"Rules Critics - 'History', or 'Wargaming History'? " Topic

"Dahl and Nygaard (the fathers of object-orientation, among other things) wrote a remarkably simple model of contagion in a population"

My guess is that it wasn't held to the same sort of criteria as a wargame. Was it fun to play? Did it put players in the exciting role of a… Idunno, a microbe? Was it possible to complete in 4 hours on a modest table? What sort of dice did it use? (Because I hate d-sixes and everybody knows that Saving Throws are not realistic.)

"Are you seriously suggesting that there is something uniquely mysterious about military history that makes it less amenable to numerical and statistical treatments than, say, economics or psephology? "

It's not the history that's a problem. It's the game. As i said: even if by some miracle you were able to know everything that happened, and exactly how and when it happened… then you have to convert it into a playable game. And that's where you leap from knowledge to interpretation, and frankly, fiction. That's when you just starting making stuff up, like what should the To-Hit number be for a French 12-pounder at 900 yards on muddy ground? Should the "Rally Phase" come before or after the "Fire Phase" ? What should be the combat modifier for a charismatic general? +1 or +2? Exactly how much better in combat were Polish lancers, vs. British Hussars?

I think that McLaddie and the Captain have hit on an an important issue here. War-game rules are not rules of nature (that is to rules provable through applying scientific method) they are an attempt to model reality in a much simplified way. As such they have to include best assumptions of how reality works. I agree that rules authors should give designers notes explaining something about those assumptions. It was something I liked about the old SPI games.

I also agree that the assumptions are the core of what makes a game succeed or fail in providing the right feel. Based on this thread I now intend to provide a set of development notes if my ECW rules ever see the light of day. Personally I try to have some factual basis behind my assumptions so providing these notes would mainly mean tidying up my research notes. But, and it's a big but, some of the assumptions are based on pretty poor evidence and some mechanism are pure serendipity they seem to work so they stay because they create what feels like the right outcome.

On a different point this thread is exactly what I love about this site. We started discussing grognards arguing over history and here we are discussing the philosophy of game design via epidemiology, and every post along the way has had something interesting to add.

I don't think this refutes McLaddie's point so much as it demonstrates how badly most wargamers get distracted by concentrating in excessive detail on factors not of main importance to the historical participants.

Surely this assumes that the participants were in agreement about what constituted a factor of main importance. I guess it also assumes that any of those participants was actually correct about what the important factors were, when this may not have been true either – the 'Moneyball' factor perhaps?

Regards

Are you seriously suggesting that there is something uniquely mysterious about military history that makes it less amenable to numerical and statistical treatments than, say, economics or psephology? It seems a good deal easier to establish numerical norms for tactics and operations than for almost any other field of human endeavour, not least because armies spend so much effort in trying to do just that.

Well economics is in a large degree about numbers surely, so a statistical treatment might be easier. And the 'military history' would have to be compared to an event in a comparable time, surely? Like simulating an outbreak of plague in TYW-era Germany versus simulating the actual fighting?

Regards

CCB:
In some ways, I am surprised by the examples, let alone the conclusion that because your example given is 'true', it negates the possibility of any kind of answer. Historians deal with such issues all the time. Right?

1) In most of the cases that matter to wargamers, it's virtually impossible to know what the "true" answers are.

For example: a Prussian battalion of 600 men opened fire on a French battalion in column. How many casualties did they cause? For how long were they firing? At what ranges? How tired were the men? How much ammo did they have? What direction was the wind blowing and did that effect the smoke for one side? How many Prussians had a clear shot and how many were obscured? Were they firing dead-on, or at some oblique angle? And so on and so on…

In 99.99% of the historical cases, we have no idea.

Really, 99.99%? No idea. Such questions matter to some wargamers, not all. And that supposed 'unknown' is only a problem based on what the wargame desgner wants to portray.

For a simulation/wargame designer [As well as historians, from what I understand.] IF that conclusion is 'true', that would be just a step in answering their questions, not the proof that no answer is possible.

2) How do you know that the example you've just looked at, is representative of some sort of "norm"? Historical events are unique and discrete, and occur within particular contexts.

Gosh, as if that isn't an issue with any simulation or wargame, past or present, let alone any number of disciplines and sciences. I am confident that if you really cared, you could find out how 'norms' are extrapolated from unique one-off events, covering a wide variety of event studies. Simulation designers have a whole subset of simulation design called 'Discrete Event' simulations covering that question.

A historian can find the information for individual cases and say, "In this case, this is what happened." Game rules, however, are written to establish normative structures that will be repeated many times over, in increasingly fictional environments.

And of course, you just discovered this issue, right. Nobody thought of it before you, and of course, simulation and wargame designers in a number of fields have no clue about how to go about that, 'in increasingly fictional environments.' [That is where ALL simulations and wargames go, so designers better know how to go about it.]

(Each turn of a Waterloo game that you play, is increasingly less like the historical Waterloo, since you're steadily moving away from whatever historical set-up or premises you started with.) In other words, it's the opposite of History.

Not the 'opposite' of history, only the original chain of events. The events are being 'created' by the players. The OOB, number of units, terrain, yadda, yadda, yadda isn't the opposite. Nor should the 'possible' events be outside what could have happened. And yes, there are all sorts of ways to address those issues.

Since you can't know the answers – the details – to 99.99% of the questions that go into knowing "what happened," then how are you going to say that whatever game mechanics you've written are "accurate" or even representative of some typical process?

99.99% of the questions, really? One of the most powerful things simulation and wargame designers have going for them is that they get to frame the questions, rather than being captive to them. [The same is true for historians, right?]

Like any good detective, if one line of questions doesn't get you what you want, then you ask different questions.

Such as, why do I want to know the casualty rates of a single firefight, and do I have to?

The Prussians fired. The French broke and ran. So…. do we know why the French broke and ran? Is it just because the Prussians fired on them? If so, then should our game have a rule stating that every time Prussians shoot, the French will run? Of course not, so then we begin to speculate… well, perhaps for this reason… or that reason… or under these special conditions… and perhaps that was an unlikely outcome… and so on.

And of course, the military men, the participants of such events never asked or answered that question, right? And we only know of one instance where such a thing occurred right?

One of the nice things about developing a statistical base is that such 'special conditions' disappear or become more obvious as the base enlarges.

The game rules that result aren't the representation of the event. They're a set of interpretations inspired by an event. And interpretations, by definition, are idiosyncratic.

Pffst. Again, interpretations are also, by definition, impressions of *something*. When two or more interpretations are made about the same *something*, the less idiosyncratic they all become. One goal of history is to move away from idiosyncratic views of the same event, towards a more unified 'view'. As those 'more unified views' is found in written histories, I would imagine wargame designers would take advantage of them.

<

3) Even if by some miracle we could know the answers to all of those questions, then so what? We still haven't done the most important thing, which is to write the game rules. Knowing all the answers doesn't tell you any of the things you need to make a good game out of it.

No, just what you want to put in it. The questions about how to make a good game out of all that information are also things game and simulation game designers have been working on for several decades.

That's part of the challenge and fun of wargame design.

What kind of dice or randomizer do you use for the shooter? What sort of mechanism to represent his fire? How do you represent the effect of the fire? How do we break up game-time and thus how long do we imagine a "turn" represents – i.e., what portion of the above story is represented by each step of the game sequence?

Good questions, all. And?

None of the tools at a game designer's disposal have anything in common with the historical events that inspire the game. There is no way to represent continually-flowing time, for instance.

Many scientists don't believe that time does 'continually flow', but occur in descrete packets. Regardless, don't confuse the tools at a game designer's disposal with what they create, a game system. The tools are used to create a system that has something in common with historical events. There are a number of methods for determining whether those points between the the wargame and the real events do indeed exist.

A game has to break it up into steps or phases, which immediately throws any semblance of realism out the window, since historical actors rarely knew what was going to happen next, or in what sequence.

Yes, which is true of most ALL human activities. Please name me one human activity that hasn't be broken up into steps and phases, even sex. That isn't ipso facto, the deal breaker on games representing reality in any respect. It does demonstrate what you don't know about simulation design as it exists today.

There is no way to represent the physical flexibility of historical units and formations, since we have solid bases of metal figures that must be picked up and put down and thus occupy fixed spaces. The best we can do to represent the randomness of human behavior and responses is to inject some sort of artificial randomizer like dice or cards, but of course there were no dice or cards in the historical battle, so all of our game mechanics are linked to something that wasn't there.

No, that isn't the 'best we can do.' It is clear that is the best you want to do. There are no computers running galaxies, or silicon chips in a chemical reaction in the sun, or among a panicked crowd in a sport arena, but somehow simulations are created that mimic all those with very artifical components. The same is true of wargame mechanics. Simulations are artifical constructs that model something else. You are arguing that the 5 inch model of a T-34 can't possibly represent the ten ton steel reality because it isn't made out of plastic. At very specific points, the model DOES represent the real thing, and anyone who knows anything about the original can see it… objectively, and probably tell how well the model represented the real thing.

It is the same thing with wargames. Only designers don't tell the gamers what specific history is being modeled while continuing to claim that it can't be done anyway, all the while designers are doing it, often with far less information than wargame designers have at their disposal.

What should be the basic odds of the French breaking and running, when the Prussians shoot at them? 10%? 15%? I'd love to know how somebody picks the "accurate" game outcome for something like that.

As it's the designer who determines what the target for the wargame is visa vie history, he's the one to determine was 'accuracy' is. As a designer, you seem to think it's impossible to achieve any kind of accuracy.

I really don't mind that you don't care enough about your questions to find the answers. That's Okay. What annoys me is your apparent belief that:

1. Your questions aren't to be answered, but are asked to prove nothing can be done to answer them.

2. No one outside the hobby has thought of that question before, let alone answered it,

3. Simulation designers haven't developed methods for addressing those issues in your question, and

4. Your impossible notions of what 'accuracy' should be, so as to prove that it is impossible.

Design your games, drink your tea, and stop wasting your time asking questions you obvious don't want the answers to, even when they are all around you.

War-game rules are not rules of nature (that is to rules provable through applying scientific method) they are an attempt to model reality in a much simplified way. As such they have to include best assumptions of how reality works. I agree that rules authors should give designers notes explaining something about those assumptions.

I agree. Actually, all hobby wargame designers apply the scientific method in simply play-testing their games, so lets not get into the science vs art nonsense, if we can help it. Statistics and probablility in wargames is nothing but applied science.

All simulations can only model parts of reality, not everything, so yes, 'simplified'. And it isn't that I may have different assumptions about history etc. than the designer, but that we don't know what the designer's 'assumptions' are, or what they are based on. The designer choses a bit of history to model, builds a game system to do that, and IF that is delineated, then we can tell how 'accurately' the game system succeeded. And that has nothing to do with whether my assumptions are different than the designers.

Well economics is in a large degree about numbers surely, so a statistical treatment might be easier. And the 'military history' would have to be compared to an event in a comparable time, surely? Like simulating an outbreak of plague in TYW-era Germany versus simulating the actual fighting?

Whirlwind:

I am not sure I follow your conclusion, but a statistical treatment of battlefield performances for one battle would require collecting accounts of many battles and engagements from the same war or era, to establish a large enough statistical base.

McLaddie, is is so refreshing to read your anti-nihilistic arguments about wargame/simulation design. To me it seems, that whenever people cannot be bothered to put the time and mental capacity into a simulation design, they descend into the argument that "it can never have anything to do with realism". Let those who want to play miniature ludo do that, and let those who want to pursue their idea of living history do that without ridicule from the first mentioned.

Well economics is in a large degree about numbers surely, so a statistical treatment might be easier. And the 'military history' would have to be compared to an event in a comparable time, surely? Like simulating an outbreak of plague in TYW-era Germany versus simulating the actual fighting?

Whirlwind:

I am not sure I follow your conclusion, but a statistical treatment of battlefield performances for one battle would require collecting accounts of many battles and engagements from the same war or era, to establish a large enough statistical base.

The only point being that John seemed to be incredulous that statistical modelling of military history could be more complicated than statistical modelling of economics or diseases, say. I'm just not certain that it is necessarily such a stupid idea (but happy to be shown why this is the case), because, as Sam was saying, a lot of the data that we might want doesn't exist, in particular for conflicts that took place hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Regards

The only point being that John seemed to be incredulous that statistical modelling of military history could be more complicated than statistical modelling of economics or diseases, say. I'm just not certain that it is necessarily such a stupid idea (but happy to be shown why this is the case), because, as Sam was saying, a lot of the data that we might want doesn't exist, in particular for conflicts that took place hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Whirlwind:
Okay, I understand and concur. Perhaps an example of that modeling is in order.

The Example:
In three parts

For example: a Prussian battalion of 600 men opened fire on a French battalion in column. How many casualties did they cause? For how long were they firing? At what ranges? How tired were the men? How much ammo did they have? What direction was the wind blowing and did that effect the smoke for one side? How many Prussians had a clear shot and how many were obscured? Were they firing dead-on, or at some oblique angle? And so on and so on…

What should be the basic odds of the French breaking and running, when the Prussians shoot at them? 10%? 15%? I'd love to know how somebody picks the "accurate" game outcome for something like that.

So, the questions are:
1. How to determine the ‘basic odds' of a French battalion breaking and running when the Prussians shoot at them?
2. And how can we know the ‘basic odds' are an ‘accurate' outcome for such an encounter?

Well, I can tell you how a simulator would approach the question.

Let's assume that the French and Prussians spoken of battalion-sized units and the Prussians are in line. The way the question is set up and extrapolated, there are three propositions attached to the question that for the sake of argument, we will accept, though how "true" they are hasn't been established, just asserted.

1) In most of the cases that matter to wargamers, it's virtually impossible to know what the "true" answers are. So, we don't know and can't know all [or any of] the factors that led any one Prussian or French action on the field, including casualties, morale, wind-direction, the color of the captain's vest etc. etc.

2) Historical events are unique and discrete, and occur within particular contexts. How do you know that the example you've just looked at, is representative of some sort of "norm"? A historian can find the information for individual cases and say, "In this case, this is what happened." Game rules, however, are written to establish normative structures that will be repeated many times over, in increasingly fictional environments

3) Even if by some miracle we could know the answers to all of those questions, then so what? We still haven't done the most important thing, which is to write the game rules. Knowing all the answers doesn't tell you any of the things you need to make a good game out of it.

The first thing to note is that the answer to Captain Cornelius Butt's question are "The basic odds" for the French breaking when the Prussians shoot at them. Also thrown in is the question of ‘norms', which I take to mean the same thing as ‘basic odds for' something happening.

So, the question has to be in percentages concerning the chances of a particular event occurring. That requires something that all the detailed casualty counts etc. won't ever tell you: A reasonable number of like events, a statistically significant base.

There are some wonderful aspects to statistical data:

1. The relationship between statistical data and their formulas and the real world has been proven beyond a doubt… All that has to be done is apply it correctly.
2, All the unique qualities of a discrete event will either prove to be unimportant or those qualities will become very evident with a statistical analysis.
3. One base, one collection of similar events, can be used to answer multiple questions.
4. Whatever norms or basic outcomes are generated can be tested against the real thing in a number of ways.
5. Captain CB's question is comparatively easy to answer compared to some questions of statistics, discrete events and simulation design faced by designers.

So how does one develop that base?

McLaddie,

Your liver just called and said it isn't bloated enough. Please drink more alcohol. It'll benefit yor health more than this website.

The Example, Part II

Collecting the data isn't that difficult, just time-consuming. Over the years I have collected the following examples concerning both infantry brigade and battalion combat during the entire Napoleonic wars:

205 British incidents
285 French
172 Prussian
144 Austrian
137 Russian

for a total of 943 battalion/brigade actions, with 520 events having narratives that described both the French and the Allies actions and thus counted as two separate behaviors for this data base. When there were multiple accounts of the same action, it still only counted once for the above numbers.

One reason it is both brigade and battalion combat are counted is that battalions more often acted as part of a brigade rather than separately. Of the accounts I found only 271 described isolated battalions outside the brigade structure where all the battalions were acting in unison. I know I haven't found anywhere close to all the account available.

Now, while I have noted a number of specific details, size of the units, terrain, troop quality etc. in collecting those accounts, I certainly have not recorded anywhere close to all the unique factors in those 943 accounts. And of course, each of those accounts were written by authors with their own biases, and some accounts differed in significant ways. When they did, concerning the actual actions taken, I went with the most commonly held view, OR in a separate count added the contrary account as a separate event for statistical purposes, so in actuality, I have more like 1,123 accounts.

Now, out of those accounts, there are 302 that are columns being fired on by troops in line. Of those, 181 are French columns and of those only 41 are Prussians firing on French columns, 1792-1815. Luckily, 30 examples are enough for a statistically meaningful result. That is important, because I didn't find as many Prussian incidents as other nations, which could mean they didn't occur as often or that I just didn't find them.

However, we want to see how ALL line vs column confrontations played out, so we have a better idea about how unique Prussian actions were against the French.

Now, statistically, if each event is significantly influenced by all those unique factors that we can't know, then any calculations will show a wide variety of results, rather than just a few.

What we find is this:

Out of the 302 incidents were columns were fired upon by enemy infantry in line only, ignoring any artillery present, and ignoring later actions such as new enemy units outflanking the columns or volleys and then attacking with the bayonet, we have this:
[and I'll explain how I can ignore such things in such a cavalier fashion.]

In all but 12 of the 302 incidents, infantry in line did not break the columns they fired at.
In those 290 incidents, something else had to occur to make the columns break, both brigade or individual battalions. They had to be outflanked or attacked frontally with the bayonet. Otherwise, they stood and took the fire, whether the French V Corps at Albuera or the columns attacking the Prussians at Jena, Bautzen or Waterloo. That is a whoppin' 96% of all incidents. Whether one or either side had artillery, skirmisher support, numerical superiority, the infantry line was on a upper slope or down slope, whether the troops were well or poorly led, conscripts or veterans, appears to have had no meaningful effect on the outcome or we wouldn't see such complete uniformity across so many different situations.

But that is only the beginning of the analysis. Here are some of the other insights from this:

1. The 12 incidents where troops firing in line broke the battalion or brigade columns, 8 were situations where the troops in column were surprised, such as Thiëbault's 1/14th battalion at Austerlitz where a Russian battalion hidden in a ravine, rose up and opened fire. The battalion broke almost immediately according to Brigadier Thiëbault. The other four appear to be actual incidents of French columns breaking to the rear from volley fire, such as the 88th battalion of the V Corps when advancing on the Spaniards of Zaya's brigade at Albuera.

2. The number of times a Prussian line broke a French column from the 41 examples: Zero. That is statistically significant in being able to determine the percentage of times Prussian fire should break French columns.

3. What does show up is that in about 60% of the instances, the fire from Allied infantry in line formation stopped the French column's forward motion, though subsequently, the fire alone neither drove them away or broke them.

4. What was required to break French columns appears to be direct attacks with the bayonet front or flank, regardless of the amount of previous volley fire. Approximately 90% of the time.

The question again was:

What should be the basic odds of the French breaking and running, when the Prussians shoot at them? 10%? 15%? I'd love to know how somebody picks the "accurate" game outcome for something like that.

So, the ‘basic odds', based on a large number of examples from all nations including the French in line, but particularly the Prussians is: given an error range of 5%, there is no more than a 10% chance of Prussian fire from any number of infantry in line breaking a French column. [Which oddly enough is the percentage of French battalion columns that routed at Albuera from Spanish and British volley fire among the twenty battalions of the French V Corps]. And this is only true if you include the chance of those columns being surprised or ambushed, otherwise it is a basic 5% chance.

Now, admittedly this is a very rough set of calculations given as an example how the Captain's question can be answered, though there are other ways to approach it—not as the final word on the subject. However, what puts this quick survey on very solid ground statistically is how uniform the results are with a large base.

But that isn't the final answer. While all the number crunching is intriguing, the results have to be tested against the real thing to establish that ‘accuracy.'

Your liver just called and said it isn't bloated enough. Please drink more alcohol. It'll benefit yor health more than this website.

Reading this, I can only imagine there is a reason you chose "Nasty Canasta" as a moniker. If you don't like reading about simulation and game design, don't waste time posting about my liver. The solution is not to spend time reading these posts. You and your brain will feel better, or is it you want to feel nasty?

The Example Part III The Tests

The answer of 5% [or 10%] isn't a perfect, 100% ‘truth' concerning the question. It is far, far better than guessing and we have some idea of how close to ‘truth' the answer comes. The more examples we find to add to the base, the more confident we can be of the 'truth' of the results.

We can achieve an even deeper confidence that those percentages do portray the ‘norm' for that kind of engagement by running tests on the solutions. Designers ‘play-test' their designs. Simulations need to be play-tested too.

There are at least 8 ways to do that, and scores of variations on those. Here are two. Most simulation designers will apply at least four different kinds of tests to confirm that the simulation does work to model whatever it was designed to portray.

One test is to run historical engagements using the game design with the 5% ‘norm' in place, at least ten. Without any changes to the rules, they should be able to model the actual events. Basically, can the rules, given the same command decisions and unit actions allow for the historical actions? If we find that in the battle, far more columns were breaking from volley fire alone, then there is something wrong with our percentages.

Another Test, one I like because it reflects what the players are learning from game play, is to have players experienced with the game system make predictions of what will happen in actual historical situations. For instance, you provide them with the tactical situation involving the French attacks at Talavera against the British. Without letting them know the details of what battle is being described or the forces' nationalities, ask them, based on their experience of play the game design, what the result will be when the defenders volley the approaching columns. You'd have about twenty players make predictions on ten different scenarios. If 70-80% of the responses successfully predict what will happen in each case, that is another indication that the percentage conclusion is ‘accurate', in other words matches the history it is meant to mimic. Of course, in this case, the vast majority of the answers would have to be that the columns stopped their forward movement, but none of the predictions have the columns breaking for the rear from fire.

Another test is to change the percentages, make the chance of rout 15 or more percent and see how well the system can model the actual battles in the first test. It should be that the higher percentages don't model them as well. It could be that there is no difference in how the system performs, in which case the percentages don't reflect the results concerning fire on columns.

That is the way a simulation designer would approach the answer that question and one way it can be answered. I can certainly understand if wargame designers don't want to put that kind of effort into it, but that is very different from insisting it can't be done.

The statements made have been addressed:

1) In most of the cases that matter to wargamers, it's virtually impossible to know what the "true" answers are.

Actually, you have to be clear about the question you are asking, in order to recognize a 'true' answer. It isn't impossible to approach that truth, to know a good portion of it, if not perfectly.

2) Historical events are unique and discrete, and occur within particular contexts. How do you know that the example you've just looked at, is representative of some sort of "norm"? A historian can find the information for individual cases and say, "In this case, this is what happened." Game rules, however, are written to establish normative structures that will be repeated many times over, in increasingly fictional environments.

The environments aren't fictional, increasingly or otherwise, not in a wargame meant to portray some history. The environments remain the same…only the events the players create in them stray increasingly into the fractal.. volley fire effects don't change during the game, the woods have a constant effect, etc.

Norms are generated by statistics. To generate a norm you have to use them. And even when events are unique, until you analyize them, you can't tell whether all those unique and discrete elements actually have any significance where answer to your question is concerned. In this case, they didn't at all.

3) Even if by some miracle we could know the answers to all of those questions, then so what? We still haven't done the most important thing, which is to write the game rules. Knowing all the answers doesn't tell you any of the things you need to make a good game out of it.

That 5% should be easy to incorporate into a game system. All game designers deal with percentages, probability etc., even if in very crude forms. And of course, those percentages don't tell you how to make a good game out of it.

That wasn't the question… However, IF part of your definition of a 'good game' is portraying history with some 'accuracy', then that percentage 'norm' regarding columns and volley fire does tell you something about designing a good game.

And that Captain CB is one way of answering your question, including establishing whether it is 'accurate' or not.

@McLaddie: a nice Belgian beer (say, a Chimay) makes slogging through statistical analysis a lot more pleasant, though.

One thing I've noticed. I have a wide range of periods of interest, but my poor brain can only handle so many different combat resolution methods. I would really like to settle into an engine/method of generating results (like Ambush Alley, for example), and then apply period-specific modifiers as necessary.

Thank you for taking the time to write those very interesting posts McLaddie. Will you actually be publishing a set of rules at some point?

Regards

PS Did your figures record on how many occasions after the columns were stopped by fire, the troops in column subsequently triumphed?

Regards

Whirlwind:

You bet.

I run my own business, which requires a lot of traveling and includes designing educational and training simulations/games, so I haven't had the time to give to really focus on my set of rules. I can post stuff from a hotel. It's a little harder to design a game from a Holiday Express in Bremerton…

Howsomever, I am about to retire, so I am planning to have the time to really get that done shortly. I have a non-educational book to finish too. Obviously, I have been collecting information for it for a while.

I am applying things I've learned about game and simulation design outside the hobby and create a wargame that takes a different tact on both simultaneous movement and IGO/UGO systems. Any design stands on the shoulders of those before it, but there is a lot of design ideas outside the hobby I'd like to incorporate.

When I get it to the game and simulation play-testing stage, past the local gang playing it, I will then do a concerted game and simulation play-test before doing what Bill Gray did with AOE, and make it open-source for a while before publishing.

And of course, it's gotta be fun to play.

PS Did your figures record on how many occasions after the columns were stopped by fire, the troops in column subsequently triumphed?

Yes, about 50% of the time…where the enemy retreated or routed. What is insteresting is that the rate isn't equal over time: more successes up to 1809 and less afterwards…

Of course, the columns' responses to being stopped by fire did vary, from resuming the advance, going to line, to deploying more skirmishers, to just standing there for sometimes a long time before being hit by a charge or flank attack.

@McLaddie: a nice Belgian beer (say, a Chimay) makes slogging through statistical analysis a lot more pleasant, though.

One thing I've noticed. I have a wide range of periods of interest, but my poor brain can only handle so many different combat resolution methods. I would really like to settle into an engine/method of generating results (like Ambush Alley, for example), and then apply period-specific modifiers as necessary.

Lion:
I favor Shock Top or Blue Moon Belgians myself, but you're right. Statistical analysis was created by a diabolical mathematican to entice and torture at the same time. The father of probability studies and statistical analysis was Blaise Pascal, and he abandoned his work and turned to religion…

If you think my little exercise was mind-numbing, creating a game engine to do what you want with any reasonable results is going to be a @#*@!@ effort.

The first thing you'd have to do is create a 'same/different' table describing how each period is similar in those aspects the game engine would address, and then build a system on the similarities [with some evidence that they are] and then experiment to see how different modifiers change the results to match those different periods…

Sparta:

Thank you for your comments. I don't mind designers who don't want to take the time to design a simulation. I can understand that. I play wargames that are 'just games' and enjoy them for what they are. No problem.

The reasons I've taken the time to post all this, here and elsewhere are those designers and gamers that:

1. Insist that simulations can't be designed for the table top, listing all the unsolvable problems, when those problems have all been addressed by simulation designers over many decades--and solved, partially or completely.

It's as though these hobby wargame designers believe they face totally unique game design issues that nobody else has ever heard of. They do this when anyone can go to Google and type in Simulation Game Design in get half a million hits, most outside the hobby. Or type in the same thing on Amazon and find hundreds of books on the subject.

I get the feeling that such intelligent men as CCB want to obscure the issues, bury them deep and pronounce them dead, rather than actually clarify anything.

2. Claim to recreate history with their games, but insist they aren't simulations, but do simulate military actions, but it's just a game, but they spent years researching the history to get it right, but it isn't a simulation, but… yadda, yadda, yadda.

3. Apparently don't know anything about simulation design but claim to have designed them.

4. Leave wargamers with this complete mish-mash of meaningless noise concerning what the designers are providing in the way of history and warfare. It's no wonder that gamers grab and hold on tight to the 'fun' aspects, because at least that they can recognize that for themselves.

I think those situations are totally unnecessary and create all sorts of problems for the hobby when some clarity would benefit everyone.

…. and for those that want more info (without buying a tonne of books from amazon), check out McLaddies excellent series of "How to build a simulation system" guides on the VLB yahoo group.

Concise, relevant to wargaming, and straight to the point.

If you want some vids to watch as well about the game design aspects of simulation systems, I highly recommend googling "Gamification" and settling back for hours of great presentations too.

And here is one reason why these questions keep reoccuring: like the dozens of times before on the TMP and other places, Captain Cornelius Butt and others will go to serious trouble to list in detail in long posts all the reasons why wargames can't portray history, and almost plead with readers to answer their questions:

What should be the basic odds of the French breaking and running, when the Prussians shoot at them? 10%? 15%? I'd love to know how somebody picks the "accurate" game outcome for something like that.

And so, you answer them, in detail.

But never fear. They will pop up again to ask the same damn questions, over and over, never acknowledging that anyone actually has answered their questions in the past. They will actually state that no one has ever answered them.

After awhile, you can't help but get the impression that they really, really want the answer to be:

'We can't know, can't do it, it's impossible, so don't worry about it.'

Such a view regulates history to 'flavors' and 'feelings', but it does make designing historical wargames sooo much easier because now you are designing just games.

It's not the history that's a problem. It's the game. As i said: even if by some miracle you were able to know everything that happened, and exactly how and when it happened… then you have to convert it into a playable game. And that's where you leap from knowledge to interpretation, and frankly, fiction. That's when you just starting making stuff up, like what should the To-Hit number be for a French 12-pounder at 900 yards on muddy ground? Should the "Rally Phase" come before or after the "Fire Phase" ? What should be the combat modifier for a charismatic general? +1 or +2? Exactly how much better in combat were Polish lancers, vs. British Hussars?

Elenderil:
I meant to respond to your comments. A wargame is one big 'interpretation' of history. It is portraying actual battlefield environments with game mechanics. That interpretation from the dynamics of reality to something completely artifical, a game system can't be avoided.

So, what else is new? I quoted CCB's statement because it certainly is the core question: How do you 'leap' from historical knowledge to game mechanics?

The Real Issue here isn't how to create game mechanics, but how to know that they actually model the effect of a 12lb shot over muddy ground at 900 yards to some degree.

In other words, how do you establish that there exists a real relationship between the military history and the game mechanics used to model that? How do we know lancers were better in combat than hussars [the history] and by how much? [the game mechanic]

So it isn't that interpretations are involved. It is a question about what the hell is being interpreted, and whether the game mechanics designed to model that interpretation 1. work as designed, and 2. do actually mimic historical dynamics and outcomes.

As I said before, those aren't exactly new questions, and certainly answerable in a number of ways, imperfectly to be sure, but approaching 'truth' much, much closer than "guessing" and saying "it can't be done."

I scanned this page and immediately wanted to see a pair of pie charts showing 1) posts per a given poster and 2) words by a given poster.

I haven't read all of this so please do not think my comments are about its content, but at a certain point… it can stop being a discussion.

Cheers,

Bandit

McLaddie have a virtual beer on me for your continuing to explain your points with examples and engaging in a rational defence of your position. I offer you a pint of (sadly only virtual) Adnams Broadside a nice dark beer with hints of treacle, If you ever stray to this side of the pond I will make it a real one. I have found this an interesting and entertaining thread that has caused me to rethink some and reconfirm others of my opinions

Elenderil:

If I cross the pond, I'll take you up on that offer. Love British beers, but here British beers here aren't the same quality as the ones found in British pubs. Preservatives…ugh.

Bandit:
Yeah. It isn't possible to address the design assertions or answer the design questions in a paragraph… I've tried. One of the weaknesses of this venue…

McLaddie,

I have been reading your posts for years. You tend to address design assertions of others with your assertions, rather than to get to the bottom of them. Perhaps if you asked specific questions you'd get specific answers, or not. And even or not helps establish where designers are coming from.

For example one might ask, what is your methodology for converting historical probability for a hit to a die roll?

After you sift through all of the chaff, you will either get an answer (in which instance you can draw your conclusions) or not (in which instance you may conclude there is no methodology and percentages to hit are made of whole cloth).

At the end of a series of such questions you may be able to draw some conclusions regarding which rules simulate which aspects of warfare and which do not. On the other hand you may not.

In the end Socretes knew best, "Ask questions get answers."

Good luck

Bob Cogggins

You tend to address design assertions of others with your assertions, rather than to get to the bottom of them.

Bob:

Such as? Are you telling me that I simply asserted something and never demonstrated it, never 'got to the bottom?" Really? Did you read the three part example?

That is the problem with the email venue…easy to make assertions, a lot more work to support them… and more work to read them. I'm going to assume you didn't read them to say what you did.

You may question my methodology, but to say I simply asserted something without evidence, explanation or support, without "getting to the bottom of it" amazes me.

The question was how to come up with a percentage for the probability that a Prussian battalion volleying at a French Column would break. I walked through how to do that. Where were you?

For example one might ask, what is your methodology for converting historical probability for a hit to a die roll?

That is your question? Obvious,you didn't read the example, which was to answer just that question. Again, one might ask, where were you?

Bob, it isn't 'my methodology'. There are several 'methodologies' for arriving at probabilities, in general and specifically used by simulation designers. I didn't assert, I gave an example of one methodology addressing CCB's question:

The probability of a Prussian battalion breaking a French column simply by volleying at it is only 5% based on the 41 examples I could find. That is a pretty good number considering the size of the base that probability is derived from.

I wasn't asking any questions, other than why the same questions get asked while ignoring the availability of such answers--or ignoring them when they are answered. And I did draw my conclusions about that.

I was answering CCB's questions. And depending on where my questions lead me, I tend to draw my conclusions from the information I can or can't find, and whether the methodologies employed [in this case] by simulation designers can provde demonstratable answers.

After you sift through all of the chaff, you will either get an answer (in which instance you can draw your conclusions) or not (in which instance you may conclude there is no methodology and percentages to hit are made of whole cloth).

That is a methodology for determining percentages and a demonstratable probability?

"In the end Socretes knew best, "Ask questions get answers."

Uh, yeah. If you read through the posts, the questions are asked and answered. I think Socrates would agree to that.

Good Luck to you too.

Bill

Bill,

You have misconstrued what I wrote.

As Rmusfeld often said, "There are things which are knowable and things which are nor knowable." You already know what you know. What you don't know is what others know or beileve and how they incorporate, or not, that knowledge into a set of rules.

So, my suggestion is rather than continuing to state your position, attempt to divine and understand the game design philosophy of others by asking questions.

I thought I was making a suggestion. It mystifies how you interpreted otherwise. So, I'll ask, how did you concluded I was asking for your methodology, rather than asking designers for their's?

Have fun was meant to be interpreted as you'll be fortunate to get the answers you desire from other designers, not as a sarcastic taunt.

Bob Coggins

Ha ha I read your post the same way as McLaddie did.

First post, Bob:

For example one might ask, what is your methodology for converting historical probability for a hit to a die roll?

Second post,Bob:

So, I'll ask, how did you concluded I was asking for your methodology, rather than asking designers for their's?

I was responding to a hobby designer's question {CCB}…when he was basically admitting to having no methodology, or clue as how to go about "converting historical probability for a hit to a die roll" and was asking 'anyone' how it could be done, obviously believing he was asking the impossible.

Developing probability and statistical outcomes is a fairly established discipline and used by simulation game designers all the time, so I don't see the need for surveying hobby designers asking 'how it's done?' I've known that for long time with a lot of simulations.

And as you said:
"…you'll be fortunate to get the answers you desire from other designers."

Reading your posts over again Bob, I can see that I did misconstrue your suggestion. If I read you correctly:

1. You didn't think much of my example, basically ignoring it as anything but an assertion.

2. You were suggesting that if I really wanted to know how to do it, I needed to canvas other hobby designers, asking that question:

"For example one might ask, what is your methodology for converting historical probability for a hit to a die roll?"

After decades of building training and educational simulations, and decades of reading hobby designers describe 'how they did it', there isn't really question about the answers I would get… They didn't use any statistical analysis of history or probability calculations from those discussions.

Certainly, no one says they have to. However, without using such tools, it is just a waste of time to attempt coming up with precentage chances of things happening--if you want them to have any relationship to history and the real world.

I don't need to survey other hobby wargame designers to be certain of that.

I was responding to a hobby designer's question {CCB}…when he was basically admitting to having no methodology, or clue as how to go about "converting historical probability for a hit to a die roll" and was asking 'anyone' how it could be done, obviously believing he was asking the impossible.

I don't think he was admitting that exactly. I think he was saying that he didn't think anyone had enough examples to be able to quantify the chances of certain events happening with historical accuracy. Since you think you can do this, then there isn't, in theory, any disagreement and we'll all have to see what your simulation is like when you publish it.

Regards

Whirlwind,

Preconceived ideas can only be tested by asking questions and getting answers. While the answers may not satisfy, they help one develop a picture which either supports or refutes one's thoughts.

There is no such thing as historical accuracy from event to event. Life is filled with deviations and so too as a part of life is war. For instance my co-designer, Craig Taylor, was in good health until he suffered a large deviation from the norm, a massive heart attack, and died. The norm for all of us is survival for another day, one's health effects the percentage chance of survival from day to day and illness may modify the percentage to the extent that the deviation from the norm needs be less.

Craig Taylor and I designed Napoleon's Battles, which has been in publication since 1989. Your perusal is welcome. It would, however, be nice if asked me before criticizing. Then feel free.

Bob Coggins

Craig Taylor and I designed Napoleon's Battles, which has been in publication since 1989. Your perusal is welcome. It would, however, be nice if asked me before criticizing. Then feel free.

I'm very sorry Bob, does this sentence refer to me or McLaddie? You seem to be addressing me, but I know that I haven't referred to Napoleon's Battles at all.

Regards

Speaking as a Hobby Designer I do try to seek statistical evidence to support the outcomes of my rules. I may not be a rigorous as someone working in simulation design professionally would have to be but I try. In my mind the concept of the proper feel is that "on average" the rules give outcomes for sets of actions that are not at varience to the range of observed outcomes from period accounts and experimental archaeology.

To some extent working on ECW rules is a mixed blessing as hard and fast statistical data isn't really there in terms of hit rates and weapon accuracy. What is there is a wealth of anecdotal information from period accounts of combat and some test firing data of weapons from the period and just after. Plus there is the occassional snippet of pure gold such as the range charts in Eldred's "The Gunners glass". using that data I aim to get as close as possible to statistically verifiable results….BUT I accept that I am not going to be 100% accurate as I have to include an element of "fudge factor" to create a workable set of mechanisms. Plus as Bob rightly points out the degree of statistical variation in the bell curve of the deviation from the norm is something we can only make an educated guess, with the key word being educated.

There is no such thing as historical accuracy from event to event. Life is filled with deviations and so too as a part of life is war.

Bob:

Quite true. That is what statistical analysis and probability were designed to deal with, for Pete's sake. And I was sad to hear about Craig when it happened.

The norm for all of us is survival for another day, one's health effects the percentage chance of survival from day to day and illness may modify the percentage to the extent that the deviation from the norm needs be less.

Bob, we aren't talking philosophy, or your or my chance of survival as a 'norm.' We are talking about developing norms and chances from evidence addressing actions of a large number of people, past events. I am assuming here you have a basic knowledge of statistics, norms, and probability and why a large base can approach 'historical accuracy', depending on what your target is. And as simulators have been doing for quite awhile, not making assertions about whether the percentages are accurate, but testing and establishing that accuracy. As Elenderil says, it's not going to be 100% accurate… it will be functionally accurate. It works as a simulation.

Elenderil wrote:

Speaking as a Hobby Designer I do try to seek statistical evidence to support the outcomes of my rules. I may not be a rigorous as someone working in simulation design professionally would have to be but I try. In my mind the concept of the proper feel is that "on average" the rules give outcomes for sets of actions that are not at varience to the range of observed outcomes from period accounts and experimental archaeology.

Elenderil:
Your approach and view share somethings in common with most other hobby designers I've known or read about, past and present. I Italizied the part that I want to address.

Designers have been talking about 'proper feel' for a long time, and reasonable results that aren't 'at varience with period accounts, etc.' "Reasonable results" gets a lot of air time in the hobby. What that always reduces down to is 'your opinion' or some 'feeling'… in otherwords, a subjective view equal to anyone else's.

That is the bottom line for gamers in the hobby… and why not? There is no evidence to the contrary. But what about all that work and research and thought that went into representing history? It's just your opinion and no better than mine.

That would be fine and the end of the story, except that is not what most all wargame designers say they are attempting, say they are doing, say they are producing with their wargames. Like you, they are attempting to creat something that simulation designers have be doing for quite a while, decades.

BUT I accept that I am not going to be 100% accurate as I have to include an element of "fudge factor" to create a workable set of mechanisms. Plus as Bob rightly points out the degree of statistical variation in the bell curve of the deviation from the norm is something we can only make an educated guess, with the key word being educated.

Ever? Is that true of all deviation from the norm? How do statisticans deal with little information on which to base such a 'bell curve?' Is a bell curve even necessary? Sometimes I get the feeling that fudge and educated guesses have more to do with the limits of 'knowing how things work' with statistics than necessarily the limits of the data or variations in bell curves. How do simulation designers use those things to produce simulations? Do they get stuck at the same places? I tried to show how that might be done. It works for the same reason a statistican can poll 1,000 people and get a resulting poll that represents the opinions of 500,000 to a large degree of reliability. Perfect, no. Incapable of being misused, no. It's just a tool which can do certain things demonstrably well.

Simulation designers don't have system goals such as 'proper feelings'. They produce demonstratable simulations from those period accounts and archaeology…or current events. They know when they have succeeded and they know when they have failed, and how much inbetween. Those are objective conclusions, not someone's opinon, demonstratable results, not 'feelings'.

The bottom line is: Designers are free to design games anyway they want, to their own satisfaction.

However, if they claim to have captured something of the past with their game system, how do they know? How is that demonstrated to the customer. Feelings? Game designer get stuck where Bob is, stating that Napoleon's Battles isn't a simulation on TMP,which I mentioned when another poster said NB was a simulation. Bob responded on The Napoleon's Battle list:

Both of you are rignt. Craig was adament that what he designed were games which simulated certain aspects of warfare. Indeed it must be a game because if it is not playable and entertaining it will fail. On the other hand we had 7 years to get it right and by getting it right Craig and I were satisfied the game simulated many of the aspects of grand tactical Napoleonic warfare while being eminently playable and entertaining.

So NB is a game that simulates, but it isn't a simulation. It is, but it isn't--to Bob and Craig's satisfaction.

If they've done all the research, how was it used and how do they know [demonstrate] that the game system actually mimics what the evidence reveals? If they can demonstrate that, why the yes/no position? Because all they can demonstrat, and sell, is Craig and Bob's satisfaction. It certainly has proven value, but it's just their feelings on the matter. That is not simulating.

The ability to objectively demonstrate that the game actually does simulate isn't some mystery and achieving objective results isn't a pipe dream. It's done every day using methods proven to do those very things.

I can competely understand why designers might not want to take the time to do that. My questions, and this can be for Bob, is:

1. What are the designers achieving if they can't demonstrate the relationship between the data/evidence they've found and their design to everyone?

2. If they want to know whether their design does capture something of military history, why wouldn't they use proven methods to do that, methods quite often used with game systems?

Whirlwind,

It refers to you. Yes you didn't mention NHs but yes you had no idea I was one of the designers, at least that's the way I read your post.

My post was knocked off quickly and one review was not a clear as it might have been.

Lots of gamers jump to conclusions regarding a set of rules with which they are not familiar and based on this they criticize the rules. My request is if you review the rules and think based on your knowledge of Napoleonic warfare, they have historical problems please contact me with questions regarding your concerns, before you criticize them. If you are still satisfied, to quote Wellington, "Publish and be damned."

Bob Coggins

I don't think Whirlwind was refering to you or Naps Battles.

McLaddie- Im sure that to some degree you can figure out the probabilities of combat outcomes but I dont see what that even has to do with creating a fun, playable simulation. Ive taken part in a dozen or so modern military exercises and simulations as an intel analyst. both with and without actual units going through the motions. Frankly, none of them were fun or interesting, and if I was offered the chance to take part in one right now I would give twenty bucks to get out of it. Im not exactly sure what sort of ruleset youre trying to create. You take part in these professionally from what I can tell, and so you know how much effort goes into such an exercise. You need blue team, red team, a ref or a team lf refs, a computer, maps, charts, etc, etc. Plus the goal of actually military exercises is not to have fun, but to prepare for war by trying to find out what information you dont know for an upcoming war. Real military exercises also often snap back and reset the action to test the outcomes of alternative courses of action. Ive been in exercises that lasted two weeks and which rehashed the same 36 hours or so over and over again. To go back to the excellent thread on VLB a few weeks back, it seems like the real problem facing a simulation is not figuring out the mathematical results of fire combat of one troop body on another (easy enough if one is willing to put in the research), but rather figuring out how to model time, events and the unknown when the medium of toy soldiers and a table resists all attempts to do so. Especially if youre tyring to do a game with only two players. The matter of the percentage of casualties inflicted over x number of minutes seems almost moot if you dont have have a new way of controlling time in a game. Unless you are thinking about going the mlti-player, reffed Kriegspiel route. In that case something like a real simulation would certainly be possible although it would suffer all the problems of a kriegspiel (lots of players, heavy on set-up, need for lots of refs, etc).

McLaddie- Im sure that to some degree you can figure out the probabilities of combat outcomes but I dont see what that even has to do with creating a fun, playable simulation.

FMS:
Yes, to a specific degree. And I wasn't addressing the question of a fun, playable simulation… I was addressing a specific question about designing a simulation. I'd be glad to discuss fun and playable too. But from your comment those are qualities of a simulation, rather than what makes the game system something that simulates.

To go back to the excellent thread on VLB a few weeks back, it seems like the real problem facing a simulation is not figuring out the mathematical results of fire combat of one troop body on another (easy enough if one is willing to put in the research), but rather figuring out how to model time, events and the unknown when the medium of toy soldiers and a table resists all attempts to do so.

My experience with simulation design does include some terrific conversations will military simulation designers at simulation and game design conferences, but most all my experience has been with education and business training simulations. Similar complexity issues, but different studies. It is interesting to note that my career as a simulation designer started more than twenty years ago, the same year that Napoleon's Battles was published.

Modeling time, events and the unknown is what simulations are about. Tabletop gaming has some real limitations as a simulation game medium, and some real strengths, just as do computer, board games, RPGs and all other forms. A designer midigates the liabilities and builds on the strengths. I think there are three major issues for the miniatures hobby:

1. A coherent understanding of what simulations do and can't do and how they work for the player.

2. A deeper [or wider] understanding of game design. I sometimes shake my head at what hobby designers state are unsurmountable problems [like CCB] when I know simulation and game designers in other venues have solved them long ago. I believe George's major problems with VLB stem from his limited knowledge of game system design as much as any limitations created by the tabletop venue.

3. Hobby designers seem to make any claims that will sell games, and most have in the past and continue to claim their games do simulate, recreate and model history, without any effort to establish how wargames actually do that. They are, but they aren't simulations, and any discussion of wargame design becomes simply an exercise in opinion trading with little practical application.

So, while history and the simulation aspects of our hobby continue to be one source of the fun for gamers [if the game promotions and TMP discussions are any indication], the simulation part of fun, playable simulations continues to get really short shrift and actually is seen by designers and gamers as a major, if not The obstacle to that fun.

Wargame designers are to blame for that to a large extent.

Unless you are thinking about going the mlti-player, reffed Kriegspiel route. In that case something like a real simulation would certainly be possible although it would suffer all the problems of a kriegspiel (lots of players, heavy on set-up, need for lots of refs, etc).

When you say 'real' simulation, you mean that anything that isn't a multi-player wargame can't be a simulation?

Wouldn't that depend on what is being simulated, how it is done, and whether the design is successful in modeling what it was designed to--rather than just how many people were playing it?

It refers to you. Yes you didn't mention NHs but yes you had no idea I was one of the designers, at least that's the way I read your post.

My post was knocked off quickly and one review was not a clear as it might have been.

Lots of gamers jump to conclusions regarding a set of rules with which they are not familiar and based on this they criticize the rules. My request is if you review the rules and think based on your knowledge of Napoleonic warfare, they have historical problems please contact me with questions regarding your concerns, before you criticize them. If you are still satisfied, to quote Wellington, "Publish and be damned."

Bob, you are confusing me with someone else. I have never played or reviewed nor as far as I recall commented ever in any way on your Napoleon's Battles rules.

Regards

"Real simulation" is a contradictory statement. Thats my fault.

To answer your final point only… Yeah. I mean, you could write a page of code that can model the attack of a french battalion on a Prussian one over whatever given terrain, add in your data and modifiers and get a result. But thats not what I would consider a simulation, and certainly not a game. It might be the beginning of a game, but its also the easiest part to do. Its just number crunching and research.

Im not sure what point you are trying to make here exactly. If you are attempting to make a simulation of Napoleonic command then you've eventually got to get to a point where the player has to deal with unknowns, whether he is the CiC or a battalion commander or whatever. It almost sounds as though you are describing a closed system simulation in some places on this thread, where the entire action of a battle can be played out within the system with no player input, like watching a computer play itself at chess. I suppose you could do this with a computer easily enough, or even with wargames rules if you really wanted. But why bother? Isnt that how Games Workshop tests their amy lists to make sure theyre balanced?

So, honestly, I cant answer your final question or two as posted. They are too open ended. Do you intend to simulate command and control? The effects of fire power? Or something else? At what point do you plan for the player to intervene in the simulation? Thats the important point, and I cant tell from your posts how you would go about doing this.

You can set up a simulation for lots of things. If one wants to be a sophist about it one could even make a simulation about people making a simulation of Napoleonic warfare. Where does that get us though?

My general answer though would be that in order to realistically model command and control you would need as many players as possible to represent the command structure. The more people the better. And the more people the more refs you need. Theres a reason the military does it that way…. Dull as it gets. You could reduce it to two players and a ref, but then you would need models for how the units react to orders, etc. the less people the bigger the burden on everyone involved. And really no use for figures either. Youd be better off with maps for this.

Lots of interesting stuff here, but to my uneducated eye I think there has been some misinterpretation.

So far I have to agree with Bob's point about deviations and FMS about C&C. Surely the nub of the problem is that a simulation does not predict the edges of the bell curve well. These are the unknowns.

The difficulty is as I see it that the aim is to not reproduce history but "interpret" it to allow it to be re-written.

Whirlwind,

Sorry, I confused your response to Bill as a response to me. As Roseanne Rossanadanna would say, "Nevermind."

Bob Coggins

No worries Bob.

Bob:
I didn't criticize or evaluate Napoleon's Battles in anyway, only your description of what it is and isn't….