Comments on: Thanks for playing http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/ Airpower and British society, 1908-1941 Wed, 17 Mar 2010 06:44:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Investigations of a Dog » The Forces of Chaos http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/comment-page-1/#comment-49727 Investigations of a Dog » The Forces of Chaos Thu, 24 May 2007 15:33:27 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/#comment-49727 [...] The Calm and the Storm got a lot of attention in the history blogosphere last year (for example see Airminded, and my posts here, here, and here). There was some suspicion at the time that Ferguson was [...] [...] The Calm and the Storm got a lot of attention in the history blogosphere last year (for example see Airminded, and my posts here, here, and here). There was some suspicion at the time that Ferguson was [...]

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/comment-page-1/#comment-16068 Brett Holman Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:06:56 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/#comment-16068 I agree, it would have happened -- eventually. But I think the delay would have complicated Anglo-American strategic planning and might have made it politically difficult for FDR to pursue a Germany First strategy. Hitler should have been aiming to make things difficult for FDR, not make them easy. I guess the other thing, though, is that it gave the U-boats a big opportunity to savage American coastal shipping. I don't know whether that was a consideration for Hitler or not. I agree, it would have happened — eventually. But I think the delay would have complicated Anglo-American strategic planning and might have made it politically difficult for FDR to pursue a Germany First strategy. Hitler should have been aiming to make things difficult for FDR, not make them easy. I guess the other thing, though, is that it gave the U-boats a big opportunity to savage American coastal shipping. I don’t know whether that was a consideration for Hitler or not.

]]> By: Nabakov http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/comment-page-1/#comment-15209 Nabakov Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:43:57 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/#comment-15209 "I’m not a US historian but it seems to me that it wouldn’t have been a trivial task for FDR to get Congress to declare war on Germany if Hitler hadn’t obligingly got in first." Perhaps not trival but FDR would have made it happen anyway. Let's not forget he was the smartest and craftiest politician aiming to be world leader since Palmerston. “I’m not a US historian but it seems to me that it wouldn’t have been a trivial task for FDR to get Congress to declare war on Germany if Hitler hadn’t obligingly got in first.”

Perhaps not trival but FDR would have made it happen anyway. Let’s not forget he was the smartest and craftiest politician aiming to be world leader since Palmerston.

]]> By: Nabakov http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/comment-page-1/#comment-15207 Nabakov Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:34:20 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/#comment-15207 Just a quick reminder that Len Deighton's 'Spy Story' makes a few interesting observations about frisky and feral wargamers' ability to puncture cherished tactical assumptions. "He's landing Be-10 Mallows on the ice to drop sonar through the icecap. He can't do that!" "He just did. We always wondered why the Sovs kept a squadron so far north." Just a quick reminder that Len Deighton’s ‘Spy Story’ makes a few interesting observations about frisky and feral wargamers’ ability to puncture cherished tactical assumptions.

“He’s landing Be-10 Mallows on the ice to drop sonar through the icecap. He can’t do that!”
“He just did. We always wondered why the Sovs kept a squadron so far north.”

]]> By: christin http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/comment-page-1/#comment-10955 christin Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:45:15 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/#comment-10955 If you would like to try the demo version of MAKING HISTORY is available at http://www.making-history.com/purchase/demo.php If you would like to try the demo version of MAKING HISTORY is available at http://www.making-history.com/purchase/demo.php

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/comment-page-1/#comment-6119 Brett Holman Wed, 08 Nov 2006 07:39:49 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/#comment-6119 Your specific example aside, Jason, I think you're exactly right. Many decisions in war-fighting are not made for purely military reasons -- some good examples are Hitler's various operational interventions. The various no-retreat orders, for example. Or even better, his decision to declare war on the United States -- something nobody playing Germany in a game like WiF would ever do while at war with the Commonwealth and deep inside Russia, unless they'd gone stark raving mad. WiF gets around this by making a Japanese declaration of war on the US a declaration of war by the entire Axis. I'm not a US historian but it seems to me that it wouldn't have been a trivial task for FDR to get Congress to declare war on Germany if Hitler hadn't obligingly got in first. So those rules are there to entice players into making this same decision for which there is no strategic, in-game, reason to otherwise. About wargames being a great way to learn lots of factual stuff like geography (the AmericanHeritage.com writer mentions that he came away from WiF knowing the names of every capital ship in the war), that's true, but I also think that probably works for certain personality types, shall we say :) I suspect that some of our fellow players from that game didn't come away with quite so much knowledge! And of course, if you don't have enough knowledge of the real WWII to contextualise the information from the game, much of it would be worthless or even misleading. (E.g., the US entry stuff.) Your specific example aside, Jason, I think you’re exactly right. Many decisions in war-fighting are not made for purely military reasons — some good examples are Hitler’s various operational interventions. The various no-retreat orders, for example. Or even better, his decision to declare war on the United States — something nobody playing Germany in a game like WiF would ever do while at war with the Commonwealth and deep inside Russia, unless they’d gone stark raving mad. WiF gets around this by making a Japanese declaration of war on the US a declaration of war by the entire Axis. I’m not a US historian but it seems to me that it wouldn’t have been a trivial task for FDR to get Congress to declare war on Germany if Hitler hadn’t obligingly got in first. So those rules are there to entice players into making this same decision for which there is no strategic, in-game, reason to otherwise.

About wargames being a great way to learn lots of factual stuff like geography (the AmericanHeritage.com writer mentions that he came away from WiF knowing the names of every capital ship in the war), that’s true, but I also think that probably works for certain personality types, shall we say :) I suspect that some of our fellow players from that game didn’t come away with quite so much knowledge! And of course, if you don’t have enough knowledge of the real WWII to contextualise the information from the game, much of it would be worthless or even misleading. (E.g., the US entry stuff.)

]]> By: Jason http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/comment-page-1/#comment-5856 Jason Tue, 07 Nov 2006 01:57:49 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/#comment-5856 <i>Although I think your general point is sound, this actually isn't a very good example, because IMHO the only reason Berlin escaped the A-Bomb was that it wasn't ready in time. Certainly no moral or racial considerations prevented the city's almost total destruction by conventional weapons.</i> I think that's a fair point. Although I think your general point is sound, this actually isn’t a very good example, because IMHO the only reason Berlin escaped the A-Bomb was that it wasn’t ready in time. Certainly no moral or racial considerations prevented the city’s almost total destruction by conventional weapons.

I think that’s a fair point.

]]> By: Alan Allport http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/comment-page-1/#comment-5705 Alan Allport Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:19:49 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/#comment-5705 <i>Similarly it is hard to imagine a generic rule about atom bombs that would guarantee a Japanese surrender as historically occurred, but also capture the reasons why Berlin wasn’t nuked as well.</i> Although I think your general point is sound, this actually isn't a very good example, because IMHO the only reason Berlin escaped the A-Bomb was that it wasn't ready in time. Certainly no moral or racial considerations prevented the city's almost total destruction by conventional weapons. Similarly it is hard to imagine a generic rule about atom bombs that would guarantee a Japanese surrender as historically occurred, but also capture the reasons why Berlin wasn’t nuked as well.

Although I think your general point is sound, this actually isn’t a very good example, because IMHO the only reason Berlin escaped the A-Bomb was that it wasn’t ready in time. Certainly no moral or racial considerations prevented the city’s almost total destruction by conventional weapons.

]]> By: Jason http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/comment-page-1/#comment-5662 Jason Mon, 06 Nov 2006 05:26:29 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/#comment-5662 Brett, this reminds me that I have your <i>Axis and Allies</i> game on a shelf here... just by the way! As a comment, for what little it's worth from a non-historian, it strikes me that in many cases even the more sophisticated historical simulations like <i>World in Flames</i> and the like need to have special rules for those highly singular events. For example, there are special rules in WiF about unit placement by the US prior to a Pearl Harbor-style attack. Similarly it is hard to imagine a generic rule about atom bombs that would guarantee a Japanese surrender as historically occurred, but also capture the reasons why Berlin wasn't nuked as well. My first undergrad year included a few history subjects, including one that was exclusively about WW2. The course began with a map exercise in the tutorials - marking different places on a map that ranged from easy (France, Italy) to medium (Lithuania, Estonia, Stalingrad), to fairly hard (Rabaul, New Britain springs to mind). I was the only one to get them all right (except for a Baltic mismatch), just because we'd spent the preceding summer planning and executing world domination in WiF. The lecturer asked how I knew all those places, and when I answered he commented that he had had a few students previously who showed an unusual level of knowledge due to war games. BTW I am not actually claiming to have an unusual level of knowledge any more, but it certainly helped at the time. Brett, this reminds me that I have your Axis and Allies game on a shelf here… just by the way!

As a comment, for what little it’s worth from a non-historian, it strikes me that in many cases even the more sophisticated historical simulations like World in Flames and the like need to have special rules for those highly singular events. For example, there are special rules in WiF about unit placement by the US prior to a Pearl Harbor-style attack.

Similarly it is hard to imagine a generic rule about atom bombs that would guarantee a Japanese surrender as historically occurred, but also capture the reasons why Berlin wasn’t nuked as well.

My first undergrad year included a few history subjects, including one that was exclusively about WW2. The course began with a map exercise in the tutorials – marking different places on a map that ranged from easy (France, Italy) to medium (Lithuania, Estonia, Stalingrad), to fairly hard (Rabaul, New Britain springs to mind). I was the only one to get them all right (except for a Baltic mismatch), just because we’d spent the preceding summer planning and executing world domination in WiF. The lecturer asked how I knew all those places, and when I answered he commented that he had had a few students previously who showed an unusual level of knowledge due to war games.

BTW I am not actually claiming to have an unusual level of knowledge any more, but it certainly helped at the time.

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/comment-page-1/#comment-5239 Brett Holman Sat, 04 Nov 2006 05:24:59 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/10/31/thanks-for-playing/#comment-5239 Sure, monte carlo isn't a panacea. It would not explain why particular decisions were made, for example (e.g. for political or ideological reasons). And wargames obviously correlate far more closely to traditional military history than they do to war and society studies. But I think that playing around with monte carlo simulations might lead you to ask different questions. E.g., if it turned out that the Soviets won Barbarossa 1 time out of 10, then what were the key events or decisions that would need to be different? And if you can tweak things to improve their chances, then you could ask why they didn't do those things. The thing is that playing a game through once or twice, like Ferguson did (on the basis of his article, anyway) is hardly going to give you a statistically valid basis for conclusions on what is or isn't a likely outcome, even assuming the game is basically accurate. And my gut feeling is that if it isn't, you're not likely to get much more out of designing it, either, than you would by conventional historical methods. Of course, ideally there would be different historians developing different models, comparing the results to see which is best, and improving the next generation models, and so on ... It would be a lot of work and given all the uncertainties, maybe they would get just as much out of playing <em>Axis & Allies</em> :) Sure, monte carlo isn’t a panacea. It would not explain why particular decisions were made, for example (e.g. for political or ideological reasons). And wargames obviously correlate far more closely to traditional military history than they do to war and society studies. But I think that playing around with monte carlo simulations might lead you to ask different questions. E.g., if it turned out that the Soviets won Barbarossa 1 time out of 10, then what were the key events or decisions that would need to be different? And if you can tweak things to improve their chances, then you could ask why they didn’t do those things. The thing is that playing a game through once or twice, like Ferguson did (on the basis of his article, anyway) is hardly going to give you a statistically valid basis for conclusions on what is or isn’t a likely outcome, even assuming the game is basically accurate. And my gut feeling is that if it isn’t, you’re not likely to get much more out of designing it, either, than you would by conventional historical methods.

Of course, ideally there would be different historians developing different models, comparing the results to see which is best, and improving the next generation models, and so on … It would be a lot of work and given all the uncertainties, maybe they would get just as much out of playing Axis & Allies :)

]]>