"A Compendium of Wargaming Terms" Topic

We occasionally discuss definitions and terms in wargaming. Here is a listing used in the military war gaming community. Even they can't all agree on definitions as it seems to be a WIP.

The Wargaming Community uses many terms that have multiple definitions or meanings, reflecting the variety of ways the art of wargaming is practiced. For example, the Community cannot agree on the spelling or definition of the term "wargame." Since there is no single agreed-upon set of wargaming terms, this compendium is an unofficial collection that attempts to gather and post as broad a collection of terms and definitions as possible. Its purpose is to inform gamers of the variety of terms and definitions in use rather than to impose a single set of rigid definitions.

PDF link

Wolfhag

There is a more up to date version here link

And at the risk of being accused of hubris can I recommend the WD Handbook PDF link

There is also the TMP Glossary: TMP link

Giving meaningful terms to wargame types and purposes is fairly functional, so that one can recognize them in looking at different designs. However, when one gets to game design methods and their terms, often they become vague and difficult to recognize or so general as to be meaningless.

For example, "Black-Boxing" as defined by the TMP Glossary:

In wargaming terms: including several different factors in one overall dice roll or score.

For example; a unit of troops may be given separate values for their weaponry, training, morale and combat experience, or those factors could be 'black boxed' together, and the troops given one overall score representing them all.

"Including several different factors in one overall dice roll or score."

So, what wargame doesn't do that in every aspect and every game system, regardless of the scale?? Is the first example given with several values for a combat unit not black-boxing a whole load of factors to come up with those values?? How is that different from having a single value for the unit? A whole lot of factors are still being subsumed for any die roll or score. In considering what each approach is 'black-boxing', neither is including more reality in their 'black-boxing' than the other. In both cases what is black-boxed is approaching an infinite number of factors found in reality.

In that respect, can anyone think of a tabletop wargame or board wargame that doesn't 'black-box' its systems and mechanics?

I would suggest that black-boxing is a rather meaningless term because all wargames, at all scales black-box to come up with any and all factors or processes for die roll [chance] outcomes built into any wargame.

From the definition provided, it would appear to me that "black-boxing" is intended to apply to the individual unit having one score that covers every possible ability and action for that unit.

Such as having a ranking system:

1 = Untrained
2 = Green (trained but untested)
3 = Veteran
4 = Elite

The ranking system value would be used to handle everything from likelihood of following commands to movement to effectiveness in combat to total hits sustainable. For example, perhaps the rank designates the number of dice rolled for each circumstance. Perhaps the highest die roll becomes the result, or a total result is used or the number of dice rolled above a target number… whichever method really isn't relevant. But the units are "black-boxed" in this way. One number affects all actions, regardless.

However, if a unit has different scores for different aspects, that would not be "black-boxed" even if those aspects themselves include abstractions of other factors. So if you have a unit with four different attributes as Speed, Armor, Attack, Command, and each of these attributes has a distinctive value with distinctive uses and processes, then that unit is not "black-boxed" no matter what the level of abstraction is from reality.

So, single over-arching value= black boxing. Multiple values = not black boxing.

The black boxing definition doesn't say "every possible ability", it just says some. The issue isn't that every wargaming system does it; the issue is the definition assumes that there is a finite list of factors.

For any given military activity, an artillery shot, for example, there are a mathematically infinite number of different possible decompositions into a well formed expression, like is a set of wargame rules.

Certainly, there are "traditional" sets of factors, like Pd, Pt|d, Ph|t, and Pk|h (d: detect, t:track, h:hit, k:kill). And there are many different meaningful (not just possible) ways to make a "traditional" kill chain. For example, I might have one where Ph|t and Pk|h are multiplied giving three steps. Or I might have one where Pl = Pd x some part pf t|d and Pg = the rest of Pt|d x Ph|t (l:localize, g:target). Now I have two three step chains, but neither is an aggregate of the other and the third is not an aggregate of the first.

And, of course, we are not limited to just breaking this across the timeline. For example, the concept of mission kill vs attrition could bifurcate any of those steps into different "kill zones" or use completely different steps.

QILS aggregates combat actions into a single opposed roll. So these three situations

  RoF Ph Pk|h
A  .8 .5 .8
B  .5 .8 .8
C  .8 .5 .8

cam be represented with the same dice. Or I can use different paradigms for different units and I don't have t shoehorn them all into one monster process. So if I have many scenarios where RoF is neglectable as a factor, I don't have to specify it in the rules and stats just so I can have some games that do implement different RoF for different units.

Circling back to the topic, when I teach wargaming to military organizations, I have a taxonomy of wargames. It's not the taxonomy. It's the one that allows me to emphasize the relevant points for wargame design.

It might be wise not to peer down this well too deeply. Perhaps it should be referred to ChatGTP for comment.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

B

These are good examples of what I am talking about. A game design term has to be workable to provide a benefit in designing. Workable here is 1. it is defined in a way that anyone can recognize its application in a design, and 2. It has to provide some method that has specific applications and specific benefits.

The black boxing definition doesn't say "every possible ability", it just says some. The issue isn't that every wargaming system does it; the issue is the definition assumes that there is a finite list of factors.

I can safely assume that all wargames, their subsystems and mechanics ALL have a finite list of factors.

Meaning all games are black-boxed from top to bottom. etotheipi, you said it yourself: "I have a taxonomy of wargames. It's not the taxonomy. It's the one that allows me to emphasize the relevant points for wargame design." The question is when doesn't a teacher or game designer or scientist or bartender not do that? When isn't it finite, being limited, black-boxing, whether a "limited" set of game factors or in presenting on wargame design?

Wargames are all finite and limited, lots of factors subsumed, whether the result is one factor or twelve. Everything in a wargame is 'black-boxed' with that definition--which is my point. It refers to what the every game designer is doing from the bottom up or top down of his design: limiting the factors he is working with 'to emphasize' what he deems are relevant points.

What is the value of a term describing what every game designer does with every part of his design, has to and always does without any exceptions?

From the definition provided, it would appear to me that "black-boxing" is intended to apply to the individual unit having one score that covers every possible ability and action for that unit.

So, black-boxing is when an individual unit [of some denomination] has a single factor to represent it's value. Great, that is a workable definition, easy to recognize and two, easy to apply and the benefit is obvious, an old, old design approach that goes back to ancient times with "GO" and "Chess".

Black-boxing is when a designer reduces the value of 'a unit' to one factor. I am not sure that is the general consensus, but it is workable.

It might be wise not to peer down this well too deeply.

This is what gives us meaningless 'crunchy' rules containing historical 'flavor' with 'reasonable results.' And unwillingness to ask basic questions, like "What the heck does that mean and how does that help me design wargames?" It certainly isn't a well that many wargames feel like exploring, but game designers have to, its their well. Having functional technical definitions are what keep everyone from going down the rabbit hole together. That is seen all the time on TMP and the hobby in general.

Hi McLaddie,

This is what gives us meaningless 'crunchy' rules

The "black box" is one end on the design spectrum; its implied reward is simplicity of game mechanics which, however, often yields unrealistic values and relationships. At the opposite end of the spectrum lies expectations of unplayable complexity.

The designer is therefore always faced with a choice of poisons whose deadliness will vary according to the expectations and size of budget of the client.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

B

Hi Blutarski:

No argument there, but what you have is 'black-boxing' equaling simplicity or making a game simpler [than what?]
In game design terms, why not use the generic term 'simple' or 'simpler?' As vague as they are, they are far more specific than 'black boxing.' As game design terms, they are so general to the point of one's opinion of what is a 'simpler' design is as good or meaningles as another. No real help in designing.

Compare that the definition of blackboxing reducing all factors to one factor/one unit. Anyone can see it in a design and it has a specific use and benefit for a design.

That is what a technical term does. 'Crunchy' or 'blackboxing' terms don't provide that kind of specificity, what is needed to supply a useful term, a meaningful term in regards to game design or simulation design.

With messy, meaningless words provides no stable platform for game design discussions or methods. Every time you will see the discussion to devolve down a rabbithole of just opinion and debates over equally meaningless counter-definitions.

+1 McLaddie. Unless a term has a very specifiv meaning which can be refered directly and the definition is and is well written it is of no use. "Black Boxing" and the definitions provided are unhelpful definitions as McLaddie points out.

"Fast Play" is not in the linked PDF but is on TMP.

Fast Play: Term used to describe rules which claim to take less time to play, usually due to lower complexity.

Looks to me like another case of individual tastes just like crunchy.

Wolfhag

Actually I assume "Fast Play" to mean simple AND mindless. Chess is a very simple set of rules far quicker than any Wargame but takes a long time to play. Ego it can't mean simple rules as they are not inherantly fast. Chess would be a fast game if nobodyu thought about moves and moved pointlessly immedistely the other guy moved.

hi McLaddie,
I addressed the term "black-boxing" in the sense that it was referenced in your 12:16 post of 7 June, i.e. -----

"In wargaming terms: including several different factors in one overall dice roll or score."

The game mechanics might indeed be streamlined or simplified; but an unwise choice of what various individual factors are to be combined runs the risk of falling afoul of "The Law of Unintended Consequences".

I'm suggesting that a prominent "Handle with Care" label should be affixed to the package.

B

Actually I assume "Fast Play" to mean simple AND mindless.

The thing about technical terms is that they are judgement/opinion free. They are specific and objective, like the ability of anyone to see a 'black box' technique in a game if it meant one unit/one factor. It just is, with particular benefits and issues. No 'good'/ 'bad' judgements involved. One can like the technique in a game, but that doesn't change anything about the technique or its game design uses.

The reason that UshCha [in this case] can make the above assumption is the lack of any technical meaning for 'fast play.' If 'fast-play' had a technical meaning, UshCha wouldn't have to make nor could he make an assumption about it's meaning or value.

Technical terms, though purposely self-evident, can be general or specific like Black box= one unit/one factor.

They can be general. For instance, all simulations and games have the following parts:

1. Game activities [What the players do in the game]
2. Game decisions [regarding those activities
3. Game time monitoring [How time passes in the game, what happens first, second, third etc.]
4. Game events [Non-player things that happen in a game]
5. Game administration [actions in the game outside the player's control or dictated. Like a die roll or combat calculation.

These are parts that can dictate the nature of the other three parts. For instance, a game can have activities that at some point trigger the end of the turn, not the player's choice, by an event. Say a die roll, an administrative action. In other words, the various parts call all be used as the method for monitoring time or when things happen in what sequence.

Time passing can also be determined by events, in this case phases ending when the player has done all he can within the phase. On the other hand, Player actions or decisions could dictate how much time has past.

The rare game is when time passing dictates when things can occur, activities and events. That is what Wolfhag's game does, the calculation of time passing dictates the players activities, events and decisions.

Even research simulations have this structure. However, it is only one technical way of viewing game structure. There are other, just as valid, just as effective. What is cool, is when you have two such technical descriptions of game design, they don't 'cancel' each other, but can be used together.

Just in case someone was wondering, the five parts do apply to all simulations. For example:

A scientist creates a computer simulation of chemical reactions. The purpose being to test different combinations. So,

The Game Activities involve the user/scientist injecting different combinations for the system for research.

The Game decisions are what chemical or combinations to set in the system

Game time in following the chemical reactions is monitored by the computer, counting the seconds within the program processes.

Game events are those chemical results created by the computer program

Game administration is all the processes handled by the computer as well as any needed adjustments or process monitoring required by the scientist.

You can see that a game or simulation process 'timed' by the administrative flipping of cards or die rolls will be very different from a system where time is monitored by player actions or triggered game events.

I played what I consider "Fast Play Rules" at a convention. I had a squad of Marines in an amphib landing. It was IGYG. Each unit could perform two actions, move or shoot (move-move, shoot-shoot, move-shoot, or shoot-move) in any combination. There were no reactions.

A range stick had the chance to hit for the various weapons rolling a D6 with no modifiers. You get hit – you die. No charts and no rule book.

It was good for a convention because there are normally new people. The terrain was absolutely magnificent and everyone had a lot of fun. However, being a former Marine infantry and familiar with beach landings the rules were really mindless.

You could not use real tactics (which most players were probably unaware of anyhow) and the rules could be used for any period of history. I quickly figured out an unbeatable tactic and mowed down wave after wave of Jap attackers – which I guess is a realistic outcome!

Wolfhag

…the rules were really mindless.

You could not use real tactics (which most players were probably unaware of anyhow) and the rules could be used for any period of history. I quickly figured out an unbeatable tactic and mowed down wave after wave of Jap attackers – which I guess is a realistic outcome!

Yep. An example of how saying a game has 'realistic outcomes' is meaningless when a nonsense rules system can get you there…

Yep. An example of how saying a game has 'realistic outcomes' is meaningless when a nonsense rules system can get you there

During the same game, I had moved my LVT Amtrack on top of a bunker mainly because it was the only flat piece of terrain nearby. A minute later one of the guys running the game was looking at a book about Peleliu (the scenario we were playing) and pointed to a picture, got all excited, and started jumping up and down like he had to go pee.

He showed me the picture in the book and how it looked almost exactly like what I had on the table. He then claimed that's how "realistic" the game is. At that moment I had an epiphany that for some people, mainly hardcore miniature players, "realism" is recreating the visuals on the table and a simple set of rules that allows you to move the figures around for photo ops is all that is needed. For additional realism, he made mouth noises for explosions and machine gun fire like I did when I was 10 years old.

I see the same thing in many AARs on TMP. Some do give an excellent step-by-step account of the battle but many others it's close-ups of the action to showcase their work which normally gets more comments than the action itself.

We all play games for enjoyment. I'm not going to criticize someone who gets enjoyment from something different than me. I understand I'm in the minority.

Wolfhag

Well said, Wolfhag.
Many things attract people to this hobby (or compulsion).

As my dearly missed friend Kermit was fond of saying – "There are no wrong answers to the question".

B

wolfhag I think you have misses, a lets say "clarification". If we take my favorite example Chess simply as a game. The time taken to play a chaess game.

A chess game (competition) takes around 50 moves) Median at a limit of 40 moves in 2 houres. So 2 1/2 hrs to a finish.

Now 50 chess moves takes almost minimal time. Lets say 5 seconds to physicaly move a piece. so 250 sec or under 5 min. About 3% of the time. So the time taken to play can dominated by thinking time not "combat resolution".

So on that basis Is chess a fast or slow game. It takes 5 minues to move and resolve combat and 2hr 25 minites thinking time to the end of a game. A game can have fast combat resolution (our own game is at the fast end, I make no claim whatsoever to be the fastes, reduced die rolls and simplified range structures and no long "chants of factores" However it is demanding of thought so, is it a fast game? Depends, experienced players that think in detail with good planning skills, knowledge of the period yes quite fast. Beginners not so much, rules are easy easy but like chess decision time dominates ovelall play time.

Therefore there is an argument that a game that is over quickly (possible a definition of "Fast Play" but only one of a series of possibilities) must by definition minimise thinking time, so the definition "Mindless" is not unrepresentative.

Again this is simply an example where what seems an Obvious piece of terminoligy laks a sound definition.

In my thread on Board game ve Mini game I was carefull to define for the purposes of the thread what a board game was. In some cases folk saw that and really could not worlk well with, it as it did not alighn with their definition but at least there was a sound basis on which to dissagree.

UshCha,
Chess is not a war game. If it were each country would make their national chess champion the commander of their military. Feel free to disagree.

A squad-level game can be over quickly even with detailed rules if one side is hit by a perfectly executed close-range "L" shaped ambush. You'll rarely see that in a typical game because they need to be "balanced and fair" of which real combat is neither as it is not a game.

One of the reasons I posted the compendium with a remark that it is still a work in progress is that no one can define terms for others, including me. Not even the creators of the compendium can agree because they released an updated version and I'm sure there will be another update in the years to come.

If "mindless' rules combined with an excellent visual recreation create in the player's mind "realism" so be it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The so-called professionals and experts can't agree on certain definitions so why should we? We're all entitled to our own opinion and definition. I'm always interested in hearing other points of view and why. But then just like you, in the end, I'm always right <grin>.

Tomorrow through Friday I'll be attending the Connections war gaming conference at Fort McNair where many of the compendium creators will be attending also, including the Marines from their Krulak war gaming center. It will be very interesting because we'll be doing a presentation on how Western militaries are unprepared for a conflict like Ukraine and show the Marines the errors they've made in developing their own simulations that violate the primary Marine Corps' definition of combat in their War Fighting and Tactics manuals. I can back it up with countless examples of how they conduct real training and tactics along with combat AARs and where their simulations are lacking.

"Connections" is about making one-one connections with DoD and contractors for training, consulting, and simulation contracts. Our group will be composed of Tier 1 vets (US and SAS), SigInt/EW drone operator, a MANPAD specialist, and EOD that have all recently returned from Ukraine and people that have fulfilled military simulation and training contracts.

UshCha, if you think any of their definitions are wrong let me know and I'll bring it to their attention.

Wolfhag

Woldhag I appreciate Chess is not a wargame but as a game, it is an interesting example of the diffrence between thinking time and Execution time.

Your example of a fast wargame is not to me at all agood one in my opinion. A pre-set ambush is an almost mindless game if its done right, the ambushee has already pre-programmed the attack and the ambusher is not is a position to react effectively before they are rendered combat ineffective. That is not a poor example as a typical game, certainly not the sort of thing we would consider an inrteresting game, tedious/not worth playing springs to mind.

A probe into unknown territory for instance is a far better example. It requires consideration for both the attacker and defender to set up their initial plan and then as it always happens, plans seldom survive fully intact on contact. That is an intersting and challenging game worth playing.

Now if you can make that very fast to plan and speed up the protagonists thinking then you have created the ul;timate game and mabe you could sell the tricks to the real military.

At best to me, you can speed up the administration (all the drivers of the model), that will not make a game over that quickly if the problems are interesting.

Therfore thre needs as a minimum a coprehensive definition of a fast play wargame. This may need include a very clear definitions of type of wargame (ambush, straight firefight, all ams attack) that it can address quickly.

In my opinion the best a wargame can hope for is a mechaism that is as quick as the game chess, but with plausible mechanics. It does not make for a quick game time, that can only be achieved by minimaising thinking time and that may make the game far less attractive.

Hence the definition of "fast play" may need to define not only the rules but the complexity of the scenario that can be handled in a set period of time.

I have recently played some mindless games as a favor to a friend but they are to be honest dull and uninterestiong to me. However some of the protagonist were quite happ moving models around without pussing much thought into stratagies or optimum solutions. A mindless game iyt may be but some folk want that, moving and looking at the figures is the objective, serious thought may not be an objective.

We have players who will not play compxles senarios as they require too much effort and takes them too long. It is not the rules that slows it down but the overhead of actually concieveing and maintaining a battle plan that is the issue.

Again definition of wargames need to leave words of motherhood, which are needed but cannot be planned for. Dreams turn into nightmares> An actual wargame accurate definition of requirements that can can turn into real solutions.

In many cases a workable definition of a wargame is often missing.

Wolfhag:

Chess is not a war game. If it were each country would make their national chess champion the commander of their military.

Yes, chess is a wargame. That is simply history. It was designed as a game of war, used purposely as training, both in Asia and Medieval Europe. The pieces not only represent particular military units and commanders, both the European and Asian versions, but their movements were
meant to represent those different units. I can explain if you are interested. It's just historical fact.

We all play games for enjoyment. I'm not going to criticize someone who gets enjoyment from something different than me. I understand I'm in the minority.

Wolfhag:
I think you are again confusing what folks enjoy with the technical issues of portraying history. If the rules system is meant to represent some aspects of combat and war, then there are some very specific issues involved that may or may not be enjoyable, but that wasn't the issue you raised with your example. Your placement of the APC on the bunker had nothing to do with tactics, 'realism' of why WWII US APCs might be on a bunker, or the game system--you just needed a flat space.
The guy who put on the game is free to enjoy the image, more power to him, but that obviously has nothing to do with what game play offers in the way of history and combat.

I can enjoy shooting cans or hunting deer with my 30.6, but that means little in describing the technical issues of why and how that particular gun was designed.

In wargame and simulation game rules system design, 'realism' has a very particular, technical meaning, which doesn't include photo shots. There is nothing wrong with enjoying that aspect of wargaming, it just as nothing to do with wargame design . . . unless that is all the rules are meant to provide. That should be said up front. I certainly know of wargames where the designer has noted the visual aspects were more important than the actual play.

Blutarski:

Well said, Wolfhag.
Many things attract people to this hobby (or compulsion).

As my dearly missed friend Kermit was fond of saying – "There are no wrong answers to the question".

It is true, many, many things attract folks to this hobby and none are 'wrong'. There are no wrong answers to the particular question of why folks enjoy the hobby.

But it depends on the question. There are a whole lot of wrong answers if the question is how to accurately portray WWII Pacific landing operations or how miniature wargame rules can and do work. Whether folks enjoy the rules or not, or even how, is another question altogether. I can agree that there are no wrong answers to that question of what folks enjoy about the hobby.

It seems impossible to define in wargames terms what a fun game it. One man's fun game is another's pet hate. Been there done that. If you don't want simulation that's fine, but don't say it's a simulation when it is not. I detest that sort of lie.

If the guy likes his game that's fine.

I don't berate folk for liking football even though to me I can think of few ways worse to spend my free time. However if you told me it was a realistic wargame then I would get upset with them.

Before anybody gets on their high horse our game is not perfection. We do distort reality a bit for the purposes of tactical deployment. Take the panzerfaust 30 with 30 yd range. We give it several time that, a knowing breach of reality. However i can argue it is a lesser of 2 evils. At 30m ground scale it cannot shoot across a model road. That does not play well in terms of defending a locality. So some fantasy is involved.
Weapons with 250m or more range are not subject to that particulat issue to the same extent so we switch back to reality. In practise the distortion has not lead to serious annomolies I. E. when field guns are firing a 3000m and that represents 100 pazefaust ranges, whereas in the game it represents more like 30 ranges, simply the number and positioning of pazerfausts for other reasons tends to mitigate the overall distortion to an acceptable minimum as it is local and does not distort the overall system too much. On that basis I argue we are a simulation. Generic distortion of ranges
I.e using exponential ranges leads to far more distortion so is not acceptable in a simulation. The distort in is too widespread it's effects cannot be constrained.

e

though the mod ern versions b bthsy
.

UshCha,
"Fast Play" can have many definitions such as getting a complete game within a specific time, how quickly you can get through a game segment or turn, past gaming experience and comparisons, abstracting the rules to a great degree etc.

Wolfhag

"Fast Play" can have many definitions. . .

Which makes it fairly useless as a technical term to build a game around. Still opinion or what 'I like.'

We do distort reality a bit for the purposes of tactical deployment. Take the panzerfaust 30 with 30 yd range. We give it several time that, a knowing breach of reality. However i can argue it is a lesser of 2 evils. At 30m ground scale it cannot shoot across a model road. That does not play well in terms of defending a locality. So some fantasy is involved.

UshCHa: Defining it as 'fantasy' tends to diminish what you are and any simulation designer does. The question is what parts of reality are you after with that set of panzerfaust mechanics and it's players' uses? If you achieve that, any 'fudging', 'fantasy' etc. etc. is simply part of the "scaffolding." The abstractions, mechanics etc. that all simulations consist of to achieve the proper player experience, in this case with panzerfausts.

All simulations are abstractions to achieve a limited set of player/user information or/and experiences. To call parts that don't directly simulate 'fantasy' is a word that does not represent at all what you are doing or how simulation games are designed.

Wolfhag for once I cannot agree, By inference getting a game over in say 30min does imply very limited thought is requred. DBM can be played in an hour, but it is by no meands a greatly demanding game. Chess is simpler but takes far longer.

Fast play is only marginally about rules and more about thinking time. Therfoer as a piece of nomenclature its actually very misleading. It's not the mechanicas that make it fast but the lack of thought that makes it so. Snakes and Ladders is a fast game, but that is because its mindless Double the time taken to mechanicaly implement the ganm andstill does not make it a slow game.

UshCha,
There is nothing to agree or disagree on. I think McLaddie got it – so many opinions and definitions it means nothing or anything you want.

Fast Play: Since scenarios are balanced there is a 50/50 chance of winning. After setting up the table and the obligatory photo ops the side with the initiative rolls a D6. Side A wins on a 1-3, Side B on a 4-6 – Game Over.

Now you can get on with the more essential things in life like going to the pub, rifle range, or playing Rugby.

Agree or disagree?

Wolfhag

That's it. Terms have to have some concrete meaning, something that can be identified. Here are some possible working definitions for "Fast Play."

1. The game takes less than an hour to play.
2. The turns take less than ten minutes to complete
3. There are five or less player decisions each turn taking less than ten minutes to complete.
4. Only two die rolls per player turn or activity.

Etc. etc. None of them are 'right' or better than the others. Their value in game design is that they are easy to identify in any game by anybody. They have obvious purpose and can be tested to see if those terms have been met.

Whether folks 'like' fast play, or one definition criteria over an other is purely opinion and popularity. But at least whatever definition is used, "Fast Play" could be specifically designed for, tested, and players would know EXACTLY what they are getting when a game claims to be 'Fast Play.'

Technical terms aren't created by the consumers. They are created by the artists, the engineers of the game experience. As long as game designers don't have technical terms, the efforts remain solely depended on amateur talents offering gamers 'hit or miss' quality. It is one reason gamers tend to buy so many rules sets instead of getting exactly what they want.

McLaddie +1. Interestingly after 15 years as we produced a new set of army lists for the Issue 2 rules, we decided that better late than never we would better define some game terms that we thought previously were self evident.

The key thing is in say your own rules you accurately define the definition of the term, even if not everybody agrees with the definition at least you have definative grounds on which to discuss the issue. This was exampled in my Boardgame vs Mini Game.

McLaddie,
Regarding Chess is a war game:

War is a very complicated and multi-faceted activity and is difficult to accurately portray on a playing table. There are some ways Chess resembles a war game regarding strategy, tactics, and thinking ahead but does not address in detail most of the factors facing commanders in a real war. In ancient times Chess had chariots rather than Rooks, ministers rather than Queens, and elephants rather than Bishops so it gave a better portrayal before the European changes. But I'll have to stay with my original statement it really isn't a war game except in a very abstract way in dealing with strategy and tactics and is not a very good training tool today:

War is not IGYG

War is about getting inside your opponent's decision loop to seize the initiative

War does not have a god's eye view of the battlefield, except maybe with satellites, EW and drones

War has logistics, even at the lowest individual level
There is no recon or intel

You can be a great Chess player without any historical military knowledge. You can be a Chess player with 20+ years as a successful commanding officer in the military and get beaten by a 10-year-old Chess player.

War has medics and corpsmen

In war, it is extremely rare that both sides have the same exact OOB and formation but could have occurred in ancient times.

The initiative is not determined by your uniform color

In war units don't "jump" over each other (unless you have air power)

In war morale is important

In war terrain is important

In war, not every command or move is executed as ordered

War has C2 breakdowns

There is no Fog of War or SNAFUs in Chess unless maybe you take too long to move or knock over the table.

I'm not saying that to be a war game it MUST include all of the above, it does depend on the scenario and what you want to portray.

No military uses Chess as a factor in promotion or training for the battlefield. It is an excellent way to get someone to think strategically and plan ahead but is almost worthless in training commanders for combined arms maneuver warfare. It's played in their free time, not as a military exercise (some exceptions?). It's an excellent strategy game as is GO, Backgammon, and many others.

You could also make the argument that Rugby and American and Australian Rules football are to a large degree wargames. There is actual violence and bloodshed in addition to strategy and tactics, communication breakdowns, SNAFUs (especially when I was in the game) and the action is simultaneous with the occasional unarmed hand-to-hand combat. There are also causalities too. I've played American Football and Rugby and I think Rugby is better as the action is more fluid with fewer time-outs but I never referred it to a war game.

Teaching strategy is an important part of warfighting and officers should play Chess to exercise their minds and decision-making. It does simulate war to the extent that players attack and defend and need to plan ahead in an abstraction of war. In 600 BC when it was rolled out, it may have been the best attempt and all they had, and not as multi-faceted as today. However, when planning a real battle in 600 BC I'm sure they used some type of sand table (not squares) and the setups were different because of the terrain.

Based on what's happening in Ukraine the Ukie commanders could use a lot of training to think and plan ahead and use initiative but I doubt if Chess would be the ideal training module.

In some respects, many commercial war games have very little resemblance to war as the players don't need to have any understanding of military science and tactics to play them. They are mostly abstract game mechanics, and very light on the mechanics of real war and tactics. Rules like unit activations, initiative determination, command points, etc. have no foundation in military science except in a very abstract way but they can make a fun game and you don't need to have any real military science knowledge which can make it a commercial success, that's important. After all, it is a "game" so there is no right or wrong way to play it.

Real military tactics and simulation appear to be too "complicated" for many players and difficult for a game designer to accurately portray in a playable manner too and most players have had very little exposure to them.

We all have different ideas on balancing game details and mechanics, playability, and entertainment. If someone "thinks" or "feels" Chess is a war game then to them it is. But thoughts and feelings don't always have a basis in fact, application, and reality.

The compendium states, "[War is a] game of chess where the board has a million squares and the pieces consist of a dozen Kings and Queens, a thousand Knights, and so many pawns that no one can exactly count them." Sir Ian Hamilton: The Soul and Body of an Army, xi 1921

That's one man's opinion and a VERY abstract definition as there are no Chess pieces on the battlefield. But if you still want to call it a war game be my guest. You could also reinterpret it to "War is a game of strategy and tactics" which Chess really is which I'll agree with. However, war is much more than just strategy and tactics.

War is a Time Competitive struggle where both sides attempt to get inside their opponent's OODA Decision Loop to seize the initiative, thwart the enemy's plans before they can be executed, and thus set the tempo keeping the enemy off balance.

There are many tactics to accomplish that (suppression, C4, EW, ISR, Cyber, maneuver, etc.) which Chess does not have. That's not my definition, it's the definition the Marine Corps War Tactics Manual uses.

Page 70-71 explains it: PDF link

Last Thursday morning at the National Defense University I talked with Tim Barrick, the Wargaming Director for the Brute Krulak Center for Innovation and Future Warfare at Marine Corps University. I brought to his attention about putting the Marine Corps "Time Competitive" definition in the compendium and he said that he'd look into updating the compendium. I also sent an email to Bill Simpson to include it too as the compendium is a work in progress. Feel free to submit your proposals too.

Wolfhag

The key thing is in say your own rules you accurately define the definition of the term, even if not everybody agrees with the definition at least you have definitive grounds on which to discuss the issue.

Yes! The game system or mechanic can be 'objectively' identified in the where, how and why that anyone can see and understand, regardless of whether they agree or not.

The only ones who can establish these terms are the game designers, the creators who need and would use such terms. They perpetuate such terms because they are 'useful.'

The down-sides to such terms are the reasons our wargame designers don't create and use them:

1. It would require some discipline, education, and mutual agreement among creators. Our designers are generally amateurs and like it that way, because:

2. It would be an objective way to hold designers accountable for what they claim, whether designing 'fast games' or 'realism.' Something that our designers actively avoid, and I do mean 'actively.' They come up with all sorts of reasons why wargames can't provide 'realism' while claiming it for their games… except when pressed. Then it is 'personal preferences.'

Even when game designers do attempt some objective design goals and mechanics, they shy away from claiming any 'objectivity' in their design because of blowback from others insisting it is ALL personal preference. I've seen you do this Wolfhag. You do everything to establish that objectivity and then end with 'but its my personal opinion.'

3. It would make game quality a content/system trait that could be identified to some extent, rather than just 'flavor' and 'personal opinion.' [Like a definition of "Fast Play."] That would make game design more demanding with game play having recognizable and testable qualities/results. Too much trouble, and again too much accountability.

As Crick, of Crick and Watson of DNA Helix fame once said,:

"It is fun guessing, so much harder to actually know."

In some ways that is the difference between a talented or not so talented amateur having fun and a professional actually creating what they claim to provide with their wargame.

Wolfhag:

I can appreciate your definition of and criteria for a 'wargame.' However, Ancient and Medieval military men really didn't care about most of those things, if they knew about them at all.

They created chess as a wargame and used it as such. I would think purpose/uses along with terminology would be enough to designate it a 'wargame' even if it can't function as such now.

Pawns were the soldiers. Originally, they could only attack to the right, as would a right-handed footman with a spear or sword. It also 'simulated' the drift to the right of a battle line because of this right foot/right hand attack. Only later was the attack changed to both left and right--but not straight on through the shield.

The mounted knight is the only piece that can jump over other pieces, and again the attack is left or right with the "L" shaped movement. In mounted combat, horses did jump over and through men and battle lines.

The rook and bishop represent the two territories the King and Bishopric held. The diagonal and straight attacks represent the overlapping boundaries of those lands. The bishop in medieval times had military forces. The castles of course, defended the boundaries of a kingdom.

The queen represented not just the queen, but the home guard she would command when the king was off campaigning. She also was the one who, as a woman, tended to keep all the factions represented on the board [king and bishops] in communication. Hence her abilities of both castle and bishop.

The king represented the ruler of course, but also his government, which couldn't go traipsing around on campaign, and still function at home. It is the 'capital' of the kingdom.

Asian chess had no queen or knights, but cannon, elephants, and chariots or cavalry. On the table, there is a castle area and a river between the two sides with retainers guarding the castles.

link

So I call Chess a wargame because it was 1. Designed and redesigned as such, 2. Actually used to 'train' knights and retainers, and 3. Medieval and Asian creators and users called it a "game of War."

Mounted knights, pikes and chainmail aren't used today, but they were still created and employed as implements of war. They are still called implements of war today.

McLaddie,
OK. I consider Chess an excellent tool for military strategy training but I would never use it to prepare for a battle as it is too inflexible. How could you train your knights to perform a double envelopment, ambush, use deception, etc? I think it's too abstract to be of much use to prepare for a battle against an opponent on specific terrain using Chess.

Question: If I replaced the playing pieces of checkers with nicely painted 54mm Greek Hoplites with one side having red cloaks and the other side black cloaks to what degree would you consider checkers an ancient war game to train your troops using the same exact rules?

Wolfhag

Wolfhag:

I understand the limitations of or better, Chess's complete lack of military use for training today. I am not in a position to explain in any detail what medieval or ancients were thinking of in this regard. However, it is clear they did use it as military training, regardless.

As for checkers. Regardless of what kind of playing pieces were used, if:
1. It was designed to train for war
2. Employed in that capacity, particularly by the designer[s], and
3. Called a 'game of war'

Then yes, I would call it a wargame. That isn't a statement about how it was used or whether it was useful at all. Different question. That is a "Was it any good or bad?" question.

We all have different ideas on balancing game details and mechanics, playability, and entertainment. If someone "thinks" or "feels" Chess is a war game then to them it is. But thoughts and feelings don't always have a basis in fact, application, and reality.

I am not sure we have different ideas on those design issues. I agree the criteria shouldn't be feeling or beliefs.

My criteria isn't based on my feelings or thoughts, but historical facts: game design purposes and subsequent uses. Are you saying Chess wasn't, isn't, and can't be a wargame because it doesn't work for you and the modern military?

I understand why Chess is generally useless today as a training platform, but that really has no bearing on why it was originally created and used by other militaries throughout history.

Using your criteria for a wargame, most all of the hobby's games, starting with Ancients through the 19th century, and perhaps through WWI could not be wargames regardless of what their designers say or the system's historical validity. I don't think you are saying that, are you?

How could you train your knights to perform a double envelopment, ambush, use deception, etc? I think it's too abstract to be of much use to prepare for a battle against an opponent on specific terrain using Chess

Wolfhag: If you read any books on Chess strategies, you will see the authors those terms, double envelopment, ambush, and deception. They believe those methods are possible with Chess.

Simulations, wargames and games in general are total abstractions. To say a wargame is 'too abstract' is sort of a non-sequitur. It just means it doesn't provide the real world relationships desired.

Deception in Chess: Nigel Davies Grand Master

link

An actual double envelopment in Chess: Images and comparisons to Cannae, of all things.
link

link

Ambush in Chess: One of many tactics for carrying out an ambush.

link

And Winning in the Chess Opening: 700 Ways to Ambush Your Opponent by Grand Master Nikolay Kalinichenko

I just wanted to give some examples. None of which means that Chess is a good military training platform, but as tactics go, the Grand Masters insist that one can carry out double envelopments, ambushes, and deception in Chess.

McLaddie,
I know you are the professional and academic regarding these things and was able to make a comfortable living with it and I respect your opinions. However, this time your discussion is falling on deaf ears with me. In all of my life, I never considered Chess a war game until I came to TMP. I was fairly good as I played another HS champion to a draw. When I joined the Marines I never considered any of my Chess playing experience to be of value.

The Grand Masters are delusional if they "insist" that they are executing military maneuvers in Chess. Just like an infantry officer "insisting" that his combat experience in executing ambushes, double envelopments, etc. is going to make him a great Chess player is delusional too. Grasping the concept does not mean you can plan and execute a tactic.
Deception in a God's eye view of the game?

Are Chutes and Ladders a war game simulating assaulting castle walls with ladders, the defenders push them off and you need to climb back up? How far are we going to stretch the definition of a war game?

My brother and I used to shoot rubber bands at plastic soldiers. We used very large rubber bands for cannons as they did more "damage". The action was simultaneous and time competitive. You could take your time to aim or decide to increase your rate of fire with less aim time. This is pretty much what a snapshot is with a real weapon. Indirect mortar fire was simulated by firing the rubber band into the air to drop it behind barriers. We had a limited number of rubber bands so there was logistics involved. When you ran out you had to scurry onto the floor and gather up rubber bands simulating an ammo run. I think it is a better simulation of a battle than Chess and most commercial war games.

While these terms are mostly used in a military sense they are applicable in several other areas. However, describing Chess as more of a strategic version of a war game with the playing pieces being armies and Knights/cavalry jumping over units would be a little more valid.

I attended a business seminar where the speaker used military war concepts to "out maneuver", deceive and surprise your competition. Very interesting but not a war game either. You could even make a case for using concepts like deception, ambush, frontal assault, flanking move, shaping operation, surprise attack, propaganda, etc. in seducing a woman. Try it sometime.

I'll stick with the Marine Corps definition at least for war and military simulations, you can use your own. It's ok to disagree.

Wolfhag

Are Chutes and Ladders a war game simulating assaulting castle walls with ladders, the defenders push them off and you need to climb back up? How far are we going to stretch the definition of a war game?

Wolfhag: I guess I am falling on deaf ears. Chutes and Ladders wasn't designed to be a game of war, it isn't used that way, and certainly has never had any of its mechanics identified with aspects of a real military, past or present. Chess was.

In all of my life, I never considered Chess a war game until I came to TMP. I was fairly good as I played another HS champion to a draw. When I joined the Marines I never considered any of my Chess playing experience to be of value.

Got that loud and clear.

If the game addresses military aspects that have little or no bearing on current warfare, does that regulate it to non-wargame status? Is that what happens to Kriegspiel? Chess was created for the same reason as Kriegspiel. It was used in similar fashion. Somebody designed and then used Chess as a wargame even if you won't.

Ambushes, envelopments and deception can and do present themselves in a variety of contexts.

Again, I define a wargame as a simulation game designed specifically to model some aspects of war, was used in that capacity as a training platform [or could be] and the game is then compared to the real world in usefulness.

That doesn't make it a successful wargame or even a functional one. Lots of wargames are failures, but all are:

1. designed to represent or train for war
2. Employed in that capacity, particularly by the designer[s], and
3. Called a 'game of war'

A wargame is purpose built to represent war in some way. It either does or it doesn't, but it is still built to be a wargame. As such, that is what I will call it. If I build a pickup for specific purposes, no one calls it a sedan because it fails achieving those purposes as a pickup. It's a failed pickup.

While these terms are mostly used in a military sense they are applicable in several other areas. However, describing Chess as more of a strategic version of a war game with the playing pieces being armies and Knights/cavalry jumping over units would be a little more valid.

Well, again, I am not describing Chess as a strategic wargame, or any 'kind' of wargame. Just designating it as a wargame. Though IIRC, 'strategic' is what ancient and medieval military men considered it representing--Warring kingdoms. It is for the creators and users to say what the game was supposed to do originally, regardless of what is or isn't used for today. And of course, A warlord in Medieval England didn't have the design sophistication we do today.

Chess can be an outdated or failure as a wargame, but it is still a wargame. The creators and users at the time didn't consider it a failure as a 'game of war.'

So, I am not asking you to value Chess as a wargame or use it as such. I am simply stating that it was designed and used as a wargame for many centuries.

And that is why I call it a wargame.

McLaddie,
I think there may be a disconnect regarding what we are defining, I'll take responsibility for that. Your background is developing games and simulations, mine is 3 years in a Rifle Platoon. It appears your definitions fit what is in your line of work as a game or simulation and a somewhat abstract way to portray strategy and tactics.

I view military action as an activity that involves time and a game should be derived from the tactics manuals. Those are two different approaches and regarding definitions, neither is entirely right or wrong. I like the Time Competitive approach because it measures activity in time, seconds, minutes, or hours depending on the scale and activity.

All of the games you mentioned involve critical thinking, which is a good thing, and the concepts of tactics. However, I think I could show the concepts of tactics better with a dozen shot glasses on the bar and sharing a beer with my "student" better than playing chess. However, I'm probably not the one to teach critical thinking <grin>.

Here is a link with info that I agree with and they validate what you have stated too: link
It seems the definition can be pretty broad the way it is being used. Settlers of Catan could be an economic war game. Teenagers are at war with their parents, etc.

The 4th Marines have used Memoir 44 as a way to foster critical thinking for their junior officers (your definition), not to simulate tactics because the game really cannot. Other units at Quantico have used Academy Games products too. However, neither is Time Competitive and both use abstracted and artificial rules to parse gameplay and neither is translated from the infantry tactics manuals.

For me, the big difference is that in a Time Competitive game, the "activity" of a unit or the tactic is modeled based on real data with a minimum of abstractions as orders and planning take time to execute. Your unit "seizes" the initiative by being quicker and the game should give the player some type of realistic or historical "Risk-Reward Tactic" to use to seize the initiative, and increase his rate of fire or first shot but with decreased accuracy. These are decisions real commanders and squad leaders make. This is much different than a war game using abstracted IGYG game turns to teach tactical concepts and critical thinking.

At a higher level, it is about quicker planning, a good staff, better communication, and better execution of the subordinate units. A division commander may know it takes 2 days to plan and coordinate an entire division-level attack, one day for a regiment, 12 hours for a battalion, and 6 hours for a company. He could give all of his company commanders an order to attack in 6 hours but they won't be able to coordinate with other companies and supporting assets above company level (Hasty Attack) but he may catch the defenders unprepared. It's a risk he can take. The longer he takes in planning and coordinating an attack the more time he gives the enemy to prepare his defenses, lay minefields, bring up reserves, and plan a counterattack.

During the planning period, his units could conduct recon in force, shaping operations, probing and deception attacks, etc. to keep the enemy off balance, which would be very abstracted as they are not the focus of the game. They could gain intel or increase the enemy's planning time. Artillery barrages and air strikes from both sides would serve to extend the amount of time to coordinate and plan.

When the planning time is up you execute but take a SANFU Check to see if some units don't arrive, one or more artillery units don't get a fire plan, friendly fire, poor weather, etc. There is always a chance of something going wrong, the more units you try to coordinate the greater the likelihood of a SNAFU. The game is about player decisions and timing which is much different than traditional games. I'm not introducing a new concept here.

If the attack catches the defender still in the planning stages he gains a real bonus. If the defender launches a successful spoiling attack he could throw off the entire planning timetable and the attack is called off until the next day. That happens quite frequently in war.

The game is more about planning and using real tactics than the dice and rules telling you what you can and can't do and attrition. Both sides are doing something and attempting to predict what their opponent will do and outthink him to beat him to the punch using real tactics and historical timing. I hope that clarifies my definition and why it's different.

Wolfhag

Your background is developing games and simulations, mine is 3 years in a Rifle Platoon. It appears your definitions fit what is in your line of work as a game or simulation and a somewhat abstract way to portray strategy and tactics.

Wolfhag: My background was developing games and simulations to achieve very concrete objectives, as real world as anything you did as a Military trainer. All simulations are abstractions, whether they involve laser-tag equipment and umpires or cardboard and dice. What keeps them from being abstractions is when users/players can see the one-to-one relationship between game and knowledge/skills in the real world.

I was a generalist when it came to simulation design. I covered a lot of topics using a wide variety of systems and mechanics, from classroom management and teaching skills to corporate leadership, team-building, communication skills and non-confrontational strategies.

Regardless, the bottom line was that they had to work, demonstrably improving performance in the real world. I think you can appreciate the similarities to military training.

You are focused on specific aspects of combat as critical. I get that, but there are a whole lot of skills and knowledge that goes into operating effectively in that environment, as I am sure you know. The great thing about simulations is that they can deal with a limited number of skills and knowledge at a time, and still have them applicable to the real world. Would a simulation of leadership training for combat NCOs and officers count as a wargame? Only the designers could determine the purpose of the design. Its success could be determined by a great many folks.

The 4th Marines have used Memoir 44 as a way to foster critical thinking for their junior officers (your definition), not to simulate tactics because the game really cannot. Other units at Quantico have used Academy Games products too. However, neither is Time Competitive and both use abstracted and artificial rules to parse gameplay and neither is translated from the infantry tactics manuals.

That could also be the training purpose of Chess. So, my question as a trainer and simulation game designer would be whether the use of Memoir 44 actually did increase those officers' critical thinking skills. If that can't be established, then it is a very weak effort, if not useless for everyone concerned, but players and command. It is about purpose and results, not whether dice and cards were involved. Of course, Memoir 44 doesn't teach much about actual modern warfare. It never was intended to. Some principles of war perhaps: concentration of forces, 3:1 attack ratio, etc. etc.

Again, you are very aware of what skills and knowledge is required of soldiers on the ground and that is what you see as not only war but what wargames have to provide to function in combat.

The game is more about planning and using real tactics than the dice and rules telling you what you can and can't do and attrition. Both sides are doing something and attempting to predict what their opponent will do and outthink him to beat him to the punch using real tactics and historical timing.

Critical aspects and ones I am trying to incorporate into Napoleonic game rules. But your game system is still abstract, yet could/do require the players to use real tactics and time utilization to win. The question is whether the system actually does that, can have players translating those game skills and knowledge to the real world. That would be the test of the game. That can be done without throwing players into a real firefight to see if your simulation succeeds.

My basic point is that the skills and knowledge you have identified as critical can be taught in a wide variety of ways, methods, systems and mechanics, including parsing out the various skills etc., training them separately, then bringing them all together. I am sure the Marines have done that in a number of iterations.

McLaddie,
Sorry about the delay.

My basic point is that the skills and knowledge you have identified as critical can be taught in a wide variety of ways, methods, systems and mechanics, including parsing out the various skills etc., training them separately, then bringing them all together. I am sure the Marines have done that in a number of iterations.

McLaddie, with all due respect, no game or simulation on the market is going to be of real value in training for war, including mine. You can do a web search and see that Marines play Chess for recreation, critical thinking, and for entertainment. They don't issue a medal or ribbon based on your level of Chess expertise.

From what I can tell and my experience today's games are of little value other than critical thinking that any other strategy game has like Checkers, Stratego, and Go. When I was deployed on the ship we played Chess, Checkers, Stratego, and Jeopardy mainly out of boredom. We didn't get any credit for the training. I also played the old Alnavco game "Seapower" but did not think it was preparing me to be an Admiral.

Using an abstract game like Chess or Memoir 44 to teach concepts or simulations to 19-year-old recruits is pointless and a waste of time doing it on Marine Corps time. Once you are out in the FMF and have completed your basic and advanced training for your MOS games and simulations can be a constructive activity. I recall the Commandant saying Marines should play Chess as a mental exercise.

In Boot Camp I was told not to think, just to obey. For one week during Boot Camp, we did some real infantry training in the woods of Camp Geiger in NC. During VN era it was about stealth and situational awareness for patrolling and your field skills. Fortunately, I had 1 year in ROTC and I learned my field hunting and tracking skills in the Florida Everglades. MY DI made me a squad leader.

I don't ever recall a lecture by an instructor that started out like, "OK you little maggot pukes, let me explain the concept of an ambush" or "here is a little board game to teach you about war." That would have been Fing ridiculous! Any 7-year-old kid that played war in his backyard already knew about ambushing, circling around to attack from behind, etc. but not how to carry them out in a war zone or command a unit.

When I got to Camp Pendleton for Advanced Infantry Training I was a squad leader again which was a real pin in the butt job. For 6 weeks we learned how to apply what we learned in Boot Camp. There are various types of ambushes for specific reasons and locations/terrain. There are specific places to set up your automatic weapons, mines, etc. When to trigger the ambush is an art in itself. We practiced fire & maneuver. Learning to read a map and compass so you don't get lost is important too. Playing Chess would have been a waste of time and we didn't have any games in the barracks.

When I got to my first real Rifle Company the training now concentrated on patrolling techniques, squad tactical formations, coordinating with your flank units, squad and fireteam formations, fire & maneuver, assaults, and combined arms.

We drilled over and over again how to respond to contacts, ambushes, etc. Why? Because it is the speed of execution and teamwork that is important. You need to know what to do immediately without being ordered. There is no time to think critically. If you have to think or be told what to do you'll most likely end up dead. This is why the Marines define combat as "Time Competitive." Of course, there are always exceptions that I won't go into right now.

This is also, in my opinion, why traditional games using rules such as initiative determination, unit activation, command points, opportunity fire rules and exceptions, balanced scenarios, and god's eye view of the battlefield are of little value except as "concepts" and for playability because the none of these are found in the manuals and no one trains to do them. They are necessary ways for a designer to parse the action and have some player input because it is not Time Competitive.

Regarding typical war games we play: Initiative is "seized", there is very little randomness about it. It starts with good Situational Awareness which will generally be based on your squad/fire team formations and unit experience and familiarity with the terrain. Sometimes it is that "Gut Feeling" that makes you aware of the situation (I have a rule built in for that). The speed of executing orders is subject to delays from suppression, poor intel, poor commander that delays in making a decision or making the wrong one, and other command and control factors. Units are always active and observing and can change their order if needed. So rules like unit activations, command points, card draws and IGYG are worthless in training and preparing for war. Your time would be better spent doing PT than playing Chess.

Now when you get to the Battalion command and above things change drastically using simulations for military training. I've participated in a few and observed quite a few others. Normally they are an exercise tailored for specific commands and ranks of O4 and above to get them to think about the big picture and coordinate with other admin, combined arms, and logistical units. They are not a war game in the conventional sense. They are normally cooperative endeavors designed for critical thinking and to get an idea of what needs to be done and things that can go wrong. It's not combat so it does not need to be Time Competitive although the game may have deadlines to complete an action.

Many that I've seen are logistical exercises where the "player" needs to deliver supplies from different points to a specific location by a specific date but not competing with other players. What resources are available and how is he going to utilize them to accomplish his mission? The umpire will most likely try to thwart his plans by injecting unknowns like poor weather, dock strikes, equipment breakdowns, etc. Critical thinking and planning are important.

A good squad leader is not necessarily going to be a good Chess player and vice-versa. If you want to use Chess or Checkers to teach the concepts and maneuvers of war to clueless civilians be my guest, it would be a good start for them but don't fool yourself into thinking that it has any potential value on the battlefield even if some experts claim it does.

I agree Chess, Checkers, Battle Chess, Go and Stratego are excellent strategy games and can mimic some military tactics and maneuvers and are a good introduction to them. However, no matter how many times you play them or how good you may be it does not translate to real military skills or commanding units on the battlefield but it may be a good way to show who has more potential for being a good leader and strategist as would your GPI and PT score. There are much better ways to do that which I can go into later.

Wolfhag

McLaddie, with all due respect, no game or simulation on the market is going to be of real value in training for war, including mine. You can do a web search and see that Marines play Chess for recreation, critical thinking, and for entertainment. They don't issue a medal or ribbon based on your level of Chess expertise.

Wolfhag:
Thanks for the explanations. It does help clarify things. I never suggested that any simulation/wargame on the market has any value in training for war. None of them were designed to for starters, and when used, from what I have seen, they have been used badly.

I would think your game providing an awareness of how time and movement dominates the battlefield would be of *some* value in a combat situation. No suggestion that it 'prepares' someone for real warfare.

I do ask:
1. What value you see in all the time and money the military spends on simulations and wargames?
2. How that fits in with the value of your training activities when you were a member of a training program.

I recall the Commandant saying Marines should play Chess as a mental exercise.

As a professional trainer, that *should* could not have had any consequences in improving soldiers' performances regardless of how often they played chess because there is no real 'so what?' answered. What was supposed to improve in their performance when, where, and how? Having trained students and adults in 'critical thinking', it isn't accomplished by simply having them play a lot of chess or any other game or simulation. The how's and why's of specific application are critical in real learning.

A good squad leader is not necessarily going to be a good Chess player and vice-versa.

Particularly with such vague benefits as suggested by your commandant. You seem to have insisted that a 'wargame' to be one, has to 'prepare' a solider/leader for real war. Parts or all of it at their particular level? You seem to say 'parts', even if only an introduction.

Now when you get to the Battalion command and above things change drastically using simulations for military training. I've participated in a few and observed quite a few others. Normally they are an exercise tailored for specific commands and ranks of O4 and above to get them to think about the big picture and coordinate with other admin, combined arms, and logistical units. They are not a war game in the conventional sense. They are normally cooperative endeavors designed for critical thinking and to get an idea of what needs to be done and things that can go wrong. It's not combat so it does not need to be Time Competitive although the game may have deadlines to complete an action.

And? Do you feel there were any observable benefits to this critical thinking etc. in participants' subsequent performance? Does the military ever identify and evaluate how such exercises succeed in improving performance of some kind?

I agree Chess, Checkers, Battle Chess, Go and Stratego are excellent strategy games and can mimic some military tactics and maneuvers and are a good introduction to them. However, no matter how many times you play them or how good you may be it does not translate to real military skills or commanding units on the battlefield but it may be a good way to show who has more potential for being a good leader and strategist as would your GPI and PT score.

I have not been saying or suggesting anything different. i.e. …can mimic some military tactics and maneuvers and are a good introduction to them. I have been saying that 'translation' to real knowledge and skills, however minor or incomplete, is the whole point, right? So, how is that learning, that improvement established?

What are your thoughts on GPI and PT scores as an indicator of improved performance… and how that might be the result of participating in wargames and such simulated activities?

McLaddie,
My basic point is that the skills and knowledge you have identified as critical can be taught in a wide variety of ways, methods, systems, and mechanics, including parsing out the various skills, etc., training them separately, then bringing them all together. I am sure the Marines have done that in a number of iterations.

I didn't design the game to do military training or as a simulation. I designed it to be a playable and intuitive (OODA Loop use) way to use real tactics in a game as they were used in WWII and to get historic split-second combat results. Many of the features of the game I accidentally stumbled on rather than purposely designed into the game. I did have several real tank crewmen help me out and I talked to personnel at some of the major tank museums to get specific technical details. I borrowed nothing from previously published games because a Time Competitive approach is completely different from the IGYG games.

This appears to be the Marine's best effort at a Company level wargame to be used for training: link

The end result: Unlike earlier piecemeal efforts to institutionalize wargaming in the Marine Corps, the TACWAR (not Frank Chadwick's design) suite of wargames actually generated a widespread use of a game throughout the organization. By 1982, TACWAR was being used at the Basic School and Marine Staff Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO) Academy, and its employment proliferated through the 1990s.

Disappointingly, the bright start and ambitious vision for TACWAR later found itself tarnished by the mission creep in game design that regularly conflates a need for greater complexity to make a wargame realistic.

Like its predecessors, as the Marine Corps later revised TACWAR, the complexity of the game series, time required to both learn and facilitate the games, and even physical space demands all increased. Critics increasingly argued that the TACWAR series was too expensive and onerous to execute compared with earlier Marine Corps wargames.

Sadly, the revisions intended to make TACWAR a one-size-fits-all gaming platform instead, as Captain Stuart Bracken acerbically noted, saw it collapse under its own weight and largely abandoned by the late 1990s: "neglected at all levels . . . stacked like cordwood in warehouses . . . bogged down in its own procedures . . . so muddled with administrative minutiae that players soon become bored and their initial enthusiasm is lost." This was an ominous sign that the golden age of Marine Corps educational wargaming was ebbing.

Sound familiar? SPI, AH, ASL, monster games, etc. Do you know the reason these games collapse under their own weight?

I have not been saying or suggesting anything different. i.e. …can mimic some military tactics and maneuvers and are a good introduction to them. I have been saying that 'translation' to real knowledge and skills, however minor or incomplete, is the whole point, right? So, how is that learning, that improvement established?

Critical thinking and the big picture are most important above the Company level and in non-combat arms units. There you have officers with college degrees who are already critical thinkers. Below the Battalion level combined arms, the concepts are easy to teach in a classroom or manual, and critical thinking is something you are going to have a challenge implementing as many enlisted have a below-average IQ, especially in the infantry. However, what is most important at that lower level is the speed of execution, individual initiative, and good command and control from the squad leader. There is very little thinking involved.

This is the main reason you can take a guy with a 75 IQ who reads and writes at the 6th-grade level and make him a somewhat effective member of your squad as the US did during the VN era. He does not have to think nor do you want him to either, just do as he is told using repetitive training. Just like training a dog sometimes you needed to smack them when they do something wrong. I got smacked around a few times myself too. I know this firsthand because in 1972 about 1/3 of my squad was made up of these guys.

Probably the closest to tactical games is this:
link

At Connections this year Ret Marine Col Tim Barrick was the keynote speaker and presenter. He runs the Marine Corps wargaming initiatives. From his presentations, it appears there is nothing in the combined arms arena the Marines are working on. He was mostly touting his Assassins Mace board game and getting a digitized version of it released.

He likes computer simulations because they can track what moves the players are using, who is risk-averse, and analyze which opening moves work best or are the worst. He also touted AI.

We're getting a little off-topic. I suggest we continue on Tacticalpainters discussion.

TMP link

Wolfhag

Wolfhag:

Thank you for the suggestion. I will show up there. I have been slow to respond because of family visiting.

Actually, we may be deep into the topic, rather than a little off. The problem is that for any wargaming term to be useful, it has to be grounded in a meaningful conceptual framework for designing wargames. Meaningful= technically useful in designing effective wargames. [And yes, that covers everything from fun to validity.]