"How can a wargame be realistic?" Topic

Out just yesterday – Commentary – PUT EDUCATIONAL WARGAMING IN THE HANDS OF THE WARFIGHTER – (as a military training tool) -

link

FlyXwire interesting Commentary, thanks.

TY UshCha.

Interesting that the US military experiences Boom & Bust cycles within their wargame training programs (especially at the unit level).

Interesting that the US military experiences Boom & Bust cycles within their wargame training programs (especially at the unit level).

It comes down to how the unit commander wants to spend his time and resources. Many officers don't buy into wargames for the same reasons as TACWAR failed. Some games or simulations take 3 days to learn the rules and it is played in 1 day only. Most IGYG games actually end up teaching the wrong lessons too. Most war games seem to be player in the junior enlisted ranges mainly for entertainment.

This is the closest thing I can find on tactical simulations within the Marine Corps. These pages have not been updated for quite a while.

link

link

Here are the details of TACWAR:
Central to TACWAR is a 3-dimensional terrain board (a rectangle almost 7 × 9 feet in size) representing 20 grid squares on an accompanying 1:50,000 map sheet. Each board square represents a square kilometer at a scale of 1:2,000 and the terrain is geomorphic; that is, it can be rolled in a continuum north or south, east or west, to represent any desired four by five kilometer section of the accompanying map sheet. The current terrain is a hypothetical area in northern Europe although several add-on modules are under development. Specifically, envisioned are a beach section to provide amphibious play as well as desert and mountain modules.
link

It appears to be very similar to the Dunn-Kemph game.

Retired Marine Brendan McBreen was an infantry officer and has done extensive work with computer simulations for training – yes the computer game Close Combat. The initial version by Atomic Games was for Marine Corps training.

He states, "I have learned more about small-unit infantry tactics from the "Close Combat" simulation than I have from fourteen years of Marine Corps infantry experience. None of these activities or learning experiences can match the effective and focused tactical learning that I have experienced through repetitive fighting of the small unit scenarios in " Combat." "Close Combat" permits a player to fight hundreds of scenarios, make thousands of tactical decisions, experiment with different tactics, and learn from his mistakes. I would be a far more qualified platoon commander now than I was twelve years ago. Through fighting the "Close Combat" simulation, I have internalized significant platoon-level tactical lessons".

He goes on to explain why and give examples:
PDF link

Wolfhag

Enjoyed playing Close Combat way back when.

The boom & bust cycles are also a result of leadership turn-over, with new leaders not valuing legacy training sets.

(loss of institutional practices/knowledge)

We can see this 'boom & bust' over time at the gaming table – once proud warriors [good gamers], have forgotten their drills and tactics when those aren't exercised (or challenged enough).

I've often thought going through a regime of battle problems similar to the mil-manuals could present a useful format, but hobbyist don't want instruction, or gaming as 'lecture', and will opt for the entertainment release instead, every time.

FlyXwire – I would love to get hold of interesting and Challengeing Scenarios. However most books I have bought have failed to a greater or lesser extent. Some defensive scenarios were a failure as there troops and deplyment of the defenders did not allow for a real defensive set up. Some were far too random, you got out of the set of interestings games very quickly and often. Again not enough thought about the possible combinations.
Some had interesing ideas so could be made playable but none were any use straight out of the book.

Some even had no force organisation or Command structure! how sad is that!

I would love to see a book of credible "excersize" proper scenarios but alas they would not appear to be of much interest to the " Ther's my models, let's die roll by the bucket full and kill stuff in a mindless charge." which covers a LOT of wargamers.

UshCha, for sure – and the more time we might spend researching, and painting, and building terrain up for an upcoming scenario, the whole "risk vs. reward" calculation comes into play, as realistically, how much playing time will we get out of all the effort?

A friend once remarked, that a certain ruleset required (for tournament play) a unit write-up (some organizational format) prepared, and the models be painted before they could reach the tabletop. Actually, think that's fine, but the point he was making, was that we can spend weeks (months) prepping for a game, and the actual event is over in a few hours, or time-limited to 6 turns……

We must be getting something more out of the hobby than just the game to sustain the effort (that could be the history, the technology, the crafting, the designing…..all the above)?!

Now a caveat – if the objective is getting more gaming in, maybe doing the hobby deep-dive isn't that formula for success.

Great article nice discussion of realism vs accuracy. The late great Otto Schmidt wrote about this and his games (at cons) were always abstractions from of history. I interested in the European Medieval period and have played many rules. When I comes to crusades, I am very interested in what happens when light Calvary gets behind battle lines, as sort of an acid test of the rules for accuracy what type of arrows or did they have light lance or swords is not terrible important.

I guess I am unusual in that I spend more time gaming than "doing stuff" on models.
The thraed on Sneeze proof smoke says it all. The limit to realism on the tabletop is where you want to stop, not where it can go.
Smoke not liked as its not what the players want, not that its unrealistic.
Hiding troops not what is wanted.

But that makes for an interesting read, the arguments about realism are not really valid in an absolute, realism in a game stops for other reasons before the absolute limit is reached.

UJshCha,
Responding to your post a week ago.

Wolhag, I can assure you none of our players don't want SNAFU's nobody in our group find them other than a tedious artifice. If SNAFU's are so entertaining why does Chess not include them?

That is an excellent question! I'd suggest that when your opponent moves a piece you roll an unmodified D10. On a 1 you can move the piece for him wherever you want. That would be entertaining. See how easy that is. I'd also like to see a rule for the Nuclear Option as it would have helped in the games I lost. Any other ideas?

Regarding SNAFUs: On a real battlefield things go wrong and people make mistakes – reality sucks. Good players are prepared and can overcome it.

Tedious artifice: LOL. I looked that one up but I am unsure of the meaning. Does it mean that your players will get upset if their tactics are not executed with 100% precision as they intended? Do they whine and pout if things don't go right for them?

If your players are bored they are not playing, send them home, or you have set it up wrong. A decent game should have you on edge all the time.

Somehow I'm not surprised. I can see you tar and feathering some poor chap banishing them from your shire and selling their families into bondage. <grin>

I put on my games at conventions and game stores. At conventions, people pay money to attend and want to get their money's worth, which normally means being entertained and having a good time. It's once to be invited back. Believe it or not, people are like that. I welcome new players who make many mistakes but also try things I would have never thought of. In fact, it is new players that have helped me the most in streamlining the game and making it better without dumbing it down. I don't castigate players for not catching on quickly or making mistakes.

Occasionally you get a player signed up that has other priorities or is waiting for another game to start that just wants to be told when it is his turn so he can roll the dice and is looking at his phone most of the time.

Historically, most orders are not magically executed immediately, it takes time for a crew to carry them out, and so too in the game. In the game, players roll a D6 with 0-3 modifiers that tell them how many turns it will historically take their crew to perform their duties to shoot, engage, reload, etc. The player is not "waiting" for his turn as in an IGYG game, he's waiting for his crew to execute the order, and that's what makes it different. In a way, it is I Go before You Go because I'm quicker. You Go after me if you are still alive. Sometimes players shoot at each other at the same time, just like in real combat. During each one-second turn, there could be no units shooting or many. It all depends on timing based on weapons platform performance and crew training/experience, not traditional game rules.

the IGOUGO system whose system allows a flexible response within some limits, has an un-looked for side affect of keeping the players in the loop all the time.

UshCha, if it is an IGYG flexible response it is simulating a flexible response version of Chess or Checkers as is any game that uses IGYG isn't it? I'm somewhat familiar with how your system works and it has some very interesting Chess like tactics and is better than most IGYG versions I've seen. Unless I'm mistaken, the IGYG tactics you use are not found in any military manuals. Commanders do not get to pick and choose the sequence in their units to execute their orders in the middle of combat. At least it is not in US Field Manual FM 17-15 Tank Platoon that you are using. I'm pretty sure I have a copy of your rules but I can't find them right now.

I could create a very data-driven and predictable game that would recreate real historical action with predicted results and congratulate myself on the accomplishment. However, it would be BORING! My experience is that most players like the social interaction of wargaming with a game that is intuitive, entertaining, believable, and not too predictable. The potential of things going wrong makes the game suspenseful and entertaining. To each his own.

Wolfhag

Clearly you are never going to get a decent game if your players are Add Hoc from Conventions and Shops. We do our equivalent games at Shows but you don't expect good players who are sufficiently familiar with the rules that they can concentrate solely on tactics. So your audience is vastly different to ours. All our proper games are at the club or at home. They are between keen players who know the rules and are interested in the period. We do get beginners in and we are prepared to train them. But like any decent sports club if you don't turn up for training you don't get in the team.

As to You desire for SNAFU's, well perhaps we are not Genius's like your players must be. They make mistakes, they plan artillery shoots that unfortunately the enemy declined to be there at the right time.
Like in the real world Traffic jams happen not by die roll but just not being clever enough and wanting too much in the right so stuff ends up in the wrong place, You put the bridge layers at the back not the front all the traffic has to stop while it passes to the front, it may take time to clear the road you had not allowed for.
All manner of things go wrong and heaven help you if you got the enemy's plan wrong. So given that and the simple fact that orders are often not sent frictionlessly and you have all the friction of war without recourse to entirely unrelated arbitrary random events.

As to the IGO UGO being not in the manuals its clearly a misunderstanding. If you are modelling fluid flow you don't do all the calculations to all the cells at once you split the fluid into cells than do the calculations one at a time. In doing so you still get the right result, its called time marching analysis. So the results you get come close to the manual results. Because its IGO UGO at a low level You may get the best start if you have the least pieces for one out of say 30 items. However the enemy gets to go next where he want's making life hell IF YOU DON'T have a Plan. If you have as plan then IGO UGO does not interfere with it good or bad.

While training one of the things we start to tell players after say the first 2 games after which they know the rules, is when they no longer have a plan, they have one at the start and like all good plans it does not normally survive full intact after first contact. II becomes obvious when they have run out of plan and we pause the game and even help them define a new plan. Now with just turn up om the day players you are not going to get that level of involvement. Wimbledon is not for tennis players that turn up on the day to play, you would never get a decent match.

Clearly the rules you play are as tied to your audience as ours are. Whit is clear is that they are wildly different audiences with massively differing requirements.

Reality sucks more than enough without arbitrarily adding to it.

Our players want a challenge they can relate to in their reading of actions and manuals, not driven by arbitrary die rolls. but each to there own.

We do have real world SNAFU's our standard rules allow a single element to take out a platoon in some circumstances but its above 4 000 00:1 so why add other rolls?

Tactical Painter's article was a good one, covering all the issues that crop up when considering realism and accuracy. Others on the thread have gone into more detail, such as the role of randomness in that realism.

However, Painter goes just to the edge of conclusions about how accuracy and 'realism' is accomplished, while making assumptions about how realism/accuracy can be portrayed. Those are:

1. Perhaps then I'm not looking for realism, what I am looking for is accuracy. I'm inclined to think that can be a more useful term to use when referring to rules that have some claim to being based on historical events.

Accuracy and realism are intimately related. One begets the other. That is why Peter Perla in his book "The Art of Wargaming" has his section on realism titled "Validation and game 'Realism'" [p.212] Validation establishing accuracy.

2. Commercial wargame designers and the military have always been intimately related, starting with H.G. Wells being asked by the British army to redesign his Little Wars for them. Many commercial wargame designers have designed and consulted with the Military…and vice versa, such as Peter Perla. The 'Boom and Bust" of military wargaming noted in the "War on the Rocks" article mentioned above followed the very same rise and fall of commercial wargaming. For instance, both commercial and military wargames became so complicated that they became unplayable… That reaction happened at same time, 1990s.

3. Establishing accuracy and realism in a wargame isn't a mystery or all that hard to determine. It is very straight forward. What I see is 'what I like' tends to cloud the issue rather than clarify it. And as others have noted, designers have obscured this issue by covering with 'Well, it's my opinion." Not accuracy or evidence.

The discussion about 'randomness' in wargames is a good example of confusing game likes with technical accuracy and realism. The Painter's example of realism in portraying messengers in pre-radio wars displays a misunderstanding of how it would be built as a simulation. When Ushcha writes: Reality sucks more than enough without arbitrarily adding to it. The issue isn't randomness, but it's being added 'arbitrarily.' It is an issue because so much of chance is just tacked on for 'balance' sake.

Dave Brown has included a 1/3 chance of 'hesitation' in his ACW and Napoleonic war rules. When I asked him if he thought brigades hesitated 1/3 of the time every half hour, he said he came up with the 1/3 because it worked in the game. It had no basis in history. That is arbitrary. To find a 'realistic' randomness, one would have to do some research into the historical records and like the military with armor penetration, build a data base of discrete events.

4. The idea that it is harder or different to capture the behavior of men in battle compared to technical capabilities is simply not true. Painter writes:

Yet it is much easier to assign a degree of accuracy to mechanical factors because they can be measured and verified…What is much harder to measure and assess is human activity which introduces more unreliable and complex sets of actions. While we can calculate the likelihood of an AP round piercing a tank's armour. It is much harder to put a fixed response to the way the crew will react to being shot at by such a powerful weapon.

The problem with this statement is that both measures, the odds of a round piercing armor and the odds of a crew reacting in certain ways are calculated the very same way with the very same kind of human-derived data. There is also the fact that groups of men will act far more predictably than any individual, the larger the group, the more predictable.

The use of human behavior composites from history and the military in commercial wargames has always been used, starting with Avalon Hill and their CRT chart with 3-1 odds having a better chance of success than 2-1. That is just calculating human behavior, done by the military based on WWII.

I'd be glad to explain any of those points in greater detail.

McLaddie – you miss the point there are limitations to what a war game can do. However that limit is never reached, many war gamers don't actually want realism. As an example If you don't want to hide figures, you have already actively decided to opt out of realism. None linear scaling for weapon ranges, bang (excuse the pun) goes any possibility of plotting a piece of real terrain. All is lost most of the time before you even need to ponder the complexities of human response.

Read the accounts of the Falklands war. The UK Paras did pretty much what they were told so not so many imponderables there..

The Argentinian pilots did as they were told and got slaughtered. Wargner troops went in human waves. They by and large did what was required. Normandy the Brits worked to plan and achieved what was required by and large so an approximation that folk do what they are told in disciplined army is not at all unreasonable in certain circumstances.

Now you I am sure can site other occasions when all did not go well but then its up to the designer to define what is appropriate for the troop types and period, anything and all at least be anecdotally supported somewhere sometime.

Few would suggest that the Gurkas ever mutinied or disobeyed orders in recent UK actions, so to me some of these arguments are at best weak and largely inaccurate under certain conditions.

Response of generals, well the player is in charge of decisions and you get real human re ponces from him, they may be daft but they are real responses.

So war games hit limits well before the absolute limit is hit. Even we don't hide both sides as the gain is insufficient to outweigh the slowing of the game which is of itself an issue with reflecting reality.

Even in the Aero engine industry, simulations to some extent were compromised by limitations of computing capacity but they remained a powerful tool.

McLaddie – you miss the point there are limitations to what a war game can do.

UshCha: What? Who said there weren't any limitations??? Attempting to achieve accuracy and realism are huge limitations in and of themselves. Of course, there are limitations.

However that limit is never reached, many war gamers don't actually want realism.

Most miniature and board wargames never attempt accuracy or realism, so that is a moot point. And like most wargamers, I don't want or accept what is passed off as accuracy or realism. Gamers don't have to want it. It is when designers claim to have provided it in some fashion that problems arise. That designers continue to do so means somebody wants that accuracy and realism. I get the impression that gamers have been provided crap [regarding realism and historical accuracy] as steak by designers that they've decided they don't want steak, yet continue to have a craving for real red meat.

As an example If you don't want to hide figures, you have already actively decided to opt out of realism.

For you, 'realism' has to include particular aspects of reality. I consider them important ones too, but that is a preference. Their presence in a wargame is NOT a requirement of 'realism', depending on what has been chosen to be modeled AND what the designer sees as his objectives.

So war games hit limits well before the absolute limit is hit. Even we don't hide both sides as the gain is insufficient to outweigh the slowing of the game which is of itself an issue with reflecting reality.

UshCha, you have decided what parts of reality are absolutes for you. All fine and good, but your focus is not a definition of what *should* be included in a wargame to be considered an accurate modeling of some aspect of war and combat reality. That absence in hidden units, for instance, is true for the military…again depending on their objectives for the wargames.

That hobby wargames fail or as you say "never reach the limits of what they can do" is simply a lack of trying and/or interest on the part of wargame designers.

Even in the Aero engine industry, simulations to some extent were compromised by limitations of computing capacity but they remained a powerful tool.

Of course. Knowing what a simulation can and can't do is a vital part of building a successful one.

So Despite some "dilouge of the deaf" we are in somewhat of an agreement that the typical game has little aspiration to be realistic. Thedefinition of "realistic" is so flexible that really it's not possible to define a generalistic definition that is usefull. Making the statement that its all the designers definiytion is not usefull. I could make a wardfare model where the battles are faught on the Menue of the troops. Not entirely incorrect, without the food they would not fight but some would say thet for most that would not be a key parameter to a warfre model, except perhaps you were a cook.

Yet it is much easier to assign a degree of accuracy to mechanical factors because they can be measured and verified…What is much harder to measure and assess is human activity which introduces more unreliable and complex sets of actions. While we can calculate the likelihood of an AP round piercing a tank's armour. It is much harder to put a fixed response to the way the crew will react to being shot at by such a powerful weapon.

The problem with this statement is that both measures, the odds of a round piercing armor and the odds of a crew reacting in certain ways are calculated the very same way with the very same kind of human-derived data. There is also the fact that groups of men will act far more predictably than any individual, the larger the group, the more predictable.

I don't disagree. Perhaps I didn't express it clearly enough, but my point alluded to the issue I see with a lot of gamers and that is they are willing to accept the need to include chance (normally by a dice roll) for the effect of firing and penetration however if a rules writer introduces a mechanism for chance to human reactions many gamers reject the notion no matter how tight the parameters or limitations.

Mechanics that attempt to reflect this like unit/commander activation or variable movement can turn many gamers off a rule set. That objection is usually based on their dislike of not having control over all unit actions, although they express this in ‘reality' terms – "duh, as if that unit would just stand there and do nothing". The irony is that they will accept an element of chance quite happily in the resolution of firing.

What those mechanics might be, how they work and how well they reflect real experience is another discussion, my very simplified examples were ways of suggesting it should be possible to create an abstraction that is playable and that reasonably satisfies the desire to have a plausible event/outcome.

I don't disagree. Perhaps I didn't express it clearly enough, but my point alluded to the issue I see with a lot of gamers and that is they are willing to accept the need to include chance (normally by a dice roll) for the effect of firing and penetration however if a rules writer introduces a mechanism for chance to human reactions many gamers reject the notion no matter how tight the parameters or limitations.

TPainter01: I agree. That is just a lack of understanding on the part of gamers regarding the similarities in how such statistics are created--and/or the lack of any statistical analysis or use of military research/statistics on the part of the game designers.

So Despite some "dilouge of the deaf" we are in somewhat of an agreement that the typical game has little aspiration to be realistic. The definition of "realistic" is so flexible that really it's not possible to define a generalistic definition that is usefull.

Ushcha: When have we ever 'dilouged'?? I have far too much respect for you to engage in that.

Yes, the definitions of 'realistic' are legion in the hobby, with no real 'useful' design concept or methodology. It's the 'pornography' cope out: "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it."

Making the statement that its all the designers definition is not useful.

Well, let me ask you this: Who claims to be creating 'realistic' wargames? Who offers that realism as a quality of their designs, using all sorts of words like recreating, modeling, simulating, and historically accurate? Who else should be providing a definition of how the *beep* that is done in a game system?

Establishing accuracy and realism isn't some mystery if considered as a technical issue. For instance:

Here are two tank models which are both labeled "Sherman M-4 Tanks."

Sorry about the size of the images. One is obviously more accurate… But how do we know that and how can we actually measure that accuracy? In scale, we can because we have photos and mechanical drawings of the real thing which we can use to compare the model to the real thing. Which is then more 'Realistic?'

Both models are totally artificial. Both represent a 30-40 ton construction of steel that moves and shoots with pieces of plastic. So, the 'realism' of even the first tank is very limited. But it is both realistic and accurate within the goals of the model design--the purpose for its creation. The Lego model's 'accuracy' is totally secondary to the real goal, the use of the desired materials: Legos. It's 'accuracy' is severely limited in comparison.

The reason we can talk about 'accuracy' and 'realism' in regards to the two models is because we can 'accurately' measure how they compare to the real thing in scale. Because we can do that, we can determine their 'realism'.

Realism:

Realism, in the arts, the accurate, detailed, unembellished depiction of nature or of contemporary life. Realism rejects imaginative idealization in favour of a close observation of outward appearances.

[Italics mine]
link

This accuracy and Realism works the same way in the sciences in creating simulations:

For instance: Back in the 1990s, a scientist wanted to know what happens when galaxies collide. He creates a computer simulation. It is totally artificial: Software and a TV screen with 1,000 white pixels representing billions of stars, planets, black holes and a variety of unknowns. The screen represents millions of light years distance and seconds, millions of year. There is a lot of guesswork and 'interpretation' involved. He runs the simulation. So, how does he know the simulation works, that it is 'accurate' to some degree and 'realistic': i.e. faithfully models reality?

Just like the tank models, he goes back to reviewing the hundreds of photos of galaxies, comparing his simulation results to reality. He found, even with all the unknowns and guesswork, the simulation did demonstrate a measurable resemblance to the photos, still shots of his dynamic simulation.

Accuracy and the resultant 'realism' works the very same way with wargames… in fact, it can't work any other way. You create a system to model some aspect of reality and then compare the results to the real thing. How 'accurate' the model is is the measure of 'realism'--how well it matches the real world.

I'll give you some wargame design examples. I will point out that with a participatory simulation game, it is necessary for the gamers/users to know where the realism is being represented, just as we need to know what tank is being represented if we are to judge the accuracy and realism--and to experience the 'realism.'

So, let's apply that same methodology of accuracy and realism to Napoleonic wargames. I'll use TPainter's example:

Much like the example of the fire drill, if experience or history tells us say that 1 in 3 of all messengers failed to deliver their message then looking at this solely from the commander's perspective we could resolve the outcome by rolling a D6, where a roll of 1 or 2 tells us the message failed to make it through. While this single roll of a dice could be considered accurate in terms of reflecting the chance the message is received it is an abstraction in terms of game design, however that doesn't make it invalid as a reflection of reality.

The meaningful phrase here is: "…if experience or history tells us say that 1 in 3 of all messengers failed to deliver their message." Does experience or history tells us that? Really? No one has bothered to find out what the actual odds were. 1/3 chance isn't accurate in any sense nor valid as a reflection of history because the history hasn't been referenced as a basis for that 1/3 chance. It is simply a guess in the same vein as Dave Brown's 1/3 chance of brigade "hesitation" every half hour. Guesses have to be compared to actual documented history to have any chance of being accurate or a valid representation of said history.

This isn't new. I remember first reading the designer's notes for Grand Piquet saying:
"What we gamers often times forget, is that every order given had as much chance of being misinterpreted, not followed, or not delivered, as it had being executed properly."

Based on what history, for Pete's sake? Think about it for a moment. If, during a battle, a messenger had a 1/3 to 1/2 chance of failing to get the message to the proper officer and then have it properly executed, won't
1. Commanders at all levels notice?
2. Such failures become obvious in how the battle played out?
3. Commanders be unhappy with that level of performance, and
4. Do something about it???

It is and was a real issue, making sure messages were received and understood. So, what did Napoleonic commanders do to ensure messages were delivered? That is the question to start with.

It is this process that will create a rule that can be validated and if successful deemed 'realistic.' [i.e. matches the history it was meant to model.] Just like the Sherman Tank and modeling Galaxies colliding, the wargame designer would:

1. Research, developing the data base the probabilities are going to be based on,
2. Design a mechanism to mimic that data base
3. Test it against further historical examples.

It is a simple methodology. It's implementation is the hard work.

Napoleonic military men did concern themselves with how to efficiently deliver messages…the basis for battlefield command control during the period.

For instance, they would send two messengers whenever possible to ensure delivery. Corp and divisional commanders had a prescribed location among their forces so to be easily found. Those are just a couple of actions. There is a great deal of period writing on the subject as well as organizational practices that enhanced that efficiency.

Then there are the battle reports themselves. Simple things, like the battle of Lützen, 1813. Maréchal Oudinot sent more than a dozen messages to Napoleon begging for reinforcements, and Napoleon replied each time. The messengers traversed over 2.5 miles across a swaying battle front. All of them arrived and all the messages were understood, Oudinot following the 'hold as you are', even when he doubted he could. He did. This is in contrast to Austerlitz where Napoleon issued no orders in the first two hours of the battle after releasing Soult, and then very few after that--all successfully obeyed.

Were those anomalies or to be expected? Now that is just two examples from just two battle where lots of messages were relayed by any number of officers. So, how many actually failed for some reason? Why? Where?

Accuracy requires a target and a measure of where the target was hit with the effort. If it is an 'accurate' model of history, then it is 'realistic.'

Any other approach is just guessing and feel good results. There is neither accuracy or realism in such efforts…regardless of the designer's or players' imaginations.

It is like the old saw about 'for the want of a shoe,…'

That is a very specific event with a very specific messenger to have a failure affect the entire battle. Are there examples? How many, how often.

A great deal of simulation design is based on probability, how often things happen. Even Chaos can be captured with 'how often' research.

McLaddie+1

The meaningful phrase here is: "…if experience or history tells us say that 1 in 3 of all messengers failed to deliver their message." Does experience or history tells us that? Really? No one has bothered to find out what the actual odds were. 1/3 chance isn't accurate in any sense nor valid as a reflection of history because the history hasn't been referenced as a basis for that 1/3 chance. It is simply a guess in the same vein as Dave Brown's 1/3 chance of brigade "hesitation" every half hour. Guesses have to be compared to actual documented history to have any chance of being accurate or a valid representation of said history.

I think you've simply repeated my point in a longer winded way. First of all, let's be quite clear, I pluck this straight out of the air by saying "if history tells us', not "history tells us". My example is to show there are ways of simulating and there are ways of simulating not to demonstrate any facts about whether a message gets through or not. I have absolutely no idea what the historical evidence is, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. My point was how can a wargame be realistic and if….if… the evidence was such there was a 1 in 3 chance it would not, then it would not be taking the abstraction too far to resolve this by any method that might give a 1 in 3 chance of success. The main point of my argument wasn't about what was and wasn't likely, it was that to not have a game mechanic to simulate the possibility of a historical event (if the possibility did in fact exist) would be less realistic than resolving the historical probability with a simple die roll.

Well, I have been known to be long-winded, but simple explanations don't always cover the issue.

I was simply pointing out that your description being realistic/accurate was predicated on that 'if'. Not that you didn't know that…

…it was that to not have a game mechanic to simulate the possibility of a historical event (if the possibility did in fact exist) would be less realistic than resolving the historical probability with a simple die roll.

And I agree and agreed. I was going for that 'if' and not treating your 1/3 chance as what you believed was true. I was pointing out that designers have used that 1/3, even 1/2 chance in the past, just guesses with no evidence to back it up.

So, I apologize if I sounded like you were advocating 1/3 chance or that you didn't know the 'if' in the sentence wasn't crucial. I think we are on the same page.

I hope that I have provided the game design, technical answer to your thread question, one that is both opinion-free and provable. Something that a gamer can experience as realistic.

How can a wargame be realistic?

MCLaddie. that was an excellent post and while mowing the lawn I was thinking about our own game and its Command and communication which is predominantly in the time of Radio and Field telephones.

It made me reconsider our logic on the basis of your dissertation. I think we are reasonably proof against too much criticism.

First of all the command structure in a game should not allow ad hoc commands to be issued and operated on in perfect synchronism allowing a precision that would be the envy of troops changing the the guard at Buckingham Place.

There is also the issue of the method. Now my job was to talk to lots of folk all round the world on my specialist subject both by phone and personnel interaction.

Based on that experience if you are close to the guy giving the orders you will have a better, my be not perfect, but better common understanding of what is going on so its easy(er). But that ocours typically at very low level in our games. At a higher level where "the infernal machine" is involved synchronization is not as perfect for ad hoc orders, there is more explaining to do. In our game orders will almost always get through fairly quickly, as in my personal experience but it does take extra time, perfection is not guaranteed but utter failure is not a realistic option.

So we have not copied a direct military experience but we have mimicked a real situation as best we can while keeping it simple. Now the military work hard to keep communications more simple/stylized for clarity, but they are often in a worse situation than I have ever been in so it looks to be a reasonable representation.

Constructive comments welcome good or bad.
No there are situations at the extremes that we have not modeled, however the history books point this out so they are not that common. we then come to the designers intent, do we want the rare extreme modeled in every game? Personally that is a complete waste of time and adds nothing to our type of simulation. If a particular scenario requires something different then that's where such changes should go.

Folk say I want an event that happens every 20 games, my attitude is its pointless, if it happens to a beginner it could put him of to what end. Even for me it would be typicaly twice a year. There has to be better more effective rules that could be added to improve the model than one that is invoked long term 1once in 20 games.

Saturday convention game a few times players wanted a ruling if they did this or that. Also two opposing units one infantry one cavalry got different rules on seeing the other. If a attemp at realism these should have gone differently.

I'm off backpacking in the wilderness above Lake Tahoe. I'm not disappearing…per se. Will be back this next weekend.

UshCha and 14Bore: Some interesting observations that I'd like to explore when I get back.

Tally-ho.

McLaddie Awesome, have fun.

Then there are the battle reports themselves. Simple things, like the battle of Lützen, 1813. Maréchal Oudinot sent more than a dozen messages to Napoleon begging for reinforcements, and Napoleon replied each time. The messengers traversed over 2.5 miles across a swaying battle front. All of them arrived and all the messages were understood, Oudinot following the 'hold as you are', even when he doubted he could. He did. This is in contrast to Austerlitz where Napoleon issued no orders in the first two hours of the battle after releasing Soult, and then very few after that--all successfully obeyed.

So the question could be how often a unit needs a command to do something in a game.

In some games, a unit needs to get a command or "activate" every turn or they do nothing which I think is ridiculous as a unit at the lowest level can exercise some initiative or self-defense. I think it is the designer's way of simulating chaos and not having enough command and control to issue an order to each unit. Like giving a player only enough command points to give an order to 75% of his units.

If you order a unit to move from point A to point B and the distance is 500m to point B and it is all behind friendly lines and not being fired at how many times do you need to order it?

When you order one or more units to lay down covering fire on an objective do they need to be told over and over again?

Once units are engaged n a firefight it is realistically a simultaneous event with units exchanging fire. Rolling for the initiative to decide who shoots first is not realistic and games can be sped up if you determine the results based on the unit's firepower each turn depending on how long a turn is.

A real battle is not like Chess or checkers where players take turns shooting at each other. I don't think you can expect a very high level of historical realism in a game that was designed to be fair and balanced either.

Realistically, for the most part, units are assigned objectives and the lower-level units figure out how to solve the tactical problems. They will normally attempt to seize their objective unless the enemy defenders are too strong or they get a new order from the command above them.

My observation is that in the most popular commercial games, one of the most unrealistic aspects is the inability to accurately simulate the interaction of the opposing unit's rate of fire. A 122mm or greater gun with two-part ammo has the same rate of fire as a 37mm gun. Historically, the 122mm gun can get off two rounds a minute, and a 37mm gun about 10-12 rounds per minute.

They also have a hard time realistically simulating opportunity fire. Why? Because in a game with a one-minute turn a unit moving at 15kph would move 250m per minute and realistically be shot at up to 5 times and move into and out of the LOS during movement. The only solutions seem to be more special rules and restrictions which themselves are not realistic.

It seems most miniatures players are willing to forego the historical action and "realism" because most of the realism is visual. I've seen it time and again at stores and conventions players will sign up for the most visually stimulating games and not even ask which rules are going to be used. I just don't see much demand for realistic action in games or maybe there are no rule systems that can make it playable enough.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag – we have players in our club who want simple uncomplicated, unrealistic, undemanding games. Often there prime interest is in painting and modelling there figures and in a nice way displaying them. Not a hard fought battle of wills and thought.

Our own group in the club does not mix with the guys above, it's not anti-social on either side it's just we see nothing appealing in the other guys game. Like asking a football fan about golf. Not may folk have the two games as hobby's. Shop and convention games are never going to be up to much based on our experience. The prospective players do not have the experience to do other than throw a few die. You don't get good football game from guys who tun on one day and want to play, wh0 barely understand the rules if at all and have never been to a training session. so why would that be any different for war gaming?

In a an environment like ours a regular onece a week club, which unlike many in the US, are not big on multi player games, because of the above, there is an interest and dedication to some form of credibility.

Our rules are more simple than most, but like real battles they need careful planning and execution and dedication to the game. Chit chat over the game is not possible, any more than it is in a game of football. What you clientele wants limits what you can/want to do.

So the topic should be do players want realistic? It can get close but the players may not want it. I have a friend who plays ancients but to him its a fun game the history is of no real interest to him. We don't play each other as as our aims are mutually exclusive.

Well, I'm back in civilization

Here is where we camped, Middle Velma Lake. Great swimming and fishing.

This should give you an idea of the trail… lots of steps.

Another shot of Middle Velma from our campsite.

A view East from the trail. Eagle Lake below, Lake Tahoe and Emerald Bay in the distance.

I am impressed, not sure I would be swimming, looks cold. What tent is it I don't recognise it.

Hi UshCha: I don't know the make of that one. It is a light, backpacking tent. Mine is a two-man from REI which that one might be too. The water wasn't too bad, though chilly. It was a heavy snow winter…

I had to pull up pictures from the web because I can't put up my personal photos from my computer on TMP.

link

Okay, back to the issues at hand. UshCha, you write:

First of all the command structure in a game should not allow ad hoc commands to be issued and operated on in perfect synchronism allowing a precision that would be the envy of troops changing the the guard at Buckingham Place.

The question would be, why not? What evidence from the period leads you to that conclusion? All wargames are conclusion statements about how reality/history works. If you believe this is common knowledge, it isn't something you have to defend with much evidence.

There is also the issue of the method. Now my job was to talk to lots of folk all round the world on my specialist subject both by phone and personnel interaction.

Yes, the methods used are important. However, your statement above is an evidence issue, not method. So, the basis for your conclusion above concerning past or current combat communication on this issue is your job experience. Now, a methodology would ask why and where your experience can be assumed to be the same as those involved in military operations?

Based on that experience if you are close to the guy giving the orders you will have a better, my be not perfect, but better common understanding of what is going on so its easy(er).

Okay, you are assuming military men's experience is, was, or should be the same as your experience. It may be generally, sort of, or exactly. Or not much at all. How do you establish that?

So we have not copied a direct military experience but we have mimicked a real situation as best we can while keeping it simple.

Is 'a real situation' the military experience? If you claim or think you have captured the military experience, you would need to establish that connection. Simulation accuracy isn't based on assumptions, unless they can be proven to match reality, like the Galaxy's colliding simulation. Full of assumptions and interpretations. The system's accuracy had to be matched with reality.

No there are situations at the extremes that we have not modeled, however the history books point this out so they are not that common. we then come to the designers intent, do we want the rare extreme modeled in every game? Personally that is a complete waste of time and adds nothing to our type of simulation. If a particular scenario requires something different then that's where such changes should go.

Exactly. That is the issue for all simulation designers. How far to the extremes does the simulation need to go to accomplish its objectives. Simulating those 2% events aren't necessary to have a realistic and accurate simulation. It all depends on what is needed to be useful, reaching the goals of the design.

So the question could be how often a unit needs a command to do something in a game.

Wolfhag: Exactly. For the wargame designer, the need for command decisions over the length of a battle is far less that can be endured by the gamer… at least in the current wargame systems. For most commanders, once their command had their orders, they were wound up and released. After that, only periodic orders were needed. Both Marmont and Longstreet wrote that a corps commander responsibilities consisted of 1. releasing the commands to accomplish their orders, 2. to determine when the reserves should be inserted and 3. when to retreat, 4. do damage control if some of the forces failed.

That wouldn't make for much fun for a player 'realistically' given a corps command. I believe that there are a number of ways to provide those decision-making opportunities that make for an interesting game.

However, most designers have chosen to ignore this possibility, instead creating a legion of command points, staff points, chit pulls, etc. etc. that have very little to do with the dynamics of command. They actually reverse the command dynamics, having the 'limits' or 'command failures' identified first and then the commanders doing a resource allocation, usually every twenty to sixty minutes in game scale time. They basically chose which orders fail. 'Real commanders' did the opposite. They issued their orders to everyone, only later to find out which ones weren't followed, etc.

It seems most miniatures players are willing to forego the historical action and "realism" because most of the realism is visual. I've seen it time and again at stores and conventions players will sign up for the most visually stimulating games and not even ask which rules are going to be used. I just don't see much demand for realistic action in games or maybe there are no rule systems that can make it playable enough.

I think wargamers are 'willing' to forego realism because:
1. It is ill-defined and left to 'I like' determinations. there can be no deep interest in it of everyone's views are equally valid preferences.

2. We have several decades of this view of 'realism.' A generation of wargamers have been raised on it and a select group have been drawn to it.

3. Rules designers have catered to this view of realism because it's "what gamers want" and more importantly, it absolves them of having to provide evidence for their claims of realism.

4.Gamers want realism, [They do] but can only get what is available with game designers providing NO direction in determining 'realism.' Hence gamers buying lots of rules looking for the 'perfect' set or designing their own… at least then they know what history the rules are modeling. Or they shrug and say it's all fantasy, containing no 'realism.'

It is a reinforcing cycle. The only ones who can break the cycle is the community of game designers.

Just to say, I'm enjoying following the discussions here. I'll come back to it when I've more time, but one thing I tried for a recent game was allowing players to suggest certain capabilities and what they would look like within the context of the game, so that they weren't just playing in my version of the scenario.

Mc Laddie, In enfineering we use solutions for one problem to solve another. Both military and Civilians use the same communication device, Ears and brain. The same system (word of mouth), uses identical duel use software, the words can be diffrent, but not entirely diffrent.

So commnon communication system (word of mouth.
Same common dule use software for decoding the data in the transmission.

Ego while I am not pre-supposing the system is identicle, use of acronyms will be diffrent but in many cases the meanings and interprestation will be task specific, so again some level of commonality of exchange of details data that I am used to.

So I would argue in the modern world the analouge is not un-reasonable. Now if you go back to the ACW where the written word and or passing of verbal communications via a third party may not be as well represented by my analouge and I personally would not recommend it.

You of all folk should know despite giveing folk a time to be at a place there is always at least seconds between the arrival of all folk in the same place. The guards at Buckingham Palace prectice endlessly to get it right, not all orderes save for some drills are practiced that much.

Again the "purest" in you is not looking widely enough for relevant experience. Now going back a long time may not yield as good an analogy. In the English Civil war some troops had never fired a Musket in anger before a battle. That is wildly diffrent to proffesional soldiers who have done much training.

It has occored to us that trying to model conscrip troops of the mopern world with no trainig may be a bit problematic with our systems. However there would be more basic issue. If you did it in the UK, many folk would not be able to walk any distance with a backpac as they do not partake of much excersise and are likelky to be overweight.

The term gamers is not a very useful definition. War gamers vs Warpainters, my owm terminology from mye experience, Broadly with significant overlaps, Wargamers are generally interested in the history and tactics and often not really that botherd by the minatures.

War painters more botherd by painting troops exactly unrealistically for a battle, hyper clean and often no grease paint ("cuase it spoils the look") some ecven with Berets wjhen its a charge not to wear your helmet.

They quite rightly have diffrent aspirations, nothing wrong with that but in many cases there demands are rreconcileable between the groups.

Thought a bit more about your comments 0n my comment about not allowing perfect sysncronisation.

I remember reading an account of an Amertican Civil war battle where the line stopped several times to redress the lines. Now that is an exaple clear of not being in perfect sysncronisation so really while I saw no need to state chaper and verse, i have illustrated the issue clearly, It no behold you to prove me wrong and that perfect syronisation is always possibel. We do allow some batic triggers to allow synccronisation to sectonds. An axample would be a code word over the radio to begin a pre-planned task such as opening fire across the line.

Earlier times may have more of a issue if all protagonists are not in viewing range of a common signal. Watches (pocket type) were not always reliable at the best of times, possibly less so earlier on. In the early days of Rail in the UK treain drivers were issued with expensive time pices to allow efficent operation of the railways, I would be interested how the watches in arly battles were uased and if not what common time system could be used. Note the ACW could be using Pocket watches as the US appared to have a commecial watch aroung 1850.

"Hence gamers buying lots of rules looking for the 'perfect' set or designing their own… at least then they know what history the rules are modeling."

Well said McLaddie.

If doing an intro to an historical wargame or scenario, it should be important enough that the GM can explain the rules' philosophy, for where 'realism', tactics, doctrine, and war practices will connect with players, and how they'll attempt to manage these in-game.

A late, great gamer in my area, used to love discovering the designer's 'puzzle' within a new set of rules……

Only subsequently to realize there wasn't much there-there in actual practice, beyond adding steps or more dicing (then it was on to the next puzzle, er, ruleset du jour, that dangled the golden fleece).

FlyXwire – This escapes me. A good set of rules should not be a puzzle in its own right. It should be a way of using real tactics and getting a similar answer. Now there are lots of Bad Rules (in my opinion of course) as all they sell is mechanic Gimmicks like having an in game sub game of collecting cards, where is that in the real world?

UshCha, glad it doesn't escape you, actually.

Gimmicks sell all sorts of products. Customers might try something for a new feature, before they realize it's not something actually needed or desired.

The gaming industry is no different of course.

There's also a ton of copying what seems to sell at the moment, or repackaged as a new, updated version (let's not rile up the 40K group here, ok). :)

I think it might be that people don't actually know what they want in rules. They actually might just be looking for a new period too, and hope the rules will teach them the history and tactics, instead of the other way around.

However, let's be gentle to ourselves here also – we're not going to be instant experts with history matters or military tech, and sometimes were looking for that something new without any strings attached – this is why fantasy and science fiction are THE gaming genres of this bigger hobby (entry comes without 'baggage', you don't need anything beyond the rules to enter these new game worlds…..except maybe lots of $$$, and then that'll make you an expert).

I know UshCha…."how can anyone think or behave like that"!

Maybe a point though – it's hard to argue against success. Maybe the success is not something you're interested in, but that doesn't diminish it for others.

We're sort of in a hobby niche that isn't exactly POP art – again, from way back on the first page – I'm not here to make this gaming tent smaller, that's happening on its own accord.

FlyXwire – you are correct, being interested in the actual period makes me an outsider. Success however to me is not what counts, Football is successful in making far more money than war games but it has absolutely no interest for me.
It seems to me the US folk are far more cash oriented. I read about guy who thought plastics were terrible as it devalued his metal. I never see the hundreds nay even thousands invested in my gaming as an investment and don't ever expect to realize a penny from it. That was never an issue.
So no success generally is like football to me, irrelevant at all levels.

UshCha, I have those favorite periods too – and probably more money invested in my books about them than the terrain and miniatures for gaming them.

At the same time, I'm trying not take the hobby too seriously (can delve into the histories anytime when wanting that serious reflection) – and there's a bit of healthy separation to be maintained also.

Putting it a different way, if we can't crack a smile or joke around at the game, there might be something amiss (my personal journey perhaps)? Though as of late, all I see are dour faces around the tabletop – has me wondering what's so darn serious with the hobby!

Mc Laddie, In enfineering we use solutions for one problem to solve another. Both military and Civilians use the same communication device, Ears and brain. The same system (word of mouth), uses identical duel use software, the words can be diffrent, but not entirely diffrent.

So commnon communication system (word of mouth.
Same common dule use software for decoding the data in the transmission.

Ego while I am not pre-supposing the system is identicle, use of acronyms will be diffrent but in many cases the meanings and interprestation will be task specific, so again some level of commonality of exchange of details data that I am used to.

So I would argue in the modern world the analouge is not un-reasonable.

UshCha: I wasn't saying your analog was unreasonable, I was saying the close similarities were unproven as far as I know. At some point you have to compare your simulation system in operation against the real events to test whether there actually exists that close relationship you find reasonable… a successful test is what makes it a simulation of the real world.

I've played Snappy Nappy and the Austerlitz scenario provided. The rules do not allow units to move fast enough to ever cover the ground the opponents did in the actual battle. Hours behind. The map provided is distorted in an attempt to mitigate this, but fails. Obviously, the rules were never tested against the historical performances. That is a glaring example of what I am talking about. So, how does your rule set compare?

At the same time, I'm trying not take the hobby too seriously (can delve into the histories anytime when wanting that serious reflection) – and there's a bit of healthy separation to be maintained also.

FlyXwire:
I agree. But does that mean we ignore the bad history and worst 'simulation' wargames designers CLAIM are historically accurate to avoid being 'too serious?' I never ask game designers to be anymore serious than what they claim to be producing. If I am buying 'Historical Accuracy', am I being too serious to expect to receive it?

If they continually present "Historical Accuracy" as something players want, do we give them an uncritical pass in buying their rules to avoid being 'too serious?'

Considering the money and time involved in 1. creating the rules and marketing them, and 2. the money and time gamers invest in them, I think it isn't being 'too serious' to ask what I am paying for.

They [game designers] also have a hard time realistically simulating opportunity fire. Why? Because in a game with a one-minute turn a unit moving at 15kph would move 250m per minute and realistically be shot at up to 5 times and move into and out of the LOS during movement. The only solutions seem to be more special rules and restrictions which themselves are not realistic.

Wolfhag: My take on this is that game designers don't have a hard time with this, they avoid the 'hard time' in actually creating something that works… It is sooo much easier to avoid the issue altogether. That is what I see over and over.

It seems most miniatures players are willing to forego the historical action and "realism" because most of the realism is visual. I've seen it time and again at stores and conventions players will sign up for the most visually stimulating games and not even ask which rules are going to be used. I just don't see much demand for realistic action in games or maybe there are no rule systems that can make it playable enough.

How many wargames have you seen advertising no dice or chance elements over the last 20 years? Very few or none, because that isn't what gamers want. So, those kind of games are marginalized or disappear.

Now, regarding 'historical accuracy,' recreating battles, 'real historical challenges' etc. etc., do we see those claims disappearing in our miniature hobby or for wargames in general? No. So, I must conclude *somebody* wants it.

Unfortunately, gamers
1. Don't know where it is, and must 'puzzle it out.' Far too much effort with too little information provided by designers.
2. Don't know what it is like to play something that is historically accurate
3. Thus tend to leave the whole issue to the imagination.

That is the designers' fault.

A late, great gamer in my area, used to love discovering the designer's 'puzzle' within a new set of rules……

Only subsequently to realize there wasn't much there-there in actual practice, beyond adding steps or more dicing (then it was on to the next puzzle, er, ruleset du jour, that dangled the golden fleece).

FlyXwire:
Oh, you've got me going now. Most all wargame designers offer historical 'mystery meat', leaving the customers to 'puzzle it out.'

The designer of the three Fire & Fury rule sets claims all contain "Historically Accuracy." Okay, where?
How are movement rates half of the historical rates 'accurate?' They might be, but what is that conclusion based on? And that is before rolling on the Maneuver Table for movement.

A great example I keep coming back to is the "Command Radius" rule in the original F&F. It gives a +1 on the Maneuver Table being "in command", but no penalty for being outside of the radius. A number of gamers saw this as unrealistic and changed the rule to include a penalty for being outside the command system.

Only that wasn't what the designer had in mind. The rule didn't portray the basic command structure, but simply an added benefit of the Division or Corps commander being outside the brigade level, thus able to see things the brigadier didn't. This benefit was for every brigade within the radius benefited from this added help every thirty minutes of scale time. Reasonable? I have no idea what that is based on.

So, because the history is left for gamers to 'puzzle out',
1. The design purpose, research and game experience behind the rule is lost to the gamer.
2. Misreading the 'mystery meat', the gamers change the rules for the wrong reasons.
3. The claim of "historical Accuracy" is reduced in the gamers' minds to marketing hype, not to be taken 'seriously.'

This also creates other weird hobby behaviors. One is deciding what a rule means historically and literally ignoring any designer's information in the "Design Notes.'

Just one example. Volley & Bayonet The designer in both the original and updated versions had small stands labeled 'skirmishers' and light troops were given them. Frank C. specifically said they represented bodies of skirmishers.

Whenever a question was raised about what the stands represented on the V&B sitePlayers many V&B gamers would insist they didn't represent skirmishers, but 'detachments.' Such debates could rage for some time.

I have seen this type of dynamic on several wargame sites, where what little information the designers provides is summarily ignored or challenged. As if the designer doesn't know what the mechanics were supposed to represent.

Gamers making up their mind what the mechanics 'mean' regardless has become a habit when so little information is provided by the designers. The 'puzzles' are solved any which way… maybe because they know too often there is little history behind the rules and mechanics in the first place.

McLaddie……

"Reasonable? I have no idea what that is based on."

That is a classic point!

I hear my own voice in it too, or rather saying – but I know there's no idea where some rules feature or mechanic is based on, it's made up, to create some tension-deriving game occurrence.

But, but, but……this isn't necessarily about scientific facts, but features based on the art of writing rules.

As an example, there's whole classes of popular/successful rules that are based on certain activation mechanics for instance. I can think of one company that uses playing cards for controlling the game action, in all their rules, for multiple historical periods, sci-fi too (genius what they've discovered)……that card-driven mechanics can be so predictive of real command & control. Of course, it's all made up. Some gamers love it, and they're not judging the results on realism, they've accepted ease-of-play rules art ahead of some claims to military science/accuracy.

But, but, but…….if the particular science doesn't really exist for these historical features in the first place, then when putting pen to paper, the art of rules writing will fill in the blanks, so to speak.

I'm conflicted – that the act of playing a wargame often leads to choosing between what you like about gaming, versus what you know about history, or what you can surmise is contained in any set of rules – play mechanisms and stuff just made up.