"Validating your model" Topic

Gamesman6
Rules like Wolfhags elements much of that aspect it seems lacks the friction and FoW that seperates theory from practice.

In my system, every 1:1 engagement for the first shot at a new target starts with a Mutual Situational Awareness Check (like when a new LOS is established) which replaces spotting and activations (units are always active and observing just as real units). Further down I outline Engagement Delays which I attempt to reflect friction and other issues and vehicle features that can impact speed.

To get off your first shot is a D6 roll for Situational Awareness, if you are not overwatching in the right direction determine how long to traverse, turn, or pivot to get your gun on the target. After an Engagement Delay, a D6 roll to determine the time to estimate the range, aim, and fire (Snap Shot option). You could condense these into one die roll, especially for larger games. To fire at the same target again is a D6 roll to determine how long to reload, aim, and fire. The historical timing values for the die rolls are on the customized vehicle data card.

A somewhat realistic FoW is created because the future turn a unit will execute an order or shoot is kept secret from your opponent. As each turn is announced in sequence everyone is unsure of what will happen next but they can make some predictions based on past experience.

The values I use for engagement time, turret traverse, reload time, etc. are from historical references, first-person accounts, training manuals, and info from former tank crewmen.

Players can execute tactics like halt fire, shoot & scoot, reverse slope defense, and other tactics in a somewhat realistic manner without the restrictions of IGYG and unit activations. As always, faster units will seize the initiative, no additional rules are needed.

Limited Intelligence: Unless there is a visual of the damage like fire or brew up you must shoot again at the same target or engage the crew bailing out.

Failing a morale check (normally from spalling damage) means bailing out or moving at top speed to the closest spot to get out of the enemy LOS, the player's choice. Crews can reoccupy vehicles.

Another FoW and friction are SNAFUs which have a 5% chance to happen each time you fire. The result is unknown to your opponent. The results are historic occurrences like misfires, jams, poor aiming, crew panic, loader slips increasing reload time, the wrong round type being loaded, and other things that may increase the amount of time to get the shot off or generate a greater chance to miss. Only a few are catastrophic. There are normally 1-2 SNAFUs per game.

Other FoW variables: Depending on the armor there may be a chance for a ricochet. APCR rounds can shatter at ranges under .5 seconds time of flight. HEAT penetration is variable with a chance for a dud. There is a chance of a critical hit on a weak spot, shot trap, etc. Damage is variable based on the level of penetration and weight of the shell. No round has a 100% chance of penetration and damage. No unit no matter how thick their armor is 100% safe.

Most of the ideas and data are from the "WWII Ballistics and Armor" book. You can look at many of these as optional rules depending on the level of detail you want to portray.

Blind Spot: Non-open top vehicles (tanks and assault guns) even if unbuttoned have a Blind Spot in their rear 180-degree aspect while engaged and shooting that they cannot react to without a radio warning. If they get hit in their rear 180-degree aspect while engaging and the round ricochets they can react to that. Open-top vehicles, crew-served weapons, and infantry teams/sections do not have a Blind Spot but may take a little longer to react to a threat in their rear 180-degree aspect. After engaging a target they have 360 degree Situational Awareness. Consecutive shots at the same target depend on historical reload speed and crew type.

Most combat seems to have one side seizing the initiative and the other reacts. Something happens and the other side takes the 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.

Yes. I look at suppression as decreasing a unit's ability to move (pinned down), communicate (decreased distance), observe (poor Situational Awareness), and fire (inaccurate and decreased volume of fire). However, historically, suppressed units have a lower chance of a causality because they spend more time ducking and moving than exposing themselves to shoot back. In my opinion, this is what creates friction and Engagement Delays in my system. Delays allow the enemy to act quicker and thus seize the initiative. It's a timing issue.

However, an enemy may shoot before you do but a friendly unit may shoot him before he shoots saving you. OODA Loop Timing interacts with all units in the game with a minimum of rules – it's all about timing – not abstractions, activations, or other traditional game rules.

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

I concur. At the higher levels, I think it could occur because the commander is unsure of the enemy's disposition to choose the correct tactic or order so he hesitates.

Normally, a recon report needs to be verified before taking action. That presents a dilemma to the commander which was made clear in the carrier battles in WWII, especially Midway. If you can see them then they can see you. A delay could mean being struck before sending off an attack. Not waiting for confirmation could mean hitting a formation of destroyers and oilers that were mistaken for cruisers, battleships, and a carrier.

Then there are historically cautious commanders like McClellan in the ACW. One way to handle it might be for each side to have an intel level that can increase or decrease each turn. To activate the commander to issue an order you need to roll equal to or less than the current intel level. Bold commanders get a minus modifier, cautious commanders a + modifier. That puts more emphasis on intel gathering and reporting.

In my 1:1 level game, all I'm concerned about is the total time to go through the loop from observation to execution (Act), not how long is spent in each step as that's impossible. An Engagement Delay friction is from poor situational awareness, one or two-man turret (must engage while buttoned up), suppression (forces crews to button up decreasing their Situational Awareness), being flanked/surprised, slow turret traverse, buttoned-up and poor crews add to the time. Overwatching in the right direction, commander turret traverse override, concealed ambushing, unbuttoned, fast turret traverse, no suppression, and veteran crews decrease the chance of an Engagement Delay.

Using a rangefinder will take longer. With all things being equal, better crews will shoot first. Under some conditions, a crew can Snap Shoot (Battlesight aiming) sooner but with an accuracy penalty (Risk-Reward Tactical Decision). A poor crew in an inferior vehicle can shoot first if they maneuver the right way or sufficiently suppress the defender.

There are some historical physical limitations that cannot be overcome. A gun with two-part ammo like 122mm+ will take 20-30 seconds to reload no matter how good the crew is. This could allow a poor crew with a 75mm gun to fire 2-3 times while the enemy is reloading. The Panther D had a turret traverse of 6 deg/second, the Sherman 25 degrees with the commander able to traverse the turret and fire without needing the gunner. In a meeting engagement guess who is going to get the first shot off normally.

Andy ONeill
Yes, The opposition is forced to react because their enemy has executed their orders before then (faster through their OODA Loop). If you are in the process of planning an attack and the enemy strikes first you react by cancelling your attack plans and go defensive. However, a good counterattack or committing reserves can seize back the initiative.

McLaddie
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.

Yes, initiative happens at many levels. Generally, large battles are a series of separate smaller engagements with the initiative switching back and forth locally which shapes the overall battle. A strategy of a planned fighting withdrawal gives the enemy the initiative until you send in your reserves at the right time ideally hitting him in the flanks with a surprise attack to seize the initiative. Alexander's use of his cavalry is a good example of the concentration of force at the Schwerpunkt. He fixed the middle with his infantry and fought a fighting withdrawal on his left flank that had just enough resources to fend off the Persian attack. It was a close battle until the Persians fled.

I mentioned the GMT rules as the momentum rules being an example of the OODA Loop where one side accomplishes more in the same amount of time than the enemy. The game design started around 1985 and was published in 1989 or 1990. On the last page, they state the updated references.
Since the original publication of the Great Battles of Alexander, a significant body of new work has been published on Alexander and his campaigns. A selection of those follows:

It has the same problem all IGYG and unit activation games have in that there is always a different rule, abstraction, variable, or die roll to suit a particular way to do something. That's why you see many players making their own revisions or creating their own games.

There have been many GMT follow-on games for other periods of History using basically the same system. It's one of the most popular Ancient and Middle Ages War board games which I've played and enjoyed even though in one game I got Alexander killed. But like any other game, it does not work for everyone and it has the IGYG limitations other games have and many miniatures players abhor board games.

Contact the president of GMT Gene Billingsley in Hanford, CA as I'm sure he'd be interested in your suggestions and he is always looking for new talent. Once or twice a year they have a weekend "convention" at their warehouse and many of the game designers and developers attend. You can buy as many games as you like at 30-40% off and choose a free game if it is the first time you've attended. They also have one back east (New England area?).

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.

Absolutely. It is really a timing issue that IGYG games have a hard time simulating.

Wolfhag

Yes there are plenty of ways to simulate FoW and friction… the issue I have is that they add complexity but still don't really create the effects of those things.
They end up causing the players problems and delays etc but I don't feel like I'm in the situation the person I'm representing would be.

Some of that is for me using the mechanics we have done since rules were first started. Some of that relates to the.sexknd point

And some is for me how informstion is presented to the Player.
For example ghost unit chits on the table… while I don't know if the chit is a real unit or not… I do know its a chit. Now I know that maps and umpires can address this problem to a degree. And I'm using it as an example becuae it's easy and doesn't require me to go down a rabbit hole of other ideas.

I'm getting off a train now so will come back to this later.
J

I mentioned the GMT rules as the momentum rules being an example of the OODA Loop where one side accomplishes more in the same amount of time than the enemy. The game design started around 1985 and was published in 1989 or 1990. On the last page, they state the updated references.

Wolfhag:
Thank you for pointing that out. I didn't go to the last page because I was so put off by the 2nd to the last page. Certainly looks better. I appreciated they had Romm and Sabin, though the other two are general histories. The designer/developer missed the point or ignored if for the sake of the older rules on 'line command.' That they have it is good, but they give far too much leeway to commanders in using it. It was the basic method for moving troops. Sabin gets this in his books and rules. For example, the Athenians and Thebans, if deployed in the same line, would not needed two commanders to move the line, and either commander would have been stupid to move out of the original line unless already broken. The idea that skirmishers and sub-commanders need orders all the time is also bizarre, and gives the player far more control that any ancient commander had. According to the ancient texts, when Parmenion sent a message to Alexander, he wasn't asking 'what should I do?', but requesting to control more troops… he needed reinforcements. I have a lot of respect for Mark Herman as a game designer. I just think the game could have been done better with far fewer rules. I could go on, but…

I see getting inside an enemy's OODA as having three arenas:
Circumstances, Training and system so the army operates more efficiently [i.e. quickly] and three, the Commanders who can take advantage of the first two. While these factors up the odds of one side getting 'inside' the OODA a great deal, it is never a sure thing… Particularly because of the enemy… However, I don't see it as a die roll regardless of the odds.

Each of those three factors were already injected into the units themselves and the command system in Alexander. Adding a Momentum rules steps outside of any 'realism' on the ground.

Just my thoughts.

the issue I have is that they add complexity but still don't really create the effects of those things. They end up causing the players problems and delays etc. but I don't feel like I'm in the situation the person I'm representing would be.

Gamesman6:

Okay, so back to the history/reality you say isn't being captured.
What are you thinking of when you say that. An example of the sources and/or events that you feel circumscribes your feeling.

I look at the table top and for Napoleonic wars, a four or five foot deep table is going to represent two to four miles deep depending on the scale of 50 t0 100 yards to the inch.

According to Scharnhorst and a raft of later military men, troops became 'visible' at about 2000 yards, or a mile + @400 yards. So hidden movement is going to be about 200 yards to a mile and a half from table edge in. Not much. And that doesn't count things like dust raised by marching troops in the approach and cavalry scouting. So, the size and composition of troops aren't known, but the general direction of an advance is. Obviously, winter would eliminate dust, such could add to the unknowns.

Point being, that if one considers what a commander can know and why, it makes rules addressing your concerns easier.

McLaddie,
I don't think there has ever been a game published that people thought needed improvement or got something wrong. If you get ahold of the designer notes it may explain some issues. I have not really looked at making any changes when I've played the game.

Regarding implementing timing/OODA Loop in Napoleon and ACW games:

I would see it using proportional simultaneous movement, timing for messengers to deliver orders with a small chance of them not arriving, rates of fire, and changing formations. There should be several historical risk-rewards decisions for the players.

Better trained troops are quicker and units under fire are slower. If a divisional leader embeds himself with a regiment, he quickens his loop by issuing orders for that regiment only and can't give orders to any other units. That's left to his subordinates and their initiative performance. There should be a chance for him to become a causality and rally the troops.

Regarding vehicle FOW for spotting and intel:

For a "fair" game I have the opposing sides start out of LOS for a meeting engagement with no units on the table. They get limited intel on the enemy's strength and unit across from them.

Each platoon formation is in a column and players place a marker on the table showing the head of the column and on a hand-drawn map showing the path he'll move. To make it interesting we might add 1-2 extra column markers that are fakes to keep the enemy guessing. The models are kept off the table for now.

The game starts with a simultaneous movement of all column markers at 15-20kph along their pre-plotted path. As soon as there is a confirmed LOS between the enemy column markers only the models with a mutual LOS are put on the table. This process normally takes no more than 5 minutes of playtime.

These may only be recon units that can attempt to radio to HQ the detection of enemy units. Unless a platoon gets the message it must maintain its pre-game plotted movement. Once it is aware of the enemy the player can freely alter its movement.

As units come into LOS they are put on the board and can deploy out of the column formation so you don't know how many units are in the formation. Both sides react the moment a new LOS is formed from movement to engage and shoot or move independently. This may cause some units to cancel their current order and issue a new one. Ideally, there is a 50-100m gap between vehicles in the column. If you get a LOS on a fake column marker it is removed.

This has worked pretty well for me and keeps the opponents guessing. Units like anti-tank guns and infantry can start the game concealed and only give away their position when they fire.

Regarding what you can see at distances this is from a US Army training manual:

Wolfhag

I don't think there has ever been a game published that people thought needed improvement or got something wrong. If you get ahold of the designer notes it may explain some issues. I have not really looked at making any changes when I've played the game.

Wolfhag: I don't either. And I am certainly triggered by such things, as I demonstrated. Are there designer's notes for Alexander? I found it kinda weird that all their 'historical' explanations, save two outliers, weren't referencing history at all.

Thanks for the LOS reference. There are a number from the Napoleonic Wars through the 19th Century. Here is the U.S. version from 1917:

link

Scharnhorst wrote a field book for officers and it is interesting to compare it to the US Army's today. Remember that troops moved in bunches back then, so they were more like tanks in size than individual soldiers at distance.

Scharnhorst in 1811: About 2500 paces with a telescope would be similar to 1500 to 2000 paces with the naked eye. [A pace was @ 30" for the Prussians after 1795]

"At the distance of 2000 paces nothing can be discerned of infantry, but the glittering of their arms; thus, if the colours, uniforms, files & c. are not distinguished, it may be considered to be at above distance, but without being able clearly to perceive whether they are men on horse back. The files of infantry cannot be distinguished at a greater distance than 1500 paces, and at the same distance, the horses of the cavalry cannot be distinctly seen, but it may be ascertained that the men are on horseback. At 1000 paces the head may now and then be distinguished from the body, but it cannot be perfectly seen beyond 00 paces. The faces of the men and the lace and facings of their uniforms may be seen clearly at 3 or 400 paces.

I would see it using proportional simultaneous movement, timing for messengers to deliver orders with a small chance of them not arriving, rates of fire, and changing formations. There should be several historical risk-rewards decisions for the players.

Yes, I agree.

Better trained troops are quicker and units under fire are slower. If a divisional leader embeds himself with a regiment, he quickens his loop by issuing orders for that regiment only and can't give orders to any other units. That's left to his subordinates and their initiative performance. There should be a chance for him to become a causality and rally the troops.

I question that inability to give orders to other units when 'embeded' with a single regiment. It would depend. Alexander was able to receive and give replies to orders from Parmanion when engaged with his Champions [according to the histories. I think it would be based on the commander's involvement with the regiment. Is he in the background ordering its commander to advance, or is he in front leading it? Both were done, but both wouldn't make in impossible to give or receive orders.

Like you, I always go back to the sources, even if they don't answer all the questions we have. It is always the place to start if we want to actually model them.

I also wonder at some of the ideas around troop movements, command control and distances in Napoleonic games. A table isn't going to be more than 4 or 5 scale miles from any one point on that table. A rider could cover that at a trot in half an hour. Most couriers won't travel that far from commander to sub-commander, both of whom would be in the center behind their battle line. Interesting issues.

McLaddie,
Contact Gene Billingsly at gmtgene@g----.com for designer notes. I'm sure he'll be glad to put you in touch with the right people.

I question that inability to give orders to other units when 'embeded' with a single regiment. It would depend. Alexander was able to receive and give replies to orders from Parmanion when engaged with his Champions [according to the histories. I think it would be based on the commander's involvement with the regiment. Is he in the background ordering its commander to advance, or is he in front leading it? Both were done, but both wouldn't make in impossible to give or receive orders.

Yes, like most other factors – it depends.

If the Bn Co is engaged in direct combat at the front it would be pretty hard. If the Bn Co is at the Company HQ he'd most likely be able to receive updates and issue orders over the radio and assist at the Company level. Most commanders go to lower levels to observe first hand making the necessary changes and try to stay out of direct combat.

Alexander was in the HTH fighting. However, he most likely did have some way to disengage or if a message gave him an update to issue new orders. I'm not aware of that low a level of combat in ancient warfare.

As a Machine Gun Company Commander (79th Division) in France in WWI my grandfather had a pair of binoculars with a mil scale to help estimate distances. They are mine now.

I also wonder at some of the ideas around troop movements, command control and distances in Napoleonic games. A table isn't going to be more than 4 or 5 scale miles from any one point on that table. A rider could cover that at a trot in half an hour. Most couriers won't travel that far from commander to sub-commander, both of whom would be in the center behind their battle line. Interesting issues.

Get some guys together out in the field and try it yourself. I think you could use Google Earth to go to a historical battlefield and look around 360 degrees.

Here is Waterloo: link

Wolfhag

Wolfhag:

I have 1. walked the various paces and did some 'what can be seen' at X distance with friends. 2. Done a lot of backpacking. I have a pretty good sense of distances and what can be seen, and 3. walked the Waterloo battlefield, and 4. gone over several period works like Scharnhorst's on what can be seen at X distances. For instance, there is a similar 'what is seen at different distances in the French Army's 1805 textbook for junior officers, The Science of War and Fortifications. They are all fairly uniform in their conclusions. And of course, the distances are over flat ground in the open which is not something modern soldiers would do by choice. I have perused the US Army's 1979 Target Detection and Range Estimation AD 753-600. Some fascinating statistics on how many men will see something at different distances.

Military men of the Napoleonic era were very dialed in on the length of a pace and measured everything by that measure. They were very practiced at it because of the spatial demands of the close formations they maneuvered and of course, the time/distance issues every military man is concerned with.

We all have impressions about history from our reading, but that is not the same thing as having the evidence in front of us to use as a template.

For instance, the basic, foundational method for moving troops, whether companies or divisions, according to Napoleonic military men, regulations etc. is seldom even acknowledged by either writing or rules. My 'impressions' from my reading wouldn't have led me to that basic method. I had to read with the military men said, British, French, Prussian and the rest.

Macladdie.Okay, so back to the history/reality you say isn't being captured.
What are you thinking of when you say that. An example of the sources and/or events that you feel circumscribes your feeling.

Point being, that if one considers what a commander can know and why, it makes rules addressing your concerns easier

Indeed I do. I think we can discuss the concepts but as the op if we are trying to validate our model then it's as much about how we express those concepts mechanically in the rules.

On that side of things we should consider is whether the "way we've done it" is the best way to achieve our goals.

So yes we need to consider what we are trying to achive..and we have to consider the mechanisms we use to achieve that.

Especially now when we have so many ways to play games around war.

For example I've never liked complex to hit charts and factoring different calibres or armour penetrative charts etc. And now with computer games I don't need to do that, I can play a game where the machine deals with that.
If I'm sitting at a table with my friends I want to examine different things, things optimised for that situation.

And then for me I look beyond "the way things have been"

As you say.. we need to decide what we think is important sonwe can figure out whether our approach is valid, just part of that is, as I said is the way we achieve it.

We could of course decide to play "traditional" games… they are now becoming as much a historical tradition as the examination of the events they represent.

Re spacial observation and the ability to undershand ground… is partly why for a long time hunting and other outdoor pursuits were part of a gentleman_officers accomplishments and entertainments.

Regards sending messages… there is the issue of does it get there, if it does how long it takes for a message to get there. Then how is the message interpreted.

I've seen a number of methods of representing this in rules but they all seemed like an extra drag in implementation.
As does the implementation of ways to see what happens when a message gets through.
While some seemed interaring in their delivery of an outcome, getting to that outcome as I said was more work and the pay off it gave wasn't worth the cost.
Now computer games can do this behind the scenes. And games like HQ in the saddle do a pretty solid job of getting the players to have a "realistic" experience.

For human moderated small scale games with just a few people we. Imo need to find a good way to produce the outcome with as little added work… and ideally, imo thag work should aid or add to immersion.

Similarly withhow orders are interpreted.
While we Can quantify numerically the the traverse speed of a tirret or the reload time of a weapon. We can't assign imo a bnumber value to a sub commanders personality.. and even if we try we are breaking immersion in doing so.

I've played with thjngs for sending messages and my latest ideas are around having ways to make the "game" about how you interact with you lr sub commbaders and how they do what they do…

Indeed I do. I think we can discuss the concepts but as the op if we are trying to validate our model then it's as much about how we express those concepts mechanically in the rules.

Gamesman6:

Okay! So, forgetting about the how's of the game system/mechanics for the moment, let's focus on the what's of what is going to be represented. What historical command conditions/processes do you want to represent? How are those described historically?

McLaddie, I'd suggest wargamers don't want to represent historical command processes. They have neither the knowledge nor the tactical acumen. They want to put their pretty figures on a table, move them vaguely towards each other and throw some dice and mostly they want to do this the same way they've been doing it for the last 40 years. If you are lucky enough to be playing with someone who doesn't fit this description you are very lucky; be nice to them.

Mark nailed it!

The evidence is the games that are most popular that have game rules and mechanics that are not found in military training or tactics manuals.

However, nothing is wrong with how someone wants to play a game or what they want to get out of it. Some people play war games for social interaction, discuss history, painting, unit histories, etc.

It's hard to find a battle where both sides were equally matched but that is an overriding feature of almost all games (there are exceptions) which in my opinion automatically makes the battle unhistorical as does tournaments and all units performing the same number of actions per turn. However, with all things being equal in a game you'll be able to determine who the best players are.

Many players revise rules to suit what they think the game should represent based on their experience, knowledge, and expectations or create their own from scratch. I don't see any single game that will please the majority of players.

When someone enlists in the military for the infantry after Boot Camp they'll spend 6-12 weeks in basic infantry training and come out as an E2, not a squad leader. It will take an additional 3-5 years of experience before being promoted to squad leader. The Marines put new 2LTs through 6 months of training to be Platoon Leaders and then they are told to listen to their Platoon Sergeant who may have 6-12 years of experience.

There is a small percentage that are natural leaders and catch on more quickly. Some are natural warriors and don't need much training. They are rare.

Expecting a civilian to know what to do, when, and how in a realistic wargame is unrealistic. That's why most games have rules, mechanics, and die rolls that tell players what they can do and when so there is little they have to think about. It's like the tail wagging the dog but it works and that's what is important to sell games and make money.

As I've said before, "reality sucks" because it is no fun losing half of your units to a concealed ambush in the first 10 minutes of a game, having the enemy attack you from behind because they infiltrated your lines last night, or getting hit by an accurate portrayal of British or US Time on Target artillery barrage where multiple batteries of various calibers will land dozens of accurate rounds in a few minutes.

Real FoW and hidden units are not fun neither are realistic rates of fire, and the portrayal of poor crews. Who plays games with poor crews while your opponent has veterans?

Humans are conditioned for immediate gratification. That's why simple miniatures rules and point-click-kill video games are so successful. Delayed gratification would be learning detailed game rules based on the manuals that can recreate accurately the tactics with data cards, multiple charts, QRCs, etc., and understanding the military training manuals. If it is a good set of rules that meet your expectations it can be a rewarding experience. If not it is a waste of time.

When I was in the Marines I visited some friends at an FSU frat house. One of them had a copy of Panzer Blitz which I played against him. He kicked my ass! However, if we went tactical out in the woods none of the Panzer Blitz tactics would be valuable to him.

Wolfhag

A couple of things…. as a designer of games I'm interested in designing a game that reflects what I'm interested in.
But I'm also interested in creating mechanisms that promote decisions etc that reflect the period and its issues without the players needing to be experts in it.
The way war was conducted in a given period is based on a multitude of factors in play at that time. If I can identify them and build.those in to how the game functions then the game will be played "historically"

And yes certain types of games are popular… MacDonalds are popular… and I don't eat Mickey Ds either. 😉

People should play what they want… I just don't want to play games that feel like most games in tbe last 40 plus years.
That's imo because people keep using the same foundational ideas. Numeric dice etc. And this also imo why its hard to do certain thjngs because so much of these conventional systems require the player to interpret their knowledge of tbe period into or out of the mechanics that adjudicate the game…

If I want to play a game that captures a period feel I need to think of new ways to do that. Otherwise I'm left seeing another dice game, dice rolling exercise, pretending it's about period x.

That's for me and those game with… the reason I stopped playing with people who aren't interested in what I'm interested in… I know people who eat.. Mickley Ds… I just don't go with them.. 😉

McLaddie, I'd suggest wargamers don't want to represent historical command processes. They have neither the knowledge nor the tactical acumen. They want to put their pretty figures on a table, move them vaguely towards each other and throw some dice and mostly they want to do this the same way they've been doing it for the last 40 years.

If you are lucky enough to be playing with someone who doesn't fit this description you are very lucky; be nice to them.

Mark: I'd like to suggest that while there are players like you describe,

1. Gamers enjoy different kinds of games, like me, and I do play those type of dice-throwing games at times and enjoy it.

2. If you paint with a broad-enough brush, you eliminate any discussion.

3. If gamers are fed week-old ground round for forty years, and only those who like such food stay in the hobby, it isn't surprising that they might not like prime rib when served it.

4. If it is true that gamers don't want historical command processes, that assumes they have
a. experienced such things,
b. recognized they have played 'historical command processes' to not want them,
c. a general lack of interest that somehow still generates a continual creation of new command processes we see in game designs, both miniatures and board wargames.

5. I don't think because there is *some* number of gamers who don't want historical command processes, that no one should be interesting in or spend the time on creating them.

And I would suggest that you nor I can speak of what 'all gamers' want in any round numbers, only what your experience has been, which certainly doesn't include all gamers.

Which is to say, I don't care what some supposed group of gamers want or think they want or believe they know about what is enjoyable or possible with game systems.

I am interested in creating playable, historical command processes with game mechanics and that is why I am here.

You seem intent on doing something else.

The evidence is the games that are most populaoner that have game rules and mechanics that are not found in military training or tactics manuals.

Wolfhag: You are right. No one plays Kriegspiel or Chain of Command, or UschCha's rules. Popularity doesn't circumcribe all games or gamers.

Which is more popular in the Radio-controlled airplane hobby:
The ready made RC plane with one control surface or the True Scale model with twenty controls on super detailed models?

Which of those two types of planes have the largest group of flyers? Does that mean that there is no reason or hobbyists who fly the True Scale models?? There seems to be this need to have one type of wargame be the be all and end all or *ugh* popularity it the only arbiter of quality and wants in a hobby. Because Barbie is a far more popular movie than Oppenheimer, they should stop bothering with the latter?

What is the driving concern about what is popular dictating what you do and play??? Obviously, the designer of a True Scale model kit has no reason to believe he will sell as many kits as the ready-made play. That doesn't stop him.

Maybe there should be a list for "how popular are such-and-such games rules, and how do we know?"

I think much of it comes down to what makes an interesting or engaging game for the players involved.

Here is a very simple, fast play, highly abstracted, historically accurate WW2 game: Roll a dice. On an odd result the Allies win, on an even result the Axis lose. This may be an accurate simulation model of the outcome, but as a game it lacks any meaningful engagement of the players. The only decision to be made is when to roll the dice to determine the outcome.

Looking back to the OP and the tank crossing the bridge, to me it is largely a scenario issue. How interesting and significant to the outcome is the possibility of the tank failing to successfully navigate the bridge? This will determine the granularity of the model. If it is neither interesting or significant a simple reduction in movement speed will likely suffice. If the success or failure of crossing is of importance then the game should model the probability of the various possible outcomes in greater detail. In a game with only a few gaming pieces on the table the details of each become significant. I want to know the skill of gunner A vs gunner B. If there are a hundred tanks on the table that one tank at that one crossing may not matter.

I did help playtest an English Civil War game that had a serious omission in the rules. Until I pointed it out to the designer there was no penalty for maneuvering pikemen through woodland. The designer was very familiar with period tactics and simply took it as understood that no one would be foolish enough to take pikes into the woods, but there was nothing in the rules to penalize a player who actually did so. A definite failure of the rules to reflect reality.

While its an interesting thread, it does beg the question, if you love the 40 year old game standard, why are you participation in a thread that almost certainly is not for you? What usefull contribution are you making to design of the diffrent if you don't want it?

Again there seems among some, that the only measure of succsess is selling rules in great quantity. Actually to me it is not a measure of quality but an indication the designer has pandered to the least common denominater and really is only interested in making money, that does not make it a quatity product in my mind. It errs on the GW side and they, to me, do not epitomise a top quality product.

PS to my utter amazement our rules have sold in the hundreds so ther are a few folk out there who don't want more of the samwe.

Dave Croswell does have a point and one we do wrestle with, do you assume that your players have any inckling on the tactics and limitations of the period being played. If you did then a comment about pikes in woods woiuld not be neccessary. In the end we tend to be a bit minimalistic but do put the rule in. Also we need to cater for the unexpected. If there is a short length of wood and pike could get trough, out the other side and re-form in time, its not for rules to nay say it.

To be honest Wolfhag has a point. We spent far too long unlearning the "wargames" tactics inbred for the previous 30 years. They are hard to shrug off even when you have just read the manual that indicates the authors of such rules had clearly ignored (being charitable) the real world. That why 15 years on we are still having to put a bit of polish on our rules, we are encountering situations that are plausible but impossible to re-create in the dreaded 40 year old style rules. Let enthusists of such ruels start ther own thred on how wounderful they are and leave the realists to there desigh issues, please.

It seems as if the most popular games are going to be the ones most heavily marketed. That takes business marketing knowledge and money which most game designers don't have. They normally don't have the skill and software to publish a real slick rulebook and playaids either. I don't.

McLaddie, I'd suggest wargamers don't want to represent historical command processes. They have neither the knowledge nor the tactical acumen. They want to put their pretty figures on a table, move them vaguely towards each other and throw some dice and mostly they want to do this the same way they've been doing it for the last 40 years. If you are lucky enough to be playing with someone who doesn't fit this description you are very lucky; be nice to them.

I agree. A historical command process means delayed gratification because orders are not immediately executed. It's hard to know the correct tactics and when to use them. Even if you do most game systems don't allow or include them.

For example: infantry units don't move as a mob. Teams and squads assume a formation (column, skirmishers, Vee, etc) that has advantages and disadvantages for situational awareness, speed, and delivering firepower. You can move quicker in a column but you have less security and minimal firepower to the front.

A skirmisher formation allows better situational awareness and firepower to the front but is extremely slow, especially in broken or close terrain.

Also, when writing the rules you need to assume the viewpoint of the player and you cannot assume anything, like maneuvering pikes in a forest. Your playtesters need to play a game to "break" the rules and not necessarily follow them.

I didn't write any rules for tanks colliding with each other because I thought no one would do that but I was wrong.

It seems the most popular games are going to continue to be the flashiest ones with an ease of entry for immediate gratification. That means using modified game mechanics, rules and die roll and not risking putting out anything new that may not sell.

It's been stated by a number of players on TMP that games should not have more than two pages of rules. Explaining real tactics would take at least that.

Wolfhag

There are gamers who just want to put their toys on the table, roll some dice, and have a lark with their mates.
There are gamers who are interested in a simulation of a conflict including period tactics, etc.
These two styles are often best served by different rules sets.

For Ancients players one can look at Warmaster Ancients compared to Lost Battles. The former is very much on the game end. Lots of dice, armies separated by centuries facing off. The latter is a careful simulation with an entire book of design notes describing how and why the simulation functions as it does. I have enjoyed playing both, but they are very different experiences. Pizza vs fine dining.

When I play historicals I want the game to give me insight into what battle in the period was like. I remember spending some time with a set of AWI rules that devoted space to explaining how tactical evolution of formations was carried out and required the gamer to maneuver through that process, not simply declaring that troops deployed from march to line and placing the models as they wished. I had to think like an 18th Century commander. The friction between what I wanted to do and what I could actually do was quite enjoyable. I might have had a helicopter view of the battlefield, but I couldn't reach down with the hand of God and simply put my troops where I wanted them.

This does raise a curious thing about Ancients gaming. The popularity of tournaments that are sheer fantasy. Sparta vs Burgundy. Vikings vs Samurai. I don't hear of Napoleonic players squaring off Austrians vs Peninsular British. I have yet to encounter a game of Confederates vs Mahdists. For me such pairings break my immersion. At that point it doesn't matter how well written the rules are, I might as well be playing Orcs and Elves.

It seems as if the most popular games are going to be the ones most heavily marketed. That takes business marketing knowledge and money which most game designers don't have. They normally don't have the skill and software to publish a real slick rule book and play aids either.

I find this quote very "American" and rather, I don't know politely defeatist. Our rules were never aimed nor would we aim them at the "mass" least common denominator players, it is expressly not for them. We have a saying in the UK Style over substance, and it's not a complement. Many "commercial rules" are just that, that is not a market we are interested in nor are we interested in appealing too them. It's sign the buyers set they are not really into the game proper. Real simulations like CFD manuals have no gratuitous pictures, they assume there clientele is there for the content, not to put the manual on a coffee table to be admired by the unknowing.

We do seem to collect a few like mined folk who want more and don't see over hyped production "values" as any sort of gain, in that add nothing to the actual simulation. You are unlikely to find such folk playing at a convention as our games are not that. For fun we can cut down our game mechanics too in part mimic a "mass game" out of politeness to the organizers, but they can never be the real game, the real game like any other sport is really only for the committed. Similarly this thread is aimed at the committed and it its objective expressly do not include an attempt at the mass market who want just basic re-hashes of 40 ear old games.

"no penalty for maneuvering pikemen through woodland".

Been there, done that, not a problem. Fighting in woodland different subject, but just moving troops through, trail your pipe and march on.

McLaddie, I'd suggest wargamers don't want to represent historical command processes. They have neither the knowledge nor the tactical acumen.

This assumes sooo much:

1. That the wargamers have played historically viable command processes.

2. That the players know they have played historically viable command processes and THEN decided they don't like them--ALL such game efforts.

3. That all historically viable command processes are represented the same way in all such games with the same mechanics which are then disliked.

4. That such historical command processes have been done uniformly well in games as opposed to generally being crap.

5. That the players can't learn what they need to know by playing the game, both the necessary knowledge and tactics--which would be very strange if they couldn't in playing the game… a representation of the battlefield environment the contemporaries learned their tactics and acumen in.

That is what all wargamers have to do with a new game--learn the rules and game dynamics by playing it. It is a learning process. It often is trial and error in discovering what works. [i.e. tactics and acumen]

That doesn't seem to be on folks radar here as a basic game-learning process. Nope, they have to have the knowledge and acumen before attempting to learn the rules of a new game. With that approach, no wonder wargamers wouldn't be interested in purported 'historical command processes.

When I play historicals I want the game to give me insight into what battle in the period was like. I remember spending some time with a set of AWI rules that devoted space to explaining how tactical evolution of formations was carried out and required the gamer to maneuver through that process, not simply declaring that troops deployed from march to line and placing the models as they wished. I had to think like an 18th Century commander. The friction between what I wanted to do and what I could actually do was quite enjoyable. I might have had a helicopter view of the battlefield, but I couldn't reach down with the hand of God and simply put my troops where I wanted them.

David:

I have had similar, enjoyable experiences. Is it your assumption that this isn't the experience that *most* wargamers want or not a basic reason gamers play historical wargames as opposed to "playing Orcs and Elves?"

I have highlighted the points I think made your experience an enjoyable one:

1. The designer provided the history and how the game modeled that. In other words, you had a clear set of expectations for what you would experience.

2. Because you had that information, the rules 'made sense' in what they were modeling. You were able to recognize what history you were recreating.

3. You only knew that you "I had to think like an 18th Century commander" because you had a previous idea of what they thought--not generally because of something you might have read, but specific to this particular game experience.

4. Because you knew what history was being portrayed in the game, you were able to make game-appropriate connections to other history you might have read elsewhere.

This is what wargamer designers generally don't do:

Provide the gamer with the specific history the game system is supposed to model, what specific historically-related experiences the game is designed to provide the player.

Instead, there are general histories, explanations of rules dynamics without any reference to actual history [Such as GMT's Alexander as mentioned by Wolfhag] and what history the designer found interesting--along with claims of historical accuracy etc. of course.

UshCha had a TMP thread on Designer's Notes. The need to give the players specific history paired with specific rules or systems simply isn't discussed. Yet, that is the basic information players need to support the kind of experience
you describe, David.

@Mark J Wilson, I should perhaps have said "operating" rather than just maneuvering. At one point formed pike treated dense woods thame as open ground.

I am forgiving of this as I too have forgotten to include in rules and scenario notes things that seem absolutely self-evident to me.

I certainly have played my share of slick, glossy, well marketed rules. Some have enjoyable games. Some I only knew were historical because the pictures were of historical units. Such games can be fun but don't feel like history to me.

I have played the old typed text, no illustration style rules too. Some of these give games with little flavor or feeling of period. Others are clearly written by people who had done some research and thought about what was important to replicate on the tabletop.

For me the first question of game design should always be "what do I want the rules to do?"

I would be interested in trying rules that follow historical command and control. Provided someone is willing to give an overview before the game so I have an idea of what I am supposed to be doing. Am I at the command level of giving an order to "take hill 281" or am I at the level of directing the grunts making the actual assault? Or somewhere in between.

Again whatever we model needs to contribute to meaningfully to the "game".
They should also also reflect factors that were important to the "role" we are representing in the game.

They should IMO be part of a more imersive experience and should be as simple to implement as possible.

Part of the issue we all have is we are representing multiple levels.

Ive found the 1 up 2 down of 3C to help me. So when say designing and playing a game where the player commands a company then the player controls the platoons and squads in the mechanics. The resolution in the system is down to the "squad" size.

It's been stated by a number of players on TMP that games should not have more than two pages of rules. Explaining real tactics would take at least that.

And what popular set of rules has met that criteria? I can't think of any.

And describing the link between history and the rules would also take more than two pages in most cases, depending on the complexity of the rules. Explaining the tactics would be additional pages, but really necessary if the specific relationship between rules and actual history were identified?

Rules… the engine that facilitates the operation of the "game" can fit on two pages…
History and tactics etc etc can fill volumes.

We can right the rules of chess or poker onto 2 pages… countless books have been written on how to play those games.

However one can play the games without reading those books. The game enforces how the game is played… and players learn "on the job"

A game should IMO have "rules/mechanics" that promote "period actions" with little or no knowledge of those attitudes and approaches on those that play, they should also "learn on the job"

Though a few pages of periods tactica should be a part of an game package.

For me a game that will play with a front and back reference sheet, two at most, hits the sweet spot for rules.

The rulebook is there for reference and can be as big as you like. I will crack it open during a game when something absolutely needs to be looked up. An edge case rule, a specific rare troop type, that sort of thing. But the most used and needed stuff should fit on the reference sheet.

This does rely a bit on players knowing the game and the subject.

Gamesman6

A game should IMO have "rules/mechanics" that promote "period actions" with little or no knowledge of those attitudes and approaches on those that play, they should also "learn on the job"

Where does this come from? Real troops have vast manuals to explain tactics and the like. They then go outside and "wargame" that learning in the field. A miniature war game can only be a Outside in the field simulation. If you try and make it a manual then it would be vast and utterly unplayable. If the rules are telling you how to play then you have massively over constrained the solution, a disaster in any design situation. You can constrain/limit the behavior of a system so it reflects reality but it is no help in learning quickly how to achiever a useful solution.

Dave Cromwell has it correct a QR sheet is in the main all that is required once you have an understanding of the period and the rules. It can never be a credible set of rules on its own.

A stress analysis will show you what a part you designed will do, but by definition it will not tell you how you should have designed it. Over hundreds of games you may learn but is not an optimum solution, not even for me who plays every week. You have to read the manuals to get an understanding of how the "pieces" fit together.

"Am I at the command level of giving an order to "take hill 281" or am I at the level of directing the grunts making the actual assault? Or somewhere in between".

Dave – based on your terminology, you are paying modern warfare. You should therefore be planning 2 levels down and commanding one level down. Which leads me to an interesting thought. I've seen and written command rules, where an officer issues an order to his subordinate, but I don't think I've ever come across the planning phase. In flintlock warfare it probably doesn't matter an army has a set way of operating, but in more modern periods you have the option at the planning stage of detailing your selected tactical option. Whether under the pressure of combat your subordinate remembers is another question.

Mark J Wilson In the reaL World you would only plan 2 levels down, but that is because you have a real mind doing the donkey work below that and its impact on the higher levels will be relatively minimal. However in a game you do not have a real mind and If you assume a die can replace a human being then to be honest you have real problems extending well beyond war games. Hence you the player has to p[lay to the bottom level of the game unless you have built in AI. However in a decent set or rules the restrictions in the operating system should ensure that the lowest level cannot influence the upper levels in any significant level so there is no issue in doing so.

Again the restrictions in the command structure have significant influences. One radio per platoon crimps a units flexibility compared to a platoon where all members have a radio. The dispersion in the latter case can be higher and the ability to react if diapered by adverse events is much enhanced. Again getting lost in reality is for most Western folk a thing of the past as GPS coverage is now pretty much universal, even Russian Ace pilots use it! Battery life is now long and recharging not the issue it once was.

A game should IMO have "rules/mechanics" that promote "period actions" with little or no knowledge of those attitudes and approaches on those that play, they should also "learn on the job."

Gamesman6:
I agree. If the game environment evokes the same challenges and opportunities as the real world/history, then that would be expected. However, unlike Chess or Poker, wargames are representative of real world dynamics. To experience THAT relationship as you'd described earlier, one must know know what to look for in play. Otherwise, it is just learning a game--the mantra of too many wargamers: "It's just a game" even though the designers were creating them to do more.

Where does this come from? Real troops have vast manuals to explain tactics and the like. They then go outside and "wargame" that learning in the field. A miniature war game can only be a Outside in the field simulation.

UshCha:

And where do those manuals come from? Manual are simply recording the lessons from experience. Mastering the tactics in a wargame doesn't have to be all "Outside in the field." A wargame can have a manual if desired, to reduce the learning time, which is one of the reasons for manuals.

I find this quote very "American" and rather, I don't know politely defeatist. Our rules were never aimed nor would we aim them at the "mass" least common denominator players, it is expressly not for them.

So be it. You have a niche product, nothing wrong with that.

Yes, very American because America is about making a profit because the Federal Government does not subsidize wargames, probably because we do not have a lobbying firm in DC or have enough $$. You have to be an insider to get the attention of the DoD and military.

Did you pay yourself for every hour you and others worked on your game? Did you pay taxes and benefits for your employees? Did you have to borrow capital to invest in the company? What are your monthly facilities and operating expenses? How much did you spend on marketing and graphics design? Do you have a network of distributors? Of course not, you don't have to.

Any freshman business major could tell you that your game is a commercial failure but the most popular ones you dislike are doing well. The major publishers put out what people want and will pay for, so be it. That's just the way the market is, accept it.

The majority of players today are not interested in games like yours or mine or other excellent games like Tractics or Panzer War (free). That's just the way it is. I don't see it changing anytime soon.

I see it as the age of instant gratification, rolling lots of dice, blowing up lots of stuff, and using familiar game mechanics so you don't confuse people. Very little historical knowledge is needed which makes it easy for new players. Lots of eye candy for miniature painters.

The fact that there is very little historical representation of commands, decisions, and tactics evidently does not matter. I don't buy their games but I'm very glad they are successful and people play them.

Rather than criticizing them submit your design to multiple companies and see if any are interested. Maybe you'll be surprised. Really.

Wolfhag

Any freshman business major could tell you that your game is a commercial failure but the most popular ones you dislike are doing well. The major publishers put out what people want and will pay for, so be it. That's just the way the market is, accept it.

Wolfhag: You're being a bit cynical, aren't you? Any freshman business major could also tell you that 'putting out what people want' is only half the business game. Giving people new things to want has also been successful, and generally far more profitable than pumping out 'the same-old, same-old.

If that wasn't true, there would never be anything new until a lot of people 'wanted it', though it didn't exist. You know, being new and all.

Wolfhag For you rather a pathetic comment, A hobbby is what you enjoy, a successful hobby is not neccessarily a big money spinner. If that were the only value we would all be Football fans and I have no love whatsoever of the game. Similarly youi should all be playing DFominos as its more popular than say my wargame.

To me this threas is not about what sells, who cares if it's for the few, not the many.

Again this thread is NOT ABOUT MONEY. I can do things that make money elsewherein a diffrent field. UK definition of a Hobby, A job you would not do if they Paid you. We have guys in historic railway organisations who drive steam trains, for a job they earn hugely more than a train driver, but they doiit for fun. Please take it as read, comments notes about commecialk succsess in my wargames threads are irrelevant to them.

"However in a game you do not have a real mind and If you assume a die can replace a human being then to be honest you have real problems extending well beyond war games".

LMAO, but you are assuming that you can replace your subordinate and not be cheating because a) this gives you knowledge your wouldn't have b) this ensures your subordinate never i) deliberately screws you around ii) is not so gratuitously thick that they are incapable of getting even the simplest decision right.

"One radio per platoon crimps a units flexibility compared to a platoon where all members have a radio. The dispersion in the latter case can be higher and the ability to react if diapered by adverse events is much enhanced".

This makes the assumption that more dispersed individuals will continue to respond to commands in the way they would if they were within close proximity of the command giver. Anyone who's been in any form of management knows if you really want obedience you need to be there. I used to be an American Football official, which is a great place to watch command dynamics in a medium stress environment. Given the foo-bah's I've seen I'm a bit cynical about what might go on in a higher stressed environment.

Mark J Wilson – While some of your latest arguments have some weight they do not fully cover the subject.

In our own rules a unit remote from its command and linked by only radio or thelephone will have a slower reponce than those in the immediate area of the commander.

The quality of the troops communicating by radio ect. is also a key parameter, so getting conscrips to understand what is wanted is far slower than if the other end is top quality marines. So even at low levl where you assume its all perfect under our rules it is no.

There is another issue. I recently played a game againt an ex serving soldier. His ability to review the terrain and deploy is far better than mine so, had I had him as a subordinate to undertake a task, he would do it better than me. However if I am the subordinate in a game the deployment is limited by may abilities, which are patently less than perfect, so me acting as my own subordinate as at least some handicap over what you would expect from a professional.

In your football analogy you imply (but to be fair not state) that a team organisation is so random it does not have any traits of logic, so throwing a die would be good. I am sure you would in hindsight that is not the case. So the issue is how to make a system not be perfect but infinitely better than random.

In the above its clear our own system does not allow perfection in either ability or effective communication.

As for intelegence, it could be reasonable given a time delay, and no specific actions by subordinate to rush through the data will become available. However the data may be rushed through (prioratised) but not without other conseqences, you can't use the link for that and another use at the same time, limiting command elsewhere), and so it is with our rules. In addition we do hide static troops and those most obviously hidden having moved out of sight, so it is rare for all elements to be on table even in a two player game and hence some level of imperfect data is possible even in a mainatures game of our standard.

As an aside it is also noteworthy that less able players can struggle with too much hidden data, making them unable to make desicions within there available limited timeframe.

However in a game you do not have a real mind and If you assume a die can replace a human being then to be honest you have real problems extending well beyond war games. Hence you the player has to play to the bottom level of the game unless you have built in AI.

However in a decent set or rules the restrictions in the operating system should ensure that the lowest level cannot influence the upper levels in any significant level so there is no issue in doing so.

Again the restrictions in the command structure have significant influences.

UshCha:

In simulating a command structure, as you say, those sets of restrictions, or circumscribed responsibilities do have significant behavioral influence. Following training and orders.

Then there are group behaviors, which are far more predicable than individual decisions.

There is also past behaviors predicting current behaviors. Marketing depends on that fact. This is true for groups and individuals.

There is also the typical military reactions to various combat situations, particularly if you have a decent [long] history of a particular war like the twenty years of the Napoleonic Wars.

And then there are the social expectations within an army that can have little to do with the actual command structure and organization. For instance, the political machinations of the Austrian Army officers during the Napoleonic Wars.

All of those established probabilities can go a long way to approximating an AI with the right rules and of course, the chance occurrences created by die rolls.

The likelihood of an armored fighting vehicle (AFV) falling off a narrow bridge depends on various factors:

Bridge Width and Condition: Narrow bridges present a higher risk as there's less room for maneuvering. If the bridge isn't designed to support the weight or width of the AFV, it increases the risk of accidents.

Weight and Size of the AFV: Heavier AFVs might put more stress on the bridge structure, especially if it exceeds the weight limit the bridge was built to handle.

Driver Skill and Training: The competence of the driver plays a significant role. Skilled drivers are more likely to navigate tricky situations successfully.

Environmental Conditions: Weather conditions, visibility, road surface, and other environmental factors (such as wind or ice) can increase the risk of accidents.

Speed and Maneuverability: Higher speeds or abrupt maneuvers on narrow bridges can increase the chances of losing control and potentially falling off.

Maintenance and Structural Integrity: The bridge's maintenance and structural integrity are crucial. Poorly maintained bridges might have weaker railings or structural issues that increase the risk of accidents.

Safety Precautions: Safety measures such as guardrails, warning signs, or traffic control can reduce the likelihood of accidents.

AFVs are designed for challenging terrains, including bridges, but their size and weight make them more susceptible to accidents in certain conditions. Mitigating risks involves careful planning, appropriate vehicle selection, proper driver training, and adherence to safety protocols.

The chances of an AFV falling off a narrow bridge can vary significantly based on these factors and would require a specific assessment of the circumstances to determine the precise risk in any given situation.

You're welcome.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag For you rather a pathetic comment, A hobby is what you enjoy, a successful hobby is not necessarily a big money spinner. If that were the only value we would all be Football fans and I have no love whatsoever of the game. Similarly youi should all be playing Dominos as its more popular than say my wargame.

Money drives the hobby. There is no such thing as "free" and time is money. The big players in the hobby are the big companies that spend millions and have dozens if not hundreds of employees. Yes, there are online games you can play without paying up front but some cost millions of dollars to bring to the market. If no one paid for extra features the company would rapidly go out of business. Yes, there are links to dozens of free games of which I don't know of anyone who plays them, with very few exceptions, they contribute almost nothing to the hobby. Miniatures and paint cost money too. Free does not drive the hobby.

If you develop a product and then market/advertise it and charge money for people to purchase it then that is normally considered a business, even if you lose money you can get a tax write-off. If you derive an income the tax man will be after you. Anyone enjoying the hobby has most likely spent money. Exceptions don't make the rule.

The link below is to what appears to be an interesting wargame that costs $15. USD Can you tell me why the two guys who are responsible for the game are charging money and not giving it away for free? They do have a few free items but you can't play the game without purchasing it.

link

You're welcome.

Wolfhag

lets get this straight, yes we charge a token fee for our work. If we charged at our professional rate it would mean trying to recoup something like £100,000.00 GBP we have made a few thousandths of that at best, so we are not attempting or even considering getting our money back.

To be honest from my own little part of the hobby it's disappointing in some ways we are still making money 15 years on. Disappointing in that, again, from my personal perspective, rules have dumbed down, now all pretty pictures and no substance.

So why did we charge (by the way the price so far has been fixed for the last 15 years!)? We we thought about Free war games rules. However the number of copies that went would not be any indication as far as we were concerned, of any real desire to play them. In addition from even my limited business education, massively undervalued products may not sell as folk think them too cheap to be any good. Hence in those far off days before even Wargames vault we set our price at £10.00 GBP (of which we received about 50% so not much). This was aimed at making sure folk bought it because of what it was, not just because its free.

We have given away stuff to schools etc. as anything to encourage children especially now, to leave there computer screens is good. I admit it is not unsurprising that the stuff the education folk want is the PDF's of the buildings, we are still open to such approaches by the way, provided they are on Headed School note paper to discourage scammers.

Yes, there are links to dozens of free games of which I don't know of anyone who plays them, with very few exceptions, they contribute almost nothing to the hobby. Miniatures and paint cost money too. Free does not drive the hobby.

You just move in the wrong circles I know folk who use free wargames rules so that are driving the hobby.

I personally would not say the likes of GW are driving the hobby, personally I consider they are exploiting the Hobby at the expense of the hobby.

Free and low cost is driving the hobby, the rise of 3D prints and PDF rules mean the hobby is most definitely not driven by big companies. the greats like Phil Barker did not need over hyped color pictures, and in my youth we played with painted screws and still enjoyed the hobby. What has big business given us, over detailed high price figures. I for one am moving off them to stuff that can be printed for a few pence and look just the same at 4ft.

So let us look at the technical merits of a simulation not it's projected sales in a mass market it is not designed for as so is irrelevant.

Ushcha
Where does this come from? Real troops have vast manuals to explain tactics and the like.

- now… not through much of history. And we aren't real troops.

They then go outside and "wargame" that learning in the field.

- to gain experience… so learning the rules of war… a player Learns by playing..

A miniature war game can only be a Outside in the field simulation. If you try and make it a manual then it would be vast and utterly unplayable.

-which is why I didn't say anything about makknb a manual.

If the rules are telling you how to play then you have massively over constrained the solution, a disaster in any design situation.

- no… it sets tbe circumstances.. you play any game based on its rules and set up. Chess is chess and not poker. There are different ways to play each but they are still " telling you how to play". The engagement is to find the ways tonexploit that frame work. Thats why these games are popular and naughts and crosses, less so. Similarly did the circumstances of any period we are gaming. The goal of " real troops " was to work with human biology/psychology, and available technologh to be effective and "better" Than the opponent. The issues for me is that certain approaches and mechanisms don't lend them selves to certain periods or rather are even less suitable

You can constrain/limit the behavior of a system so it reflects reality but it is no help in learning quickly how to achiever a useful solution.

- simple rules ≠ simple play.

My goal is to create rules that reflect reality, aide immersion and are simple as possible.
Too many rules seem to attempt to reflect reality by zooming in on detail which again for me… increases complication and slows thkngs down a d ends up with system that break immersion.

If the rules are telling you how to play then you have massively over constrained the solution, a disaster in any design situation.

Gamesman6:
I agree, though on the other hand, rules do just that: tell players how to play.

My goal is to create rules that reflect reality, aide immersion and are simple as possible.

That is what this thread is about. What reality is being targeted and how do you know you have succeeded [validated] in reflecting reality with a game system?

Too many rules seem to attempt to reflect reality by zooming in on detail which again for me… increases complication and slows things down a d ends up with system that break immersion.

That is the bane of any simulation: Too much information/detail. Unfortunately, because so little information is provided by the designer on what reality the game targets, players [and designers] see more detail as more realism/information. Of course, it isn't in many cases, and causes what you point out. The game creates all the thrill and immersion of an IRS audit.

So, how do designers instill 'reality' in their wargames and validate their success? How do game designers create immersion?

Wolfhag:

You keep hammering this point, that designers in the business of giving the gamers what they want.

Your point is? That doing anything else than what is *perceived* as what the players want is pointless in game design?

Or is it asking questions about how to do something in game design is pointless because it's already been done and provided the players--what they want?

Or only big game companies can provide what the players want?

Or?

What exactly are you wanting to counter as a talking point?

increases complication and slows thkngs down a d ends up with system that break immersion.

However too little detail is disastrous, you never get to immersion or even close to it, such systems show the designer up as a charlatan for claiming it is representative when it is not. For me the ultimate turn off is rules that don't even stand up to minimal scrutiny, never mind proper analysis.

Now there are players that like oversimplification for that and often have minimal knowledge of the period so are easily persuaded by a set of hopeless rules.

There are rules, in my period that make the implementation of real tactics impossible, the most laughable is having machine guns the same effective range as rifles. This was never the case and stopped the weapons being correctly employed. Even relatively short range tactics of a machine gun relay on it shooting 600m whereas many rifle armed troops are not really effective at more than 300m.
If you "oversimplify" the errors become so large it is anti-historic.

We recognized that having written something that at least attempted to approximate reality we had a huge personal task of unlearning ingrained bad tactics brought on by bad rules. It was a shock and a massive disappointment that rules writers had deliberately made anti-historic rules as far as I could and still do, for no reason, other than a shamefaced we always do it that way, who are we to disturb the unreality, despite then being supposedly representing an actual period in time.

No you can play whatever fantasy game you like with whatever rules you like, provided you don't say they are historic when they are not.

McLaddie – you are right, the designers like me are designing what they want. Its proably the only way we can get a good enough definition of the system. Designing for other folk does not work at least for me. I could never design a Rapid Fire type game as I have no affinity for that sort of game, so any attempt would be bound to fail and why would I I holds no attraction to me personally and the money is not the objective.
Our own game was eventually made available to the public to help those like ourseleves ho didliked the other sets of rules with diffrent aspirations to ours.

Ps its proably up there with Battletch as being supported by the designers for a decade and a half already, not dumped after a couple of years or so.

Macladdie
However, unlike Chess or Poker, wargames are representative of real world dynamics.

- My point with poker or chess or many of the most widespread games is they have quite simple rules but have huge complexity.

To experience THAT relationship as you'd described earlier, one must know know what to look for in play.

- the designer… yes.. the player? The game if well designed, will create it fkr noobs and show it for those with more knowledge.

Otherwise, it is just learning a game--the mantra of too many wargamers: "It's just a game" even though the designers were creating them to do more.

- yes but that's the choice of the player. That's out if my hands as a designer. I design the rules I'd like to play, play with people I'd like to play with and if I offer them to the "public" then those who like it, like it.

To experience THAT relationship as you'd described earlier, one must know know what to look for in play.

- the designer… yes.. the player? The game if well designed, will create it fkr noobs and show it for those with more knowledge.

Gamesman6:
That wasn't your experience you related. That simply isn't true.

*There is a +1 modifier on the maneuver table in F&F for being in 'command radius': What does that represent?

*Is the generic artillery in F&F a game simplification or a representation of 'accurate history' as the designer claims?

*The 1-2 die roll hesitation failure in Pickett's Charge represents what?

*The dice roll division of player options in Chain of Command. Are those just game mechanics, or do they actually represent something specific in WWII combat.

There are many ways I *could* interpret what those mechanics represent, but only one of them would be right… that is, the historical relationships the designer intended. And my interpretation possibilities grow the more I know about the ACW and WWII. Gamers aren't designer mind readers.

My point with poker or chess or many of the most widespread games is they have quite simple rules but have huge complexity.

Yes, and in both cases, the rules are simple, but the player adaptions/decisions are left wide open rules-wise. That is what makes the game complex: the people interactions. I just played Secret Hitler. The rules were simple. What made the game interesting were the player dynamics, on the same level as Diplomacy. And so? Exactly what does that have to do with miniature wargame rules? I can think of many things. What are you thinking of?

Otherwise, it is just learning a game--the mantra of too many wargamers: "It's just a game" even though the designers were creating them to do more.

- yes but that's the choice of the player. That's out if my hands as a designer. I design the rules I'd like to play, play with people I'd like to play with and if I offer them to the "public" then those who like it, like it.

Nope, it is only a choice IF the player is given the option of knowing what the designer's intent was, the specific historical content. Otherwise, when the designer fails to provide the pertinent information, the "It's only a game" choice is a foregone conclusion.

Imagine you hadn't had that kind of historical information provided in the AM Revolution rules you cited earlier. Would you have had the same experience? When gamers in a club design their own games, they are intimately aware what the rules are supposed to represent, unlike almost all commercial games.

The pertinent historical information provided or withheld is critical to a player's experience of both the simulation and their recognition of the historical content they are paying/playing for. Game designers are "experience engineers." The experience the players have is what designers attempt to direct.