3 ms·
>>>he still makes an error in assuming that people who enjoy this game are "tolerating moral ambiguity." That's a good catch that I skimmed over. One of the th
by CapricornNoble 6y ago
>>>he still makes an error in assuming that people who enjoy this game are "tolerating moral ambiguity."
That's a good catch that I skimmed over. One of the things taught at The Basic School is to "turn the map around"; in other words, to approach the tactical situation from your adversary's perspective, come up with a sensible plan for the enemy, and then use that to drive your own planning for how to defeat them. You have to know how they might solve THEIR tactical problems in order to solve YOUR tactical problems. Gaming out the bad guys' Courses of Action is an essential part of military planning and wargaming's role in planning. It has no moral endorsement attached to it at all. Why would the author even think otherwise? That's such a bizarre and huge leap in logic.
Nobody here, for example, is morally tolerant of the CCP or DPRK:
https://warontherocks.com/2019/04/how-does-the-next-great-power-conflict-play-out-lessons-from-a-wargame/ https://warontherocks.com/2019/04/how-does-the-next-great-po...
- djur 6y agoThe author distinguishes the experience of playing Panzer General from traditional wargames later on: > It’s a judgment call that’s personal to each of us. For my part, I can play the German side in a conventional wargame easily enough if I need to, although I would prefer to take the Allied side. But Panzer General, with its eagerness to embed me in the role of a German general goose-stepping and kowtowing to his Führer, is a bridge too far for me. The "ethics" in the title seemed to me to be referring less to the personal ethics involved in playing the game than to the ethics of reinforcing the "clean Wehrmacht" myth.