"Simulation Game Design" Topic

Bob:

This really needed to be moved to its own thread from "Process vs Outcome". Here is what you requested. In a desire to reduce the length of these threads, I will provide five shorter ones—and it will take me a while to get them all out—will that work?:

The five posts:

1. Those principles you asked for, which actually describe the conceptual structure of simulations.

2.How history and simulations can be 'accurate' in a technical sense. Many disciplines use the definitions I'll provide. They are straight forward and certainly not my invention. This will also include what information a designer needs to provide and how to establish it.

3.How and why the 8 tests for simulation validity were developed and what they actually produce for the designer.

4.The 8 tests that establish that the simulation 'works'.

5.So what? How it works with simulation games—and those books you were asking for.

Just some caveats to this, sort of an anticipatory set. There are so many convoluted myths concerning simulations, it is necessary to clear the deck, so to speak. I deal with the simulation myths below:

*What I am presenting is how I understand the process of simulation design, how I used them commercially developing simulation games, the information gathered from a wide variety of disciplines and game designers outside the hobby. The terms and applications do different between the Military [they love their 'own' terms with lots of acronyms!], computer simulators in research and business, education and training. How rigorously the methods were applied also vary, depending on what the designer and customer wanted from the simulation. I am sure Rocky and other folks involved in simulation design can speak to this.

However, there are some core similarities to simulation design regardless of the topic or purpose, and applicable to wargame design-which is regularly proven by the military and game companies outside the hobby—so I am making no claims to originality here, though I may be explaining it in different or simpler terms.

*I am not insisting that any designer has to use any of this.

*I am saying that 1.Wargame designers can't avoid the issues and solutions addressed by simulation design if they attempt to design wargames that simulate history, and the entire hobby could benefit from taking up the technical methodologies.

*This does not require our wargames to be more complex, scientific, less fun, and certainly not any more technical than designers claim they are now. It is more of doing a much better job at what designers say they are doing.

And there are some Game Design Myths that seem to be as insidious as malware. And each myth is interrelated, one grown from the other. Now they are all twisted together.

The Myths all started because the question was raised: What makes a 'good' simulation? Of course, the wheels came off that discussion very quickly because there was no technical definition for simulation games in the hobby.

THE MYTHS ARE:
1. Compexity equals Quality. Because reality is complex, the idea became 'the more complex the game, the more 'realistic' it is'. Read Jim Dunnigan's book onWargame Design. In it he liberally uses the term 'Realism' as a major quality of simulations, but he never once provides a definition for it in design wargames. He does say when games are more complex, the are more 'realistic.'

2. Complexity equals Accuracy. Because 'realism' depends on piles of details, a simulation with more detail is better, closer to reality. In other words, quantity being quality, and therefore more 'accurate.'

3. Simulations are for teaching. Accuracy depends on the quantity of historical facts stuffed into a game and not the quality of the information—or how it's used. The best simulations are then ones most heavily burdened with detail and complexity. Of course, these wargames became very difficult to actually play. SPI was a major contributor to these myths about what constituted accurate simulations. As no one could 'play' many of their games, particularly the monsters like Pacific War, SPI started touting such simulation games as 'dynamic history books', or 'educational tools'. If you can't play them, describe them as something other than just 'games.' Many gamers became tinkers with a game system instead--to 'learn history.'

4. Simulations vs Games. This led to a big problem and the myth of Simulations vs Games. You either had an 'accurate', detail-heavy design, or a game you could actually play. It became very difficult to justify a design being both with the above Myths so ingrained in the hobby. Designers began avoiding explanations of how their game could be both, which led to an even starker contrast:

5. History vs Fun, Realism vs Fun, Simulations vs Fun. You could have one or the other, but not both. Because all gamers are in the hobby for 'the fun', with that dichotomy ingrained in the wargamer psyche, which side are most gamers going to fall on? After all, in our hobby there were no technical descriptions of just what a simulation was or how one worked. Any hold outs for the Fun of simulations were seen as being 'dreamers of the impossible dream.' What else could they be in the logic of the Myths? That led to:

6. Simulations are impossible, and obviously no fun, so the ONLY thing that a game can be designed for is Fun. If fun is all that wargames are about, then it is an easy step to saying:

7. The only Fun is Game Fun. What happens is many started defending this single vanilla flavor of fun as the only possible fun, regardless. This is because history and simulations were seen as no fun and actually get in the way.

Note Gamers who believe in playing for the fun of a colorful game and the 'make-believe', I say more power to you. I play wargames for the same reasons too. But go for other fun too. If these same gamers insist their version of wargame fun is all there is and can be in wargaming, they may have fallen pray to the Myths. They certainly don't speak for all gamers.

And finally this all devolves to the final conclusion, the final myth:

8. Wargaming Can Be Nothing But Fantasy. It is a logical conclusion to all the other myths. If this were true for all gamers, there wouldn't be a problem. While there are gamers that are quite comfortable with that conclusion, this is not what many other gamers want from wargames. Wargame designers know this. That is why wargame designers don't tout their games as fun fantasy. Most all instead claim their games simulate historical battles, even Sam Mustafa with his new game Lasalle.

I am here to tell you that All of those 8 Myths are just that, categorically not true, and because of that, damaging to any concrete discussion of simulation and game design.

I lay a great deal of the blame on Simulations Publications, Inc. and other contemporary designers for them. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, they even went as far as to divide their game design process into two halves: simulations and games. SPI stated that they "Designed a simulation, but developed a game." They often even had two different people doing the honors, one designing a simulation, which of course was stuffed with facts, and then the developer trimmed and unstuffed the original design so it could actually be played--though what history was left was a question often asked. Schizoid, as if those two design operations were totally different or were using different game mechanics to produce different things.

Oddly enough, simulation designers outside our hobby overwhelmingly use almost the opposite process. They design the system, the game, make sure it works as designed, and then test to see if it actually simulates anything as designed. Wargame systems and simulation systems can and do use the very same mechanics to get the job done. And very often the design purposes are the same: entertainment.

I laid this out now, because I don't want to get sidetracked with such mythical nonsense when talking about simulation game design.

Best Regards,
Bill H.

Hmmm…. change your mind?

ooops, there's the rest of it. Guess you were typing as I looked at the original.

I remember in the late 70 and early 80s you had super complex RPGs and Wargames where, as you say, reality was stated as the goal.

Never mind that, they take too long and suck the fun out of it. Hence as long as it feels right and plays easily, I find it much better

Hucheon:

Yeah, that is the point. It was just bad game design and bad simulation design based on some wonky conclusions that led to some real dead ends.

So you are stuck with Game designers who say they are simulating historical battles, and you are left with

"Never mind that, as long as it feels right and plays easily."

I certainly don't blame you for saying 'never mind that.'

Bill. Thanks for posting this. I have always enjoyed your posts on other boards.

I feel that simulations should be results oriented rather than game's process oriented. Traditional value sets (like casualties, morale grades, ranged firing, etc) seem to have a lot of modifiers to linear ratings. What I mean by that is that it seems units remain in rigid categories (like Green, average, veteran, elite, guard, etc.)This flies in the face of reality as units are made up of men. No two men are alike. How can two units be alike?

It seems designers try to introduce variations by a lot of modifiers, that would normally change these otherwise constant values in their systems. Take for example firing. A "line" unit will always register a "hit" when a certain value (also a linear and constant value) is used. (Hit on a 6 at X range.) Results of the combat are expressed in casting losses of whatever the casting ratio of the design equates to. Always. Linear.

In reality, the number of losses (in people) are not as important as the effect on the unit's ability to function. A dead or wounded man can no longer contribute is taken for granted, but the effect of their loss on the remaining unit members is what actually determines unit effectiveness. Since no two men are the same, neither are units. Neither is the perceived danger or level of distraction those "hit" have upon the rest. It takes time and distance to actually see an effect upon a unit. If losses occur at one end of a line, it may take some time (due to the distance) for the men further down the line to discover that the other end was engaged.

The results we seek when we perform combat actions is tto determine if the unit remains holding their ground, run, or some degree of loss to it's ability to perform and act as a unit. Obviously, the key is the unit's leadership to maintain control over the actions of the men. Most rules never test to answer that question. Where are the modifiers for those unit leaders to maintain control?

Sims can actually be easier to play, faster to play and easier to learn when the design remains results (vice process) oriented. As you know, I am a proponent of changing some value sets in which games are based upon.

I applaud your dispelling of some of these myths!

best
Tom Dye
GFI

In addition to simulation can you also define by what you mean by model and what you mean by game.

An observation: you seem to be using the terms "past reality" and "history" interchangeably. Why is that?

Rich

One advantage of working at a national laboratory are the lectures provided. The "Process vs Outcome" thread and then this thread reminded me of a lecture I attended around 6 years ago. It was given by a fellow from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The topic was the accuracy of computer simulations.

The lecturer placed computer simulations into various categories and then spoke about each category. One category had to do with mathematical modeling where the model components could be based solely on known physical properties and Newtonian physics. His example was a military application modeling of how well an armor piercing round would work. The computer model was heavily based on angular relationships, projectile velocities, armor "hardness" and other measurable physical properties. The model would then be sent through nearly innumerable iterations and the outcome was essentially a probability range for a given projective penetrating a given thickness of armor. The thing about this type of simulation was you could take a real life gun and projectile and fire it at various thicknesses of armor and be able to demonstrate how "accurate" the computer model results were. So the category was simple mathematics, detailed applications, and verifiable results. According to the lecturer, you could determine accuracy for this type of simulation, but only for tightly controlled conditions.

Another category had to do with very complex processes with lots of interacting variables and very difficult to verify results. To demonstrate this he presented a photograph showing temperature variations in the North Atlanta based on satellite measurements taken on a specific date and then presented a similar depiction resulting from a climate modeling simulation. The results looked very similar, but his point was, did that really mean the simulation was accurate? If the satellite measurements had been taken a day later and the simulation run, would you still have comparable results? Maybe yes, and maybe no. The problem here was that the processes involved were not fully understood, had very complex interactions with a large number of variables, and the models were not easily verifiable by measurements. The lecturer felt that at this time, we had no way of determining how "accurate" any of these simulations were.

He then told a very amusing story involving modeling techniques. A city in Texas was suffering from wide scale traffic congestion and requested LANL to model the traffic to see what could be done to alleviate the congestion. Since the city was willing to pay for this, LANL personnel proceeded to model driving in the city. They initially did this using a very complex model that provided input for each driver (he mentioned inputting how well each driver paid attention to traffic conditions and the reflex/reaction time for various actions – such as noticing the car in front had stopped and putting on the brakes). The simulation also accounted for weather conditions, road conditions, and how well maintained the vehicles were. The programmers considered this to be accurate in terms of process. In other words the simulation generated lots of input data, crunched lots of numbers through a complex process, and then provided results in terms of traffic on each street in the city. However, when this was compared to aerial photographs taken of traffic conditions, it was found that the model provided comparable results in less than 10% of the total number of simulations run. This was judged to not be very accurate in terms of results.

Some programmers then suggested an alternate model based on very simple rules. The rules were that drivers would stop for red lights and stop signs, go when lights were green, speed up when a gap opened between their car and the car in front, and slow down when the gap closed. It also threw in a totally random factor for drivers slamming on their brakes for no apparent reason. The results from use of this model were comparable to the aerial photographs in slightly over 30% of the total runs conducted. Of all models tried, this one most often produced comparable results to the aerial photographs. In terms of the outcome, it was the most accurate.

He never did say if LANL had been able to solve that city's traffic problems.

Rich wrote:

An observation: you seem to be using the terms "past reality" and "history" interchangeably. Why is that?

Rich:
Well, history is what we know of past reality.

While there certainly more to past 'reality' than the just records etc. we have, that is the idea. And yes, I realize your view of 'history' as narratives written by historians is different than 'history', the collection of information they use to do it. I am referring to the latter.

gamertom:

Great examples of testing a simulation against reality. And it is obvious that simply building a simulation model on the 'correct numbers' isn't enough to automatically produce an 'accurate' simulation.

What is being simulated is important. The objectives of the simulation define the difficulty. And the more complex the model, the more opportunities there are to fail--literally exponentially.

If you have two mechanisms meant to simulate, say, that Atlanta weather, there are three ways the simulation can fail. One or the other mechanism doesn't do the job, or they both fail to work together. With three mechanisms the relationships and possible failure points go to nine. The failure opportunities grow exponentially.

Having essentially one action to simulate [firing that shell] under controlled conditions eliminates all the variables and reduces the points of failure.

Of course, game designers don't have the luxury of testing their designs against actual events like future weather of present traffic patterns. And happily, their goals are not where as demanding. There are other ways to do that testing.

And the hunt for the 'right' mechanics to do the job, as you relate, is important in the development process. With 'human' interactions, it can be extremely complex. It is much easier to simulate 'how an armor piercing round would work' than how the tank crew is using it in what situations. I think this is one reason wargame designers are far more comfortable with that kind of data--much easier to see the 1:1 relationships between reality and model.

It also points up another issue. A simulation really doesn't work if it is 'kind of' accurate, that 30% of the time. It's like being kind of pregnant.

Happily, simulation games aren't designed to predict thousands of driver actions over an entire city, or the weather. And yes, wargames attempt to simulate the responses of thousands of men on the battlefield, however, they aren't attempting to predict/simulate each individual, or the exact behavior of every unit of thousands of men in any battlefield situation. Rather they are attempting to provide a range of probable behaviors, depending on a randomizer and a limited number of conditions, set up by the players.

Much easier to simulate.

Simulation games are designed to simulate an environment, like the traffic in the city only at the points where the player interacts/make decisions in it, which correspond with real driver decisions in the real environment. All that has to be simulated is the potential behaviors of other drivers and the decisions faced by our player/driver.

There is no wargame/simulation requirement to predict the behavior of every single soldier in every weather condition on every corner of a battlefield.

Far less demanding, though depending on the goals of the wargame designer, still a complex challenge.

Tom D. wrote:

I feel that simulations should be results oriented rather than game's process oriented. Traditional value sets (like casualties, morale grades, ranged firing, etc) seem to have a lot of modifiers to linear ratings.

Thanks Tom. I do appreciate your views on wargame design. I guess I would say 'yes' to what you've written with some caveats. Because the Myth of more detail, better simulation is accepted in wargame design, that means four die modifiers are better simulating than two, more realistic you see. As you know, it just ain't so.

If a designer has a player spending most of their game time in administrative work, counting up modifiers, then most of the time you don't have any simulating going on. The places where the player makes decisions, Crispy's 'decision points' is where the wargame simulates--all the rest is just support structure. So if the player can be presented with the same decision with the same outcome without all the adding and subtracting. obviously it is better for play.
Those caveats:

1. As all game mechanics have processes for achieving results, so when you say a 'results' oriented game, you are simply saying that the processes for reaching the result are shortened. Really it is a sort process oriented game. ;-j

2. The Process is what the players do in a game, making decisions and carrying out activities that produce results. Because that is true, because processes are where players engage the simulation and make decisions--that is where the fun is. You don't necessarily have a better game with shortened processes. It is what processes are included, shortened, etc. that make the difference.

3. So yes, depending on how the game flows [read decision vs administrative processes], having a 'result oriented' design can help create a fun, playable, yet functional simulation. And there are vast number of ways to do that, with a few simulation points and lots. A 'Result oriented' design is one way.

Best Regards,
Bill H.

Hi

As yuu might have gotten by my other posts, I sort of agree. That is, tossing in lots of plusses and caveats and so one is the designer being lazy.

We could just supply mounds of data and say "go write your own". I think Tom and I have discussed this, part of doing the sim, is making the math/physics and so on invisible. The player makes game decisions but doesn't need to know anything about airflow dynamics to "fly" the plane". Nor does the nappy player need the details of loading the musket.

Depending on the level of the game, you indulge, as a designer, in more decisions on what operates in the background, and what isn't important.

Which, I guess, brings me back to Sam! That is, Tom and I have different approaches to things, and differnt decisions on our choicea, and have good times, i think, discussing this. Sam seems defensive.

Think about this, there are hundreds of thousands of gamers, but a handful of people with valid design credits. WE are a small group. Personally, I don't need agreement, I am curious about how WE come to our decisions.

Rocky

<<Think about this, there are hundreds of thousands of gamers, but a handful of people with valid design credits. WE are a small group. Personally, I don't need agreement, I am curious about how WE come to our decisions.>>

While I don't claim to have many "design credits", the following does not need them, IMHO. This is one of my examples of how "I" came to my decision regarding one value set-Numbers and Casualties.

1. You will find in history where units ran with little or none while others were able to stick around until almost wiped out. There has never been any "magic number" where a unit ALWAYS runs. If our "decsion point" is to determine the effects of a combat to see if our unit remains holding it's ground, then you have to ask, "What am I really trying to compute?" MY answer now is "The ability of unit leaders to mainttain control over the men!" Casualties, smoke, noise, near misses, smaells, etc all contribute to keeping control over the men difficult. We should be focusing upon the cohesion of the unit, as a unit, as influenced by it's leadership (and the effects of other factors) to answer the question.

What does the "bean counting" of casualties have to do with that? Where are the effects of unit leaders considered? What were they doing, during the time a turn represents, to maintain control and direction of the men?

Decision points are not a new concept in gaming. It's been around long before Jeffreys presented them in a more logical way. It's when the designer actually takes the time to ask himself "What am I really trying to simulate and what are the real factors involved?" does noe get that "AH-HA!" moment! Too often, it's "Well my gamers expect to see this in my game or they will not play it" kind of attitude that sees perpetuation of the same old things!

It's a shame such an attitude prevails after 40 years! I do NOT believe it prevails over 40 years because the concepts/value sets used are superior to anything else!!!!

If we could just get designers to spend more time considering how the value sets chosen impact in their game vs. reality, we might begin to see some really exciting new designs!…..One does not require a degree in simulations to use common sense in simulation game design!

Best
Tom Dye
GFI

1 & 2. Complextiy may equal realism but it is not a requirement. Similcity can be used depending on your established goal.

The first step will be to determine what you want to convey with the simulation. Once the goal has been established then you can proceed to the objectives to obtain the goal.
!. What era of military operations will be covered. A specific system or a general system which can be applied with supplements to other eras.
2. What is the dessired troop to casting ratio; the time scale; the the ground scale
3. What level of command and level of focus. This includes the participation level in the command structure for both player and non-player castings as well as multi-player versions.
4. What mechanics will be needed to control movemenet? The affects of formations, skirmishers, terrain?
5. What mechanics will be used to control firing? Artillery, musketry, otehr? affects of terrain, Casualty affects on the unit?
6. What mechanics will be needed to control hand to hand combat? The affects of terrain, Status and training modifiers? Combat results?
7. Determining scenarios and victory conditions?
8. Treatment of terrain, regions of combat?
9. Determing the level of influence on operations by non-quanative items such as command and morale?

End part one.
By the way for those of you who may still have a gold cover copy of 'Guard du Corps' even back in 1979 the subtitle was a 'Simulation Study of Napoleonic Warfare'.

3. Simulations are for teaching. Maybe but they are not for teaching but becoming familiar and understand the warfare during the age being covered.

I view teaching as 'here are the points and that is it'. Many companies and game designers who resist input on their systems actually are trying to 'teach' their point of view. And that is the fallicy. It is only their point of view which may not be correct when it is compared to the documentation reveiwed.

Simulations are a tool which can be used or misused depending on the goals of the primary user (not the game designer)

10. The parameters of understanding the data and research methodology. Many people can research material and glean key data but the process of converting the material to useable mechnaics is hard. Converting such data to campaigns or scenarios battles is far easier.

11. Having experience as a designer in undeerstanding the difficulties of military doctrine by having served in the military is considered by many as a key element of someone's background to being able to construct realistic mechanics? maing useable and game friendly rules still may not be within the researcher's capability.

12. Does the game designer view the topic objectively or do they have preferences for a particular 'army' which will influence their design parameters. (In all of our titles for miniature rules we have tried to be as neutral as possible, so not to show favortism) ('Induanas! Colonels! and Emirs!; 'Fire and Discipline', 'Fire! Ogon! Freur!'; 'Glory!' and 'Guard du Corps'; etc.)

end part two

Bill: A simulation is an artificial system designed to model a portion of past or present reality.

How do you model a past reality? How do you know when you have failed? In other words, what is your null hypothesis?

How do you define a game as opposed to a simulation? What differentiates the two so that we can clearly see the difference?

Rich

Initial Points 4-5-6-7 all address the divided camps of simulations vs games. These are positions that all have some merit but may still be filled with debatable points.

Like in politics, anyone willing to make strong posts defending one position or the other will not have their mind changed by someone supporting the other position.

This is often a focus that people who get into 'shouting matches' on TMP or other formums do not seem to grasp. So the debate turns into an argument.

Initial point 8. Wargaming nothing but Fantasy. So I can use whatever mechanics I want even if they are not realistic? That view raises the hair on my neck but it is a view of some designers.
I do not weiw wargaming as fantasy but rather the enjoyment of playing what ifs AND parmaount is the ability to test my skills as a commander (decision maker) against others. Several times I have heard well then just play chess but chess does not have the variables that I am seeking. The ability to check out skills in consideration of terrain affects and restrictions, an era's military techology, etc. Wargaming allows you a lot more variety in your 'tests' as a commander in many eras.
For example in our WW2 rules, the scenario generation system could produce over 2,100 different scenarios due to the combatants , theatres, years and missions.

In my opinion SPI did a good job exposing gamers to both simulations and gaames. How can we forget skimage, the football game inwhich one set of downs was viewed as the entire game.

One observation is that some game designers are stuck in concrete over certain mechniacs that they favor. This ends up meaning that they will interpret the data ina way that will fir their mechanics rather than designing a mechanic to fit the data.

With all the old miniature gamers who got 'our' start as board gamers I have been surprised at the resistance to use hex map boards in the design of miniature rules. Yes some systems have adapted to the use of a hex map board but otehrs have not.
In playtesting, We found that using a hex map made skirmish combat faster to resolve. In all aspects movement, firing, meless and terrain placement. Part of the it does not have to be complex to be a simulation effort.
In other eras and level of combat where formation types were essential, the use of hexes often made formations less important which was not our goal as a simulation.

Hi, Rich. To me, here are the differences:

1. Game: Must be balanced or else it's hard to find an opponent willing to play! Mostly scenario driven, but how things get valuated has a lot of influence on game play. In some games, how they rate Tigers, Panthers, Old Guard, etc. why aren't we speaking German or French all over the world, today? />)

2. Simulation: Based upon the actual factors which determined how units fought. Example: It was said in the early 1700's that "it takes the weight of a man in shot lead to kill him". Most games (say at a scale of 1:50) commonly allow for the possibility of killing 2 castings (100 simulated men) in 15 minutes (one turn). History tells us that such a result was extremely uncommon! Just check ammunition expendatures verses losses inflicted. A sim would use a different value set for that fire that addresses the effect upon the unit, but that effect could be more (or usually less) than the mere numbers inflicted.

A test for a game is: "Did you have a good time?"

A test for a Sim is: "Was the result plauseable when history is used as the yardstick."

Well, that's "my" take on it. YMMV.

Best
Tom Dye
GFI

Good stuff Bill, that's pretty much what I requested too. Waiting eagerly for the five posts.

About number 4, simulations vs. games. I agree that this is a myth and I don't really understand why people are so keen to make a distinction between games and simulations. Historical wargames can clearly be both at the same time (there has been so much debate on this that I hope most can agree on it already). If we want to classify games, it would be more useful to take a look at design objectives: what we are trying to model with the rules (if anything), for what are the rules supposed to be used and for what kind of audience we are writing them.

My point is that just dividing rules to games and simulations hardly tells us anything about them. We do need some kind of terminology to easily describe what kind of rules we are designing (or selling), but I'm quite certain that simple classification to 'games' and 'simulations' is going to be just harmful for game design in the long run.

I don't really understand why people are so keen to make a distinction between games and simulations.

Hi Karsta,

Having worked extensively with computer simulations of red on blue attacks which dealt with variable such as wind speeds, field of view of the right and left hand (ie, not the main) driver's periscopes (it was written in a Mac language called STELLA in the late 80s by the Centre for Operational Research and Defence Analysis in the UK and was called "Tank Charts" ), I am actually one of those who is loath to call my games "simulations" and when I hear it, I tend to cringe.

Maybe it's just a terminology thing, but I, given my above experience, prefer to describe wargames to non-wargamers as "games with rules that are supposed to represent the decisions of commanders and effects of their weapons." I suppose "simulate" and "represent" in this context are interchangeable, but it's just the connotation "simulation" has with me.

Apart from that though, I also feel that wargamers or gamers who use the term "simulation" are trying to puff up what they do to be important when what they are doing is playing a game. At the same time, I am also decidely not one of those who say "pffft! it's just a game, who cares" and I get a bit ticked off when I hear TMPers say this. I want the game I am playing to be realistic – and "realism" and how it is represented is the centre of the debate on the topic that spawned this topic (good on McLaddie to open a seprate topic, BTW), process versus outcome, TMP link
--
Tim

I am actually one of those who is loath to call my games "simulations" and when I hear it, I tend to cringe.

Well, I have been modelling a hydraulic system and simulating it with different controllers these past days (and the damn thing still won't work as supposed). I'm still in school learning this stuff so I haven't yet developed such a loathing towards the word.
However, I must admit the word carries a heavy burden with it.

What I really tried to say in my post is that getting stuck in debate on which games are simulations and which are not and how to tell them apart might not be very constructive. What in my opinion is important is that games can be simulations and simulation methodology can be used to help game design. I expect Bill to tell us soon how.

Hi

Tom, by Sam's standard, you qualify, dont you. You have "put your money…." Personally, I got started in non-government sims by contract to make games for companies!

I hate it if I am actually supposed to put up cash!

Grin.

Anyway, We have had a separate discussion, you and I about casualties, and had fun doing it.

Back to my idea of "game designers as friends talking shop".

One cheat I use is to deliberately insist that the game produces unfair games! I have met few gamers who go "geeze, I was stupid". Rather, more commonly, they have the troops of Alex the nifty, therefore they ARE alex the nifty!

Or the dice cheated me.

or something.

I embrace this, "yup, the game wasn't fair, but, well, you know if it is a simulation, life isn't fair either!"

Rocky

Rudy:

"Complextiy may equal realism but it is not a requirement. Simpilcity can be used depending on your established goal."

:-j Complexity doesn't equal realism. That is totally a conclusion on an individual's experience. Somebody may *feel* it is a requirement, but that has nothing to do with whether a simulation works or not. There is nothing 'real' about a simulation. It is by definition an artificial construct. Anything the simulation successfully models of reality creates a 1:1 relationship, but the experience of 'realism' is completely subjective and very difficult to design for beyond some conventional beliefs as to what provides 'realism.'

Many of the things that supposedly add to the realism of a wargame end up having nothing to do with the reality such things portray. That's Okay, but it isn't 'real' in any concrete design method.

Rich wrote:

How do you define a game as opposed to a simulation? What differentiates the two so that we can clearly see the difference?

We had a long, drawn-out discussion of this. You didn't accept either my definitions of those two designs--nor the game industry's definitions, let alone the simulation community's--which I just gave you.

You concluded that a wargame can't be a simulation. I certainly couldn't talk you into saying it can. Lots of folks make a living believing a wargame can be a simulation. Beyond that, there isn't really anymore I can say.

Rudy wrote:

The first step will be to determine what you want to convey with the simulation. Once the goal has been established then you can proceed to the objectives to obtain the goal.
!. What era of military operations will be covered. A specific system or a general system which can be applied with supplements to other eras.
2. What is the dessired troop to casting ratio; the time scale; the the ground scale
3. What level of command and level of focus. This includes the participation level in the command structure for both player and non-player castings as well as multi-player versions.
4. What mechanics will be needed to control movemenet? The affects of formations, skirmishers, terrain?
5. What mechanics will be used to control firing? Artillery, musketry, otehr? affects of terrain, Casualty affects on the unit?
6. What mechanics will be needed to control hand to hand combat? The affects of terrain, Status and training modifiers? Combat results?
7. Determining scenarios and victory conditions?
8. Treatment of terrain, regions of combat?
9. Determing the level of influence on operations by non-quanative items such as command and morale?

Rudy, is this a description of the design process of a wargame, or a simulation? This isn't the process you followed to design a flight simulator is it?

Rudy wrote:

Think about this, there are hundreds of thousands of gamers, but a handful of people with valid design credits. WE are a small group. Personally, I don't need agreement, I am curious about how WE come to our decisions.

Rudy:
I don't know how true that is, but I do feel that valid design credits only provide knowledge--that can make a big difference, but can be picked up anywhere just the same.

The real issue is what wargame designers are attempting to do, what they *say* they are doing.

Some [and maybe rather few in the hobby] have more knowledge about simulation design, but anyone can successfully design a simulation/wargame, just as anyone can design a successful model airplane.

It certainly does make it easier to begin with some background in aircraft design. My dad designed commercially sold RC model kits. [Actually an architect in real life.] Never flew a real plane, had no training in aircraft design. Everything he knew he learned 'on the job.' Even so more than one aircraft manufacturer such as Boeing paid him to build working models of their prototype designs.

It is a small handful of people that *say* they are building simulations? When Art Conliffe, Bill Gray, Sam Mustafa, and Bob Jones ALL say they are simulating historical battles, it isn't that small a group. When you also count up all the wargame designers claiming to offer gamers the "real challenges of historical Commanders." [e.g. The designers of FOW and Napoleon], there aren't that many left who don't claim anything of the sort…

Rudy wrote "In my opinion SPI did a good job exposing gamers to both simulations and games."

Oh, yeah. LOTS of exposure. They dominated the hobby, practically made it selling a hundred thousand 'simulation games.' The problem is all the lame definitions they came up with [completely isolated from the rest of the simulation community] made it really hard to talk about simulation design or wargame design twenty years later. Part of the reason the company collapsed stemmed from their weirder design concepts.

Well Mcladdie, you are going to have to point out the post where I say "…Think about this, there are hundreds of thousands of gamers, but a handful of people with valid design credits. WE are a small group. Personally, I don't need agreement, I am curious about how WE come to our decisions…"

I cannot find it but I may have overlooked it. However if you look it was Rocky and not Rudy who made the comment.
Can you edit your comment? Rocky is often more direct and absolute than I try to be. LOL! Though I too get direct on occasion.

No Mcladdie the process I listed is the one that I use and all designers should consider whether they are doing simulations or games. The more prep-work is done the easaier it is to design mechanics that mesh with each other and be realistic (game or simu) as well.

No I dod not know enough code to design computer products/systems. LOL!

In regards to SPI, if I remember my experience with them from the 1970s-early 1980s, they had many issues which lead to their demise.
Basic location expenses of New York City may have been one. Lack of directional focus for product development. Some people have even commented that they wasted too much money trying to hit the fantasy market rather than stick with historical games. though their bettle oriented games like the Middle Earth Quad was good IMHO. Had their historical material ran dry? Some may say so but not me. Nothing is simple when talking about the demise of an industry giant.

McLaddie wrote:

[…] It is a small handful of people that *say* they are building simulations? When Art Conliffe, Bill Gray, Sam Mustafa, and Bob Jones ALL say they are simulating historical battles, it isn't that small a group. When you also count up all the wargame designers claiming to offer gamers the "real challenges of historical Commanders." [e.g. The designers of FOW and Napoleon], there aren't that many left who don't claim anything of the sort…

If there's no consensus as to what the term "simulation" means, then I don't think you can really single a designer out for using the term "simulate" in the general sense of the word's definition. If they were claiming to be providing a detailed "simulation", then perhaps so. I can reenact something without claiming to be a reenactor. I can paint something without claiming to be a painter. And so on.

I'm taking from this thread that, even among professional simulation designers, there is no general agreement as to how or if wargames fit into the definition of "simulation". The term seems to have taken on such a connotation of
drudgery that some games designers have gone to some length to distance their wargame products from the term. Sam's published MWAN articles referring to "anti-simulation" is one example.

- Bob

Bill H./McLaddie – Thanks for your expansion thus far. I am checking this thread daily, and do appreciate your efforts.

Thank you!

- Bob

Though it was not my quote, I have decided to comment. This will be short as i am on my way to the doctor for more checkups. (Sigh of frustration).

Some researchers lack the military experience to convert their data into realistic military doctrine. Some Veterans lack the research skills to convert data about other eras into mechanics based on their experience.

It is a matter of learning to do both. You are not born with research skills and have to learn them. You have to experience the miltiary to be a veteran. Both take time.

And as I pointed out being one does not mean that you are good at both. Nor does experience in one or both mean that you will be a good designer.

Two quick examples:
At a convention in the 1980s, an older gentleman at a convention west of the Mississippi was demoing his ACW-Colnial skirmish rules. He was using d6 and had firing charts where allowing a hit on the following numbers regardless of terrain or other factors. Range was the key factor. At long range you hit on 5or 6 and missed on lower numbers. At medium range you hit on 3 or 4 but MISSed on all other numbers. At SHORT range you hit on a roll of 1 and 2 but missed on the otehrs. All were 33% chance to hit regardless of range , terrain or training.

Most people in the NE USA of the 1990s remember the WW2 skirmish rules which had 5 second turns. It was so complex it was unplayable. It took many turns just to reload a weapon or even to stand up to move. By the way the The designer did not regard it as a simulation .

End part oNe.

Hi

anyone can design a model airplane, and anyone can design a game. Absolutely true.

Few early 1:1 airplane designers had any appreciable education.

All of which dodged my basic point. It wasn't some sort of elitist idea of exclusivity, but rather expressing a quite different point referring specifically to Sam's "when you put your money…" idea.

Sam is defensive and this point actually dismissed people for having their opinion. Thus, McLaddie, you should have taken this up with Sam.

In fact, anyone can do a game. A small few of us have been paid to do so. MY point is this, I don't ever dismiss the opinions that disagree, nor do I insist that my approach is the only way.

RATHER, I value all opinions. I especially value the opinions of the other pros because they have a better insight on how one gets a set from notes on paper to a publication (vanity or professional).

the perfect sim is reality. HOW we make choices is more interesting to me.

Thus, I like this thread!

Rocky

part Two Mcladdie, (sorry for the delay. A good and bad news sort of day. They feel 14+ hours is too far to drive/ride to the Kansas City show being so soon after my heart valve replacement. Too bad I was looking forward to it.) Sigh again)

I have never met Sam M in person. i too have problems with some of Sam's era military doctrine justification for specific rule mechanics. However it is clear that some gamers like his mechanics and enjoy his systems.

How to judge his mechanics would be difficult to do objectively. Such a process are subject to individual preferences and hence a bias in analyis.

I have known Bill Gray since 1977 and have no no problem with his background of experience in both military affairs and research ability. (Disclaimer: No I do not play Age of Eagles as that is not the troop ratio that I like to play.)

I have met Bob Coggins at many conventions since the 1990s if not the late 1980s and our discussions on Napoleonic doctrine and mechanics have always been fun and informative. No I do not know what his background is but he has always been able to defend his mechanics with solid facts.

Dye4minis:
Game: Must be balanced or else it's hard to find an opponent willing to play! Mostly scenario driven.

Simulation: Based upon the actual factors which determined how units fought.

Thanks Dye. The problem with these defining terms is that they can be used for both a game and a simulation. Lots of wargamers play unbalanced scenarios and as Bill can attest, simulations can also be scenario driven. With regard to actual factors, Sam uses these but clearly asserts his games are not designed to be simulations.

Karsta: Historical wargames can clearly be both at the same time. … My point is that just dividing rules to games and simulations hardly tells us anything about them. We do need some kind of terminology to easily describe what kind of rules we are designing (or selling), but I'm quite certain that simple classification to 'games' and 'simulations' is going to be just harmful for game design in the long run.

If there is so little distinction between the two why restrict it to historical games. We can have fantasy simulations modeling fantasy worlds just like some have historical simulations modeling the historical world. Or, better yet, why even use the term simulation? If there is so little distinction between the two them using the term simulation doesn't add any more information than using the term game. Get rid of simulation as a waisted word.

Bill: We had a long, drawn-out discussion of this. You didn't accept either my definitions of those two designs--nor the game industry's definitions, let alone the simulation community's--which I just gave you.

Actually Bill you were unable to provide definitions that were strictly related to the world of consumer wargaming, the kind of games Sam and others write and what we use in our games. You continually had to go outside our industry in order to prove you points. You were unable to give examples from within our wargaming industry. Your last post went once again out side our industry to prove a point about consumer wargaming. At this point I realized that you could not prove you points from within our industry and so I quit.

If you are going to take Sam and others to task then it seems to me that you should define exactly what you mean. In your mind, what is a simulation, what is a model and how these are used in creating a consumer wargame and what is a game and what are the salient differences. If there are none then there is no reason to use the term simulation since we already use the term game, i.e., wargame.

bobstro: If there's no consensus as to what the term "simulation" means, then I don't think you can really single a designer out for using the term "simulate" in the general sense of the word's definition

Bobstro is absolutely correct. What is needed is a concensus as to what the term simulation means. I would add that we need is a consensus as to what simulation means with regards to consumer wargame design.

I'm taking from this thread that, even among professional simulation designers, there is no general agreement as to how or if wargames fit into the definition of "simulation".

Correct, however defining simulation is like the sound of one hand clapping. One also needs to define game and how the two are differentiate.

Rich

Bill,
IMO you should not post here again until you have all 5 of the articles you promised Bob in the top message. I understand that it might be frustrating to not reply to other messages as they pop up, but my thought is answering odds and ends and spending time and energy on that will merely delay and disjoint the 5 articles when they start to come out.
I assume it takes a quite a while to produce those 5, and people might chafe at waiting for them, but I think it better to have the whole theory laid out at one time.
I think that once those are all posted (as I suggest, all posted together on the same day, rather than as you produce each one) they will form the core of what you have to say and will generate comments.
Once that is done, then you can go back to answering individual posts that are coming in now. That may be frustrating for you and these other posters in the meantime, waiting for the full 5 postings, but I think it will minimize the tangents that we might go off on in the meantime.
Of course, that is only my opinion, you are free to do as you like, it is just my two cents worth after watching what has happened to other threads.
There are some interesting folks posting in the meantime that can keep this thread busy while you work away.

-Ned

Bob:

1.Simulation Principles:

The first question that has to be asked is how can a bunch of lead figures, dice and lichen trees actually simulate or mimic or model a battle fought two hundred years ago, let alone prove that it 'works.' I mean, really, how can we possibly know we are actually doing that?

Of course, how can we know that about a simulation of a galaxy twenty thousand light years away? How can we know that our flight simulator actually simulates flight, let alone actually tests and trains pilots to fly a plane that hasn't been built yet? How can we know a simulation of crowd flow actually simulates it in a building complex that doesn't exist? The same principles and methods answer all of these questions. Each principle builds on the next--methods later.

1. Simulations and their component represent something else. That lichen tree and little lead soldier, the light pixels on a computer screen, the huge surround screen in a flight simulator all are designed to represent something else found in reality, past, present or future.

2. All Simulations have a 'point of view.' That means the player or the controller has a distinct place or role in the simulation. It may be as an observer a thousand light years from the simulated galaxy or weather patterns over North America, or as the chemist manipulating a chemical simulation, or as a squad commander or grunt in a training simulation, or a pilot, or a general, colonel or captain in a miniatures wargame. This is critical because in reality, every participant, regardless of the events, have a distinct view point and distinct abilities in it.

3. Simulations exist in the relationship between the artificial representation and the 'real thing.' This means that it is the player's 'relationship' with the little lead figures that simulate a commander's relationship with actual soldiers and units. Within the simulation system, the player enjoys *some* of the same options, decisions and consequences in operating with the simulated unit of lead figures as those military men commanding the real troops. It also means, for a simulation to work, it has to mimic reality in concrete terms. That relationship has to be provable. That is where the 8 tests come in.

4. Simulations have limits, and can only simulate parts of reality. No simulation can or will even be able to simulate all of any moment of reality. That is a given. There never will be an ultimate simulation of war or anything else. The question is always what parts of reality does the simulation model? Any simulation designer will tell you the same thing any game designer will: Add too many details, too many subsystems and the entire design will collapse under it's own weight. It will fail.

For instance, I learned some pilot skills on a flight simulator, a game program on my computer, played with a mouse and key board. I know I leaned some skills because they showed up during my first real piloting experience in a sailplane. I took the stick and very quickly, the instructor said, "You've flown before", even though I already told him I hadn't. When I told him the only thing I'd flown were flight simulators, he nodded as though that made sense. He did later say I'd learned a lot on those games.

The computer simulator was designed to mimic the aero-dynamics of flight along with gravity and a plane's control surfaces. If the designers had made all the dials on the simulated cockpit panels work, or if I had set up a fan to blow air by my window at 100 miles an hour while I buckled myself into the chair, would that have made it a 'better' simulation? It certainly would have simulated more, but it wouldn't have added a thing to the simulated aero-dynamics represented, and could have actually gotten in the way of my learning to pilot the simulated plane—more distractions, more details. More is not automatically better. It will keep the simulation from 'working.'

As Jerry Banks [An engineer and computer simulator] says at the very beginning of his Handbook of Simulations: "Immediately, there is a concern about the limits or boundaries of the model that supposedly represents the system. The model should be complex enough to answer the questions raised [the goals of the simulation], but not too complex."

5. A designer can only simulate known information about reality. A designer can't simulate something he has no knowledge of or information about. As a simulation is a system modeling information about reality, it is defined by that information. Obviously, simulations operate under the corollary: "Garbage in, Garbage out." It also means that a simulation can succeed at, even do a brilliant job of, modeling garbage. That is, it can be an accurate simulation…of garbage.

6. There are many ways to simulate the same things. .Because the same information can be presented in different mechanics and processes, it means that many different, working, accurate simulations of the same information can be created. There is no 'right' design, only those that work. And again, the information refers to the data from reality the designer has chosen to model. There is no 'right' information, only the information that is necessary to meet the designer's goals.

7. There are two basic types of simulations, ones that simulate events [Static], and ones that simulate environments [Dynamic] As the Dynamic simulation is designed to allow the controller or participants to create events, make decisions within the simulated environment, obviously that is the type used in simulation games. Create a game meant to recreate events, and you get the same event over and over again, like a re-enactment or movie. Some game designers have mistakenly designed Static simulations in a desire to recreate a certain event.

8. For any simulation to work, some amount of 'suspension of disbelief' is necessary. That means "pretending is critical." If a soldier stands up in the middle of a laser tag firefight and exclaims "This isn't real", the military exercise is going to fail big time for every participant. For the simulation to work he and everyone else has to 'act' as if it were a real firefight. Otherwise they won't learn the skills the exercise was designed to train.

If the scientist looks at the swirls of color on a computer screen and decides, "I don't believe that is the way 'real galaxies' collide", regardless of the success of the actual design, he won't use it in his research. "Pretending" is necessary for a simulation to work. I had to believe that skills I learned sitting at my desk playing the flight simulator actually did correspond to flying a plane—or I never would have thought of applying them when I first piloted the sailplane. That pretending was entertainment for me, pure and simple. My purpose for that 'make-believe' didn't keep the simulation from working or the skills from being real, because the simulation 'worked'.

In other words, 'how' the gamer plays the wargame, relates to the mechanics and the game decisions, has something to do with whether it simulates or not. And this may or may not include that 'unhistorical' play so railed against in our hobby, but for a simulation, this generally means they are ignoring the rules/the simulation, rather than 'gaming' them.

9. For a simulation to work, the participants have to know exactly what is being simulated. If I didn't know that the mouse represented the joy stick on a plane, and the left and right arrow keys, the pedals, or what parts of the plane they controlled, I could have played the game. I might enjoy the game, but I wouldn't be 'simulating' anything—because I had no idea what the relationships were. With out knowing what is represented, knowing what I was 'pretending' to do, I certainly couldn't know how to 'transfer' my game skills to flying a real plane. I suppose I could guess, but that is all it would ever be, a guess about what a designer actually meant to simulate. As far as flying a real plane, they could be real dangerous 'guesses.'

This last point is critical. If players don't know what history the various parts of the wargame represent, they can't know the relationships to reality modeled and can 'pretend' properly for the wargame to work as a simulation.

The amount of print wasted because of this information vacuum is huge, and 80% of it is unnecessary and even counterproductive if the idea is to simulate historical battles.

Guessing or making up our own ideas of what history a particular wargame was designed to model may make for a good time, but it's not simulating anything except guessing and free-form make-believe. If the designer isn't telling, any idea of simulating is a waste of time.

Best Regards,

Bill H.

Rudy and Rocky:
My naming Bill Gray and Art C. as designers who say they are 'simulating historical battles' along Bob C., wasn't a dig or accusation of anything, other than to note that they claim their wargame designs simulate history, that they are creating simulations. That's all I was saying. Whether they have succeeded or not, I didn't say.

My problem with Sam is somewhat different, but simple enough. He insists that simulations are impossible and that the above designers aren't simulating anything. And he takes every opportunity to argue that position. He also insists that gamers don't care about simulations and 'accurate history', they want fun games. Yet he describes his past games as portraying "the way it was in Napoleonic battle", claiming his new design, Lasalle is capable of "simulating historical battles."

Enough said.

Rocky wrote:

anyone can design a model airplane, and anyone can design a game. Absolutely true. Few early 1:1 airplane designers had any appreciable education.

All of which dodged my basic point. It wasn't some sort of elitist idea of exclusivity, but rather expressing a quite different point referring specifically to Sam's "when you put your money…" idea.

Well, I wasn't trying to dodge any point, but rather be more inclusive as to who could successfully design wargames. ;-J

Sam is defensive and this point actually dismissed people for having their opinion. Thus, McLaddie, you should have taken this up with Sam.

I have, a monumental effort. However, that wasn't why I mentioned Sam. I mentioned him because he is a hobby designer, and has very specific views on game design. [see above] Those views are part of the public discussion on wargame/simulation design--he has made sure of that. And in that vein, I have used his views to make my points about the hobby. It isn't some personal disagreement with Sam--for me at least, not when both of us have been talking about the hobby in general.

In fact, anyone can do a game. A small few of us have been paid to do so. MY point is this, I don't ever dismiss the opinions that disagree, nor do I insist that my approach is the only way.

I agree. If I do insist that there is an 'only way', it is more like insisting that the bicycle needs two wheels if anyone's going to be able to ride it--not what color it has to be painted or how many speed gears it must have, or why folks have to ride it.

RATHER, I value all opinions. I especially value the opinions of the other pros because they have a better insight on how one gets a set from notes on paper to a publication (vanity or professional).

I agree, and certainly wasn't suggesting something different.

the perfect sim is reality.

Ah, here I disagree. The perfect model of a corvette isn't a corvette itself, if only because it won't fit on my self… which is why I built it 1:25 scale.

Actually if a simulation is an artificial construct representing something else, then the perfect sim would always represent something else--not become reality. Misses the whole purpose of simulations--to model parts of reality without all the messy and damaging elements--The perfect flight simulator isn't one that kills the participant if he crashes at mach 2. ;-] Fails to provide a major benefit of a functioning flight simulator, let alone a perfect one.

HOW we make choices is more interesting to me.

I agree on a whole lot of levels there.

Thus, I like this thread!

Yeah, I enjoy discussing simulation/wargame design too.

Best Regards,

Bill H.

Rich:

If there is so little distinction between the two why restrict it to historical games. We can have fantasy simulations modeling fantasy worlds just like some have historical simulations modeling the historical world.

Sure one could use a fantasy world as a source material for a model. What's the difference between fantasy and badly made historical research anyway?

Or, better yet, why even use the term simulation? If there is so little distinction between the two them using the term simulation doesn't add any more information than using the term game. Get rid of simulation as a waisted word.

Well yes, word simulation seems to give bad vibes to so many people, that it might actually be better to avoid it. Game designers just seem to be keen to use it when selling games, even if it doesn't tell much about the design.

Bobstro is absolutely correct. What is needed is a concensus as to what the term simulation means. I would add that we need is a consensus as to what simulation means with regards to consumer wargame design.

Sure, absolutely. I just can't understand why we can't borrow perfectly good definitions from other fields that are so close to our own. It's not easy to find 'definitions that are strictly related to the world of consumer wargaming' when the field in question is such a myth-ridden mess with no theory or definitions to speak of. Simulation and computer game industries and even rpg-community have developed theories which could be useful to our hobby too. Using their definitions as a base might be good way to start building our own.

Is there a fundamental difference in simulations?

Are simulations for board and paper wargames expected to be the same as a occupation training system such as for flying or operating a distribution operation?

Are computer simulations different as well? A golf game with the actual hitting surface and a screen is a simulation vs a console game where you push a button to hit the ball.

It seems that many industries use the same terms as other industries but referring to competely different aspects of operational or familiarizational training.

Hi

Lou Zocchi, Dave Wesley and Ross Maker have all worked for the Dupuy research group that, starting in WW2 was analyzing combat and producing models to anticipate future events.

And it is successful. There are whole departments in the "puzzle Palace" that have successfully gamed "the future".

I have worked there as well. Those of you who are more familiar with my other threads…they think I am some sort of expert on weaponry.

Anyway, I did a lot of sims for serving combat pilots. These started from the standpoint of discussing the HISTORY of air combat tactics, using these to understand how we got where we are today. And how to use the known history to anticipate new tech. And over the last decades, the pilots getting shot at tell me that it works.

The stuff I do there is a different audience than my Thursday night games.

My point is that I know that my friends Ross and Dave and I have all successfully done sims that work. Dismissing the "it cannot be done".

Dave Wesley may know more about fire support than anyone. AND given this, his analysis of why artillery did what it did in the Mexican War resonates with me.

So, while I am not an arty guy, when I game, my first choise is that arty works the way Dave tells me! Grin.

Sims are possible if you know what you are actually supposed to sim. Lead or paper and so on are just identifiers and not the issue in the sim. THAT is a diversion.

Non pilots, non combat pilots, non aerodynamicists often have insights that work. Thus, I listen to everyone. Kinda simple. My frustration has never been with gamers in this, but in congress. Pols ask me for answers and then get upset if it isn't the answer they thought they already knew from needs other than the facts.

So, lets be friends and chat.

Rocky

RockyRusso wrote:

[…] And over the last decades, the pilots getting shot at tell me that it works.

This is a real test of rules that I like to hear about, but let's be clear that a system need not be developed using careful simulation methodologies to get such approval. The author of one of my favorite rules system is proud of the fact that many combat veterans have told him that his games capture the chaos and confusion of the battlefield, while clearly they were not developed using any hard research data.

The lesson, I guess, is that accuracy of data does not necessarily trump accuracy of feel. Were a game developed using strict adherence to design methodology, yet veterans complain of the feel of certain mechanics, I wouldn't consider it a sin for the author to make some tweaks.

Then all that's left is getting every veteran to agree on that "feel". :)

- Bob

Hi

A story in my playtest group in the day was playing in a rec center and having "omm pa pa" music in the ballroom. Two little old men come in, get excited and start coaching some of the guys in "can you com up this way--roll here…" and making game kills.

Ex luftwaffe, led to my meeting people like Galland!

Their comment, "this is wonderful, all the fun of a dogfight and no one has to die!".

Paperclip guys.

Rocky

Bob:

2. Historical Accuracy and Simulation Accuracy

This isn't as complicated as most think, particularly when you lay some perspective on all the concerns about the wide range of historical interpretations, the view that nobody can 'know' etc. as well as ignoring all the unrealistic demands for Historical Truth and the Ultimate, Ideal Simulation.

Game designers are not historians. They don't have to prove their historical research and methods are the best around compared to all historians. Not at all. Not their job.

However, they are using historical information to 'simulate historical battles.' So, to demonstrate, to establish this 'historical accuracy' everyone either proclaims for their design, or categorically states is impossible, there are only a few things a game designer really needs to do.

This isn't some new method. Lots of disciplines use it. It is based on the most basic notion of 'accuracy.' It requires a target, an objective and a way to measure the attempt to reach that objective, the shot. Somehow we have to determine whether that 'bullseye' called "historical accuracy" and Simulation Accuracy has been hit.
Here are the 3 parts the designer must have to establish historical accuracy and accuracy simulation. Most designers have all the components, so it shouldn't be all that difficult to put it together:

1. The historical evidence the designer has chosen to model.

The question is: Is there actually some history being simulated here? And if so, where is it?

2. Designer's interpretation of that history—the game process created to model the evidence

The question is: What history do particular mechanics and processes simulate?

Historical Accuracy is simply establishing the connection between #1 and #2.

3.The game mechanics that model that interpretation [i.e produces the expected historical process and outcomes.]

The question is: Do the mechanics actually model the history identified?

Simulation accuracy is simply demonstrating the link between #2 and #3. .

Not terribly complicated or all that mysterious in concept.
The problem is that designers rarely ever provide the actual evidence that would establish a link between 1 and 2, they only claim there is a link. "Trust me, I hit the historical target accurately, even if you don't know where that target is or what was used to hit it." And of course, gamers guess and debate and make-believe what is actually represented. It can be fun, but it isn't simulating anything.

Because of that lack, the link between 2 and 3 is always presented as generalizations based on unknowns, even when those interpretations are offered in Designer's notes. You know, "That's the way it was", but without any evidence for the 'the way' ever being identified in historical documents that would establish that 'way'.

That is one reason gamers can have problems with the one die roll, 'results-oriented' mechanics. A major reason they want the armor thickness, deflection angles, round velocity in calculating fire, for instance. It provides at least a nominal link to the history supposedly portrayed. You have *some* idea of what is being simulated visa vie history.

If you just roll the dice and the Sherman is smoked, the player has little idea what kind of connection exists between that game event created by the rules and the historical evidence supposedly being modeled / reflected / simulated. OR to say it another way, if you are designing for 'feel', gamers don't know what to feel or what they are feeling is 'historical'.

The one die roll may very well do a bang-up job of modeling history—but without the history and what it is simulating, it's just one die roll among many. The gamer needs to know what history, both for the needs of the simulation and for establishing that 'historical accuracy.'

SO HERE IS AN EXAMPLE:
Here is the history a designer has chosento be modeled for an artillery subsystem in an ACW wargame. The quotes are all from:
By Authority, U.S. Infantry Tactics, for the Instruction, Exercise, and Manoeuvres of the United States Infantry, including Infantry of the Line, Light Infantry, and Riflemen… May 1, 1861, J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1863; reprinted by Stackpole Books, 2002.

"The best effect of canister is within two hundred yards. Beyond three hundred and fifty yards, it should not be used. "The best effect of grape is within four hundred yards, Over six hundred yards, it is not very effective."
"The nearer artillery delivers its fire, the more powerful, of course, are its effects. Horse artillery, in sufficient strength, attacking the enemy at short grape-shot distance, say within three hundred or four hundred yards, may lose half its pieces, but with the other half it will probably decide the battle at that point." pp.74 & 79

"The usual maximum distance at which smooth-bore field guns may open fire with any considerable effect, [is] ― "For 12-pounders . . . . 1100 yards." … "What [this distance is] in respect to rifled guns, it does not appear to be yet definitively settled. The extreme range of the new rifled … twelve pounders [is said to be] four thousand five hundred yards." pp.85-6

And one from the Union "Army Officer's Pocket Companion", 1863 p.71 & p.72

"The best effect of canister is within two hundred yards. Beyond three hundred and fifty yards, it should not be used. "The best effect of grape is within four hundred yards, Over six hundred yards, it is not very effective.." pp.74 & 79

"Artillery should not fire at infantry beyond 1,000 yards, not at cavalry beyond 1,200, unless the ground is suitable for ricochet firing, and the enemy's troops are in dense masses. On favorable ground, solid shot from field guns will range as high as 1,600 or 1,800 yards or more. The probability of striking an object is the greatest possible at 500 yards. Firing should be slow at long distances, and more rapid as the effect produced is greater, or as the enemy advances more rapidly."

The History: These two books are historical documents. They were written by ACW officers during the war to instruct officers in tactics and combat practices.

Is this the only historical evidence concerning these topics? No.

Are there contemporary documents and battlefield narratives that contradict these two books? Yes.

Is it the best evidence? Who knows? It is a historian's job to prove that, not the game designer's.

Those aren't the issues here. It isn't about the 'best' history, but rather WHAT history.

This is the 'accurate history' needed for a wargame? It is accurate history because there actually is historical evidence being modeled--not some designer's imaginings. To establish historical accuracy, all a wargame designer has to do is provide WHAT HISTORY IS BEING SIMULATED. This is concept of 'accuracy' that all artists including simulation designers use. For example, Don Troiani, Military Artist says:

"If an historical painting is not accurate, then it is worthless as both art and an investment."

And how does he 'prove' his paintings are historically accurate? Why, he provides the historical evidence they are based on, of course.

A wargame that 'simulates historical battles' is worthless as a simulation if the specific history it models isn't known, isn't provided, isn't identified.

From the few examples of hobby wargame designers providing the history that I have seen, such as Bruce Weigle's 1870, there have been no gamers criticizing what history he used or whether his game simulates 'accurate history' on the 1870 list--unlike other lists.

Does that mean his game is fun? No. Does that mean that it is the best simulation possible No. It simply means that it is historically accurate, and that lots of time wasted on debates over 'the right history' are better applied in other hobby directions.

However, designers don't have to do what Bruce did, providing dozens of pages of historical information. I agree he went overboard, but he wanted to… and did a nice job too. [However, when a design has supposedly done years of research, why wouldn't they at least put it up on a website or make it available somehow?]

All a designer has to do is:
Provide a bibliography of the books that establishes the history—not all of the books he might have read or provide all the sources of similar historical evidence… nope just one piece of evidence.

So, above, the designer can simply provide a list of books used. For instance, for the ACW rules, one of the books would be 1. U.S. Infantry Tactics, for the Instruction, Exercise, and Manoeuvres of the United States Infantry, including Infantry of the Line, Light Infantry, and Riflemen. Then at the intro of the game mechanics in question: [1:74, 79, 85-6] That is the first reference, #1, and the pages where the history can be found.

[Just an aside. Wouldn't be interesting if a designer uses only the data provided in those handbooks to simulate ACW warfare? Or similar instruction books on 'how to do it'?]

That wouldn't require much ink at all, or be intrusive. But the gamer, if he is interested can find the specific history that the designer was inspired to model.

Rocky doesn't have to provide his entire effort in researching bow string draw. Just one historical example that supports his conclusions. Which is the point—does all the number-crunching end up explaining or illuminating what happened? If it doesn't at all, no match between the conclusions and history can be found, what does that tell us?

Of course, the designer might find a wide range of historical evidence, say concerning the range of ACW firefights. Say, he decides to average the information. Again, he can provide examples of the extremes and say he averaged them, or just provide one historical example of the average and say "I simulated that."

I'll finish up the discussion with simulation accuracy in the second post… Just so this one isn't so long. And yes, the issue of game designer 'interpretations' and 'opinions' will be addressed. [and yes, they certainly can and have to have them…]

It is really simple to do, but not always simple to explain.
And again. This isn't some new notion I thought up, but a concept of 'accuracy' in general, and 'historical accuracy' in particular used by most all designers and artists in a variety of diverse fields all interested in providing it to their audiences. Why? Because it works. It gets the job done.

It is a basic reason why historians footnote and scientists document--so the evidence is accessible to everyone, as well as validates any claims of 'accuracy. And as I said before, if players don't know the history being simulated, they can't simulate it very well, if at all…

Best Regards,
Bill H.

Bob wrote:

Then all that's left is getting every veteran to agree on that "feel". :)

Bob:
Rocky and other simulation designers often have a luxury that many historical wargame designers don't have--not if they are simulating Napoleonic or ACW or Ancient battles. They can have veterans of the real combat provide input, critiquing the design for what it simulates… It is one of the eight tests of a simulation--when it is possible. ;-j

That comparison was not always available to me as a designer, but it sure was nice when it was.

Bill H. -- I'm taking from your explanations that a big part of simulation is an explicit understanding by the participants that they are, indeed, playing a "simulation". Much of the distinctions seem based on the players knowing -- and caring -- about at least some of the significant details. Without that, much of the effort that you describe required by the designer is for naught. This would tread into discussions of player motivation and willingness to put their experience in the hand of the designer more so than with a more casual effort, I would think.

That said, some subset of the player community might be trusted to do the vetting, and the rest "just play", but that seems to be a precarious situation for a designer to put themselves in. A formal play testing process would fulfill much the same purpose, would it not? The depth of detail you describe might be used internally for validation, yet not provided to the general public -- the old "proprietary intellectual property" approach, no?

The part I think I'd find damnably frustrating is to go through such a formal validation process, only to find that the result stinks, and some tweaking is needed to make the experience enjoyable. That would then break the entire basis of "simulation", would it not?

- Bob

First off a vocabulary note, what Bill calls "history" is actually known as historical data. It is the data from which history is created.

Bill, presented data from two historical documents created during the ACW concerning the effects of canister fire. Both stated: "The best effect of canister is within two hundred yards."

Bill: This is the 'accurate history' needed for a wargame? It is accurate history because there actually is historical evidence being modeled

In other words, the game designer goes to the historical record and models this information about canister fire.

The problem is, nothing is being modeled. Bill's definition of simulation is that a simulation is a model of reality, something that exists in time and space. The critical aspect of this description is something I asked Bill to define: what is a model. I went to a website called System Thinking and used their definition of model. "A model is a simplified representation of a system at some particular point in time or space intended to promote understanding of the real system." For our purposes a model is a simplified representation of an object, event or process.

When a game designer goes to the historical record and uses the data on canister fire he bases his range estimates and effects estimates on this data. Is this modeling? No. He does not simplify this data. He simply converts the range figures and effect estimates into gaming data. This is called transposing. You are taking data in one form and converting it into another form that can be used by the game. You have simplified nothing.

There is no modeling of history or modeling of historical data. There is simply the transposing of data from one form into another. There is no simulation because there is no modeling (simplified representation) going on.

Wargames also simplify but they simplify battle into, generally speaking, five gaming components (pre-modern).

1. Turn sequence

2. Unit sizes

3. Rate of march

4. Fire

5. Melee

You can combine a few of these components such as fire and melee but you haven't done away with them. You have simply put them into a different form. These categories are needed in order to provide structure to the wargame. With them it is able to transpose historical data into gaming data needed to play the game.

Rich

Rich wrote:
"Actually Bill you were unable to provide definitions that were strictly related to the world of consumer wargaming, the kind of games Sam and others write and what we use in our games. You continually had to go outside our industry in order to prove you points. You were unable to give examples from within our wargaming industry. Your last post went once again out side our industry to prove a point about consumer wargaming. At this point I realized that you could not prove you points from within our industry and so I quit."

Rich, "our industry" has NO consistent definitions. Everything is subjective when it comes to "realism", "playabiity", "historical", "feel", etc etc. In other threads when you and Bill discussed definitions, it was my impression that you provided "wargame definitions", Bill showed where they were subjective or became a moving target, so you moved on to another one. Since you cannot 'prove" subjectivity, you had to quit because it got nowhere. The fact that "industry" definitions cannot be used to prove Bill's points actually prove that his points are correct – that the industry does not have consistent definitions!
You are also focused on your own definition of "simplifying" when you discuss "modeling" which has no meaning in the way you use it. When you say "Wargames simplify battle into five gaming components (pre-modern)… 1. Turn sequence" it makes no sense.
To simplify something is to take something that exists, remove some complexity, and end up with the same thing in a simpler form. However, Battle HAS NO TURNS. (And these categories are NOT necessarily needed in order to provide structure.) So you have not "simplified" anything, you have instead tried to represent something in some game form. I have no quibble with that, but it means that to use as an argument against Bill's definitions that some definition of modeling depends on your interpretation of "simplify", and then to claim that wargames "simplify battle" just shows how unhelpful "wargame" definitions are for a sensible argument.
To criticize Bill for going "outside the industry" for definitions brings us to why Bill brought this up in the first place. Some designers like Sam acknowledge that using industry definitions (which are all subjective") have no real meaning, and then go further to say "simulation" (which is also subjectively defined in the industry) is impossible. Bill suggested that coherent definitions exist outside the industry and that "the industry" might have a place in it for those definitions.
So it appears to me (and I fully accept that I could be wrong and am willing to be proved wrong) that the bottom line in the definitions debate between you and Bill come down to "the industry"saying we WANT ONLY SUBJECTIVE DEFINITIONS (and discussions) and are not interested in anything else because we take it as an article of faith that using objective definitions are impossible and unhelpful.
That is why I am interested in this thread and Bill's articles – I am curious to see if the simulations industry could offer any insights or useful ideas. Maybe it can, maybe it can't – but this thread and the contributions so far certainly hold my interest.

Rich:

When a game designer goes to the historical record and uses the data on canister fire he bases his range estimates and effects estimates on this data. Is this modeling? No. He does not simplify this data. He simply converts the range figures and effect estimates into gaming data.

Are you trying to say that if model is based on a bunch of data (or another models) and not somehow directly to reality, it shouldn't be called modelling, but 'transposing'? The fact that wargames have some basic structure of components doesn't change anything. Every field where modelling and simulations are used have some basic components and all the models are based on some data, taken from measurements that can never be perfect.

Really, take a step back and try to see the broader picture. Distinctions you are making are completely artificial. They are not even useful.

Hi

Being reviewed by modern combatants isn't always that useful. And, oddly, I can explain by using the above ACW arty post. There is real world math that can calculate the exact state of a given round from a given weapon at any distance. Sadly, using a sliderule, it can take weeks to work on just a single trajectory.

The history of the computer is that of doing these calculations for the navy specifically to produce a simplified chart that ordinary naval gunners can use. Thus, in a very real sense we have the math to quickly do the math that demonstrates the actual effectiveness at range.

In the case of aircraft, it was Murry Rubenstein who wrote the first effective computer programs to produce reliable numbers on aircraft performance. He was the chief aerotynamicist on the F105. And the computer simplified his life. The programs spread, and I was rewriting them to run in modules and…well who cares?

Anyway, the point was that besides doing predictive math on bad guy prototypes, Murry, and others including me took to doing pre-modern aircraft. See the field is filled with people who actually like aircraft. And, we mostly did this I expect so that we could argue! Murry and I had about a year just on the Curtiss Demon. Good times.

The thing is that no pilot could actually tell any of use about the performance. Every surviving pilot would claim he out turned, out performed every airplane he met. Not a real world number. AirForce, the Game, was based on which pilot's Anecdotes Steve Peek and Craig Taylor read, not based on how the aircraft could mechanically perform.

game design here, for me, started with being able to actually do the math and know, say, what the initial and sustained turn rates looked like. Then simplfying. As opposed to guessing.

Similarly, serving ACW officers speculated on experience, now we can just do the math, and know the mechanical limits, simplify.

Rocky