"Validating your model" Topic

Mac laddie
That is what this thread is about.
- at least it was.. we've been around the houses 😉

What reality is being targeted and how do you know you have succeeded [validated] in reflecting reality with a game system?

- that is or those are the questions.
I've always liked the idea of Buck Surdu. Of fidelity and resolution. The resolution should be appropriate to the levels we are focusing on in game. I like to use tbe 1 up 2 down model. My resolution is for the highest level in game and two levels down. Fidelity is the "truth" of the result. Somebody earlier mentioned rolling 2 dice to determine the winner of wwii. That's low fidelity. It wasn't a 2 player zero contest

The validating the model would then already be part of the design process and would be further validated in play by producing results in alignment with accounts.

McLaddie

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

- That could be considered you calling me a liar. 😉
How can you "validate" it wasn't my experience or its simply not true?

*
*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.

- I don't play F*F so the examples don't mean anything to me other than What they seem by your description. What they represent to me is thjngs thag when I see them make me switch off

A +1 needs to be interpreted… by the players… what does +1 mean what does command radius mean to us, to the game?. before we can grasp what the designer may have meant.
This is why I don't like or do numeric dice systems are it bt default demands abstracted interpretation

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.

- was that a claim?
But that seems to suggest the more you as the player know about ACW the more chances you have you be out-of alignment with the designer… which is of course what many of us experience

Yes, and in both cases, the rules are simple, but the player adaptions/decisions are left wide open rules-wise.

- exactly. But the decisions that work are not infinite. The game and its rules create an evolution, natural selection of what temds to work.

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?

- I don't know exactly… I've not played that game.. but it sounds intersting. Certainly the player dynamics are certainly key in my enjoyment in any game. My focus had been away from conventional WG mechanics and designs

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.

- in your option. Some people are rules lawyers etc… what people do out side of my control.. is outside my control

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.

- there's a lot of assumptions we are making here. I'm designing rules to make games that better reflect what I want both in content and application.
Even a newbie is likely to inherently understand certain things of conflict battle.

As a designer I need to decide what I think is pertinent to the rules… what I think is pertinent for players…. of whatever level.

That is more critical for games to be consumed broadly and away from the designer.

But again for me the issue is conventional rules build from a format that need ls levels of interpretive process from what the player wants to do, to function in the rules… interpreting the functions of that system… then reinterpreting back in to the table top.
And all of these end up being distinct and separate sections needing different. Thought processes.

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

- That could be considered you calling me a liar. 😉

How can you "validate" it wasn't my experience or its simply not true?

Well, first I owe you an apology. I was thinking of Dave Crowell's comments and thinking it was yours—when I said "That wasn't your experience you related." It was Dave's experience:

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.

When I said it wasn't true, I was referring to this comment:

To experience THAT relationship as you'd [actually Dave] described earlier, one must 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.

I wasn't saying that was a lie, just not true for players in general. I can give you lots of examples.

Any wargame, well-designed or not, is an abstract interpretation of the real world. Lots of information in the real world, lots of books and sources. Which is used in the game isn't necessarily clear, regardless of how knowledgeable one is.

So, what isn't true is that a wargamer, regardless of how knowledgeable they are about the period, isn't a guarantee at all that they will know what they are seeing and doing in play related to the represented reality. They can only guess unless the designer tells them what is going on/supposed to be experienced. As did the designer in Dave's example.

I gave game mechanics as examples of that ‘not knowing' the purpose or reality behind the rules. I can give a whole lot more.

*There is a +1 modifier on the maneuver table in F&F for being in 'command radius': What does that represent?
This is a classic. The players assumed that it represented the basic command system and questioned why no negative modifier when ‘out of command range.' A number of gamers changed the rules because of that misunderstanding. The mechanic was supposed to represent what the commanders could do outside the basic command structure.

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

Whether this representation of artillery is ‘historically accurate' or just a game simplification has never been addressed by the designer, but he did change it in the second addition.

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

In this is supposed to represent the friction of war. The designer used the 1/3 chance because it worked well in the game. Whether brigades in reality ‘hesitated' [whatever that term covers] 1/3 of the time in a scale hour of a game was not addressed. It just worked in the game. So, does it represent anything ‘real?' I wouldn't know the reason for the 1/3 chance except the designer told me why he included it. It worked as a game mechanic having little or not relationship to actual history.

*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.

Considering that the time scale is in seconds, it is hard to know exactly what the dice divisions of command roles represents. Or it could just be a game mechanic because it works. The only person who knows the correct answer is the designer.

Which means that what the player experiences in playing the game, unless informed of what to expect, could be and often is wide of what the designer spent so much time trying to create and recreate with the game experience.

What reality is being targeted and how do you know you have succeeded [validated] in reflecting reality with a game system?

That is what this thread is about.
- at least it was.. we've been around the houses 😉

Gamesman6:

Yep.

I've always liked the idea of Buck Surdu. Of fidelity and resolution. The resolution should be appropriate to the levels we are focusing on in game. I like to use tbe 1 up 2 down model. My resolution is for the highest level in game and two levels down. Fidelity is the "truth" of the result. Somebody earlier mentioned rolling 2 dice to determine the winner of wwii. That's low fidelity. It wasn't a 2 player zero contest.

I am not sure how you are using fidelity. Fidelity defined is "The degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced."

The one die roll model of WWII would be really low resolution but could still be 'exact' or 'inexact', Hi or Low at that scale from what I understand. Are you relating detail or amount of information to the level of fidelity?

The validating the model would then already be part of the design process and would be further validated in play by producing results in alignment with accounts.

I don't follow the fidelity connection to "would then already be a part of the design process." How does that work?

And then how do you determine the alignment of a game system to accounts? I know some gamers look at the game end results and call them 'reasonable', but that is neither fidelity nor validation of the system processes and outcomes.

Mcladdie

Apology accepted. It does highlight the flaws in this platform… which was poor when I first joined many years ago and now is awful.

Sure any game design will be an interaction between the designers and players understanding of the subject. That itself may be flawed or desperate, if we moderate that with rules, they may or may not be a good model for eithe4 set of understanding… but that's life.

All I can do is make the best set of rules for me and by extention those I play with.

Mcladdie
Bucks use as j understand it is..
Fidelity is how . exact the effects are. "Truthful" or "real"

Resolution is how far in do we zoom.

If I'm commanding a tank platoon do I need to resolve with rolls etc how quickly or well the loader in one tank does or ow long it takes to for a fuse or primer.

Hi-fi then should be part of the game design. I'm looking to create truthful set of out comes.. and processes ideally… so im not making a process "complete" and then comparing it to my perception of reality. Its a constant iterative process.

I'm not respond to certain mechcical processes. Though I'm Anti certain mechcics… for example I no longer abstract to make use of numeric dice.
I identify a reality I want to model… the. Work to find a process bridges a gap to make realistic outcomes that also feel intuitive and more inline with the reality or at least not too separate from it.
For example… measuring movement distances break immersion for me. Where's as crossfires movement approach… with consideration tlof .moving cover to cover, being mindful of LoS solves ma y mechical issues and is what one would do in reality.

That itself may be flawed or desperate, if we moderate that with rules, they may or may not be a good model for eithe4 set of understanding… but that's life.

Gamesman6:
No, that isn't life, that's a choice by the designer. IF he wants to achieve the game experience of a fun game system that represents history in a valid manner, has a choice:

The designer can leave it to players' understanding hoping they 'get it', recognizing what the game mechanics represented OR the designer tells them, insuring they have needed information to experience the intended history as designed. My experience over the years in wargaming and other game/simulation arenas that players have to guess what it all means when that information isn't provided. A lot of game discussions are wasted on that effort. They 'get it' all, in part, or not at all. And from my experience, players seldom 'get it' all unless the designer steps in and explains it. Rarely do they even know how well they have guessed.

I can tell you stories all night of gamers who guessed wrong, wasting the designer's effort, screwing up the game experience, and changing the rules because of that misunderstanding. I wrote an article in Miniature Wargames Magazine #362 on this continuing problem.

Don Troiani claims he does "historically accurate paintings." Such as this painting of Burnside's attacks across the bridge at Antietam Creek.

You can say how that painting is historically accurate, but you'd be guessing at what history Don included to make him to make that claim. Don doesn't let the buyer guess. He establishes it, so the buyer knows what history he is purchasing. Of course, that is half the value of a Troiani painting, according to Don. And that is just a painting, a still life compared to a dynamic wargame. Even more reason the same should be true for wargame designers.

Fidelity is how exact the effects are. "Truthful" or "real."

Gamesman6:
Okay, then the question is how that 'truthful' or 'real' [I am assuming in comparison to history or current reality] is established with a game system.

I identify a reality I want to model… the. Work to find a process bridges a gap to make realistic outcomes that also feel intuitive and more inline with the reality or at least not too separate from it.

That sounds more like subjective 'feel' rather than 'Truthful' or 'real' in any objective sense. What did you mean?

For example… measuring movement distances break immersion for me. Where's as crossfires movement approach…

That is great. There are a lot of ways to portray movement and the immersive experience is a critical design goal. What does that have to do with Truthful and real, let alone the 'exactness' of fidelity? Exactness implies a way to measure, something that I would think is necessary to establish validity.

And lastly, how do you validate you have been successful in producing that truth and real?

We're all guessing.. we have jnformed guessing and wild guessing.
When we make anything and put it into tbe world it becomes its own thjng based on how others can use it.

A designer can cover tbe bases as much as possible but people will still need help. Hey we have the Internet can facilitate if the designer wants to support it.

But really I don't care… I thinking my own goals first I need it to work for me before I care about anyone else… and even then it's only the people I play with.

As to accuracy we can only base it on the best information we have… that to is life.
Don paints from life models dressed in museum quality reproductions. But I don't care for his paintings… its not my kind of art A friend Jeffery Burn does thinsg differently. His illustrations draw me in.
Either way, new information or artifacts come to light and they are wrong. All we can do is our best

In its original unsullied version Crosfire worked excellently, I did not need to worry about distances and ranges as the whole thing was taking place inside rifle range. Its mechanism at that point were definitely a valid approach. Then it bought in tanks, that to me never worked, at below rifle range they are so vulnerable they will not last long, however it failed to model this, both the risks of not having enough room to even traverse the turret, the failure to distinguish between buttoned up and unbuttoned and serious problems with elevating guns in tight spaces that it became simply a game, no longer worthy of the term simulation. Its not the mechanisms alone that make it but also how those mechanisms apply to the real world.

No model is perfect, its not even desirable for it to be perfect. that would mean having a mini universe as complicated as the real one. In our own rules Issue 2 came about as we learnt more about systems and realized we needed to improve.

This is the whole point of the tread, the model is never finished new data needs to be assessed to a see if it is within the scope of your model and if so, does the model reflect it adequately (not perfectly); or if it indicates sufficient a departure to the real world inside the scope, that the system has errors that need to be corrected.

Gameman6:
If you are creating rules for yourself and your friends, then accuracy, fidelity and validity doesn't need to be considered. You can do whatever pleases you. However, that doesn't address how to establish fidelity, accuracy or validity in a wargame design.

We're all guessing.. we have jnformed guessing and wild guessing.
When we make anything and put it into tbe world it becomes its own thjng based on how others can use it.

Sorry, that just doesn't track. Your reaction to Don's painting shows that what he did isn't then 'it's own thing.' You were reacting to what he did. And the issue wasn't about whether you liked or didn't like his painting style. It was about historical accuracy.

First of all, you aren't 'guessing' regardless of how informed it is, if you are talking about accuracy or validity. You can't. There is no accuracy in guessing unless it matches something else [the real] with fidelity. You aren't guessing if you are talking about 'the real' as though it is something outside your personal opinion. How do you establish fidelity to your guess?

A designer can cover the bases as much as possible but people will still need help.

I am talking about what a designer needs to do 'as much as possible' for the gamer, seeing that his experience matches the goals of the design 'as much as possible.'

This throwing a game out to the public and then becomes a "a thing on its own" is something I have heard game designers say. It leads to something Charles Vasey, an accomplished wargame designer states: "What the designer intended doesn't matter. It is whatever the gamer wants the game to be." [!] It is a logical [to some extent] conclusion to this 'it is its own thing' proposition.

What the designer attempts to do, the history/reality he works to recreate with a game system doesn't matter? It is a negation of the design effort, a willingness to ignore all the game is created to do. It is a denial of the only thing the designer is responsible for, what he does have a control over: The game experience.

McLaddie

Gamesman6:
Okay, then the question is how that 'truthful' or 'real' [I am assuming in comparison to history or current reality] is established with a game system.

It depends on what one is modelling, but fundamentally looking at accounts, reports etc

That sounds more like subjective 'feel' rather than 'Truthful' or 'real' in any objective sense. What did you mean?

* Of course… it has to be. Life is subjective or at least how we understand and process it.
Rates of fire and accuracy recorded don't correspond to effects observed in actuality, nor has anyone been able to work out a way to determine the amount or reason for the differences.
"What's difference between. Theory and reality? In theory, there is no difference"

What does that have to do with Truthful and real, let alone the 'exactness' of fidelity? Exactness implies a way to measure, something that I would think is necessary to establish validity.

* We aren't able to run control tested experiments so.we have to work from observations and Accounts etc. As this is also the way people who study actual practice do. Be it the military, emergency services etc.
So the fidelity, in the rules is whether they produce results that correspond to those accounts and obervarion etc.

As there is a disconnect between theoritical/Trial results I don't need to work on hi resolution, ie focusing on detailed processes, which may not be possible, if it is maybe be slow/complex and may take time away from actual decisions the person I am representing at that time would be making and I may be trying to match up to unrealistic processes and outcomes, all be it objective ones as opposed to actual experience as recounted and experienced.

For example in crossfire… it models imo quite well the considerations of what i would need to think about when moving. Where are potential threats that affect me when I make a move. Do I scout or observe. RBF or risk making the movement.
I'm not doing what many or most rules would have me do which it think about my turn, however much time that is supposed to be, my different move rates, what that means in the game scale, then using a measure to meaure that distance in the table, move the figures to that place,. All of that breaks immersion and isn't "real" and adds complication to the operation of the game, mainly becuae we've made other arbitrary decisions in the rules design.

And lastly, how do you validate you have been successful in producing that truth and real?

*I think I answered that already, by comparing to information I have gathered about the situation I am modelling.

Gameman6:
If you are creating rules for yourself and your friends, then accuracy, fidelity and validity doesn't need to be considered. You can do whatever pleases you.

* which are all those things because that's what I and we want to to do.

To your point I don't have to do those things whomever I'm making the rules for… I just need to make rules that people enjoy to play… and has been mentioned already popular games are often not that real or accurate.

However, that doesn't address how to establish fidelity, accuracy or validity in a wargame design.

*See above.

Sorry, that just doesn't track. Your reaction to Don's painting shows that what he did isn't then 'it's own thing.' You were reacting to what he did. And the issue wasn't about whether you liked or didn't like his painting style. It was about historical accuracy.

* iyo. I talked about two military artists illustrators…. they are both accurate… but use different approaches to that goal and as an outcome there is one whose accuracy I want to engage with. The same with rules… we can talk about the accuracy of the rules but we have to want to engage with them.

First of all, you aren't 'guessing' regardless of how informed it is, if you are talking about accuracy or validity. You can't. There is no accuracy in guessing unless it matches something else [the real] with fidelity. You aren't guessing if you are talking about 'the real' as though it is something outside your personal opinion. How do you establish fidelity to your guess?

*I'm or we are "guessing" because we can't speak with certainty. We can have a more or less informed guess and our reality is based upon that. We then may be validating it by how it confirms to what we have "guessed".

What the designer attempts to do, the history/reality he works to recreate with a game system doesn't matter? It is a negation of the design effort, a willingness to ignore all the game is created to do. It is a denial of the only thing the designer is responsible for, what he does have a control over: The game experience.

* there is what is in my control and what is outside it .. I write rules. A book a song. Paint a picture… that's what's in my control

What others do with it or how they understand or misunderstand outside of my control
Now if I see consistent issues I can re write or word my rules to make them clearer.. or I can change thjngs if I gain new insights or information. But again that's in my control.
The game experience is also out of nh control unless I'm there. Its down to those involved in the game, I write the script… but what the director and actors do with it and how each audience interacts with it.. I have given up control of that when I let it or the rules out into the world.

Wow, you guys are way too far down the rabbit hole for me, and as usual on TMP you'll never get agreement on word definitions either.

McLaddie, I understand you did this stuff for a living in the real world but you are attempting to hold the make-believe world of historical war gaming to some real standards and military metrics. You can't. One reason is that much of the "validation" by players is based on the visuals created with the terrain, miniatures, etc., and not on how realistic or historical the rule system is.

You deal with real-life factors for real people with a quantifiable result. We design games as a hobby around various abstractions and rules to get the right "feel" and ideally a somewhat historic result with the visuals being the driving factor. There is no right or wrong way to do it.

How can there be any expectation of validating an abstracted war game design for a hobby against the real-world military actions and tactics written by someone with no military experience who may have never read the manuals (some exceptions)?

None of the most popular WWII historical miniatures war games were validated against real military tactics and manuals, I think that's pretty obvious. They were validated by players having fun with a believable level of realism and edited by the marketing and graphics staff. The most popular games are aimed at the broadest group of gamers. They must sell as many games as possible because they run a business.

It appears to me that players validate a game to a greater or lesser degree based on what they expect, like, or dislike and you are never going to please everyone so don't try. And unless they've had military experience and training they can't very well validate it against the real thing, can they? The most important part of the validation is in the visuals created, the game system is normally secondary.

Warlord Games and Academy Games have attended the last two Connections where military personnel from various countries gather to discuss the current status of military war gaming. Civilian game companies and designers have a demo table set up with their employees running it. No one was interested in it. Academy games WWII games have been played informally with the new LTs at the Basic School in Quantico but as a game, not as training.

A Marine unit has played Memoir 44 for recreation because a Marine in the unit had the game and knew how to play it. The USAF used GMT's game "Crisis: Korea 1995" as an official USAF war game exercise but with different factors and performances for the units.

I think some Too Fat Lardies games have been played at the UK Connections but I'm unsure if it has been officially accepted for training. Dunn-Kempf was used formally with the US Army but for some reason, it didn't stick around.

There are several reasons that the military is not interested in historical miniatures games other than as a form of recreation or to introduce concepts broadly. First, they can't be validated to anything that resembles the training manuals or decision-making process.

Next, the action is not simultaneous, units are always active and observing using their OODA Decision Loop and not randomly "activated" by the players, and units are not normally hidden but on a real battlefield, you may not even see the enemy unless he fires.

In most games, the scale is not realistic. Real weapons range is not measured in inches. The rules that the game revolves around like IGYG, unit activation, etc are objectively unrealistic. Lastly, the amount of time to learn the game and the need for miniatures is generally too much for a commander to justify. Forcing your officers to learn a highly abstract game system with rules that have nothing to do with military science can only hope to vaguely introduce concepts probably better than Chess does not justify the time and money.

"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

I met briefly with ret Col Tim Barrick who runs the Marine Wargaming Center to discuss some of my designs using the above criteria and gave him my card. So far no call back and I'm not holding my breath.

This is the only war game the Marines are officially using and it was developed in-house overseen by Tim Barrick, not by a civilian company. It's an operational-level game for O-5 and O-6 designed to teach concepts:
link

I attended a lecture Tim Barrick gave. He "validated" the game against real operational aspects based on current intel of capabilities. It's not designed to re-fight different expected scenarios to evolve tactics. They are also working on a computer version. Tim also oversees Marine field exercises and war games so he's not an ivory tower intellectual designer.

The US Army War College has an extensive collection of war games from civilian game publishers and almost all are board games (oh the horror!). A group of employees, all retired military officers, play them as part of their job to give feedback to other groups designing games and simulations.

Wolfhag

I know folk who use free wargames rules so that are driving the hobby.

Who are these mystery groups and what game are they playing? It appears they are attempting to drive while their tranny is in neutral. They need to get some videos on TikTok so they can go virtual and let all of us in on the secret.

I've attended and run games at some of the largest conventions across the United States on the East and West coast. I may have seen one or two events using a free rule set you can download off the internet but if I did I can't remember.

Panzer War is a miniature WWII combined arms game that is free and I consider it more historically accurate and better researched than any of the popular commercial games available but for some reason, hardly anyone plays it. Why is that?

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.

Report them to the proper authorities

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.

This is blatantly untrue and you know it. However, I would say that the major game companies should be looking at a new future business model because sooner or later 3D printers will be as common as laptop computers and used for more than games and eventually be driving the industry, just not now. I agree with you that rule books don't need a lot of eye candy but that's what sells and will continue to do so.

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.

(in my youth) Ah yes, the memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime.

You just move in the wrong circles
UshCha, despite your continued use of unfounded accusations, personal attacks, almost complete lack of social filters, taking verbal hyperbole to an unprecedented high degree, and condescending attitude toward others, being the magnanimous and forgiving person that I am I still find you endearing and here is what I'll do for you.

One of the people in my "circle" is a friend at the US Army War College in Carlisle, PA. His department collects and evaluates civilian war games. Send me a copy of your game and I'll forward it to him to take a look at and get feedback on. However, I won't be able to do it until the end of January as I'll be traveling around Europe starting Friday.

Merry Christmas

Wolfhag

McLaddie, I understand you did this stuff for a living in the real world but you are attempting to hold the make-believe world of historical war gaming to some real standards and military metrics. You can't. One reason is that much of the "validation" by players is based on the visuals created with the terrain, miniatures, etc., and not on how realistic or historical the rule system is.

Wolfhag:
Some points here:
1. I am not trying to hold anyone to some 'real standards' or military metrics. I am holding wargame designers to their own claims. I am responding to what wargame designers already say they are attempting, doing etc. already. Using words like 'accurate' and 'fidelity.' I am pointing how those things achieved in simulation design and game design. Methods they simply aren't doing. If they said they were just creating make believe worlds, I'd have nothing to say other than 'go for it.' You know that isn't what they are saying, nor you with your 'military metrics.'

2. There is no validation with "based on the visuals created with the terrain, miniatures, etc." unless there is some established corresponding relationship to history and/or current reality. It is often just conventions and likes. No problem with that unless you through in 'accuracy' and historical fidelity. Then we are back to 'the rabbit hole.'

3. IF there is any 'historical' to historical wargaming, then elements aren't make-believe at all. There is an attempt to represent history and reality.

4."…and not on how realistic or historical the rule system is." Uh-huh. Many people repeat that mantra, but that isn't what I see, particularly with you.

First, this list and this tread is about wargame design, Making terrain etc. are other lists. How to use terrain is certainly pertinent to wargame design, but in every case I have seen here and elsewhere, the discussion has been on how to represent a realistic environment.

Second, why you think that is truly escapes me. EVERY game designer in this hobby, save one or two [who side-step the issue with silence], claim that there is a connection between the rules and history/reality. I can give you any number of quotes from any number of game designers if you are interested. None of them claim their games are simply make-believe, though I have seen gamers accuse them of that.

So, Wolfhag, after all your work and explanations on the sources and representation of tank warfare in your game, is it all just simply 'make-believe' no more historically 'accurate' than any other WWII wargame? Yes or no?

This rabbit hole is one that game designers repeatedly claim to have opened up, explored in a deep dive, and returned with "A reasonable convincing representation of real combat but not a simulation of every detail" [Black Powder] and "historical accuracy" [Fire & Fury over several editions] without ever establishing how that simulation is created or historical accuracy is achieved and 'validated.'

Without objective definitions of accuracy, validation and fidelity in game design terms, it is all just fantasy and 'personal preference.' That is not what wargame designers say their designs are. New working definitions of those words among others, have been established in game design and wargame design and simulation design. No rabbit hole, not mystery. The definitions are functional, objective, not someone opinion or fantasy.

Of course… it has to be. Life is subjective or at least how we understand and process it.

Gamesman6:

Thank you for the considered response. Parts of life are subjective, but we also understand and process it objectively too. People may subjectively choose to jump off a bridge, but objectively everyone knows what will happen and depends on that knowledge, jumping or not jumping.

Often we call being objective as 'experience.' None-the-less there is objectivity in a great deal of our experience. There is a great deal of objectivity in our knowledge of history. There has to be objectivity in simulation design. There has to be objectivity in how accuracy, validity and fidelity is determined or it is all just as you said subjective, which is just another word of personal opinion based on?

*I think I answered that already, by comparing to information I have gathered about the situation I am modelling.

Rates of fire and accuracy recorded don't correspond to effects observed in actuality, nor has anyone been able to work out a way to determine the amount or reason for the differences.

Well, I will respectively disagree on two points: 1. folks have worked out ways to determine a great deal depending on, 2. The questions you ask. I can give you lots of examples.

"What's difference between Theory and reality? In theory, there is no difference."

Uh, you do realize that theories are simply attempts to explain reality. They aren't reality. They are successful theories IF and only if they are successfully tested against reality.

We aren't able to run control tested experiments so.we have to work from observations and Accounts etc. As this is also the way people who study actual practice do. Be it the military, emergency services etc.

No, that isn't true. You are able to run control tests and experiments from observations and accounts. Simulation designers do it all the time--successfully. It doesn't require a math degree. Remember, we aren't attempting to predict the future with our wargames, only fidelity with the past.

So the fidelity, in the rules is whether they produce results that correspond to those accounts and observations etc.

What results, what corresponding? How many accounts and observations? Is there any methodology in this? Would we both agree with that fidelity, or is the outcome still just your opinion that fidelity of some kind has been achieved?

If you are interested, I can explain how you objectively establish validity, fidelity and accuracy with a wargame, regardless of your choice of rules, mechanics, efforts at immersion etc. This isn't about how to design, but how to establish what you've designed is objectively valid in the history/reality you've chosen to recreate, represent etc.

On the other hand, if your game designing is just to please yourself and friends without an effort at objectivity, then don't worry about it.

Gamesman6:

I think I should be specific when I wrote "I can explain how you objectively establish validity, fidelity and accuracy with a wargame, regardless of your choice of rules, mechanics, efforts at immersion etc." Let's explore this situation:

Rates of fire and accuracy recorded don't correspond to effects observed in actuality, nor has anyone been able to work out a way to determine the amount or reason for the differences.

So, if what you write is true, what do simulation designers do about it? Wargame designers?

We aren't able to run control tested experiments so.we have to work from observations and Accounts etc. As this is also the way people who study actual practice do. Be it the military, emergency services etc.

We are able to run control tests and experiments. It is done all the time with less information than many wargame designers have. I can explain that in reference to your example.

Mac laddie

Often we call being objective as 'experience.' None-the-less there is objectivity in a great deal of our experience. There is a great deal of objectivity in our knowledge of history. There has to be objectivity in simulation design. There has to be objectivity in how accuracy, validity and fidelity is determined or it is all just as you said subjective, which is just another word of personal opinion based on?

G6 Yes there is objectivity… except. Experience also tells us about outliers rare occurrences. (People falling great hieghts and surviving)So even our objective results are not absolutes. This effect is amplified in something as complex as Combat and war# especially when dealing with different times and places. And as i previously said, the real life experience doesn't mesh with the areas we have objective data for. Rates of fire accuracy etc.
So we work from the information we have. The collated information of accounts of people who were there. I include work of people like Gary Klein on how people think act and make decisions under pressure and why… not based on objective controlled tests which as are open to being affected by then WEIRD, but rather on performers jn those fields

No, that isn't true. You are able to run control tests and experiments from observations and accounts. Simulation designers do it all the time--successfully. It doesn't require a math degree. Remember, we aren't attempting to predict the future with our wargames, only fidelity with the past.

G6 Yes.. that's what we are talking about in rules design.. however they are flawed because they aren't the real thjng.
They are affected by multiple factors.
They may be missing things, that we aren't aware of. The unknown unknowns.
The accounts we are basing them on maybe flawed for various reasons due to the workings of human experience etc but all of this is not truely objective.
And given the people we are running these."tests: on aren't experiencing and know they aren't experiencing the reality or in real conditions or with a real background
So I'd agree we test or system and the results th3y produce against the historical examples. But its all approximate and subjective.. regardless of the detail we add.

What results, what corresponding? How many accounts and observations? Is there any methodology in this? Would we both agree with that fidelity, or is the outcome still just your opinion that fidelity of some kind has been achieved?

G6
That's down to the person. The period. The type of game. The level of interaction we are looking. Would we agree! How would I know.. we haven't yet! 😉 the results may correspond.. but then that would assume we'd agree to the same info being used and our interpretations of it and again what level we are considering. Are we looking at out come or Process.

If you are interested, I can explain how you objectively establish validity, fidelity and accuracy with a wargame, regardless of your choice of rules, mechanics, efforts at immersion etc. This isn't about how to design, but how to establish what you've designed is objectively valid in the history/reality you've chosen to recreate, represent etc.

G6. Perhaps.. but I'm no longer interested really in playing other people's rules…bu occasionally see something I like and I borrow.. but that's because I like how it models something or feels immersive in its application.

I think we've bounced around the ideas I'm objectivity… I'm not sure true objectivity is possible.

On the other hand, if your game designing is just to please yourself and friends without an effort at objectivity, then don't worry about it.

G6
I don't see those things as mutually exclusive. Trying to make a game as "accurate" as possible isnt IMO exclusive to a group or why the design is being done.

think I should be specific when I wrote "I can explain how you objectively establish validity, fidelity and accuracy with a wargame, regardless of your choice of rules, mechanics, efforts at immersion etc." Let's explore this situation:

So, if what you write is true, what do simulation designers do about it? Wargame designers?

G6
I think I answered. All we can do is try to find approaches that create results that match actual infkrmstion of what happens in the field.

We are able to run control tests and experiments. It is done all the time with less information than many wargame designers have. I can explain that in reference to your example.

G6
Again I feel I answered this before.
I've not doubt we can collate data and run controlled experiments etc. But that's only the model or theory, the Data is only applicable if it corresponds to historical references… but as we said already that information is not guaranteed to be accurate nor does the way represent in tbe rules or program we run it in. I'd suggest we'd need to run run huge numbers of runs of a specifc battle or action to be clear on the information we are getting..
Now if we're still talking about rules as most people on this site would use or play. We aren't worried too much about it.. as long as it feels right.

An issue I find. And have mentioned before is that too many games focus on the mechanisms of mechanical process. To his scores rates of fire. Hits penetration saying throws… but the insight, for me insight comes from thinking on information decision making. OoDA C3I fog and friction… and modelling that in a small scale game most of us have to play.

If you are interested, I can explain how you objectively establish validity, fidelity and accuracy with a wargame, regardless of your choice of rules, mechanics, efforts at immersion etc. This isn't about how to design, but how to establish what you've designed is objectively valid in the history/reality you've chosen to recreate, represent etc

I think you are going ovrbiard but do it for Bolt Action. IIRC the Italian guy that helped develop it said he knows hardly anything about WWII combat.

or maybe this one: YouTube link

Wolfhag

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL AND A Clausewitzen one at that!

link

Lets get this therad back on track.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE SIMULATON and all you want to do question is the fundamants definitions please leave this thread! Y

ou ar not making a usefull contribution to the thread. Please feel free to set up your own thread but hijacking this one to prop up your own egos is basically rude, so please don't do it.

If you want to discuss say a particular methodology of representing a command system of a particular period based on available data and present a reasoned argument as to both the benerfits and disadvantages of such a system then do so.

If you believe there is no advantage to doing so and it's all make belive, DO NOT REPLY, go somewhere else where you can get folk who agree with you to moan and complain at us, BUT NOT ON THIS THREAD.

This thered is for simulation enthusiasts who put that first and are not interested in the comments of the unenthusiastic.

If you want to relate rate of fire of muskets vs casualties relate it to the drill which is not aim in some cases but "Level your Muskets" and Fire (troops turning away or closing ther eyes to avoid the risk of blinding. Thus making shooting downhill less effecytive as yoy are not getting the center of the dispersion on target. That is fact not waffle so is an acceptable use of this thread. .

I'm assuming I maybe one of those you're not happy with… I'll just say that I don't think anyone is against simulation. What's been discussed if what that means and how we try tk achive it in out designs.

Sorry you feel your topic got side tracked but this is after all an0 open forum on design and we are all talking and discussing things from our pov. So we end up discussing what our pov is so we can actually talk about things.

I think you are going ovrbiard but do it for Bolt Action.

Wolfhag:
I have never in my life gone ovrdiard. Not flexible enough. As for going overboard: considering the research, analysis and commentary you have provided for your rules, I think there is a pot and kettle involved here.

I wouln't touch Bolt Action. I know about the designer's admission that he didn't know anything about WWII. I wouldn't have any idea what sources the designers *might* have used other than a few movies like "Fury" and "Patton."

I do have my New Year's Event planned though:

link

UshCha:

I think Gamesman6 is right. This is a forum and he is on topic. Just because he doesn't share your views isn't a reason to shut the discussion down.

Gamesman6:

I appreciate the explanations. I would like to respond to everything, but I wanted to pull out what you've written that speaks directly to what I have been talking about:

G6 Yes there is objectivity… except. Experience also tells us about outliers rare occurrences. (People falling great hieghts and surviving)So even our objective results are not absolutes. This effect is amplified in something as complex as Combat and war# especially when dealing with different times and places. And as i previously said, the real life experience doesn't mesh with the areas we have objective data for. Rates of fire accuracy etc.

No, there are no absolutes. Every science law is labled an 'approximate' to some value. All those variables and lack of information are always a problem. You present them as the 'wall' where nothing can be said beyond those problems. Simulation designers see those issues as starting points for solutions, solutions that are better approximates.

G6 Yes.. [Testing] that's what we are talking about in rules design.. however they are flawed because they aren't the real thing. They are affected by multiple factors.
They may be missing things, that we aren't aware of. The unknown unknowns.

They aren't the real thing?? They are simulations, absolutely artificial models of the real thing and if done right, tested against 'the real thing' for validation.

The accounts we are basing them on maybe flawed for various reasons due to the workings of human experience etc but all of this is not truly objective.

Again, that is always an issue. So, how is that dealt with?

And given the people we are running these"tests: on aren't experiencing and know they aren't experiencing the reality or in real conditions or with a real background
So I'd agree we test or system and the results they produce against the historical examples. But its all approximate and subjective.. regardless of the detail we add.

Again, all these issues are seen as enforcing this 'subjective' bottom line.

Here is a working definition of objective and subjective that I will work off of:

Objective means verifiable information based on facts and evidence. Subjective means information or perspectives based on feelings, opinions, or emotions.

So, what I will explain will be solely in the realm of objectivity. No feelings, likes, my opinion, or emotions. Simply methodologies that objectively work based on evidence.

All we know of history or even the current past is what is written or discovered information, or eye-witnesses. That means all we can simulate or recreate are those records.

That is true of every simulation ever created. It is true of every scientific theory ever created. In both cases their validity rest on comparison to 'The Real Thing.'

So, I will explain.

Macladdie

there are no absolutes. Every science law is labled an 'approximate' to some value. All those variables and lack of information are always a problem.

G6 agreed

You present them as the 'wall' where nothing can be said beyond those problems. Simulation designers see those issues as starting points for solutions, solutions that are better approximates.

G6
I'm not saying they are a wall or at least an insurmountable wall. My point is that beyond that we are in a simulation, not reality. Regardless of the elegance of it and the completeness of the data we enter it is not "reality".
As you say scientific laws and theories are not absolutes… however much our monkey brain wants them to be…. and while we can give the model validity (to keep this on some degree of the op) they are still models.
I've done a degree of looking at historical examples.in other fields and while we Can talk to a good degree of accuracy on the thjngs we can model, there are things we can not really understand, so we have to accept they may be good models… but they are models.
That's not a reason to stop us its a reason to remind ourselves of.

Macladdie
They aren't the real thing?? They are simulations, absolutely artificial models of the real thing and if done right, tested against 'the real thing' for validation.

G6
Simulation, artifical and model… by definition all those things are different from the "reality" they represent. They can be extremely accurate but they are not the reality. I train people in carrying out complex activities in stressful contexts. I and they can strive to produce accurate simulations of the thing they arw going to do, but they aren't the "real thing" even the real thing changes as they do. With experience but there are also a number of variables that will play different levels of influence.
Now I can refine it for them to improve their outcomes… but i also recognise that the final piece/s of the training is the… real thing.

As the saying goes… however accurate the map… it isn't the terrain.

ML
Again, that is always an issue. So, how is that dealt with?

G6
Hmm well learn from the past, prepare for the futures perform in the present.
We can compare the results of our model to the actuality we are modelling… but as I mentioned before. Are we… engaging as we do with in person play.. able to run the simulation enough to produce enough results to speak with greater certainty?

Macladdie
Again, all these issues are seen as enforcing this 'subjective' bottom line.

Here is a working definition of objective and subjective that I will work off of:

Objective means verifiable information based on facts and evidence. Subjective means information or perspectives based on feelings, opinions, or emotions.

So, what I will explain will be solely in the realm of objectivity. No feelings, likes, my opinion, or emotions. Simply methodologies that objectively work based on evidence.

All we know of history or even the current past is what is written or discovered information, or eye-witnesses. That means all we can simulate or recreate are those records.

That is true of every simulation ever created. It is true of every scientific theory ever created. In both cases their validity rest on comparison to 'The Real Thing.'

G6
But if we are using written and discovered information eye witness accounts etc… all of these things are affected by the subjectivity of human experience, bias, memory etc.

None of which is to say I don't see value in simulation, more that I question the methods we use to produce them and the results we achieve by them.

Certainly when it comes to "wargames" where we tend to stick to "traditional" approaches or we model certain aspects but not others.

Objective means verifiable information based on facts and evidence.

Subjective means information or perspectives based on feelings, opinions, or emotions.

While the definition holds… when we are modelling conflcit or real real life the information, facts and evidence… are from personal accounts etc… which are, as we know from psychology and our increased understanding of neuroscience etc based on humans who are subjective in how we experience life and report life.

So even if we can discount subjectivity from how we model the events in our game
We are comparing that to accounts and reports that are subjective.

Now we increased video used in various aspects of modern combat we can get more accurate or less subjective information but we still need to understand the people we are observing are responding subjectively, all be it with observable types of responses.

Gamesman6:

Okay, there seems to be three themes in what you've written that are fairly common among wargamers. Identifying them clearly is important, because I have to address the issues you've raised:

My point is that beyond that we are in a simulation, not reality. Regardless of the elegance of it and the completeness of the data we enter it is not "reality".

Simulation, artificial and model… by definition all those things are different from the "reality" they represent. They can be extremely accurate but they are not the reality.
As the saying goes… however accurate the map… it isn't the terrain.

I find this repeated continually by wargamers and our hobby designers. What I don't understand is why this is an issue.
Of course reality and a simulation are different, as different as a 30 ton Sherman tank and a 3" plastic model. I am not clear on who could believe anything different. However, everyone can agree on the 'reality' the model is attempting to recreate. There is a 1:1 correspondence in specific points and the modeled is valued for that accurate representation.

So, no simulations aren't reality, they are models of specific points of reality and only a simulation if there are a 1:1 correspondence at those points. Can we agree on that? With a participatory simulation [a game] the game environment provides an accurate model of a real environment
in very specific points

We can compare the results of our model to the actuality we are modelling… but as I mentioned before. Are we… engaging as we do with in person play.. able to run the simulation enough to produce enough results to speak with greater certainty?

With effective methodologies, yes we are able to produce that certainty. That certainty is what designers are claiming now without running the simulation 'enough' or effectively.

But if we are using written and discovered information eye witness accounts etc… all of these things are affected by the subjectivity of human experience, bias, memory etc.

when we are modelling conflict or real life the information, facts and evidence… are from personal accounts etc… which are, as we know from psychology and our increased understanding of neuroscience etc based on humans who are subjective in how we experience life and report life.
So even if we can discount subjectivity from how we model the events in our game, we are comparing that to accounts and reports that are subjective.

This issue, that everything is subjective in the end is also a common argument.

The subjective experience of life, of historical narratives, and most all sciences, technologies, history, Law, and simulations has to be dealt with. IF there weren't ways to reduce or eliminate subjectivity, we'd still be in the stone age. If we couldn't develop objective representations of reality, where would we be?

The question is what tried and tested methods, specifically in simulation/game design, address that subjectivity and get us to an objective approximation of reality?

That is what I've been talking about.

First Up happy new year!

I thjnk we've gotten to the point where we've reached rbe limit of the facility to discuss things that this platform allows.
We are talking at cross purposes, I don't disagree with your 3 points, genrally, the issue is in the detail and this format seems not up to me at least getting my points across clearly.

A couple of things. I'm not as mentioned just a wargamer. My job works around similar concepts.

The reason we aren't still in the paleolithic is because out ideas were put in to practice.
The issue with our games is they are a simulation of the reality but for those of not involved in real world simulations we stay in an abstract realm.

And while I'm a great gan of yried and tested methothds. Going back the fityejr the better, we ate still jn the relatively early stages of the evolution of this… speaking personally the adherence to many default idea in wargames doesn't help.theh continue to be used imo because they've always been used not because they are the best way to achieve the thjngs we want to solve.
Doctors continued to bleed people even after the theory of the humours had been disproved.

Now we may find tried and tested methods but in different and unconnected realms… and give Ln my work. My interests specifically and generally I'm happy to keep looking.

I thjnk we've gotten to the point where we've reached rbe limit of the facility to discuss things that this platform allows.
We are talking at cross purposes, I don't disagree with your 3 points, genrally, the issue is in the detail and this format seems not up to me at least getting my points across clearly.

Gamesman6:
I think the format is as good as any. The problem is the basic methods/approach/concepts get lost in all the details folks can call up. It isn't that complicated.

We all use the same basic methods day-to-day in dealing with reality and all the possible variables as do scientists and simulation designers.

You want to know how long it takes you to get to the bank. One trip takes 10 minutes, but you know that it is only one trip. It isn't all that subjective… you have your watch. However, there all sorts of things that could happen to make the trip longer, your actions and outside variables. Everyone sorts out those things that *could happen* the same way: Those things that probably won't with the things that are more probable, and things one has control over.

So you don't worry about the meteorite strike or the out-of-control semi, and plan around the school bus route and traffic. After dozens of trips, most folks can time their drive exactly, barring a flat tire… Which you have far more control over and know is far more likely than a meteorite through your hood. With this little statistical effort most folks come up with an 'approximate' of reality, specifically driving to the bank.

When Scientists do this in more exact terms, it is called approximation to some statistical level or 'renormalization,' determining what are unimportant/low odds variables and what are important/more impactful, among the infinite number variables.

Simulation designers use the same statistical methods that Scientists and neighborhood drivers use. Wargame designers don't have to use complicated formulas or deep math. It is pretty straight-forward. BUT the methods have to be used if 'reality' is going to be captured at all in a game system.

So, let's apply all this your example:

Rates of fire and accuracy recorded don't correspond to effects observed in actuality, nor has anyone been able to work out a way to determine the amount or reason for the differences.

If there is little correspondence between the rate and accuracy of fire and observed effects [I am looking at Napoleonic battle], then how do does one deal with this?
And of course, it is all based on historical records and often subjective impressions. I love the reports of "whole ranks falling" in reports when later battle returns don't show anything of the kind.

Perhaps you should tell me how you would do it?

You keep telling me how it's done and use everyday examples unconnected to use in wargame rules.

I've nor done it becUse I left looking at these aspects years ago. What I'm interested in now is why is what actually happened so different from what their testing said should happen…
Of why people reported whole ranks being taken down when the "truth" wad different.

In the modeling I'm not so interested, ad tend tk be the default in the mechanistic aspects, rather the ways in which people's experience in combat often doesn't match what was actually happen.
And as such playing with the players experience of what is happening.

Perhaps you should tell me how you would do it?

You keep telling me how it's done and use everyday examples unconnected to use in wargame rules.

Gamesman6:

Of course, that is what I am leading up to. I just didn't want to make the last post too long. I did want to establish that the general methodologies aren't all that different from how everyone handles 'reality.'

That is coming up next.

In the modeling I'm not so interested, ad tend tk be the default in the mechanistic aspects, rather the ways in which people's experience in combat often doesn't match what was actually happen.
And as such playing with the players experience of what is happening.

I don't follow this. Are you saying you aren't interested in the modeling, but instead the player's experience? I don't see how those two are separate.

What I'm trying to model is the "experience". Why do reports say x happend when the reality was y… both of which don't correspond to what trials said should happen.

Or that crew abandon viable vehicles when attacked by people armed with rocks and molotov cocktails.

Mist rules played by hobbyists have a focus on the mechanics of the game which tend to distil thing to modifiers and scores needed on Dice while ignoring much of the Ctual uncertainty and fog of war and friction that's part of actual combat.
I'm trying create that for the player rather more accurately model hit and pentration tables.

I also, as mentioned, don't like things that increase the separation from the "experience"

Gamesman6:

I'm totally in your camp. It is about modeling the experience. That is what game/participatory simulation designers are: Experience Engineers. [There's a good book by that title.] Game mechanics are just tools in creating that experience. The issue is to create an experience close to that of actual participants in the designer's chosen aspects of reality.

OK… cool… so my interest is in that the conventional or traditional ways of modeling combat and war are aurally intithetical to creating the experience for the players as it ends up focusing the player on things their real world counter part would know or think about and even when they correspond they are done in ways that actually serve to serrate them further from a truer model of the player/role.

Now I know that many people want to just play a game… and a game that they are gamilar with… but that's not my jnyerst.

By the way is this the book?
Tynan Sylvester
Designing Games: A Guide to Engineering Experiences

Reposting. Shame there is not edit or delete button… the interface here is difficult especially when accessing via a phone

Ok. cool… so my interest isn't in what the more conventional or traditional ways of modeling combat and war in our games Do. Many of which for me are antithetical to creating the experience for the players as the RL role, as they end up focusing the player on things their real world counter part would not know or even think about and even when they do correspond they are done in ways that actually serve to seperate them further from a truer model/experience of the player/role.

Now I know that many people want to just play a game and at that a game that they are familar with… but that's not my interest, unless that familairity helps create the experience im looking for.

By the way is this the book?

Tynan Sylvester
Designing Games: A Guide to Engineering Experiences

Yes, that's the book. I keep thinking "Engineering Experience" because Sylvester's first chapter is titled "Engineering Experience". The first chapter is worth the whole book. Sylvester is speaking your language. He writes:

IMMERSION is when the mental division between the player's real self and the in-game avatar softens, so events happening to the avatar become meaningful as thought they were happening to the player himself.

In a game, immersion is partly created by 'flow.' He says that "Flow is the foundation for most good game experiences." So, how does one design for that experience?

He starts the chapter by making three points:

*Games are composed of MECHANICS, which define how the game works.

*During play, mechanics and players interact to generate EVENTS.

*To be meaningful, an event must provoke an emotion.

"For a game to hold attention, those events must provoke blood-pumping emotion. When the generated events provoke pride, hilarity, awe, or terror, the game works…But most emotion is much subtler and more pervasive than this.

[i.e. extreme forms of emotion or expressions of it.]

The rest of the book is a 'how to' create all this. It's very good. I can recommend it.

Wargame designers have an easier time than many game designers in creating events that trigger emotions than say Qwirkle, Chicken Foot or Rummy Royal.[unless you're playing for $$]

He notes that:

Game designers don't design events. We design systems of mechanics that generate events. This layer of indirection is the fundamental difference between games and most other media.

So, mechanics are a game designer's paint brush. Immersion and an entertaining [emotional] experience is the result.

In the modeling I'm not so interested, ad tend tk be the default in the mechanistic aspects, rather the ways in which people's experience in combat often doesn't match what was actually happen. And as such playing with the players experience of what is happening.

Gamesman6:

Okay, how to address this with history to simulate combat with this lack of clarity. I will be referencing Napoleonic warfare because that's what I've studied and begun creating data to use in a simulation.

So, what scale? I will choose brigade unit, corps-level command. You noted:

Rates of fire and accuracy recorded don't correspond to effects observed in actuality, nor has anyone been able to work out a way to determine the amount or reason for the differences.

While there have been a number of contemporary and current military folks who have given there ideas on why, it is obvious for Napoleonic War that smaller ranges and tighter formations of infantry or mass cannon was the 'solution.'

Clausewitz tackled that question in a number of ways. Here is where you can get his work on Tactics in PDF for free. It reads like a wargame treatise in some ways.
PDF link

But back to the question. The issue for designing a wargame at this scale isn't really about the actual effects, but an infantry brigade's behavior giving and receiving fire or a charge. That is far easier to develop than trying to count casualties.

And of course, there are thousands of things that could have effected brigade behavior as well as bias or inaccuracies in accounts. What we need is a statistical base. Luckily, it is simple, if some work to develop this.

Oman's multi-volume work describes over 200 brigade-level engagements. Nafziger's numerous books on the late war relates another 75. There are works like Bressonet's detailed work on Jena and Austerlitz. This isn't counting a number of after battle reports like Davout's or after Maida and Egypt. There are a number of volumes on the French Revolutionary Wars as well as the 1805 and 1809 Campaigns. With about a week's work I had some 450 accounts of brigade actions. I listed the number of battalions on each side, the formation, the tactics used: volley, volley and bayonet, dry charge, advancing fire, skirmish with columns, and mass skirmishing, Attacker/Defender and outcome described with words withdraw, retreat, rout. Lynn's work on the French Revolution included a number of examples.

Just think of the infinite number of variables, errors and biases swimming in that mass of information, including any interpretations of reports I might have made.

Just the data before doing any statistical analysis pulled up some interesting information. For instance, according to Oman, only 50% of all British attacks and defenses used their famous Volley & Bayonet tactic. Oman recorded two accounts of the French using it.

In about 50% of all accounts began as a firefight between brigades separately or as part of a division action. [I didn't count the French tactic of skirmishers providing the fire power for following deployed columns.

Here are some of the things I found:
apart from two outliers involving militia grade troops, such as the Spanish running after one volley at Talavera, 100% of firefights continued,--regardless of the quality of the brigades--until something else happened, a charge, reinforcements or outflanking--or mutual exhaustion, rare but both sides withdrew. This included on side taking concentrated skirmish fire.

I found the same behavior during the Civil War, the pre-2nd Manassas battle between the Iron and Stonewall Brigade is a stellar example.

When have you ever played or heard of a Napoleonic game were enemy brigades are locked in a firefight forever unless one side or the other is attacked? Yet there is a strong indication that such behavior is a closer approximate to historical behavior. A late example is the Guard attack at Waterloo. The Guard was in a firefight with the British, getting the worse of it, deploying into line to continue the firefight when the 52nd attacked the Guard in the flank. The British on the other side of the French followed suite.

See, I found after about 50 examples of this firefight behavior being so uniform, that was strong evidence for that behavior being universal over the 20 years of the Napoleonic and Revolutionary wars. But I have enough examples I hadn't used in that fifty. I could use them as tests. Did a Russian Brigade at Borodino behave the same way? Or an Austrian brigade at Marengo? The same behavior.

That is one way to test such results. But that is just the start of what you an do with a base of 450 examples.

What does this mean for all those 'possible' events, bias reports, errors, misinterpretations, and accidents, etc.?
It means that none of them, obviously existing in those reports, weren't important enough to effect the very uniform outcomes.

Now this is very crude statistical analysis as things go, an approximate, but it is light-years ahead of guesses and antidotal reliance on one or two examples. Much more likely to be the actual experiences and challenges the contemporaries lived with.

More to come with this. Of course the same approach can be used with cavalry, artillery, and command.

Thanks for the book confirmation.

I remember there was an ACW where units stayed locked in a FF and its been some time… i remember it was intersting

Now you've collated the data how do you resolve the model?

Now you've collated the data how do you resolve the model?

Gamesman6:
I am not quite sure what you mean by 'resolve', but in developing the model, you go through the various behaviors, reactions to charges, the effects of slopes or entrenchments, etc. etc. What is fascinating is how information pops out of statistical data. For instance, how often does being up slope benefit defenders of a charge? With enough examples, 50 or so, a 20%+ difference in wins for defenders over the 20 years of war appears. Or how fast do troops move 'on average?' I found 60 yards per minute, which matches closely to ordinary pace rates. Another interesting discovery is rough ground, mud and steeper slopes reduce that down to a solid average of 40 yards or so. Woods for troops in column? 30 yards. However, I could find no instances of line formations going into woods without breaking down into a skirmish formation to transverse the woods, reforming on the other side.

All these things are translated into game mechanics. That is what the mechanics are meant to do: Model historic behaviors.

Various period studies and treatises also give ballpark views to use as comparison. As I said, Clausewitz is a classic. Then you have the manual used to educate French line officers in 1805, among others. The data that wargamers are interested in are also what military men of the time were too.

Things like rates of fire for muskets and artillery again is a behavior question. Actual casualties don't have a 1:1 relationship to unit behavior until you get to 25-35% casualties. Again, developing data can clarify that relationship. Another important issue is how often units failed to obey or varied from orders. How often did that happen? Games like AOE, based on F&F or General d'Armee, to name a few, have 205-33% chances of troops not moving or 'hesitating' to recreate friction. The question is in reality, did troops screw up that often? Or maybe more often? Gathering enough examples will point in the right direction. The same is true of orders not arriving or generals misbehaving a' la Sickles at Gettysburg.

Simulations and wargames are based on probabilities--what is likely to happen, what are things have a low chance of happening?

Too often decisions are made for game reasons and then justified with historical 'rationales.' The classic is the slow rate of infantry on the table top. There is a reason they all have 4" to at most 12" movement rates regardless of scale: How fast they move across the table and the need for slow infantry/cavalry so artillery can have an attritional effect. The slow movement rate, generally 1/2 to 1/3 the actual movement rates of infantry during the Napoleonic Wars is justified by 'friction' and any army's 'hurry up and wait' behaviors.

Instead of finding ways to provide for actual movement rates, history is 'fudged', which is another way of saying it's ignored.

Of course, when all this data has been distilled into game mechanics and a functioning game system, it has to be tested. Even if all the individual mechanics is established, how they all work together has to be tested against?: Actual battles, engagements and events. Can units get to where they should on the table top in recreating a battle. Does combat promise the outcomes seen in the actual battle. That is just one way to test a system, but you get the idea. And of course, the system has to function as a game and all the things that statement implies.

Creating a wargame representing history is 2Xs the work, a game and a simulation, just as a Don Troiani painting is both art and history representation.

I understand its used to create game mechanics. As stated I've done quite a bit of research and game design over the last 35 odd years. I also research historical combat methods in various eras where one is trying to ascertain the same or similar things even though they aren't explicitly stated.

My question, poorly phrased, was how do those mechanics get used to resolve tbe combat in the game.

Traditionally we'd produce probabilities and modifiers for terrain elevation nationality experience Training etc. Which would be expressed as numeric values that are combined with a roll/s on numeric dice. Which may all be good as a way to analysise units performance. But… doesn't model the experience anyone would have experienced and not how the person the player is in the role of would think what was about when issuing orders or watching actions unfold.

While making an accurate model may, need these things, my gaol is to produce an interface so what the participant doesn't feels more like what the real person would be doing or at least not feel seperate from what they would be doing…

Gamesman6 you imply that there are two distinct aspects barely connected the die and the experience. My own experience is they are one and the same. Once you have the rules down pat you no longer even think about them. You simply take in what you understand of the terrain and what little in many cases the information you have on the enemy positions. That plan does not consider what die rolls you are expecting but an understanding of the probable ranges of outcome based on your understanding of the situation for good or ill. So there is no worry about die rolls. Driving a car you do not consider in detail what is going on in the engine, the mechanics are working but you are really not considering them directly. Maybe you just have a bad experience with rules. i.e stuck with the 40 year old systems.

UshCha
I'm not implying, I'm stating my own observations and experience. I accept that it may not be yours… but it is mine..and has little to do with the age of the rule sets, which youre implying of my experience.

Though I'm not saying the experience is separate from the dice… I'm saying that the way most systems are created, the experience IS the dice. The dice are the action. The mechanics of the game frame the experience and take centre stage as they are what allow or deny our plans, the experience of war takes 2nd place to the experience of interacting with the rules
A well designed set of rules will do it better and again the designer should make the disconnect as minimal as possible

I don't need to understand how a car engine works to drive a car. I need to master the interface/skill.
Long term i need to know that the engine needs petrol etc… but even that goes only so far.
Now with computer driven games I don't need to know how that works, I just need to be able to operate the interface.

With human operated mechanics I need to understand how they work… or nothing happens and we are playing toy soldiers.
I'll grant that it should be a goal in rules design to make them as simple as possible and also to minimise the interruption and suspension of belief. However my issue to often is that they fail on both counts.

Wargame AARs are littered with comments relating to rules mechanics over what would actually be happening.. talk about bad or good dice rolls. The numbers rolled.. etc etc.. I've yet to read an actual battle account or AAR where such things were mentioned.
That interrupts my engagement with the AAR and also tells me that at those points the mechanics were more in focus than the events being represented.

I will accept that its possible to see beyond the mechanics. To reach a point where suspension of disbelief is achieved to a degree. My goal is to create mechanics that facilitate suspension of disbelief rather than require it.

Gamesman6 . Its an intereting point. Our own rules in part were created as for us, too many rules sets are too random, to the extent any reasonable plan is rendered virtually useless by the level of randomness.

Now to be fair to commecial as opposed to hobby rules designers like myself, the hobby generally likes the excessive random. I have been told on many occations that many like the random events, they improve the game, that to me is an anathema.

I am horrified by the concentration on die scores not tactics, but some folk like it, so commecial rules abound in them. Our own rules though having die, the level of random is minimised so that in general the outcome has a limited spread, for instance the close combat random element is a crude representation of a standard distribution with a relatively limited standard deviation.

Unfortunately our rules are for moderns so the mechisms are not compatible with Napolionic command and control or even movement systems.

We did note early on with our rules, folk rarely talked about die roles, but about where for instance they overlooked the value of a particular section of terrain in either attack or defence.
So I note again "bad" rules concentrate on random as the bulk of the populace want it, those of us that want better have to plow a diffrent, far less popular furrow.
In doing so there are issues, our own rules are massively diffrent, using completly diffrent systems to elsewhere. While this has massive advantages a wargamer, brought up on the 40 year old standard "Fearatherstone Clone rules" still very present now, take some while to grasp an alternative system even though it is more intuative and less complicated, they fall back too often on what is familliar.
It's not for no reason that commecial rules do not stray into seriously diffrent systems. After all commecial rule writers want there rules to be short lived so they can sell a new set in a realtivly short priod to make more money.

So the ansewer is you can massively reduce the "Die roll" effect in a simulation, making the experience far more hollistic but that may not be achievable with simple revamps of the "featherstone Clone" rules.

Look not to commecial sets thay have diffrent aims to those of the dedicated simulator.

I did look at producing a usefull AAR report and gave up. Our own rules allow far more flexability of responce so even a very simple situation may have a large number of possible solutions, Knowledge of you opponets experience abnd tactical judgement also influence the solutions. Distraction works wounder on some as they concentrate on a limited area missing the potential build up else where, or even not protecting some avanues of approach as not untill DBM was a distant strike even possible due to the very limited an unrealistic movement syatems of the current commecial systems.

Personally I don't like numeric dice.. in 40 years of RPG and wargames I don't like the way they intrude in my experience I'm trying to create.

I'm interested in multiple periods… but as with other aspects I study I look to the commonalities and how they expressed in different periods and it different levels.

I do find that most rules just repackage the same ideas. And we end up with a situation, close combat for example for which those don't work well at all sonwe end up with close combat and similar which are just random.

Now I'm not adverse to unusual events. But I find that players can do that perfectly well on their own if we add pressure to experience.

I am not following UshCha's Jan 6 post. I did want to point out this:

With human operated mechanics I need to understand how they work… or nothing happens and we are playing toy soldiers.

Gamesman6:
I would suggest you don't want to know 'how' they work. The rules booklet addresses that. You want to know the 'why', what is being represented. And yes, without knowing that you are just playing a game.

I'll grant that it should be a goal in rules design to make them as simple as possible and also to minimise the interruption and suspension of belief. However my issue to often is that they fail on both counts.

Simple games don't intrinsically fail on either account. It has to do with the quality of the design and how much representation is attempted--and of course, how much the players know about the latter. That has been a point I have repeatedly made.

Gameman6: Okay, back to your comments and questions. One of my points is that, the amount of research someone carries out doesn't get you 'in the paint', so to speak. It is the methodologies used with the research that is the difference. I could research Napoleonic combat until the cows rent apartments and never have more than memories and anecdotes. What simulation designers want to know, in simulating reality, is 'what are the chances of…?'

My question, poorly phrased, was how do those mechanics get used to resolve the combat in the game.

Once you have the statistical evidence of unit behavior [at brigade level in my example], the actual game mechanics used to simulate them can be legion. There are no 'right' mechanics or systems, only those that 'work' to replicate the behaviors. I can tell you mine for my work in progress, but it wouldn't be 'The Way' to do it, only a way.

So, the way combat is resolved in with game mechanics could be any number of ways. The questions I ask are these:

As the player represents a divisional or corps commander, then what do they know, what responsibilities/prerogatives so they possess beyond following/creating the battle plan, and what are their concerns. For instance, [but only for that level officer during the Napoleonic wars], during battle, I could find nothing suggesting commanders counted casualties. They often visually saw only regularity, confusion, and movement, and had no idea how many casualties were suffered until later, then it was measured in none, some, or a lot. Unit behaviors were the markers for judging unit condition.

If I want to players to 'immerse' themselves in being a divisional or corps commander, I want to give them an historic environment to set them down in.

Any game system created to immerse the player in an historic environment has to create a system that mimics the real thing, and that can only be done by having a very good idea of how all the moving parts in that environment behave. Part of the immersive ability of such a historical recreation is how much the player is aware of the historical 'whys' behind the rules.

Too many wargame designs, such as Black Powder, are based on the 'common understanding' among wargamers. That makes it easy for players to 'get into' the game and any immersive experience is generated by what they believe about the history the game represents on the table. The number one vortex of game debate is always 1. what history is being represented? and 2. does the game representation valid? The only reason these two questions remain so primary at all is because designers fail to provide the pertinent information regardless of the years of research they do and whatever "designers' Notes" they provide.

Traditionally we'd produce probabilities and modifiers for terrain elevation nationality experience Training etc. Which would be expressed as numeric values that are combined with a roll/s on numeric dice. Which may all be good as a way to analysise units performance. But… doesn't model the experience anyone would have experienced and not how the person the player is in the role of would think what was about when issuing orders or watching actions unfold.

While making an accurate model may, need these things, my gaol is to produce an interface so what the participant doesn't feels more like what the real person would be doing or at least not feel seperate from what they would be doing…

Gamemans6:

There are basic elements needed in a game to facilitate [to use your term], immersion, flow, 'magic circle', etc. etc.

The four categories are systems immersion, spatial immersion, empathic/social immersion, and narrative/sequential immersion.

Game designers generally say

The easiest way to achieve a strong level of immersion is to make the game world as believable as possible, in every conceivable way. If there are any glaring glitches or elements of the game world that seem fake, it will remind the player that they are simply enjoying a game.

Note the 'believable as possible,' and how 'glitches' can pop players out of the immersion. Immersion requires player knowledge and access to pertinent information, or the odds are good that the player's expectations and knowledge won't match the designer's and those block 'believability' and immersion.

From Article HOW TO MAKE IMMERSIVE GAME DESIGN June 2020 from Silicon University.

link

I can provide a lot more references if interested.

Gamesman6: Sorry. The last two paragraphs are yours from above and I didn't bracket them as quotes. My response is the next post.

Yes… I think I mentioned before. I work in theatre and film and so know about immersion and suspension of disbelief which we try to base as much ad possible on reality. Reality first, theatricality second. But I also research and recreate historical fighting styles. Its imo about fining the principles and scaling and adapting them.
Thanks for the link to the article.