"'Historical simulations'?" Topic

Having recently stumbled upon this site, and the FoW one, I have been somewhat intrigued by how it seems the ‘language' and thinking surrounding historical wargaming has changed since perhaps my gaming era (pre-GW).

I am particularly intrigued by the notion that ‘fun' and ‘game' are now seen as almost in opposition to ‘historical' and ‘simulation'. I say ‘now' in that I suppose all my gaming still is based in systems/games from the 80's (eg. ASL, Command Decision, SPI, WRG, Fletcher/Pratt etc).

As far as I have always thought all wargaming was a game, and a simulation to varying degrees. The category ‘historical' was reserved for comparison with ‘fantasy' ie it was a genre description.

While at times we all sought more realism in our games, the fact that they were all simulations meant that they were all abstractions from reality (it is wargaming after all not the real thing) and this was always readily accepted.

Following a number of conversations on this board in the last few weeks related to FoW it seems that in the post GW wargaming world the old meanings of ‘historical' and ‘simulation' have morphed to stand in opposition to what ‘GW-type' games do. Why is this? Admittedly I missed the whole GW thing (we don't have store based gaming here) so its never been as issue with me but it seems strange that now some gamers have to try and take the high ground against others gamers by claiming terms such as ‘historical' and ‘simulation' it seems for themselves.

Any wargame based in WWII is a historical simulation. It does not matter what tactics work within that game, it does not matter what aspects of warfare are or are not simulated accurately, it does not matter whether the game is small or large, simple or complex. It does not matter whether the rules have been designed to accompany a set of figures or are stand alone.

I'm afraid I cannot understand why the absence of particular tactics or rules covering various combat situations makes a game ‘historical' or not. I don't see how leaving out such rules is ‘anti-historical'. I have to see a set of historical rules that did not leave out aspects of the conflict to meet its design aims. Just think about all those boring logistical, supply issues left out or at best abstracted in every game set. Just think about the ‘eagle eye' view that wargaming is at its heart anyway. When I played using Airfix Tiger tanks and 1D6 on the lounge floor with cushions as terrain, I was playing an historical simulation, albeit a simple, quick and dirty one. When I played SPIs War in Europe with 10,000 counters and 54 square feet of maps the same was true, albeit a complex, time consuming monster! Part of these games was about using the rules to create an advantage over your opponent to win – sometimes these were a-historical, or more kindly abstractions in the system, if examined closely.

I have not yet played FoW but from what I have read (here and at F0W) it seems they have created a set of rules for WWII 15mm historical combat that can play out in say 3 hours. They have achieved this short game time by excluding, for example, what I would call opportunity fire. As an ASL player I can see the logic in this as opportunity fire is the single most time consuming aspect of ASL play. By returning to "I go/ You go" play they may have in fact returned to ‘old school' historical wargaming that I am well familiar with.

I am certainly a fan of quality product, World War II gaming, and miniatures so it seems I may well have to check FoW out as it seems to have combined all three excellently. And Yes, I will still be playing a historical simulation of World War II combat if I do so.

I agree with you: every wargame is a simulation with varying degrees of historical accuracy, and varying ways of defining historical accuracy.

No-one should feel the need to bitch or carp (or any other animal for that matter!) about anyone else's chosen ruleset. Just play the ones that you enjoy and that suit your definition of accuracy, and don't play the others.

I realised I was prepared to accept a compromise between accuracy and gaming in order to maximise my enjoyment when I suddenly thought to myself that if I had the opportunity to use the holodecks on the Enterprise to re-fight a battle, I'd rather do it on the tabletop with models than the way that they do by "joining the action" with holograms.

Hmmmm…

SirG

PS For the record, I prefer to buy Battlefront kit for my WW2 gaming, but use another ruleset (IABSM) because I don't like the IGOUGO mechanism. As I haven't played FOW, I'm not commenting on its historical accuracy. I don't play any IGOUGO tabletop wargames. I do, however, recognise the merits of an IGOUGO system, but just prefer either a simultaneous or card-based turn sequence.

"historical combat that can play out in say 3 hours."
So all games are equally historic simulations, some just take more time to play than others. And thus we should only judge them by how long they take to play. I see where you are going.

If you leave out enough rules from any set you can play almost any size game in 3 hours. The fact that rules are left out shouldn't change the quality of play by your standard. … And then somebody wins. Whoopee!

In my book if it is a good simulation both sides win.

Very good post zizioulas! I could not agree more. I'm not sure why some folks feel compelled to bash other sets of rules, but I suspect it is the same sort of 'better-than-thou' mentality that I often see in Civil War reenacting between the 'campaigners' and the 'mainsteamers'. But surely the two hobbies are both big enough to have room for everyone.

I read this the same as Mobius.

Good post zizoulas. I don't much understand the need to shoot arrows at rulesets either.

I think it stems from gamers needing to prove their "dimly lit basement cred" or out grogging one another.

@Mobius: "And thus we should only judge them by how long they take to play. I see where you are going."

Hmm not sure what you mean here, in fact if anything I thought I wrote that many different types of war simulation within the genre historical take on different dimensions for quite valid reasons. And to define one group as 'histoirical' and another as 'a-historical'doesnt make sense in the context of wargaming itself.

"The fact that rules are left out shouldn't change the quality of play by your standard. … And then somebody wins. Whoopee!"

What standard? As far as winning goes try playing an SPI monster game – it not about winning. More likely most wargaming is about participation, or often with miniatures doing all the hard work and never getting to play at all! Rules arent "left out" – different wargames have different rules and emphasis, always have had. There is no "complete set of rules" that fell out of the sky on tablets, and now suddenly FoW is 'leaving some out' – is there? I mean ASL is terribly bogged down in detail and I prefer SL (the original)but it seems that a person who thinks ASL was the complete rules might adopt your attitude – ie that SL has "left out rules" whereas in fact it is just a simpler system that works. Seems like some people post-GW just immediately think less rules = not a "proper" rules set.

@Goldwyrm: maybe proves the 'reader response' theory eh? So much for author intention.

"I'm afraid I cannot understand why the absence of particular tactics or rules covering various combat situations makes a game ‘historical' or not."

It's very simple. Compare a game's incentives and results to the incentives and results of combat in the historical record. If the game's results and incentives don't match the historical record, then the game is not historically accurate, representative, etc. No big deal.

For example, if a horse and musket game allowed small bodies of skirmish infantry to repeatedly repel charges by formed cavalry on a routine basis, a prospect not supported by the historical record, the rules could not claim to be historically representative of period tactics.

"Any wargame based in WWII is a historical simulation. It does not matter what tactics work within that game, it does not matter what aspects of warfare are or are not simulated accurately, it does not matter whether the game is small or large, simple or complex."

So, if a skirmish-level WWII game allowed an infantryman armed ONLY with a bolt-action rifle to kill a German Tiger tank on the opposite of a high wooded hill 2,000 scale yards away, by your definition this would be a WWII simulation.

Do you really believe this?

"So, if a skirmish-level WWII game allowed an infantryman armed ONLY with a bolt-action rifle to kill a German Tiger tank on the opposite of a high wooded hill 2,000 scale yards away, by your definition this would be a WWII simulation.

Do you really believe this?"

Yes. What else is it?

Timothy,

You seem to have conflated 'historically accurate' and 'historical'.

John.

zizioulas, I think you've have made excellent points. Bravo.

I personally don't like the term "simulation", but that's just me. My connotation of the term is of someone trying to puff themselves up and making their game with toy soldiers seem more important to non-wargaming types than it really is, but I understand your use of the word here is not meant that way. My personal preference for a term is "represents", but that's all choice of words, really.

Your commment "different wargames have different rules and emphasis" hits the nail on the head, and too many people choose to interpret this as justifications for subjective judgements they choose to use as objective and absolute with comments such as "my set is better than yours" or "this is a rule set that is unrealistic and just for selling miniatures" and whatever other trite and partizan points some what to expound.

Zizioulas, if you were away from wargaming for some time, as your post suggests (am I reading this wrong?) you may have missed the years in which the term 'simulation' became universally associated with very detailed, chart and calculation oriented games where 'accuracy' and 'complexity' were equated. There has been a strong reaction in favour of faster and simpler rules mechanisms – not necessarily, or even primarily those of Games Workshop's rather mundane creations (That's a topic we'll pass over here). So, if you say 'emulation' or 'recreation' or 'refight' or something similar, nobody will get concerned. On the other hand, 'simulation' has acquired a meaning that throws petrol on the flames. There was a long and utterly boring sequence of articles in MWAN some months ago which tried to examine the term 'simulation', which seemed to contribute to the magazine's slow death (!) OK, not really —

My rules are better… for me. But I'll play yours if I'm on your turf.

As far as complex-simple goes, years ago I crawled around on floors playing games that were fairly complex and probably had too many figures involved. These games ended due to player exhaustion rather than one side or the other being conclusively beaten. Now that I'm an old fart I like my games to come to a reasonable conclusion in three hours or so (not counting set-up and take-down), hopefully while rewarding historical tactics and having more period feel than chutes-and-ladders. Don't ask for much, do I?

"Any wargame based in WWII is a historical simulation."

Only in the sense that 10 is approximately 6.25.
But then there are better approximations.

As far as IgoUgo games, I don't play them any longer. They don't have a real feel to them. Simultaneous turns also do away with opportunity fire.

As for realistic details, seems some rules come with a tome of army lists. As for realistic don't some people eschew using too many tanks because 'WWII was fought with mostly infantry'?
What happened to 'there's no such thing a realism' and 'this is just a game' in either of these cases?

I pretty much agree with zizioulas. We are playing with toy soldiers, in the comforts of our homes. The worst thing that may happen to us is "chessie poof" stuff on our figures. If any one out there thinks they are recreating combat, pass over what erver you are smoking, you have had enough.
When it comes to "historical accuracy" everyone has their own ax to grind. This is why there are so many different set of rules out there. What is the standerd of historical accuracy? The battles are fought to a logical historical result? A couple of battles come to mind here, Nappy had a bad day at Waterloo and Bobby Lee should have known better at Gettysburg. Those results skew the reality of historical accuracy.
There are a lot of TMPers out there that have been in combat, I think we will all pretty much agree that what we are doing is not a simulation. The bottem line is play a game that you like, and have fun with it.

Brent

"The worst thing that may happen to us is "chessie poof" stuff on our figures."

I love cheesie poofs
you love cheesie poofs
if you don't eat cheesie poofs
then you are…

Lame…

[The bottem line is play a game that you like, and have fun with it.]

I agree. It's all a game…make believe…toys. Have fun and don't worry about whether it simulates anything.

Interesting. Looks like more and more game companies are using TMP for phishing expeditions. Enough already.

Historical games have a frame of reference. If the rules reward you for doing something that no real commander would, it can be jarring. We all have our own tolerance for unreality, and our own predjudices for defining it.

Pointing out the strengths and weaknesses in a game's model is not automatically an attack — it's a valid form of criticism. Saying that Game X "allows you to pass in front of a threat without it reaction," is a simple statement of fact — it should be left to the reader to decide whether that's the style of game he should play.

Just as you should accept that somebody likes Game X, you should also remember that others will not. This is all subjective, and a matter of taste.

As for the original question, I agree with Mexican Jack — there was a period where games were designed for complexity's sake, and few of them were worth the effort. All of them touted their "first-class simulation," so the connection between simulation and complexity stuck.

Never mind that the true definition of a simulation could include elegant mechanics that don't slow game play. It's just the power of branding at work.

We just impose some realistic limitations on who can fight what when we play FOW. That solves a lot of things. And we don;t get all jerky about it either.

Good points Zizioulas. Unfortunately its an issue thats going to be around as long as gaming is. But as long as you have fun playing the game of your choice, who else do you have to satisfy?

Thresh

We just impose some realistic limitations on who can fight what when we play FOW.

It's not just a Flames of War issue, which is why I was talking about "Game X." My favorite example is Panzer Blitz. It's an otherwise good game, but referred to as "Panzer Bush" because of its spotting rules and lack of opportunity fire — in short, you could run your units across great stretches of open ground, and your opponent could not shoot at them if you ended your move in woods. The spotting rules said you couldn't see him.

That particular rule has always been goofy to me — the whole point of preventing you from shooting a unit in cover was to make you go through the effort of "spotting" them. If you've watched a platoon of tanks drive across your field of vision, you sure as heck have spotted them, haven't you?

So my "reality" threshold got crossed, there.

I think the only thing I need to reiterate beyond that is that, yes, the point is to have fun; and that fun can be defined both ways. We've made it clear that you don't need to be trying to harsh someone's mellow by insulting their game, but it is also true that you can't make people enjoy a game by arguing them into it.

"Pointing out the strengths and weaknesses in a game's model is not automatically an attack — it's a valid form of criticism."

Agreed. But when that criticism is accompanied by statements that demean the players who play it by simply saying, after pointing out a perceived weakness by concluding "therefore the game is not historic" as an absolute and that criticism comes more often than my own trashing of 28mm sculpts, then it gets tiresome.

Indeed, I think "perceived deficiency" is a better term than "weakness", because, depending on your frame of reference and whether or not you are trying to understand what the author is doing, it really is a deficiency in your mind if other people are enjoying the game.

But when that criticism is accompanied by statements that demean the players who play it […]

I didn't bring that up, because (to me) that's obvious rudeness. You shouldn't be insulting folks in the first place, so to do so as part of a criticism only weakens the criticism.

I think what I was really trying to say is that telling someone that you don't like something (and why you don't like it) is okay, but then to try and say that they shouldn't like it either — that somehow your point of view is universal — is unnecessary and counter-productive.

[…] I think "perceived deficiency" is a better term than "weakness" […]

Sadly, weakness is probably the term that will get used, because it rolls off the tongue so much easier. Other accurate characterizations include: "ignored by the model," "coarsely detailed," or "abstracted" (depending on the situation).

I am pleased to find some good comments in reply.

I am interested that 'simulation' may have taken on a different meaning in recent years. Perhaps this has happened due to the PC the enhanced ability to have AI and complex, simultaneous activty represented in a game.

Historicity will always mean to me, a genre not necessarily the 'correctness' or otherwise of the content. I suppose having learnt my historical gaming in the 70's I am more comfortable than some with gaming that is more about painting miniatures, playing with friends, trying to outthink your opponent within whatever framework the rules gives and so on. I personally always went for more complexity and realism (because I have a big brain :-))but that didnt mean I didnt enjoy many historical game systems for what they bought to the table so to speak. I have always viewed game systems as a simulation – thus giving gamers the right to argue about them!

@Meiczyslaw "elegant mechanics" – now that is a great phrase. I always tried to create rules that were realistic because I am of the view that makes things 'simpler'. 'Elegance' would be a great yardstick for any rule set or game mechanics. More power to Elegant rule sets!

@companycmd: "Interesting. Looks like more and more game companies are using TMP for phishing expeditions. Enough already."

Is this a response to my topic?

zizioulas

You make some interesting observations. I think you are right that modern rule sets have returned to a simplicity of play that you remember from years ago. However, to answer some of the other posters, simplicity of play does not neccessarily make rule sets "simplistic".

The term "elegant mechanics" may sound like marketing speak, but by attempting to streamline the mechanics of a game one is more likely to allow the game to flow more freely, and, to my mind, make it more enjoyable to play.

That of course is a personal view, the top and bottom of all these debates is that no single rule set will appeal to everyone. We all like the set that best reflects our interpretation of warfare, if we are seeking a 'simulation', or that gives us the most enjoyment if we are looking for a 'game'. The two are in no way mutually exclusive, and this is where elegant mechanisms can combine the two.

Interesting to get the view point of someone returning to the hobby, and a shame that some people see that as an opportunity to criticise in order to show how damnably "clever" they are.

And very good that this post has led to a good, sensible discussion with no flaming, trolling or insulting!

SirG

Nice solid discussions/debates. Several weeks ago and even months in the past, I had posted my opinions several times on valid historical based simulations vs 'fun and fast' non-historical based mechanics and charts games.

There is room for both and adherants of both. I will not waste space and folks time with a lengthy post.

You also raise a nice tangential issue – how to write reviews. Whether off-the-cuff on a board here, or written in a more traditional sense, you are inevitably providing a subjective opinion of something.

When I write reviews I always state why I like or don't like something. And I state what my criteria or prejudices are. For example I hate "laser-guided" units. I've seen some table top maneuvers that are prefectly legal, but are so carefully timed they'd make a synchronized swimming team blush. But if I reviewed a rules set that had units like that, I'd certainly try to understand why. Likewise, with regard to figures, accurate anatomy and pose variation are my preferences.

This is why a good review is hard to write. You have to understand yourself, your subject, and make both easily comprehensible to your audience. And while people may not agree with my reviews, I've never been accused of not backing up my reviews with facts.

Thank you for your order. I am told the first shipment of Age of Eagles will be made in approximately 10 days – as soon as I have them in stock they will go out to you the next day.

Mark "Extra Crispy" Severin
Owner, Manager, Janitor ScaleCreep.com
Author, Webmaster, Whipping Boy DeepFriedHappyMice.com

Doh! I didn't mean to copy that (obviously).

In my book, A Simulation is a rather complex and boring affair, something no one out there really wants to play. A Wargame such as PanzerBlitz or SPI's War in Europe or any Mini's game for that matter, is not a simulation, Why?, because simply put, a Wargamer sees all! A commander would have to be psychic to know where all his units are, let alone those of his opponents. A Simulation on the other hand, is more likely to have the same outcome every time. This is not to say, that a Game cannot be made into a Simulation. One way to do this is to use a Double Blind System for games such as PanzerBlitz by using two copies of that game and have moderator tell you what your units can and cannot see, or for minis, use counters, poker chips as real and dummy units, etc. Both of these ideas tend to alienate novice and experienced gamer alike. So, in short, Games are better than Simulations, and more fun, even if you are trying to "simulate" a Historical event.