Download - Twilight Struggle Draft Essay
NOTE: THIS IS A DRAFT SO DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION QUESTIONS? EMAIL: [email protected]
Simulation and Narrative Shaped Memory: Deconstructing Twilight Struggle
Jeremy S. Antley
“When the real is no longer what it used to be, nostalgia assumes its full meaning. There is a proliferation of myths of origin and signs of reality; of a second-hand truth, objectivity and authenticity. There is an escalation of the true, of the lived experience; a resurrection of the figurative where the object and substance have disappeared.”
-J. Baudrillard “Simulacra and Simulations1”
“Now the trumpet summons us again, not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle.” -John F. Kennedy
Simulation and Narrative Shaped Memory: Deconstructing Twilight Struggle
The year is 1972- despite the military quagmire currently occupying the bulk of
US resources, President Nixon successfully oversees the signing of the Camp David
Peace Accords bringing peace to a frequent war-torn Israel and its Arab neighbors.
Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev, still stinging from the loss of Poland to US influence
the previous year, announces the ‘Brezhnev Doctrine’ and proceeds to secure the support
of several key African nations through economic and military aid, a process made all the
easier by elimination of the US backed South African government through a Soviet led
coup de grace. The installation of a pro-Soviet presence in South Africa certainly brought
the two superpowers closer to the brink of war, enough so that the US abandoned plans to
engage in ‘realignment’ operations in the Middle East. The shift of the energy rich region
to Soviet influence began years ago with the loss of US influence in both Iran and Egypt,
precipitated in large part by massive Soviet investment in both nations, and now Nixon
must consider where to spend American resources. The region of Asia is still in play,
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
2
1 J. Baudrillard, “Simulacra and Simulations” in Selected Writings, ed. M. Posner. (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1988) 166-184
with Thailand and Pakistan not firmly in the hands of either power. Central America is
also largely open, and certainly smaller than Asia, yet the regions worth to Nixon in the
cold-war calculus of superpower hegemony weighs significantly less than its eastern
counterpart. Many options are available to the president, and while victory might not be
secured in the next year, the struggle, nonetheless, continues.
The scenario described above did not come from the mind of a fiction-writing
counter-factual historian, but instead from a round of play in the Cold War boardgame,
Twilight Struggle2. Situated in the ‘historical simulator’ category of boardgames,
Twilight Struggle pits two players, representing either the United States or the Soviet
Union, in a global-historical contest for world influence and domination. Over the course
of ten turns, spanning the years between 1945 and 1989, both players manage the play of
dealt cards, representing actual historical events of the Cold War, using the either the
cards event text or ‘operations value’ to engage in coups, realignment attempts, or
seeding of influence among the nations on the game board. The game designers sought
to “simulate the 45 year dance of intrigue, prestige, and occasional flares of warfare
between the USSR and the USA”, and their game mechanics aim to recreate the ‘tension’
assumed inherent in the Cold War period. Yet Twilight Struggle is more than just a
mildly-complex historically themed simulation- it is a dense cultural artifact, a rich text
that integrates both media presentation techniques, exemplified in aesthetic board
presentation and card layout, as well as ingrained cultural narratives, like the ‘Game
Theory’ narrative developed in the 50’s, exemplified in the boardgames rules structure
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
3
2 For this essay the deluxe version of Twilight Struggle, published in 2009 by GMT games, will be used for analysis.
and play-mechanic design3. Thus, by unpacking the associations and assumptions
inherent within Twilight Struggle, one can decode the cultural impact of the Cold War and
the prevalent narratives that survive in the public consciousness.
Some may question the validity of such analysis, the ability to draw out complex
narratives and cultural understandings of a historical period from a boardgame created in
2006. However, as I will examine in detail below, Twilight Struggle represents a rich-text
artifact capable of encoding several layers of the milieu from which it sprang. It contains
examples of period art and media images, evidenced in box and material design. Rules
comprise a sort of formalized literature, explaining the metaphysics and boundaries of the
simulated world the game creates. Often, these rules and game mechanics become
entwined with the cultural narratives running through a designer’s sense of identity
manifested in game play functions overt and covert. Thus while Twilight Struggle openly
embraces the concept of ‘domino theory’ in its board design and rules governing the
spreading of influence4, it more carefully disguises the mad logic behind using game
theory concepts to ‘guess’ at an opponents intentions and mitigate the chances for
thermonuclear war. Twilight Struggle may be of recent origin yet its design as a limited
historical simulator seeking to emulate the tension of the cold war allows for the
discerning scholar to pull out a shared public-sphere period analysis using material
culture methodology. Essentially, I want to use Twilight Struggle as a means to evaluate
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
4
3 By this term, I mean the elements of design within the rules and game board that combine to create certain effects. For example, Tic-Tac-Toe uses a 3x3 grid in which the players slowly reduce the available area for marking until one player connects three in a row. This process, as a whole, is the play-mechanic design.
4 Rules of Twilight Struggle, 23
present day public discourse concerning the interpretation and understanding of the cold
war.
To begin, I will look at the theoretical basis for my essay, demonstrating how
previous studies in both literary history and material cultural analysis established
connections to questions presented above. Having stated the ground from which my
arguments will follow, I will then engage in material analysis of the games physical
elements; the playing board, pieces, event cards, as well as the rules themselves. Finally,
I will look at the implications of my study noting the persistent cultural narratives
espoused by the game design and end with a look at how the international public adapted
game materials, such as creating new game boards and translating card texts, with an eye
towards potential repossession and re-association of symbols such transformations
represent.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Material culture analysis, firmly established by the works of Prown5 and other
scholars, provided several concepts and terms useful for interpreting a rich-text artifact
such as Twilight Struggle. Yet, while these methods do exist their deployment in the
analysis of boardgames is woefully underdeveloped. To be sure, there is a developing
and fast-becoming extensive attempt to use cultural analysis techniques within the realm
of video games6, however, these inquiries tread lightly in material analysis due, mainly, to
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
5
5 Jules David Prown, “Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method,” Winterthur Portfolio 17:1 (1982) 1-19 and Laurel Thatcher Urich, The Age of Homespun: Objects and Stories in the Creation of an American Myth. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2001.
6 See, for example, the Journal of Game Studies (gamestudies.org) and Postmodern Culture (pmc.iath.virginia.edu)
the lack of physical material inherent in the video game form. Despite this limitation,
methods used in the digital medium find many satisfying correlations for analogue
counterparts. One article that greatly influenced the thought behind this essay is Andy
Opel and Jason Smith’s work on Zootycoon, a true gem for its ability to look at both
physical components and digital game play 7. Their thesis, that Zootycoon essentially uses
the guise and theme of nature narratives to cover a play-mechanic design that reworks
this narrative into a capitalist framework, has direct connection to a similar
transformative process encountered within Twilight Struggle. Players engage in
historical, hegemonic battle across the globe that, when artificially terminated after ten
turns, leaves one with the impression that both powers successfully operated and
maintained sophisticated influence networks in an effort to both ‘win’ the cold war and
prevent global thermonuclear war.
Another theoretical perspective sampled in this essay comes from literary genre of
Cold War culture studies. Steven Belletto’s work on the ‘game theory’ narrative8
developed in the 1950’s specifically informs one of the central propositions of this
analysis, namely that the ideas and assumptions inherent within the ‘game theory’
narrative come to full force in the play-mechanic design of Twilight Struggle. Using
literary and film works from the 50’s and 60’s, Belletto follows in development, first, the
public introduction to ‘game theory’ and acceptance as a means to manage the horrors of
thermonuclear war, and second, the growing sense of unease about the doctrines
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
6
7 Andy Opel and Jason Smith, “Zootycoon: Capitalism, Nature and the Pursuit of Happiness,” Ethics and Environment 9:2 (2004) 103-120
8 Steven Belletto, “The Game Theory Narrative and the Myth of the National Security State,” American Quarterly 61:2 (2009) 333-357
implications with regards to ‘irrational rationality’9. According to Belletto, the ‘game
theory’ narrative intertwined the concepts of freedom and control into a paradoxical
calculus by which larger control of chance events supposedly promoted freedom instead
of restricting its movement. The rationality of analysis and the action it promotes masks
the true cost of that action, all in the name of ‘winning’ the cold war10. Viewed in this
light, ‘game theory’ reduced the nations comprising the ‘third world’ into pieces on a
board under the manipulation and machination of the two superpowers. As will be
described below, Twilight Struggle mimics several aspects of Belletto’s narrative analysis
not only in its board design but also play-mechanic design. Clearly, the ‘game theory’
narrative possesses continued influence, even among popular post cold-war
reconstructions of the period.
In order to bring relevance to my analysis of Twilight Struggle, to connect it to the
larger understanding of the United States involvement in the Cold War, I’ve been inspired
by the work of Megan Norcia and her interpretation of 18th and 19th century British
puzzles and dissected maps made for children11. Norcia notes that scholars have
traditionally overlooked puzzles as culture ‘rich texts’ capable of deep analysis. These
‘toys’ place the puzzler or player in a powerful position with regards to the world
presented in the game or puzzle, requiring the participant to assemble the pieces into a
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
7
9 This is the process by which more absurd scenarios become viable in the face of competition for power in a nuclear world. For example, under ‘game theory’, a first strike scenario could become plausible so long as the attacker possessed sufficient means to endure the counter-strike; a plot line similar to that found in Dr. Strangelove. See Belletto, 347
10 Belletto, 351-353
11 Megan A. Norcia, “Puzzling Empire: Early Puzzles and Dissected Maps as Imperial Heuristics,” Children’s Literature 37 (2009) 1-32
comprehensible whole. Through the active process of playing, British children became
familiar with not only distant geography but also their perceived future role in
administration and expansion of the imperial domains. In this way, puzzles and dissected
maps acted as transmitters of social and political mores, shaping the creation of identity
through imagination of empire12. As will be discussed below, Twilight Struggle does
much the same, but on a deeper level, for American interpretation of its role in the Cold
War. The difference is that Twilight Struggle is a historical simulator, a design choice
with impact discussed in the final portion of this essay.
The three works described above provide the most direct connection, in terms of
subject matter and themes discussed, with my analytic interest in Twilight Struggle, yet,
in a very large part, another over-arching theme of this work is identity13. As a cultural
artifact Twilight Struggle speaks powerfully to the shared experiences Americans
encountered during the Cold War. Historical events and cultural markers, such as the
Cuban Missle Crisis and ‘Flower Power’, comprise one major material component of the
game, the event cards. Taken alone, these cards equate to a modern day keyword
summary of the period, far less potent than a developed novel or film reviewing the same
material. However, while it would be perfectly acceptable to analyze Twilight Struggle as
a static item, its true complexity only becomes apparent when viewed as a kinetic artifact.
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
8
12 Ibid, 2-3, 9-13
13 Some works that provided background in Cold War Cultural Studies include, but not limited to, Leerom Medovoi, Rebels: Youth and Cold War Origins of Identity. (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2005.), John Fousek, To Lead the Free World: American Nationalism and the Cultural Roots of the Cold War. (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2000) and Jeremy Suri, Power and Protest: Global Revolution and the Rise of Detante. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2003)
Unlike a novel or film, which is read/viewed and interpreted with more or less zero
change in structure, Twilight Struggle is a limited historical simulator that interprets the
Cold War through the construction of a narrative revealed during play. One must engage
with both the material and the play-mechanic design to fully experience Twilight Struggle
as a cultural artifact. This double nature of boardgames, the ability to present a static and
kinetic self, seen particularly in historical simulators, allows for analysis able to draw
upon several fields of culture studies. It is not enough to simply look at the material
alone, or the rules document alone, one must play and allow the simulator full mobility in
order to achieve full effect of the design. The convergence of so many complex layers
into one artifact further reinforces the understanding of identity to be a multi-faceted
composition and process, far from monolithic and permeable to different influences.
Of course, theory is one thing and evidence is another. Therefore, the next section
of my analysis shifts towards the physical components of Twilight Struggle. Composition
of game materials, such as the board and event cards, yields valuable evidence indicating
the overt characteristics of the game design; here players can easily see how ‘domino
theory’ shaped board design or perhaps wonder why certain historical occurrences failed
to make the cut for representation on event cards. Establishing the nature of the game in
its static state, that is, before the simulator begins operation, is vital to fully
understanding implications of the constructive narrative process engendered by actual
play.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••
The Box
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
9
Looking at the cover of the Twilight Struggle box14 , one is encountered by the
image of twin, opposing and identical concrete walls, lined with barbwire and equipped
with one surveillance camera trained upon a black, featureless figure-silhouette garbed in
what appears to be a trench-coat and standing upon a checkered walkway. The sky in the
horizon is cloudy, further suggesting the dour, dark nature of the content matter within.
The figure-silhouette, shadow cast behind, faces what appears to be the Brandenburg
Gate, casting the location of the box-cover scene on the dividing line between East and
West Berlin, for many Americans the literal and figurative divide between the ‘free’
world and the communist world, the forces of the USA and USSR. The name Twilight
Struggle appears at the top of this scene, underneath a banner region that contains two
sets of missiles facing each other, divided into rectangles of blue and red. Immediately
one is confronted with themes of tension and militarism, with the backdrop of such
themes firmly established in the period of the Cold War.
On the bottom of the box, the top half is dominated by a recreation of the actual
game board contained within. Below this is a quote from Kennedy, stated at the top of
this paper, which supposedly provided the inspiration for the game title. The bottom left
contains a partial list of the event cards with examples of three cards displayed; Korean
War, Cuban Missile Crisis and ‘Pershing II Deployed’, each corresponding to one of
three eras the game divides the Cold War period into, those being the Early War, Middle
War and Late War respectively. Rankings on the bottom right of the box indicate Twilight
Struggle received a four out of ten for complexity and one out of ten in solitaire
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
10
14 Again, the Deluxe version of Twilight Struggle, 2009, provides the material under review.
suitability. This is interesting, as it indicates that the game is of mild to low complexity
compared to other games the publisher, GMT Games, produces and is completely
unsuitable as a one-player game. This is yet another indicator that Twilight Struggle uses
‘game theory’ narrative as one of its central, compositional tenants, as the simulator
cannot be operated alone- it demands a second player. In terms of time progression, the
game scale places one turn of game play to be equated to 3 to 5 years of actual Cold War
history.
Finishing out the complement of bottom box design, their exists a description of
Twilight Struggle and its game play. Establishing itself as a Cold War historical
simulation, the description explains that, “this war will not be primarily be waged
soldiers and tanks- but instead by spies and politicians, scientists and intellectuals, artists
and spies”. Lest one think this simulator might allow for varied outcomes beyond that
experienced by participants in the actual Cold War, the text goes on to state that the game,
“begins amidst the ruins of Europe as the two new superpowers scramble over the
wreckage of WWII, and ends in 1989, when only the United States remained standing.”
Players “move units and exert influence” in an attempt to hegimonically dominate their
opponent, while “subsytems capture the prestige laden Space Race as well as nuclear
tensions”. Essentially, players are promised a simulation that allows for Cold War
reconstructive narratives to develop, utilizing not only the popular historical moments of
the actual Cold War period but also popular sub-narratives, such as global thermonuclear
war fears and the space race, as a means to more fully flesh out the themed nature of the
simulation. Implications of this arrangement will be discussed in more depth below.
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
11
Once the box top is removed, a timeline covering major events of the Cold War
line the sides of the box bottom. The majority of events mentioned, however, depict acts
of Soviet aggression with little mention (quite literally- the text box is smaller than
neighboring Soviet events) of Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam War. This is the only
US themed event that depicts some level of aggressive action on par with the several
other mentioned Soviet actions. Other US events are presented in a much better light,
examples being the normalization of relations between the US and China and the signing
of the Paris Peace Accords to end the Vietnam War. It is also worth noting that the events
covered in the timeline fall, largely, in the category of diplomatic and military history;
there is little to no mention of major social events in the Cold War period, such as détente
or the civil rights movement. Glasnost makes an appearance, one of the few Soviet
events depicted of a neutral to good light, yet phenomena such as the ‘Thaw’ or even
‘Prague Spring’ fail to make the cut. Decisions made on selection of events for the
timeline suggest similar logic ruled in the establishment of ‘event cards’ used in actual
play.
The Rules While a complete break down of the rules would be unnecessary and outside the
scope of this essay, key elements of the play-mechanic design need to be examined.15 As
a cultural artifact, the rulebook is a strictly formalized text that acts a metaphysical
primer for the ‘historical simulator’. It defines not only the rules but also the terms used
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
12
15 All citations for rules derived from the Twilight Struggle rulebook. A copy of the rules are available at the publishers website www.gmtgames.com.
and their impact upon game play. For our examination, the mechanics of seeding
influence, realignments, coup attempts and scoring victory points are of primary concern.
The first three operations are the primary means by which the two players vie for
influence among the scoring regions of the board, while the last measures the sum total of
the previous actions in determining a winner. It is the interworking of these play-
mechanic designs that reinforce the establishment and operation of the ‘game theory’
narrative.
Given that elements of the game board design, discussed below, highlight the
intentional choice of using the ‘Domino Effect’ as a primary design mechanism in the
operation of Twilight Struggle, the actual implementation of this choice comes to the fore
with the rules governing the seeding of influence. Players use operations points, gained
from the play of event cards, to seed influence points among the nations on the game
board. Placement is restricted to nations that are connected to other nations that already
possess a superpowers influence. Thus, the USSR cannot place influence in India
without first having ‘seeded’ Iran which is connected to India, a nation the USSR
possesses influence in at the start of the game. The inability to place influence freely on
the board clearly ties the influence system to the tenets of the ‘Domino Effect’. Nations
succumb, one by one, to the creeping influence exerted by both superpowers, forming, by
the end of the game, a potent looking network of hegimonical power.
Beyond this effect, the restriction upon seeding influence also demonstrates the
role of ‘game theory’ in the narrative effect of playing the game. Players are confronted,
play by play, turn by turn, with the slow progress on all fronts of their opponents rational
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
13
decisions, manifested in actual form by the placement of influence tokens on the game
board. This in turn, necessitates the rational evaluation of potential strategies and moves
that a player must make in order to respond to the actions of an opponent. It is the threat
of influence on the board that necessitates the use of the next two game mechanics, the
use of realignments and coup attempts.
Realignment is an attempt to use operations points for the purpose of reducing an
opponents influence within target nations. Players roll dice, with the higher roller able to
remove the difference between the rolls from a players influence on the game board.
Bonuses to the roll are granted for possessing more influence in a target nation than an
opponent, having adjacent controlled countries and being next to a superpowers
homeland. This action cannot add influence to a target nation, so this operation, in effect,
represents the use of ‘soft power’ to persuade a nation to reduce their dependence upon a
rival superpower. Of course, players who chose realignment operations may find
themselves on the losing end of a series of dice rolls, increasing their opponent’s
influence. This ‘chance’ effect, with its use of calculated odds modifiable by established
factors, again reinforces the ‘game theory’ narrative, yet it also is one of a few mechanics
that actually indicate agency on the part of the nations involved. ‘Soft Power’ pressure
may have unintended consequences, evidenced in the loss of a dice roll, representing
exacerbation of power elements within the target nation and entrenchment of an enemy
one hoped to dislodge. Should a player find the odds to dicey for realignment, the other
option available is the coup de grace.
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
14
According to the rules, a coup attempt “represents operations short of full-scale
war to change the composition of a target country’s government.”16 It is a means to not
only accumulate military operations points17, needed to satisfy the require military
operations for that turn, but also degrade the Defcon level if the coup is conducted in a
‘battleground nation’. A country must possess an opponent’s influence in order to be
valid as a target for a coup. Unlike realignment operations the opponent cannot roll a
dice in defense, instead, the stability number of the nation involved is doubled and the
attempting player rolls a dice, adding that number to the operations value of the event
card used to conduct the coup. Essentially, this means that nations with a low stability
number, like many of the nations in Africa and Central/South America, are especially
susceptible to coup attempts and require significant investment of a superpowers’
influence in order to guarantee secure control. As discussed in the final section, this
mechanic contains several implications on the perception of other nations involved in the
Cold War.
The ultimate objective of seeding influence, attempting realignments and
conducting coups is to set up favorable conditions for the play of scoring event cards.
When a scoring event card is played, it acts as a ‘snapshot’ of the region in question,
evaluating the hegemonic control of nations by the two superpowers. The three levels of
power- presence, control and domination- correspond to a point value awarded. This
definition of power is determined by the influential control of both battleground and non-
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
15
16 Rules of the Game. 6.3.1
17 See final paragraph in the section describing the game board.
battleground nations within that region, with preference given to control of battleground
nations. The goal is to accumulate twenty victory points, or possess ‘domination’ of
Europe when that regions scoring card is played. As the game, and thus the Cold War,
progresses, new regions come into play, like Africa and Central/South America, growing
beyond the initial triad of Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Players never know when a
scoring card may be played, necessitating a need to read carefully into an opponents
tactics with regards to influence on the game board. Once again, the play-mechanic
design of scoring, and ultimately winning, the game follows the tropes of ‘game theory’
narrative, providing a coherent understanding to interpreting an opponent’s seemingly
random action.
The Board
The first impression is the folded up thickness of the game board, a necessity
considering the large footprint this game requires.18 Once deployed, the board reveals a
standard Mercator projection of the globe, minus the polar caps. In terms of geography,
the continents are divided into smaller sub-units with colors to demonstrate regional
separation. For example, Turkey is shaded darker purple than its lighter purple neighbor,
Bulgaria, as the former is located in the geo-political orbit of Western Europe while the
latter lies within Eastern Europe. All told there are eight regions defined on the board. In
contrast to the defined regions, both the USA and the USSR are represented as their own
entities, the background of US territory covered in the Stars and Stripes while the USSR
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
16
18 A copy of the actual game board can be viewed at the publishers website: http://www.gmtgames.com/nnts/TSMap11.jpg accessed 12 June 2010.
is clad in its stark red flag with one white star. Each region also has a ‘point-value’
worth, awarding varying amounts of victory points for presence, control and domination
of the nations within when that regions scoring card is played. Based on these values,
Europe is worth the most, followed by the Middle East and Asia, with Africa and Central/
Southern America rounding out the bottom. One region, SE Asia, exists as a special sub-
region for scoring yet this occurs only once in the game and is meant to be representative
of the importance that region held to the two superpowers in the 60’s and 70’s.
Each region is comprised of a varied number of nations; Africa totals eighteen
nations while Eastern Europe holds only nine. Each nation is represented on the board
with the same rectangle shape, noting the country’s name and flag in the ‘header’ while
splitting the remaining space below in two. The effect is literally the visual creation of a
domino, seemingly waiting for a push from either player. In this manner, each nation
appears exactly the same in relation to each other- except for the US and USSR, whose
homelands appear as a solid monolith of their respective flag colors. While all nations on
the game board are represented in the same shape (in contrast to the geo-political map in
the background), three characteristics provide difference. One such difference is a
nation’s assigned stability number. Since this number is related, in game terms, to the
susceptibility of a nation to coup attempts launched by the two players, this number
quickly identifies the perceived strength game designers believed the nations to possess.
For example, the UK is the only nation on the board to receive a ‘5’ stability making it
impervious to coup attempts, whereas several nations in Africa received a rating of ‘1’.
(South Africa, with a value of ‘3’, is the most stable on the continent) Another difference
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
17
is the ‘connection’ lines between one nation and its neighbors. Close proximity does not
equate to connection, as demonstrated by lack of line between Israel and Iraq. In this
manner, the design of the game board takes into account some measure of historical
reality, as nations that share a connection do so because of their interconnected
relationships developed before the Cold War. The last difference comes in the
designation of a nation to be a ‘battleground’ country. Controls of these nations are the
defining measure of a superpowers influence in a region and thus, play a big role in the
scoring of those regions. Due to their ‘lynchpin’ status vis a vis other nations in the
region, coup attempts in ‘battleground’ countries lower the Defcon level, reducing the
potential for coups and realignment operations in other regions as well as bringing the
possibility for nuclear war, and consequently the end of the game, ever closer.
The Defcon level is one example of the other defining aspects of the game board-
the element of sub-systems. Besides the global map and rectangle nations depicted, there
are varied tracks around the edges that measure the progress of sub-systems player
modify through their actions during play. The top left of the board contains the track for
measuring the action round, or, more precisely, the number of cards a player has left to
play from their hand. Situated on the opposite side is the turn track, separating the ten
turns of a complete game into three periods, early, middle and late war, with a picture
depicting either an American president or Soviet premier for each turn. Just below that
lies the ‘Space Race’ track with eight designations for the various achievements of space
flight. Bonuses mark every step, with alternating victory point and game ‘power’
bonuses available to the first (and sometimes, second) player to reach them. For
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
18
example, the first player to reach the ‘Earth Satellite’ space receives two victory points,
while the subsequent step, ‘Animal in Space’, allows the player to use two cards from
their hand for opportunities to advance on the Space Race track. The Defcon level and
‘Required Military Operations’ tracks, located on the bottom left-third of the board, sit
opposite of the larger rectangle box situated on the right side, designated for marking
victory points accumulated by the two players during the course of play.
The Defcon level, beginning at five and descending to one, or, thermonuclear war,
is the primary mechanism by which the two players feel ‘tension’ in their decision
making process. It is reduced by only two means; either a player engages in a coup
attempt in a ‘battleground’ nation or they play an event card that modifies the current
level up or down. Reduction of the Defcon level in turn places certain regions off limits
to future coup and realignment attempts. For example, when the level is at four neither
player may realign or coup any nation in Europe. At three, Asia is off limits with the
Middle East becoming prohibited at level two. While this leaves Africa, Central and
South America as the only regions not affected by Defcon status, this essentially means
that both players may constantly engage in coups and realignments in these areas,
including ‘battleground’ nations that always threaten the Defcon level. While the Defcon
improves by one at the start of every new turn, players must still balance their needs to
tactically take ‘battleground’ nations via coups in potential scoring areas versus the
reduced opportunity to engage in further attempts in other areas due to the limitations a
reduced Defcon level enforces.
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
19
Closely tied to the workings of Defcon is the final sub-system mechanic, the
Required Military Operations track. Players are required to perform a certain number of
‘military ops’ every turn, determined wholly by the current Defcon level. Thus, if the
Defcon level was at five then the two players must both execute combined military ops
equal to five points. Players earn military points by playing war event cards or engaging
in coup attempts. Failure to engage in the required number of military ops yields one
victory point to the opponent for every point unfulfilled. Given that there are only a set
number of war event cards, players are thus encouraged to use the coup option to accrue
the necessary points. Combined with the other tracks on the board, the Required Military
Operations track rounds out a complex game surface that gives both players a means of
instantly evaluating the several pressure points of the ‘historical simulator’, an aid in the
cold rationality of evaluating needs versus costs. The board represents the known, the
result of calculated moves. Contrast this to event cards, held in hand and drawn from a
facedown deck, that represent the unknown, unpredictable nature of the Cold War itself.
The Event Cards
Perhaps no other element establishes the feel of the Cold War in Twilight Struggle
more than the event cards. Totaling 108 in number, the cards cover the historical
spectrum of, mostly, popular events occurring between 1945-1989. Divided into three
periods, the early, middle and late war, the event cards are the engine of seeding influence
and promoting conflict on the game board. Beyond period separation, event cards are
also marked by their affiliation to either the USA or USSR, with some cards marked as
applicable to both. For example, the card ‘Warsaw Pact Formed’ is a Soviet themed
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
20
event while ‘Truman Doctrine’ is for the USA. The card ‘Salt Negotiations’ or ‘Olympic
Games’ are examples of events affiliated with both superpowers. All event cards are also
assigned an ‘operations’ point value. Players may opt to play the card as an event, in
which case the text of the card is carried out, or they may use the event cards operation
value to engage in seeding influence, space race advancement, or realignment/coup
attempts. The only restriction occurs when a USA player plays a USSR event and vice
versa; in this case, the card is played as though the event happened with the player given
the ability to use the operations value for actions described above. This play-mechanic
design of affiliations and dual event/operations value use for each card further reinforces
a central tenant of the ‘game theory’ narrative, that a player can mitigate the threat of
nuclear war and ‘win’ the superpower conflict though careful management of chance.
Each card also contains a design aesthetic that enriches Twilight Struggle as a
rich-text cultural object. Various black and white photographs, film scenes, and even
cartoons create a media landscape that further enhances nostalgia and connects the title
and text of the cards effects to a larger cultural meaning. The ‘Iron Lady’ contains a
picture of Margaret Thatcher and removes all USSR influence from the UK, among other
things, while ‘Shuttle Diplomacy’ depicts Henry Kissinger and aide sitting in a jet cabin
and allows the USA player to disregard USSR control of one battleground country when
scoring the Middle East or Asia. These cards do not mention these people specifically, as
viewer is supposed to come equipped with the cultural knowledge to interpret the image
associated with the card. Even without background, the cards convey an easily read
meaning that enhances the ‘feel’ of the period simulator. Overall, the cards add
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
21
complexity to the map created by their play; players not only reconstruct a physical
representation of the superpower struggle, they also create a unique historical narrative
that gives contextual shape to the act of playing. Thus engaged, the ‘historical simulator’
allows for the players to actively create and process a periods events with regards to the
impact those events held upon the larger themes of culture and identity of the nation in
question. For older players, Twilight Struggle allows for interpretation of a period lived,
while younger players can investigate the foundations of their contemporary society
through the acting out of the conflict that largely defined its current mission and scope.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••
The Larger Connections
As the above material description above implies, Twilight Struggle, as a static
artifact, contains many themes immediately available to multi-faceted inquiry.
Construction of identity, views of the ‘other’, etc… all of these approaches find grist for
their mill in the isolated presentation of the games materials. While these analyses may
yield valuable insight, the findings themselves would not escape the odors of stasis and
isolation so long as the board game is viewed as an inert object. Once one goes beyond
the static and views the material in the full operation of its mobility, only then can the full
effect of the play-mechanic design bring to light covert and overt game narratives, their
implications upon the meta-narrative the game constructs, and the greater implications
this process brings upon the players of the game.
This takes us back to the larger connections between Twilight Struggle and
American culture of the Cold War. Whereas previous generations used dissected maps as
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
22
a means of acting out the process of colonization and imagination of empire19, Twilight
Struggle, as a historical simulator, allows the present generation to put together their own
map, using familiar historical events as the pieces. Yet the historical simulator differs
from the dissected map in one significant fact- the dissected map has only one
configuration of pieces while the historical simulator possesses, potentially, an endless
array of configurations. The chaos of potentiality engendered by the operation of the
historical simulator necessitates the creation of rules to govern the scope of action
permitted by the player. These arbitrary limitations on the potential of play would, in
themselves, render the simulator moot were it not for the role narratives play in the
construction of the play-mechanic design. In the case of Twilight Struggle, the ‘game
theory’ narrative provides not only justification for the reduction of play-mobility in the
name of taming chaotic potentiality, but also provides a cogent framework for the player
to frame and interpret their process of ‘assembling the map’. By restricting the mobility
of the simulation, narratives allow the remaining realm of possibility to be channeled into
a more comprehensible whole20.
There is a danger to this reduction, however, and that comes chiefly in the form of
giving false authority to a model that precludes the influence of notable factors outside
the interpretative purview, or gaze, of the narrative structured within the play-mechanic
design. Specifically, Twilight Struggle largely ignores social forces in its hegemony
calculus. Zero event cards reflect the internal crisis and debate the civil rights movement
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
23
19 Norcia, 9
20 Opel and Smith noted similar effects with the construction of Zootycoon. 108-113
sparked in the United States, nor do they take into account the pressure brought upon the
USSR with the introduction of ‘goulash socialism’ programs in various Eastern European
nations. Not one card uses the word ‘Détente’, even though the implications of this
period in the relations between the two superpowers proved immense. Those cards that
do reference social events do so obliquely. ‘Flower Power’, a Soviet event card of the
Mid War, continually benefits the USSR by granting them two victory points for various
war events cards if the US player plays those cards. The title of the card, as well as the
picture used in the graphic art, clearly evoke associations with the counter-culture
movement of the 60’s and 70’s. Yet the card does not penalize the US player, per se,
from playing War events; indeed, so long as the US player maintains a comfortable lead
in victory points the effect of ‘Flower Power’ becomes negligible. This stands in stark
contrast with the actual workings of the counter-culture movement and ‘Flower Power’
upon the mindset of the nation to the Vietnam War and military aggression in general. In
this way the use of ‘game theory’ narrative in the play-mechanic design masks the true
nature of social forces and re-routes their effects into a model of hegemonic calculus
suited to the ideas of ‘risk management’ and predictive behavior.
This redirection, accomplished through the use of the ‘game theory’ narrative in
the ‘historical simulator’, operates through the establishment of various elements of the
play-mechanic design. Three links make this relation clear. Use of the ‘Defcon’ level
and degradation based upon the coup attempts tied to battleground nations is the first
link. Points value of the geographic sub-regions and the composition of the their
member-nations, with special focus on the stability number assigned, forms the second
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
24
link. The final linkage of ‘game theory’ lies in the management of a player’s hand,
deciding when to play event cards and how to use ‘operations points’, as a means to
manage the vagrancies of chance. Note that none of these links presupposes the
independent operation and life of the nations both superpowers use as pawns in their
power grab. A nation has no opportunity to improve its government in Twilight Struggle,
thus potentially raising its stability number. The only ‘stability’ to be achieved is the
relative control assured by high levels of influence seeding by the two players. In fact,
while the game board changes in terms of hegemonic influence through the course of
play, the individual nations themselves undergo zero change. These fixed points,
represented by unchanging stability numbers, undercut the volatility and flux the plans of
superpowers bring upon the nations of the game board. In this way, Twilight Struggle
once again leaves the players with a false representation of the power politics involved in
the Cold War.
Interestingly, while the game itself contains elements and meanings encoded
within the rules and design structure, these material elements undergo change when
transmuted by outside parties. In much the same way that Polish citizens re-appropriated
symbols of Communist power for their own use21, players across the world have adapted
Twilight Struggle to suit their own needs. Event cards, using new images beyond those
introduced in the game, find translation in several languages; Chinese, Russian, Spanish,
etc… Since the event cards themselves are multi-layered artifacts, the re-creation of these
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
25
21 Jan Kubrik, The Power of Symbols Against the Symbols of Power: The Rise of Solidarity and the fall of state socialism in Poland. (University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania University Press, 1994)
materials represents an act of cultural discourse meant to bring the context of the game’s
cards into a culture beyond that of the original, American creator. This transformation of
materials goes beyond cards- even the game board itself has undergone change. Two
designs, found on the fan forums of the popular boardgamegeek.com site, echo different
needs the new designers needed from their game22. The first, a travel board, strips away
all the graphical pomp in favor of strict game playing efficiency. Separated into two
standard printer pages, the condensed size of the normally large game board allows the
game to be carried beyond the table and into the realm of travel. The second, a modified
full-size game board, brings a few new elements into the original design; most notably
the varied sub-systems have a more aesthetically pleasing look that sometimes further
plays into the Cold War setting of the game. For example, the Required Military
Operations track on the new board is represented by large bombs, and the combination of
Victory Point and Turn tracks into one resemble a complex clock, with the two tracks
forming ‘hands’ of the face that gyrate based upon the progression of the game.
These two modifications of the original materials are just one example of the
broad audience Twilight Struggle enjoys among international players. The appeal of the
‘historical simulator’ becomes readily apparent upon realization that the game itself
allows players to engage in their own reconstruction of the Cold War period. Using
historical events in tandem with play-mechanic designs that foster ‘tension’ and promote
conflict, however, ultimately compels the individual player to construct a narrative with
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
26
22 To view these modifications visit: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/28818/revised-custom-ts-map and http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/16990/tstravelboard_v1-pdf for the modified game board and travel version, respectively. Accessed 12 June 2010.
the core tenets of ‘game theory’ firmly embedded. When a player finishes a game, they
are left with the impression that the end of the Cold War left both powers, but America
mainly, in control and operation of sophisticated networks of power. Despite the
simplistic view, this idea carries significant weight for citizens today that look at current
conflicts American is engaged in today. In many ways, the thinking and beliefs inherent
in the Cold War, exemplified in the operation of Twilight Struggle, hold resonance today,
even among an increasing audience born after its forty-five year conclusion. With such
importance, especially in the construction of identity through play, the evaluation of
‘historical simulators’ holds fertile ground for retrospective interpretation of a shared
experience.
DRAFT COPY- DO NOT CITE WITHOUT ASKING [email protected]
27