# SPIR608 Political Simulations and Gaming/2011/Week 2

Friday 28th January
* Is the design of the game's mechanics (board, pieces, cards, etc.) fit for purpose?
    the game is confusing at first sight, as we're not used to its mechanics;
    the game is serious, bold, adult, intellectual, mathematical;
    it would be a good idea to have the combat values for attack and defence on the pieces - maybe on the bottom of the pieces;
    the game is beautiful to look at, but it can be confusing as the board & terrain are the same colour as one of the two sides' pieces.
* Is the game enjoyable and sociable to play?
    yes, but not necessarily sociable - as it's a one-on-one game;
    it works surprisingly well as a team game;
    the game is time consuming - we didn't finish the game even though the class overran its time;
    the rules and principles were easy to pick up.
* What techniques does the game use to model its chosen subject?
    the game is about warfare in Napoleonic times;
    the main goal is keeping open your lines of communication;
    the best way to win the game is to keep your forces in groups;
    the game rewards correctly assessing the element of risk in your decision-making.
* How does the game combine abstraction and realism in its workings?
    the pieces are abstract;
    its strategic principles are realistic;
    the game doesn't involve luck which means that every move that you make counts;
    the game doesn't take into account weather and fog of war.
* How accurately does the game simulate the decision-making processes faced by the real-life protagonists of its chosen subject?
    the game is modeling the thinking processes of warfare;
* What political lessons can people learn by playing the game?
    its aim is to teach you to be a political revolutionary - but it isn't obvious how playing the game helps in this process;
    the game teaches military strategy rather than revolutionary politics;
    if politics is about gaining power and eliminating your opponents, then the game is very political;
    playing the game would have helped the people in Tahrir Square in their struggle against the Egyptian dictatorship;
    the game teaches people to think ahead;
    it teaches you to anticipate your opponents' moves;
    this is why Debord's game is more like chess than contemporary wargames.
* How would you improve the structure and mechanics of the game?
    the board and terrain should be a different colour than the pieces;
    Kriegspiel computer version can help in learning the game, especially as it does all of the calculations for you;
    the big problem with Kriegspiel is that it prevents you from making mistakes under pressure like accidentally moving out of supply;
    Alice Becker-Ho disapproved of the computer version of the game;
    it's a good game because it's challenging to play;
    the two teams should be separated so they can have confidential conversations although we were able to communicate secretly by passing notes to each other;
    this openness could be a political element of the game as it replicates espionage!

## Links

* Photos of Week 2 game playing
* Alice Becker-Ho & Guy Debord, The Game of War.
* Class Wargames
* Film: Class Wargames Presents Guy Debord's The Game of War.
* Film: Class Wargames представляет: Игра в войну Ги Дебора.
* Radical Software Group, Kriegspiel.
* Alexander Galloway, Debord's Nostalgic Algorithm.
* Nathan Heller, What Is It Good For?.
* Gene McHugh, Battle Code.