[Consim-l] "Pentagon Games"

[Mike NotSpecified]

I played both the "Pentagon" and "R&D" games back in the day.  Both were 
pretty miserable expereinces.  Back then, as I recall it anyway, the hobby had 
a pretty elevated opinion of it's ability to game topics and derive useful 
lessons therein.  I attribute a lot of that to Jim Dunnigan's approach and a 
glut of "modern era" games which it was thought might predict what would 
happen if the Cold War turned hot, or a new war broke out in the Middle East. 
 In those days (1970's), such real life wars seemed plausible and the 
experience with gaming historical wars lent confidence in our cardboard 
"simulations" of near future events.

How well we did in gaming those hypotetical wars I leave alone here.  But one 
spin-off was things like Prados book.  A lot of smart people tried to "game" 
(or "model") other events.  Some of those attempts were more serious than 
others, some were (and are) even of some value in understanding the complexity 
of the event being modeled.

But Prados depiction of Pentagon politics and R&D process came across, to me 
anyway, as simplistic and preachy.  More of an illustration of his own 
experiences and opinions than anything like an objective "simulation".

Now a good illustration has merit in it's own right, and undoubtely John 
Prados knows more about the Pentagon and R&D than I do, but I didn't feel like 
I'd learned much from playing his games.  Certainly had no lessons learned, or 
ideas I might transfer to real life.  And as games, well there was no point in 
playing either more than once.

I still have the set (I think) but to me it is of value only as an example of 
the hubris that sometimes carried this hobby away back in the 70's


On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:31:18 -0500
  bieksza at erols.com wrote:
> When I was in the storage room recently I stumbled across 
> something I had long forgotten I had:  "Pentagon Games" by John 
> Prados, subtitled "Wargames and the American Military."  This 
> magazine-sized publication (81 pages, stapled binding) contained 
> several essays on wargaming as well as three playable games.  I 
> quote from the preface:
> 
> "This work also contains three games of my own design.  The game 
> _Pentagon_ creates in a tongue-in-cheek fashion a form of 
> 'bureaucratic politics.'  This is intended to illustrate some of the 
> factors other than 'knowledge' that have a direct impact upon 
> defense spending.  _The R&D Game_ shows how a military project 
> moves from the drawing board into the hands of troops in the field, 
> though I have simplified this process for game purposes.  
> Nevertheless, the array of factors other than simulation studies and 
> analyses that figure in project development is readily apparent.  The 
> final game, _Last Days of Saigon_, takes the form of a 'manual' 
> wargame, simpler than the military standard but of the same type.  
> Vietnam was the most studies, analyzed, and simulated war in the 
> history of the American military.  _Last Days of Saigon_ is a 
> reminder that the best possible study and simulation provide no 
> guarantee against defeat on the battlefield."
> 
> The essays (chapter headings) are:
> 
> - Games Generals Play
> 
> - The Postwar Explosion in Games
> 
> - When the Unthinkable Becomes Playable
> 
> - What Do We Know About War?
> 
> - Games of Risk
> 
> - The Wargames Mystique
> 
> I skimmed most of the essays but didn't encounter anything that 
> would eclipse Peter Perla's "The Art of Wargaming."
> _______________________________________________
> Consim-l mailing list
> Consim-l at mailman.halisp.net
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/consim-l