User:Kariba~enwikiversity

A Reflective Practical Analysis

Political gaming and simulations encompasses role plays, board and online games which aim to replicate politically motivated events in history such as ‘Liberté’ and ‘1776’, social/ economic systems such as ‘Monopoly’ and wars like ‘Vietnam 1995’. Political simulations combine pragmatism in the form of education for the players and training for government personnel with entertainment in the form of interaction; thus giving participants the opportunity to simulate as much of the relevant political phenomena as possible. In this reflective analysis, I plan to evaluate ‘Monopoly’, ‘Liberté’, ‘Vietnam 1995’ and ‘1776’whilst simultaneously addressing questions relating to each game’s/simulation’s mechanics, techniques, political lessons, shortcomings as well ability to combine abstraction and realism.

‘Monopoly’; The purpose of Monopoly is to acquire the most wealth whilst buying, renting and selling property. The dice-rolling mechanics adhere to the facet of life which is dictated by fate whereas the universalised board encourages a sense of national identity. The provision of play money alongside the ability for players to conspire but inability to borrow from or lend to each other further advances the notion that the advantage of one leads to the detriment of another. Monopoly’s original predecessor; “The Landlord’s Game” was based on Henry George’s single tax theory which argues that imposing single tax on land would lead to its ownership as common property, rather than as individual property; thus redistributing wealth and alleviating poverty (Gild, 2007, 9). Elizabeth Phillips (the game’s inventor) envisioned players learning about the injustices of the tax system which via rents led to the enrichment of property owners at the expense of impoverished tenants. However, due to the games’ complexity its demographic was confined to intellectuals and university students. The rules of Monopoly coincide with the simplicity and straight-forward nature of the board, each space is labelled clearly with unambiguous descriptions. The role of the ‘banker’ allows for players who lack confidence in or knowledge of basic arithmetic to engage in the game more effectively. The defining characteristic that distinguished Monopoly from “The Landlord’s Game” lies in its capability to appeal to the competitive nature a myriad of humans adopt in situations where the ‘losers’ outweigh the ‘winners’. Its combination of realism and escapism not only perpetuates the significance and ruthlessness of capitalism and rewards the conscientious and quick-thinking individuals but allows players to enjoy themselves in a sociable manner. In the midst of the bleak economic climate where money is scarce, Monopoly gives players the equal footing financially they would not otherwise experience in their real financial lives. Every player has the opportunity to be the successful land-owner regardless of gender, experience or race; a stance that has yet to be adopted in capitalist societies. Throughout the game, capital is synonymous with power, the more capital you have to negotiate with the more power you have to exercise. The banker, the bank and the individual with the most properties in a coloured group are the most influential players in Monopoly because they are more likely to be in control of the most capital during the game. The aesthetics of the game board show evidence of abstraction; the colour of the lettering for the word ‘GO’ is red. In western societies, red representing ‘STOP’ and green representing ‘GO’ are not only universal but as a result of globalisation globally recognisable symbols. On the other hand, realism is present as consumerism is highlighted when players who obtain one property begin on an insatiable quest to attain more in order to gain affluence and thus win the game. Individualism is a feature of Monopoly (though paradoxical) used to emphasize the objective of the game and depict reality in the business sector. The game fails to accurately simulate the decision-making processes faced by protagonists of capitalism as the factors involved in making decisions of a capitalist nature such as the state of the economic climate are vast and complex. As a result risks that have not been extensively evaluated are more likely to be taken while playing the game. Two political lessons people can be learnt from Monopoly; regardless of the fact that land is a natural resource, once monopolised it can be used to the advantage of the capitalist to exploit people to the point of impoverishment. Secondly, one person’s gain is another person’s loss. Arguably, enforcing a time limit could avoid a situation in which the last two participants play endlessly before a winner is recognized.

‘Liberté’

Martin Wallace’s Liberté is a game which not only allows players to replicate revolutionary France from the meeting of the Estates General in 1789 to the Directory and General Napoleon Bonaparte’s coup d’état in 1799. Participants also have the opportunity to participate in ‘elections’ without having to align with any particular faction. The aim of the game is to accumulate victory points by controlling the relevant provinces, maintain the highest number of factions in those provinces and advance the appropriate cards to weaken rivals and thus gain an advantage. The map of France, centred on the board is divided into twenty-seven provinces separated by six regions; distinguished by various colours. The colourful board not only represents the way the world viewed France during the revolution; captivating, but as the game progresses, the board along with the corresponding counters (belonging to the players) and the red, white and blue faction blocks lend a ‘hand’ to the chaos that characterised the French revolution. The personality cards cater to the games historical allegiance as it features the revolution’s real-life actors such as Morat, Darton and Desmoulins. All actors are linked to the factions they represented at the time and minor actors are worth fewer faction blocks. Liberté encourages interaction amongst its players more so if they have taken advantage of all the game’s components. Arguably, the intricacies of the game as well as the condense rule pamphlet are a deterrent to those you value simplicity and immediateness in their game play. Liberté becomes more enjoyable after the first two turns as the participants who contain the relevant cards and place the faction blocks on the area of the board reserved for battles can engage in battle and ‘fight’ for victory points. One of the defining features Liberté contains is the three victory conditions that can result in the ending of a game. The first being the player who amasses the most victory points at the end of four turns. If the Radicals (represented by the red faction blocks) win a landslide in the election by gaining seventeen points or as a result of the player that controls the most red faction blocks. Lastly, the Royalists can cause an immediate counter revolution, win (including the player with the most support for the Royalist) and end the game by controlling at least seven out of fifteen ‘CR’ labelled provinces; in the two latter conditions victory points are rendered meaningless. Realism lies at the heart of Liberté whether it’s the fact that no political actor’s fate is secure or strategic planning is crucial to winning the game. On the other hand, the occurrence of the cards that represent ‘bread shortages’ can be controlled by the players that possess them; this is only inaccurate in simulating the decision making processes faced by the revolution’s real-life political actors (as bread shortages were one of the revolution’s contributing factors )but brings an element of abstraction to the game. Liberté teaches participants about the importance of attention, observation and strategy in the midst of a revolution. Reducing the amount of rules as well as levelling the amount of corresponding illustration used may broaden the demographic to account for people who are consider themselves to be unprofessional gamers.

‘Vietnam 1955’ Vietnam 1955 was a multi-power political simulation in which participants were divided into groups of two to four players based on the countries they were representing. Each participant was provided with an introductory booklet (which they had to immediately discard) and each ‘nation’ was given a sheet explaining how victory points could be gained as well as lost. The Operation Pale ensured that the simulation paralleled 1950’s Vietnam; via intervallic narration Countries such as Russia, USA and French Indo-China ‘experienced’ political events like the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, the Suez Canal question, Operation Castor and the Geneva Peace Conference(in the midst of deliberation, alliance-building and speeches). The aim of Vietnam 1955 was to acquire the most victory points for the country being represented. The way these points could be garnered varied in complexity from chairing the Geneva conference to merely attending. Verbal persuasion amongst the participants representing each county (both within and across ‘nations’) was paramount as each country shared similar goals; though the points associated with them varied. This coupled with fact that participants are oblivious to the victory conditions for other countries made the simulation exciting and unpredictable. The participants representing the Vietminh and French Indo-Chinese automatically gained an advantage through their power to give way victory points however, Vietnam 1955 favoured the umpire evidenced by their knowledge of the rules and ability to manipulate the direction of the simulation when necessary. Both conditions increase the likelihood of Vietnam 1955 adhering to the game’s historical ties without completely restricting a player’s decisions and actions. The political simulation took place in one classroom which better served the elements of the game that were abstract because ‘nations’ at times were huddled together and undistinguishable. Alliances were built as quickly as they were broken and decisions were often spontaneous and irrational; a consequence of the limited knowledge of the decision-makers. Realism was evident in the significance of the victory conditions with regards to the decision-making process of the countries though other factors such as the threat of a nuclear war were neglected. The closeness of French-Indo-China and Vietnam during the game was inaccurate as a result of the 1950 colonial war between Ho Chi Minh’s Vietminh guerrillas and the French Union’s expeditionary corps. Vietnam 1955 and the players representing Vietnam reminded other players of the importance in asserting political influence and building alliances with countries as early as possible. In order to make the simulation more realistic national identity would need to be enforced in the form of flags or badges. Negotiations between countries and intergovernmental alliances should be formed/ take place in separate rooms. Not only are players more likely to honour agreements but it adds another to the decision-making process and dimension to the game; secrecy.

‘1776’

1776 is comprised of six games in one which replicate the military strategies adopted by both the American and the British during the American Revolution. More specifically 1776 includes a basic game which familiarises the players with simulation gaming: an advanced game where scenarios are characterised by additional complexity; and a campaign game which covers the entirety of the war in four separate scenarios. The Campaign simulation is played with each turn lasting a ‘month’ beginning in January 1776 and ending in December 1780. 1776 is played on the standard Avalon Hill hex grid board which is divided into four regions; the Deep South, the Middle States, the South Central Region and New England all of which contain a combination of twenty-two strategic states. The aim of the British player is to control twenty strategic states for a complete turn including New York, Newport, Savannah, Charleston, Boston and Philadelphia. Whereas the aim of the American player is to either prevent the British player from achieving the minimum victory requirements (to control at least ten strategic towns by the end of 1776 and 1779) or avoid confrontation with the British.

1776 is time-consuming and this is evidenced its thirty-page rule book and the fact that one game can take between two to eight hours to complete. Only two players are required to play this game in which throughout, they view each other as the enemy. As a result, sociability diminishes as the game progresses. On the other hand, the design on the board is very original and the distances between significant provinces have been calculated carefully so that the speed in which players move reflect the outcome of the simulation. 1776’s realist facet can be seen in the initial numeric superiority of the British force in the war and the featuring of a tactical combat system used to replicate the individual battles of the campaign. Arguably, 1776’s abstraction lies in its heavy reliance on the role of military conflict in the American Revolution at the expense of other factors originally present. Decision-making processes cannot be accurately simulated because of the inability to deliberate amongst players on the ‘same team’ especially regarding issues ‘where human lives are at stake’. 1776 teaches its participants that military decisions should be based on gaining political control in regions in order to get the forces required to win the war. Increasing the amount of players required and reducing the amount of pieces would not only increase the likelihood of interaction but could direct the focus towards the politics involved in the American Revolution.

In conclusion, all the games analysed contain elements of abstraction and realism which satisfies the criteria for political simulations/games with regards to pragmatism and entertainment. Both ‘Liberté’ and ‘1776’ are based on revolutions in which they have honoured in terms of each game’s mechanics, techniques and structure. Moreover, aesthetic appeal characterizes ‘Liberté’ and ‘Monopoly’ regardless of their pessimistic political lessons; with ‘Monopoly’s’ expressing capitalism produces more poorer individuals than rich individuals. ‘Vietnam 1995’ maintains its historical ties using two techniques; the first is by using an umpire who can manipulate the direction of the game. The second lies in the simulation’s ability to emphasize on the importance of gaining victory points and to encourage participants to satisfy their competitive nature even though they are oblivious to its rules.

Bibliography

Gild, B., (2007) Henry George and the Single Tax (The Arden Georgist Gild, Arden, Delaware) http://www.boardgameinfo.com/review/15/15363-Libert%E9

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3312/1776

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/291651/1776-the-revolutionary-game-that-dared-to-be-diff

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/SPIR608_Political_Simulation_and_Gaming/2011/Week_3

http://valleygames.ca/?s=Liberte http://www.dantiques.com/abgd/aardmakehtml.mv?look4=1130.00000