"Minimum Requirements for a simulation" Topic

Following on from my table movement thread it mat be interesting to define what a minimum actual requirement is for a simulation.

Too many these mimima may not appeal and I have no predudice against peaple who want to play fantasy. I play Dominoes and that is about as abstract as it comes. This is soley about those who want a simulation to gain a better understanding of the battlefield.

Included –

1) Linear scale or close to it for the majority of weapons.
2) For WW1 onwards the abity to suppress troops by fire.
3) In general no removal of figures as a unit degrades. Units maintain their frontage and except in exceptional circumstances even 20% losses would be horredus so taking 3 elements of a 5 element unit is unreasonable.
4) Weapons behaving as there real conterparts do at all times. The once or twice over 5 years exception have no usefull place in a simulation.

Excluded – The manufacturers statement that its "Real" in many cases this is pure hype (being polite about it).

Is 3 true? I can't think of any period where that is straightforwardly correct.

U,

Re:

Weapons behaving as there real conterparts do at all times.

So lots of stoppages, reloads, barrel changes and dirt in the barrel/working parts then?

Wargames may provide an understanding of the parts or pieces involved on a battlefield but wargamers do not gain a better understanding of that battlefield as a whole unless they've been on one. IMHO.

DB

It depends on the scale of the simulation. 3 & 4 are largely irrelevant if the sim is modelling combats between divisions or legions but other aspects may become more important.

I play Dominoes and that is about as abstract as it comes.

Dominoes is not abstract, it does not pretend to be anything other than what it is. Had you said ‘Monopoly' then I might have agreed with you. All wargames are abstract because ultimately that element of real danger is missing. As you push your 1/144 scale 3D printed models around your table no-one is trying to kill you.

I have never been in real combat, but I have taken part in a large number of military exercises. Even they cannot fully ‘simulate' real combat because, short of a training accident, your personal safety is not in peril. An umpire running up and saying "you're dead, you're dead and you're dead" is probably nothing like taking a 7.62mm round to the chest.

Some high horses need to be dismounted here.

I must say that the original post seems laden with preconception based on one individual's clear prejudices and preferences. That does not seem the best starting point.

Too many these mimima may not appeal and I have no predudice against peaple who want to play fantasy.

As charming and open to debate as usual.

define what a minimum actual requirement is for a simulation.

Anybody who conducts professional military simulations for a living would say there is no such standard; what constitutes a simulation is contextual to the intent.

As such, I'm perfectly OK with you playing your personal fantasy and establishing your personal fantasy standards for the games you want to play.

David Brown, Reloading and Barrel Changes ate a normal part of combat. I recent book on the Gurkas in Afganistan notes the need to keep an eye on the barrel and change when required. This is largely predictable given competent men. It was noticeable that none of the Gurkas noted that a stopages was a great impact on the combat. The author noted however that vigilance in clening weaponry was important but pat of a soldiers life.

deephorse, you comment is somewaht misplaced. I worked for an aircraft company. We did not go out and kill would be passengers as our model showed a part failed before its predicted time. A simulation can and does only cover limited parts. Actual combat stress is not easy to simulate in any detail nor is it im my opinion usefull, in the samew way logistics is only minimaly modelled.

whirlwind, my readings are that 3 is valid in WW2. Losses higher than that seem generally to be when effectively a unit is routing and hence is dispersed and unlikey to return to act in any coherent manner.

+1 etotheipi

I think it's high time our hobby divorced itself from the "game vs. simulation" debate. Even those who describe it as a sliding scale and not a binary choice miss the point.

What our hobby most often seems to mean by "simulation" is that game processes explicitly account for "all variables" whatever that means.

The four assumptions laid out in the OP reflect this kind of thinking, using the condescending "fantasy" in place of game. Those might (might) apply to a "simulation" of ground combat.

Here is another simulation of ground combat performed by the US armed forces:

The player is a battalion commander, listening to the radio chatter. It is as garbled, confused, contradictory and nervous as in real life. Everything is in real time. Your job as "player" is to evaluate what you hear on the radio net and give your order. No dice, no miniatures, just you and a map. A *very* realistic simulation of ground combat.

Likewise you might build a simulation of combat for a logistics team. This will be about managing supply lines and resupply points in the face of changing needs and environment. I once participated in such – an exercise UPS used to do with employees. It involves note cards handed from labeled point to labeled point. The log jams, mis-shipments, etc. were a wonder to behold.

Let's get rid of this whole debate. Instead, let's focus on a better question. I propose: "What aspects of the situation does this game focus on and require you to think most about?"

UshCha, you may get better results by saying "these are the things I think must be represented for a decent simulation" instead of saying "to be a simulation they must agree with my conclusions on certain aspects." You might also straightforwardly say you don't care about anything prior to 1914.

For myself, I stick with the Featherstone gold standard--historically sound tactics should be rewarded and historically dubious tactics punished. If I were attempting to devise new tactics for a future war, things would be necessarily be different. But that's a job for which people are paid, and not a hobby.

whirlwind, my readings are that 3 is valid in WW2. Losses higher than that seem generally to be when effectively a unit is routing and hence is dispersed and unlikely to return to act in any coherent manner.

Even if this were true, I don't really see why this militates against figure removal. That is just a mechanical or aesthetic preference.

+1 to etotheipi

"Anybody who conducts professional military simulations for a living would say there is no such standard"

I am indeed one of those lucky anybodies that gets to make a living off of my hobby! I am long familiar with the "game vs. simulation" question. Let me throw some modeling and simulations terms, as defined by the (US) Defense Modeling and Simulations Office (DMSO): link

Model: A physical, mathematical, or otherwise logical representation of a system, entity, phenomenon, or process.

Simulation: A method for implementing a model over time

War game: A simulation game in which participants seek to achieve a specified military objective given pre-established resources and constraints; for example, a simulation in which participants make battlefield decisions and a computer determines the results of those decisions.

No longer defined by DMSO, but relevant to our discussion:

Game: A simulation with participants making decisions

So what do we really mean when we discuss "game vs. simulation?" Let me throw in two more terms that will help clarify:

Fidelity: The degree to which a model or simulation represents the state and behavior of a real world object or the perception of a real world object, feature, condition, or chosen standard in a measurable or perceivable manner; a measure of the realism of a model or simulation.

Resolution: The degree of detail used to represent aspects of the real world or a specified standard or referent by a model or simulation.

Put another way, how much detail (resolution) and how much accuracy (fidelity).

So, when we enter into the "game vs simulation" debate, what we are really asking is how detailed and how accurate. Which leads to a very common pitfall I've seen in professional games; high fidelity + high resolution = "best" game. I've seen professional games brought to its knees due to an overwhelming amount of data presented to the players. As an example, I was playing in a Brigade/Battalion command post exercise (CPX) where each engagement generated losses tracked to each individual item in that unit. The result was to get the information I needed, how many tanks/infantrymen did I lose, I had to wade through a voluminous print out that also included, with equal weight, how many bayonets, canteen cups, tent stakes, etc., did I have on hand and how many of each did I lose. Very high resolution with arguably very high fidelity. Also mostly irrelevant to my fighting as a tank battalion commander in a near real time game.

Again, etotheipi cuts to the heart of the issue: "what constitutes a simulation is contextual to the intent." Or put another way, how much fidelity and resolution do we need in a simulation to drive a game that meets a stated intended purpose. Yes, I guess a case could be made that how many bayonets, canteens, sleeping bags, rain parkas, etc. were lost could be relevant, but it most definitely was not to me.

Which is why when I'm asked what's the best "game" or "simulation" out there, my reply will always be it depends on what you are trying to achieve.

Hope this adds to the discussion….

A deep knowledge of the subject being simulated.

U

Re:

It was noticeable that none of the Gurkas noted that a stopages was a great impact on the combat.

FWIW I have never met a Gurkha who admitted that anything ever had any impact upon their performance……

DB

No longer defined by DMSO, but relevant to our discussion:

Game: A simulation with participants making decisions

Awwwww, man! You get old and they take you stuff out of the manual! :)

All games are simulations. What we should discuss is "What is it that we want to simulate?" and "Why?"

Likewise you might build a simulation of combat for a logistics team.

I used to do just that to get an idea of the performance space for battlegroup logistics in … well … modern wars that seem less modern now. :)

A deep knowledge of the subject being simulated.

For the win! The same sentiment has been expressed by many above, but Phil Hall was precise and succinct! Or, at least, much more succinct than me! :)

Anybody who conducts professional military simulations for a living would say there is no such standard; what constitutes a simulation is contextual to the intent.

etotheipi:

Who have you been talking to? Or is UshCha [and us] confusing 'minimum requirements to work' with standards targeting particular simulation goals. What he has listed are his standards, not the description of what a simulation has to do to be a simulation on or off the battlefield.

It is like saying that a game has to look like chess to be a game.

There are some basic requirements for a simulation to be a functioning simulation, whether research, training or entertainment.

This is solely about those who want a simulation to gain a better understanding of the battlefield.

A simulation could legitimately do that without meeting a great deal of the requirements UshCha has listed.

It all depends on what things about the battlefield--and what the designer wants the participants to 'understand'.

I have never been in real combat, but I have taken part in a large number of military exercises. Even they cannot fully ‘simulate' real combat because, short of a training accident, your personal safety is not in peril. An umpire running up and saying "you're dead, you're dead and you're dead" is probably nothing like taking a 7.62mm round to the chest.

Some high horses need to be dismounted here.

Deephorse [any relation to high horse? ]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and there is no screaming, terror or blood. Of course, a simulation "cannot fully ‘simulate' real combat." There has never been nor will there ever be a simulation created that can 'fully recreate real ANYTHING. It would cease to be a simulation if it did.

That isn't the point of a simulation…unless you really want those aspects experienced--but who does??? The Military only approaches it with some of the live fire exercises and some TI's.

That is one major benefit of a simulation…practicing PARTS of reality, and the decision-making involved, without all[most] the damage that can occur in a real war.

UshCha has basically delineated what he feels are the important PARTS of the battlefield reality that simulations *should* model in a wargame of modern warfare.

High Horse dismounted.

Those listed items are pretty limited compared to ALL of of the real battlefield, let alone all of reality.

Shouldn't also a simulation be conducted in real time? ;-)

"Minimum Requirements for a simulation"

Completely superfluous discussion. Rolling opposed D6s is a completely accurate simulation of two exactly equal forces coming into conflict on a featureless flat plain.

Who have you been talking to?

Recently? US DoD, UK MOD, Canadian DND, and a few others. The various undersecretaries/departments/etc. in charge of building and/or oversight of military simulations.

Those listed items are pretty limited compared to ALL of of the real battlefield, let alone all of reality.

They are limited and none of them are required minimum standards to model the battlefield.

And one is internally inconsistent.

Weapons behaving as there real conterparts do at all times. The once or twice over 5 years exception have no usefull place in a simulation.

They have to both represent weapons behaviour at all times, except not weapon behaviour for some vaguely defined set of exceptions.

They are limited and none of them are required minimum standards to model the battlefield.

etotheipi:

Okay, that clears that up. My two responses are 1. standards are probably linked to specific program demands, and 2. Too bad.

However, I was speaking of what a design, any computer program to boardgame to military exercise has to do to be a functional simulation. A design has to do very specific things to be termed a simulation.

This is similar to asking what a design has to do to be a functional game. The terms do mean something technical.

The Luddites on board don't need to know what a simulation is or care, but however they grouse, simulations still exist.

Wargames may provide an understanding of the parts or pieces involved on a battlefield but wargamers do not gain a better understanding of that battlefield as a whole unless they've been on one.

David:

That is practically an unassailable conclusion, though I think that wargamers can always gain a 'better understanding' of the battlefield, though never as a whole, as you say, unless they've been in one.

ALL variables do not have to be included to be a simulation.

Only the very important, and/or critical ones do.

Unfortunately as usual this had degenerated into Hyperbole rather than being objective.

If we take most wargames they consist of :-

A game using minatures (typicaly the board game/minatiture game may not be binary (are paper flats minatuers or board pieces).
command and control (somtimes)
ranged fire
close contact/short Range.
They operate on some form of Map.
Options for at least partly hidden moment (sometimes).

High level games are essentially map games, the terrain features look like close in maps so are VERY abstract. Are they Boad games or Figure games. Personaly over about 7 to one figure to ground scale you are looking really at a board game. Beyond that level the real world map becomes difficult to represent in minature without is looking like a map.

There are other forms of wargame I will grant but being primarily minatures I allowed my self some assumpions that I assumed to be common, perhaps I was in error there and the above covers a better definition.

The map below can model most linear features using 1/144 troops and the model fit in (roughly 1mm represents 1m.

link

At five time the above scale, representation of the real world will be too complex to use standard minature terrain.

link

Why this village, I have modelled this village for an actual 1/144 game.

Unfortunately as usual this had degenerated into Hyperbole rather than being objective.

If you mean the stuff in the OP, I agree.

I notice that you are grousing instead of trying to engage on any of the discussion points. Very objective.

are probably linked to specific program demands

Completely agree. That was my point, there is no such thing as a set of minimum standards for being a simulation. Even when you constrain it to representations of the battlefield. You need to have a specific referent to establish what needs to be in a simulation and a performance criterion to determine to what degree.

there is no such thing as a set of minimum standards for being a simulation

etotheipi: Okay. no argument there. Just to clarify, I wasn't speaking of standards, but rather what a simulation has to do to be a simulation.

The EPA set standards for internal combustion engines. To be a internal combustion engine, the design has to do certain things to qualify as one.

I am speaking of what a design has to do to be a functional simulation and you are speaking of the performance standards or the lack of them.

I agree, McLaddie.

I was just addressing what I understood from the OP, the assertion that there is a set of minimum standards to be a simulation of the battlefield.

I tried to suss what a "standard" was based on the four provided, which I found difficult. Especially since the fourth one is internally inconsistent by requiring weapon performance replication at "all times", then continuing to say that "all times" does not include some vaguely defined and syntactically over-specified outlier cases.

I think we agree that to be a simulation, you need to have a well-defined referent. (We may discuss what that means or the terminology.)

I was asserting that there are no universal standards associated with referents that represent the battlefield, even kind of specified as post-WWI, large force(?) combat.

Even a time scale is not required.

That sometimes sounds like kind of a radical statement to make, but I've run and used modern battlefield effects that focus on dependencies, but not a specific timeline. In fact, some of the effects would consume intractable numbers of resources to represent the millions of possible Markov chains that result in a specific effect. The details of the progress of those Markov chains was not the point, just to define the state space of the effect outcomes. So, we didn't model them.

Reaction based action/initiative systems for tabletop games work similar to this. They focus more on cause and effect chains rather than time slicing actions.

etotheipi:

Yes, I agree with what you've posted. What UshCha has listed is what HE feels are the important elements of a battlefield simulation.

As you note, there are a lot of reality to simulate regarding the modern battlefield that do not require directly or indirectly cover those particular--very real--major elements in modern tactical warfare. Of course, there are also a wide variety of mechanics available in constructing a simulation of the same reality.

What UshCha has listed is what HE feels are the important elements of a battlefield simulation.

No, he takes a much more absolute stance, even to the point of saying that people who don't like his minimum standards are playing fantasy as opposed to representing the realities of some vaguely defined modern battlefield.

Of course, there are also a wide variety of mechanics available in constructing a simulation of the same reality.

Sure. When you get to the point of a formally defined performance space for the chosen variables, there are an infinite number of transfer functions. Heck, there are an infinite number of sets of only Fourier series for mapping stimulus to effect, let alone the other infinite number of forms.

That discussion is where you bridge from what I would call the rules or the game to what I would call the player experience of the game.

No, he takes a much more absolute stance, even to the point of saying that people who don't like his minimum standards are playing fantasy as opposed to representing the realities of some vaguely defined modern battlefield.

Hmmm, I didn't get that sense, but whatever his 'stance' was, he was simply listing the elements he felt were important, regardless. Certainly not absolutely necessary for a valid simulation.

Heck, there are an infinite number of sets of only Fourier series for mapping stimulus to effect, let alone the other infinite number of forms.

That discussion is where you bridge from what I would call the rules or the game to what I would call the player experience of the game.

Player experience is the bottom line in a participatory simulation…they are the ones that take the abstractions to creating a model of reality.

Player experience is the bottom line in a participatory simulation

Completely agree. That's why if you want to have this type of discussion, you need to start with describing what you want to model, not how you model.

To me this thread has as usual become esoteric. If I were to take it to its logical conclusion, if I took gentlemen sat on Pink elephants and gave them bows and arrows and told them it was a world war 2 simulation. Provided the players agreed this, according to your player centric assessment this would class as an acceptable, realistic simulation.

Effectively, the players think its real. So history and logical have no part in simulation. That to me is a fundamentally flawed and unscientific approach.

To me this thread has as usual become esoteric. If I were to take it to its logical conclusion, if I took gentlemen sat on Pink elephants and gave them bows and arrows and told them it was a world war 2 simulation. Provided the players agreed this, according to your player centric assessment this would class as an acceptable, realistic simulation….That to me is a fundamentally flawed and unscientific approach.

UshCha:

Oooh yeah, it is flawed and not at all what we were saying. [Or at least me. I don't want to speak for Big E.]

You could incorporate all the elements you list into a simulation to your satisfaction and it still fail to create a participatory simulation [as opposed to say a computer research program] if the players, through playing, failed to end up thinking and making decisions along the lines of an actual commander facing those particular challenges.

One of many tests of such an 'esoteric' target is to ask players, after playing the simulation, to identify why different commanders in real made certain decisions or ask the players to make tactical decisions from real situations and see how they matched the actions of experienced commander.

On the other hand, I might be able to create a tactical simulation of command that didn't have ANY of those elements while focusing on other challenges and succeed in simulating them. Obviously, tested the same way.

Effectively, the players think its real. So history and logical have no part in simulation.

It isn't about what the players think is real. In fact, the players may end up thinking the game doesn't illustrate anything real and STILL support the success of the simulation through such 'tests'.

It is about what the players end up thinking about while playing the game. What connections are they making to real world decision-making? I've seen military simulations, with all sorts of elements from the modern battlefield included in a variety of media interfaces fail to produce players that think about real challenges, respond in real ways, and develop skills that are transferable to the soldiers' actual work.

If you want to read how esoteric, but unspecific military men can be with wargame training goals, read:

Reducing the Fog of war: Linking Tactical War Gaming to Critical Thinking. by samuel E. Whitehurst, part of the War College Series, school of Advanced Military Studies. AY 01-02

The "Example of Critical Thinking", "Initiative" and "Crystal Ball Technique" are the conclusions of the booklet and provide NO guidance in answering the "So What?" question of how players can use all this theory in real life, let alone how a wargame is designed around specific commands and skills to support such critical thinking and skill development.

Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of good stuff in the study, but the discussion is entirely theoretical with no real world applications provided. There isn't even a suggestion of how such 'critical thinking' would work for a battalion commander on the defensive in X terrain, or what the beneficial outcomes might be if he did.

What's missing is the question of 'What will the participants be thinking about, dealing with, and learning while in the simulation?'

The 'So What?' was always the first question asked in developing a participatory [for me training] simulation game.

For you, if those are the battlefield elements you want players to deal with:

1. At what command level?

2. How mechanically in the simulation process that will best mirror real command challenges with those elements?

3. If you have participants play your game, what knowledge and skills will they walk a way with that mirror real world knowledge and skills?

This is a simulation, not just a game, so developing game play knowledge and skills will also be developing real-world connections.]

Ushcha:

Here is what I mean with your list:

1) Linear scale or close to it for the majority of weapons.

Why? What will that do for the players in regard to how they are thinking about Modern tactics? And, are there other things just as immediate that they have to think about in combat? [i.e. are they constantly thinking in those terms or is it 'they're close, or within X yards or about 2 hours march time? etc. instead of always specific ranges and distances?]

2) For WW1 onwards the abity to suppress troops by fire.

And how is that experienced on the battlefield as an element of command decision-making? How many ways with game mechanics could that be including where the player has to think about and deal with it in a realistic way?

Could it be subsumed into a general game dynamic and never identified as suppression or similar term--and still provide the players with the same challenges? How do real-world commanders think about and deal with suppression. THAT is what you want your gamers doing while playing.

3) In general no removal of figures as a unit degrades. Units maintain their frontage and except in exceptional circumstances even 20% losses would be horrendous so taking 3 elements of a 5 element unit is unreasonable.

Lots of games have figure removals from trays where the frontage is not effected. Is that an issue that players would be effected by--how would real world commanders be effected by such losses while maintaining a frontage, excluding exceptional circumstances? Or is it never a concern in the first place? If so, it wouldn't be all that important for the players to think about.

4) Weapons behaving as there real counter-parts do at all times. The once or twice over 5 years exception have no useful place in a simulation.

I'm not saying those aren't important issues. I am saying they are just bits and pieces of a game designed to provide player challenges in thinking like a real-world commanders.

Participatory simulations are "guided pretending" and the simulation designer is an 'experience engineer'. What the participants experience vis a vie the real world is the bottom line… not particular mechanics. In the right combination, all the game systems and mechanics are the "guide."

Mc Laddie,
Non linear ranges effectivel curves space. This in effect changes entity density which is key to having real space. A battle not in real spece is not what I would call a simulation but may be an educational tool (see later).
As a simple educational tool ti illustrate this point, would be to assume that there is a large plane with targets uniforml distributed (please feel free to assume very small corrections for non euclidien space (this may be an issue for a wargame over an entire globe). If we have two weapons one say half the range of the other then the number of targets avaiable to each weapon is proportinal to the square of the range. If the ranges are none linear than the number of targets avaible doed not folow that behaviour and hence creating a massive major flaw in similation. If instead of targets it's say ditches, than the infantry is penalied as there are less places to hide than there should be. Also logistics is fouled as the world is not a consistent size.
2) The mechanic is not at issue but the need for suppression is however the machanic subsumes it.

3) That a new one on me I have not seen such a game. If one such game exsists then it may be acceptable provided the functioality does not fall linearly with the removal of figures. if so than casulaty removal is not used in the way I normaly pecieve it and hence the number of figures does not represent losses directly so is not in effect casualty removal, so would be acceptable.

4) Fundamental dissagreement, stress analysis is a simulation and its results are not about interation with the "player" the player has top "react" to the simulation by making decisions. It is a full blown simulation and to call or assume its "guided pretending" is absurd. Why would you even begin to assume they are different to our sort of simulation. Have all the stress engineers got it wrong?

5) Interestingly the Pink elefant issue is the same as that of Mr Tomkinkins in wounderland.
link
This distorts physics as an educational tool. However it is just that a tool and not a simulation. It may weall be possible to have similar abstractions to cover issues of military importance but they are not simulation nor can they be be considered so even if the "assumprions" were made interactive.

That's a new one on me I have not seen such a game. If one such game exists then it may be acceptable provided the functionality does not fall linearly with the removal of figures. If so, then casualty removal is not used in the way I normally perceive it and hence the number of figures does not represent losses directly so is not in effect casualty removal, so would be acceptable.

I really cannot see the logic in your thinking in this. Functionality might or might not fall linearly with casualties. Reduction of figures might represent losses directly but that not have a linear effect on the other outputs (firepower, formation, frontage) – why would that mean reduction of figures in proportion with losses suffered is unacceptable in a simulation?

If I were to take it to its logical conclusion, if I took gentlemen sat on Pink elephants and gave them bows and arrows and told them it was a world war 2 simulation.

Learn logic. Just because there is no minimum required set of behaviours to constitute a simulation doesn't mean any behaviour is legitimate in every case.

There is no minimum set of components necessary to build a means of personal conveyance. Four wheels? Three? Five? Two? One? … how many wheels are on my sled again? That fact doesn't mean that a glass of water is a means of personal conveyance.

There is no minimum set of components that have to be in a dessert. That doesn't mean a pine cone is a dessert.

A simulation, if it is going to relate to real-world mechanics and physics, should have the movement and time in a real scale in such a way as to allow the rate of fire timing between opponents to accurately portray opportunity/moving fire, issue of orders and their time to execute, march times, etc. Games with 1:1, Company, and Division level would have use different timing increments.

The timing increment could be based on how long it takes to march 100-500 yards, give and execute a command, change formation, weapons rate of fire, etc. If done correctly, movement, command, and fire would interact somewhat like a video game. Ideally, there would be some type of simultaneous movement system.

Suppression, Fog of War, command causalities, and being out of Command Control would involve a delay of a certain amount of time taking longer to move, fire and execute orders. Better troops would execute orders/commands quicker, change formations quicker and have a higher rate of fire but suppression could degenerate their abilities.

You would focus the design on the intent of the user group and what they want to observe and experiment within a battle. So the design could concentrate more detail in orders, command and control, formation changes and marches, or weapons performance.

Wolfhag

A simulation, if it is going to relate to real-world mechanics and physics, should have the movement and time in a real scale in such a way as to allow the rate of fire timing between opponents to accurately portray opportunity/moving fire, issue of orders and their time to execute, march times, etc. Games with 1:1, Company, and Division level would have use different timing increments.

UshCha and Wolfhag:

IF that is what you want to relate about reality with your simulation.

Take two purported [by the designers] simulations:

‎Arty Conliffe's Crossfire [tabletop] and Phil Sabin's BlockBuster [board game]

Neither have "in a real scale in such a way as to allow the rate of fire timing" with 1:1 ground or time scales.

That wasn't their focus and what they wanted to portray about ground combat didn't require those factors.

Both have had veterans of ground combat and Urban warfare laud the accuracy of what the designs meant to portray about movement, fire and tactics.

That doesn't mean you are wrong in wanting those elements in your simulations, feel they are important and wouldn't like to play wargames that didn't incorporate those elements.

They just aren't ALWAYS necessary in a simulation about modern tactical combat. There is so much reality to be addressed by any wargame that there could be scores of wargames of the same subject and scale with very different focuses and mechanics.

All could be valid simulations depending on how they test out.

To be honest when it started Crossfire had an assumption that the scale was so small that all was within rifle range of there abouts. This is valid for dence uban areas.
However that did not allow useful use of tanks as typicaly they are too vulnerable. Furthermore the ranges did not permit use of artillery, you can'tuse it that close.

It seems that that original premise "got lost" and personally it then degenerated into a game. It may pass as a good educational tool but so does Mr Tomkins in Wounderland but again simulation when scale are too corrupt is not valid in my opinion.

UshCha, a bad simulation, one that isn't valid, can't be a good 'educational tool.'

To be honest when it started Crossfire had an assumption that the scale was so small that all was within rifle range of there abouts. This is valid for dence uban areas.

? But not other terrain? Then it can be a valid simulation without your three points?

However, that did not allow useful use of tanks as typicaly they are too vulnerable. Furthermore the ranges did not permit use of artillery, you can'tuse it that close.

? Artillery can't be used? There are rules for them…but then you have to look at the scope of the simulation.

It seems that that original premise "got lost" and personally it then degenerated into a game.

Perhaps, perhaps not. So it was valid simulation in some terrain, but not others? Your view and the validity of Crossfire can be tested.

There are no ranges in crossfire so you can see across the table and shoot a rifle. That is acceptable if the maximum range does not exceed about 300m. Danger zone for artillery is typically 200 yds or greater. Hence most of the board by the definition in the danger zone. The table can only be 300m approx before it fails to be valid. Rifles shooting to even 100yds for the average gunt is daft. Even now the British are bringing in the Long Range rifle for effective fire beyond 400m. Simple easy robust proof QED.

I think it's high time our hobby divorced itself from the "game vs. simulation" debate. Even those who describe it as a sliding scale and not a binary choice miss the point.

This for me goes to the point of the whole design process. A game should be judged on whether it accomplishes the designer intent and goals, not what someone "thinks" it should be or if a simulation is better than a game. It's all in the eye of the beholder until a committee is elected to define the standards and definitions of things like realism, valid or simulation.

Games are mostly played for their entertainment value and as a way to present the player with problems to solve by using various tactics and rules. These problems can be historical or abstracted (like activation's). The designer concentrates on some but not all parts of the game that he wants to "simulate" and must abstract other areas he feels are not as important. If his abstractions and details are balanced to your liking, then it gets a thumbs up. No design is going to please everyone.

I've designed my WWII combined arms game in such a way that someone that has been in the military will recognize the terms, nomenclature and tactics. However, I could also design a totally abstracted game that a military member would not recognize that would almost always give pretty much the same historical outcome and call it a "valid simulation".

I think it boils down to the "Design for Cause" versus the "Design for Effect". I designed a game for the "Charge of the Light Brigade" that is totally "Design for Effect" and abstracted and designed to give a historical outcome and constricts the players to generating that only outcome. You could call it a "valid simulation" of the battle because it will always give a historical outcome. Personally, I think the game sucks but everyone that has played it loves it because it appears they were expecting a historical outcome and when that was the result of a 3 hour game they feel that they have participated in a "valid simulation". However, I feel that I have "tricked" them into that result.

In a 28mm 1:1 game with a table representing 300m calling in 105mm artillery when you are attacking is not a "valid simulation". However, in a prepared defense with pre-plotted FPF 105mm arty for FPF could be valid. It was not unusual for 60mm mortars FPF to fall within 25m of the defenders.

Wolfhag

I think it's high time our hobby divorced itself from the "game vs. simulation" debate. Even those who describe it as a sliding scale and not a binary choice miss the point.

While I agree with some of what Wolfhag says, not other things.

Simulation design is binary in either it successfully simulates *something* or it doesn't, either it models it in a provable, i.e. valid way, or it doesn't.

That sliding scale is a misnomer. A simulation isn't a 'little bit' of a simulation. It either simulates X or it doesn't. period.

However, there is a sliding amount of what a designs simulates. It can be 1 element of reality, or 2 or 200. That is up to the designer and in the end however much is simulated, what is modeled needs to be a functioning simulation of those elements chosen.

The hobby should have divorced itself from the game vs simulation crap a long time ago, particularly when the hobby, both miniatures and board wargames are claiming to be creating simulation games OR only games with no intention of simulating anything.

The debate continues because designers like to say their games recreate command, history and period warfare without having to do the work of actually establishing that their designs are indeed valid, functioning simulations.

There are no ranges in crossfire so you can see across the table and shoot a rifle. That is acceptable if the maximum range does not exceed about 300m. Danger zone for artillery is typically 200 yds or greater. Hence most of the board by the definition in the danger zone. The table can only be 300m approx before it fails to be valid. Rifles shooting to even 100yds for the average gunt is daft. Even now the British are bringing in the Long Range rifle for effective fire beyond 400m. Simple easy robust proof QED.

UshCha:

Your robust proof is based on what you assume Art was attempting to portray with Crossfire. No fault there, as Art doesn't give enough information for you or anyone to make the assumptions you do.

1. Why assume the table can only be 300 yards deep? LOS doesn't demand it and obviously small arms doesn't.
2. Why does artillery HAVE TO BE included other than close range mortars? Including artillery may not have been on the list of things he wanted to include in his WWII design.

The assumed scale could be 400, 600 or more. And of course, you are assuming what specifically about the dynamics of small unit tactics Art is trying to capture.

It certainly had elements and combat dynamics that veterans recognized, even if only a few.

And that doesn't even begin to address Phil's Fire and Movement or BlockBuster, simple games used by the military, neither of which have weapon ranges or ground scale included.

It's all in the eye of the beholder until a committee is elected to define the standards and definitions of things like realism, valid or simulation.

This has been done by dozens of modern militaries for their simulations. The result was, "It depends on what you are trying to do."

Derived from that are a lot of sets of "If you want to show this, here are some approaches, quality dimensions, and lessons learned."

It's all in the eye of the beholder until a committee is elected to define the standards and definitions of things like realism, valid or simulation.

Actually, no it's not all in the 'eye of the beholder' anymore than a V-8 engine is, anymore that 'what is a game? is ALL in the eye of the beholder.

Look up the definition of simulation. It is an artificial model/system/representation of *something else*. A simulation has a specific purpose…if it doesn't achieve that purpose, it fails as a simulation.

For most simulations, realism is what the design simulates of reality. A valid simulation is one that has passed the needed tests to establish that it does have a 1:1 correlation to the target elements of reality.

How could a model be a simulation if it didn't have at least one 1:1 correlation. Could you build a model of an Abrams 1A and claim it is valid model of a T-34 because it's all in the eyes of the beholder? It is NO different with a wargame, a dynamic model of *something else.*

As to what is to be simulated or how, THAT is up to the designer--as etotheipi notes: "it all depends on what you are trying to do." However, to have a functional simulation, he has to:

1. Pick a target [Identify what you want to simulate]

2. Determine how it will be hit [What the game system will do to achieve that hit. Here are your chosen standards such as what will be 'valid' if achieved and the game mechanics meant to hit the target.]

3. Shoot and determine how close to the bulls-eye you got. [Test the simulation to see if it actually does what it was designed to model---what "realism was achieved" and determine success.]

Wargame designers claim number #3, are vague or silent on #1, and rarely do #2. It's much easier to claim success, that you've hit the target, if you don't ever check.

Rune's Rule: "You ain't lost if you don't care where you are."

So, in some respects, yes, it's in the eye of the beholder because war designers want it that way… Sooo much easier than actually designing a simulation.

There is no requirement that wargames be simulations or attempt what simulations do: model past or present history. However, it seems that is what wargamers want to some degree or wargame designers wouldn't keep up the pretense that they are providing the benefits of simulations.

McLaddie, a rifle can shoot across the board the only Limitation is LOS. Ergo rifles cannot shoot 600 yds so my original Analysis is correct.

Mortars

link
Extract
HE rounds are designed to produce a fragmentation blast effect, with an approximate kill radius of 40 meters, and a danger radius of up to 190 meters.

Hence troops in open would not want to get much closer than 200m to a round. Hence danger zone is approx 2/3 of rifle range.