"Do You Know What I Know?" Topic

For your wargaming scenarios what information, if any, is privy to only one player/team/side?

Nothing! We are omniscient!
Victory Scoring/Objectives
Random Events
OOB in general
Special Hidden/Stealth Units
Unit Stats

For us, the most common unknown info, which is also present in most scenarios, is unknown objectives. Generally, you will know yours exactly, but not know your opponents' and sometimes your allies' points-per-objective. This is usually effected through a pseudo-random setup process.

We have one scenario where the players start out not knowing which other players' forces are their allies (if any) or enemies.

I like to keep stuff pretty secretive, since I think it enhances the games a bit.

I'd even go so far as for some games, with known outcomes, to not list which historical battle(s) and/or date(s) apply to the scenario(s).

It's classified …

Generally the following in all or part are not known to opposing forces in games I run.

Victory Scoring/Objectives
Random Events
OOB in general
Special Hidden/Stealth Units

Jim

If I told you, I'd have to kill you.

Some 40 years back, guys I used to play with followed the Kzinti tenets of warfare.
1) Scream!
2) Leap at the opponent, fangs and claws bared.
3) Over his shredded corpse let loose with a mighty roar.

That sort of worked, no matter the era or rules. Objectives were left in place, victory conditions ignored, the concepts of scouting, reserves or manouvre ignored.

I used to beat them like a bad drum. It's true, you just can't find opponents like that any more.

Seems a bit strange to me. If you are re-creating a typical encounter for instance you will have some idea of the opponets order of march, as it will be similar to that he always uses. His scope for ajustment will be limited due to training. His whereabouts may be kept hidded by only being marked on his map.

I guess its perhaps a trage between game and serous simulation. The game side to me holds no interest. It would be like a re-enactor adding fantasy to the re-enactmnant, counter to the enjoyment.

I guess its perhaps a trage between game and serous simulation.

Well, I'm pretty good at setting up systems like this because every military simulation (training, analysis, experimentation) for US, AUSCANUKUS, NATO, and SEATO was required to have such elements in them. Perhaps that's the difference between a cute little "simulation" and an actual simulation of warfare.

"…you just can't find opponents like that any more."

That's because you killed them all, Narratio.

And etotheipi, I'm not sure you're authorized to ask the question, let alone hear the answer.

More seriously, depends on period, level of play and number of players. You can generally get away with random events--drawn and not known by either side--and sometimes with hidden units. But most of your list requires non-playing gamers/umpires, which is an unusual luxury.

But most of your list requires non-playing gamers/umpires, which is an unusual luxury.

We do all of those with a little design, maybe some pre-work, and a regular deck of cards. Moving hidden units requires the most complex mechanisms, so we usually limit that to one or two units per side.

For your wargaming scenarios what information, if any, is privy to only one player/team/side?

I think we are on the same page, these guys are definitely not Santa, shhh! Do not tell the other TMPers or there will be trouble.

P.S. This was drawn from the secret Santa scenario.

I write operations orders for each side, which include known unknowns and unknown unknowns. What those are depends on the scenario.

Oberlindes, that sound more like it plausible limits. My own experience of random events cards is that they are often neither realistic, interesting and can easily take a game out of the set of interesting games.

random events cards is that they are often neither realistic, interesting and can easily take a game out of the set of interesting games

You should find a better rules writer.

ettothripi, Its not the rules the event cadrs would need an IA system to set them to be credible in real time and thats unlikely to be in the next few years. The classib "Tea Time" end of bound is the classic "game destroyer" in my opinion. I have seen it destroy a number of decent games.

If the bound of credibility is passes verification and validation to be accredited for use as a simulation for the military for training and experimentation, the functionality of a card deck is perfectly adequate. What do you think can't be done?

Also, what type of AI do you think is not achievable? You can certainly do a lot more (or many of the same things, easier) with AI than with cards, but what is missing?

classib "Tea Time" end of bound

I've only been doing this for a little over forty years. I must have missed this classic. What is it?

I wouold hate to play your games if you think that is a good idea. Persomaly I have had it ruing games. Players have done nothing all game because of such stupid cards. They quite rightly saw it as a stupid idea and an utter waste of time.

I would class is as as stupid as running a metal stess model on a sophisticated design and then just after hours of running I put in a line which says "Event – due to a coruption issue, the matarials you are using are sub standard" Pointless use of a simulation. Yes the possibility exsits but putting it in a stress model computation is just stupid!

Well, if you can't actually articulate what you don't like and your responses are limited to "that obviously sucks" with zero rationale, you probably wouldn't like any games that realistically portray warfare, so it's good that you wouldn't want to play such a game.

It seems you are more interested in a conflict that preserves your gamey definition of being "fair" to the players. But, of course, you can do that with random events cards, too.

We have had good success with simple X factors, mostly borne out of campaign-generated games.

[ 1 ] Neither side would be aware of the exact strength and make-up of his opponent's forces.

[ 2 ] Hidden placement of units (we had one noteworthy game more or less decided by the fact that a senior Union commander refused to advance because he was absolutely convinced that the great wooded hill on his left flank was hiding a large Confederate force.

[ 3 ] The moment of arrival of any troops starting the game off-table was unknown.

These three simple bits provided plenty of uncertainty and command discomfiture.

B

Blutarki, you are correct but these are non-random events but set in a rational that presents logical conumdrume.

etiothepi, A wargame is a simulation at least to me. You seem to add parts that have no use. Again we do not add event cards to real world engineering simulations it has no useful purpose.

Hi UshCha,
I was responding (points 1 and 2) to the original query of the thread – "Do You Know What I Know?". Point 3 came along for the ride because we would apply all three as a rule.

As far as "Random Events" go, I can imagine any number as having a legitimate place in a simulation.

B

Again we do not add event cards to real world engineering simulations it has no useful purpose.

You may not add them and understand their purpose, resulting in unrealistic simulations, however, MIT does, Stanford does, the NSF does, NATO does, and pretty much anybody who is serious about such models does.