Connard Sage | 17 Jun 2011 11:53 p.m. PST |
As my previous attempt seems to be floundering in a sea of anecdote, I'll try again. With different words. Some wargamers chase 'realism'. So let us define what a set of rules require to make them realistic. I'm sitting back, because I'm not a chaser of chimera. |
toofatlardies | 18 Jun 2011 12:04 a.m. PST |
Naturally there is a limit on how much realism one can create with a game, however I do think that we can attempt to make games historically plausible by reflecting the tactics of the period and by presenting the gamer with similar decision making opportunities to their historical counterpart. The former is relatively easy from a game designers point of view. Research will tell you why certain tactics were adopted and modelling them is relatively straight-forward. The decision making opportunities is harder, and depends on the game system restricting the information that commanders have to that of the real life commander. To a degree how that is achieved will often have to be a combination of rules and scenario design. The big mistake that gamers often make is to presume any attempt at "realism" will result in tedious rules. This can be the case, but any rule designer should surely strive to achieve historical plausibility whilst ensuring that the game is still a fun experience. That is certainly the approach that I take. |
Henrix | 18 Jun 2011 1:52 a.m. PST |
Realism? A system that rewards realistic tactical choices at the level of command it portrays. Troops that don't always do you want. SNAFUs. Forcing the players to react to unforeseen events. |
Pertti | 18 Jun 2011 1:56 a.m. PST |
Realism also should be defined. There often is the assumption that realism means giving the player the same role, options and limitations of the Commander in chief. This usually means, besides fog of war, limiting the amount of micromanagement and giving the player as much SNAFU as possible, declaring that the one who is able to overcome bad dice results and strange/unwanted battlefield happenings better is the worthy winner. Patton is often cited, the one about giving orders one level under you and knowing the situation two levels under you. My view on realism is different. I contend that considering the player as the C-in-C is limiting. For me the player is many roles in one: the C-in-C; his subordinates down to battalion commander (in the case of battalions being the smaller unit on the table): this is the micromanagement side; and even a reporter or painter/photographer present at the scene, as even watching the unfolding of the battle is part of the enjoyment, regardless of one's active part in it. Each of those roles have their own definitin of "realism", and limiting the player to the C-in-C alone is neither more nor less "realistic" than letting him play all of those roles, including micromanaging the single units. |
Iowa Grognard | 18 Jun 2011 2:52 a.m. PST |
I personally think its too subjective to quantify. Realism seems to dwell in each person's relation to the period being gamed and the role they are assuming. One person's idea of realism is another person's claim of rule lawyering. One person's claim of "spirit of the rules" is another person's claim of playing fast and loose with realism. The list can go on and on
This is why the hobby supports so many different rules in my humble opinion. Many rules set out, in the preface or introduction, their particular aim, attempt, or vision of realism or the lack thereof. [edit] We, as gamers, have a habit of polarizing around rules that play to our own views and hold that our view and only our view are the true lens of realism. |
Fat Wally | 18 Jun 2011 4:24 a.m. PST |
Basically what all the posters above said. I read a lot of memoirs and contempary stuff and if my game presents more than as passing reference to them, then I am well pleased. We play almost exclusively all TFL rules, so I heartily agree with and endorce what Rich said. Realism = fun to me. |
doc mcb | 18 Jun 2011 5:46 a.m. PST |
Fog of war = realism. Lots of rules try for that. Computer games can do it best. But realism also = subordinates and troops misinterpreting and ignoring orders. It is possible to create mechanisms for that, but it is very hard for me to see the FUN in that. The standard view that fun and realism are opposite ends of the seesaw seems correct to me. |
Allen57 | 18 Jun 2011 5:49 a.m. PST |
Realism for me are rules that reflect the tactics of the day and generate a modicum of the limitations on command and control. |
Rich Bliss | 18 Jun 2011 5:52 a.m. PST |
I'll echo toofatlardies above. For me realistic is: 1) The players have the same amount of information as their historical counterparts. 2) Decisions made by the players deliver approximately the same same results. I play games to better understand the whys and hows of historical events so this kind of realism is important to me. |
doc mcb | 18 Jun 2011 7:34 a.m. PST |
As a gamer, I want FUN. Realism often limits that. However, I am a historian by training and a teacher by trade. So I also do games to get historical insights, and I use them as instructional materials. For historical insights, the more realism the better. For teaching purposes, I have to decide what points, what lessons, I want students to learn, and base the game around those. The lessons will be TRUTH, but always PARTIAL truth. |
21eRegt | 18 Jun 2011 7:53 a.m. PST |
"But realism also = subordinates and troops misinterpreting and ignoring orders. It is possible to create mechanisms for that, but it is very hard for me to see the FUN in that." In a recent multi-player game I got a written note from my commander with orders. So vaguely written and scrawled that I really didn't know what he meant. So I "interpretted" them. OTOH a mechanism like Black Powder where I hit a run of bad activation dice just isn't "fun." We had a good laugh afterwards in the above game. I wouldn't be laughing in the latter. |
E Murray | 18 Jun 2011 8:07 a.m. PST |
Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I've come to the conclusion that "realism" means the rules do what the players expect. |
doc mcb | 18 Jun 2011 8:15 a.m. PST |
LOL! Yes, there's a lot to that. |
Repiqueone | 18 Jun 2011 8:33 a.m. PST |
Mr. Murray-you are very close to the truth. Realism, as it pertains to historical wargames, is any set of rules that the gamers playing it deem realistic. This usually means that the rules echo and confirm the existing prejudices and biases of the gamers, and do not in any way collide with the mechanics or rule structures the majority of the group prefer. The "realistic" rules cover the aspects of battle the gamers think important, often in great detail,and ignore those equally important factors that the gamers either think unimportant or simply don't want to consider. Expectations of what a wargame rules set is supposed to do, which also greatly varies, also shapes the reaction. It has nothing to do with realism in terms of being closer or farther from reality or accurate simulation, and everything to do with the education, life experience, maturity. reading skills, and good humor, or lack of humor, of the gamers themselves. Though this varies greatly in individuals, most groups of wargamers are fairly homogeneous in this regard and, therefore, tend to reinforce each other's perceptions, and reach a consensus on "realistic". It is more likely that groups revolve around a certain limited range of rule sets for this reason, and the acceptance, or rejection of a rules set can set the standards for the group, causing some gamers to leave and form a new group. Birds of a feather, in effect. There is no objective definition here. Rather like asking a large group to name a good movie-One person's King's Speech is another person's Transformers. |
doc mcb | 18 Jun 2011 9:00 a.m. PST |
I'm not quite so post-modern as Bob (or perhaps not quite so cynical) but (somewhat reluctantly) I find myself mostly in agreement. |
Scorpio | 18 Jun 2011 9:00 a.m. PST |
Rather like asking a large group to name a good movie-One person's King's Speech is another person's Transformers. But we can all agree the latter is more realistic, right? |
VicCina | 18 Jun 2011 9:05 a.m. PST |
Since I've never been in combat and can only draw on the experiences of others that I've read, it is too difficult to quantify how "realistic" a game can be modeled. Having said that and going based on the accounts I've read, a game would have to incorporate the total randomness of the battlefield. It should also reward using good tactics and punish bad tactics. I think a good way to add the randomness to the game is too add in a little role playing like a Random Events table. Something that can add flavor to the game like dramatically changing the weather or suddenly there is some Friendly Fire from a artillery unit or a new squad appears on the right flank of the enemy etc
|
Grand Duke Natokina | 18 Jun 2011 9:28 a.m. PST |
Reality is something that a wargame strives for. Unfortunately, to make games playable, we trim away things that slow them down or are not simulatable. |
KatieL | 18 Jun 2011 11:36 a.m. PST |
You can either have realistic or you can have a game. A game is characterised by the players being able to make meaningful decisions. Realistic warfare is basically characterised by the participants' decisions being frequently meaningless. |
Repiqueone | 18 Jun 2011 1:20 p.m. PST |
Doc, I would describe myself as modern, not post-modern; realistic, not cynical. One should never be reluctant about agreement! Methinks that bit I wrote about biases and prejudice in wargaming applies to your use of those terms as well. The morphing definition of what is real applies to people too, I guess. |
doc mcb | 18 Jun 2011 4:27 p.m. PST |
Bob, I didn't mean I am reluctant to agree with YOU, but that I find the the ideas you wrote slightly off-putting, even as I also find myself nodding in agreement. Sorry if that wasn't clear. One can believe something and still be uncomfortable with the belief. There's reality, and there's perception of reality -- which is a psychological reality of its own, of course. As with history generally, there is behind our games (non-fantasy/scifi, anyhow) a WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. Just because it is unknowable in any absolute and final sense does not mean it doesn't matter. History always approximates truth, but good history comes a lot closer to it than bad history. And we can (sometimes) tell the good from the bad. All that means is that what we try to do has value, even when we do it less than perfectly. (And that is REAL value, not merely preference.) |
nsolomon99 | 18 Jun 2011 8:28 p.m. PST |
I'm fortunate that the periods I prefer to wargame are relatively well documented and so for me a realistic set of rules captures not just the historical result but also plays out the way I read the battle accounts. The result and the journey to get there reflect the history as I read it. |
Iowa Grognard | 19 Jun 2011 7:40 a.m. PST |
One set-up I'd like to attempt is that which I read in an issue of the Courier or MW years ago. Basically they kept the C-in-C's out of the game room and in their own little rooms respectively. The only information or intel they obtained came from subordinate players at the game table via courier and orders passed back via courier(travel times for the couriers included). Generals on the same side couldn't converse, but only pass orders and intel by courier on the table
unless of course the commanders were base to base. The artical ran this within the context of war of 1812, but I could see it being rather fun for ACW battles. |
Splintered Light Miniatures | 19 Jun 2011 8:39 a.m. PST |
Doc here. I've done that a few times. It's the sort of thing one can do when one has the resources of a school on Saturday or better, summertime; multiple nearby classrooms, mainly. Cavalry commander initially is only one allowed to see the table, brings back hand drawn map (ALWAYS seriously off in some respect) to rest of team, who do up orders. As units meet the enemy, subordinate generals are allowed into game room, but continue to communicate poorly with CinC who is still out and controls the reserves. We did ACW that way several times. My brother and nephew and I do games via email, where the game master takes photos of what we can see. But the miscommunication of written orders is fun and realistic. |
Repiqueone | 19 Jun 2011 10:24 a.m. PST |
Since everyone here is on line, it would appear to me that nearly real time games could be played on-line-with the commanders in different cities than the game. Photos being sent from table level from the position of the command figures, and notes(orders) being sent as emails. IPad based communications-especially using an iPad 2 – would be quick and table side! This eliminates the clumsiness of the desktop computer, especially if it is in another room. Portables would work as well, but are far more intrusive than iPads. This would need some basic rules limiting helicopter views and frequency of emails, but is VERY doable. This could work very well for naval games as well. The tip of the iceberg in iPad potential for wargames. |
John D Salt | 19 Jun 2011 11:29 a.m. PST |
Iowa Grognard wrote:
I personally think its too subjective to quantify. Realism seems to dwell in each person's relation to the period being gamed and the role they are assuming.
I think that's exactly right, and about all that need be said on the matter. Remember, "realism" is a term from theatre and art criticism, not from history or mathematics. All the best, John. |
Thylacine DF | 19 Jun 2011 3:45 p.m. PST |
G'Day Well according to my wife Beth (who spends her days modelling complex eco systems), a realistic set of rules is one of intermediate complexity which deals the critical processes involved in what the wargame rules are trying to represent. Beth does a much better job explaining this here – link Cheers Derek |
John D Salt | 20 Jun 2011 7:01 a.m. PST |
Thylacine DF gave a link to a blog that included this statement:
There is a lot of science now that shows that there is a maximum potential realism in models that peaks when complexity is intermediate.
Really? Where? Citations, please. All the best, John. |
richarDISNEY | 20 Jun 2011 8:16 a.m. PST |
I don't like 'realistic' rules. I want fun rules. But
HEY! That's me all over.
|
MarescialloDiCampo | 21 Jun 2011 3:47 a.m. PST |
Sitting in a bomb shelter at 4 AM in the morning swatting mosquitos, flies, and other retarded insects or sitting in the Basra D-main, playing Puerto Rico, Axis and Allies; al the while listening to the announcement of "Incoming, Incoming, Incoming", the shaking of the ground on the impacts of the 107MM rockets
Too realistic for me
I'll trade you for a couch and "potatoe" status
|
Thylacine DF | 21 Jun 2011 5:02 a.m. PST |
G'day, John D Salt asked for citations around complexity vs model performance ("realism"). Here are a bunch for marine ecosystem models over the last 10 years, there are a bunch more but this is a taster. There are similar lists for earth system science, resilient systems modelling, human behavioural modelling and pretty much any of the fields of systems dynamics or applied mathematics. Cheers Beth >>>>> Allen JI, Aiken J, Anderson TR, et al. (2010) Marine ecosystem models for earth systems applications: The MarQUEST experience. J. Marine Systems 81: 19-33 Allen JI, Fulton EA (2010) Top-down, bottom-up or middle-out? Avoiding extraneous detail and over-generality in marine ecosystem models. Progress in Oceanography 84: 129-133 Anderson TR (2010) Progress in marine ecosystem modelling and the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics". J. Marine Systems 81: 4-11 Daewel U, Peck MA, Schrum C, et al. (2008):How best to include the effects of climate-driven forcing on prey fields in larval fish individual-based models J. Plankton Research 30: 1-5 Fulton, E.A., Smith, A.D.M. and Johnson C.R., (2003) Effect of complexity on marine ecosystem models. Marine Ecology Progress Series 253: 1 – 16 Hannah C, Vezina A, St John M (2010) The case for marine ecosystem models of intermediate complexity. Progress in Oceanography 84: 121-128 Megrey BA, Link JS, Hunt GL, et al. (2009) Comparative marine ecosystem analysis: Applications, opportunities, and lessons learned. Progress in Oceanography 81: 2 Raick C, Soetaert K, Gregoire M (2006) Model complexity and performance: How far can we simplify? Progress in Oceanography 70: 27-57 |