"Validating your model" Topic

Clearly we are on different wavelengths I found the link HOW TO MAKE IMMERSIVE GAME DESIGN to be so far off my objectives to make it irrelevant.
A stress analysis system is an intriguing and fascinating tool for the results it portrays. That requires none of the fripperies defined in the paper and would be worse for such things. It does not want for any of the things defined here for a computer game, personalty I have never seen an intriguing or immersive computer game, they lack any semblance of AI that can hold a candle to a real person.
Is a simulation of my type improved by better and better graphics, no it soon becomes irrelevant, good enough is "It". No improvement in graphics makes the game any better.
Sound makes it no better which again shows the irrelevance of the paper. Storytelling again there is no "story telling" It is the plans of the players that the system is evaluating, calling that "story telling" simply shows a lack of understanding of what is going on. Most certainly the last thing I would want is for my simulation to be considered attempting to be a dreadful Hollywood movie.

You seem to be aiming for a totally different design goals to me. Yes the interface needs to be a efficient as possible but that is the goal of any system not exclusive to some computer game system. Similarly the output needs to be as easy to comprehend as is possible but that again owes nothing to the computer games industry.

Pretending a war game of my type is analogous to a computer games its at best unflattering and most certainly is not appropriate.

Reference to a elegant engineering analysis tool (which it is an analysis tool) would be far more relevant.

UshCha:

1. Don't confuse the medium [computers] with the fact it is a game… and creating immersion, regardless of the medium, still is dealing with the player, the same entity regardless of what kind of game or topic.
2. Try seeing the general outlines of the topic rather than getting swept up with the fact that they aren't speaking directly to you chosen topic and type of game. Unfortunately, few miniature wargame designers actually speak to this in any fashion other than wanting it.

While making an accurate model may, need these things, my goal 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 separate from what they would be doing…

Gamesman6:

I am certainly in agreement. There is creating the environment, how units and commands act under battlefield conditions based on statistical data. How the player relates to this environment is the interface. So, you need the game environment and then how the player will relate to it playing the role of a particular level commander. The odds of something happening a particular way needs to be the kind of event a commander could estimate as he makes decisions. All generals do this, often thinking in terms of numbers or odds of something happening. It is all in what you ask the player to do and the decisions he has to make.

Uscha
What do we mean when we say wargame… we all know what it means to us… and then we tend to assume it is or should be the same for everyone.

I'd agree with macladdienifnwe are looking at broader concepts and principles. The arguments are about the detail.. a bit like religion.

I don't believe anyone is pretending anything about your gamenand when MacLaddie shared the link I thought it wasnto me in response to a diacussion we were having.

Macladdie
Indeed.there is how the game plays and how it looks and how the player interfaces with it and it interfaces with them.
How the game plays is most important a computer game annaolgy is that while games now look better they IMO don't play so well or have a play style that engages me.

In regards to how the game looks and sounds. Better terrain and figures certainly help and we use radio traffic recordings. Battle sounds. Use radios for communication between players etc.

I get some people want a different experience. But that doesn't invalidate other choices

And once we look under the bonnet we still need a good engine etc. But we also IMO need a good interface.
A functional design so operating the system is part of the experience too.

Again you seem to miss some points. The operating system needs to be efficient, but that is not a game dependent it's a general interface requirement of almost any system.
Given a plausible level of interface design it becomes immaterial. In doing CADDS in my Aerospace job I used a complex 3D interface system for viewing large complex parts and working on them. This was a "joy sick" that also push'/pulled and twisted. A complex interface that took some learning. Having learnt it, the system no longer really passed into consciousness,you looked at the picture and it rotated zoomed and oriented it's self to where you needed without even a conscious reference to how you did it.

A simulation is no different, assigning Booms and Bangs seems to me to be utterly pointless and could even be an unrepresentative distraction. It may only be representative of some of the troops located very close to the action and at a high volume. The company commander could be in a bunker where there is no, or very subdued noise. How would you represent each one. If you do not you are not adding to the fidelity of the game and in fact making it less credible.

Would a stress analysis system that made a bang when it demonstrated a component failure be an improvement. Frankly the assumption it did would be fascicle. It does seem to me that you have to large extent abandoned simulation fidelity by adding unrepresentative and unnecessary items.

Slot car races do not need simulated sound to make the race better.

Model rail;ways do use sound but it is explicitly tailored to the locomotive, its speed and current power output. That may be argued is better, but the locomotive is typically only one of a few in a local area and the observer is by definition outside surveying the scene. A company commander will hear little inside his tank than internal noises and the chatter of the radio. Anything else is incorrect. Adding a block of general sound is like Adding Musak, never a good addition in a serious space.

What is important is getting the simulation correct. If you have radios then the distribution of those radios is an important reflection of where this force multiplier can be applied. Thus if correctly done it will ensure the same decision space is available to the player as was available to the real commander. This is not improved by a requirement for excessive model detail or sound effects. It is an intrinsic part of simulation "simulating the experience". Outside of this to me is a piece of illogical, representative of Hollywood maybe but that is most certainly not a direction any simulator should aspire too take if they are after fidelity.

If the player is engrossed in his task then he/she will only see such things as unrealistic distractions, particularly as the aim should always be to keep him busy like the real world and as close to Analysis Paralysis as is practical so he has decent game is had.

What is important is getting the simulation correct. If you have radios then the distribution of those radios is an important reflection of where this force multiplier can be applied. Thus if correctly done it will ensure the same decision space is available to the player as was available to the real commander. This is not improved by a requirement for excessive model detail or sound effects.

UshCha:
It isn't missing the point. It is very important to get the simulation correct. You assume that is more than enough to induce or facilitate 'immersion.' Becoming familiar with the system, to the point of operating it is 'unconscious' certainly can facilitate immersion, but that unconscious skill isn't the same as immersion.

And sounds for a computer game are far more important/easy to provide than a tabletop wargame… but it has been done with games like Submarine Commander and an app.

The point is that there are a number of ways to encourage, facilitate or make moving into the "flow" and immersion in a tabletop game other than the extended effort to make the manipulation of the game rules and mechanics an 'unconscious' ability.

If the player is engrossed in his task then he/she will only see such things as unrealistic distractions, particularly as the aim should always be to keep him busy like the real world and as close to Analysis Paralysis as is practical so he has decent game is had.

I was talking about the game methods in design to facilitate getting the player engrossed in the first place. There are any number of things that can 'pop' him out of that flow. Certainly 'unrealistic' distractions are one…assuming the player has a good idea of what is and is not 'realistic' in the game play. Simple distractions or requirement of play that interrupt that flow is another.

Personally I'd say rolling dice and other game mechanics are unrealistic distractions, at least in the way they are normally encounyed.

Of course having tbe player hear sounds that the role woildnt is of course be redundant.. but then so is making the observation that it would be the case.
And of course unrealistic noises are of no use either. It's a choice, which people are free to use or not… but it also depends on what someone is modell

You seem to assuming stress testing on what seems to be a mechanistic level, which makes sense from what I glean to be you job.

Personally I'm talking about stressing the player. In which case sounds, obviously we'll done and appropriate, adds to that stress and can make for a simulacrum of the events.

People understress act in "intersting" ways whether in a game or RL.
Even just having randomised activation and time constrained activation duration, made for lots of intersting situations.

Exposing our players to a stress in a simulated environment may not be for all of us.. but it doesn't make it any less valid as a model or experience.

Personally I'd say rolling dice and other game mechanics are unrealistic distractions, at least in the way they are normally encounyed.

Every simulation/wargame has the historical systems and mechanics, but they almost always include what is called 'scaffolding.' Those are the necessary administrative and game structure necessities in any simulation, even computer sims.

Is physically rolling dice the annoyance, or what they do or don't represent? There must be some 'chance' involved in war and thus wargames.

WAR is a profession which can never be carried to an equal degree of perfection with many others, notwithstanding the pains that are now taken for that purpose ; every news paper advertising some new work upon that subject . All the great masters agree that it ought to be carried on by rules and principles: but as in the art of fencing, we have rules to thrust , so also have we to parry, -- it is précisely the same in the science of war. A trifle will frequently derange the best concerted operations, in the same manner as an excellent fencer may sometimes be hit by a man who has never learnt to distinguish a carte from a triece. This can never be the case in any other profession.

Major-General Warnery, Thoughts and Anecdotes 1774 [Italics mine]

The question for a wargame is that 'frequency.' Not just predicting what chance events can happen, but also where they are likely to occur and how often.

Macladdie
Every simulation/wargame has the historical systems and mechanics, but they almost always include what is called 'scaffolding.' Those are the necessary administrative and game structure necessities in any simulation, even computer sims.

G6
Oh I get that… my point was about what makes for an intrusion. Most gamers accept or expect numeric dice… so they don't see it as an intrusion.

For me the goal is to make the scaffolding as immersive as possible.

As a side note I'm surprised how few computer wargames do much more than replicate what is in effect a table top game.

Macladdie
Is physically rolling dice the annoyance, or what they do or don't represent? There must be some 'chance' involved in war and thus wargames.

G6
Having some action is important for engagement. Plenty of popular board or table games failed when utomated with a computer. As the player was now largely passive.
But for me it's numeric dice.. and the way they are used.
It's why I moved away from numeric dice.
Another issue i find is that the "chance" is loaded on the back end. So regardless of your choices it largely comes down to chance.
I try to add the chance earlier. The skill is use of the chance and using double blind choices adds uncertainty/chance. Also as mentioned other factors can add chance in the mix. Random activation. Limited decision time etc

As some one who practices and researches the various arts of fence. I'll agree.

I feel we have for too long used chance to replicate the unpredictability found in "combat"

A simulation is no different, assigning Booms and Bangs seems to me to be utterly pointless and could even be an unrepresentative distraction. It may only be representative of some of the troops located very close to the action and at a high volume. The company commander could be in a bunker where there is no, or very subdued noise. How would you represent each one. If you do not you are not adding to the fidelity of the game and in fact making it less credible.

You wouldn't need to have specific sounds at specific times, just a looped soundtrack of a battle as background to set the tone. The more senses you can engage the players the more realistic the experience. The smell of gunpowder may help too.

I like the idea of having the opposing player zap you with a cattle prod whenever you lose a unit. That should make players more risk-averse when ordering their units.

If you are simulating a CO in a bunker then you should isolate him in another room as all he would see is a map and get status reports. He'd give an overall order or assign objectives and players in the other room play the game.

Personally, I think it is hard to design a playable game where a player assumes the viewpoint of a single commander unless there is some mechanism that determines how each unit under his command will perform because higher-level commanders do not tell each individual vehicle or soldier what they would be doing. Real Commanders do not get to micro-manager their subordinates unless they attach themselves to one. That would not be much fun in a game.

Wolfhag

Reference to a elegant engineering analysis tool (which it is an analysis tool) would be far more relevant.

Using engineering tools and computers allows you to have almost perfect information to make a decision. Combat is anything but that. It would be valuable to analyze after-action reports.

Combat is time-competitive and you don't always have enough time to evaluate the situation to make the right decision. That's almost impossible to play out in a game unless it is a computer simulation that can simulate simultaneous actions.

However, there are playable ways to simulate each individual unit's OODA Loop interacting with all other unit's Loop with the faster units seizing the initiative to act or execute their order first.

Wolfhag

The odds of something happening a particular way needs to be the kind of event a commander could estimate as he makes decisions. All generals do this, often thinking in terms of numbers or odds of something happening. It is all in what you ask the player to do and the decisions he has to make.

I'll have to disagree on the point of odds. Creating a game based on past statistics and odds, no matter how accurate they may be, does not answer the who, what, where, when, and why the event was caused. Let the player estimate it himself and make the right or wrong decision based on the situation. He can determine his own odds of success or failure. The system should have a way to allow this.

If statistically a Civil War Regiment fell back after receiving one volley 5% of the time would you roll a D20 each time a regiment received a volley to see if they fall back if a 1 is rolled?

I wouldn't. If they were conducting a fighting withdrawal they may fall back many consecutive times after one volley to slow down the enemy's advance. They may be falling back to draw the enemy into an ambush, getting flanked, etc.

How a unit acts under action in a game should ideally be determined by the player (with appropriate modifiers or exceptions) shouldn't it?

Wolfhag

Wolfhag You imply the impossible, no game system can come vaguely close to the decision making capability of a real individual so unless you have several individuals in the command chain 1 player has to do it. The equivalent is giving a none aggressive player some extra die advantages to make him represent an aggressive general. Utter rubbish that will not make him have the flare to make him a great aggressive general: The result is more unrealistic than just letting him get on with it, personal experience of such pathetic attempts bears witness to this. Whatever you do to my mate Paul he will always get the bet out of his troops, you can't make him make bad decisions, die do not have that effect they merely skew sensible rules without a consummate improvement elsewhere in the system.

Wolfhag
Personally, I think it is hard to design a playable game where a player assumes the viewpoint of a single commander unless there is some mechanism that determines how each unit under his command will perform because higher-level.

G6
Indeed. I'm currently working on ways to allow one person. Who is nominally at the higher level in the game. Say Bn CO.. can also play Co and Plt… BUT with restrictions. Most games have the player shifting between levels of command with few restrictions, what im working on is having units have "personality" but still giving the player a sense of agency within those restrictions.

This is in part because despite a commander knowing fairly well what you're subordinates should do… they don't always. And will be reacting to their perception of rhe battle. Which will be different to their commanders and especially the players.

Wolfhag
Combat is time-competitive and you don't always have enough time to evaluate the situation to make the right decision. That's almost impossible to play out in a game unless it is a computer simulation that can simulate simultaneous actions.

G6
Indeed. And doubly so time as it relates to you and as it relates to them.

And as you say you can't be truely real time unless in a computer. And playing certain computer games has give good insight to RL experiences.
The question then is. What are we trying to stimulate in our players with the expirences we create.
I like to make experiences where the players are time constrained so they have to make decisions rapidly. They don't know when their activation will occur so they need to pay attention.
Where they may be able to react t unfolding events. Either by issuing over watch type orders. Holding on to an activation til they want it and or having multiples activation chits or cards.

Now while not actual simultaneous action. It simulates it to a a degree.

Wolfhag
How a unit acts under action in a game should ideally be determined by the player (with appropriate modifiers or exceptions) shouldn't it?

G6
Yes and no… as mentioned above.
Yes because if the player… as a hobbyist feels they lack agency they won't want to play.
No because in RL what I want a subordinate to do whether right or wrong bepends on what that subordinate thinks they should do in that situation, or their interpretation of what i want them to do.

Then what the unit will actually do.

Macladdie
but as in the art of fencing, we have rules to thrust , so also have we to parry, -- it is précisely the same in the science of war. A trifle will frequently derange the best concerted operations, in the same manner as an excellent fencer may sometimes be hit by a man who has never learnt to distinguish a carte from a triece. This can never be the case in any other profession.

There is a reason why so many treatises on the art of fence contain words the art and practice, or theory and practice.
Of course the complexities of personal skill at arms pale when compare to what occurs in combat on larger scale where the interaction of more pieces and more unknowns are at play…

The question then is, does, as we have historically in games, using the variability I'd real life. Some think so…I don't personally, especially at the end of the decision and comparison process.
Personally I think the interaction of choices made by players creates a randomness, especially I'd they aren't given a set of perfect options and are given a limited amount of time to make decisions and choices.
It's a similar difference one finds say in speed chess.
But also as mentioned before is a simulacrum of what we use the ooda loop for.
But then I'm interested making choices in an option and time constrained environment with imperfect knowledge of my and my opponents options and actions

Gamesman6:

You have more than once said you prefer not to use dice. Why exactly and what do you do as a 'substitute.'

Personally I think the interaction of choices made by players creates a randomness, especially I'd they aren't given a set of perfect options and are given a limited amount of time to make decisions and choices.

Quite true. That is up to the players. With some statistical analysis, one can find out what kinds of [non-player decision] randomness occur and how often.
What is one surprising thing about that randomness is that it isn't an inch deep over the entire battlefield, but clouts at certain choke points and levels in the army organization and battlefield environment. One can't tell exactly what will occur or where, but odds of how often it will at those choke points provides.

But then I'm interested making choices in an option and time constrained environment with imperfect knowledge of my and my opponents options and actions.

That imperfect knowledge is something I am interested in simulating. The question is always at a command level, what does the officer know, not know, and what can he do about it?

Personally, I think it is hard to design a playable game where a player assumes the viewpoint of a single commander unless there is some mechanism that determines how each unit under his command will perform because higher-level commanders do not tell each individual vehicle or soldier what they would be doing. Real Commanders do not get to micro-manager their subordinates unless they attach themselves to one. That would not be much fun in a game.

Wolfhag:

That is a major issue with wargames. Doctrine and training is meant to negate the need to tell every officer in your command what to do. Real commanders in the 19th century could micro-manage to their command detriment… or not. Both Napoleon 1796 and Bazaine in 1870 involved themselves in siting individual cannon. On the other hand, Napoleon didn't issue any orders for the first two hours of Austerlitz, one of his most decisive battles. That wouldn't be much fun as a wargame.

I think it is a real wargame design challenge, but there are several ways to handle it in a competitive game with two players.

Macladdie

You have more than once said you prefer not to use dice. Why exactly and what do you do as a 'substitute.

-G6 I'm not against dice per se. I'm against numeric dice and how they are normally used.

I use dice with symbols representing actions.

Or the interaction of choices.

Rules tend to allow too perfect knowledge and create uncertainty at the end with the dice roll. I focus on ways of reducing the knowledge the players have and then focus on the interaction of choices which are then uncertain because one doesn't clearly know what the opponent is doing.

Macladdie
That imperfect knowledge is something I am interested in simulating. The question is always at a command level, what does the officer know, not know, and what can he do about it?

-G6
The issue j have is that too often the rules try to model that uncertainty and imperfect knowledge with a mechanism. A mechanism that operated by the players who then understand what is happening rather negating the whole point.

I tend towards uncertainty based on choices and use.
So say a unit has a Combat effect value of 6, that effect value doesn't change but only gets used when I play a Fire action. More fore actions more 6s. The rules will vary the choices the player can make with that unit. Say using options such as, Fire, Move, Cover. I may use cards or dice with those options on. If these are double blind I don't know what you have. And until I draw or roll I don't know I may actually do.. so I have to decide how to use my draw.
So each cover action will reduce Fire effect based on unit quality and available cover. But if I play cover to be safe I'm vulnerable if my opponent playes move. As they can use that to outflank

Now it's still familiar game type mechanics but I'm thinking about actions as I would not numeric values in a set of game mechanics.

Macladdie
Napoleon didn't issue any orders for the first two hours of Austerlitz, one of his most decisive battles. That wouldn't be much fun as a wargame.

-G6
But that woildnt happen in a wargame of course because the player is both napoleon and every other level in the game. Even with pre written orders. My time as napoleon is set but I'm still carrying out the action.. and responding to the emerging situation.

My goal is to find ways to make the player have to work within the options the lower level would have… then they as napoleon would only have to issue orders when the lowered levels were too far off book.

Personally, I think it is hard to design a playable game where a player assumes the viewpoint of a single commander unless there is some mechanism that determines how each unit under his command will perform because higher-level.

Yes, you'd need some rules to have the subordinate units function like bots or have a single player playing a single unit.

Tank Duel and Patton's Best, board games, do a good job of simulating a single tank commander. Tank Duel can be a multi-player game too. If a game has one player controlling a tank or figure then you can essentially do it too in a playable manner.

Having a single player controlling 4-10 vehicles or infantry has pretty much the same effect.

Indeed. I'm currently working on ways to allow one person. Who is nominally at the higher level in the game. Say Bn CO.. can also play Co and Plt… BUT with restrictions. Most games have the player shifting between levels of command with few restrictions, what im working on is having units have "personality" but still giving the player a sense of agency within those restrictions.

I think the easiest way would be to assign objectives to the subordinate units. They keep attempting to achieve their objectives until they are forced/ordered to fall back or get new orders.

Personalities are a good idea. A bold commander can have a better chance of achieving his objective but with more causalities. A conservative commander would have the opposite effect.

Wolfhag

. Wolfhag
Yes, you'd need some rules to have the subordinate units function like bots or have a single player playing a single unit.

-G6
The issue is that human moderated single player game mechanics doesn't work for me. We get bogged down in the Rules and I've not yet seen a computer operated game that works as the algorithm/ai doesn't function well.

That's why I'm working with the idea of the options the subordinate has. So the subordinate has a selection of options each activation. The player then has to use those. As such the "rules" set a way to offer responses the player uses.

Wolfhag
I think the easiest way would be to assign objectives to the subordinate units. They keep attempting to achieve their objectives until they are forced/ordered to fall back or get new orders

Yes.. at least at the beginning, as one would. But I still feel its too restrictive.. it doesn't allow for subordinates to respond to emergjng events and the player will feel confined by the choices they initially made even if they are able to issue new orders… which they can with approprate delays etc.
Again my current thinking is on providing a framework of options that the subordinate could have and the player will use.

These can be altered or affected by the subordinates personality. Aggressive subs can repick non aggressive actions.

Similarly they can be affected by the unit. A unit that has been too long in the line and has lost its aggressive edge, may have to repick aggressive actions, so they are less likely but not stopped from being aggressive.

My goal is to find ways to make the player have to work within the options the lower level would have… then they as napoleon would only have to issue orders when the lowered levels were too far off book.

Gamesman6: That is simple in many ways as the 'lower levels' had very few options, on purpose. Particularly during the SYW and Napoleonic period. It can be done. Every army has 'doctrine', training to do it 'the army way.' While 20th century warfare has given more decision-making to the lower ranks, there are still 'ways to do things.' I can describe how that works with my game.

Yes.. at least at the beginning, as one would. But I still feel its too restrictive.. it doesn't allow for subordinates to respond to emergjng events and the player will feel confined by the choices they initially made even if they are able to issue new orders… which they can with approprate delays etc.
Again my current thinking is on providing a framework of options that the subordinate could have and the player will use.

These can be altered or affected by the subordinates personality. Aggressive subs can repick non aggressive actions.

Yes, you'd always allow for a lower unit initiative to change orders. However, objectives are pretty significant as are the objectives of other units on your flanks, especially at levels of command from the Company and above and you don't want to mix your units in with another command. I'd expect aggressive units would have more staying power.

When in doubt I look to see what the manuals and after-action reports state.

Wolfhag

Who is nominally at the higher level in the game. Say Bn CO.. can also play Co and Plt… BUT with restrictions. Most games have the player shifting between levels of command with few restrictions, what im working on is having units have "personality" but still giving the player a sense of agency within those restrictions.

Not sure here you are not trying to fix a rules issue here not an actual issue. If you are a commander you have a plan. If you are working on that plan it's in your mind when you act at a lower level. If you have a decent set of rules then you have to "work to the book". It should be the case that departing the plan results in higher losses and in the worst case defeat. Too many games in my opinion have an unrealisticly high proability of a rare event working. The player may take risks that are unrealistic as the gains are similarly unrealistic. A platoon comander that loses control of his platoon as an element wanders off to "do somthing spectacular" will inevitabley be worse off unless you make the winning of the "jackpot" unrealisticaly high, which many rules eem to promote. No if ther is a "realistic" proability of a sub element doing somthig spectacular then some armies will look kindly on that certainly in the moderen world. If a tiger tank passes by detected but the element is not seen then taking the initative to strike it in the flany though currently out of arc is sensible. Dashing into the open and shooting it because you have an unreasaonable possibility of killing the tank is a rules issue not a command and control issue.

Hence in a good rules set the opertuniteis for irrelevant "system breaking" independent action are not there to start with. Don't try and fix what ain't broke.

Macladdie
That is simple in many ways as the 'lower levels' had very few options, on purpose. Particularly during the SYW and Napoleonic period. It can be done. Every army has 'doctrine', training to do it 'the army way.' While 20th century warfare has given more decision-making to the lower ranks, there are still 'ways to do things.' I can describe how that works with my game.

-G6
I understand that. And I'm also only talking about applying appropriately to the level the game is functioning. Its the perpetual focus of warfare. But its imo something that wargames rules.do poorly.
Regardless of "how it's done" there are still a variety of things that could happen. Hence my number of options/actions which may be chosen by or forced on subordinates out of the control of high levels. Even where doctrine wasn't to allow freedom of action units still "interpreted" the situations in their own way.

Wolfhag
Yes, you'd always allow for a lower unit initiative to change orders. However, objectives are pretty significant as are the objectives of other units on your flanks, especially at levels of command from the Company and above and you don't want to mix your units in with another command. I'd expect aggressive units would have more staying power.

-G6
Agreed on all of that… and the ideas I'm working would contradict that.

Wolfhag
When in doubt I look to see what the manuals and after-action reports state.

-G6
For sure.. which is exactly why I because frustrated with rules…
I wasn't seeing the situations they created reflecting things I saw in AAR.

Ushcha
Not sure here you are not trying to fix a rules issue here not an actual issue. If you are a commander you have a plan. If you are working on that plan it's in your mind when you act at a lower level

-G6
I'd say it's an issues that we seen in events but is IMO poorly implemented I'm rules.

I'd agree that most rules make the likelihood of an unusual event happen becomes to high. But that. Imo an issue with the rules.

Again your offering examples where is would be a case where I'd say the rules were being "gamed" but that's nor what I'm talking about. What I'm addressing is to get a way to have a game unfold like an actual event as we see in AARs.

Ushcha
Hence in a good rules set the opertuniteis for irrelevant "system breaking" independent action are not there to start with. Don't try and fix what ain't broke.

-G6 😉 Well you're assuming a. A good set of rules for you is a good set of rules for me.
b. Just because a set of rules don't create that problem that we shouldn't look for a better way of doing it.
c. You are conflating a system that isn't broken with one that doesn't answer the problem I'm looking at.

While I'm a great beliver in IIABDFI. Humans always tinker and trying things out. Other wise where would we be? 😉

I understand that. And I'm also only talking about applying appropriately to the level the game is functioning. Its the perpetual focus of warfare. But its imo something that wargames rules.do poorly.

Regardless of "how it's done" there are still a variety of things that could happen. Hence my number of options/actions which may be chosen by or forced on subordinates out of the control of high levels.

G6: Agreed. Here is how I [and Napoleonic armies] handled that 'variety of things that could happen.' That was a concern of Officers in giving orders and creating SOPs.

For instance, Napoleonic infantry brigades generally were part of a battle line which created restrictions. On the move, a primary effort of a brigade commander was to keep their battle line parallel to the enemy's line. A brigade's basic battle commands were to defend, attack straight a head from the beginning of an approach [where one steps into artillery range] to supporting another brigade in front of them. The distance behind was dictated and the supporting brigade could do one of three things: Exchange or replace lines , Cover a retreat or move to cover the supported brigade's flank if threatened. That's it. If given a separate mission apart from the division, it made them a separate 'divisional' command for all intents and purposes. The same was true of the artillery. Divisional and Corps commanders didn't pick specific targets for their guns unless by direct order. Usually, they were told were to place their guns and the area to command. That's it. Horse artillery might be ordered to support cavalry, but there too, there were specific ways dictated to do that.

In a battle line, the brigade commander had three decisions he could make without orders: Extend or refuse the line. Go into square if threatened by cavalry and throw out more skirmishers. [All of these were subject to commander's orders, such as Napoleon's at Jena were divisions were told to deploy 'heavy skirmish lines'. [i.e. more than just the voltigeurs]

All of which make for fairly simple, and historically realistic restrictions on individual brigade's actions.

Again. I get that. I've spent a long time over the years looking at different periods.

But these doctrinal things… thjngs units are trained and or expected to do. It like understanding the moves a chess piece can make.

And while that needs to be considered as part of the model its nkt what im interested in.

But whether in action a unit does one of these things is based on deeper fundamentals/principles.

Thinking of an example…a unit advancing out of the line early. Like the British units advancing on their own volition at Minden.

The set actions you mention may define what a unit did… but it doesn't offer an opportunity to factor why they did it.

Too often in games the commendable units are basically arentujnso for the players intent. At best rules put kbstavmcles in the way of the players smooth execution of their plan, random activation, Action Points etc etc.
But few offer a way for subunits bringing obstacles to tbe players intent, for good or bad but their own actions or ommisiom of action.

-G6
For sure.. which is exactly why I because frustrated with rules…
I wasn't seeing the situations they created reflecting things I saw in AAR.

I think that's because real combat is a time-competitive environment with simultaneous action on both sides. With traditional rules, all you can really simulate is IGYG actions and Chess-like tactics.

When two units are locked in a small arms firefight engagement there is no initiative as both sides are simultaneously firing the entire turn. At the end of a turn compare firepower versus defenses and determine the results. It should speed up the game too.

Wolfhag

Indeed… bht even there yes theh sre locked in a fire fight
.. so somethjng else needs tk happen rather than juts rolling attacm vs def

Then there's rbe element of it feeling like units are too much an extention of the players will. And when obstacles are placed in the way of the player by the rules, to counter that they feel like delays rather than what we read about in tbe AARs

But these doctrinal things… thjngs units are trained and or expected to do. It like understanding the moves a chess piece can make.

Gamesman6: And guess what many army commanders through history worked to have their units behave like? Chess was considered a wargame and an training tool.

And while that needs to be considered as part of the model its nkt what im interested in.

But whether in action a unit does one of these things is based on deeper fundamentals/principles.

Ooh, I am interested in 'deeper fundamentals and principles.' What are you thinking of?

Thinking of an example…a unit advancing out of the line early. Like the British units advancing on their own volition at Minden.

First, to have such event represent history, general behaviors/doctrine/training etc. have to be established. Then one has to determine the cause and then how often such issue occur. That is how modeling such behaviors is accomplished.

[copied from a website] At Minden,"There now occurred one of the incidents beloved of British military history. It is said that an order was sent that the infantry were to "advance on the beat of drum" and that this was misinterpreted as an order to "advance to the beat of drum". Waldegrave's brigade set off towards the French line, followed by Kingsley's."

So, a misunderstood order. How often does that occur?

Sackville refused to obey an order at the battle. How often does that occur [He was court martialed, so probably not that often.]

So, you have two 'whys' of snafus, both general and specific. The specific reasons can be handled by scenarios. The design question is how often do those things happen?

The set actions you mention may define what a unit did… but it doesn't offer an opportunity to factor why they did it.

Too often in games the commendable units are basically arentujnso for the players intent. At best rules put kbstavmcles in the way of the players smooth execution of their plan, random activation, Action Points etc etc.
But few offer a way for subunits bringing obstacles to tbe players intent, for good or bad but their own actions or ommisiom of action.

I am all for recreating the obstacles that the contemporaries encountered and could encounter. The trick is to provide those in the game as close to the actual chances and usual locations as possible. That is representing reality.

Remember that 1. Armies worked hard to reduce those events and obstacles as much as possible, 2. identified the areas where such events were more likely to occur.

For instance, at Minden there was a mix of national forces and languages, raising the chances for mistakes and counter-motives.

As a similar example of what I mean about accidents and rare events, look at a simulation of a freeway I know about. There were 20 serious accidents a month on the freeway [more than one every two days] and the question is what to do to reduce them. Now, the question was why when there were tens of thousands traveling the freeway a day. Those accidents weren't spread out at random across the entire 30 miles of freeway. Nope, just four places had more than 70% of the accidents. 30% seen as more random. The majority of the accidents were at particular on-ramps and bottlenecks. Relatively minor improvements significantly reduced accident.

Armies and battles are the same way. Accidents and obstacles are spread evenly across the battlefield. With statistical analysis, where, how, why and when such things occur can be identified. Perfectly? Nope, but it does create a far more accurate approximation that we see in miniature wargame systems at the moment.

What are the actual obstacles a Napoleonic commander could expect to face or face by chance? That's the question for me.

which is exactly why I because frustrated with rules…
I wasn't seeing the situations they created reflecting things I saw in AAR.

Yes, you'd always allow for a lower unit initiative to change orders. However, objectives are pretty significant as are the objectives of other units on your flanks, especially at levels of command from the Company and above and you don't want to mix your units in with another command. I'd expect aggressive units would have more staying power.

Wolfhag and Gamersman6:
The allowance for initiative at lower level commanders, brigade, regiment and battalion were pretty restrictive during the Napoleonic and basically non-existent during the SYW. Such initiative is circumscribed by the army doctrine [or lack of it] the period and even the national characteristics of the armies.

What I see as often as too restrictive rules in wargames, is the lower units behaving like there are no restrictions. It certainly was a balancing act for armies, coming to different conclusions as to what was 'allowed.' And of course, some armies rewarded officers 'coloring outside the lines', while others regularly punished them.

Then there's rbe element of it feeling like units are too much an extention of the players will. And when obstacles are placed in the way of the player by the rules, to counter that they feel like delays rather than what we read about in tbe AARs

What I find too often is that there is little understand of what those 'obstacles' were, let alone the things that actual commanders could and could not do about them.

so something else needs to happen, rather than just rolling attacm vs def

Of course! Firefights over 200m where both sides have adequate cover, are rarely decisive. Firepower suppresses your enemy so you can call in supporting arms or fire & maneuver to assault or displace them.

The Germans would register mortars on a choke point or trail the enemy would use. Then they conceal a machine gun to cover it. As soon as the machine gun opened fire the enemy infantry would hit the deck (and not stand in one place waiting to be activated) the mortar team nearby would start dropping mortar rounds on them.

Wargamers are unhistorically prone to always shooting, but that may have more to do with the rules than anything else. If the game only has 6 turns you need to shoot every unit you can. The games normally have causality rates far above historical encounters, too but that's how most players measure success. Historically, depending on the situation, you'd hold your fire when first sighting the enemy to see what you are really up against. If you fire too early and give away your position the enemy will call in artillery on you.

What I mean by "locked in a firefight" is that the unit's focus and Situational Awareness are on each other and it will be more difficult to observe and react to new enemy actions and LOS. That's why fire & maneuver works because the defenders are focused on the suppressive fire element and may not detect the assault group which may only be 1-2 guys until it is too late.

Wolfhag

Wargamers are unhistorically prone to always shooting, but that may have more to do with the rules than anything else. If the game only has 6 turns you need to shoot every unit you can. The games normally have causality rates far above historical encounters, too but that's how most players measure success.

Yes. In real combat, the opponents rarely counted enemy casualties during an engagement. That was a post battle thing unless they still retained the battlefield. What they focused on was enemy behaviors. Often they could not count their own casualties except in generalities. They couldn't during a battle unless down at the smaller levels of a squad or platoon.

What I mean by "locked in a firefight" is that the unit's focus and Situational Awareness are on each other and it will be more difficult to observe and react to new enemy actions and LOS. That's why fire & maneuver works because the defenders are focused on the suppressive fire element and may not detect the assault group which may only be 1-2 guys until it is too late.

Leo Murry's Brains & Bullets provides some great examples of that.

Mission orders as described in ADP 6-0, are the foundation of mission command, because it sets the tone of a command climate. Mission orders tell a subordinate what to do and why he is doing it, but does not tell him how. By not telling a subordinate how to do something they can better account for and deal with the friction and fog of war to accomplish the commanders intent. ADP 6-0 Mission Command published in September 2012 lays out principles and tasks for commanders and staffs to prepare orders, and to execute command and control operations. ADP 6-0 states that army mission command comes from the German concept of Auftragstaktik.

So ideally an objective is issued from a higher command and a Company Commander is tasked with how to accomplish it and what resources will be allocated. He'll decide which platoons to attack and which are held in reserve and coordinate with the units on his flank. He may meet with them at the HQ or go to the front and discuss the terrain and tactics. When the attack kicks off he may be in his HQ or at a location to observe the progress and order changes. He can call in his light mortars from his Weapons Platoon which would respond pretty quickly and ideally would be registered on the objective. This would be outlined in the scenario and can form an interesting narrative.

The squad leaders and platoon leaders will determine the low-level tactics with not a lot of latitude. The company commander may join a platoon that is stuck.

I think that leaves a lot of agency for what players can do as commanders in the game.

Wolfhag

Macladdie
And guess what many army commanders through history worked to have their units behave like? Chess was considered a wargame and an training tool.

-G6
And have not succeed because ego self preservation. Biology psychology group dynamics etc etc get in the way… my issue with rules is they generally give the player the thing their RL counter part wanted but couldn't achive.

Macladdie
Ooh, I am interested in 'deeper fundamentals and principles.' What are you thinking of?

-G6
Any periods expression of combat is the intersections of sociology/society, technology, biology and psychology.

Training, doctrine organisations etc are ways to blend those things and primarily how to control the biology and psychology of humans which hasn't changed much.

So while rules may have some way to deal with the issuing of orders they don't deal with how units might actually act or respond

Humans are conflicted by desiring both self preservation and needing to be part of and work with a group.. these drives create a conflict.

We are also biologically programed to avoid lethal levels of force toward other humans. Again this creates a conflict

Humans respond basically to threat with Fight Flight Freeze Posture Submit.

Training, tactics and orders are used to control or use these reposnes positively.

So when an order to do something is issued whether it is followed will be determined by the interactions of these elements with external circumstances.

When a unit is taken underfire , how it reacts is a result of the units response to that fire rather than just the fire itself.

I read research about the different reported responses to fire between Taliban and Coalition forces. The different troops felt different levels of danger from different weapons. Some was to donwith familiarity and others were cultural.

As such I'm looking in my own design to work up from first principles.

Macladdie
The set actions you mention may define what a unit did… but it doesn't offer an opportunity to factor why they did it.

-G6
😉 funny I'd say the same things about yours. I'm not saying orders etc aren't part of it too but I'm looking at the interaction with the unit.

Wolfhag
I am all for recreating the obstacles that the contemporaries encountered and could encounter. The trick is to provide those in the game as close to the actual chances and usual locations as possible. That is representing reality.

-G6
Yes and no. After all we gamers are fighting more battles than a commander would fight actual battles.
I'm not saying these things should be frequent… but I don't want to factor a percentage chance of it happening and then roll a d100 each time.

Wolfhag
Remember that 1. Armies worked hard to reduce those events and obstacles as much as possible, 2. identified the areas where such events were more likely to occur.

-G6 Again I'm aware of all of that.
But.. the history of war is the history of things not being either of those.
Or as remembered quote from WWII
The winner isn't best side but the least bad.
So again my design is aimed at allow the player agency through the filter of sub units that are not extentions if their will. And to make somethings that feels like an AAR.

Macladdie
Armies and battles are the same way. Accidents and obstacles are spread evenly across the battlefield. With statistical analysis, where, how, why and when such things occur can be identified. Perfectly? Nope, but it does create a far more accurate approximation that we see in miniature wargame systems at the moment.

-G6 which what my design is also intended to do. Also from the jobs I do I'm also looking at perhaps creating issues that the player must deal with… I'll accept them happen more often in the game than they would in real life because that's where the challenge exists.
My analogy is simulators that train and prepare people for what to do when thjngs go wrong.

Wolfhag
The allowance for initiative at lower level commanders, brigade, regiment and battalion were pretty restrictive during the Napoleonic and basically non-existent during the SYW. Such initiative is circumscribed by the army doctrine [or lack of it] the period and even the national characteristics of the armies.

-G6
Indeed but I'm not just talking about those periods and I'm not just talking about initiative.
I'm think about the smaller things that units do or don't do that imo is represented poorly in many games. Moving more or less, advancing to soon or too late. Firing too soon. Etc.

Wolfhag
What I find too often is that there is little understand of what those 'obstacles' were, let alone the things that actual commanders could and could not do about them.

-G6 Yes.. but again that I where I see that as a designer I should make those things implicite in the rules and that they don't eat up too much bandwidth in learning and play for the players to apply. .

I also like tilting at windmills.😉

Wolfhag
I should have been clearer. I knkw what would be going online real life.im talking about in games where what is going on jn the firefight doesn't for me feel like RL.
I agree units fire too much.. so my system deals with that.
Players allow units to have too many casualties. And I deal with thatits an artifact of the rules and the historybof wargames.. its aa product of how we like to think. Things that seem tangible.

I also deal with uncertain casualties. We won't know who is dead wounded unconscious pinned or who ran away until later. Even at a small scale I won't know until after the fight is sagely over.. that may be sooner than in larger cation but it isn't immediate as it is most rules.

Yes B and B is an interstjng read.

Wolfhag.

I think that leaves a lot of agency for what players can do as commanders in the game.

G6… yes.. but friction and fow will affect what the units would actually do. The player Has too much agency as they say move their BN Hq and assets. Companies and perhaps platoons.

The player has to do those things in a small participation game. My system is to create a… personality for the units under their control.

This all seems a bit strange to me.

When faced with a plan and lots of options I make mistakes or more correctly misjudgement and do things that do not facilitate my plan at all well and it happens at all levels of command. Just those things that you seem complain sub-units do not do in games controlled by one man a side. Stupid risk taking does not happen, there are no "daft" gambles where the game provides excessive bonuses for extreme risk taking.

Now that may again be because the rules are not standard, our games last typically 10 bounds but in comparison to many games you get more like 20 bounds of a "Featherstone clone game" and by the nature of the system there are a LOT of options, all simple to implement, so its not how to do it in the rules but what you actually decide to do do.

Like chess the options are so vast you can make mistakes or you just make the less optimum move. This leads to errors of judgement, oversight of key issues under time pressure. things go wrong, Murphy's law abounds and that's on top of the simple basic communications system that is not always perfect, arguable typically never disastrous without outside negative influences (lie some unsporting sod accidentally destroys your radio relay vehicle).

All those departures have valid reasons, it looked like a good option at the time, "I never expected him to be there, et al".

So the question is are you trying to fix a poor system instead of getting a decent system. It's seems like you are the equivalent of the guy who wants fog of war and then moans that the best and simple way of hiding troops is unsatisfactory. You can't have it all ways, your system design looks flawed at a very basic level.

Our game look to me like AAR's, given complexity of decisions not rules and a bit of friction all hell breaks lose at times but its never "Irrational" Disasters like Blocked roads occur, its not a die roll its just something went slightly out of kilter and it goes pear shaped BUT FOR A REASON, not a die roll.

We have over cautious generals, you can't make them mad and aggressive by rules. So different players will make different mistakes at different levels. If the rules are somewhere near they cannot do "unrealistic" things, the basic mechanisms should put some time delays in, changing formation takes time so if your 7 years war man wants to do something strange it will take time, if that delay is not modeled at least adequately the "daftness" will be over rewarded. Miss interpreting orders or getting it wrong, got a warNing order wrong mistook Personnel carries for Tanks SH1T happens without the need for "rules" an event similar to your misinterpretation of orders example. It happens rarely but that is how it will likely be in the real world (well actually its a real world event).

We of course all make mistakes or poor judgement or however we rationalise it 🤔 🙂

Every commander has done the same. In RL the Napoleon is dealing with those things from subordinates as well as his own errors
In our wargame 1 vs 1 the successes and failures are only ours and the opponents.

As war is to do with a chain of communication and miscommunication, and the experience of command is dealing with those things too, at least that's what I am interested in.

So again yes there will be mistakes regardless, saying so is rather redjundant.

But thay doesn't make it the same thing.

I'm glad your system works for you. You've created a system that scratches your particular itch..

I'm talking about doing the same for mine. I don't expect you to like or want to the same as me. What's the quote about all thinking the same.🤔😉

I'm talking about something I've not seen well addressed. I'm not trying to fix a poor system, anymore than you seem to be.

And if we are making observations on how we seem.. you seem to be in the Henry Ford camp of rules… we can have whatever we like.. as long as it's black.

The point is you seem to be trying to rigidly define areas of Doubt and Uncertainty. I say that as you are only addressing what appear to be very rare, vergeing on anechdotal historic errors and quite rightly want them to be plausible, not die rolls and that I unstintingly applaud. However that looks an almost by definition an impossible task you want rigidly defined errors good, but to quite accurately define which, what and why an error occoured. Being a bit twisted you are trying to plan unpredictable errors an oxymoron if ever I saw one.

I was not trying to show off my rules they are absolutely not applicable to your period, but to demonstrate thay a more (i'll try a diffrent wording) Fractal system: that is generating complexity from simple rules generates far more oppertunities to generate plausible errors. Errors are by definition are unpredicateble so trying to plan on the basis of anechdotal eveidence sees to be a task that is likely to be unrewarded.

What to want at the moment is a dream. Thers a UK engineers ajage, you cannot plan a dream it becomes a nightmare.

If you are going to reigidly define the areas of doubt and uncertainty, then the first thing is to literally diffine what you mean.

Having rigidly defined what, how often, the times/sections of your rules when such things would be plausible and which anechdotes apply to a particular proposed event possibility, you would be far closer to a possible mechaism. Much of design is not about the designing but rigidley defining what you want.

My perception is that you have not got a clear quantative definition of what you want. I have found this to be a consistant requirement with both my professional and wargames deign issue.s

NOTE If this is "preachy" I appologose in advance. I am interested as its an interesting task and am very interested in what it turns upo. I an trying (yes I know vert Trying) to help.

Ill start off by saying this format doesn't help and I am also accepting its tricky to define these things and I'm likely not doing the best I could to explain them.
Especially as I'm trying to explain the general ideas.

However
I'm.not trying to rigidly define anything. In fact the opposite. Trying to add something that makes sub units act rigidly to the players will. From my PoV the rigidity is yours 😉

Yes. Some of my examples are rare.. but then again combat and battle are rare in the overall scheme of things. 😉 and as I've pointed out above. I'm looking at an experience. Or like training for any emergency… one is reaptedly training for something that may never happen.

So I am not trying to plan unpredictability. I'm working to allow unpredictability in a way I've not seen in rules before.

Errors are often predictable…. just normally not by the person making them. Or they are but they take the risk and hope for the best.

I didnt say you trying to show off your rules… but you keep using them are a point of reference… but they are your rules and address your itch… that's not the one I want to scratch. Your approach has created your rules. Mine has created mine. I'm accepting that with different mindsets our rules won't work for both of us.

As to period, again you speak with misplaced certainty.. but I've talked about multiple periods. I'm dealing with WWII Vietnam. Though I've interst in horse and musket as well and medieval and Ancients. I'm not confined to scale either working on things from 1 to 1 up to large battles.

I'm not an engineer… so I don't approach it in that way, or the way you seem to do.

I deal in my job with action and experience, as well as emotion
I know that in my field errors are predictable, some more likely than others both short and long term and one can work to reduce their likelihood but they can still happen. I also know that while I may have influence over my own actions and errors that in working with others I have to be able predict foresee and deal with the errors of others.

So while I can issue an instruction to someone who I know should follow it, once they are out of my sensory range I don't know what they will actually do. Or why. Even in my sensesory range i can't be certain, only that I will be Aware of their response sooner.

I also make things in wood and leather. Natural things. That act in broadly predictable ways but each piece has those in different ways.
I making a bow from a piece of yew the way thag bow is made is down to the stave it will come from and the skill of the person making. Its an art as well as a craft.

As to your perception of my clarity. Again that's to do with different objectives and approaches. I do also have an issue as my approach is different to "how wargames are" like I said before. I've not seen the things I'm working on, in other rules, at least in the way I'm doing parts if it. In fact the closest are things in board games and some TTRPG and some other non wargames.

Apology accepted 😉 preachy maybe.. but I'll put that down to being engineery 🙂

I thought about it some more. I decided though I stand by the above it's not quantitative and could be considered too many words of Motherhood..

So for a start how rare do you want it to be? In the aviation industry minor errors are in the thousands of hours of running time. Lets pick a figure say once in 10,000 hrs. Say once every 2000 games. That is rare but in reality you may not see it in your lifetime. Really remote chances are 1000,0000,000 hrs as a back stop. So in game terms compared to real life your events are going to be WAY more than likely in the real world for a real risk.

Be that as it may you need to decide how often this event occurs in your game (on average) so it still may not occour in any one game but will average 1 per game over say 100 games. Is it once a game or once say every 10 games?

Personally at one every ten games I would reject it as not worth the effort but that's me not you.

Now lets take an example Your game last 6 bounds as an approximation. Yay 3 levels of command, so for each side possibly 18 to 20 opportunities at MAXIMUM to occur for a communication error.

Now we have to make it plausible so maybe so say it's a communication error there may be only half that number of opportunities, as not every unit will receive or transmit data along the command chain every bound in your period. So if we want it one a game there is a VERY roughly 1 in ten of the event occurring in a command phase where its impact is plausible. On average that will give an average of 1 event per game. If the event is more proscribed so it only happens in say 1 in 5 bounds that's only about 3-4 opportunities so that is the event will happen 1 in 4 times or 25% if the trigger conditions occur.

I see no point in me suggesting what is a valid answer as you quite rightly don't, nor should you agree with me on such issue.

What I an trying to do is help you quantify what the range of your rigidly defined area of doubt and uncertainty are.

The values I have used in the analysis could easily be out by a factor of 2 but probably not out by an order of magnitude.

Thus deciding how rare an event simply in game terms gives you some ideas about how to describe the trigger.

The problem is rules are not AI, your definitions are the AI. You can change the definitions as you gain experience but a good starting assumption may help.

If your event possible conditions are too tightly constrained then there occurrence may be down to once every several games BUT to be fair they will be more plausible as the trigger conditions can be kept as plausible as possible.

You could argue this is in the same veign as my falling off the bridge event. It's an event that happens it's certainly not a common event but not extremely rare as there are a few events recorded and possibly many more not recorded. However as you point out a simple you fall of the bridge event is idiotic we cross bridges nearly every day in numbers and we don't fall off. So it needs a large level of proscription about narrowness of the bridge, tiredness, troop quality and possibly fatigue to make it plausible. That may make it rare in war games terms, we don't often have narrow bridges or say Bridge layer bridges or Bailey bridges where this is a small but finite risk. But we could put that risk in but as a PERSONAL judgement we do not, but that is purely a subjective analysis that the effort needed in the actual game does not give an overall improvement.

W£olfhag has an ammunition stoppage rule which if I recall is somewhat over egged for most reliable rifles. It is a real event made a bit more than real life proability as for his players, it makes a beter game. The fact I dislike such things is neither here nore therte and the pool, of players are not the same either, so my oppinions do not count in such cases, but it does hopefull shed light on the issues needing to be considered.

I appreciate the offer of assistance, which I didn't ask for. The wider discussion has been about ideas and concepts not specofc problems and solutions. But I appreciate the thought

Your also phrasing and providing solutions to it as an engineering issue which I've said is not how I'm approaching it.

You also keep talking about the rigidity of what I'm doing when I've said I'm actually looking at it differently.. which seems pretty rigid to me. 🙂 as you're working from the presumption of that rigidity, your offering solutions to a problem I don't have and didn't like pose.

Again I'm not modeling the likely hood of an invent happening of itself I'm creating situations that while rare may happen and test a leaders abilities.

Back to analogies. I'm not using a flight simulator to model my normal flying hours. I'm using it to experience potentially catastrophic events and the simulation allows me to run multiple iterations in a short space of time something that statistically may never happen.

Or closer for me, practicing a response to sudden violent assault on tbe Street, the number of training reps are occurring in huge multiples of the potential they would be statistically.

Or across their years of service how much would someone actually be in combat. Statistically very little… yet we model combats that happen every time we meet. If we were truely modelling it we'd spend a lot of time getting with our friends and nothing would happen…accurate but not much fun.

But finally and again I'm not modelling unlikely events, I'm modelling behaviours THAT MAY create unlikely events.

But finally and again I'm not modelling unlikely events, I'm modelling behaviours THAT MAY create unlikely events.

So you are in effect modelling something that in practical terms may well never occur in a game, the situation as defined may never happen. That certainly makes for an interesting set of design criteria.

The unlikely event may never happen in your lifetime depending on your definition of unlikely, which you seem to have no estimate for.

No jm modelling behaviours… as per the part of my previous comment you quoted.
Behaviours happen. What those behaviors create is something else.

So I'm modelling behaviors… those behaviours will create events. I've used some examples of unusual events, but I'm not modelling the event but the circumstances that create it.

To go back to the original fall off a bridge. Crossing tbe bridge slowly no issue. Try to cross the bridge fast you fall off.
My approach uses two movement rates standard and fast. Because I ad the player don't decide how dast the unit goes it may "decide" to do so fast… and fall of the bridge.

No jm modelling behaviours… as per the part of my previous comment you quoted. Behaviours happen. What those behaviors create is something else.

Gamesman6:
I am assuming you mean NP behaviors. Group behaviors are far easier to accurately model in response to circumstances than individuals.

So I'm modelling behaviors… those behaviours will create events. I've used some examples of unusual events, but I'm not modelling the event but the circumstances that create it.

It is still a statistical question of where, why, when, and how often to capture those circumstances.

To go back to the original fall off a bridge. Crossing the bridge slowly no issue. Try to cross the bridge fast you fall off. My approach uses two movement rates standard and fast. Because I am the player don't decide how dast the unit goes it may "decide" to do so fast… and fall of the bridge.

Again, how often does that happen? What are the circumstances? If you are going to model in a wargame as a general NP behavior [fast/slow, miss the bridge] occurring by 'chance,' those are the questions you have to answer as a statistic.

UshCha wrote:

So you are in effect modelling something that in practical terms may well never occur in a game, the situation as defined may never happen. That certainly makes for an interesting set of design criteria.

The unlikely event may never happen in your lifetime depending on your definition of unlikely, which you seem to have no estimate for.

Again, it is a question of how unlikely it is going to happen. Like being hit by a meteor on the way to the store. It could happen, but nobody is going to take bets on it. As I said before, we do this all the time: Determine how 'likely' something is going to happen and act accordingly, even though as you've said, it is all chaos and anything *could* happen.

Yes and no..
It depends or how one views your game.
Again I'm happy to create experiences that may happen in the game statically much more than it would because I want to challenge my players.

So yes the event needs be "accurate" whatever we define that as in out context but it doesn't need occur as often… or not.

Now it's happening too othen then we need to address that.

Again we are already skewing the statistical likelihood of combat occurring when we fight an action. We don't seem to care there. 🤔

Again in my games I think of the scenarios like scenarios run self defence, I'm Training a response to a problem that statistically may never happen and I should be working to avoid being in the first place.
But. If it happens it is 100% happening to you.

I also think we've gone down a rabbit hole on tbe events. Yes a meteor is statically so hnleily as to be a waste of time. But I'm looking more at the things that happen because of actikns/behaviours internal to the action.

And I only used then drive off the bridge because it wasa quick way to explain how my approach might treat that situation.

Also any unusual "event" needs to be relavent to impact tne scenario/player.
As a tank driver it's important. To the Bn or Bgde CO its one less tank.

But that's me..

It also ties in with the detail and knowledge post. The scenario needs appropriate knowledge of what and how things happen and what details are relavent tonwhat we are working on and with

Again I'm happy to create experiences that may happen in the game statically much more than it would because I want to challenge my players.

Gamesman6?
You mean that approximating the actual battlefield environment isn't going to be 'challenging' enough???

Again we are already skewing the statistical likelihood of combat occurring when we fight an action. We don't seem to care there.

What exactly is being 'skewed'?? Generally, wargames attempt to simulate actual combat situations, i.e. where combat HAS happened. There isn't any skewing to represent that.

I also think we've gone down a rabbit hole on tbe events. Yes a meteor is statically so hnleily as to be a waste of time. But I'm looking more at the things that happen because of actikns/behaviours internal to the action.

Me too. I was only pointing out how we statistically separate those 'likely' events from the unlikely in a fashion close to reality. As I tried to say with the meteor example, you and I do a crude kind of statistical analysis every time we walk out the door about what 'could happen.' A meteor strike is always ignored as too unlikely to bother with.

And I only used then drive off the bridge because it was a quick way to explain how my approach might treat that situation.

Exactly what I did. How to treat it statistically if one wants to simulate the rate at which such accidents occur, where, when, how and why. Of course, the scale the wargame is attempting to mimic would dictate what kinds of events would be pertinent.

I was thinking about the comment that a game needs to have the same sort of commands as the real world. I have not seen this as a problem.

We don't have command radii we have another less (well to us) absraction. The message passess along in the same low level unit (platoon) in aour case if the elements are withinn "shouting" distance, real world 30m, model scale 60m (grond scale effects due to 60m roads, well out for much of Europe). Easier to relate to than a radii. Radios on a tabletop we don't restrict for simplicity, some high data rate communications we have to limit but it is a bit of a pain.

Our system is IGOUG at a very low level (sort of). Modern warfare is quick in say a tank battle, so fast(ish) responce is normal. So as the choice is basically the playersbut typically there is a flurry of activity in a particular area, stuff tha can react almost immediately (typically within seconds not minutes gets a "go" but is sort of Autonomus, no major command (platoon and above) actions are possible in the subroutine. If you can "see" the action you can join in, if you can't you stay inert.

Only the trully dyed in the wool inflexible types used to the 40 year old system struggle with the sequence: real begginers almost never. Therfore it seems it's not so abstract that its hard to grasp how it works. It does keep both sides in the "action" . It's squence is not that of Crossfire but that has a simmilar "rush and rest" approach to combat.

Whole side IGOUGO has to me huge problems in my period. However when playing with a "crowd" with novices the latter is so oversimplified it may be the lesser of several evils. I have always found such systems are not that easy to relate to, but each to their own. Hence ou search for an alternate system that suits us. Again the number and skill of the players the game is required to cope with may have major influence on the realtability ve ease of play dilema.

What players grasp as reconcileable with thereal woerld given the constraints of what is a board geme may depend somewhat on the actual players, "one mans meat is another mans poisen" applies.

I agree that the system needs as far as it possibly can (but rerely perfectly) be relatable to the real world history for players with an understanding of the period. Those without an understanding of the period can only critisize effectively at a very gross scale. So knowledge and detail are hand in glove.

Regarding modeling of rare events:

You can't account for the multitude of things that can happen but you can build them into a scenario. I recall an event in Normandy when a British infantry unit fell back because they ran into a swarm of bees disturbed by mortar fire. Rare? Of course. You can create a scenario with a bee hive location and if it gets disturbed enough the bees swarm and attack anyone nearby.

How to treat it statistically if one wants to simulate the rate at which such accidents occur, where, when, how and why.

For me, it's not the rate but the conditions which bring about the event. If the conditions are right there can be many events. If the conditions are wrong there could be none. Vehicles moving over the Golden Gate bridge will not accidentally fall off. A vehicle moving over a hastily built bridge by inexperienced engineers may fall off 50% of the time even with an experienced driver under ideal environmental conditions.

Wolfhag