"WHAT IS THE FEEL OF THE GAME?" Topic

You are not designing these simulations for the participants alone, as games are. I will credit your assertion you are designing simulations for OTHERS and these simulations have nothing to do with games.

Otto:

Oh, they were games and any number of participants enjoyed playing them. And they were designed for the participants, not OTHERS. The participants were the ones that had to benefit from them in knowledge and skills and they were the ones that had to enjoy the process to play them long enough to benefit.

I think this insistence that 'feel' is entirely subjective is missing a whole, big portion of game design, let alone mistaking what can be done to shape any subjective experience. I always am leery of superlatives like must, have to, entirely, only, all or none.

Subjective experiences are in response to the environment. The same environment can and does generate the same general responses in any number of people, or only one person would scream during a horror movie, the director.

Again I maintain that in that environment any "feel" of the game has to be entirely subjective and in the mind of the individual gamer, and it can only be put there by himself and not inculcated through the rules.

Wolfhag:

So all subjective experience has no relationship to the environment or activities the person is engaged in????

Most of this discussion is over my head but I have to agree with Otto on the above. From watching players the "feel" is mostly generated by the visuals. That's the miniatures, terrain, and painting (plus any special effects).

IF the feel is 'mostly' generated by the visuals and not the activities with the miniatures, terrain and such, then what is generated is totally subjective…meaning there is no relationship between any two players' experiences--feel of the game?

You can't have that both ways, either the 'visuals' do or don't actually generate the subjective experience. If they do, then the same visuals can and often do create the same feel, same subjective experience.

We all experience 'input' differently, but not that differently. A lot of research around that. Here is a simple example:

I can write the word POST. Different images will come to different people in response to reading the word, subjective responses. Yet, those can be grouped where 90% of all responses will fit into a limited range of responses. Lots of research on the grouping of subjective experiences.

With POST, some folks will think of a pole in the ground, a fence post, others a cereal, some mailing a letter or the Post Office or even sticking up a notice. Very few folks will first think of something different from these responses, even though all of them are 'entirely subjective.'

Historically correct and well-written rules can put the player into the mind of the commander making the decisions in the real battle. However, from my observation, subjective game mechanics like random activations can also give a good "feel" because of the uncertainty of the action and the surprise it generates

Again, you can't have it both ways, either rules are capable of putting "the player into the mind of the commander making the decisions in the real battle etc." or they can't. If entirely subjective, that experience really can't happen to more than one player… you.

Historically correct and well-written rules can put the player into the mind of the commander making the decisions in the real battle. However, from my observation, subjective game mechanics like random activations can also give a good "feel" because of the uncertainty of the action and the surprise it generates

I would argue this is a correct staement. Command decisiona must recognise that they to cope with some level of uncertainty. The mechanism eluded too means the commander has to have an overall plan and that he has to recognise unlike chess it will have to cope with some uncertaint. To be fair our rules exploit this combination so although I did not write the comment I holeheartedly agree with it.

I do agree with McLaddie, for me the criteria for a good game is the same, I want what McLaddie proposes. Just because professionals have to play it it does and should not, mean that wargamers would not want to play it. After all it is aimed at being a credible simulation of specified aspects of the whole system. If those aspects are the ones you are interested in I would imagine it would be riveting.

Dear Uschcha

"eluded" means escaped, I think you mean alluded.

McCladdie

Very well, if this is the criteria "either rules are capable of putting "the player into the mind of the commander making the decisions in the real battle etc." or they can't."

Then my position is they can't, never have, never will, and that the feel is entirely subjective.

You say " If entirely subjective, that experience really can't happen to more than one player."

I say no, that No there can be several players to which any set of rules is good enough and give them the feel, but that is simply shared subjectivity independently felt, that is, mere chance.

But on the other hand you may be right and that is why we have so many rules sets which have come out over the years, last for a month or two and then are tossed out onto the scrap heap, and why so many in the end wind up writing their own rules. Maybe it is as Jack Scruby said in 1962 in his booklet "All About War Games" that each model general makes his own rules.

You can if you wish keep dragging in "simulations" and I simply ignore it. We are talking here about Recreational War Games. Simulations are and will always be a fraud. It is a fraud because it is not a game, and the in a game the conclusion is not fortold. In a simulation it is always predestined.

At the root of that is the full gamut from reading what it was like in primary or secondary sources, and knowing in an intellectual way, all the way to the height of colossal self delusion in thinking one is a diamond in the rough, a nascent Napoleon, an recognized and undiscovered military genius. Simulation for the latter is the great opiate and that "reality" in the game means anything in real war, but it means everything to the ego driven child who wants to be master of the world in his own mind.

Very well, if this is the criteria "either rules are capable of putting "the player into the mind of the commander making the decisions in the real battle etc." or they can't."

Then my position is they can't, never have, never will, and that the feel is entirely subjective.

Otto;

More either/or, all or nothing superlatives.

You say " If entirely subjective, that experience really can't happen to more than one player."

I say no, that No there can be several players to which any set of rules is good enough and give them the feel, but that is simply shared subjectivity independently felt, that is, mere chance.

"Shared subjectively?? Mere chance?" That has not been my experience in a number of ways related to simulation games and hobby wargames. Any number of feelings and shared subjective experiences are 'engineered' through shared activities.

You can if you wish keep dragging in "simulations" and I simply ignore it. We are talking here about Recreational War Games. Simulations are and will always be a fraud. It is a fraud because it is not a game, and the in a game the conclusion is not fortold. In a simulation it is always predestined.

Otto, you have a very narrow definition of simulations. What I am 'dragging' in has no relationship to whatever you describe as simulations. Keep that in mind.

In fact, for MOST all simulations, particularly participatory simulations, their entire value is that they aren't predestined and allow a wide range of outcomes. Movies are scripted, predestined simulations. They play out the same way every time. Entertaining perhaps, put not a game and not a simulation used in most all arenas were simulations are employed. There are simulations that promise a wide range of outcomes but only deliver one outcome regardless. They are simply bad simulation designs…of which there have been many in our hobby.

*A game is a decision-making environment created by the rules and game equipment.

*A simulation game is a decision-making environment which mimics a real environment created by rules and game equipment.

At the root of that is the full gamut from reading what it was like in primary or secondary sources, and knowing in an intellectual way, all the way to the height of colossal self delusion in thinking one is a diamond in the rough, a nascent Napoleon, an recognized and undiscovered military genius. Simulation for the latter is the great opiate and that "reality" in the game means anything in real war, but it means everything to the ego driven child who wants to be master of the world in his own mind.

Oiy! From reading history books to meglomanic childhoods in one easy step: the opiate simulation.

If you believe that simulation games are opiates for ego-driven children and are nothing more than predestination, I certainly can understand how you:

1. can insist that all experience in playing a wargame is a solitary, singular experience that no one else can know or relate to, and,

2. Simulations are the spawn of the devil and to be avoided at all costs.

I certainly don't believe that about a functional simulation, regardless of how childish folks choose to use them or how badly the are designed by some folks. All tools and games can be failures and even the best can be used by childish individuals with a wide variety of damaging results. People don't blame Texas Hold'em and Scrabble for the behavior of the players or believe they only attract 'certain types.'

I know that games and particularly simulation games can and do engender the same or very similar subjective responses and 'feelings' in participants on a wide variety of levels as well as touch very personal responses. Feelings created by simulation games can be real 'ah-ha' moments for players in understanding the actions--and emotions--of people in the real situations gamed.

I have a feeling…subjective, of course… that we will have to just agree to disagree on this point.

McLaddie,

To clarify my statement:
So from my perspective visuals trump rules for generating the "feel" and it is mostly (but not entirely) subjective to the individual and their level of knowledge and expectations.

The perspective is from attending conventions and players selecting which games they'll play by how cool and visually appealing the terrain and figures are before the game starts. The rules are pretty secondary because they'll be simple and the GM doing most of the work. Having someone read a rule set before playing does not work. I've participated in games with a simple rule set a 10-year-old could understand and could be used from ancients to sci-fi and no one complained as the visuals and action created were excellent. I kept my complaints to myself.

Then there is the cult following like Squad Leader players where the rules are mostly the "feel" for the game. I think this is true for most hard core board gamers. Then there is that hard core miniaturs players that support one specific rule set becasue it feels right for them.

From my perspective, people play miniatures for the visuals. I've had a number of friends say they won't play board games because the visuals suck.

I ran a "Charge of the Light Brigade" game in 28mm using my own rules after reading a book on the battle. I developed them making sure the charge would take about 30% causalities on the charge and another 30%-40% in the melee and retreat. Most of the time the players were talking about the battle, regiments, characteristics, painting of miniatures, etc. Players made risk-reward decisions and rolled the dice. The game gave a historical feel and outcome and all were pleased.

From being in the education industry for 20+ years you know that people learn visually, reading and listening with normally one of those methods being the best for that particular person.

I try to keep away from making "absolute" statements to one degree or another. I try to eliminate from my vocabulary words like should, always, never, must, etc for obvious reasons.

Overall there is nothing I disagree with you on.

PS – Remember, it is OK to disagree.

Wolfhag

To me a wargame is not all about the visuals. I look at some boards worthy of artistic merit awards but note the terrain and dispositions of troops seem far from what one would regard as sensible. They are big turn-off for me. I use models of a simple variety as it helps to better visulise the combat power, more detail would be more expence for no gain. Hidden troops are not placed as this would ruin the game. A good game on less then perfect terrin to me is infinitely better than a poor game with a better standard of model.
I personally would give up wargameing if it was only at conventions, the lack of experienced players who could understand the demands of my period and the planning needed to excecute that plan would not be there. Even in our simple game, you need several games for the rules to be come second nature so that the concentration is on the plan and not the interpretation of that plan within the rules.
This is suspect means the the feel of a game (which is a similation (and hece a simplification of the real world with known limitations) of certain aspects of a battle is different from those who do not want to simulate for whaterver reason and do not pursue a period far enough or long enough to grasp the essentials of a simulation.

Ushcha,
For me, the visuals are a close second but still very important. I play test with mediocre figures and terrain so the feel for the players is more about the decisions and historical accuracy. It's always nice to have experienced players but I prefer to test with newbies as it helps me streamline the game.

I have the biggest problem with experienced players who jump to conclusion and start questioning rules before even playing it. When new players beat experienced players I start to feel I'm on the right track.

However, the nicer the terrain and figures the more people sign up to play. You need both.

Wolfhag

So from my perspective visuals trump rules for generating the "feel" and it is mostly (but not entirely) subjective to the individual and their level of knowledge and expectations.

Wolfhag:
Visuals are important, and certainly that is what draws a lot of people to miniatures compared to board games.[Me too] However, the 'feel' of an experience is a combination of all five senses [Some gamers want the 'heft' of lead figures vs plastic] and the dynamics of play,[rolling lots of dice or not]. It is both an intellectual and emotional experience. A designer tries to take advantage of them all.

From my perspective, people play miniatures for the visuals. I've had a number of friends say they won't play board games because the visuals suck….From being in the education industry for 20+ years you know that people learn visually, reading and listening with normally one of those methods being the best for that particular person.

A good number of people learn that way. Others not so much. A good number of miniature gamers play with mediocre terrain and unpainted figures. There are those with visual preferences and others with auditory, tactual and kinesthetic preferences. They all play miniature wargames.

As you observed, "Then there is the cult following like Squad Leader players where the rules are mostly the "feel" for the game. I think this is true for most hard core board gamers. Then there is that hard core miniaturs players that support one specific rule set becasue it feels right for them."

I ran a "Charge of the Light Brigade" game in 28mm using my own rules after reading a book on the battle. I developed them making sure the charge would take about 30% causalities on the charge and another 30%-40% in the melee and retreat. Most of the time the players were talking about the battle, regiments, characteristics, painting of miniatures, etc. Players made risk-reward decisions and rolled the dice. The game gave a historical feel and outcome and all were pleased.

Well, going into a game of 'The Charge of the Light Brigade', there were expectations about the game experience.

How do you know that 1. the game gave an 'historical feel' other than the visuals [you didn't mention them] and 2. how did you know the gamers were pleased with the outcome? [I'm interested in the 'tells' you remember.

[I didn't realize the Light Brigade took 60-70% casualties. I thought the count was lower than that at the end of the charge… I remember being surprised by the count.]

I have the biggest problem with experienced players who jump to conclusion and start questioning rules before even playing it.

I agree with that, but I see a lot of that as a results of 50 years of the information void regarding wargame rules and the links I spoke of. Gamers get really practiced at such behavior… For others, that ends up being part of the hobby… *sigh*

McLaddie

Your problem with me stems from your constant attempt to tell me in so many words "Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes and ears." I have told you I have been in many simulations, in government, in service, in business, and in academia, and even in war games and every one of them were incapable of going off their very narrow track and reaching any other conclusion than that pre-programmed into them. None of them, not one, was ever robust enough to encompass any variation from the desired. and not one every reached its end without numerous resets and band aids, all of which amounted to the following.

1. Please chose from among the following choices, A, B, C, D.,

I chose A. – response- No, you can't chose that, chose again.

I chose D,- response – No you can't chose that, chose again.

I chose C,- response- No you can't chose that, chose again.

I guess I'll chose B.- EXCELLENT CHOICE, now go to question 2

repeat again and again and again.

I soon became evident in almost EVERY situation that the same methodology was in effect. It wasn't of course as direct at that, but if you pursued any other path than the desired it would lead back to choice B. In several of them when I and others persisted in attempting other choices, the tired proctors said to our teams, "Oh just choose what the damn guy wants so we can get out of here." In fact when the final report came out, NOTHING was said of the attempt by the participants to do other things, it was a lockstep "they picked choice B right down the line."

Do you read what you write McLaddie? You said "Visuals are important, and certainly that is what draws a lot of people to miniatures compared to board games.[Me too] However, the 'feel' of an experience is a combination of all five senses "

Oh come on McLaddie, you've now tripped over your own bull-dung All five senses ???!!!!

` And how exactly is your sense of smell affected? Do you have little machines generating smoke and the acridity of gun smoke? The smell of rotting bodies, and bits of aroma therapy? Do you have loud raucous sounds of battle blaring into players ears? do you have the blood and slime smeared on everything? Is there an earthquake machine under the facility where people are jarred and jostled? Come on, you're just being silly in defense of a point you lost pages ago.

As for your games Uscha, I can't imagine a more excruciating experience. We all realize that there are very few wargamers who can measure up to your standards of professionalism, intelligence and engagement. Especially on this side of the pond. We are all in awe of you.

You are your own caricature.

"I personally would give up war gaming if it was only at conventions, the lack of experienced players who could understand the demands of my period and the planning needed to excecute that plan would not be there."

Do you ever listen to yourself?

Do you really not understand how condescending and patronizing, and frankly how absurd this sounds?

You go on "Even in our simple game, you need several games for the rules to be come second nature so that the concentration is on the plan and not the interpretation of that plan within the rules"

You must play solo a lot.

When Wolfhag says

"I have the biggest problem with experienced players who jump to conclusion and start questioning rules before even playing it. When new players beat experienced players I start to feel I'm on the right track."

He is absolutely correct. The former are already into a "feel" of he game they have from another set. It usually takes the form of "Oh this is just like Flim-flam and Flummox" and they go through the game playing that and being entirely disruptive and getting madder and madder, and the joke is they're not playing "Flim-flam and Flummox" at all- they're playing "Napoleons Bottles" or more likely some game that exists only in their heads and is a pastiche of all the games they have played and which they insist is a "simulation" where it's Plan B forever and they win. They do that as I said to stroke their own ego that they actually are nascent Napoleons, just like the guy funding the simulation wants to do and you get Plan B, Plan B, Plan B…

Wolfhag is right. When the inexperienced gamers beat the experienced because they read the rules, then you're on the right track.

You yourself admit that you've seen that for 50 years and the alleged "information void."

There's no information void McLaddie, gamers simply don't care. They want to play the game. They are all back in the sandbox with their little green army men, making onomapoetic sounds in their own mind and tossing little pebbles at their army men. They are in fact still doing that only the pebbles are now squared off with numbers on them.

Ottohome, you should hear youself, it is really rather lauaghable. I most certainly do not want to be back in my sandbox playing with little green man. I started with Featherstones wargames and realised even as a kid it was poorly done. I was inspired by Lional Tarrs terain, our own fold flat owes much to thet inspiration. Untill 2008 I was still searching. I now have my rulles published, they would have done what I wanted when I was a kid. I avidley read WW2 acconts and the games we played bore no resembelance. They were tedious dice throwing with no relevance to the real word.

You description of simulation is alien to me. All my simulations follow the theme of a computational Fluid Dynamics simulations. The promlem is solved by solutions to very simple issues, the combination of which is not obvious from the start and hence the need for simulation.

If you mean does a simulation cope as you like with stupidity then no it does not, that is not a design issue and so will not cover it except to terminate the player forthwith. Tanks cannot fly or reach Mach 1. That is not a limitation input and I regret it. If you want my games to cover the 1 in 10000 heroic events no it does not nor would | want it too, it would be counter productive to the aim of the simulation. If you whish to take a simulation outside its parameters then you have failed to understand them and wil fell unrewarded (as you should).

As for condesending and belittleing you manage to do it far better than me and the arrogance you portray as claiming we we were all idiot little boys who could not read is staggering.

As for the bizare stement about my leaving the hobby if there was insufficent challenge. I gave up White water canoeing when I was unablke to go twice a week as I could not achive what I considered a minimum standard any more. If I could not play at the level I considerd the minimum I would not play. That is a not untypical reality. Certainly wargames to me is more like a chess club than having beer with mates.

If players do not read rules then its never going to happen.

Dingy Sailors have to read race rules to get the best out of raceing. Turning up expecting to pull a few ropes and waggle the bit at the back and never practice, yet stand a chance of winning is absurd, so it is with wargames.

Although I will never object to playing with well-painted miniatures on nicely presented tabletop terrain, it is, I think, fair to say that "feel/immersion" is principally a product of mind and imagination triggered by a well crafted scenario played out under a good simulation-oriented set of rules.

One further thought – "feel/immersion" is far too subjective to strictly define or quantify, since every wargamer carries within his mind his own unique sense of the universe. At best, it must be treated as art – you can't really define it, but you know it when you see it. The closest parallel I could draw from life experience is when would really get "into the zone" playing pinball in my younger days. I felt like I was inside the machine, cosmically connected to it – it's a unique feeling and difficult to fully describe.

B

"Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes and ears." I have told you I have been in many simulations, in government, in service, in business, and in academia, and even in war games and every one of them were incapable of going off their very narrow track and reaching any other conclusion than that pre-programmed into them.

Otto:
I never doubted your experiences nor that there are simulations that do just that. Said so. I have seen very poor simulations used in all sorts of situations. I have also seen great simulations used for the wrong reasons or poorly utilized.

I said that isn't the whole story by a long shot--if the simulations you experienced had pre-programed, narrow conclusions. It also depends on what those simulations were designed to do… and when. There has been a great deal of innovation and improvement over the last forty years.

Do you read what you write McLaddie? You said "Visuals are important, and certainly that is what draws a lot of people to miniatures compared to board games.[Me too] However, the 'feel' of an experience is a combination of all five senses "

Oh come on McLaddie, you've now tripped over your own bull-dung All five senses ???!!!!

And how exactly is your sense of smell affected? Do you have little machines generating smoke and the acridity of gun smoke?

I guess you have a far narrower idea of what affects a subjective 'feel' to an event than I do--that and you weren't paying attention to what was being discussed.

Wolfhag wasn't talking about simulation design and neither was I, but rather what gamers like about wargaming, [the visuals] what produces the 'feel' of a game [the visuals] and what is enjoyable about them.

I said that other folks enjoyed or wanted other sensations in gaming. I even gave some examples of other sensations that folks report liking, such as the 'feel', the heft of the lead soldiers. Some like playing martial music while playing wargames or having flags displayed and wearing uniforms when playing, etc. etc.

A subjective experience can and does include all the senses. Whenever I smell turpentine, which I like, it makes me think of painting toy soldiers. For others, it the association of the smell of beer and wargaming.

Whether a simulation takes advantage of one sense or another to produce a historical feel to the experience is another issue altogether and one I hadn't mentioned.

McLaddie: As to the Charge of the Light Brigade game. The players all had extensive knowledge of the era and battle, much more than I did. I think they enjoyed exchanging their knowledge and their discussions more than playing the game. The visuals of the game seemed to enhance their discussions and feel. Many times they picked up the figures and examined them for their painting accuracy for the different regiments. During the game, they remarked how an event on the table matched what they had read in a book. During the battle, there were a few decision points and "what if" events that the players were confronted with in a risk-reward manner.

Examples: Send a detachment to attack the guns on a hill to decrease causalities but have less troops to capture your objective. Ride faster to get through the kill zone but arrive tired and perform worse in the melee at the objective. In the real battle the commander rode in between the cannons and the canister rounds missed him. We had that too. We had some small flashing LED's covered in cotton placed in front of the cannons when they were firing which was a nice touch. On the retreat, they had to fight a rear guard action against pursuing cavalry and stop to pick up wounded figures.

As to the causality percentage, it's from memory but I recall everyone was satisfied with the historical outcome. The historical outcome was pretty much assured because I knew how many turns for the charge and melee and devised a formula to deliver the right amount of causalities at each point.

At conventions, we put on games mostly what I would call a "production" sometimes (but not always) with a pre-arranged outcome. To the purists out there this is bogus, I understand. However, we want to entertain the players and make sure they get their money's worth. In some games, we'll use random events to help even things up if one side gets too much of an advantage. We'll guide players in helping them make decisions so they don't do something really stupid. With players that are a novice to gaming or the particular scenario, it's not too hard to get them into the "feel" of the game as they have no other experience to compare it to.

Maybe to refine my statements: I think the visuals serve as a catalyst to entrap the player's imagination, recall past reading and movies on the event and battle and get him to start discussing it with other players. This can get him into the "feel" of the game. Recalling my observations when two or more players start discussing the overall battle, strategies, and tactics (and not arguing over the rules) it enhances the "feel" for everyone.

Blutarski: Yes, pinball! I know what you mean. I once got into the zone on a machine (Alien Poker) and played it for 6 straight hours without even a break and I had a hangover too. It cost me only one quarter. I finally walked away from the machine with 21 free games on it. It's like you are controlling the ball with your eyes, not the flippers.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag:
Thanks for the explanation of the Light Brigade scenario. It would seem that it was the perfect vehicle of the participants and a convention activity.

At conventions, we put on games mostly what I would call a "production" sometimes (but not always) with a pre-arranged outcome. To the purists out there this is bogus, I understand.

I think the only thing that would make that 'production' bogus is that the 'purists' want other things from their wargames, probably not just at conventions.

Either is fine with me. It's when the designer of such a 'production' isn't clear about the purposes of the activity or simply unaware of what they are actually creating.

There's no information void McLaddie, gamers simply don't care. They want to play the game.

Otto:

SOME gamers don't care, which is just fine. Many others do care and spend A LOT of time attempting to fill that void. All you have to do is read TMP and rules lists posts, listen to discussions at conventions. We can debate the relative numbers of each, but each are well-represented in the hobby.

Gamers want to play the game AND many want to know what history they are and are not recreating in the process. There is no rule that says they have to do either and each approach is on a continuum rather than all one or the other. However, I would think those desires would be obvious to anyone from just a cursory survey of the hobby, conventions, blogs and list posts.

You seem to feel you alone [unlike me and others posting] have the pulse of the hobby, know what games can and more importantly can't do and know ALL the desires and needs of ALL gamers. You also seem to feel you have experienced the length and breathe of simulation design and anyone suggesting something outside that is simply spouting BS.

McLaddie,
I see conventions as an opportunity to socialize, try new games and observe games where people are having fun and try to understand what is going on with the game, rules, and mechanics that people are enjoying.

When I play at a convention it is for socializing enjoyment and I do not criticize or make suggestions to the GM during the game. I feel that's rude. I'll even let the GM use me as a victim to get a newbie or young player a victory.

However, when I do get a group of hard core players with a good knowledge of the era we take no prisoners. Scenarios are never fair, there are usually no victory conditions (it should be easy to tell who kicked the most ass) and we use deceptions and hidden deployments. It's all in good fun, no one pushes the rule envelopes and we discuss beforehand how new situations will be adjudicated. My favorite is the Russian T-34 tank hordes against the outnumbered German PakFront and counterattacks.

I even run that scenario at conventions. I tell the German player they will eventually be overrun but the battlefield will be littered with burning Russian tanks. I tell the Russian player to maneuver and attack and not worry about causalities as there will always be another attack wave coming. If the Russian is making too much progress too early in the game a surprise Stuka strike arrives. If the PakFront is too successful a Katyusha strike hits them. There are no victory conditions. Move, shoot, blow things up and have fun. Make risk-reward decisions to gain an advantage but it may backfire on you. I use a time & action activation method that eliminates a lot of the traditional activation rules, opportunity fire problems and allows good player interaction and keeps everyone in the game and not waiting for other to shoot or move.

McLaddie: I sent you a rules update but your e-mail bounced. Contact me if you want a copy. Will you be at Pacificon this weekend?

Thanks again,
Wolfhag

Wolfhag:
My server screwed up. Send it to me again and I'll get it.

McLaddie

We shall have to agree to disagree.

We shall have to agree to disagree.

Otto:

Roger that. Happily, we have agreed on more than just that one point.

But Mcladdie, how would you know that the "feel" of any period is right unless you actually experienced it as a participant? Or even if it was realistic in your sense how would you be able to judge it. That is, how do you know what the Napoleonic Period "was like." You would have to have a "canon" of authority once again of sources accepted to tell you, as one was not there and in some cases even the writer of a work on the period probably was not there either?

In reading over all the posts, I think this one gets to the heart of the issue for Otto--and me, at least. And I didn't respond to it, as I came in later.

No one living today experienced battle in the Napoleonic era. Dah. So, where could anyone get an idea of what Napoleonic warfare was like, let alone a 'feel' for it?

Obviously, from what those living through the wars wrote. That's it. Anything we know and might feel about that history we had to get from the records they left or those historians who used it.

What factional basis do you trust?

I trust: [In descending order of trustworthiness and obviously supporting each other.]

*The evidence I have seen and know exists
*The evidence that has several corroborating evidence in
support
*The evidence that is widely accepted as fact [Napoleon
was present at the battle of Borodino]
*The evidence that other historians I respect trust.
*What makes sense and 'feels' right.

What is most important here is not who has THE TRUTH or KNOWS what it was 'really like'. Any 'feelings' the designer had, any that the gamers can have is based on *something*, and that should be a known quantity, the historical record and those writing about it--it is for the designer.

That feeling is stating that game play 'feels' like *something else.* What is that feeling based on? It isn't totally emotional and subjective.

No one 'feels' that a Tiger Tank should be included with the Imperial Guard for the 'right feel' of Napoleonic Warfare. Because? We have records, histories, personal accounts of battle and Tiger Tanks weren't created then. That's fantasy. Folks can have fun with it, but that isn't history.

That isn't an 'emotional' or totally subjective conclusion. And the only reason we can say that is because of the written records we have. That is what any 'historical wargame' about the Napoleonic Wars will be based on… you would think.

However, there is A LOT of Napoleonic history and only a small part can be included in any one wargame… so what part, what part of that written record or historian am I being asked to 'feel' as a player? You know, through the content and play of the game.

But even at that, I would maintain that it's a mere matter of "likes and dislikes" which is again emotional.

I never doubted that a game having a 'feeling' for a gamer is a gestalt, a combination of intellect, emotion and circumstances. A designer can have an impact on all three with the game design and play. Not total control, but certainly far, far more than absolutely nothing. A gamer's experience isn't totally subjective, totally isolated from others and the common game processes and experience.

As our views are likely to be so divergent who better to thrash this out.

Well, done and done.