Proposal: Hegemony PBEM Game

[Yskonyn]

How big is the rulebook? Or are there several. 

[Vallhalla]

I am interested in helping. I have the DoD experience but not a lot of gaming experience.

[Sarah]

I would be interested in it! I'm a current junior at college, so that does limit my schedule a bit to outside of class time, but I'd love to see what Hegemony is like.

[Tripoli]

Vallhalla-The lack of gaming experience isn't crucial-Most DoD wargame players have no experience in games (and based on what I saw at some of the DoD -sponsored games, it shows   )  We can get you up to speed.  It sounds like we may be nearing the minimal "critical mass" for me to buy the game and develop a CONOPS for how we can execute this event. 

Sarah-Thanks for your interest.  We may be able to have you participate, but I would like to discuss with you some potential roles, based on your experience, interests and available time.  If you can either post here (or PM me privately) a little bit about your gaming experience, the reasons for your interest in the game and what you are studying in college, as well as how much minimum time you could spend on a weekly basis, it would help guide that process.   In any case, since I am intending for this to be written up as an AAR and published at GrogHeads, you will be able to follow the game.

To anyone else that is interested in playing/supporting/participating: I am still recruiting for the game, so if you have any interest in participating, there is still time.  Right now, I am only at the stage of determining whether there is enough interest in pursuing the project.  I don't expect to actually complete recruiting until towards the end of this year.

[JasonPratt]

Incidentally, the title of the game id HeDgemony. With the D limned in red, in the rulebook.

Or it might be HedgEmony, as in the introduction video. The narrator of the video definitely emphasizes the "hedge" in pronunciation, because the game is intended to simulate "hedge" theory or ops.

(First footnote in the rules: "The name Hedgemony arose from the nature of a common challenge facing those who craft U.S. defense strategy. For the past 30 years, U.S. defense policymakers have been focused on an environment that has presented the United States with options for employment of defense forces in many different roles (such as humanitarian assistance, counterinsurgency, and major power conflict) and in many different locations (such as Afghanistan, Estonia, Haiti, Iraq, Korea, and Somalia). U.S. defense policymakers must prepare for a variety of near-term contingencies while also building U.S. armed forces for the future. The tension inherent in this set of challenges led us to think in terms of “hedging strategies”—the kinds of strategies investment professionals use to deal with uncertainty in the investment markets. This challenge also typically entails efforts to either maintain parity or achieve overmatch with one’s adversaries. Hence, we have the term Hedgemony.")

These are both available at the Rand link in Tripoli's original post.

I'll try posting the video code here: https://www.rand.org/pubs/tools/TL301/_jcr_content/par/product/par-research-brief/multimediavideoplaye.embed

I've tested the code (on the latest Firefox thus presumably any Mozilla engine) and it should open up a video in a new browser window.

[JasonPratt]

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/tools/TL300/TL301/RAND_TL301.rulebook.pdf

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/tools/TL300/TL301/RAND_TL301.guide.pdf

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/tools/TL300/TL301/RAND_TL301.abbrev-glossary.pdf

Those are the rules, the player guide, and the terminology docs. Same links as from Rand's page.

The rulebook strongly recommends (in the preface) reading the player's guide first; the rulebook is primarily intended for the Dungeon Master. ("Facilitators", the guys running the game.)

[JasonPratt]

Interesting. In keeping with the US DoD focus in the design intentions of the game, the US 'player' (a 'player' may be player teams of any number of people) is basically the main character whom the game revolves around, with the other players being allies or opponents.

"Although players are expected to try to win the game by achieving a certain amount of Influence, the game is primarily focused on the learning objectives of the U.S. player, with the NATO/EU player, the Red players [Iran, China, Norks, Russia], and the facilitators all serving, essentially, as “training aids.”"

"On the one hand, [non-US Players] are expected to represent allies (in the case of NATO/EU) and adversaries (in the case of Red) of the U.S. player. On the other hand, however, non-U.S. players also are expected to play the role of advisers to the U.S. player and to answer the U.S. player’s questions concerning their country’s or region’s game-relevant policies and trends. During the Red Signaling Phase of each game turn, Red players are expected to perform the role of intelligence briefing officers for Blue, presenting a summary of what Blue is likely to know about their nation’s or region’s intentions and of other salient intelligence relevant to Blue planning."

After being told of the conditions of each faction and the world generally at game-start, each Player must manually write out the goals they intend to achieve during the game; but there may also be victory conditions and faction goals designed into the session by the Facilitator.

In effect, this is a roleplaying game based around card-driven map adjustment play. It looks rather elegant. 

[JasonPratt]

Okay, my rough impressions offhand, after paging through the first part of the player's guide, is that the main reason military/DoD professionals are requested as players (aside from the point of the game being to train such people along with related State Department personnel), is because the game uses a bunch of contemporary acronyms and terms that insiders would be familiar with already, although the game rules do spell out what these are supposed to mean.

As a practical matter, anyone familiar with moderately complicated strategy games in modern settings (or even semi-modern settings, going back as far as let's say Napoleonic times) should be able to learn to 'translate' these concepts into gameplay we're familiar with. The rules are kind of more for explaining (overtly 'simple'!) strategy gaming in terms Defense/StateDep professionals will understand and relate to. Players don't even have to read the player's guide or rules, as long as the Facilitator is familiar enough to explain what's going on.

Example:

In Hedgemony, players may spend resources to do the following: Ø Posture or employ forces to accomplish some objective Ø Procure new forces (i.e., buy force structure, capacity) Ø Modernize existing forces Ø Improve specific force capabilities Ø Improve a nation’s capability or capacity to modernize forces Ø Sustain or adjust force readiness (U.S. player only) Ø Take other direct actions that may increase the players’ Influence.

Resources are generated at certain rates each turn, set by the scenario designer for each Player Faction, and can carry over to future turns (but can't be spent at a deficit, which is kind of hilarious since the goal is to simulate US State Department planning. )

There are chits which get placed on map areas, and everyone has cards from various decks, including hidden hands of cards per turn, to play. Aside from personally defined Player goals (written out pre-game after learning the starting conditions), players are trying to score Influence as victory points.

So far I don't see any reason for seasoned strategy gamers to worry much. 

Not only count me in! -- but I'll also poll around outside Grogheads to see if other strat-gamers may be interested in being Players (or joining Player teams).

[Tripoli]

I've had some recent changes in my personal life which have/will result in me  having in the short term insufficient time to game master the Hegemony game.  Hopefully, this situation(s) will resolve  in the next few months.  For right now, I'm going to have to table this idea.