"How do you define a game" Topic

I am familiar with a few terms for games, in increasing size, I think.

RPG's multiple players lead by a dungon master, tytpically 1 or 2 gigures per player.

SKIRMISH GAME -typically opposing players with a few troop, perhaps the biggest side being perhaps a platoon in modern terms, represented at 1 to 1.

BIG GAME – Here is where I struggle to understand the limits. At the top its easy (I think) it's where 1 to 1 representation is abandoned, 1 tank is a platoon etc. and for ancients 1 figure may represent 20 or actual men.

At the botton I would say a Company Battlegroup so 50+ men, each represented by a figure but often not singely based, is a big game, mainly as it requires a lot of concentration at a wide range of command levels. However I am not sure whether there is another game standard or if my interpretation is correct, ormy understanding is inline with that of others.

What are yor views on this matter, does the definition vary with the date of the coflict?

I think it is:
Skirmish
Army Level
Massed Combat
Strategic Level
4X

Games which are not 1:1 covers a huge range. Everything from a brigade a side, to a division, to a corps, to an army, to a front, to a whole war. The last two are usually done as board games (e.g Axis and Allies) but I have done whole campaigns on the tabletop using figures too

I think of skirmish/RPG as a spectrum. Everyone's individually based, and each casting represents one person. As a rough approximation, I figure it's an RPG when it's helpful to have a record or handedness or previous history.

Above that wargaming vocabulary is not consistent, and I try to avoid terms like "company-level game" in favor of the longer but clearer "games in which one commands a company" or "games in which the basic maneuver unit is a company" or equivalent. Each ascending level of command/size of maneuver unit is a different level of play. As Dexter notes, it's unusual (and awkward) to use miniatures above the level at which the commander can see his forces--the game in which one commands an army down to about 1900, and usually the game in which one commands a brigade subsequently.

So
Skirmish/RPG up to about a platoon on the table
Wargamer is a company commander
Wargamer is a battalion commander
Wargamer commands a brigade
Wargamer commands a division
Wargamer commands a corps
Wargamer commands an army
Board games/computer games in which the wargamer commands a front or a nation.

Note that these are usually not all applicable to the same period, and this usually reflects variety of forces and visibility. A post-1900 player will happily command a company with a variety of troop types and armaments, but regards corps command as something to be done with cardboard counters or computers. Earlier commanders jump from skirmish to army for classical warfare, and from skirmish to (mixed) brigade for horse and musket. Not much enthusiasm for commanding a block of 500 identical hoplites or a battalion of 500 identically-armed musketeers.

Actually that is an interesting approach but I sort of avoided that as for modern's in simulation, the attacker will be a Company commander but the defender may only be a platoon commander with a very few attachments. Modern warfare is almost but not always asymmetric, to attack successfully you need a 3 to 5+ superiority in foce So perhaps "The largest group under command on the table is a Company". Wargamer is a Platoon commander would apply if you were a Platoon fighting a Company, so not explicit enough, but that is perhaps what should be inferred and is well understood, and as usual I am out of step.

You'll find several game definitions here:
PDF link

RP has the sense of it methinks.

I use some slightly different definitions.

For me, a skirmish game is where 1 figure = 1 man and each figure is controlled individually.
A small unit game still has one figure = 1 man, but the unit is controlled as the smallest asset (an example is Force on Force where a unit is 4-10 men).

For large scale games, for me it is about the size of the game not the figure ratio. I have large Soviet v Nato 6mm games, with two 24' x 6' tables and a Soviet tank regiment +, with one tank model = 1 actual tank.
Equally I have 2000 x 28mm figures for Italian Wars with 1 figure = 50 men.
So it is less about the figure ratio and more about the size of the game.

These are just the definitions that I use to describe the games I am putting on, other people may use different, equally valid definitions for their games.

I was thinking more of command level for the rules than game size, and UshCha is quite right (most of the time) for post-1900. The obvious exception is a clash of advance guards/recon forces, but nine times in ten the attacking commander is one level above the defender.

However it's the command level of the defending force which is determines game/rule size. There has to be enough decisions to keep the wargamer with the smallest command from being bored. So if the game is "battalion attacked by brigade" the rules can't use battalions as the maneuver unit and probably shouldn't use companies. More likely, the stands are platoons and there's some sort of company integrity written into the rules. Either the attacking player does more work, or there are multiple attacking players.

Not a problem in the days of brightly colored uniforms, regimental standards on the battlefield and horse cavalry, of course.

I tend to go with skirmish, tactical, grand tactical, operational and strategic. For 1936 onwards at any rate.

Skirmish = section/platoon
Tactical = company to battalion
Grand Tactical = multiple battalions/brigades up to division
Operational = multiple divisions
Strategic = Front/Theatre level.

In earlier periods it is pretty well skirmish or Army with not a lot in between (!).

I don't particularly care what they figure to unit ratio is in any of these, more the size of forces represented. At higher levels you are probably using stands to represent anything from a platoon to a brigade though, although on a few occasions I've had models representing entire Corps. These were usually showing the progress of flanking formations.

MajorB interesting, I did meet a WD guy at a show and to be honest we did not view wargames Eye to Eye.
I suspect after Phill Barker was less influencive its remit became too wide and less historicly centric to be of interest too me. But I have to confess it covered game types I had never herd of like "Silly Hat games" but whether I felt my world is the poorer for not knowing is debatable ;-). However thay may well be valid definitions and perhaps even to some folks wargames with figures.

robert piepenbrink, Right Realy ? ;-).

But seriously talking about the smallest side does have merrit. The problem is the command level of the smallest defines the minimum options avaiable to the players which is a good definition, but the maximum complexity is defined sort of by the top level command.
However my own staement is flawed, we give the begginer the larger side as there is room for error, in defence there is no such room so mistakes are more serious due to the relatively frugal resources avaiable.

I had thought of using some form of time eastimate at least for Table top games (RPG games run to may evening even years in some cases so may not be that usefull),
However speed of play is a major issue. I can play my co-author Paul a game in about 1/2 an hour that some folk take all eveing on using the same rules. Not neccessarily lack of understanding of the rules but the desire to digress, sort of on topic, so that definition is well gone. I have even heard of folk eating in the same evening, something beyond my comprehension. ;-).

I Like Tactical but again it depends. I play battalion games but they take evenings to play as they cover loads more than a few hours of simulated time and require replacement of units as the initial ones are exhausted and run out of ammo etc. A company game to me, is to an end point where it has achived its objective (if you do well) but is incapable of further useful offensive action.

Perhaps defineing games is like trying to define "FUN" there is no usefull concensious on a definition. Chess is "fun" to some and about as far as it gets to "fun" for others.

Perhaps MajorB's list is not a weired as I originally assumed.

+1 Martin Rapier

I think of it like this: If the essential conflict is players against the setting (which includes NPC), it's a RPG. If the essential conflict is players against players, it's a war game.

RPGs do not necessarily require any physical representations of the setting or the characters. RPGs are primarily mutual storytelling involving both the game master and the players. Conflict may be resolved via combat rules, or by game master decision.

Wargames don't necessarily require a game master, but they do need combat rules and physical representations of the settings. Even High Guard, one of the most abstract war games ever created, needs some way to keep track of which ships are on the line or in reserve, and which ship is being targeted by which ships.

The question presented in the original post appears to be concerned primarily about wargame scale for ground combat games.

I don't class RPGs as wargames, and I don't really think about RPG scale. Every RPG I've ever played in or run -- even those set during wars, with characters as combatants -- has had each player control one or two characters. RPG characters can have entourages of NPC (Chivalry and Sorcery comes to mind), but the real action is the telling and (verbal) acting out of the stories of the PCs.

I do think about ground combat wargame scale, but only shallowly, because I play and run games in settings with technology that results in relatively small numbers of miniatures on a game table. Even at a ground scale of 1:1,000 (typical micro scale, with vehicles at about 1:300), a 2m x 2m gaming table is only 2km wide, a front that company or smaller unit can manage.

Sorry, what was the question?

Hierarchy of Combat from "Attrition" by Col Dupuy P.153:

War: Fought for political purposes with a strategic goal of conquest. They can last months, years, or even generations. They are normally fought in a series of campaigns.

Campaign: A series of battles for a single strategic objective with a series of battles over a protracted period of time. It could last for a few weeks or a year or longer.

Battle: Combat between major forces with each having a mission. Battles are often parts of a campaign and can last up to several weeks.

Engagement: Between two forces no larger than a division or smaller than a company and was usually part of a battle. They normally last a few days but could be longer or shorter.

Action: A single combat between force sizes no larger than a battalion or smaller than a squad. An Action is part of an engagement that can last from a few minutes or hours but not more than a day.

Duel or Fire Fight: Between two individuals or vehicles and frequently part of an Action. A duel lasts no more than a few minutes.

Wolfhag

Does it matter, isn't it more important that a) it's playable b) it's fun and maybe even c) it might be vaguely historically accurate.

Mark J Wilson your list is correct but this thread is about how to decribe what size of game it is. Not everybody wants to be a general some want to be just a platoon commander and also the complexity of a particular game. I have strange friends that say they don't want to play a game where just the needed strategy gives them a paracetamol headache.

UshCha As to size use the military unit, it's a brigade game or a platoon game. As to complexity that partly depends on the people playing, I'll happily do multiplication and division in my head, some of my friends don't like to have to add up much beyond 10 so our definitions of 'complex' vary. In what ways it's complex is even even harder to describe, are the mechanisms detailed and quick or simple but slow. If you and your friends get a headache playing it's not fun, whatever you call it.

Mark J Wilson, given a realistic attack defence will have differing sizes of units, say a company vs a Platoon, it that a Company game or a Platoon game? Some say Platoon as rightly that is the minimum force in use and dictates the limit of the number of elements the smaller force will have at his/her disposal. Some say Company game based on the largest force. Where do you stand on this issue?

UshCha, I don't stand I sit, firmly on the fence, call it what you like I don't care. If I wanted definitions I'd be more interested in if it's a 'command game' where C3I is the main focus of the rules and combat is pretty simplistic, or a 'combat' game where the general is all knowing, seeing and units go where they're sent and we spend our time working out 'casualties' from rates of fire, ranges etc. or a 'morale' game where we consider the morale effects of actions and leave out most of how we got there.