Wargaming Modern Warfare
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 лют 2023
- How soon after a conflict has ended, is it ok to wargame that period? How soon is 'too soon'? This question discusses the ethics of making a game out of recent (or even ongoing) conflicts. Not discussed in the video (but encouraged in the discussion) is the question of whether the boundaries of what is acceptable are different for tabletop wargames verses computer wargames? I would also love to hear the perspective of Veterans of recent wars who wargame the period they fought in.
- Ігри
I’ve never considered wargaming as glorifying war, more like educating about war. Most of my rare wins at the table are often a Pyrrhic victory and clear evidence that war really has no winners. I have to admit that I’m already thinking about eventually gaming the Ukraine conflict because never before have I been presented with so much visual information regarding strategies and tactics as they are happening. It’s so vivid.
Maybe I used the wrong turn of phrase, I don't think Wargaming glorifies war, but it is a phrase I've had thrown at me by non-wargamers from time to time.
We all know,I think how real conflicts, wars can be with horrific wounds and deaths,what ever the period,with "toy" soldiers, the worst is chipped paint,or broken,bent weapon,seeing the hardship,the destruction on your tv,I personally cant wargame the here and now
Hey Big Lee! I think that a lot depends on the individual wargamer. If you are "uncomfortable" gaming a particular period... then don't. WWII hits close to home (Dad and a lot of Uncles). Vietnam as well (A lot of Cousins). But as time wears on, I think that those who participated in the "Real Thing" , would like to see that their struggles, sacrifices, trials, and tribulations are remembered... so that lessons can be learned, as Humanity moves on to "Better Days"!
I agree with your sentiment and I grew up in a military family. Father served in Korea and Vietnam, 27 yrs USAF. Brother 20 years in USMC. Nephew served three tours in the sand box with US Army Intel.
So I always have to ask, and no disrespect intended, if they were all fighting for freedom, why are we less free today than ever?
@@thomaschase7097 Hi Thomas! Democracy is, oddly enough, far more fragile than I ever imagined... yet at the same time, more enduring than a Mulberry Tree tap root that refuses to die, and keeps sending out flourishing shoots. An educated, informed citizenry, that VOTES for their interests is the very Lifeblood of any representative democracy. We are the Legacy of those who have gone before... so if we are less free today, the fault is ours and not theirs. It is up to us to pass on to future generations that cherished, burnished, and enhanced legacy of freedom. But a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Evil flourishes when good men stand by and do nothing.
Hi Lee; like you I don't game anything post WW2. This is largely due to the immense ranges of firepower which (to me) gets too out of proportion on a tabletop - thus making games look ridiculous unless you use a really tiny scale.
I had a similar dilemma to your Q. when I started wargaming (about 1970) where I was really interested in WW2 as dad & uncles were involved, & they were only in their 50s (so it was still very clear in their minds), yet my dad never had any issue with me doing it & in fact was pleased that by doing so gave me a better understanding of the conflict. As for gaming a conflict still in progress, I definitely say this is in bad taste - although ''heads'' of the forces involved will be doing just that, (although testing ''what if'' scenarios) to run the conflict.
Wargamers are frequently accused of being ''warmongers'', but the truth is quite the opposite, as we do have a greater understanding of the effects & carnage that wars inflict.
Same with me. I've always had an interest in WWII because, when I were a lad, I had living relatives that lived through that conflict. It is I think I've said no swearing this conversation there's bound to be military wargamers testing scenarios in war games right now for the Ukraine.
I think for me it's that interaction of why we game search and periods, and what the public think we get out of playing that period. It's one of the reasons why I think public demo games as such a good idea, because it presents a forum for an exchange of information. A chance to let non wargamers know why we play the periods we play.
Agree wholeheartedly with your final comment. I was reading only yesterday of wounds suffered by Zulu's when hit by bullets fired from the Martini Henry which was quite sobering. And recently too the effects of shellfire in the Franco Prussian War. I am also very aware of the effects on civilians being aware of some horrific incidents. Other than those who have the first hand experience, I think most wargamers have a full comprehension of the nature of warfare and while we enjoy a good game we are pacifists at heart.
Hey Lee, I appreciate you addressing this topic as it's something I give alot of thought to.
Sometimes I question my interest in wargaming and militaria in general. It's the sort of topic that the more I know about it the more it disgusts me, yet I keep reading, researching, watching and playing as some morbid sense of duty and respect to those that survived and those that have fallen. To know what they've been through is to know what NOT to wish for and why the world is the way it is. Even when they're just being represented through miniatures on a tabletop.
When we're young, impressionable and have yet to learn about the great things life has to offer, it's easier to slip into the glorification of violence and conflict. Hopefully as most people mature, it becomes clear how much of a last resort war should be and how to appreciate when it's abstracted to rolling some dice with friends.
The line for me is more or less clear depending if you play historical, fictional/fantasy or something in-between. If it's based on History, to what extent and degree of accuracy? Is it a simulation or a coat of paint for thematic aesthetics and game mechanics? Even if it's fictional and involves people there's probably a touch of sensitivity that should be had, even with our currently bloated social implications. Maybe that made some sense.
Again, thanks for the video!
I like to think that tabletop wargamers have a deeper understanding of their chosen periods than either the public or computer wargamer would have because we spend time preparing & painting before we even get to play. That deeper understanding or the conflicts we are playing make our games so much more than just entertainment (although it is that as well of course). I'm not sure I would say all wargamers are pacifists, but we have a better understanding of the ramifications of war than the layman in the street.
I am not a veteran but i know a lot of veterans and I grew up with WW1 veterans. I am reluctant to play anything 'modern' or anything that has some sort of 'personal' connection. Even more than this I am very reticent to mention wargaming to anyone whom I know to be a veteran. But as so many others will say - its a personal choice. I just don't think it needs to be dressed up in - 'I do it for this reason or that reason'. Our reason for wargaming is that it is fun and we enjoy it on any number of levels. If it isn't fun, why do it? If others don't find it fun, be aware.
Maybe this whole subject is more about what other people (non-wargamers) project onto us and their assumptions about our motivations.
Some years ago, a Russian Hind got shot down in Syria by insurgents using US equipment. We wargamed it 3 days later and called the session "Too Soon?"
Taking the pi$$ aside, this is a real issue.
Some people enjoy being offended so they will trumpet their outrage no matter what period is played. For myself I find gaming recent events a bit vulgar but can understand how the images in the media draw in some players. Great topic, cheers
And sometime it's the faux outrage of a troll trying to provoke a response.
I have no issues and whatever people want to game is their choice.
I don't think other people's feelings should dictate hobby choices. Especially in your own domicile.
War, regardless of where, or when, is death and destruction ans sufferance.
Not unethical.
For me personally, I only game WW2 and Vietnam, based on personal interests. Not to mention model selection.
Playing and collecting in your own home is entirely down to the individual, and as I hinted at in the video, some veterans play modern stuff for reasons that non-military gamers maybe don't understand. But When those games break out into the community (at shows and demo's) I think we all have responsibility to play with respect, and to know our subject, so we can explain why we are gaming it to visitors/non-wargamers.
@@MiniatureAdventuresTV
I agree when in public.
However, I have to wonder, that as long as people aren't being belligerent, callous, or making targeted derogatory statements, at what point is anyone obligated to not exercise their inalienable right to free expression, just because another person is offended in some way.
Does anyone's inalienable rights end where someone else's feelings begin?
Possibly opening up an entirely new can of worms 🤣.
I don’t feel any time is too soon. We did it in the army in real time as part of planning. As a hobby, it’s history and tactics, it’s a living story. It’s not who we are as people necessarily. I completely disagree with the politics of Israel but I would have no trouble playing their side in a game. I am a veteran and have no problem with it. I have played lots of war games in Vietnam with Vietnamese friends including games of the American War. We all learned a lot and had interesting conversations about it.
Hi Lee, for me I'm okay with wargaming current wars because I think it helps us to understand the conflict better, but I can see people not feeling it's appropriate to wargame something currently going on especially if they are affected by it. I know a few people locally that have family involved in the Ukrainian-Russian conflict so I probably wouldn't wargame it for that reason (People involved). For modern I am actually working on a "what if" game where France and Germany go to war in the 2020's. I tend to like the large-scale conflicts with Divisions and Corps so for this I'm using 1/285th scale (GHQ minis). I also like Team Yankee for modern. I think it's more fun doing a hypothetical conflict rather than an actual one for modern. I tend to babble so I hope everyone understands what I'm saying lol!
Babbling is fine, I do it all the time! 🤣 You make an interesting point about what if games or fictional encounters for modern war games. It's one way of avoiding this whole can of worms, especially if you're talking to non wargamers.
Back in the 80's when I was playing 1/300 "moderns", I had models for my truck and mortar team. We were very fortunate the cold war did not go hot as more often than not, my little lead avatar on the table wound up under the beaten zone of a BM21 or the tracks of a BMP.
On the whole, I don't have a problem with recent conflicts. Current conflicts are a bit more problematic, first because as you say there are people whose lives are being impacted right now, and second because we cannot have even a vague idea of what the actual situation is. Of course professionals are gaming the heck out of the Invasion of Ukraine right now, possibly quietly assisted by a few of the better qualified of us amateurs.
That's a god point, 'professional' military wargamers are probably working through all manner of variables at the moment. I wonder how accurate they were in the early days of this conflict, when every assumption seemed to be turned on its head?
I’m happy to play Vietnam but that’s about my limit. Get interested in gaming Falklands but having watched it live on the news and known people who were there. Still can’t buy the minis and roll the dice
Similar to me by the sounds of it. I'm not being judgemental about those that do game modern periods (each to their own) I just wanted to stimulate a discussion about it .. judging from the number and quality of comments that's mission accomplished!
A lot second thought. I have friends who serve, and yes they play modern wargames. With Regards to the Russian invasion, I was blessed with insider knowledge from following War on the Rocks (military analysis site), who pointed out the logistical problems, so I was less surprised at the failure of the Russian war-machine.
Saying that, it's going to be a close run war, and by that I mean it ain't over until one side gives up or is eliminated by whatever means. I'd bet on Ukraine winning, but it depends on America and NATO support. Russia has a history of losing the first round and then coming back for a win on the rebound (however pyhhric their victory; think Finland).
Good points re the Ukraine conflict. Most of our news is seen through a filter and access to good analysis is a rare thing unless you look for it.
Interesting points Lee and one that comes up every now and then, I remember strong opinions being expressed about gaming The Falklands back in the late 80's and similarly strong opinions about gaming Lebanon. Generally our groups wargaming is confined to 'back then' but recently we've taken more of an interest in 'moderns' and have found it fascinating not just from the historical point of view but from the ethical viewpoint expressed by others! In the instance of the Iran/Iraq conflict of the 80's no one bats an eyelid, in the the instance of the recent Syrian civil war however peoples ethics have become a bit sharper, but why? At the base level there are just bits of metal being pushed around a representative table top, hopefully in an historical way and as it's a wargame, without the civilian casualties we all know about so no different to a WWII game. What I do think happens is that some peoples ethics get driven by the perception of the leaders involved, so Putin & Assad bad, and the place it is happening, the Middle East, but many of those who have a problem with Syria are perfectly ok with the 2nd Gulf War and Afghanistan. For me, if you want to game something fairly recent then by all means do so, just stick to the military bit, be mindful of the wider social and political issues, but remember, just like when gaming any other period, it's a game.
I often wonder, that Martin from Peter Pig does not make British post war troops, but makes American and French modern Legionaries, he too maybe feels uncomfortable about it, make be a decade, or two is a good time lapse, probably NATO will be at the moment be war gaming, the Russian /Ukraine war, not obviously in a pleasurable way>>> see Little wars TV as they do a gulf war game with American vets
Undoubtedly there are military wargamers hard at work right now, exploring options and outcomes from the current conflict. But I'm more interested in the boundaries of acceptability for Wargaming as an entertainment. But as someone said in this discussion, is there any difference between exploring current events on the games table or in a TV drama or movie?
My personal view is that if there are still combatants alive who fought in the conflict that’s where I very carefully consider if it’s the period for me. The Falklands conflict is a big line for me as it’s a very British thing, those of us of a certain age will recall the injuries and suffering show on the TV. I think that veterans of that conflict or indeed anything more recent deserve respect and not have their experiences recreated by those of us who fortunately have not fought in a real conflict with toy soldiers.
I noticed that just after the Russian invasion of Ukraine a board game was being sold of that conflict, I posted on the supporting forum as I considered it in poor taste/timing and was basically shouted down. May be board games are more removed as they tend to be high level actions rather than a squad/platoon level action.
I recall the Falklands very well. Like Ukraine now, it was on the news a lot (unsurprising in the UK) and was grimly fascinating to watch play out in real time. But like you, I saw the suffering and injury and wouldn't have felt comfortable playing period. I count myself fortunate to have met veterans such as Simon Weston, and while men like him have overcome their injuries, I would still be uncomfortable playing a game of a conflict that cost them so much.
Hi Lee,
I‘m not sure if playing any particular period can be unethical. Recreating certain aspects of it (i.e. war crimes) might be unethical. That said I found it hard to actually get back on the painting/ gaming table after 24.02.2022. I was really asking myself if it was OK to play war while people died. It was only after some time of reflection that I realized it wouldn’t make a difference if I did or didn’t. Except for my own mental well-being. As for gaming recent conflicts? I‘d not game a conflict where people are still dying, but will give Ukraine a go once the dust has settled enough. The combination of modern and cold war weapons and tactics is something that interests me quite a lot.
It'll certainly be an interesting conflict to study once the dust has settled. Hopefully that will be sooner rather than later.
I draw no distinction between what happened yesterday and what happened three thousand years ago. All "war is hell", no less then as now.
Most wargamers will be armchair historians and well aware of how devastating conflict is not only on the combatants but non-combatants too, and recreate/play a conflict with much respect for those who experienced it for real.
While one may offend a lot of people if one was to wargame a current conflict there may also be a risk of offending one person if playing a conflict within the last one hundred years, for example The Spanish Civil War. So from the viewpoint of living experience, if we draw the line at yesterday we should also draw it at one full lifetime ago and rule out all 21st century and most 20th century warfare and only just now be considering the 1910's and maybe early 1920's as a suitable period to game.
I like playing with toy soldiers and my preference is for brightly painted ones, so no longer play modern eras for that reason, not because of ethics or any similar consideration (I did of course have a lot of Airfix World War II in my 1970's childhood). Equally, while I value historical accuracy and realism, I prefer my soldiers to have a parade ground appearance rather than campaign look.
(PS I do think of them as men when gaming not as figures or "minis", which was a recommendation I read many years ago, I think in a WRG Ancients rule set or some other publication written by Phil Barker. This is a point in itself when wargaming, does one see a miniature figure moving a few centimetres or inches on a table, or in one's mind's eye a man advancing several paces, yards of metres across a battle ground.)
Yes, one needs to remember that because of ''scale'', when a casualty is taken, this can represent anything from 1 man - 60 men or more; so being ''cavalier'' with ones troops represents poor command decisions & careless thought of the men under your command.
I have a friend who can be rather cavalier with the lives of his troops in wargames. He approached the game as a tactical problem, which isn't necessarily the same as a real life commander who has to husband his forces for the mission in hand, and those that follow .
Most people here would not have a problem gaming modern conflicts and I know some that do.
It is a personal thing.
However, our colonial wars are still a very touchy subject. The scale of that war and its length means it affected almost every family in the country. One of my grandfathers, my father and five of my uncles on both sides of the family fought in that war.
So, in Portugal, in the vast majority of cases, you can play up to and including modern conflicts, except the 1961 to 1974 period.
I've played British and French colonial, but nothing past 1914, but it is still a touchy subject. However, again I think its about knowing the subject, knowing why we are playing it, and explaining it properly to non-gamers.
I will say that I only ever felt unmotivated towards the hobby in regards of it being "too soon" or in any way distasteful was when the war in Ukraine broke out. I rarely played historicals, and at that point it was just WW2, everything else was science fiction war games. I have always had a healthy respect to war and the horrors it brings - but that moment made it difficult to enjoy the hobby.
And I live in Europe, and my parents grew up their entire lives (from the 40's and 50's) with the threat of Soviet invasion. My country has been in on and off conflict with Russia for almost 800 years. I never took it lightly. In time, however, I managed to divorce real life from games again.
A very interesting topic lee, i play ww2 flames of war and have a considerable german army which includes many waffen ss and still now its a bit of a touchy subject for alot of people, me personally i just find the uniforms/equipment interesting, so i model that period and on the flip side recently a few fellow gamers won't play eastern front against me, as they won't play russians so we recenty had a discusssian at the local club and decided making the russians units from ukraine instead, so even a modern conflict can spill out to older wargaming, as for doing modern periods i think your right you have to leave a few years after a conflict.
I only have SS because they specifically fought in the engagements I'm interested in. I realize that competition and pickup play is different from scenarios, and I'll even accept the rule of cool to a degree, but what angers and saddens me both, is seeing a gamer who has no idea of, or interest in the history of these units.
Since you're posting on a Big Lee video, I am confident you are *not* one of those. 😉
Interesting you say that. I’d bought a load of soviet 2WW troops to play Stalingrad but haven’t touched them since last March
I've played a lot of WWII stuff myself and think that any unit is fair game so long as you take the time to understand their history. Sadly some players do seem to get swept away with the special abilities of units (particularly in a certain popular WWII wargame) without understanding the unit histories.
@@MiniatureAdventuresTV I agree (this is a separate conversation though); the construction of wargaming armies should largely be bulked out by ''regular'' units, with ''elite/specialty'' troops being in the minority. I know of some gamers whose armies are almost entirely made up of odd/unique/specialty troops; & they wonder why no-one is interested in playing against them.🤔
I understand your personal perspective and I share some of that ( I'm only really interested in 1780ish to 1914ish) but philosophically are the ethics, respect and sympathy for combatants and civilians any less valid in the historical wars than for those in the resent past or present?
That's a valid point. The victims of war are still victims whether they been from the 2020's or the 1820's or the 820's.
For some it may be problematisch, but for me it's "fiction". So I don't come in collision with things going on. In addition ongoing conflicts lack the "solid Information" to game them.
Older periods have a good knowledge base to draw your stories from. So they are more to my liking. 😊
That's a good point. Older periods often come with more research and information in the public domain. Current conflicts, even those splashed across TV media, I'll still very much embedded in the fog of war.
The first time this came up as far as I am aware was the Falklands War. The anti-war demonstration at Kensington Town Hall during Salute ('82 or '83) was a significant event in this handwringing. Personally, I don't game modern warfare. I did try Vietnam but didn't feel an affinity for that war. During, and within a year or two are definitely not to be encouraged in shows/conventions. However, I wouldn't stop other people gaming the games they wish to play
Oh I'd never advocate stopping anyone playing any period, but as you say the more recent the more controversial it can seem to non-wargamers. All the more reason to understand why you are playing and to play sensitively, especially in a public forum like a show.
I find it strange how many wargamers get upset about it when it's so common place in films, TV and video games particularly. The Call of Duty series in particular while not particularly realistic or "historical" in a wargaming sense has made well over a billion USD.
As someone who's wargamed Afghanistan, The Gulf Wars amongst other modern imaginaitons I'd say the biggest problem is gaming with rules of engagement. It's hard to make a compelling two sided wargame where a single casualty can be game over.
Your right, other mediums don't seem to have the same level of angst that the wargaming community has over modern periods. If anything, tabletop wargamers have the moral high ground (if you can call it that) because we also want to learn about the history as well as be entertained.
@@MiniatureAdventuresTV perhaps the respect for history is what makes wargamers wary.
I think it's a very personal thing. I'm personally wary of gaming any conflict that's too recent (or ongoing), but if other people want to game it then that is their choice.
Yeh, I'm not judging other gamers, but I'm personally uncomfortable with modern stuff.
People have a tendency to rationalize their opinions. I say this to plant a stake in the ground. The arguments for whether any game is ethical is a red-herring raised to justify an opinion. A wargame is not war; H. G. Wells speaks to this issue in his Little Wars rules from 1913.
The issue that surrounds wargaming modern wars, or any wars for that matter, is rooted in "thought-action-fusion" where a strong affect is created from an intrusive thought, which is the basis for "magical" thinking, and a whole host other dichotomies that create mental health issues.
That said, playing a modern wargame and callously acting out propaganda that inflates bigotry is offensive. However, it's not as offensive as actually killing people, because it is make-believe.
So, arguably the issue comes down to does playing games that represent violence cause people to act out said violence in the real world? The answer to that is a qualified no it does not. There are some correlations between games and visual media reinforcing intrinsic behaviours (it's complicated by nature and nurture), but no strict cause and effect.
Otherwise all the thugs in the world would be playing wargames to be better thugs, and that clearly is not the case.
I think I probably used the word unethical when I should have used the words uncomfortable, disrespectful or sensitive. I certainly don't want to judge other wargamers gaming choices. I'm just more interested in what people think on this issue, and and why they game the games they play.
@@MiniatureAdventuresTV Sure, lots of things make us uncomfortable and I'm not here to force anything on anyone. However, just because it makes some one uncomfortable is not a good reason to prohibit others from playing a game.
This is where I think a lot of the anger that drives the binary arguments generating buzzwords like woke or labeling people fascists for not sharing the same world view arise.
It is what it is.
I wold give it about 20 years
I'm cool with anyone playing anything. Personally, I can't play Iraq or Afghanistan bc it hits too close; but I've played Ukraine ones.
I'm looking at a "What if" set in 1969-1972 which I will probably game at some point.
Open to 1980s stuff too whether Falklands or Cold War going hot.
Ukraine - can see how it could be controversial and if doing today should be approached with sensitivity. However does it speak of a modern society where we want everything and we want it now?
The Ukraine conflict has given me renewed vigour for the 1969-72 whatif campaign I wanted to look at.
Ukraine represents a realtime what if. Maybe less controversial as a solo game than two players as inevitably one play would have to play as the Russians where is the line there.
Of course re Ukraine are we really getting enough information to shape wargames scenarios? I see maps with the front moving back and forth. I see videos of drones dropping explosives on vehicles etc but I'm not seeing massive engagements worthy of a tabletop.
Is it unethetical to game a What if China invaded Taiwan today scenario?
To circle back round to the question, I'm in my late thirties and open to gaming real and imagined scenarios up to and including 1990... After that I become a bit more reluctant however would consider each example on a case by case basis.
An interesting and considered response. As others have noted the accuracy of information always increases with distance from a conflict.
In my humble opinion the majority of people actually play games of war and don’t Wargame per se. Wargaming Requires a hypothesis, tests decision making and undertakes analysis to understand and improve decision making so if you are actually wargaming to learn and improve and to create ideas for doctrinal change then it’s relative. The us and NATO are probably doing loads of wargames as we speak. In terms of using wargaming to explore the history then the lens of wargaming can be very useful provided what your testing , research and setting are well prepared. Playing a tactical game without context is very limited in a wargaming sense. Suggest you look at the MOD handbook on wargaming and they actually want more civilian imput but warhammer won’t really help if you see what I mean...We advocate a return to the original concepts of wargaming and believe it is about trying to come up with improved ideas between amateur and professional wargaming. Perhaps this may help ua-cam.com/video/Hl8e9FZDwC8/v-deo.html
I believe wargaming as a whole is a hobby and past time that's very good for people mentally, in no way is that unethical to me.
Wargaming Ukraines a bit weird at the minute seen as it's far from over, for game design purposes you'd need to wait until it's over so you can incorporate all the important elements.
I do believe a certain amount of time has to pass however before the trauma leaves people's minds however, although that time period would be less if you are let's say in a country that's largely unaffected by said conflict.
I see no ethical reason to not play wargames in any conflict. My toy soldiers cannot harm anyone.
I would say it is impractical to play games in ongoing or recent wars though. As online information warfare develops it becomes increasingly hard to know what actually happened. Time gives perspective and helps tell fact from fiction. Particularly, if we can now get reports from multiple sides of a conflict like world war 2. We likey won't see accurate reports from the Ukraine war for at least a decade and accurate russian reports maybe never.
A couple of people have said the same thing about the inaccuracy of current information. Maybe a practical reason for avoiding current conflicts rather than an a moral/ethical consideration.
Never too early. Ukraine & Russia, fair game.
You need to define what you mean by "ethical" first.
Do you really just mean, "Is it socially acceptable in the mainstream wargaming community?"?
That's not really the same as "ethical."
Yeh, I think I needed to specify what I meant. I think where I've used the word 'unethical' you could swap it for 'disrespectful' or 'insensitive'. There's probably more tolerance for wargaming uncomfortable periods within the wargaming community than there is in the public at large. But that's because our reasons for Wargaming a period are often more complex, nuanced, and thoughtful than the media represent.