Flash of Steel header image 1

04 07 1942 21:36: “Convoy is to scatter”*

August 22nd, 2011 by Bruce G · Board Games, Design, Wargames

At 11.52 a.m. on 20 September, Rolf Hilse, on board U-48, received a coded message from Günther Prien in U-47. He had spotted a large eastbound convoy heading to Britain, and since U-48 had the latest most advanced radio equipment, he asked her to report this news to Dönitz at his command post in Lorient. ‘We reported to Lorient,’ says Rolf, ‘and the message we got back was, “Proceed to beacon.”‘ This meant U-47’s beacon—U-48 was to converge with Günther’s boat and operate together. Then, at 5.15 p.m., they received another signal, directing four more U-boats towards U-47. ‘Received wireless message,’ noted Rolf. ‘U-48, 65, 43, 99, 100 assume attack formation.’

That’s a paragraph from a book I was reading recently as research for an article I may or may not ever finish. It’s easy to distract wargamers when they’re reading. Or watching some documentary. Or The History Channel. It’s the Touching Historyâ„¢ phenomenon that I mention all the time and which I documented years ago in an article I never published but which is still on my hard drive, called “Everything I Know About History I Learned from the Designer’s Notes.” For some reason, the first thing I always read when I bought a new game was what the designer had to say about how he made it. Often, it was more interesting to read than playing the actual game.

The book above actually wasn’t about submarine warfare at all, but when I read that paragraph, I immediately went off to U-boat land. I briefly considered firing up Silent Hunter III. You can read an excellent game diary about it on Quarter to Three, which does a nice job capturing exactly what is exciting about hunting ships underwater. But it doesn’t speak to the operational issues of submarine warfare, and the larger context of using subs to choke off a nation’s maritime commerce. Strategy gamers love context.

I ended up watching “The World at War, Episode Ten, The Wolf Packs”. But while it was interesting, I’ve seen it a bunch of times. And it doesn’t let me roll any dice.

PQ-17

So I was pretty excited when Chris Janiec’s 2009 game PQ-17, published by GMT Games, arrived by UPS. Subtitled “Arctic Naval Operations 1941-43,” it explores a part of the war that includes some exotic actors: U-boats, German capital ships, and the Arctic. It also comes with a separate Play Book containing the scenarios, and yes, designer’s notes. These begin on page 27. So you might as well just start there. [Read more →]

→ 11 CommentsTags:

Three Moves Ahead Episode 130 – Character Issues

August 18th, 2011 by Rob Zacny · Podcast, Three Moves Ahead

ThreeMovesAhead

Troy takes a victory lap after finishing his National Character series, and together with Rob delves deeper into some of the themes he brought up in the series, and considers some stray ideas that didn’t quite make the final cut. Can stereotypes ever really be escaped, and do we even want to escape them when they provide such a reliable shorthand in strategy games? How would national character be portrayed by someone other than Anglo-American game designers, and does national character find a compelling expression in peaceful pursuits?

Listen here.
RSS here.
Subscribe on iTunes.

→ 16 CommentsTags:

Epilogue: Nations as Characters

August 14th, 2011 by Troy Goodfellow · Design, Feature:Nations, History

What this is about, including full list of posts.

When I started the national character series last fall, I didn’t expect it to take this long to finish (things refused to cooperate for quite some time) and I certainly didn’t expect it to become one of my most popular series. The popularity is largely connected to a growing audience for the blog because of the podcast and residual faith that I generally know what I’m writing about, though I’m happy to be corrected.

But I honestly think its popularity is more than that. In his first Gamespy strategy column, Tom Chick saluted these essays as an example of the sort of games writing and reflection that only strategy gaming can really provide, which is nice but a bit further than I am willing to go. I think that reader response – pro and con – can really be traced to that central gamer conceit that drives a lot of discussion.

Everyone thinks that they know how this should work. We know history. We know games. We’ve played these things forever. Then someone sits down and writes it all out and tugs at a thread and either suspicions are confirmed or challenged, but the central idea itself (we know who Rome and Persia and China are as “people”) remains in tact.

Remember, Civilization, the first great game with national factions, did almost nothing to differentiate them. France was Napoleon, England was Elizabeth, the Zulu were Shaka and that was that. At least when Ancient Art of War said you were fighting Napoleon, it tried to have an AI that fought differently from Sun Tzu. But this built up a relationship with these nations and humans are great at imposing meaning where there is none, so as far as I’m concerned, Montezuma has always been a prick.

Historical strategy games owe a debt to science fiction games, because there is an assumption that two races that evolved on different planets will have different talents or cultures. Master of Orion, Starcraft, and maybe some fantasy games, too, showed how differentiating factions made gameplay more interesting and varied. Playing the Civ 1 French wasn’t that much different from the Civ 1 Egyptians. Klackons and Psilons, though…

“National characters” are crudely stereotypical and reductionist, but we really can’t imagine strategy games without them at this point. Even with a simple and bare understanding of 16th century history, we think we know who the Aztecs are because we’ve met them with their colorful feathered soldiers, grand pyramids and heart ripping agendas. No matter what the game, Germany means strong economic power and England means longbows or better boats. It’s not simply that strategy games reflect prevailing biases or thumbnail sketches of history – strategy games draft these sketches for us, and can then infect other games.

Here’s a small example. The Iroquois are a comparatively minor Civ, appearing in Civ 3, Civ 5, Rise of Nations and Age of Empires 3. Of these games, Rise of Nations and Civ 5 are the most likely to attribute an overarching national characteristic. RoN lets the Iroquois move through forests – the only nation that can. In Civ 5? The nation can treat forest tiles like roads. Even with a virtual blank cheque to create a national character, Firaxis replicated a not-very-obvious power Big Huge Games had designed a decade earlier. Strategy games can create national myths and characters just by repeating them. Any future Iroquois nation will somehow be tied to forest power.

And if other games are infected, it can’t help but affect how we think.

Some takeaways from this series:

1) Nations are mechanics: Designing distinctive nations for an historical strategy game is imposing math and order on the past. A Golden Age or stereotypical trait is often selected and amplified so that there can be a rich faction or a productive faction or a scientific faction or a conquering faction. Though this sort of design is laid bare in the balanced variance of something like Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri‘s imagined ideological nations, it is present in many of the designs you will see across the later Civs, Rise of Nations, Empire Earth, etc. National characteristics and stereotypes will regularly predict who gets assigned to which mechanic, but when we speak of balancing nations, what we are really talking about is which mechanic can get juiced without throwing the rest of the design out of whack..

2) Nations are archetypes: A lot of the time, national characters are assigned to pay homage to a “type” of society. The Aztecs become all about human sacrifice, the Zulu are the savage natives overrunning European outposts, the Mongols are implacable barbarians. In games that are about civilization and moving through the ages, I suppose that it is natural to create enemies that are just on the fringe of civilization, even as they advance into space or crush us with nuclear weapons.

3) History is a weapon: I love history, and think it’s important but I don’t generally get upset about historical inaccuracies in games or movies. When I do, it’s because I firmly believe that in some cases these inaccuracies or deliberate simplifications can cause real damage. If games have the power to change or direct how we see history (and it is clear that they do), then game designers have an obligation to be clear on why they are designing nations or armies the way they are. If you consistently reduce Arabs and Indians to their religion, for example, then you do a disservice to their science and dishonour the central role of Christianity in Western development. Speak honestly about historical faction design.

4) History is fun: I was asked on Formspring how much historical research I did for each of these and the answer is not a lot. I research the games more because who can possibly remember all the math involved in the Roman sword unit calculations? Most of the historical stuff is fact checking, getting dates right and looking for a consensus on how to spell some names. Little I write is beyond an AP World History class; I end up reading more afterwards because I end up learning new things. Commenters have engaged with the history and how it is revealed in the games. Even if you all don’t see this issue as important, many of you find it interesting and we can all pitch in with what we know – in this way, Tom is absolutely right. Historical strategy games can engage us in ways no other genre can because so many of us have the raw data at our fingertips. Games that let us indulge our passion for history and ask if the history we love is being treated fairly are special things.

5) Question Design, not Details: I should have done Persia. And Turkey. And Portugal. And the Netherlands. I could do these forever, in fact. Carthage has appeared in multiple games. So have the Hittites. And the Gauls. But I think I am finished because the point is made. Too often, historical criticism of games is based on accuracy and realism, something that is difficult to talk about meaningfully in an art that relies on abstraction. (You can ask why some things are abstracted and some are not, of course.) But what historical game analysis really needs sometimes is kicking at the premises. This series is pretty much 25000 words kicking at the idea that we give nations personalities and they are often consistent from game to game, developer to developer, and this says something about how we turn history into a pastime.

And that’s it. Thanks for sticking with me through this long chore. I promise to do regular games blogging for a while now that this is done. Of course, we concluded with a podcast summary show, so listen to that, too.

→ 17 CommentsTags:

The Also Rans of National Character

August 12th, 2011 by Troy Goodfellow · Feature:Nations, History

What this is about, including full list.

Lists suck because they are open to the easy criticism that something was left out or that the list maker didn’t consider X. Even when I stated openly my reasons for the list I chose (using the original nations in Civilization because it was easy and final), I was immediately asked why I wasn’t adding Arabs or Japanese or Spanish or Vikings or Koreans or Canadians.

Thing is, there is a good case for looking at a few of these, if only to examine why they were left out of the original Civilization (though there were no real national characters there) and why a couple have become canonical Civ nations, and even crucial for other games.

Take the Arabs, for example. They were in neither Civilization 1 or 2, though there was an Arab text file in Civ 2 that you could use to substitute in for one of the default nations. There is no doubt that the Arabs are a major world culture, one that has altered history, science, politics and religion every bit as dramatically as the Romans. Islam became a unifying force driving conquest in the Middle Ages, and Arab translations of classical works fueled a medieval Renaissance of a sort from Cordoba to Baghdad. Like Christendom, the political rivalries and religious schisms kept Arabia from being a monolithic imperial power, and this allowed Crusader kingdoms to pop up and, eventually, the Turks and Mongols to walk through. But the Arabs are too important to be left out – certainly more important than the Babylonians, or even the Germans.

Civilization didn’t get a “real” Arabia until the Play the World expansion for Civ 3. Led by Mohammed’s father-in-law Abu Bakr, they are geared for early cultural power (religious) and scouting (expansionist). Civ 4 added Arabs at the start, changed the leader to Saladin, and joined the religious power to defensive might. Civ 5 makes Harun al-Rashid an economic giant with caravans and a bazaar. I think that now, the Arabs are here to stay in the Civ series.

So are the Japanese, also excluded from the first Civ. But once the Civ design let them stick in samurai, Japan had its iconic unit, if not characteristics. The Japans that most strategy games celebrate are the civil wars of the samurai era, with competition for the Shogunate, and Japan’s disastrous spasm of conquest in the first half of the 20th century. Japan’s economic might of the 1970s and 1980s is somehow less interesting as a national personality, even though a lot of our current Western ideas about Japan are based on that business culture more than real bushido.

And finally, the Spanish, who I’ve written about before in the context of games about exploration. Because even though the Spanish weren’t in the original Civ, and were expansion afterthoughts in Civ 3 and Civ 5, they are the big warriors and dominant power in any game that focuses on 15th to 17th century America. The conquistadors are the weapon of choice in Civ, and Spain can usually bring a little more military muscle to bear in any period focused 4x game.

The Arabs and Spanish can each claim to be one of the most globally significant cultures in human history, but both have been treated kind of like an afterthought by the Civ series. The Arabs have it worse since they don’t even make an appearance in Rise of Nations at all, get tagged as the “Saracens” in Age of Kings and usually only pop up in games where knights need to take a castle or the Israeli Defense Force has to do another one of those quality v quantity battles. At least the Spanish will always have Colonization and Conquest of the New World and Pirates!. Though their historical influence is dwarfed by China, Japan is a major East Asian power and if you want a second one then this is who you turn to. They always have samurai in games, and the aesthetic of the Shogun Era means that you can get some truly breathtaking art and music to go with your battles (Shogun: Total War and Sengoku both excel in this regard.)

So Japan ends up regularly making the cut for Civilization and other games, I would argue for geographic reasons as much as any other. We can make do with one African civ, but not one East Asian civ, especially since Japan was a great American enemy less than a century ago. There are already lots of European civs, so Spain can wait for the expansion (as it did in Age of Kings) or be a bland default (like in Age of Empires 3). And another Middle Eastern nation? Egypt is Arab now, so we can just wrap that all in (which is what Rise of Nations did – Egypt gets unique camel cavalry a la Arab armies). So Japan moved confidently and assuredly from not significant to crucial.

Of course, Western fascination with Japan helps, too. Japanese culture is mainstream in some gaming circles and ninjas are a nerd meme that should have died years ago. The 20th century could have been a Japanese century if it had not turned its rapid modernization towards costly wars for resources. The modernity of Japan joined to the romantic samurai era of Clavell novels makes it an irresistibly potent choice.

All of this is part of the alchemy that goes into why some nations are chosen and some are not. Spain is an obvious choice for a game about exploration, but how many people really clamor for Spain if it’s not included in a general history game? There is geographic balance, game balance, cultural baggage, immediate relevance…all of these fit into why some get picked and some do not for historically themed strategy games.

As I said, lists suck.

Coming soon, the conclusion – an epilogue on what I have learned, what I haven’t and why this matters.

→ 9 CommentsTags:

Three Moves Ahead Episode 129 – The Combat Missions

August 11th, 2011 by Rob Zacny · Podcast, Three Moves Ahead

ThreeMovesAhead

Irrational Games’ Ken Levine join Rob and Troy for a discussion of the Combat Mission series, realism, WEGO turns versus continuous time, and what we’d bring back to the future.

Tim Stone on “Ignorance Is Bliss”

Listen here.
RSS here.
Subscribe on iTunes.

→ 15 CommentsTags:

The Zulu National Character

August 10th, 2011 by Troy Goodfellow · Feature:Nations, History

What this is about, including full list.

In the opening chapter of Making Empire: Colonial Encounters and the Creation of Imperial Rule in Nineteenth-Century Africa, Richard Price notes that even though the Xhosa are the most politically powerful tribe in South Africa and that British African policy in the 19th century was largely in response to dealing with the Xhosa, it is the Zulus who have always had a greater hold on the British imagination, even when the British had little to do with them. The Zulus were led in the early 19th century by a powerful soldier-king, Shaka. They were a warlike people that epitomized the idea of the fierce native warrior. They fought like Europeans in ordered formations with regular battle plans. And, of course, they overran a British force at Isandlwana; an African enemy obviously worthy of respect.

The Zulu expansion under Shaka so disrupted the sociopolitical structure of his region that it was given a name – the Mfecane. Shaka’s wars were fast and brutal and caused a spiraling wave of forced migration and ongoing warfare through the first half of the 19th century. As a king he was a military reformer, a political revolutionary and finally assassinated after a few tries. His nephew, Cetshwayo, would finally lose the kingdom to the British in 1879, but would be briefly reinstalled as a puppet later.

It’s honestly hard to justify the Zulu as the greatest of the African civilizations. Their migration and warfare did not lead to any great empire; a tiny corner of South Africa along the Indian Ocean. Give Shaka credit for survivability and military insight, but he wasn’t the Napoleon of the Cape. There is no Code of Shaka, after all.

The Zulu were, however, the most obvious of the African. Like the Babylonians, Meier probably used them in the game because, first, he needed an Africa civ that wasn’t Mediterranean Egypt, and second, people knew who the Zulu were. Recognition was the important thing here. The default name for the first Zulu city in Civ 1 and 2 was Zimbabwe – which is not even a Zulu city.

It is, however, the center of a great Bantu kingdom of the middle ages and if you see the Zulu as the most prominent of the Bantu people, then I guess you can squeeze it in. The Bantu migration through southern Africa marks that language group as one of the most widespread in the world; Rise of Nations in fact uses the Bantu as a faction with the special power of Migration. So you get to build one city over your cap and cities are much, much cheaper to begin with. If you want a quick landgrab, the Bantu are the proper faction in Rise of Nations.

I get the sense that Civ‘s designers realized that the Zulu weren’t necessarily the best choice in an African civ. Civ 4, after all, ditched Shaka until the Warlords expansion. Instead the Mali were the African option, a great West African kingdom that dominated the region as a traditional empire would, and with a legendarily rich and devout Mansa Musa as a ruler. (These two were joined by Ethiopia in the second expansion.)

Civilization 5 has so far had only the Songhai – another West African empire – with no reports of new African civs around the corner. Rise of Nations included the Merchant focused Nubians, another Nile civilization.

And that’s it. That’s Africa in games about history and expansion unless you include the Paradox grand strategy games where Africa is a picked bone slowly gnawed by imperial Europe. And these few nations, except the Zulu, never repeat or cross streams. There are no Africans at all in Age of Empires, Empire Earth, Empires: Dawn of the Modern World. (Can we get some new words please, while we’re at it?)

This is the Gun, Germs and Steel effect in game design. As Jared Diamond pointed out in his Pulitzer winning book, the earth did not give every nation an even playing field. Access to an climate, crops, domesticated animals and other natural factors almost inevitably lifted Eurasia to the top of the historical pyramid, while Africa lagged behind. Civ-like games are about building empires from the engines of war and technology, and if the earth’s axis means crops can’t spread as well north to south as they can east to west and that you get zebras and elephants instead of horses and sheep, then you have a history of small empires and no really obvious candidates for glory.

Africa is of course the home of medieval Great Zimbabwe, a walled city that dominated its landscape. And the Great Library of the Mali and a king so rich that his donations while on pilgrimage crashed the gold markets of Egypt for a decade. And pyramids outside those of the Pharaohs, built down the Nile valley by a southern kingdom that the son of the sun god had to constantly guard against. And a valiant Christian dominion on the horn that resisted European influence until finally conquered on the eve of World War 2 – turning Ethiopia into a watchword for the failure of collective action and her emperor into a god. The great African empires are Western Islamic states or, or Orthodox Abyssinia. A “home grown” empire like the Zulus or one you would find in India or East Asia has to fight against a game design that is about “progress”.

But, oddly, the Americas are seen as full of choices for historical game developers. Rise of Nations has *five* American factions. The Mayans had writing, at least. And the Inca an elaborate road system. And the Aztecs great cities. You can point to the Iroquois Confederacy as a sign of political sophistication and the Sioux nomadic society that resisted American movement west. And I guarantee that few of these stories seem especially alien or foreign to gamers.

Of course, neither are the Zulu alien or foreign. They fit the stories we tell just fine – they’re dark, savage warriors with assegai charging into the rifles of British redcoats. They even made a good movie about it. The Zulu are Africa, because they are still the Africa so many of us just accept as a fact of life on that poor, exploited continent. The idea that the ruinous Congo War has political causes as deep and personal as the outbreak of World War I is unknown, because all we see reported is that thousands more Africans are being raped and slaughtered and starved every day, sometimes by their own governments.

The fact there is so little consensus on who should be the major African civilization doesn’t mean that there aren’t any. It means that maybe we have a poor understanding for what made a major civilization in Africa outside of the powers of the Islamic empires in the west. Maybe I am too quick to dismiss Shaka as a minor chieftain based solely on the postage stamp kingdom he bought with the blood of many Africans – for his era, he was the dominant regional figure, feared by everyone around him.

And we already know who he is. I look forward to kicking his ass again soon.

Next time, a short round up of big factions left out of the first Civ, but that have made their presence known since.

→ 8 CommentsTags: