Wargames with or without Politics

[ncc1701e]

It is the vanquished who decides the end of a war.

This sentence really made me think of the wargames I play. It is very true. And just because a nation has lost its army does not mean it will not continue to fight by other means. There are plenty of examples in history of this.

And the example that interests me here is the treatment of France in 1940. In all the wargames I know, France capitulates. Because it no longer had the political will to continue the fight while it still had armies outside the continent and the 4th world fleet at the time.

When we think about it today, it's incomprehensible. Do you know any existing wargame including this political will in its rules? I would be curious to try something more upper level than a clash between armies.

Thanks

[gamer78]

There is 'Yasuke' character in Assassin's Creed Shadows. Daimyō Oda Nobunaga but not a wargame.

Charles de Gaulle perhaps but wasn't he in UK during fighting. Did the Western powers really support him. What is political game during World Wars.? Without a leader in front.

[Curtis Lemay]

It is the vanquished who decides the end of a war.

This sentence really made me think of the wargames I play. It is very true. And just because a nation has lost its army does not mean it will not continue to fight by other means. There are plenty of examples in history of this.

And the example that interests me here is the treatment of France in 1940. In all the wargames I know, France capitulates. Because it no longer had the political will to continue the fight while it still had armies outside the continent and the 4th world fleet at the time.

When we think about it today, it's incomprehensible. Do you know any existing wargame including this political will in its rules? I would be curious to try something more upper level than a clash between armies.

Thanks

NATO vs. Warsaw Pact had plenty of that. See my TOAW scenario, for examples of it:

https://crossrl1.wixsite.com/my-toaw-si ... t-war-1979

[gamer78]

I think he specifically asked for France not for NATO. And the time frame is WW'2 about France surrender. They moved government to French Algeria. It was previously 'janissary republic' during Ottoman times.

[ncc1701e]

Yes thank you but I will check this one anyway.

What I would like to emphasize is that generally, on the same side, politicians and the military do not necessarily have the same objective. Sometimes politicians' goals are unrealistic or cannot be achieved through military actions.

In a wargame, what would be interesting is to simulate this kind of rivalry.

[gamer78]

Politicians during early century was also military leaders. EX: Enver Pasha (İttihat- Terakki) going for 'Turan' very unrealistic goal againt Bolsheviks. Rivaly between military leaders I think is present in Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa. Politician goals perhaps only for next election.

[ncc1701e]

Rivaly between military leaders I think is present in Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa. Politician goals perhaps only for next election.

So does this force the Red Army to counterattack in the summer of 1941? It was Stalin's orders.

But we can also think of May 1940. Why did the French rush into Belgium? Because there was a political will not to fight on French soil.

[gamer78]

I don't know if Stalin's Russia is similar. Some scenario notes from JTS France '14 (Not full historical facts of course; only designer opinion). Military elite perhaps decided what they think is the best.

"The French infantry in the early order of battle are blessed with the highest
assault rating of all infantry, but are cursed with having the lowest defense rating. This is
formulated from several conditions, but the largest factors have to do with the "cult of the
offensive" doctrine of the early period of 1914. Following the French capitulation after in
the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, the officers at the École de Guerre came up with the
opinion that they had been defeated because they had surrendered tactical, moral, and
strategic initiative to the Germans before the battle even began. Their answer to this was
that in the next conflict the French would launch immediate attacks on all fronts,
theoretically causing the enemy to stretch their resources and force them to constantly be
on the defensive. A vocal French officer that supported this view, Colonel de
Grandmaison, has been quoted as saying, "In an attack only two things are necessary: to
know where the enemy is, and to decide what to do. What the enemy intends to do is of
no consequence." This type of mentality, combined with the doctrine of all out attack, nearly led to complete disaster. With indifference to the enemy's intentions, the French of
the early 1914 campaign approached tactical situations with the surgical precision of a
sledgehammer"

[pzgndr]

Unlike most conflicts between two sides where there is a winner and a loser per victory conditions and that's the end of it, Empires in Arms is a rather unique wargame. Other than France and Great Britain being the protagonists during the Napoleonic Wars 1805-1815, there were many opportunities for alliances, multiple declarations of war, peace treaties, and switching "sides" over a ten year period for the other Major Powers. An enemy today may be an ally tomorrow. So, politics is important, and whether you're playing up to six human opponents or AI-controlled computer opponents, one must carefully consider near-term and long-term politics. Which makes EIA interesting.

[gamer78]

But recruitment is also about politics. Not all should be adventures warriors at this stage of history. It is easy to understand Croats join Grande Armée because of Ottomans. East Prussia nationalism grow because of treatment of villagers like a supply wagon. Sure Cold war created some conflicts. But conflicts were already there as a counter opinion. Same is here.

From Wikipedia:" With the exception of Spain, a three-year lull ensued. Diplomatic tensions with Russia, however, became so acute that they eventually led to war in 1812. Napoleon assembled the largest field army he had ever commanded to deal with this menace. On 24 June 1812, shortly before the invasion, the assembled troops with a total strength of 685,000 men were made up of:[12]

410,000 from the French Empire (present-day France, Italy, the Low Countries, and several German states)
• 95,000 Poles
• 35,000 Austrians
• 30,000 Italians[13]
• 24,000 Bavarians
• 20,000 Saxons
• 20,000 Prussians
• 17,000 Westphalians
• 15,000 Swiss
• 10,000 Danes and Norwegians[14][15]
• 4,000 Spaniards
• 4,000 Portuguese
• 3,500 Croats
• 2,000 Irish"

[Orm]

Rivaly between military leaders I think is present in Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa. Politician goals perhaps only for next election.

So does this force the Red Army to counterattack in the summer of 1941? It was Stalin's orders.

No, as a player you control whether to attack or not. However, the Soviet units in DC: Barbarossa begin in offensive mode and that penalize their defensive capabilities severely. It takes political points to change their setting to defensive mode, and PPs are in short supply.

[gamer78]

Mamluks and Hungarian conquest were very easy victory for Ottomans, some by luck, easy conquest. (they were great powers at that time). If history could alternate like Desicive Campaigns. Enver Pasha did lose most the soldiers prior to battle to Kafkas Russia (Sarıkamish). If it didn't happen then in RCW could then turn Kafkas in to Bolsheviks(Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia) that much quickly?