"Reasons for Playing Wargames" Topic

To run across the game table amongst our fellow miniatures, be one of them, fight with them, triumph with them, invade villages with them, meet pretty miniature women with them, be frightened with them when the enemy comes back, be wounded with them, die with them.

Sorry… does it qualify as "immersion"?

And then some. We may need a new descriptor…

I suspect that the best way to figure out what gamers like, is to create a game and sell it, and then see what people's reactions are. If you've made a solid product, then it will attract a following, and you can learn from that experience and build upon that.

But first you should probably create a miniatures game. That would be a good start.

There is nothing inherently wrong withthe "spit and see which way the wind is blowing" method, but it is a messy way to do it. After a while [and failures] experience will tell you where to stand. Most game designers don't do it that way. I gave Klaus and his Settlers of Cartan as an example. He knew he had a winner before he produced it.
That takes experience too. Experience also shows you how to avoid the deadends and wind blowing in your face.

That chart seems to be one small effort among many that designers have collectively discovered.

Notice too how the question is changed from the reasons gamers play wargames to 'what they want'.

Two very different questions in regards to game design with two very different responses from gamers, as some folks have noted.

For me the best games are exercises in storytelling.

I want scenario driven games that allow me to solve real tachical problems wither directly historical or based on the type of problem that an historical would have faced.

What would that fit on your matrix?

Yet in my brief time on these boards I notice that you harbour an antipathy to the designs of Sam Mustafa, who has produced some of the games my friends and I have had most fun with over the last decade.

Now why is that?

Daubere:

Your question is a great example of how historical wargame design questions on TMP are quickly transformed for readers into the really deep design issue of 'you just don't like that game' or how any game design question is automatically a personal attack on some designer for something he has designed.

I can remember commenting on the 'command radius rule' mechanic and its hobby history, and immediately I was accused of attacking more than one game designer, while hating his design, when I hadn't mentioned anyone or any game.

The short answer is that I don't harbor any antipathy regarding Sam's game designs. You won't find me criticizing his game designs on TMP. Please check. Those aren't the issues we go around about.

The long answer:

Some points:

1. I have stated publically on more than one occasion that I own the rules to Grande Armee and enjoyed playing it as a game. I have also said he writes well and produces some very clean rules. We have even agreed on a number of historical and game design points over the years…

2. I have criticized Sam's game designs once ages ago, along with a number of other people on the Grand Armee list specifically about the skirmish mechanisms…which were later eliminated in the fast play version.

3. The only other time I have disagreed with his game designs is when on the TMP he stated the "Pinkerton Card" in Longstreet could represent particular historical events and produce for the player similar experiences to McClellan's. I simply pointed out that the card play at both a representational or a game system level simply couldn't do that, regardless of how much you pretended.

4. I haven't played Sam's other designs, so I certainly wouldn't be in a position to criticize them, and I happen to like card-driven games. I have no doubt that people enjoy his rule sets. And if folks I game with wanted to play them, I wouldn't have any problems with that.

My disagreements with Sam actually started with Grande Armee. They continue to revolve around two issues.

First, in Grande Armee he wrote:

IF the defender is doing what he is supposed to be doing, and deploying his units with supported flanks, then all combats will be grueling slugfests. That may not be as much fun as the way other games let you do it, but that's the way it was in the Napoleonic wars.

I made the mistake of asking him what had led him to that conclusion. [It wasn't a criticism, it was a real, live request for information, though I discovered later that he was fed up with the criticisms he was fielding at the time.] I never did get an answer. His advice was to enjoy the game and "drink my tea." There were a lot of Zen metaphors if I remember correctly.

Now remember that Sam has stated over and over that he designs games for fun first and doesn't believe we can simulate anything of history or combat, let alone understand 'the way it was'. But he continues write things like that:

The last time I checked, the promotional blub on the Honors website states that gamers can simulate Napoleonic battles with LaSalle

So, that's my first issue with him. If he was just creating fun games, there would be no issue at all. But he does claim more for his games while saying it's all fun and pretend.

The second issue is an off-shoot of the first: Sam continues to write about simulation and game design, stating things that simply aren't true and are really counter-productive. He has lots of questions, but works really hard to hold on to dead-end and wonky simulation game conclusions.

There is where you see the antipathy, and it's always regarding things he states about the impossibility of simulations and the occasional stray, strange notion about how game mechanics work.

That's it. I have never criticized games I don't play and rarely bother commenting on games that I don't like. I will discuss in a critical fashion game and simulation design.

Best Regards,
Bill

I never did get an answer.

You've had thousands of answers. But they're all wrong, aren't they? I've never known you to be satisfied with any answer. For nearly fifteen years I've watched you lecture everybody on how they're doing everything wrong, how game designers don't understand simulations, how "the hobby" could be so, so much better if only people thought the way that you do, and how simple it really all is… if all we did was read the following seventeen books and adhere to your vague theoretical ramblings about the meanings of simulations and the various taxonomies for them.

There are times when you seem so obsessively intolerant of any and all other views and understandings of the hobby, that you appear to be on a mission to correct everybody's opinions and semantics.

And yet in all that time, I've never seen anything from you that could pass for miniature war-game rules. For a guy who is always so ready to criticize others – for a guy who obsessively refutes and rebuts everybody's sentences to the point that many of your threads have more of your words than everybody else's combined – in all of that time I've never seen a single instance that you have ever, or could ever, practice what you preach. (Assuming that anybody could nail down exactly what you're preaching in the first place.)

I eventually disengage from your threads, or after you hijack somebody else's thread, once it's obvious that the whole thing has been derailed into yet another lecture about theoretical concepts and analogies.

"stating things that simply aren't true and are really counter-productive."

In the fifteen years that you've been singing this tune, the game designers whom you find so inadequate and faulty have managed to produce hundreds of games that have been enjoyed by tens of thousands of happy customers, none of whom seem to be having the existential crises with them that you have. In fact, out of thousands of people who have read or purchased my games over the years, you are the only person who has ever obsessed about the use of a word in the promotional literature, or demanded that I meet your elusive criteria for semantics. I've dealt with annoying customers on all sorts of issues – every publisher has – but you are (thankfully) in a class of your own.

"Counter-productive" my . What has been your contribution?

-

Over the years I have made herculean efforts to ignore you and resist your pointless provocations and your need for endless argument, but I have obviously failed once again. So here's a "productive" proposal : I'll do the smart thing and finally disengage totally from TMP, in order to avoid feeding your obsessions any more.

Meanwhile, you see how long you can resist the urge to respond with five pages of point-by-point refutations and endless last-words. That will give you the time to produce that perfect game that nobody else seems to be able to make for you.

QED

OSchmidt

By the way I am developing a new game idea for 19th century Imaginary Armies called "Die Fledermauser: rules for Ruritanian Armies where the tenor ALWAYS gets the girl"
No one actually gets killed in this game-- oh maybe a few members of the chorus get winged, but it's all about snazzy uniforms, wild plots, duels, skullduggery, persons falling into rose-gardens, intrigue, and all that.

You could call the rules 'La Fille du Rιgiment'

:)

"For a guy who is always so ready to criticize others – for a guy who obsessively refutes and rebuts everybody's sentences to the point that many of your threads have more of your words than everybody else's combined – in all of that time I've never seen a single instance that you have ever, or could ever, practice what you preach."

let's admit there's a little bit of this in every wargamer. people who make small worlds that they can control often do so because they have trouble functioning in the real world.

i came to this conclusion after looking at my umpteenth game at a convention with all of these people sitting around a table looking like their dog had just died. why so glum everybody? because they can't control the events on the tabletop either, there are these pesky randoms and variables that make things go wrong, your dudes are not winning, and the little world becomes depressingly like real life. (either that or it's the manufactured fun table with the guy in the silly hat and everyone seeming like they're desperately trying to have a good time.)

so they're just as unhappy with the little world as they are with the real one unless they can find that elusive control that makes them truly happy and well, for some people (thankfully just a few) that's just not going to happen. ever.

let's admit there's a little bit of this in every wargamer. people who make small worlds that they can control often do so because they have trouble functioning in the real world.

Heinz:
Another great example of making it all about personalities and not game design.

For the last thirty-plus years my 'small world' has been as an educator, trainer, executive of a national training company and for the last 20 years, owner of my own company. That has kept me busy. In that time I have been a designer of training and educational simulations. I have talked with and even worked with scores of simulation designers from a wide variety of fields.

I have worked in twenty-five different states from Alaska and New York to Georgia,as well as Canada over that time, something in the neighborhood of 700 school districts, 12 DOEs, 8 foundations like Telesis and Northwest Ed Labs and businesses like Southwest and HP. I have even published wargames and educational games to my credit. I'm about to retire.

But my comments and their content stem entirely from my unhappiness and inability to function in the real world…

And so it goes.

I thought the topic was reasons for playing wargames, not lets all criticize each other.

I play wargames, and have since 1956 (A/H), because I like history, games, socializing and game design. I particularly like miniatures wargames because I like (till my stroke) painting and making terrain.

Bob Coggins

you may have missed the part where i said that his criticism really says something about all of us. although of course it is not a flattering picture so people will stridently deny it applies to them. :-)

anyway, just looking at this thread and a few others you seem to have virtually endless time to disagree with everyone who does not see things exactly as you do, do you disagree?

i think sam's question is a good one -- if you have all of this special perception about how simulations are supposed to be done, and so much time to discuss the process, why haven't you dedicated that time to writing the perfect rules set yourself? and so it goes indeed! :-)

you may have missed the part where i said that his criticism really says something about all of us.

Actually, I didn't, but of course, you were quoting Sam about me. And I can only speak for myself, not others, and assuming such things about anyone, let alone all of us isn't helpful. Which is why I wrote what I did.
One reason for the thread question, I would think is finding out what other gamers say.

--it's been a long time since I've been to a game convention. It seems all conventions, business, education, and hobby, happen at the same times of the year. I certainly have seen that behavior you mention at convention games. On the other hand, many of those poor souls are just trying to learn the rules [even relatively untested rules] as they play. It can cause pain between the ears….

i think sam's question is a good one -- if you have all of this special perception about how simulations are supposed to be done, and so much time to discuss the process, why haven't you dedicated that time to writing the perfect rules set yourself? and so it goes indeed! :-)

It is a good question and one I've answered before, but 'all that time' is simply me on the move using spare moments here and there armed with a laptop [that and I type fast and don't proof-read].

What amazes me is that most of my comments are on issues and conclusions common to the simulation design community at large, not my personal unhappiness or my personal picadellos. Yet it seems I have to design a game to establish that. Sort of like having to write a popular novel to prove they exist and authors actually write them.

When you run your own business, which includes designing training and educational games, the last thing you want to do with any time left over is come home and do it all over again, as much as I love the craft and what it can do. Happily, I am home at the moment, but traveling to Seattle tomorrow for several days. But I do have my laptop.

Even so, I am winding things down with my business and retiring shortly. I have started that game design project, designing a fun simulation game. I am looking forward to doing that just for the fun of it. We'll see what happens.

I play to recapture the fun I had in my youth with my toy soldiers and for the camaraderie and I love narrative elements in the games and linking games – and nothing beats sitting back and admiring a freshly completed unit that is 100% done, textured base and seal coated and ready to put on the table.

But a pertinent question is why would you ask this question here on TMP? Certainly you've gotten some well considered replies but odds are you will get instantaneous argumentative replies for no other reason than to be argumentative. Seems to be the way of TMP far too often. While this does seem to be improving as certain members of the unpleasant minority gravitate away – or are banished from the site perhaps, I still encounter people who have given up on TMP. Just yesterday I saw on a different forum someone abandoning TMP, again. And at the club meeting this past Sunday I was astonished to find several very long time, very fully immersed gamers who had no idea what TMP is!

And, of course, to my knowledge, the best answer as to why is that this is as close as the hobby comes to having a 'common' forum.

I gravitate towards joining those replies that say this question is self-defeating since the ultimate simple answer is we do it for the enjoyment it provides, whatever component of the activity provides that enjoyment. The moment you attempt to quantify it all you diminish that aspect of it.

All that being said, it is curious to follow the responses – and somehow those allow us to 'measure' the individuals by their responses. And, yup, that applies just as much to me and my response. Problem there is we will all measure everyone else by our own highly individualistic yardsticks.

Now I have to go get ready for work!

Reasons for criticizing wargames.

People can criticize a game for many reasons, but often one or more of the quadrants is the primary reason:

As shown by the black terms, some discussions will involve few people, while others will want a larger number of participants. The top two quadrants will be more focused on the quality of the debate, much of it unquantifiable, while the lower quadrants will 'keep track' as part of the pure enjoyment of disliking a game.

Historical Wargamers,

For what it's worth, I think 'McLaddie' is one of few Historical Wargaming Professionals that still regularly posts on TMP.

Having met him in person and talked with him at great length on a variety of Historical Wargaming topics, I have found him to be very open minded and receptive to any approach given. However, that doesn't mean he will accept everything at face value and won't challenge some suspicious premises relating to that approach, all in a professional manner of course. Which in itself has been both beneficial and rewarding too me because he brings a variety of experience and perspective to the discussion, that otherwise might go unnoticed or ignored.

Granted many of you will take exception to that comment and it's your privilege to do so. But before you lash out irrationally at me and all the other people that look like me, forever and ever, & etc.,…at least read these few comments with some degree of objectivity first.

This is the Historical Wargaming Message board in which we are encouraged to discuss things related to historical wargaming. 'Historical' being something that provides evidence to the facts of history and 'Wargaming' being a state of conflict in the form of a mental competition in which the participants, called players, seek to achieve some objective within a given set of rules.

Thus, when I read McLaddie's responses, I don't see where he's attacking any particular game design, other than challenging some premise that it's built upon, such as How does Napoleon's Battles 'Command Radius' rules relate to Napoleonic military history?

From a historical simulation professional perspective, I think that it is All of our responsibilities to challenge the degree to which any model or simulation reproduces the state and behavior of a real-world object or the perception of a real-world object, feature, condition, or chosen standard in a measurable or perceivable manner based upon historical fact. I believe that we could all benefit from that kind of professional discussion.

Thanks for your attention and 'Have a nice day!' ;^)

Analsim (Retired US Army modeling & simulation professional)

The glamour and the groupies – what else is there?

For Ashur, Ahura Mazda and Marduk!

"For what it's worth, I think 'McLaddie' is one of few Historical Wargaming Professionals that still regularly posts on TMP."

'Analsim', I must ask who you consider to be a Historical Wargaming Professional? What constitutes that august personality? Who have we lost?

MJS and the eternal search for some guy named Howard who lives in a white house, an okay sort but he does get a bit sensitive about his place in the hobby pantheon, a mite touchy it seems. But his heart is in the right place – anatomically speaking, of course. And he does wax slightly creative from time to time.

Hey, I'm just asking! Because I don't recall vast numbers of respected game designers either flocking en masse to TMP in the first place, or announcing that they were taking their toys and going home.

As for me – well, as the author of "Eat Hitler – the Nazi Taste Treat", who can doubt my pre-eminence among all who write serious historical wargames?

"Historical Wargaming Professional"???

Oh boy! Give me a break! That's up there with bigfoot, the Yeti, Aliens in Roswell, The Jersey Devil, Aromatherapy, and the Loch Ness Monster, only not half so entertaining.

I agree with Texaz Jack. Who made that august appellation, and who conferred it? What is the definition? And is that a person who derives his daily bread from making and publishing War Games Commercially (selling to the government doesn't count, those gullible idiots will buy anything!) or does that mean a guy who PLAYS historical wargames for money. Or is it a guy who plays professional wargames all the time whenever he can, but doesn't make money off it, and has stylized himself a "professional."

The rirst two are possible, but I've never seen any. The Third is also known as a loser.

Or is it a person who puts on war games as his avocation and dedicates his life to the enjoyment of others.

It it's the last one above, then the only "War game Professional" I know is Texas Jack, the rest are amateurs, imposters, and the self delusional. I don't mean there can't be others, only I don't know of them.

Sam Mustafa, and a small circle of others who do publish war game rules are War Gamers of notoriety, but he hasn't quit his day job. Honorable, venerable, admirable, but..

If anyone's going to get the title of WGP then it's Howard and this can be statistically proven. Whenever he puts on a game at a convention, there's a waiting list longer than a line for an overbooked flight at a Continental Airline boarding station to get in.

Ooops

Please in my previous post substitute "Mexican Jack Squint" for "Texas Jack"

I note that apparently my own "So, who are these guys?" question (to the unfortunately named Analsim) has apparently been taken as "Why am I not considered an esteemed personage?", which was not what I meant.

Not that I don't like to be carried around in a sedan chair while nubile females peel grapes for me, of course. I do. At least, I imagine I would.

But we all play in a collection of separate sandboxes, where those who play in one genre, period or style are actually pretty unaware of those playing/writing in another. So, if you play Napoleonic big battle games, you may never have heard of Gary Gygax, and if you play RPGs, then the work of Scotty Bowden is a mystery to you.

Okay, that one's a mystery to me too. I've played 'Empire'. Tried to play 'Empire'.

All,

Here's your definition of a wargame professional: "Showing a high level of skill or training." It's not a very exclusive group, is it?

This august title probably has more to do with the manner that one conducts business, over any pretenses of vanity or good breeding. So, I'd say that it's open to anyone with a mind and desire to be one.

So, given that this title is open to anyone, what's wrong with trying to discuss Historical Wargaming in a 'Professional manner'?

Given that motivation, then trying to understand/identify who plays wargames and what motivates them (as McLaddie's original question proposed), seems to be a logical first step to me.

My own interest is linked to this DoD Modeling & Simulation definition below.

Historical Wargaming: "The degree to which any model or simulation reproduces the state and behavior of a real-world object or the perception of a real-world object, feature, condition, or chosen standard in a measurable or perceivable manner based upon historical fact."

With that definition in mind, why can't I challeng Sam, Bob, Bill, Tom, Dave and all the rest to provide their rationale that links their particular wargame designs back to 'historical fact', all in a professional manner?

Wouldn't you like to know the answer too?

This definition is 'No Attempt' to preclude anyone from designing and selling their wargame designs. Have at it!

It does however, put a higher premium on using the word 'Historical' in conjunction with any of those wargame designs.

And as McLaddie's has suggested in the past, several wargame designer's prefer to tap dance around this historical question, over offering up any meaningful rationale to it. Ignoring this question, does indicate a certain 'lack of skill and training' (i.e. not professional).

It's this very lack of professionalism, that will always work against any attempt to establish 'historical' wargaming as anything more than just a group of over aged 'Boys playing with their Toys'.

Regards,

Analsim

Dear List

Coming off a highly successful 3 day convention "The Weekend" I can not the following.

It contained about 50 people, who ran the gamut from regular historical gamers who put on some highly historical Napoleonic Games and Modern Games, to whacko's like me who put on "Pharonica Veronica versus Schlockem and Glockamorah. The high point of the Invention was "Frederick the Great invades Candyland! and another was a Victorian Sci-Fi game of "With Two you get Port Arthur" set in China.

Everyone was there for fun and had a good time. No one complained, and argued. There were almost NO people who sat around looking like their dog had just died, and more importantly people had turned their cell phones off and were intent as children in playing the game. This might have had something to do with "The Munchie Pit" where we have food, beer, wine, soda for all and the half dozen huge comfy chairs where people could rest between games, relax, get marinated in alcohol, and be dragooned by the Game Nazi and convention organizer and hauled off like the unfortunate victims of a press gang to the next game starting up, but who can say.

What I noticed was that..

NO ONE complained that something was unhistorical or that the designer had gaffed significantly in a historical way.

NO ONE was arguing that it didn't simulate or recreate reality.

EVERYONE was smiling and laughing (sometimes uproariously) and talking and enjoying themselves.

EVERYONHE was running around to get in the next game and eagerly waiting for it to start, which mean't they had high energy.

EVERYONE got to play in four or five games through the whole weekend and was sad it wasn't going on for another day so they could play more.

The only unhappiness I saw was when someone wanted to get into two games which were at the same time, and One of them tried to play in both. I don't know how well he did in either, but he got his exercise running from table to table.

This speaks not to the excellence of "The Weekend" but that what players want is to have fun and to play and be with their friends. One player said just that. "I don't really like (Name of Popular Rules set) but I wanted to play and have fun with my friends.

And that's why people play games.

It's not the game, it's their friends.

Okay, Analsim, I'm happy to accept your general premise of 'civilized people discussing things out of genuine interest.' I suspect that 'Professional' isn't entirely the best word in this context, but I now understand your meaning.

Although, frankly, I am fairly certain that for most of us, your generalisation of wargamers as " --a group of over aged 'Boys playing with their Toys'" is less a mark of shame than a simple statement that it's a hobby. Some people like their hobbies highly-detailed and research driven, and others like to drink beer and roll dice. I like aspects of both, depending.

And one day I'll manage to get to Otto's Weekend, I swear.

McLaddie is always very civil, although I find his Attrition-by-Wordcount approach to be counter-productive to reaching a real answer on any question. People drop out of the discussion.

I had no problem with the initial question (and answered it) although I don't think the four quadrants entirely cover it.

I think we'd agree that some of the discussion has been unnecessarily testy.

The DoD definition of Historical Wargaming is surely a masterpiece of bureaucrat-speak, but – translating it into English – I understand that it concerns things like "Do you differentiate between the walls of The Alamo and the fortress at Verdun?" Fair enough. Although it still comes down to a very subjective "+1 versus +7 or 8, maybe," because I'm comparing solid shot into crumbling adobe against heavy WWI artillery against Vauban's C17th geometry and stonework.

When we ask designers to justify aspects of their rules with historical evidence, are we really just asking for more comprehensive designer's notes? So, if in my Roman era rules I take the view that the Praetorian Guard shouldn't be rated any different from an average legionary unit, I should justify that by explaining my view that they were simply pretty boys in fancy gear who liked to take bribes, and might actually be worse than a cohort from the Moesian frontier?

Is that about it? What am I missing?

Jack:

I agree that my word count can be and is often excessive, particularly when I quote folks to identify what I'm responding to. And then there are a lot of issues that come up in just one post that get in the way, such as:

Although it still comes down to a very subjective "+1 versus +7 or 8, maybe," because I'm comparing solid shot into crumbling adobe against heavy WWI artillery against Vauban's C17th geometry and stonework.

I could go on for a long time detailing how that very hobby notion is simply not true for simulations in general or game mechanics in particular.

And my experiences of gaming and conventions are very much
as O'Schmidt describes them.

What we are talking about on this list, Game Design, creating game rules, was obviously not the topic of that gaming weekend. Quite understandable. Why should it be? It's about playing games. There might be a few game designers in the bar down the street discussing such things over a beer, but it isn't the focus of most gamers.

There are more fundamental issues that you might have missed. Many of my comments are not focused on 'justifying' the rules with historical evidence, though there are some very good game design reasons for doing that. Many of my comments are much more general and game design-oriented than that. Some of them:

1. Game designers saying they are designing games that simulate, when they don't even believe it's possible. That is counter-product, particularly when trying to talk about the act of creating a historically representative set of rules. I have often stated that I play wargames that make no claim to simulating and continue to enjoy them. If all designers stopped claiming their designs could recreate history tomorrow, I'd still be playing wargames. I like games, the figures and the pretending.

Obviously, it's often hype justified because no one complains. Gamers tend to ignore such things, or say they do, but obviously not enough to keep designers from promoting their games as simulations, games with all the qualities of 'recreation' that are only the products of simulating. That is counter-productive when talking about simulation and wargame design.

2. Then there all the design 'rules' that seem to permeate any hobby discussions, many of which are simply not true, such as "All wargmes must have numbers like 47% of all fire will destroy adobe walls." A paraphrase of recent comment by a hobby game designer.

3. Then there are the common game terms like "Process vs. Results" designs that do more to confuse design issues than clarify anything. As all games have processes that produce results, and results can't be found in game designs without their attendant processes, how can those two be opposing concepts? Non-sense.

4. If you look at the explanations, [Bob Jones gives a clear one on his website], Process vs Results are really descriptions about gamer personalities and their 'needs' or comfort-levels, having little to do with actual game mechanics.
This issue of personalities being the beginning and end of all game design discussions is really stifling actual discussion… lots of examples on the TMP.

So, if a game designer states that our hobby wargames can't be simulations because it involves pretending and make-believe, and I say that isn't true, that any and all simulations can't work without pretending, suspending disbelief and 'acting as if the game were real'…

That isn't some special knowledge that only an august 'professional' person can say [I'm actually a winter]. It is a technical statement that simulation designers have long accepted and is factual, regardless. [and professional designers obviously need to know] It is a design fact, true whether said by the world's best game designer or some troll who lives under a rock hording a few toy soldiers. And among the larger community of game and simulation designers, it is common knowledge because it is a technical fact.

Wargame design / simulation game design is an art and a craft, but it is also a technology, personal expression through the particular and very technical medium of game systems.

In the hobby, we get only the personal expression at the expense of the technology, which is counter-productive IF we are talking about creating effective and better games. [Games that do what we want them to, in recreating and entertaining.] Right now, it is all talented amateurs with some experience. Not bad, but not good when they can create simulations while believing they aren't possible, while gamers don't care but buy games that 'recreate' history.

And look how much I had to write just now. Game design isn't a couple of throw-away lines or clever similes. It gets technical, damn it.

And if you want to know why I am willing to spend so much time on this. I have spend a good portion of my career designing simulations and games. I love the craft and respect the growing body of knowledge and technology behind it. I know what such designs can and can't do. I love the hobby, which I have ejoyed since I was a teenager. I hate seeing simulation and game design too often badly represented by hobby designers and misunderstood by gamers.

Dear Mexican Jack

Although, frankly, I am fairly certain that for most of us, your generalisation of wargamers as " --a group of over aged 'Boys playing with their Toys'" is less a mark of shame than a simple statement that it's a hobby.

I agree with this whole-heartedly. It is not a mark of shame, it is a mark of pride. The attainment of a goal. I am fervently trying to get back to being a "boy" again and having as much fun as I did. As for discussing things of "genuine interest" about historical things, the last time I did that was when I was getting my advanced degrees, and event hen it was mere mummery to get the "A's" The only thing I am "genuinely interested" in was whether Cleopatra's nipples were dished or pearshaped.

Hey! I'm not a pervert! I need it to sculpt and paint the figure correctly!!!!

And one day I'll manage to get to Otto's Weekend, I swear.

No need if it's too difficult Howard, believe me you are there in spirit in every sense of the thing.

The DoD definition of Historical Wargaming is surely a masterpiece of bureaucrat-speak, but – translating it into English – I understand that it concerns things like "Do you differentiate between the walls of The Alamo and the fortress at Verdun?"

Here I must disagree with you violently Howard, if you had done any of the proper research on the Alamo you would have discovered that the Walls of the Alamo were infinitely superior to those of Douamont! We have the John Wayne Movie as ample proof, compared with the fact that no Hollywood Studio has ever seen to make a movie about Verdun. i understand you were talking about Verdun of the 18th century, but as no one in Hollywood would ever think once about making a movie about THAT….

When we ask designers to justify aspects of their rules with historical evidence, are we really just asking for more comprehensive designer's notes? So, if in my Roman era rules I take the view that the Praetorian Guard shouldn't be rated any different from an average legionary unit, I should justify that by explaining my view that they were simply pretty boys in fancy gear who liked to take bribes, and might actually be worse than a cohort from the Moesian frontier?

When we ask war game designers to justify their designs what we are doing is registering a complaint that your favorite side, weapon, or regiment, is not rated as highly as you think they should be. For example, in an Ancient games, the complainers are really saying how can you rate my favorite peoples the Mesh-Wesh lower than Wesh Mesh." Spartans, Cretans, Athenians, Corinthians, Persians, Egyptians, Romans, it's all personal favorites. My own favorite is the Lesbians.

It's a game. It has no relationship to reality and never can. The central attraction of all gamers is the dream that in winning a game it proves that you are a "diamond in the rough" an undiscovered military genius. We all have that view even me. I think it in my mind, I just don't believe it.

History is dead. Dead, dead, dead. We can study it avidly, as I have all my life, but we won't change one jot or tittle of the record, or discover "HEY! WAIT A MINUTE! NAPOLEON ACTUALLY WON AT WATERLOO!" We are presented with a magnificent panoply of history, more grandiose than any C.B. DeMile Movie, more heart wrenching, horrifying glorious, glamorous, pathetic, heroic, drama than could be done by a million Soap Opera writers scribbling away for a thousand years. But it is largely unknowable in its essence. It's a grand story, and from it we can derive our wargames. However all war game rules are simply a designers "privileging" this account over that, or this factor over that, and what you have is NOT history, but a compendium of the designers prejudices.

FAIR ENOUGH! Get out the Beer and the dice and let's game.

PROOF!!!!

So "The Weekend" we just had was something of a milestone of personal accomplishment for me. I brought in THREE families into war games there this year. Admittedly one really should not count as they are gamers in the D&D and Board Games Hobby, but still they were not into miniatures but now they are. The other two were older couples who were also Civil War Re-Enactors, so that counts more. One of the couples the husband is a co-worker and he has played in a game or two at my place. The other was a rank newbie. They both loved it and all three are coming back.

HOWEVER!

The one who is a coworker came and had a good time. One of the game he played though used Black Powder and he didn't care for it finding it too complicated. For a relative newbie it was but I knew that once you get to know it, he would pick it up. But the other games he played he liked because they were more simple and quick.

Well this morning he tells me this about the Black powder game and the convention.

Now, a bit after noon, he comes into my office, and says "YOU know Otto, after running around her fixing everything that people screwed up in my absence I realize all I want to do is go back to your convention, lounge in the pool,eat dinner, drink beer and play games.

So I ask "Even Black Powder?"

He sez, "Especially Black Powder, It's far better than messing around with this crap at work. The worst day playing games is better than the best day at work."

And THAT is why people play war games. All of these people have a moderate to superficial view of history. But they like the game.

The essence of war games is two pillars.

Sense of Wonder- the "WOW!!!! neat! factor.

Spirit of Play-- the "Let's make believe."

No possible quantification possible here. Why did they get involved? Because I am their friend, and I deal with them socially. They like me, and they are intrigued by this odd, but entirely colorful and fascinating hobby I have.

People play war games for the above two and that they can play them with friends.

And so, Otto, the leader of Society of Daisy, the Prince of Dorkness, the Lord of the Beer and Pretzels, the Fiend of the Dark side of the Farce, adds another soul to his dark under-realm. The rest I have already. The wives didn't play, they played family games, and were more interested in shopping, but I saw their eyes dancing over the table top. We have them…we just have to reel them in.

Now.. there is another co worker with a young son who's been to my house and seen the collections, seen the books, and I have seen the saucher eyes, the mouth whispering "Oh-- wow!.." His father is interested in the Cvil War. She wasn't interested, but it is through her son that we will get them!… And the gorgeous civil War dresses she is interested in.

War Games are popular because the worst day of playing games is better than the best day at work.

Reading McLaddie's most recent post, I'm still stuck at the place I have been whenever I read his offerings – and I recall his voluminous articles on this very theme in the final issues of MWAN a decade or more ago. So, McLaddie, here's my position on your position.

Too many words strung together in ways that don't add up to meaningful statements. Then repeated. It's as if we bought the jumbo pack of something we didn't really want, but have been told is good for us.

Too many references to his own opaque world of simulators and their simulatin' ways, which apparently aren't ours. Fair enough, but why bring it up if it's not relevant?

A conflation between 'designing games' and the world of simulatin' simulators. I don't think you can fail to make that distinction, then criticise who also fail to make that distinction themselves. But that's a recurring theme.

A claim that it's all technical, but in a nebulous way that doesn't say much of anything. It all seems vague and fluffy, the opposite of technical.

I'm not usually a supporter of the 'So, you think you can do better yourself?' kind of response, but I can see where several people have asked you to present something you've written yourself. You keep saying you've designed all this stuff, but apparently we wouldn't be interested in seeing it. That's not really working for you.

So, with respect, I don't think I'm getting anything useful out of this. Putting together some articles for a magazine recently, I asked a bunch of games designers their thoughts about the chestnutty 'games versus simulations' debate and you know what? None of them cared. Several thought we'd all just moved through that stage.

I suggest that we, as hobby wargamers, promise never to use the word 'simulate' again, and move on. Because I have to deal with the crucial issue of how hard it is for a man with a club (possibly a Huron) to strike another man (possibly a Mohawk) who'd prefer that this doesn't happen.

Because it's part of a game, which I will be paid for designing.

I think I have it Howard.

"Simulation" is a word of power in the vocabulary of war games to invoke the "Dome of infalability."

It reminds me of a "Ring of invulnerability" I once had in an AD&D game I GM'd.

The ring was indeed invulnerable.

Otto

So, McLaddie, here's my position on your position.

Too many words strung together in ways that don't add up to meaningful statements. Then repeated. It's as if we bought the jumbo pack of something we didn't really want, but have been told is good for us.

I don't remember you buying anything.

Too many references to his own opaque world of simulators and their simulatin' ways, which apparently aren't ours. Fair enough, but why bring it up if it's not relevant?

It's only relevant if you want to buy history and simulation games, as claimed by such designers as Black Powder or LaSalle It ain't if you don't. There is no rule that says you should. I certainly haven't suggested anyone must. I have only insisted that if you are going to claim to design games that simulate, you should 1. Believe they are possible, and 2. Know how simulations work to be possible, and 3. provide that to the players.

A conflation between 'designing games' and the world of simulatin' simulators. I don't think you can fail to make that distinction, then criticise who also fail to make that distinction themselves. But that's a recurring theme.

Actually, simulation games and wargames use the same kinds of mechanics. In that, they are similar. I have described those distinctions in very succinct definitions. [even one sentence definitions… You must have missed that in all my verbiage.]

But as you point out, my criticisms have been of game designers who claim to do both, without saying how.

A claim that it's all technical, but in a nebulous way that doesn't say much of anything. It all seems vague and fluffy, the opposite of technical.

I'm sorry, when did I state that it's all technical? I clearly said it was only part of the art and craft… Obviously, the unimportant part for many designers.

I'm not usually a supporter of the 'So, you think you can do better yourself?' kind of response, but I can see where several people have asked you to present something you've written yourself. You keep saying you've designed all this stuff, but apparently we wouldn't be interested in seeing it. That's not really working for you.

If you've read what I've written, then you have the title of the published wargame and some of the folks I've designed simulation games for. You certainly can have the titles and subjects of different simulation games I have designed, but most are educational and business, and used by them, [or me in my work] and not sold on the open market. Generally, they are too specific of that. For instance, a ten minute simulation game of the Slave Culture in the US for High School and college students with a clear historical basis and reference points. Or a one week simulation on the strengths and weaknesses of Democracy as a form of government. Or a twenty minute simulation game revealing the four traits of a leader. Or the uses and dynamics of non-verbal and/or non-confrontational skills in the workplace. All had to prove to simulate, educate and train for reality or I didn't get paid.

So, with respect, I don't think I'm getting anything useful out of this. Putting together some articles for a magazine recently, I asked a bunch of games designers their thoughts about the chestnutty 'games versus simulations' debate and you know what? None of them cared. Several thought we'd all just moved through that stage.

Yeah, I know many don't care, or I should say, they care enough to claim their games do simulate, recreate, model etc. etc. history, accurate history. They advertise it, but don't care enough to state what the hell that means, other than to say they've 'moved on'--until the next published game is a faithful representation of history. Or have you missed that consistant theme over the last thirty years of wargame design?

I suggest that we, as hobby wargamers, promise never to use the word 'simulate' again, and move on. Because I have to deal with the crucial issue of how hard it is for a man with a club (possibly a Huron) to strike another man (possibly a Mohawk) who'd prefer that this doesn't happen.

And I've suggested that too, and I'd be fine with it if 'we' all agreed and *really* moved on. But you know that won't happen, even among those designers who believe simulations are impossible. Their next wargames will simulate historical battles, giving "players the real challenges of historical command." That is a direct quote from three current, popular game rules, like they all read each others' promotional blurbs.

Because it's part of a game, which I will be paid for designing.

Terrific. Ban the word simulation. We can all talk about game design without worrying about the rules actually representing something and move on. It will exorcise Otto's word of power [which is what designers seem to use 'simulate' and the attendant words for: the power of hype for selling games.]

It is far, far simpler and there's nothing to be concerned with. You either like the game or you don't.

You don't have to concern yourself with what that Huron can or can't do with that club or whether his victim would care or not. Any fun mechanism is just as good as any other representation of that or an Orc hitting a Dwarf for that matter. It's just a matter of the gamer pretending a little harder with the right figures while having fun.

And as I said, I'm fine with that… as long as it isn't then sold as accurate history of Native American warfare, a simulation recreating the 'flavor', 'feel' and 'taste' of those battles while never, ever explaining how the designer has determined that accuracy or 'flavor' accomplished that magic of recreating history without simulating or modeling it.

Bill

Mexican Jack Squint & O Schmidt,

I am pleased that you both took the opportunity to respond. Because I see that I actually have a chance here to get some honest feedback from you. However, as much as I'd like to, I can't take full credit for 'Boys playing with their Toys' comment. Because, that phrase rightfully belongs to my wife.

In order to try get to that feedback, I had to put a stake in the ground in the form of that DoD historical wargaming definition to establish my perspective and provide a common reference point. I take it as a 'give me' that Wargaming and drinking Beer or both together are FUN too.

O.K., so let's cut to the chase. How many times have you guys read in the Designer's Notes words to this effect, "The best advice I can give You about playing XXXXX Wargame is: 'Just play History'." Great advice! Now, just tell me how I should go about doing it?

Let me see,…that means the answer is probably historical? Which means that it must be connected with history as a subject of study. So, they want me to conduct historical research to see what kind of Dice (e.g. 1D6, 2D10 or 1D12) the real Generals actually used? Or would it be Cards or a Spinner that would be more historically accurate?

Maybe it's historical tactical advice they are alluding too? Well, I already got it. You'll need about 3:1 ratio to have a better than even chance of winning or better yet get behind them, if you can. Again some great advice, but this is the same advice I give someone involved in a Soccer Brawl.

Now don't read into this that I think that there is only one way to design a wargame. I don't. I'm well familiar and have no issue with using abstraction as a tool. Which I would describe as the process of selecting the essential aspects of a system/process to be represented in a model or simulation while ignoring those aspects that are not relevant to the purpose of the model or simulation. Perhaps a little too precise at this point, but I wanted to get it on the table for future discussion and to limit the 'flights of fancy' that result when it gets abused.

Hopefully, by now You are able to see what I'm getting at and where I am going with these comments. There are no absolute black or whites. Only lots of grey area. However, it these historical 'grey area' and how they are addressed in historical wargaming, that are the most interesting points for discussion.

Before someone throws out the next wild card relating to the 'impossibility of replicating military history and warfare in a wargame', it isn't necessary to eat the entire elephant in one bite. You always attempt to simplify things first. For example the area of 'Command & Control'. Just ask yourself, what is it that a Wargamer and General have in common in this area? Well, I'd suggest to you that they both, "Have to make decisions under conditions of risk and uncertainty." Do you find any problem(s) with that statement? If you do what's are they? And thus!, we're off to a professional discussion of it.

Coming full circle on this topic. So, why isn't it possible to have this discussion with the historical(?) wargame designers and Us Wargamers about "Historical Wargaming"? Aren't we the customers and 'honest brokers' in this historical wargaming hobby? Thus, it should be up to Us to assess the viability of the historical content of the product, not the manufacturer. Otherwise, get ready for "Historical Cheerios".

Regards,

Analsim

Dear Analsim

To answer this question you propose.

Just ask yourself, what is it that a Wargamer and General have in common in this area?

The answer is NOTHING!!!!

Zip, nada, zilch, gats-- nothing.

The wargame general risks neither life nor limb nor sweat, nor treasure, nor loss, nor ending of career, or death of loved ones and comrades, or adverse effect or even mild unhappiness if he loses the battle. There are no challenges, there are no consequences of a wrong decision, and there are absolutely NO effects that transcend the game. As Satan says to the Lord, "you have not let me touch him in his body." The gamer suffers nothing where the general may risk all. Nothing relies on his decision. It is as a soap bubble floating in the wind.

All historical war gaming is "historical" only in so far that the little nicely painted tokens represent one period or the other. The rest of it is pure fantasy.

The animus against "simulation" is for the presumptuousness people attach to the word. If you have a "simulation" then you are saying "It is as good as real life" and that therefore it has a predictive power. For me that's the key. As I have said before the predictive power of simulations is nil.

But even before we get into debates of generals real or imaginary, we have to get into questions of definition.

What is the meaning of "simulation."

For me the definition is one of two that describe (within war games) the methods that can be used to represent combat.

These are "modeling" and "simulation."

"Modeling" is that the artifact on the table top "models" or reproduces either in perfection or in paradigm the real prototype.

Example: Thus in a naval game "modeling" would be using toothpicks to represent torpedoes and moving them by certain rates and speed, and when they intersect the model fo the ship, they go boom.

"Simulation" is the use of process' to decide an action by the use of a decision maker. In the case of torpedoes above it would be perhaps to roll two dice (or three or four or however many) to determine if a torpedoe(s) hit the enemy.

Now you obviously differ from this. I have no doubt your, and I am certain McLaddie's definition would be one that would include the presumption of prediction. That Is that if we use his rules which are "simulations" we will have predictions of what will happen.

And to return, this to the real life general, when we game our games we are completely different from him. We do not decide the fate of nations or the lives of generations yet ungotten and unborn. It is a game, a mere game, a simple game, a stupid game, a silly game. Nothing is proven, nothing is validated, nothing is evidenced, and it changes the course of the world not the least.

Hey Analsim;

I appreciate your thoughts, which are well-considered.

The core issue is that we have deliberately chosen to fight battles with model soldiers. This is certainly not the most sensible way of trying to model/recreate/I'm not going to use that word --- the tactical movements of actual soldiers. For one thing, they don't move themselves, and we have to do it for them, most often in segments of inches (or centimetres, or basewidths). So, we've made a choice that creates a lot of constraints from the start.

I suspect the best we can do is create a good game with a 'history flavour'. How much history, and what sort of key details we want to make an effort to model, are up to the designer. Whether it works is up to the player. It's almost wholly subjective once you've got past "Does light cavalry move faster than infantry when crossing an open field?"

I do a lot of research, but I don't want every part of it to appear in my games. That puts us in the 'I have suffered for my work, and now you will too" category.

Game mechanisms are various and legion, and for every player who says "That's clever," someone else will say, "That's gamey and unrealistic."

I can tell you that if you draw a ten of your card suit of cards in "Mad Dogs with Guns" then you get to move all the civilians on the board. You can't use them to actively help your side so much as get in the way of other players' actions. This is in no way a realistic mechanism for assessing how random bystanders would act if caught up in a fight between gangsters, but it fulfills my chosen function of adding chaos and confusion.

As to design notes – yes, explaining the writer's reasoning as to ratings, mechanisms and results is an excellent idea. The issue is probably more about 'keeping it to a reasonable length' than whether it should be done at all

OS & MJS,

Just to keep me straight, here's the definitions I use for the terms: model, modeling and simulation. They are actually complimentary, in that none of which exclude the use of the others.

Model: A physical, mathematical, or otherwise logical representation of a system, entity, phenomenon, or process.

Modeling: The application of a standard, rigorous, structured methodology to create and validate a physical, mathematical, or otherwise logical representation of a system, entity, phenomenon, or process.

Simulation: A method for implementing one or more models over time.

Now, it isn't hard to see from your comments above that we would fall out a bit apart on MCLaddie's chart. However, I see myself closer to MJS position because we have the Immersions aspect in common.

However, I'm pretty sure that is was these 'personal perspectives' of ours as typified by the chart, that McLaddie was interested in discussing how they influenced the wargame design world. I don't think it would surprise either of you if I suggested that the largest group of Wargamers would have a center of mass somewhere between the Immersion-Cooperation area of his chart.

OS: There are several types of risks and uncertainties. And as you pointed out, personal and physical risk would figure in at the top of the list, if they did apply at the time the decision was being made. Likewise, uncertainty would include things such as emotional state and strength of character, as well as, situational awareness to name a few.

So, just by the fact that I can lable these areas, tells me that I could probably address there impact and/or influence on the decision making process of some wargame design. However, cut me some slack. Because it might take me several tries in order to make it FUN!

Regards,

Analsim

Dear Analsim

Gobbldygook.

That you cannot define anything simply is the giveaway that all you are saying is Gobbledygook.

It is in fact the methodology of obfuscation used by all who know that their point is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

This conversation has reached pointlessness.

Otto

Otto,

Ye are of little faith.

Here's an example of the kind of simplification that applies even here.

I rode a Tank for 10 years while I served in the US Army. Among the things I learned during that time was 'Tanker Logic'. Tanker's Logic is NOT Murphy's Law.

Here's a couple of examples of this Tanker's Logic:

#1) The shortest distance between you and the enemy is a straight line.
#2) Why walk, when You can ride.
#3) Don't dig a Fox Hole, if you can bring it with you.
#4) In respects to an enemy target: If I can 'See it', I can 'Shoot it'. If I can 'Shoot it', I can 'Hit it'. If I can 'Hit it', I can sure as hell 'Kill it!'

As in the case of #4 above, I'm telling you essentially the samething now. If it exists in nature, be it Animal, Vegetable or Mineral. Then it's 'Measurable'. And if it's measurable, then it can be Modeled and Simulated. Even the smoke and mirrors, if neccessary. ;^)

Granted I can appreciate your notion that on the surface, the historical waragming world does appear to be 'Flat' to many Wargamers these days. Probably, due too and supported by the very same smoke and mirror 'marketing dogma' that is now common place in our hobby today.

Finally, we are all free to choose our own paths. You to take yours and likewise for me to choose mine.

And I simply choose NOT to accept the historical world to be FLAT, just because Wargame Designer's X, Y & Z say it's so.

Regards and nice chatting with you.

James (AKA: Analsim)

I can understand it – and I'm an idiot!

By the way, wargaming is a standard part of operations planning in all western armies (and has been for 150 years e.g. the Schlieffen Plan, Kriegspiel, Strategos, German generals playing wargames in Rennes on D-1 Day). Once an operational plan is prepared it is wargamed by the operation leaders. There are downloadable manuals on the end-to-end process. Google "course of action wargame"
link

The principles are the same as in a hobby historical wargame. Decision making, allocation of forces, knowledge of combat effectiveness, knowledge of tactics and so on. That's what a historical wargame should be.

But one big difference is that hobby rules use "sugar-coating" (a technical term) rather than realistic models such as combat results calcs. Why? FOr example, because we play history games and the way combat really worked has been lost in history; because the math calcs would be too difficult for gamers; because our tables are too small, because realistic command and control would slow the game down etc.

Nonetheless nearly all historical rules don't get even the known stuff correct. In general, the closest to reality have been the rules of the 80's. Why? Because they evolved from military wargames.

Many designers tell fibs about how good their rules are. Why, because it impacts their paycheck and, I can tell by their lame arguments, that they don't know any better.

As has been said, fun is about immersion. Immersion is why Imaginations are popular. Immersion is why people spend hundreds of hours playing computer games and downloading mods that improve "the realism". But in games, realism is provided by sugar-coating. The key point is that getting the sugar-coating right is the aim of the game designer.

And that's what McLaddie's diagram is all about – a first-cut high-level look at identifying what type of sugar-coating wargamers like. Even that simple diagram can explain why some sets of rules have been poorly received.

The 'measurability' thing. This sounds wonderful as a concept. But before too long we crash into some problems. Some of these are related to our choice of using toy soldiers as the medium for our games. Some are just about how we tend to want crunchy detail at certain places where abstract rules might do better for us. Some are just about whether we are, in fact, having Any Fun. And this, of course, is a personal thing.

We know exactly how fast a military formation can move on the parade ground, and make some modifications due to ground etc: I've written rules based on movement-per-minute.

We can establish possible rates of fire and suggest expected casualties under different conditions.

We certainly know ranges of different weapons, and the footprint of tactical units.

And then, it gets difficult.

A lot of that relates to time. In the '70s Phil Barker (whose career was in what was once called 'Time and Motion') could tell us how far an infantryman in close order could move in, say two minutes, and what that looked like compared to the ground scale. And we knew that a man moving 50 yards a minute translated to 5" at a ground scale of 1" to 10 yards, and 2.5" at 1" to 20 yards. But that meant that a cavalry unit might move at six or eight times that speed when it went into action (at least for the crucial phase of action) and might then cross the table in one action. Which didn't work well as a game.

And the one or two minute turn --- well, it meant that whole battles lasted just a few minutes. And clearly that wasn't true. So, we got the really dodgy position that a turn was two minutes of movement and about twenty eight minutes of 'delay'. I don't think anyone was satisfied with that.

It was possible to make the ground scale much bigger, of course. If that 50 yards was now, say, 1/4" in a world where 1" was 200 Yards, then the infantry unit now moved 7.5" in half an hour. That works! Except that an infantry battalion of the C18th is now an inch wide, and has an extreme shooting range of about the same.

And that's fine. Except that we'd already decided that we wanted to play with toy soldiers, and even in 6mm an inch-wide basic unit doesn't satisfy most people. So we put three units together, and call it a brigade-level game? A two-three inch wide base like 'Volley and Bayonet'? Why not?

Why not indeed? Of course, it means that things like shooting become a very abstract part of combat. And, of course, your brigade is really a diorama with (depending on scale) a handful of model soldiers. Perhaps a very nice one. Still, a dozen 28mms or two dozen 15s or even sixty 6mms aren't all that convincing as a brigade. Not like 36 old school 30mms, which we instinctively understand is a battalion :)

And the Waterloo battlefield is 36" across, and La Haye Sainte is smaller than a button. Regrettable. We want to use the old Airfix model --

This crashes into 'What(most)people like'. We want 'proper' shooting, as distinct from a more generic 'combat within 200 yards' (or whatever). The criticism I hear most often about DBA (and its progeny) is that it is 'too abstract', and part of that applies here.

We want cavalry to charge in a bugle-blowing, sabres drawn way.

Quite often we want absurd things, like to be Napoleon and then order individual squares to be formed. I'm sorry about this. It's ridiculous, but it's part of the 'We want detail, but only where we want it' ethos.

That's just one example of how 'What we know' and 'What we want' collide in an uncomfortable way. We can ignore it – and pioneers like Featherstone (a veteran of the 8th Army) deliberately did so. We can decide that model soldiers don't really work for us (as my mentor, the late Paddy Griffith did). We can make compromises, awkwardly or not (as I suspect most game designers do).

Dear Howard

Don't waste your time friend. You're dealing with a tar-baby.

Otto

Just ask yourself, what is it that a Wargamer and General have in common in this area?

The answer is NOTHING!!!!

The answer is NOTHING!!!!

Zip, nada, zilch, gats-- nothing.

The wargame general risks neither life nor limb nor sweat, nor treasure, nor loss, nor ending of career, or death of loved ones and comrades, or adverse effect or even mild unhappiness if he loses the battle. There are no challenges, there are no consequences of a wrong decision, and there are absolutely NO effects that transcend the game. As Satan says to the Lord, "you have not let me touch him in his body." The gamer suffers nothing where the general may risk all. Nothing relies on his decision. It is as a soap bubble floating in the wind.

OS: Then you have to ask yourself, if there is absolutely nothing,zilch between the wargame player and a real, live general, why the military has played wargames in increasing numbers since the 1800s? That means starting with and continuing the use of miniature wargames.

And one of the many benefits of simulations is that reduction of risk. You can learn the basics of flying without the risk of life and limb crashing your expensive plane.

It's a matter of knowing what simulations/wargames can represent and what they can't. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.

A, J and M:

I am not sure we are using the term 'prediction' in the same way.

All games and simulations are predictive. They are closed systems of process and results. The results are always predictive. You have a combat process. It will predict the parameters of the results and the odds of particular outcomes. Even chess has that element. That is how chess masters can 'predict' moves and counter moves several turns ahead and particular strategies such as the "Sicilian" or "Queen" work.

Simulation: A method for implementing one or more models over time.

Simulations are also models of something else and have to model that other reality to be simulations.

And so, all simulations have to be predictive…what will happen in the fake environment of the game must have a valid relationship with what it is modeling…which includes predicting what will happen with each player decision.

And there is the core issue: How do simulations actually model the real world, which has to include some amount of prediction.

Otto believes it is impossible. Others speak of some vague 'flavors' in their mechanics, but it still comes down to how game mechanics model the real world in any sense of the word.

If it was all subjective beyond light cavalry moving faster than infantry, then I would agree with Otto.

McLaddie

You do not seem to understand, or want to understand differences. The "War Games" played by real life generals are not the same or of the same intent as those played by War Gamers. Go back and read my post again I made that very clear.

The purpose of the war gamer in playing a game is fun. The purpose of a general playing a war game is survival. Two entirely different games for two entirely different goals and two entirely different situations.

That's the part you don't get, or, as I think, don't want to get because if you admit it your whole point of simulations falls to the ground (as it has in real life).

Generals have indeed been playing war games since the 19th century. Happily most of the time they have ignored them.

McLaddie

As I said in another post. If someone comes up to me with a simulation and said it has a predictive effect, I will happily go along, provided you play the game of "You Bet Your Life." If your simulation says A and I get M, you die.

In war, I am sending other men to die on the strength of your prediction. If you're so confident then there should be no problem. If your simulation does not prove true, then you should pay the price the men you sent out to die paid.

In a war game I sending nobody to die and I can approach the whole thing in a less serious manner. No one is going to get killed and there is a huge degree of non-seriousness to it.

Consider that your sacrifice will "encourage your successors to be more accurate."

This is no different than what I did when we had a software company come in waxing loquacious about the excellence of their forecasting program. The abruptly became silent when I said "So since your forecasting program is so excellent, you will of course cover any losses we have when you told us to buy the wrong thing? That includes loss of sales when we didn't buy enough to suit demand, and excess inventory when you told us to buy too much."

If you're not willing to agree to this then it simply means you know your simulation is a fraud.

PS. It is all subjective. Who said Infantry can't move further than light cavalry? Happens all the time.

When you factor time in. To add to Howard's words on scale. you are assuming that time in a war game is continuous and constant. It's not. It all depends if the Light cavalry moves and in what space of time they move. So if you have a game where you have hour turns… and the cavalry does not move, of course the infantry will move further.

Okay, allow me to settle all this once and for all. Only I know the answer. Just me. No one else. And, unfortunately for everyone else, I'm absolutely not allowed to share it. Or, I can share it but the end result is a rift opens in the universe for a brief moment and it sucks all painted gaming miniatures, metal or otherwise, into it and they never reappear. Ever. Then the rift closes and there will never again be a war game with miniatures. Ever.

Now, see how easy that was. So, please get back to playing your games and leave erudition and pedantry on the local college campus.

What do you mean I suffer from grand-mal-megalomania? Just because my other title is Supreme Emperor Of All The Universes doesn't mean I have any delusions of grandeur. At least none that can be detected.

Bo-oor-oor-ing! (To paraphrase Capn. Flashheart)

OS,

Help me out here for a moment, because I'm detecting a little duplicity creeping into your comments below.

"This is no different than what I did when we had a software company come in waxing loquacious about the excellence of their forecasting program. The abruptly became silent when I said "So since your forecasting program is so excellent, you will of course cover any losses we have when you told us to buy the wrong thing? That includes loss of sales when we didn't buy enough to suit demand, and excess inventory when you told us to buy too much.

If you're not willing to agree to this then it simply means you know your simulation is a fraud."

My question (no indictment intended) is Why the double standard now?

Why are you attempting to hold these software designers to a different and higher standard then you expect of the Wargame Designers that profess to predict History (a'la McLaddie's recent comments) in the same fashion?

Regards,

Analsim

You do not seem to understand, or want to understand differences. The "War Games" played by real life generals are not the same or of the same intent as those played by War Gamers. Go back and read my post again I made that very clear.

Otto:

Oh, I understand, but you may have missed my points here:

Many military wargames today that are played by military men, and starting in 1824 with Kriegsspiel:

1. Use the same game mechanics, concepts and methods as those in the hobby--to a very large extent.

2. Military wargames are entertaining enough that at least two game companies routinely take military rule sets and computer programs and sell them as entertainment.

3. A significant number of hobby wargames have been and are being used as training platforms for the military.

4. At least some hobby gamers find the challenges faced by military men entertaining.

The purpose of the war gamer in playing a game is fun. The purpose of a general playing a war game is survival. Two entirely different games for two entirely different goals and two entirely different situations.

The reason a person sits down to a game does not suddenly change the way games are played just as the reasons someone wields a hammer doesn't suddenly change it's configuration. An example is Phil Sabin's book Simulating War and wargames. It is written about that relationship between hobby games and the military…which are what his games are about--they are used to train officers and are sold as entertainment.

There certainly are hobby wargames that would never be used by the military and vice versa, but the actual overlap is huge. Even von Riesswitz was surprised to find his Kriegsspiel designed solely as a training vehicle for middle grade officers to be both "entertaining" and played by high ranking officers.

That's the part you don't get, or, as I think, don't want to get because if you admit it your whole point of simulations falls to the ground (as it has in real life).

To get your point would mean ignoring a whole lot of evidence to the contrary.

Generals have indeed been playing war games since the 19th century. Happily most of the time they have ignored them.

Do they now? That also doesn't jibe with the evidence.
Generals are neither necessarily happy about playing them while seeing the need to use them, and are often later unhappy when they ignore them. Ask the Japanese High Command after Midway…

As I said in another post. If someone comes up to me with a simulation and said it has a predictive effect, I will happily go along, provided you play the game of "You Bet Your Life." If your simulation says A and I get M, you die.

Otto:

That is the way I did business, and I know a number of others that did too. IF it doesn't do what it is supposed to, I either fix it or don't get paid.

In war, I am sending other men to die on the strength of your prediction. If you're so confident then there should be no problem. If your simulation does not prove true, then you should pay the price the men you sent out to die paid.

In a war game I sending nobody to die and I can approach the whole thing in a less serious manner. No one is going to get killed and there is a huge degree of non-seriousness to it.

Consider that your sacrifice will "encourage your successors to be more accurate."

The whole point of a wargame/simulation is that you can learn tactics and practical methods without the risk of dying with each learning experience. And obviously, such simulations would be worthless if they didn't do that.

This is no different than what I did when we had a software company come in waxing loquacious about the excellence of their forecasting program. The abruptly became silent when I said "So since your forecasting program is so excellent, you will of course cover any losses we have when you told us to buy the wrong thing? That includes loss of sales when we didn't buy enough to suit demand, and excess inventory when you told us to buy too much."

I think we can agree that they sold what they couldn't produce. Lots of businesses besides simulation design have such 'charlatans'. If one sells me a car that doesn't run, I don't buy another one from that salesman. What I don't do is then assume that all cars being sold don't run and anyone selling cars is a fraud.

If you're not willing to agree to this then it simply means you know your simulation is a fraud.

Already answered that question in this post and one other.

PS. It is all subjective. Who said Infantry can't move further than light cavalry? Happens all the time.

Exactly. However, is that a subjective response, or do you believe that actually has some basis in reality…?

When you factor time in. To add to Howard's words on scale. you are assuming that time in a war game is continuous and constant.

I find that most people do assume that, whether playing wargames or not.

It's not. It all depends if the Light cavalry moves and in what space of time they move. So if you have a game where you have hour turns… and the cavalry does not move, of course the infantry will move further.

Of course.