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

McLaddie wrote -
"Consensus? Well, MIT and other Universities have a simulation design degree, so they have come to some consensus about what is a simulation."
Lovely. Perhaps you would care to provide their conclusion about the definition of "simulation".

While on the subject, perhaps you can be prevailed upon to stipulate exactly what you yourself consider to be the proper definition of the term "simulation" instead of nibbling around the edges of this existentially urgent issue by offering opinions about what a simulation is NOT.

As far as Bob Coggins and "Napoleon's Battles" go, Coggins, as the designer and birth father, is a more legitimate authority on whether or not the rules are a "simulation"; the fact that its publisher, for presumably promotional and mercenary reasons, chose to market the rules as a "simulation" is immaterial in the same sense as a lie is to truth.

Finally, kudos to you for making a valuable contribution to this discussion – "Whether a wargame simulates well is solely a matter of opinion."
This opens up a useful avenue of discussion: is the true definition of a simulation strictly constrained in the sense that H2SO4 is the only valid chemical expression for sulfuric acid? Or can a simulation be viewed as if a region within a color palette in the same sense that the color "red" can be appreciated in its different shades and hues? Speaking for myself, I vote for the color palette approach.

I'm thrilled that you appear to have survived the latest mass incineration of the State of California. I hope that you, your family, your home and your possessions have survived safe and intact.

Looking forward to your response, as we really do owe those angels a coffee break.

B

UzhCha, you describe yourself as a rule designer. You certainly seem to have many ideas. Can I ask which rule sets you have designed and who publishes them?

BobGrognard – I try but sometimes fail, to not push our rules down folk's throat so I try to minimise advertising but as you ask.

link

Now in the interests of fairness I draw your attention to my 4 Nov post on this thread. The system is a LIMITED simulation as noted in that post. Its aims are limited but we believe it achieves what our objectives are. Again I re-iterate while the rules are simple as far as I am concerned some folk to my confusion state they are complex.

As an example I have indicated the limitations to the simulation at least in part beyond that of the 4 Nov Post. Hopefully this will give you an idea of the systems scope and also other folk an understanding of the scope of the modelling and an insight into simulation.

1) A fundamental issue with real tanks is they turn their turrets. Manoeuver Group requires you to do this to minimise rule requirements. Turning turrets like you did as a kid is "complex" I am told by some.

Again I do not want to "bounce" folk into buying the rules. Download the free stuff including the bulletins, if you find that not too your taste don't bother with the rules. Also post Covid there will be an issue 2, it's complete but we need a photographer (My Daughter) to take a shot for the cover and we are locked down. As I understands it you would get an update free as it's an issue 2 If you register with the company. Hoever the bulletins have nearly all the changes. However If you use the email in the rules you can contact me if you have any issue and constructive criticism good or bad is welcome.
So to the simulation again.

2) There is no terrain system other than suggesting you look at real maps and or photos of real places to get the basics of real world geography. I suggest flattish places at least to start as there are complexities obviously with even moderate hills.

3) BUA – Obviously urban areas are difficult to model. We suggest that you use houses without gardens as models, and space them the minimum distance needed to pass the vehicles of the size you define, either single track or double track. There are UK and European cities that will not even let two European cars pass. Like real army training grounds the number of buildings will be far lower than the real world (actually 25 times less on an area scale). However it is possible using even 1/144 scale buildings as defined above to get most of the road pattern. As a gaming/simulation aside I would suggest you limit yourself to between 10 and about 18 buildings for an urban area, certainly at 1/144. This simplified urban fighting is very time/bound intensive like the real world, so you get the armoured battle moving on fast outside the urban area while the urban area becomes a long slog (still faster than the real world) but the discontinuity we consider is sufficient to demonstrate the effecteven though it's not by any means perfect, again a declared limitation of the model.

4) So far in 12 years testing the optimum game formations and strategy line up with the real world with some tolerance.
5) Weapon fanatics will note that weapons with a range of 60m to about 250m will have ranges that are optimistic or in some cases massively extended. A weapon with a range of 30m to 100m is typically increased by at least 50m from its real value. As is always the case, this is a simulation compromise. In the UK roads are quite narrow so a 60m range weapon could be fired from between buildings and reach across the road. The model to ground scale disparity means a road even for a narrow 2 lane road (one lane each way) is 50m wide at ground scale so the aim is for the weapon to "comfortably" reach across the road as it would in the real world. Obviously at longer ranges this effect is far less significant and the disparity is within the potential scatter of the weapon so it is unchanged.
6) All weapons have a single fixed range. In many cases we have had to ignore some factors in real world situations, like angular crossing rate and rate of range change to the target with time. However limited inaccuracy's of the system are acceptable as it is trying to reflect relative losses, absolute losses are difficult to assess accurately but as the error is systematic is impact is acceptable and speeds play which is an important in allowing for the time needed to accommodate some ebb and flow of the battle. It does mean there will be some inaccuracies in casualty rates but it is not an aim within this simple system to very accurately model this effect. Typical wargames over emphasis accuracy in many cases leading to wide disparities between real world optimum deployments and simulation optimum deployments, fixed ranages do a better job and spoeed play.

Hopefully this presntation illustrates better tah just words of motherhood typical of many TMP threads, that a simulation has known limitations and does not and is not expected to have perfect alignment with the real world but has sufficient to allow some understanding of the issues involved. The final test of validity as far as we are concerned is that its optimum deployments are similar to those of the real world as depicted in military manuals and that various test cases give plausible results.

Obviously constructive disscussion on the topics above is welcomed.

PS if you think these designers notes are long, imagine what a full set would be like. Reading and assimilating them would be a hobby in of itself. hence we have never written them.

While on the subject, perhaps you can be prevailed upon to stipulate exactly what you yourself consider to be the proper definition of the term "simulation" instead of nibbling around the edges of this existentially urgent issue by offering opinions about what a simulation is NOT.

Blutarki:

I have done just that any number of times, a number in exchanges with you. Yet, you once again ask. Why is that?

As far as Bob Coggins and "Napoleon's Battles" go, Coggins, as the designer and birth father, is a more legitimate authority on whether or not the rules are a "simulation"; the fact that its publisher, for presumably promotional and mercenary reasons, chose to market the rules as a "simulation" is immaterial in the same sense as a lie is to truth.

Not immaterial if the lie continues to be circulated as a meaningful point of discussion on successful wargame design… you know, that 12,000 iterations.

Finally, kudos to you for making a valuable contribution to this discussion – "Whether a wargame simulates well is solely a matter of opinion."
This opens up a useful avenue of discussion: is the true definition of a simulation strictly constrained in the sense that H2SO4 is the only valid chemical expression for sulfuric acid?

A valuable contribution? That means it adds something to the conversation, not return it to repeating old assumptions. If I meant what you obviously take as a return to the philosophical question of what is a functional simulation, nope that is NOT what I meant.

Yes, simulations are "strictly constrained" because:

1. They are by design, a closed, finite system of procedures and processes. So are all games.
2. A simulation is a model of *something*, the nature of that *something* strictly constraining what the simulation has to do/can do to be a successful, functional simulation.

Neither of those points are opinions or philosophy, but irreducible, technical statements of function.

Once more into the breach:

"A game is one or more causally linked challenges in a simulated environment"
--Ernest Adams and Andrew Rollings, On Game Design.

"A simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time."
--Jerry Banks, Handbook of Simulation

"A simulation allows players to safely make real-world decisions and develop skills in an unreal environment."
--David Bartlett, former chief of operations, Defense
Modeling and Simulation Office.

There, you have game designers, engineers and military simulation designers giving you 'definitions.' I am sure you can see the 'consensus.' Lots out there.

Here's another definition for games and simulation Games:

Games are systems that provide players with entertaining decisions in an artificial game environment. "A game is a series of interesting decisions." --Sid Meiers, Designer of Civilization I-IV

Simulation games of war provide hobby players with entertaining decisions in an artificial environment that corresponds to real-world or historical environments and decision-making challenges.

The tested accuracy of that relationship between the real-world chosen to be simulated compared to the game system determines the level and specific points of 'realism.' [There are any number of validated methods for testing accuracy]

If the historical data shows that Napoleonic infantry moved an average of 60 yards per minute on the battlefield, the 'realism' in modeling that would be how well the game mimics that data. If it did, it is accurate and a successful simulation on that point.

If evidence later demonstrates the 60 ypm average was wrong, that will invalidate the simulation as a historical model, but the simulation would remain an accurate/successful model of the wrong information.

Speaking for myself, I vote for the color palette approach.

What I have described does nothing to limit any color palettes, only the composition of the paint and canvas.

I'm thrilled that you appear to have survived the latest mass incineration of the State of California. I hope that you, your family, your home and your possessions have survived safe and intact.

Fires all around us, but we did make it through due to the efforts of many, many men and women. We are thankful.

One of the problems to me in the "eternal" TMP discussions on simulation is it never gets past the philosophical aspects. Rather like ancient Greek philosphers who would debate eternally rather than say do a simple experiment.

The debate in TMP never takes a case in point and analyses what can be approximated and why/why not that is useful.
Like movement speeds. we can set bounds for the range of speeds. It then needs to look overall how significant that is in impacting the general tactical situation given that it is a systematic error and likely to apply relatively uniformly.

The tested accuracy of that relationship between the real-world chosen to be simulated compared to the game system determines the level and specific points of 'realism.' [There are any number of validated methods for testing accuracy]

One of the problems I've had with traditional games (IGYG, activations, abstracted turn length) is that they do not relate very well to the training manuals and real tactics used in the military. The interactions of units in small-scale games are more like a chess game where players alternate with one or more units move or shoot and the rest are very restricted in their ability to respond.

I think the main reason is you can't simulate real-battlefield simultaneous moving and shooting to a very high degree in miniatures or board games. Some games systems do it better than others and some don't attempt to do it at all. I think our mind fills in the gaps as a way to make it "feel" more realistic because that is what the player ideally wants to experience.

A game designer normally starts by using some abstracted turn sequence in an attempt to parse the action between units in an attempt to recreate simultaneous action. That means generating rules and game mechanics that have almost no resemblance to military terminology or nomenclature so right from the start it's going to be hard to design a "simulation".

However, there are some aspects of a game that the designer can faithfully recreate that could pass for being realistic and a simulation that would take place on a battlefield. Depending on what the designer wants to emphasize and detail or abstract will determine the overall level of simulation.

I think if you are going to judge a game it should be on different aspects and not the overall game. Personally, when critiquing a game it should be on if the designer achieved his goals, not what you think he should have done.

[There are any number of validated methods for testing accuracy]

Yes, like rates of fire, movement rate, and their interaction. Task and reaction time. Situational Awareness. Friction and suppression degrading performance. Command indecision. Individual initiative and heroic actions. Modeling small arms fire results. Command and Control SNAFU's. Limited battlefield intelligence. Realistically seizing the battlefield initiative (it's not random).

Personally, I think the best way to get a simulation is to have a Time Competitive game environment with several "Risk-Reward Tactical Decisions" for the players that are taken from the real manuals and battlefield actions. These would allow the players to take the same risks battlefield commanders took and at a desperate point in a battle can turn it around. It could fail dramatically too.

Wolfhag

One of the problems to me in the "eternal" TMP discussions on simulation is it never gets past the philosophical aspects.

UshCha: The discussions always went around in circles because it was never a philosophical question in the first place.

It has always been a 'How' question, which is technical. And I suspect that any number of hobby designers realized that--and didn't want to go there…so, kept looping the philosophical.

A game designer normally starts by using some abstracted turn sequence in an attempt to parse the action between units in an attempt to recreate simultaneous action.

Wolfhag: Uh, your game design parses the time/action between units. EVERY simulation does that in one way or another, even computer simulations and games, With computer games, the parsing is simply done behind the scenes so it 'feels' simultaneous.

"Parsing Time" is the backbone of games and simulations, what happens when. And I question that simultaneous action is all that dominating on the battlefield, just as it isn't in a fencing match. It is more often an act/react sequence with pauses in-between.

The bottom line is what the participants in the battle experience and how that can be recreated with a game system. And as you point out, not everything, but some things.

"..the simulation would remain an accurate/successful model of the wrong information."

I can certainly recreate with simply painted toy soldiers on the table top the visual appearance of early 19th century hand-coloured aquatints of battles, such as those that appeared in Jenkins' Martial Achievements of Great Britain, published late in 1815.

If I reread Napier and John Keegan's analysis of his descriptions of battle in The Face of Battle, I can probably create wargame rules that reflect Napier's interpretation.

I will then have 'an accurate model' of engagements of the Peninsular War and Waterloo that simulates the perception of Miss Austen and other British civilians at the time, so – as long as I state that – no one can criticise my wargame!

Perfect! Thanks, McLaddie!

I am not a fan of card driven systems. An artificial and often unrealitic way to restrict a players command decision ability or enhance it greater than it should be.
Becomes a point of reducing realistic actions.

I will then have 'an accurate model' of engagements of the Peninsular War and Waterloo that simulates the perception of Miss Austen and other British civilians at the time, so – as long as I state that – no one can criticise my wargame!

arthur1815:

No, you won't have an accurate model of 'engagements of the Peninsular War'…if done right you would have an accurate simulation of Miss Austen and other civilians' perceptions--and only those. It might be an interesting wargame, sort of hollywood style, but if you claim it to be an accurate model of all engagements of the Peninsular War, you'll see a lot of criticism. What history/information you base the simulation on determines what you can and can't claim the system represents.

So, I couldn't criticize you for what history you chose to simulate. That choice is totally up to you. Whether it is fun to play is totally subjective…a matter of taste.

Whether your simulation actually does model those perceptions faithfully could be open to criticism based on whether you have tested the system effectively--proved the 1:1 relationship to participants/customers.

Your design absolutely would be criticized for claiming that civilian impressions of the war from afar is 'an accurate model of Peninsular War combat.' So, an accurate simulation of the wrong information?

Simulations are closed systems, so garbage in, garbage out. They are tools, created and used well, they can do a great deal. Fudged, mislabeled and mishandled, they fail to do much that was intended, and a lot that wasn't.

If I reread Napier and John Keegan's analysis of his descriptions of battle in The Face of Battle, I can probably create wargame rules that reflect Napier's interpretation.

You certainly could. And as a simulation it might accurately portray Napier's and Keegan's analysis. Keep in mind that both of their studies were fairly limited in scope, one at the individual soldier's view point and the other at the commander's…with very little in between. Rory Muir's book Tactics and the Experience of Battle In the Napoleonic Wars might be a better choice. That wargame would be simulating Muir's conclusions.

An even more detailed and far more wargame compatible choice might be Clauswitz's analysis of Tactical and operational warfare, or Kriegspiel. Ned Zuparko did just that with his 1981 Vive L'Empereur: Grand Tactical Miniature Rules for Napoleonic Warfare

link

Different designers could come up with a wide variety of wargame systems and mechanics, simple, complex or anything in-between and all could be an accurate models of all engagements of the Peninsular War. And they all could portray the same or different aspects of the infinite number found in the history of warfare over so many years.

However, to make such an overarching claim would require far more research, specific design methods and statistical analysis than just one historical POV to be sure it was 'accurate.'

I am not a fan of card driven systems. An artificial and often unrealistic way to restrict a players command decision ability or enhance it greater than it should be.
Becomes a point of reducing realistic actions.

Rudy:
Are you suggesting that there are ways to find a middle ground between command restrictions and enhancements with cards that would be 'realistic?'

As ALL wargame/simulation systems are by definition artificial representations of the real. So why are cards systems anymore problematic than dice and Pips or any other type of game system?

I would think it is all a matter of 1. what is being represented and 2. How. Cards are no more inherently unrealistic than dice or any other game system.

Considering the infinite game possibilities with cards, it would just be a matter of finding an effective way of using them to model reality.

I don't like card games either. But John Butterfield's Tarawa game using card activations is spot on but at that level of play with several regiments engaged, seconds don't count so you don't need a Time Competitive game environment. The cards bring out the flavor and specific historical actions in the battle and allow the Marines choices to perform historical actions.

If you are playing a game on a specific battle you need to "Design for Effect" if you are going to have the situations and nuances that were particular to that specific battle occur in the game. However, if you just want to do a fresh start replay and see what happens then you would not need them and can attempt to generate the historical occurrences yourself.

Personally, I would not use them for random unit activations and commands.

Wolfhag

Are the definitions of game, simulation, and reality blurred? Let's say you are a drone operator in an air-conditioned trailer in Nevada going through training. You are told you are going through various video training simulations to prepare you for the real thing. You think it's cool. You go home every night telling your wife about your work and the progress you are making and how pleased your handlers are of you taking out simulated but realistic targets in far off lands. You tell her it's like playing a video game but you swear it looks realistic. However, after six weeks of "training", you are told your companies contract is canceled. They then present you with a certificate of achievement stating you killed 127 people in the last two weeks of "training". The video images of people in civilian clothes, including women and children, come back to haunt you – they were real. Now you start having nightmares, cold sweats and your wife is freaking out but because of your clearance, you can't tell her the truth.

What's real and what isn't?

Wolfhag

McLaddie,

Thank you for taking the trouble to reply at such length to my posting. You have, perhaps, taken my somewhat tongue in cheek suggestion more seriously than it warranted.

I fear my phrasing may have led you to believe that I was claiming that such a game would be an accurate model or simulation of Peninsular War battles, but I was not; rather, I was proposing that such a game could be an accurate recreation of how contemporary civilians perceived and imagined the battles to have been fought.

Therefore, I chose Napier precisely because his work was available fairly soon after the Peninsular War, whereas Muir's analysis (which I possess and have read) was not.

If I present a wargame which closely resembles visually the pictures of battles seen in contemporary prints, and the rules of which stress the same aspects of battle as did contemporary analysts, such as prolonged exchanges of musketry, then I can reasonably, claim my game recreates the perceptions of contemporary civilians.

Rather like a Western game at a UK wargame show years ago, in which all the figures, scenery &c., were painted in shades of grey to recreate Hollywood black and white B movies. No one thought it was an accurate simulation of the American West, but it was good fun – and did bring its inspiration to life.

What's real and what isn't?

Wolfhag: What, "Ender's Game"? You just described the difference. A grunt is training on a Drone simulation and finds out he was really targeting real people. It's always hard to tell what is real when people lie to you. That has nothing to do with an inability to determine whether a simulation [artificial] is real or not.

So, what's your point?

arthur1815:

No problem. It is hard to tell what is 'tongue-in-cheek" as humorous and 'tongue-in-cheek' as a serious argument.

And because of that, others will take it as a serious argument, particularly if it remains unanswered or treated less than seriously.

No I am not, cards are a player preference.
They are no different than the random events chats of my game designing days of the 1980-90s.
Players should play and act based on their abilities. After all they are playing the game. Not Wellington, Washington or Rommel.
I am just not a fan of card systems, where ability enhancements can be stored and used when desired.

Wolfhag: What, "Ender's Game"? You just described the difference. A grunt is training on a Drone simulation and finds out he was really targeting real people. It's always hard to tell what is real when people lie to you. That has nothing to do with an inability to determine whether a simulation [artificial] is real or not.
So, what's your point?

McLaddie, what was he playing? A game, simulation or was it reality? Please define it? When does a game or simulation translate to a degree of reality or make the participant "feel" it is real?

My point is that it has everything to do with the example and what you are discussing – it's subjective. Games and movies are an attempt to "fool" or "lie" to people into thinking that what they are looking at or participating has a certain level reality. Movies use music and special effects; games use realistic rules, terrain and figures. It has everything to do with determining if a game or simulation is real or not because it's subjective to each individual which is why it's so hard to change someone's mind.

If the drone pilot did kill 127 people but he was "lied" to being told it was all training he'd be fine, right. So what's my point? It's that reality is subjective to each individual, based on their knowledge and experience and as a game or simulation designer you have a certain tools, lies and a "bag of tricks" to get the participant to experience or "feel" or "trick" that there is a greater or lesser level of reality taking place. I don't think it will matter to the player if it is called a game or simulation unless you are selling it to the military. That's my point.

Drone pilots do get PTSD from what is basically a video game. Why?: link

Wolfhag: Uh, your game design parses the time/action between units. EVERY simulation does that in one way or another, even computer simulations and games, With computer games, the parsing is simply done behind the scenes so it 'feels' simultaneous.

See, now you've got it! Realism and reality is all about "feelings", just ask your wife. This is exactly why when someone says they "feel" or "think" something is one way or the other it's hard to change their mind even when you show them what you think or feel the facts are (sound familiar). They need to experience it for themselves. I think it's how the game makes people "feel", not what someone else defines for them.

Someone who knows nothing about a subject is easier to "fool" than someone with knowledge. This is why PsyOp and propaganda works because the false narrative "paints" a false picture of reality using a combination of truth and lies (the tool box), changing definitions, repetition and opinion leaders while playing on people's past experiences, biases and bigotry. It's not real but the Useful Idiots will swear it's real and may kill you if you disagree.

Movie makers and game designers are attempting to "fool" people by getting them to experience what it "feels" like to be in a particular situation, especially if you have more decision points for the players that influences their survival. Some people are actually physically scared watching a horror movie. Some WWII vets had a hard time watching the opening scene of ‘Saving Private Ryan'. If a car backfired by my grandfather he'd become terrified and hit the deck shaking because of his WWI experiences. Was I supposed to tell my son that his nightmares and screaming from his combat experiences were not "real" and only a dream? These are real experiences to them because they "feel" as if they are. If you have not personally experienced them it may be hard to relate. The psychological overcomes the physical which may be what game/simulation design is all about. How many times have you heard experienced players state that a rule set gives the right "feeling" but others disagree? It appears to be somewhat subjective which is why there are such varied opinions.

For me, but maybe not you, reality is about what people can perceive and feel, not what someone else can define for them. I've jumped out of airplanes with a parachute. I can describe it in detail but can't really make people feel what I did until they do it themselves.

When we see a WWII movie we'll critique it based on if the camo pattern on the tank was correct, the wrong uniform was worn in June 1944, that's really a modified T-34 and not a Tiger I, etc so the movie sucked. People without that knowledge would feel it was very realistic and enjoyed it, they were fooled.

Experiences and knowledge will to a great degree determine how a person feels about a game. Some players are willing to embrace a high degree of abstraction if it gives them the right "feel". As a game designer you attempt to balance playability and realism to get the right "feel" as recreating the effect of being on a real battlefield is not obtainable. Some aspects of the game will have great detail and some a high level of abstraction. People will select a game based on those criteria. When a game designer states that a +/- die roll modifier simulates X he's attempting to get the player to "feel" a level of historical realism because real battles don't use dice.

To prove my point I "feel" that games and movies are an attempt to "fool" the audience or players into thinking it is a level (not absolute of course) reality and there is nothing you can say to change my mind. I've seen and experienced it first hand and have been fooled and I have fooled or tricked people you might say. You said, "With computer games, the parsing is simply done behind the scenes so it 'feels' simultaneous." If it "feels" that way then the simulation is successful right? So maybe you agree with me or you "feel" differently. It doesn't matter.

I use the military manuals and AAR's as a starting point for my game which I acknowledge are not 100% correct but I had to start somewhere. If 10 soldiers took part in the same battle you'd get 8 different AAR's. That's just human. As a game designer you need to pick one or extrapolate your own.

I've developed an effortless and playable way to portray a somewhat abstracted simultaneous movement at the physically correct movement rate on a second-to-second basis in a miniatures and board game. It helps deliver split second results without needing additional opportunity fire rules. Is it totally realistic and simultaneous in the physical universe? Of course not. Is it playable, understandable and give the players the "feeling" of simultaneous movement, the vast majority agree, including tank and infantry veterans so I'll take that as a success. If you want to say it's not based on your knowledge, definitions and personal military experience, be my guest.

Now if some PhD professor with no military experience wants to pontificate from his Ivory Tower about how mine or another system is wrong, not realistic, not a simulation he's welcomed to pontificate. If he's smarter than us he should come up with a better design or in the end he's just a bunch of hot air and has nothing to contribute directly to the hobby but it might get people thinking in a different direction, that's a valuable contribution too. There will always be a debate about historical battles, occurrences and outcomes for millennia and that's good for book publishers.

Here are two quotes:

"Whoever can make and implement his decisions consistently faster gains a tremendous, often decisive advantage. Decision-making thus becomes a Time Competitive process and timeliness of decisions (OODA Loop) becomes essential to generating tempo."
Tactical Decision Making, Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication 1, Warfighting

Unit activations (player selected or random), and random initiative determination are not Time Competitive. A game with no set time scale is not Time Competitive. They do not generate a realistic tempo of a battle but can approximate it to an extent that it "fools" the player into "feeling" it is real. That's an absolute success for the game designer. Now some players may agree with the quote and still prefer games in a non-Time Competitive environment because it gives them the right "feeling" and nothing you say will change their "feelings". I'll respect that. Video games are Time Competitive which is why the military uses them and not Bolt Action or Flames of War.

Unfortunately, impacting rounds are felt before the sound of the enemy's gun report, because the speed of the round is greater than the speed of sound. Therefore, a tank commander's eyes are more important than his ears. As a result of rounds exploding in the vicinity, one doesn't hear the gun's report at all in the tank. It is quite different whenever the tank commander raises his head occasionally in an open hatch to survey the terrain. If he happens to look halfway to the left while an enemy anti-tank gun opens fire to his right, his eyes will subconsciously catch the shimmer of the yellow gun flash. His (the tank commander) attention will immediately be directed toward the new direction and the target will usually be identified in time. Everything depends on prompt identification of a dangerous target, usually seconds decide.
Quote from Otto Carius, Tigers in the Mud

I "feel" Otto is right. Why? I've been in some tight situations that called for split second reactions. I didn't check for initiative, if it was my turn or not or wait for the LT to activate me. The military has "Immediate Action Drills" or "Battle Drills" to perform in certain situations so you don't need to be commanded. I feel games should include them so I did. "Prompt identification" does not mean waiting for your turn, the spotting phase or to be activated. There are various abstracted ways to simulate that in a game in a non-Time Competitive game environment too but that's not what Otto experienced.

In a 1:1 tank-tank shootout it is a Time Competitive event between the opponents where seconds will count, just like Otto said. If seconds count then you need some type of timing method which the OODA Decision Loop easily simulates and is a natural. That's how I feel about it and you are not going to change my mind.

I've seen discussions from many players that thought a 1:1 low level tactical game using random activations and initiative gave them a "feeling" of a high degree of realism and there was nothing I could say to change their mind, why should I. I'll respect people who disagree with me that have not experienced what I have.

Now a strategic level game on WWII Eastern Front is not Time Competitive where seconds count. Activations, IGYG works and you'd almost need to have something like event cards to include so many of the "what-ifs" and historical events that occurred on the Eastern Front or elsewhere in the world that would affect the Eastern Front. One size does not fit all. Game designers have a lot of tools and tricks.

etotheipi (who is former military with military simulation and game design experience) stated:

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.

I think that says it all. If the designer includes enough important factors in enough detail that a player "thinks" or "feels" is the right level of realism he'll buy the game and recommend it. Maybe the designer "tricked" the player's mind, so what? For some people a game that rates a Panther as a "9" and a Sherman as a "8" is a no go but it might be the most popular game of the year.

Cards, especially event cards, I "feel" can enhance a game by including historical events that might be hard to simulate in any other way and put the player in a somewhat "role playing" situation to respond by testing his decision making process. The US Army War college "feels" the same way as they use them in games at the country and theater level. If you don't like using cards that's fine too.

Personally I don't like cards in a game but after these discussions I'm thinking of including them for unexpected events and SNAFU's. Thanks everyone.

Wolfhag

So lets get somthing straight, hey I started thre thread. As far as I am concerned WHO CARES ABOUT POPULARITY certainly not me. My game is as best as I can make it a simulation, I was never gouing to sell well its not a Toy Fest which is what many painters want. we would not compromise the moidel for sales, so lets drop poularity as a driver as far as this thread is concerned popularity is not a driver.

1) To a simulation is always going to be wrong. Stress models do not want or need a random card that allow for s the quality control fails so disasterously that the component fails when it should not. Its rare, it happens but the basic programe does not have "event cards" because its not usefull.
2) A simulation will always be wrong, the Butterfly effect (Chaos) is always with us. Weather forcasting is not perfect, certainly not in the UK but it is a long way better than nothing.

3) I can say with conviction that our simulation has given us insights into the way armies work, how it is possible as a general to get ot wrong big time! It has also given us insight into real fog of war a much often quoted but at least by me not really understood. In reality its because to use Wolfhags terminology somteimes the OOD cannot be complete. Suprise is getting inside the other guys OOD. We found that it did not always need random factors. If the enemy an enemy can attack from one of 3 places you can do little more than estimate which one, if you get it wrong it looks like Chaos but it isnt its just a property of the situation perfectly logical and not random. It may seem random lower down but that is not to say it is random.

so does simulation work YES. it helps understanding wothout that to me the game would be poinless and I would give it up. Will it ever make me as good as Monty no, but that was not the objective or even an aspiration.

When does a game or simulation translate to a degree of reality or make the participant "feel" it is real?

Wolfhag:

Simulations/games 'translate' to the degree of reality they are designed to portray. Making a participant 'feel' that the simulation is a real good design question, and I'll be glad to discuss it, but the line between real and artificial shouldn't be fuzzy, not if the simulation is going to work as a simulation. If there is some fuzziness between real and artificial regarding, players will simply be confused.

Drone pilots do get PTSD from what is basically a video game. Why?

They get PTSD because drone controls aren't 'basically a video game,' just because they have joysticks and a computer screen 'like' a video game. They aren't treated as such by the pilots or the staff. It isn't a simulation… but the real world they are seeing and interacting with: They know lives are on the line. That isn't a simulation of war… but a real one, regardless of what the controls 'look like or how they handle.' Those with PTSD know the difference and suffer for it.

Air-Traffic controllers face the same real world issues staring at blips on a radar screen. They can suffer from PTSD. There is no confusion over what is real and isn't simply because of the electronic representation of jets carrying hundreds of people.

Participants don't get PTSD from simulations because simulations are specifically designed so such 'costs' in lives can be avoided while training. That's their value.

They are a tool. They can be misused…even designed to create PTSD…but they do that by blowing smoke over the delineation between real and artificial.

I think th eterm feel is an inappropriate term, rather like Fun it is so generic it can't de defined in any reliable way so is an innapropriate in these discussions.

The term plausible may be more usefull. " (of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable."

Our own rules can be reasonabley described as plausible, the optimum game soution to test cases asre the same as the real world. The tanks behave optimaly in formations as depeicted in the manuals. So that is valid.
The optimum deployment of a platoon follows closely that defined as a optimum in test cases to that of the manual.
dOES IT "Feel Right" is as daft as it is tring to define fun. TMP members in particular cannot agree what is fun, there a whole thread that demonstrates this.

Ive been looking at "Mortem et Gloria". As a set of rules it may work, but for me the naming of units in an Ancients game as cTuGs" or "SuGs" doesn't feel right.

I think the term feel is an inappropriate term. The term plausible may be more useful. "of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable."

For the participant, in the end, a simulation in an experience. Historical or 'Plausible' reality certainly can be a design goal, and useful. However, no one experiences 'plausible' except as a after-result evaluation. The 'magic circle', the suspension of belief that is a cornerstone of how a participatory simulation works is an experience, a feeling.

A pilot playing a helicopter training simulation constantly determining what is useful and plausible while playing will never really experience what the simulation is designed to offer: An immersive experience where the player can experience a 1:1 dynamic between simulation and reality. Determining the simulation's 'usefulness' will only be known AFTER the experience.

I love the on-line definition of experience:

practical contact with and observation of facts or events.

"he had already learned his lesson by painful experience"

'Practical contact.' There is your 'usefulness', but again, it is a difference between the experience and the lesson.

Feelings, like 'painful' are very much part of any experience.
Feelings, or the emotional connections, the sense of experiencing a connection to another reality is central to any participatory simulation.

Personally those statements seem incorrect.

Its easy to see if a game is implausible within a couple of bounds, sometimes even before. Tanks looking better drilled in close order line than skilled napolionic troops in a parade, make it implausible. When machine guns provide only token capability beyond rifle range and are ineffective beyond twice the rifle range make it immediately obvious that the designer had no clue on the real world or has ignored the its relationship to the real world, is tenuous, being kind. This immediately make suspension in belief impossible unless you are into magic and fantasy and that is certainly not me. Hence as soon as a game is implausible it is useless, if its reflection of reality is implausible. To be honest the most dire experience is having to play a ridiculous pointless game to the end. I do it out of respect for my fellow players but never, never again.

Exciting in a game, yes, engrossing, yes, frustration when an enemy thinks you, yes. Painful not in the real world, no simulation inflicts pain intentionally, putting your hand on a figures steel wire pikes, yes, but that really is not part of the simulation.

To be honest both side in this debate seem to me to be emoting rather than having a logical analysis which is what a simulation is about.

Forgot, so added later Attack helicopters "hovering" over a Dressed line of MBT's. No bounds required for that one to be written off as pure fantasy. Now justify why implausible takes so long to assess.

Cards don't have to just be dice / table substitutes. You can incorporate hand building.
The player chooses when to use his one extra move card. Does he expend a cautious one card, more usual two or commit with three.
At end of a turn you may not replace all those cards you expended.

And each card can have several resource measures on it. For example fantasy where you can have gimmic/schtick points can be expended on casting spells and whatnot. And several other resource points like move, rally, change mode etc.

Replacement cards drawn can be influenced by one of those stats on a card. So you can decide to expend a card to try and grow your hand rather than move a unit.

Andy Oneiel, while that may be a game the question is how does it help simulation. Now if Monty had a hand and did that it would be a simulation but unless you know more than me he did not. The question was how/if simulation is advanced by cards. Hand building seems to have little relationship to a generals planning.

UshCha,
Andy is talking about a card driven game and they use – cards. They are used for most aspects of the game including activations and generating historical actions that occurred within the timeframe of the game. One of the advantages is some cards represent different strategies and tactics a player can use to perform an action or prevent another players action. Not your cup of tea.

Wolfhag

Much to my amusement and all the helpful posts I may have seen a possibility for the use of cards to assist the player in a simulation. Since we sorted out basics of our "campaign" system, again at odds with what many would call a campaign, we have run into a major planning issue. That of deciding what engineering tasks we would like to carry out in a given timescale vs the allocation of finite resources available. While spread sheets get the job done, even for purists like me it's getting a bit hard to keep track of the issues. Without graphics even grasping the results can be overly time consuming. Now there appears to be a POTETIAL route to simplifying the issue as follows.

1) Nothing to do with cards but rather than generic tasks dig out XX cubic meters of earth. Rationalize the tasks to be more in line with other aspects of the game. For instance
a) Dig in a platoon of 10 infantry elements in Fox holes. Quickly, i.e. faster than the units own resources would permit.
b) Dig in a platoon with 10 fighting positions. Quickly, i.e. faster than the units own resources would permit.
c) Bridge a 20m river with AVLB.
d) Bridge a 20m river using a Bailey bridge capable of taking 70 ton AFVs with a roadway 500m long each side to connect to the road unit.
Now the real list will be a bit bigger but you get the idea. Each will require certain resources, for instance: d) is a sufficiently large and complex tasks that it will require a senior engineering command unit to organize and oversee it, so the number of such tasks would be limited by this resource as other supply issues; In addition it would take a series of trucks to move the road mat and bridging equipment and a blade team to prepare the crossing potentially.
Task b) would require much less kit just an engineering vehicle with a bucket and pre-made trench liners supplied by truck. This would not need a high level of command element to organize.
Now
2) This is where the cards come in; the army would be allocated resources based on the unit's intrinsic resource based on how its engineering resource is allocated in the relevant army. The Brits have limited resource in the TOE at quite low levels, so can execute small tasks immediately, some nationalities do not have as much at low level and must be allocated in advance or request it which takes longer.
These resources would be allocated as cards that would represent elements that can operate independently and how long it takes for them to be allocated if not pre-allocated to a unit
Now as the player decides and allocates his resources (cards) to tasks he can see at a glance what his remaining resources are. Does he commit then all or leave some "cards" to cover contingencies. Now there are ways of doing this as has been note, a spreadsheet is one, but a card system looks to be easier to grasp and does not require the presence of a suitable hardware.
Remember this is campaign scale so few if any of this stuff is present during an actual combat, hopefully it is not being done under fire which would increase timescales greatly and the risk of failure due to loss of equipment would be significant.
At this time it's just an idea, the tasks are just off the top of my head, the accuracy of them is not the issue but the underlying approach, what do you think?

I agree, the approach is important and unless it is a total card decision game how they can compliment the game and bring out actions and events the non-card rules can't.

I think cards have a good place for activating (I dislike that word) units at the Company and above level that could reflect the differences between commanders, and the different command & control limitations between opponents. I would not use them at the 1:1 level.

They are also good for solitaire games. The boardgame "D-Day at Tarawa" by John Butterfield uses a 54 deck of cards in this manner to determine levels of actions and parse the activity. Historical actions and events may or may no happen on the day it historically occurred. If the Japanese commander is still alive their counter-attacks are more frequent and stronger. Dice are not used at all. The cards generate lots of surprise events that were historic and give an ebb and flow to the battles. It's great for a solitaire game.

I'm going to use them as Fate or SNAFU 50 card deck to draw whenever a shot is taken. Most players agree when things go wrong it should happen at the worst time and in a 1:1 scale game that would be when taking a shot. About 5% of the time it would be a negative historical result for the shooter and a roll on the SNAFU Chart, have one or two mechanical breakdown check cards, one or two poor environmental conditions for radio communications, maybe one or two that force the target driver to panic, target crew freezes or buttons up/suppresses.

Another reason for the cards is that right now they are very popular and some good graphics delivers good eye candy. The guys want to do a KS project so something like that is a big plus. Otherwise, I could do without them.

To get a 50 card customized deck via print on demand is about $4.50 USD.

Wolfhag

The card system i outlined can simulate the limited control and resources a commander has in his decision taking process. Arguably in a rather more entertaining manner but less simulationist than some other systems.
Some cards and some stats can have different meanings for some oob.

In reality you have 3 adc available sat there on their horses.
Once you write an order and send an adc off with it then he's going to be gone for some time.
Limited resource.
Might influence when you are best sending orders.

You expend a couple of cards out your hand of 7 but you are only guaranteed one replacement.
Hence you are probably down to 6 cards and less options.
Limited resource.

Simulation can be tricky stuff.

In our computer game i use spatial A* to calculate the best route from commander to unit. This is a complicated process uses a lot of processing cycles and comes up with a specific route and time. That's used internally and the player sees an estimate based on this but skewed by their leadership stat.
If he sends an assault order, the unit should get it at…. He guesses 2:10pm.

On a computer you click and this is calculated. You could do that calculation for a tabletop game but it'd be un fun. Terrain type and elevation change are in the mix.

Similarly, how long will that unit take to get from a to b? This is calculated and warped.

In maurice you use a piece of string to measure the distance an order must be carried. You avoid any units in the way, bendy stright bend.. and measure. This translates to points you must expend out your hand of cards.

I think the term feel is an inappropriate term, rather like Fun it is so generic it can't de defined in any reliable way so is an inappropriate in these discussions.

The term plausible may be more useful.

To be honest both side in this debate seem to me to be emoting rather than having a logical analysis which is what a simulation is about.

UshCha:

If we are emoting rather than being logical, I think it has more to do with untechnical terms and the confusion I see where folks are confuse the designer issues of plausibility with player experiences, including PTSD.

Let's go with your 'plausible' for example. It is as good a term as any if we all agree on the meaning referring to wargame design.

As a designer, I want players to become 'immersed' in the artificial environment as designed because that is where the player and history/reality meet, the history the designer wants experienced.

That means the players have to accept what they experience as 'plausible'…e.g. matches the history and reality claimed to be incorporated in the wargame. If that doesn't happen for whatever reason, the players are 'popped out' of that immersion and become outsiders critiquing the game, not playing it. As you note:
This immediately make suspension in belief impossible unless you are into magic and fantasy and that is certainly not me. Hence as soon as a game is implausible it is useless,…

So, the question is, how do designers design the game play to be 'plausible' for the players?

Players have to recognize the history portrayed and believe it to be 'accurate' or plausible.

There are basically three ways this is done. The hobby designers have chosen to follow these two:

1. The game designer incorporates only that history he believes relates to what is the 'common understanding' or usual recognition level of the population of gamers. It is called designing to the lowest common denominator of historical knowledge. What you get is more of the same-old, same-old level of history, accuracy be damned… It doesn't sell the masses…

2. The designer creates the wargame incorporating the history he is aware of and hopes enough of the players recognize the same history. There is a lot of history out there, so this is sort of the 'lucky shot' approach, regardless of how accurate the history in the wargame. If the players don't see it, too bad. They should. This is the 'players can't appreciate my game unless they learn enough of [my] history.' If they don't, they aren't worth my time.

Those two approaches to designing a player's experience of the plausible are what you see in the hobby. For players, their response to these two approaches to 'plausibility' are 'I don't care about how accurate the history is if it's fun and 'flavorful,' plausibility becoming irrelevant to their game experience. No simulating there. They may try rationalizing after the fact or become 'true believers', following a particular designer as creating 'accurate' simulations.

Or the players are annoyed that they are continually popped out of the game experience because of that lack of plausibility and go design their own game and hang the rest. It is a problem of matching the player's understanding of 'plausibility' to the wargame and/or simulation. They continually hunt for the 'perfect' set of game rules, the one which won't 'pop' them out of the immersion experience.

Most simulation designers concerned with making a simulation game work as designed for all the players, do not follow either approach in providing a satisfactory experience of 'plausibility.'

McLaddie, I feel this post has missed the point.

Point 1. The designer can only cover the data he is aware of. Again Case in point, for our own rules Machine gun performance was a poor representation, we knew that but it was all we could do at the time. Our knowledge was incomplete. However over the next 12 years we came to understand the mechanics of how and where machine gun fire was employed and so improved the model. As to the lowest common denominator designs, who cares, they are of no interest to me and this thread alone indicates simulation is of little interst to some so no useful discourse can be had.

Point 2 Not sure I really could identify with any of it. First it seems to overestinmate the "bottom" standard that exsists see my post previous. There is no doubt in my mind implausibility is very easy to detect and many games fall so far below reasonable analysis they can never be plausible. If players feel such games are plausible allow then such delusions but it does not change the fact there conection with the real world is minimal.

The "lucky Shot" statement again is to me, widely off track. A designer like me is aiming to "delight" a section of the public, not please the majority. Thefore by definition it is targeted only at an likeminded folk.

Takeing "'players can't appreciate my game unless they learn enough of history." I have left out "my" as Field manuals can be called history generally, nor are the laws of physics or geometry "mine" so I did not see the point in such a comment, the only issue is the means, but that is not history and by definition it is My mechanisms but that is a given. This statement in your post seems to have negative conertations which is odd to me. Maneouvere Groups objectives were to provide just such a model IT WAS A DESIGN AIM. In some cases in my professionsl career I have written guidance material. However it was guidance for the professionals in the filed, it was not a replacement for learning the basics elsewhere.

I woild say my game is aimed at those intereed in applying the tactics of the period and is not suitable in its full form for those who only play occationaly. I have come across players with tanks that were pieces of art rather than wargames models, who when invited tp play asked what a Platoon was. Such players are not going to get anything much out our rules unless they took a detailed interst in the period. Quite rightly he decided we were not for him. That is not a negative, it is an anticipated outcome we accepted in the original design criteria.

Point 1. The designer can only cover the data he is aware of.

UshCha:

That is true for every and all wargame and simulation designers. The question is how you square up what the designer has inserted in his design as 'plausible' with what the player is aware of 'as plausible.'

Point 2 Not sure I really could identify with any of it. First it seems to overestinmate the "bottom" standard that exists see my post previous. There is no doubt in my mind implausibility ,is very easy to detect and many games fall so far below reasonable analysis they can never be plausible. If players feel such games are plausible allow then such delusions but it does not change the fact there connection with the real world is minimal.

You believe that it is easy to see the 'implausible' in all games and that those who can't are delusional. How is that different from my saying, "If the players don't see it, too bad. They should. This is the 'players can't appreciate my game unless they learn enough of [my] history.' If they don't, they aren't worth my time."

I seriously question how easy it is to see the implausible in all wargames… true, some are so ahistorical, it is easy, but often I see players 'doubt the plausibility' of a game system or mechanic only to have misinterpreted the purpose and thus the history behind the mechanics. [I've done it several times in judging a wargame mechanic 'implausible.' It is the F&F 'command radius' syndrome I have mentioned before.

You seem to expect all players to have the exact same expertise [have studied the very same sources] and thus see the very same things, or they are delusional. And yes, it is 'hit and miss', unless the designer is capable of identifying all the delusional players before hand, and only let those 'educated' players on the same plausibility wavelength play.

A simulation designer never relies on players' knowledge magically syncing with the designer's for their design to work.

This statement in your post seems to have negative conertations which is odd to me. Maneouvere Groups objectives were to provide just such a model IT WAS A DESIGN AIM. In some cases in my professionsl career I have written guidance material. However it was guidance for the professionals in the filed, it was not a replacement for learning the basics elsewhere.

Ushcha: Why would you have to write guidance material for other professionals with the same knowledge and background?
I am assume the guidance material was simply use instructions.

McLaddie, we do seem to have a dialog of the deaf here so as stated previously let's start with very basic facts. Rather than emoting, unfortunately the base at least for my period is very low.

Let's go as basic as ground scale. Now to me for most games (covering less than say the UK) Euclidian space assumptions are acceptable for the real world. ]

Now that means we set a linear ground scale. That is, the range of weapon X is represented by a length on the table of G. Therefore on this basis a weapon of range 2X is represented by distance 2G; that to me seems reasonable as it mirrors Euclidian space.

Now some games purporting to be simulations assume the range of a weapon can be represented on table in the form G=nLog(X) where n is a constant set by the designer. Hence the range linear distance on table of a weapon fall shorter of the Euclidean range as the distance from the observer (vehicle position) increases.

This in effect represents a space distortion (arguably in time as well). If in the real world we take hedges (even in the Napoleonic period field boundaries were becoming an issue in the UK) spaced approximately uniformly at a standard distance that can be represented by a linear spacing on table in a Euclidian space. Now from in the case of G=nLog(X) scaling from any one hedge the distance to the next hedge varies as a function of the distance from the observers of both hedges. Thus two hedges viewed from say the other end of the table are a great distance apart, but if viewed from one hedge to the next are far closer. Thus the design of the field boundaries varies for all none coincident observers.

This is simple physics. On this basis I would suggest that this is a simple example of implausibility. I would be most interested to see on what grounds you feel that such an issue is plausible? If we cannot find common ground on what I consider so simple an issue then useful dialog may not be possible.

Mc Laddie again it seems a strange comment " I am assume the guidance material was simply use instructions". Doctors and nurses are consumate professions our lives depend on them. However they are not all specialist so as expertise is gained they are issued new giudance material on treatments. Such guidelins are issued on the basis they are qualified doctors and hence assumes a level of compitence and understanding.

This echo's the ethos of Manoeuvre Group it assumes that the player has some basic understanding of the period and tactics or is prepared to learn.

+1 UshCha

B

Now from in the case of G=nLog(X) scaling from any one hedge the distance to the next hedge varies as a function of the distance from the observers of both hedges. Thus two hedges viewed from say the other end of the table are a great distance apart, but if viewed from one hedge to the next are far closer. Thus the design of the field boundaries varies for all none coincident observers.

This is simple physics. On this basis I would suggest that this is a simple example of implausibility. I would be most interested to see on what grounds you feel that such an issue is plausible? If we cannot find common ground on what I consider so simple an issue then useful dialog may not be possible.

UshCha: Here is an example from the Napoleonic wars, but it is applicable for modern combat too. Three games each provide a different maximum range for 6 pounder artillery fire. Only one passes your Euclidian test for 'field boundaries.' Do we then assume the other two are 'implausible'?

However they are not all specialist so as expertise is gained they are issued new guidance material on treatments. Such guidelines are issued on the basis they are qualified doctors and hence assumes a level of competence and understanding.

Exactly. Even trained and qualified doctors with an assumed level of knowledge still need 'guidance'…not being specialists. You don't 'assume' they know. And with such professionals, it is safer to assume, but you know that assumption isn't always justified.

Are you requiring gamers to all have the same level of competence and understanding to yours to play? If so, I can see why you can be disappointed by those who fail to meet your requirements. Those are the delusional ones, right?

This echo's the ethos of Manoeuvre Group it assumes that the player has some basic understanding of the period and tactics or is prepared to learn.

Well, Do you vet all players before they can play, or just 'assume' they are at your knowledge level? If it's the former, you have fairly small numbers playing compared to the wargaming community with that kind of gatekeeping. If it is the latter, you are back to ' the 'lucky shot' approach, both the player and the designer discovering whether their 'assumption' was justified--after the game.

I have not seen this idea that all games can easily be determined 'plausible' or not by the players borne out in my experience over the years or here on the TMP. I often see players wrongly assume what particular game mechanics are designed to represent, concluding they are 'implausible', unrealistic etc.

History and reality is complex. The game mechanics used to represent reality are abstract and often the 1:1 relationships are not self-evident. To insure that players recognize the history the game portrays--which is necessary for any simulation to work-- players need specific guidance.

You do seem to willfully miss understand. I thought it was clear, perhaps not, the discussion on whether ranges are Euclidean or none Euclidean is impausible. That is entirely different to a discussion on which range from the various sources is the correct range. It seems when faced with a "Classic" implausibility you avoid the question. Whichever range you chose of the three sources would be implausible if scaled on a none Euclidean system.

I'm going to quote something UshCha just posted on another forum describing his group:
'Perhaps our little circle is a bit odd that way.'

Perhaps they are. Maybe they are unique. They are not trying to please everyone so with their "take it or leave it" attitude you've been warned. At least they are upfront about it. His merry little band plays a game they like and don't care what other people think. Personally, I respect that.

McLaddie,

A simulation designer never relies on players' knowledge magically syncing with the designer's for their design to work.

I agree, a simulation designer, yes. But a game designer can do whatever he wants to. I think the main goal of a simulation is training, for a game it's entertainment but there is an overlap to one degree or another which is pretty much subjective to the individual. Since it's a "feeling" logic cannot adequately address it.

I'm falling back on my description regarding games and simulations for me:

I design a game that simulates/models/details what I think is historically important to immerse/fool/trick the player into a level of "feeling" that he is experiencing or viewing something that is historically realistic. If the visuals are believable and stimulating and the player can relate to the rules (his level of knowledge) he'll most likely enjoy the game and get some satisfaction out of it and maybe learn something. If he can't relate to it he'll think it's too complicated or unrealistic. You can't please everyone.

No game I know of in our industry is a real simulation that real people or military would rely on to be professionally trained. McLaddies professional one is. Some games are used by the military as a Tactical Decision-making exercise but they will rely more on non-game combat simulators for realistic training.

Some commercial games are recommended by the military because evidently, the game designer modeled parts of the game that are believable enough for them to play. They are played as a form of entertainment or historical recreation more than realistic training.

I designed my game for entertainment value. I could have designed a very data-intensive game using formulas that would give a higher level of historical realism but it would be a boring exercise.

Now the simulations McLaddie developed for the education industry are probably not played as a game or form of entertainment (he'll correct me if I'm wrong), they are designed to train teachers.

I doubt if we are ever going to agree on the game/simulation definition and maybe because there is an overlap and games are played mainly for their entertainment value and simulations are more for professional training. That's my take on it.

My game design goal was to translate the manuals and by using the terminology and nomenclature players would experience a "feeling" of greater realism. It failed. While former infantry and tank crewmen readily recognized the game new people were clueless and needed to be educated. I wanted something that was for everyone so I took a different approach that accomplished the same goals and gameplay without the nomenclature confusion. If they do read the manuals they'll recognize what is happening in the game. They can learn something if they want to.

Now I could have easily taken UshCha's approach and remained a purist and not compromised with a "take it or leave it" attitude. I chose not to. I think every game design has a rule or game mechanic that is "take it or leave it" including mine.

I could use a simple D6 roll for my gunnery rules but chose not to because I wanted to model/simulate the historic Risk-Reward decisions crews needed to make in a combat environment where seconds count. I did start using cards for the gunnery system but it was too messy and the players were not careful with them so I scrapped it.

During playtesting I watched the player's reactions and their faces to see if they were having problems with something. If they were I changed or scrapped it rather than forcing them to play something they did not consider intuitive. Many of my ideas were not playable to others. Now I could have said, "Too bad, take it or leave it" but I choose not to but that does not make me any better than anyone else.

Wolfhag

I think the point is not that we reject folk that do not have the expertise, but that to play the game they need to aquire that expertise, not all of which can be learned from playing the game. While the idea of this seems alien to many in this thread, I find such an apporoach truly starange. If you want to join a football club and play in the main game and you know nothing, you don't learn by playing alone, you learn by training often training more than you play. This is accepted in many amature sports/games as the norm, why is it then taken as almost unacceptable in wargames escapes me.

Sureley taken overall My approach is the overall norm, training and playing is required and expeected and welcomed by all who want to achive an acceptable level of enetertainment

I think the point is not that we reject folk that do not have the expertise, but that to play the game they need to aquire that expertise, not all of which can be learned from playing the game. While the idea of this seems alien to many in this thread, I find such an apporoach truly starange. If you want to join a football club and play in the main game and you know nothing, you don't learn by playing alone, you learn by training often training more than you play. This is accepted in many amature sports/games as the norm, why is it then taken as almost unacceptable in wargames escapes me.

Sureley taken overall My approach is the overall norm, training and playing is required and expeected and welcomed by all who want to achive an acceptable level of enetertainment.

What is interesting is that as the thread very slowly grinds past the emoting at a snails pace, that agreement on even the basics, far even below basic ground scale, but to the very nature of the requirements on the participants is not common. No wounder something so simple as groundscale is beyond agreement.

the discussion on whether ranges are Euclidean or none Euclidean is impausible. That is entirely different to a discussion on which range from the various sources is the correct range. It seems when faced with a "Classic" implausibility you avoid the question. Whichever range you chose of the three sources would be implausible if scaled on a none Euclidean system.

UshCha:
I didn't willfully misunderstand, but I am willing to consider that I did misunderstand. I simply asked a question: if one of three follows the Euclidean parameters you set forth, do we then assume the other two are implausible? I asked the question based on:

Now that means we set a linear ground scale. That is, the range of weapon X is represented by a length on the table of G. Therefore on this basis a weapon of range 2X is represented by distance 2G; that to me seems reasonable as it mirrors Euclidian space.

This in effect represents a space distortion (arguably in time as well).

What did I misunderstand in asking the question?

They are not trying to please everyone so with their "take it or leave it" attitude you've been warned. At least they are upfront about it. His merry little band plays a game they like and don't care what other people think. Personally, I respect that.

Wolfhag: I have no problem with that attitude. However, what that attitude have ensured is that few will experience playing their rules as a simulation. That isn't a criticism, but a technical observation. Suggesting that those who don't see something their way as 'delusional', well that is something else.

As a simulation wargame designer, I am interested in insuring all the work I have put into the system to recreate various realities of war is actually experienced by the players.

If that isn't the interest of the simulation designer, Okay…then obviously players aren't going to experience the simulation history/reality the designer meant to include.

Let me make somethings really, really clear:

Simulations are NOT designed for training, games JUST for entertainment. Simulations are systems designed to mimic reality in some way, many used game mechanics and competitive platforms to do that. Whether that is for entertainment or training is simply how the design is used… NOT some intrinsic quality of simulation design.

It is a choice, not some requirement purpose of the system.

The designer decides how the simulation is used for what purposes. You know very well that simulation games designed for entertainment have been used for training purposes and training simulations have been sold as commercial entertainment.

Our hobby wargames, both tabletop and board games, designed for entertainment have been used for training, and vice versa for decades up to the present. You'd have to be blind to not notice that.

Your wargame rules, Wolfhag, is a simulation game designed for entertainment. You've stated as much. Quibbling over 'how much' of a simulation it is doesn't change that fact.

You can't define games and simulations without taking that into consideration. Games and simulations are not different animals…MOST ALL game and participatory simulation designers see them as aspects of the same kind of system. I gave previous quotes to that effect.

For instance, MIT's intro manual for Simulation and Game design major students says this:

"A Simulations is a procedural representation of aspects of 'reality'…There are many kinds of simulations that are not games. However, all games can be understood as simulations, even very abstract games or games that simulate phenomena not found in the real world.

Chapter Summary, "Games as the PLay of Simulations", p. 457 Rules of Play: Game Design Fundementals

I have designed simulations AND games for education which are entertaining and used simulations designed for entertainment for training and education.

If our tabletop rules systems haven't been used for the military, training and education it is because they are paraphernalia heavy and demand a lot of space compared to computer and board games… that and the face that many of the hobby tabletop game rules touted as simulations are badly designed.

I think the point is not that we reject folk that do not have the expertise, but that to play the game they need to acquire that expertise, not all of which can be learned from playing the game.

Hi UshCha:
You are free and perfectly in your rights to require whatever expertise of players you desire.

While the idea of this seems alien to many in this thread, I find such an approach truly strange. If you want to join a football club and play in the main game and you know nothing, you don't learn by playing alone, you learn by training often training more than you play.

Having played football in high school and college, [Go Lumberjacks!] coached football in high school, I'd say you are in some respects confusing learning the rules of the game, which is done before play with learning to play… which is done through active practice of skills and playing the game.

Training is nothing more than 'playing' aspects of the game, honing skills… So how do they game those skills in playing your game before playing? If they are playing parts or all of the game to develop those skills, then aren't they learning to play the game through play???

You appear to be asking the players to not only know the rules, but be experienced play of your game before they play.

This is accepted in many mature sports/games as the norm, why is it then taken as almost unacceptable in wargames escapes me.

See above. How do players 'practice' playing your game system while not playing it? Even breaking out sub-systems to play for practice is still playing the game.

Surely taken overall My approach is the overall norm, training and playing is required and expected and welcomed by all who want to achieve an acceptable level of entertainment.

I've played For the People over fifty times. Lost far more than I've won. I've learned a lot over those games, honed my 'expertise' as it were. I still find it entertaining, and I'm still learning. What was training and what was playing? If there is a difference, weren't both done by playing the game?

What is interesting is that as the thread very slowly grinds past the emoting at a snails pace, that agreement on even the basics, far even below basic ground scale, but to the very nature of the requirements on the participants is not common. No wounder something so simple as groundscale is beyond agreement.

UshCha:

"Requirements on the participants."

You are free to have any 'requirements on wargamers you want, set the bar low or set it high.

That was never my point. It was:

1. Simulations are designed to provide participants with an experience of history and aspects of reality [for a variety of purposes]

2. For participants to experience the history and reality presented in the wargame/simulation, they have to know what they are specifically simulating…where the relationships are in the mechanics. Just as Wolfhag pointed out with his game…there are some mechanics and game play relationships that simulate and some that don't for ease-of-play… that intuitive aspect. Players need to know which is which to experience what IS provided.

3. Simulations only work when participants know exactly what they are simulating and what are simply 'the game.'
When players don't know those specifics, the simulation does not work FOR THEM, however much the designer thinks it does work.

4. Hobby designers have addressed this technical issue in several ways, most all guaranteeing the simulation aspects of their wargames fail, often wasting a lot of hard work and creating game promotions that are more like gaslighting.

5. UshCha, you appear to have chosen another path, limiting the numbers of players who know the specific simulation points of your rules to only those who are trained and experienced, earning the right….

That is not a criticism. I may not understand what players have to do to experience the full scope of your simulation goals, but it does seem to be something they somehow have to train for and earn through practice.

That's fine. I have simply been pointing out that most all simulation and game designers who are interested in having players experience the history and reality as designed, have chosen another way of insuring that.

Again dialog of the deaf. When a younsgster learns to kick a ball he may know little of the rules of Football, you may have not fporgotedn but I as a Football Hateer have it deeply engrained. To play well you have to learn tactics, some is by play and some is by beind told (learning) and training which is definitely not all playing the game. So no diffrence.

In wargames you want folk tpo play top football immediately, that is never going to happed. To do well they need Practice and get educated elsewhere.

In our simple rules to do well required at least a vauge understanding of command structures and lots of "Practice" not all playing the game. This is LEARNING and so by definition ENTERTAINMENT and SUSTAINED not INSTANT GRATIFICATION. You seem to think 2 quick gams and its all over you have the feel and thats it, not similar to other sports.

Your emphasis on ENTERTAINMENT is very narrow and to be honest wide of the mark. The game certainly to me needs to be in effect TRAINING, ie. understanding some aspects of the nuts and bolts of warfare. Were it not so there would be ZERO ENTERTAINMENT. PS Chess is recognized as a sport, it needs lots of theory and learning to play at expert level. You can play at a low level but you get less of it.

Now my definition of "Perpetual begginer" which I was told was a really not a good definition, now seems to be wholey valid. To me a "Jack of all games, Master of none" to paraphrase a UK sayingis not my idea of ENTERTAINMENT. IT ois not an approach you see in serious sport, which is what Wargames is to me like chess. Long gone are th4e days when folk dabbled in multipkle sports and did well in all of them.

Interesting that this thread is divergeing simulation into reall a discussion of what defines entertainment and even that is proving hard to find common ground.

I see little point in ne quoting user manuals for CFD codes which arew to me at least epitomise a simulation.

trades

In wargames you want folk tpo play top football immediately, that is never going to happed. To do well they need Practice and get educated elsewhere.

You seem to think 2 quick gams and its all over you have the feel and thats it, not similar to other sports.

Your emphasis on ENTERTAINMENT is very narrow and to be honest wide of the mark.

To me a "Jack of all games, Master of none" to paraphrase a UK saying is not my idea of ENTERTAINMENT. IT ois not an approach you see in serious sport, which is what Wargames is to me like chess.

UshCha:

I am at a total loss to understand how you came to those conclusions about 'my ideas', my emphasis, and '2 quick grams' from anything I have written.

I see little point in ne quoting user manuals for CFD codes which arew to me at least epitomise a simulation

Sorry, when and where did I quote user manuals or CFD codes???

UshCha:

In thinking on what you wrote, I think I see where there is a misunderstanding occurring:

When I have been writing about player's awareness of where the wargame is designed to present history, combat, or the present, it is something all players need for the wargame to function as a simulation for the players.

It has little to do with how and when a player becomes expert playing the game. Certainly the player's appreciation for how that reality is represented will grow. The simulation game environment won't provide more history or reality than was first designed into it…and ANY player needs to know where and how much to experience play as a simulation.

I mentioned my experience with For The People as an example of that growing expertise. I can crush most beginners now and want experienced players for any real competition. The amount of history in the game and its simulation value hasn't changed…, only my appreciation for it.

Raph Koster observed in his book A Theory of Fun for Game Design that "Games serve as very fundamental and powerful learning tools." They are puzzles to be solved. As learning is fun, so is learning to play a game.

He also notes that once a game is 'learned', puzzle solved, it becomes boring. Games like For the People have designed in ways of avoiding that puzzle solved boredom by providing 1. several ways to solve the puzzle and 2. chance events so that no two games are the same. Obviously, becoming an expert at a game threatens to solve the puzzle and push it into boredom.

Tabletop wargames have a real advantage here because the playing pieces and terrain never have to be the same, and with a well-designed wargame, only often-played scenarios face the danger of becoming boring.

Again, this has nothing to do with the simulation design requirement for sufficient player knowledge of what history etc. is illustrated by the game system for the players to experience the system as a simulation.