A few months ago I wrote an article on how wargames are nothing more than machines that manipulate, store, and alter Information. I now will expand on that idea. I'm certainly not the first person to point out the importance of information in "systems." I got the idea from reading the communications theory written in the 1950's (Great stuff if you like sleeping). The basic idea is simple, information is a real THING. It is as real as bullets and is often more critical in determining the outcome battles. Some of you may not buy this. That is fine, but consider this. Who loses a fight? Usually it's the one whose soldiers think they are losing so the had better run now while the getting is good! Such is the power of thought. What I did not say in my article is that information can be stored in only a few ways. However I go about storing it, it must be orderly (so I know where and what it is), and meaningful (so it relates to something in my life). over the centuries we puny humans have succeeded in creating three basic ways of doing this: 1. Digitally, 2. Anologically, and 3. Wholistic or Gestalten. Huh? you say. I'll explain. Technical words can be wonderful at hiding information. So let us go over that again (this time In English). Digital = Numbers, so the information is stored in numbers (combat factors and the like). Analog = Physical models that try to do what the thing they are modeling does but in a different way. Information stored in physical action (like live action RPGS). And, Gestalts = Words, so information is stored in abstract symbols (like pictures, words, or miniature figures). Simple, right? Well ... no. I guess it needs more explanation. DIGITAL Numbers and wargames are an almost inseperable combination. Everyone of us uses them in nearly ALL of our games. The all pervasive "Combat Factor" dominates our thought (and strategy). Combat ODDs tables (another number heavy idea) tell the player that he can only how to win if he maximises his numbers. To paraphase Napoleon (or was it Clauswitz) You must concentrate your combat factors to ensure victory. Some people are very good at numerical thinking. They excell in accounting,statistics, and the "hard" sciences. I once played a game of "Monopoly" with an MBA. It was amazing to watch him dance around the numbers and drive us all into bankruptcy in only an hour. He literally out thought us. Some games now on the market (thestandard monster board game,in which you as the field marshal must command every battalion, ship and factory in the game) seem to demand players with such abilities. Unfortunately most of use are not so gifted. Counting numbers is a fun activity if it doesn't go too far. Numbers can tell the degree of power or weakness an item has and allow comparisons to be made between different items. They also have a high level of reliability and repeatability in their results. I for one would hate to see numbers disappear from games, BUT, they are not the only or the best way to store information. ANALOG Analog games seem to rely more on "what am I doing" rather than "what do the rules say I can do." Somehow the actions of the game are trying to mimic the actions of an event. This is a complex idea to explain. Examples probably do it best. Diplomacy negotiation are an analog of real negotiations. One does the same type of actions in both (namely, slide long sharp knives In one another's backs while talking and smiling). Another example are live action role play games. They players act out what their players do in reality rather than in a story telling fashion (which I will return to later). Not all analog games go to such extents as the above examples. Some games use analogs in only part of their experience. Howard Whitehouse seems to use analogs in his games in the way he uses food and music. For example, he has the French Foreign Legion commanders drink wine and eat french bread while playing a miniatures game against the Arabs. Mean while, the Arabs' eat lamb, and drink mint tea. All the while they are listening to period music. The total sum of this effort is to create an analog of the experiences of life the two parties would have in such a war. The friendly folks at Wargames Developments in England have developed quite a lot of analog games. The Very Large Bottle game in which players progressively drink themselves into oblivion (to simulate the disintegration of control of troops as the battle goes on of control) creates an analog of a confused, befuddled commander. Or more to the point, Mega games, which simulate the confusion of working together by having the players work together in a confusing situation. Mega games are definitely analogs of the eternal struggle of man against bureaucracy. Paddy Griffith has made perhaps the most vivid analog games (short of the crash and bash of live RPGs). Long before I had heard of Wargame Developments, I had heard of Paddy's submarine simulator. He creates an analog of the cramped conditions of a submarine by having the players sit underneath a table. As depth charges go off around them, heavy books come slamming down on top of the "ship." Meanwhile, "Inside" the "ship", the players must make timely and accurate game decisions. What more can I say? This is a neat Idea, and I would love to play. Analog games are a wide open area for wargamers to develop new ways to store useful game Information. I enjoy playing them immensely. I used to run detective mystery games which required the players to verbally be the Indiana sheriff's deputies they were playing. The problem with such games is that they are difficult to run. They require a large cadre of experienced planners and much resources of time and energy. Hopefully this is a problem that can be overcome. GESTALTS Gestalts (a funky German word for "whole things") are in fact the most widely used idea in games. it has to do with raw abstract information (i.e. pictures, words, miniature figures, maps, etc) that is arranged in a certain order. Not only is what is there is important, but also what is not there is important as well. Again, this is a complex idea that is best described by examples. The ultimate example of a gestalt game is chess. We all know it. It has been around for 1500 years. It is played on every continent and it is the great grand dad of the modern wargame. Consider for a minute the rules of the game. It is played on a square grid 8x8. Playing pieces, each with different movement qualities, are placed on the board in a preset manner. As the game goes on the pattern of where the pieces are changes (due to moves chosen by the opponents). No one piece is stronger than any other in the attack, but since movement is attack, bishops are more useful than pawns. This is a complicated game! Chess pieces inform the player, in an abstract way, how they move. So the gestalt "Bishop" tells me, "move diagonally as far as you want." The gestalt "Pawn" tells me "move straight forward 1 square, or diagonally 1 square to attack. Except on the first move when it may move 2 squares forward if you want." Tell me a way to convey this message, using a single word, by using a number. The chess board also stores information in a gestalt due to the location of where all the playing pieces are. One knows one's goose is cooked, when the enemy controls the center and all the defenders major pieces are mysteriously absent from the board. The board forms a "Matrix" of information, that at a glance tells the whole picture. of course a more indepth look at a matrix can suggest possibilities of action that are not at first obvious. The last time I played chess, my opponent was schizophrenic. He soundly thrashed me due to his ability to see possibilities on the board the I completely missed. Modern boardgames use gestalts in a similar manner. Diplomacy is probably the best example of a board gestalt game. The location and arrangement of the playing tokens is EVERYTHING. Woe unto the player who leaves his back open to an untrustworthy ally. Hexagon boardgames also use gestalts regarding the location of units on the board. Blitzkrieg games are prime examples of having the right units in the right place at the right time. Like other board gestalts, one knows at a glance who is winning (he is the one whose Panzer Divisions are at the gates of Paris, when it is only November 1939!). Miniatures games use the same type of time/space gestalt that boardgames use. In addition, figures give information due to the way the axe modeled, and painted, as to what they are (Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery, of a specific country and unit). So one just looks at the field and knows, "Ah, this is a Colonial wargame. Those fellows are 1880's Brits, and the other fellows look like Dervishes." Indeed, it is just this kind of information that many modeling wargamers enjoy most (unlike cretin like myself who uses figures as a means to an end, namely more interesting rules). For a long time time and space gestalts seem to have been the only type of gestalt Information wargames used. I believe it is the modellers who broke us out of that mind set. If a figure painted in a certain way is French Grenadier, then can't another figure represent a general or maybe a wizard? Before long this becomes a role play game more than a miniatures battle. RPGs are filled with more gestalts than I can ever explain. They use the most gestalts though, when the game is being run most like a mutual story tell. By this I mean, I actively interject my players thoughts and feelings with the other players and the game master, to create what happens in the game. By no means does this happen in every RPG. Sometimes RPGs stress numbers and tables more heavily that role playing. When they do this they are back to playing a number game and are not very gestalten. Finally, Matrix Games are gestalteril (Surprise, Surprise.) The matrix stores verbal information, in an orderly way, that at a glance give a big picture view of what is going on. Player's arguments are ways to change the information and "create" what happens next. Obviously I like gestalt games. My little intellectual mind gets into learning new symbolic languages to push around. Of course gestalt games have problems. Chess shows the approaches weaknesses as well as any other game does. Put simply, if I can not remember what all the pieces stand for I can not play the game very well (Ala the machine model of games). Also it is very easy for gestalt games to loose all relevance to daily life. Postscript Not every wargames uses one type of information storage exclusively. Diplomacy (a very simple game, HA HA) uses both Analog and Gestalt information. RPGs can use all three kinds of information (though often games boil down to being either digital or gestalten). Miniatures and boardgames use digital and gestalten information routinely. The end result of all this writing must be that it doesn't matter what kind of information is used so long as it is put together in a pleasing manner. Back to Experimental Games Group # 7 Table of Contents Back to Experimental Games Group List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1990 by Chris Engle 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