Offisde Review of "The Bear Untamed"

I recently took part in Terry Martin's megagame, The Bear Untamed.

This game took place in London on 19th September 2026. For those unfamiliar with what a megagame is there is a good description here and here.

Scenario

The game was set in 2029. Some major events had occurred in the world since 2026. The US had a new President J D Vance, who had a majority in the House and a 50/50 split Senate. He was in the process of withdrawing US Forces from Europe and was attempting to Federalise the National Guard. 

The Russian Ukraine war had "ended" in a ceasefire in 2028. A demarcation line was still occupied by the respective military forces.

In Europe the far-right populists had been blunted by the knowledge that now Europe was on its own it could not risk voting for unpredictable populist extremists. France and Germany had both had near run elections but the moderates had won. The UK was a coalition.

My Role in the Game

My role in the game was to be the Secretary General of NATO. I had two assistants working for me and my colleague was a US 4 Star General as SACEUR, with his assistant.

My brief was that we could only put together any forces for any NATO Exercise or any NATO Task Force by asking NATO member states to contribute what they could.

My Strategy

After reading my brief I realised that Russia was weak militarily - it had to support a large army in Ukraine - but was still aggressive.  The Russian President was still leading Mother Russia and wanted to restore its greatness - MRGA! My strategy was to always act in strength, and the preserve the NATO unity. 

My first act

The first crisis was caused when some Russian zealot had been apprehended on the Russian / Estonia border carrying weapons (anti-tank rockets), pro-Russian propaganda and other illicit items. Estonia had called for a formal NATO meeting citing Article 4!

To be honest, it was a policing matter, not really a military one. 

I organised the formal North Atlantic Council meeting and my assistants got together an international team of para-military / gendarme police to assist Estonia in putting down riots and other violent acts of civil rebellion. (There is an actual NATO police force, led by the Italians, in Kosovo.)

This had the desired effect. It helped Estonia police the unrest. 

Later in the pub I spoke to the player, Johan, who played the Russian President. He confirmed that my move had reduced the effectiveness of their planned civil unrest and violence. They had to change tack and start a different non-violent form of protest where they handed out Russian citizenship to any Estonians who asked for it.

At the same time I sent in NATO police, SACEUR had started the first steps of Exercise Freezing Winds. 

North Atlantic Council (NAC)

I set the Agenda for the meeting - only two things to vote on - NATO members supporting Estonia's calling Article 4 and supporting the start of Exercise Freezing Winds.

I made it clear to the NAC that we were going to have our side-bar talk before the formal meeting and then we were ALL going to vote unanimously at the meeting and then we would have any sub-committee, off the record meetings. Stage-managed it was, I said.

The main output of the meeting is that I got an informal agreement amongst members on which actions SACEUR could take in the face of the expected Russian aggression. We quickly found they would support Logistics Enhancements, Headquarter Activations and redeployment of Air Patrols. All these to be done in the Baltic States. We also found there was less support for the second tier of Actions, putting boots, tracks, landing wheels, or keels in theatre.

Later Johan confirmed that they were literally planning a military intervention to support the civil unrest in Estonia and escalate to the other Baltic States. But seeing the rapid and strong NATO reaction - and that we had a unanimous vote meant they decided to drop the military actions and focus on hybird warfare, a combination of sabotage, and strategic intimidation.

NATO without the USA

I think the Russians and perhaps some of the other member states thought that without the US Military - we had a few squadrons of USAF in the Baltic, but nothing else - NATO was weak.

My attitude to this was not to bother the US. I was told by SACEUR that they might assist if they could see Europe setting its own house in order. So I never bothered to talk or ask the US. I used SACEUR as my sounding board for likely US reactions.

I think this worked well.

Coping with Maverick NATO Members

This was my main headache in the game. 

France were never wanting to be involved unless their General / Admiral was the CO of the Exercise or Task Group. The German team was riven between a hawk and a dove. The UK was studied inaction. Only the Polish, the Baltics, Finland, Sweden and Norway seemed a bit more positive about having a forward posture.

During the game we had some incidents. The Norwegians sent out their Frigates to protect their oil fields. The French or Swedish (or both) grabbed a Russian shadow fleet tanker - a negotiation ploy I heard later. The French upgraded their nuclear force that looked like a very aggressive move. The Germans put all of the military on alert. And the biggest upset was the Finnish "practice" full war footing mobilisation towards the end of the game. I will talk more on this later.

And then the Norwegian Prime Minister and their King went to meet the Russian President in Moscow on a State visit and made some big financial deal.

My headaches and my medicine

I was finding it difficult to liaise and coordinate with all the member states. If we wanted to deploy a force for an Exercise or for some forward deployment I sent my team of diplomats to negotiate with the nations about what they would give. This was the new NATO. No US to fund and man the majority. 

The constant worry was that if we announced an action and could not get the forces to turn up then we would suffer a big hit to our confidence. 

We were working well on getting our actions working. It took a lot of footwork and talking but it worked. The problem was the destabilisation created by unilateral military actions by the member states.

I decided that if the Norwegians could have a State visit to Russia, then so could I. Obviously not a State visit but a very high level meeting. I got an informal agreement from the Russians - very quickly. In fact too quickly for my liking; so I delayed on sending my formal written note outlining my agenda and other conditions.

And then the Finnish went on a war footing - practice only. This prompted the Russians to mobilise forces on the Baltic / Finnish border. 

The tension measure leapt by 8 points from 6 to 14 (it ranged from 0 - 30).

I decided now was the time to take that summit meeting, and guess what, so did the Russians. (It's good to have something up your sleeve.)

Anyway eventually I got my meeting. I told my assistants to sell this and mention this to the member states.

The New Delhi Summit

We met in New Delhi - I was not going to Moscow - too many high windows. And had a very interesting meeting.

The Agenda was

1. Notification of large troop movements before they moved.

2. To let each others officers observer Exercises

3. Regular scheduled meetings of planning staffs to ensure the above occured. 

The Russian President, of course, went off the Agenda from the start. I listened heard him out and then reminded him that we should stick to the Agenda and then have AOB. He agreed.

We quickly went through the formal agenda and agreed it. 

The AOB was a bit more of a problem. The biggest "moan" was that European nations - the NATO members - were being unilaterally aggressive. What confidence could the Russians have in NATO if I could not control them etc. (Unfortunately, I agreed with him.)

My reply was to emphasise my role as a liaison to the member states and that I would seek better liaison with them. But I also pointed out that whilst NATO was a very powerful defensive alliance, the members states armed forces on their own could hardly be a threat to the might of the Russian military. (So stop being a big baby.)

The Next NAC Meeting - A metaphorical fist banging of the table

After the New Delhi Summit, I called a NAC for all Heads of State.

I gave them a dressing down. I was forceful. I got them all to sit and I then stood up. (You need a bit of theatre sometimes.) The gist of what I said was that if they were going to do their own thing they were weakening the one security they had - a unified NATO - and making me and thus NATO and also them by association - look like a "sock puppet".

I also said I did not want any finger pointing by members - though I did the finger pointing - and I got agreement that the military adventures, mostly the damn Fins, French and Germans, would de-escalate.

But always have another something up your sleeve

Before I went into the NAC I had authorised my diplomats and with SACEUR's agreement to start the action "Baltic Defence". (I am bit sketchy here of the details, as I had very little to do with the details here. I just wanted to have a proper reaction to having mobilised Russian forces on NATO's border.)

When I came out of the NAC I was told the Polish were really, really up for the deployment, with some assistance from other nations, though oddly enough not Lithuania. So we went for it.

I popped over to the Russians and told them about the new deployment, re our agreement.

And this is where things got tense.

So at the end of all that the tension marker went up to 20 (I think) and the Finns had not gone back to barracks and the NATO "Baltic Defence" deployment was grinding through its mobilisation plan.

Terry Martin the designer, then gave us 20 minutes for the last turn. 

I was then approached by my team* and they gave me their views of what all the member states had said. SACEUR told me he wanted a stop or go order for the second, major stage of the redeployment. It was basically a full Polish Armoured Division deployed to Estonia, lots of Aircraft (circa 200 - 500) and navy units in the Baltic.

The decision

This is why I like megagames. 

I imagined that I had this decision to make as if it was real. My decision could see an invasion of the Baltics, the deaths and displacements of hundreds of thousands, the end of NATO etc.

My guess was that the Russians were not going to invade. They were weak and they had not been playing a military strategy all game. Unless of course that was their big bluff. Would they go for it when they had made assurances and clever moves denying the use of military means to achieve their objectives?

But... 

If I decided to lower NATO's readiness and NOT complete "Baltic Defence" and the Russians attacked, the cost would be the Baltics and also NATO. 

If I maintained the "Baltic Defence" and the Russians attacked, I would be vindicated and be a hero. NATO members states would no doubt hasten to further aid the redeployment, NATO would realise it had to be unified and strong. POTUS would see Europe as standing up for itself and might lend a hand. All good.

And if I continued the redeployment and there was no further Russian deployment, what would be the harm. Well...

And the outcome was...

Yes, you guess it. The Russians didn't mobilise any further. 

The NATO redeployment "Baltic Defence" deployed in the Baltics and there was no shooting.

The tension scale was at 25. 30 meant war.

You to decide...

And that is where we left it. Open to interpretation, like all of history really.

My interpretation of the outcome was that I had shown that Europe could work through NATO to counter Russian aggression. NATO might not be unified as it was but there was enough of a fear of Russian aggression to keep most of the member states working within NATO to bolster European Security. Deterrence works.

Another interpretation was that NATO had over reacted and some would suggest that NATO was actually being aggressive.  And given the fact that the French were going to leave NATO - again! - was the first sign of the break-up of NATO. 

After the game, I spoke to Johan, and he was definitely of the opinion that the latter interpretation was correct. My counter was that I had already agreed with the EU that NATO would hold joint training and exercises with its Security Forces. I was going to work on adding the EU as a NATO member. But that was all to come.

Offside Review - from Johan

I can only report what I remember of the conversation I had with Johan. He might disagree or remember things differently. This is my recollection of what was said a the Hand and Marigold pub later that evening.

He had hoped to take advantage of a hesitant and disunited NATO to raise tensions in the Baltics and then attack. He also told me he had a letter from Vance telling him that POTUS was not that much bothered by Europe, so long a Russia stuck to its story of trying to restore Mother Russia to her previous borders.

A strong and united NATO had persuaded him not to intervene militarily in the Baltics. So their second strategy was to wind up the NATO nations, to pick them off one by one. (I had realised this is what he was doing - thus my Summit Meeting and my metaphorical fist-banging the table NAC meeting). He succeeded, with Lithuania - the Chinese bought them. Other nations were doing side deals etc. etc.

So even though I managed to organise Baltic Defence, it was unnecessary, was seen to be unnecessary and played into the narrative the Russians were peddling to their stooges. 

My take away

This for me is the lesson of this game. 

Some of the players saw the game as a transactional game. They could win status and position by making side deals, by splitting NATO etc. I heard at second hand, and in one case directly, that a few players were a bit bored and decided to raise the tensions of the game by deploying their forces.

We have politicians like this and wannabe politicians like this. They are transactional. They see everything as a business deal or something you can negotiate for your advantage.

They don't see that personal gain, personal favours, and favours for your elite domestic backers will result in a fractured, unstable, and poorer place for eventually everyone who lives on this globe.

If you don't get that, I hope you remember to put those exploding chips into the necks of your mercenary guards in your bunkers.  

 

................................................

 

* At some point in the game I remember asking my assistants to split the member states between them in their negotiations. 

So when we had a NATO wide proposal they could go to their contacts and get a reaction. I did this for one event, I forget which, and at the end of the game I found that the players were still working like this. 

It was excellent team work. I had little involvement in how or what they did. They just got on with it and found me when they thought I needed to hear something.

Funeral Games II - The Plight of Perdiccas

I was Perdiccas in the Megagame* "Funeral Games II", played in London, on the 22nd November 2014.

Perdiccas was the Regent of the Two Kings and the titular inheritor of Alexander the Great's power. Alexander died suddenly in Babylon aged 32, just after conquering vast territories, stretching from Greece to India and from Egypt to Bactria. Unfortunately Perdiccas was not the most popular choice for the post. He got the post because he was the most senior of Alexander's generals at the death bed scene. His big rivals were Craterus, somewhere in Asia Minor, and Antipater, somewhere in Macedonia.

It is unusual for me to get such a senior role in a megagame. I have an inkling of why I was chosen for this post. I was chosen so I would fail. Well let me put it a different way: the historical Perdiccas failed because he was not the most popular choice and because he tried to rule by dictate and ordering people about. He was not a good political operator, perhaps a good general, but not able to negotiate, and broker deals like a politician. And eventually he was murdered by his Generals when he has made one too many mistakes. I think I am not a strong leader and would thus recreate history.

I was aware of my destiny with history. And I was aware that my fellow Generals and other players would probably have briefs to dislike, or distrust me.

My game objectives, given to me by the game designer in my game briefing:

• Issue strong and clear commands to your subordinates across the Empire.
• Regain control of the Empire, especially the frontier provinces
• Employ someone at an early stage to do a financial appreciation
• Decide on the outcome of the Athenian Appeal against the Exiles Decree
• Marry into the Royal Family if at all possible
• Ensure the survival of the two Kings unless it makes more sense to ask the Macedonian Assembly for ultimate power.
• Do all you can to repay Eumenes for his loyalty

Now I am firmly in the school of Megagame players who honour their player objectives, even if my game-playing brain is saying better you do something not in your character's brief. Perhaps this is the other reason why I was selected for this senior role: the designer trusted that I would try to follow my brief and not get clever and start to develop a clever political strategy to survive. Megagame designers are very keen on getting the players' casting right. It is probably the most important decisions they take to cast players into roles that means that the strengths or weaknesses of the historical characters are mirrored by the personality of the players.

I decided after a little reading around the history of the time (Wikipedia!) that the key to my brief were the first two objectives. Perdiccas had tried to rule the Empire like he would an Army. I give strong clear orders. I was concerned with the entire Empire, not my little patch of power in Persia. If I was sensible and a gamer I would have started brokering deals with my subordinates and rivals and started to limit my ambitions to perhaps control the provinces around me in central Persia. I would have been less of a Regent, and more of a survivor.

But as I said, the briefing informs how I will play the game. I am not one of those armchair wargaming generals who thinks they have thought up some fantastic strategy and want to try to do better than the historical counterpart. One of my great joys in playing in Megagames is that it enables me experience as near as I can what it is like to be in Command, or to be a General etc. 

In this game I was overwhelmed. I tried to meld a team of inexperienced players (for several their first megagame) into a team that ran my operations, my intelligence and my logistics. But this was difficult. One player would not cooperate and gave me a lot of stress. The others were hesitant and coming to me for every decision that I had hoped they might get on with. And then I had all those loyal subordinate generals, in far flung provinces, sending messages, requests, suggestions, whinges, accusations, and admonishments. Often in the game I had a queue of players waiting for their ten seconds worth with me. 

If I was a more focused player, a more calculating player I might have coped better with this. As it was I was overwhelmed. I started to narrow my focus, crisis manage from one input to the next. Occasionally I wanted to take control - go and negotiate with a player - and my arm was jostled, my elbow gripped and another player asking to talk to me.

And this for me was an interesting lesson in the failures of leaders in history. Some people can and have excelled in leadership. And I - and others - do not. I cannot dismiss and ignore people, and talk to only those I want to. I find it difficult to keep in my mind's eye my objectives and aims. I get pushed and pulled by the immediacy of events, requests, conversations etc. And this led me to make the mistake that would become my fatal mistake.

My mistake was to allow the betrothed princess Eurydice to come to Babylon and marry Philip III of Macedon, the idiot half brother of Alexander the Great. I thought it would mean I would control one of the royal princesses and it would give me another thing to trade. However, soon after her arrival she secretly married Philip. She apologised and looked innocent. I believed her and forgave her. She then took control of Philip, and I lost some "Legitimacy points". She apologised and looked innocent. I believed her and forgave her. And then she set off with the funeral cortege of Alexander - without my knowing, without my permission and with nothing I could do about it.  

I got angry - well more of a role-play anger - and had a few shouts at people. But I realised that the bindings of my Regency were becoming frayed and undone. When the body of Alexander was buried in Alexandria, Egypt, I saw red. I denounced Ptolemy as an outlaw and asked all to turn their hands to defeating and capturing him, with intention of moving Alexander's body to Macedon for a proper burial.

As I was making my speech to the 
Macedonian Assembly... 
I was assassinated by 
Peithon and Puecestes. 

And then... well it all went wrong. My armies marched, some generals hung around, some slunk away and only a couple came with me. I had to leave most of my loyal supporters in Babylon looking after operations and watching the other generals. I came a cropper at the Nile, a flood took away part of my army and my subordinates lost faith in me. Grasping at papyrus reeds I took the opportunity to attend a Macedonian Assembly in Alexandria. I made my case about the outlaw Ptolemy, there were strong words said, accusations etc. Eventually the Assembly voted out my declaration of outlawry of Ptolemy and then I was stabbed in the back by my generals Peithon and Peucestes.

And as the blades went in I said: "thank f**k for that, I can get a cup of tea now." My games was over, what a relief.

And this was the other insight that the game brought. Towards the end of my game I realised that all was failing, and that it was only a matter of time before I was stripped of all my power by my rivals. So I did something I could do - I took control of a field army and marched, giving distinct, clear and strong orders to march and fight and get that outlaw Ptolemy. I was so out of control of the political situation that I decided to roll the "iron dice of war" and take control of an army on campaign. If you sometime wonder why generals do foolish things in history, like march to the attack when their support is ebbing, I had my answer. When all goes to sh** you start to focus on doing things you can control.

A great game, even if I was backstabbed. 

I learnt a lot about myself, and about command and leadership. And confirmed that I am no leader of men. I make a good staff officer, a loyal subordinate. I am one of the world's NCOs.

* A Megagame is a game about a conflict that involved teams arranged in hierarchies. It usually involves about 30 to 50 players, some rarer games having 150 players. If requires people skills more than tactical or strategic knowledge. It requires that the players talk to each other, cooperate within their team, seek information about the enemy and negotiate, make alliances and political deals.