WEGO games, what happened to them?

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: z1812

Stick to the issue, ignore his posts, and he will go away. This was a fair and interesting thread before we started responding to his need to feed.

I actually think that we should recognise Bob's merit on this thread: he helped to generate a lot of intelligent answers. [;)]

[MrsWargamer]

Two games in my past.

One was playing the British defending in the southeast against Japan.
Historically they got trashed.
I refused to cooperate. I did the wrong things, but I got some neat results. I won.

Another was playing Nato against the Warsaw Pact. Now the Warsaw Pact HAD to have headquarters units to allow them to capture victory locations. I saw the flaw. The need for the headquarters units. I suicide attacked with expensive units to be sure. They all got trashed in the process. But there were no headquarters units in the process. The Warsaw pact forces could stop and trash all they wanted. But they weren't going to get a win.

My point here. If you want history to go exactly as history happened, watch a friggin documentary. It always ends the same way.
If you want to simulate history, you have to force it to happen as it happened. And all you get to do, is see it in detail.

If you want to have a chance to BEAT history, you have to be able to actually do that. The mechanics of the game are not relevant. It merely needs to make it possible to do the unlikely.
Germany never had any real chance of invading North America. But in some games, well, weird things happen. The mechanics are not relevant.

The ONLY wargame I've ever played, where the Uboat war was depicted accurately, was done as an abstraction. A3R. You spend resources, to get a potential result. If the opponent does nothing to prevent your result, it happens. There is no die roll. No ASW, Britain suffers. No Uboats, Britain does even better. They do the same with strategic Bombing in the game.
EVERY grand strategy computer wargame that has represented Uboats with counters, has failed miserably to depict the Battle of the Atlantic.

Sometimes turns AND WEGO fail.

[z1812]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: z1812

Stick to the issue, ignore his posts, and he will go away. This was a fair and interesting thread before we started responding to his need to feed.

I actually think that we should recognise Bob's merit on this thread: he helped to generate a lot of intelligent answers. [;)]

That would be your take..............it's certainly not mine.

[wodin]

"Until someone actually provides EVIDENCE that I'm wrong!

You people live in a fantasy world. Here's how that world apparently works:

STEP ONE: Postulate a theory.
STEP TWO: It's Miller Time!!!!

Here's how it works in the real world:

STEP ONE: Postulate a theory.
STEP TWO: Experimentally test theory.
STEP THREE: Evaluate theory based upon the test results.

All I asked, originally, was "where is the evidence for WEGO's claims of superiority?"

Just..WOW...the arrogance

You are the one claiming one way is superior..I'm sure everyone else will say it's all good and depends on how the mechanics are used. The evidence is the fact the MILITARY have paid for and are happy with WEGO software wargames. I'd listen to them and see what they want\like over you who as far as I know aren't high up in any military organisation.

[Orm]

Yea. The military high command has never been wrong. [8|] [:)] [:D] [;)]

[RFalvo69]

"Until someone actually provides EVIDENCE that I'm wrong!

This is the key point. Since he is NEVER wrong, such evidence, by default, doesn't exist. [:-]

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Yea. The military high command has never been wrong. [8|] [:)] [:D] [;)]

That's, however, different from "the wargames they use". When the Japanese wargamed Midway, the American side won over and over (with chain of events eerily similar to what later happened during the real battle...)

The Japanese Admirals refused these results - to their great pain - but I guess that the wargame rules they used were excellent [:)]

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: Orm

Yea. The military high command has never been wrong. [8|] [:)] [:D] [;)]

That's, however, different from "the wargames they use". When the Japanese wargamed Midway, the American side won over and over (with chain of events eerily similar to what later happened during the real battle...)

The Japanese Admirals refused these results - to their great pain - but I guess that the wargame rules they used were excellent [:)]

I read about a wargame the military played but didn't like the result. So they changed the rules for the wargame.

Therefore I do not automatically assume that the wargame system, nor the wargames, the military uses are the best there is.

[Aurelian]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26302874?s ... b_contents

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/v ... ort-papers

[DeepBlack]

ORIGINAL: Orm
I read about a wargame the military played but didn't like the result. So they changed the rules for the wargame.

Was that not Kaiser Wilhelm's schtick? He would participate
in those in-the-field wargames but insisted on changing the results so
that his faction always won.

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: Orm

Yea. The military high command has never been wrong. [8|] [:)] [:D] [;)]

That's, however, different from "the wargames they use". When the Japanese wargamed Midway, the American side won over and over (with chain of events eerily similar to what later happened during the real battle...)

The Japanese Admirals refused these results - to their great pain - but I guess that the wargame rules they used were excellent [:)]

I read about a wargame the military played but didn't like the result. So they changed the rules for the wargame.

Therefore I do not automatically assume that the wargame system, nor the wargames, the military uses are the best there is.

I clearly remember a story from when they were wargaming the invasion of Iraq in 2003. During an exercise, the guy "playing" as Iraq was able to raise hell by using all sorts of out-of-the-box ideas - from using messengers on motorcycles instead of radios, to hiding messages in calls for prayer, to everything in-between. The referees judged what had happened "exceedingly improbable" and ditched that specific wargame.

This of course caused a reaction in the anti-war crowd, who accused the military of "deleting everything that didn't go their way". I, however, thought that they made the right call: the Iraqi weren't simply trained or enough prepared to act like that, and nothing like that happened during the initial invasion.

What made me go "Hmmmm..." however, was how such tactics could work for the resistance against the US occupation, in a long low-intensity conflict. I would have thrown these out-of-the-box ideas in a drawer, not in a bin, "just in case".

I never studied the Iraqi conflict (and its tactics) in-depth, so I don't know if I was right and those original tactics were employed. What remained with me was that a wargame could be wrong on principle but still bring up unexpected questions and situations worth of serious consideration.

[loki100]

wasn't that the same game that had the Iraqis sinking US warships not by using Surface-naval missiles but ramming them with high speed small boats?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: loki100

wasn't that the same game that had the Iraqis sinking US warships not by using Surface-naval missiles but ramming them with high speed small boats?

I think that was the Iranians as commanded by a US Marine General.

But once it happened or a small boat blew up with a big BOOM then every small boat would have been a target. So would civilian aircraft of any size.

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: loki100

wasn't that the same game that had the Iraqis sinking US warships not by using Surface-naval missiles but ramming them with high speed small boats?

I think that was the Iranians as commanded by a US Marine General.

But once it happened or a small boat blew up with a big BOOM then every small boat would have been a target. So would civilian aircraft of any size.

That could have been part of the Iranian strategy: to force the US into a political defeat after the destruction of dozen of neutrals.

Anyway, in 2000 the USS Cole was hit exactly like that.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: loki100

wasn't that the same game that had the Iraqis sinking US warships not by using Surface-naval missiles but ramming them with high speed small boats?

I think that was the Iranians as commanded by a US Marine General.

But once it happened or a small boat blew up with a big BOOM then every small boat would have been a target. So would civilian aircraft of any size.

That could have been part of the Iranian strategy: to force the US into a political defeat after the destruction of dozen of neutrals.

Anyway, in 2000 the USS Cole was hit exactly like that.

The USS Cole was attacked by terrorists. I was referring to a US wargame where the Iranians were played by a US Marine General - he won!