"Zones of Control - Perspectives on Wargaming" Topic

Why I lay awake after reading the new book "Zones of Control – Perspectives on Wargaming":

Blogpost: link

Interesting, thanks.

Good post Phil.

Ten years ago I would have read your post, studied it, followed up the references and perhaps laid awake at night just like yourself.

More recently, following retirement, a number of annoying illnesses, the loss of a few great friends and now the birth of my grandson I take a much simpler view of the hobby.

I like to paint up my armies, play a few games, speak to my many hobby friends and leave the heavy thinking to others. At my age life becomes too short and I'm quite happy to enjoy the simpler things in life.

I value your thoughts and opinions on the deeper side of the hobby and I hope that you can think it all through and arrive at your own comfort level whatever that may be.

It is my understanding that the US government/military wargames everything. I would consider that professional. But they are trying to ascertain things like logistics, weapons platform effectiveness and tactics on a corps or army level. Then the results are carefully analyzed and documents are disseminated. Many of these folks are government contractors who do it for a living. So, there is a different purpose, and they seek a different outcome. Most will say they enjoy it, but fun is not the objective, as it is with the casual hobbyists.

and arrive at your own comfort level whatever that may be.

Jim,

Don't worry about that :-)
Although I love talking and thinking about wargaming, I am already old enough to know there are other things in life more valuable. Sharing some beers with friends is one of them :-)

I'm with you Jim Duncan, retirement throws a whole new perspective on things.

My father served in the US Army for 20 years and has always been interested in my hobby. Like the article, he sees it as something completely different than the "wargaming" he did.

For example, many of his were logistics oriented. "Combat" was resolved by Umpire, chart or, in one case, card draw. But it was very, very abstract. Naturally, because it was a logistics game.

I am of the very firm belief that nothing we do as "wargamers" would translate to the real world. Much like being a model railroader does not make you qualified to run a railroad.

Phil,
I read your blog article. Good feedback.

In 1973 I was a very low level (PFC) participant in a war gaming exercise at the Marine Corps Development and Education Command at Quantico, VA. The exercise was logistical planning for a coordinated assault with the 1st and 3rd Marine Divisions to invade North Vietnam.

It mostly involved being an aide to a Major (who later became CENTCOM Commander) and a Lt Col observing and waiting to be given a message to take to another department in the building. Most of the messages I was given related to recon/intel sighting and updates (I recall one being a sighting of PT-76's crossing a river at a certain map coordinate) and logistics coordination. Remember, for every combat MOS there are 10-12 non-combat spots so logistics is by far the larger part of the picture.

It was decades later that I really understood that the exercise was a drill or planning replay and not a game. It was not really a dress rehearsal for the real thing. By performing the administrative and command functions needed to coordinate various civilian and military assets to arrive at a specific location at a specific point in time they were able to see the problems and streamline what they would need to do when the real thing came along. It was mostly academic.

One day I was running a message to the "command center" which wa a conference room with dozens of field phones and wires hanging from the ceiling (no phone intercoms or computers back then). There were a few dozen officers from Major to General standing in the door way and a Sergeant unsuccessfully fiddling around to get the locked conference door open. Evidently someone had misplaced the keys. I worked my way to the front and asked to have a shot at getting the door open. I whipped out my high school ID card and popped the door lock open in about 10 seconds. A Colonel gave me a wry look and said, "They didn't teach you that in Boot Camp did they Marine".

For the finale they had the basketball court set up looking like a giant miniatures game for the D-Day invasion with the spectators in the bleachers. They had different colored tape designating amphim assembly and landing areas. Different colored wooden ships about 6 inches long and landing craft dotted the court. I was not able to stay for the entire exercise but it looked pretty boring to a 19 year old who had been playing Panzer Blitz for 2 years. I did not see any dice or playing cards.

Logistics is so important that the Marines have kept officers from the Vietnam and First Gulf War War on reserve standby and will call them up when a major deployment and logistical buildup is needed. They've been through it all before and know what needs to be done and steer the new guys in the right direction and not make mistakes that have been made in the past. A small logistical administrative mistake or SNAFU can set back the execution date by days or weeks. No matter how good the ground units are they are worthless without the right logistical support sustaining their activities.

I know I'm probably offending some players and game designers but I look at our war games as a form of entertainment and not much more "professional" or realistic than a Hollywood WWII movie. Both have their "special effects". There is a group of us that put on games at conventions and we do look at it as a "production" with a scripted outcome. Why? Because people pay money to attend and want to be entertained and have a good time. Reality sucks and is not much fun. Who wants to play a game where your units takes 70% casualties in one turn from a well executed ambush or be the victim of an American "Time on Target" barrage that kills everything on half of the table? It's all about the eye candy, scenario balance, surprises and attrition. Most players want to be entertained, not educated. Players seem to be pretty blood thirsty desiring about 60%-80% of enemy units destroyed to feel victorious. We try to aim to please. My experience at conventions is people come to play with the prettiest toys and the rules you are using are generally secondary.

Wolfhag

So, if there is indeed a strong connection between professional and hobby wargaming, and if we have professional wargame designers who clearly know their stuff, then what the hell on earth are hobby miniature wargame designers thinking they're doing? Shouldn't we leave the game design to the professionals? Or should we as gaming enthusiasts all start reading the academic articles and use whatever insights the professionals have developed? Are those insights even transferable to hobby games to begin with?

Phil:
The 'professionals' are using game mechanics to represent *something* and so are hobby designers. Why shouldn't there be a connection and shared methods???? MOST of those writers have designed any number of successful games for the hobby--both board and tabletop games.

As Ben Lacy says, "there is a different purpose." The connection is in WHAT and HOW things are done, not WHY. If a professional military game designer can step away and design a successful hobby game, there has to be connections that go beyond entertainment vs training.

Yes, there are many genres of wargaming – all called wargaming :-) But in the end, I do not see much similarities between wargaming as used by professionals and recreational wargaming as played by hobbyists. Sure, there might be the occasional game or gaming engine that can serve both audiences, but I think those are the exception rather than the rule.

You question the similarities in the tools [games] because they are used for different things. You sound like the Radio Control Plane enthusiast who argues that he doesn't have to know anything about aerodynamics or how planes fly because he isn't a professional engineer or aircraft designer.

Being retired or simply in the hobby for the fun doesn't change how game mechanics work or games play or what they can represent. It just means you come to the table for different reasons.

You don't have to become an academic to design functional wargames, just like you don't have to be a professional aero-space engineer to build and fly Radio Controlled planes. Even so, to have fun at it, knowing how game mechanics work to represent war or something about aerodynamics for model planes adds greatly to the entertainment.

Nor should there be any surprise when there is crossover between the hobby and professional designs, in either wargames or radio controlled models.

Wargaming has many uses. We do it for fun, others do it to try out military tactics.

Of course you need to get your parameters right, otherwise its just 'garbage in, garbage out'.

Thanks Phil, interesting and largely in accordance with my understanding of the differences between serious gaming and gaming for fun.

I have a book by Andrew Wilson called War Gaming. It was written in the pre-widespread use of computer days and it describes the history of 'professional war gaming' and also observations of 'games' carried out by the Ministry of Defence (in the 70s, from memory) and the like. Due to their 'manual' nature these games are recognisable to the hobby gamer but their complexity makes them nothing like the fun games we play. Of course this is largely because the aims of each are quite different. It's an interesting book that puts hobby gaming firmly in its place. I'll look out for Zones of Control in second hand book shops – it's a bit pricey for a casual one off read.

I am of the very firm belief that nothing we do as "wargamers" would translate to the real world. Much like being a model railroader does not make you qualified to run a railroad.

Yep!

I am of the very firm belief that nothing we do as "wargamers" would translate to the real world. Much like being a model railroader does not make you qualified to run a railroad.

This all or nothing view--nothing translates to the real world and if it did, it would have to qualify you to run a railroad-- doesn't help understanding either games or simulation design.

No one playing a flight simulator game [or a military flight simulator] would assume that playing well would 'qualify' them to fly a real plane or a combat aircraft. BUT a great many of the methods and skills DO translate to real life. I can attest to that and certainly that works for airlines and the military.

The question is what parts of a simulation or wargame is designed to replicate some part of reality. The whole point of a wargame or simulation is that all of reality doesn't have to be encountered.

IF nothing of a wargame translates to the real world, that is by design, not some inherent limitation to how entertaining wargames can and do work.

There is a some crap in those Zone of Control articles and certainly somethings that don't apply to the hobby. However, considering that most all the writers do both professional and hobby designs, there are a number of things we can learn about game design and specifically representational game design.

Phil, a good, interesting and different post.

as a 'mature' gamer, I am more inclined these days to be in the camp outlined by Jim Duncan.

My cycle has been, having fun with Airfix soldiers and naff home made terrain 70's), then taking myself and wargame rules too seriously and 'enjoying' complexity in the name of realism (1980 – 2010) and now I am re-adjusting to a more relaxed attitude. I am more than happy to separate my gaming hobby away from any pretence that I am simulating real world stuff.

these days I am happy to hit on 5' or 6' and then roll a save…….. Very similar to what I did at the very start of my hobby under Don Featherstone, C. Grant etc when life was more naive, but there was a certain pleasure in that.

This all or nothing view--nothing translates to the real world and if it did, it would have to qualify you to run a railroad-- doesn't help understanding either games or simulation design.

Without wishing to speak for Jim (EDIT: or extra Crisy), I think his is not an "all or nothing" view.

That, as hobbyists, we learn something from games, that our games have a realistic [enough] narrative, feel and outcome; where historical tactics can achieve a result, isn't in doubt.

I think, and Jim will probably correct me, that he is saying that what we learn isn't that much – that we could play a thousand games set in the 'modern era' but it wouldn't qualify us to take command of real soldiers in a real situation – we merely get a picture of what works, not how to carry it out in the real world.

I've played lots of games but I would not feel myself qualified to command men in battle because that isn't a game and, what do I really know?

I had this discussion with Charles Grant one night. It was a short discussion and we soon moved on to painting techniques. He was a Brigadier General, you know, and he was in no doubt of the merits / lack of same of the hobby.

Thanks Olicana

My viewpoint is certainly not "all or nothing" but like most things somewhere in between but probably not in the middle.

In the real world only real soldiers can effectively command in a real situation whereas on the tabletop any old soul can produce satisfactory or otherwise results.

I do know a few 'real' soldiers, officers and other ranks and they do have a different bearing to my own. I'm glad there is a difference.

In my real world I have, perhaps, "commanded" maybe 9 or 10 staff, not terribly well as they had little respect for me. Such is life in an educational institution. However in other circumstances I have gained the respect of several hundred people, clients of mine as I gave them the advice they were looking for.

Absolutely none of my 'real' world experience would be of much use on the battlefield as that is quite a different place and many different rules apply.

The wargame, as we wargamers know it, being amateurs or professionals, is just a game of war no matter how simple or complicated the mechanisms in play.

Get out there and play the game.

I had this discussion with Charles Grant one night. It was a short discussion and we soon moved on to painting techniques. He was a Brigadier General, you know, and he was in no doubt of the merits / lack of same of the hobby.

olicana:
With all due respect for Charles Grant, both his career as a soldier and a gamer who was instrumental in developing our hobby, he died in 1979, and since then there has been nearly four decades of simulation design development. In Grant's first wargame,Battle he wrote this in Meccano Magazine in 1968, in the first part of 32 part series on the wargame over 3 years from Mid-1968 until December 1970:

Our game--at least I hope is going to be "our" game--is one based on the mvement rates and capabilities of the different types of soldiers and their weapons in a particular period of military history. The player is going to direct and manoeuvre these men as he would in an attempt to carry out some military task….What we are going to do then is to draw up a set of rules for our battlegame, assemble an army--a small one to begin with--and set about devising some kind of battle game wherein tw0 or more players can simulate the excitement, the stress and the strain of directing a battle in miniature."

For Charles Grant and any wargame designer, the question is 'how do you do that?' It is also the question asked by 'professional' wargame designers. A lot of other aspects of war have been the simulation goal of other designers, including a number of current designers.

What can be done with wargame design and what people want from wargames are two different things. There is no reason why folks have to do anything but 'get out there and play the game.' For the designer, it is a question of how…

When the statements are about what can be done and what designers are attempting to do, that is what Phil's current conclusion is: "I am still not sure whether the connection between the pro's and the hobbyists is real, or artificial." This is an amazing statement when individual designers have been producing games based on that connection for many, many years.

What Phil is losing sleep over is the possibility that there are things that can be learned from other wargame and gaming communities--actual connections. Not shoulds, not needs, but 'how to' accomplish wargame goals like Charles Grant.

That doesn't mean there must be such connections for anyone playing their games. It doesn't mean that game designers have to design simulations or model history. But if the question is "how to model" reality or past reality, then there are proven methods, concepts and techniques for doing just that.

No training or participatory simulation has ever been used to qualify anyone for anything other than a certificate of completion. Even airlines and the military, who are heavily into simulations only qualify participants with the real thing.

In my real world I have, perhaps, "commanded" maybe 9 or 10 staff, not terribly well as they had little respect for me. Such is life in an educational institution. However in other circumstances I have gained the respect of several hundred people, clients of mine as I gave them the advice they were looking for.

Absolutely none of my 'real' world experience would be of much use on the battlefield as that is quite a different place and many different rules apply.

Jim:
That sounds absolutely 'all or nothing' to me. Having been a regional VP for a national training company and working with universities to create educational courses, I am sure I have had similar experiences as you--at least in some respects. Having worked with military and ex-military men on leadership and management skills training, THEY have told me that SOME of my experiences and skills do translate into the military command structure and the battlefield… But only some. Having those comparable management/leadership skills do not qualify me to be a general, but absolutely-- some of my experiences and developed skills would translate. And that from experienced military men, who also told me the leadership training was very helpful and they'd never want me as their commander…

Don't confuse what you want from wargaming with what can be done if so desired--. And don't lose any sleep over it. Do what you want to… and learn what you need to accomplish what you want to in wargame design.

McLaddie, you are partly, and luckily for some, in error.

Charles Grant, that is Charles S. Grant (he's the son of the Charles Grant who wrote Battle), well known wargames author and who was a British Brigadier General (I'm not sure what Charles senior did), is my friend and he is very much alive.

Charles Grant is the name of all the 1st born males in that family. It gets very confusing, especially as the last three generations are all wargamers.

The most recent of the Grants is known as Charlie.

olicana:

Thanks for the clarification and it is great to hear that Charlie is still alive… I think I've dated myself going with the Grant that wrote his Napoleonic Wargames book.

FYI: Charles Grant served in the Royal Air Force and then was a police officer with Scotland Yard.

Charlie certainly followed Charles Grant in his thinking. For instance, in his introduction in Scenarios for Wargamers back in 1981 he writes:

"…Tactical considerations, as well as the strategic background, become important in such battles and wargamers begin to see how confrontation battles [a new player's first games] lack a realistic aim and objectives. Armies do not, at least on the whole meet "to knock the hell out of each other" and for no other reason.

The aim of this book is to set up, organise and play a variety of individual actions any of which might occur in wargame campaigns… In this way it is hoped to provide a more realistic backdrop and purpose to confrontation wargames.

So, Charlie's question and Charles' was "How do you do that with wargame design?" And in both cases 'realism' was a goal.

But the question for me is why Phil is so concerned about the possibility that professional and hobby wargame designs and designers might be connected in some way.

What if they were? How is that something to lose sleep over?

I am of the very firm belief that nothing we do as "wargamers" would translate to the real world. Much like being a model railroader does not make you qualified to run a railroad.

LoL.

Phil is not concerned he simply doubts it.

Phil wrote:

1. I must say I felt a bit depressed after reading a number of chapters. Not because of the content – which was excellent – but because I was asking myself "What the heck are we doing as hobby (miniature) wargamers – claiming to design wargames?

2. So, if there is indeed a strong connection between professional and hobby wargaming, and if we have professional wargame designers who clearly know their stuff, then what the hell on earth are hobby miniature wargame designers thinking they're doing? Shouldn't we leave the game design to the professionals? Or should we as gaming enthusiasts all start reading the academic articles and use whatever insights the professionals have developed? Are those insights even transferable to hobby games to begin with?

I lay awake for some nights pondering this very question.

Otto wrote:

Phil is not concerned he simply doubts it.

Otto:
Only Phil could clarify what he wrote, and he asked very good questions, but being somewhat depressed and laying awake at nights suggests some concern, but I certainly could have inflated he actual meaning.

I'd like to address those two questions of Phil's, if only because they were enough of an issue for him to write about them:

1."What the heck are we doing as hobby (miniature) wargamers – claiming to design wargames?"

It definitely a question that needs to be constantly asked. And Professional designers can have some methods and concepts that help answer that question…if only because it is their question too. However, the answer isn't to establish a we/them, academic vs entertainment dichotomy.

2.then what the hell on earth are hobby miniature wargame designers thinking they're doing? Shouldn't we leave the game design to the professionals? Or should we as gaming enthusiasts all start reading the academic articles and use whatever insights the professionals have developed? Are those insights even transferable to hobby games to begin with?

Too often hobby designers and gamers ask the very same design questions as the professionals and then ignore their answers, concluding the questions are unanswerable or only the professionals can deal with them. Both conclusions are just plain wrong. All those 'professionals in Zones of Control started as hobbiests and most remain so.

When railroad enthusiasts want to build a nineteenth century railroad station… they contact professionals and read books about the period. If a wargamer wants to know how many troops were in a Polish Line Regiment in 1809, they research. If you want your RC plane to fly, you bone up on aerodynamics and aircraft design.

IF a game designer wants to know how to simulate combat? If they want to know how the problem of the 200 foot general can be addressed, or how 'realism' is established with game mechanics, you go to other designers, professionals--you do research.

None of those activities require academic papers or the need to either become a professional or give it all up to professionals. The professionals aren't any smarter than hobbiests, but they have 1. been paid to think about the questions, 2. had huge budgets to work with compared to hobby designers, and 3. kept better track of success and failures in experimenting to get the desired results.

Wolfhag wrote:

but I look at our war games as a form of entertainment and not much more "professional" or realistic than a Hollywood WWII movie.

We all know games that have been designed around that very premise. That could well be a definition of a particular genre in wargame design. Then the question is how to design them to produce that kind of experience/entertainment.

However, if the goal is the same as say Priestly's 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."

THEN, the question is how do you create a convincing representation of real battle with game mechanics? Certainly professionals have asked the same question, so they might have ideas that the hobby designer can use without either having to become an academic or give up the effort altogether.

Considering that those professionals in both the military and commercial communities have had millions of dollars, more time and lots more folks working on the question, it might be a help at times to see what they've discovered. It is easy to be 'blown away' by where they are after several decades when their work has been ignored up till now.

It all depends on what you want to do in designing a wargame.
There certainly isn't some better or worse set of goals, nor any requirement choose one over the other.

Certainly we want our rules to be fun to play, otherwise no point in us doing them.

I think Black Powder is an excellent example of rules that fail to be a tolerable convincing representation of real battle (as an example, the maths of brigades breaking is just plain wrong).

Professional (military) wargames again can be wrong. In some cases written to please the department that commissioned them (garbage in, garbage out).

And also in the real world, some officers just don't make the grade. It takes a fight to sort them out, either they (and their men) die or they get dismissed (hopefully).

Only Phil could clarify what he wrote, and he asked very good questions, but being somewhat depressed and laying awake at nights suggests some concern, but I certainly could have inflated he actual meaning.

Well, the "laying awake at night" bit was a literary exaggeration of course :-)

But still, I kept wondering:

1. I have no doubt professional wargaming, or the academic study of wargaming is useful and does serve specific purposes (i.e. provide engines to train the military, to analyze situations, to discover what-if scenarios, …)

2. I also have no doubt that hobby wargaming serves a specific purpose (i.e. providing entertainment in various forms), and that some (not all :-)) game designers take the historic record as source material.

3. I regularly see people claiming both forms of wargaming have lots of common ground.

So, my question really is, is this last point true or false? I am knowledgeable enough to see there is no binary answer, but I'm interested to discover what this common ground is exactly, and where we can find it, and if we – as hobby wargamers – should be aware of it.

==> If there is little common ground (e.g. it is limited to an occasional boardgame that was designed as a hobby game but proved to be useful for the professionals, or vice versa), then both spheres of wargaming only share the name and some common history.

==> If there is a lot of common ground, then why is it that both forms of wargaming feel so different? I see the majority of hobby wargaming being oblivious from developments prof. wargaming. I would expect that NOT to be the case if there is indeed a strong conenction. I see very limited influences from prof. wargaming onto hobby wargaming, except for some niche periods (i.e. modern) or specific genre of games (e.g. political strategy games). I see the majority of miniature or boardgames designed as games, not as training tools. So, then where is this common ground exactly?

Some might point at certain designers that are active in both spheres. That by itself is not enough, IMO, because I feel there has to be a transfer of design principles. Are hobby wargames designed, based on knowledge derived from prof. wargaming? I simply do not see this, especially not when we are talking about e.g. miniature wargaming. Turn structures, firing and close combat mechanisms, morale tables, … are designed with game aspects in mind, although they might be inspired by military history.

Perhaps such a transfer of design principles or methodology does exist. But where is it? The only thing I see are incidental examples, not a structural connection. Even after reading articles on the subject, the examples cited always seem to indicate the connection indeed is incidental, not structural. And putting essays of authors from both wargaming spheres in the same book does not prove anything …

I also want to stress I am honestly interested in this topic – I don't have any strong dogma's one way or the other. But it is still very hard for me to discover any connection between the kid who's playing WH40K and the pro who is analyzing response scenarios for an hostile attack.

McLaddie wrote:

IF a game designer wants to know how to simulate combat? If they want to know how the problem of the 200 foot general can be addressed, or how 'realism' is established with game mechanics, you go to other designers, professionals--you do research.

Exactly – that's what I would expect. But I don't see any proof of this happening. Instead:
- I see a majority of miniature wargaming rules being published whose mechanics are only designed as gaming mechanics (although the introduction might claim otherwise);
- I see skirmish games putting a huge amount of emphasis on exact placement and orientation of individual figures, and using complex combat rules that might work as a game, but have little relation to how two people might fight a close combat;
- I see rules in which units of troops are organized in exact rectangles, and that have rules for very specific repositioning of figures within that rectangle when casualties are taken.
- I see rules that are designed around army lists as the prime gaming goal, resulting in complete ahistorical OOBs.
These might all be fun games – and there's nothing wrong with that. But what do such rules have in common with professional wargaming?

Perhaps I am looking at the wrong symptoms, or simply at the wrong games?

"Perhaps I am looking at the wrong symptoms, or simply at the wrong games?"

Possibly. There are plenty of of 'hobby' games out there which are also reasonable simulations, although such things partly depend on how much abstraction you can stand.

I wouldn't put 'professional' games on a pedestal either, some are good, some are good at what they aim to simulate and some are awful: designed to make money for the contractors who build them and perpetuate certain military myths which just so happen to benefit the manufacturers of particular weapons systems or particular political factions within the military establishment.

ZOC is an interesting book, albeit a bit patchy and with rather too pseudo-academic guff in places. Not something I plan on losing a huge amount of sleep over.

Yes, I do know some of the contributors.

You cannot create a simulation without an Umpire/Referee. Most of us do not have that luxury.

I second what Martin said and I don't see much overlapping or transfer of knowledge between the DoD and miniature/board gaming. How many miniature game designers have come from the professional DoD community? How many have come from science fiction and fantasy game design?

I'm in a discussion group that includes contractors that develop "professional" computer based simulations for the DoD. Things like getting the requirements from people that have a different agenda than the user community, politics, budgets, buy-in from upper level command and then getting the time and resources for the low level participants are just a few of the problems they are confronted with. From the discussions I've read the development community is continually frustrated with the DoD management/user community in hindering their ability to deliver a product that will really do the job. They get paid the same amount of $$ for delivering crap that DoD themselves has requested.

Years ago if a contractor developed a naval warfare simulation that allowed a US carrier to be sunk did not get approved by the Navy, no matter how accurate or realistic it was. The reason being the Navy top brass thought they may lose funding from Congress if they found out their carriers could be sunk. A legitimate concern but masking the real problem.

Then there is the Millennium Challenge 2002 when the Marine General Van Riper sunk the US Task Group in the Persian Gulf using suicide boats and asymmetrical warfare to slow them down on the ground. The umpires denied him those actions because they said, "The enemy would never do that". They simply "refloated" the Task Group and proceeded as if nothing happened. So much for professionalism.

I was part of a civilian war game designer group invited to the USAF War College for a symposium on simulations and war games. They indicated they had used GMT's board game on "Korea 1995" as a basis for a simulation. They had us try out their Brigade Combat Simulation computer system against an Army Captain and Major which is a lot like link
Our guys used the tactic of sending everything down one side of the screen. They outflanked and defeated the "professionals" to their astonishment and our amusement.

The Air Force officers running the program said that one of the advantages of war games is that it can present problems and situations to be solved that the participants may not encounter elsewhere. It gave them a different slant on looking at a situation and what to be prepared for. They were in no way under the impression that war gaming a scenario would duplicate what would happen in real life. There was minimum entertainment value.

Today if game designers present a simple and playable game it gets criticized for being "unrealistic" and the user community starts implementing house rules. Develop a detailed set of rules and a large % of people will avoid it. Some people are always going to be satisfied with rolling a single D6 for everything. Eye candy is what sells the miniature community and on that level I think we have some of the best professionals.

daler240D bring up a good point because it's hard to have a realistic experience when you can see all of the enemy units on the table and exactly how they are armed.

Wolfhag

I wouldn't put 'professional' games on a pedestal either, some are good, some are good at what they aim to simulate and some are awful: designed to make money for the contractors who build them and perpetuate certain military myths which just so happen to benefit the manufacturers of particular weapons systems or particular political factions within the military establishment.

ZOC is an interesting book, albeit a bit patchy and with rather too pseudo-academic guff in places. Not something I plan on losing a huge amount of sleep over.

Martin:

I agree. For instance, The introduction and Jon Peterson's chapter are excellent. Mark Herman's chapter on "How I did it" is insightful, some are vague, like Jim Dunnigan's "Paper Time Machines' [Most of his explanations are vague] or just philosophical nonsense like Tetusya Nakamura's Gap between tabletop simulation games and the "Truth."

The wargame community, even the one represented by the contributors of ZOC are small compared to the wider simulation and game industry, so there is a lot if information out there. And no, not all of it is good, but a good deal of it is useful, when they are dealing with the same issues as this hobby.

Steve [Wolfhag]

I have heard a great deal of the things you relate about the military politics and cross-purposes. [Millennium Challenge 2002 is a spectacular example of nearly a billion dollar 'simulation' derailed--misused.]

However, we are talking about the design of simulations, not how badly they are used or misused. And we aren't talking about computer programs, though the game aspects of a procedural system make up of decision matrixes is a commonality.

Today if game designers present a simple and playable game it gets criticized for being "unrealistic" and the user community starts implementing house rules. Develop a detailed set of rules and a large % of people will avoid it. Some people are always going to be satisfied with rolling a single D6 for everything. Eye candy is what sells the miniature community and on that level I think we have some of the best professionals.

That may be true, that simple and playable get criticized as 'unrealistic', but considering that the word has no design counterpart other than an individual's feelings, I'd say that it is inevitable.

daler240D bring up a good point because it's hard to have a realistic experience when you can see all of the enemy units on the table and exactly how they are armed.

Actually he said that "You cannot create a simulation without an Umpire/Referee. Most of us do not have that luxury" which simply isn't true. There are lots of functional simulations without umpires.

It comes back back to what you mean by a 'realistic experience'. Wargames can provide a lot of different realistic experiences because there is a lot of reality out there, past and present. Your choices about that reality could in game/simulation terms be best met by using an umpire, but an umpire isn't required for a 'realistic experience' depending on what realism you want and it certainly isn't required of a simulation game.

Phil:

I have been in the hobby since the late 1960s, I've designed board wargames, educational simulations for the classroom and college, as well as training simulation games for business and education. This is what I think are the reasons for your observations:

Exactly – that's what I would expect. But I don't see any proof of this [crossover or connections] happening. Instead:

- I see a majority of miniature wargaming rules being published whose mechanics are only designed as gaming mechanics (although the introduction might claim otherwise)

1. That is all the majority of designers are actually doing, putting together game mechanics for games, regardless of what they claim.

2. Because a good number of them have or are claiming they are doing things they aren't, which only confuses the issue of what is being provided.

3. Because very little is apparently known by hobby designers about how simulations work, many state that such things are impossible or can't be done by the hobby--or claim it when they haven't done it. I can give you examples of each from current designers.

4. Because of this ignorance, the actual fun or benefits such knowledge and practice could provide is also unknown, so there certainly can't be much desire for the ‘unknown.' The hobby has operated on these conditions for a long time, so why should any designer or gamer care?? And yet, and yet, gamers and designers are still constantly trying to design "representations of real battle" when apparently unaware of how that is done with game mechanics… and without an umpire or a bank of military-grade computer systems. And apparently when nobody supposedly cares.

- I see skirmish games putting a huge amount of emphasis on exact placement and orientation of individual figures, and using complex combat rules that might work as a game, but have little relation to how two people might fight a close combat;

Again, it is a provincial hobby where many designers insist that there is no connection to the wider game community as far as design is concerned, so derivative rules and stagnant player expectations of what is possible continue. And if something is different, a part from the novelty, how is that ‘more fun' than what we have?

If a designer doesn't identify what the game is supposed to represent in how ‘real people fight' and you don't know how simulations or game mechanics can represent that reality… what's left?

- I see rules in which units of troops are organized in exact rectangles, and that have rules for very specific repositioning of figures within that rectangle when casualties are taken.

See above:

- I see rules that are designed around army lists as the prime gaming goal, resulting in complete ahistorical OOBs.

And under the conditions mentioned, empty claims made and no alternatives, no genres, the question is "So what?"

These might all be fun games – and there's nothing wrong with that. But what do such rules have in common with professional wargaming?
Perhaps I am looking at the wrong symptoms, or simply at the wrong games?

You are looking at a small hobby that is unclear about what it is doing and has to offer in regards to history and game design, while many actively deny there are any connections between other forms of simulation and game design—at all.

So yes, you are looking at a hobby where designers have, for various reasons, faked the connection, denied the connection or simply were unaware that such things were possible.

So, why on earth would you expect to see any proof here of that crossover? However, there has been a great deal, unidentified. For instance, the military hired hobby designers back in the 1980s to create a tactical boardgame. It was then released as Firepower by Victory Games IIRC. That game had a great deal of influence on tabletop squad-level game mechanics through the late 1990s and beyond.

But a lot of the crossover has been particular mechanics over the years, rather than basic game/simulation concepts or game systems. For instance, there are four parts to any game system or simulation as a procedural system: Time, Decisions, Activities and Events. Any game mechanic or player action falls within one or more of those elements. Old news in most gaming and simulation communities [including research], but I haven't heard anyone in the miniature hobby notice it, let alone know how that might help in discussing game design. We are still unclear about such opaque design terms as ‘historical flavor' ‘reasonable results' and ‘process vs result' mechanics.

Designing a good game is hard. It is doubly hard if the game also functionally represents something else. It is really important to know how both are done. I'd be glad to give you an example of what I mean if the difference isn't clear.

BTW my test of a games realism is to try it on historical scenarios and see what happens. Did the game play anything like the real battle.

Thanks for the blog and the thread it created. Very interesting.

McLaddie,
I can't see anything in your last post I could disagree with. I didn't know about Firepower's origins.

It's interesting that you mention Time, Decisions, Activities and Events as that seems to go to the heart of any game system and a real starting point to design a game.

The first thing I always look for is the amount of Time for a turn and the ground scale. That's how I'll relate to a game and it tells me to what degree the author had to abstract and what details he can and can't include in the game. A game with 30 minute turns is not going to be determined by individual shooting of units.

Decision is probably the most interesting. Having command dice like Bolt Action is a great idea. However, decisions should ideally be based on reaction to enemy activity and not some structured or random activation. Some games are better in this area than others.

Activities would be what the player has his units doing like moving/shooting?

Events to me should be an activity to respond to and make a decision. But it can also be a SNAFU or something that increases friction that can make it harder to get the troops to do what they are told or change an order.

For me the Time part of the design involves the interactive timing between opponents and how long it takes to perform an Activity. In most games I guess it would be the turn/activation sequence? Time and Activity are directly related which translates into the timing of an event (or when you would activate in a later turn after selecting an activity or issuing an order) whether it is in a Wild West Shootout, tank-tank engagement or a battalion in march mode attempting to deploy to a hasty attack in a meeting engagement. If your time to perform an activity is shorter than your opponent because of better crew expertise, tactical formation or superior weapon platform performance then you can get inside his decision loop and beat him to the punch. That may be easy to say but it's pretty hard to really do it right using any type of activation mechanic or a structured turn sequence. Computers seem to be best for this because they have a built in physical timer but that seems to be limited to FPS.

Here is how it could flow: An event happens that is detected by both sides (like coming into LOS or opportunity fire). Both sides make a decision to select an activity (or issue an order) that would take a determined amount of time to perform resulting in an event (actual shooting, moving or going to cover) happening in a later game turn.

It seems to me if you had a type of turn structure that could accomplish that interactive flow between opponents you could eliminate much of the structured turn sequences and random activations but at the cost of some type of record keeping. If neither side knew the decision, activity and when the event occurs there would be a naturally created fog of war and fear of the unknown especially if there were enough variables generated by crew performance difference and weapons platform performance. The timing of the event would be determining the activity of the players and in what sequence they will be performed. Take too long to do something and you may be dead before you can activate the event.

Wolfhag

The first thing I always look for is the amount of Time for a turn and the ground scale. That's how I'll relate to a game and it tells me to what degree the author had to abstract and what details he can and can't include in the game.

Steve:
That's a great example of those connections. You aren't alone in that approach. There are some common basics that all game designers and simulation designers conclude or come across.

Jerry Banks, an industrial engineer working primarily with computer simulations wrote in his Handbook of Simulation:

The backbone of any simulation system is how time is represented and then monitored by the system…. A model[A simulation] is a representation of an actual system. Immediately, there is a concern about the limits or boundaries of the model that supposedly represent the system. The model should be complex enough to answer the questions raised, but not too complex…Time is primary among these created boundaries.

Jesse Schell, a commercial game designer wrote in the second edition of The Art of Game Design:

It is said that 'timing is everything.' Our goal as designers is to create experiences, and experiences are easily spoiled when they are too short or too long, too fast or too slow…Timing can be very difficult to get right, but it can make or break a game. Often it makes sense to follow the old vaudevillian adage 'Leave'em wanting more.'

Now, you have been involved in playing and designing games as a past time, a hobby. Banks and Schell are involved with just simulations and just games in arenas that are far different than your interests.

Yet, and yet, because you are all interested in designing games and designing the system to represent something else [a simulation] you are dealing with the very same issues and because you are, coming up with similar conclusions, similar approaches.

Here is how it could flow: An event happens that is detected by both sides (like coming into LOS or opportunity fire). Both sides make a decision to select an activity (or issue an order) that would take a determined amount of time to perform resulting in an event (actual shooting, moving or going to cover) happening in a later game turn.

Great example of how Time, Decisions, Activities and Events can be arranged. That simple four parts of a game AND a simulation of any kind is a tool that helps conceptually work with design and helps TALK about it. It isn't some TRUTH or THE WAY, but a tool to be used. The advantage is that it is built on a vast pool of experience.

It seems to me if you had a type of turn structure that could accomplish that interactive flow between opponents you could eliminate much of the structured turn sequences and random activations but at the cost of some type of record keeping.

Again, you've noted something that is a fairly common issue. Those 'administrative' tasks for tabletop games is a real challenge when you stray from hard cast phases in a strict turn structure. Without options of how to do that record keeping, you can see why so many games stick to a few known turn or time sequences.

Phil, I read the post and I must admit to being a little frustrated that you seem to drawing a very black and white conclusion after all your soul-searching. I think there is an obvious link between the hobby and professional wargaming – there are plenty of examples of individuals and games crossing 'the divide', as well as hobby games finding their way into business training. A large number of hobbyists wouldn't fancy playing a professional game and vice versa, but why is there this insistence (not just from you) that the two are separate hobbies?

I would agree that playing a boardgame (whether professional or hobby) in itself doesn't mean you can command an army, but then it doesn't matter whether it's a professional or hobbyist playing the game either. The game is only *one* part of the training that the professional undergoes, so why should any game automatically replace years of other experience?

I do think McLaddie has a valid point about transferable skills, understanding and knowledge, although it would depend on how you are involved in the hobby and the types of games.

Looking at the railway example, imagine you have two people who are the only two candidates to rewrite Southern Rail's timetable. One candidate is me, last seen playing with a Hornby 125 c.1982. The other is someone into railways who is less fussed about the physical look of his layout and more about scheduling trains. There's still a learning curve, but that person has demonstrated interest and a degree of aptitude in certain aspects of railways, model or real, that make him better at doing it for real than me.

We've talked before about events where professionals and hobbyists (sometimes the same people) mix. As has been pointed out, there are good and bad professional designs and when I saw a number last year I was surprised by their varying usefulness. I think olicana would be surprised at how simple many of these games are to play though. A book of 70s designs is possibly not the best example (and there are plenty of complicated hobby games from that era too).

I've taken elements from professional wargame design to use in my own designs quite happily. I've got people I can play with at the club and enjoy some GdeB or SAGA, plus others who don't care for that, preferring more 'serious' games. And some of us enjoy both.

Investigating some ideas that may be of use in hobby games would surely be of help for some people, given how many rulesets are pushed out each year, often with people looking for that certain something that is different.

Activities would be what the player has his units doing like moving/shooting?

Steve:
Yeah, those are activities. Activities are what the players do or can do in the game. For instance, turn phases delineate the activities that are going to be carried out. Obviously, decisions determine the activities.

Events to me should be an activity to respond to and make a decision. But it can also be a SNAFU or something that increases friction that can make it harder to get the troops to do what they are told or change an order.

Events are things that happen in the game, either as a result of player activities or as a system result. So, yes, results are something players respond to. Banks writes about simulations: "Consider an event as an occurrence that changes the state of the system." Now, he is talking about computer simulations for the most part, but because ANY simulation is a procedural system just like any game, there is that crossover.

The end of the turn is an event, the end of a phase is an event. The result of combat is an event. So in a card-driven game, time passing is monitored by the number of cards a player has to play. When all the cards are played, time's up. Each card is a possible activity the player can decide to use, and he choses in what order they are played. When used, the activity/card's purpose is to change the state of the game [create an event], hopefully to the player's advantage.

If we are talking about a game designed to represent reality in some way, to be effective for the player, he has to know the relationship between the rules and the specific reality it was designed to model, mimic etc.

If I told you I'd painted a portrait of Count Ramsbottom, Craniumland's Prime Minister from 1650 to 1651, you could admire my artistry and like or dislike the picture…even the period clothing I'd painted him wearing, but until I showed you [or you had seen] a historical document or period picture of the man, you'd have no idea whether it was a true likeness or not--and that likeness can only be as good as the historical sources available.

For me the Time part of the design involves the interactive timing between opponents and how long it takes to perform an Activity.

Steve:

It can, but it can also be represented or incorporated in Events, Activities or Decisions [how and when the player can make them.]

If your time to perform an activity is shorter than your opponent because of better crew expertise, tactical formation or superior weapon platform performance then you can get inside his decision loop and beat him to the punch.

I wanted to comment on this because it is a great example.

Here is another example of how the Time, Decision, Activity, Event concepts could be used in thinking about how to represent that ability to 'beat him to the punch.'

TIME: If you are looking at this as one side requiring less time to do something than the other, you then have to parse time into smaller bits to give that less vs more ratio.

ACTIVITY: The activity simply costs less for one side than the other. Time can be, but doesn't have to be a factor. You see this done rather awkwardly with 'command points', cards, etc. I say awkwardly, because it is almost always 'by chance' and fails on a number of levels to work in a representational way.

DECISIONS: Here, it can be that in a particular activity, one side has the ability to make more decisions than the other side. [better reaction time?]

EVENTS: You do see some designs reduce the relationship you describe to events, chance events. One side, through a die roll or card, gain a temporary advantage. The side with better response times getting more cards, die rolls or results. I say reduce, because ability is reduced to a number of chance events, which is not the same as ability, however they might be connected.

However, even opportunity fire is an event-induced activity. The enemy crosses you LOS, and you have a change of state in the game and the other side gets to fire. So, that advantage could simply be represented by a state change triggered by the other player's actions. If you have ever fenced or boxed, you can see how this would work in a single combat system.

In most games I guess it would be the turn/activation sequence? Time and Activity are directly related which translates into the timing of an event (or when you would activate in a later turn after selecting an activity or issuing an order) whether it is in a Wild West Shootout, tank-tank engagement or a battalion in march mode attempting to deploy to a hasty attack in a meeting engagement.

Yes, that I what I would say. Yet, it is only one way of a myriad of ways. I haven't even started. For instance, using activities to monitor time, if one side had a better reaction time, then if the norm was four cards or four command points etc., then the other would have five, and any point the one with five could play two cards or use one to negate an opponent's card. This isn't new, but often it is by chance rather than demonstrating an inherent operational or physical advantage.

Just riffing on what you've observed.

Bill

I do think McLaddie has a valid point about transferable skills, understanding and knowledge, although it would depend on how you are involved in the hobby and the types of games.

Ben: Thank you for that--which, yes. that is what I was saying. It sounds like you have had some similar experiences to mine. I agree, it all depends on what game designers want to do and the types of games they are interested in. If just a fun game, there are designers and books talking about 'how to do that' that can be helpful. Lots of discussion because of the billions of dollars and several decades now invested in games of all sorts.

If it also includes a goal of rules like Black Powder, creating a "convincing representation of real combat", there are lots of designers of game and simulation designers and decades of experience dealing with how to do that too that can be of help.

Best Regards, Bill

No problem Bill, you're welcome. I like a bit of variety I'm my gaming and if I can play something that aids my understanding of the past or current situations too, I don't mind where it comes from.

I would take issue with several of Phil's 'unique' aspects of miniatures gaming though. I played an interesting Falklands game at Connections UK last year, but didn't have time for a Normandy ships game. Elegant mechanics and storytelling can be found all over, especially with the resurgence in matrix games, which I first read about in Miniature Wargames many years ago…

One of the reasons Paul and myself wrote Maneouver Group was we were tired if in the main re – writes of Featherstone rules. Phil Barker went some way with his ww2 rules but they were unwieldy and I had not understood the fallacy of points systems and the impact of terrain in wargames.

From what I can see and understand from playing our games is that lots of training is required to be even a platoon commander. Playing a game with a real platoon commander he saw key terrain features in seconds that I had not seen while drawing up the map. Would my game be a good teaching aid. Proably a few hundred hours of lectures would do the same and be faster but the game at least illustrates the issues in a more interesting way. Yes we did look at a lot of us manuals and realised that wargamers like some of the myths.

Many folk like random almost for the sake of it, I guess folks liked throwing die and getting daft/amusing results but that does not add to me the learning that is a game. That said the aims and objectives are key. Some games are optimised to show off models, be over in 3 or 4 bounds to allow chatting. Convention games are similarly not really wargames in my book as you need to understand how the real thing works if you need to use real strategy.

Games can be simulations but they need the concentration associated with a real word, admittedly much simplified.

While not perfect, dummy representations of troops adds fog of war. Some folk hate this as it makes the game harder and they don't get to put the figures on the table.

Our game will not break sales re odds be use its not optimised for the average gamer. They don't want think that hard even in qualitative ways.

Ushcha,
You bring up some good points about professionals and war gamers entertainment.

McLaddie wrote about doing research to develop "realism" but realism is a touchy-feely subjective thing a majority of the user community will not agree with. I'd like to rephrase that question with "What would a squad/platoon based miniatures game look like that a real life squad/platoon leader could relate to and recognize and able to play with a minimum of instruction time?"

Let's say we want to introduce an enlisted NCO or junior infantry officer to a squad/platoon based miniatures game. It is attempting as its goal to confront him with the same problems and decision making process he would use during a live field training exercise or combat. To succeed it would need to have problems and situations that resemble what he's been up against. I think the game succeeds to the level he makes the same decisions for the same reasons using information from training manuals and his personal experience. I would say it fails to the degree that you need to introduce new non-military concepts and game mechanics he is unfamiliar with and needs to adjust his knowledge and experience to fit into the game sequence and mechanics. That can generate an "unrealistic experience" for him. However, those same abstracted game mechanics may produce a realistic experience for someone else. One size does not fit everyone with no military background.

I'd have to say the research starts with the manuals and training material he is familiar and has trained with. That's the best way to communicate to him. Does that mean almost every other game design and mechanic is thrown away? Maybe or maybe not, let's see.

This would be a good place to start:
PDF link

Sections Section III, IV and V are what we'd be most concerned with.

Do you see any mention of activation of units or a structured turn sequence? A real life squad/platoon leader is thinking in terms of the amount of time to perform an action (carry out an order), will it be successful and have the desired effect. Subunits like teams and sections are given an order to carry out and do not need to be continually activated or ordered every turn but would need to be in some type of command/control to change orders. Activating units would be an unrealistic concept to a real squad/platoon leader. So should we be using it? What if you told him his squad executing a fire & maneuver does not move or fire this turn because a random action magically ended the turn before he could activate? Would he understand or become irritated and demonstrate his close combat skills on you?

What kind of a turn sequence would you have?
If you told the Marine Sergeant with three deployments into a combat zone and a CAR with a star that his fire teams will be randomly activated during the entire game and there is nothing he can do about it will he respond by saying, "Wow – that's really cool" or will he put his nose next to your nose and impolitely say "No f'ing way dude". I know we have a few Marine grunt Sergeants out there – what say you? So how could you have a turn sequence that realistically flows and is interactive?

To generate a level of "realistic experience" there would have to be some type of reaction rule to enemy movement or fire. No squad/platoon leader is going to have his units stand still in the open while they get pounded and he "waits" for his turn to do something. Do teams and sections need to be micromanaged and ordered every turn or do they have the training to react with drills for specific situations even if out of command and control? There are games like Nuts! that has a reaction system to enemy activity. What type of reaction rule would a real life squad/platoon recognize in a game? I remember countless drills patrolling down a path and getting ambushed and responding accordingly. Well trained and led troops "should" perform the drill second nature. Should there be a skill check? Maybe?

What about determining the initiative?
The manual defines Initiative in the Attack: Seizing and retaining the initiative involves more than just achieving tactical surprise. It involves a process of planning and preparing for combat operations, finding the enemy first, avoiding detection, fixing the enemy, locating or creating a weakness, and maneuvering to exploit that weakness with a quick and violent assault.

So how would you determine the initiative in a game based on the above statement from the manual? Surely not with a die roll or flip of a card! The squad/platoon leaders do not carry those. I think the key factors would be: find the enemy, fixing the enemy (suppression) and the ability to maneuver freely (moving under fire/aggressiveness). If you told an Army Ranger who spent 6 months in the mountains behind enemy lines that his squad randomly lost the initiative to the enemy would he respond by, "Oh my goodness, that's not good is it" or would he bitch slap you and tear up your initiative rules.

Now if you are a lifetime civilian and start playing Bolt Action after playing WH 40K for years you will get a "realistic experience" because you can relate to the game the way a real squad/platoon leader can relate to the manual but not to 40K. Bolt Action is laid out well, visual and easy to pick up if you have the pertinent playing experience. I think that's a reason BA is so popular and successful and there is nothing wrong with that. I know there are military combat vets reading this that play and enjoy BA and will defend it. If it gives you that "realistic experience" then so be it and feel free to ignore what I've written.

This is long enough so I'll stop now. I know, I've posed a lot of questions and no solutions – for now but I'm more interested in ideas from others along the same vein. I've probably stepped on some peoples toes too. Hopefully I've communicated the idea of a "realistic experience" to a specific audience (combat infantry vets) using terminology and ideas they are familiar with.

Thanks,
Wolfhag

From what I can see and understand from playing our games is that lots of training is required to be even a platoon commander. Playing a game with a real platoon commander he saw key terrain features in seconds that I had not seen while drawing up the map. Would my game be a good teaching aid. Proably a few hundred hours of lectures would do the same and be faster but the game at least illustrates the issues in a more interesting way. Yes we did look at a lot of us manuals and realised that wargamers like some of the myths.

Ushcha:
I think you are confusing expertise and experience with a learning experience, what a game is designed to do with what it would have to do to really challenge a very experienced officer.

Simulations will always be less challenging than reality, because, regardless of complexity, they can only simulate SOME of reality. The questions are what parts and how much. Attempt too much, and any simulation or game stops working.

Games can be simulations but they need the concentration associated with a real word, admittedly much simplified.

Not really. As an example, In Phil Sabin's book Simulating War, he has a wargame called Block Busting, designed to simulate "an attack by a reinforced infantry company on enemy positions in an urban area during World War Two."

The map is a 9X6 square grid of streets and buildings. There are up to 13 two-step units on each side. A D6 is used and the combat results are simple enough that no combat chart is needed. The rules take up maybe 5 pages even with several graphic aids.

A three phase alternating turn is involved, movement, fire, and recovery.

This was used to teach the dynamics of fighting in BUAs.
Sabin reports that there were three sessions for British officers, where two, compete eighteen turn games with teams were finished in two hours. Brigadier Andrew Sharp headed up the study day. He was a veteran of Iraq urban combat. Sabin writes:

Brigadier Andrew Sharpe, who masterminded the study day, was deeply impressed with the tactical realism o Block Busting, despite its relative simplicity, and he emphasized during the closing discussion session how well it captured the key dynamics of fighting in built-up areas.

The point being, simulation games do not have to demand any more concentration or special elements to work or be 'realistic.' It all depends on what is the focus of the design and how successful it is in representing that part of reality. The level of success is the level of realism achieved. Realism is the relationship between what the player is asked to do and the how well the dynamics of the game environment mimic the 'real thing.' The game can be simple or complex, but either can be just as successful in providing 'realism' depending on the focus/goals of the design.

Many folk like random almost for the sake of it, I guess folks liked throwing die and getting daft/amusing results but that does not add to me the learning that is a game. That said the aims and objectives are key. Some games are optimised to show off models, be over in 3 or 4 bounds to allow chatting. Convention games are similarly not really wargames in my book as you need to understand how the real thing works if you need to use real strategy.

That is true and I don't have any problem with that. People enjoy it, fine. I play game like that. However, if the designers or gamers start justifying that randomness as a representation of real combar or 'realism', then I have to ask how they know that system provides a meaningful relationship to the real thing… Just as I would ask about Block Busting.

Sections Section III, IV and V are what we'd be most concerned with.

Do you see any mention of activation of units or a structured turn sequence? A real life squad/platoon leader is thinking in terms of the amount of time to perform an action (carry out an order), will it be successful and have the desired effect…Activating units would be an unrealistic concept to a real squad/platoon leader. So should we be using it? What if you told him his squad executing a fire & maneuver does not move or fire this turn because a random action magically ended the turn before he could activate? Would he understand or become irritated and demonstrate his close combat skills on you?

Steve:
Well, in general, I agree, but… we don't know what that random action represents, let alone the history/sources that led to it's creation. In fact, that random activation has been used at different scales and force levels for a variety of reasons…when the designers have explained their thinking at all. So, in some respects it is difficult to criticize a general game mechanic when it is used in many ways for vague or unknown reasons.

What about determining the initiative?
The manual defines Initiative in the Attack: Seizing and retaining the initiative involves more than just achieving tactical surprise. It involves a process of planning and preparing for combat operations, finding the enemy first, avoiding detection, fixing the enemy, locating or creating a weakness, and maneuvering to exploit that weakness with a quick and violent assault.

I agree wholeheartedly on this. Initiative is not something won by accident or kept because the dice were favorable. I think one of the problems is the use of the word… when the rules are really about something else.

I have played a lot of For the People, GMT's card-driven game of the entire Civil war designed by Mark Herman. Now, in that game the initiative passes back and forth. It can be aided by circumstances and the year of the war, but I can feel when the initiative passes to me, having forced my opponent to react to my moves or I lose it, being forced to react to him. It isn't by chance. It is a matter of 'planning' and 'forcing' things my way.

McLaddie wrote about doing research to develop "realism" but realism is a touchy-feely subjective thing a majority of the user community will not agree with.

Steve, it is only subjective and touchy-feely because the 'research' is never referenced. [Unlike what you did by referencing the manual…establishing the 'real to be represented.] The research, however that is done, is the 'real' that is being simulated. If you never provide a design-specific meaning to the design goal 'realism', it can't be anything anything but a personal, touchy-feely opinion based on who knows what. It's a mystery that can't be solved.

Then there is the realism seen by Brigadier Sharpe, which I would neither call it touchy-feely nor subjective…particularly when other experienced officers agree with him.

Even as a "serious" wargamer I would recognise that the aims of a wargame may not line up with those of a Professional. Simulations are by definition limited in scope and none has been invented yet that are all encomassing.

We as wargames will never get it right as if our figure gets shot we do not go out and kill ourselves. Similarly simulators do not kill studenet who crash a plane. This is deliberate but useful depature from reality.

You can have a wargame that does reflect some of reality but it has to be simplified for various reasons. This does not stop it being a "usefull" simulation, it is not nor ever will be reality!

Game designers face lots of issues. If a game requires a points system it already limits terrain types and hence may instantly bring in large errors. This may be acceptable to both the designer and his customers.

Will his customers understand the basic limitations of say a tank? If they do not then again major compromises would be needed or there will be a long learning curve. Hence the rules would not be suitable for folk who play once or twice a year.

So games are what they are specified as and that will include limitations on how it ties in with reality.

In our rules with similar troop types a general can get inside his oponents decision loop if he is better at planning. This is great for the simulator but it does mean a poor general is likely to be defeated quite rapidly in a fast tempo engagemet where his ability to plan is not up to the task. Again the specification for a game may rate effective simulation quite low. Even die hards like ourselve admitt to suggessting reality be suspended in some cases. In the Dessert WW2 the lack of radios in the basic Italian AFV can be so debiltation in a fast moveing siuation thet we suggest the player give himself radios to make a better game. Clearly we are delilberately walking away from best simulation in favor of the game.

Again the specification for a game may rate effective simulation quite low. Even die hards like ourselves admit to suggesting reality be suspended in some cases. In the Dessert WW2 the lack of radios in the basic Italian AFV can be so debilitating in a fast moving situation that we suggest the player give himself radios to make a better game. Clearly we are deliberately walking away from best simulation in favor of the game.

UshCha:

Well, I think those kinds of compromises are to be expected, and to a large extent are made by any simulation designer for 'easier use' reasons. "Walking away from the 'Best simulation' is common. As Jerry Banks says in his "Simulation Handbook", the simulation is no more complex than needed to get the job done. If the job is only simulating the X and Y of reality …but Z is not so the game is improved, then where's the problem? The game is a simulation of X and Y, but not Z.

The issues is 1. where those compromises are made and 2. Are the customers let in on them or are they left to guess?

One might add that "simulation" (if we can narrow down what that even means) and "realism" are not at all the same thing.

Someone playing a game based on "Rat Patrol" or a Marvel movie is simulating just as surely as someone tinkering with the correct muzzle velocity differences of two guns.

Mulling this over whilst on holiday and doing some game design work recently, I stayed to wonder whether there is more overlap between professional wargames and recreational board games, les because of the medium and more because of the scale of representation. More focus on context for a battle and logistics, although looking at what is being done could well be worthwhile, particularly given the many different approaches to campaigns, for example.

I do think that more could be taken from either though. As I've said before, I saw a presentation on a platoon level game at connections UK last year, as well as talk with someone who wanted to use elements from a very popular skirmish figure set to look at tactics. Simplicity of play when working with non-gamers is very important.

Would this qualify as professionals and war gaming?
PDF link

Can anyone comment on the Dunn Kempf rules?
link

Wolfhag