Perception
This is Steven Petrick Posting.
Perception can be a very confusing thing, even in board games. An example is being cut off from supply. In one game side A pushed past side B, the result was that both were across the supply lines and line of withdrawal of the other. But one commander thought to himself "I am cut off", while the other took the attitude "I have him surrounded." Guess which one won the battle?
Both sides were in the same condition, but one commander panicked, launching desperate attacks to reopen his supply lines, while the other simply sought to strengthen his grip on his opponent. The first saw disaster, and his reaction to that brought disaster and ruin to him, the second saw opportunity.
While it was a game, if the first commander had not panicked, but had instead also sought to strengthen his grip on his opponent, covering his own weaknesses while looking for one in his opponent to exploit, he could have won, his situation was no worse, but all he saw was that he was cut off.
Yes, a game, but this has happened in real life. Many a battle is lost not because the Army is defeated, but because the commander is defeated. In World War II there were people who thought that England should have negotiated a peace at any price deal with the Nazi regime after France fell. There were some in the U.S. who thought that after Pearl Harbor we should have pulled everything back to our West Coast and, basically, hope the Japanese would leave us alone.
In a game, you can pick up the pieces and play again resolving to not make the same mistakes.
In real life, if you give up there are consequences far beyond the battlefield. The Korean Conflict saw us accept protracted peace-talks while our soldiers continued to bleed. The enemy had no reason to come to a final peace because as long as they talked, we would not attack. We took "the mouth of a cannon" off the table. We are still talking more than 50 years later, and millions of innocent North Koreans are starving, and thousands of South Korean citizens have been killed by North Korean raids (less so in the last 18 years, but even in the 1990s North Koreans were raiding into South Korea). Not to mention Japanese nationals kidnapped by North Korea to train its spies in how to act Japanese. Was it any wonder that North Vietnam also invited us to Peace Talks, and talked and talked? They gained benefits, and eventually realized that if they agreed to a ceasefire the Americans would leave and not come back even if they violated the terms (which included NOT invading South Vietnam) almost immediately. The result has been other so called "treaties" that no one expects us to enforce (Saddam certainly did not feel constrained by his agreement to "withdraw" his forces from Kuwait. He was confident that even though his actions constituted a Causus Belli, an abrogation of the terms, that we would do nothing, and for ten long years he was quite right.
Perception can be a very confusing thing, even in board games. An example is being cut off from supply. In one game side A pushed past side B, the result was that both were across the supply lines and line of withdrawal of the other. But one commander thought to himself "I am cut off", while the other took the attitude "I have him surrounded." Guess which one won the battle?
Both sides were in the same condition, but one commander panicked, launching desperate attacks to reopen his supply lines, while the other simply sought to strengthen his grip on his opponent. The first saw disaster, and his reaction to that brought disaster and ruin to him, the second saw opportunity.
While it was a game, if the first commander had not panicked, but had instead also sought to strengthen his grip on his opponent, covering his own weaknesses while looking for one in his opponent to exploit, he could have won, his situation was no worse, but all he saw was that he was cut off.
Yes, a game, but this has happened in real life. Many a battle is lost not because the Army is defeated, but because the commander is defeated. In World War II there were people who thought that England should have negotiated a peace at any price deal with the Nazi regime after France fell. There were some in the U.S. who thought that after Pearl Harbor we should have pulled everything back to our West Coast and, basically, hope the Japanese would leave us alone.
In a game, you can pick up the pieces and play again resolving to not make the same mistakes.
In real life, if you give up there are consequences far beyond the battlefield. The Korean Conflict saw us accept protracted peace-talks while our soldiers continued to bleed. The enemy had no reason to come to a final peace because as long as they talked, we would not attack. We took "the mouth of a cannon" off the table. We are still talking more than 50 years later, and millions of innocent North Koreans are starving, and thousands of South Korean citizens have been killed by North Korean raids (less so in the last 18 years, but even in the 1990s North Koreans were raiding into South Korea). Not to mention Japanese nationals kidnapped by North Korea to train its spies in how to act Japanese. Was it any wonder that North Vietnam also invited us to Peace Talks, and talked and talked? They gained benefits, and eventually realized that if they agreed to a ceasefire the Americans would leave and not come back even if they violated the terms (which included NOT invading South Vietnam) almost immediately. The result has been other so called "treaties" that no one expects us to enforce (Saddam certainly did not feel constrained by his agreement to "withdraw" his forces from Kuwait. He was confident that even though his actions constituted a Causus Belli, an abrogation of the terms, that we would do nothing, and for ten long years he was quite right.
posted by Federation Commander at 5:30 PM
<< Home