"Valid Simulation? Nope!" Topic
11 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 don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Blogs of War Message Board Back to the Warhammer Message Board Back to the Game Design Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral Fantasy
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleBack to the plastic jungle…
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Editor in Chief Bill | 15 Nov 2018 5:44 p.m. PST |
You were asked – TMP link "A wargame must model all aspects of warfare in order to be a valid simulation." True or false? 69% said false 10% said true |
JimSelzer | 15 Nov 2018 8:48 p.m. PST |
|
UshCha | 16 Nov 2018 3:38 a.m. PST |
Pointless pole, so many folk have different opinions on what a simulation means. Poll needed a set of definitions to vote on to be useful. |
Dean AKI | 16 Nov 2018 7:38 a.m. PST |
Britain must honour the results of the poll, and deliver an environment in which all wargame rules ignore various aspects of warfare, but remain a valid simulation. We cannot have a repoll, even if subsequently we realise the initial intent of the poll is impossible, as this would go against the will of the people. ;-P
|
wizbangs | 18 Nov 2018 7:03 a.m. PST |
I missed this poll. A war game that includes all aspects wouldn't be a game st all. The two players would be spectators rolling dice as random events & reactions played out in front of them. A good war game has just enough to be plausibly realistic yet still allows the players to have some control, so that they can feel that their actions (or those of the opponent) contributed to the outcome. |
rjones69 | 18 Nov 2018 9:05 a.m. PST |
False with a capital "F" !!! A successful simulation – whether it's a wargame or a physics simulation used by government, industry, or academia – doesn't have to model ALL aspects of warfare or physics, respectively, in order to be a valid simulation. It just has to model those aspects that are relevant to the goals of the simulation. My goals in a wargame are: (a) to make sure the players have fun (that's why it's a game); (b) to simulate certain historical conditions that require players to make decisions regarding tradeoffs, or that create emotional states as described by participants in the battle– fear, frustration, hope, elation. Let's consider the aspect of finite ammunition supply. In most of the battles for which I write scenarios, the historical sources don't mention any effects or tradeoffs associated with limited ammo for the Germans or the Hereros. The Germans mention no effect of ammo limits for themselves, and mention heavy and continuous rifle fire from the Hereros. So I don't simulate limited ammo. In other battles the sources mention the Germans being low on ammo at the last stages of the fight – but by then the Germans had already lost the battle. So any decisions the Germans make regarding ammo at this stage will have no effect on the outcome. Thus in these scenarios I don't simulate limited ammo. But in one battle the sources mention the Hereros withholding fire and being selective in their targeting because of ammo limits, in contrast to the usual continuous heavy volume of fire delivered by the Hereros. Since limited ammunition affected Herero tactics and decisions in that battle I include detailed ammo limits in that scenario for the Hereros. |
McLaddie | 18 Nov 2018 9:21 a.m. PST |
"A wargame must model all aspects of warfare in order to be a valid simulation." And a book on a historical period must include everything that happened during that time period. Talk about creating an impossible definition…one that NO simulation designer has every entertained. The question is a technical one, not a matter of 'opinion.' Why our hobby ever entertained such a dead-end definition can be blamed on Simulations Publications [SPI] back in the '70's, pushing the idea that more detail means a more accurate simulation. Non-sense then and non-sense now. |
etotheipi | 19 Nov 2018 5:19 a.m. PST |
Why our hobby ever entertained such a dead-end definition can be blamed on Simulations Publications [SPI] back in the '70's, pushing the idea that more detail means a more accurate simulation. Non-sense then and non-sense now. Nah … it's a common misconception in lots of other areas that use simulation. I would guess the SPI material you are talking about are a symptom rather than a cause. |
wargamingUSA | 20 Nov 2018 12:54 p.m. PST |
|
McLaddie | 20 Nov 2018 2:34 p.m. PST |
Nah … it's a common misconception in lots of other areas that use simulation. Roy: I was talking about simulation designers, not all the folks that use them. The idea that the amount of details equals accuracy or realism certainly isn't limited to our hobby. I met the same beliefs in education and business. However, don't forget, SPI was heavily involved with the DOD during their tenure as consultants and designers… and a great deal of the early development of participation and organization/predictive simulations started in the DOD and military from the 60s onward. Computers certainly help drive their use in many arenas. |
UshCha | 21 Nov 2018 2:05 p.m. PST |
DeanAKI, Naw, we want to vote on the final rules before issued and demand that they are completely revised to ensure they are completely unplayable. |
|