"How can a wargame be realistic?" Topic

Weren't there about 10,000 actions fought during the period 1792-1815? Seventy examples would represent… a 0.007% sampling, right?

Garth:
No, 10, 231, but whose counting?

The scientist who used a sample of 100 solar systems and twelve galaxies to create a statistical base for modeling colliding galaxies out of hundreds of billions of stars and easily hundreds of thousands of visible galaxies:
.000000000000000000000000000001% give or take ten zeros

Or how about the many voting polls and surveys such as the one you mentioned. 2-3 thousand are surveyed and from there the voting preferences of 80,000,000 are predicted statistically: .0000025 to 0000035%

Or the statistical analysis of how literally millions of drivers over 10 years are going to behave on a freeway from a data base/sample of 5,000 drivers over one week. I'll leave that for you to figure out. More than ten zeros on that percentage.

Or how crowds are going to act in a planned arena based on 20 events in four other arenas with different floor plans?

What do all these attempts at statistical analysis have in common: The methodology and the fact that they work, providing a real world, provable outcome.

Now, I am sure you could imagine the legion of variables that would influence someone's response to the political survey or a crowd leaving an arena. Thousands upon thousands of things that could change a person's response. Yet, all of those are subsumed in the statistical data which works regardless.

Pascal's example of people with red hair is easy to validate. Granted, what you call "red" and what I might call "red" could be different, but still… If you have red hair, then you have red hair no matter what the weather is doing, no matter what other people are doing, whether or not you're hungry or afraid, etc, and we can be pretty sure that you also had red hair the day before that, and before that.

IF we could agree on what "red hair" means, then I'd call that "hard" data.

You mean objective data?

But: Whether or not British tankers will withdraw from an engagement against enemy tankers is dependent upon a thousand factors, most of which we can't know,
Randomly selecting 50 Randomly? Really? You put all 10,000 actions into a big bowl, shook it, and drew 50 at random?

Actually yes, I did. There are over 200 engagements described in just Oman's Peninsular volumes. However, it all depends on the questions you ask. If I ask how many British Tankers withdraw from an engagement [for whatever reason], I have a pretty objective measure [withdrawal] and the statistical chance it will happen. I can then see if some elements, such as weather or ammo depletion appeared as a major reason or not at all. In statistical data, important variables will pop out of the sample, unimportant ones won't.

Or was it the case that you chose fifty? The fifty that came to your mind for whatever reason, because you were looking for something? Maybe it was just as simple as: those were the 50 for which you had enough information.

And you think that isn't something that faces all simulation designers and statisticians? There is never 'enough information' except when we are talking about meta-data. There a researcher has the responses of 10 million on buying Sudsy Soap and again determine how 30 million will act: 33% Yeah, computers.

For the other 9,950 there isn't enough information, meaning: You don't really know what happened most of the time.

That is why statistical analysis is so powerful: It has bee proven thousands of times. If you know a random selection of 50 of that 10,0000, you can make statements with 15% or less error. In other words 8.5 times out of 10, your prediction will be right if the methodology is followed. [Some of which I haven't detailed, though you have mentioned one: Randomness]

"But we don't have anything like that sort of data for the outcomes of battles, especially not battles from long ago and far away. Claiming "accuracy" for such things just makes me laugh."

Garth and FlyXwire:

1. You don't have to have 'anything like that sort of data' for statistical analysis. It isn't a zero/sum game all or nothing.

2. How do you know 'we' don't? Have you really looked? How many wargamers have? As I said, just in Oman's volumes on the Peninsular War there are over 200 accounts. Think of all the primary sources and secondary sources available. And I don't need thousands of references, just a random number of 50-100.

3. The data all depends on what the question is. It is funny how many wargamers go to great lengths to count casualties even when they admit actual casualties don't predict a unit's behavior, which is the point of most CRT charts. The questions revolve around the resultant behaviors and how often they happened, such as retreating from a fire fight. Asking the right questions is critical.

4. You have missed the issue around 'accuracy' in a simulation. The accuracy is between the data chosen to portray in the game system and how well it models it: The target and resultant shot at the target.

5.What one has to remember is that the designer choses what and how much history/data to use and how that is interpreted in illustrating it with the game mechanics. There is no rule about how much is simulated. Accuracy is how well the system captures the data chosen. Remember the simple simulation BlockBuster? That was a proven, accurate simulation with 20 counters played on a game board with a 6 X 9 grid, two pages of rules. It portrayed what it was designed to portray.

Now, what is more laughable: Someone using proven methods for just this kind of developing statistical data, probabilities which are the mainstay of wargames OR
Those who read a couple or a lot of books, accept conventional wisdom mentioned around the gaming table or make up what 'feels' right and claims that something of Napoleonic Warfare or WWII tactics is captured, or maybe just a 'flavor' etc.?

I suggest one approach gets you a lot closer to the real thing than the other in an objective manner [IF the designer lets the customer know what history/data the game is based on and attempting to model.]

"And in any event you seem to be assuming that there's a consensus regarding the desirability of such claims for accuracy."

I am not assuming anything of the kind.

I am simply responding to what designers [and those on this and other threads on the TMP] say they are doing. I would say THEY are assuming the interest. And of course, what gamers endlessly discuss here and gaming, if only it is 'a feeling' they have.

For instance, if the designers of Shako or Black Powder want to design a simulation of the problems of Napoleonic command or create a representation of real combat, to actually do that requires the use of simulation and statistical methods. There is no other way to accomplish those goals.

The same is true for Andy's "Kind of like' WWII tactics.

As if, at the conclusion of a game, players will think: "Well, that was great; I really enjoyed the game so much more knowing that the author claimed that his data was validated. I have no idea whether he's right or not, but it was awesome knowing that HE thought he was!"

That would be a stupid outcome, and is--it would be the current state of affairs for the hobby. [See earlier quotes from designers]. That is done all the time. The point is that the players need to know what is being simulated and how [and what isn't] to actually experience the full simulation experience. That is a necessary ingredient of any participatory simulation and/or wargame. Otherwise it is just hype and gamers can--and do--imagine all sorts of things the game never was designed to provide. But who cares if it is fun…

I also do not think the hard data is really available or quite so hard.

I interviewed lots of WW2 veterans way back. One of them was involved in analysing cause of tank destruction.
He said much of his work was done in drinking establishments.

When he started they looked at a number of wrecked German tanks as thoroughly as they could. It was pretty much impossible to define root cause of battle loss.

Andy:
That is not the way 'hard data' is determined, though it sounds a lot more fun. Also, why in the world would anyone look for 'the root cause' of anything in combat? Really? There is one answer out there in combat land, the 'magic root'?

I can see why your tanker had trouble, wrong method searching for the wrong answers.

Eg some inexperienced panther crews drove along roads rather than trying to keep frontal armour presented to enemy. Consequently they were easier to KO.

Sure if you had reliable hard stats ( which imo do not exist) you could abstract out bad crews effects and give Shermans a side armour hit kill advantage.

I really can't take your opinion about such 'hard stats' not existing seriously when 1. you obviously haven't looked, 2. have ignored Wolfhag's work, research, let alone the U.S. Army's research--the partial work which he has shared--lots of hard data, and 3. you seem to think 'hard data' is found laying on the ground rather than created by someone for a variety of reasons other than yours or mine.

Where players move their panthers is then ignored. I doubt you'd get many players in games where player actions are effectively ignored, but it'd maybe model that aspect better than free will.

No, it is a made-up problem based on a made up assumption. Why would you 'abstract out 'bad crews?' If you designing a game where the player is a tank commander, would you? If you are simulating a platoon of tanks, would you? If you are wargaming 1945 German tank crews, would you abstract out bad crews?

You might, depending on what you want your simulation to portray. That is the crux of the issue: What the designer wants to portray.

That is the crux of the issue: What the designer wants to portray.

It's obviously the crux of the issue for you. I doubt it's the crux of the issue for most people, otherwise there would be a lot more people going on about it.

You don't have to have 'anything like that sort of data' for statistical analysis.

Then how do you know that other people haven't done it? Fundamentally, you appear to be demanding footnotes or something like that. I can't imagine what incentive any author would have to provide those for you. I suspect it would be a lot easier just to sell games to all those other people who don't require such things.

I am simply responding to what designers [and those on this and other threads on the TMP] say they are doing. I would say THEY are assuming the interest.

So your entire complaint is based upon the words that game authors use in their marketing? If they didn't use the word "simulation," you'd have no objection?

That strikes me as your problem, not theirs.

It is funny how many wargamers go to great lengths to count casualties even when they admit actual casualties don't predict a unit's behavior

Again, wouldn't it be simpler for you simply to decide that you don't care what words other people use when describing games or game mechanics? Given how little you claim to be demanding, and the narrow scope of your complaint, it would surely be easier for you just to choose not to worry about it.

I was initially quite disturbed when I talked to veterans about specific battles. I would talk to three guys about three radically different battles only yo later realise it was the same one they were talking about.
Compare official history or AAR to eye witness account = different.
Pretty stressful battles I should think and it turned out the guys who were there were a whole lot bothered about the things I was interested in.

Maybe those Napoleonic accounts were more reliable.

The reason we want root cause of tank loss is to check against effectiveness of whatever killed that tank. Did they run out of petrol and blow their ride up? Get hit by a bazooka? Artillery? Fighter bomber?
Older rule sets tend to make jabos more tactically effective than they probably were. Exactly how effective were they? Tricky one that. The bloke who decided what killed those tanks just made the data up.

I think there were three main effects of jabo attacks.
Dispersion – German tanks were hidden all over the place and reluctant to mass.
Fuel limitation – jabos were better at blowing up fuel trucks than tanks.
Crew fatigue – repeated attacks bothered crews and they spent a fair bit of time looking for good hiding spots, camouflaging tanks and generally not doing things were going to win combat.

So…. How does one make players disperse their tanks "realistically"? How dispersed should they be? If players think that jabo attack won't happen in the game then does that bias their behaviour?
How likely are those big cats to run out of fuel? If you somehow compare to real world chance then to what effect did real crew behaviour alter that probability?
When you tell the guy spent 200 hours modelling his big cats that he has 1 in 6 chance for each becoming useless and crews bailing per turn, will he want to play your "realistic" game?

While back when I had more time to organise games, I was initially very infantry orientated. Players like tanks though.

Regarding "stupid decisions" I look at it more as the player making a tactical mistake or being unaware of a potentially dangerous situation.

If the Panthers were moving down a road and knew they were flanked and in range by the enemy that would be pretty stupid. Now if they were moving down the road and were unaware of the enemy's presence either because of a faulty report or lack of intel it's on them for not knowing the disposition of the enemy.

Here are some poor tactical decisions players can make in the game without needing my help:

No maneuver tactics: Most players halt and fire once they engage the enemy. Very few are able to figure out a way to maneuver to the enemy flanks.

Prematurely giving away your position: Many players will fire at targets at long range and give away their concealed position rather than waiting to trigger an ambush. This normally results in an artillery barrage falling on them. They'll also fire when they have little chance of causing damage.

Shoot & Scoot: Most players remain halted and stay halted and continue to fire. Ideally, they should be changing positions. Reverse Slopes tactics work best.

No Formation: Most players put their units in a column or line ahead and end up having poor Situational Awareness of their flanks.

Improper spacing: Historically, vehicles were spaced about 100m apart to be dispersed. If a unit is hit all other units within about 100m will be ranged in by the enemy gun making all follow-up shots accurate. A wedge or inverted Vee formation can concentrate your units while keeping the spread out.

Poor player Situational Awareness: Some players don't pay attention and miss their Act Turn to shoot or miss a new enemy threat. If a player was supposed to fire at a game time of 1:31 and didn't realize it until 1:35 he can fire at 1:35 – if he is still alive.

Moving too fast: In most games, vehicles can zip around the table at full speed and can stop on a dime. Historically, vehicles could run into depressions, shell holes, or other obstacles that may be too small to show on the table. Moving too fast means potentially falling into a hole or bogging down.

In the game, vehicles must decelerate before halting. Most medium tanks decelerate at 10kph/second rounded up. So if you are moving at 35kph it takes four seconds to halt before your gunner can aim and fire. If the enemy is already halted he'll have a four-second advantage for the first shot. Moving slowly also means it is quicker to halt and reverse.

Wolfhag

Typhoon rocket success based on a British War Office Report:

More details and pictures:
link

Wolfhag

That is the crux of the issue: What the designer wants to portray.

It's obviously the crux of the issue for you. I doubt it's the crux of the issue for most people, otherwise there would be a lot more people going on about it.

Garth: I have no idea how many gamers care what designers say they are portraying with their games. It is a design issue. Designers are continually stating that their wargame simulates, recreates, represents, models, mimics, replicates and 'is like' history and warfare. I have to assume that 1. there is some interest in how that is done and 2. A good number of gamers do care along with the designers or the designers wouldn't be saying such things. Why would they?

Then how do you know that other people haven't done it? [statistical analysis and stating historical connections.]

Well, for a good many designers, I don't know because they aren't telling. With others I know because I asked, and beyond three exceptions, they haven't. The three exceptions I know of are Col. Bill Gray with AOE, Richard Clark's CinC and Wolfhag.

Fundamentally, you appear to be demanding footnotes or something like that.

If I was, I'd say so. How the information is presented isn't the issue, or even how much. Just the right amount for the gamer to understand the connections between the designer's sources and game.

I can't imagine what incentive any author would have to provide those for you.

How about these:

1. To provide the gamer with the specific history they are meant to experience in playing the game,
2. Because that is the only way the gamer will actually experience the historical/real world connections the game design is meant to provide in play.
3. To demonstrate some 'truth in advertising' and finally,
4. Provide some basis for further design efforts and innovation among the hobby in representing history in a meaningful way.

I suspect it would be a lot easier just to sell games to all those other people who don't require such things.

*smile* Designers have been taking that route for a long, long time. It is far easier to sell games while just claiming to provide "representations of real combat." Particularly when there are no hobby alternatives.

So your entire complaint is based upon the words that game authors use in their marketing? If they didn't use the word "simulation," you'd have no objection?

That strikes me as your problem, not theirs.

Actually, all these words: simulating, recreating, representing, modeling, mimicking, replicating and 'is like'. All those claims are basically the same one: stating there is a specific relationship between real history/combat and the gamer's play experience.

If designers gave up the claims to be doing something they are obviously not, yes, I would have no more 'objections.' But what would gamers say?

It seems my problem is that I take designers at their word. Silly me. I do know lots of gamers ignore designers' claims, comments, explanations and feel free to make their own decisions about what is part of a wargame's content. Who needs the designer? Some designers have followed this line by renouncing any responsibility for play experience once their wargame is sold. "It is the gamer's now."

Again, wouldn't it be simpler for you simply to decide that you don't care what words other people use when describing games or game mechanics?

Sure it would be easier. That is what most gamers do, if only because there is no information provided by designers to do otherwise. It's not the words, Garth, but what designers are saying with those words.

So, words are meaningless when written by our hobby designers, and should be ignored because it is easier?

Given how little you claim to be demanding, and the narrow scope of your complaint, it would surely be easier for you just to choose not to worry about it.

That word 'easier' is coming up a lot. There is nothing 'narrow' about what I am asking for. We play historical wargames. Designers claim that their games represent history and 'real combat.' I would say it is foundational to the hobby, particularly if we want to establish that our game play is something apart from pure fantasy.

Compare official history or AAR to eye witness account = different.
Pretty stressful battles I should think and it turned out the guys who were there were a whole lot bothered about the things I was interested in.

Maybe those Napoleonic accounts were more reliable.

Andy:
No, no reason to think so. Historians have dealt with this issue for a long time…so have simulation designers. So have statisticians. There are no perfect solutions, but there are methods and techniques for dealing with that very real issue of eye-witness accounts. It gets you closer to actual history and the real world.

The reason we want root cause of tank loss is to check against effectiveness of whatever killed that tank. Did they run out of petrol and blow their ride up? Get hit by a bazooka? Artillery? Fighter bomber?

And so do the military. What have they done to answer that question? Conclusions? So, what you are looking for in the above question is really several questions of what, how often and how effectively. You have to answer those questions separately. And obviously, each will have their own 'root cause.'

Older rule sets tend to make jabos more tactically effective than they probably were. Exactly how effective were they? Tricky one that. The bloke who decided what killed those tanks just made the data up.

Interesting that you know he made it up. How's that? I am not saying it isn't a 'tricky question', but again, there are methods for addressing the issue methodically.

So…. How does one make players disperse their tanks "realistically"? How dispersed should they be? If players think that jabo attack won't happen in the game then does that bias their behaviour?

I think it would 'bias' their behaviour. Again, in dispersing the tanks 'realistically,' I have to ask, are you talking about SOPs or player decisions? If it is a player decision, what are the parameters restricted tankers, if at all? Once you have a system based on whatever you have discovered and you have concluded--you have to test it against the historical record to establish 'realism.'

The basic idea in a dynamic simulation is that you drop a player into a 'realistic' environment where they are free to make decisions, stupid or otherwise. It is assumed that if they stick with the game, they will find historical tactics will be the most successful. They may even come up with some of their own.

How likely are those big cats to run out of fuel? If you somehow compare to real world chance then to what effect did real crew behaviour alter that probability?

When you tell the guy spent 200 hours modelling his big cats that he has 1 in 6 chance for each becoming useless and crews bailing per turn, will he want to play your "realistic" game?

Andy, I don't know? I would think he'd have to be given that opportunity to know for sure. But if he doesn't want to play your 'realistic' game, you have a choice as a designer:

Design a unrealistic game because your chosen market doesn't like it or design realistic games and see who does? I know which would be easier. But once you have chosen the first option, do you then claim to have designed a 'realistic' game, representing real combat? Bolt Action and Black Powder come to mind as examples of that choice and claims…

The basic idea in a dynamic simulation is that you drop a player into a 'realistic' environment where they are free to make decisions, stupid or otherwise. It is assumed that if they stick with the game, they will find historical tactics will be the most successful. They may even come up with some of their own.

So I tell the players at the start of the game to think and act like a real tank commander. Any maneuver or tactics used in WWII can be simulated in the game. Their data card has the options and tactics available to them and how long it takes to execute them. If they want to perform a maneuver and are unsure how to do it I'll show them.

We had a player (former military) that plays the Russians normally T-34/85 against German Panthers, Tigers, and Panzer IV. He knows he needs to close to 800m or less to achieve penetration on a Panther or Tiger or hopes for a lucky/critical hit.

Outside of 1500m he moves at full speed at an oblique angle to increase his armor protection and greater chance of a ricochet. and Jinks giving him the best defense and moves attempting to mask his movement out of the LOS.

When he gets to about 1000m he stays oblique but has his gun pointed at a German tank. When the German fires and misses he immediately decelerates to execute a Halt Fire and then a Shoot & Scoot immediately after firing. He is quick enough to do this while the German tank is reloading so they are always firing at a moving tank. This is an excellent example of "getting inside of the opponent OODA Decision Loop". He'll fire HE rounds over 800m because a lucky hit could have an effect.

The German player can counter that by using the "Hold Fire & Track" tactic allowing him to shoot in any future turn with no delay so he could fire immediately when the Russian stops. If the German tries that the Russian just keeps moving and closing to get within range. We attempt to use historical scenarios so he normally outnumbers the Germans.

Once he gets within 800m range he can penetrate and use the "Precision Aim" tactic to target a weak spot.

Most German players sit in one spot and attempt to shoot as often as they can. This gives him a chance to split his forces and get on the German flanks.

I've had new players ask about performing a maneuver I had never thought about but turned out to be possible.

In the Time Competitive System I use I don't determine ahead of time the "chance" of something happening. An order or maneuver will execute, it's just a matter of how long it will take and will the enemy act before you (get inside your loop) forcing you to change your order or knock you out first. The future turn an order executes is unknown to the enemy so it generates an interesting Fog of War because you don't know what is going to happen second-to-second until a player pauses the game to execute. It makes for an easy-to-play solitaire game too.

Wolfhag

I talked to one of the men made the "facts" up. That's why I think they were made up.He might have been lying, but I don't think so. His logic was that given an impossible task he said "yes sir" and his invented reasons were as good as they were going to get. May as well take advantage of the local beverage whilst arriving at his conclusions.

Dispersion was pretty much the routine for late war Jerry armour, just as concentration was the routine early war.
But the players push their plastic models round.
You know those track to track games you see a fair few people running down? They are still quite popular. Don't be fooled by the loud minority posting here.

The thing about a wargame is it is a game. The idea is players enjoy the experience. You need to be careful about imposing your reality. What you decide that is and how much players are going to like it.

"The thing about a wargame is it is a game. The idea is players enjoy the experience. You need to be careful about imposing your reality. What you decide that is and how much players are going to like it."

+1 Andy again

Dispersion was pretty much the routine for late war Jerry armour, just as concentration was the routine early war.

Andy: So, what were the reasons for that? There were specific reasons. Isn't that something that could be incorporated into the game?

But the players push their plastic models round.
You know those track to track games you see a fair few people running down? They are still quite popular. Don't be fooled by the loud minority posting here.

Whose being fooled? It's more likely those players than us. They are welcome to enjoy track-to-track games all they want. But the creator of that system still calls that 'realistic' and too many actually accept that conclusion.

The thing about a wargame is it is a game. The idea is players enjoy the experience.

Duh. It is all about enjoying the experience. It depends on the experience. von Riesswitz designed a training exercise and wrote he was surprised to find that the players found it 'entertaining.' Some today, two hundred years later, still do. What experience are gamers expecting and is the designer offering by saying his game is a "convincing representation of real combat?" I didn't demand him to say that. There is no hobby law requiring him to make that claim. There must be a reason he, like so many wargame designers, say such things.
Why? You haven't addressed that longtime behavior, nor FlyXwire.

You need to be careful about imposing your reality.

Of course. You design your game for a particular audience. However, ALL game designers 'impose' their 'reality' on players, from Settlers of Cattan, Call of Duty to Chess. It's unavoidable--it is the nature of game design. Game designers are 'Experience Engineers.' In a game, a closed system, there is going to be a very particular experience provided.

What you decide that is and how much players are going to like it.

OF course. Different gamers 'like' lots of different things, including the new and historical representations of real combat or two hundred year old training exercises. Go figure.

If you are thinking of some 'great majority' and only design for them, then you definitely are going to have the same level of history and realism--evidence says usually ignoring them. You end up with designers claiming the same level of historical/tactical fidelity in tabletop Command and Colors, Napoleonics as provided in AOE or Et sans resultal! Stupid on the face of it, but that's where our hobby is today.

I seriously doubt that this vast unwashed exists hobby wide. [See my previous comparison between our hobby and RC airplane modeling.] fussing over how many want realism in some form is another issue apart from how to incorporate realism into a wargame, the topic of this thread.

Andy and fire -2. To be honest you talk without knowing all player. Our players don't want to play fantasy games, they want someting credible, Without that they see no point in playing. In fact offered a WW2 fantasy game they bow out, it has no entertainment value for them.

Simulation gamers want simulations, nobody not even me imposes a simulation game on anybody. I do not coerse anybody into playing my games, that is a really daft to assume otherwise.

If simulation is of no interest why not be productive on a fantasy thread and let the serious history gamers have their fun.

And hot off the press –

"This breeds uncreative military intelligence professionals concerned more with being "right" or having all the facts than whether their information is absorbed."

Today's article on military wargaming advice (written by military professionals)– "Embrace the Nerd: Dungeons & Dragons And Military Intelligence" -

link

Embrace The Nerd!, and simple advice that's been endlessly forwarded throughout the pages of this thread too -

"Most tabletop role-playing games have several rulebooks, but, as with military doctrine, the rules do not and cannot account for every eventuality."

Oh my, there's a revelation, but use D&D as a training format? (yes, gaming is about decision-making after all, and always has been) -

"Have the required materials ready; convert them from the standard Dungeons & Dragons style (filigree and stylized dragons in the margins) into something that looks like a Department of Defense form. Don't plan an epic, multi-year campaign. Instead, take and edit short adventures that can be completed in around two hours."

Goodness, D&D isn't a realistic simulation at all, but now it's being recommended as a military training tool, how can this ever have come to pass in the serious world of military intelligence and training? -

"Dungeons and Dragons is a powerful tool to do just that. If you get to kill some imaginary orcs along the way, all the better."

Might even be fun too…..Big Orc Ouch that.

As Andy ONeill said so well above, and deserves repeating (apparently needed over and over too) -

"The thing about a wargame is it is a game. The idea is players enjoy the experience. You need to be careful about imposing your reality. What you decide that is and how much players are going to like it."

Next up recruit – Dungeons & Dragons, and then prepare to mount up and move out, for real, actually.

FlyXwire:

Whew, are you cherry-picking quotes while avoiding conclusions of the article or even that it is suggesting an experimental approach to a specific real-world issue. You even fail to quote headers of sections like:

Tabletop Role-Playing Games as Wargaming Preparation

Of course, the whole point of the article is how to prepare professionals for the real world through wargaming.

As stated in the conclusion: [Italics mine]

Be All the Nerd You Can Be

Wargaming has seen a resurgence in professional military education, something we wholeheartedly support; games make learning fun, effective, and memorable. But integrating games into this education isn't enough. The armed services only send a military intelligence professional to formal training a few times over a long military career. Comparatively, tabletop role-playing games can provide regular practice for the skills needed in exercises, wargaming, and the real world. After all, as James Sterrett, chief of the Simulation Education Division at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, said, "Experience is a great teacher and well-designed games can deliver experiences that are tailored to drive home learning."

As the U.S. military moves from counter-insurgency toward great power competition, military intelligence professionals must be ready to deal with complex and dynamic adversaries acting in an increasingly complex and dynamic world. Now is the time for experimentation to learn new skill sets and find new ways to fulfill the intelligence professional's mandate. Dungeons and Dragons is a powerful tool to do just that. If you get to kill some imaginary orcs along the way, all the better.

We play wargames for fun. Absolutely. If realism and experiencing the challenges of historic combat isn't a wargamer's desire, exactly what is the motivation for a designer, in this case Black Powder write this in the rule's introduction:

"Naturally, we wish our game to be a tolerably convincing representation of real battle; however no pretense is made to simulate every nuance or detail of weaponry, drill or the psychology of warfare." [pages 4-5]

"Naturally," what designer wouldn't want that? And what would be more convincing than if the designer let the consumer know what narratives, evidence, sources he used for his 'real world' framework/template the game is designed to model.

I know a thing or two about the black powder era. There are several rules and the brief comments explaining them that have no connection to the black powder era circumscribed by the rules--not from what I know. Just one example:

A brigade of several 'battalions' can have those units spread out a full 6" or the width of a battalion front from each other. Now, in 'real battle', the only time such a configuration was seen was when the battalions were in column, at 'deployment distance' ready to go into line, and that was a Napoleonic French formation which was picked up by some of the Allied nations. It wasn't seen in the period before like the SYW or AWI or after with the British Colonial period and ACW up through the Franco-Prussian War. Yet, this configuration is given as the basic formation for the entire 100+ years.

A brigade of formed troops typically held close to each others' flanks, for the entire Black Powder period.

So, as a gamer with some basic historical knowledge, I have several possible responses/questions to the designer's statement above:

1. Was this rule just a playability decision having nothing to do with 'real combat', and that is provided someplace else?
2. Determine the designer doesn't know what 'real combat' during the period looked like based on my knowledge?
3. Ignore the issue and just have fun?
4. Play something else with the same kind of designer promises?

Well, considering the absolute lack of any information to reasonably answer the first two questions, gamers are left with with only the last two options: #3 or 4. Surprise!

So, any efforts on the part of the designer to provide gamers with 'a representation of real combat' is lost to the gamers in an endless guessing game of what historical combat is represented. The designer wasted their time after all that effort and supposed research.

Gamers have no way of telling where any 'real combat' exists in game play. Ah, but they have their imagination and can imagine any game content they want to.

Again, Andy and FlyXwire, why do you think, to a man, all game designers write such things about their wargames? What is the motivation if there is no interest in 'real combat' and history, gamers not caring, just wanting to have fun?

Who do you think the designers are talking to, claiming game qualities in such an impotent manner?

You'd do better asking them.
I can only speculate.
Maybe they can't be bothered with answering such questions and justifying their design choices.

"Of course, the whole point of the article is how to prepare professionals for the real world through wargaming."

Ah huh

"Again, Andy and FlyXwire, why do you think, to a man, all game designers write such things about their wargames? What is the motivation if there is no interest in 'real combat' and history, gamers not caring, just wanting to have fun?"

What is the motivation if there is no interest in 'real combat' and history?

Gamers not caring?

Relax.

Put your ideas into scenario crafting – it's where you can dump all those wants of yours. Really (because we care). ;)

Dodge, weave, and duck.

Demand demand demand.
I wonder what the motivation is for that.

But Andy, that's his shortest post yet!

Really though, best to spend hobby energy on getting those games onto the tabletop instead.

We know that any set of historical rules will only take gamers so far, and if a planned game is inspired from an historical action, very often new scenario-specific rules need to be bolted on anyway (for special units, rare weapons, unusual terrain features, etc.).

If anyone deems to venture beyond the limited scenarios or encounter formats contained in most rule sets, you're going to become your own rules tweaker and designer to progress further in the hobby (it's natural progression). After awhile, the bonds of dependency on any particular set of rules, or manner of playing them loosens considerably.

Discussions about authenticity, accuracy, realism……just do it.

Put something on the table. Post about it on a forum or blog.

It's all about the game, without that, there's just an echo chamber, and a sound of one hand clapping.

Got a Hundred Years War game to put on today, so hope ya'll have a good one!

Demand demand demand.
I wonder what the motivation is for that.

I suspect it's a two-part process that's been stuck on part 1 for decades.

Step 1 is to demand that the authors/publishers/whoever provide citations and prove how this or that wargame rule is based on this or that source.

If they do that, Step 2 is to argue eternally that that's not the right application of Step 1.

My guess is that people know better than to get into that tarpit, wasting hours trying to please somebody by answering why those sources were used, and not these sources, and so on.

But to paraphrase Hitchens, I admire the beautifully circular logic involved. It's a perfect complaint: I demand that you explain how what you're doing is justified; and look how easy it is; you only need a minuscule data sample from a couple of old books in order to make me happy. If you don't adequately prove to me that you've done that tiny thing, then the game is pointless… But if you do it, expect to get questions from me, demanding justifications for your justifications, for the rest of your life.

Very long questions.

Very long questions that have been copy-and-pasted for decades.

Over and over again.

Garth in the Park – Yup you have been dronining on SOOOOO)) long saying so little.

Try to be positive, go on, you may enjoy it!

Oxford dictionary definition of ‘realistic'

1. Having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected.

2. Representing things in a way that is accurate and true to life.

I would suggest writers of Wargame rules adopt the the first definition.

If I'm designing an open, face to face toy soldier game in which all the players can always see all the troops and – because they are administering the rules themselves, and so know the exact calculations involved – I would definitely regard the first definition as appropriate.

arthur1815 – You are to be commended, you clearly state where you are prepared to compromise the game with respect to the real world>. By design you have decided that putting all figures on the table is more important than the reality of hidden figures.
We all make compromises for various reasons, artistic merit would never be one of mine, but our own rules do have compromises either because of the ground scale to model scale, disparity or to simplify some weapon systems for speed of play which in of itself is a critical parameter.

Our recent foray into trench warfare was predicated on a simplification of real world trench systems to speed play and obviate the need for specialist troop bases for fighting in trenches. However even in engineer5ing there are always compromises in any simulation but that is OK.

In our own rules we have more complex hidden movement than our published rules as we can cope with the additional work load. The less visible the figures when not engaged the harder the task of defining an appropriate strategy. This is made possible for us by the use of Modular terrain (Hexson II) which means we can accurately plot where hidden units are going and the path they take should the players decide to change his mind half way through a hidden move sequence. Admittedly this is for serious players only, for casual gamer this may cause an unpleasant concentration overload which has nothing to do with the rules.

Again the limits of credibility are not set by what can be achieved but by design compromise for other reasons.

There are lots of issues with the use of discretisation. Range is often one, is it in range or out of range? In the real world there is some compromise which is not practically possible without compromising speed of play in a miniatures game. The trick is to ensure the errors it introduces are not too significant.

I was at NashCon over the weekend and observed the different games keeping this discussion thread in mind. Here are some of my observations:

Almost every game had the opponents starting out head-to-head already in LOS and almost no room to maneuver. No one side started out with an advantage or an ambush.

All of the toys in the game were on the table, with no hidden units.

The JohnnyCon group had some excellent setups with scaled terrain and real elevations and hills.

There was a WWII tank battle next to a WWII naval battle. Both seemed to be using the same IGYG, roll-to-hit, die roll modifiers mechanics which I thought was strange because they are completely different forms of warfare.

In all of the games, I heard very little talk of real tactics or terminology. It was all about game mechanics, die rolls, and modifiers.

However, despite all of this, everyone seemed to be enjoying themselves and there were no complaints from the players and no arguments either.

I didn't have any one-on-one discussions with the players so I'm unsure of their level of realistic technical knowledge and tactics that they could translate into a game so maybe they don't know what they are missing. Ignorance can be bliss just like when I was a teenager with minimal knowledge of WWII combat and I thought Panzer Blitz was the best game ever. It appears the game system they were playing met their expectations so was good enough.

One thing I did notice is that almost all of the terrain and buildings used were high quality but if you took the combat units off the table it would resemble something out of a Norman Rockwell painting.

The buildings were in mint condition, with no rubble, not even any wear or rust, and no broken windows. The light posts and telephone poles were perfect. One table had 15mm scale of immaculately dressed civilians strolling down the street with shiny cars parked on the side of the street. The adjacent farm had cows peacefully grazing. There were no shell holes to be found either.

Here is an example from another game:

Here is a picture of what I would expect from my collection:

If you want a building to look combat realistic build a balsa wood one and then damage it by burning part of it, drilling holes in it, and other creative damage graphic effects. Use a fog machine to generate real fog. Use a miniature Bluetooth speaker to play a continuous loop of burning buildings, etc.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag would you really expect a decent game at a convention? We are putting on a participation game dumed down to Radio 1 standard. It has to be, you are not going to get many folk who actually know the rules and even less folk who understand the relevant tactics. The rules are going to be worse than one page rules and all the ones I have seen aspire to get as high as dire, so realism is not even possible. But you are not expecting many in a participation game to have that as there prime requirement. In our game participation game very little/any of the opposition will be on the table, I suspect some will have fun and some will freak out. But certainly our own proper rules are not aimed at that clientele.

In case anybody wants to take me to task on one page rules. The simplest game requiring some brain power I could think of was Checkers. I copied the rules to a word document in my normal font and size and they took over 1 page!

The only simple war game I could think of that had some credibility as an actual war game was DBA 36 pages. QED

Yes, Wolfhag, what are you suggesting, that conventions are representative of all miniature gaming, all players and all game conversations? Conventions are unique environments drawing unique expectations and thus behaviors. Neither good or bad, but representative of all miniature gaming?

Of course, folks are having a good time, why shouldn't they? They went there to have a good time. Even so, you and anyone else who have gone to conventions know games aren't always 'good' or fun for various reasons.

Of course, the buildings and figures are beautiful--and ALL on the table. Where else would you show them off, but a convention, and only if they are on the table? It is a core aspect of the hobby and many put lots of 'historical' research into both the table, buildings, and uniforms.

Of course, most all the talk is about the rules:

1. Folks go to conventions to try new rules--which have to be learned on the fly.

2. Even familiar rules often have the rules changed or simplified by those putting on the games.

3. Because of those circumstances, gamers are generally engaged in learning/using the rules while playing. My last outing at a convention [Enfilade in Olympia, WA] I played a Shako game. Even though I had played the rules, the game was a simplified mix of both the 1st and 2nd additions… let alone commanding one of several corps of Austrians at Wagram and dealing with some 'special rules'-- I spent most of my time talking rules, if not with the game master, then my Austrian colleague or French opponent.

4. Often it is only those putting on the games who give a historical introduction at the beginning of a session, OR just have it written up someplace. Then it's on to the game. That has always been my experience. Even your games. Then I spent the time learning the rules and talking about them or tactics with those 'on my side.'

5. Players will often gravitate to new games instead of those they know well or familiar rules in a new, bigger, or unique setting--which is the draw.

6. For every undestroyed building you saw at NashCon, I know I can find a matching example from conventions of destroyed buildings and terrain.

7. Having a game master presenting 'his' new rules or variant or scenario is not necessarily THE 'normal' gaming experience in the hobby, just one. However, having the game master there explaining the rules is a benefit that tends to have folks talking rules with him. From my experience, I am sure history and tactics were mentioned by players at points during the games.

8. From experience, I know that a number of players at conventions are new to the hobby or only play wargames at conventions. What would they talk about in playing? There were one or two who approached your games I played at Pacificon.

All of which lead to the general results you detail.