From Tue Sep 09 09:45:33 1997
>X-Authentication-Warning: ecom7.ecn.bgu.edu: mslrc owned process doing -bs
>Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 11:44:34 -0500 (CDT)
>From: “Louis R. Coatney”
>X-Sender: mslrc@ecom7.ecn.bgu.edu
>To: Conflict simulation Games ,
> mahan@microwrks.com
>cc: “Louis R. Coatney” ,
> “William D. Anderson” ,
> “Lee H. Tichenor”
>Subject: Re: “Hector Bywater’s Naval Wargame” … reply to T. Rooker
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>
>TR,
>
> Thanks for your thoughtful riposte. I disagreed with a lot of
>it, of course, but what (else) is CONSIM-L for? 🙂
>
> Some questions:
>
>On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Terry Rooker wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Louis R. Coatney wrote:
> > > WHAT IF there had been a naval boardgame … not unlike The Avalon
> > > Hill Game Company’s now-classic VICTORY IN THE PACIFIC … published
> > > in tandem/consultation with Hector? There is absolutely *nothing*
> > > in VITP that couldn’t have been thought up 45 years before it was
> > > finally published: it’s just a *manual* boardgame with simple, logical
> > > mechanics. (I’ll be critiquing it soon, but ….)
> > >
> > There are certain mental steps you have to go through to come to new
> > ideas. Claiming VitP could have been dreamed up 45 years earlier is like
> > saying Galileo could have developed the laws of motion since all he had
> > to do was watch things fall. Which he did do by the way, and still
> > didn’t come up with the motion laws.
>
>OK, Rooker … since this was the central point of my original post, in
> fact … exactly WHAT are these mental steps that couldn’t have been
> gone through 45 years before?? (It’s certainly not the math. 🙂 )
>
> > > How well could it have modelled what could actually have happened?
> > >
> > It would have sucked. Carriers were used much differently by both sides
> > than most imagined beforehand. A key element of the USN performance,
> > underway replenishment, wasn’t even a wet dream yet. The need for
> > controlled intercept and accurate AA fire was not realized. The list
> > goes on.
>
>BUT … my question was … couldn’t even a basic game like VITP have
> stimulated innovative/problem-solving thinking? (Look at the John Wayne
> movie about Spig Wead … and all the bulldozer-to-move-an-anthill
> mental gnashing he went through, just to come up with the idea of using
> jeep carriers for *fleet support* … or was this just an excuse to let
> us see the beautiful Maureen O’Hara again? (Did Ford do the movie??)
> (Hmm … Does anyone know if *M. O’Hara* had the daughters she should
> have had?)
>
>I was visiting my best friend from the Academy in DC, once. He had just
> been put in charge of the Pentagon’s new weapons conceptualization
> program. He asked *me* for my input … and I of course suggested sci
> fi and gamer designers … if/when they are really proposing something
> NEW … not just more “space galleons.” 🙂
>
>New ideas don’t come out of *computers* … the last I heard, anyway.
>
> > > AND … could it have demonstrated the futility of a Japanese attack/war
> > > and somehow have deterred that from occurring?
> > The futility of the Japanese attack was not a foregone conclusion. If
> > they had done as someone suggested in a PTO level wargame and initially
> > just gone for the European possessions first they might have had an
> > easier time of it. Then the temptation for a surprise attack would have
> > been less. FWIW, my mother stills hates Japan and all Japanese for the
> > attack. That’s 50 years later. Consider the emotion at the time.
>
>In fact, the Japanese could have taken the Hawaiian Islands right there
> and then, if they had brought along invasion troops … and maybe won
> the war hands-down.
>
>I wonder how many “Japanese” HECTOR BYWATER’S NAVAL WARGAME players would
> have started their games with a carrier … or battleship … raid on
> Pearl Harbor … and whether that would have raised national concern
> about proper defenses and vigilance … among the younger generations
> who would be fighting the war … and who were, in fact, on duty and
> in control of PH’s defenses (even if by command default) in the early,
> critical hours of 7 Dec 41.
>
>(Did wargaming … arcade-type and/or strategic … enhance the
> performance of our Gulf War generation? ??)
>
>(On the other hand, I don’t see national concern about the need for
> “Star Wars” weapons … to end the arms race and military threats/
> confrontations, once and for all. Bill Clinton is *not* “seizing
> the moment” … and we will soon be right back where we were in
> “The Hunt for Red October” … this time vis a vis the *Red Chinese*
> … and still under the Sword of Damocles … and it is statistically
> INEVITABLE that one of these damn/nuclear “things” is going to go OFF.)
>
>What *I* am/was suggesting, though, is that games can be powerful
> attitude-influencers. If the Japanese (people) had seen/played a
> game which painted a war as ultimately hopeless against American
> industrial might, would there have been the necessary lower/younger
> ranks enthusiasm necessary for it?
>
>How would YEAR OF THE RAT (SPI, about Vietnam) have impacted (young)
> Americans in *1963*? ??
Posted via email from mahan’s posterous