"The Argument in Favor of Historical Wargaming" Topic

All,

REF: The Thread: Renaissance of Historical Wargaming

I didn't want interrupt the original thread, however, after reading the latest series of comments/responses to the Renaissance of Historical Wargaming thread, it appears to me that a little more clarification and explanation is in order to help ensure the purpose, direction and goals of this thread do not unravel before it fully begins.

Thus, I've included some additional information and context that should help you identify and appreciate what I am after.

A. Background Info and Context related to this Topic.

1. Like many of you on TMP, I've noticed the growing trend and move towards simple, subjective wargame designs over the last 25 years.

These NEW subjective wargame designs can be identified by several features like these below:
a) The distortion/abstraction of several existing military terms & concepts such as Initiative (i.e. initiative dice rolls), Command & Control (i.e. Command radius), Command Points, Momentum Points and alike.
b) Lack of firm (i.e. measurable) Time, Ground and Unit scales, ratios and constants.
c) Focus on new/novel game mechanics
d) No historical design accountability.

My main complaint and argument against this new design approach is simple. Why Bother! Because playing these types of wargames does little or nothing to advance my understanding of warfare, the key aspects of Battle or the roles, responsibilities and mission of the Commander (i.e. and the Players). AND!,..the inability to assess or benefit from "This type of wargame design and playing experience. Because it cannot be compared and contrasted to the actual historical experience.

2. You Can't Fight City Hall. For decades I've noted that attempts to re-look and/or restore 'historical accountability to the wargame design premise' has usually been met with derision and ridicule. My response to that problem is to:
a) Define Historical Wargaming.
b) Establish Historical Wargame terminology, the players and its salient features & functions.
c) Identify/Assess Historical Wargame Design standards.

3. Now that I have retired, I'm willing to challenge the conventional wargame design 'wisdom & paradigms' and fight for the sanctity of "Historical Wargaming" as something more than the "Flavor or Fad of the Month Mechanic" design approaches that are common place today.

Know that I am tolerant of any wargame design and 'Fun is an acceptable design feature.' However, this doesn't give these subjective wargame designer's 'Carte Blanc' to do whatever they want and then make the claim that they have "Captured the Historical Command/Battle/Experience,…(i.e. somehow)?"

4. History is 'the study of or a record of past events considered together, especially events of a particular period, country, or subject.'

Which is the main purpose and intent behind identifying those five (5) topic areas I posted in the original message. That is:
a) Categorize battlefield functions by their classification as either ART or SCIENCE.
- 'Science' functions are immediately Quantifiable.
- 'Art' function will need to be qualified, before they can be quantified.
b) The use of "Noted Historical Personality" in my 2nd posting is intended to provide you with "the contemporary historical opinion on Art vs. Science, to aid you in formulating Your own position.
c) The "Major Payoff" in doing this classification is that it "Clearly identifies what 'DISCIPLINE' (i.e. Art or Science) that will be used to assess and evaluate those functions for their historical conformity. Example: If someone like von Clausewitz says a battlefield function is 'Science', how can some would be wargame designer deviate from this premise?

5. There are actually three (3) Major Players that are directly involved in the 'Historical Wargame Design' arena. They are:
a) Historians (possess at least one BA/MA history degrees)
b) Analyst (possess at least one BS/MS degrees)
c) Military Officers & Senior NCOs (can possess any BA, BS, MA or MS degrees to receive their commission/appointment)

I'm NOT a DEGREE snob! The purpose here is to show that each of these Players had to meet the Requirements & Standards of their particular professional DISCIPLINE.

I have 'NO Problem' accepting/endorsing the work of any person's contribution to Historical Wargaming, as long as they adhere to (recognizable) standards of the overarching profession of their work.

With that in mind, you can see from the table below how a particular profession may not possess all the skills, knowledge and experience (as defined by the BA & BS degree description/explanations) to legitimately evaluate battlefield functions that are NOT in their primary academic lanes (i.e. Art or Science). Additionally, these professional classifications tend limit their focus and appreciation for knowledge, experience and skills that fall outside of their own Perspectives.

Players: Art Science Wargaming

Historians: X -- ?*

Analyst -- X X

Military X X ?*

* Note: * Indicates that these players do not always have any direct interest, knowledge, skills or impact on wargame design.

Here's two (2) excerpts from noted wargame and historical authorities that will help me highlight the significance of this table above and the underlying issues.

Excerpt #1: Dr. Peter Perla in his book "The Art of Wargaming" states at the beginning of Chapter 5 that: "It is important to make one thing clear at the very start; designing a wargame is an art, not a science. Experienced military officers, practiced operations research analysts, and accomplished computer programmers are not necessarily capable of designing useful wargames. Although some or all of the knowledge and skills of such people are important tools for a wargame designer to possess, the nature of game design requires a unique blending of talents. Wargaming is an act of communication. Designing a wargame is more akin in writing an historical novel than proving an algebraic theorem."

Excerpt #2: Paddy Griffith via "Battle Tactics of the Civil War, Appendix 1", has this to say about this topic: "The true tactical historian is such a rare and little known animal, even among military historians, that it may be worth while to pause for a moment to consider his role and methods of working."

He goes on to state: "In quite recent times, however, we have seen a new strain of writers emerging from this genre and posing a more direct challenge to traditional tactical history. Let us call the new breed 'compassionate military historians' – writers who have no time for mathematical hocus-pocus, simulation theory of military manuals of any sort, but who none the less purport to be practitioners of the science of tactical history. Such writers tend to be longer on inspired generalization and empathy for doomed youth than they are on careful study of the sources."

Finally, I am perfectly aware of the extent of the skepticism that will surround and follow anyone making claims such as I have done.

I'd rather deal with this skepticism "upfront" now, than wait to have it 'bite me in the ar*e' down the road when I due actually publish my work.

Thus, what you are witnessing here on this Renaissance of Historical Wargaming thread is the socialization of the nature of the argument that I planned to make to any and all the 'neigh sayers' out there. ;^)

I look upon the TMP community as members of the Wargame jury (and as potential witnesses, either for or against my case).

Hopefully, these comments above will help to clear up a few more questions and issues pertaining to the purpose of this thread and what I expect to gain from your own involvement.

Regards,..James

P.S. FYI. I'll be role playing Perry Mason in this proceeding hearing/trial. ;^)

All,

Clarification!

This table below:

Players: Art Science Wargaming

Historians: X -- ?*

Analyst -- X X

Military X X ?*

Should show the knowledge and skill sets associated to each of these three Players.

Thus, Historian should have an 'X' under the ART column, to indicate that Historians have a minimum BA in History and that they rarely have additional 'block checks in Science & Wargaming.

Same thing is true for the Analysts. Primarily a Science degree and unknown values in ART or Wargaming

The Military is the exception here. Because they can have just about any college Bachelor degree to get their commission. However, this doesn't stop the military from OJT'ing or acquiring additional degrees in ART-SCIENCE-WARGAMING to satisfy a job or mission requirment.

Like many of you on TMP, I've noticed the growing trend and move towards simple, subjective wargame designs over the last 25 years.

These NEW subjective wargame designs can be identified by several features like these below:
a) The distortion/abstraction of several existing military terms & concepts such as Initiative (i.e. initiative dice rolls), Command & Control (i.e. Command radius), Command Points, Momentum Points and alike.
b) Lack of firm (i.e. measurable) Time, Ground and Unit scales, ratios and constants.
c) Focus on new/novel game mechanics
d) No historical design accountability.

I disagree with your premises. The problem was not only that many of the rules in use over 25 years ago didn't give fun games, but they didn't achieve the levels of historical fidelity you were after. The abandonment of firm time, ground and unit scales, ratios and constants was as much because they couldn't generate the historical outcomes from those starting points, as because of the headaches they gave. They were less accurate, a lot less accurate, than the vaguer rules often in use now.

Dude, you really need a hobby. Seriously. Maybe try reading through the Code of Federal Regulations – backwards.

Historical miniatures is supposed to be fun. Not pulling teeth – from a very large and very angry alligator. It is, always has been, always will be, nothing more than a game and any resemblance to reality must be coincidental to having a good time.

Whirlwind is so right – those throw back games you seem to be advocating going back to were a chore to 'play' and that is why there are now so many simpler rules – which are a LOT more fun to play. Let the dead 'rules' rest in peace.

We are Playing with TOY soldiers. We are seeking to be childlike – not childish – and history is just the background we play with.

Don't get me wrong, I love reading the history but in no way, shape or form, to I want to re-create war. It is brutality at its worst. You learn that from reading about it enough. And, yes, I served, US Navy but thankfully no combat.

I want some pleasant camaraderie, a fun game, and maybe some discussion of history. And then do it all again next time. And between times the meditative relaxation of painting figures (others will definitely disagree with that!).

I see little point in getting a squaddy's input on an historical naval wargame or on a wargame based in most medieval and ancient times. It is a fallacy to assume that experience of command in recent times fits you for comment on command in earlier times.

Plenty of non scientific studies involve analysis, particularly non-quantitative analysis – which is vital in the study of any human behaviour. Psychology & management studies spring to mind as possible examples.

This is a hobby, not a career, to most wargamers and I doubt that you will find this approach taken very seriously but them. I don't, for one minute, doubt your sincerity or enthusiasm (both laudable traits) but this idea has been postulated in the past and it got nowhere.

Terminology is one obvious hurdle. Get three wargamers in a room and you'll have at least 4 definitions of the same term – and that on a good day !!

I certainly wish you luck but do add a very good proof-reader to your team – that, in my opinion, is the one person that is vital to any set of wargaming rules.

You take gaming way too seriously. The purpose of a game is to have fun. It is a game. If fun to you is a pile of tables, charts, and a protractor, have at it. If someone else uses six sided dice and rules written on a 3x5 card, good for them. One's experience is not more valuable than the other.

BB – you don't need to insult people to tell them you don't agree with them.

You obviously don't feel the need for what is proposed but not everybody is happy to just play with toy soldiers. Many of us would like a bit more 'meat' in our games and a greater adherence to historical exemplars.

Personally I don't think the methodology outlined above will actually produce what is intended but the problem/issue is out there. Even if you are happy with current rules, plenty of others are not.

Isn't one of the fundamental issues that battlefield commanders (real, fictional or gamer) have to deal with is uncertainty? We can't take a bunch of variables and plug them into a spreadsheet and accurately predict the winner of a particular battle. There is always a chance of flukes.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that a reliance on minutia, details, ratios, fixed time scales, fixed ground scales, etc, still might not lead to an accurate representation of a battle. More abstract rules might be better able to focus on specific aspects of a historical battle.

I for one welcome our new overlord.

Be safe and have fun as you will.

Our hobby is a broad church and what is fun to one gamer is not fun to another. If you want, what you consider, a super historical set of rules written by a historian with help from an accountant I'm not going to judge. If it's fun to you that's all that should matter.

I would say however don't make the mistake of thinking that your particular brand of "fun" appeals to everyone else. I don't look back on the historical rulesets of my early gaming days with any fondness. Give me a nice simple set of rules to allow me to push my nicely painted model soldiers around my nicely modelled gaming table any day.

No game is historically accurate. No matter how painstaking your research and setup, history ends with the first die roll. But if there is no variance, why bother. Just set up a display.

Interpreting historical events into game mechanics itself is very subjective. You can play all of WWII with a single d6 roll. Roll 1d6 and the Allies win no matter the die score. Was it accurate?

You want an historically accurate game:
1) Plan your event at your local game store.
2) Put all your stuff in a pack and walk 20 miles to said game store or at least until the sweat runs down the crack of tail.
3) set your game up.
4) go to the shelf and pick out a new set of rules and use that instead of what you planned.
5) Take a 10 minute break to drink some warm water and a can of cold noodle something.
6) Wait for your opponent. Who won't show up or who will bring some friends you didn't plan for.
7) Argue for about 30 minutes.
8) pack everything up.
9) go sleep on the sidewalk.
10) Return to step 1.

I teach history to high school students and have for 31 years. I love it. Out of the 130 (on average) of the students that I have each year I am lucky if I get one or two that really love history. Most claim to find history "boring". Why? There are many reasons given by the students, because I have actually taken class time to discuss this viewpoint every year. The most common reason given by my students (and there are many) is the teacher and their presentation of the subject is boring! My point? Games need to be fun or else why play them. History SHOULD be a really fun topic for students just as games should be really fun to play. Not work. I believe that games can be BOTH historical and fun. Note that every era of historical gaming has multiple rulesets. Find one that you like. Or design your own. But most importantly make it fun. Solo gaming might be your best outlet in this hobby if you like really complex rules and long games.

Learn the meaning of the following acronyms:
YMMV
YFMV
PWYWTP
Recognize that these are true.

And then carry on with your preference and your argument for the game you prefer— but maybe stop trying to tell everyone else "You're playing it wrong." Because we aren't.

Wow…um…

Can you provide a TL:DR snip of this…

I would just add -

Wargames run the gambit from Simple to Complex – More focus to gaming and fun factor to simulations – solo play to rooms of players – focus at the skirmish to global levels – matrixed games, charts dice etc

There is room under the tent for all of us

Personally I dont enjoy some of the "fun" games coming out – but they have their place – but enjoy others of the newer publications

I look forward to seeing what you come up with as innovations should always have a role in gaming

I'm not sure what the issue is here. If you don't like some current rules, then don't play them. If you prefer to play older rules (although some of those bottom up designs creaked like crazy in the wind), play those instead.

Trying to convince other wargamers that they are playing wargames incorrectly isn't going to get anywhere though, as it is a hobby and not a job.

I also have a preference for reasonably historically accurate ground scales, unit representations, command levels etc but I also like pushing my vast collection of toy soldiers around and to have a laugh. So I mainly write my own rules (or modify other peoples) to satisfy those conflicting requirements. Friction and uncertainty at various command levels is one of the hardest things to deal with in a game, and I'm happy to try any number of crazy mechanism to simulate that.

We always write our own rules for every period we play. Simple rules with the flavor of the period. We have loads of fun. 12 to 15 gamers from 15yrs old to 74 all gather together and enjoy playing with toy soldiers. I love painting them and also setting up the battlefields. Can't get much better then that for me.

Martin +1

Why are you all so violently trashing this poor guy's attempts to state his goal and purpose ? Many of you obviously haven't read the text of his epistles very carefully as many of you grossly misinterpret his intentions.

OK, you are happy with what you have at the moment – why even bother commenting if that is the case, this thread is obviously of no interest to you. He isn't telling you to do anything or that you are doing it wrong at the moment (read it a bit more carefully and you will see that).

I don't agree with some of what he says & I doubt that he will get very far but the level of rudeness in some posts here is ridiculous and totally uncalled for.

To the OP.
If you're writing a book, don't worry about my input. I won't be buying it.

Dear Lord.
He's demanding "accountability".

Hello James,

Blutarski here:
> Reader of military history since the age of six;
> Historical miniature gamer since 1970;
> Writer of historical sim rules since the early 70s.
> Still reading.
> Still learning.

Normally I would be jumping into this discussion with both feet. But the agenda, as outlined, is so prodigiously vast that a RAND Corporation report could not do it real justice. The motives that attract people to this hobby/pastime/compulsion vary widely and defy easy classification or lines of demarcation. Separate and distinct from the motivations of the "end-user community" is the (IMO) cynical mass commercialization and marketing of wargaming by firms such as GDW and Osprey – leading lights in reducing wargaming to the lowest possible common intellectual denominator.

One suggestion towards proper identification of a "historical wargamer":
> Ask how many reference books he owns.

One suggestion for refining the analysis:
> Don't assume that a claimed pursuit of "fun" necessarily disqualifies a person as a serious historical wargamer. Ask the respondent to define the meaning of "fun" in the context of pursuing his wargaming pastime. The term "fun" can have many different facets of meaning.

B

I do love it when someone tells me how I should play with my toy soldiers.

Do what you will. If people buy what you're selling, you'll set a trend and people will clamor for more. If not, and here is the part you should pay attention to, you should accept it and move on.

I wish you well. Your premise sounds both tedious and too much like work to me. But that is my own preference. There are professional war games conducted by militaries and academics. Perhaps you would find more interest and success there?

However please be accepting of other players' motivations and expectations for historical wargaming if you expect them to accept yours. You'll get more buy in that way.

One suggestion towards proper identification of a "historical wargamer":
> Ask how many reference books he owns.

And how many of those are more than 25 years old? (Nearly all of mine!)

I have always told people that to actually get a simulation here is what is required.
1.Must play outside in any weather
2.Cannot come and go from gaming table for months on
end
3.In the event of any adverse factors a gamers fingers must be smashed with a hammer to simulate pain and suffering.
4. Your toys must be smashed with said hammer simulating permanent and finicial loss.
5. After a series of terrible dice roles you are taken prisoner, possibly mistreated and not allowed to go home until the outcome is determined.
6.Not be fed proper nutrition.
7.You do not actually "know" the "rules"
8.a factor determined in some fashion where you actually get killed.

Many, many others to numerous to mention.
It is a game.
USMC Veteran, 17 months in Vietnam.

Russ Dunaway

Hi Russ,
I prefer to participate in simulations conducted at a higher echelon of command -
> air-conditioned command trailer
> retinue of staff officers, senior non-coms, clerks and typists to handle the mundane tasks like taking your dress uniform to the dry cleaner and handling public relations.
> officers' club a few short steps away.
> well-guarded apartment with full housekeeping services.
> periodic invitations to the embassy.
> full air travel privileges regardless of destination.
> a six month command rotation.
> free medals and decorations.

No joke or deprecation intended. Fellows like you got the short end of stick both coming and going. I'm thankful for every one of you who made it home OK and still very sad indeed for those who didn't make it home (including one or two of my friends).

No, I didn't go. Was drafted, then booted at the physical for chronic hypertension.

B

Saber6 wrote -
"And how many of those are more than 25 years old? (Nearly all of mine!)"

The very great majority of mine are as well. But there has been some great scholarship published in the past twenty years covering my principal period of interest (naval history). I'm buying about a dozen newly published books a year.

B

Blutarski, how does over 50 linear feet of historical reference books stack up? And not all of them older than 25 years but some quite a bit older than that.

And it all started with the American Heritage book on the American Civil War and those battle illustrations. That kid spent hours and hours pouring over those images, the much younger me did. ; )

Hi BB.
An impressive collection indeed! Not looking to brag here, but I'm up to 150ft of filled shelves.

My earliest exposure to military history was reading "Guadalcanal Diary", "Zoomies, Subs, and Zeroes" from the library. Then I found and inhaled by father's (WW2 tin can sailor) copy of Theodore Roscoe's "US Destroyer Operations in WW2"; I still have that book.

I think the oldest books in my collection are a two-volume set of Allen's "Battles of the British Navy – 1852 edition, ex libris, in beautiful condition (it pays to have a professional librarian in the family). Also a bunch of books and govt publications from the 1850s through the 1930s related to the ACW and WW1. Then WW2 and Vietnam as well.

I think the rarest book I have is the ALVF Exterior Ballistic Tables, printed in very limited quantities by the US govt in 1918; I have been told by a well-known military history author/researcher that he knows of only five or six copies and they are all in US government reference libraries; he couldn't believe I had one "outside of captivity". It is possible to find these odd sorts of things when old MIT professors finally go on permanent heavenly sabbatical and disposal of their personal libraries is entrusted to an old antiquarian bookseller whose shop I was visiting religiously every Saturday rain or shine when I was young.

I love my books and I'm proud of my collection, but I'm going to shut up now, because it is starting to sound too much like unseemly bragging. And this sort of stuff is not supposed to be a competition

Keep looking and collecting for yourself. Best of Luck!

B

Looking forward to seeing this thread develop, particularly since I thoroughly enjoyed this precedent:

TMP link

In which case, this post from 2015 has proven entirely prescient:

Oh please. Write your own magnum opus set of rules based on your oh so enlightened understanding of the period and publish it instead of bothering us with the tiresome navel gazing.

I never knew there was an argument for or against, other than perhaps a financial and time sink one (the latter to be thought of decades after starting off in the hobby).

The problem I see is if you want a truly historical recreation of history that requires the discarding of miniatures and wargames tables. Traditional wargames using toy soldiers on a table immediately give the player a view that just wasn't available to historical commanders and effects the decision making of the players in ways historical commanders just wouldn't be able to make. If you take away the miniatures and the table though it isn't really a wargame for me.

I'm attempting to point out to you that a Wargame on its own 'IS NOT' automatically considered "Historical", unless the Game Designer is willing to Quantify and/or Qualify the connection. That explanation comes with the territory when they allude to "Historical". It's NOT a freebie.

Without any doubt, the majority of the current Game Designers would prefer to allude to a connection, then demonstrate there is one with their products.

Many of you have stated that it makes no difference to you. Fine and well, have Fun playing the Games you enjoy.

However, that answer simply indicates to me that You are 'NOT' Historical Wargamers. If You were than the History would matter and make a difference to you,…Clear enough?

If the OP's own 2015 statement is anything to go by (gotta love the idiosyncratic capitalisations!), researching orders of battle, unit compositions, uniform details, and accounts of battles do not qualify as historical wargaming unless the ruleset you use mimic the simulations used by professional militaries.

I am not quite sure why you are announcing your intentions ahead of having anything to show?

Surely it is better to work quietly away on your new rules and then put them out for alpha/beta testing and comment as most people do.

All this hyperbole and discussion is just setting you up for failure…

Mike

FWIW some of the worst wargamers I've come across have been military officers, historians and analysts. Of course some of the best have come from those communities as well, but having those credentials is not an assurance of "quality"

Realism needed?

Personally, I think if the game makes you bleed you are doing something wrong.

I don't know a set of rules that puts you under pressure during the decision process by throwing randomly timed spears or canon balls at you might be fun.

Maybe we could realistically create the fog of war by filling the wargames room with black powder smoke?

One idea for realism is each time you lose a unit your opponent gets to zap you with a cattle prod.

Wolfhag

Whirlwind wrote:

The problem was not only that many of the rules in use over 25 years ago didn't give fun games, but they didn't achieve the levels of historical fidelity you were after. The abandonment of firm time, ground and unit scales, ratios and constants was as much because they couldn't generate the historical outcomes from those starting points, as because of the headaches they gave. They were less accurate, a lot less accurate, than the vaguer rules often in use now.

Spot. On.

Analsim,
As you can see, not everyone is going to agree with your definitions. I think you, as the designer, need to define terms within the confines of the game knowing ahead not everyone will agree.

Just like developing any new product, you should survey your potential customer base. Ask them what features they would like to see and the level of detail on a 1-10 scale.

Clearly state your design goal and how you've accomplished it. People should judge the game based on your success at accomplishing your goals and not what other people "thought" they should be. You are not going to please everyone so don't try to.

Wolfhag

I keep coming back to this.

2. You Can't Fight City Hall. For decades I've noted that attempts to re-look and/or restore 'historical accountability to the wargame design premise' has usually been met with derision and ridicule. My response to that problem is to:
a) Define Historical Wargaming.
b) Establish Historical Wargame terminology, the players and its salient features & functions.
c) Identify/Assess Historical Wargame Design standards.

Suppose you succeed in defining historical wargaming. And you succeed in establishing historical Wargame terminology, etc etc etc.
Okay. So what? You've defined and established and so on. Who is obligated to agree with you?

John the OFM,
You bring up some good points.

No one is "obligated" to agree with anyone, unless of course you want to play the game.

Personally, I don't think any one person can define historical war gaming. I think it is defined overall by the players and what they are playing. That's just me, feel free to disagree.

I take my definitions from from the military technical and training manuals. If someone says they are wrong I point them to the author.

I think any game designer, including me, thinks he's a know it all to a large degree or he wouldn't be telling players what they should be playing. You need to have a thick skin, especially on TMP where just about everyone is an amateur game designer.

I've gotten some of my best ideas from play testing with new players. A causal bystander at a convention made a recommendation on a game mechanic that had me stumped for 6 months. Most of my "great ideas" wound up in the delete file. My viewpoint and approach is different but I can tweak it to make it work for everyone.

For me the bottom line is the game needs to be fun. That for me means interactive, intuitive with a minimum of abstracted rules, multiple player decision points, unexpected occurrences, some way to outfox your opponent, mislead, deception and realistic Fog of War (not just random events).

Designing for Cause vs. Designing for Effect in Historical Games
link

Wolfhag

So, only people with degrees are (allowed?) to design games? Fine, then I'll include myself in that category, as I have a self-taught degree in BS… ;-)

To be honest this thread is sickening, many of the responses are pathetic, and anti social. If you do not want a historical simulation and this includes those who have not had the decency to get a basic grip on what a simulation is killing folk to get the stress level right is a typical response from the willingly ignorant, should think first before replying.

I have to agree with the author that many of the old games did fail to make the most playable simulations. However they were at the time attempting to be simulations. As was said by the OP newer games sacrificed that for faster but less credible games.

One key feature not included in the original OP's comments is the requirement for enthusiasm/capability of the player to "invest" in a period. You only get out what you put in. We use our war games to gain an understanding of history. We do not even pro-port to be accurate (whatever that means) however my aerospace background which rely's heavily on simulation to get somewhere close in some areas. However you need time and a lot of reading and post game analysis to understand if the model was inaccurate or just you are a poor general. This takes time and interest. If you play 10 diff rent periods a year you are going to have a diffrent view on what is interesting and historical.

The unexpected does happen but much is predictable.
If wars were as random as some seem to believe why did successful commanders have a massive general staff spending so much time organizing food and water if its all just random.

Interestingly we have been playing more complex high level games. On point that has proved interesting is it generates situations which if viewed from below are random. However at a top level they are predictable outcomes of other events not controlled by the lower level. An example is an attack on a force may be seen as random from below. The higher command element will know from the lie of the land what the practical options of the enemy are in most cases. So will expect the attack in one of a number of positions. Both generals if worth there salt will apply game theory so that, which attack is chosen cannot be directly predicated. They may try subterfuge but that is not random that is the art and science of war. Random does occur in the real world but less so in my experience than some gamer's would like/appear to believe.

Formations and attack patterns were based on experience that they enhanced the likelihood of success.

Another example is the disregard in some more modern games of a linear range function. This eliminates the reality of time and space, invalidates maps and destroys the underlying logic of a formation. Now if your intent is simply to have lighthearted fun, with little thought, care nothing for relating it by to the documentation and accounts you have read then that's fine. However to me that is not fun just tedious die rolling for no gain.

I applaud the OP it could prove an interesting thread.
There is room for both approaches and if simulation is of no interest I would suggest you start you own thread on something you coud usefully contibute too.

To quote Larry Gatlin in the Ken Burns documentary on Country Music, "All those words appear in the dictionary, but nobody ever put them together in that order before."

Indeed.

To be honest this thread is sickening, many of the responses are pathetic, and anti social. If you do not want a historical simulation and this includes those who have not had the decency to get a basic grip on what a simulation is killing folk to get the stress level right is a typical response from the willingly ignorant, should think first before replying.

Well UshCha, the OP did write:

Finally, I am perfectly aware of the extent of the skepticism that will surround and follow anyone making claims such as I have done.

I'd rather deal with this skepticism "upfront" now, than wait to have it 'bite me in the ar*e' down the road when I due actually publish my work.

Thus, what you are witnessing here on this Renaissance of Historical Wargaming thread is the socialization of the nature of the argument that I planned to make to any and all the 'neigh sayers' out there. ;^)

So I don't think you need to outraged on his behalf since he literally asked for this.

I have to agree with the author that many of the old games did fail to make the most playable simulations. However they were at the time attempting to be simulations. As was said by the OP newer games sacrificed that for faster but less credible games.

Well some were, some weren't. But the overall thrust of your argument is false. Those 'newer games' did not necessarily sacrifice the attempt to be simulations for faster but less credible games. Phil Barker's DBx series (everything from DBA to The Sharp End) was explicitly claimed by the author to be both faster and more credible . I don't think that the TooFatLardies would concede for one moment that their La Feu Sacre was less credible than Bruce Quarrie's rules or Empire. And they would be correct to do so, since you can replicate Waterloo with LFS, and you can't with the Quarrie rules, because the time scale of the latter allied to the casualty rates make it impossible.

One key feature not included in the original OP's comments is the requirement for enthusiasm/capability of the player to "invest" in a period. You only get out what you put in. We use our war games to gain an understanding of history. We do not even pro-port to be accurate (whatever that means) however my aerospace background which rely's heavily on simulation to get somewhere close in some areas. However you need time and a lot of reading and post game analysis to understand if the model was inaccurate or just you are a poor general. This takes time and interest. If you play 10 diff rent periods a year you are going to have a diffrent view on what is interesting and historical.

You want the combat model implicit in your rules to teach you and your players about real warfare. That implies a really unwarranted level of confidence in your combat model in the terms you are suggesting, unless you have solved the 'base of sand' problem for your period and are so confident in that then you haven't sent anywhere for peer review. I would be surprised. You say yourself say that you can't be accurate…in that case, what precisely are you learning?

You can do it a bit the other way around, as in you can use historical knowledge to critique a game's combat model, mainly where the phenomenon is possible/impossible. You could do it for individual bits of your combat model (e.g. testing your game shooting accuracy versus the combat data, assuming you have adjusted correctly for environment)…but unless you have really good historical data, then you probably aren't doing this either. Unless you have a really good statistical analysis of reality (these are vanishingly rare) then you are back to using broad impressions as the basic for your critique – so no better than these 'new school' rules writers.

The unexpected does happen but much is predictable.
If wars were as random as some seem to believe why did successful commanders have a massive general staff spending so much time organizing food and water if its all just random.

This is…weird. I haven't read anyone defend randomness in this way, but okay. Since you have brought it up, then you can tell us what level of randomness exists in warfare. Do let us know if and how it varies by level and period of warfare. I am not sure where to begin with the last sentence. Firstly, not all successful commanders did have a massive general staff and it isn't clear that the 'mass' of a general staff contributes linearly to military effectiveness; but more than that, the reason for large staffs doing administrative and logistic things, is that military administration and logistics are hard. Fine if you are interested in strategic simulations, reasonably irrelevant to most understandings of 'wargames'.

Interestingly we have been playing more complex high level games. On point that has proved interesting is it generates situations which if viewed from below are random. However at a top level they are predictable outcomes of other events not controlled by the lower level. An example is an attack on a force may be seen as random from below. The higher command element will know from the lie of the land what the practical options of the enemy are in most cases. So will expect the attack in one of a number of positions. Both generals if worth there salt will apply game theory so that, which attack is chosen cannot be directly predicated. They may try subterfuge but that is not random that is the art and science of war. Random does occur in the real world but less so in my experience than some gamer's would like/appear to believe.

Again, you are the first person to bring it up and even then it is extremely arguable whether randomness is more perceived at lower levels than higher levels…but how much randomness and chance? Which existing rulesets have the correct amount of chance and which don't?

Formations and attack patterns were based on experience that they enhanced the likelihood of success.

Well, not necessarily at all. They are sometimes based on theoretical models, or based on other armies' experiences; and they might or might not contribute to success. In many cases, we simply do not know how much a given formation contributed to success in given circumstances.

Another example is the disregard in some more modern games of a linear range function. This eliminates the reality of time and space, invalidates maps and destroys the underlying logic of a formation. Now if your intent is simply to have lighthearted fun, with little thought, care nothing for relating it by to the documentation and accounts you have read then that's fine. However to me that is not fun just tedious die rolling for no gain.

Fair enough, although there are examples of logarithmic (or just plain wonky) ranges in rulesets older than 25 years, and there are examples of newer rules with strict-ish ground ranges. However, not one set of old rules AFAIK managed to make its accurate time and ground scales marry up to make an engagement last anywhere near the time scale. You can't make Waterloo last 10 hours or so, you can't make Long Tan last for hours and hours. Actually, I row back from Waterloo a bit – you can if you play Kriegspiel.

(Edit: Apologies to Whirlwind – This isn't in reply to you – I was slow typing and you sneaked in!)

I think the word 'fun' must be the most misused and largely irrelevant one in all these discussions (not just this thread) about designing wargames.

I would suggest no-one goes out of their way to design a game that doesn't deliver 'fun'. Of course everyone derives fun from different things.

Some gamers get their fun from the pretty uniforms. Some from terrain they believe looks like the 'real thing'. Some from simple, speedy mechanisms regardless of the relationship to how a real battle would go.

Some like to get certain elements of the game to recreate aspects of combat as closely as possible (without the violence and risk of death).

That caveat does not invalidate the concept of simulation – we are simulating parts of the experience not the whole – we know that – but that doesn't mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater and abandoning scale, attempts at realistic weapons effects or morale.

Games that deliver on those can deliver 'fun' in buckets.

I suspect the OP is probably seeking a game that is a little too detailed for my taste, but if he and others derive fun from it what does it matter to others?

Fun is where you find it and no-one has a monopoly of what provides it. So let's stop trying to place fun in opposition to a desire for more accurate games. It isn't.

Are those words in a new order John?

Hardly – this conversation was had thirty odd years ago (at least). I don't see the use of the word 'fun' is any more helpful now in defining what we search for in different game designs than it was in the early 80s.

TMP Constituents,

If you could find it in your hearts, forgive me for the 'Shot Gun Blast' approach I have been using to start and support this thread over the last couple of days.

My reasons for doing this are two (2) fold:
1) Over the weekend, I have contracted one of those 'water bucket' type head colds, that has me dropping Sudafed pills by the box and NyQuil by the bottle for the last 3-4 days. I still feel like Cr*p!, but I'm trying not to keep you hanging for too long.

2) I've also been around these Wargame Websites long enough to know that it is often better to do a "Data/Info Dump" rather then trying to entertain and/or appease all the 'ankle biters', that frequent these forums. It's just easier to ignore them. ;^) ;^)

Notwithstanding, I encourage anyone who is actually interested in "Historical Wargame Design" to keep the faith and weather the present disruptions. It will be worth your while in the long run.

SPOILER ALERT!
Back in December 2020, I provided several professional (DOD & Civilians) colleagues of mine (i.e. military analysts and historians) with an Executive Summary of this projects goals and objectives. With the intent on having them review & comment on my findings later on.

SO!, "I'm already on the Hook to Produce Something or suffer the professional consequences." :^(
Not to mention the shame I'll face showing my face here on TMP! ;^)

I'm perfectly comfortable in doing this because, in addition to the educational 'check the box' credentials I possess, I am a recognized US Army expert on the design and uses of 'Live-Constructive Sim. & Modeling' (per the Commanding General of the Armaments Research, Development and Engineering Center – ARDEC) and also possess a 'Black Belt' Certification in Statistical Process Control and Analysis.

Over my career I have designed and executed several Tactical Dirty Battlefield and Engagement Tests and Experiments. The last of which was used exclusively to overturn the findings from this DOD Rand Report: "Rapid Force Projection Technologies", 'A Quick-Look Analysis of Advanced Light Indirect Fire Systems.' published in 1997.

Thus, I want you all to know that I sincerely welcome any feedback/criticism that YOU care to make, now and down the road.

I am motivated by this premise:
'It is a common observation, and a true one, that practical qualities in a soldier are more important than a knowledge of theory. But this truth has often been made the excuse for indolence and indifference, which except in rare and gifted individuals, destroys practical efficiency.

It is also true that, other things being equal, the officer who keeps his mind alert by intelligent exercise, and who systematically studies the reasons of actions and the materials and conditions and difficulties with which he may have to deal, will be the stronger practical man and the better soldier.' – Eliha Root, 1903

Thus, "Light eliminates Darkness and Information is the ultimate Power!!"

Regards,

James

P.S. Don't hesitate to contact me 'Off Line', as many of you have already chosen to do so far. I enjoy the interchange of ideas & experiences and can often support your 'Own Projects' with sources and materials that are Not commonly available to the general public.

whirlwind, thankyou for a reasoned post as regards some of the content.

You want the combat model implicit in your rules to teach you and your players about real warfare. That implies a really unwarranted level of confidence in your combat model in the terms you are suggesting, unless you have solved the 'base of sand' problem for your period and are so confident in that then you haven't sent anywhere for peer review. I would be surprised. You say yourself say that you can't be accurate…in that case, what precisely are you learning?

An example is attacks in waves. This is how its done in the real (mechanised) world. Untill my own system I could not see it working, overloading the enemy works well in a classic "Featherstone clone". Using even a very basic model can demonstrate what the parameters are that make it work.

This is…weird. I haven't read anyone defend randomness in this way, but okay. Since you have brought it up, then you can tell us what level of randomness exists in warfare. Do let us know if and how it varies by level and period of warfare. I am not sure where to begin with the last sentence. Firstly, not all successful commanders did have a massive general staff and it isn't clear that the 'mass' of a general staff contributes linearly to military effectiveness; but more than that, the reason for large staffs doing administrative and logistic things, is that military administration and logistics are hard. Fine if you are interested in strategic simulations, reasonably irrelevant to most understandings of 'wargames'.

Certainly with the advent of firearms ammunition can be key even at low levels. Your Missile firing post is heavy and the missiles also, there is a practical limitation to what can be carried without direction of additional resouces to move the equipment.
This is a key factor even in small games. Similarly carrying the equipent to make a machine gun into a sustained fire machinee gun takes more resources, the very heavy tripod and the extra barrels and massive extra ammunition is a logistics issue.

These are key features even down to platoon level.

You can do it a bit the other way around, as in you can use historical knowledge to critique a game's combat model, mainly where the phenomenon is possible/impossible. You could do it for individual bits of your combat model (e.g. testing your game shooting accuracy versus the combat data, assuming you have adjusted correctly for environment)…but unless you have really good historical data, then you probably aren't doing this either. Unless you have a really good statistical analysis of reality (these are vanishingly rare) then you are back to using broad impressions as the basic for your critique – so no better than these 'new school' rules writers.

This disregads the use of advanced modelling. Models in cutting edge science are made when the cannot be fully verified. They are usefull as they can predict behavious that can in some cases be verified. If they do so then the model can be taked as a reasonable approximation untill other data arrives which contradicts it. An example of this is the first example given. Based on a series of approximate assumptions the wave system shows up to be an otimum in many cases. Hence untill disproved (we have been trying to break the model for over 10 years), and so far has held up well generally. Most improvements so far have shown up as requireing more detailed approximations. So far most have been rejected as it increases processing time (RULES), without improving the accuracy in a way that is usefull within the objectives of the model set at the outset and though reviewed regularly we have seen no reason so far to "move the goal posts".