Defend Wargaming (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> Defend Wargaming (8/22/2001 10:10:00 PM)

Ok this comes from another active thread.
This is your mission. Defend the hobby in a 30 second sound bite or within 100 words or less. Remember your mission here is to illustrate the finer points of our hobby to a potentially hostile audience. Keep the politics out if possible. We are only trying to make people see wargamming as something other than a warmongering obsession for the most part. There is no prize for the best message beyond the fact that the forum might recognise your wisdom.



byron13 -> (8/23/2001 12:57:00 AM)

"Computer simulating is a recreational activity that is in line with our intellectual interests - usually history."
First of all, I call it computer simulating because not all of what we do is war game. I've called myself a war gamer for almost thirty years, but if you look at your library of games, not all are "war" games. I'm sure most of you have Civ II in your library of something similar like Age of Ceasar. These are not war games but simulations of societal activities that may, by the way, include war. So let's broaden the range a little bit. Most of us are interested in history, and it might be considered a hobby. People that have an interest in photography can either read books on photography or actually take pictures. People interested in bike riding can either read books on bikes or actually ride. We have the choice of reading books on history or . . . . what? Actually participate in history? Doesn't work since history means it's already happened, and there is no way to actually "do" it. Computer simulations allow us to "do" what we have an interest in. Bringing these two thoughts together results in us playing games that generally have conflict in them. Let's face it: playing a game without a conflict - or a challenge - is not fun nor is it even a game. And most major historical events involve conflicts of some kind - usually war. There are games out there that have conflicts of a non-combat nature, I've played some of them, and they're fun. But most significant historical events involve some kind of fighting and is the most interesting to simulate. I guess you can widen the circle beyond history. These are simulations of things we are interested in or would like to do, but can't. I can't fly an X-wing fighter, I can't build Rome, and I can't fight in the Battle of Gettysburg. Computer simulations are the only way to "do" these things. The only difference between computer simulations and watching a movie or reading a trash novel is that it requires more intelligence and active participation. The only thing I don't think this theory covers is first-person shooters. They're just evil!



mcbradley -> (8/23/2001 3:40:00 AM)

What’s to defend!?! It’s beginning to sound as though we are expecting violent protests from the anti-globalization zealots or something. All we are doing is PLAYING A GAME! This game isn’t about killing, blood, violence, nazi-glorification or holocaust-denial. It is a test of leadership skill, judgement and resource management, nothing more and nothing less. In being such a test it is also, from my personal experience with it, educational. We aren’t out to splatter blood all over the screen like most of the games directed at children these days. From a true general’s viewpoint, the less blood we spill, the better. We are trying to see how our management skills compare to those of real, historical people in real, historical situations. We aren’t warmongers, either. Any good General hates war. War wastes resources and the lives of the men and women for whom he or she is responsible. But there are rare times when wars MUST be fought. This game provides the opportunity to relive history and see if we could do as well as the people who actually lived and died in those times. Anyone who wants to deny us this game is in effect denying history themselves. Board games based on war have been around for millennia. Why isn’t anyone complaining about chess? Chess is an ancient war game. Most historians concur that it was originally conceived by Hannibal to illustrate his assault on Rome to his subordinates. Where were all these social police when Big Blue was taking on Kasparov? Sorry, I’ve already gone way over my 100 words. Feel free to edit my two cents how you see fit. O. Bradley



KG Erwin -> (8/23/2001 4:17:00 AM)

Thanks for picking up that idea, Les. When we have our little fan soiree next year, I hope to get a bit of media attention, so inevitably one of us will be asked, "Why do you do this?" It would be nice if that person would have a snappy pre-rehearsed response, which will make it seem that the respondent is incredibly quick-thinking and articulate (and it will look good on the newscast). However, the interviewee should NOT be wearing their "Adolf Hitler European Tour 1939-41" t-shirt at the time. heh heh



troopie -> (8/23/2001 9:08:00 AM)

May I wear an "Only One thing to do with a Mad Dog" t-shirt? It has a bearded farmer about to shoot a dog with Hitler's face foaming at the mouth. This hobby is about the study of military history, military technology and personnel management. It requires thought, intelligence, patience, shrewdness, and moral courage. Casualties must be minimised. I do not rejoice when I have killed a lot of the enemy. And in some small way, this is a way of honouring those who fought. My son asked me "Where are the bad guys?" I answered, "There are no 'bad guys'. They're just poor buggers doing their service the same time we are." troopie



Supervisor -> (8/24/2001 10:00:00 PM)

You need O. Bradley to do the talking for you. Couldn't have said it better myself. About 10 years ago I used to play paintball (gettin' a little old for that now). Anyhow. we wanted to use an open field for our "wargames". Somehow, the local press (of a midwest college town) caught wind of this & you would not BELIEVE the stink that was raised over this. I got more than a couple hate calls. The local farmer who originally had no problem with us using his property had to back off becuase he took so much flak over this. Couldn't blame him, but none of could have anticipated the "public outcry" over what most of us considered to be harmless fun. But to some people (my guess it was a bunch of old friggin' ladies) did not like us "playing war". Just something to keep in mind for the SP convention. Don't know what the environment is like in WV.



Zevious Zoquis -> (9/9/2001 1:01:00 AM)

Wargaming is a study of strategy, of tactics and of logistics. Death is an inevitable result of warfare but it is most definitely NOT the source of enjoyment obtained from wargaming. I do not revel in "body counts". Instead, I glory in the enactment of a successful strategic plan. My interest in wargaming has given me a much fuller appreciation of what the young men and women who took part in WWII (and all other wars) faced regardless of the "side" they fought on.



Richard bradley -> (9/9/2001 1:38:00 AM)

...everybody's got an anorack wearer inside, wargaming's mine...



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (9/22/2001 9:03:00 AM)

Kinda sad my thread here hasnt attracted a lot of attention, but then it did start before a well known incident (so fizzling isnt any surprise to me). Currently have a chap living under my roof that is so adamantly opposed to all things wargamish. Talks with him are about as good a work out for an ideal as one can get. Suffice it to say he has travelled and seen a lot of things most westerners take for granted, or just prefer to see through blinkered eyes. But still I can say I dont have to agree with everythig he says. An opinion no matter how effectively argued, doesnt automatically become fact merely on enthusiasm. Let me try to show you how easy wargaming is to defend by taking my own slant on my own topic of discussion. "You cant know something truely until you study it, observe it, live it, and become intimately linked with it". Thats me I am quoting by the way. I dont love war, I hate it entirely. I hope to never meet anyone that has no problem with the sound of men dying. With the smell of rotting unburied dead people. I dont revel in the sights of war, nor the engines of destruction. But if we do not know war we cant protect ourselves from it.
A police officer studies crime. A doctor studies medicine. A fireman studies fire and related accidents. A pshychiatrist studies mental illnesses. Scientists of various branches study our planets various workings. The list goes on. No one is critical of people honestly studying all the above.
So why is it that we who study war are seen as somehow uncivilised. In all walks of life you have those that seek to pervert knowledge. War is no exception.
In any aspect of knowledge, to ignore is to make you vulnerable to a potentially dangerous level of ignorance. I dont want an unskilled doctor operating on me.
For this reason, I dont want people controlling my destiny, that have limited knowledge of the effects of their actions. Why is it that politicians so often allow their populations to wander into horrible decisions. Is the human race doomed to repeat bad choices made all through history?
And history teaches us that we appear to do a fine job of repeating bad choices.
Is it that war is so distasteful, we can not bring ourselves to deal with it enough to understand it fully. When I play Steel Panthers (or any other wargame) I am not gleefully enjoying the suffering. But that is the view that is seen by those that do not share our interest. Forget the protestations, no one is listening.
Wargames are seen as sick toys for people indifferent to the horrors of war.
Whats annoying is my friend is capable of gleefully wiping out pixel people in a game not connected to reality. "its not real" seems to make it ok to play at killing slaughtering and maiming. "Killing is killing" If you make it a game, the act becomes a meaningless action. Lets get brutal here. If wargames are sick, then any form of entertainment dealing with death is sick. Any form of entertainment that involves violently oppposing another is sick too. Animated violence is no better than simulated violence. The violence of Bugs Bunny is no better than the violence in the game Diablo.
Lets go another step further into a realm that no one really wants to hear. Just watching violence is wrong. So that includes war movies or films that have violence in them. This includes film coverage under any circumstances. So violence in the news media is wrong. The world can forget about viewing violence under any means. The above is excessive of course. But no more excessive for branding wargamers as sick individuals for studying war in all its aspects. For simulating in to see how it works. For modelling the engines of war, so they become second nature. For reading books on it. For watching it in film as movies or documentaries. If our politicians knew as much of war as I do, thee simply wouldnt be much war out there.



KG Erwin -> (9/22/2001 10:03:00 AM)

I echoed somewhat similar, but not nearly as eloquent statements in my newest thread. Hear, hear! Les has spoken the truth.Sarge, if you would, go to my new thread. Give me your opinion on my attempt at a wargamer "mission statement".



Randy -> (9/22/2001 11:18:00 AM)

To me computer wargaming is the study of historical military events and the study of miitary tactics throught the use of computer simulation, and role playing. Those who fail to learn history, are bound to repeat it.



Tomanbeg -> (9/22/2001 12:27:00 PM)

It keeps a few people from learning to Golf. This is good.
T.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6875