"Game vs Simulation" Topic
63 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Historical Wargaming in General Message Board
Action Log
27 Apr 2019 6:18 p.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Removed from TMP Poll Suggestions board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase ArticleIt's a terrain expansion for Heroscape, but will non-Heroscape gamers be attracted by the trees?
Featured Workbench ArticleA guide to how Stronty Girl paints grey horses - specifically, dapple greys.
Featured Profile Article
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Pages: 1 2
Editor in Chief Bill | 17 Sep 2018 7:48 p.m. PST |
One of our members once said: If you are playing a game, you are not reproducing the battle. Do you agree? |
Wackmole9 | 17 Sep 2018 8:22 p.m. PST |
yes no game can reproducing a true battle. |
21eRegt | 17 Sep 2018 8:34 p.m. PST |
|
Daithi the Black | 17 Sep 2018 8:42 p.m. PST |
If I am gaming the battle, I am not reproducing the battle. However, the gane results may match the historic results of the battle. They might not. Randomizers play dirty with history. |
streetgang6 | 17 Sep 2018 9:00 p.m. PST |
No. Strictly speaking games and simulations are not mutually exclusive. I refer to the Department of Defense Modeling and Simulation Coordination Office (DMSCO) and Army Modeling and Simulation Office (AMSO) definitions used in the field. Models are a physical, mathematical, or process representation of an object. Simulations are models implemented over time. Games are simulations with participants making decisions towards some goal. Wargames are games with the decisions pertaining to some sort of military purpose. When designing Wargames it's important to keep in mind the Dunigan Rule that a game should be able to reproduce the historical outcomes of what is being gamed. It doesn't mean that the historical outcome must always be the result, nor even that the historical outcome is most probable, but rather that given a certain set of player decisions that the historical outcome is merely possible. To reframe the question, what is usually meant by the game vs. simulation dichotomy relates to the "realism" of a game. Again, DMSCO and AMSO definitions assist as "realism" relates to two concepts used in modeling and simulations: Resolution, which is the amount of detail of a model Fidelity, the accuracy of a model A model can have a lot of detail, I.e., high resolution, but still be wrong in that the model is not an accurate representation of what it is meant to model. Inversely, a model can be accurate in its representation, yet have very little detail to it, i.e., low resolution, high fidelity. The amount of each that is needed really depends on what you are trying to simulate. A common pitfall I've seen in professional Wargames is the belief that if we employ high fidelity, high resolution simulations, we will have the "best" game possible. This isn't necessarily so as greater resolution and fidelity introduce more complexity requiring more attention on the part of the participants. Sometimes, as in the case of large scale staff exercises or detailed analytic experiments, high fidelity high resolution is the way to go. Other times, such as training Wargames focusing on developing decision makers, the added details get in the way of what you are trying to achieve. |
platypus01au | 17 Sep 2018 9:32 p.m. PST |
I never want to play a wargame that accurately simulates a battle. Too much blood. Cheers, JohnG |
Old Glory | 17 Sep 2018 9:43 p.m. PST |
WOW!! It seems some of you think way more about the hobby then I do ??? I just like little army men. Regards Russ Dunaway |
Northern Monkey | 17 Sep 2018 11:17 p.m. PST |
Surely it depends on the rules we use? If the rules do a good job of representing what happens on the battlefield, then technically they can be used to simulate war. If the rules don't do that then no. That begs the question, if one set of rules did a great job at representing a period and another one did not do so, why would anyone use the set that didn't if both were equally enjoyable to play? It does seem that we are running away from the term simulation, almost as though games are fun and simulations not. If being a simulation means that the game gives a more plausible outcome or experience then we'd be mad to play the alternative which gave an implausible result. |
Yellow Admiral | 18 Sep 2018 2:12 a.m. PST |
streetgang6 for the win. Well said! I am at a loss to add anything at all except my compliments and nod of agreement. - Ix |
Joes Shop | 18 Sep 2018 3:23 a.m. PST |
|
ZULUPAUL | 18 Sep 2018 3:38 a.m. PST |
|
Doug MSC | 18 Sep 2018 5:25 a.m. PST |
I'm with Russ. I just play with toy soldiers and have lots of fun. |
nnascati | 18 Sep 2018 5:35 a.m. PST |
I'm with Russ and Doug. Toys to have fun with. |
aegiscg47 | 18 Sep 2018 6:34 a.m. PST |
There are also a large number of other factors here that would influence someone's decision on what to play in terms of time available to game, resources (figures and terrain), gamers in the area, etc. For example, you can play Shiloh with Battle Cry in under an hour, using cards and dice to quickly resolve the battle. I myself would prefer seeing long lines of miniatures, committing individual regiments, and seeing how the battle progresses over several hours. Both games might end up with the same overall result, but the style of play and what each gamer gets out of it are two different things. I gravitate towards the simulation end of gaming, so anything moderately complex and involved interests me. |
Parzival | 18 Sep 2018 8:58 a.m. PST |
I was the member in question. The point of the statement is that a game is ALWAYS a contest with an undetermined outcome which is decided solely by the players' actions within the scope of the rules. Who wins or loses, and the manner in which they do so, is entirely and intentionally unpredictable. Therefore, a game can only reproduce a battle (and "reproduce" is the key word) if and only if EVERY action taken and EVERY result EXACTLY duplicates the actual historical battle being reproduced. That's what "reproduce" means. In which case, the outcome and even progress of the "game" are predetermined, and thus no "game' is or can take place. My statement does not mean that a game cannot be a simulation of battle in general, or that one cannot use a game to refight a given battle as a scenario— merely that in all such situations, one is inherently NOT reproducing the actual battle if the actions, results and outcomes are allowed to be different. Sort of axiomatic, one would think. |
Winston Smith | 18 Sep 2018 9:36 a.m. PST |
More often than not, if I set up a GAME "based on a battle", the end result more or less jibes with what really happened. "Reproducing the battle" sounds suspiciously like forcing the result. |
IronDuke596 | 18 Sep 2018 9:40 a.m. PST |
|
Oberlindes Sol LIC | 18 Sep 2018 10:02 a.m. PST |
|
Old Contemptibles | 18 Sep 2018 10:41 a.m. PST |
Reproducing the battle is the ultimate goal. You really never do, but it is the goal you strive for. Buy doing so you have a better game, a more enjoyable game and better outcomes. I am not talking about reproducing the outcome, that's up to the players. This doesn't apply to pick up games at the game store based on points. That is something else. |
Tgerritsen | 18 Sep 2018 10:55 a.m. PST |
I game for fun. Combined with the reading I do before and after the game it helps me to understand the battle, but I don't believe I'm angling to reproduce the battle. That's not really my goal at all. |
War Artisan | 18 Sep 2018 11:35 a.m. PST |
streetgang6: Thank you. It's nice to get a contribution from someone who not only understands the issues raised by the original question, but is able to express them so clearly and cogently. |
Uesugi Kenshin | 18 Sep 2018 12:12 p.m. PST |
|
McLaddie | 18 Sep 2018 12:27 p.m. PST |
If you are playing a game, you are not reproducing the battle. The assumption[s] in that statement are: 1. "Reproducing" means having everything happen in the game that happened in the actual battle. And/Or 2. A game can't reproduce a battle without everything that happened being included. For instance, designer Rick Priestley, in a recent interview, declared with an air of certainty that "To be an accurate simulation, in the true sense of the word, you have to have everything included." Whackamole speaking of about a 'true battle' being "unreproducable", he could be meaning either assumption or both. I don't know. For #1, I don't see why not, within a game system--depending on the quality of the game system. I have done it, walked through the actual events of a battle with a wargame, say Waterloo or Austerlitz. That certainly isn't much of a game, though…which might be what the TMP member meant. For #2, it is a boogus definition not used by any simulation designer in any field, let alone being technically wrong--completely wrong, regarding 'reproducing' with a wargame and/or a simulation game. |
Parzival | 18 Sep 2018 12:28 p.m. PST |
By the way, I also agree with streetgang6. A game should be able to produce a close approximation of the historical process and result of a battle. (If it couldn't, that would be as bad and "ungamelike" as if it only produced the exact battle process and result.) My observation, however, remains unchanged by that, as the two points aren't actually in opposition. It's not the rules that matter, it's the choices involved. If you only follow the exact decisions and actions of the historical incident, and thus produce the exact same result, then you aren't actually playing a game, you're conducting a moving diorama. (I exclude a decided effort to test the rules to see if they willreproduce the actual action of the battle, but that, too, isn't the same as playing a game.) So, again, if you're trying to reproduce the exact action and result of a battle, you aren't playing a game. If you're trying to see how your own tactics and decisions will affect the outcome of a battle, then you are playing a game, but you certainly aren't reproducing the battle. |
McLaddie | 18 Sep 2018 12:39 p.m. PST |
Parzival: There are two types of simulations:Static and Dynamic. Static simulation recreate events, all action is scripted, Dynamic simulations recreate environments where events are created by the user/participant. They are mutually exclusive. You can't have a simulation that does both well… they fail to function as simulations. Static simulations are basically movies. All the decisions are made based on the event being simulated. Regardless of how many times you play the movie, the very same things happen. That obviously can't be a game. You see wargame designers attempt to recreate events and end up making decisions for the players which skews play and any simulation value…McClellan rules for Antietam, for instance. Games are a series of interesting decisions, to quote Sid Meiers. There are no user decisions in a functional Static simulations other than to hit 'play.' Dynamic simulations recreate environments where the user or participants can influence events. Most all research simulations are of this type. Obviously, games are too. The simulation wouldn't be interesting unless it allowed the players to make new decisions, leading events away from the historical. However, as the environment is what limits play within historical decision-making parameters, it is a simulation of a battle, a dynamic simulation. |
Parzival | 18 Sep 2018 1:04 p.m. PST |
Yep. Precisely what I am saying. By the way, here's my original statement, more in context: I also am of the camp that holds that knowing the "truth" of what happened in *any* actual battle regardless of historical period, is impossible in detail, though possible in general. And I am therefore of the camp that any game of a battle is incapable of producing what "actually happened," merely what the players interpret happened from information received at third hand (at best!). So in the end, the result is speculative and indeed imaginative, and, since the assumption is that a game allows the outcome to be determined not by the truth of history but by the choices of the players (else why not just set up a diorama?), the whole debate is rendered somewhat specious to begin with. If you are playing a game, you are *not* reproducing the battle. If you are reproducing the battle, you are *not* playing a game. Which, in layman's terms, is pretty much what McLaddie just said. |
FlyXwire | 19 Sep 2018 6:28 a.m. PST |
I agree with the original statement's "hidden" assertion, and as noted straight away – no game can reproduce a true battle anyway. As far as wargaming battles, the more I've played over the years, the closer I've come to realize there must be a game within the game. This doesn't mean we should discount the effort to temporarily "suspend disbelief", through nicely painted figures, a respect for the historical setting, excellent terrain (my passion and perhaps the most important for my "suspension" of disbelief), but in order to apply myself or participants to a scenario, there must be a chance for gaming, and taking risks, trying new approaches, and a freedom of action that wouldn't necessarily be available to a real commander watching his men die in combat (it's a game after all). |
Wolfhag | 19 Sep 2018 8:07 a.m. PST |
Dynamic simulation, player "Risk-Reward Decisions", variable reactions, delays following orders (units don't always do what you tell them to do when they are told and there is the occasional SNAFU too) and the "game within a game". That's what I strive for. A dynamic simulation, done correctly, should allow you to re-fight a historic scenario and test different strategies without the historical constraints. The "Risk-Reward Decisions" can be shooting sooner with an accuracy penalty, move at top speed but risk mechanical failures, conduct a hasty attack instead of a planned attack (less offensive assets but less time for the defender to set up defense systems), switch out OOB units, move in a column with less security but move more quickly and risk an ambush, etc. When you force your opponent to take risks, it's normally because he's behind in the OODA Loop. Sooner or later, risk-taking will generate mistakes that your opponent will capitalize on. You just have to hope the risks pay off before that happens. The "game within a game" can be deception operations to fool your opponent and attempting to predict opponent intentions and taking risks to capitalize if you are correct. It's that "head-to-head competition" driven more by player decisions and interaction and less by random actions and dice. I guess the bottom line is what the game designer wants to emphasize, what "hooks" he is implementing with special rules and chrome to captivate the players, what he's interpreted from his research (not always correct), and what biases and prejudices he brings with him (we all have them). There is no right or wrong way to do it. Wolfhag |
McLaddie | 19 Sep 2018 8:22 a.m. PST |
And I am therefore of the camp that any game of a battle is incapable of producing what "actually happened," merely what the players interpret happened from information received at third hand (at best!). So in the end, the result is speculative and indeed imaginative, and, since the assumption is that a game allows the outcome to be determined not by the truth of history but by the choices of the players (else why not just set up a diorama?), the whole debate is rendered somewhat specious to begin with. If you are playing a game, you are *not* reproducing the battle. If you are reproducing the battle, you are *not* playing a game. Parzival: while we do agree on the second quote, we don't see eye-to-eye on the italicized second in the first quote. I'll explain later today. I do agree with streetgang6's description of fidelity and accuracy. |
McLaddie | 19 Sep 2018 2:51 p.m. PST |
…that any game of a battle is incapable of producing what "actually happened," merely what the players interpret happened from information received at third hand (at best!). So in the end, the result is speculative and indeed imaginative, and, since the assumption is that a game allows the outcome to be determined not by the truth of history but by the choices of the players. Parzival: I agree that the whole simulation vs game debate is very specious--a deadend dichotomy. However, your assumption appears to be that a wargame that allows the outcome to be determined by player choices somehow can not portray the 'truth of history.' That simply isn't the case. Take a flight simulator of WWI aircraft for instance. If a historical scenario used with the simulator allows players to produce unhistorical outcomes, does that render the entire flight simulator simply imaginative speculation--and can't remain true to history or the period dynamics of flight and combat? Like the flight Simulator, dynamic simulations recreate an environment of what can and can't happen…one that certainly can be 'true to history' regardless of the players decisions within that environment. Most all simulations, whether research, education, training, management or entertainment are interpretations of what happened from incomplete, often third hand--at best--information. Yet accurate simulations with fidelity to actual events and environments are created all the time. [Using streetgang6' definitions.] In fact, simulations are often used to reveal missing information. What I have just said is a technical statement of what simulations--and wargames--can do, not what gamers want or designers must do. |
Old Glory | 19 Sep 2018 4:35 p.m. PST |
WOW AGAIN --- JUST WOW !!! |
McLaddie | 19 Sep 2018 9:15 p.m. PST |
WOW!! It seems some of you think way more about the hobby then I do ??? I just like little army men. Russ: And more power to ya. It is the same in any hobby. Some folks build $10 USD plastic Revell models on the weekend without painting them at all and some build $100 USD+ wingnut model planes that take six months to build with all the layers of detail they feel is necessary. Same hobby. In this case we are talking game rules design which doesn't rule out liking little army men. |
Parzival | 20 Sep 2018 7:19 a.m. PST |
An interesting point, McLaddie, but I think we are experiencing a misunderstanding of terms. When I say "true to history," I am saying that history itself has an underlying rigid structure, an absolute Truth as to "what actually happened." History is not the possibilities of what could have happened or what the situation allowed. It is what DID happen, in every detail. In reality, such detail is inherently unknowable for us. We cannot possibly know, for example, that a Private William S. Merkendale was feeling a bit poorly the morning of the battle, and thus stumbled briefly, thus placing is body out of the path of a bullet that as a result killed Colonel Harold C. Huffenpuff III, thus throwing the entire division momentarily in a command quandary, the resulting hesitation of which then caused the division to falter, allowing the enemy to pierce a crucial gap, blah, blah, blah. At best we know Colonel So-and-so died, and the gap happened. We might merely know that the gap happened, and not that it was the result of Colonel So-and-so's demise, and so forth. For a simulation to be "true to history" in this sense, it must be completely able to reproduce the bad chicken that Private Merkendale ate the night before and the subsequent chain of events from this instance. This is, of course, a complete impossibility. So instead we go to a broader set of simulation values that are "true to history" in that they reproduce at the very least the hesitation and the gap, without us having any clue to the foul fowl at the heart of it all. Now, for this to be "true to history" in the sense I mean, it MUST produce the hesitation and the gap, and therefore in precise cascading order the final outcome of the actual battle, because that, and only that, is history on this looser, game-able scale. What you are describing isn't history at all, but a logical speculation of "might have happened" based on certain known data. (Which will always be incomplete, I might add.) It is thus an "appearance of historical possibilit" by which I mean a state of being which could have fit within the instance being examined, but which did not. It is therefore, without a doubt, both speculative and imaginative in nature, in the sense that it never actually happened, and thus is imaginary. It may be "realistic" and even "highly probable," but it is NOT "history." |
miniMo | 20 Sep 2018 7:35 a.m. PST |
I think you can do a lot of jail time for reproducing a battle without approval from Congress or something… As for any game or simulation (whatever the heck that is): "Ce n'est pas une bataille" |
McLaddie | 20 Sep 2018 12:45 p.m. PST |
I am saying that history itself has an underlying rigid structure, an absolute Truth as to "what actually happened." History is not the possibilities of what could have happened or what the situation allowed. It is what DID happen, in every detail. Parzival: So, it is impossible to identify what 'could have happened' and be 'true to history…or understand the choices available to historical participants during an event at all because they didn't happen? For a simulation to be "true to history" in this sense, it must be completely able to reproduce the bad chicken that Private Merkendale ate the night before and the subsequent chain of events from this instance. This is, of course, a complete impossibility. Parzival: I guess I missed this 'all or nothing' approach to 'True to History.' You are not alone with that conclusion. And of course, it is not only a complete impossibility, but if it were possible, that 'thing' wouldn't be a simulation of something else--or a wargame, would it? Does your definition of "True to History" mean: 1. That a statement like 'Abe Lincoln was President of the US during the ACW' is not 'True to History' because it doesn't include everything involved with the history of that event? 2. That all historical writing [The Narratives called 'History'] and all knowledge of historical events is not 'True to History' because it doesn't detail everything? i.e. we can't know ever know 'true history' and everything written or known about history is basically imagination and speculative… such as Lincoln's presidency in any detail shy of every detail? What you are describing isn't history at all, but a logical speculation of "might have happened" based on certain known data. (Which will always be incomplete, I might add.) Where does that universal incompleteness of historical knowledge put your assertion in stating what is or isn't 'True to History'--or knowable? It is thus an "appearance of historical possibility" by which I mean a state of being which could have fit within the instance being examined, but which did not. It is therefore, without a doubt, both speculative and imaginative in nature, in the sense that it never actually happened, and thus is imaginary. I can know a lot about events, enough to know that any ideas about what 'could have happened' is far, far more than simply imaginary and in many cases hardly speculative… in other words, we can know that it could have happened, without a doubt whether it actually did or not starting with Lincoln's presidency. It is also along the lines of, if I jump off the Empire State building, am I speculating when I say I would fall? It is never going to happen, so any conclusions are merely imagination? miniMo posted:
As for any game or simulation (whatever the heck that is):"Ce n'est pas une bataille." miniMo: Give me a definition of game and I'll give you a definition of simulation… but the technical definition and function of simulations isn't some mystery. It is easy to find on the internet. And of course, it's not a real battle. That is a major benefit of simulations: you don't have to have a real battle to model it, or risk a million dollar plane to train a pilot to fly it or create an entire galaxy to understand how and why it moves the way it does. |
Parzival | 20 Sep 2018 1:23 p.m. PST |
I never said we can't know history or know historical facts. What I said was that at some point rather obviously we cannot know all the details and minutiae that produce certain historical facts that we *do* know. Thus, now we only know in part (to quote the Apostle), but not in full. So, yes, we can say with absolute certainty that Abraham Lincoln was the President of the United States from a certain date to his death at another certain date. We can also make all sorts of factual statements about various incidents and actions involving Abraham Lincoln. But in reality we cannot know EVERYTHING about him or what motivated him (or not) to take certain actions at certain points. We can speculate, but we cannot know. But of course, what I am talking about is not that sort of history at all. I am discussing the specific history of a battle. And in such cases, in all truth, at some point our exact knowledge of why such and such incident in that battle occurred is unavoidably obscured. We cannot see the private with a stomachache, the bullet ricocheting off the cannon's side, the knife that slips in the soldier's bloody hand. Such things are to us unknown and unknowable. Thus, any simulation of a battle is at best a simulation in the general, with assumptions that must cover all these tiny details with a broad splash of "eh, close enough" paint. Which means that while a simulation may in fact reproduce the known course and action of a battle when used with the known choices of the day, we cannot actually state that if the choices are changed that the simulation will indeed produce a result that would have happened instead, had these choices been made. The best we can hope for is a result that appears plausible to us, but still remains entirely speculative and imaginative in reality. So no simulation, however detailed, can be the battle itself, except in a rather general sense, and the decision to game it out and change our choices, while potentially constructive and even educational, is in reality simply a test of the possible results produceable by the simulation, not the possible results that might have occurred on the day itself. It's really not much different from trying to construct an aircraft via computer modeling. Your simulation may suggest it will fly, but until you actually build and fly the thing itself, the true nature of its operation will be at best a hopeful approximation. |
Old Contemptibles | 20 Sep 2018 2:24 p.m. PST |
|
streetgang6 | 20 Sep 2018 3:44 p.m. PST |
All, thanks for the kind words on my comments. Russ, I too like to play with little army men. Lord knows you've provided me a lifetime of the little dudes to paint up, for which I am very grateful! Yep, I am a card carrying member in good standing of the Old Glory Army! As for thinking too much about wargaming, it's that I am one of the very fortunate few that wargaming is both my hobby and my job. I also get to teach wargaming as well and run across the simulation vice game discussion fairly early on with my students. Using the AMSO definitions gets us past that point by pointing out that games and simulations are not in fact exclusive of each other. Parzival, thanks for clarifying what you were getting at. History, especially when it comes to the chaos of battle, is hard. As a veteran of Afghanistan, I know all too well the difficulty of understanding battlefield events even right after they have happened, let alone something that occurred years earlier. The axiom that all first reports are wrong holds true, but, for better or worse, usually gells into established "fact." Which leads to the nugget of truth in the joke of what is the difference between a fairy tale and a war story? One begins with "once upon a time," the other with " there we were, no sh!t…." Mike |
Parzival | 20 Sep 2018 4:45 p.m. PST |
It is also along the lines of, if I jump off the Empire State building, am I speculating when I say I would fall? It is never going to happen, so any conclusions are merely imagination? No,of course it isn't. It is more along the lines of "If you jump off the Empire State Building, you WILL fall, but you cannot predict the orientation or location of your body (or the splatter) when you hit." You also can't predict whether your body might impact the side of the building on the way down, or land on the sidewalk or the street, or strike a pedestrian or a cab (okay, maybe the cab is a certainty; it is New York). (Sorry to be so brutal to your poor falling person; I'm just having a bit of fun with the example. ) Think of Chaos Theory. That's what it's like; all the little variables that maximize into inherently unpredictable results, though within a set of otherwise restricted parameters. |
Parzival | 20 Sep 2018 4:59 p.m. PST |
Streetgang6: I've heard a few of both of those. |
UshCha | 21 Sep 2018 7:54 a.m. PST |
No simulation can re create a battle or even the exact detail of an aircraft. However as an example the simulation of aircraft and engines over the last ten to 15 years means the the big commercial ones pretty much fly like the simulation.no exactly but close enough. Take our own approximate simulation. Even by using VERY simple assumptions, players adopt typical real world formations because they are in the main optimum solutions. Optimum tactics are close to real world solutions proffered in technical manuals. That is all a simulation can do. In certain starting conditions it will give an outcome similar to that of the real battle where "excessive creativity" is not used by a general. It will not cover nor would you expect a simulation to predict a protagonist swapping sides. It may shed light on what would happen if it did. |
McLaddie | 21 Sep 2018 9:10 p.m. PST |
Parzival: Well, good. We've moved beyond the impossible Absolute True History of every single thing and agreed that anything else can be something other than imagination and speculation. Even jumping off the Empire State Building can be predictable if you know where and how far out the jumper jumped. The ability to accurately predict the trajectory and results also depends on how many have jumped so you can get some statistical data. back atcha… *smile* As for Chaos Theory, remember that it has very predictable elements, fractals and reoccurring patterns even within that chaos. Statistically, we can find out how significant that "the private with a stomachache, the bullet ricocheting off the cannon's side, the knife that slips in the soldier's bloody hand" actually is for different levels of command, for instance. So let's get real. I enjoyed computer flight simulators, particular the WWI variety. When I had my first lesson in a sail plane the instructor gave me the stick. After about three minutes of flying he said,"You've flown before, haven't you." Of course I hadn't.[And no, he wasn't trying to sell me more lessons…that was a done deal.] Now, there is little to flying a real plane compared to sitting in a desk chair with a little joy stick looking at a flat computer screen controlling the ailerons with my fingers. Heck, the simulations were powered flight and I was flying a glider. Yet, there was a very real connection between what I simulated at my desk and flying a real plane, or my performance wouldn't have elicited that response from an experienced pilot and instructor. Simulations don't recreate everything, but that doesn't mean what they do recreate isn't real and true. And that goes for wargames if constructed effectively, and that includes historical simulations. But of course, what I am talking about is not that sort of history at all. I am discussing the specific history of a battle. And in such cases, in all truth, at some point our exact knowledge of why such and such incident in that battle occurred is unavoidably obscured. We cannot see the private with a stomachache, the bullet ricocheting off the cannon's side, the knife that slips in the soldier's bloody hand. Such things are to us unknown and unknowable. Thus, any simulation of a battle is at best a simulation in the general, with assumptions that must cover all these tiny details with a broad splash of "eh, close enough" paint. Those unknowns and at times unknowables are the common starting point for the design of most ALL simulations, including the WWI flight simulators I played with. A starting point in solving problems, not irreducible problems that somehow negate the ability to simulate anything beyond some vague generalities, including history. Again, the solutions are technical issues, not speculation or simply imagination. |
Parzival | 22 Sep 2018 8:53 a.m. PST |
Not sure what you mean by moving away from the Absolute True History of a thing. Are you suggesting that a past event is mutable? Or are you referring to our knowledge of it? History as a discipline or chronicle is always changing as we learn more, but that is the process of acquiring more detailed (or even different) understanding of an event. The discovery of a new fact does not mean that the past is altered, merely that our knowledge of that past has changed and moved closer to the truth. So, similarly an event has an actual, infinitely and minutely defined reality, which is immutable for us. All we can alter is our knowledge of it, but it is virtually impossible for us ever to discover that infinitely, minutely defined truth. As for simulation, yes, it can cover the broad parameters of a situation, and even narrower. And yes, a simulator can teach you how to fly a plane. But it cannot possibly replicate the entire experience (as you even admitted), else why bother with climbing in the sailplane? (Always wanted to do that, by the way.) The simulator replicates the process of flight, not the actual occurrence of it, which I'm sure you experienced. A battle simulation is no different. It, too, replicates the process. But it cannot replicate the thing itself. Are you arguing that the results of a simulated battle will then occur if it is mimicked in the actual field? I seriously doubt that you are, or that such a thing has ever happened. Yes, a predicted result of victory in the broad sense might be achievable, and even an approximation of expected materiel loss & casualties, but that you will be writing a letter to the mother of Private Simmons, no, that it cannot do. For which perhaps we should be grateful. Similarly, an attempt to simulate a real historical battle while allowing for alternate outcomes cannot actually tell us that those alternate outcomes would have occurred, or even truly could have occurred. They may enter realms of high probabilities, but never certainty. No matter how detailed, they are not and cannot be the thing itself. |
McLaddie | 22 Sep 2018 10:01 a.m. PST |
Not sure what you mean by moving away from the Absolute True History of a thing. Parzival: I simply meant that if the conditions for 'true history' is defined as everything that happened, then recreating [or knowing] True History is an impossibility--and provides little to talk about other than to dream up all the possible things we don't know like soldiers with stomach aches that influence a battle. I just was moving on to what is knowable and doable. But it cannot possibly replicate the entire experience (as you even admitted) That is not only a given with simulations--any and all simulations, but a main rationale for them. You can practice flying without the danger of actually crashing when you make a mistake. A much cheaper venue… Or test a theory of how galaxies move when they collide without having the expense of creating two galaxies and setting them in motion. You can explore the tactical possibilities of a battle without the cost in lives and material. A battle simulation is no different. It, too, replicates the process. But it cannot replicate the thing itself. Are you arguing that the results of a simulated battle will then occur if it is mimicked in the actual field? I seriously doubt that you are, or that such a thing has ever happened. Actually, I am. See the descriptions of the WATU wargaming for your answer. TMP link What is the point of a simulation if it can't relate to the real world that it is modeling? To be a 'true' simulation it has to--like my flight simulator experience. Most all simulations are created to 'experiment' with real world questions, possibilities--those are the dynamic simulations. I can give you lots of other examples if you wish. Similarly, an attempt to simulate a real historical battle while allowing for alternate outcomes cannot actually tell us that those alternate outcomes would have occurred, or even truly could have occurred. Why not? If the battlefield environment created by the wargame is valid, then everything that players do within that environment could have happened. The questions are how to build such a game environment and how to test it's validity. It's the same question for a flight simulator or a model of galaxies colliding. They may enter realms of high probabilities, but never certainty. No matter how detailed, they are not and cannot be the thing itself. Of course a simulation can't be the thing itself. A simulation by definition is an "imitation of a situation or process." As I said, that's the point. The portrait of Wellington isn't the man himself, simply a representation of him. It still has to look like him, relate to reality to be a 'true' representation. As to 'certainty', how much of life is 'certainty'? How much is fully known and how much of life, decisions and actions are built on 'high probabilities?" Simulations have to be tested against the real thing to see if they do relate…just as I did informally with my first sailplane flight. And that relationship between real and simulation wasn't a 'high probability', but a certainty. I created educational and training simulations as my work. If those simulations [games for the most part] didn't relate to the real world with certainty…I didn't get paid. There are many, many ways to test for those relationships, to approach that certainty in what simulations are--and are not doing. And yes, they will never, ever do everything, nor would we ever want them too. No point to it. As for simulation, yes, it can cover the broad parameters of a situation… A simulation or wargame can cover whatever parameters are set for it, broad or very specific. The limit is how much can be included. The flight simulators had very specific parameters..many of the dials on the dashboard didn't function and any number of 'possible' flight conditions weren't simulated…yet what it did simulate was neither broad nor 'probable.' |
McLaddie | 22 Sep 2018 12:11 p.m. PST |
If you are playing a game, you are not reproducing the battle. The original question was vague enough to be framed in the old saw "Simulation vs Game." It could be assumed to mean that players wouldn't make all the same decisions with all the same results or…it could be that the game isn't the real battle…i.e. the game isn't a simulation of the battle. In both cases, the response to such an obvious conclusions is 'Duh.' Here's the problem I see. Gamers--and designers--have gotten very good at saying what wargames aren't doing visa vie the history they are somehow representing, but pretty bad or unable to articulate what their wargames ARE doing in respect to 'recreating battles' etc. etc. if at all. The fact that such blatantly obvious statements as the one above are continually repeated in our hobby as though it is something meaningful or that we all need to be reminded is one of the results. Imagine going to a RC model tournament and while folks are gathered around a very detailed RC model of a Dauntless dive bomber discussing all the historical and craft aspects of the plane, some bystander walks up and after listening to the conversation, observes, "That isn't a real Duantless DB." Besides reacting with a chorus of 'DUH' with such an idiotic statement, those modelers would probably then explain exactly where the model is like the real thing. I know that would happen because I've seen that event. So why is "If you are playing a game, you are not reproducing the battle" a long repeated mantra for our hobby?…let alone being framed as a Simulation vs Game issue? Perhaps it is because gamers--and designer--respond to the term 'simulation' with "Whatever that is", often after stating that wargames can't be a simulation. Simulation design, the technical methods and concepts are not a mystery. If I sound strident about this, it's because I've worked with simulations for twenty years and know what simulations are and can do while the hobby seems to perseverate over non-issues and dead-end definitions, continually repeating inaccurate understandings of simulation design. |
Normal Guy | 22 Sep 2018 2:31 p.m. PST |
I guess I have operated on the idea that I am moving toy soldiers across a ping pong table and that makes it a game. |
McLaddie | 22 Sep 2018 4:04 p.m. PST |
I guess I have operated on the idea that I am moving toy soldiers across a ping pong table and that makes it a game. NG: Uh, moving toy soldiers by itself isn't a game. If you have game rules of some sort which include moving toy soldiers, that might be a game. However, if operating on your idea is what you enjoy, more power to ya. Nothing wrong with that. We've been debating something else: games vs simulations and what is being represented on that ping-pong table with game rules…I have always used a ping-pong table myself. |
UshCha | 22 Sep 2018 5:19 p.m. PST |
I can add little to what McLean die has said. BEING AN aerospace design engineer means working with simulations of various sorts or upgrading them most of my working life. The simulations are not the aero engine I self as they are on a computer not made of metal and plastic. They predict by and large how the metal and plastic will behave when made into an engine. A wargame simulation is no different. I rather like the McLaddie analogy, it sums up the bizarre approach wargamers have to a literally every day technique. The car you drive will have been subject to innumerable simulations as part of its design. As your car (usually) works, clearly those simulations have a good correlation with the real world. QED. |
FlyXwire | 22 Sep 2018 5:46 p.m. PST |
I think some of ya'll have lost the human element in your mechanical logic here, and then you've lost the emotional component of human endeavors, and the variance of human reaction under degrees of stress and under varied and constantly evolving battlefield conditions, and finally you've lost the connection with what gaming is, and as is best enjoyed by many of us, as a social experience, not a simulation we plug ourselves into just to play as some automaton, gear, or simulated mechanism. We're not going to reproduce a battle on a table, it's a game. I actually wonder if some of you really play wargames with other people, or just spend your time adding endless content to threads on this forum here? If you do, please let me know where, so I can avoid running into you characters! |
Parzival | 22 Sep 2018 6:46 p.m. PST |
I think we're starting to debate angels and pinheads. I think you've also moved the goalposts. First of all, let's be honest and all admit that my original quote is clearly a reference to hobby level games, not high-end military simulations of any sort. I certainly doubt that you are going to claim that DBA or even some monstrosity of complexity by SPI are remotely capable of actually producing a truly historic result except on a comparatively broad level. That they can produce a result and apparent action similar to the real battle is of course possible; but that in no way means that any alternate result they produce is actually a "could have" of the day, except again in general terms. And so, I stick by my claim that a change from history in a hobby level game is not a definitive establishment that history could have actually been changed in that way if only the commanders of the day had made the choices the modern player makes. I also doubt that higher-end simulations are likely to change that either, especially the further back one casts the battle, as the fog of history veils the details more and more, and what we are simulating becomes more and more merely what we think happened, but not what actually did. I also note, as a one-time hobbyist programmer, that computer models are invariably coded to produce expected results, and it is these results that serve to establish the effectiveness and correctness of the model. That's fine when the expected results are in fact known results; one can program anything to produce a result one already knows. But when the results begin to be unknown, that's when assumption is in danger of clouding the mix. The simplest variable, the incorrectly applied algorithm, the data that is corrupted, that's when the whole thing can go off the rails and never be thought to have done so because we don't actually know what the final result should be. Maybe our code that produces the known results only appears fine, but really can't interpolate accurately beyond a very limited range; we just think it does. (This happens all the time. Hurricane tracking models are a good example; up to a point they're fine, as they do produce short range results with good accuracy, but up the time factor for prediction and invariably they begin to go awry, often with no two models producing the same track, and some so widely varied as to be mutually exclusive.) I also separate this from such things as airplane simulations; these are not predictive models, nor are they used in that way. They are experiential models, programmed to produce expected and known results for the behavior of the craft simulated. So your sailplane simulator isn't a predictive model, but rather a mimic. The "game" aspect is not predictive of or intended to be predictive of anything. It's meant to be a test of responses within a set of defined parameters. The galaxy collision model is also less predictive than one would think. I suspect it's rather closer to the hurricane model; it can go so far in appearing to be "what really happens," but as the factors of what it is producing grow in complexity, time and detail, the level of certainty as to its predicted results begins to go down. (And we have indeed seen observed physics go astray from predicted models— at which point we change the models to reflect the data, but even then the predictions of the model still remain uncertain in the long run. A galaxy collision model fast-forwarded (or even fast-reversed) over billions of years may *look* correct, but unless we're capable of observing over billions of years of the real thing (and we're not), we're making more than a little assumption as to the accuracy of the model.) If you want to claim that a high level battle simulator is a predictor of certain results, okay. But I highly suspect that even a computer's carefully programmed battle plan would not survive contact with an actual enemy. |
Pages: 1 2
|