of winning but he does not know if his men will win. Instead of looking at each units past combat record to find out their "combats factor" he Instead looks at the battle field map to see If he can create a opening to gain an advantage. Maybe he wants to ambush the enemy, maybe a Infiltration attack. Whatever he tries, he does not know how or even if his men will follow his orders. He can know the odds, but he can make actions that seem to increase the possibility of his plan working. GAMBITS Chess society's have long used the word gambit to describe opening moves to games. Now chess Is a pretty deterministic game but good players know that nothing is automatic since winning is determined more by the number of mistakes a player makes than who makes the better opening move. Gambits require a loose plan, good concentration, and mental flexibility. Great generals and ace pilots have this ability. Caesar always had his plans go awry during his campaigns in Gaul. So much so that he could better be quoted as saying "I came. I saw. I improvised." His men almost always started to get hard pressed in a melee or something. Then he say an opening in the enemies line which he was able to exploit for a victory. Here is were MGS come in. MGs are by their nature about "fishing for advantages." At the beginning of the battle or campaign, both sides have built In advantages in the form of military units, cities, supplies and roads. The process of the fight consists of separating the enemy from his advantages while maintaining one's own men. How is this done? By being creative of course. Players try to open UP windows of possibility with the arguments they make. Through a series of Arguments they set up situations in which they can win. Winning Is not a foregone conclusion of odds but rather of carefully planned and flexibly executed gambits. The player can not know the probability of his plans working before the game because each step -- is - tied to the next inseparable. Players who begin to get Into the MG mind set will probably stop thinking the their orders will automatically be obeyed. It is possible that they will not start moving when told to (the argument could fall). But once In motion they have created the possibility of winning a victory. Each unpredictable step after that will move them closer or further away from that inevitable goal.  FRUSTRATED WINNERS WHO LOSE Operating under the older mainstream ideas, some players know they have created armies that CAN NOT BE BEATEN! Well maybe they have, but victory can only be gained if that beautiful machine is started up and pointed in the right direction. These guys often run into the following problems in MGs. "My Romans are unbeatable you barbaric frog! Give it up, while you have a chance!" "No thank you. But I do argue that my men retreat into the forest, and that your men pursue." Once in the forest, the "barbaric frog" whose men are naturally not likely to win in an open field battle, argue that they ambush the pursuing Romans. A fierce close in fight ensues in which the Roman van is wiped out. "You can't do that! It is unrealistic that my highly trained legionaries would walk into an ambush like that." "Well, I agree with you that it Is not a strong argument, but It Is not Impossible. After all the Romans did Just this when fighting the Germans during Augustus' reign." And since the "barbaric frog" rolled a 1 for success, It did happen. Here is where the mainstream player really begins to lose it. He sees from his God's eye view that the Gauls flank is open to him, Just Inside the woods. He orders his men to attack with everything they've got. But he rolls badly. "WHAT? They don't go? This is stupidl Their flank is completely open! Why don't they go?" He is satisfied with no answer, and refuses to play this stupid game that doesn't allow him to have total control over his men's every movement. Maybe he hits a wall, thus destroying the entire friendly atmosphere. Or even if he does continue to play, he is no longer thinking about gambits and flexibility, but rather blind revenge. This type of play doesn't work In any type of game. Does it sound like I am describing a real event? That Is because I am. I am at a loss to understand why this kind of thing happens, but I do see why some people are not good general or successful WASPy Eddies. BLACK CATS IN DARK ROOMS Matrix Games can teach wargamers that nothing is certain in war, games, or life. But that if one keeps an open, flexible mind that possibilities can be created in any set of circumstances. I'm glad that I don't have to understand how this works, but I do know that opening up windows of possibility and not losing sight of the goal, will lead to the prize. So if I want to find the black cat in the dark room, I can create possibilities by doing the following. 1. Closing my eyes and listening. 2. Calling out, "Here, kitty kitty." 3. Moving in the direction of the cat's meows. No probabilities involved. Back to Experimental Games Group # 18 Table of Contents Back to Experimental Games Group List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1991 by Chris Engle This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com