"Is the bitterest wargame that between designers" Topic

What are the really contentious issues in wargames design that cause the metaphorical fight to the death.

Scale – not now. Most folk play in more than one scale and although the one true scale is 1/144 others are tolerated with nothing but a sigh ;-).

Dice – This come with two issues.
D6 or not to D6 – Probably a bit more contentious but we can just about tolerate the old school D6 fanatics despite their flaws.
Few or buckets (few meaning 2 or less) buckets usually means at least 10. No, No and NO again we will not tolerate buckets its gambling not war gaming and it take SOOO long. :-{.

Is it a Simulation or a game.
IT IS A SIMULATION, If it was not I would not play. That would be TOY SOLDIERS.

Where do you stand on these issues (clearly life and death issues). They are at the very least at the heart of game design. Have I got the order right? No need to be to serious in your answers, JUST GET THEM RIGHT. ;-).

My Italian Grandpa used to say, "To each his own!" That ends it without a fight.

Are you having fun? Yes? Then you're doing it right.

Is it a simulations or a game? These are not mutually exclusive. And it is ALL toy soldiers.

It's not a scale. It's a size.

Winston is right, such contentious issues between game designers are all about size not scale.

When I play at your house I play by your rules.

I'm with nvdoyle

I'm with EC on "the simulation or a game" nonsense.

The rest? Just personal preference, none of which are bad or good.

Unfortunately, personal preferences become bitter disputes when one tries to establish that one is better than the other or that *all* gamers prefer one over the other. That really has very little, if anything, to do with game design. Think of all the TMP threads that start with "Which is more important:" that are all basically "my preference is preferred over yours."

They are at the very least at the heart of game design. Have I got the order right.

If those *issues* reside at "the heart of wargame design" for our hobby [or any type of game design, for entertainment or not], I'd say our hobby is suffering from cardiac arrest or at the very least, we are extremely 'game design challenged'.

Doug MSC's grandfather has it right!

I'd say the main one is – do troops always do what the commander (i.e. the player) wants. In other words, there are two main types of game – the IGOUGO move everything game where each player can move all of his figures or units on his turn, or the games where there are some sort of command and control restrictions on what figures or units each player can activate.

Civil wars are often the nastiest…

Marshal Mark +1
I look at it as do you want to lead men or push lead in your games.

And then there are IGOUGO rules that include command and control restrictions….

:)

The amount of simulation that is possible in our activity aka game/mode/simulation is very small. Uniforms, more or less, TO&E, more or less, weapons characteristics, less so, and tactics hardly.
We, in the traditional activity, twist time in at least two ways. The use of the measured artificial turn and the mixing up of the historical timeline an example of which would be the US Army solution to the bocage, ot known in June 44 but known to any WW2 wargamer even as his troops encounter the bocage for the first time. Solution before problem. German troops with winter clothing. And 1940 panzers with sloped armor and 75mm guns. Not simply what if but how could they get the solution or item ahead of time, and if they could, why the solution or item was not used.
But as the gamer doesnt care, oh how many games of Sealion have I seen where the Germans cross the Channel and capture the UK with no problems concerning exactly how they crossed and their logietics. And since this is a consumer driven hobby, Tiger tanks will always outsell trucks, infantry, scout vehicles, even Soviet armor, whjch is the exact opposite of the real. But as Roger Debris noted about Springtime for Hitler, the third act has got to go, it is so depressing, they are losing the war. So we playbalance it and proclaim the lie that it is simulation
No, 90% is game, even fantasy.
I cannot bear the nonsense, as an example, of the first few pages of Bolt Action proclaiming in Dunnaganesque language the historical and authentic elements in this model or whatever, with the so called historical informational boxes or sidebars in a rule book that is 95% nonhistorical game
Same for Command Decision, Flames of War, Empire, Check your 6 and many others.
The only issue is if you are having fun, if the rules are presented in a reasonable and logical manner with few exeptions. Not Latin or English, but a simpler language, to use a similie. If I have to conjugate the verb "modifiers" meaning I have to learn a special math or language for the game, no thank you. If to simulate something means to make the game a chore, then leave it out, because, all other factors considered, it isnt worth the aggravation

Counting rivets is important.

There is a correct color for that uniform/facing/lace.

There is a correct color for that uniform/facing/lace.

Sez who? Is the color brick red or scarlet? What's your source? It's just your opinion. I didn't live back then, so I don't know what the colors are. All history is a fantasy anyway. [I can't remember the rest of them.]

I always at arguments about things like 'goblins should be green/black/grey/flesh, yours are the wrong colour' or similar. Fair enough if dealing with a specific 'universe', book or movie – but generic mythics? Nit picking over things that don't exist is just….stupid.

I don't think about it and really don't care. My hobbies aren't Jerry Springer episodes.

Rick, the amount of simulation possible is generally down to what you actually want to simulate, the willingness of rules writers to spend time coming up with something a bit different, the engagement of players and also the level of game.

I think it's easier in higher level games when you're representing longer periods of time and a lot of focus can go onto command and control. I do think it's harder in skirmish games, when players are not being shot at and often have longer to consider what may in reality be split-second decisions. You can still consider tactics as they were though, witness Chain of Command.

Cherry-picking ruleset examples and relying on your own subjective experience is hardly grounds for absolute statements about the percentage of simulation in a game. I'm not sure why people try to be so emphatic about the inability of wargames to simulate things, as I think it stifles creativity.

p.s. Winston, it's Ushcha2's case, it really is a scale. I've played his games and chatted to him.

Is it a simulations or a game? These are not mutually exclusive. And it is ALL toy soldiers.

Concur. It is all toy soldiers and all simulation.

On UNIFORM COLOURS: I rely on my personal experience as an officer in the US Navy. There is no such thing as two uniform parts that are the same colour khaki.

Rick Don Burnette,
Finally a Bite. ;-). A tactical simulator does not kill its operators so not being shot at and being at risk of dying is not a cause to reject a system as being unrealistic. Any time marching solution takes liberties, but again not a cause for rejection. To me what would be the point of spending lots of money on realistic models if they had no use but pure fantasy.

Some players like fantasy and they are welcome to it.

I know from my games I have a much better understanding of how difficult a task it is to command even a company. It helps understand what you read in the tactical manuals.

I am not into re-creation. I am not interested reliving a real battle as the randomness in the real world would prevent an identical outcome. What it does do is let you gain some idea of how the lessons in the manuals can be applied. I see a war game as a "Training aid" for interested folk, it never will be capable of dealing with data that is not known or postulated. Its simulation not fortune telling.

All factors considered, is not any model at least 90% game/fantasy and less than 10% simulation. And even if you get that 10% correct, how can you blanket the other 90% with the name "simulation"
Or have I missed it, that All agree that what we do is almost all game and the simulation bits are what we bicker over. The bickering isnt worth the effort

I have no idea what factors you're considering (and probably not considering either) Rick, but your post is getting into the bounds of Yellow Admiral's picture.

Some people like to think more than others about what's actually going on in a game and what we might be trying to represent, I'll agree. There are many different things to enjoy in the hobby.

That games can also be simulations, I'll agree.

Why is it important to you that games must be less than 10% simulation and that discussion around game/simulation isn't worth the effort? That sounds very subjective as I know lots of people who are happy to discuss what goes on within games, beyond whether 1805 French should get a +1 or +2 modifier.

Rick Don Burnette,
As yoiu so clearly have studdied this issue it in such detail I wold be interested in how you arrive at 10% simulation. Statements of such accuracy must underly a very detailed set or reasearch. It may also help if you defined the game on which you based this very definative statement.

Scale – Good rules are playable with most scales. Writing rules for only one scale has mostly a commercial motive.

Dice – Using only one type of dice is faster than using multiple different die. And D6 is a classic. Having two sets of variables (the pip of the dice and the number of used dice) is better than all variables in one. So more die have their merit.

Simulation or game. It is the wrong opposition. Simulation is about simulating a world outside of the rules. Even throwing stones after plastic soldiers is a simulation, maybe a bad one. Game is about having fun apart from the real world. Discussing a simulation has to take into account, what is simulated. You can even simulate a battle in Lord of the Ring. All gaming stops, if you have a goal apart from fun and recreation, for example learning to drive a tank or writing real military orders.

Some good points Decebalus, but why do you consider gaming only for fun and recreation?

For example, sports coaches will often introduce games when developing skills in players, to make learning more engaging? I use games in the classroom – there's fun and learning taking place.

do troops always do what the commander (i.e. the player) wants

I do see some players having major issues with this so should be added to OP list

I would add to the original list
"but it doesn't have the right Napoleonic flavour"

Another issue I would like to add to the OP list, is rules (particular in large multiplayer games) that end up with people sitting around doing nothing for a long time

Like most people responding I would rather roll dice (of any number and size) and admire toy soldiers (painted any colour) than argue about rules

I think the game vs simulation thing can also be a discussion about what is "fun" in a wargame. I suspect "fun" is the rate at which the player has to make meaningful decisions, or at least the maximum time interval between those decisions (hence the above comment about sitting around doing nothing). So rules that have mechanisms that bear no direct relationship to reality (apparently poor simulations) might be more fun for some people than rules or scenarios where the game outcome seems pre-programmed and inevitable.

John

@Avery

I agree with Roger Caillois, who has defiend "a game as an activity that must have the following characteristics:
fun: the activity is chosen for its light-hearted character
separate: it is circumscribed in time and place
uncertain: the outcome of the activity is unforeseeable
non-productive: participation does not accomplish anything useful
governed by rules: the activity has rules that are different from everyday life
fictitious: it is accompanied by the awareness of a different reality" (Wikipedia)

I also work educational, but i think, we get into a dilemma. A game that is not played for being a game, looses its value. Have you ever played a conflict game (like risk) with a couple, where the wife started to attack her man, because of some out-of-game considerations? Then you know, what i mean.

I've just looked him up Decebalus and although I would not sign up to the list you've posted I found this alternate phrasing on Wikipedia, which I would agree with in part:

- It is free, or not obligatory.
- It is separate (from the routine of life) occupying its – own time and space.
- It is uncertain, so that the results of play cannot be pre-determined and so that the player's initiative is involved.
- It is unproductive in that it creates no wealth and ends as it begins.
- It is governed by rules that suspend ordinary laws and behaviours and that must be followed by players.
- It involves make-believe that confirms for players the existence of imagined realities that may be set against 'real life'

I note also that he disagreed with the emphasis on competition, which I think is an integral part of most games, although I do enjoy some more recent cooperative ones.

I think the vast majority of people bring out-of-game considerations, perceptions and attitudes into the game experience and in this the game is little different to everyday life. I think by introducing elements of roleplay in particular you can help bring about a greater engagement and understanding of situations, depending on the participants and their investment in the game and this learning can stay with them. At a recent presentation the following quote rang true to me:

'Games have the power to alter how people perceive the world around them' Raph Koster in Theory of Fun.

Perhaps I should point out that many of the games I currently enjoy only have limited rulesets and a very open playstyle, so that players are encouraged to bring their creativity into play. If the rules don't cover something you want to do, but it is feasible in reality, then you discuss how you might achieve it with an umpire.

p.s. John Webster – are you suggesting that people find fun in different things? The very idea…;)

Decebalus,
We seem to disagree at a level that even I would not have expected.

I would neither describe or want to play a game that was "the activity is chosen for its light-hearted character". I would not describe Chess (though a game) as the above and so would not describe my gameS that way.

Neither would I subscribe to "participation does not accomplish anything useful". On the contrary most of our game explore unique tactical problems some based on/inspired by training material to gain an insight in to the battles I read about.

Admittedly our games are not for passers by, like chess the rules of play are simple but mastery takes much thought and potentially some basic reading up of tactical theory. Certainly they are not at their best in a convention setting with players with little comprehension of the period or its tactics. But such games hold little interest for me anyway.

Perhaps the definition of "fun" is a bone of contention.

UshCa2,

i think you see the definition of game to radical.

Chess is obviously played for "its light-hearted character". Why else would anyone play it?

Maybe the opposite makes everything clearer. Simulation, that are no games. Using a helicopter simulator, knowing you have to be successful to get the licence is no game. Being a prussian officer using Kriegsspiel, knowing that if your order is not written according to the standard, you lose your promotion, is no game (even if the name Kriegsspiel says otherwise).

Yes, games, give the chance to learn something. But the learning has to be a side-effect of the game, not the cause and goal. Its the ineresting phenomen, that the game has to be not useful, to be useful.

Playing Blucher and attacking everything, even if you will lose, can be a good game, because you stay in the game reality. Playing Hitler and attacking your guest, because Hitler wouldnt have tolerated, that guests dont bring beer to an evening, will lead to a bad game, because game world and reality are mixed.

A simulation is different from that. It only says, that something tries to simulate some other thing from the reality. So soccer is a game, but doesnt try to simulate anything. Chess is a good game, but an abstract simulation of medieval warfare. Historical miniature wargaming per definition is a simulation. The question is only, if a certain ruleset gives a good simulation.

The problem with judging, if a simulation is good, is problematic. It is not always clear, what the (historical) reality is, that is simulated. What is the real important thing about napoleonic warfare? Everyone has a different answer. And that leads to the problem, that you can only judge, what a wargame tries to simulate. Judging Volley&Bayonet, that it doesnt have Lines and Columns, makes no sense.

@ Ben Avery

I think my Blucher/Hitler example above gives my opinion about roleplaying aspects in wargaming. I really, really love it, when players get into character. But that has to happen in the gaming reality, not with some out-of-game considerations.

'But that has to happen in the gaming reality, not with some out-of-game considerations.'

And that's where I have to say that in my experience there are very few games played anywhere, if indeed any, based on your definitions.

People make decisions based on previous experience against players or what they know of them outside the game. 'Playing the player' can be as much a game as the scenario or mechanics. People make decisions because they need to leave early, or they're distracted by thinking about work.

People are given roles in our games because they are 'aggressive' or have experience they bring from other areas that make them suitable. Simply thinking 'Martin is cast as Blucher and should attack in this scenario, but he is hesitant, so we can ignore him' is bringing external influence into the game.

As for the Chess example, at what point does it stop being a game? When people are given rankings? Is Fischer vs Kasparov a contest rather than a game? I think game is a very vague concept and covers everything from game as diversion, through game as tool and up to game as contest. And maybe all three in different elements.

Notwithstanding, this has been a thought-provoking discussion and had me thinking about PBEM games I've played in, which are possibly closer to your definition in some ways. Hmmm, are the only true games players computers?

I would also agree that when discussing how accurate a simulation is, it is very subjective and comes back to the person making the judgement understanding what is the focus of the simulation.

Sorry, just too late to edit my previous post.

I realised that those two slightly dissimilar definitions according to Caillois we provided are both from Wikipedia. One is from the article on game, the other on Caillois himself. Interesting.

Decebalus,
Not sure if it is a difference in use of launguage or a definition of what we seE a game as.

COLLINS DEFINITION

"Something that is light-hearted is intended to be entertaining or amusing, and not at all serious".

My games I would describe as Serious and Riveting.

OXFORD DICTIONARY SERIOUS

Demanding or characterized by careful consideration or application.

Riveting

Completely engrossing; compelling.

Thus the Collins dictionary definition of light hearted does not cover games as we play. They are indeed serious games and riveting but not light hearted.

That games can designed to be one or the other is quite possible but not all games are light hearted or have any pretentions to be such.

It may be that a game that is designed to be light hearted may have problems as a simulation.

Even at a very basic very simplified level, co-ordinating a company and its supporting elements in time and space to ahieve a particular task is very demading. It is however enjoyable like a workout for the brain.

I think gaming can be almost anything and the goals should fit the intent.

Sometimes it's fun to plan out a battalion level attack at Kursk in exquisite detail and sometimes its fun to have dinosaurs trying to eat Hitler.

Simulation is great but we tend to forget that simulation doesn't mean "history" automatically.

A Star Trek game can be a simulation as much as a world war 2 tank commander game.

Likewise, detail and simulation are not synonymous.

3.5 Dungeons and Dragons is a very complicated game but it doesn't simulate much of anything.
Crossfire is a very simple game and is a decent simulation of a particular thing.

And at the end of the day, our movement rates are all defined by the kitchen table :-)

Chess is obviously played for "its light-hearted character". Why else would anyone play it?

Money.
Fame.
Intellectual Challenge.
Because Your Parents Do.

I think you forgot the chess groupies too.

I design wargames for myself. There is no "fight to the death" AFAIK. I certainly don't argue with myself. I don't play simulations. Nobody on this board plays simulations. They all play varying degrees of complex games. Love them or loathe them, that is how it is.

"Nobody on this board plays simulations". Clearly this stament is false (in my opinion) I do play simulations. They reflect the training nmaterial in many of the US Field Manuals and other data.

I think you forgot the chess groupies too.

I know that's why I played chess before I got married.

Nobody on this board plays simulations. They all play varying degrees of complex games. Love them or loathe them, that is how it is.

Joker:
What is your idea of a simulation? It isn't 'how it is.'
It all depends on the designer's intent and his success with the design.

What is your idea of a simulation? It isn't 'how it is.'

Simulations are ultra detailed and account for everything one can think. They generally take a long time to "play" and are usually not "fun." In case you haven't guessed, I like military themed games.

Simulations are ultra detailed and account for everything one can think.

Joker:
There certainly are wargames like that, but functional simulations are not defined by the amount of detail they have crammed into them, let alone 'accounting for everything'…as though that were even possible. ALL simulation designers agree with game designers: Too much detail mucks up the system to the point it doesn't work. As Engineer Jerry Banks writes in Simulation Handbook

A simulation should contain no more detail than absolutely necessary to achieve the goals it designed to meet.

That is true for any game too.

The idea that simulations had to have lots of detail is a myth--no simulation designer believes that. I can tell you when That Notion began: In the 1970s with Simulations Publications Inc. , back in the early, early days of serious simulation design--on a number of fronts outside of wargaming.

The SPI reasoning went like this:

1. Reality has a lot of detail
2. So, to simulate reality, you have to have a lot of detail,
3. So, the more details you include, the more accurate and "realistic" the simulation.

Completely untrue, but it led to bigger games with lots of details, to the point they were simply unplayable… SPI called them 'dynamic books… dynamic history…' probably because all you could really do is read the hundreds of rulebook pages.

This led to a backlash, which while understandable, generated a further set of myths as far as simulations and games were concerned:

1. Game systems buried in mountains of details couldn't be played.
2. To enjoy games, to have fun playing, you have to be able to play them.
3. Simpler games are easier to play, thus you had a set of opposites set up, each very much a Mythtake:

Games vs simulations
Fun vs accuracy
Playable vs accuracy/complexity

And of course, you see folks fussing over these deadend dichotomies that really have absolutely nothing to do with designing functional simulations and/or fun games.

*There is no rule that requires simulation games to be any more complex than any game system you wish to choose.

*Accuracy is not based on how much detail you can cram into a game system. Accuracy is how well the game system models what the system was designed to model the reality the designer CHOSE to model, no more, no less.

*Simulation games of any type, entertainment, training, research, use the very same type of mechanics that are used by any game system built for entertainment. Because of that, Military training games become entertainment and wargames built to entertain do become training platforms for the military.

I certainly don't like highly detailed wargames. I actually got headaches from some of the more ponderous ones in the past, even though there are those who love them. All to the good and to each his own.

What people like to play and want from their games does not dictate what is possible with simulation game design… only what sells. That's fine as long as we don't get lost in the myths of the past or think that anything outside of some set of game preferences is impossible.

That Jerry Banks quote should read:

A simulation should contain no more detail than absolutely necessary to achieve the goals it WAS designed to meet.

McLean die,
Excellent summary, thank you.

A simulation is a model with dynamics executed incrementally along at least one independent variable.

Almost exclusively, the driving independent variable is time, even though time is not actually a thing.

If you're using rules to guide how things change based on a concept of time progressing, you're executing a simulation. That simulation may be a game; it may not.

etotheipi,
What is your evaluation of the description below: game or simulation?

Goal of the game: For the player to experience tank combat at the crew level making the same risk-reward decisions that tank commanders had to make in WWII. A player's decision to shoot or move interacts with every other unit and vehicle on the table without the need for a traditional turn sequence or random activations. We've tested this system with each side having up to 15-20 vehicles/units in tank and infantry combat. New players can control 4-5 tanks, experienced players 12-15. The only bookkeeping is writing down the turn of activation. Scenarios used by ASL would be ideal to refight an engagement.

Game Versions: We have a basic version for conventions with a die roll for variable engagement delay to abstract observation and turret rotation. A more detailed version introduces button up/unbuttoned observation, variable aim times and crew performance. The "deluxe" (most demanding?) version uses a Situational Awareness Check (D20 die roll) to determine how effective observation is and determine engagement delays, historic turret rotation time, SNAFU's, infantry small arms engagement, air and artillery support. Orders and actions do not have a 100% chance of being carried out as ordered.

Game System: A vehicle data card is provided like used with Tank Charts and Panzer. The game uses one second time slices (progression of time) as a timing mechanism to determine in what future turn an action (like shooting) will be activated. This is known as "Time & Action". The player (as the Tank Commander) reacts to enemy activity in his LOS like shooting, moving and turret rotation on the turn they occur. The turn that the shooting will occur is determined by any engagement delay (similar to spotting), turret rotation speed (historical rate) to get the gun on target, aim time (variable with a penalty for short aim times) and crew expertise (poor crews take longer). Follow up shots activation turn is determined by reload time (historic), aim time (variable with a penalty for short aim times) and crew expertise (poor crews take longer). This is similar to adding up die roll modifiers.

Player actions: The player decides what he wants to do and determines how long it will take and what it will impact. Using the concept of "Time & Action" the player can simulate reverse slope defense, halt fire, shoot & scoot, snap fire and handle any other move or fire activities that occur during the game. Time & Action replaces a typical move and shoot turn sequence and random activation. There are no special rules for opportunity fire and over watch.

Strategy & Tactics: Tactical positioning (similar to overwatch) means quicker engagement with less turret rotation time and less chance of being surprised so cover likely enemy avenues of approach. Tank Commander unbuttoned means better observation and less engagement delay. Less aim time means shooting quicker but with an accuracy penalty. The player will have several risk-reward decisions that will impact how quickly and accurately he can fire. A fog of war is created as your opponent does not know your decisions and in what future turn you will fire. If you fire too quickly you may miss and not get a chance for another shot. Take too long and you may be dead before you fire. That's the player dilemma.

Game Play and Interaction: Each turn is called out one at a time (progression of time). Any unit scheduled to shoot on that turn does so. Shooting can be simultaneous between two units without additional rules. All vehicles and units have a 360-degree observation around them (some vehicles can only observe to their front 90 degrees if firing). Any action taking place can be reacted to by any other unit with a LOS by selecting an action and determining what future turn it will activate. Shooting only occurs if a vehicle or gun is scheduled to shoot on the current turn! If no one is firing play immediately proceeds to the next turn as each turn is a timing mechanism that may or may not involve an action that activates that turn. Every 5 turns is a movement phase. During any turn, a player can place a movement marker to move or remove a movement marker to stop. Players need to think like a Tank Commander in real time. Some players catch on quickly, some take awhile.

Movement: Moving units have a movement marker placed by the vehicle showing the direction and speed of movement. Units with a movement arrow are fired at as a moving target. Every 5 turns all moving units are moved simultaneously with their direction limited to the direction the arrow is pointing. The movement arrows will show exactly where the vehicle is during each second of movement. If a moving unit moves out of LOS before an enemy turn to fire he cannot be targeted.

Summary: Using the "Time & Action" with game play progressing one turn at a time with only players scheduled to activate on that specific turn replaces traditional IGOUGO and random activation mechanics. It also allows for opportunity fire without additional special rules. Player actions mimic what a tank crew does rather than being constricted and limited by artificial game turn sequences or random activations. They can attempt to react to any activity in their LOS on the turn it occurs but the activation will always take place in a future turn.

Games are actually speeded up because of simultaneous movement. Players do not hold up the game when determining the Time & Action to activate in a future turn. Players are always involved in the action because even if not firing they may need to pay attention to all activity in their LOS for new threats. Buttoned up vehicles perform poorly because it takes them more time to detect and respond to enemy threats (engagement delay). Good crews can perform more actions in the same amount of time than poor crews. These aspects of the game are all about timing which traditional turn sequences and random activations cannot effectively do. Players are mimicking the actions and decisions of real WWII tank crews and the game can use historical turret rotation rates and rates of fire without abstracting them. Portrayal of mortars and artillery against moving vehicles is more accurate too.

Wolfhag

What is your evaluation of the description below: game or simulation?

Wolfhag:
Your game design goal requires the game to be a simulation:

The goal of the game: For the player to experience tank combat at the crew level making the same risk-reward decisions that tank commanders had to make in WWII.

Ther rest, from game versions to summary is simply how the game is going to achieve your goal.

Whether it is a functioning [successful] simulation would need to be tested once designed.