text:
Power, politics and glory

KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NAME: ASHONG ANSUADE EBENEZER DEPRTMENT: DEPARTMENT OF INTERGRATED RURAL ART AND INDUSTRY GLOBAL ART QUESTION: ART IS ESSENTIAL TO RULERS AND STATES ACHIEVE GLORY AND POWER AND TOWARDS ACHIEVING THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA. DISCUSS TABLE OF CONTENT ABSTRACT AND INTRODUCTION ART AND BACKGROUND HISTORY POLITICS AND ITS HISTORY POWER, ITS BASES AND TYPES GLORY ART AND ITS ESSENTIALS IN POWR, POLITICS AND GLORY METHODOLOGY CONCLUTION RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES ABSTRACT and INTRRODUCTION

This research talks about the essentials of art to rulers and states in achieving power and glory. It is intended to educate individuals on the basic used of art in the attaining power, glory and political ambitions. The research makes use of the various art forms and their importance to the rulers and states. The research gives a gist of the history of art, power, politics and glory. It also provides information on some rulers and the art work they use in their various rulings. 	ART The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined or not has been a matter of controversy. Due to this, art has been defined by deferent philosopher based on their perception and the perspective from which it is viewed. The following are definitions that have been in circulation (includes references); 	Brain quote (www.brainquote.com) defines art as the skill, dexterity, or the power of performing certain actions, acquired by experience, study, or observations. The skill or dexterity or power includes; painting, architecture, magic, among many others. 	Your dictionary (www.yourdictionary.com) also defines art as the human ability to make things that is the creativity of a man to distinguish from the world of nature; skill; craftsmanship; and any specific skill. 	Answers (www.answers.com) define art as the human effort to imitate, supplement, alter or counteract the work of nature. Deducing from the following definitions, it can be said the art can be grouped into various forms, or art may come in various forms as stated below; •	Visual art: These are art forms that create works which are primarily visual in nature, such as, visual in nature, such as, ceramics, paintings, drawings, sculpture, printmaking, among others •	Performing art: These refer to those art forms that differ from the plastic arts insofar as the former uses the artists’ own body, presence and face as a medium and the later uses materials such as clay, metal or paint which can be molded or transformed to create some physical object. Performing art include the dance, music, drama, spoken words, opera and circus art. HISTORY OF ART The western narrative begins with prehistoric art such as Stonehenge, before discussing the ancient world. The later begins with Mesopotamia, then progresses to the art of ancient Egypt, which then transitions to classical antiquity. Classical art include both Greek and roman works. The high intellectual culture of the medieval period was Islamic, but the era also included early Christian art, byzantine art, gothic art, Anglo-Saxon art and Viking art. The medieval era ended with the renaissance, followed by the baroque and rococo. Sometimes another period, Mannerism, is inserted between Renaissance and Baroque, which is a visual hybrid. The 18th and 19th centuries included Neoclassicism, Romantic art, Academic art, and Realism in art. Art historians disagree when Modern art began, but it was either in the mid-18th century with the artist Francisco Goya, the mid-19th century with the industrial revolution or the late 19th century with the advent of Impressionism. The art movements of the late 19th through the early 21st centuries are too numerous to detail here, but can be broadly divided into two categories: Modernism and Contemporary art. The latter is sometimes referred to with another term, which has a subtly different connotation, postmodern art. The history of art in the Americas begins in pre-Columbian times with Indigenous cultures. Art historians have focused particularly closely on Mesoamerica during this early era, because a series of stratified cultures arose there that erected grand architecture and produced objects of fine workmanship that are comparable to the arts of western Europe. The art-making tradition of Mesoamerican people begins with the Olmec around 1400 BCE, during the Preclassic era. These people are best-known for making colossal heads but also carved jade, erected monumental architecture, made small-scale sculpture, and designed mosaic floors. Two of the well-studied sites artistically are San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan and La Venta. After the Olmec culture declined, the Maya civilization became prominent in the region. Sometimes a transitional Epi-Olmec period is described, which is a hybrid of Olmec and Maya. A particularly well-studied Epi-Olmec site is La Mojarra, which includes hieroglyphic carvings that have been partially deciphered. The oldest surviving art forms include small sculptures and paintings on rocks and in caves. There are very few known examples of art that date earlier than 40,000 years ago, the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic period. People often rubbed smaller rocks against larger rocks and boulders to paint pictures of their everyday life, such as hunting wild game. A mammoth sculpture found in a German cave was dated to approximately 35,000 years ago. One of the most famous examples, the so-called Venus of Willendorf (which is now being called "Woman from Willendorf" in contemporary art history texts) is a sculpture from the Paleolithic era, which depicts a woman with exaggerated female attributes. This sculpture, carved from stone, is remarkable in its roundness instead of a flat or low-relief depiction. Early Aegean art, although it dates from a much later period, shares some of the same abstract figurative elements. Ancient art began when ancient civilizations developed a form of written language. The great traditions in art have a foundation in the art of one of the six great ancient civilizations: Ancient Egypt, Iran (Persia), Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, India, or China. Each of these centers of early civilization developed a unique and characteristic style in their art. Because of their size and duration these civilizations, their art work have survived and transmitted to other cultures and later times. They have also provided us with the first records of how artists worked. Ancient Roman art depicted gods as idealized humans, shown with characteristic distinguishing features. 	POLITICS This is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. Politics is generally applied to the art or science of running governmental or state affairs. It also refers to behavior within civil governments. However, politics have been observed in other group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions. It consists of "social relations involving authority or power" and refers to the regulation of public affairs within a political unit, and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy. HISTORY OF POLITICS The word “politics” comes from the Greek word “politika”, modeled on Aristotle's "affairs of the city", the name of his book on governing and governments, which was rendered in English mid-15 century as Latinized "Polettiques". Thus it became "politics" in Middle English c. 1520s (according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary). The singular “politic” first attested in English 1430 and comes from Middle French “politique”, in turn from Latin “politicus”, which is the latinisation of the Greek “politikos”, meaning amongst others "of, for, or relating to citizens", "civil", "civic", "belonging to the state", in turn from “polites”(citizen) and that from “polis”,(city). The history of politics is reflected in the origin and development of the institutions of government. According to Aristotle, States are classified into monarchies, aristocracies, democracies, oligarchies, and tyrannies. Due to an increase in knowledge of the history of politics, this classification has been abandoned. Generally speaking, no form of government could be considered the best if the best is considered to be the one that is most appropriate under the circumstances. All States are varieties of a single type, the sovereign State. All the Great Powers of the modern world rule on the principle of sovereignty. Sovereign power may be vested on an individual as in an autocratic government or it may be vested on a group as in a constitutional government. Constitutions are written documents that specify and limit the powers of the different branches of government. Although a Constitution is a written document, there is also an unwritten Constitution. The unwritten constitution is continually being written by the Legislative branch of government, this is just one of those cases in which the nature of the circumstances determines the form of government that is most appropriate. Nevertheless, the written constitution is essential. England did set the fashion of written constitutions during the Civil War but after the Restoration abandoned them to be taken up later by the American Colonies after their emancipation and then France after the Revolution and the rest of Europe including the European colonies. Constitutions and or laws of a particular society are formed based on the following: 	PAST RECORDS: From the early middle Ages in Europe there come what are called folk-laws and they appear exactly at the time when the patriarchal is becoming the State. They are due almost universally to one cause: the desire of the king to know the custom of his subjects. These are not legislation in the sense of law-making but statements or declarations of custom. They are drawn from knowledge of the custom of the people. Unwritten custom changes imperceptibly but not the written. It is always possible to point to the exact text and show what it says. Nevertheless, the written text can change by addition with every new edition. 	LAW COURTS: By taking some general rule which seemed to be common to all the communities and ignoring the differences, English common law was modeled after such a practice so that the law became common in all the districts of the kingdom. The reason why in the rest of Europe, there was no common law till centuries later is because the State in those countries did not get hold of the administration of justice when England did. One of the shrewdest moves by which the English judges pushed their plan of making a common law was by limiting the verdict of the jury in every case to questions of fact. At first the jury used to give answers both on law and fact; and being a purely local body, they followed local custom. A famous division came to pass: the province of the judge and the province of the jury. 	FICTIONS: Records and Law Courts were valuable in helping the people adapt to law-making but like Fictions, they were slow and imperfect. Though slowly, Fictions work because it is a well known fact that people will accept a change in the form of a fiction while they would resist it to the end if the fact is out in the open. A political party is a political organization that typically seeks to attain and maintain political power within government, usually by participating in electoral campaigns, educational outreach or protest actions. Parties often choose or follow an expressed ideology or vision bolstered by a written platform with specific goals, forming a coalition among disparate interests. 	POWER Power is defined as the measure of an entity's ability to control its environment, including the behavior of other entities. The term authority is often used for power, perceived as legitimate by the social structure. In the corporate environment, power is often expressed as upward or downward. With downward power, a company's superior influence subordinates. When a company exerts upward power, it is the subordinates who influence the decisions of the leader (Greiner & Schein, 1988). Often, the study of power in a society is referred to as politics. The use of power need not involve coercion (force or the threat of force). At one extreme, it more closely resembles what everyday English-speakers call "influence", although some authors make a distinction between power and influence – the means by which power is used. BASSES OF POWER Social psychologists John R. P. French and Bertram Raven, in a now-classic study (1959), developed a schema of sources of power by which to analyses how power plays work (or fail to work) in a specific relationship. According to French and Raven, power must be distinguished from influence in the following way: power is that state of affairs which holds in a given relationship, A-B, such that a given influence attempt by A over B makes A's desired change in B more likely. Conceived this way, power is fundamentally relative – it depends on the specific understandings A and B each apply to their relationship, and, interestingly, requires B's recognition of a quality in A which would motivate B to change in the way A intends. A must draw on the 'base' or combination of bases of power appropriate to the relationship, to effect the desired outcome. Drawing on the wrong power base can have unintended effects, including a reduction in A's own power. French and Raven argue that there are five significant categories of such qualities, while not excluding other minor categories. These categories include the following; i.	Positional power: Also called "legitimate power", it is the power of an individual because of the relative position and duties of the holder of the position within an organization. Legitimate power is formal authority delegated to the holder of the position. It is usually accompanied by various attributes of power such as uniforms, offices etc. This is the most obvious and also the most important kind of power. ii. Referent power: Referent power is the power or ability of individuals to attract others and build loyalty. It's based on the charisma and interpersonal skills of the power holder. A person may be admired because of specific personal trait, and this admiration creates the opportunity for interpersonal influence. Here the person under power desires to identify with these personal qualities, and gains satisfaction from being an accepted follower. Nationalism and patriotism count towards an intangible sort of referent power. For example, soldiers fight in wars to defend the honor of the country. This is the second least obvious power, but the most effective. Advertisers have long used the referent power of sports figures for products endorsements, for example. The charismatic appeal of the sports star supposedly leads to an acceptance of the endorsement, although the individual may have little real credibility outside the sports arena. iii. Expert power: Expert power is an individual's power deriving from the skills or expertise of the person and the organization's needs for those skills and expertise. Unlike the others, this type of power is usually highly specific and limited to the particular area in which the expert is trained and qualified. iv. Reward power: Reward power depends on the ability of the power wielder to confer valued material rewards; it refers to the degree to which the individual can give others a reward of some kind such as benefits, time off, desired gifts, promotions or increases in pay or responsibility. This power is obvious but also ineffective if abused. People who abuse reward power can become pushy or became reprimanded for being too forthcoming or 'moving things too quickly'. v.	Coercive power: Coercive power is the application of negative influences. It includes the ability to demote or to withhold other rewards. The desire for valued rewards or the fear of having them withheld that ensures the obedience of those under power. Coercive power tends to be the most obvious but least effective form of power as it builds resentment and resistance from the people who experience it. TYPES OF POWER; a.	Economic power b.	Energy superpower c.	Food power: This is the use of agriculture as a means of political control whereby one nation or group of nations offers or withholds commodities from another nation or group of nations in order to manipulate behavior. d.	Hard power: This is a term used in international relations. Hard power is a theory that describes using military and economic means to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies. e.	National power: This is defined as the sum of all resources available to a nation in the pursuit of national objectives. f.	Political power: This is a type of power held by a group in a society which allows administration of some or all of public resources, including labour, and wealth. g.	Smart power: This is a term in international relations defined by Joseph Nye as "the ability to combine hard and soft power into a winning strategy. h.	Soft power: This is the ability to obtain what one wants through co-option and attraction. 	GLORY Glory is defined by the “word web” dictionary as a high state of honor. It is also defined online as meaning the following; o	Praises, honor, or distinction extended by common consent, o	Worshipful praise, honor and thanksgiving, o	Something that secures praises or renown, o	A distinguished quality or assert, o	Great beauty and splendor that is something marked by beauty or resplendence, o	A state of great gratification or exaltation, o	A height of prosperity or achievement, etc. ART AND ITS ESSENTIALS IN POWR, POLITICS AND GLORY (HOW ART IS USED BY RULERS AND STATES TO ACHIEVE GLORY AND POWER AND POLITICAL AGENDA) In years past and now, art has played a very important role and has hence become essential for everyone including rulers and states to achieve glory and power. Various art forms are used by these individuals in accomplishing their agenda. These art forms used may come in the form of verbal, visual or even performing arts. These art forms and their various types play very essential roles in the achievement of power and glory. This can be seen in both the contemporary and indigenous aspects of life. Some art types and forms and the way they are used by rulers, states and power seekers in achieving glory and power are stated below; Visual art refers to those art forms that can be seen and touched; these include painting, posters, drawings, sculptures, billboards, etc. In Ghana, the ceremonial sword, Afena / Ako Afena Akan from the Asante people of Ghana. The blade is made out of the forged iron and has opening designs along. The handle with pommel is made of wood and covered with "gold dust" and is decorated with geometric motifs. Among the Akan swords of different shapes and complexity serve ceremonial, ritual and political purposes. European visitors commented upon swords as early as the mid-1600's. They are primarily ceremonial and parade swords for they have neither point nor cutting edge. Swords (afena or afenatene) are prominently displayed at royal courts as regalia of the king reflecting his power and authority. Sword bearers precede the king or rest at his feet when he sits in state. During occasions when the king is carried in his litter they rest their sword hilts against the litter. Swords are used to swear oaths to the king and state, and to identify messengers as they carry the king's word while on the king's business. Some swords (akrafena) were to keep the king's soul pure and used for him to swear oaths. Other gilded wooden-handled swords are of this type and if used to swear oaths were known as "nsuafena." When used as badges of office for messengers or envoys they were called "asomfofena." Swords of the nsuafena type are also used by priests during rituals and placed in shrines as objects of veneration. Fig: 1 Fig1a) ASANTE CEREMONIAL SWORD        b) EDGE OF THE SWORD                c) THE HANDLE Fig: 2 Fig: 2) OTUMFUO OSEI TUTU II SWEARING IN WITH THE ASANTE CEREMONIAL SWORD Swords that were originally meant for military purposes have assumed certain political and ritual functions in parts of Ghana. They carry symbols that evoke specific messages. In Ghana, the sword is a symbol of the President’s authority. The state sword was created and first used when Ghana became a republic in 1960. It is made of gold. The President of Ghana swears the oath of office with the state sword - known as Afena-nta. The sword has a double blade, which represents peace between states. The state sword represents the non-partisan position of the office the presidency. The symbols on it represent the values of Ghanaians. On one side, the Nyame-tumi, which is a square, circle and triangle, symbolize the presence of God in our national society. Fig: 3 Fig: 3 a) State ceremonial sword (b) PREZ. J .A. KUFFOUR and (c) PREZ. J.A.E. MILLS SWEARING IN The Ghanaian Mace was created as a ceremonial club. With a heavy head at the end of a handle, clubs could deliver powerful blows in combat so came to be associated with power. Today, many government bodies and institutions have ceremonial maces, which are considered symbols of authority. Ghana’s Mace is used in sitting of Parliament. The mace is the symbol of the authority ceremonially given to the Speaker of Parliament. It stands upright before the Clerk’s Table during Parliamentary sittings. The Mace is tilted towards the Chair during the Consideration Stage of a Bill, which shows the more informal nature of those proceedings when the rules of debate are relaxed. The Mace is replaced by the State Sword; the symbol of authority of the State, when Ghana’s elected President delivers his address on the State of the Nation to Parliament. Fig: 4 Fig: 4) THE GHANAIAN MACE The stele of Naram-Sin (2254-2218 B.C.) depicts the victory of Naram-Sin over his enemies, the Luibbi. The palette of King Narmer (3000-2920 B.C.) depicts the victory of King Narmer over Lower Egypt, finally unifying the land.

On the stele the grandson of Sargon is leading his army up a mountain. His enemies are shown running away falling, dying, and begging for their lives. Naram-sin is depicted larger and higher up on the mountain than anyone else. That shows that he is the most important and most powerful person in the picture. He is also standing on two bodies of the slain enemy. He is wearing a crown with horns, which symbolizes that he is God as well as king. This is the first time this happens in Mesopotamian art. And three stars seem to be shining down on him and his victory. Showing Naram-Sin on the top of the mountain, shows that he is close to the heavens. His army is in an orderly fashion showing the great control he has over them as well as their obedience to him. The enemy’s army is fleeing in disarray. The artist followed many old rules when creating this piece. He depicted the scene with composite views of the people. Fig: 5 Fig: 5) STALE OF NARAM-SIN In almost every part of the world, there are various posters and bill boards that are used for advertisement. These posters and bill boards include those once used by the ordinary persons and also rulers of state. These bill boards are used in depicting the power of the various leaders. This can be seen as most bill boards tend to project the ability of the person or ruler being talked of. An example is the bill board of the famous chief priest, NANA KWEKU BONSAN, which can be seen almost in all part of a town in Accra, Ghana-west Africa. These bill boards advertises what he can do and those things he has done, this tends to help him achieve power and glory since other may tend to fear and praise his works.

Fig: 6) Fig: 6) NANA KWEKU BONSAM The tattoos of Tomika Te Mutu of Coromandel a nineteenth century Maori tribal chief were seen as extra shell around the body that reinforced it and protected it. These tattoos go a long way to show how powerful he is. Apart from serving as identification, the tattoos were also effective in war as it distracted and confused opponents. Traditional Maori tattooing is done with chisel which gouge deep grooves in the skin just as seen in Maori wood carving. The chiseled whorls on his face emphasize the scowl, piecing vision, hot breath fierce mouth. Once a tattooed person died the head of the Maori chiefs were preserved by steaming, smoking and oiling them. Fig: 7) Fig: 7) TATTOO OF TOMIKA TE MUTU Agahu is both the name of a dance and of one the many secular music associations (clubs) of the Ewe people of Ghana, Togo, and Dahomey. (Gadzok, Takada, and Atsiagbeko are other such clubs). Each club has it own distinctive drumming and dancing, as well as its own repertoire of songs. A popular social dance of West Africa, Agahu was created by the Egun speaking people from the town of Ketonu in what is now Benin. From there it spread to the Badagry area of Nigeria where migrant Ewe fisherman heard, adapted, and eventually took it to Ghana. In dancing the Agahu, two circles are formed; the men stay stationary with their arms out and then bend with a knee forward for the women to sit on. They progress around the circle until they arrive at their original partner. This dance is performed to show the said people’s victory during war. Indeed, every political regime uses the arts for propaganda purposes, consciously deploys the arts to try to shape the consciousness of their populations. And every resistance movement does the same, often gigantically yet excruciatingly dull. Political power has shaped the discipline of art history to an incalculable extent and that the survivors from eras past are whatever the authority permitted to persist. From the other end, running for office or the government involves a host of aesthetic activities prosecuted with varying degrees of effectiveness and Shepard Fairey’s Obama-Hope poster is a form of art that captures something of the essence of Obama’s intervention in American politics, both its potential to inspire and the sneaking suspicion that underneath was emptiness. Fig: 8 Fig: 8) OBAMA’S HOPE POSTER

Magic is another form of art that is very essential to rulers of the contemporary and indigenous communities. Rulers of various traditional aspects of the world use magic in the form of sorcery to invoke fear into their subordinates. A tipi cal example can be seen among the West Africans who virtually use magic for their day to day activities. Magic can be used by rulers to determine the outcome of a war or battle that they intend to fight. This they believe as messages from the gods or ancestors. This 'altar of peace' was erected in the Campus Martius. The Campus Martius, or the Field of Mars, was, in ancient Roman times a floodplain of the Tiber River and the site of the altar of Mars. It was originally used as an area for military exercise, but by the first century CE was covered with public buildings. It was founded by the Senate in 13 BCE in honor of Augustus' safe return from his campaigns in Spain and Gaul and dedicated in 9 BCE. Both the foundation and the dedication of the Ara Pacis were celebrated annually in a procession to the altar and a sacrifice. The Ara Pacis consisted of a raised sacrificial altar surrounded by walls with two door ways along an east-to-west axis. The main entrance was on the west side from the Campus Martius. Fig: 10 Fig: 11) ALTER OF PEACE Augustus the first king of Rome impressively utilized public monuments (a form of art) throughout his rule as an accessible means of communication to convey his political agenda and construct an image of his character to the people of Rome. Since Augustus came into power at such a young age, he artfully capitalized on the opportunity to associate his reign with a sense of immortal divinity. Sculptures such as the “Burst of Augustus wearing the corona” exemplify the calculated attempt to create an aura of ‘eternal youth’ that surrounded his empire and further secured his authority. These portraits were composed with intentional aims to link Augustus’ leadership with that of a sacred, divine higher power and ability to return to youthful beauty with the face of time. When Augustus came to power, he realized he needed to find a way to secure his position with the roman public and the influential people surrounding him. Augustus decided to create a subtler persona for himself through art and architecture during his 45 year reign as emperor. This subtle portrayal communicated his authority, but also legitimized it through establishing Augustus’ destiny as ruler, his right to avenge his ancestors’ wrongful fates, and reign as a peaceful time in Rome. Fig: 11 Fig: 11) BURST OF AUGUSTUS METHODOLOGY The research was taken based on the use questionnaires, which were given to some art students of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology. Some of the information were also obtained through interview which takes into consideration some chiefs whose names would be stated in the references to be given below. Some of the researches were also obtained from the internet and the rest from books and articles that are based on this topic. CONCLUSION With these mentioned reasons above, one can now see the essence of art to rulers and states in achieving glory and power and to establish their political agenda. Art works such as architecture, pottery, and painting among others have made life very easy for rulers as they can carry whatever information they need to communicate to the public through these works of art. The power of art lies in the way the art work is used as in the case of Augustus, his portraits portrays his reign and power and he is said to be one of the most prominent rulers who used art effectively and efficiently during his reign as emperor. RECOMMENDATIONS With the information given above and the importance attached to the various information, it can then be said that art is playing an integral role in the day to day activities of a state. I therefore think art should be given special attention and that the various forms of art should be improved upon since the world is a global village and subjected to changes within every pass moment. Art should be taught in the various institutions so that the up and summing generations can know its importance to them and the society as a whole. REFERENCES: Art http://www.ghana.gov.gh/anniversary/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=25&Itemid=91&limitstart=5 http://www.google.com.gh/images?hl=en&biw=1280&bih=584&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=otumfuo+swearing+in&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= Power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(philosophy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_power Politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewe_people Glory http://www.africadirect.com/productsdesc.php?ID=55591 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glory Pictures and Other information http://www.ghana.gov.gh/anniversary/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=25&Itemid=91&limitstart=5 http://www.google.com.gh/images?hl=en&biw=1280&bih=584&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=otumfuo+swearing+in&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

title: Power, politics and glory


text:
SPIR608 Political Simulations and Gaming/2011/Energy Game

The Energy Game is designed to address some of the political as well as economics and other related issues in the energy sector. It builds its structure from a simple model so it can be played by everybody with little knowledge about the rules of the game. The main structure of the game is designed around a hexagon shaped cells. The small hexagons eventually from a larger hexagon and players are required to move around the cells. Each cell represents one moving point around the game. Instead of dices this game uses a turbine that can be moved by hand and each section of the turbine is given a numeric representation that player use for their moves. During the play as players move the turbine and move around the cells they can fall into different events that can require the player to perform a specific task for example building a pipeline with another player. This can give extra points to the participating players. The key intention is not the actual movement of the game but the selection of player. Players can choose to work with certain player according to their preferences. This preference selection has a dynamic impact on the other players. One another important event that all players are required to work with collectively is the equilibrium temperature shown by a counter. This is introduced to the game so it calls all players to work cooperatively to address the critical issue of the climate change. Each movement around the cell is believed to be using energy and players must not pass the limit set within the game. Players need to use their next move when the limit is reached to set the counter back to zero. For example if a player is getting high number in each round by chance, the mechanism will eventually results in taking more points away from such player and giving a more level playing field to other players. The main material used for this game is the board were players move around the cell, the turbine used instead of the dice and small pieces that players use to move around the table. The counter is used to check the temperature levels during the game. The politics and scientific evidence behind the climate change is integrated to show how people make decision according to certain rules. How flying planes from London to Kyoto to attend a conference about climate change could have an impact on the level of pollution? These are important issues that needs to be addressed when it comes talking about climate change. The main source of energy that all plants and animal obtain is from the sun. The aim of the game is to reach the centre of the game were the sun in located. It is impractical at the present state of our knowledge to aim for such a goal. This game is designed similarly like the Office Boy game but it applies different set of structure to introduce certain element within the energy sector and hopes players can learn by playing this game and enjoy it indeed.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:SPIR608 Political Simulations and Gaming/2011/Fight for Libya!

 * NormaAlvarado 13:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Majere723 13:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Haddisur 13:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


text:
User:Majere723/Games Report

A Reflective Analysis of Four Political Simulations Alexander Sanyshyn

Throughout the course of this module, we have played many different games in different styles that simulate different political situations. Each game has its own strengths and weaknesses, from how fun and easy it was to play, to the effectiveness of the mechanics, to its effectiveness of the game as a political simulation and the strength of the political lessons learned. Bellow I will look at four games – Monopoly, The War on Terror, Vietnam 1955, and 1776 – and look at each of their strengths and weaknesses.

The game of Monopoly is simple and easy to learn. The game includes almost all of the necessary rules on the game board and cards used to play the game, making it very simple for people who have not played the game a lot to see what the rules are and to aid players along the way. Because it is a very social game that forces players to interact with one another through buying, selling and paying rent, it is also a very fun and sociable game to play.

While Monopoly was originally designed by Elizabeth Magie Phillips (as The Landlords Game) to be a tool to teach people the evils of capitalism and benefits of socialism, it is almost always today viewed as a pro-capitalist game that reflects the virtues of 1950s American capitalism. While it is still possible to view the anti-capitalist message of Monopoly if the game is viewed through the correct lens, this message often gets hidden beneath the mechanics and sociability of the game. To demonstrate the evils of capitalism, Monopoly has each player take the role of a real estate developer. Players race around the board to buy and develop property, and then make money buy charging other players rent when they land on their properties. The game encourages players to be greedy and to make as much money as possible – to “get rich or die trying”. Players are also encouraged to take risks in buying and developing expensive properties, but can suffer severe consequences by doing so if they spend more money developing these properties than the net gain that the properties will provide them with.

Monopoly demonstrates how the capitalist economic system with private property in real estate leads to one person, or a small group of people, controlling all of this property and setting high rent rates which others cannot afford and forces them to go bankrupt. The game demonstrates that this system will create a small group of very wealthy individuals, while the others suffer and go bankrupt. This, unfortunately, is much easier to see by being one of the loosing players in the game, rather than the winner. The greatest flaw in Monopoly is that the role it forces players to take on in order to win is actually the loosing role in the simulation. The game encourages people to make lots of money and screw over other less fortunate players in order to win. While playing the game, the best role to have is the successful capitalist because that is the role that wins. However, according to the political simulation, the capitalist is the one that looses. The game forces people to think like capitalists, and therefore become the “enemy”. The greatest way to improve the effectiveness of Monopoly as a political simulation would be to tell players from the beginning what its purpose is and make them aware of its true nature. If players are not aware that the game is trying to teach them the evils of capitalism by forcing them to become capitalists, they might assume, as a result of the games rules and mechanics that it is actually teaching them the opposite – how to be good capitalists and make lots of money.

In contrast to Monopoly, The War on Terror was not a simple and easy game to learn and play. While its humorous, tongue-in-cheek nature could have made it a very fun, sociable game, its complex rules made it hard to enjoy. While the game was visually intriguing it was tedious and boring to play.

The War on Terror suffered mostly from having too many rules and having too many pieces. Each turn, a player had to roll the dice, draw cards, buy terrorists, buy cities, use cards to attack other people, etc. Each player’s turn took too long and created boredom while playing. This also made it very difficult to get into the game and enjoy it. Because the game had so many rules, it was also difficult to tell which side was winning and which was loosing until the very end. This helped to disengage players from the game because they didn't have any motivation to win.

The War on Terror seeks to model the “War on Terror” that arose as the primary consequence of the September 11th attacks. Players can buy and support terrorist cells that they can then use to attack other players. However, since any player can control any terrorist cell, the terrorist units that a player supports can turn against them and attack them at any time. Players could also wage war on other empires and attempt to spread their empire over the entire globe. Because The War on Terror is more of a satire of the actual “War on Terror” and not intended to be a real simulation of it, it does not simulate the actual war realistically at all. The game places far too much importance on the amount of oil that each territory possesses. Because of this, oil becomes the primary motivating force behind each player’s decisions, whether they are playing as an empire or as the terrorists. While this may be a somewhat realistic interpretation of the real events that transpired, the games use of oil seems like more of an attempt to make fun of the real war on terror that to actually simulate it. The spinner and “evil empire” aspect of the game serve no real important purpose in the game, other than to satirically lampoon George Bush and his “Axis of Evil” speech. Overall the game comes off as being more of a large joke than an actual simulation. Because The War on Terror was too complicated in its rules and not enjoyable to play, it fails to be a successful game. Even if the rules were improved to make the game more enjoyable, The War on Terror would also fail to be a successful simulation because it is not a realistic interpretation of the actual events, but rather an abstract take on them in order to make fun of the events and the ideology that surrounded them.

One of the most interesting and most fun games played during the semester was the Vietnam 1955 role-playing exercise. Because the role-playing exercise had very few rules – only a sheet with victory points for each team – the game was extraordinarily simple to learn. While at first the lack of rules made it a bit difficult to understand exactly how players were supposed to approach the exercise, players quickly picked up the basic premise and were able to effectively play the game. Because Vietnam 1955 was a role-playing activity, players were forces to interact with one another. This created a very fun, sociable game. Because Vietnam 1955 was a role-playing game with very few rules, the game was very flexible. Players had to talk and negotiate with other teams in order to achieve certain goals in the game. The way the victory points on each sheet were designated also helped to push certain teams to act in certain ways. For example, because each team got victory points for doing so, the teams formed alliances that created two factions within the exercise – the “free world” and the “Soviet Bloc”. The umpire also helped to push players into performing certain actions. The free, relatively rule-less nature of the game also meant that the game could change its rules and focus quickly, and depart easily from the history it was based on. This is exactly what happened during the game played during class.

Vietnam 1955 was for the most part a very realistic game. Because players didn’t know the victory conditions of each of the other teams, they did not know what the other side was planning and what their motivations for acting in certain ways was. As stated above, the victory conditions of the game also realistically motivated the teams to separate into the two different Cold war blocs. While at times certain actors on opposite sides more easily that should have been realistically expected (specifically the French Indochinese and the Viet Minh) the exercise also for the most part realistically simulated the tension and animosity between the two sides, and especially between the two nuclear powers of the United States and the Soviet Union.

The biggest flaw in the exercise was the lack of real world consequences in the decision making process. Because players didn't have to worry about the actual consequences of a nuclear explosion, it was much more acceptable to threaten to use these weapons in the game than it may have been in real life. Similarly, because players didn't have to take into account the consequences of war, such as cost, effect to the civilian population and the lives of real soldiers who would be killed in battle, it was much easier for players to make the decision to go to war that it might have been otherwise. It is important to note, however, that these are not flaws specific to Vietnam 1955, but flaws that are intrinsic to the nature of simulations themselves, which are designed so that the events can play out without having to worry about these consequences. Although the victory points in Vietnam 1955 to a certain degree attempted to dissuade players from taking actions like this that would have catastrophic consequences in real life, it is impossible to completely get rid of the effect that the lack of real world consequences has on the game.

Overall, Vietnam 1955 was a very good game. It was fun and sociable to play and effectively simulated the events and decision-making process of the roots of the Vietnam War. While there could be a few small changes to the exercise to enhance the atmosphere of the game, such as giving players name tags with badges or flags, including a map of Vietnam to enhance the visual experience, or having certain players act as the press and media and give the events of the simulation a particular spin, the game doesn’t need any improvements.

1776 is an Avalon Hill war game that seeks to simulate the American Revolutionary war. The games pieces and mechanics– the hex board, counters, dice, and combat results table – work very well in achieving this simulation. The game was also easy to learn and fun to play. Since the game is designed as a two-sided military conflict meant for only two players, it did not facilitate team play as easily as other games that were played and was not as sociable. However, this did not detract from the enjoyment of the game. To simulate the war between the Americans and the British, 1776 uses a map of the American northeast (or the entire colonial America if the full version is used). Players move their military units across the board and try to capture key cities their victory points. The British have a much larger and more powerful army, but move slow than the Americans to represent that they do not know the American landscape as well as the colonists do. By contrast, the Americans have a smaller, less powerful army to represent the lack of military training that most of its members had, but the American forces are able to move quicker that the Brits in order to run away from them. Pieces must also realistically take longer to cross difficult terrain, such as mountains and rivers that they would crossing open ground.

The main political lesson of 1776 was how to learn effective military strategy. It teaches players how to locate their troops effectively and how to time attacks correctly. It also teaches them that they need to sacrifice certain troops and areas of the map in order to achieve their overall goals. One great flaw in 1776 is that it is not specifically about the American Revolutionary war. One could simply take the same pieces and mechanics and exchange the map for a different one – maybe Waterloo, for example – and would have a brand new game. The game doesn’t take into account any of the political factors of the revolution, only the military factors. 1776 could be improved by somehow making it more specific to the Revolutionary War. There could have been some inclusion of the different political factions of the war, such as loyalists and rebels, the slave-holding south and free north, etc. It also could have included factions from other nations that were involved in the conflict, such as the French or the Native Americans. Finally, a way to incorporate the way the political climate of the time affected the military campaign of the war would improve the game. This could possibly be cards that and bonuses that effect the outcome of dice rolls.

Overall, most of these games were fairly good political simulations and rather fun games to play. Out of the games described above, the best – both in terms of how fun it was to play and its effectiveness as a simulation – would have to be Vietnam 1955. It was easy, fun and very realistic. The gamed modeled the events leading up to the Vietnam War very well. Monopoly was also a very good game. Though it was fun to play and easy to learn, its political message is quite often hidden, which represents a serious flaw to the game as a political simulation. However, with changes to make that message more explicit, it could be a very good simulation. Similarly, 1776 was a fun, easy to learn game that modeled the late 18th century warfare and decision making very well, but its setting in the American Revolution was inconsequential. Improvements to make it more explicitly about the American Revolution and including the political factors involved would make it a much better game. By far, the worst game was The War on Terror. It was far too complicated and fussy, with too many rules that were difficult to learn. It also did not work very well as a political simulation and put its role as a work of satire far ahead of any practical use it has to simulate the actual events of the “War on Terror”.

Majere723 10:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User:Majere723/Games Report


text:
User:HADDISUR RAHMAN/Reflective Practical Analysis

University of Westminster Department of Politics and International Relations: theoretical analysis of political gaming with the critical analysis of playing political simulations SPIR608

Reflective Practical Analysis BY HADDISUR RAHMAN

Throughout this brief analysis, I will portray the positive and negative features of four different games with a special emphasis on its integrity and effectiveness as a model of its intended subject. The analysis will evaluate and contrast the different strengths and weaknesses of each of the games examined. It will be a reflection on the theoretical debates and socio-historical perspective within which the 4 games are situated.

Monopoly was the first game played and is a redesign of an earlier game called ‘The Landlord's Game’, first published by political activist Elizabeth Magie. It was made to expose the parasitic or bloodsucking (in terms of money) role of landlords. The game was originally educational where the purpose of the game was to teach people how monopolies end up bankrupting the many and giving extraordinary wealth to one or few individuals. Magie was a proponent of the Single Tax put forward by famous author Henry George. She designed it to show how the Single Tax would work and players could choose to play under regular rules or alternate "Single Tax" rules. The mascot for the game, known as Mr. Monopoly or Rich Uncle Moneybags, is an elderly moustached man in morning dress with a walking cane and hat. This very image palpably resembles the typical capitalist entrepreneur. By playing the game and understanding the rules, my belief is that it is a very pro-capitalist game which promotes capitalism and forces people to become very aggressive. Capitalism is a global system, with the rule of the market imposed everywhere, usually by force. The mechanism of monopoly is very simple as you go around the board accumulating properties or places. The aim is for each player to make profits through charging rent on their commodity or land and to expand their empire. The game naturally makes you want more and more. In real life one single service can gain all our profits, our labour power. Since labour power cannot be separated from people, we are literally bought and sold in the market place. To prevent stagnation, capitalism must constantly expand. Thus we must also consume as well as produce.

The game makes me want to extricate as much money as you can from your fellow people. The role of the dice can be seen as having luck on your side. This is also true in real life as not all make it to the top and become wealthy. “Hard work and an arduous pursuit of the Capitalist Dream won't always lead you to success”. Some may argue that it had anti-capitalist origins when it was first created to be an educational game; however, now most would argue that it only promotes capitalism. As capitalism is a social relation between classes its continuation requires the participation of both exploiters and the exploited. Whilst playing the game I was lucky to have more money than the other players and even though they had less money than me, I still wanted them to land on my property and therefore make myself richer. Though monopoly has now become a family game to be played in the evenings, it is clear that it has a subliminal message to advocate capitalism. Just as in real life “profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can make more money selling what we have produced than it cost to buy on the labour market. In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the further accumulation of wealth” just as in the game the person with a lot of money and property will cont After playing this game many times, though it is enjoyable, I could clearly see that it is a game that can someone how terrible capitalism really is and how it makes everyone become broke (except the one person who wins by exploiting everybody else).

The second game that was played in class was 1776. 1776 is an Avalon Hill board war game developed by Randell C. Reed and originally published in 1974. It was different to monopoly as it is a two player game played on a hex grid map which included thirteen colonies and Canada. One player gets to be the British army and the other would play with the American army. The British have more numbers; however, in the game this may not always be an advantage. Altogether each player gets 6 moves each. The Americans would try and hide from the British and try to avoid confrontation as this could eliminate their army. For the British to win (in the basic game) they must have their army situated in more places in America than the Americans. Different places are worth different number of points so you have to strategically attack places that will gain you a greater advantage at the end. It is a game that tries to portray the military aspects of the ‘American Revolutionary War’. There is a basic game, which I played in seminar with the basic rules. You can also play the basic game with advanced rules which I played later on and then there is a campaign game.

The game tries to be a realistic simulation of the strategic simulation faced by the British and Americans in the decade when America won their independence. Once you read the rules the game is very easily understood. The basic game with the basic rules gets you into the practice of simulation gaming. When playing the game with the basic rules in seminar, I personally found it quite boring and saw it as a standard role of the dice and move game (based on luck due to the role of the dice) with no real simulation of the ‘American Revolution’; however, once playing the game with the advanced rules later at home you can see that the game becomes interesting and a strategic war game but I still saw no real connection with the American Revolution therefore it is quite abstract but there was no real sense of realism. The basic game of 1776 is a single scenario game where the players are taught basic movement and combat. One player executes his/her movement phase and then combat phase (which is done by the role of the dice). So though the British may outnumber the Americans, the outcome of the combat lies with the role of the die. Their opponent then executes their movement and combat phases. By playing the game with the advanced rules which, in my opinion, is much more fun and interesting gives you scenarios that provide you with additional complexity and realism. The advanced game consists of 4 scenarios. The invasion of Canada, the Greene’s Southern campaign, the Saratoga campaign and finally the Virginia-Yorktown campaign. So the advanced game builds on everything that I played in the basic game; however, it introduces advanced combat options: supply, fortifications, entrenchments, magazines, artillery units, dragoon units, militia units, and Indian units. These added dynamics deepen the game play and produce an enhanced game experience. This would obviously be better than the basic game as mentioned before; the basic game is not much more than movement and fire.

The way in which I would be critical of the game is that it didn’t give me any sense that it was about the American Revolutionary War. Monopoly seemed to create that false consciousness, where you got the feeling as if you were a real capitalist, however 1776 could have been any old war game and the map could have been based on any country. I also think that the number of pieces that you play with is far too many and when it is your turn to move your troops sometimes it is difficult to see who you have moved and who you have not. Also the pieces could have had a magnet on them to keep them together but apart from this, a very fun and strategic game which I will be playing again!

“Give me Liberté or give me death”. This is the message attributed to Liberte board game, however that may be quite extreme as the game is based only on the French revolution and the not the American one! Liberté is a game which covers the French Revolution from 1789 and the meeting of the Estates General to the Directory and Bonaparte’s coup d’état in 1799. The design of the box looked fantastic to me and inside, pieces included a game board showing the map of France divided into many provinces, wooden pieces which portray the three factions in the game, the Radicals (red), the Moderates (blue), and the Royalists (white), and also a deck of cards. The rules are provided in English, German and French and they also provided some reference sheets.

The aim of this game is to accumulate as many victory points as you can by having the most influence in the parties in government after each of the four elections. When playing we could score points by winning battles or winning the election in specific provinces. The game is played in four turns, each ending with an election. The game was driven and put together by the cards, personality, club cards or event cards. Personality cards represented major figures in the revolutionary period; for example, Robespierre, Danton and Necker. Each personality card commands support for a particular faction. Club cards had 1 block of a particular colour, but can be applied to any region. Event cards, are only to be used after the first election, and in my view, make the game much more interesting as you are allowed do something special; for example, the most feared card is terror card which enables a player remove a whole stack of blocks from one province and guillotine an opponent's personality card.

So we would continue until one faction ran out. Each province in turn gets to vote. The person with the tallest stack in the province will allow that particular faction's marker to be moved up on the election track. A key point that players had to keep in mind was that Paris was special, the faction and the player get as many votes as the highest stack, so we battled for Paris many times. If by chance there was a tie, there would be a tiebreaker and players could win by giving up a personality or club card of the appropriate faction from their set of cards in front of them, known as their display cards. Normally the tie was broken and that player got the vote. The person and faction with the most votes formed the government (though we did not get this far due to time constraints) and the player with the most blocks of that colour score points.

As this is a strategy game, there are many tactics that I have learnt and tried to use. I had to be aware if which faction was most likely to win the election and how much of a stake each player had of that faction. This obviously depended on the cards that a player had in their hand so I didn’t know which one they were going to play or which faction they were going to use as the game allows you to be all three factions. So I had to decide to build up my hand first or to get in early with the cards I already had. Unfortunately, I didn’t get the best cards but I still thought it would be an advantage to start building my factions earlier. It's would have been useful to have multiple cards of the same faction colour (which I didn’t) in the same region as this would have allowed me to fortify my position in that province. To evaluate the game on a whole, it was a very fun, enjoyable and strategic game. It was effective in that it did model its chosen subject; however, it was abstract in the sense that a player could be all three factions at one time. And because a player did not align him or herself with one faction it moved away from realism as you didn’t fight for one group. On the other hand a revolution devours its own children and the distribution of factions was quite realistic. Also depending on who you were you would have a different amount of influence in France (geographically) which also made it quite realistic. So a game I would most definitely play again.

The fourth and final game which I chose to write about and to evaluate is ‘Operation Pale Charlie’. This is a multi-power politics simulation game of 1950’s Vietnam. I would say that it was the most enjoyable game that I have played in this module to date. It is slightly different to the games that I have played and logged so far as it is an interactive simulation. The game can involve 13 to 25 players who are then split into 7 groups representing different countries or people: France, China, Russia, USA, Britain, French Indo-China and of course the Vietminh (otherwise known as the Indo-Chinese Communist party). The game involved people making and breaking alliances and also preparing and negotiating policies during the heat of battles and events. Our class game featured ‘Operation Castor, The Battle of Dien Bien Phu, The Suez Canal question and the Geneva Peace Conference. I along with George (my classmate) decided to be the Vietminh. We were working towards national victory in a chaotic and uncertain time.

National victory was expressed in terms of victory points. And the ‘victory points were an expression of international prestige. The victory points were given if you achieved certain aims, and each country was given a sheet with their aims. Some were common and others different. It was up to each country how much they revealed. The victory points were there to try and persuade you and the country you were representing to move in a certain direction. As the Vietminh, our main victory points came from: ‘becoming chair of the Geneva Peace Conference’ (100 points), attending the peace conference and ensuring there was an agreement and also ensuring that 60% or more of Vietnam remained in communist hand. George and I thought it would be good to become allies with our communist brothers, Russia and China and so we formed an Alliance. Suddenly we were told that the French landed paratroopers in North Vietnam. Though they told us that these troops should not be seen as an aggressive move we decided to launch a full force attack with the help of Russia and China and eventually their troops retreated. This was also very realistic as the “French defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 signalled the end of French influence in Indochina.

The battle fought around Dien Bien Phu was the last major campaign by a European state in the region”. France then allied with America, Britain and French-Indo China. As the Vietminh we had 200 victory points to give away. We gave away points to French-Indo China to give us their vote to become the chair of the peace conference and with the votes of our communist brothers (Russia and China); we would have a majority of votes to become chair of the ‘Geneva Peace Conference’. We decided that we would not co-operate with the USA who after all entered the war to stop the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. American leaders feared Communist forces would gain control of Vietnam. After that, nation after nation might fall to Communism which was seen as the domino theory which was first mentioned in a speech made by President Eisenhower on the 7th April 1954. “Communism is a political and economic system that the United States strongly opposed. Vietnam had been split in half in 1954, after fighting a war to gain independence from France. When French forces withdrew, Vietnamese Communists gained control of North Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was the leader of the North Vietnamese Communists. South Vietnam had a non-Communist government. This government was weak. But the United States supported it in order to keep the Communists from taking control of all of Vietnam”. We asked Russia to arm their nuclear warheads and put forward a serious threat towards the USA that they cannot have a majority share in Vietnam. We agreed that they would have 40% with the communist countries having 60%. So in the end we achieved more than the Vietminh did in real life. Because of the time restraint we couldn’t actually play the game in full. As a political simulation the game is very realistic as you get the feeling as if were negotiating, for real, with different countries.

The way in which I would improve and be critical of ‘Operation Charlie’ is that the game could have introduced some sort of ‘chips system’, for example poker chips, in order that people can keep track of their game score. Also it seems to be more of an interactive simulation than a game and after playing it once, more than likely the players will start gaming the game, so changing the rules after every game could also be an improvement. The game for me combined abstraction and realism well. Abstraction in the sense that your choices do not have human consequences and realism in the sense that you couldn’t see each other’s victory conditions so it was realistic in how the blocs worked. In addition the game used ‘living labour’ rather than ‘dead labour’ which seemed to be congealed in a board game. There could have been tape recordings and press releases to give the game more flavour;  however, as mentioned previously this was by far the most enjoyable game that I have played on the module. You learn many political lessons such as the importance of bilateral and multilateral diplomacy which helps you create alliances. On the other hand you see that countries are always looking out for their own interests!

To conclude, this has been a very enjoyable module and though we played many games, I could clearly see that these boards all have a political message, ranging from exploitative capitalism to cooperative socialism. Some had realist sense to them; however, most were probably more abstract than the game creators thought they would be. They were all very strategic and more than anything I have to agree with Hungarian Psychology professor, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s theory of flow which he defines as “the state in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter; the experience itself is so enjoyable that people will do it even at great cost, for the sheer sake of doing it”. So in all the games I played, with especially the role play simulation (Operation Pale Charlie/Battle for Dien Bien Phu), I could see that there was a loss of self consciousness, and only when this happens a game becomes very exciting, interesting and fun!

SOURCES USED Board game geek http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame

Cardshot http://www.cardschat.com/f13/poker-capitalist-anti-capitalist-99791

History Learning Site http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/dien_bien_phu.htm

Pevans http://www.pevans.co.uk/Reviews/Liberte.htm

Teaching Expertise http://www.teachingexpertise.com/articles/mihaly-csikszentmihalyis-theory-of-flow-1674

World Sociaism http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/articles/whatiscap.html

Wiki http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_US_become_involved_in_Vietnam


text:
User:NormaAlvarado/games analysis

 * Games Analysis By Norma

POLITICAL GAMING AND SIMULATIONS: REFLECTIVE PRACTICE ANALYSIS

For many years, board games have been based on some political, economic and social experiences and aspects of daily life. On this module we focused on political games in order to analyse its historical background and the ideological assumptions and thus be able to evaluate and critically discuss its techniques, mechanisms and designs. Along the semester, different kind of prototypes were played, such as board games, card games, strategy war games and also a role-playing activity was experienced. With the purpose of exploring the games’ aims, their true meaning and the political lessons that people can learn by playing them, the discussion below will look specifically at four different games: Monopoly,  1776 The Game of the Revolutionary War, Modern Society and finally London

To explore the history, expansion and success of the well known board game called Monopoly is significant and necessary in order to go beyond the game itself and to get a wider understanding of its initial purposes, its different modifications over the years and the impact that this has on society.

Initially, this prototype was created by Elizabeth Margie Philips, under the name: “The Landlord’s Game” with the intention of showing how in order to increase their personal wealth to the maximum, dishonest and unscrupulous landlords or owners finished up leaving in bankruptcy the rest of people, the game was socialist and was designed as educational tool against free market and its capitalists monopolies, therefore it was anti-capitalist manifestation. Approximately in the 50’s the game became really popular in America but this version was completely opposed to the Elizabeth’s anti-capitalist form, after some years the invention was called Monopoly and became one of the greatest symbols of capitalism, where the players’ principal aim is to fight to get properties and wealth and to plunge into bankruptcy the other players. Thus, the game created to illustrate the capitalism’s immoral or unscrupulous features, soon became capitalist or as well called pro-capitalist, its meaning totally changed and suddenly Elizabeth’s name was erased from the Monopoly’s history.

Monopoly, no doubt, reflects the best and worst of capitalism, either by the loser or winner. It is impressive to see how popular and recognised this game is, in the seminar most students had played this game at least once in their lives, and if anyone had not done it before, for sure have heard of it. Monopoly’s pieces and circle board are well designed; everything is explained in the guidance and also in the information provided on the cards and board, therefore the rules of the game are easy to follow and understand. On the other hand it is important to mention that the players have the opportunity to analyse their next movements or actions in advance (buy or sell properties or change houses for hotels) or along the game, without having the need to stop and think in order to make decisions, unlike games as chess.

By playing this game the capitalist philosophy has been expanding worldwide, people learn how to manage and be cautious with their money, how to negotiate and how to take risks, but at the same time it has a negative impact on players as it promotes egoism, and encourage consumerism and also people to become more and more greedy without thinking about the ones that are in bankruptcy. “Cuba, the U.S.S.R., and other Eastern Bloc countries outlawed the game for fear it would corrupt the public with positive notions about a free-market economy. Soviet leaders even tried coming up with their own Marxist-themed spin-off games designed to highlight the virtues of frugality.”

It is a game that causes great fighting and keeps all players sitting around the board for hours, people normally take the capitalist role incredibly serious, but it is essential to highlight that the behaviour of every single player is different, and realism should be judge from the “player’s behaviour”. It is enjoyable and sociable, it also Excites and engages people in such a way that sometimes, players add additional rules and create plots against each other; it is clearly a game of trade, ability and enjoyment. In Monopoly, luck is a relatively important because the player's progress depends on the dice; the only improvement I will suggest is to explain the probability of the two dice.

From a capitalist game we moved into military strategy games, one of them is 1776 the game of the revolutionary war, which is a turn-based combat game; each turn is divided into two participant sections and each section is divided into two stages: movement phase and combat phase. This prototype is more complicated to understand and to follow, unlike Monopoly, this game needs to be constantly guided by the rules sheet, the reinforcement or time record track is the table that provides all the information about the different dates and the places where players have to allocate the new troops or reinforcements, as the game is a bit complex the rules are lengthy but well explained.

The board and the pieces fit perfectly for the purpose of the game, it has diverse scenarios and highly developed rules. It is noteworthy that with the pieces is possible to convert a big army into small troops, in order to perform different displacements. Regarding to the board, it is a hex grid map where is easy to find the ports, the thirteen colonies and Canada, it is also possible to locate the rough terrains and American rivers; which play an interesting role in the game’s mechanism, they recreate the real difficulty of the troops to cross a river, a rough terrain or a mountain in war, this way the game combines abstraction and realism, at the same time the fact of presenting  the British army as the more powerful on the scenario seems realistic as does the appearance of reinforcements in different dates (turns).

The game is enjoyable and sociable to play, and it was very interesting to see that the Americans troops were headed by American students, but even so not everyone was fully involved in the game, the players’ behaviour demonstrated that just few of them took the warrior’s role seriously. By playing this game people learn to take into account the geographical obstacles that arise in war and also how to avoid or pass through them to reach targets set, simultaneously in the decision-making processes faced, players learn how to take strategic decisions and how important is to sacrifice some troops to accomplish the goals established. In few words as 1776 is principally focused on the military matters of the American Revolutionary War, people learn only about war strategy and absolutely nothing related to politics.

The only technique employed in the game to model the subject of American Revolutionary War is the geographic board, and its hex grid design, which to certain degree recreates the distances between important locations, but unfortunately it is impossible to identify significant features that symbolize the political struggles of the revolution, this is the game's principal problem, which needs to be solved so that the content and game mechanics make allusion to its name in all sense. Regarding to the pieces, it is necessary to improve them as the material is not favourable when the troops are numerous, in order to avoid the stacks falling over the board, with coins of the same size as the cardboard pieces would be easier to make the stacks. Another disadvantage is the limited numbers of opponents, because 1776 is a game of only two sides; one in the position of British army and another in the American military troops, in the seminar was perceived that the role of some players could create limitations in the role of the others of the same group, thus generating difficulty to take decisions in group, thus it will be interesting to play with more opponents. To finish with the reflection of this game was easy to identify that the creator Avalon Hill made the game easy for the Americans to win it could be perhaps for loyalty or patriotic reasons. After having played various board games, an innovative card game as Modern society was played and analysed. This prototype focuses principally in the different issues and political agendas of our current society, players take the role of politicians or statesmen and find the way to exert influence on the basic values of modern society, the creator Jussi Autio divided those basic values in four different categories “each symbolizes a specific focal point of civil interest, and so one value is freedom-orientated, one is environmentally minded, one is in line with economic growth and the fourth concentrates on conservative tendencies”. On the board each value is represented by pieces of different colours and depending on the cards that are on play, participants get points and the pieces move to the left (negative) or to the right (positive). Thus, it is important to mention that all the scores and movements on the board are according to the influence of the cards on the table.

The rules and aims of the game are well explained in approximately twelve pages, every single feature is described, the same as the game’s mechanism and the numerous symbols on the cards. However, there are several elements and too much information in the instructions and also on the cards; as all the scores, the positive and negative movements on the board and the different images. Due to the complexity of the prototype’s mechanics and its design, the game’s different stages and punctuations are quite difficult to understand and follow, thus creating confusion with the outcome and the victory points. On the other hand, it seems that the creator did not follow the traditional mechanics of board games; he has brought up an innovative idea, in which cards made up the board, but at the same time the fact of having too many elements on the table is not really practical. This prototype combines abstraction and realism by showing to certain extend how law is developed in modern society and its positive or negative impact on economic, social, political and environmental spheres, also by exposing the different issues that are on the governments’ political agenda. Nonetheless, in the game players are not able to build a modern society. However, during the seminar was possible to perceive that players were focused on getting victory points to win the game, instead of concentrating on building a modern society.

By playing this game people can be aware of the current social issues, besides that, it helps individuals to get a wider understanding of how some legislations can affect or influence some values on society, and moreover to be ready for unexpected decisions or actions. Therefore, it is possible to say that the prototype employs quite good techniques to model modern society, but the other hand the decision-making process faced by the real-life politicians or statesmen is not reflected in this game, as players do not follow their own ideas and the cards could be about any issue, which means that participant’s decisions are limited. Hence, this aspect needs to be improved, creating a mechanism in which players could pick a law in order to reflect their individual point of view and perspective regarding to the current reality. As mentioned above the game has many elements and too much information on the cards this could be eliminated with the purpose of making the game more sociable and enjoyable. London was the last board game played; its principal aim is to build up a new city from the Great Fire’s ashes and make profit of it. In this prototype several of the most recognized monuments and buildings are represented in the cards. London allowed players to employ their talents and recreate different roles. However it has some problems and needs few improvements. To start it is important to mention that the design of the game's mechanics which includes board, pieces and cards, fit perfectly for purpose as all the colours, materials, images and the attractive map employed are well explained and designed but there are too many pieces on the board when playing the game.

By playing London during the seminar was easy to appreciate that for students the prototype was not enjoyable and sociable at all, this might be due to the reason that it was their first time playing it, and it took quite long to understand the rules and its mechanism but as students played the game, it became easier to follow. On the other hand two different features created confusion between players; first the need to identify which are permanent and the single effect card, as it is necessary to play the game and secondly the difficulty to learn the two different point system.

London is a quite realistic game, since it provides a credible view of London’s history and it recreates how difficult is to invest and to accumulate capital as it also brings and accumulate poverty. It also reflects the variations in the cost of land in different parts of London. At the same time this game simulates the decision-making processes faced by real life protagonists quite well as it recreates the actual problems of balancing necessary buildings in order to reduce poverty or just nice and striking buildings which give points but are not really essential. In this sense players have to state priorities and take the best decisions; getting loans and spend the money on monuments and luxury and extravagant places or try to deal with the city’s well development and at the same time fight against the poverty problem.

The techniques employed to model the game’s chosen subject are realistic since it demonstrates that every single decision or action have consequences and sometimes the decision making process is not easy, as to attain one aim it is necessary to give up another. The political lessons that students can learn by playing London the board game is that the resulting actions when you develop a city can generate profit or gain incontrollable debts, and also reduce or increase poverty, but it is highly important to keep poverty under control. Thus, this prototype taught students that every move has to be calculated and well planned in order to attain the best results. The only improvements I would suggest are to create a system to know who is winning during the game and also players should be able to pick some cards prom the discard stack. To conclude it is essential to mention that the module of Political Simulations and Gaming, allowed students: first, to understand how some episodes of history are recreated in political games and simulations and also to identify how different games are related to both historical and contemporary political struggles. Secondly, it taught to analyse the effectiveness and credibility of the prototypes and lately, this module made us re alised that board games are very sociable, unlike computer games. The prototypes played were fun and educational.
 * Bulleted list item

Bibliography

Autio., J. (2009) Modern Society. [Online] Available from: kulkmann’s gamebox http://www.boardgame.de/reviews/modsoc.htm [accessed 1 may 2011]

Autio., J. (2009) Modern Society. [Online] Available from: Board Game Geek  [accessed 3 March 2011]

Bills., D. (2001) Monopoly Probabilities: End-of-turn and "Land on" statistics/frequency analysis for Parker Brothers Monopoly Game. [Online] available from: Durango bills http://www.durangobill.com/Monopoly.html [accessed 9 February 2011] Callen., M. (2007) In Defense of Monopoly: analysis of the strategy. [Online] available from: Board Game Geek http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/250081/in-defense-of-monopoly-analysis-of-the-strategy [accessed 25 February 2011] McMahon., B (2007) War-opoly: How History’s Most Popular Board Game Helped Defend The Free World. [Online] available from: Mental floss  [accessed 5 February 2011] Tom., j (2005) 1776 The Game of the Revolutionary War Review. [Online] available from: Board Game Geek  [accessed 18 February 2011]

Webb., D. (2011) Review of Martin Wallace's London [Online] available from: Nerd bloggers  [accessed 25 March 2011]

Back ground paper: Fight For Libya

is an Avalon Hill-inspired war game that models the 2011 Libyan Uprising. Players take the side of either Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan Army or the rebel forces of the Libyan People’s Army. Players fight gain control of the Libyan government. The game includes ground troops of two different kinds, simulated air strikes, and conditions that simulate the imposition of a NATO no-fly zone over Libya.

This game is most inspired by the Avalon Hill war game 1776. Fight For Libya is our attempt to bring the revolutionary war aspects of 1776 into a modern context through a simulation of a more recent conflict, as well as an attempt to improve some of the its noted flaws – namely, to make Fight For Libya a simulation that is specific to the Libyan uprising and not just a set of game mechanics that could be applied to any martial conflict. The two games utilize many of the same game mechanics, including dice rolling with combat results tables, hex-and-counter movement, and variable player powers.

The hex-and-counter game board was chosen because it allows players to move in almost every direction at the same speed. Whereas a board with square markers only allows pieces to move equally in four different directions – or unequally in eight directions if diagonal movement is allowed, since pieces move faster when traveling on a diagonal than they do while moving in rank and file – the hex grid allows pieces to move at equal speeds in six of the eight possible directions. While still not perfect, this provides a compromise between the equal four directions and unequal eight directions of a square grid board. The use of dice to determine the outcomes of battles and other situations in the game was chosen to provide an element of chance and randomness into the game.

By adding combat results tables to the use of dice, more powerful players are provided with a statistical advantage over weaker players, while still allowing for a certain amount of chance. Finally, variable player powers were chosen to provide differentiation between the two armies in the game. Gaddafi’s army is much more powerful, with loyal, trained regular army troops and the ability to perform air strikes. However the less loyal and relatively untrained militia members of his army can defect quite easily to the rebel army, giving the rebels a much larger but much weaker and less trained fighting force.

The most helpful things that came out of play-testing Fight For Libya were improved differentiation between the two different armies and clearer, streamlined rules. In the first design of the game, each arm contained three different kinds of pieces – infantry, artillery and planes. After playing through this version of the game several times, it was decided that the two armies were too similar to each other and did not accurately reflect the differences between the two armies in the conflict that was being simulated. It was at this time that the decision was made to have only two types of troops – trained and untrained – as well as the inclusion of a mechanism for troops to defect to the other side. Play testing also helped to streamline and improve the mechanisms for air strikes and the imposition of the NATO no-fly zone.

title: User:NormaAlvarado/games analysis


text:
Talk:SPIR608 Political Simulations and Gaming/2011/Election Enmity

GeorgeTok 13:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)