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

McLaddie,

I'm a bit pumped up about this so I hope I do not offend…

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.

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?

Between these two quotes I immediately thought:

Straw-man argument. "We need data accurate enough to be useful" just became, "We'll never have *perfect* data so any data is fine."

In a moment I will explain why I conclude this.

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.

[emphasis added by me]

The top three quotes from you explain that:

1) We'll never have perfect data – true.
2) We'll always have holes in that data that require interpretation and inference – redundant but true.
3) The data will be good enough – I know this how?

In the last quote you define how we know if the data is "good enough." Specifically:

The real test of a simulation is whether that 'interpretation' actually succeeds in modeling/representing what it was designed to…

And

…their success is based on how well they resemble the real thing.

OK, both of these are true statements but we have a circular problem presented by the fact that we have little to no reliable understanding of what we are modeling much beyond a superficial level.

We have no way to vet the data independent from the data. You claim the data will be good enough if it allows us to provide a realistic model of something we have no way of comparing the model against but for the data which we cannot verify but for this aforementioned comparison.

So my question is, since we know the data is untrustworthy and our purpose is not to depend on our current antidotal understanding of what happened but to build a model that more closely represents it, therefore by observing the model we could determine if the data is "good enough" based on if the model is shown to be close enough to…

THE THING WE DON'T HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF?

Sorry I shouted there but I wanted to emphasize how we can't vet the data by how closely the resulting model based on the data resembles something we presently only understand through the data.

Cheers,

The Bandit

"Sorry I shouted there but I wanted to emphasize how we can't vet the data by how closely the resulting model based on the data resembles something we presently only understand through the data."

Thats how structural testing works. in fact it is exactly how it works, with one change.

The data is actually second hand and from a different enviroment.

KevanG,

The data is actually second hand and from a different environment.

And I believe that matters, because it prevents recursive logic.

Cheers,

The Bandit

McLaddie,
While anecdotes are not ideal data they are data. Take my examples. If a model does not make using reserves productive we have two options. 1 to belive that real genrals are fools or that we are. Personaly I would tend to considere generals have more kowledge than me on the real worlds in military matters, so I make an assumption which is in fact a key to any simulation, that they are correct. That is data, not ideal but data. Using physics "speed of movement" and some understanding of travel by road we can elude to a parameter we can model, ovrall speed of travel that can be modelled pproximately. It is true taht it is not necessarily correct but it is better than nothing.

Newtons laws of gravity are in essence wrong, thet are a simplification. However the approximation is good enough for simple models. It is not acceptable for nuclear physiscs!

If you have a better model in a definable paramete{s} that better defines the real world than mine then I am eager to learn. Just saying it is wrong is worthless drivel. Explaning how a better approximation can be achieved and why it is better than mine is the basis of science and simulation.

Nearer home on conducting a bike tour I plan on 8 mile per elapsed hour. In reality I hardley ever do that speeds. However empirically that is a good simulaton of my average speed including stops for tea, loo, and looking at the view. It is not perfect but is good enough. It is not proulgated on precise timeings or even precise actual road distances and is certaily not recorded in written form. It even has some allowance for my going off rout. It is in truth a very simple and relatively inaccurate simulation but is nontherless usefull.

A model based on qlatative observations will not be the best available but it is still usefull. Particularly when it can be compared to some understanding of the key driving parameters. Some of which but not all can be traced to the laws of physics whic are at my level not accutare but good enough. Whe at MG do not require all tapes and rulers calibarted to national Physical traceable standards as the typical approximation of using an uncalibrated rules in not an issue. You could cheat horibly by having a tape that measuers possibly even 13" for every 12" marked. That would be an approximation and you may get away with it for some time untill qualatatively sombody gets suspiciuos and looks in more detail.

Simulation like science is the art of usefull approximation.

Nearer home on conducting a bike tour I plan on 8 mile per elapsed hour. In reality I hardley ever do that speeds. However empirically that is a good simulaton of my average speed including stops for tea, loo, and looking at the view.

What if somebody asked you to create a simulation for a bike marathon that might include anywhere from 10,000 to 150,000 participants, all riding antique 19th century bicycles that don't exist anymore, through the midst of a rainstorm in a foreign landscape that you've never seen before, although bits of it were described – in contradictory fashion – by six different people who have all been dead for a century, each of whom only saw a small portion of it, anyway.

Okay: what are the historically-correct odds of 8% of those cyclists crashing, if a delivery truck came down the hill in the opposite direction? And then what would be the reaction of the other 92%? How many would take a wrong turn and get lost? How many would sigh, turn around, and go home?

That, I think, would be more like what wargames purport to do.

Oh, and: it also needs to be fun, to be playable on the average person's table within 3 hours or less, and adaptable to any size of figures and/or basing style.

PS – Most of your customers are going to want you to differentiate between different types of delivery trucks, because they all read Günther von Quatschammer's famous 1964 book in which he glorified the Volvos as particularly effective at squashing cyclists during the infamous 1818 Schlumpfenburg Tunnel Incident, so everybody knows that's the way it was.

Bandit:

Reasonable questions, which I will address today when I have more time. I will say this, you and Klumpenproletariat
have pointed out important questions and presented reasonable conclusions on what wargames pruport to do. Even the PS or BS problem of what customers want vs what needs to be simulated.

The problem is that you and/or Klumpenproletariat and/or many other wargamers believe those issues are insurmountable problems and wargames are simply incapable of doing what they generally purport do…

Regardless, those very questions are ones that all simulation designers had to face, have to ask and answer, if they are going to be successful. Whether designing a computer simulation of a factory process or colliding galaxies, business models or predictive traffic patterns…or simulation games--the same issues exist.

Your questions aren't something unique to hobby wargames or wargames in general. In the last five decades thousands of simulation and simulation game [and pure game] designers have worked on those very questions and collectively have been able to come up with workable answers.

By 'workable', I mean they can demonstratably mimic whatever reality, past or present, is being targeted. Everything? No. All the time? No. Each perfect, No. But whatever is modeled can be shown to actually work as a simulation of *something else*.

And it doesn't require a doctorate in statistics, a gigantic computer and a brain-numbing, complex set of procedures and game rules to do that. But it does require knowing some of the methods those simulation designers have developed over the decades and then do the work they require.

Just like pure games, pure simulations need to be 'user-friendly' and produce results in a reasonable time or they don't work, just like wargames and simulation games. The table-top, miniature game physical limits and requirements certainly narrow a designer's options in design, but it doesn't negate the possibilities regarding simulating at all… any more than the other mediums do, from computers, to board games or pencil and paper games.

Oh, and a related comment:

Between these two quotes I immediately thought:

Straw-man argument. "We need data accurate enough to be useful" just became, "We'll never have *perfect* data so any data is fine."

Nope, any data isn't fine. In fact I tend to stay away from absolutes like 'any, all, every, have to, must, and should' etc. etc. They are rarely helpful and generally prove to be wrong--if provable at all.

Best Regards,

Bill H.

Klumpenproletariat – Commecial appeal is altogether different. At MG we recognise we will never be the No 1 choice of the average gamer! We know there are lots of folk who say they want a simulation but when faced with one run off screaming.

Chess is a simple game in its mechanics, you learn the rules in minutes. The undersanding and knowledge base needed to play it well is vast, you need to know books worth of openings even to attempt high level competition. MG can be bit like that at company level, rules is simple, game is not. Commanding a company could neve be considered a simple job. Any simulation is likely to take you into that domain. However those who like an intersting simulation that demands some level of concentration find it fun.

Chess played with a few pieces is less daunting than a full game. At least one of our players loves the game but demands only to play simple scenarios with modest forces.
Little does he realise he is getting better and the scenarios are getting more interesting and challengeing with no change to the rules ;-).

You extreem analogy is not valid. The case histories of being unbuttoned and use of reserves does provide limited data on which to judge a model and hence modeling is possible to some extent.

If there were no accounts of your proverbial race there could be no simulation as it would not exist. A tree falling in a forest makes no detectable sound if there is nothing to detect it. Hence you cannot model an unobserved event. You may be able to model that event by its effects on another event that you did see. You may be able to approximate the sound of an un-observed tree falling based on one you saw. That model is however only usefull if you need to know what the sound of an unobserved tree falling was. You would never be check the validity as you have no observation whatsoever. However the answer may still be usefull.

We do have accounts and like all good historians you have assess the weight you put on a given source. The US anaysis just post war of the Bren carrier noted that there was no point in deploying it closer thab 400 yds to the enemy as its effectiveness did no increase. This is a usefull fact from what would be considered a reliable source.

You extreem analogy is not valid. If there were no accounts of your proverbial race there could be no simulation as it would not exist.

I did say that there were six accounts of it: all limited and some contradictory.

But if you'd prefer a real example:

How many hits will the IJN Musashi score on the the USS South Dakota in a five-minute period, starting at a range of 18,000 yards, if both ships are steaming at 19 knots in rough seas, with the SD turning and the Musashi closing at 20 degrees, at night? (With the SD returning fire, of course)

I've read tons of historical sources for 1920s and 1930s gunnery trials for various world navies, but never seen anything that would get me even remotely close to answering that question. And yet that's the most basic sort of fundamental wargamey question that forms the basis for a game system.

(The USN's battleship trials, for instance, were done at 10 knots, in daylight, in calm seas, without radar, with a towed dummy target that stayed at a parallel course and a constant 10k yards… and obviously wasn't shooting back, although a "damage officer" was present to ad-lib random effects of imaginary enemy fire.)

Just as I've seen tons of data on musketry drills and the number of musket balls that can hit a target at X yards… but never seen anybody present any data on what the effect of those hits would have been on a unit of men: do they run away? Do they take cover? Do they ignore it?

Wargames are made of thousands of assumptions like that, usually converted into probabilities, the huge majority of which can't possibly be answered by source material in any sort of comprehensive way.

Wargames then exacerbate the problem by needing to provide "accurate" information for things that never happened (such as the Musashi firing upon the South Dakota.) How do you arrive at a representation of "what really happened," when it never happened?

(To my knowledge, there are no historical examples of French Old Guard infantry charging Austrian Grenz units. Therefore, what data would you use to determine the probable outcome of an engagement in which an Old Guard unit charged a Grenz unit?)

Commecial appeal is altogether different.

I didn't say appeal; I was referring to acceptance, a much more fundamental real-world criterion, and the difference between the simulation being something that actually gets read and used, and merely being something theoretical.

Klumpenproletariat gets it, I think he and I are together on this one.

UshCha, you're picking on the wrong things and inaccurate to boot.

McLaddie, you keep saying this is "closer than people think" and "these things aren't insurmountable." OK, I've got a challenge for you, I'm being frank, honest and forthright, I promise I am not baiting.

I think we are in agreement that one cannot and will not simulate all aspects of a given something. The given something is the Napoleonic battlefield, more specifically a corps commander's experience attempting to exert command and control. Specifically, how do we handle the things we can't model, such as the choices of division commanders to change the placement and linear formations of battalions within their division while executing the broader base orders from their corps commander represented by the player without the player intervening in those choices but while representing the variety that occurred? And what is that based on? And how do we do it without giving the player more micro level control than is realistic under the circumstances?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit:

Before I respond, let me make sure I have your issues clear. As I understand them they are:

1. How do we know when data is ‘good enough' for creating a functional simulation?
2. How do we simulate something we don't have an example of?
3. How can we vet the data by how closely the resulting model [based on the data] resembles something we can only understand through the data?
4. Do we have a circular problem: we have little or no reliable understanding of what we are modeling beyond a superficial, antidotal level?
5. Do we have ways to ‘vet' the data independent of the data?

Some of the key words hear are 'accurate', ‘reliable', ‘useful' [a term for ‘good enough' as far as I am concerned], ‘real data', ‘vet', and ‘realistic'.

Have I got it right?

Best Regards,

Bill H.

Good points all round – thx all for the interesting discussion. Its one of those discussions where you can easily agree with completely opposed arguments from both sides :)

The question of reserves comes up a few times above. I think the sole reason why wargamers tend to not hold back is the simple fact that they can see everything that is happening in the larger battle. The decision to commit everything is made in the safety of a too well-informed position.

If the same guys were playing double-blind, you would see a more cautious approach with adequate reserves. Just my subjective 2c worth of opinion of course.

@ Bill H

In the last five decades thousands of simulation and simulation game [and pure game] designers have worked on those very questions and collectively have been able to come up with workable answers.

Got some good links for further readings on the topic ?

There is a lot of material out there to wade through, so can you suggest some more tatgetted starting points / primers on the topic that cut to the chase ?

@Sam

Lol, love it. I know where you are coming from, and as always, I enjoy the way you write :)

Tend to agree with Bill though, in that I don't believe its too insurmountable a problem … just harder than it looks sometimes.

Steve:

Here are some readings that I have found useful. All have been written in the last three years:

Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals

It is expensive so look it up in a library or get a used copy on Amazon. The chapter on simulation games hits the basics. This is a textbook on game design written for and published by MIT [not computers, but game design]

Raph Koster A Theory of Fun for Game Design
It is a fun book, an easy read but don't be fooled by that. It is written by a game designer who has done it all including wargames. The book hits all of the things you find wargame designers fussing over concerning fun games and even simulations…

Philip Sabin Simulating War

Written by a Military Historian who uses wargames to teach at the college level, including having students create wargames [some of which are included in the book] Of course, his enduring claim to fame is that he quotes me….
;-7

Edited by Andreas Tolk Engineering Principles of Combat Modeling and Distributed Simulations

Another tome of 900 pages, it is far less daunting than its title. It is written by and for military and private wargame designers as a primer for condensing everything that has been learned about wargame design over the last twenty years. And while it certainly deals with computer simulations, It also addresses methodologies applications realated to board games and military miniatures and how they simulate. Again is probably something you'd want to check out of a library or get a used copy of through amazon.

Best Regards,

Bil H.

Wargames then exacerbate the problem by needing to provide "accurate" information for things that never happened (such as the Musashi firing upon the South Dakota.) How do you arrive at a representation of "what really happened," when it never happened?

Klumpenproletariat:
Wargame designers exacerbate the problem by refusing to believe such questions have been addressed by thousands of other wargame and simulation designers in ways very applicable to the wargame hobby.

(To my knowledge, there are no historical examples of French Old Guard infantry charging Austrian Grenz units. Therefore, what data would you use to determine the probable outcome of an engagement in which an Old Guard unit charged a Grenz unit?)

You are really good at describing the challanges of wargame and simulation design, and really good at ignoring the solutions offered all around.

Last time it was how could one possibly determine the probability of a French column retreating when fired on by a line of Prussian infantry. I answered that question in detail… where were you? It wasn't like I was detailing some deep theory of statistics or complicated math.

I get the idea that you really believe those insurmountable issues and problems you so ably describe are unique to the hobby and one outside the hobby has every faced such fundamental quandaries, let alone actually solved them. With all evidence to the contrary anywhere you might want to look outside the hobby, I am curious why you haven't noticed.

I am slowly being convinced you don't want to know the answers and believe any 'solution' has to be unplayable and unfun…even though you insist there are no 'solutions.'

I don't believe its too insurmountable a problem … just harder than it looks sometimes.

Steve:
Simulation game design isn't that much harder than game design--there are just some differences. What I find the hardest part is getting through 40 years of ingrown hobby thinking about simulation games and wargames when attempting to talk about it in any practical fashion.

There are a set of beliefs that have become ingrained in many wargamers' minds which have nothing to do with functional wargame and simulation design. Just the word 'simulation' pulls up all sorts of emotional and intellectual baggage, the first bags being packed in the 1970s by Simulations Publications, Inc. They too often derail any coherent discussion of practical wargame and simulation design. 'Accurate', 'realistic', 'fun' and 'historical flavor' are just some of the trigger words that seem to obscure more than they reveal because of it.

Best Regards,

Bill

Thanks Bill – that Raph Koster is easy to listen too (some very useful youtube vids that cut straight to the chase).

Will put the others on the reading list as well.

Probably time to get back into development for the next few days. More writing, less TMP for short stint :)

Ok, my two pennies worth, the fly in the ointment for all simulationists? The Battle of the River Plate, I've re-fought that encounter using boardgames, and naval rules and never been able to get the historical outcome. The Graf Spee destroys the British ships in detail, as the main gun versus armour equation is so lopsided.

I stopped WWII naval combat, quite some so there maybe a super new accurate simulation available, but do any simulate the psychological and political? Both of which were crucial to determining the original outcome.

Steve64, for hard numbers there is always the Lanchester laws and the work of Dupuy – Numbers, Predictions and War, Col T N Dupuy, Macdonald and Jane's, 1979

Another route to a new debate?

Bandit:

Before I respond, let me make sure I have your issues clear. As I understand them they are:

1. How do we know when data is ‘good enough' for creating a functional simulation?
2. How do we simulate something we don't have an example of?
3. How can we vet the data by how closely the resulting model [based on the data] resembles something we can only understand through the data?
4. Do we have a circular problem: we have little or no reliable understanding of what we are modeling beyond a superficial, antidotal level?
5. Do we have ways to ‘vet' the data independent of the data?

Some of the key words hear are 'accurate', ‘reliable', ‘useful' [a term for ‘good enough' as far as I am concerned], ‘real data', ‘vet', and ‘realistic'.

Have I got it right?

Best Regards,

Bill H.

Yes.

Cheers,

The Bandit

More fundamentally, I would think, is:

Are there really that many people who think there's a "problem" in the first place?

Are there really that many people who think there's a "problem" in the first place?

Considering how often you bring them up, yes.

McLaddie, you keep saying this is "closer than people think" and "these things aren't insurmountable." OK, I've got a challenge for you, I'm being frank, honest and forthright, I promise I am not baiting.

I think we are in agreement that one cannot and will not simulate all aspects of a given something. The given something is the Napoleonic battlefield, more specifically a corps commander's experience attempting to exert command and control. Specifically, how do we handle the things we can't model, such as the choices of division commanders to change the placement and linear formations of battalions within their division while executing the broader base orders from their corps commander represented by the player without the player intervening in those choices but while representing the variety that occurred? And what is that based on? And how do we do it without giving the player more micro level control than is realistic under the circumstances?

Bandit:
I wasn't ignoring this 'challenge', it's just far more specific than your basics, so I'll respond to them first.

I will say that:
1. The question is one that the actual corps commanders would have asked about division commander decisions. Many military men would have and written about it. They limited the command choices division commanders could carry out within their sphere of influence. Lots written about that.

2. The problem is a physical one. The player is moving all the units on the table, even though he is supposed to be acting as a corps or army commander.

3. There is also the question of what a corps or Army commander DID during a battle. Napoleon rode around Austerlitz for over two hours afer releasing Soult to attack, sending or given zero orders during that time. A year later at Jena, he spent a good portion of his time kicking around a Prussian drum. Is that what gamers want to do, regardless of how realistic it is?

4. Wargames model subordinate [non-player] choices all the time in a wide variety of ways. The question is whether they actually mimick the probabilities and range of choices made by the actual subordinates. Far more historical evidence of that than most wargamers bother investigating.

5.Answers are predicated on the questions. Ask the wrong question and you don't get the answer you want.

I'll get back to you on that within the context of how I respond to the basic questions.

Best Regards,

Bill

UshCha:

Sorry. I did see your post. I agree with most all you say.

While anecdotes are not ideal data they are data.

Anecdotes are simply a statistically invalid number of samples. Have enough anecdotes, say 30+ on the same event or conditions and you are much closer to reliable data. IF enough officers agree about reserves…

Newtons laws of gravity are in essence wrong, thet are a simplification. However the approximation is good enough for simple models. It is not acceptable for nuclear physiscs!

Yes, 'good enough' to accomplish what is desired, not perfect, not all-encompassing TRUTH, not ideal, just that approximation that provides data that helps achieve the simulation goals of a design, whether Newton's formula for designing a skyscraper or Einsteinian gravity for nuclear physics.

If you have a better model in a definable paramete{s} that better defines the real world than mine then I am eager to learn. Just saying it is wrong is worthless drivel. Explaning how a better approximation can be achieved and why it is better than mine is the basis of science and simulation.

Yes. Agreed. It comes down to method and results.

Simulation like science is the art of useful approximation.

Well put, but that could be said about art and game design too. They are approximations of beauty, self-expression and/or *fun* activities. It's all a matter of what approximations are 'useful' for achieving which goals, whether skyscrapers or a Don Troiani painting or a simulation of Napoleonic warefare.

Best Regards,

Bill H.

Ok, my two pennies worth, the fly in the ointment for all simulationists? The Battle of the River Plate, I've re-fought that encounter using boardgames, and naval rules and never been able to get the historical outcome. The Graf Spee destroys the British ships in detail, as the main gun versus armour equation is so lopsided.

I stopped WWII naval combat, quite some so there maybe a super new accurate simulation available

I remember reading that the Fletcher Pratt Naval rules predicted the result of the battle before it happened.

OP "Do you think that movie or gamey wargames might keep growing and eventually outnumber more historical based games?"

Pretty sure Games Workshop is larger than all historical miniatures wargames companies combined, and GW's games are played by more people than all historical miniatures wargames combined.

Bandit:

Okay. Please keep in mind that while I have published hobby wargames in the distant past, most of my experience in creating simulation games has been in education and business training. That means the simulation not only had to simulate, not only be fun. but whatever skills or dynamic insights the players developed playing it had to be clearly applicable to the real world. Over the last twenty years, I have become very aware of how to design for that simulation game / real world relationship. And I had a lot of help from simulation designers in a variety of unrelated as well as related fields. That's because regardless of the medium or subject, computer games or Astrophysics Research, the basics are always the same, because they all are attempting to artificially model something else.

And obviously, this is going to be a long post.

1. How do we know when data is ‘good enough' for creating a functional simulation?

All simulations are procedural systems. They are simply procedures done in succession, whether that is a game system or computer software. Because they are, it is very much a ‘garbage in, garbage out' situation. If you find that the system produces garbage, you can guess what has gone in it. If you had a simulation goal of say, matching the combat results probability of rout based on 50 events, and succeed without ever finding enough information about casualty rates from volley fire, then I'd say your data was ‘good enough.' If you could achieve that success with only two subsystems instead of five, then that's ‘good enough.'

The tools no hobby designers uses or even believes exists, are the methods for objectively determining whether a simulation system works… establishing whether the design is indeed a functioning simulation. Something that was kinda important in my line of work and most all simulation designers.

If you objectively test the simulation to see if it actually mimics what it was designed to, then you could tell whether the data was ‘good enough' to produce a functional simulation. [And it allows you to ‘tweak' the data too] While there are a wide variety of ways to do that testing [See Tolk's Book mentioned above, Chapter 14 Validation and Verification], hobby wargame designers ignore or are unaware of this possibility. They rely on ‘feel', ‘flavor' and ‘hope', which translates to ‘personal opinion', where one is as good as another. There are a number of designers notes where the designer ‘hopes' the players find the game ‘realistic.' A number of designers, like Sam, don't believe it's possible. OR if it is possible, it is a monetarily burdensome and impractical process.

2. How do we simulate something we don't have an example of?

How do you simulate the surface of Titan to test a design for landing on it? How do you simulate a management system that never existed before? You do what humans have done for thousands of years: you extrapolate. You use the information you do have that is ‘like' the situation you don't have an example of. For instance, what would happen if the Guard Grenadiers attacked a Spanish Militia unit? You have examples of elite and regular infantry attacking militia units. You have Spanish militia in battles and their behavior there. You have examples of Imperial Guard units in combat.

The question is: How do you know your design simulates if you have nothing to test it against, no example?

Over decades, this is what simulation designers have done to answer that question:

First, they created simulations that could be tested repeatedly against the real thing. Then they developed Validation tests around those successful simulations. Once they had the tests, they would ‘validate' simulations that hadn't been tested yet, but could be tested against the real thing. By refining the tests, comparing the results to the tests against reality, they found they could predict with significant reliability that if the simulation passed the tests, it would also pass any comparison to the real thing.

Once they had confidence in that set of tests, they could go further: If the simulation passed the tests, but couldn't be directly tested against the real thing, they still had confidence that the simulation would simulate the ‘unknown.'

Is it 100% perfect? Of course not. Is it better or as good as testing it against real results? Generally, no. Given the option, a designer will always go with the real comparisons. However, when so many uses of simulations are valuable because there is no way to test it against the real thing, this is a significant benefit. It is why simulation use had steadily increased.

BUT, that means that if a simulation of Napoleonic Warfare passes those tests, you have a far, far higher confidence that the simulation works than some designer's ‘feelings', ‘flavors' and ‘personal opinion', no matter how talented or historically knowledgable they may be.

3. How can we vet the data by how closely the resulting model is based on the data resembles something we can only understand through the data?

This isn't what I was saying. "Vetting data" means confirming it is reliable, accurate, pertinent to the question at hand. That is what Historians do with historical evidence, and probably better than using a simulation. However… remember garbage in, garbage out:

To use an analogy. A V-6 engine is a procedural system with the goal of creating power to move a car. You could create an engine that would tell you the exact octane in the gas, but it would be a very different kind of engine. probably wouldn't be something you'd want to power your Chevy with it. However, it the engine was designed to use high octane gas, and you stick in 83 octane, you will be able to make some judgments on the quality of the gas when you run the engine. Again, this is only a meaningful analogy if you, as a simulation designer can determine how well your simulation ‘runs' on different data inputs, different octane.

4. Do we have a circular problem: we have little or no reliable understanding of what we are modeling beyond a superficial, antidotal level?

I don't see how. I hope I have provided some idea why that doesn't happen. It all depends on what the simulation needs, and that means the designer determines what is a ‘reliable understanding' of what is modeled. of what that means beyond a superficial, antidotal level.

I will also say that evidence suggests most hobby designers' efforts at ‘understanding' military history and combat tend to be superficial and antidotal, let alone game and simulation design.

There is a lot more information/data/evidence out there than hobby designers know because:
A. They don't ask the right questions,
B. Don't do the work to find out,
C. Either because they don't care or believe more information doesn't exist, sell the superficial and antidotal as deep understanding,
D. Without ever bothering to say where the hell they got the evidence for the ‘history' they sell.

5. Do we have ways to ‘vet' the data independent of the data?

This question surprises me somewhat. Of course we do, if by ‘vet' you mean determining how ‘reliable', ‘real' and ‘useful' the data is in simulating. Historians are always trying to ‘vet' one piece of historical evidence with other evidence. Scientists and car mechanics do the same thing. Then there are ways to test it outside the simulation, from statistical analysis to straight comparison with similar data. And of course by using the data to ‘fuel' a simulation. Data is not a mass of the same thing. They are a mass of different bits of information that has to be ‘vetted' individually and collectively. The questions asked of the data are what make that effort manageable.

Reliable: The data can be relied on. It has proven worth [has been 'vetted'] in understanding history, combat and in building simulation games.

Useful: [a term for ‘good enough' as far as I am concerned] That simply means that the data has a functional application in simulating what the designer chose to model in his design. And of course, no simulation can do it all. Like the historian or scientist, he has to chose what he will and will not focus on. And ALWAYS, the ‘not' pile is gigantic compared to the focus pile.

Real Data: As opposed to ‘unreal data?' I would imagine that real data would be reliable evidence that has been ‘vetted' so you have some confidence in its use.

Realistic: This word is usually used to express feeling gamers have in playing a game, no more. For a simulation designer, it would be a determination of how well a simulation does indeed model, represent, simulate, recreate, mimic the parts of reality it was designed to simulate. It is ‘realistic' if it is a functional simulation, it is very realistic if it does it closer to 100% of the time in all conditions.

Vetted: This word suggests a methodical way of determining the value of a piece of evidence. Were you thinking of some particular methodology for vetting data?

Bandit, the problems you see and questions you asked certainly are real issues in designing simulations. They are pitfalls that simulation designers can and do fall into. That circular reasoning loop is one pitfall I know occurs, particularly with complex systems. That is why methodologies are created. If followed, such problems that derail design efforts are avoided and the designer doesn't have to keep second-guessing himself in the design process.

And of course, the customer ‘acceptance' issues that Sam points out are also real, and ones that simulations designers of all stripes face when their designs are sold to and used by folks who have little idea of what simulations can and can't provide as well as what is involved in designing them. That is a communication problem.

Best Regards,

Bill H.

Man, while this is interesting, I really do not want my hobby to be like a epistemology or research design class. I did not enjoy those as much as moving my toys around :p

That said that was some very good info on simulations Bill H. and does resonate with most of the material I had to read for research design.

Re. Reserves

This is one of my biggest bug-bears in Wargaming: 99% of the time it is not only not worth keeping a reserve – it is actually a disadvantage so to do.

As well as the gamer's ability to see everything (which someone else mentioned), I think another factor is the gamer's ability to shift units around willy-nilly so there's no reason to keep any units up your sleeve. I am a firm believer that, once a unit has been committed to an advance to contact / assault, it is essentially 'lost' to the player for the rest of the game (or certainly for a very long time). It should be moved by an umpire and issuing it new orders (ie. to get it back under player control) should be far from easy.
This might go some way to encouraging players to keep a few units back, enabling him to respond to changing events.

I think the issue of reserves becomes an issue due to lack of time. Most gamers have just about enough time to conduct the initial attack, let alone the consolidation and use of reserves to bolster defenses. Time and scale is an issue, because most units in a wargame operate at their maximum, theoretical, capability in the shortest possible time frame, just because designer wants to give players the greatest enjoyment.

Most real battles are punctuated by hurry up and wait periods extending for the total length of most games! Watch combat footage and read accounts and see how rarely intensive combat is. In most games, after the initial probing, the tempo accelerates as both sides rush the clock to achieve a result. Play at a larger scale and reserves become critical, unless you want your opponents to be saying hello to your rear echelon units.

I also think the one shot at victory games became popular with players who fought on the losing side historically. Thus, the beautifully painted SS Panzer Grenadiers can defeat the blundering Soviets, without the inconvenient fact that it was a worthless victory, as the Russians smashed through 20 miles away and now threaten the MLD. Which brings me back to reserves, in real life a battered Panzer Fire Brigade would be rushing to seal the breach, or at least contain it.

Man, while this is interesting, I really do not want my hobby to be like a epistemology or research design class. I did not enjoy those as much as moving my toys around :p

Enjoy moving the toys around… This isn't something that would stop you from doing that. I would think it would only be of interest for those wargame designers who claim to have created games that:

1. Are simulations
2. Are 'tolerable representations of real combat'
3. Provide gamers with the challenges of real commanders
4. Provide historical accuracy
5. Recreate historical battles

And of course, those wargamers who are interested in games that offer that. That does cover a large number of our hobby's designers and gamers, but certainly not all miniature wargamers, nor should it.

Bill

I really do not want my hobby to be like a epistemology or research design class.

KTravlos:

Just as an addendum. I would have to ask why you think this discussion could turn your hobby into a design class?

Other hobbies, and I use RC model planes as an example because I know it, don't have that issue. There are hobbiests that buy ready-made planes and fly them without any interest in building them. There are Free-flight models, Semi-scale, Scale and True Scale model-builders, all with their own adherents, all in the same hobby. Nobody worries about RC Model planes being 'turned into' all one thing or the other.

There are similar 'playing with toys', don't care about the history wargamers through to the hard-core simulationists. Why can't they all be part of the same hobby?

Where did this idea come from that says our hobby can ONLY be FUN with toy soldiers or ONLY be a research design class?

Best Regards,
Bill

Bill is right while the thread has been fun its off the original track about fear of going gamey. It always has had that element and it gives me no issue. Provided its not biased by big connecial firms that whish to shade it for copmmecial ends we can all live happily together. Sometimes just some times we go for gamey games. Who can resist a go at doing the final bit of Kellys Heros!

Now to the interesing issue. I maintain albeight based on our modelling, that reserves can be made to work in a game. It does need fast play rules so you get a lot of bounds in so you can deveop a plan, haev it screw up and still get time for the reserevs to arrive and hopefully save the day. In our model it could get a bit silly as has been said with "gods eye view". However if both sides have dummy markers or better still hidden positions only betrayed by running over then or the position fireing. I have at least some anecdotal evidence that that is not an unreasonable assumption from ex-sevicemen. This limits the extent of this effect. Also "god eye view" it helps undeniably in making the task easier. Already it is difficult. We take off Battle management in some games as actually it makes the game harder by vastly increasing the possible command decisions that can be made. As always simulation has deliberate simplifications, that is why it is a simulation not a re-enactment. Always a simulation needs to be as simple as possible while getting an acceptable result. What you want out of a simulation is as varid as the designers and players are. I herd of a paler who rated games on their morale system Good for him. although personally that is very low on my list of priorities. Me I want the dissadvantages of weapons like tanks modelled to the same detail as its advantages. More detail on one side and not the other is pointless in a simulation which is only as good as its percieved weakest link.

Should we have a thered on design paremeters and why they should or should not be covered. No two folk would agree but it would be intersting and may give us all pause for thought or inspiration.

Oh I did not mean that there is such a danger. Nor did I say that your discussion is bad or wrong or not interesting. Or an issue for gaming. However it does raise an issue. I think you are making your case in such a way that I assumed that you are saying that the modelling techniques you are talking about are readily available. I probably misread. That said they are not readily available, require a considerable amount of time to grasp (as you probably know a lot better than me) and learn how to use, and this may be the issue. In the end most miniature war-game designers, at least from what I see anecdotaly from TMP, may be part-time game designers. Which puts a clinch on how advanced your modelling skills can become. Again I may be wrong, and I may have misread your points.

That said please do not take my toy reference in the wrong way. These are games, we are playing with toys, and toys are a model of something real most of the time. Indeed toys and games are a big bases of human civilization ergo why the ancient greeks considered games important.

I do not want to start a whole "toy" vs. "model" debate because I consider it misguided. Toys are models (well not all toys).

Is this thing still dragging on?

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

This would appear to be an appropriately serious response: YouTube link

Is this thing still dragging on?

Ayup.

You know, my issue with the very word 'simulation' is those games that have precisely defined interactions between every. single. rule. or. system. and take tens of minutes to determine the end result of anything.

I do not find it fun to spend hours figuring out that all I managed to hit on your tank was the crew's beer-cooler, especially when that's a detail the shooting crew might not have been able to see!

People getting on the board and asking about dispersion of shot for writing their game rules, when the most critical variable in long-distance shooting is range estimation, followed by wind effect estimation.

I want to grab the person who came up with the idea that 'greater raw quantity of details = greater accuracy' and bludgeon some sense into them!

What matters is not knowing every. single. variable. in the process, but knowing which ones actually affect the outcome!

Lion in ther stars,
Fast play has simulation benerfits of its own. Too often designers and wargamers get lost in detail which does not make the oveall simulation better. I saw a game that went to great lengths to cover all sorts of amunition for fighting in urban areas but, had no way to account for the 3D nature of an uban area. Unbalanced detail is not the way to an efficient simulation. Its fine if the designer wants to do it, in the end is a simulation for his ends not mine.

As for modelling skills. Some of us sorry souls model other things for a living. Me its aero engine systems. Therfore we have some grasp of the art of simplification and how to assess the impact on our warfare model. To me however its more about applied common sence. One of the most usefull things is to go for a walk in an urban area and measure roughly how far you walk. At 60 paces you will see an awfull lot of terrain. Try looking into windows etc. You will not be able to see what does not want to be seen. but many games will have you spotting lots of stuff at much greater ranges. Rule writing is helped if you have a systems bacground but it is not elitest and anybody can do it. The main thing is to write them looking at the real world not a wargames table.

You know, my issue with the very word 'simulation' is those games that have precisely defined interactions between every. single. rule. or. system. and take tens of minutes to determine the end result of anything.

I can understand the issue, but don't blame simulations for that. It's just bad simulation AND game design. The problem is that is what many wargamers see simulations as: Bad games. There is no inherent connection between those two.

those games that have precisely defined interactions between every. single. rule.

I know that's a common perception. I'd love to know who thought that up. Doesn't have much to do with simulation design…unless you want to have 'precisely defined interactions… but it sure ain't necessary to simulate.

Oh I did not mean that there is such a danger. Nor did I say that your discussion is bad or wrong or not interesting. Or an issue for gaming. However it does raise an issue. I think you are making your case in such a way that I assumed that you are saying that the modelling techniques you are talking about are readily available.

KTravlos:
Basically, I am. We could parse about 'readily available', but they sure aren't a secret or rocket science.

I probably misread. That said they are not readily available, require a considerable amount of time to grasp (as you probably know a lot better than me) and learn how to use, and this may be the issue.

Considering the amount of time wargamers claim to spend designing games, I don't see grasping it requiring a 'considerable time'. It really is a matter of what the wargame designers want and claim to be doing. Not some requirement. If the designers and developers of say, SHAKO state that it is a simulation, I'd think they should at least know how such things are done.

In the end most miniature war-game designers, at least from what I see anecdotaly from TMP, may be part-time game designers. Which puts a clinch on how advanced your modelling skills can become. Again I may be wrong, and I may have misread your points.

No, I think you are right. But with my 'advanced modelling skills', I know that grasping the basics of simulation design isn't a masters thesis, and the crap notions that are expounded about simulations and wargames in the hobby are so bizarre and counter-productive to the hobby. Compared to the reality of simulation games [ particularly to someone who knows what can be done and what others are doing outside the hobby], it is a professional and hobby irritation.

That said please do not take my toy reference in the wrong way. These are games, we are playing with toys, and toys are a model of something real most of the time. Indeed toys and games are a big bases of human civilization ergo why the ancient greeks considered games important.

Didn't bother me at all, other than some curiosity about what seemed to be your feeling that discussing simulation games would somehow threaten what you find as fun in the hobby.

I do not want to start a whole "toy" vs. "model" debate because I consider it misguided. Toys are models (well not all toys).

Me neither. I play games with toys or models, whichever you want to call them. However, they are just the pretty counters for the games I play, not the game itself. I could use cardboard just as easily--and a number of miniature rules come with such counters.

Best Regards,
Bill

Lion in the Stars, could not agree more. Just watched a fascianting YouTube run through of a melee between English Knights and French swordsmen, for FOG. Each turn, from initial clash to final resolution was described in detail. In the end, the French retreated, with the English persuing, trouble was the process had taken over 60 die rolls.

Looking at the basic maths the chance of the French defeating the English was the same as a DBMM melee. That would have been resolved by just two dice rolls! Yes, individual abilities and bases losses gave it a granularity that DBMM lacks, but in the time it took to fight that one melee (14 minutes) 4-5 such encounters could have been fought in DBMM. So which is more 'realistic' if both get to the same conclusions using different mechanisms.

Same thing with the Enola Games Combat Commander, three hours to simulate a Soviet Battalion versus US Mech company engagement, the end result being similar to using WRG's/Tabletops Challenger rules, but taking half the time. The Combat Commander rules had hit locations, infantry rules that were as long as the entire WRG rules but gave similar results, to the more basic rules.

I think I now, also have a suitable response to this thread, as it has become too much like the business modelling and risk assessment I used to attempt.

YouTube link

Glad to have cleared that up Bill

good point Milites

With Respect
KTravlos

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

Lots of Gaul has it right. We should really move on to equally driving questions like:

Are you fearful of tournament games?
Are you fearful of point systems?
Are you fearful of card-driven games?
ARe you fearful of 6mm figures?

Lots to worry about…

McLaddie, you keep saying this is "closer than people think" and "these things aren't insurmountable." OK, I've got a challenge for you, I'm being frank, honest and forthright, I promise I am not baiting.

I think we are in agreement that one cannot and will not simulate all aspects of a given something. The given something is the Napoleonic battlefield, more specifically a corps commander's experience attempting to exert command and control.

represented by the player without the player intervening in those choices but while representing the variety that occurred? And what is that based on?

Bandit:

I promised to respond to this specific ‘challenge', so here it is:

The challenge is to simulate a corps commander's experience attempting to exert command and control over his divisions and attached resources. In asking that question you posed three sub-questions:

1. Specifically, how do we handle the things we can't model, such as the choices of division commanders to change the placement and linear formations of battalions within their division while executing the broader base orders from their corps commander, and

2. …Represented by the player without the player intervening in those choices but while representing the variety that occurred? And what is that based on?

3. And how do we do it without giving the player more micro level control than is realistic under the circumstances?

In any simulation design, there are four questions that have to be answered in succession:

1. What is going to be simulated?
In this case, a corps commander's experience in exerting command during battle. But it has to be specific aspects of that, not everything, because as you said, no simulation can do it all. So, first off, what parts of a corps commander's efforts will be the focus?

2. What data/evidence/information do we have about it?
This means primary sources. You wrote that we can't model the choices division commanders make within the broader orders from their corps. We don't know that. We have to find out what those choices/options were and how often Division commanders made them under what circumstances. In other words, we don't know what we can model until we have some data. Obviously, Corps and Army commanders wanted to know the answer to that question—how do you control the decisions made by subordinates?

It may be that a Division commander's options were limited by army practice in any number of ways. Who knows? There are a number of tricks in finding out such things with limited sources. One such, is to ask a different question, such as ‘how much leeway did a division commander have? Or what decisions do we see division commanders making under orders? Or what did corps commanders do to limit a division commander's control? When and why did division commanders do things that a corps commander didn't like… All lead to the same focus and the answer to your question, but the answer to each question will lead to different sources of information. One answer is detailed in that 1804 book I mentioned: The Tactics of the British Army. Pages 69-70 Like any historian or other researcher, you approach the answer in bits and pieces, not some ancient Rosetta Stone that miraclously gives you the one and only answer to everything.

3. What mechanics will be used to replicate the Corps commanders' ability to control his command?
That means how will the game system mimic what we have found in research? It is an inescapable fact that tabletop gamers have to move every playing piece on the table, including units far below his level of command. Inescapable. The question is how do we develop rules that don't give the player more micro level control than is realistic under the circumstances? The key words are ‘more control' than is ‘realistic'. If you can't determine the actual level of Corps control, the how, when and where, then there is no way to answer that question ‘realistically.'

4. Does the dynamic game system successfully model what it was intended to simulate?
This requires testing the system to see if it works, does what it was designed to do. It is tested against the evidence it was built on. That confirms that it models the evidence. Then it is tested against new and boarder evidence of entire events. There are a wide variety of tests for this.

These four basic questions help avoid the kind of design cul-de-sacs that can occur with bad or too narrow questions. For instance, Klumpenproletariat describes a simulation problem:

But if you'd prefer a real example:
How many hits will the IJN Musashi score on the the USS South Dakota in a five-minute period, starting at a range of 18,000 yards, if both ships are steaming at 19 knots in rough seas, with the SD turning and the Musashi closing at 20 degrees, at night? (With the SD returning fire, of course)

I've read tons of historical sources for 1920s and 1930s gunnery trials for various world navies, but never seen anything that would get me even remotely close to answering that question. And yet that's the most basic sort of fundamental wargamey question that forms the basis for a game system.

(The USN's battleship trials, for instance, were done at 10 knots, in daylight, in calm seas, without radar, with a towed dummy target that stayed at a parallel course and a constant 10k yards… and obviously wasn't shooting back, although a "damage officer" was present to ad-lib random effects of imaginary enemy fire.)

I read this and had to ask, what is he wanting to simulate? I would imagine it would be naval combat during WWII. He would need to study WWII accounts, not just tons of 1930s trials for things that did not even address his specific circumstances.

I would also imagine that his question would be on the minds of US and Japanese naval officers during the war. In reading actual battle accounts and the conditions under which they were fought, he may find that neither side ever engaged under such conditions.

Or he may find that actual hits under a variety of conditions didn't vary all that widely.

It may even be that actual combat produced exactly the same rate of hits as the USN's battleship trials regardless of radar use… or there may be 3Xs the hits with radar.

If he is looking for some naval trial to answer his specific question with just the wave conditions, range and guns he wants, with all his specific circumstances, Klumpenproletariat may never find the answer. Naval officers asked and answered the questions they thought were important. That is where one must start. But I think Klumpenproletariat knows that.

The worse thing you can do is to assume that there is no information available, or that contemporary military men would not want to know [and write about] the answer to the same challenges, but chose to answer them in a different way with a different format….

Any number of times, I have been told that I won't find X in the historical record, or I believed it was something never addressed by historical personages. In the vast majority of those cases, I found that there was evidence, sometimes right in front of my face all the time. All I had to do is look for it and ask the right questions.

Best Regards,

Bill

McLaddie,

I appreciate you trying to answer my "challenge" but your response doesn't answer it, what you said boils down to:

1) Research the history
2) Build a system
3) Test the system
4) Revise the system
5) Repeat

That's great and true but it was known already. The question is how do we succeed in accurately modeling or simulating the thing I called out:

The given something is the Napoleonic battlefield, more specifically a corps commander's experience attempting to exert command and control.

Your response would be akin to answering, "How do we build an automobile engine without knowing how one currently is built?" and you replying with:

1) Research the history
2) Build a system
3) Test the system
4) Revise the system
5) Repeat

It is a universally true answer that does not move me beyond it considering that I already had it. I do appreciate your response, but while what you say is true it isn't new even to our conversation. Regarding Klumpenproletariat's example, I understood what he was saying, he said in effect:

"Here is a specific example for which, whatever simulation is built, would need to be able to successfully allow for." Then he talked about how his research has not led him to be able to do that.

I have often argued that wargames that model the ACW and do so with larger than regimental sized units are flawed in that their model intrinsically can't allow the Battle of Gettysburg to play out historically. Why? Because if there are only brigades or larger on the tabletop then the 1st MN can't charge into a huge gap in the Federal line on July 2nd to fight off an attacking Confederate brigade. My argument in is not and has never been that a rules set must make that historical event likely, simply that their model must allow for it to be possible. Klumpenproletariat's example was basically the same thing though more specific.

So where this is going is that my question, or "challenge" stands because in effect your response restates my questions rather than answering them.

Should you chose to reply, please consider my question again in total:

I think we are in agreement that one cannot and will not simulate all aspects of a given something. The given something is the Napoleonic battlefield, more specifically a corps commander's experience attempting to exert command and control. Specifically, how do we handle the things we can't model, such as the choices of division commanders to change the placement and linear formations of battalions within their division while executing the broader base orders from their corps commander represented by the player without the player intervening in those choices but while representing the variety that occurred? And what is that based on? And how do we do it without giving the player more micro level control than is realistic under the circumstances?

I know you broke this into sub-questions and that is fine, but in doing so you inaccurately represented my question.

McLaddie:

You wrote that we can't model the choices division commanders make within the broader orders from their corps.

No, I did not. I said:

Specifically, how do we handle the things we can't model, such as the choices of division commanders to change the placement and linear formations of battalions within their division while executing the broader base orders from their corps commander represented by the player without the player intervening in those choices but while representing the variety that occurred?

Sure we can model it, what I said was, we can't seem to model it independently from the player, therefore how do we prevent the player from having undo influence?

I am happy to discuss this further but I am going to keep my responses strictly to the subject of my "challenge" question so as to keep the conversation narrow enough that something might be gained from it. Should you wish to take another crack at it, I would be happy to read.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Wargamers rarely immerse themselve in character, and play a command 'as if' they were the real commander, with an appreciation of human nature and a desire to mimic the period man. It might be seen as silly, or even intimidating…possibly childish- except when you consider the study needed to get it right.

A little more acting, and a little less ego gaming, and the fun gets big. Try playing ANY ruleset like you jumped back in time into a pair of boots, and you don't have to parse the authors sentences. Perhaps one suprise will be that if you have the tools to do it well, you are well studied, imaginative, and quite confident that a 'loss' is a win :)

Your response would be akin to answering, "How do we build an automobile engine without knowing how one currently is built?"

Bandit:
First off, if you really believe we don't know what corps commanders could do in controlling their troops, then how can I answer your question any other way? The process for finding out how one is built is research.

Thanks for the clarification, and I agree we need to keep to the question/challenge.

Specifically, how do we handle the things we can't model, such as the choices of division commanders to change the placement and linear formations of battalions within their division while executing the broader base orders from their corps commander represented by the player without the player intervening in those choices but while representing the variety that occurred?

The questions I would ask are:
1. Do you know how wide that variety of choices was?
2. Why they would want to change the placement and formations of battalions from X linear formation?

If there was a limit to what a division commander could do in 'changing things', then that should/would limit what the player can do also.

Sure we can model it, what I said was, we can't seem to model it independently from the player, therefore how do we prevent the player from having undo influence?

Well, describe the 'undo influence'. What are you thinking of? And what are you willing to jettison in the simulation to capture that? [I'm interested in your answer to the first question. The second is simply an anticipatory question for later.]

I'll give you some specifics, but you can come up with some too.

Best Regards,

Bill

Try playing ANY ruleset like you jumped back in time into a pair of boots, and you don't have to parse the authors sentences.

le Grande Quartier General:

Any simulation and/or game requires a "suspension of disbelief" to work. How well the simulation supports that
"pretending as if" is certainly an issue, regardless of who is playing, but if the player doesn't want to pretend and would rather 'game it', it won't happen no matter how good the simulation.

It has to do with what the design offers and then what the particular player wants from it. They aren't always a match, particularly when many wargames present themselves as all things to all players…

Best Regards,

Bill

Bandit:

We need particulars. Here is one of many manuals and texts describing how multiple brigade, division and corps operate. Read it and then starting with this one example talk about what variety of responses divisional commanders and below had as opposed to Corps and army commanders. The capitals, spelling and italics are in the original, but I have bolded some points. In this example, the "Wings" represent corps-sized forces of twelve battalions, 2 Divisions three brigades each of 3 battalions.

From Cunninghame's The Tactic of the British Army (1804), p.59-60

A few general observations on the principles and science of war may not be though foreign to the present subject because they will be found to elucidate the pruposes to which the foregoing Tactics are applied, but, before proceeding to them, it will be necessary minutely to point out how the movements and evolutions of the single brigade, as detailed under the heads of the Nineteen preceding evolutions, combine with and exemplify these of larger bodies.

We shall suppose an Army, whose front Line consists of twenty-four Battalions, that these are divided into eight Brigades, each consisting of three Battalions; into four Divisions, , each consisting of six Battalions; and into two Wings, each consisting of twelve Battalions; a regulating Battalion is named, near which the Commander of the line generally posts himself; all the other commanders with their respective Divisions.

If it is wished, as pointed out in the three first Maneouvres, to form several close Columns of parts of the same Line (see Section 190 of his Majesty's Regulations), the Aide de Camp and detached officers shoot along the line, with the Chief's orders to his effect; so that the movement is perfectly understood before it begins. This being done, the Commandant of the Regulating Battalion, by orders from the Chief, loudly announces on what Company or Division each Battalion Column is to form; the battalions along the Line instantly repeat the order, and the Brigadiers again loudly announce it, if not immediately taken up by those under their respective commands. Each Commandant of a Battalion faces and forms his Divisions on the named one, and the whole line is thrown into twenty-four Battalion Columns. The Regulating Battalion announces the species of the Column next to be taken up; this order passes as before, and on the commands "Face—Quick March.", also passing, the Battalions, except the one on which teach Column is to form, face, and move; thus the Line may be thrown into eight Columns, each consisting of a Brigade; into four, each consisting of a Division; into two, each consisting of a Wing; or into one, consisting of the whole Line; the Brigadiers and superior Officers acting as repeaters and explainers; therefore whether it is a Brigade or a Line, the orders issued by the Chief of either, as well as the mode of execution, would be the same; and in the same way would the whole again extend into Line. The distance between the different Columns would prevent the orders communicated to the one, being heard by the others, but detached officers carry the general instruction, and the instant the commanders of them see the Division where the Chief is, or those between him and them, face and move, the also face and move their respective Corps.

If it is wished that a Column should take up a new alignment, halt its head, and throw its rear Battalions into it, as exemplified by the Four Manoeuvre; the Chief directs at what point the head shall enter, and after a given number of Battalions have done so, he orders "Halt," this passes rapidly along the column, each Brigadier repeating it if necessary. The Chief next orders, "Form in the new Alignment", this passes along the Column as before. The Battalion that files, faces and throws out its pivots, by order from its own Commandant; the leading Company of all the others which have not entered, is directed to wheel by its respective Commander; and "Quick March," passing from the Chief, sets the whole who have not entered in motion.

IF a Line is thrown back on a flank Division, as exemplified by the Fifth Manoeuvre, the General Instruction is announced; the left flank Division is wheeled back into the new Line, and each Commandant wheels his Companies back half the named paces; the general instruction to face about passes along the Line, the whole face to the rear; and on the command "March," also rapidly passing, the whole step off as nearly together as possible: on the same principles do Lines advance, retire, wheel into Column, chnge front, etc. etc., so that the orders issued to a Line of three Battalions, acting by itself as exemplified in the Nineteen preceding Manoeuvres, are the same as those that would be issued to a Line of any magnitude, and the formation and construction of each evolution si also precisely the same.

The Regulations wisely observe, the larger the body, the fewer and more simple ought to be the Manoeuvres required of it. If therefore, Battalions were much habituated to act together in Line, most evolutions required of them might be executed with out the necessity of previous communication through detached officers. But it would not be wise in battle to trust to this, where the fire of cannon and other circumstances would interfere; on the contraray, the Regulations direct, that when any complicated or combined movement is to be made, which requires previous explanation, it must be communicated clearly to the Commanders of Corps by detached Officers, before it can be ordered to commence. A Line of twenty-four Battalions, with their artillery would occupy nearly two miles; the Chief can scarcely be at either extremity, consequently, detached Officers, if well mounted, would, at full gallop, carry his instructions, in five or six minutes, to any point of this Line; even this delay, however, threatens destruction in critical situations.

In proportion, therefore, to the extent of the line, must the latitude of acting, in cases of emergency, be extended to the superior officers—from the above, it will appear of what infinite importance it is that Commandants of Battalions should not only repeat the general instructions, but that they should also loudly announce it. No interior arrangement of their own Battalion ought, for a moment, to interfere in this great point. If Cavalry form a part of the Line, they move in unison with the Infantry. The Commander of the second Line, after every movement, places it in the same relative position, which regard to the first Line, that it had before the movement commenced.

The biggest ah-ha I had reading these is the idea that the process of command is the same at every level.

Best Regards,

Bill

Bill,
Not sure any simulation requires suspension of disbelief. It a simulation attempting to cover a pre-drfined bit of reality. It can still be exciting without having to provide suspention of belief. On of the issues none simulatorts seem to struggle with is that a simulation is often a very simple part simulation.
Take you corps commender. Start the simulation on the basis of a beit more detailed study of the physics. It ie supprising how long it actually takes for a forece to actually for up and pass a point be it a hores or mechanical unit. Assuming the dispertion, max speed while maneovering etc. For instance a coloum passing a tight bend with say a spacing of 10 vehicals per mile (good for making you a poor airstrike target in WWII. Then the vehicals are anout 160 yds appart, If the tight bend pots a limit of say 5 mph, Tight and poor road surfave then 10 vehicals will span roughly 1 mile. Therfore it will take 12 min to pass that. My companies are typically 12 to 15 vehicals with the od attackment so could take 15 min just to pass a point. Start acconting for real terrain and you find the responce lag for issueing orders is not that long compered to actually doing it, A relatively simple and credible anlysis may be a good enough simulation. MG uses this approach. Gods eye view is allowed as the reponce rate is slow enough that actally the orders at smaller leves if well done would be adequate. Is this a full representation NO. At our level at a few hours a week practice we are still tying to get this bit right. If I ever do we may look at the responce rate term. However the simulation is already taxing us severly as we are running is a much compressd timescale compared to the real thing and are having to preocess multi level data. We are having to plan down to section level on our own, not a commander who can rely on detail being put in sensiblt by sub ordinate. Modeling incompetent sub ordinates is not compatible with the decleared intent of our simulations.

McLaddie,

I think we may be talking past each other, I am not asking you to teach me something, I am asking you to do something. I do not doubt that if I was a student asking for assistance with an assignment, you'd be able to tell me what sort of research to look for and what kind of questions to search for answers about.

If we were talking about a cabinet, I am asking you to show me plans for such, I am not asking you to tell me that I would need to ask myself questions about the grain of the wood or the best match between the type of finish and the species of wood to best accept the finish. You are asking me to go research the wood and the finishes and the outcomes of matching them and telling me what types of questions I should consider to evaluate such things. That is well and good.

Yet that is not what I asked.

You purport that something can be done, I challenged you to show how.

One thing I asked for in my challenge were example mechanics and the context I asked it in was modeling the choices and actions others, downstream in the command structure, would make without providing the player too great a level of control. You provided a large quotation from a British service regulation. Not off topic to be sure, but while this tells us how British officers were trained, it does not provide us a mechanic of the type I asked for. I do not doubt that source material is required as deep background in the development of the requested mechanic, but I did not ask for the source material, I asked for the mechanic.

An aside:

In this example, the "Wings" represent corps-sized forces of twelve battalions, 2 Divisions three brigades each of 3 battalions.

You said 12 battalions in the wing but when I read it I get 18, what did I miss?

2 divisions X 3 brigades each X 3 battalions each = 18 battalions in the Wing.

Cheers,

The Bandit

"One thing I asked for in my challenge were example mechanics and the context I asked it in was modeling the choices and actions others, downstream in the command structure, would make without providing the player too great a level of control."

Almost everything written in wargames rules not involved with firing and melee is related to this…Morale for example and the control test after melee. Commander ratings is another.

Spearhead uses the command arrows and pivot restrictions on stands to restrict the players control, but this seems so stupid to even mention an example since every set of rules more than a draft two page playsheet has mechanisms of some sort that does this.