If eRepublik Is A Wargame, It's A Crappy One

Day 621, 02:16 • Published in Canada New Zealand • by SledDog

In his article "eRepublik A Wargame?" (http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/erebublik-a-war-game-read-comment-section--879760/1/20) Rolo Tahmassee criticized Jacobi for his statement that he doesn't play eRepublik as a wargame. Rolo's point is that you pretty much have to.

I probably come at this from a different perspective than most of you, and indeed most people playing eRepublik. I've been playing wargames longer than most of you have been alive. Literally. I got my first wargame when I was in the ninth grade. That would be 1970 or 1971. It was a board game of course (it was 1914 from Avalon-Hill in case you're interested) because no one had computers. Computers were for companies and took over rooms the size of my house. A few of us had thoughts: one of my friends wanted to build a computer - he's the VP of R&D at Pixar now btw - but we didn't have the slightest idea of how to go about it. I didn't see my first home computer - the original Apple II - until years later.

Anyway, based on my nearly 40 years of experience in wargaming, I have reached the conclusion that eRepublik is a wargame. Or maybe I should say that it has BECOME a wargame because I think that the designers really didn't expect war to be as big a component of the game as it quite clearly has become. Why do I think that? Because as a wargame it is pretty crappy (and you know the word I'm not using here). Why do I say that it's a crappy wargame? well there are several reasons:

1. There are no costs to war. As far as I can tell there's no cost to starting a war. Oh sure, individuals and governments have to bear the cost of weapons and defensive systems but declaring a war on a country not only has financial costs but also costs in terms of trade and international goodwill. That's not here/

2. Logistics. Where are they? France invades Canada and is able to bring massive forces to bear, heavily armed and out for bear as the saying goes. It works in terms of this game but how do you move those massive forces across the Atlantic deliver them onto our shores and keep bringing them beans and bullets? And I'm not even talking about the physical dangers of bringing those ships and airplanes across the Atlantic against a defended coast with aircraft and warships to oppose them. Supply lines and logistics can be a real b*tch in real life. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait he stopped with Kuwait in part because he believed that the world wouldn't react to that take over but also in part because his ability to supply his army was such that going into Kuwait was about as about as far as his army could go, because going any further would have stretched his ability to supply his army beyond the breaking point, and once he established his forward supply bases in Kuwait, well it was too late. In the European Theater of Operations in World War II the invasion with the longest distance was North Africa which was launched from England but even then there was an advanced base in Gibraltar.

3. Geography is another problem with the game. I wouldn't want to try to invade British Columbia from Alberta because of the geography. I wouldn't want to try to do that anymore than I'd want invade Quebec from Nunavut. Or indeed invade Ontario from Manitoba (anyone who has driven from Toronto to Winnipeg as I have understands what I'm talking about). I once ripped to shreds a stupid alternate history from a guy who thought that the Germans could have own World War II by landing an army in Baffin Island then crossing the Baffin Strait to far northern Quebec and marching south until they were within V2 range of the major cities of North America. The guy thought that the fact that there were no roads and nearly impenetrable forests that have to be cut before you can build roads - not to mention a hostile and mobile population that makes their living in those very forests by shooting at things and not being seen while they do it. Geography counts.

4. The power of the defender. The standard belief is that in war, the offense should be to the defense as three is to one. In other words you need the strength of the attacking force should be three times as great as the strength of the defending force. This may need to be more or less depending on a number of factors including geography, equipment and morale. A small force can - and has - done extremely well in mountainous terrain against a force that exceeded the 3-1 ratio, and well equipped forces can routinely defeat poorly equipped forces. As for morale, well let's just say that an army that has undergone the sort of defeats that eCanada has suffered would be doing very badly in the later battles of the war.

5. The lack of other arms. I suppose that this needs to be addressed. As I've mentioned the logistic concerns of a trans-Atlantic invasion are "daunting" even without considering a defensive force waiting for them on the other side. Now let's consider that defending force. Imagine if you will trying to launch an attack from France with Canada and the United States in possession of a sizable navy and air force and then delivering their cargo of soldiers against prepared positions. Hitler wasn't about to try it across as puny a body of water as the narrowest part of the English Channel. He had good reason too; every post war simulation (I'm talking professionally run war games including several run at Sandhurst) showed that his army would have been cut to shreds. Canadians are all to well aware of "difficulties" of mounting an attack against a defended position - Dieppe. Americans know it as well: Anzio and Omaha Beach.

6. The bizarre alliance structure. As I'm given to understand it, eCanada can fight eRussia in Alaska and eRussia's allies can't get involved, even if all of those allies are curently at war with eCanada. However if eCanada were to launch an attack into Far Eastern Russia which "borders" Alaska (though launching an invasion across the Bering Sea is another prospect I wouldn't relish in real life) It would trigger Russia's Mutual Protection Pacts which would cause Canada to face Russia's allies, all of whom eCanada is already at war with.

I could go on and on (and on and on) about how eRepublic is a badly designed wargame, which explains why I don't believe that it was intentionally designed to be a wargame. I think that it was INTENDED to be a game that simulated trade and international relations on the world stage, as well as business and politics on the national stage, and personal advancement on all stages. The problem is that while this was the intention, the part of the game that deals with war is underdeveloped. War is easy and relatively painless, which makes it an attractive option. War needs to hurt both the attacker and the defender. As Robert E. Lee put it, "It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it."