"Are you fearful of "gamey/movie" historical wargames?" Topic

After reading this entire thread, no one should have a question why younger people don't flock to historicals.

Ben,

Mind you Empire III is a successful simulation of real military life; sit around and wait and wait and wait…

Funny cause it is true. Biggest thing no one ever wants to simulate (and no one ever intentionally simulates in rules but it obviously happens) is the fact that for large parts of battles large groups of people do *nothing*. Doesn't make for much participation in a game though.

Just a painter,

After reading this entire thread, no one should have a question why younger people don't flock to historicals.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Interesting word for simulation Fantasy. I would get looked at very hard at work if I suggested that a stress model was fantasy becuse it did not fully simulate each atom in the material being assessed. A simulation is just that a usefull approximation of the aspects of a component or system you are trying to model. A stress analysis does not account for the colour of the component but both are key factors when modelling sales of a potential new car. Nobody would call either model fantasy and few would think these parameters should be put into a common model.

After reading this entire thread, no one should have a question why younger people don't flock to historicals.

Painter:

Good point. How many folks would get involved in reenacting if half of the participants said they were recreating history and the other half insisted that was stupid and all they were doing was playing dress-up--with the attendant on-going arguments?

Here we have a majority for the game designers saying they are capturing something of history with the games, giving players 'the choices faced by the actual commanders' and a large portion of the gamers playing them laugh at such claims and call it all fantasy.

So, what do gamers say when the uninitiated ask "What are you doing?" In thirty years of gaming, presentations, conventions, magazine articles and a number of groups, I have never heard a gamer answer "Fantasy…we're just playing with toy soldiers."

That doesn't mean folks don't believe that, or enjoy playing wargames with that in mind, it just isn't presented as a 'selling point.'

Bill

Here we have a majority for the game designers saying they are capturing something of history with the games, giving players 'the choices faced by the actual commanders' and a large portion of the gamers playing them laugh at such claims and call it all fantasy.

That is not what I am reading in this thread.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit:

Is the the claims or the portion of thread posts you are referring to? I was making a more general comment vs limiting it to this thread.

Best Regards,
Bill

Shouldn't this be moved to the Bill Haggart Board?

McLaddie,

I was referring to the claims made as compared to how I understood you to represent them.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Shouldn't this be moved to the Bill Haggart Board?

Several people requested that, but Bill A. has a post quantity requirement that I haven't come close to. The man has high standards.

I have also heard there were some requests for an A.K.A. list board, but I think Bill A. is overworked as it is.

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.

Bandit:
Thank you for the further explanations. My 'interpretation' above had to do with your notion [premise?] that the more simulation you have, the less game/playability and vice versa… as you explain below.

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.

Hmmm. I hope you don't think I was purposely misinterpreting your statement. I didn't. I am surprised that you don't see any issue with the designers I quoted and your ideas.

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.

Okay, you explain that further below. If I understand correctly now, you see ‘Versus' and ‘compare' meaning the same thing in ‘Simulations vs games.'

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.

Thank you. Agreed.

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.

Of course.

Such decisions are commonly pragmatic.

X vs Y is another way to phrase X compared to Y.

Understood.

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.

No, not ever.

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."

So wherever the mechanics don't accurately model reality for whatever reason, they are replaced with ‘playability?' Do you mean where 'simulation' can't go, it is replaced with ‘game'?

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.

While there are simulations that run like movies, if you modeled 100% of reality accurately, you'd have reality, not a simulation and certainly not what you describe.

Simulations are designed to recreate events OR environments, not both at the same time. Their only value is that they do it in part, with less pain, expense and time. As simulations are by definition, artificial, they will never model 100% of reality, and would lose any value as a simulation if they could.

Static simulations, like movies, replicate events, and no matter how many times you run them, like movies, you are going to get the same series of events and same outcome.

Dynamic simulations replicate decision-making environments, where the user and/or player operate within the artificial constraints of the simulation creating events. Obviously, a simulation game is a Dynamic Simulation, though there are wargame designers that try and recreate events, thus straight-jacketing the players, forcing specific decisions in order to create particular events.

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.

That is definitely opposite of what I proposed.

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.

That is contrary to what those designers said--the ones you don't have an issue with. Your Venn Diagram has the simulation circle sitting fully inside the game circle. To reiterate:

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."

My point is this: Both simulation games and just 'playable' games use the very same systems, structure of decisions, goals etc., mechanics and supporting paraphernalia to do what?--Create an artificial environment with it's own rules and dynamics. Far too much is lost in design terms by juxtaposing them as more of one means less of another or that simulations will always be a game--when many aren't games.

Both games and simulations are procedural systems that create artificial environments with rules, mechanics and goals, the ONLY difference between a game and a simulation game is the environment created by the rules purposely replicates aspects of a specific, real environment.

All games create an artificial play environments, as Rollings, Andrew, Salen and Zimmerman point out. It is just a matter of what the environment represents. That is true of Shutes and Ladders and Bridge as much as Empire V and Fire and Fury

In pragmatic, practical terms, to impose more/less ‘binary' relationship between games and simulations severely limits what can be done designing simulation games. [i.e. the idea that how much detail is put in makes it more of a simulation and how little is put in makes it more playable and less of a simulation.] That appears to be the underlying assumption to your description regarding ‘playability.'

This makes little sense if both the game and the simulation are using the very same game mechanics. It is simply a question of what the mechanics are meant to replicate.

Simulation quality or function isn't based on a quantity of data, how much is put in, 0 to 100%, particularly when 100% stops being a simulation. As Jerry Green has noted,
"The amount of complexity can wreck a simulation, and a simulation should do no more than it has to, to do the job."

Complexity ruins simulations just as easily as any game.

The Simulation vs Game dichotomy/comparison etc. etc. is a dead end in design terms. If you start designing games by believing that simulation design and game design are different or incompatible, it leads to a design dead end very quickly. And you can see that in the hobby today.

UshCha pointed out," a simulation is just a useful approximation of the aspects of a component or system you are trying to model."

That means that a simulation of 20% can be just as functional/useful and as much a simulation as one registering at 50% on your ‘aspects scale.' It's ability to simulate is determined by the designer's goals and how successful he is in achieving them… not the amount of data he has crammed into the simulation game. And a simulation game's success isn't determined by how little is included for playability sake.

Best Regards,

Bill H.

It should be noted that simulation does not mean complicated rules, it just means picking the right ones. Games that only last 4 to 6 boumds struggle as you cannot get much modern ebb and flow in that number of bounds. Ten bounds is better. This means the rules need to be fast to implement. Rules are a neccessary evil. The real task is to plan and exicute you plan spending as much time as possible moving figures. In addition a fast play game gives a hint of the time pressure on a real tank platoon commander in the heat of an action.

Is it any wonder we get ridiculed by our women folk when we have discussions like this about toy soldiers .

I wonder why men DO NOT laugh at women for 6 inch heels and 3 inch platforms and say these are comfortable shoes?

I play WARGAMES because I have FUN. There is no other reason, for me.

Actually the reason for women wearing heels is to make their legs look longer and more atttractive to the male species. This is according to my wife and has no bearing on my opinion!

She adds heels arn't confortable and thats why many women including herself commute wearing trainers and then change once at the office.

I wonder why men DO NOT laugh at women for 6 inch heels and 3 inch platforms and say these are comfortable shoes?

Men do, but only once. And women do it because it makes them feel good [attractive], so they say, if not comfortable…

I play WARGAMES because I have FUN. There is no other reason, for me.

Yeah, who doesn't? What kind of fun? We're talking about different kinds of wargames, what they are designed to do for the players, and how to accomplish that. Designing them is fun too.

"I play WARGAMES because I have FUN. There is no other reason, for me."

I play TIDDLYWINKS because I have FUN. There is no other reason for me

Compare and contrast

"Compare and contrast"

People tend not to get sanctimonious about tiddlywinks.

"People tend not to get sanctimonious about tiddlywinks."

…don't know about that when you are playing with 4 year olds and one wants to change from red to yellow half way through!

but it highlights that even tiddlywinks have more reasons than just fun. …..social interaction

There is lots of room for all aspects. The only feart imnwargames is that large commecial entities tend to act against the common good for the sake of profits. Anyway if I WANT TO GET SANCTIMONIOUS about wargames its because its part of the FUN. Just cos' I like plausible wargames does not mean I am a joyless soul and these topics bring some interesting folk into a dicussion of approaches which is enjoyable.

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."So wherever the mechanics don't accurately model reality for whatever reason, they are replaced with ‘playability?' Do you mean where 'simulation' can't go, it is replaced with ‘game'?

In the context of wargaming, yes the things we can't simulate or are outside our area of focus I relegated, as I stated directly for lack of a better word as "game," a better term might be "orchestrating mechanic."

That is contrary to what those designers said--the ones you don't have an issue with.

I suppose what I should have said was that I do not care to take issue with your interpretation and quotes provided regarding them.

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.That is definitely opposite of what I proposed.

Am I to understand you think a game can't be just a game and always simulates something. Someone mentioned tiddlywinks – what do they simulate? What about basketball, what does it simulate?

I find the notion that *every* game simulates something else rather insane.

Your Venn Diagram has the simulation circle sitting fully inside the game circle.

Yeah, you don't understand what I mean, but it's OK, I'm not trying to convince you, just answering your questions and passing the popcorn. I am not referring to diagramming all games and all simulations but rather any given game or any given simulation. In essence I'm saying that there are no pure simulations because a pure simulation would be reality.

Both games and simulations are procedural systems that create artificial environments with rules, mechanics and goals, the ONLY difference between a game and a simulation game is the environment created by the rules purposely replicates aspects of a specific, real environment.

So they are the same except for the purpose expressed by their maker. So, therefore they are identical to someone who didn't hear from the maker what the purpose was? This seems to lack usefulness.

That means that a simulation of 20% can be just as functional/useful and as much a simulation as one registering at 50% on your ‘aspects scale.' It's ability to simulate is determined by the designer's goals and how successful he is in achieving them… not the amount of data he has crammed into the simulation game. And a simulation game's success isn't determined by how little is included for playability sake.

That's nice.

The reason I have tried to stay away from replying to large portions of your posts and to the random quotes and conclusions you draw from others you cite is because you seem so bent on broadening the conversation and the argument and little becomes useful or relevant in the context of this conversation.

Carried out to its ultimate end your line of debate ends up being a contest of syntax, which may be nice in an academic sense but it not practically useful after having overshot the bridge so to speak.

You're arguing with me from back a couple of pages because from what I can tell, any time someone makes a post regarding "simulations" and you see it, you go on a mission to explain to the world how you best know about simulations. Well, OK, great. I don't know what you're aim in this conversation is. It does seem that you have a penchant for arguing and I have a penchant for poking such people with a stick, so here we be…

I'll go back to my original post on this thread:

Thus simulation vs game is a continuum, game vs simulation is a binary.
Neither is bad, play what you like.
I use this rule to determine if it is a "game" or "simulation" on the continuum:
<b<Can a new player do well by knowing the history and acting according to such or will he always be beat by someone who knows the ins and outs of the rules set better?

What I said I use this rule i.e. it is useful to me, I am not stating it to push it on others, further more: Neither is bad, play what you like. Do you notice the acceptance of others' methods and leanings? This conversation would have been less amusing but more useful if you showed some of that.

Instead you're arguing for or against… what? I can't even tell and I appear to be a participant.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Am I to understand you think a game can't be just a game and always simulates something. Someone mentioned tiddlywinks – what do they simulate? What about basketball, what does it simulate?

I find the notion that *every* game simulates something else rather insane.

Bandit:

I can see why. However, issue is a practical one of finite game mechanics and what games do for players.

How do game mechanics in a game system 'simulate' something? It is done through rules, mechanics and play. All games create an artificial 'environment' with game mechanics, with it's own logic, operations, and goals. In Tiddlywinks, it matters if the chips get in the cup, and how is strictly regulated. The same artificial structure is true of Chess, Poker or Shutes and Ladders.

If, practically speaking, both games and ALL simulations operate the same way in creating an artifical environment, with rules, mechanics and structure, then they are designed to doing the same thing through the same system and mechanics.

Games and simulations both are procedural systems that create artifical environments. The only difference is the meaning or lack of meaning associated with those mechanics. A game environment doesn't have to represent anything, though many do, like Shutes and Ladders. A simulation using the very same game mechanics does have to represent what is being modeled.

The quotes I provided were hardly random. And the very focus of the conversation is how wargames can be both a game and a simulation, and why.

For instance, here are some game mechanics:

Command Radius in Fire & Fury
The Turn sequence in Empire
The Reserve Movement Rule in Age of Eagles
The die modifiers in Maurice
The commander types in Black Powder

Are those particular game mechanics actually simulating or are they simply an "orchestrating mechanics"? And which are 40% and which are 20%?

That is a foundational question. Must game mechanics be either/or or can they do both at the same time? Does making the mechanic simulate reduce the 'playability'? Does deciding it's simply 'orchestrating' make it more playable?

IF you say the mechanics can do both, then your player test won't work. If you say they have to be either one or the other, then what are the criteria for identifying which is which?

What I said I use this rule i.e. it is useful to me, I am not stating it to push it on others, further more: Neither is bad, play what you like.

Do you notice the acceptance of others' methods and leanings? This conversation would have been less amusing but more useful if you showed some of that.

Bandit, there are a great many things that I simply accept regarding others' wargame methods and leanings.

In this issue, simulations have come a long, long way since they were first addressed as a separate design form, in many mediums besides computers. So has game design. There are now degrees in both game and simulation design at MIT.

To use the RC Model hobby as an anology:

There are Lots of different methods and 'leanings' when it comes to building and flying those Remote Controlled models. The military has taken them seriously now as drones. However, no one in the hobby treats Aero-dynamic princples and the fundementals of aircraft design as just some folks' personal methods or leanings--not if they want their planes to fly and perform as desired. Nor would RC hobbiests be 'accepting' of leanings and methods that ignored those fundementals--it has nothing to do with personal preferences--it's just the way planes fly. And no one would be trying to take the fun out of the hobby to 'suggest' their use in building model airplanes.

Today, the same is true of simulations, and that includes simulation games. If I'm trying to convince you of anything, it is that…and point out where those simulation and game principles are demonstrated and discussed.

Instead you're arguing for or against… what? I can't even tell and I appear to be a participant.

That's happening because I agree with some of the things you say, and not others--and you feel there is a logical direction and conclusion to those points that I don't.

The idea of simulations has been tortured nearly to death by the wargaming hobby over the last 40 years, while other institutions, hobbies and businesses have leaped ahead to create a coherent, functional, and proveable set of principles and methods for designing simulations and games shared by those different communities.

Hardly the final word on simulation or game design, just the fundamentals. The problem is many gamers are convinced such things don't exist, or worse, if they did exist, would rob them of their FUN…some of the damage done by wonky hobby ideas about simulations.

So, when I quoted all those folks, I was simply trying to demonstrate that their ideas of games and simulations, regardless of their particular discipline, engineers using simulations, just game designers, wargame designers outside the hobby, all have the same conceptual take on simulations and games, built over several decades and billions in development, trial-and-error, testing.

Games are just games, built in very specific ways to do very specific things, FUN being the big draw. The principles and methods I have been alluding too simply provide ways to better succeed in building games and simulation games--whatever your leanings or goals.

That's it.

Best Regards,

Bill H.

I play WARGAMES because I have FUN. There is no other reason, for me."

I play TIDDLYWINKS because I have FUN. There is no other reason for me

Compare and contrast

"Compare and contrast"
People tend not to get sanctimonious about tiddlywinks.

Or generate defensive designers. But compare and contrast is good advice.

From the comment FUN with wargames is equal to and just like FUN with Tiddlywinks, only plain vanilla, rather than a wide range of different kinds of fun.

So let's compare and contrast. Joseph Assheton Fincher designed Tiddlywinks as a family game in 1888. It became one of the most popular crazes during the 1890s, played by adults and children alike. In its earlier years, many different varieties were produced to meet the marketplace demands, including those combining tiddledy-winks principles with tennis, basketball, croquet, golf, and other popular sports and endeavours. Then its popularity died out and by the 1950s; it was seen as a simple game for children.

However, a modern competitive adult game of tiddlywinks made a strong comeback, starting at the University of Cambridge in 1955 and has grown ever since.

There are now There are two national associations, the English Tiddlywinks Association (ETwA) and the North American Tiddlywinks Association (NATwA) These organisations are responsible for the running of tournaments and maintaining the rules of the game (which actually differ only slightly between the two organisations; the NATwA rules are based on the ETwA rules).

International competition is overseen by the International Federation of Tiddlywinks Associations (IFTwA), though in practice it is rarely called upon to intervene.

The modern game uses far more complex rules and a consistent set of high-grade equipment. It is played with two and four person teams.

And darned if those Tiddlywink association gamers don't play Tiddlywinks for FUN. And I'm sure some of them get sanctimonious at times.

The only difference is that there are no defensive designers of Tiddlywinks variants or worried gamers of 'just FUN with TIDDLYWINKS' disparaging any discussion of all that organized, complex FUN. The question would be why it's even a concern of the 'just FUN' crowd…?

You can see more on the Tiddlywinks craze at:

link

Ahh you can keep your tiddlywinks.

I am just going to have a game of toy soldiers. Now that is real fun when you arn't arguing about the rules or what rules are suppose to be better than others.

Sorry, if you want a good basic tactical simulator, Ludo is your game.

I am just going to have a game of toy soldiers. Now that is real fun when you arn't arguing about the rules or what rules are suppose to be better than others.

I agree. Never do that when playing whatever rules. The only difference for me is that it is a game with toy soldiers, not of… big difference according to H.G. Wells.

A friend of mine once said that a solidly researched history book which no one can read smoothly is a waste.

Maybe the same applies to wargaming. The balance has to be between playability and historical accuracy. It's kind of like an historical novel – It has to be accurate enough to attract the historian and a great read to attract the general audience. Killer Angels, for example. The Red Badge of courage.

"The balance has to be between playability and historical accuracy. "

Are they actually related in practice?

I know you think they are related and I suspect inversely, i.e. more of one means less of the other.

I dont think that is what most rule designers beleive

A friend of mine once said that a solidly researched history book which no one can read smoothly is a waste.

Maybe the same applies to wargaming. The balance has to be between playability and historical accuracy. It's kind of like an historical novel – It has to be accurate enough to attract the historian and a great read to attract the general audience. Killer Angels, for example. The Red Badge of courage.

John:

I agree that like a poorly written historical novel or history, a poorly designed wargame is a waste.

However, does that mean a 240 page historical novel is less historically accurate than a 400 page novel? Are books with less pages more readable?

Historical accuracy and 'playability' are qualities, not a matter of quantity. As long as wargame designers in the hobby believe that the quantity of history stuffed in a wargame equals more accuracy, while less means it's more playable, then there will be an insurmountable conflict between playability and historical accuracy.

Outside the hobby, simulation designers recognize that complexity and 'too much' wreck a simulation as quickly as a game. Outside the hobby, simulation game designers recognize more functional criteria for historical accuracy, [in most cases], so the overriding conflict between playability and accuracy, or game vs simulation doesn't exist. Quality is the issue, not quantity. Playability and accuracy are still very much design issues, they simply aren't more of one means less of the other, as kevan G. notes.

Best Regards,
Bill

Speed of play is critical to a simulation. Simultions computor or game take time to run. To get to a solution of a given accuracy you need a certain numbet of itterations (bounds in wargames trnms iterations in computational fluid dynamics). Given we need a solution in 2 to 3 hrs typically we need to get enough itterations in. Too few and there can be no flexible responce as is refered to in all modern games (WWII and on). Thefore too long on overdetaied wepons.morale calcs is actually not adding to the overall accuracy. Pesonaly poor simulation NO FUN. Too many tables and lots of time. Poor relation to real world accounts. BOORING. Fast play with relevant paraneters FUN. "AH, maybe commander was not as stupid as hee seemed that task was harder than I has understood". Insight into what you read. Not complete, not very accurate but good enough = REAL FUN.

The realism v playability issue?

The last three AWI games I played used Rank and file, Black Powder and Washington's Army.

Rank And file are a very basic game covering a whole range of horse and musket periods…they are so basic that they have been widely overlooked as a ruleset generally. They have very basic mechanics and simple states of morale and troop quality…commanders are very limited in what they do and command control is almost non existant.---yet fixed movement means that it is like traditional games where a player moves his forces in formation.

Black powder are similar to Rank and file but have much more sweeping movements and high risk combat and units are what could be described as fragile. Fast and speedy ….

Washingtons army is a very structured I go, You go with opportunity fire and variable movement dependant on formations.

In theory if the realism/ playability inverse proposition was true, This should also be the order of realism, speed of game and the reverse order of playability….but it isnt.

The chrome and 'special' rules and swift movement in black powder mean that Rank and file seems more like the AWI, but neither captures the troop types and nuances of combat in the AWI like Washington's army.

But washington's army isnt slow..It has a fixed number of turns, normally 7, relatively small battlefield and forces are only 9-12 or 13 units fighting 6-8 turns normally. and they dont all start on the table.

All can finish a game in 3 hours.
All are fun…just for different reasons.

1 of the three designers did a very good job on Rank and file,
1 of the three did an excellent job on washington's army .

1 added stuff which they didnt need to have or doesnt actually acheive anything beneficial to the game and is actually adding complication for nothing (…even if players don't spot it, A half decent designer would!) It is also the least realistic and luck based.

While one could argue that black powder is faster, it isnt just because it got through 12 turns to another games 8 if most black powder units dont move for a third of the twelve turns.

One could argue that it is unfair to expect black powder to do AWI better than a set of rules written for it, that would be true, but Rank and File which are simpler rules and are not written for AWI either, but beat it hands down.

Lots of charts?

rank and file single A 4 page playsheet..no special rules

Black powder single A4 page playsheet and How many pages of special rules?

Washingtons army double sided A4 playsheet. Nothing needs special rules.

One of my yardsticks to judge playability is how often you need to refer to the charts. But game designers can make it easier to remember the contents of the chart, so that you don't need to refer to it at all.

To abuse Flames of War a little more, Troops are rated for Morale and Training, in 3 classes each. Reluctant, Confident, and Fearless; Conscripts, Trained, and Veteran.

Training determines how well the troops use cover, better-trained troops are harder to hit (and more likely to un-bog a stuck tank). Morale is pretty self-explanatory, though for some reason shouting "get back in zee tank!" in a mock-German accent when you roll the dice seems to help.

It's easier to remember the target numbers when they're words, rather than a code. Of course, the artillery template also has the tables written on it, so that you don't need to refer to the book.

Ambush Alley takes that a little further, with their game design of "roll a 4+ to succeed". Better quality troops roll dice with more sides, so that they have a higher chance of beating both the 4+ and their opponent's dice roll. If you color-code your dice as suggested for Stargrunt (utterly untrained folks get a yellow d4, 'Green' troops get a green d6, regular troops get a blue d8, orange d10s and red d12s), it helps keep things square for newcomers and old-timers.

to be fair I said fast play with the right parameters. Wargames still in many ways carry the now horrific burdon of the Featherstone rules. They were never that good and the art of simulation, generally, not just in wargames has moved on. Many gamesr are steeped in "tradition" regardless of the logic.
The "Big guns give bigger beated areas" is one such farce. Actuall a big gun, say a 155 has a poor beaten area. Each shell has a bigger beaten area but in a given time it can only fire a few and the demands of range make it a poor yield (puond of shell (or kg) vs pound (or kg) of working HE compared to a mortar. Thats why they invented mortars! We do meet folk who get upset if you challenge the traditional and I have no quarm with tem. Some folk rave about steam traction engiine but that does not make tham a sensible vehicle for today.

It is best to consider complecxity and realism as an ill conditione relationship. It is possible to increase complexity without adding realism. It is equally possible to have simlicity withou realism. Crediable game design is like designing a good CFD model. It takes both are and skill to get a good model. It also helps if the designer has very clear and achievable objective.

Simulate everything and play fast is not an achivable objective. It is the answer to the ultimate question, but without the ultimate question it is useless.

They're not toys. They are action figures.

Same difference to a Woman !:)

This is just weird.

My two cents. All wargames (historical-fantasy-sci-fi) that I played had some elements of simulation, but were mostly games. You cannot simulate perfectly. You need to focus on what you want.

For example

Warhammer- A game yes, but the following tactics from history can work: turning a flank, killing the general to disrupt enemy morale (Alexander) , denying the flank (Frederich the Great)

DBA-A game yes, but the following historical concepts play a role in the game: turning the flank, variable command and control, killing the general to disrupt the enemy.

Wrhamemr 40k (6th edition) – A game yes, but after 80 games with a championship player I saw that the army with the superior firepower had a higher probability of winning the game in a board with few terrain pieces. I think this is something that we would expect in reality as well.

BFG- A game yes, but crossing the T can wreak havoc to the enemy. Command and Control is also variable.

Ultimately the question is simple

1) What do you want your game to simulate? Specific tactics? Time-resistant principles of warfare that could apply even to fantasy and sci-fi? Operational elements? different weapons? No game can do all of this and it is not important if the setting is fantasy-sci-fi- historical or historical fiction as long as what you want simulated is simulated.

2) What are your Aesthetics? Here we enter the realm of subjectivity. If you want to simulate the importance of turning the flanks then either DBA or Warhammer can do this. If you wish to do so using Romans and Gauls than Warhammer (the fatnasy one) is not going to work. But that is not because war hammer does not simulate turning the flanks.
This is the same with historical setting. You can simulate elements of the Battle of Marathon using historical miniatures or sci-fi/fantasy miniatures. From a simulation point as long as you do not include elements that would ruin the simulation of the element you wish to simulate, it is not important what you use. But from an aesthetic point it can be very important.

Now we can discuss what is beautiful, but do not expect to resolve this in an objective manner in the next 2000 years. But I think all wargames try to simulate an element of war and then game the rest.

Me likes little small army men.
regards
Russ Dunaway

And six inch heels on women also.

@KTravlos

Ultimately the question is simple

1) What do you want your game to simulate? Specific tactics? …

You are quite right – you need to identify the question of what is being 'simulated'. I think you have nailed that quite nicely.

To answer that, what I want to simulate in a wargame is The experience of battle command.

Pretty much all wargames (from DBA, through to warhammer, through to Empire, or ASL, or FoW) do a good job simulating most of the tactical factors involved in combat to one degree or another.

I dont think that is the question of tactical accuracy is a concern here. It also doesnt need to be greatly complicated to give a good simulation. The mechanics in Kriegspiel are dirt simple compared to Warhammer, but Kriegspiel is a far more competent simulation of battle command than Warhammer.

Its not the complexity of the tactical model.

Anything with a dice or card does a good job of simulating 'Good Luck' in combat as well.

Again, modelling luck and friction is not the issue here either, as that is well covered already.

However, pretty much all wargames rules fail miserably at simulating the flow of information in a battle from the front line to the commander, and all the way back again.

The game experience from the player's seat at the miniatures table … is nothing at all like the experience of an actual commander on the field in a real battle, at least as far as information flow goes.

Here are some examples from pretty much any miniatures game :

1) You can see all the troops from both sides on the table at all times. This doesnt happen on a real battlefield.

2) You might get more sophisticated instead, and see a 'blind' of possible enemy troops on the table. This doesnt happen on a real battlefield either.

3) Depending on the rules, you can quite easily make up your plan as you go, and react to events without delay. This doesnt happen on a real battlefield either.

4) You instantly know the results of every little combat the moment they happen. This doesnt happen in real life either.

5) The game is divided into arbitary turns, during which you can do pretty much whatever you want whilst your opponent watches helplessly. This doesnt happen on a real battlefield either.

6) During your turn, your troops act locally, but with the presumtion of full knowledge of what is happening globally on the rest of the battlefield. This doesnt happen on a real battlefield.

7) You either have unlimited ammunition and fatigue, or you have managed ammo and fatigue in the game …. which you are magically aware of in real time. Real life is not quite there yet either.

Now, on the other hand, if we wish to simulate battle command with the assumption that all troops on the table have an instant bi-directional communication with an all-seeing entity hovering above them … these miniatures wargames do a fine job of that.

That is a valid assumption for a sci-fi/fantasy or ultra modern battlefield up to a point. But for anything else … its a little dodgy as assumptions go.

And its those little assumptions that ruin the 'simulation' aspect of the game from the player's perspective … if the goal of the game is to simulate the experience of battle command.

Adding layers of complexity to tactical models (which are accurate enough as is), whilst ignoring the information flow does not help things either.

Anyway, there are some small examples. I know that some wargames rules have some mechanics to try and address some of these points … which is great, but the vast majority simply ignore them all as being too hard.

Declaring something to be 'Too Hard', does not make it any more factual, or worthy of being ignored.

What a 'simulation' of battle command needs most, is a way of managing the player's view of the battle, and what is known and knowable at any point in time.

Thats my 2c anyway.

Can anyone else add some thoughts on what THEY would like to see in a game, to increase the level of realism from the perspective of a commander in a battle ?

Please note – I am not asking anyone what sort of existing wargames they enjoy most, and I am not asking anyone if they think any of these ideas are 'too hard' to implement .. or not.

Im just asking what you would most love to see in a wargame to bring the tabletop action closer to the real thing.

There hasn't been a single realistic wargame at all since The Sword and the Flame. It plays exactly like real life.

FoW terrifies me!

Steve 64 plase don't ask scary questions. It make me thing. What I want is a set of rules/model that allows me to understand what drives the fight from the FEBZ and how far it is and how it sirts relative to the main EA. How to sight my artillery assets so thet if the EA looks like failing when do I abandon the troops to their fate and move key assests to fight another day. On a break thorugh. to model how to expoit and how to plausibly fight secenarios representing this with plausible boundary conditions. In other words to model the real issues with fighting a Division. 1 stand + some platoon/ compamy is just pure fantasy are far as I an concerned. It still needs to be relatively simple. We have been wrestleing with this for years. We have most of the pieces we think but cannot put them together to get a simple integrated model.

Steve64 good points

I think that to a part I have been moving towards the simulation of operational elements rather than to tactical. Ergo why I have been re-entering board-wargames again.

I think that I would be happy with some mix of a brigade or divisional level block and miniatures games. To explain you use blocks until opposing units establish contact in which case you reveal the miniatures.

You can, I think increase command friction in some ways, but gamers will be a bit unhappy

for example

1) Use dummy blocks. I hate bookkeeping but throwing some dummy blocks into the fold could simulate uncertainty of enemy positions and strength (and actually bloody force you to use that cavalry for what it was supposed to be used for)

2) Use something like the excellent reaction systems of Two Hour Games to lose control of Brigade commanders. Random card draw might be able to simulate things like abdurpt breakdowns of fatigue or ammunition shortages due to shapr fighting. This should also put a wrench in quick plan reactions

3) I hate written orders. Yes I understand that they make a better simulation but I dislike them aesthetically. Maybe use order chits, or scenario objectives? Anyway if you meet point 1) and 2) rapid changes of plan are a bit more hard to pull off.

4) On terrain. Funnily enough I think Warhammer with its random terrain shows the way. Place the terrain but then roll when a unit enters a piece to see if that terrain is really there or the maps were wrong.

To put it simply what I want to say is that once you know what interests you out of this thing we call battle or war, you can focus on simulating this and gaming the rest.

One thing I have dislikes with almost all the games I have played is the lack of the need for reserves. I almost end up committing all of my units to a fight. Now this may be just me being a doffus. But I think the lack of fatigue in most games undermines the need for fresh units.

Looks like some of you guys take this very seriously . Perhaps some of you are ruleswriters?

Me, I just prefer to play .

"Me, I just prefer to play."

Have you tried my Roman political stratagy game where you manouvre your supporting commanders onto the senete to win control of the empire?. It's a diceless turn based game you may have heard of

It's called "Tiddlywinks"

Is n't there a 'fast-play' version…Tiddlywi ?

Looks like some of you guys take this very seriously . Perhaps some of you are rules writers?

Me, I just prefer to play .

mysteron:

Understood. Nothing wrong with 'just playing.' More power to ya. But 'very seriously?' Compared to what, the long threads on the color of the Guard Voltigeurs' plumes or how many figures to put on a stand? Or how about the ones on what size figures are 'best'and which dice folks like?

But yeah, this is about rules writing/game design. Of course, many gamers write rules and create variants; it is something that lots of wargamers do. How serious is that? It's just talking about 'how to do it well.'

For instance, Steve64 wrote:

Pretty much all wargames (from DBA, through to warhammer, through to Empire, or ASL, or FoW) do a good job simulating most of the tactical factors involved in combat to one degree or another.

As someone who wants to do a 'good job' in writing or re-writing rules, the obvious question as a rules writer is 'How do you do a good job?'

And 'How does a person know when a set of rules do a good job of simulating military history/tactical factors to one degree or another?

I don't know how serious those questions are, but I would think they are unavoidable in any effort to simulate, to do a good job. It isn't very serious to want to do a good job as opposed to a bad one.

Best Regards,

Bill H.

As someone who wants to do a 'good job' in writing or re-writing rules, the obvious question as a rules writer is 'How do you do a good job?'

Have mechanisms that reflect real difficulties without just making it arbitarily random.

If the old guard did not have the same chance of blundering in The real napoleonic wars as spanish militia, try to reflect it in the rules you write

Mysteron:
Looks like some of you guys take this very seriously . Perhaps some of you are ruleswriters?

Me, I just prefer to play .

Funny you should mention that. I was just reading this thesis submission and thinking the same thing :

PDF link

!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!

Basically, he is saying that the whole universe shows signs of being a well defined numerical simulation !! Woah !

Back on topic –

Bill H raises a good point :

And 'How does a person know when a set of rules do a good job of simulating military history/tactical factors to one degree or another?

I guess there are 2 answers to that.

First one is base it on some subjective values that apply a good dose of common sense, usually backed up with anecdotal evidence.

The Old Guard should be less likely to break than Spanish militia … for sure. Makes perfect sense. You could then apply some reasoning to come up with probabilities for those chances of breaking – and present that as a set of wargame rules.

Nothing wrong with that approach as far as creating a game goes, but it just means that the 'simulation' aspect of those rules has little factual basis outside of the author's interpretations of the anecdotal evidence.

I think what Bill H is alluding to (and correct me if Im wrong please) … is that a serious simulation attempt needs a more objective set of values to work with, and a definitive way of testing the simulation to produce a proof of accuracy.

I think thats where you are coming from ?

That would be awesome to have. Lets assume we are looking at simulating the Napoleonic battlefield … the nightmare begins in collating reliable data on what really happened on the battlefield.

Collating and filtering hundreds of historical AARs is a monstrous task. Truly monstrous. But you need a decent set of real data before you can even begin to derive some hard statistical truths from your prior assumptions.

How close are we to having some of this raw statisical information all nicely collated and published or otherwise available ?

There are plenty of books published which provide reasonable interpretations of events, but Im not sure where you can find the raw data itself in 1 nice place, without the wrappings of interpretation around it.

Today is very strange. I put a blog post up this morning and used the Spanish Militia vs the French Old Guard Grenadiers as an example, then I refreshed this thread and saw Kevin had used those two as an example and now Steve does too…

I suppose the two on this thread are related but I still find it funny.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Nothing wrong with that approach as far as creating a game goes, but it just means that the 'simulation' aspect of those rules has little factual basis outside of the author's interpretations of the anecdotal evidence.

Steve64:
Exactly. The basic meaning of a simulation is that a Dynamic Model is built to resemble *Something Else*. That DM = SE statement has to have some method for establishing the relationship besides 'I like it' or 'that's what I think.'

We do it all the time. We can say with some objectivity that a four inch shell of plastic is a model of a T-34 because we have seen pictures of a T-34 and know what it looks like, even though the real thing is ten tons of steel and rubber twenty feet long. That is all based on pictures and artifacts.

So why is it that such an artifical construct as a plastic model be judged with some objectivity, but not a wargame, a model created in a different medium?

I think what Bill H is alluding to (and correct me if Im wrong please) … is that a serious simulation attempt needs a more objective set of values to work with, and a definitive way of testing the simulation to produce a proof of accuracy.

I think thats where you are coming from ?

I hate that word 'serious.' The designer of Fire & Fury states that his wargame is both "Historically Accurate" and "Playable." The designers of Black Powder state that their wargame is a "tolerably convincing representation of real combat." The designers of Flames of War state that their rules provide players with the "actual challenges faced by the real commanders."

I don't have to get very serious to ask questions like "How in the hell do they know that? What Military history are they talking about? and how do they know it is historically accurate?"

These are current wargame designers stating this, not some professional, *serious* simulation designer funded by the military-industrial complex. They are making specific statements about what their product provides the customer, not some philosophical interpretation of personal enlightenment or some scientific marvel.

That would be awesome to have. Lets assume we are looking at simulating the Napoleonic battlefield … the nightmare begins in collating reliable data on what really happened on the battlefield.

Collating and filtering hundreds of historical AARs is a monstrous task. Truly monstrous. But you need a decent set of real data before you can even begin to derive some hard statistical truths from your prior assumptions.

Well, Steve, I have two reactions:
1. That isn't really necessary to come to some 'statistical truths,' a "decent set of real data" being a very flexible concept where simulations are concerned, and

2. There are a number of methods of creating functional simulations without ever having a "decent set of real data" in the sense you mean.

How close are we to having some of this raw statisical information all nicely collated and published or otherwise available ?

Closer than you think, but what makes you think that professional simulation designers EVER have what they would consider a 'decent set' of raw data to work with?

There are plenty of books published which provide reasonable interpretations of events, but Im not sure where you can find the raw data itself in 1 nice place, without the wrappings of interpretation around it.

I will bet that whatever idea you have of what constitutes 'raw data', it will still need interpretation. The real test of a simulation is whether that 'interpretation' actually succeeds in modeling/representing what it was designed to… much like that four inch piece of plastic or a Rocco military painting are 'interpretations' of the real thing, but their success is based on how well they resemble the real thing.

Like a game must be play-tested before it can be 'proven' to be a functional/workable game, so too, a simulation game needs to be play-tested to establish that DM = SE statement is true. It can be done with a good deal of objectivity. It is accomplished all the time with a wide variety of methods.

Simulations have to simulate to work… so how do you know they 'work'? That is a question of function regarding finite rules with finite ranges of player decisions and finite game consequences. So how do they replicate anything of the real world?

Simulation designers AND game designers have been focused on that question for five decades or more--outside the hobby. They have come up with some answers that work… whether you are 'serious' about it, or just in it for the FUN. Inside the hobby, most wargame designers have abandoned any effort to answer the question at all.

The solutions are no more complex or hard or time-consuming than games and wargame design is now… they're just different than what has been done by most designers now, which is to make a lot of claims that have no substance, design-by-the-seat-of-their-pants, relying on talent rather than any coherent methodologies, and currently, giving up on even the possibility of simulating military history.

Best Regards,

Bill H.

It is interesting on the basis what is right. For instance the need for reserves. All manuals on tactics, strategic and lower require the use of reserves. Most game do not need them. That shows a clear discrepancey not numecic but clear and unabigious. The trick is then to analyse why reserves are not prectical in some games. Often this is actually quite simple to assess and modify. With the absence of reserves carfefull stydy of most ganes is that it is impossible to move resereves fast enough to actually function in an advantageious way. Play something like DMM and you can appreciate that actually there may be a way forward. It highligts the obvious (which often is not obvious) that some modes of movement are much faster than others. The typical models use a"resererve move". It is usually too slow, DBM was an exception where the move for large numbers can be 5 to 10 times a fighting move. For modern the speed of a tank down a road is several times higher than actual ground progress speed which accounts for variations in surface conditions, the need to make carefull use of terrain cover and in many cases stopping to obsereve. fire or be briefed on the next move. Even if the relative speed are quite inaccurate but in the plausible range, suddenly you get a better result, if those reserveas are in a well planned and position. Oh, accidentally you have created rules for forming up points, as you start looking for places to park where unobsereved fast travel is possible to likely points where re-enfocement is require or the attack rolls forward in battle formation. Oh bummer! by defining that you have defined the rules for where the enemy might shell due to them being likely forming up points (trhat never happend in the real world did it (SIC). Without any hard data but an understanding of the parameter that drive a system, you have a much better simulation. Not perfect but better. MG allows Gods I view (but dummies and hiden movement for the dicerning player). Simply as the deployment to battle speed is now more credible. Deploying to anothert position take a finite time, that you need to have. A well planned attack or defence has it reserves in the right place. and can get them in place in a timely mannet. If they are not then the physical time for a unit to form up and move may be too long.

This does make the qualtative decisions much harder for the player. He does not have to "write stuff down" but he does have to have a plan. Chucking stuff on the table and rolling forward will result in anialation againt a thought out considered plan although nothing is written down. The art of Simulation is keep it simple and allow no rule unless it can buy its way to the text.

In another the study that we made, certain real world and anecdotal issues came to mind. In all tank wars certainly from WWII to the 67 aran israli wars. Losses in tank commanders in action not just in travelling too and from the actual engagement, through small arms was significant. Wargamers never address this, so clearly thre must be two failures, failure to unbutton and failure to have a parameter that would encorage that approach. Getting a plausible but not 100% accurate is what its about.