ABC News Transcript
ABC News covered the story of our game on the 21st September 2006. Here's a transcript of the interview we gave them via email...
ABC: How did you develop the idea for a *board game* rather than, say, a computer game? Economics? Expertise? Or did it just seem funnier, and - because of Risk - more pertinent?
We were running a web design company and built into the way we work, we took off a day a fortnight to work on "special projects" - that is to say, things that weren't directly linked to making websites - just to keep ourselves fresh and creative. If they took us away from the computer screen, that was a bonus.
The first of these special projects was 'War on Terror'. We also loved the old fashioned idea of bringing people together round the table to experience something and interact. There's far too little of that.
Economics? You've got to be joking...
ABC: How did you go about raising the money for production? And I hate to ask this, but there's not any political involvement, is there? No Respect Party funding or anything like that? I presume not, but have to ask anyhow... Thanks for understanding.
No political involvement at all - we wouldn't take their money even if they offered it. We found a few private investors whose prime interest was seeing this thing get made. They just loved the idea.
ABC: You mention Shareholders - any plans to take the company public?
See response to "economics" above. Everyone seems to think that "boardgame designer = millionaire". I don't know how that myth got started... Probably because of Monopoly. That's paper money, people! It's not real!
ABC: Have you had many orders from the US?
At the time of writing, about 15% from the US. The most extreme reactions have come from the States, it seems. It's really a divided land, isn't it? Americans either *love* it or *loathe* it.
ABC: This too is a bit of a provocative question, but one that I'll probably have to address in the piece... You say the message of the game is that terror is a tactic, not an ideology...
Um, we're not saying we disagree with this, but we don't think we ever said that. Our game isn't about legitimising terrorism, it's about de-legitimising war. In fact it's critical of any approach of that involves violence to achieve political aims.
ABC: ... Sure - that's not too controversial. I'd say that even the Spectator signs up to that these days. But the nature of the game is that players sponsor "terror groups" to attack other empires, but who then turn on them. Obviously one of the things this is getting at is the CIA's backing of the mujahadeen in the 1980s. But in linking this to present day issues, such as Iran's backing for Hezbollah, and - perhaps - Saudi Arabia's fitful and unofficial backing of Al Qaeda, is there not a danger of being accused of creating a false moral equivalence?
Are you trying to suggest that the CIA made a single error of judgement and that this was 25 years ago anyway, so what does it matter?
You don't have to look far to find examples of 'western' interference resulting in the creation or instatement of a dictator or a corrupt regime. Venezuela, Guatamala, Iran ... I could go on.
While the CIA helping to train and fund Osama is a clear and obvious example, our game isn't trying to point the finger at this one event, nor - I should stress - at America. We simply want to show that if you meddle in affairs elsewhere and you put your own interests above the wellbeing and human rights of others, well then you shouldn't be surprised when that act comes back and bites you on the ass in what ever form.
And what is "moral equivalence" anyway? We've had this from a couple of American websites and we've not heard the phrase over here. It seems that we would call "moral equivalence" "pointing out hypocrisy", which I can't see as a bad thing.
It's as if, by labelling something, you can easily dismiss it as sophistry. I certainly don't want to get into a moral argument but when everyone's fighting for "hearts and minds" and Bush claims that all he knows about the inmates of camp X-ray is that "they are all bad men", well the terrain has been drawn up on moral ley lines. We can't get away from morals and this notion of "good" and "bad". So forgive us for using this argument to expose inconsistant application of those morals.
ABC: ... After all, the Americans will argue that the CIA-sponsored mujahadeen incorporated not only Talibanic elements but also the moderates who went on to become the Northern Alliance. They will say that the muj were fighting a Soviet occupation and truly unrepresentative government. In contrast, the Taliban today are fighting what is - in Kabul at least - an apparently pretty representative elected government.
"Apparently" is the key word here.
ABC: Similarly, in Iraq, the Al Qaeda elements and the insurgency seems to be killing a lot more Iraqi voters than US soldiers.
That seems to be a common myth about Iraq, from reports we've seen it appears that around two thirds of the attacks are aimed to US soldiers. Just last month a US Defense Department official confirmed:
"The insurgency has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels. The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than at any point in time."
- but everyone wants to portray Iraq as nothing more than squabbling factions. It seems to us that life is pretty miseriable for both US soldiers and the Iraqi population.
ABC: And then there's Hezbollah, which does not have too many seats in the Lebanese government, but - through Iranian funding - was able to effectively hijack the entire state and lead it into a devastating war with Israel...
As with everything there are many ways at looking at these events. The Israeli/Lebanon conflict, for example, was only started by Hezbollah kidnapping Israeli soldiers if that's where your timeline begins.
I'm not sure we should get into this level of detail. Other people would see that kidnapping as a *response* to previous acts of agression/state terrorism by Israel (funded and supported by the USA, if that matters).
However, we're board game designers and not historians, or political scientists or economists. While these issues obviously interest us, we don't want to put ourselves forwards as "we have the answer". Because we don't. We just have questions - and they're questions that we don't see being discussed too often.
ABC: Anyhow, the upshot is effectively this: your critics are going to accuse you of oversimplifying things in the game and creating this false moral equivalence. I'm almost certainly going to have to put in a voice of somebody saying something along the above lines, and I would like to have a rebuttal of that I could also put in.
Accusing a board game of oversimplifying a complex issue like terrorism... we would plead guilty.
It's not meant as a political treatise. But as satirical entertainment. That said, we believe it presents the issues in a more open and ambiguous way than the way they are often presented to us in the news.
There's no black or white, "you're either with them or against them". I think by erasing that line between the two camps, we've at least put a question mark at the end of that statement.
If it's still too simplistic, there's our website, which might hopefully carry on the debate. But yes, at the end of the day, it's a game and not a soapbox for our world theories.
ABC: Do you think there's more demand for such a game now than there would have been a few years ago? Every poll that comes out seems to show the British public getting more and more hacked off with the Bush administration. Do you think this makes it a more fertile environment for the game?
I think there's less patience for wars and death and tragedy from both the UK and American public - thankfully - over the last five or six years. At the same time, the risk of terrorism at 'home' has definitely increased and - just in Iraq - terrorism has reached astonishing daily levels. So yes I think some people are very glad this came has come into being. It's a kind of an "enough is enough" statement.
ABC: How did you come up with, "Fight the Long War in an Evening?". Brilliant.
Thanks. But that was the easy bit.
ABC: How long does the average game take to play?
2 hours plus. It really depends on how many people play and what they're like. If you play with six devious, power-hungry individuals, you're in for a late night. I'd like to take this opportunity to challenge both George Bush and Tony Blair to a game. They wouldn't be able to win because of the negative PR. We'd have them over a barrel.
ABC: - I know this is a silly question, but nevertheless: you're in Cambridge... Any interest/ input from any dons? (Having lived in Cambridge I know there's far more to it than just the university, but still, living in America one has to ask questions like these.)
As far as we know, no dons are involved - or harmed - in making this game.
ABC: - Any estimate of roughly how much you spent altogether in getting the game from conception to the shelves?
We've been very careful to pass the risk onto others. Hence the investors. Personally, we've just spent far too many evenings and weekends on it.