"Are Your Games Realistic?" Topic

I am curious about gamers perceptions of their games, so I ask a simple question without trying to quantify or qualify magnitude:

Do you think your games are realistic?

A. Yes
B. No

I'll start this all off by throwing a monkey wrench-- since I have never been in combat I can't say I really know one way or t'other. So C. No idea. They ARE fun, though, and that's the most important thing!

A

I'm with nazrat on this for the most part. That being said, for a lot of history most commanders didn't have perfect knowledge, and in most cases any idea, of where their own troops were, much less the number, location and morale status of the enemy.

A game that would seem realistic in that sense would have the commander of what ever troops having to look at the table from the level on perspective of the officer he was controlling and have the referee move any figures for him with some discretion or rolls to determine if they would do what was ordered.

That doesn't seem like much fun more than once in a great while.

B. Absolutely not.

Back in the deep, dark, distant past when I starting programming computer games, I did a full design on a Napoleonic battle simulator from the commander's viewpoint. It was very similar to what Pictors describes--kind of like the "Total War" games, but without the camera control and the camera stuck at 2m above ground.

Yep, without the actual consequences riding on the outcome, doing an actual simulation was pretty darn dull. At any rate, a lesson learned.

So, B.

Hades no!
And I like it that way.

Given the limitations of how we're doing it, yes.

V/R,
Jack

Realisticish, in that historical tactics occur in some form on the tabletop and morale, command and control, and fog of war play a role. So….A-ish, in so far as a 6'x4' table with toys and bantering gamers can be "realistic."

They're frequently less fantastical than actual battles :-)

They are very real games.
Of this, I am very certain.

As a measure of modelling actual events?
That is a measure of philosophy beyond my reckoning.

I've never had to spend even one day in a flooded bunker at my FLGS or hold a little lead guy's hand while he bled to death, so my answer must be

B

LT

Too be realistic does not mean it has to be real.

This is probably the best definition of realistic to be using in this context. (from dictionary.com)

"pertaining to, characterized by, or given to the representation in literature or art of things as they really are:"

If a book about war can be "realistic" then a game certainly can too.

I'd like to think they're somewhat realistic, but they're not.

A,B and C.

Lord, no. I prefer "Hollywood-ish." The real thing is terrible to contemplate.

Real life as seen in the movies is certainly what I strive for!

"I've never had to spend even one day in a flooded bunker at my FLGS or hold a little lead guy's hand while he bled to death…"

Why do we (here on TMP) get so melodramatic when we discuss realism in wargames? Perhaps that should be a separate poll…

Different sets of wargame rules will model different things in different manners, or even ignore different aspects, but it seems to me the issue is, can wargames rules:

Introduce fog of war (i.e., limit player knowledge of various aspects of friendly and enemy troops, and terrain, to offset the helicopter view of the table)? Yes.

Introduce friction (make the simple difficult, limit the ability of the player to do everything he/she wants to do) into combat, maneuver, and command and control? Yes.

Model expected casualty rates for different aspects (direct fire, indirect fire, close combat, etc…) and implements (rifles, machine guns, spears, mortars, artillery, tanks, etc…) of combat? Yes.

Through good use of rules mechanisms, allow/encourage/reward use of proper tactics of the chosen period, as well as disallow/discourage/penalize improper/implausible tactics? Yes.

And by doing all the above, allow (force?) the player to react to situations a 'real-life' commander at the echelon of the player's chosen scale of game (squad, platoon, company, battalion commander, etc…) had to react to, and make the same sorts of tactical decisions the 'real life' commander had/has to make? Yes.

I think the reason we argue about 'this ruleset is better than that ruleset,' 'this mechanism is better at 'x' than that mechanism,' is because we are striving for as much realism as we can squeeze out of our rulesets, to make the mechanism for 'x' represent the corresponding combat dynamic as much and as well as it possibly can. If we think the quest for realism in wargames rules is a fool's errand, why do we spend so much time talking about it, why are there 8 million different sets of rules for each period and echelon?

So no one is actually dying or being maimed, and no is going to confer stars, bars, or oak leaves on your collar for doing a good job, but, in my opinion, a wargame can be realistic to the specific aspects it is representing.

V/R,
Jack

As long as I can get a feel for the period, I'm satisfied.

I use a lot of poetic license in my games, so I would have to say they are neither realistic nor a simulation, simply a game. No more realistic than say a game of RISK, albeit with a lot more attention to detail

We play games. How realistic they are is in the perception of the player.
B

Great Heavens, No! I wargame completely without fear, and I know that if I throw away my best unit by pushing too hard, it will still be there next game.

But yes, I insist that good historical tactics be rewarded,and bad tactics lead to a bad outcome. Anything else--"no, you wouldn't do it in real life, but it's great tactics for the game"--drives me nuts.

Yes.

No

Indeed.

Moderately, yes.

With an all-seeing view of the battlefield, absolutely not. Even if hidden unit markers are used, the terrain is fully visible to all.

B. Absolutely.
Some games strive to or call themselves "simulations" but there are too many factors that cannot be overlooked that make it a game. I've learned over my 40+ years of wargaming that the more "realistic" a game tries to be the more complicated and less fun it is… pouring over table after table just to resolve a single combat, slows down games to a crawl an the end result is you rarely play to a conclusion.

As a game, sure.

A and B are too limited in the initial selection. That said, our games model real conflicts, battles and firefights. Although we research the battles, we don't have all the information the soldiers had, and the commanders had. We often don't even have accurate counts of the soldiers and their weapons. As the other TMPers remarked, our toy soldiers don't bleed and die on our battlefields. Our toy soldiers generally follow our orders, have no fear, and can't feel sorrow and heartbreak at losing their friends. Our toy soldiers return to the battlefield, week after week, year after year, con after con to fight again. I feel that Mr.Magoo is right. Games and rules that try to to simulate "real" war end up being concerned with supply problems, and other things that are uninteresting to me (as a tabletop wargamer). In addition, those games feel bloated and slow moving. Those concerns aside, it doesn't lessen my interest in history and recreating battles on the tabletop.

I think Just Jack's second, longer post says it very well for me.

TVAG

I play and run games set on distant worlds in the far future, so clearly "A".

I strive to be as realistic as possible, within the limitations of the the format.

If I wasn't 'Bringing history life'(thank you AHGC), in however flawed a manner, I wouldn't do it.

Yes. Trying to, within the lilitations of miniature gamings.
It does not have to distract from fun, this only comes from mecanisms that make it tedious. No don't start yes another realism " debate" like all "isms" debates has its chapels and believers, most like converts.

No

What Jack and Martin said.

Thanks, I appreciate all of the replies.

I would say that my games, at least when intended, fall into the "A" group with a perspective similar to what Just Jack and others have mentioned above.

No, and I don't care.

A

A. My combat experiences had me making difficult decisions that I was prepared for under conditions that I was not. I think wargames can do that.

Being a volunteer in the military (which is not always the case), I chose to risk my life. I always found myself much more concerned about the people we were there to protect. A wargame cannot replicate that situation of mind.

B

It's a game.

Etotheipi,

With regards to worrying about protecting other folks (presumably civvies?), why do you figure a wargame can't do that?

Theoretically you could make that a primary or alternate mission of 'Player A', with victory conditions that reflect and support that, and now you've got the player thinking in those same terms.

V/R,
Jack

In some ways yes, in other ways no, so a definite maybe.

I have "played" realistic wargames at various levels in the Army. What we do can model some of what happens and not others. I agree with large chunks of what Just Jack wrote but NONE of what we do puts any stress on the players and stress is a key ingredient to what makes war hell.

To be honest I don't really want what we do to be too realistic, enough to get a period feel and create some mental challenges. While giving the players a chance to have fun and talk smack.

Colonel,

I think the best we could do for stress is play blaringly loud music, hand the player an R/T, squawk every ten seconds "Blackhawk 3, this is Blackhawk 6, I need a SITREP," and whack the player every 8 seconds in the back of the head with a yardstick.

Probably won't have too many return players though ;)

I agree on the mental challenges of tactical decision-making, that's the fun part for me in terms of the game/rules itself. I'm also a big fan of campaigns/operations, but that's a separate story.

V/R,
Jack

As long as I can get a feel for the period, I'm satisfied.

+1
If my Hessian Grenadiers are not armed with laser pistols, and everything else is plausible, and playable, I'm good.

B, and I hope it stays like that.

Plausible results maybe, but I can do without the death, squalor and misery thank you.

I just like playing with models.

With regards to worrying about protecting other folks (presumably civvies?), why do you figure a wargame can't do that?

I have civilian protection as a major element in a lot of the scenarios I write (from historical Little Crow's War to sci-fi Octopi Wall Street and all else in between). It can make me go through the strategic, operational, and tactical decision processes and add stress to the decision process. I just don't get the personal level of commitment that comes with "worry".

Etotheipi,

I gotcha man. Nothing can get the juices flowing like the real thing ;)
Such are the failings of any approximation or imitation, I suppose. But I think wargames can put in the same general frame of mind, if not with the same depth and breadth, and can make you deal with the same sandwich, even if you know it's not real.

It's like the training where you low-crawl under the wire while they've got guns locked down on their tripods, putting rounds out a foot away from your head. It puckers ya (at least in Boot Camp), even though you know you're not going to get hit.

Or SERE. You're cold and starving and they're… making you a bit uncomfortable ;). But you know they can't kill you and you'll be home in another week.

So, they're as good as it gets, right? Not real, but realistic. The right set of rules does that for me.

V/R,
Jack

Since no one gets shot a definite no

Toronto,

For what it's worth, that's an issue of echelon. If you're playing as a brigade, division, corps, or army-level commander, he's most likely not being shot at either. Same potentially goes for Bruntonboy's squalor and misery (and others that have made similar comments).

If you're not worried about playing 'realistic' games, that's cool. But, in my opinion, if you're trying to play realistic wargames and you think you can't because (insert macabre and probably melodramatic ode to mud and blood), I think you're doing yourself a disservice. I think you might be (or could be) closer than you think.

And, just for fun, I can roll with the other side, too, but for different reasons. What's unrealistic about our gaming, to me, is not the lack of rounds flying, lack of buddies getting hit, etc… I guess I don't even think in those terms about a wargame. The most unrealistic aspect, to me, is the fact we get to just zoom in on the action, we don't have to do all the assorted, mundane .

No OpOrders or FragOs, parroting it down from battalion to company to your platoon, walk throughs and rehearsals, immediate action drills, survey/draw/requisition/repair gear, new comm plans, new fills, comm checks, sick call, the morning report, checking on evacs, radio watch and radio watch rosters. And then when you actually head out, how about all the milk runs, no contact, vehicle breakdowns and accidents, cordon and knock and don't find , or find two rifles and get into an argument about whether they're allowed to have them or not, and not being able to determine who's they were in any case. Easter Egg hunts across miles of fields with no cache/no contact.

Wargames are unrealistic because we get to zoom into (what I imagine we, as wargamers, consider) the cool parts, and ignore the rest. I've told folks here on TMP I fought in Fallujah, but that was only one month out of a seven month tour. I can't imagine anyone wanting to game the other six months.

But if they do, that's cool too, I s'pose. My two cents…

V/R,
Jack