Help support TMP


"What makes something a "wargame?"" Topic


41 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Game Design Message Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Showcase Article

World's Greatest Dice Games

A cheap way to pick up on the latest fad and get your own dice cup for wargaming?


Featured Workbench Article

Deep Dream: Full Metal Katie

We tried getting an AI to 'paint' a mini – but can it convert a person into a mini?


Featured Profile Article

Crafter's Square Wood Shapes

Need something to base your scenics on? Look in the craft aisle…


Current Poll


Featured Book Review


1,331 hits since 5 May 2023
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo Extra Crispy Sponsoring Member of TMP06 May 2023 12:08 p.m. PST

I could put a skin on "monopoly" and make it into a war themed game. Replace dollars with troops, make the properties positions (Pork Chop Hill, The Angle). Swap houses and hotels for entrenchments and works. That would not make it a wargame.

In my mind a wargame is one where I have to make decisions analogous to the commander I represent, be it Wellington, Sgt Rock or Alexander.

Some war themed games I do not consider wargames, even though I enjoy playing them: Commands and Colors. Lion Rampant. Heroes of Normandy.

What are your thoughts?

MajorB06 May 2023 12:33 p.m. PST

IMHO a wargame is any game that models military conflict in any way, shape or form.

Personal logo Yellow Admiral Supporting Member of TMP06 May 2023 12:50 p.m. PST

+1 MajorB

The problem with this definition:

In my mind a wargame is one where I have to make decisions analogous to the commander I represent
…is that it includes only games written for the commander's POV. Wargames can also take a historian's POV, or be a pure simulation/recreation for process analysis, or try to answer a "what if" about a particular conflict, or act as a training exercise. Kriegspiel, live fire exercises, command post training events, nerds pushing cardboard across hex fields, and miniatures on model terrain are all versions of "wargames".

David Manley06 May 2023 1:20 p.m. PST

According to Peter Perla…..

""a wargame is a warfare model or simulation in which the flow of events shapes, and is shaped by, decisions made by a human player or players during the course of those events"

Personal logo KimRYoung Supporting Member of TMP06 May 2023 1:47 p.m. PST

Command & Colors and Lion Rampant are certainly wargames. Same as all the old AH games and games like Chainmail. If it's a game about war, it's a "War" game.

Kim

Oberlindes Sol LIC Supporting Member of TMP06 May 2023 1:53 p.m. PST

I think it's like pornography: I know it when I see it.

Personal logo Yellow Admiral Supporting Member of TMP06 May 2023 1:53 p.m. PST

Except the card game War, which has to be one of the most ironically named games ever invented.

John Armatys06 May 2023 2:35 p.m. PST

+1 Major and Yellow Admiral

The Ministry of Defence Wargaming Handbook (2017) notes at paragraph 1.4 that "There is no single, commonly accepted, definition of ‘wargaming'" and provides a definition which can be added to the 17 listed in William L. Simpson Jr.'s "A Compendium of Wargaming Terms" (Updated 17 December 2022) link

All the formal definitions exclude useful game formats. Career games (and I've done a few, some based on the Monopoly format) often give the players few decisions to make.

Mr Elmo06 May 2023 2:56 p.m. PST

Commands and Colors. Lion Rampant. Heroes of Normandy.

Those are all wargames. Complexity may be a factor. Also what is a strategy game (Magic the Gathering) vs a Wargame?

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP06 May 2023 3:05 p.m. PST

What makes something a wargame:
– a simulation of warfare
– human players providing inputs

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP06 May 2023 4:06 p.m. PST

I think eto may be as close as we'll get. I might add that "game" implies an objective and competition of some sort.

This would not exclude "committee" games, by the way. But every player should have his own victory conditions, and realism would dictate that they have nothing to do with the nominal mission of the committee.

evilgong06 May 2023 5:21 p.m. PST

Any game where you can blame dice for your defeat. And has toy soldiers.

UshCha Supporting Member of TMP07 May 2023 12:14 a.m. PST

robert piepenbrink -Ypur definition is flawed. Most certainly in a multi players war gane (as opposed to a merely a game) all participents on one side have the same victory conditions and not there own objectives, otherwise its a fantasy game, not reflecting thr objecrts of a real army.

Courier doo Boise – Even me as an ardent simulator find it hard to call chess a wargame when it is classed as a sport.

" Reading about the teenagers who have triumphed in the world of chess has got me thinking about the game's relationship with sport and whether it is fair to categorise it in this way. The International Olympic Committee has recognised it as a sport since 2000 and it is considered as such in 24 out of 28 members of the EU." extract link

To me it lacks any direct correlation with the real world, no pices can be said to reasonably represent the performance of any one unit of a military force. In addition it has no attempt at a command and control system, so again not well correlated with a military endever. Lastly the single terraintype again does not refelect well on the real world.

Does it teach logical thinking and planning yes. However that is true of Cricket a sport as well.

"The battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton') is attributed by oral tradition to the Duke of Wellington, but is probably apocryphal. The earliest version of it (recorded in 1856), said to have been uttered by the Duke when revisiting Eton, is 'It is here that the battle of Waterloo was won!'

arthur181507 May 2023 1:49 a.m. PST

If the Duke ever made such a remark, he was probably referring to 'gentlemanly' codes of conduct, the ability to bear physical hardships and/or wounds and remain at one's post and other 'officer' qualities, rather than to sports themselves having any value as military training. And he would certainly have attributed much of his success to the British infantry, the overwhelming majority of whom never went anywhere near Eton.

I don't recollect cricket ever teaching me anything about 'logical thinking and planning' – OTOH, my logic told me that standing in the path of a rock hard ball projected at speed was likely to result in my being injured, so I planned to avoid that by (1) always fielding as far away from the wicket as possible, preferably in long grass where I could avoid detection, and (2) choosing to do Art O Level, which got me out of games afternoons altogether.

David Manley07 May 2023 2:04 a.m. PST

"Most certainly in a multi players war gane (as opposed to a merely a game) all participents on one side have the same victory conditions and not there own objectives, otherwise its a fantasy game, not reflecting thr objecrts of a real army."

History is replete with battles where the aims of various commanders on the same side were not aligned

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP07 May 2023 2:27 a.m. PST

Uscha, a committee game is not the same as a multi-player wargame. Usually a committee game involves no troops whatever. Paddy Griffith used to be the big advocate.

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP07 May 2023 3:03 a.m. PST

all participents on one side have the same victory conditions and not there own objectives, otherwise its a fantasy game, not reflecting thr objecrts of a real army.

I didn't realize that my combat experience in Bosnia and Kosovo was fantasy. Let alone others' in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Eretria, Vietnam, WWII, WWI, East Timor, Sudan (anu century), the Balkans (other centuries than mine, and the same century just earlier), Ancient Greece, Mexico, Canada, and so on.

History is replete with battles where the aims of various commanders on the same side were not aligned

Oh, come now … In WWOO Germany and Japan wanted the same thing – Complete domination of the entire planet for their superior people! Hehehehehehehe

I'm totally with you. In designing scenarios, I find it harder to see real examples of war where there was a "side" with all uniform objectives. Especially when you consider that many "sides" were coalitions of different groups. And there's a little of the G&J joke above in every coalition.

Two sides with simple objectives is WH40K.

Martin Rapier07 May 2023 3:17 a.m. PST

+! ethotheipi

I am minded of the Six Weeks War where one of the Corps Commanders tore up the telegraph lines so he couldn't get any orders from Von Moltke, and the few orders he did receive, he ignored or did the exact opposite.

Anyway, I know what a wargame is when I see it.

UshCha Supporting Member of TMP07 May 2023 3:25 a.m. PST

So in a company attack evrybody has a diffrent objective to doing what was required to win? Seeme like a recip to lose to me.

MajorB07 May 2023 3:31 a.m. PST

Most certainly in a multi players war gane (as opposed to a merely a game) all participents on one side have the same victory conditions and not their own objectives,

Disagree. I have played in many such games where the participants have differing objectives.

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP07 May 2023 3:48 a.m. PST

UshCha, this may come as a shock to you, but not all of us are wargaming companies in the assault in modern Europe. Let's try this again.

Most committee games involve resource allocation--who gets ammo, what sort of training is conducted and such. Players usually represent staff officers. I can imagine a game based on the German "concrete market" of 1943-44, for example. No, I don't enjoy such games. I merely say they are within the definition of wargame.

And even when you have troops on the table, a Vietnam game could easily involve a US company or platoon commander whose objective was the destruction of the opposing forces, a PRVN commander assigned to learn about American capabilities while minimizing losses, and local force commanders, both ARVN and Viet Cong, more interested in keeping their forces intact while doing what's necessary not to be fired. As eto points out, this sort of thing is very common when different nationalities, political causes or services are on the table on the same side. Yes, of course different objectives on a single side make it harder to achieve a decisive result. But haven't you lectured us all about realism in wargames? Welcome to reality.

Arjuna07 May 2023 7:43 a.m. PST

I've always wondered what kind of war I am actually simulating when my scantily and impractically clad Slaaneshi lust hordes ecstatically invade Papa Nurgle's virgin garden, only to retire exhausted after some bloody back and forth, with various rather unpleasant infectious diseases in their wake.

But lo and behold, when I look it up in my old copy of MCDP 1, it is revealed to me!
"The essence of war is a violent struggle between two hostile, independent and irreconcilable wills, each of which seeks to impose itself on the other."

"War, then, is a process of constant mutual adjustment, of give and take, of movement and counter-movement."

I would add that more than two wills can be involved in this act and to simulate it, it can serve both professional and recreational purposes.

You gotta love it.

Still pondering what 'game' means.
Especially with regards to 'war'.

Wolfhag Supporting Member of TMP07 May 2023 9:42 a.m. PST

Almost all games have one thing in common – the use of time or turns. It's a universal standard that can be used in 1:1 or division-level battles depending on the level of units and detail you desire.

Also from MCDP 1 page 4-16:
Time is a critical factor in effective decision-making—often the most important factor. A key part of effective decision-making is realizing how much decision time is available and making the most of that time. In general, whoever can make and implement decisions consistently faster gains a tremendous, often decisive advantage. Decisionmaking in execution thus becomes a time-competitive process (Observe-Orient-Decide Act Loop), and the timeliness of decisions becomes essential to generating tempo. Timely decisions demand rapid thinking with consideration limited to essential factors. In such situations, we should spare no effort to accelerate our decision-making ability. That said, we should also recognize those situations in which time is not a limiting factor—such as deliberate planning situations—and should not rush our decisions unnecessarily.

Of course, I'm not talking about real-time decision-making in a game or even using a stopwatch for timing a player's turn. In the military, we train over and over again to execute actions and orders as quickly as possible to seize the initiative and act or execute before our opponent.

So rather than dicing for a chance to perform an activity, activate or execute an order or IGYG move/shoot sequence, it takes a certain amount of time or turns which are unknown to your opponent creating a somewhat realistic Fog of War.

Better troops, good situational awareness, good training, superior initiative/leadership, and communications shorten the timing loop. Poor troops and leadership, poor situational awareness, suppression, poor communications, etc increase the amount of time through the loop.

Player decisions revolve around "Risk-Reward Tactical Decisions" to spend more time/turns planning and executing orders to ensure a better outcome but with a chance of losing the initiative because you give the enemy additional time to act first and lose the initiative. Players can also spend less time planning and executing to seize the initiative but with a greater chance of miscommunication, mistake, or SNAFU in the execution. Choose wisely.

Wolfhag

Arjuna07 May 2023 9:52 a.m. PST

When a group of people agrees to apply a set of rules to a set of objects that they believe will reflect the phenomenon of war in a way that is adequate to them, they will call it a war game.
The essential thing is not that war is reflected in a correct or realistic way, whatever that may be, but that the people agree that the rules are to be applied to represent a 'simulation' of the phenomenon of 'war' for recreational or professional purposes.
First and foremost it's a game.
Me and my wargame buddies creating some little toy world with its own rules.
That is the reason for literally thousands of rule systems.
Probably hundreds for each real major war in history and dozens for a lot of the smaller ones.
Not to speak of F/SF.

----
By the way, MCDP 1 is a very inspiring work.
It is my favorite gift for cherished friends and acquaintances.
I recently gave it to a young German-Russian statistician I worked with as a parting gift.
I told him it may save his ass in the future.

Personal logo Bobgnar Supporting Member of TMP07 May 2023 5:20 p.m. PST

I like to play games with toy soldier (miniature figures), war or not. I converted Clue (Cludo) to a miniatures game. People vs zombies. Not a "war" game, but perhaps a "conflict" game.

When I was a grad student at MIT, I participated (as staff) in Political-Military "games" with high ranking government and military officials. Sadly no figures, they were gaming out various international crisis situations using imagination, knowledge, and creativity to solve problems under pressure.

Personal logo Yellow Admiral Supporting Member of TMP07 May 2023 7:57 p.m. PST

History is replete with battles where the aims of various commanders on the same side were not aligned.
Yes, but only the best wargaming periods. grin

I spent a lot of time in the 1990s trying to invent rules that sow dissension in the ranks of 18th C. admirals, but without allowing outright dissension or disobedience. That's actually a pretty fine line to walk.

- Ix

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP08 May 2023 12:04 p.m. PST

I spent a lot of time in the 1990s trying to invent rules that sow dissension in the ranks of 18th C. admirals, but without allowing outright dissension or disobedience. That's actually a pretty fine line to walk.

This is why I hate the way we use the word "rules" in wargaming. The best way to sow dissent amoung players is with victory conditions, not rules (the assertions that govern entity dynamics).

I prefer (though it is not necessary) for everyone to be playing under the same rules (dynamics of the universe, if you will), but have different statistics and objectives.

Sergeant Paper08 May 2023 6:51 p.m. PST

I believe etothepi has the right of it. Same rules, different objectives will do all you need…

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP09 May 2023 12:19 p.m. PST

but that the people agree that the rules are to be applied to represent a 'simulation' of the phenomenon of 'war'

That is what "realism" and "correctness" mean. They mean an appropriate degree of correlation to the referent, a well-defined set of desired behaviors. Those behaviors can be physics based, or for any other dynamic like morale (though I prefer to do that with vp, too) or increasing accuracy for successive shots.

The problem is that people tend to think of "realism" as a one-dimensional concept, only having very few states, often two (yes or no). Reality has infinite dimensions, thus so does reality. Most of those dimensions are continuous, thus having infinite levels of sensitivity.

Wolfhag Supporting Member of TMP10 May 2023 3:09 a.m. PST

Are two 8-year-olds shooting rubber bands at plastic soldiers in their backyard with no objective other than to kill everyone a war game?

In my mind a wargame is one where I have to make decisions analogous to the commander I represent, be it Wellington, Sgt Rock or Alexander.

Wellington did not "activate" his units. Alexander the Great and Darius did not roll dice to see who has the "initiative". Sgt Rock did not sit idle and get shot at because it was not his IGYG "turn".

Wolfhag

Personal logo Extra Crispy Sponsoring Member of TMP10 May 2023 9:38 a.m. PST

Interesting thread.

To clarify my OP. I only meant to define what makes something a wargame to me. It is, I think, a personal one. I don't think Chess is a wargame. You might. Cool.

One reason I don't think of Lion Rampant or Commands and Colors as wargames is that the default is units do nothing. There is no equivalent of ordering the 7th to march to such and such a location. Movement can be variable or can be interrupted. But in these games you have to give that unit an order every turn. That's not how armies work.

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP11 May 2023 8:59 a.m. PST

EC, who were you with in the Army? Because my experience was that when the Army told me we were moving out immediately, I should bring a book. If they told me every moment of my time would be consumed, I needed two books and a portable chess set.

Yeah, the point's taken--though I've had more grief with Napoleon's battles, where brigades and divisions actually move more slowly the further from the commander they are, as though he were imparting energy instead of the customary vague and contradictory orders. Consider that Lion Rampant is a skirmish game and must involve relatively little time. I am not surprised that people are sometimes standing still--sheltering, reluctant to close, or checking to be sure that's what the C.O. really meant--when he would have preferred them to move out smartly. I was a little surprised that it got singled out for abuse when there are so many candidates.

Wolfhag, half the story, if that. You're conflating the decisions with the rules mechanisms. The wargamer, like Alexander, Darius and Wellington, will determine the disposition of his forces and when to commit his reserve, and give orders which may not be obeyed. Like Sergeant Rock, he will assess the terrain, deploy his forces accordingly and determine priority of fires.

The iffy bit is "gamey" mechanisms--phrasing things in a particular manner, elaborate and competitive procedures for determining initiative, the allocation of decision points to subordinate commanders and such. Those I try very hard to avoid. But most of your gripes are things which are inevitable if you don't fight wars with real people.

Mark J Wilson11 May 2023 10:59 a.m. PST

@ Uscha "So in a company attack everybody has a different objective to doing what was required to win? Seems like a recipe to lose to me".

There's the terribly keen and heroic but actually quite stupid officer, who wants to win a medal and achieve the objective at any cost.
There's the seasoned NCO who certainly doesn't intend to die for the the idiot above and isn't keen on 'his' men going the same way.
There are private soldiers fitting the above descriptions.
There's the guy who already has the shakes, who is just struggling to keep his head together, do I have to continue…………

Wolfhag Supporting Member of TMP16 May 2023 5:15 a.m. PST

robert piepenbrink,
Wolfhag, half the story, if that. You're conflating the decisions with the rules mechanisms. The wargamer, like Alexander, Darius, and Wellington, will determine the disposition of his forces and when to commit his reserve, and give orders which may not be obeyed. Like Sergeant Rock, he will assess the terrain, deploy his forces accordingly and determine the priority of fires.

Yes, determining the disposition of your troops is not a rule and can be done at any time. However, in the game, the player determines his disposition of forces and then rolls the dice when it is his turn to do so to determine what he can or cannot do and maybe how effective it will be. In most games I've played the player generally cannot do anything unless he rolls the dice or it is his turn to order, shoot, move, etc. He can look at the table and dispositions all he likes. I'm sure there are some exceptions. Orders are not generally executed immediately, it takes time.

My point is Wellington, Napoleon, and Darius did not roll dice to determine what to do or who has the initiative. I see it as the tail wagging the dog. They reacted based on intel and situational awareness and gave an order that was executed in a certain amount of time based on many historical variables and risk-reward decisions which can be measured. They could estimate or have an idea of how long it may take knowing the enemy could always interfere or the situation has changed when the order arrived.

My preference is to roll the dice to see how long it will take to execute an action or an order. It allows the opposing player to interrupt it by being quicker or changing the tactical situation to the extent that when the order arrives it is the wrong order because the opposing player changed the tactical situation.

Alexander led from the front for better Situational Awareness and ensure his orders were executed in a timely manner with minimal or almost no delay. That was the reward for leading from the front. The risk was getting killed or not having control of the rest of the battlefield leaving it to his other commanders' initiative and decision-making.

Darius led from the rear (poor SA) and needed intel reports which when received were of no value because the tactical situation and tempo of the battle were changed by Alexander. He would then issue an order to be delivered which most likely was the wrong order (the situation changed) and could not rely much on the local commander's initiative who would normally do nothing and wait for an order. Most likely his unit would be engaged in combat when the order arrives so Darius loses command and control of the battle as all he can do is react to Alexanders' initiative. Another victory for Alexander. Even in modern warfare, a higher echelon commander will come to the front to see the situation firsthand, relieve a local commander and get the attack moving.

In my opinion, it's a function of timing, not a chance based on the roll of the dice or waiting for your turn to do something. There is a big difference. Timing can give you a historical result. With a die roll, you are going to imagine a reason or narrative.

It's back to design for cause or design for effect. In my opinion, determining the cause is a better way to give a historical narrative. With design for effect all the player can do is blame it on a bad die roll or imagine a reason for the poor performance. Maybe I don't have a good imagination? Of course, I've generalized this statement as I'm sure some systems are better than others.

My preference is a Time Competitive game with all units active and able to react when called for which can be more playable and can present several risk-reward decisions for the player because it eliminates many of the abstracted rules and restrictions of most rules.

There is a difference between a timing modifier to determine how long an action will take and a die roll modifier for a chance of something occurring. I prefer the former.

In a time-competitive game, your chance of accomplishing a task is 100% it just depends on how long it will take unless the enemy executes before you or kills you first. Of course, while an order is being executed the commander can cancel the order and issue a new one.

A good example is at Midway when the Japanese carrier commander ordered bombs to be loaded. While waiting for the bombs to be loaded he got a report of a sighting of the US carriers and ordered torpedoes to be loaded. While the torpedoes were being loaded the dive bombers attacked.

Another good example is in a tank engagement. Let's say you want to engage a moving target at a speed of 30kph but in 10 seconds he'll be out of your LOS (85m away). If your crew and weapons platform are quick enough you can shoot. If not quick enough you could also trade increased speed for decreased accuracy (Snap Shot risk-reward decision for the player) to shoot before he disappears but with a decreased chance to hit him.

Like Sergeant Rock, he will assess the terrain, deploy his forces accordingly and determine the priority of fires.
Exactly, so how long will it take him to do that? How will the enemy react to stop him? Does he need to actually issue an order or is the unit trained to react a certain way to enemy action without needing an order or waiting for their turn?

If Wellington or Napoleon were on a hilltop and issued an order they would have a general idea of how long it would take for the messenger on horseback to deliver it. He could send multiple messengers to ensure it reaches the commander too. Whether it gets obeyed or not, understood or the local commander uses his own initiative is a different situation.

It also presents some interesting risk-reward propositions for the player. He can have the messenger push his horse to arrive more quickly but with a small chance of the horse falling, the rider thrown off, etc and have the opposing player make the die roll. If the messenger is in the LOS of the enemy he may be hit so the player can have him take a safer route to ensure it arrives but it takes longer.

To get back on topic, my opinion is that a war game is a time-competitive effort between players using historic metrics with a minimum of abstractions, and the MCDP quote best describes it. When an order is executed the player immediately observes the results, considers his options and tactics, issues the next order, and determines how long it will take to execute it just like a real commander. It eliminates the need for traditional IGYG, initiative, and activation rules but I understand these rules are what some players like the best about the game.

Timing also creates a more realistic Fog of War because the future time an order is executed is kept secret from the opposition. As always, I respect opposing viewpoints.

Wolfhag

Personal logo Yellow Admiral Supporting Member of TMP16 May 2023 3:38 p.m. PST

I like the concept of time-competitive rules as explained here, but it's almost the precise opposite of the Piquet approach. grin

I also see a couple of problems:

  • I can't see how this would be accomplished without lots of writing – times, tasks, orders, etc. Have you developed systems for accomplishing all of this without the game devolving into a paper accounting exercise?
  • For some types of battles, it would not be possible to present all the tasks affecting the time-to-effect of orders without giving the player unrealistic levels of control over the proceedings. One of the reasons dice-based (or card-based, chit-pull, etc.) initiative and activation systems were developed was to remove the player from inappropriate levels of the decision cycle. Micromanagement is now commonly viewed as a bane of "old school" rules systems.

Wolfhag Supporting Member of TMP30 May 2023 6:28 a.m. PST

Yellow Admiral,
Here is a link to an explanation and designer notes:
link

and a one page rules summary:
link

I can't see how this would be accomplished without lots of writing – times, tasks, orders, etc. Have you developed systems for accomplishing all of this without the game devolving into a paper accounting exercise?

So did I. There is no way to keep track of every action, that would be ridiculous so I don't. I only keep track of the important ones.

For the simple version of the game, I explain that historically different guns and vehicles can fire in a certain number of turns or seconds. When you start explaining it in seconds gamers, especially experienced gamers, get brain freeze and overly complicate the issue. Turns and seconds are interchangeable. You can track the game's progress in turns from 1 to infinity or use a clock method ticking off the seconds and minutes. It's all the same.

In a Time Competitive Game, all units are active just as they are on a real battlefield and able to react at any turn to issue a move or shoot order. However, an order takes a certain amount of time (seconds or turns) to execute. This includes canceling a current order to issue a new one. This eliminates the need for unit activation rules, command points, turn interrupts, IGYG move/shoot, etc.

Let's reduce it to the two lowest common timing actions for shooting: spotting, engaging, and shooting at a new target (timing is somewhat variable) and reloading to shoot multiple shots at the same target (reload timing is not very variable) and then movement to interact with that timing on a second-to-second or turn-to-turn basis.

Timing eliminates the need for initiative rules because the quickest units will seize the initiative to shoot first.

To keep it simple turreted tanks roll 2D6 for their timing in turns or seconds to engage a new target and shoot. Assault Guns (non-turreted) roll 3D6. This will give a somewhat historical result based on my research. You can add some complexity by rolling an additional D6 if flanked or have a poor crew.

Reload times are based on the shell size. Guns <= 57mm fire every 4 seconds/turns. 58mm to 76mm every 6 seconds, 77-85 every 8 seconds, 86-90mm every 10 seconds. Large guns with two-part ammo every 25 seconds. You could also take the historical rate of fire. 6 rpm = every 10 seconds, 10 rpm = every 6 seconds, etc.

Movement: Since shooting is timed in turns/seconds so must movement. Each moving unit has a speed marker next to it. Every 10th turn all units with a speed marker are simultaneously moved by all of the players, this really speeds up multi-player games. A unit moving at 20kph will move 55m or just over 2" if 1" = 25 scale. This is the realistic rate of speed and distance a vehicle will travel in 10 seconds at the rate of 5.5m/second. Now you have the rate of fire and rate of movement synchronized on a second-to-second basis without any opportunity fire rules. To stop the player removes the marker.

By synchronizing movement and shooting time, you eliminate the need for opportunity fire rules and restrictions. You will not have enemy units moving next to you and shooting while you sit helpless in an IGYG game because it is not your turn.

Every 10th turn can be where chances to communicate are determined and for other actions like fire progression, bail-out success, results of small arms fire, smoke dissipation, etc you don't need to track the timing.

Game sequence & timing: Each game turn is announced out loud in sequence. In each turn moving units can turn and static units can pivot. I normally use 20 degrees per turn. When a player wants to perform an action like shooting he announces his intention to pause the game.

If my tank wants to issue a shooting order on turn #35 I announce my intention and pause the game and roll my 2D6 for a 10. I'll fire at turn #45 which I write down. Then turn #36 is announced, etc. When a turn # is announced and no players want to pause the game or maneuver the next turn is immediately announced – the game is always moving to the next turn for a player action without any additional rules or die rolls. Every 10th turn the game is paused for simultaneous movement.

This is important and sometimes takes a while for experienced players to grasp. When I pause the game at turn #45 (assuming no one killed me between turn #36 and #44) to shoot I immediately, during the same turn, decide my next order. I AM NOT WAITING FOR MY NEXT IGYG TURN AS IN OTHER GAMES OR TO BE ACTIVATED AGAIN. I can do pretty much whatever I want, it's just a matter of how long it will take and will the enemy be quicker than me.

In traditional games, the rules mostly tell you what you can and cannot do and put arbitrary limits on your actions. That's how a Time Competitive game differs from other types of games.

If the target is knocked out and there is another one to engage I'll roll 2D6. Let's say the result was a 9. I'll fire at a new target on turn #54 which I record. If I missed and my reload time is 6 turns I'll fire again at the same target on turn #51 – assuming I'm still alive at that time.

Any number of players may pause the game to shoot at the same turn #. It's not unusual for players to fire at each other in the same turn. If I fire on turn #45 and you fire on turn #46 and I kill you, too bad, you were one second/turn too slow and don't shoot.

Players perform these actions for each unit they have. Without knowing it the Observe-orient-Decide-Act Loop (OODA Loop) is recreated which is how we perform real actions in everyday life.

Benefits: All players are kept in the game because their units are always active and ready to react to enemy threats. There are fewer abstract rules and there is more move-and-shoot action than most games in the same amount of time. A somewhat more realistic Fog of War and anticipation is created because you don't really know who will shoot next. Vehicles and guns perform more historically too. Players perform actions as they would in real combat.

Here is a link to an earlier discussion if you have other questions.

TMP link

Wolfhag

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP30 May 2023 5:32 p.m. PST

Micromanagement is now commonly viewed as a bane of "old school" rules systems.

Depends on how old your school is. ;)

Popularity of different LOD in games goes in cycles. It's never all-pervasive nor gone, but there are ebbs and flows.

When I started, simpler rules were in vogue, and I saw in the 80's the rise of the crunchy rules.

Wolfhag Supporting Member of TMP31 May 2023 8:57 a.m. PST

My old school is BAH – Before Avalon Hill. Our Level of Detail was much higher than games today, we had fewer rules, more realistic terrain, more fun, and used actual kinetic energy weapons, no dice needed.

When I was 10 years old our level of detail was plastic soldiers in the backyard making real trenches and bunkers in real dirt. Rifle fire was a single pebble from a slingshot. Machine guns were as many smaller pebbles as you could fit in the slingshot. Cannons were BB guns. For artillery, you threw a firecracker at the defender and where it landed you buried it partially in the dirt and lit the fuse. Our favorite was a flamethrower – a can of lighter fluid and a match. I miss those simple days.

Wolfhag

arthur181501 Jun 2023 6:56 a.m. PST

I'll be your surviving figures – if there are any – don't miss them one bit!

Personal logo McLaddie Supporting Member of TMP06 Jun 2023 9:23 p.m. PST

I would think it would be the designer who decides what his game is. I can see that there are a whole bunch of different notions and I can see a designer justifying his decision to call a game a wargame with any one of them… if some designer hasn't already.

etotheipi wrote:

The problem is that people tend to think of "realism" as a one-dimensional concept, only having very few states, often two (yes or no). Reality has infinite dimensions, thus so does reality. Most of those dimensions are continuous, thus having infinite levels of sensitivity.

It is true that reality has infinite dimensions, but that isn't 'a problem' people have, or even a tendency--it is simply the way all humans experience reality: A limited view. Every one of our scientific theories are 'limited' in the same way, never encompassing all of reality. Do we call the Theory of Relativity 'unrealistic' or a wrong because it can't describe the nature of black holes or quantum gravity? Am I being 'unrealistic' to plan to drive to work in fifteen minutes, particularly if I make it to work in that many minutes most days? Yet, there are an infinite number of things that 'could happen' on my way to work.

Simulations and wargames are limited experiences just like our personal, day-to=day experience of an infinite reality. Just as the scientist forms his or her always narrow ideas of how the universe works. A limited view of only part of reality: pieces, always pieces. That is why the experience of a simulation can be a truly realistic experience for the user, because of the 'problem' of limited human experience.

Personal logo McLaddie Supporting Member of TMP07 Jun 2023 12:02 p.m. PST

I started, simpler rules were in vogue, and I saw in the 80's the rise of the crunchy rules.

The Way-back machine. [Those 'crunchy' rules [why not just call them complicated or detailed. Do we need a new term to say the same thing?]

The cause of the rise of "Crunchy rules" was the birth of "Simulation Publications, Inc" or SPI in the second half of the 1970s. They came up with a rather self-defeating wargame notion of 'realism' and simulations, insisting that more information, more detail, more complications meant more realism. It led to the explosion of 'Monster games' and rules sets like Empire and La Battaile de la Moskowa It grew from there to behemoths like Europa, Pacific War or the 1980's plethora of complicated Napoleonic rule sets and board games from such creators as Clash of Arms and Operational Studies.

We all suffered from the intellectual damage inflicted by those dead-end conceptions of wargame design, simulations and realism.

This thread is evidence that the backlash, the rush towards simpler games, simulations equaling boring, non-game complexity is coming to an end. Because the anti-simulation, simple game-only demands have also failed to be wholly satisfactory, being too simplistic in concept and execution for what they are supposedly portraying.

I think the answer to "what is a wargame" is about it's purpose, not the specific factors portrayed or particular mechanics. Lot of ways to portray war with rules and games. They all have to portray war in some fashion. Would a game on German aircraft manufacturing during WWI or the logistic sustaining the Allies during WWII be a 'wargame?'[Those boardgames exist.] I would think so.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.