"The Argument in Favor of Historical Wargaming" Topic

I think that in an overall large engagement there is some prediction of "randomness". Units will hesitate because of fear of the unknown, get lost, lose communication, get in accidents, need new orders because of running into unexpected difficulties from poor intel, get held up in poor terrain or traffic jams, misinterpret orders, unit commanders WIA/KIA, etc.

How, when and how often is up to the game designer, there are no other guidelines other than recreating historical occurrences.

Wolfhag

TMP Readership,

Nothing like a good 'Food Fight' to sharpen your wit & tongue!

I'm going to cut to the chase, in an effort to narrow the focus of this discussion down to essentially one simple, overarching premise.

A. Formulation of a 'working' Historical Wargame Design Premise:

1. "Military Art only exists in the mind of the individual battlefield Commanders and Players." It does NOT exist anywhere on the Battlefield itself. Thus, trying to describe, characterize and control these these many factors and aspects that can influence human nature is a losing cause. Because these factors are assimilated, interpreted and affected by each individual in their own way, shape and manner. None of which will ever be identical in any situation or under identical circumstances. Because HUMANs (i.e. themselves) will always be a ill defined "WILD CARD".

With that last notion in in mind, why would any Wargame Designer think that he is capable of "Mapping these items,with his own Mind (i.e. relying ONLY on his own knowledge/Experience/Bias)." Not yours, mine or anyone else and think that he has arrived at the ONE SIZE FITS ALL solution?

Which is one of the reasons why I believe Dr. Peter Perla describes wargame design using this approach, as the creation of a "Historical Novel".

2. Historical Wargame Design on the other hand is based on this more plausible Commander/Player premise of: "Making operational decisions under conditions of uncertainty, risk and time constraints.

The main challenges in this type of Wargame Designer is to, 1) Define the features and influence of the Battlefield Environment (terrain, weather, observation and maneuver), 2) Describe the Command & Control process.

This leaves the most important variable of all,…'Situational Awareness', essentially independent of the majority of the tactical battlefield mechanics and centered on,"The Individual Player Himself".

Thus, His OWN 'Successes & Failures' to assimilate and act prudently/decisively upon imperfect information at a particular moment in time, are his and his alone, NOT an ARTIFICIAL MECHANIC FORCED UPON HIM by the subjective reasoning of the would be Historical Novel's Author!

PLUS!, His (the historical wargame player's) successes & failures, are independent of the other Players in the same wargame. None of which are tied to some arbitrary die roll of card play, that impact everyone equally at the same time.

This is Not to say that they won't be directly or indirectly affected by the fallout of superior commander's decision(s) that may have made a poor decision, that will impact them down the road. Because that truly is the nature of Warfare itself.

B. Wargame Design Skills, Tools and Resources.

1. Hopefully by this point in time everyone can at least appreciate why I have identified the three (3) skill sets and disciplines associated with Wargame Design; Historical, Analytical and Military.

Note: My comments below reflect my own experience working with and observing these Players, over my own 40 years in the field. I personally, doubt that very few if any, recreational wargame designers are even aware or concerned about any of this at all.

a) Historians: Are required to focus and use 'primary source' historical documents & information to shape and support their hypotheses. They don't receive their degree unless they demonstrate doing so by submitting a thesis that does.

Historians (i.e. both Amateur & Professional) have largely ignored and/or abandoned this professional tie to historical credibility, when designing their own recreational wargames. Hard for me to understand why?

b) Analysts are a truly unique creature all in themselves. They are basically mathematical problem solvers and optimizer. Given a problem, with a given set of factors and variables they will crunch the numbers and arrive at SOME solution.

They are hampered by their own limits, access and understanding of Military theory, doctrine and procedures. Too often they are forced by ignorance or availability to go with what they've got in hand, Good, Bad or Indifferent. Thus, they are only as good as what they have to work with. So, if they are provided garbage, then it's a simple case of Garbage in,…Garbage out!

c) Military come in all shapes, sizes, education and experiences. The main problem I've seen, as it pertains to Wargame Design is that the 'BEST Military Officers' associated with the Tactical Combat Arms branches (i.e. Infantry, Armor, Artillery & Engineers), wouldn't typically be caught dead working in an assignment at some DOD research facility. It's a career wrecker. Because if you are aspiring to Command Soldiers and get promoted and assigned to Battalion, Brigade and Division Command assignments, you have to stay on the "Green Path." Meaning assignments directly associated with Soldiers and Unit Command & Staff positions.

Thus, the void at senior research & administrative levels is filled with Ordnance, Signal, and Supply & etc. officers who have limited tactical command and leadership experience. It's these Officers that usually fill the positions associated with and supporting US Army Analysis projects. Even with the best of intentions, it's very hard for them to influence wargame design and tactical research projects.

C. Warfare Terminology.
This topic is going to be real simple and quick!

1. If you would, provide me with a definition and at least one documented historical reference, for each of these terms below:
a) Initiative dice roll, chit draw or card flip?
b) Command Radius?
c) Command Points?
d) Activity Points
e) Momentum Points?
f) Sequence of Play
g) Turns, Cycles, Bounds?
h) Saving dice throws?

Can't do it? Probably because these terms Do Not Exists in the History of Warfare.

Which should begs the question, 'Why would any Historically motivated Wargame Designer bother introducing artificial terms in the first place?'

Answer: It's perfectly acceptable for authors of Historical Novels.

D. Summary & Conclusions.

My own take on "Historical Wargame Design" is based upon the notion of creating a synthetic Battlefield Environment that uses historical time, space and C2 factors to influence and shape the Players actions.

It is my belief that if you create a Historical accurate Environment and place a Player into it, the natural forces that will act upon and guide him, will eventually modify and reward his behavior to a point that will be historically consistent.

Such an approach encourages Players to seek answers and find advantages through their own historical study and research. Because they are motivated by "Winning Historical Battles" over beating the novel mechanics of yet another wargame system.

Trying to create a parallel (artificially) 'Novel based universe' which only serves to confine the Player to the limits of 'YOUR OWN' Knowledge, Experience, and induced Constraints and Options is a Losing proposition from the start.

It's ridiculous to even think that your Historical Wargame Novel is going to be able to address a fraction of all the factors and facets that shape and make up warfare.

Worse yet, the Player has NO room learn or grow from the experience and will eventually get tired of reading the same old Novel over and over again!

But if that's what you want, then knock yourself out by dedicating Your time and energy to that cause. No one is forcing you to change or agree.

But, at least try to show some professional courtesy to those of us who are looking for something that satisfies our expectations and goals, even if you don't agree with them.

The glass is half full right now, not half empty.

Regards,

James

Again there are a whole series of inaccuracies or at least lack of understanding in the post above.

Of all the inaccuracies the statement (g) shows a lack of understanding of science. Nobody in the world would argue that the flow of fluid is controlled by time steps (once down to Quantum physics maybe this is not true but that is beyond me). However in my real world job, complex flow problems are done by time marching analysis actually called Computation Fluid dynamics. In this system you start at one point in the fluid and walk trough all the other fluid particles to see what happens in a time interval that is considered acceptable. When element is evaluated then the system steps forward another step and does it all again. This works very well if you fly on airliners most are analyzed this way.

The size of the time step depends on the rate of change of the system and what sort of results are reasonable.

sections a) to e) are not systems I use as they are in my personal opinion of relevance to a simulation and as such I would not support such approaches.

h) To me this has always been a bit daft, use a batter system that can resolve such issues if they are directly related in one die role. Similarly buckets of dire to me seem as irrelevant. we do have independent die rolls for independent parameters. Accuracy is resolved by on analysis. Armour penetration by another.

In theory one random roll could do both simultaneously as an analysis of all possible results, but the complexity of the analysis required to do that was considered as not to be an optimum solution.

f) has more interesting implications. Our system has one key "Sequence of play". This can be looked at as a subroutine within the conventional time steps. In a crude analogy it represents increasing the resolution of the model in certain areas where the normal time step is too large. In CFD this is where the overall resolution of the particles would be enhanced to capture some specific detail in the flow.

As to the comments on analysis of the individual player then I have to agree that imposing control over the human players is in my experience pointless and doomed to failure. No amount of simple rules are going to make a great player out of a hopeless idle player who will not observe think and plan. Similarly you cannot make a bad general out of a good one, you can give him poor systems but he will still make best use of them. This is inline with what has been said.

My own take on "Historical War game Design" is based upon the notion of creating a synthetic Battlefield Environment that uses historical time, space and C2 factors to influence and shape the Players actions.

It is my belief that if you create a Historical accurate Environment and place a Player into it, the natural forces that will act upon and guide him, will eventually modify and reward his behavior to a point that will be historically consistent.

Such an approach encourages Players to seek answers and find advantages through their own historical study and research. Because they are motivated by "Winning Historical Battles" over beating the novel mechanics of yet another war game system.

Way back Phil Barker in DBM had a better solution than command radius. Performance i.e Speed of response sort of fell as the distance increased. This had its limitations but was still far better than a command radius.

I have read both posts and in some ways I understand what you are trying to achieve. However I think historical board gaming is a better why to model what you are trying to do.

Historical miniatures gaming has a huge visual/modeling component. I am more interested in how the figures and battlefield looks rather than finding the perfect rules simulation. I just don't want the rules to get in the way.

With miniatures I just want the so called "feel" or "flavor" of the period rather than a complicated set of rules that is more simulation than fun. It is the old "Playability vs. Simulation" argument. For what you are trying accomplish, I think board wargaming would be a better way of accomplishing your goal (s).

Instead of proclaiming your philosophy on TMP all at once, which is guaranteed to elicit this kind of response. I would put your philosophy into practice. By designing your own set of miniature rules or a board game. That way we the historical wargaming public can better judge your approach.

James has "put pen to paper" and written -

C. Warfare Terminology.
This topic is going to be real simple and quick!

1. If you would, provide me with a definition and at least one documented historical reference, for each of these terms below:
a) Initiative dice roll, chit draw or card flip?
b) Command Radius?
c) Command Points?
d) Activity Points
e) Momentum Points?
f) Sequence of Play
g) Turns, Cycles, Bounds?
h) Saving dice throws?

Can't do it? Probably because these terms Do Not Exists in the History of Warfare.

You are absolutely correct, sir. These terms "Do Not Exist in the History of Warfare".

The reason for this is that they are artificial devices (or "artifacts" as an old war-game mentor of mine was fond of saying) employed in the construction of game mechanics intended to replicate, model, represent, approximate or suggest real world physical and psychological battlefield phenomena. Inasmuch as I strongly suspect that you (and most everyone else reading this thread) are perfectly aware of this fact, why do you bother with such a needlessly rhetorical excursion?

At this point in the festivities, the entire exchange is rapidly assuming a distinctly "Coreyesque" nature. No one seems to be able to grasp exactly what you are seeking. In an effort to re-focus this discussion and decipher all the word salad, I ask a simple question, to which I hopefully await a clear and straightforward response -

What do you consider to be the minimum qualifications necessary for an individual to craft a "war-game" that would in your view pass intellectual muster?

B

Those constructs were put in place to make it a game. How do you make it a playable game without those elements? That is a question searching for an answer since the days of Charles Roberts and James Dunnigan.

Those constructs were put in place to make it a game. How do you make it a playable game without those elements?

Answer: It's about time.

What do you consider to be the minimum qualifications necessary for an individual to craft a "war-game" that would in your view pass intellectual muster?

My answer would be to learn the game you need to read the real manuals the commanders of the time period read and used. A-H above is not found in manuals.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,
While I agree with your above commentary, my question to James is more along the lines of "who is qualified to design an historical war-game".

B

Blutarski,
Surely not me!

For some companies it's the marketing and art department.

Wolfhag

I agree with Old Contemptible- your ideas read as if you're trying to recreate a game system similar to/as detailed Richard Berg's SPI monster "The Campaign for North Africa- The Desert War 1940-43", or similar board game. Or perhaps one of the more "detailed" computer games, such as John Tiller's "Panzer Campaigns" series? The research, analysis and detail included, and the mechanisms developed for and used in the Berg's "Desert Monster", were unprecedented. Unfortunately it was also nearly completely unplayable. As a "simulation" it was as close as you could get (for the time) statistically, as a game it was a complete failure.

May I suggest that's there's two physical limitations involved with a miniatures wargame that will profoundly influence what you're doing:

1. Because of the medium used (model soldiers on a table top) the limitations to what you can physically recreate will shape what is practical. Intelligence, logistics, morale and figure-to-ground scale are just some considerations that may need simplification, or the system may become unwieldy/too complex/ too time consuming for most players.

2. Without computer moderation a lot of the calculations required will be too complex for most people to do, even if you use matrices or charts. Few are going to be able, let alone be interested in, doing the calculus to determine the ballistic trajectory- and therefore where it will impact- of each round fired, arrow shot or spear chucked, for example.

So you'll have to simplify the game mechanisms to account for the fact that most people aren't, or are no longer, used to using higher-level maths on a daily basis (like me- haven't integrated waveforms since I did my last trade course in the early 90's, nor done statistical analysis for close to 20 years- and not interested in doing maths "for fun").

With those simplifications you're moving away from the pure, or close, simulation you seem to be wanting to produce. It may work for a computer game (and you'd want to have a top-line OS and memory capacity to make it work even then, not your usual Win10 16Gb laptop), or computer-moderated rules.

I won't say you're wasting your time. As someone who owned, but never played, Berg's "Desert Monster", I may even buy the rules for curiosity's sake. But I'll stick with my old Charles Grant SYW rules, Battlegroup, Never Mind the Billhooks and JR2 (main interests) for pushing my figures around. Simply because I enjoy them- I don't have to work at the games.

Cheers.

(Editted due to illiterate fingers.)

Wolfhag,
Judging from the commentary so far, it appears likely that none of us is worthy.

B

Hey, let's give Analsim a chance. The hobby is ever evolving because of people trying different things and proposing different ideas.

I'm impressed with his background and experience, who wouldn't be. Although there is one thing to note. I've attended a number of DoD and military war college symposiums and observed their games. They do high level theater, matrix scenarios. I've never seen a low level tactical miniatures game, I'm sure they do exist somewhere but not that I'm aware of. Does his DoD experience translate to the games we play? Let's wait and see. I'm not sure of the level or period of game he's proposing but I'm not going to jump to conclusions or make assumptions.

From responses I've seen to more detailed and historic miniatures games it does not appear the majority are not willing to trade playability for more historical realism. To many it's mostly about the models and creating the visuals with a rule set that's good enough. Board gamers are willing to invest in the monster historical games. I don't think DoD is because of the ramp up time to learn the system and the time to play it. Although they have played some GMT games on Korean scenarios.

Wolfhag

1. If you would, provide me with a definition and at least one documented historical reference, for each of these terms below:
a) Initiative dice roll, chit draw or card flip?
b) Command Radius?
c) Command Points?
d) Activity Points
e) Momentum Points?
f) Sequence of Play
g) Turns, Cycles, Bounds?
h) Saving dice throws?

Can't do it? Probably because these terms Do Not Exists in the History of Warfare.

Can anybody point me to one documented historical example of Napoleon fighting a battle using one-inch tall little lead soldiers, immoble and glued to wooded bases?

Can't do it? Because that didn't happen in history either. And yet here we are. And you, too, right? I assume you'll be using miniatures in this historically accurate miniatures wargame?

Care to explain why the artificial construct of immobile 1" tall lead soldiers on wooden bases – and all the artificial limitations that imposes – is OK, but a "Turn" or "Sequence of Play" is not?

First it is a fallacy that Simulation needs to be slow and hunkering, top level models can be crude but representative. However that depends on a crucial definition of simple.

Snakes and Ladders is boith simple and mindless the player had no control over the outcome of the game, pure random. Chess is similarly a very simple game, few rules but is entirely none random but does need thought.

Many wargames I have played or watched tend to the former, really minimal actual player imput.

My own rules are definitely towards the Chess end. They have random but require lots of thought and a reasonable understanding of real world tactics to be at there best.

Interestingly for wider audiences we have to "dumb down" as players even at the qualatative level do not seem to want to plan.

So what do folk think the defenition of simple is?

Certainly there is no universal definition of "fun" to me maths xcan be fun. Hard thinking is fun. Most of the 2000 hrs myself an co author took to write our rules was fun only the last few weeks wer a bit naf, tidying up the language.

Some US modern manuals recommend wargaming an action down to platoon level.

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."

Actually, some of those words don't appear in any dictionary I've checked. I think he just made those up.

Interestingly for wider audiences we have to "dumb down" as players even at the qualatative level do not seem to want to plan.

Absolutely right. At conventions there is always a few people who fun is just tell me when it's my turn and I'll roll the dice to blow things up. They have minimal interest in learning the game system or the historical factors.

Fun can be experiencing the historical replication that meets the players expectations. Some think that if the game delivers the same historical results as the battle chosen for the scenario the rules are "realistic".

For many it is experiencing the visual realism created. I see players at conventions selecting games to play based on the table, figures and terrain and don't even inquire about the rules. I can't blame them.

Fun for me is recreating the historical nuances between weapons systems and tactics with various inputs and decisions by the players that create the split-second combat results that the players, not the dice, ultimately control.

Here is a simple AFV game:
Each player rolls a D6 to determine how many turns it takes to shoot. A T-34/85 might shoot every 5-10 turns, A Panther 6-11 turns, Tiger I 7-12 turns and an anti-tank gun 3-8 turns.

The game starts with turns being announced sequentially, one at a time. When a tank wants to shoot, he rolls a D6 and adds the result to the current game turn. He records the result in secret.

Example: If on turn #3 a T-34/85 wants to shoot and his D6 result is a 7 he shoots on turn #10. When turn #10 is announced, if he is still alive, he stops the game to shoot. During #10 he decides to shoot again at the same target or a new one and rolls a D6 adding the result to turn #10, that's when he'll shoot again. To move he places an arrow showing the direction he'll move.

All vehicles do this. Your opponent does not know the exact turn which one of your units shoot next (Fog of War). As turns are announced sequentially all units scheduled to shoot do so and in the same turn, if still alive, decide to shoot or move. When a game turn is announced and no one is shooting the next turn is immediately announced.

If your tank was going to shoot on turn #21 and it was knocked out on turn #20, too bad, you're dead and don't shoot next turn.

Movement: Every 5 turns vehicles with an arrow move in the direction their arrow is pointing and can now point the arrow to move in the same or different direction. Remove the arrow to stop.

Use whatever gunnery and damage system you want.

Advanced Rules:
Crew Types: Ace crews subtract 1 turn from the D6 result, poor crews add 1 turn.
Snap Shot: Subtract 1 turn from the shooting time but with an accuracy penalty when shooting.
Moving Fire: Add 4 turns to the result to shoot with a severe accuracy penalty.
SNAFU: When shooting there is a 5% chance of a misfire, jam, driver panics, etc. Make your own chart and results.
Commander status: Buttoned up +1 turn to shoot.
Engaging a new target: It takes additional time to acquire and get the gun on target. Add 4 turns to the D6 result for medium speed turrets, 5 turns for slow turrets and assault guns, and 3 turns for fast turrets.
Two-Man Turrets: These would have a higher result on their D6 roll.

No unit activation's, orders phase, initiative determination, command dice, etc. Not much to remember and 2nd grade math. Almost as simple as Chutes and Ladders. Modify and add as you see fit.

Wolfhag

Can we define "Historical Wargaming"?

Individual representations? Unit representations on what size? Do we cover army sized operations in weekly turns? To what extend does logistics come in. How do we model why the heck our units fight at all, and what is their objective? Doe they use 155mm artillery to slag it out, or javelins?

A game or simulation designed to play out viking raids will differ on so many levels from one that recreated the tank battles for the Fuldagap that it is not easy to speak of the same genre. How do we judge the realism? Science offers us many answers, but only history offers us (very few) samples for their interaction with the human psyche.

Interesting approach, but I am a bit sceptical that it will result in something that I will ever play. For the record, I just try to figure out how to play DBMM myself, and the games I have seen played out like something that felt quite real. They do abstract science to a high degree, and make many assumptions that just "feel" right when they are played out.

Old Contemptible, Dal Gavan and everyone else below those posts,

First off, a shout out to Dal Gavan, I am very pleased to know that as of yesterday, "You are still alive!" Hurrah! ;^)

Since the last time I spoke with you (several years ago), I've acquired four (4) more Flintlock weapons and two (2) cavalry swords (French Lt Cav. Saber & Cuirassier's sword).

Now for the rest of the TMP audience at large.

The real significance of all the 'pages and pages' of Military, Analytical & Historical (Let's call it: 'MILANTICAL') information that I provided to you over the last several days is simply to underscore the notion that "Historical Wargame Design" does exist, is legitimate and has existed outside this forum for over four (4) decades now.

I want you to know, that part of my motivation for blasting you all with that seemingly worthless amount of information, is to see if I couldn't shake up YOUR OWN little 'wargame comfort zones', enough I hoped, to at least get you to open your mind and question the value of the dozens of "Historical Novels" that are being released and hailed as the 'State of the Art' in Recreational Historical Wargaming.

I've looked at, reviewed and played quite a few of these Historical Novels over the last couple of years and they all tend to leave me wondering, "Where's the Beef?" in the end.

Nor did it take me much time or effort to conclude that like the real nature of their actual game mechanics/systems, they're built upon nothing more than a 'House of cards', which quickly collapses upon itself, if poked, bumped or shaken 'historically' in any way shape or manner.

You only have to play the card game "52 card pick-up" one time, to figure out who the actual winners and losers are with these types of wargames.

Moving on,….

Like driving a high performance race car, you do not need to have an advanced degree in engineering, automotive design and mathematics to drive it. All you really need to know is BASIC operating instruction and knowledge of the rules of the road.

In the same vane, I am essentially completing my design research in order to complete the building of my high fidelity Napoleonic Wargame 'Race car' Design and the documentation needed to validate it.

Like driving that performance car, all I need from You is to understand my basic operating instructions and rules of the road, which all fall under the headings of: "Move, Shoot and Communicate". That's it.

Thanks to ALL that Math, Historical Research, Wargame Theory/Design and military Operational Research experience I've assimilated over the years, I can offer you an opportunity to experience the challenge of Command on the Napoleonic Battlefield in the comfort of your own home or wargame club, without reading 100s of pages of rules or coping with endless reference tables, flow diagrams and modifier lists.

Because the focus of my wargame is on YOU and not on the vast amounts of unit details, sequences and factors related to running, resolving and managing all the game mechanics and processes.

In fact, I doubt that it would take me more than 15-minutes to get you up to speed and in the saddle, playing and ENJOYING your first game, with little worry or concerned about what is actually running under the the car's hood.

I can make that promise because I have already done the math, historical research, design & experimentation, in addition to the integration/engineering work that will make this claim possible over the next year.

Like I said before, if I somehow 'crash and burn' before making good on this claim, I'll gladly take my place with all the other village idiots and ivory tower fools who thought they could achieved the wargamer's Holy Grail!

Between the end of October and mid-November 2021, I should be done writing the first set of Draft rules. It's at this point in time that I will be actively looking for a Club or Group of Historically Minded Wargamers to 'test drive' my brand new Napoleonic race car.

Take note, I don't mind driving a few hundred miles (hopefully < 1,000 miles) stay in a Hotel, in order to accommodate your group in its own hometown.

Definitely consider contacting me (off-line) if you have any interest in helping me to play test these rules. You won't have to remount any of your figures. However, I might just decide to bring everything we need with me. Because I want you to experience the 'full-up' wargame, without compromises or substitutions.

Regards,

James

Good luck then, to you "race car" project :-)

Looking forward to see the results.

G'day, James.

Yes, still alive and planning my second attempt at being retired. I finally got to do my Europe research trip in 2019, so being back at work had its advantages. I was sorely tempted by swords and an old Year XIII French dragoon pistol for sale (antiques(?) in Hannover, Vienna and Prague, repro's in Conwy) on my trip, but the amount of paperwork required to bring them back checked those impulse buys.

What were they? All Napoleonic? The cuirassier sword was a very good find, mate. I managed to keep my musket in the divorce, but haven't shot it for about six years. Access to the farm is a bit problematic, these days, and the only black power club near me is all caplock rifles and competitions- and bloody expensive to join.

Back to topic, so you're looking at a moderated system of some sort, where the mechanics are worked out for the players, so they only have to worry about command decisions and issues?

Sounds interesting- except I swapped my Napoleonics collection (for ~100 18mm SYW figures) about five years ago. After the Author Wars, and some rules arguments with a very competitive rules lawyer (Napoleonics seems to attract them), I'm dead sick of the period, mate. I didn't even visit the 100 Days battlefields while I was in Belgium.

I hope you and yours stay safe and well, mate.

Dal,

Great hearing from you!

Yes the three (3) flintlock additions were Napoleonic:
1) Imperial Guard version of the 1777 Charleville Musket
2) French Dragoon's Carbine
3) British Lt Dragoon Pistol

I'll provide you with some pictures of them once they come back from the gunsmith.

Additionally, I ordered two (2) French Cavalry Pistols. Which are still on Back Order and I am attempting to have a local Gunsmith build me an 'actual rifled' British Baker Rifle out of parts from two (2) kits & a rifled barrel that I will supply to him.

Most ALL Baker Rifle replicas these days "are Smooth Bored". However, I found an after market vendor who makes the real rifled barrels with the proper lands and twists.

Even better, I found a gentlemen right here in Michigan that owns a Full Scale: 12 lbs Napoleon (smooth bore) cannon. He'll sell it to me for $20,000 USD! I'd consider buying it if someone else would give me $19,000 USD of it?

YES, I'm using TTPs, Tactics and DOCTRINE to control and move 'Non-Player' AI entities at the Regimental & below levels.

The DRAFT Napoleonic rules I am working on are 60% complete right now. Unfortunately, I lost my Minitab 19 Statistical SW license when I retired from the US Federal Government at the end of last year. Renewing it will cost me $1,600 USD for just 1-year's license. They don't sell the SW itself anymore, just "Cloud" access to it now a days.

I planned to use our Tax Refund Check (1st tax refund I've gotten from the IRS in over 35 years) to pay for it. However, because of COVID, the IRS says that they are currently 16-weeks behind schedule processing refunds this year. My F'ing Luck!

Thankfully, the wife told me just go ahead and buy it! It's worth the money to her in not hearing me b*tching about the IRS. Which I will do the first week in September.

I'll send you a re-ahead rule set when it gets finished in the next 45 days. I'm pretty confident that it will entice you to want to take this Napoleonic Race Car out on the track, for a good test drive, when you see it. ;^)

Regards,

James

The racing car analogy is interesting. Actually you can't drive a racing car without a lot of prectice. You can pretend and do 30mph but that it. It takes a lot of practice, lots of stress both physicaly and mentaly to race a car even t,. a good one can be run by anybody but you will achieve nught if you do not put the time and effort in.

This thread is thought prevoking and contentious, if it were not it would be less intersting.

In considereing this in places erudite thread, made me think about mechanisms and players. The racing car analogy is true, but perhaps not as Analsim intended.

A good wargame should be as independent as possible of its mechanisms. The real issue is the decision making of the player.

Fog Of War can be generated just by making the player think hard and fast, no rules needed.

Fancy mechanisms like cards are for rank amatures who will never be good players they spread there abilities too thinly. Cards are predicatable, more so than a die as they are from a bounded set unlike die that are not.

To play a simulation well your ability needs to be centered on the tactical/strategic issues involved and play should be second nature. In our own games the rules play no real part in the tactical thinking its like rideing a bike, you dont think about the bike rideing, just were you are going.

Cards would be an intrusion, all that should be around is a couple of die and maybe a QR sheet for occational use.

DBM in its early versions came close to this. DBMM is just daft it needs a D20 no massisve numbers of if then statements to get the variety of troops. However that is a prime failure of DBMM in trying to become fantacy by covering widely disperate armies.

Perhaps that is a key thing about historic wargaming it should only address armies that at least in pricipal could have met but actualy did not and even that may be pushing it too far.

Impressing the wrong model to stand in for the real thing of course is not the same, after all its the game not the figures that count, ask anybody who plays boardgames.

There appears to be a remarkable level of personal prejudice on display here about just what qualifies as good game design. Because something is a personal preference doesn't make it best for all wargames and all wargamers.

May a variety of different game design approaches continue to flourish, rather fhan attempting to prescribe one true approach. Vive la difference!

BobGrognard,
You're right. I'm sometimes guilty or snarky too.

A continuing theme I've seen on TMP is people don't like being told what is a right or wrong design or have someone else define terms for them. Grant it, there are many accomplished and knowledgeable that post here.

I think much of game design is about how a set of abstracted and unrealistic rules will create a level of "realism" in a persons mind by pointing to a historical reason or your mind filling in the gaps for you – one size does not fit all. Designing a game is at least as much or more art than science or history.

Let's see what he's got by the end of the year. I don't get offended by "know it all's". I mean, after all I am one, just ask my wife.

Wolfhag

to me there are two types of players.

Warpainters – Those whoes primary pleasure is painting and moving around there latest and best figures. The rules they want quite rightly are optuimised to get as many amnd varid models on th etable at one time. Hideing models by markers is unacceptable as it reduces visual effect. There demands are entiely diferent to

Wargamers – Those whoes primary pleasure is in recreating the historical performance of the systems involed in command , control and "firepower". These game are more than likely to be played on empty boards where the presence or absence are simply marked by a plain marker or even not shown at all untill thety come into play. The necessities orf simulation mean may models will either never or only fleetingly appear on table, aircraft often being such an item.

They are two diffrent approaches effecively two almost entirely diffrent hobbies, neither is reight but there is little common ground between the two types.

Even the models may well not be commaon. As a wargamer I am happy with FDM prints of samll scale 1/144unacceptable to keen painters in the main.
Warpainters generally but not always gravitate to larger models to show off the detail of the art work.
+

I aIways thought there were two types of wargamer too. Those who enjoyed the fun of a social experience with friends, irrespective, or even sometimes in spite of, the rules, and then the others who didn't fit that bill.

I've actually known many gamers who enjoy painting and having nice figures but are also looking for games that include a strong historical and tactical element. They seem to have a foot in both of your camps.