Editor in Chief Bill | 18 Apr 2018 1:10 p.m. PST |
"A wargame must model all aspects of warfare in order to be a valid simulation" True or false? |
GildasFacit | 18 Apr 2018 1:20 p.m. PST |
False Think about is for a minute and you will realise that the question has too wide a scope. Recruitment and training are very important aspects of warfare, so is logistics. I can think of few wargames where ignoring these would in any way reduce the validity of the simulation. |
Porthos | 18 Apr 2018 1:20 p.m. PST |
First define "a valid simulation". Warfare is a tool to force one's own politics on an opponent and definitely means killing and destroying till this goal is reached. I want to use wargames to understand better the special problems commanders of any period had to face and would finding my troops – carefully painted – smashed beyond recognition by my opponent (I remember a thread about a wargamer's hell from many years ago) rather disturbing. (;-)) |
Rich Bliss | 18 Apr 2018 1:36 p.m. PST |
|
Winston Smith | 18 Apr 2018 1:42 p.m. PST |
Being a "valid simulation" is the furthest thing from my mind. I strive for "feels right" and "fun" primarily. And not necessarily in that order. If this will be a Poll, add "Who cares?" as an option. I'll get the OFM and all my other sock puppets to vote for that. If I could remember their passwords… |
79thPA | 18 Apr 2018 1:55 p.m. PST |
|
DisasterWargamer | 18 Apr 2018 1:59 p.m. PST |
|
etotheipi | 18 Apr 2018 2:02 p.m. PST |
Validity requires objective comparison to a well-defined referent. Since no well-defined referent can be complete, then validity does require completeness. False. |
Joes Shop | 18 Apr 2018 2:02 p.m. PST |
|
Winston Smith | 18 Apr 2018 2:04 p.m. PST |
Does anyone remember the old S&T magazine game Bastogne? It was a "simulation" of what the designer considered the primary focus of the Battle of the Bulge. Traffic jams. It was so accurate that once you were set up, you couldn't do anything. God preserve us from game designers in single minded (and often bone headed) pursuit of "accurate simulation". |
Yellow Admiral | 18 Apr 2018 2:26 p.m. PST |
Patently false. A wargame models only those aspects of warfare important to the design goals. Simulating all aspects of warfare would effectively mean simulating all of reality, but The Matrix is still a fictional concept. - Ix |
Sgt Slag | 18 Apr 2018 2:38 p.m. PST |
Does the question pertain to hobbyist wargames, or professional wargames? Serious question, not a joke. The two are completely different animals: scope is different, objective of the game's design is different, etc. IMO, the question, itself, is incomplete, and, therefore, invalid. For these reasons, I would have to go with, False. Cheers! |
Dye4minis | 18 Apr 2018 3:03 p.m. PST |
This is why vewable designer's notes are so important. Designers should explain what they set out to do in their game mechanics and the consumer can then use that as a measurung device when deciding if the designer achieved what he advertised his rules to be. I agree especially with Sgt Slag's comment. A simulation can be both historically faithful and fun at the same time as long as you know what the focus of the design is on and if you are "Game" to try and focus on that goal. |
Legion 4 | 18 Apr 2018 3:30 p.m. PST |
Depends what you are looking for, IMO. I'd think historical games should try to be somewhat "true" to … well … history. I'd think … And since it is a game … it should also be fun on some level(s) too … |
Wolfhag | 18 Apr 2018 3:56 p.m. PST |
In order for it to be a valid simulation, it must have a rule that allows for the "Editor in Chief" to be KIA. |
robert piepenbrink | 18 Apr 2018 4:41 p.m. PST |
False. How about we stick with "sound historical tactics are rewarded: bad historical tactics are punished?" It is, after all, more than we sometimes get. |
Florida Tory | 18 Apr 2018 4:55 p.m. PST |
False. A valid simulations doesn't have to model all aspects of warfare in order to be a valid simulation, much less a war game whether it is hobbyist or professional. Rick |
Frederick | 18 Apr 2018 5:46 p.m. PST |
|
Daithi the Black | 18 Apr 2018 5:52 p.m. PST |
False. Where to even start, as to why? |
McLaddie | 18 Apr 2018 8:20 p.m. PST |
"A wargame must model all aspects of warfare in order to be a valid simulation" True or false? It's questions like this that perpetuate rather silly and counter-productive notions about simulations. It's like asking whether a painting of the Battle of Waterloo to be accurate and truly representational has to include every square foot of the battle in the painting. It can't be done nor would anyone want to have such a painting around. No simulation of any kind, size or shape will EVER include 'all aspects' of reality including warfare. The primary benefit of any simulation [includint wargames] is that it doesn't include ALL aspects of warfare. A simulation that contained 'all aspects' of warfare would be a real war. Validity has to do with how well the simulation represents/mimics/recreates/models chosen aspects of reality… not how much. ANY simulation designer will tell you that. When people talk about the 'feel' of a game, hopefully what they are doing is comparing what they know about history to how the game plays. The problem with that comparison is that it is vague at best, totally idiosyncratic and at worst meaningless when speaking of any representation of history or reality. |
Winston Smith | 18 Apr 2018 9:07 p.m. PST |
@McLaddie Of course. The problem is the word "ALL". One does not want to end up with Bastogne, or even worse Campaign for North Africa. (What a romantic title…) The battle of Cowpens played out in less than two hours. If it takes you 6 hours to game it, I suggest you take a serious look at your rules. |
advocate | 18 Apr 2018 10:54 p.m. PST |
False. Some, or maybe even many, but not all. |
etotheipi | 19 Apr 2018 4:50 a.m. PST |
The battle of Cowpens played out in less than two hours. If it takes you 6 hours to game it, I suggest you take a serious look at your rules. Only if that isn't what you want. Variable time scale is a key element of entertainment wargames and irrelevant to a non-LVC analytical wargame. Ideally, we create the "Wild Kingdom Effect", my term for spending most of the time on the interesting bits like the lioness bringing down a gazelle (happens 5% of the time)and less time on the less interesting bits like the male lion sleeping on a rock, licking himself, and going to the litterbox (occupies 95% of the time). We want some stalking and then the chase down shown multiple times from different angles, and at least once in slow-motion. I mean, does anybody taken nine days to play Operation Market Garden. Lots of time for people to go to the bathroom there. |
Blutarski | 19 Apr 2018 6:26 a.m. PST |
|
McLaddie | 19 Apr 2018 12:21 p.m. PST |
Variable time scale is a key element of entertainment wargames and irrelevant to a non-LVC analytical wargame. Etotheipi: Why is that?--depending on what you see as a non-LVC analytical wargame… |
McLaddie | 19 Apr 2018 1:04 p.m. PST |
Regardless of what you chose to model [I like the term "Wild Kingdom Effect"], the designer still is trying to create something similar to X, whether it is a Lion Hunt or a battle. Lots can be left out and still be accurate and 'valid.' I want to model all the interesting parts of a Lion hunt and leave out the napping and popping. So I create a simulation that models that, say hunting gazelle and leaving out Zebras and water buffalo. Is it a less valid simulation of a lion hunt because Zebras and water buffalo aren't addressed? No. The validity of the simulation is what it DOES portray and how well. If the gazelles can only run at 3 MPH or the Lions carry doggy bags for the left overs, Then it isn't valid. It's the quality of what is simulated, not what is left out that counts when considering validity. I can say that "Lincoln was President during the American Civil War." That statement isn't invalid because I didn't give the starting date of his Presidency or the ACW. Those would just be more details. Everyone has different criteria for what they want their wargames to do… Whether they are valid representations of combat and history depends on the content, not what isn't considered or whether the wargame covers what you think it should. |
etotheipi | 19 Apr 2018 1:37 p.m. PST |
Etotheipi: Why is that?--depending on what you see as a non-LVC analytical wargame If you don't have a synchronous live element in the sim – people who need to be stimulated with real time data – then the time scale doesn't matter. In that case, generally, the faster it runs, the better. In an entertainment wargame, the time scale should match the interests of the players (which is an assumption, or assertion, on the designers' part). |
McLaddie | 19 Apr 2018 9:32 p.m. PST |
In an entertainment wargame, the time scale should match the interests of the players (which is an assumption, or assertion, on the designers' part). Thanks for the explanation. Different games will have different time scales depending on the game scale and as you say, the interests of players. So, you weren't talking about a single game having a 'variable time scale', but overall for different designs? |
Walking Sailor | 20 Apr 2018 6:34 a.m. PST |
False "Combat is nine tenths boredom, and one tenth terror." If a wargame were that, we'd all walk away. |
Legion 4 | 20 Apr 2018 6:52 a.m. PST |
Yes, as I had mention previously in other threads here. A properly executed L-Shaped Ambush would be not much of a war game … Maybe for a "solitary" war game … |
etotheipi | 20 Apr 2018 7:20 a.m. PST |
So, you weren't talking about a single game having a 'variable time scale', but overall for different designs?
Not necessarily, but lots of games do have variable time scales within them. Let's call a "round" a sequence of events where all players have had equal opportunity (as defined by the rules) to take action with their forces. Rounds would be divided into "turns" in which a single player may execute their actions. Turns may be sequential or simultaneous. One player or force may be involved in multiple turns during a round. Within a turn are "phases" – substantially different decision processes that require different support information, decision skills, or both. Usually phases at least roughly correlate with what real-world militaries consider to be different types of operation. Establishing a control zone, maneuver, various C2 tasks, combined fires, surveillance, etc. In a given game, there is no particular reason that the relationship between the real world operation time scale and the time scale its correlated action in the game be constant for all types of operation or for a single type of operation across the execution of a game. Again, for hobby entertainment purposes, these relationships should be deliberate and chose to maximize the enjoyment of the players (as it is defined/asserted). F'r'ex – I might conduct a maneuver and a concurrent supporting surveillance operation that both take the same amount of "game time" (time with respect to the perspective of the forces on the board, not the players). There is no particular reason both of these should take the same "player time" (time with respect to the real-world clock). In fact, best enjoyment in one game might be where I spend several minutes setting up and executing a complex maneuver with my troops and resolve the surveillance with a table lookup and roll that takes a few seconds. Or, if the game were designed to let you get your ISR freak on, the other way around. Likewise, I might have a constant "game time" for each round. Even so, it is common that some early (and possibly a few of the last dénouement) rounds may take less "player time" than the one in the exciting climax of the battle. A common example of variable "game time" scaling is defilade fire. To achieve realism, a single defilade fire operation is often split across several rounds. Best if it is a variable number of rounds, based on the range. A similar example is a "call for fire" from combined arms units off the board (like close air support). |
McLaddie | 20 Apr 2018 12:43 p.m. PST |
etotheipi: Thanks for the explanations, your thinking about the issues. Again, for hobby entertainment purposes, these relationships should be deliberate and chose to maximize the enjoyment of the players (as it is defined/asserted). Certainly. IF the idea is to model something from reality/history as part of that entertainment, then there are more expectations and requirements made on the design. |
Jcfrog | 21 Apr 2018 11:58 a.m. PST |
Here we go again. Simulation lies in scales, tactics and results. Joy of gaming in mechanics to or not reach the preceding. In no way are they at odds. Different beasts. |
McLaddie | 21 Apr 2018 1:10 p.m. PST |
Jcfrog: Not sure what you are saying. Simulation is the process of a system, the play. Scales, tactics and results are certainly part of that. Joy of gaming in mechanics to or not reach the preceding. In no way are they at odds. Different beasts. I wasn't suggesting anything at odds, though others might have been. What are different beasts? |
Thomas Thomas | 23 Apr 2018 9:24 a.m. PST |
The key to being a bore is to tell everything. The key to simulating nothing is to try and simulate everything. Pick your level of command and stick to those concerns while abstracting everything else out. Thomas J. Thomas Fame and Glory Games |
McLaddie | 23 Apr 2018 1:11 p.m. PST |
The key to simulating nothing is to try and simulate everything. It is more than boring, it is impossible. As simulation of any kind can every simulate everything, it is rather pointless to try it. All simulation designers say what engineer Jerry Banks wrote in Handbook of Simulation: "The system includes no more detail than necessary to achieve the designer's specific goals. Too much detail destroys any simulation value." Pick your level of command and stick to those concerns while abstracting everything else out. Regardless of how much or how little detail/concerns are attempted, the designer will always have to abstract out a lot…and totally ignore a lot more. Those are simply simulation givens |
Rick Don Burnette | 23 Apr 2018 4:19 p.m. PST |
There is the old social science joke about a person, having lost his car keys in a dark alley is found looking for the keys on a well lighted main street because "the light is better" We are never going to get that 100% simulation, even of current events because the data is forever hidden or missing. And then there is the doleful issue of TMI. Of course we all knew that those "strange ships" at Savo were Japanese, that Wellingtons 100 paces of line straightening was not a retreat, that the heavy bomber would not be able to sink ships, and yet a simulation of say the heavy bomber sinking warships would be a valid simulation for 1935, and should the lessons learned years later be used to backdate the 1935 simulatiin? This backdating is a feature of all miniatues, indeed, all socalled historival games. Was Napoleon using Clausewitz or Frederick and de Saxe? Do we present the solutions to battle plans or have the game present the situation prior to the solution? The search for tactics and tech to get through the hedgerows, fortresses, the V weapons, unescorted bombers,etc or,because we are really doing primarily not simulation because we have left out too many simulation factors or items? There are those who feel that getting the uniforms right is the definition of a simultion. Really? |
McLaddie | 24 Apr 2018 7:57 a.m. PST |
We are never going to get that 100% simulation No one can even define what that 100% would be. and should the lessons learned years later be used to backdate the 1935 simulation? This backdating is a feature of all miniatues, indeed, all socalled historival games. Was Napoleon using Clausewitz or Frederick and de Saxe? Do we present the solutions to battle plans or have the game present the situation prior to the solution? The search for tactics and tech to get through the hedgerows, fortresses, the V weapons, unescorted bombers,etc or,because we are really doing primarily not simulation because we have left out too many simulation factors or items? There are those who feel that getting the uniforms right is the definition of a simulation. Really? Rick: That is a real issue with historiography as well as historical simulations. It's an issue, but not something particularly new in simulation circles. Looking back through history to get a sense of what folks knew--and didn't know--in their time is something that has to be considered. And what constitutes 'leaving our too many simulation factors or items?' |
Thomas Thomas | 25 Apr 2018 11:19 a.m. PST |
McLaddie: More precisely, they should be simulation givens but in fact are often violated. Had to design my own WWII game Combat Command to try and implement what should indeed have been simulation givens. TomT |
McLaddie | 26 Apr 2018 5:24 p.m. PST |
Thomas X 2: I find that discussions of simulation design on TMP frustrating. They tend to always go back to stating what should be obvious givens, sort of like map makers continually having to repeat that the surface of the earth is curved. Some of the givens of any simulation are: *Limited. They can only handle so much information and still work. Compared to all of reality, the reality a simulation can address is very small…but it can be done with a great deal of validity. *Artifical. A simulation by definition is 'fake', not real. It is a model of a real *something else*. *Abstract. Simulations take real things and create abstractions that represent the real. *Provide some of the Real. A simulation provides real experiences in very, very specific ways. The intersection between reality and a simulation is valid, providing a true representation, but only in very specific ways. For example, a 28mm model of a T-34 tank is fake. There is very little 'real' about it. It's tiny and made out of plastic. but yet anyone who has seen a real T-34 will recognize it as a representation of the tank because the model's surfaces follow the T-34's configuration very precisely. That's it. Wargames can achieve the same kind of precision, but limited representation in dynamic fashion.[In play] A simulation's validity is how well it models the target history/reality, just as the validity of the T-34 tank model is how well its configuration matches--in scale terms--the real thing. Those are givens, the unavoidable nature of simulations, the starting point of any discussions around how to build a simulation that works--does a valid job of portraying the slice of history/reality the designer selected. So, how did you build your Combat Command within those unavoidable parameters? McLaddie |