"Are you fearful of "gamey/movie" historical wargames?" Topic
307 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Historical Wargaming in General Message Board Back to the Game Design Message Board
Action Log
22 Feb 2013 11:34 a.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Removed from Renaissance Discussion board
- Removed from Napoleonic Discussion board
- Removed from Modern Discussion board
- Removed from WWII Discussion board
- Removed from Medieval Discussion board
- Removed from Early 20th Century Discussion board
- Removed from Classical Asian Warfare board
- Removed from Ancients Discussion board
- Removed from ACW Discussion board
- Removed from 19th Century Discussion board
- Removed from 18th Century Discussion board
- Crossposted to Historical Wargaming board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase ArticleIt's probably too late already this season to snatch these bargains up...
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile ArticleNeed larger bases for large models or dioramas?
|
The Membership System will be closing for maintenance in 10 minutes. Please finish anything that will involve the membership system, including membership changes or posting of messages. Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Milites | 24 Jan 2013 5:48 p.m. PST |
Agree, no one is enlightening anyone here, or no one is admitting they are perhaps reassessing their original positions. I need to think about a 6mm fantasy army or a 3mm 'historical' one. Or was that 1/72 fantasy and 1/300 historical? |
Mithmee | 24 Jan 2013 6:08 p.m. PST |
Well I do hate Flames of War with a passion – it is not World War II. Bolt Action is just Warhammer 40K but only play in a World War II environment. Though chances are that it will take the GW approach to running a business. Every few years new rules that you have to buy and new army books. That alone would make it so that I would hate it. Oh and I do hate GW as well for their record on screwing over games that I used to love playing. |
Landgraft | 25 Jan 2013 5:10 a.m. PST |
Err, right. Wee babe (20) here, been gaming historicals for the last few years. There seems to be a lot of muttering/speculation about those gamers of today and why they struggle with historical 'simulations' and instead want to act like a bunch of rowdy 28mm louts (or is it 32mm these days?). The main obstacle that gamers my age have had with the games that I now want to play is all the scales. A scattering of houses equals a village, there's ground scale and time scale but worst of all figure scale. The gamers I've grown up with are used to carefully detailing each nudge of quality with another bucket of dice, so to suddenly jump into this abstract maneuvering of so many unseen soldiers is just something they struggle with. There are a large number of mental blocks, even with things as 'simple' as an order of battle that you can only get to if you're willing to dive in and spend a little time flailing for direction. I think the commitment is definitely something scares people off, but now that I'm involved I don't really want to go back. When compared to a setting that one can write about an arcane subject for an entire career and not have provided an exhaustive account, a 262 glossy hardcover that claims to represent an entire universe just feels shallow. But that's just my cantankerousness in its larval form, I guess. |
Milites | 25 Jan 2013 9:16 a.m. PST |
Nice one Tim, I was thinking more to his allusion of earthquakes. I now consider myself an expert on such matters, as my son watches episodes of the History Channel's 'Making the Earth' series, back to back!! |
balticbattles | 25 Jan 2013 12:33 p.m. PST |
Thankyou Landgraft for making this theme worth staggering through. I'd be interested in more on this, I play with young gamers who do 40k and so far their interest in history helps to bridge the gap in systems. It helps that they play computer games and can see the table as a simple representation of thousands of men |
Milites | 25 Jan 2013 1:55 p.m. PST |
I once showed my students, Battlefront's Combat Mission on my laptop. they had no trouble believing the three liitle figures represented 10 men. Please don't stereotype the youth of today, though as a teacher it's damn tempting! |
Landgraft | 25 Jan 2013 3:55 p.m. PST |
As someone who could be considered a part of the 'youth of today' who grew up knowing wargamers his own age in more than one part of Australia I don't think I've stereotyped anything, just recorded my experience. It might be less of a problem for British kids, I couldn't say.
|
Milites | 25 Jan 2013 4:30 p.m. PST |
No, an ever increasing number of British children are plagued by similar deficits of attention, imagination and creativity. I view it as less their fault and more the adults, who have created an infantalised curriculum, married to a excessively lazy culure and a passive parental regime. These phenomena seem to be increasing each year, and it is no surprise that my schools, previously well attended, chess and wargames club is on the verge of extinction, due to lack of interest. There's nothing wrong with most of the children, it's the adults who should be taken to task, and yes I include myself. |
kevanG | 25 Jan 2013 5:11 p.m. PST |
"If you are talking about manufactured materials (steel, concrete, carbon), these have very predictable properties based on cross-section, material type, quality control." You must be a contractor! |
le Grande Quartier General | 25 Jan 2013 11:15 p.m. PST |
Fact is: Attention and Imagination have to be taught- whatever and wherever the classroom may be. I use historical simulations to teach the understanding of human nature, and the options one has for dealing with it- on a geopolitical stage, on a battlefield, or within a small unit. I teach the most disadvantaged youth imaginable (albeit breathing, fed, and in the United States) They are brillant at strategy, because they know the way gangs work. They play chess WELL. I'll take them on my right and left any day, because they are brave as hell in the face of adversity, and they don't give up. All they need is a catalyst to stimulate their imagination and fire their loyalty, and they are unstoppable. God help those who go up against their children's children's children in the next Civil War. |
le Grande Quartier General | 25 Jan 2013 11:25 p.m. PST |
Oh Yea, I forgot to say, in relation to the previous posts, that "the kids of today" are very good at glancing at a table top, and knowing where to strike or defend. Their brains just see it (very fast) as another familiar screen. |
kevanG | 26 Jan 2013 4:43 a.m. PST |
"Fact is: Attention and Imagination have to be taught- whatever and wherever the classroom may be." I wouldnt say taught..Its there in all of us. I would say stimulated and to a lesser degree directed. That is the job of the educator. "No, an ever increasing number of British children are plagued by similar deficits of attention, imagination and creativity." Really?, maybe it is just faced off in directions and areas that you cannot see, like computor games and skateboarding art. Who designed all these games and skateboards? The slightly earlier generation who were getting the same accusations. The best educator I had was my old university professor who made some difficult subjects more interesting than the easier ones by other lecturers. When it came to final choices, there were 2 considered difficult due to their depth and 2 considered easier in concept. I picked the hard ones because interest made them more fulfilling. His enthusiasm directed me to do what I do. And this is also why I suppose I consider sophisticated in depth games more rewarding than 'easy' games. |
Clays Russians | 26 Jan 2013 10:28 a.m. PST |
I collect Crimean War, the poor Russians should lose every single battle (Balaklava excluded, what a mess), but when they DO, its automatically a-historical. I also arm one Brigade with rifled muskets, (black sea fleet marines, 4 battalions) did they exists? yes, were they armed with the pattern 54 rifled musket? not entirely no. but damn the poor guys just march around and die under p51 enfield fire. Thats also why I use french line with smoothbores, (lets not start that debate again). so in short its your hobby/game blah blah blah etc. |
Clays Russians | 26 Jan 2013 11:05 a.m. PST |
This remind me of the 100+ thread that got increasingly vitriolic about calling them toy soldiers or historical miniatures. Play, enjoy, it's only a game, thank god! OH MY, I missed that one, OK I'll bite, I paint mine in Glossy-gloss. and use NO FLOCKING on the bases. toy soldier look. |
Milites | 26 Jan 2013 11:57 a.m. PST |
Yeah, as a teacher of 11-18's for 10 years I'm really not in any place to tell anyone about the realities of modern youth, or the pernicious effects of our current culture. I'll just go back to marking books now and allow the experts to talk! |
kevanG | 26 Jan 2013 1:24 p.m. PST |
"I used to work with engineers, all that talk of specifications were based on approximations, clever sods, had us fooled." Yes they had you fooled
As a structural engineer, I write those specs on a daily basis. After doing this job since the early 80's, I have a few specialisations, one being the failure of materials. My teaching skills are limited to further education of graduates
and my own kids
and my staff over the past 20 years or so. What was that about allowing experts to talk? |
firstvarty1979 | 26 Jan 2013 2:01 p.m. PST |
To the OP. No, in fact, I embrace them. If only there were more decent Civil War movies to design scenarios around
|
Milites | 26 Jan 2013 3:52 p.m. PST |
Everyones a teacher, especially parents, though for an increasing number of my students that is not true. I was not talking about teaching skills, I was talking about the realities and contradictory demands of the modern secondary school curriculum and the culture most of my students are steeped in. Don't worry, I've had plenty of experience with people who confuse and conflate their parental and business experiences with that of teaching at the coalface. |
Lion in the Stars | 26 Jan 2013 9:06 p.m. PST |
There's nothing wrong with 'gamey' rules. Chess, anyone? The problem with many simulations is that they aren't FUN, by including far too many details that were not even variables to the leaders at the time. I typically name Starfleet Battles as the penultimate example of the simulation-too-far. But it doesn't simulate anything! |
Milites | 27 Jan 2013 6:34 a.m. PST |
I nominate SPI's Air War, it takes an environment ,where split second OODA routines, SA and pilot proficiency are the keys to success and does what? Create a game of such complexity that those key components of historical success are buried in game system of mind-bending complexity. Players have minutes to set up moves representing 2-5 seconds of game time! Clouds, sun and weather are optional rules, says it all really! Mentioned in dispatches are any of Enola games rules (Combat Commander, warship Commander). Happy days spending hours on my knees, simulating minutes of game time with a set of rules that relegated crew proficiency to a simple die roll modifier. |
UshCha | 27 Jan 2013 1:43 p.m. PST |
As one of "Them" (the simulators) we recognise that in some cases detail does not make a game accurate. To detail one link in a chain and know how it fails, if all the other links are approximated does not make it any better then the worst modelled link. I have read rules that detailed Armor piecing Capped, balistic capped armour piecing rounds , then forgot at this level of detail you would also need to model the precise angle of the vehical armour to inprove overall accuracy. Front, side etc. is not good enough. However these rules still used the old approxinmation. Simple can be adequate as a simulation if its the right parameter for the thing you are trying to model. Take our rules, they are intended to give an idea of the commands and thinking required to co-ordinate an all arms combat. We have not tried to model phycology in detail as we are interested in the mechanics of the situation and assume reasonably trained troops. This is more tahn enough complexity even for us. |
kevanG | 27 Jan 2013 3:19 p.m. PST |
"The problem with many simulations is that they aren't FUN, by including far too many details that were not even variables to the leaders at the time." The problem with many simulations is that they are also a good fun game and do not get recognised as a simulation, due in a large part to their simplicity and abstraction and because people have a lot of fun playing them
That concept doesnt quite fit in with the propoganda spread for supporting 'gamey' rules which do not make any attempt at simulation and make deliberate non-realistic mechanisms for 'simple gaming' and occasionally making howlers in design choice which distort the gameplay in a weird way. All you have to do is look at the number of times people playing these rules mention "lack of charts"
Yet the majority of most games work on playsheets no bigger than the "gamey" rules and are not burdened with supplments bristling with screeds of charts and special rules. This is compounded by reinforcing the idea that a ruleset is either a game or a simulation, is fun or tediuous and is simple or complicated
.when they are all just some degree of simulation incorporating some mix of fun, tedium, simplicity and complication, realism or gamey. Some can be tedious and simple with realism
some are fun and complicated and gamey. Most rules have all six elements somewhere. |
Milites | 27 Jan 2013 4:17 p.m. PST |
UshCha, IIRC, in Frank Chadwick's design notes, for 'Combined Arms', a reference is made to a British WWII study on armour penetration. Its simple conclusion is, because there are so many variables involved in calculating the efficacy of an AP round, that only the broadest of approximations can be made. So perhaps a simple d6 roll is more accurate than Yaquinto's Tobruk or Panzer's throw till your hand drops off! How do you simulate the OODA loop and the ability to be able to get inside your opponents giving you a potentially battle-winning advantage? |
Bandit | 27 Jan 2013 5:33 p.m. PST |
McLaddie: Bob Coggins stated on the TMP that he and S. Craig Taylor did not design a simulation, but that AH editors included that term
though he has said other things that would suggest they did write that
In either case, it sold NB rules at the time. Yeah, I read that post, notice I don't consider Coggins or Taylor responsible for the term being used in the game's description, I just disagree with the term being applied regardless of who put it there. I don't know how my statement is less true based on Avalon Hill choosing to include it vs the two guys who primarily authored and designed the rules. You do realize that IF the game system does simulate history and actual tactics of the period that there would be no difference between the play of the two? That is not a necessarily true statement. A game system can represent some aspects without representing others, in that case, since not all aspects are simulated, not all aspects will be modeled with the same level of accuracy and therefore this is a continuum not a binary thing. Also, if a game, as you said, simulated all aspects historically it wouldn't be a game because there wouldn't be players. If the player who knows the rules always beats the player who knows the history, then either the history player is struggling with learning the rules, or the game probably isn't a simulation. Yep
thought I'd made that clear. Do you realize you are agreeing with me? If the player who knows history consistantly beats the player who knows the rules, that doesn't prove the game is a simulation, only that the history guy is the better player. A better player at the game he doesn't know the rules of? Funny. Just saying. There are far better ways to establish whether a game system simulates. There are lots of ways to do lots of things, the best way is dependent on what you want, my way suits me and thus I use it, if you don't like my way – don't use it. Cheers, The Bandit |
McLaddie | 27 Jan 2013 9:47 p.m. PST |
McLaddie:
Yeah, I read that post, notice I don't consider Coggins or Taylor responsible for the term being used in the game's description, I just disagree with the term being applied regardless of who put it there. I don't know how my statement is less true based on Avalon Hill choosing to include it vs the two guys who primarily authored and designed the rules. Bandit: I disagreed too. I was simply pointing out that the designers, regardless of the hype, hadn't designed a simulation, so of course what you said was true. That is not a necessarily true statement. A game system can represent some aspects without representing others, in that case, since not all aspects are simulated, not all aspects will be modeled with the same level of accuracy and therefore this is a continuum not a binary thing. If it is a continuum, then your binary method of determining whether something is a simulation or not, historical or not doesn't apply. [e.g. binary criteria: historical knowledge winning vs rules knowledge] Also, if a game, as you said, simulated all aspects historically it wouldn't be a game because there wouldn't be players. :-7 Nope, I didn't say all aspects historically. No simulation can or ever will simulation all aspects of anything. That's one of the problems of binary evaluations: it's all or nothing and everything is translated that way. If the player who knows the rules always beats the player who knows the history, then either the history player is struggling with learning the rules, or the game probably isn't a simulation. Yep
thought I'd made that clear. Do you realize you are agreeing with me? Yes, but only with that third possibility among the three, and that is a negative determination. If the player who knows history consistantly beats the player who knows the rules, that doesn't prove the game is a simulation, only that the history guy is the better player. A better player at the game he doesn't know the rules of? Funny. Quite serious. How does one play the game if they don't know the rules? You didn't say the one with the historical knowledge was completely ignorant of the rules, only the other player knew them better. Let's be realistic here. When have you played a game you failed to know the rules to from beginning to end? Just saying. There are far better ways to establish whether a game system simulates. There are lots of ways to do lots of things, the best way is dependent on what you want, my way suits me and thus I use it, if you don't like my way – don't use it. A game/simulation system is a finite, concrete set of activities that are designed to have players do finite, concrete things that are meant to replicate finite, concrete reality. Because of that, establishing whether a system actually succeeds in simulating what, as you say are limited aspects of reality, have a finite number of methods. Successfully simulating something isn't a feels rignt proposition anymore than saying a car can go zero to sixty is determined by personal preference. Either the system does what it was designed to do, model specific points of reality, past or present, or it doesn't. If you can't determine that, then what are you simulating? IF is it just a matter of what you like vs what I like, that's fine, but that isn't establishing that simuating is occurring when you play the game--in any fashion whatsoever. That isn't my opinion, just the concrete, finite reality of simulation design. Best Regards, Bill H. |
mysteron | 28 Jan 2013 4:44 a.m. PST |
At end of the day its just a game of toy soldiers, regardless whether it is fantasy,historical or Scifi. The historical bit for me if the reference material such as books not the actual game. |
Sandinista | 28 Jan 2013 9:43 a.m. PST |
"At end of the day its just a game of toy soldiers, regardless whether it is fantasy,historical or Scifi. The historical bit for me if the reference material such as books not the actual game." Spot on, no matter how you dress it up we are just playing with toys. |
Milites | 28 Jan 2013 9:49 a.m. PST |
Oh my god, you have oppened Pandora's box! I can hear the demonic furies screaming. "They are not TOYS they are HISTORICAL miniatures!" Why, oh why, did you open the box? could you not have left well enough alone? Seriously, who gives a flying what other people think? Gaming should be fun, not accountable to self-appointed guardians of realism. I think Warhammer is dumb, who cares, I've watched gamers get excitement, enjoyment and comradeship from it. Surely that's what it's all about, fun? |
kevanG | 28 Jan 2013 11:23 a.m. PST |
Hi Tim, I knew you were a civils guy
.you had told me before
and that you are at newfoundland and labrador
8-) well, here is a simple one. how do you specify the strength of concrete? In the UK, Its described as a grade 30/35. The same stuff crushed one way (a cube) and another way ( a cylinder) has different strength results..so what is the true strength of the actual concrete in your slab
well, we do not actually know. Its kind of about these values
ish. what strength do we use in design?
about 60% of that minimum value..sometimes, when we feel confident! how did we analyse it
very conservatively if we didnt include arching or slab distribution. And what results do you actually get when testing 30/35 concrete
35 surely, 40? No, it is not uncommon to get values in excess of 40 and as high as 50
of which the designer can use 18, less than half the actual value
.Note that this is BEFORE the partial Load factor is taken into account. That is our approximation of the concrete capacity You ask how we could design?
With a high amount of conservative assumptions would appear to be the answer
and that is only on the materials strength. When we assess its behaviour we make simplistic assumptions as a lower bound solution all the time Stress stain curves are never straight in real materials, but they are simple approximations and are conservative for design. |
Private Matter | 28 Jan 2013 11:47 a.m. PST |
No matter how this "discussion" turns out, please I beg of you do not let my wife here you say that they are toys!!!! I get enough grief from her about my hobby and her refusal to take it seriously. If she hears you folks calling it playing with toys then I won't have a leg to stand on with her any more. Please use the term miniatures. Thank you. |
McLaddie | 28 Jan 2013 1:00 p.m. PST |
Surely that's what it's all about, fun? Absolutely. I think the problems arise when that 'fun' is seen as a 'johnny one-note' event, all fun being a vanilla favored toy fest or some deadly-serious hunt for a 'real' historical experience. I would think there are a lot of ways to have fun in the Historical Wargame Hobby, and any number feel they are having fun doing more than 'just' playing with toys. Spot on, no matter how you dress it up we are just playing with toys. "Just?" Nothing else? There are a boatload of wargame designers who claim their rules do much more than just offer games with toys and a lot of gamers buy them because of it. Maybe they do offer more than 'just playing with toys', maybe they don't, and maybe a good number of folks playing those rules don't care, and only see the toys and not the rules. I have always seen the toys as 'just' pretty markers for playing the game, not the game itself. In any case, seeing their miniatures and games as just playing with toys is fine with me, but that isn't the whole hobby, certainly not what a large portion of the hobby says they are doing, both designers and players. Anyway you dress it, our hobby involves more than just playing with toys, depending on who you are, what you enjoy and the rules you play. Some folks dedicated to the hobby rarely play with their toys at all, and are much more interested in painting and researching them. Do they get to be part of the 'fun', part of the hobby? If you are just playing with toys, go for it, and more power to you, but don't insist that everyone can't do more than that within the hobby or there is only one kind of fun to be had. |
Milites | 28 Jan 2013 1:12 p.m. PST |
Alas PM, Pandora's box has been opened, the Rubicon has been crossed and Cortes has burned his ships! The toy terminology is now out there in TMP blogland and if you try to force this malevolent Djinn back, from whence it came, there will be serried ranks of posters ready to do battle once more. Historical miniatures was the touchpaper term last time. Perhaps get your wife gaming, she'll might change her mind. Worked with mine, she got so into the history side she has now finished writing a historical novel. Spends her time writing and researching now and not gaming, sigh. |
Lion in the Stars | 28 Jan 2013 1:49 p.m. PST |
As far as I'm concerned, the best 'historical miniatures game' is one that allows me to use historical tactics effectively, but also keeps me involved, interested, and enjoying the game. Some of the last part really depends on opponent, but
Infinity mostly does that, though I really need to play more. Modern Infantry tactics WORK in Infinity. Seek cover or die horribly, etc. The difference is that I swear the dice reward the player for doing cinematic things. I would really like a game similar to Legacy of Glory, where you lay out your plan before the battle, more-or-less watch your army attempt it, and only issue orders to change the plan. |
UshCha | 28 Jan 2013 2:06 p.m. PST |
Milites Getting inside your opponents head is not in the rules. Your plan needs to take into account your opponent. With most players I can assume they will depoly in front of me and show their hand without guile. If I am playing my co-author he will always stay his hand and shoot when i'm not looking. That is getting inside your oppnents head. I can never make a cautious general wild and no rules can make a bad general good. In any case our simulations are about how you would command a situation given an approximation of the capabilities available to you. Look at it as a way of understanding more of what you read in accounts of battles and actions. |
The Young Guard | 28 Jan 2013 3:32 p.m. PST |
I'm more fearful of TMP'ers and Wargamers I do find it a laugh when people what to create 'historical simulations.' Just have fun with. It reminds of some reenactment I saw between Waffen SS troops and 'Allies' at Detling. At one point a GI tried to fire a bazooka at a half track but it didn't work so an SS officer had to help him out with the pyro's,right in front of the crowd. It was even more amusing because they were all being deadly serious when it's really just 40+ men playing at soldiers. Good fun and all I bet, but in the words Ewan MCGregor
Choose Life |
Milites | 28 Jan 2013 4:27 p.m. PST |
UshCha, sorry not making myself clear, it's less psychological, more as a result of observing and executing plans faster than your opponent. Given you are inside his decision loop, he is perpetually reacting to events, giving you the initiative. Do you use written commands or are their command delays for certain units? The PC game SP III had a very clever system of command points (varied due to unit and proficiency). At the start you assigned objectives or put your men into defend modes, if, during the game, you wished to change either, or move away from an objective it cost you points for each unit. Gradually the points would be recharged, but it took time. In practice the 1941 Russian tank company with 4 CP had just about enough to set an objective that all had to follow. The German unit with CP 8 could send platoons off flanking, redirect the obj and change modes and still have left over points. The Russians, if they were reacting, might have to either carry on moving toward their original objective (0) points or sit for a couple of turns desperately building up their points and hoping the command unit was not destroyed. If they did survive they had to second guess the Germans and place their objective where they thought they might be. The Germans could then redirect their objective to once more force the Russians to react. An excellent device that led to a PLO Militia commander spending all his points calling for indirect fire and having to wait an hour to get his men to attack. Or a company of KV1's forced to advance toward a bridge, to save an infantry batallion, knowing the Germans had 88's set up in the flanking woods. Shame the rest of the game was pants, though I believe SP WaW uses this mechanism. Shame that game is pretty pants! |
Bandit | 30 Jan 2013 7:31 a.m. PST |
McLaddie, You missed arguing with my statement: "Thus simulation vs game is a continuum, game vs simulation is a binary." Want to do that for a while and then I'll come back in a few posts? NOTE: I picked this statement because it addresses most of what you argued with and having said it already I don't care to reiterate. Cheers, The Bandit |
McLaddie | 30 Jan 2013 12:07 p.m. PST |
Want to do that for a while and then I'll come back in a few posts? Bandit: Nah. If Thus simulation vs game is a continuum, game vs simulation is a binary is your position on this, I wouldn't know where to begin
Best Regards, Bill |
UshCha | 31 Jan 2013 7:36 a.m. PST |
Milites; The answer is no we keep the responce loop the same time for both players in general. While you are correct in that you would go faster if your forces were better at it, and to a limited extent this can be effected by modelling better troops having better leadership, we do not always feel compelled to do this. Many armchair generals are slow to react to a changing situation even when they could react to it. so adding further delay is of little value. Remember this is a simulation not neccessarily a complete reenactment. The lack of radios phones tec, whch do massivley change the loop reaction time is modeled to a large extent, but not fully. However the player has knowledge of the objectives and making him reherse an action before playing is not seen as a major advantage. Our experience is that there is as much friction of war in the model that most players can tolerate. Some players have to have very simplified scenrios even to cope with the command decisions they alredy need to cope with. Our experience is that in reality an amature genral (including me) are sufficiently slow to react, that their physical reaction time is already enough. The elimination of infinite improability drive and better modelling of armoured vehicals slows responce down anyway. MG is desighed for up to company level for a pair of expert players where in general the loop if with radios is relatively short. We do go higher and at this point planing for this battle and the next becomes key. Where you next re-fueling/rearming/rest point is becomes the isssue and the commander has to set that up before he knows the outcome of the battle. That unfortunately does require paperwork as it is nolonget possible to keep it all in your head. Similarly allocating artillery to the relevant combat companies needs to be set prior to the game. The ingame mechanic means eeven simplified at at battalion level or abov, the loop can become well less than the man on the front end would like. But again this puts more demand on many players than they whish to deal with. As in the real world. Simulation, concentrate on what aspects you want to simulate. Full simulation is impossible in the real world, as we cannot model the indiviual stomachs of the participants even when not dammaged by fire:-). |
Bandit | 31 Jan 2013 9:12 a.m. PST |
McLaddie, Nah. If Thus simulation vs game is a continuum, game vs simulation is a binary is your position on this, I wouldn't know where to begin
Venn diagrams would be an excellent place. link link Cheers, The Bandit |
britishlinescarlet2 | 31 Jan 2013 12:53 p.m. PST |
I love the fact that there is a discussion about concrete going on in the middle of all this :-) |
McLaddie | 31 Jan 2013 4:21 p.m. PST |
Bandit: Venn Diagrams? They aren't of much use unless two or more things have something in common which the term "binary" requires. Thus simulation vs game is a continuum, game vs simulation is a binary implies that simulations and games have nothing in common, or there wouldn't be one versus the other. So the Venn diagram would be two unconnected circles. A continuum is also sort of difficult to portray with a Venn diagram unless you have names and traits for each point on the continuum that could be drawn as a series of circles in a chain across the gap between the disconnected Simulation and Game circles. If they have shared traits, then it is difficult to see how it is one versus the other. So, to go back to some notion of what the games and simulations might have in common, here are some definitions of games by noted game designers and simulation designers. See if you can see some commonalities: Sid Meier, designer of the Classic Civilization and others like Take Command and Pirates "A game is a series of interesting choices." Ernest Adams and Andrew Rollings, authors of Adams and Rollings on Game Design narrow it further to: "One or more causally linked series of challenges in a simulated environment." Greg Costikyan offers this definition in his well-know article on game design: "A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal." Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman write in their MIT text Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals that a game is: "a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by the rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome." And then there are those defining Simulations: "A simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time." --Jerry Banks, Handbook of Simulation "A simulation allows players to safely make real-world decisions and develop skills in an unreal environment." --David Bartlett, former chief of operations, Defense Modeling and Simulation Office. Because games and simulation games: *use game mechanics *in procedural systems *to create artificial environments *where players make decisions *in pursuit of system goals Salen and Zimmerman concluded: "There are many kinds of simulations that aren't games. However, all games can be understood as simulations, even very abstract games or games that simulate phenomena not found in the real world." To create a Venn Diagram of this, there would be a circle labeled ‘Simulations' and completely inside of it would be a smaller circle labeled games. The only difference between a game and a simulation game is that the simulation game environment created by the rules and the decisions the players make are designed to provide, mimic, recreate, model, represent, copy or simulate etc. etc. chosen aspects of the real world, past or present in playing the game. The only binary aspect here is whether the designer did or did not create his game to mimic some specific aspect of reality, but as both types of games contain all the aspects of any game, it is hardly a simulation vs game issue. That did get me started. ;-7 Best Regards, Bill |
Lord Hill | 31 Jan 2013 5:12 p.m. PST |
I love the fact that there is a discussion about concrete going on in the middle of all this :-)
lol |
McLaddie | 31 Jan 2013 9:55 p.m. PST |
I love the fact that there is a discussion about concrete going on in the middle of all this :-) Well, some of specifics concern cement
;-7 |
Bandit | 31 Jan 2013 10:04 p.m. PST |
McLaddie, Thus simulation vs game is a continuum, game vs simulation is a binary implies that simulations and games have nothing in common, or there wouldn't be one versus the other. No, it does not imply that. I'm not replying to the rest of what you said because due to the false interpretation of this statement your premise is incorrect. Cheers, The Bandit |
McLaddie | 31 Jan 2013 10:30 p.m. PST |
I'm not replying to the rest of what you said because due to the false interpretation of this statement your premise is incorrect. Bandit: Then reply to: 1. How two things that are binary can be versus that suggests against or negating one another--which is the way most folks on the TMP page interpret the Simulations vs Games phrase. So how is it 'false?' 2. Forget my interpretation
How about what other game and simulation designers have said about those systems and how they can be at least very similar and not 'versus'. 3. What 'premise' is that? We are talking about simulation game rules, mechanics and systems and what they do compared to 'just game' rules, mechanics and systems. Those are things players do and accomplish in playing a game regardless of any artistic 'premise'. Best Regards, Bill |
Bandit | 31 Jan 2013 11:31 p.m. PST |
McLaddie, 1. How two things that are binary can be versus that suggests against or negating one another--which is the way most folks on the TMP page interpret the Simulations vs Games phrase. So how is it 'false?' I'm not even sure what that was supposed to mean so I can't reply to it in a useful way. 2. Forget my interpretation
How about what other game and simulation designers have said about those systems and how they can be at least very similar and not 'versus'. I don't believe I've taken any issue with the statements made by the game and simulation designers you've referred to or quoted. I've just dismissed that chuck of discussion since you were leveraging it to support a misinterpretation of my statement. The design people and I are not at odds. 3. What 'premise' is that? Your premise that: Thus simulation vs game is a continuum, game vs simulation is a binary implies that simulations and games have nothing in common, or there wouldn't be one versus the other. That is to which I referred. Since you want to keep pestering the point, I'll expound a little, I'm not going to go to great depths but I'll expound some: Thus simulation vs game is a continuum, game vs simulation is a binary. Simulations never model 100% of anything because the number of factors for any given subject is typically near what we might consider a practical infinite. That is the number is so high in comparison to our available means that it is impractical to do so. Therefore we make choices as to what aspects we shall simulate. A simulation that accurately simulates fire combat may not accurately simulate command or perhaps does not even seek to. This is commonly the case. The issue is far more micro than the example I just purported. A simulation may simulate movement correctly under some circumstances but not others. Such decisions are commonly pragmatic. X vs Y is another way to phrase X compared to Y. Simulation vs game is a continuum as how much simulation is present in the game will vary between 0 and < 100%. One will not find a 100% simulation because one can't exist since it is not practically possible to model all the possible variables or to do so accurately. Because we have to intentionally or arbitrarily replace some aspects since we can't accurately model them, we replace them with mechanics that for lack of a better word support what I'll call, "playability." As an aside, if we could model 100% of the aspects of a simulation accurately it could not be a game because there would be no mechanics, no points of decision, it would be like watching a movie. The interaction of the player or participant is a set of variables that we have chosen not to model. If a simulation includes some aspects of a game, and it must, then the simulation must also be a game as well as a simulation. Yet a game does not have to include aspects of a simulation and therefore a game can be just a game. So while a simulation will always be a game, a game may not always be a simulation. A person can make a Venn Diagram out of that statement. Cheers, The Bandit |
Number6 | 01 Feb 2013 12:31 a.m. PST |
There's nothing wrong with FOW's mechanisms. What makes the games simplistic are the way the scenarios are handled. Design an historical scenario for FOW and you'll get a quick-playing, relatively historical game. |
Ben Waterhouse | 01 Feb 2013 4:18 a.m. PST |
Mind you Empire III is a successful simulation of real military life; sit around and wait and wait and wait
|
Mike Target | 01 Feb 2013 7:33 a.m. PST |
I love the fact that there is a discussion about concrete going on in the middle of all this :-) And its actually the most useful and readable bit of the entire thread
Mike:Have you read the designers' notes for our wargame rules? The vast majority of the designers of our fun say different and have never called their designs fantasies. So, what do they think they are providing gamers? Doesnt matter: they could write or think theyve written the most historically accurate simulation ever but at the end of the day it would still be a game on a tabletop with toy soldiers, and an element of fantasy is unavoidable. cant believe I got drawn into this thread
off to play some games
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|