PC Gamer: William R. Trotter got a bum rap....

[Guy w/gun]

I did a search on this and got no reply about this topic, so i thought i'd bring it up myself.

In the Jan 2001 issue of PC Gamer, the resident wargame columnist William R. Trotter recieved a letter a Mr. John Hawkings. In a previous issue, Trotter had written about an expirience he had playing out the defense of Corregidor. He said that he had destroyed the t-95 tanks and achieved victory, confirming a long held theory that the tanks had prevented an American victory.

The letter he recieved from Mr. Hawkings is to long to reporduce here, but i will summerize. Mr. Hawkings was a rifleman in the 1st Battalion, Forth Marine Regiment, defending Corregidor. The column that Trotter wrote angered Hawkings. It did so for many reasons, but mostly because he believd that Trotter had no right to comment on the outcome of a battle that he had only "fought" from the comfort of his home. He went on and became rather insulting, saying that Trotter should come to the reunions and discuss his "expiriences" with the survivors and the widows of the men who had died.

Trotter summed it up by saying "Sometimes the words 'It's only a game' seem pathetically lame".

Well Mr. Trotter, i disagree. You were only playing a game. You didn't claim to be a historian, and you published your OPINION in a PC GAMING MAGAZINE! If a veteran of a battle that you had the "audacity" to re-reate in a game dislikes your opinion on how victory could have been achieved, he has every right to. As Mr. Hawkings stated, you weren't really there. But in return, you never claimed to be an expert, and you weren't trying to convey any sense of disrespect.

So...I thought that this would hit a nerve with people on this board. When i play a wargame (especially a recreation of a historical situation), I realize what it represents. I realize as I replay the movie in CM to marvel at the fury of a tank being brewed up, that in real life there is a crew inside. I am aware of the horrible things that could have happened to that crew. I realize that those men had families, wives, children.

But it really is only a game. And just because I finish a scenario victoriosly and state what mistakes i think the real commanders made in no way makes me forget why those commanders probably made those mistakes in reality.

I know that there are probably quite a few veterans and men and women in the service on this board from many nations, so id be very greatful for there insight...

[Guest MantaRay]

Ok, I look at it this way. Trotter is a joke anyway. I mean, if he was a true wargamer, why doesn't he mention CM more? What one little snippet about CM?

And the heading for the magazine called him "Worlds greatest wargamer." Who gave him that title? And if there was such a thing, I am sure quite a few people out there could whip his snide ass.

Now I didn't read the January issue, but I think any veteran of battles that were lost at a high cost, would hate to be second guessed by someone who only claims to have the answers. And by saying, "Sometimes the words 'It's only a game' seem pathetically lame" was very foolish. First of all, the statement he made applies more to Trotter than to the Veteran. And to demean this guy, is not a good way to keep subscribers.

Trotter crossed the line, but who cares what trotter thinks anyway? Not me.

Ray

------------------

When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one."

New CM Site. In process of switching. Brought to you by Hardcore Gamers Daily

The Red Army of the Rugged Defense Group Ladder

[Samhain]

Actually, Mr. Trotter did more than just mention CM: he gave it a glowing review, one of the reviews that helped lead me and likely others to CM.

I think you misunderstood the point of the column, which I took to be very respectful of the veteran's position and self-effacing on Trotter's part.

Still, PC Gamer's silly cult of personality with "The Colonel"/"world's best wargamer" and "The Vede" (their hardware guy) is immature and embarrassing, and most likely an editorial decision, not Trotter's. (At least I hope he wouldn't encourage that.) Given the tone the magazine has taken on of late, I'm surprised they still have their best writers, Trotter and Mahood. (I.e., the older, experienced writers who don't feel the need to say "sucks ass" or "smack down" every other review.)

/rant off

That column does raise interesting questions, though. I know I don't in any way confuse CM with reality, and would never second guess a real commander about an historical situation based on my playing a wargame. I wasn't there, I didn't have to juggle men's lives for strategic gain, I'm not in the military, I'm not a professional military historian, etc.

A related question that interests me, at least on an abstract or philosophical level, is how people feel about the moral implications of finding entertainment in games that simulate, to greater or lesser degrees, historical mass killing and destruction. I don't mean video game violence in general, but specifically wargames that seek to recreate for fun the actions in which thousands upon thousands of men were killed, maimed, blinded, burnt alive, and so on.

(Disclaimer: CM is one of my all-time favorite games. I still find the question interesting, though.)

------------------

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 12-24-2000).]

[Mr. Clark]

The PC Gamer review is what pointed me to CM, so I pretty much HAVE to be thankful to the writer and mag.

[Sgt. Spiff]

I have to say that I respect Mr. Trotter for his response to the letter he recieved from an offended veteran. It was apparent to me that Mr. Trotter felt that he had crossed a line and needed to issue the apology. Whether or not the column in question was offensive is not so much the issue as the fact that Mr. Trotter felt obliged to make an apology. In my opinion not enough columnists are willing to back off and make such an apology, too often the response is to attack. I think it takes a bit of personal fortitude to come back with a response like Mr. Trotter did.

BTW, I first took serious interest in CM after reading Mr. Trotters review of the game. Personally I find his wargame reviews to be extremely valuable in choosing which computer games to purchase. Mr. Trotter has both saved me from wasting my money on some real turkeys and also has turned my on to some excellent games I likely would have passed up otherwise.

[Stealth]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Samhain:

A related question that interests me, at least on an abstract or philosophical level, is how people feel about the moral implications of finding entertainment in games that simulate, to greater or lesser degrees, historical mass killing and destruction. I don't mean video game violence in general, but specifically wargames that seek to recreate for fun the actions in which thousands upon thousands of men were killed, maimed, blinded, burnt alive, and so on.

(Disclaimer: CM is one of my all-time favorite games. I still find the question interesting, though.)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I actually find myself contemplating this question personally. The reason is basically what you already stated. CMBO is a lot of fun for me, but it is also so realistic and makes me take a step back and say, "Whoa. People actually endured this."

I suppose a game like CMBO is good for those of us who haven't been there. It helps lend more reality to a war that is almost always seen in old black and white photos.

I suspect there are probably a couple of WWII combat vets out there playing CMBO. I would be interested to hear their thoughts on this.

Also, forgot to add that when I see some of the tank photos posted here I'm blown away on two counts.

1. I would never want to face one on foot period.

2. How closely the CM graphics and mods match the photos.

[This message has been edited by Stealth (edited 12-24-2000).]

[Ronson]

all I can say is thanks to pcgamer for turning me on to cmbo...never even saw the review just a little tiny pix in the october issue that said, "pc gamer recommends" ...

luv that mag...

[Monte99]

There's probably the only one thing more tiresome than the windy grognards who immerse themselves in the arcana of war, and that's the querulous old veterans who attack anyone who presumes to comment on anything of a military nature. Military service earns one a certain level of respect, but it does not confer a monopoly on historical knowledge.

That said, as a combat simulator, Combat Mission is a pretty good game. Trying to link any game in any way to the blood and chaos of real combat is just absurd. The best discussions on this board are about how the game, Combat Mission, is played. When we rely on game experiences to draw conclusions about real warfare, we risk looking like fools.

------------------

"Arms are my ornaments, warfare my repose." - Don Quixote

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monte99:

Trying to link any game in any way to the blood and chaos of real combat is just absurd....When we rely on game experiences to draw conclusions about real warfare, we risk looking like fools.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Having read Trotter's original column (about using SP:W@W to recreate the final Japanese invasion of Corregidor), I'd say you summarized it rather well there.

Trotter wasn't just reviewing the game, he was using the game to "prove" a theory he'd had about the Marine defenders ability to fight off the invading Japanese (specifically, their tanks). Because Trotter had "beat" the Japanese in the game, he pretty much concluded that if the Marines had only fought a little harder in Real Life, they might have been able to push the Japanese into the sea.

If I'd have been a survivor of that engagement and read his conclusion, I'd have been a little pissed off too...

[JediJobu]

I also saw this in the mag and my feelings are that any person who wargames needs to always keep in my that thought the game might be accurate, tough, challenging, etc, it will never be real life.

Things will never be like they really were when playing historical scenarios.

I sympathize with the veteran who wrote the letter, which I might add, was done in a very professional manner, without just flamming Trotter (he didn't just come out and day what a looser he was and so on)

I think it is very important for all of us here to remember that there is a line what we will never cross when speaking to/or about people who were actually there doing what they did.. risking their lives for what they felt was the right thing to do.

just my .02 cents here.

[ntg84]

We'll get our best wargamer of the board to fight Mr. Trotter in a CM QB. Then that title of "Worlds Best Wargamer" will be taken away.

[Guest Michael emrys]

There's much to be said on this subject, but briefly I think Monte99 has it just about right. Wargames, if they are carefully researched, designed, and tested can be very good at showing what happened historically, why, and how. But I trust them much less for testing alternative outcomes, which is a pity as that is one thing that interests the most. Nobody can ever say for sure how an alternative strategy, commander, weapon, or anything else would have effected the outcome of any battle, campaign, or war. The reason is that everything effects everything else. You can't change just one thing. And there may just be important factors that no-one has identified yet and therefore cannot account for. A wargame is a model of an event. It is not the event itself. As a model it may be more or less detailed. It may be more or less accurate. It may be possible to make predictions from it with more or less confidence. But nothing is certain.

As for the claim that "no-one who was not 'there' has a right to speak" on a historical subject, I run into it quite frequently in the historical and military Usenet newsgroups I frequent. While I am most attentive and respectful of anyone who has personally witnessed or participated in an event I am interested in, I am not unmindful of the limitations of human consciousness. Life can be confusing, and battles are extremely confusing; moreover they are meant to be. Every commander worth his salt tries to mislead his opponent as to his intentions and capabilities.

Therefore, it takes a veritable army of historians to sift through often conflicting reports to try to get close to the truth of what actually happened and why. A person reporting on his personal experience may sincerely believe every word he speaks, yet be mistaken on some crucial point. We often misperceive what happens right before our very eyes. And our memories, however vivid, can become skewed by our expectations. And we may be swayed by the desire to make a good story just a little bit better.

Michael

[Gremlin]

History, as common sense and any historiographer would tell you, is subject to or created by interpretation, as are all human experiences. Direct unmediated perception of "the truth" or "thing in itself" is, according to many schools of thought, an impossibility, though others would of course disagree So it's definitely questionable that someone who was an eyewitness to an event has a greater understanding of at least certain aspects of it than one who can carefully judge multiple sources of information about the event later.

As for using wargames to second-guess history, that's comical. Remember that CM and other wargames are themselves essentially interpretations of history, as all the arguments on this board about the game's accuracy show. Meaning no disrespect at all (as I have great admiration for CM's design), BTS reduced human behaviour (morale for instance) down to relatively basic mathematical or logical formulas (by practical necessity), which is obviously an extreme oversimplification of real life. For every other inclusion, exclusion, formula, and so forth in CM and any other simulation, there had to be latter-day interpretation both of which sources to treat as accurate and worthy of attention and then how to read them and apply them to the game design. So, trying to apply CM to history is somewhat like trying to talk intelligently about D-Day if you've only read one author's books on it.

------------------

War is cruel and you cannot refine it. --Sherman

[This message has been edited by Gremlin (edited 12-26-2000).]

[Lawyer]

I read the Trotter article and accepted it as his attempt at serious gaming to re-create an historical event, which is how I think he meant it. I also read his next column with the real vet's reaction, which I accepted as a natural reaction from a non-gamer veteran of the actual battle and following years of horrendous misery under the Japanese (the vet got the article from his grandson).

I thought the follow-up column was a sincere recognition by Trotter that his gaming opinions could offend veterans, even if they were not the column's intended audience. A cynic might even say Trotter got a column's worth of free material from the vet's response. Not much else to say about it.

I can get a tear in my eye and a choked throat from reading about the experiences of real veterans in real wars. The best ones, such as "Company Commander", give me a shared sense of war experiences I never had and never want to have. They are fascinating stories of actual human events.

I have zero human feelings about the life and death of CM soldiers, other than being pissed off when they refuse to fight and die in quite the way I desire. I accord them all the respect I gave my plastic reproduction soldiers as a kid -- they get tossed into the dustbin of gaming history as soon as they finish fighting for me, either successfully or unsuccessfully. Okay, I admit I do maintain a folder of their special successful moments under my command as "Lawyer's Greatest Hits", although the folder is depressingly thin.

CM is so great because we get to re-create all the fun stuff of war -- tactics, strategy, cool guns and machines, tough guys, and blowing stuff up -- with none of the unsavory aspects of war, such as death, destruction, and human degradation. It's very nice that I never have to write condolence letters to Mr. and Mrs. Pixel about the heroic or cowardly deaths of their sons.

Let's replace war with more great wargames like CM. Everyone will be better off.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

------------------

Only the Lawyer knows what Evil lurks in the minds of men....

[Gremlin]

Interesting isn't it, how we can blithely write off certain units from the beginning of a scenario as utterly expendable (recon forces, etc.)? CM is more like a wonderfully sophisticated form of chess, with pieces and rules abstracted from history, than it is a recreation of war. In CM there's no real sense of cruelty, horror, suffering, and death. I'm glad CM treats war like a game

------------------

War is cruel and you cannot refine it. --Sherman

[This message has been edited by Gremlin (edited 12-26-2000).]

[Panzertruppen]

A most interesting thread.

I don't know the particulars of the above mentioned article, so I'll only comment on the subject from a very general point of view.

Wargame simulations not valuable in recreating historical situations? Hmmmm...I guess we fools in the US Army have it all wrong. We use wargame simulation software at many levels to recreate both modern training exercises and historical encounters. This is certainly a limited tool, but a very useful one. Nothing, not even the most rigorous training, can guarantee he outcome of a battle. Just too many variables involved. However, by using several different methods an officer or senior NCO can make a reasonably accurate assessment of his unit's chances of surviving a given battle.

Computer wargame simulation software is an important tool in training all four of America's major military services. The US Army War College and the US Army Sergeant's Major Academy are full of people who can testify to that. I have participated in many training events up to Brigade level and observed the results from within the Brigade TOC. A little more in depth than the average wargame perhaps, but it has the same basic priciples. In fact some of the folks who now design Wargames started out designing software for the military. I believe the TacOps designer started out that way (although I'm not 100% sure of that).

As far as military folks having a manopoly on historical knowledge...well, they do have a unique perspective. I was in Desert Storm, Bosnia, and Haiti. Does that make me an expert? Perhaps, but only from a very narrow focus as it pertains to my job in the military. Even though I was there and saw many things the history books don't always include, that doesn't really qualify me as an expert on the subject. A true historian would be far more knowledgeable on many aspects of the fighting than I am. Although a soldier has a very unique perspective, it is almost always a very narrow perspective.

I wouldn't worry too much about a cantankerous veteran. No one has more respect for the accomplishments and sacrifice of my fellow soldiers than I do, but also understand that old soldiers are a grouchy bunch. You will never make them happy no matter what you do. Old soldiers are always critical of younger soldiers and anyone who wasn't "actually there." Except for a few very rare examples, most soldiers are not experts on the techical complexity of a battle as a whole. They just think they are!

By the way, this veteran must not be totally aginst wargames. He was reading a copy of Computer Gaming World wasn't he...

Don

[Silver Fox]

Gosh,what an honor! I taught school for 35 years and so I must be a great expert on education! Gentlemen,it is ONLY A GAME!!

[Monte99]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silver Fox:

Gentlemen,it is ONLY A GAME!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a tribute to BTS that such reminders keep recurring on this board. Only a game, yes -- but it takes a truly great game to generate this level of discussion. This is the best game I've played in years.

------------------

"Arms are my ornaments, warfare my repose." - Don Quixote

[Guest Der Unbekannte Jäger]

After I read that letter in PCG I was shocked that someone would take offence with such a seemingly small matter, then I realized that unfortunately we on both sides of the fence are actually a little guilty of not completely understanding the circumstances in each case.

Trotter for not realizing that a survivor may be offended (we can't always tip toe around somethings so yeah some people will be offended) . And the survivor for not realizing that no offence was actually intended. This is what Mr.Trotter had to say in an email correspondence:

"Seemed to me that the only really honorable

thing to do in this case was to turn the podium over to Mr. Hawkins. I was

really devastated emotionally when I first received his letter (as you know,

the LAST thing wargamers intend when they engage in "what if?" scenarios is

disrespect for the men who actually fought) -- my intention was to use the

Steel Panthers scenario, and my knowledge of the actual events, to give the

American/Filipino defenders the victory they *deserved*."

I think in the end he did the right thing, instead of trying to debate with the man or what have ye.

And just for the record I would not have been introduced to CM without Mr.Trotter's column. Just thought people may want to see what he had to say on the matter...

------------------

"The world is wide, and I will not waste my life in friction when it could be turned into momentum."

[blindsey]

I read both articles awhile back. Personally, IMHO I read PC Gamer and I think Trotter is a good reviewer and a friend to war gamers. He has pointed me towards some good games and saved me some money by advising me not to buy some bad ones. And he gives good tips on web sites that have interesting hiistory, war and war gaming related topics. He feels that he offended the Veteran who was there in the first article, so he apologized in the second article. I respect the Vet's opinion, he was there participating in the actual battle and apparently had a bird's eye view of the action. However, I respect Trotter for apologizing. The point that the Veteran was trying to make was that they tried to take out the Japanese tanks, he said he watched 1 American and 2 Fillipino Scouts climb on top of the tanks and try to take them out with hand grenades, but they were all killed and the hand gernades were not powerful enough to stop the tanks. The Vet said they tried to take out the tanks but could not, so he thought Trotter's opinion that if the Americans had stopped the Japanese tanks on the beach then they could have stopped the Japanese troops on the beach was off the mark. I hope I remember it all correctly, I suggest reading both articles, they make sense together.

[Guest Seimerst]

<Chuckling> Monte99, Well said! I am one of those "querulous old veterans" -- well I try not to be querulous anyway. There are a few vets who feel that you have to "be there" to have a valid comment. I disagree-- sometimes the intensity of the combat experience is so searing that you lose any objectivity that you might think you have. I am always the better for studying an event that I have first hand knowledge of from many points of view. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monte99:

There's probably the only one thing more tiresome than the windy grognards who immerse themselves in the arcana of war, and that's the querulous old veterans who attack anyone who presumes to comment on anything of a military nature. Military service earns one a certain level of respect, but it does not confer a monopoly on historical knowledge.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Hussar]

Interesting Topic

Actually the Germans did a wargame on the invasion of Russia prior to the event. They found, from the Wargame, that they would almost certainly run out of supplies before they reached the Dnieper. They ignored this but it was pretty nearly correct. Of course the Game could not program in Hitler !!.

I am a fan of Trotter, but rarely buy the mag these days because of the juvenile nature of the rest of it. The local (OZ) mag is even worse...

[Gremlin]

Good point, Monte99: of the many gaming BB's I've been on, this is the only one where intelligent, adult discussion is the norm instead of the rare exception (excepting a couple topics that will remain nameless ).

------------------

War is cruel and you cannot refine it. --Sherman

[This message has been edited by Gremlin (edited 01-27-2001).]

[The Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ntg84:

We'll get our best wargamer of the board to fight Mr. Trotter in a CM QB. Then that title of "Worlds Best Wargamer" will be taken away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Ladies and Gentlemen! We're here in Madison Square Garden, where in a few moments two fearsome competitors will be engaged in mortal combat for the elusive title of "World's Best Wargamer"!

In the right corner we have Fionn Kelly - CM:BO Super-Champ with more then 100 victories under his belt!

In the left corner, we Have William R. Trotter, self proclaimed "world's best wargamer" and what-if scenario lover!

Let's get ready to RRRRRRUUUUUUMMMMBLEEEEEEE!"

------------------

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[Grobdeutschland]

I like Mr. Trotter's section & I feel his reviews are on the money. The Colonel is just a wargaming title much like ours & "World greatest gamer" is a statement of how much he loves wargames, IMHO. Why read into it so much?

He did nothing wrong, however, I can understand why Mr. Hawkings was angered. I read his letter & was touched by it. Mr. Trotter was also & that's why he apologized.

------------------

"Far better it is

To dare mighty things...

Then to take rank with

Those poor, timid spirits

Who know neither

Victory nor defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt 1899