"Friction! Some people just don’t get it" Topic

Nope,..
I think we've ascertained not if you're using traffic accidents as your start point.

Trailape:

A starting point? I was simply using it as an example of how randomness can be understood. An example, not a 'starting point' for anything.

Or do you feel that car accidents aren't a functional example of random--or friction for that matter, even with the many differences between traffic and combat?

I am getting the impression when you say "S#@*T just happens", you believe that friction in combat at any level or period of history is so hard to understand, so opaque that no amount of consideration can shed any light on it… other to say it should be represented 'occasionally'…whatever rate that is. And, if someone like me suggests otherwise, I simply don't understand friction at all?

Is that the case?

Trailape:

A starting point? I was simply using it as an example of how randomness can be understood. An example, not a 'starting point' for anything.

Or do you feel that car accidents Blah blah yadda yadda…"

(Sticks fingers in ears) "La la la I'M NOT LISTENING! I'M NOT LISTENING"! 😆

@ trailape

This thread is starting to remind me of another long thread that went on about six weeks ago :)

Trailape:

Well, thanks for clarifying your position on this.

@ trailape

This thread is starting to remind me of another long thread that went on about six weeks ago :)

Déjà Vu 😆

This is a transcript of some real radio traffic between a Marine Sherman Tank unit on Okinawa:

This is Red Two, Red One; heartburn says that he is ready to start shooting at those pillboxes"
"Tell Heartburn I can't receive him. You will have to relay. Tell him to give us a signal and well spot for him"
"Red Two wilco"
"Heartburn, raise your fire. You're firing right into us"
"That's not Heartburn, Red Two, That's a high-velocity gun from our left rear. I heard it whistle. Red One out."
"Red Three, this is Red One. Can you see that gun that's shooting into us?"
"Red One, I think that's our own gunfire."
"Goddamnit, it's not, I tell you. It's a high-velocity gun and not a howitzer. Investigate or there on your left. But watch out for infantry; they're right in there somewhere"
"Red Two, tell Heartburn down fifty, left fifty"
"Red Two wilco"
"Red Three, what are you doing? Go south west!"
"I'm heading south west Red One."
"For Christ sake, get oriented. I can see you, Red Three. You are heading are heading northwest. Fox Love with hard left brake. Cross the road and go back up behind that house"
"But"
"I don't know why I bother with you, Red Three. Yellow One, take charge of Red Three and get him squared away. And get that gun; it's too close."
"Red One from Red Two, Heartburn wants to know if we are the front lines"
"Christ yes we're plenty front right now"
"This is Red Two, artillery on the way"
"Red one wilco"
"Red One from Yellow One. I can see some Japs setting up a machine gun about 100 yards to my right"
"Those are our troops Yellow One, don't shoot in there"
"The man at my telephone –  I think he's an Officer, – says we have no troops in there."
"Yellow Two, go over there and investigate. Don't shoot at them; that man at the telephone probably doesn't know where the troops are. If they're Japs, run them over."
"Yellow One, wilco."
"Go ahead, Yellow Two. What in God's name are you waiting for?"
"I'm up as far as I can go and still depress my machine guns."
"The hell with your machine guns! I told you to run over them! Run over them, Goddamnit; obey your orders!"
"Yellow Two, wilco"
"Yellow One, what have you to report on that machine gun?"
"Red One, a Jap stood up and threw a grenade at us so I gave him a squirt."
"Did you run over that gun like I told you?"
"No. Red One, we put an HE into it and wrecked it."
"Christ, won't you people ever learn to conserve your ammunition…"
"Red One from Green Two, I'm stuck between two trees."
"Green Three stand by him. After the infantry has cleared up around there, get your assistant driver out and tow him clear."
"Green Three, wilco"
"While you're waiting, Green three, keep an eye out on that house on your right. I see troops coming out of there with bottles in their shirts."
"Can I send my assistant driver over to investigate?"
"Stay in your tank"
"Yellow One, from Red Three, where are you going?"
"Red One from Green Four. I am moving out to take out a pillbox the infantry pointed out I will I will take care of it and let them catch up."
"Where is it, Green Four?"
"In that clump of bushes to my right."
"Can you see it? Is it all right to fire? Wait Green four"
"Green Four wilco"
"Green Four, you better not fire. The 4th Marines are over there somewhere."
"Run up on the box and turn around on it"
"It's one of those coconut log things. It looks like it my be to strong to squash. Is it all right if I fire into the slit?"
"Affirmative, but be careful, wilco"
"Red One, this is Hairless. We've got some Japs bottled up in two caves in Target Area Four Baker. We'd like you to leave two tanks to watch them."
"You know damn well that's infantry work. We're a mobile outfit, not watchdogs. Put your saki drinkers in there."
"Ok Harry, Red One out."
"All tanks start ‘em up. Move out now. Guide right and form a shallow right echelon. As soon as we hit the flat ground around the airfield, spread out to one hundred and fifty-yard interval. Alright, move out, move out.

Friction, maybe now you get it?

Wolfhag

Is it friction or poor training? Not looking at a compass or the sun would seenm to be bad training.

Now if it was friction what is the result? It all happens a bit slower than anticipated, if you were being a bit daft and not allowing for "typical delays". You expect a bit of confusion, while bits of unxepected happened did it have a material impact on the overall performance?
Proably not. Communication was not ideal but clearly passing messages via a relay was a standatd practice so not a major issue, seconds rather than minutes. It would be much shorter than the bound time we use so would not be something we could usefully do much with.

Our communitions mechanism has some variability in effectiveness so at least part is covered by that. The variability was included originally at the time of design of the rules as I have had enough experience that getting a point/requirement across at meetings etc and is always a bit variable.

So the question would be, if it is all friction how would you model it beyond what already exsists?

I think McLaddie's points are excellent.

For example.
If some games are considered to include a good representation of friction then how do you decide they are good?
Saying game x "does it right" is clearly doing some sort of comparison. x to reality. Or perception of reality.

Presumably you look at them and decide the n% reduction in effect result feels about right. It matches the n% you saw in battle.
In any case some sort of statistical-ish comparison must be being made.

Oddly, the veterans I tried one of those games with felt it was wrong. We didn't agonise over statistical analysis though.

To put this another specific way.
Say you want to know how fast your little men should move.
4 inches, 6 inches, 12 doesn't seem right.
You don't want to just make stuff up so you want some science.
Sampling is the obvious way to go.

Go find a bunch of rates of advance and see what happened real world.

There is of course a bit of problem with the approach.
Because obtaining such rates is tricky.

There are complications such as terrain and what sort of enemy doing what with what.
If it was a commute such as I've done then I've known roughly what to expect after a while. EG Manchester to Liverpool evening train – about 20% of the return journey was messed up.
The degree of delay would then be roughly 30 to 90 minutes.
15 minute delays were routine.
You could almost rely on the train being 15 minutes late.

With enough analysis of enough battles one could theoretically come up with some sort of probabilities and results along those lines.

@ Wolfhag
Great post 🎖🎖🎖

@ UshCha 😝😆😂😝🤣😂🤣😂

I unfortunately hold a record for our rules. I am the only one to drive a tank into a canal. I was too busy shooting and too close to the canal to be shooting instead of making sure the driver stopped. Now this is certaily unexpected, unavoidable and definitely "Sh@@" happens. However was it friction, or was it incompetence? You can get bizzare rare events withou extra rules, supprisingly I'm mpore careful now!

@ Trailpipe:- being "Old" I have no comprehention of your comment, I never learnt more than the basics of contemporary Iconography, such a long sentence is incomprehensible to me.

Oh, and in our multi evening games the vehicels can be moving too and fro from re-suppy points so traffic jams and delayes happen without needing extra rules, plain incopetence or lack of anticipation creates them free of charge and no need for dice. So far I heve remebered to brief the crews to slow down for Hairpin bends but I do worry one day I will forgett, the results of not doing so would be unpleasant.

Not looking at a compass or the sun would seenm to be bad training.

Really?!? They are buttoned up in the tanks. Have you ever been in a tank? Your surrounded by a bunch of steel compasses don't work to well surrounded by steel. As for looking at the sun, if your lucky you might have a periscope that well let you get a narrow view of the sun but that's pretty much it not enough view of the surrounding area to get context of how it position relates to where you are.

I wonder if some of the posters conclude a 50% chance of a "hit" don't roll dice but only hit with every other shot. Want to analyse every bit of data. Well see you at the end of the universe watching the last faint glow of the entropy go out. Then you will have all the cause and effects values and can start modelling them.

I guess like friction some people just don't "get" sampling and statistical modelling. I must remember to my friend who is an internationally renowned military wargamer and simulation specialist and was a former serving British Army Officer that all the data he has collected and all the work he has done is a complete waste of time and he has to wait till the end of of time before any of his simulations will work!

@ Trailpipe:- being "Old" I have no comprehention of your comment, I never learnt more than the basics of contemporary Iconography, such a long sentence is incomprehensible to me.

Allow me to translate:
Lol

Andy,

With enough analysis of enough battles one could theoretically come up with some sort of probabilities and results along those lines.

What's the point?

It's all very well saying one should conduct endless research into the innumerable factors that effect battle and then apply this to a war-game? But really?!? Come on guys!

First, if it could be done it would already have been done. It hasn't to my knowledge, why because either it's simply not worth it or has no relevance. I'm sure McL will correct me but if you have to apply such things as Chaos theory to a wargame design then why bother? What real value will this bring to a wargame after all this extensive analysis and mathematical research? Jack S**t probably.

Secondly, if we did have this wonderful piece of data how would it be implemented into a wargame? We'd probably still have to use dice or similar game mechanics to implement this "research" into our games, so how different would that really be to what we have now in systems such as CoC?
What would it give us? Maybe a couple of extra inches when the ground is flat, a few less inches when the ground is a bit muddy; the Bren jams slightly less during the summer months? Officers make better decisions if they've had 3 hours sleep in the last 24 as opposed to just 2 hours sleep? What's the point?

Are you really asking game designers to go into this level of detail? And I thought we'd left rivet counting behind…………..

I'm afraid you really are asking a far too much from game designers or anyone else for that matter if you honesty expect them to go into the minutiae you apparently expect in this thread to prove the impact of friction for the sake of a game with model soldiers…………

DB

DB again I don't think you are getting it. For a start you don't have to collect a single piece of data. You can construct a model using a set of assumptions about how a certain thing works. You then take that model to the end users run them through it and ask does this produce the sort of results you guys see in real life? If they say yes, then great your model works for that parameter. If they so no you go back and tweak it and repeat the cycle. To follow your logic why bother to collect data on weapons effectiveness or armour thickness? Because you want to try and replicate what happens in real life. What McLaddie is saying is you should have a rough idea of how common what you are trying to model is. Does it happen all the time or just occasionally? Are there any factors that make it more common – this thread suggests proximity to the enemy makes it more common. Fine factor that into your model. There is no need to collect tons of data as you suggest.

F,

Ok, maybe, however I was responding to the sentence:

With enough analysis of enough battles.

With regard to your suggestion, I know what you mean, but the issue with "friction" as we've seen from this thread, is that it is not clearly defined, with numerous different interpretations, unlike the ballistic qualities at a weapon, which pretty much are.

At the end of the day isn't what you've suggested exactly the process most rules designers use now?
You take your version/model of friction based on a) Military/Life experience. b) Research. c) Your viewpoint. Your design your rules. Play-test x X. Revise, repeat. You produce your rules.

Maybe I'm missing something, and I know that McL has suggested that randomness within rules design be based on a principle rather than a designers whim, and I get that. I get that friction will occur more frequently in proximity to the enemy, or at least should in theory.

But the point I'm probably not getting across very well, is even if we did produce our "model of friction" (regardless of how much research you put into it) would that really produce a vastly superior game or something much akin to what we already have?

DB

🍿 😂🍿😁🍿🤣

DB again I don't think you are getting it.

🤣😆😂

I unfortunately hold a record for our rules. I am the only one to drive a tank into a canal. I was too busy shooting and too close to the canal to be shooting instead of making sure the driver stopped.

PRICELESS !! 😝😆😁😂🤣
Totally predictable!
😆😂😝🤣🍿😂🤣😆😝
Comedy GOLD
🏆

DB I would expect most rules designers do use that process now and it is essentially what my friend does for the military, although he has access to lots of battle data collected from British army ops over the last 20 years. If you are going to model something in your game you should know:-
(1) What it is you are trying to model.
(2) A rough idea of how often it happens.
(3) What factors change that chance of happening.
What folks in this thread don't seem to realise is that games like CoC have by default produced a model of it, assigned a probability to it occurring. Does that model correspond to reality or not? Who knows. That is the bit trailape doesn't get! If it is in the game it has already been modelled. But as I said before lots of people don't "get" how modelling works or what it is.
Oh and it has nothing to do with predictability. A model can produce results that are unpredictable, but it will do so at a rate that has been defined in the model. The unpredictable results will occur a lot or a few times in the course of a game. The designer will have decided on that either conciously or by tinkering with his/her rules until it produces a result that appears right.

That is the bit trailape doesn't get! If it is in the game it has already been modelled. But as I said before lots of people don't "get" how modelling works or what it is.

Oh,.. is THAT what I don't get?
I'm such a dill
Hmmm
What you don't seem to get (and McL and UshCha) is that I'm not interested in modelling how often a section might be delayed and for how long for by carelessly discarded dry chemical toilets!
Quite simply it is impossible to calculate countless ‘what ifs'.
Again,… and I'll type slowly so grab some crayons and butcher paper and take notes:
It's not important or even possible to try and model every conceivable ‘thing' or ‘event' or ‘accident' or ‘twist of fate' that might cause friction,
It's just desirable that a mechanism be part of game design that throws up something occasionally to frustrate your plan.
That's it.
It's that simple.
It's not rocket science.
Sam Mustafa does it in his rules.
Richard Borg has achieved it.
The TFL Guys seen to have a pretty good handle on it.
I'm sure others do too.
There's no need to try and calculate the number of times a Humvee or Bushmaster has ran over a goat in Helman Province during the fighting season which in turn had resulted in the local Mullah issuing a Fatwa on red headed Bushmaster drivers call Terry!
Nope
And no need to try and calculate how many irrigation ditches an ANA patrol can cross in July before they start shooting at local inhabitants carrying farming implements!
Nope.
Not required,
All that's required is acknowledgment that occasionally ‘something' might happen that screws with you and or your plan that is not necessarily generated by enemy action.
I'll say it again;

All that's required is acknowledgment that occasionally ‘something' might happen that screws with you and or your plan that is not necessarily generated by enemy action.

That's it.
Nothing more.
That's the total sum.
That's what the original post was about FFS!!!!

However let's descend down the rabbit hole and through the looking glass into your paradigm:
So

1) What it is you are trying to model.

Friction! But you want something specific and you want ALL POSSIBLE potential friction causing ‘things', accidents, events and twists of fate BUT we need to start somewhere sooooo…
Let's go with:
How much delay (in minutes) does a section sustain whilst patrolling when happening upon a local having ‘unnatural' relations with a goat 🐐?

(2) A rough idea of how often it happens.

Wow, a great question. WHO KNOWS? I have no idea where to access that data but we could start with interviewing every section commander that's ever patrolled Helman Province (including Soviets and any surviving British Imperial forces just to be complete AND consult Regimental and Battalion Operation Diaries, (for starters) 👍

(3) What factors change that chance of happening.

Hmmm, weather might be one. The goat herder might like going out in the rain or not like wet goats.
Time of day could be another. A really hot goat (I'm talking temperature wise not attractiveness) might not be desirable or the heat might force the goat header to want to have a siesta.
Is the goat herder married?
Is the Goat 🐐 married.
What are local attitudes to ‘relationships with goats' outside marriage?
Is he (the local goat hearder) not attracted to goats?
If not, why not? (This one is probably not really necessary to investigate but I'm curious)
How many goats are on the patrols route?
Does the section commander / patrol leader like goats?
I'm sure there are other factors worth considering that you might want to explore and I invite other contributions for other reading this!

So that's one possible cause of friction to model.
Should be pretty simple to calculate I guess,… once you have point 2) worked out.
Ahhhh,… just one fly in the soup though.
How many Battalion Diaries will reliably reflect how often the units sections encounters amorous goat hearders?
Oh, never mind I'm sure there's a mathematical equation to figure that out also 😝
Oh,… and I'll just say that before you dismiss the scenario above as being completely ridiculous I'd recommend caution. 😉
You'd be surprised 😳

I'm such a dill

Well you said it not me! :-)

Sam Mustafa does it in his rules.
Richard Borg has achieved it.
The TFL Guys seen to have a pretty good handle on it.

So all of these people have modelled friction in their rules and whether you realise it or not that model has parameters set by the designer and controlled by the probability model they are using to generate it. Because it is a probability model you can't predict when those effects happen that depends on the actual random numbers generated during the game. All you see as a player is that something happens occasionally during the game.

Friction! But you want something specific sooo,

No don't need anything specific just need to know what effect it has in the game. Does it cause troops to halt? Slow down? Run away? Start shooting? That is all you need to know.

How much delay (in minutes) does a section sustain whilst patrolling when happening upon a local having ‘unnatural' relations with a goat 🐐?

Hmmm! I am beginning to worry about you trailape! :-)

Wow, a great question. WHO KNOWS?

Well apparently you do trailape as you have defined the rate as occasionally, whatever that means. Occasionally implies it doesn't happen all of the time. It doesn't happen most of the time. It doesn't happen half the time. Probably doesn't happen a quarter of the time. So somewhere between never happening and happening a quarter of the time is probably where occasionally sits.

I have no idea where to access that data

Well my friend who designs Wargames for the military collects the data from post battle debriefs, but he doesn't interview every section commander that ever patrolled across Helmand as he doesn't need to. He collects a SAMPLE! Are you beginning to get the picture now?

Hmmm, weather might be one

It might be and if your data sampling suggests it does you might want to include it in your model. Particularly if you are designing sims for the military and they are paying you a lot of money to get it right.
Folks on this thread have suggested that proximity to the enemy is one of the factors that might increase the frequency.

I'm pretty confident friction increases the nearer you get to the enemy. They do stuff. Your guys get more jumpy and pressure impinges on decision making.

If we imagine this was not the case.
Even equal effects produce more significant results when you're close to the enemy.
I plan my walk in the lakes and walk into an area which turns out to be marshy.
I want to avoid wet feet ( which are miserable when walking a distance ) so i divert. The walk takes a bit longer. No big deal.

Same situation as you're supposed the be turning a flank and taking on that mg nest… More significant result.

Or maybe instead of mud you walk into an unmarked mine field.

Clearly, by the way, soult understood the effects of friction well enough to predict that advance.

Friction and variable movement:
I'm surprised CoC does not use variable movement in their Patrol Phase but I'm sure the designer has his reasons. During the patrol phase I'm assuming you are moving through mostly unknown territory and will be stopping for an occasional "Tactical Pause" for security and the various vagaries of the typical and non-typical slips, falls, slow down, pit stops, etc that will take place. The turn length is abstracted so there is enough time for many chances of friction to occur. I think that's where variable movement is going to be pertinent.

If you are moving through unknown territory (patrol, movement to contact, exploiting in enemy territory, etc) there will be more chances for friction to slow you down making movement distances variable. However, if you are moving through the friendly territory in a column to an assembly area or through along a trail marked to follow by a previous route recon the chances are going to be less for friction and slowing down with movement rate being more ideal and less variable. Moving through a jungle or wooded area in a skirmish line is going to be extremely slow and variable but not so variable in a line column which could be 2x as fast (that's my personal experience). Even then a rate of 1mph may be ideal. If you have someone up ahead on point he should be able to perform a very "tactical" route recon and guide the squad around obstacles that may surprise or slow them down.

My personal opinion is that the longer a turn length is or if the turn length is abstracted there is a greater chance for non-optimum movement rate making it variable without the need for the "cause". When you use turn lengths of 60 seconds or less movement is going to be more predictable. I haven't built in variable movement rates but players do need to use bounding overwatch and infantry take "Tactical Pauses" for security and better Situational Awareness so movement distance is unpredictable and variable over a longer period of game turns. However, movement rate while moving is mostly predictable. If a player needs to move across a kill zone under fire he can move all out, it won't be variable. Crossing obstacles take additional time and can cause breakdowns. Moving at Burst Speed does increase chances for a breakdown.

You can quantify the basic ideal movement rates. They are in a variety of military manuals and the foot rates have not really changed in the last 200 years.

Andy, yes the closer to the enemy the greater chance of friction and variable movement. The "why" would most likely be a tactical deployment (spread out) does make movement rates variable because different parts of the squad would be in slightly different terrain and encounter different obstacles. In proximity of the enemy, you'd be taking more "Tactical Pauses" and maybe sending out scouts to look over a ridge before crossing it. Tactical movement is variable for a number of reasons. Administrative movement is not so variable. You can design in the variable rates without the "why" or use a non-variable rate allowing the player to make tactical decisions on slowing down and stopping. It's a Risk-Reward decision for the player: choose speed or security, you can't have both.

I think we are running into the "Design for cause" or "Design for effect" designer choices. With the design for cause you want to know "why" something happened so you attempt to model the details. With the design for effect, s--- happens and the reason why is not pertinent and there is no need to model the details. Neither one is totally right or wrong.
link
The idea is that when you design for cause, you find the factors that caused something to occur, and design those factors into your game so that it's likely to occur. When you design for effect, you design the game so that the effect, the result, is a recognizable representation of history. Causes may or may not be reflected, but the goal is the effect, what happened, not why it happened.

The design for cause communicates more of a tactical feel for the outcome and is more entertaining for the participants. With the design for cause, you can make up any excuse or reason for a slow down or SNAFU without the need to model "why" because the "why" does not matter.

The example of the radio chatter of the Marine tank crew on Okinawa would be a great example of design for cause and could be useful and entertaining in a platoon or RPG game but a needless waste of time in a battalion level game.

My SNAFU chance is when a unit fires so it does happen at the worst possible time and I build in the "cause" because I like the detailed description at the human level. Does it model "everything"? No, just the main causes I've run across in my reading and research and the players can relate to. However, since I do know all of the components inside a tank I can determine and model which ones have the greatest chance of failing and what the failure/malfunction result will be. Players minds do not have to fill in the blanks as to what caused the SNAFU.

How often it happens is 5%-10% chance each turn you fire. Why? Because it feels right and works with the D20 and D10 dice I use without needing an extra "SNAFU Check" die roll each time a unit fires. Unfortunately, I can't find any real data on the percentage of time a non-optimum situation occurred with a gun or tank crew but I'm open to info and ideas.

I know McLaddie, for 20+ years he's made a professional living in academia scientifically modeling a variety of simulations. His attitude is with enough research, raw data and historical outcomes almost anything can be modeled, at least theoretically. Whether you agree with the outcome or not does not matter. I think his approach is design for cause to show what caused the friction. Personally, for my simulation, I'm in the design for cause camp but I think design for effect can work better in other simulations. It's OK to disagree with his outcome but you can't criticize his approach and he can't criticize yours. It's a designer choice which one to use.

Wolfhag

OK, ladies, you're all pretty.

Now can we take it down a notch?

You jokers are all saying the same thing, but you're approaching it from opposite directions.

trailape's point is simply that factors that foil planning (particularly in the command-and-control aspects of the game) should be included. In this I agree.

McLaddie's point is that there are good and bad ways to model those factors, and (in the ideal case) they occur with both a frequency and a severity that are commensurate with real life. In this I agree.

The difficulty is in figuring out that frequency or severity. "By feel" seems to be the best we have, because while I agree that sampling is a thing, these kinds of effects are extremely difficult to quantify, and I'd hazard that only a small percentage of them ever make it into any kind of official record, AAR, or memoir. Many unit diaries only record "the battalion moved off at 1400 hours…" without necessarily mentioning that that was 2 hours late because it took longer to fuel up the vehicles because someone had inadvertently driven over and torn a fill hose the night before.

It has been an interesting thread, lots of facinating views. It has definitely come down on some aspects to a design decision as to what to include and what not too and why. However there are various things I had not thought of like radio blackspots that may have a place in some of my more diabolical scenarios. Thanks one and all.

As to too much to do and to little time – you have missed the point. At army level in pre-WWII period I suppose a general could kick around a drum for two hours. Not a very interesting level to game.

At the battalion commander level in WWII kicking around a drum for two hours during an engagement would get you relieved.

The battalion commander has only so much time to get information, formulate an order, communicate the order and then get feedback on effect. Trying to some how enter the mind of every tank driver to see if they might drive into a canal is both impossible and counter-productive (but very wargammy).

Easiest way to simulate is to limit number of orders commander has based on time, chain of command, armies CC abilities (radios or runners?) etc. All nicely handled by either order chits or PIPs. Certainly a lot more interesting than having a commander see how far they can kick a drum in two hours. Game design requires getting the level of command correct and the turn length tied to that level.

Thomas J. Thomas
Fame & Glory Games

No don't need anything specific just need to know what effect it has in the game. Does it cause troops to halt? Slow down? Run away? Start shooting? That is all you need to know.

Here is your answer, yes, no, sometimes, occasionally, it depends.

Thoimas Thomas that excuse is often one used when players don't fully understand the implications of the systems we use to play war games ( a reference to schrodinger's cat type analogy is useful). You cannot ignore lower levels completely, Real generals think at least 3 levels down. Even position companies/platoons in some cases wher its critical. But that another thread entirely.

Well apparently you do trailape as you have defined the rate as occasionally, whatever that means. Occasionally implies it doesn't happen all of the time. It doesn't happen most of the time. It doesn't happen half the time. Probably doesn't happen a quarter of the time. So somewhere between never happening and happening a quarter of the time is probably where occasionally sits.

Allow me to help you as it appears you're incapable of using a dictionary

occasionally
əˈkeɪʒ(ə)n(ə)li,əˈkeɪʒ(ə)nəli,əˈkeɪʒən(ə)li/
adverb
at infrequent or irregular intervals; now and then.
"we met up occasionally for a drink"
synonyms: sometimes, from time to time, (every) now and then, (every) now and again, at times, every so often, (every) once in a while, on occasion, on occasions, on the odd occasion, periodically, at intervals, irregularly, sporadically, spasmodically, infrequently, intermittently, on and off, off and on; archaicever and anon
"he's got a flat in London now, though he still comes home occasionally"

Well my friend who designs Wargames for the military collects the data from post battle debriefs, but he doesn't interview every section commander that ever patrolled across Helmand as he doesn't need to. He collects a SAMPLE! Are you beginning to get the picture now?

Post battle debriefs' hmm ok.
Well I'm going to assume he's a bright chap and knows his business and assume you're actually referring to After Action Reports and maybe even actual access to body or helmet cam footage.
I say this as having conducted and sat in on actual post contact debreifs (I'm talking less than 12 hours after the engagement) I can assure you (as will I'm sure your goood friend) that much of what is passed on will be conflicting. At best you will get a good general idea of what happened, where, when, why and what (if anything) needs reviewing.
What private smith says might be in complete conflict with what private brown said.
My point?
Debriefings won't give you details on every little bit of action that took place. Furthermore most of the time you only tend to get one side of the story.
As for AARs and Regimental diaries. These are very useful BUT it's dependant on how much effort the individual compiling it (usually the Adjutant) puts in. Some are excellent. Some are adequate.
As MM stated:

The difficulty is in figuring out that frequency or severity. "By feel" seems to be the best we have, because while I agree that sampling is a thing, these kinds of effects are extremely difficult to quantify, and I'd hazard that only a small percentage of them ever make it into any kind of official record, AAR, or memoir. Many unit diaries only record "the battalion moved off at 1400 hours…" without necessarily mentioning that that was 2 hours late because it took longer to fuel up the vehicles because someone had inadvertently driven over and torn a fill hose the night before.

But here's the thing.
I personally DON'T CARE how the data is collected that is inserted into a game or simulation.
I suspect the vast majority don't care.
I suspect most people who play these games simply want some ‘friction' thrown in rather than their games being reduced to an excercise in mathematics.
I'm sure we've all played such games where everyone spends a hour setting up the table, ‘plays' for 6 hours and have just managed to come to contact and then pack up and go home.
I'm also sure just as many have played games that seem to hinge on pure luck. Equally unsatisfactory.
What I'm saying is;
"All that's required is acknowledgment that occasionally ‘something' might happen that screws with you and or your plan that is not necessarily generated by enemy action".
Instead you've decided to plunge into a essay on rules design.
Look at what prompted this original post:
The statement that "I prefer that the only friction I have to deal with is that caused by the enemy'
Ok,.. fine. But I think that's probably not really friction.
Just my opinion of course. And at that point FLAME 🔥 ON!
Then we had some suggestion that if you wish to add friction to a game you must somehow define or identify what's the cause of each point of friction.
WRONG!!!
No!
Why?
Because the CAUSES of friction are INCALCULABLE.
Furthermore these ‘non enemy generated points of friction' can be totally random. That is to say "happpen OCCASIONALLY'
Are you getting it yet?
I'm not the one who took this roadshow of on some wild and irrelevant tangent,… that would be McL, UshCha and yourself (to name but 3).
So, if you agree that "…occasionally ‘something' might happen that screws with you and or your plan that is not necessarily generated by enemy action" then we can find something to agree on.
If you want to discuss "how one injects friction into game design" well in that case maybe open another thread and have at it and I can assure you I'll not say or contribute anything as game design isn't my thing.
I will leave that to people who have a proven track record on it or are interested in it. I prefer to ‘stay in my lane'.

I know McLaddie, for 20+ years he's made a professional living in academia scientifically modeling a variety of simulations. His attitude is with enough research, raw data and historical outcomes almost anything can be modeled, at least theoretically….

I was just discussing this with a close friend, (Serving Army Captain with 21 years in)
Combined we have over 53 years Service.
Both veterans of multiple deployments.
We were discussing "is war an art or a science"
We both agree "a bit from Column A and a bit from Column B".
The higher up the chain we both agree it's more Science than Art.

Whether you agree with the outcome or not does not matter.
I think his approach is design for cause to show what caused the friction.

Which I think is irrelevant to most gamers.
I could be completely wrong.
I do know it's completely irrelevant to the subject of the OP.
Personally I just want something in my games that causes my plan to be frustrated,.. with assistance from the design notes I can figure out WHAT caused the friction.

trailape wrote:

:words:

Two things: first, I support your point, you jack-hole. :) Please don't quote me agreeing with you, then refute my agreement by agreeing with me. It's confusing. Just wanted to make that clear, comrade.

Second, while I agree that friction in games makes for better games, I think you (trailape) are actually missing the point that McLaddie is trying to make. I think everyone involved in this conversation agrees that a strict "design for cause" approach to adding friction to a game is sheer madness. As has been pointed out by many in this discussion (myself included), the causes of these effects are so innumerable as to be nearly impossible to even categorize, let alone account for individually.

But what I think McLaddie is getting at is making some determination of the frequency of these occurrences and (relatedly) the severity of their effects. If there was a 90% chance of a unit completely failing to do what you wanted to do each time you tried to order/activate/use it, I think we'd all agree that that would be an unrealistic level of friction.

So the question becomes, what level of friction is realistic? Understanding that it's a random process that might affect any aspect of a unit's activities over a given length of time, how often (on average) should it occur? How severe (on average) should it be? Should the unit completely forfeit its order/activation/usage? Or should it still be able to do "mostly" what it set out to do, but with some decrease to its effectiveness (e.g. moving a shorter distance)?

Or, in engineering terms, what is the coefficient of friction? I don't think this is an unreasonable question, and I think the answer plays a strong role in what rules mechanism you use to model said friction.

Personally, I found Bolt Action's pinning mechanic frustrating, because even when activated there was a chance my unit did nothing. Yet in CoC, I have no problem with not having the Command Dice needed to activate a particular unit. I'm not sure why one feels better than the other, but for me it did. Probably because the Command Dice mechanic gives me more options/choices/challenges than a simple "do they/don't they" roll. I recognize that that is a personal preference.

I think we all agree that friction is both cool and good. The big question is how much friction should there be? IMO, that's a much harder question to answer.

you jack-hole. :)

😆
👍
Couple of points:
1. Sorry for the concussion. Did I refute you?
Now I'm confused (more than I was)
And
2. What's a ‘Jack hole'?
I'm always keen to increase my vocabulary of insults!
I once was given a coin by the JAG of the US Army after he watch a demonstration of my detachment doing a Crash Action with a 105mm Hamel gun. He stated he'd never heard such profanity in his entire life!
I suggested he need to spend more time with British or Australian Units

Second, while I agree that friction in games makes for better games, I think you (trailape) are actually missing the point that McLaddie is trying to make.

I don't think I'm missing the point as much as I don't think the point has any value in the context which I'm working in.
More, ‘talking past each other' I think. 🤔

I think everyone involved in this conversation agrees that a strict "design for cause" approach to adding friction to a game is sheer madness.

amen to that

As has been pointed out by many in this discussion (myself included), the causes of these effects are so innumerable as to be nearly impossible to even categorize, let alone account for individually.

My thoughts exactly

Personally, I found Bolt Action's pinning mechanic frustrating, because even when activated there was a chance my unit did nothing. Yet in CoC, I have no problem with not having the Command Dice needed to activate a particular unit. I'm not sure why one feels better than the other, but for me it did. Probably because the Command Dice mechanic gives me more options/choices/challenges than a simple "do they/don't they" roll. I recognize that that is a personal preference

Ditto

think we all agree that friction is both cool and good. The big question is how much friction should there be? IMO, that's a much harder question to answer.

I concur

This thread has certainly generated quite a bit of friction, though it does seem to be smoothing out again.

Shall we say "enough already"?

This thread has certainly generated quite a bit of friction, though it does seem to be smoothing out again.

Shall we say "enough already"?

Oh I'm sure we can tease this out to a 6th page,..

Lots of interesting and pertinent comments. I am coming late. So, I'll go for a 6th page.

With enough analysis of enough battles one could theoretically come up with some sort of probabilities and results along those lines.

What's the point?

Hi Dave:

Been out and about. You've certainly asked the right question: "So What?"

It's all very well saying one should conduct endless research into the innumerable factors that effect battle and then apply this to a war-game? But really?!? Come on guys!

As you know I am building up that research for a Napoleonic game system, and I can assure you—I have no interest in endless research or innumerable factors and am certainly NOT suggesting that should or has to be done. Doesn't sound like fun at all.

First, if it could be done it would already have been done.

Really? It has been done in many arenas without ‘endless research' or ‘innumerable factors.'

It hasn't to my knowledge, why because either it's simply not worth it or has no relevance.

If no one has done it, how do you know that? It hasn't been done because folks didn't know how, weren't interested in knowing or it was easier to go with their ‘feelings' and ‘flavor' As Watson of Watson and Crick DNA fame said, "Knowing is work, guessing is so much easier and more fun."

I'm sure McL will correct me but if you have to apply such things as Chaos theory to a wargame design then why bother?

Here I am. Apply Chaos theory? Who would want to do that? I simply mentioned that EVEN Chaos theory has shown that complete randomness has patterns… not that we need to get within rifle range of such wooley things to design a wargame.

What real value will this bring to a wargame after all this extensive analysis and mathematical research? Jack S**t probably.

It depends on what your game design goals are. How many ‘mathematical research threads have been on TMP regarding just die roll combinations and probabilities? It has made my eyes cross at times, but some game designers really get into that kind of research.

Secondly, if we did have this wonderful piece of data how would it be implemented into a wargame? We'd probably still have to use dice or similar game mechanics to implement this "research" into our games, so how different would that really be to what we have now in systems such as CoC?

Great question. And if we don't know what the research demonstrates, then we can't talk about how to build this into our games. I am sure that one set of research data could be built into game systems in many different and interesting ways.

What would it give us? Maybe a couple of extra inches when the ground is flat, a few less inches when the ground is a bit muddy; the Bren jams slightly less during the summer months? Officers make better decisions if they've had 3 hours sleep in the last 24 as opposed to just 2 hours sleep? What's the point?

I guess that would depend on whether those things matter to the designer. It certainly doesn't for many game designers… Regimental Fire and Fury has the typical movement of a regiment 300 yards in conservatively 15 minutes. It is been claimed that this is ‘historically accurate.' The three Confederate divisions in Pickett's Charge covered more than 1000 yards in that time under artillery fire, crossing two fence lines, entire divisions dressing lines twice and moving to the oblique.

In Snappy Nappy, units move so slowly that it is impossible to have ANY units actually achieve historical rates of march. The entire battle, if you use the rules to walk through the battle, ends up, at best being one and a half hours behind the actual battle.

So what's the point? It is more than a few inches, but the designers must have known this. Most scenarios in RF&F start with units setting up within 300 yards of the enemy so such ‘slows' aren't much of an issue and the Austerlitz map in SN is so distorted that miles are cut off the actual distances between towns and important terrain. Hey, problems solved. Is there a point to mentioning these things when folks enjoy the rules?

Are you really asking game designers to go into this level of detail? And I thought we'd left rivet counting behind…………..

I have no idea what ‘this level of detail' means for you but I haven't suggested anything like that. I am not asking designers to do anything. They can do what they want.

However, IF designers want to recreate combat and history [and friction] with some fidelity beyond the ‘historical accuracy' mentioned above with game mechanics… there are ways of doing that…ways to do it that can't be avoided if the effort is sincere.

As an analogy, if the desire is to build a working V8 engine, I am suggesting you include pistons. Nothing more. There is no rule that you have to and certainly no need for pistons if it isn't a goal. Game systems are machines/systems that work in very specific ways and can portray reality in very specific ways. Game designers can ignore any of that if they want to.

I'm afraid you really are asking a far too much from game designers or anyone else for that matter if you honesty expect them to go into the minutiae you apparently expect in this thread to prove the impact of friction for the sake of a game with model soldiers…………,

I'll give some examples in a post tomorrow, Dave. I don't know why you think I want to get into ‘minutiae' or exactly what I am asking designers to. You certainly make it sound like a monumental task…which I am at a loss to know why you think I am advocating for such a commitment.

In fact, from all that I have read over the years, wargame designers claim to do a lot of research—some claim years.. I know that what I am talking about takes no more time or research than what has been claimed before… maybe more methodical, but it doesn't seem to be anymore demanding that what has been done in the past.

Wouldn't it be useful to take this divergent thread elsewhere to avoid confusion?
I suspect the original thread I posted is pretty much done (or very close to done).
This talk akin to ‘game design' and mechanisms surely could be continued elsewhere?
Maybe a thread ‘Friction! How best to model it' would be appropriate?
Just a thought

McL,

Good reply B, I know where you're coming from especially in relation to the phrase:

IF designers want to recreate combat and history [and friction] with some fidelity beyond the ‘historical accuracy' mentioned above with game mechanics… there are ways of doing that…ways to do it that can't be avoided if the effort is sincere.

Without wishing to hijack the thread further, (sorry Trailape!) we know there are numerous ways of designing historically accurate wargames, (and that's why I use that term "wargame accurate" deliberately in rules, I note the distinction between the two).

Don't most design methods encompass a sincere historical approach and use historical evidence? Yes, some designers will tilt far more towards direct historical evidence (and yet one still has to take that with a certain degree of scepticism as noted by Trailape with regard to AARs and my experiences ;)) while others, as I mention previously, design via "inspiration" or a "gut" feel for the game still based on historical evidence but with less direct empirical evidence. Are they less worthy due to being less sincere,(evidence -wise)?

Both methods can work as we know. Some players will naturally orientate to the rule system they prefer or the design mechanic they prefer. Some players as already noted prefer to "know" more about the why, others are less concerned about the why and accept the generic rule application, despite the overt lack of direct evidence. The difference in game play – I'm not really convinced there is much; but the difference on how confident the designer feels about his own approach is different and of course, we all accept that premise and the sincerity/fidelity behind it.

Now, crack on please and finish those Napoleonic rules – I'll certainly look forward with interest to seeing them in the light of day! (As long as they don't have chaos theory in them!)

DB

Post battle debriefs' hmm ok.
Well I'm going to assume he's a bright chap and knows his business and assume you're actually referring to After Action Reports and maybe even actual access to body or helmet cam footage.
I say this as having conducted and sat in on actual post contact debreifs (I'm talking less than 12 hours after the engagement) I can assure you (as will I'm sure your goood friend) that much of what is passed on will be conflicting. At best you will get a good general idea of what happened, where, when, why and what (if anything) needs reviewing.

Well my friend finds it useful or he wouldn't do it, but then he is looking for general effects and not interested in whether Pvt Smith tripped over his own feet and fell flat on his face, causing the rest of the section to hit the dirt or if the section bumped into an amorous goat herder. He doesn't need to know the cause. As he was also a serving British Army Officer of over 20 years, including combat tours, and does this sort of thing for a living you will forgive me for taking his opinion over yours.

Oh I'm sure we can tease this out to a 6th page,..

That's the spirit.

I think we all agree that friction is both cool and good. The big question is how much friction should there be? IMO, that's a much harder question to answer.

I think you have nailed. That is the pertinent question.

Well my friend finds it useful or he wouldn't do it, but then he is looking for general effects and not interested in whether Pvt Smith tripped over his own feet and fell flat on his face, causing the rest of the section to hit the dirt or if the section bumped into an amorous goat herder. He doesn't need to know the cause. As he was also a serving British Army Officer of over 20 years, including combat tours, and does this sort of thing for a living you will forgive me for taking his opinion over yours.

Sigh,.. fair enough.
Ys right,..
I've got nothing.
And I'm sure YOU have plenty of combat experience ?
Yes?
I mean, you're not relying purely on The gravitas of your friend now are you?
Please share your ‘First hand' experience,..
I wait with baited breath

Without wishing to hijack the thread further, (sorry Trailape!)

No problem,…
Pandora's Box is open!
Let's just see where it leads us 😆

If by ‘designing games' you mean ‘does this for a living well "ya got me".
I don't design games.🤔

Yes that is what he does. Designs professional military Wargames for a living. He was head of the British Army's simulation and training facility for several years until the British Army decided to retire him and then because no one else could do what he does hired him back as a consultant at twice the money! He lectures on military simulation design all over the world. He also writes hobby Wargames rules for fun.

… He also writes hobby Wargames rules for fun.

Awesome!
So I'm sure he's published, yeah?
What rules has he written?
My wife, (a Logistics Captain) was posted to our Army ‘Simulations Wing' which is part of Army Knowledge Group.
Still, I'm still no rules author.
And YOUR military experience is…. ?

Wouldn't it be useful to take this divergent thread elsewhere to avoid confusion?
I suspect the original thread I posted is pretty much done (or very close to done).

Trailpipe:
I don't know, maybe. I don't know how confusing folks find this. You did start the thread by reading wargame reviews and questioning the designers/reviewers interpretation of Friction in the rules.

Don't most design methods encompass a sincere historical approach and use historical evidence? Yes, some designers will tilt far more towards direct historical evidence (and yet one still has to take that with a certain degree of scepticism as noted by Trailape with regard to AARs and my experiences ;)) while others, as I mention previously, design via "inspiration" or a "gut" feel for the game still based on historical evidence but with less direct empirical evidence. Are they less worthy due to being less sincere,(evidence -wise)?

Dave:

Perhaps 'sincere' was a loaded term. Whether the designer comes to a conclusion on direct empirical evidence or by gut or inspiration [Simulation designers and scientists do it all the time. Remember Crick's dream and the DNA helix?], that isn't the question.

The 'sincere' effort asks the question: How does my conclusion compare to history when the game system is working….does it mimic what I wanted it to portray based on the evidence that 'inspired' me. It has to be tested. One of several ways is to ask those who have experience with the game's subject. That kind of 'test' has been mentioned on this thread.

Design conclusions about history and combat have to be compared to what is being represented: tested. Obviously, for RF&F and SN, that was not 'sincerely' done--that is, it wasn't considered important enough to match the game dynamics to actual unit performances regardless of how the designers came to their conclusions.

If I want to paint a realistic portrait of General Patton, I am going to want evidence to guide me, pictures of Patton. A sincere effort will be to continually compare my effort to the actual photos and other paintings. I will have my own style and skills, composition and goals, but if the goal is realism, my painting must be recognizable as Patton or I have failed.

As Don Troiani, Military Artist writes on his website: "If an historical painting is not accurate, then it is worthless as both art and an investment."

He makes a sincere effort to match the evidence to his painting--and he is the one who establishes 'accuracy.' He provides all the evidence he used.

You did start the thread by reading wargame reviews and questioning the designers/reviewers interpretation of Friction in the rules.

I question the reviewer's interpretation of friction. Not a designer's interpretation or design philosophy.
I was lamenting the idea that friction can only or should only be generated by the enemy.
I'm now suggesting that THAT point has probably well addressed BUT if you wish to carry on down the path of how you insert friction into games (even if I think a particular methodology is total wack) then please continue.
Im just suggesting that someone MIGHT read the OP and at THIS point (or maybe 40 or 50 posts back) think "how the F#%K did we get here"! 🤣
Just putting it out there,…

As Don Troiani, Military Artist writes….

I do love his work! Probably my favourite military artists!

Well, I'm back at the keyboard. I just happened to see the September issue of Discover. There are two articles, "Keeping the Random in Random Numbers" and "How Coincidence Works." How's that for the unpredictable regarding our topic? I am talking here about Friction as much as statistics.

I am designing rules for a corps level set of Napoleonic rules with brigade-sized units—my choice, my parameters.

I wanted to start from scratch in some respects. How far did infantry move on average in the twenty-minute turn I decided to use? It is a statistical issue, though a very simple one. I will say up front that I hated Statistics in Collage and then many years later, I was forced to use them in my work in design… I have come to appreciate what they can reveal. Even some ? surprises.

I also really enjoy what others have called ‘crisis management' wargames and believe that they are more ‘realistic', so keep that in mind.

For my "research" into infantry movement rates, I randomly picked six battles from each of three periods, 1792-1799, 1805 to 1811, 1812 to 1815. I wanted to find timed examples of infantry movement. So, as an example, I chose Austerlitz as my stab at this. It took about fifteen minutes of serious research to find 7 examples [data points], six Allied and one French. Five of the Allied columns moving before dawn covered 50- 60 yards a minute. One column ran into mud and only made 40 yards a minute. The two French divisions of Soult's corps made better than 80 yards a minute, about the rate of the Confederate divisions in Pickett's Charge.

So what does that give me? Not much.

The Allies were not marching in battle formation, but road march, it was still dark on a cold December morning. Lots of fog. That isn't detailing all the minute bits of the unexpected, the starts and stops, the confusion and miscommunication, the stray sheep in danger of molestation, aggressive ditches and the like. Heck, the starting times, end times, what constituted ‘arrived' with long columns are all vague and determined by different men for different reasons.

However, going through all those battles I came up with over 100 data points. The average, under lots of conditions, armies and the unpredictable, averaged about 60 yards per minute, regardless of whether it was a division, brigade or battalion. That is what statistics do—take into account the unexpected and create ‘likelihoods' without the rivet counting. At different scales, what is used as data points will differ.

In some ways that uniformity in movement isn't surprising. The ‘pace' was a very important issue for Napoleonic soldiers. No recruit was allowed to train in any group without learning that first. It also makes sense in that any delays could be made up by moving to a quicker rate…to keep in a larger formation. Also, significantly, that rate matches the estimation of movement by military men of the time like Scharnhorst in his Officers' Handbook and Dundas' Instructions and Regulations for the British Army. Even Soult's estimation at Austerlitz.

But yes, that is just an average. Here is where statistics shine: grouping likes within the larger group to generate more information.

1. The range for 60% of that movement was between 55-70 yards per minute, so you have a ‘variable range.'
2. The 30% at the lower range all dealt with either terrain issues or new recruits. The 10% at the higher ranges were almost all well trained troops on open terrain.
3. Regardless of obstacles, from woods, mud, rivers and rough ground to towns, the average movement hovered around 30-40 yards a minute. Fences and most farm walls make no difference…again delays could be made up with the commander's speed control: the pace.
4. The absolute range for all movement fell between 20 yards and 95 yards per minute for that 100+ examples. None were higher or lower over a twenty-minute period. You now have a set of parameters for friction, how much and how often. Nothing about when every ‘just happens' has to happen, but that's because they just happen.
5. And there's more: what were the differences in movement rates between nation's armies and the three time periods, if any? How much slower or faster were recruits compared to regulars and elite infantry?
6. Was there any relationship between movement and the quality of leadership?

Those are questions that can be answered statistically with the same data base.
7. I also found that when units came within artillery range [@1200 yards]—in battle formation, that is when they were more likely [9/10th of the time] to move at that 80+yards per minute.

All that from about 12 hours study and number-crunching.

What has happened is that all thousands of the random friction events which certainly occurred in each case has been subsumed within the data and circumscribed for movement. I didn't include infantry ordered to move, but didn't. That is another statistical study of averages…about how often, how long, which armies.

Dave, I think you, as an accomplished game designer, can see how such information could be incorporated into a wargame system.

Here, I want to state that this process is not perfect…no statistical analysis can be and my methodology is fairly crude. But if we want to represent the movement rates of Napoleonic infantry, it's far closer to reality than a wild-eyed guess or inspiration. And it can be and should be tested. Anyone can look up a battle and determine how well what I have stated is confirmed in different battles. I'm claiming that the information is well within the ball-park of reality, the data demonstrates that, to be used to create a wargame that represents that reality.

I also have to explain a little about statistical analysis. Why should we really believe all this means something. Well, imagine:

You land on a Pacific Island and you know there are 100 natives living on it. The first three you meet are red-haired. Do you have much reason to believe that the next one will be red-haired too? Not much. How about after 50 or 60? Would you then bet that the next one you meet will be red-haired? Maybe. After 95? Probably. However, that is no guarantee that the next native WILL be red-haired… it is just probable.

For many, many years mathematicians have considered this kind of scenario, starting with Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat in the 1600s. Testing what it requires to have a high certainty of probability with thousands of such examples, this is what they found:

IF you walked around the entire Island and randomly met 30 natives and they were all red-haired, you could be 80-95% sure that all the natives were red-haired. The 80-95% is called ‘a margin for error.' That's the unexpected. That is definitely better than simply inspiration or ‘informed guessing.'

Wargames are built on averages and probabilities. That is how history has to be studied to include them in a representative design. Will this kind of data make for a fun game? Possibly, depending on what gamers want AND whether the designer creates an entertaining game with the information. Regardless, will be based on history with demonstratable accuracy.

I'm just suggesting that someone MIGHT read the OP and at THIS point (or maybe 40 or 50 posts back) think "how the F#%K did we get here"! 🤣
Just putting it out there,…

Trailape:

Okay, I'll take a pass at this:

"Historical Wargaming" List led to

You reading reviewers making statements about what Friction is in a wargame review.

You questioned those 'interpretations' of friction.

and start a thread: "Friction! Some people just don't get it"

This led pretty quickly to how that understanding--or lack of it is incorporated into wargames, which is discussed back and forth, at which point on page 3 I add my ample pile of posts on friction and its representation…and here we are.

Historical Wargames and Friction. I do agree that the an individual's experience of Friction isn't something they find predictable, at any level. I am sure you or your wife have heard of "Black Swan" events.

I am all for players having that experience. I just say that to provide it a designer has to have some understanding of what, when and how it is. You wrote:

All that's required is acknowledgment that occasionally ‘something' might happen that screws with you and or your plan that is not necessarily generated by enemy action.

I acknowledge it and agree for the person at whatever level of combat and/or command, friction can be profoundly random and feel like it always happens at the worst time. Of course, if I have a crap machine gun, at some level I am not totally surprised when 'friction' jams it at the worst possible moment.

A game designer has to be as focused on the question of what realistically amounts to 'occasionally' as much as the randomness of the friction.

Okay, I've said my piece. But…

Also, to add to the mental mix, here is how some in the military veiw friction and simulations/wargames:

Manley, P. R. (1999). Chaos, Clausewitz, Friction and Command. Washington, DC: National War College.

PDF link

Beaumont, R. A. (1984). Certain Uncertainty: Inoculating for Surprise. Air University Review. 35 (July-August 1984) p.8-16.

No link I can find.

The Role of Clausewitzian Friction in Military Simulation and Wargames.

link

Mystics & Statistics: A blog on quantitative historical analysis hosted by The Dupuy Institute

link

While I am hardly a fan of Trevor Dupuy's use of statistics, he makes an interesting point in that as people make and are faced with Friction in an organization, the lower levels, say a six man squad will experience less of its affects compared to the division command over 15,000 men.

@McL

Okay, I'll take a pass at this:

Must you…..
😫

"Historical Wargaming" List led to…

🤢
I was hopeful we'd start down the ‘Who's the best historical military artist 👩🏻‍🎨

Also, to add to the mental mix, here is how some in the military veiw friction and simulations/wargames:

You do realise I only just left ‘The Military' after 33 years?
Have you any idea how condescending it appears to a veteran to be told by a Civilian ‘what the military' does?
Seriously?

I wish this forum had a ‘delete comment' function😃
McL,… disregard above post.

Disregarded.

Yes, that list wasn't aimed at you…Just offering up sources to whomsoever might be interested….

McLaddie, thanks for the links. I found that I was in accord with Leser and Sterrett (2010) in that our simulation errs to less friction, as it is a simulation. It then helps us understand why for instance attacks in waves are better than one attack, having less "interferance" means less tests to get at the result. More Friction would need more games as there would be a higher random element.