Thrones, Robes, Swords, Games

Attentive readers may have noticed a reference or two to real-time strategy games on here. I don't play them as much as I used to - for reasons of time and hardware, among other things. (Incidentally, I wonder if there's something about an RTS that lends itself to a desktop over a laptop.) But I keep up with some of what's going on - as someone who remembers Age of Kings, the series of expansions to Age of Empires II since The Forgotten has been boggling - and will put on a YouTube video on the subject now and again. 

I did so the other day while in the middle of another task, and was surprised to find my attention drawn by an early look at Game of Thrones: War for Westeros. Not because the game looks good, or that it hooks my attention; it looks rote, predictable, and dispiriting; however polished some aspects of it are and however positive that video may be (although that final section with the 'I hope...' passage is pretty direct about highlighting some potential disappointments) I could not encourage anyone to buy a copy. 

The choices made by War for Westeros are downstream of HBO's television adaption of George R. R. Martin's series of books; I've passed comment on Game of Thrones before now elsewhere. But it still raised the question - why do it that way? 

What I focused on here was the levels of variation involved. I referred to these levels of variation:

• Football-Strip Variation (as different paint schemes)
• Plurality Variation (as a sub-faction)
• Cap-à-Pie Variation (so different as to become a different faction)

in an earlier post when discussing tabletop miniatures. 

The factions in War for Westeros are presumably balanced for gameplay purposes and seem to have some mechanical similarities but are otherwise show Cap-à-Pie Variation. This despite two of them being the aristocratic Houses of Stark and Lannister - who exist on the same continent, in the same polity, participating in the same sorts of institutions. However much they choose to emphasise their cultural differences and however strong their regional identities, it seems odd to have them be so very different - especially in a story that indicates the ignored commonality and very real shared interests of squabbling Westerosi nobles in the face of devastating climate change and a rogue state equipped with the equivalent of nuclear arms that bears a grudge against Westeros. 

So, is it right to take the difference between Stark and Lannister to the level of Cap-à-Pie Variation in their design? I'd say that it isn't, not that it makes any difference to War for Westeros by this stage. But it does raise a question: when is a particular kind of variation appropriate?
  [As well as the question 'How would you lay out RTS Factions in a war for Westeros?'. But I'll save answering that for the end. ]

From the 2018 production of Handel's Giulio Cesare at Glyndebourne.

Consider the illustration above, or see this video. Both are from the 2018 production of Handel's Giulio Cesare at Glyndebourne. The forces of Caesar's Rome are in costume largely taken from British Imperial military gear; the forces of Ptolemaic Egypt are in something reminiscent of nineteenth century Egypt. There's some connection between the two - high-collared military tunics, say, and similar arms. But otherwise they are quite different - as the forces of Rome in the last days of the Republic and Ptolemaic Egypt should be. (Not that one imagines that Handel and everyone else behind the original production was very concerned about historical accuracy). This also fits the medium; it is an opera, performed live. We can't zoom in on a detail of military uniform to show you that one khaki-clad soldier wears the cap badge and tactical recognition flash of the Royal Corps of Halberdiers and one khaki-clad soldier wears the badge of the Duke of Glendon's Light Infantry, however good your particular opera glasses may be.

What would we call this? Cap-à-Pie Variation between main characters and Plurality Variation between members of the chorus, I think. We readily distinguish Rome and Egypt, as we do Cesare and Tolomeo - while communicating things about the characters of the latter. An excellent set of variations.

Compare the Command and Conquer series of RTS games; the Tiberian games set the Global Defence Initiative against the Brotherhood of Nod; the former being a near-future UN-centred military industrial complex clad in ochres and tan against the insurgent religious cult decked out in black and red with a little grey when they want to be subtle. The warfare is asymmetric, the styles of play are different - and the Variation is Cap-à-Pie. We may heartily approve of this. 

Age of Empires II was mentioned above. Way back in 1999, several campaigns were available in the original. One was centred on the life of Joan of Arc; one on the Third Crusade and Saladin. The civilisations available to make these campaigns included the Britons, the Franks and the Saracens; the Britons and Franks shared the Western European architectural set, the Saracens used the Middle Eastern architectural set. Individual soldiers looked the same wherever. Thus, the Joan of Arc campaign showed Football Strip Variation between armies and the Saladin Campaign showed Plurality Variation. The nature of the medium made the vivid colours differentiating a Briton knight or tower and a Frankish knight or tower quite apparent; the limitations of software in the 1990s meant that Cap-à-Pie Variation while maintaining a reasonable resemblance to historical dress was highly unlikely - and the expectations of the audience led them to accept that crossbowmen, labourers and men-at-arms on a given team would wear striking tangerine tabards.

Speaking of Saladin, I have recently read Walter Scott's 1825 novel The Talisman. I'm inclined to agree with Adam Roberts that it rather sets the tone for fiction on the Crusades going forward; as another review by Roberts has it 'chivalry set against realpolitik, pigheaded and even brutish Christian knights, elegant Saracens adept at disguise, healing and courtesy, Saladin valorised.'  The variation between Christian and Moslem here is, of course, is Cap-à-Pie. The first few chapters introduce our (Scottish) protagonist by contrast with a Saracen noble; the two even go unnamed initially - merely Knight and Emir, Frank and Saracen, Christian and Moslem - exemplars of their respective worlds. Roberts makes the case that dress and disguise are not merely well-worn mechanisms for the plot or the usual sumptuous trappings of the genre but an essential element of theme.* Of course, it all builds to a scene where Saladin and Richard the Lionheart meet face to face and demonstrate the respective worth of their swords - a scene famous enough that the Ladybird History of Richard felt it necessary to mention and portray it, while labelling it as definitely fictional. If I felt particularly bold, I might even argue that the contrast of oppressive blunt-force Templars and subtle sneaky Assassins in the Assassin's Creed games can be traced here.

From said Ladybird History.

[Saladin as a virtuous unbeliever goes back at least to Dante, of course. But the contrast of quarrelsome prideful Christians and self-contained devoted-to-the-cause Muslims seems something of an exaggeration - I might suggest Lyons and Jackson's 1982 Saladin: The Politics of the Holy War as a source for counterexamples. Shajar al-Durr is another show of internal intrigues, rises and falls, and other divisions from the Islamic world. A film like 2012's Lincoln that showed Saladin as a manipulator and politician (gasp) would perhaps be genuinely unexpected in East or West.]

***

Anyway, I have offered the critiques of others on Game of Thrones more often than my own, but here's the reverse. War for Westeros and Game of Thrones make a clash of aristocratic houses with regional affiliations in the same empire into Team Wolf versus Team Lion in Beastland Arena. Men-at-arms become emanations of some main character's fighting spirit rather than the product of a region, a system of governance and a way of life. Granted, some poor pikeman is going to die in dragon-wrought flames either way - but if I'm meant to be reflecting on the course of human affairs, the proper work of the state and so forth, the former is a better work than the latter.

More to the point, this was achieved successfully elsewhere. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films ('Good with distinctive flaws', if you were wondering) might skip over the Fiefdoms of Gondor and trample the downward arc of Denethor, but soldiers fighting under the banner of the Silver Tree or the White Horse are shown fighting for a way of life best expressed by a monarch rather than the whim of tyrant. This is along with, yes, survival in the face of an invasion by Mordor. They might die by ork-shot or troll's-hammer but you know 'Why We Fight'. 

What is the 'Why We Fight' in Westeros? The Northerner has the execution of Eddard Stark and the death of his entourage as a casus belli; the Westerlander has...the kidnap of Tyrion Lannister? Perhaps that's enough to get some troops in the field, enough to convince hawkish Westerlands nobles of the need for the best defence being a good offence. But after that - well, I can't imagine Northern secessionism being a great concern - and from what I recall of the television series, there are fewer efforts to convince the world of the barbarism of the North. 'The Starks are werewolves' is viewed as a transparent lie and no-one makes much of their worship of different gods. 'The Faith of the Seven, sound law, prosperity and peace!' could be a powerful (and vaguely Whiggish! Cf. Roberts again.) rallying cry from the Lannisters: given the events of later seasons, one can't even regard this as an implicit appeal. 

Anyway, we managed it on film with Viggo Mortensen, Bernard Hill, Karl Urban and Sean Bean. Why, then, can we not manage it on the television with Peter Dinklage, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Charles Vance ... and Sean Bean. I suspect that part of the problem was that people who wanted to make I, Claudius also had to make Waterloo with dragons.

***

Anyway, what's my preferred means of making a version of a Game of Thrones RTS with the adequate levels of variation? It's Age of Empires II (the medieval historical RTS goes to make the medieval-inspired fantasy RTS? You don't say) - but with an element from the Total War games, to whit: the variation of soldiers in factions to offer subtle gradation. As we may see, the Greeks look very different from the Parthians, but the Seleucids are mainly Greek units with some Eastern ones, and Pontus is a complete mix of Greek and Eastern. Behold, a spectrum. 

Westeros can be chopped into three different culture blocs, giving three different architecture sets, three different assortments of soldiers. You could get away with two-and-a-half architecture sets, I suspect.

• Northern Westerosi (not quite 'First Men')
• Southern Westerosi (not quite 'Andals')
• Rhoynar & Post-Valyrian; NSLC
      That is ... Dorne, elements of the Crownlands about Dragonstone (thanks to Valyrians other than Targaryen and strong east-facing trade links) and a pool of mercenaries from the Free Cities (largely of Valyrian foundation). We could call this 'Western Essosi' which is a mouthful (and wrong) so let's go for 'Narrow Sea Littoral Culture' - Enessellsee, if you like. **

This would enable a portrayal of warfare in Westeros from around (say) a century or so before Aegon's Conquest until the 'present day' of A Game of Thrones. 

Good fortune smile on A Wiki of Ice and Fire; further details to be seen on individual articles.

Troops could be be produced singly (as Age of Empires) or in groups (as Dawn of War or Battle for Middle-Earth). Presumably there would be some duplication in the different assortments of soldiers (Northern Spearmen, Southern Pikemen, NSLC Halberdiers) - though they wouldn't be a perfect match. We can picture a greater choice of 'Knightly' units, heavy cavalry or footmen, in the Southern Westerosi overall list. As Age of Empires II, flavourful unique units could be added to each faction - likewise, faction bonuses (Lannisters get more money, and so on).

Westeros might have Seven Kingdoms - but there are, of course, nine roughly comparable political units (Dorne, the Reach, the Vale, the Westerlands, the Stormlands, the Riverlands, the Iron Islands, the Crownlands, the North) within it and the stateless region north of the Wall. Which brings us to some worked examples.

So, the North, as ruled by House Stark has a Northern Westerosi architecture set and variety of soldiers that is around Nine-Tenths Northern and One-Tenth Southern. 

The Vale, ruled by House Arryn has a Southern Westerosi architecture set and a military split of Seven-Tenths Southern and Three-Tenths Northern.

Dorne, ruled by House Martell has an NSLC architecture set and a military split of Six-Tenths Southern and Four-Tenths NSLC.

The Crownlands ruled by House Targaryen would have an NSLC architecture set and a military split of Five-Tenths Southern and Five-Tenths NSLC. But a Crownlands force under House Baratheon would have a Southern Westerosi architecture set and a military split of Seven-Tenths Southern and Three-Tenths NSLC. (With the Stormlands being even more Southern).
  A pre-Targaryen Conquest Crownlands - not that that seems to have been an independent entity - would be perhaps pure Southern, with Dragonstone soaking up the Free Cities trade. (It may be that the Crownlands would be best saved for a narrative campaign.)

That's hopefully enough to establish a pattern, to indicate a capacity for showing each level of variation - with similarities and differences enough for a continent entire - and an ability to create campaigns in several different periods. You may fill in any appealing blanks yourselves.

*There's a little exception to these contrasts; in Ch. XXIV of The Talisman we encounter the troops of Marquis of Montserrat: 

...a gallant band of twelve hundred Stradiots, a kind of light cavalry raised by the Venetians in their Dalmatian possessions, and of which they had entrusted the command to the Marquis, with whom the republic had many bonds of connection. These Stradiots were clothed in a fashion partly European, but partaking chiefly of the Eastern fashion. They wore, indeed, short hauberks, but had over them party-coloured tunics of rich stuffs, with large wide pantaloons and half-boots. On their heads were straight upright caps, similar to those of the Greeks; and they carried small round targets, bows and arrows, scimitars, and poniards. They were mounted on horses carefully selected, and well maintained at the expense of the State of Venice; their saddles and appointments resembled those of the Turks, and they rode in the same manner, with short stirrups and upon a high seat. These troops were of great use in skirmishing with the Arabs, though unable to engage in close combat, like the iron-sheathed men-at-arms of Western and Northern Europe.

**Which rather flattens the Dornish character for convenience, but they're hardly alone - as the Iron Islanders (Northern) might tell you. In any case, claims of PROUD DORNISH EXCEPTIONALISM or cries for SOCIALISM WITH IRONBORN CHARACTERISTICS are likely to fall on stony ground when directed at a supporter of GLORIOUS TULLY HEGEMONY.

(Were I the sort of person that made tee-shirts, I would put all of those on tee-shirts.)