"Breaking the Existing Historical Wargame Paradigm" Topic

@Russ--twenty cents US--same as four nickels.

More seriously, a way of thinking about something, or the pattern you expect events to follow. Sadly, some Ivy League business school professor started talking about "breaking the paradigm!" instead of "trying a fresh approach" sometime back in the 1970's would be my guess, and now all the business school grads, including the ones the Army sends to learn "management" talk that way. About ten years later, he or one of his colleagues invented the "mission statement" and the "corporate vision" and they too have covered the country like kudzu and Dutch Elm Disease.

If the country put have the effort into problem-solving we spend promoting new buzzwords, we'd be invincible.

Robert you are right. But then all of the Belt Way Bandits and Pentagon Perfumed Princes would be out of work. That would make us invincible too.

Wolfhag

This is all too funny!!
I shall submit my comments in parts as to not bore you all.The paradigm-- well, it's like this: the ruling orthodoxy, the approved opinion, the accepted thinking or the conventional wisdom are definitions of the paradigm. To read about the various paradigms, in science, Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions; in political philosophy, Strauss' Natura Right and History; and in military thought, either the Erle or Paret Makers of Modern Strategy. This last work is not on the TMP reading list because of the miniaturist's paradigm, which is:
The game and history is for the models and figures.
If I am not mistaken, the new paradigm is that the miniatures serve the history, the realities of combat and war, with much less said about playbalanced games or well crafted and painted figures.
But the whole miniature enterprise would collapse as fewer participants would buy the games or miniatures. Imagine a world of such like Paddy Griffiths who would, rarely, buy miniatures or any of the current games. The companies would fold.
more later

TMP'ers,

Keep the faith baby,..because the Certified Check is in the Mail as we speak!

Meaning, I've already sent the Historicon War College folks, my finished Historical Wargame Seminar Presentation (w/videos) for the two (2) Historicon Seminars, I will be doing on Friday morning and Saturday afternoon.

I plan on telling the Wargamers that attend these seminars to go ahead and post their reactions and comments on TMP ASAP!

I'll also plan to have it video taped, and will look into putting it on YouTube when I return after home on 24 July. That's IF, someone attending the seminar doesn't beat me to it first.

If I can get a hold of the "Little Wars TV" folks, I'll see if I can convince them to do a short piece on either of the two (2) "Battle of Quatre Bras 1815" wargames, that Jerome & I will be hosting on Saturday.

Again, if any of You TMP folks are coming to Historicon, don't hesitate to come by to say Hello, "PLAY the Wargame" and/or See the results for yourselves. I'll even make special accommodation for any TMP ILF members, who have a "Real Interest" in knowing more about this particular wargame design project.

Additionally, I'm looking at interviewing & recruiting a few additional "Historical Wargaming ILFs" (while I am there @ Historicon), to eventually have them Lead some follow on Historical Wargame Design Projects, in other periods of Warfare, to include: American Civil War, WWI and WWII (Air, Land & Sea).

Finally, I'm also looking into starting up a YouTube based organization that will advocate and support Historical Wargamer Designers all over the world. My initial thought on this subject, is do something along the lines of the "Little Wars TV" model. However, it's focus will be on helping future Wargame Designers to research and resolve Common Historical Design issue such as: Weapon and Unit Combat Effectiveness, Cohesion, Morale, Maneuver AND even SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, one of my career specialties!

SEE YOU ALL AFTER HISTORICON 2022!!

Lead from the Front!,..James

Set two.
A little excursion into a certain miniature wargaming tradition and some political commentary.
Once upon a time were two white males who happened to have written the political paradigms lasting several centuries--Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle commented on Plato's idea on political management, what we call public administration, what the military calls organization. For Plato, the size of the city, the polis, the community, the organization doesn't matter as all such are managed in the same way Aristotle says no to this and argues his case in Book 2 of the Politics.
The traditional miniature gamer follows Plato, be it Black Powder or Napoleon's battles or DBA. Even Vive L'Empereur. There are brigades, demi brigades, divisions and regiments depicted not as made up of discrete battalions, but as blocks of troops, whole brigades in line or column acting like battalions---which they were not. A reading of Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon or Griffith's Osprey work on French infantry tactics shows independent battalions operating with the so called regiment or brigade as the administrative unit, not as a combat formation. Normally, battalions form lines or squares or columns--in rare instances do brigades or divisions form massed columns or squares. Yet because of figure scales and the fact(and tedium and cost) of painting and basing many figures, in order to satisfy a desire to fight grand tactical battles, 60-100 thousand troops per side or larger, Arbela, Waterloo, Gettysburg the use of brigades to stand in for battalions is done. So Aristotle is pushed aside for Plato, from necessity, as the paradigm dictates, the game and history must bend and twist for the figures.
If Aristotle is right, then the bulk of operational, grand tactical, tactical, petit tactical and skirmish games are wrong when it comes to organization.
But so what? As long as the reigning paradigm is in force, this and the many many errors and myths that make the miniatures games unfit as a teaching tool will persist.

later I will comment on Ned Zuparko's attempts, with his group and allies, to break up the very same paradigm of over 40 years ago, to include the outrageous casualty rates, the incredible written orders, and the turtle speed and Gordion knot manuevrs of the formations.

Set two.
A little excursion into a certain miniature wargaming tradition and some political commentary.
Once upon a time were two white males who happened to have written the political paradigms lasting several centuries--Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle commented on Plato's idea on political management, what we call public administration, what the military calls organization. For Plato, the size of the city, the polis, the community, the organization doesn't matter as all such are managed in the same way Aristotle says no to this and argues his case in Book 2 of the Politics.
The traditional miniature gamer follows Plato, be it Black Powder or Napoleon's battles or DBA. Even Vive L'Empereur. There are brigades, demi brigades, divisions and regiments depicted not as made up of discrete battalions, but as blocks of troops, whole brigades in line or column acting like battalions---which they were not. A reading of Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon or Griffith's Osprey work on French infantry tactics shows independent battalions operating with the so called regiment or brigade as the administrative unit, not as a combat formation. Normally, battalions form lines or squares or columns--in rare instances do brigades or divisions form massed columns or squares. Yet because of figure scales and the fact(and tedium and cost) of painting and basing many figures, in order to satisfy a desire to fight grand tactical battles, 60-100 thousand troops per side or larger, Arbela, Waterloo, Gettysburg the use of brigades to stand in for battalions is done. So Aristotle is pushed aside for Plato, from necessity, as the paradigm dictates, the game and history must bend and twist for the figures.
If Aristotle is right, then the bulk of operational, grand tactical, tactical, petit tactical and skirmish games are wrong when it comes to organization.
But so what? As long as the reigning paradigm is in force, this and the many many errors and myths that make the miniatures games unfit as a teaching tool will persist.

later I will comment on Ned Zuparko's attempts, with his group and allies, to break up the very same paradigm of over 40 years ago, to include the outrageous casualty rates, the incredible written orders, and the turtle speed and Gordion knot manuevrs of the formations.

Analsim,

I will be there. I'll try to catch your game/presentation.

My forte is ACW for over 45 years. I've done at least 7 different rules over the years and put on many convention games.

I'll listen to your point of view.

Kim

Round three
And now for what I was.
Yes, I served in the US Army as a Specialist 4, an E, in a M-F "9-5" job at a little place called Redstone Arsenal, as the assistant S-4 for the training battalion made up of five Army companies, an USAF company, an USMC company, some USN reservist "visitors" and some officers and men from the then NATO countries. This was 1986 to 1988. A few points. The post was part of the George C Marshall Space Flight Center, where Werner von Braun had worked. The place as run by NASA, the DoD, with the military a poor third.
I had every week end off, except when I had to do a budget for the battalion. In over 2 years, I served once as a staff duty NCO, had one uniform and barracks inspection, requalified with the M-16 played in the CS gas-requalification And taught a Marine 0-3 about the federal budget cycle, used part of my barrack as a temporary stockade--we didn't have one, we shipped our hard cases to a post that did. And we scrounged for Navy and Marine stuff all over the South. And got thrown out of my barracks as the Soviets needed it for some treaty neotiations.
Indeed, whenever I went to the warehouse, I would make a mess sorting through pens (they were all "black" -which was which, retractable or not, only opening the little boxes would tell) and when some E-5 or E-6 would be about ready to chew me out I would point to a vacant space (which was marked with a stock number for the item that was supposed to be there) and say "sergeant, where's that missing item?" which would send them in search of the privates responsible and I would escape.
more later

I am glad James is tackling this 'paradigm', but it is complicated by half a century of shoddy thinking, crap and self-delusion when it comes to miniature wargame design. Unraveling this massive pile of baggage all becomes a Gordian Knot all by itself, let alone discussing how to create enjoyable, functional simulations/wargames.

Here are some of the facts behind this:
1. Game designers, starting in the 1970s to the present miniature wargame designers, to a man, claim to be designing simulations, recreating the past, representing history, "Historically accurate wargames" without ever, and I mean ever delineating what the hell that means in game design terms.

2. Nearly all miniature wargames claim to represent something of history and real combat, yes almost all completely fail to be functional simulations or even attempt to describe how a wargame could do that.

3. This is all masked with nonsense such as 'it is all opinion' or whatever you like or if you don't bleed and your pants it isn't a simulation of war. The ignorance involved here among wargame designers and gamers, in what a simulation is and how they do and do not work remains after fifty-odd years, abysmal.

4. Yet wargamers still go to wargames hoping to 1. learn some history and 2. experience it in dynamic fashion on the table or game board. If that wasn't the case, game designers would have quit claiming to create 'historically accurate' wargames a long time ago.

It isn't complicated. A simulation/wargame a procedural system that models PART of reality chosen by the designer. The system design and validity as a portion of history and/or reality has four parts:

1. The designer choses what history/reality he or she wants to represent with a game system.

2. That history is used as the template for the system processes and results.

3. The system as designed is tested against that history/reality it is chosen to represent.

4. When successful, all this information is provided any participants in the wargame so they know exactly what they are and are not recreating with play.

Most all of this is not done, let alone information provided the consumer, the one who buys that history and its representation.

Simulations are technical creations, designed to provide specific environments and experiences, from simulations of galaxies and the universe to crowd behavior at the end of a football game.

They can simple, they can be complex, but every single simulation will never, can't and would be entirely useless as simulation if they attempted recreated all of reality.

Game designers could know all this, use the methodologies and techniques to create functional simulations, but they obviously don't want to. If that wasn't an issue with gamers, you wouldn't see these discussions over the decades.

As Crick of Crick and Watson DNA helix fame once said:

"Guessing is fun, knowing is hard work." Gamers have enjoyed guessing at what the wargames they play do or don't represent because designers don't do the work.

That is the basis for the current self-defeating paradigm involving wargame design.

Imagine if, in the hobby

1.You knew exactly what history you were seeing represented when playing a wargame.

2.You knew when a game mechanic or system included no representation of history or reality, but was included simply for simplicity-sake or for fun.

3. You could choose the wargame that modeled just the history you were interested in or how much.

4. You would experience far fewer disagreements about what a mechanic was 'meant to do' or whether something was or was not 'realistic.'

5. You could actually reference the the particular history used in the wargame out of the vast amount of history out there.

6. You could easily see which wargames were 'just for fun' with no effort to represent history, those with just 'some' and others which were full-blown efforts to simulate.

7. You would be able to recognize the difference between 'just a game' and simulation game and what to expect from such designs.

8. You would see the designer/ hyperbole in describing and promoting wargames either disappear or actually mean something tangible when deciding to buy a set of rules or wargame.

McLaddie,
Thanks for bringing some sanity to the conversation.

They can simple, can be complex, but every single simulation will never, can't and would be entirely useless as simulation if they attempted recreated all of reality.

Yes, a designer can't include ultimate detail on all factors and Human Factors are hard to simulate. This is why I think a war game design should be judged on if it meets the designers goals for the audience it is aimed at, not what you think it should be. BA and FoW, no matter what you think of them, do fill a need for new gamers with minimal knowledge or tactics and history. Tractics attracts a different type of player.

In miniatures game the visuals/special effects account for a very large percentage of the "realism" and enjoyment and can make up for poorly written rules.

I've played games with rules that could be used for any period of history but have no historical foundation whatsoever but the players vastly enjoyed it because of the "special effects".

A friend of mine was going to run a "Charge of the Light Brigade" game at a convention and wanted me to write up some rules that would recreate the battle. After doing through research and understanding the sequence of actions, player decisions and causality percentages I wrote it up.

By knowing what the causalities were during the charge, the fight and retreat I made a causality chart that would average out what that would be. Using a binomial table approach eliminated and lucky die rolls that would unbalance the game. The English player could increase his speed to get through the cannon fire quicker but disperse the formations making them less effective when they got to the cannons and the other end of the table. They also could send a detachment against a cannon battery.

The figures were exquisite and the players spent a lot of time discussing the unit uniform colors, unit histories, etc. They also remarked about how well the game was playing out historically.

I didn't use any traditional rules like activations, initiative determination, etc. Each turn players could issue historic orders they were already familiar with that would impact the future turns.

You can criticize the rules and my approach but what the players were expecting to see was a replay of the battle and they were all pleased. Since the battle played out historically they felt that the rules were "realistic."

Wolfhag

You can criticize the rules and my approach but what the players were expecting to see was a replay of the battle and they were all pleased. Since the battle played out historically they felt that the rules were "realistic."

Wolfhag:

Well, first, you had a goal of replayng the event [basically, the outcome was not going to vary much] and you used actual history as a template. Not much to criticize there. It is great that the players 1. got what they expected [how often does that happen? and 2. were pleased.

Whether the players *felt* the rules and scenario were 'realistic' is neither here nor there concerning establishing whether it was a functional simulation for the following reasons:

1.What the players focused on as 'realistic' could be nothing more than vague memories of Errol Flynn leading the cavalry in his 1936 movie The Charge of the Light Brigade. Who knows? Each person's 'knowledge' is variable. They might all agree that is realistic because Joe, their 'Crimean Expert' said so. It is just mush as a measure of realism. If one believes that 'realism' is in the eye of the beholder, then there is nothing to discuss in design other than state what you like.

2. What feels 'realistic' is meaningless as a wargame design concept unless we have some working definition: How does a wargame design achieve 'realism'? We are talking here on the thread about the game system design, not the beautiful figures and terrain. Part of the 'feel', certainly. That can't help you determine how to design a 'realistic' wargame.

3. Liking a game system, enjoying play is very important, but it isn't a determiner of realism or whether a design is a functional simulation/wargame. This is a technical issue with a procedural system, not someone's feelings or flavor of the month. Obviously, the players' experience is the be-all and end-all to a participatory simulation game. The question is what does that entail in crafting the experience YOU as the designer want the players to have?

More than one game designer has called himself an "Experience Engineer." That is doubly true for a simulation or wargame designer. What are the proven methods and techniques involved in 'engineering experience' that is demonstrably true to the history/reality you've chosen to model?

In listing Imagine if, I forgot some items:

1. Imagine if gamers didn't incessantly feel the need to 'fix rules' that don't 'feel' right while having no idea why the rules were designed the way they were in the first place.

2. Imagine if gamers didn't have to continually buy rules looking for that 'perfect rules set' because nothing really works for them and they have little idea of what the game offers until they play it.

3. Imagine if gamers, in redesigning rules, knew why they felt a particular mechanic wasn't 'realistic' or how such a redesign would work best within the existing system.

Wolfhag,

If you made your players happy, you did a good job. If you were happy too, even better!

Kim

Kim,
My partner, who has a high level of knowledge of the battle, gave the historical "color commentary" at the appropriate time in the game and the details of the command problems and personalty clashes. This really engaged the players. We knew in advance what the players were looking for as they were all from the same club. We laid out the expectations before the game too. We were basically striving for a replay of the battle as that's what they were expecting.

Imagine if gamers didn't incessantly feel the need to 'fix rules' that don't 'feel' right while having no idea why the rules were designed the way they were in the first place.

The higher the level of abstraction the more the game will be based on "feelings" and the different game mechanics that a player prefers.

What feels 'realistic' is meaningless as a wargame design concept unless we have some working definition: How does a wargame design achieve 'realism'? We are talking here on the thread about the game system design, not the beautiful figures and terrain. Part of the 'feel', certainly. That can't help you determine how to design a 'realistic' wargame.

Real combat is time competitive (something most of us can agree on?). That's why units and individuals practice over and over again to execute orders quickly. Speed is life. They don't depend on rules like initiative determination, unit activations, orders phase, etc. In training manuals, training and combat film footage, and AAR's and weapons testing there is a lot of data to get a baseline for performance. That baseline could be modified by crew experience, suppression, weather, situational awareness, etc.

In this manner you could bring out the weakness of a Panther getting off his first shot because of the gunner not having a roof periscope and slow turret traverse.

It could also show the advantages the Sherman had with the commander turret override, rapid turret traverse and gunner roof periscope being much quicker than the Panther and in some cases historically getting off two shots before the Panther fired once.

Players would be forced to confront the same situation real crews did in combat: the speed versus accuracy dilemma. You can fire more quickly but with an accuracy penalty or take more time for better accuracy. Let the player decide, not the dice. So in a time competitive game a player "seizes the initiative" by being quicker and with all factors being equal the better crew will most likely shoot first. Randomness plays only a small part.

For me that would create the "realism" while others may prefer abstracted "elegant" dice manipulation game mechanics based on "feelings." To each his own as there is no governing authority to say what is right or wrong.

Wolfhag

I don't care if a game is ACTUALLY realistic I only care that it feels realistic in my head when compared to my limited research and the memoirs I've read.

I want infantry to get devastated when they try to cross an open field without supporting fires and I want armor to be afraid of dense terrain that could be hiding a panzerschrek team because this is what I read in the memoirs.

I want players to make tough decisions and I want the rules to be just deep enough that after the battle we can discuss what went wrong and how the strategy could have been improved.

My partner, who has a high level of knowledge of the battle, gave the historical "color commentary" at the appropriate time in the game and the details of the command problems and personalty clashes. This really engaged the players. We knew in advance what the players were looking for as they were all from the same club. We laid out the expectations before the game too. We were basically striving for a replay of the battle as that's what they were expecting.

Wolfhag: You were doing what I listed above in #4:
…all this information is provided any participants in the wargame so they know exactly what they are and are not recreating with play.

Players knew:
1. Specifically the purpose and the scope of the wargame.
2. I am sure you told them how the rules were developed, what history and methods were used to create the mechanics
3. And you had various "Historical Color" added which increased the player awareness.

In other words, the players knew the goal, scope AND limits of the rules, they knew the history it was based on and were told at different points the history being represented.

From my experience and decades of evidence collected by simulation designers of all stripes, THAT is a major reason the players were convinced of the rules 'realism' and pleased with the outcome. That is what ALL participatory simulations must do to work for the participants.

The higher the level of abstraction the more the game will be based on "feelings" and the different game mechanics that a player prefers.

Not true at all. ALL wargames and simulations are abstractions including your Crimea game. I could go for a long time pointing out how many abstractions were in your miniature scenario on the tabletop. The ONLY reason one game leaves players relying on "feelings" is the absence of information about what the abstractions represent, nothing more.

Players would be forced to confront the same situation real crews did in combat: the speed versus accuracy dilemma…For me that would create the "realism" while others may prefer abstracted "elegant" dice manipulation game mechanics based on "feelings." To each his own as there is no governing authority to say what is right or wrong.

Nope. You are confusing personal preferences of what folks might 'like' with design 'realism.' Either players ARE forced to confront the same historical dilemma, or they aren't. You have to some extent objectively proven that and could conclusively test that proposition.

Saying "For me…" is a co-out and the very reason we don't get to an objective understanding of realism in wargame design. Folks always shove it back to personal opinion and feelings. Wolfhag, that negates your
1.Your goals to recreate a historical combat situation
2.Your extensive research
3.Your efforts to translate that research into game mechanics, and
4. Your wargame success in reaching your goals, because of a lack of coherent testing, reducing all the evidence for your rules working to achieve your goals to personal opinion and some antidotes.

When you say, "For me…" You deny any objectivity in an assessment of your rules as a representation of tank warfare. it leaves your design simply something that you and some others like and 'feel' is realistic and nothing more… just one more opinion, one more feeling among many.

Whether players like your game or not says nothing about the 'realism' built into your design. The entire wargaming world might hate playing your wargame and it could still remain objectively 'realistic.' Embrace the difference.

I don't care if a game is ACTUALLY realistic I only care that it feels realistic in my head when compared to my limited research and the memoirs I've read.

I want infantry to get devastated when they try to cross an open field without supporting fires and I want armor to be afraid of dense terrain that could be hiding a panzerschrek team because this is what I read in the memoirs.

Gauntlet:

Actually, your statement sounds like you do care about what is 'actually' realistic--quite a bit, in fact. You are stating a desire to see a one-to-one relationship between what you read of history and what the game represents. Designers may have read more or different memoirs than you to create their rules. It is incumbent upon them to let you know that… otherwise the realism you will 'feel' will be a hit-or-miss proposition based on your limited reading, or a move you saw or etc., etc. etc.

That is what realism objectively is in simulation design: That one-to-one relationship. Your statement is a good example of one aspect of the old wargame paradigm James is talking about. 'Feelings' are the only measure of…everything in wargame design. How can a wargame designer ever know what you have read to create a game you believe feels right?

From your statement, I would imagine you would be quite interested if a game designer provided you explanations of those one-to-one relationships between history and the game mechanics as modeled by his wargame rules.

Some designers do this to some extent but never to the degree necessary for players to experience the game as a true representation. Too many necessary relationships are left vague, thus leaving the player to 'filled in' the void with 'feelings' or miss the history altogether because from their limited reading it doesn't 'feel' right.

Getting a wargame to 'feel' right historically needs to get beyond individual feelings as the only possible, but exceedingly vague goal for successful wargame design.

Mcladdie, I suppose you are right, but what is the solution? I don't really want to spend 2x the time reading a rulebook that is also a history lesson. Especially if it's the 20x set I've read for that conflict.

…what is the solution? I don't really want to spend 2x the time reading a rulebook that is also a history lesson. Especially if it's the 20x set I've read for that conflict.

Guantlet:

I don't blame you, I don't either. The solution really isn't yours, but the designers' responsibility. It isn't about how much information is dumped on a gamer, but what and where in relation to history and play. How to do this efficiently and effectively isn't some mystery to be solved. Simulation designers in other venues have been providing the right amount of information to allow participants to experience the simulation for ages, without writing tomes to the history gods. Wargame designers could learn to do it too.

Your job as consumer is to be aware of what you actually want from wargames visa vie the one-to-one relationships rather than accepting what you don't get and saying you don't care, covering it with 'feelings.'

I have to repeat this every-so-often:

1. This isn't about what folks like or should like. Gamers have been and should always be free to play wargames they like, period.

2. This isn't about wargame designers having to create simulations or provide enough information so gamers can experience it as a simulation. Designers are free to design whatever they want.

This is about what many wargamer designer claim to design, and what gamers like yourself want from wargames: meaningful representations of history, realism, and combat.

There are methods for doing that, objectively demonstrable representations of reality and history, not someone's opinion or random feelings. This discussion is about how to build wargames that do that and how old paradigms get in the way.

Mcladdie, I suppose you are right, but what is the solution? I don't really want to spend 2x the time reading a rulebook that is also a history lesson. Especially if it's the 20x set I've read for that conflict.

One solution is to have the rules and the history behind the rules in a single chapter but in separate sections. This allows a player to quickly reference a rule without reading the historical basis behind it but gives that player the option of reading the history if they so choose.

This is how my friend and co-author Eric Alvarado and I organized our rules and scenario book on the Herero War of 1904.

This war was fought in what is now the independent nation of Namibia, but in 1904 was a German colony: Deutsch-Südwestafrika, i.e., German South West Africa. The rules and scenarios are historically derived, from the original German sources: official histories, first-person accounts, and original maps. The rules and scenarios were thoroughly playtested over several years and dozens of games to ensure play balance.

Unlike World War II or the American Civil War, very few players are familiar with the Herero War. Gamers who do not read German are putting their trust in me to be as honest and accurate as I can in my translations, my interpretations and even in the basic historical data that I report (dates, places, orders of battle, etc.). Because of this, I feel the need to be as transparent as possible regarding the historical basis for the rules and scenarios.

Therefore, each rules chapter contains not only the rules for a specific topic but also historical examples. These quotes from the German sources (including first-person accounts from battles) show the historical basis for the rules, demonstrate the rules in action and try to give the reader a "you were there" snapshot view of the fighting.

HOWEVER, the historical examples are in the back of each rules chapter, separate from the rules themselves (but clearly identified as to which rules they describe, e.g., "Concealed Hereros"). People who already know the historical basis for a rule, and just want to quickly reference the rule and use it, can do so, while those who want to see the historical basis for a rule can go to the historical examples section.

So, in the Spotting & Suppression chapter of the Herero War book you'll find the "Concealed Hereros" rule, which says:

"The Hereros were experts at concealment and used smokeless powder. The Germans remarked again and again about being fired upon heavily, and yet not detecting even a single Herero. Thus until they are spotted, concealed Herero units are NOT PUT OUT ON THE BOARD!

As was the case historically, Herero units remain concealed even after they begin firing. Thus a concealed Herero unit that shoots is still NOT PUT OUT ON THE BOARD – and its location still remains unrevealed to the Germans."

That's the rule itself. There's a short statement of the historical basis for the rule – the Hereros used smokeless powder to remain concealed even while firing heavily – but no historical examples or evidence to justify that historical statement. If a player already knows the history or doesn't have time to read the history, they can just use the rule and play.

However, if a player is interested in reading the history, there is a separate "Historical Examples" section in the back of the Spotting & Suppression chapter. The "Concealed Hereros" rule is supported by the following historical examples:

CONCEALED HEREROS

(1) A description of concealed Hereros shooting at the Germans from boulder fighting positions:

Although the 5th Company during its advance had been continuously and vigorously fired upon by the enemy, it could see nothing of them, so well had the smokeless-powder firing Hereros concealed themselves in the rocky and cover-rich terrain. (Translation by Roy Jones)

Obwohl die 5. Kompagnie während ihres Vorgehens dauernd lebhaft vom Feinde beschossen worden war, konnte sie nichts von diesem sehen, so gut hatten die mit rauchschwachem Pulver schießenden Hereros sich in dem felsigen und deckungsreichen Gelände versteckt. (Generalstab, pg. 85)

(2) A description of concealed Hereros shooting at the Germans from dense thorn bushes:

One did not see the [enemy] at all; from this morning on I lie in the skirmishing line; I have seen bushes and trees, and I have roasted in the sun; bullets have whistled around me the entire day, but I have not set eyes upon a single Herero. (Translation by Roy Jones)

Die schwarzen Satanskerle sieht man ja nicht; von heute früh an liege ich in der Schützenlinie, Büsche und Bäume habe ich gesehen, und gebraten habe ich in der Sonne, die Kugeln haben den ganzen Tag um mich herumgepfiffen, aber einen Herero habe ich nicht zu Gesicht bekommen. (Bayer, pg. 61)

(3) A description of concealed Hereros shooting at the Germans, and yet remaining undetectable by eagle-eyed Native Infantry or German field glasses:


…now however [enemy fire] also began to arise on the right, [from] across the river. I therefore threw myself into the skirmishing line of the Bastards…and observed the bushes on the opposite bank with field glasses. Yet I saw nothing of the enemy, and even the Bastard soldiers, with their sharp eyes that were accustomed to these surroundings, could detect none of the enemy riflemen. (Translation by Roy Jones)

…nun begann es sich aber auch rechts über dem Rivier zu regen. Ich warf mich daher in die Schützenlinie der Bastards…und beobachtete mit dem Glase die Büsche am jenseitigen Ufer. Doch sah ich nichts vom Gegner, und selbst die Bastardsoldaten mit ihren an diese Umgebung gewöhnten, scharfen Augen konnten keinen der feindlichen Schützen entdecken. (Bayer, pp. 57-58)

("Generalstab" refers to the German General Staff official history of the Herero War, and "Bayer" to Maximilian Bayer's first-person account of several of the battles; those sources are described more fully in the annotated bibliography in the book).

Similarly, each scenario has one or two historical quotes from the German sources explaining some key aspects of the scenario.

Roy Jones

So much discussion, and I suspect much of it at cross purposes. I still think this thread needs a simple statement of what the OP is trying to achieve and why?
What does the OP intend as the function of the wargame they are seeking to design? Wargame design must be subject to what the game is seeking to achieve / inform – form should follow function. Once that has been determined you can then have a more meaningful discussion on a design to achieve these goals subject to any constraints (time, cost, etc.).

McLaddie,
Folks always shove it back to personal opinion and feelings. Wolfhag, that negates your
1.Your goals to recreate a historical combat situation
2.Your extensive research
3.Your efforts to translate that research into game mechanics, and
4. Your wargame success in reaching your goals, because of a lack of coherent testing, reducing all the evidence for your rules working to achieve your goals to personal opinion and some antidotes.

Feelings and historical results: My Time Competitive game system using individual unit OODA Loop timing in one second increments parses the action on a second-second basis using a playable simultaneous movement system. All of my timing factors for reloading, rates of fire, movement, crew tasks, traverse speed, etc are from real historical data, manuals, training standards, AAR's with no need to abstract them.

The results of actions in the game closely match historical accounts. For me and others that have played the game it gives the right "feel" because it recreates historical action that can be documented. There is nothing historical about unit activations, initiative determination, command points, etc and they are not found in manuals or AAR's.

I've heard players say that their IGYG game that uses a die roll for a chance to activate a unit or for initiative is realistic. For them an activation roll gives the right "feeling" because when you fail the activation roll it can be because of any number of historical events like the crew was busy, suppressed, looking in the wrong direction, poorly trained, etc. The players creates his own subjective reality, fair enough. My imagination is not good enough for that. Maybe they "feel" it's realistic and it may actually play out that way in a scenario but there is no historical data to quantify the historical result; it's mostly abstractions and artificial game mechanics. To each his own.

I think a time competitive game environment gives a better portrayal of how the action unfolds on a real battlefield in 1:1 combat than traditional IGYG games. Why? Because the results of crew activity can be quantified and compared to historical results. The final outcome of a battle could be different than the historical result. There are more decision points and less constraints for the players too. Some people will "feel" it's realistic and some won't. I can't take responsibility on how their mind processes information, their personal experiences or their bias for one system or another. Like you said:
Folks always shove it back to personal opinion and feelings.

"Everything depends on the prompt identification of a dangerous target, usually seconds decide." Otto Carius, from the book "Tigers in the Mud"

In my design result is, "I go before you go because I'm quicker. You can go after me if you are still alive." My design faithfully recreates what Otto is talking about.

On TMP there are professional and amateur game developers and many players that have tweaked a system to their liking. Analsim is going to have a hard time winning them over because of their bias (we all have it) for their system which they may be heavily invested in. Since it appears Analsims presentation style and failed attempt at humor has hurt some people's feelings and these negative feelings will cloud their judgment of the facts. That's already evident.

Whether players like your game or not says nothing about the 'realism' built into your design. The entire wargaming world might hate playing your wargame and it could still remain objectively 'realistic.' Embrace the difference.

Absolutely. I don't try to change people's mind. They either like it or they don't. No problem.

Wolfhag

McLaddie,
Players would be forced to confront the same situation real crews did in combat: the speed versus accuracy dilemma…For me that would create the "realism" while others may prefer abstracted "elegant" dice manipulation game mechanics based on "feelings." To each his own as there is no governing authority to say what is right or wrong.

Nope. You are confusing personal preferences of what folks might 'like' with design 'realism.' Either players ARE forced to confront the same historical dilemma, or they aren't. You have to some extent objectively proven that and could conclusively test that proposition.

OK, let me take a shot at proving it. Here is an example taken from "Armor Magazine" PDF link on page 23.

Tank-On-Tank Duels-Every crew is faced with the speed versus accuracy dilemma. A shot that is fired too hastily may miss, while a more deliberate shot may arrive too late to save you.

You can see how crews are trained by looking in the US M60 tank manual the tactics for the first ranging shot at a target:

This image shows the amount of time for the gunner and TC to estimate the range, aim and fire after getting the gun on the target. Battlesight aiming is normally useful out to one second time of flight where the trajectory is flat enough for a good chance of a hit without needing to take additional time. The tank goes into action with the elevation set to have a high chance of a first round hit out to one second time of flight (700-1000m). In an emergency the crew could spend less than 5 seconds if they want to trade decreased accuracy for increased speed (Snap Shot). Because of this "dilemma" you can explain why in the heat of battle tanks missed targets at a range of 25m, it happens if you don't take your time. At ranges over one second time of flight the trajectory is not flat enough and the crew/player needs to use the full aim time (firing Precision).

Testing the proposition: The more time spent aiming and estimating the range the better the accuracy for a first ranging shot. The way I use Battlesight and Snap Shot in the game is if the range is <= one second time of flight and it will take 12 seconds to estimate the range, aim and fire the player has the option to subtract from 1-12 seconds to shoot sooner but with a +100m accuracy penalty for each second he is shooting sooner. So if the target is at 600m and he shoots using 6 seconds of aim time rather than 12 he uses the accuracy value for 1200m, not 600m. It's completely up to the player, not the dice or an artificial rule. I didn't make any of this up, it's all in the manuals. I think you can see that if you rely too much on speed and not enough on accuracy you can miss at even the closest ranges. That's the dilemma. At ranges over one second time of flight you need to use all of your aim time. This gives an advantage to guns with a higher muzzle velocity.

Now I've had some people say, "You don't need that level of detail in a game." Fine, then don't play it. It's what I feel is important and wanted to build into the game.

I'm interested in Analsim's game because I think he is doing something along the same lines for command and control.

Wolfhag

I think you can see that if you rely too much on speed and not enough on accuracy you can miss at even the closest ranges. That's the dilemma. At ranges over one second time of flight you need to use all of your aim time. This gives an advantage to guns with a higher muzzle velocity.

Wolfhag:
Yes, I can see. So you have done the first three of the four steps of a participatory simulation regarding the 'realism' in the design:

1.Your goals to recreate a historical combat situation
2.Your extensive research
3.Your efforts to translate that research into game mechanics
[Which you again have provided.]

You haven't really done the last part: Establishing that, indeed, what you want the participants to experience, that dilemma, is actually something they do experience in play, and that it matches the reality you researched and illustrated in your game.

There are a whole bunch of ways to validate your success…simulation designers usually do two or more of these 'tests:

1. Survey players after playing, without describing the dilemma to them before hand. Do they express it?

2. After playing survey the players with new scenarios describing a real situation from WWII and ask them to state the issues faced… your dilemma should be one of them.

3. Run the game play by actual tankers to see if they recognize and agree with what you've presented

4. Survey players before and after play to see how their perceptions of tank on tank combat changes.

5. Find historical accounts and test your system against them: Can your system recreate that situation.

6. Have a third party document/describe what happened during several games. Add to these some real descriptions of tank warfare…say six to eight examples all together. Ask individuals well versed in WWII tank warfare to read the descriptions. Can they tell the real from the game descriptions? This is called a "Turing Test" after the test Turing suggested to test the 'humanness' of an AI.

I could go on with different kinds of tests, but you get the idea. You want to establish, prove that the experience you wished to create for players does indeed mimic the real-life experience of tankers at the points you modeled, your dilemma. And of course, all this research and testing is pointless if the participants never know about it.

Now I've had some people say, "You don't need that level of detail in a game." Fine, then don't play it. It's what I feel is important and wanted to build into the game.

Yeah, that 'complaint' is a non-starter, as you point out. It has nothing to do with 'realism' and is all about what they want in a game rather than what you did. So yes, they can go design or play their own game. You, as the designer, choose the history, choose how it is modeled. The only question is whether you have succeeded with your design, provided the experience you wanted to. Comparing it to something they like isn't a meaningful critique of your design 'realism.' THAT is the only thing other gamers can evaluate fairly. The only question is, did you accomplish what you set out to do.

Whether it has 'too much detail' or folks 'like' that kind of wargame is a whole other issue and has nothing, I repeat nothing to do with establishing the 'realism' in a wargame. It is analogous to complaining about the color of the engine block when you are focused on building a functioning V-8 engine.

"4. Yet wargamers still go to wargames hoping to 1. learn some history and 2. experience it in dynamic fashion on the table or game board. If that wasn't the case, game designers would have quit claiming to create 'historically accurate' wargames a long time ago."

Speaking JUST for myself I 'still go to wargames'
hoping to enjoy the company of friends and like-minded
individuals and a few hours of freedom from the
bufflegarb and high-minded twaddle which passes for
learned discourse in today's society.

Speaking JUST for myself I 'still go to wargames'
hoping to enjoy the company of friends and like-minded
individuals and a few hours of freedom from the
bufflegarb and high-minded twaddle which passes for
learned discourse in today's society.

Ed: Speaking for myself, I go to wargames hoping for the same things… AND if the designer claims to have represented history accurately, promising to provide a 'realistic' experience, I go to that wargame expecting that too, not high-minded twaddle that passes for learned discourse from the designer or gamers.

Of course, from what you say above, you obviously aren't going to wargames as the designer of the game rules you are playing, but as a consumer, so you aren't concerned about that 'twaddle' of how to succeed at those design goals.

Fair enough. However, IF you are a wargame designer who wants to make sure objectively that he is achieving 'realism' and providing the game experience he meant to provide, there are proven methods to do that objectively. That is not high-minded or philosophical, just practical wargame design methodology and proven to be anything but twaddle. Need some practical references? You know, providing 'how to' methods?

As the consumer, I would think you would be interested in what you are buying and playing IF the game designer promises that kind of 'realistic' historical representation. You and your friends are paying for it and investing time in the experience, after all.

If not, I can see why you would think it is 'twaddle.'

For Professors Analsim and McLaddie,

Distilling true "historical realism" by means of a set or system of tabletop wargame rules strikes me as an ambitious task indeed. I must confess that when I hear claims of people that "We have the Solution" in connection with such an endeavor, my mind inevitably summons up an image of General Nivelle.

Question – If either Analsim or McLaddie has read du Picq, what do you make of duPicq's account of McDonald's Grand Column assault at Wagram? How would that, for example be addressed in the sort of realistic wargame rules being postulated here?

Honest question, gentlemen. Look forward to your responses.

B

Years ago I played a lot of dreadnought games, despite most of them being really tedious attempts at simulations. There was a Dogger Bank game at one of the HMGS cons that I tried, run by a guy who was very proud of how he was taking all historical factors into account and everything was nailed down to hard research, and we were supposedly modeling the decisions of real ship captains, and so on. After three hours, I gave up and walked away. It would have taken a week to finish the game. (And we're talking about a battle with only about ten ships!)

The problem was simple: he'd devoted all of this effort to modeling and simulating, without any concern for the practical limits of how long it would take to resolve for the gamers. In a wargame, stuff takes time. To fire one salvo required a few calculations, using charts and dice, just like any other game but with a bit more detail, altogether about 2 minutes required for the average player to resolve, assuming good communication, the other guy paying attention, nobody on a toilet break, nobody forgetting what phase they're on, and everybody can find the dice and charts they need. Then… Splash! You missed. Oh well.

Two minutes, times ten players, is twenty minutes to resolve one historical minute of shooting. (And we haven't even talked about how much time was needed to do movement, communications, repairs, etc.) Needless to say – because this was a Simulation! – you couldn't just move any old way. You had to signal the flagship, who took time to read the signal and respond, and so on.

It was a miserable experience, nobody enjoyed it. Certainly there was nothing in it that any player found rewarding enough, to merit the plodding and tedium of actually trying to play it.

If your "simulation" requires 20 minutes to simulate something that historically only required one minute, then it's not much of a simulation, IMO.

And if your simulation keeps getting slower, the more players and ships you add (because EACH player needs those 2 minutes), then that's a pretty obvious red flag that you aren't simulating, since in real life naval battles don't slow down when there are more ships involved. Wargames do. People do. But real battles don't.

I think that's why all these people who go on and on about simulations and how necessary and important they are, never manage to publish or sell them. First, because they're just wrong, and there aren't actually that many people who want a wargame to function like a graduate seminar. And Second, because at the end of the day it still has to be a game, and there are physical limits on what one can do with a game, because games require actions and components and most of all, Time.

It was a miserable experience, nobody enjoyed it. Certainly there was nothing in it that any player found rewarding enough, to merit the plodding and tedium of actually trying to play it.

Garth: Sounds terrible. A simulation game needs to be a game too. There is no game vs simulation dichotomy. A badly done simulation component is just as egregious as a badly done game if a design was intended to do both. Unfortunately, our hobby has been swamped by badly done simulations, games and those that claim to do both at times.

A failure of a game is simply credited to the designer, a failure as a simulation game is credited to the simulation component as inherently tedious or impossible as much as the designer.

Luddite Blutarski:

I can't speak for James/Professor Analsim, but your challenge is really vague. What does it mean when you ask,
"what do you make of duPicq's account of McDonald's Grand Column assault at Wagram?" What source? His Battle Studies, his articles?

Distilling true "historical realism" by means of a set or system of tabletop wargame rules strikes me as an ambitious task indeed.

Blutarski, I never said any such thing. However, how is that "distilling historical realism in a set of rules" different from what most all wargame designers claim now???? For instance,

Regimental Fire & Fury
"It took years of refining the rules and much playtesting to find the balance between playability and historical accuracy players expect in a Fire and Fury game. " [Foreword and Acknowledgements]

Black Powder
"Naturally, we wish our game to be a tolerably convincing
representation of real battle; however no pretense is made to simulate every nuance or detail of weaponry, drill or the psychology of warfare." [pages 4-5]

LaSalle
If you have a club, or a larger collection and gaming area,
Lasalle can also be used to simulate historical battles of the Napoleonic Wars, such as Quatra Bras, Albuera, Saalfeld, Eggmühl. [Description, Honor Games website]

So, my efforts have been to relate how such 'realism' and simulating can be objectively established in a wargame. There is no distilling going one beyond what the designer has chosen to 'distill.' The distilling is done by the designer. All I have been talking about is how to objectively establish the 'proof of the drink' after the designer has finished. But before you accuse me of avoiding your challenge…

How would that, for example be addressed in the sort of realistic wargame rules being postulated here?

Well, the first things I would do is establish:

1. What are the design goals? Is this something like Wolfhag's Crimea simulation or a general set of rules for the Napoleonic wars?
2. What scale? Battalion, brigade, division etc.? Who will the player be representing?
3. Is du Picq the only source for this wargame? i.e. the research template. This would mean simulating de Picq's conclusions.
4. What experience do you want the players to have both in terms of entertainment and simulation?
5. What game equipment do we use or limit ourselves to?

Those would be the first questions addressed.

But let me be very clear: I am not 'postulating' anything, certainly not that "I have The Solution" at all.

I have been relating that "The Solution" has been developed and established by decades of research, testing and success in a wide variety of venues in research, training, entertainment and any number of disciplines. I was involved in the training aspect. Regardless of the subject or medium, the basics of simulation design are the same. Simulations are a tool, if well-designed and used correctly, they can provide a wealth of information and experiences.

Type in on your search engine, simulation design, simulation methodologies, simulation techniques and technologies, uses of simulations, simulation games, or any other simulation topic and you will find a wealth of information to support what I have said.

If you don't want to wonder through the maze of the internet for the information, books are available. Some are:

1. One used by MIT in teaching simulation and game design is Rules of Play, Game Design Fundamentals by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman and see what they say about simulation/wargames.

2.Or find engineer Jerry Banks' Handbook of Simulation, Principles, Methodology, Advances, Applications and Practice. He covers wargames.

3. Then there is Phil Sabin's book Simulating War and his many games as examples.

To repeat: nothing I have said is 'my idea.' I am just relating what I know, what has been proven to work over many decades, a technology that I have used in my work as a trainer in creating participatory 'simulation games' before I retired.

There is no rule that says designers have to use this developed technology, but if wargame designers are claiming realism, accuracy, representation and simulating for their game designs, I see no way they can successfully achieve those goals while avoiding the methodologies of simulation design. ANY questions or problems our hobby has raised about 'realism' and fun simulation games have been addressed and solved by others long ago.

I am more than willing to walk through how one might build a 'realistic' wargame of McDonald's attack if you are willing to do a little work to see how simulations actually work in a game context.

A failure of a game is simply credited to the designer, a failure as a simulation game is credited to the simulation component as inherently tedious or impossible as much as the designer.

After 30+ years, I hear fewer and fewer people still talking about simulation as a goal, and I'm certainly less drawn to it or less impressed by the ever-elusive claims that it's just around the corner. It feels very much like religion to me at this point:

Every time somebody promises it and fails, I'm told either, "Well, they were doing it wrong," or "It's what the Lord intended."

Hi Garth,
Your commentary about the Dogger Bank scenario resonates with me. As a recovering once upon a time naval "rivet counter", I have myself been confronted by the apparently irreconcilable antagonism between devotion to detail and deterioration in pace/efficiency of play ("playability")

B

I can't speak for James/Professor Analsim, but your challenge is really vague.

>>>>> It's not a challenge; it is just a question.

- – -

What does it mean when you ask,
"what do you make of duPicq's account of McDonald's Grand Column assault at Wagram?" What source? His Battle Studies, his articles?

>>>>> Do you consider du Picq's commentary ("Battle Studies", pg. 150) regarding a dramatic erosion of MacDonald's Grand Column in its attack at Wagram? Du Picq writes that 22,000 men commenced the advance and not more than 3,000 reached the Austrian line. Of the 19,000 men apparently "lost", only about 6,000 proved to be legitimate casualties while the balance of 12-13,000 men had quietly dropped out en route in the crowded confusion of the advance. If so, how would you propose to meld a "casualty count" that derives simultaneously from both physical firepower and psychological effects?

- – -

Distilling true "historical realism" by means of a set or system of tabletop wargame rules strikes me as an ambitious task indeed.
Blutarski, I never said any such thing. However, how is that "distilling historical realism in a set of rules" different from what most all wargame designers claim now????

>>>>> I never asserted, suggested or implied that either you or Analsim said any such thing. It was simply a comment that the achievement of "true historical realism" within the confines of a tabletop wargame is an ambitious goal. But, that having been said, is not some higher state of historical realism your goal? Or do you and Analsim differ on that point?

- – -

For instance,

Regimental Fire & Fury
"It took years of refining the rules and much playtesting to find the balance between playability and historical accuracy players expect in a Fire and Fury game. " [Foreword and Acknowledgements]

Black Powder
"Naturally, we wish our game to be a tolerably convincing
representation of real battle; however no pretense is made to simulate every nuance or detail of weaponry, drill or the psychology of warfare." [pages 4-5]

LaSalle
If you have a club, or a larger collection and gaming area,
Lasalle can also be used to simulate historical battles of the Napoleonic Wars, such as Quatra Bras, Albuera, Saalfeld, Eggmühl. [Description, Honor Games website]
So, my efforts have been to relate how such 'realism' and simulating can be objectively established in a wargame. There is no distilling going on beyond what the designer has chosen to 'distill.' The distilling is done by the designer.

>>>>> Judging by your selection of above examples, do I correctly sense that you view the relationship between historical realism and playability as an inherently stressful one, where emphasis upon one exacts a cost upon the other?

- – -

All I have been talking about is how to objectively establish the 'proof of the drink' after the designer has finished. But before you accuse me of avoiding your challenge.

>>>>> No gauntlet was ever thrown down.

- – -

(Blutarski wrote – "How would that, for example be addressed in the sort of realistic wargame rules being postulated here?"
Well, the first things I would do is establish:
1. What are the design goals? Is this something like Wolfhag's Crimea simulation or a general set of rules for the Napoleonic wars?
2. What scale? Battalion, brigade, division etc.? Who will the player be representing?
3. Is du Picq the only source for this wargame? i.e. the research template. This would mean simulating de Picq's conclusions.
4. What experience do you want the players to have both in terms of entertainment and simulation?
5. What game equipment do we use or limit ourselves to?
Those would be the first questions addressed.
>>>>> Your above five items imply (to me at least) that you essentially take a more or less neutral position on the interrelationships between realism, playability, perspective and entertainment displayed by any set of rules. Perfectly legitimate.

- – -

But let me be very clear: I am not 'postulating' anything, certainly not that "I have The Solution" at all.

>>>>> Kindly re-read my post; no such accusation was made in your personal direction.

- – -

I have been relating that "The Solution" has been developed and established by decades of research, testing and success in a wide variety of venues in research, training, entertainment and any number of disciplines. I was involved in the training aspect. Regardless of the subject or medium, the basics of simulation design are the same. Simulations are a tool, if well-designed and used correctly, they can provide a wealth of information and experiences.

>>>>> Thanks for the reading recommendations, McLaddie. I will take a peek into them. I had read Perla years ago and came away rather dismayed by his pointed criticism of RAND's early romance with computers and its unrealistic "numbers-based" approach to warfare and weapon effects simulation; then it came to my attention that the US Army was using Phil Barker's Armor/Infantry wargaming rules to train troops in basic land battle tactics and matters proceeded from there. But, as your post implies, considerable time has passed since then.

B

Kindly re-read my post; no such accusation was made in your personal direction.

B:
I know that TMP post intent can be easily misinterpreted, even if re-read, so sorry if I misread your question as a challenge.

Do you consider du Picq's commentary ("Battle Studies", pg. 150) regarding a dramatic erosion of MacDonald's Grand Column in its attack at Wagram? …. If so, how would you propose to meld a "casualty count" that derives simultaneously from both physical firepower and psychological effects?

I get the impression you are asking two questions here:
1. What I think of du Picq analysis as history, and
2. How would I meld a casualty count with psychological effects.

1. For a simulation, are you wanting to use du Picq's description as the sole basis, to simulate that one event or are you asking for something covering Napoleonic combat in general? The first one doesn't require my opinion about his description to simulate it. Of the second, his description would have to be researched and treated as one of several events to build a statistical base for the behavior described by him.

2. You don't have to meld the two to simulate them. Treat them as two different behaviors. If you meld them, you are tying together casualty rates, type of fire, formation and battlefield behavior. In the end, it is the behavior, psychologically induced or not, that is the bottom line for the simulation and the only thing needed to be modeled.

within the confines of a tabletop wargame is an ambitious goal. But, that having been said, is not some higher state of historical realism your goal?

I am not sure how many times I have to repeat myself. I am not being particularly ambitious. The goal is not 'some higher state' of historical realism. Let that sink in.

I am talking about simulation methodologies. They provide the ability of designers and thus gamers to know objectively where, how and how much history and attendant realism a wargame design offers. If you see that as a 'higher state' of realism, okay, but I am simply wanted to establish in game design terms what designers already claim is there, not advocate some 'higher state' or more realism. Then again, if you knew exactly where F&F was 'historically accurate', and could reference where
the history came from, I suppose that would appear to be a higher state of realism.

Judging by your selection of above examples, do I correctly sense that you view the relationship between historical realism and playability as an inherently stressful one, where emphasis upon one exacts a cost upon the other?

No, you don't. While many designers and gamers stress over that relationship, I simply provided a few examples of designers claiming realism, accuracy and simulating for their designs, nothing more. I am suggesting we, as consumers should and can know exactly where and how those design goals are met.

Your above five items imply (to me at least) that you essentially take a more or less neutral position on the interrelationships between realism, playability, perspective and entertainment displayed by any set of rules. Perfectly legitimate.

Not at all. Those items are the questions I would need to establish to START designing a simulation. In answering those questions, a lot of the above issues and desired interrelationships are addressed and filled in by the designer. He gets to decide which scale and what history he wants to represent at that scale. No neutrality there.

However, because we are talking about a methodology for creating a simulation, like all methods, they are neutral in expression, as neutral as describing how an internal combustion engine works.

Thanks for the reading recommendations, McLaddie. I will take a peek into them. I had read Perla years ago and came away rather dismayed by his pointed criticism of RAND's early romance with computers and its unrealistic "numbers-based" approach to warfare and weapon effects simulation; then it came to my attention that the US Army was using Phil Barker's Armor/Infantry wargaming rules to train troops in basic land battle tactics and matters proceeded from there. But, as your post implies, considerable time has passed since then.

As implied, the 'numbers-based' approach is only one of many statistical methods, and many other that don't use any. As RAND learned along with the entire simulation community, things have changed and become more sophisticated. It all depends on what goals you want as process and outcomes. Note that the 'numbers-based' approach RAND employed was primarily a predictive effort, not a participatory or decision-making/training program. That is important to remember because a large amount of the military's simulation efforts are to predict outcomes rather than train. Same technology and methods, but a different use for the simulation tool, a one with rather mixed success at times, depending.

Yes, board and table-top games designed for entertainment are still being used in large numbers by the military, AND vise vera. Board games are far more versatile, easier to transport and set up. The military even approached H.G.Well and asked him to design a military version of his toy soldier floor battles.

After 30+ years, I hear fewer and fewer people still talking about simulation as a goal, and I'm certainly less drawn to it or less impressed by the ever-elusive claims that it's just around the corner. It feels very much like religion to me at this point:

Every time somebody promises it and fails, I'm told either, "Well, they were doing it wrong," or "It's what the Lord intended."

Garth: Yes, the claims do seem elusive in our hobby but fewer people talking about it? If you read what most contemporary designers say about their games, you know, how they 'recreate', 'represent', 'model', offer historical command decisions, etc. etc., all of which are simply other words for simulating history, you'd see the notion is still alive and still just as elusive. A number of designers claim such qualities for their games and then deny it is even possible. That is how screwed-up the hobby's understanding of what simulating continues to be. All I've been saying is that it doesn't have to be and isn't in other game and simulation venues. Even in board wargaming community, the word 'simulation' is still ubiquitous.

Because of a wonky understanding of simulating as a technology, designers' unwillingness to take their own claims seriously, and lots of bad, detail choked nonsense labeled 'simulations', lots of gamers would much rather avoid such dead-end notions.

That is how screwed-up the hobby's understanding of what simulating continues to be.

That's the part that always sounds religious to me: Everybody's doing it wrong, they don't understand how important it is to do it my way, but if only they could see the light, we'd all reach new heights of perfection and ecstasy, etc, etc.

you'd see the notion is still alive and still just as elusive.

Isn't it possible that they're just using the word differently than you do? Maybe – in your opinion – they're using it incorrectly, but languages are flexible things, after all. When my son and his pals described music they liked as "sick," for example, I decided not to correct them.

Because of a wonky understanding of simulating as a technology, designers' unwillingness to take their own claims seriously, and lots of bad, detail choked nonsense labeled 'simulations', lots of gamers would much rather avoid such dead-end notions.

Isn't it possible that you're not giving people enough credit for having made conscious decisions to play the games they do, because they enjoy them? And that there aren't in fact lots of gamers who are longing to do it your way?

As for whether lots of gamers would like to "avoid such dead-end notions": Even if they did feel exactly as you think they did, what choices would they have? The handful of people who keep talking about true simulations and such, never manage to offer anything commercially to the marketplace. Religion again: the Messiah is always just around the corner, but he never manages to get here by game-time.

That's the part that always sounds religious to me: Everybody's doing it wrong, they don't understand how important it is to do it my way, but if only they could see the light, we'd all reach new heights of perfection and ecstasy, etc, etc.

Garth:
I don't know about the new heights of perfection and ecstasy, but what I have been talking about isn't a belief system, but rather methodologies already developed, proven and used daily by simulation designers of all stripes.

It isn't 'my way.' I am simply pointing out that
Designers already claim to be creating simulations, but aren't, muddying the situation by never defining what they are in design terms, which creates and feeds this unnecessary 'schism' between simulations and games. If designers didn't claim such things, I wouldn't have anything to say about it. That's it in a nut shell.

Isn't it possible that they're just using the word differently than you do? Maybe – in your opinion – they're using it incorrectly, but languages are flexible things, after all.

That certainly could be the case. When a designer says his wargame represents, models, recreates, etc., they can't do those things without attempting to simulate [act as if real] unless they specifically deny it. But is it a matter of misinterpretation? I gave three examples above and I can give many more contemporary design statements. Is there room for misunderstanding regarding simulating?

Here are more examples:

Although a true simulation is in practice a rare and extreme form of tabletop wargaming, that is not to say that our own games are 'just games' or that factual and historical details 'don't matter.' If we are designing historical wargames then our rules have to represent the warfare of our chosen era in a way that our audiences find credible…Our rules must serve a broader function that as strict simulations even if they have many of the same qualities we have described for those kinds of military exercises.

page 18 Rick Priestley, Tabletop Wargaming

Priestley never gives a definition of a 'strict' or 'true' simulation compared to our wargames, let alone what a simulation is in game design, but does say that with Black Powder "Naturally, we wish our game to be a tolerably convincing representation of real battle; however no pretense is made to simulate every nuance or detail…"

Whatever fuzziness of meaning exists is inherent in the writing and lack of design meaning, just asking to be misinterpreted.

or:

Wargaming is playing with toy soldiers, or so its detractors never cease pointing out, with all too tedious regularity. To be more specific, the wargames hobby is concerned with simulating historical conflicts with miniature figures fighting battles over three-dimensional terrain, their movement and combat being regulated by rules that create historically accurate battles.

P. 1 Neil Thomas, Wargaming, An Introduction
This is the same Neil Thomas who has created a series of rules for simple wargames. As he writes in his introduction to Wargaming: Nineteenth Century Europe:

The rules themselves come next; they are intentionally simple, yet can be relied upon to deliver historically viable outcomes…

So, are those historically viable outcomes simulating or not? One of the issues I raise is the reinforcing fuzziness presented to the hobby of "they are but they aren't" simulations, they simulate, but not 'strictly.' Is there any wonder a schism exists in such a vacuum of design meaning?

It isn't a matter of designers using words like simulating 'differently' than I do, but rather never giving any clear game design meaning to them at all.

Isn't it possible that you're not giving people enough credit for having made conscious decisions to play the games they do, because they enjoy them? And that there aren't in fact lots of gamers who are longing to do it your way?

I would hope that with the quotes above, I am not talking about 'my way' nor questioning the decisions players make as to what they enjoy doing. I make the same decision every day I play simulations that aren't, ignoring the fact because there is no point in questioning something that is endemic and not solved at the game table. I want to enjoy playing too. However, while doing that, I listen to discussions and debates over what is and isn't being represented on the table, totally unresolvable because of a lack of design information, while the history portrayed is basically made up by the players because they don't know what history the rules were actually designed to portray. As you say, "What choices would they have?"

Gamers can enjoy whatever they want to and always will. If a designer claims to be simulating war, I want to know how if I am buying that product. At the moment that information isn't being provided and should because that is what is being claimed. Am I supposed to ignore what I know of simulations and accept designers' vague explanations when they don't have to be? Accept manufactured schisms that in reality don't exist in simulation game design?

The handful of people who keep talking about true simulations and such, never manage to offer anything commercially to the marketplace.

This has been stated many times and makes me chuckle. First of all, it is most designers who talk about simulations, true ones, strict ones and wargames as simulations. Lots of them, not a 'handful of people.' Why? Because that is what wargames are and what gamers apparently continue to want.

That handful you mention are simply asking for clarity of meaning regarding current discussions. The game as entertainment communities are constantly designing commercial, functional simulation games, writing about how to do it, improving the craft--but I have to create a functional simulation to prove they exist. Sort of like me having to write a novel to prove they can exist. That won't prove much to groups that refuse to read.

Interesting discussion but the recent posts are a little out of my league.

Here are a couple of definitions of simulation that I think fit what we are talking about and is somewhat inclusive:

1- the action of pretending; deception.
"clever simulation that's good enough to trick you"

2- the production of a computer model of something, especially for the purpose of study.
"the method was tested by computer simulation"

I think definition #1 fits the traditional games using abstracted rules not found in the manuals or battlefield. These would include unit activations, initiative determination, command points and all sorts of "elegant" dice mechanics. These create the feeling of realism in a person's mind using some imagination based on their knowledge and past experiences.

It's a reality which is created for each individual that you cannot invalidate because each player has the freedom to "pretend". You cannot tell someone what their reality is or should be unless there was some agreed formula or judging criteria which there is not in historical war gaming.

It's pointless to attempt to change someone's mind once they've become heavily involved in recreating this reality. A large percentage of the reality is created by the quality of the miniatures and terrain that attempt to trick your mind into believing they are real. Players also get a good "feeling" seeing their work on display and complimented by their peers too. Nothing wrong with that. Look on the After Actions Report board and you see there are more closeup of the game and discussion on models and techniques than the intricacies of the blow by blow battle description.

Definition #2 is based on some type of realistic or predicted data and/or verified historic data to study some method, machine, or activity. It does not have to be a computer simulation as a manual simulation can be done along the same lines using manual calculations and the same data.

I fit into definition #2 because what I like to do is to study and observe in the game the differences in historic performance of guns and weapons system platforms and how player decisions historically influenced the performance and outcome. To do that you need hard data with a minimum of abstractions and need to know how the weapons platforms historically performed, tactics, training manuals.

My opinion is all combat has one thing in common – it's a time competitive endeavor with action happening simultaneously. I think that's why computers can give the best simulations because it can easily integrate timing and simultaneous actions. This is why I developed my own system. I can compare it to historical after action reports and see the effects of player decisions on the outcome using a playable and somewhat realistic simultaneous action that can give historic split-second combat results.

To each his own.

Wolfhag

I'm interested that the name "George Jeffreys" has not yet appeared in this discussion.

B

1- the action of pretending; deception.
"clever simulation that's good enough to trick you"

Sorry, if it is a 'trick' or deception, then it is a trick the participants willing engage in, so it can't be a deception. That is unless the player doesn't know why the rules work to represent reality… this it is just mystery meat and gamers are almost guaranteed to be deceived.

it I think definition #1 fits the traditional games using abstracted rules not found in the manuals or battlefield. These would include unit activations, initiative determination, command points and all sorts of "elegant" dice mechanics. These create the feeling of realism in a person's mind using some imagination based on their knowledge and past experiences.

The game designer question is "Exactly how does the wargame system create that "feeling of realism" and why?" Why would a gamer ever think or feel an 'activation mechanic' is 'realistic?' Why would they ever think to pretend it has something to do with reality?

It's a reality which is created for each individual that you cannot invalidate because each player has the freedom to "pretend".

While it is true that every person has unique experiences, I am not sure where we are talking about 'invalidating' someone's pretending. We are talking about 'creating reality.'

You cannot tell someone what their reality is or should be unless there was some agreed formula or judging criteria which there is not in historical wargaming

Wolfhag, what? Every wargame created presents an agreed-upon formula or judging criteria in playing: the rules. Players are agreeing to that set of criteria in playing. But no, I further disagree for the following reasons:

1. Every wargame or game ever created is directing what the player *should* experience. That is why game designers call themselves "experience engineers." That is what game rules are all about: Directing experience.

2. Every player overtly and covertly agrees to enter the game for that 'controlled' experience. That controlled experience definitely includes "guided pretending." You have noted that one of your goals is to have players experience the Tanker's dilemma. They have to pretend to experience that reality. If they don't, your wargame goal has not been achieved.

3. The rules are the primary way any game creates an experience environment and guides any pretending players engage in--It doesn't limit or invalidate any pretending outside of that goal.

4. None of this invalids a player's wide-ranging pretending or imagining as they play. However, if they never experience the tanker's dilemma while playing, never see the relationship between reality and the game mechanics you desired for them, then your wargame has failed in a goal you set for it, regardless of whether the players pretend up a storm and enjoy themselves. Your game processes are designed specifically to create 'guided pretending', a specific set of experience--among all the players' individual thoughts and experiences. All your descriptions of your wargame include that word: Experience.

I'm sorry, but the vast majority of game and simulation designers don't agree with your views. In fact, they would say technically and practically, you are denying any ability to provide a particular experience for the players. I can provide a wide-ranging list of books or quotes to that effect if you like.

Imagine if movie directors or novelists believed that. There are all sorts of techniques for guiding pretending and our hobby meanders through them, without ever noting how other designers outside the hobby have methodically documented proven ways to do that with a game system. Start with Raph Koster's A Theory of Fun for Game Design:

If you review those definitions of "game" I presented earlier, you'll see that they have some elements in common. They all present games as if they exist within a world of their own. They describe games as a simulation, a formal system, or as Huizinga put it, a "Magic Circle" that is disconnected from reality. They all talk about how choices or rules are important, as well as conflict. Finally, a lot of them define games as objects that aren't real, things for pretending with.

But games are very real to me. Games might seem abstracted from reality because they are iconic depictions of patterns in the world. They have more in common with how our brain visualizes things than they do with how reality is actually formed. Since our perception of reality is basically abstractions anyway, I call it a wash.

The pattern depicted may or may not exist in reality. Nobody is claiming that tic-tac-toe is a decent mimicry of warfare, for example.[but you are claiming the tanker's dilemma is.] But the rules we perceive--what I'll call the pattern--gets processed exactly the same way we process very real things like 'fire burns' and 'how cars move forward.'

Games are puzzles to solve, just like everything else we encounter in life… The only difference between games and reality is that the stakes are lower in games.

page 34

Wargames can provide those 'patterns of reality', that experience. Designers take the developed methods for doing so seriously, avoiding non-staters in their practical applications.

I'm interested that the name "George Jeffreys" has not yet appeared in this discussion.

B: I am not sure why it would or should. What are you thinking?

Hi McLaddie,
Not trying to disrupt any of the ongoing festivities.

While in my office "re-organizing" my war-gaming files, I came across my copy of Professor Jeffreys' Napoleonic Rules in which he introduced, among other things, his concept of the variable length bound and an impressive academic grasp of Napoleonic warfare. It was viewed as quite a radical departure from the hobbyist wargaming norm at the time, although his variable length bound approach did not meet with widespread acceptance (or perhaps understanding) among my fellow gamers.

Jeffreys, IIRC, had taught at Sandhurst and was close to both Paddy Griffith and Ned Zuparko. I always considered him an important pioneer in wargaming as intelligent simulation.

B

1- the action of pretending; deception.
"clever simulation that's good enough to trick you"

Sorry, if it is a 'trick' or deception, then it is a trick the participants willing engage in, so it can't be a deception. That is unless the player doesn't know why the rules work to represent reality… this it is just mystery meat and gamers are almost guaranteed to be deceived.

It's a dictionary definition, not mine. Of course they willing engage in it, it's entertainment. The special effects in Saving Private Ryan were good enough to make people believe it was real. My wife will cover her eyes in certain parts of a movie because it's too real for her, I laugh.

The rules are the primary way any game creates an experience environment and guides any pretending players engage in--It doesn't limit or invalidate any pretending outside of that goal.

From my experience with miniatures players it's not the rules that guide the pretending. When a table has 1,000+ figures lined up on a 20 foot table all painted in historic colors in historic formations with realistic terrain almost any set of rules is going to generate enough realism for the players to thoroughly enjoy it. When most spectators walk by and looks at the table they are in awe and rarely ask what rules are you playing. Why? Because it "looks" real just like good special effects in a movie.

The game designer question is "Exactly how does the wargame system create that "feeling of realism" and why?" Why would a gamer ever think or feel an 'activation mechanic' is 'realistic?' Why would they ever think to pretend it has something to do with reality?

Ya got me but just read posts on TMP and elsewhere. When Bolt Action first came out there was a nice flame war over people that thought the game was realistic and people who made fun of them. I sat on the sidelines. When I played Panzerblitz when I was 17 I thought that was the ultimate in war gaming but I knew next to nothing about tanks or mechanized warfare at the time. I don't now.

The bottom line is that it appears reality is what people perceive it to be and what they want to believe and good luck changing their mind (I think you disagree). Some people are misinformed and some people are delusional. Just look at the history of mankind, you can get them to believe almost anything. If you spent your entire life in N. Korea you'd think Rocket Man was a demigod too, so would I. If the only war game you ever played was Panzerblitz and had no outside research sources you'd believe it was real too.

You have noted that one of your goals is to have players experience the Tanker's dilemma. They have to pretend to experience that reality. If they don't, your wargame goal has not been achieved.

I'll post this again from the US M60 tank manual:

So in the game the player can decide to use from 1 to 8 seconds to shoot, just like the crew is trained in the manual. He needs 8 seconds for the best accuracy and anything over 8 does not give an advantage. If the player decides to take from 1 to 7 seconds accuracy decreases the fewer seconds he takes simulating a Snap Shot. The player makes the same exact decision as the real crews and for the same reason. That's what it appears to me anyhow with a minimum of "pretending" or abstractions.

Of course it's not in real time combat with the threat of dying if he makes the wrong decision. It's the best I can do. People can give it a 1-10 rating for realism, historical accuracy, playability, etc. just like they can rate a movie. No hard feelings. I've had some people say they prefer more "abstractions" in the game as it is too detailed. So be it.

I've had about a dozen former tank crewman play and test the game and they have not suggested any improvements. I've had gamers that were never in a tank or read the manual that have said they like card activations better than my system. So be it. I'm not going to argue with them.

Not everyone processes information the same and people have different preferences and I try to respect that. People normally design a game for a specific audience. If you are not the target of the design you are probably not going to like it but that does not invalidate the design. This is why I think a game design should be judged by how well it meets the designers goals, not what you think it should be. That's why I'm waiting to see Analsim's work before I pass judgment.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag:
I realized it wasn't your definition of a simulation. It was a pretty poor one.

From my experience with miniatures players it's not the rules that guide the pretending. When a table has 1,000+ figures lined up on a 20 foot table all painted in historic colors in historic formations with realistic terrain almost any set of rules is going to generate enough realism for the players to thoroughly enjoy it.

There are a lot of things that can stir the imagination and seeing all those hundreds of pretty figures and terrain is certainly one of them. It is for me. As to 'guiding the pretending', that is true to the degree that 1. the observers know what they are looking at [period, uniforms, battle] and 2. they do more than stand around admiring it.

When most spectators walk by and looks at the table they are in awe and rarely ask what rules are you playing. Why? Because it "looks" real just like good special effects in a movie.

Of course, they don't ask about the rules, they aren't playing with the figures, just admiring them.

It isn't *like* a movie unless something moves on the table. While the figures and scenary are a real draw and aid to a gamer's imagination, pretending is an action, not a state of being. Playing the game is where the pretending begins.

And if the rules didn't mean that much, we certainly wouldn't have so many published rules. Nor would we have gamers complain when they are popped out of their pretending [that magic circle] by some game event created by the rules that 'don't seem right', usually for a supposed historical reason.

So, unless you are arguing that standing around looking at nice figures and terrain, drinking beer and socializing is all that historical wargamers do or talk about, then the rules still hold a primary place in game play, and thus guide pretending, even though lots of things can aid gamers--and designers in that effort.

You certainly didn't design your rules for gamers that don't play but look at all the neat tanks and terrain.

I've had about a dozen former tank crewman play and test the game and they have not suggested any improvements. I've had gamers that were never in a tank or read the manual that have said they like card activations better than my system. So be it. I'm not going to argue with them.

Of course not.

Not everyone processes information the same and people have different preferences and I try to respect that.

Three points here:
1. Those individuals you mention were not 'processing information' differently in saying they liked card activations better, particularly the information you provided. They were expressing a game mechanic preference…regardless of the information. It was a conclusion statement on what they liked. I say that because from your description they didn't note what your rules offered in the way of history or realism and probably didn't give particularly cogent historical reasons for 'activation' . Probably 'game reasons' of familiarity and ease of play--because of that.

2. Actually, people do process information in very similar ways when playing a game. Part of the reason is the character of game tasks, part of it is because that is exactly what game rules do, guide players in the sequence of game information processing. Again, read Koster's Designing for Fun.

3. ALL gamers are designed for specific audiences and all games will have folks dislike the results, which does not invalidate the game, as you say. I know folks that hate The Settlers of Catan or complain about the lack of realism.

When Bolt Action first came out there was a nice flame war over people that thought the game was realistic and people who made fun of them. I sat on the sidelines. When I played Panzerblitz when I was 17 I thought that was the ultimate in war gaming but I knew next to nothing about tanks or mechanized warfare at the time. I don't now.

Well, the flame war was predictable when Priestley and company never provided any evidence of what history and combat events induced them to design the Bolt Action the way they did. Priestley even said he didn't know much about WWII when he created BA.

Historical ignorance is a wonderful way of avoiding any such psychic dissonance, which pop one out of the pretending. I've watched lots of gamers embrace that ignorance because any knowledge gets in the way.

It is a critical reason that gamers have to know what history is being portrayed how to avoid that issue. It is doubly true of simulation game play because one of the reasons to simulate is to provide that one-to-one experience with history/combat.

It is a fundamental reason for flame wars, a lack of interest in the historical underpinnings of wargames, [I like activation cards] and the failure of so many hobby wargames as simulations.

Everyone normally designs a game for a specific audience but that does not invalidate the design because those outside that audience don't like it.

This is why I think a game design should be judged by how well it meets the designers goals, not what you think it should be. That's why I'm waiting to see Analsim's work before I pass judgment.

I have been saying the same thing. This is particularly true when someone designs a simulation/wargame. It is about how to achieve the designer's goals. That's what this "Game Design" list is about.

I wish I could convince you that a major reason gamers were happy with such a limited 'game' as your Crimean scenario is because
1. They knew exactly what and what was not the goals of the game, and came to it with those expectations, not theirs.
2. They knew what history was involved and how.and

3. because of the first 2 points, the outcome was satisfying. They got what they were told they would specifically get in play.

That was with their 'individual ways of processing information and pretending in a wide variety of ways during the game.

Asking how designers provide gamers with the experiences they want to design into their wargame is an objective investigation of effective how to's, not a matter of opinion or likes. but a technology of methods that have worked in a variety of venues and with a variety of people.

Like any art, game design has to have a foundation of sound methodologies. Otherwise, Art is a hit-or-miss proposition of talented amateurs being successful but not knowing why any more than others knowing why they failed.

This is why I think a game design should be judged by how well it meets the designers goals, not what you think it should be. That's why I'm waiting to see Analsim's work before I pass judgment.

Wolfhag: I failed to bold your words above. Not my words, though I agree. So, the design questions involve how to achieve those wargame design goals.

It really is all about what the designer wants and what the player wants. In arecent thread about tble top gaming there are objections to hidden movement in a game as it takes figures off the table which the author considered an unsatisfactory solution. That may well be the case if the prime reason for playing is the visual aspect of the figures. Degrading the simulation to enhance the visual being an acceptable compromise in that case.

Designers to support such a set of game requirements will, by definition be more than happy to compomride even the very basics for enhancement of the show.

This highlights the fact that the Paradigm in some quarters is well and breaking it for some is not an acceptable solution.

This reenforces McLaddie and Wolfhags statements that you should really only judge a "game" on its design paramnaters and how they match with your own requirements,

If a designer came up with the ultimate figure game it that met its goals It would still be unusable to me as the design goals would be unacceptable to me.

What is needed it that rules don't lie. A simulation that does not even attempt some form of hidden movement is going to be a VERY poor simulation so should not make great claimns about its simulation characteristics.

An interesting discussion. One point that I would like to make is that if a GM is looking to have a historically realistic game, then the GM has to take some of the burden and not leave it entirely to the game designer.

A set of rules is by its very nature, a general guideline. I will give the example of one of the periods I GM for at conventions. I use the Pike and Shotte rules for Italian Wars games. The P&S rules cover a large period of history and cannot hope to get every nuance of the Italian Wars in general and individual battles in particular. The strength of the rules is that because they cover such a large period of history, a lot of people are familiar with them in a convention setting.

If we take the Battle of Bicocca, one of the central parts of the battle was the Spanish defenses built at a sunken road. The advancing Swiss pike could not even see the sunken road until they got there. When they went into the road to attack the defenses, their pikes could not even reach the Spanish troops at the top of the defenses. Expecting a general rule set to cover such specific circumstances is unfair.

Another example is that in the rules, cavalry are so heavily penalized if they attack a pike block that you would be foolish to try. However, this does not represent all of the Italian Wars battles. In some specific cases cavalry did attack pike. In researching those cases it often came down to if the pike block was moving, or if it was stationary and set to receive the cavalry charge. Again I would not expect a general rule set to cover very isolated examples of cavalry v pike. Hence the need for some extra rules to cover these circumstances.

Another example is the Battle of Ravenna, where a 9,500 man pike block was central to the action. This sized block is way bigger than most pike blocks at the time. Expecting a general rule set to cover this pike block is asking too much.

As a GM, if I want historical accuracy for a particular battle that I am running, it is down to me to adapt the rules to give representation of the battle as I understand it.

Even a set of rules devoted to a particular war, such as Napoleonics, may not give me everything that I want to model an 1813 Saxon Battalion fighting its way through a village. I would probably want to add some custom rules to represent my understanding of the tactics.

However, I also recognize that I am putting on a game. I am not looking for the game to always have the same result as history. I need both sides to be able to have somewhere between a 30 and 70% chance of winning. Outside that band, I just don't think that (in most cases) it makes a "good" convention game. What I am striving for in a convention game is something that is fast, fun and gives a flavor of the period/battle. If it allows for the possibility of the historical result, that is great.

I get that my approach is not for everyone and that is fine. I think that there is a large spectrum on the line of Simulation to Game and it is up to everyone to find what they enjoy.

Now back to painting ships for Harpoon V, which is probably way on the Simulation end of that line.

It would still be unusable to me as the design goals would be unacceptable to me.

What is needed it that rules don't lie. A simulation that does not even attempt some form of hidden movement is going to be a VERY poor simulation so should not make great claimns about its simulation characteristics.

UshCha:
Let's not confuse preferred the content of a simulation with a functional/valid simulation system. The former is a matter of selection of a limited number of elements out of an infinite reality/history and the latter is simply designing a simulation that works as one.

I too feel I want games with hidden movement. There are a number of design goals that cannot succeed unless that element is included. However, it is not a necessary ingredient for all wargame/simulations, though you certainly are allowed your preferences as to content.

For example, Phil Sabin designed the wargame "Block Busting." It was included in his book Simulating War and free on-line, IIRC.

It has a small board representing three city blocks, divided into 9 X 6 squares. It has one page of rules and 30 counters total and three phases per UG/IG turns. There are no heavy weapons, tanks, limited ammo, command structure or communication rules other than some very rudimentary mechanics. And no hidden movement.

Even so, within the chosen elements and objectives of the design, it is a valid/functional simulation of Modern Urban Combat.

I know this because
1.I know the reality/history it is meant to model,
2. I know how the mechanics were chosen to do that and
3. having played the wargame, veterans of urban combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have said it is a realistic portrayal of the tactical dilemmas faced by infantry.

Phil has designed a number of games with hidden movement, because he could not make his chosen arena of simulation work without it, unlike "Block Busting."

I think I understand why you feel hidden movement is so important to you because "It would still be unusable to me as the design goals would be unacceptable to me." Totally your prerogative. I have similar feelings, though not so exclusionary in a preference.

To reiterate, hidden movement in-and-of itself is not a prerequisite for a valid simulation of war anymore than ammo depletion or tanks. It all depends on what the simulation is meant to capture in limited fashion out of all reality, past and present.

Martyn K:

Yes, designing a general set of rule, particularly covering centuries of warfare is unable to capture individual events, depending on what is meant to be modeled. For instance, the basic organizational building blocks of any 'block of pikemen' was basically the same for over a century. the Battle of Ravenna, where a 9,500 man pike block was central to the action. Even though this block is way bigger than most pike blocks at the time, the basic methods for 'building' the block remained the same. If the rules were designed to portray those century-old methods, then the rules *should* have been able to handle the large pike block. It all depends on what the rules are designed to do.

And yes, designing a simulation AND a game that plays well is twice as hard as attempting just one. It can be and is done, and certainly one approach can involve designing specific scenarios around a set of rules like Pike and Shot. As you say, "Expecting a general rule set to cover such specific circumstances is unfair." I would say true, though it would depend on the rules and the particular circumstances. Depending on the the rules and events chosen, it could be quite fair to have those expectations.

However, I also recognize that I am putting on a game. I am not looking for the game to always have the same result as history

I am not sure about your statement, so I am going to state something again: Simulation designs of any kind are not required to and few are designed to produce the same result as history or reality over-and-over again.

There are Static Simulations that do repeat over-and-over again the same result, reproducing one event. One type is called a movie.

Dynamic Simulations are designed to provide environments where the players/users create the events. Like a game or a research simulation of chemical reactions or galactic collisions. Don't confuse the two. Too many wargames do, creating neither functional simulations or decent games. The "McClellan rules" for most Antietam games are a good example of this confusing 'mix' of the two types of simulations: creating a single event vs creating an decision-making environment.

Wolfhag's Crimean "Charge of the Light Brigade" is such a mix, but dedicated to one result. As everyone knew it was a Static Simulation in principle, so no one was expecting a 'game.'

As to I think that there is a large spectrum on the line of Simulation to Game. Is like saying there is a large spectrum of being pregnant. One either is or isn't.

Certainly a game can simulate a larger number of things or
a small number, like the "Block Busting" game I mentioned. However, a simulation either works or it doesn't. It doesn't function as a simulation 'a little bit.'

It either does or it doesn't, which means you can have a spectrum or continuum of how much a simulation attempts to simulate, say comparing "Block Busting" to "Harpoon V" but neither game can't simulate 'a little bit or a lot'. The simulation, regardless of the amount of content is either a functioning simulation or it fails as one.

That means that Block Busting could be an accurate simulation where Harpoon V isn't. Or both could be equally accurate and valid simulations. But you can't say one is a little bit of a simulation and the other a lot. The bag either holds the contents or it doesn't, it is never 'a little bit of a bag.'