SPIR608 Political Simulations and Gaming/2011/Week 2

Friday 28th January

• Week 2 Discussion of Guy Debord, The Game of War.

Game

10

Game of War:

Guy Debord's Game of War being played in Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Guy Debord and
Alice Becker-Ho

Published as Le Jeu de la Guerre, 1987

Wikiversity Image credit: Richard Barbrook

* Is the design of the game's mechanics (board, pieces, cards, etc.) fit for purpose?

the game is confusing at first sight, as we're not used to its mechanics;

the game is serious, bold, adult, intellectual, mathematical;

it would be a good idea to have the combat values for attack and defence on the pieces - maybe on the bottom of the pieces;

the game is beautiful to look at, but it can be confusing as the board & terrain are the same colour as one of the two sides' pieces.

* Is the game enjoyable and sociable to play?

yes, but not necessarily sociable - as it's a one-on-one game;

it works surprisingly well as a team game;

the game is time consuming - we didn't finish the game even though the class overran its time;

the rules and principles were easy to pick up.

* What techniques does the game use to model its chosen subject?

the game is about warfare in Napoleonic times;

the main goal is keeping open your lines of communication;

the best way to win the game is to keep your forces in groups;

the game rewards correctly assessing the element of risk in your decision-making.

* How does the game combine abstraction and realism in its workings?

the pieces are abstract;

its strategic principles are realistic;

the game doesn't involve luck which means that every move that you make counts;

the game doesn't take into account weather and fog of war.

* How accurately does the game simulate the decision-making processes faced by the real-life protagonists of its chosen subject?

the game is modeling the thinking processes of warfare;

* What political lessons can people learn by playing the game?

its aim is to teach you to be a political revolutionary - but it isn't obvious how playing the game helps in this process;

the game teaches military strategy rather than revolutionary politics;

if politics is about gaining power and eliminating your opponents, then the game is very political;

playing the game would have helped the people in Tahrir Square in their struggle against the Egyptian dictatorship;

the game teaches people to think ahead;

it teaches you to anticipate your opponents' moves;

this is why Debord's game is more like chess than contemporary wargames.

* How would you improve the structure and mechanics of the game?

the board and terrain should be a different colour than the pieces;

Kriegspiel computer version can help in learning the game, especially as it does all of the calculations for you;

the big problem with Kriegspiel is that it prevents you from making mistakes under pressure like accidentally moving out of supply;

Alice Becker-Ho disapproved of the computer version of the game;

it's a good game because it's challenging to play;

the two teams should be separated so they can have confidential conversations although we were able to communicate secretly by passing notes to each other;

this openness could be a political element of the game as it replicates espionage!

Links

• Photos of Week 2 game playing
• Alice Becker-Ho & Guy Debord, The Game of War.
• Class Wargames
• Film: Class Wargames Presents Guy Debord's The Game of War.
• Film: Class Wargames представляет: Игра в войну Ги Дебора.
• Radical Software Group, Kriegspiel.
• Alexander Galloway, Debord's Nostalgic Algorithm.
• Nathan Heller, What Is It Good For?.
• Gene McHugh, Battle Code.