"The "Command Radius"" Topic

1968billsfan:
>>>CR is an okay means of keeping a brigade together and advoid independant actions by battalions. Independant actions by battalions rarely happened because the colonel did not have information to initiate such actions, was a subordinate officer who was directed by a higher strategy (even the briadier counts) who had more information and a lone battalion would quickly get crushed by flank attacks or horsemen. If it works, use it. Its an easy way of replicating the results of the chain of command and some practical conditions that we know existed.<<<

Billsfan:

I think that is the problem with the CR mechanic. It doesn't replicate the results or the cause of the chain of command or the practical conditions that we know existed.

The relationships and mechanics, even if considered as abstrations don't work for division and brigade functions.

The length of a line and the reasons for unit connections or a unit's isolation had absolutely nothing to do with a particular distance from a central point. Units stayed together for specific reason. The combat problems, purposes and dynamics involving unit 'togetherness' simply are not replicated.

If the rule doesn't portray the relationships, dynamics, problems or the reasons for a particular practice, how can it be said 'to work?' It makes players deal with problems that didn't exist for reasons wholly unconnected to the actual combat practices and situation. At least at the Divisional level and lower.

To say it's 'okay' implies that it actual captures something of history, that players are dealing with some of the original issues. The rules don't provide that.

The usual CR rules do coerce players into keep units together, rather than the real reasons for doing it.

It's like the 'Antietam rules' you see for ACW scenarios of Sharpsburg, where the Union can't commit more than one Corps at a time on a schedule.

It can *look* like the battle, but the mechanic has nothing to do with the real situation, or why McClellan was afraid to commit his corps. It also creates a game dynamic where Union and Confederate players develop tactics and strategies based on that rule, rather than the situation they actually faced. It can be a fun exercise, but it doesn't represent anything of what the actual generals were facing.

Even it is is supposed to be a very abstract representation, it STILL has to represent something. I haven't seen that.

Ah my Gaelic friend, after talking with you I've changed my focus a bit. Regardless of whether your CR is meant to reflect communication commands of the "real" world, the gaming effect is to eliminate immediate moves. The immediate move is a factor of the 100 foot tall general. Thus CR mitigates the perspective of the 100 foot tall general. If you get rid of the reflection of "real" command, you are still left with the need to minimize the perspective of the 100 foot general. So in answer to Sam's question, why can't we eliminate CR and use the table as the radius, that's fine. But the effect will also be the elimination of the restriction on the perspective of the 100 foot general so that immediate moves cannot be performed.

TheScotsman

Okay, then what do you do with a simulation, successful ones like all the Micro Soft flight simulators? Designed for fun, but they claim to be a simulation. Or even von Riesswitz's Kriegsspiel designed to be serious training simulation, but ends up being entertaining too? [Surprised von R.] It is still played by hobby folk.

I'm not saying simulations cannot be fun. But ‘fun' is a by-product of the simulation. The evil empire's Flight Simulator is not designed to be fun. It is designed to simulate flight. It is your simulation of flight that is fun. The fun is in direct proportion to how ‘real' the simulator is. To go back to the Italian Wars, one must make changes to ‘reality' in order to make the game fun.

Von Riesswitz was surprised because his simulator was not designed to be entertaining. A game by its very nature is designed to be entertaining. If it is not, it fails as a game.

One can create a simulation of Austerlitz. (Boy am I going to regret this. Everything I know about Napoleonic gaming I learned in kindergarten.) That simulation is judge on the basis of how close the simulation matches history. Run the simulation and one would expect the same results as the actual battle. Every time you run the simulation you should get the same results. Some may enjoy seeing the results coming out the same way each time but it is not a game. In order to make a game of Austerlitz you have to modify history (the very opposite of simulation) in order to give each opponent the same opportunity to win. Thus the purpose of a simulation is different from a game.

If the CR rule is so abstract it has no identifiable relationship to history, how can it possibly model that history?

I think that most rule designers who use the term ‘simulation' really mean is to create a reflection of certain aspects of battle in a faithful and appropriate manner. The simulator would have to model all the significant events in the transferring of information up and down the command structure. The gamer can reflect that transfer by have a little toy cavalryman prancing across the tabletop. Thus, I think mostly we try to reflect ‘reality' and not model it as a simulation. The gamer builds within the rules those subset which attempt to reflect certain aspects of ‘real' combat.

Now to go back and see what I missed.

Rich

Bottom Dollar

I'm not entirely clear on this point. CR's won't necessarily prevent instantaneous mov't on opposite ends of a very long line, if the opposite ends are both within a CR, even if not the same CR. Though I do see CR's preventing instantaneous mov't for units which are outside of a CR whether they be on the right, left or center of the line.

You're absolutely right BD. If the whole table becomes a single CR it does not limit immediate moves. To implement CR as a restriction on immediate moves, the tabletop battlefield has to be divided in some way that makes some units fall within that CR and some without.

Rich further wrote:
"…or are you using CR to reflect some aspect of "real" battle that should be replicated in the rules."

BD:Yes, to reflect the regulation of the battalion, among other things.

As I wrote TheScotsman, I have changed my view on this a bit. If you use CR to reflect actual lines of communications on the tabletop it also becomes a mechanism by which to limit the ability of the 100 foot general to make instantaneous moves. If you decide to make CR the whole tabletop, you have also done away with the mechanism which limits how the 100 foot general may respond to activities on the tabletop.

Rich

The Scottsman: "It also creates a game dynamic where Union and Confederate players develop tactics and strategies based on that rule, rather than the situation they actually faced."

YES!

Rich Knapton: "The immediate move is a factor of the 100 foot tall general. Thus CR mitigates the perspective of the 100 foot tall general. If you get rid of the reflection of "real" command, you are still left with the need to minimize the perspective of the 100 foot general. So in answer to Sam's question, why can't we eliminate CR and use the table as the radius, that's fine. But the effect will also be the elimination of the restriction on the perspective of the 100 foot general so that immediate moves cannot be performed."

I don't follow this, or at least I don't believe it to be the case. Players are trained to "play the rules" and move their officer stands to locations that keep all their units "in-command". As The Scottsman points out, this is not historical, it is essentially an arbitrary restriction put in place to cause someone to do something that mimics a historical behavior. Essentially doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

As Bottom Dollar points out, because players are trained by playing the rules that the way to be successful (and the way to have fun because no one likes being stopped from moving their units) is to keep all their units "in-command". Your theory that structuring CR so that some units always fall inside CR and some always fall out of CR, thus preventing players from immediately responding to threats because "X unit is out of CR, thus I must move an officer stand to bring X unit into CR before X unit can respond to Y threat" is just compounding the issue in my mind. Now CR would be used as a method for delaying reaction time, but reaction time of a unit to a threat had to do with whether the commander had knowledge of the threat more so than the distance between subordinates.

In this case, since the player can see the whole field of battle we would essentially stipulate that the command figures could see the whole battle, yet in real life they couldn't. So in real life they could not have responded to the threat. Thus we must hinder them from responding to the threat. To do so we will stipulate the commander has knowledge of the threat but it too far away to order anyone to respond to it in a timely fashion.

While I don't think sighting rolls are the answer, forcing units, players, command figures, whatever to make a sighting or reaction roll to determine if they can respond makes more sense then saying the historical figure knows everything but stood too far from his men to tell them about it.

That is really broken.

I believe the problem boils down to the notion that we want players to act in historical ways even though they have more information than the historical figures mounted on bases on the tabletop. The Scottsman and I are contending that any restrictions we place on the player to even up this situation should be based on restrictions the historical participants faced, not unrelated means-to-an-end mechanics.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Rich Knapton wrote:
"To implement CR as a restriction on immediate moves, the tabletop battlefield has to be divided in some way that makes some units fall within that CR and some without."

I see what you're saying now. If a designer restricts the range of CR to say approx. what an officer might be able to move in a given game turn, then an officer's units which falls outside of his/her CR could be kept from an immediate move during THAT turn. And therefore, if an officer w/ CR would have to spend one Turn moving, so that the unit in question could be brought into CR for a move on the FOLLOWING Turn, then I agree that the CR mechanic can be viewed as a time restriction.

Jim

Rich Knapton wrote:
"If you use CR to reflect actual lines of communications on the tabletop it also becomes a mechanism by which to limit the ability of the 100 foot general to make instantaneous moves. "

What if the generals were a 100 feet ?

Rich:
You've said several things that are pervasive ideas in the hobby. Let me address three of them in separate posts. We are getting close to 1000 posts!

Rich wrote:

>>>>"The immediate move is a factor of the 100 foot tall general. Thus CR mitigates the perspective of the 100 foot tall general. If you get rid of the reflection of "real" command, you are still left with the need to minimize the perspective of the 100 foot general."<<<<

Rich:
Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say the CR mechanism does minimize the effect of the 100 foot general. There are a lot of game mechanics [easy and otherwise] that could do that. Why this one? It doesn't represent anything historical in-and-of itself at the divisional level, that I have seen. It certainly isn't representative of communication or any other process during the Napoleonic wars. Bandit summed it up the result well: "Doing the right thing for the wrong reason."

The 100' general is a real issue with tabletop wargames, but I don't think CR mechanisms represent a viable model of history, nor is it a particularly effective deterrent to the 100' general effects. My opinion.

Rich wrote:
>>>>>"I'm not saying simulations cannot be fun. But ‘fun' is a by-product of the simulation. The evil empire's Flight Simulator is not designed to be fun. It is designed to simulate flight. It is your simulation of flight that is fun. The fun is in direct proportion to how ‘real' the simulator is. To go back to the Italian Wars, one must make changes to ‘reality' in order to make the game fun."<<<<<

Okay, I can understand why you feel that way. That is a common view in the hobby, games vs simulations, fun vs history. This isn't territory unique to the Wargames. Fun, Games, and Simulations are issues that have been the focus of a lot of thought in the last several decades. Now, there are now BA's and Masters in Game Design [Commerical and otherwise] and Simulation Design. The conclusion for the Commercial game industry as well as other professional game producers, is that fun is a by-product of games too.

There are many games that are designed and played for other reasons than fun, including research [such as Matrix games]. training, and education. I designed games, but their primary purpose was to train and educate. It really helped if they were fun, but it wasn't the main design goal.

Professional game designers see fun as a subjective by-product. Games are simply a series of activities—"a series of interesting decisions" according to Sid Meiers of Civilization fame. 'Fun' for game players varies wildly, but it depends on the game's activities, the challenges.

Chess is a good example. It wasn't created to be 'fun', it was a game in every sense of the word originally developed as a military training instrument in the early A.D. [Really] It is now a game, but also the basis of a livelihood, a career and other serious stuff. Games, like simulations are simply activities that can have a variety of purposes. Not all folks that like games, like chess.

It all has to do with what KIND of fun is targeted. You design the activities and hope they're fun--and you are successful if that is true for lot of people. There is a great book out called "A Theory of Fun in Game Design" by Raph Koster, a well-known computer game [and simulation] designer. It is a great analysis of games and fun, and the why's of both.

He asks questions that all game designers ask, like "Why are some games fun and other games boring? Why do some games start getting boring after awhile and others stay fun for a long time?"

He offers a number of answers. He starts by defining what a game is by quoting professional game designers. Some call them "artificial conflict, defined by rules", where other commercial game designers call them "One or more causally linked series of challenges in a simulated environment." I think you can see that Wargames and simulations have a lot in common simply from the definitions offered by non-wargame OR simulation designers.

A simulation recreates a specific environment, where a typical game doesn't. Whether the environment is 'fun' or not depends on a lot of things. One thing it DOESN'T depend on is whether the design is a game or a simulation game. If designer's focus is fun, it doesn't dictate what he's going to design, a game or simulation.

To Scotman

I look at CR as an easy and cheap way to force a brigade to stick together rather than spreading out as independant battalions. I don't think it should be used for higher levels, such as the divisional command. For simple, play-fast rules (there's a place for those in our gaming)its an okay solution, just as long as the distance is not so small that normal brigade deployments are not ruled out.

If you are willing to work with more detail and rules, CR can still be a part of the rule set but in a different way. It can represent the visual, verbal, musicical communications that keep battalions aligned with one another's actions. A much higher danger level for unsupported flanks also needs to be put into your rules to force real concern about them and get the player to behave there.

What we have trouble in replicating in our game rules is the following. Colonels and brigadiers did not have the information or time to make the decisions and reactions afforded by the "100 foot general", but the 100-foot general (the player) is still moving the lead on the tabletop. The only way I see to solve this is to require these instructions to be carried by courier/attachment from the divisional general as written orders, and have these delayed in being formulated, transmitted and initiated at the brigade level. I'm not happy with "activation rolls" because they sometimes allow (unrealistic) immediate reaction to things that were impossible to assess from the brigade level, and they also prohibit coordinated actions of several brigade level units. (Which might be done by prior orders and prearranged "regulating unit" practices.)

A second thing that is hard to replicate is the deferrence that subordinate officers had to show to their superiors. A brigadier could not decide to act independently of his divisional leader any more than a factory production line worker could decide that he wanted to put the headlights onto the roof of the car today. In both cases, they would be out of there in a heartbeat. This is awkward to write into rules. I think the only way to achieve it is some combination of restriction to prior written orders, SOP on regulating units, (e.g. if the brigade that the divisional general is with suddenly starts to advance, you better do the same!), and SOP on sudden localized situations.

However, if you want to play a big big game or a quick game, a generous CR seems like a valid compromise.

Rich wrote:
>>>>One can create a simulation of Austerlitz. (Boy am I going to regret this. Everything I know about Napoleonic gaming I learned in kindergarten.) That simulation is judge on the basis of how close the simulation matches history. Run the simulation and one would expect the same results as the actual battle. Every time you run the simulation you should get the same results. Some may enjoy seeing the results coming out the same way each time but it is not a game. In order to make a game of Austerlitz you have to modify history (the very opposite of simulation) in order to give each opponent the same opportunity to win. Thus the purpose of a simulation is different from a game.<<<<

Rich:
This is another commonly-held belief within the wargame hobby. It is not one held by EITHER game or simulations designers outside the hobby.

The KIND of simulation you have described is called a 'Static Simulation'. It is not the most common type. That is called a Dynamic Simulation.

A 'Static Simulation' is designed to recreate events. Movies and re-enactments are static simulations. They have one outcome, no matter how many times they are run. They are scripted: every participant has a role, all decisions hare made for them, they just follow the script to produce the same events over and over again. Obviously, Static Simulations can't be games in any sense of the word.

A 'Dynamic Simulation' is designed to recreate environments. Participants are free to create the events themselves. These simulations are the most common type found in research, training--and obviously games--because they allow for participant decisions, 'what if?' actions, exploring alternatives, different parameters and results. Participants in a Dynamic Simulation are dropped into the environment, free to experiment--i.e. their behaviors AREN'T scripted.

Now, if a designer includes Static, scripted participant actions in a Dynamic environment, what does he get? Hash. Neither an accurately simulated event, nor an accurately simulated environment. It is what the "McClellan" rules for Antietam scenarios do--script player behavior in what is supposed to be a realistic environment where the actual participants weren't scripted. It skews everything.

Lots of wargame designs include this mix to some extent. What it creates is players having to do things unrelated to history, having nothing to do with actual combat challenges, but justified because 'it keeps the players from doing something unhistorical.' In other words, players choices are narrowed, controlled, scripted, so they won't do something historically 'wrong.' Professional simulation game designers would call this a self-defeating design choice.

In a game, which can be a dynamic simulation, players must be left to make their own decisions. The environment offers the options, limits the options, but by modeling the environment, not by arbitrary rules that force player actions. It can seem a fine line, but that is the purpose of such concepts as Dynamic and Static Simulations--to clarify those distinctions. It all goes back to modeling the environment, not events or forcing participant choices.

Chess, (shogi et al) is ahistorical – no matter what era or country played in. But it had a military use in terms of learning to consider planning, support, concentration of force…

All games / simulations require abstraction below the level of the targetted descision making. If the CR is at the exact same level that's targeted & its wrong then OK its wrong. If its not and it gives a rapid usable resolution then certainly no-one without a PhD in design really gives a stuff.

Do your simulations use 'National Characteristics' at all?

Billfan wrote;
>>>I look at CR as an easy and cheap way to force a brigade to stick together rather than spreading out as independant battalions. I don't think it should be used for higher levels, such as the divisional command. For simple, play-fast rules (there's a place for those in our gaming)its an okay solution, just as long as the distance is not so small that normal brigade deployments are not ruled out.<<<

Billfan:
We will have to disagree on this. Simple and easy it may be, and I'm all for it, but 'forcing a brigade' to stick together using mechanics that have no relation to the historical methods or challenges negates out any possible 'validity' in my book. Actually brigades stuck together because they WANTED to, for very good reasons that could just easily be represented on the table.

>>>>>If you are willing to work with more detail and rules, CR can still be a part of the rule set but in a different way. It can represent the visual, verbal, musicical communications that keep battalions aligned with one another's actions. A much higher danger level for unsupported flanks also needs to be put into your rules to force real concern about them and get the player to behave there.<<<

That's the problem. Command radius rules don't represent the visual, verbal and musical communication that kept battalions together. Period. It didn't work that way--none of the accounts I have ever seen deal with a communication/control 'radius' in any form, abstract or otherwise. That notion simply isn't on their radar when it comes to communication and control, and certainly didn't influence their thinking in making things work.

>>>>What we have trouble in replicating in our game rules is the following. Colonels and brigadiers did not have the information or time to make the decisions and reactions afforded by the "100 foot general", but the 100-foot general (the player) is still moving the lead on the tabletop. The only way I see to solve this is to require these instructions to be carried by courier/attachment from the divisional general as written orders, and have these delayed in being formulated, transmitted and initiated at the brigade level.<<<<

>>>I'm not happy with "activation rolls" because they sometimes allow (unrealistic) immediate reaction to things that were impossible to assess from the brigade level, and they also prohibit coordinated actions of several brigade level units. (Which might be done by prior orders and prearranged "regulating unit" practices.)<<<<<

Which leads us back to the question of "How did they do it?"
What were the mechanisms for making that coordination work? THEN you start talking about modeling it.

>>>A second thing that is hard to replicate is the deferrence that subordinate officers had to show to their superiors. A brigadier could not decide to act independently of his divisional leader any more than a factory production line worker could decide that he wanted to put the headlights onto the roof of the car today. In both cases, they would be out of there in a heartbeat. This is awkward to write into rules. I think the only way to achieve it is some combination of restriction to prior written orders, SOP on regulating units, (e.g. if the brigade that the divisional general is with suddenly starts to advance, you better do the same!), and SOP on sudden localized situations.<<<<<

So, true, so what were the parameters of action for a brigade commander? Kershaw, a brigadier, goes to Semmes, a brigadier, and asks him to commit his brigade, which he does without consulting the divisional commander. How did he know it was 'all right'?, or was he doing something he shouldn't have. [There is every indication it was something he could do, but why?)

>>>>However, if you want to play a big big game or a quick game, a generous CR seems like a valid compromise.<<<

I haven't seen what makes it a valid compromise in providing players with historical options and challenges. What exactly is being compromised, what's left of history afterward?

Most all the question you raise, how and why brigades 'stuck together', how did brigades communicate?; what was the typical methods and how 'fast were they?; What were the concerns about flanks and how were those concerns manifest on the battlefield?; How much independence did a brigadier have during the Napoleonic or Civil Wars?. As for the 100' general syndrome, before we can limit the effects of this to something approaching reality, we have to know what officers knew, when and how.

I know two things:

1. The contemporary military men were far more concerned about the issues you've raised than any wargamer, and

2. any rules dealing with these issues, if the goal is to represent them in a fashion resembling past reality would have to model *something* of those Officers' experiences and conclusions--if only because that all we got to work with, and they were the ones who had to live with the answers.

It always gets back to "How did they do it?" and then "How do we model that?"

Wow, there have been a lot of last posts.

The Scotsman wrote:

"It always gets back to "How did they do it?" and then "How do we model that?""

I totally agree with that, adding the caveat, IF we are interested in modeling or simulating that "history" in the game and are claiming that that particular item has been simulated/modeled in our game. If we are instead claiming to build a Sam type-game that makes no claims that the game has any real history in it, then the question need not be asked or addressed. Each approach can be interesting/fun for some people.

As Sam has said elsewhere, he just wants designers to be honest about what they are doing, which, ironically, actually fits quite well with what the Scotsman says. :^)

John H.:

I offered the 'last word' to two different folks and they haven't taken me up on it yet. I never said something was my last word.

Johnsayshi:
Chess, (shogi et al) is ahistorical – no matter what era or country played in. But it had a military use in terms of learning to consider planning, support, concentration of force…

John: Actually it isn't ahistorical. Chinese Chess had pieces representing the era it was designed in, including cannon, chariots, a river and palace. The Medieval/European chess that we know has bishops and knights, castles and queens, because all of those were military powers at the time. Even the movement, pawns attacking at the diagonal represented sword thrusts from behind a shield, the knights attacking in an 'L' shape through other pieces represented the cavalry's ability to penetrate lines, the knight striking left of right from the saddle.

Johnsayshi:
>>>All games / simulations require abstraction below the level of the targetted descision making. If the CR is at the exact same level that's targeted & its wrong then OK its wrong. If its not and it gives a rapid usable resolution then certainly no-one without a PhD in design really gives a stuff.<<<<

I don't think any PhD in design is necessary, particularly when I don't have one and have related fairly common, basic, simple aspects of game and simulation design. And as you noted all games AND simulations are abstractions--artificial constructs, regardless of the 'realistic' portions.

If no one gives a stuff, then no worries. I can live with that. There would be no reason to bother talking about what a game mechanic represents. Then it's a game mechanic. If people like it, terrific. Enough said.

If, however, the designer claims it actually represents something historical--abstract as it is--what does it represent? If there is no relationship between the history he identifies and how the mechanic works, what are we to conclude? No PhD is necessary.

And if the designer is claiming to represent history in his game, shouldn't he have a pretty good idea how it's done?

>>>Do your simulations use 'National Characteristics' at all?<<<

My first game, "Napoleon's Last Triumph" actually had a different combat tables for the French/Allies and the Austrians, as well as some Nation-specific rules. What we are working on now does attempt to represent National Characteristics in a number of ways, including SOPs and tactics.

Even the movement, pawns attacking at the diagonal represented sword thrusts from behind a shield, the knights attacking in an 'L' shape through other pieces represented the cavalry's ability to penetrate lines, the knight striking left of right from the saddle.

And, of course, bishops and castles zipping across the battlefield, running over just about everybody. Oh, and don't forget the queen doing her martial-arts bit, laying low even the zippy bishops and castles. ;)

DonLowry wrote:
And, of course, bishops and castles zipping across the battlefield, running over just about everybody. Oh, and don't forget the queen doing her martial-arts bit, laying low even the zippy bishops and castles. ;)

Don:

Well, of course. weren't queens just as fast as castles in the middle ages? Actually even those pieces were an attempt to model the period. Castles were placed at the boundries of territories, so on the board, they set up on the ends of the board and 'define' boundaries with their straight, 'zippy' movement. Bishops too, not only had their own armies, but counter-territories [and boundaries] that cris-crossed fiefdoms with bisoprics etc.

And why were queens so powerful? Feminism spiked during the Dark Ages. The Queen piece represented the real 'lady of the manor' who would often be 'in charge' when the Lord Hubby was away, and a political force to be reckoned with. Queens would often command the castle's defense, or call out the militia to defend the crops etc.

Over all, a fascinating effort to 'simulate' a military situation…

Oh gimme a break

Can anyone spell 'tenuous'?

I offered the 'last word' to two different folks and they haven't taken me up on it yet. I never said something was my last word.

If someone gives the last word to someone else, and that someone posts, then that should be the last word, right?

Statis v. Dynamic Simulation. Very cool. And the chess rundown… I always wondered. Makes sense. Nice to learn something NEW in a thread.

Some very interesting and informative reads, ie WORTH referencing in the future.

John H. wrote:
>>>If someone gives the last word to someone else, and that someone posts, then that should be the last word, right?<<<

Yep, that's the way I see it--I think it was Dark Beck and Sam that I offered it to when they asked if I wouldn't let someone else have the "last word"--and as far as I can tell, they never posted again. I could be wrong, in the hundreds of posts.

Do you want it? [And that is quite an offer when I was hoping to help top 1000 posts…]

Connard Sage wrote:

Oh gimme a break. Can anyone spell 'tenuous'?

Connard:
If you are referring to the chess explanations, you can look the history up on Google, and there are several books out on the history of chess, discussing the changes it went through from India through China to Middle East and finally to Europe, around 7-800 A.D. IIRC. A large number on Amazon.com. Men during the Middle Ages actually wrote about what chess 'represented' and the martial benefits of playing it.

If you're asking about the word, you spelled it right. ;-j

"John H. wrote:
>>>If someone gives the last word to someone else, and that someone posts, then that should be the last word, right?<<<

Yep, that's the way I see it--I think it was Dark Beck and Sam that I offered it to when they asked if I wouldn't let someone else have the "last word"--and as far as I can tell, they never posted again. I could be wrong, in the hundreds of posts.

Do you want it? [And that is quite an offer when I was hoping to help top 1000 posts…]"

Forget it guys. As long as someone (anyone) has a constructive post to make, they should (no matter who it is). When interesting ideas here die out, this thread will, too. If this thread can get to 1000 with posts that are in the main interesting or constructive, I think that would be a good thing. No one is forced to keep reading here if they think the thread has lost all value.

OK my friend, if you say what you do is dynamic simulation then I'm not going to say you don't. However, as I see it simulation even dynamic simulation is an activity based upon databases and manipulation of that data in those databases. This is what I mean. You have a rose and you want to create a simulation of it. To do that, one has to build a genetic database of the Rose's genetic make up. We also need the contents of soil, information on sunlight and duration of sunlight, water, etc.. Once the database is built, one begins to change ratios and such until the simulation is successful and a rose is simulated. Once the simulation is successful and a rose has been simulated one can go back and make database changes (dynamism) such as changes to the soil and see what effect those changes have on the rose. This is why modern simulations often require computers to hold the databases needed for simulation.

Now take a painter. He will use his tools, paints and brushes, to create a replication of that rose on his canvas. Each artist which creates a replication of the rose will replicate the rose a bit differently from the other artists. Picasso will probably create a rose cube-cycle. In any event, none of them will bother with the rose's genetic makeup or the soil or the other stuff.

I see the game designer more like the artist than the database manager. With his tools, his gaming mechanisms, he will attempt to replicate "reality" as he understands it. However, unlike the painter who paints a static replication, the game designer creates a dynamic replication. You write "It always gets back to "How did they do it?" and then "How do we model that?" I would say "How did they do it?" and then "How do we replicate that on the tabletop?" This doesn't need a database but rather the artists touch using the only tools the designer has: his gaming mechanisms. He also has an addition challenge. He needs to make it entertaining, something the simulator doesn't need to do. What I think you do is to make an artistic dynamic replication using the tools of gaming mechanisms. And I'll bet you are good at it.

Hi Bandit.

In this case, since the player can see the whole field of battle we would essentially stipulate that the command figures could see the whole battle, yet in real life they couldn't. So in real life they could not have responded to the threat. Thus we must hinder them from responding to the threat. To do so we will stipulate the commander has knowledge of the threat but it too far away to order anyone to respond to it in a timely fashion.

It is not so much a factor of what the commander can see but, rather, the amount of space/time he has in order to react to what he sees. The further the action is from the commander, the more time is takes to get that information to the commander, if he cannot see it. Also, the further the unit is, which will be transferred to support that weakened area, the more time it will take to send them notice of such a move. The commander may see what is going on but it still takes a certain amount of space/time in order to adequately respond to what he sees.

Wargames generally handle time in lumps of time. Thus one move equals 15 minutes of real time or 30 minutes of real time. Within this lump of space/time units may react ‘immediately'. Beyond this lump of space/time units must respond in the next turn. Thus this lump of space/time in which the commander can react ‘immediately' is what we call the "command radius." The radius is defined by the lump of space/time defined by the designer of the game. Thus, what we are replicating is the amount of action that can be performed given a lump of predetermined space/time and calling it "command radius.". This has nothing to do with the chain of command, Command radius is simply the
byproduct of the gamer dividing the game into lumps of space/time.

The chain of command is problematic. You cannot replicate the relationship which Semmes had with McLaws because in actuality the gamer is both. And, you cannot have a relationship with yourself (regardless of what the wits say). Thus the chain of command is a fiction we employ for the purpose of "feel." It was a reality in Semmes day but a fiction on the tabletop. So the challenge for the game designer is to develop mechanisms which attempts to separate you from yourself in order to more closely replicate the relationship between Semmes and McLaws. This is not so much the replication of ‘reality' as it is the modification of actuality in order to have it more closely conform to ‘reality'.

Therefore, the designer often has to create mechanisms not "based on restrictions the historical participants faced" but based on the issues arising from attempts to replicate the past in terms of the present in a game.

Bottom Dollar:

What if the generals were a 100 feet ?

BD it doesn't matter if they were holding hands (well maybe to their wives). The problem remains what actions can be performed given a lump of space/time available to them.

TheScotsman:

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say the CR mechanism does minimize the effect of the 100 foot general. There are a lot of game mechanics [easy and otherwise] that could do that. Why this one? It doesn't represent anything historical in-and-of itself at the divisional level, that I have seen. It certainly isn't representative of communication or any other process during the Napoleonic wars. Bandit summed it up the result well: "Doing the right thing for the wrong reason."

I was probably wrong in defining CR as a mechanism. It is a conceptual tool for defining how much action can be performed given a certain lump of space/time. The actual mechanism is the providence of the designer.

TheScotsman

The conclusion for the Commercial game industry as well as other professional game producers, is that fun is a byproduct of games too. … Games, like simulations are simply activities that can have a variety of purposes.

Now there I would have to disagree. Entertainment is the goal of a game by definition. If the game is not entertaining it has no reason to exist. There maybe byproducts as a result of playing a game but entertainment is the reason for the existence of a game. Now you can make a learning tool fun but that doesn't negate the fact that it is a learning tool. It's purpose is to teach. A game's purpose is entertainment. The purpose of chess it to entertain. One finds it entertaining to pit his skills against his opponent. If it were not entertaining there would be no purpose in playing it. That is not to say there are no byproducts of playing chess but those byproducts are not the reason for playing the game.

I will grant you there is an important role for simulation in computer games not found in miniature wargames. That is environment creation. In computer games the environment is the creation of the simulator's database. From this database rises the background environment against which the game is played. In miniature wargaming, that environment is created by the wargamer himself. It is he who creates the rivers, towns, hills against which the game is played. Thus, we are not simulating the environment we are replicating it through the use of model hills, rivers, houses, etc.

Rich

Rich wrote:
"Now take a painter. He will use his tools, paints and brushes, to create a replication of that rose on his canvas. Each artist which creates a replication of the rose will replicate the rose a bit differently from the other artists. Picasso will probably create a rose cube-cycle. In any event, none of them will bother with the rose's genetic makeup or the soil or the other stuff."

I like Rich's use of the term "artistry" in design. I haven't absorbed the whole post yet, or even know how much I agree with it (I think a "simulation" design can be art, too), but as a concept to discuss here I think it is a real thought-provoking post and worth giving a compliment to.

Can anyone spell 'tenuous'?

No, but I can spell "badly."

Rich:
I can agree with a number of things you say. Game design, and simulation game design is an art and a craft, but it also a technology.

That is why we can bat around 'concepts' until the lead soldiers come home and the only real issue in game design or simulation game design is: how do they play as concrete mechanics and rules? Do they represent what the designer says they do? The only thing they can represent is something concrete from history. Not a concept

I won't argue that games in our hobby are for entertainment, and many, many games are designed to entertain, but that doesn't circumscribe the purposes
of games, or enforce entertainment as THE only goal for games by definition.

However, if you want to insist that "Entertainment is the goal of a game by definition", then there are a lot of games being designed and used today that fail to have that defining goal--what then? These professional designers paid to design games for purposes that games can not satisfy?

Chess was NOT designed to be entertaining. It is, but that was not the original, or even the reinvented game in different countries and times. That isn't my opinion, but the only conclusion from the the historical record.

Games are a creation of a designer, each with their own reasons for designing them. Games are simply tools to achieve those goals. There is nothing inherently entertaining about a game. Some fail to be entertaining when that WAS the goal. Others, like chess, are entertaining when that was NOT the goal.

If you go on Amazon.com and type in Game Design, you will find a lot of books on designing games as entertainment. You will also find a lot of books about game design that have little or nothing to do with entertainment. Games are a creation, a tool, an art form that can be used for any
number of purposes.

That is why these game designers can create simulation games as entertainment, and educators, scientists, and trainers can create simulation games for entirely other reasons--and they are all games.

Entertainment is a hoped-for by-product of many game activities, and it can be the by-product of simulation activities, particularly when both are using the same kind of mechanics and rules. von Reisswitz proved that first, but many others have after him.

However, the discussions on the TMP is about games as entertainment, and what designers offer as entertainment. Not as a learning tool, not as a research tool--and if they can be used for that, it isn't the primary purpose of the designers…

Rich wrote:

I will grant you there is an important role for simulation in computer games not found in miniature wargames.

Rich:
Don't confuse simulation technology with a particular medium, computers or miniatures wargames.

>>>>>>That is environment creation. In computer games the environment is the creation of the simulator's database. From this database rises the background environment against which the game is played. In miniature wargaming, that environment is created by the wargamer himself. It is he who creates the rivers, towns, hills against which the game is played. Thus, we are not simulating the environment we are replicating it through the use of model hills, rivers, houses, etc.<<<<<<

Ah, no. Computers and miniature tables are both efforts by participants and designers to create environments, for the very same reason. And players can and do 'create' those environments in computer games as much as tabletop wargamers do--in game terms. One of the draws of the tabletop is that it is physical and not a computer screen.

What do I mean by that? A wargame designer defines many of the tabletop dimensions of the terrain, base size, etc. The designer defines what those terrain and unit meanings and game effects will be as surely as any computer game designer. It is just a different medium, each with their own benefits and problems.

Simulations don't differ in purpose or basic technology from computers, wargames or pencil and paper games.

Rich wrote:
>>>It is not so much a factor of what the commander can see but, rather, the amount of space/time he has in order to react to what he sees. The further the action is from the commander, the more time is takes to get that information to the commander, if he cannot see it. Also, the further the unit is, which will be transferred to support that weakened area, the more time it will take to send them notice of such a move. The commander may see what is going on but it still takes a certain amount of space/time in order to adequately respond to what he sees.<<<<

Rich:
I can't argue with that. It is true of any battlefield task, those time/space issues. What I find frustrating is that what Napoleonic military men DID about those issues doesn't seem to be on most folks' radar, which I think would be vital information if it is going to be represented.

>>>Wargames generally handle time in lumps of time. Thus one move equals 15 minutes of real time or 30 minutes of real time. Within this lump of space/time units may react ‘immediately'. Beyond this lump of space/time units must respond in the next turn. Thus this lump of space/time in which the commander can react ‘immediately' is what we call the "command radius."<<<<

Okay. When you say 'immediately' you mean 'the lump of time' defines the meaning of 'immediately'. What is critical here is what officers could with in that span of time, and how far they could do it--right? For DCs, that distance wasn't limited by either the speed of a horse or the range of his voice. Other kinds of limits existed that had little to do with any kind of 'radius.'

Then there is the distance a DC would have to cover from one end of a large division in line to the other. It could be traveled on a horse within that 15 to 30 minute lump of time many, many times. On top of that, such time/distance consideration seem to have had absolutely no bearing on the length of a line, or the division formations.

For instance, CSA division averaged 1/3 larger than US Divisions. Does that mean that the CSA had less control, or that the US had poorer control? No such discussions ever arise among the contemporaries. Time/distance considerations seem to have no bearing on either organization--in fact the CSA seems to have had fewer divisional staff than any US division. So what does the radius actually portray? Why aren't the Napoleonic and ACW officers concerned about these same 'time/space' considerations supposedly the core issue with CR rules?

>>>>The radius is defined by the lump of space/time defined by the designer of the game. Thus, what we are replicating is the amount of action that can be performed given a lump of predetermined space/time and calling it "command radius." This has nothing to do with the chain of command, Command radius is simply the byproduct of the gamer dividing the game into lumps of space/time.<<<<

This is the crux: "what we are replicating is the amount of action that can be performed given a lump of predetermined space/time and calling it "command radius"."

And if what you are replicating ISN'T the amount of action that can be performed? That's the question, and as far as I can tell historically, none of the 'command radius' rules I have seen replicate what I have read of what could be performed by officers in any chosen lump of time you might chose.

>>>The chain of command is problematic. You cannot replicate the relationship which Semmes had with McLaws because in actuality the gamer is both.<<<<

I don't agree. Simulations can and do replicate many of the dynamics of relationships. If we knew what Kershaw and Semmes understood of their command 'parameters' without McLaws, which in all probability was a SOP, it can be replicated. Any relationship, particularly in the military, is based on common understandings and responsibilities. They can be replicated.

>>>>And, you cannot have a relationship with yourself (regardless of what the wits say).<<<

They can have a relationship with the game system, the simulated environment.

>>>>Thus the chain of command is a fiction we employ for the purpose of "feel." It was a reality in Semmes day but a fiction on the tabletop. So the challenge for the game designer is to develop mechanisms which attempts to separate you from yourself in order to more closely replicate the relationship between Semmes and McLaws. This is not so much the replication of ‘reality' as it is the modification of actuality in order to have it more closely conform to ‘reality'.<<<<

Unless you can identify the particular rules that create 'feel' and what the players are supposed to feel, that word doesn't mean anything in game terms of design, game mechanics or rules. And as far as Semmes committing his brigade at the request of Kershaw, what friction? There was none in that communication or their decisions.

I agree friction is everywhere and needs to be represented, but Friction isn't some diffuse cloud settling evenly over the entire battlefield. It affects organizations and battlefield commands in very specific areas in fairly specific ways. And the contemporaries were very aware of this, and created methods/SOPs/Doctrines to minimize the friction at weak points--and vital points.

>>>>Therefore, the designer often has to create mechanisms not "based on restrictions the historical participants faced" but based on the issues arising from attempts to replicate the past in terms of the present in a game.<<<<

What you are saying is that some game rules are created to minimize problems created by other rules designed to replicate the past.

There certainly are rules that have to be in place for the simulation to work that have nothing to do with history, but if one rule is being created to 'fix' another rule, then that is poor game design in most every case, not a necessity or some inherent quality of simulations/games.

Rich ,

>>>The chain of command is problematic. You cannot replicate the relationship which Semmes had with McLaws because in actuality the gamer is both.<<<<

Yeah, on this one I disagree as well. If we can use something arbitrary that we make up, then we can certainly make something up that mimics or replicates or relates to what really went on and I vote for the 2nd.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Here are my thoughts on Wargame/Simulation design and art. It is taken from an article I wrote several years ago:

"If an historical painting is not accurate, then it is worthless as both art and an investment."
--Don Troiani, Military Artist.

Accurate art
All art forms have rules, technical terms, and design concepts that guide artistic practice. Art has a technical side that supports self-expression and ‘powerful art.' This technology is often precise, such as how to represent perspective and depth on a flat surface. This doesn't dictate what constitutes ‘good art.' It helps analyze what constitutes ‘effective art'—And how effective art is used is completely dependent on the goals of the artist.

A number of folks admire Don Troiani's military paintings of the Civil War, and some don't. It's a matter of personal taste. The people who do like Don's work tend to appreciate the historical accuracy in his paintings. This historical accuracy certainly affects sales.

However, whether the paintings are popular or not has nothing to do with how historically accurate they are. Historical accuracy is simply one of Don's chosen goals for his art, and it has to be established regardless of the popularity of his paintings.

To create an historically accurate painting, Don wasn't forced to follow some universal "Civil War Painting Template" nor did he have to forsake personal expression. And when he insists on historical accuracy for his paintings, it doesn't keep his work from being art.

There is a wide variety of art forms in painting: Abstract, Post-Impressionism, Cubist, and Representational art, etc. etc. None are better or worse than the others and each form has it's own unique qualities. All have technical aspects which can be very difficult to resolve in creating effective art.

The fact that art is very personal and each individual enjoys the art that ‘feels right' doesn't make art less technical or negate the value of discrete schools of art or even dictate the artist's purposes for painting a particular piece. As an art, wargame design enjoys these same traits.

‘Accurate' art is a choice, not a requirement
Almost all historical wargame designers make the claim that their designs are, like Don Troiani's paintings, representational: they state their creations accurately represent history in some fashion.

To ‘accurately represent history,' Don Troiani had to be precise, not only in composition, lighting, and color, but in detailing the human figure and the terrain. The uniforms and equipment had to be exact in every detail, and that detail is based on written history and actual Civil War artifacts. In other words, his art had to match a specific set of historical facts.

The value of his creation in large part rests on how ‘precisely' he does this—why?

--Because he believes that this is the ONLY true art? No.

--Because someone told him he had to paint historically
accurate art? No.

Because he decided that his paintings would be historically accurate.

It was his decision to paint historical events as realistically and accurately as possible. And of course, he is ready to support his decision by documenting that precision.

Artists paint for very different reasons. Picasso painted war too. Picasso's Guernica depicts not only the horrors of a particular event in the Spanish Civil War, but of war in general. It is powerfully visceral, but it's not representational. Why can I make such a ‘judgment' about his art? Because Picasso says so. He was very clear about his artistic intentions and his work achieves them using particular techniques not found in representational art.

Picasso obviously chose abstract techniques over the ‘realistic' as the way to best achieve his artistic goals—even though he was extremely proficient at both. Whether you like Guernica or not, it is easy to see Picasso's technical choices. And although he chose abstraction, Picasso still employed a number of the same technical principles Don does in creating his compositions.

The differences in Picasso's and Don's approaches don't make their paintings good or bad art. That is just personal opinion. However, such opinions are influenced by the artist's goals. Most people will appreciate Guernica for very different reasons than those who enjoy Don's "The Southern Cross."

As an art, wargame designs demonstrate these very same differences in intentions. Richard Borg's BattleCry and now his Memoirs of '44 are not representational, but abstract, ‘stylized history' to use his own words. He never intended his games to be ‘historically accurate' or to simulate the actual historical environments. He never claims for his games what John Hill does for his design:

"Johnny Reb will present you with all the problems of commanding formed bodies of men in the midst of the maelstrom of battle."

Or Arty Conliffe: "Armati is a complete rules system that simulates the battlefield tactics of Ancient, Medieval, and Renaissance armies."

Or Sam Mustafa: "Grande Armée is a set of rules by which players can use miniature figures of any size or basing system to recreate the famous, large-scale battles of the Napoleonic wars."

Wargamers play Richard Borg's games for different reasons than those that play Johnny Reb, Armati, and Grande Armée. And unlike Richard Borg, John, Arty, and Sam are claiming the same thing for their art that Don Troiani does for his: it accurately represents a portion of history. You know, their game designs "present," "simulate", and "recreate" the past—and anyone trying to mimic something of real events in their game design is by definition attempting to create a simulation.

Wargame design is an art and wargame designers sometimes claim accuracy, like Richard Hasenauer: "The ebb and flow of Civil War conflict has been recreated in Fire and Fury, an innovative game system using miniature armies to recreate battles of the American Civil War. The system, the result of five years of development, emphasizes playability without sacrificing historical accuracy."

Sometimes they don't, like Larry Harris, the designer of Axis and Allies speaking of his original 1972 design 1942: "The goal was not to detail WWII, but to provide the players with a sense of the basic strategies and core decisions--and their results."

When wargame designers insist their wargame presents something factual, "the way it was," then their art must be historically accurate to succeed. Like a Don Troiani painting, a game design is accurate only to the degree that it matches the known historical record--and that has to be established.

No one should be surprised that Don does at least as much research as any game designer, if not more. He is claiming his art represents specific information, whatever historical evidence he chose to represent.

Bad art is an artist's failure.

Don Troiani knows what makes a painting accurate, and is upfront about how a failure to be historically precise renders his art "worthless." Other folks may disagree, but that is Don's conclusion, and a logical one based on his goals for his paintings. When game designers state their intent is to ‘recreate' historical battles, they are making claims of historical representation, historical validity.

If those designers fail to present factual history, then the design has failed to achieve an identified design goal—the definition of a bad design. The same is true if the designer says his primary goal was to create a fun game, and it's actually a bore.

Simply because game and simulation design is an art, doesn't mean it can't be accurate, and it can't have specific technologies that support the design effort. And unlike a painting, a simulation is recreating history in process.

That's my take on it.

Wargamers play Richard Borg's games …

Would that be Richard Berg?

DonLowry:

No, Richard Borg, with an 'o' as in Star Trek. BattleCry [Hasbro], Memoirs '44 [Days of Wonder] , and the Colors Ancient block games [GMT] are his, or started as his and all are/were popular.

Each game began as tabletop games [He has been at a number of wargaming conventions over the years offering them]. Many miniatures gamers have converted the games back into tabletop games--like me. They use cards for movement. Very unpredictable. Does portray some of the tactical principles in general, but pretty 'stylized' over all. I enjoy them.

Oh,OK. I haven't run into any of those.

I still don't see the following resolved. If the 100foot general, (overall, corp, division, brigade general and the colonel as well), can see things IMMEDIATELY, whereas his counterpart couldn't- how do we slow down the immediate response(s)? A "CR" and "Regulating Units" helps some and models some actual features. "Written" (or otherwise restricted-from-chages) orders helps. Some laws on allowed capablibly of changing orders at different command levels helps. Some delay in order transmission down the COC helps. Getting this as "right" as possible seems to be very important to me. If not, then a lot of awkward fixes get spawned.

billsfan wrote:
>>>>I still don't see the following resolved. If the 100foot general, (overall, corp, division, brigade general and the colonel as well), can see things IMMEDIATELY, whereas his counterpart couldn't- how do we slow down the immediate response(s)? A "CR" and "Regulating Units" helps some and models some actual features. "Written" (or otherwise restricted-from-chages) orders helps. Some laws on allowed capablibly of changing orders at different command levels helps. Some delay in order transmission down the COC helps. Getting this as "right" as possible seems to be very important to me. If not, then a lot of awkward fixes get spawned.<<<<

1968billsfan:
No, it hasn't been resolved. I just don't see CRs solving the problem. It is fixing the issue with a broken tool--at least at the DC level.

In game terms, the player has too much information because he sees too much. It is a Line-of-Sight issue. Some designers have played around with using pictures at the figure height to reduce this, while others create rules to limit what a player can do in response. Hidden movement mechanisms also help. It all depends how many game processes you want to commit to this problem.

Personally, I think it can be 'controlled' indirectly by several things:

1. the regulating/conforming system was pretty rigid in many ways, so changing objectives and lines of operations weren't all that easy.

2. Orders almost always provided objectives or goals. These also focus a command's energies. There are a number of examples of commanders ignoring potentially dangerous activities because 'that wasn't part of their orders.'

3. The tabletop figure representing the commander has to 'see' the new information. If there is no LOS between the figure and the things the player wants to respond to, he can't because of #1 and #2.

There is another issue here and that is the medium. Whether computers, boardgames, miniatures or other venues, each has their limitations because of the nature of the medium. Computers are much better at some things than tabletop games, but they still have only a screen to display all information and other program limitations. One issue for tabletop games is that the player can see everything.

That is a strength and a weakness. I know of players that don't like hidden movement specifically because all their nicely painted figures aren't seen. Just blocks or movements drawn on paper. The magnificent panorama of deployed armies isn't there, except later in the game in driblets.

Table top games can simulate a lot of things easily and some not so easily. The 100 foot general is one of those things. There are a lot of ways to minimize its effects. It's just a matter of whether or not you want a game that expends a great deal of system effort on that issue or not.

And then again, perhaps there are some innovations that can address the problem that we haven't seen yet.

In addition to point number 3 that Bill has made above, I have added a distance at which a new threat "may" be reacted to by wing, corps, divisional or detached commands. This is not a "command radius", but a "visibilty reaction distance" based on estimates of distances at which movement, direction and uniforms can be distinguished.
This distance is the same for generals of all levels.

The player in the role of that subordinate general must pass an inititiate die roll test to order any re-deployments, or counter-attacks (divisional generals may only act defensively) and the probability of this happening is based upon the general`s rating.

I'm having a hard time writing to a person whose name begins with ‘The'. It kind of takes away the personal aspect of the communication. Given no other nam de plum, may I call you Scottie?

First some definitions. If you disagree with these definitions please provide ones of your own. These are defined within the paradigm of wargaming.

Simulation: a process with mimic a real world process. You can create a simulation of a factory. And in computer animation environments can be created through the process of simulation. Simulations needs dabases in which to create their simulations.

Game: is an activity whose purpose is entertainment.

Replication: is to reproduce a copy of something, not done through simulation. An artist creates a reproduction of a rose. The model car builder makes a replication of a Triumph T-3A.

I won't argue that games in our hobby are for entertainment, and many, many games are designed to entertain, but that doesn't circumscribe the purposes 
of games, or enforce entertainment as THE only goal for games by definition.

Sorry Scottie I find this argumentative and irrelevant to the issues dealing with wargaming.

Rich:
Don't confuse simulation technology with a particular medium, computers or miniatures wargames.

Scottie you misread what I wrote. I made a clear distinction between simulation (which is a process) and computers (which are hardware).

Ah, no. Computers and miniature tables are both efforts by participants and designers to create environments, for the very same reason. And players can and do 'create' those environments in computer games as much as tabletop wargamers do--in game terms. One of the draws of the tabletop is that it is physical and not a computer screen.

Scottie, it's not that they both create environments but rather how they create those environments. The computer environment is created through simulation which is a process. The wargamer creates his environment through replication. Here is an example of the problem I'm having.

"Simulations can and do replicate many of the dynamics of relationships." But you are not creating a dynamic relationship. You are trying to understand the factors which lead Semmes to make the decision that he did. In order to do that you must create the thought processes which led him to make that decision. To do this you must create a simulation of those processes. You simply don't have the data. You don't know the thought processes Semmes went through. What you want is the information by which the gamer can make the same choice as did Semmes. This does not require a process. It simply requires replicating the conditions existing at the time Semmes made his decision then let the gamer make the decision for Semmes.

They can have a relationship with the game system, the [replicated] environment.

But this is a very different issue than simulating the relationship of Semmes to McLaws.

Unless you can identify the particular rules that create 'feel' and what the players are supposed to feel, that word doesn't mean anything in game terms of design, game mechanics or rules. And as far as Semmes committing his brigade at the request of Kershaw, what friction? There was none in that communication or their decisions.

No Scotty I wrote f-i-c-t-i-o-n not friction. What I mean is you may have a chain of command in reality but in actuality, in the game, all those in the chain of command are represented by a single player. A single player cannot have a chain of command within himself unless we are talking about multiple-personality disorder. But then that's another issue.

What you are saying is that some game rules are created to minimize problems created by other rules designed to replicate the past.

No. What I am saying is that some rules are created to deal with the problems replicating the past in the present which lie outside the issues of what the ‘real' participants faced. The problem of the 100 foot commander was not a problem faced by the ‘real' participants. The fact that the commander and sub-commander are in actuality the same person is not a problem faced by the ‘real' participants.

No, it hasn't been resolved. I just don't see CRs solving the problem. It is fixing the issue with a broken tool--at least at the DC level.

Scottie, CRs do not solve problems, They create problems which the designer must address. As I wrote, "[CR] is a conceptual tool [not a wargaming tool] for defining how much action can be performed given a certain lump of space/time." It is up to the designer to create the wargaming tools to deal with CR.

Michael:

In addition to point number 3 that Bill has made above, I have added a distance at which a new threat "may" be reacted to by wing, corps, divisional or detached commands. This is not a "command radius", but a "visibilty reaction distance" based on estimates of distances at which movement, direction and uniforms can be distinguished. This distance is the same for generals of all levels.

It seems to me Michael that what you are doing is defining CR as a specific distance and calling it a "visibility reaction distance" The tools you used to deal with CR is a fixed distance measure and a test die roll. So in answer to Sam's question, You would keep the conceptual tool, rename it and provide it with fixed parameters. I have no problem with that.

Rich

Scottie

Okay. When you say 'immediately' you mean 'the lump of time' defines the meaning of 'immediately'. What is critical here is what officers could with in that span of time, and how far they could do it--right? For DCs, that distance wasn't limited by either the speed of a horse or the range of his voice. Other kinds of limits existed that had little to do with any kind of 'radius.'

I agree.

Scottie

So what does the radius actually portray? Why aren't the Napoleonic and ACW officers concerned about these same 'time/space' considerations supposedly the core issue with CR rules?

Remember, CR is not a rule but a concept used because we divide space/time into lumps of space/time. And, those Napoleonic and ACW officers were constantly concerned with space/time considerations. But since they saw it as a flow and not a lump they called it reaction time. Good generals led from the front to cut down on reaction time. Other generals led from the rear and this lengthened their reaction time.

Scottie

And if what you are replicating ISN'T the amount of action that can be performed? That's the question, and as far as I can tell historically, none of the 'command radius' rules I have seen replicate what I have read of what could be performed by officers in any chosen lump of time you might chose.

Yes, that is the question. However, heading those famous words by that great American philosopher, Harry Callahan: "You've got to know your limitations!", this is where I back out and let you, Sam, Michael and other talented designers take over.

Rich

Rich:
It's no secret…my name is Bill Haggart, but you can certainly call me 'Scotie.'

I think you and I can define simulations, games, and 'replication' any way that we like. The real issue revolves around 'working' definitions that we can both agree on and USE in design. Those are technical definitions that can employed in creating those things.

For instance, I can see why you make a distinction between a replication and simulation, but a plastic model car, five inches long isn't replicating much. It is a simulation/model of a far different, and far bigger reality. The same is true of computer trees vs plastic trees--we certainly can talk about one as a simulation and one as a replicant, and what is done to create each, but both are simulating/modeling something far different from a computer-generated picture or plastic--a real tree--but for the SAME reason: to create something that represents a tree in a simulation…

I wasn't being argumentative. I said a Hobby designer's purpose for a game is certainly entertainment. That is the designer's decision, not some built-in quality true for all collections of game mechanics and rules. A game can be designed for all sorts of purposes.

Would you accept the definition of a game used by professional game designers? How about a definition of simulations established by professional simulation designers--and we are talking about an entire industry in both cases, not just some stray designers. Again, these are THE definition, [there are several, depending on the purpose of the games…we will stick to entertainment] but they are working definitions used by those groups.

Unless we can agree on some common meanings, we are going to be trading semantics. I am all for concepts being discussed, but at some point they have to become game mechanics to mean anything. CR may be a game concept, but what designers use them to do or represent is the bottom line.

I have yet to find how you blokes white-box quotes for your posts… Are there instructions somewhere?

I like using "blinds". I've seen games where one player defended vigorously against some blinds, screened by slight hills, smoke and skirmishers, while the actual units were hitting him somewhere else. (Being the umpire in such a game is like being a soccer referee when you have just red-carder the "star" off the field!). Patton once say something like "you guys hold the Fritz by the nose while we go around and kick him in the pants". Being foxed by some cardboard vapor isn't a happy situation to enjoy. But it makes it necessary to sweep away the light hussars and cossacks to find out what's behind. What a chore. Generals of the time hated it too. (wait- isn't that replication of the chores and irratations of those times?)

Here's an article which gives some ideas, which we might find interesting. PDF link

Another idea to bring into our discussion is that we have a lot of types of Napoleonic players. They have different "needs" and "desired feedbacks" from playing in our hobby. For me, I am (was) used to working in a stressed environment, having to make expensive decisions based upon insufficient information. Playing a game where (win or lose) it really doesn't matter too much the outcome, is sort of a release. Other players, may play our games because they enjoy craming in attacks with a lot of kinetic excitment, and just get bored, confused and disinterested about some of the subtle details. Others just want to win (by any means) and have a place also.

We should really try hard to engage all of these types of people in our wargames. We need numbers to have enough people to have an evening or day of playing. Leave enough room for everybody to get some of their prime enjoyment.

1968Billsfan wrote:
"We should really try hard to engage all of these types of people in our wargames. We need numbers to have enough people to have an evening or day of playing. Leave enough room for everybody to get some of their prime enjoyment."

I think everyone who has contributed to this thread would agree with that sentiment. The debate here seemed centered around designers defining their own games and game aims, accurately. Coincidentally, a natural by-product of that would be to make it easier " for everybody to get some of their prime enjoyment" because they could match their goals against the professed goals of the designer and gravitate towards those games and try them out.

Typed too fast again:

"Would you accept the definition of a game used by professional game designers? How about a definition of simulations established by professional simulation designers--and we are talking about an entire industry in both cases, not just some stray designers. Again, these are *NOT* THE definition, [there are several, depending on the purpose of the games…we will stick to entertainment] but they are working definitions used by those groups.

I should also explain 'working definition'. A concept of a car engine is internal combustion, or chemical reaction, etc. etc. A working definition is far more specific and contains information about the actual design of a internal combustion engine: V-8, slant 6, four cylinder, or Diesel etc. Not the only working definitions that could be created for use, but you get the idea hopefully.

I have yet to find how you blokes white-box quotes for your posts… Are there instructions somewhere?

The Scotsman.
See here for quote box TMP link
Max

Rich wrote:
"It seems to me Michael that what you are doing is defining CR as a specific distance and calling it a "visibility reaction distance" The tools you used to deal with CR is a fixed distance measure and a test die roll."

No, I am not defining a command radius!
My rules are to do with the specifics of visibilty, of identifying enemy units and of determining their movements and are also to do with the reactions and initiatives of subordinate generals.
I have specific rules which limit the abiltiy of generals to react and issue new orders… and these are in reaction to external threats. It is not a means to limit the deployment of units within commands, or to keep the units within it in "command/control".

"So in answer to Sam's question, You would keep the conceptual tool, rename it and provide it with fixed parameters…"

No, my answer is to throw it away.

You don`t need a "conceptual tool" if the actual means of command and control (the simple points Bill has made throughout this thread and supported with historical examples) were no more complex.
No more complex than; at each turn going through steps to establish if generals of various levels are within some "range" of each other and the units within their commands are at some "range" from their generals.
If anything, the alternatives we are discussing elsewhere are far more straight-forward than that, and more straight-forward than the rather confused, conceptual tool of "command radius".

Do you want it? [And that is quite an offer when I was hoping to help top 1000 posts…]

Not until we reach 1,000. Then, when I post, everyone should refrain from doing so.

MaxShadow:

THANKS! Now I won't have to be capitalizing [shouting] any quotes. Don't know how I missed that…

Scottie, why don't we start out with the definitions I've already presented? You can tell me what objections you might have, if any, with these definitions.

Rich

Scottie, why don't we start out with the definitions I've already presented? You can tell me what objections you might have, if any, with these definitions.

Rich

Rich:
I thought I had. So lets use your definitions, or at least have you provide some that are workable for game design that we both can use.

First of all, "a game's purpose by definition is entertainment", still leaves us needing a working definition. Lots of things exist to be 'entertaining', but they're not games.

A working definition can be answered by asking 'what is a game'--what are it's basic components? We'll work with yours, as I said.

And ask the same question of simulations: what is a simulation and what are it's basic components?

And last, as this is a wargame hobby--what is a wargame, as distinct from a game or a simulation--or is it?

First, I have already answered those questions, quoting from professional game and simulation designers, but they obviously got buried in the thousand posts.

Second, it is important technically to have those definitions before we can talk about what games/simulations/wargames can do.

And third, the answers don't have to be or can they be The Answers. They are working definitions. They are useful tools in thinking about simulation / game design.