"Bring back written orders" Topic

Throwing this one out there, just to see, given the current trend in games.

Is it time to start bringing back written orders?

The current trend seems to be for some version of 'command roll' or card drawing (the dice in BA count as this).

Now that is fine down at the lower levels, where turns are 2-5 minutes and variable in that range, and small teams may stop for a minute to try and work out what is going on, or just plain freeze.

But in higher level games the commander is giving an order, which will be in force until changed or achieved. What we have is the Brigade Commander (say) continually having to remind his subordinates what he wanted them to do, plus instantaneous reaction turn to turn.

The arguement is often 'they stopped because of poor terrain/bad map reading/something unexpected'.. This doesn't make sense because the CR usually relies on the Commanders quality and distance from the unit(s). If terrain etc is the purpose then some form of randomisation in movement distances would be better (I don't necessarily mean 2d6 inches – it could be on a 1 move 1/3, on a 2 move 2/3rds FOR EXAMPLE don't get hung up on maths here).

I thinking larger games units continue to operate to order without intervention – like the Shako/SH 'ride the arrow'

Personally I think if you change an order you issue the new order in the first phase of the turn, but continue on the current order for this turn. In the final phase you maybe dice to see if the order has been received/understood acted on, and you must dice every turn, even if you sent another change. Later orders take precedence, but you dice for each change in the final phase on each order, so if a CinC is the kind that keeps up a stream of changes then he can never be sure which ones are about to be enacted.

OpORD or FRAGO?

Detailed scheme of maneuver or 3 sentence general directions?

Like in Original Striker? or order cubes like in Command Decision?

Nope, never, no time, no how, nada, nichts, nitz, nyet. Perhaps the worst thing ever to inflict itself on gaming.

By Fire and Sword already does this to a degree. You have so many orders you can change a turn.

If you order your infantry to advance, your cavalry to charge, your artillery to stay put and you only have two orders to change one of those three is going to continue doing what they re doing.

I don't know that there is any need for written orders, it seems a clumsy way of generating more paper work at the table top.

In something like Black Powder the randomization of a command roll doesn't necessarily mean that the order didn't get through at that moment, it is abstracted.

So I want my infantry to advance, advance, advance. I roll an 8 so they just advance. Same again next turn, I roll a 9 so they just advance.

Sometimes guys needed to be reminded of what their orders were.

On the other hand sometimes you will roll a 5 and they will advance, advance, advance. The next turn you might roll a 5 again and again they will go forward 3x if you wish.

I don't think you need to consider those as separate orders from the General necessarily, in that case it is that the General actually didn't issue new orders maybe and the sub-commander continued to follow them.

If the unit moves 3x one turn and 0x the next the sub commander decided to stop following them for some reason.

I agree with Otto?
Fetch my smelling salts, Martha!

Field of Battle had a nice order system. Based on Keywords

No. Games become exercises in order writing. There are games I played like The Complete Brigadier that had a certain charm, but this needlessly slows everything down when there is only so much time to play a game.

If you want to implement written orders in a game, feel free to do so. You don't need official rules for that.

Written orders work best with several players on the same side, including a CIC. This way there is always the strong possibility that a non-simple order will be mis-implemented. Also to avoid excessively long orders you should have some sort of maximum time you can write orders. Or read them. Do nothing else at all during the turn could net you more time…

You mean like when we wrote orders as broad and vague as we possibly could, so we could later 'interpret' them as we wanted?

Welcome to 1972. And not in a good way.

Only if the opponent gets to interpret what you wrote.

Is it time to start bringing back written orders?

No. Surest way to keep me out of a game. sic KSmyth and Mexican Jack Squint.

Lonkka1Actual said:

If you want to implement written orders in a game, feel free to do so. You don't need official rules for that.

Well said, and I'll go one step further: official rules for that are almost guaranteed to be anachronistic, incorrect, and amount to little more than an invitation to rules-lawyering.

In big, sprawling, long-duration, multi-player games, written orders can be a helluva lot of fun, and even encourage a "staff exercise" atmosphere that many more abstract C3 mechanisms lack, as long as nobody takes them too seriously. The misinterpretations are natural, fun to watch, and can make great war stories afterward.

In a game with just 1-3 players per side and/or on tables small enough for cross-table conversations, written orders are just a time sink and distraction from a "martial" decision cycle. Few wargamers have any training in proper military syntax, jargon, protocol, and technical terms, and there might be a handful of scholars who could generate period-appropriate versions of these things for an historical wargame.

I am personally neither a fan of "order" systems with a limited set of confining, pre-defined orders issued by marker placement. Such systems seem fun until an argument starts and cycles inconclusively through:
"They wouldn't do that!"
"The orders require that!"
Repeat ad nauseum until referee issues decision.

I am sick to death of being dragooned into games with written orders (or plotted movement, or any other "think carefully" game mechanic) and then being told I'm taking too long. Seriously bad etiquette.

- Ix

I'm with Ottoathome and Mexican Jack, just plain NO!

I have never heard a realistic argument that standing orders are realistic. The proponents are just fooling themselves that complex equals better.

Field of Battle has an order system??? As in it is a card driven game I suppose

As noted in the OP, Shako and Spearhead work fine with written orders (of a very simple variety).

My group has a pathological dislike of writing stuff, but will happily spend hours planning preparatory artillery bombardments and air landings (in fact they are doing this right now for the game tomorrow).

For my WW1 Corps level rules, I substituted written orders fir a grid and mandatory actions at different points, so once a brigade moves from corps reserve to a division, it is committed in that sector. Once it moves into a particular row of squares in the division reserve line, that is its attack frontage, and once it reaches the assault trench, it has to attack. The only plan the players have to do is designated the depth of the objective. It seems to work OK, is the equivalent of written orders, requires some thought, but no writing is required.

I can only imagine Napoleon, Wellington, Lee or Grant drawing order dice from a bag….or picking maneuver cards before making an attack….or for that matter running out of staff officers to carry orders.

So without written orders, what's to stop a gamer ignoring an objective for a unit and getting sidetracked into some juicy other engagement? That's OK if it is within their remit to do so. Then again, how are order rules to be enforced if the game is too small to have an umpire in the game?

I still give objectives, etc to units so that they don't end up like some sort of autonomous guerilla force.

In certain periods written orders are an essential part of the way battles were fought and managed at particular levels. If you play skirmishes then it is pretty well always safe to ignore them but above that you have to look a bit more closely at how things really worked to just dismiss them out of hand.

Fine for those of you who want to play just for the sake of the game and ignore reality but there are many of us out there who want more than that. Please don't give me that stupid C##P about deluding myself, it insults your intelligence as well as mine.

You do need rules for orders that are appropriate to the period and they need to be kept simple. You need players to be honest in using them – or you need an umpire. Most of all you need players who understand how they fit both into the game/rule system you play AND understand the part they played in the historical situation.

In our WW1 games (a base is a company, a unit a Bn and a commander at Regt and above) initial order writing takes about 15mins and there is the odd time when new orders are needed – takes about 5 mins each time.

If the scenario gives the objectives and the situation how difficult is it to write a few words down describing what a unit (or group of units) is to do ?

I'd rather not. It slowed games down and sometimes someone would have the bright idea of having written orders that would take effect 2-3 turns later. I don't want to go back to those days.

The whole point of written orders was to force the enemy into making a blunder, and limiting the role of the "300 ft general." Players then wrote the orders in the broadest way so they could cheat. Even using order chits didn't solve the problem as if you looked carefully you found a second chit under an apparently randomly dropped bit of lichen.

I never saw one game where they worked, or one game where they weren't a sorespot of contention and argument between the players.

For all it's faults IGOYGO is the cleanest way to go. So life with the 300 ft general, the fact that the enemy can avoid serious blunders when he sees what you do, or that players can't be forced into making mistakes.

Remember, in a few moments the "enemy" will be you.

Written orders work just find in Spearhead and Modern Spearhead. They also worked just fine in Command Decision and MBT/IDF from Avalon Hill. Saying they don't work because some cheating *turd is cheating – they will find a way to cheat no matter what is done, better keep a keen eye on their dice rolls.

I'm not saying I frequently play any of these games any longer though…

The whole point of written orders was to force the enemy into making a blunder, and limiting the role of the "300 ft general."

What? In games I've played with written orders, the rationale has always been that pre-20th Century armies operated based on written orders that were not easy to change because of the distances involved rather than forcing someone to make a blunder. I suppose written orders could be seen as a limit on the all-seeing general, but only in some respects.

Players then wrote the orders in the broadest way so they could cheat. Even using order chits didn't solve the problem as if you looked carefully you found a second chit under an apparently randomly dropped bit of lichen.

Not just to cheat. Actual commanders often wrote orders in the broadest manner because they didn't know what their subordinates would face and wanted to give them options. For good or bad, Lee was famous for that… So was Napoleon at times.

I never saw one game where they worked, or one game where they weren't a sorespot of contention and argument between the players.

Well, if everyone was cheating when writing them, I can see how that could happen. I do agree that written orders are a big design/game problem. To avoid the situation Otto describes, written orders have to be very specific, very restrictive to work within the rules without offering dozens of loopholes and questions on meaning.

I dislike written rules for the same reasons as well as not being interested in playing a game that requires lots of writing rather than decision-making.

The trick is to provide game mechanics that limit the response time of players, hold subordinates to the objectives given without weighting down the game.

Pulling out order chits at random and applying them to a unit, gaining the initiative simply by chance or simply ignoring what was a fundamental dynamic in command and control don't model--even a little bit--what generals faced in the way of command system dynamics.

I see 2 possibilities:

- Either written orders are introduced to counter the effect of the helicopter view, and to limit what a player can do. If that's the intent, then yes, written orders do not work well, and it's not easy to build a rules framework around the idea to close all possible loopholes and to make it argument-proof.

- Or, written orders are intended to replicate the experience actual commanders had when commanding an army, and to mimic the process of a chain-of-command. In this case, it helps tremendously if all players agree that this is the intent of the game (writing orders IS the game, not a mere rule you can exploit). Moreover, it also helps if players have actually served as an officer in the army (and have composed some orders themselves), or have studied actual orders as they have been used in history. As a best alternative, it does help if players have actually worked in large enough organizations where some equivalent of written orders and feedback is also present.

If someone has never worked in a (military) hierarchical chain (or has studied it), it is very hard to instill the idea what a written order is actually meant to achieve.

But of course, the crux of the matter is that (military) orders are meant as a communication device between people. If you try to implement in a game, in which the sender of the message and the receiver are the same person, it's always going to be very hard to give it a meaningful role.

Dear Phil

Yes. You have put it in a nicely unimposing way. I agree. I have a much more jaundiced view of gamers.

The point I would like to emphasize is yours that then (writing orders IS the game). Very perceptive. For me that is pretty much a non-sarter. I really don't care to write orders, and it slows the game down tremendously. I had a vivid demonstration of this. In the recent 18th Century Imagi-Nations Campaign, all players had to write down their intentions (orders) and hand them to me. The rules limited them to 20 words, normal English, no abbreviations of slang. I thought it would take a mere minute to do so. It took fifteen to twenty to think of them, and they only had ONE order to write, not several.

Does anyone REALLY want to do that? If so you don't need toy soldiers and terrain. They're just not worth the candle.

"In the recent 18th Century Imagi-Nations Campaign, all players had to write down their intentions (orders) and hand them to me. The rules limited them to 20 words, normal English, no abbreviations of slang. I thought it would take a mere minute to do so. It took fifteen to twenty to think of them, and they only had ONE order to write, not several."

If you are going to umpire the game, then just ask the players you tell you their intentions beforehand, no need to write them down.

Go back to written orders?

We will line up the models and roll marbles at them again at this rate.

First of all--to each their own. If you and your game group enjoy games with written orders, play 'em. Heck if we lived in the same neck of the woods I'd probably play them with you.

But, I think there is a reason written orders fell out of favor. They took too long. The game became more about the written orders than playing the game.

I think good scenario design with clear victory conditions directs the players what they need to be doing and work just fine. Again, to each their own. But I can't imagine a wholesale return to written orders.

Dear Martin

Yes that was what I did when I ran the campaign as a two player game. However with six players and even more, I want a bit more formality, and this way you have a basic written record of what goes on in the game. The time it took for them to formulate their orders and write them took a few minutes, but it wasn't detrimental to the game, and it was part of a learning curve, the first time they did it.

The point of my post was that I can imagine if you had to write many many such orders in a turn, for many many such units, it would become a laborious chore

Anyway, the next installment is coming, the non-analytical report of what happened in the first turn in the campaign.

Otto

- Either written orders are introduced to counter the effect of the helicopter view, and to limit what a player can do. If that's the intent, then yes, written orders do not work well,…

- Or, written orders are intended to replicate the experience actual commanders had when commanding an army, and to mimic the process of a chain-of-command…(writing orders IS the game, not a mere rule you can exploit).

Phil:
I think you can have a little of both without written orders.

If someone has never worked in a (military) hierarchical chain (or has studied it), it is very hard to instill the idea what a written order is actually meant to achieve.

I think there are a few things written orders are meant to achieve [and the situations they create] even though every aspect of what written orders are supposed to achieve can't be replicated with a wargame.

But of course, the crux of the matter is that (military) orders are meant as a communication device between people. If you try to implement in a game, in which the sender of the message and the receiver are the same person, it's always going to be very hard to give it a meaningful role.

True. The question is what orders are meant to communicate on the battlefield. They are directives detailing what a subordinate command is supposed to do. They can include the Why, Where, When, Who, What and even How of a situation. However all 5 of the W's and H are all focused on an objective. In a command, a subordinate may not be given all 5 of the W's, let alone the How. He certainly can ad-lib many of those. The one thing he can, which is what controls/focuses/directs his actions is the objective.

What you find with all most all game'written orders' or even chits or any kind of named types like 'Attack', 'Defend' etc. are limits on the what and How, [Defend can't attack, sustained Attack can't use X number of their command in any one attack etc.] rather than any identification of the objectives, which is the whole point of any order. Written orders become complex because of the 5 W's and H rather than any identification of the objectives.

I am in the midst of working on a 'command system' that ignores everything but the objectives assigned to subordinate commanders, with everything flowing from that until lost or changed by the CinC.

QC:
Yes, writing orders is cumbersome and far too open to interpretation for a game system.

On the other hand, I don't particularly like the JR order chips. It has players representing division/corps commanders making different orders for every regiment, every turn. In other words, the players are giving different orders to every single regiment every fifteen minutes.

The system certainly works and keeps the players involved, but as a command system, it makes very little sense historically other than making players commit to actions before they know the results…on a very minute scale.

If a player was representing the regimental colonel, the system would make far more sense, but would involve only one order…

I'd go with assigning objectives. How they get there is up to the commander of the maneuver group (Rgt, Bn, Co, etc).

As I see it orders would be things like movement to contact, hasty defense (can be converted to prepared defense in later turns), hasty or prepared attack, exploit, reserves, etc.

Wolfhag

"The question is what orders are meant to communicate on the battlefield. They are directives detailing what a subordinate command is supposed to do. They can include the Why, Where, When, Who, What and even How of a situation. However all 5 of the W's and H are all focused on an objective."

What about units in reserve?

Or what about units that have been surprised in some way and now their objective is utterly unattainable, so the local commander has to improvise? (For example: Brigadier Trueheart is ordered to take the town of Eglise St. Schlong but enemy cavalry has just appeared and obviously now he has to form squares.)

I can understand the goal of trying to sort this out according to some Higher-Up's original intent, but… there are so many examples in battle of things going pear shaped at a lower level and the man on the scene having to improvise. At those times, you'll have units with no "objectives" anymore, or which have generated their own new "objectives" and so on. That's potentially a LOT of rules.

Some years ago I played in a big convention game with four or five players on each side, and the referee made us switch commands every turn. We stayed on the same side, but in Turn 1 I commanded the cavalry reserve, in Turn 2 I commanded the II Corps, in Turn 3 I commanded some avant-garde division or something like that.

It was a really clever and interesting way of making command sluggish and unreliable and getting rid of helicopter control. We were all more or less working from the same plan, but the way I would have deployed the II Corps was not at all the way the next guy would have done it. Each turn you had the choice of being fiddly and wasting time trying to get things "perfect", or just going ahead with the approximation and doing your best. A lot of guys hated it, but I thought it was cool and for me at least it felt like I was struggling with my own subordinates a bit, who were doing mostly what I wanted, most of the time.

Garth wrote:

What about units in reserve?

Well, you can see it in one of two ways. Reserves haven't been given objectives yet…forces waiting for objectives…or their current objective is to remain in place until given other objectives…

Or what about units that have been surprised in some way and now their objective is utterly unattainable, so the local commander has to improvise? (For example: Brigadier Trueheart is ordered to take the town of Eglise St. Schlong but enemy cavalry has just appeared and obviously now he has to form squares.)

I can understand the goal of trying to sort this out according to some Higher-Up's original intent, but… there are so many examples in battle of things going pear shaped at a lower level and the man on the scene having to improvise. At those times, you'll have units with no "objectives" anymore, or which have generated their own new "objectives" and so on. That's potentially a LOT of rules.

Well, those are great examples of the unpredictable and things going wrong where the original orders don't apply.
And yes, there is the potential for lots of rules to cover these kinds of subordinate 'improvising."

This is the way I am thinking about it. A subordinate has a combat mission, an objective until something happens unexpectedly or threatens his command immediately. He has a choice: Continue after the objective or do something different--that is, come up with another, a seemingly more realistic objective, even if it is just survival.

So there are three steps: 1. The what and where the subordinate would determine he's facing a new, unexpected situation, and 2. He will continue with 'the plan' or do something else and 3. What he will do?

Now, obviously in most wargames there will be nobody playing that subordinate, so it will be game procedures that act as an "AI" for those three decision points. In my design there are two die rolls for that series of decisions.

The first decision is the player's. He can decide to have a "Situational Awareness" roll for the subordinate to see if the subordinate sees the new situation… The roll will determine whether he continues on as before…contrary to the player's hope. OR the first die roll determines the subordinate does see a new situation.

The player then picks a column on the situational awareness chart [I may use a set of order cards] with the type of response he wants from the subordinate. There are ten different responses, some in line with the order, some sort of, and some not so much. The Subordinate's character can effect the outcome.

Because of the historical restrictions placed on what a brigade commander could do and when and the way game system and scale is designed, these situations don't happen that often… just enough to be interesting. And obviously they occur just before and just after combat the most.

Some years ago I played in a big convention game with four or five players on each side, and the referee made us switch commands every turn. We stayed on the same side, but in Turn 1 I commanded the cavalry reserve, in Turn 2 I commanded the II Corps, in Turn 3 I commanded some avant-garde division or something like that.

It sounds like it would have been a fun and very different challenge. It does strike me as kind of gamey.

This is the way I am thinking about it. A subordinate has a combat mission, an objective until something happens unexpectedly or threatens his command immediately. He has a choice: Continue after the objective or do something different--that is, come up with another, a seemingly more realistic objective, even if it is just survival.

That reminds me of Arty Conliffe's "Shako" and "Spearhead." Every unit started out with a written order and an objective, but then stuff happens, and you roll a die to try to change your orders. We played those games a lot in the 1990s, and my recollection is that there was always a moment when the arguments began and people just began improvising and doing whatever they wanted, because it was too contentious to attempt to enforce the original intent of the order in the new and unexpected context. The fundamental problem is that you're a player, you're not the army command or the division commander. You can't get out of your own head, no matter how many rules or written orders or dice rolls, or whatever try to impose restrictions on you. And the natural instinct of the player is to try to react to each change of circumstances and to win, with the perfect global understanding he has of the whole table.

In retrospect, I think we were all sort of silly for fretting about being "helicopter" generals and for trying to find ways to simulate that away. It was obvious that all our natural instincts and inclinations were to be helicopter generals, and that we might object to it in theory, or when not playing, but in the midst of the game, we all got in our helicopters and played that way and seemed to have no problems with it.

He can decide to have a "Situational Awareness" roll for the subordinate to see if the subordinate sees the new situation… The roll will determine whether he continues on as before…contrary to the player's hope. OR the first die roll determines the subordinate does see a new situation.

The player then picks a column on the situational awareness chart [I may use a set of order cards] with the type of response he wants from the subordinate. There are ten different responses, some in line with the order, some sort of, and some not so much. The Subordinate's character can effect the outcome.

That sounds a bit like "Empire" with the nested levels of orders. I think it's probably very, very hard to write enough rules to cover all the possibilities that will come up, and how a given unit would have to react to them. Those games in the 1990s that had all those layers of orders and situation-changing tables and whatnot, tended to spend 20-30 pages on command, and yet as soon as you started playing, situations came up that couldn't be covered in the rules, and we had to improvise.

Not to mention: once units get into action, they tend to stay that way, generating more and more unexpected situations. Using the commander's initial objective as the basis for the system would probably become moot for most units pretty quickly. For one thing, it would be very difficult to determine when the "special unexpected stuff" is over and you can go back to the original objective (you'd need rules saying things like: "If, at the start of the turn, no enemy X, Y, or Z type units are within 200mm of any unit…." which would just mean that the enemy would wait 201mm away, so that you'd be forced to get back into your columns and head off toward the objective again, and then he'd stomp you.) But for most units, they'd start off with an objective, get into action somewhere else, and stay that way, and so they'd always be reacting to a "new situation" for the rest of the game.

I suspect your "Roll on the Situational Awareness Table" will evolve into something like "Fire and Fury" where you might as well just roll for every unit every turn, anyway. It'll be the norm, not the exception.

These days I'm a "Less is More" kind of guy.

"It sounds like it would have been a fun and very different challenge. It does strike me as kind of gamey."

I've noticed lately that a few people have been using the words "gamey" or "gamism" a lot to criticize games they don't like, but I honestly don't know what those words are supposed to mean. Sure, it was a game, and sure, we did things that no historical commander did, like switching our commands every turn. But is that really any more artificial than rolling on a "Situational Awareness Chart" or having "Order Cards" or anything else? How are those things not "gamey" ?

I have no problem with a game being "gamey," any more than I have a problem with a banana being "bananaey."

Garth- just to give you an idea on what I and many acquaintances mean when we say "gamey"- it means playing against the letter of the rules instead of playing the scenario or the other players.
You gave an example of what gamey is, in your post-

"(and you can go back to the original objective (you'd need rules saying things like: "If, at the start of the turn, no enemy X, Y, or Z type units are within 200mm of any unit…." which would just mean that the enemy would wait 201mm away, so that you'd be forced to get back into your columns and head off toward the objective again, and then he'd stomp you.)"
Exactly that is what many people mean by "gamey"

You gave an example of what gamey is, in your post-… it means playing against the letter of the rules instead of playing the scenario or the other players.

Hm, that's not how McLaddie and others seem to be using it. He wasn't talking about players abusing a system. He was talking about the game mechanics, themselves, being "gamey."

I agree with your definition, by the way; that's how I'd interpret it also. But I don't think that any particular game mechanism is any "gamier" than any other. And I have no idea what some guys on TMP mean when the criticize a game for being "gamism" or "pure gamism." (I didn't even know that one could purify gamism in the first place; that sounds vaguely scientific.)

Hm, that's not how McLaddie and others seem to be using it. He wasn't talking about players abusing a system. He was talking about the game mechanics, themselves, being "gamey."

Garth:
Yep, you're right. What I meant by 'gamey' is this:
From what I understand, the purpose of the process you described, where players switch commands, was to portray the historical difficulty of controlling subordinates and their commands.

IF that was the purpose, it provides players with basically a different commander every turn rather than subordinates providing historical 'friction'. The game dynamic doesn't provide the same or close to the same military issues.

There are command issues game-wise, but if the purpose was to portray something of command similar to the historical command issues/dynamics, it doesn't do it.

To say it is 'gamey' means that is was simply a game mechanic that doesn't model what it was designed to portray. It is just an interesting game mechanic that fails to capture what it was supposed to… i.e. 'gamey.'

So many mechanics are purportedly designed specifically to 'capture' some historical dynamic with game mechanics.

In that respect all wargames, participatory simulations are 'gamey'…using game mechanics as the modeling medium.

What I meant by 'gamey' is that the mechanic is simply a game process having no overt relationship to what is is supposed to represent.

Others say something is 'gamey' when players use existing game mechanics in 'ahistorical' ways.

The first is a design issue, the second is a player issue in how they use [or misuse] the rules.

What I meant by 'gamey' is that the mechanic is simply a game process having no overt relationship to what is is supposed to represent.

The "overt" part, though, seems pretty subjective.

I don't see any overt relationship between rolling on a "Situational Awareness Chart" and what a commander did in history. I just see a game gimmick, which I don't value any more or any less than any other gimmick / mechanic / whatever.

If it makes you feel that you're more immersed in the history, then good for you. I don't begrudge anybody their game gimmicks. But neither would I evaluate them as superior or inferior to other gimmicks.

Now, if you told me that in your game, each player must operate on about 3 hours of fitful sleep, sit on horseback for hours in nasty weather, while squinting at a map that has been rained on several times, and trying to write orders for units that he can't see very well through thick smoke… then Yeah, Okay, I'd concede that you'd come up with a game mechanic that had an overt relationship to what it purported to simulate!

The "overt" part, though, seems pretty subjective.

Garth:
At this point it is because I have no idea were in the historical record the author of that mechanic you mention got his ideas--or how well it actually modeled what he read of the historical record.

So, I had to say 'overt'. So, what history that you've read would support that kind of game mechanic, or better yet, what the author saw, because he's the one who designed it.

I don't see any overt relationship between rolling on a "Situational Awareness Chart" and what a commander did in history. I just see a game gimmick, which I don't value any more or any less than any other gimmick / mechanic / whatever.

Of course you don't see it. No reason you should or can. I haven't provided what history that chart models, let alone the chart itself. And so, yeah, that all you see, the vague description of a game mechanic, which is all I provided after all. Why shouldn't it appear to be any more than another 'gimmick'?

If it makes you feel that you're more immersed in the history, then good for you. I don't begrudge anybody their game gimmicks. But neither would I evaluate them as superior or inferior to other gimmicks.

So, if you *feel* it is history, then it is? History is more than someone's feelings or it's representation some game gimmick that only makes you feel it is true. I don't begrudge anyone their gimmicks or how they enjoy wargaming. More power to them.

However, IF the wargame system is designed to model something specific from military history, then I think evaluating such connections between history and game mechanics is a natural response, starting with the designer himself. And what would be evaluated is whether they work to do what they were designed to do visa vie military history.

Now, if you told me that in your game, each player must operate on about 3 hours of fitful sleep, sit on horseback for hours in nasty weather, while squinting at a map that has been rained on several times, and trying to write orders for units that he can't see very well through thick smoke… then Yeah, Okay, I'd concede that you'd come up with a game mechanic that had an overt relationship to what it purported to simulate!

Uh-huh. First of all, that doesn't sound like much fun for an evening's gaming. Second, functional simulations don't have to do such things to work. For instance, Flight simulators could portray such things. The lack of sleep, hours dealing with nasty weather squinting at an instrument panel while flying through a storm can be part of the experience of flight. The participants probably wouldn't enjoy the necessary prep for that simulation. It would obviously be designed to provide very particular parts of reality. However, it isn't necessary to be an effective, functional simulation of flight.

flight simulators work very well without including such elements. Airlines and the military spend millions of dollars on flight simulators that never portray all that, but do the simulate well because that isn't the purpose of the simulators or the parts of reality that they are designed to portray.

So I don't begrudge your experience with the game process of switching players between commands. As I said, it sounded like a fun game challenge. Just not anything close to the historical command challenges that I can see. Which is why I said "It does strike me as kind of gamey."

Without any more information about the history it was supposedly modeling, all I have is an impression.

Of course you don't see it. No reason you should or can. I haven't provided what history that chart models, let alone the chart itself. And so, yeah, that all you see, the vague description of a game mechanic, which is all I provided after all. Why shouldn't it appear to be any more than another 'gimmick'?

You did, actually. You explained why you were doing it that way, and what you wanted it to model. That's fine if it works for you.

But looking at it objectively, it's just one of a million possible game gimmicks / mechanics / gadgets / whatever. It's one that you like and which – to your mind – simulates something. But that's totally subjective, and I don't see it as in any way more (or less) representative of this or that bit of history than any other way.

So, if you *feel* it is history, then it is?

No, that's not what I wrote. I wrote that "if you feel that you're more immersed in the history, then good for you."

The history is gone and it's not coming back. You're not "in the history." You're just making up some fictional game gimmick in order to make-believe history in some way that satisfies you.

However, IF the wargame system is designed to model something specific from military history, then I think evaluating such connections between history and game mechanics is a natural response

Sure, if you want it to be. But the evaluation is totally subjective. For you, rolling on a chart "models" something in history. For me or somebody else, it might not. Just because you tell me that your gimmick is meant to model something or other, doesn't mean I'll accept it as doing so, or even care one way or the other.

You did, actually. You explained why you were doing it that way, and what you wanted it to model. That's fine if it works for you.

Garth:
No I didn't. I gave you a very general statement, not even mentioning the time period. I didn't even provide an historical example as a template.

But looking at it objectively, it's just one of a million possible game gimmicks / mechanics / gadgets / whatever. It's one that you like and which – to your mind – simulates something. But that's totally subjective, and I don't see it as in any way more (or less) representative of this or that bit of history than any other way.

Let's be objective, then: If I made a model that looked like a WWI Renault FT and told you that it was a WWII T-34, would you say that is totally subjective and don't see it as any more representative as another model?

Objectively, if you had seen historical sources/pictures of a T-34, you would say that the model failed to represent a T-34. Not that there are a million possible ways it could look. You could there are a million possible mediums in which to model a T-34.

So, if a game mechanic is supposed to model "X", that historical "X" should be identified if you are going to be able to 'objectively' determine whether the game mechanic succeeded. It isn't a subjective determination. It's a comparison from the chosen history of command [or tank] and the model made to represent it.

I do agree that a simulation works for a participant in their mind, but that is not automatically 'subjective', let alone wholly subjective.

The history is gone and it's not coming back. You're not "in the history." You're just making up some fictional game gimmick in order to make-believe history in some way that satisfies you.

In other words, if the fiction feels like history….
History isn't gone. I'm looking at it right now. I have a book written by a Prussian officer about the battle of Jena. That is history. If you are going to simulate history, recreate it, represent it, those sources are what you are using. YOu are attempting to create some of the dynamics and environment described by the contemporaries.

That isn't make-believe history. It isn't a 'totally subjective evaluation,' any more than judging the accuracy of tank model is subjective.

For you, rolling on a chart "models" something in history. For me or somebody else, it might not. Just because you tell me that your gimmick is meant to model something or other, doesn't mean I'll accept it as doing so, or even care one way or the other.

Of course, because I simply tell you about a game mechanic doesn't mean you have to either like it or accept it as modeling history. Whether you like the game or mechanic is totally subjective, no wrong or right choice. Whether the game actually models some part of military history is up to me to substantiate. What is being simulated and how. That can actually be tested in a number of ways.

When I have the game system completed, I'll be glad to get you a copy. It will include that substantiation and how it was tested for those who are interested. A simulation doesn't work well unless players know what they are--and aren't--simulating. Some won't care beyond whether it is fun to play and predictably, at least some won't 'like' it regardless. I certainly won't begrudge them those choices.

Let's be objective, then: If I made a model that looked like a WWI Renault FT and told you that it was a WWII T-34, would you say that is totally subjective and don't see it as any more representative as another model?

A single scale model of a real, verifiable physical object is one thing.

A "model" of a chaotic and fluid process involving thousands of people, most of whom never left any reliable record of it, and which occurred two centuries ago in an almost infinite variety of ways on battlefields spread across 1000s of kilometers over the course of 20+ years, involving dozens of different nationalities, is something totally different.

In the former case, yes, we could agree on an objective, "overt" resemblance. After all, we can go and put our hands on surviving physical examples and measure them with tape measures and verify every detail.

In the latter case, no way. You're creating something that never existed in history (a chart or table to be used with dice) and saying that it "overtly" represents or models some process that nobody alive today could possibly ever verify or confirm. In that case, you're being totally subjective and just making something fictional that suits your tastes and impressions.

Somebody else could come up with a "model" of the battle that involved pogo sticks and laser pointers, and if that works for him, fine. I wouldn't consider his model any better or any worse than yours.

A single scale model of a real, verifiable physical object is one thing.

A "model" of a chaotic and fluid process involving thousands of people, most of whom never left any reliable record of it, and which occurred two centuries ago in an almost infinite variety of ways on battlefields spread across 1000s of kilometers over the course of 20+ years, involving dozens of different nationalities, is something totally different.

Those issues you relate are certainly real, but simulation designers have been dealing with them for a long, long time.

The verification process is the same: comparison between what is to be modeled and the results. Do you think that there is just one source of what a T-34 looks like? How much detail, which model etc. What is being verified, physical or dynamic is simply one of degree, nothing more.

In the latter case, no way. You're creating something that never existed in history (a chart or table to be used with dice) and saying that it "overtly" represents or models some process that nobody alive today could possibly ever verify or confirm.

Again, do you think that those are unique, unsolvable problems for simulation designers? And yes, as far as the historical sources chosen to model, the model can be verified to that extent. Of course charts don't exist in history. Neither did 3" plastic T-34s. So?

In that case, you're being totally subjective and just making something fictional that suits your tastes and impressions.

Well, most all simulation designers would disagree with you, as well as most wargame designers… from what I can tell. Obviously, I do. It is far from 'completely subjective' if you are modeling the Battle of Waterloo or a volley from a battalion. Those aren't subjective topics and have a great deal of data behind them to use. Such things are verified the same way as that T-34--by comparison to the sources.

A friend of mine created a computer simulation of galaxies colliding, trying to figure out what happens when they do. Now, these things are thousands of light years away, made up of billions of stars and many more planets. He had:

1. A 12" screen which could display no more than a thousand star objects.
2. A bunch of silicon chips and electrical circuits.
3. A software program that was incapable of dealing with billions of stars, their gravity, let alone how they act in mass. He had to reduce that down to 1,000 objects.

Talk about unreal, something that is a fluid, chaotic process involving billions of objects.

So, why would he even think that his little screen and completely artificial system could simulate something so massive AND distant? There isn't any math that can translate that with any accuracy considering the conflicting information, theories and his available equipment. What he came up with was in a number of ways subjective in creation…based on hunches and art.

So, how did he know the simulation worked? That it actually told him something of the dynamics of colliding galaxies?

First, he had pictures of colliding galaxies to use as models. Second, when he created new angles of intercept and duration not considered before the computer system was constructed, he found new examples in the heavens that looked just like his simulation results and processes. He continued to test his result with observable events to verify his simulation.

That's what simulation designers do to verify many, many models with no more information than he had… or available with our current historical sources.

It isn't a perfect set of methodologies, but it is far from "totally subjective and just making something up that suits your tastes and impressions."

As I said, When I'm finished, I'll be glad to show you how that works. Not because it will be the perfect simulation or game, but that it will be a 'functional simulation', it does what it was designed to do, verifiable by you or anyone else.

I'd go with assigning objectives. How they get there is up to the commander of the maneuver group (Rgt, Bn, Co, etc).

As I see it orders would be things like movement to contact, hasty defense (can be converted to prepared defense in later turns), hasty or prepared attack, exploit, reserves, etc.

[Wolfhag]

I'm thinking this. So a game where units are Battalions – that makes the commands Brigades, and you Divisional Commander.

The Brigade gets a simple order – "Capture Hill 'a'", "Take and defend the village". "Hold."

The brigade must attempt to achieve that objective (say something like Spearhead's units must move at least half the slowest unit speed)

How the Brigadier/Player arranges his battalions within that order is up to him.

In a recent ACW game my plan of attach was 1 Bde was to assault the enemy right, my left. 2 Bde was to follow and support, and exploit. Literally all I wanted the Brigadier of 2 to follow 1.

First turn – they both move.

Next 5 turns 2 Bde doesn't move, as I failed the command roll each time. There was no reason for him not to move – the brigade wasn't threatened, there were no tactical considerations. I can't help but think this is wrong.

Now, for this particular fictional 'Battle-campaign' I theme name generals, and so we can all have a laugh about how it was Cruz who left Trump out to dry. HOWEVER while you may wish to to say they obviously don't get on, so Cruz took revenge, that doesn't excuse the fact that it was completely random that he didn't follow orders. You can say "Well Cruz would be replaced" but that doesn't do anything other than change a name on a piece of paper, these are not real people. In another game Cruz and Trump may be the very model of professional co-operation.

"Well, most all simulation designers would disagree with you, as well as most wargame designers… from what I can tell."

From what I can tell from the designers notes most wargamers today choose a little bit of this or that that they want represented in the game, and then approximate the rest, and that seems fine with most people. It certainly is superior to the 1980s style, in which they created lots of complex charts with modifiers and then boasted about how they were "simulating" and how any game that didn't have lots of complex charts and modifiers was merely a "game," or to use your version, "gamey."

Again, do you think that those are unique, unsolvable problems for simulation designers?

I have no idea whether they're unique to simulation designers, but I will share a story from my friend Bruce, who flew big planes for Air Canada for years until he retired last year.

Every time they introduced or changed something or altered a procedure, he had to log a certain number of hours in the simulator to get re-certified. He said that the simulator for the Boeing 777 is amazing; it perfectly reproduces all the sounds, vibrations, and behaviors of the plane. If you "fly" it in night mode, you can really forget that it's not real. The simulator perfectly reproduces the performance of the machine, as long as the pilot and copilot do everything they're supposed to, and nothing goes wrong and there's no unexpected human input. Yes, there are all sorts of programmed "emergencies" in the simulator, but they feel and behave very different from real emergencies.

As soon as you load a real crew and passengers and cargo onto a real plane, and fly it in real weather, interacting with real ground control people, then you've added thousands of variables, and the simulator can never come even close to reproducing that experience. He said that the biggest wild card was simply traffic, especially over a busy airport like Sao Paulo. You're moving very fast, with dozens of other "flying variables" (my words, not his), and even with such a scripted and regulated set of procedures such as those under which commercial airliners fly, nonetheless you can expect the unexpected, and it's rarely good. Even in a perfectly normal, boring flight there's still the variable of the crew working together as a good team. If you and your copilot have a lot of experience together, you (and thus the plane) will behave differently in a crisis than if you've never met before this flight.

It's one thing to create a model of a single machine. It's another to create a model of human interactions, especially when they're potentially in conflict. According to Bruce, nobody has ever, nor probably could ever, create a simulator for air traffic or airplane behaviors that accounted for those human variables, and those are the most important variables.

And if you don't believe Bruce, then I refer to Wellington and his famous analogy of a battle and a dance ball that nobody can ever see the whole of, nor understand more than a fraction of. And those are the real-life participants, not some amateurs 200+ years later trying to make a model using little toys and dice and charts.

We've strayed pretty far from the OP, so this will be my last word on the matter. I just want to see game designers show a bit more humility and less judgment about how their game is supposedly some accurate simulation, and that other guy's game is just "gamey."

From what I can tell from the designers notes most wargamers today choose a little bit of this or that that they want represented in the game, and then approximate the rest, and that seems fine with most people. It certainly is superior to the 1980s style, in which they created lots of complex charts with modifiers and then boasted about how they were "simulating" and how any game that didn't have lots of complex charts and modifiers was merely a "game," or to use your version, "gamey."

Garth:
I agree. Most didn't know how the simulations worked. I know of at least three popular designers who added or the publisher added the word 'simulation' to the game description when that was never the designer's intent…because i sold games. Unfortunately, this has led wargamers to conclude that any effort to simulate is complexity and 'gamey' and ultimately impossible and not fun. So, the game becomes the sole focus, and yet the claims and discussions such as this continue.

Every time they introduced or changed something or altered a procedure, he had to log a certain number of hours in the simulator to get re-certified. He said that the simulator for the Boeing 777 is amazing; it perfectly reproduces all the sounds, vibrations, and behaviors of the plane. If you "fly" it in night mode, you can really forget that it's not real. The simulator perfectly reproduces the performance of the machine, as long as the pilot and copilot do everything they're supposed to, and nothing goes wrong and there's no unexpected human input. Yes, there are all sorts of programmed "emergencies" in the simulator, but they feel and behave very different from real emergencies.

As soon as you load a real crew and passengers and cargo onto a real plane, and fly it in real weather, interacting with real ground control people, then you've added thousands of variables, and the simulator can never come even close to reproducing that experience.

Of course you have. The point of a simulation is that you can experience SOME of the conditions and skills of flying a 777 without risking crew and passengers. In very specific and real ways, the simulation prepares the pilots to fly a 777 in different conditions… but certainly not ALL or even most emergency situations.

I enjoy playing computer flight simulators. I am working on getting my sail plane certificates. The first time I was given the stick, my instructor thought I'd flown before because of my skills--all learned on a flight simulator. They were for powered craft. I will be the first to say that the full experience of flying a sail plane is far different than sitting at a computer screen.

Yet, the simulators did what they were designed to do: Provide a flight environment real enough that skills from the simulator related to the real world experience.

It's one thing to create a model of a single machine. It's another to create a model of human interactions, especially when they're potentially in conflict.

Of course it is. One thing that simulators have shown is that the larger the group of people, the MORE predictable their behaviors. This is true of freeway traffic, panicked crowds in a sports arena or combat units.

Perfect, no, but certainly far closer to reality than some fantasy. It isn't pure fiction, not at all. Here is an example from my research for my design.

Another popular wargame designer insisted on TMP that simulations are impossible and wargames are pure fantasy.
He gave the example of "What chance is there that a Prussian battalion volleys will drive off a French battalion? No one knows. Know one CAN know."

I have forty historical examples of Prussians volleying against French forces, battalions and brigades. [Large number of humans behaving in a combat situation] That is a statistically significant number. How many times out of forty? Zero. In every case, something else had to happen such as a charge, flanking movements etc. for the French to be driven off.

So, statistically, historically, the odds of the Prussians driving off the French with volleys alone is close to zero. [There is a margin of error of 5%, so say 95%]

Is that perfect, TOTALLY realistic? No. Is it closer to the historical reality faced by the combatants than some wild-assed guess or "game fiction." Absolutely.

We've strayed pretty far from the OP, so this will be my last word on the matter.

Not really. The question was why have written orders. The argument/issue was one of 'realism.'

I just want to see game designers show a bit more humility and less judgment about how their game is supposedly some accurate simulation, and that other guy's game is just "gamey."

I agree. I think that humility should start with 1. knowing what a simulation is and how they work, and 2. how one establishes 'accuracy' with a simulation.
The hubris--or lack of humility--is claiming that they have achieved 'accuracy' without ever explaining how they accomplished that or worse, claiming that wargames can never be simulations without understanding how simulations work and don't work.

wargames obviously don't need to be simulations. They can be pure fiction. I play those all the time. Many designers state as much. Terrific. I have fun.

However, the minute a designer starts talking about 'recreating' history in any meaningful way, you have strayed into simulation territory, big time. Then the question becomes "how do you do that?"

I appreciate the time you took to discuss this. Thanks, Garth.