A military background

[Deleted User]

Apart from a stint in that noted para-military force, the Boy Scouts, I have no experience in the military.

Our little wargaming group has five members (enough to fit around a table). The last & quite recent two members have military backgrounds. One is an ex-Australian army major & the most recent, an ex-British officer who had served in Bosnia. Neither had ever gamed before but both are notable in performing extraordinarily well in the bloodless table top conflicts with our little plastic & metal figures.

I’m no great believer in a close relationship between gaming & actual warfare but it seems very co-incidental that our two ex-army pals can triumph on the gaming table even with a limited knowledge of the various periods & rule sets we use. God help me when they become more familiar with the rules!

I know we have a number of military types on TWW. Do they find their military background gives them any advantage?

 

donald

[James Manto]

The retired and current military people I’ve played with if from a combat arms background have a much better grasp on the essentials; concentration of effort, application of fires and maneuver,  allocation of supports etc.

[Rhoderic]

Part of the reason I largely stay away from the more “realistic” varieties of wargaming, especially 20th century, moderns and proxy-modern sci-fi, is that I know I could never compete, in terms of expertise, with people who come from actual military backgrounds.

Slightly OT from here on: Hearing-impaired since birth, I could never have served in the military even had I wanted to (and maybe I would have, given that had I been able-bodied I would probably have developed a different personality out of different experiences in life – growing up disabled can be a scarring experience). All that real-life military stuff is closed off from me by accident of birth, and I refuse to be “that guy”, the one who keeps asserting his supposed competence in military matters despite having no real experience in them. So, to avert embitterment, all that’s left for me is to keep realistic military wargaming at arm’s length and immerse myself wholeheartedly in the more frivolous, intentionally ludicrous forms of fantasy, sci-fi and pulp/Hollywood/”augmented” portrayals of history.

[Phil Dutré]

IMO, it’s mostly due to other skills, such as analytical problem solving (which you might pick up in the military as an officer) that makes you good in wargaming.

In my gaming group, people with a background in math or computer science tend to better at games as well. It’s easier for them to see the essentials in a given set of rules, and crunch the numbers a bit better.

I don’t see why a military officer – trained in current military practice – would be better in playing an Ancients wargame, based only on the assumption that he is a “military man playing a military-themed game”. If it would be a modern-period game, AND if the games’ rules reflect actual military doctrine, then you might have a case.

I served shortly in the military as an armoured infantry platoon commander (my military service), and I was very frustrated when I wanted to apply the real-military tactics I had learned back in my hobby wargaming. The rules wouldn’t let me, or were indifferent to the application of “proper” doctrine! 😉

[Patrice]

I think that people who are interested in wargames (even as beginners) and who have also been interested enough in the actual military to be part of it as professional or reserve, may link both experiences …if they want to.

It also depends on the local/national background. It’s probably easier in countries where wargames are a well-known and popular hobby since a very long time, where even new gamers may have some familiarity with the idea. It was not the case in France till a recent time. As a Reserve officer I was surprised (about 30 years ago) that other Reserve officers were uneasy to understand simple questions of LOS and decision-making upon a miniature village (quite a new idea in the French Army at the time) although they would certainly have done very well if it were real. A friend of mine who was a Navy Reserve quartier-maître (equivalent of corporal) and a player of Amirauté (WW2 naval wargame) was astonished when he attended an exercise where senior Naval Reserve officers were unable to take decisions on a naval simulation table.

http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
https://www.anargader.net/

[willz]

James Manto wrote:

The retired and current military people I’ve played with if from a combat arms background have a much better grasp on the essentials; concentration of effort, application of fires and maneuver, allocation of supports etc.

“Ditto that” as an ex service man I can appericate your statement.  Now if my service training makes me a better wargamer I don’t know, I have learned how to concentrate on certain aspects and go for bust.  Sometimes I win sometimes I lose, normally its my bad dice throwing why I lose my battles.  Having severed in the Royal Navy I tend not to play modern naval wargaming as it lacks the realism to my mind, having said that, naval wargames based in the age of sail are fun and fascinating.  Probably something to do with wind and tide being a ever changing constant.

[Paul]

Interesting discussion. Personally I dont see a huge difference in the abilities of the vets I play with compared to non-military types like myself , but interesting to see other thoughts.

Those are brave men knocking at our door. Let's go kill them!

[Arnald]

I am going to bite. No, I see the lure.

Arnald.

[John D Salt]

willz wrote:

Now if my service training makes me a better wargamer I don’t know, I have learned how to concentrate on certain aspects and go for bust. Sometimes I win sometimes I lose, normally its my bad dice throwing why I lose my battles. Having severed in the Royal Navy I tend not to play modern naval wargaming as it lacks the realism to my mind

Ah, bad dice-throwing. Clearly you have failed to master Uncle Beard’s Sure-Fire Precept for Success in Wargames (and indeed in life in general), which is “try to be incredibly lucky”.

A good pal of mine has completely mastered this trick. He is also ex-Navy, and while one might think that his experience of war-fighting in HMS Antrim during the Falklands War might fit him very well for lots of games, it is a bit of an embarrassment when he thrashes players who have served as TA infantry officers or NCOs in land games. Our pal the MoD civil servant who has been doing professional military analysis for three decades is easy to beat, because he has a talent for rolling dreadful dice, but we think the naval bloke ought to have a more decent level of incompetence in panzer warfare, especially when he always declares “I refuse to learn the rules, on the grounds it would compromise my amateur status”. Instead, he thinks himself into the position of the commander he is representing, and tries to do what he thinks he would do in real life. Infuriatingly, it always seem to work — for him.

Having himself experienced modern naval warfare at the sharp end in the biggest naval war we’ve had since 1945, he shares your opinion that most modern naval rules sets bear very little relation to the way it’s actually done. The one set he made an exception for was the WRG’s old “Seastrike” — probably the simplest modern naval game ever, but the one that he found most convincing. I suspect that the “System Failure” card and long familiarity with Murphy’s Law may at least partly explain his opinion.

All the best,

John.

[Guy Farrish]

Yes I seem to remember there was more than one of those in the deck – or maybe I just managed to find it with horrible regularity! I must go in the attic and check. Very realistic. I can remember standing on the flight deck of HMS Illustrious waiting for a Sea Dart firing. We waited a long time. The target went home, and promised to come back later.

[MartinR]

Guy Farrish wrote:

Yes I seem to remember there was more than one of those in the deck – or maybe I just managed to find it with horrible regularity! I must go in the attic and check. Very realistic. I can remember standing on the flight deck of HMS Illustrious waiting for a Sea Dart firing. We waited a long time. The target went home, and promised to come back later.

Yes, I think there were two system failure cards, but even without that, it was only 50:50 to get  a target lock. I still have a copy, with the original chinagraph pencil. What a great game.

wrt the OP, for the sorts of games we play, an analytical mind, knowledge of the rules and (in some circumstances) a ruthless will to win seem to be better indicators of success than previous work experience. Coupled with the ability to be lucky of course.

 

 

 

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[Darkest Star Games]

I know some military people who, though quite good at war and games, are often blind sided by non-military opponents.  Usually it is because said opponent does something completely off the wall that was unexpected.  I’ve heard the grumbles of “…they don’t play war right… grumble…” due to those sorts of occurrences!  But generally, oh yes, the veterans are much better at wargaming.

"I saw this in a cartoon once, but I'm pretty sure I can do it..."

[McKinstry]

I don’t think my experiences in the Air Force over 47 years ago really lends any noticeable gaming skills. I suppose if anyone ever does a game about USAF Security Forces in Southeast Asia it might (Lord but that would be boring) but in all honesty, I was a pretty mediocre troop.

The tree of Life is self pruning.

[Thaddeus Blanchette]

Depends on the game and the person, really. For example, I don’t think a guy who spent a decade in the motorpool or in administrative duties would be noticeably better. I do think analytical skills are more important than military experience.

That said, many prople in the military have an interest in military history and that helps. People who have been in battlefield leadership positions will at least have some rudementary notion of the principles of tactics (if not strategy) and that helps.

‘Course, a military historian like Sam Mustafa who -AFAIK- never was in any military, would probably do as well or better.

And it also comes down to what do you play for. I play to win, but I am not a fanatic about it. I have just as much a good time losing games as winning them so I don’t really care if I’m losing. Someone who is hypercompetitive might go the extra yard and the military takes in a lot of people like that at all levels.

 

We get slapped around, but we have a good time!

[Deleted User]

Thaddeus Blanchette wrote:

For example, I don’t think a guy who spent a decade in the motorpool or in administrative duties would be noticeably better. I do think analytical skills are more important than military experience.

 

Thinking of anyone in particular?

 

I should add the two chaps in my group, alluded to above, are quiet & modest. They never allude to their military experiences at all & only respond to questions about it. Certainly they don’t claim any superiority.

 

donald

[Katie L]

“It’s easier for them to see the essentials in a given set of rules, and crunch the numbers a bit better.”

 

My ex used to do that. I’d have a blonde moment and go “I’m charging those guys with these horse.” “Sure, I’m going to shoot at them for… mm… 3 plus-or-minus-2 casualties…” rolls dice, rolls dice, rolls dice, kills 4 of them…

 

[Thaddeus Blanchette]

A guy in an old gaming group in California, Ochoin, who used to go on (and on and on) about his military career, which was essentially a few years in the National Guard, in a motorpool, of all things. He used to portray himself as quite the seasoned warrior and brought his past up as expertise for any topic under the sun. He finally got shut down one day when one of the old hippie gamers in the group pointed out that he (the hippie) had actually been shot at a couple of times during his stint as a civil rights worker in the south whereas Mr. National Guard had ducked and covered his way through the final years of Vietnam with his “service” in the Guard.

Many of the guys who I played with as a kid and who taught me how to game were ex-Vietnam vets. They <i>never</i> talked about how the military gave them the inner skinny on tactics or whatnot, unless it was something very specific to what they had actually experienced. We had an old patrol boat commander who liked to pretend his Detroit dinosaur was cruising the Mekon when he drove around town. At 11 years old, me and my best gaming friend, Rick Anderson, a 30-something factory worker, could usually beat him and most of the vets in the club.

Then again, no one in that old club in the Fox River Valley was a competitive fanatic. We just liked a good game.

Man, I was so lucky to have that group! There fathers and sons, vets, factory workers, university professors, pot smoking hippies (never play AH’s Civilization with the guys), crunchy organic hippies, lawyers…. It really was a bit of everything (although all male). I was the youngest in the group, by far, but got some small prestige off the bat by winning SPI’s A Mighty Fortress with the Turks the first time I showed up at the club (an extremely lucky fluke victory, btw). It might be rose colored lenses and age, but I recall everone in that group being true gentlemen and wonderfully patient.

 

We get slapped around, but we have a good time!

[Author]

Posts