Just fantastic. And yes, compelling. I end up fundamentally agreeing with all Stephen's observations. Personally, this discussion helps me see how dependent the course of the COIN Series has been on my own view of Labyrinth's shortcomings as a 2-key-actor and global model (hence my desire back then to follow up with a multiplayer and national-level design) -- and on my selection of 1990s Colombia as the starting point. - I will defend 4 players as an apt simplification of that particular internal war at that particular time. But is 4 the best player count for all counterinsurgencies? Clearly not. - Colombia's insurgency lasted many decades, and I opted to dip in at a particular flare up and to design a simulation at a time when there was as yet no conclusion to the conflict. My purposed limitation to the "conduct stage" helped shape the scope of later Series game designs, certainly Volumes II to IV. (Volume VIII, Pendragon, I would note, includes far more onset and conclusion on either side of conduct, as it begins with a fully functioning Roman imperial defense system and shows us its weakening, collapse, and replacement by a new system of warlord kingdoms.) Most importantly, I embrace Stephen's vision of where to go from here. Tradition and path dependency have yielded a stubborn narrowness in the scope of historical boardgame designs. I hope that the COIN Series has played an honorable role in broadening the repertoire, and I will be thrilled if it will become a basis for the expanded political, diplomatic, and social simulation that Stephen lays out for us here! Volko
What an intelligent discussion and well constructed presentation. It’s bracing to have a game system that you admire challenged in the way Stephen does. I intend to hurry back to my COIN games to test his critiques ahead of The British Way arriving. Volko’s typically generous response in the comments also shows how lucky we are to be playing these games in an era when the process of design is so thoughtfully analysed and then built upon. Incidentally, I think Churchill does a nice job of exploring the end of conflict, with “conduct” heavily abstracted and diplomacy and the post-war settlement foregrounded.
Sadly been crazy busy and just now had a good chunk of time to watch this. This is EXACTLY the kind of thought provoking content that I LOVE and happy HL is here to give it to us! Makes me really step back and think about games and what to get out of them. Thanks Fred for hosting and Stephen for the detailed explanations and walking us through basics of what COIN is/isn’t and what it can/can’t do!
A truly excellent video. These are great insights into how to start to model COIN and wargames from the geopolitical down to the tactical. My best takeaway was it highlights and puts into words some of the frustrations with wargames and that is when I play them I am always asking "what about this aspect of the battle" "why isn't that in the game" and Stephen gives a very useful insight into why the designers do that - I will give games deisgners more of a break in future.
Nice to see you back with some more regular content, Fred! I'm very excited for The British Way as an accessible entry point into this system, and am eager to learn more The Guerilla Generation once I listen to this whole episode!
I’m sincere, your work is amazing. Steven is a good guest too. I heard you mention that you are attending Punched Con with Joe. I am visiting My step daughter in May, who lives in Lutterworth, just down the road from Coventry. I had planned to go to Punched Con myself, but it had sold out and no one from it has responded to my queries regarding stopping by for the day. I sure would enjoy meeting you and Joe if you had the time and would indulge me. A game is probably out of the question because I guess I would not be let in without tickets. What do you think?
Great conversation, a lot to think about here. I really hope we see more games around how intrastate conflicts start and end. I would also love to hear Stephen's takes on the EZLN and the Basque ETA and how he would model them.
I kinda like the french track in Colonial Twilight. It adds a sense of detachment for the French Government, which is very close to the historical material. I also find it amusing that Brian chose to set the French track to be easily manipulated by both side, and the added level of resource management does have an impact on my gameplay especially at the end of a round.
I think it's one of the cool aspects of the design, but the point Stephen is making is that it's so interesting that maybe it could be a bit more important in the design.
Many thanks for the video! It made me think about internal factional power struggle. Perhaps, somewhere, it could be modeled by a deck/tableau building part that depending on the path you choose determines your victory conditions (maybe?). As a faction you have flavours of cards, and as you lean into one or another (mimicking the internal shifts of power in the faction) your aim changes reflecting that change of leadership. Anyway, very interesting!
Thanks Emanuele, I think the deck building part is very interesting and is something that I have been wondering about for a while. I also like the idea of changing the victory conditions along the way.
Great talk One game you didn't mention is Pavlov's house. That has the player control the defenders of the house and the leaders at the operational and strategic level that made it possible. I wonder if that sort of game (though obviously with completely different rules and focus) would work for what you discuss.
Well the same system but more on a political/strategic scale exists already, and its the main the inspiration of the Valiant Defence series, that's the State of Siege system.
Great talk, I am not sure if I buy the inductive approach. The point is you have modelled and restricted the room to manoeuvre. How can you have a truely inductive experience other than working those imposed limits?
@@HomoLudens1871 no, I would argue that any good science is inductive and deductive. I just think inductive implies there is a naturalistic system to figure out. Although I suppose that as a player you can do that in a game…. I tend to look at a game as a model of reality and therefore a deductive way of engaging with reality. Designing a game is inductive though…
In response to your comment (1:05:42) that wargames ALWAYS have focused on the conflict and only recently began to look at the onset is not accurate. Origins of WWI was a game about the onset of WWI published by Dover in 1969 and Origins of WWII was a game about the onset of WWII published by Avalon Hill in 1971 [both designed by Jim Dunnigan].
Interesting, I played Origins of WW2 a bit and liked it very much, exactly because it looks at WW2 differently. But do you consider Origins of WW2 as seriously attempting to model the onset of WW2?
I would consider it, in context (1971), as a serious attempt. It was one of the first attempts to do so and was a pioneer in that respect. Compared to designs of 2023 it does not look as sophisticated, but that was 52 years ago. By the way, I discovered your channel recently and am really enjoying the content. I would love to communicate with you about a game design that is in the very beginning stages of design, and would be interested in your opinion as to whether I should use COIN, ICS or RFOP as my model for the game, as well as some other questions. Is there some way I can contact you outside of the comments?
I don't agree with the idea of games having to model the end of a war. That is the job of the players. If you know you can't win the game anymore you can concede and stop the conflict.
Hey Hendrik, I don't think that Stephen argues that all games should model the end of the war. He just divides war in 3 parts: emergence, conduct and resolution and notes that games only model the conduct phase. His point is that it would be interesting to make games that model other parts of the war on their own. A good example of that would be Versailles 1919.
What about a future ”The French Way - End Of Empire” Multi-Pack ? it could cover : Indochina War, Madagascar uprising, Algeria and Cameroun... it may look like : ua-cam.com/video/novDTTT40Qs/v-deo.html with panache.
Well I've been thinking about something along those lines, but I am unsure a COIN multipack is the way to go. The reason being is that I think there are a few non-COIN aspects that I am are more interested in making games about. For example some critical peace conferences, specific operations like the battle of Algiers etc. I guess a loose series of smaller games covering the era would be a cool project. I have definitely have a few games in mind.
@@HomoLudens1871Oui, par exemple le côté purement militaire de l'Indo va au delà de la contre insurrection. On attend toujours un jeu majeur ''jouable'' sur le thème de la déco Fr. Même si Colonial Twilight se démarque des autres dans cette catégorie, cependant trop long , trop lourd pour être un "Hit". En tout cas, je reste curieux sur le sujet.
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9miVG2xT5jY/mqdefault.jpg)
Just fantastic. And yes, compelling. I end up fundamentally agreeing with all Stephen's observations.
Personally, this discussion helps me see how dependent the course of the COIN Series has been on my own view of Labyrinth's shortcomings as a 2-key-actor and global model (hence my desire back then to follow up with a multiplayer and national-level design) -- and on my selection of 1990s Colombia as the starting point.
- I will defend 4 players as an apt simplification of that particular internal war at that particular time. But is 4 the best player count for all counterinsurgencies? Clearly not.
- Colombia's insurgency lasted many decades, and I opted to dip in at a particular flare up and to design a simulation at a time when there was as yet no conclusion to the conflict. My purposed limitation to the "conduct stage" helped shape the scope of later Series game designs, certainly Volumes II to IV. (Volume VIII, Pendragon, I would note, includes far more onset and conclusion on either side of conduct, as it begins with a fully functioning Roman imperial defense system and shows us its weakening, collapse, and replacement by a new system of warlord kingdoms.)
Most importantly, I embrace Stephen's vision of where to go from here. Tradition and path dependency have yielded a stubborn narrowness in the scope of historical boardgame designs. I hope that the COIN Series has played an honorable role in broadening the repertoire, and I will be thrilled if it will become a basis for the expanded political, diplomatic, and social simulation that Stephen lays out for us here!
Volko
What an intelligent discussion and well constructed presentation. It’s bracing to have a game system that you admire challenged in the way Stephen does. I intend to hurry back to my COIN games to test his critiques ahead of The British Way arriving. Volko’s typically generous response in the comments also shows how lucky we are to be playing these games in an era when the process of design is so thoughtfully analysed and then built upon. Incidentally, I think Churchill does a nice job of exploring the end of conflict, with “conduct” heavily abstracted and diplomacy and the post-war settlement foregrounded.
Thanks Joe! I agree that the community is pretty great, and the fact that we can have those constructive and in depth conversations is really awesome.
Oh wow! This is an absolutely amazing presentation. Pure gold I love it! I have so many more questions now lol, we need more of this.
Sadly been crazy busy and just now had a good chunk of time to watch this. This is EXACTLY the kind of thought provoking content that I LOVE and happy HL is here to give it to us! Makes me really step back and think about games and what to get out of them. Thanks Fred for hosting and Stephen for the detailed explanations and walking us through basics of what COIN is/isn’t and what it can/can’t do!
A truly excellent video. These are great insights into how to start to model COIN and wargames from the geopolitical down to the tactical. My best takeaway was it highlights and puts into words some of the frustrations with wargames and that is when I play them I am always asking "what about this aspect of the battle" "why isn't that in the game" and Stephen gives a very useful insight into why the designers do that - I will give games deisgners more of a break in future.
Thanks Brian, that's an awesome takeaway.
Amazing presentation and discussion. Hope many (future) designers will see this one. Thank you Fred and Stephen for this food for thought!
You're very welcome, happy to read that you found it useful.
Nice to see you back with some more regular content, Fred! I'm very excited for The British Way as an accessible entry point into this system, and am eager to learn more The Guerilla Generation once I listen to this whole episode!
Thanks Zak, not back on regular scheduled content or streams yet, but working on it! I hope you'll enjoy the video.
My now what a fantastic discussion Fred and Stephen! Thank you both for your efforts in the board game hobby space, really interesting stuff - cheers.
Thanks Sam, Stephen did an amazing job preparation this one.
Discussions like this are why HL is my favourite YT channel.
Thanks Andrew! I was really glad Stephen wanted to do his talk on the channel.
Fred does the deepest, most interesting and thoughtful game videos on UA-cam.
Thanks Stuart!
I’m sincere, your work is amazing. Steven is a good guest too. I heard you mention that you are attending Punched Con with Joe. I am visiting My step daughter in May, who lives in Lutterworth, just down the road from Coventry. I had planned to go to Punched Con myself, but it had sold out and no one from it has responded to my queries regarding stopping by for the day. I sure would enjoy meeting you and Joe if you had the time and would indulge me. A game is probably out of the question because I guess I would not be let in without tickets. What do you think?
Excellent show - Stephen’s analysis and research highly interesting. Bravo.
Yes, it is a great presentation, really made me rethink some aspects of the COIN framework.
This was a really interesting watch and nice discussion.
You should definitely invite Stephen back so he can give us more presentations!
Thanks Joe, don't worry, he'll be back!
Great chat, Stephen was going hard on COIN aha new perspective! TGG pre-ordered.
He is hard but fair!
I sorry I missed the live chat but thoroughly enjoyed watching:/listening to the show. Great content.
It was recorded, so you didn't miss anything! Happy you enjoyed it.
Wow this was amazing, thank you Fred and Stephen.
Happy that you enjoyed it Enrico.
Wow! Amazing interview. Now I really want to see like a multi-scope COIN game...
Thanks! And the best way to see one is to make one 😏
Great conversation, a lot to think about here. I really hope we see more games around how intrastate conflicts start and end. I would also love to hear Stephen's takes on the EZLN and the Basque ETA and how he would model them.
Thanks Ian! And yes a game on ETA would be very interesting.
I kinda like the french track in Colonial Twilight. It adds a sense of detachment for the French Government, which is very close to the historical material.
I also find it amusing that Brian chose to set the French track to be easily manipulated by both side, and the added level of resource management does have an impact on my gameplay especially at the end of a round.
I think it's one of the cool aspects of the design, but the point Stephen is making is that it's so interesting that maybe it could be a bit more important in the design.
Awesome video. Learned a lot. Thank you. guys!
you're welcome Gordon, and I too learned a lot while recording, it was a great chat.
Very insightful. Thank you for the content.
Thanks Tiago!
This was a great interview and presentation. It really gives one a lot to think about.
Thanks, happy you enjoyed it, Stephen has some really interesting ideas.
My very own section! It's all I've ever wanted!
I knew you would like it. I can't escape your influence anymore, it's everywhere.
Many thanks for the video! It made me think about internal factional power struggle. Perhaps, somewhere, it could be modeled by a deck/tableau building part that depending on the path you choose determines your victory conditions (maybe?). As a faction you have flavours of cards, and as you lean into one or another (mimicking the internal shifts of power in the faction) your aim changes reflecting that change of leadership. Anyway, very interesting!
Thanks Emanuele, I think the deck building part is very interesting and is something that I have been wondering about for a while. I also like the idea of changing the victory conditions along the way.
Great talk
One game you didn't mention is Pavlov's house. That has the player control the defenders of the house and the leaders at the operational and strategic level that made it possible.
I wonder if that sort of game (though obviously with completely different rules and focus) would work for what you discuss.
I had the same thought. Scale down in different phases of a round.
Well the same system but more on a political/strategic scale exists already, and its the main the inspiration of the Valiant Defence series, that's the State of Siege system.
Thanks for the great video. I learned a lot. What was the Urban Guerilla book they mentioned called?
You're welcome Hunter! The book that we mentioned was "Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla" by Carlos Marighella.
I already ordered it!
Thanks Lou! The chat talks a lot more about COIN as a whole rather than just TGG, I hope you'll enjoy it.
Great talk, I am not sure if I buy the inductive approach. The point is you have modelled and restricted the room to manoeuvre. How can you have a truely inductive experience other than working those imposed limits?
I get your point but couldn't you argue that most social sciences are inductive anyway?
@@HomoLudens1871 no, I would argue that any good science is inductive and deductive. I just think inductive implies there is a naturalistic system to figure out. Although I suppose that as a player you can do that in a game…. I tend to look at a game as a model of reality and therefore a deductive way of engaging with reality. Designing a game is inductive though…
Brilliant.
🙏
In response to your comment (1:05:42) that wargames ALWAYS have focused on the conflict and only recently began to look at the onset is not accurate. Origins of WWI was a game about the onset of WWI published by Dover in 1969 and Origins of WWII was a game about the onset of WWII published by Avalon Hill in 1971 [both designed by Jim Dunnigan].
Interesting, I played Origins of WW2 a bit and liked it very much, exactly because it looks at WW2 differently. But do you consider Origins of WW2 as seriously attempting to model the onset of WW2?
I would consider it, in context (1971), as a serious attempt. It was one of the first attempts to do so and was a pioneer in that respect. Compared to designs of 2023 it does not look as sophisticated, but that was 52 years ago. By the way, I discovered your channel recently and am really enjoying the content. I would love to communicate with you about a game design that is in the very beginning stages of design, and would be interested in your opinion as to whether I should use COIN, ICS or RFOP as my model for the game, as well as some other questions. Is there some way I can contact you outside of the comments?
waiting for a Spartacus COIN...
I have been playing around with the idea...
I don't agree with the idea of games having to model the end of a war. That is the job of the players. If you know you can't win the game anymore you can concede and stop the conflict.
Hey Hendrik, I don't think that Stephen argues that all games should model the end of the war. He just divides war in 3 parts: emergence, conduct and resolution and notes that games only model the conduct phase. His point is that it would be interesting to make games that model other parts of the war on their own. A good example of that would be Versailles 1919.
What about a future ”The French Way - End Of Empire” Multi-Pack ? it could cover : Indochina War, Madagascar uprising, Algeria and Cameroun... it may look like : ua-cam.com/video/novDTTT40Qs/v-deo.html with panache.
Well I've been thinking about something along those lines, but I am unsure a COIN multipack is the way to go. The reason being is that I think there are a few non-COIN aspects that I am are more interested in making games about. For example some critical peace conferences, specific operations like the battle of Algiers etc. I guess a loose series of smaller games covering the era would be a cool project. I have definitely have a few games in mind.
@@HomoLudens1871Oui, par exemple le côté purement militaire de l'Indo va au delà de la contre insurrection. On attend toujours un jeu majeur ''jouable'' sur le thème de la déco Fr. Même si Colonial Twilight se démarque des autres dans cette catégorie, cependant trop long , trop lourd pour être un "Hit". En tout cas, je reste curieux sur le sujet.