"Impossibility of Simulating Warfare" Topic

Writing in Slingshot 275, John Hastings contends that rulesets cannot satisfactorily represent history:

…the metal/plastic figures on the wargames table can never realistically represent flesh and blood soldiers fighting for their lives. The harsh facts of hand-to-hand combat are, of necessity, represented abstractly by tables of 'factors' and dice rolls.

Do you agree that rulesets cannot do a good job of simulating history?

Yes, I do.
This enrages the easily enraged, but all we are doing is playing with toy soldiers.
Deal with it.

All this talk about War College and Kriegspiel blah blah blah assumes that the higherups know what they are doing. History makes that argument untenable.

Depends on the values you assign to "satisfactorily", "represent" and "history." Or abstractly for that matter.

They do a fair job of repackaging the content of history books, the reading of which seldom includes fear, pain, exhaustion or the risk of imminent demise. Of history? Every way we view the past is through a glass, darkly; and games can be, if you let them, another way of looking which cannot hurt your perspective if taken in proper proportion.

…well…the smell alone…nobrainer, here

I shall await the usual suspects.

Indeed no toy soldier battle can satisfactorily represent all aspects of the history. But it can represent some, maybe not that many, and maybe not the most important bits, but some. Otherwise how come figures representing cavalry move faster than figures representing infantry?

The key is that a simulation does not mean 'recreate in every aspect imaginable', in theory the bar can be set very low for how 'well' it represents anything. So simulate, yes, but do a GOOD job of simulating – perhaps not, depends what you mean by good!

I freely admit to playing with miniatures and models. I want the game to approximate my fantasy view of warfare. No more, no less. Having been a real Combat Arms Soldier in a real Army, I have no real desire to simulate reality. I just want to play games of fake conflict with lots of interesting bits, bobs, and decisions to make, for the fun of it. The key to remember is "Game" It all gets easy after that. :)

While most wargames do totally simulate war, I would with respect point out that the people who wargame for a living do simulations that often closely mirror reality – the Japanese navy wargamers, for example, actually gamed Midway the way it turned out – the higher-ups disavowed the results

I must be honest – I game for fun, not be totally historically accurate

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
--Emerson

There are games that give you a flavor of the period. That's the best we can ask for.
And then there are "simulations" that attempt to chase down the effects of rivets that were made on a Tuesday. They are laughable. And the 70s abnd 80s were full of boardgames and mioniatures games that had several tables dedicated to this.

Remember "Sniper!"? You had to roll dice to see if you could descend stairs without falling down them. How about the rpgs where you had to roll if you fell off your horse, every turn.
Far too many gamers try to "simulate" EVERYTHING, and in the end are simulating nothing but tedious die rolling.

I have said it before and I will say it again. Ad infinitum. All a game "simulates" is the author's prejudices, and his attempts to make the game "come out right". They will just not admit it.

Well the quote doesn't say anything about representing history. It says (at least to me) that tabletop games cannot represent combat at the individual level.

No, they can't.

I'm sorry but as someone who designs and runs small unit tactical combat scenarios for the ADF AND who uses some tabletop gaming as a tool to reinforce what is taught, I would have to argue that they can get as close as you want them to. Obviously physical factors and combat stress will always be way off but other attributes can be utilised.

A. it's a game
B. game designers create games with their interpretation of history and choose what they want to portray…and what they choose to leave out (compromises have to made BECAUSE it is a game.
C. the game has to be fun, too (back to compromise)
D. but that doesn't mean that some aspect of history cannot be portrayed.
E. I believe that a decent wagame can give you INSIGHT into the problems commanders faced on the battlefield. Not reality, but insight.

The same flaws that go into the game designers interpretaion of history also exist in even the best of history books.

Remember "Sniper!"? You had to roll dice to see if you could descend stairs without falling down them.

Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember playing Sniper, and Patrol! There were many nights we stayed up 'til dawn and still didn't finish the game, and that was just a couple of squads on the board. Good memories, but I'd slit my wrists if I played them again.

WarDepotDavid – But the two factors you mention make up at least 90% of what constitutes combat at the individual level. So where does that really leave us when it comes to representing combat? We can do a great job at the remaining 10%? That still doesn't mean much to me.

Far too many gamers try to "simulate" EVERYTHING, and in the end are simulating nothing but tedious die rolling.

I just gave a talk to US Army instructors about the fallacies assumed in "simulation design" vs "game design." It all comes down to designing for effect since you can't possibly simulate everything to the degree you really want/need for training.

For playing with toy soldiers, it's almost absurd to consider.

Design for effect and for fun.

I agree with that statement. That being said, if wargaming is the next best thing to no sort of simulation at all, then sign me up!

Again poking the purists in the eye, I've seen some computer games that do a very passable job of simulating battles in real-time, such as Empire: Total War. I love that you can watch a battle unfold with thousands of simulated soldiers, telling batteries to change from shot to cannister at the right moment, refusing a flank, or watching morale of individual units break. I suspect such games will only get better.

Wargaming with metal soldiers – in the comfort and privacy of my own shed – is a 100% accurate simulation of the excellent tabletop wars we used to fight in the late 70s back in the 'club days'.

I have tried computer games, and even tried signing up with the 'real army' .. spent my time sitting in filthy ditches, firing, being fired at, and stressing out over actions both real and simulated in command centers.

None of that comes close to actually getting real models on real tables, and rolling the dice.

Of course its impossible to accurately simulate warfare on a tabletop. War is one of the most horrible things (of many) that we humans do to each other.

I do agree with John Hastings and therefore I think it is important for a set of rules to result in a fluid, pleasant and sometimes surprising game lasting 2-3 hours, even if the little pebble in the left foot boot of a sergeant somewhere in the line isn't taken into account, if you get my drift. At the same time the rules must create a "battle of minds" with the opponents whereby the best tactician wins, some luck notwithstanding.

As someone who deals with modeling and simulation in my day job, my answer differs from some.

Yes, war can be simulated (but never completely by any simulation or model) and many of our 'games' do indeed simulate certain aspects. Some do this better than others. The key to ANY simulation of anything is to focus on the specific aspects/parameters/variables you think are critical to the analysis, building the sim around that and learning to accept the limitations (and UNDERSTAND the limitations) of your model or simulation.

Modeling the 'little pebble in the left foot boot' wouldn't add much to anything unless you were modeling blister formation and in general isn't an aspect of 'war' folks need nor want to model or simulate.

War is! No wargame rules can simulate war.

Within the hobby I have always thought the argument that games cannot simultate war is a red herring used to flog those who desire more historical detail when compared to others. What they can do is what all games do is simulate decision making within the context of a world created for the game.

I have a number of acquaintences who design games for the Pentagon. Their games simulate some of the consequences of decisions in a military environment. In short they can create a world or environment in which the players make decisions and suffer the consequences. Part of that environment is representing the abilities and qualities of various military formation and/or institutions. Alas, most of these games are monitored and hosted by the consultants to ensure that high ranking officers are not embarrassed costing the consultants their contracts.

Wargame rules do essentially the same thing, create an environment in which the gamers make decisions and suffer the consequences. Part of this environment is the representation of the formations, weapons and command and control for the era being represented.

These representations are not very much different than Knights, Bishops and Rooks in a Chess game. They are just more complex. Thus, creating a world in which a wargame is played has absolutely nothing to do with simulating war.

Bob Coggins

Do you agree that rulesets cannot do a good job of simulating history?

No. Wargames can do _a job of representing history. Whether it is 'simulating' and whether it is a 'good job' is partly a subjective issue, partly down to the rules, the designer and the player.

But I've not seen debating it amongst the fixed minds of TMP prove helpful.

Do you agree that rulesets cannot do a good job of simulating history?

They do an excellent job of simulating history. The real problem is history is flawed in that it doesn't follow what should happen.

It's true – we should just have real wars, instead.
-Kle.

Oh, this is too easy.

If John Hastings' premise were true then a game in which a pistol shot could routinely destroy a Tiger tank at 1,000 yarss would be as "accurate" as any other game since, by his standard, all games equally can't "simulate" warfare. And an ancients game in which catapults could move far fast than light cavalry would be just fine.

The reality is that game design is a series of choices focusing on different aspects of the topic being represented or simulated. But we gamers still have certain expectations that need to be met within the context of a given game design. When those expectations are ignored we make subjective judgements on whether or not to view the result as being "accurate" or "valid".

Thus for some a given game might be "accurate enough" while for others it might miss the mark a bit or fail completely.

Sounds like Mr. Hastings takes a very Libertine view of gaming and would accept pistols functioning as anti-tank guns and turbo-charged catapults. But if one rejects such things as being silly then one is clearly of the opinion that some games do a better job "simulating" warfare than others.

Impossibility of Simulating Warfare
cannot satisfactorily represent history
never realistically represent flesh and blood soldiers fighting for their lives
cannot do a good job of simulating history

Which of those four are we talking about? They are not the same.

We play with toys.

My toys never shot at me, mortared me, blocked roads and said mean, non-nurturing, non-supportive things to me.

I've never had to practice searching my toys (although I have oft searched for them), never had to point a weapon at my toys, never had to worry about where my toys were at a particular moment in time.

No. We play with toys. Period.

If I want anything more than playing with toys in a wargame, I go to work.

Eric

The fact of the matter is the high level dynamics of warfare can be simulated even on a table top.

As for the snippet of text:

…the metal/plastic figures on the wargames table can never realistically represent flesh and blood soldiers fighting for their lives.

True in so far as they will never convey to me on an emotional level what the soldiers are going through.

Dr. Phil Sabin would disagree. After reading "Lost Battles", I think he is correct.

Joe Collins

Thomas;
Could you please define "high level dynamics"? I'd be interested in knowing what that means from your perspective.

I really don't think any aspect of what we do as a hobby properly simulates warfare. At least not any aspect I've experienced.

Well, with the possible exception of annoying pedants.

Eric

…the metal/plastic figures on the wargames table can never realistically represent flesh and blood soldiers fighting for their lives. The harsh facts of hand-to-hand combat are, of necessity, represented abstractly by tables of 'factors' and dice rolls.

I don't think John Hastings has a clue about what a simulation is. This is like blaming a white cat for not being black.

1. Simulations are abstract and artifical by definition. Who ever said different? A plastic model of a Tiger tank four inches long is an abstraction of a real tank--and totally 'unreal'. There are only a few points where the model and the real thing match. But those few points are what make it a model OF a real tank, where scale and representation make it 'recognizable' as a tiger tank.

The same is true of a simulation. The question is WHERE are those few points in the wargame mechanics that match the real thing, in this case, the dynamics and decision-making matrix of real war. That is the point of wargames, and certainly all simulations are meant to achieve that match up, that modeling of the real thing.

the metal/plastic figures on the wargames table can never realistically represent flesh and blood soldiers

Now there is a real insight. Who would have thought that was true? [Heavy sarcasm over a statement of the blatantly obvious.]
"Realistic" is a meaningless term in wargame design. It is a feeling that a gamer gets playing an abstract system. It's great to have it, and it means the simulation is working at some emotional level, but that is subjective, and very personal reaction to very concrete game mechanics.

2. The little figures are not real, they are not flesh and blood. *surprise*. They are simply markers for a game. I will repeat that for all those who are still unsure. They are only markers in a game. They do 'represent' soldiers, like the model tank represents a real one. However, with warGAMES, the rules are where those 'points of similarity' are established, not with the markers themselves.

The harsh facts of hand-to-hand combat are, of necessity, represented abstractly by tables of 'factors' and dice rolls.

Another statement of the obvious. The question is how and how well those game mechanics can 'represent' the 'harsh facts of hand-to-hand combat'?

You can believe:

1. Zero comparison
2. Some comparison
3. Total match up.

If you chose #1. You not only disagree with the vast majority of game designers past and present, you also disagree with the stated purposes of a historical wargame, or most all wargames for that matter, military and for entertainment. You have also pretty much have assumed that simulations, all simuations, don't work. Just FYI.

If you chose #2, then you agree with most all wargame designers, simulation designer in all disciplines and all purposes. It is just a matter of knowing where those comparisons match up.

If you chose #3, then you really chose reality, not a wargame, and that can be really harsh when it comes to representing hand-to-hand combat, let alone war in its entirety.

All models aren't wrong. All well designed models can be right where they were designed to be right…and only at those few points. That is why they are useful… as well as entertaining.

Bill H.

The physical mechanics of various kinds of battle can be modeled effectively enough; that includes a model for morale. But if the article is merely pointing out that "battle" on the table top is not capable of modeling real combat as the participants experience it, the author is one hundred percent correct….

epturner,

Please define "properly simulates." :)

When I think high level dynamics (poor use of words I admit) I think of modeling the application of force, maneuver, and morale at a level beyond the individual solider.

just visiting said it better.

Thomas;
Okay, fair enough.

I consider "simulates" as equating to a logical construct that provides results which, within the arbitrary parameters set by the modeller, gives a consitent or otherwise quantifiable result which can be anaylized.

"Proper", in my use, is meant to relate to the creation of the construct. In other words, whilst it is theoretically possible that Aliens from out space may strafe my convoy, what is the actual probability in reality and is my construct, er, constructed so.

Nothing wrong with your definition of high level dynamics. Though I might agree with you that there may have been a better way to say it, I understand, now, what you're saying.

And I'll also agree that Just Visiting said it better.

Nothing I've played on the table is anything other than just playing with toy soldiers.

Eric

I must correct a quote…

A foolish hobgoblin consistently does not mind being little.
-Tattoo

(I believe he thought it possible to simulate Paradise.)

My toys never shot at me, mortared me, blocked roads and said mean, non-nurturing, non-supportive things to me.

You lucky man. That is why I now only game in 1:300 ish, except boats which I do in 1:3000

The short answer is doing simulations with any high degree of fidelity is very messy and a game only in the sense of having a basis statistial processes.

Sounds like Mr. Hastings takes a very Libertine view of gaming

As do I. Throw in enough booze, dope, and nekkid red-haired goth chicks and who gives a fewmet whether you're simulating history or not? Just roll dem bones, sez I.

Anyway, this is … what?… the 34,572,996th time this discussion has taken place. I refer everyone to Gamers' Rule #1.

LT

It is a game.

Our decisions are flawed by the fact that it cost us nothing to game with toy soldiers. Stands are removed, put away, and then taken out another day to fight another battle. What is the cost?

What decisions would a gamer make if real cost were involved? Let say, when a stand is lost, it is them destroyed. It is not put away to be taken out another day for another game.

The lack of true cost, pain and suffering, will always keep our games as nothing more than games.

The major problem with the hobby is the lack of consequences for poor or sloppy play, other than perhaps a reputation for losing. Indeed some hide behind rules with artificial restraints on gamers such as cards or variable time or poorly thought out unit ratings. So the loss isn't the fault of the gamer but rather that he/she did get the correct card or time collapsed.

As for suffering real losses, as I recall years ago at one of the first Gencons a group including the then owner of Minifigs USA, Steve Carpenter played such a game in which figures killed on the table were smashed with a hammer.

When flags were painted rather than photocopied some gamers played that the loser would lose the flags from eliminated units, which the winning player kept as a trophy.

In lieu of smashing figures, what if a percentage of eliminted figures or units of the loser is "captured" or given to the winner to be parolled or ransomed?

This of course would remove wargaming from the realm of a fun entertainment to a competitive event in which potential losses could be significant. The problem is wargaming rules which are not as established as those of Chess or Go.

Bob Coggins

No picture can ever adequately represent any real-life object, because a picture is a two-dimensional surface covered with coloured medium.

No book can ever adequately represent any real-life event, because a book is a series of pages covered with orthographical symbols.

Both of these statements seem to me not just clearly wrong, but also to display a curious mental deficiency in denying the existence of metaphor.

All the best,

John.

Suggestions that figures 'killed' in tabletop battles should actually be destroyed or given away to make their commander suffer a real-world penalty for their loss surely ignore the fact that many historical commanders were less concerned by high casualties than we are today, and even indifferent to the sufferings of their troops.

Didn't the idol of many TMP posters remark that a man such as he thought little of the lives of half a million men?

Such rules would result in polythene line troops by Airfix, HaT et al., with metal guard reserves that were, if at all possible, never committed…

While I have a personal and professional opinion on the subject, the OP is non-answerable. It is asking whether or not something can do something else "satisfactorily" without defining the criterion.

If each person is left to define the success criterion on their own, this question functionally equals "Do I want wargames to represent history?" If you do, then they do so satisfactorily (at least satisfactorialy enough for you to play them). If you don't, then there is no meaningful criterion within your context.

What I always enjoy about this type of argument is that if the sponsor proposed a well-defined, objective criterion, then it could be met. Once again, a non-issue.

What is interesting related to this topic are things like:
– What do you like in terms of realism?
– How do you judge acceptability of performance?
– Do you let "cool" override "logical" when playing?
– How consistent is your gaming group's consensus?
and on and on and on …

My toys never shot at me …

Mine have stabbed me in the foot. They also throw me subtle snide looks when I roll poorly.

Cost of men is only part of the issue. Remember, in real war, where loss the men can determine what happens to the rest of the army and eventually the nation.

But, there are also a lot of other things that rule writers tend to ignore. Rules tend to focus on how far weapons can fire, and not when the weapon was fired. We don't include weather in our rules or the effects of weather. The soaked ground at Waterloo did have an effect on the effectiveness of artillery against infantry, and the cannon balls sunk into the soft earth rather than bouncing along.

I have run games were I have had to modify moral rules to represent what happened in a battle. Such as green units standing longer in combat than veteran units because they simply didn't know any better to get out the way or were standing and fight because the veteran unit them was backing down. What the green unit didn't know is that the veterans had very little opposition.

Our rules do not include units that their only purpose is to keep men from deserting. No matter the disciple, people are still people, and people fear death and take no delight in carnage and death.

Cost is just not death of a soldier, it is the lost of equipment, position, and man power. There comes a point when money and recruits begin to run short.

The physical mechanics of various kinds of battle can be modeled effectively enough; that includes a model for morale.

Just Visiting:
Yes, that can be established in a number of ways.

But if the article is merely pointing out that "battle" on the table top is not capable of modeling real combat as the participants experience it, the author is one hundred percent correct….

Just Visiting:

Yeah, of course they are. The real question is why bother to write an article detailing the totally obvious?

What would you think if a Remote Control modeler wrote a hobby article explaining to other modelers that their little balsa wood constructions are not 'real' planes and their experience on the ground flying them is not like 'real pilots' flying a 'real plane?'

He certainly would be 100 percent correct, but why in the hell would he think it news to write that to fellow hobbiests??? Because many RC modelers would disagree? Because they truly beleive their models and flight experience standing around watching the models fly is 'just like real planes and the pilots who fly them?'

I find the need to write such patently obvious observations truly bizarre, let alone offering them up as some kind of evidence that simulations don't work.

Bill H.

Miniature Ships wrote:

It is a game…
What decisions would a gamer make if real cost were involved? Let say, when a stand is lost, it is them destroyed. It is not put away to be taken out another day for another game.

The lack of true cost, pain and suffering, will always keep our games as nothing more than games

MS:
So, a military exercise with laser-tag equipment is just a game and isn't simulating anything because there is no blood, suffering and 'cost?'

I think it all depends on what is being simulated and how. Obviously, one of the great things about a simulation is that you can avoid some of those 'costs.' I can learn to fly a plane with a simulator without the danger and 'cost' of crashing. Will my decisions flying the simulator be 'different' or less nervous because of that? I can say from personal experience, you bet. but in other respects, like the desire to succeed, no, my decisions and the skills developed were very similar. That is the value of a simulation: experiencing *some* of the elements of an environment etc. without the danger of experiencing all of them.

With a simulation, I can model galaxies colliding without the cost of actually smashing them together from millions of light years away… I can find out how to design a building that won't collapse without spending hundreds of millions to discover whether my plans work or not.

There is a lot a simulation can't do, and it would be totally useless as a simulation if it did inflict such 'costs'. Just send soldiers off to war and have done with any training exercises. Or put that inexperienced pilot in the 747 with a plane load of passengers and wish him luck.

There are elements that can't be simulated, but some can, including a set of the decisions that have to be made by commanders on the battlefield. Even if the players don't suffer the real consequences of poor decisions, or the real benefits of good ones. Just those provided by the game.

What's the phrase, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." Simulations and wargames can do somethings and not others. Why discount what they can do because of what they can't and really shouldn't if they are going to be at all useful…or fun?

Bill H.

But, there are also a lot of other things that rule writers tend to ignore.

MS:

Quite true. Regardless of the simulation, that observation is going to apply about a number of things.

Rules tend to focus on how far weapons can fire, and not when the weapon was fired. We don't include weather in our rules or the effects of weather. The soaked ground at Waterloo did have an effect on the effectiveness of artillery against infantry, and the cannon balls sunk into the soft earth rather than bouncing along.

Those are designer choices. The question isn't whether they 'should' have included this or that, but whether what they did include mimics those chosen elements of the battlefield.

I have run games were I have had to modify moral rules to represent what happened in a battle.

That could be poor rules or play testing, or rules that didn't do what you wanted them to, or a combination of them all.

You can't blame a Monet for not being a Picasso. You can blame the designer if his creation fails to do what he created it to do.

One of the easiest things to do is find those elements of 'the real deal' any, and I mean any simulation doesn't do because all simulations can model so few things compared to the infinite possibilities of reality. Even so, simulations can faithfully model galaxies colliding, crowd behaviors, and how a remote control rover will operate in an environment no one has ever experienced, like Mars.

Even so, there is a huge amount that all of those simulations fail to address… by necessity and by design.

The same is true of any wargame. They can't do it all.

Bill H.

I detect an element of the spoon fed generation here.

The rules are designed to simulate the movement of units (usually about 1bn at a time, but YMMV).

If you want to simulate it all I would suggest the following:

1. Sleep rough in the woods for a week beforehand (this could only improve most gamer's personal hygeine);
2. At the end of each turn, nip outside and run round the block in a cheap pair of black shoes and with a 25kg pack on your back (can only reduce the nec space between tables);
3. When you have finished your run, line up opposite your opponent and at 25 yards swap shots with a muzzle loading smoothbore pistol to see who gets initiative;
4. Each time you l;ose a figure, cut 1cc of flesh off your body;
4. Winner gets the loser's army.

But then I dont play skirmish, I never command less than a brigade, and commonly division – corps.

So I can game dry, clean, drink decent wine and fresh brewed coffee and there is nothing more to simulate. Well, except the cheerleaders when Wargaming, AKA The Hobby, becomes the national sport.

McLaddie wrote:

So, a military exercise with laser-tag equipment is just a game and isn't simulating anything because there is no blood, suffering and 'cost?'

Exactement. If there is no blood, fear, and 'cost' -whatever you mean that to signify – involved, it's just laser-tag. In fact, it's what Clifton Fadiman once referred to as "the George Patton school of war as an improved football game".

LT