The Fundamental Patterns Of War

If you run a big RPG campaign, with a lot happening other than the adventures of the characters, often there will be a war on. I had to create a list of fundamental patterns of warfare for an online class I'm teaching, and thought the list might benefit GMs.

View attachment 91638​

• One side is destined to win the battle or the war because they have such overall superiority, but they have time constraints
• Different forms of military superiority
  • sea/land/air
  • technology (or magic)
  • manpower
• Economic superiority versus military superiority
• Defense of a place
• Rough Equality (often seen in battle games)

The first fundamental form is that one side is destined to win the battle or the war because they have such overall superiority, but they have to do it within a certain amount of time. The constraint is sometimes real-world, sometimes a constraint for the purposes of making a game of it. One side will win the fighting but can they win soon enough to "win" the RPG campaign (save the nation?)? For example,

• In the American Civil War, if the South had held out long enough, the North might have given up.
• A siege must be successful before lack of supplies, and disease, defeat the besiegers.
• Consider the Pacific War in World War II. Once America was "all in" because of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, it was inevitable that the Japanese were going to be defeated, so this is where a game constraint (time limit) is added

The second and perhaps most interesting form derives from different forms of military superiority. For example one side is powerful on the sea, the other side is powerful on land. Athens and Sparta is a classic. Sparta finally won because the Persians subsidized Spartan fleets long enough for the Spartans to defeat the Athenians. Of course the plague didn't help the Athenians at all, they lost their (sane) leadership.

Another example is England versus France. Most people would think of this in Napoleonic terms but it had actually been going on for more than a century. England needed help but they could provide subsidies to allies, because England could make lots of money with overseas trade.

In a fantasy world, the obvious possibility is superiority in magical capabilities, versus superiority in physical capabilities.

The next form is economic superiority versus military superiority. This would have to be an entire war, not a single battle, because wars are usually economic and battles are not. One side starts with economic superiority and the other side has military superiority, the question is can the latter use their military forces to eliminate the economic gap before the superior economy provides an overwhelming military force? This is the form that World War II took once the USA joined.

Manpower can provide a form of military superiority. My graduate school prof Theodore Ropp used to say there were so damn many Romans that they triumphed, and their available manpower was certainly vast. You can say the same about the Han Chinese and their fertile North China Plain, in many respects.

Another kind of superiority that could be suggested here is technological superiority. For example, British versus Zulus, yet the Zulus actually wiped out a substantial British force at Isandlwana (while outnumbering it around 15 to 1). The allies versus the Iraqis, cowboys versus American Indians, Spanish vs Aztecs, British versus Indians from the Asian subcontinent, Europeans versus Africans, in so many situations technological superiority won the day.

In fantasy RPGs this is likely to be superiority in magic rather than real world technology.

Technology is most likely to rear up in science fiction games involving different species, as in many "4X" games (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate).

Another fundamental form is defense of a place. It can be a city, supply dumps, supply lines, etc. This includes sieges. I think the game result can feel unreal because armies rarely fight to the last man, especially an attacking army.

The last form, and I think the least desirable from a standalone game point of view, but perhaps fruitful for a party of mercenary adventurers, is that the forces have rough equality. This is often seen in games about battles of a brief duration, one day to three days or so. You can ask yourself, if there isn't at least a perception of rough equality will the battle happen at all? Each side needs to feel that they have a good chance to win or they won't fight a set-piece battle.

Any of these forms, other than the first, can end in stalemate.

I hope this gives you enough ideas to make the overall flow of warfare in your campaign distinctive and "real."

​contributed by Lewis Pulsipher

 

[lewpuls]

Yes, there are many ways to introduce uncertainty in games. I've had a Stratego-like game published, and a block game on preorder at Worthington Publishing, for example. I didn't say you cannot introduce uncertainty into commercial games, I said that many hard-core gamers want to feel that they're in control of their fate, and dislike uncertainty. Many video gamers dislike any kind of "dice roll" in their games. I myself used to say, 40-some years ago, "I hate dice games." (My favorite was Diplomacy.) Then I encountered D&D . . .

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, there are many ways to introduce uncertainty in games. I've had a Stratego-like game published, and a block game on preorder at Worthington Publishing, for example. I didn't say you cannot introduce uncertainty into commercial games, I said that many hard-core gamers want to feel that they're in control of their fate, and dislike uncertainty. Many video gamers dislike any kind of "dice roll" in their games. I myself used to say, 40-some years ago, "I hate dice games." (My favorite was Diplomacy.) Then I encountered D&D . . .

Hi, hard core wargamer here. I love uncertainty in games. They're what make the game about playing your opponent and not just their pawns. And, given how prevalent uncertainty mechanics are in many strategy games, I'm certainly not alone.

 

[Michael Linke]

Yes, there are many ways to introduce uncertainty in games. I've had a Stratego-like game published, and a block game on preorder at Worthington Publishing, for example. I didn't say you cannot introduce uncertainty into commercial games, I said that many hard-core gamers want to feel that they're in control of their fate, and dislike uncertainty. Many video gamers dislike any kind of "dice roll" in their games. I myself used to say, 40-some years ago, "I hate dice games." (My favorite was Diplomacy.) Then I encountered D&D . . .

E-sports gamers don’t like “rng” in their games, as they prefer them to be contests of skill and teamwork, but those games tend to be MOBA these days, rather than traditional RTS.

Outside of esports, every strategy and war game i’ve played has incorporated uncertainty, either the minimal mutual uncertainty of a dice roll, or the more substantial uncertainty of abilities, units, maps or objectives which are not public information.

Even in games like chess or go, where the entire game state is public information, player intentions, and how a move will be followed up later, are still uncertain, and leveraging uncertainty is necessary for winning.

 

[Ovinomancer]

E-sports gamers don’t like “rng” in their games, as they prefer them to be contests of skill and teamwork, but those games tend to be MOBA these days, rather than traditional RTS.

Outside of esports, every strategy and war game i’ve played has incorporated uncertainty, either the minimal mutual uncertainty of a dice roll, or the more substantial uncertainty of abilities, units, maps or objectives which are not public information.

Even in games like chess or go, where the entire game state is public information, player intentions, and how a move will be followed up later, are still uncertain, and leveraging uncertainty is necessary for winning.

To follow-up on the chess bit, part of a well played game is obfuscating your play successfully.

And, to clarify, when I sponge of uncertainty I meant incomplete our unreliable information, not uncertain resolution mechanics. Uncertainty in what's currently happening, not uncertainty in how a resolution mechanic will resolve.

 

[Michael Linke]

To follow-up on the chess bit, part of a well played game is obfuscating your play successfully.

And, to clarify, when I sponge of uncertainty I meant incomplete our unreliable information, not uncertain resolution mechanics. Uncertainty in what's currently happening, not uncertainty in how a resolution mechanic will resolve.

And to your point, incomplete information, and therefor uncertainty, is a MAJOR factor in esports games where resolution isn’t uncertain.

I think the author is pretty well accurate for every point except this mischaracterization of uncertainty in Gaming. It’s a fundamental part of good game design. It’s even a fundamental part of mediocre game design.

 

[lewpuls]

Even in games like chess or go, where the entire game state is public information, player intentions, and how a move will be followed up later, are still uncertain, and leveraging uncertainty is necessary for winning.

In puzzles such as chess (and any other so-called "game" that is two player and perfect information), you can assume your opponent is a perfect player, and play accordingly. If the opponent is not perfect, you'll gain. This is maximizing your minimum gain, which is the basis of the Mathematical Theory of Games.

This is no different in principle than Tic-Tac-Toe, which as you all know is a draw when played perfectly. The difference is that chess is so complex that no human can solve it, though we can solve cut-down versions of chess (chess problems). Checkers is much less complex, such that Marion Tinsley more or less solved it. Checkers has also been brute-forced solved by the Chinook program (as I understand it, a database of all possible positions and the move that is most likely to result in a win from each position).

When you have more than two players, then uncertainty of player intention comes into it. (I think! Certainly practically.)

It has been demonstrated that a perfectly played game of chess will always end the same way, but the demonstration doesn't show whether that's a white win, black win, or draw.

You might say, player intention only matters when players make mistakes.

Uncertainty is NECESSARY to a game, otherwise you have a puzzle with an always-correct solution (even if humans cannot figure out that solution). Nonetheless, a great many hardcore gamers dislike a lot of uncertainty - notice the popularity of games such as chess, go, checkers, and other abstracts. An RPG forum would be atypical of hardcore gamers as a whole, of course. (And note, video gamers far outnumber RPGers - RPGs are a fairly small segment of gaming.)

 

[MarkB]

Uncertainty is NECESSARY to a game, otherwise you have a puzzle with an always-correct solution (even if humans cannot figure out that solution). Nonetheless, a great many hardcore gamers dislike a lot of uncertainty - notice the popularity of games such as chess, go, checkers, and other abstracts.

And a great many other hardcore gamers prefer a level of unpredictability in their games - notice the popularity of poker, blackjack and other card games.

 

[Phototoxin]

And a great many other hardcore gamers prefer a level of unpredictability in their games - notice the popularity of poker, blackjack and other card games.

Some unpredictability is welcomed as long as it hurts each player equally over time. In a wargame an unlucky/lucky roll can remove a valuable unit and a large part is about devoting the right amount of resources to deal with a problem, but in practice can be a bit 'swingy' - one player gets lucky so its a good idea to push that advantage to generate more and then steamroller. After being stung a bit too much by the whimsy dice I've tended to prefer games like magic or pokemon where have an inherent level of uncertainty (60 cards) but give you some control (you choose the cards), eventually, if you draw enough cards, you will find the card you need!