Of games, simulations, paintings and CEAW
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:13 pm
This post will advance a general theory about wargames. It may be long and to many will be too much philosophizing and too little direct comment on CEAW. Well, you can always change the channel. I do have some comments about specific parts of the game and a few suggestions I will offer in other posts.
I write this because I have noticed, in the threads on CEAW and other wargames, a tendency to very vigorous, sometimes angry, argument over certain aspects of the games as they relate to REALISM VS. PLAYABILITY, an argument analogous to that among scholars over GENETICS VS. ENVIRONMENT. Both these arguments will probably be eternal. However.
I take as my mentor for this thread Joseph Conrad, who taught us that, no matter how solid, certain and objective anything or concept seems at first glance, the closer you look at it the more indistinct it becomes. Marlowe knew.
To begin let us consider the terms. Is a wargame a game, sort of a kind of checkers but with the pieces looking like soldiers and planes ect., or a simulation, an attempt to approach the realism of a particular conflict? The dictionary definition I got for 'game' is "form of competition played according to rules". Now, this makes the very concept of a wargame oxymornic, because war has no rules. There may have been some historical exceptions to this; for instance hoplite warfare in ancient Greece and war in eighteenth century Europe did follow certain general rules, but these were not enforceable and there are numerous instances of generals violating the 'rules' of these times. But, especially in the Age of Total War, the 20th century, there were no rules.
The dictionary definition of simulate is to "imitate or reproduce the appearance, character or conditions of". Now, this seems closer to what game designers are striving for but, look closer and it becomes more indistinct, begging as many questions as it answers. Imitate how exactly? Reproduce to what degree? Which appearances, characters and conditions? All, many, some, few?
I would like to introduce a third definition of a wargame (let us continue to use this word for lack of any better one), one that would help explain many of the seemingly interminable arguments over specifics of various games, for I believe that a good deal of this argument, while often interesting, sometimes amusing, sometimes angry, is at cross purposes, or rather, the various sides in the argument, or discussion if you prefer, are not arguing according to 'rules'.
A wargame is a creative act, like writing a novel or painting a picture or any other artistic activity. I will center on the painting, both to keep this post from inflating into an epic and because I think the painting is a particularly apt analogy of the wargame. A painting, even an abstract painting, is also an attempt to "imitate or reproduce the appearance, character or conditions of", Reality. Most painters have recognized something that many critics of particular wargames and even some of the creators of wargames have not; the great decision in any attempted artwork is more what to leave out than what to put in.
Now, I would not argue that there is no such thing as a bad wargame or a bad painting, obviously there are. But I will argue that, given a reasonable level of competence on the part of the game designer or the artist, whether one appreciates the final work or not is a matter of taste, not of some objective standard, of 'rules'. For example, I am quite willing to admit that Picasso was a great artist; I just don't care very much for his work. Henry James was a great writer but I can't stand to read him (cannot resist quoting H.G. Welles wonderful line that "reading Henry James is like watching an elephant trying to pick up a pea with its trunk).
So when someone writes angrily that they wasted such and such an amount of money on a games because it is no good they are saying, unless the game is truly incompetent, is that there taste does not run to this kind of game. Also, I would say to them that you do not have an entitlement to get a game you enjoy and that fulfills most of what you expected and want; wargames, like paintings, are a crapshoot; you pays your money and you takes your chances. More mediocre and bad everything is produced in the world than things of quality so the chances are always against you anyway.
Now, to finally link all this to CEAW. I don't think even the harshest critics of the game are saying that the designer is incompetent; if they are then we just disagree and there is an end to it. They are saying 'the game is no good because it doesn't appeal to my particular taste in wargames'. Like saying 'this Pollack is no good because I don't like abstract painting'. I am sure they would reply, 'don't put words in my mouth, I'm saying the game is bad because it is not realistic enough'. Well, Joseph Conrad had much to say on what is 'realistic'. Let us compare CEAW to War in the Pacific, often held up as the great exemplar of realism in wargames. Is the lack of effective U-boat war in the north Atlantic any worse than dogfights in WITP involving hundreds of planes, in which hundreds are shot down in one day? Is the lack of a Mediteranean game of any depth in CEAW an worse than the AI Japanese failing to ever try and take Wake Island, or move south of New Guinea, which happened to me before I finally gave up on WITP for good? And, mind you, I admit freely that WITP is a great wargame but, like Henry James, it drives me to distraction. Matter of taste, not competency.
None of this means that constructive suggestions should not be made for additions to the game. But these should be suggestions, not demands that this or that be added or changed because the game is 'no good' without them or a total waste of the price. I can see from the posts and the gracious that the designer replies to them that he wants such suggestions and acts on some of them (thank you for adding the ability to name units!). But, and I hold this quite strongly, it doesn't matter if you paid some money for the game; the creative act was his and he is the one who decides what goes in or comes out or is changed. You may pay to see a production of King Lear but your price of admission does not give you the right to demand that the play be edited to have a happy ending.
Well, G.B. Shaw said you should always make your point three times; I have probably exceeded his limit. Finally I would like to say to the designer that I enjoy your game tremendously, find it both fun and stimulating as a small lab to help me better understand the historical WWII, and think that you should be most proud of what you have created. I look forward to more patches and, especially, more games using the same approach.
I write this because I have noticed, in the threads on CEAW and other wargames, a tendency to very vigorous, sometimes angry, argument over certain aspects of the games as they relate to REALISM VS. PLAYABILITY, an argument analogous to that among scholars over GENETICS VS. ENVIRONMENT. Both these arguments will probably be eternal. However.
I take as my mentor for this thread Joseph Conrad, who taught us that, no matter how solid, certain and objective anything or concept seems at first glance, the closer you look at it the more indistinct it becomes. Marlowe knew.
To begin let us consider the terms. Is a wargame a game, sort of a kind of checkers but with the pieces looking like soldiers and planes ect., or a simulation, an attempt to approach the realism of a particular conflict? The dictionary definition I got for 'game' is "form of competition played according to rules". Now, this makes the very concept of a wargame oxymornic, because war has no rules. There may have been some historical exceptions to this; for instance hoplite warfare in ancient Greece and war in eighteenth century Europe did follow certain general rules, but these were not enforceable and there are numerous instances of generals violating the 'rules' of these times. But, especially in the Age of Total War, the 20th century, there were no rules.
The dictionary definition of simulate is to "imitate or reproduce the appearance, character or conditions of". Now, this seems closer to what game designers are striving for but, look closer and it becomes more indistinct, begging as many questions as it answers. Imitate how exactly? Reproduce to what degree? Which appearances, characters and conditions? All, many, some, few?
I would like to introduce a third definition of a wargame (let us continue to use this word for lack of any better one), one that would help explain many of the seemingly interminable arguments over specifics of various games, for I believe that a good deal of this argument, while often interesting, sometimes amusing, sometimes angry, is at cross purposes, or rather, the various sides in the argument, or discussion if you prefer, are not arguing according to 'rules'.
A wargame is a creative act, like writing a novel or painting a picture or any other artistic activity. I will center on the painting, both to keep this post from inflating into an epic and because I think the painting is a particularly apt analogy of the wargame. A painting, even an abstract painting, is also an attempt to "imitate or reproduce the appearance, character or conditions of", Reality. Most painters have recognized something that many critics of particular wargames and even some of the creators of wargames have not; the great decision in any attempted artwork is more what to leave out than what to put in.
Now, I would not argue that there is no such thing as a bad wargame or a bad painting, obviously there are. But I will argue that, given a reasonable level of competence on the part of the game designer or the artist, whether one appreciates the final work or not is a matter of taste, not of some objective standard, of 'rules'. For example, I am quite willing to admit that Picasso was a great artist; I just don't care very much for his work. Henry James was a great writer but I can't stand to read him (cannot resist quoting H.G. Welles wonderful line that "reading Henry James is like watching an elephant trying to pick up a pea with its trunk).
So when someone writes angrily that they wasted such and such an amount of money on a games because it is no good they are saying, unless the game is truly incompetent, is that there taste does not run to this kind of game. Also, I would say to them that you do not have an entitlement to get a game you enjoy and that fulfills most of what you expected and want; wargames, like paintings, are a crapshoot; you pays your money and you takes your chances. More mediocre and bad everything is produced in the world than things of quality so the chances are always against you anyway.
Now, to finally link all this to CEAW. I don't think even the harshest critics of the game are saying that the designer is incompetent; if they are then we just disagree and there is an end to it. They are saying 'the game is no good because it doesn't appeal to my particular taste in wargames'. Like saying 'this Pollack is no good because I don't like abstract painting'. I am sure they would reply, 'don't put words in my mouth, I'm saying the game is bad because it is not realistic enough'. Well, Joseph Conrad had much to say on what is 'realistic'. Let us compare CEAW to War in the Pacific, often held up as the great exemplar of realism in wargames. Is the lack of effective U-boat war in the north Atlantic any worse than dogfights in WITP involving hundreds of planes, in which hundreds are shot down in one day? Is the lack of a Mediteranean game of any depth in CEAW an worse than the AI Japanese failing to ever try and take Wake Island, or move south of New Guinea, which happened to me before I finally gave up on WITP for good? And, mind you, I admit freely that WITP is a great wargame but, like Henry James, it drives me to distraction. Matter of taste, not competency.
None of this means that constructive suggestions should not be made for additions to the game. But these should be suggestions, not demands that this or that be added or changed because the game is 'no good' without them or a total waste of the price. I can see from the posts and the gracious that the designer replies to them that he wants such suggestions and acts on some of them (thank you for adding the ability to name units!). But, and I hold this quite strongly, it doesn't matter if you paid some money for the game; the creative act was his and he is the one who decides what goes in or comes out or is changed. You may pay to see a production of King Lear but your price of admission does not give you the right to demand that the play be edited to have a happy ending.
Well, G.B. Shaw said you should always make your point three times; I have probably exceeded his limit. Finally I would like to say to the designer that I enjoy your game tremendously, find it both fun and stimulating as a small lab to help me better understand the historical WWII, and think that you should be most proud of what you have created. I look forward to more patches and, especially, more games using the same approach.
