"Top down or bottom up?" Topic

I hear every once in a while that some rule set has been designed from "top down". What does that mean? How is it different from designing from the bottom up?

Is it just another meaningless marketing term similar to having "over 100 years of collective experience?"

Bottom up tends to focus on the "tactical" details that cumulatively add up to a realistic outcome.

Top down tends to be more macro (not focused on the details), but lead to a realistic outcome.

"Bottom up" design generally assumes that the performance and capabilities of a unit can be modelled by aggregating its discrete parts; for example, modelling a tank battalion task force by adding up the capabilities of, say, 30 tanks and 14 cross-attached IFVs.

"Top down" design requires the intent to model the performance of a larger unit as a whole: for example, developing the combat capability of a tank battalion task force based on the historical performance of similar tank battalion task forces.

It is far from meaningless; it is possibly the most important distinction between combat models, both in the military and wargaming worlds. One relies primarily on technical data, the other on historical analysis. And seldom the twain shall meet.

Allen

Or put more simply: Top down looks at the results and builds rules to recreate them.

Bottom up looks at the means, and builds rules to recreate them.

This means, top down critics will complain that some small thing is ignored (actually aggregated out) and bottom up critics will complain that things don't match historical outcomes.

Thanks for the definitions. I would have never figured it out by the names given to them.

"This means, top down critics will complain that some small thing is ignored (actually aggregated out) and bottom up critics will complain that things don't match historical outcomes."

That's the most meaningful definition of the differences I've seen yet!

Steve
cavalcadewargames.com
nycjadie.wordpress.com

Interesting concept. Would DBA be top-down, while Warhammer is bottom-up?

DBA is definitely top down.

Warhammer? I'll just get in trouble if I comment on that one.

mjc

Top down vs bottom up is a general design term applicable in lots of situations.

Computer software is generally easier to design top down. Start with general concepts of what you are trying to achieve then refine the stages down to an appropriate level of detail.

Bottom up is starting with a set ofd detailed components then assembling them into a coherent whole. This technique can work in some situations. Building new software systems from web service components might be termed bottom up.

There may be some correlation between top down and bottom up and outcome based and and process based modelling, but not necessarily. A top down design can result in a horrible mess of detail, just like a bottom up one can.

I am very much a top down person. I look first at the history or background, and ask "What makes this setting unique?" Then I ask does this game highlight those elements?

For Ancients I consider the morale, basic combat role (ie melee, missile, or mixed), and weight of troops to be the primary factors. The specific sorts of armour and weapons being emloyed are much less signifcant to me at the mass combat level. Heavy Melee Infantry is Heavy Melee Infantry. Swords, axes or maces doesnot change this basic character.

A bottom up designer would look first to the question of sword, axe or mace.

DBA is definitely top down. Most RPGs are bottom up. WAB is a mix, but tends more to bottom up. Interstingly Warmaster is top down. Both share a common design heritage though.

I really think people are reading too much into marketing slang.

I do think, however, that the wargaming world is ready for a radical paradigm shift to create a synergistic view of dynamic events modeling that will revolutionize the experience holistically. It would really step things up and take it all to the next level.

Darthfozzywig, I nominate you to be the lead trainer for instructing wargames rules writers in continuous process improvement.

Allen

Well somebody was awake during the last business symposium…

By a strange co-incidence, the style differences of drummers can also described as either 'bottom-up' or 'top-down'.

A bottom-up drummer concentrates on being a metronome first and then fills in the spaces with paradiddles and rolls and what-not. Most rock drummers are like this but I think Nick Mason from Pink Floyd is the best example of a bottom-up drummer.

A top-down drummer will keep the beat but is more like the other members of the band, he or she will view their whole kit as a single instrument and look at the way it interacts with the others. Chris Butler from British band Henry Cow is very much like this, as are a number of jazz & progressive drummers.

Of course, all of this has absolutely nothing to do with wargames…

Okay, I completely misinterpreted this question…

Bottoms up!