User:Pkogut

Reflective Practice Analysis
Games are designed to model reality, or are they? Just like beauty, reality is in the eye of the beholder. If one agrees with this cliché, one will find oneself in a situation where reality may have multiple meanings, in effect becoming contingent upon the beholder’s interpretation. Navigating away from this view, this paper suggests that games are designed to model conflict. Conflict enlivens games just like alcohol enlivens perfume. Human history is one long conflict. Even when ‘rule of law’ replaced ‘law of the jungle,’ conflict still occupied a centre stage of human existence. When physical survival became less of a concern, social struggle for a better place ‘under the sun’ came to the fore. What spurs conflict is up to debate, but as far as this paper is concerned, the author will assume that it is usually an interplay of ideational, material and social factors. Drawing on these assumptions, this paper will analyse the accuracy of reflection of conflict in the following games: Liberte, Origins of WWII, Vietnam 1955, Comrade Koba and The Settlers of Catan. A caveat needs to be inserted at this point to inform the reader of the subjective nature of the analysis to follow. What the reader will find is not a detailed discussion of the structure and rules of the games, but rather a subjective analysis of the degree to which their game mechanics accurately model conflict as well as their strengths and weaknesses. Each game will also be accompanied by comments and suggestions for improvement.

Liberte features conflict so well that you can actually feel the chill down the spine as ‘children’ of the French Revolution lose their heads on the guillotine. On a more serious note, however, the game does not model conflict ‘all the way down.’ Three aspects of conflict – ideational, material and social – are illustrated to different degrees, with ideational being the lowest, material and social being the highest. Ideational factor is not fully acknowledged in the game, but those familiar with French or European history would know that 1789 Revolution shattered the foundation of monarchical rule and prepared the soil for future sprouts of liberal democracy. Although ideational face-off between forces of liberalism and absolutism are not duly acknowledged in Liberte, material and social factors make up for this absence. Conflict over material factors exemplifies geographic areas e.g. cities, provinces and adds a realist touch to the game. Social rivalry, on the other hand, is illustrated by three factions – Royalists, Moderates and Radicals – and is portrayed vividly in the game. It is perhaps through this mechanism that conflict is best modelled in Liberte.

Having said that, a player is prevented from experiencing rivalry to its fullest as there is no alignment with a particular party. This deprives players of feeling identified with one particular faction. On balance, though, Liberte creates a sense of conflict throughout the gameplay. Players are compelled to make rational choices and weight their decisions as they anticipate regional elections. Because Liberte is a sequential game, the last player enjoys an information advantage over other players as their plans unfold before his turn. This places the last player in a competitive position by enabling him to take advantage of the moves of previous players. Introducing some simultaneous moves to the game can definitely improve the game by making it more balanced as well as simplifying the rules to increase the pace of gameplay and players’ engagement.

Origins of WWII, as the name suggests, spans the time of the 20th century when Great Powers were preparing for the second ‘big fight.’ A game that models the Second World War is anything but peaceful. Conflict prevails throughout the game as players operate within strict time constraints – only six rounds to go before the outcome of continental rivalry is revealed. Origins of WWII features ideational and material conflict, leaving domestic social dimension out of sight. The game conveys the battle of ideas that characterises the inter-war period. Three competing ideologies i.e. Nazism, Capitalism and Communism clashed at the crossroads of history. The game captures this conflict rather accurately and simulates this tension to a high degree during the gameplay. Material conflict is exemplified in the game through territorial conquest. As Great Powers build their material capabilities, they expand their territories at the expense of small states, or ‘pawns,’ demonstrating insatiable desire for world domination.

Origins of WWII is almost a perfect information game, except when it comes to political factors that can be concealed to confuse other players. Other than that, information on outcomes, victory conditions and miscellaneous rules is revealed to all players, rendering information imbalance almost impossible. Another unique feature of the Origins is that it can be modified to be played as a simultaneous move game thereby preventing first several players from feeling disadvantaged in relation to the last one. Because of the disposition of political factors, the game encourages players to ‘gang up’ on the most powerful actors, mainly Germany and the Soviet Union. Origins, being very interesting and sociable to play, could be improved by having more historical actors such as Italy and Japan. Ability to form alliances that increase member states’ political factors could be a useful add-on as well as an increase in the number of rounds from six to ten, for example. Chance or community cards that simulate natural disasters, defection of top officials, desertion, and discovery of new weapons of mass destruction can provide a value-added experience to the enjoyment of all players.

In a similar vein, Vietnam 1955 models a certain time in history when Great Powers were dividing the world into spheres of influence to swing the balance of power in their favour. Like the Origins, Vietnam models conflict by juxtaposing ideational and material factors, mirroring the established post-Yalta World Order with a certain degree of realism. The uniqueness of Vietnam lies in its game mechanics. Unlike other board games discussed in this paper, Vietnam utilizes role-playing to simulate conflict in the Far-East Asia a little more than half a century ago. Players are divided into competing groups and take on the roles of actors involved: the US, the USSR, the UK, France, French Indo-China and Vietminh. Moderated by the narrator, Vietnam becomes a hot spot of debates, accusations, conspiracy and secret negotiations. Victory conditions are designed so that players’ outcomes are interwoven.

Having said that, during the gameplay this aspect was miscommunicated and players interpreted it as they saw fit. It is absolutely imperative to have clear guidance from the narrator in any role-playing game to avoid confusion and misunderstanding. Nevertheless, microcosm that Vietnam scenario simulated imbued the gameplay with a spirit of diplomacy, especially when it came to the Geneva Peace conference. Although arguing for and against certain outcomes during the conference lacked concrete reasoning and understanding of the subject, many found it enjoyable just for the sake of public speaking. The game could benefit from having more visual material to deliver the spirit of the era. For example, a detailed map of the area the size of A2 could prove useful in identifying key locations of the conflict and would also enable players to refer to them during secret and open negotiations. Clear delegation of responsibilities and victory conditions would lock players in purpose-specific roles and enable them to improve their argument when negotiating with other players. Lack of communication from the narrator can deprive players of strategic and tactical thinking – something that needs to be addressed during future game-testing. On balance, Vietnam delivered fun, tension and excitement – three components of a successful role-playing game.

Comrade Koba depicts conflict mainly from a psychological perspective of an individual and does not account for the greater socio-historic context of the era. Comrade Koba presents conflict as a struggle of fears, characterised by one’s paranoid suspicion and mistrust. Notwithstanding this one-sided view of the conflict, the game confirms the zero-sum logic of great leaders and the absurdity it can sometimes lead to. The game offers players to choose from a variety of Stalin’s cronies and experience the whims of the great dictator as their lives are ‘shuffled’ along the way. Random kill and real historical figures used in the game convey realism of the Great Purges to a high degree. Negligence of human life sets an eerie tone for the forthcoming gameplay as players aim to keep their characters as further away as possible from Stalin to achieve victory. Being a game of not only political, but also physical survival, Comrade Koba elevates the principle of ‘all against all’ above other moral considerations, mainly friendship and loyalty. ‘A stab in the back’ is expected every time new player takes his turn. If anything, this game confirms the common knowledge that ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely.’

Like many games, Comrade Koba is not a perfect information game in that players keep their chosen characters in secret. Neither is it a simultaneous game that eliminates information disadvantage. One’s success also depends on chance as Koba dice rolls determine the future outcome of a character’s life. A great advantage of this game is that its rules are very simply to follow and easy to remember, which allows to engage players from the start. Comrade Koba is anything but time-consuming and in less than half an hour the game has its first victor. Time and chance are probably two factors that make this game enjoyable and sociable to play. Comrade Koba, although it is classified as a strategy game, shares few characteristics with the Settlers of Catan, also a strategy game, but one in which thinking several steps ahead is a necessity, not a choice. In terms of improvement, the game would benefit from some background information to accompany its main characters. Especially death stories can prove very useful as they inform players of the peculiarities of Stalin Purges, on the one hand, and amuse the team, on the other.

The Settlers of Catan falls short of a political simulation as it over-stresses the role of trade and exploration of natural resources in a given environment. This game models development, city-planning and infrastructure, leaving political element somewhat out of the equation. One understands that all of the aforementioned activities cannot be initiated without a centralized authority, but politics is more than just city-planning and trade. Nevertheless, the game manages to instil competitive spirit in all players as they vie for victory points. The Settlers of Catan features material factors that spur conflict i.e. the struggle for natural resources (ore, timber, stock etc). The problem of scarce resources becomes acute after a few rounds of gameplay and keeps players on the edge of their seats, least they run out of timber and ore – two crucial components for building settlements. This feature is integral not least for encouraging players to leave disagreements behind and start negotiating.

The Settlers of Catan, therefore, like no other game, combines cooperation and competition by proving that these two options are not mutually exclusive. If anything, it teaches players to compromise and make deals with their rivals. A major drawback of this game is its limited distribution of resources and territory. One needs to be rather quick to occupy best lands and start erecting settlements. In addition, chance determines the outcome of many events, be it having a Robber placed near your territory or giving some of your resources to a competitor as a result of a chance card, which sometimes makes strategic decision making futile. Hence, it may prove difficult for players to follow strategies as they are constantly hampered by bad luck. Having said that, the game models difficulties associated with uninhabitable lands or barren soil – a reality of some parts of the world – rather accurately. A country with scarce natural resources has no other option but to trade with its neighbours in order to survive. The game could be improved by introducing power and destruction abilities. For example, special circumstances need to be introduced to allow players to take over their rivals’ lands, settlements and roads – something that current version of the game does not offer. Adding a power component to the game would definitely shift it from trade to political dimension. Finally, an extended map with added resources would help eliminate frustration among those who were out of luck when it was time to conquer lands and are now left to enjoy only a handful of resources.

To conclude, this paper analysed the degree to which five chosen games simulate conflict. Liberte, for example, simulates rivalry among different social groups during the French Revolution. Origins of WWII depicts conflict as a battle of ideas and a battle for power on the continental Europe in the first half of the 20th century. Vietnam 1955 is similar to Origins in that it focuses on the post-WWII World Order in which Great Powers compete for spheres of influence. Comrade Koba personifies conflict on an individual level and offers players to enter the psychic world of Joseph Stalin. Finally, The Settlers of Catan, although it elevates trade over politics, simulates conflict over material factors, namely natural resources, in a realistic fashion. After reading this analysis, the reader is encouraged to take part in at least one of these games. The five games discussed in this paper appeal to different public as there is something to be found for students of politics and international relations (Origins, Vietnam), history (Liberte) and just admirers of Stalin (Comrade Koba). All games have proved to be very stimulating and sociable to play, to say the least.