Biases in Simulation Video Games

Orsonwarcry writes "Kieron Gillen went to Prague to speak to Bohemia Interactive, known best for Operation Flashpoint. He goes on to discuss the effects of bias on simulation games. 'In other words, a simulation is never just a simulation. Equally, freedom is rarely actually free of designer- imposed desires. Even in games with the most self-expressed mandates of "choice" for the gamer, it doesn't mean that there isn't a message. In Deus Ex, the generally politically liberal Ion Storm Austin created a world where you could choose between violence and pacifistic approaches, but the charismatic characters urged you towards peace while the monsters suggested violence.'" Some interesting stuff in there.

Comments

Limitations of technology

[mfloy]

I don't think we should expect games to be perfect simulations. The designers are dealing with fixed resources and obviously need to make limits in places. We shouldnt expect game simulations to be on par with academic or scientific ones. Games are for fun, not perfection.

Re:Bias in the player too?

[eln]

Personally, I find it disturbing that they would suggest that preferring peace over violence is a "liberal" trait, suggesting that a conservative person will prefer a violent solution over a peaceful one.

Good Call

[stoolpigeon]

Everybody is 'biased'. In fact a better word might be that everyone has a perspective. (A little less pejorative) The creator and the player both bring things to the game, conciously or uncounciously. This is why interaction with others is so valuable. It allows you to gain access to other perspectives.

There is bias in almost everything

[ReformedExCon]

However, with exception of when we deliberately seek out bias, it is pretty much irrelevant. We play games because they are fun. Whether the game designer has some ulterior motive or not is only important as far as it affects the playability of the game. Good games succeed, bad games fail.

To argue that bias somehow affects the player subliminally, influencing the player towards the bias of the game designer, is to say that people are influenced significantly by what they play or see. However, I have to reject this, from my own experience. I have known many people who play violent video games such as Grand Theft Auto and its ilk who have no inclination to go out and commit those crimes shown in the game.

Bias is inherent in any human action. To make it a central pillar of a video game is foolish because it is uninteresting to anyone not interested in it. Game makers, for the most part, sublimate their biases and focus on gameplay. Whether they succeed or not is debatable, of course.

Re:There is bias in almost everything

[sparty]

To argue that bias somehow affects the player subliminally, influencing the player towards the bias of the game designer, is to say that people are influenced significantly by what they play or see. However, I have to reject this, from my own experience. I have known many people who play violent video games such as Grand Theft Auto and its ilk who have no inclination to go out and commit those crimes shown in the game.

Bias is inherent in any human action. To make it a central pillar of a video game is foolish because it is uninteresting to anyone not interested in it. Game makers, for the most part, sublimate their biases and focus on gameplay. Whether they succeed or not is debatable, of course.

Actually, it does matter. Claiming that games perpetuate subtle biases is extremely different from claiming that games cause people to dramatically change their outlooks with regard to morality and violence, and the argument that most people who played the original GTA didn't go around trying to set monks on fire is irrelevant to the question of more subtle biases.

Continuing with the GTA line of though, let's suppose that a game very similar to GTA exists but has real cars (IIRC, the original GTA used fake names to avoid trade name issues, and I assume that's still the case). Let's further consider that it has both Volkswagen Jettas and Ford Focuses as in-game options. In the game, the Jetta provides more gokart-like handling (i.e. more nimbler and quicker) while the Focus is more "solid" and better at handling damage (e.g. pedestrians have less of a tendency to knock you off course). As someone who plays GTA frequently, you are quite likely to internalize the preconceptions that the Jetta is more nimble while the Focus rides more solidly and handles damage better, because that's the way the game is programmed. On the other hand, the real-world incarnations of the Focus and the Jetta (for the 2005 model year) are the reverse--the Focus is a lighter car and arguably better-handling, while the Jetta is heavier and has a better crash rating.

Now, consider the same issue with regard to sexual orientation as treated in the Sims 2, according to the article--the game treats gender identification and sexual orientation as freely made choices, and it allows them to be made without the full barrage of results that occur in the real world. Play that game enough, and it would be quite natural to internalize the idea that those elements of identity are conscious choices (which is contrary to most opinions in the real world--even those who reject genetics as an influence on sexual orientation tend to support extended "treatment" programs to encourage those whose sexual orientation upsets their agendas, implying an agreement that it is not a conscious choice).

In summary, I think it is not the central themes of a game that present a danger but the details; just as non-politically-correct jokes can create a hostile environment, those details can add up to an internalization of biases that may not even be conscious in the developers' minds. And those unconscious biases can be among the most difficult biases to confront in a society--a courageous DA can, with the support of good cops and a crime lab, track down a jackass burning crosses all over town. But it's going to be a lot harder to erase the perception amongst the citizens that a certain ethnic group is shiftless or prone to stealing.

In good games, the bias is towards fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes this means more balanced opponents where the real world is mostly imbalanced. The real world is mostly boring, unjust, and ultimately pointless. Very accurate simulations would not make good gaming. Save the pacifism for the real world, I doubt it would make for good gaming. Good vs evil, Cowboys vs Indians, all the war games we played as kids before computers are simulations of a real world tweaked towards having a little fun, not enlightening or about changing the real world.

Conflict is interesting

[xMilkmanDanx]

Bias introduces conflict and can be a source of tension and involvement with the game. A perfectly unbiased game would be perfectly boring. A game needs a challenge and motivation, which means a biased view.

Re:World View

[kryptx]

Why is anyone surprised?

Video games are simulations of some reality, either real or imagined. When a simulation is actually created by a person, it must be created by a person who is familiar with the experience (or the simulation will bear no resemblance thereto) and is therefore necessarily restricted to that person or people's perception of the experience.

Why would we expect anything different?

Part of the problem

[Iriel]

If you would call it a problem at all is that you can't really have people write a script for just about anything that is truly unbiased. Most everybody is incapable of completely detaching themselves from something to the point of having no bias when creating it.

Besides, the example of a video game having bias despite free choice is sort of a backwards one. Without some slant to it, there wouldn't be any real esacape element to playing the game. Do players want to be presented with a mulitude of choices from different characters who seem completely abivalent as to the outcome? Bias (while being unhealthy in gargantuan quantities) is what provides flavor in a lot of these simulation games. Otherwise, with no bias, you would have an online chatroom because the majority of people wouldn't know what do to with the simulation in question.

It really depends on what you're trying to simulate.

Re:World View

[AKAImBatman]

It is impossible to do almost anything without betraying some part of ones world view. This is true in every day life, doubly so in things that people create.

Arguably, the entire point of fine arts is to explore someone else's worldview. While Video Games may have a long way until they can be considered "fine arts", they are just as much about allowing you to explore the author's worldview as a book or movie. Perhaps even more-so, because the author must craft a universe that is entertaining to be in.

To do this he may have to create a caricature universe that enhances certain aspects while de-enhancing others. For example, if I'm playing a Sci-Fi video game I expect everything to be Sci-Fi-ish. All doors slide, everything hovers, metal and plastics everywhere, etc. This is despite the fact that a more reasonable look at the future would conclude that swinging doors and wheels aren't likely to disappear at all.

Creative works are creative works. If you want to complain about simulations, go complain about an F-22 Raptor sim allowing you to an impossible barrel roll. ;-)

PC in PC games stands for... ?

[moz25]

I don't see why the PC has to stand for "politically correct". That is: it is unreasonable to demand that games are free of any bias with regard to strategy. Most comparisons for games that have been going around are the convergence of games and movies... that is: you are "in" a movie. It can hardly be argued that movies lack any bias in terms of the strategy to handle trouble.

The only situation in which bias is obviously a bad thing is when bias is labeled as fact.

Chicken or the Egg?

[Valdrax]

The article alleges that violent approaches are suggested by characters meant to be seen as "monsters" while pacifistic approaches are suggested by characters meant to be seen as "charismatic," but is this a case of character actions coloring your perception of the character?

Would the "monsters" be seen as monsters if they did not encourage violence, and would the "charismatic" ones be thought of so well if they did not work towards non-violence? If the characters switched goals, then wouldn't they also switch descriptions applied to them?

Biases even in Civilization

[naoursla]

It is much easier to win a game of Civilization using diplomacy or doing the space race than it is to conquer the world. Does this mean that Sid has been pushing his pacifist ideals on us for the past decade? The game also has pretty severe penalties for using nuclear weapons. I suppose that is part of a liberal agenda too. And don't get me started on how you absolutely have to put resources into science research to have a remote chance to win the game.

No bias

[Tony]

Even if a game were unbiased, the author (or almost anyone else) would see bias, based on their own biases.

"Bias" is a word often used in place of, "thinks differently than me."

Re:World View

[Iriel]

And the point of games is to get away from reality. In the article's point on war 'simulations' not being at all like military simulators (and they aren't, I've used both), it fails to mention that even a game that's based on reality doesn't have to be unbiased facts of reality. Otherwise, I'd be leaving my job to play someone else's. How would it look on the other side of the mirror?

I can just see the new 'real simulation games' in the military. As some guys come back to their barracks from the field

"Hey guys, Have you checked out the new previews for Cubicle Explorer? I can't wait for that game to come out."

lame

[mnemonic_]

Here's a summary of the article:

• Humans are biased
• Humans make video games
• Games are unrealistic, biased and immersive

Honestly, who knew?

It's interesting that he only mentions one real sim in his entire article (Operation Flashpoint).

Re:World View

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Think "Deep Space 9" Holosuite, where Sisko didn't like to use the lounge program that was set in the 1940s because the racism that was so prevelent at the time was nowhere to be found. He thought that it was insulting because the creators of the program were trying to pretend that said racism never happened.

Re:World View

[kryptx]

But when you say "objective replication" you are expecting an unrealistic level of research into every element of reality. No person (or group of people) has a thorough enough understanding of every facet of reality to adequately simulate it.

And even if we did, there are psychological factors like the base-rate theory that prevent us from always seeing things the way they are. The conclusion isn't that true, authentic simulations are impossible, it's that the human mind is incapable of creating them.

Re:World View

[Pentavirate]

It's much like how journalism is an objective view of events.

In support of the parent's point, I'd submit to you that your sentence would be more accurate if you'd said "It's much like how journalism is supposed to be an objective view of events.

Even a journalist with the best intentions implants his/her viewpoint into a story. Usually it's not blatant. It's in where the opposing view appears in the article. Is it near the title or only at the end or on the next page where most people don't read. It's in what information is put in as well as what information is deemed unimportant and left out. I submit that it is impossible to not interject your own values in any created work.

Re:Was Jesus a liberal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Although Jesus's ideas were as liberal as they come, his apostles' views are another story. It is these views that are espoused by conservative evangelicals.

Perfect analogy

[GunFodder]

Journalism is an excellent analogy to simulations. The goal of both is to deliver a perfect copy of the actual event or situation. It is impossible to achieve this goal since both simulations and journalistic endeavors (such as newspaper articles and TV segments) must contain less info than the original event or situation. Reporters bias their output by deciding which facts are most important to their audience. Simulators bias their output similarly, by weighting factors that seem most relevant to their audience. Objectivity is only important if its appearance is a factor to the audience.

Re:Bias in the player too?

[pete-classic]

I disagree with your apparent assumption that war and violence are interchangeable. Clearly, violence doesn't disappear if one side of a conflict abandons it. To the contrary; the violence could become more devastating in that case.

Furthermore, one can make a strong argument that abortion, harvesting stem cells, and euthanasia are violent acts.

(For the record, I'm a libertarian. I do support the criminalization of abortion. I don't think that government should sponsor stem cell research. Euthanasia is a complex topic, but I don't have any sweeping objection.)

-Peter

Re:Was Jesus a liberal?

[Txiasaeia]

"He was so passive that he let himself be killed."

This isn't exactly true. He wasn't so passive that he refused to admit that he was, in fact, God. This was ultimately what led him to be crucified, the charge of blasphemy.

And I wouldn't exactly call him a passive liberal; if anything, he was a social activist that refused to resort to violence. He worked on the Sabbath (big no-no), taught his followers to turn the other cheek/cloak/walk further with a Roman soldier (actively rebelling against authority by willingly giving up goods & temporary liberty), befriended prostitutes and tax collectors (like befriending lepers today), and inspired a schism in the dominant religion.

He was "liberal" in the sense that he fought against the status quo, but I can't see anything in his actions that could be defined as "passive."

Re:World View

[operagost]

The irony is that, in today's PC world, a holosuite designer who DID create an accurate portrayal of racism in 1940s America would be labeled as a racist who glorified prejudice.

Re:interesting

[jdgeorge]

Usually, it is those pushing for violence that are the most charismatic, and the easiest to follow. Finding the peaceful route is always the hardest, and usually least popular.

Real peace can be acheived not through "violence", but through proper application of force. However, history shows that peace certainly cannot be achieved through the so-called "harder to follow... peaceful path" you advocate.

In fact, if I were half the man I think I am, I'd take you outside and beat some sense into you. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Re:World View

[xnot]

That's pretty funny, that you think journalism (or any other human endevour for that matter) is objective.

As an experiment, let me see if I can explain. Consider the statement "The cat ran out the door." A very simple statement. Should be basically objective, right? Now watch this. "Run" assumes a speed. Speed assumes a relationship to some other speed, either rest or whatever. It's very possible in my reality then that I think the cat is walking out the door. It's not all that fast. Somebody could measure the cat's speed compared against the ground, I guess. But then how fast is the cat moving in relationship to the Earth's speed? Moving on from that, "cat" should be pretty objective. But what if I'm used to calling cats "gerbils" from where I come from and the customs there? Or, what if I think something specific, and are not used to generalizing a "cat" as being similar to something else? Or one better, what if my brain is wired such that the air around the cat is more interesting to me then the cat itself, so I don't even see the cat as the thing moving, but rather the air?

I know what you're saying at this point- that I'm making all this stuff up as a deperate ploy to prove my point. But think about it. If I don't know what to focus on, I can't determine what "cat" means.

All words do is establish an agreed-upon meaning. Meaning = focused energy. One word is meaningless without other words surrounding it and giving it focus. Mearly by using words at all, you are actually creating reality, rather then observing it.

The failure to understand that everything humans do is subjective is the major cause for most of the suffering in this world. People assume their way is the right way because they don't give other people the opportunity to explain their own perception of the same experience.

Pigeonholes

[SeanDuggan]

How about abandoning all the terms and simply identifying yourself by your views? The whole "Ah, you oppose abortion, so you must be pro-death-penalty and a warmongerer" line drives me batty. I don't identify myself as a conservative. I don't identify myself as a liberal. I identify myself as a human. With issues. Big issues sometimes, but that's a long story and a lot of therapy...

Seriously though, if it weren't bad enough that people will try to pigeonhole others with these terms, so many people pigeonhole themselves too! "Well, I'm against the war in Iraq. That would make me a liberal. Does that really mean that I have to consider "Piss Christ" to be a work of art?" Great googly-moogly, people! Find where you stand. Stand there. Don't call names, whether it's at yourself or others.

Re:Bias in the player too?

[radish]

It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion
I believe that the invasion of Iraq was tantamount to mass murder, however I don't have any right to prevent my tax money paying for it. Will the LP help me? I believe that the death penalty IS murder, again my tax money pays for the process - where do they stand on that? I'll admit to not knowing a lot about the LP, but I hope they can at least be consistent.

For the record, I'm for the criminalization of wife-beating too.
I think you'll find assualt is already illegal.

What about bias about religion?

[emarkp]

Why is it that religion (when present at all) is always presented as evil? The most egregious example I've seen was Homeworld: Cataclysm. I avoided that game because when I was reading up on the story it seemed that the enemy was entirely motivated by religious zealotry. (Indeed, one of the enemies in Homeworld was attacking because of the "desecration" of the system by the ship's mere presence.)

From what little I've seen of Halo 2 (not much), it also looks like religion plays a driving role for the enemy.

Religion is a factor for good in many people's lives. Yet I can't think of any time it's presented that way in games. It's either absent or evil.

Interestingly, part of my wife's Masters project at library school was to analyze the presentation of religion in fiction, and it's often the same: either religion isn't mentioned or it's bad. Granted, there seem to be improvements recently (last 10 years), so maybe there's hope for video games as well.

Re:What about bias about religion?

[Confessed Geek]

While I rather agree with the reply before mine, let me try this one on.

Happy, calm, non-violent, introspctive, non-zelous religion is relativly boring. It doesn't move plots or provide an explanation for non-rational behavior on the part of "bad-guys." Thus it is of very little use to someone trying to produce an exciting, tension filled story.

A dangerous, brain washing, intolerant, violent, faith based, religion however makes a perfect foil for a protaganist. It covers a multitude of sins as the author/designer can attribute any outrageous action the "bad-guys" need to make to some obscure quirk of their faith.

Finally I think the authors are just being responsible. Religion is a very very powerful force, and must be handled with care. Being a self sustaining and propgating meme cluster, it has defenders and advocates of its own. It has it's own literature/novles/stories that portrays it in a positive light (Bible, Quran, Gita, Torah, Analects, Tao-te-jin etc) which are over all read far more than any other literature. I think those who are not carriers of a particular religious meme intuit that their needs to be a counter balance if if their own memes are to survive. History has shown again and again exactly how BAD a single dominant religion is for both a culture and its populous. So to help keep themselves and other safe they produce the other side of the story to help innoculate others.

Good people don't need religion as a reason to be good. They may find a version of religion that suits their temperment and morals, but their religious choice is a symptom of their nature, not the reverse.

However, a morally weak person could go either way. If they are lost and looking for guidance and they find a "good" religion then it might help them act morally and in accordance with their cultures norms. However if they are "weak" the faith that will probably apeal to them most is a "strong" religion - non compromising, demanding, faith based, assertive, popular, controlling and comprehensive. Once they bond with this meme they can have authorative answers, and be strong in the justification for their acts. As they are weak, and were drawn to the religion for its strength they will need to be reassured of its strength / expunged of their weakness by proving its strengh by proselytising / running inquisitions/ handing out literature/ burning heretics/ enacting legislation etc.

Who's biased?

[BaudKarma]

In Deus Ex, the generally politically liberal Ion Storm Austin created a world where you could choose between violence and pacifistic approaches, but the charismatic characters urged you towards peace while the monsters suggested violence.

Okay, why did the author of the article find some characters "charismatic", while others struck him as "monsters"? Doesn't that reaction say as much about his bias as it does about the game itself?

Re:World View

[Salgak1]

IF he portrayed it as evil. . . it wouldn't be a true simulation. Back then, racism wasn't something to be fought, it was pretty much a fairly basic assumption of the culture in question. . . You want to accurately simulate a period, you're pretty much going to have to get your head LIVING in that period. The current predjudices and assumptions of early 21st Century America are likely to be questioned. . .and considered questionable. . . in the decades and centuries to follow. . .

Re:interesting

[wgaryhas]

And how many years after Christ's death did this start occurring? (hint: long enough for His teachings to be perverted)

Re:Bias in the player too?

[SyncNine]

Just because this needs to be said, and it's not specifically direct at you, per se, but all MALE Pro-Lifers out there.

How can ANY Male *EVER* even begin to think for EVEN JUST A SECOND that he has any idea how hard the decision for a woman to have an abortion is?

How can ANY MALE, who cannot/will not ever conceive a child and hold it in their womb EVER decide what a WOMAN can and cannot do with HER egg?

I'm against Pro-life. Call me Pro-Death or Pro-Choice, I don't care.

It's not up for me to decide whether a woman can or cannot kill her fetus. It is up to the woman. Until that baby has a brain and some semblance of 'person' in it (which iirc is the Third Trimester), it's not a person to me. But again, it's also NOT MY DECISION.

It aggravates me that men will step up and decide for women everywhere without even thinking for a second that there is no possible way for them to ever understand what they are deciding.

And before someone starts flaming and telling me 'KILLING IS KILLING YOU MURDERER'... Keep in mind that is YOUR OPINION. Just as this is MY OPINION. Unborn fetuses are NOT PEOPLE (in my mind) until the third trimester. Hence, Pro-Choice.

The joy of my viewpoint is that it allows the WOMAN the choice to do what she feels is right. As she, ultimately, is the one who will be dealing with the ramifications of her choice, I believe it is she, ultimately, who should DECIDE.

Re:Bias in games

[RogueyWon]

In fact, now that I think about it, you can go even further than this. All three of the endings to Deus Ex are essentially "small government" endings.

*SPOILERS*

Option 1 is that you restore the Illuminati to power. They reshape the world's social structures to how they were in the mid/late 20th century. National governments are re-established, but the international bodies have their wings clipped. The Illuminati watch over this, but avoid direct involvement. This is, roughly speaking, the ending most favourable for a free-market capitalist. This is the ending I chose.

Option 2 is that you destroy the world's centralised computer network and usher in a new dark age. National and international governments collapse. This is essentially an anarchist ending.

Option 3 is that you hand over control of the world to the Helios AI. The AI assumes the role of an international government, managing security and distribution of resources. Other than that, humanity is left to its own devices. This ending is essentially techno-utopian. A lot of my fairly apolitical nerd friends went for this ending.

The biggest groups left "disenfranchised" here are probably social-democrats and Communists. There's no option to usher in any kind of human-run world-government. No option to push the world onto the path of socialism. You could argue that the Helios route might bring this about through other channels, but you'd be going beyond what's said in the game there.

That would be because. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

the geeks who make games have reason to dislike religion.

Those who argue 'the good side' of religion are ALWAYS thinking through severe myopia. Look around you; World War III is currently igniting on a global scale entirely because of religion. Geek game designers, despite their own over-reactionary limiting biases, (against spirituality), are smart enough to recognize the tom-fool sham that religion is.

So YES, it's going to appear in the media they create.

I find it interesting that fiction writers, (that is, people who have learned how to think effectively enough to be able to write a book), are also generally aware that religion is for chumps.

I hope that doesn't sound too harsh, but honestly, religion takes a few good points from spiritual philosophy and warps them into mind-numbing brain poison designed to enslave and limit.

-FL

Re:interesting

[sporkums]

If you've read the Bible you should know that only a portion of it is actually the teachings of Jesus, and that his message differs radically from the message that precedes it in the Bible. The Jewish laws and the stories of God's people are not always peaceful, but Jesus' message is consistently about peace, compassion... In fact, in one story Jesus prevents a mob from stoning an adulteress, but instructs her to "sin no more." For those who make an honest attempt to interpret the Bible accurately, Jesus inspires peace.

If you're interested or curious, after reading the Bible, check out John Howard Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus."

"Bias" in The Sims

[SveltGastropod]

I find it funny that people have such issues with the way sexual orientation is handled in the Sims, but no one questions that in the game sleeping on a more expensive bed cuts the time you need to sleep in half, that eating more expensive food fills you up quicker, or that bathing in a more expensive tub keeps you clean for longer. Or for that matter, that the only real purpose of friends (at least in the Sims 1) was to further your career. I'm not going to use the term "bias", as it has become a pejorative (like someone else pointed out), but there is definately an implicit ideology: Happiness is a function of the things you own.

Re:Piss Christ

[Maserati]

So because I chose not to write about what the teacher wanted, I got a lesser grade. Should I have just given in to the teacher to get a good grade?

Yes.

An awful lot of our (probably any) educationalal system is teaching conformity. That was the real lesson. If you don't like it, go with hippies (worked for me) or homeschooling. And yes, it does suck mighty hard, cope.

In this case, taxpayer dollars were paid to denigrate my friend's religion, and he took action.

What action ?

Prior to the assignment, however, all topics of research and lecture were about evolution.

Which means your friend went outside of the material covered. This almost always results in low grade and an 'F' is easy to justify. You missed that point entirely. It's not necessarily a question or religion since academic discipline is involved. Frankly, your friend added to the teacher's workload and cost the school a significant amount in legal and administrative expenses. I'll bet you can see 10 things the school needs more money for from your desk in any class. Because your friend didn't want to do the assignment given and made up his own topic (the material covered kid, remember that) your school was disrupted.

A well thought out paper within the guidelines of the assignment. I recieved a 'C', which I could not argue.

I'll take your word for "well thought out". However, I'd suggest posting it as a journal entry. I'll read it.

So because I chose not to write about what the teacher wanted, I got a lesser grade. Should I have just given in to the teacher to get a good grade?

No.

If you'd realized it [1] ahead of time, you'd have committed an act of civil disobedience.

The class act would have been to also do a paper on the actual topic and hand that to your teacher when you get the one on Creationism back. If you can do that and maintain both your and your teacher's dignity, then you get a win and some respect.

[1] I'm a Buddhist. Intent matters. A lot.

Re:Bias in the player too?

[mwvdlee]

If the Czechs had had one third of the stubborn courage the Poles showed, there wouldn't have even been a world war II.

Polish forces did indeed fight with everything they had. Fact of the matter is; they didn't have much. Horse cavalry was indeed used, because that was about the best the polish armies had fighting against tanks and airplanes.

The Polish army were in a tremendous technological disadvantage and the same was true for the Czech army at the time, even combined they wouldn't have been any match at all for the massive metal warmachines invading them.

So whilst it is true the Polish fought hard to defend themselves, making the claims that you do about the Czechs is just plain ridiculous.