"A Discussion of Common Problems Found in Wargame Designs" Topic

Two weeks ago, I was privileged to attend a presentation on Strategic Thinking by a retired U.S.M.C. 3 star (I will not mention his name.) In this presentation, he introduced to me the concept of Linear verses Non-Linear systems, both man-made and those that occur in nature. Understanding how these systems work in real life then comparing how historical rules designers have created their mechanics to recreate them on the tabletop, in almost every case, what should be a non-linear system is modeled as being linear! We need to seriously challenge and consider changing the value sets we have been using for decades!

I immediately recognized the root of many problems of game designs of the past 50 years or so! So I embarked on writing a paper on the subject with hopes of getting fellow designers and especially gamers to honestly think about.

While still a work in progress, I found myself applying the principles of my own set of Cohesion rules that I have been working on for about 20 years now and found that I seem to have stumbled upon the same premises, but until now, did a very dismally poor job of describing the root major problems in historical rules design. I have been espousing the re-thinking of what value sets should really apply to our games and then, getting the mechanics right to where they more closely model the fundamentals found in real life. Terms like "historical accuracy", "realistic", etc. have been used in the past to describe what has been missing (or added ) in/to designs and has been scoffed at. In reality, I can not find better words for this situation.

I have included below the first bit of that article for anyone interested in game design and who may be frustrated by seemingly un-historical results from their games. At the time of posting this, I am down to the discussion about frontages. I hope you find it interesting so far.
----------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE REGARDING Linear and Non-Linear Systems in Historical Miniature Wargame Rules by Tom Dye

Prologue
For over 50 years now, historical miniature wargamers have had the same kinds of mechanics appear in almost every set of rules in one form or another. Most continue to look for new rules sets because they become disillusioned from quwarky results after a while. Many continue to use them because they are either the most "accepted" local set played or they cannot find others they care to invest the time and money to learn or just force themselves to "like" them as they spent a small fortune for a hardback set that came with all those good looking figures.

The aim of this article is to inform, discuss and present to you why most systems have problems; what can be done to improve things and leave you with some points to deeply ponder over the next few days.

Introduction
Let me start by asking some questions:
• Why are all units if a class, rated the same?
• Why do most systems track casualties and link them to morale checks?
• What is tracked in a Unit Cohesion game, how and why?
• Why do gamers seemingly insist on worrying about issues like frontages, size of units and a concept called "Command Radius"?
• Why do most rules for historicals have to be so complex?
• Why do most historical rules claim to be historical when the historical records are selectively applied, ignoring other, more important and more relevant factors?
• Does it always have to be a "game" to find fun and entertainment?
I will address each of these topics and what I say here may upset some, baffle others but I hope it turns on that "Light bulb" moment and spurs a few into rereading some research books with different "eyes" for certain things.

Preparing the field for discussion:
Without digging into research books, I would like to establish us on a firm footing of understanding what we should easily understand. Nothing I will address here should be new to the reader. What will be new comes later as I try to show how "traditional" value sets miss the target objectives because they either do not understand how the systems they design don't match the real life systems they are trying to model, and why.

• What is a system? Some say that the only "system" is the Solar system. It's only when we add an adjective to the word system do we immediately begin to understand the concept. A Linear system is one that will always act the same when an input is injected into the system. Take for example a brake system in the car. It will always stop a car when the brake pedal is depressed. If it does not, then an input has been applied to the system. Cut the brake lines once or 100 times, you will get the same results- the car does not stop! This is an example of a linear system. All will act the same until an input is factored into the system. Then, the results of that factor will always produce the same results.
• A Non-Linear system is one that can be infinitely variable. When the same
input is injected into the system, you may not always get the same results due to an
almost infinite number of variables. Once again using cars as an example (we all can
relate to cars, can't we?) Let's look at a traffic jam. While you might always have to
suffer in one while driving to or from work every day, the cause for them and who is
affected can vary wildly! Is there always a white car in front of you? Did you have a
disagreement with your spouse this morning? Was the cause of an accident due to only
red cars? Was it a woman driver? Would there have even been an accident if the car
was silver and driven by a man? (probably not!), but if tomorrow's traffic jam was
caused by an accident, would the chance be that it was a red car involved, driven by a
woman, with a white car in front of you and you had yet another altercation with your
spouse? (Probably not!) This is an example where in a non-linear system, there can be
so many variables that it would be an astronomical anomaly that every time the same
conditions would produce the same results , with the same people involved, at the
same time, same place, same results! All due to the interactions of all these variables.
What does the color of the car have to do with the accident? On the surface, nothing!
But it remains a variable anyway because the color could change and still result in an
accident! So just because something exists in real life, there is no set formula that
guarantees the same result every time with the same input in a non-linear system.

• Now to tie this into the confines of a wargame. Many rules will rate units into general categories. Elite, veterans, regulars, trained, conscript, irregulars, militia, untrained, etc are all categories I have experienced in rules sets. Usually, every figure or stand is rated for firing at the same value (say "5"). If you have 5 stands the unit fires at a factor of 25. If only 3 stands, 15 and with 6 stands 30. This is an example of a linear wargame system. The inject is the number of stands firing and the constant is the value of "5". Every 5 stand unit will always have a fire factor of 25. Add another inject: Nationality: now you play with how this nation's line infantry will be rated. Let's say a "4". Does this make for a more "realistic" wargame because you now are imposing a lesser value for this nation's units? Some seem to think so!

• In reality, units are made up of men. Each one is an individual and is NOT a clone of the other! This means that every unit is made up of a large variable because each man is different. This can be applied to the same logic that every unit will be different because each is made up of different men! So immediately, we can see that a linear value set has been chosen for a non-linear real life situation. A very bad choice for modelling a gaming system that claims to be historical I would say! Can you name a few more such examples where in real life, a value set is non-linear yet game rules apply a linear system to model them with? How about Morale? Firing results? Effective ranges? Quality of leaders on any given day? Movement rates? (Did I miss any?)

The plot thickens….
OK, how can a designer model a non-linear gaming mechanic? It IS possible! Sticking with our morale grade classes, let's first understand what we have to try to model.

We have already discovered that a unit in real life is a non-linear system. It is made up of men with different skills, attitudes, levels of training and experiences, levels of leadership skills, etc. So which variables seem to have the most impact on a unit's ability to function? Let's keep it simple: the training and experience of the men; the training and experience of the leadership and (most importantly) how long have these men served under these leaders? In pregame preparation, we need to determine these qualities and rate them based upon what we know and what we must derive when values cannot be determined. When all else fails, simply roll on a table for these values. Once a value for each has been arrived upon (yes, I have devised such a random value table, please see below.
----------------( SNIP )-----------------------------------
(Tables and charts don't seem to upload very well here from a Word document.)

In light of current discussions on rules designers on TMP over the last few days, I thought I would try to point the discussion in a different direction. One thing I have discovered is that "I"was over-writing my rules for the wrong reasons! A game (or simulation) does NOT have to be complicated to achieve results that mirror the historical record- the designer and gamer just need to have an understanding of what is being modeled in their mechanics.

If you have gotten this far, try comparing what I have said above, to those rules sets where you just don't feel right about.

Thanks for reading and commenting on this concept.

Tom Dye

I'm not convinced, really. Since we end up throwing dice (or drawing a car or somesuch) for every aspect you mention, we get non-linear results anyway.

Let me start by asking some questions:

• Why are all units if a class, rated the same?

Because although a unit's exact position on the quality continuum may be unknown and unknowable, then we can have a decent stab at what the outliers are and how our units are likely to compare.

• Why do most systems track casualties and link them to morale checks?

Because casualties are a factor in morale? Other factors are involved too, of course.

What is tracked in a Unit Cohesion game, how and why?

Well it depends on what you mean by cohesion. Or you in fact using it as a synonym for morale? One might define it as 'the cohesion of the unit is in inverse proportion to the effort needed by its commander to get it to act as ordered'. But it really depends. The 'why'? Because it is the basic measure of military effectiveness.

Why do gamers seemingly insist on worrying about issues like frontages, size of units and a concept called "Command Radius"?

Well partly because they were important in real life and partly because the playing of certain games demand that one does so. I'm honestly not sure what you are getting at here.

Why do most rules for historicals have to be so complex?

Because their designers feel that lots of factors had a reasonably chunky effect on outcomes and so feel they have to include them?

Why do most historical rules claim to be historical when the historical records are selectively applied, ignoring other, more important and more relevant factors?

Well this is just tendentious isn't it? Designers design the games that they think reflect their idea of what really happened, or at least the key points. If one disagrees then one is going to look for a different set of rules, where the designers opinion more closely reflects ones own.

Think of the arguments here on TMP about this or that aspect of this or that army's performance. There is no great unaninimity about whether "+1 to the French" is always, sometimes or never right.

I've never seen the terms 'Linear' and 'non-linear' used in this way before – to me they mean completely different things when related to systems.

Having said that I think there is something to think about in what Tom says.

We do tend to accept that outcomes of almost all activities (shooting, close combat, morale/cohesion etc.) are not only discrete in themselves but also dependant on discrete factors. The problem isn't realising it but achieving a 'better' solution.

We classify many things in life that are not actually discrete in nature (not all red cars/dresses are the same colour) because it makes life easier if we do so. Increasing the number of classes makes things more accurate but increases complexity – there have to be limits to that to keep management of the system feasible.

I'm not sure that we can say that the behaviour of a body of men is 'infinitely variable' simply because it's component members' behaviour can each vary. True in itself it does not mean that we cannot reasonably classify the behaviour of the unit in terms of its battlefield status in a smaller number of classes. After all, once it is actually broken do we need to know how badly or which way the men run ? If confident, how confident they are ? Here the limit is not what is possible to cope with but what is USEFUL to distinguish between.

Thoughts so far – I'm still chewing over your other points Tom.

There's too much there Tom, it needs to be done in bite size chunks.

If we take "Why are all units if a class, rated the same?" well that depends on the rules you use. I use Piquet Field of Battle and they don't work like that much to my satisfaction.

If you ask questions, you expect us to answer somehow. can't do that quickly.
To your I will put one more, as a rule designer which in many ways directs some of the answers to many questions>
0 what do I expect/ want from this rule set/ why do I write it??
I do it because other's set did not fulfil my aims: starts with; what do I want? What money/space/ time can I put in my game… then do I want to sell it or not? Where and what do I need to research?

1 Why are all units if a class, rated the same?
A class as you define it, is a combination of training and morale. Well any other practical way? You, the gamer are the general, you have an idea of what to expect of your troops (or not/ some rules might give it to randomness, if a simulation of the beginning of a campaign or unknown -to you-troops ex: piquet). Like the estimations we have from Frederick the Great of his regiments and some of the enemy. Veterans or not, reputation/ fame etc.
What you say about men being different is ok for a skirmish. A unit is a disciplined (hopefully) crowd.

2 Why do most systems track casualties and link them to morale checks?
It seems they are linked, up to a point. Arguments abound as to up too how much. They might often be overestimated compared to events / perception of the surroundings. Many games underestimate the immediate impact vs the long term one (the stonk effect). Common NATO understanding (?); a line unit is worthless after 30% casualties.
In horse and musket, men numbers directly relate to the unit's front, so to its firepower, and if the enemy gets more frontage, because of casualties, to the cracking of the threatened flanks (perception). In most period, cadres take disproportionate casualties compared to other ranks, this leading to a lack of cohesion or even disintegration.

3 What is tracked in a Unit Cohesion game, how and why?
Perso, I don't like them too much. Then aggregates of what I just sampled? Leading directly to showing the units (or formation etc.) behaviour, bypassing details as to why. It can be simple or have several indicators.
4 Why do gamers seemingly insist on worrying about issues like frontages, size of units and a concept called "Command Radius"?
I liked very much the eye opening explanations of "our" Bill MCladdie. Radius is one of those practical, commonly accepted way to limit the " if permitted, I will do anything" in games. It makes players keep their units together. One aim of historical simulation is to strive m towards having the same problems/ command decisions as "our historical counterparts". One might link it to the arbitrary, yet necessary "turn" / amount of time linked to those decisions. In my creations, I try to use radius 9 or what distance can be used for c3) and something else. In WW2/3 radius can be radios efficient use, a real limitation.
Frontage, even in modern doctrine, exists. I shudder at having to say why, as to me it is one of the basic study-then-decisions of a rule writer. I we need I can babble/ rant/ explain more… I know I will get more stifles…

5 Why do most rules for historicals have to be so complex?
They don't. It depends on what you aim for, and what period/ subject. Obviously saxon warfare can be simple, compared to modern naval warfare. Complex does not mean accurate. It might mean less fun at least for most of us.
6Why do most historical rules claim to be historical when the historical records are selectively applied, ignoring other, more important and more relevant factors?
Many rules writers just don't try to learn about the subject, or voluntarily or just out of ingrained habits, put in old, sometimes false, concepts. Again here we go back to the initial goal of rule writing: what do I want there, how and why?

7 Does it always have to be a "game" to find fun and entertainment?
No, it depends on what users look for. The consensus is still that most of us are gamers, with more or less painting/ modelling added. Or modellers with some game (my oldest friend). If we are interested in, say Napoleonic warfare, then units, and command behaviour should be just as important as the right epaulette, but it sure does not mean doing it should be painful.

8 non linear with an infinity of variables?
Being a lousy foreigner, I might not have fully got this one. From what I understand, it seems to me that if most/many things in a game have dice/ cards/ random and you " have to reign over chaos", you get your variables. Many gamers don't like too much chaos, they want a reassuring control.
Richard Clarke of 2fatlardies fame, had articles on game and history. He explained it better than I would.

The linearity/non-linearity of systems of systems is a precisely defined mathematical concept. The condition that a non-linear system can be infinitely variable also applies to linear systems, so the starting premise does not distinguish between the two. Take a simple example: conversion between the Farenheit and Celsuis temperature scales. As you vary the input temperature in the first scale, the result will be a different figure in the other scale. Since the input domain is the real numbers (greater than approximately -460 genres Farenheit, at any event), the results are infinitely variable.

In practice many non-linear systems are very usefully approximated with linear systems applied over a sequence of short time intervals. Missile/rocket guidance works this way, using Kalman filtering to control the trajectories.

Rick

You've all been doing it wrong.

That's the actual title of your piece right?

Its a flipping game! Its not real warfare!

You seem to have a desire to feel mentally superior. I'm afraid you've failed.

Its toy soldiers and dice.

There's some good ideas in the post, but I agree with O.B. about putting it into bite sized chunks.

I am almost on board with the idea about non-linear outcomes, but I think that non-linear needs to be better distinguished in the original post from random. Non-linear means that as "x" increases (in a positive function) the "y" increases at a greater rate. Many games do in fact have this mechanic. Allowing the uppermost value of a die to be an automatic hit comes close, as does the exploding dice rule.

The problem with non-linear results on the tabletop is that our two main outcome generators (cards and dice) are not easily built for that. And generating non-linear results, while keeping the rules simple and easily understood may be contradictory goals.

It's too bad that the Ignore button didn't eliminate an entire person's posts like it does on the from page – not seeing another word, and not even seeing passivaggressive's posts would be a benefit to my TMP experience. The stifle works, but just …

Great post Tom. I like the ideas you are presenting, and that you are approaching the concept from a different angle. Dice don't make the game non-linear just by randomising events and actions, if the actions and pre-determined things (such as Elites et al) are already a linear path! Dice really only cause minor ripples on the line.

So how do you make a non-linear game, without completely distorting where you are? A game needs rules, organization?

Interesting dilemma.

You are begging the question that these are problems to begin with.

Sorry had to edit. I don't have time to get involved in what seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

I'm not really sure I understand the premise here (maths were never my strong suit).

But here's how it looks to me: for a game, we treat the inputs as discrete resulting in a very limited set of out comes. For morale, there are a few factors (casualties, morale rating, leadership, cover). You add a dice roll or two and get one of a few results: carry on, shaken, retreat, rout.

If morale should be non-linear, practically speaking how does one write a rule for that? Inevitable you need to focus on effects.

To take your traffic jam example. It's true the situation (car in front, cause of accident, argument with wife) may be infinitely variable. But it may also be true that the effect of the traffic jam lies within a fairly small set. The delay is from 5 to 30 minutes or what have you.

I'm not interested in the color of the car in front of me, or the car that caused the jam, I want to know when I'm getting to work.

Perhaps a concrete gaming example would help?

"Understanding how these systems work in real life then comparing how historical rules designers have created their mechanics to recreate them on the tabletop, in almost every case, what should be a non-linear system is modeled as being linear!"

Such a statement really needs to have some serious examples and be well documented. Given the vast number of rules that have been written "in almost every case" is a tough sell without a solid sample.

"I immediately recognized the root of many problems of game designs of the past 50 years or so! So I embarked on writing a paper on the subject with hopes of getting fellow designers and especially gamers to honestly think about."

Again the above is a broad statement covering a very long period. You obviously see "many problems", but problems as you see it may not be seen by others as problems at all.

Your light bulb moment is fine if it has opened up a new avenue for you to approach rule design, but it is not really a basis for a call for designers to rethink design as a whole.

I am not sure I have ever seen linear and non-linear described in that way before. Perhaps it is some bizarre Operations Research definition, but if it is, it isnlt one I've come across before.

Many real life combat outcomes have a logarithmic relationship with the input variables, which really is 'non linear', unless you use logarithmic scales, in which case they come out as nice straight ('linear'?) lines.

Is this a twist on the saying "If it's worth doing, it's worth over doing" in that if
"if it's worth thinking, it's worth over-thinking"?

Very few war game systems are 1:1 or 1:2 or 1:3 or just say input is proportional to the results.
Most are "catastrophe theory" systems. Where a certain level of loss will at one point cause a decided end result. This end result is not proportional to level of loss though may only be linear in regard to a probability.
Game probabilities may be linear, logarithmic or sinusoidal.

I really hate it when you have a guy at the table with sinusoidal problems, especially if he's trying to make gun sounds.

Its even worse than the guys that are always bragging about the size of their logarithm.

Most gamers I've seen are not linear, but tend toward spherical.

Is it me (or my understanding of English) but some recent threads here seem more philosophical than really "Game design"?

« Why are all units if a class, rated the same? »
Hey, why do you say that it is "linear"? It's already an average. They are rated the same, because the non-linear activity of all soldiers in the unit is already (or is supposed to be) taken into account.

« If you have 5 stands the unit fires at a factor of 25. If only 3 stands, 15 and with 6 stands 30. This is an example of a linear wargame system. »
Yes, in reality, effective shooting decreases with numbers (overkills, missed shots, etc); but it depends on the rules. Not all rules are so linear.

« One thing I have discovered is that "I" was over-writing my rules for the wrong reasons! A game (or simulation) does NOT have to be complicated to achieve results that mirror the historical record- the designer and gamer just need to have an understanding of what is being modeled in their mechanics. »
Obviously. Many of us who have ever written some rules know that we have a tendency to over-write and to complicate things. I wrote simple rules nearly 20 years ago, I spent one year complicating them 4 years ago, and I am still now cleaning them of all these unnecessary complicated nonsenses. That's life :)

This is a very interesting topic, thanks for posting Tom!

I think though that a lot of game mechanics and unit ratings are simply nomenclature. What one guy calls a break test, another calls a morale check, and so on. One could argue that a unit´s particular rating includes all the non-linear factors.

For example, in my homebrew naval rules, I don´t feel the need to roll 100 times to get three hits. Therefore the dice I am rolling are not the 95 shots that don´t do anything, but rather the 5 that could actually do damage.

There are rules governing the quality of the crew and visibility, and not all similar caliber guns are created equally, so I think I pretty much covered everything that can be quantified. The fact the helmsman may be constipated will probably give way to the training he has had, and thus all other non-linear problems could likewise be thought covered. Maybe I am part of the problem and not the solution!

That said, I would be very curious as to what Tom comes up with!

Hi, Everyone. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I was out all day at an outdoor flea market and a concert. After just skimming your responses, I decided I needed to post the rest of where I am at. That follows. I will try to address a few points brought up in following posts. Here is where the article left off…

Concluding Thoughts about unit ratings

With the above, you can see that by changing from the old linear value set that lumps individual "morale grades" into carbon copies of each unit, by type, has been replaced by a "non-linear" value set where each unit gets rated, by what this author feels, reflects a more accurate reflection of appropriate unit subjects (the training and experience of the leaders, the training and experience of the man and how long has the unit been functioning under these officers and men (unit composition), each of the three individual value sets examples of "non-linear", totaled together into yet another (but useable) "non-linear" value set to arrive at how each individual units can be rated in the game. For scenarios, this ending rating can be adjusted for those local factors that might have had an effect on today's scenario. Some examples could be:
1. Lowered due to having to march to the battlefield (Fatigue related)
2. Raised- Unit(s) already at the field of battle for a long while (Fatigue related)
3. Lowered due to lack of consumables (Food, water, ammo, etc) (Logistical)
4. Raised because of good stocks of consumables over opponents (Logistical)
5. Varied due to weather, or other environmental conditions (Fate)
6. Varied due to the current condition of the will to fight (Lost last 5 battles..)(A TRUE use of the concept of Morale in a wargame!)(More on this later)
Etc,
Please notice that each of the above is a non-linear situation and the degree of effect when modifying a unit's value can vary greatly. Some modifiers applied due to the efforts of men, others from nature. This provides a "pallet" from which scenario designers can apply logical modifications which makes this scenario different from the last "meeting engagement"….Above all, remember the concept of "Linear" and "Non-Linear" because we will revert back to it often.

Studying the Fallacy of Numbers

Most game designs have bought in to the idea that the bigger the unit is, the more capability it has. This is usually reflected in figure count of the units, combat modifiers in some cases (..add +1 for every 3 figures you outnumber the enemy by…) how the size of a unit affects it's ability to inflict damage upon an enemy unit, how the size of a unit can sustain losses within a unit and remain functioning, etc. The belief in the saying "God favors the big battalions" seems to be taken as gospel as if it came from the Bible! People believe that a rules set is flawed if it allows for a smaller unit to get the best of a larger unit. Well, this section will discuss why most rules sets have based their game mechanics upon a linear system instead of a non-linear system. While their game mechanics try to inject some of the non-linear factors that must go in to a serious representation of the process they have modelled, it is applied to a linear line of thinking. In some cases, it is a case of just trying to quantify the unquantifiable. Their best-guess estimates are usually taken from tests carried out in a non-hostile environment (ie: the target sheets of cloth are not shooting back!) or from some quote in a firsthand manuscript that was so out of the ordinary that over time, it has been an accepted fact and is used to set the "norm". In many cases, such recordings were recorded as being an anomaly to the norm. So lets look at numbers for a second….

First off, let's look at musketry accuracy. It is useful to discover at what range small arms fire begins to create casualties. It is not so much value to know the theoretical capabilities of a weapons system, used in the hands of the best qualified operators because the average trigger puller's skills are far less than his! To substantiate this fact, find ANY records that show the amount of ammunition expended verses the casualties suffered. You don't have to have a degree in statistics to quickly determine that these guys were not good shots! (It's even worse folks as most of the total casualties reported in the horse and musket periods (into modern times) are derived from artillery effect- not from small arms fire!) It some circles, military experts agree that the most deadly zone is from 0-50 yards- it has not changed for 400 years for small arms. So it really does not matter that a modern M-16 can reach out to 1 mile when the average soldier struggles to qualify on the range for targets rated to be at 100 yards! So we have to conclude that the true effect of small arms fire is NOT in the number of casualties it produces, it must be that the effect it has on a target unit must be in the distraction and disorder it produces within the target unit. This is a key factor in unit cohesion based rules sets.

Unit Cohesion based rules sets track how well the unit's leadership is doing it's job- in other words, how well can the unit's leadership keep the men focused on what they are doing which accomplishes two major things: 1) It keeps the unit functioning as a unit, and 2) it counters the effects of chaos felt by the individual rank and file. The soldier has the training and experience to fall back on in these stressful situations and as such, will need someone calm to get them back to their tasks at hand. The mechanics of loading, firing and situational awareness must stay at the forefront of a cohesive unit. When the point is reached where this focus is lost, the unit ceases to exist as a cohesive fighting unit. This manifests itself in many ways which were discernable to the enemy. Return fire is no longer delivered in organized volleys, return fire decreases in intensity, shouts of command, swearing, pushing and shoving of leaders upon their men, lines thinning, etc. were telltale signs that a unit was in trouble! An advance ordered against a unit in such a condition would usually get them to give up their ground at the least loss of the attacking unit's cohesion and casualties. Of course, no matter how linear that may seem, it remains a non-linear function. There are so many factors that must be aligned to ensure success that no matter what, risk still remained of failure.
Please note that I did not mention anything regarding numbers in the paragraph above. In the typical miniature historical wargame, that defending unit may contain 12 figures (for sake of example). At every opportunity, that unit will get to benefit from the effects of 12 figures firing as long as they have those 12 figures. In reality, not all of those would firing! Lose a figure? Well now you are still firing as before, but with 1/12th less effect. This mechanic is very linear in execution! In reality, the fire of just a handful of men could be enough to disrupt the plans of the opposing side as the disorder of that fire upon the opposing force all of a sudden presented an unexpected problem for the leadership that now has to deal with it in order to regain lost cohesion over the unit! The charge does not go until enough time has lapsed for the unit to regain enough cohesion to make another attempt to force the situation. We will come back to this when we discuss the effects of time and distance on wargaming rules. Timing has always been a challenge to leaders as to when to act. Why should ours be any different? Since the gamer is playing the part of a leader, he, too, should have mechanics that will either reward or penalize him for his use of timing. But let's remain on the issue of numbers for a moment more.
We've established that the men are not very good shots. This means that entire volleys may miss. Yet, the mere fact that a unit was shot at had an effect upon the functioning of the unit. That effect was that of distracting the men from focusing upon their task at hand. They would not perform at parade ground precision because they have been distracted from the sights, sounds, visual spectacle of seeing so many enemy troops hell-bent on killing him! The next shot could hit him! The smells of wounds, death and warmth and wetness of blood, brains, and dismembered bodies, accompanied by screams of wounded, all conspired to take away fighting effectiveness from the man and taken collectively, the unit. It took steady and experienced officers and NCOs to bring these men back into the fight. How big a unit was comes into play when the number of remaining FUNCTIONING leaders can influence when those that require their attention can be found and any number of motivating techniques of the day could be applied to get them to correct their behavior to once again "join" the unit. Since these leaders are men, themselves, they, too, are vulnerable to the horrors of war. It is from their experience of seeing it all before, their ability to instinctually act and somehow personally overcome the distractions in that environment is really the core element in keeping a unit "on-line" or seeing a unit melt away. Each unit has it's point where it ceases to exist as a fighting unit, today. That is a linear mechanic. It must be so because it exists in nature- the total loss of control and the reality that the control will not be able to be restored in the time remaining for the battle. This can be prolonged (prevented from reaching this point) due to the efforts of the unit's leadership. While a firefight may last for long periods of time, not all of that time is continuous fighting. There are lulls and surges. It is what a unit's leadership does that directly influences the cohesion and subsequent fighting ability of the unit. Here is just one example of an effective use of time and effort that could mean the difference of winning or losing at this point in time:

Can you remember, as a kid, playing a sports game? Let's use baseball as an example. Your team is in the field for a long time, rooting for your pitcher to strike the guys out so you can get a drink of water. When the team finally makes that third "out", you run to the water and take a drink. Wasn't that the best tasting water of your life? After that drink, you felt refreshed and ready to go another inning! Now remember when you were scared. Your mouth got dry, you might have even trembled as every muscle in your body seemed to turn to rubber? These are physiological signs that your body needs water. By ordering the men to take a drink, they will be meeting this physiological need and begin to feel the effects of a much needed respite from the danger. If ordered in a calm and commanding voice, the men's psychological needs are also met as here is one who remains in control and is truly setting an example for them to follow. A true leader! Contrast that with NOT doing that. Which unit do YOU think would remain in the field longer?

In most games, there is never a mechanic to account for the EFFECTS of what the unit's leadership has done to keep control of the situation! The use of morale checks is NOT in any way considerable as such a check! The mechanic of a morale check is a test. If passed, the unit remains in the current condition. If failed, the unit receives a negative effect. In my unit cohesion game, at the end of the unit's turn, a "snapshot" is taken of the unit's current state, then we account for the efforts of the unit's leadership on keeping the unit as a unit by dealing with the accumulated effects of all things up to this point in time from the last check. A "cohesion check' is made. What makes this different than a morale check? Well, we already know how bad the unit has suffered up to this point in time. If the cohesion check (remember, it is accounting for the efforts of the unit's leadership on dealing with the accumulated factors to the unit- how their efforts have impacted the unit up to this point) fails, nothing gets worse. It's not that efforts have not been taken, it means that the efforts may need more time to take effect or that the efforts have not worked. It does not matter why, just that at this point in time of the game, it confirms the real status of the unit. If the check passes, the unit's leadership has succeeded enough to be measurable and the unit's cohesion level goes up by "1". Unit capability and unit cohesion are tracked separately and both are examples of non-linear mechanics that directly affect linear situations. It's like what a soccer or American football team does on defense by stopping the ball from crossing a line and the other team scoring a goal/touchdown. The scoring of a goal/touchdown is linear as it will always occur in gameplay when a team passes the ball over the opposing team's goal line. How long it takes is non-linear because there are almost an infinite amount of factors that come together to act on how long that will take. In this way, we credit the most important factors, taken together, in determining the "how long" a unit remain on the field before it loses all semblance of being a "unit". In my game, a unit could still be rated with a unit cohesion value of 5 for combat, but get picked off the table because it lost all cohesion as a unit. (In this example, the unit would have been operating (marked under the command stand) as a current CV of "9"). Which brings up the next subject, what does one need to track in a Unit Cohesion game and how does one do it?

The Cohesion Value (some prefer the term as Combat Value) (CV) is a track record of a unit's capability to function based upon events up to this point of time. (CV is always considered its current CV.) It is potential for a unit to act in combat and maneuver. It is affected by fatigue created by combat and maneuvering and will always decrease as the day wears on. A unit will never be as "fresh" as when it first starts the battle.

Tom,

As a couple of people have said, your definition of linear and non-linear is a little off which is making it harder for me to understand your key points. Some specific examples in the solution space (i.e. a practical example of a rule) would help

Your traffic jam example is more linked to chaos theory than anything else :) Actually that is an interesting thought. If I really knew anything about chaos theory maybe we could use it …..

Your questions are really Rhetorical questions – in the next part you will be supplying the answers, but in the meantime we are hanging on your words, which means we are going to try to answer those questions …

Let me pick one
"Why are all units if a class, rated the same?"
There are at least two good reasons
1) If your systems are real simple then there shouldn't be many modifiers so units of a class should be rated the same, as there isn't space to make them different
2) some people (like me) hate book-keeping with a complex sheet for each unit or masses of tokens and markers on the table

So of course the above does not necessarily apply to all games. For a small skirmish game (say 8 figures) the interest would be in the individual characteristics. In a Naval game, the individuality of the units both at the outset and as the game progresses is likely to be a key element, unless there are too many boats (sorry ships) ….

One characteristic of many rules is that the die rolls can give large swings in the possible outcomes. This in some ways models the chaotic behaviour you described. My favourite example is the PiP system in DBA, the difference between rolling a 6 and a 1 will completely change your tactics and likely the outcome of the game.

However, an experienced player will have a pretty good idea of the probability of any particular outcome. Is this a realistic simulation of a battle or not ? I have seen people have different opinions and so they will have different opinions of rules.

John

Hi, Whirlwind. Here are some counterpoints to your discussion:

You wrote: "I'm not convinced, really. Since we end up throwing dice (or drawing a car or somesuch) for every aspect you mention, we get non-linear results anyway."

me: Do you really? When you have say 25 factors firing, and a hit will be scored on a roll of 25, two on 50, 3 on 75 and 4 on 100 (Follow with me here in this example…) Then it is linear that if you roll in a certain range, with that fire factor, you will always get that many hits! That is an example of a linear game mechanic. So is always rollingg high is good and low is bad. Linear! In real life, a volley could entirely miss or be devastating, but will always have some effect on the unit. (Hey, they are trying to kill me!) This is an example of the historical record being non-linear. So why accept a rule that is supposed to be "historicaly"non-linear as being linear in the rules?

You posted: "Because casualties are a factor in morale? Other factors are involved too, of course." Yes, indeed other factors come into play, but the historical record shows many examples of units running away with little or no casualties while others fought to nearly the last man. By relying upon numbers, you get pulled back into a linear mechanic. Every lost figure due to being a casualty will always affect the unit in the same amount of damage. Not that linear according to the historical record. This is one of the big value set changes I think needs to be re-thought!

Here is my proposal: Regardless of what unit you want to use as an example (guards, vets, militia, etc) it starts the game at 100% cohesion. A unit can be valued (CV) from 1 to 10 (1 being idiots with sticks to 10- grenadier guards). If your combat results are expressed in units of loss of 25%, each unit will lose 25,50 or 75% (really got ganged up on in a short period of time!) from that 100%. For each loss of 25%, their CV drops by one. Of course, when we do a cohesion check- a snapshot where we account for what the unit's leadership has done within the time frame of the turn, they may regain 25% increment because of their efforts to keep the unit under control. So if our example unit starts as an 8 CV, on turn one receives a -2 (-50%), at the end of it's turn but before we check on the efforts of the leaders, the CV=6 and the cohesion is at 50%. Sine the roll must be under the current CV level (CV is ALWAYS current) we roll a 5 on a 1D10. Success! The unit is now back to only a 25% loss (or at 75% efficiency and their CV goes back up to a 7.

I chose to use 25% increments to keep it simple, but you could use 5, 10, 20, etc % increments instead. Here I have used a linear system in applying results, but a non linear system to determine combat. (Which I will discuss later). To make it non-linear (but trade off in more complexity) I could have varied the number of 25% recoveries , but with only 3 to work with, it keeps the game moving! (the 4th removes the unit at 100% lost cohesion….the unit is so far gone that it would take more time than the game represents to see them recover enough to be useful again.

Tom

oh : There's too much there Tom, it needs to be done in bite size chunks.

Yes, I agree. Especially when introducing new concepts. My apologies if I have overwhelmed anyone here. I have worked on these for a Loooong time and can recommend some research reading, depending on the subject.

Tom

GuildasFacit: I'm not sure that we can say that the behaviour of a body of men is 'infinitely variable' simply because it's component members' behaviour can each vary. True in itself it does not mean that we cannot reasonably classify the behaviour of the unit in terms of its battlefield status in a smaller number of classes. After all, once it is actually broken do we need to know how badly or which way the men run ? If confident, how confident they are ? Here the limit is not what is possible to cope with but what is USEFUL to distinguish between.

Thoughts so far – I'm still chewing over your other points Tom.

Me: My point being that even within a band (or label or rating --most call them morale ratings) there should be differences. Some days a green units can outperform an Elite one! If it happens on the table, it is all up to the dice roll. But why draw lines? At any point in time, we can have a way to see exactly how well (or bad) a unit is performing.(By using a non-linear rating system) Not all will perform exactly the same every time! (Linear). See my example in the second long post above…i MAY have given a better answer there….

Thanks for your comments!

Tom

Jcfrog: If you ask questions, you expect us to answer somehow. can't do that quickly.
To your I will put one more, as a rule designer which in many ways directs some of the answers to many questions>
0 what do I expect/ want from this rule set/ why do I write it??
I do it because other's set did not fulfil my aims: starts with; what do I want? What money/space/ time can I put in my game… then do I want to sell it or not? Where and what do I need to research?"

Me: For me it started when I outnumbered my opponent by 5 to one and he was able to ROUT me (86% chance, mind you) by taking 6 cossacks (who would never attack formed troops!) at a 45 degree angle to my front (not even a clean flank charge!) …and this was THE Napoleonic rules set of the day! I simply wanted rules that regulated the most important events that ended up with who won, who lost and how bad in a simple and quick amount of effort! My motivation was just to get them done in my lifetime!!!

JCfrog: A class as you define it, is a combination of training and morale. Well any other practical way? You, the gamer are the general, you have an idea of what to expect of your troops (or not/ some rules might give it to randomness, if a simulation of the beginning of a campaign or unknown -to you-troops ex: piquet). Like the estimations we have from Frederick the Great of his regiments and some of the enemy. Veterans or not, reputation/ fame etc.
What you say about men being different is ok for a skirmish. A unit is a disciplined (hopefully) crowd.

Me: Agree that the higher commander SHOULD have an idea about the quality of his command! In the days before a "standard" to be trained to (what, fair to say the very late 1800's?), the training was what the NCO's (and a few enlightened officers---depending on the individual) attempted to instill discipline and knowledge upon their men. This is why I have rated (see above-second long post) how long have these men been under the leadership of these leaders?--as being equal to (and added to) the value of the unit. Taking veterans and converging them with another veteran unit does NOT make the unit Vets in performance! Both units need time to get to know the competency levels of the officers and visa versa. Vets would have a better idea of what qualities to look for than say green troops, but only in degree.

Sorry. Want to address other as well. Please ask again if my answers so far bring up more questions. Thanks for your considerate reply!

Tom

JCFrog: Had to comment on this one…" 8 non linear with an infinity of variables?
Being a lousy foreigner,(Me: Does that make a difference when you are expressing your opinion? Not to me. What is a "lousy" foreigner, anyway? Aren't we all wargamers here?) I might not have fully got this one. From what I understand, it seems to me that if most/many things in a game have dice/ cards/ random and you " have to reign over chaos", you get your variables. Many gamers don't like too much chaos, they want a reassuring control.
Richard Clarke of 2fatlardies fame, had articles on game and history. He explained it better than I would.

Me: Yes, I do believe I saw that article a while back. Wasn't it in WSS? (Great zine,BTW, IMHO!) I have to dig it up to address his points. I always enjoy his insights, but don't always agree with his execution to the game table. But the man is an innovator and one to listen to!

Chaos: This is what the real life counterparts has to deal with. We do not need to drill down to what all the factors are that are creating that chaos to arrive at a result that tells us if the unit leadership is successfully dealing with it's effects, and if so, to what effect. Just knowing that our Cohesion Check is a way of dealing with the effects and remedies to overcome some of that chaos recognizes that chaos is affecting the unit and the leaders need to deal with it. The results of that check tells us if they have been successful or not.

Tom

Tom

Florida Troy (Rick). Indeed you are right with your temperature comparison. Your end result will quantify a difference.

You: "In practice many non-linear systems are very usefully approximated with linear systems applied over a sequence of short time intervals. Missile/rocket guidance works this way, using Kalman filtering to control the trajectories."

Me: I think we have enough data to do the same with games. What my distinction is that, unlike the art of calculating missile trajectories, a non linear way of calculating combat results is scattering all the possible results within the band. Always rolling high being good or low rolling bad (linear) is not a good mechanic that simulates the erratic process of ranged combat. If you scatter the results (last time a die roll of one was a miss, but now I am at another CV line and three is miss but a roll of a 1 is 2 hits! (non-linear mechanic). The more CV you have, the more chances of creating damage to the enemy (somewhat linear- I deliberately stagger that in my CRT)), but not necessarily high being good rolls and lows always bad. In this example, we are using both linear and non linear systems in tandem to arrive at a conclusion. (How bad did I damage that unit?) This results in the added benefit that the gamer really does not know how well he did until he looks it up on the chart! This adds more "fun" as even with the highest possible CV rating, you can still roll a "miss" and at the lowest CV rating, you can possibly roll a "2 Hits- 50% Cohesion loss" on an enemy unit. Now you may only have one chance out of 10, but the historical record supports this type of result better than the linear mechanic.

Best,
Tom

Passive aggressive wrote: You seem to have a desire to feel mentally superior. I'm afraid you've failed.

Its toy soldiers and dice."

ME: Believe me, I have no such delusions! I am only sharing my observations over time. Of course playing with toy soldiers is not really war! But to many, the type of soldiers, the history, the ground they fought over and why adds to their enjoyment. If that is all you seek out of wargaming, I hope you have been enjoying the hobby!

Many of us would like to have just a little more depth to our games. So please recognize that the depth of enjoyment increases when we know that there is more to a game than "roll a 6 and he's dead, Jim".

Despite your delivery, I respect your view of the hobby. There is plenty of room for diversity of how we approach our gaming hobby. We even make an attempt to use the the right figures painted with the best guess colors they appeared to be for the periods we play, too! Might want to try and add to the depth of enjoyment next time you play!

Best
Tom

DeHews: "The problem with non-linear results on the tabletop is that our two main outcome generators (cards and dice) are not easily built for that. And generating non-linear results, while keeping the rules simple and easily understood may be contradictory goals."

Please read my reply to Rick, two posts up. I believe I have shown how dice and (I suppose) the use of cards can be used to select one of the possible outcomes.

Thanks for the post!

Tom

When you have say 25 factors firing, and a hit will be scored on a roll of 25, two on 50, 3 on 75 and 4 on 100 (Follow with me here in this example…) Then it is linear that if you roll in a certain range, with that fire factor, you will always get that many hits! That is an example of a linear game mechanic. So is always rolling high is good and low is bad. Linear! In real life, a volley could entirely miss or be devastating, but will always have some effect on the unit. (Hey, they are trying to kill me!) This is an example of the historical record being non-linear. So why accept a rule that is supposed to be "historicaly"non-linear as being linear in the rules?

I simply don't follow your logic. In pretty much all rules then the effect of firing is randomized and varied by factors, so in your usage, you get a non-linear result. Similarly the morale effect on the unit is varied by factors and then randomized. What precisely are you wanting here?

You posted: "Because casualties are a factor in morale? Other factors are involved too, of course." Yes, indeed other factors come into play, but the historical record shows many examples of units running away with little or no casualties while others fought to nearly the last man. By relying upon numbers, you get pulled back into a linear mechanic. Every lost figure due to being a casualty will always affect the unit in the same amount of damage. Not that linear according to the historical record. This is one of the big value set changes I think needs to be re-thought!

So don't use casualties that way in your morale rules. TBH, I don't think that there are that many rules commonly used anymore where that simple loss from original strength is used as a strict linear reduction in morale. Perhaps DBx pretty much killed this one off.

Here is my proposal: Regardless of what unit you want to use as an example (guards, vets, militia, etc) it starts the game at 100% cohesion. A unit can be valued (CV) from 1 to 10 (1 being idiots with sticks to 10- grenadier guards). If your combat results are expressed in units of loss of 25%, each unit will lose 25,50 or 75% (really got ganged up on in a short period of time!) from that 100%. For each loss of 25%, their CV drops by one. Of course, when we do a cohesion check- a snapshot where we account for what the unit's leadership has done within the time frame of the turn, they may regain 25% increment because of their efforts to keep the unit under control. So if our example unit starts as an 8 CV, on turn one receives a -2 (-50%), at the end of it's turn but before we check on the efforts of the leaders, the CV=6 and the cohesion is at 50%. Sine the roll must be under the current CV level (CV is ALWAYS current) we roll a 5 on a 1D10. Success! The unit is now back to only a 25% loss (or at 75% efficiency and their CV goes back up to a 7.

I chose to use 25% increments to keep it simple, but you could use 5, 10, 20, etc % increments instead. Here I have used a linear system in applying results, but a non linear system to determine combat. (Which I will discuss later). To make it non-linear (but trade off in more complexity) I could have varied the number of 25% recoveries , but with only 3 to work with, it keeps the game moving! (the 4th removes the unit at 100% lost cohesion….the unit is so far gone that it would take more time than the game represents to see them recover enough to be useful again.

Howard Whitehouse's "Old Trousers" pretty much used this exact system. Sam Mustafa's Grande Armee and Chris Grice's Polemos rules aren't a million miles away from this either.

Regards

Oh and btw, I think that making high die rolls good and bad within the same mechanic is a pretty non-intuitive and clunky. It really foregrounds the mechanics of the game.

Sock Muppet wrote: "Great post Tom. I like the ideas you are presenting, and that you are approaching the concept from a different angle. Dice don't make the game non-linear just by randomising events and actions, if the actions and pre-determined things (such as Elites et al) are already a linear path! Dice really only cause minor ripples on the line.

So how do you make a non-linear game, without completely distorting where you are? A game needs rules, organization?

Interesting dilemma."

ME: Thanks VERY much! I hope I have shown in some of the posts above, how it can be done. After reading thru them (there IS a LOT, I confess) you have something specific, please ask! Like I said, I have not yet finished my article. While I have been discussing mechanics of how I have been going about it, I have not yet shared the details…yet. (Charts, all the mechanics,etc.) it is more important to me to get folks to start thinking about their games in different ways first. This "linear" verses "non-linear" idea is what I have been looking for to best illustrate why many of our games just done "feel" right. Also, good scenario writers are far and few between. The point systems used in many games makes it easier to get a game going by simply agreeing on point values. (History out the window there, fer sure!) BUT, there is NO denying that many enjoy that type of system!

Best

Tom

Numbers of troops or rate of fire are facts that can be discovered. How are you going to discover the cohesion factor of a unit? This is all opinion. And Western opinion at that. Let's go East. Add to your 6 examples might be: 7. Troops willing to make human wave or suicide charge. How are you going to rate that cohesion? How might WWII Japanese wargame designers rated their troops cohesion compared to US or Uk troops that don't fancy a banzai sort of charge?

The OFM opined: "You are begging the question that these are problems to begin with."

ME: Stating them, yes. begging, no. How are those sedan chair races going, John? Always sounded like fun! (Could a player deploy caltrops in a race?)

v/r
Tom

E.C. wrote: "But here's how it looks to me: for a game, we treat the inputs as discrete resulting in a very limited set of out comes. For morale, there are a few factors (casualties, morale rating, leadership, cover). You add a dice roll or two and get one of a few results: carry on, shaken, retreat, rout.

If morale should be non-linear, practically speaking how does one write a rule for that? Inevitable you need to focus on effects."

ME: GLAD YOU ASKED!!! Morale (and command and control radius) are my two pet peeves! What are you doing when you take a morale check? ……(Usually I get an answer like "I am checking to see if the men run away or stay and fight." Where is the efforts of the unit leadership taken into account for this turn in that? The men do not run the unit (the army ain't democratic, y'know…) the officers and NCOs do! Indeed, Mark, we do need to find a resolution as to when does a unit cease to exist? I have suggested a way above (see especially my response just after Jwebster's post.) Ask again if it raises more questions.

Thanks for the post!

Tom

Morning Scout wrote: ""Understanding how these systems work in real life then comparing how historical rules designers have created their mechanics to recreate them on the tabletop, in almost every case, what should be a non-linear system is modeled as being linear!"

Such a statement really needs to have some serious examples and be well documented. Given the vast number of rules that have been written "in almost every case" is a tough sell without a solid sample."

Me: I hope I now have provided a few examples by now. You are right for calling for examples- I just did not have time earlier to expound on this. It was a busy day for me here in Germany today and I had made plans to start out a little later when I got a call to leave now after posting that first one.

Thanks for the great post! It's nice for me to see such a decent discussion take place here on the TMP withregards to game design!

v/r
Tom

Martin wrote: " Many real life combat outcomes have a logarithmic relationship with the input variables, which really is 'non linear', unless you use logarithmic scales, in which case they come out as nice straight ('linear'?) lines."

Me: ….ah….OK. At what level are you referring to? Man to man? battalion? Brigade? Theatre? Sorry, am not a math major so am unfamiliar with "logarithmic scales" in context with simulation design. While my day job is working in support of Joint Training, Readiness and Evaluation at a major COCOM, I have to admit I have not yet run across such in practical use. Got me there, Martin! Are you saying that nice straight linear mechanics should be the object of modelling game mechanics? If so, please explain a few levels down..so I can follow what you said. Thanks!

Tom

Bob Jones injected: "I really hate it when you have a guy at the table with sinusoidal problems, especially if he's trying to make gun sounds.

Its even worse than the guys that are always bragging about the size of their logarithm.

Most gamers I've seen are not linear, but tend toward spherical."

Me: Hi, Bob! So it IS true that have legalized marijuana in Colorado! I'm gone just 4 years and the place has gone to pot!….. (laugh Bob, you know I had to work that in sometime!) Glad to see you still around! Please give my regards to the CMH members that remember ATTACTIX from me! Hope to get home soon and get a game in with you guys. Only the beer and brats are better here.

Best,
Tom Dye

Mobius wrote: "Very few war game systems are 1:1 or 1:2 or 1:3 or just say input is proportional to the results.
Most are "catastrophe theory" systems. Where a certain level of loss will at one point cause a decided end result. This end result is not proportional to level of loss though may only be linear in regard to a probability.
Game probabilities may be linear, logarithmic or sinusoidal."

Me: What most systems also do is ignore the efforts of unit leadership's efforts in keeping things together as a unit. There is a certain amount of time within a game turn representation where there is a lull in the fighting when unit leadership has an opportunity to make things better than they are at this point in the game. Whatever that output is within a non-linear system (as it certainly is an example of from real life) is missing- all things get worse but seldom better in the confines of game mechanics.

The level of loss is proportional if you change the value set to look at the fact that all units are the best they can be for today's battle at the start of the game. (100%) As their participation increases, they are subject to losing cohesion (the ability of the unit's leadership to exert control over the men) due to fatigue, the sights, sounds, smells, physical needs of the men, etc. In real life, these leaders are trying to overcome themselves AND mitigate the current loss of attention of the men. Game mechanics should address this fact to the point where a gamer "feels" his units are somewhat autonomous to his control. When a unit loses 100% of it's cohesion (regardless of their "morale" grade, they have reached the point of no return and are removed from play. While a case can certainly be made for a possible domino effect from a unit "routing", in game play, it just slows up things. It is a viable option to consider if deemed important enough, as long as it is not linear (ie: if one unit goes they ALL automatically follow)

best
Tom

Patrice writes: "« If you have 5 stands the unit fires at a factor of 25. If only 3 stands, 15 and with 6 stands 30. This is an example of a linear wargame system. »
Yes, in reality, effective shooting decreases with numbers (overkills, missed shots, etc); but it depends on the rules. Not all rules are so linear."

Me: I guess it depends on your definition of what "effective shooting" is. Is the object to just kill people or is it to get them to give up ground? There are plenty of instances from first hand accounts where someone has commented on rounds passing overhead or falling short "like moles churning up the earth in front of us". For me, effective fire is fire that distracts enough enemy soldiers from firing back on me with even more effect. It does not have to produce a lot of casualties to be effective. In the days of black powder and little if any sighting mechanisms, men were told where to aim in relation to their target, by the unit's leaders. It was not an exact science on the battlefield! A quick look at the ammunition expenditures and the casualties produced will quickly illustrate that the men were NOT good shots! So my take is that casualties just one of many factors that one must consider when evaluating what "effective shooting" is/was. I feel the fact that someone was even shooting at you weighed more on the minds of the men (and as such- a distraction from the man who SHOULD be focusing upon what task he should be doing---like proper loading, working together as a unit, listening for commands, etc.) This all results in problem sets that the unit's leadership has to deal with in order to keep the unit functioning. That IMHO, should be the end result we are after, not the number of tubes firing downrange or casualties produced. There are many cases where the outnumbered side actually defeated their enemies, in every period I have studied.

Patrice also stated: " Obviously. Many of us who have ever written some rules know that we have a tendency to over-write and to complicate things. I wrote simple rules nearly 20 years ago, I spent one year complicating them 4 years ago, and I am still now cleaning them of all these unnecessary complicated nonsenses. That's life :)"

Me: How so very true! Thanks, Patrice, for your input!

v/r
Tom

Thanks, Texas Jack! One thing I noticed in my research is that bomber crews felt they were bombing targets. Artillery firing at targets. Naval crews firing at ships. None ever seeing the carnage and effects their work had on the people of those "targets". Infantry, another story! Often, they could see the agony on the faces of the person they just shot. The point here I wish to make is that a normal man is not a natural killer. When he does, it weighs heavy upon his psyche. this acts as a pretty powerful distracting factor the men have to face and a challenge to the unit's leadership in helping that man overcome those feelings…in a split second if possible (we'll talk about it later, son) so to keep the man (men) "on-line and functioning toward unit mission goals.

On a ship, (say in the age of sail), how many men crewed the guns verses 'other duties" when in combat? Damage to the ship (and loss of guncrew) naturally would have an affect upon the ability of the ship (as a unit) to continue the fight. But I also see the ship's leadership functioning in the same way as an infantry battalion. Keeping the men working as a team in the face of chaos as the main mechanic behind the rules.

Haven't really taken these rules 'out to sea", but the principles of linear and non linear events working in the same manner for a naval game.

Thanks for your comment, TJ!

Tom

Jwebster snuck this one in on me while I was posting: "Let me pick one
"Why are all units if a class, rated the same?"
There are at least two good reasons
1) If your systems are real simple then there shouldn't be many modifiers so units of a class should be rated the same, as there isn't space to make them different
2) some people (like me) hate book-keeping with a complex sheet for each unit or masses of tokens and markers on the table"

Me: I feel my system is very simple. You track the CV by writing it on the bottom of the command stand or arty base and you track the loss of unit cohesion by moving a marker around the unit. (I started using the singularly mounted , standing officer figure as the "counter".) When moement or combat results calls for it (combat results are expressed in terms of the number of "hits" on the target unit; the unit falls back (and how far) or a miss (not enough unit cohesion loss to be 25%). This "marker" moves from 12 O'clock (oleading from the front with relationship to the facing of the unit), clockwise to the 3, then 6 then 9 o'clock positions. ( representing a -1, -2 or -3 CURRENT loss of unit effectiveness (CV) which is recorded under the base) The marker also reflects a -25, 50 or 75% loss of unit cohesion at this time in the game. When the marker gets back to the 12 o'clock position from clockwise movement, you pick the unit up off the table- it is done for the day. BUT….we need to account for the unit's leadership's efforts to retain control over the men. this means we have to have a mechanism to show their efforts. So at the end of the turn for this unit checking (I activate by brigade or equivalent) A cohesion check is made. take the value under the stand, subtract the value associated with what position the marker is at and roll that number or less on a 1D10 (0=10). If under, move the marker one "spot" counterclockwise to show the positive effects of unit leadership on the men. If rolled over that number, the leaders have not accomplished enough to improve things by 25% up to this point in the game. We already know how bad the unit is when we check at the end of the turn.

Here is an example: Naps: the French 1/105th Line just received 2 hits from a Russian arty battery during the Russian player's turn, Their starting value is 7. the marker is now at the rear of the unit, at the 6 o'clock position (-2 to CV- 50% cohesion loss) 7-2= 5. the unit will need a "5" on 1D10. He rolls a 2. Huzzah! The marker moves back to the 3 o'clock position and the unit now functions as a 6 CV for movement and combat! If the roll would have been over a "5" (say a 7) nothing more would happen- the current CV remains at "5" and starts his next turn as a 5CV unit. One last tweek. For over 3 years, I was searching for a way to account for fatigue within this system. This is what I came up with:

If the marker ever gets back to the 12 o'clock position via counterclockwise movement (ie: the unit;s leadership was able to regain all lost cohesion), the number under the command stand (CV) is reduced by 1 to account for fatigue. A unit can regain cohesion, but never be as fresh as when it started today's battle.

Count me as yet another that hates to have book work in a game! I felt this method was simple enough, better reflects what actually is happening within the units and remains simple enough to have lots of toys on the table and still finish a game in a decent amount of time. We recently did a 10mm WSS game with 10 units per side and finished within about 45 minutes to a definite conclusion. And that was teaching the rules and the merits of 10mm WSS figure makers!

I hope this helps to show that it is possible to get playable historical outcomes with simple rules, no book work, in a reasonable amount of time by just changing the value sets from which games have been based on. The linear/ non-linear systems knowledge and their application to game mechanics made the lightbulb go off for me in how to bring this system out in explanation. I found years ago it was going to take more words in explaining the concepts behind the rules (designers notes) than would be needed to explain how to play the game! The best compliment I have received was from a gamer in Colorado who said, "The game unfolded like I read about battles in history!" Second best was not "If I just had one more turn…" it was "If i just had one fresh unit left….."

Best
Tom Dye

Hi, Whirlwind. You asked:
"I simply don't follow your logic. In pretty much all rules then the effect of firing is randomized and varied by factors, so in your usage, you get a non-linear result. Similarly the morale effect on the unit is varied by factors and then randomized. What precisely are you wanting here?"

I can see it being hard to follow without seeing a fire chart: (let me see if I can post an excel chart here….

CV Level 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 1 hit no effect no effect 1 hit back 1
2 no effect 1 hit 1 hit no effect noeffect
3 back 1 back 1 no effect no effect 1 hit
4 no effect no effect 1 hit no effect
5 no effect 2 hits back 1 1 hit no effect 1
6 2 hits no effect no effect no effect 2
7 back 1 no effect 1 hit back 1 back 2 2 hits no
8 no effect back 2 back 1 2 hits 1 hit 1 hit
9 3 hits back 2 back 2 1 hit no effect 2 hits 2
10 1 hit 2 hits 3 hits no effect back 2 2 hits no
10+ no effect 3 hits 2 hits 1 hit back 1 back2 no (edit: Did not work! The chart goes out to 10 across the top- I had to delete due to truncation…hope this gives an idea of what it looks like.

Please note that with a CV of 1, roll of 1= 1 hit. CV 2, roll 1= No effect, CV 3 roll 1= back 1 (inch). etc.

Low rolls not always bad. If you could see the rest of the chart, you would see that high rolls are not always good. It is supposed to be a random dispersion of effects by "CV Band". this has proven to keep the players "in" the game as they will not know (non-linear) what they will score until rolled. the only linear thing about the chart is that the higher the CV number, the more chances for doing damage there are. there is always one hit or one "No Effect" (at least) per CV band.

Does this help?

Tom

Hi Tom,

I want to be sure I clearly understand the purpose of using a "cohesion-based" set of rules, as you see it. I've read what you wrote here, but I am also remembering your description of cohesion from our 2001 discussions on the VLB website.

About 35 years ago George Jeffrey told me that in his opinion the General tried to implement a plan to win a battle, but had to fight against two opponents who were trying to stop him from succeeding; the first, of course, being the enemy, and the second would his own soldiers because following orders might threaten their own self-preservation!

If I read you right, it is that battle against subordinate self-preservation which is the purpose of your cohesion ideas. At its most basic, the cohesion value at any one time of a unit would be something like:

"Leadership Value minus Soldier Value".

A positive result means orders are followed. A result of zero means you are at an equilibrium or tipping point which could go either way, so perhaps soldiers will only follow orders that don't threaten their safety. A negative result means soldiers will not obey.

The higher the positive result, the more effectively an ordered action can be carried out. The larger the negative result, the worse the result (from the Leader's point of view).

Furthermore, the cohesion value ("CV") may not be a fixed or static number, but a dynamic number which changes during the game. I assume you would have modifiers to consult that would increase or decrease the stress on a unit when its cohesion value needed to be consulted at any point in the game.

Finally, I take it that the cohesion value would need to be calculated (or updated) for a unit any time that unit needed to take an action, because the CV always has an effect on how well or poorly that action will be carried out.

(If my summary so far is incorrect, let me know, because then my following questions will likely be unclear, also).

Is CV for figuring out if units will respond to orders, is it to determine how well they carry out those orders, or is it both?

How would "doing something well" or "doing something poorly" (for example, say volley fire) be illustrated? Would it be a results chart more like 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or more like 0,1, 3, 4, 6, 10 ?

Are there some "actions" or "combat results charts" for which CV would be used and others where it would not be used? For example, if typical actions in a game-battle are movement, fire, morale, would CV be consulted for all of them or some of them?

Is CV calculation then an extra step to inserted into all other calculations, is it a modifier, does it replace other currently used calculation tables?

If it is just used to determine if troops will obey their unit commander, and not to determine how well an action is carried out, then would it be applied to the issuing or reaction time or the carrying out of orders?

In the game you envision, what roles are players in, and at what level of command would they be?

My impression from your description is that CV would be used for whatever the lowest or basic combat unit is one the table. If one had battalions on the table, each battalion would have a CV. If the lowest formation on the table was a brigade, the Brigade would have a CV.

If this were the case, then I see CV as a mechanism which modifies existing combat or morale tables in a game, which would mean whatever command and control rules a set used would be unaffected by CV.

That would mean that CV would not have an effect on a general or a commander who is portrayed by a player in terms of his ability to issue or follow orders . Thus, if one player was a corps commander who had 3 divisions in his corps, and another player was one of his divisional commanders, CV would not be used to control the orders or actions of the other two division commanders (who are non-player characters).

Best regards,

– Ned

Whirlwind posted: " So don't use casualties that way in your morale rules. TBH, I don't think that there are that many rules commonly used anymore where that simple loss from original strength is used as a strict linear reduction in morale. Perhaps DBx pretty much killed this one off."

Me; I do not have "morale" rules for the reasons stated above. I also do not track casualties. I use pips in my command and control rules, but not as Mr. Barker uses them.

"Howard Whitehouse's "Old Trousers" pretty much used this exact system. Sam Mustafa's Grande Armee and Chris Grice's Polemos rules aren't a million miles away from this either."

ME: Nice to know, but my copies still show the use the old morale concepts.

v/r
Tom

Mobius posted: "Numbers of troops or rate of fire are facts that can be discovered. How are you going to discover the cohesion factor of a unit? This is all opinion. And Western opinion at that. Let's go East. Add to your 6 examples might be: 7. Troops willing to make human wave or suicide charge. How are you going to rate that cohesion? How might WWII Japanese wargame designers rated their troops cohesion compared to US or Uk troops that don't fancy a banzai sort of charge?"

The cohesion factor for every unit has already been "discovered" for us. At the beginning of the game (unless the scenario designer wishes to change it) is 100%. Losses to unit cohesion can be in any size increment desired, but i chose to only worry about it in 25% increments. That is large enough to see an noticeable difference and frankly, it is not worth the added headache to track the difference between 43 and 44% loss of unit cohesion and still keep the game playable.

As for the Japanese players rating their Banzai crazed units: They start at 100% cohesion. They can take 3 "hits" before they disappear. the fourth will remove the unit. (just like all other units) This makes for some interesting command and control problems for the Japanese. When do they make their charge? How close can he let the western troop get before all hell breaks loose on them? Can the gamer roll below the current CV to get them to move? I do not see a problem in making for an exciting game. remember, ROF does not in and of itself win battles- the trigger pullers do. It is "How well can they perform their jobs at this point in time in the game?" is the issue.

v/r
Tom

dear Tom

Ok I read your first post -- thrice.

I understand the thread of your discourse but there is a problem.

Definition, Definiton, Definition.

You have not defined what is "Cohesion." You say that
the use of linear and non-linear systems is somehow related to it, but I still, after reading all the posts don't know what it is. "It" being cohesion. Is it the force that keeps a given body of men together obeying orders, carrying through the plan or assignment given them, or something else.

The rest of the stuff is merely boxing with fog until you define that.

As for linear-non / non-linear I am skeptical as to the relevency until the defnition is nailed down.

One point, people may be individuals, but the purpose of military discipline is to make them less so. As Keegan observed many times, in any military unit there is a mob struggling to get out.

Otto

Hi, Ned. "If I read you right, it is that battle against subordinate self-preservation which is the purpose of your cohesion ideas. At its most basic, the cohesion value at any one time of a unit would be something like:

"Leadership Value minus Soldier Value"."

No Ned. A unit's cohesion value is either assigned by the scenario designer, rolled up for in pre-game preparation or agreed upon between the players based upon historical records of the action. In application, if the men do not believe in their leaders, the unit's CV would be low. Getting the men to do things (like advance under fire) would be hard to do. (roll the current CV or less on a 1D10.) George and I were in lockstep in regards to putting the emphasis on unit cohesion and the challenges inherent to keeping a model unit behaving like it's real life counterpart, on the game table.

Ned: The higher the positive result, the more effectively an ordered action can be carried out. The larger the negative result, the worse the result (from the Leader's point of view).

Me: No- More basic than that: The test is "Does the unit perform or not?" (see next….)

Ned again: "Furthermore, the cohesion value ("CV") may not be a fixed or static number, but a dynamic number which changes during the game. I assume you would have modifiers to consult that would increase or decrease the stress on a unit when its cohesion value needed to be consulted at any point in the game."

Me: Indeed right! The combination of the CV (which can go down due to fatigue) and the Cohesion loss (if any) makes the Current CV chance quite dynamic- and unit centric The number that needs to be rolled to either regain 25% cohesion loss or get the unit to go further into harms way, cross obstacles, etc. must be equal to or less than the current CV. The local situational modifiers are very few in number.

Ned: " Is CV for figuring out if units will respond to orders, is it to determine how well they carry out those orders, or is it both?"

Me: Both.

Ned: "Are there some "actions" or "combat results charts" for which CV would be used and others where it would not be used? For example, if typical actions in a game-battle are movement, fire, morale, would CV be consulted for all of them or some of them?"

Me: Fire does not need an "order" the unit does it using the current CV and a 1D10 roll. Some actions that will further stress the unit (like advancing more towards the enemy, crossing difficult obsticles, etc.) could call for a CV check.(Question is: Does the unit leadership control the men enough to do the task?)

Ned: "If it is just used to determine if troops will obey their unit commander, and not to determine how well an action is carried out, then would it be applied to the issuing or reaction time or the carrying out of orders?'

me: it take care of itself. If unsuccessful this turn, try the next. in real life, how many minutes into our "15 minute" turn was the order given to do something (like advance"?) Some things inherently take longer to accomplish than others. At the unit level, they either make the roll or they don't. At higher command levels, the pips determine how much influence the leaders can exert this turn. Low die roll,= the tasks the pips were spent on took longer to accomplish; higher pip roll= tasked spent on were accomplished quicker thus more influence was able to be exerted this turn.

Ned:"In the game you envision, what roles are players in, and at what level of command would they be?"

Me: Beginner: Brigade level. After a few games= Division or Corps level. The units under your command will present a different set of behavior problems at Brigade level than at Division/Corps levels.

Ned: "My impression from your description is that CV would be used for whatever the lowest or basic combat unit is one the table. If one had battalions on the table, each battalion would have a CV. If the lowest formation on the table was a brigade, the Brigade would have a CV.

Me: yes, That is right. For me I envision at the battalion level. in H&M games.

Ned: "If this were the case, then I see CV as a mechanism which modifies existing combat or morale tables in a game, which would mean whatever command and control rules a set used would be unaffected by CV."

Me: Ned. There are no morale rules- the effects of what others label as "morale" on the unit's ability to function are key to the design. How the effects of CV on the Command and Control is that he who does not keep reserves will soon be unable to enact any plans! In the course of 1 hour (4 15 minute turns), a brigade and be wreaked and it's utility to the Division Commander next to useless. this is why i envisioned gamers start off as a Brigade commander before moving up the chain. The higher you go, the more your attention (read that as the ability to "command" units attached to you) gets stretched and friction is felt.

Ned: "That would mean that CV would not have an effect on a general or a commander who is portrayed by a player in terms of his ability to issue or follow orders . Thus, if one player was a corps commander who had 3 divisions in his corps, and another player was one of his divisional commanders, CV would not be used to control the orders or actions of the other two division commanders (who are non-player characters)."

Me: More basic than that, Ned. While a Brigade commander may be able to order his battalions (or regiments in other periods) to act upon their current posture or even change their current posture, there can be units that are unable to act because they are almost spent. Heavy handling of subordinate units will see your command melt away quickly.To the point- at the lowest level, units have been designed to function based upon how their player owners have handled them. You cannot expect to give an attack posture to a brigade, engage in combat for 30 minutes (2 turns) and expect some units in such a state of disorder that they can always react to a change of orders/situation. Time and distance play an important part in higher level decision making. No need to write rules for it, the game takes proper care of that in and of itself. Time is linear. What a unit can do in that amount of time is non-linear and the conditions the units is suffering from may prohibit it from responding as you wish during the next 15 minute turn/segment of the battle.

I look forward to having a chance to put on a few demo games when I get back to the USA (or if you can get to Stuttgart Germany for a day or two, I'd gladly put on a few!)

My intent of starting this thread was to get folks started thinking about how their games play when compared to real life systems. I thank all for commenting! It's now 0425 Sunday here and have to catch some zzz's.

Best to all!

Tom Dye

Hi, Tom,
Unit quality is pretty much a snapshot of some given time. All sources may agree that 2nd Grenadiers was an elite unit in 1806. I think I hear you saying that (for an example), on July 5, they had spent two days marching through rain and muddy roads, their supply wagons are stuck a days march behind them, so they haven't eaten, they slept last night in the cold, wet mud, and now they are told to form up for an attack, and they should be considerably less "elite" than they were on July 1. I can see that. I've considered using numerical bands to represent the different qualities, so "Elite" might be 75-100. If everything is going well, they could well be 99 or 100; if they are like my fictional 2nd Grenadiers, they might be rated at 78 or so. The player might want to rethink whether he really wants to fight the battle today, or wait until tomorrow, when things dry out, supplies come up, etc. Something like this would also allow for a Spanish "Elite" unit to be rather less "Elite" than a French "Elite" unit. Anyway, it goes back to the Snapshot in Time thing, and changes that time from a year or an entire war down to a day.

Grelber

I do not recall ever seeing a more long winded thread on TMP.

Grelber. You are essentially right. In your example I would rate that unit 2nd Grenadiers like this:

Historical record rated them as elite in 1806=CV 9 (or 10-your call)
Subtract 2CV for fatigue from marching for the past two days (1) in difficult terrain (1) (now a "7"CV)
Subtract 1 for being out of supply (6CV)
Subtract 2 for no sleep last night (4CV) (most current/worst effect)

They start the day at 100% Cohesion (marker leading from the front- 12 o'clock position)(ie: no cohesion loss since game started)

Now, you have ordered them to advance towards the enemy. You would have to roll a 4 or under in order for them to do that. If failed (rolled a 6?) then you could try next turn. They do nothing else this turn. They could fire if they had a target. They could not be better than 100% cohesion right now. Cohesion would be 100% because the unit is never fresher than at the start of the game. Due to fatigue, it will only go down from there and IF they were able to regain all lost cohesion back, their base number would drop down one each time that happens (total recovery)- becomes a 3 CV next!

With all those negatives, would it not make sense that these boys are pretty spent already? To risk destroying the unit in the context of a campaign game, it would be foolish to even commit them to battle today unless a necessity? remember, their higher ups would know their status as reports had to be consulted in order to determine the Army's condition to fight.

But in my system, that's how it would work when applying historical ratings for today's battle.

best
Tom