"Bland Combat Mechanisms" Topic

Writing in Battlegames magazine, David CR Brown stated:

Combat mechanisms should not be so abstracted that we could be fighting any combat, anywhere, anytime; with these combat mechanisms, speed has totally eclipsed accuracy. It's not the result that's important; someone always has to lose and someone has to win, but it's how we arrived at that conclusion. If we are using either totally bland or totally luck-driven mechanisms, then we are not playing a wargame but simply a game.

Do you agree?

1000% agree.

If it involves figures (or something) representing soldiers, it is a wargame. The rules used in the game are simply a matter of personal taste.

If you are "Paraphrasing" a far more extensive article the more dim whittled of us would benefit from reading the entire thing. As it is what little there is here leaves much to interpretation and guesswork.

No comment other than rules that have too much abstaction, friction or fluff have no interest to me. Most of us get too much of that at work to inflict it on our leisure time.

That idea seems to be taking over a great deal of current game design. The Pulp Alley engine and the Songs of….engine can be used in virtually any genre at any time in history or fantasy.

Yawn

If you are "Paraphrasing"…

No, it's a quote.

I tire of cookie-cutter rules.

It's rhetoric and not critical thinking. Has anything really meaningful or important been said?

Really. "Accuracy" regarding game mechanics simpmy means "conforms to my prejudices and wild ass guesses."

Yes, I totally agree.

Been looking at some different modern rules of late, and many, instead of being 1:1 miniature to real vehicle, are based upon 2 – 3 vehicles per platoon, or 1 vehicle to represent a platoon.

I get that, since I understand the desire to play "larger" games, with forces at the battalion, and/or regimental level.

However, in those rules typically, the die results end up being rather ambiguous as to the results of the attack: gunfire, missile fire, etc., etc..

I understand that too, but when you get 3 – 4 different results for suppressed, neutralized, disabled, disbursed, etc., etc. the outcomes just seem so antiseptic. Rarely, do you get a definitive, "destroyed" result – some don't even have that at all.

For me I guess, I prefer tactical games, where hits either damage or kill something most of the time, especially if the armor is penetrated in tank vs. tank combat, or when firing ATGMs and RPGs at the targets.

I think for these types of games, I'd still prefer the definitive results mentioned above, and then to have a little box or hollow circle to "X" out, or fill in, denoting losses for the platoon, instead.

At least that way, I'd feel like something positive was happening from the combat, instead of just "nerfed" with a vague combat outcome that may, or may not mean the platoon suffered some losses.

It is in Battlegames 026, if anyone was wondering. It got briefly discussed at the time: TMP link

I thought it was inaccurate of the author to use the word "accuracy", since it isn't by any means clear that his rules produce more "accurate" outcomes than Grande Armee, say. I think that adding more chrome and detail in can sometimes increase the fun of the game, but I haven't seen anyone yet do the historical work to show convincingly how all the factors interact so that you could produce an "accurate" wargame with that level of detail.

Conversely, I think that the really big factors in warfare – morale, shock, surprise, outflanking, greatly superior equipment (and in the absence of any of these, numerical strength) – are pretty constant throughout the ages.

The argument begins with a false proposition that "too abstract" systems are necessarily faster and less accurate than others. It also relies on the idea that the connection in the players' mind between enacting the mechanism and what the mechanism represents is a direct function of some "level of abstraction" of the system (also implying that the concept of abstraction can be boiled down to a simple linear scale of "more" and "less" in which there is some clearly defined "too abstract" point).

Excellent point etotheipi.

Or, as Rich Hasenhauer suggested on a couple of occasions, "you're playing inside the designer's mind" -- as in the designer has a perception of the age-old playability vs realism argument wrapped in whatever historical period his rules cover. Then you, as gamer, come in with your own perceptions and try to fit into the designer's mechanics.

If the perceptions match or are at least close enough, you get a great rules set. If not, well, then not.

As for particular combat mechanisms, it's hard to get away from roll a die (or dice) to meet or beat (or meet or roll less than) a particular number…usually with die roll modifiers or hit number modifiers of some sort. Whether it's a Featherstone "5s and 6s hit" or a Warhammer "4+ to hit, 4+ to save, 4+ to wound," that's the generic standard.

You can use cards (The Sword and the Flame or the classic Dogfight) or absolutes (classic Stratego or Diplomacy), but just about everything else is a die roll so that the game can inject uncertainty into your plans.

Now, how you obtain that final combat result covers a wide range of procedures across a variety of rules. That may have more to do with a gamer's patience than anything else. We want fast-moving games with definitive results in a couple or few hours, but people can only calculate so fast and manipulate items so quickly. After 50 years of modern wargaming, it's difficult to come up with a *new* combat mechanism that combines a rock-paper-scissors matchup process for variety, is easy to learn, yields flexible results, and is fast to use, without abstraction. How much? Well, that depends upon a individual's perception…

Really. "Accuracy" regarding game mechanics simpmy means "conforms to my prejudices and wild ass guesses."

+1
Now I need a bloated sig line with quotes from Sun Tzu, Monty Python and Saxe, along with pictures if my Cowpens game.

Yes, I totally agree!

I fully agree that we should not abstract combat mechanisms.
That's why we use dice to resolve combat.

The author's use of the term "accuracy" was, perhaps, unfortunate. "Flavor" or "character" might have been more appropriate.

In the same way that a historical wargame uses terrain that evokes the time and place of the fight and figures that resemble the participants, it can also make use of combat mechanisms which echo, in some significant way, the particular characteristics of combat in the chosen era. The most effective games are those which do all three.

Or, as Rich Hasenhauer suggested on a couple of occasions, "you're playing inside the designer's mind" -- as in the designer has a perception of the age-old playability vs realism argument wrapped in whatever historical period his rules cover. Then you, as gamer, come in with your own perceptions and try to fit into the designer's mechanics.

Or not. Unless you are a mind-reader, or the designer specifically states what a mechanic represents, then it is as Crispy says: "Accuracy" regarding game mechanics simply means "conforms to my prejudices and wild ass guesses."

For instance, does anyone know why Rich believed that having generic artillery in Fire & Fury was "historically accurate"? I'm mind-meld challenged, so as much as I've read about ACW artillery, I don't know what Rich was thinking. Enter those 'wild ass guesses.'

I always refer to the famous 'command radius' rule in F&F as a prime example of the misconceptions that plague gamers' understanding and prejudices.

The assumption on gamers' part was that the radius and the plus modifiers for being within it represented the basic command structure. Many felt that this was inaccurate, that there should also be a negative modifier for being "out of command". Personal preferences and prejudices led many to change the rules for a more 'accurate' representation.

Ten years later, I find out as an aside from Bill Gray on TMP that Rich meant that rule to represent the support a division or corps commander could provide outside the basic command structure. Who knew?

So, Rich's 'historical accuracy' was lost, many players assuming they were in "the designer's mind" weren't even close, and changing the rules for the wrong reasons.

And so it goes. I can provide a lot of similar examples.

To follow up on what etotheipi's cogent observation:

ALL wargame mechanics are abstractions. So to talk about less or more abstraction is doesn't mean much. What Dave is really saying is that he doesn't know what the mechanics represent, where more detailed rules provide more information about what the is going on, if nothing else.

As 'getting into the game' involves knowing what is going on in historical terms, what is being represented by the mechanics, when we haven't been given a fairly complete map to the 'designer's mind', the gamers are simply wandering around, making their own way, wrong or not. So much of the designer's work to portray history/reality is lost that way. But hey, if it's fun, then who is the wiser?

For a number of designers, Hobb's rule also applies:
"If no one knows where you're going, then you aren't lost."

If noone knows what accuracy the designer was targeting with his rules compared to reality, then there is no way to know how successful the designer was. So we gamers are left with:

"Accuracy" regarding game mechanics simpmy means "conforms to my prejudices and wild ass guesses."

Or the softer: "The author's use of the term "accuracy" was, perhaps, unfortunate. "Flavor" or "character" might have been more appropriate."

This has been a point of debate for decades. Technology and other advances makes the use of such standard mechanics does not work.
Yet companies try to bend mechanics to fit there concept of game simulations.

This has been a point of debate for decades. Technology and other advances makes the use of such standard mechanics does not work.
Yet companies try to bend mechanics to fit there concept of game simulations.

Rudy:
I'm not following you here. What doesn't work?

As 'getting into the game' involves knowing what is going on in historical terms, what is being represented by the mechanics, when we haven't been given a fairly complete map to the 'designer's mind', the gamers are simply wandering around, making their own way, wrong or not. So much of the designer's work to portray history/reality is lost that way.

Working from the viewpoint of historical games (vice all wargames in general), this is part of why I like the opaqueness of my QILS rules. While I assert that wargames (nearly) never put players in the actual position of "commanders" in the scenarios that are played, I do believe there is some sense of the "experience" of the battle from the perspectives of the different sides (which is, itself an abstract gestalt concept).

So, with an opaque system, I don't know the exact details of how the enemy's forces work and interact with mine, which I think is representative of that "experience" thing. Never did people involved in a battle have the type of detailed knowledge about the enemy that detailed mechanics provide. Heck, in most combat I have experienced, we didn't have that kind of detailed knowledge about how our own forces operated. While I like that kind of detail in a combat model for experimentation or test and evaluation of military capabilities, I think you want a different set up for training or recreation games.

Ultimately, though, it comes down to what you are looking for in your experience. I can enjoy min-maxing and analysis of fiddly details; it's just not what I'm looking for in a tabletop game.

While I assert that wargames (nearly) never put players in the actual position of "commanders" in the scenarios that are played, I do believe there is some sense of the "experience" of the battle from the perspectives of the different sides (which is, itself an abstract gestalt concept).

etotheipi:

No argument there. Wargames [and all simulations for that matter] can only provide some of the 'experience' of command. There will never be a wargame or simulation that can put a player in the 'actual position of "commanders"' just as a flight simulator will never put a player in the 'actual position' of a pilot.

The questions are What *part* of the actual experience is being portrayed, How and Where in the mechanics. You talk about that 'part' of your design:

So, with an opaque system, I don't know the exact details of how the enemy's forces work and interact with mine, which I think is representative of that "experience" thing. Never did people involved in a battle have the type of detailed knowledge about the enemy that detailed mechanics provide.

Now, you got that idea about the opaque nature of command from somewhere. Something made you think that opaqueness as you describe it was 'representative' of the command experience. That source[s] must be what you used as the 'Template' for your rules, the experience they provide.

You're saying there is a connection between the reality of command and the game experience you've created, albeit only a specific part. IF I know what specific history/combat narratives you based your rules on, then there is no guessing game as what part of the real experience I am supposed to be experiencing--what I'm buying in every sense of the word. That is the the connection, the 'guided pretending' that simulations and wargame experiences depend on.

If I don't have that What, Where and How information, then there is a lot of pointless debate guessing the answers to those questions, while all I can actually decide is "do I like it or don't I?"

As you say:

Ultimately, though, it comes down to what you are looking for in your experience. I can enjoy min-maxing and analysis of fiddly details; it's just not what I'm looking for in a tabletop game.

I know what I am looking for too. That isn't the problem. The The problem comes when I don't know what the game offers in the way of history/command experience. When I can't know the historical content of the rules, then I buy a lot of rules hoping to find it or simply give up and ask if they are 'fun?' because that is the only question I can answer….ultimately.

Then designers can claim 'historical accuracy', but noone ever knows how that applies to generic artillery or command radius rules in F&F or the opaque nature of command your QILS rules for that matter.

I think a good deal of the 'blandness' of wargame rules is the lack of connectedness to the history and real combat that historical wargames claim to offer.

IF I know what specific history/combat narratives you based your rules on,

This is a big divergence in the way I approach writing wargames. The QILS rules only provide the mechanism for combat. Scenarios provide the link to (the context of) the milieu. So the rules are, indeed, very abstract. If you go to the historical scenarios (or any of the others), I do explain the effect the stats are trying to create.

Part of this comes from that divergence of viewpoint. I consider the rules and scenarios to be practically orthogonal, so I almost always include designer's notes to explain how the units are expected to perform and to allow you to "lift" the scenario from the system where I have had it playtested (QILS) and import it to another. If you can come up with a rough equivalent in terms of kinetic effects, the rest of the scenario context should play out reasonably well. So far, I have only received positive feedback about that portability (which is, of course, a biased sample).

These guidelines focus on what I assert are the important factors for the kinetic parts of the specific conflict. Sometimes I explicitly make the meta-statement that "this and that are what I think are important" and other times, not.

The one criticism I have received on statting out units falls in an interesting fold of these explanations. For an early WWI Eastern Front scenario. I spent a couple pages explaining what I thought was important (animosity between the Russian commanders, the mobility of German forces and lack of mobility for the Russians, and the massive intel advantage), why, and how to implement it. I spent like a paragraph or two giving stats for both sides, which were equal, and numbers, which were proportional to the actual forces. I did never explicitly say, "the reason the Russians and Germans have the same stats for infantry, artillery, and cavalry is this game focuses on the part of the conflict that takes up most of the text and not the stats and OOB numbers."

etotheipi:

Thanks for the description of your design approach.

If you can come up with a rough equivalent in terms of kinetic effects, the rest of the scenario context should play out reasonably well.

I don't have any problem with that method. The issue I was addressing was that 'rough equivalent'. That is lost on gamers if they are never clear about what the game's 'kinetic effects' are equivalent to.

For an early WWI Eastern Front scenario. I spent a couple pages explaining what I thought was important (animosity between the Russian commanders, the mobility of German forces and lack of mobility for the Russians, and the massive intel advantage), why, and how to implement it. I spent like a paragraph or two giving stats for both sides, which were equal, and numbers, which were proportional to the actual forces.

Again, as far as I am concerned, a designer is free to decide what is important in his design. A personal choice with no wrong or right answer. The issue I was addressing is what is being represented, that equivalence.

If I can use the analogy of an artist painting a portrait. In your description, you've given a detailed account of what you've painted, but you haven't identified the subject. You have said he has really big eyes [or a lack of mobility for the Russians], but that isn't going to help unless you know who the subject is. For instance;

Now I could go on for a long time detailing the components of the painting, the French general's uniform, the painting style etc. etc.. Only if I tell you

1. That the painting is of Napoleon on Elba and more importantly

2. I have other pictures of him during that time could I [or anyone] determine objectively that the picture is not an accurate representation.
[It is actually of Lannes…and I only know that from the historical record.]

One of your goals stated above was to represent the German's massive intel advantage. Now, there are a lot of equally effective ways to do that with game mechanics, just as there are many styles of painting in representative art. No wrong or right choice there. Personal preference.

The conditions and events of Tannenburg have some basic facts, but the following historians give at best partly different versions of what constituted the massive intel advantage AND the effects it did or didn't have on the battle:

Harrison,Showalter, Stone, Strachan and Sweetman, to name a few?

Whose version of events did you use as a template…or did you pick and choose? What was the template you used to compare to your mechanics? What did the game do to convince you there was a 'rough equivalence' between the history you'd chosen and your scenario?

We aren't talking about which author is *right*. That conclusion, "the German's massive intel advantage" is composed of many, many components and specific results, large and small. The question for the gamer is which components, which historical interpretation and facts did you as the designer use as a template for that "massive intel advantage" in your scenario.

Your rules aren't even a 'rough equivalent' for the player if he doesn't know what is being portrayed.

If the artist alone is privvy to that information, who the portrait is of, then for the gamer, a substantial part of the work to make the game experience 'roughly equivalent' for the player, is lost.

I've already given some examples of that loss.

To the OP:

"It depends".

Some games, a quick and simple "what happened" is plenty, in other games, we want a blow by blow account of what happened.

A game should employ the correct tools for the feel, scope and ambience of that particular game, not some idealized "ideal" rule.

A game should employ the correct tools for the feel, scope and ambience of that particular game, not some idealized "ideal" rule.

Absolutely. We aren't talking about some ideal rule.

We are talking about what a particular designer chooses as the "feel, scope and ambience." No one can know if the tools were 'correct' or the design successful unless they know what history was targeted, what particular historical scope, feel and ambience was the goal.

In this case, what makes the tools [game system and mechanics etc.] correct is whether they work or not, whether they succeed in providing the targeted scope, feel and abience.

If we broaded "history" to mean "source material", I am with you all the way.

A game simulating comic book style punch outs is still a simulation, after all :-)

We are talking about what a particular designer chooses as the "feel, scope and ambience." No one can know if the tools were 'correct' or the design successful unless they know what history was targeted, what particular historical scope, feel and ambience was the goal.

McLaddie, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that a rulebook would need some sort of footnote or reference for every single rule in the book, yes? (Otherwise, there is no historical measurement against which that rule can be judged.)

Light infantry can move 6" (and here's why, based on scholars Adams, Baker, and Charles, see pages 143-78).

Light infantry can move 4" in the woods (and here's why, based on scholars Delphine, Echo, and Fraggle, see pages 201-2, and 82b.)

Archers get a +1 when shooting from a hilltop (see: Gephardt, Hackery, and Ignatz, pages 34, 71, and 135.)

Obviously, such a book would be a monstrosity and nobody would want such a thing. Among other problems, the actual rules – which is what people paid for and want – would be buried under all the historical notes.

Or are you saying that only some of the rules need to be cited? And if so, then which ones? (Only the ones you happen to want a justification for at that moment?)

My impression, based on this and other forums, is that everybody might have 1 or 2 beefs with a particular set of rules, but it's very rare for two players to have the same beef. I can't imagine any author ever being able to address everybody's questions about every single rule in the book without creating an unusable monstrosity.

A game simulating comic book style punch outs is still a simulation, after all :-)

Weasel:

Yep, yep, yep. And non-real simulations can get to be really detailed, such as a number of The Lord of The Rings games out at the moment.

So, what the simulation or wargame does and how well it does it all depends on WHAT information is used as the template… i.e. the sources of that history.

Whether the designer chooses to portray a few historical dynamics or a great many with lots of details, the question remains the same… and both designs can be successful, 'accurate' history all depending on what is the goals of the design and the sources it is based on and modeling.

McLaddie, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that a rulebook would need some sort of footnote or reference for every single rule in the book, yes? (Otherwise, there is no historical measurement against which the rule can be judged.)

Garth:
No, footnotes per se is not what I am talking about and that is not the only way [or the best way] to judge/compare. However… any number of wargame designers claim to have done lots of research--years-- and their history is 'accurate', but does the buyer see any of this research or what is meant by 'accurate?' No.

There are many ways to provide the needed information.

For instance, Bruce Weigle has published several 19th Century sets of rules with a great deal of specific historical detail,1870,1859,1866. His rules are no thicker than the Black Powder or Blucher rule books. It is amazing how little 'debate' goes on about his rules 'historical accuracy' because of it. His books are very valuable for the historical information regardless of whether you use his rules or not. However, for providing the specific sources of his rules, I think that could have been done with half the print.

Richard Clark provided a series of blogs on the connections between WWII infantry tactics and Chain of Command all based on tactical manuals from the war. No question where he got his information or how the rules mimic WWII combat. You can disagree with the sources and dislike the game, but you know the sources and how the rules model them. AND where they don't by design, which is just as important.

Frank Chadwick did something that I thought was very effective with his unpublished Ancient rules… which he never did with any of his other designs. At the top of each rule section he quoted an ancient source illustrating what the rule[s] in that section were illustrating. One example, one source, no more than three to four lines.

Lots of rules sets burn up pages and pages of print providing pictures, 'fun facts' and 'stuff' for 'flavor' that doesn't even relate to the rules at all. How about using all that print to do something far more valuable to the wargamer like Bruce or Richard have. There are still lots of pictures and quotes etc.

I think there are any number of ways to provide the information that wargamers need to understand and obtain the maximum benefit from our historical wargames. They don't have to be littered with footnotes. The problem is that designers haven't put their minds to providing the information so ways of doing that effectively haven't been explored. They have outside the hobby. I used to design training simulations, so I have a pretty good idea of what kinds of information players need to play them most effectively…getting the most out of game play.

For example, everyone has had the experience of suddenly having an incongruity or strange dynamic pop them out of the game, leaving them wondering what that particular mechanic or dynamic is supposed to represent… and then everyone providing their guess. That is just one of many kinds of deflecting fallout for gamers, all from not having the right information. What gamers get lots of practice at is guessing and dismissing the word 'accurate'.

Thousands of footnotes are academic tools for a doctoral thesis, providing information for different purposes than establishing what a wargame and/or a simulation is doing.

Different purposes require different methods.

The bottom line is a participatory simulation is effective in relation to how much the players know about what they are simulating. I can give a whole lot of examples of that failure from our hobby and other kinds of simulations.

It is just about doing a better job of providing what gamers want from their historical wargame experience.

Richard Clark provided a series of blogs on the connections between WWII infantry tactics and Chain of Command all based on tactical manuals from the war. No question where he got his information or how the rules mimic WWII combat. You can disagree with the sources and dislike the game, but you know the sources and how the rules model them. AND where they don't by design, which is just as important.

I have that book, but he doesn't provide any sort of specific linkage between 95% of the rules and the tidbits of historical quotes in the offset boxes on certain pages. For example, if I want to know why British infantry can move, say, 200mm, and that page has a little quote from a British training manual, there's no specific connection there to tell me what exactly is being simulated. Only the knowledge that he apparently read at least some portion of a British training manual… and British infantry can move 200mm per turn in the game.

Is that what you're saying? As long as the author has some tidbits of historical quotes here and there, we can all rest easy knowing that the movement allowances are properly sourced and therefore we can judge whether or not they correctly simulate… something? (I'm not sure exactly what they're supposed to be simulating just because he has a quote from a training manual, but neither had it occurred to me to worry about it thus far.)

The problem is that designers haven't put their minds to providing the information so ways of doing that effectively haven't been explored. They have outside the hobby.

Sure, historical monographs or journals do provide that sort of documentation. But I'm not sure what this "problem" is to which you refer. Are there really thousands of frustrated, confused wargamers who are longing for rulebooks to have more historical quotes and citations in them?

Lots of rules sets burn up pages and pages of print providing pictures, 'fun facts' and 'stuff' for 'flavor' that doesn't even relate to the rules at all. How about using all that print to do something far more valuable to the wargamer

"Valuable" in what way? Again, I'm having difficulty imagining this large constituency of would-be customers who are longing for more historical quotes and references, so that they can decide whether or not the rules are properly simulating… something.

I take you at your word that you're a data-driven guy, so: Do you have any data to support these assertions? Do we know, for example, that X-number of wargame customers have specifically requested that rulebooks need more historical references?

I only ask because I've been gaming for three decades with dozens of people and until I came across your threads on TMP recently, I've never known anybody who held those views. I do know plenty of guys with different priorities, such as wanting rulebooks with more illustrated examples, or with more scenarios, or with a campaign system, and so on. But I've never met anybody who thinks that rulebooks are inadequate because they lack sufficient footnotes or historical quotations.

PS – what happens if the author does include some supporting quote from a historical source, but the reader thinks, "Well, that doesn't persuade me. I don't think that source supports the idea that infantry should move 200mm" ? If I understand you correctly, you seem to be assuming that the existence of a quoted source will suffice to objectively satisfy all readers, who will then accept it as a criterion for judging whether or not the rule properly simulates something. But if readers will come to different conclusions after reading the same source – as they surely must, since historians also do – then what good is the quoted source?

Your rules aren't even a 'rough equivalent' for the player if he doesn't know what is being portrayed.

I'm with you there. That's why all the discussion about the scenario focused on those elements being represented. I think my point is I would have been happy with a criticism that said, "All that is bunk. What was important was the X.Y% accuracy advantage German artillery had over Russian artillery at Z range." At least that would indicate the player read what I was saying about the battle.

… so along with that …

McLaddie, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that a rulebook would need some sort of footnote or reference for every single rule in the book, yes?

I read your negative response to this and am not addressing that part of the discussion. The above idea is also part of why I prefer to separate rules and milieu content.

Discussion of why certain forces are statted out in certain ways in natural in the scenario/milieu discussion. You're discussing specific units employed in a specific environment.

I always felt discussing the milieu is unnatural in rules, which, as you (and others) point out, are inherently abstract.

If I were writing rules that were explicitly for a handful of specific scenarios, I could see mixing the rule stuff with the milieu stuff.

I'm with you there. That's why all the discussion about the scenario focused on those elements being represented. I think my point is I would have been happy with a criticism that said, "All that is bunk. What was important was the X.Y% accuracy advantage German artillery had over Russian artillery at Z range." At least that would indicate the player read what I was saying about the battle.

etotheipi:

As the designer of the game, you get to decide what is important or the focus of your design. There is no right or wrong there. If someone thinks something else is more important, let them design their own game or change your rules.

The question regards whatever you have chosen to focus on. IF it is something like the huge disparity between Russiand German intel, then fine. What information is being used as the model for those mechanics in the game?

Discussion of why certain forces are statted out in certain ways in natural in the scenario/milieu discussion. You're discussing specific units employed in a specific environment.

I am?

…I prefer to separate rules and milieu content…
I always felt discussing the milieu is unnatural in rules, which, as you (and others) point out, are inherently abstract.

I am not sure what you are refering to here. How do you have 'milieu content' separate from the rules in a wargame… but still have the milieu content in the game? Or do you?

If I were writing rules that were explicitly for a handful of specific scenarios, I could see mixing the rule stuff with the milieu stuff.

I'm not following you here. Even 'milieu stuff', if representative of some historical milieu will have to have some basis in historical sources etc.

Long Post responding to a long post…

I have that book, but he doesn't provide any sort of specific linkage between 95% of the rules and the tidbits of historical quotes in the offset boxes on certain pages. For example, if I want to know why British infantry can move, say, 200mm, and that page has a little quote from a British training manual, there's no specific connection there to tell me what exactly is being simulated. Only the knowledge that he apparently read at least some portion of a British training manual… and British infantry can move 200mm per turn in the game.

Garth:
Thanks for articulating you thoughts on this. I'm hesitating here because I'm not sure the 'book' and Rich's various blogs are the same thing. I will say this, you are asking the question:

"For example, if I want to know why British infantry can move, say, 200mm and that page has a little quote from a British training manual, there's no specific connection there to tell me what exactly is being simulated."

and I have to ask:
1. Is that a question the author was trying to answer? If so, he obviously failed.
2. Is that a question that can be answered if you translate 200mm into real feet and yards, then you're not doing the work.
3. If that section wasn't meant to answer that question, then it can't.
4. Is there an easier, clearer way of presenting the information you want?

I take you at your word that you're a data-driven guy, so: Do you have any data to support these assertions? Do we know, for example, that X-number of wargame customers have specifically requested that rulebooks need more historical references?

Garth: I am not a 'data-driven' guy. I do pay attention and have some knowledge of how simulations work. IF a designer says that his wargame captures some aspect of history, that it's accurate etc. then as an interested game designer and prospective customer, I have to ask "what history and how do you know?" If that isn't something the design is supposed to do, then that isn't a question I would ask or worry about.

And this isn't a question about how many wargame customers have or haven't 'specificially requested' this kind of information. It is about how representative games/simulations work regardless of how many do or don't know to ask. Many gamers don't know what they don't know or how more information can increase their enjoyment. That doesn't change how simulation games work.

Wargamers have a lot of hobby experience [decades] with such history recreation being claimed, where any applicable information/proof of that recreation is unavailable. Most gamers aren't aware of how such information would deepen their enjoyment of historical wargaming. So how can they care about it?

Wargame systems/simulation systems are tools that work in particular ways to capture something of reality. They are procedural systems with very specific rules of operation. It is important for users to know where and how if the wargame is going to work effectively in modeling that history. That is true regardless of how many do or don't want it, or are even aware of it. It's how wargames work…and what designers claim.

Wargames are representative art. It is common sense to ask, "What does it specifically represent?"

If you look at all the issues that Dave Brown raises in Bill's many TMP threads, all of them are actually one question:

Do the the particular game mechanics succeed in modeling historical combat?

Folks will say yes or no in their opinion, whether they like them or not, but no one knows what the designer was attempting so there is no real answer to any of Dave's questions possible, no way to identify the 'connections' he does or doesn't believe he sees.

So, in that information vacuum, Dave's conclusions really can't be anything but "He likes or doesn't like some rules."

Is that what you're saying? As long as the author has some tidbits of historical quotes here and there, we can all rest easy knowing that the movement allowances are properly sourced and therefore we can judge whether or not they correctly simulate… something? (I'm not sure exactly what they're supposed to be simulating just because he has a quote from a training manual, but neither had it occurred to me to worry about it thus far.)

No, I'm not saying that and it isn't a matter of all of us 'resting easy' knowing that the movement allowances are 'properly sourced.'

The issues are these:
1. Among other things, customers are buying the historical content supposedly represented in the wargame rules. Right? It is a matter of truth in advertising if nothing else. When a designer states that his wargame is 'historically accurate' as a selling point, don't you want to know what that means if you are buying it?

2. However, the most important issue is how simulations [and that includes wargames that are designed to represent something of history] work on information. They work best as a simulation when the participants know what they are simulating. A gross example is when pilots were trained to fly the Gulf Stream and weren't told that the simulation cockpit and control responses were those of a French Falcon X3. Regardless of the quality of the simulation, it didn't work well for the pilots from a lack of information.

A minor example is the command radius rule in F&F. In the case of the pilots, they found out soon enough how the simulation had failed, which could have had serious consequences if they hadn't. For the gamer, he can remain ignorant of the actual purpose of the rules, what they represent… to the point that he wouldn't even know what questions to ask or what information to request from the designer. I know I didn't.

3. Wargamers come to the table for a wide variety of reasons, all good. ONE of the reasons is to learn about and experience something of history. Those gamers are being short-changed because of the information they are not getting. When designers say they are offering that, they are claiming a clear connection between their game system and historical and current references… the only sources of anyone's knowledge of combat before WWII and even after.

what happens if the author does include some supporting quote from a historical source, but the reader thinks, "Well, that doesn't persuade me. I don't think that source supports the idea that infantry should move 200mm" ? If I understand you correctly, you seem to be assuming that the existence of a quoted source will suffice to objectively satisfy all readers, who will then accept it as a criterion for judging whether or not the rule properly simulates something.

Nope, I'm not assuming that at all. I am saying that the reader will:
1. Know what history was simulated.
2. Have a basis for judging how well game system captured the identified history.
3. Will know where that history came from.
4. THEN will have objective knowledge and criteria for judging the content of the wargame. He may or may not agree, but he and everyone else will be discussing the merits of something specific rather than wild-ass guesses and 'flavors.' If he finds he doesn't agree, he will be able to articulate his views with far more certainty and clarity than "I don't like it."

So, no, such information will not objectively satisfy all readers, but readers will know what content is or isn't satisfying and specifically why.

That changes the discussion of wargame design dramatically and eliminates a lot of pointless discussions that have no place to go but peter out with "I like it and you don't."

For instance, until I know what history etotheipi modeled of the German's huge intel advantage, he and I can't discuss game mechanics that might capture that dynamic or how well in any practical fashion… just as it is difficult to discuss techniques for determining the composition of a portrait until we have a good idea of who the subject is and the purpose for the portrait.

And no, I am not the only one saying such things on the TMP. However, I am obviously passionate about the issue because of what I know about how simulation games work to 'recreate' reality and what components are necessary to have a practical discussion of simulation game design:

The right information

I agree that a single flip of a coin to resolve outcomes in a wargame is bland. But that is a bout the extent of it. The author seems to believe that somehow wargames are accurate portrayals of combat.

You can make a game something of a realistic command exercise if the game rewards decisions that a commander might make at an appropriate level. Multiple dice rolls with various "clever" game mechanics are no more accurate than multiple flips of a coin. They are all probability. If we are being true to ourselves perhaps we should resolve various tasks with a single percentage die roll. It is how we really think as gamers. It provides a large amount o granularity.

We should also get back to figure removal. In real combat units take casualties. The obvious way to mark that is to remove figures…right?

Pretty much everything should be concrete. Units should not be taking so called "cohesion" hits. Rather there should be a track for mental fatigue as well as actual physical fatigue. Units that are mentally tired will run away more easily while units that are physically tired will perform poorly physically in a fight.

Or, if you have made it this far, lets just dispense with such illusions that somehow the games we play are realistic and play them for what they are…games with a historical theme that are fun to us.

1. Among other things, customers are buying the historical content supposedly represented in the wargame rules. Right? It is a matter of truth in advertising if nothing else. When a designer states that his wargame is 'historically accurate' as a selling point, don't you want to know what that means if you are buying it?

I don't see "historically accurate" offered as a selling point very often. Certainly not much anymore. I assumed that the hobby had gotten that obsession out of its system some years ago. But if I do see it, I treat it with the same bemusement as I treat all other claims of greatness by the author(s), such as all those games that claim to be "fast-play" or whatever.

2. However, the most important issue is how simulations [and that includes wargames that are designed to represent something of history] work on information.

Well, I believe that's "the most important issue" for you. I have my doubts that it's the most important issue for most people.

If I'm understanding your critique correctly, then it seems as if no game has ever met all your criteria? At least not without the author adding substantial additional supporting information on a blog or somewhere else?

And yet games keep selling by the thousands. Doesn't it stand to reason that if most people were as concerned about this as you think they are, then the marketplace would have figured this out long ago and offered products that do what you describe? How do you explain the fact that no games offer what you consider to be so important, and yet they still get played and enjoyed by so many people?

such information will not objectively satisfy all readers, but readers will know what content is or isn't satisfying and specifically why.

Doesn't that presume that the reader will be in a position to judge the verity of the historical content? If I write a game and pad the book with lots of references to historical books and articles, why would that impress or reassure anybody unless they also have read those books and articles and can decide for themselves whether my research backs up what happens in the game? If they don't know any of those authors or those works, then why would they care?

I'm not even sure why they should care, even if they did know the authors and works that I cited. Surely the players' experience of the game is affected by the game itself, and not by my citations. In fact, I could even do something like the Sokol Hoax and just make up fake sources that allegedly backed up what happens in the game, and as long as they enjoyed the game, they'd probably be perfectly happy with that.

You can make a game something of a realistic command exercise if the game rewards decisions that a commander might make at an appropriate level. Multiple dice rolls with various "clever" game mechanics are no more accurate than multiple flips of a coin. They are all probability. If we are being true to ourselves perhaps we should resolve various tasks with a single percentage die roll. It is how we really think as gamers. It provides a large amount o granularity.

IF the dice rolls don't represent anything particular, then yes, a flip of a coin is just as 'accurate.'

If the dice rolls are based on statistical analysis, such as how often vollies from a Prussian battalion sent French columns packing in thirty historical encounters, then the probability offered by the die roll does represent something and multiple flips of a coin might not work.

<b/>2. However, the most important issue is how simulations [and that includes wargames that are designed to represent something of history] work on information.
Well, I believe that's "the most important issue" for you. I have my doubts that it's the most important issue for most people.

Garth:
I doubt it too. I didn't say how important it was to others. I was talking about how simulations work regardless. If I don't put oil in my car, it is going to breakdown, and how many people think oil is or isn't important changes nothing except the number of cars that breakdown.

Wargames are procedural systems with rules for player decisions and behavior like rolling dice. The systems are designed to work in particular ways to produce particular experiences. That isn't anyone's opinion and is true whether you or I think it is important. It is just the way they work. So, IF I want that system to provide players with experiences that mimic parts of history and combat, how does the system best do that?

That's what I am talking about, not how many gamers think it is important. And that is the problem. The hobby treats the entire game design effort as someone's opinion, when a significant portion of game design isn't, particularly when wargames are representative art, models of something else.

I don't see "historically accurate" offered as a selling point very often. Certainly not much anymore. I assumed that the hobby had gotten that obsession out of its system some years ago. But if I do see it, I treat it with the same bemusement as I treat all other claims of greatness by the author(s), such as all those games that claim to be "fast-play" or whatever.

Garth:

Not much? Really? And if gamers and *the market* actually did dismiss such claims with similar bemusement and lack of belief, I would think such claims would have died out. The idea of historically accurate is expressed in many ways, simulating, the way it was, captures etc. etc. :

Johnny Reb
"The game is by nature complex, since we are simulating the complex interaction of many factors to produce a realistic
effect."
[Introduction, page viii]

Shako
"It is important to simulate how these systems operated, and
to represent the fundamental differences between them…
Consequently, Shako simulates the difficulties inherent in
moving and maintaining order within large formations. The
system of Orders used in Shako emphasizes the pre-battle
planning and battle management necessary to fight such
battles."
[Introduction]

Grande Armée
"…If the defender is doing what he is supposed to be doing,then all combats will be gruelling 1:1 slugfests. That may not be as much fun as the way other games let you do it, but that's the way it was in the Napoleonic wars."
[Page 38]

Fire and Fury
"The ebb and flow of Civil War conflict has been recreated in Fire and Fury, an innovative game system using miniature armies to recreate battles of the American Civil War. The system, the result of five years of development, emphasizes playability without sacrificing historical accuracy."
[Introduction]

Regimental Fire & Fury
"It took years of refining the rules and much playtesting to
find the balance between playability and historical accuracy
players expect in a Fire and Fury game."
[Foreword and Acknowledgements]

Piquet [2nd edition]
"In these notes, I hope I can make it clear to critics and fans alike what I was attempting to do with Piquet; why I believe it provides a new and refreshing approach to gaming, and why it is both a game and a simulation."
[Designer's Notes]

Black Powder
"Naturally, we wish our game to be a tolerably convincing representation of real battle; however no pretense is made to simulate every nuance or detail of weaponry, drill or the psychology of warfare."
[pages 4-5]

Command and Colors Napoleonics
"The scale of the game fluctuates, which allows players to effectively portray epic Napoleonic battles, as well as smaller historical actions… The Napoleonic tactics you will need to execute to gain victory conform remarkably well to the advantages and limitations inherent to the various Napoleonic National Armies of the day and the battlefield terrain features on which they fought…"
[Rules Introduction. (For those who, like me, play this on the table top, but board game designers claim the very same things as tabletop designers.)

Le Feu Sacré
"The rules are mostly concerned with command, control and leadership. The actual combat elements are, although historically accurate, deliberately simplified to allow focus on what really determined victory on many Napoleonic battlefields – Leadership, and Le Feu Sacré."
[Introduction]

LaSalle
If you have a club, or a larger collection and gaming area,
Lasalle can also be used to simulate historical battles of the Napoleonic Wars, such as Quatra Bras, Albuera, Saalfeld,
Eggmühl. [Description, Honor Games website]

I could go on in similar fashion with lots of game rules for a long, long time. Currently, most all wargame designers make similar claims.

I'll come back and respond to your observations about the wargaming market.

I didn't say how important it was to others.

Well, you didn't qualify your statements as applying only to yourself, so you appeared to be speaking for all of us when you talked about things that were "valuable" or "important" to readers, players, customers, and so on.

But if we agree that you're just speaking of your own personal desires, then I obviously have no objection to that. I just don't think that your assertions hold across the hobby in general, or even for a minority. At least that has been my observation.

I was talking about how simulations work regardless. If I don't put oil in my car, it is going to breakdown, and how many people think oil is or isn't important changes nothing except the number of cars that breakdown.

I find that analogy false. Not being able to move is a make-or-break criterion for a car that everybody can observe, verify, and agree upon. But there are no similar criteria for a wargaming experience. Different people want very different things from their wargames. I have played in many games that – for me – "break down" on any number of levels. And yet other people enjoyed themselves, thought it went well, and were enthusiastic about playing again. Whether the game succeeded as a simulation of something or not, I don't know. That might have been a criterion for somebody, although I didn't observe that to be the case.

But I have noticed that if a player thinks that a game is doing something wrong historically, then he is generally not persuaded by anything the author asserts to the contrary, no matter how well supported by references to historical works, either in the book or on a support forum, or wherever. I recently saw a conversation in which a player was complaining about tank movement rates in a WW2 game and saying that they were wrong for this or that tank. One of the authors responded on the forum with a lengthy explanation of why the movement rates were what they were, but of course that didn't satisfy the player. Those may or may not have been historical facts that backed up the simulation, but they weren't the facts that he wanted.

You might be proceeding from a much greater faith in the ability of people's opinions and tastes to be changed by the presentation of facts. I haven't seen much evidence of that, especially when it comes to how people prefer to spend their leisure time.

Black Powder
"Naturally, we wish our game to be a tolerably convincing representation of real battle; however no pretense is made to simulate every nuance or detail of weaponry, drill or the psychology of warfare."

I think that snippet contradicts what you've been asserting, not supports it. The authors obviously aren't making any sort of specific claims for simulation and in fact were saying that "tolerably convincing" for most people will do. The wisdom of that approach is surely justified by the huge commercial success of Black Powder and its spin-offs.

I'll come back and respond to your observations about the wargaming market.

Well, I don't foresee either of us persuading the other any time soon so I will disengage at this point. I think you're projecting your own personal desires for the hobby and asserting that publishers are short-changing us all, when in fact it's mostly just their failure to produce the style of writing that you want.

Well, you didn't qualify your statements as applying only to yourself, so you appeared to be speaking for all of us when you talked about things that were "valuable" or "important" to readers, players, customers, and so on.

But if we agree that you're just speaking of your own personal desires, then I obviously have no objection to that.

Garth:
I think this is where most all game design discussions end up on TMP: What I desire, what you desire, what I like and what you like. Certainly important issues, but hardly the be all of game design. And certainly not what I am talking about.

What I said is not simply a personal want of mine. It is a statement about what is obviously a long standing issue for gamers like David B.: The connections between the game and history/reality.

What I want doesn't change the game design fact that wargames/simulations work better when the players know what they are and aren't recreating with the rules.

Not being able to move is a make-or-break criterion for a car that everybody can observe, verify, and agree upon. But there are no similar criteria for a wargaming experience. Different people want very different things from their wargames. I have played in many games that – for me – "break down" on any number of levels.

I was trying to point out that how a game works in mimicking history or reality isn't determined by what people feel is important or what the latest market craze happens to be. The wargame works the way it was designed, period. You can discuss what people want and feel is important. Or you can discuss how games work.

ONE of the things that can be discussed is how game designs and mechanics can address what the market feels is important or likes. Game mechanics do what they are designed to do regardless. I repeat: That fact is uneffected by what gamers happen to want at the moment.

Garth, when the BP designers say "Naturally, we wish our game to be a tolerably convincing representation of real battle;…" the question for a game designer is "how is that done?" What makes a wargame a 'convincing representation of real battle? That is simply a paraphrase of David Brown's many issues about 'connections.'

That is a game design question that involves 'real military history of some sort', right? Somehow that is translated into a game 'representation' of that real battle that is 'convincing'.

The game experience will be better, deeper and far more 'convincing' if the players have the right information, those clear connections. Again, that's how it works, not what I want. Obviously, gamers have fun without any of that… just not as 'convincing.'

Well, I don't foresee either of us persuading the other any time soon so I will disengage at this point. I think you're projecting your own personal desires for the hobby and asserting that publishers are short-changing us all, when in fact it's mostly just their failure to produce the style of writing that you want.

Persuading each other of personal desires and 'style.' No, not interested. I would be interested in persuading you that the issue isn't about personal desires anymore than the probability of a '2' in rolling a D6 is a matter of personal desire.

I have no personal style issues. The question is whether the information is there at all to establish what the designers are claiming. There are a lot of possible writing styles that could deliver that information.

Publishers are short-changing customers when they say their designs recreate history and 'real battle', but provide nothing to establish how that was done. It is the publishers, not me, that claim to have captured history in their game. They determine the target, not me. They claim to have hit that target, but they never give anything like enough information to determine just where that target is.

Wargamers have lived with that situation for so long, so they have the same bemused reaction you do when some designer claims 'accuracy', and either deem it hype and 'personal opinion' or ask "where's the connections?"…
And yet, and yet, the designers keep on selling the hype, even though gamers supposedly don't want it or care.

That situation has nothing to do with what I personally wantor a particular style of writing. It does address what at least a significant portion of the market wants if judged by how many designers keep claiming simulation 'accuracy'.

Good Gaming.
Bill

I am not sure what you are refering to here. How do you have 'milieu content' separate from the rules in a wargame… but still have the milieu content in the game? Or do you?

That's pretty much my whole point about separation. Here … these are the rules for the bit I was talking about:

link

… and here is the milieu (historical, this one) …

link

The QILS rules define the game dynamics – how the units interact with each other – is separate from the scenario material – which units, how to set them up, meta game elements – in the Allenstein book.

This one could be said to have a little bleed over (I said I prefer to separate those elements of a game, not that they are absolutely separate in all materials.), as the movement advantage for the Germans really is a tweak of the rules (the unit dynamics) embedded in scenario context, as opposed to the intel advantage, which is a meta-game element (how you take your turn – the Russian player has to generally announce their intended actions before the German player takes their turn (and follow through afterwards)).

There are others where the scenario elements (force set up, sides, victory conditions) contain no game dynamics.

link

link

link

link

The idea of creating a generic rule based system and then applying flavours to depict different scenarios is strong in the world of computing ( Total War, Quake, Elder Scrolls, etc )

Create the underlying rules and then make the pictures look different and describe the game differently but still use the same underlying rules – it seems to me that etotheipi is doing just that – hurrah!

It seems that wargamers get into the issues being discussed because we are unable to agree on underlying basic rules, or that resolving these underlying rules becomes too time consuming – eg. recording and modelling each persons reaction on a battlefield.

I am not sure that it would be possible to create a set of rules that followed McLaddies requirements as there is no right and wrong in historical documents and simply picking one historical "fact" and describing the rule that was created from this "fact" could be done after the rules had been written. But I do not think that a game designer who ( honestly ) tested their rules using various historical battles and got the same/similar outcomes as recorded in history could be claimed to be misleading when they claim simulation accuracy. I am able to read some rules and determine that they could in no way be considered simulation rules ( they are not modelling each atom after all ?! ) but am quite happy for the rules author to claim this.

Create the underlying rules and then make the pictures look different and describe the game differently but still use the same underlying rules – it seems to me that etotheipi is doing just that – hurrah!

It's a little different than just the pictures looking different. The simplest example is unit stats.

I consider stats to be different from rules and to be derived from milieu. I can stat out a "magic missile" and a Gatling gun salvo to have the same numbers and operate under the same subset of the rules. The important question is not "Hey … doesn't that magic missile in the fantasy scenario have the same stats and rules as the Gatling gun in the Old West scenario?" In fact, that is a completely irrelevant question.

The important questions are: (1) Does the Gatling gun operate in its environment to represent the desired effects? and (2) Does the magic missile operate in its environment to represent the desired effects?

If I statted out a kick in the groin and a 10KT nuclear explosion to have the same parameters invoking the same subset of rules to apply them, the salient discussion should be along the lines of, "Wow! We have a radically different understanding of the important effects of at least one of those forms of attack."

But I do not think that a game designer who ( honestly ) tested their rules using various historical battles and got the same/similar outcomes as recorded in history could be claimed to be misleading when they claim simulation accuracy.

I think one of McLaddie's points is that claiming "accuracy" isn't enough without defining what you think are the important parts of accuracy. It's like getting a movie review, "That was a good movie." The reviewer is certainly entitled to their opinion, and the bases from which they derive that opinion. But that statement alone is pretty much useless in communicating anything about the quality of the movie.

I am not sure that it would be possible to create a set of rules that followed McLaddies requirements as there is no right and wrong in historical documents and simply picking one historical "fact" and describing the rule that was created from this "fact" could be done after the rules had been written.

General R:
I am not sure why proving more information about the rules would somehow require a change in the rules. Whether there are no right or wrong historical documents is a debatable notion, but even if true, that is all the more reason to know *which* documents were used as the model for the designer's 'historical wargame.' Rationalizing the rules after the fact is what gamers have become really good at when no one knows what history the system represents.

But I do not think that a game designer who ( honestly ) tested their rules using various historical battles and got the same/similar outcomes as recorded in history could be claimed to be misleading when they claim simulation accuracy.

Really? And how would you, the gamer and prospective customer, know that? With the right information YOU could (honestly) test the rules against historical battles. Without it, gamers talk about vague 'reasonable results' which doesn't mean anything when you don't have a 'reasonable' idea what history the mechanics represent. I use the example of F&F generic artillery, not because it is a bad mechanic or impossible to make 'historically accurate' depending on what history was actually used. At the moment I don't know. It could be the designer saw the mechanic as completely historical or maybe that was a compromise done simply for the ease of play… or a combination. Who knows? So how do you test it against history? Which history?

I am able to read some rules and determine that they could in no way be considered simulation rules ( they are not modelling each atom after all ?! ) but am quite happy for the rules author to claim this.

You are a better gamer than I. How you are able to determine this compared to unknown history isn't clear to me unless the designer has declared that his design is no way a simulation. [Even then, I often wonder if the designer knows what a simulation is or how it works.] And I'm glad their claims make you happy. As someone interested in designing games and playing with history, when a designe makes the claim, I want to know what they base it on. It doesn't make me happy to have designers claiming things that are never proven about information that is never provided.

But that is just me.

Best Regards, Bill

etotheipi:

Thanks for the clarification. So, from what I understand, the QILS defines the way units relate/interact and the milieu is captured in the scenario rules and/or any adjustments to the unit values in the QILS system. So, in the Allenstein game, the intel advantage is created by both unit value adjustments and scenario rules.

Is that it?

I think one of McLaddie's points is that claiming "accuracy" isn't enough without defining what you think are the important parts of accuracy. It's like getting a movie review, "That was a good movie." The reviewer is certainly entitled to their opinion, and the bases from which they derive that opinion. But that statement alone is pretty much useless in communicating anything about the quality of the movie.

Yes, that is definitely one reason. Another major reason is that simulations work best when the players know what history/reality they are supposed to experience, the more specific the information on the 'connections' the better the experience in 'recreating'.

General R:
I need to correct something:

"I am not sure why provIDing more information about the rules would somehow require a change in the rules. Whether there are no right or wrong historical documents is a debatable notion, but even if true, that is all the more reason to know *which* documents were used as the model for the designer's 'historical wargame.'

To the original poster I say yes, I agree. I personally do not like generic Wargames that can be used for any and all periods. It is like changing the colors of your chess pieces and pretending somehow you are playing something other then chess.
I have used a generic rule set to play one specific game setting( War-Engine) but I have no desire to play a different setting with the same rules.
Good Wargames are interesting to me for their uniique approaches and mechanics as well as the challenge of trying to achieve victory within the given framework.
The whole realism / simulation/game argument falls flat for me. All I want is, did we have fun? Was it interesting decision making? Did all involved have a reasonable chance to succeed? If yes is answered to these questions they are good rules. If all were overshadowed by pure luck and total randomness, no they are not good. Crunchy rules don't need to mean rivet counting.