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

I'm getting a indication that part of the issue with what we are discussing is one of definitions. To a professional designer of simulations the term simulation has a very tightd definition. Those of us not within that field are using the term in a looser way. So to some extent we are discussing subtly different things.

McLaddie – I do have some training in statistics and statistical analysis but only to a theoretical level, and many years ago before computer modelling came along. That is enough to let me realise how much I don't know about modern simulation design based on current statistical approaches. Much as I would love to learn the techniques and apply them to my current project it would become a project in its own right andI don't have the time to spare.

So I apply those statistical tools I do have in my toolkit in the best way that I can. I have to accept that what I create will never meet the rigorous standards of modern simulation design, and to be honest I'm good with that. However, I don't fool myself (and this is where we come back to singing from the same hymn sheet) that I have created a fully accurate representation of combat in the period I am working on. I have to accept that I can never capture all the nuances and still have a playable game. As an example I suspect (I may be wrong) that there are very few players out there who want to worry about the niceties of logistics that real army commanders had to consider, you know the stuff: the how many mules to carry food to feed the mules who carry the food to feed the mules who feed the army 120 miles from the supply base kind of issues. So I will never attempt to include detailed rules on that aspect.

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.

Gustav:
A simulation is a closed system, regardless of how big and complex it is. A simulation can mimic past events, but those aren't very good at 'predicting' anything that isn't already known, other than to fill in the gaps between two firm points. They are very good at doing that.

However, to deem the 90% of the bell curve that can be substantiated 'inaccurate' because 10% at the ends can't be seems to be driving for perfection rather than a functioning simulation.

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

FMS:
I didn't think so. I assumed that a real simulation would be one that actually worked as a simulation, as opposed as one that didn't work. I just wondered about your distinction between what were not simulations and those that were real.

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 that's 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.

I agree. The focus of most all wargames are the players' experience. That is what creates the dynamics of a simulation. A simulation is a tool that allows the players to simulate. Rolf Koster wrote in his A Theory of Fun for Designing Games,

Games, at their best, are not prescriptive. They demand that the user create a response given the tools at hand. It is a lot easier to fail to respond to a painting than to fail to respond to a game.

No other artistic medium defines itself around an intended effect on the user, such as ‘fun.'

While I am not sure other artistic medium don't, This defining itself is doubly true for simulations: The designer is successful when he produces a desired effect on the player, a game experience, decisions and consequences that mimic the dynamics found in the real world.

I'm 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.

Well, all simulations are closed systems and always will be, but I was only addressing one particular design issue raised by CCB, a question that didn't reference the players in the game or much else for that matter…just how to come up with a reasonable probability based on historical evidence.

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.

Those are the questions. A simulation, like any scientific, historical or social study or work of art can't contain everything in reality. The designer has to choose what to represent and what to leave out. Even if I decided to make my wargame simulate only CiC, It couldn't model everything, even with a multitude of players. And I really didn't list what I wanted to include or not. I was simply addressing a single design question.

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. You'd be better off with maps for this.

The military works for very specific goals in their wargames, which can cost tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. They still can't simulate everything. When you say "in order to realistically model command and control you would need… " you are talking about what you feel is necessary to simulate what you feel is important, what is Key to modeling CiC. Certainly the military agrees with you and often has similar goals, but sometimes they don't, and darned if they don't use miniatures too at times.

However, let me give you another example of a ‘realistic" wargame. In his recent book Simulating War Phil Sabin's provides a game in it called "Block Busting". At a Tactical Study Day, six players, including Brigadier Andrew Sharpe, played several games. Dr. Sabin says this veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan urban warfare was "deeply impressed with the tactical realism of Block Busting, despite its relative simplicity, and he emphasized during the closing discussion session how well it captured the key dynamics of fighting in built-up areas."

The board game has fifty pieces to it, and is played by two players. It wasn't designed to simulate CiC, even though you'd think that would be important in urban warfare. Yet the Brigadier felt it did capture the key dynamics Dr. Sabin designed it to model… Here the player experienced game dynamics he recognized as those found in the real world of combat.

If another fifty veterans of urban warfare said they felt the same, would it be reasonable to call "Block Busting" a ‘simulation?' ‘Accurate'? ‘Realistic?' Or would you feel that it would be just some more opinions? Critiques by those who experienced the real environment modeled by the wargame is one way to determine its success, its validity.

The point being is this: An accurate, realistic simulation is one that models what it was designed to simulate, regardless of how simple or complex the system is. It may be, like you, one designer decides multiple players are necessary to simulate all the aspects of CiC he deems important, but another designer might choose a fraction of those CiC elements for a two player game and also create an accurate simulation. It all depends on what the wargame was designed to do and how successful it was.

I'm getting a indication that part of the issue with what we are discussing is one of definitions. To a professional designer of simulations the term simulation has a very tight definition. Those of us not within that field are using the term in a looser way. So to some extent we are discussing subtly different things.

Elenderil:
Actually, a professional designer of simulations has far more rigorous expectations of his simulations, but he uses the very same definition for a simulation as a designer of a computer game created for commercial consumption… and they share a basic understanding as to how they work.
One reason I put so much effort into this, is that our hobby has not only some very self-defeating definitions of what a simulation is, but a mish-mash of ideas of what they can and can't do. Thus you have Bob C. saying he and Craig designed a game which simulates, but isn't a simulation… Or CCB can state categorically that the only thing we are simulating with our games is moving lead figures around a table, and then state in the description of his wargame that it can simulate historical battles. The definition we need is the practical, technical one in use, not more opinion.

McLaddie – I do have some training in statistics and statistical analysis but only to a theoretical level, and many years ago before computer modelling came along. That is enough to let me realise how much I don't know about modern simulation design based on current statistical approaches. Much as I would love to learn the techniques and apply them to my current project it would become a project in its own right andI don't have the time to spare.

Well, I am no math genius and if you have a background in statistics, you certain can tell how simple my example was. I can tell you, it isn't all that difficult or more time-consuming than what youare already doing, from the sounds of it… just different.

The statistical analysis I provided was very simple… though walking through the process can sound complicated. We aren't talking about computer modeling. There are basic techniques that all simulation designers use, which is why I bothered to answer CCB's question. It wasn't all that much of a problem.

So I apply those statistical tools I do have in my toolkit in the best way that I can. I have to accept that what I create will never meet the rigorous standards of modern simulation design, and to be honest I'm good with that.

Well, we will have to differ on this. I have had to deal with ‘rigorous standards' in simulation design, and that isn't what I am talking about or demonstrating here. I am simply saying if you are going to go to all the trouble to research and develop a wargame to do "X", wouldn't you want to know with some certainty that it does, a certainty that anyone would also see?

However, I don't fool myself (and this is where we come back to singing from the same hymn sheet) that I have created a fully accurate representation of combat in the period I am working on. I have to accept that I can never capture all the nuances and still have a playable game.

‘Fully accurate?' ‘All the nuances?' No one on this side of creation will ever be able to do that, regardless of how complex simulations become. So why is that continually held out as something attainable? So wargame designers can say, we just will have to settle for what we got?

How about representing ‘accurately' what you have chosen to recreate on the table? I will never, nor will anyone create a ‘fully accurate representation of combat in any period.' However, I and you, and others can create wargames which accurately represent some aspects of combat, and be able to demonstrate that accuracy.

As an example I suspect (I may be wrong) that there are very few players out there who want to worry about the niceties of logistics that real army commanders had to consider, you know the stuff: the how many mules to carry food to feed the mules who carry the food to feed the mules who feed the army 120 miles from the supply base kind of issues. So I will never attempt to include detailed rules on that aspect.

No, I wouldn't want to play it, but there are games that focus on such things. I know of one created in 1715, a board game. Obviously, if players choose to focus on logistics, they will have to let other things go. No simulation can do it all, and too much complexity wrecks simulations just as easily as games.

Gamers are making the issues far too hard and confusing, and no fun. Game designers are leading the pack in this.
So, I'm not saying anything about what you should do. I am simply saying the methods aren't as difficult as you seem to think they are. It all depends on what you want.

"Simulating" is fine-- until it begins to arrogate to itself prediction. When you get to the point of saying "if you plug the nmbers into this simulation it will give you the real-life result, that is when the angels in heaven and the demons in hell will conspire to destroy you.

Many times I have held meetings with Software and Marketing companies who were going to "simulate" the business of our company and predict sales, trends and what products to make for next year. Each time I have informed them that in usch things we operate under the "You bet your life" methodology. When they asked what that meant, it mean't that they wouldn't get a dime out of the company until NEXT years year end and they would be paid ONLY as a percentage of their predictions actually reached. It is at this point that interest quickly dies and they begin packing up their stuff, or more likely the disclaimers and excuses come out.

I think I would like to be able to do this with people who use these simulation to test weapons systems or equipment. There it would ACTUALLY be their lives! If the weapon doesn't work- to the wall. Only fair, you're predicting it will work and peoples lives will depend on it working. If it doesn't why shouldn't you forfeit your life if you failed and sold us a shoddy product. Sounds only fair.

Of course I'm largely joking but, it's amazing how the excuses fall out when you tell the people who produce these things that they will be accountable for them, in DRASTIC terms.

Otto,

I couldn't agree more. How does one, after all, define a real life result? Show me a set of rules which can predict real life outcomes and I'll show you rules which have nothing to do with life, which while mildly predictable all too often careers beyond prediction or control.

Bob Coggins

Uff, McLaddie, you may have a really good grasp on statistics, but not so much on history research! Damm! Except for late XIXth and XXth Centuries -and that is debatable- statistics are notably unreliable. In the 70s was tried to apply statistical analysis to History, cliometrics it was called, and the results were less than brilliant. Problem is that for earlier periods you don't have the quality data needed to reach any consistent conclusion; most of the time you only have a collection of anecdotes, particularly in the case of battles.

And don't get me started with all the things that aren't said in the sources! Get any memoir and start asking it questions: when it was published? Why it was published? What social expectations was the author trying to cover? Which was the ideology behind the text? And so on, and so forth. For instance, many French authors that recalled their time in Spain used descriptions of the country and their people taken right from travel books published in XVIIIth Century, not from their own recollections, but they didn't acknowledge the fact: their readers didn't find anything wrong with that; after all, they all have read the same books so the descriptions were what they expected of Spain to be, even if the truth was different.

History can't be summed up in a neat statistical model.

OSchmidt:

I have never been a fan of simulation predictions of the future. As a describer of past events, of recreating the parameters of 'what has been', they work really well. Which is what our wargames are all about.

However, what marketing says simulations can do is open to hyberpole and just bad performance as much as any product. To be fair,
1. No business can survive waiting a year for a payout.
2. Many, many simulations do work extremely well, both in business and research or the whole simulation industry and use would have died out instead of steadily growing.

It all depends on what you are asking the simulation to do. remember this all started by CCB asking how to determine the percentage chance that a Prussian infantry line would break a French column.

That kind of determination is done all the time in simulations with a proven track record.

And don't get me started with all the things that aren't said in the sources! Get any memoir and start asking it questions: when it was published? Why it was published? What social expectations was the author trying to cover? Which was the ideology behind the text? And so on, and so forth. For instance, many French authors that recalled their time in Spain used descriptions of the country and their people taken right from travel books published in XVIIIth Century, not from their own recollections, but they didn't acknowledge the fact: their readers didn't find anything wrong with that; after all, they all have read the same books so the descriptions were what they expected of Spain to be, even if the truth was different.

History can't be summed up in a neat statistical model.

basileus66:

Very true. And that isn't a fact of history, but of ANY human narrative, included those regarding yesterday's news or your own life.

Of course, I wasn't talking abut summing history up in a statistical model, and neither are any simulations dealing with the past or the present. I was just answering the request for calculating the probability of a particular event in the past.

One thing statistics do to a great degree is to reveal which of all those variables and problems are actually important, like those you list:

statistics are notably unreliable. In the 70s was tried to apply statistical analysis to History, cliometrics it was called, and the results were less than brilliant. Problem is that for earlier periods you don't have the quality data needed to reach any consistent conclusion; most of the time you only have a collection of anecdotes, particularly in the case of battles.

Uh, remember that the 70's were 40 years ago. Lots have happened in simulation design, let alone the use of statistical analysis. It was also before computers and the ability to compute things impossible in the 1970's.

For instance, those 'anecdotes' can produce reliable statistical results, depending on the base and what the results are. Here is an example:

100 people all roll a D10. Some roll it in anger, other disinterest; they roll it across a table, off a two story building, in the rain, and dozens of other unique conditions. Then they all report on the results. But only 40 people actually tell you what number the die rolled, because they had other issues.

That is the situation with the Prussian firing at the French columns. Now, all 40 of those people report that the die rolled a '0'. All 40 of those reports say the Prussian fire never broke the French.

Statistically, a base of 40 is a very good free 'sample'. And the results are soooo uniform, it is easy to say that the odds/precentage/chance of the the next roll of the D10 will be '0' is better than 95%. The same is true for the Poor Prussians failing to break the French.

The uniformity of results also proves that all those variations in recollections, conditions, attitudes etc. had no effect on the D10 roll OR the ability of Prussian fire to break a French column.

Knowing how statistics work and what they can AND CAN'T tell you is the secret. A wargame is a procedural system, a great deal of which is built around number values and chance…that is probability in modeling SOME aspects of reality. Statistical analysis can't be avoided IF the idea is to capture the dynamics of the battlefield.

No simulation or statistical model is ever going to 'sum up history', let alone military history. That being a given, simulations and statistics can describe and model SOME aspects of reality to a surprsingly exact degree. It's just another tool, to be used well or poorly.

Like CCB's question, it all depends on what the Designer is asking his wargame to do, what he is asking of the information, regardless of the amount or it's reliability.

McLaddie – thanks for taking the time to deal with this issue again. It's been cropping up more and more lately. There's this false dicotomy in people's heads that games and simulations have nothing to do with one another. Or that we can't ever know anything about history so we may as well not bother.

I see it all in narrative terms. Period accounts are often in narrative terms and I want the account of a game in narrative terms from the perspective of the fictional characters involved (like in an RPG) to be similar to the narrative of their historical counterparts.

Obviously not in every detail because that's impossible. And I'm willing to adjust things as I learn more about the period. Or accept alternate interpretations of the data.

There's another issue you've helped deal with. The idea that if simulating every factor at once is impossible, then everything about simulation becomes impossible. It's this strange all or nothing mindset that says "since we can't get it all right and track everything, we may as well not bother caring about getting any of it right." Boggles the mind.

Sometimes I think it's a case of abuse. That peoaple have fought with poorly designed games pretending to be simulations while touting historical accuracy and whatnot. They struggled with crap that took tons of time, was poorly desined and was arrogantly presented by the designer as "historically accurate," "realistic," or "an accurate simulation." So now when anyone talks about something that remotely sounds like those words, they put on their "game vs simulation" helmets to protect themselves from the possibility of being abused like that again.

I couldn't agree more. How does one, after all, define a real life result? Show me a set of rules which can predict real life outcomes and I'll show you rules which have nothing to do with life, which while mildly predictable all too often careers beyond prediction or control.

Bob:
How about an example? And I'll give you an example of rules that can do that. What is fascinating is that rules, if they mimick the dynamics of 'real life' will find players behaving in a similar fashion to 'real life… even in 'predictable ways…'

I think you are talking about a very different kind of simulation than what is typically a wargame to be played.

Bill,

I'm not sure what you desire that I do.

Though its a bit complex I can walk you through how NBs reflects historical probabilities for fire. Or I can explain how rules can provide gamers with like problems their historical counterparts faced, offering them a carrot or stick depending on what they do, rather than preventing them from taking an action.

Can you be a little more clear regarding what you'd like?

Bob Coggins

Bob:
You wrote:

How does one, after all, define a real life result? Show me a set of rules which can predict real life outcomes and I'll show you rules which have nothing to do with life, which while mildly predictable all too often careers beyond prediction or control.

I simply asked if you had an example of this set of rules…as you were suggesting that simulation games, obviously emplying a set of rules, 'have nothing to do with life'.

From my experience, what you have described is a failed simulation, because a simulation of some aspect of life must--by definition-- have something to do with life.

Best Regards,
Bill

Nathaniel:

Thanks for the comments. The continual emotional and intellectual mish-mash found in our hobby alone which surrounds what should be an exciting, developing techincal craft of simulation game design is both mystifying and discouraging. I agree that it is a three-to-four decade old case of both purposeful and unaware abuse on a number of levels--and the hobby is the poorer for it.

Best Regards,

Bill

Bill,

Over the years there have been a number of sets of rules, some very popular, which regularly have statistical outcomes of 100%+ regarding fire and/or close combat(melee) prior to determining chance. In such instances the dice only determine the extent of damage. I confess NBs has one very rare instance where the odds regarding combat are 100% in favor of one side. So, I guess that makes Craig and I sinners too.

Beyond the above, if you want me to discuss NBs I will. If you want me to discuss others' rules, I will not. Contrary to the ufortunately course habit of criticizing rules without first asking questions, I don't post or talk of other's rules unless I have something positive to say.

If you have specific questions regarding NBs I'll answer them.

Bob Coggins

My biggest question at this point is what mechanism you suggest to fix these problems. Clearly you think that many before you have failed. Maybe they have. Can you name or describe an actual game mechanic that could model reality better than, say, pips or card driven games or IGYG? I dont want to be an ass, but its very easy to critique problems with other rules, much harder to write ones that are better- like the VLB monstrosity. It makes a bunch of good points but reading over it and the yahoo group posts makes me, somehow, very sad and depressed..

…Ahem….

You havent said anything concrete except that you feel that things like fire could be better modeled, but I dont see anything at all different from the approach you laid out and what other game designers have done. All you are doing is arguing over die roll modifiers. You said you wanted to work on a ruleset and Im wondering what exactly you intend to do differently that will overcome the efforts of those before you. I mean, like, will you remove casualties from the table, will you track ammo, will you show all officers in the chain of command on the table, what level of command will it be at, will officers have personality traits, will there be written orders, will you have a time meter to measure time exactly, will it be moderated by a computer, will it involve a deck of playing cards, will it require tape measurers….

Im not trying to be an ass here, I just want to know what you intend to do . Im trying to come up with my own set of ACW rules for use with 08 figs, so Im interested in new ways of running a game right now….

forwardmarchstudios,

To avoid confusion, is your post directed at Bill or me?

Bob Coggins

Bill, haha. Sorry, should have mentioned that….Im curious as to the new simulation methods hes referencing.

I am not totally convinced that a simulation of Napoleonic battle would actually work as a game. There are too many variables, as it has been already pointed by other posters.

The information available is less than ideal, usually. Commonly, you get conflicting reports about the same event. Your system will need to make a choice about which report you find more accurate -truthful, if you like- and then implement it into your model. While the game design can be correct for that particular idea on what a Napoleonic battle should be, i.e. it will be correct from a designing point of view, it won't be so as representation of what actually happened, just of what you THINK it happened.

Terrain-time-scale. That is the biggest problem in any wargames simulation using toy soldiers. Even when you use the smallest miniatures -6mm, even 2mm- there are a distortion between the space used by the miniatures and the space used by the real units in the actual battle. That distortion is even worse for bigger sizes (10mm and up).

Maybe a computer game would be able to handle all the known variables -at least, those thought by the developer as the most accurate variables- but in a gaming table, using toy soldiers, the system would bog down rapidly, or, if it doesn't, it will need to reach a compromise between reality and playability to make the simulation work as a game.

I am curious though how you would handle the real issues involved in representing a Napoleonic battle on the tabletop, beyond the theory of game design.

Dear Ratisbon

Thanky you Bob. My post was mostly Pavlovian reaction- I've had too much pain in my life from people who guaranteed the "siumulation" was predictive and then, lo and behold…

I think "simulations" (and here I'm casting a very broad net, to encompass stuff the Services do all the way to Don Featherstone) are fine to give people the general drift and tone of war and highlight some of the concerns. In the best possible case it would be better to have a bunch of people who have played simulations than a bunch who didn't. At least they have a formal idea of what might happen. For training they're great for prediction- umm- no.

I am not totally convinced that a simulation of Napoleonic battle would actually work as a game. There are too many variables, as it has been already pointed by other posters.

Simulation is never, ever about attempting to simulate everything. It's about targeting specific variables, not trying to include every detail.

Simuation is not an all or nothing thing where you have to include every imaginable variable. It's also not mutually exclusive with game. In fact, it's pretty much impossible to create a game you'd call a historical miniatures wargame without it being somewhat of a simulation. Even chess has some aspects of real warfare involved (like the sacrificing of some elements to achieve victory) and it's super abstract.

Even if you are 100% game play focused and the only lip service you give to history is aesthetic concerns, then the game is still simulating that.

Simulation is not some bugbear waiting to crush your fun by demanding you account for every variable with a system so complicated you need a computer. It's just "getting it right" where "it" is not everything, but a specific thing chosen by the designer. And "right" doesn't even have to be complete compliance with historical accounts. You can make a game that is a simulation of action movie style warfare in a given period, for example.

For most game designers "getting it right" in terms of simulation is a matter of aligning with a general perception of the feel for the period so it matches people's general expections.

Can we please, please do away with this unhelpful definition of a simulation which demands it accounts for every possible variable, strives for an impossible level of historical accuracy and thus can never have fun through gameplay as one of its goals?

No, that's not a simulation. What you are explaining is a representation, a narrative if you wish, of reality. To simulate something you need, at least, to model into your system the relevant factors that conditioned the actions of the protagonists.

To simulate some event either you need a model that take in account the known variables, or you won't have a simulation. If you use a flight simulator, for instance, wind velocity and direction, weather, actual mechanics of the plane being used, avionics, ecc, need to be implemented in the model that structures the simulator; otherwise you have a roleplay game where you represent a pilot… and there is nothing wrong about it, but it is not a simulation.

When I see presumed simulations of historical events, the only thing I actually see are the preconceptions of the designers around the fact. In other words, a culturally-driven narrative of what they supposed was relevant to what happened. Again, nothing wrong with that approach; and also again, that's not a simulation but a representation.

To simulate some event either you need a model that take in account the known variables, or you won't have a simulation.

basileus66:
What? Who wrote that definition? So if I only know 3 variable, I can have a simulation? Or if I don't know all the variables, I can't have a simulation? For simulation designers-outside the hobby--the first is true, and the second can be false a good portion of the time.

If you use a flight simulator, for instance, wind velocity and direction, weather, actual mechanics of the plane being used, avionics, ecc, need to be implemented in the model that structures the simulator; otherwise you have a roleplay game where you represent a pilot… and there is nothing wrong about it, but it is not a simulation

Ah, no. The airlines and airforce have many flight simulators, and I know for a fact that they don't simulate everything. Each simulates specific things, some a lot, some a few things. And the pilot or even gamer knows going into the simulation what specifically is and is not simulated, unlike most all hobby wargames. There the players get to guess the specifics after being given some vague generalizations.

I played lots of flight simulators that only simulated some of the variables you mention. However, when I actually began flying sailplanes for the first time, my instructor asked me if I had previous experience. No, just the simulators. Why did I have those observable skills, because the mechanics and variables that the simulator DID mimic did it with such validity that I learned skills that translated directly to real piloting.

All, and I mean all participatory simulations are role playing. The question is how well that playing matches whatever reality is being simulated…

The idea that some predetermined amount of reality captured, whether the number of details or the number of variables, defines the breakpoint for a simulation is simply not true.

A particular simulation may not have all the variable YOU want or think is necessary for whatever reason, but that doesn't define what a simulation is. The "Block Busting" game I mentioned before, with two players and fifty pieces. It is a simulation, and a number of veterans of Urban warfare will tell what it simulates and how.

Best Regards,

Bill

McLaddie-
Can you provide a slightly more detailed description of Black Busters. I'm curious as to how it works. You don't have to go into too much detail…

My biggest question at this point is what mechanism you suggest to fix these problems. Clearly you think that many before you have failed. Maybe they have. Can you name or describe an actual game mechanic that could model reality better than, say, pips or card driven games or IGYG? I dont want to be an ass, but its very easy to critique problems with other rules, much harder to write ones that are better-like the VLB monstrosity. It makes a bunch of good points but reading over it and the yahoo group posts makes me, somehow, very sad and depressed..

FMS:
I can understand that. I have that moment of depression when I read some of the beliefs about what simulations are and are not. You certainly aren't being an ass for either your question or your response.

My first point: There is nothing inherently realistic or unrealistic about cards, IGYG systems, dice or any other mechanic or piece of game equipment in a wargame.

You wouldn't ask, what makes a better game, cards or dice? Any answer would be a person preference.

Your answer would depend on how that game equipment was used in the game system. The same is true for any game mechanic and simulations modeling reality. It's how they are used to create the wargame system and what they are modeling that is the question.

…Ahem….

You havent said anything concrete except that you feel that things like fire could be better modeled, but I dont see anything at all different from the approach you laid out and what other game designers have done.

Now you're depressing me. I answered a simulation/design question that a hobby designer presented as unsolvable. I gave a detailed and concrete example of how it can be solved and you don't see anything different? If other game designers have done it, why is an intelligent and experienced wargame designer presenting the problem as unsolvable?

All you are doing is arguing over die roll modifiers.

Never said a word about die roll modifiers.

You said you wanted to work on a ruleset and Im wondering what exactly you intend to do differently that will overcome the efforts of those before you.

I am working on a ruleset. I intend to use all those methods and techniques known and used outside the hobby, which are different. It won't be in the figures or the tabletop. It will be in how the game is played.

I mean, like, will you remove casualties from the table, will you track ammo, will you show all officers in the chain of command on the table, what level of command will it be at, will officers have personality traits, will there be written orders, will you have a time meter to measure time exactly, will it be moderated by a computer, will it involve a deck of playing cards, will it require tape measurers….

Yep, but how many ways are those things done now in the hobby.

Im not trying to be an ass here, I just want to know what you intend to do . Im trying to come up with my own set of ACW rules for use with 08 figs, so Im interested in new ways of running a game right now….

Well, what I can't do is write a primer on how to design a simulation game here on TMP. Look at the time and post around just one small example in response to a specific game design question.

If you are interested in designing a game or a simulation game 'right now', I would go for the game. It's much, much easier, you don't have to worry about history, and you have a lot of hobby examples for inspiration.

If you want to design a simulation game, you will have to go outside the hobby to find the answers to that. You will have to start with what specific history you want to model, be clear about that. Then how you want to do it, which requires doing things like changing narratives into probabilities, etc. And finally, when you have a functioning wargame, you would want to test it to see if it does indeed simulate the history you chose. There are methods and technics for all of those things, but not among hobby designers for the most part.

Right now, a good portion of historical wargames are built on assumptions and someone's opinion concerning history, much of which doesn't hold up if you actually look into it.

You need to do what makes you happy. I am simply pointing out that there are tools and methods for doing what designers say they are doing or gamers want from their games.

Best Regards,

Bill

Over the years there have been a number of sets of rules, some very popular, which regularly have statistical outcomes of 100%+ regarding fire and/or close combat(melee) prior to determining chance.

Bob:
Yep. And neither you nor I know what data those statistics were built from… so there is no point in asking whether they are meaningful or not.

In such instances the dice only determine the extent of damage. I confess NBs has one very rare instance where the odds regarding combat are 100% in favor of one side. So, I guess that makes Craig and I sinners too.

I am not sure how that makes you a sinner. Do you mean you didn't have a 5% error margin? There are times, depending on the data, where that is negligable.

Beyond the above, if you want me to discuss NBs I will. If you want me to discuss others' rules, I will not. Contrary to the ufortunately course habit of criticizing rules without first asking questions, I don't post or talk of other's rules unless I have something positive to say. If you have specific questions regarding NBs I'll answer them.

So, are you saying that Napoleon's Battles is your example of those rules sets "which have nothing to do with life, which while mildly predictable all too often careers beyond prediction or control"?

Bill

I am not totally convinced that a simulation of Napoleonic battle would actually work as a game. There are too many variables, as it has been already pointed by other posters.

basileus66:

I can understand that. There isn't an example in the hobby and I get the feeling that you believe that all the variables have to be accounted for to actually simulate something. You don't have to simulate everything to simulate something. You get to choose which variables to include, depending on their impact, what the simulation is focused on, and how simple or complex you want to make it.

It is like writing a book of a Napoleonic battle. Does it have to include every soldier's name, every incident of the battle, beginning to end before it can be a book of the battle? The bottom line is in testing the finished product to see if it works, to see if it does simulate.

The information available is less than ideal, usually. Commonly, you get conflicting reports about the same event. Your system will need to make a choice about which report you find more accurate -truthful, if you like- and then implement it into your model.

Agreed. But that is a problem for most simulation designers in ANY field, believe it or not. Again, you make those choices and the TEST to see if the work. There are methods for that. I mentioned a couple.

While the game design can be correct for that particular idea on what a Napoleonic battle should be, i.e. it will be correct from a designing point of view, it won't be so as representation of what actually happened, just of what you THINK it happened.

That again, is true for all simulation design. The questions are:
1. What specific information are you interpreting…leading you to what you THINK happened?
2. Does the wargame system designed actually model what you THINK happened?
3. When you have answered those questions, you go back and see if your simulation can model what other narratives and data present as what happened.

All simulations are models of specific information, historical, business, research, education, training, entertainment. They are only as good as the information they are built to portray.

Terrain-time-scale. That is the biggest problem in any wargames simulation using toy soldiers.

Simulation AND game designers say that how time is processed is the backbone of any design, any system. It is always the biggest issue in a design. It is not more a problem using toy soldiers as markers as it is for a board game or computer game, just different.

It also has to do with what you want your simulation game to do as a simulation. Terrain scale can present different problems depending on what you want the simulation to focus on.

Even when you use the smallest miniatures -6mm, even 2mm-there are a distortion between the space used by the miniatures and the space used by the real units in the actual battle. That distortion is even worse for bigger sizes (10mm and up).

True. There are also similar problems with scale distortion in board and especially computer games to protray terrain.
The question is what that distortion does or doesn't do to the simulation aspects of the wargame. I've never really read an analysis of that other than some saying it is a distortion.

Maybe a computer game would be able to handle all the known variables -at least, those thought by the developer as the most accurate variables-

Nope, not even for computers, never happen. Of course, the actual number of 'all the variables' depends on how much the designer wants to include, given that he 1. can include them all, not even close, and 2. too many variables wrecks a game and a simulation.

but in a gaming table, using toy soldiers, the system would bog down rapidly, or, if it doesn't, it will need to reach a compromise between reality and playability to make the simulation work as a game.

This is an issue with EVERY simulation designed. As Jerry Banks says in his Handbook of Simulation: "Complexity is the bane of simulation design. A simulation needs to be complex enough to do the job, but no more."

This has been a point for a long time. Hobby wargame designers aren't tackling unique problems, but issues that all simulation designers have been working on for DECADES. Hobby designers seem to discover these common problems, but ignore the common solutions.

I am curious though how you would handle the real issues involved in representing a Napoleonic battle on the tabletop, beyond the theory of game design.

I am not sure I can address the real issues you are concerned with, but I can tell you how I am handling some of the issues.

1. Instead of choosing a stand frontage based on easily calculable numbers of men in three or two ranks, I am picking a frontage that is based on time. That is, how far can a battalion march over even ground in a minute? That is the frontage for the battalion. You'd be surprised what kind of problems are solved with that choice, and what problems are created. ;-j

2. I am not bothering with casualties and counting bodies. I am focused on weight of fire, terrain, tactical situation and the results.

3. Instead of turns or simultaneous movement, I am using another time monitoring system that was created by simulators of crowd control methods.

4. I am attempting to model how Napoleonic generals viewed the battle, what they saw as the 'steps' or progression of an engagement. Most all generals talk about it in similar fashion, from memiors to tactical treatises, so it isn't a big stretch.

5. As much as possible I am simply modeling the maneuver methods, both command, control and communication employed during the period, as they really worked to use simple processes.

I know that this is very vague, but describing the how's and why's of the game would be like designing on TMP for you. I'd much rather publish it myself. ;-7

Bill

McLaddie-
Can you provide a slightly more detailed description of Black Busters. I'm curious as to how it works. You don't have to go into too much detail…

FMS:
It's called "Block Busters" ;-j and is part of a book by Dr. Phil Sabin called Simulating War. It is a one map tactical simulation of an attack by a reinforced infantry company on in an urban settling during WWII. The map has a 9X6 square grid. {That's right, only 9 by 6 squares… The counters are double-sided representations of sections, three to a platoon. It is a YGIG system with two players, each turn representing about 1 minute. There are three phases, movment, fire and recovery. There are rules for fire combat, LOS, recovery and of course movement. There are no close assault rules. The game lasts 18 turns.

Best Regards,
Bill
Bill

1. Instead of choosing a stand frontage based on easily calculable numbers of men in three or two ranks, I am picking a frontage that is based on time. That is, how far can a battalion march over even ground in a minute? That is the frontage for the battalion. You'd be surprised what kind of problems are solved with that choice, and what problems are created. ;-j

That's what I get for being in a rush. The frontage of the stand is how far a battalion can march in a minute, but the frontage of the stand, not the battalion.

Bill

From McLaddies last post : (edit : last post -2)

I think points 1 & 2 are well understood and well covered in most rulesets with good success, both from the game and simulation perspective, to differing degrees.

Its the other points that are not so well understood I think.

3. Using Crowd control simulation methods. Thats pretty interesting, and things have come a long way over the last decade. For an example – have a look at the 'awesome' mass battle scenes rendered in Star Wars 'Attack of the Clones', and then look again at the mass battle scenes from the Lord of the Rings. Both movies used computer simulation methods and crowd modelling algorithms to generate these battles.

I think LotR did a much better job of it, and the result was a (very expensive) computer modelling system called 'Massive' that has since been used in a number of other films.

The understanding of the whole subject has greatly improved in the last decade or so. It can be done, and its not that hard once you get into it.

There is a deep question though about applying social interaction models for masses of self-interested civilian mobs to well drilled lines of 18th Century soldiers.

In an ideal commander's world – soldiers do exactly what they are told, for better or for worse, and battalions of soldiers disintegrate into panicked mobs only as a last resort.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with creating a detailed simulation of battle based on this romantic ideal … if that is indeed the author's stated intent.

I agree with Bill that a lot of rules authors could be more up front about their intent in terms of simulation, and a description of their understanding of how things worked.

To use NB as an example – if you read everything that Bob C has ever written on the subject, he has always been very open after the fact about detailing his design assumptions and choices of game model.

Also – For the detail concious, we now have the luxury of more than adequate computer power, freely available to all in 'the cloud'. If number crunching is required, it is no longer an obstacle. (BIG thank you to all those people who gave decades of their time to produce, and fight for the existence of a non-proprietary internet. Yay !)

Points 4 & 5 (Napoleonic General's view of the battle / Reality based command and control model)

I can't praise your attempt to cover this enough, and I am really looking forward to seeing what you produce here. Mark up at least 1 more sale over here, if you get to publishing stage :)

I like gaming the period for the sake of a good game – and there are plenty of rules systems that allow that already.

But I am also passionate about the period, and thirsty to learn more. Using a well structured simulation is one of the best tools to teach the realities of the period.

The problem I face is finding decent peer-reviewed material. It is a huge task facing the newcomer to the period … and possibly involves learning a handful of new languages, travelling the world for decades to view actual battlefields and dig through primary sources in the archives … just to scratch the surface.

Oh to have another 50 years of life, and an endless budget to pursue this knowledge ;) haha.

What I would like to see is a place where points 3,4 & 5 can be freely and openly discussed, debated and peer reviewed with references.

This doesn't mean openly working on design …. leave all the questions about 'How' to do things out of the loop, and concentrate on the questions of 'What'. Classic requirements analysis work, if you will.

Subjective opinions on whether or not something is 'too complicated to attempt' .. are valuable to hear, but they don't really add to the body of knowledge. There are several valid places for discussing the fun factor and ease of use of game mechanics .. but very few places in the gaming community where you can talk about raw sumulation details without getting into this sort of crosstalk.

Technical oriented forums are great resources …. but its difficult to find anywhere in the tech community where they also understand the basics of Napoleonic warfare ;)

If a number of game/simulation builders or history geeks got involved in this, it would be a useful resource for all, and easily open for game builders to adopt for their own interpretations.

Can we do this on TMP ?

Bill,

Whatever data others used were of little consequence. As an individual who knows more about Napoleonic warfare than the vast majority of gamers, I know and understand the strengths and weaknesses of percentages and the more so did Craig. Based on this and a deep understanding of the subject, I am also confident that the decisions which Craig and I made provide an excellent holistic model of what occurred on the Napoleonic battlefield, while still being playable and entertaining.

I write holistic because sucessful wargame rules cannot avoid being greater than their individual parts, many of which cannot possibly be simulated and some of which have to be "sacrificed" on the alter of playability and entertainment. For, once again, if a game is not playable or entertaining it will not be played and if it is not played it simulates nothing.

Life often careers out of control, it's called chaos. Chaos "is." You know it when you see it but you cannot plan for or artificially create it. Nor can chaos be defined by any term including "all too often."

Bob Coggins

Otto,

Your post struck a particular chord. Many of the books on game design are written by individuals I had never heard of in the wargame industry. Background checks, reveal these are academic types who write books to meet the publish or perish criterium but also to impress business and get contracts to do God knows what. A list of their clients is frightening to the extent that one would think successful businesses would have better things to waste money on.

Most likely 99% of their prospective clients are wowed by their expertise and then they hit you. I was amused.

Bob Coggins

Otto,

Your post struck a particular chord. Many of the books on game design are written by individuals I had never heard of in the wargame industry. Background checks, reveal these are academic types who write books to meet the publish or perish criterium but also to impress business and get contracts to do God knows what. A list of their clients is frightening to the extent that one would think successful businesses would have better things to waste money on.

Most likely 99% of their prospective clients are wowed by their expertise and then they hit you. I was amused.

Bob Coggins

Otto,

Your post struck a particular chord. Many of the books on game design are written by individuals I had never heard of in the wargame industry. Background checks, reveal these are academic types who write books to meet the publish or perish criterium but also to impress business and get contracts to do God knows what. A list of their clients is frightening to the extent that one would think successful businesses would have better things to waste money on.

Most likely 99% of their prospective clients are wowed by their expertise and then they hit you. I was amused.

Bob Coggins

basileus66 : No, that's not a simulation. What you are explaining is a representation, a narrative if you wish, of reality. To simulate something you need, at least, to model into your system the relevant factors that conditioned the actions of the protagonists.

To simulate some event either you need a model that take in account the known variables, or you won't have a simulation.

The problems with your definition of simulation are two fold. First, it's wrong. Your definition of simulation is too narrow to be useful. It doesn't even describe professionally made simulations.

The second issue is that it poisons the well. It makes conversation about aspects of simulation within games harder to have without people immediately jumping to an either-or stance based on your false dichotomy.

Then you've put in this new term "representation." Which is actually what simulation is. A simulation is a representation of a process or system over time. So if games are representations by your definition, you are admiting they are simulations by the actual useful definition of the word.

What we don't need is this continual misrepresentation of a simulation as an ultra-detailed fun draining system that's too complicated for enjoyment. It adds nothing to the discussion other than to denigrate and divide.

Bob Coggins : A list of their clients is frightening to the extent that one would think successful businesses would have better things to waste money on.

I think I'll trust the successful business itself in knowing whether or not retaining these authors as consultants was a good return on investment rather than just assume they're academics disconnected from the real world.

And why would they be names you've heard of from the wargaming world? It's a tiny industry that's irrelevant to the majority of the world. Why would they bother with it? I'm sure Raph Koster made much, much more money being the lead designer on a video game like Ultima Online or Star Wars Galaxies than if he spent his time on some early 19th century miniatures rules or something. Oh and Philip Sabin should probably resign from the RAF Centre for Air Power Studies and stop doing things like making simulations of urban combat that veterans agree is a good recreation of the real thing. After all, if you have never heard of him…

Bob:
I have a great deal of respect for you and Craig's efforts in designing NB. That was 23 years ago. What I am not sure about is whether you answered my question yes or no. Were you describing NB when you wrote:

How does one, after all, define a real life result? Show me a set of rules which can predict real life outcomes and I'll show you rules which have nothing to do with life, which while mildly predictable all too often careers beyond prediction or control.

or not?

I write holistic because sucessful wargame rules cannot avoid being greater than their individual parts, many of which cannot possibly be simulated and some of which have to be "sacrificed" on the alter of playability and entertainment.

Yes, that is a given and has been for a long, long time. Any simulation or game system is 'greater than the individual parts' and lots can never be simulated.

For, once again, if a game is not playable or entertaining it will not be played and if it is not played it simulates nothing.

I whole-heartedly agree, and have lived that rule with every simulation and simulation game I have designed. That has never been a point of debate as far as I can tell.

So is NB a simulation or isn't it?

Best Regards,
Bill

Steve64:

Great observations. The crowd control system I was referring to was simply the way that simulation game processed the passage of time, not that I would want to use the entire game system. Moving an army isn't the same as crowd control… at least not until it routs.

Game mechanics are game mechanics, they don't harbor intrinsic characteristics of reality where one is more realistic to use than another. It all depends on what the designer wants to portray and how he folds the mechanic into the system.

Several different mechanics or rules could do an equally good job of simulating. It all depends on how it's done.

There are several valid places for discussing the fun factor and ease of use of game mechanics .. but very few places in the gaming community where you can talk about raw sumulation details without getting into this sort of crosstalk.

Technical oriented forums are great resources …. but its difficult to find anywhere in the tech community where they also understand the basics of Napoleonic warfare ;)

If a number of game/simulation builders or history geeks got involved in this, it would be a useful resource for all, and easily open for game builders to adopt for their own interpretations.

Can we do this on TMP ?

Yes, I agree. The miniature wargame hobby is pretty insular in regards to game design, but there are a number of military folks involved in both the hobby and military simulation design. Then there are folks like Dr. Salt and others that create simulations outside of the miliatry. I think there is a general feeling among military folks, who do lots of simulations involving complex computer-generated, multiple-day simulations involving dozens, at times hundreds of people, that anything that does less isn't a 'simulation'.

I agree that when the question of how to build a simulation hits the TMP fan, it is generally scattered to the four winds. Of course, the same thing often happens when the question is how to build a game system… The TMP and similar lists may simply not be the venue for any discussion that can have a sustained direction about such technical aspects.

It is a thought, and maybe one to entertain.

Best Regards,
Bill

Interestingly, Massive had to tone down the simulation element inherent in the individual elements that make up the armies, if they acted as people you'd never be able to get them to fight in a cinematic way! Probably a similar problem to the people who think that a wargamer commanding a brigade needs to accurately model the effect of wind on every round fired and then wonder why their simulation is less realistic than something that abstracts a lot of what the real brigade commander wouldn't care, or know, about.

Adam:

Yep. Massive thought that massive detail meant a more 'accurate' wargame. Bad wargame/simulation/game design. The amount of detail does not equate to either realism or a more accurate model of anything by itself.

Probably a similar problem to the people who think that a wargamer commanding a brigade needs to accurately model the effect of wind on every round fired and then wonder why their simulation is less realistic than something that abstracts a lot of what the real brigade commander wouldn't care, or know, about.

That pretty much sums it up.

Nathaniel,

Thanks for the post. I should have been more clear. I was not referring to professional game and simulation designers. I was referring to academics who write about games and simulations yet have never designed a successful commercial product. That businesses continue to hire these individuals who claim their simulations can predict the future only proves that Barnum was right.

Regarding your response to basileus66, I agree.

Bob Coggins

G'day Bob

I'll have to ask Beth if she considers herself to be a academic, but she definitely is a professional ;)

Cheers

Derek

Dear Bob

There are a few points that I think are being confused here. "Simulation," "Representation," etc., all refer to an activity that in some way models or mimics the prototype. Regardless of methodology it portrays through common mechanism, aspects of the prototype that cannot be accomplished in miniature. Thus, it is not possible to have itty bitty toy soldiers shoot itty bitty bullets at each other to guage the results, so we use dice to mimic or simulate what happens in real life. This "simulate" here is not the same thing as "simulation" which we have been talking about, but the compendium of all the little bits of mimicry compiled into a unity which we call Simulation. Thus saying that XYZ rules simulates Napoleonic Warfare.

The problem that people are tripping over as I see it, is the purpose. For what reason are we simulating Napoleonic Warfare? If we are simulating it so to wage it better- fine and dandy (though that may be somewhat problematic in an age of drones and tanks). As for "understanding" Napoleonic Warfare better, that too is problematic, especially if it's to be seen as a teaching tool. Why do we need to know it better? It's not like we're going to be called upon to command an army with Cuirassiers and 12 lbders.

Once however you touch the term "game." It all falls apart. A game is engaged in as a thing in itself, something done for personal enjoyment and for fun, and is under no compunction to be at all realistic or historical beyond what the individual wishes. This personal preference can run the entire gamut from that where a person demands ultimate historical veracity (whatever that can be) to those who simply want a few hours of diversion, and don't care if Macedonian Phalangites show up at Leipsig in 1813. Admittedly I am stretching it a bit. Each person enters the game seeking something that will satisfy their own pleasure. Where the boundaries of the commonality of pleasure lay with others is another matter entirely and winds up as a point of negotiation which is frequently unspoken and tacit and comes down to "I'll play Nappies with you so long as Macedonians show up at Leipzig."

But the point is that once you call it a game it really is there for personal pleasure- as Prince Orlofsky said "I do it to amuse me." All of that which we do FOR the game therefore is and must be for ourself alone. The painting, the terrain making, the organization, the scenario building, the rules making, etc. etc., all of that we do for our own enjoyment, and we should not expect others to praise or honor us for it. Oh that's nice when it happens, but it's not someting we have any right to expect.

On the other hand, if we are engaging in the game for some other reason than personal enjoyment, then we are not playing a game any more in the strictest sense.

If a person wins a game of Avalon Hills "Afrika Korps" and considers that accomplishment proof thereby that he is a nascent military genius, then he hasn't played the game for pleasure but for self-validation.

Games are contrived social activities which the players voluntarily participate in, under a tacit agreemnt of relative equality where a subset of the rules of reality are modeled or mimiced and consist of no more than a series of artificial obstacles erected for no other reason than to be overcome. The result or conclusion of the game signifies nothing, means nothing, tells us nothing that a close examination of reality already tells us.

OSchmidt:

Games can be and are simulations, for business, management, military training, education, research. The game mechanics are simply the system used to simulate. All simulations are 'contrived activities', and often are social in they employ more than one person and their interactions.

If the purpose is entertainment, it doesn't negate the game's ability to simulate. It depends on the designer. Some folks find simulations entertaining and enter them seeking their own pleasure. That has no bearing on whether the system is a simulation or not. How many training simulations have been tweaked to be games?

A simulation is a technical creation, a tool that does specific things. What people do or don't with them, get from them or play them for has not effect on what they were designed to do. They either do or don't achieve what the designer meant them to.

Dear MCLaddie

We must agree to disagree.

A simulation is FOR some other purpose, training, business, perhaps, education perhaps, research- never. All you "research" when you do a simulation or a game is a quick tour through the designers prejudices. Try footnoting a game and see how far it gets you.

All of these those are contingent on some other goal.

Games are for enjoyment, or at least, the games that people on this forumn commonly play. Trying to arrogate what we do over the table top to a simulation is a stretch. We do the game for simple amusement, to while away a few pleasant hours with our friends in a bit of make-believe and play.

OSchmidt:

All you "research" when you do a simulation or a game is a quick tour through the designers prejudices.

I guess we will. I tend to go with the general working definition used by most simulation designers. Check out the description of simulations in one MIT textbook for their Simulation AND Game Design Major called, Rules of Play: The Fundamentals of Game Design by Salen and Zimmerman.

The definition is based on what the system does, not why it was designed [do you design a simulation not to be a simulation?] or the purpose for which it is used afterward.

A car is a car, whether that is the family sedan, a custom roadster or destined for destruction derby. How they are used doesn't determine whether they are a functioning car.

If the goal is to create an entertaining simulation, a training simulation, a research simulation, the requirements for the system to simulate are the same, regardless of how it is used.

Whether a simulation has a footnote or not doesn't establish whether it does simulate OR why it was created. Cookbooks and instructional manuals are footnoted. Such information does help you know what was simulated and how well.

Games are for enjoyment.

And who is disagreeing with that? So are simulation games, and a number of player simulations that aren't games. I am at a loss to know why a simulation and/or simulation game can't be created for enjoyment…

Otto,

What's in a name? A wargame by any other name …

The Military calls it wargames. Today they are mostly conducted on computers. A few years back, I had a contract, mainly writing, for a company in MD which regularly conducts monitored wargames for senior officers. I say monitored because one of the prime directives is don't embarrass the senior officers or you'll never get another contract.

In the early 19th Century the German army played Kreigspeil, which is very like the games we play today. Many of us own a copy. On June 6, 1944, many German officer were away from their commands in Normandy, playing a Kreigspeil, which I suspect was somewhat more serious than the games we play.

This fol-de-rol began over 10 years or so ago in MWAN when out of the blue a number of different writers attacked the use of the term simulation, based on the deconstructionist argument that "no one can really know what occurred," ergo no wargame can truly simulate.

Until then no one gave a damn, they simply played the wargames which appealed to them, based on their concept of history and their desire to have fun and be entertained.

When you think on it, the last 10 years or so have been nuts. Who cares if a person claims his rules are the most "accurate?" The primary questions regarding rules or simulations is are they playable and are they entertaining after which gamers are perfectly capable of making their personal judgement regarding whether of not rules simulate.

Bob Coggins

Bill,

You wanted to know if I think NBs is a game or simulation. It is. Just as Kreigspeil is a game which simulates aspects of war so too is NBs.

Bob Coggins

"Until then no one gave a damn, they simply played the wargames which appealed to them, based on their concept of history and their desire to have fun and be entertained."

I'd say that's still true for 98% of gamers. Very few people really get worked up about this sort of thing.

You wanted to know if I think NBs is a game or simulation. It is. Just as Kreigspeil is a game which simulates aspects of war so too is NBs.

Not the questions I ask Bob. I asked if your description of 'all sets of rules' included NB? I know it's a game.

Kriegspiel was designed to be a training exercise two hundred years ago. I seriously doubt that von Riesswitz knew anything about simulation design. He was even surprised that officers found his wargame entertaining, as it wasn't designed to be. If he'd been told gamers would still be playing it for entertainment two hundred years later--I am sure he would have laughed at the thought.