4 ms·

>This is largely a blogpost about how these games are imperfect at understanding war. But we humans keep using games as war analogies for some reason, despite t

>This is largely a blogpost about how these games are imperfect at understanding war. But we humans keep using games as war analogies for some reason, despite their imperfections. I mean, there are very good reasons to do this: wars are very expensive to fight for training purposes. Games are stake-less and can be repeated (or over in 20 minutes, or have the rules change as desired, or...) Fidelity is useful, but it's not of absolute importance. There can similarities without identity.

dragontamer 5y ago
Despite the deep cultural connections between Football and the US Military, no one I'm aware of actually thinks of Football practice as military / war practice. Football, despite all of the military grandstanding that goes on TV, is just a game. Its how people have fun. ------- This article is about how these games ("just for fun") end up affecting military strategy, despite clearly not being about war at all. IE: America's ability to trust the NCOs in the field might very well hail from football. The Offensive coordinators do grand strategies, but they leave their trust to the Quarterback (who is like a squad-leader / NCO in the military analog). Similarly: your Baseball nerds can crunch numbers and statistics, and provide all kinds of strategies recommendations to the Pitcher. But at the end of the day, its the Pitcher (and the catcher) who decides what kind of ball to throw. --------- America's "decentralized" military structure / supreme trust in the NCOs in the field comes from somewhere. Maybe from the sports we play. These games have affected our military's organization structure at a fundamental level... despite having nothing to do with war.
- invalidOrTaken 5y ago
  >These games have affected our military's organization structure at a fundamental level...despite having nothing to do with war. If they really had nothing to do with war, why would they affect our thinking about it? I'm not saying sports, games, etc. were instituted explicitly as wargames. Rather, I'm saying that while there are obviously differences between games and war, there are similarities---enough that there are lessons one can learn about war, from games. The parallels are many: adversarial conflict, mass coordinated action, risk..."some reason" seems a little too mock-mystified to me.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    > If they really had nothing to do with war, why would they affect our thinking about it? Shared cultural interests. Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Jesus / Christianity, maybe even Buggs Bunny and Mickey Mouse even, will affect our culture and shape our views of war. Also Chess, Football, NASCAR, etc. etc. Meanwhile in China, maybe Go, Xiangqi, Ping Pong, Soccer, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Buddah, Journey to the West (aka: the Monkey King), and other such cultural icons will affect Chinese thinking of war... whether or not its a legitimate analogue or not. ------ Thus, this article's discussion and musing. Next generation generals will be affected by PUBG, League of Legends, Starcraft, and Call of Duty players. These shared cultural experiences, for better or worse, will affect the strategic thinking of the next wars.

dragontamer 5y ago

Despite the deep cultural connections between Football and the US Military, no one I'm aware of actually thinks of Football practice as military / war practice. Football, despite all of the military grandstanding that goes on TV, is just a game. Its how people have fun. ------- This article is about how these games ("just for fun") end up affecting military strategy, despite clearly not being about war at all. IE: America's ability to trust the NCOs in the field might very well hail from football. The Offensive coordinators do grand strategies, but they leave their trust to the Quarterback (who is like a squad-leader / NCO in the military analog). Similarly: your Baseball nerds can crunch numbers and statistics, and provide all kinds of strategies recommendations to the Pitcher. But at the end of the day, its the Pitcher (and the catcher) who decides what kind of ball to throw. --------- America's "decentralized" military structure / supreme trust in the NCOs in the field comes from somewhere. Maybe from the sports we play. These games have affected our military's organization structure at a fundamental level... despite having nothing to do with war.

invalidOrTaken 5y ago
>These games have affected our military's organization structure at a fundamental level...despite having nothing to do with war. If they really had nothing to do with war, why would they affect our thinking about it? I'm not saying sports, games, etc. were instituted explicitly as wargames. Rather, I'm saying that while there are obviously differences between games and war, there are similarities---enough that there are lessons one can learn about war, from games. The parallels are many: adversarial conflict, mass coordinated action, risk..."some reason" seems a little too mock-mystified to me.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  > If they really had nothing to do with war, why would they affect our thinking about it? Shared cultural interests. Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Jesus / Christianity, maybe even Buggs Bunny and Mickey Mouse even, will affect our culture and shape our views of war. Also Chess, Football, NASCAR, etc. etc. Meanwhile in China, maybe Go, Xiangqi, Ping Pong, Soccer, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Buddah, Journey to the West (aka: the Monkey King), and other such cultural icons will affect Chinese thinking of war... whether or not its a legitimate analogue or not. ------ Thus, this article's discussion and musing. Next generation generals will be affected by PUBG, League of Legends, Starcraft, and Call of Duty players. These shared cultural experiences, for better or worse, will affect the strategic thinking of the next wars.