"What is the most Historically Accurate wargame?" Topic

Yeah, whatever. When you get off your arse and publish your own rules someone may listen to your hot air. In the meantime, here's something less dull than your interminable bloviating.

No-one cares. Get it?

Connard:

No one cares? I'm not the one that keeps creating these threads on issues you insist no one cares about. And you certainly care enough to keep insisting that no one cares.

What you seem determined to 'add' to any discussion of game design is perfectly illustrated by the picture…. on a number of levels.

Bill H.

And therein lies the problem, for the determination of historically accurate is a highly personal judgement. So many rules which you may find laughable in their "inaccuracy" are in the perception of others accurate.

Bob C:
I failed to see your post. No, historical accuracy or any accuracy is not a highly personal judgement, not if you are claiming it. History, and in the written evidence, however you interpret it, exists outside of 'personal judgement.' Anyone one can find it if it exists.

If you are claiming that a game system is historically accurate, you are stating a relationship between historical evidence and the game system, not your highly personal judgement.

There are ways to determine objectively whether a simulation works 'accurately' or not.

You and I might disagree on what evidence is important, or what it means or what evidence should be the basis for a simulation. That doesn't affect that there has to be a clear and specific relation between the evidence the designer has chosen or says he has chosen and what the game mechanics do. To say the result is 'highly personal judgement' is to deny any possibility of determining 'accuracy' at all.

If you have an example of such a 'highly personal judgement' in a game design stated to be 'historically accurate', I can show you what I mean.

Thus, all gamers bring their knowledge of an era combined with their personal prejudices to all rules. Some have read 3 books on the era and some 3000. So what is historically accurate to one gamer is not necessarily historically accurate to another.

THAT is why it is critical for the designer, who is the one claiming that accuracy, to be clear about what history HE is using as his target evidence, the history he is trying to model. Without that information, Then everyone gets to bring their personal prejudices and own evidence and tries to guess what history was the basis for a set of rules…and most of the time, they are wrong and based on that, deem the design inaccurate.

It is like saying the MSL craft winging its way to Mars has an 'inaccurate' trajectory because it won't hit the Moon. And of course, if no one knows the actual destination of the MSL craft, then ANY statement about its intended destination will be "Highly Personal" AND not capable of being proven right and accurate…

That is the problem… not enough information is being supplied by the designer to determine whether their design is actually accurate, which means anything goes, and all you have as a result is "highly personal judgments" from everyone cluttering up the issue, that is really pretty straight-forward in its solution.

And what I just said is not a 'highly personal judgment.' It is how accuracy is established anywhere and simulation designers do objectively determine it all the time. It isn't magic. All it requires is enough information about what the designer is doing, targeting as his goals and the resultant design.

Best Regards,

Bill H.

I'll second the nod for Campaign for North Africa. Recovering broken and shot up vehicles was part of it, but as the designer said:

"Players will quickly find that their critical units are not the panzers, but the trucks."

Getting combat units to the front wasn't that hard. Getting *armed* and fueled combat units to the front on the other hand…

Another one was Avalon Hill's Dark Emperor. The movement and attrition rules were *too* accurate. It was almost impossible to get an army together. Every time a stack left the barracks, they took a 30% loss from desertion and disease.

I resisted the first time around; but thread necromancy will sometimes snare me.

In OUR Rules, Rocky Russo articulated "our reasons" at the beginning of each section. I saved most of that in the current Ebook version that I am working on. "We" come across as pompous, know-it-more-then-you-all windbags. So what. It stands.

And, OUR Rules are the most "accurate", whatever that really means. What it means, is that OUR Rules are the best we could come up with to satisfy OUR perceptions of historical accuracy: and anyone agreeing with us is also, defacto, a smart person who knows the truth of the matter, vis-a-vis "accuracy" in a historical simulation….

JV wrote:

And, OUR Rules are the most "accurate", whatever that really means. What it means, is that OUR Rules are the best we could come up with to satisfy OUR perceptions of historical accuracy

JV: So do you have a meaning for 'accurate' when you use it in saying your rules satisfy your 'perception' of 'historical accuracy'?

As I said, accurate says there is a specific target, a way of hitting that target and some method of measuring how 'accurate' the attempt to hit the target was.

If you know of some other meaning for the word accurate, I'm listening. I don't see how the word accurate, whatever that means, can have any meaning if it is only one person's feelings, one person's perception.

"We" come across as pompous, know-it-more-then-you-all windbags.

I am not sure where this comes from, or what comments it references, so I can't really respond to it other than to say that most wargame designers claim the same thing you are, so you are in good company with a long tradition in the hobby, regardless of how someone might see 'how you come across'.

The question remains, not about personalities or designers' motives, but whether wargames can be 'historically accurate' and what the hell that means other than in someone personally feeling good about what they did…which is just fine, but that isn't 'accuracy' by any application I know of.

Bill H.

Surely all that would happen is that less people would play the game? The ones now who don't like the mechanics and the ones in that case who disagree with the historical judgements.

Fair enough that the methodology you are talking about is right – but no game player needs to know the reasoning, unless you are a game player who can only enjoy the game if you approve of the design of the simulation. Since, as you point out, no wargames designers currently do this comprehensively for their games, the number of people currently in this situation must be pretty small?

Regards

Warhammer. I'm always impressed with how accurate it is to the period! They even manage to update it every 5 years as battlefield tactics change, accurately reflecting how armies which get shiney new unifroms always perform better.

Seriously though, history, unfortunately, is subjective. I love history, but the sad fact is that everyone in it is dead. All we have to go on is scant archaelogical evidence and the written accounts of the victors. Scholars can't even agree on how to interpret that.

Then it comes down to some games doing well in one respect, and failing in another. That is also a subjective opinion of the players, who decide if their individual experience with a game accurately reflected their interpretation of history, or in other words, who's books they agree with more. The mere fact that there are a hundred Nappy rules sets all claiming to be "accurate" and all very different, proves that.

So removing all of that, you can only really judge modern rules sets, and only those living soldiers with memory of real combat can give the best opinions. But even there, some people weigh certain aspects of a game over others. Some may focus on the statistics of armor and calibres, others will see cover as all important, others will find command and control to be the defining aspect of a rules set, and others will want an accurate representation of casualties. They would call the set that meets their expectations in those respects most accurate because they can dismiss abstractions in other respects.

So yes, deciding the most accurate rules set is extremely subjective. While there are certainly truths about history, discovering them beyond a doubt, and interpretting them, is subjective. It may suck, but there it is.

Whirlwind wrote:

Surely all that would happen is that less people would play the game? The ones now who don't like the mechanics and the ones in that case who disagree with the historical judgements.

Whirlwind:
I am not sure whether I follow you. Isn't that the situation now? Folks who don't like the mechanics or disagree with the history they think they see in them don't play those games. Right? Personally, I don't see that changing, only the increased amount of information a gamer would have available to make those decisions, which I think would be a *good* thing, allowing for more effective decision-making. On top of that:

1. They might find they like the mechanics once they actually know what they are meant to portray, and
2. if they knew the specific history used, might find their opinions changing.

Fair enough that the methodology you are talking about is right – but no game player needs to know the reasoning, unless you are a game player who can only enjoy the game if you approve of the design of the simulation. Since, as you point out, no wargames designers currently do this comprehensively for their games, the number of people currently in this situation must be pretty small?

It wouldn't surprise me. ;-7 However, while a gamer doesn't need to read the designer's notes to play and enjoy the game, knowing where the game 'matches' the history is very important for the game to work as a simulation for the player. During play the gamer is matching the game process to the history it is supposed to represent…knowing the particular history would increase that 'connection.'

I can't tell you how many times I have read on a list or heard from gamers their assumption about what a game mechanic is supposed to represent historically, only to find the mechanic was meant to represent something they often never even considered.

I am not suggesting that some great dawning of a new age would occur if designers did what they say they are doing and provided the information necessary to establish that. I do think the hobby would be better off, provide more enjoyment in finding games they like and playing them, while the hobby would on much more solid ground technically.

Best Regards,

Bill

Jeremy wrote:

While there are certainly truths about history, discovering them beyond a doubt, and interpretting them, is subjective. It may suck, but there it is.

Jeremy:
I can provide quotes of scientists in Paleontology, Astronomy, the evolutionary sciences, Physics and Medicine that say the exact same thing about their disiplines. They all appoarch 'absolute truth', but never reach it, find their understandings changing continually, sometimes radically, disagree and debate about interpreting the evidence they do have etc. etc. And it sucks, but there it is. However, there is a great deal about those disciplines that aren't subjective or open to debate. The same is true of history. A good book on this very subject is

The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past by John Lewis Gaddis [2004]

However, whether history as a discipline is all subjective, a little or not at all isn't the issue with 'historical accuracy' with wargames. The points are:

1. Regardless of what historical evidence is chosen by a designer, or how he interprets it, his interpetation is entirely dependent on that historical evidence. As you point out, the ones who live through much of the history we game are dead and gone. Like the paleontologist with his dinasour bones, that historical evidence is all the designer has to tell him what it was like in the past… the past he wants to wargame.

2. So, that historical evidence is the designer is 'matching' with his wargame. I may like other evidence better, or disagree with his interpretation, but that isn't the point. The point is what history is he presenting with his design.

3. Now, the designer has chosen what history he wants to portray with game mechanics the designer has chosen. The question is whether the game design is 'historically accurate.'

All that means is that the game mechanics successfully portray the specific history used to design the thing. The wargame 'accurately' simulates whatever history the designer chose and interpreted with his game system.

And no, that isn't a subjective conclusion. It an assessment that simulation and simulation game designers do all the time.

All it takes is to know what history is being chosen, how the game system is meant to mimic it, and whether the specific historical evidence and the game mechanics successfully match.

Designers are free to chose what history they want to prepresent with their game and how the mechanics represent them. Those choices can be as subjective as they like. It's just a question of whether the history and mechanics chosen 'match-up.'

The problem is that most all designers say their designs are 'historically accurate' or similar claims, but don't provide enough information to establish that, either the history targeted or how the rules simulates it.

Bill H.

I understand what you are saying, but it still leaves us with the same problem. Two different game designers could have completely different views of real warfare in a certain period. They could write rules that reflect their views. They could describe their reasoning clearly. In the end we are left with two very different rules sets for the same period, each with the same legitimate claim to historical accuracy.

So how would anyone be able to choose which rules are most 'historically accurate'? Would it just be a personal decision? Would they choose the rules that most reflect their own view of that period's warfare? Does this mean that the only historically INaccurate rules are those which make no effort to explain themselves, or those where no research was done at all?

I ask because I am genuinely curious about your views. I want to make that clear because the internet is hard to interpret sometimes. :) I am not, by nature, an argumentative person. I know I haven't posted often on TMP, but I've read it for years and I see these kinds of topics pop up all the time, and there is seldom an actual discussion in them. They mostly just devolve into name calling or arguments.

But I feel the Game Design board could really serve to help designers make better games, or at least help everyone understand their own games better.

I think that designers already do most of that anyway – although they don't provide the information so that someone other than themselves can judge their simulation design skills – but imagine putting in all the history to show that DBA was a simulation! The designer's notes would be fifty times as big as the rules! And the arguments before a game got played! Even on a shorter period – Napoleonics – that period isn't known for its gentle disagreement about various obscure aspects of the war, oh no. It is known for genuine, profound disagreement about many fundamentals of the conflict at all levels.

Regards

"…two very different rules sets for the same period, each with the same legitimate claim to historical accuracy."

That's how I see it – the 'accuracy' of something depends on the specific thing being targeted by the designer.

My guess is that 'historical accuracy' is interpreted by some (many?) as being a singular absolute. I don't believe there is a holy grail, and that (as a gamer/customer) it would be nice to know what a designer had in mind when he/she made the cup and know what is in it before I take a drink.

Granted, the description may not communicate to me perfectly, but a bit more than "it's a container with some liquid" (ie: "represents Napoleonic warfare", or "puts the player in the role of a WW2 company commander") would be helpful and increase my enjoyment (insofar as it meets my desires/expectations -which, yes, are just based on personal preference- as when my drink arrives and is the growler of stout or snifter of cognac that I wanted at that time).

There is still the matter of taste (ie: fun/enjoyment in playing the game), and that will always be subjective – but a bit more information/description can go a long way towards narrowing the field, and (who knows?) I may actually learn something… ; )

"…putting in all the history…"

From a practical standpoint I see/appreciate the difficulty of that. I'd be satisfied with -instead of specific source-material references- at least knowing the designer's target/aim in less broad/vague terms.

Two different game designers could have completely different views of real warfare in a certain period. They could write rules that reflect their views. They could describe their reasoning clearly. In the end we are left with two very different rules sets for the same period, each with the same legitimate claim to historical accuracy.

Jeremy:
I'm not sure why that outcome would be a problem. As long as each game was based on actual evidence from the period, and the game did faithfully represent that evidence the designer's view was based on, why couldn't both games have a legitimate claim to historical accuracy?

I think there might be this idea that if two designs were both 'historically accurate', they'd have to be identical,reaching the one ultimate truth of a historical evident. Some folks believe this regardless of how different the data the two games were designed to model or the mechanics used. That is technically just not true.

There are thousands of things happening in the dynamics of combat on any one battlefield, and a designer is free to choose any of those things to simulate. Obviously, only a relative few can be included in any one design. There are thousands of ways to portray that choosen history with different combinations of game mechanics. The total combinations of historical evidence and game mechanics that could possibly model that evidence in creating a wargame approaches the infinite.

It is only a question of whether the finished product does indeed accurately model the history choosen. And each design has to be judged on it's own merits, mechanics and historical evidence choosen.

Bill H.

I think that designers already do most of that anyway – although they don't provide the information so that someone other than themselves can judge their simulation design skills –

Whirlwind:
I find that truth one of the saddest parts. All that work and study and creation and the vast bulk of the information dredged up remains with the designer, lost to the gamers, who then spend so much time fussing over the information vaccuum left behind concerning the game design.

but imagine putting in all the history to show that DBA was a simulation! The designer's notes would be fifty times as big as the rules!

I don't think so… They can write lots of designer's notes about their conclusions, but not what evidence led them to those conclusions. They can provide a brief bibiography "for further reading", but not the works they references so thoroughly. I particularly hate it when the books listed for 'suggested reading' disagree 180 degrees with the conclusions the designer gives. Weird.

The designers don't have to lay out the history of the world, only give some reference to the historical evidence that convinced them to design the rules that way.

And the arguments before a game got played! Even on a shorter period – Napoleonics – that period isn't known for its gentle disagreement about various obscure aspects of the war, oh no. It is known for genuine, profound disagreement about many fundamentals of the conflict at all levels.

Personally, I think a major portion of those kinds of arguments--and I've seen them just as hot on the WWII threads as Napoleonic--are debates over what the rules can do, should do, and don't do because based on something, because no one knows what specific history the rules are supposed to portray--let alone the history behind them.

I'll give you just one example. Some time back on the Grande Armee list, the question came up about what artillery losses from counter-battery fire represented. Scores of opinions were given, from the loss of horses, to silenced guns to crew losses and ammo wagon detonated etc. etc., or any combination of those events. The emails flew back and forth, some tempers flared. Finally, I asked the designer to state what he had the losses represent and he said, "I was only counted gun tubes destroyed."

No one then argued that this was 'wrong', the conversation died right there, because the question was answered. Without the designer's input, the debate could have gone on for a lot longer and obviously would have had no resolution.

One of the more thorough jobs of backing up the rules with historical evidence is Bruce Weigle's 1870, 1859 and 1866 rules. I don't think it is the model for presenting the needed information, but it does provide it. Whether you like his set of rules or not, you know what history [for the most part] they are based on and portray.

What is interesting is the lack of historical rancor on his website. Very little debate, because what history Bruce used is obvious and you either agree or have evidence of your own. As most gamers didn't do the research Bruce did, there is little to say about it.

Without those history questions, I wonder how much game discussion would remain on the various lists? ;-j

Bill H.

That's how I see it – the 'accuracy' of something depends on the specific thing being targeted by the designer.

My guess is that 'historical accuracy' is interpreted by some (many?) as being a singular absolute. I don't believe there is a holy grail, and that (as a gamer/customer) it would be nice to know what a designer had in mind when he/she made the cup and know what is in it before I take a drink.

gweirda:
I agree. There is this kind of "absolute reality" and "The Truth" that has to be reached before a wargame can be considered 'historically accuracy.' Sometimes I get the feeling that some believe the only 'historically accurate' simulation is a real war…which kinda negates the possility of simulating [modeling something else] altogher.

And providing the history for gamers would have it's problems, but not insurmountable and certainly not requiring more ink and paper than is now being given to color pictures and 'interesting' quotes etc. that have little to do with the game mechanics.

Bill

Okay, I think I understand more clearly your stance. What you would like to see is more designer transparency in why they have chosen the mechanics they did. Then the player could determine for themselves whether the rules do a good job of getting their ideas across, and whether or nor they agree with their interpretation of the history.

It is a good point and would probably end a lot of arguements before they begin. The trick is where to put it, especially for game designers on a budget for their printing. Perhaps a good choice for smaller companies would be to dedicate a part of their website to such explainations. That way those interrested could reference it, and precious ink could be spared in the rulebook.

Just a quick thought anyways. I tend to like to find the problem at the root of a discussion and look for a solution. :)

Okay, I think I understand more clearly your stance. What you would like to see is more designer transparency in why they have chosen the mechanics they did. Then the player could determine for themselves whether the rules do a good job of getting their ideas across, and whether or nor they agree with their interpretation of the history.

Jeremy:
Good word, 'transparency.' It isn't so much transparency as to 'why' they chose the mechanics they did, but 'what' specific history those mechanics are supposed to emulate. If you know that, the 'why's' often are far more evident without explanation. A problem with transparency, one that I think explains some of the designer resistance to it, is that transparency would expose whether they actually did do all that they claim they did. It is far easier to claim "Historical Accuracy" if you never have to explain what the hell that means in game design terms.

I don't think the presentation of the information is as much of a financial or labor burden as you think. Most designers state that they do years of research through hundreds of books etc., but can't seem to find an inexpensive and clear method for at documenting all that work?

It is more work, but certainly nothing compared to what they have already done in research. And if the Authors of Black Powder [for instance] can amass the expense and work of color pictures, quotes and stories for their hundred pages of rules [which by themselves would have required a third of the actual pages], I don't see any such 'transparency' as all that much of an unrealistic expectation, cost or work wise.

It isn't like the task, with its work and cost issues, hasn't been dealt with before by a variety of groups including historians…. You know, those folks who read hundreds of books and do years of work.

Bill H.

I'll give you just one example. Some time back on the Grande Armee list, the question came up about what artillery losses from counter-battery fire represented. Scores of opinions were given, from the loss of horses, to silenced guns to crew losses and ammo wagon detonated etc. etc., or any combination of those events. The emails flew back and forth, some tempers flared. Finally, I asked the designer to state what he had the losses represent and he said, "I was only counted gun tubes destroyed."

No one then argued that this was 'wrong', the conversation died right there, because the question was ao nswered. Without the designer's input, the debate could have gone on for a lot longer and obviously would have had no resolution.

But the designer did answer. And the answer apparently was accepted by all. So why not just ask? Do designers often refuse to answer these questions?

Regards

Thinking about it I take that last post back. It wouldn't be very empowering if you were interested, sending off a massive list of questions.

But the designer did answer. And the answer apparently was accepted by all. So why not just ask? Do designers often refuse to answer these questions?

Whirlwind:
No, the designer did answer…after four days of debate. And as you point out, there would be a lot of questions if handled that way.

Which is why most designers don't even bother… at least with the history to mechanics questions. I know more than one that has absolutely no patience for any such questions.

I think the most patient [and saint-like] designer when it comes to explaining the history and design decisions is Bill Gray and his Age of Eagles and the variants. He has been answering those questions on a regular basis for the last ten years. But then again, it's no accident that his AOE list has more than more than 3,000 members.

Think of the time and pointless expenditure of energy such explanations would save up front if such explanations and sources were provided with the rules.

Best Regards,

Bill H.

So who won the Ice Pick??

Well, you know who I thought were the odds-on favorites..