Help with a Review of COGEE for Non-gamers

[Anthropoid]

I'm going to write a brief review of COGEE for a Napoleonic scholarship site, that is decidely 'non-gamer.'

While I am a professor, Napoleonic history is anything but my area of expertise.

Thus, while I'm not the worst person to write a brief review of a game to foster interest among history buffs of the period who are non-gamers, I'm at a slight handicap in not having as detailed of knowledge about the period as the target audience is likely to have.

I know several of you Grogs have an inordinately detailed and exquisite knowledge of the period, so I'm asking here for some 'material' that I can pararphrase in my review.

1) What are some of the more fascinating 'historical debates' into which playing a game like COGEE might facilitate new insights?

2) What are some of the turning-points of the period in which 'going left' instead of 'going right' migh have resulted in very different outcomes, and which might thus be regarded as very worthwhile 'what-if' sceanarios which a game like COGEE would faclitate exploring?

3) In your opinion, how well does the game 'fit' or 'reflect' the historical period? Most of my perspective is as a superficially-historically knowledgeable but Grog gamer perspective.

Any other suggestions, feedback, comments, etc. that you think might help me to write a compelling/intriguing review that might broaden our community to more fully encompass enthusiasts of the Napoleonic period who are not gamers per se.

Recognize that my directive is to "keep it brief."

[barbarossa2]

This sounds great Anthropoid.  What is your deadline.  I will think about this tonight and post a better response by tomorrow. 

[Anthropoid]

No huge rush, though I'd like to get it done in the next few days.

BTW: anybody who wants to be listed as a "coauthor" just say the word! I'm happy to share authorship. This is not something I'll count on my CV

[barbarossa2]

Holy Jesus.  I am a Matrix Elite Guard.  LOL
 
Does this mean I have to stand in the front line when the shooting starts?  Or do I get to hide in back until things look like they are going to crap?

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Holy Jesus.  I am a Matrix Elite Guard.  LOL

Does this mean I have to stand in the front line when the shooting starts?  Or do I get to hide in back until things look like they are going to crap?

You look death in the face with utter contempt and hold those, who are about to met it out to you, with disdain.[;)]

Anthropoid-that is a great idea. Who knows how many potential gamers are in such a group? It is a safe assumption that most gamers are history enthusiasts to begin with.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

While I am a professor...

An evil professor?

Sorry, couldnt resist.

[:D]

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

My 1st thoughts on this Anthropoid are cautionary, ie don’t ‘Over egg the pudding’, playing CoG EE will not give any true historian of the period any valid insight into said period.

My reasoning is this ... you are in the Anthropology field I believe (?), well just the same as serious Historians one of the biggest problems you & they face is carrying over Intellectual & Emotional baggage from their own society and foisting it on the area of study. We see, and the game will play with many points that would just not have been thought of in those days and therefore will have no conceptual rational for the area of study.

CoG is a game remember and as such it operates within parameters that the designers can technically utilise, and some of the issues will have to be fudged to make a playable game etc.

That said, after emphasising that it is a great game to play, you might suggest that things like Mobilisation & Logistics problems encountered in the game may give some inkling as to the difficulties encountered in that era, which “may” help stimulate fresh avenues of approach to their study.

Sorry if the above seems a bit negative, but maybe to help put it in perspective, try turning it on its head, I assume you will have played Space games, yes ? well with the best will in the world it ain’t gonna make you a real captain of some Starship of the future! [:-] Err, sorry about that an’all but ...

Good luck with the project, hopefully other folk will supply you with some more positive thoughts.

All the Best
Peter

[Anthropoid]

I tend to agree with you Peter, and that is precisely why I'm asking for feedback from you guys on this. I don't know that historical period very well, but what little I do know, and having played this game a bit, I'm just not certain that someone who is primarily a history buff would necessarily see it as a 'realistic' exploration of history. For one thing the AI behavior over the span of a few years is unlikely to match with real world behavior. For another, it is possible to do things that either (a) were not done at the time or (b) would very likely NEVER have BEEN done at the time. If you are a history buff, interested in exploring a question/hypothesis about ONE turning point event (e.g., outcome of Trafalgar), or one major decision (invasion of Egypt or invasion of Russia) then ideally you want everything else to run as it did historically albeit contingent on that one altered historical event. Because of the largely open-ended 'sandbox' nature of the game--and indeed, nearly _ALL_ historical strategy wargames that I can think of--it is unlikely that you will be able to play a match in which only one major event was different than history. Instead, general trends will match history (for the most part) but specific events will almost never match history unless they are coded as timed unvarying events.
 
For me, as a gamer, none of that matters. 'Exploring' an historical period in a very loose sense, using the typical open-ended game engines that we tend to play with is just fine. I'm just not sure how 'non-gamers' who are primarily historians would feel about that. Would they think it was 'unrealistic' or worse 'stupid?' I don't know.
 
In any event, I'd like to do what I can to spread the word and grow the gamer community in general, and in particular for WCS' games. But I dont' want to sell COGEE as a steak dinner and then have folks realize it is just hamburger to them, so I thought it was worth a bit of thinking abot how to 'review' it for this type of audience. If it was a gamer audience, I'd crank out a review in 30 min and post it, *kaboom* but this this target audience, I think it is worth putting a bit mroe thought into, so any of you guys (Gil? Eric? Mr. Z? Hard Sarge?) who have suggestions, please do post!!

[barbarossa2]

Kingmaker,

This is an extremely well thought out post of yours.  And I agree 100%.

THIS is what I believe that this type of game can do for education: When I was a teen and in highschool, when geography and history were the most boring things in the world to me, Avalon Hill came along and with games like Third Reich, War and Peace, Guns of August, Caesar's Legions, and MADE me learn geography the fun way.  They MADE me interested enough in these events to go out and buy books on them!  Then, I was able to compare the gaming experience to what happened historically.  IMHO THAT is where the greatest value of these games lies.  If every kid in America had a copy of a game like CoG:EE, the world might be a better place.

Does it have any value for the university history professor to play a game like this?  Well, I knew one... he was GREAT.  James Madison.  At Iowa State University.  He played table top games every other Saturday which anyone could go to.  I thought it was great.  Of course, not every one of his students was inspired to do this.

Kingmaker, while your post is a highly intelligent and thought provoking post, I do feel that gaming on a repetitive basis would help make one a slightly better general.  If the model isn't horribly flawed, it can teach you the benefits of using interior lines to your advantage, and the value in concentrating on your enemy and remaining operationally flexible.  But!  As you indicated, I don't think it will make you an expert in the art of Napoleonic warfare, as I believe that there are so many assumptions made when desiging these games (and trying to make them games and not simulations), that beyond the most basic principles of warfare, there may be little to learn indeed. 

As someone who does know a little about history and reads about it quite a bit, whenever I get a computer game, I spend a lot of my time wishing the game was more simulation like (when even I know at times, this is bad for the market--because really...how many people want to play a SIMULATION of the Napoleonic Wars besides me?).  CoG:EE is a fun GAME of the wars.  And I feel because of the added economic aspects and treaty aspects, it comes closer to "simulating the Napoleonic Wars" than any other game ever designed.  But in many aspects, it is still miles off.  I try not to care and just have fun.  Which is the point.

And yet again, CoG:EE has inspired me to pick up some books on the topic and my knowledge of the era, and the French Revolution (even the 150 years before the French Revolution) have been improved directly because of my purchase of CoG:EE.

There DOES have to be some merit to the notion that one can look at a system, use rules to describe it and then allow people to game it to learn something constructive from it. Or the Pentagon wouldn't spend millions doing just that. But each and every model (even a multi million dollar model) is based on assumptions which can be FAR off the mark.

So, I do think the game does allow some very general gaming on questions like: What if Prussia and Austria had actively allied against Napoleon in 1805?

But it is also weak on a few points.  Just as ONE example: the real events of the Spanish campaign by Napoleon are difficult to portray.  And I feel that the "Total War" option is really out of place.  Additionally, there is no way to place "your brother" on the Spanish throne as Napoleon did.  I often wonder if THIS is what turned the war into such a disaster for Napoleon.  But there is really no way to game this in CoG:EE. Indeed, the noise in the system is virtually impossible to reproduce. I am still confused as to how the Spanish war could be portrayed in CoG:EE and feel that it--and its events--may be the weakest link that a real Napoleonic know it all might have problems with. The requirement to declare a total war to cause the type of guerilla warfare seen in the campaign seems a bit off to me. The whole mechanism doesn't work here in my frank opinion. BUT once again, that doesn't mean CoG:EE isn't a GREAT game. It just means (surprise) it isn't a simulation.

Additionally, the GREATEST caveat of any game attempting to recreate history is this: History is a game which has been played only once (many of you have heard this from me before, and indeed it is one of my favorite quotes which I will never forget).  It is entirely possible that in some historical situations we see the rarest of outcomes (someone rolled snake eyes--for instance the storms at sea which finished the destruction of the Spanish Armada).  And when people sit down to design a game about it 250 years later, people are upset if the historical outcome isn't the average outcome of the game (the historical snake eyes becomes the gamer's 7).

I guess one question that would be interesting to have answered, is: What would Napoleon have said about CoG:EE? Would he have thought it an interesting way to game his continental strategies? Or would have have laughed and said it is for children. Now THAT is an interesting question to me. I am guessing that he would have said "it shows promise, now take 15 million francs and make me a simulation". LOL

-B2

[Randomizer]

Kingmakers observations certainly have great merit, well said Sir.  My only observation would be that a well designed wargame may provide some real (although limited) insights into why certain things may have happened the way they did and I would consider CoG-EE well designed in this regard.
 
Anthropoid's idea is a good one I believe and given applicable caveats might stir up some fresh interest outside the hard-core gaming world.  One would think that by placing terms such as "simulation" and "game" into the context of the review early might avoid some of the pitfalls mentioned.  Since these are mostly subjective, defining them for the target audiance clears the way to be discriptive without being dogmatic and allows any bias to show.  When subjective issues are up-front there is room for balance and accuracy, something that the fanboy ruled gaming review world sadly lacks.
 
Best Regards

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Kingmaker

My 1st thoughts on this Anthropoid are cautionary, ie don’t ‘Over egg the pudding’, playing CoG EE will not give any true historian of the period any valid insight into said period.

Maybe not a historian, but what about a strategist?

Can any player say that in a game as France they would contemplate declaring total war on Spain and before concluding said war would launch a campaign with 600,000 men into Russia? Bear in mind this is with several hundred thousand men still tied down in Spain and with a British Army on the ground in Spain. Thats just a terrible strategic decision!

I think the game does a pretty good job in certain places of showing why Napoleons meglomaniacal overreaches were just that. If a normal person doesnt exhibit that kind of madness it can be difficult to lose some scenarios as France.

Napoleons tactical and morale genius are abstracted for the general unit. The psychological defect that was the primary cause of his defeat is lacking.

[barbarossa2]

"Napoleons tactical and morale genius are abstracted for the general unit. The psychological defect that was the primary cause of his defeat is lacking.
"
Very well said (stands and applauds) 

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Oh dear, fraid I’m gonna have to go all negative again; briefly, I do feel that gaming on a repetitive basis would help make you a better general. Possibly in the ‘Game world’ B2 but not in reality and as Anthropoids project is for real people this, “may?”, not be a valid point.

Again I do think the game does allow some very general gaming on questions like: What if Prussia and Austria had actively allied against Napoleon in 1805? Yes, possibly in a gaming world or Counter-factual History, but here we are looking at “What ifs”, great fun (do it myself), and a tool to sharpen the intellect, but not pertinent to the real study of History as they/it did not actually happen. Now, I may well have picked this up wrong, but I was under the impression that Anthropoids project was aimed at serious Historians, not ‘Gamers’, hence my original suggestion not to ‘Over egg the pudding’.

All the Best
Peter

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Kingmaker

Oh dear, fraid I’m gonna have to go all negative again; briefly, I do feel that gaming on a repetitive basis would help make you a better general. Possibly in the ‘Game world’ B2 but not in reality and as Anthropoids project is for real people this, “may?”, not be a valid point.

Not in reality?

With respect Kingmaker, where do you think wargaming comes from? Not saying this particular game might be accurate enough to use as a teaching tool (although as Barbarossa pointed out its certainly interesting enough to cause people to read up on real history), but military professionals do use wargaming as a teaching/learning tool.

[barbarossa2]

Kingmaker, good points, especially on number two (Prussia and Austria uniting against France)

However, I was using this point to show that this is really the best CoG:EE could do (and weakly).  This is a shakey "maybe".  And heavily qualified.  I should have perhaps said that above.  However, a historian could draw his own conclusions about what might have happened in such a situation and would not be well advised to sit down and add an evening at a CoG:EE game to his list of references. LOL

I do notice that there is a real aversion among most historians to speculate, "what if". Perhaps because beyond one or two steps it becomes ridiculous. Yes, what if Hitler would have sent his Panzers east for Moscow instead of directing them south to Kiev in the fall of 1941? Fine, he might have taken Moscow. But EVERYTHING after that is speculation.

I do think I would still have to say that repetitive gaming would lead to slightly better generalship.  However, only in terms of the most important maxims of warfare (use of interior lines, concentration of force, etc.).  I really can't -- and won't -- say that CoG:EE would make you a better Napoleonic General.

Where gaming does help the most in the preparation for armed conflict is when it is open ended enough and brings 10 to 30 or minds minds together in scenarios with referees and and without hard coded rules which flow from assumptions (which are likely incorrect).  In that case things may come up which no one had previously considered and which planners will have to take into consideration. 

[06 Maestro]

The first computer game I ever played belonged to the US Army. It was a large operation with permanent duty personnel to operate the system-there were NCO's who would actually use the keyboard and mouse for us. It looked very much like the Campaign Series,but a little more detail. Unit commanders, Plt Ldrs and Bn staff were all set up in different locations-all tactical communications using code. This was in the mid '80's-located in Fort Lewis, Washington. I went there a couple of times-we had some very nasty battles with the (then) Eastern Horde.

Anyway; war games have been used for a very long time by the professionals-more so now than ever.

I recall a little story from a book I have on the German General Staff. There was a group of Prussian officers visiting an Austrian Army facilities. At one point some of the junior Prussian officers suggested that they all play a war game-The Austrians laughed and suggested that they instead go have some fun-which they all did. A few years later these same gents met on a battlefield-we know who won.

[barbarossa2]

Maestro.  Who won that one?   

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Maestro.  Who won that one?   

Oops. [:D]

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Maestro.  Who won that one?   

The Prussians, of course. [;)]

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

The first computer game I ever played belonged to the US Army. It was a large operation with permanent duty personnel to operate the system-there were NCO's who would actually use the keyboard and mouse for us.

LOL.

The mental image of the dedicated keyboard and mouse operators is hilarious.