"What is a wargame" Topic

Rich wrote:
GAME as: "A pursuit or activity with rules performed either alone or with others, for the purpose of entertainment." Wargaming would therefore be a game using a flat surface and miniature soldiers.
SIMULATION as: Something which [imitates] a system or environment in order to predict actual behavior. If a simulation imitates a system it must by definition be a system. Therefore it keeps the components of the system within a database of some kind.

REPLICATION as: Process by which an object, person, place or idea may be copied mimicked or reproduced. This means something is made to be similar to something else.

These answers are not THE definitions but they are definitions relative to what we wish to discuss: the hobby of wargaming. I think that many wargame designers use the term ‘simulation' when they actually mean ‘replication'.

Rich:
I am not sure why the definitions and work of professional game and simulation designers would "lie outside the periphery of the hobby of wargaming" when they are designing games for entertainment. And also remember that the term 'wargames' was the creation of military men for other than 'entertaining' purposes. In fact, many dictionaries will give simulation as the definition of wargame and vice versa.

But lets' deal with the definitions you've given, assuming that whatever we are doing is for the sake of entertainment.

So if a game is a "A pursuit or activity with rules performed either alone or with others", then it could be done with "Something which [imitates] a system or environment, right?"

[The statement of simulation purpose "in order to predict future behavior" is very narrow when it comes to why simulations are created. It certainly is A reason that simulations are designed, but not the only one by a long shot. Whoever Wikied this definition doesn't know the industry or simulation design.]

So, if a game is using a system which imitates an environment, it could, and probably would, include replication, "Processes by which an object, person, place or idea is mimicked, right?"

Your last question was "My next challenge is to remember what we were discussing."

The two issues that led to the current discussion were whether wargames could be simulations, and then how that might be accomplished. I would think that by your definitions, the answer to the first question is yes, a wargame could be a simulation and be designed for entertainment.

We could start another thread!

OK Scottie

Just the opposite. I think wargames are replications of certain aspects of battle and thereby are not simulations. I suppose that wargames on a computer could be called a simulation but not figures on a tabletop.

As I see it, building a model car is a replication of a real car. It is not a simulation. A model railroad replicates certain aspects or real railroads. The difference between a model railroad and a model car is the model railroad moves thereby becoming a dynamic replication. Neither are simulations.

Wargaming is much like model railroads in that it replicates certain aspects of war. It is not a simulation. I think this has relevance to trying to create 'reality' on the table top. You might be able to simulate reality. It's done all the time. However, you cannot replicate reality. These is a quote from Kevan Clarke's article "Philosophy, the stream of consciousness and the art of war gaming" (Wargames Illustrated) which reads: It is the failure of rule sets produced within the existing 'domain of thinking' to give players the opportunity to experience the conflict in a manner as close as possible to the way it was experienced 'in real life' (sans bloodshed and carnage of course) …. " But then without bloodshed and carnage it's not 'real life'. You can replicate aspects of real life but it then immediately ceases to be real life. When you replicate a real car in the model you no longer have a real car.

Hope you made the transfer.

Rich

I think "simulation" has a broader meaning than that particular dictionary definition, and it DOES mean what all of us think it means when we use it. The more detailed and accurate wargames ARE simulations, albeit imperfect and abstracted ones.

Further, I don't think replication describes what we do. We are not "mimicking or reproducing" war.

Anyway, what do these definitions tell us that is useful about wargaming?

"what do these definitions tell us that is useful about wargaming?"

That we aren't allowed to call them simulations? Frankly, who cares?

Wargame:
A thesis on how a particular aspect of human/machine/other criteria interact under tactcial, operational, or strategic conditions.

"what is a wargame"

Hopefully and most importantly.

It is fun.

Most weather simulators are tested with known data to see if they can calculate eventsother known events – a bit like wargames?

The definitions are invalid, or inaccurate, or incomplete.

Splitting hairs is some people's idea of fun.

Actually a model railway could be a simulation, even by your (debatable) definition – it could be used to predict the workability of a timetable.

"Mawidge"….

War Game: "To simulate (a military operation or a proposed plan of action) in order to test validity or effectiveness under actual or assumed conditions."

Wargaming: "[A] recreational game that simulates a military operation."

Wargaming as a hobby fits into the second definition, not the first. However, both "simulate" some aspect of battle or war:

Simulation: "[T]he duplicating or reproducing of certain characteristics or conditions, as of a system or physical process, by the use of a model or representation, for study, training, etc."

Replication: "The act or process of duplicating or reproducing something."

Notice that the definitions of "Simulation" and "Replication" have two key words in common: "duplicating" and "reproducing." They mean essentially he same thing.

For wargame hobbyists, it would seem that the "game" aspect is more important. Can the game be played on a 4' x 6' table? Can it be finished in an evening? Are there too many charts and tables? And, perhaps most importantly, is it fun? All these elements are rather subjective, which leads to my next point: why even bother trying to come up with some "objective" criteria for defining what constitutes a wargame? It's a pointless exercise.

Yes, why do such definitions matter? Well, there are several reasons, all leading back to the question of 'fun'. The bottom line is that such definitions allow folks to discuss game design in meaningful ways. Supporting reasons are:

1. Asking if a game is 'fun' isn't enough because folks play wargames for different reasons, for different kinds of 'fun'. There isn't just one flavor of 'fun', so what are they? What are the varieties? A game design can't be everything to all gamers, so what kinds of fun do different designs offer? If words like simulation and recreating, and playability actually had some concrete meanings, perhaps we could actually use them in designing wargames to meet those different kinds of fun…

2. When game designers claim their wargame provides 'historical accuracy', or they have achieved playability, simulating battles, recreating, etc. etc., shouldn't we have some idea of what the hell those mean? Supposedly, they all relate to 'fun' or there'd be no reason to claim them for their designs. Is it just empty hype? Does everyone know the emperor has no clothes, but folks continue to discuss the cut of the jacket and color of the shirts while all the designers insist their games are the best dressed?

3. When the members of the wargame hobby have difficulty agreeing on what a wargame is or isn't, or what it can or can't accomplish, it makes it difficult to discuss game design in any concrete terms. The only meaningful design question is 'is it fun?', and everything else is a pointless exercise…

In another thread, folks came up with several design techniques" designing for 'effect', 'outcome', 'process', 'blackbox', 'feel'. Several definitions were offered from each term, but the in the end, there was no agreement. The last question was asked: "Is it fun?"

4. Any technical endeavor requires working definitions. Game design is technical, particularly when history and simulating are part of what is being attempted. But game design is in and of itself is a technical endeavor. If you read any books or talk to any professional game designers, one of the first things they do is to define what a game is…. i.e. what is it we are attempting to make that produces this 'fun'.

5. If the game experience is the most important design quality, what makes a game fun? That is a question thousands of game designers have asked, and they come up with some real answers--collective answers. But those answers required first asking 'what is a game?'

What one person considers 'fun' is subjective, but what a hobby considers fun is not to a large extent. It offers specific activities and challenges that attract folks who find those particular activities 'fun'. What does it mean when the hobby can't even articulate or agree on what those unique 'fun' qualities are? What does it mean for our game designs?

Rich wrote:
Just the opposite. I think wargames are replications of certain aspects of battle and thereby are not simulations. I suppose that wargames on a computer could be called a simulation but not figures on a tabletop.

Rich:
I am not sure why you think only computers can simulate. If a simulation is a system modeling another environment/system, they why can't a game system do that? The little plastic trees are certainly replications, but the game rules give them meaning within the game. I think you are confusing the game pieces with the game play.

As I see it, building a model car is a replication of a real car. It is not a simulation. A model railroad replicates certain aspects or real railroads. The difference between a model railroad and a model car is the model railroad moves thereby becoming a dynamic replication. Neither are simulations.

I can go with that.

Wargaming is much like model railroads in that it replicates certain aspects of war. It is not a simulation. I think this has relevance to trying to create 'reality' on the table top. You might be able to simulate reality. It's done all the time. However, you cannot replicate reality.

The difference between the train set and a wargame is that there is a game involved, a process, a system to be played with all those little replications on the table. And that system can model a real environment.

These is a quote from Kevan Clarke's article "Philosophy, the stream of consciousness and the art of war gaming" (Wargames Illustrated) which reads: It is the failure of rule sets produced within the existing 'domain of thinking' to give players the opportunity to experience the conflict in a manner as close as possible to the way it was experienced 'in real life' (sans bloodshed and carnage of course) …. " But then without bloodshed and carnage it's not 'real life'.

Rich, this may be the problem. Simulations aren't real life, in fact their one benefit is that they aren't. What they can do is recreate specific parts of real life, that 'domain of thinking' if you will. They provide some of the challenges, problems etc, but not all. All simulations have that restriction, ALL. They identify and model SOME parts of real life, not all of it. If the only simulation of war has to include bloodshed and carnage to model 'real life', then most military simulations are failures.

You can replicate aspects of real life but it then immediately ceases to be real life. When you replicate a real car in the model you no longer have a real car.

Why can't that model car be a simulation? If we put a motor in it, provide steering within scale limits, and some of the same weight distribution, they we can simulate the way the car moves and steer, drive it. If it is part of a racing game, why wouldn't it be a simulation?

Simulations are by definition artificial. They model 'real life', they aren't real life. That is why they can be used for training. Learn without the dangers of bloodshed and carnage. ;-j

Participants can face 'real' challenges in an artificial environment because it is modeled on the real one. Wargames can do that. They can simulate parts of what we know about history without the carnage and bloodshed.

1. Asking if a game is 'fun' isn't enough because folks play wargames for different reasons, for different kinds of 'fun'.

Exactly why definitions are not worth the effort.

A game design can't be everything to all gamers, so what kinds of fun do different designs offer? If words like simulation and recreating, and playability actually had some concrete meanings, perhaps we could actually use them in designing wargames to meet those different kinds of fun…

Yup. And gives rise to the question, once again, as to why we even need to go through this exercise? Seems pointless.

2. When game designers claim their wargame provides 'historical accuracy', or they have achieved playability, simulating battles, recreating, etc. etc., shouldn't we have some idea of what the hell those mean?

Nope. Not necessary. If the game works for one gamer, and gives that gamer immeasurable "fun" and he/she believes that the game design comports with his/her interpretation or "understanding" of history, then there is absolutely no reason for rules authors to back up their rules with notes and design insights. If it works, then it works.

Supposedly, they all relate to 'fun' or there'd be no reason to claim them for their designs. Is it just empty hype?

This makes no sense. Fun and historical accuracy are two separate issues having little or nothing to do with each other.

3. When the members of the wargame hobby have difficulty agreeing on what a wargame is or isn't, or what it can or can't accomplish, it makes it difficult to discuss game design in any concrete terms. The only meaningful design question is 'is it fun?', and everything else is a pointless exercise…

Let me be clear: there can be no consensus hobby wide as to what constitutes a wargame. Period. End of discussion.

In another thread, folks came up with several design techniques" designing for 'effect', 'outcome', 'process', 'blackbox', 'feel'. Several definitions were offered from each term, but the in the end, there was no agreement. The last question was asked: "Is it fun?"

The only relevant question when it comes to games.

Any technical endeavor requires working definitions.

Yup. And let the rules author offer definitions in his/her game. A glossary is a nice feature of most rules. Defining game terms is enough. Afterall, it's just toy soldiers, dice, rulers, and lots of pretend.

Game design is technical, particularly when history and simulating are part of what is being attempted. But game design is in and of itself is a technical endeavor. If you read any books or talk to any professional game designers, one of the first things they do is to define what a game is…. i.e. what is it we are attempting to make that produces this 'fun'.

Military/professional game designers do not have, as an objective, "fun" as the end result of their endeavors.

If the game experience is the most important design quality, what makes a game fun?

You'll never each a consensus on this. Fun to one is boredom to another. Thus my point that none of this matters. Sure, it's "fun" to talk about different game designs, but you'll never get agreement on what fun is.

That is a question thousands of game designers have asked, and they come up with some real answers--collective answers. But those answers required first asking 'what is a game?'

And you've conducted a survey, or have actually designed and published rules?

What one person considers 'fun' is subjective, but what a hobby considers fun is not to a large extent.

The "hobby" is not a person, so it cannot consider anything. And, as I keep stating, what is "fun" to one is boredom to another. It's entirely subjective. There can be no clear, singular definition of "fun" in the context of gaming.

It offers specific activities and challenges that attract folks who find those particular activities 'fun'. What does it mean when the hobby can't even articulate or agree on what those unique 'fun' qualities are? What does it mean for our game designs?

It does not matter, does it? Why would "we" as hobbyists and gamers need to have some sort of definition of fun--about which we all agree?

Rich, this may be the problem. Simulations aren't real life, in fact their one benefit is that they aren't. What they can do is recreate specific parts of real life, that 'domain of thinking' if you will.

But Scotty, it is not that they model aspects of ‘real' life, it is how they go about doing this. It is the system or process by which the model is created that marks a simulation as a simulation.

Why can't that model car be a simulation? If we put a motor in it, provide steering within scale limits, and some of the same weight distribution, they we can simulate the way the car moves and steer, drive it. If it is part of a racing game, why wouldn't it be a simulation?

Let me put it this way Scotty, "why can't a car be system or process [simulation]?" Sure a model can simulate the moves of a real car, if by ‘simulate' one means to ‘copy' the moves of a real car. One can make a reproduction and have it simulate the real thing. Just because it simulates the activity of something doesn't mean it is a simulation unless you mean by ‘simulation' ‘replication'. If all you mean by simulation is replication then we have no problem.

Simulations are by definition artificial. They model 'real life', they aren't real life. That is why they can be used for training. Learn without the dangers of bloodshed and carnage. ;-j Participants can face 'real' challenges in an artificial environment because it is modeled on the real one. Wargames can do that. They can simulate parts of what we know about history without the carnage and bloodshed.

What you face are the challenges inherent in the artificial environment. They are not the challenges inherent in real life. You can walk away from a crash in an artificial environment (flight simulator) when you might not in a real environment. You have eliminated real consequences. It is this lack of real consequences which separates an artificial environment from a real environment. So, I don't believe one can face ‘real' challenges in an artificial environment because there is a lack of ‘real' consequences.

Rich

John wrote:

"Fun and historical accuracy are two separate issues having little or nothing to do with each other."

Do you mean that fun is subjective and historical accuracy is objective and therefore they must be separate categories? Or do you think both are subjective? If you think they are separate, then you must have a definition of "historical accuracy" you are using to make the assertion and to distinguish it from "fun".

I certainly agree they do not have to be synonymous, but it does not automatically follow that they must be mutually exclusive. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

I think they are linked in at least one direction -

I wrote:
2. When game designers claim their wargame provides 'historical accuracy', or they have achieved playability, simulating battles, recreating, etc. etc., shouldn't we have some idea of what the hell those mean?

John wrote:
Nope. Not necessary. If the game works for one gamer, and gives that gamer immeasurable "fun" and he/she believes that the game design comports with his/her interpretation or "understanding" of history, then there is absolutely no reason for rules authors to back up their rules with notes and design insights. If it works, then it works.

So, game designers can claim whatever they want to for whatever reasons and they can do this without explanation as long as folks think the game 'works'--i.e. is fun? Amazing.

It does raise the question of why designers would make such claims if it has no bearing on whether a game works or not, is fun or not.

I wrote:
Supposedly, they all relate to 'fun' or there'd be no reason to claim them for their designs. Is it just empty hype?

This makes no sense. Fun and historical accuracy are two separate issues having little or nothing to do with each other.

Nothing??? Really? And yet designers claim to be designing for both, and the history does appear to have some bearing on the hobby fun, or why is it included? I mean just look at all the lists focused on historical eras.

I wrote:
When the members of the wargame hobby have difficulty agreeing on what a wargame is or isn't, or what it can or can't accomplish, it makes it difficult to discuss game design in any concrete terms. The only meaningful design question is 'is it fun?', and everything else is a pointless exercise…

Let me be clear: there can be no consensus hobby wide as to what constitutes a wargame. Period. End of discussion.

Yes, I do agree there is no consensus. I just question whether that is necessary, or a positive thing for the hobby. Particularly when this includes the designers of wargames. Imagine the RC Model plane hobby with no consensus as to what they were. OR Stamp Collecting, or Racquet Ball etc. etc.

In another thread, folks came up with several design techniques" designing for 'effect', 'outcome', 'process', 'blackbox', 'feel'. Several definitions were offered from each term, but the in the end, there was no agreement. The last question was asked: "Is it fun?"

The only relevant question when it comes to games.

Wargames too? If that is the only relevant question, then probably that is really the only topic that should be listed on the TMP page. The rest are, as you say, irrelevant. I, like you, dislike spending time discussing irrelevant issues.

I wrote:
Any technical endeavor requires working definitions.

Yup. And let the rules author offer definitions in his/her game. A glossary is a nice feature of most rules. Defining game terms is enough. Afterall, it's just toy soldiers, dice, rulers, and lots of pretend.

Many agree with you. So any talk of history, simulating, designing for effect or any other discussion is really a waste of time? That seems to be the conclusion to toy soldiers and lots of pretend. It makes me wonder what all those designers are doing when they say they are recreating history and accuracy and the lot. A rather meaningless exercise if that is true. If so, why do it?

I wrote:
Game design is technical, particularly when history and simulating are part of what is being attempted. But game design is in and of itself is a technical endeavor. If you read any books or talk to any professional game designers, one of the first things they do is to define what a game is…. i.e. what is it we are attempting to make that produces this 'fun'.

Military/professional game designers do not have, as an objective, "fun" as the end result of their endeavors.

If the game experience is the most important design quality, what makes a game fun?

You'll never each a consensus on this. Fun to one is boredom to another. Thus my point that none of this matters. Sure, it's "fun" to talk about different game designs, but you'll never get agreement on what fun is.

I agree fun isn't the same for different folks, but they come to this hobby instead of Warhammer or RPG games for what the hobby can specifically offer--Particular things found in this hobby not offered by others.

Personally, when folks talk about different game designs, the discussions are about the history in games and particular design techniques that seem to have very little meaning and less direct connection to what is 'fun'. I can see why you might feel that they are irrelevant.

I wrote:
That is a question thousands of game designers have asked, and they come up with some real answers--collective answers. But those answers required first asking 'what is a game?'

And you've conducted a survey, or have actually designed and published rules?

Yes to both. There are several national conferences a year for professional game and simulation designers, and have been for decades. It isn't hard to 'survey' the industry when everyone is talking about game/simulation design. I have designed both board games and training simulation games for education and industry.

I wrote:
What one person considers 'fun' is subjective, but what a hobby considers fun is not to a large extent.

The "hobby" is not a person, so it cannot consider anything. And, as I keep stating, what is "fun" to one is boredom to another. It's entirely subjective. There can be no clear, singular definition of "fun" in the context of gaming.

Yes, I got what you keep saying. The hobby isn't a person. Folks come to wargames for what the hobby offers instead of Warhammer, RPG games, or chess--or RC Models for that matter. It has unique 'fun' to offer, different from other hobbies, which is why they come to this one and not another. Last time I looked, All hobbies are done for 'fun'.

It does not matter, does it? Why would "we" as hobbyists and gamers need to have some sort of definition of fun--about which we all agree?

Well, how about these reasons:

1. We spend a great deal of time and money on this fun, so it might help us better get what we want if we could describe it.

2. It would help designers produce it more efficiently.

3. It would make sense to come up with some shared meanings if 'fun' is the only relevant thing about the wargame hobby.

4. It would help focus the designers' efforts, and produce better games… if fun is the only issue.

5. If we as a wargamers can't tell what is fun about our hobby, then it makes it rather tough to present it to the outside world or draw folks into it. I've seen that problem in many forms over the years.

Understand that I am only saying this because I have watched professional game designers ask and answer those questions:
"What is fun?" and "How is a game fun?". Their efforts in the computer and training game industries have paid off in a big way--maybe it could for us too.

To get an idea of how much is being done in Simulation games and game design, type in the following in Google search:

Simulation Conferences

Game design Conferences

Understand that I am only saying this because I have watched professional game designers ask and answer those questions: "What is fun?" and "How is a game fun?". Their efforts in the computer and training game industries have paid off in a big way--maybe it could for us too.

What do they say?

Rich

By the way Scotty I did as directed. I looked up simulation conferences, game design conferences, simulation games, game design and they all reference computer applications.

Rich

By the way Scotty I did as directed. I looked up simulation conferences, game design conferences, simulation games, game design and they all reference computer applications.

As I would have expected.

As for all the other points, let me again state that what is "fun" is highly subjective, as is which "game" processes or mechanics are most "historically accurate." Sure, there may be some essential ingredients or elements that distinguish a Renaissance game from a Napoleonics game, but the over arching consideration for a "game" is that it is fun and feels right. If one does not like a set of rules because it offers little or no explanation backing up its various mechanics, or does not have (shudder the thought) footnotes with historical references, then don't buy the rules, or play the game. But to assert that there should be some sort of industry standard and a set of definitions is, in my view, silly.

And, the whole discussion about accuracy, simulation vs. game, etc., is a waste of time. This is not to suggest however that others should be restricted from engaging in such frivolous discussions. With 35+ years of gaming behind me, I have yet to come across any meaningful article, discussion, etc., on most of these points. They keep getting raised, debated, re-raised, etc. At some point the horse will be mere bits of bone and chunks of flesh.

I wrote: "And you've conducted a survey, or have actually designed and published rules?"

Scotsman responded: "Yes to both. … I have designed both board games and training simulation games for education and industry."

Are they available for reading/scrutiny?

Two things you must know about the wargame:
First it is a game… and secondly, it is a game about war!

Rich,
Computer games are where the money is: that's why most of the stuff you find when searching for 'game design' is about computer applications. However, games and simulations are not bind to a certain medium, though computers are probably the most useful tools for the job nowadays.

Scotsman has already made a good job trying to explain what simulations are. For what it is worth, here are the definitions I have found useful in my engineering studies. They are quite simple, at least when compared to some of the ramblings in this and 'command radius' threads.

Modelling: Representing something (usually part of reality) with something that is not the thing we are representing.

Simulating: Examining that model as a function of time.

Historical wargame is a combination of physical (minis & etc.) and mathematical (rules) models. There are no wrong or right models. Some just fulfil the requirements better than others. Because it's a game, it has some certain requirements: it has to be fun and it should work with some certain minis and what not. When we play the game we are simulating war.

I agree with Scotsman's five points in 22 Mar 8:00 p.m. post. Establishing definitions and challenging some old ideas might do good to the hobby and make game design easier. Here's an example from the rpg side:
indie-rpgs.com/forum
The Forge project has come up with theories of how games work and in many good and innovative games implementing those theories. Seriously, what was the last really innovative miniature game? Crossfire comes to my mind and it's already 13 years old.

Seriously, what was the last really innovative miniature game? Crossfire comes to my mind and it's already 13 years old.

I like Crossfire, but there are many more "innovative" games.

<g> Rich wrote:
By the way Scotty I did as directed. I looked up simulation conferences, game design conferences, simulation games, game design and they all reference computer applications.

Rich:
If you did look at more than a few of them, you would have noticed several things:

1.They mention more than computer games and simulations [even in the first ten]

2. It shouldn't be surprising, as computer games and simulations is a 8 Billion dollar industry--to they get the most attention. They are still designing games and simulations--and all that attention has made progress in game design and simulations in general over several decades, not just with computer programs.

3. Many of the topics cover game and simulation design over a wide variety of mediums, and in general, not just computers.

4. Any number of computer design issues are the same for all game and simulation designers.

And I know this because I went to a number of them and never designed computer games or simulations.

Some of the more universal conferences [i.e. not just computer programing…] include:

The North American Simulation and Gaming Association (NASAGA)

International Simulation And Gaming Association 40th Conference – ISAGA

"How to Build a Simulation/Game." Volume II. Proceedings of the … How to Build a Simulation/Game. Volume II. A book from the last five ISAGA conference--which have been going on since 1979.

Game Developers Conference 2009. In SF this weekend.

Amazing how many conferences seem to think games and simulations can actually co-exist in the same design. Even engineers and military conferences combine those two concepts.

John wrote:
As for all the other points, let me again state that what is "fun" is highly subjective,as is which "game" processes or mechanics are most "historically accurate."

John:
I am not sure how 'accuracy' can be subjective. A 'bullseye' is in the eye of the beholder?

As for 'fun', an accomplished game designer, computer game designer, Ralph Koster wrote a book "A Theory of Fun for game design," Paraglyph Press. As you haven't seen anything pertinent in this hobby, you might find the book interesting as more than frivolous. Remember, though, it was written by and to professional game designers, so while fun is the issue [and the book is a fun read], they are very serious about their fun.

While the experience of fun is subjective, what can incite such 'fun' is a practical game design issue, one that is the difference between a good design and bad. Because of that, it has been a point of extreme interest of the that 8 Billion dollar game industry.

Michal Collins wrote:
Two things you must know about the wargame:
First it is a game… and secondly, it is a game about war!

Michael:
Naw, that's too easy. No one will agree with that… ;-j

Bill

Rich asked what professional game designers say about 'fun' and game design.

I can recommend these books, among scores of similar works:

Ralph Koster's "A theory of Fun for Game Design."

A fun book on both the research and design industry conclusions on 'fun'. Remember he is a computer game designer…
Topics:
1. Why write this book?
2. How the Brain works
3. What games are
4. What games teach us
5. What games aren't
6. Different fun for different folks
7. The problem with learning
8. The problem with people
9. Games in context
10 The ethics of entertainment
11. Where games should go
12. Taking their rightful place.
13. Fun matters, Grandpa

The there is Chris Crawford's book On Game Design
The contents are:

1. Definitions, Definitions
2. Some Milestone games
3. Play
4. Challenge
5. Conflict
6. Interactivity
7. Creativity
8. Common Mistakes
9. The education of a game designer
10. Games I'd like to build
11. Story telling
12. Random Sour Observations
13. Tanktics [Yes that Chris Crawford--did several wargames]

THEN he gets into computer game design specifically in the next 13 chapters using as examples such games a "Legionaire"
Eastern Front 1941, Patton vs Rommel, Patton Strikes Back etc.

There are others, just as practical:

An anthology Bame Design Perspectives edited by Frnacois Dominic Laramee with such articles as: "World Building", "Balancing Gameplay Hooks", "Meaningful Game Mechanics", "Pros and Cons of Hit Point systems", "Alternatives to Numbers in Game Design", "Increasing the challenge without frustrating the players", "Nine Trade-offs of Game Design", "Pacing in Action Games", Warning Signs of Faulty Game Design", "Memory-Friendly Design"

OR how about Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams On Game Design In just the first two chapters this book has such topics as:

Chapter 1: What is Game Design? Art Science or Craft?
Chapter 2: Game Concepts
The elements of a Game
Games, toys, and Puzzles
Challenges, Gameplay and the Victory Conditions
Setting, Interaction, and perspective
The Player's Role
Modes and Structure
Realism
A word about Story
Understanding your audience
Core vs casual

Even though all of these men are basically computer game designers, they address many, many of the topics seen in out hobby when game design is discussed. These works can add to our hobby efforts, if only because the views are from very successful game designers--views that have been developed within a large, well-funded community of designers, who can offer some insights in game and simulation design from a different, and far wider perspective. [The computer game design industry has extensive contacts with the simulation designers in research and training--a lot of cross-fertilization.

For instance, both simulation designers and game designers agree that there are basically only four design elements to either. All games and simulations simply use the four in different combinations. And one element rules them all…

And you're going to stop there? Scotty, thou art a mean and heartless fiend and I shall send Archibald Cunningham to give thee a sound thrashing.

I ordered "A theory of Fun for Game Design.". But before you can design a wargame you need to know what a wargame is. Am I'm going to have to wait for the book?

Rich

I am not sure how 'accuracy' can be subjective. A 'bullseye' is in the eye of the beholder?

Sure it can. We can disagree on what history tells us, right? After all, professional historians disagree over the meaning of historical data, right? You and I can disagree over the battlefield role of pikes during the Renaissance and also disagree as to how best their function should be modeled, right?

As you haven't seen anything pertinent in this hobby, you might find the book interesting as more than frivolous.

Never so suggested that there was nothing "pertinent" about this hobby.

John wrote:
Sure it can. We can disagree on what history tells us, right? After all, professional historians disagree over the meaning of historical data, right? You and I can disagree over the battlefield role of pikes during the Renaissance and also disagree as to how best their function should be modeled, right?

John:
Historians disagree over any number of things, but not everything, or even most things. For instance, no one claims there were no pike units employed during the Renaissance… Whether one interpretation is 'right' or not isn't the issue with simulation accuracy.

Historical accuracy in this case applies to the game/simulation, not what history is 'right'. The game kind of accuracy is like Rocco's kind of accuracy with his military art. His painting is historically accurate because it faithfully represents particular historical sources. Whether everyone agrees that those sources are the best or correct interpretations isn't the issue. It is accurate because there is a 1:1 relationship with the artist's chosen history. The artist, whether in paint or game mechanics picks a target [historical information] and faithfully represents it--if done adequately, the painting and game are 'historically accurate.'

So if the game designer chooses Burkhart's interpretation of the role of Pikes or Dubreck's, or some primary source, the historical accuracy is in how well that chosen history is modeled by the game. The nice thing is, the designer gets to chose what history. Of course, if he never tells anyone what history was chosen, then the entire exercise is pointless. He would be claiming he achieved a bullseye, but never tells anyone what target was chosen--It renders a simulation pointless too. If participants don't know what they are simulating, the simulation can't work, the game might, but not any simulation aspects.

Two people can disagree about how best to model the use of pikes during the Renaissance, they can disagree about the 'best' history, but the historical accuracy of a game--no. If the designer has the history identified and what it says about the role of pikes, and the game models those traits, it's an accurate simulation--of that information.

The 'best' history is subjective--and that isn't the issue here. It is the relationship between the designer's chosen history and the game. If there isn't any history supporting the game mechanics, there isn't any way it could be accurate.

For instance, the Republican Roman maniple rules in Ancient Empires , where one Hastati, Principe and triari maniple move all over the table supporting each other without regard for the rest of the legion's lines has absolutely no historical support. There isn't any historical sources that describe such a battlefield process, and lots that argue against it. In that case, it can't be historically accurate. I could say the same thing about 'command radius' rules for divisions and brigades in Napoleonic and ACW games…

The nice thing about simulation game design is that the same historical 'function' can be modeled several different ways with several different mechanics and all can be 'historically accurate', just as valid. Which one is 'best' or 'most liked' is subjective, just as it is subjective if you like Rocco's artwork or not, even if it is 'historically accurate.'

Rich wrote:
And you're going to stop there? Scotty, thou art a mean and heartless fiend and I shall send Archibald Cunningham to give thee a sound thrashing.

I ordered "A theory of Fun for Game Design.". But before you can design a wargame you need to know what a wargame is. Am I'm going to have to wait for the book?

Rich:
Guilty as charged. All us Scots have that in us. Actually the definition of a wargame can be as simple as 'a game of war'. James Dunnigan wrote a book on wargame design while heading up SPI back in 1979, and he defines it well enough. The book is in its third edition.

Dunnigan wrote two books on Wargame Design. Peter Perla wrote one on Professional Wargame Design. Both have much to recommend them. They have two problems:

1. Both Dunnigan and Perla seem to be unaware of any of the developments in simulation design outside their slice of the wargaming hobby and military gaming.[Perla works with the Naval simulation department. I have read articles by Perla written to military audiences in 2004 and 2005 asking design questions that were identified and answered by Professional simulation and game designers a decade ago.

2. Their books are more than twenty years old. They have some serious oversights that are frustrating. For instance, Dunnigan repeatedly says that wargames are 'realistic' and that many military wargames are 'very realistic', and that is one of their primary values, but he never defines what 'realistic' means in game design terms or how that quality is created in a game.

In any case, what else can I say, unless I start transcribing these books right here on this thread? *gag*

Bill

Two people can disagree about how best to model the use of pikes during the Renaissance, they can disagree about the 'best' history, but the historical accuracy of a game--no. If the designer has the history identified and what it says about the role of pikes, and the game models those traits, it's an accurate simulation--of that information.

See, this is where we fundamentally disagree. If I argue that Landsknechts "fence" with their pikes, and cite sources in support of same, and you argue that they charged headlong into a melee, producing a type of "pike scrum", and you cite your sources, then we have a disagreement over not only which historical "facts" and interpretations to apply to the game, but also over which mechanics apply.

John wrote:
See, this is where we fundamentally disagree. If I argue that Landsknechts "fence" with their pikes, and cite sources in support of same, and you argue that they charged headlong into a melee, producing a type of "pike scrum", and you cite your sources, then we have a disagreement over not only which historical "facts" and interpretations to apply to the game, but also over which mechanics apply.

John:
We certainly can disagree about the facts and interpretations. However, if you build a wargame/simulation which models your sources and interpretation, then you have built an historically accurate simulation. It is based on historical evidence and you have successfully simulated that. Whether others feel it is the 'right' history is another question all together.

For instance:
Marshal Marmont wrote this:

"To conditions are observed in the numerical composition of a battalion. It should be easy to move, and when deployed, the voice of the commander should be readily heard at both extremities of the line. Observing these limits, the number of companies and the personnel of each company may be increased more or less, at will." pp. 60-61

Now if I develop a battalion level game where there is a voice command radius based on the sizes that Marmont say are the limits to the size of a battalion, the game can be historically accurate. There's the history and the game models veteran Marmont's conclusions. If others doubt that Marmont was right or that battalion size had any bearing on how well the commander could communicate by voice, that doesn't change the game's accuracy. It does what it was designed to do: mimic a portion of the historical record.

If I don't feel the game actually models that bit of history, then it is a design issue, and one of accuracy…
Here, there are design methods for determining that. Again, all simulations are built on available information. The designer gets to chose what information to model.

However, if you build a wargame/simulation which models your sources and interpretation, then you have built an historically accurate simulation. It is based on historical evidence and you have successfully simulated that. Whether others feel it is the 'right' history is another question all together.

Fair enough, but in the context of this hobby (as opposed to professional wargame designers that model conflicts for training purposes, etc.), most criticism of rules seems to be centered on which set of historical facts and interpretations should apply. Game mechanics are often secondary. (At least in my experience).

John H. wrote:
Fair enough, but in the context of this hobby (as opposed to professional wargame designers that model conflicts for training purposes, etc.), most criticism of rules seems to be centered on which set of historical facts and interpretations should apply. Game mechanics are often secondary. (At least in my experience).

John:
Well, that is true more often than not in my experience too. I think that there are two reasons for game mechanics often being secondary in any wargame analysis:

1. Not enough information. Most designers never tell you what the game mechanics actually are supposed to represent. I can give any number of examples of gamers either criticizing the historical basis of a rule, or having long discussions about what the rule possibly represents, only to find out that the designer had something completely different in mind. And then, they still don't know what history is actually being modeled. It isn't surprising that the criticisms are centered on the history the player knows. It can't be centered on the designer's… Most Design Notes never tell you what history influenced their conclusions, the designers just give their conclusions/interpretations…

2. No Meaningful Game Mechanic Descriptions. When the deepest question that can be asked of a game mechanic is 'is it fun?', there is little point in discussing them other than to state one's personal 'likes'. Of course, history is going to be the focus. Supposedly there is something more there than personal preference and how many dice a person likes to throw…. But of course, even that is often reduced to nothing more than personal opinion.

It is not surprising that many gamers would much prefer to just play the games than engage in such directionless discussions.

It doesn't have to be that way. Other game designers have gotten beyond such things. One way was to define what historical accuracy actually consists of, and where it resides in a game, in technical terms.

Rich wrote:I ordered "A theory of Fun for Game Design.". But before you can design a wargame you need to know what a wargame is. Am I'm going to have to wait for the book?

Rich:
I think you'll enjoy the book. One of the 'aha's I had was Ralph K.'s observation that all games are puzzles to be solved. Games that aren't played for a long time are the ones either easy to solve [that is, the optimum moves are found] or they are too hard to solve and are dropped. The ones that are played for a long time prove to be those that offer a wide variety of successful moves with many possible outcomes that lead to victory--the solutions.

That not only gave me a new way of looking at wargames, but it also pointed to particular mechanics that are more likely to offer that variety of possible outcomes.

Bill

Now if I develop a battalion level game where there is a voice command radius based on the sizes that Marmont say are the limits to the size of a battalion, the game can be historically accurate. There's the history and the game models veteran Marmont's conclusions. If others doubt that Marmont was right or that battalion size had any bearing on how well the commander could communicate by voice, that doesn't change the game's accuracy. It does what it was designed to do: mimic a portion of the historical record.

Where do I begin? If something is in the historical record does this make it a historical fact? If sailors, in a fleet, refuse to sail beyond the sight of land because they have the opinion there are sea monsters there are we justified in including sea monsters in our navel game? After all the opinions are a matter of historical record. No, of course not. The fact that Marmont gives his opinion, while a matter of historical record does not automatically make the opinion a historical fact. One must separate historical opinion from historical fact.

How do you ‘model' an opinion? What does it mean to ‘model' an opinion? What kind of game do you end up with based on opinions. Scotty it sounds like you have confused opinion with fact.

If I don't feel the game actually models that bit of history, then it is a design issue, and one of accuracy…
Here, there are design methods for determining that. Again, all simulations are built on available information. The designer gets to chose what information to model.

How do you ‘model' bits of history? What do you mean by model? Do you mean a formal model as used in formal simulations or do you mean simply to replicate? How are you defining simulation? Is this a formal artificial process to mimic a real world process, and if so how. Or, again, do you simply mean replication?

No Meaningful Game Mechanic Descriptions. When the deepest question that can be asked of a game mechanic is 'is it fun?', there is little point in discussing them other than to state one's personal 'likes'.

What do you mean by ‘game mechanic'? Are you talking about how artillery is fired or are you talking about the structure of the game as a whole? If you mean how artillery is fired, it seems to me it is a question about how separate game mechanics contribute to the entertainment value of the game as a whole; remembering that how the period is presented is part of the entertainment value of the game. After all, the purpose a game (with regards to our hobby), entertainment, is what sets games apart from formal simulations. The one is for entertainment the other is for information. One may be entertained by how a formal simulation provides information. This doesn't change the fact that information is the reason for the existence of the formal simulation.

Entertainment is the reason for the existence of a wargame (as defined by the hobby). There are many components that go into making a wargame entertaining but if the game is not, in the end, entertaining it defaults on the very purpose of its existence.

One way was to define what historical accuracy actually consists of, and where it resides in a game, in technical terms.

OK, explain ‘historical accuracy' and where it resides in a wargame.

Rich

Rich wrote:
Where do I begin? If something is in the historical record does this make it a historical fact? If sailors, in a fleet, refuse to sail beyond the sight of land because they have the opinion there are sea monsters there are we justified in including sea monsters in our navel game? After all the opinions are a matter of historical record. No, of course not. The fact that Marmont gives his opinion, while a matter of historical record does not automatically make the opinion a historical fact. One must separate historical opinion from historical fact.

Rich:
I am shocked that you don't believe in sea monsters… :-7 Actually, there are two issues here:
1. As you say, "One must separate historical opinion from historical fact." That has to be done before the game is designed. Simulations and historical wargames are completely dependent on the information they are based on. Garbage in, Garbage simulated. [accurately?] It is the designer's 'job' to decide for himself what 'facts' he is basing his design on. He may well want to design a game based on Marmont's views. They are historical primary information, given by a veteran soldier, and with some work, could be established as more than one man's opinion. What historical information the designer chooses can certainly be questioned, but that is a separate issue from questioning his game design.

How do you ‘model' an opinion? What does it mean to ‘model' an opinion? What kind of game do you end up with based on opinions. Scotty it sounds like you have confused opinion with fact.

I don't think so, I just believe that there are a whole lot of opinions in history that have to be verified 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Who does that and how that is done is beyond the game designer's perview as a game designer. To do that requires he change hats and become a historian. Otherwise he has to accept someone else's conclusions, whether a historian or a primary source. The former is what the majority of game designers, past and present do.
How do you model an opinion? Take Marmont's opinion on how large a battalion should be and how battalion commanders communicate. Modeling Marmont's conclusions in a game wouldn't be that hard. Take the maximum size for a battalion he gives, make that the voice range of the commander, and any companies outside of that range have command difficulties—which he describes. Not all that hard. Designers do this all the time, only they are historian's 'opinions.'

How do you ‘model' bits of history? What do you mean by model? Do you mean a formal model as used in formal simulations or do you mean simply to replicate? How are you defining simulation? Is this a formal artificial process to mimic a real world process, and if so how. Or, again, do you simply mean replication?

I am not sure what you mean by a 'formal model' or a formal simulation. The problem with your term 'replicate' is that it can be a process, which also can be a simulation 'system'—most systems are 'processes.'
What I am referring to is a model of a process or system. Marmont's opinions are a description of 'how things work', so that several 'bits' or replicates make up the entire system, using your definitions. The rules representing Marmont's description would be a model of it, how it works. A game, as a simulation, is a single model of an environment. Using your definitions, a simulation can include several subsystems, each a 'simulation' itself of a process. And in that simulation would be several 'replicates', objects or processes that represent some aspect of reality, which together help the simulation to function.
If this is rough, it is because I am trying to use your definitions to describe something I know in a different context, but it still works.

What do you mean by ‘game mechanic'? Are you talking about how artillery is fired or are you talking about the structure of the game as a whole? If you mean how artillery is fired, it seems to me it is a question about how separate game mechanics contribute to the entertainment value of the game as a whole; remembering that how the period is presented is part of the entertainment value of the game. After all, the purpose a game (with regards to our hobby), entertainment, is what sets games apart from formal simulations. The one is for entertainment the other is for information. One may be entertained by how a formal simulation provides information. This doesn't change the fact that information is the reason for the existence of the formal simulation.

Rich:
Yes, game mechanic is like how artillery fire is processes. Many game mechanics make up the system of a simulation. Rich, if you are defining a 'formal simulation' as one whose reason for existence 'information'—what do you do with all the designers of simulation games for entertainment. Or what do you do with all the games that provide information and skills development in an entertaining format? You can define a hammer by saying it's reason for existence is driving nails, but you can't deny that it can also pull nails, drive staples and take out dents, etc. etc. with the same design. Simulations are simply tools that can do many things, providing information and entertaining being only two of them—and they can do it at the same time.

Entertainment is the reason for the existence of a wargame (as defined by the hobby). There are many components that go into making a wargame entertaining but if the game is not, in the end, entertaining it defaults on the very purpose of its existence.

Yes, agreed. And wargames are entertaining in many ways. They entertain the game challenges they provide, the series of interesting decisions they offer, to quote Sid Meiers. Our games also entertain in the way they provide information, in a dynamic fashion. They are entertaining because they provide some of the challenges faced by historical commanders. They are entertaining because the game challenges model history etc. etc. So, as defined by wargames, entertainment can be the reason for the existence of a simulation game.

OK, explain ‘historical accuracy' and where it resides in a wargame.

Okay. Accuracy implies that there is an objective, and it has been hit within predetermined parameters. To have 'historical accuracy', the Designer must identify:
1. the target, the historical information to be modeled, and
2. Whether the simulation models the identified information.

[Here, we have just gone beyond most all designer notes, or what designers offer in the way of information—most designers fail to identify either, and never in a methodical way.]

One example is Rocco's military paintings. Rocco collects the historical information, determines what he will represent, paints it. It is historically accurate if the painting matches information he has collected, the uniforms, the particulars of the battle event chosen etc.

Another would be if one of my game design purposes was to model Marmont's description of battalion communication and command. I would have to state that goal for my design somewhere, and then identify which rules model it. There are several ways to actually test the model to see if it works to mimic Marmont's opinion. However, if the target is known, just reading and playing the rule is often enough to satisfy most critics. I can go into more of the methods for verifying accuracy if you like.

The terms "historical accuracy" and 'simulation accuracy' have specific and testable meanings for most simulation and game designers. I see no reason why they couldn't easily work for our hobby, if that is something we want in our games, and want to be sure it is actually included in what we play.

And I do mean easy. We are not talking rocket science here. I used many of the same methods to verify my training simulation games, from scenario role-playing to skills development for such things as verbal skills and non-confrontational tactics, that were used by computer simulation designers for entertainment, science and engineering research as well as management and organizational development. The reason is simple: the basic concepts, methods and goals were the same: build a functional simulation.

Bill

Rich wrote:
"If sailors, in a fleet, refuse to sail beyond the sight of land because they have the opinion there are sea monsters there are we justified in including sea monsters in our navel game? "

That is a great question and I think the answer would be yes. When the fleet got out of sight of land there would be a morale check for a mutiny because of a fear of sea monster. When a floating barrel was sighted, or the sound of a sea bird was heard it could be another sea monster morale check.

Ned, stop drinking what you've been drinking.

Scotty, thanks for the reply. It will take a bit to chew it over. However, I will say that good designer must also be a good historian. He doesn't have to be a professional historian but none the less a good historian.

Rich

I dropped a number, which confused this point:

Actually, there are two issues here:
1. As you say, "One must separate historical opinion from historical fact." That has to be done before the game is designed.

2. Simulations and historical wargames are completely dependent on the information they are based on. Garbage in, Garbage simulated. [accurately?]

Sorry for taking so long to respond. Life got in the way and your respose was difficult to deconstruct.

Also, my definitions were not on target. After reading the book you recommended and a few websites, I've had to make some definitional changes:

"1 System: that which exists and operates in TIME and SPACE
2. Model: simplified representation of a system at some particular point in time or space intended to promote understanding [information] of the real system.
3. Simulation: manipulation of a model in such a way that it operates on time or space to compress it, thus enabling one to perceive the interactions that would not otherwise be apparent because of their separation in time or space."

"A simulation generally refers to a computerized version of the model which is run over time to study the implications of the defined interactions. Simulations are generally iterative in there development. One develops a model, simulates it, learns from the simulation, revises the model, and continues the iterations until an adequate level of understanding is developed."

link

Thus simulations provide information about real world systems from computational models of those systems.

However, that's not the end. Simulation can mean to imitate the appearance or character of real life things. In our case that would be things like artillery. In this respect, simulation and model (as in model car) are nearly synonymous.

In addition, we have the term used as a "simulation game." These are computer games which mimic real life in some way. This, however, has little relevance to the hobby of wargaming which is not a cmputer game.

In addition to this, you have used symulation as a synonym for wargaming itself.: "Many game mechanics make up the system of a simulation." The fact that we can replace ‘symulation' with ‘wargame' and have no change in meaning clearly indicates you are using symulation as a synonym for wargame [or game at the very least]. However,you are assuming what yet has to be proven. Therefore it is not a vaible definition.

Finally using simulation as a verb we have: "imitate the appearance or character of." Thus we can simulate a battlefield but this does not make the battlefield a simulation.

Here is another example which I find to be confused terminology:

"A game, as a simulation, is a single model [replication] of an environment."

"A game, as a simulation," you are again assuming definitions which have yet to be shown. A simulaton can be composed of computational models or it can mean the model item (ie. artillery piece) However, you also, elsewhere, wrote, "What I am referring to is a model of a process or system." In the first quote, you define model as a replication but here you define model is as a ‘process' or ‘system'. The result is confusion.

May I suggest that ‘model' has two working definitions for this discussion.
1. Computational model: a simplified computational representation of a system.
2 Model: a representation of a real world item (soldiers, equipment, terrain, etc.)

Yes, game mechanic is like how artillery fire is processes. Many game mechanics make up the system of a simulation.

There is an artillery piece with a specific bore and length. There is powder of a certain quality and amount. A ball has a certain weight and diameter. The firing tube is placed at a certain angle. We can computationally model all that with mathmatical equivalents. When run, we can determine how far the ball will go. We can manipulate the this data and achieve variable results. This would be an artillery simulation.

However, I don't know of a single rule writer that has computationally modeled this and run a simulation. More than likely, the rule writer came across information which says six pounders have a range of x, 12 pounders have a range of y and 24 pounders have a range of z. These are not simulated numbers but rather descrete numbers obtained from actual firings. Simulations don't run on descrete numbers. Simulations involve computational numbers.

Rich, if you are defining a 'formal simulation' as one whose reason for existence 'information'—what do you do with all the designers of simulation games for entertainment.

Simulation games are computer games with little relevance to the hobby of wargaming. Maybe you think there are things we can learn from such computer games, and perhaps we can, but they are not the same thing.

Or what do you do with all the games that provide information and skills development in an entertaining format?

Again Bill, this has little relevance to the hobby of wargaming.

You can define a hammer by saying it's reason for existence is driving nails, but you can't deny that it can also pull nails, drive staples and take out dents, etc. etc. with the same design.

If the hammer cannot drive nails then the fact that it can do these other things is irrelevant. There are tools that can already perform these other functions. One would not need a non-functioning hammer.

Simulations are simply tools that can do many things, providing information and entertaining being only two of them—and they can do it at the same time.

The fact that simulations may do these other things is irrelevant if it cannot provide information.

Rich: Entertainment is the reason for the existence of a wargame (as defined by the hobby). There are many components that go into making a wargame entertaining but if the game is not, in the end, entertaining it defaults on the very purpose of its existence.

Bill: Yes, agreed. And wargames are entertaining in many ways.

You've missed my point. Wargame's only reason for existing is entertainment. How they entertain, what you are discussing, is a completely different subject. It is an important subject which I hope we can get to.

So, as defined by wargames, entertainment can be the reason for the existence of a simulation game.

Except you didn't define a wargame. You defined how wargames are entertaining. Many things can be entertaining but this doesn't make them wargames. Nor does it make a wargame a simulation game.

Okay. Accuracy implies that there is an objective, and it has been hit within predetermined parameters. To have 'historical accuracy', the Designer must identify:
1. the target, the historical information to be modeled, and
2. Whether the simulation models the identified information.

Except you have failed to define ‘simulation' and ‘model'. None of this fits the definitions I have presented so I think you need to define what you mean by ‘simualtion' and ‘model'.

One example is Rocco's military paintings. Rocco collects the historical information, determines what he will represent, paints it. It is historically accurate if the painting matches information he has collected, the uniforms, the particulars of the battle event chosen etc.

Bill, I believe you have it a bit backward. The painting is historically accurate if the information he has collected is accurate.

The terms "historical accuracy" and 'simulation accuracy' have specific and testable meanings for most simulation and game designers. I see no reason why they couldn't easily work for our hobby, if that is something we want in our games, and want to be sure it is actually included in what we play.

'Simulation accuracy' seems to rest on the computational data held within it's computational model(s). But what does historical accuracy depend upon? and, how is it tested?

And I do mean easy. We are not talking rocket science here. I used many of the same methods to verify my training simulation games, from scenario role-playing to skills development for such things as verbal skills and non-confrontational tactics, that were used by computer simulation designers for entertainment, science and engineering research as well as management and organizational development. The reason is simple: the basic concepts, methods and goals were the same: build a functional simulation.

We're probably not that far off. However, a functonal simulation means to me the creation of computational models as simplified systems of real world systems.

A wargame, on the other hand, would be a simulated battle conducted in miniature, using agreed upon rules, for the purpose of entertainment.

Rich

Oh boy, a debate about defining "wargame" for no purpose other than perhaps debating.

Well John, I could think of worse topics:" why do people hate British generals" for example.

Rich

Simulations exist in the Military. I don't believe anything produced for recreation comes close. I find simulation is generally a term used disparagingly for perceived complexity. Yes Computers are capable of simulation but off the shelf PC games don't do that even with claims of "physics models" and other marketing jargin. a PC flight simulator is properly named but its not a simulator in the caliber of something NASA or USAF has.

Like allot of words in the English language Wargame is a term that has been mutated and modified and no one definition applies anymore. The business world uses wargame to define exercises in decision making. Which some may argue parallels the intent of wargmaes on war. I think there is a similarity ,perhaps but its still apples and oranges.

Rick:
I've been on holiday, and just returned to my palatial palace.
John Holly is right. There is no point to thinking up definitions that don't DO something. That is what I meant by a 'working definition', something that helps design games and simulations.

Rick wrote:
Thus simulations provide information about real world systems from computational models of those systems. However, that's not the end. Simulation can mean to imitate the appearance or character of real life things. In our case that would be things like artillery. In this respect, simulation and model (as in model car) are nearly synonymous.

Ah, yeah. A simulation could be a model [as in model car], and they do model systems. Does that help in designing the things?

In addition, we have the term used as a "simulation game." These are computer games which mimic real life in some way. This, however, has little relevance to the hobby of wargaming which is not a cmputer game.

What? The very same simulation concepts and techniques are used in ALL simulations, whether computers or some hobby wargame—if it is meant to simulate something. I am surprised that you could read all those books, particularly Kosher's book and come to that conclusion. He designed BOTH wargames and simulations, and translated a few from one to the other.

Some of the best techniques I ever learned in simulating came from computer geeks that had never seen a training exercise.

In addition to this, you have used symulation as a synonym for wargaming itself.: "Many game mechanics make up the system of a simulation." The fact that we can replace ‘symulation' with ‘wargame' and have no change in meaning clearly indicates you are using symulation as a synonym for wargame [or game at the very least]. However,you are assuming what yet has to be proven. Therefore it is not a viable definition.

Hmmm, what do you make of Kosher then, when he does the same thing? Simulations are not a synonym for wargames, except in the dictionary… [Look up 'wargame' in one] If a wargame designer chooses to simulate a battle, then yes, then wargame and simulation are synonymous.

Finally using simulation as a verb we have: "imitate the appearance or character of." Thus we can simulate a battlefield but this does not make the battlefield a simulation.

Rick, if a designer successfully simulates a battlefield environment, it is a simulation. Any other conclusion is not only pointless, but rather silly, don't you think?

Here is another example which I find to be confused terminology:
"A game, as a simulation, is a single model [replication] of an environment."
"A game, as a simulation," you are again assuming definitions which have yet to be shown. A simulaton can be composed of computational models or it can mean the model item (ie. artillery piece) However, you also, elsewhere, wrote, "What I am referring to is a model of a process or system." In the first quote, you define model as a replication but here you define model is as a ‘process' or ‘system'. The result is confusion.

There are simulations of satellite operations that are so complex they require a series of computer simulations to create a single overall simulation that does what the technicians need. Each is a simulation, and the entire thing is a simulation. A game mechanic of artillery fire 'simulates' those effects. So, it is a simulation within a larger simulation.

If you want to define a single game mechanic that simulates something as a 'replication' in a larger simulation, more power to you. I hope it helps.

May I suggest that ‘model' has two working definitions for this discussion.
1. Computational model: a simplified computational representation of a system.
2 Model: a representation of a real world item (soldiers, equipment, terrain, etc.)

Yes, game mechanic is like how artillery fire is processes. Many game mechanics make up the system of a simulation.

There is an artillery piece with a specific bore and length. There is powder of a certain quality and amount. A ball has a certain weight and diameter. The firing tube is placed at a certain angle. We can computationally model all that with mathmatical equivalents. When run, we can determine how far the ball will go. We can manipulate the this data and achieve variable results. This would be an artillery simulation.

However, I don't know of a single rule writer that has computationally modeled this and run a simulation. More than likely, the rule writer came across information which says six pounders have a range of x, 12 pounders have a range of y and 24 pounders have a range of z. These are not simulated numbers but rather descrete numbers obtained from actual firings. Simulations don't run on descrete numbers. Simulations involve computational numbers.

"Simulations involve computational numbers." Do they? Who wrote that rule? Computational numbers are simply a tool that can be used in simulations, but I and many others have created simulations that involve NO computational mechanics. Certainly wargame designers have really latched on to such techniques, but that isn't some requirement of simulation design. Computers provide one way [a very popular way] of simulating, but they don't define simulations or their design.

Simulation games are computer games with little relevance to the hobby of wargaming. Maybe you think there are things we can learn from such computer games, and perhaps we can, but they are not the same thing.
Or what do you do with all the games that provide information and skills development in an entertaining format?

Again Bill, this has little relevance to the hobby of wargaming.

You state that as a mantra, but there are lots of wargamers that want their games to provide [historical and military] information and skills development in an entertaining [game] format. You are missing out on a lot of valuable game and simulation design methodology when you decide that as a fact.

I mean, really? What is 'irrelevant' about that, particularly when game designers claim to be providing that in their designs, specifically called simulations?

The fact that simulations may do these other things is irrelevant if it cannot provide information.

I would imagine wargamers would say the same thing…

Rich: Entertainment is the reason for the existence of a wargame (as defined by the hobby). There are many components that go into making a wargame entertaining but if the game is not, in the end, entertaining it defaults on the very purpose of its existence.
Bill: Yes, agreed. And wargames are entertaining in many ways.
You've missed my point. Wargame's only reason for existing is entertainment. How they entertain, what you are discussing, is a completely different subject. It is an important subject which I hope we can get to.
So, as defined by wargames, entertainment can be the reason for the existence of a simulation game.
Except you didn't define a wargame. You defined how wargames are entertaining. Many things can be entertaining but this doesn't make them wargames. Nor does it make a wargame a simulation game.

No, you defined it for us. That is why I said, "As defined by wargames…" Not clear?

Okay. Accuracy implies that there is an objective, and it has been hit within predetermined parameters. To have 'historical accuracy', the Designer must identify:
1. the target, the historical information to be modeled, and
2. Whether the simulation models the identified information.
Except you have failed to define ‘simulation' and ‘model'. None of this fits the definitions I have presented so I think you need to define what you mean by ‘simualtion' and ‘model'.

Why doesn't that fit your definitions? I am simply describing 'accuracy' for the two.

Bill, I believe you have it a bit backward. The painting is historically accurate if the information he has collected is accurate.

No. That isn't the way it works in a practical sense. First, the historical sources have to be 'accurate', say the dimensions of a Springfield '61 rifled musket. Then the artist, whether a painter or simulation designer, has to make his rendering of that information 'accurate.' If Rocco paints the Springfield musket two feet long in relation to the man holding it, it doesn't matter if the history he collected is accurate, the painting is flawed, inaccurate. Two different issues, one the history, two the rendering of it.

'Simulation accuracy' seems to rest on the computational data held within it's computational model(s). But what does historical accuracy depend upon? and, how is it tested?

Boy, are you hung up on this numbers thing. Simulation accuracy is depended on how precisely the information used in the design is 'simulated'. The historical accuracy of the sources and data is another issue all together, and THAT is the arena of historians and historiography. Historical wargame design is totally dependent on it.

For example, Bill Gray used Hughes' FIREPOWER as the basis for his casualty computations in his game design, Age of Eagles. His game does accurately simulate Hughes' conclusions. Whether Hughes got the history right is a separate accuracy issue. If Hughes' historical conclusions are wrong—not based on the best available evidence—that would hurt AOE's historical validity, but the simulation is still 'accurate' in simulating Hughes' conclusions none-the-less.

Gray's only other option is to collect the data himself, take on the mantel and methodologies of a historian.

We're probably not that far off. However, a functional simulation means to me the creation of computational models as simplified systems of real world systems. <q/>

No, not far. Again, computational models are only one way of simulating.

A wargame, on the other hand, would be a simulated battle conducted in miniature, using agreed upon rules, for the purpose of entertainment.

I can agree to that if the designer stated that as his purpose [simulating a battle] for his design. And again, what is entertaining about wargames/simulations covers a lot of ground and a wide number of preferences in our hobby.

In the end, any definitions have to be useful in design.

Simulations exist in the Military. I don't believe anything produced for recreation comes close. I find simulation is generally a term used disparagingly for perceived complexity. Yes Computers are capable of simulation but off the shelf PC games don't do that even with claims of "physics models" and other marketing jargin. a PC flight simulator is properly named but its not a simulator in the caliber of something NASA or USAF has.

Supergrover6868:
That failure might be from a lack of skill or knowledge, or budget, but not from what can and is done with simulations. And yes, wargamers have been stuck with some very strange ideas of what a simulation is and can be. Those bizarre notions have led awful simulations and then to the disparaging perceptions of them.

Simply because NASA can put together a more complicated simulation with a bigger budget doesn't negate other simulations. There are simple simulations to complex monsters, but they are all simulations. We wouldn't call Empire III a game and not chess, simply because one is far more complicated.

Like allot of words in the English language Wargame is a term that has been mutated and modified and no one definition applies anymore. The business world uses wargame to define exercises in decision-making. Which some may argue parallels the intent of wargmaes on war. I think there is a similarity, perhaps but its still apples and oranges.

Agreed. That is why it is important to know what exactly we are talking about. This is particularly true of a very technical endeavor like wargame/simulation design. By technical, I mean:

1. A great deal of data is translated into game mechanics
and rules.

2. The game system and subsystems all have to work together
to produce specific processes and outcomes which mimic
real life and historical dynamics.

I don't know how many game design discussions I have been part of or read on lists that devolve into describing the legion of meanings of 'designing for effect' and 'process vs outcome' design methods etc. etc. It ends up meaning nothing that is useable in helping design wargames.

Let me give you an example of 'usuable' and also universal. These concepts are used by a wide variety of computer and non-computer game AND simulation designers. They have evolved from a great deal of practical experience and cross-discipline discussions:

Any game or simulation process can be identified as one of four Modeling Structures. Time, Activities, Events, Decisions. They are particularly useful in dealing with the core issue of any game or simulations: controlling the flow of time/game progress. In doing so, one or more of these four components are used:

1. Units of Time: This is the game turn, whether exact times are indicated [like ten minute turns], or simply units of time [five turns represents a day in the game] Most all wargames like Armati, Fire and Fury, Command Decision, use this as the way to control progress in a game design. Of course, being a separate community from wargame design, these tools are given very different names. For instance, regulating play/simulation processes with time is referred to as "Activity Scanning" in computer simulations where activities are monitored at fixed time intervals—i.e. turns. Of course, some of the terms are counter-intuitive for wargamers. [I have put the generic simulation terms in parenthesis.]

2. Units of Activities: [Process-Interaction Method] A set number of activities occur to indicate the passage of time, Like Chess: one move per ‘turn.' The Sword and The Flame and a number of others use this process. In most cases, cards represent when and what kinds of activities can occur in a turn. Many combine Units of time and activities, so as an example, Games like The board game For the People or Piquet, have so many cards or activities allowed in an hour or other period of time. Some like BattleCry, make the card activities the sole arbitrator of game progress. Others like Jim Arnold's Leadership rules or Sam Mustafa's Grande Armée use Command Points to represent the kinds and limits of activities within a turn. In Grande Armée, time isn't even identified, but rather turns are a series of activity ‘pulses'.
A great deal of adjustments can be employed with the activities. A particular commander can have more or less activities per turn to indicate his quality as a leader. Or the cards or command points can be limited to represent a particular army organization or in the case of ACW boardgame For the People, the ability of an entire nation to wage war—four cards per season in April of 1861 and seven by 1863.

3. Units of Events: [Event-Scheduling Method] In this form, time moves forward until the next event occurs, requiring decisions and activities. The conclusion of the all the activities provoked by the event ends a turn or unit of game play.

This is George Jeffery's Variable Length Bound or VLB system. He didn't ever get it into a playable form, but a number of ideas have come out of it, including Grand Piquet's movement from 'horizon' to 'horizon,' which is itself a combination of #2 and #3—movement can go forward until the next ‘event,' terrain or enemy proximity, requires an end to a unit's current movement.

4.Units of Decisions: [The Three-Phase Method.] This one has never been seen in gaming circles and holds some interesting possibilities. The amount of time that passes is determined by the players themselves. For example, a player chooses how long his next move will be, whether in minutes, phases, or turns. Combined with #2, the player might determine how many activities he will perform within a turn. The opposing player could be allowed to respond based on the above #1- 4 Modeling Structures. For instance, he could either be forced to take the hour turn too, because of the moving player's initiative, or he could be given the ability to stop the forward motion of time at a certain point to react, say 10, 20 or 30 minutes into the moving player's turn.

The distance issues for pre-radio games, where there is a communication time-lapse between a command decision and its execution could be simulated this way. A player sends out orders that cover an hour, but if the opposing player interrupts that, any reaction on both his part and the moving player could only be from a 'half hour radius' of units. It would also be a way to move games along through what are necessary but very boring points in the play in the approach phase.

Of course, this same set of four building blocks are used to end the entire game or simulation:

1. A set time limit or variable time limit. This can be 8 hours, 5 turns, one year, either a fixed time or variable, based on a die roll. Games like Piquet, Spearhead, and Volley & Bayonet generally have battle scenarios that have time limits, usually the end of the day.

2. A variable limit based on activities. When a set number of activities are used up the game is over, or when a particular activity is carried out by either player. This one isn't often used, but it is in Grande Armée.

3. An event like Checkmate or sundown, or the capture of an objective. Many games have either events or chance shortening or lengthening the number of actual turns. Grande Armée is among a long line of games to do that. Even as early as SPI in the 1970s, there were games designed where chits numbered 0-5 were put in a cup and one was drawn a turn. When the number of chits added up to twenty, the game was over. Others had events within the game add or subtract turns if they occurred. As an example, For the People has the game end if Lincoln isn't re-elected in 1864, or if the South collects twice the Strategic Will points compared with the North.

4. Player decision—one or both players decide to end the game. Some games like Monopoly have no set time limit. Monopoly had no victory conditions. It is ended by player decision.

These building blocks are nothing but tools that help the designer create clarity in game/simulation design. They aren't magic or the 'Truth' or the Ultimate Concepts, but something practical because they help the design process.

For instance, it is easy to see how simultaneous movement continually had problems: In its pure form, it was an absence of all four of the design building blocks. Lots of stuff just happened with all players moving at once without any internal regulation of time. This led game designers to create mini-turns within the simultaneous movement phase in an effort to direct game activity. The solutions were, not surprisingly based on Time, Activities, trigger Events or player Decisions. Thus you have ‘reaction phases', ‘opportunity firing', ‘counter charges', etc. all using one or more of the four building blocks of simulation design.
Universal Guides

What is surprising is that all these universal design concepts were developed by simulation designers from a very diverse range of fields--completely separate from wargame designers. You can find the above concepts described by commercial game designers and engineers using computers to simulate metal stress. Yet, they are talking about the very same issues as wargame designers, and coming up with some extremely applicable concepts and methodology. Why, because they are all trying to create artificial environments, to simulate.

PC simulator games are not intended to be exact simulations. Whereas NASA shuttle simulator is. That's the difference between a PC game called a simulator and a true simulation. Sure the true simulators cost big money compared to PC game budgets but the intent is not to be that exact in the world of entertainment. Wargames we play no matter how detailed or complex are not simulations. The term tends to turn off players to the game and is used in many cases disparagingly to describe a game a player feels is to complicated and/or detailed. I think more new people would come to the hobby if the term simulation wasn't used.