"What do card-driven games offer over conventional games?" Topic

A playing card is 57mm by 63.5mm and let's say the typically 52 cards, so 188214 sq mm, counting just one face. A sheet of A4 is 210 by 297mm so 62370 sq mm.

Therefore a pack of cards is equal to 3 sheets of A4.

In our own game we still occasionally use the A4 cheat sheet for the rules and another A4 Sheet for a couple of large army we can't remember for technical specs but that is probably outside what a pack of cards uses for driving the game is used for.

Now if I provided my game with 3 A4 sheets as a cheat sheet(S) I would be moaned at, with justification as being too complicated.

On that basis what does a pack of cards offer a regular player over an A4 cheat sheet and a Die.

I can see for the occasional players (say a particular game played about 4 times or year or less), who understand little of the period, they offer some sort of guide, but such players they would never be good players due to lack of experience.

Competition players to really be good even in wargame play upwards of 100 games a year far more than I play.

On that basis are card games for the perpetual beginner only?

What?

No, they are not just for the perpetual beginner.

I am not sure what comparing the size of the cards to the size of the reference sheets has to do with the question.

The use of cards are a way to provide a level of friction and uncertainty/randomness to the game, whether it is related to who acts, how they act, and/or the impact of their actions.

The use of cards, whether ordinary playing cards (The Sword and the Flame) or cards designed specifically for the game (as in some of the TooFatLardies games or the Combat Patrol series) can and do provide fun games for the player well versed in the period or gaming as well as the novice to the period, gaming, or both.

Other methods for providing uncertainty exist and some gamers do not like cards. I have played in games that use cards and games that don't. I have had fun in both and not had fun in both types. Cards were not what made the game fun or not; it was the scenario, the GM, and other players that made it fun or not.

So basically you are saying its more style than substance. It's more a different way than a better way?

This on the basis that you have played the traditional style and the card style and not really seen a significant gain in ether's favor.

Certainly a piece of paper and a die is a lot less hassle to produce and it seems that cards have little to offer other than fashion, which of course may be an attraction to many who are mechanism addicts who like a new mechanism even if it offers little real gain except novelty, which could be an attraction in its own right to certain folk.

Cards take up less space when they are stacked in deck. Better than tatty bits of paper laying all over the table.

Cards are a fundamentally different randomization method than dice.

Roll a die six times. Take the ace (one) through six of a deck, shuffle, draw six cards.

For the cards, I can guarantee that you got one of each possible result. For the dice, I can't and you likely didn't.

You (should haven) know(n) what you last card draw would be. You had no more knowledge of you last die roll before you took it than before the first roll.

The above extends across all draws.

Shuffle the red face cards. Pull two without looking. Shuffle the 1-10 of hearts, discarding two without looking. Now add the two unknown face cards and shuffle.

Now take your three sheets of A3 paper and design a progressive set of linked charts that covers the several trillion possible outcomes. Be prepared to write really, really small.

Play the game Pandemic. It uses location cards to cause outbreaks in geographic areas. Once a card is pulled, it will not be hit again, until a card even triggers the discards to be reshuffled. Thus places with problems are more likely to have additional problems. There are variants for the trigger cards. One similar to the below:

take the face cards and shuffle them. Draw four. Shuffle the remaining cards, and deal them into four piles. Add one face card to each pile. Shuffle the piles, then stack them.

Design a set of progressive tables so that the outlier event (face card) is distributed in this fashion. Again, be ready to write small.

Also, be ready to execute a lot of rerolls, unless you have an 11, 9, 7, and 5 sided die (I assume you have a 10, 8, 6, 4, 3, and 2) as the base probabilities shift. Of course, you can synthesize the d9 with two d3.

Also, please post a picture of your 13 sided die.

This is less than 1% of the differences without taking into account that your results are a duplet (they have rank and suit) with dependencies.

Que?

- Cards give the option of special rules, that you only need to know, when you have the card. (Example: Weather rules. Usually they are very complicated and you have to remember them. A card "It starts raining. Squares have -1 combat factor." is simple.

- "War is from all human doing closest to card gaming." Clausewitz. – Cards give Fog of war and the ability to bluff. (Example: the difference between deploying your troops alternatively and having the opportunity to react to every unit of the opponent and a card system, that has deplyment secret).

Once again, your way of doing things is superior, and anyone who does things differently is an idiot.
Why do you even bother to ask?

I like cards as one mechanic among others, for many of the reasons mentioned above: randomization, specific-situational rules, ease of reference, etc. Plus they can be made to look cool, as a cheat sheet typically does not. I use them for place-holders and dummies in pre-game deployment. I think cards add a LOT.

As someone already asked, what does surface area have to do with the question?

Your question also seems to imply cards can only be used on one way. But they can be used in many, such as:

Replacing dice (To the strongest uses cards not dice). The card drawn then becomes a new target for the next draw.

My SciFi game has "action cards" that each player holds several of. Some are blank/dummies. They allow special action such as automatically passing a morale check, attempting to seize the initiative, etc. The deck limits the number of each (we rarely go through an entire deck in a game – each player starts with 4 or 5 and draws one new one per turn).

Games like Command and Colors use the cards as a game within a game as you try and collect the right cards for launching your assault,

Often times cards allow you to put events/rules on them. The rule book can then simply say: read the card and do what it says. makes the rule book much easier to learn as "exceptions" are not contained therein.

My revised Flames of War QRS runs 4 pages. My friends love it. It uses loads of color, big font, and is also a roster at the same time. So all the rules you need are right there, with detail. Makes it very, very easy to teach to noobs. FoW is a moderately complex game. This makes it much more approachable.

Uscha, you appear to only be thinking of cards as a way to store information. You'll notice that when one speaks of "card driven games" most people think of cards as a randomization device.

The answer to your question is that there is some merit in giving the player only pertinent information, and the more troop or weapon types the game covers or the less experienced the player, the greater the advantage of the cards.

"Perpetual beginner" would be a useful term if there were only one set of rules and we all played it. A man who plays every weekend but 13 different rules sets a year is a "perpetual beginner" only in a very narrow sense. Yes, presumably if we only ever played one set of rules over and over, we'd get better at them, but the joy in such a thing is limited.

See the above quote from Clausewitz. Cards, as a command mechanism, provide elements of both skill, chance and bluff and provide something far closer to the actual command experience.

Cards as a substitute for a QRS seem a complete waste of tine (unit cards or whatever), I'm always losing them or getting them mixed up or they get all over the table. Give me a nice easy to read table any day.

An A4 sheet of paper is 210mm x 297mm. One face of a dice is 10mm x 10mm. So, I can get 20 x 29 (580) 10mm dice on one sheet. If I had 3 sheets, thats 1,740 dice. Way more than your pack of cards.

Fives and sixes to hit.

79th, yes, I do like throwing handfuls of dice in volleys.

In our fantasy mass combat games, with many different units and many special rules, I like to use cards as a substitute for an army roster. Have a photo of the painted minis on the card. Use it is hidden deployment. Players who need/want can put the card under the unit's base (we use 40x60mm so standard cards fit) so they can check if necessary. The card has all the info needed to play the unit. If you are using step reduction ("hits") then keep the cards along the baseline, and put the hit markers on the card, instead of on the miniatures. LOTS of advantages and uses.

Funny how topics pop up.
I just wrote this on another resent thread:
TMP link

Here is a TMP link of a similar topic with some 41 entries:
TMP link

Things to think about is, what can cards do that dice can not.
1) Excluded results.
If you have some number units per side and you want each to activate just once per turn. Cards are ideal.
2) Multiple results per card.
Cards can have many categories of information, not just a number value. Standard playing cards have number, color, suit, face, and so on, Tarot cards even more so, and custom cards are virtually unlimited. Depending on why you need to draw, the different aspects can change the result. Example in TSATF when resolving hits, face and Ace mean very different thing from numbers, and suit it wound vs kill.
3) Conditional result or counters.
Cards are good at providing "This if that" type results, or allowing counter actions. The first example that jumps to mind is the old Avalon Hill game Richthofen's War.
link
Where the player hold maneuver cards for the pilots. If player A tries to pull a maneuver the trailing player can counter it with the same type card.
4) Inserting color.
Consider the miniature type board-games by Days of Wonder:
Memoir 44
link
And Battle Lore
link
The cards not only drive the mechanics, but also add narrative and color of the period.

So how big of a magnifying glass am I going to need to read the 2- or 3-point text on the cards…?

John the OFM, comments as usual from you are wide of the mark and negative. Still if being Sad is your favorite pastime (I have seen your negative comments on NSFW figs) so keep it up if you must but factually as usual you have made no impact.

robert piepenbrink, strange comment. Golf players play the same game year in an year out but to you such a game would be "limited". If that was so why do they still play? Even more unlikely, folk watch them for years on end. They should have found it extremely "Limited" and don't even get me started on the lifetime Football obsession which on your premise would not be Limited but I would suggest "untenable". Hence my use of "Perpetual beginner" does not seem an unreasonable or erroneous analogy. QED

Extra crispy and interesting comment "Games like Command and Colors use the cards as a game within a game". To me being in a "dyed in the wool" simulator that has a negative appeal to me personally, but it has potential appeal to the more game orientated players and add something new and novel for some players.

Decebalus – this is one of my pet hates be it a die roll or a card. As a walker and cyclist I read the weather and a rain storm does not occur like "magic" there should be a capability of risk assessment and in most cases, some reasonable (minutes) warning is as likely as not, A magic rainstorm seems to be more game than simulation. However its matter not whether its die or cards so no reall differentiation there.

Martin Rapier -In our games bluff and chance play a key roll but we do not find we need cards to do so. But that is purely a personal issue.

Todd636 – a most excellent and creative riposte! ;-). Furthermore my fist riposte did not withstand logical
analysis. I do indeed looking at it to my utter horror role something like (between both players) roll between 500 and 100 die in a single game. I dread to think how many are thrown in a "bucket of die game". However a very poor second attempt is to say that you need a new sheet every time (but its not that good a riposte).

etotheipi you are indeed correct that they are a different randomizing system. In fact unless you shuffle every time they are in effect a pseudo random system. Entirely different to a dire roll. Personally having dabbled in the pseudo random I came to the conclusion it generated as many issues as it "fixed". To me accuracy of even the 5% I use may be over egging it but in complex situations it helps moderates the results to remain plausible.

Card presenting new and novel rules not really much of an advantage. In some of our most complex scenarios we are forced to a specific rules/limitation/rules of engagement but "pop Up" rules seem to fail the test of simulation unless there are hundreds of scenario specific cards which seems expensive and better done with a table.

doc mcb " Plus they can be made to look cool" personal opinion.

So

Martin rapier has the most telling argument of a benefit of cards, just one that "is not me".

Todd636 undoubtedly wins with his riposte.

Thank you all

Nice to know you agree with yourself, UshCha.

There are a number of good answers here, and Etotheipi gave you the most cogent answer, but you clearly didn't grasp what he was saying. It's not a pseudo random system, it's a deterministically random system where each of the results can be granted only as many times as that card exists in the deck. This is what makes games like Poker and Bridge (to name but two very popular card games) work. Smart designers understand this and use it to their advantage.

That isn't to say that cards are always the answer. Dice and cards both present designers with unique challenges. Some designers really enjoy that challenge and focus on innovative solutions in either, while others mix them. One of the most popular board games in the world right now is Gloomhaven- a game that is a master work of card driven design becaust the designer absolutely understood how to use the other answer you got above- the ability to convey more than one type of answer, and thus options, to the player. This combined with that deterministically reduced set of options as cards are played.

I dont' think you really understood the good answers given to you above. If you see cards as only a pseudo randomizer, then you fundamentally don't understand the strengths of cards.

A game need not feature cards at all- and many do not. Some use them as placeholders or very simple unit stat displays or initiative order systems. Other designers really get the nuance and capability offered by cards and make designs that a lot of players really enjoy.

No one is saying dice are inferior. Cards and dice offer different challenges, strengths and weaknesses. Understanding how they function, and how they can each be used effectively, and how strategies can be formed around them, is what makes a great designer.

If you are really wanting to understand card design theory- then there are some great answers above and some wonderful books and articles on the subject. If you are just here to slam cards as inferior, then you are really wasting everyone's time, including your own.

If you love dice designs only- run with them. Nobody will complain.

TGerritsen – thanks a very elegant explanation of the differences potentially between die and cards. It was never my intention to slam cards, to do so would be pointless as they are popular with some folk. I understand what attracys folk but the argument is more on the attarctions of systems in of themselevs rather than how thwy advance simulation.

They most certainly COULD advance simulation if there were a clear definition of which parts of reality are better simulated and why, by cards. Alas to that bit of the topic I seem to be no wiser.

At this time its seems the issue is as much personal choice of mechanism rather than a fundamental advance in simulation.

The point is that seems to be missed by some in this thread is that to me we have not reached the ultimate simulation, minimum rules with maximum simulation.

The search is still on for that. My personal inspiration was undoutedly the Great Phil Barker. The command and control system in DBM in was an inspiration a very simple mechanism that generated disorder without reams of rules. Nowhere had this deen done so elegantly. It showed the art of the possible.

To improve we need to understand what is out there and what makes it great, hence this topic.

UshCa: "Decebalus – this is one of my pet hates be it a die roll or a card. As a walker and cyclist I read the weather and a rain storm does not occur like "magic" there should be a capability of risk assessment and in most cases, some reasonable (minutes) warning is as likely as not, A magic rainstorm seems to be more game than simulation. However its matter not whether its die or cards so no reall differentiation there."

Sorry, but you are wrong in both ways.
1) Cards have nothing to do, with risk assessment or not. you can have without any problems two cards. The first card drawn is your warning, the second card gives you the weather. So 2magic rainstorm" is only the problem of bad rules not of cards.
2) My argument was that you can outsource informations. "Classic" weather rules are usually something like: Roll at the start of every turn, if a double 1 shows up, read our 5 pages in the rulesbook, because last time that happens was one year ago. That is all easy to forget, so cards are obviously much more usable. (Events on cards obviously only work, if you have already a card driven system.)

I like that you have an ultimate goal. But you present your ideas as if everyone should have the same goal, and indeed that there is only one way to get there. And you do not do it clearly. Or politely.

Thanks to TGerritsen for the props!

this is one of my pet hates be it a die roll or a card. As a walker and cyclist I read the weather and a rain storm does not occur like "magic" there should be a capability of risk assessment and in most cases, some reasonable (minutes) warning is as likely as not, A magic rainstorm seems to be more game than simulation. However its matter not whether its die or cards so no reall differentiation there.

Neither cards nor dice require transitions to be "magic". The "Season in Hel" – a scifi battle modeled after the Battle of Hrl in WWII – has weather as a main copmonent.

link

Stacking, randomizing the queue start, and integrating two series of cards leads to weather that gradually and logically progresses over time.

You can absolutely do this with a table. The Markov chain represented in slightly more cards than a bridge hand has 65,536 unique transitions. Make sure you have two pencils.

One more drop in the 1% of possible implementations.

UshCha, the problem is that you are obsessed with simulation – and whatever that means to you – while most gamers simply want a reasonably plausible outcome from a game.

79thPA – Gulity as charged but somehow I don't feel guilty.

Its purely personal; If I want to play a game I play Backgammon. As good or better for me and far cheaper to implement than a wargame. A simulation adds to the knowledge I gane from reading the history books.

I am supprised folk reply if they are not interested in simulation, my views (Obsessed with Simulation) are not hidden.

I wanted to use a deck of 50 cards to generate random chances of outcomes, sort of like rolling a 50 sided die. However, to keep it random you had to draw a card, check the results and then put it back in the deck and shuffle it. Good idea but not playable and too many cards to loose.

I too am guilty of historical and technical simulation obsession in a game which is why I wrote my own. At 17 I played Panzerblitz and I knew almost nothing about WWII and combined arms warfare and I thought the game was great. As I became more knowledgable and spent time in the military I lost more and more interest in playing games as a simulation of the weapons platform performance and tactics and played more for the social interaction. I learned to keep my mouth shut and not critique the game and ruin the experience for everyone else. Sometimes it is very hard to keep my mouth shut but after being married for 28 years (all to the same woman) I've learned how to do that pretty well.

People should play what they like and ignore their detractors.

Wolfhag

As noted by several folks above, cards provide a wide variety of game mechanics and techniques, information and decision-making options, depending on how the cards are employed. Dice simply randomize outcomes based on some table of percentages of possible outcomes.

while most gamers simply want a reasonably plausible outcome from a game.

The problem with that goal is that 'reasonably plausible' is nothing more than saying what feels good, with just about as much relationship to actual combat and history.

Oh, on a roll of 1-2, that brigade hesitates in a 15 minute turn. Well, we know that units didn't always act on commands, so that is 'reasonably plausible.'

Someone interested in simulating combat would ask, 'did brigades hesitate once in every 45 minute span of time? Did they 'hesitate' 1/3 of the time? As this is supposed to represent historical chances, do brigades 'hesitate' that often in real battle? What is reasonable and plausible is what is used as the historical template for the game mechanics.

Cards can simulate just as easily as dice and CRTs can. It all depends on what and how they represent the reality they are trying to illustrate, what historical decisions they offer.

Back in the 1930's, the US military played out 'simulation war games,' of the US Navy versus the Japanese Imperial Navy. They played these games out, to a decisive victory, over 350 times… It is also fun to note that the brass, on both sides (the Japanese were doing similar war games, on their side of the Pacific) would intervene, and adjust the results of combat, based on their personal experiences -- they fudged the rules, when they thought they were wrong, or unrealistic! This is from Peter Perla's book on professional wargaming. Perla relates that the brass were often correct, in their adjustments…

During WW II, the actual war followed the average outcome of their 'simulation war games.' I understand what a true, 'simulation war game,' is, and its purpose.

In my 25+ years of wargaming, I've watched different groups play particular historical battles, only once, maybe twice. They, too, consider their games to be simulations. I've heard them grumble, and complain, that the outcome of their 'simulation war game,' was different from what actually happened… I don't get it -- please don't try to explain. I consider it entirely laughable! The number of variables, in each and every second of combat, is incomprehensible! I recognize there is an overall outcome, which will occur, on average: the super-majority of the variables will have a minute impact on the overall outcome, and these can largely be ignored. But to play out a scenario/battle, only once, then grumble and complain that it didn't match the factual outcome, is not a valid means to analyze the chosen rules!

Now, if they played out the same battle, same units, same hardware, 350 times… I would be impressed, and I feel they could probably come up with a legitimate critique of their chosen rules system: are these rules 'realistic'; did these rules give us a plausible result? In the end, the answer will always be, "Maybe."

Play a historical battle, 350 times: if the average results are close to what happened in the real world, then you can claim your rules set, is a "simulation game." If not, then it is a set of fantasy rules… It is a game, not a simulation.

Sorry, I find the whole concept of "simulation war games," in our hobby, a complete farce. True, simulation war games are written by Ph.D.'s, for real-world militaries. Are they "fun"? Heck, NO! They are grinding, exceptionally complex, and beyond the scope of a hobby.

Think what you will, but our hobby games, are far from "simulations," of anything related to reality. They are all "fantasy" games, IMO. Fortunately, I love fantasy games! Cheers!

Sgt Slag you definition is to tight and to be honest over eggs the ability of at my simulations or even what they aspire to.

My aims are much more bounded than you appear to define as a minimum, and as such much easier to achieve.

I went for basics like a tank is mobile within limits and the turret turns. Given that what are the defining characteristics behind the need as defined in many manuals for say formations.

Given those limitations and a crude allegory to a command and control system, how does the model compare to at least anecdotal descriptions of battles. In addition how to they compare compare say with the results of a basic "Featherstone" clone with Non-linear range scaling and no real formation mechanism.

The answer is that generally the simulation forces typical play towards that define in the manuals. Rarely identical as even within the limits of a small map such as a tabletop there are often variables that prevent slavish adherence to the military manuals.

I have no wish to extend the simulation further. The oft quoted "Amateurs concentrate on Tactics Generals on Logistics" remains in force.
Even at Company level logitis become more telling, anybody who kids themselves thay are a general without considering logistics is in true fantasy land as logistics becomes more key the further up you go in the command level. I am an amateur with limited aims.

Hence you play fantasy all you like but to me while much of what I do is contrived as basic vignettes as may be defined in training the military. However some bits to be interesting for certain items need to be credible.

You are welcome to fantasy games I play Backgammon so I am familiar with abstract gaming and can offer no critique in principal.

I am also familiar with engineering simulation and my rules are unashamedly a simple engineering simulation, many of which cover quite small parts of the whole yet are valid within there defined boundaries.

Sgt Slag,
Interesting post, I have to agree. But as UshCha says there are parts that you can simulate that you want to represent in more detail in the game. You can also design a game and combat results for specific results and constrict the players to certain actions that will give a specific result most of the time.

I think there are some technical things and weapons platform performance you can simulate that occur in a fairly contollled environment. You can also simulate how a commander could perform his decision making or his Course of Action under certain circumstances.

But in a real situation there are so many variables and chance occurances but it can help put the participants through all of the potential actions that could occur that would prepare him for the real thing.

I was a participant in a high level military logistical exercise that I would not really define as a wargame. It was a run through for a logistical support of an invasion of another country.

Wolfhag

I recall hearing a story from the Cold War in which an analyst details all the incredible complexity of the simulations they ran to predict the outcome of World War three.

A general flippantly comments "sounds easier to just nuke Russia" the analyst fixes him with a steely gaze and says "certainly not, that would only generate a single data point, clearly insufficient for statistical analysis".

The problem with that goal is that 'reasonably plausible' is nothing more than saying what feels good, with just about as much relationship to actual combat and history.

Any standard for realism is a subjective standard. Ultimately, any realism criteria starts with "I think this is important enough to be represented", and by implication everything left out is not. Upon that scope you build the degree of rigor in expression of the criteria and the degree of conformance evaluation. And while those two conditions are formal, their establishment is also subjective.

Play a historical battle, 350 times: if the average results are close to what happened in the real world, then you can claim your rules set, is a "simulation game." If not, then it is a set of fantasy rules… It is a game, not a simulation.

But this is also a crap standard of comparison. The problem with history is that while it did happen, you only have one sample and very little detailed data.

In college, I aced a quiz with ten multiple choice questions where I guessed on every answer. I was hung over, couldn't focus my eyes or mind, and am to this day surprised that I actually marked answers for each question.

Historically accurate result? Yes. Most likely result based on conditions? Not so much. (In fact, 4^10 is just over a million, giving me essentially a one in a million shot).

I've played and refed my Battle of Puebla game a few dozen times. The Mexicans won in real life. The French have only won once in all those games (and a Pyrrhic victory at that – they didn't have enough troops left to march on to Mexico City).

The French have breached the line between Forts Loreto and Guadalupe a few times. Didn't happen in real life. Then again, they only got one run at it (three charges, but one overall attempt).

The (battle hardened) French (complete with battle hardened Zouave mercs) had a decidedly unrealistic outcome. Or did they? They were fighting uphill in the rain (or, at least, that's what they told their kids). And they were under supported logistically (Spain and England had bagged out on the Joint operation a week or so before). Plus, fighting a unpaid, amateur, and hated by the public army, they expected the citizenry of Puebla to welcome their new French overlords. The French intel and analysis on this point was significantly off point.

And then there's the rurales. Farmers on farm nags recruited to be lancers. They really outperformed expectations. Was that realistic? Well, at least, it was real.

My game has those factors as prime drivers. So, is the game a realistic simulation? Absolutely. It is a realistic simulation of those factors, the way I have defined them.

Cards have the unique feature that they come in a deck Whether directly producing pseudo randomness, or as a source of events/rules each turn, each card drawn depletes those cards from the deck. In other words, if one player has a lucky streak, not only are those cards now gone, the other player knows they are gone and his chance of a lucky streak is thereby improved.

Until reshuffle of course.

The problem with history is that while it did happen, you only have one sample and very little detailed data.

That isn't true: Those are the problems with ANY information base when one wants to know how to model them, simulate them, recreate them etc.

However, in most all wars, there is just one sample of combat. The lack of detail depends on 1. the question needing answered and 2. how you frame the question. Most all simulation designers in all arenas have to deal with 'a lack of detail', missing information and faulty observation. There are ways to deal with those issues, and in the last 60 years of simulation design, folks have come up with a wide variety of techniques.

etotheipi [ I will memorize that spelling, I will memorize that spelling…] has describes one way among many to address the issues:

My game has those factors as prime drivers. So, is the game a realistic simulation? Absolutely. It is a realistic simulation of those factors, the way I have defined them.

Whether that is a realistic simulation for players will depend on 1. The designer telling them what factors are being simulated and 2. What specific information was used as a template for those factors.

Without that information, which is usually missing in our hobby, Sgt Slag comes to a reasonable conclusion:

I find the whole concept of "simulation war games," in our hobby, a complete farce.

If the player doesn't know specifically what the game is modeling, how can he appreciate it as simulating anything other than his own interpretation, his own conclusion on what is reasonable and plausible, his 'fantasy.' It may or may not have any relationship to what historical / realistic information and decision-making the designer incorporated in the play experience.

Interesting how these discussions degenerate into a fore vs agaoinst simulation excersize and that usually seems to itself be so polerised as to make discussion somewaht meaningless.

That simulation exsists and works canot be disputed, your life depends on it most days you live in a house, drive a car, ride a train or fly.

No so much when you live in a tent, not sure how much simulation there is in tent desighn but there may be some wintunnel data in it. Even our laws of physics are essentially simulation. Clearly Newtons first law is incorrect but it is perfectly good for most analyis, we do not need relativity except for space flight.

Ego simulation has its place. Many military simulate aspects of conflict so if not perfect it can be usefull.

Simulating history completley cannot be done, like trying to see beyond the big bang. That it cannot be done perfectly is not an excuse to say it is useless. Plane are designed on a huge numbet of diffrent simulations, with great regret thay occationally crash soeven they are not perfect but they are pretty damn good. Many more folk are alive becuse of the simulations.

Now the idiot that says simulations are not real as nobody dies is just that. A simulation is to test ideas to se if they work thus minimisng loss of life. Therfore they are not, thankfully fully real.

Therfore to say wargames cannot be a limited model of aspects of warfare lack the true understanding of how boundaries of simulation are set and understood.

Sure modern combat can be simulated ! All one needs
is an unlimited treasury, millions of vic – ah-
participants, a COLOSSAL playfield and no care about
how many die !

Simple, no ????

I gave up 'playing' (as differed from 'operating')
simulations well before gray appeared in my now
totally gray head.

I play games, for the social and camaraderie aspects.

Prior to retirement (15 years ago) I found simulations
useful from a process engineering/design perspective.

But those were predictable circumstances, quite
unlike warfare.

Sure modern combat can be simulated ! All one needs
is an unlimited treasury, millions of vic – ah-
participants, a COLOSSAL playfield and no care about
how many die !

Prior to retirement (15 years ago) I found simulations
useful from a process engineering/design perspective.

Ed:

This isn't a question about what folks like to play. Folks are free to play what they like to play. No right answers there.

That isn't the same as saying what simulations are or can do, regardless.

1. Simulations can't and never will simulate everything and one of their major benefits is that one can test and experience environments and decision-making matrixes without spending an unlimited treasury or starting an actual war. This Colossal, need to kill folks argument for realism or accuracy is seen over and over again on the TMP. It is simply wrong, counter everything that simulations can do and are used for. In other words, it is a non-starter as an argument against the use of simulations. Simulations are used so Treasuries don't have to be emptied to gain the information or experiences desired.

2. Engineering simulations are a type, not all types nor do they all require the same methods. Engineering simulations certainly don't require an unlimited treasury to work, providing the desired information.

But those were predictable circumstances, quite
unlike warfare.

Really? So warfare presents no predictable circumstances. Planning is totally useless and generals are just lucky to have chance things go their way. Napoleon did write he would rather have lucky generals to smart ones. However, he also wrote,

"Military science consists in calculating all the chances accurately in the first place, and then in giving accident exactly, almost mathematically, its place in one's calculations. It is upon this point that one must not deceive oneself…now this apportioning of accident and science cannot get into any head except that of a genius."

"Nothing is attained in war except by calculations."

A well-designed simulation does just that: "apportions accident and science." Simulations can and do demonstrably portray less than predictable circumstances all the time--in a variety of disciplines. They would be used far less if they couldn't.

That notion of less than predictable results is why wargames have you roll dice. There are odds of things happening, but not specifically predictable. It is just a matter of how well wargames provide that visa vie reality.

However, most all hobby wargames fail as simulations because they don't follow the methodologies necessary achieve demonstrable 'reality to model' connections and fail to inform the participants of the specific connections between play and the 'circumstances' the design is attempting to portray.

So, players are left with deciding what are 'reasonable, plausible' outcomes for game systems which have no identifiable relationship to historical outcomes. [When asked, gamers often will say the outcome is just one, the end of the game, not the processes to achieve the outcome.]

The military is rather pedantic on this last point: They tell participants in training exercises exactly what is being simulated and exactly the skills being targeted by the simulation. I saw this with the Urban Tactical exercises. The participants were even reminded that there would be no umpires on the battlefield. [Duh]

Most wargamers have only experienced bad simulations or ones that don't provide the necessary information to function properly for the participants. Period.

So, it's not surprising that wargamers don't like simulations, particularly when, starting with Simulations Publications, Inc. in the 1970s, when they put forth the the counter-productive idea that more detail makes for a better simulation. This created complex and often giant, unplayable games. Even today, in the current edition of James Dunnigan's book Designing Wargames, he says that wargames are 'realistic', some more than others, particularly with the military, but never, ever
1. Defines how a wargame is 'realistic' or
2. How one goes about designing for realism.

Realism is assumed, but never explained, and so it is for wargamers--and wargame designers--today.

The problem with an emphasis on "simulation" is deciding what is important to simulate. Everything?

A gamer designer like me has his criteria. These are unashamedly those aspects that are of interest to them.

There is no question that what its important is defined by the designer. Different designers have different emphasis, players need to decide in selecting a game what they want out of it. Our group have had no trouble in reality of defining what we wanted and why. Our game we acknowledge is not for everybody, but we had no intention for designing for other than like-minded individuals.

For example.

To keep the rules to a manageable i.e sufficiently fast to make the available time to play useful needs to approximate aspects. For us morale is a crude approximation as it is both quick and useful, so it is unashamedly crude but suffice to support the simulation aims.

The aim of our simulations simulation is to extract within reason, the general vagaries of the manpower so as to allow the simulation to optimise what can be done without the "noise" of other factors which will sway outcomes and as such require more testing to assess the parameters that are of interest.
again as an example

The playing area must be a Euclidean representation and hence the space distortion caused by non-linear ranging systems is not acceptable.

Within the limits of modeling the optimum disposition of troops in test cases within the model should be representative of the formations represented by the relevant manuals and should as far as possible reflect the same advantages and disadvantages as the relevant manuals.

Now to some the above may seen dry and unappealing if you are more interested in chatting about models, drinking tea/beer and having food. I look at war gaming as a chess like pastime but with to relationship to real military tactics. This requires the players involvement and concentration without which there to me would be no "fun" at all. "Fun" is a very personal thing and we all look for different things.

The sweepstakes are once again under way! Who will be the first person to explain reality ?????

B

I'll go first.

We all have our own "reality sandbox" that we play games in. If you don't like my game go find your own sandbox. (smile)

Wolfhag

That is unquestionably the "gritty" truth of the matter, Wolfhag ….. ;-)

B

Blutarski, again an irrelevant statement. A simulation does not need to explain reality to attempt to do so missunderstands simulation, entirely. It is by definition covering typicaly a very small section. A propellor blade on a real plane will have a simulation based on air flow with minimal restrictions on the mechanical for. Another will cover the structural design based on the aerodynamic desigm. This model will almost certainly have no connection with the aerodynaic model save for the shape constraint.

They serve diffrent purposes. Neither are intended to explain all of reality just a section. Now if you are an aerodynamacist a structural model may have little interest, but that matters not within the scope of the engineers interest.

Similarly one mans interest in simulation aspects of warfare are deiffrent to anothers. Sandbox is a poor analogy. A better analogy is that the individual needs to decide which aspects of reality they want to model and which thety do not. Wanting it all is philosphical asperation only even engineers are not really there with all the new computoirs at there beck and call.

In this there is no "gritty truth" but very simple scicentific methodology.

Hi UshCha.
It was a joke. "Gritty" can describe sand, as in sand-box.

This discussion is now in its 12,000th iteration here on TMP and no consensus has yet even been remotely approached regarding the definition of either "realism" or "simulation". We might as well be debating the number of angels able to dance upon the head of a pin.

Have a wonderful day and keep a smile on your face … :-)

B

This discussion is now in its 12,000th iteration here on TMP and no consensus has yet even been remotely approached regarding the definition of either "realism" or "simulation". We might as well be debating the number of angels able to dance upon the head of a pin.

Blutarski:

Consensus? Well, MIT and other Universities have a simulation design degree, so they have come to some consensus about what is a simulation. Several companies design simulations for businesses and the military, so they have come some consensus. The computer game community has as have science, business, commerce, military, education, engineering etc. etc. So what kind of consensus are you looking for? It isn't that hard to find. All of those disciplines and businesses have come to a general consensus all together as to what a simulation is and isn't. Simulation Myths in this hobby abound and repeatedly show up, such this thread, in the 12,000th iteration. The only way I can explain it when so many hobby designers claim to be creating simulations is wargamers [and designers] haven't wanted to know what a simulation is and does, let alone come to some consensus about it.

Defining what is 'realism' or a 'simulation' in simulation/wargame design isn't a philosophical issue or opinion or what everyone 'likes'. They are technical design issues. I have provided those definitions before, not mine, but the general consensus outside our little hobby.

But the myths persist:

A simulation/wargame has to start a war to simulate war.

An accurate simulation has to simulate everything…which would cost too much

More detail equals more accuracy, more realism.

Whether a wargame simulates well is solely a matter of opinion.

What is 'plausible and reasonable' is all that is achievable with wargames--in other words, what feels right based on…whatever.

Simulations have to be too complex to be fun.

These totally wrong, counter-productive beliefs create some really stupid situations.

On TMP Bob Coggins stated on TMP years ago that Napoleon's Battles was not designed to be a simulation. He didn't think it was possible. Yet, the publishers in the design notes said it was, to Bob's embarrassment, yet the entire designers' notes claim the wargame rules do many of the things that simulations are designed to do. And now I see gamers saying that NB is the best simulation of Napoleonic Warfare.

So wargame rules the designers believe NB can't possibly be a simulation while designing it to "recreate Napoleonic warfare". It is then promoted as a simulation by AH and even now, it is offered up by some player as the best simulation of Napoleonic warfare.

Talk about angels muddling around on the head of a non-existent pin…