"Figure scale vs ground scale" Topic

Captain Snort wrote:
The rear rank would not end up in front. The most common cause of the rear rank ending up in front was if a battalion about faced in an emergency by having each soldier turn in place to face the rear. If the about face to the rear was to be permanent, the battalion would have to countermarch to correct the order and facing of the companies.

CN:
Man, 200 posts on this thread. I agree with most all you said in your Oct. 13 post, except for the above, and this may be the problem. From what I understand Packenham had three columns of infantry infantry, Wallace's brigade on the far left, Campbell's and then the Portuguese. Campbell states that his brigade fromed an open column with a company front, ready to wheel left to support Wallace. Campbell describes Wallace's brigade having a very narrow front. Being the only detailed account at this point, it has always been assumed that Wallace had the same formation, a company front, as Campbell. There are two problems with this. The first is Campbell discribes HIS formation and then says Wallace had a very narrow front, when he should have said the same as my brigade. The second is that Wallace surprised the French by the rapid change of front. Now, the French also wheeled open company columns into line, so why should Wallace's movement supprised them?

The thought is that Wallace actually had a 'two-man front', a line marching to the flank and simply ordered a face left.

The folks I talk with have been discussing this for ages. I am afraid I have forgot that this isn't either 'common knowledge', nor proven for most everyone. Even Rory Muir in his book on Salamanca simply says "It appears Wallace formed…" He still isn't sure. So, IF Wallace were in that line marching to the flank, facing right would have placed the rear rank forward. The line marching to the flank would explain a number of things in the accounts, but it is only indirect evidence at this point.

And yes, if they were in open company columns, the companies could have swung out in either direction, but to the right would have inverted the formation, placing the senior unit on the left.

Why don't rule writers provide their rationale for selecting specific ground scale?

Greg and I/S and others:

The reasons that rules writers don't provide their rationale for specfic ground scale, or anything else for that matter is that:

1. It is a technical question matching historical practices to a set of mechanics, which can't be explained simply--hence the length of this thread, and

2. Historical practices are themselves both complicated, the variety of languages, translations and methods used in just moving men around requires a great deal of explanation.

So, when discussing ground scale, the discussion evolved into discussing a unit footprint, which 'devolved' into a
discussion of troop deployments and maneuvers

Which lead to folks losing sight of the questions and the connections between the issues, which lead to several wanting to end the discussion or drop part of it.

Which is why game designers don't provide rationales.

The most common reason for designer's NOT printing rationales is the cost of printing. Editors or the editing process often cut work down to fit into a specfic set of pages. The printers in the USA prefer groups of 8 for the print run but insist on at least groups of four.

This limits the number of allowable pages. It is not cost effective running over a half page of even page and a half, when you are going to have to pay for four pages (even blank) at least.

This has always been a printing-designer- editing focus even bak in the 1970s when I started designing rules.

Justification or lack of desire to do it is not really an issue. Most designers will be confronted with those questions at conventions and had just as soon have printed them. This is currently a big advantage (being able to explain in depth certain mechanics) with designer blogs on various rules.

Rudy:
The amount of paper space is not really an issue--at all. If designers wanted to, they could provide rationales. And the added 'pages' could be provided very easily. There are designers who DO explain their rationales--but are they emulated or even noticed? Their rules are not more expensive than other rules, or even that many more pages.

The reasons designers don't provide their design rationales, ground scale or otherwise, are:

1. They don't know how to do it suscinctly, for a variety of reasons. A number of designers HAVE taken the time and space to explain their rule rationales, but it doesn't seem to matter, because

2. Such explanations don't sell games. Few gamers have the patience or interest in such things, so when designers do it, it isn't emulated by other designers--it is not seen as valuable. People don't buy designs because the history and physical translations have been explained well.

3. And from what I have heard from designers and others who have talked to designers at conventions and on-line, few seem to be prepared to actually explain their rationales. Many take such questions as if you are questioning their integrity, rather than asking why they designed something the way they did.

Then others write up their rationales in the rules and then in person inexplicably say they don't mean anything and we're just pushing little lead figures around for fun. Why can designers ignore explaining the history in their rules, or worse blow off their own rationales, such as they are?

BECAUSE, as such rationales generally are not asked of designers, designers generally are not prepared to answer the questions other than to say they did lots of research or provide vague responses such as 'they designed for effects' etc. etc. or they just blow off the questions altogether.

I think those designers that DO provide rationales and do take such questions seriously garner huge benefits, but so far, few designers OR gamers have noticed.

TheScotsman,

I had never considered that Wallace could have moved with a 2-man front. This type of movement would have been described at the time as "Marching in File".

Here are 3 reasons why I think that this interpretation is unlikely:

1. The account of Campbell is, I think, that of Captain James Campbell who was the Brigade Major of Wallace's brigade, and not Colonel Campbell who commanded the left brigade, so he is actually describing Wallace's formation when he refers to the open column.

2. William Grattan of the 88th says: "(Pakenham) told Wallace to form line from open column without halting, and thus the different companies, by throwing forward their right shoulders (wheeling up), were in line without the slow manoeuvre of a deployment."

3. Movements in file were difficult to perform without the column lengthening out. Each man would have to move in a depth of 22", which would be quite impossible over such a distance. The Rules and Regulations state: "The march of the battalion in file and without opening out, can hardly be required except in smooth ground, and for the purposes of countermarching, or of closing, or opening an interval in the line."

I hope this is helpful.

Cptn.Snort

Cptn. Snort:

Oh, it is helpful. The account Rory Muir refers to is Brigadier Campbell. And the issue is 1. the time between Gratten's description and the actual movement, and 2. the
Brigadier's comment that Wallace had a narrow front, when he has just stated his brigade was in the very order described by Gratten. Why say Wallace's had a narrow front, when Campbell was the very same formation?

And yes, it would be difficult to move over a distance, but then so would a wheel into line on the march. WHEN such a move was made, even forming line fron an open column, THEN moving to the flank, is an issue.

The French were surprised by the speed that Wallace formed to the flank. They must have done *something* special to surprise the French with their speed as the French were proficient at the same open column/wheeling into line on the flank.

Again, the only reasons to consider a different scenario from Gratten's discription are the inconsistencies in the narratives. Gratten has been questioned as a reliable source, but I have found him both accurate and detailed in is descriptions.

Having said that, there certainly pertinent pros and cons to the argument. And I wasn't suggesting that my take had been proven, only that we had been seriously considering it.

Something else that has just occurred to me, re frontage and ground scale and whatnot, is this.

A 25mm figure – in reality about 28mm tall – who represents a man of average height thus works out at 5mm per foot of height. This was the interpretation placed on what 25mm "means" by Peter Gilder in the Hinchliffe Handbook many years ago.

The frontage of a man in Napoleonic times was 22 inches. On that basis, then, if we want them to look right, each 25mm figure should have a frontage of just over 9mm – i.e. 22 inches in 25mm scale. This is not a function of ground or man/figure ratio, it's the frontage the guy would have if he were one guy in a line of figures accurately scaled down. If you built a diorama of a 600-man unit in 3 ranks using 25mm figures then each file should occupy 9.5mm for your diorama to be accurate.

Relatively few 25mm figures can in fact be crammed into such a narrow space. Elite Miniatures figures have notably small bases so they perhaps could. Hinchliffe 25mm figures certainly couldn't – about 11mm seems to be the minimum.

So even if you somehow resolved the ground and figure scales, you'd still have a visual anomaly, inasmuch as most 25mm figures are too chunky to fit into frontages that are in scale for the size of the figure. I suspect the same would apply to any other scale too.

The Scotsman
I am a rules designer
hammerwargames.co.uk
medievalwargames.co.uk
also Grand campaigns a new neapoleonic system, soon Act of War micro modern, 1914 a Great war rule book. What you say is too much of a generalisation, you cant sumise what 'all' writers think.

II can only give my reasons for not including ground scales. When you boil down a model solder, tabletop wargame rule system to its core, it is a collection of mathematical probabilities a few of which are 'as is' some are driven by the inclusion of a random element, the dice, or drawn cards.

All these probabilities are tied together within bounds that are dictated in the most part by 'the space generally available'. An example would be Napoleonic rules, to do the period justice, rules are mostly aimed at bigger formations where the brigade is the unit on the table. At this level the distances between sub-divisions of a brigade is pretty well irrelevant. As long as the move distances, firing ranges, firing outcomes are commensurate with each other and get results as we would generally consider being reasonable within the framework of the game then minute formation detail is pointless.

The game/rules must be playable within the confines of an average table of 6' x 4' and that's the reality of it. Anything else is fluff to make the minute detail person feel better about the system, it doesn't actually, in mechanism terms, achieve anything. You can talk about ground scale independent of the rest of the mechanisms, but it's the end result that matters, it's all part of the whole experience. So to the probable amazement of some, I never considered ground scales in the way they have been discussed in this thread in any rule set. I looked at a 6' x 4' table and the longest ranged weapon and came to a distance that was playable. Likewise unit base sizes, figures on a base, movement melee and firing. At all times I had one eye on the table size, also the cost to gamers in how many figures they would need for an average game, the of cost of figures and time painting them. The collecting and use of building and terrain is important to scale. All these things come into the equation when writing. Additionally the creation of mechanisms that are different from those that have gone before so the system creates its own feel. I hope that gives an idea of what goes into wargames rules creation. so ground scale is one very small part.

Moving a whole brigade by file marching with a two man frontage is indeed nonsense.
cptn. snort has already adressed the key problem, and thats the lack of space for stepping out.
in line the man did touch the elbow of his neighbour, by facing right in file he would still nearly touch the backpack of his frontman with his chest.
Stepping out when being so close would have meant stepping beyond the footprint left by the frontman.
There was no way to move anything more than a small formation that way, all under perfect paradeground conditions.
cabaret clowns nowadys do occasionally show this kind of movement,it looks quite gay. The French would have laughed their ass off and noone would have reported just a "narrow frontage", all spectators would have had a lot to say about this.

On the other hand stepping out and opening up to normal marching distance would have required to expand the width of the brigade from ca 800 m to 1200 m, and when halting the reversal process.
In other words, the leading man has to march 400 m before the last man starts to move.

All this is not so far of topic from the original thread, what looks great on the gaming table and in the minds of an armchair general all to often is unpracticable in reality.

When discussing formations its allways good to know that the same group of men do need nearly twice as much depth then they do need width.

Scotsman,

I just checked Muir's Salamanca. The account he uses is indeed Captain James Campbell, and not the brigade commander. James Campbell served as the brigade-major for Wallace's brigade as previously stated, and his comments refer directly to Wallace's formation. A similar account exists in Colonel Dalbaic's The History of the 45th Regiment.

Here is another piece of information from the Rules and Regulations, which leads me to believe the idea of moving 2.5 miles in file would never have even been considered:

"The marching of great bodies in file, where improper extension is unavoidable, must be looked upon as an unmilitary practice, and only to be had recourse to, when unavoidably necessary – where woods, inclosures, and bad or narrow routes absolutely require a march in file, there is no remedy for the delay in forming, and man may be obliged to come up after man."

So we have quite a bit of evidence for open column being used in this instance, and regulations that seek to prohibit file marching in large bodies due to its impracticality, but no convincing evidence as far as I can see to support the idea of a file march. If companies proved too wide for a march such as this, normal practice was to reduce the frontage to that of a section. The absolute minimum width used was 4 files, and this was reserved for narrow roads. File marching was used normally by companies for various purposes and would be a subject in itself to describe.

I like Muir's book, but I cannot help thinking that he is muddying the water here when the all the evidence points in one direction.

I have a great interest in Napoleonic drill manoeuvres, particularly of the British army, and could go on about them for hours, but I realise that this has become somewhat irrelevant to the original subject, so if you feel that there is much more to say on the matter, maybe it would be wise to start a new topic?

Cheers

Cptn Snort

Captn Snort:

Well, I appreciate the points you made. You are referencing Muir's p.85. R. Muir is careful, as there are more issues than he could deal with in his book, but the Brigadier Campbell has some things to say about it. Part of our 'discussion' was from conversations with Muir. I will concide to your points as I would have to go back and reconstruction the thinking here. I have a real interest in the drill too.

And Captn. Iglo, the files would indeed have to close, and a right face in such close proximity to the pack [if there is one] of the man in front certainly an issue. However, such right face actions were done, none the less.

Some of the issue is the pass through done by La Marchant's
Cavalry. What formation did Wallace return to afterward.

But yes, all you say are reasonable issues.

And yes, this issue has been thoroughly covered. ;-j

Hammer:

Yes, I know you are a game designer. So am I, for several markets/types.

I was certainly making a generalization, but I did say that such attitudes weren't universal, only a majority response.

And I have no problem with your thoughts on ground scale or the reasons why you ignore it, though the simulation issues that decision raises certainly are pertnent, but not at all impossible to justify.

My points were concerning the question for this thread,
"Why don't game designers provide their rationale for selecting specific ground scale."

IN GENERAL, the reasons rationales are not provided are:

1. Designers [and most gamers] don't believe the information is important, and many designers seem to be unable or unwilling to provide their rationales or at least stick to them.

I conclude that from experience, both my 30 years in the hobby and others with similar experience. And yes, that generalization doesn't apply to all designers.

2. Such information doesn't sell games. No one buys a game because they have design rationales. I can think of several excellent designs with excellent rationales that didn't hit the top ten because of gamer interest in the period, or the time/space given to providing rationales. Can you name the designers how actually provide such things and those who don't?

The money involved to add some pages is a non-issue. Designers will be sure that there are color photos and diagrams and army lists etc. etc., but rationales often get left out--why? Because they aren't viewed as valuable in selling the game as the color pictures, artwork and army lists. Only the buyers could 'make' such rationales essential information.

3. The designers who DO provide rationales for their ground scale/design reap some significant benefits in my opinion.

Look at Bill Gray's member numbers at the AOE list. He is always willing explain his design in detail. Sometimes it takes a lot of time. Many gamers and designers don't value this kind of information, particularly when it isn't always easy or simple to provide.

4. Designers often assume 'ground scale' without thinking about it, in coming up with rules. Other popular games had that scale, so they use it without much thought. Many other designers don't know enough about simulation design to provide a decent rationale for ground scale in their game rules.

Those are my responses to the question posed. We can debate particular ground scales and why WE would chose them, but that wasn't really the question.

Back to the groundscale debate – Final Combat uses 1:1 ground scale – you do NOT want to be on a 6' table playing on 28mm when a single HE round hits – which is why ground/figure scale is normally screwed :-)

"Why don't rule writers provide their rationale for selecting specific ground scale?"

Ok, back to the original question, why?

The rational for any rules set actually giving a ground scale is for the gamer to have a point of reference. I could care less what ground scale a writer chooses, as long as he does choose one.

What I cannot stand is a set of rules that says, "these units shoot 48 inches" but the writer provides no ground scale at all in the rules!

- Greg

Greg:

Exactly: A point of reference. Ground Scale *can* have alot to do with how the mechanics work also, but obviously don't have to. Certainly there is no 'perfect' or 'right' ground scale.

Ground scale isn't necessarily important at all for the game mechanics and play, but it is extremely important as a 'point of reference' for a simulation for a player. A simulation is only meaningful if the points of reference are provided.

Someone has finally brought up an important point…

Simulation VS Game.

A simulation in the context of wargaming is an attempt to recreate, duplicate in miniature, a historical event as accurately as possible within the framework of the rules presented. The rules used must provide the participant with sufficient information and guidelines to conduct him or herself as the level of commander being duplicated by the simulation. Example: A Battalion commander functions within the simulation as close as possible to how a Battalion commander acted within the period in question, as would a Brigade Commander, Division Commander, etc., etc…
Troop strengths, ground scale, terrain, political and as many physical events that influenced the situation being duplicated need to be recreated as accurately as possible.

A "game" can have the same requirements or not, as the producer of the game sees fit… because a game does not usually try to "duplicate" a historical event or period rather it tries to provide a fair representation of an event or period, …unless the person or group doing all the work to set the "game" up is/are completely crazy… which in the case of some "gamers", is absolutely the case, and in reality their "Game" becomes a simulation. I/S

IS:

I have to disagree. There is no game vs simulation dichotomy. "A game is a series of interesting decisions." [Sid Mieir of Civilization fame.] A simulation game is a series of interesting decisions modeled on a real situation faced by a real person/persons. [David Bartlett, former chief of operations, Defense Modeling and Simulation Office.]

A simulation can be either static, where it recreates an event or Dynamic, were it creates an environment [a model of a 'real situation'.]

The Static Simulation requires specific decisions and results in order to recreate an event. Whether a movie, a reinactor's weekend, or a museum demonstration, no matter how many times you run it, the results are ALWAYS the same because it is the same event WITH THE SAME DECISIONS. The players, whether actors or reenactors, have a script to follow. That is your "A Battalion commander functions within the simulation as close as possible to how a Battalion commander acted within the period in question, as would a Brigade Commander, Division Commander, etc., etc…" It appears you are suggesting decisions in a simulation are scripted.

A Dynamic simulation on the other hand, recreates the situation where decisions are made, within the same environmental restrictions and circumstances, but leaves the player/participant FREE to make their own decisions, experiment or copy the historical decisions. Unlike the static simulation, the results will probably never be like the original event because players will make different decisions at different points as the create THEIR OWN EVENT.

MOST simulations are Dynamic Simulations, Military training exercises, wargames, business training games, research computer models, weather simulators etc. etc. They all allow the 'players' to make different decisions and test the outcomes.

There is really no difference between a game and a dynamic simulation mechanically. Both are artificial environments for making decisions with the goal of 'winning.' Both can and do use the same mediums to produce those environments.

The problem with our hobby is that many designers don't know the difference between static and dynamic simulations and do, as you suggest, try and recreate 'events.' They assume that ALL simulations are Static, creating only one basic result. Many special rules are created to 'force' particular events. When gamers talk about getting 'historical results', too often this is the thinking: the Allies have to win Waterloo, the 'historical result' for the scenario to be 'historically reasonable.' The further from the historical event the game result becomes, the more 'unrealistic' the game is assumed to be, regardless of the player decisions.

So many rules and games play out with a boring sameness because the design is meant to recreate an event. It's easy to identify a static-minded game design, because it has rules to force the players behave in particular 'historical' ways that are obviously contrary to game goals, whether it is the McClellan rule with a Sharpsburg scenario or making players act 'as close as possible' to a historical battalion commander.

A dynamic simulation simply presents the player with the environment and options faced by a battalion commander and leaves the players do as they wish within the limits of the environment, rather than force certain decisions from them.

THERE IS NO game VS simulation dichotomy, only what the game mechanics are designed to provide. The dicohotomy was created be designers who don't know enough about either games or simulations in either theory or practice, and continues to be repeated.

Thousands of simulations, both training and research designs, are games, providing real-world practice and information. Professional simulation designers purposely creating games. A number of entertaining games are or started out as training simulations, both in the military and other venues. Flight simulators are one example, another is paint ball team competition. There are many successful video games today that started as business, research and military simulations.

The ONLY difference between a pure game and a simulation game is the designer intent, and the kind of decisions provided the player/participants. Professional simulations use computers, paper and pencils, board games, table top games and a variety of other media to provide those decision-making matrixes.

There is no real or technical difference between a game and a simulation except in the minds of some misinformed designers and gamers.

Idiotsavant,

So the distinction between games and simulations can be judged by the sanity of the designer or players?

Sane designers create games.

Crazy designers create simulations.

Or is it than those of sound mind can create either a game or a simulation, but it takes a touch of madness to turn the game into a simulation?

It's all very confusing.

Captn Snort:

It's the designers who are confused. Actually, it's just a matter bad game/simulation theory and non-existent design methodology.

A lack of awareness is always confusing…

Dear Mr. "TheScotsman",

If I may be so bold, what rules have you provided for the hobby?

- Greg

Greg,

You may…

While most of my simulation designs and books have been for education and business in the last twenty years, I have had two Napoleonic board games published. That is not counting several assists on tabletop rules that have been published and written numerous articles for board and tabletop magazines.

The professional simulation community/industry is huge and a great deal of work has been done on simulation theory and game design over a wide range of subjects, and at the moment most all professional simulation and game designers share a common understanding of theory and methods behind simulation design regardless of the medium.

Unfortunately that doesn't seem to include wargame designers…

Must be a politician hiding in the Scotsman's family tree in real life…

Question asked by Greg, "what rules have you provided for the hobby?"

Scotsman: …sort of a semi round about the area of an answer, …more precisely maybe close to making us guess somewhere in the Napoleonic field which has say 1000 games, …but not really in this exact area since: "at the moment most all professional simulation and game designers share a common understanding of theory and methods" …of a statement that's close to giving a good clue maybe, but then again: "that doesn't seem to include wargame designers", …ooooooo so close, …but not the answer Greg was looking for, …I'm guessin'?

…but I am after all, an idiot by my own admission.

What great fun… I/S

In the rules I designed for Napoleonic I decided on a ground scale of a combination of Metric and Imperial combined. What I mean by this is that I scaled one actual millimetre as one yard on the ground. Thus 100mm = 100 yards. So when one measures a distance of one actual metre of ground this equates to 1000 yards on the battlefield. The rationale of this is purely for simplicity.

When one measures with a ruler a distance of say; 1.36 metres he must call the distance out in yards. Thus 1.36mtrs equates to 1360 yards. I enforce this so players get used to combining artificial ground scale with supposedly real battlefield distances to add realism and feel to the game. I much prefer someone to tell me the distance my Artillery is from the enemy target is 1360yds than 1.36mtrs….

I cringe and have big problems (to the point of almost laying prostrate in the foetal position sucking my thumb) when I hear players say, the distance is 8 inches to target or, my cuirassiers in column can move 300mm in one turn etc…This really turns a battle into a game for me and puts me off. I prefer simulations where accurate distances are called out as they would have been in real life and judgements and decisions are made as a consequence of the real distances revealed.

For me, if I wanted to play a, "game" I could throw open a chess or checker board but when fighting with painted soldiers on large battlefields I prefer to, "simulate" wherever I can. The realism and flavour is what I strive for.

Regards,
Shane

I/S
Well, if I didn't answer Greg's question, he can let me know. Or you could ask, or would you like to continue guessing?

Shane wrote:

"For me, if I wanted to play a, "game" I could throw open a chess or checker board but when fighting with painted soldiers on large battlefields I prefer to, "simulate" wherever I can. The realism and flavour is what I strive for."

Shane: Luckily, you and everyone else doesn't have to make that choice, you can have both. However, I'd like to know how you identify 'realism' and 'flavour' in game mechanics, those things that make up wargames and simulation rules.

We basically do a few things to avoid the "games" theme as much as we can like…

We avoid measuring distances in terms of inches, millimetres or centimetres. Instead we call all distances in "yards". This adds dramatically to the flavour.

We try to use proper terminology for the manoeuvres and formations each army used in reality instead of generic terms such as column, line or square. This goes for mass formations as well right up to campaign formations used strategically.

In my army statistics information I strive to use correct spelling for each troop type etc and correct terminology for troop types per national army.

Proper formations and distances as required by regulations of each army for formation set up are used wherever possible. No false or iffy formation types are allowed by players if the army in question did not use them or records indicate other formations were actually used.

Casualties caused and suffered are calculated in our rules in "men" not figures. For example, if a battery of guns fired and in reality caused 83 casualties then we call it as "83men" become casualties, not "2 figures" or "3 figures" etc…

Total command control is taken away from the players as much as it should be (we think) in that he cannot do as he pleases when he pleases. Outside or other factors may determine a desired wish of a player is or will be impossible. Command Control is subject to many factors which the player will find it hard to maintain control of.

We feel cavalry melee conflicts were few and far between, charges are NOT always going to charge home (again, command control comes in here). Cavalry especially when they do meet generally negated each other and thus in our system the opposing sides Melee Factors negate each other thus casualties suffered generally remain low unless one side is routed.

We always take into account Weather and its effects on battles outcomes, ranges, factors, sighting and overall feel of the battle. The time of the beginning of a battle is also crucial to the number of hours available for actual combat. We take into account fatigue and its rising effects on the men. Fresh troops fed into a conflict can affect its outcome greatly.

Forced marches to a battle by reinforcements are determined in the units rate of march over a single hour which is further determined by general march rates by army which is further broken down by troop types etc.

The single biggest facet in our system is our reliance on "Morale" as the number one determining factor for the overall game play. We feel that the psychological effect of battle and its effects on men wether conscripts or old guards play the most important part of combat and a unit's ability to withstand the stresses of battle. Our whole system gravitates to both sides trying to force Morale checks on the opposing player's units. We stress that picking on a single point, formation or unit in the enemy's line and forcing it to take morale checks constantly until it breaks thus creating a gap or hole which can be taken advantage of is the number one priority of both sides.

This might not always be possible and many battles may turn into virtual blood bathes but when it does happen and taken advantage of the outcome is something to behold and watch develop even if you are the one suffering the puncture.

Many other facets also add to the flavour we try to strive for, we can and do fall short in some areas but the system we use is a constantly evolving animal which we try to improve all the time.

Wow, …how much fun was that? It appears my observations were correct, …not that it matters a whit.

When my company conducts a "simulation" with members of the 4th Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division (as an example) and we transition from the table to the field there aren't any arguments about ranges, movement rates, fire effects, or figure representation numbers because everything is exactly in "scale" as can be noted in this picture of one of the models, and this picture of the real site at the Shugart Gordon MOUT Live Fire Training facility at JRTC, Fort Polk, LA where we conduct combat decision-making training exercises for the Army.

Real time One-for-One gaming using "live fire" to determine the actual results of a particular situation are probably the best way to resolve most of the arguments gamers have regarding the cost of a particular objective in terms of time, casualties, and material expenditures, etc., but the COST (in terms of real money) is way beyond the average wargamer's budget, and while many gamers would love to have a particular opponent in their sights the loss of said opponent through the attrition live fire provides would prove inefficient in the long term. A successful gamer would eventually run out of opponents.

That being said… games (simulations) are conducted by individuals who share similar interests and are played using rules agreed upon by the majority of the parties involved. The level of complication is usually equal to the level of dedication of the participants and their tolerance for the dominance of an individual (rules writer) or group of individuals (rules committee) and the control those individuals have over the process (they provide the figures, venue, etc…) Most gamers prefer simple easy to follow rules or an authority figure (judge) who can implement them in a way that is easy to understand and appears fair.

Fanaticism for the minutia of war is usually, but not always, a deterrent to the average player when adopting a set of rules. There are those for whom the very minutia of war is the steam that drives their turbine, but those individuals are not in the majority (thank whatever deity you worship). The average gamers need simplicity to maintain their interest, especially in this era of computer video gaming where knowledge of history and the ability to read are not really a requirement for the entertainment and accompanying adrenalin rush. Attendant factors include the cost of figures and the time involved in painting the massed quantities required by Historical gaming, thus the recent flood of fairly inexpensive pre-painted figures and equipment supporting gaming systems from game companies with a strong connection to cheap labor in China.

Does all this matter… Only if you enjoy wargaming with your friends. Friendly gaming groups where beer and pretzel games dominate provide many hours of enjoyment and some escape from the trials and tribulations of the real world. Hopefully that's enough for most gamers. Outside my work it is for me…

Oh, I almost forgot… Scotsman: "Well, if I didn't answer Greg's question, he can let me know. Or you could ask, or would you like to continue guessing?"

If it is that important to you to keep secret, by all means do so. Obviously you place the same level of importance upon the protection of your contribution to wargaming rules as Joseph C. Wilson's wife does to her membership in the acquisition of information community so I will allow the half microsecond of my curiosity to pass unfulfilled…

…but again, as you know I am just an idiot who matters not. Bill I/S

I/S:

Exactly what am I keeping secret? And why do you keep calling yourself an idiot?

Greg asked about what 'rules' I have provided for the hobby. I assumed he meant miniature rules. I actually provided more information than he asked for--so sue me. I didn't mention any specific miniature rules I have published, but instead said I have provided several assists on other folks' published rules. I guess that wasn't clear enough for you.

So, I'll rephrase it: That means I haven't published any rules of my own, but have helped with others over the years--thirty years to be exact.

Does that help? If you want a specific answer, please, by all means ask a specific question, rather than accusing me of keeping secrets because you didn't like my first answer to someone else's question. Generally, when people are curious, even in microseconds, they ask questions. You want information? Ask.

Hi All,

This is my first post ever on TMP. This is an issue that has kept me away from this hobby. Scale needs to make sense and look right on the wargaming table.

I understand that figure scale and ground scale are two different things and need to be so that you can see the uniforms of your soldiers without looking through a microscope. But I find it strange that so many wargamers who are obviously playing big battles where one figure equals more then one man (anywhere from 20 to 200, whatever) and one inch equals anywhere from 10 to 100 yards let's say for argument; and yet the terrain (trees, roads, buildings,etc.) is scaled to the actual size of the individual model figure. As example, I've seen roads that are one inch wide with a ground scale of 1"=100 yards. That makes the width of the road 100 yards which is complete nonsense. Everything on the table should be set to the ground scale precisely except for the lead figure itself. The basing of the figures should be explained in the rules and make sense with the ground scale.

This is just my observation from looking at some of the tables at a wargaming convention. When the scales are mixed in looks cartoonish. Some wargaming modelers can learn something from the model railroaders in terms of an accurate look.

Hi USAFPilot and welcome to TMP.

You have correctly identified one of the key flaws of miniature games.

Most gamers like a compromise between the number of figures, the theoretical ground scale and the "look" of a unit compared to the terrain. That's why you find roads and buildings that are more or less in scale if the figures are 1:1 but the figures are 1:20 or more.

If you think about it in detail it is a mess, but perhaps it is a beautiful mess.

Hey USAFpilot,
Welcome to TMP, hope you find this site as enjoyable as I and others do.
The ground scale issue is an old one and the primary motivator for myself to go to 1:1 on figure ratio and ground scale to match figure scale.
I can't fight really huge engagements but using true LOS and scale modeling, has a greater appeal for me.

Gentlemen (including our new guy USAF pilot),

Games for fun and games for serious are two completely different things, …even though they go by the same basic name and may be the same in structure/definition they can be vastly different in reality.

TDG's (Tactical Decision-making Games), almost an industry unto itself, helped form all of our current Military officers' and NCO's battlefield thinking processes just as the original Battletech miniatures game helped Marine fireteams train subconsciously while engaged in the less structured framework of beer & pretzels games more suitable for socalization than the drill deck.

People are attracted to wargaming for a variety of reasons which are often on display in a convention setting for the astute observer. Some "gamers" use the venue of gaming as a substitute for a real life while others use gaming as an escape from their real life. Most of these individuals are gamers in the non-military sense.

Specifically for USAFpilot, it appears you may find enjoyment in gaming in one of the smaller scales, say 1/300 or 1/600, where you can duplicate in scale much as a model railroad does, the terrain over which you fight. Here is a link commandoperationscenter.com to an organization that conducts games/simulations in 1/300 scale in real time and at 1mm per foot scale (horizontal as well as vertical). Perhaps you will find something that will peak your interest there. (out of time for now) I/S

to continue:

…much of this discussion revolves around personal taste in gaming and simulations. Some gamers require great amounts of detail in the rules they use while others only require the rules give them a challenge and the "feel" of the period or scenario being gamed.

Having worked with the military for years duplicating as closely as possible, exclusive of the danger of actual high speed metal filling the combat space, combat decision-making stress through very realistic simulation I know there are no current "commercial" games or simulations that accurately duplicate the stress a military officer feels during combat. There are many proprietary systems that try, such as JANUS or the CONRAD systems, but they only duplicate the overload of information and the overall grand tactical (TOC sit) which in and of itself provides a level of stress unlike any "game" in civilian use with the possible exception of some of the newer one-on-one CG's. No 'game' produces the stress that comes from the potential loss of life in one's command, …the physical gut wrenching total body stress of knowing you are sending your men, those you are responsible for, to their deaths or the stress of knowing your decision caused the death of one of those individuals, …it is just not possible to simulate. There is no game mechanism that can duplicate the weight of those decisions. Anyone who tells you otherwise is so full of their own self importance they don't deserve to breathe the same air as the men and women who have suffered "real" combat.

I guess that's why I have little patience for rules lawyers, or those gamers whose only purpose in gaming is to find the loopholes within the game system so they can win without actually mastering or knowing anything about the period they are playing. Those individuals disgust me…

For decades I have greatly respected those rules writers who have tried to provide as accurate a picture of the Napoleonic period possible through their games, …with rules that reflect period thinking, materials, and motivations. They are only able to duplicate some of the reality since it is impossible, without the game's participants suffering potential physical harm, to duplicate the conditions under which soldiers existed and decisions were made.

Realistic gaming in the period of Napoleon is nearly impossible, though I must admit I heartily enjoyed defending the gates of the Tuileries in the face of the mob within Todd's simple rules system that very closely duplicated the feel of that engagement just as much as I enjoyed crushing the Allies at Austerlitz using a simple system (V&B) after crushing the French in the same game years earlier under a much more complicated (CLS) system. All were games of the most basic nature… Complication in my view only provides avenues for the "rules lawyers" to win by subverting the spirit of a game for only one purpose, their personal aggrandizement. For which I hope they will one day burn in wargaming hell…, but that's just my opinion. I/S

I/S wrote:
"Games for fun and games for serious are two completely different things, …even though they go by the same basic name and may be the same in structure/definition they can be vastly different in reality."

I/S:
Are they? They aren't completely different things. The grandaddy of tabletop games, Kriegspiel was created in 1824 for the Prussian military. The designer, Captain von von Reisswitz was completely serious, and yet writes in the designer's notes that he was surprised to find it was entertaining--that is, fun. It is still played in it's original form for fun. Her is a link with more history. myweb.tiscali.co.uk/kriegsspiel ]

Many of the board games played in the last thirty years either began as serious military simulations, while a number of wargames designed as entertainment were picked up by the military. Any number of computer games started as serious military training simulations. More than one game company does nothing but translate military programs into games--with very few changes.

Everything from paint ball to chess STARTED as serious military training games.

There is really no difference between 'serious' games and games for fun. I'll lay odds that you have enjoyed wargames or rules in the past that started out as 'serious.'

You're right, folks game for different reasons, and enjoy different things about them. One of the constants is that people don't differentiate between games because one was created to be serious and another wasnt'. There are few if any design differences and folks obviously enjoy both.

@idiotsavant
"the stress …it is just not possible to simulate."
One can easily agree, and be thankful – for a war game it is a past time, to enjoy the idyll hours with ones associates and colleagues.
Even in the army, the training was all false for us. A little care and attention and none of the conscrits would be lost or even badly hurt. The "simulation" of the local indigenés – it was always a struggle to not laugh during the training.
The fault in both cases, the training in the army and the simulation on a table, is that one will know that it is not real. There is the anglophone or American saying "it is only a movie".

"Realistic gaming in the period of Napoleon is nearly impossible,"
If you think of realistic to look at, then one can agree. There is now published the old Kriegspiel, it is discussed on a series of posts here on this forum. We did always play this way, but with a figure in the place of a block. For time/space/movement/formation/range, the figure is only an indication and the player must know the real extent of his troops, or at least the judge will know and ignore an order that cannot be made to fit in the physical limit.

It is only one idea, and other groups of friends will have other good ideas also. The best will be when all in the group do agree with the choice – for then the enjoyment of the idyll hours is greatest.

- un ami

There are many degrees of realism from one extreme of loading a real musket with a live cartridge and firing it at another guy doing the same to you to the other extreme of; I have a blue painted block and you have a red painted block, whoever rolls the highest on a dice roll wins the battle…

Then there is all the degrees in-between, each with its level of realism. It is just a matter of reaching a level which is comfortable for each group and all agree on. Many times I have been in groups though where at least one person does not agree and prefers a different level of realism and causes dissention or possibly even disrupts the group as a whole. Oddly this one person can sometimes cause the group to rethink its level of realism and thus cause a switch to another level.

It's all about the group and its preference and no two groups are really on the same level unless they use the same system and getting every group to agree on one single system will never happen nor should it. I would dearly like to see a trend in my region where all the groups do agree on a single system but this would also mean missing out on potentially better systems or better ideas.

Shane

Un ami wrote:

"the stress …it is just not possible to simulate."
One can easily agree, and be thankful – for a war game it is a past time, to enjoy the idyll hours with ones associates and colleagues."

"The fault in both cases, the training in the army and the simulation on a table, is that one will know that it is not real. There is the anglophone or American saying "it is only a movie".

Un ami:
A lot of stress can be simulated and is, but certainly not ALL of it. And it isn't the 'fault' of a simulation that everyone knows it isn't real. Duh. That is true of ALL simulations, regardless.

That is the PRIMARY benefit of a simulation. You don't crash and die if you make a mistake in flight simulator. You don't have to explode twenty Atom Bombs to discover the damage it would cause. You don't waste precious materials experimenting, instead you use a very unreal computer program of their chemical traits.

You can look like a fool in a simulation, and still avoid getting others killed. You get SOME of the stresses and practice SOME of the skills without the nasty and permanent consequences of failure.
This is true of ALL simulations, regardless of the type or purpose. It is the opportunity to test and practice real decision-making and real skills in an artifical environment.

IF they were totally realistic, they would be totally useless. They'd be the real thing with ALL the consequences.
You might as well start a real war to practice. Some do. Simulations are a lot less expensive.

The problem is many gamers' notion of what constitutes a 'realistic' simulation or a realistic Napoleonic game. It is 'unrealistic.' The impression is that unless people are dying on the simulated battlefield, it ain't 'realistic'.

No one who designs or uses simulations for a living ever considered that as a viable definition, or anything close to it. ALL simulations recreate a PART of reality, and it will always be a small part, regardless of the sohpistication of the simulation. That doesn't mean the part simulated isn't 'realistic'.

Kriegsspiel is a good example. The Prussians, combat hardened veterans created it, used it and as von Molke once said, "It prepared us for war." Now, no one thought the game prepared officers to face shot and shell, or ennured them to shock and confusion of combat. That wasn't the purpose of Kriegsspiel. It is the purpose of another simulations, the barbwire/mud pit with machine guns firing over head. And like all simulations, it creates SOME of reality, but not all. And of course, the soldiers know they are going to be shot. SO why do it? Because it accomplishes what it was designed to simulate,nothing more. The same is true of the Army's urban combat training with umpires and laser tag equipment. Hardly REAL combat, but I have read any number of reports on the web and other places where soldiers and officers say they are glad they had the training, even though the experience certainly didn't prepare them for everything that combat threw at them.

Perhaps if there was a more realistic understanding of wargames and simulations, some of

I/S wrote:
"One can easily agree, and be thankful – for a war game it is a past time, to enjoy the idyll hours with ones associates and colleagues."

I/S: And yet, the excitment and yes, stress of a competitive game is enjoyed too, and that includes some of the very real stresses faced by real commanders. All of them? Of course not, but definitely some of them, DEPENDING ON THE SIMULATION GOALS. And yet those are actually sought out by any number of gamers for their 'idyll hours'. Some simulations have the goal of avoiding all the stresses of the recreated environment, which is just fine. It all depends on what part of reality is being mimicked.

Don't take my word for it. Go to google and type in Simulation Design, even the first few will tell you what I have just said. It's pretty common knowledge.

Go to Amazon.com and type in Simulation Design and check out the hundreds of books on the subject. Or even Game Design. Simulations are tools, and after decades of refinement, pretty sophisticated tools, regardless of the medium, pencil and paper of a computer program.

It's really fascinating stuff. It certainly presents far more functional and realistic notions of wargames and simulations than the statement "Realistic gaming in the period of Napoleon is nearly impossible."

I/S wrote:
"One can easily agree, and be thankful – for a war game it is a past time, to enjoy the idyll hours with ones associates and colleagues."

Lots o' dem gret book lrned words and refances I's 2 dumm to reed, …but prep time for the next series of JRTC simulations has begun so I don't have time to argue over semantics…

One minor correction though. I did not write the lines above you credit me with, not that it means a whole lot, but if you are going to quote me in print on the web at least make it accurate… "I shall return", …or should it be rerun?

Bill I/S

The forum member "un ami" has asked that the following be posted :

« My grammar, spelling and syntax might have shown more to my advantage if I were not attempting to write my own posts in English. I regret my incapacity in this language, as this now seems to have become the object of derision. »

I/S wrote:

"One minor correction though. I did not write the lines above you credit me with, not that it means a whole lot, but if you are going to quote me in print on the web at least make it accurate… "I shall return", …or should it be rerun?"

I/S:

No you didn't, nor did you put them in quotes when you did copy them. It sounded like you agreed. You don't? As someone who has worked with military simulations, I certainly agree tha wargames, military or commercial, can't produce all the stresses of combat by a long shot. As you pointed out, only some can, and only those which are specific goals of the simulation.

I/S wrote:
"No 'game' produces the stress that comes from the potential loss of life in one's command, …the physical gut wrenching total body stress of knowing you are sending your men, those you are responsible for, to their deaths or the stress of knowing your decision caused the death of one of those individuals, …it is just not possible to simulate."

Actually it is possible, just not a fun game by any yardstick and rather unethical too. Some psychologists created simulations to produce that very thing: one being responsible for other's lives: Kolberg's 'experiments' in the 1960s. He made participants think they were shocking others as punishment, and in the end killing them. They weren't, but the participants thought they were. You better believe those participants were stressed. It was deemed 'unethical'. Rather sick on the face of it. It is possible to create a simulation that does do that, but it's unethical, cruel. and not particularly attractive as a simulation or a game. Even some of the military simulations right now, producing just some of those stresses, border on the unethical and cruel.

It all depends on what you want to simulate. I have yet to meet a gamer that wants those kinds of stresses in a game, though other combat stresses, obviously less severe, are seen as part of the entertainment.

un ami,

Unless I have missed something completely I do not see any negative comments directed your way, so I don't understand why you would think that… Your comments were direct and applied to the discussion, …but it was obvious English isn't your first language. No big deal, …thanks for participating. Bill

Scotsman,

"I have yet to meet a gamer that wants those kinds of stresses in a game", Perhaps a civilian gamer doesn't desire a whole lot of stress from his hobby", …but almost every Battalion commander I deal with from every Brigade that passes through JRTC on their way to a combat posting wants their Company commanders to go through as much battlefield related stress in as short a time possible so all those monitoring the performance of that CCO can get an idea how they will react under similar stresses in the field. When you drop a whole lot of stress on a fairly new Company Commander just out of the CC program at FLW everyone above them is watching intently…

There are other ways to lay the stress of "loss" on participants and in the isolation of the TOCSIM it is possible but this is not the venue for this type of discussion.

Wargaming for enjoyment and Wargaming professionally (professional military) really are two different animals. If you don't understand that I guess there isn't anything else I can, or want to for that matter, …say

Bill I/S

I have to agree,

I have been in the army myself in my younger days and know all about war games in the military. I have gone thru assault courses with live fire over my head and combat simulated situations. I and my seco were nearly run over by a leopard tank in one exercise while out bush. I almost fell out of a chopper while sitting on the extreme starboard side and had to be held in by another mate. I once got seriously injured on an obstacle coarse while jumping over a 12 foot wall, my SLR swung over my shoulder slamming into my ear. I bled like a stuck pig and my shirt was covered in blood. My seco commented I looked like a casualty.

Simulation of combat in the military can be very realistic but in a war games sense like we play you cannot equate what I have just related into factors, figures, dice rolls etc…you can only "simulate" it without any of the pain, dirt, stresses or fatigue of actual combat. Rules designers can only "simulate" the "results" of combat in its various forms.

Factors, charts, dice rolls, movements, formations and every other facet of a war game do not take into account the blood, sweat and tears of combat, just the outcome of it. for example, a btln of men in column trying to force a passage over difficult terrain will experience fatigue, exhaustion and probably even injury or even death amongst the rank and file as they try to cross over say a ravine or ford in a river. A war Gamer moving the battalion of figures over that obstacle will not witness this nor probably even think about it, all he will know is the movement of his figures suddenly has been severely curtailed while crossing the obstacle….how do you simulate that??? you can't, and if you as a rules designer try to account for it then you are going way too far. You might as well join the real army and experience it yourself for real!

War games are all about having fun and experiencing the history of the period and being with friends. Simulation of combat cannot occur nor should it in the real sense; there are real armies for that. Games designers should strive to be accurate in the designs they come up with and simulate facets of battles which can be recreated without going too far. If you are a designer and you try to formulate rules for every situation and circumstance then you are defeating the whole idea of war gaming.

It is one thing to be accurate historically but it is another to attempt to recreate actual combat…you cannot.

Regards,
Shane

Un Ami:

Ditto here. Whatever was said, there was no intent to desparage you that I can see. You certainly aren't an object of derision. [Your English is better than mine. I didn't know how to spell dersion.]

oohh, and by the way, no, I did not see active combat duty during my stint for which I can say I am glad about.

I/S:

I have never been in the military, but I have worked with the Army and Airforce in education and training programs and simulations, some related to combat. [Verbal skills, non-confrontational methods [between friendlies in a stressful situation] and reading non-verbals.

I agree that a simulation, any simulation is never going to capture the entire reality of combat, or anything else for that matter. At best just a part, and generally a very small part of reality.

I agree that table top games miss most all of the personal, phsyical stresses of combat and military operations. Other kinds of simulations do, but certainly not on the table. Each medium, computer, table, board game, laser tag, field exercises etc. etc. all have their strengths and weaknesses in simulating particular aspect of maneuver and combat. Even full-dress wargames with divisions of men have things they can never simulate.

I have never suggested that the bruises and blood you might experience on an exercise can be simulated with a miniatures game--or should be. What I did say, is that this pretty obvious. I personally have never met anyone who thought it could be. In fact I have never met a gamer who did think that what happened on a game table was somehow even close to what a Napoleonic officer might experience in a real battle.

I think the only reason this very obvious fact is continually repeated among wargamers is that designer fail to explain what IS being simulated, hence the confusion.

I have said that the same theory, concepts, and methods that are used to create a valid, functional simulation on a game table are the very same same used in ANY simulation.

In that sense, a full-out military exercise, to be effective uses the very same conceptual framework and methods as someone creating a computer simulation of crowd behavior or a wargame for commercial purposes.

I will certainly agree that the PURPOSES of a military simulation can be and often are very different, even radically different than a hobby simulation game. That is what you are suggesting when you say "Games designers should strive to be accurate in the designs they come up with and simulate facets of battles which can be recreated without going too far." That 'too far' is just a matter of design purpose--they can, technically, go too far with simulation design if they want to.

Even so, ANY military simulation is designed for 'accuracy' using the very same processes, concepts, and methods for validating as any wargame designed for accuracy--or at least should be if it's going to be called a simulation.

I have also said that many gamers and designers talk about simulations, but don't know what they technically are or how they work, what they can and can't do. I think the evidence of that is when you and I can go around about simulating the pain, fear, and death of combat, when just some common understanding of simulation design would make the whole exercise too obvious to waste time on. Yet, I continually read gamers and designers feeling it's necessary to point out that there is a great deal that table top games can't simulate.

You have been through military simulations of all sorts. You know that every one is limited, and yet every one is done because it provides REAl decision-making opportunities and practice of skills that are directly applicable to actual military operations. If they weren't, the military, as dense as the institution can be at times, certainly wouldn't continue to produce and use them--starting with the Prussian army in 1830.

So, I/S, I think there is a great deal we agree on. Some we don't. I feel most of the disagreement revolves around our understanding of what simulation is and can do, as well as what gamers expect it to do. I could be wrong. I have been once or twice in my life time.

As a War Game designer myself of my own system for Napoleonic's I do strive to read as much as I can on the subject searching for those clues you see in every passage of every book on the period. These snippets of information are what we search for and take hold of to reproduce our battles as close as accuracy can be achieved thru the information we gather.

I have a very large Napoleonic library and have read and re-read most of the books within anywhere up to 10 times each. What strikes me is that each time I pick a particular book I find something new and deemed then important to me to modify or adjust my opinion on a related subject for war gaming purposes. I never fail to find something that may correct or adjust my thinking and put it to my group and an agreement is reach on any changes.

Over the last 10 or so years I have transfixed myself on reading memoirs more than the history books for these books far more give insightful information for designers to base a set of rules on. But one must be warned that memoirs where the writer has disclosed an opinion based on what he saw or heard is exactly that, an opinion and must be weighed up carefully when designing a rules set but much more often than not their writings will give the rules designer a massive advantage in getting things right or correct.

For example in the book I am reading now, "With Napoleon's Guns" by Colonel Jean-Nicolas-Auguste Noel he states that in 1813 the new Prussian army was a much tougher opponent than the previous Prussian army of 1806. The soldiers were much more animated and motivated with hatred and revenge for the French and thus were much harder to defeat and force to retreat than the other coalition soldiers such as the Russians who were not driven by any desire and the Austrians who were so disjointed in unity of command that they achieved little compared to the Prussians when comparing the forces. He stated that he witnessed 600 Austrians actually jumping for joy when captured by the French because they had no desire to fight!

This is only one snap shot and cannot be taken as the way it was across the board but it does give one food for thought. The participants were fighting each other at many varied levels of Motivation. It is this Motivation or "Morale" in a tabletop which in my opinion means more than the number of guns you have, the number of cavalry you have, the quality of your gun powder or any other advantage or disadvantage you might have.

Lack of motivation or inspiration or an abundance of it is the most important attribute of a soldier and will more often than not provide the victor and loser. An army or unit full of determination can do wonders while another who's Morale, motivation or inspiration is lacking or even destroyed, no matter how large its number can be defeated and in some cases is defeated before it even reaches the battlefield.

A rules set in my opinion should be based around the concept of Morale, everything else flows around or from the morale rules as a consequence and subject to morale considerations. The problem is, getting the balance of Morale in sync with what it should be accurately and realistically. That is the biggest problem.

Shane

Perhaps it would help if I explain what it is we do… so you can better understand where my ideas about gaming originate.

We use a fairly simple system that allows the conversion of the various personal skill sets of individual commanders at any level into a comparative gaming matrix that translates to table top wargaming capabilities and results. Every member of the military has three measurable skill sets. Weapons skill scores, Physical Fitness levels, and a scenario specific intelligence exam that is combined with their MOS combat value (basically a 'body' value for want of a better term). These four values are translated into a set of decision-making randomizers that can be used in various combinations to determine the results of any interaction, communication, observation, and/or combat. Not quite a simple table game, but with a judge who knows the system it works really well and duplicates in real time the results of most situations without the need for actual hostilities.

Since civilians don't have these measurable skill sets it is difficult, but not impossible, to run the game without assigning random values or doing some testing prior to a game, …which we have done on many occasions.

So again I will say the two games are different, for fairly obvious reasons. The main reason they are different is because the professionals take the process of arriving at the results more seriously than the results of the encounter. For civilian gamers it is only the results that matter.

Measuring the cost of arriving at the results, and finding way to reduce that cost is the true test of a successful game… Bill I/S

Shane wrote:
The problem is, getting the balance of Morale in sync with what it should be accurately and realistically. That is the biggest problem.

Shane:
History is the ONLY thing we have to tell us what it was like during the Napoleonic wars, so it is good to have a solid grounding in it. Simulation professionals have developed methods over the last four decades for solving your problem, actually helping define what tha balance means in simulation terms, how to sync it. Provide a functional, technical definition of accuracy and 'realism', as well as at least eight different ways to varify that accuracy and realism.

Bill I/S wrote:
So again I will say the two games are different, for fairly obvious reasons. The main reason they are different is because the professionals take the process of arriving at the results more seriously than the results of the encounter. For civilian gamers it is only the results that matter.

I/S:
Well, that hasn't been my experience, not professionally and not with many gamers I know. The process is very important. A game is simply a series of interesting decisioins with a goal. The process of making those decisions, and finding the best alternatives--solving the puzzle if you will--is what games are all about.

The military may be interested in differnt things and even quantify them in different ways, even develop different methods for resolving the game process, but everything you've described, for umpires to real time game processes are used by wargamers of different stripes. I don't think you can say civilians or even designers aren't interested in or are less 'serious' about HOW they arrive at the results. Shane seems pretty serious about it, though he is focused on different elements. Hobby designers simply don't do it with the same purposes in mind. The techniques and the seriousness that are applied aren't unique to military wargame creators. I still see the same methods, same criteria for working simulations, just different purposes, which leads to different information and/or different relationships to that information.

I/S wrote:
Measuring the cost of arriving at the results, and finding way to reduce that cost is the true test of a successful game… Bill I/S

Bill I/S: Does that mean our hobby rules too? That would seem to indicate some agreement with what I just said above. I agree. That is A true test of any simulation game. It is a necessary component. Game Theory says that ANY game is nothing more than a cost/benefit analysis, from Chess to Stud Poker. A good part of life is like that too.

Wow, 249 posts! I couldn`t help myself, I just had to see where this thread had gone to. So it`s come to "simulations and games" – I`m going to have to read all those posts now…