We intend to offer up our design notes regarding our simulation of the 2nd Russo-Ukrainian War, Defiance, beginning with Volume 1: Miracle on Dnipro: Kyiv & Chernihiv campaign, from time to time. Given that we are designing a simulation regarding an ongoing conflict, it’s a first draft of history. Consequently, at least you’ll get some insight into why we got some items wrong. 🙂 In our 2nd article in this series, we discuss how we capture the political dynamics related to the 2nd Russo-Ukrainian War in our simulation of the conflict. We’ll begin with a survey of how politics gets reflected in a few of our favorite wargames, before moving on to Defiance. Feel free to break out a beverage of your choice.
We’ll also include a recipe for a cocktail, mocktail, or appetizer at the end of each of our Defiance Design Happy Hour articles.
Politics Dynamics Frame Strategic and Operational Conflict Simulations/Wargames
Overview: Empires in Arms and Politics
Occasionally, you play a game, hear a song, or read a book that changes how you think about things. Empire in Arms (EiA) , 1983, ADG, was that game (still state of the art game design after 4 decades!) for me [DD]. After playing it, I thought of how one should model operational and strategic conflict in a completely different way. Specifically, to be relevant such a simulation or wargame had to include a beefy political component…otherwise, what’s the point of conflict without an overriding political context in which it occurs?
The key in EiA is to push your nation into the dominant zone and push your opponent(s) into the instability zone. All maneuver / operational campaigns take place within that context by awarding/penalizing players with political points. That is the purpose – not simply engaging enemy forces for engagement stake. Victory points each turn are a function of position on the Political Status Display. After EiA, I [DD] couldn’t really enjoy a wargame at the operational / strategic scale that didn’t subject players to political dynamics; which brings us to a number of Mark Herman designs.
Brief Survey of Integrated Military and Political Simulations
When the hobby got going back in the day (point of origin: Tactics II, 1958), operational and strategic wargames didn’t incorporate significant political dimension dynamics: you want to push tank counters, push tank counters and leave politics out of it. Early in the 70s Dunnigan’s design guild (aka SPI…which is still the best game co name ever for what it was), spawned “power politics” games like The Plot to Assassinate Hitler and Russian Civil War. Avalon Hill jumped in with its legendary game, Republic of Rome. ADG gave us Days of Decision; a political front end to World in Flames.
The power politics genre picked up steam in early 2000’s with Twilight Struggle, 2005, and Labyrinth, 2010 – both from GMT Games. Power politics continues to expand in the hobby today: see Weimar: The Fight for Democracy, 2023, Capstone Games – an incredible design which we fanatically played a few weeks ago. Related, GMT Games has a similar subject game in the pipe: The Weimar Republic (check it on the P500 page). If military operations are included in power politics games, they are heavily abstracted. What about the other way around? Military simulations including a strong political dimension?
We would argue that the first BIG game that grafted integrated politics – and economics – on to /or with a sophisticated military design engine, would be Empires in Arms (covered above). Since then, others designers have walked this path. A few of our favorite “integrated political and military meaty wargames are pictured below:
We’ve taken a look at a few of these games and mapped out their various military, political, economic and “war-by-other-means” design components. Table below:
Herman’s Wargames and the Political Dimension
Mark Herman is also very active in this space. For the People (FtP) , GMT Games, 1998, has an incredible strategic will model in which many game developments & choices impact the strategic will of the CSA and USA. The strategic will model almost exclusively determines victory. When playing the game, players decide which actions to take based upon their impact on strategic will. Risk a battle? Raid a state? Grab a border state? Increase the blockade level or devote the juice (card value) to something else? Promote a leader over another leader that has a higher political rating at a cost of strategic will? Many choices are made within the constraint of political dynamics (in this case strategic will).
Herman also reflected political friction with his political ratings of each general in the game. Like all armies, the CSA and Grand Army of the Republic had political issues with its generals. For example, Herman had Butler rated as a “8” (10 highest, 1 lowest) for political stature and a miserable 0 rating for generalship. Want a more capable general to lead an army while Butler and his supporters are around? It will cost you strategic will. A very elegant method of representing political infighting. George B. McClellan is another bugger. He has a political rating of 10 (the egotistical dude ran for president in 1864)…and a 0 rating for attack. Want some more offensively minded general to move on Richmond? Well, pay the strategic will of promoting a general over the strong objections of the McClellan cabal.
Political tracks are present in many Herman games. Two more we’d mention. Washington’s War , 2010, GMT Games, uses a track to govern French intervention. Again, each player is forced to make operational choices with political tradeoffs. Empire of the Sun , 2005, GMT Games employs a number of tracks and on/off switches reflecting political constraints/gates regarding military operations for both players. Same with one of our favorite integrated military, political, economic integrated simulation (we’re biased): Triumph of Chaos.
Wartime politics in the Russian Civil War
Triumph of Chaos (ToC) , 2005 & 2019, Clash of Arms, employs faction tracks to allow players to politically battle over Major Powers, republics, and countries. ToC also uses an infighting mechanic to restrict the efficiency of each player’s military capabilities. Essentially, player choice builds their infighting pool: choices drive political friction. Once triggered players draw a chit (or more!) each turn and are subject to the friction introduced. In wars, involving Russian invading its neighbors, chaos follows. This impacts the ability of Russia to militarily fulfill its goals. FINALLY, let’s examine political dynamics and our simulation, Defiance.
Defiance Political Engine
Defiance primarily utilizes Political Tracks to restrict and enhance operational/military capabilities of each side. Regarding the Political Tracks, four model will/cohesion of Ukraine and Russia and the assistance of their allies:
- Zelenskyy: models strategic will of Ukraine to resist invasion
- NATO: models levels of aid to Ukraine
- Lukashenko: models Belarus’ participation during initial campaign
- Putin: models infighting and friction within Russian power centers
These four Political Tracks, plus random events and game developments, impact Russian Strategic Morale; specifically as it relates to maintaining the attack on Kyiv and Chernihiv. If RSM gets too low (i.e. too far too the right on the RSM track), Russia may decide to disengage from their attack (or rout!) on Kyiv and Chernihiv. Our view is that Russia’s rout in Volume 1: Miracle on the Dnipro was a strategic morale break precipitated by Ukrainian battlefield success, an immediate critical threat to Russian lines of communication (LoCs), and quickly deteriorating Russian army morale. In future volumes of Defiance we intend to swap out the Lukashenko Track with a Russian Allies track, representing the Russian allies (ex: Iran) providing it with more capabilities (Logistical Points).
SitRep cards primarily drive the Political Tracks. Each turn (except the first) has three possible cards: one that reflects the roughly historical base case, one that favors Russia, and one that favors Ukraine. A random turn-specific (think a tightly scripted deck) SitRep card is drawn. The card delineates ranges of a 1d10 (ten sided die) that move each of the Political Tracks. Secondly, the card indicates a bonus and penalty for each side depending upon whether the condition is met. Finally, the SitRep lists a random event.
The position on a particular political track generates benefits and costs for a side. For example, as one moves to the right side on the NATO track (on all the tracks, the extreme right benefits Ukraine and the extreme left benefits Russia), Ukraine receives more LPs (Logistic Points), HQ chits (allowing for bonus HQ activations), and potentially additional units (platforms). Regarding the Lukashenko track, Russia gains more strikes, supply, and most importantly access to an invasion route further west (one with an actual supporting rail line) they either failed to use or were prevented from using.
The Political Tracks in turn drive the Russian Strategic Morale (RSM) track. The position occupied on the RSM generates a die roll at the end of the turn on Unity/In-Fighting Table: adding/subtracting LPs (Logistics Points) for Russia… and possibly tossing Mutiny, Inaction, and Infighting HQ chits into the mix. Essentially, as RSM wavers, more friction/less efficiency results for Russia to accomplish their tasks.
If players choose to play the Historical Scenario, there is an option to use pre-ordained positions on the political tracks each turn (our assessment of where those political tracks were each turn during the campaign); and avoid the mechanics that move the chits.
We’re also still baking in personalities. More on that another day.
Summary
Defiance uses various game design mechanics to reflect political dynamics in Volume 1: Miracle on the Dnipro including:
- Political Tracks: Zelenskyy, NATO, Lukashenko, Putin
- A Russian Strategic Morale Track
- SitRep Cards
- Unity/Infighting Table
- Friction Chits: Mutiny, Inaction, Infighting HQ
So “movement” in the political sphere is driven by our assessment of what occurred – or reasonably could have occurred, random events, and player action/choice. We believe it will generate a strong narrative, provide players with a better understanding of political dynamics and, most importantly, create a “richer” simulation experience. The reason why some of us engage in conflict simulations (or play wargames) is to add a storyline to “chess”, introduce randomness (that unscripted stuff that happens in the real world and impacts the course of history), and place military conflict within some political context. Defiance reflects this.
We’re true to our word. Given that it’s happy hour somewhere, here’s a recipe for one of our favorite cocktails:
Previous Defiance InsideGMT Articles:
First Draft of History: Designing a Military Simulation of the Russo-Ukraine War 2022-2023
Defiance Design Happy Hour: Partisan/SOF Operations vs. Regular Russian Forces
Author: D. B. Dockter and Mark Herman
This reminded me of the good times I’ve had discussing politics and other intangible factors in wargames with you and Mark Herman and sometimes Volko too on Guns, Dice, Butter (episodes XX and XVI and X)
https://gunsdicebutter.libsyn.com/
Those were fun discussions, Mr.Train! I need to restart Guns, Dice, Butter one of these days.
The political sphere in crucial to understand the often neglected aspect of logistics in warfare. From the Ancient Rome, political struggle pose a limit to military operations and in the modern war this is more true than ever. Greetings to the designers and her great cocktail recipe!
Interesting post. The Ukrainian side of the track feels lacking, looks a bit evasive about US politics in design. It would be better if the three-way political friction between Zelensky, the parliament and the Ministry of Defense is included in the track. After the news of frequent changes of generals, elections anti-corruption and conscription law changes, maybe not one side, the likelihood that each side will maintain power through war should be considered.