"Simulation the price is a headache ;-)" Topic

In the UK recently there has been a heatwave making war gaming impractical for most, we do not have centrally heated venues.

So we sat out into the hot night chatting. We concluded many war games deliberately move away from simulation to make play less complex.

The old favorite is chess, its ultra simple rules but it requires enormous amounts of thought and concentration to play.

Simulations at least good ones that are not massively abstracted are the same.

If you keep rifles and MG's to the same range but just change the factors its a lot less comnplex than having a single range and MG shooting at twice rifle range. In the latter case far more planning is required than the former. Similarly if you let tanks on occasion move far faster than infantry, like re-deploying, then there are again far more decisions to make than if it can only move 12" and fire.

Worse still players need to have an understanding of real world tactics which again can only be gained by the study of books and internet, so for some too high a price to pay.

Even recently one gentlemen noted that hidden movement was undesirable as it meant figures not being on the table. Again simulation is undesireable its "costs" are too high.

Simulation will probably only be desirable for a few who want complex (tactically not in rule pages) games and are prepared to play lots of games and always similar periods. Few armatures play more than one sport at a time too much time is required. Simulation often falls into this category.

Folk like me have learn that not all war gamers and perhaps even most don't want to play at that level of commitment so are happy with games that ignore reality to get a less demanding game.

Also games with a high random content perhaps appeals to gambling types who get some form of enjoyment by simply rolling a dire.

As always agree/disagree or put forward your own hypothesis.

Wargamers probably fall into a bell curve. Most are somewhere in the middle, but some are far left and some are far right. The further away that you get from your point on the curve, the less tolerant you are of others on the curve. You are on the far right. For moderns, I am probably left of center. I can't comprehend how you think that your games are fun, and I am sure that you can't comprehend why I would even bother playing the game to begin with. There is something for everybody. You just need to find like-minded players. It's like watching people play WWII with ASL. I just shake my head and walk away. I don't literally want to spend 15-20 minutes flipping through the rules to see how to set a stone building on fire.

In the UK recently there has been a heatwave making war gaming impractical for most, we do not have centrally heated venues.

I would have thought you wanted aircon, not central heating!!

Is this another of those 'if you're not doing it my way you're doing it wrong' threads?

There are games I would not play in a million years. I don't find it necessary to adopt a superior tone and insult the intelligence of those that do play them.

UshCha, you play your games within a very restricted window of both time and scope yet you seem to think that your ideology applies to all wargames. This is clearly not so.

It is feasible to fight 'battles' in your period with a small number of combatants over a relatively large area due to the range and effect of the weaponry. In other periods this is not the case. Skirmishes in most pre-gunpowder eras probably evolved and were resolved in much the same way with individual's skills and characteristics more important than their weaponry. In wargaming terms this is more RPG than wargame.

Fighting a battle in, say, the ECW, individual skills (beyond that of the commanders) have little impact on the outcomes while training, morale and such have far more impact. This is because the UNIT, not the individual or small team, is the decisive human element.

Trying to break this down to the levels you would require would be virtually impossible as we know so little about the way in which such units actually worked on the battlefield (and I mean KNOW, not guess). It would also avail us very little in 'simulating' the events.

Your view is so narrow that you just can't expect to see what others do from a different approach and why, to be candid, you come over as arrogant, which I doubt to be the case.

I do agree on random events. They should be a tool to introduce uncertainty and/or variation into the outcome but should not be so great as to overwhelm the effect of the factors being modelled.

I have played (many years ago) WW2 games that took all sorts of factors into account when deciding an outcome from a single shot. Never ever got to a point in any of the games that could reasonably be called a conclusion because each shot took far too long to resolve.

Oh, by the way, an armature is part of an electric motor, the word you want is amateur.

players need to have an understanding of real world tactics which again can only be gained by the study of books and internet

I think a fair number of folks here are veterans and as such, have some direct personal experience. As such, I think a large number of those folks know there is a difference between doctrine and tactics and the basic "Oh ****, things are going pear shaped", the piece of kit you are counting on always breaks at the wrong time and you are hungry and tired and your brain moves slower. The demon Murphy always likes appearing when he is least welcome.

link

Yes, the cost of complexity literally IS a headache. Or at least nap time.
When the brain screams "ENOUGH OF THIS CRAP!" It's really saying, "I have indeed approached a dangerous level of overload. I need to rest and heal."

This is also why a period of sleep after intense study or complicated effort often leads to superior understanding or capability for that effort the next day— the brain has developed new pathways to deal with the information and required responses.

It's a question of both preference and exposure. If you really want to take the time to learn a complicated combination of instructions and actions, you can do so. Exposure to such things promotes exposure to more such things. But it may also mean that one has cut off exposure to other things processed in other ways— as, say, appreciation of aesthetics— the statement "I don't get art." That's actually not a function of the art; it's a function of what you have trained your brain to pay attention to, notice, and do. You could, conceivably train your brain to appreciate aesthetics, or (on topic) less rigid, more randomized game structures which focus on play rather than calculation. But you have to want to do that, which means you have to be able to appreciate and conceive that there are other ways of thinking than your own, and that such ways suit different purposes than the one's you've trained yourself to pursue… and that those ways have value too.

I was going to reply, but I realised that you either have reality or you have a game.

And having been through the mud and the blood reality, I much prefer a game.

I firmly believe that it is possible to model the EFFECTS of reality in a GAME setting. One does not need to be concerned with how the results came about- only what those effects are.

Example: Col. Blank was ordered to go to Townville and meet with Col. Korn, by 1600. He arrives at 1900. Col. Korn is not there. As a player acting as their immediate commanders, he would not know why this occurred until after the fact! Why should you have access to more information than the real life counterpart had?

This simulates the effects of real life situations but without having to explain as to why nor make the players roll on lots of charts to discover the results? It also adds friction at the command level. Guess what? Even in todays world of radios and instant communications, decisions have to be made by the commander and his staff based upon the information they have. THERE is where the game is in the simulation and can be great fun. Many times, mistakes are made and opportunities lost on both sides because they either could not muster up enough courage to take the risk or did not connect the available info fast enough to act.

MAN remains the most common thread found in all conflicts in history!

Remember there will always be Old Maid and Monopoly to game with. You spend countless hours painting, organizing your miniature armies to capture the feel of the period, why shouldn't the game reward that effort with a challenged and enjoyable game without having to suffer thru mind boggling mechanics that arrive to the same result in the game? Just sayin'….

UshCha, you might consider that wargamers who don't do things in a fashion you like may not be "less committed" but be committed to something else--as for example, simulating the role of a higher-level commander, who has less detailed information. In my favorite period, an acute observer wrote that "everything is simple in war, but the simplest thing is very difficult." That doesn't sound like what you're trying for.

robert piepenbrink, seems to me you undersestimate by large margins the job of high levels of command. There is the pain of getting the logistics running, apportioning the resources to the effected areas to maximaise there effects, providing back-up planning and resources so that a defeat is not turened into a rout. Second third or even more lines of defence need to be set up, where and how much resouce to allocate them and estimating the times needed to get them.

That to me dounds like it needs a lot of thought if realism is a requirement.

Parsival, I think you are agreeing to my hypothosis. Yes ther are lots of ways to play, I play games, but they are not simulations. The hypothosis is not are simulations more fun , the answer to that is a resounding no for many. It is to me at least and my reading of your post is that simulation does require a lot of calculation, D day took years of planning. Even a half decent simulation of D day would take some time sceduling the approach march/sail.

Complex games are not necessarily complex tactics. Chess can be learnt in minutes and not be mastered in a lifetime. To my mind simulations can be either complex rules or simple rules but the mastery of either is not easy.
PS I find Chess to hard for me.

I don't literally want to spend 15-20 minutes flipping through the rules to see how to set a stone building on fire.

We just use a plasma gun.

Oh, sorry, you were talking about a lower technological level. Never mind.

carnot I agree that was the case 25 years ago, things have moved on. The games are more simple now but more effective at there task. However ther is no alternative to brain power, you can simplify artillry planning you cant simplify where and when and how much you need, that is the basics of any scenarioi. See the latets fight in Ukraine.

@Ushcha.

You are completely missing the point. You can't recognise that more gamers are outside your chosen genre – modern warfare, than in. In many eras by your objections don't apply.

Your use of chess as an exemplar is a chimera. Chess is the most abstracted wargame ever. You are contradicting yourself.

All opinions are valid. Insulting people will not win converts.

Robert Johnson,
Feel free to ignore UshCha. When you download his game from War Game Vault you are not able to download UshCha with it. <grin>

The game is worth checking out.

Wolfhag

I find it interesting that an intended fun poke at myself and like minded folk seems to be taken as an insult to others.

We have a keen player who refuses to play complex scenarios quite rightly as he does not find them enjoyable too much hard thinking and inssuficent time for social interaction.

This post in some ways was a homage to his sanity as opposed to our obsession with the complexities of war.

Robers johson. The reflection was not on Chess as a wargame it's not but an interesting example of a very simple game, that is increadable complax due to the vasts strategiuc analysis it requires. The parallel being drawn is that a simulation does not nececcesarily need to have massively complex rules. It requires the rules to interact in a complex way.

Out take on the eveing chat was that simulation games are going to be more demanding. Whether that additional demand makes a better game is most certainly in the eye of the beholder and for many the answer is no.

For a few mad men like us it is, but we are not mainstream wargamers. I had expected no more tha a few "Too right mate" I just want a lightharted laugh.

How I offended folk escapes me. Nowhere did I say we were right and other folk wrong in not wanting a headache at the end of a game, just that simularions will tend to a headache standard.

For me the key words are "play" and "game."
Play— an activity for relaxation, a break from work or labor (physical and mental), an opportunity to stimulate the imagination, to think in different ways, or even to provide alternative challenges than what one normally faces. Thus, play accompanies many activities, both active and passive, but all of which in some way stimulate "good feelings."

Game— an activity intended for leisure that operates through a set structure of rules and limited actions, typically with an intended preferred outcome, but also with that outcome not being assured. A game is meant to amuse and entertain, often without any extrinsic reward— though some games (as gambling games) are tied directly to extrinsic reward.

Therefore, a game is determined by the nature of its structure. Throwing a frisbee is play, but it is not a game. Counting the number of successful catches and comparing these is a game, if a very simple one. Rolling dice to see what numbers come up is not a game. Comparing those numbers and valuing certain results above others is a game. But if the latter does not involve amusement or entertainment for the dice roller, it is not play. It is just an exercise in recording numbers.

So what constitutes a "game" and "play" will differ by the person. Fortunately humanity encompasses all sorts of people in relatively great numbers who find similar activities or even the same activities to be both "games" and "play." This also means that different people and different groups of people will not see certain activities as "play" as others do, or consider certain activities which are clearly games as being "play" for themselves. It is thus possible for both groups to be "correct" in their assessments.

I, for one, prefer simple rules with complex possibilities over complicated rules with restricted possibilities.

I can play chess; I do not play it particularly well, because to play chess well is as much a process of intense memorization as it is active thought in the moment. One learns the various patterns on the board and thus the best moves for responding to those patterns to produce preferable patterns. To me, the effort to study chess and remember such things is not something I consider pleasurable. It is a game I can enjoy, but it is low on my list of preferred games to play. (Somewhat ironic, as I have developed rules for Star Trek-style 3 dimensional chess, which I enjoy playing… probably because the complexities it brings to the game break the assumed patterns and force the mind to adjust in different ways.) I like a game with the potential of the unexpected surprise not predicted or planned by either side.

I am not a fan of heavy simulations. I think such things often are complexity for complexity's sake, pursued because the designer assumes that such complexities can indeed be simulated from reality (and therefore represent such a simulation), and that complexity itself adds value to a game. For some it does; for me, it does not. I avoid such games, because for me they are not play. Also, I prefer imagination to calculation. I like my gaming to be an imaginative experience, focused more on theme and being "swept up" into the imagined setting and scenario of the game rather than focused on the mechanics, charts, and technical comparisons of the forces, or even the calculable probabilities of the dice. The dice serve to introduce unpredictability, to allow for the possible, however unlikely— the moment of risk, the toss of caution to the winds, the unintended surprise. It may not be simulation, it may not be accurate (though what does that really mean?), but to me it is play.

UshCha, as for offence, it is largely a matter of tone. And to be honest less so in the OP here than earlier, but I'm afraid you definitely have previous on this.
As to simulation, of course its hard, but be aware that you are always talking about a very specific and limited simulation. You are more than welcome to your choice, but others focus on other things – not least the modelling aspects of the wider hobby. If that is important to you, then of course hidden movement is a high cost to pay since you lose a large part of the aesthetics of the game.
And again, because I enjoy the game aspect, I prefer a game that I can complete in an evening.
Finally, while I find that professionals tend to concentrate on one sport, many amateurs are dilletantes and go from racquet sports to football to swimming. Not all at any kind of level, but certainly all enjoyed. And in this spirit I justify my butterfly approach to gaming.

I should note that I am using "game" in the sense of "pastime for entertainment," not in the military sense of attempting to recreate or predict the outcome of military action for either training or strategic purposes. Although "game" is the term used for such exercises (whether with actual troops in actual terrain or represented on a table, maps, or computer), it is not the meaning of the word understood or used here.
If a general is engaging in such games for his own amusement, or if a gamer is engaging in tabletop play on the belief he is demonstrating abilities applicable to real warfare, both are grossly misunderstanding their situations and purposes.

advocate

Finally, while I find that professionals tend to concentrate on one sport, many amateurs are dilletantes and go from racquet sports to football to swimming.

Perhaps it a Brits thing but most of the guys I know who are/were. we are getting past it now would never class as dilletantes taking there anature sport seriouly and training 2 or 3 times a week as well as playing.

Parsizal – we have to agree to diassagree.

For the record, it's "Parzival". Same as the classic medieval Arthurian romance by Wolfram Von Eschenbach: link

But what are we disagreeing on? The meaning of "play"? The meaning of "game" (in context to TMP)? My preferences regarding the two?

In all cases the disagreement isn't supportable by logic.
Play means what it means.
Game means what it means.
My preferences are my preferences; logic cannot dispute them, because even if I am being somehow illogical in my personal rationales for them, they remain my preferences.

Message for UshCha and Parzival:
YouTube link

Wolfhag

Parzival – If a general is engaging in such games for his own amusement, or if a gamer is engaging in tabletop play on the belief he is demonstrating abilities applicable to real warfare, both are grossly misunderstanding their situations and purposes.

Claarly you understand too little of simulation. But you are entiteled to your own opinion.

@Ushcha

Perhaps you would care to explain the use of Kriegspeil, and commercial wargames as training tools by the military?
Or James Dunnigan's work as a military analyst and wargames designer?

As I've said, your focus is far too narrow.

Classify under "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

;-)

B