"Game design - Target Audience" Topic

I have just been proof reading the final draft for a Starship game authored by Alex of Shipyards. It made me think that there are two categories of games.

The first is perhaps the light touch game. Team Yankee, or in RPG perhaps the starter sets of D&D. and in Starships Full thrust self proclaming to be " Boldly go with a Six Pack where none have gone before". These can be for some less demanding regular players and for say convention games and beginners with little knowledge of the genre and no deep enthusiasm to make it a "Way of Life" .

At the other end are the games for the dedicated enthusiast. These are games are for the demanding regular players, they have a depth and scope well beyond the simple pick up game. Traveler, ICE huge range of RPG rules and perhaps in the same vane the Star ship game I am reading. Its Star ships with ship to ship battles and campaign issues. The terminology is familiar only to the dedicated star ship enthusiast with G-well generators, various Faster Than Light (FTL drives), all staples of the enthusiast but not to the passing interest "just bought the models really just to paint" types.

All rules I guess fall into these categories whether the designers/authors wish it or not.

I guess as a straw poll where do you fit.

I certainly fall into the latter. I am a war gamer first, modeller only as needs to supply stuff to war game with. I need rules that demand lots of tactical thought and concentration.

I think there is more of a continuum than two end points, but I do think that what you describe – desired level of detail – is important.

There are probably a couple other important related (orthogonal) dimensions:

(1) Subject of Detail – Someone may be uninterested in the logistics of adventuring but very interested in close combat detail, or someone else could care less about the difference between a Winchester and a Colt but be very concerned about tracking rounds of ammunition.

(2) Type of Detail – Some players want a rich background, others want significant tactical variety in stats. Sometimes complex rules with simple mechanics are called for and other players like detailed mechanics underneath simple rules.

I have never seen such bias before than in the way you phrased this.
Rate the way you play with toy soldiers from "silly, ignorant and immature" to "scholarly and professional".

No good game should be demanding to play. Most people have jobs and a real life to manage. Having to "work" at your hobby seems counter to the whole point of the activity.

Rich Bliss,
That seems a strange comment to me. If you want to play golf at an advanced level it is demanding requiring practice most days. Similarly there are those who want an undemanding war game game, where its an excellent excuse to chat and for mutual admiration of models, to my sort of game that demands long and careful thought to design a complex scenario and then think how to approach it.

My undemanding hobby is slot cars that I do in an undemanding way, but it can and is taken very seriously by others.

War games is no different. I wrote the rules while in a demanding job some 8 years ago. I have only been retired for just over a year.

Winston Smith,
Clearly you are not familiar with RPG games where our most complex war games pale into insignificance against the legions of volumes of a single RPG set. You used the offensive statements not I. They are simply sides of a coin, both are valid.

"Clearly you are not familiar with….."
Again the condescending categorization.
This all boils down to "My way good. Your way bad."

This might be a valid discussion without begging the question in defining your extremes.
(Using "begging the question" correctly. )

I believe that there are people spread out along this measure that you are asking for.
Myself, I play with a group and everyone likes the ICE system and the level of detail.
Then there are the times where everyone wants a quick 1 day "off" game---I don't expect everyone to own the same games that I own, and I do not want to spend much game time reviewing rules
In that case, I appreciate the "6 pack and snack" type of rules that can get a group moving and having fun

Now you see why any discussion on game design principles rapidly breaks down. Prejudice of some members is so great against taking it seriously they resort to unjustified critique of your 'attitude' rather than any comment on the issue.

Having said that, your assumption that a large rule book makes a complex system is invalid. Most RPGs have to include background and interactions that are specific to that setting because the setting is created by the author. Historical wargame rules do not include that information but it doesn't mean that it isn't needed to play – just that it can be got from other source material.

"Silly, ignorant, and immature" for me please, with cherry on top. I like to have fun. I get my mental challenges from life and trying to work on my second PhD, and keeping solvent.

I collect commercial board games and family games. Summit, Game of Nations, Life, The Barbie Game, Conflict, Broadside, Battle Cry, Skirmish, Dogfight, Buccaneer, World Traveller, and so forth. I am always amazed how these games can with a few simple rules that often are printed on the underside of the lid, create a really great and fun game, where many of the 100/100 monstrosities in war games defy even reading let alone understanding and playing.

I am also not above simply lifting whole hog those old games and using them as rules for table top games. I did exactly that with Buccaneer, only adding a few new ideas and graphics, and it became my YO-HO-HO! sailing ship rules.

I remember as a kid all the kids up and down the block played them and loved them incessantly till they fell apart and had "the moistest fun!" Day after day till the new one came out.

One interesting thing as I recall. In the "gang" of kids (9 to 14) we had there were several girls. They played the military games as hard as they played the Barbie Game, or the Driving game. I'll always remember the look of fiendish glee as Yuan Eng shot me down in my Fokker D7 in Dogfight.

All rules also fall into the following categories whether the authors intend them to or not:

Black & White OR Color
Over 40 Pages OR Under 40
More popular in China than Nickleback OR Less popular
The kind of book cats like to lie on OR not
Use exclusively D6 OR dice s

Rules complexity does NOT necessarily = tactical thought and concentration.

Chess has pretty simple rules yet can be played at a very demanding level, requiring great tactical thought and concentration.

Thus, the OP's dichotomy is invalid.

Whereas I agree that rules tend to fall into two camps---more complex or less complex---I do not agree with Uscha's implied superiority of one over the other.

Both. I like one page rules when I don't want to think and super complex stuff when my ocd kicks into overdrive

Gaming is FUN. Whatever it takes. I remember my first "in depth" fantasy RPG that I bought. Can't recall the name now (I don't keep rules collections around, heresy, I know, but there it is). 8.5 x 10 format, red cover, tiny print, about half an inch or more thick, with a B&W drawing on the cover of a mounted knight charging a dragon (someone will return and provide the title?). I was appalled at the detail, the useless minutia. For a brief season my rule design followed suit, and I lost all sense of fun in game design, until I returned to my modus operandi of (as the OP has it) "light touch game" design. My current RPG system is more like a gridwork upon which the GM can hang the current scenario. Precedent is either appealed to or dispensed with, in favor of a present idea on how to proceed. If it sounds/feels good to the GM, we do it that way, this time, and to hell with setting a precedent. If "it" continues to work for us, we do it that way. If something replaces "it" because it works better or feels more cool, then the previous approach vanishes. Try it, you'll like it, or not, depending…………

For complex go look at ICE's Critical hit tables for each weapon :-).

The kind of book cats like to lie on OR not

In my house there is only the former kind. I'm no longer sure the latter exists, or is even possible.

- Ix

@ warwell. You are absolutely right!

Chess has pretty simple rules yet can be played at a very demanding level, requiring great tactical thought and concentration.

Thus, the OP's dichotomy is invalid.

@Warwell:

That is a good point. However, I don't think it necessarily invalidates the OP's dichotomy… the question is why gamers come to the table… and how much effort and time they WANT to put into the activity.

Some folks play chess as an afternoon's entertainment, some play in national tournaments, are internationally rated and live for the game. Same game. There are International Tiddily Winks tournaments.

So, the only dichotomy, which obviously is a continuum, is between what experience the gamer is going for, casual to completely engrossed. I don't think that is a false dichotomy. I sit down to a game for both depending on the game and my time. And regardless of having a job etc., there certainly are those who live for one past time or another, whether golf or the online Second Life.

So, it isn't surprising that there are designers who try to design for one preference or the other.

As you note, the simplicity of the game doesn't necessarily dictate how much time a gamer is willing to invest in it.

I play uncomplicated games that can be over in an hour or two. I try to keep them simple enough where anyone can walk up and learn the basics in 5 or fewer minutes. All of my games try to hit the general points of the era being played without having to constantly refer to a rule book. And the important bit. My games can be explained in 10 or fewer pages.

War games is no different. I wrote the rules while in a demanding job some 8 years ago. I have only been retired for just over a year.

UshCha2, I'm confused. Are the rules you are proofreading rules that you wrote eight years ago? Are you and 'Alex of Shipyards" one and the same person or is he someone else entirely?

Great War Ace. That would be Chivalry and Sorcery.The mother of all complex RPGs. I bought it myself when young. It had everything to make a medieval world work in game terms. Many people love it. At the time there were also monster board games that delved into the smallest detail of battle (SPI and Avalon Hill games) and WRG Rules where charts were many. At the time there seemed to be a thirst for trying to find answers to what ever situation arose.

Squad Leader was as deep as I got and I loved "mastering" the rules and it is a cracking game. But there were other games that really intrigued me, such as City Fight which had each force on different identical boards with an umpire- think Hue City for complexity. Wow!

Crumbs. Our games cam be real brain-benders.

Now I like HOTT and simpler games. I like the freedom to design and make armies that are very open. The rules are quick to learn, but hard to master.

I guess we have a pretty rich hobby where there is something for everyone.

+1 Warwell

@Yellow Admiral: It is possible books cats will NOT lie on is a mere logical possibility and not any actuality.

Clearly you are not familiar with RPG games where our most complex war games pale into insignificance against the legions of volumes of a single RPG set.

Clearly you are not familiar with Advanced Squad Leader.

Hey guys, UshCha is asking for a straw poll, not another endless dissertation on what defines a game. I'm not going to digress and will try to answer Ushcha's question.

I'm what he would call a dedicated enthusiast.

Why? Because what I want to get out of a game is the flavor and experience of what occurs on a tactical level to the point I could write an AAR that would resemble one found in a book.

I want a game that is interactive and reactive with some player risk-reward decisions, not a random turn sequence with turns magically ending because the joker card turned up. Like everyone else, I don't want to be the last one to get his command dice to move/fire. I do not want to wade through subjective and artificial game segments/phases like ASL.

I understand the FOW and there is some random occurrence on the battlefield, but total randomness of when units will fire or move (that includes rolling for initiative) just makes me shake my head.

A game that assigns a gun to hit 3+ or an armor value of "9" does not excite me. A game that has a gunnery system based on real firing trials, combat results or some formula using error budget will get my attention. If the game can simulate some of the 1st person accounts I've read in books that's even better.

I'm willing to use a few charts and unit cards (like in Tank Charts and Panzer). I understand that's a total buzz kill for many of you. I am willing to do one or two simple math calculations but I do not want to look up numerous die roll modifiers to a base number. Too tedious and too much to forget. I also like percentage dice because it's easier for me to think with.

I like functional and intuitive play aids to make the game easier.

My opinion is in the minority so it's OK to disagree with me. No problem.

Wolfhag

I wouldn't mind his straw poll so much if he didn't go so far out of his way in defining his extremes as to belittle those who don't see or play his way.

Wolf,

What Winston said. I don't think anyone would begrudge you your preferences, the issue is how the opposing sets of preferences were set up ("…less demanding regular players…beginners with little knowledge of the genre and no deep enthusiasm to make it a "Way of Life"" versus "…for the dedicated enthusiast…demanding regular players, they have a depth and scope well beyond the simple …not to the…"just bought the models really just to paint" types."), and it's nowhere near the first time.

Actually, it is a bit different. We're usually treated to the 'all the rules but mine are for simpletons that don't really know what they're doing.'

So, with that, I have to respectfully disagree with GildasFact. I think there are a great many folks here on TMP that love talking game design and theory and take it sufficiently seriously, and have some fantastic discussions. I've been involved in quite a few of them here regarding gaming mechanisms for fire and maneuver, close combat, machine gun employment, employment of supporting fires, combat in urban terrain, tank-infantry cooperation.

What you can't do is start the discussion with 'raise your hand if you're a real wargamer like me, not a half-wit that doesn't understand or care to understand warfare.'

V/R,
Jack

I have seen this attributed to Cicero, Pascal and Mark Twain:

'I apologize for such a long letter – I didn't have time to write a short one.'

I will follow in the footsteps of the OP and say that those who do not know how to write wargame rules fill them with useless charts, details and …. charts.
If you can get believeable results in a third of the page count and time, then you know what you are doing.

You may think that all that means you "understand" the period better but you are just fooling yourself.

See. I can be arrogant and condescending too.

I will follow in the footsteps of the OP and say that those who do not know how to write wargame rules fill them with useless charts, details and …. charts.
If you can get believeable results in a third of the page count and time, then you know what you are doing.

Actually, this is very true.

Nothing as easy as adding 'depth' to your game by providing endless tables and procedures, and providing the illusion that once you have mastered such a creation, you have reached a full understanding of the period. In reality, you have memorized an encyclopedia. ASL comes to mind. Or Star Fleet Battles. Or Warhammer.

Good games design distills the essence in a few easy-to-use rules and procedures, tries to reduce the characteristics per troop type as much as possible, does not resort to endless army lists and troop types, … while still retaining the tactical challenges of the period.

Anyone can write the first type of game. It is much harder to come up with the second.

Gents,
It was never meant to belittle anybody, In effect it was a intended as "Tounge In Cheek" comment aboiut folk like me who "Should Get Out More", taking wargames so seriously. No offence was meant to any side.

Complexity can come from a few rules if very well written. But the more demanding rules have to take more into account. As an example Tank rules not covering smoke dischargers and say turret turning lessen the options to relate to reality so its a bit of both. To say the sub units automatiocaly get it right is a cop out its not that simple. In reality there is no right and wrong there is a balance of risk. To some extent rules complaxity does help with accuracy but there is a usefull limit.

S J Donavan,
My rules are WWII to present day (Maneouver Group). The proof reading that made me think was Alewx of Shipyards SI FI Starship rules which may be out in december.

Complexity can come from a few rules if very well written. But the more demanding rules have to take more into account. As an example Tank rules not covering smoke dischargers and say turret turning lessen the options to relate to reality so its a bit of both.

I disagree – or at least I disagree with the example given since it depends on so many other design parameters in the game.

Good game design focuses on a number of meaningful decisions players can make or have to make during their turn. Too few meaningful decisions, and the game feels railroaded, too many decision points and the game becomes boring and tedious. This is also linked to the number of "gaming tokens" under your control. If you only have one token, you want to make several decisions with that one token. If you have multiple tokens, a single decisions per token is usually better.

Note I said *meaningful* decisions. IMO, too many wargames force players to make decisions that have little effect on the final outcome, but do have an effect on the procedure or mechanic one has to follow.

In the example above, you say smoke dischargers and turret turning are important. This might be if your game puts you in control of a single tank, and your position identification in the game is the crew or even the individual tank commander. But if the game gives you a platoon or company or tanks, such decisions become meaningless, only resulting in endless modifiers during the shooting phase. Perhaps you like such a game, but such mechanics are signs of a not very well-designed game. A good design – for a game that involves several tanks – should enroll all aspects of shooting with a single tank into one clean procedure. So the player can focus on how to make several tanks work together, with decision points focusing on manoeuvring.

Complex mechanics – or mechanics which take into account many different parameters – usually do not make for a game which leads to deeper understanding. They do make a game unnecessarily complex. You might argue that if you have an abstracted shooting procedure, you lose touch with type of ammunition vs armour thickness and so on but those aspects – and how 'reality' is transformed into a gaming mechanic – should be described and explained in the designer's notes.

That does not mean one cannot use period terminology for describing characteristics of troops or procedures to add colour to the game. But that's a different aspect of the games design.

But it also depends on what you expect from playing a wargamee. For me, a wargame by itself is not the means to study warfare. Rather, the wargame is the means to play out a battle *after* you've studied the warfare of the period (and hence, you are better able to understand the abstractions in any given ruleset, and you don't have to rely on the rules to understand how a battle was fought). There is a difference between those approaches ;-)

I'll jump past the various back and forth on the topic, since we've had plenty of threads discussing similar and instead outline what I look for in a "good design".

IF the game is aiming at being a simulation

AND bearing in mind that a simulation isn't purely a model of reality (GW's Lord of the Rings is a simulation as much as Advanced Squad Leader is)

THEN it typically follows that a simulation will select certain points to do well while abstracting others.

A lot of "data-heavy" games tend to be heavy on mechanical detail but light on morale/personality specific detail for example.

When I read a game that is clearly intending to simulate/emulate a specific thing, I usually expect a few clever "core mechanics" that drive the gameplay.

Crossfire is a good example where, more than anything else, Crossfire IS the initiative system. Take that out and the rest is stuff you've seen a million times before.
With the initiative system in, it becomes a unique game and that system drives the gameplay and the simulation of low-level infantry fighting.

Detail is sort of tangential to all that.
Dungeons and dragons 3.5 edition was hideously complex without really being a simulation of..well..anything other than itself.

Now, there's a certain joy out of a highly detailed game. I love Face of Battle and I like ASL, we play those when we want to have a game where you are involved with the system at every moment.
Other times, that's not the case and we want to be able to have a conversation while rolling dice.

You may think that all that means you "understand" the period better but you are just fooling yourself.

This is somewhat broad brush. If you understand the period, then you should be able to write a short set of rules that cover all the important points. Though it is also true that you could write a period specific rules set that does not cover the important points but somehow gives believable results.

Ushcha,

"It was never meant to belittle anybody, In effect it was a intended as "Tounge In Cheek" comment aboiut folk like me who "Should Get Out More", taking wargames so seriously. No offence was meant to any side."
Fair enough, and with that, I apologize for being a I absolutely understand that 'tone' is a tough thing to deal with via the internet, and so things can get skewed.

I absolutely love talking about game design, can't help but get myself involved in it, particularly WWII to present. I haven't been able to get there with you because it seems like your posts set conditions and use qualifiers I just can't seem to get past, so I'd beg you to please take that into account, and you'll probably have 1) more folks involved in the conversation and 2) the conversation has a better chance of staying on track. All of this is simply my opinion, for what it's worth.

So, let me turn to the issue at hand:
"As an example Tank rules not covering smoke dischargers and say turret turning lessen the options to relate to reality so its a bit of both. To say the sub units automatiocaly get it right is a cop out its not that simple. In reality there is no right and wrong there is a balance of risk. To some extent rules complaxity does help with accuracy but there is a usefull limit."

I am a big believer in what I call 'perspective-based wargaming,' meaning, as the player I am assuming a command role/presence on the tabletop. If it's a company-level game (a company and perhaps a couple supporting elements per side on the table, by my definition), I am the company commander, a battalion-level game and I am the battalion commander, and so on. So within the wargame rules for that echelon of battle, I would expect to be faced with tactical challenges that would face a commander at that echelon, to have to make decisions that are made in real-life by a commander at that echelon, and to only be able to control elements/items/issues that could be controlled in real-life by a commander at that echelon. There is always a bit of 'fudging' that has to happen in wargames (the platoon is not going to physically move on the table unless the 'battalion commander' steps in for a moment, picks them up, and sets them down somewhere else), but that's what I try to do.

So, for me, the issue is not one in terms of complexity regarding all the mechanisms and procedures you have to follow in the rules, all the information you have to take into account and act on, it's what the mechanisms and procedures are working out, what information is key, to a commander in real-life at that echelon.

I don't complain about a battalion-level game that worries about turret facings, smoke grenades, and ammo types because it's too much work, I complain about that type of game because, in my opinion, the real-life battalion commander is not concerned with turret facing, use of smoke grenades, and ammo types.

I think you could have some very complex and complicated rules with endless mechanisms and procedures (I believe you use the term 'demanding') in a battalion-level game, but in my opinion these would have to do with restricting the player/commander's awareness of the enemy situation and dispositions, modeling communications to and from units and the battalion CP, and modeling the combat and maneuver of the various line units in accordance with the commander's intent, but with room for error, misinterpretation, and subordinate commanders' initiative (friction).

To get back to the OP, I want rules that do all of those things, but, at this stage in life, I prefer more abstraction in rules, less written-out process and procedures, as time is an issue and I want to play as many games as I possibly can. For me, finding the perfect set of rules has been trial and error to get to a set that focuses on tactical decision-making (at the appropriate level), with simple movement, morale, and combat mechanisms, that limits my ability to know the enemy situation and act/react at will (the "God's Eye View"), but doesn't leave me a hapless bystander.

I want to worry about stuff a commander at that echelon worries about and decide stuff that a commander at that echelon makes decisions about, and everything else is 'baked in' so that I can focus on what I think the commander would/should be focused on.

V/R,
Jack

This issue of a "small issue" is not well understood in my opinion. If a tank commander choses to allow crews to use smoke discharges they take a grave risk of isolating themselves and infantry in front of them making them easy meat. Weather you maker a tank company echelon left, right or front is critical. It must be one. If the next level of command gets it wrong the company could be caught out with less t ban optimum firepower where it is needed. In the real world it is reckoned commanders need to think 3 levels down. A wargamer will need to work at least that as there is no intelegent below him.

Now there is a decision whether the player wants the fairly gross inaccuracy as he does not want to make the decision, or accept the extra work load to more accurately model the system response.

Again this is a player issue there is no right or wrong it depends where you are on the initial level of interest.

Let's compare your smoke dischargers to Napoleonic battle. At what level is it no longer for the commander to issue orders about column line or square, or whether to deploy skirmishes?
My extensive reading about Waterloo is from Sharpe.
Every single time the Prince of Orange made such a decision for a battalion, it was against sound advice from subordinates and got the battalion destroyed. So Sharpe shot him, much like Jack Bauer would have. So, as an "army" commander (probably really a corps commander in practical terms), he had the authority to make such an order, but he really had better things to do.

So at what level do you want to have superior officers making a platoon commander's decision? Obviously you do not wish to make it up to the individual tank commander.
But the real decider in a game over when or how they are used should be the Real Life commander who actually makes that decision.
It's not anything to agonize over in game design. Who made that decision? If it's made at a lower command level than the officer I am playing, it's irrelevant detail that bogs the game down.
Did Patton choose individual targets for his tanks? He could have, he certainly had the authority to do so, but he had better things to do. I'm certain someone can point out when he did, but it was just Patton being Patton.
Or perhaps more to the point, would Patton be going through the repair shop checking on torque wrench settings? I have seen rules that almost go into that level of detail, but that just means that the writer didn't really know how to write rules properly.

May I present yo you the legendary "simulation", Campaign for North Africa by SPI, to show how such silliness can get out of hand. I'm sure there are some who think it didn't go far enough, but there are many more who were simply appalled.

Ushcha,

"If a tank commander choses to allow crews to use smoke discharges they take a grave risk of isolating themselves and infantry in front of them making them easy meat."
When you say 'tank commander,' do you mean the commander of an individual tank, or the commander of a platoon/company/battalion of tanks? Either way, a crewman is not going to drop smoke without the TC's authorization, and platoon/company/battalion commander is not making that decision for tanks. Dropping smoke (with the dischargers, as opposed to the Soviet practice of having tanks/APCs make smoke) is a countermeasure to being ranged in by AT weaponry and is exercised at the TC's discretion, along with returning fire (main gun and/or MGs) and micro-maneuver. Which leads to the next part regarding the platoon/company/battalion's formation, and how becoming isolated would make them an easy target.

Tankers (and infantry, for that matter) practice micro-maneuver in order to make best use of terrain while simultaneously maintaining their overall (not exact) place (and honoring their responsibilities) in the unit's formation.

"If the next level of command gets it wrong the company could be caught out with less t ban optimum firepower where it is needed. In the real world it is reckoned commanders need to think 3 levels down."
Sorry man, I couldn't disagree more. I hear the old 'two levels down' adage (hadn't heard three levels down) all the time, but, in my opinion, it doesn't mean what they think it means. A commander only gives orders (by design) to the level directly subordinate to him; he will also generally strive for an awareness of what is happening one level below this, but he is not giving orders to that echelon, it's purely for situational awareness and often ties directly into the ability to cross-attach those elements as means to task organize for the mission requirements.

So, a battalion commander (BC) gives orders to his company commanders (actually, in this day and age, in Western militaries, he doesn't even really give traditional orders, but 'commmander's intent,' or 'mission-type orders,' but that's a whole separate thread) and he knows what's happening with the platoons. Wargamers seem to think that means he knows exactly where each platoon is and what they're doing, but my experience was that what the BC is worried about is 1) is the platoon engaged or in reserve, 2) are they combat effective (in terms of bodies), and 3) what is their supply state (primarily bullets in the short term)?

And like I said, the BC wants that understanding not so he can give orders to the platoon or recommend to the company commander how to fight his company, but so he has an idea of the capability and status of the various platoons so that he can pull a platoon from one company to put somewhere else if the situation requires it. In real life, economy of force is a huge issue that you never see in wargames (at best we try to do something about 'reserves'); the ability of units engaged to change what their doing and doing something new under fire is incredibly, almost impossible, to do. So keeping units out of the line to shift and exploit is foremost on commander's minds.

"A wargamer will need to work at least that as there is no intelegent below him."
I absolutely agree something needs to be done, and I agree it's purely personal taste (there is no 'right' answer), but here we differ. My concern, if you're playing from the perspective of a battalion commander, is that you have mechanisms that allow you (as the BC) to exercise more control than a real BC could, and you're making decisions that would have been made by a Corporal or Sergeant. For me, I want rules that make me make the BC decisions, have mechanisms to limit my knowledge and ability, and have options for other stuff happen that's out of my control (at least partially simulating the Corporal or Sergeant that is seeing things I don't see as the BC, or is reacting in ways that don't align with what I would have hoped he did).

I'm not looking for wild variances from what I'm trying to do, I'm not looking for crazy amounts of random events, but I don't want to know everything and be able to move all my units around like a chessboard. But that's just me.

'Now there is a decision whether the player wants the fairly gross inaccuracy as he does not want to make the decision, or accept the extra work load to more accurately model the system response.'
See, to me the the gross inaccuracy is the Colonel deciding which target tank #7 is going to engage. In real life, the Colonel told the commander of the 1st Tank Company: "I want to own that hill by 1600. Here are your left and right lateral limits, here's the battalion's comm/signal plan, here are your supporting/attached/detached elements, here's the battalion fire support plan, and at the end of it I want you oriented to deal with enemy armor from the west."

The Colonel has trained his officers, has established SOPs, and given his intent. After that he's getting SITREPs, which allow him to determine if he needs to change his intent based on the changing tactical situation. Call off the attack or reinforce the attack are about the extent of his choices, in the overall scheme of things. Not 'Tank #7 has 8 sabot rounds left and is going to fire one at that T-64.'

That's real life, and that's how I try to game (given the limits of wargaming). Anyone is welcome to game however they want, but the question here is 'what is accurate?'

EDIT: And I type slower than OFM…

V/R,
Jack

Jack,
This all sounds well and I can't disagree with you. However, how do you as a Battalion Commander issue an order to your Company Commander and sit back and have vehicles at the platoon level fight out an engagement in a miniatures game without you as the player directing or interfering?

What level of abstraction do you use and what are the types of combat results? Surely you are not fighting it out on a round by round basis like most games. Do you use an odds based CRT? Attrition table? Rate of Advance result?

Wolfhag

Moving toy soldiers is more fun than not moving them, so you find the lowest level that the commander would generally consider (the old "2 down") and that;s your unit size.

If I am supposed to be a battalion commander, I'd expect a stand to be a platoon and not see individual vehicles, f.x.

Wolfhag,

So, don't misunderstand, I'm not saying there are not limitations of playing miniature wargames (when trying to play perspective-based wargames), I'm just laying out conceptually what I'm trying to do. You're absolutely right that I can't, as the BC, give orders to my company commanders then sit back and watch. As I don't have minions to move the toys to and fro, I've got to do it myself. But what I try to do is throw in friction and fog of war to limit my (as the player) perfect knowledge of the situation and limit what decisions I'm able to make below the BC's sphere of influence.

So, I use blinds to try to hide the enemy's strengths and dispositions from myself. I use rules that have activation systems that don't allow me to move and/or fire with every unit every turn. I hear it all the time regarding my posted batreps: 'how come you didn't fire your mortars?' 'How come that squad didn't move up and do x, y, or z?' The answer being, because of my rules, they couldn't, or I was limited in what I could do; I had to prioritize, and while I would have loved to have given orders to the mortar platoon to fire, it was more important to me, as the BC, to have that rifle company move left to deal with a previously unrealized threat to our left flank.

I also have mechanisms to help me with decision making at levels lower than the BC. If it's pretty self apparent that there's only one option for this platoon, then I do it. But as soon as it becomes apparent there are multiple options, I assign three courses of action (most likely, most dangerous, then something a little off the wall; weighted towards most likely) then roll to see what decision my platoon leader has made and carry it out. I'm mostly a solo gamer, and this is also the mechanism I use to run the enemy. I think I've talked quite a bit about my use of that mechanism for the enemy, but probably haven't talked about its use to run subordinate friendly forces for my perspective-based gaming; I don't think anyone's ever been interested ;)

Lastly, as Ivan points out, another mechanism I use to help with perspective-based gaming is the unit/stand scale. If I'm a platoon commander my bases are fireteams, I'm not worried about individual troops (though I'm looking at playing some No End In Sight soon, so I won't be sticking to my perspective-based gaming for that. Hey, someone times you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't). If I'm a company commander my stands are squads, I'm not worried about fireteams or individuals. If I'm a battalion commander my stands are platoons, I'm not worried about anything below it. So you use rules that have mechanics that build in (or 'bake in,' as I stated earlier) the 'abstraction' of handling a platoon as a platoon, rather than 40-some odd individual troops and weapons.

I have a bunch of NATO and WARPAC troops in 6mm; while I have played 1:1 scale (NATO reinforced company vs WARPAC reinforced battalion), I've also played (a little, need to get back to it) at higher echelon with multi-based troops.

Here's a link to ten batreps based on the book 'Team Yankee' (not to be confused with Battlefront's rules, this is a scenario book by the brilliant Ben Lacy):
link

Soviet Motor Rifle infantry press forward, overrunning the airfield while a US TOW ATGM engages from the flank.

But I also have units for battalion and brigade games:

Six stands, or two companies or two battalions of Leopard IIs, depending on whether I'm playing battalion or brigade level.

A company or battalion of mechanized infantry in Marders. At this level I don't use separate infantry and APC/IFV stands, I base them together. For perspective based wargaming at higher echelons, I think a stand is a representation of capability.

In any case, I'm not using a bunch of charts and table. It's certainly not that you couldn't, I just don't. I like rules that have simple movement, combat, and morale mechanisms so I can focus on the tactical situation and decision-making. Again, nothing wrong with how anyone else is doing it or wants to do it, this is just what I'm looking for and why. But given all that, I don't believe there is anything inherently unrealistic about my way of wargaming. To say that it is unrealistic is simply saying you can't aggravate the actions of a group of individuals and their equipment (of whatever size) into a larger capability, and I don't agree with that.

I've had folks tell me that doing so simply reduces the miniatures stands to boardgame counters; okay, I suppose I can live with that. I suppose I don't get the differentiation, or why that should hurt my feelings/make me feel like less of a wargamer. That stand right there can move 'x' inches each time it activates, and can fire at this type of target with 'y' amount of dice every time it activates. How is that different than any other miniatures game (and I know no one brought up that issue here, I'm just running off on all sorts of tangents)?

There's my two (maybe ten?) cents worth, though they're probably not even worth that much ;)

V/R,
Jack

Just Jack,
I think you have hit it well. The company commander has to set a formation. I like the dice to give some variation that is plausible. If the most plausible was line and that is what they adopt. If the company gets hit in the flank be un-expected enemy then its in a problem for that company and eventually to the BC who owns that company. That may not be my way, but it nontheless has much to merit it. Adopting a non plausible universal firepower which many rules apear too is a very poor second to your idea.

Jack,
That's a different way to play miniatures than I've seen and it did remind me of a board game which is fine with me.

I got out my notes on a board game at the level you are talking about and made a few changes. This is how I'd approach an assault playing the Battalion CO with platoon maneuver units/stands. I think giving mission orders to the Companies will help drive the game and leave the platoons to the tactical movement and combat..

The 2nd Marine Division gets an order to take objective X-Ray, a small town in their AO. The division commander checks and sees that X-Ray is in the 8th Marines (Regiment) AO. He calls a meeting with their Colonel. Intel reports show that enemy troops are infiltrating into X-Ray and building defenses. They go over METT-T: mission, enemy, terrain (and weather), troops, and time available.
Ideally we want a prepared assault which will allow time to develop C&C with support assets but waiting will only make taking the objective harder. A decision is made to conduct a hasty assault on X-Ray.

The Colonel (regiment) and Lt Colonel (battalion) determine they will need a reinforced battalion to take the objective and select the 2nd Battalion as they are closest and best prepared. The 2nd Battalion is composed of Echo (my old unit), Fox, Golf (infantry) and Hotel Company (weapons). Attached they will have some AAV's and LAV's from the Recon unit.

The Battalion commander meets with his Company Commanders (Major and three Captains) and the AAV and LAV commander. It is decided that Echo Company reinforced and supported by Hotel Company (weapons, mortars, AT weapons) will perform a frontal assault (of course they will, they are Marines). Their Platoon Leaders will determine how each objective will be attacked. Fox Company will be held as reserve.Golf Company will conduct a flanking/turning maneuver riding in the AAV's and supported by the LAV's.

Now each maneuver company is assigned standing orders. Next give them alternative orders in the event they need to change or use their initiative if C&C breaks down. Fox Company as the reserve will react to any enemy counterattacks on Echo Company. Ideally they will be used to exploit a breakthrough, reinforce Echo or conduct a pursuit if the enemy withdraws. Golf Company should attempt to avoid and break contact and continue their flanking maneuver to cover the road into and out of X-Ray (do not get bogged down in a fight). Golf Company should be prepared to conduct a feint attack on the enemy flank to help relieve pressure on Echo Company. If the assault bogs down Echo Company will perform a hasty defense and wait for additional orders or reinforcements.

The attack will kick off with Golf Company starting their flanking/demonstration maneuver that will hopefully draw enemy resources from Echo's attack area. Weapons Company will lay down HE and WP at the edge of the town to screen Echo's movement to contact in a column and deploy with 1st and 2nd Platoons on line and 3rd Platoon behind to conduct their assault when the mortar barrage shifts into the town.

Now each unit will have their mission orders and alternative actions to perform. That should take care of movement and decisions. A prepared assault would have allowed time to coordinate supporting assets from Regiment and Division in addition to dedicated air and artillery from surrounding units. There are tradeoffs for acting quickly.

I'm a VN era guy with no real urban combat experience so I'll stop here.

In a scenario like this playing the Battalion Commander with platoon maneuver units I'd use an attrition-based combat system on a binomial table (I know I just lost some people here). Why? Because you can determine causality rates from 1% to 99% for a unit of any size (in this scenario max engagement would be a squad or even fire team) and with one D100 die roll delivers a correct randomized result. It's quicker and more accurate than other methods and works well with units above squad size on a single stand. There is a fair amount of abstraction for movement and reactions. I'd assume a platoon stand moving would have one squad in the lead, one on overwatch and one providing security.

I did this from memory and some of the terminology may be wrong. I left out logistics (who plays with logistics rules anyhow) and medivac but I hope you get the idea. For reference and additional details and ideas go here: PDF link

Wolfhag

Ushcha – Yeah man, I'm not saying that's the way folks have to play, only that that's how I (generally) play, and I think it's realistic.

Wolfhag – Holy @#$%!!! Alright man, this is what I was talking about: I'm a fan of the lighter side of wargaming, with mechanisms that are quick and easy so I can focus on the decision-making. I am not writing an OpOrder every time I sit down to play a wargame, though I understand that can be fun for folks. I had my fill of fun in the Marines ;)

For my gaming, working from Div to Reg to Bn is unnecessary fluff, I'm already past that. My games are starting with the scheme of maneuver figured out, commander's recon established, plan written, published, briefed, and rehearsed, troops are about to cross the LOD. I get your orders system, looks to me kinda like Spearhead/Modern Spearhead with written, mission-type orders with comm handled via die roll to exercise command and control to change the plan in action.

I like the idea, but: 1) written orders are a bit hard for me to pull off playing solo; and 2) takes up more time then I'd like. I like your scheme of maneuver, though I could see a couple minor alterations:
-I'd have LAR lead G/2/8 in the AAVs, performing recon/screening then taking up AT positions.
-I'd have LAR and G/2/8 going in first, prior to E/2/8, in order to isolate the objective. And, assuming we're using contemporary ROEs, I'd put all non-organic supporting fires (air and arty) ISO LAR and G/2/8 as we can't use them on the objective (a town) anyway…
-A little nervous about "Golf Company should be prepared to conduct a feint attack on the enemy flank to help relieve pressure on Echo Company."

Now we've got G/2/8 going in multiple directions, also going to get hard to shake out unit boundaries to make sure we avoid blue on blue. But then again, all that really is conjecture as we don't have an enemy threat picture. Just fun exercising the mind ;)

"In a scenario like this playing the Battalion Commander with platoon maneuver units I'd use an attrition-based combat system on a binomial table…"
Again, I try to keep it nice and simple. I don't mind attrition, but I tend to express it more in 'traditional' morale-type terms. To start with, eliminated from the table top does not mean wiped out to the last man, it means no longer combat effective. And since I try to keep that around 15% actual casualties, I don't have a problem with a rifle platoon, one stand, being removed from the table if, say, caught in the open by a 155 barrage, or a platoon of tanks. The chance of that happening is not great, but it could happen, so I typically will give it about a 1 in 6 chance.

But then I have lesser effects, basically options for:
-can move or shoot (not both), slightly penalized when firing and in close assault. Can rally themselves or be rallied by a friendly commander.
-can move or shoot (not both), can't react, moderately penalized when firing and when close assaulted, cannot initiate close assault. Can rally themselves or be rallied by a friendly commander.
-can't move or shoot, can't react, severely penalized when close assaulted, can't initiate close assault. Can only be rallied by a friendly commander.

"I'd assume a platoon stand moving would have one squad in the lead, one on overwatch and one providing security."
I don't worry about it, I assume the Lt and Plt Sgt has the men where they're supposed to be, doing what they're supposed to be doing. If they get unexpectedly wiped out, then I write in my batrep that the Lt was a dumb ;)

I would love to mess with logistics, at least ammo resupply, maybe water if it's really hot, and CASEVAC, but I just haven't been able to figure out a way to do it quick and easy like. Apparently no one else has either…

I apologize, I haven't looked at the PDF, but I'll look later.

V/R,
Jack

Jack,
I'll leave the planning decisions to you, I'm a jungle warfare guy. I tried to give a generic example to sow the unit flexibility and options in a system like you described.

I think UshCha and I are on the same page going to manuals as a guideline for designing a game. For the platoon and company stand level games I like to assign stands a "posture" and orders like advance to contact, exploit, etc. Their posture determines movement and reaction (risk-reward).

The military terminology is important to me.

Wolfhag

This was a fun tread but it for some reason went way off down a rabbit hole of simulate and not to. This was not where it was supposed to go. Will start another thread to cover (hopefully) the intended topic.

Well, UshCha, aside for the rabbit hole and some offended folk, a designer is designing for a particular audience, just as a writer or any other artist is creating for a specific audience.

New here and found this thread too late, but here's my two cents.

I'm firmly in the "Boldly go with a Six Pack where none have gone before" camp. I came into this hobby via board games like HeroScape, Battlelore, and Memoir 44. Now I find myself reading rules for (but not having yet played) Flames of War, Dirtside II and Future War Commander. I'm very little interested in realism, simulation, and accuracy. Too often all that additional burden does is add bureaucratic overhead and bog the game down.

I find myself agreeing most with Phil Dutre's comments: for me a good game is one that aggregates the fussy details into a reasonable abstraction that allows me to make interesting tactical decisions in a much more streamlined way. Between a set of rules that will play out a company-level battle in a couple of hours versus the six-hour version with rules about the treads falling off my tanks, I'll gladly play three of the first back-to-back.

That difference in taste may be because I've arrived here via tabletop board games, but I consider that an asset: I've seen what good game design can be, and it doesn't have to be a bloated mess that tries to realistically account for every contingency. It is possible to have an intellectually engrossing game with a relatively sparse set of rules that plays out in just a couple of hours.

Elstree,
Y0ur boargame experience is diffrent to mine. Advances Squad Leader and its Add on is is rtuly a way of life game and a bit too complicated for me. I remeber 8 hour games of Valley of the Four Winds again not a quick game. The former is definirely a way of life game.

Complex rules donot make for a good simulation by definition. An adequate number is sufficent. Some games/scenarios need to play for longer to gain a full appreiation of their merits. Shapespear in 3 miniues lackc rhe gravitas of the full work.

I like your Shakespeare analogy: I might be in the mood for Shakespeare once or twice a year, but most of the time I'd prefer to binge watch Firefly. :)