"Validating your model" Topic

As a rules designer you should always be challenging your model to see if it stands up to reality. That does not mean changing the rules every 5 minutes but looking at an event to see if it's portrayed by the rules, if not why not and should it. Does it have implications on the design of a scenario rather than the rules?
I had a moment like that today. There was a Russian tank that rolled off what appeared to be a perfectly intact but very narrow bridge, so challenging the drives/tank commanders abilities and communications abilities.
So we start an assessment, our rules as they stand do not cater for this event as is. There is no driver ability involved in the crossing of a defined bridge. The rules recognise that crossing a bridge is no simple task, it allows in Issue 2 of the rules for the bridge to be crossed in Slow Transit Mode. The implications of this are the crew need to be head out, the gun pointing either forward or back and the speed is quite restricted, say 10mph but the driver is not expecting to have to react to external events outside of driving the vehicle. To repeat no chance of falling off but the bridge does slow the traffic down particularly a column as all the column have to slow or get dangerously bunched up.
Interestingly in the previous Issue 1 rules vehicles were forced to go very slow across bridges that were narrow. This seemed to slow the game unreasonably if considering competent drivers and well-constructed military bridges or reasonably well made narrow bridges that are capable of taking the vehicle weight hence the change in Issue 2.
So what about this unique case. I decided it was a unique case and that the generalised rule of issue 2 was more appropriate. It did highlight that the range of bridges that could be crossed was perhaps wider than we had originally considered. Without changing or adding rules we could make a specific exception to the bridge and require it to cross in engineering task mode. This reduces the speed of the vehicle and also almost eliminates its situational awareness and forces it to be un-buttoned.
We could write a scenario specific rule testing for failure using the Leadership, less able troops would find it harder to not fall off, but that looks to be counterproductive a few "bad" rolls and a scenario could be taken out of the set of interesting games. If the result is you have to cancel the assault then it's not really an interesting game to play. Assaulting in the face of stupidity is a skill I leave entirely to the Russian, even this armchair general does not hold his plastic men in that level of contempt.
So in the final analysis, there are no gains to modelling such an event as it may be very rare and certainly its rate of occurrence cannot be implied from a single event so modelling it would be inappropriate. It does highlight that the level of care needed to cross some bridges may reduce crossing speed very significantly. There may be scenarios where it would be appropriate to slow the crossing speed below the Issue 2 rules threshold.

So what is your take on this issue.

"As a rules designer you should always be challenging your model to see if it stands up to reality."

Really?

Aside from the fact I write Sci Fi/Fantasy/Horror rule sets with a tenuous link to Real Life at best, the only challenge I have is to make sure the mechanics work clearly and efficiently on the tabletop among toy soldiers and miniature terrain.

After all, I write rules for the tabletop war game hobby – not 'realistic' tactical simulations for the military or a war college.

Besides, regardless of any commitment to verisimilitude/accuracy, a tabletop war game is about as realistic to actual warfare as ping pong is to a riot.

But that's just my .02

Personally, I think you are over-thinking it. The tank is crossing a bridge, either he crosses or he doesn't. A simple die roll would suffice. Considering the effects of his speed, skill, communication abilities and what the driver had for breakfast don't add to the game, in my humble opinion.

Of course, I'm looking for a game with some dice rolling, mini pushing and a conclusion in a short time frame. Not the cerebral exercise that you seem to enjoy. Since we're not playing on the same table, it should be fine :)

Heaven forbid that a buttoned up tank tries to cross a bridge while under fire. It just can't be done! we're told! And if there's smoke, why, it just might drive over the side! Oh, the horror…! ;-)

Seriously, though, if a tank wants to clatter across a narrow bridge at battle speed, there should be a slight chance of it going over the side (assuming no guard rails) otherwise (unless the driver is drunk) moving at a slower speed shouldn't require special rules for improbables…

The key rules where designing a set of rules is, does a rule add something and can the same objective be reached in a simpler manner. If you go through this cycle enough you will end up with a very playable set of rules.

pfmodel You are correct.

To the others this is all about Game design, perhaps I should have said historic game design my bad.

My son is into SI-FI and really there is little common ground other tham game mechanisms between us on the topic.

Never thinking you can do better in any game means the games will never improve and nobody's game is perfect and yes that includes ours.

Good game design does not stop after the first issue.

If you want, call bridges difficult terrain for tanks and they have to move at a slow rate. If they do not, roll a D6 and on a 1 the tank is removed as a casualty.

"Never thinking you can do better in any game means the games will never improve and nobody's game is perfect and yes that includes ours.

Good game design does not stop after the first issue."

Non sequitur…
No one is advocating lazy game design; the issue is one of unnecessary complexity and the inherent implausibility of translating real world combat into a turn-based tabletop game. In that context, pfmodel is spot on.

"As a rules designer you should always be challenging your model to see if it stands up to reality."

I had to chuckle at this :)

Some do, many don't (as long as the "ooh, shiny" is strong) :)

There is an old saying: Rules are never finished, only published.

Seriously, though, if a tank wants to clatter across a narrow bridge at battle speed, there should be a slight chance of it going over the side (assuming no guard rails) otherwise (unless the driver is drunk) moving at a slower speed shouldn't require special rules for improbables…

I agree. In war, guys do many stupid things so I let the players do the stupid things too – after a warning and the potential poor outcome.

The speed at which a tank (or any other vehicle) should move when crossing a bridge depends on several factors, including the design and weight-bearing capacity of the bridge, the weight and type of the tank, # axels or wheels, floatation rating, and the condition of the bridge.

Historically, vehicles crossed bridges one at a time which can take quite a long time for a battalion to cross.

"As a rules designer you should always be challenging your model to see if it stands up to reality."

There are ways. If a Sci-Fi vehicle is moving at 500 mph and your turns are one minute it should move 8.3 miles. Does it?

If it is based on a genre like Star Trek do phasers fire more often than plasma torpedoes? Do they?

However, you can create your own reality and physics.

Besides, regardless of any commitment to verisimilitude/accuracy, a tabletop war game is about as realistic to actual warfare as ping pong is to a riot.

Absolutely! However, reality is not what counts, it is the visuals (special effects) and the level of perceived reality the visuals and rules create in the player's mind and whether the experience meets his pre-game expectations and past experience to create the right "feel" or not.

In my game, the rates of fire are historical and interact with other unit's rates of fire in a playable manner. When a player makes a remark that the rate of fire of gun X does not seem right I'll ask him why. He'll normally respond that it is different from his experience playing game XYZ. I'll point out that game XYZ is highly abstracted and not based on historical actions and point him to the reference from a military manual or combat AAR to validate my design.

Wolfhag

@Wolfhag – 'Reality is not what counts --'

Precisely.

However, see the first sentence in the OP.

David Manley-I simply suggest you read up on simulation, I for one have no interest in interacting with such superficial and woefully inaccurate statements.

What is inaccurate about it?

No need to read up on simulations, I've been working on military simulations for many years

So in the final analysis, there are no gains to modelling such an event as it may be very rare and certainly its rate of occurrence cannot be implied from a single event so modelling it would be inappropriate.

Rare events do happen and it is the chance that they can occur that makes it interesting for players, or so they've told me. For me, modeling them is easy.

Regarding modeling a bridge crossing:
Historically bridges were rated for weight and could collapse or vehicles could fall off. The only pictures I've seen were of heavy tanks that collapsed or fell off.

However, see the first sentence in the OP.
Yes, the reality the DESIGNER perceives. It will not be everyone's reality and good luck trying to change other's perceptions of reality. Most attempts to go into realistic detail end up being not what players want.

Realistically, on a battlefield, units are not activated by some abstracted rule, they are always active and ready to react and use their initiative. Opposing commanders do not stop a battle to roll dice to see who has the initiative. There are no set turn lengths or sequences of play because all action is simultaneous. Units do not have to be told what to do every turn or micro-managed. Unless you have drones you don't have a god's eye view of the battlefield. Forces are rarely "balanced" because realistically you don't attack unless you have 3-1 odds or more in your favor. Units do not normally fight to the last man.

I think it is obvious that the rules and game mechanics available to designers are inadequate to create a high level of reality but can "trick" the mind into believing it is realistic. That's the real art of game design. There is nothing wrong with a game that is socially interactive, and entertaining and the players enjoyed the experience or had fun.

Now I've had people disagree with me because THEIR rules do create a high level of reality in THEIR mind and in the end that's all that really counts.

I've said before reality sucks and I doubt if players would find a realistic game fun. It's no fun being outnumbered 3-1, losing 50% of your units in one turn because of an ambush, or if your opponent pulls his forces back to pound you with a devastating artillery barrage or surprises you from the rear.

Play what you like, be open to new ideas, and don't engage in partisan rules arguments or at least agree to disagree because you are not going to change anyone's mind. Especially on TMP!

Wolfhag

As a rules designer you should always be challenging your model to see if it stands up to reality.

There are tried and validated methods for doing that, objective methods. Outlined it before. Anything else is just subjective opinion.

Absolutely! However, reality is not what counts, it is the visuals (special effects) and the level of perceived reality.

You guys dance around this subject in a practiced, waltz-like manner.

If reality didn't count, this conversation about crossing bridges and mph vs time in a SF game, even one which has a 'tenuous' relationship to reality wouldn't be an issue at all, let alone a discussion question here for game design.

…'it is the visuals (special effects) and the level of perceived reality the visuals and rules create in the player's mind and whether the experience meets his pre-game expectations and past experience to create the right "feel" or not.

Okay, what is the difference between the reality modeled by a game system and "perceived reality"?? In the player's mind?? Now, if that is the player imposing his 'perception' on his game experience, then it is simply an individual experience. If the game play is somehow providing that perception of reality to the player, imposing if you will, exactly what is the difference and how do you design for that? And if you do, how do you know you know you've succeeded? Mind-reading?

If someone flannels on about all the 'real' reality that isn't or can't be portrayed in a system, that misses the point and the obvious fact that ALL simulations and wargames will ALWAYS fit that.

So, what is the difference between the real world chance that tank crossing a bridge at full speed will ditch the thing and 'perceived' reality?

Either you are representing some aspect of reality, not perceived reality, if the game at SOME POINT, tenuous or not--or you aren't.

Grousing about 'perceived reality' doesn't change that fact.

IF you are somehow directing the player's perception, and still get the right feel, how do you avoid catering to the 'common' opinion/perception, basically providing the same-old, same-old or simply have a dozen personal experiences of 'reality' which probably won't match anything of the designer's? I've discussed this before and how simulation designers do it.

So,
1. What is the difference between reality portrayed in a game and 'perceived reality? and,

2. How do you design for 'perceived reality' rather than reality when every gamer who walks up to your table has a different perception of whatever reality you are presenting?

McLaddie, this video is a new actual fact for me. You could argue (which I do in the text) that it is anecdotal so not of great value.

I my old job as new and improved understandings of systems became available it was necessary to in some cases to update our model to better reflect reality. A set of wargame rules is no different, if new accounts become available they may shed more light on an issue such that the model needs updating. The James Web telescope is making folk think about there current models of the universe as there is now more data than was available before. Similarly as new historical facts or data becomes available and you need to see if this impacts the validity of the model.

Remember Maneouvre Group which is our model, is essentially 15 years old, new data is arriving in that time, it would be ludicrous arrogance to assume that the model is as good as it could be given that new data is appearing. There is a
need to keep an open mind on the quality of any model and if it can be improved.

So in the final analysis, there are no gains to modelling such an event as it may be very rare and certainly its rate of occurrence cannot be implied from a single event so modelling it would be inappropriate.

UshCha:

You seem to have answered your own question. You certainly haven't determined the rate of occurrence, so you are introducing a supposition as to how important or rare the situation is. It is not clear why the question of adding a mechanic to cover the possible event would be needed or desired.

I certainly agree with you, it is true and desirable at times: Like anything, your model can be improved/updated… depending on the goals of the model. [Which would determine what would be 'appropriate.'] Adding bits and pieces as an after thought, as you say can be 'inappropriate.' That is a practice often seen in the hobby and seldom is a meaningful change, adding complications.

Like historians, military men and just about everyone, we can find new information or experience circumstances which can call for an 'update.'

There was a Russian tank that rolled off what appeared to be a perfectly intact but very narrow bridge, so challenging the drives/tank commanders abilities and communications abilities.
So we start an assessment, our rules as they stand do not cater for this event as is.

I really don't understand your issue from your description. If the rules had the tank rolling off an intact bridge, which does happen. [Several pictures of that occurring in the Ukraine war.] What is the problem? It shouldn't? It should have another mechanism?

McLaddie -The point was to emphasis that just because it happened does not mean it has to be modeled, but perhaps the implications should be considered.
Interesting that this is not the only such video. Not sure I would do anything with these additional facts but it is interesting.

The point was to emphasis that just because it happened does not mean it has to be modeled, but perhaps the implications should be considered.

UshCha: I agree. I am not sure what this has to do with Validating your model. What are the criteria for determining something 'should be modeled'? I would think one thing would be how often such things occur. That is a statistical question.

McLaddie – Yup That why we did not incorporate it, not even a guesstimate of its frequency so it cannot reasonably be modeled which is why we did not do it.

As a peripheral or limiting issue you may say that if a wargamers plays a game say 50 times a year for 10 years, that's 500 games. If the event was as frequent as 1 in 1000, then it would still not be worth modelling, what is the point of modelling an event that happens less than 1 in 1000 battles, it may never occur in a sensible gaming time frame. Many gamer play a particular game far less say 25 games a game every 2 weeks. Then even at 1 in 500 it would not be worth modelling as the even may not happen in a 10 year period.

This puts a limit on the probability of an event happening in a game from a practical point.

Of course it does not say anything about the frequency of the real event but if it was a rare event in the real world, say 1 in 500 attacks it would not be worth the overhead to model it, as it may not occur in five to ten years of a players gaming life.

A few thoughts
1) All rules have a finite set of outcomes
2) Life has an infinite set of outcomes
=> All rules are inaccurate
3) How much, and what sort of, detail you want in your rules is up to you and your opponents to agree on. This is a political not a scientific decision and thus has nothing to do with accuracy although you may feel you really really want to believe it does.

A few thoughts
1) All rules have a finite set of outcomes

Mark:

Quite true. That is true of any simulation, computer software or wargame.

2) Life has an infinite set of outcomes

Nope. Life has an infinite set of possibilities, a limited number of outcomes. You drive to the store, your outcomes are going to be finite, regardless of what happens, and you live your life betting that the outcomes are what will probably happen, in this case if you attempt the trip. In any situation of life, the outcomes possible are finite and have probabilities within events that can happen.

If it wasn't so, if daily life had an infinite set of outcomes, all with an equal chance of occurring, the odds of us achieving that one outcome of safely getting to the store, probably wouldn't ever happen.

Even the old adage of "For the loss of a nail, the shoe was lost…" can only apply to a particular battlefield event, a courier, he has to be sent alone, he has to be carrying a very particular kind of message, etc. etc.

Simulations are build on that fact about the real world.

=> All rules are inaccurate

Nope, accurate rules achieve what they were designed to, tested against reality.

) How much, and what sort of, detail you want in your rules is up to you and your opponents to agree on. This is a political not a scientific decision.

For the most part, quite true.

But this doesn't follow:

and thus has nothing to do with accuracy although you may feel you really really want to believe it does.

When you say How much, and what sort of, detail, if you attempt to portray that 'detail' faithfully, according to some particular history or reality, then you have a target and it is quite reasonable to ask how well you captured that reality, that history, how accurate your shot at the target 'details' was.

If those details are something you just made up whole cloth to 'believe in', then no, there is nothing historical or reality-based in your game. That certainly is a choice you can make--politically.

A NATION AT WAR: IN THE FIELD | FIRST MARINE DIVISION; Cause of Tank Plunge Under Investigation

By Michael Wilson

April 1, 2003

The fog of war, or of fatigue? Or of a sandstorm?

An M1A1 Abrams tank with a crew of four American marines veered off a bridge west of Nasiriya last week, crashing through a guardrail, sinking in the Euphrates River and killing the crew of four. A detachment of marines under the bridge witnessed the incident but didn't realize what had happened. Investigators did not go looking for the tank until sometime the next day.

The tank was part of a First Marine Division convoy heading north on Thursday night. Brig. Gen. John Kelly, assistant commander of the First Marine Division, confirmed the accident and said the matter was still under investigation. He said that the cause might have been that the driver fell asleep, but that it is also possible that the driver might have been momentarily blinded by blowing sand.

Army tank falls off bridge: link

Tank vs bridge: link

Bridge collapse: link

Wolfhag

link

link

link

link

Here are a few pictures of tanks falling off of bridges and roads.

The question is how often this happens so we can dismiss the events, either that or just decide you don't want simulate it. But we don't know how often it actually happens.

Interesting set of likns thanks folks. I guess thats why in our modern armies we chaeck the bridge capacity carefully to minimise this sort of trhing.

@McLaddie OK I mistyped (2) Life has an infinite set of possible outcomes and you don't know if the the one that occurred [and you consider to be your 'valid data'] is or is not near the simulation mean.

To go back to the tank over bridge edge incident, we are now collecting more similar incidents so the frequency is apparently rising; but we can never know how many tanks have crossed bridges in total so we can never come up with an accurate frequency, all we can do is guess. Your rules may validate your guesses, but what does that prove.

Life has an infinite set of possible outcomes and you don't know if the the one that occurred [and you consider to be your 'valid data'] is or is not near the simulation mean.

Mark: That is simply not true, IF you use statistics. If what you say was true, then ALL simulations would be useless, instead of a now basic tool of science, the military, business, manufacturing, and a wide range of subjects.

To go back to the tank over bridge edge incident, we are now collecting more similar incidents so the frequency is apparently rising; but we can never know how many tanks have crossed bridges in total so we can never come up with an accurate frequency, all we can do is guess. Your rules may validate your guesses, but what does that prove.

Statistics don't require knowing the 'total' to come up with an accurate frequency. That is one of their basic values. I don't have to interview everyone in San Francisco to know the percentage of the population who favor the the 49ers. It is something that has been proven countless times. Again, that is why simulations work so well in modeling reality. And again, it isn't a yes/no resolution, but rather a closing in one the factors that work in representation. By "work" I mean the wargame or simulation has been successfully tested against reality.

It does take work, but it is not a 'guess' in the sense you mean or a 'we can never come up with an accurate frequency' if the work is done, it is done all the time. Even a guess can be tested to see IF it 'works.' In life, we do it all the time.

"I don't have to interview everyone in San Francisco to know the percentage of the population who favor the the 49ers", only if you accurately sample a representative section of the population. How do you know what is a representative section of the population, you don't, although you'll claim you do. You make assumptions, simplifying reality to allow you to pretend you have an answer, when what you have is an answer defined in terms of your prejudices and when those prejudices turn out to be not in line with someone else's prejudices things go wrong. THe very very best statistics are an approximation and all approximations have errors and lets be honest most military 'simulations' have so many variables that are not really statistically quantifiable that the error bars are let say 'large'.

…, only if you accurately sample a representative section of the population. How do you know what is a representative section of the population, you don't, although you'll claim you do. THe very very best statistics are an approximation and all approximations have errors and lets be honest most military 'simulations' have so many variables that are not really statistically quantifiable that the error bars are let say 'large'.

Mark: To be honest, you have made so many assumptions in those statements that simply aren't part of statistics that I hesitate to identify them all, but I will do one:

He very very best statistics are an approximation and all approximations have errors.

Several points:
1. How do you know that 'best' unless they are tested against the reality they are describing. In which case, you are making a statement about accuracy.

2. ALL science is approximations, but they are approximations that work in the real world and describe the real world. Much of the science is based on statistics like quantum mechanics or Astrophysics. Science's simulations certainly are. What makes them better than error-filled, large error-bars prejudices is that they are tested against reality. Either predicting future events or matching past events. Wargames do the latter.

3.Simulation designers in all the fields mentioned and more prove your statements inaccurate in a number of ways. Are statistics perfect? No, Is science perfect? No. Is simulation design perfect, No. But in all cases they are light-years ahead of prejudices, guesses and opinion and far closer to reality, historical or current.

OK lets look at a simple situation, 120mm smoothbore firing fin ammunition at a T72. Lets validate the model we undoubtedly have in our wargames rules, whether we are civilians or military that gives a chance for a first round kill, against combat experience in the Ukraine. What parameters are we going to need to measure: -

Skill of crew, 3 people, whose training ground skill some time ago might have been measured, but whose actual fatigue, morale impacted skill in the turret is a bit difficult to assess; i.e we don;t have a clue.
Weapon parameters, not an issue we have the data.
Weather at time of shot, impacting both vision and flight of round. Can we get this from combat reports, maybe but I suspect at best vague.
Tactical situation in terms of amount of target visible and all the angles involved, movement of target and firer. At best vague if at all. In a prolonged engagement no crew is going to be able to describe each individual shot in any detail.

So are we going to really validate our simulation, accurately.

So, are we going to really validate our simulation, accurately?

Mark:
I am assuming a question mark at the end of that sentence. Here is your objective:

120mm smoothbore firing fin ammunition at a T72. Lets validate the model we undoubtedly have in our wargames rules.

Again, from all your parameters listed, I am assuming what you are wanting to validate are the odds of either hitting the T72 or the odds of taking it out with that hit.

That is a question that the U.S. military wants an answer to also. They have studies concerning that and all the parameters you have set.

All the variables you list as being vague and/or what we have no clue about, are only some of the variable possible with the situation you've described. You seem to consider them all as absolute blocks to achieving any validity and accuracy.

Scientists of all stripes, engineers, poll takers, architects, etc. as well as simulation designers always face those unknowns and uncountable variables. Right? [Validity in our case being the meaningful relationship between the statistics/simulations and reality] Say, determining the crowd flow in a stadium not yet built, the behavior of galaxies colliding millions of light years away, discerning weather patterns, the odds of accidents on a freeway, how people will vote in an election, Which locations in a grocery store are best for selling a particular product. I could go on, but the methods used to determine all of those questions involve statistics and a HUGE number of variables, known and unknown.

The scientists, statisticians and simulators see those conditions, vagaries, and unknowns as a starting point, not an absolute block to knowing more. So, are you interested in knowing how they deal with them to generate accuracy and validity?

I can explain how statistics deals with all those unknowns to generate valid simulations, but I am not going to bother if you have already decided it is impossible.

We'd need to define what it is we think needs to be defined, what level we are placing the players and how we model that. And what realistic means in that context.

The very set up of most games is not realistic.. we have information and knowledge that the roles we represent wouldn't have.

We have too good C and C.. at best we make a system where by we are restricted in when and how we activate units.. rather than as has been mentioned… units " in reality" keep doing stuff. The question is what are they doing, are they sticking to orders or doing their own thing. Are they communication up the chain of command or not… is what they are reporting accurate? After all they have incomplete knowledge and information. When I donthear from a sub unit are they OK or overwhelmed, or are they adapting to immerging events but not telling us… finding out will take me away from attending to other things

If I don't hear or contact them for x amount of time… what have they been doing while that time passed?

When an action needs to be occurring would we know the result? Would we know the likelihood of success. In a game we know when we should hit damage etc but the reality is we wouldn't… we only know what we thought we had done. Conversely what would we know about incoming fire? Location distance direction… but also its effect..?

It seems to me that games tend to focus on the mechanics, mainly because those thjngs can be to some degree put in to numeric variable systems, dice mainly or cards…

But it seems to me "reality" is about obtaining information.. processing it to relevance accuracy… using that to devise a plan formulate a way to pass that on to subordinate units and track whether they are following it while going back to step one.

This is is hard to model especially imo in traditional mechanical models, which is why we don't see them covered… and trying to tends to bog us down in to incessant complications.

Even innovative rules that go some way… like crossfire fall back on having to much information.. like 3 hits destroying a unit and using numeric dice.. so we are focused on rolling a number rather than what we would be attending to in the situation.

Now multilayer, multi umpire mega games can model much of this…

But in small scale conventional games it's harder and we still have to make a way to do these things and still have an enjoyable, however we might define thag, game….

I wish that it was all esoterics but alas like many the more mundae can get us. Despite 15 years of a wide variety of scenarios, somtimes in some dark corner stuff comes up that because the wording was done without undertsaning all possible situations you can get implausible results. Many games never get that polish, the need to sell more stuff means they scrap systems off just to get folk to buy more with new duff bits. You can often fix things with minimal changes, just better wording, but its still all validation.

My co-author plays more diffrent games and while some bemoan the lack of command and control, many gamers hate it, it requires more thought and planing to some that is not an issue.

Gamesman6 Seems to me you play realtivly simple tactical games. A more representative ground scale, real world terrain and a few hidden forces and you are well into challenging planning and soon hit the problem of predicting where the enemy will stand or strike. With relatively simple Command and control you can soon get into nightmare scenarios where you plan is failing and you cannot respond instantly.

In a decent game analysis paralasis is an issue. If you have never had a bout it's either poor rules or unchallengeing scenarios. It's a critical issue with beginners and can ruin there game. Basicaly at that point you have hit the limit of the level of reality they can cope with. We are not talking complex rules here, our own are suitable for begginer and old lags, the issue is the complexity of the task presented. Attack the village is easy on a small board, biger board and the options for attack and defence get multiplied several fold and then it gets hard for both sides.

You might say this is not validation but it sort of is, as it sets the limit of the complexity that can be addressed. You can set computor simulations that are totally valid but are beyond the capacity of the machine to compute. It is easy to do that with tactical complexity. For example chess is a mindbogglingly simple set of rules compared to a standard even simple wargame, but the anaysis requirements well exceed my capabilities and despite the ultimate in theoretical predictability the game is in no way predictable for normal folk.

Oh and the machines, you run the simulation inside the machines capacity, the results are usful but you have to recognise the accuracy limitations of the solution and design accordingly.

Convention games i.e games with a wide variety player skill and analysis capacity can be fun but they are never going to challenge all the players to their limits, it will always be a lowest common denominator game.

If yuou play Crossfire llok me up you may find our game of interest. It does in our opinoin enought to give you Command and Control hell without lots of complex rules.

We have BBC Radio 4 for the Geeks and Radio 1 for the Normal's ;-). Never the twain shall meet.

We'd need to define what it is we think needs to be defined, what level we are placing the players and how we model that. And what realistic means in that context.

Gamesman6:
that's all true. That doesn't change how realism is established, regardless of the chosen scale and elements targeted. It doesn't change how the realism is tested against the 'real thing.'

All the points you make about what should be or could be modeled in a wargame has been tackled in some way, somewhere. It all depends on what you want the wargame to do. Obviously, it can't do everything.

The very set up of most games is not realistic.. we have information and knowledge that the roles we represent wouldn't have.

We have too good C and C.. at best we make a system where by we are restricted in when and how we activate units

In the games as they have been designed. If you are restricted in when and how one activates units, that has been a designer's choice, not some requirement or limit to game design. Does that mean wargames can't provide that aspect of the real world? At all?

I think you are seeing the limits most game designers have set in their games. It doesn't HAVE to be. It just ain't so.

You might say this is not validation but it sort of is, as it sets the limit of the complexity that can be addressed.

UshCha: That isn't even 'sort of' a validation of content. Any simulation has limits on detail, complexity, and what it can do. You might validate that the system works as a game with those limits, but the limits themselves don't validate anything.

You can set computor simulations that are totally valid but are beyond the capacity of the machine to compute. It is easy to do that with tactical complexity.

Yes, game designers do it all the time. The wargames tend to collapse of their own weight.

Oh and the machines, you run the simulation inside the machines capacity, the results are useful but you have to recognise the accuracy limitations of the solution and design accordingly.

Useful: Does the design do what it was designed to do, limitations and all? That's it. You establish 'usefulness' by playtesting and validating the history/reality and game play provided in the system.

Convention games i.e games with a wide variety player skill and analysis capacity can be fun but they are never going to challenge all the players to their limits, it will always be a lowest common denominator game.

In other words, they are designed to be 'useful' in a particular situation, and being realistic isn't one of those goals in being 'useful.' Nothing wrong with that. It's only when you ask the game to do things it wasn't designed to do and then announce that it isn't realistic or fails as a wargame.

Gamesman6, you bring up some interesting points.

We'd need to define what it is we think needs to be defined, what level we are placing the players, and how we model that.

I think that's the basis of game design. You determine what you think is important and how you intend to portray it. Generally, you are drawing on previous games you like and selecting the rules, mechanics, and modifiers that best communicate what you want. Ideally, that generates the level of reality you want but won't please everyone.

The big design problem I see is that real combat and most actions involving humans are simultaneous and not some form of IGYG and we are always activated unless we are unconscious or blinded.

Computers are best for military-grade combat simulation and programmers do not use the same rules or mechanics used in popular war games because real action, or any human action for that matter, involves timing which is the OODA Decision Loop.

Realistically, immediately after executing an order, the commander will issue the next order. Based on experience and training, he will have a fairly good idea of how long the order will take to execute and the chances of success.

Initiative determination, unit activation, command points, etc. are not needed. Speed of execution is the key and overall better crews will be quicker and seize the initiative. Poor crews, suppression, and friction slow down the speed of execution. Taking shortcuts and risk-reward decisions can speed up execution but with the chance of something going wrong. That's how I see it.

I like this definition:
"Whoever can make and implement his decisions consistently faster gains a tremendous, often decisive advantage. Decision-making thus becomes a time-competitive process and timeliness of decisions (OODA Loop) becomes essential to generating tempo."

Tactical Decision Making, Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication 1, Warfighting

You achieve victory by getting inside your opponent's decision loop preventing his orders from being executed or irreverent by the time they do execute.

To be consistent, when you design a game with turns of a set amount of time, seconds, minutes, or hours, the actions of units should be timed the same way. Shouldn't they? How do you do that without a computer?

So it appears that the only solution is to embark on using abstractions that can parse the action in a playable and somewhat realistic manner to mimic simultaneous action which guarantees not to please everyone. All you can really hope for is something that is playable and feels right to as many people as possible.

Wolfhag

The big design problem I see is that real combat and most actions involving humans are simultaneous and not some form of IGYG and we are always activated unless we are unconscious or blinded.

Wolfhag:
I agree about IGYG, don't like it, but most combat actions don't necessarily involve simultaneous actions. In fencing for instance, there are usually attack and reposte, rather than two attacks at the same time. The same is true of Napoleonic battles, particularly when the command structure and communication was slower. One side would be on the attack, the other responding. Circumstances dictate whether there is a more simultaneous action and a more IGYG dynamic. Who has the initiative tends to create that IGYG dynamic. Just a thought.

"I can explain how statistics deals with all those unknowns to generate valid simulations, but I am not going to bother if you have already decided it is impossible".

Been there got several teeshirts; in my experience when you ask to see the error bars it all goes a bit quiet. We all want to believe our simulations and many have vested interests in claiming that they do believe their simulations, but then you look at the list of foobah's that you can be pretty sure someone simulated to death and you just wonder and being retired it isn't my job on the line so maybe I wonder a bit more.

in my experience when you ask to see the error bars it all goes a bit quiet.

Mark:
I am not sure why they would go quiet or who is doing the work, but determining the margin for error in any statistical analysis is basic. And never 100% You've heard of Astronomers
and quantum physicists speaking of 'sigma 1003s or 5s. Again, they are only the odds at some experiment is accurate, say to 1 out of 100 million of being wrong.

That factoring in a margin of error is basic statistics, so I can only imagine the folks you have talked to having done their work.

McLaddie,
Thanks

Most players are already tuned in to playing IGYG and it has many advantages to playing a game but very little accuracy on how combat operations are carried out. Some IGYG and dice activation systems present an interesting way of employing tactics but again are not very accurate. It comes down to player preferences and what meets their expectations.

I agree about IGYG, don't like it, but most combat actions don't necessarily involve simultaneous actions. In fencing, for instance, there are usually attacks and ripostes, rather than two attacks at the same time.

"Double Hit" in fencing: "when both fencers strike each other at the same time."
link

Both fencers are continually and simultaneously observing what their opponent just did, looking for an opening, evaluating what his options and tactics are (orienting), deciding on the next action – a riposte, and acting. The quicker he can mentally and physically execute the more successful he'll be.

When the attacker made his attack he observed he missed (as did the defender) and went through his loop and will most likely attempt to parry the counterattack that will most likely be coming from his opponent. If he is quick enough and chooses the right tactic he'll most likely be successful. So it goes back and forth.

In my direct-fire system once or twice in a game two opposing units will shoot at each other on the same turn. It's just the way the timing worked out. There are no additional rules or die rolls needed.

To clarify: It looks to me like the OODA Loop process is basically I Go before You Go because I'm quicker. You Go after me if you are still alive (I missed). However, we are both moving through our loop at the same time so the action of all units could be considered simultaneous as each game turn is announced all units are one turn/second closer to executing their order (Act). Whoever gets to Act first wins the race and seizes the initiative to go before his opponent. Overall, I think that's pretty simple.

In my game we don't time how long it will take to get through each step in the OODA Loop, that's unplayable and impossible to determine. We do use historical timing values to determine how long actions like target engagement, turret traverse, reloading, etc. will take (Act).

So if an order to fire is given on turn #32 and takes 8 turns the player will shoot on turn #40 – if he is still alive. During those 8 turns the crew is assumed to be performing their duties without additional details. Pretty simple.

In my system, each unit/vehicle operates in its own OODA Loop "bubble" executing its order and immediately looping back the give its next order. Their loop interacts with all other unit loops doing the same from turn to turn (second to second). The result is that the action slowly unfolds second to second and is paused when a player is scheduled to execute an order.

When a turn is announced and no units have the order to be executed or choose to react we move immediately to the next turn. In a historic tank-tank engagement there is not a vehicle firing each second of the engagement. It appears random and sporadic but actually, it is not, actions in individual units don't happen randomly.

The game always moves to the next action without any additional rules. Sometimes 5-20 game turns/seconds may go by in 5-20 seconds of real-time, it depends on the timing and player decisions.

It may seem a lot to do or complicated but remember, I don't use any of the traditional rules, die rolls, or modifiers that tell players what they can do and when that actually interrupts the player's natural OODA Loop with separate move and shoot segments.

When you use real-timing in seconds and simultaneous movement in a 1:1 game you end up with some real-life physics governing the game rather than abstractions and rules.

For example, a Tiger I fires at a T-34 at 1000m, and the T-34 is set to fire one second later. The result is the Tiger hits, penetrates, and kills the T-34. However, the MV of the 88mm gun is 800m/second. That means the next turn the T-34 fires when the round is still 200m away and he is knocked out immediately after firing. No rule, it's just the way the action unfolds.

If the Tiger fired at a T-34 flank that was two seconds time of flight range away and the T-34 started moving at the same turn the Tiger fired the round would miss because the T-34 moved far enough to cause the round to miss. No rule, just observation. It has happened once so far.

In the above two examples, there is nothing to "model", there is no special rule or exception, die roll, etc. It's just the way the physics of the system is observed by the players and has never negatively impacted the game or caused an argument. You can disagree and argue about abstracted rules but not observed physics.

I've been play-testing a version with two pages of rules (front and back of one sheet) which includes a customized data card for each vehicle. I model engagement and gunfire in detail because that's what is important to me. There are other actions that I abstract and determine differently without timing. If modeling a tank crossing a bridge is important, especially for a specific scenario, do it.

Command and Control at higher levels:
Alexander the Great led from the front to enhance his observation, see openings and tactics available, issue an order with minimum delay, and his Companion Calvary acts. Meanwhile, Darius is behind his troops using messengers allowing Alexander to be inside his command loop the entire battle and lose. GMT games have an interesting and I think accurate "momentum rule" of portraying it in an IGYG system that could be used in a miniatures game.

Rules download: PDF link

I think you could use a momentum rule like that for any game when a higher-level leader leads from the front but with a greater chance of becoming a causality.

Wolfhag

"Double Hit" in fencing: "when both fencers strike each other at the same time."

Wolfhag: I didn't say it didn't happen, but that comes about during an attack and reposte too. Having fenced in college [after breaking my neck in football], the mental process is definitely an
attack defense mentality.

I am also thinking Black Powder warfare, not modern, so there may be a difference there.

Both fencers are continually and simultaneously observing what their opponent just did, looking for an opening, evaluating what his options and tactics are (orienting), deciding on the next action – a riposte, and acting. The quicker he can mentally and physically execute the more successful he'll be.

Yes, to all of that, but that 'looking for an opening' and evaluating what his options are, etc. means a pause, and one usually moving before the other, ending the pause, or the other waiting for the attack because of the riposte they want to use. As for the quicker one be successful… Duh. I am left-handed, so I was matched against right-handers almost exclusively. The difference was a great advantage, but against another lefty, we were both inexperienced. A lot more 'evaluating'

Command and Control at higher levels:
Alexander the Great led from the front to enhance his observation, see openings and tactics available, issue an order with minimum delay, and his Companion Calvary acts.

I am assuming you are thinking of Gaugamela and maybe Issus.

I'm sorry, but once Alexander moved forward with his cavalry, he wasn't able to observe much of the battlefield. It was a flat plain looking through crowds of troops and a lot of dust. It didn't 'enhance' his observation. You know from history how commanding 'from the front' narrows a commander's vision and attention when he is commanding large numbers of men. How many historical commanders have been faulted for this same behavior?

Alexander received messages from his other commanders, just as Darius did, and issued orders/replies the same way. All Alexander 'commanded' involving any 'timing' was the cavalry he was with, and that is it. He had a battle plan already in place at the beginning of the engagement and he let it run. Darius didn't, but simply threw troops at the Macedonians looking for advantages. That is what is recorded. It's not surprising that this is what Darius did with such a mass of different troops and abilities.

Alexander was going after Darius directly. That was always the battle plan. The armies were in some ways beside the point. Like Napoleon at Austerlitz. Alexander wound up the professional army and let it go. He didn't have 'command' of it the way you describe. It doesn't seem to be some spur of the moment decision. But if it was, he could only be leading from the front with the cavalry he was with, not his army.

Meanwhile, Darius is behind his troops using messengers allowing Alexander to be inside his command loop the entire battle and lose.

Uh-huh. 1. Darius was up high, [I have forgotten if that was an elephant or some large chariot, but he was so high that Alexander could see him from a distance of several hundred yards in a crowded field. So Darius could see more of the battle than Alexander could. 2. As Alexander fought his way to Darius, Darius was issuing orders, including releasing troops to attack Alexander's army on their left flank. There was also an effort to outflank Alexander's cavalry during the battle. And they were hard pressed from reports. So, in some respects, Darius simply misjudged how quickly or how well Alexander would fight through all the Persian troops facing him. The reason that Alexander's army 'got inside' the Persian's OODA loop is because the plan didn't require orders to proceed once set in motion. Of course it would be 'faster' than the Persians without one for their polygot army. I doubt if any such pre-planning could have been carried out by the Persians without orders.

What you describe Wolfhag, doesn't have much to do with the actual dynamics of the battles Alexander fought. IF the GMT game models what you describe, they have a radio-modern period mindset applied to ancient battles.

When I speak of IGYG systems, I am not talking about a tank vs tank encounter or seconds of reaction time, but large bodies of men, armies during the pre-modern era. [I should have mentioned that.]

Finding the enemy, pausing to assess, and like the fencers you describe, then acting, and one acting before the other if quicker, [getting inside their OODA loop]. IGYG, sort of one winning the initiative [not getting it by a die roll which The 'momentum rule' is, though a battling dice kind of system.

I thought it was interesting that the rules introduction says they include historical commentary throughout the rules, but actual history as such is never related from what I can see. Analogies to boxing etc. are what is offered.

Then there is this:

The Macedonian command system was far more sophisticated and professional than that of any other army of the era. This capability is expressed by the extended Command Ranges and better Initiative ratings of the Macedonian leaders, combined with the fact that the Macedonian army was not so much small as compact.

The 'extended command ranges' are rather stupid and do not represent how troops were commanded during this period. Darius's 'command' range and those of his sub-commanders were just as large [directing unit, horse and voice] as the Macedonians, using the same system to move units. That Macedonian leaders having more 'initiative' had far more to do with their understanding of the battle plan and their role in it. It was also experience. It wasn't a chance occurrence, regardless of the odds in the Macedonian's favor.

Darius's troops had to wait to be released. Different system, again having little to do with initiative except at the highest levels, say the Persian wing commanders. In other words, there were commanders in Darius's army who knew they were free to act and had some idea of Darius's battle plan, such as it was.

I'm sorry. Reading the rules, they don't show a representation of how troops were controlled or the command systems of the two armies. It seems to be a johnny-one-not money system, where both armies have the same command processes, but the Macedonians just have more of it. Cha-ching.

GMT games have an interesting and I think accurate "momentum rule" of portraying it in an IGYG system that could be used in a miniatures game.

The momentum rule might work with modern games, you could speak to that better than I, but it doesn't reflect what was going on in ancient warfare in any way, shape or form. About this time, gamers usually say, yeah, but it's simpler and interesting.

Wolfhag:

Sorry, but the rule book you linked really set me off. First of all, the entire list of books consulted were written from 1890 to 1984. That doesn't make them wrong, but there is 4 decades of research and analysis that is ignored, and a number of the comments in the historical notes and explanations evidence that.
There is an interesting commentary on this history of ancient historians. Start at 15.30 minutes into the video. He is specifically talking about Greek hoplite battles, but the history pertains to the Macedonian wars too:

YouTube link

The momentum rule might be interesting and fun, but I can't see any sources of ancient history describing battles in such a way to justify the rule. Not that it matters if folks like the game, but the history it is supposedly portraying is really suspect. I can go into greater detail if you like.

Two thoughts.

Most combat seems to have one side seizing initiative and the other reacts. Something happens and the other side takes initiative. But both sides are trying to do things, just one is suppressed or in a disadvantaged position so their efforts are not very noticeable.

Our understanding of ancient battles is based on weak evidence.
One of Alex' big wins was because some of the opposing forces were bought off. That's only recently been discovered.

I agree with Andy. I think the term 'seizing the initiative' is the right one, rather than a die roll. I play a lot of For the People, the GMT ACW strategic CD game. There is no rolling for initiative. It is taken, and both sides know who has it and when. One side is acting, the other reacting. Obviously, the IGYG is not THE way it happened, only that it is certainly an aspect of battle, particularly when one side is inferior and on the defensive, say like the Germans in WWII Italy.

Here is Gaugamela, the opening and the crisis point. One thing is obvious. It was a cavalry battle and Alexander's ONLY offensive action was charging with his Companions and associated cavalry. Unexpected and powerful, but look at what the Macedonians were defensively fighting off. The infantry of both sides were hardly involved. Who had the 'momentum?' And when did Alexander 'seize the initiative' and was it only locally, not the whole battle? I have always wondered about why Darius didn't release his infantry in the center, but only attacked the Macedonian flanks. I can think of several reasons, but it wasn't a stupid strategy.

Opening of the battle
link

The crisis of the battle
link

Now, if we were to 'validate' the game play of GMT's Alexander, we would have to ask if the actions as we do understand them are possible with the game, then if they are reasonable. Then whether the engagement outcomes over the course of the battle can [not have to] play out as the sources suggest.

That is a type of validation.

Ushcha
"Gamesman6 Seems to me you play realtivly simple tactical games. A more representative ground scale, real world terrain and a few hidden forces and you are well into challenging planning and soon hit the problem of predicting where the enemy will stand or strike. With relatively simple Command and control you can soon get into nightmare scenarios where you plan is failing and you cannot respond instantly."

Not exclusively.. the points hold IMO… players have access to the things the people on the table wouldn't have. And to a certain extent vice versa.

McLaddie
"Gamesman6:
that's all true. That doesn't change how realism is established, regardless of the chosen scale and elements targeted. It doesn't change how the realism is tested against the 'real thing.'"

Does it? Then what are we discussing? We establish realism by comparing it to out understanding of what the reality is. Which is why I bring up those questions. Without understanding or preconceptions and principles are we can't control them or discuss them with others.

That's in part why we imo have a stasis in rules development. It's easier to stick with something that we all know than try and get people to agree to something that ay be better.

"All the points you make about what should be or could be modeled in a wargame has been tackled in some way, somewhere. It all depends on what you want the wargame to do. Obviously, it can't do everything."

Maybe but I've not seen many that did them in particularly good ways, IMO. And if we are thinking from first principles then… as principles each should support the others. I've taken ideas from many different rules.

But none that I've found tick enough boxes.

And of course if something could do it all we wouldn't be here having this discussion. 😉

"In the games as they have been designed. If you are restricted in when and how one activates units, that has been a designer's choice, not some requirement or limit to game design. Does that mean wargames can't provide that aspect of the real world? At all?

I think you are seeing the limits most game designers have set in their games. It doesn't HAVE to be. It just ain't so.''

I didnt intend to imply otherwise.

Any human moderated system like we are playing on a table top… we are restricted by time… not in the same way but similar to RL.

Even the word activation sets a gamist mindset to me as it implies an inactivity when the process isn't jn place.

We are of course limited when we are tying to model RL on a table.. of course the roles we represent in RL have limits.

What I don't see in rules design by and large.. is a way to make the restrictions on RL and Player restrictions to mesh more… most rules run restrictions separately. There are of course situations where they have to but when that needs to happen it should be IMO, ad invisible or at least minimise the breaking of immersion.

A ruleset should imo create, given the thread, a "real feeling and real result"

We establish realism by comparing it to out understanding of what the reality is. Which is why I bring up those questions. Without understanding or preconceptions and principles are we can't control them or discuss them with others.

That's in part why we imo have a stasis in rules development. It's easier to stick with something that we all know than try and get people to agree to something that ay be better.

Gamesman6:
I agree whole heartedly. First, those principles come in two flavors: The first is establishing the 'reality' to be modeled and second, how to do that effectively with a game/simulation system.

The 'first principle' is finding the evidence to be modeled. Obviously, if there is no desire to model combat or reality, then this step can be skipped. Each historical era and military system will have its own particular elements. The historical methods for developing that evidence don't change.

When translating/interpreting the evidence to be modeled into a game system, here too, the technical approach and methods for doing that enjoy the same basics, whether computer software for modeling a galaxy and a wargame recreating Napoleonic warfare. Each medium has its own demands and limitations, but the basic technology is the same.

"All the points you make about what should be or could be modeled in a wargame has been tackled in some way, somewhere.

Maybe but I've not seen many that did them in particularly good ways, IMO. And if we are thinking from first principles then… as principles each should support the others. I've taken ideas from many different rules.

I wasn't referring to the miniature wargame designers. I haven't seen them really tackle the issues well either. Our wargame designers are good at identifying the critical issues in modeling reality. However, they only bring them up as proof that doing anything else is impossible, as though only they have recognized the issues and nobody [in the hobby] has come up with solutions and approaches that work. End of discussion while ignoring sixty years of simulation design and testing in the rest of the gaming industry as well as a myriad of other arenas.

Any human moderated system like we are playing on a table top… we are restricted by time… not in the same way but similar to RL.

Of course. ALL simulations/wargames have many physical and time limitations regardless of the medium. So, what is it you want to model? What medium is the best for that goal?

Even the word activation sets a gamest mindset to me as it implies an inactivity when the process isn't in place.

That is the power of words when the rules are basically a technical manual meant to not only tell players what to do systematically, but also inspire the imagination to engage in the game world environment being built.

We are of course limited when we are tying to model RL on a table.. of course the roles we represent in RL have limits.

We are, BUT a lot of the model effectiveness is in what the players do and experience in the game decision-making environment provided.

A ruleset should imo create, given the thread, a "real feeling and real result"

I agree, and would add: A real world process during play, not just a result.

The question is how to produce that in a participatory simulation/wargame. Lots of techniques for do that, lots of methods developed over the years. AND tests to establish that the wargame play does indeed produce that 'real feeling, process and results', the ones the designer meant to provide with the game system.

Game designers often call themselves 'experience engineers'. The task is how to produce experiences that mirror the reality/history chosen to be modeled.

Initiative can get into ideas of whose turn, it is, especially in igyg games. In part because we are also loaded with the idea of games allow participation of those involved. If we are modelling realimsm it's possible to have a game where one side has most of the initiative..
Though again we need to consider what inititiative means.
Acting and forcing the opponent to be in a postion where they can not respond react to something that has already happened and can't interfere with iur plans and force us in to a postion of having to make a reaction where they are controlling tempo.

Of course this is in RL about the people in the CoC as it's about the CiC and again is tricky to model in a PvP game. Especially in conventional games. Of course these things operate in any game but being similar isn't enough of it self.

In wolfhags tank example the two tank shooting at each other one slightly off time is a.double hit in fencing.

With the fencing analogies we're looking at a specific set of circumstances. We both know we are there, we can see the opponent.

The principles are the same but their application is expressed differently. How yo be a good fencer and win a fenckng match… is not the same skill set to survive a sudden assault on the street.

So once we change the variables or moving parts we need to track the experience changes.

I still feel that the interface between observe and orientate is vital on the battle field but is hard to replicate on the table top where we have too much information which tends to be too accurate which is passed on with "accuracy" by subordinates who don't affect it.
These elements and others are hard to model with conventional systems… so we add a randomiser, normally at the end of a decision/action cycle. like a dice roll to create the variability.. but to me can cancel out player, on both sides, akill/decisions.

"In wolfhag's tank example the two tank shooting at each other one slightly off time is a double hit in fencing".

Actually I think you'll find that it depends on the time gap and setting of the equipment using electric weapons and the rules of precedence using 'steam' equipment; or it did when I last fenced.

I'm not specifically discussing the rules of fencing they are even more hassle than wargame rules. 😄🤫

Regardless of the rules of the sport of fencing and how they are used/gamed. Two people Launching attacks more or less at the same time and hit more or less at the same time is a double hit…whether the rules call it that.
The electrification of the equipment has allowed a measurement who hit first to fractions of seconds.. but like the tank
Dying 2nd doesn't make for a long term strategy.

I'll note that fencing from the art of fence, comes from the arts of offence and defence. The ski being in the balance of both and that you can only win by going on offence but must do so with a mind to defence.
Focused specifically here the idea of personal combat but the scaling to larger engagements applies.

For me often wargame rules. End up being like the rules of sport fencing, they may be there with good intentions, the right of way in fencing, but alters what's happening and making it less "real"

Rules like Wolfhags elements much of that aspect it seems lacks the friction and FoW that seperates theory from practice.

I still feel that the interface between observe and orientate is vital on the battle field but is hard to replicate on the table top

Gamesman6:
I agree. Some of the most enjoyable games I've had have been hidden movement games. There are any number of methods for providing that 'interface,' never perfect, but very doable. The issue is that they usually require all the pretty figures to be off the table. That is an issue for gamers. A great many methods *could* be used, and a number have been used or suggested on TMP. The interest has to be there. The complaint about complexity or setup time etc. again is one of convention, expectations and the novel.

Again, I am not a fan of IGYG systems in general though I stick by my fencing analogy. For board games, card-driven games work to mitigate the IGYG issues to a degree. They work better for strategic games than tactical. I haven't seen a great use of CDGs for table top games. Something like GMT's Combat Commander system might work.

Different gamers see different military issues as 'vital', from logistics to morale to CinC to the 200 ft general syndrome. Without them, the game can't be 'realistic.' It isn't necessarily true. It all depends on how well the model mimics the real thing, not what it does or does not include depending on the designer's goals.

In any case, the issues of that "the interface between observe and orientate" could be handled to a large degree IF gamers want to.