"Wargames: Not a Test of Skill" Topic

Major B once wrote:

There is NO set of rules… that is a "good ruleset for tournament play" because there is no ruleset that can guarantee that both players have an equal chance of winning given the same "skill" (if there is such a thing) or ability (likewise). Wargames by their very nature are driven by random factors.

Do you agree that miniature wargames involve too many random factors to reflect the skill levels of the players?

Actually, there is one I can think of, that isn't random at all.

Chess!

Depends on the wargame. Chess is a wargame with extremely low random factors (one).

Others use dice, but generally the more dice you roll, the flatter a curve you get*.

So yeah, some games are subject to luck more than others, but that doesn't necessarily negate skill.

Poker, on the other hand, is entirely luck-driven, but people still play tournaments there.

* I am the exception, having failed 17 consecutive 4+ d6 rolls once. Dangit.

On the link, MajorB admits that he has never played in a wargames tournament. In fact, he appears to be hostile to the idea of tournaments.
I think that both make his opinions regarding which set of rules is suitable for tournament play largely irrelevant.

Years ago I used to play in several WRG Ancients tournaments a year. I had some minor successes, due to my careful choice of army and list. I would maximize my advantages, attempt feebly to minimize my disadvantages. I knew which terrain types were most suitable for my troop types.
I knew what I was doing, but I was not a skilled enough player to win tournaments.
Guess what. The most skilled players always won. I came in somewhere in the below 0.50 range.

Stating that there are so many random factors that you cannot have a good tournament is specious.
Tom Brady can always have his knee blown out. Gronk can get the flu. The wind can hold up the ball to be intercepted. But the Patriots will usually win.

But the Patriots will usually win.

By extension, cheating at a wargames tournament is ok, too.

I keeed, I keeed!

A decent army run by a skilled player will almost always beat a mediocre army or an unskilled player.
That should be pretty obvious.

To the DH with you! How dare you insinuate!

Many years ago in a medieval tournament, a young man playing against me rolled nothing but six's. I beat him by a small margin with tactics.

A test of skill has nothing to do with a balanced contest. Only symetrical games can produce the "test of skill" major B is looking to measure. Though not impossible in a wargame to set up nobody would probably want to. I do agee however with his premise.

It is funny but when I describe wargaming to people who don't, I describe it as playing chess on a really big table because you have to try and think 2 more 3 moves ahead of your opponent. I think it is both skill and luck…..I tend to be more lucky than skillful.

Life rarely offers opponents equal and balanced chances of winning

Luck, skill, opportunities seized and lost and multitudes of other factors come into play

In a wargame I prefer solid objectives to a balanced contest

I disagree with the statement that wargames are driven by random factors. They have random factors in them, and the random factors can influence the play of the game. But the random factors do not drive the outcome, player decisions do. That's what distinguishes a game from a pastime.

Honestly, I don't buy into the 'balanced scenario' requirement for a good tournament game, either. Play all sides of a game and total points across games. That approach is a real nice way to have three-(or more-)sided games in a tourney. It also provides a more robust system for handling pretty much any number of players in the tournament (with a little pre-planning).

just because he is biased against tournaments doesnt mean he is wrong.

But he is, regardless of his bias. 8)=

Poker is not luck driven. Why fantasy football is considered a game of skill and gambling is allowed and poker is considered a game of luck and gambling banned is a mystery to me. It is exactly the opposite.

When DBM was in its pomp I umpired tournaments and could seed the top 10 or 12 players (in a 20-40 player field) with about 75% accuracy.

(ie the player I seeded top would finish top, second seed next etc to about 75 %, I ran 6-round comps with a Swiss draw.)

After a few years of play you knew who were the best and reliable players.

Luck plays a role in any dice game, but the better players could ride out the downswings and ride the upswings to victory.

David F Brown

Mitigating the effects of luck is probably the key skill in wargaming. You have to expect you will have bad runs of dice/cards and finding a way to get around that gives one of the great quiet satisfactions to be had in the hobby, IMHO.

I used to play Commands & Colors: Ancients tournaments on VASSAL and they were a real test of skill and character for this very reason.

Cheers,
Aaron

In general – no. Luck is rarely the deciding factor in a game between opponents of different skill levels. That said the first (and only) two times I played "Up Front" I won both games against a skilled player simply due to excellent cards.

Chess isn't always the most skilled player. I used to be a regular tournament player and the match-up of player styles often contributed to the outcome. We had on situation for example where I always beat Chuck, Chuck always beat Brad, and Brad always beat me.

Other times I had a phenomenal record against this one master rated player, but struggled against a much lower rated player every time. Not sure how that fits in with your OP, but the one time I won my state championship my tournament pairings couldn't have been better than if I picked my opponent myself.

Not at all true.
I've won many WRG Ancients Tournaments and hundreds of "even points" battles. It seems that those that lose, some quite badly, tend to say how the games aren't fair and complain about points. I'd go so far to say, 90% of them never play the game much anyway and when they lose they can't imagine that it has anything to do with the skill of the opponent. I include knowing how to build a good army a skill as well.

Of course, just my opinion.

Winston, I don't think that was an insinuation…

Maybe not a proven fact… JK! JK!

I may not be a Patriot fan but I freely admit they play a powerful game of football. Skill is a factor in sports and war games.

No, I don't agree with him. Often times the skill is dealing with bad luck and maximizing the benefit of good luck. As long as there are decisions to be made, skill plays a role.

Exactly my point, Ed.
Those who play the most tend to win the most.
Those like me who played three times per year could reliably fill the middle ranks.
Newbies tended to make up the bottom tier and got clubbed like baby seals. I hope they had a good time.

That pretty much points to skill. Random factors may separate standings within those tiers, but it won't jump someone from the bottom to the top.

Some may point to this as why tournaments are "bad". I don't do them any more simply because I don't have the time to do it right.
It cracks me up when those who can't be bothered to play with toy soldiers this way want others to play with toy soldiers their way.
That's what it all boils down to: "Your way bad. My way good.

There's definitely skill…

Reading the terrain appropriately for the use of your forces

Keeping reserves or plan for other contingencies

Etc.

The fact is tactics is a skill although many blame the rules when they use poor tactics.

Only bad players think that wargames are all luck…

I've organised a number of WRG tournaments in the dim and distant past. Of course luck plays a part, it's mostly skill. A 'competition' player chooses an army to win that tournament, chooses the composition of that army to beat the opponent he faces next (if allowed), chooses the tactics to win… none of that is luck. From then on, luck/odds plays a part, but the best players stack those odds in their own favour.

Just like a real general tries to do, though a real general usually doesn't choose his army.

Interesting comments.

I am prepared to concede that there is some skill in playing wargames as people have suggested above. However, most of you have completely missed the point:

there is no ruleset that can guarantee that both players have an equal chance of winning given the same "skill" (if there is such a thing) or ability (likewise). Wargames by their very nature are driven by random factors.

Notice the words "given the same "skill"". In other words, if we have two players of equal skill then the random factors become the only differentiator and the game devolves to one of chance. Two players at the same skill level playing each other should have a 50% chance of winning. Given the random factors in most wargames that is impossible.

Random factors and luck-dependency are not the same thing.

A game might have random factors, but be very low dependent on luck in the outcome of these random factors to decide who wins.

Otoh, games without random factors might be luck-dependent.

It, of course, depends on your definition of luck ;-)

I'm both unlucky and unskilled, and almost always lose. But if I was lucky, I think I would still almost always lose

The real question of course is whether a wargame should be a test of skill.

if we have two players of equal skill then

Sorry, I skipped the bit where I also rejected the idea that there is any such thing as "equal skill".

Also the bit where I reject the idea that skill is a determinate quantitative thing where people can to have an equal one.

And the bit where skill is an absolute thing so that for a wargame, other factors like familiarity with the rules, scenario, opposing players' tactics and strategy, confidence, environmental conditions, how well fed, hydrated, and medicated you are at the moment, as well as others affect what skill means for a particular game.

Oh, and the bit where skill is supposed to be the sole or even primary arbiter of the outcome for a tournament. It is certainly not necessarily the arbiter of the outcome of combat. Nor is it the driving arbiter of the outcome of other types of tournament.

No do I even know what "equal chances" to win means. Playing all sides of a scenario equal times and totaling victory conditions across them gives equal opportunity to play the games.

You have hit upon it, sir! Well done.

60% skill, 40% chaos ?

Thing is "skill" in any game with random factors comes down to managing risk and mitigating bad luck, as much as it does anything.

If your plan can't survive bad dice, then maybe it wasn't such a great plan?

Playing the odds correctly will usually pay off in the long run, but not always in the short run. Your critical attack may have a 75% chance ti win – you should take it. But sometimes you will lose.

But then again, many times a random event or luck changes a battle. Why shouldn't it in a wargame?

"Do you agree that miniature wargames involve too many random factors to reflect the skill levels of the players?"

No. One of the critical skills in wargaming is managing the risk of random factors.

That's also a skill in fighting real wars, not to mention in many other things that people do, like business, agriculture, and travel.

Methods of risk management in wargames include, at least, keeping forces in reserve and having some familiarity with the rules.

According to a certain German due, war itself is driven largely by random factors. If your wargame has friction its doing a good job catching some of the elements of war.

@etotheipi
Thank you for making such cogent points.

Sorry, I skipped the bit where I also rejected the idea that there is any such thing as "equal skill"

Exactly so. So if you can't measure skill to determine when two players are equally skillful, then the whole tournament structure devolves into determinations based on chance. A winner might be more skillful than his opponent, but you have no way of knowing.

Nor do I even know what "equal chances" to win means.

Neither do I. Again, exactly my point.

Playing all sides of a scenario equal times and totaling victory conditions across them gives equal opportunity to play the games.

What tournaments have that structure?

"given the same "skill

Ok, kinda' missed that point. But I believe your question is purely philosophical and, you're correct, it's impossible to achieve for three major reasons.

First, no two players will come to the table with the exact same skills. Given the number of skills required to play a wargame, tactical, rules knowledge, etc, the odds are extremely slim they will be the same.

Second, the interplay of your skills will interact with a number of variables and your opponent's skills to drive any given game in a variety of ways.

Third, even in wargaming you have friction, in the Clausewitzisn sense. This friction is driven by everything from dice rolls (luck) to the attitude of the player (did he get enough sleep the night before, and how many interruptions occur during the game to distract him.)

In that sense, I have to agree with you, that no set of rules can purely provide a "total" test of skills in tournament play. Even chess can be affected by the biological and emotional issues of the players at the time of the game, which is why, in chess tournaments, they work so very hard to eliminate distractions.

Playing all sides of a scenario equal times and totaling victory conditions across them gives equal opportunity to play the games.

What tournaments have that structure?

None that I know of. Nor that I have ever played in.
And why should they?
If you consider a wargames tournament similar to a NFL playoff, you will play 4 games. None of the teams are equal. The teams with superior personnel will win and advance. Some will have superior quarterbacks, and will probably advance to the Super Bowl.
A wargaming tournament will feature superior armies and superior players. No matter what rules or army lists are used. It is never intended to be a situation where every army has an equal chance of winning. I would live to see a set of rules with associated army lists where Sumerians could have an equal chance of beating a Macedonian army.

Back in my WRG 6th Ed tournament days, I asked Johnson Hood, the perennial tournament sponsor and US agent for Essex figures, if Essex would produce some Carthaginians. He was genuinely puzzled by my request. "Why would you want to have that army?" he asked. It never occurred to him since Carthaginians sucked in 6th Ed. Somehow they do better in other rules. And Essex made Carthaginians about a year later.
I soldiered on with my Punes, regardless. They were … adequate. If I were a more skilled player, I would have gone with Early Asiatic Successor or Hohenstaufen Sicilian lists and improved my chances of winning. Probably not, since I didn't play that often. Skill in choosing an army and list is very important.
I realized quite early that in WRG games, Vikings could fight Samurai, and was ok with that. I also knew that my beloved Gauls were a poor army. And I didn't care. But they looked good. They even beat a power player once. Once. I rolled well and he did not. That was one game. Most of the time they lost.
And in one memorable game, my Mauryan Indians beat another player's Mauryan Indians because I knew my army's preferred terrain better and knew better than to waste points on Reg A Maiden Guard, who could not fight.
Skill and luck matter. Skill matters more.

Playing all sides of a scenario equal times and totaling victory conditions across them gives equal opportunity to play the games.

I played in a Tactica tournament like that way too many years ago up in WA state. 8 armies, 4 scenarios, and each guy played each army once and each scenario twice, from both sides.

The tournament ended with the more skillful and experienced players on the top and less skilled on the bottom. Who could have seen that coming?

I'll take average skill and exceptional luck any day.

We developed a system based on tactical choices by the player. The play testing has provided numerous competitive results. No dice is used.

Major B wrote:
Exactly so. So if you can't measure skill to determine when two players are equally skillful, then the whole tournament structure devolves into determinations based on chance. A winner might be more skillful than his opponent, but you have no way of knowing.
--------------------
If the same players keep winning in multiple tournaments, then clearly they are the most skilful.
One tournament might see a lucky winner.
But if someone keeps winning, then it's not luck, it is skill.
That's the point; if there is luck involved, you have to look at results over many games to extract the skill.

That's one of the reasons I don't do tournaments. In any case, I rather be lucky than good.

So if you can't measure skill to determine when two players are equally skillful, then the whole tournament structure devolves into determinations based on chance. A winner might be more skillful than his opponent, but you have no way of knowing.

The fact that you can't quantify skill the way you propose does not necessarily mean that it doesn't significantly influence the outcome. I can't measure the rate at which sugar is being metabolized in my body right now, so that doesn't affect how fat I'm getting.

Nor does it mean that something else that you pick necessarily becomes the dominant factor. You created an artificial construct where either skill or luck must be the dominant factor in outcomes and out of hand accept the law of the excluded middle.

Nor do I even know what "equal chances" to win means.

Neither do I. Again, exactly my point.

You were the one who proposed it as a part of the structure. If you don't even accept parts of your own argument, how can we take your argument seriously?

What tournaments have that structure?

Lots of them that I have played and run. But that's irrelevant because your argument was not that current tournaments don't encapsulate the right things to be a test of skill, your argument was that it isn't possible with wargames.