I've been reading a book on game theory that talks a lot about a game called the Prisoner's Dilemma. A simple little game in which two prisoners are given the choice of whether to sell out their partner or not tell the screws anydling. The stakes are: I . If one sells out and the other doesn't, then the sell out walks free and the stooge gets 5 years in the big house. 2. If both sell out then both of the stooges get 3 years in the big house. 3. If neither sells out, then both get I year in the county jail. All of which begs the question, is there honor among thieves.

The Prisoner's Dilemma made me realize another dilemma that wargamers deal with. There is a conflict between the desires of commanders and of the men they lead. Commanders want their men to fight. Soldiers, on the other hand, want to live. The leader can chose to have his men "Aggress" move forward and fight, "Stand" not move but still fight, or "Withdraw" retreat and defend. The soldiers must decide only if they wish to comply with the order or defect from it. Once in a fight combat is resolved in a deterministic way, aggressors kill 2 men a turn, standing kill 1 man a turn, withdrawing men kill no men. A flank attack increases the kill rate by +1. While defending walls drops the other sides kill rate by -1.

Clearly aggressors win combats because they kill 2 men to 1 for standing troops. Wall attacks will come out to be draws. So the real conflict is not between the opposing commanders but between each commander and his men.

The commanders run the risk of having their men run away rather than stand and fight. I chose to use a random element here, since I do not find games near as fun without one. Each turn, two regular playing cards are turned over for each group of soldiers. If two red cards come up that is generally bad. A red and a black is generally neutral. And two blacks is usually good. It all depends on what the commander orders and whither the men comply or not. Consider the following matrixes.

AGGRESS	Kills 2 men a turn.
STAND	Kills 1 man a turn.
WITHDRAW	Kills no one.
Defending a wall minus	1 man killed.
Attacking a flank Plus	1 man killed.

The next table covers how many men run away, Flip two cards and consult the matrix by comparing the leaders order to the soldiers compliance. The resulting square tells what happens.

AGGRESS	COMPLY	DEFECT
Red Red	-1 man	-4 men
Red Black	0 loss	-2 man
Black Black	+1 man	0 loss
STAND	COMPLY	DEFECT
Red Red	-1 man	-2 men
Red Black	0 loss	0 loss
Black Black	+2 men	0 loss
WITHDRAW	COMPLY	DEFECT
Red Red	-2 men	-6 men
Red Black	-1 man	-4 men
Black Black	0 loss	-2 men

It is plain from the table that if the soldiers are compliant, then the commander can order any of the actions with lime risk. In fact, if one were to pull two black cards while standing, then one can rally 2 previously lost men back to the group or have a one turn immunity to up to 2 men killed on the next turn if one has no men to rally. The same applies for two black cards drawn to an aggressor, except that only I man is rallied or an immunity to I man killed rather than 2.

Once the soldiers start to defect, the game becomes completely different. Withdrawal becomes very difficult. If fact, it is an invitation to disaster. Aggressing also becomes a risky proposition. So the Leader's Dilemma is this; "When do I trust my men and how long can I trust them?" which corresponds to the soldier's dilemma "Can I trust my leader to not get men killed and when should I stop trusting him and start looking for an opportunity to run?"

PLAYING THE GAME

In the first game both sides had solidly compliant troops. The aggressor won the badle with minimal loss to his side while the defenders were mauled. In the second game both sides had solidly defecting troops. The defender won the battle' due to the attackers men running away. But it was a pyrrhic victory since the loss of life to the defender was nearly as great as in the previous game. The attacker, meanwhile, lost only a few men and was ready to regroup for another try. The last game consisted of a stand of compliant defenders versus a mob of defecting aggressors. The attackers lost with a large loss of life. The defenders too some casualties but were not mauled as in the two previous games. There were never any reserves to conduct a pursuit, so running men always go away. When ever men ran off, I placed their figures at the back of the terrain field. The first group to run was right at the edge. The next group was behind them but a lime closer to the battle field. The next group a lime closer still. The end result is that at the end of the battle their is a dispersed trail of men leading from the battle to the edge of the board, just right for a pursuit garne. I may have to do one of these to see how they work out.

WHAT HAVE I LEARNED?

I think this could be a fun convention garne. Some players representing commanders and other their soldiers. Each turn they write down their choice of action. Each player would have a role play personality write up and a set of goals/victory conditions. The players would then role play their parts and fight the battle. Chris Engle 31 3 Hickory Drive, Ellettsville, IN 47429