Precinct Omega
patreon
Ultramodern - The ethics of wargaming current conflicts
🕑 Added 2022-04-06 11:29:13 +0000 UTC
There's a lot of whataboutism going on in the current media debate over the war in Ukraine, in which the strength of the Western reaction is being critically contrasted with its reaction to past and on-going modern conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere with the general thrust being "you didn't care about this because it involved brown people".
Although I don't think these arguments are necessarily being made in good faith in many cases, and although - in fact - many of us have cared very passionately about those conflicts and the human cost, there is nevertheless something to be said for the different perspective that a more immediate major conflict brings to one's feelings about it.
Even before Putin's invasion of Ukraine, I was thinking about the ethics of ultramodern wargaming. But when thinking about civil conflicts in Africa and the Middle East, or major criminal gangs in Central and South America, my perspective was detached on the simple basis that there was pretty much no chance that those conflicts could spill into my kitchen. They were awful for those involved and the political decision making around them has been questionable at best and morally bankrupt at worst. But for all that I thought weapons sales to the Saudis were awful, I never felt like I was personally at risk from the war in Yemen, for example.
The war in Ukraine, meanwhile, is different - not just for its proximity (I never felt particularly threatened by the war in the Former Yugoslavia even when I was literally standing in the Former Yugoslavia with a gun in my hands) but for what it means about the assumptions we've made about political and military détente in Europe and the Former Soviet Union.
As a wargamer, it also feels different for reasons I tried to articulate previously - that this was a conflict between two countries whose people include fellow wargamers.
Whilst I personally like my wargaming to be set a few decades ahead of reality at the very least, there is nevertheless a thriving community of wargamers who love to wargame the very recent past or even the ongoing present. But when we are faced with war crimes and atrocities unfolding near-live on our phones and TV screens, can we objectively render the conflict in Ukraine in tabletop form? And if we can't, taking the whataboutist arguments at face value, can we then fairly continue to wargame other current conflicts or even proximate versions of current conflicts in good faith?
As my regular followers will know, I am something of a bleeding-heart lefty so you might be surprised to hear that my opinion is "yes, you can".
It's not an unqualified "yes". I think that the person who is excitedly assembling his (because it's definitely a man) "2022 Russian Invasion Force" army is a f***ing psycho. But if you already have a collection of Spectre GRU spetsnaz and want to put them on the table in a Ukraine-themed battle, it's not necessarily a bad thing.
Personally, I think I'd be turning to a game with a solid solo or co-op mode (good heavens, where on Earth could one find one of those?) so I could play the Ukrainians in the scenario, and perhaps share command with a friend as we exact Ukrainian vengeance upon the invading assassination squad hunting their president. I would certainly love to see a mini of Volodomyr Zelenskyy in his combat gear. But taking on the role of the Russians could be an interesting exercise in the right scenario.
What if your squad is dealing with torn loyalties? Perhaps the squad leader is a die-hard Putinist, but knows some of his team have doubts and will only follow orders up to a point. Perhaps some of them have family in Ukraine. Or perhaps is the other way around. The squad leader wants to defect or surrender, but can't do so until he's made sure the loyalists in his team have been killed, to protect his family from repercussions.
How far will you go to follow orders before you decide enough is enough? How can you avoid civilian casualties or even killing Ukrainian soldiers without incurring the wrath of your superiors?
For those of us with a preference for the speculative end of wargaming, meanwhile, the conflict in Ukraine should make us much more aware of the role played by the media in an interconnected world - how information and disinformation are strategic assets, and how propaganda operates at even the front line of ultramodern conflict. Whilst we're pretty confident of the moral narrative at play in Ukraine, we can easily imagine a similar conflict were the story is far more murky, with both sides competing to portray themselves as the good guys whilst still trying to get away with atrocities. And this kind of idea can and should inform our tabletop wargaming experience.
This, I think, is where modern, ultramodern and near future wargaming needs to stand distinctly apart from mass market games like Warhammer 40,000. Gaming in this genre shouldn't be allowed to be reduced to a straightforward slugfest for abstract "objective points" until one or the other side is declared the winner like a game of bullet-ridden football. Wargaming in the ultramodern genre needs to engage with and, indeed, embrace the ethical issues of warfare much more explicitly. Whilst we can (and should) have fun and enjoy ourselves playing an ultramodern game, we should also be using the experience as a lens to see conflicts as they are - not as high-stakes sportsball, but as a vast swathe of moral greyness that has to be negotiated as surely as the obstacles on the battlefield.
I would personally be delighted to see this attitude of wargame-as-immersive-education feed through into speculative wargaming.
Some Extra Details
Not related to the big picture stuff above, but there were a couple of other points I thought it would be fun to draw out from the current conflict into wargames and wargaming design.
First is the issue of masks worn by soldiers.
When I was at Sandhurst this was a huge no-no. Having one's face visible was considered a tactical asset to communication. Not only did it make it easier to communicate with allies, but it also made you seem less threatening to civilians and more human to an enemy predisposed to see you as non-human. So it's always been a bit of an irritation to me that so many sci-fi minis are conventionally masked or wearing full-face helmets.
But in this conflict, both sides are routinely seen wearing masks and I don't know 100% know why, but I suspect it has a lot to do with the role of the media and technology. Modern technology makes it child's play to identify a specific person from a digital photo of their face. And social media makes it commensurately easy to identify their family, their home, their friends and their contacts. So protecting your face on the battlefield now becomes a strategic necessity to avoid allowing your loved ones to be targeted by enemy propaganda, strategic trolling or cyberattacks.
If someone has another explanation (other than "Ukraine is bloody cold at this time of the year"), do let me know.
Second is the unexpected shitness of the Russian armed forces.
It has been de rigeur in recent years, in communities dedicated to discussing ultramodern wargaming, to see the Russians as highly capable. Not only do they have a large armed forces, but they also had battle-hardened and experienced special forces, an educated, professional command and leadership structure, increasingly reduced reliance upon conscription for expeditionary missions and a vast investment of resources into cutting edge technology. Plus, of course, what was widely seen as a long head start in the field of cyberwarfare.
Almost all of this has been proved to have been a wild over-estimate of their actual capability. The disconnect between the propaganda and political perspective and reality on the ground has exposed Russian inadequacy in almost every field. To what extent this was systemic issue and to what extent it has a moral component will be something for historians to dig over in decades to come. But this and the exemplary role so far played by President Zelenskyy should tell the wargames designer something important about the role of leadership in turning theoretical capability into battlefield performance.
Despite being a graduate of the UK's officer academy and a strong believer by training and indoctrination in the force-multiplier value of effective, moral leadership, I think I've actually underestimated the reality. And it's something you are likely to see more of in future Precinct Omega designs.
