Serious War Games - Controversial or Not

War is Wrong
I think many of us will have had...

Read more...

It has been a long time since I played war games on a regular basis, but that is merely a result of having more demands on my time and living a long distance away from my war-gaming friends. Because of the subject matter and the time commitment, I have never heard of someone playing a war game and complaining about the subject matter. If people who object to war games have a complaint about war games, I encourage them to not play war games and also not harass war gamers.

In college, I minored in sociology. To complete my minor, I took a 400 level (senior) class in War and Peace. While reading the syllabus, the professor commented that the history of mankind was the history of warfare, and that we could only deduce the existence of peace from the brief intervals between the wars. There were only three students enrolled in the class, and one of them was an exchange student from Africa. He expressed dismay that this class was not going to teach him how to bring peace to his country, and withdrew from the class.

I find the idea of objecting to the subject matter of a game to be a mildly interesting exercise. Would this same person object to a movie about a war? Understandably so, if the movie glorified war and overlooked the atrocities. But what if the movie is a documentary about a war? What about a lecture in a history class about a war? What about a veteran talking about an experience that he had during a war? There is an old saying that it is easier to put on shoes than to carpet the world, and anybody who is easily triggered should definitely put on some shoes. The world is not going to suddenly become a soft and gentle place where they will be safe all the time.

I'm an accountant. I dislike playing most games that simulate economic activity, because it bores me. I do tend to like playing games with violent subject matter, including war, superheroes, horror, etc, even though I don't own a gun and I haven't been in a fistfight since college. I definitely have not murdered anybody and firmly disapprove of serial killers, even though I own multiple games about fictional serial killers.

So what do I like about these games with violent themes? The same thing that I like about movies and tv shows and books with violent themes: action. Things happen, sometimes quickly and dramatically, and they are not about dry things like exchanging money for products. I want games that offer the semblance of an exciting narrative, games that are fun to talk about afterwards. The economic simulation games tend to have low player interaction and minimal conversation, and after-game discussions tend to be brief and dull, immediately followed by WhatAreWeGoingToPlayNext?

I'm trying to think of a war game that allows for, or even acknowledges, the POSSIBILITY of atrocities or injury to civilians, much less makes it part of the game. Stuff like deliberately attacking hospitals to erode an enemies ability to recover, targeting power generation structures to hinder evacuation efforts and draw forces from the line, or even utilizing prisoners as bullet sponges, all stuff we hear about in the current Ukraine conflict.

Wargames, in my experience, try to simulate the ACT of war on the tactical or strategic level, usually stripping away the civilian or post-engagement aspect entirely as they attempt to model the actual outcome or a hypothetical one.

I kinda disagree with the entire preface to this article, a persons individual views on personally owned weapons does not seem to correlate AT ALL with playing war games, as the global popularity of direct conflict video game shooters can attest.

If anything, the rather higher level of intellectual capacity you need for the average war game is the only thing holding them back from even more popularity across all cultures. Reduce the complexity down and the war game gains more acceptance...see Chess, Checkers, connect 4, tic-tac-toe, etc. The fundamental aspects of a war game; area control, economy of force, combined arms, flanking maneuvers, logistics, tactical victory but strategic defeat and vice versa, all these things manifest in LEGIONS of recreational activites far divorced from stogey old men smoking cigars 'round a sand table re-enacting some Napoleonic era conflict on the Iberian pennisula.

Just replace the gun or sword with a basketball and there you go.

I think some of the COIN games have events that degrade influence/control in areas to reflect collateral damage from military ops in those areas.

Games are largely based on activities that are focused on conflict and competition.

Nearly every game is themed around negative behavior, exploitation, pain, gaining at someone else’s loss, putting people out of work, creating destructive industries, etc.

It’s silly to point to one theme and say it’s bad but all the others are fine.

I'm trying to think of a war game that allows for, or even acknowledges, the POSSIBILITY of atrocities or injury to civilians, much less makes it part of the game.

I’ve played several games that include having to keep troops in regions to “suppress partisans” or that have “strategic bombing”.

It’s code.

n815e wrote:

I'm trying to think of a war game that allows for, or even acknowledges, the POSSIBILITY of atrocities or injury to civilians, much less makes it part of the game.

I’ve played several games that include having to keep troops in regions to “suppress partisans” or that have “strategic bombing”.

It’s code.

Thats a good point, I'm thinking of Fortress America (as I often do) with their partisan cards.

Though by the laws of war an enemy combatant NOT in uniform, which is how I would define the type of Red Dawn-esque "partisan" or many of the 'combatants' taken in the War on Terror, is in a very grey legal zone where they often lack the protections afforded uniformed combatants AND the protections extended to non-resisting civilians. So they are kinda criminals and subject to military or civilian law in that fashion (for example, the guy who launches a hypersonic cruise missile into the side of an aircraft carrier during a battle, killing 5000 sailors and marines, is usually not held personally accountable should he survive the war, but someone who smuggles a bomb into a stockyard while dressed as a dock worker certainly would be charged as a murderer or saboteur. So in a war game what are they really considered? Enemy Forces?

But yes, the COIN games, with their focus on insurgency and irregular/asymmetric conflict, would be a good example to start with. Now that I'm thinking harder, I feel like there are some strategic/diplomacy level games that have an abstracted "you've been bad" meter that kinda covers covert ops/atrocities/war crimes.